The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 10/09/2012 Item #16I161 1 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE October 9, 2012 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Miscellaneous Correspondence: 1) Collier Soil & Water Conservation District: General Financial Statements and Independent Auditor Reports for Year Ending 9.30.10 State of Florida Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY 2009 -2010 General Financial Statements and Independent Auditor Reports for Year Ending 9.30.11 State of Florida Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY 2010 -2011 Correspondence dated 8.15.12 and 8.29.12 Profit and Loss Budget Overview for October 2012 through September 2013 2) Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association: Annual Member Meeting Agenda 2.22.12 3) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Public Meeting Schedule FY 2013 8.21.12 Meeting Minutes 6.15.12; 7.20.12 Meeting Agenda 6.15.12; 7.20.12 4) Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District: Annual Financial Report FY ending 9.3 0.11 Financial Statement and Recommendations from a 2011 Independent Audit received 4.23.12 5) Heritage Greens Community Development District: Meeting Minutes and Agenda 5.21.12 16 r jai Collier Soil & Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida 34120 Phone (239)-455 -4100 • Fax (239) 455 -2693 Email: cswcdAcomcast.net BY: ....................... LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RECEIVE, JAIL it 3 a0!? FINANCE TO: DATE: Clerk of Circuit Court 12 -29 -11 Finance Department FROM: 2671 Airport Road S., Court Plaza III Collier Soil & Water Naples, FL 34112 Conservation District We are sending you X Attached Under separate cover via the followings items: COPIES DESCRIPTIONS 1 General Purpose Financial Statements Together with Reports of Independent Auditor for Year Ending September 30, 2010 1 State of Florida Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY 2009 -2010 Signed: Kim Bucceri Administrator v� Fiala _ Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta . ::5L- Misc. Corres: Date: No A c:%W)— Item #:1.L9M' % VA k '-:,Inies to 161 ir ,AI Collier Soil and Water Conservation District Dennis P. Vasey, Chairman 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 August 5, 2011 Mark K. Stout, CPA Managing Partner Mark K. Stout, CPA PL 999 Vanderbilt Beach Rd., Ste. 200 Naples, FL 34108 We reviewed your audit for accuracy and completeness and agree with your comments regarding the corrective actions taken by the Board of Supervisors. The District continues to take steps to increase revenue while at the same time controlling costs. Respectfully yours, Kim Bucceri Administrator Bruce Reichert Stan Weiner Dennis P. Vasey Tom Cravens James Lang Supervisor, Seat 1 Supervisor, Seat 2 Supervisor, Seat 3 Supervisor, Seat 4 Supervisor, Seat 5 Web Site: http: / /www.collierswcd.org 161 ir�iai COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TOGETHER WITH REPORTS OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 161 Al TABLE OF CONTENTS Page s INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT 1 -2 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (MD&A) i -v BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Statement of Net Assets 3 Statement of Activities 4 FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Governmental Funds: Balance Sheet 5 Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds to the Statement of Net Assets 6 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance 7 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities 8 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 9 -24 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OTHER THAN MD&A BUDGET TO ACTUAL COMPARISON - MAJOR FUNDS (General and Special Revenue Funds) Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - General Fund - Summary Statement. 25 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual General Fund — Detailed Statement 26 -27 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Mitigation Land Bank Fund - Summary Statement 28 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual NGGE ROMA Fund — Summary Statement 29 ADDITIONAL REPORTS OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Basic Financial Statements 30 Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Independent Auditor's Report to Management 32 Management's Response to Independent Auditor's Report to Management Exhibit A Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL 1611 Al P.O. Box 771177 Naples, FL 34107 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT Board of Supervisors Collier Soil and Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, Florida 34120 We have audited the accompanying basic financial statements of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District (the "District "), as of September 30, 2010 and for the year then ended, as listed in the Table of Contents. These basic financial statements are the responsibility of the District's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these basic financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to. financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those Standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the basic financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the basic financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall basic financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the basic financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District as of September 30, 2010, and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated July 22, 2011, on our consideration of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grants, and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. 16 I?"l* A* Board of Supervisors Collier Soil and Water Conservation District The Management's Discussion and Analysis on pages i -v is not a required part of the basic financial statements but is supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standard Board. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the Management's Discussion and Analysis. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it., Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the District's basic financial statements. The required supplementary information other than MD &A on pages 25 -29 described in the accompanying Table of Contents is presented for the purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements but is supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied by us in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL Naples, Florida July 22, 2011 2 ib i f�ai MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (MD &A) 161 `i /#1 Collier Soil and Water Conservation District Dennis P. Vasey, Chairman 147001mmokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 9 Management's Discussion and Analysis People routinely call for government to be run like a business, which is a mistake because it isn't one. But there are financial and management practices government can adapt from business that make sense. One of these is not to make long -term mistakes in search of short-term gains. Collier County needs a way to balance growth and the sensitive environment that makes Florida so unique ... and such a draw for tourists. That growth continued, with more than 94,000 thousand new county residents added over the last year. Collier Soil and Water Conservation District has been a proponent of correcting the damage that had been done in Big Cypress Basin from decades of neglect and poor growth management policies — damage that could have been avoided by the kind of preservation we are pursuing in the Regional Offsite Mitigation Area. The program has made a huge start on 212 acres of land within Picayune Strand State Forest and we are very pleased to report another successful year and the planned acquisition of 17 parcels in the Benfield Management Area. Management of properties in Winchester Head and Horsepen Strand add to our land conservation efforts. Mitigation credit sales remain off track after the market collapse in 2008 and during these challenging economic times although CSWCD continues to purchase and accept donated lands and assume additional land management costs. Although the recovery seems to be taking hold, earning revenues remains a challenge. It takes hard work, creativity and persistence to maximize opportunities. Despite our success with soil and water conservation initiatives these past two years, we are very aware of market volatility. We maintain a long -term focus and continue to seek opportunities to expand revenue sources to help cushion the blow when the market swings because we understand that a fast - growing county like Collier County, Florida needs a way to balance growth and the sensitive environment that makes our area so unique. In total, revenues for 2010 were $410,939. On the expense side of the ledger, CSWCD spent $363,493 that provided employee and contractor benefits. The district is debt free. Bruce Reichert Stan Weiner Dennis P. Vasey Tom Cravens James Lang Supervisor, Seat 1 Supervisor, Seat 2 Supervisor, Seat 3 Supervisor, Seat 4 Supervisor, Seat 5 Web Site: http: / /www.collierswcd.org 161'1 91 The following is a condensed summary of the District's net assets for fiscal year 2010 compared to fiscal years 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006. Summary of Net Assets Assets: Current Unrestricted Assets Current Restricted Assets Non - current Capital Assets Total Assets Liabilities: Accounts Payable Current Accrued Liabilities Current Deferred Revenue Notes Payable Total Liabilities Net Assets: As of As of As of As of As of 9/30/10 9/30/09 9/30/08 9/30/07 9/30/06 Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals $ 130,702 $ 75,882 $ 72,118 $ 90,352 $ 86,094 98,218 240,877 330,180 346,387 302,612 45,674 49,582 53,979 61,991 33,479 274,594 366,341 456,277 498,730 422,185 - - 1,179 1,075 2,825 5,017 1,551 3,724 3,615 4,570 98,218 240,877 330,189 346,387 302,612 103.235 242.428 335.092 351.077 310.007 Investment in Capital Assets, 45,674 Net of Related Debt Unrestricted 125,685 Total Net Assets 171,359 Total Liabilities and Net Assets $274,594 49,582 74,331 123,913 $366,341 I 53,979 53,979 61,991 67,215 67,215 85,662 121,194 121,194 147,653 $456,277 $456,277 498,730 16 1 1 The following schedule reports the revenues, expenses and changes in net assets for the District for fiscal year 2010 compared to fiscal years 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006. Summary of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets Revenues: Program Revenues: Conservation & Resource Management General Revenues: Interest Other Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets Total Revenues Expenses: Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Expenses Increase (decrease) in Net Assets i Year Ending Year Ending Year Ending Year Ending Year Ending 9/30/10 9/30/09 9/30/08 9/30/07 9/30/06 Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals $265,287 $252,184 $385,599 $260,848 $268,790 181 788 516 18 840 145,471 89,506 21,752 93,135 303 - - 50 (807) 3,000 410,939 342,478 407,917 353,194 272,933 175,361 172,274 207,256 211,418 124,029 184,224 163,088 219,058 94,355 145,772 3,908 4,397 8,062 11,946 12,253 363,493 339,759 434,376 317,719 282,054 47,446 2,719 (26,459) 35,475 (9,121) Net Assets - Beginning of the year 123,913 121,194 147,653 Net Assets - End of the year $ 171,359 123,913 $121,194 112,178 121,299 $ 147,653 112,178 16I !`Ai Budgetary Highlights Budget versus actual comparisons are reported in the required supplementary information other than MD &A on pages 25 thru 29. The District did amend the NGGE ROMA Fund budget during the year. During the year, revenues exceeded expenditures, thus increasing the existing fund balance in the amount of $51,354. Capital Assets The District owns no land or buildings for its operations. Office space is provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture at no cost. Capital assets consist of equipment which is depreciated using the straight -line method over the estimated useful life of the asset. (generally 5 -10 years) The District did begin to purchase land as part of its Mitigation Land Bank during the year ended September 30, 2008. The District expended $41,265 to purchase land in 2008 but did not purchase any in 2009 or 2010. A" Depreciation expenses of $3,908 were charged against the capital assets during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. Economic Factors and Next Year's Budget The District received 96% of its funding from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). As this is the District's primary source of funding, it is substantially dependent on the receipt of revenue from these agencies. Loss of these funds and/or a large decrease in this type of funding would have a material effect on the District and a negative impact on overall operations. During FY07 the District began charging its Special Revenue Funds an administrative fee to manage their operations as permitted by the underlying agreements. 1v Request for Information 1611A1 This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the District's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report should be directed to: Collier Soil & Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 (239) 455 -4100 LIA COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS September 30, 2010 ASSETS Current assets: Cash Restricted cash Due from other governments Prepaid insurance Total current assets Non - current assets: Capital assets: Land Depreciable equipment (net of $37,181 accumulated depreciation) Total non - current assets TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable Accrued liabilities Deferred revenue Total current liabilities TOTAL LIABILITIES NET ASSETS Investment in capital assets, net of related debt Unrestricted TOTAL NET ASSETS TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 3 16 101 0. Governmental Activities $ 127,374 98,218 3,328 228,920 41,265 4,409 45,674 $ 2 4 4 5,017 98,218 103.235 103,235 45,674 125,685 171,359 $ 274 594 Al 16 11' COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES Year Ended September 30, 2010 EXPENSES Governmental Governmental activities Activities Personal services $ 175,361 Operating expenses 184,224 Interest expense - Depreciation 3,908 TOTAL EXPENSES - GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES 363,493 PROGRAM REVENUES Charges for services 265,287 NET PROGRAM REVENUES (DEFICIT) (98,206) GENERAL REVENUES Interest 181 Other 145,471 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUES 145,652 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS 47,446 NET ASSETS - Beginning of the year 123,913 NET ASSETS - End of the year $ 171,359 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 4 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ - $ - $ - $ - Due to other funds - - - - Accrued liabilities 5,017 - - 5,017 Deferred revenue - 63,235 34,983 98,218 TOTAL LIABILITIES 5,017 63,235 34,983 103,235 FUND BALANCE Unreserved, undesignated 125,685 - - 125,685 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 125,685 - - 125,685 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 130,702 63,235 34,983 228,920 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 5 `'�1 16 f 1� COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BALANCE SHEET - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS September 30, 2010 �1 Special Revenue Funds Mitigation NGGE Total General Land Bank ROMA Governmental Fund Fund Fund Funds ASSETS Cash $ 127,374 $ - $ - $ 127,374 Restricted cash - 63,235 34,983 98,218 Due from other funds - - - - Due from other governments - - - - Other assets 3,328 - - 3,328 TOTAL ASSETS $ 130,702 $ 63,235 $ 34,983 $ 228,920 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ - $ - $ - $ - Due to other funds - - - - Accrued liabilities 5,017 - - 5,017 Deferred revenue - 63,235 34,983 98,218 TOTAL LIABILITIES 5,017 63,235 34,983 103,235 FUND BALANCE Unreserved, undesignated 125,685 - - 125,685 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 125,685 - - 125,685 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 130,702 63,235 34,983 228,920 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 5 161 !1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECONCILIATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET TO THE STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS September 30, 2010 Total fund balance for governmental funds Amount $ 125,685 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Assets are different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds Capital assets riot being depreciated: Land 41,265 41,265 Capital assets being depreciated: Equipment 45,499 Less accumulated depreciation 41 090 4,409 Long -term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds. Note payable Total net assets of governmental activities $ 171 59 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 6 Al 16 11* ` A 1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Year Ended September 30, 2010 EXPENDITURES Current Conservation/Resource Management Personal services 175,361 - - 175,361 Operating expenditures 26,486 46,800 110,938 184,224 Capital outlay - - - Debt service Principal reduction Interest and fiscal charges - " TOTAL EXPENDITURES 201,847 46,800 110,938 359,585 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 51,354 - - 51,354 FUND BALANCE - BEGINNING 74,331 - - 74,331 FUND BALANCE - ENDING $ 125,685 $ - $ - $ The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 7 Mitigation NGGE Total General Land Bank ROMA Governmental Fund Fund Fund Funds REVENUES Charges for services FDACS - LWC AG MIL 173,271 $ - $ - $ 173,271 SFWMD - BCB -MIL 68,750 - - 68,750 SFWMD - Lee County MIL - - - SFWMD - Cape Coral MIL - - - ROMA Application Fees 400 - - 400 Administrative Fees 7,740 - - 7,740 HSCA Phase I - - " Mitigation Credits Purchases - - 12,096 12,096 Interest income 10 106 65 181 Miscellaneous income 1,529 46,694 98,777 145,471 Debt Service Principal advances - - TOTAL REVENUES 253,201 46,800 110,938 410,939 EXPENDITURES Current Conservation/Resource Management Personal services 175,361 - - 175,361 Operating expenditures 26,486 46,800 110,938 184,224 Capital outlay - - - Debt service Principal reduction Interest and fiscal charges - " TOTAL EXPENDITURES 201,847 46,800 110,938 359,585 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 51,354 - - 51,354 FUND BALANCE - BEGINNING 74,331 - - 74,331 FUND BALANCE - ENDING $ 125,685 $ - $ - $ The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 7 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES Year Ended September 30. 2010 Net change (excess of revenues over expenditures) in fund balance - total governmental funds The increase in net assets reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities is different because: Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the Statement of Activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. Expenditures for capital assets Less: current year depreciation Less: gain on disposition of capital asset Change (increase) in net assets of governmental activities The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 8 16 I'1' ri 0 (3,908) 0 Amount $ (47,446) (3,908) $ (51,354) 1617' ql' COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Oreanization and nature of activities Collier Soil and Water Conservation District (the "District "), is an independent special district created on August 30, 1984, through the request of the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture, under the provisions of Florida Statute 582.15(2), for the purpose of preserving and promoting conservation, development and wise use of land, water and related resources in Collier County, Florida. The District also is permitted to act as a land trust for environmentally sensitive undeveloped land. As such, the District can receive and/or purchase and hold and manage environmentally sensitive undeveloped land. The District is governed by an elected five (5) member Board of Supervisors serving staggered four (4) year terms. Summary of significant accountin! policies The following is a summary of the significant accounting policies used in the preparation of these basic financial statements. Reportine entity The District adheres to Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement Number 14, "Financial Reporting Entity, as amended by GASB Statement Number 39, "Determining Whether Certain Organizations Are Component Units." These Statements require the financial statements of the District (the primary government) to include its component units, if any. A component unit is a legally separate organization for which the elected officials of the primary government are financially accountable. Based on the criteria established in GASB 14, as amended, there are no component units required to be included. Therefore, there are no component units included and /or required to be included in the District's basic financial statements. Government -wide Financial Statements The government -wide financial statements (i.e., the Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities) report information on all of the activities of the District and do not emphasize fund types. These governmental activities comprise the primary government. General governmental and intergovernmental revenues support the governmental activities. The purpose of the government -wide financial statements is to allow the user to be able to determine if the District is in a better or worse financial position than the prior year. The effect of all interfund activity between governmental funds has been removed from the government -wide financial statements. COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 16 All NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Government -wide Financial Statements, continued Government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues, expenses, gains, losses, assets, and liabilities resulting from exchange and exchange -like transactions are recognized when the exchange't�kes place. Revenues, expenses, gains, losses, assets, and liabilities resulting from nonexchange transactions are recognized in accordance with the requirements of GASB Statement 33, "Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions" (GASB 33). Amounts paid to acquire capital assets are capitalized as assets in the government - wide financial statements, rather than reported as expenditures. Proceeds of long- term debt are recorded as liabilities in the government -wide financial statements, rather than as other financing sources. Amounts paid to reduce long -term indebtedness of the reporting government are reported as a reduction of the related liability in the government -wide financial statements, rather than as expenditures. The Statement of Activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include: 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function; and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital improvements of a particular function. Interest income and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. 10 161 t`A 1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Fund Financial Statements The accounts of the District are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self - balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity or retained earnings, revenues, and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Government resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purpose for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. Fund financial statements for the District's governmental funds are presented after the government -wide financial statements. The governmental fund financial statements display information about major funds individually and nonmajor funds in aggregate for governmental funds. Governmental Funds When both restricted and unrestricted resources are combined in a fund, expenditures are considered to be paid first from restricted resources, as appropriate, and then from unrestricted resources. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collected within the current period or soon thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. The District's major funds are presented in separate columns on the governmental fund financial statements. The definition of a major fund is one that meets certain criteria set forth in GASB Statement Number 34, "Basic Financial Statements - and Management's Discussion and Analysis - for State and Local Governments". The funds that do not meet the criteria of a major fund are considered non -major funds and are combined into a single column on the governmental fund financial statements. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds. Major individual governmental funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. All governmental funds of the District are considered major funds. 11 161 t"A I COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures, or expenses, are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of the measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied. The government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources management focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period and soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. Taxpayer assessed income and gross receipts are considered "measurable" when in the hands of intermediary collecting governments and are recognized as revenue at that time Anticipated refunds of such taxes are recorded as liabilities and reductions of revenue when they become measurable and their validity seems certain. Intergovernmental revenues that are reimbursements for specific purposes or projects are recognized when all eligibility requirements are met. Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting when the related fund liability is incurred. Exceptions to this general rule include: (1) principal and interest on the long -term debt, if any, is recognized when due; and (2) expenditures are generally not divided between years by the recording of prepaid expenditures. Non - current Government Assets/Liabilities GASB 34 requires non - current governmental assets, such as land and buildings, and non - current governmental liabilities, such as notes and bonds payable, be reported in the governmental activities column in the government -wide Statement of Net Assets. 12 16 I k P A 1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Maior Funds — Governmental The District reports the following major governmental funds: The General Fund is the District's primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the District, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditure for specified purposes. The District has two special revenue funds: a Mitigation Land Bank Fund (Land Bank) and the North Golden Gate Estates Regional Offsite Mitigation Area Fund (NGGE ROMA). The Land Bank fund consists of funds collected pursuant to an agreement with a real estate developer to provide off -site compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impact related to a specific real estate development. The agreement required the developer to transfer $140,000 to the District for the purchase of approximately 30 acres of undeveloped wetlands. The District is required to then enhance, manage and hold in perpetuity the respective wetlands purchased. The funds are restricted and can only be used for the purchase, enhancement and long -term management of undeveloped wetlands. The NGGE ROMA fund consists of funds collected pursuant to an agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry to be used as mitigation for private, single - family residence impacts within the North Golden Gate Estates development. Mitigation credits are charged on single - family residential impact permits within the mitigation service area. Funds collected for mitigation credits are to be placed in three separate accounts. The first $666,340 will fund the implementation account which will be used for exotic vegetation eradication within the ROMA. The next $63,720 collected is to fund the management account. The management account is the principal to provide interest money sufficient for annual management costs. After the agreements success criteria are met, the management account will be transferred to the Division of Forestry, which will assume long -term management of the enhancement site. Any remaining mitigation credits collected are to be placed in the acquisition account. Funds will be held in the acquisition account until an amended Mitigation plan for acquisition is approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. 13 161 lk* " A 1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Budgetary Information The District has elected to report budgetary comparison of major funds as required supplementary information (RSI). All investment revenue is deferred until allowable expenditures are budgeted and incurred. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include land and equipment, are reported in the government -wide Statement of Net Assets. The District owns no buildings. The District follows a capitalization policy, which calls for capitalization of all capital assets that have a cost or donated value of $1,000 or more and have a useful life in excess of one year. All purchased capital assets are valued at cost where historical records are available and at an estimated historical cost where no historical records exist. Donated capital assets are valued at their estimated fair market value on the date donated. No debt - related interest expense is capitalized as part of capital assets in accordance with GASB 34. Maintenance, repairs, and minor renovations are not capitalized. The acquisition of land and construction projects utilizing resources received from Federal and State agencies are capitalized when the related expenditure is incurred. Expenditures that materially increase values, change capacities, or extend useful lives are capitalized. Upon sale or retirement, the cost is eliminated from the respective accounts. Expenditures for capital assets are recorded in the fund statements as current expenditures. However, such expenditures are not reflected as expenditures in the government -wide statements but rather are capitalized and depreciated. Capital assets are depreciated using the straight -line method over the following estimated useful lives: Asset Years Equipment 5 -10 14 161n °01 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Budgets and budgetary accounting The District has adopted an annual budget for the General Fund for the year ended September 30, 2010, as well as for the Special Revenue Funds. The District follows these procedures in establishing budgetary data. During the summer of each year, the Treasurer or his designee, submits to the Board of Supervisors a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing on the upcoming October 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. 2. Public hearings are held to obtain citizen input. 3. The budget is adopted by approval of the Board of Supervisors. 4. Budget amounts, as shown in these financial statements, are as originally adopted or as amended by the Board of Supervisors. 5. The budget is adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 6. The level of control for appropriations is exercised at the fund level. 7. Appropriations lapse at year -end. The District did not amend the General Fund budget during the year. One of the Special Revenue Funds was amended to adjust for an increase in contract costs for follow -up treatments. Compensated absences The District's employees accumulate sick and annual leave, based on the number of years of continuous service. The District allows employees to carry over to the next fiscal year up to 80 hours of sick leave and unlimited annual leave. However, upon termination of employment, the District does not pay or reimburse employees for sick or annual leave. 15 1617 "Ai COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Encumbrances Encumbrances accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation, is not employed by the District because at present it is not necessary in order to assure effective budgetary control or to facilitate effective cash planning and control. Deferred Revenue/Land Bank Fund Through an agreement with a real estate developer, the District received funds to purchase undeveloped wetlands. The intent of the agreement is to provide off -site compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impact related to a specific real estate development. The agreement has no stated time -frame for the related land purchase. The District has recorded these funds as restricted cash and as deferred revenue until the date of expenditure, at which time it will be recognized as revenue and charged to the appropriate expenditure accounts. Deferred Revenue/NGGE ROMA Fund Through an agreement with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, the District receives funds through the sale of mitigation credits to be used for the enhancement, management, and future acquisitions of a Regional Offsite Mitigation Area. The District has recorded these funds as restricted cash and as deferred revenue until the date of expenditure, at which time it will be recognized as revenue and charged to the appropriate expenditure accounts. After the agreement's success criteria are achieved, the District will transfer the funds (unexpended cash) in the Management Account over to the Division of Forestry which will, assume the long -term management of the enhancement area. Interfund receivables and payables arise from interfund transactions and are recorded by the funds affected in the period in which the transactions are executed. Due From Other Governments No allowance for losses on uncollectible accounts has been recorded since the District considered all amounts to be fully collectible. 16 161fO*A� COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Fund equity In the governmental fund financial statements, reservation of fund balance indicates amounts that are limited for a specific purpose, are not appropriable for expenditure, or are legally segregated for a specific future use. Designations of fund balance represent tentative management plans. Unreserved, undesignated fund balance indicates funds that are available for current expenditure. Interfund Transactions The District considers interfund receivables (due from other funds) and interfund liabilities (due to other funds) to be loan transactions to and from other funds to cover temporary (three months or less) cash needs. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures /expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund are recorded as expenditures /expenses in the reimbursing funds and as reduction of expenditures /expenses in the fund that is reimbursed. Management estimates The preparation of basic financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires the District to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, fund equity, and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the basic financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. NOTE B - CASH AND INVESTMENTS At September 30, 2010, cash was $225,539 including cash on hand of $53 and restricted cash of $98,218. Restricted funds were received for the Land Bank Fund and the NGGE ROMA Fund and were accounted for in the Special Revenue Funds. Deposits The District's deposit policy allows deposits to be held in demand deposit accounts. The District depository is a financial institution designated as qualified depository by the State Treasurer. 17 16 111 Al COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE B - CASH AND INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED Deposits, continued At September 30, 2010, the District's deposits were as follows: Bank Carrying Balance Amount General Fund $ 125,336 $ 127,321 Depository Accounts Special Revenue Fund Depository Account 142,118 98,218 $267,454 $225,539 These deposits were entirely insured by federal depository insurance or by collateral pursuant to the Public Depository Security Act of the State of Florida (Florida Statute 280). Investments Florida Statutes and the District's investment policy authorize investments in certificates of deposit and savings accounts. Certificates of deposit and savings accounts whose values exceed the amount of federal depository insurance are collateralized pursuant to the Public Depository Security Act of the State of Florida (Florida Statute 280). At September 30, 2010, the District held no such investments. However, its cash accounts were held in interest bearing accounts. NOTE C - DUE TO/FROM OTHER FUNDS Interfund receivables and payables at September 30, 2010 are as follows: Due from Due to Fund other funds Other funds Fund Mitigation Land Bank $ 0 $ 0 Fund NGGE ROMA Fund 0 0 Total 0 $- 0 Interfund receivables and payables are eliminated for presentation purposes in the Statement of Net Assets, at September 30, 2010. 18 16 I 'i A COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE D - DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS Due from other governments consists of the following at September 30, 2010: Amount Due from South Florida Water Management District 10 NOTE E - CAPITAL ASSETS ACTIVITY The following is a summary of changes in capital assets activity for the year ended September 30, 2010: Capital Assets Not Being Depreciated: Land Total Capital Assets Not Being Depreciated Capital Assets Not Being Depreciated: Equipment Total Capital Assets Being Depreciated Less Accumulated Depreciation: Equipment Total Accumulated Depreciation Total Capital Assets Being Depreciated, Net Capital Assets, Net Balance Balance Increases/ Decreases/ October 1, Additions Retirements September 30, 2009 2010 $ 41,265 $ $ - 41,265 41,265 - - 41,265 45,499 - - 45,499 45,499 - - 45,499 (37,182) 3 908 - (41,090 37 182) --(3,908) - (41,090) 8,317 (3,908) - 4,409 $ 49,582 $ (3,908) $ - $ 45,674 19 16I 1A f, COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE E - CAPITAL ASSETS ACTIVITY, CONTINUED Depreciation expense was charged to the following functions during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010: Amount General Government - Administration 3,908 Total Depreciation Expense 3,908 NOTE F - LONG -TERM LIABILITIES The District had no such debt for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. NOTE G - RETIREMENT PLAN Plan description and provisions Effective October 1, 2001, all District employees, both full -time and part-time, became participants in the statewide Florida Retirement System (FRS) under the authority of Article X, Section 14 of the State Constitution and Florida Statutes, Chapters 112 and 121. The FRS is noncontributory and is totally administered by the State of Florida. The District contributed 100% of the required contributions. Pension costs for the District 9.85% of gross wages for the year ended September 30, 2010. The District's contributions to the plan were $13,825, $14,462, and $15,329 for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2010, 2009, and 2008, respectively. The District's covered payroll expense for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2010, 2009, and 2008 was $161,536, $139,871, and $169,831, respectively. There were no employee contributions permitted or made to the plan. Employees who retire at or after age 62 with 6 years of creditable service, 6 years of senior management service and age 62, 6 years of special risk service and age 55, or 30 years of service (25 years for special risk) regardless of age, are entitled to a retirement benefit, payable monthly for life, equal to 1.5% to 3.3% per year of creditable service, depending on the class of employee (regular, special risk, etc.) based on average final compensation of the five (5) highest fiscal years' compensation. Benefits vest after 6 years (6 years for senior management) of credited service. Vested employees may retire anytime after vesting and incur a 5% benefit reduction for each year prior to normal retirement age. 20 16TIA COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE G - RETIREMENT PLAN, CONTINUED Plan description and provisions, continued Early retirement, disability, death, and survivor benefits are also offered. Benefits are established by State Statute. The plan provides for a constant 3% cost -of- living adjustment for retirees. The Plan also provides several other plan and/or in Tent options that may be elected by the employee. Each offers specific contri ion and benefit options. The Plan documents should be referenced for complete detail. Description of fundiny, policy This is a cost sharing, multi - employer plan available to governmental units within the state and actuarial information with respect to an individual participating entity is not available. Participating employers are required, by statute, to pay monthly contributions at actuarially determined rates that, expressed as percentages of annual covered payroll, are adequate to accumulate sufficient assets to pay benefits when due. Plan information A copy of the FRS's June 30, 2010 annual report can be obtained by writing to the Florida Division of Retirement, Cedars Executive Center, 2639 -C North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1560, or by calling (850) 488 -5706. NOTE H - SELF - INSURANCE PROGRAM The District is a member of the Florida League of Cities self - insurers program for general liability, auto, property and workers' compensation. The program purchases excess and other specific coverages from third party carriers. Members of the program are billed annually for their portion of the program and are not assessable for unanticipated losses incurred by the program. Maximum liability coverage is $200,000. Premiums charged during the year totaled $7,172. Other types of insurances are carried by the District through third party insurance carriers. 21 161 1 A COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE I - OPERATIONAL SUPPORT The District's operations are supported in part by the United States Department of Agriculture through the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS). As such, the partnership with NRCS provides the District with its office space and other occupancy costs including but not limited to utilities, janitorial services, and telephone service at no cost to the District. The NRCS also provides the District the use of office equipment at no cost. The benefit of such subsidies is not reflected within the financial statements as no objective basis is available to value these benefits. NOTE J - ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE The District's operations are substantially dependent on the receipt of revenue from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ( FDACS) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Loss of these funds and/or large decreases in this type of funding would have a material effect on the District and a negative impact on overall operations. For the year ended September 30, 2010, 96% of total General Fund revenue is attributable to funds received from the FDACS and SFWMD. NOTE K - MITIGATION LAND BANK FUND ACTIVITY During the year ended September 30, 2010, the Mitigation Land Bank Fund had the following activity: 22 Amount Deferred revenue, October 1, 2009 $ 107,117 Land Bank receipts 2,811 Interest income receipts 106 Less: Land Purchase - Professional and Consulting Fees (44,053) Administrative Fees (1,200) Administrative Expenses (1,094) Bank fees and Interest expense 452) Deferred revenue, September 30, 2010 $ 63 235 22 ib l�l All COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE L - NGGE ROMA FUND ACTIVITY During the year ended September 30, 2010, the NGGE ROMA Fund had the following activity: NOTE M - COMMITMENTS Land Trust The District has a Mitigation Land Bank agreement with a real estate developer which required the developer to transfer $140,000 to the District for the purchase of approximately 30 acres of undeveloped wetlands. The District is, further, required to then enhance, manage and hold in perpetuity the respective wetlands purchased. The District has the right to transfer the land to another entity for long -term management and ownership at its discretion subject to approval by the Army Corp of Engineers. The developer entered the agreement to provide off -site compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impact related to a specific real estate development. The agreement has no stated time -frame for the related land purchase. The funds are being accounted for in the Special Revenue Fund Mitigation Land Bank Fund. During fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, the District purchased 2.28 acres of undeveloped wetland for approximately $41,265. 23 Amount Deferred revenue, October 1, 2009 $ 133,760 Mitigation credit receipts 12,096 Interest income receipts 65 Less: Labor and Contract Labor (98,034) Administrative & Professional Fees (12,494) Bank fees (410) Deferred revenue, September 30, 2010 $ 34,983 NOTE M - COMMITMENTS Land Trust The District has a Mitigation Land Bank agreement with a real estate developer which required the developer to transfer $140,000 to the District for the purchase of approximately 30 acres of undeveloped wetlands. The District is, further, required to then enhance, manage and hold in perpetuity the respective wetlands purchased. The District has the right to transfer the land to another entity for long -term management and ownership at its discretion subject to approval by the Army Corp of Engineers. The developer entered the agreement to provide off -site compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impact related to a specific real estate development. The agreement has no stated time -frame for the related land purchase. The funds are being accounted for in the Special Revenue Fund Mitigation Land Bank Fund. During fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, the District purchased 2.28 acres of undeveloped wetland for approximately $41,265. 23 16I'f M1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2010 NOTE M - COMMITMENTS, CONTINUED Regional Offsite Mitigation Area The District has an agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry for the enhancement, management, and future acquisition of a Regional offsite Mitigation Area. The activities are funded through the sale of mitigation credits on single - family residential construction impacting the north Golden Gate Estates area. Once the agreement's success criteria are achieved, the District will transfer the funds in the management account to the Division of Forestry which will assume the long -term management of the enhancement area. NOTE N - CONTINGENCIES The District is involved from time to time in certain routine litigation, the substance of which, either as liabilities or recoveries, would not materially affect the financial position of the District. Although the final outcome of the lawsuits, assertions, and claims or the exact amount of costs and /or potential recovery is not presently determinable, in the opinion of the District's legal counsel, the resolution of these matters -are not anticipated to have a materially adverse effect on the financial condition of the District. As a general policy, the District plans to contest any such matter. NOTE O - EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF BUDGET Florida Statute 189.418(3) prohibits actual expenses in excess of budgeted expenditures. We, however, noted during the year ended September 30, 2010 that the District did expend $29,685 in excess of approved budget in the Mitigation Land Bank Fund. We did note that the expenditures were approved by the Board of Supervisors but that the budget was not formally increased as required by Statute. 24 1611' Al REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OTHER THAN MD&,A COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - GENERAL FUND - SUMMARY STATEMENT Year Ended September 30, 2010 REVENUES Charges for services LWC AG MIL BCB Urban MIL Lee County MIL Cape Coral MIL Malibu Lakes Administrative Fees ROMA Administrative Fees ROMA Application Fees Interest income Miscellaneous income Carryover TOTAL REVENUES lblV A 1 EXPENDITURES Current General government - Administration Personal services Operating expenditures Capital outlay Debt service Principal reduction Interest and fiscal charges TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ FUND BALANCE - Beginning FUND BALANCE - Ending 194,030 32,110 226,140 194,454 31,686 226,140 24,664 $ 24,664 $ The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 25 175,361 26,486 201,847 51,354 $ 74,331 25,¢$5 19,093 5,200 24,293 26,690 General Fund Variance Original Final Actual Favorable Budget Budget (Unfavorable) $ 144,271 $ 144,271 $ 173,271 $ 29,000 55,000 55,000 68,750 13,750 2,626 2,626 3,915 1,289 2.846 2.846 3,825 979 800 800 400 (400) 30 30 10 (20) 231 231 3,030 2,799 45,000 45,000 - (45,000) 250,804 250,804 253,201 2,397 EXPENDITURES Current General government - Administration Personal services Operating expenditures Capital outlay Debt service Principal reduction Interest and fiscal charges TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ FUND BALANCE - Beginning FUND BALANCE - Ending 194,030 32,110 226,140 194,454 31,686 226,140 24,664 $ 24,664 $ The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 25 175,361 26,486 201,847 51,354 $ 74,331 25,¢$5 19,093 5,200 24,293 26,690 16 1. A I COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - GENERAL FUND - DETAILED STATEMENT Year Ended September 30, 2010 General Fund REVENUES Original Final Actual Variance Favorable Charges for services Budge Budge Office Supplies 1,290 (Unfavorable) LWC AG MIL $ 144,271 $ 144,271 $ 173,271 $ 29,000 BCB Urban MIL 55,000 55,000 68,750 13,750 Lee County MIL - - 154 Bank Service Charges 66 Cape Coral MIL - - Office Expenses - Other 2.500 2.500 Malibu Lakes Administrative Fees 2,626 2,626 3,915 1,289 ROMA Administrative Fees 2.846 2.846 3,825 979 ROMA Application Fees 800 800 400 (400) Interest income 30 30 10 (20) Miscellaneous income 231 231 3,030 2,799 Carryover 45.000 45.000 1,041 (45,000) TOTAL REVENUES 250,804 250,804 253,201 2,397 EXPENDITURES Current Operating Expenditures Personal services Salaries, taxes and benefits 178,806 178,806 161,536 17,270 Retirement 15.224 15,224 13.825 1.399 TOTAL - PERSONAL SERVICES 194,030 194.030 175.361 18.669 Office Expenses Computer Equipment 250 250 531 (281) Office Supplies 1,290 1,290 1,024 266 Other Supplies 1,089 1,089 645 444 _ Books and Publications 350 350 278 72 Postage and Shipping 450 450 296 154 Bank Service Charges 66 66 60 6 Office Expenses - Other 2.500 2.500 1.678 822 TOTAL - OFFICE EXPENSES 5.995 5.995 4.512 1.483 Other Operating Expenses Dues 550 550 755 (205) Insurance 6,450 6,450 8,529 (2,079) Printing/ Advertising 900 900 919 (19) Professional Fees 9,300 9,300 6,396 2,904 Cellular Phone 1,140 1,140 1,041 99 Vehicle Expenses 6,475 6,475 3,036 3,439 Training 1.150 1,150 520 630 Subtotal - Other Operating Expenses 25.965 25.965 21.196 4.769 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 26 161'1' A!1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE— BUDGET AND ACTUAL — GENERAL FUND — DETAILED STATEMENT, CONTINUED Year Ended September 30, 2010 General Fund Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) (300) (116) (2) (210) 4,141 $ 24,293 24,293 $ 26,690 Original Final Budget Budget Actual Other Operating Expenses (Continued) Travel 150 150 450 Florida Plats - - 116 Sales Tax 2 Contingency Fund IFAS Citrus Grove Irrigation Project - - 210 TOTAL — OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 26,115 26,115 21974 TOTAL — OPERATING EXPENSES $ 226,140 $ 226,140 $ 201,847 CAPITAL OUTLAY Equipment TOTAL — CAPITAL OUTLAY - DEBT SERVICE Principal reduction " Interest and fiscal charges - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 226,140 226,140 201,847 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER ^ (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 24,664 $ 24,664 $ 51,354 FUND BALANCE — BEGINNING $ 74331 FUND BALANCE - ENDING $ 125 685 ., The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 27 Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) (300) (116) (2) (210) 4,141 $ 24,293 24,293 $ 26,690 1611 A I COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - SUMMARY STATEMENT Year Ended September 30, 2010 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 28 Mitigation Land Bank Fund Variance REVENUES Original Budget Final Budget Actual Favorable (Unfavorable) Interest Income $ 106 $ 106 $ 106 $ Income 107,118 107,118 2,811 (104,307) HSCA Phase I - - - Carryover - - 43.883 43.883 TOTAL REVENUES 107,224 107.224 46.800 (60.424) EXPENDITURES Current Reporting/ Monitoring Expense 9,500 9,500 - 9,500 Land Management Labor 3,750 3,750 - 3,750 Administrative Fees 1,200 1,200 1,200 - Professional Fees 1,200 1,200 44,053 (42,853) Printing/ Reproduction 582 582 582 Postage and Delivery 212 212 212 Supplies/ Miscellaneous Expenses 300 300 300 - Service Charge 371 371 453 (82) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 17,115 17,115 46,800 (29,685) DEBT SERVICE Principal Advances 0 0 Principal Reductions 0 0 Interest and Fiscal Charges 0 0 NET — DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 0 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17.115 17.115 46.800 (29.685) EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 1 90.109 90309 - (90.109) FUND BALANCE — BEGINNING FUND BALANCE - ENDING " The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 28 .. 1 Vll 161 �A � COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - SUMMARY STATEMENT Year Ended September 30, 2010 NGGE ROMA Fund REVENUES Original Final Actual Variance Favorable Budget Budget (Unfavorable) Interest income $ 144 $ 144 $ 65 $ (79) Mitigation Credits Purchased 12,096 12,096 12,096 - Carryover 133.760 133.760 98.777 (34,983) TOTAL REVENUES 146.000 146.000 110.938 _ (35.062) EXPENDITURES Current Report Preparation 5,000 5,000 9,000 (4,000) Chemicals Expense 8,040 8,040 8,034 6 Labor — ROMA Monitoring 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 Labor — ROMA Treatments 16,960 97,960 90,000 7,960 Equipment — Monitoring Supplies - - Equipment — Other - - Administrative fees 1,200 1,200 1,200 - Contract Labor 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 Bank Service Charges 552 552 410 142 Miscellaneous - - Postage and Delivery 212 212 212 Printing and Reproduction 582 582 582 Professional Fees 1,200 1,200 1,200 Supplies 300 300 300 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 44.046 125.046 110.938 14.108 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 101,954 $ 20.954 - $ (20,954) FUND BALANCE — BEGINNING FUND BALANCE - ENDING - The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 29 16 1 1 t "7A 1 ADDITIONAL REPORTS OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL P.O. Box 771177 Naples, FL 34107 161`1 A I INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS Board of Supervisors Collier Soil and Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, Florida 34120 We have audited the basic financial statements of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District as of and for the year ended September 30, 2010 and have issued our report thereon dated July 22, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our audit procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the basic financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We identified no deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be significant deficiencies. 30 1611' SAS A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the entity's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's basic financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the basic financial statements will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in the internal control that might be significant deficiencies and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all significant deficiencies that are also considered to be material weaknesses. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's basic financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of basic financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. We also noted certain other matters that we reported to management of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District in a separate letter dated July 22, 2011. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Supervisors, management, the Auditor General of the State of Florida, and other federal and state audit agencies. This report is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL Naples, Florida July 22, 2011 31 Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL P.O. Box 771177 Naples, FL 34107 1611 Al INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT TO MANAGEMENT Board of Supervisors Collier Soil and Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 We have audited the basic financial statements of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District (the "District ") as of and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 and have issued our report thereon dated July 22, 2011. In connection with our audit, we are submitting the following comments and recommendations in accordance with Chapter 10.550 "Rules of the Auditor General - Local Governmental Entity Audits" (Revised September 30, 2010) Rule 10.557(3) and Section 218.39(4) of the Florida Statutes. Prior Year Comments That No Longer Apply: 1 Deteriorating Financial Condition Should Be Monitored Although we do not believe the District to be in a state of financial emergency, the District had previously exhibited a decrease in a certain indicator of a deteriorating financial condition in comparison to its peer group. Our financial condition assessment of the District included the use of many procedures, including the indicator testing criteria established by the Office of the Auditor General of the State of Florida (Rule 10.550). The use of such criteria had previously indicated that the unreserved, undesignated fund balance was decreasing and lower than its peer group. The unreserved, undesignated fund balance has stopped decreasing as a result of steps taken by the District and remains only slightly below its peer group. Thus we believe all prior year management letter comments seemed to have been satisfactorily addressed by management and staff and require no further additional comment this year. We have included in this letter all comments which came to our attention during the course of our audit regarding Item 1, as applicable, of the "Rules of the Auditor General -Local Governmental Entity Audits," Rule 10.554, Section (1)(i). In regard to Item 1, nothing came to our attention to cause us to believe that at any time during the year the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District met any of the criteria for being in a state of financial emergency as defined in Florida Statute 218.503(1). In regard to item 7(c)(1), we applied financial condition assessment procedures pursuant to Rule 10.556(7) and noted the correction of the indicator of deteriorating financial condition as defined by Statute. 32 161i`A1 As such, we do not believe the District to be in a state of financial emergency as a consequence of conditions described in Section 218.503(1) of the Florida Statutes. Additionally, in regard to Item 7(b), we represent that the financial report filed with the Department of Financial Services, pursuant to Florida Statute 218.32(1)(a), is in agreement with the annual financial audit report for the same period. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Supervisors, management, the Auditor General of the State of Florida, and other federal and state audit agencies. This report is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. 7�1�XLI- f, Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL Naples, Florida July 22, 2011 33 C N Q or fD m Q tD O N 0 t, v d lD r O u s , i i 6 ZA D Q Z Q m s v C CC C CD Vo x o c D_ w _� O N D) c w r- W r R CD o CD N CD n o= m A. ;u W A N n► (D co 0) G 00 W 0 d * 3 O Q flt m O 0 3 y m 2 m C mho 0 3 CD D^ CD 3 C Sc j O (D N C 7 CD -O O N Q N OD Q J1 0 j0 tit m `! CK Q O mII�O1 "' 7 m m O o� Q m � :3 T c n �? O m a m i m � m O CD 3 CD Q m N 0 n 3 N w fD 2 Q fn — n. O S N N N -O C -1 tD Q Cn J m =3 Ca 70c ^^G. s C _T� 7 Jerry CD 0 U NN l� L, 3 O 7 (D O CD co y° D°i 0 m 0 m Q O _. .. � m --h C O CD El 0 ZED D D c c T v Oa a n tu w r Q a mm o yo CD Z . C, m w o m e r m c 3 o m n <' C.a m CD 3 m o -4 ° D 0 0 0 0 O 61 o �, (D (D O 0 o Q a m 3 D S9 0 00 Q 3 O T ` Q 0 N O O 7 OD N (CD O• N d w 3 d g y N D " N 7 7 _I 2 Dpi ODD — S •m, 3 CD d O n T - = N c n CD S sCD m m < m x x m S o CD o m O 0a m ° � a T sD m n 3c�0 o O @ � N di. i 6 ZA D Q Z Q m s v C CC C CD Vo x o c D_ w _� O N D) c w r- W r R CD o CD N CD n o= m A. ;u W A N n► (D co 0) G 00 W 0 d * 3 O Q flt m O 0 3 y m 2 m C mho 0 3 CD D^ CD 3 C Sc j O (D N C 7 CD -O O N Q N OD Q J1 0 j0 tit m `! CK Q O mII�O1 "' 7 m m O o� Q m � :3 T c n �? O m a m i m � m O CD 3 CD Q m N 0 n 3 N w fD 2 Q fn — n. O S N N N -O C -1 tD Q Cn J m =3 Ca 70c ^^G. s C _T� 7 Jerry CD 0 U NN l� L, 3 O 7 (D O CD co y° D°i 0 m 0 m Q O _. .. � m --h C O CD El 0 ZED D D c c T v Oa a n tu w r Q a mm o yo CD Z . C, m w o m e r m c 3 o m n <' C.a m CD 3 m o -4 ° D 0 0 0 0 O 61 o �, (D (D O 0 o Q a m 3 D S9 0 00 Q 3 O T ` Q 0 N O O 7 OD N (CD O• N d w 3 d g y N D " N 7 7 • m Lo N O ti S c n a 3 C CD O N O N 16 lw'—Aw= X. A I � � 0- ID C) ID m' m m d � � W N O O m 0 7 d CD 7 - a y d a m ° M N m N> O � 0' CD O 16 Al CD N m I (A d N 0 � n O O O K ID C 0 Q > > CL 7 7 c a a CD CD N O o o �D CD ID O a CD CD o m CD C a m CD ID N O y m o d O N � rn m y, J rn A m cn :-4 v � m V N W co CA pp v A c R a9 m ti m M, 0 �I -: h N. A �3 m� 9 N w O 7 O c3 o $' �S m o m w c O T (O l!1 _ N cn p z I a 3 O r N O r r 0 Ul 16 A`A1 0 v 0 co 7 7 'O I cD X M O 3 y C— fD N m x co 0 C CLd 0 CD N O d v 161x1` All Collier Soil & Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida 34120 Phone (239) - 455 -4100 • Fax (239) 455 -2693 Email: cswcdL&comcast.net LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED JUL 3 n 2012 �Hf+ TO: DATE: Clerk of Circuit Court July 9, 2012 Finance Department FROM: 2671 Airport Road S., Court Plaza. III Collier Soil & Water Naples, FL 34112 Conservation District We are sending you X Attached Under separate cover via the followings items: COPIES DESCRIPTIONS 1 General Purpose Financial Statements Together with Reports of Independent Auditor for Year Ending September 30, 2011 1 State of Florida Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY 2010 -2011 Signed: Kim Bucceri Administrator 1 Collier Soil & Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 June 21, 2012 Mark K. Stout, CPA Managing Partner Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL 999 Vanderbilt Beach Road, STE 200 Naples, FL 34108 1611 A I Dennis P. Vasey, Chairman We reviewed your audit for accuracy and completeness and agree with your comments regarding the corrective actions taken by the Board of Supervisors. The District Continues to take steps to increase revenue while at the same time controlling costs. Respectfully yo w / J /v/ Dennis P. Vasey, Chairman 4 i'r Bruce Reichert Stan Weiner Dennis P. Vasey Tom Cravens James Lang Supervisor, Seat 1 Supervisor, Seat 2 Supervisor, Seat 3 Supervisor, Seat 4 Supervisor, Seat 5 Web Site: http: / /www.collierswcd.org 161 �' A I COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TOGETHER WITH REPORTS OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1611 A I Pa e W INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT' 1 -2 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND .ANALYSIS (1\4ID &A) i -v BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Statement of Net Assets 3 Statement of Activities 4 FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Governmental Funds: Balance Sheet 5 Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds to the Statement of Net Assets 6 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance 7 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities 8 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 9-24 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OTHER THAN MD&A BUDGET TO ACTUAL COMPARISON - MAJOR FUNDS (General and Special Revenue Funds) Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - General Fund - Summary Statement. 25 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual General Fund — Detailed Statement 26 -27 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Mitigation Land Bank Fund - Summary Statement 28 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual NGGE ROMA Fund — Summary Statement 29 ADDITIONAL REPORTS OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Basic Financial Statements 30 Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Independent Auditor's Report to Management 32 Management's Response to Independent Auditor's Report to Management Exhibit A Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL 1611 P.O. Box 771177 Naples, FL 34107 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT Board of Supervisors Collier Soil and Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, Florida 34120 We have audited the accompanying basic financial statements of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District (the "District "), as of September 30, 2011 and for the year then ended, as listed in the Table of Contents. These basic financial statements are the responsibility of the District's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these basic financial statements based on our audit. .4 1 We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and-the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those Standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the basic financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the basic financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall basic financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the basic financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District as of September 30, 2011, and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated June 20, 2012, on our consideration of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grants, and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. Board of Supervisors Collier Soil and Water Conservation District 161'1" A I ;l The Management's Discussion and Analysis on pages i -v is not a required part of the basic financial statements but is supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standard Board. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the Management's Discussion and Analysis. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the District's basic financial statements. The required supplementary information other than MD &A on pages 25 -29 described in the accompanying Table of Contents is presented for the purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements but is supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied by us in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. `?�/a kx�f PfAOc Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL Naples, Florida June 20, 2012 1611'"A1 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (MD &A) Collier Soil and Water Conservation District Dennis P. Vasey, Chairman 14700 Immokalee Road 16 I !� `� � I Naples, FL 34120 Management's Discussion and Analysis Since 1984, soil and water conservation district supervisors have addressed ecological issues, helping define the risks of permit approvals and mitigation away from the area of impact to surrounding communities for commercial, public works and residential construction where there are wetland impacts. Although the sale of residential mitigation credits stopped in 2007 because of the construction downturn, we have initially treated 202 acres of our Regional Offsite Mitigation Area and have a reservation for the remaining 10 acres. All of the studies and treatment have been done without public funding. The restoration is proceeding as designed in the Memorandum of Agreement that came to life in 2005 when we reached the first funding trigger. Water conservation continues to be a major consideration since annual rainfall has been below expected levels for the past nine years. This has resulted in permanent water restrictions and we have accelerated our efforts at residential and homeowner/ resident association water savings with exceptional results for both agriculture and residential customers. This service has a huge demand and, when coupled with the rain garden and median projects, has made a difference. To date we delivered Horsepen Strand Conservation Area Phase I to serve as the framework for Northern Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Project that should be completed in 2013. This two -phase approach was overseen by Big Cypress Basin and intended to insure: First, that we take pains to avoid even the appearance of bias, although researchers are certainly encouraged to take positions on policy issues, we should clearly show how our science leads us to a certain conclusion, and we must demonstrate a willingness to change our minds in the face of compelling evidence. Critics take careful note of our funding sources and our public statements. Second, this process can explicitly warn government against cherry- picking when processing permits that require critical thinking and can have them find examples in the popular press, both in print and online. Third, we are interested in having the public objectively accept our research without compromising the integrity of same. Our financial resources have been prudently used and we are investigating methods to increase our revenue base through changes in the numeric nutrient criteria and narrative parts of the total daily measurable load law that will be enacted in 2012. We maintain a long -term focus and continue to seek opportunities to expand revenue sources. In total, revenues for 2011 were $207,987. Expenses were $247,626 which provided employee and contractor compensation. The District remains debt -free. Bruce Reichert Stan Weiner Dennis P. Vasey Tom Cravens lames Lang Supervisor, Seat 1 Supervisor, Seat 2 Supervisor, Seat 3 Supervisor, Seat 4 Supervisor, Seat 5 Web Site: http: / /www.collierswcd.org 1611 "A1 The following is a condensed summary of the District's net assets for fiscal year 2011 compared to fiscal years 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007. Summary of Net Assets 11 As of As of As of As of As of Assets: 9/30/11 9/30/10 9/30/09 9/30/08 9/30/07 Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals Current Unrestricted Assets $ 121,067 $ 130,702 $ 75,882 $ 72,118 $ 90,352 Current Restricted Assets 68,374 98,218 240,877 330,180 346,387 Non - current Capital Assets 41,765 45,674 49,582 53,979 61,991 Total Assets 234,534 274,594 366,341 456,277 498,730 Liabilities: Accounts Payable - - - 1,179 1,075 Current Accrued Liabilities 3,828 5,017 1,551 3,724 3,615 Current Deferred Revenue 68,374 98,218 240,877 330,180 346,387 Notes Payable - - - - Total Liabilities 72.202 103.235 242.428 335.083 351.077 Net Assets: Investment in Capital Assets, 41,765 45,674 49,582 53,979 61,991 Net of Related Debt Unrestricted 120,567 125,685 74,331 67,215 85,662 Total Net Assets 162,332 171,359 123,913 121,194 147,653 Total Liabilities and Net Assets $234,534 $ 274,594 $366,341 $456,277 $ 498,730 11 16 .1 lt The following schedule reports the revenues, expenses and changes in net assets for the District for fiscal year 2011 compared to fiscal years 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007. Summary of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets Year Ending Year Ending Year Ending Year Ending Year Ending Revenues: 9/30/11 9/30/10 9/30/09 9/30/08 9/30/07 Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals Program Revenues: Conservation & Resource Management General Revenues: Interest Other Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets Total Revenues Expenses: Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Expenses Increase (decrease) in Net Assets $207,987 $265,287 $252,184 $385,599 $260,848 94 181 788 516 18 30,518 145,471 89,506 21,752 93,135 - - - 50 (807) 238,599 410,939 342,478 407,917 353,194 182,377 175,361 172,274 207,256 211,418 61,340 184,224 163,088 219,058 94,355 3,909 3,908 4,397 8,062 11,946 247,626 363,493 339,759 434,376 317,719 9,027 47,446 2,719 Net Assets - Beginning of the year 171,359 123,913 121,194 Net Assets - End of the year 162,332 171,359 123,913 iii (26,459) 147,653 $121,194 35,475 112,178 147,653 161 �4"A1 ' Budgetary Highlights Budget versus actual comparisons are reported in the required supplementary information other than MD &A on pages 25 thru 29. During the year, revenues were slightly less than expenditures, thus decreasing the existing fund balance in the amount of $5,118. Capital Assets The District owns no land or buildings for its operations. Office space is provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture at no cost. Capital assets consist of equipment which is depreciated using the straight -line method over the estimated useful life of the asset. (generally 5 -10 years) The District did begin to purchase land as part of its Mitigation Land Bank during the year ended September 30, 2008. The District expended $41,265 to purchase land in 2008 but did not purchase any in any subsequent years. Depreciation expenses of $3,909 were charged against the capital assets during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011. The District retired $17,715 is capital assets that were no longer being utilized. Economic Factors and Next Year's Budget The District received 96% of its funding from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). As this is the District's primary source of funding, it is substantially dependent on the receipt of revenue from these agencies. Loss of these funds and/or a large decrease in this type of funding would have a material effect on the District and a negative impact on overall operations. During FY07 the District began charging its Special Revenue Funds an administrative fee to manage their operations as permitted by the underlying agreements. IV 16IV"A1 Request for Information This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the District's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report should be directed to: Collier Soil & Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 (239) 455 -4100 1 161 t Owl I COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS September 30, 2011 LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS Governmental LIABILITIES Activities ASSETS Current assets: $ ' Cash $ 121,067 Restricted cash 68,374 Due from other governments - Prepaid insurance 3,328 Total current assets 192,769 Non - current assets: Capital assets: Land 41,265 Depreciable equipment (net of $27,284 accumulated depreciation) 500 Total non - current assets 41,765 TOTAL ASSETS $ 2 5 4 LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ ' Accrued liabilities 3,828 Deferred revenue 68,374 Total current liabilities 72.202 TOTAL LIABILITIES 72,202 NET ASSETS Investment in capital assets, net of related debt 41,765 Unrestricted 120,567 TOTAL NET ASSETS 162,332 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $ 234 534 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 16110 "A1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES Year Ended September 30, 2011 EXPENSES Governmental Governmental activities Activities Personal services $ 182,377 Operating expenses 61,340 Interest expense - Depreciation 3,909 TOTAL EXPENSES - GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES 247,626 PROGRAM REVENUES Charges for services 207,987 NET PROGRAM REVENUES (DEFICIT) (39,639) GENERAL REVENUES Interest 94 Other 30,518 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUES 30,612 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS (9,027) NET ASSETS - Beginning of the year 171,359 NET ASSETS - End of the year $ 162,332 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 4 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BALANCE SHEET - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS September 30, 2011 1611''A I " LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ - $ - $ - $ - Due to other funds - - - - Accrued liabilities 3,828 - - 3,828 Deferred revenue - 55,619 12,755 68,374 TOTAL LIABILITIES 3,828 55,619 12,755 72,202 FUND BALANCE Unreserved, undesignated 120,567 - - 120,567 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 120,567 - - 120,567 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 1 124,395 55,619 1 12,755 1 192,769 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 5 Special Revenue Funds Mitigation NGGE Total General Land Bank ROMA Governmental Fund Fund Fund Funds ASSETS Cash $ 121,067 $ - $ - $ 121,067 Restricted cash - 55,619 12,755 68,374 Due from other funds - - - - Due from other governments - - - - Other assets 3,328 - - 3,328 TOTAL ASSETS $ 124,395 $ 55,619 $ 12,755 $ 192,769 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ - $ - $ - $ - Due to other funds - - - - Accrued liabilities 3,828 - - 3,828 Deferred revenue - 55,619 12,755 68,374 TOTAL LIABILITIES 3,828 55,619 12,755 72,202 FUND BALANCE Unreserved, undesignated 120,567 - - 120,567 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 120,567 - - 120,567 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 1 124,395 55,619 1 12,755 1 192,769 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 5 16111F•AS COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECONCILIATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET TO THE STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS September 30, 2011 Total fund balance for governmental funds Amount $ 120,567 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Assets are different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds Capital assets riot being depreciated: Land 41,265 Capital assets being depreciated: 41,265 Equipment 27,784 Less accumulated depreciation (27,284 500 Long -term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds. Note payable Total net assets of governmental activities $ 162,332 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. i W COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Year Ended September 30, 2011 REVENUES Charges for services FDACS - LWC AG MIL SFWMD - BCB -MIL SFWMD - Lee County MIL SFWMD - Cape Coral MIL ROMA Application Fees Administrative Fees HSCA Phase I Mitigation Credits Purchases Interest income Miscellaneous income Debt Service Principal advances 161'1 911 R TOTAL REVENUES 206,313 8,309 EXPENDITURES Mitigation NGGE Total General Land Bank ROMA Governmental Fund Fund Fund Funds 144,071 $ - $ - $ 144,071 55,000 - - 55,000 200 - - 200 6,988 - - 6,988 - - 1,728 1,728 13 60 21 94 41 8,249 22,228 30,518 TOTAL REVENUES 206,313 8,309 EXPENDITURES Current Conservation/Resource Management Personal services 182,377 - Operating expenditures 29,054 8,309 Capital outlay - - Debt service Principal reduction - - Interest and fiscal charges - - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 211,431 8,309 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (5,118) - FUND BALANCE — BEGINNING 125,685 - FUND BALANCE - ENDING $ 120.567 $ - $ The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 7 23,977 238,599 - 182,377 23,977 61,340 23,977 243,717 (5,118) 125.685 $ 120,561 161 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES Year Ended September 30, 2011 Net change (excess of revenues over expenditures) in fund balance $ - total governmental funds The increase in net assets reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities is different because: Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the Statement of Activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. Expenditures for capital assets 0 Less: current year depreciation (3,909) Less: gain on disposition of capital asset 0 Change (increase) in net assets of governmental activities The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 8 I'A I Amount (5,118) (3,909) $ (9,027) 1611`A1 'r COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Organization and nature of activities Collier Soil and Water Conservation District (the "District "), is an independent special district created on August 30, 1984, through the request of the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture, under the provisions of Florida Statute 582.15(2), for the purpose of preserving and promoting conservation, development and wise use of land, water and related resources in Collier County, Florida. The District also is permitted to act as a land trust for environmentally sensitive undeveloped land. As such, the District can receive and/or purchase and hold and manage environmentally sensitive undeveloped land. The District is governed by an elected five (5) member Board of Supervisors serving staggered four (4) year terms. Summary of significant accounting policies The following is a summary of the significant accounting policies used in the preparation of these basic financial statements. Reporting entity The District adheres to Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement Number 14, "Financial Reporting Entity, as amended by GASB Statement Number 39, "Determining Whether Certain Organizations Are Component Units." These Statements require the financial statements of the District (the primary government) to include its component units, if any. A component unit is a legally separate organization for which the elected officials of the primary government are financially accountable. Based on the criteria established in GASB 14, as amended, there are no component units required to be included. Therefore, there are no component units included and /or required to be included in the District's basic financial statements. Government -wide Financial Statements The government -wide financial statements (i.e., the Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities) report information on all of the activities of the District and do not emphasize fund types. These governmental activities comprise the primary government. General governmental and intergovernmental revenues support the governmental activities. The purpose of the government -wide financial statements is to allow the user to be able to determine if the District is in a better or worse financial position than the prior year. The effect of all interfund activity between governmental funds has been removed from the government -wide financial statements. 9 161 1` A I "r COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Government -wide Financial Statements, continued Government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues, expenses, gains, losses, assets, and liabilities resulting from exchange and exchange -like transactions are recognized when the exchange takes place. Revenues, expenses, gains, losses, assets, and liabilities resulting from nonexchange transactions are recognized in accordance with the requirements of GASB Statement 33, "Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions" (GASB 33). Amounts paid to acquire capital assets are capitalized as assets in the government - wide financial statements, rather than reported as expenditures. Proceeds of long- term debt are recorded as liabilities in the government -wide financial statements, rather than as other financing sources. Amounts paid to reduce long -term indebtedness of the reporting government-are reported as a reduction of the related liability in the government -wide financial statements, rather than as expenditures. The Statement of Activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include: 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function; and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital improvements of a particular function. Interest income and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. 10 161 1 P-7-A1 4 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Fund Financial Statements The accounts of the District are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self - balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity or retained earnings, revenues, and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Government resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purpose for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. Fund financial statements for the District's governmental funds are presented after the government -wide financial statements. The governmental fund financial statements display information about major funds individually and nonmajor funds in aggregate for governmental funds. Governmental Funds When both restricted and unrestricted resources are combined in a fund, expenditures are considered to be paid first from restricted resources, as appropriate, and then from unrestricted resources. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collected within the current period or soon thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. The District's major funds are presented in separate columns on the governmental fund financial statements. The definition of a major fund is one that meets certain criteria set forth in GASB Statement Number 34, "Basic Financial Statements - and Management's Discussion and Analysis - for State and Local Governments ". The funds that do not meet the criteria of a major fund are considered non -major funds and are combined into a single column on the governmental fund financial statements. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds. Major individual governmental funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. All governmental funds of the District are considered major funds. 11 16 fr``A1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Measurement Focus and Basis of Accountiniz Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures, or expenses, are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of the measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied. The government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources management focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period and soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. Taxpayer assessed income and gross receipts are considered "measurable" when in the hands of intermediary collecting governments and are recognized as revenue at that time. Anticipated refunds of such taxes are recorded as liabilities and reductions of revenue when they become measurable and their validity seems certain. Intergovernmental revenues that are reimbursements for specific purposes or projects are recognized when all eligibility requirements are met. Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting when the related fund liability is incurred. Exceptions to this general rule include: (1) principal and interest on the long -term debt, if any, is recognized when due; and (2) expenditures are generally not divided between years by the recording of prepaid expenditures. Non - current Government Assets/Liabilities GASB 34 requires non - current governmental assets, such as land and buildings, and non - current governmental liabilities, such as notes and bonds payable, be reported in the governmental activities column in the government -wide Statement of Net Assets. 12 161 2 "1 i COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Mai or Funds — Governmental The District reports the following major governmental funds: The General Fund is the District's primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the District, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditure for specified purposes. The District has two special revenue funds: a Mitigation Land Bank Fund (Land Bank) and the North Golden Gate Estates Regional Offsite Mitigation Area Fund (NGGE ROMA). The Land Bank fund consists of funds collected pursuant to an agreement with a real estate developer to provide off -site compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impact related to a specific real estate development. The agreement required the developer to transfer $140,000 to the District for the purchase of approximately 30 acres of undeveloped wetlands. The District is required to then enhance, manage and hold in perpetuity the respective wetlands purchased. The funds are restricted and can only be used for the purchase, enhancement and long -term management of undeveloped wetlands. The NGGE ROMA fund consists of funds collected pursuant to an agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry to be used as mitigation for private, single - family residence impacts within the North Golden Gate Estates development. Mitigation credits are charged on single - family residential impact permits within the mitigation service area. Funds collected for mitigation credits are to be placed in three separate accounts. The first $666,340 will fund the implementation account which will be used for exotic vegetation eradication within the ROMA. The next $63,720 collected is to fund the management account. The management account is the principal to provide interest money sufficient for annual management costs. After the agreements success criteria are met, the management account will be transferred to the Division of Forestry, which will assume long -term management of the enhancement site. Any remaining mitigation credits collected are to be placed in the acquisition account. Funds will be held in the acquisition account until an amended Mitigation plan for acquisition is approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. 13 16 I 11'A 1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Budeetary Information The District has elected to report budgetary comparison of major funds as required supplementary information (RSI). All investment revenue is deferred until allowable expenditures are budgeted and incurred. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include land and equipment, are reported in the government -wide Statement of Net Assets. The District owns no buildings. The District follows a capitalization policy, which calls for capitalization of all capital assets that have a cost or donated value of $1,000 or more and have a useful life in excess of one year. All purchased capital assets are valued at cost where historical records are available and at an estimated historical cost where no historical records exist. Donated capital assets are valued at their estimated fair market value on the date donated. No debt - related interest expense is capitalized as part of capital assets in accordance with GASB 34. Maintenance, repairs, and minor renovations are not capitalized. The acquisition of land and construction projects utilizing resources received from Federal and State agencies are capitalized when the related expenditure is incurred. Expenditures that materially increase values, change capacities, or extend useful lives are capitalized. Upon sale or retirement, the cost is eliminated from the respective accounts. Expenditures for capital assets are recorded in the fund statements as current expenditures. However, such expenditures are not reflected as expenditures in the government -wide statements but rather are capitalized and depreciated. Capital assets are depreciated using the straight -line method over the following estimated useful lives: Asset Years Equipment 5 -10 14 16I 1' 1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Budgets and budgetary accounting The District has adopted an annual budget for the General Fund for the year ended September 30, 2011, as well as for the Special Revenue Funds. The District follows these procedures in establishing budgetary data. During the summer of each year, the Treasurer or his designee, submits to the Board of Supervisors a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing on the upcoming October 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. 2. Public hearings are held to obtain citizen input. 3. The budget is adopted by approval of the Board of Supervisors. 4. Budget amounts, as shown in these financial statements, are as originally adopted or as amended by the Board of Supervisors. 5. The budget is adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 6. The level of control for appropriations is exercised at the fund level. 7. Appropriations lapse at year -end. The District did not amend the General Fund budget during the year. One of the Special Revenue Funds was amended to adjust for an increase in contract costs for follow -up treatments. Compensated absences The District's employees accumulate sick and annual leave, based on the number of years of continuous service. The District allows employees to carry over to the next fiscal year up to 80 hours of sick leave and unlimited annual leave. However, upon termination of employment, the District does not pay or reimburse employees for sick or annual leave. 15 16I S Al COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Encumbrances Encumbrances accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation, is not employed by the District because at present it is not necessary in order to assure effective budgetary control or to facilitate effective cash planning and control. Deferred Revenue/Land Bank Fund Through an agreement with a real estate developer, the District received funds to purchase undeveloped wetlands. The intent of the agreement is to provide off -site compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impact related to a specific real estate development. The agreement has no stated time -frame for the related land purchase. The District has recorded these funds as restricted cash and as deferred revenue until the date of expenditure, at which time it will be recognized as revenue and charged to the appropriate expenditure accounts. Deferred Revenue/NGGE ROMA Fund Through an agreement with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, the District receives funds through the sale of mitigation credits to be used for the enhancement, management, and future acquisitions of a Regional Offsite Mitigation Area. The District has recorded these funds as restricted cash and as deferred revenue until the date of expenditure, at which time it will be recognized as revenue and charged to the appropriate expenditure accounts. After the agreement's success criteria are achieved, the District will transfer the funds (unexpended cash) in the Management Account over to the Division of Forestry which will assume the long -term management of the enhancement area. Interfund receivables and payables arise from interfund transactions and are recorded by the funds affected in the period in which the transactions are executed. Due From Other Governments No allowance for losses on uncollectible accounts has been recorded since the District considered all amounts to be fully collectible. 16 " 1611 A 1' COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES, CONTINUED Fund equity In the governmental fund financial statements, reservation of fund balance indicates amounts that are limited for a specific purpose, are not appropriable for expenditure, or are legally segregated for a specific future use. Designations of fund balance represent tentative management plans. Unreserved, undesignated fund balance indicates funds that are available for current expenditure. Interfund Transactions The District considers interfund receivables (due from other funds) and interf ind liabilities (due to other funds) to be loan transactions to and from other funds to cover temporary (three months or less) cash needs. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures /expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund are recorded as expenditures /expenses in the reimbursing funds and as reduction of expenditures /expenses in the fund that is reimbursed. Mannement estimates The preparation of basic financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires the District to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, fund equity, and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the basic financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. NOTE B - CASH AND INVESTMENTS At September 30, 2011, cash was $189,441 including cash on hand of $53 and restricted cash of $68,374. Restricted funds were received for the Land Bank Fund and the NGGE ROMA Fund and were accounted for in the Special Revenue Funds. Deposits The District's deposit policy allows deposits to be held in demand deposit accounts. The District depository is a financial institution designated as qualified depository by the State Treasurer. 17 ibrf A i COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE B - CASH AND INVESTMENTS, CONTINUED Deposits, continued At September 30, 2011, the District's deposits were as follows: Carrying Amount $ 121,015 68,674 189,6807 These deposits were entirely insured by federal depository insurance or by collateral pursuant to the Public Depository Security Act of the State of Florida (Florida Statute 280). Investments Florida Statutes and the District's investment policy authorize investments in certificates of deposit and savings accounts. Certificates of deposit and savings accounts whose values exceed the amount of federal depository insurance are collateralized pursuant to the Public Depository Security Act of the State of Florida (Florida Statute 280). At September 30, 2011, the District held no such investments. However, its cash accounts were held in interest bearing accounts. NOTE C - DUE TO/FROM OTHER FUNDS Interfund receivables and payables at September 30, 2011 are as follows: Fund Fund Mitigation Land Bank Fund NGGE ROMA Fund Due from Due to other funds Other funds $ 0 $ 0 0 0 Total $ 0 $ 0 Interfund receivables and payables are eliminated for presentation purposes in the Statement of Net Assets, at September 30, 2011. 18 .a Bank Balance General Fund $ 119,771 Depository Accounts Special Revenue Fund Depository Account 68,374 188 145 Carrying Amount $ 121,015 68,674 189,6807 These deposits were entirely insured by federal depository insurance or by collateral pursuant to the Public Depository Security Act of the State of Florida (Florida Statute 280). Investments Florida Statutes and the District's investment policy authorize investments in certificates of deposit and savings accounts. Certificates of deposit and savings accounts whose values exceed the amount of federal depository insurance are collateralized pursuant to the Public Depository Security Act of the State of Florida (Florida Statute 280). At September 30, 2011, the District held no such investments. However, its cash accounts were held in interest bearing accounts. NOTE C - DUE TO/FROM OTHER FUNDS Interfund receivables and payables at September 30, 2011 are as follows: Fund Fund Mitigation Land Bank Fund NGGE ROMA Fund Due from Due to other funds Other funds $ 0 $ 0 0 0 Total $ 0 $ 0 Interfund receivables and payables are eliminated for presentation purposes in the Statement of Net Assets, at September 30, 2011. 18 .a 16Ih�A1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE D - DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS Due from other governments consists of the following at September 30, 2011: Due from South Florida Water Management District NOTE E - CAPITAL ASSETS ACTIVITY The following is a summary of changes in capital assets activity for the year ended September 30, 2011 (Note — During 2011, $17,715 of capital assets that were fully depreciated and no longer in use were retired): Capital Assets Not Being Depreciated: Land Total Capital Assets Not Being Depreciated Capital Assets Not Being Depreciated: Equipment Total Capital Assets Being Depreciated Less Accumulated Depreciation: Equipment Total Accumulated Depreciation Total Capital Assets Being Depreciated, Net Capital Assets, Net Balance Balance Increases/ Decreases/ October 1, Additions Retirements September 30, 2010 2011 41,265 $ 41,265 41,265 - - 41,265 45,499 - (17,715) 27,784 45,499 - (,17,715) 27,784 (41,0901 (3,909) 17,715 27 284 (41,090 (3,909) 17,715 (27,284) 4,409 (3,909) - 500 $ 45,674 $ (3,909) $ 41,765 19 1611' "�1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE E - CAPITAL ASSETS ACTIVITY, CONTINUED Depreciation expense was charged to the following functions during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011: Amount General Government - Administration 3,909 Total Depreciation Expense $ 3,909 NOTE F - LONG -TERM LIABILITIES The District had no such debt for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011. NOTE G - RETIREMENT PLAN Plan description and provisions Effective October 1, 2001, all District employees, both full -time and part-time, became participants in the statewide Florida Retirement System (FRS) under the authority of Article X, Section 14 of the State Constitution and Florida Statutes, Chapters 112 and 121. The FRS is noncontributory and is totally administered by the State of Florida. The District contributed 100% of the required contributions. Pension costs for the District 9.85% of gross wages for the year ended September 30, 2011. The District's contributions to the plan were $15,559, $13,825, and $14,462 for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. The District's covered payroll expense for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2011, 2010, and 2009 was $166,817, $161,536, and $139,871, respectively. There were no employee contributions permitted or made to the plan. Employees who retire at or after age 62 with 6 years of creditable service, 6 years of senior management service and age 62, 6 years of special risk service and age 55, or 30 years of service (25 years for special risk) regardless of age, are entitled to a retirement benefit, payable monthly for life, equal to 1.5% to 3.3% per year of creditable service, depending on the class of employee (regular, special risk, etc.) based on average final compensation of the five (5) highest fiscal years' compensation. Benefits vest after 6 years (6 years for senior management) of credited service. Vested employees may retire anytime after vesting and incur a 5% benefit reduction for each year prior to normal retirement age. 20 1611' "A1 r COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE G - RETIREMENT PLAN, CONTINUED Plan description and provisions, continued Early retirement, disability, death, and survivor benefits are also offered. Benefits are established by State Statute. The plan provides for a constant 3% cost -of- living adjustment for retirees. The Plan also provides several other plan and/or investment options that may be elected by the employee. Each offers specific contribution and benefit options. The Plan documents should be referenced for complete detail. Description of funding policy This is a cost sharing, multi - employer plan available to governmental units within the state and actuarial information with respect to an individual participating entity is not available. Participating employers are required, by statute, to pay monthly contributions at actuarially determined rates that, expressed as percentages of annual covered payroll, are adequate to accumulate sufficient assets to pay benefits when due. Plan information A copy of the FRS's June 30, 2011 annual report can be obtained by writing to the Florida Division of Retirement, Cedars Executive Center, 2639 -C North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1560, or by calling (850) 488 -5706. NOTE H - SELF - INSURANCE PROGRAM The District is a member of the Florida League of Cities self - insurers program for general liability, auto, property and workers' compensation. The program purchases excess and other specific coverages from third party carriers. Members of the program are billed annually for their portion of the program and are not assessable for unanticipated losses incurred by the program. Maximum liability coverage is $200,000. Premiums charged during the year totaled $6,755. Other types of insurances are carried by the District through third party insurance carriers. 21 16I 1,- `A1 �' COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE I - OPERATIONAL SUPPORT The District's operations are supported in part by the United States Department of Agriculture through the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS). As such, the partnership with NRCS provides the District with its office space and other occupancy costs including but not limited to utilities, janitorial services, and telephone service at no cost to the District. The NRCS also provides the District the use of office equipment at no cost. The benefit of such subsidies is not reflected within the financial statements as no objective basis is available to value these benefits. NOTE J - ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE The District's operations are substantially dependent on the receipt of revenue from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ( FDACS) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Loss of these funds and/or large decreases in this type of funding would have a material effect on the District and a negative impact on overall operations. For the year ended September 30, 2011, 96% of total General Fund revenue is attributable to funds received from the FDACS and SFWMD. NOTE K - MITIGATION LAND BANK FUND ACTIVITY During the year ended September 30, 2011, the Mitigation Land Bank Fund had the following activity: 22 Amount Deferred revenue, October 1, 2010 $ 63,235 Land Bank receipts 633 Interest income receipts 60 Less: Land Purchase - Professional and Consulting Fees (5,600) Administrative Fees (1,200) Administrative Expenses (1,094) Bank fees and Interest expense (415) Deferred revenue, September 30, 2011 $ 55,619 22 16 t "O"A I COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE L - NGGE ROMA FUND ACTIVITY During the year ended September 30, 2011, the NGGE ROMA Fund had the following activity: NOTE M - COMMITMENTS Land Trust The District has a Mitigation Land Bank agreement with a real estate developer which required the developer to transfer $140,000 to the District for the purchase of approximately 30 acres of undeveloped wetlands. The District is, further, required to then enhance, manage and hold in perpetuity the respective wetlands purchased. The District has the right to transfer the land to another entity for long -term management and ownership at its discretion subject to approval by the Army Corp of Engineers. The developer entered the agreement to provide off -site compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impact related to a specific real estate development. The agreement has no stated time -frame for the related land purchase. The funds are being accounted for in the Special Revenue Fund Mitigation Land Bank Fund. During fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, the District purchased 2.28 acres of undeveloped wetland for approximately $41,265. 23 Amount Deferred revenue, October 1, 2010 $ 34,983 Mitigation credit receipts 1,728 Interest income receipts 21 Less: Labor and Contract Labor (13,896) Administrative & Professional Fees (9,724) Bank fees (357) Deferred revenue, September 30, 2011 $ 12,755 NOTE M - COMMITMENTS Land Trust The District has a Mitigation Land Bank agreement with a real estate developer which required the developer to transfer $140,000 to the District for the purchase of approximately 30 acres of undeveloped wetlands. The District is, further, required to then enhance, manage and hold in perpetuity the respective wetlands purchased. The District has the right to transfer the land to another entity for long -term management and ownership at its discretion subject to approval by the Army Corp of Engineers. The developer entered the agreement to provide off -site compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impact related to a specific real estate development. The agreement has no stated time -frame for the related land purchase. The funds are being accounted for in the Special Revenue Fund Mitigation Land Bank Fund. During fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, the District purchased 2.28 acres of undeveloped wetland for approximately $41,265. 23 1611`AS COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 2011 NOTE M - COMMITMENTS, CONTINUED Regional Offsite Mitigation Area The District has an agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry for the enhancement, management, and future acquisition of a Regional offsite Mitigation Area. The activities are funded through the sale of mitigation credits on single - family residential construction impacting the north Golden Gate Estates area. Once the agreement's success criteria are achieved, the District will transfer the funds in the management account to the Division of Forestry which will assume the long -term management of the enhancement area. NOTE N - CONTINGENCIES The District is involved from time to time in certain routine litigation, the substance of which, either as liabilities or recoveries, would not materially affect the financial position of the District. Although the final outcome of the lawsuits, assertions, and claims or the exact amount of costs and /or potential recovery is not presently determinable, in the opinion of the District's legal counsel, the resolution of these matters -are not anticipated to have a materially adverse effect on the financial condition of the District. As a general policy, the District plans to contest any such matter. NOTE O - EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF BUDGET Florida Statute 189.418(3) prohibits actual expenses in excess of budgeted expenditures. We, however, noted during the year ended September 30, 2011 that the District did expend some small amounts in excess of approved budget in the General Fund. We did note that the expenditures were approved by the Board of Supervisors but that the budget was not formally increased as required by Statute. 24 161 i*"A1 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OTHER THAN MD&,A COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - GENERAL FUND - SUMMARY STATEMENT Year Ended September 30, 2011 REVENUES Charges for services LWC AG MIL BCB Urban MIL Lee County MIL Cape Coral MIL Malibu Lakes Administrative Fees ROMA Administrative Fees ROMA Application Fees Interest income Miscellaneous income Carryover TOTAL REVENUES 161 !`A1 EXPENDITURES Current General government - Administration Personal services Operating expenditures Capital outlay Debt service Principal reduction Interest and fiscal charges TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ FUND BALANCE - Beginning FUND BALANCE - Ending 186,963 General Fund 182,377 4,586 27,633 27,633 29,054 (1,421) Original Final Actual Variance Favorable Budget Budget (Unfavorable) $ 144,071 $ 144,071 $ 144,071 $ - 55,000 55,000 55,000 3,494 3,494 3,203 (291) 3.494 3.494 3,785 291 1,000 1,000 200 (800) 24 24 13 (11) 203 203 41 (162) 100.000 100.000 - (,100.000) 307,286 307,286 206,313 (100,973) EXPENDITURES Current General government - Administration Personal services Operating expenditures Capital outlay Debt service Principal reduction Interest and fiscal charges TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ FUND BALANCE - Beginning FUND BALANCE - Ending 186,963 186,963 182,377 4,586 27,633 27,633 29,054 (1,421) 214,596 214.596 211.431 3.165 92.690 $ 92.690 $ The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 25 (5 118) $ 125.685 97.808 16 I t 0, A 1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - GENERAL FUND - DETAILED STATEMENT Year Ended September 30, 2011 REVENUES Charges for services LWC AG MIL BCB Urban MIL Lee County MIL Cape Coral MIL Malibu Lakes Administrative Fees ROMA Administrative Fees ROMA Application Fees Interest income Miscellaneous income Carryover TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES Current Operating Expenditures Personal services Salaries, taxes and benefits Retirement TOTAL - PERSONAL SERVICES Office Expenses Computer Equipment Office Supplies Other Supplies Books and Publications Postage and Shipping Bank Service Charges Office Expenses - Other TOTAL - OFFICE EXPENSES Other Operating Expenses Dues Insurance Printing/ Advertising Professional Fees Cellular Phone Vehicle Expenses Training Subtotal - Other Operating Expenses General Fund Original Final 166,818 Variance Budget Budget Actual Favorable 186.963 186.963 182.377 (Unfavorable) $ 144,071 $ 144,071 $ 144,071 $ - 55,000 55,000 55,000 17 3,494 3,494 3,203 (291) 3.494 3.494 3,785 291 1,000 1,000 200 (800) 24 24 13 (11) 203 203 41 (162) 100.000 100,000 3.072 (100.000) 307,286 307,286 206,313 (100,973) 171,500 171,500 166,818 4,682 15.463 15.463 15.559 (96) 186.963 186.963 182.377 4.586 1,199 1,199 1,184 15 500 500 483 17 320 320 632 (312) 100 100 254 (154) 150 150 105 45 60 60 118 (58) 1.200 1.200 296 904 3.529 3.529 3.072 457 755 755 710 45 9,509 9,509 8,087 1,422 1,878 1,878 692 1,186 6,000 6,000 9,366 (3,366) 1,140 1,140 1,232 (92) 2,769 2,769 5,339 (2,570) 400 400 - 400 22.451 22.451 25.426 (2,975) The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 26 161 !" "A COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE — BUDGET AND ACTUAL — GENERAL FUND — DETAILED STATEMENT, CONTINUED Year Ended September 30, 2011 Other Operating Expenses (Continued) Travel Florida Plats Sales Tax Contingency Fund IFAS Citrus Grove Irrigation Project TOTAL — OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES TOTAL — OPERATING EXPENSES CAPITAL OUTLAY Equipment TOTAL — CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE Principal reduction Interest and fiscal charges TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE — BEGINNING FUND BALANCE - ENDING Original Final Budeet Budeet 13 13 8 8 1,330 1,330 23.802 23.802 $ 214.294 $ 214.294 302 302 214,596 214,596 $ 92.690 $ 92.690 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 27 General Fund Variance Favorable Actual (Unfavorable) 327 (314) 8 87 1,243 25,840 (2.038) $ 211,289 $ 3.005 142 160 211,431 3.165 $ (5.118) $ 125.685 $ 120,67 $ (97.808) 161 7`'A1 COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - SUMMARY STATEMENT Year Ended September 30, 2011 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 28 Mitigation Land Bank Fund REVENUES Original Final Actual Variance Favorable Budget Budget (Unfavorable) Interest Income $ 106 $ 106 $ 60 $ (46) Income 2,811 2,811 633 (2,178) HSCA Phase I _ _ _ Carryover 63,235 63,235 7,616 (55,619) TOTAL REVENUES 66,152 66,152 8,309 (57,843) EXPENDITURES Current Reporting/ Monitoring Expense - - _ Land Management Labor - - _ Administrative Fees 1,200 1,200 1,200 - Professional Fees 48,053 48,053 5,600 42,453 Printing/ Reproduction 582 582 582 - Postage and Delivery 212 212 212 Supplies/ Miscellaneous Expenses 300 300 300 - Service Charge 453 453 415 38 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 50,800 50,800 8,309 42,491 DEBT SERVICE Principal Advances 0 0 Principal Reductions 0 0 Interest and Fiscal Charges 0 0 NET — DEBT SERVICE COSTS 0 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 50,800 50,800 8,309 42,491 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 15,352 15,352 - (15,352) FUND BALANCE — BEGINNING FUND BALANCE - ENDING The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 28 1611"Al COLLIER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - SUMMARY STATEMENT Year Ended September 30, 2011 NGGE ROMA Fund REVENUES Original Final Actual Variance Favorable Budeet Budeet (Unfavorable) _ Interest income $ 57 $ 57 $ 21 $ (36) Mitigation Credits Purchased 9,677 9,677 1,728 (7,949) Carryover 133.760 133.760 22.228 (111.532) TOTAL REVENUES 143.494 143.494 23.977 _ (119.517) EXPENDITURES Current Report Preparation 7,500 7,500 5,525 1,975 Chemicals Expense 8,034 8,034 3,196 4,838 Labor — ROMA Monitoring - - - - Labor — ROMA Treatments 90,000 90,000 10,700 79,300 Equipment — Monitoring Supplies - - - - Equipment — Other - - - - Administrative fees 939 939 1,200 (261) Contract Labor - - - - Bank Service Charges 329 329 357 (28) Miscellaneous - - 455 (455) Postage and Delivery 166 166 212 (46) Printing and Reproduction 455 455 582 (127) .. Professional Fees 939 939 1,450 (511) Supplies 234 234 300 (66) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 108,596 108,596 23.977 84.619 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $ 34.898 $ 34.898 - $ (34.898) FUND BALANCE — BEGINNING FUND BALANCE - ENDING The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. 29 161'1' A l ADDITIONAL REPORTS OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL P.O. Box 771177 Naples, FL 34107 16 I !-I i INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS Board of Supervisors Collier Soil and Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, Florida 34120 We have audited the basic financial statements of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District as of and for the year ended September 30, 2011 and have issued our report thereon dated June 20, 2012. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our audit procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the basic financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We identified no deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be significant deficiencies. 30 1611' �A1 A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the entity's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's basic financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the basic financial Y statements will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in the internal control that might be significant deficiencies and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all significant deficiencies that are also considered to be material weaknesses. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether Collier Soil and Water Conservation District's basic financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of basic financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. We also noted certain other matters that we reported to management of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District in a separate letter dated June 20, 2012. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Supervisors, management, the Auditor General of the State of Florida, and other federal and state audit agencies. This report is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL Naples, Florida June 20, 2012 31 Mark K. Stout, SPA, PL 161 1' .4A 1 P.O. Box 771177 Naples, FL 34107 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT TO MANAGEMENT Board of Supervisors Collier Soil and Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 We have audited the basic financial statements of Collier Soil and Water Conservation District (the "District ") as of and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 and have issued our report thereon dated June 20, 2012. In connection with our audit, we are submitting the following comments and recommendations in accordance with Chapter 10.550 "Rules of the Auditor General - Local Governmental Entity Audits" (Revised September 30, 2010) Rule 10.557(3) and Section 218.39(4) of the Florida Statutes. Prior Year Comments That No LonEer Apply: 1. Deteriorating Financial Condition Should Be Monitored Although we do not believe the District to be in a state of financial emergency, the District had previously exhibited a decrease in a certain indicator of a deteriorating financial condition in comparison to its peer group. Our financial condition assessment of the District included the use of many procedures, including the indicator testing criteria established by the Office of the Auditor General of the State of Florida (Rule 10.550). The use of such criteria had previously indicated that the unreserved, undesignated fund balance was decreasing and lower than its peer group. The unreserved, undesignated fund balance has stopped decreasing as a result of steps taken by the District and remains only slightly below its peer group. Thus we believe all prior year management letter comments seemed to have been satisfactorily addressed by management and staff and require no further additional comment this year. We have included in this letter all comments which came to our attention during the course of our audit regarding Item 1, as applicable, of the "Rules of the Auditor General -Local Governmental Entity Audits," Rule 10.554, Section (1)(i). In regard to Item 1, nothing came to our attention to cause us to believe that at any time during the year the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District met any of the criteria for being in a state of financial emergency as defined in Florida Statute 218.503(1). In regard to item 7(c)(1), we applied financial condition assessment procedures pursuant to Rule 10.556(7) and noted the correction of the indicator of deteriorating financial condition as defined by Statute. 32 16 11► "A 1 As such, we do not believe the District to be in a state of financial emergency as a consequence of conditions described in Section 218.503(1) of the Florida Statutes. Additionally, in regard to Item 7(b), we represent that the financial report filed with the Department of Financial Services, pursuant to Florida Statute 218.32(1)(a), is in agreement with the annual financial audit report for the same period. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Supervisors, management, the Auditor General of the State of Florida, and other federal and state audit agencies. This report is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Mark K. Stout, CPA, PL Naples, Florida June 20, 2012 33 CL a] to fD 0 to A 3 =1 CL 03 2 0 (D CD o In N, o CL 0 3 IL to CL CL o min m C M-0 D , CD (D :) c to C :1 0 rL ZI. me Z SIE iA CL C 41 Z Oa 0 =03 Dol , Z--0 3 -n 0 =r o CD n 0' LO > c -n a a o (D N a-r co CL F-I n ❑ z F-I Fx-1 0 Z -0 > > 16 1 1• "' A I > 0 14 > Mo� Z c 93. r 0 fA a c M :3 -n3 3 CO cn 0 :3 ,p Sm can ;o C, (D 0 CD Cl) CL C> (D -4 W CL CL -OD C CL (A CD PV CID M > O n: fn CD cl :3 Z 0 v > CL M -U 3 --T z CL 0 :3 Im 0 5� > 3 'n M 1 11 3 z CL r- 0 Cl C_ fo .5 C) CA a) B 0 0 CL CD C> a 0 cn w r O CL CD 341 Z -0 > > > 0 > > bg c 93. r 0 a c M :3 (D r- -4 -4 W CL -OD C CL PV CID M > 3 n: fn CD cl Ak � � (D $ / 40 fu | & Ul 16 | 1 to A )� }/ §/ \ o: g� }\ / < �i i § ! @ : to (ƒ :� : K )$ �m �/ �� n V C 3 N N �O N O N .Q N m f0 -A O -n Ln 1611' "A1 itl 3 cQ C 0) m n O 3 bD S/ O 7 in r& / m w Ln . Its" 161 ■ ! . � � / !! o: , ■ / � �� / m w Ln . Its" 161 ■ ! . � !! o: , ■ � �� ; & f : : o) �! £ .! K ; ®! �� ol -. ( ®� . . a .. ..� ! � . ! � � (�$ | � � � $ . � ■ 2: (�ƒ }22 � � : ■2 : 4 Q O CA O H 16 I tr "A 1 X 9D xm Collier Soil and Water Conservation District Y� '; Den a 1 airma ,� 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 qw August 15, 2011 Clerk of Circuit Court Finance Department 2671 Airport Road S., Court Plaza. III Naples, FL 34112 To Whom It May Concern: The Collier Soil & Water Conservation District holds its regular business meeting on the third Thursday of each month, for the fiscal year 2012 -2013. The meetings are held at the Collier County Extension Service at 14700 Immokalee Road starting at 8:30 a.m. Sincerely, Y Kim Bucceri Administration Collier Soil & Water Conservation District Bruce Reichert Stan Weiner Dennis P. Vasey Tom Cravens James Lang Supervisor, Seat 1 Supervisor, Seat 2 Supervisor, Seat 3 Supervisor, Seat 4 Supervisor, Seat 5 Web Site: http: / /www.collierswcd.org August 29, 2012 6th Collier Soil & Water Conservation District 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida 34120 Phone (239)- 455 -4100 • Fax (239) 455 -2693 Email: cswcd ,comcast.net Clerk of Circuit Court Finance Department 2671 Airport Road S., Court Plaza III Naples, FL 34112 To Whom It May Concern: R ECEIVED Mp 0 9 9nlry FINANCE This is to advise you that the Collier Soil & Water Conservation District is updating its Public Facilities Report. As of August 29, 2012 the following holds true for the Collier Soil & Water Conservation District ( CSWCD): 1. The CSWCD does not own or operate any Public Facility. 2. The CSWCD does not have any plans in the works to build, improve or expand a Public Facility. 3. There are no Public Facilities that the CSWCD are proposing to replace. Sincerely, Kim Bucceri Administrative Assistant Collier Soil & Water Conservation District 161 Ik "A 1 Collier Soil and Water Conservation District Dennis P. Vasey, Chairman 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 August 29, 2012 Clerk of Circuit Court Finance Department 2671 Airport Road S., Court Plaza. III Naples, FL 34112 To Whom It May Concern: This is to advise you that the Collier Soil & Water Conservation District has no Outstanding Bonds (s189.418). Sincerely, *� f-)aeee"L61 Kim Bucceri Administration Collier Soil & Water Conservation District Bruce Reichert Stan Weiner Dennis P. Vasey Tom Cravens James Lang Supervisor, Seat 1 Supervisor, Seat 2 Supervisor, Seat 3 Supervisor, Seat 4 Supervisor, Seat 5 Web Site: http: / /www.collierswcd.org Collier Soil and Water Conservation District Dennis P. ISO, lailain w A 1 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 0 August 29, 2012 Clerk of Circuit Court Finance Department 2671 Airport Road S., Court Plaza. III Naples, FL 34112 To Whom It May Concern: Following is a list of the current board members for the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District. Seat 1 Bruce Reichert 297 Sabal Lake Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Seat 2 Stan Weiner 9881 Clear Lake Circle Naples, FL 34109 Seat 3 Dennis P. Vasey — Chair 4398 Longshore Way Naples, FL 34119 Seat 4 Tom Cravens 6075 Pelican Bay Blvd., #703 Naples, FL 34108 Seat 5 Jim Lang 826 Saturn Ct. Marco Island, FL 34145 Sincerely, rt' . Kim Bucceri Administration Collier Soil & Water Conservation District Bruce Reichert Stan Weiner Dennis P. Vasey Tom Cravens James Lang Supervisor, Seat 1 Supervisor, Seat 2 Supervisor, Seat 3 Supervisor, Seat 4 Supervisor, Seat 5 Web Site: http: / /www.collierswcd.org Collier Soil & Water Conservation District 12:22 PM Profit & Loss Budget Overview 05/15/2012 October 2012 through September 2013 Accrual Basis 6139 • Internet Service Fees Oct'12 - Sep 13 Ordinary Income/Expense 750.00 Income 510.00 4010 • Admin. Fee - ROMA 1,050.00 4033 • Admin. Fee - Malibu Lakes 2,100.00 4000 • ROMA Application Fees 200.00 4030 • Carry Over - Prior Year 135,000.00 4044 • Interest 11.40 4100 • MIL 3,550.00 4110 • BCB Urban MIL 55,000.00 4120 • LWC AG MIL 144,071.00 Total 4100 • MIL 199,071.00 Total Income 337,432.40 Gross Profit 337,432.40 Expense 6145 • Equipment Expense 150.00 6100 • Conserv/Res. Mgmt Expenses 6130 • Office Expenses 610.20 6139 • Internet Service Fees 1,200.00 6131 • CSWCD Computer Equipment 750.00 6132 • Office Supplies 510.00 6134. Other Supplies 420.00 6136 • Books/Publications 300.00 6138 • Postage /Fed Ex 120.00 6140 • Bank Service Charge 0.00 6130 • Office Expenses - Other 250.00 Total 6130 • Office Expenses 3,550.00 6150 • Payroll Expenses 6190 • Incentives/Awards 650.00 6152 • Payroll Expenses 6152.7 • AFLAC Accident Ins. - Employee 610.20 6152.6 • AFLAC Life Insurance - Employee 427.44 6152.1 • Employer MC 2,210.06 6152.2 • Employer FICA 9,449.93 6152 • Payroll Expenses - Other 0.00 Total 6152 • Payroll Expenses 12,697.63 6165 • Other Taxes 6166 • FUTA Tax 0.00 6167 - UCT-6 Tax 3,768.00 Total 6165 • Other Taxes 3,768.00 1611 A I Page 1 of 2 1611A1 Oct 12-Sep 13 6180 Health Insurance 5,600.00 6150•Payroll Expenses-Other 172,800.00 Total 6150•Payroll Expenses 195,515.63 6200•Florida Retirement System 6210•James Nikolich 3,807.37 6209•Kimberly Bucceri 3,504.91 6201 •Bill Gaddis 3,806.80 6208•Mark Siverling 4,426.73 6200•Florida Retirement System-Other 12,240.00 Total 6200•Florida Retirement System 27,785.81 6250•Dues 710.00 6260•Insurance 6,801.00 6270•Printing/Advertising 696.00 6280•Professional Fees 9,275.00 6290•Cellular Phone 1,146.48 6300•Vehicle Expense 6301 -Vehicle Expense-Gas&Oil 1,560.00 6305•Vehicle Repair&Maintenance 1,800.00 Total 6300•Vehicle Expense 3,360.00 6310-Training 300.00 6320•Travel 504.00 6370•Miscellaneous 100.00 Total 6100•Conserv/Res.Mgmt Expenses 249,743.92 Total Expense 249,893.92 Net Ordinary Income 87,538.48 Net Income 87,538.48 Page 2 of 2 12:18 PM Collier Soil and Water Land Trust Accrual 16 ! 1 Al Accrual Basis Profit & Budget Overview October 2012 through September 2013 Oct 12-Sep 13 Ordinary Income/Expense Income Income from Interest 60.50 Land Trust Revenue 633.00 Total Income 693.50 Expense Reporting/Monitoring Expense 800.00 Land Mngt.Labor 1,600.00 Administrative Fees 360.00 Professional Fees and Charges Consulting Fees 540.00 Accounting Fees 540.00 Total Professional Fees and Charges 1,080.00 Printing,Reproduction 396.00 Postage and Delivery 144.00 Supplies/Misc.Expenses 120.00 Service Charge 433.20 Total Expense 4,933.20 Net Ordinary Income -4,239.70 Other Income/Expense Other Income Carry Over 50,500.00 Total Other Income 50,500.00 Net Other Income 50,500.00 Net Income 46,260.30 Page 1 of 1 12:16 PM Collier Soil and Water - ROMA o5h5M2 Accrual Basis Profit & Loss Budget Overview 16 I 1 A 1 October 2012 through September 2013 Oct'12-Sep 13 Ordinary Income/Expense Income CarryOver 30,100.00 Interest 9.00 Mitigation Credits Purchased 1,200.00 Total Income 31,309.00 Expense Report Preparation 5,525.00 Administrative Fees 150.00 Bank Service Charges 357.05 Postage and Delivery 90.00 Printing and Reproduction 150.00 Professional Fees Accounting 240.00 Consulting 300.00 Total Professional Fees 540.00 Supplies 120.00 Total Expense 6,932.05 Net Ordinary Income 24,376.95 Net Income 24,376.95 Page 1 of 1 t7 1611 Al is .... Collier Soil and Water Conservation District Agriculture Center, 14700 Immokalee Road - Naples,FL 34120 Phone(239)455-4100 - FAX(239)455-2693 - District Boundary t 0 61114Tismindu FAMIIVIR vr-A ec-.1), . 4 IP" I).../0:4744.7 . JP°b 4 :Vti*OP 1 itte P • ':iwjs %I ' ,LLB i . lint, likl-v,tailialt.,..m; - l Allt _ ill SL Pete vac. cxk . . ,�-. _ M Not it . . - VigilArl .lifer Soil: & Ha - ', .. . - District Conservation_ - _ fit; . 4. • t CONSERVATION • DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT 161"1 A'2 j NO a iCE OF THE 2012 ANNUAL, MEMBERSHIP MEETING OF Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. Op��II�� To All Members: BY ........................ The Annual Membership Meeting for Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. will be held on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM at the Riviera Golf Estates Clubhouse, 425 Charlemagne Blvd., Naples, Florida 34112. If you have submitted your name as a candidate for the Board of Directors, your information sheets (if supplied) will be attached to this notice for the Condominium Members to review. AGENDA 1. Certifying Quorum —Call to Order by President RECEIVED 2. Proof of Notice of the Meeting or Waiver of Notice 3. Reading and Disposal of Unapproved Minutes JAN 3 0 2012 4. Election of Directors 5. Report of Officers / FINANCE 6. Report of Committees Fiala 7. Unfinished Business Hiller 8. New Business Henning 9. Adjournment Coyle: Coletta Note: If a majority of the Directors so elect, an organizational meeting of the Board of Directors will be held immediately upon the adjournment of the Annual Meeting for the purpose of electing officers and such other business as may lawfully be conducted. The Directors present at the Annual Meeting may decide to defer the organizational meeting to a later time, in which case notice will be given through further posting. AGENDA ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 1. Call meeting to order 2. Reading and disposal of unapproved minutes 3. Election of officers 4. Adjournment Dated: January 24, 2012 "Aisc.: crres: Date: 1 eAgkk'L item #: % VA2 COMPASS MANAGEMENT GROUP SnieS t0: 3701 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, FL 34103 (239) 593 -1233 FAX (239) 593 -1116 161'1 A2 IMPORTANCE OF PROXIES A quorum of Association Members, as described in the Association By -Laws, must be present, in person or by proxy, at the meeting, in order for the business to be conducted. It is VERY IMPORTANT that you either attend the meeting or provide a limited proxy in order to conduct business at this Annual Membership Meeting. A proxy and envelope is enclosed for your convenience. If you are voting by proxy, please send the signed original of your proxy to the Association in the envelope provided. All originals must be received by the beginning of the meeting. Note: Please mail your proxy in order to achieve the necessary number required for of the membership or be present at the meetina. LIMITED PROXY 16 A 2 The undersigned, owner(s) or designated voter, of address , in Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. appoints (PRINT NAME OF PROXYHOLDER) or if I have not appointed a proxy above, I hereby appoint the Secretary of the Association, as my proxy holder, to attend the Annual Membership Meeting of Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. The meeting is to be held on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM at the Riviera Golf Estates Clubhouse, 425 Charlemagne Blvd., Naples, Florida 34112. The proxy holder named above has the authority to vote and act for me to the same extent that I would if personally present, with power of substitution, except that my proxy holder's authority is limited as indicated below: THIS IS A LIMITED PROXY FOR THE ISSUE(S) LISTED BELOW. IT WILL BE USED AS A GENERAL PROXY ONLY TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM AND FOR VOTES ON PARLIAMENTARY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES. FOR YOUR VOTE TO COUNT ON THE ISSUE(S) LISTED BELOW, YOU MUST PERSONALLY MARK YOUR PREFERENCE WHERE INDICATED. IF YOU DO NOT PERSONALLY VOTE ON THE ISSUE(S) LISTED BELOW, YOUR PROXYHOLDER WILL NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO VOTE FOR YOU. I authorize and instruct my proxy to use their best judgment on all other matters which properly come before the meeting and for which a general power may be used. LIr0ITED POWERS: (For your vote to be counted on the following issues, you must indicate your preference in the blanks provided below.) I specifically authorize and instruct my proxy holder to cast my vote in reference to the following matters as indicated below (The Board of Directors are in favor of all items listed below and recommends the Membership vote in favor as well): 1. Should an annual report of cash receipts and expenditures be prepared for 2012 fiscal year in lieu of a review, or audited financial statement? IN FAVOR OPPOSED 2. Vote to rollover any excess Association funds from the 2012 financial year into the 2013 operating budget (Board of Directors recommends voting in favor) IN FAVOR OPPOSED Designated Voter(s) Sign Here: Signature: Print Name: Date SUBSTITUTION OF PROXYHOLDER T he undersigned, appointed as proxy holder above, designates to substitute for me in voting the proxy set forth above. Date: Signature of proxy holder 161 1 A2 THIS PROXY IS REVOCABLE BY THE UNIT OWNER AND IS VALID ONLY FOR THE MEETING FOR WHICH IT IS GIVEN AND ANY LAWFUL ADJOURNMENT. IN NO EVENT IS THE PROXY VALID FOR MORE THAN NINETY (90) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL MEETING FOR WHICH IT WAS GIVEN. 161 1 A2 FAA OT Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. 21392 Annual Members Meeting February 22, 2092 Vote for up to four (4) candidates but not more than four (4) candidates. Mark an "X" beside the appropriate names: Rose Mary Bulat George Danz Paul A. Langford Gerald Stephen Montgomery Pam Mullins Michael Sigrist Ann M. Wallace (Write in candidate) (Write in candidate) (Write in candidate) Important Instructions: In order for your ballot to be valid and counted at the election the following must be followed. -If more than four (4) votes are cast, this ballot shall be deemed invalid and will not be counted in the official vote. -This ballot must be placed in the enclosed envelope marked "BALLOT" then placed into the larger outer envelope and returned. -The return address and signature portion of the outer envelope must be completed and returned prior to the start of the Annual Members meeting in order for the ballot to count. DO NOT SIGN THIS BALLOT OR THE ENVELOPE MARKED "BALLOT" Do not place proxies in any ballot envelope! Riviera o Estates 161 ` 1 A2 Homeowners Association, Inc. 425 Charlemag"Mvd, Naples, FL 34112 T el 239- 775-3573 Fax 239 -775 -4643 Email rivie?Wtl@gaPks -nd Board of Directors Candidate Interest Form Submit completed form to the RGE Office no later than January 16, 2012 1. Name: - M k 2. Address: i �- 3. Number of years an RGE Resident: C-)(La(L Year -round resident? (Y/N) � &� 4. If NOT a year -round resident, how many months are you normally here at RGE? 5. Have you previously served on the RGE Board of Directors? (Y/N) 1 �% If YES, for how many years? Year last served: (For items 6, 7 and 8, please use reverse side for additional comments.) 6. What is your main reason for wanting to be an RGE Board member? Coto C E"ee-Pi E-.0 P'G oU T (500- °1- l0 D UL-0 1.1 1« 1 )-iF-L P 7. List your volunteer experience at RGE (if any): i`5- co 20► Nc, C 2 E TA 2-Y -'f-6 t f� 8. List any other life or work experiences that make you qualified to be a Board of Director at RGE: -L r� L �+Z L-0 U E-P—,j-L rat /3� ti4 4C f— i", EA-) X 09 ( 9. Optional resume attached? (Y/N) , fl) O An Over "55" Covenwa Restricted Community Candidate for RGE Board of Directors George Danz 813 Charlemagne Blvd. Naples, FL 34112 (239) 774 -2618 E -mail: georgedanz @prodigy.net 61 1A2 My wife Sally and I moved from Michigan to the Fort Lauderdale in December 1984 when I accepted the position of Emergency Services Director for Broward County. In July 2001, we bought our house in Riviera Golf Estates. We would come to Naples on weekends until I retired and we moved here permanently in June 2010. We try to spend three months during the summer traveling or in Michigan. Most of my professional career was in public safety as a Fire Chief or Director in Michigan, Wisconsin and Broward County. In Broward County, I was responsible for the Emergency Services Division (Fire & EMS) which had 490 full time employees and a budget of $32.5 million. Thus, I have some experience in managing a mid size organization. My last position in Broward County was Director of the County's Trauma Management Agency. This agency monitored, coordinated and regulated the trauma service activities of 19 hospitals and the EMS agencies. I am a member of the Men's Club, Computer Club and the East Naples Civic Association. I currently serve as Vice- President on the Board of Directors of the International Association of Fire Chiefs Foundation. I believe we have a fantastic community in RGE. My primary reason for wanting to be on the Board is to assist in any way I can in maintaining and/or enhancing the quality of life we have in the most cost effective manner possible. Your vote would be greatly appreciated. Have a SUNsational day. C: / /George/MndResRGE011612 �i-viera Go�rEsraes 161 1 Homeowners Association, Inc. 423 C"ia Blvd, Naples, FL 34112 Td 23-9-775 -3373 Fax 239- 773 - 4643 E-nwUHvierqge@mvk&Ad Board of Directors Candidate Interest Form Submit completed form to the RGE Office no later than January 16, 2012 1. Name: 2. Address: 3. Number of years an RGE Resident: i! Year -round resident? (Y/N) 4. If NOT a year -round resident, how many months are you normally here at RGE? A2 5. Have you previously served on the RGE Board of Directors? (Y/N) If YES, for how many years? Year last served: J/ (For items 6, 7 and 8, please use reverse side for additional comments.) 6. What is your main reason for wanting to be an RGE Board member? 7. List your volunteer experience at RGE (if any): 8. List any other life or work experiences that make you qualified to be a Board of Director at RGE: 9. Optional resume attached? (Y/N) . VL> An Over "33" Covenant Restricted Cm utnity 16 I'l A2 Riviera Golf Estates, Homeowner , Association, Inc. 425 C7harlen�Blvd, Nqies, FL 34112 Tel 233- 773 =3573 Fac 239L775 -4643 Fail rivierage(gpW&mnd Board of Directors Candidate Interest Form Submit completed form to the RGE Office no later than January 16, 2012 1. Name: .. — A L- 2. Address: CC 3. Number of years an RGE Resident: % Year -round resident? (Y/N) L'� �- 4. If NOT a year -round resident, how many months are you normally here at RGE? 5. Have you previously served on the RGE Board of Directors? (Y/N) A-) C: If YES, for how many years? Year last served: (For items 6, 7 and 8, please use reverse side for additional comments.) 6. What is your main reason for wanting to be an RGE Board member? 157/Yl �t7� �s � AM 7. List your volunteer experience at RGE (if any): 8. List any other life or work experiences that make you qualified to be a Board of Director at RGE: 0a A1LE- '% W A `e ©2 -5 6; 1%,24 C— /►I''.077* S 5 :AC 14 f A- (2, 9. Optional resume attached? (Y/N) : ES An Over assn C'ovmwd ReMided Conte Gerald Stephen Montgomery 845 Charlemagne Blvd. Naples, FL 34112 1. Native of Indianapolis, Indiana. Attended public schools in Indianapolis and General Motors Institute in Michigan. 2. Married to the same lady for 53 years. We have three very successful daughters all of whom have great families. Our six grandchildren are promising works in progress. 3. Served five and one half years in the United States Army. Discharged as a First Lt. 4. Upon discharge worked for the Shell oil Company for five years and then started and ran automobile related businesses for thirty two years. 5. Homeowner (part time) in Naples since 1978. 6. We have lived on both coasts and in several states in the middle of the country. We are proud of our Hoosier heritage but are now legally and in our feelings Floridians. 7. IA2 Riviera ��states, 16 I i A2 jjfe0WheFSA9,,Y0Ciad6!K, 111C 425 Chwlanagne Blvd, Naples, FL 34112 Tel 239 - 7753573 Fax 239 - 775 -4643 Email rivierage&aple&nd Board of Directors Candidate Interest Form Submit completed form to the ROTE Office no later than January 16, 2012 1. Name: 2. Address: �1e9_5_'25�41 `,l.,s l,r�� 3. Number of years an RGE Resident: //7— Year -round resident? 6N) V'5_7 ; 4. If NOT a year -round resident, how many months are you normally here at RGE? 5. Have you previously served on the RGE Board of Directors? &N) If YES, for how many years? &— Year last served: ��i n_, /- (For items 6, 7 and 8, please use reverse side for additional comments.) 6. What is your main reason for wanting to be an RGE Board member? i _ �/ �j. 7. List your volunteer experience at RGE (if any): 8. List any other life or work experiences that make you qualified to be a Board of Director at RGE: IN 9. Optional resume attached? (Y ) An Over "55" COVM4 Ji Restricted CO/9F11 unky 161 1 a2 Riviera Wolf 'states Homeowners Association, Inc. 425 C*arkmag"Mvd, Naples, FL 34112 Tel 23-9-775 -3573 Fax 239-775 - 4643 E-nwU rivierageQnaplesnd Board of Directors Candidate Interest Form Submit completed form to the RGE Office no later than January 16, 2C 1. Name: Mir -KAeu `*Py s-r 2. Address: 101 VERS Al L LE5 Ct RGL.E ! 3. Number of years an RGE Resident: l l2 Year -round resident? (Y/N) YE5 Mike Sigrist 4. If NOT a year -round resident, how many months are you normally here at RGE? 5. Have you previously served on the RGE Board of Directors? (Y/N) ``' 0 If YES, for how many years? Year last served: (For items 6, 7 and 8, please use reverse side for additional comments.) 6. What is your main reason for wanting to be an RGE Board member? t AM 11�� EVrr- D 10 INGRIAStt�ICv PRnPetiy VALVES , M A ItJTArttJ I N G 1144 SEQJRMY of IRS RReSI rc M AND KEEPt NCB COSTS VOU100 7. List your volunteer experience at RGE (if any): 8. List any other life or work experiences that make you qualified to be a Board of Director at RGE: OWNED AND OFFRQTED AN PMA9D W(NNtN& ENGINEF.RtNcy ANI, MANOFACTOV N& CO- KPORAT1a N . 9. Optional resume attached? (Y/N) h'r7AC� An Over "SS" CoymantRes&i: Cmwnun4 161 1 k2 Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. 42.5 aWwkw%wMPd, NW&% FL 34112 W239-775-3573 F=239-775 4643 Fm, r&ier i1mnd Board of Directors tandidate Interest Form Submit completed form .to the RGE Office no later than January 16, 2012 1. Name: 2. Address: 09 IbO aL 3. Number of years an RGE Resident:_ Year -round resident? (Y/1) -4: If—NOT a-year- round- resideno w many-months are you normally - 5. Have you previously served on the RGE Board of Directors? (Y/1) If YES, for how many yam? —f Year last served: --' (For items 6, 7 and 8, please use reverse side for additional comments.) 6. What is your main reason for wanting to be an RGE Board member? Lw"l /I kL AO alli I- Uj - . - A lN% � Si-"- ldv"r) 7. List your volunteer experience at RGE (if any): CdR.Pfit�T'l.V 8. List any other life or work experiences that make you qualified to be a Board of Director at RGE: hr£i2. - 9.Optional resume attached? (Y/1) , /\( A�AV46 S I rC�aNr+ggc2 An Ova "551° comumW Rea*k&d Copma wsky Zu� jbh 50 7qC A-'�7 a 1� August 21, 2012 Mr. A. William Moss City Manager City of Naples City Hall 735 Eighth Street South Naples, Florida 34102 Mr. Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Collier County Manager 3299 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 -5746 Dear Messrs. Moss, Ochs and Brock: RECEIVED AUG 3 0 2012 Board of County Commissioners �Dwight E. Brock erk of the Circuit Court Collier County Courthouse Annex 3315 Tamiami Trail East Suite 102 Naples, Florida 34112 -5324 In accordance with Chapter 189 of the Florida Statutes we are required to provide to you at the beginning of each Fiscal Year a notice of our public meeting schedule and a District map. Enclosed is a copy of the District map and notice is being given that the Board of Supervisors of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District will hold their meetings for Fiscal Year 2013 at the Orchid Cove Clubhouse; 25005 Peacock Lane, Naples, Florida at 10:00 a.m. on the third Friday of each month as follows: October 19, 2012 November 16, 2012 December 21, 2012 January 18, 2013 February 15, 2013 March 15, 2013 April 19, 2013 May 17, 2013 June 21, 2013 July 19, 2013 August 16, 2013 September 20, 2013 If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 239 - 245 -7118. Fiala _ Hiller _ Henning Coyle Coletta Sincerely, ,, Nl�sc. Comes: Calvin Teague /js District Manager Date: �c��a��Z` Item #: �, Sa x \'A-22 ,Hies to 0 CD Port of the Islands Community Improvement Distri r= Severn Trent Services, Management Services Division 210 North University Drive, Suite 702 -Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Telephone: (954) 753 -5841- Fax: (954) 345 -1292 August 21, 2012 Mr. A. William Moss City Manager City of Naples City Hall 735 Eighth Street South Naples, Florida 34102 Mr. Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Collier County Manager 3299 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 -5746 Dear Messrs. Moss, Ochs and Brock: RECEIVED AUG 3 0 2012 Board of County Commissioners �Dwight E. Brock erk of the Circuit Court Collier County Courthouse Annex 3315 Tamiami Trail East Suite 102 Naples, Florida 34112 -5324 In accordance with Chapter 189 of the Florida Statutes we are required to provide to you at the beginning of each Fiscal Year a notice of our public meeting schedule and a District map. Enclosed is a copy of the District map and notice is being given that the Board of Supervisors of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District will hold their meetings for Fiscal Year 2013 at the Orchid Cove Clubhouse; 25005 Peacock Lane, Naples, Florida at 10:00 a.m. on the third Friday of each month as follows: October 19, 2012 November 16, 2012 December 21, 2012 January 18, 2013 February 15, 2013 March 15, 2013 April 19, 2013 May 17, 2013 June 21, 2013 July 19, 2013 August 16, 2013 September 20, 2013 If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 239 - 245 -7118. Fiala _ Hiller _ Henning Coyle Coletta Sincerely, ,, Nl�sc. Comes: Calvin Teague /js District Manager Date: �c��a��Z` Item #: �, Sa x \'A-22 ,Hies to 1611r,"(A3 -1 �• # zj lit N ' 1 1 • � � _ "ylrl NAPLES - RO, � +_ �Y �' • r i. .1 M T I • 1. �. M !. T ,� i __ h Y ft 4�: �nw � r � . ..�rv� 1_�•�. .. � � 'y 1 GpZIOEIA _ OLD 1. ; AT[L "Roo 33 ,r T, RDYAti rAU+ tai �%� .. -- ►u�u�ocx _ _ * _ _ a Gulf C2 •"° °" ; TR • - ►I Iu.O. Of Mexico W RCD a ,.. " Ten p Thouscnd M CAM X os(.v+o Is Io n d s Scale / 1111 VICINITY MAP \!v�i ,:, 161 � b3 9 AIRPLANE RUNWAY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT N.T. S. PORT OF THE ISLANDS PHASE ONE SueOIVISION PLATBOOK iZ, PGS. 122.123 1 11 I _Z Ij HOTS COMPLEX L--j BOAT DOCK I n. Z 0 LJ u- 21 LOCATION MAP 161 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Severn Trent Services, Management Services Division 210 North University Drive, Suite 702 — Coral Springs — Florida 33071 (954) 753 -5841 — (954) 345 -1292 Fax July 30, 2012 BY . ....................... Memorandum To: Mr. Robert Dick Severn Trent Services, Inc. 5726 Corporation Circle Fort Myers, Florida 33905 Reference: Minutes of Meeting Held June 15, 2012 and Approved July 20, 2012 From: Calvin Teague District Manager 1 Enclosed for your records is a copy of the minutes of the above- referenced meeting of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District's Board of Supervisors. Please be sure to make this document available for public access during normal business hours. If you have any questions, please contact Janice Swade at (954) 753 -5841. Cc: For informational purposes only: ,IAs. Crystal Kinzel Director Clerk of the Circuit Court/Finance Department 3299 Tamiami Trail East Suite 403 Naples, Florida 34112 -5746 Mr. Leo Ochs, Jr. Collier County Manager 3299 Tamiami Trail East Suite 202 Naples, Florida 34112 Fiala Hiller �"--- Henning Coyle Coletta Date: Item #:v._AZ Y'►11.) Copies to: I' REVISED AGENDA 3 161 1 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Friday Orchid Cove Clubhouse June 15, 2012 25005 Peacock Lane 10:00 a.m. Naples, Florida 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes of the May 18, 2012 Meeting. 3. Presentation by Ms. Janet Starns of the South Florida Water Management District Regarding Revisions to the Fahka Union Canal A. Audience Comments 4. Old Business A. Review of Landscape Maintenance Performance B. Discussion of Tree Trimming Proposal from Soto Lawn Services C. Update on Well Problems D. Discussion of Revised Management Services Contract 5. New Business A. Discussion of Repairs to Gun Club Property During Construction of the New Water Treatment Plant B. Discussion of U.S. 41 Median Flooding 6. District Manager's Report A. Approval of May 31, 2012 Financial Statements and Check Register B. Questions and Comments on Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 7. Field Manager's Report A. Discussion of May 2012 Operations Report B. Consideration of Letter of Understanding with Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. for Repair and Maintenance Budget Items 161 f 'jq3 MINUTES OF MEETING PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District was held Friday, June 15, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. at the Orchid Cove Clubhouse; 25005 Peacock Lane; Naples, Florida. Present and constituting a quorum were: Richard Ziko Chairman Norine Dillon Vice Chairperson Dale Lambert Assistant Secretary Charles Custer Assistant Secretary Theodore Bissell Assistant Secretary Also present were: Calvin Teague District Manager Daniel Cox District Counsel Ronald Benson District Engineer Robert Dick Severn Trent Services Robert Casey Field Manager, Severn Trent Services Robert Edge Lead Operator, Severn Trent Services Robert Migdal Severn Trent Services Janet Stares South Florida Water Management District Lacy Shaw U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ron Gilbert POI Realty Jean Kungle POI Realty Anthony Davis Orchid Cove HOA Kevin McPeal Orchid Cove Resident Randolph Resch Orchid Cove Resident Frank Hawkins Sunset Cay Resident The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the June 15, 2012 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District's Board of Supervisors Meeting. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call Mr. Teague called the meeting to order and called the roll. Friday, 7/6/12 June 15, 2012 1 6 1 1r1A3 Port of the Islands CID SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the May 18, 2012 Meeting Mr. Ziko stated each Board member received a copy of the Minutes of the May 18, 2012 Meeting; requesting any additions, corrections or deletions. • On Page 3, Line 90, from the surface should be deleted. • On Page 8, Line 252, Master Association should replace Lakes Board. There being no further additions, corrections or deletions, On MOTION by Mrs. Dillon seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor, the Minutes of the May 18, 2012 Meeting were approved as amended. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Presentation by Ms. Janet Starns of the South Florida Water Management District Regarding Revisions to the Fahka Union Canal Ms. Janet Starns of the South Florida Water Management District and Ms. Lacy Shaw of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers introduced themselves. • Three large pump stations are going to be built; two of which are already under construction. • Approximately 260 miles of roadway in the Picayune Strand over what was known as the Southern Golden Gate Estates will be removed in order to prevent water from flowing south. • The water flow in the Fahka Union Canal will be reduced significantly. • The restoration will promote connectivity of the habitat areas and wetland systems. • This project was authorized and funded by both the federal and state governments. • Minimal geotechnical boring will commence next week. • The flow -from the canal will be significantly reduced. They propose to move the Fahka Union Weir north of the complex as a preferred alternative to ease the impact on these areas. Friday, 7/6112 2 June 15, 2012 16 1 f"' AA3 Port of the Islands CID ➢ This weir has the CID's backup pumps for fire protection; Ms. Shaw assured the Board they will provide fire protection when the weir is relocated. ➢ A proposal will be presented to the CID, which will be reviewed by Mr. Benson. ➢ The preferred alternative will be outlined on a NEPA document (National Environmental Policy Act), which will be released for public review; after which a public meeting will be held. A recommendation will be sent to the Army Corps of Engineers; a Record of Decision will be issued. ➢ Once the Record of Decision is issued, they are anticipating construction will commence by the end of next summer which is also the end of their 2013 Fiscal Year. • One of the main purposes of this project is to provide clean and warm water for the manatees, as this area contains the second largest manatee refugium in Southwest Florida. • The lake will transform from fresh water to tidal water with possible fluctuations in the depth. Surveying will commence in two weeks, with one survey conducted on the basin to determine the exact depth. • The weir is proposed to extend to the north end of Orchid Cove north of the fence line. This may change depending on engineering studies results. ➢ The purpose of this is to eliminate the volume of fresh water in the lake. ➢ A hydrographic survey will be conducted within the next two weeks on Orchid Cove property in the submerged area to determine the bottom elevation of the lake. ➢ The goal is to change the geographic extent of the refugium to a smaller area to be fed fresh water. • They cannot plug the east/west canals and operate two pump stations until the manatee mitigation and POI protection measures are put into place. • The third pump station is currently scheduled to go to construction next year. Friday, 7/6/12 3 June 15, 2012 W. 161 1 A3 Port of the Islands CID • The Fahka Union and Merritt Canals are expected to be operational by fall 2014 if the current schedule is maintained. • Mr. Cox will provide the Board a basic outline of the NEPA process. A. Audience Comments Residents asked several questions and commented on this project. • There will be a community meeting this fall to discuss in further detail. • The documentation from the presentation will be posted on the website. • The Board concurred and voiced support for the concerns expressed by Orchid Cove. The record reflects the Board recessed for five minutes. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Old Business A. Review of Landscape Maintenance Performance Soto's Lawn Service did not provide a report this month. • Mr. Edge discussed his recent ride - through with Mr. Soto. ➢ Mr. Edge asked Mr. Soto to show him areas for which repair invoices were sent. ➢ Mr. Edge will ensure the rain gauges controlling the irrigation timers are working properly. B. Discussion of Tree Trimming Proposal from Soto's Lawn Service The Board discussed a tree trimming proposal from Soto's Lawn Service, Inc. in the amount of $2,475; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • Mr. Custer looked at the trees in question and believes none of them need to be trimmed with the exception of a couple of low hanging branches on six trees. The proposal includes uplift of Banyan Trees in the amount of $450. ➢ Mrs. Dillon is not aware the CID has any Banyan Trees; Mr. Custer believes Mr. Soto may be confusing this item with something else. ➢ The contract mandates trimming up to 12 feet. ➢ The Board believes the corrected proposal should not exceed $500. Friday, 7/6/12 4 June 15, 2012 i 161 1 A 3 Port of the Islands CID ➢ Mr. Edge was asked to speak to Mr. Soto regarding trimming of the low hanging branches; ask him to point out the location of the Banyan Trees; and bring a revised proposal to the next meeting for consideration. C. Update on Well Problems • RMA GeoLogic Consultants commenced the well retrofitting work which the Board authorized at the last meeting. • They are returning with the appropriate tool to drill a stainless steel area which was too thick for the drill they are currently using. Mr. Ziko asked for a status of the forklift purchase. • Mr. Teague commented there were delays, but it was ordered with 50% down this past Monday and is expected to arrive soon. D. Discussion of Revised Management Services Contract The Board discussed the revised management services contract; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • Mrs. Dillon noted a cost discrepancy between the General Fund and Water & Sewer Fund. ➢ It refers to the same contract, but the Board can make it inclusive. • Mr. Ziko reminded Mr. Teague the Board agreed to remove utility billing from the proposed budget since it will be part of the operations agreement. ➢ Mr. Teague commented this can only be done at the Budget Public Hearing. The draft is similar to the current contract, but the services are better defined. • The cost to compile and mail the agenda packages is separate from the contract. • Mr. Cox reviewed the contract and accepts the legal terms with a minor change in wording. The content of the contract needs to be reviewed by the Board. ➢ Page 8 the first bullet (annually) should be deleted. • Mr. Lambert does not believe the Board is ready to approve this contract, however several Board members disagreed. Mr. Custer MOVED to accept the terms of the Agreement with Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. for Management Services. Friday, 7/6/12 5 June 15, 2012 There being no SECOND, the prior motion was rejected. • This item was tabled to the next meeting. 161 T A3 Port of the Islands CID • Mr. Teague will e-mail the Board a new draft to review before the next meeting. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS New Business A. Discussion of Repairs to Gun Club Property During Construction of the New Water Treatment Plant • Hole Montes representatives met with Cardinal Contractors and Mr. Gasoway. • Cardinal Contractors accepted responsibility for costs to repair the drain and replace the sod in the amount of approximately $2,200, but the payment has not been received to date. Cardinal Contractors is aware of additional repairs needed to the berm. • Mr. Ziko commented Mr. Gasoway has not paid his water bill. ➢ The new meter was installed approximately six weeks ago and the meter was read twice. ➢ Mr. Edge will tell Mr. Gasoway the current bill must be paid immediately; and each bill thereafter must be paid by the due date. B. Discussion of U.S. 41 Median Flooding • Mrs. Dillon has not heard from the state regarding a request to receive a grant to alleviate the flooding. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS District Manager's Report A. Approval of May 31, 2012 Financial Statements and Check Register Mr. Teague presented the May 31, 2012 Financial Statements and Check Register for the Board's review and approval; copies of which will be entered into the official record. • The CID is ahead with collections compared to last year. Mr. Lambert confirmed all tax certificates were sold, with the exception of the Motwani property. • Major irrigation repairs were done which may have caused the three R &M items under Water -Sewer Comb. Services to be over budget. ➢ Mr. Teague will ensure all the items were properly allocated. Friday, 7/6/12 6 161 11" IA3 June 15, 2012 Port of the Islands CID A Mr. Lambert suggested creating a spreadsheet dedicated to R&M and broken down by activity and the relationship of expenses to budget and cap amounts. ➢ Mr. Teague will prepare a spreadsheet which will be reviewed by Mr. Lambert for consideration to be part of next month's financials. • The item on Page 14 which refers to Xylem Water Solutions USA is the new corporate name for ITT Technologies. • All R &M expenses should be reviewed to ensure none of the new water treatment plant expenses were included. There being no further discussion, On MOTION by Mr. Lambert seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor, the May 31, 2012 Financial Statements and Check Register were approved. B. Questions and Comments on Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget • Mr. Ziko's comments regarding the R &M expenses will be noted; with the change to be reflected at the Budget Public Hearing. • Assessments cannot be increased at this point, but line items can be increased or reallocated. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Field Manager's Report A. Discussion of May 2012 Operations Report Mr. Edge distributed the May 2012 Operations Report for discussion; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • A water softener will not be needed once the new water treatment plant is fully operational. • Mr. Custer commented the light bulb on the east- facing entrance sign at Newport needs to be replaced. • Mr. Edge continues to investigate ongoing rotomesh issues. ➢ Major repairs were done to prevent the chain from falling off. ➢ Mr. Edge will contact the manufacturer for further assistance if the major repairs fail. Friday, 7/6/12 7 June 15, 2012 161 f � TEA 3 Port of the Islands CID • Mr. Benson assured the Board Xlyem Water Solutions USA (ITT Technologies) has been repairing all items which were installed incorrectly. • The Board commented the mosquitoes have been well under control. B. Consideration of Letter of Understanding with Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. for Repair and Maintenance Budget Items Mr. Edge presented the Letter of Understanding with Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. for Repair and Maintenance Budget Items for the Board's review and approval; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • The Board is not in favor of the 10% mark -up. ➢ The FDEP requires significant water quality testing, which is separate from the base contract. ➢ The mark -up covers all administrative work associated with processing invoices and test results. ➢ Mr. Cox suggested itemizing the costs. ➢ The Board recommended negotiating the mark -up to 5 %, which Mr. Dick will present to Mr. Gardner. There being no further discussion, On MOTION by Mr. Lambert seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor, the Letter of Understanding with Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. for Repair and Maintenance Budget Items was approved contingent upon Severn Trent's acceptance of a reduced mark -up from 10% to 5 %. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney's Report A. Update on North Hotel Bankruptcy Proceedings • The Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled for June 260i. Mr. Cox hopes there are only minor issues remaining if the Motion is passed; and suggested there may be an Executive Session next month to discuss further strategies. • Mr. Cox suggested the possibility of offering Mr. Motwani a settlement in the amount of $5,000 to avoid further legal expenses on both sides. B. Update on Lot 45 Drainage Swale Agreement • Mr. Cox will have a final resolution next month. Friday, 7/6/12 8 June 15, 2012 161 1 3 Port of the Islands CID • The owner cut the berm when he installed a dock and walkway; and Mr. Ziko asked Mr. Benson to investigate. C. Update on Sunset Cay Utility Dedication Report • The new Master Association President believes each Association President needs to sign off on the final agreement; and Mr. Cox is waiting for a list. • This dedication should in place by the time the CID's new budget is implemented. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer's Report • Army Corps of Engineers representatives asked Mr. Benson to accompany them on a walk - through of areas of the community which will be affected by the Picayune Strand project after this meeting is adjourned. A. Update on New Water Treatment Plant Mr. Benson distributed the Monthly Progress Report for discussion; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • The water plant is on line. • All DEP certifications were received. • Activities relating to demolition of the old plant will commence late next week. ➢ Site work including excavation and paving will be done once the old plant is demolished. ➢ All trees and shrubs required by Collier County will be planted. • Mr. Benson discussed payments made to date to the contractors involved with the project. B. Discussion of Liquidated Damages from Xlyem Water Solutions USA (ITT Technologies) • Mr. Benson, Mr. Teague and Mr. Cox will meet with ITT representatives to determine the costs and will report back to the Board at the next meeting. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors' Requests • Mr. Lambert and Mr. Bissell will attend the next meeting via phone. ➢ The remaining Board members must attend in person. ➢ Mr. Bissell's agenda package will be sent to Wisconsin. ➢ Mr. Lambert's agenda package will be sent to his home. Friday, 7/6/12 9 June 15, 2012 161 IrAA3 Port of the Islands CID • Mr. Teague will confirm whether or not the letter was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Reagan regarding the leak at the lift station which was addressed at the last meeting. • Mr. Benson confirmed the hydrogeologist did not charge extra to look at and provide an estimate to retrofit the wells. • Mr. Benson confirmed there will not be an implosion when the old plant is demolished; some items will be salvaged. • An increase in the insurance premium on the new water plant will depend on the level of coverage provided. • The Gun Club is having a community parry on July 4h at 4:00 p.m. • The Board concurred they would like estimates on painting and sandblasting some of the older buildings. ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments • A Resident will provide Mr. Cox a list of Sunset Cay Associations as requested earlier in the meeting. • A Resident commented on preservation of the lake regarding the Picayune Strand Project. TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment There being no further business, On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Custer with all in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m. Calvin Teague Secretary Friday, 716/I2 10 Richard Ziko Chairman June 15, 2012 161 f' Port of the Islands CID • An increase in the insurance premium on the new water plant will depend on the level of coverage provided. • The Gun. Club is having a community party on July 40' at 4:00 p.m. • The Board concurred they would like estimates on painting and sandblasting some of the older buildings. ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments • A Resident will provide Mr. Cox a list of Sunset Cay Associations as requested earlier in the meeting. • A Resident commented on preservation of the lake regarding the Picayune Strand Proj ect. TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment There being no further business, On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Custer with all in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m. Calvin Teagu Secretary Friday, 7 16/12 10 4e. t. -?, - �- Richard Ziko Chairman 173 PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Meeting Agenda Friday, June 15, 2812 PAGE 2 8. Attorney's Report A. Update on North Hotel Bankruptcy Proceedings B. Update on Lot 45 Drainage Swale Agreement C. Update on Sunset Cay Utility Dedication Report 9. Engineer's Report A. Update on New Water Treatment Plant B. Discussion of Liquidated Damages from ITT 10. Supervisors' Requests 11. Audience Comments 12. Adjournment 16 I'i 1P3 Soto's Lawn Service, Inc 2830 35th Ave NE Soto' S ��•;s Napes, FL 34120 Lawn Service Inc. -` (239)354 -1080 info@sotolawn.com www.sotolawn.com Port of the Islands CID Accounts Payable Specialist Severn Trent Services 210 N. University Drive, Ste 702 ' Coral Springs, Fl. 33071 • uplifting of hardwood Trees • Hardwood Trees Uplifted • Banyan Trees Uplifted .`} I All Estimates must be signed and returned prior to start of project. Accepted By: Accepted Date: 6 f �1 l 161 11" 1A 3 Estimate Date Estimate # 04/17/2012 1477 Total 2,025.00 450.00 161 f Je3of I Teague, Cal From: Ron Benson [RonBenson @hmeng.com] Sent: Tuesday, .tune 12, 2012 4:38 PM To: Teague, Cal Cc: Dick, Robert; Frank Feeney Subject: FW: POI Wellhead Retrofit Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red FYI. I will provide the status on the wellhead retrofit (noted below) on Friday. I am going down to the WTP tomorrow in order to observeltroubleshoot the testing of the ST vendor installed SCADA system which operates the wells as a function of the irrigation tank level dropping anal the. WTP coming online and also calling for raw water. .;If.-all :goes as expected then they will tie able to take the old PLC Aine and only use the.new PLC_ Right now they have been switching back and forth between the two PLCs as an interim measure during the phase between starting the new WTP and shutting down the old WTP until the time we say the old WTP is never going to be used again and able to begin demolition. Best wishes Ron Ronald E_ Benson Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Senior Vice President/Principal Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, Florida 34110 (239) 254 -2000 (Voice) (239) 2542097 (Fax) (239) 777 -1611 (Mobile) From: Omar Rodriguez [mailto :orodriguez @rma- geologic.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:31 PM To: Dawn Barnard Cc: Ron Benson; 'Edge, Robert' Subject: POI Wellhead Retrofit Dawn, We made an attempt to retrofit the wellhead of well PW -3 to access the well interior for water level readings this morning. However, a two -inch thick stainless steel plate was encountered under the base of the pump. The drilling contractor was not able to cut that plate with the on -site equipment. The work had to be postponed and will be rescheduled for the near future with the proper equipment. We'll let you know as soon as we have a schedule available. Sincerely, Omar Rodriguez, P.G. RMA Geologic Consultants, Inc. 12771 World Plaza Lane Building 87, Suite 1 Fort Myers, FL 33907 6/15/2012 161 T A3 AGREEMENT BETWEEN PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. FOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this day of 2012, by and between the PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT ", and the firm of Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "MANAGER ", whose address is 210 North University Drive, Suite 702, Coral Springs, Florida 33071. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the DISTRICT desires to employ the services of the MANAGER for the purpose of providing the DISTRICT with certain district management services as more fully set forth in Exhibit A hereunder; and WHEREAS, the MANAGER desires to provide such services to the DISTRICT subject to the terms hereof; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements expressed herein the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND MANAGER RESPONIBILITIES 1.1 The DISTRICT hereby engages the MANAGER for the services described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 1.2 MANAGER may offer and/or the DISTRICT may request that additional services be provided under this Agreement. In the event that the MANAGER and the DISTRICT agree upon a change in the scope of services to be provided under this Agreement, the change in Compensation, if any, shall be agreed between the DISTRICT and MANAGER and will be invoiced in accordance with this Agreement. 1.3 The MANAGER shall devote such time as is necessary to complete the duties and responsibilities assigned to the MANAGER under this Agreement. 1.4 All services will be rendered by and under the supervision of qualified staff in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Even though MANAGER'S staff may include licensed attorneys and engineers, the DISTRICT acknowledges that MANAGER is not performing in the capacity of a law firm or an engineering firm when providing services under this Agreement. Other than the requirement to render the services by and under the supervision of qualified staff, MANAGER makes no specific representation or warranty regarding the services or any deliverables to be provided 161 Ir 13 hereunder and any and all warranties arising by custom or usage in the profession, or arising by operation of law are hereby expressly disclaimed. 1.5 If the scope of services hereunder requires the MANAGER to administer or supervise the DISTRICT's personnel, the MANAGER shall not be responsible for any damages, losses, settlement payments, deficiencies, liabilities, costs, and expenses resulting from the failure of the DISTRICT's employees to follow the instructions of the MANAGER. Similarly, if in the course of providing the services required by this Agreement, the MANAGER follows the instructions of the DISTRICT, the MANAGER shall not responsible for any damages, losses, settlement payments, deficiencies, liabilities, costs, and expenses resulting therefrom. 1.6 In performing the services hereunder, MANAGER may rely on information supplied by the DISTRICT and MANAGER shall not be required to independently verify the accuracy and completeness of such information. In addition, although the MANAGER may participate in the accumulation of information developed by others necessary for use in documents required by the DISTRICT, MANAGER is not responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information. ARTICLE 2. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE MANAGER 2.1 The signature on this Agreement by the MANAGER shall act as MANAGER's representation that the wage rates and costs used to determine the compensation provided for in the Agreement are accurate, complete and current as of the date of this Agreement. 2.2 The MANAGER acknowledges and agrees that it owes a duty of loyalty, fidelity and allegiance to act at all times during the term of this Agreement in the known interests of the DISTRICT and to knowingly do no act which would injure the DISTRICT's business, its interests, or its reputation. Further, the MANAGER shall not, during the term of this Agreement, engage in any activity that constitutes a Conflict of Interest (as defined below). For purposes of this Agreement, "Conflict of Interest" means any act or activity, or any interest in connection with, or any benefit from any act or activity, which, at the time the act or activity is performed, is knowingly adverse to the interests of or would in any material way injure the DISTRICT. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained herein, this Section 2.2 shall not prohibit the MANAGER from (a) performing water and wastewater utility management, customer services, utility billing, operation and maintenance services to the DISTRICT under a separate agreement; and (b) providing for the benefit of any other district services similar to the services provided DISTRICT hereunder. DISTRICT hereby waives any and all conflicts of interests or potential conflicts of interest in connection therewith, it being specifically agreed to and understood that MANAGER'S provision of any such services to the DISTRICT or to any other district shall not constitute a conflict of interest under this Agreement. 2.3 The MANAGER warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee or previously retained sales consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, 161 1 '13 corporation, individual, or firm other than a bona fide employee working solely for the MANAGER or a previously retained sales consultant any fee, commission, percentage, gift or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. 2.4 The MANAGER warrants and represents that it shall refrain from unlawful discrimination in performing its obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE 3. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE DISTRICT DISTRICT represents and warrants that this Agreement, DISTRICT'S execution and delivery of this Agreement and DISTRICT'S performance of its obligations hereunder, have been duly and validly authorized by DISTRICT by all necessary action. This Agreement has been validly executed and delivered by DISTRICT and constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of DISTRICT, enforceable in accordance with its terms. ARTICLE 4. COMPENSATION 4.1 The DISTRICT agrees to compensate the MANAGER in accordance with the Fee Schedule set forth in Exhibit B. 4.2 In addition to the fees set forth in Exhibit B, the DISTRICT shall reimburse the MANAGER for all reasonable costs or expenses incurred by the MANAGER in and directly attributable to its fulfillment of the services under this Agreement as set forth in Exhibit C, the "Schedule of Reimbursable Costs ". Such costs and expenses are payable to the MANAGER in accordance with Section 4.4. 4.3 For each fiscal year of the DISTRICT, the compensation payable to the MANAGER under the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in an amount approved by the DISTRICT in its fiscal year budget. Each fiscal year the DISTRICT will consider price adjustments to compensate for market conditions and the anticipated type and amount of work to be performed by the MANAGER during the upcoming fiscal year of the DISTRICT. 4.4 In the event that the fiscal year budget is not approved prior to the first day of the fiscal year, the MANAGER'S compensation under this Agreement will continue at the rate currently in effect at the time of renewal. The subsequent approval of the budget will result in a retroactive fee adjustment, which will be invoiced in the first month following approval of the budget. 4.5 Unless provided otherwise in Exhibit B, payment to the MANAGER for all services rendered shall be made on a monthly basis within thirty (30) days of the MANAGER's issuance of an invoice. 16I F_A3 ARTICLE 5. TERM 5.1 This Agreement shall commence on the date hereof and shall continue until terminated in writing by either party in accordance with Section 5.2. 5.2 The Agreement may be terminated as follows: (a) The failure of either party to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall constitute a default. Upon default by one party, the other party shall send written Notice of Termination. Such notice shall clearly specify the nature of the default and provide the defaulting party forty-five (45) days to cure the default. If the default is capable of being cured within forty -five (45) days but is not cured within forty -five (45) days, the Agreement shall terminate at midnight of the forty - fifth (45th) day following receipt of the Notice. In the case of default that cannot be cured within forty-five (45) days, this Agreement shall not terminate so long as the defaulting party has given written notice of the extension to the other party and the defaulting party has commenced and is diligently pursuing a cure. (b) upon the dissolution or court- declared invalidity of the DISTRICT; or (c) by either party, for such party's convenience, upon ninety (90) days prior written notice. 5.3 Upon the termination of this Agreement, MANAGER will take all reasonable and necessary actions to transfer in an orderly fashion to the DISTRICT or its designee all the DISTRICT's books and records in MANAGER's possession. In addition, within thirty (30) days of termination of this Agreement, MANAGER shall be paid in full for all services rendered through the date of termination. ARTICLE 6. RISK MANAGEMENT 6.1 The MANAGER shall provide and maintain the following levels of insurance coverage at all times subsequent to the execution of this Agreement: (a) Professional Liability insurance with an aggregate limit of two million dollars ($2,000,000) ; and (b) Commercial Crime insurance with a per loss limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000). 6.2 To the extent allowable under applicable law and except and to the .extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the MANAGER, the DISTRICT agrees to indemnify and hold the MANAGER and its respective officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns (MANAGER and each such person being a "DISTRICT Indemnified Party ") harmless from and against any and all damages, losses, settlement payments, deficiencies, liabilities, costs, and expenses, including without limitation, attorney's fees suffered, sustained, incurred or required to be paid by any DISTRICT Indemnified Party related to or arising out of the subject services and/or the engagement 16 1"Or q'3 ' of MANAGER pursuant to this Agreement. To the extent allowable under applicable law and to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the Manager, the MANAGER agrees to indemnify and hold the DISTRICT and its respective officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns (DISTRICT and each such person being a "MANAGER Indemnified Party") harmless from and against any and all damages, losses, settlement payments, deficiencies, liabilities, costs, and expenses, including without limitation, attorney's fees suffered, sustained, incurred or required to be paid by any MANAGER Indemnified Party related to or arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of MANAGER. In the event that a party receives notice of or undertakes the defense or the prosecution of any action, claim, suit, administrative or arbitration proceeding or investigation consistent with its indemnity obligations hereunder, such party shall give the other party prompt notice of such proceedings and shall inform the other party in advance of all hearings regarding such action, claim, suit, proceeding, or investigation. Except to the extent caused by its own negligence, MANAGER shall not be responsible for any damages, losses, settlement payments, deficiencies, liabilities, costs, and expenses arising as a result of the execution or implementation of specific instructions or directions provided by the DISTRICT or any of its duly designated agents or representatives. MANAGER shall notify DISTRICT when it believes that it is being asked to execute or implement DISTRICT instructions or directives that violate applicable law. This indemnification shall not be construed as a waiver of the DISTRICT's sovereign immunity and is subject to the limitations of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. 6.3 Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Agreement, in no event shall the MANAGER be liable, either directly or as an indemnitor of the DISTRICT, for any special, punitive, indirect and/or consequential damages, including damages attributable to loss of use, loss of income or loss of profit even if the MANAGER has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 6.4 In the event that claims(s) raised against the MANAGER on account of this Agreement, or on account of the services performed hereunder, is/are covered under MANAGER's insurance policies required hereunder, the MANAGER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability beyond the policy amounts contractually required hereunder and the limits and conditions of such insurance policies. With respect to any other causes of action and/or claims arising under this Agreement, or otherwise arising as a result of, or on account of, the services provided hereunder, MANAGER's total aggregate liability shall not exceed an amount equal to the amount of the annual compensation for such services during the Agreement year in which such cause of action and/or claim is raised against the MANAGER. ARTICLE 7. MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 Entire Agreement The foregoing terms and conditions constitute the entire Agreement between the parties hereto and any representation not contained herein shall be null and void and no force and effect. 16I r'' A3 Further this Agreement may be amended only in writing upon mutual consent of the parties hereto. 7.2 Construction In construing this Agreement, the following principles shall be followed: (i) no consideration shall be given to the captions of the articles, sections, subsections or clauses, which are inserted for convenience in locating the provisions of this Agreement and not as an aid in construction; (ii) no consideration shall be given to the fact or presumption that any of the Parties had a greater or lesser hand in drafting this Agreement; (iii) examples shall not be construed to limit, expressly or by implication, the matter they illustrate; (iv) the word "includes" and its syntactic variants mean "includes, but is not limited to" and corresponding syntactic variant expressions; (v) the plural shall be deemed to include the singular, and vice versa; (vi) each gender shall be deemed to include the other genders; (vii) each exhibit, appendix, attachment and schedule to this Agreement is a part of this Agreement; and (viii) any reference herein or in any schedule hereto to any agreements entered into prior to the date hereof shall include any amendments or supplements made thereto. 7.3 No Solicitation The parties agree, during the term of this Agreement and for a period of two (2) years hereafter to respect each other's interests regarding their respective employees and neither party shall solicit, recruit or hire current employees of the other party. 7.4 Force Majeure A party's performance of any obligation (except for payment obligations) under this Agreement shall be excused if, and to the extent that, the party is unable to perform because of any event of "Force Majeure". In any such event, the party unable to perform shall be required to resume performance of its obligations under this Agreement as soon as reasonably practicable following the termination of the event or cause that excused performance hereunder. Force Majeure is defined as any act, event, or condition to the extent that it adversely impacts the cost of performance of, or adversely affects the ability, of either party to perform any obligation under this Agreement (except for payment obligations) if such act, event or condition, in light of any circumstances that should have been known or reasonably believed to have existed at the time, is beyond the reasonable control and is not a result of the willful or negligent act, error, omission or failure to exercise reasonable diligence on the part of the party relying thereon. 7.5 Notices All notices will be in writing and shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Notices required to be given to the MANAGER will be addressed to: Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. Attn: 6 ib Irl a3 Notices required to be given to the DISTRICT will be addressed to: Attn: 7.6 Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Any and all legal action necessary to enforce the Agreement will be held in Collier County, Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their respective agents to execute this instrument on their behalf, at the times set forth below. Signed and Sealed in the presence of: Witness Witness 7 PORT OF THE ISLANDS By: [Name and Title] SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. By: [Name and Title] Exhibit A Scope of Services Scope of Services: Management Services 161 F--- A 3 Severn Trent Services will perform all required management functions of the Port of the Islands Community Development District, which will include but not be limited to the following: • Attend regular meetings of the Board of Supervisors [annually] and provide the Board with meaningful dialogue on the issues before the Board for action. • Preparation of District's budget as more fully outlined under Financial Accounting Services. • Implementation of budget directives. • Review specifications for the meeting of insurance requirements of the District. • Provide all required annual disclosure information to the local government in the County in which the District resides. • Ensure compliance with the Florida Statutes as it relates to financial reporting requirements for the District and State and Federal tax and financial forms. • Record all meetings of the District. • Provide Oath of Office and Notary Public for all newly elected members of the Board of Supervisors. • Provide information for General Election Process. • Receive telephone calls and a -mails from residents and ensure follow up on issues raised. In the case of needed services for the District, the Manager will inform the District of the issue and the District will provide follow up through vendors contracted to handle such problems. In the case of issues not related to activities and services provided by vendors, the Manager will provide responses and follow up. • Coordinate with the Board to determine the services and levels of service to be provided as part of the District's budget preparation. 161 r A3 Recording Services Severn Trent Services will perform all required Recording Secretary functions which will include but not be limited to the following: • Prepare Board Agendas and coordinate receipt of sufficient material for Board of Supervisors to make informed policy decisions. • Prepare and advertise all notices of meetings in an authorized newspaper of circulation in the County in which the District is located. • Record and transcribe summary meeting minutes for all meetings of the Board of Supervisors including regular meetings, special meetings, workshops and public hearing(s). Acquire and maintain District Seal Financial Accounting Services Severn Trent Services will perform all required financial accounting functions for the District, which will include but not be limited to the following: • Prepare a budget that achieves the District's objectives in coordination with the District Board of Supervisors, Engineer and Attorney. • Submit a preliminary budget to Board of Supervisors in accordance with Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. • Prepare and modify Preliminary Budget for consideration by Board of Supervisors at the District's advertised Public Hearing. • Prepare budget and assessment resolutions as required by Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. • Establish budget public hearing(s) and dates. • Establish Board of Supervisors workshop dates (if required). • Attend workshop(s) and public hearing(s) and be available to answer questions by the Board and the public. • Prepare and coordinate applications for: o Federal I.D. Number o Tax Exemption Certificate • Maintain Government Fund Accounting System in accordance with the Uniform Accounting System prescribed by Department of Banking and Finance for Government Accounting, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Prepare required Investment Policies and Procedures pursuant to Chapter 218, Florida Statutes. • Preparation of Annual Financial Report for Units of Local Government and distribution to the State Comptroller. 9 1 'A3 16 61 • Preparation of Public Depositor's Report and distribution to State Treasurer. • Coordination of assessment collections and miscellaneous receivables. • Preparation of bid specifications for the purchase of services and commodities pursuant to Florida Statutes. • Preparation of all required schedules for fiscal year end audit. • Provide Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable services for the Districts. Special Assessment Services Severn Trent Services will perform all required special assessment billing functions of the District, which will include but not limited to the following: • Prepare Assessment Resolution levying the assessments on the property in the District and prepare assessment rolls. • Prepare and maintain a property database by using information obtained by local Property Appraisers secured roll. • Review and compare information received from the Property Appraiser to prior years' rolls, to ensure that the CDD rolls are in compliance with the law and that Severn Trent Environmental Services has obtained all the pertinent information to prepare accurate assessments. • Periodically updated the database for all activity such as transfer of title, payment of annual assessment, prepayment of principal. • Act as the primary contact to answer property owner questions regarding special assessments, tax bills, etc. Provide pay off information upon request to property owner. • Upon adoption of the Budget and Assessments, coordinate with the office of the Property Appraiser and Tax collector to ensure correct application of assessments and receipt of District funds. • Act as primary contact to answer property owners' questions regarding the Capital Assessment. 10 161 f A3 Exhibit B Fee Schedule The fee for the all services described in Exhibit A will be$71,820 annually. The reimbursable. fee schedule is set forth below. Special Meetings—For all meetings not defined in the contract $125.00 per hour Meetings Hourly Rate $125.00 per hour Mail Distribution General Distribution Includes labels,standard envelope,folding, $0.35 insertion of up to two items,and delivery to Post Office Labor of inserts over two $0.03 per single sheet page Labels $0.07 each Certified Mail(back charged to owner) Current rate charged by Postmaster plus handling charge of$3.00 Postage Current rate charged by postmaster,no add on. Photocopying $0.15 per copy $0.21 per duplex copy(both sides) Color Copies $0.20 per page Faxes Outgoing $.50 per page Incoming No charge Record Storage $100 per year 11 161 Fage f of 1 A3' Teague, Cal From: Norine & Joe [dillonpoi @embargmail.coml Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 3:24 PM To: Jean Kungle Subject: Port of the Islands U.S. 41 Flooding Begin forwarded message: From: "Spirio, Carlton D" < Carlton Sirioa dot._state:fl.us> Date: June 8, 2012 3:18:49 PM EDT To: Norine & Joe <dil Ion poi @embargmail.com> Subject: RE: Port of the islands U.S. 41 Flooding Hey Norine, I apologize for not getting with you sooner, as I have been in Orlando all week. I will get an update for you Monday and send a follow -up e-mail. Carl _ -- Original Message---- - From: Norine & Joe [mailto :dillonpoi @embargmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:23 PM To: Spirio, Carlton D Subject: Port of the Islands U.S. 41 Flooding Hi- Haven't heard back from you about your search for funds to correct our problem. Any news? Thanks. Norine Dillon 6/15/2012 161 r-A3 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Financial Report May 31, 2012 Prepared by 161 r A3 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Table of Contents FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance Sheet - All Funds ........................... ............................... Page 1 General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ............... Page 2 - 3 Trend Report ........................... ............................... Page 4 - 5 Enterprise Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ............... Page 6 - 7 Trend Report ....................... ............................... Page 8 - 9 SUPPORTING SCHEDULES Check Register ........................... ............................... Page 10 -11 Special Assessments - Collection Schedule ........................... ............................... Page 12 Construction Schedule ........................... ............................... Page 13 -14 CIP Status Report ........................... ............................... Page 15 -16 Cash Flow Projections ........................... ............................... Page 17 -18 Cash Flow Projections - 5 year ........................... ............................... Page 19 Monthly Activity Report ........................... ............................... Page 20 - 25 Accounts Receivable Ageing Report (90+ days outstanding) ........... ............................... Page 26 - 27 Repair and Maintenance Detail Reports ........................... ............................... Page 28 - 30 161 r qz Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Financial Statements (Unaudited) May 31, 2012 PORT OF THE ISLANDS CID STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS MAY 31, 2012 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: CASH ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS INVESTMENTS: CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT - 540 DAYS MONEY MARKET ACCOUNT SSA ACCOUNT SBA ACCOUNT (RESTRICTED) SBA RESERVES SBA RESERVES (RESTRICTED) CONSTRUCTION FUND FMV ADJUSTMENT TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS NONCURRENT ASSETS: INTANGIBLE ASSETS, NET CAPITAL ASSETS: LAND CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS IMPROVEMENTS, NET EQUIPMENT, NET TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS TOTALASSETS LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE RETAINAGE PAYABLE DUE TO OTHER FUNDS DEPOSITS BONDS AND LOANS PAYABLE CURRENT OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: BONDS AND LOANS PAYABLE, LONG -TERM TOTAL NONCURRENT LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES NET ASSETS INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS, NET OF RELATED DEBT RESERVES - ASSET REPLACEMENT UNRESTRICTED ASSIGNED TO OPERATING RESERVE UNASSIGNED TOTAL NET ASSETS ib i r A� GENERAL WATER AND TOTAL SEWER 491,257 60,484 551,741 1,029 - 1,029 137,632 6,777,592 137,632 151,050 - 151,050 505,936 6,556 512,492 3,070 1,364 4,434 13,687 28,548 42,235 1,628 - 1,628 1,644 1,644 - 1,225,517 1,225,517 (2,697) (5,022) (7,719) 1,304,236 1,317,447 2,621,683 38,627 38,627 4,547,735 4,547,735 50,000 50,000 756,352 756,352 105,018 105,018 1,184,660 1,184,660 $ 1,289,678 $ 5,354,087 $ 6,643,765 NOTE: MINOR DIFFERENCES IN STATEMENT TOTALS Page 1 REPORT DATE: 6/4/2872 ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF ROUNDING TO WFIOLE DOLLARS. 9 288,459 288,459 1,835,968 1,835,968 6,777,592 6,777,592 110,121 110,121 9',050,767 9,050,767 1,304,236 10,368,214 11,672,450 14,558 33,133 47,691 - 304,164 304,164 137,632 137,632 - 32,950 32,950 - 497,303 497,303 3,215 3,215 14,558 1,008,397 1,022,955 - 4,005,730 4,005,730 4,005,730 4,005,730 14,558 5,014,127 5,028,685 4,547,735 4,547,735 50,000 50,000 756,352 756,352 105,018 105,018 1,184,660 1,184,660 $ 1,289,678 $ 5,354,087 $ 6,643,765 NOTE: MINOR DIFFERENCES IN STATEMENT TOTALS Page 1 REPORT DATE: 6/4/2872 ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF ROUNDING TO WFIOLE DOLLARS. 9 161 jr_1A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS General Fund Community Improvement District Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the Period Ending May 31, 2012 Field ANNUAL YTD ACTUAL Contracts-Mgmt Services ADOPTED YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE (S) AS A % OF MAY -12 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV) ADOPTED BUD ACTUAL REVENUES 13,000 8,664 10,929 (2,265) 84.07% 1,376 Interest- Investments $ 2,090 $ 1,393 $ 2,994 $ 1,601 14325% $ 1 Net Incr (Decr) in FMV- Invest - - 1,481 1,481 0.00% - Interest - Tax Collector - - 24 24 0.00% 7 Special Assmnts- Tax Collector 435,400 435,400 375,297 (60,103) 86.20% 2,811 Special Assmnts- Discounts (17,416) (17,416) (12,013) 5,403 68.98% 84 TOTAL REVENUES 420,074 419,377 367,783 (51,594) 87.55% 2,903 EXPENDITURES Administrative P/R -Board of Supervisors 7,ODO 4,667 4,500 167 6429% 500 FICA Taxes 536 357 344 13 64.18% 38 ProfServ- Engineering 26,000 17,333 9,438 7,895 36.30% - ProtSery -Legal Services 12,500 8,333 22,677 (14,344) 181.42% 3,146 ProtServ-Mgmt Consulting Sery 27,539 18,359 18,359 - 66.67% 2,295 ProfServ- Property Appraiser 6,530 6,530 6,531 (1) 100.02% - ProtServ- Special Assessment 8,974 8,974 8,974 100.00% - Auditing Services 3,750 3,750 3,500 250 93.33% 3,500 Communication - Telephone 100 67 16 51 16.00% 1 Postage and Freight 1,500 1,000 743 257 49.53% 91 Rental - Meeting Room 300 200 225 (25) 75.00% 25 Insurance - General Liability 8,270 6,202 5,845 357 70.68% - Printing and Binding 2,000 1,333 776 557 38.80% 331 Legal Advertising 2,200 1,467 493 974 22.41% 75 Miscellaneous Services 400 267 835 (568) 208.75% - Misc-Assessmnt Collection Cost 8,708 8,708 7,266 1,442 83.44% 58 Misc -Web Hosting - - 119 (119) 0.00% 119 Office Supplies 650 433 169 264 26.00% 46 Annual District Filing Fee 175 175 175 - 1 DO.00% Total Administrative 117,132 88,155 90,985 (2,830) 77.68% 10,225 Field Contracts-Mgmt Services 103,821 69,214 67,545 1,669 65.06% 8,444 Contracts - Landscape 79,440 52,960 52,960 - 66.67% 6,620 Electricity - Streedighting 13,000 8,664 10,929 (2,265) 84.07% 1,376 Why - Irrigation 7,200 4,800 9,256 (4,456) 128.56% 1,477 R&M- Renewal and Replacement 20,000 13,333 8,577 4,756 42.89% 661 R&M -Roads & Alleyways 6,000 4,000 4,000 0.00% - Capital Outlay 73,481 48,988 - 48,988 0.00% Total Field 302,942 201,959 149267 52,692 4927% 18,578 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 420,074 290,114 240,252 49,862 57.19% 28,803 Report Date: 61412012 Prepared by: Severn Trent Management Services Page 2 161 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the Period Ending May 31, 2012 3 Genera! Fund Report Date: 6/4/2012 Prepared by: Severn Trent Management Services Page 3 ANNUAL YTD ACTUAL ADOPTED YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE (S) AS A % OF MAY -12 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV) ADOPTED BUD ACTUAL Excess (deficiency) of revenues Over (under) expenditures 129,263 127,531 (1,732) 0.00% (25,900) Net change in fund balance $ - $ 129,263 $ 127,531 $ (1,732) ,900) FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING (OCT 1, 2011) 1,162,147 1,162,147 1,162,147 FUND BALANCE, ENDING $ 1.102,147 $ 1,291,410 $ 1,289,678 Report Date: 6/4/2012 Prepared by: Severn Trent Management Services Page 3 V L W 0 wi W d � 3 w o � 0 V 0 d r SE ,C h ti 4 K V M 4 N G � A: aw G m �N` $ m � YI a 0 V y 1 P" --. 161 13 N v N r N'a ia7 r 6 Cq a 0 ti F w m N w • • . . r . r • r r . . . Lo A 3 7 N W w Q w d w o ci ri N o Cc w v � R ov .i`r mm i gvmi '�R''' r c"'v nnRm �.ei IL d Q Cq m � N ' r � � � m ••• � • r r • p y� r • . pp ��y • • • � ' Q w •ri r w N v {1 .4 YL N C � q a N C7 . _ E c Q� Q Z .9 c Lo 9aa7 E A m Ci Y! W E ai w 0. a__ a a S�� a 1° �e ii cc "I, m V Y Ic in im it 4) E O CL E C O E O v O V t ti n b N V b W a 3 d m a 0 03 H 16 ri A3 g §g� o� a J Q Q_ • • M �fl � Of Of { N t-: •N O Oa fD � V ffMJ N �y ip�D� fO qq h H w w N po V N t m w gg � �. LL � ,D f� N O• f F N C V R IR ^ (O 10 N es b m t0 N m Q fp N a� (G Ir N N f42 QQ Qy w w o E 0 N V O N w m W %cq x ib i Ir "a3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Water And Sewer Fund Community Improvement District Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For the Period Ending May 31, 2012 ANNUAL YTO ACTUAL ADOPTED YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE {E) AS A % OF IIAY -12 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV) ADOPTED BUD ACTUAL OPERATING REVENUES Interest - Investments $ 5,448 $ 3,632 $ 2,192 $ (1,440) 40.23% $ - Water Revenue 40,000 26,667 29,887 3,220 74.72% 3,302 Sewer Revenue 60,000 40,000 46,296 6,296 77.16% 5,051 Irrigation Fees 100,000 66,667 54,840 (11,827) 54.84% 7,793 Net [nor (Deer) In FMV- Invest - - 2,757 2,757 0.00% - Special Assmnts- Tax Collector 1,135,025 1,135,025 978,346 (156,679) 86.20% 7,327 SpecialAssmnts- Discounts (45,401) (45,401) (31,316) 14,085 68.98% 220 Other Miscellaneous Revenues 7,655 - 3,535 3,535 0.00% 525 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1,295,072 1,226,590 1,086,537 (140,053) 83.90% 24918 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel and Administration 311,599 207,733 202,647 5,086 65.03% 25,331 P/R -Board of Supervisors 7,000 4,667 4,500 167 64.29% 500 FICA Taxes 536 357 344 13 64.18% 38 ProfServ- Engineering 26,000 17,333 9,438 7,895 36.30% - ProfSary -Legal Services 12,500 8,333 22,677 (14,344) 181.42%, 3,146 ProfSarv- MgmtConsultingSery 27,652 18,435 18,435 (15,182) 66.67% 2,304 ProfSarv- Property Appraiser 17,024 17,024 17,025 (1) 100.01% - ProfServSpecial Assessment 7,655 7,655 7,655 - 100.00% - ProfServ- UtilityBilling 15,821 10,547 8,816 1,731 55.72% 57 Auditing Services 3,750 3,750 3,500 250 93.33% 3,500 Communication- Telephone 100 67 16 51 16.00% 1 Postage and Freight 1,000 667 478 189 47.80% 60 Rental - Meeting Room 300 200 225 (25) 75.00% 25 Insurance - General Liability 8,270 6,202 5,845 357 70.68% - Printing and Binding 1,500 1,000 582 418 38.80% 249 Legal Advertising 1,600 1,067 424 643 26.50% 55 Miscellaneous Services 1,100 733 1,440 (707) 130.91% 120 Misc-Assessmnt Collection Cost 22,701 22,701 18,941 3,760 83.44% 151 Office Supplies 750 500 198 302 26.40% 53 Total Personnel and Administration 155,259 121,238 120,539 699 77.64% 10,259 Water-Sewer Comb Services Contracts-Mgmt Services 311,599 207,733 202,647 5,086 65.03% 25,331 Contracts -Other Services 2,000 2,000 1,750 250 87.50% - Communication - Teleph - Field 3,768 2,512 2,261 251 60.01% 297 Utility - General 80,000 53,333 54,289 (956) 67.86% 6,646 R &M- Irrigation 10,000 6,667 35,317 (28,550) 353.17% 280 R&M -Water Plant 10,000 6,667 21,849 (15,182) 218.49% 840 R &M -Waste Water Plant 25,000 16,667 39,654 (22,987) 158.62% 875 Misc -Bad Debt - - 2,079 (2,079) 0.00% Misc- Licenses & Permits 4,500 4,500 4,375 125 97.22 Report Date: 6/4!2012 Prepared by: Sevem Trent Management Services Page 6 161 1 N A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Water And Sewer Fund Community Improvement District - 6,667 0.00% Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes In Net Assets Cap Outlay -Water Plant For the Period Ending May 31, 2012 2,464,787 ANNUAL YTO ACTUAL ADOPTED YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE (S) AS A % OF MAY -12 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV) ADOPTED BUD ACTUAL Cap Outlay - Irrigation 10,000 6,667 - 6,667 0.00% - Cap Outlay -Water Plant 3,697,180 2,464,787 2,782,721 (317,934) 75.27% 131,635 Cap Outlay -Waste Water Plant 30,796 20,531 10,136 10.395 32.91% 74 Capital Reserve 25,000 16,667 - 16,667 0.00% Total Water -Sewer Comb Services 4,209,843 2,808,731 3,157,078 (348,347) 74.99% 165,978 Debt Service Principal Debt Retirement 480,440 480,440 - 480,440 0.00% - Interest Expense 174,920 174,920 102,037 72,883 58.33% 87,460 Total Debt Service 655,360 655,360 102,037 553,323 15.57% 87,460 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 5,020,462 3,585,329 3,379,654 205,675 87.32% 263,697 Operating income (loss) (3,725,390) (2,358,739) (2,293,117) 65,622 61.55% (239,479) Change in net assets $ (3,725,390) $ (2,358,739) $ (2,293,117) $ 65,622 61.55% TOTAL NET ASSETS, BEGINNING (OCT 1, 2011) 7,647,204 7,647,204 7,647 .204 TOTAL NET ASSETS, ENDING $ 3,921,614 $ 5,288,465 jD137 _L_2 "354 Report Date: 6/412012 Prepared by- Severn Trent Management Services Page 7 '0 m yy Y C Q i.r V w w /W i•I Y1 i Q. C .M E E a 0 �L. N w b a V � a ao m O m H 161 1 '1- A3 FN "rK il "' v a�m m m vi RJ N w Q Y �i , . , . I I 1 1 • • . . , . , I , I I r r . • I , . • I A 7 Q N • . . I I • • . . . . . I I , . . . . . . N i� � �C1 m [O p p �y' ' gag g IN go I I f p 10 ' lA N 0 y� i � u� n � n ai t %N I[�f o N N u N tN0 ICJ_ � O � � t~O e O � r � � . i ^ . . � y) LL] • I ry o • A rOI N iV 1O�p tqy {Np (��j pQ pp 01 .•J frl .� ^ "" I'J fp [ff YD tS CAS ' tV 1!a I�[f m O T h N A W A � M ° � Of R NJ 1� IJO°• `!' `� Ol � . , O I I t�0 `t3 ' �y N � � L�J p�j m f. R t0 QO � v � r N N tV pl N N LYl Q t�l+ IY N ci of a " � v A N cJ of Iri Y N pp Y Q r IA M . . �• N . . . N IN �Q � I� ' g ' le tgV N a•I Q Ip � b N� CO `N`! N 2 _ c 12! y C Q 3 a Q m x m � n G � R v G � W d k w� m ,Q a a W 0 O y v w N M• w s d E y i a z E s w 0 O o v J � d H 0 ~ Y of a� a'f � r e f r Z r f a � a 9i = V O $o §k g §sF §R - I z �R z A a s z z zciU D Q J J e € . , . , . , . , • , , 0 H d • ppA1� m (Omp O lC1 • • • m tl' • .V N OAD iD A m OCA1{�1!_ ' Q � O d a m av cio 2G N g 5gp � � � • • � � � • M M t`� X7 of � � � N 'a N N nj C] n is Cmf N l/1 C'i Gl r it N�y CC�� 1� � � t0 fD lA � � � , • Ili N rn 10 m 1 r Ff 1lww i7 • N r y-I {p -, � • • • • • N _ CJ V t�1 q OI fPfFf � c� a� m OAf � • , ' � • , , In In OCD� o N t0 A � m�m O m r Q 1•f r N • f•] ' <O lt1 O m 8 ' • � ' C] N c7 � • � w O �Lf (D t0 c rn y (Op 161 r 13 I A Pl mN O i I I A VI N im 0. d u N C d Q d co V C 0. C r E Md CD i6 r CL OD cc z �'a A a s z z zciU D Q J J 0 H im 0. d u N C d Q d co V C 0. C r E Md CD i6 r CL OD cc 161 r-13 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Supporting Schedules May 31, 2012 E �� ' MN NN1p N1mIJ �F Y N 4 N �Np N u T'+ U g SH oad V8 d le 752) N = � c z H O Q mZ ¢ ILN C ° W J ¢J w adp �n o O z Z �!i ( z-N LL; S O Y > p [: ¢ n 0 d 6 6 X �U' vOCiO� J a s a V ap s J( z� Ua J o t' vn al S4� 6 p a aaJ Q<aQQ a T T2¢¢ p0� L 6 6 6 d cc CC a g�8 ; ;;wwwwwQ4f >,=Fo S (nom < 4a 45��Jy� N N � N N (No�7 /(YJr� IynC '(Y^p (WJa�{<QJ/ m N m S N n lPy y J JJ ngj�� A Ac� lnc�9 jg oF�LFp �°nnPNNo Qa �i o a a a2 a wwww U U U U U RQG WRI� �ySIy[[ two CWD W W � m z Lu J 2x F Z Z J z Z Z N 2 W U U H m � X 7 Y W i i F Fez-e lezzz -c uOC j ¢U ¢ eFZ�- 5 E5 8100 s utl�lf W amw 006 a �u�IL 7 ? > j�p9 c[ F V. mwww�CO ¢ tll U IWLdzc USO� O 4J f0 O NNW N_ N_ N N N_ N_ N N N N N N N N N N N ' a'a'gapa�a3 a p a a a a "$s �e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL zq2 gg xx W W S S S S C-000 S S S S S O O O S S S 16 1 r 13 m 1t�p p� �Opi � p Y fN t V N y N N r M Ei Amy MNN N M 555 aa�E��se�g. �° mm�WWW.sm3 '7Fm�33�W3m�o� C W W W WWVJU, 333- �.`�'333333�LL a �� s� �m m �W �91919 $ $ o oo 9.91919 to z Q Q w a z w a 2 e o a ¢ C ¢ J RE y ¢ 0. SQ z ;< wR Z a¢¢mm yN�oa 8` 8 33333 +w wJ z <3F J JJ J � ~LL W (gym ZF `a2 ° cc cc nd n¢. da a w 2iFwo ry ¢ n c6G cg�w wUUm a <��n�n�nr>iia>ig�3W"3I3fla,m ; 333r 3�333'it N 3 3 n iL < a o NIt� o+ a � 4nNf f�n'f m N N n^ N N N 2 �2wy u2WI¢¢ N N W h N U y�OZ= asz O D K S R 6¢ Y J Z U apoo � lY Mug °- zz ¢¢m W w¢oo °o Z <Js 7�Z ¢ZZ ZF O 8 0 W LLt W w 2< V�� X N yW0u�iy�ON O 001+w.� Ll W f -------------------- Y< O Y !9!O Y f O Y Y C O p f 0 0 p ! p 0 N a N C m a c O d 0 0 N a 'a U N z° aY_1r N m .r .. $ 4�4 k O sio Y v O 0 IL Y fi 1619 A3' N N x U � CO 0- r< 3 3 4. � 3 13: � oil && W W� O a d p4C y�y U o p a a a a W Z¢ uawwru z q Z �g Z ZZ2XZ C4 -2 Z N osf W z TZ Y 3Z Nb0 0 NY� � a O < 4 a�aJ d y t!! le Z N N co U W U U O D U y LI )ZZ yz2 yZZ }zZ Z Q Z a a aaa � ?a 8ppo 8 (2NX Y X y ' 11 � K 6 OJ 'RE 00 � 9 ?� LLr$7 }} '�3c�3333Sc z tut N Np N N N N N N N N N N N q N ggN �2y v�y y2 3 � gg U O ib l f A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Non Ad Valorem Special Assessments Collier County Tax Collector - Monthly Collection Report For the Fiscal Year ending September 2012 % Collected 86.20% 86.20% 86.20% TOTAL OUTSTANDING $ 2167783 $ 60,103 $ 156,680 Year Parcel ID Description Amount Comments FY 2010 1058920500 POI Hotel 119,627 bankruptcy FY 2011 1058920500 POI Hotel 119,627 bankruptcy Total Delinquent Parcels 239,255 Report Date: 6/4/2012 Page 12 ALLOCATION BY FUND' Discount / Gross Date NetAmount (Penalties) Collection Amount General Water /Sewer Received Received Amount Costs Received Fund Fund Assessments Levied FY 2012 $ 1,570,427 $ 435,400 $ 1,135,027 Allocation % 100% 28% 72% 10/26/11 $ 8,861 $ 501 $ 181 $ 9,543 S 2,646 $ 6,897 11/15/11 $ 142,077 $ 6,040 $ 2,900 $ 151,017 $ 41,869 $ 109,148 11/30111 $ 487,695 $ 20,735 $ 9,953 $ 518,383 $ 143,721 $ 374,661 12/08/11 $ 306,388 $ 13,013 $ 6,253 $ 325,653 $ 90,287 $ 235,366 12/22/11 $ 36,014 $ 1,263 $ 735 $ 38,012 $ 10,539 $ 27,473 01/25/12 $ 57,463 $ 1,622 $ 1,173 $ 60,258 $ 16,707 $ 43,552 02/28/12 $ 31,900 $ 585 $ 651 $ 33,136 $ 9,187 $ 23,949 03/29/12 63,314 $ 79 $ 1,292 64,685 17,934 46,751 04/27/12 $ 140,164 $ (206) $ 2,860 142,818 39,596 103,222 05/21112 $ 10,233 $ (304) $ 209 10,138 2,811 7,327 TOTAL $ 1,284,109 $ 43,328 $ 26,206 $ 1,353,643 1 $ 37S,2971$ 978,346 % Collected 86.20% 86.20% 86.20% TOTAL OUTSTANDING $ 2167783 $ 60,103 $ 156,680 Year Parcel ID Description Amount Comments FY 2010 1058920500 POI Hotel 119,627 bankruptcy FY 2011 1058920500 POI Hotel 119,627 bankruptcy Total Delinquent Parcels 239,255 Report Date: 6/4/2012 Page 12 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Series 2010 Special Assessment Revenue Bond 1. Recap of Capital Project Fund Activity Through May 31, 2012 Bond Issued (Construction Account) Source of Funds: Interest Earned Use of Funds: COI ($42,700.00) COI (costs transferred to checking account but not yet paid) ($5,000.00) Disbursements Water Treatment Plant ($4,234,344.93) Adjusted Balance in Construction Account May 31, 2012 2. Funds Available For Construction at May 31, 2012 Book Balance of Construction Account at May 31, 2012 Construction Funds available at May 31, 2012 3. Investments - BB &T at May 31, 2012 Estimated Tvoe YielS! Construction Fund: 0.12% ADJ: Outstanding Amounts Due Balance at May 31, 2012 $1,225.516.90 $1,225.516.90 161 1` A3 $5,500,000.00 $7,561.83 ($4,282,044.93) $1,225,516.90 Prin ' al $1,225,516.90 $0.00 $1,2251516.90 Page 13 161 r 3 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Construction Schedule AMOUNT OF I CAPITAL Water Treatmen REQ.# Date I CONTRACTOR IREQUISITIONI OUTLAY I COI I Plant Got 16/20/10 Greenberg Trarfip $10,00000 $1,674,581.20 700.00 $10,000.00 32 C01 10120!10 BUT $2,700.00 $288,314.14 $2,700.00 12/t5/11 Cot 10/20/10 Seveni Trent Management Svcs $15,000.00 35 $15,000.00 BCI Technologies C01 1I/=0 Dan Cox $15,000-00 /2115111 $15,000.00 $ 586 ,766.70 1 11109/10 Pat of the blarrds CID (rdrnb) $ 321 ,537.00 $321,537.00 $647,52'.4.09 $321,537.00 2 11/10/10 South Florida Excavation $26,503.75 $26,503.75 $43.67250 $26,503.75 3 11/24/10 Naples Deily News $151.02 $151.02 $25,609.59 $151.02 4 01/04/11 Century Link $28,310-88 $25,310.88 41 $26,310.88 5 12/16110 South Florida Excavation $18,00s.90 $18,008.90 02!24!12 $18,008.90 6 02101/11 Hole Monies $2,561.25 $2,56125 Cardinal Contractor; $2,561.25 7 02101/11 HaltMontes $18,200.00 $16,200.00 $48,232.19 $18,200.00 8 02/01/11 Hole Mantes $131206.91 $43206.91 $89,577.03 $13,206.91 9 02/10/11 Benchawk EnviroAnalyticaf, Inc. $1,01940 $1,019.00 $30,577.50 $1,019.00 10 02/17/11 Hole- Mantes $1,982.50 $1,982.50 48 $1,982.50 11 03/07/11 Hole Mantes $6.250.00 $8,250.00 $6,250.60 12 W16/1 1 south Florida Excsvadon $12,762.00 $12,762.00 $12,762.00 13 03129/11 Cardinal Contractors $27,000.00 $27,000.00 t4.277,044.93 $27,000.00 14 09/06/11 Hole Mantes $13,550.00 $13,850.00 $13,850.00 15 05105111 south Florida Excavation $18,58725 $18,587.25 $18,557.25 18 06N8/11 Cardinal Contractors $85,028.60 $95,028.60 $95,028.60 17 05/19/11 Hole Mantes $39,565.00 $39,565.00 $39,565.00 18 08/14/11 KW Controls $1,038.60 $1,038.60 $1,038.60 19 06114/11 Cardinal 001108C101 $196572.08 $196,572.08 $196,572.08 20 07/06111 Hole Morass $19,575.00 $19575.00 $t9,575.00 21 0X22/11 Cardinal Contractors $170,192.15 $170,192.15 $170,192.15 22 07/27/11 Hole Mantes $22,325.00 $22,325.00 $22,32540 23 08/19/11 Cardinal Contractors $156,352.50 $156.352.50 $156,352.50 24 014/30/11 Hole Monte* $19.700.00 $19.700.00 $19.700.00 25 09!1 till t South Flafda Excavation $6,971.40 $6,971.40 $6,971.40 26 09/16111 Sash Florida Excavation $4,601.85 $4,601.85 $4,601.85 27 09/16/11 Cardinal Contradas $ 278.892.77 $278.892.77 $278,88277 28 09127/11 Midnael Evens Computers $3,256.00 $3.255.00 $3,255.00 29 10+17/11 Cardinal Contractors $85,41629 $85,416.29 $85,41629 30 11I03/11 Hole Mantes $=.50 $832.50 $832.50 31 11-013111 Hale Mantes $43,975.00 $43,97540 $43,975.00 33 1U2,d/11 KW Controls $24,337.00 $24,33740 $24,337.00 Page 14 Total FY 2011 $1.717,261.20 $1,674,581.20 700.00 $11.67 5611 20 32 11114/11 Cardinal Contractors $266,314.14 $266,314.14 $288,314.14 34 12/t5/11 South Florida Excavation $4,601.85 $4,501.85 $4,501.85 35 12/15111 BCI Technologies $7,121.33 $7,12133 $7,121.33 36 /2115111 ITTWawEquip tentTach $ 586 ,766.70 $588,768.70 $586,785.70 37 12/16/11 Cardinal Contractors $647,52'.4.09 $647,523.09 $647,523.09 38 121=11 Hole Mantes $43,672.50 $43.67250 $43,872.50 39 0tf24/12 Hole Montm $25,60959 $25,60959 $25,609.59 40 01124112 Cardinal Contractors $174,822.88 $174.822.68 $174,82268 41 01130/12 KW Controls $73,011.00 $73,011.00 $73,011.00 42 02!24!12 Cardinal Contractors $240,418.36 $240,41836 $240,418.36 43 03/15/12 Cardinal Contractor; $246,740.07 $246,740.07 $246,740.07 44 04/05112 Hole Mantes $48,232.19 $48,232.19 $48,232.19 45 04=12 Cardinal Contractors $89.57743 $89,577.03 $88,577.03 46 05109/12 ITT Water Equipment Tech $30,577.50 $30,577.60 $30,577.50 47 05/16/12 Cardinal Contractors $82,629.20 $52,82920 $82,829.20 48 05/17112 KW CorWOb $12,166.50 $12,168.50 $12,166.50 Total FY 2012 559 783.79 S2,559,761 73 $0.00 $2, 559 783.73 Grand Total t4.277,044.93 344.93 $42 700.00 .93 interest FY 2011 Interest $5.743.88 IFY 2012 Interest $1,817.95 561.53 Page 14 b K §� o; Ix2k §/� §§v ■ §� )E N SCL § � � 16 ! 3 to / | � ■ � � a It 't;Stz q 4 , ..§.,� � - � ..$.,� 2 _ _ � . §,..,,■ � A a �I- z 9 a � - -- -- � » -- ® - -- ® . -■§ K' ■# "■ �� -- - - ~- -- . $ � $ k �a� ! �; ■` �f2f�.,272 •&■/�!}7! Ira; kk+6■■ 16 ! 3 to / r 0 a E Q a c E a E m V s R s 8 S B e n s_ a w i� 161'i k3 00 a &new/ Flared 161 T-A3 Port of the Islands Improvement District Cash Flow Projections 30 -Jun 31 -Jul 31 -Aug 30 -Sep 2012 2012 2012 2012 Cash Beginning Balance $1,001,891 $1,120,595 $1,088,591 $1,058,447 Cash Inflow $26,981 $374 $374 $100,160 Cash Outflow ($31,352) ($32,378) ($30,518) ($31,056) CD Investment $0 $0 $0 $0 Add: Due from WS Fund $137,632 $0 $0 $0 Less: Current Liabilities (as of 5/31/12) ($14,558) $0 $0 $0 Total Estimated Cash Balance $1,120,595 $1,088,591 $1,058,447 $1,127,550 Cash Receipts Special Assessments - Levy $26,607 $0 $0 $33,496 Special Assessments- Delinquent (prior yr) $0 $0 $0 $66,290 Special Assessments - Discount $0 $0 $0 $0 Interest $374 $374 $374 $374 Total Cash Inflow $26,981 $374 $374 $100,160 Operating Expenditures Administrative P/R -Board of Supervisors $500 $500 $500 $1,000 FICA Taxes $38 $38 $38 $77 ProfServ- Engineering $4,141 $4,141 $4,141 $4,141 ProfSery -Legal Services $2,835 $2,835 $2,835 $2,835 ProfSery -Mgmt Consulting 5er y $2,295 $2,295 $2,295 $2,295 Annual Audit $0 $0 $0 $0 Telephone $2 $2 $2 $2 postage and Freight $93 $93 $93 $93 Rental - Meeting Room $25 $25 $25 $25 Insurance - General Liability $0 $1,860 $0 $0 Printing 6 Binding $306 $306 $306 $306 Legal Advertising $427 $427 $427 $427 Miscellaneous Services $105 $105 $105 $105 Misc.- Assessmat Collection Cost $835 $0 $0 $0 Office Supplies $21 $21 $21 $21 Total Administrative $11,622 $12,648 $10,788 $11,326 Maintenance Contracts - Mgmt Services $8,443 $8,443 $8,443 $8,443 Contracts - Landscape $6,620 $6,620 $6,620 $6,620 Electricity - Streetlighting $1,365 $1,365 $1,365 $1,365 Utility - Irrigation $1,157 $1,157 $1,157 $1,157 R&M - Renewal d Replacement $2,145 $2,145 $2,145 $2,145 R&M - Roads $0 $0 $0 $0 CIp" $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Maintenance $19,730 $19,730 $19,730 $19,730 Total Cask Outflow $31,352 $32,378 $30,518 $31,056 *NOTES: Estimated CIP costs for the anticipated FY 2012 projects are shown quarterly. Delinquent assenments from hotel parcel orereflected as received in September 2012 The District has a CO mohrinj in September 2013 in the amount of $151,050. Page 17 Wtfar and -Sarver fnftroritc Port of the islands Improvunent District Cash Flow Projections ib i Ir-A3 30 -Jun 31 -Jul 31 -Aug 30 -Sep 2012 2012 2012 2012 Cash Beginning Balance $1,293,921 $406,553 $369,684 $334,675 Cash Inflow $87,200 $16,652 $16,652 $275,747 CashOutflow - Expenses ($496,424) ($53,521) ($51,661) ($492,253) Add: Prepaid Items $0 $0 $0 $0 Less: Due to General Fund ($137,632) $0 $0 $0 Leas: Current Liabilities (as of 5/31112) ($340,512) $0 $0 $0 Total Estimated Cash Balance $406,553 $369,684 $334,675 $118,169 Cash Receipts Special Assessments - Levy $70,548 $0 $0 $86,131 Special Assessments - Delinquent Woryr, $0 $0 $0 $172,964 Special Assessments - Discount $0 $0 $0 $0 Water /Sewer/IrrigationRevenue $16,378 $16,378 $16,378 $16,378 Interest /Miscellaneous $274 $274 $274 $274 Total Cash Inflow $87,200 $16,652 $16,652 $275,747 Operating Expenditures Administrative P/R -Board of Supervisors $500 $500 $500 $1,000 FICA Taxes $38 $38 $38 $77 ProfServ- Engineering $4,141 $4,141 $4,141 $4,141 Prof5ery -Legal Services $2,835 $2,835 $2,835 $2,835 ProfSery -Mgmt Consulting Sam $2,304 $2,304 $2,304 $2,304 Utility Billing $2,302 $1,102 $1,102 $1,102 Annual Audit $0 $0 $0 $0 Telephone $2 $2 $2 $2 Postage and Freight $85 $85 $85 $85 Rental - Meeting Room $25 $25 $25 $25 Insurance - General Liability $0 $1,860 $0 $0 Printing d Binding $230 $230 $230 $230 Legal Advertising $294 $294 $294 $294 Miscellaneous Services $180 $180 $180 $180 Misc.- Assessmnt Collection Cost $3,760 $0 $0 $0 Office Supplies $25 $25 $25 $25 Total Administrative $16,720 $13,621 $11,761 $12,299 Maintenance Contracts - Mgmt Services $25,331 $25,331 $25,331 $25,331 Contracts - Other Services $0 $0 $0 $250 Communication - Teleph - Field $283 $283 $283 $283 Utility - 6enerai $6,786 $6,786 $6,786 $6,786 RAM - Irrigation $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Am - Water Plant $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 RAM - Waste Water Plant $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Capital Reserve $0 $0 $0 $0 CLP" $439,804 $0 $0 $439,804 Total liloihtenance $479,704 $39,900 $39,900 $479,954 Debt Service Principal and Interest $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Cash Outflow $496,424 $53,521 $51,661 $492,253 'NOTES Estimated CIP costs for the mdicipated FY 2012 projects are shown quorterty. Delinquent assommv"rts from hotel parcel are reflected as received in Scptemher 2012, Page 18 Estimated Beginning Cash Balance $1,127,550 $1,278,600 $1,349,625 $1,410,568 Estimated Ending Cash Balance $1, 127, 550 $1,278,600 $1,349,625 $1,410,568 $1,461,005 WATER AND SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND Operating Revenues Assessments Water /SewerArrigaton Revenue Interest/Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues Operatina Expenditures Administrative Maintenance Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures CIP Projects Total Capital Expenditures Debt Service Principal and Interest Total Debt Service Adopted Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $200,000 $208,000 $208,000 $208,000 $208,000 $5,448 $2,838 $591 $490 $321 $1,295,072 $1,300,462 $1,298,215 $1,298,114 $1,297,945 $155,259 $157,319 $157,319 $157,319 $157,319 $471,867 $437,783 $450,916 $464,444 $478,377 $627,126 $595,102 $608,235 $621,763 $635,696 $3,737,976 $50,000 $54,796 $54,796 $64,796 $3,737,976 $50,000 $54,796 $54,796 $64,796 $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655, 360 $ 655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 Estimated BegInn1ng Cash Balance $118,169 $118,169 $97,993 $64,188 Estimated Ending Cash Balance $118,169 $118,169 $97,993 $64,188 $6,281 'Includes $151K CD maturing in September 2013. Page 19 161 Ir- A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROJECTIONS GENERAL FUND Adopted Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Operating Revenues Assessments $417,984 $417,984 $417,984 $417,984 $417,984 Interest/Miscellaneous $2,090 $2,177 $12,786 $13,496 $14,106 Total Operating Revenues $420,074 $420,161 $430,770 $431,480 $432,090 Operating Expenditures Administrative $117,132 $119,844 $123,439 $127,142 $130,957 Maintenance $224,461 $229,423 $236,306 $243,395 $250,697 Total Operating Expenditures $341,593 $349,267 $359,745 $370,537 $381,653 Capital Expenditures CIP Projects $78,481 $70,894 $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Expenditures $78,481 $70,894 $0 $0 $0 Estimated Beginning Cash Balance $1,127,550 $1,278,600 $1,349,625 $1,410,568 Estimated Ending Cash Balance $1, 127, 550 $1,278,600 $1,349,625 $1,410,568 $1,461,005 WATER AND SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND Operating Revenues Assessments Water /SewerArrigaton Revenue Interest/Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues Operatina Expenditures Administrative Maintenance Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures CIP Projects Total Capital Expenditures Debt Service Principal and Interest Total Debt Service Adopted Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $200,000 $208,000 $208,000 $208,000 $208,000 $5,448 $2,838 $591 $490 $321 $1,295,072 $1,300,462 $1,298,215 $1,298,114 $1,297,945 $155,259 $157,319 $157,319 $157,319 $157,319 $471,867 $437,783 $450,916 $464,444 $478,377 $627,126 $595,102 $608,235 $621,763 $635,696 $3,737,976 $50,000 $54,796 $54,796 $64,796 $3,737,976 $50,000 $54,796 $54,796 $64,796 $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655, 360 $ 655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 Estimated BegInn1ng Cash Balance $118,169 $118,169 $97,993 $64,188 Estimated Ending Cash Balance $118,169 $118,169 $97,993 $64,188 $6,281 'Includes $151K CD maturing in September 2013. Page 19 I b i i�- a3 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I VI H 1 0 0 0 0 D M 1 I11OU)t[1 M I OtO Ol 1 ON Ml0 '-I I .-1 1 Vl I 10 14 t` 1 O O O O O 19 '•I O rl Qt O 1 0 0 O t P W 1 1 1 10 lP 1 I 1 t LD LO I 1 1 1 O O M i/i L- 10 r I M IA r, ¢II %D 1 W O W t I 1 H 1 1 O ODt O M M 1 IA N LnM at 1 w w 1 I 1 0 1 1 M VI L` H M ri 1 N Ln 4& 4& w I N VI L0 1 I W I H I 1 i/1• Z 1 4} (/b VJ 1 +f& I I r� LA M LD 1 1 [1 r 1 I I 1 t V)• V} V} H 1 1 N N 1 1 il+ •. I 1 I VT 1 1 V} V). 1 I Q I 1 I I 1 1 I H 1 I 1 t 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I P4 I 1 I 1 1 1 I D:. I I I 1 1 1 I O Dt U 1 Ctl 1 000 1 o o 0 0 o o O 1 0000 O 1 O O O 1 O o o o O I M I 1 I 000000 0 1 0 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 O 1 I i 1 1 1 t 1 1 E-I 1 1 I {/} th i/} L} V}+!} V} 1 i!} {!J• {h i!} i!} 1 th L} i/} 1 I I U I 1 1 1 1 I I w l 1 I 1 1 I 1 L11 f 1 1 1 1 I 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I U I 1 1 1 I 1 I O I 1 1 1 I 1 I G4 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 000 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 0 O I 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 0 O I O 1 0 0 0 0 O I 0 0 0 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 V}Vf (!}i/}V}Vl• V} V} 1 4&4" 4& I I I la 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I U I 1 1 l 1 I O I H I 1 1 t 1 I O l a l 1 I 1 I I `•� I 1 1 1 f 1 I w l I 1 t 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I t 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 { 1 1 1 I 000 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 O O O O O 1 00 O 1 O O O O O 1 1 R; 1 1 0000 00 O 1 O 000 O 1 00 O 1 I W I 1 1 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 a 1 1 ry!•Vi Li Vi V}(!} Vi 1 V}L}{h {/} Vi I H I t 1 I 1 1 l [ 1 1 I �•I I E-I I 1 1 1 I Q 1 1 1 1 I 1 0I rn I t 1 1 I 1 a I t I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 E-1 EO I 1 I I I 1 H H N O N 1 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 I N O o 0 N H W 1 H 1 H H OO1n 000 to ; 0000 O ; 00 O i .-1 'i V}VI•tl}t? V). I O i? O U E H 1 1 I P L\ I 1 n L� l a(ilW 11 1 I 1 1 l '�11 Q Q I H 1 I N N 1 1 1 1 I H ] I r/> M t 1 Mr VY 1 00 0 0 1 1 1 I 1 1 134 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 I 1 1 t 1 N I I U coo 1 000000 O 1 O O O O O I 00 O 1 0000 O 000000 O 1 0000 O I OO 0 1 I H 1 f!7 1 I d/} (? 4} L} I 1 t V 1 I L} i/} i!} p} t/} K L} I iJT I tA• tn• {/1• 1 a I I w 1 1 I 1 p i U U 1 t 4x I 1 1 I 1 1 W 1 I 1 I 1 I E 1 I 1 I 1 1$ I k 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I a 1 W N••4M 1 0000 P+LD M I Ln Otfl to Ln I Dt O m 1 w NM%0 m 1 FL' I O IA-1%0 1 o o NO oo In M 1 -10 r1 Ol O 1 O O O 1 Ln 1D I H I 10 LO I I 1 1 10 w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I H I M 1 O O D1 VS• t� LD M 1 M L11 t� LD 1 .00 W 1 t yry I Uj 1 00 e4 O M LD 1 LD N Ln r-) D't 1 m 01 1 I W I W 1 M V 0 ri M M 1 N Ln :? V} %D 1 r'I V Ln 1 VI* VI, I H I Q f IA LA M M 1 I M M I V} V!• ri 1 I N N I Vi VJ• � T 1 1 `•' I 1 1 1 p] ] I 1 I 1 1 1 1 { W 1 1 1 O I 1 1 VJ rill •• 1 C7 t 1 1 O I 1 H 1 .. � 1 Q, I •• 1 I 1 11 (n 1 V} t O 1 I I I A I W H 1 � 1 �•1 1 y M 1 N 1 I I F 1 W W W 1 .�. W W W ,7. 1 �-1 E-1 •• I H N 1 1 M U I H O Duo 1 r1 1 I E I �-1 U 1 1 . O W �i 1� •• 1 I� /ri la .••1 1 1 1 ,2. IU �U 1 �' I H y f -0{:! 1 .. I Lq OO � 1 I w l /al •• o Ln I I p 1 H a' 1 H 1 H E H Pj '17 as 1 rA I M F"] Vl 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 a I H H A.' ly a 1 I W 1J 1 a' 1� t I w 1•� ID 1 I U l a a a I q l rn W (' •.Y•i �i a a 1 I (7 (!� a R I •• I A p •• 1 I U I IQ 14: I� I 1 O O H U rte+' w H 1 Iwy� �ij H 1 VJ 1 1 (1� 1 W H a a Q S F LYi 1 W 1 W I O pq ••Q 1 1 1 OOO 1 .7w I W W alr5W I� 1 H t pc,•I�W I� 1 z 1 H 1 1 W H I I 1 1 [y E•1 E•1 1 H t g R H i/i fiJ .�. a 1 VJ 1 U I•� V) .�. 1 W 1 VJ 1 V] 1 O H W F1 a 1 I 1 1 I i l a l I p I 1 1 ^Qy � a l a l z w 1 t l �E I a 1 j.A(sSIOACF~ =] E 1 ] 1 P4 UA H I I Q W H E Ra` a W ZO 1 I O t 0 . 1 00 I H t qA1 -IV]m� O I q I U,arn� O 1� 1 WW O I H I w;licx O O N 07 IL 1 61 r- A 3 1 1 1 I lO Nri O)m m00 ri riOri 010100 rl ri Or1000d NNO(INNOO 14e-10H0000 ri ri 0!001010 N I M I N N wco w O 00 O O It N N O 10 O H V' V' I a 1 riH Nw w H 1 ri NN H10w 1 Q� f V} 1? i/} i0• Vi N 1 Q t d FA 1 H 1 1 1 d a I 1 A I 1 H I 1 I 1 P4 1 1 o O1 U I W I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 d O O b O b b 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 d b f•7 I� 1 O O O O O 1 1 Q2. 1 H 1 1 U 1 I w 1 la1 1 M t 1 1 1 1 1 I 0 1 1 a 1 1 a 1 1 ii 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 000a0000 b000000 1x1 0 0 0 o d I � 1 I 1 U 1 O I H I d 1 a 1 �•' 1 1 1 lal 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 laWlxl o 0 0 0 0 1 a 1 1 111• il} 111• 1/t th I H I Q I 1 g 1 I I 1 I E•1 1 �•I 1 � I (y+ 1 1 jy I 1 I H 1 N M 1 1 1 aZ i iq yI � 1 1 I Ha OtQ W i H H 1 51 1 a 1 OOONNNOO 00000000 00000000 ri rf o w0000 HH Ori 0000 ri ri 01001010 :> � 1 r7 l a l ri rI M N N O O O ri 0 10 O rl VI d• H W a I H I H I V•00 r-1 U E co 1 I g 1 N N {/1' {h 5+00 1 1 0 0 2: 1 p a w l 1 1 1 1 1 NV c I a 1 CW9 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 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 'JI 1 I 1 '�Rj74, 1 1 1 a 1�Ipl £ lolal p 1 a l U I 1 1 1 l 1 1 £ 1 1 1 1 1 1 101 11-� I jsj I tON �I �O �O lD00 r•I r-1 Ori 010100 rlrl O x•100 00 rirl O HN N 00 00000000 0000000 I l 1 rirl rilow O 00 O O NN O O 1 H / E•1 1 ri r•1 ri V� V� • ri ri N N 1 w 1 iii 1 1 A 1 Z I I H l p l I p+ 1 U 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 N i i i ££S£ ^AAvr E£££ AAA 111> 0 1 I 1 0000a- � 0000a - - 11r 0000a- t1r 0000a- yr 0000a- - 11+ o0o0a- O 1 1 E-1 I wwwwaah W www a� wW ww 4IM www waA ww ww afJ w WitiW I•aafJ I I H 1 ITT 1 I I�HAq 1 1 1 1 a�iH q 1 1 1 1 H9 A 1 1 1 1 I�H •per q 1! 1 1 H A 1 I I 1 y'H9 1 1 1 M^�HM- -Mx494 ni'�U(O— Fiw WEE mM—M w UI"✓E-IUI�'•'LQF4w to >> iil� =al�w C!a'JE+m""iY1W N 1 I I aHUE-1 a aH H a aHUH a aHUH a aH e1 rl UH E1�-1 lyHwwwa HE1 Hwwwa H QHwwwa H[� aFlwwwa EIHQHwwWa HHRCHWww ri rNi t i 8 i W L.1 .7� :AMfAH wU MMMH w V z M m01H W U171 MMMH UN MMMH wU IN �-I MMm ON 1 1 a+ 1 £.1 �I �-lr 'f�7 -1 �R-11 '��.•11 A�[`.1H iH•1 D D to 1:11 XA'i H Jr'7 'a 1r7 m £�A'Ii H1J �.' --1.1 r'7 '`�7.I G�Q1 1A. �H.1 ✓-1 �7 -I �-11 .x'71 P7 £/J'i Hi-+r7 too Ew-1 i $333333 33333333 33333$33 3533333 3333333 3333333 o •• I 1 q I 1 I N O O O O 0 •• Q 1 1 I h O N O O d w H 1 I a 1 a' W 1 1 W j C', r♦ ri N VI d rl q a I t l H H P4 P4 H H H H M a •• A H a P4 rnU M H a a 1 O I lA I O I a 1 1 a I t? 1 E+ 1 1 O,1 t F 1 1 w i o i a 1 Vi 1 H 1 1 U 1 I W I I P4 1 I O I I i i o i 1 d o 1 i U 1 O I H I I O l a l I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 L11 I f Q� I W fell 1 Z >4 El In a "HI E/xtai] Q H H W W >+ O O x H H aw N N a U �4 r N 0 0 N rl N 1 H ri 1 O to 10 tD O O aw qw a I w 1 al H 1 O 1 O I . 1 � 1 .71 t O a 1 O H 1 I 1 {JD I W 1 1 H I E+ 1 1 1 1� 1 O F� 1 O H 1 1 � 1 WI 1 I Q U 1 ll I a I H I �-I I �z] q 1 H I O IW la 0 O Y? I � I AW a 1 H 1 aj I i 3 N H ri c1100000 t mm v w w O 1 O- 1 In Ill 1 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O I . I � I 000000001 o, . 1 � 1 O O O b 0 0 0 0 1 O I • I �I MMO III H r- N r r 0 ri ri O to to N N 00000000 O 01 0 H m r r 0 0 ri H r-I 01 01 O r-I 14 r-I r r N N o-oa w �A a /^�1I O I1 E> C• awa W L24 i-1 LJ El N W 14 1 EI�H,�QQa I p: U �Ia tq CA U]H I H A,' H I'J 'f7 17 fl0 i I H I Q 1 E I IW 1 1 i 001 r101D iD riO OQOOOD 060 d1 NN ONd1 VION 1 M 11 ra M1D%D co N N Nl01D v M I 1D tD 1D M M - O1 • , O 1 ri ri ZOO N fl} 1 ri r-1 1 vl• , M 1 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o O o I O O O I • I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O O O 1 Vl• Lr ilt 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O O O I 1 V3- 1 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l O O O . I Li L} L} 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 O O O Lt L? 1 001 If 0%0 w rl O 0000 W 060v NNON OVON M r-I r-i M%D lD m NN N b 1D v M 1D 1D OA ID M M O 00 H H 1D tll L} ri r-I th M 00000 - L} WWWWI WH E4 64 uzwcw» vwiMH £IQwRp��PR X3333333 Ln r- 00000- Lr WWWNQ"1A7 osyFUl�Hro�a W [a-I EI�HW W WIa-1 W U (' 22H £ /ri H r17 17 .�� W 33333333 0 S£££ l PL" 00000- E rh wwEw�W�aq�q aOaM U3—m Iv EE HWWWa WCJ gW V1WH 33333333 0 0 O H N z a a 161 I 1 N e-Y ri N OD OD rl lD I In tp rl N MM 111 I W %D VIV I lD I rl ri M I M I M I � I 0 o O o o o o o 1 O I • I � I 000000001 0 ih 0C.000000 O Or 00000000 O Lr 00000000 vi- O NrAriNOOriw In d1 ri In M M ul %D 1D W rl r-I M M I M 1 � 000 �WqA � tWW 0HO Q I F HInW WwW I �H�HQQ'a'a i i0 I H I r'A3 1 1 wI- H m 1 11r rl 01 11 El w 1 1 rI N 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 o 0 o 0000 0000 M M 0 M r-I H N r 0000 ri 0) N r-I rInHr- rr r 1000 WNW I 1 1 I O I Ea•1 W H H El a H H i E�fz1 IO i0 1 1 1 v W a A a a O (h U M H W a P4 cl)1 FI i w. 1 H 1 H 1 WI W 1 W 1 LD l0 a-I 10 1 00 Ln , Ql 01 1 � 1 10 W M 1 M 1 M 1 �!f 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 I � 1 1 a l 1 , o IHI I o lal , 1 , , lal 1 H 1 a 1 0 1 a rn 1 W Q I a 1 1 HH H H I H W a F x W U� FI H rx4 D4 I D+ 0 0 E4 E-4 zOOI� p�aa N a 0 U r N O 0 N ri N f rl H' , o to 10 O •- A •• O WH Fa qa a1 W I al H , 1 H I H i E I H E H U 0 u I I Iq I H I (fJj� I W 0000l of . 1 rl ri 4 0 1 r r O I 1p t� I � I N N I 0000 0 vlw I Ln Ln r% to I M M In N N • I � 10 I M 1 M 1 >h 1 Q � ,NppQ F-iq HPH9RCQ IwWWW 1 [q fA CA H 1 0Dm 0 EH f�l W M W pFq W w H x F OW. w Q qW R a k W W �qH r� H P Q W O W H O z ib i f A3 N ro a M W a •• a H a a 0 mU ri a a 0 0 H O 1 co dam Htnp �ww 1400 oo E N N i i a 0 U t` N 0 0 N r♦ N I rl rl 1 O M I O 1D 0 p 0 ce qa fn ER O H w� H I VI WI a: E03 C U H a a al all H I I I al H I I wl 1 1 H I L I U a W O U I I H I I 1 q I H 1 � 1 W 114 xl FI I 0. 1 1 z• H 1 I 1 AI A I W I al al H I � 1 In I I x� I I I I I I co 1i a' W O 1 W II � 10 EH.I I�I 1 O lu 1 P I H I I I I � 1 la I H1 ig 1 114 IW I I W I In I V1 1"7 ri V1 (rl 0 H 1, 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 v N NON V• O O W ri O ri 11 r. .-I N N N 1D sN N I �Dw %DN I I+1 Cl I17 I A m M 11 I OD N V]• � I VI , � I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 01 . 1 00000000 00000000 000000001 0 0 01 . 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O O O I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 O O O O O o 0 0 l O O 91. I 4/1- vil : 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000c> O O o 411. 411. vil I vmriV mol-11� OOOOODoov NNONV'OOW ri O ri H r% ri N N N kD VI N %D %D W N 14 m M H M M H W N 0 SEE 0 E- .❑_❑vr W W W W1H�pL7 En !S n 0 FC W [x t HyrWnuPNO aaaaaaaa fJ1U]fAV1mmm W M 0 P4 wOWOWOWr��lgh U] , F y —M li W HHaHzWWWA aWOaa�w aaaaaaaa VJW ytnWyW W 0 0 rt a EEEE- •-❑❑(& 0000141�.�- V)- W W W w� Atql❑ M>EM` --M 1� W Ca•INa1H-1WWWa Tam ��Mca aaaaaaaa mxxrn❑�� 0 0 N a I 1 IDM H�DMOri f• l f•1 NHM VI m I %D %D W f•1 I rl ri o I ri I M I � I 000000001 of • I � I 000000001 of . 1 � 1 00000000, O � I 00000000 O 00000000 O I tD MrlW MO HE- I.1 N H M VI co %D 10 LD M t` r-1 O rl M ZM Egg m WNW fA 1 > HfHAIy E1"-IUECW7W W a IaaH�O��w 1 I I I 1F 1 PQ 1 t � . 161 r-A3 I 1 %0MH W MO Hrl 1 m N .-I Ir1 V' OD 1 %9%0 W M • I � 1 ri o 1 ri 1 . 1 M � r!s I O O O o 0 0 0 o I O 1 .1; • I I 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 1 of . I t4 1 00000000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O irr 00000000 O at I w M.i W MOH h m N H M d m %D t` rl O rl I M I � EEE a�❑ W W W a l � OHgrir WW Do I W >HU)W W W W i IE H �EH1�1z-1��Qa En U3 ril H E A•iH i�'a •0 Z:)W 10 IH I I 1 i (ry N CD 0) m a z o O H Wz um aco �Ha wwH H M W TA C4 m PI 03 H Hr T. x Vl [-+ fn E ZHO Ix EA + w Q0WWq 11Kp 9 U W(]x W 17 W 14 L) W u� �W ca a W W W 1Q H co -E M 2z pq H E O aW� M H 014 rH,a� 000 zzz 161 r A3- In N N CA 10 a 1 I I I Ln M I!1 O\ O 1 b Cl! d O O O I N v rl t� lO W O I f+l N fn ON 1O O I CO Ln rl �o N VI I N ca r w O I ri V1 N cq I f? U i!b W Lt I 04 to 0 w Q 1 v N W W N �yj ca O 2� O ((a +"I \ W W 04 to 0 w Q z z a z o m w o N L7 W Ea 2 W ri a w VI m O l!7 ri !f1 m lO N f`7 <9 '.? r♦Ql O'1 O VI rim rlOv O wr-OUI V HOM mmw iZJ to Ul 01 O r- Ul r- N 01 UI W ulIn s} N rl VI H ri Ea a � Q 0 N 'i t` O V• 'i O V• L,: C ri li ora Ul to ri m Ill tD Cl) ODD N rl ri N O a o Q N O Ol w v O m O �ry Ul O Ill O O a �N w N a o a 0 ID m o t` o m 0 o m o to m ri In H N N 10 N Q O r1 E-I m O m O �(:y] r1 tl1 11 UI fY V' N w N W r-I a H I.a wrlornrlrilnm�owNrinl ,� '{.�oN�o�rimrarlOal x to�mC4m0r mr- C*lr,Lo F E rilnNrnOr�mn Noon U NwH ri dlN dr VI ri ri w U O a E a 0 P4 I wwwu.ww w 000000 0 w mmmmmm m wwwwww w 000000 0 z m alxxxxxxmx fG U m W raO x m m m m m m ffn m O MM N v az�aa�� El Hj HEEH EEEHF W W a 0C 14Ll14tO8oC7t 00roiC'� w Cl N OOO 0001 D4 ri ri rl ri ri ri ri O 0 1 I 1 1 1 1 NN 7 1 ri I NNN O M O O 000 OO ri E1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 QO O 0 C. 0 0 0 0 N w w w w w w w w w ri a U 0000000000000 ri >+ r l ri ri ri o U [D OG NUl Ul at r Nri t- M HC1(n r♦ rsj 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W N d< M . 'i . ri ri r. rti O ri P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l�rl0 ri Uf mm0mm Ul rl 01 ri 00000 Ill to NC> 0 O N dl rl ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOUI In Io ID 1010 �t01D l0 [y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 w U 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I E U N N N N Al N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q I r-A 61 1 3 m N W C CL 161 lr-A3--- N a 0 r n cM GO N O co rq a a a q ° N rl lD M ri V] 0) O � N O q N O Q1 W N ri O i1 N 04 Q a 0 W M O1 N A N Q M O M 0 r tn C4 N tq H a H RWC � %D 1D W E r r W U O w w E a O a w M M a r{ ri �+H�+ E W W ",L isi W w co W O rAWu V] W [+ U Ei Q U PO N W U E �i N OHO W U ,any CA Vx Eop+ 0 W F xN EEaF N a ° aaa 0 W u a HE°E Q U S A i 3� $ a. u F 08 �a uy ju.V W S d C 6 m 161 1 A3 I co N N o a z z z z z Iz zm I,] tS X� $ gO g 8 W O F Caf 1I} P N M N Cl m Q r A Oo N N CD I� N g S y 91 Ta C 4) 0 IQ m is 2E a m m a fi � o 0 cc 0 `� 3 r s $ w m U r CL 2 to Ic E E 9 9 92 9 9 U0 it W e e€ E s€ e$ W m mR m m ■ � ■ 0 A � W m m W m m yWW 6 N E C8 7 4 o� e� m O r » I'e ,-SIR g 16I lrl A3 LL LL LL � a c CL 3 p � m g 9 3 N b g 16I lrl A3 LL LL LL p V O C g � 4 2 o � m a E t � r LL 8 d 8 a U b i a3 o 5 o m E g s� t3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 a o0 N U 91 IL 0 N f7 8 S t 8 s C p �m 16I 1 'A3 0 a 161 A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Version 2 - Modified Tentative Budget: (Printed an 6/412012 at 5pm) Prepared by: PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Table of Contents 16I � A3 Page # OPERATING BUDGET General Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .... ............................... 1 -2 BudgetNarrative .......................................................................... ............................... 3 -5 Exhibit A - Allocation of Fund Balances ............................................. ............................... 6 Water and Sewer Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .... ............................... 7-8 BudgetNarrative .......................................................................... ............................... 9-12 AmortizationSchedule ................................................................... ............................... 13 Exhibit B - Allocation of Fund Balances ............................................. ............................... 14 SUPPORTING BUDGET_ SCHEDULES 2012 -2013 Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Summary ......................... ............................... 15 CIPSchedule .......................................................................... ............................... 16 16f1 A3 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 16 1 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District General Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU JUN- PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 MAY -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 REVENUES interest - Investments S 9,977 $ 6,315 $ 2,090 $ 2,994 $ 1,497 $ 4,491 $ 2,177 Net Incr (Door) In FMV- Invest 6,271 2,159 - 1,481 2,500 1,481 - Interest- Tax Collector 1,429 166 538 24 191 24 - Special Assmnts- Tax Collector 404,299 402,233 435,400 375,297 60,103 435,400 435,400 Special Assmnts- Refund (13,304) - 12,500 22,677 - - 12,500 Special Assmnts- Delinquent 3,795 26,867 - 18,359 66,290 66,290 28,365 SpecialAssmnts- Discounts (12,027) (11,128) (17,416) (12,013) - (12,013) (17,416) Other Miscellaneous Revenues 3,277 3,676 - - - - TOTAL REVENUES 403,717 403,421 420,074 367,783 127,890 495,673 420161 EXPENDITURES Administrative 99,703 101,289 103,821 67,545 33,773 101,318 100,000 P/R -Board of Supervisors 6,400 5,700 7,000 4,500 2,500 7,000 7,000 FICA Taxes 490 436 538 344 191 535 536 ProfServ- Engineering 16,550 21,523 26.000 9,438 16,562 26,000 26,000 ProfServ-Legal Services 28,890 30,200 12,500 22,677 11,339 34,016 12,500 ProfServ-Mgmt Consulting Sery 26,084 26,867 27,539 18,359 9,180 27,539 28,365 ProfServ- Property Appraiser - 6,530 6,531 - 6,531 6,531 ProfServ-Spedal Assessment 8,500 8,755 8,974 8,974 8,974 9,243 Auditing Services 4,432 3,750 3,750 3,500 - 3,500 3,750 Communication - Telephone 69 22 100 18 8 24 100 Postage and Freight 1294 1,129 1,500 743 372 1,115 1,50D Rental - Meeting Room 600 325 300 225 100 325 350 Insurance - General Liability 7,979 7,830 8,270 5,845 1,860 7,705 8,861 Printing and Binding 1,551 1,578 2,000 776 1,224 2,000 2,000 Legal Advertising 2,475 475 2,200 493 1,707 2,200 2,200 Miscellaneous Services 293 482 40D 835 418 1,253 1,375 Misc- Assessmnt Collection Cost 1,944 (3,801) 6,708 7,266 1,442 8,708 8,708 Misc -Web Hosting - - - 119 - 119 1,000 Office Supplies 774 448 650 169 85 254 650 Annual District Filing Fee 175 175 175 175 - 175 175 Total Administrative 106,486 10SA94 117,132 90,985 48,987 137,972 120,844 Field Contracts-Mgmt Services 99,703 101,289 103,821 67,545 33,773 101,318 100,000 Contracts- Landscape 95,953 97,639 79,440 52,960 26,480 79,440 79,440 Electricity - Streetfighfing 12,267 13,439 13,000 10,929 5,465 16,394 16,500 Utility - Irrigation 9,248 61559 7,200 9,256 4,628 13,884 12,600 R&M- Renewal and Replacement 19,567 17,126 20,000 8,577 4,289 12,8% 10,000 R&M -Roads & Alleyways - - 6,000 - - - 4,000 R&M- Signage - 1,000 Capital Outlay 4,508 73,481 70,894 Total Field 241,246 236,052 302,942 149,267 74,634 223,901 294,434 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 349,732 341,946 420,074 24O X2 121,620 3611,872 415 278 Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget Rscal Year 2013 1 16 11r �a3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District General Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes In Fund Balances Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU JUN- PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 MAY -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 Excess (dogdency) of revenues Over (under) expenditures 531965 61,475 - 127,531 6,270 133,801 4,883 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Contribution to (Use of) Fund Balance 4,883 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES US 4 3 Not change In fund balance FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING FUND BALANCE, ENDING 53,985 61,475 127,531 6,270 133,801 4,883 1,046,687 1,100,672 1,162,147 1,162,147 - 1,162,147 1,295,948 1 100 672 $ t,i82,147 $ 1,182,147 1 1$6.270 Annual Operating and Debt service Budget Fiscal Year 2013 2 161►i A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District General Fund Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 REVENUES Interest-investments The District earns interest on the monthly average collected balance for their operating accounts. Special Assessments -Tax Collector The District will levy a Non -Ad Valorem assessment on all the assessable property within the District in order to pay for the operating expenditures during the Fiscal Year. Special Assessments- Discounts Per Section 197.162, Florida Statues, discounts are allowed for early payment of assessments. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is calculated at 4% of the anticipated Non -Ad Valorem assessments. EXPENDITURES Administrative P/R -Board of Supervisors Chapter 190 of the Florida Statutes allows for members of the Board of Supervisors to be compensated $200 per meeting at which they are in attendance. The amount for the Fiscal Year is based on 5 Board members paid for attending 14 meetings. The fees will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. FICA Taxes Payroll taxes for supervisor salaries are calculated as 7,65% of payroll. Professional Services-Engineering The Districts engineer provides general engineering services. to the District, i.e. attendance and preparation for monthly board meetings when requested, review of invoices, and other specifically requested assignments. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is based on prior year spending. The fees for shared general maters only will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. Professional ServicegLegal Services The Districts Attorney provides general legal services to the District, i.e., attendance and preparation for monthly Board meetings, review of contracts, review of agreements and resolutions, and other research as directed by the Board of Supervisors and the District Manager. The fees will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Professional Services - Management Consulting Services The District receives Management, Accounting and Administrative services as part of a Management Agreement with Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. Professional Services - Property Appraiser The Property Appraiser provides the District with a listing of the legal description of each property parcel within the District boundaries, and the names and addresses of the owners of such property. The District reimburses the Property Appraiser for necessary administrative costs incurred to provide this service. Per the Florida Statutes, administrative costs shall include, but not be limited to, those costs associated with personnel, forms, supplies, data processing, computer equipment, postage, and programming. The FY2013 budget for collection costs was based on 1.5% of the anticipated assessment collections. Annual Operating and Water /Sewer Budget Fiscal Year 2013 I r- 6 1 1 " A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District General Fund Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 EXPENDITURES Administrative (continued) Professional Services - Special Assessment The District has contracted with Severn Trent Management Services, Inc. to levy annual assessments, update the District's tax roll, prepare estoppel letters and handle any customer service questions regarding assessments. Auditing Services The District is required to conduct an annual audit of its financial records by an Independent Certified Public Accounting Firm. The fees will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. Communicatlon- Telephone Telephone and fax transmission expenditures. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year Is based on prior year spending. The fees will be split with the Water & Sewer Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Postage and Freight This represents costs associated with actual postage and/or freight used for District mailings including agenda packages, vendor checks and other correspondence. The fees will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. Rentals — Meeting Room The District is charged $50 per occurrence for the use of the meeting room at which the District's meetings are held. This fee will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. Insurance — General liability The District currently has its Insurance Policy with the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust. This includes general liability, storage tank and property insurance. The FY 2013 budget includes an estimated 15% Increase of the actual FY 2012 premium. Printing and Binding This represents costs associated with copies used In the preparation of agenda packages, required mailings, and other special projects. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is based on prior year spending. The fees will be split with the Water & Sewer Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Legal Advertising The District is required to advertise various notices for monthly Board meetings and other public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. The board will advertise for their meetings annually. The fees will be split with the Water & Sewer Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Miscellaneous Services This includes monthly bank charges and any other miscellaneous expenses that may be incurred during the year. Miscellaneous - Assessment Collection Costs The District reimburses the Collier County Tax Collector for her or his necessary administrative costs. Per the Florida Statutes, administrative costs shall include, but not be limited to, those costs associated with personnel, forms, supplies, data processing, computer equipment, postage, and programming. The District also compensates the Tax Collector for the actual cost of collection or 2% on the amount of special assessments collected and remitted, whichever is greater. The FY2013 budget for collection costs was based on a maximum of 2% of the anticipated assessment collections. Annual Operating and Water /Sewer Budget Fiscal Year 2013 16 1 Ir-1- A 3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Genera! Fund Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 EXPENDITURES Administrative (continued) Miscellaneous -Web Hosting The District expects to incur costs associated with Web Hosting. Office Supplies Supplies used in the preparation and binding of agenda packages, required mailings, and other special projects. Annual District Filing Fee The District is required to pay an annual fee of $175 to the Department of Community Affairs. Field Contracts -Mgmt Services The District has contracted with Severn Trent Environmental Services to provide operating, maintenance and field management services. This contract includes a predetermined amount of R &M costs. Costs above the specified amount are recorded as 'R &M- Renewal and Replacement. Any unused R &M costs are returned to the district. Contracts - Landscape Soto's Lawn currently provides monthly landscape services to the district for a monthly fee of $6,620 ($79,440 /year). The remainder of the budgeted expenditures is to cover any incidental landscape expenditures that the district may incur. Electricity - Streetlighting The District currently has 3 electric accounts with Lee County Cooperative for streetlights located on District Roads. Expenses are based on prior year's electric bills. The district receives a reimbursement for a portion of the decorative street lighting from Orchid Cove. Account No. Service Address 0051120000 0 Eveningstar Cay 4941120000 Newport Drive 5741120000 262 Stella Marls Utility - Irrigation The District is currently being billed by the Water /Sewer Fund of Port of the Islands CID for irrigation water for the common areas that the District is required to maintain. R &M- Renewal and Replacement Various repair and maintenance costs incurred as needed including but -not limited to the entrance, monuments and lighting. R &M -Roads & Alleyways Expenses Incurred while maintaining District roadways. R &M- Signage This category includes costs for maintaining or replacing signage throughout the District. Capital Outlay Monies spent on capital improvement projects as identified by the board. Annual Operating and Water /Sewer Budget Fiscal Year 2013 5 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community improvement District Exhibit "A" Allocation of Fund Balances 161 1r 'A3 AVAILABLE FUNDS Amount Beginning Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 $ 1,295,948 Net Change in Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 4,883 Reserves - Fiscal Year 2013 Additions Total Funds Available Estimate - 11/3012013 1,300 831 plasiff—I • • i r Assigned Ftrnd 8s/anae Operating Reserve - Fret Quarter Operating Capital 103,820 t'I Subtotal 103.820 Total Allocation of Available Funds 1M,820 Total Unassigned (undesignated) Cash $ 11,197,1312 Notes (1) Represents approximately 3 months of operating expenditures General Fund Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget Fiscal Year 2013 6 i61 1r-a3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Water And Sewer Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU JUN- PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 MAY -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 OPERATING REVENUES Interest - Investments $ 3,980 $ 6,244 $ 5,448 $ 2,192 $ 1,096 $ 3,288 $ 2,838 Water Revenue 41,656 41,379 40,000 29,887 $ 14,944 44,831 43,000 Sewer Revenue 59,903 58,819 60,000 46,296 $ 23,148 69,444 65,000 Irrigation Fees 102,226 93,629 160,000 54,840 $ 27,420 82,260 100,000 Net Ina (Derr) In FMV- Invest 11,677 4,021 - 2,757 - 2,757 - Interest - Tax Collector 3,271 - - - 9,217 - - Special Assmnts- Tax Cokaor 1,055,823 1,048,566 1,135,025 978,346 156,681 1,135,027 1,135,025 Special Assmnts- Refund (34,209) 7,468 - - - - - Special Assmnts- Delinquent 9,912 15,155 15,821 8,816 172,964 172,964 15,821 Special Assmnts- Discounts (31,407) (29,069) (45,401) (31,316) - (31,316) (45,401) Other Miscellaneous Revenues 11,552 19,379 - 3,535 - 3,535 100 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1 234 1,243,028 1 072 1,086,537 396,252 1,482,789 1 300 462 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel and Administndton P/R -Board of Supervisors 6,400 5,700 7,000 4,500 2,500 7,000 7,000 FICA Taxes 490 436 536 344 191 535 536 ProfServ- Engineedng 25,531 37,564 26,000 9,438 16562 26,000 26,000 ProfServ-Legal Services 29,076 30,200 12,500 22,677 11,339 34,016 12,500 ProfServ-Mgmt Copsuling Sery 26,192 26,978 27,652 18,435 9,217 27,652 28,482 ProfServ- Property Appraiser - - 17,024 17,025 - 17,025 17.025. ProfServ- Special Assessment 7,250 7,468 7,655 7,655 - 7,655 7,885 ProfServ- U81ity Billing 15,135 15,155 15,821 8,816 5,608 14,424 15,821 Auditing Services 3,568 3,750 3,750 31500 - 3,500 3,750 Communication - Telephone 58 21 100 16 6 24 100 Postage and Freight 634 561 1,000 478 341 819 1,000 Rental - Meeting Room 600 325 300 225 100 325 350 Insurance - General Liability 7,979 7,830 8,270 5,845 1,860 7,705 8,270 Printing and Binding 969 986 1,500 582 918 1,500 1,500 Legal Advertising 1,841 353 1,600 424 1,176 1,600 1,600 Miscellaneous Services 810 1,371 1,100 1,440 720 2,160 2,050 MisaAssessmnt Collection Cost 37,904 20,371 22,701 18,941 3,760 22,701 22,701 Office Supplies 885 517 750 198 99 297 750 Depreciation Expense 253,166 308AN - - - - - Total Personnel and Administratlon 418,468 467,895 155,259 120,539 64,400 174,939 157,319 Water -slow Comb services Unemployment Compensation 271 - - - - Contracts- MgmtServices 300,698 304,000 311,599 202,647 101,324 303,971 309,533 Contracts-Other Services 1,750 2,000 1,750 250 2,000 2,000 Communication - Teleph - Fell 3,918 3,867 3,768 2,261 1,131 3,392 3,766 Utility - General 76,559 79,963 80,000 54,289 27,145 81,434 80,000 R&M- Irrigation 7,134 28,121 10,000 35,317 10,000 45,317 10,000 R&M -Water Plant 27,693 21,415 10,000 21,849 10,000 31,849 10,000 R&M-Waste Water Plant 39,203 46,609 25,000 39,654 10,000 49,654 9,866 Misc -Bad Debt 15,359 2,079 - 2,079 - Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget Fiscal Year 2013 7 161 i" A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Water And Sewer Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU JUN- PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 MAY -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 Misc-Licenses & Permits 4,375 4,500 4,375 4,375 4,500 Cap Outlay - Irrigation - 10,000 - - - - Cap Ouday- WaterPlant 3,697,180 2,782,721 858,948 3,641,669 50,000 Cap Outlay -Waste Water Plant 30,796 10,136 20,660 30,796 Capital Reserve 25,000 - Totat Water -Sewer Comb services 470,835 490,100 4,209,843 3,157,078 1,039,457 4,196,535 479,667 Debt Service Principal Debt Retirement 480,440 - - 497,303 Interest E-Vense 179,380 174,920 102,037 72,883 174,920 158,056 Cost of Issuance Tafa! Debt Swdce 179,380 655,360 102,037 72,883 174,920 655,360 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 889,323 1,137,375 5 020 462 3,379,654 1,166,739 4 54B 93 1292 345 Operating income (loss) 345,055 105,653 (3,725,390) (2,293,117) (770,487) (3,063,604) 8,117 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Special Rem (Gain) 106,000 Contribution to (Use on Fund Balance TOTAL OTHER SOURCES USES 106 000 Change In net assets TOTAL NET ASSETS, BEGINNING TOTAL NET ASSETS, ENDING 451,055 105,653 (3,725,390) (2,293,117) (770,487) (3,063,604) 8,117 7,090,496 7,541,551 7,647,204 7,647,204 - 7,647,204 4,583,600 7 541 551 7,647,204 S$ 3,921,814 $ 4,583,600 $ 4,591,717 Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget Fiscal Year 2013 8 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 16 ! r_A3 Water and Sewer Fund REVENUES Interest- investments The District earns interest income on their operational accounts. Water Revenue Based on prior year's budget and water consumption and anticipated use. Sewer Revenue Based on prior year's budget and waste water consumption and anticipated use. Irrigation Fees Based on prior year's budget and irrigation water consumption and anticipated use. Special Assessments -Tax Collector The District will levy a Non -Ad Valorem assessment on all the assessable property within the District in order to pay for the debt service expenditures during the Fiscal Year. Special Assessments- Discounts Per Section 197.162, Florida Statues, discounts are allowed for early payment of assessments. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is calculated at 4% of the anticipated Non -Ad Valorem assessments. EXPENDITURES Administrative P/R Board of Supervisor Salaries Chapter 190 of the Florida Statutes allows for a member of the Board of Supervisors to be compensated for a meeting attendance and to receive $200 per meeting plus payroll taxes. The amount for the Fiscal Year is based on 5 Board members paid for attending 14 meetings. The fees will be split evenly with the General Fund. FICA Taxes Payroll taxes for supervisor salaries are calculated as 7.65% of payroll. Professional Services - Engineering The District's engineer provides general engineering services to the District, i.e. attendance and preparation for monthly board meetings when requested, review of invoices, and other specifically requested assignments. The fees for shared general maters only will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. Professional Services -Legal Services The District's Attorney provides general legal services to the District, i.e., attendance and preparation for monthly Board meetings, review of contracts, review of agreements and resolutions, and other research assigned as directed by the Board of Supervisors and the District Manager. The fees will be split evenly with the General Fund. Professional Services - Management Consulting Services The District receives Management, Accounting and Administrative services as part of a Management Agreement with Severn Trent Management Services, Inc. Annual Operating and Water /Sewer Budget Fiscal Year 2013 0 161 1r__ A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Wafer and Sewer Fund Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 EXPENDITURES Administrative (continued) Professional Services - Property Appraiser The Property Appraiser provides the District with a listing of the legal description of each property parcel within the District boundaries, and the names and addresses of the owners of such property. The District reimburses the Property Appraiser for necessary administrative costs incurred to provide this service. Per the Florida Statutes, administrative costs shall include, but not be limited to, those costs associated with personnel, forms, supplies, data processing, computer equipment, postage, and programming. The FY2013 budget for collection costs was based on 1.5% of the anticipated assessment collections. Professional Services - Special Assessment The District has contracted with Severn Trent Management Services, Inc. to levy annual assessments, update the District's tax roll, prepare estoppel letters and handle any customer service questions regarding assessments. Professional Services - Utility Billing The District sends invoices to customers for use of the utility system. This billing service, provided by Severn Trent Services, Inc., includes calculating, printing and mailing of utility bills, posting and depositing cash receipts, customer service and other related services. Auditing Services The District is required to conduct an annual audit of its financial records by an Independent Certified Public Accounting Firm. The fees will be split evenly with the General Fund. Communication-Telephone Telephone and fax machine expenses. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is based on prior year spending. The fees will be split with the General Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Postage and Freight This represents actual postage and/or freight used for District mailings including agenda packages, vendor checks and other correspondence. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year Is based on prior year spending. The fees will be split with the General Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Rentals — Meeting Room The District is charged $50 per occurrence for the use of the meeting room at which the district's meetings are held. This fee will be split evenly with the General Fund. Insurance General Liability The District currently has its Insurance Policy with the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust. The FY 2013 budget includes an estimated 15% Increase of the actual FY 2012 premium. Printing and Binding Copies used in the preparation of agenda packages, required mailings, and other special projects. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is based on prior year spending. The fees will be split with the General Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Legal Advertising The District is required to advertise various notices for monthly Board meetings and other public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. The board has chosen to advertise for their meetings annually. The fees will be split with the General Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Miscellaneous Services This includes bank charges and any miscellaneous expenses that may be Incurred during the year. Annual Operating and Water /Sewer Budget Fiscal Year 2013 10 161 T-A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Water and Sewer Fund Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 EXPENDITURES AdministraUve (continued) Miscellaneous- Assessment Collection Cost The District reimburses the Tax Collector for her or his necessary administrative costs. Per the Florida Statutes, administrative costs shall include, but not be limited to, those costs associated with personnel, forms, supplies, data processing, computer equipment, postage, and programming. The District also compensates the Tax Collector for the actual cost of collection or 2% on the amount of special assessments collected and remitted, whichever is greater. The FY2013 budget for collection costs was based on a maximum of 2% of the anticipated assessment collections. Office Supplies Supplies used in the preparation and binding of agenda packages, required mailings, and other special projects. The fees will be split with the General Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Field Contracts -Mgmt Services The District has contracted with Severn Trent Environmental Services to provide operating, maintenance and field management services. This contract includes a predetermined amount of R &M costs. Costs above the specified amount are recorded as 'R &M- Renewal and Replacement'. Any unused R &M costs are returned to the district- Contracts -Other Services Includes contract services provided by Superior Power plus a contingency. Communication — Teleph — Field Century Link and Sprint provide communication services to the District. The following accounts are included in this line Item: Vendor Description Annual Amount Century Link Plant Land Line (239- 642 -9219) $3,180 Century Link Plant Fax Line (239 -642 -9392) 504 Sprint Automate_ d svc to notify Bob of power failures 84 Total $3,768 Utility - General The District currently has 10 electric accounts with Lee County Cooperative for irrigation, lift stations, water and waste water plant. The estimated cost is based on prior year's average monthly electric bills and anticipated use. Account No. Service Address Svc. Type 9741120000 25000 E. Tamiami Irrigation 1941120000 0 Port of the Islands Irrigation 3841120000 119 Newport Drive Irrigation 7841120000 Union Road Irrigation 0941120000 245 Stella Marls Drive Lift Station 1841120000 0 Newport Drive Lift Station 7624900000 160 Cays Drive Lift Station 6941120000 0 Cays Drive Lift Station 3083520000 0 Newport Drive Lift Station 3941120000 86112700 P Islands Waste Water R &M — Irrigation Repair and maintenance costs associated with the main pumps and other irrigation equipment at the plant. Annual Operating and Water /Sewer Budget Fiscal Year 2013 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 ib i lf" a3 Water and Sewer Fund EXPENDITURES Field (continued) R &M — Water Repair and maintenance costs associated with the water plant. R &M — Waste Water Repair and maintenance costs associated with the waste water plant. Miscellaneous - Licenses & Permits Costs incurred for various licenses and permits pertaining to the water and waste water plants including an annual drinking water license and waste water regulatory fee. Capital Outlay — Water Funds spent on capital improvement projects for the water plant. • W -15 $50,000 NEW WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM TO INCLUDE BACKFLOW PREVENTION: Debt Service Principal Debt Retirement Principal payment due on Series 2010 bond. Interest Expense Interest payment due on Series 2010 bond. Annual Operating and Water /Sewer Budget Fiscal Year 2013 12 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Debt Amortization Series 2010 Bond 161 f 7A 3 Period Coupon Debt Annual Debt 51112013 $497,303.14 3.510% $79,028.23 $576,331.37 $655,359.601 11/1/2013 $70,300.56 $70,300.56 511/2014 $514,758.49 3.510% $70,300.56 $585,059.05 $655,359.61 11/1/2014 $61,266.55 $61,266.55 5/1/2015 $532,826.51 3. 510% $ 61,266.55 $594,093.06 $655,359.61 11/1/2015 $51,915.45 $51,915.45 5/1/2016 $551,528.72 3.5109/6 $51,915.45 $603,444.17 $655,359.62 11/1/2016 $42,236.12 $42,236.12 511/2017 $570,887.38 3.5106/6 $42,236.12 $613,123.50 $655,359.62 1 1/112 01 7 $32,217.04 $32,217.04 5/1/2018 $590,925.52 3.5106/6 $32,217.04 $623,142.56 $655,359.60 11/112018 $21,846 -30 $21,846.30 5/1/2019 $611,667.01 3.5106/6 $21,846.30 $633,513.31 $655,359.61 11/1/2019 $11,111.55 $11,111.55 5/1/2020 $633,136.52 3.510% $11,111.55 $644,248.07 $655,359.62 Total $4, 503, 033.29 $739,843.60 $5,24ZB76.89 $5,242,876.89_ Annual Operating Budget Rscal Year 2013 13 161 1 r A 3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Water Sewer Fund Exhibit "B" Allocation of Fund Balances AVAILABLE FUNDS Amoun Beginning Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 $ 4,583,600 Net Mange in Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 8,117 (1) Less: Cap Assets Net of Related Debt (4,547,734) Total Funds Available (Estimated) - 91=013 43,983 ALLOCATION OF AVAILABLE FUNDS 1Vonspendable Fund Balance Deposits 32,950 Total Allocation of Available Funds 32,950 Total Unassigned Cash $ 11,033 Notes (I) Capital assets less bond debt (not available to spend) Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 14 16 1 17" A In Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Supporting Budget Schedules Ftscal Year 2013 16 1 1 -A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Non -Ad Valorem Assessment Roll FY 2012 -2013 Product Type Maint. ERC Allocation Maint/ERC $ 4DD W/S ERC Allocation W/S Standby $1,124 $413 W/S Ca ital $711 Total per Product Hotel Room 1.00 $400 0.60 $248 $427 $1,074 Condo Unit 1.00 $400 0.80 $330 $569 $1,299 Single Family 1.00 $400 1.00 $413 $711 $1,524 Comparison FY 2012 to FY 2013 Product Type Total FY 2013 Total FY 2012 Increase % (Decrease) Change Hotel Room $1,074 $1,074 ($0) 0% Condo Unit $1,299 $1,299 ($0) 0% Single Family $1,524 $1,524 ($0) 0% Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 15 r U me 0 �4 ii O� ahC'4 ? 8F Z ?2 � a6 s i ze C3 SL o� gz sa Wr xr.L LL O N d N M d N I� 1 ICI E1 1a s s 161 9 A3 s �'M rrrre minna 1 ss M N M N N N N N« N ' Q LL N H N H Z6 H N N M N H Qp O ' Q9Q tl r NN ««MN �GGT iV^ 1lmm'I ( ° °M3Zi g N � N HN N «epyH« LL � M M « Ns a cd.4 N N M N« M N« M N N M C mC O � r Vice O d N M d N I� 1 ICI E1 1a s s 161 9 A3 161 r--A3 • Port of the Islands May 2012 Field Managers Report SERVICES Water Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance The Water Treatment Plant produced and distributed 2.193 MG for the month of May, which is an average of 0.070 MGD. Wastewater Plant oi3erWons and Maintenance The WWTP treated approximately 1.261 MG for the month of May, which is an average of 0.041 MGD Reuse System Operations and Maintenance The reuse system delivered 7.004 MG for the month of May, which is an average of 0.226 MGD. Permit Compliance: Water Treatment Plant: All permit requirements met Wastewater Treatment Plant All permit requirements met Note: Collier County Pollution Control performed a quarterly inspection at the WWTP. We had no 'Non - Compliance' issues, and he was happy over all with inspection. Events Occurring Throughout the Month: Wastewater Plant • Replaced motor starter on MBR Skid #1 Circulation Pump. • Replaced heaters on Anoxic mixer #1 • Repaired Chain on Roto Mesh influent screen. • Performed Chemical Enhanced Cleaning on both MBR Skids. ,E e A newly purchased blower used for MBR, just about 30 days in operation, suddenly froze up, during operation. I contacted the Sales Representative of Florida Bearing, to let them know what was wrong. He set up a pick up day, and had the blower shipped over to a Certified Kaeser Blower repair company. After their troubleshooting and repair, Kaeser repaired the blower under warranty. Water Plant RO testing started around 318/12.1 worked with thern each day, monitoring and making necessary changes to obtain desired water quality. e ITT performed training to Water Treatment Plant personnel. Sevem Trent Services • 12600 Union Road Naples, Fiorlda 34114 • Tel 239 -642 -9219 Fax 239 - 642 -9469 • www.sevemtrentservices.com ib i :A3 Port of the Islands May 2012 Field Managers Report • Exercised both portable generators, checking fuel levels, oil levels, etc. all ok. • Near the end of a 10 day testing period, monitored by ITT, they had to perform a cleaning on the 2w stage membranes, as a result of improperly installed chemical feed lines. They also resolved the feed line issue as well. • Changed solenoid valve on Hydrogard at Stella Maris S. In The Communi • Soto's Lawn Service repaired a main irrigation line near 115 Newport Drive. • Met with Robert Soto on June 121h, for the ride around inspection. During inspection I asked him to inspect all out rain gauges for proper operation, so that we can reduce wasted irrigation water when not needed. I also asked him if we need to irrigate the newly planted bins area near the gun club. He said that because of the type of plantings there, we would not need to irrigate them. The plantings are very tolerable to low water conditions. • Replaced a photo cell on Cays Drive Entrance. • Installed a blue reflector on Stella Mads S. near last fire hydrant. Severn Trent Services • 12600 Union Road Naples, Florida 34114 • Tel 239 -642 -9219 Fax 239. 642 -9469 • www.sevemtrentservices.com Potable Water Report I 5� 4.5 4r 3.5 2.918 2253 3 2.5 0 2.539 �`— 2.002 1.822 1.823 -- 2 1.341 1.391 1.496 1.5 M55 i.09 1 31% 38% 0.5 ■��.rr ■ ■ - • ■ ■ Jun-1 1 10-11 Aug-11 Sep -11 Oct-11 Now11 Dec-11 Jarr12 Feb -12 Mar -12 Apr -12 May-12 F -+– Wafer Produced –■– Wafer Bird —% Water Loss 1 Severn Trent Services • 12600 Union Road Naples, Florida 34114 • Tel 239 -642 -9219 Fax 239. 642 -9469 • www.sevemtrentservices.com 161 f A3 Port of the Islands Severn Trent Services • 12600 Union Road Naples, Florida 34114 • Tel 239- 642 -9219 3 Fax 239.642 -9469 • www.sevemtrentservices.com 61 3 1 Pagel of 3 Swade, Janice From: Ron Benson [RonBenson @hmeng.com] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 11:05 AM To: Teague, Cal; Chuck Custer; Dale Lambert; RCZIKO @EMBARQMAIL.COM; Norine & Joe; tbissell@embarqmaii.com Cc: Dick, Robert; Edge, Robert; Dan Cox; Swade, Janice Subject: RE: POI - Water Hardness One other thing. The new water treatment plant was designed with a lot of flexibility such that the operator can slightly adjust the flow of water through the calcium contactors to reduce the hardness in the water if that is ever desired as well as adjust the feed rate for the caustic soda in order to change the pH. Also, if desired, we can bypass some of the untreated water and blend with the product water if anyone wants some of the taste of nature in the finished water [I am not joking]. Best wishes Ron Ronald E. Benson Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Senior Vice President/Principal Hole Mantes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, Florida 34110 (239) 254 -2000 (Voice) (239) 254 -2097 (Fax) (239) 777 -1611 (Mobile) From: Teague, Cal [ mailto :CTeague @severntrentms.com] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 10:13 AM To: Ron Benson; Chuck Custer; Dale Lambert; RCZIKO @EMBARQMAIL.COM; Norine & Joe; tbissell@embarqmail.com Cc: Dick, Robert; Edge, Robert; Dan Cox; Swade, Janice Subject: RE: POI - Water Hardness 0 Calvin Teague District Manager Severn Trent Services Management Services - Florida M: (239) 223 -4437 T: (239) 245 -7118 ext. 301 F: (239) 245 -7120 E: cteagueO- sevemtrentms.com * * ** "Note to Supervisors- If all Supervisors are included on this e-mail, please do not answer this e-mail via the 'reply to all' button, in order to avoid an unintentional violation of the Sunshine Law. 6/18/2012 T 161 �f3 Page 2 From: Ron Benson [mailto:RonBenson @hmeng.com] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 10:00 AM To: Teague, Cal Cc: Dick, Robert; Edge, Robert; Dan Cox Subject: POI - Water Hardness Cal You may wish to forward this to the Board of Supervisors as I was unable to answer one question during the meeting asked by Ted Bissell regarding expressing the water hardness in units which he was familiar. I stated that the hardness of the water being sent to the customers from the new water treatment plant as being a target of 40 milligrams per liter and Ted suggested that it seemed rather high and should be more like a value of 4. 1 suggested that he was likely thinking in units of "grains" and I was using units of "milligrams per liter ". See below. There are two methods sometimes used in reporting water hardness, one is in the units of grains per gallon, or commonly just referred to as "grains of hardness ". The scientific community converted to the S.I. units many years ago and all concentrations are now generally reported in milligrams per liter. The conversion factor is that 1 grain /gallon is equal to 17.1 milligrams per liter. I believe that Ted mentioned a hardness of 4 grains, so that would be equal to 4 x 17.1 = 68.4 mg /I. In addition, we also need to make sure that we are using the same nomenclature as to the base for measuring hardness. In the water treatment industry, we measure hardness in two forms, calcium only hardness and total hardness. We also convert all the forms of hardness to an equivalent weight as calcium carbonate in order to be able to add up the various forms of harness when calculating the hardness using the concentrations of the various chemicals which contribute toward hardness. Therefore, it is often difficult to compare measurements of hardness in "grains" to measurements in "milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate ". In order to put this into perspective, the USGS website has the following classification between hard and soft waters. "Many industrial and domestic water users are concerned about the hardness of their water. Hard water requires more soap and synthetic detergents for home laundry and washing, and contributes to scaling in boilers and industrial equipment. Hardness is caused by compounds of calcium and magnesium, and by a variety of other metals. General guidelines for classification of waters are: 0 to 60 mg /L (milligrams per liter) as calcium carbonate is classified as soft; 61 to 120 mg /L as moderately hard; 121 to 180 mg /L as hard; and more than 180 mg /L as very hard." You may recall that I mentioned that a total hardness of 60 mg /I and below was considered as soft water. My statement was based on the same classification as the USGS website used. The American Water Works Association book Water Quality and Treatment: A Handbook of Community Water Supplies (4th Ed., p. 88) states that "water with less than 75 mg /L CaCO3 is considered soft and above 150 mg /L CaCO3 to be hard." Obviously, a hardness of 40 mg /I CaCO3 is considerably less than the limits used in the water industry in order to quantify water as being soft. The POI new water treatment plant removes almost 100 percent of the hardness in the water 6/18/2012 161 ;rge3ofA3 (down to less than 1 grain per gallon from raw water which is very high in hardness) in the first stage of treatment. The intermediate product water is then trickled over pure calcium in order to add some hardness to the water and to combine with the natural carbon dioxide in the water in order to produce alkalinity and raise the pH in order to make the water less aggressive toward metal plumbing. The pH of high purity water is acidic at about pH of 5. In order to reduce the potential for corrosion we raise the alkalinity and pH to about 8 using a combination of the calcium mentioned plus caustic soda (sodium hydroxide). The current target level is to raise the total hardness to 40 milligrams per liter. Most people find water which is too soft to be objectionable as when bathing it seems like you just can't rinse the soap off which is the opposite of hard water where you just can't get the soap to lather. Water Quality and Treatment: A Handbook of Community Water Supplies (4t' Ed., p.1040) in a discussion of "chemical factors influencing corrosion and corrosion control" states that "[calcium hardness] may enhance buffering effect in conjunction with alkalinity and pH." It is this balance between alkalinity, hardness and pH that we used to set the targets for each of these parameters when we adjusted the chemical feed rates at the new water treatment plant. Best wishes Ron Ronald E. Benson Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Senior Vice President/Principal Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, Florida 34110 (239) 254 -2000 (Voice) (239) 254 -2097 (Fax) (239) 777 -1611 (Mobile) 6/18/2012 16 1ir- Severn Trent Services 4837 Swffl Road, suite 100 Sarasota, Fl. 34231 United States T. +1 ID41925 8088 June 19, 2012 TF: +1800 535 0832 F: +1 941 924 7203 Richard Ziko, Chairman Port of the Islands Community Improvement District wwwsevernirentservices.com 12800 Union Road Naples, FL 34114 Re: Amended and Restated Agreement for Wafer and Wastewater Operation and Maintenance between Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. rSTESI and Port of the Islands Community Improvement District (CID) Dear Mr. Ziko: A3 As discussed by STES and the Port of the Islands CID. the following listed Items are intended to describe the parties' understanding regarding the Repair and Maintenance Budget and the additional water quality testing required by Permit No. FL0141704- 008 -DW2R for blending of concentrate Into the reclaimed water system relative to the above referenced agreement dated May 1, 2012: 1) Repair and Maintenance Budget: It Is understood that all tabor and materials required by contract for repair and maintenance of equipment, facilities and appurtenances will be charged to the Annual Repair and Maintenance budget. Cost of repairs made during normal operation hours by base staff will be for materials only. Charges not directly related to the Annual Repair and Maintenance budget such as capital improvement projects, general fund items such as storm water system, street lights, roadway signs and entrance light maintenance will be charged under an altemate line item as directed. 2) Additional Water Quality Testing It is understood that the tab analysis cost, as required by regulations, directly related to the recently permitted ability to utilize the Reverse Osmosis concentrate flow for augmentation of the reclaimed water distribution system are not included in the base fee. Such costs incurred for said analysis paid by STES will be billed to the CID with a 5% mark -up. The cost of said analysis is subject to change based on regulatory requirements or technological advancements. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 941- 925 -3088. Otherwise, if you are In agreement, please execute this letter on the below noted line and return it to my attention. Page 1 of 2 Correspondence should be addressed to: Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. Siwam Trek* Oor*.es 49 T.S** Road,AAe-100 SaragoW.T04231 Malted'Stades. Thank You for your help.and consideration: STES values its reblon,ship with. the. T: +t 941925 ,20.88 DistOct and we took forward to continuing to. work together. to: +i BOB34 6832 F: -0:941 92412U Slacewy, wwwx9vemtferftwAmxom Rldh GaMwr Realonal'Genaral Marager. Port of-the Islands Community Imp+rovementDistrict -BY, 'A Ttiet Chairman Sevatin TY90t EnAwfimontal Services, Inc. Tiflat Red Tonal General Manger Date- 9! ftp:; of 2 Correspondeme,shoWd be. addressed to; !1evern TYwtEnvJronmwnta1 SeM. 06,16a.. 161f`A3 Prepared by IIIIII[MI HOLE MONIES R.O. WATER TREATMENT PLANT PORT OF THE ISLANDS, FLORIDA PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT June 15, 2012 A. Project Schedule — Overview • Construction Schedule: Schedule prepared using critical path method and Oracle (Primavera) software. Baseline schedule has been approved. Updated schedule being submitted each month. Due to delays in ITT equipment deliveries, the contractor is anticipating that the schedule will be behind approximately 60 days. • Primary Activities Last Month — Cardinal: Painting inside the building continued. Primary Activities Last Month — ITT: ITT personnel have been onsite checking out electronic components of the ITT supplied systems and conducting functional equipment testing, operational testing, and training. • Functional Completion: Substantial Completion as per the current construction contract shall occur no later than December 14, 2011, which includes a time extension request for approximately one month previously granted. Substantial Completion occurred on May 11, 2012. An additional time extension will be necessary due to ITT material delivery. • Anticipated Facility Startup: FDEP certification has been received. Water has been created and distributed to the community for the past week. Anticipated Demolition of the "old° Water Treatment Plant: Demolition is anticipated to be started the week of June 181n. Final completion of site work will be coordinated with demolition. B. Field Progress • Procurement: Materials procurement (shop drawing submission, approvals, and manufacturing lead time) is essentially complete with 160 technical submittals received from the contractor. • Field Activities: FDEP field inspection has been completed. FDEP certification has been received. Preliminary Acceptance punch list items are in the process of being completed. (At this time, ITT has not completed all activities per their contract). • Safety Record: No safety incidents to report. • Stormwater Pond: Retention area substantially complete. C. Project Costs • Construction Contract: Fifteen payments (Total of $2,944,589.03) [91 %] have been made to date on contract amount of $3,417,563. • ITT Contract: Two payments (Total of $617,344.20) have been made to date on contract amount of $780,225. H:12011120110031EMC CorrespondencelCI Client Correspondence120120615,1une Monthly Progress Report 80S.doc -- 161 1 "'A3' ST Contract: No payments have been made to date on contract amount of $233,533.50 Project Allowances — Cardinal Contractors Allowance — Owner Directed Work Contract Amount $300,000.00 Total to Date ($240.498.15) Balance $ 59,498.85 Allowance — Building Permit Contract Amount $25,000.00 Total to Date ($16.607.92) Balance $ 8,392.92 Total Balance Available $67,891.77 HA2011{20110031EMC CorrespondenceAC1 Client Correspondence120120615 -June Monthly Progress Report BOS.doc A3 BENCHMARK ENVIROANALYTICAL INC QUOTATION SEVERN TRENT SVCS - POI RO CONC.- NEW PERMIT -03 -19-12 Contact: Karen Briden Date: 03 -19 -12 Company: Severn Trent Phone No. 941- 925 -3088' 106 Address: EMAIL: PARAMETER METHOD EACH COST TOTAL COST COMMENTS RELAIMED WATER TSS $12.03 $625.56 52 finished reuse blend FLUORIDE $16.93 $880.36 52 finished reuse blend SODIUM ABSORPTION RATIO CALL. $1.00 $52.00 52 finished reuse blend SODIUM $15.10 $785.20 52 finished reuse blend MAGNESIUM $15.10 $785.20 52 finished reuse blend CALCIUM $15.10 $785.20 52 finished reuse blend CHLORIDE $15.00 $780.00 52 finished reuse blend TDS $13.73 $713.96 52 finished reuse blend $103.99 $5 407.48 PRIMARY & SECONDARY DW STDS PRIMARY INORG. • wro ASBESTOS $188.00 $564.00 31 reuse tents cant, & reuse b*W PRIMARY VOCS $90.00 $270.00 reuse tanks, tort, & reuse blend PRIMARY SOCS •wro DIOXIN $540.00 $1,620.00 a reuse tanks, cone, & reuse blend SECONDARY STDS $142.00 $426.00 reuse tanks, cone. & reuse blend $960.00 $2,880.00 reuse tanks, Dort, & reuse blend IF REQUIRED ASBESTOS $225.00 $675.00 reuse tanks cone, & reuse blend DIOXIN $385.00 $1,155.00 (3 ) reuse tarks, & reuse blend GROSS ALPHA $32.00 $96.00 pq reuse tarns, cone & reuse blend RADIUM 226 $69.00 $207.00 p reuse tardy, cant, & reuse blend RADIUM 228 $75.00 $225.00 reuse tents, cone, & reuse blend $786.00 $2,358.00 reuse tanks, cone, & reuse blend 1 b A 3 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Severn Trent Services, Management Services Division 210 North University Drive, Suite 702 — Coral Springs — Florida 33071 (954) 753 -5841 — (954) 345 -1292 Fax September 12, 2012 Memorandum To: Mr. Robert Dick Severn Trent Services, Inc. 5726 Corporation Circle Fort Myers, Florida 33905 Reference: Minutes of Meeting Held July 20, 2012 and Approved August 17, 2012 From: Calvin Teague District Manager Enclosed for your records is a copy of the minutes of the above - referenced meeting of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District's Board of Supervisors. Please be sure to make this document available for public access during normal business hours. If you have any questions, please contact Janice Swade at (954) 753 -5841. Cc: For informational purposes only: Ds. Crystal Kinzel irector Clerk of the Circuit Court/Finance Department 3299 Tamiami Trail East Suite 403 Naples, Florida 34112 -5746 Mr. Leo Ochs, Jr. Collier County Manager 3299 Tamiami Trail East Suite 202 Naples, Florida 34112 161 A3 AGENDA Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Friday Orchid Cove Clubhouse July 20, 2012 25005 Peacock Lane 10:00 a.m. Naples, Florida 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes of the June 15, 2012 Meeting 3. Audience Comments 4. Old Business A. Review of Landscape Maintenance Performance B. Discussion of Tree Trimming Proposal from Soto's Lawn Services C. Update on Well Problems and Retrofitting of Well 93 D. Consideration of Revised Management Services Contract E. Update on U.S. 41 Median Flooding 5. New Business A. Discussion of Proposals for Sandblasting and Painting of Buildings at POI Utility Site 6. District Manager's Report A. Update on Cap Reporting Format B. Discussion of R &M Expense Coding C. Approval of June 30, 2012 Financial Statements and Check Register D. Questions and Comments on Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 7. Field Manager's Report A. Discussion of June 2012 Operations Report 161 Ir -A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS CObEWUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Meeting Agenda Friday, July 20, 2012 PAGE 2 $. Ratification of Letter of Understanding with Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. for Repair and Maintenance Budget Items With a 5% Mark- up C. Consideration of Work Authorization No. 43005 for Installation of Line Extended to Digester 8. Attorney's Report A. Update on North Hotel Bankruptcy Proceedings B. Update on Lot 45 Drainage Swale Agreement C. Up to on-Sumet CayUt lityDedicaTai Report 9. Engineer's Report A. Update on New Water Treatment Plant B. Update on Liquidated Damages from Myem Water Solutions. USA (ITT Technologies) C. Discussion of Lot 45 Berm Damage 10. Supervisors' Requests 11. Audience Comments 12. Adjournment ib i F-A3 MINUTES OF MEETING PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District was held Friday, July 20, 2012 at 10:00 am. at the Orchid Cove Clubhouse; 25005 Peacock Lane; Naples, Florida. Present and constituting a quorum were: Richard Ziko Chairman Norine Dillon Vice Chairperson Dale Lambert Assistant Secretary (Via Telephone) Charles Custer Assistant Secretary Theodore Bissell Assistant Secretary (Via Telephone) Also present were: Calvin Teague District Manager Daniel Cox District Counsel Ronald Benson District Engineer Robert Edge Lead Operator, Severn Trent Services Bert Underwood Severn Trent Services Operations Robert Migdal Severn Trent Services Operations Numerous Residents The following is a summary of the discussions and actions taken at the July 20, 2012 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District's Board of Supervisors Meeting. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call Mr. Teague called the meeting to order and called the roll. • Mr. Teague asked the Board to authorize Mr. Lambert and Mr. Bissell to exercise their voting rights since they are attending via telephone. There being no comments or questions, Friday, 8/3/12 July 20, 2012 161 171q3 Port of the Islands CID On MOTION by Mrs. Dillon seconded by Mr. Custer with all in favor, Mr. Dale Lambert and Mr. Theodore Bissell were authorized to exercise their voting rights via telephone as discussed. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the June 15, 2012 Meeting Mr. Ziko stated each Board member received a copy of the Minutes of the June 15, 2012 Meeting; requesting any additions, corrections or deletions. • The Board made several changes which will be incorporated into the amended minutes. • Mr. Bissell questioned whether or not the statement on Page 6, Line 185 is accurate; discussion ensued. ➢ Mr. Gasoway made a payment in June. ➢ The Board concurred Mr. Gasoway should bring his account to zero once he pays the July bill and the account should be current by September. There being no further discussion, On MOTION by Mr. Lambert seconded by Mrs. Dillon with all in favor, the Minutes of the June 15, 2012 Meeting were approved as amended. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments Hearing no comments from audience members, the next item followed. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Old Business A. Review of Landscape Maintenance Performance B. Discussion of Tree Trimming Proposal from Soto's Lawn Services Mrs. Dillon discussed the monthly -ride through inspection done with Mr. Edge; and distributed notes for the Board's information and discussion; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. Mr. Teague presented for the Board's review and approval an estimate from Soto's Lawn Service, Inc. in the amount of $2,475 to have Hardwood and Banyan Trees uplifted; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • Uplifting refers to cleaning out and trimming from the middle of the trees. There being no further discussion, Friday, 8/3/12 2 July 20, 2012 161 :rN3 -- Port of the Islands CID On MOTION by Mr. Custer seconded by Mrs. Dillon with all in favor, the estimate from Soto's Lawn Service, Inc. in the amount of $2,475 to have Hardwood and Banyan Trees uplifted was approved. C. Update on Well Problems and Retrofitting of Well #3 • The hydrogeologist and well fitter had to engage another company with a more powerful drill. ➢ The price will not increase; the work will likely be done early next week. • The pump repair company never sent a report outlining the cause of the broken shaft on one of the pumps. ➢ Mr. Benson's staff investigated and was unable to determine a conclusive cause for the break. C. Consideration of Revised Management Services Contract Mr. Teague presented the revised Management Services Contract with Severn Trent Services for the Board's review and approval; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • On Page 8 in the first bullet, [annually] should be deleted. • Mr. Teague explained the fees. • Article 62 was revised as requested. • The Fees under Exhibit B on Page 11 are additional to the annual contract fee. ➢ Mr. Cox suggested the District Manager's Hourly Rate be included in Exhibit B; to which the Board concurred. ➢ The rate will only be imposed for special services. There being no further discussion, E. On MOTION by Mrs. Dillon seconded by Mr. Custer with all in favor, the Agreement with Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. for Management Services was approved as amended. Update on U.S. 41 Median Flooding Mrs. Dillon has not heard back from the DOT; she sent a -mails to management as well as Commissioner Donna Fiala. Friday, 8/3/12 3 July 20, 2012 16 I f _""` 4 3 Port of the islands CID FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS New Business A. Discussion of Proposals for Sandblasting and Painting of Buildings at POI Utility Site • One contractor assessed the site, but has not submitted a proposal. • Mr. Edge will try to contact him and seek other proposals to be presented at the next meeting. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS District Manager's Report A. Update on Cap Reporting Format Mr. Teague referred to Pages 28 and 29 of the current Financial Statements for discussion; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. Mrs. Dillon suggested the last three items on Page 28 should be allocated as contingency costs relating to the new water treatment plant. ➢ This requires a requisition to the Trustee. • The Board is satisfied with the format and it will be included with the Financial Statements going forward. B. Discussion of R &M Expense Coding Mr. Teague presented an Expenditure Report for the Water and Sewer Fund for discussion; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • Mrs. Dillon commented the fund appears to be under- funded, but may be adjusted at the end of the Fiscal Year. • Mr. Lambert will submit his comments when he returns. C. Approval of June 30, 2012 Financial Statements and Check Register Mr. Teague presented the June 30, 2012 Financial Statements and Check Register for the Board's review and approval; copies of which will be entered into the official record. • The last item on Page 28 represents time spent by Mr. Edge above and beyond his normal duties. • The expenditure for start-up chemicals on Page 10 was charged to the new water plant. There being no further discussion, On MOTION by Mrs. Dillon seconded by Mr. Custer with all in favor, the June 30, 2012 Financial Statements and Check Register were approved. Friday, 813/12 4 July 20, 2012 ow — 161 1 A3 Port of the Islands CID D. Questions and Comments on Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Mr. Teague presented the proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget for discussion; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • Mr. Alan Baldwin will attend the August meeting and Budget Public Hearing, as Mr. Teague will be on vacation. The Board addressed follow -up items with Mr. Teague. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Field Manager's Report • Mr. Migdal assured Mr. Ziko the issue which caused low pressure two times over one weekend was resolved. A. Discussion of June 2012 Operations Report Mr. Edge presented the June 2012 Operations Report for discussion; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • Mr. Bissell commented all of the fire hydrants in the community have rust stains; Mr. Edge will investigate and report back. • Mr. Edge has been consulting with Soto regarding the rain gauges. The forklift is expected on Monday. • The mosquito spraying was done this morning. B. Ratification of Letter of Understanding with Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. for Repair and Maintenance Budget Items with a 5% Mark -Up The Letter of Understanding was presented for ratification; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. Severn Trent agreed to decrease the mark -up from 10% to 5 %. There being no further discussion, On MOTION by Mr. Custer seconded by Mrs. Dillon with all in favor, the updated Letter of Understanding with Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. for Repair and Maintenance Budget Items which was approved at the June meeting was ratified with a decrease in the mark -up from 10% to 5 %. C. Consideration of Work Authorization No. 43005 for Installation of Line Extended to Digester Mr. Edge presented Work Authorization No. 43005 for the Board's review and approval; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. Friday, 8/3/12 5 July 20, 2012 ib i a3 Port of the Islands CID Mr. Benson sent an e-mail to Mr. Teague confirming he concurred to have this work done; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. Mrs. Dillon MOVED to approve Severn Trent Services Work Authorization No. 43005 authorizing installation of a four inch line extended to digester in the total amount of $3,735.15; and Mr. Custer seconded the motion. Mr. Teague assured Mr. Bissell the labor will be done by Severn Trent personnel not currently under contract with the CID. Mr. Lambert asked to see more detailed documentation on future Work Authorizations. ➢ Mr. Edge will provide a detailed breakdown of the fee schedule for this work. There being no further discussion, On VOICE vote with all in favor, the prior motion was approved. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney's Report A. Update on North Hotel Bankruptcy Proceedings • The Motion for Summary Judgment was held on June 26t`; and the Judge asked each party to submit competing orders, but has not indicated how he is going to rule. • There will be a conference on or about August 25th • Mr. Cox believes he submitted enough evidence to the Judge to have the case dismissed. A discussion ensued regarding the procedure for tax certificates. B. Update on Lot 45 Drainage Swale Agreement • There are issues regarding the swale to be discussed under the Engineer's Report which will influence how Mr. Cox will proceed with the agreement. C. Update on Sunset Cay Utility Dedication Report • Mr. Cox has not received a response and will send another e-mail. Friday, 8/3112 6 July 20, 2012 161 YPIA3 Port of the Islands CID NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer's Report C. Discussion of Lot 45 Berm Damage • It appears the dock was constructed properly, and did not cut into the swale. • Mr. Ziko is concerned there may be blowouts, as it appears the berm is lower at the dock. • Mr. Benson commented the CID engineer does not provide any official approval on this issue; and the CID cannot be held responsible if something happens, which was confirmed by Mr. Cox. A. Update on New Water Treatment Plant Mr. Benson presented the Monthly Progress Report for discussion; a copy of which will be entered into the official record. • The asphalt pavement will be put down shortly at the north end; and landscaping is almost complete. B. Update on Liquidated Damages from Xlyem Water Solutions USA (ITT Technologies) • There continues to be equipment issues which are causing delays. • Mr. Benson's staff is gathering documentation which will be sent to Mr. Teague and Mr. Cox to prepare for a conference call prior to the next meeting to assess appropriate liquidated damages. • The CID is currently holding $163,000 of the contract amount until the issues are resolved. • The CID may have to go to mediation if this issue cannot be resolved amicably. The Board addressed miscellaneous issues with Mr. Benson. • Mr. Benson did the walk through with the Army Corps of Engineers staff after the last meeting. • Cardinal Contractors has not paid the Gun Club. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors' Requests • Mr. Benson confirmed the CID is still under budget for the water treatment plant installation. • Mr. Custer commended the Gun Club for hosting the recent event in the community. Friday, 8/3/12 7 July 20, 2012 161 17, Port of the Islands CID A3 ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments Hearing no comments from audience members, the next item followed. TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment There being no further business, On MOTION by Mr. Custer seconded by Mrs. Dillon with all in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 12:12 p.m. Charles Custer Assistant Secretary Friday, 8/3/12 8 "Aa. Le . Richard Chairman Soto's Lawn Service, Inc ►�� ! 2830 35th Ave NE Soto 's . ,.. Naples, FL 34120 Lawn Service Inc. {239}354 -1080 in#o@sotolawn.com www.sotolawn.com Port of the Islands CID Accounts Payable Specialist Severn Trent Services 210 N. University Drive, Ste 702 Coral Springs, FL 33071 1611 �"A3 Estimate Date Estimate # 04/17/2012 1477 Activity Quantity Rate ArnOUnt • uplifting of hardwood Trees • Hardwood Trees Uplifted 45.00; 2,025.00 • Banyan Trees Uplifted l 6 / 75.00 450.00 W _.. - .__. .. ....... .._.__..._... -. _ ._. ... _ . ... _ .... -- --- ..._.._- -____— Tota[' $2.475.'. All Estimates must be signed and returned prior to start of 0 0 _ _ _ project. Accepted By: Accepted Date: i : r Soto's Lawn Service, Inc 2830 35th Ave NE Soto's �i��" Naples, FL 34120 Lawn Service, Inc. (239)3541080 info @sotolawn.com www.sotolawn.com 161 1' A3 Estimate Date 07/18/2012 1628 Port of the Islands CID I Accounts Payable Specialist Severn Trent Services j e 210 N. University Drive, Ste 702 Coral Springs, Ft. 33071 i Activity Quantity Rate Aniount • Walkthrough performed on 7/18/2012 with Noreen and Robert Edge • Soto's identified location of Banyan Trees to Board members • Due to significance amount of rain we have recieved in the last couple of weeks, Soto's has turned off the Irrigation. • Soto's will be treating ant mounds as they appear. • Soto's is scheduling Tech to go out and check on lights that seem to not be working. We will run test to make sure all is well. • Soto's also checked on back Berm recently completed, all is well. • All regular maintenance (trimming of the hedges, treating of the weeds, mowing, etc.) looks well. Accepted By: Accepted Date: 161 Ir �A3 AGREEMENT BETWEEN PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. FOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on this 2& day of July 2012, by and between the PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT ", and the firm of Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "MANAGER', whose address is 210 North University Drive, Suite 702, Coral Springs, Florida 33071. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the DISTRICT desires to employ the services of the MANAGER for the purpose of providing the DISTRICT with certain District Management Services as more fully set forth in Exhibit A hereunder; and WHEREAS, the MANAGER desires to provide such services to the DISTRICT subject to the terms hereof, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants. and agreements expressed herein the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. SCOPE QF SERVICES AND MANAGER RESPONIBILITIES 1.1 The DISTRICT hereby engages the MANAGER for the services described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 1.2 MANAGER may offer and/or the DISTRICT may request additional services be provided under this Agreement. In the event the MANAGER and the DISTRICT agree upon a change in the scope of services to be provided under this Agreement, the change in Compensation, if any, shall be agreed between the DISTRICT and MANAGER and will be invoiced in accordance with this Agreement. 1.3 The MANAGER shall devote such time as is necessary to complete the duties and responsibilities assigned to the MANAGER under this Agreement. 1.4 All services will be rendered by and under the supervision of qualified staff in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Even though MANAGER'S staff may include licensed attorneys and engineers, the DISTRICT acknowledges the MANAGER is not performing in the capacity of a law firm or an engineering firm when providing services under this Agreement. Other than the requirement to render the services by and under the supervision of qualified staff, MANAGER makes no specific representation or warranty regarding the services or any deliverables to be provided 16 I'i f,3 hereunder and any and all warranties arising by custom or usage in the profession, or arising by operation of law are hereby expressly disclaimed. 1.5 If the scope of services hereunder requires the MANAGER to administer or supervise the DISTRICT's personnel, the MANAGER shall not be responsible for any damages, losses, settlement payments, deficiencies, liabilities, costs and expenses resulting from the failure of the DISTRICT's employees to follow the instructions of the MANAGER Similarly, if in the course of providing the services required by this Agreement, the MANAGER follows the instructions of the DISTRICT, the MANAGER shall not be responsible for any damages, losses, settlement payments, deficiencies, liabilities, costs and expenses resulting therefrom. 1.6 In performing the services hereunder, MANAGER may rely on information supplied by the DISTRICT and MANAGER shall not be required to independently verify the accuracy and completeness of such information. In addition, although the MANAGER may participate in the accumulation of information developed by others necessary for use in documents required by the DISTRICT, MANAGER is not responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information. ARTICLE 2. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE MANAGER 2.1 The signature on this Agreement by the MANAGER shall act as MANAGER's representation that the wage rates and costs used to determine the compensation provided for in the Agreement are accurate, complete and current as of the date of this Agreement. 2.2 The MANAGER acknowledges and agrees it owes a duty of loyalty, fidelity and allegiance to act at all times during the term of this Agreement in the known interests of the DISTRICT and to knowingly do no act which would injure the DISTRICT's business, its interests or its reputation. Further, the MANAGER shall not, during the term of this Agreement, engage in any activity which constitutes a Conflict of Interest (as defined below). For purposes of this Agreement, "Conflict of Interest" means any act or activity, or any interest in connection with, or any benefit from any act or activity, which, at the time the act or activity is performed, is knowingly adverse to the interests of or would in any material way injure the DISTRICT. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained herein, this Section 2.2 shall not prohibit the MANAGER from (a) performing water and wastewater utility management, customer services, utility billing, operation and maintenance services to the DISTRICT under a separate agreement; and (b) providing for the benefit of any other District services similar to the services provided DISTRICT hereunder. DISTRICT hereby waives any and all conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest in connection therewith, it being specifically agreed to and understood that MANAGER'S provision of any such services to the DISTRICT or to any other District shall not constitute a conflict of interest under this Agreement. 2.3 The MANAGER warrants it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee or previously retained sales consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, ib i Ir-, 3 individual or firm other than a bona fide employee working solely for the MANAGER or a previously retained sales consultant any fee, commission, percentage, gift or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. 2.4 The MANAGER warrants and represents it shall refrain from unlawful discrimination in performing its obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE 3. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE DISTRICT 3.1 DISTRICT represents and warrants this Agreement, DISTRICT'S execution and delivery of this Agreement and DISTRICT'S performance of its obligations hereunder, has been duly and validly authorized by DISTRICT by all necessary action. This Agreement has been validly executed and delivered by DISTRICT and constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of DISTRICT, enforceable in accordance with its terms. ARTICLE 4. COMPENSATION 4.1 The DISTRICT agrees to compensate the MANAGER in accordance with the Fee Schedule set forth in Exhibit B. 4.2 In addition to the fees set forth in Exhibit B, the DISTRICT shall reimburse the MANAGER for all reasonable costs or expenses incurred by the MANAGER in and directly attributable to its fulfillment of the services under this Agreement as set forth in Exhibit C, the "Schedule of Reimbursable Costs ". Such costs and expenses are payable to the MANAGER in accordance with Section 4.4. 4.3 For each Fiscal Year of the DISTRICT, the compensation payable to the MANAGER under the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in an amount approved by the DISTRICT in its Fiscal Year budget. Each Fiscal Year the DISTRICT will consider price adjustments to compensate for market conditions and the anticipated type and amount of work to be performed by the MANAGER during the upcoming Fiscal Year of the DISTRICT. 4.4 In the event the Fiscal Year budget is not approved prior to the first day of the Fiscal Year, the MANAGER'S compensation under this Agreement will continue at the rate currently in effect at the time of renewal. The subsequent approval of the budget will result in a retroactive fee adjustment, which will be invoiced in the fast month following approval of the budget. 4.5 Unless provided otherwise in Exhibit B, payment to the MANAGER for all services rendered shall be made on a monthly basis within thirty (30) days of the MANAGER's issuance of an invoice. 161 1?"'IA3 ARTICLE 5. TERM 5.1 This Agreement shall commence on the date hereof and shall continue until terminated in writing by either party in accordance with Section 5.2. 5.2 The Agreement may be terminated as follows: (a) The failure of either party to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall constitute a default. Upon default by one party, the other party shall send written Notice of Termination. Such notice shall clearly specify the nature of the default and provide the defaulting parry forty-five (45) days to cure the default. If the default is capable of being cured within forty -five (45) days, but is not cured within forty-five (45) days, the Agreement shall terminate at midnight of the forty- fifth (45a') day following receipt of the Notice. In the case of default which cannot be cured within forty-five (45) days, this Agreement shall not terminate so long as the defaulting party has given written notice of the extension to the other party and the defaulting party has commenced and is diligently pursuing a cure. (b) Upon the dissolution or court- declared invalidity of the DISTRICT; or (c) By either party, for such party's convenience, upon ninety (90) days prior written notice. 5.3 Upon the termination of this Agreement, MANAGER will take all reasonable and necessary actions to transfer in an orderly fashion to the DISTRICT or its designee all the DISTRICT's books and records in MANAGER's possession. In addition, within thirty (30) days of termination of this Agreement, MANAGER shall be paid in full for all services rendered through the date of termination. ARTICLE 6. RISK MANAGEMENT 6.1 The MANAGER shall provide and maintain the following levels of insurance coverage at all times subsequent to the execution of this Agreement: (a) Professional Liability insurance with an aggregate limit of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) ; and (b) Commercial Crime insurance with a per loss limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). 6.2 To the extent allowable under applicable law and except and to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the MANAGER, the DISTRICT agrees to indemnify and hold the MANAGER and its respective officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns (MANAGER and each such person being a "DISTRICT Indemnified Party") harmless from and against any and all damages, losses, settlement payments, deficiencies, liabilities, costs and expenses, including without limitation, attorney's fees suffered, sustained, incurred or required to be paid by any DISTRICT Indemnified Party related to or arising out of the subject services and/or the engagement 4 161 r-1-3 of MANAGER pursuant to this Agreement. To the extent allowable under applicable law and to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the Manager, the MANAGER agrees to indemnify and hold the DISTRICT and its respective officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns (DISTRICT and each such person being a "MANAGER Indemnified Parry ") harmless from and against any and all damages, losses, settlement payments, deficiencies, liabilities, costs and expenses, including without limitation, attorney's fees suffered, sustained, incurred or required to be paid by any MANAGER Indemnified Party related to or arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of MANAGER. In the event a party receives notice of or undertakes the defense or the prosecution of any action, claim, suit, administrative or arbitration proceeding or investigation consistent with its indemnity obligations hereunder, such party shall give the other party prompt notice of such proceedings and shall inform the other party in advance of all hearings regarding such action, claim, suit, proceeding or investigation. Except to the extent caused by its own negligence, MANAGER shall not be responsible for any damages, losses, settlement payments, deficiencies, liabilities, costs and expenses arising as a result of the execution or implementation of specific instructions or directions provided by the DISTRICT or any of its duly designated agents or representatives. MANAGER shall notify DISTRICT when it believes it is being asked to execute or implement DISTRICT instructions or directives which violate. applicable law. This indemnification shall not be construed as a waiver of the DISTRICT's sovereign immunity and is subject to the limitations of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. 6.3 Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Agreement, in no event shall the MANAGER be liable, either directly or as an indemnitor of the DISTRICT, for any special, punitive, indirect and/or consequential damages, including damages attributable to loss of use, loss of income or loss of profit even if the MANAGER has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 6.4 In the event claims(s) raised against the MANAGER on account of this Agreement, or on account of the services performed hereunder, is/are covered under MANAGER's insurance policies required hereunder, the MANAGER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability beyond the policy amounts contractually required hereunder and the limits and conditions of such insurance policies. With respect to any other causes of action and/or claims arising under this Agreement, or otherwise arising as a result of, or on account of, the services provided hereunder, MANAGER's total aggregate liability shall not exceed an amount equal to the amount of the annual compensation for such services during the Agreement year in which such cause of action and/or claim is raised against the MANAGER. ARTICLE 7. MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 Entire Agreement The foregoing terms and conditions constitute the entire Agreement between the parties hereto and any representation not contained herein shall be null and void and no force and effect. 161 1` 'A3 Further this Agreement may be amended only in writing upon mutual consent of the parties hereto. 7.2 Construction in construing this Agreement, the following principles shall be followed: (i) no consideration shall be given to the captions of the articles, sections, subsections or clauses, which are inserted for convenience in locating the provisions of this Agreement and not as an aid in construction; (ii) no consideration shall be given to the fact or presumption any of the Parties had a greater or lesser hand in drafting this Agreement; (iii) examples shall not be construed to limit, expressly or by implication, the matter they illustrate; (iv) the word "includes" and its syntactic variants mean "includes, but is not limited to" and corresponding syntactic variant expressions; (v) the plural shall be deemed to include the singular, and vice versa; (vi) each gender shall be deemed to include the other genders; (vii) each exhibit, appendix, attachment and schedule to this Agreement is a part of this Agreement; and (viii) any reference herein or in any schedule hereto to any agreements entered into prior to the date hereof shall include any amendments or supplements made thereto. 73 No Solicitation The parties agree, during the term of this Agreement and for a period of two (2) years hereafter to respect each other's interests regarding their respective employees and neither party shall solicit, recruit or hire current employees of the other party. 7.4 Force Majeure A party's performance of any obligation (except for payment obligations) under this Agreement shall be excused if, and to the extent that, the party is unable to perform because of any event of "Force Majeure". In any such event, the party unable to perform shall be required to resume performance of its obligations under this Agreement as soon as reasonably practicable following the termination of the event or cause which excused performance hereunder. Force Majeure is defined as any act, event or condition to the extent it adversely impacts the cost of performance of, or adversely affects the ability of, either party to perform any obligation under this Agreement (except for payment obligations) if such act, event or condition, in light of any circumstances which should have been known or reasonably believed to have existed at the time, is beyond the reasonable control and is not a result of the willful or negligent act, error, omission or failure to exercise reasonable diligence on the part of the party relying thereon. 7.5 Notices All notices will be in writing and shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Notices required to be given to the MANAGER will be addressed to: Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. 5911 Country Lakes Road Fort Myers, Florida 33905 Attn: Calvin Teague 161 r 713 Notices required to be given to the DISTRICT will be addressed to: Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. 270 North University Drive, Suite 702 Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Attn: Records Administration Department 7.6 Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Any and all legal action necessary to enforce the Agreement will be held in Collier County, Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their respective agents to execute this instrument on them behalf, at the times set forth below. Signed and Sealed in the presence of: Charles Custer dig .•.91 l.t I% PORT OF THI; ISLANDS By: [Name and le] Richard C. .Ziko Chairman SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 1 By: [Name and Title] r Exhibit A Scone of Services Scope of Services: Management Services 16 i13 Severn Trent Services will perform all required management functions of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, which will include but not be limited to the following: • Attend regular meetings of the Board of Supervisors and provide the Board with meaningful dialogue on the issues before the Board for action. • Preparation of District's budget as more fully outlined under Financial Accounting Services. • Implement budget directives. • Review specifications for the meeting of insurance requirements of the District. • Provide all required annual disclosure information to the local government in the County in which the District resides. • Ensure compliance with the Florida Statutes as it relates to financial reporting requirements for the District and State and Federal tax and financial forms. • Record all meetings of the District. • Provide Oath of Office and Notary Public for all newly elected members of the Board of Supervisors. • Provide information for General Election Process. • Receive telephone calls and a -mails from residents and ensure follow up on issues raised. In the case of needed services for the District, the Manager will inform the District of the issue and the District will provide follow up through vendors contracted to handle such problems. In the case of issues not related to activities and services provided by vendors, the Manager will provide responses and follow UP. • Coordinate with the Board to determine the services and levels of service to be provided as part of the District's budget preparation. Recording Services Severn Trent Services will perform all required Recording Secretary functions which will include but not be limited to the following: Prepare Board Agendas and coordinate receipt of sufficient material for Board of Supervisors to make informed policy decisions. 161 1 Prepare and advertise all notices of meetings in an authorized newspaper of circulation in the County in which the District is located. Record and transcribe summary meeting minutes for all meetings of the Board of Supervisors including regular meetings, special meetings, workshops and public hearing(s). Acquire and maintain District Seal. Financial Accounting Services Severn Trent Services will perform all required financial accounting functions for the District, which will include but not be limited to the following: • Prepare a budget which achieves the District's objectives in coordination with the District Board of Supervisors, Engineer and Attorney. • Submit a Preliminary Budget to Board of Supervisors in accordance with Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. • Prepare and modify Preliminary Budget for consideration by Board of Supervisors at the District's advertised Public Hearing. • Prepare budget and assessment resolutions as required by Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. • Establish budget public hearings) and dates. • Establish Board of Supervisors workshop dates (if required). Attend workshop(s) and public hearing(s) and be available to answer questions by the Board and the public. • Prepare and coordinate applications for: o Federal I.D. Number o Tax Exemption Certificate • Maintain Government Fund Accounting System in accordance with the Uniform Accounting System prescribed by Department of Banking and Finance for Government Accounting, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). • Prepare required Investment Policies and Procedures pursuant to Chapter 218, Florida Statutes. • Prepare Annual Financial Report for Units of Local Government for distribution to the State Comptroller. • Prepare Public Depositor's Report for distribution to State Treasurer. • Coordinate assessment collections and miscellaneous receivables. Prepare bid specifications for the purchase of services and commodities pursuant to Florida Statutes. Prepare all required schedules for Fiscal Year end Audit. • Provide Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable services for the Districts. 1611". A3 Special Assessment Services Severn Trent Services will perform all required special assessment billing functions of the District, which will include but not limited to the following: • Prepare Assessment Resolution levying the assessments on the property in the District and prepare assessment rolls. • Prepare and maintain a property database by using information obtained by local Property Appraisers secured roll. • Review and compare information received from the Property Appraiser to prior Years' rolls, to ensure the CDD rolls are in compliance with the law and Severn Trent Environmental Services has obtained all pertinent information to prepare accurate assessments. • Periodically update the database for all activity such as transfer of title, payment of annual assessment and prepayment of principal. • Act as the primary contact to answer property owner questions regarding special assessments, tax bills, etc. Provide pay off information upon request to property owner. • Upon adoption of the Budget and Assessments, coordinate with the Office of the Property Appraiser and Tax collector to ensure correct application of assessments and receipt of District funds. • Act as primary contact to answer property owners' questions regarding the Capital Assessment. 10 161 i A3 Exhibit B Fee Schedule The fee for the all services described in Exhibit A will be $71,820 annually. The reimbursable fee schedule is set forth below. f Special Meetings — For all meetings not defined in the $125.00 per j i contract hour Meetings Hourly Rate District Manager's Rate Mail Distribution General Distribution Includes labels, standard envelope, folding, insertion of up to two items, and delivery to Post Office Labor of inserts over two Labels Certified Mail (back charged to owner) Postage Photocopying Color Copies Faxes Outgoing Incoming $125.00 per hour $155.00 per hour $0.35 $0.03 per single sheet page $0.07 each Current rate charged by Postmaster plus handling charge of $3.00 Current rate charged by postmaster; no add on. $0.15 per copy $0.21 per duplex copy (both sides) $0.20 per page $ .50 per page No charge I Record Storage I $100 per year 11 ¢ f� �. ( kC, I$� 2�$ k i\ in 0 . ��22 ■ CL 7 9 $ cm .C4 .W » I� & it £; R � )a CL ® # C � �) |§ § k � { |ro s� 7 e° s kk�+ E io R] 16 | f 7, 4 -' A� B m# I� § � § �§ A ■ II § \ ° a B a ■ @ G § § § § © k § I § § n % co§ e m a©§ k a t§ § } ] k k @ � k k E , f a 7 £ CL © i E § « § D k CL k f ] ) ¢ f� �. ( kC, I$� 2�$ k i\ in 0 . ��22 ■ CL 7 9 $ cm .C4 .W » I� & it £; R � )a CL ® # C � �) |§ § k � { |ro s� 7 e° s kk�+ E io R] 16 | f 7, 4 -' A� B m# I� § � § g� *1 N 94 m w t t0 w {o N d 3 tT C O d 7 W R N to N 0 O N. C O N _m up Q cc a�i c q a G m m- 3a0 >v_rr mmE�+0 m �U M Y yT� y� W t7 via °tea C to N O l[f O M 2 a O O_ C Q 7 O a `c 0 U 0 o' U C� L M 161 r "b3 mE N �U a� c c C, 0 N M M 0 M 161 1r`A3 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Financial Report June 30, 2012 Prepared by 16 I Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Table of Contents RNANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance Sheet - All Funds ........................................ I................. Page 1 General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ............... Page 2 - 3 Trend Report ........................... ............................... Page 4 - 5 Enterprise Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ............... Page 6 - 7 Trend Report ........................... ............................... Page 8 - 9 SUPPORTING SCHEDULES Check Register ........................... ............................... Page 10 -11 Special Assessments - Collection Schedule ........................... ............................... Page 12 Construction Schedule ................................... I...................... Page 13 -14 CIP Status Report ........................... ............................... Page 15 -16 Cash Flow Projections ........................... .:............................. Page 17 - 18 Cash Flow Projections - 5 year. ........................... ............................... Page 19 Monthly Activity Report ........................... ............................... Page 20 - 25 Accounts Receivable Ageing Report (90+ days outstanding) ........... ............................... Page 26 - 27 Repair and Maintenance Detail Reports ........................... ............................... Page 28 - 29 161'I'A3 ' Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Financial Statements (Unaudited) June 30, 2012 PORT OF THE ISLANDS CID STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS JUNE 30, 2012 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: CASH ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS INVESTMENTS: CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT - 540 DAYS MONEY MARKET ACCOUNT SBA ACCOUNT SBA ACCOUNT (RESTRICTED) SBA RESERVES SBA RESERVES (RESTRICTED) CONSTRUCTION FUND FMV ADJUSTMENT PREPAID ITEMS TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS NONCURRENT ASSETS: INTANGIBLE ASSETS, NET CAPITAL ASSETS: LAND CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS IMPROVEMENTS, NET EQUIPMENT, NET TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ACCRUED EXPENSES RETAINAGE PAYABLE DUE TO OTHER FUNDS DEPOSITS BONDS AND LOANS PAYABLE CURRENT OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: BONDS AND LOANS PAYABLE, LONG -TERM TOTAL NONCURRENT LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES NET ASSETS INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS, NET OF RELATED DEBT RESERVES -ASSET REPLACEMENT UNRESTRICTED NONSPENDABLE PREPAID ITEMS ASSIGNED TO OPERATING RESERVE UNASSIGNED TOTAL NET ASSETS 161 Ir-A3 GENERAL WATER AND TOTAL SEWER 535,104 43,368 578,472 417 - 417 . 76,715 6,777,592 76,715 151,050 - 151,050 506,203 6,559 512,762 3,410 2,071 5,481 13,348 27,841 41,189 1,669 - 1,669 1,603 - 1,603 154,978 904,550 904,550 (2,618) (4,876) (7,494) 1,845 1,845 3,690 1,288,746 981,358 2,270,104 38,627 38,627 4,547,735 4,547,735 50,000 50,000 602,061 602,061 1,845 1,845 3,690 105,018 105,018 1,181,322 1,181,322 $ 1,288,185 $ 5,201,641 $ 6,489,826 NOTE: MINOR DIFFERENCES IN STATEMENT TOTALS Page 1 REPORT DATE: 7/5!2012 ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF ROUNDLNG TO WHOLE DOLLARS. 288,459 288,459 1,835,968 1,835,968 - 6,777,592 6,777,592 - 110,121 110,121 9,050,767 9,050,767 1,288,746 10,032,125 11,320,871 561 58,215 58,776 - 2,400 2,400 154,978 154,978 76,715 76,715 - 33.050 33,050 - 497,303 497,303 - 2,095 2,095 561 824,756 825,317 - 4,005,730 4,005,730 - 4,005,730 4,005,730 561 4,830,486 4,831,047 4,547,735 4,547,735 50,000 50,000 602,061 602,061 1,845 1,845 3,690 105,018 105,018 1,181,322 1,181,322 $ 1,288,185 $ 5,201,641 $ 6,489,826 NOTE: MINOR DIFFERENCES IN STATEMENT TOTALS Page 1 REPORT DATE: 7/5!2012 ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF ROUNDLNG TO WHOLE DOLLARS. 161 1 q" -A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS General Fund Community Improvement District Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes In Fund Balances For the Period Ending June 30, 2012 ANNUAL YTO ACTUAL ADOPTED YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE AS A % OF JUNE -12 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV) ADOPTED BUD ACTUAL REVENUES Interest- Irvestments $ 2,090 $ 1,567 $ 3,263 $ 1,696 156.12% $ 2 Net Incr (Deer) In FMV- Invest 383 - 11559 1,559 0.00% 19,500 Interest - Tax Collector - 61.69% 24 24 0.00% - Special Assmnts- Tax Collector 435,400 435,400 401,691 (33,709) 92.26% 26,393 Special Assmnls- Discounts (17,416) (17,416) (11,221) 6,195 64.43% 792 TOTAL REVENUES 420,074 419,551 395,316 (24,235) 94.11% 27,187 EXPENDITURES Administrative P/R -Board of Supervisors FICA Taxes ProfServ- Engineering ProfSery -Legal Services ProfSery -Mgmt Consulting Sery ProfServ- Property Appraiser Pro(Serv- Special Assessment Auditing Services Communication - Telephone Postage and Freight Rental - Meeting Room Insurance - General Liability Printing and Binding Legal Advertising Miscellaneous Services Misc- Assessmnt Collection Cost Misc -Web Hosting. Office Supplies Annual District Fling Fee Total Administrative Field Contracts -Mgmt Services Contracts- Landscape Electricity - Streetlighting Lilifity, - Irrigation R&M- Renewal and Replacement R &M -Roads & Alleyways Capital Outlay Total Field 7,000 5,250 5,000 250 71.43% 500 536 402 383 19 71.46% 38 26,000 19,500 16,040 3,460 61.69% 6,602 12,500 9,375 24,485 (15,110) 195.88% 1,809 27,539 20,654 20,654 - 75.00% 2,295 6,530 6,530 6,531 (1) 100.0291. - 8,974 8,974 8,974 55,111 100.00% - 3,750 3,750 3,500 250 93.33% - 100 75 20 55 20.00% 3 1,500 1,125 823 302 54.87% 80 300 225 250 (25) 83.33% 25 8,270 6,202 5.845 357 70.68% - 2,000 1,500 887 613 44.35% 111 2,200 1,650 493 1,157 22.41% 400 300 835 (535) 208.75% - 8,708 8,708 7,809 899 89.68% 544 - - 119 (119) 0.00% - 650 487 192 295 29.64% 23 175 175 175 - 100.00% - 117,132 94,882 103,015 (8,133) 87.95% 12,030 103,821 77,866 74,414 3,452 71.68% 6,869 79,440 59,580 59,580 - 75.00% 6,620 13,000 9,747 12,092 (2,345) 93.029/6 1,163 7,200 5,400 10,897 (5,497) 151.35% 1,641 20,000 15,000 9,280 5,720 46.40% 703 6,000 4,500 4,500 0.00% - 73,481 55,111 55,111 0.00% - 302,942 227,204 166,263 60,941 54.88% 16,996 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 420,074 322,086 269,278 52,808 64.10% 29,026 Report Date: 702012 Prepared by: Page 2 Sevem Trent Management Services 161 17-'A 3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS General Fund Community Improvement District Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the Period Ending June 30, 2012 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ANNUAL ADOPTED BUDGET YEAR TO DATE BUDGET YEAR TO DATE ACTUAL VARIANCE (Sy FAV(UNFAV) YTD ACTUAL AS A % OF JUNE -12 ADOPTED BUD ACTUAL Excess (deficiency) of revenues Over (under) expenditures 97,465 126,038 28,573 0.00% (1,839) Net change in fund balance $ $ 97,465 $ 126,038 $ 28,573 0.00% $ (1,839) FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING (OCT 1, 2011) 1,162,147 1,162,147 1,162,147 FUND BALANCE, ENDING S 1,162,147 $ 1,259,612 $ 1,288,185 Report Date: 7!3/2012 Prepared by: Page 3 Sevem Trent Management Services 1 t9 Iw wC W w� W Q w o, V E �I d c *+ E E 4 t V O IL 161 lr_A3 o ERR R.X2s199 §R9m �+� gg5� .Nnr c A 3 Rik - ff .4 O O i6 A CI • i `$ W 3�3 4 `� ^ r m Pi o • r o O V ' • ��mp{ ff LL9 A p • r l r • • . . . • • r r • . r • • r I rI r • i r r r • � rl r r • • r r • • • • • • r r • • • r i 1 b r N +r M M < O ^ • N Yi • . . . b � VD • • � � . • . C $ of gri < N M N < S vmf O O! N • • • � ` tNV A N � N ' r VD cj p S M � N . . • S N . . . ` M • • • < NO AA' T N !r -t ccL Its S 1� Q N 1 N, • N N QN m' � S_ , N' C M N lVr m Of N r� O• M 1 • • . r • r 1 V•f •NO '•� O •4Nq�4i <S r r R v _ � pp �pyp m m r r M (fgg m y m b �V N M � • r • �V m m U tS s E e m ca HQ7B 55 4 q a yry{ rl E E g Stn 3G w 5 gp a 3u 6 a CC 65E 4O @@ v g v d) a m u Y d R R � R V d Y i Y IA N n m F N N � r • • r M 3 N a H N • N 1� OpN� p o a • H N N • � 'n "1i� m rN N 6 ; r CO m .fi�r••, .4 + N ep�� iMV • A � 01 � G 11•ILLLL S TTTL?JJ• � .+ d C N i�y+l yZ- M M ^ .ewt •v� '� VN ' < tl •V N 161 lr_A3 o ERR R.X2s199 §R9m �+� gg5� .Nnr c A 3 Rik - ff .4 O O i6 A CI • i `$ W 3�3 4 `� ^ r m Pi o • r o O V ' • ��mp{ ff LL9 A p • r l r • • . . . • • r r • . r • • r I rI r • i r r r • � rl r r • • r r • • • • • • r r • • • r i 1 b r N +r M M < O ^ • N Yi • . . . b � VD • • � � . • . C $ of gri < N M N < S vmf O O! N • • • � ` tNV A N � N ' r VD cj p S M � N . . • S N . . . ` M • • • < NO AA' T N !r -t ccL Its S 1� Q N 1 N, • N N QN m' � S_ , N' C M N lVr m Of N r� O• M 1 • • . r • r 1 V•f •NO '•� O •4Nq�4i <S r r R v _ � pp �pyp m m r r M (fgg m y m b �V N M � • r • �V m m U tS s E e m ca HQ7B 55 4 q a yry{ rl E E g Stn 3G w 5 gp a 3u 6 a CC 65E 4O @@ v g v d) a m u Y d R R � R V d Y i Y IA N n m W v .i O w C d d O a a c E C O � O 7 4 4 � A 3 �a lip .g Np � Z s 0 C O � � 2 j 91 n $ z o P o � LL LL N O M M 7 4 4 � A 3 �a lip .g Np � Z s 0 C O � � 2 j 91 I 611�'A3 in ou CD CL V a C a A E C mC d� 6 }L F E a m N 0 4 Q n $ z 5 P o � LL LL I 611�'A3 in ou CD CL V a C a A E C mC d� 6 }L F E a m N 0 4 Q PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For the Period Ending ,tune 30, 2012 161 2 -A3 Water And Sewer Fund ANNUAL YTD ACTUAL ADOPTED YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE (SJ AS A % OF JUNE -12 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV) ADOPTED BUD ACTUAL OPERATING REVENUES Interest - Investments $ 5,448 $ 4,086 $ 2,326 $ (1,780) 42.69% S 1 Water Revenue 40,000 301000 33,482 3,482 83.71% 3,595 Sower Revenue 60,000 45,000 50,290 5,290 83.82% 3,994 Irrigation Fees 100,000 75,000 62,547 (12,453) 62.55% 7,707 Net Iner (Deer) In FMV -Invest - - 2,903 2,903 0.00% 1,809 Special Assmnts- Tax Collector 1,135,025 1,135,025 1,047,150 (87,875) 9226% 68,804 Special Assmnts- Discounts (45,401) (45,401) (29252) 16,149 64.43% 2,064 Other Miscellaneous Revenues 7,655 7,655 3,860 3,860 0.00% 325 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1,295,072 1,243,710 1,173,306 (70,404) 90.60% 86,490 OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel and Admirdstratlon 311,599 233,699 224,843 8,856 72.16% 22,196 P/R -Board of Supervisors 7,000 5,250 5,000 250 71.43% 500 FICA Taxes 536 402 383 19 71.46% 38 ProfServ- Engineering 26,000 19,500 16,040 3,460 61.69% 6,602 ProfServ-Legal Services 12,500 9,375 24,485 (15,110) 195.88% 1,809 ProfServ- Mgmt Consulting Sery 27,652 20,739 20,739 - 75.00% 2,304 ProfServ- Property Appraiser 17,024 17,024 17,025 (1) 100.01% - ProfServSpedal Assessment 7,655 7,655 7,655 - 100.00% - ProfServ- Utility Billing 15,821 11,866 11,216 650 70.89% 2,400 Auditing Services 3,750 3,750 3,500 250 93.33% - Communication- Telephone 100 75 20 55 20.00% 3 Postage and Freight 1,000 750 531 219 53.10% 53 Rental - Meeting Room 300 225 250 (25) 83.33% 25 Insurance - General Liability 8,270 6,202 5,845 357 70.68% - Printing and Binding 1,500 1,125 665 460 44.33% 84 Legal Advertising 1,600 1,200 424 776 26.50% - Miscellaneous Services 1,100 825 1,730 (905) 15727% 290 Misc- Assessmnt Collection Cost 22,701 22,701 20,358 2,343 89.68% 1,417 Office Supplies 750 563 225 338 30.00% 27 Total Personnel and Administration 155,259 129,227 136,091 (6,864) 87.65% 15,552 Water -Sewer Comb Services Contracts-Mgmt Services 311,599 233,699 224,843 8,856 72.16% 22,196 Contracts -Other Services 2,000 2,000 1,750 250 87.509.0 - Communication - Teleph - Feld 3,768 2,826 2,755 71 73.12% 494 Utility - General 80,000 60,000 60,476 (476) 75.60% 6,187 R&M- Irrigation 10,000 7,500 35,472 (27,972) 354.725/6 156 R &M -Water Plant 10,000 7,500 22,164 (14,664) 221.64% 315 R &M -Waste Water Plant 25,000 18,750 40,258 (21,508) 161.03% 604 Misc -Bad Debt 2,079 (2,079) 0.00% - Misc- Licenses & Permits 4,500 4,500 4,375 125 9722% Report Date: 7/3/2012 Prepared by: Page 6 Severn Trent Management Services 6 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes In Net Assets For the Period Ending June 30, 2012 161 1P""A3 Water And Sewer Fund ANNUAL YTD ACTUAL ADOPTED YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE (S) AS A % OF JUNE-12 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV) ADOPTED BUD ACTUAL Cap Outlay- Irrigatlon 10,000 7,500 - 7,500 0.0096 Cap Outlay -Water Plant 3,697,180 2,772,885 2,972,781 (199,896) 80.41% 190,060 Cap Outlay -Waste Water Plant 30,796 23,097 13,790 9,307 44.78% 3,654 Capital Reserve 25,000 18,750 18,750 0.00% - Total Water-Sewer Comb Services 4,209,843 3,159,007 3,380,743 (221,736) 80.31% 223,666 Debt Service Principal Debt Retirement 480,440 480,440 - 480,440 0.00% Interest Expense 174,920 174,920 102,037 72,883 58.33% Total Debt Service 655,360 655,360 102,037 553,323 15.57% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 5,020,462 3,943 594 3,618,871 324,723 72.08% 239,218 Operating income (loss) (3,725,390) (2,699,884) (2,445,565) 254,319 65.6596 (152,728) Change in net assets $ (3,725,390) $ (2,699,884) $ (2,445,565) $ 254,319 65.65% $ (152,728) TOTAL NET ASSETS, BEGINNING (OCT 1, 2011) 7,647,204 7,647,204 7,647,204 TOTAL NET ASSETS, ENDING $ 9,921 814 $ 4,947,320 $ 5,201,539 Report Date: 7/312012 Prepared by: Page 7 Severn Trent Management Services Ift m r W W 'M wC W E � a o O d J H Q ; r y 4 N 6 AI � � Y � N �• f �i a ¢CNCC �p C �C4t a Y a '6 H 9. 000�'og N � e acr ; N � LL�l � � G n. � M N N N N pNp �p spy C O � ! !.l N YNf 1f• N mm p� gybp. N m 44 � �� +<•• m f b W A � •� ppN� ��py 8 f•f b t� m !� A � Al m N < W W � `• N N �f`�oSmo.z� o •ppti�. • <pfj A � 0, 1fp� V IC A m < m N cd < � v r N W app < f .T. o f < N O] N 161 +-A3 N N � W A N N � A � l•J 1[f � O •O � � !V 1�0 1�l r fV f� N Qp N . M M m - V pM n nN N m � ' ' � b tV 00 • N � N u'i M MN YMi u� tV !� Q O� �� ' N • f N q , N O' n ••4 cppr b M 4 b Pl • •�`< W 1(� Nl O N� W� K N M N n u N e ry N {1•) 01 � p dp . • � y� • • . N 1N0 N � ^ ' � � N WWO {•f ��Nii GN^ ` C an ' -° :i €i W < m �P � • N m Xi N z:: N Yf g ggA�� • Fi cb o. ERag N W C V E O a ct aaddaac -< a� —te �cl� AcaA c r b Y _u Y �i a � a a s P � F V Y �g Q t *4 y V 3 C m E O IL E co N a O E y� O O o Q3p g ui -a � ~ o' o ib l r "`q3 im a ud d a o A ri C V h C L 7 d N 0 N n 0 13 Or b 2 §§ S��e n m b N N `S kg •O RN 1� I r I CI c O ••�i O ' p a N a7 11 A � N Q• r • •O •CMD Iq • •ep� I r [0N0 p �' rN•�aR ep N h ��pp pps• N N h {b•) 01 •i � r r0 O WN M Q I • • Vf N • O Q N ta PI N A� p r • � I r Wr' � I • � 2 � N N � y� ��p Iq N• Yy�• NNN N �Yj3 • • p� • I� I •O - • • W � �Op �pNp� N W -4?$gSl• � � I�tli � � � N ��yp N v N $$ N O� p N ^ • � I • m • • � p f O N N •7 N ap m g • • • • � • • � O N o Q3p g ui -a � ~ o' o ib l r "`q3 im a ud d a o A ri C V h C L 7 d N 0 N n 0 13 Or b 2 161 lowMA 3 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Supporting Schedules June 30, 2012 to C w O t 0 N gso U- ,N z T= X m rm� N Q T �A Y L ray° V y O k 61 ?"--'IA3 611% °0000Lq q omnumi�c°■vcmum^m, ^ °,muo�■,gcii,CR oo, OO, N o^, �. °^ opopvi �i g fir' �N�it�ipmN om �� °aa °oS umi gnn�oMo 8 v d N W tll N l0 V_r t0 m e tlJ 1� N N N N m I{poy c�(o .^- N N H m y NH Yi fR Vl HH M/AM tl7�S O h N N ~ pm f6 a 000000000��000000000 00x00 0 m m M M m m ^ w m N U1 N� h b In N N N Ny w N N N N N N tfj Ir N m N C^ N Cl tI1 (L q; q; i� g N N M 4 f ft 1- N [L N O w 8pN jam �N�.}a -F mm .Ja-9 m�9n M mm mmo00 O O S O O O O b S S O o � O o o S g o LZ Z m d � m V LL E LL mS LLLL LL m yN � m m JLL o�g�gSa'��'m`�� kith ?� E v m m t m m W' ? m dm 2 2 m m 4 Z 8 m 3 d 4 O a F per° LL 7 O Q O O O8O -a l c A= U 18L 0 LO o W r N m N m U ^ z� C1 �md ° �� ?- (LL'3 yjM 00 Vi $ wUwOd am Z �� UwN W% a LL Z O g w a LL LL LL LL LL LL F¢ O o O W a F ¢ 1 Q m �d ¢C7 (7C417C7170.uzi0 uz3�a `�o° ' °ba°C~z°°Ma oWa�rrrrrrw �w app a�°d°b°d° a Nw a udicmiv�c tA�`tivca'i�LL'isi >�� ~waaw �i Ri �?i �', k'i �o3a� °o a c u' O > > > > >> g q O O J O v O O 09 mmv�cArAwILu �� ysrNZJ2 t� 7 <vcNQLn ~ >NM o8150r~imr~il��pp > > > > }}�[ ICS lL r2 'L m ¢-1 J ma J 7J Ln N la Q N �N■ N N T J J J J J 4i N N m t0 a0 (M S 12i75j 1� V dJ ¢ 1 cv tll �Ny O_ N VN' }} r-^m moo ^ IE'm 00000N ��o SC9N c� a m m m m m m m m m oot�c4i�uc4icQiPtRi�i�r a�q�m CP mm ¢ < Q < Q r ^ ^m ^`goo a a a a a m m m m m m m w wwwwwww U U U U U U U > > > > > > > } d ¢x¢x2GCd W W w W w W w w d U m mmmmmmm v r zJ J J J J J J J Z -F� <r ui v CUU z z Ui zZZ�aZZJ m�p�� ul 000oo0om wm z 2 w J J gr� og xdd_da nloo 52° Jd° w d °"' 5C2 wzwztzwwwwwzz ¢¢m 12:5 0 LL, r z �ma ul mm ~Hw�FFF -zXX ycoZo 2wm m U m Y ,J ! UW � NJ _ �s Q��88 W3F _ >F1 w ° g ��CC U) - r -rr-rr 0 cc �Z~ R m ° LU G Om W ~aof° cc LU Z 2 CC cc Hf7wW W W W W W WmJJ W LU WCC U O O d w =� .7 yWwOf7dX LL, OW XmwwwKCCQ w WXX U, gy ¢ Z JQ Q 0 � m LL m m m m m m m U °° LL U. 'L sw om t� ° d � m y m U m W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N_ N N N N N N N N N N N W N N N N N N N ■ �� r ��rc`S c�c�3�� c�io ci+ � N °z aa00C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o G o 0 0 0 0 0 o m L6 pp�� pp� ■� p m cl J N n ti n n n n n n n^ O m 0] Om m O O� OOJ tSj� (s W�� ONE Omf O^1 z N N N N M M O Mq 1Mm M 1MIf b N N N N 1V �fI to Kl Lm Off M M M M IA Im lil C '� o00000000000$0000gg000 0 0 0 0 0 F �0g�vvg cr q z R m r d N m LL.NZ a � v � m O L C) Y O m t 0 ram vL O LL 161 °OOUwi °ooC;-n0; �nyv °0i,wyryvi,gyooQji,vi,o�W °Pyi°n, m�o y�gyo�� »po q N W y N N m M a M y y U N N N A C7 a^ H Ot W h h O M r? H3 to 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o s o 0 0 0 :-:0-- 0---- -W w m m m N M N M W f0 _ N 10 10 f0 ^ f0 ' t0 f0 i0 � Cp W , , 00 HIM, E; `� '4 'i4 u"i o O S to b g O d S O, 0, AID 08. G O O N r N �tOi co � NO �� Q o 1-- a v o $u- v 33 Z m mr'n Z mv3 Pci E ,3 �3 fig U .�fy1 c E E 2 2 m m E m a fiv `m C3 cc w'L x00000 vil 0 o�[a ¢O�C¢UO(�Ja °OTC UO� xzx c7 PPP ¢ ytA U�1 } LLm IWm LLL d m m C7 ZZdZZ ¢gym U Z O 1 m Z Z Oy Z* 7 z O 2 Z X X I G F A O Z z 2 m 21 wCL _ LL LL`Y Ui NLL444rLLx Ur�LL�w 2Lh }c�4} mz W¢cc CC ulH �FQ -aHF FLL y QQs gg a it z , ¢www33333a3z �a� �za?COZg¢g waaoa Paaa� q1 N W 0 GC4S } } } }Y xt�� 4 ��IL N pf �W, W W W �, �`1 �8Zp7g w O$ r V N 6 t w w w q, r Owww(y"��j/ J1 t%1 °W Wr Sri¢ W miV �W ofWli u! W oC',�aCxxodao j » >VUCJUV�W W� W Wwh i N ¢FU- O OOO > > > >> SJa qJ4 UUto yrf °-2 QJO'4ww W V' wam�ryZ cy NNOg��F�Ht- t-`a^p c7 c7 �{y�daac`N��f ioN.,'(/r�c7 ryaaa� 4 1 ;ui uj cc 7k�¢¢¢�2.��6 —L 7l JJ iR¢cc at ik �3�333U P* 3 m ej N g vela M C. O N N a o aD Ln O 3 CO S p p r Cl qqq N Ln ^ V N N 4 N N N N W N N N N {y CCrp� CD V Cj CC1Vt f0 10 {0 pmp i0 (0 ipp0 ipp0 f0 N p� N�y pp�� pp�� O�pp O�pp �Omp O� IN0 {Of0 ° O O T O V O O O O N N N N N N N N N O r r l^ O N N O O O C` O .8:!R (LOU mmmIWO W W Cj W W W W S2 U U U U Q U U U r I > > > > > > > > W a W W W W W W W W 2 m m m m m m m m m U U O U a F- J J J J J J J J Z Z a z O W a a a a J aF a a a W W WFZZ FFzz yZ J (� W W W W y 6 6 g g m ¢ m Z z z z z z zzz aaav zzz ,e��U �g aaaw "cc 000000000 ��°�o Z Wa zZ Fo ��i ;a��I- YxYaa 2aJO¢¢¢6aF J w w w w w w w w w U¢¢ J U ap J w w w w m W 700m_ op c�c� _ C,r w w p 0 m W W z LU z tali � t W ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ UU 2 F-aJ> O w w j} m�J�uI� yzzzzzzzzr�� <appa rwos[¢a4COJ¢ 1'3 IL O¢ ��c u¢¢�ovx zw�u {W >y��{ >W1{7Wyw W w ¢zza Utz oo�zD -a.a. iU 0OO Nt1w1 �Ny((S lJJ tJ] t�l1N Nf�/J O OIWI.2r2 ��U IWL IJL�Y(=A f'A�Yi m UIWL IJi IJL2�J ¢ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O P O O O O O O O O O P O 0 0 I r--T A 3 tp ci N M o. v 0 N m a E m C m Q- c H mw m m N r m W Q V O 161 I-A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments Collier County Tax Collector- Monthly Collection Report For the Fiscal Year ending September 2012 % Collected 92.26% 92.26% 92.26% TOTAL OUTSTANDING $ 121,5861$ 33,7101$ 87,876 Year Parcel ID Description Amount Comments FY 2010 1058920500 POI Hotel 119,627 bankruptcy FY 2011 1058920500 POl Hotel 119,627 bankruptcy Total Delinquent Parcels 239,255 Report Date, 7/3/2012 page 12 ALLOCATION BY FUND Discount / Gross Date Net Amount (Penalties) Collection Amount General Water /Sewer Received Received Amount Costs Received Fund Fund Assessments Levied FY 2012 $ 1,570,427 $ 435,400 $ 1,135,027 Allocation % 100% 28% 72% 10/26/11 $ 8,861 S 501 $ 181 $ 9,543 $ 2,646 $ 6,897 11/15/11 $ 142,077 $ 6,040 $ 2,900 $ 151,017 $ 41,869 $ 109,148 11/30/11 $ 487,695 $ 20,735 $ 9,953 $ 518,383 $ 143,721 $ 374,661 12/08/11 $ 306,388 S 13,013 $ 6,253 $ 325,653 $ 90,287 $ 235,366 12/22/11 $ 36,014 $ 1,263 $ 735 $ 38,012 $ 10,539 $ 27,473 01/25/12 $ 57,463 $ 1,622 $ 1,173 $ 60,258 $ 16,707 $ 43,552 02/28/12 $ 31,900 $ 585 $ 651 $ 33,136 $ 9,187 $ 23,949 03/29112 63,314 $ 79 S 1,292 64,685 17,934 46,751 04127112 $ 140,164 $ (206) $ 2,860 142,818 39,596 103,222 05/21/12 $ 10,233 $ (304) $ 209 10,138 2,811 7,327 06/14/12 $ 96,092 $ (2,856) $ 1,961 $ 95,197 $ 26,393 $ 68,804 TOTAL $ 1,380,201 $ 40,473 $ 28,167 $ 1,448,84E 1 $ 401,691 $ 1,047,150 % Collected 92.26% 92.26% 92.26% TOTAL OUTSTANDING $ 121,5861$ 33,7101$ 87,876 Year Parcel ID Description Amount Comments FY 2010 1058920500 POI Hotel 119,627 bankruptcy FY 2011 1058920500 POl Hotel 119,627 bankruptcy Total Delinquent Parcels 239,255 Report Date, 7/3/2012 page 12 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Serles 2010 Special Assessment Revenue Bond 1. Recap of Capital Project Fund Activity Through June 30, 2012 Bond Issued (construction Account) Source of Funds: Interest Earned Use of Funds: COI COI (casts transferred to checking account but not yet paid) Disbursements Water Treatment Plant Adjusted Balance In Construction Account June 30, 2012 2. Funds Available For Construction at June 30, 2012 161 T A3 $5,500,000.00 $7,691.09 ($42,700.00) ($5,000.00) ($4,555,440.78) ($4,603,140.78) $904,550.31 Book Balance of Construction Account at June 30, 2012 $904,550.31 Construction Funds available at June 30, 2012 $904,550.31 3. Investments - BB&T at June 30, 2012 Estimated LM ligg Construction Fund: 0.1296 ADJ: Outstanding Amounts Due Balance at June 30, 2012 PrincipW $904,550.31 $0.00 $904,550.31 Page 13 1611 pa 4A3 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Construction Schedule Page 14 AMOUNT OF CAPITAL Water Treatmerrt REQ. # Date , CONTRACTOR REQUISMONJ OUTLAY COI Plant COI 10/20x10 GreenbergTratrtp $10,000.00 $10,000.00 COI 10/20110 BUT $2,700.00 $2,700.00 COI 10/20/10 Sevens Treat Managem x Svc& $15,000.00 $15,000.00 CAI 11/02110 Dan Cox $15,000.00 $15,000.00 7 11/09/10 Port of the Isbnds CID (reimb) $ 321 ,537.00 $321.537.00 $321,537.00 2 11118!10 South FloridaExcavatlan $26,503.75 $26,503,75 - $26,503.75 3 11"10 Naples Daly News $151.02 $151.02 $151.02 4 01/04/11 Cenbay Wfk $26,310.88 $28,310.86 $26,310.88 5 12/16/10 South Florida Excavation $18,008.90 $18,008.90 $16,008.80 8 02/01/11 Hole Mantes $2,561.25 $2,58125 $2,561.25 7 02101111 Hole Monte* $16 ,200.00 $16200.00 $18.200.00 8 02101111 Hole Mantes $13,2D8.9t $13,206.91 $13,206.91 9 02/10/11 Benclunark EnviroAnaMical, Inc. $1,019.00 $1,019.00 $1,019.00 10 02117/11 Hole Mantes $1,98250 $1,982.50 $t,98250 11 031 07111 Hole Moses $6,250.00 $6,250.00 $6250.00 12 03116x11 South Florida Excavation $12,762.00 $12.762.00 $12,762.00 13 03/28/11 Cardinal Contractors $27.000.00 00 $27,.7.00 $27,000.00 14 04/11 061 Hole Mantes $13,850.00 $13,850.00 $13,850.00 1s 0"MI Saulh Florida Excavation $16,557.25 $16,587.25 $18.58725 16 05116/11 Cardnal Contractors $95,028.80 $95,028.60 $95,026.6D 17 05119111 Hob Mantes $39,585.00 $39,585.00 $39,565.00 18 06/14/11 KW Controls $1,038.60 $1,038.60 $1,030.80 19 06114111 Cardinal Contractors $196,572.08 $196,572.08 $196,572.08 20 07/06111 Hale Mantes $191575.00 $19,575.00 $19,575.00 21 07/22111 Cardinal Contractors $170,192.15 $170,192.15 $170,192.15 22 07m/11 Hole Monies $22,325.00 $22.326.00 $22,325.00 23 00/19/11 Cardnai Contractors $156,352.50 $156,35250 $156,352.50 24 06190/11 Hole Mantes $19,700.00 $19,700.00 $19,700.00 25 08116x1 t South Florida Excavation $5,971.40 $6,971.40 $6,871.40 26 119118111 South Florida Excavation $4,601.85 $1,601.65 $4,601.85 27 09/16111 Cardinal Contractors $27(1,119277 $278,89277 $278,69277 28 09/27/11 Michael Evans Computers $3,25500 $3,255.00 $3,255.00 29 10/17 /11 C-N&SiCorareaas $e5,416.29 $85,416.29 $85,416.29 30 11/03111 Hole Monte$ $832.50 $832.50 $832.50 31 11/03/71 Hole Monies $43,975.00 $43,975.00 $43,975.00 33 1123/11 KW Controls $24,337.00 $24,337.00 $24.337.00 Total FY 2017 $1,717.2812-0 $1,674,5612D $4Z700.00 $1,67 4561.20 32 11/14/11 Cardinal Contractors $ 266,314.14 $268,314.14 $266,314.14 34 12/15/11 South Florida Excavation $4,601.85 $4,60125 $4,801.85 35 12!15111 80 Technologies $7,121.33 $7,121.33 $7,121.33 36 12M5/11 ITT Water Equipment Tech $ 588,76&70 $586,766.70 $586.766.70 37 12/16/11 Cardinal Contractors $647,523.09 $847,523.09 $647.523.09 38 12/30/11 Hole Mantes $43,8M.50 $43,67250 $43,672.50 39 01/W12 Hole Monte$ $25,609.59 $25,609.59 $25,60959 40 01/24/12 Cardinal Contractors $174,822.68 $174,822.68 $174,822.68 41 01/30/t2 KW Controls $73,011.00 $73,011 A0 $73,011.00 42 02/24/12 Cend W Contractors $ 240 ,416.36 $240,416.36 $240,416.36 43 03/15/12 Cardinal Contractors $246,740.07 $246,740.07 $246,740.07 44 04105/12 Hole Mantes $48,232.19 $48232.19 $48,232.19 45 04/23/12 Carrfrnal Contractors $89,577.03 $89,577.03 $89,577.03 46 109/1 052 ITT Water Equipment Tech $30,577.50 $30,577.50 $30.577.50 47 05116112 Cardinal Contractors $62,629.20 $62.62920 $62,62920 48 05/17/12 KW Controls $12.168.50 $12,168.50 $12,188.50 49 06/12/12 Hob Mantes $65,276.80 $65276.80 $65,27&80 50 06M2/12 Severn Treat Environmental Svcs $9,027.29 $9,027.29 $9,027.29 51 06112112 BCITedin0100e5 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 ' 52 06113112 Candnall loB $ 207 ,111.76 $207,111.76 $207.111.76 53 0612912 Solo's Lawn SWAM Inc. $19,680.00 $19,880.00 $19,680.00 Tatel FY 2012 $2.Rffi.U9 .58 $2,880,879. F $0.00 $2 079.58 Grand TOW 590140.78 555440.78 $42700.00 .555440.78 u Interest IFY 2011 Interest $5.743.88 FY 2012 Inter" 1,947.21 17,591,ug Page 14 b E §� � )&n Rik §2 � c\ 2sCL ILL La 0 � : � | | I § zz , §..§ § ■ � „ §..� $ - � $ � WEA \ 7 � � d� k� �� -- ® -- - � � � � § 2 2a2 a et - -. lit �$�£!72 I�� kk2k2% � � g � ■ ic & ■ ■ � 2! � � # ■ � -- .. ■'� f$R ■ §� ■! P, � � � £ 16 1 ' A 7 � \ � �E a V N $ Q a N P d m E a c i e a E a m U O i 2 S S hi 8 8 n 8 iV ir °a a S y E$g F x'a 2 161 r 1-.A 3 a Port of the Islands Improvement District Cash Flow Projections 6anerlo/ Frwsd 31 -7uI 31 -Aug 30 -Sep FICA Taxes 2012 2012 2012 Cash Beginning Balance $1,046,386 $1,094,302 $1,066,080 Cash Inflow $363 $363 $100,362 Cash Outflow ($30,446) ($28,586) ($29,124) CO Investment $0 $0 $0 Add: Prepaid Items $1,845 $0 $0 Add: Due from WS Fund $76,715 $0 $0 Less: Current Liabilities (as of 6/30/12) ($561) $0 $0 Total Estimated Cash Balance $1,094,302 $1,066,080 $1,137,318 Cash Receibt5 $371 $371 $371 Special Assessments - Levy $0 $0 $33,709 Special Assessments - Delinquent (priaryr) $0 $0 $66,290 Special Assessments - Discount $0 $0 $0 Interest $363 $363 $363 Total Cash Inflow $363 $363 $100,362 eratim Exoetx Administrative PIR -Bawd of Supervisors $500 $500 $1,000 FICA Taxes $38 $38 $77 ProfServ- Engineering $3,320 $3,320 $3,320 ProfSery -Legal Services $2,721 $2,721 $2,721 ProfSery -Mgmt Consutting Sery $2,295 $2,295 $2,295 Annual Audit $0 $0 $0 Telephone $2 $2 $2 Postage and Freight $91 $91 $91 Rental - Meeting Room $25 $25 $25 Insurance - General Liability $1,860 $0 $0 Printing & Binding $371 $371 $371 Legal Advertising $569 $569 $569 Miscellaneous Services $93 $93 $93 Misc.- Assessmat Collection Cast $0 $0 $0 Office Supplies $21 $21 $21 Total Administrative $11,906 $10,046 $10,585 Maintenance Contracts - Mgmt Services $8,333 $8,333 $8,333 Contracts - landscape $6,620 $6,620 $6,620 Electricity - Strestlighting $1,345 $1,345 $I,345 Utility - Irrigation $1,210 $1,210 $1,210 R&M - Renewal &Replacement $1,031 $1,031 $1,031 R&M - Roads $0 $0 $0 CIP* $0 $0 $0 Total Maintenance $18,539 $18,539 $18,539 Total Cash Outflow $30,446 $28,586 $29,124 *NOTES: Estimated CEP ash for the anticipated FY 2012 projacts are shown quwtwy. Delinquent assessor mis from hotel parcel era rafleded as received In September 2012. Actual recelpt dateudanmm. The District fm a CD maturing in September 2013 W the amount of $01 ,050. 16 i i-13 Page 17 Port of the Islands improvement District Cash Flow Projections 31 -Ju1 31 -Aug 30 -Sep 2012 2012 2012 Cash Beginning Balance $956,548 $627,223 $592,317 Cash inflow $16,516 $16,516 $277,357 Cash Outflow - Expenses ($53,283) ($51,423) ($757,027) Add: Prepaid Items $1,845 $0 $0 Lass: Due to General Fund ($76,715) $0 $0 Less: Current Liabilities (as of 6/30/12) ($217,688) $0 $0 Total Estimated Cash Balance $627,223 $592,317 $112,647 Cash Recelots $500 $500 $1,000 Special Assessments - Levy $0 $0 $87,877 Special Assessments - Delinquent (prioryr.' $0 $0 $172,964 Special Assessments - Discount $0 $0 $0 Water /Sewer/IrrigationRevenue $16,258 $16,258 $16,258 Interest /Miscellaneous $258 $258 $258 Total Cash rnflow $16,516 $16,516 $277,357 aw"na Fstnertt Administrative P/R -Board of Supervisors $500 $500 $1,000 FICA Taxes $38 $38 $77 ProfServ- Engineering $3,320 $3,320 $3,320 ProfServ4.egal Services $2,721 $2,721 $2,721 Profsery -Mgmt Consulting Sery $2,304 $2,304 $2,304 Utility Billing $1 ,246 $1,246 $1,246 Annual Audit $0 $0 $0 Telephone $2 $2 $2 Postage and Freight $59 $59 $59 Rental - Meeting Room $25 $25 $50 Insurance - General Liability $1,860 $0 $0 Printing & Binding $278 $278 $278 Legal Advertising $392 $392 $392 Miscellaneous Services $192 $192 $192 Misc.- Assessmnt Collection Cost $0 $0 $2,343 Office Supplies $25 $25 $25 Total AdmWstrative $12,962 $11,102 $14.009 Maintotaoce Contracts - Mgmt Services $25,794 $25,794 $25,794 Contracts - Other Services $0 $0 $250 Communication - Telaph -Field $306 $306 $306 utility - General $6,720 $6,720 $6,720 R&M - Irrigation $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 R&M - Water Plant $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 R&M - Waste Water Plant $2,500 $2,500 $2.500 Capital Reserve $O $0 $0 Cape $0 $0 $702,448 Total MaiMermnce $40,320 $40,320 $743,019 Dot Service Principal and Interest $0 $0 $0 Total Debt Service $0 $0 $0 Total Cash Outflow $53.283 $51,423 $757,027 'NOTES Estimated 61p costs for the anticipated FY 2012 projects aro shown quarterly. Delinquent assessments from hotel parcel are reflected as rewiwd in September 2012. 161 T-O"A3 Page 18 GENERAL FUND Operating Revenues Assessments I nterest/M iscellaneous Total Operating Revenues Operatina Expenditures Administrative Maintenance Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures CIP Projects Total Capital Expenditures 161' A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROJECTIONS Adopted Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed IFY 2012 IFY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 $417,984 $417,984 $417,984 $417,984 $417,984 $2,090 $2177 $12,884 _ $13,595 $14,205 $420,074 $420,161 $430,868 $431,579 $432,189 $117,132 $119,844 $123,439 $127,142 $130,957 _ $224,461 $229,423 06,306 $243,395 $250,697 $341,593 $349,267 $359,745 $370,537 $381,653 $78,481 $70,894 $0 $0 $0 $78,481 $70,894 $0 $0 $0 Estimated Beginning Cash Balance $1,137,318 $1,288,368 $1,359,491 $1,420,532 Estimated Ending Cash Balance' $1,137,318 $1,288,368 $1,359,491 $1,420,532 $1,471,068 WATER AND SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND 'Includes $151 K CID maturing in September 2013. Page 19 Adopted Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed FY 2012 IFY 2013 FY 2014 IFY 2015 FY 2016 Operatina Revenues Assessments $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 $1,089,624 Water/Sewer/Irrigation Revenue $200,000 $208,000 $208,000 $208,000 $208,000 Interest /Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues $5,448 $1,295,072 $2,838 $1,300,462 $563 $1,298,187 $462 $1,298,086 $293 $1,297,917 Operating Expenditures Administrative $155,259 $157,319 $157,319 $157,319 $157,319 Maintenance $471,867 $437J83 $450,916 $464,444 $478,377 Total Operating Expenditures $627,126 $595,102 $608,235 $621,763 $6351696 Capital Expenditures CIP Projects $3,737,976 $50,000 $54,796 $54,796 $64,796 Total Capital Expenditures $3, 737, 976 $50,000 $54,796 $54,796 $64,796 Debt Service Principal and Interest $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 Total Debt Service $655,360 $655,360 $655,360 $655,380 $655,360 Estimated Beginning Cash Balance $112,647 $112,647 $92,443 $58,611 'Includes $151 K CID maturing in September 2013. Page 19 ri O q H a a mU m w a a W , I.� 1 E I 0 F 1 1 1 H 1 U , 1 al N 1 1 1 u) O In I 0000NN r we•1r I 0000 HIn N) to (13 1 00rsrr far N 1 In In O O On ri 1 VI m r tp ul O 1 �4* 1 r In m r N m tD O 1 � 1 vl* 1 ri 1 1 r♦ USc0AR 1 th to 000 1 000000 O 1 000000 O f 1 vir VIA -to Oh V). t? V). 1 1 000 1 x 1 1 1 I 1 1 U 1 o I H I 0 1 a 1 �.• 1 (YI 1 1 W 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 000 1 E 4x 1 2 In f 1 W Q I Ix I I H0MI 5. H H I H I a F H R4 >H 0 0 Z00 p n. as N N W O U rn N O O N ri N ri H 1 o� 10 r oQ 0 Aa 1 a• H 1 a a� H ' w H F I� H U W iU I IH•I 1 Z I Q I H I m E N O N H ri U o o 0 .✓ W W 1E 1 I Iw mom I O 1n H%.o 1 w lD 1 V3 1W la I Q 1 a 1 1 (7 IW ,a 1 Q 1 5 H HU aO F4 gc ri i OO iR 1 1 I F E 8 i + 6 ZO 1010.00 6 IWIWWW 000000 O 000000 0 yr trr yr ur ur t-r yr 000000 0 OooOCO C V2.4& VY 1& 0- -Ul- VY 000000 O O O O o o 0 O trr C- r: It � W, ur r N (13 r r N N V). V). 000000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 01-1 N r OOOOri I-1 lD OOO V1.00r In In N co O m OD v m m to In N i? t? 1 c In m er in. vi- r-cmH1 • H I mm w 1 W 1 w� I a l HH lwEryl� �I�r� a Q 1 01 WO -1 WW 1a•I � I L4af�'�3F W i Hal POHMMM F I I I 1 In o. m N I In o In RI O I m 1D 1 1� O it 1 •• I RC V] N 1 In In v N N 1 D1 O D1 r-cmH1 • H I mm w N m tD O 1 1D -1 r E 1 �EdWQ vl* ri ri 1 d' VI 1 r♦ USc0AR 1 th to 1 1 I O O o o O I 1 1 O O O O O O O O Do O 0000 0 0000 0 i& 0•A& VY tfr 0000 C. 0000 0 O O O O O 0000 0 ry}V; (-} fn• i? 0000 O O O O O O f 1 I LnO V1m N W O ri m 1D to to N to C, N ra vi- r4 N m W o i? L} r♦ i1i - in' I I •• � i UyO+Q� � X 1 •• I RC V] N 10 1 'Cy)' C7 p m a. °zwa Pa E 1 �EdWQ F 1 w , uacn3 O USc0AR 00 0 00 0 atur yr 0o 0 00 0 00 O 00 0 r in• r w � In N m m uT +l? 00 0 O O 0 "). (n• L} In O In 1� O 1� N O N r 1n N O ll N ri ri e-1 ri i W 1 1E+I�E a 1 1 H 1 W I 9 100 W H la1�Q 161t7-A3 011 Vto r{ r co w %D 0000 O Coco 0 0000 0 N 0 0 0 N It ri 0000 0 CO r-f V to m In %D w %D O N i a 2 X a z� aHo a. °zwa Pa o F O N i a 16 1 T-13 I 1 1 1 10 lnHmT0100 ti ti Otio000 r-I rl0H000O NNO L�1111/100 ri r-1 O'i0000 Hri010000 ly 1 W 1 N N V co W O df 10 O O t 1 N U1 0 10 O H 1+1 Ih l 1 HH m N HH • ri NN HW%0 , F I Vl dl 1 O 1 m W 1 �1 I 10 (J 1 I d a 1 1 Q I I H 1 I 1 { P4 1 1 x 1 I a10 iwi oObooO°a 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0000000 f•f H i 'r� i vs zr vt m D I H 1 W i U 1 i W , .al ul 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 P4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 o O o O O 1 1 • ' 7 I Vk 1 r= I I I U 1 O I H 1 6 I a 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O b I w I F 1 E� CO I a l z I � � t71• +7r ur IHlol 1 l 1 x � Izl wam 111 a i iq aH 1'1 1 a I OOONI! WOO 00000000 oo000°00 liHOW000b H, 0'-10000 Hri OlOb00 1 I-a 1 0 1 ,-1 H m 1` r- 0 0 O ri O w O .••t f•1 m H W 1 H I H I v 0141 H HlD l0 a W 1 to I W W 1 1 1 1 000 1 E 1 z 0 0 1£ I Q o�aa� I , I N 1 1 W 1 N I , o f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0000000c> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 ° I H 1 W I L} y} 1 Dud d? I a. 1 1 l 1 U] I a 1 0 1 1 o fc�lal U 1 1 I 1 1 �• 1 0 1 1 I 1 1 I f W 1 I W 1 1 r•I rl ri r-I rl Hi0 x000 o 00000000 000000 07"0 -v voo H H O rM M OO O O O 11 UI O 0 I H 1 F t ti ri rl f•1 f+l r-I .-1 • N N 1 E 1 FC 1 i/r +lr irr vt yr 1 1 I N N 1 G] 1 w I 1 Q I H I Q I f M 1 H 1 I a+ I U l 1 1 1 I 1 1 01 1 1 1 N 1 I U I ££££--nQV S££S- ip94(& ££££- -AAr7� ££££ ^QQrlr ££E£ ^AQtE& ££££ ---AA 0 1 1 1 00000- +7r 00000- q& 0000 - to o000a- +"+ 00000- � 0000 o , E. wwww ah wWwpaI� wWWW a4 wwww ah wWWw ah WWmw ah 1 I H I l 1 1 I !� H A Q 1 1 1 1 W H g A 1 1 1 1 H A A 11 I I M A 1 1 1 1 H A 1 1 1 H CADE74•- CQ400 m9F�ln� -PGFCW u�7Etn�POt�W tn9EmVCAfC W �G9� W w >E-4CA 41� N 1 1$ 1 RYiHUE a p, H E .a aHU E a u{HUE a W HUE a aHUE .-1N f 1 - 1 EEIQHW W W1� EE Hww Wa [1 E-1 W01A jrF7 AHW W 0-4 E I�H W W WO EHFCHW W W Va 1 rl 1 1 tM 1 W+U �a �j�y, Vi U ^i Vl H W �.i i.%N .a. :3H EEf H�ij�''f7`� ' (!J �i W V]}V.I. H W �. 1-i �+�0s7 •F�. {A �£1 1..1 �F-.+1 1��.1 t�r 1�.1 (�7.�1 F. Rfi �.1 H F�.+1 F [.1 p.1 '�i 1"1.1 �rF.%1 Y.1 GQ �£.1 �I 17 O° i iWi 3E33E3I 3333 333 3533553 3333353 33 33333 3333353 O O ••p 1 1 £ i r ° ° °. ° H 1 1 77 i W 1 1 [W-1 i O r-I ri N qr H A a 1..1 H H H H !6 I r-14 3 I 1 1 I I I I 11 1 1 1 I 1 O 1 cqH ri VI N IV n I I 0000r hriH 0000 In In O I1) NN ONNNOIO 1 NNON V' V'rN 1 I 1 Vf in . -110 in I N T O I mm .0 N N O I I m N11 M 0$ 0% O N N N w 1 En ri lnv V• N I l l mhs- I 01 { 1 I ri ri m m trl 1 I 1D 1,() 10 V' dl 1 w 10 l0 tf1 111 1 1 I N d• t I VS• I - Vt 1 1 -- V� d' 1 • [� 1 1 I I F I 1 In 111 1 { ri H m m O 1 ri H 01 1 1 I ri N N 1 0 1 I 1 I ri 1 111 I 1 I N W I H I I , , - V). 1 - I 1 I 9 I I I 1 1 f+f 1 I I 1 11 41, I 1 1 n-• 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 m U I jE O l a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 O O O O o O O O O o o o 0 0 0 O It 00,000000 1 1 1 0000 {+, I O I 1 I 1 Q I L} 1 L} 1 1 M. I H I U I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I W I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P1 1 u) t 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I l l I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 (g I I 1 I 1 I 1 t 1 O 1 1 1 W t 1 I 11 , 11 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 1 00000C>00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 I .fit 1 0 1 O f 1 O O O I O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 L} 1 -U). 1 1 Vt Vt Vt I ih 1 1 1 I (.) 1 I f 1 O I H t 1 1 1 1 11 1 t a t I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I O l O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 t a 1 1 0 1 1 O O 1 o I 1 I I W 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I 1 a 1 V} I i0' I 1 N Li Vt 1 Vt 1 1 1 I H I 1 1 1 1 11 1 I Q• 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 t 1 pcy 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 E P4 W rn ([[1jj3 l 1 I 1 1 , 1 1 1 O 1/111101 O 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOO OO d O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 1 M M O N 1 I� 1 0 1 r♦ ri N 4 0 0 1 1 O o' 1 0 1 1 1 H ri N H [� I H I I P 10 10 1 t 1 1 7 I [- H V] 1 1 Vt 1 Vt 1 1 V1. i? ih 1 Vt 1 I 1 U E•1 5-4 N i 1 114 I 1 I N 1 1 I 1 1 1 a Q 0 =1 00 W W 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 1 1 I 1 1 1 ry 00000000:00000000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 00 0 i O 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 O , C. 1 1 1 I H I 1 1 1 Vt 1 1 I I U I Vt 1 V1• I 1 Vt Vt Vt I 1 I 1 , 14, 1 I W I I I I 1 11 1 1 1 L4 1� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 u i ri 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 O 1 0)mH 01[-1, 00 1 t OOdOl�rri ri OOOOtf11110111 NCIIONNNO� ' In W ei tn��H � 1 7 t 1-10ri[- 1 I O 1 ri ri Ii ri ri 0 1 1 M N j I'•1 0\ a% O N N N V• v m 1 1D 10 v N , t 1 t` r ri I`r • 1 1 to 10 111 d'� • d' 4 , _ _ E 1 , 1 I E I Vt 1 _- Vt 1 I - fD O Vi. I H ri Ol 1 I 1 I m l 1 N N 1 I ri rl m r'I , In 1 I 1 1 1 I ! 1 1 I Q I I I 1 - ift I N 1 I I t H l I I I C•1 1 1 Vt I I 1 01 I 1 1 1 1 1 N £��g,- .Qptrt ZEEE--.nnA& S E - �1L_]vt I MEE 0 i I 1 E£2 p i ii I OOQ I.aWfa 1 I 000p1 -]- Vt OOOOIa- +& OOOOWI.7- V), 000 .7WL� 1 1 1 WNW p t 1 I WW CA- Vt1 1 WWWW41 -l- WWWWr 017 WNW r7 r7 F] I WWW RC4-t/tl 1 1 WNW 1 1 1 l H1�t]Vt 1 I I I 1 1 ,2 Ht.) 1 1 1 1 6CHOP 1 1 1 1 plH q(� 1 I 1 H1•�fq]Vt , 1 1 1 1 I cl� 1 W H q i)r 1 1 m 5 E V) -- AO W v� > H In -- P9 FC W u� > F W 1 W ' ( w FC 1 1 wHUH Ia r>;HUF .7 rxHUE .] 1 [>: �] 1 1 EEIS I"'1 WWW a FFQH W W W.7 HHIS HW w W..] t (� H�7 [r1u�H rl'ri I 1 H 1 FHH�-IC1) W w W W 1 1 U`j-1 "j'j..,,I, UI Vi i1H U�'.1 VJH �F7•+., 'rh •il• F`�iQ ; •t• "U F-I A'i �i lGti la 1 1 1 H04tH r1 t I 1 (11 1HCJ FL7 C,h t•7 1 1a•H,?t.7�oFQ10tiHrh '.717 fA .+- O 50 1 1 1 E H 1.7 1 1 �.1 ��-.II F�•I �.I �-1 E�•I ��-.11 E�•I ��.-11 �[�r , 0� Z��'-I W W (/) H I I 1 t o I r E l W'�U i�UlUr) rMH 1 1 [i,�bE E�HsEs�Hi r1 $ $$3 35 $3333' 33 R A H 7'ti7 7 7CQ (� 1 1 •� 1 H W N F+ 1`7 F+ L4 I 1 .T .a 3 •a V. 1� Y� n H 0 H " H El t i o Cd 1 l I 1 1 1 1 1 1 O I-i N I I t 1 pq , 1 1 1 0 W 1 1 1 W a a a 1 W L7 1 1 1 1 I yr I (n 1 W 10 10 1 I I I m W 1 I %D %D D1 1 1 I Q I N 1 I ,y r 1 ur 1 1 W •• I I I I Q 1 1 1 1 H ( 1 I 1 1 f 1 1 D1 I W I p 0 0 0 1 1 M t a r trr l 1 t H I r + w I U I t+ I W I 1 1 I AI 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 a I I II i i o00o i i I x l O I I i �a.1 i trr i i iU� it 0 I H I 1 1 � i faA 1 i 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I p O 0 0 I I t w 1 11 I H I 1 1 1 1 I 1 a 1 1 11 Q 1 I 1 1 P+ y I 1 1 1 14 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I , l [�•1 W i i 1 1 UI IAOO 1 1 1 a 1 p p p l l H W I H I 1D ID 1 1 HCtn IuQ H I w I N N 1 1 w w yloo,EI 1 I 1 1 Q Q 1 1 7 1 O 0 0 l 1 + 1 1 1 I 1 N { 1 1 N 1, 0 000 1 1 O 1 1 I H I • I 1 'Ir'74 1 1 1 1 04 I 1 1 I p I 1 t o Ivl II 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 ri ri ri N 1 1 I 1 b ID ID 1 I I H I N N 1 1 I � 1 dl dl ON 1 1 1 1 In + 1 Q I 1 l I H I M t l 1 1 1 1 rn I 1 + + N 1 t 1 1 t 1 A 1 1 1-3 '& 1 I I I C'1 {n W C 1 1 N t 1 +i ri i i Cw7 Cwi w lWl i � � I 1 OO En WH I 1 W H I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I Qf>Wi 1 1 1 I O H U W D4 T-. 9i W S ca H N 0 C4 w A w a P4 W a ul V& W H U b W Q O z 16 11?"'"A 3 M N m @ CL 161 i 1 1 I t I 1 I I I I I t I v V1 O W M 011" 00000001L N NONN OO[•1 1 lD 1D OIDO4r -11l1 I t l ID Ip OID OOri In I I 1n 1 m 1 rl O H 1•-1 N co N N N d1 lD I0 1 M N 1^I M r` H 1 l I m N H m r { 1 lD I6 lD V1 • • 1 lD ID %D VI 1 1 1 b W d1 1 I 1 I Ib 11 4 t I N I E•1 1 r•r N t? 1 ri O 1 I 1 r-I O 1 1 N 1 0 1 VI 1 1 1 1 1 1 0) W , E-1 , . 4A. 1 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 19 111 1 r!1 1 7 1 N 1 1 d 1 1 111 1 1 ! 1 l 1 1 I I D10 iWi oa00000a oa000000 0000a000looa00000lll000000aall � I ,•, 1 ° p O I O, 1 1 O I 1 rl I� l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t tq• i/? +h 1 ih 1 1 { � 1 1 1 I t r=1 1 I W I 01 I I 11 00000000 00000040 0000000010000000plll00000 oii I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 00000000 oa000000 000000aoo�000000aoa��oa000000p11 1 Wi I W 1 a r1.1 m �; 1 q l 1 1 O H i ul l I W 1 1 1 1 1 H "may I a 1 a O O O O O O O O 00000n,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ; 0 0 0 0 O O O O ; i i 0 0 0 O O O O p0 ~ z W rFl , 1 1 1 1 I L�.•11 H W I H I H I ;(} , i? 1 1 I � 1 I m OH m vi- E�Cm I 1 P, I l 1 1 1 P IX ,UQ' E1 H I W I I 1 1 { (U(J� , 1 1 1 N W I I 1 a I , l 1 1 '1 O O I H 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 H 9 ril w o 0 1 I Q I 1 1 1 1 I I �1 W i i Ik! i I 1 1 1 i i 3 E W ry 1 pq 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O O O O O i p 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 i i; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 a U]r O 1 1 IQ. I , 1 1 ! ! 1 m !S•1 H F m [y 03 x 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 (L 0 1 U 1 rll I , 1 1 1 1 1 � Q 1 1 1 1 1 now l 0 1 I I I I 1 7 r'7 ra 1 1•� 1 W 1 CI d' O sN f+1 0 .-I VI 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0D N N 6 N N O O 1 m 03 rl cn rr, O H ''•� 1 1 1 �D IO H en en r- H W I cC 1 1 1-1 O ri 1-1 N GD N N N dl tD 1 %D ID b IP jsj 'r7 1 H 1 F I ID to 1D L9' , I 1 I • 00 ! I F t �. I {J} 1 r•1 0 1 1 1 ri O I I U i W 1 m i H Cq r ,.. ID 1 1! W i i k 1 1 1 A 1 7i 1 ' 1 In 1 I 1 111 1 I W 1 H 1 O t Ln Ol 1 1 l 1 N i i U i � Z -ping SxEg- ,Alltr> �� E- -AArrr Q 00- -vt OOWOOIa -- OOOW,00- r1r1000 ,�WQ�i iWWW ��W'I- I WH Hxp p i i F 1 W0WW 1�1.7ghq W WWI•a1.7hq W W W.•al.7hqq I WWW A4 pp qq i I H I u] >Em"WI�W vl,7Eri]1I�ti`-'P7fCW m9FrnaPHRRCW i m 1 �*,7 EHh i i i a 1 W FAQ i i aWL�') I 1 J I 0.iHUF 1.7 ¢.' HUE ►7 P4HUF I.7 I R' i� �a1 Ai P , , W �,..1 Ii cl i Er�`�- 1F{,'H1�W W W 1-7 F.IEI,D,'HW W P4 &A EFIzH W WORD 1 H�FmW W W W i i i pgyHm W W W W I I P'i pU7.1 �•-. U) V) W (U��•.d1U] V]H W U'�'ir�j+,. toH 1 r��7 rl 1 1 1 I y�1 Hi-1 r`� 117 i7 ra �. ffiH r� r�F�F�7 (:1 .G� 1.., i.�171�QQ1 1 d. �H�-.II4 H4IC�i� A I 1 1 �r� E 4 Hifi 440 i✓iH Ow I I W� 1 aao;aaPGC4'Pd D:x a a a a a x w04Qaa:a o Pd I i7UZ�•1 mmmH , I I aaH 'aO,h• N 1 1 W W W EI 1 mmcnmmmmm mrnmmmmmm mrnmmmmmm 1 [>:RCHDODw 1 1, E 1 t I F EI E+ a a q 1 1 7- 1 In O O 1 I I (y i i 07.1 '0T. Z I Q 1 I I I I G3 � E.I A"M 1 1 1 O 1 1 ! I 1 I n 1 D pq 0 I I W i i N� 2 a' a 1 W 161 r �3 to Nyy 81 IQ d I 1 I 1 , 1 P1 N 1(1 O1 O I U1 w t-I _I m 111 I N O O 10 rl I � I O (•f r � � I N (I} � � 1 t N W Ga N cn Ln O o" a a 2 In 0 a w rl a (tj h001r1". -I WHMMM '� rl hONO V'rl mr1M Od' O 10 4 N to VI r1 O VI lD (R M 1D 01hNOhMO Nmu1 10111r -wm VI Vlrlra a a b N rl dl d' O O rl 111 O O 10 M Ul 111 (A rl N N O rl O Q N [� O p �1 w %00 O O O O N w N 117 O A N N N Ri Q P4 O W M O 0 Oa O 0 V1 ' M In In A0 N N O M M O O Ei m o b M In N h N N .7 V7 U to rl rl rl O N O'p'lm rlMO V' to lO N U1 l0.0 r1 0 w w m M10 U N10N0 NN 0 N Ch rl w U O EI 0 O a 000000 0 w 000000 0 � xxxxax a acnacnr>smu�m�� z >1 la W �� °w�a�chc7ca7o�c°.�0 N N N 0 0 0 C. 0 01 w rt r< ri rt rl rl O O I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ri h N N N N (V O W o obbb bbrl E+ 1 1 1 1 1 I I I rL' d� N mm07 coo Q O O O O O b 0 0 wwrww wwW O O ° ° �� ° � ° r. I r j r 4 l 4 H l i i C) u h Ri NMNln OlNrihMr101 Q1 ri jzj 1 1 l 1 1 1 I I 1 ( 1 1 N 1 V' rl ri r-4 41 rl H O rl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1{ 1 h N f�1 6 ri h O O rl M 111 M 01 h0r-I hOM0In hh OON 01 x1000 0 0 0 a0000 [L O O O 1 O . . . 1D \0 10 10 10 O 4 W V V v 4 V 4 V1I 1D ( W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [A] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q 161'1 A3 N m a 161 N a N 0 � rd W M M A 0 N H m 10 Ch En w o a q N D m W o o to tD 0 N a a 0 M W 0 M r-- a3 ti N N m m a H M � 2 W _ M p� N r-I V3 ,•Cpj,; H N in H %D ° 1p ° 0 a d d m 0 a W U W M rl M rf H a H W W � W y W q v] W U "UTy N � W U U HH q a o U a� E Gil r IX Nx a W E+ xU xHH N 3 3 a �y o rn W O o O U UUCP A r-- a3 ti N N m m a L , 02 N O < jS i In° u `ca m Ia T Z O S O S L O O C O [ m m m n i 03 In _m W_ N I 0 cm G m c •m O a c m ) S O O C j n � C9 N V a N a D v a c O �° OC m 3 � m m G C � � R a N M m � a m '= O U w o m m v c o o c • mg`•c c a n U ° �� E m cd f b C X$ G N m c c ° ° N 2:2 G t0 w lN0 g 'Q E-B f E m 7a c M m a c � a E m U m E d ° m G $ o c `a d E n c $ c a 'm5 E f° - m a c s ; U L I` c a ° m ¢ < om� Q d � a m o O y r 0 C3 C C O m o dC� ° E E £g a7 w rh Ji V $ Y7 O m m u m c yy yy �m 3 N V] fn 0 fA N U N m,d }" A m o N N W N N N N 5 G 79 ° M a$ O " $ o O 0 0 0 o i �y Nd2Q c ) S O O C j n � C9 N V a N a D v a c O �° OC m 3 � m m G C � � R a N M m � a m '= O U w o m m v c o r� ym 3 3 F m • � G a O N f O S i i so` R 0 N 1 $ c m 2 �� cd m c c ° ° N 2:2 O c t0 w lN0 g 'Q amC� f ° ?a'O r� ym 3 3 F m • � G a O N f O S i i so` R 0 N 0 ■t I N ■ ; kkK � « ©© 0 2 I 2 � � ¢ .� � § ) � 2 CL� �91 � �k� F. 2 &I lu IL Eo�7 ;r -& 1 0 I � m § \ \ 5 § / / � k � 2 16 3 E &� �§ 7 LO I k co 161 lr^A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Version 3 - Moditied Tentative Budget: (Printed on 7/5/2012 at1lam) Prepared by: 161 A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Table of Contents Page # OPERATING BUDGET General Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .... ............................... 1 -2 BudgetNarrative .......................................................................... ............................... 3.5 Exhibit A - Allocation of Fund Balances ............................................. ............................... 6 Water and Sewer Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .... ............................... 7-8 BudgetNarrative .......................................................................... ............................... 5 -12 AmortizationSchedule ................................................................... ............................... 13 Exhibit B - Allocation of Fund Balances ............................................. ............................... 14 SUPPORTING BUDGET SCHEDULES 2012 -2013 Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Summary ......................... ............................... 15 CIPSchedule .......................................................................... ............................... 16 16 I f'113 Port of the islands Community Improvement District Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 161 f --""A3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District General Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes In Fund Balances Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU JUL- PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 JUN -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 REVENUES Interest - Investments $ 9,977 $ 6,315 $ 2,090 $ 3,263 $ 1,088 $ 4,351 $ 2,177 Net Incr (Deer) In FMV•Invest 6,271 2,159 - 1,559 2,000 1,559 - Interest - Tax Collector 1,429 166 - 24 153 24 - Special Assmnts- Tax Collector 404,299 402,233 435,400 401,691 33,709 435,400 435,400 SpecialAssmnts- Refund (13,304) - - - 8,162 32,647 12,500 Special Assmnts- Delinquent 3,795 26,867 27,539 20,654 66,290 68,290 28,365 SpecialAssmnts- Discounts (12,027) (11,128) (17,416) (11,221) - (11,221) (17,416) Other Miscellaneous Revenues 3,277 3,676 - 8,974 - - 9,243 TOTAL REVENUES 403,717 403,421 420,074 395,316 101,087 496,403 420161 EXPENDITURES Adminlstrative 99,703 101,289 103,821 74,414 24,999 99,413 100,000 P/R -Board of Supervisors 6,400 5,700 7,000 5,000 2,000 7,000 7,000 FICA Taxes 490 436 536 383 153 536 536 ProfServ- Engineering 16,550 21,523 26,000 16,040 9,960 26,000 26,000 ProfServ-Legal Services 28,890 30,200 12,500 24,485 8,162 32,647 12,500 ProfServ-Mgmt Consulting Sery 26,084 26,867 27,539 20,654 6,885 27,539 28,365 ProfServ- Property Appraiser - 6,530 6,531 6,531 6,531 ProfServ- Special Assessment 8,500 8,755 8,974 8,974 8,974 9,243 Auditing Services 4,432 3,750 3,750 3,500 - 3,500 3,750 Communication - Telephone 69 22 100 20 7 27 100 Postage and Freight 1,280 1,129 1,500 823 274 1,097 1,500 Rental- Meeting Room 600 325 300 250 100 350 350 Insurance - General Liability 7,979 7,830 8,270 5,845 1,860 7,705 8,861 PH ndng and Binding 1,551 1,578 2,000 887 1,113 2,000 2,000 Legal Advertising 2,475 475 2,200 493 1,707 2,200 2,200 Miscellaneous Services 293 482 400 835 278 1,113 1,375 Mlso-AssessmntCouecWnCost 1,944 (31801) 8,708 7,809 899 8,708 8,708 Misc -Web Hosting - - 119 - 119 1,000 Office Supplies 774 448 650 192 64 256 650 Annual Distdot Filing Fee 175 175 175 175 - 175 175 Total AdmfnistreNve 108,486 105,894 117,132 103,015 33,452 136,477 120,844 Reid Contracts- MgmtServices 99,703 101,289 103,821 74,414 24,999 99,413 100,000 Contracts - Landscape 95,953 97,639 79,440 59,580 19,860 79,440 79,440 Electricity - Streetiighting 12,267 13,439 13,000 12,092 4,031 16,123 16,500 utility - Irrigation 9,248 6,559 7,200 10,897 3,632 14,529 12,800 R &M- Renewal and Replacement 19,567 17,126 20,000 9,280 3,093 12,373 10,000 R &M -Roads 8 Alleyways - ' 8,000 - - 4,000 R &M- Signage - - 1,000 Capital outlay 4.508 73,481 - _ 70,894 Total Reid 241,246 236,052 302,942 165,253 55,615 221,878 294,434 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 349,732 341,W 420,074 269,278 99,078 358,356 415278 Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget Fiscal Year 2013 1 161 ?"'A 3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District General Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU JUL- PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 JUN -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 Excess (deticlency) of revenues Over (under) expenditures 53,365 61,475 1261038 12,009 138,047 4,663 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Contribution to (use of) Fund Balance - - - 4,863 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES USES 411M Net charge in fund balance 63.985 61,475 126,038 12,009 138,047 4,883 FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING 1,046,687 1,100,672 1,162,147 1,162,147 - 1,162,147 1,300,194 FUND BALANCE, ENDING $ 1,100,872 $ 1� $ 1$ 1 182147 $$ 1® S® $ 1,300,194 S 1,305,077 Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget Fiscal Year 2013 2 161 T-13 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Genera! Fund Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 REVENUES Interest - investments The District earns interest on the monthly average collected balance for their operating accounts. Special Assessments -Tax Collector The District will levy a Non -Ad Valorem assessment on all the assessable property within the District in order to pay for the operating expenditures during the Fiscal Year. Special Assessments- Discounts Per Section 197.162, Florida Statues, discounts are allowed for early payment of assessments. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is calculated at 4% of the anticipated Non -Ad Valorem assessments. EXPENDITURES Administrative P/R -Board of Supervisors Chapter 190 of the Florida Statutes allows for members of the Board of Supervisors to be compensated $200 per meeting at which they are in attendance. The amount for the Fiscal Year is based on 5 Board members paid for attending 14 meetings. The fees will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. FICA Taxes Payroll taxes for supervisor salaries are calculated as 7.65 0k of payroll. Professional Services- Engineering The Districts engineer provides general engineering services to the District, i.e. attendance and preparation for monthly board meetings when requested, review of invoices, and other specifically requested assignments. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is based on prior year spending. The fees for shared general maters only will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. Professional Services -Legal Services The District's Attorney provides general legal services to the District, i.e., attendance and preparation for monthly Board meetings, review of contracts, review of agreements and resolutions, and other research as directed by the Board of Supervisors and the District Manager. The fees will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Professional Services - Management Consulting Services The District receives Management, Accounting and Administrative services as part of a Management Agreement with Sevem Trent Environmental Services, Inc. Professional Services- Property Appraiser The Property Appraiser provides the District with a listing of the legal description of each property parcel within the District boundaries, and the names and addresses of the owners of such property. The District reimburses the Property Appraiser for necessary administrative costs incurred to provide this service. Per the Florida Statutes, administrative costs shall Include, but not be limited to, those costs associated with personnel, forms, supplies, data processing, computer equipment, postage, and programming. The FY2013 budget for collection costs was based on 1.5°/, of the anticipated assessment collections. Annual Operating and Water /Sewer Budget 3 Fiscal Year 2013 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 161 ir -A3 Genera! Fund EXPENDITURES Administrative (continued) Professional Services- Special Assessment The District has contracted with Severn Trent Management Services, Inc. to levy annual assessments, update the District's tax roll, prepare estoppel letters and handle any customer service questions regarding assessments. Auditing Services The District is required to conduct an annual audit of its financial records by an Independent Certified Public Accounting Firm. The fees will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. Communication - Telephone Telephone and fax transmission expenditures. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is based on prior year spending. The fees will be split with the Water & Sewer Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Postage and Freight This represents costs associated with actual postage and/or freight used for District mailings including agenda packages, vendor checks and other correspondence. The fees will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. Rentals - Meeting Room The District is charged $50 per occurrence for the use of the meeting room at which the Districts meetings are held. This fee will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. Insurance -General Liability The District currently has its Insurance Policy with the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust. This includes general liability, storage tank and property insurance. The FY 2013 budget includes an estimated 15% increase of the actual FY 2012 premium. Printing and Binding This represents costs associated with copies used In the preparation of agenda packages, required mailings, and other special projects. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is based on prior year spending. The fees will be split with the Water & Sewer Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Legal Advertising The District is required to advertise various notices for monthly Board meetings and other public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. The board will advertise for their meetings annually. The fees will be split with the Water & Sewer Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Miscellaneous Services This includes monthly bank charges and any other miscellaneous expenses that may be incurred during the year. Miscellaneous- Assessment Collection Costs The District reimburses the Collier County Tax Collector for her or his necessary administrative costs. Per the Florida. Statutes, administrative costs shall include, but not be limited to, those costs associated with personnel, forms, supplies, data processing, computer equipment, postage, and programming. The District also compensates the Tax Collector for the actual cost of collection or 20% on the amount of special assessments collected and remitted, whichever is greater. The FY2013 budget for collection costs was based on a maximum of 20% of the anticipated assessment collections. Annual Operating and Water /Sewer Budget 4 Fiscal Year 2013 161 r"I3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Genera! Fund Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 EXPENDITURES Administrative (continued) Miscellaneous -Web Hosting The District expects to incur costs associated with Web Hosting. Office Supplies Supplies used in the preparation and binding of agenda packages, required mailings, and other special projects. Annual District Filing Fee The District is required to pay an annual fee of $175 to the Department of Community Affairs. Field. Contracts -Mgmt Services The District has contracted with Sevem Trent Environmental Services to provide operating, maintenance and field management services. This contract includes a predetermined amount of R &M costs. Costs above the specified amount are recorded as 'R &M- Renewal and Replacement'. Any unused R &M costs are returned to the district. Contracts- Landscape Soto's lawn currently provides monthly landscape services to the district for a monthly fee of $6,620 ($79,440 /year). The remainder of the budgeted expenditures is to cover any incidental landscape expenditures that the district may incur. Electricity - Streetlighting The District currently has 3 electric accounts with Lee County Cooperative for streetlights located on District Roads. Expenses are based on prior year's electric bills. The district receives a reimbursement for a portion of the decorative street lighting from Orchid Cove. Account No. Service Address 0051120000 0 Eveningstar Cay 4941120000 Newport Drive 5741120000 262 Stella Maris Utility - Irrigation The District is currently being billed by the Water /Sewer Fund of Port of the Islands CID for irrigation water for the common areas that the District is required to maintain. R &M- Renewal and Replacement Various repair and maintenance costs incurred as needed including but not limited to the entrance, monuments and lighting. R &M -Roads & Alleyways Expenses incurred while maintaining District roadways. R &M- Signage This category includes costs for maintaining or replacing signage throughout the District. Capital Outlay Monies spent on capital improvement projects as identified by the board. Annual Operating and Water/Sewer Budget 5 Fiscal Year 2013 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Exhibit "A" Allocation of Fund Balances AVAILABLE FUNDS Amount Beginning Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 $ 1,300,184 Net Change in Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 4,883 Reserves - Fiscal Year 2013 Additions - Tote) Funds Available time - 8130/2013 1,305,0771 ALLOCATION OF AVAILABLE FUNDS Asalgned Fund Balance Operating Reserve - First Quarter Operating Capital 103,820 p) Subtotal 103,020 Total Allocation of Available Funds 103 820 Total Unassigned (undeslgnslsd) Cash MM (1) Represents approximately 3 months of operating expenditures !61 f General Fund Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget 6 Fiscal Year 2013 161 1p"""IA3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Water And Sewer Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenses and Changes In Net Assets Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU JUL_ PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 JUN -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 OPERATING REVENUES Interest - Investments $ 3,980 $ 6,244 $ 5,448 $ 2,326 $ 775 $ 3,101 $ 2,838 Water Revenue 41,656 41,379 40,000 33,482 $ 11,161 44,843 43,000 Sewer Revenue 59,903 58,819 60,000 50,290 $ 16,763 67,053 65,000 Irrigation Fees 102,220 93,629 100,000 62,547 $ 20,849 83,396 100,000 Net Incr (Decr) In FMV- Invest 11,677 4,021 - 2,903 - 2,903 12,500 Interest - Tax Collector 3,271 26,978 - - - - 28,482 Special Assmnts- Tax Collector 1,055,823 1,048,566 1,135,025 1,047,150 87,877 1,135,027 1,135,025 Special Assmnts- Refund (34,209) 7,468 - 7,655 - - 7,885 Spacial Assmnts- Delinquent 9,912 15,155 15,821 11,216 172,964 172,964 15,821 Special As6mnts- Discounts (31,407) (29,009) (45,401) (29,252) - (29,252) (45,401) Other Miscellaneous Revenues 11,552 19,379 - 3,860 7 3,860 - TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 1,234,378 1,243,028 1,295,072 1 173 306 310,389 1,483,695 1,300 462 OPERATING EXPENSES Personad and Administration P/R -Board of Supervisors 6,400 51700 7,000 5,000 2,000 7,000 7,000 FICA Taxes 490 436 536 383 153 536 536 ProfServ- Engineering 25,531 37,564 26,000 16,040 9,960 26,000 26,000 ProfServ-Legal Services 29,076 30,200 12,500 24,485 8,162 32,647 12,500 ProfServ-Mgmt Consulting Sery 26,192 26,978 27,652 20,739 61913 27,652 28,482 ProfServ- Property Appraiser - - 17,024 17,025 - 17,025 17,025 ProfServ- Special Assessment 7,250 7,468 7,655 7,655 7,655 7,885 ProfServ- Utillty Billing 15,135 15,155 15,821 11,216 3,739 14,955 15,821 Auditing Services 3,568 3,750 3,750 3,500 - 3,500 3,750 Communication - Telephone 58 21 100 20 7 27 100 Postage and Freight 634 561 1,000 531 177 708 1,000 Rental - Meeting Room 600 325 300 250 100 350 350 Insurance - General Liability 7,979 7,830 8,270 5,845 1,860 7,705 8,270 Printing and Binding 969 986 1,500 665 835 1,500 1,500 Legal Advertising 1,841 353 1,600 424 1,176 1,600 1,600 Miscellaneous Services 810 1,371 1,100 1,730 577 2,307 2,050 Mfsc- AssessmM Collection Cost 37,904 20,371 22,701 20,368 2,343 22,701 22,701 Office Supplies 885 517 750 225 75 300 750 Depreciation Expense 253,166 308,309 - - - Total Personnel and Administration 418,488 467,895 155,259 136,091 38,076 174,167 157,319 Water -Seaw Comb Services Unemployment Compensation 271 - - " Contracts-Mgmt Services - 5M.698 304,000 311,599 224,843 77,383 302,226 309,533 Contracts -Other Services - 1,750 2,000 1,750 26D 21000 2,000 Communication - Taleph - Field 3,918 3,867 3,768 2,755 918 3,873 3,768 Utitty - General 76,559 79,963 80,000 60,476 20,159 80,535 80,000 R&M-Irrigation 7,134 28,121 10,000 35,472 7,500 42,972 10,000 R&M -Water Plant 27,693 21,415 10,000 22,164 7,500 29,664 10,000 R&M-Waste Water Plant 39,203 46,609 25,000 40,258 7,500 47,758 9,866 Misc -Bad Debt 15,359 - 2,079 - 2,079 - Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget 7 Fiscal Year 2013 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District ib i T-A3 Water And Sewer Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU JUL- PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 JUN -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 Mlso- Licenses & Permits 4,375 4,500 4,375 4,375 4,500 Cap Outlay-Irrigation - 10,000 - - - - Cap Outlay -Water Plant 3,697,180 2,972,781 685,442 3,658,223 50,000 Cap Outlay -Waste Water Plant 30,796 13,790 17,006 30,796 - Capitat Reserve 25,000 Total Wate►Sinow Comb Services 470,835 490,100 4,209,843 3,380,743 823,656 4,204,401 479,687 Debt Servile Principal Dept Retirement - 460,440 - - 497,303 Interest Expense 179,380 174,920 102,037 72,883 174,920 168,056 Cost of Issuance Total Debt Service 179,380 655,360 102,037 M883 174,920 655,360 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 889,323 1,137 375 5,02D A62 3,618,871 617 4,553,488 1292 Operating Income (loss) 345,055 105,653 (3,725,390) (2,445,565) (624,228) (3,069,793) 8,117 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Special Item (Bain) 108,000 - Contribution to (Use of) Fund Balance - TOTAL OTHER SOURCES USES 106,000 - Change in net assets TOTAL NET ASSETS, BEGINNING TOTAL NET ASSETS, ENDING 451,055 105,653 (3,725,390) (2,445,565) (624,228) (3,069,793) 8,117 7,090,496 7,541,551 7,647,204 7,647,204 7,647,204 4,577,411 $$ 7 S 7847 204 3$ ,9 5,201,639 (62A228) $$ 4�e 4. MSM Annual Operating and Debt Service Budget 8 Fiscal Year 2013 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 16 11-.- A3 Water and Sewer Fund REVENUES Interest- investments The District earns interest income on their operational accounts. Water Revenue Based on prior year's budget and water consumption and anticipated use. Sewer Revenue Based on prior year's budget and waste water consumption and anticipated use. Irrigation Fees Based on prior year's budget and irrigation water consumption and anticipated use. Special Assessments -Tax Collector The District will levy a Non -Ad Valorem assessment on all the assessable property within the District in order to pay for the debt service expenditures during the Fiscal Year. Special Assessments- Discounts Per Section 197.162, Florida Statues, discounts are allowed for early payment of assessments. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is calculated at 40/6 of the anticipated Non -Ad. Valorem assessments. EXPENDITURES Administrative P/R Board of Supervisor Salaries Chapter 190 of the Florida Statutes allows for a member of the Board of Supervisors to be compensated for a meeting attendance and to receive $200 per meeting plus payroll taxes. The amount for the Fiscal Year is based on 5 Board members paid for attending 14 meetings. The fees will be split evenly with the General Fund. FICA Taxes Payroll taxes for supervisor salaries are calculated as 7.65% of payroll. Professional Services- Engineering The District's engineer provides general engineering services to the District, i.e. attendance and preparation for monthly board meetings when requested, review of invoices, and other specifically requested assignments. The fees for shared general maters only will be split evenly with the Water & Sewer Fund. Professional Services -Legal Services The District's Attorney provides general legal services to the District, i.e., attendance and preparation for monthly Board meetings, review of contracts, review of agreements and resolutions, and other research assigned as directed by the Board of Supervisors and the District Manager. The fees will be split evenly with the General Fund. Professional Services- Management Consulting Services The District receives Management, Accounting and Administrative services as part of a Management Agreement with Sevem Trent Management Services, Inc. Annual Operating and Water /Sewer Budget 9 Fiscal Year 2013 161 1R a3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Water and Sewer Fund Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 EXPENDITURES Administrative (continued) Professional Services - Property Appraiser The Property Appraiser provides the District with a listing of the legal description of each property parcel within the District boundaries, and the names and addresses of the owners of such property. The District reimburses the Property Appraiser for necessary administrative costs incurred to provide this service. Per the Florida Statutes, administrative costs shall include, but not be limited to, those costs associated with personnel, forms, supplies, data processing, computer equipment, postage, and programming. The FY2013 budget for coilection costs was based on 1.5% of the anticipated assessment collections. Professional Services - Special Assessment The District has contracted with Severn Trent Management Services, Inc. to levy annual assessments, update the District's tax roll, prepare estoppel letters and handle any customer service questions regarding assessments. Professional Services - Utility Billing The District sends invoices to customers for use of the utility system. This billing service, provided by Severn Trent Services, Inc., includes calculating, printing and mailing of utility bills, posting and depositing cash receipts, customer service and other related services. Auditing Services The District is required to conduct an annual audit of its financial records by an Independent Certified Public Accounting Firm. The fees will be split evenly with the General Fund. Communication-Telephone Telephone and fax machine expenses. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is based on prior year spending. The fees will be split with the General Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Postage and Freight This represents actual postage and/or freight used for District mailings including agenda packages, vendor checks and other correspondence. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year Is based on prior year spending. The fees will be split with the General Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Rentals — Meeting Room The District is charged $50 per occurrence for the use of the meeting room at which the district's meetings are held. This fee will be split evenly with the General Fund. insurance — General Liability The District currently has its Insurance Policy with the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust. The FY 2013 budget includes an estimated 15% increase of the actual FY 2012 premium. Printing and Binding Copies used in the preparation of agenda packages, required mailings, and other special projects. The budgeted, amount for the fiscal year is based on prior year spending. The fees will be split with the General Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Legal Advertising The District is required to advertise various notices for monthly Hoard meetings and other public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. The board has chosen to advertise for their meetings annually. The fees will be split with the General Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Miscelianeous Services This includes bank charges and any miscellaneous expenses that may be Incurred during the year. Annual operating and Water /Sewer Budget 10 Fiscal Year 2013 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 EXPENDITURES Administrative (continued) 161 1''A3 Water and Sewer Fund Miscellaneous- Assessment Collection Cost The District reimburses the Tax Collector for her or his necessary administrative costs. Per the Florida Statutes, administrative costs shall include, but not be limited to, those costs associated with personnel, forms, supplies, data processing, computer equipment, postage, and programming. The District also compensates the Tax Collector for the actual cost of collection or 20/0 on the amount of special assessments collected and remitted, whichever is greater. The FY2013 budget for collection costs was based on a maximum of 2% of the anticipated assessment collections. Office Supplies Supplies used in the preparation and binding of agenda packages, required mailings, and other special projects. The fees will be split with the General Fund based on the percent budgeted for each fund. Field Contracts -Mgmt Services The District has contracted with Severn Trent Environmental Services to provide operating, maintenance and field management services. This contract includes a predetermined amount of R &M costs. Costs above the specified amount are recorded as `R &M- Renewal and Replacement'. Any unused R &M costs are returned to the district. Contracts -Other Services Includes contract services provided by Superior Power plus a contingency. Communication — Teleph — Field Century Link and Sprint provide communication services to the District. The following accounts are included in this line item: v n or Description Annual Amount Century Link Plant Land Line (239- 642 -9219) $3,180 Century Link Plant Fax Line (239 -642 -9392) 504 Sprint Automated svc to notify Bob of power failures 84 Total $3,768 Utility - General The District currently has 10 electric accounts with Lee County Cooperative for irrigation, lift stations, water and waste water plant. The estimated cost is based on prior year's average monthly electric bills and anticipated use. Account No. Service Address Svc. Tvpe 9741120000 25000 E. Tamiami Irrigation 1941120000 0 Port of the Islands Irrigation 3841120000 119 Newport Drive Irrigation 7841120000 Union Road Irrigation 0941120000 245 Stella Maris Drive Lift Station 1841120000 0 Newport Drive Lift Station 7624900000 160 Cays Drive Lift Station 6941120000 0 Cays Drive Lift Station 3083520000 0 Newport Drive Lift Station 3941120000 86112700 P Islands Waste Water R &M — Irrigation Repair and maintenance costs associated with the main pumps and other Irrigation equipment at the plant. Annual operating and Water /Sewer Budget i1 Fiscal Year 2013 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Budget Narrative Fiscal Year 2013 161 1 A3 Water and Sewer Fund EXPENDITURES Field (continued) R &M — Water Repair and maintenance costs associated with the water plant. R &M — Waste Water Repair and maintenance costs associated with the waste water plant. Miscellaneous - Licenses & Permits Costs incurred for various licenses and permits pertaining to the water and waste water plants including an annual drinking water license and waste water regulatory fee. Capital Outlay — Water Funds spent on capital improvement projects for the water plant. • W -15 $50,000 NEW WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM TO INCLUDE BACKFLOW PREVENTION: Debt Service Principal Debt Retirement Principal payment due on Series 2010 bond. Interest Expense Interest payment due on Series 2010 bond. Annual Operating and Water/Sewer Budget 12 Fiscal Year 2013 3 PORT OF THE ISLANDS 161 r7"A Community Improvement District Debt Amortization Series 2010 Bond Period Coupon Debt Annual Debt Ending Princloal Rate Interest Service Service_.. 511/2014 $514,758.49 3.5100/6 $70,300.56 $585,059.05 $655,359.61 1111/2014 $61,266.55 $61,266.55 5/1/2015 $532,826.51 3. 510% $ 61,266.55 $594,093.06 $655,359.61 11/1/2015 $51,915.45 $51,915.45 5/1/2016 $551,528.72 3.510% $51,915.45 $603,444.17 $655,359.62 11/1/2016 $42,236.12 $42,236.12 5/112017 $570,887.38 3.510% $42,236.12 $613,123.50 $655,359.62 11/1/2017 $32,217.04 $32,217.04 5/1/2018. $590,925.52 3.510% $32,217.04 $623,14256 $655,359.60 11/1/2018 $21,846.30 $21,846.30 5!1/2019 $611,667.01 3.510°/6 $21,846.30 $633,513.31 $655,359.61 11/112019 $11,111.55 $11,111.55 5/1/2020 $633,136.52 3.510% $11,111.55 $644,248.07 $655,359.62 Total 503,033.29 $739, 843.60 $5242,876 89 $5,242,876 89 Annual Operating Budget 13 Fiscal Year 2013 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Exhibit "B" Allocation of Fund Balances AVAILABLE FUNDS Amount Beginning Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 $ 4,577,411 Net Change In Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 8,117 (1) Less: Cap Assets Net of Related Debt (4,547,734) Total Funds Available (Estimated) - 9/30/2013 37,794 ALLOCATION OF AVAILABLE FUNDS Abnspendable Fund Balance Deposits 33,054 Total Allocation of Available Funds 33,050 Total Unassigned Cash $ 4,744 Notes (1) Capital assets less bond debt (not available to spend) 161 1 -l! 3 '1" Water Sewer Fund Annual operating Budget 14 Fiscal Year 2013 ibi r �a3 Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Supporting Budget Schedules Fiscai Year 2013 PORT OF THE ISLANDS Community Improvement District Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Non -Ad Valorem Assessment Roll FY 2012 -2013 16 A 3 Product Type Maint. ERC Allocation MainVERC $ 400 WIS ERC Allocation WIS Standby $1,124 $413 WIS Capital $711 Total per Product Hotel Room 1.00 $400 0.60 $248 $427 $1,074 Condo Unit 1.00 $400 0.80 $330 $569 $1,299 Single Family 1.00 $400 1.00 $413 $711 $1,524 Comparison FY 2012 to FY 2013 Product Type Total FY 2013 Total Increase FY 2012 (Decrease) % Change Hotel Room $1,074 $1,074 ($0) 0% Condo Unit $1,299 $1,299 ($0) 0% Single Family $1,524 $1,524 ($0) 0% Annual Operating Budget 15 Fiscal Year 2013 (r S ,Q. 3 a� w� N Ol aaa r� E3 ?ars 0rm u Ns aza CQ � ,.1 b R1 � ya r� 0 cc a d b _M R off_ yry LL z M aM pp r b M1 •V O y a � 4 d w w _ 0 E 6 C Z !61 f.--"A3 F. 161 I"IA 3 Port Of The Islands WATER AND SEWER FUND Community Development District Expenditure Report For the Perlod(s) from OCt 01, 2011 to Jun 30, 2012 (Sorted by Department) 10125/11 Account Name: R61MWatar Plant 54633253601 20587768 Vendor Severn Trent Environmental Services R & M Overages- Oct 3,791.88 10/25111 546332- 3801 100711 B Vendor Universe! Underground Inc Removed Sample StatioMnstalled Flushing Station 1.160.00 1025/11 54633253601 100711A Vendor Universal Underground Inc installed & Painted Valve 1.966.00 96.50 1112811 t 548332.53801 JC002801 Journal Entry Red Superior Pourer Equipment - Battery 4,91123 12/07111 546332- 53601 30188 Vendor Mader Electric Motors Remstalled/Rabuilt Motor & Pump 860.75 01/26/12 546332 -53601 2058472B Vendor Severn Trent Environmental Services R & M Overeges,lan 1,507.79 02121/12 546332 -53801 20590108 Vendor Severn Trent Environmental Services R & M Overeages -Feb 523.12 0311 g/12 546332- 53801 28WM Vendor Mac Waterworks Company Inc Water Service Installation 1 03/23/12 546332 -53801 2059528B Vendor Severn Trent Environmental Services R & M Overeages -March •x.55 573.70 04/25/12 546332 -53601 2MM74B Vendor Severn Trent Environmental Services R & M Overeages -April 3,958.72 04/25112 54633253601 2060074C Vendor Severn Trent Environmental Services Wk Auth 942440 Water We 840.00 0522112 546332 -53601 20607326 Vendor Severn Trent Environmental Services R & M Overeages -May 159.38 06107!12 546332 - 53601 2915040 Vendor Msc Waterworks Company Inc Replacement Meter Box Lids Water/Sawer/lrrlgation - Transfer 155.84 06/17112 54633253801 14258 Vendor Superior Power Equipment AecountTola : R&M-Water Plant 22,164.26 Account Name: R&M -Waste Water Plant Vendor Severn Trent Environmental Services eragw Oct 1,489.10 1026/11 54633353601 20SOT76B Red St Replacement Of Mbr Touducreen 1,544.70 11/17/11 546333.53801 JE002806 Journal Entry Red St R & M Overeges-Nov 2,349.88 11/1T/11 54533353801 JED02807 Journal Entry Mader FJ*Cbk Motors Abe Pump 3,697.20 11/17/11 546333.53801 JE002W8 Journal Entry paten Sprocket 1,892.54 11/17/11 546333 -53601 JE002009 Journal Entry Due From Ira Claim - Stella Meris Lim Station Damaged (1,849.88) 11/11/11 546333 -53601 JE002816 Journal Entry 100.50 1128111 646333.53601 13668 Vendor Superior Pourer Equipment Battery 101.78 112 8111 3360 5463331 13667 Vendor Superior Power Equipment Radiator CapSattery 970.00 12113/11 546333 -53801 82255 Vendor Blackburn Controls Inc. Troubleshoot tN System Troubleshoot PIC Network Problem 630.00 12114111 546333.53601 82254 Vendor Blackburn Controls Inc. •10"4 Ts Graph C. Tit Std- Vers (1,416.70) 01/16/12 546333 -53601 92609297A Vendor Schneider Automation "10r4 Ts Graph C. Tit Std. Vets 3,657.64 01/16/12 5463335360t 92809297A Vendor Vendor SchneiderAutomatbn Severn Trent Ertwmmentd Services R & art Ovevd 5,722.53 0125/12 34633353801 20564728 Vendor Gulf States Electric Inc.. Sage Supression Module WvWr SL% 4 540.00 02115/12 54633353601 546333-53601 2190 20590108 Valor Severn Trent Environmental Services overt Fab R & M OFrom 5,415.39 (1.980.00) 02121112 Cr. Due From St For Imd142807 (R&M Cap taint) St F 0229!12 546333-63801 JE002835 Journal Entry Berkley Pump 1,176.00 03123M2 540333.63801 31072 Vendor Vendor Mader Qectrtc Motors Severn Trent Environmental Services R & M Overeages -March 5,858.02 0323/12 54633343801 20595286 Wk Au8�t2708 -Sewer Relocate Flow Meter 2,625.84 0329112 548333- 53801 7394 -1 Vendor Cogbum Bros Inc Wk Auth #42700 -Sewer Flow Meter Additions 2.042.30 0329/12 546333 -53WI 7396 -1 Valor Cogbum Bros Inc Severn Trent Environmental Services R & M Overeages -April 3,484.19 0425112 546333-53601 2060074B Vendor Vendor Msc Waterworks Company Inc Pipe Support 930.00 04/25/12 548333-53601 2905092 Power Backup For Wtr.WwV Plants And Ulu Stations 268.00 05/02/12 548333 -53801 14114 Vendor Superior Power Equipment R & M Overeages -May 607.49 0522112 546333.53601 20607328 Vendor Severn Trent Envhronm rdal Services Inc Replacement Meter Box Lids 159 37 06107/12 54633353801 2915040 Vendor Mac Waterworks Company F! Dept Of Environmental Protection #Stcm-65025 Fy 2012113 Storage Tank Reg 2500 06/12112 545333- 53601 052312 Vendor Vendor Superior Power Equipment rrig Switch -Transfer Waeser 15593 06/12/12 548333 -53601 14256 Vendor Florida Bearings Inc spe ion-Repa teaser Blower inspection-Repair ow 264.11 06/19112 548333 -53601 W1.435629 Account Total: R&M -Waste Water Plant 40,257.83 Report Date: 7119/2012 Prepared by' Port of the Islands June 2012 Field Managers Report 161 f�'p3 Water Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance The Water Treatment Plant produced and distributed 2.166 MG for the month of June, which is an average of 0.072 MGD. Wastewater Plant Operations and Maintenance The WVVTP treated approximately 1.239 MG for the month of June, which is an average of 0.041 MGD Reuse System Operations and Maintenance The -reuse system delivered 6.929 MG for the month of June, which is an average of 0.204 MGD. Permit Compliance: Water Treatment Plant: All permit requirements met Wastewater Treatment Plant All permit requirements met Out With The Old... Iydrogneumatic Tank Severn Trent Services • 12600 Union Road Naples, Florida 34114 - Tel 239 - 642 -9219 1 Fax 239 - 642 -9469 • www.sevomtwtservim.com SEVERN TRENT SERVICES i 1 j ! _......:..q, Jam... 1l_ E, \ F.. _ cam•: s' _ Port of the islands June 2012 Field Managers Report In With The New Reverse Osmosis Plants 161 1-"A 3 Sevem Trent Services • 12600 Union Road Naples, Florida 34114 • Tel 23"42-9219 Fax 239 - 6429469 - www,sevemtrentservices.com Port of the Islands June 2012 Field Managers Report 161 T---A7 Transfer Station —These pumps trander treated Distribution Station —These pumps send water to RO Water to the Ground Storage Tank! our customers, maintaining approximately 62 PSI. Severn Trent Services • 12600 Union Road Naples, Florida 34114 • Tel 239 -642 -9219 Fax 239-642 -9469 - www.sevemtrentservices.com Port of the Islands June 2012 Field Managers Report In Our Comxnunify 161 These are the'Banyan' Trees that Soto's Landscaping wants to'Uplifr. They want to trim the low hanging branches as well as thin the trees from the inside to make room for the wind to blow through them, instead of blow them over! I did not include the Water Loss Reports in this edition of the Field Managers Report, as the information required to properly complete those reports will not be available until about the middle of the month. You will see those reports beginning next month. Also, if there are any additional types of pictures that you would like to see in these reports, please don't hesitate to tell me. I will be happy to make this report as extensive as you would like it to be. Severn Trent Services • 1260o Union Road Naples, Florida 34114 • Tel 23.4642 -9219 Fax 239- 642 -9469 • www.smemtrentservim.com 1611 W IA3 Severn Trent 9e►vims 4837 SWI M4 Suite 100 Sarasota, FL 34231 Uraed States June 18, 2012 T. -61041925 808a TF: is eoo bas M2 F: #1041924 720 Richard TkQ, Chairman Port of the Island Community improvement District 12600 Union Road Naples, FL. 34114 Re: Amended and RestaWAgreamont 1brWaterand WestewaferQperation and Maintenance befween Sevem Trent Envlronmentai SwWoe,% Inc. ("VES1 and Pbrt of Me Islands Community Improvement District (CID) Dear Mr. Ziko: As discussed by STIES and the Port of the Islands CID. the following listed items are intended to descrthe the parties' understanding regarding the Repair and Maintenance Budget and the additional water quality testing required by Penn nit No. FL014170400$ -DW2R for blending of concentrate into the reclaimed water system relative to the above referenced agreement dated May 1, 2012: 1) Repair and Maintenance Budget: it Is understood that all labor and materials required by contract for repair and maintenance of equipment, faollities and appurtenances will be charged to the Annual Repair and Maintenance budget. Cost of repairs made during normal operation hours by base staff wiq be for materials only_ Charges not directly related to the Annual Repair and Maintenance budget such as caplial improvement projects, general fund Items such as storm water system, street lights. roadway signs and entrance got maintenance will be charged under an allemate line item as directed. 2) Additional Water Quality Testing It is understood that the lab analysis cost, as required by regulations, directly related to the recently permitted ability to utilize the Reverse Osmosis concentrate flow for augmentation of the reclaimed waterdistribution system are not included In the base fee. Such costs Incurred for said analysis paid by STIES will be billed to the CID with a 5% mark -up. The cost of said analysis Is subject to change based on regulatory requirements or technological advancements. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 541- 925 -3088. Otherwise, If you are in agreement, please execute this letter on the below noted line and return it to my attention. Page 1 or 2 Ccrrespor swe 84MM be addressed to Severn Trent Environmental Beryl", ina 161 1 3 1* HIM" Thank you for your help and consideration. STES vakibs its roilationshfp with the T. *1 94t i2o Ma MsOict and we took fomard to contfntdng to work Wgeftmr. TF: +1 wq 0 6"2 r- +1 "1924 roW Pich Gatdrw ft9bftl GeneFal Maniger Port of islands Community IMprovement DIWct Chairman Jjina Sovern Tmnt Envleonmdntal Services, Inc. Wo; Regional gp_noral Manner We. P408 ;'9f 2 Correspondence shoW-bkaddmvAd to SWAM Twit gnvkooftAw $a.VRW% IM. 16 f -"A 3 Teague, Cal From Ron Benson [RonBenson@hmeng.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 201210:42 AM To: Casey, Bob; Branch, Frank Cc: Dic a Rob al Subject: RE: . Cal This work authorization was sent to me before it was submitted. It is for something that I have talked about previously with the STES operations staff and I am in agreement that it is a nominal cost item which will provide operational flexibility while also allowing the potential for better utilization of the sludge hauling contract. This minor modification will allow adding a third use to an existing structure. This existing structure is the north aeration basin which along with associated clarifier and sand filter is the backup wastewater treatment plant. We have previously permitted this backup facility to also be used for storage of effluent which would otherwise not meet reuse standards. The present minor modification would allow storing of sludge and thickening of sludge in this tank (along with the present digester) prior to the sludge hauler coming to the site and dewatering it and hauling away a full load instead of a partial load. In the future, when the community is closer to build -out, other considerations may be appropriate, but this seems like a low cost means of adding flexibility and saving some annual costs. Best wishes Ron Ronald E. Benson Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Senior Vice President /Principal Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, Florida 34110 (239) 254 -2000 (Voice) (239) 254 -2097 (Fax) (239) 777 -1611 (Mobile) - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Casey, Bob [mailto:bcasey @stes.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:32 AM To: Branch, Frank Cc: Dick, Robert; Edge, Robert; Teague, Cal; Ron Benson Subject: FW: work authorization 43005 Frank - See request from Board member below. He is asking for a reason for the work, which operations can provide going forward. The reason should be included in the WA.. One this one, the new line will allow us to provide a greater volume of more concentrated sludge for the hauler, which will reduce sludge disposal costs. Currently, the digestor volume is less than the hauler can accept, therefore we pump mixed liquor of less than 1% solids to the digester to get a full load out. It will also create additional flexibility in our ability to keep sludge, containing undesirable solids, out the the MBR flow stream. The line will be teed into an existing line from the Gorman Rupp pump giving us the ability to send liquid from the North storage basins to the digestor or to the Rotomesh. Thanks, Bob Casey Assistant Project Mgr. Severn Trent Services 161 1 "'A3 5726 Corporation Circle Ft. Myers, F1 33905 Cell 239 - 707 -2003 Fax 239 - 694 -5357 From: Teague, Cal Sent: Wed 7/11/2012 9:37 AM To: 'Dale Lambert' Cc: Casey, Bob; Dick, Robert Subject: RE: Work authorization 43005 Dale, I am certain Bob will take care of this. Calvin Teague District Manager Severn Trent Services Management Services - Florida M: (239) 223 -4437 T: (239) 245 -7118 ext. 301 F: (239) 245 -7120 E: cteague @severntrentms.com * * ** "Note to Supervisors- If all Supervisors are included on this e -mail, please do not answer this e-mail via the "reply to all" button, in order to avoid an unintentional violation of the Sunshine Law. From: Dale Lambert [ mailto :dalelambert @embargmail.comJ Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:12 AM To: Teague, Cal Subject: Work authorization 43005 Cal, I found the work authorization at the back of the meeting package. My mistake. I do have a suggestion, the reason for the work being requested should be Included. Sorry, 2 16 I 1 R'*' A' Severn Trent Services 4837 Swift Road, Suite 100 Sarasota, FL 34231 United States T: +1041925 8088 TF: +1 800 535.6832 F: +1 941 924 7203 www.sayeentrahtservice.s.com Port of the Islands CYD Work Authorization No. 43005 In accordance with the "Additional Services" provision of the contract for Port of-the Islands CID between Port of the Islands CID (the "Client). and Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. (the "Company,") the Company agrees to perform the following additional services for the client. Location of Work: Port ofthe Islands WWTP Schedule: Upon Acceptance - ;Project: Installation of 4" line extended to digester Date: April 20, 2012 I. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES: Cut -in .a 4" tee into the discharge side of the Gorman Rupp pump which pumps liquids from the North W WTP to the Roto Mesh. Installation of 4" valves on both sides of the tea, run approximately 80' of schedule 80 pvc pipe to the digester and drop -in A. Labor and materials for above services provided by STES $2,005.47 B. Materials billed_ directly to CID by outside vendors (tax exempt) $1,729.68 Project Total $3,735.15 H. PROJECT COST: The Client agrees to oav the Company for the services provided under this agreement as follows: v Item Description Unit Cost or Hourly Rate Total Cost Total to be billed by STES N/A 52,005.47 Unless stated otherwise above, payments are due in accordance with the standard terms and conditions of this Contract. Agreed to: .i21"" (please initial) Page i o €2 161 1 A3 .Work Authorization No. (430©5] - .(Port of the Islands CID) If any unforeseen. problem should be discovered during the performance of the above referenced service, we will:'notify you immediately of their nature and any additional cost that may be incurred. 'Unless otherwise specified, rock removal, dewatering, cover -up, and haul off are not included. Severn Trent Services is not responsible for unmarked underground. lines, Any changes requested by the owner/builder are not covered by this agreement, and must be added subsequently, at the .cost agreed upon by both parties. III. ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT A. Provide access to promises. B. Any permit modification if applicable. THE STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS of the Contract previously referenced are agreed to be apart of this Contract. Offered by: $eve . rent:Ilnviroamental Services, Inc.. t By. Title: S' ,s .V 4'0 * , BR-AA fV\^v e,,L k Accepted by: Port of the.bWids. CID By: . Title: Chairman Address for Notices: 210 North University. Drive, Suite 702 Coral Springs, FL 33071 Date: Date: July 20, 2 012 Agreed to: Zt-� (please initial} Page 2 of 2 $ �14-+ Ac IsP�Qs 161 1"''A3 Prepared by 01111111N, HOLE MONTES R.O. WATER TREATMENT PLANT ENGKM -R "M- SokyORS PORT OF THE ISLANDS, FLORIDA PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT July 20, 2012 A. Project Schedule — Overview • Construction Schedule: Schedule prepared using critical path method and Oracle (Primavera) software. Baseline schedule has been approved. Updated schedule being submitted each month. • Primary Activities Last Month — Cardinal: Painting inside the building continued, Site Landscaping started, Old Water Treatment Plant demolition started and is almost complete, excavation and paving on the North side of the New Water Plant started. • Primary Activities Last Month — ITT: ITT personnel are scheduled to be onsite next week to address several outstanding issues. • Functional Completion: Substantial Completion as per the current construction contract shall occur no later than December 14, 2011, which includes a time extension request for approximately one month previously granted. Substantial Completion occurred on May 11, 2012. An additional time extension will be necessary due to ITT material delivery. • Anticipated Facility Startut2: FDEP certification was received on June 5, 2012. Water has been created and distributed to the community since June 6, 2012. • Anticipated Demolition of the "old" Water Treatment Plant. Demolition is in the final stages and should be completed within 1 week. B. Field Progress • Procurement: Materials procurement (shop drawing submission, approvals, and manufacturing lead time) is essentially complete with 162 technical submittals received from the contractor. • Field Activities: Preliminary Acceptance punch list has been submitted to Cardinal Contractors for completion. Upon completion of these items, the Engineer will perform a Final Inspection of the facility. (At this time, ITT has not completed all activities per their contract). • Safety Record: No safety incidents to report. • Stormwater Pond: Retention area substantially complete. C. Project Costs • Construction Contract: Sixteen payments (Total of $2,958,221.13) (91 %] have been made to date on contract amount of $3,417,563. • ITT Contract: Two payments (Total of $617,344.20) have been made to date on contract amount of $780,225. HA2011120110031EN1C Correspondence\C1 Client Correspondence\20120720 -July Monthly Progress Report BOS.doc 161 1^ +A3 • Other Contracts: Seven payments (Total of $156,436.83) [50 %] have been made to date on contract amounts of $315,388.40. on Severn Trent Services 0.00 Evans Computers 3,255.00 BCI 27,121.33 KW Controls 109,516.50 TOTAL $139,892.83 W.E. Johnson (forklift) $1 • Proiect Allowances — Cardinal Contractors Allowance — Owner Directed Work Contract Amount $300,000.00 Total to Date ($253,981.15) Balance $ 46,018.85 Allowance — Building Permit Contract Amount $25,000.00 Total to Date ,($16.607.92) Balance $ 8,392.92 Total Balance Available $54,411.7.7 , 13? I Z- HA201I\20110031EMC Correspondence\CI Client Correspondence120120720 -July Monthly Progress Report BOS.doc 161 1g 3 Teague, Cal From: Ron Benson [Ron Benson@hmeng.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 201210:50 AM To: Dale Lambert Cc: Teague, Cal; Dan Cox; Clifford Pepper; Frank Feeney Subject: O & Dale Frank and Clifford were tasked to work on this and we are planning on a conference call with Cal and Dan to go over our findings. Best wishes Ron Ronald E. Benson Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Senior Vice President/Principal Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, Florida 34110 (239) 254 -2000 (Voice) (239) 254 -2097 (Fax) (239) 777 -1611 (Mobile) From: Dale Lambert [ mailto :dalelambert@embargmall.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:11 AM To: Clifford Pepper, Frank Feeney Cc: Ron Benson; Calvin Teague Subject: Delays in POI Water plant construction. i Gentlemen, I just received a copy of the progress report for the Port of the Islands CID Board Meeting dated July 20, 2012. Under the subject of Functional Completion I have a question. Scheduled functional completion was 12114/2011 which included a one month delay related to getting the building permit. If functional complete actually happened 05/11/2012, how much of the five month delay is ITT material delivery? How much of the delay is due to other problems and who is responsible for those costs that the POI CID incurred? Perhaps Frank and I can discuss this either before or after the Construction Meeting next Thursday. Thanks Dale Lambert iii 0i1)ni l 161 1' -`A3 Front: <MaryJo. Bell @wellsfargo.com> Subject: Orchid Cove Date: July 11, 2012 9:43:03 AM EDT To: <rcziko @embargmail.com>, <dkllonpoi @embargmail.com>, <crcuster @aol.com >, <tbissell@embargmall.com >, <dalelambert@ embargm ail.com> Hello, I am (toping you are able to help me. I am an analyst with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Recently, Fannie Mae has audited some closed files from 2007. One of the files that were audited is from the Orchid Cove community. The question that Fannie Mae is asking is the amount of completed and owner occupied units as of 2127!2007. This figure can include units used as second homes too. Are you able to answer this question? Thank You so much in advance for your help. Nary Jo Beff :•'lortgage QA Analyst l,eney Repurchase Operariuns Capital Markets Y 61N-121-641;1 Man Ju.tielI@N'tTelisFargn.com May 4, 2012 6 1 0 A ?" 0' 4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 14575 Collier Boulevard • Naples, FL 34119 • (239) 348-7540 • (239) 348-7546 FAX http://www.cicifire.com JR q7 T Tr 7"7 BY. ....................... Clerk of the Circuit Court 3301 Tamiami Trail East Building F, 4th Floor Naples, Florida 34112 RECEIVED WAY 0 9 2012 rINANCE. The following reports required under Chapter 189, F.S are enclosed: 1. Annual Financial Report 2. Financial Statement Packet that includes Management Letter 3. Rebuttal to Management Letter Fiala Hiller Planningn Coyle Coletta Our Family Protecting Yours Date: --!qA(::' item #: \ tb -3r_ "-0 -,q April 24, 2012 1611 A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 14575 Collier Boulevard • Naples, FL 34119 • (239) 348 -7540 • (239) 348 -7546 FAX http: / /www.ggfire.com Auditor General's Office Local Government Audits /342 Claude Pepper Building, Room 401 111 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1450 Dear Sir/Madam: The firm of Phillips Harvey Group recently did a 2010/2011 fiscal year audit for the Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District. The Fire District received the completed audit report on April 23, 2012. As a matter of record, the Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District intends to comply with the Rules of the Auditor General Chapter 10.550. As required by the Rules of the Auditor General (Section 10.554(g) (6) c. and 10.556), the Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District intends to monitor its financial condition. REGARDING PRIOR YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS NOT IMPLEMENTED YET: SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY 1: DISTRICT NEEDS TO DESIGNATE A QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD'S NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. — Will be selecting a qualified individual to be responsible for implementing all applicable Government Standards Board's new rules and regulations on an annual basis during the current fiscal year of 2011/2012. The auditor listed ten different general comments for consideration. The District will take these ten comments under advisement and work towards implementing them as follows: Our Family Protecting Yours 16 I tip A4 Auditor General's Office Page 2 April 24, 2012 • General Comment 1: Consider the Commissioners as a Monitor of Internal Control. — A Monitoring of Internal Controls policy was approved on 12/14/11. The Board of Fire Commissioners assigned the task to its Secretary /Treasurer. • General Comment 2: Utilize Cash Flow Statements and Cash Flow Projections as a planning — Will work towards implementing over the next two years. • General Comment 3: Increase awareness of antifraud culture. - Will make a strong effort to develop a policy on this during the current fiscal year. • General Comment 4: A fraud risk policy and assessment procedures are needed by the District. - Will make a strong effort to develop a policy on this during the current fiscal year. • General Comment 5: Perform and document risk assessment of operations and develop mitigating controls to reduce identified risks - Will work towards implementing over the next two years. • General Comment 6: Establish and adopt a formal written accounting_ policies and procedures manual. — A written policy has been started. Limited staff has prevented its completion. • General Comment 7: Establish a cross training program to handle critical general ledger functions and financial statements reporting — An additional secretary was hired and cross training is being done. This is an ongoing project. • General Comment 8: Develop a comprehensive three year fleet maintenance plan. — Will work towards implementing, as time permits, over the next two years. • General Comment 9: A capitalization policy needs to be implemented and adhere to. — Will make a strong effort to develop a policy on this during the current fiscal year. • General Comment 10• Develop and adopt a methodology plan of funding reserves in the future. — Will work towards implementing, as time permits, over the next two years. 1611 Auditor General's Office Page 3 April 24, 2012 The District tried but was unable to correct most of these general comments due to not having enough administrative staff for dealing with ten general comments and needing to concentrate most of our efforts operating the Fire District with less revenue to enable keeping current firefighters employed. With the administrative staff decreasing even further during fiscal year 2010/2011, remaining staff members needed to fill the void. All of these comments will be discussed further in future Commissioner Meetings to assess follow -up action plans. Sincerely, 2 V_- - Charles M. McMahon, Chairman Board of Fire Commissioners CMM/pm T CL 3 OJ O a N 0 N N M fD O T u N O 1611 as -4 . pZj A •O a . � Z m C O C C T V n % O fD 3 3 N O do U) o n ID —T� O N 7 lD 2 D) O C m C n S CD �'m `m m U) wm a, r 0 v 3 w O C N w Z CD A pp a m 'O (D 0 O O N 3 fD 7 p N 3 CL 00� v C N O7 ' m ID O Cp 0. CD 0 3 V N w 3 3 3 CD am (D m <' N �c �.o =r 4 -0 3 0 m (1) o• 0 0- C 51 Zil NO a m C m < CD i5- CD M a°D <' m R 0 ° LID 3 O -N+ T CD 6 3 a m 3 m n.D N N O C -o M � O 3 n 7 F, N 2 T N = ii ci 7 CD Q a cn - n S S -n .J m (D 0 CL 3 j CD m �D v O N 3 m C 7 a CD 3 d 3 J 0 C) J W w O CD N C CD d w 0 A CL '• N O 1611 as -4 . pZj A •O a . � = m C O C C T V n % O fD 3 3 N O m 0 -a m ID n N .3. T p CD x1 n U) wm a, O) 0 v 3 w O C N w Z CD A pp 204 N N 0 N r N p C O Cp 0. CD CD 3 V N w N (D <' N m ID -0 3 c n o• 0 0- C s m C m 0 0 0 M a°D <' CD m a ° j T CD 6 3 a m 3 m C M � = A 7 m 7 a CD 3 C) N W w O N C CD [ C, '• 0i w 2 O 0 CD 0 , r+' 0 N O 3 1 Q CL (D _ m A cn a m 3 r' w n < p1 a a D1 o m 3 .! NV Ln N 0 m 3 n O T O N 3 N x c0, � v w5 c CO D a. D C CL m 0 tD C 0 O (A n, fp V fA 01 kv D) ^� d (CO t0 O C , fD lD (D M N Cl) a C C < C C T O -ten m -a m a n N a x1 U) wm a, ° -o 3 w O C N w Z CD O7 f0 N N 0 N r N p C O Cp C 3 n fD 3 <' N m ID -0 3 c o, o• O s a C m 0 0 0 a°D <' = m a ° D CD 6 3 a m m C = A CD 3 C) N W w O N N. O C T n of 3 a O N O N d (D N O N <D 7 C �D fA CD m O' O m N O 1611 'r to T 2 N N N ^' m C) O m 3 0 0 @ 11 j ,..a ' X IN - C m �1 E N o m < m CD co 0 cO N y v v 7 A 0 �p O O O • N O A '- W co CD T> N m OD w ON7 N A O CI W: € W I 9 ID d 7 A m. 9 N�y1 N { �Z1 N A 7 N a. 7 OO 7 O R V -4 1 CO W �p O W f0. Of N'O,N .N• O C71 N O A O. O' N : OD; t0.. cn (O O co W Ln <D 7 C �D fA CD m O' O m N O T a a 3 a 0 A N O N d CD (D W 0 N N N N J N V N N N O , W C f 16 pp. � m T T a x O m m N N Q' � p p ' n 1 n n ... 0'. 0 7 0 7 7 3 NI N, c o o v m m ID Q v m N 3' CD y T'. 7 m m C, x z 9 1 m F1 y IOU G1 y Q - N a. d O d m A'. OI N 0 A J N V , O H N W O O N O O p p ' 0'. A NI N, aA d 3' T'. 7 m 9 1 F1 IOU N N a. A'. OI rz- V T i (D ' N- .N -(00 '. A. ddx cg N - CD N co (O 16 I J"'A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30. 2011 Phillips Harvey GROUP 16 1 #1' A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT TABLE OF CONTENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 PAGE PART I. FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors' Report 1 — Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD &A) 3 Basic Financial Statements: Government -Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Assets 12 _ Statement of Activities 13 Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds 14 _ Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds 15 — Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities 16 Notes to the Financial Statements 17 PART II. REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OTHER THAN MD &A Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual - Governmental Funds 38 PART III. OTHER REPORTS Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters based on an Audit of the Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 39 Management Letter Required by Chapter 10.550 of the Rules of the 41 Auditor General of the State of Florida Management Recommendation Letter 43 161i- 4" illipsHarvey GROUP INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT January 23, 2012 To The Board of Commissioners GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT Naples, Florida We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT as of and for the year ended September 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the District's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities and each major fund of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT as of September 30, 2011 and the respective changes in financial position for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the District has adopted the provisions of GASB Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, in the current year. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated January 23, 2012 on our consideration of the District's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the result of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. _ 1 _ Certified Public Accountants 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34108 P 239 566 1600 1 F 239 566 1901 1 swflcpas.com Board of Commissioners GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT January 23, 2012 Page 2 16 11 A4 The management's discussion and analysis and budgetary comparison information on pages 3 through 11 and page 38 are not a required part of the basic financial statements but are supplementary information required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. AW PS A fY GR U�, P.A. Certified Public countants Naples, Florida -2- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRI b MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION and ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 The Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District's discussion and analysis is designed to provide an overview of the District's financial activities for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011. In accordance with Florida Statutes, the District is required to have an annual audit. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS • Levied taxes through the TRIM process. The millage rate was set at 1.5 mills. • The net assets of the District decreased by $(1,055,638). • At the close of the current fiscal year, the District had a fund balance of $4,031,291 in the General Fund. • At the close of the current fiscal year, the District had a fund balance of $73,431 in the Special Revenue Fund (Impact Fees). • At the close of the current fiscal year, the District had debt and other obligations in the amount of $8,049,795. OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS GASB Statement 34 represents a monumental change from the manner in which government financial statements are recorded and presented. For the first time, it provides a concise "entity- wide" Statement of Net Assets and Statement of Activities to give the user of the financial statements a combined overview of the District's financial position and result of operations, eliminating interfund activities and "other people's money" such as pension funds, which can mislead users when incorporated in a combined manner. Additionally, this new reporting model requires the use of accrual accounting (which focuses on economic resources) at the top most level, while maintaining modified accrual accounting (which focuses on current financial resources — budgeted resources) at the individual fund level. This is an important change in governmental accounting. For the first time, the impact of long -term financial decisions can be more properly matched to the period in which the expense or revenue is more properly attributed. In short, more fairness in presentation is achieved and the impacts of long -term decisions are promptly recorded as the transactions occur, as opposed to the traditional method of recording them when the bill is paid. Government -wide Statements: The government -wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the District's finances. These statements include all assets and liabilities using the accrual basis of accounting, which is similar to the accounting used by most private- sector companies. All of the current year's revenues and expenses are taken into account regardless of when cash is received or paid. The government -wide financial statements consist of a Statement of Net Assets and a Statement of Activities. _ The Statement of Net Assets presents information on all of the District's assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the District is improving or deteriorating. -3- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT1 6 IT- A4 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION and ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — Continued The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the government's net assets changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net assets are reported when the change occurs, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Thus revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). These two statements report the Fire District's net assets and changes in them. One can think of the District's net assets -the difference between assets and liabilities -as one way to measure the District's financial health, or financial position. Fund financial statements: A fund is a grouping of related accounts used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The Fire District, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance - related legal requirements. The District's funds can be divided into two categories: general fund and special revenue fund (impact fees). General Fund is the general operating fund of the District. It is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. Special Revenue Fund is used to account for impact fees required to be used for future capital outlays in response to growth of the community. Notes to the financial statements: The notes provide additional information essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government -wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the financial statements can be found on pages 17 -37 of this report. Other information: In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, this report also presents certain required supplementary information. The individual fund statements with budget to actual are found on page 38 of this report. GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Statement of Net Assets: As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a '— government's financial position. The District's assets exceeded liabilities by $3,927,235 at the close of the most recent fiscal year. The largest portion of the District's net assets reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g. land, building, apparatus and equipment); less any related debt used to acquire those assets that are still outstanding. The Golden Gate Fire District uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the District's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. The table below reflects the condensed government -wide Statement of Net Assets. -4- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT l 6 11 A %� `' f MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION and ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - Continued GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT NET ASSETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 % Current and Other Assets $ 4,398,529 $ 4,249,501 -3.4% Capital Assets 9,762,563 8,264,939 -15.3% Total Assets 14,161,092 12,514 440 -11.6% (1) Current and Other Liabilities 922,853 537,410 -41.8% (2) Long -Term Liabilities 8,255,366 8,049,795 -2.5% (3) Total Liabilities 9178.219 8,587,205 -6.4% Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets, net 1,878,806 658,328 -65.0% Restricted 47,604 68,847 44.6% Unrestricted 3,056,463 3,200,060 4.7% Total Net Asset $ 4,982,873 ".927,235 -21.2% • Net assets show the difference between the Fire District's assets and liabilities. The bulk of General fund monies and Impact Fee monies (Special Revenue Fund) are kept in separate saving accounts at the State Board of Administration in Tallahassee until needed. (1) During fiscal year 2011 net assets decreased due to old and beyond repair equipment being deleted from the asset list plus the annual depreciation recording of $1,529,015. (2) Current and Other Liabilities went down due to accrued termination benefits for those accepting the early buyout program being paid during fiscal year 2011. (3) Long term liabilities went down due to payments made on existing loans and normal debt amortization as well as devaluation of derivative financial instrument. -5- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 1611 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION and ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - Continued Statement of Activities: The Fire District's net assets decreased by $1,055,638 during the current fiscal year. The table below compares the revenues and expenses for the two activity types for the current fiscal year. GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT CHANGES IN NET ASSETS — FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 % Program Revenues: Charges for services $ 73,810 $ 81,800 10.8% — Land Trust Agreement 0 0 General Revenues: Ad Valorem Taxes 8,531,502 7,429,381 - 12.9% — Investment Earnings 12,395 12,248 -1.2% Impact Fees and Other 271,686 299,384 10.2% Total Revenue 8,889,393 7,822,813 - 12.9% Expenses: Public safety: Employee costs 6,868,280 6,057,097 -11.8% — Outside services 863,149 775,513 - 10.2% Materials and supplies 250,952 218,365 -13.0% Depreciation 1,568,518 1,529,015 -2.5% Debt service: Interest expense 369,987 298,461 - 19.3% Loss on disposal of capital assets 0 0 - Total Expenses 9,920,886 8,878,451 -10.5% _ Change in net assets (1,031,493) (1,055,638) -2.3% Net Assets - Beginning of Year 6,582,849 4,982,873 - 24.3% Deferral — swap agreement (484,833) 0 - 100.0% Prior period adjustment (83,650) 0 - 100.0% Net Assets — Ending of Year $ 4,982,873 $ 3.927,235 -21.2% General Revenues During fiscal year of 2011 the Fire District received a 12.9% decrease in Ad Valorem tax dollars over the prior fiscal year. Investment earnings declined 1.2% due to the decline in interest rates over the prior fiscal year. Other revenues declined 19.9% over the prior fiscal year mainly due to lack of funds from false alarm fees, FEMA and Grants. A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 6 1 1 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION and ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2011 ^„ GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS - Continued Expenses During fiscal year of 2011 employee costs decreased by 11.8% over the prior fiscal year due to employee resignations and not rehiring replacements. Outside services decreased by 10.2% over the prior fiscal year due to cutting back on expenditures wherever possible. Materials and supplies decreased 13% over the prior fiscal year due to purchasing only necessary essential items. A4 Net Assets During fiscal year 2011 net assets decreased due to equipment being deleted from the asset list as well as full -- year of depreciation of $1,529,015. Total 2011 expenses exceeded total revenues by $1,055,638. Liabilities Long term liabilities went down due to payments being made on existing loans. GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS By motion, transfers of unencumbered appropriation balances are made at midyear to reflect changes in anticipated revenues and /or expenditures. During fiscal year of 2011, the Fire District did not adjust the original budget at mid -year: The following compares original general fund budget to final budget: ORIGINAL FINAL • Revenues $10.975,558 $10.975,558 • Expenditures $10.975,558 $10.975,558 General Fund final budget revenue amounts and expenditures did not change from the original budget amounts. SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS The following compares original special revenue fund budget to final budget: .- ORIGINAL FINAL • Revenues $ 90,000 $ 90,000 • Expenditures $ 90,000 $ 90.000 Special Revenue Fund final budget revenue amounts and expenditures did not change from the original budget amounts. -7- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 1611 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION and ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION Capital Assets: The Fire District's investment in capital assets as of September 30, 2011, amounts to $8,264,939 (net of accumulated depreciation). The investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, apparatus and equipment. Long -term Debt: At the end of the current fiscal year, the Golden Gate Fire District had total debt outstanding of $8,049,795(including derivative financial instrument). Long -term debt at the end of the current fiscal year included (see page 28 - 31 for further details): • Lease purchase agreement for Station #70. • Loan for purchase of new fire truck (Pumper at Station #71). • Loan for purchase of new fire truck (Pumper at Station #73). • Construction Loan at Fifth Third Bank for $8mil for building two fire stations. • Compensated absences. GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Changes in General Fund Balances Revenues Ad Valorem and County Taxes Impact and Other Fees Investment Income Miscellaneous Expenses Public Safety Capital Outlay �- Debt Service Total Expenses Other Financing Sources (Uses) Proceeds from Capital Lease Change in Net Assets Fund Balance - Beginning of Year Fund Balance - End of Year 2010 $ 8,531,502 $ 73,810 $ 12,308 $ 240,784 $ 8,858,404 $ 7,432,690 $ 75,192 $ 664,069 $ 8,171,951 $ 0 $ 686,453 $ 3,341,661 $ 4.028,114 2011 $ 7,429,381 $ 81,800 $ 12,189 $ 184,992 $ 7,708,362 $ 7,241,657 $ 28,182 $ 435,346 $ 7,705,185 $ 0 $ 3,177 $ 4,028,114 4,031,291 PERCENT CHANGE -12.9% 10.8% -1.0% (1) -23.2% -13.0% -2.6% -62.5% (2) -34.4% (3) -5.7% 0% -99.5% 20.5% 0.1% Ay (1) Investment income fell due to declining interest rates on investments in 2011. (2) Capital Outlay decreased due to the placing a freeze on any unnecessary spending. (3) Debt Service declined due to payments being made on existing loans and accrued termination benefits being less. -8- 16 1+1F A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION and ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FINANCIAL ANALYSIS — Continued Changes in Special Revenue (Impact Fee) Fund Balances the District classifies governmental fund balances as follows: GENERAL SPECIAL TOTAL PERCENT FUND 2010 2011 CHANGE Revenues $ 0 $ 55,212 .. Restricted Impact and Other Fees $ 59,075 $ 111,183 88.2% (1) Investment Income $ 87 $ 60 -31.0% $ 59,162 $ 111,243 88.0% 0 Expenses Unassigned 1,680,641 0 Debt Service $ 42,605 $ 90,000 111.2% Total Expenses $ 42,605 $ 90,000 111.2% Change in Net Assets $ 16,557 $ 21,243 28.3% Fund Balance - Beginning of Year $ 35,631 $ 52,188 46.5% Fund Balance - End of Year $ 52,188 $ 73,431 40.7% (1) Impact and other fees revenue increased due to a slow return of new construction in our area. FUND BALANCE DISCLOSURE In accordance with GASB No. 54, the District classifies governmental fund balances as follows: GENERAL SPECIAL TOTAL FUND REVENUES FUNDS Non - spendable $ 55,212 $ 0 $ 55,212 .. Restricted 62,593 73,431 136,024 Committed 0 0 0 Assigned: Revenue and contingency reserve 2,232,845 0 2,232,845 Unassigned 1,680,641 0 1,680,641 _ Total $ 4,031.291 $ 73,431 $ 4.104,722 1611 A4 P' OLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION and ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR'S BUDGETS AND RATES When preparing the fiscal year 2012 budget, the District considered the increase in cost for just doing business and any anticipated changes in the development of our area that would make an impact on the tax dollars received. Consideration was also given to the impact of fewer ad valorem tax dollars because of new State Legislation to lower property taxes and the decline in property value, which started declining in FY 2009, and the economy. This new legislation, which became effective with FY 2009, doubled homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000 and allowed the portability of tax savings when purchasing a different residence. The Property Appraiser has forecasted another declining year in tax rolls. All of this means less revenue for the Golden Gate Fire District to run your fire department since it is funded with ad valorem tax dollars. Impact fees increased slightly but not enough to have much of an impact on the District's budget. The Fire District will still need to continue to use general fund monies to make capital improvement purchases and most loan payments. This in turn means that the District will have less money to fund necessary operating expenses which includes personnel costs. In anticipation of less tax dollars for operation of the District, during May 2009, the Golden Gate Fire District went before the voters with a referendum to increase the millage rate from 1.0 to 1.5. The voters approved the increased millage rate maximum of 1.5 mills. This new millage rate became effective with the FY 2010 tax roll. The Fire Board set the millage rate at 1.2968 for fiscal year 2010. The maximum millage rate was not taken to fulfill the promise made to taxpayers of not increasing taxes. At the end of fiscal year 2010, the Fire Board approved an early retirement buyout program available to employees with fifteen (15) or more years of service. With the Property Appraiser forecasting yet another declining year in tax rolls, the Fire Board felt an early retirement buyout would be a fair way to reduce staffing in an effort to eliminate the need to lay off employees due to lack of tax dollars. The Fire Board accepted the early buyout from four employees. This took effect during fiscal year 2011. Even with setting the millage at the maximum rate of 1.5, the Fire District's tax dollars declined in FY 2011. General Fund Budget: The Collier County Property Appraiser certified the preliminary FY 2012 tax roll on June 27, 2011. The District's assessed taxable value is at $4,561,527,088 a decrease of $460,614,781 or 9.2% from the prior year's final tax roll. The Fire Board approved setting the millage rate at 1.5 mills for FY 2012. The Fire District will receive a decrease in tax dollars of $690,922 or 9.2 %. -10- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRI1 6 I 1�4 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION and ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR'S BUDGETS AND RATES - Continued Use of Prior Year General Fund Cash: The fund balance for FY 2011 is being used to fund the necessary reserve portions of the FY 2011 General Fund Budget. Special Revenue Fund Budget: The District is anticipating a slight increase in the amount of impact fees to be collected in FY 2012. There has been a decrease in the amount of impact fees collected over the past five years due to change in the real estate market. During FY 2011, the District has noticed a slow return of new construction in our area. It is new construction that generates the impact fees. Chief Robert D. Metzger Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION This financial report is designed to provide Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District's citizens and taxpayers with a general overview of the District's finances and to show the District's accountability for the money it receives. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Fire Chief, Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District, 14575 Collier Blvd., Naples, FL 34119 or phone at 239 - 348 -7540. - 11 - 1617-A4 PART I. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL I -A4 OL AND RESCUE DISTRI� STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS SEPTEMBER 30. 2011 GOVERNMENTAL Total assets 12.514.440 LIABILITIES ACTIVITIES ASSETS 63,205 — Cash $ 299,494 Investments 3,686,224 Receivables 81,326 Prepaid expenses 55,212 Cash, restricted for lease interest ( Note7) 62,593 Cash and investments, restricted for impact fee 64,652 Capital assets, not being depreciated: 330,129 — Land 774,341 Capital assets, net of accumulated 127,293 depreciation 7,149,189 .— Buildings and improvements 5,585,980 Autos and trucks 1,292,044 Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 612,574 Total capital assets, net (Note 5) 8,264,939 Total assets 12.514.440 LIABILITIES Accounts payable 63,205 Salaries and benefits payable (Note 6) 305,603 Interest payable 13,898 Derivative deferred inflows (Note 7) 154,704 — Compensated absences (Note 7): Expected to be paid within one year 74,995 Expected to be paid after one year 368,189 Derivative financial instrument — swap agreement (Note 7) 330,129 Notes and capital leases payable (Note 7): Portion due within one year 127,293 — Portion due after one year 7,149,189 Total liabilities 8,587,205 "- NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 658,328 Restricted for impact fees 68,847 Unrestricted 3,200,060 Total net assets $ 3,927,235 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. -12- - 11 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTIO STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 A4 .4 ... GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES Expenses: Public safety - fire protection: Personal services $ 6,057,097 Outside services 775,513 Materials and supplies 218,365 — Depreciation 1,529,015 Interest on long -term debt and capital leases 298,461 — Total program expenses 8,878,451 Program revenues: _ Charges for services 81,800 Net program expense 8,796,651 General revenues: Property taxes 7,429,381 Impact fee revenue 111,183 Interest income 12,248 Net gain on sale of assets 3,209 Tower leases 144,134 — Miscellaneous 40,858 Total general revenues 7,741,013 Change in net assets (1,055,638) ,., Net assets, September 30, 2010 4,982,873 Net assets, September 30, 2011 $ 3,927,235 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. -13- TE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRIC �161I' A4 BALANCE SHEET - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS ASSETS Cash (Note 3) Cash, restricted (Note 7) Investments (Note 3) Receivables (Note 4) Prepaid expenses Due from the General Fund Total Assets LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: "— Accounts payable Accrued liabilities (Note 6) Due to Special Revenue Fund Total Liabilities SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES TOTAL SPECIAL GOVERNMENTAL GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS $ 299,494 62,593 3,686,224 77,131 55,212 0 $ 4,180,654 $ 63,205 81,574 4,584 149,363 Fund Balances (Notes 7 and12): Non - spendable 55,212 Restricted 62,593 Committed 0 Assigned 2,765,542 Unreserved 1,147,944 Total Fund Balances 4,031,291 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $ 4.180,654 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because: ._ Fund balance- governmental funds Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and, therefore, are not reported in the funds. Long -term liabilities, including capital leases payable, a promissory note obligation, related interest payable, derivative instrument, termination benefits /other are not '— due and payable in the current period and therefore are $ 4,078 0 60,574 4,195 0 4.584 $ 73,431 $ 303,572 62,593 3,746,798 81,326 55,212 4.584 $ 4,254,085 $ 0 $ 63,205 0 81,574 0 4.584 0 0 73,431 0 0 0 73,431 $ 73,431 149,363 55,212 136,024 0 2,765,542 1.147.944 4,104, 722 $ 4,254,085 4,104, 722 8,264,939 not reported in the funds. (8,442,426) ^ Net assets of governmental activities $ 3.927.235 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. -14- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRIt611 A4 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES TOTAL SPECIAL GOVERNMENTAL GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS Revenues: Ad valorem and county taxes $ 7,429,381 $ 0 $ 7,429,381 Impact and other fees 81,800 111,183 192,983 Interest and dividends 12,189 60 12,249 Miscellaneous 184,992 0 184,992 Total Revenues 7,708,362 111,243 7,819,605 Expenditures: _ Current Public safety: Employee costs 6,247,779 0 6,247,779 Outside services 775,513 0 775,513 Materials and supplies 218,365 0 218,365 Capital outlay 28,182 0 28,182 Debt service: Principal retirement 184,840 12,596 197,436 Interest and fiscal charges 250,506 77,404 327,910 Total Expenditures 7,705,185 90,000 7,795,185 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures 3,177 21,243 24,420 Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from capital lease 0 0 0 Transfers in (out) 0 0 0 Total other financing sources and uses 0 0 0 Net change in fund balances 3,177 21,243 24,420 Fund Balances, September 30, 2010 4,028,114 52,188 4,080,302 Fund Balances, September 30, 2011 $ 4,031,291 $ 73,431 $ 4,104,722 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. -15- 1611 A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30. 2011 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities (page 13) are different because: Net change in fund balances - total governmental funds (page 15) $ 24,420 Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of these assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the amount by which depreciation exceeded capital outlays in the current period. (1,500,833) ... The issuance of long -term debt (e.g., notes, capital leases) provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the principal of long -term debt consumes the current financial resources _ of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net assets. This amount is the net effect of these differences in the treatment of long -term debt. 122,441 Some items reported in the statement of activities including interest, vacation /sick leave, termination benefits, and the disposal of capital assets do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. 298.334 Change in net assets of governmental activities (page 13) $ (1,055,638) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. -16- 16 I . A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 1 - REPORTING ENTITY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Reporting Entity GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT (the District) is a local governmental unit created by the Florida State Legislature to provide fire and rescue service to a certain prescribed area in Collier County, Florida, and is an independent special district authorized and existing under Florida House Bill 0865. The District is operated by a three - person board of commissioners. The government -wide balance sheet and statement of activities and the General and Special Revenue include all of the operations and activities relevant to the District. During 2004, the District implemented Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements — and Management's Discussion and Analysis — for State and Local Governments, -- Statement No. 37, Basic Financial Statements and Management's Discussion and Analysis -. for State and Local Governments, Omnibus Statement No.38, Certain Financial Statement Note Disclosures, and GASB Interpretation No. 6, Recognition and Measurement of Certain Liabilities and Expenditures in Government Fund Financials. GASB Statement No. 34 and these related pronouncements established a new financial reporting model for state and local governments that included the addition of management's discussion and analysis, district -wide financial statements, required supplementary information and the elimination of the effects of internal service activities, if any, and the use of account groups to the already required fund financial statements and notes. The GASB determined that fund accounting has and will continue to be essential in helping governments to achieve fiscal accountability and should, therefore, be retained. The GASB also determined that district -wide financial statements are needed to allow users of financial reports to assess a government's operational accountability. The new GASB model integrates fund -based financial reporting and district -wide financial reporting as complementary components of a single comprehensive financial reporting model. As required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), these financial statements present Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District (the primary government) as a stand — government. The reporting entity for the District includes all functions of the government in which the District's Board of Commissioners exercises oversight responsibility. Oversight responsibility includes, but is not limited to, financial interdependency, selection of governing authority, designation of management, significant ability to influence operations and accountability for fiscal matters. Based upon the application of the above mentioned criteria as set forth in Governmental Accounting Standards .. Board Statement Number 14, The Financial Reporting Entity, as amended by GASB No. 39, Determining Whether Certain Organizations Are Component Units, the District has identified no component units. Government -wide and fund financial statements The government -wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net assets and the statement of activities) report information on all activities of the primary government. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes, are reported separately from business -type activities of which the District had no such activities during 2011. -17- - 16 11 A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 ... NOTE 1 - REPORTING ENTITY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Government -wide and fund financial statements (continued) The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include (1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and (2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds, even though such funds are excluded from the government -wide financial statements. All governmental funds of the District are reported as major individual funds. Measurement focus, basis of accounting, and financial statement presentation The government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Government fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. The government considers all revenues available if they are collected within 60 days after year -end. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. The primary revenue sources that are susceptible to accrual are ad valorem taxes, impact fees, inspection fees and interest. Other receipts and fees become measurable and available when cash is received by the District and are recognized as revenue at that time. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government -wide financial statements. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the District's policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. -18- 161 A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 1 - REPORTING ENTITY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Measurement focus, basis of accounting, and financial statement presentation (continued) The District reports the following major governmental funds: General Fund - The General Fund is the general operating fund of the District. It is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. Special Revenue Fund - The Special Revenue Fund is used to account for impact fees required to be used for future capital outlays in response to growth of the community. Budgetary Process The budget and amendments, if any, are approved by the Commissioners. The budget is prepared on the cash basis, which is considered not to be materially different from the modified accrual basis in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The annual budget serves as the legal authorization for expenditures. Expenditures cannot legally exceed the total amount budgeted. All budget amendments, which change the legally adopted total appropriation, are approved by the Commissioners. Encumbrances Encumbrance accounting under which purchase orders and other commitments for expenditures of monies are recorded is not employed by the District and thus no amount has been included in these basic financial statements for encumbrances. Due To and From Other Funds Interfund receivables and payables arise from interfund transactions and are recorded by funds affected in the period in which the transactions are executed. There were amounts due to and from other funds at September 30, 2011 in the accompanying fund statements. Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual All Governmental Fund Types The budget column of this statement is prepared from the District's adopted annual budget, as amended during the year, which reflects budgeted revenues and expenditures in total for all governmental fund types on a cash basis which is comparable to the modified accrual basis of accounting for the year ended September 30, 2011. Appropriations lapse at year -end. -19- 1611 A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 1 - REPORTING ENTITY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Property Tax Calendar The calendar is composed of the following dates: 1. Lien date - 3rd week in May ., 2. Levy date - July 1 3. Due date - March 31 4. Collection dates - November through March Total Column on the Balance Sheet and the Statement of Revenues. Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds The total columns on the balance sheet and the statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances is presented only to facilitate financial analysis and also is utilized for reconciliation purposes to the government -wide financial statements. Data in this column does not present financial position or results of operations in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and such data is not comparable to a consolidation. Investments Investments are reported and are equal or equivalent to market value. Florida Statutes allows the District to ._ invest surplus funds in: a) the State operated Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund; -- b) securities guaranteed by the U.S. Government or agencies of the U.S. Government; or c) interest bearing time deposits or savings accounts in banks and savings and loans organized under State laws or doing business in and situated in the State, provided collateral requirements are met; d) obligations guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association or similarly structured and secured associations or corporations. Certain funds are invested with the State Board of Administration (SBA) of Florida in the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund Investment Pool. These funds are recorded at cost, which according to the State Board of Administration of Florida is approximately equal to the fair value of the investments for financial reporting. Taxes and Fees Receivable No allowance for losses on uncollectible accounts has been recorded since the District considers all amounts to be fully collectible. Prepaid Items Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both the government -wide and fund financial statements. -20- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICl 6 11 A4 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 1 - REPORTING ENTITY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Payables and Accruals Such payable and accrual amounts are recorded as expenses and liabilities when incurred in the government wide financial statements and as expenditures and liabilities in the fund financial statements when paid and when expected to be liquidated with available expendable financial resources. Restricted Assets Cash restricted for prepaid interest was established based on the Lease Agreement dated April 2011, see Note 7. There were no such funds segregated for debt service payments at September 30, 2011 as the following quarterly payment is not due until November 2011. Certain resources set aside for impact fee expenditures, are classified as restricted assets on the statement of net assets because they are maintained in separate bank accounts and their use is limited by laws and regulations. The "cash and investments restricted for impact fees" are solely required to be used for growth capital expenditures. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include land, buildings and improvements, autos and trucks, and furniture, fixtures, and equipment, are reported in the government -wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the District as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $500 and an estimated useful life in excess of one year. In the case of initial capitalization of District capital assets and within the guidelines promulgated by GASB 34, the District was able to use historical cost and original purchase date for all such assets. As the District constructs or acquires additional capital assets each period, such assets are capitalized and reported at historical cost. The reported value excludes normal maintenance and repairs which are essentially amounts spent in relation to capital assets that do not increase the capacity or efficiency of the item or extend its useful life. In the case of donations, the District values these capital assets at the estimated fair value of the item at the date of donation. There were no such donated assets during 2011. Interest on debt cannot meaningfully be associated with individual District functions and, consequently, is reported as a separate line within governmental activities in the government -wide statement of activities. Such treatment also applies to interest incurred on capital leases. The practical effect of capitalizing interest incurred during the construction of capital assets used in governmental activities would be to allocate interest cost to whatever function reported the related depreciation expense. However, the allocation of interest to individual functions within governmental activities is not appropriate. Consequently, no such interest costs incurred related to the construction of stations #72 and #73 were capitalized. Capital assets of the District is depreciated using the straight line method over the following estimated useful lives. Buildings and improvements Autos and trucks Furniture, fixtures and equipment -21- YEARS 20 -39 5 -10 5 -20 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RES NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 I P ? A 4 NOTE 1 - REPORTING ENTITY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) Long -Term obligations In the government -wide financial statements, long -term debt and other long -term obligations are reported as liabilities in the Statement of Net Assets. In the fund financial statements, the face amount of debt issued and debt principal and interest payments are reported as other financing sources and principal and interest expenditures, respectively, in the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances — Governmental Funds. Compensated Absences The District's employees earn vacation which may either be taken or accumulated, up to certain amounts, until paid upon retirement or termination. Unused sick leave accumulates and is subject to a reduction if paid in cash upon retirement or termination. The liability for compensated absences reflects amounts attributable to employee services already rendered on a cumulative basis which is probable for payment. Fund Equity In 2011, the District implemented GASB 54 "Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions ". This statement establishes fund balance classifications that comprise a hierarchy based on primarily on the extent to which a government is bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of resources reported in governmental funds. Fund balance classifications, under GASB 54, are: Nonspendable, Restricted, Committed, Assigned and Unassigned. These classifications reflect not only the nature of funds, but also provide clarity to the level of restrictions placed upon fund balance. Fund balance can have different levels of restraint, such as external versus internal compliance requirements. Unassigned fund balance is a residual classification within the General Fund. The General Fund should be the only fund that reports a positive unassigned balance. In all other funds, unassigned is limited to negative residual fund balance. For further details of various fund balance classifications refer to Note 12. Net Assets in the government -wide statements are categorized as invested in capital assets, net of related debt, restricted or unrestricted. Invested in capital assets, net of related debt, represents net assets related to building and improvements, vehicles, and furniture, fixtures and equipment, net of any related debt. Restricted net assets for impact fees are funds legally mandated to be set aside solely for growth capital expenditures. Risk Management The District is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft, damage, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. Insurance coverage for such losses is purchased from third -party carriers. The financial impact of the District's risk management activities are reported in the general fund. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011, the District paid $64,005 to third -party carriers to insure for these purposes. There has been no reduction in coverage from the prior year. Liabilities are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. There was no such type of occurrence during fiscal 2011. No accrual has been provided for claims and incidents not reported to the insurer. Claims made have not exceeded the insurance coverage for the current year. -22- L AND RESCUE DISTRIA 6 1 1 A4 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 2 - RECONCILIATION OF GOVERNMENT -WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Explanation of certain differences between the _-government -wide statement of net assets and the _-governmental fund balance sheet The government fund balance sheet includes a reconciliation between fund balance — total governmental funds and net assets — governmental activities as reported in the government -wide statement of net assets. One element of that reconciliation explains that "capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and, therefore, are not reported in the funds." Capital Assets: The details of this $8,264,939 difference are as follows: Total historical cost of fixed assets at September 30, 2011 (see Note 5) $ 19,349,716 Accumulated depreciation at September 30, 2011 (see Note 5) (11,084,777) Net adjustment to increase fund balance - total governmental funds to arrive at net assets - governmental activities $ 8,264,939 Debt and Other Liabilities: Another element of that reconciliation explains that "long term liabilities, including capital leases payable, a promissory note obligation, interest payable, and termination benefits are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds." The details of this $(8,442,426) difference are as follows: Capital lease payable - facility - Station #70 (Note 7) (159,544) Capital lease payable - fire truck and equipment (P71) (Note 7) (166,702) Capital lease payable - fire truck and equipment (E73) (Note 7) (258,324) °— Promissory note obligation payable - Station #72 and #73 (Note 7) (6,691,912) Derivative financial instrument - swap agreement (Note 7) (330,129) Accrued interest- swap agreement (Note 7) (154,704) Compensated absences (Note 7) (443,184) Accrued termination benefits (Note 6) (135,967) Accrued insurance benefits - retired Chiefs (Note 6) (88,062) Accrued interest payable (13,898) Net adjustment to reduce fund balance - total governmental funds to arrive at net assets - governmental activities $ (8,442,426) -23- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT Z61 1' A4 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 Explanation of certain differences between the changes in fund balances and the _ -government -wide statement of activities and _-governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances Capital Outlay: The governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances includes a reconciliation between net change in fund balances - total governmental funds and change in net assets of governmental activities as reported in the government -wide statement of activities. One element of that reconciliation explains that, "Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of these assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense." The details of this $(1,500,833) difference are as follows: Capital outlay $ 28,182 Depreciation expense (Note 5) (1,529,015) Net adjustment to decrease net changes in fund balances — total governmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities $ (1,500,833) Long -term Debt: Another element of that reconciliation states that, "The issuance of long -term debt (e.g., notes, capital leases) provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the principal of long -term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net assets." The details of this $122,441 difference are as follows: Principal repayments: Capital leases — fire truck and equipment $ 105,647 Capital lease — facility 16,794 Net adjustment to increase net changes in fund balances — total governmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities $ 122,441 Compensated Absences and Other Accruals: Another element of that reconciliation states that, "some expenses reported in the statement of activities including interest, vacation /sick leave expense, and termination benefits do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds." The details of this $298,334 difference are as follows: Net effect of differences in accounting treatment of accrued termination benefits $ 337,250 Compensated absences changes (71,574) Net effect of differences in accounting treatment of long -term debt related interest, other accruals and capital assets disposals 32,658 Net adjustment to increase net changes in fund balances — total governmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities $ 298,334 -24- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 3 - CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash Cash held at September 30, 2011 consisted of the following: 1611 SPECIAL GENERAL REVENUE FUND FUND TOTAL Demand Deposits $ 361,997 $ 4,078 $ 366,075 Petty Cash 90 0 90 $ 362,087 $ 4,078 $ 366,165 All deposits with banks are entirely insured by Federal Depository Insurance. All District depositories are designated by the Florida State Treasurer as qualified public depositories. Chapter 280 of the Florida Statues "Florida Security for Public Deposits Act" provides procedures for public depositories to ensure public monies in banks and savings and loans are collateralized with the Treasurer as agent for the public entities. Financial institutions qualifying as public depositories shall deposit with the Treasurer eligible collateral having a market value equal to or in excess of the average daily balance of public deposits times the depository collateral pledging level required pursuant to Chapter 280 as computed and reported monthly or 25 percent of the average monthly balance, whichever is greater. The Public Deposit Security Trust Fund has a procedure to allocate and recover losses in the event of a default or insolvency. When public deposits are made in accordance with Chapter 280, no public depositor shall be liable for any loss thereof. Chapter 280 defines deposits as demand deposit accounts, time deposit accounts, and certificates of deposit. The District does not have a formal deposit policy that dictates deposits as a means of managing its exposure to losses and follows the guidance stipulated by Chapter 280 of Florida Statutes. At September 30, 2011, the District's cash carrying amounts and bank balances were $366,165 and $466,785, respectively. Investments The District has no written policy and /or adopted formal investment policy and consequently adheres to the investment guidelines as set forth in Section 218.415(17) of the Florida Statutes. All the District's investments at September 30, 2011 are invested in the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund (labeled as "Florida PRIME ") and the Fund B Surplus Trust Fund (the "Fund B "). These funds are not categorized because it is not evidenced by securities that exist in physical or book entry form. All monies deposited in the surplus funds are collateralized as required under law. The District invests funds throughout the year with the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund, which is administered by the State Board of Administration (SBA), under the regulatory oversight of the State of Florida. As of September 30, 2011, the investment pool closed with the total investments of approximately $6.3 billion with the District's investment in the SBA totaling $3,746,798 of which $3,702,500 and $44,298 was invested in Florida PRIME and Fund B. -25- Aq GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 1 6 11 A4 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 3 - CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued) Investments (continued) The Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund is governed by Ch. 19- 7.001- through 19.7.017 of the Florida Administrative Code, which identifies the Rules of the State Board of Administration. These rules provide guidance and establish the general operating procedures for the administration of the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund. Additionally, the Office of the Auditor General performs the operational audit of the activities and investments of the State Board of Administration. Florida Prime is not a registrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); however, the Board has adopted operating procedures consistent with the requirements for a 2a -7 like fund. Consequently, such investments are recorded at amortized costs consistent with GASB Statement #31. In accordance with regulations of a 2a -7 like fund, the method used to determine the participants' shares sold and redeemed is the amortized cost method as a means to maintain a constant net asset value (NAV) of $1 per share. The Florida PRIME account fair value equals the value in the account of $3,702,500 at September 30, 2011. The Fund B is accounted for as a fluctuating net asset value (NAV) pool. The fair value factor at September 30, 2011 was 0.7568386. The Fund B fair value at September 30, 2011 was calculated at $33,526 ($44,298 @0.7568386) or in essence a unrealized loss of $10,772. At September 30, 2011, the District's investment balance was as follows: Florida PRIME and Fund B $ 3,746,798 Historical information showing the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund's performance is presented in the June 30, 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which can be found at the State Board of Administration's website. Interest Rate Risk The District does not have a formal investment policy that limits investment maturities as a means of managing its exposure to fair value losses arising from increasing interest rates. The Florida PRIME weighted average days to maturity at September 30, 2011 was 38 days. In addition, information for the Fund B weighted average life at September 30, 2011 is not available from SBA. Credit Risk Florida Statutes Section 218.415(17) authorizes certain investment instruments that the District is permitted to invest in since the District does not have a formal investment policy. Consequently, the District has no investment policy that would further limit its investment choices. The Florida PRIME is rated by Standard and Poors and is its current rating is AAAm. The Fund B is not rated by any nationally recognized statistical rating agency. Concentration of Credit Risk The District places no limit on the amount it may invest in any one issuer. All the District investments are in the Florida PRIME and Fund B. -26- - GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 161 1 A4 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 4 - RECEIVABLES Receivables at September 30, 2011 consisted of the following: Ad valorem taxes — general fund $ 60,173 Impact fees — special revenue fund 4,195 _ Property appraisal fees — general fund 10,286 Other 6,672 Total $ 81,326 NOTE 5 - CAPITAL ASSETS, NET Capital asset activity for the year ended September 30, 2011 was as follows: BALANCE SEPT. 30, OTHER/ 2010 ADDITIONS DELETIONS Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land $ 774,341 $ 0 $ 0 Construction in progress 0 0 0 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 774,341 -- Capital assets, being depreciated: Buildings and improvements 11,899,269 Autos and trucks 4,606,738 Furniture, fixtures and equipment 2,060,292 Total capital assets being depreciated 18,566,299 Less accumulated depreciation for: BALANCE SEPT. 30, 2011 $ 774,341 0 0 0 774,341 0 0 11,899,269 0 0 4,606,738 28,182 (19,106) 2,069,368 28,182 (19,106) 18,575,375 Buildings and improvements (5,145,102) (1,175,306) 7,119 Autos and trucks (3,083,806) (230,888) 0 ^. Furniture, fixtures and equipment (1,349,169) (122,821) 15,196 Total accumulated depreciation (9,578,077) (1,529,015) 22,315 (6,313,289) (3,314,694) (1,456,794) (11,084,777) Total capital assets being depreciated, net 8,988,222 (1,500,833) 3,209 7,490,598 '— Total capital assets, net $ 9,762,563 $ (1,500,833) $ 3,209 S-3-2-6-4-939 The cost of assets under capital lease arrangements totaled $2,078,641 with accumulated depreciation of $1,108,915 at September 30, 2011. ._ -27- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT1 6 11 A4 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 6 - ACCRUED LIABILITIES Accrued liabilities at September 30, 2011, were comprised of the following: Accrued wages payable Payroll taxes payable Retirement contribution payable Other miscellaneous Total Accrued Liabilities - General Fund Termination benefits and other obligations Accrued termination benefits Accrued insurance benefits - terminated employees Total accrued termination ad insurance benefits Accrued health benefits - retired chiefs Total Accrued Liabilities - Statement of Net Assets NOTE 7 - LEASES AND OTHER LONG -TERM DEBT Capital Lease Obligations $ 67,862 5,191 8,906 (385) 81,574 35,049 100,918 135,967 88,062 224,029 $ 305,603 The District is committed to three capital leases: (1) Station #70 Collier County lease, (2) Oshkosh Capital firefighter truck lease, (3) Leasing 2 velocity custom pumpers lease. Capital leases are generally defined as leases which transfer benefits and risks of ownership to the lessees. (1) Station #70 Collier County Lease The District and Collier County have a lease agreement for the facility previously constructed by Collier County to be shared by the District, the Sheriffs Department and Emergency Medical Services. Based on the lease agreement, the lease has been recorded as a non - interest bearing capital lease in the accompanying financial statements. Following is a schedule of the future minimum lease payments on the facility capital lease as of September 30, 2011: YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2021 -28- $ 16,794 16,794 16,794 16,794 16,794 75,574 $ 159,544 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 1 6 I 1 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 7 - LEASES AND OTHER LONG -TERM DEBT (Continued) (2) Oshkosh Capital Firefighter Truck Lease In January 2006, the District entered into a capital lease agreement with Oshkosh Capital for the purchase of one firefighter truck including related equipment totaling $299,200. Following is a schedule of the present value of the net future minimum lease payments on this lease obligation at September 30, 2011: YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 $ 38,185 2013 38,185 2014 38,185 2015 38,185 2016 38,185 190,925 Less: Amount representing interest (24,223) Present value of net minimum lease payments $ 166,702 (3) Leasing 2 Velocity Custom Pumpers Lease In March 2007, the District entered into a seven year capital lease agreement with Leasing 2 for the purchase of a Pierce velocity custom pumper including related equipment totaling $538,750. Following is a schedule of the present value of the net future minimum lease payments on this lease obligation at September 30, 2011: YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 $ 91,599 2013 91,599 2014 91,599 274,797 Less: Amount representing interest (16,473) Present value of net minimum lease payments $ 258,324 A4 In August 2003, the District entered into a promissory note with Fifth Third Bank totaling $8,000,000. Pursuant to the loan agreement, the District is required to use the loan proceeds for the purpose of constructing two fire station facilities (known as "Station #72" and "Station #73 ") located in the Golden Gate District. The loan is unsecured and interest is being charged at the sum of 90 day Libor interest rate plus 1.65 %. The District's operating funds and impact fees received each year are used as the source of debt service for such loan. -29- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICIN NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS U 1 A4 SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 On April 1, 2011, the District entered into a Lease Purchase Agreement with Fifth Third Bank as a means to refinanced the original $8m Promissory Note with a current outstanding principal balance of $6,691,912 the proceeds of which were originally used to finance the construction and equipping of two fire stations #72 and #73. Pursuant to the Agreement, the District provided the Bank a leasehold interest in the real property and related improvements and equipment of these two specific fire stations as defined, and agreed to pay the Bank quarterly base rent amounts (consisting of principal and interest) for the use of these leased properties as defined in the Agreement. The interest component of the base rent is due quarterly on the 20th of each month commencing May 20, 2011 bearing interest at the three month Libor plus 1.65% (defined as "adjusted rate ") and the principal component of the base rent totaling $83,649 is due quarterly on 201h of each month commencing November 20, 2013 with a final balloon payment of $5,939,071 due on February 20, 2016. The District agreed to maintain certain required insurance policies and amounts as defined in the Agreement. As of April 1, 2011, the District was required to establish and initially fund an "Interest Account" held by the Bank totaling $124,680 representing the first 12 months of the respective interest component of the base rent. Annually thereafter, the District is required to fund 12 months of the estimated interest component of the base rent. As of September 30, 2012, the cash balance in this Interest Account was $62,593 and was reflected as a restricted fund balance, see Note 12. Derivative Financial Instrument - Swap Aareement In conjunction with the above respective loan agreement with Fifth Third Bank, the District entered into a ten year (20 year amortization period) interest rate swap agreement (the "swap agreement ") for $8,000,000. Based on the swap agreement, the District owes quarterly interest calculated at a fixed rate of 3.44% to the counterparty to the swap. In return, the counterparty owes the District interest based on 0.29% of the three month (90 day) Libor rate. The District uses the swap agreement to minimize fluctuations in cash flows caused by interest rate volatility and to effectively convert its floating rate debt to fixed -rate debt. Fifth Third Bank, the counterparty, has a current credit rating of BBB + /A3. Only the net difference in interest payments is actually exchanged with the counterparty. The notional amount of $8,000,000 is not exchanged; it is only the basis on which interest payments are calculated quarterly. Amounts to be paid or received under the swap agreement are recognized as increases or reductions in interest expense in the periods in which they accrue. During the term of the swap agreement, the District effectively pays a fixed rate on the loan. The debt service requirements (as presented below based on the new lease agreement dated 4/1/2011 above) to maturity for this loan arrangement are based on that fixed rate at 3.44% and 90 day Libor spread (0.374% at September 30, 2011). The District will be exposed to variable rates if the counterparty to the interest swap defaults or if the interest swap is terminated. A termination of the interest swap agreement may also result in the District's making or receiving a termination payment or benefit amount. Based on Fifth Third Bank's Mark -to- Market Report as of September 30, 2011, the District would owe the bank approximately $330,129 if the interest swap agreement was terminated. The swap agreement provides a hedge against changes in the amount of cash flows associated with the District's long -term debt. Accordingly, the swap agreement is reflected at fair value in the statements of net assets and the effective portion of the related gains or losses on the agreement is recognized as a component of the change in net assets. The net effect of this accounting on the District's operating results is that interest expense on the variable rate debt being hedged is recorded based on a fixed interest rate. In 2011, the Bank approved to delay principal payments for fiscal 2009, 2010, and 2011 until November 2013(see above) as means to help the District with cash flow needs. -30- GOLDEN )L AND RESCUE DR NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 7 - LEASES AND OTHER LONG -TERM DEBT (Continued) Pursuant to GASB Statement No. 53, the District reflected the change in the fair value of the interest swap agreement between fiscal 2011 and 2010 totaling $154,704 as "derivative deferred inflows" in the accompanying statement of net assets. Following is a schedule of future principal debt service payments (per 4/1/2011 Lease Agreement denoted above) as of September 30, 2011 based on an overall synthetic rate of 3.81% (3.44 fixed plus Libor rate spread of 0.374 %): YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, PRINCIPAL INTEREST 2012 $ 0 $ 306,974 2013 0 296,171 2014 334,596 133,328 2015 334,596 126,535 2016 6,022,720 61,215 $ 6,691,912 $ 924,223 Long -term liability activity for the year ended September 30, 2011 was as follows: DUE BALANCE BALANCE WITHIN SEPT. 30, PAYMENTS/ SEPT. 30, ONE 2010 ADDITIONS OTHER 2011 YEAR Capitalized lease - Station #70 building $ 176,338 $ 0 $ (16,794) $ 159,544 $ 16,794 Capital lease @ 4.7% w /Oshkosh Capital, 195,689 principal and interest due annually, secured and matures February 2016. Capital lease @ 4.55% w /Leasing 2, 334,984 principal and interest due annually, secured and matures March 2014. Promissory note payable, interest paid quarterly at Libor plus 1.65 %, unsecured, source of repayment- impact fees. Matures August 2013. _ Derivative financial instrument — swap agreement Compensated absences 0 (28,987) 166,702 30,350 0 (76,660) 258,324 80,149 6,691,912 0 I1 A 4 NOTE 7 - LEASES AND OTHER LONG -TERM DEBT (Continued) Pursuant to GASB Statement No. 53, the District reflected the change in the fair value of the interest swap agreement between fiscal 2011 and 2010 totaling $154,704 as "derivative deferred inflows" in the accompanying statement of net assets. Following is a schedule of future principal debt service payments (per 4/1/2011 Lease Agreement denoted above) as of September 30, 2011 based on an overall synthetic rate of 3.81% (3.44 fixed plus Libor rate spread of 0.374 %): YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, PRINCIPAL INTEREST 2012 $ 0 $ 306,974 2013 0 296,171 2014 334,596 133,328 2015 334,596 126,535 2016 6,022,720 61,215 $ 6,691,912 $ 924,223 Long -term liability activity for the year ended September 30, 2011 was as follows: DUE BALANCE BALANCE WITHIN SEPT. 30, PAYMENTS/ SEPT. 30, ONE 2010 ADDITIONS OTHER 2011 YEAR Capitalized lease - Station #70 building $ 176,338 $ 0 $ (16,794) $ 159,544 $ 16,794 Capital lease @ 4.7% w /Oshkosh Capital, 195,689 principal and interest due annually, secured and matures February 2016. Capital lease @ 4.55% w /Leasing 2, 334,984 principal and interest due annually, secured and matures March 2014. Promissory note payable, interest paid quarterly at Libor plus 1.65 %, unsecured, source of repayment- impact fees. Matures August 2013. _ Derivative financial instrument — swap agreement Compensated absences 0 (28,987) 166,702 30,350 0 (76,660) 258,324 80,149 6,691,912 0 0 6,691,912 0 7,398,923 0 (122,441) 7,276,482 127,293 484,833 0 (154,704) 330,129 0 371,610 146,569 (74,995) 443,184 74,995 $ 8,255,365 $ 146,569 $ (352,140) $ 8,049,795 $ 202,288 -31 - GOLDEN GATE FIRE 1 CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 16 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 8 - PENSION PLAN OBLIGATIONS All paid District employees are participants in the Florida Retirement System (System), a defined benefit non- _ contributory multiple - employer, cost - sharing public retirement system, which is controlled by the State Legislature and administered by the State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement. The plan covers a total of approximately 980,000 employees of various governmental units within the State of Florida. The System provides for vesting of benefits after 6 years of creditable service. Normal retirement benefits are available to employees who retire at or after age 62 with 6 or more years of service with a 5% reduction of -- benefits for each year prior to the normal retirement age. Retirement benefits are based upon age, average compensation and years -of- service credit, where average compensation is computed as the average of an individual's defined highest fiscal years' earnings ( ie, either five or eight years )depending on enrollment date. Participating employer contributions are based upon State -wide rates established by the State of Florida. These rates effective July 1, 2011 are applied to employee salaries as follows: regular employees - 7.91 % and special risk employees — 17.10% of which the employee contribution rate of 3% is included in these rates. The funding policy provides for monthly employer contributions at actuarially determined rates that are determined using the entry age actuarial cost method. The District's contribution to the plan for the year ended September 30, 2011 was $784,096 and was paid by the due date for the contribution. This represents approximately 21 % of the District's 2011 covered payroll of $4,153,073. The total payroll for fiscal 2010 was $4,176,061. In addition, the District's contribution to the plan for fiscal 2010 was $888,784. -- The pension benefit obligation for the System as a whole, determined through an actuarial valuation was $126 billion at July 1, 2011, the date of the most recent actuarial report. The report also indicates that the System had total actuarial accrued liability of approximately $144 billion at that date resulting in an underfunded pension obligation of $19 billion. The pension benefit obligation is a standardized disclosure measure of the present value of plan benefits, adjusted for the effects of projected salary increases and step -rate benefits estimated to be payable in the future as a result of employee service to date. A variety of significant actuarial assumptions are used to determine the standardized measure of the pension benefit obligation and these assumptions are summarized below: a) a rate of return on the investment of present and future assets of 7.75% per year compounded annually; b) projected salary increases of 5.85% per year compounded annually, attributable to inflation of 3 %; and c) cost -of- living adjustments of 3% or as defined in the Plan based on certain timeframes, -32- DEN GATE FIR NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30. 2011 NOTE 8 - PENSION PLAN OBLIGATIONS (Continued) X61' A4 The measure is intended to help users assess the System's funding status on a going concern basis, assess _ progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due, and make comparisons among retirement systems and among employers. The System does not make separate measurements of assets and pension benefit obligations for individual employers. Significant assumptions used to compute pension contribution requirements are the same as those used to determine the standardized measure of the pension obligation. Ten year historical trend information showing the System's progress in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due is presented in the System's June 30, 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. NOTE 9 - LEASE AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS In June 1999, the District entered into a lease and construction agreement with Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (SSLP) for an initial five -year term. The District agreed to allow SSLP to construct a certain communications tower on a portion of the District's property. Upon completion of the construction of the tower, SSLP agreed to transfer title to the tower and all related rights to the District. Upon title transfer, SSLP would lease such tower space to maintain and operate at SSLP's sole expense a personal communication service system facility. In consideration of this arrangement, the District agreed to charge an annual rent of $10,800. Such annual rent was waived for the initial term and for four additional terms of five years each since SSLP paid for all construction costs associated with construction of the tower. In August 2000, the District entered into a lease agreement with Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., presently T- Mobile USA, Inc. ( "T- Mobile "), for an initial five -year period. The District agreed to lease tower antenna space located at the Golden Gate Fire Station to T- Mobile. As consideration for this arrangement, T- Mobile agreed to pay the District annual rent of $22,800 plus applicable sales tax. This lease agreement has a renewable clause for four additional terms of five -years each with certain defined annual rent adjustments. The lease was renewed for an additional term with a 20% increase during fiscal year 2005, resulting in an annual rental payment of $27,360. This lease was renewed for a second additional term in fiscal year 2010. The rent was increased by 20 %, resulting in an annual rental payment of $32,832 received by the District in August 2011. In August 2000, the District entered into a lease and construction agreement with Verizon Wireless ( "Verizon ") for an initial five -year term. The District agreed to lease to Verizon certain tower antenna space located at the Golden Gate Fire Station. Pursuant to the agreement, Verizon agreed to pay to the District annual rent during the initial five -year term of $16,800 plus applicable sales tax. As consideration separate from and in addition to the mentioned annual rent, Verizon agreed to pay for the installation of VHF cabling in Station #71 costing $50,000, in lieu of installing a certain shelter, generator and antennas as defined in the original agreement. At September 30, 2001, such installation had been completed. This lease agreement has a renewable clause for four additional terms of five -years each with certain defined annual rent adjustments. The lease was renewed for an additional term with a 20% increase during fiscal year 2005, resulting in an annual rental payment of $20,160. This lease was renewed for a second additional term in fiscal year 2010. The rent was increased by 20 %, resulting in an annual rental payment of $24,192 received by the District in July 2011. -33- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DI 6 I I' A4 O SCU STRI NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 9 - LEASE AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENTS (Continued) In August 2005, the District entered into a communications site lease agreement related to the communications tower located at Golden Gate Fire Station #71 with Alltel Communications, presently known as Verizon, for an initial five -year term. The lessee is granted five additional five -year renewal terms following the initial five -year term. Pursuant to the agreement, Alltel agreed to pay the District monthly rent totaling $2,500 plus applicable sales tax. The rent will be increased each year thereafter by four percent. A first amendment to the lease agreement was entered into on December 11, 2008, in order to reduce the tenants rent. This amendment commences on January 1, 2009, and expires on December 31, 2013. On January 1, 2009, the rent was decreased to $2,200 per month. The rent shall be increased by 2% every anniversary thereafter. Alltel, presently known as Verizon, will pay all utility charges applicable to the tower. The prior year monthly rent was increased by 2% to $2,289 in January 2011. In April 2011 the monthly rent was increased an additional $556 per month due to improvements made to their antenna holdings on the communication tower. This increase -- now makes the monthly payment $2,845. In September 2005, the District entered into a communications site lease agreement related to the communications tower located at Golden Gate Fire Station #71 with Metro PCS for an initial five -year term. The lessee is granted five additional five -year renewal terms following the initial five year term. Pursuant to the agreement, Metro PCS agreed to pay the District monthly rent totaling $2,500 plus applicable sales tax. The _ rent will be increased each year thereafter by four percent. Metro PCS will pay all utility charges applicable to the tower. The prior year monthly rent was increased by 4% to $3,163 in September 2011. NOTE 10 - IMPLEMENTATION OF GASB STATEMENT NO. 45 The Governmental Accounting Standards Board has issued Statement No. 45, "Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post - Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions." This Statement changes the manner in which the District funds and records its post retirement benefit cost other than pension ( "OPEB "). During 2010, the District implemented the standard and had to accrue and fund costs rather than fund them on .. a pay -as- you -go basis. The District had less than 100 employees at September 30, 2010 and met the criteria for the simplified "Alternative Measurement Method ", which excuses the District from obtaining an actuarial valuation for the post - employment benefit liability and allows the District to perform a simple present value calculation. The following significant assumptions and methods were used in developing the 2011 present value calculation of the post - employment benefit liability under the "Alternative Measurement Method ": a) Two participants in the program (retired chiefs), one receiving benefits for approximately 14 years and the other receiving benefits for approximately 23 years; b) Cost of benefits are approximately $259 per month for the first recipient and approximately $470 per month for the second recipient; c) Long -term growth rate estimated to equal long -term inflation estimate of approximately 3.0 %; r. d) Estimated discount rate of 2 %, which is the yield on a 10 -year Treasury security at September 30, 2011; e) Discounted on a monthly basis. f) Future healthcare coverage provided solely pursuant to COBRA was not included in the OPEB valuation. -34- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 11 - TERMINATION BENEFITS 161'1 A4 During the year ended September 30, 2010, the District adopted the buyout and separation resolution #10 -3 ( "Early Retirement Incentive Package "). This permits the District to offer an Early Retirement Incentive Package to all employees who were in the 15th year of service or greater in an effort to reduce the long term operating expenses of the District. Eligible employees were allowed to make a one -time irrevocable decision to accept the Early Retirement Incentive Package. The Package offered one year's base salary and professional pay incentives, and payout of the balance of accrued unused sick, vacation, and holiday pay where applicable. Additionally, each eligible employee that chose the Early Retirement Incentive Package would receive the same health insurance as bargaining unit employees paid one hundred percent (100 %) by the District for three (3) years from the beginning of each employee's early retirement incentive package effective date. The District would also continue to provide life insurance for the employee for twelve (12) months immediately following the employee's early retirement incentive package effective date. Each eligible employee selecting the early retirement incentive option could choose to receive the payout of the base salary and professional incentives in one (1) lump sum payment, or to receive the amount bi- weekly over twenty six (26) pay periods. Four (4) District employees elected to accept the early retirement incentive package. One (1) of the four (4) employees chose a single lump sum payment and the remaining three (3) chose to be paid incrementally over twenty six (26) pay periods. The total cost of the termination benefits is estimated to be $477,628 which is included in full in the salaries and benefits payable at September 30, 2010. Final payments relating to the early retirement incentive package will occur during 2013. The estimated cost for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 is based on current rates for health and life insurance coverage for 2011, with a 3.0% increase per year beginning in 2011 through 2012. In addition, we used an annual discount rate of 3.2% (10 -year Treasury security at September 30, 2010) to calculate the present value of the termination benefit liability. The estimated cost for the four (4) participants that elected to accept the early retirement incentive package after adjusting for fiscal 2011 payment activity relating to the remaining two years(see Note 6) is as follows: YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 2013 -35- PRINCIPAL $ 87,342 48.625 $ 135,967 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRIC 6 � r 4 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 NOTE 12 - FUND BALANCE DISCLOSURE In accordance with GASB No. 54, the District classifies governmental fund balances (as applicable) as follows: • Non - spendable - includes fund balance amounts that cannot be spent either because they are not in spendable form or because of legal or contractual requirements (i.e., prepaid items) • Restricted - includes fund balance amounts that are constrained for specific purposes which are externally imposed by providers, such as creditors, lenders or amounts constrained due to constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. • Committed - includes fund balance amounts that are constrained for specific purposes that are internally imposed by the District through a formal action of the highest level of decision making -- authority. • Assigned - includes fund balance amounts that are intended to be used for specific purposes that are neither considered restricted or committed. Fund balance may be assigned through the following: (1) the District's Chief is authorized by the Commissioners to assign amounts for specific purpose as denoted in the annual budget; (2) the Commissioners have authorized the District's Chief, in coordination with the District's auditors, to recapture excess fund balance that isn't restricted or committed. • Unassigned - includes residual positive fund balance within the General Fund which has not been classified within the other above mentioned classifications. Unassigned fund balance may include negative balances for any governmental fund is expenditures exceed amounts restricted, committed, or assigned for those specific purposes. The District uses restricted amounts to be spent first when both restricted and unrestricted fund balance is available unless there are legal documents and /or contracts that prohibit doing this, such as grant agreements requiring certain dollars spent. Additionally, the District would first use committed, then assigned, and lastly unassigned amounts of unrestricted fund balance when expenditures are made, with the exception of the emergency reserve established by the Commissioners. Under normal circumstances, the District would first elect to utilize the Operating Reserve (Unassigned fund balance in the General Fund) before considering use of its Emergency Reserve. ^ The District does not have a formal minimum fund balance policy. However, the District addresses various targeted reserve positions via the annual budget process and calculates targets and actuals to report the results to the Commissioners annually. -36- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRIC1 G I 1 A NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 — NOTE 12 - FUND BALANCE DISCLOSURE (Continued) A schedule of the District's fund balances at September 30, 2011 is as follows: MAJOR FUNDS GENERAL SPECIAL TOTAL FUND REVENUES FUNDS — Non - spendable $ 55,212 $ 0 $ 55,212 — Restricted 62,593 73,431 136,024 Committed 0 0 0 Assigned: First year start-up operations 1,460,000 0 1,460,000 — Construction loan reserve 387,600 0 387,600 Capital and fleet reserves 180,000 0 180,000 Leave credits reserve 150,000 0 150,000 — FRS reserves 110,000 0 110,000 GASB reserves 90,000 0 90,000 Other reserves 387,942 0 387,942 Total revenue and contingency reserve 2,765,542 0 2,765,542 Unassigned Total 1,147,944 0 1,147,944 $ 4,031,291 $ 73,431 $ 4,104,722 NOTE 13 - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS In preparing the financial statements, the District has evaluated events and transactions for potential recognition or disclosure through January 23, 2012, the date that the financial statements were available to be issued. -37- 16 I 1 -A4 PART II. REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OTHER THAN MD &A 1611 A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 Revenues: Ad valorem and county taxes Impact and other fees Interest and dividends Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Current Public safety: Employee costs Outside services Materials and supplies Reserves Capital outlay Debt service: Principal retirement Interest and fiscal charges Total Expenditures Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from capital lease Transfers in (out) Total other financing sources and uses Net change in fund balances Fund Balances, September 30, 2010 GENERALFUND 6,505,869 6,505,869 6,247,779 VARIANCE BUDGETED AMOUNTS ACTUAL WITH FINAL ORIGINAL FINAL AMOUNT BUDGET $ 7,782,592 $ 7,782,592 $ 7,429,381 $ (353,211) 173,306 173,306 81,800 (91,506) 11,000 11,000 12,189 1,189 _ 3,008,660 3,008,660 184,992 (2,823,668) 10,975,558 10,975,558 7,708,362 (3,267,196) 6,505,869 6,505,869 6,247,779 (258,090) 1,060,292 1,060,292 775,513 (284,779) 317,000 317,000 218,365 (98,635) _ 2,232,845 2,232,845 0 (2,232,845) 116,000 116,000 28,182 (87,818) 497,448 497,448 184,840 (312,608) —' 246,104 246,104 250,506 4,402 10,975,558 10,975,558 7,705,185 (3,270,373) _ 0 0 3,177 3,177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 3,177 $ 3,177 _ $ 4,028,114 Fund Balances, September 30, 2011 $ 4,031,291 161'1 -A4 _ SPECIAL REVENUE FUND VARIANCE WITH FINAL BUDGET — BUDGETED AMOUNTS ACTUAL POSITIVE ORIGINAL FINAL AMOUNT (NEGATIVE) _ $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 90,000 90,000 111,183 21,183 0 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 90,000 90,000 111.243 21.243 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` 0 0 0 0 12,596 12,596 12,596 0 77.404 77.404 77,404 0 90,000 90,000 90.000 0 0 0 21,243 21,243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 21,243 $ 21,243 $ 52,188 $ 73.431 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. -38- 16 9AH ips Harvey GROUP Nathan A, P hillhpS, '... 13 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON INTERNAL Deborah Ha v P1, CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED Steph.i „r J 0,01n in 'PA, ON AN AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS czar £'�,ei ' ` Michek January 23, 2012 To the Board of Commissioners GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT Naples, Florida We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT (the "District ") as of and for the year ended September 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the District's basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated January 23, 2012. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Management of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT'S internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT'S internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT'S internal control over financial reporting. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the District's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting, that we consider to be significant deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting as denoted as recommendation #1 as described in our recommendation letter dated January 23, 2012 on pages 43 through 44. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. -39- Certified Public Accountants 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34108 P 239 566 1600 1 F 239 566 1901 1 swflcpas.com To the Board of Commissioners —A4 GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT January 23, 2012 Page 2 Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the District's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. We noted certain matters that we reported to management of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT, in a separate letter dated January 23, 2012, on page 43. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Commissioners, management and Auditor General and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties 4LL ��VY GRV11( ARV V P .A. Certified Public Accountants Naples, Florida -40- 16 1hillip Harvey GROUP Nathan A, P' Iillips �- '�. Debar ah Har fCj MANAGEMENT LETTER - LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES January 23, 2012 To the Board of Commissioners GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT Naples, Florida Board of Commissioners: Stephan r r . °idma� Shanno- Micheilk, I <<. a We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT as of and for the year ended September 30, 2011 which comprise the District's basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated January 23, 2012. We conducted our audit in accordance with United States generally accepted auditing standards and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. We have issued our Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters. Disclosures in those reports, which are dated January 23, 2012, should be considered in conjunction with this management letter. Additionally, our audit was conducted in accordance with Chapter 10.550, Rules of the Auditor General. Those rules (Section 10.554(1)(i)(1) require that we address in the management letter, if not already addressed in the auditor's reports on internal controls and compliance or schedule of findings and questioned costs, whether findings and /or recommendations reported in the preceding annual financial audit report have been corrected. There were recommendations in the prior fiscal audit year 2008 that have not been implemented at this time, see pages 43 -48 and please refer to rebuttal letter for the District's explanation. As required by the Rules of the Auditor General (Section 10.554(1)(i)(2), the scope of our audit included a review of the provisions of Section 218.415, Florida Statutes, regarding the investment of public funds. In connection with our audit, we determined that GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT complied with Section 218.415, Florida Statutes. The Rules of Auditor General (Section 10.554(1)(i)(3) require that we address recommendations to improve the local governmental entity's internal controls. There was one significant deficiency in the year carried forward from prior year as follows: (1) Designate a qualified person to be responsible for implementation of all applicable Government Accounting Standards Board's new rules and regulations on an annual basis. Also, see our recommendation letter dated January 23, 2012 for further general comments on pages 43 through 48. - 41 - Certified Public Accountants 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34108 P 239 566 1600 1 F 239 566 1901 1 swflcpas.com To the Board of Commissioners I GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 16 January 23, 2012 Page 2 The Rules of Auditor General (Section 10.554(1)(i)(4) require disclosure in the management letter of the following matters if not already addressed in the auditor's reports on internal controls and compliance or schedule of findings and questioned costs ,violations of provisions of contracts or grant agreements, or abuse that occurred, or are likely to have occurred, that have an effect on the financial statement amounts that is less than material but more than inconsequential. There were no instances to report in the current year. The Rules of Auditor General (Section 10.554(1)(i)(5) for matters that are inconsequential effect on the financial statements, considering both quantitative and qualitative factors the following may need to be reported based on professional judgment: (a) violations of provisions of contracts and grant agreements; (b) deficiencies in internal control that are not significant deficiencies. Our audit did not identified any matters required to be disclosed other than as denoted in our recommendation letter dated January 23, 2012 at pages 43 through 48. As required by the Rule of the Auditor General (Section 10.554(1)(i)(7)(a), the scope of our audit included a review of the provisions of Section 218.503(1), Florida Statutes, regarding financial emergencies. In connection with our audit, we determined that the GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT is not in a state of financial emergency as a consequence of the conditions described in Section 218.503(1), Florida Statutes. As required by the Rules of the Auditor General (Section 10.554(1)(i)(7)(b), we determined that the annual financial report for the GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011, filed with the Department of Banking and Finance pursuant to Section 218.32(1)(a), Florida Statutes, is in agreement with the annual financial audit report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011. As required by the Rules of the Auditor General (Sections 10.554(i)(7)(c)(1) and 10.556(7)), we applied financial condition assessment procedures. It is management's responsibility to monitor the entity's financial condition, and our financial condition assessment was based in part on representations made by management and the review of financial information provided by same. This report is intended solely for the information of the GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT, the State of Florida Office of the Auditor General, the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. f4, HIL IPS HAR GRU16, P.A. Certified Public ccountants Naples, Florida -42- 16 11 A4' MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION LETTER January 23, 2012 Board of Commissioners GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT Naples, Florida Commissioners: Phillips Harvey GROUP Nathan A, Phillins, Cps Deborah _. i I i Stephanie a t ei i mI, Cr:; c1ara_(It 11-PA. ShaEinai, 1 < < 1 Lru ^,�ichelle L. t- , F', In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT as of and for the year ended September 30, 2011, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT's internal control. Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses and, therefore, there can be no assurance that all such deficiencies have been identified. However, as discussed below, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be significant deficiencies. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the District's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We consider the following deficiencies in GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT's internal control to be significant deficiencies: -43- Certified Public Accountants 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34108 P 239 566 1600 1 F 239 566 1901 1 swflcpas.com GOLDEN ATE FIR 16 14- A4 G E CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT January 23, 2012 Page 2 Fiscal 2008 Audit Recommendations Not Implemented Yet: Significant Deficiency 1: District needs to designate a qualified individual to be responsible for implementation of all applicable Government Accounting Standards Board's new rules and regulations on an annual basis. -' The controller position is a key position for an organization but over the last few years the District has used a variety of skill set individuals with certain accounting experience and knowledge. The District has experienced many challenges as the District continues to grow and requires higher levels of accounting competencies. Since the District reports in its financial statements on a basis in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and the District presently does not have on its staff a person with the accounting and reporting skills and knowledge to apply generally accepted accounting principles in recording the District financial transactions or preparing its financial statements, we recommend that the District hire a controller to fulfill these duties and responsibilities and other items previously mentioned. During our audit, we noted certain matters involving the internal control and other operational matters that are presented for your consideration. This letter does not affect our report dated January 20, 2011 on the financial statements of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT. We will review the status of these "— comments during our next audit engagement. Our comments and recommendations, all of which have been discussed with appropriate members of management, are intended to improve the internal control or result in other operating efficiencies. We will be pleased to discuss these comments in further detail at your convenience, perform any additional study of these matters, or assist you in implementing the recommendations. Our comments are summarized as follows: General Comment 1: Consider the Commissioners as a Monitor of Internal Control. It is very difficult to separate duties of key employees in smaller organizations. The District has been achieving this by having the Treasurer take the lead to perform an oversight function. While the current Treasurer has taken on this responsibility, it is inevitable that these positions will turn over from Commissioner to Commissioner several times as the District proceeds into the future. It is our recommendation that the Commissioners review the monitoring activities listed below and put procedures in place to ensure that these oversight functions will continue to be performed. 1. Have the capability to understand and review the financial statements prepared in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. 2. Review with management the policies and procedures with respect to officers, key employees (executive director, general manager, chief operating officer), expense accounts, and perks, including excess benefit transactions, ensure written policies and procedures exist, etc. 3. Inquire of management, and the independent auditors about significant risks or exposures facing the organization; assess the steps management has taken or proposes to take to minimize such ,._ risks to the organization; and periodically review compliance with such steps. -44- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 1611 A4 _ January 23, 2012 Page 3 General Comment 1: Consider the Commissioners as a Monitor of Internal Control (Continued) 4. Review key internal controls with management team, and understand how these controls will be tested, maintained and monitored during the year. 5. Report to the Commissioners on issues relating to internal controls, with emphasis on management's ability to override controls and the monitoring and testing relating to this capacity. 6. Review all material written of communications between the independent auditors and management, such as any management letter or schedule of unadjusted differences. 7. Periodically review the organization's code of conduct/ethics to ensure that it is adequate and up- to -date. 8. Review procedures for the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of the organization of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters (i.e. whistleblower policy). General Comment 2: Utilize Cash Flow Statements and Cash Flow Projections as a planning tool Cash is essential to the success of any business. Cash flow considerations become even more important as the economy struggles and businesses need to tighten all financial controls. A monthly cash -flow projection helps to identify and eliminate deficiencies or surpluses in cash and to compare actual figures to past months. -- When cash -flow deficiencies are found, business financial plans must be altered to provide more cash. When excess cash is revealed, it might indicate excessive borrowing or idle money that could be invested. The objective is to develop a plan that will provide a well - balanced cash flow plan for the current and coming ._ months. General Comment 3: Increase awareness of antifraud culture Recent publicity has indicated that fraud is rapidly growing in the United States. A proven and effective deterrent to fraud and abuse is the establishment of an antifraud culture within the organization. We would suggest the following: • Defining the role of the Commissioners as they relate to fraud and abuse • Establish a written corporate code of conduct and implement a policy on misconduct • Management and supervisory staff should be aware of fraud risks and indicators • Internal controls should be given high priority • Fraud - related policies should be enforced • Reports of potential fraud and abuse should be investigated promptly -45- - GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT _A4 January 23, 2012 Page 4 General Comment 4: A fraud risk policy and assessment procedures are needed by the District A fraud risk policy would assist employees in knowing what to do if they should become aware of or suspect fraud being committed against the District. The policy would also make it clear that employees are obligated and required to report fraud as dictated in the policy. It has been learned that often fraud is not reported because no one asked them (the employees) about it. This policy should be pro- active and require the employee not to wait until someone asks. Assessment procedures should be developed by the District so that it can learn where it is vulnerable to fraud. Upon learning of its vulnerabilities, the District could implement procedures and controls to help mitigate or eliminate such risks. An example is the fact that background checks are performed on employees to reduce the risk of hiring undesirable employees. General Comment 5: Perform and document risk assessment of operations and develop mitigating controls to reduce identified risks. We recommend that the staff of District review their procedures for collecting funds, distributing monies, and accounting for transactions in the accounting software to determine areas that are susceptible to fraud, abuse or risk due to error. These procedures should be documented and mitigating procedures should be implemented for all risk areas. For example, establish an oversight committee to perform and document internal control inspections throughout the year. General Comment 6: Establish and adopt a formal written accounting policies and procedures manual The District's accounting policies and procedures have been informally established and perpetuated due to the size of the Organization and the limited personnel. Although some efforts have been focused on documenting certain aspects of the financial matters, we suggest that a formal, accounting policies and procedures manual be adopted. The principal advantages of such a manual are: The promotion of consistency and uniformity in the treatment of accounting transactions, Guidance and reference for all personnel performing accounting and oversight functions, and The promotion of greater opportunity for constructive improvements of accounting procedures by the periodic critical reviews of the existent procedures prescribed by a manual. Use as a tool for monitoring critical accounting transaction cycles and to assess overall risks associated with the District's operations. GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT 161-1 A 4 January 23, 2012 Page 5 General Comment 6: Establish and adopt a formal written accounting policies and procedures manual (Continued). The accounting policies and procedures manual should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: Policy regarding receipts and disbursements; method to properly identify such transactions; Policy regarding purchase of services and formal quotes and bids; ._ A list of accounting policies followed in the recording of transactions and preparation of the financial statements; The nature and source of all entries to accounts as well as required supervisory approvals; Organization charts supplemented by job descriptions and employee performance evaluation standards; Exhibits of all accounting records, forms and reports with instructions for their preparation and distributions; Narratives and flowcharts of accounting procedures; and Due dates for financial statements and other reports. General Comment 7: Establish a cross training program to handle critical general ledger functions and financial statements reporting. We noted that written documentation of the accounting procedures, for example, the general ledger accounting functions: i.e., reconciling the general ledger and monthly financial reports, generating monthly financial statements is not currently in place. In the event the bookkeeper is absent for an extended period of time the District's has no other adequately trained employee to handle such general ledger functions. Therefore, we recommend implementing an accounting procedures manual (as noted above) to provide documentation for —. accounting procedures, which would require explanation in order to be performed by an individual other than the regular bookkeeper. In addition, we recommend certain designated individuals be trained to handle certain critical general ledger functions to avoid an interruption in operations General Comment 8: Develop a comprehensive three year fleet maintenance plan During our audit, we noted that the District had no formal comprehensive fleet maintenance plan to address adequate funding of new firefighter vehicles and related equipment and to ensure proper operation of such assets are maintained and addressed. The idea of such a plan positions the District into being proactive; managing its fleet maintenance costs, and helps mitigate unexpected problems and emergencies. General Comment 9: A capitalization policy needs to be implemented and adhere to During our audit, we noted that the District has no formal policy for capitalization of property and equipment purchases. This leaves the District open to the possibility that fixed assets will not be appropriately recorded, depreciated, or reported for accounting purposes and in compliance with laws and regulations. Therefore, we recommend that the District implement a written policy that would designate expenditures over a certain dollar value and incompliance with required regulations to be capitalized and depreciated over the assets' useful lives. -47- GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT January 23, 2012 16 11 A4 Page 6 General Comment 10: Develop and adopt a methodology plan of funding reserves in the future As a means to maintain financial integrity of the District, adequate funding for contingencies and the annual cash flow needs to be established. It is critical for any on -going organization to have the ability to provide for emergencies and unanticipated financial needs. This especially true for the District given the volatile swings in estimation of ad valorem taxes and impact fees and the overall depressed real estate market in Collier County. Therefore, we recommend the District adopts a reserve funding methodology that carries in perpetual in the future to mitigate the risks of these unexpected financial impacts. We believe that the implementation of these recommendations will provide GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT with a stronger system of internal control and make its operations more efficient. We will be happy to discuss the details of these recommendations with you and assist in any way possible with their implementations. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management, the Board of Directors, and the Finance Advisory Committee of GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Thank you for the opportunity of serving you. LL ' ARV 1/004 OA. Certified Public Accountants 161 i a5 HERITAGE GREENS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Monday Heritage Greens Community Center May 21, 2012 2215 Heritage Greens Drive 6:00 p.m. Naples, Florida 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Agenda y� 3. Audience Comments L� 4. Approval of the Minutes of the May 2, 2012 Meeting 5. Old Business BY.......... A. Sidewalk Cleaning B. Street Signage Request 6. New Business / 7. Supervisor Committee Reports Fiala I ✓ Hiller'�"' A. Landscaping and Beautification H e ri t i i B. Drainage and Preserves C'r ' `" C. Security Cameras 8. Manager's Report A. Follow -Up Items B. Distribution of the Proposed Budget and Consideration of Resolution 2012 -3 Approving the Budget and Setting the Public Hearing C. Consideration of Engagement Letter with Grau & Associates to Perform the Financial Audit for Fiscal Year 2012 D. Report on Number of Registered Voters — 623 E. Approval of Financial Statements 9. Attorney's Report 10. Engineer's Report A' l 1. Supervisors' Requests and/or Comments 12. Audience Comments Item #: 13. Adjournment ,,opies to: 161'1- A5 Naples Daily News Naples, FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News --------------------------------------------------- r------------------ - - - - -- HERITAGE GREENS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 210 N UNIVERSITY DR #702 CORAL SPRINGS FL 33071 REFERENCE: 027769 59662740 NOTICE OF MEETINGSHE State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared Kim Pokarney, who on oath says that sh serves as the Accounting Manager, of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Napl, in Collier County, Florida: distributed in Coll and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Dai News is a newspaper published at Naples, in sai, Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 09/08 AD SPACE: 56 LINE FILED ON: 09/08/11 Signature of Affiant Sworn to and Subscribed before me Personally known by me ----------------- +------------------ - - - - -- s3t� day of S r 201\ ri KAROL E KANGAS �4*pY P Notary Public - State of Florida f My Comm. Expires Jul 29, 2013 Commisslor. # DD 912237 161'1 A5`4 MINUTES OF MEETING HERITAGE GREENS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Heritage Greens Community Development District was held on Monday, May 21, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the Heritage Greens Community Center, 2215 Heritage Greens Drive, Naples, Florida. Present and constituting a quorum were: John L. Jordan Chairman James A. Marshall Vice Chairman Marsha Coghlan Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Lowe Assistant Secretary Henry Michaelson Assistant Secretary Also present were: Calvin Teague District Manager Several Residents The following is a summary of the minutes and actions taken at the May 21, 2012 Heritage Greens CDD Board of Supervisors meeting. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call Mr. Jordan called the meeting to order and Mr. Teague called the toll. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Agenda The Board added Discussion of Sheriff Patrol under New Business. On MOTION by Ms. Coghlan seconded by Mr. Marshall with all in favor the agenda was approved as amended. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments There not being any, the next item followed. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the May 2, 2012 Meeting Mr. Jordan stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the May 2, 2012 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions. The Board changed `Mr. Marshall' to `Mr. Jordan' on line 32 of the third page. May 21, 2012 161'1 95' Heritage Greens C.D.D. On MOTION by Mr. Jordan seconded by Ms. Coghlan with all in favor the minutes of the May 2, 2012 meeting were approved as amended. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Old Business A. Sidewalk Cleaning The Board reviewed and discussed the sidewalk cleaning bids. Three of the four companies contacted submitted bids. The lowest bid to do the areas identified by Mr. Marshall is $425 and the lowest bid to do the entire community is $1,600. Mr. Michaelson MOVED to award sidewalk cleaning to the lowest bid. There being no second, the motion failed to pass. B. Street Signage Request The Board reviewed proposals for Slow School Entrance Ahead and Slow Children Playing signs as requested by Ms. Herrmann. • Ms. Herrmann suggested posting four signs; two Slow School Entrance Ahead and two Slow Children Playing. + Four signs will cost $325.08. There will be an additional cost for posts and installation.. Ten feet posts are $42.62 each and eight feet posts are $38.99 each. • Ms. Lowe requested a bid be obtained from Lykin Sign. On MOTION by Mr. Michaelson seconded by Ms. Lowe the purchase and installation of two Slow School Entrance Ahead and two Slow Children Playing signs with posts was approved. • The size of the posts will need to be determined based on six foot clearance from the bottom of the sign. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS New Business A. Discussion of Sheriff Patrol Mr. Michaelson mentioned the last time the Sheriff patrolled several people were aware of the Sheriff's presence. He suggested Mr. Teague be the only person to contact and arrange Sheriff Patrol. 2 May 21, 2012 1611 A� Heritage Greens C.D.D. On MOTION by Mr. Michaelson seconded by Ms. Lowe with all in favor when Sheriff Patrol is needed the District Manager will contact the Board and ask if there are any objections to having the patrol, if there is no objection the District Manager will arrange Sheriff Patrol without sharing information with anyone as to the anticipated presence of the patrol and a summary of activity will be requested from the Sheriff. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Committee Report A. Landscaping and Beautification There being no report, the next item followed. B. Drainage and Preserves There being no report, the next item followed. C. Security Cameras There being no report, the next item followed. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager's Report A. Follow -Up Items Mr. Teague reported the following: • The sinkhole issue was addressed. The problem was due to a broken irrigation line. • FPL was contacted. It will be two to six weeks before they can trim the trees around the lights. Arbor -Tech Environmental Group, LLC completed the project along the wall. • The small fountain near the entrance was repaired. The cameras were reviewed and vandals could not be identified due to lack of lighting. Mr. Teague will look into additional lighting at the guardhouse. • Mr. Michaelson stated a fire pit was built on District property near the canal by Indigo Lakes. Mr. Teague will find out who built the fire pit, notify them it is on District property and request it be removed. B. Distribution of the Proposed Budget and Consideration of Resolution 2012 -3 Approving the Budget and Setting the Public Hearing The Board reviewed the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2013: • Mr. Teague distributed a memorandum summarizing priorities submitted by the Board for inclusion in the budget. • Contracts — Sheriff was increased to $3,000. 3 161'1 -A,5' May 21, 2012 Heritage Greens C.D.D. j Contracts — Security Services was decreased to $48,000. • Anew line item was created for Road Reserves in the amount of $10,000. • Any excess revenue from the Fiscal Year 2012 budget will be allocated to Road Reserves. On MOTION by Mr. Michaelson seconded by Ms. Coghlan with all in favor Sheriff Patrol twice a month was approved effective immediately. On MOTION by Mr. Jordan seconded by Mr. Marshall with all in favor Resolution 2012 -3, approving the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2013 and setting the public hearing for August 20, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the Heritage Greens Community Center, was adopted. C. Consideration of Engagement Letter with Grau & Associates to Perform the Financial Audit for Fiscal Year 2012 There being no questions or comments, On MOTION by Mr. Michaelson seconded by Mr. Jordan with all in favor the Chairman was authorized to sign the engagement letter with Grau & Associates for the Fiscal Year 2012 financial audit. D. Report on Number of Registered Voters — 623 This item is for informational purposes only. E. Approval of Financial Statements The Board reviewed the financial statements. On MOTION by Mr. Jordan seconded by Ms. Coghlan with all in favor the financial statements were approved. NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney's Report There not being any, the next item followed. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer's Report There not being any, the next item followed. ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors' Requests and/or Comments Mr. Marshall expressed concern over the possibility of the gate arm hitting vehicles tailgating at the community entrance. He suggested posting a warning sign notifying them the 4 May 21, 2012 161 A5 Heritage Greens C.D.D. District will not be responsible for damages. Mr. Teague explained a sign will not reduce the District from liability. TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments The following comments were made. • Mr. Dautrich expressed discontent because the District will not clean the sidewalks. • Mr. Schmidt thanked the Board for being proactive with regard to community safety. • Ms. Herrmann made the following comments: ➢ The tree trimmers did not trim the area blocking the crosswalk sign near the exit. Ms. Coghlan will follow up with the tree rriinm;ng company. ➢ She suggested looking into native plantings for the entrance. ➢ Meetings at 6:00 p.m. are difficult for people who work and/or have kids to attend. She suggested holding meetings at 6:30 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. • Ms. Ruling questioned the need for a guard. • Ms. Skogland mentioned the hole on the wall near the 15th hole of the golf course allows a great deal of noise to pass through. THIRTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment There.being no fin-ther business, On MOTION by Ms. Coghlan seconded by Mr. Jordan with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Calvin Teague Secretary 5 ' IN John L. Jordan Chairman 16 I '1-%-5 1 N O N b e�8g °c c m � N N M t �pp a` a c c m o m � U' C7 m o m `m `u S x m a N N Y_ Y_ o a � w U U U � u 0 9 (fl d O w n 0 a a a 0 0 C p o o m a w C m •C ro � tl m o CL 2� I�pH (ltpf N N a a 1n N a b�yp N a c c c c O m W m a0 b b b b C c c $ $ a C � C m ei ma a a a U J J Q 7 C v CL CL U a c � D � 16 I '1-%-5 1 N O N b 161'1'5' FASTSIGNS. Page i of 1 More than fast. More than sigts- Estimate 348 61631 FASTSIGNS 12211 S. Cleveland Ave. Estimate Date: 5/21/2012 10:54:23AM Ft. Myers, FL 33907 ph: 239 - 274 -0744 Printed: 5/21/2012 10:54:37AM fax: 239 - 274 -3151 Email: 348@fastsigns.com Customer. Sevem Trent Environmental ph: (239) 245 -7118 x 302 Contact: Chris Pepin Customer: 1062 Description: Alum °Stow C. .hildren/School" signs Sales Person: Mackenzie Young Clerk: Mackenzie Young email: cpepin @severntrentms.com Dear Chris: Thank you for considering FASTSIGNS of Fort Myers for your sign needs. If you have any questions, please call me at 239 - 274 -0744 or e-mail me at 348 @fastsigns.com. Sincerely, Mackenzie Young CSR I I Product Qty Sides H x W Unit Cost Totals 1 Aluminum 10 1 24 x 18 $50.00 $500.00 Description: .080 Reflective Aluminum 2 Aluminum 2 1 24 x 18 $62.54 $125.08 Description: .080 Reflective Aluminum Text: .SLOW SG)iCQOL: NTRANCE.AHEAD 3. UChannel -10' Galvanized 12 1 1 x 1 $42.62 $511.49 Color: i 4 Whannel.8'; Galvanized- 12 1 1 x 1 $38.99 $467.86 Color: t ZS� zS pi Notes: Bill To: Sevem Trent Environmental Payment due upon order placement. Chris Pepin 5911 Country Lakes Blvd Ft. Myers, FL 33905 Received /Accepted By: SYST WASTSIGNS CRYSTAL Eatkr 0l More Than Fast. More Than Signs.rm 161 f-A -i Management Services MEMORANDUM Date: May 20, 2012 To: Heritage Greens Board of Supervisors Cc: From: Calvin Teague, District Manager Subject: Supervisors priority positions for establishment of FY 2013 budget. At the last meeting it was requested that all Supervisors submit written goals or priorities for the FY 2013 Budget. We received three responses and from those responses we have the following suggestions or priorities to be considered: 1. Traffic Control: This appears to be the greatest concern among the respondents. Speeding, running stop signs and the need for safety at the school crossing at the front of the community were comments made. The need for safety at the school crossing was expressed and a suggestion made to have crossing guards or some form of traffic control. 2. Communication: At least two Supervisors suggested better communications with the residents was a priority and suggested a regular mailing or newsletter be prepared and sent. 3. Reserve Funding: The need for reserves was expressed by two Supervisors with roads reserves being the identified need. There are approximately 34,496 SY of pavement in Heritage Greens and road resurfacing costs would range would range from $276,000 ($8 per SY) which is a simple asphalt overlay to $380,000 ($11 per SY) to mill and resurface. 4. Maintenance Concerns: The concerns identified by the Supervisors include regular sidewalk maintenance, removal of foliage at the front blocking visibility and the Guardhouse. S. Landscaping: The appearance of the front entrance was identified as a need so this could be a maintenance or enhancement goal. Thank you and hopefully this helps identify goals during the meting tomorrow when a public hearing is set. If anyone has questions please contact me. Respectfully Calvin Teague Heritage Greens CDD District Manager Severn Trent Management Services - 5911 Country Lakes Drive - Fort Myers, Florida, 33905 - Tel 239.245.7118 ext. 301 Fax 239 - 245 -7120 • www.sevemtrentservices,com N HERITAGE GREENS Community Development District Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Version 2 - Proposed Budget: (Printed on 5/21/2012 2:30pm) Prepared by: 1611 A5� HERITAGE GREENS Community Development District General Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU MAY- PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2011 FY 2012 APR -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 REVENUES 49,762 64,000 27,173 19,665 46,838 Interest - Investments $ 912 $ 683 $ 292 $ 180 $ 472 $ 400 Special Assmnis- Tax Collector 183,148 217,904 215,010 2,894 217,904 217,904 Special Assmnts- Discounts (6565) (8,716) (7,973) - (7,973) (8,716) Gate Bar Code/Remotes 660 - 640 - 640 34,000 TOTAL REVENUES 178,155 209,871 207,969 3,074 211,043 209,588 EXPENDITURES 49,762 64,000 27,173 19,665 46,838 60,000 Admintstradve - 350 - - 350 ProfServ- Engineering 44 750 1,695 - 1,695 750 ProfServ-Legal Services 6,283 3,500 179 128 307 3,500 ProtServ-Mgmt Consulting Sery 34,000 34,850 20,329 14,521 34,850 35,895 ProfServ- Property Appraiser 1,871 3,269 2,747 522 3,269 3,269 ProfServ- Special Assessment 5,330 5,463 5,463 - 5,463 5,463 ProfServ-Web Site Development 119 120 119 1,000 119 650 Auditing Services 3,200 3,200 3,200 200 3,200 3,200 Communication - Telephone 6 50 3 65 68 50 Postage and Freight 638 500 326 80 406 500 Insurance - General Liability 5,248 5,750 6,023 - 6,023 7,000 Printing and Binding 1,928 1,500 528 972 1,500 1,500 Legal Advertising 2,311 1,200 161 1,039 1,200 1,200 Misc- Bank Charges 516 500 321 229 550 500 Misc- Assessmnt Collection Cost 2,077 4,358 4,141 217 4,358 4,358 Misc - Contingency 45 - - - Office Supplies 126 300 61 44 105 300 Annual District Filing Fee 175 175 175 175 175 Total Adminlatrative 63,917 65,485 45,471 17,816 63,267 68,310 Public Safety Contracts - Security Services 49,762 64,000 27,173 19,665 46,838 60,000 Contracts -HVAC - 350 - - 350 Contracts -Sheriff 510 1,000 - - 1,000 Communication - Telephone 1,727 2,000 669 501 1,170 1,500 Electricity - Entrance 1,966 2,200 1,105 791 1,896 2,200 Utility - Water & Sewer - 900 368 248 616 900 Lease - Carts 1500 1,500 750 750 1,500 1,500 R &M -Gate 5,635 4,386 1,053 1,000 2,053 4,352 R &M- Gatehouse 1,172 2,000 283 200 483 11500 Op Supplies - Gatehouse 171 250 64 25 69 250 Cap Outlay - Equipment 394 7,740 788 - 788 6,726 Total Public Safety 62,837 86,326 32,253 23,180 55,433 80,278 Annual Operating Budget f=iscal Year 2013 Page 1 161 1 p5� HERITAGE GREENS Community Development District General Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes In Fund Balances Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2011 FY 2012 ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL THRU MAY- PROJECTED BUDGET APR -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 Landscape Contracts- Landscape 11,665 15,060 10,855 6,275 17,130 18,000 Contracts- Preserve Management 2,480 2,000 860 880 1,760 2,000 Electricity - Irrigation 1,803 2,000 1,246 875 2,121 2,000 R &M- Renewal and Replacement 616 1,500 - - - 1,500 R &M- Canals 2,590 2,600 1,295 1,295 2,590 2,600 R &M- Fountain 1,032 900 897 375 1,272 900 R&M- Grounds 4,205 8,500 31 1,454 1,485 8,500 R &M- irrigation 227 2,500 157 - 157 2,500 R &M- Preserves - 500 - - 500 Misc- Special Projects 5,000 4,000 4,000 Cap Outlay -Lake Aerators 6,427 - - - Total Landscape 36,045 39,560 15,361 11,154 26,515 42,500 Road and Street Facl /Rles Electricity - Streetlighting 8,773 11,000 5,046 3,623 8,669 11,000 R &M- Drainage 2,087 2,500 - 6,465 6,465 2,500 R &M -Roads & Alleyways 270 2,000 - - 2,000 R &M- Sidewalks 1,750 1,500 - 1,500 1,750 Traffic Signage Rehabilitation 547 1,250 - 1,250 Total Road and Street FacUitles 11,677 18,500 6,546 10,088 16,634 18,500 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 174,476 209,871 99,63 62,238 161,869 209 588 Excess (deficiency) of revenues Over (under) expenditures 3,679 - 108,338 (59,164) 49,174 Net change in fund balance 3,679 - 108,338 (59,164) 49,174 - FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING 85,131 88,810 88,810 88,810 137,984 FUND BALANCE, ENDING $ 88,810 $ 88,810 $ 197,148 $ (59,164) $ 137,984 $ 137,984 FY2012 FY2013 Gross Assessments 217,904 217,904 Assessable Units 527 527 Gross Assessments per Unit $ 413.48 $ 413.48 Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Page 2 HERITAGE GREENS Community Development District Exhibit "A" Allocation of Fund Balances AVAILABLE FUNDS 1611 AS General Fund Amount Beginning Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 $ 137,984 Net Change in Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 - Reserves - Fiscal Year 2013 Additions - Total Funds Available (Estimated) - 9/30/2013 137,984 ALLOCATION OF AVAILABLE FUNDS Assigned Fund Balance Operating Reserve - First Quarter Operating Capital 30,000 Reserves - Irrigation System 7,500 Reserves - Drainage 6,000 Reserves - Wall Painting 6,000 Reserves - Wall Replacement 12,786 Reserves - Fountain 5,500 Reserves - Signs 1,000 Reserves - Roads & Sidewalks 16,201 Subtotal 84,987 Total Allocation of Available Funds 84,987 Total Unassigned (undesignated) Cash $ 52,997 Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Page 3 Heritage Greens Community Develooment District GENERAL FUND BUDGET I ti 1611 A5 14 Special Assessment - On Roll The District will levy a Non -Ad Valorem assessment on all the assessable property within the District in order to pay for the operating expenditures for the Fiscal Year. Special Assessment — Discount Per Section 197.162, Florida Statues, discounts are allowed for early payment of assessments. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is calculated at 4% of the anticipated Non -Ad Valorem assessments. Interest Income (Investments) The District will have all excess funds invested with the CDs or Money Market Accts. The amount is based upon the estimated average balance of funds available during the Fiscal Year. EXPENDITURES: Administrative: P/R — Board of Supervisors Chapter 190 of the Florida Statutes allows for a member of the Board of Supervisors to be compensated for a meeting attendance and to receive $200 per meeting plus payroll taxes. The amount for the Fiscal Year is based upon all Supervisors attending the meetings. Enaineerina Fees The District's engineer will be providing general engineering services to the District, i.e. attendance and preparation for monthly board meetings, review invoices, etc. Leval Services The District's legal counsel will be providing general legal services to the District, i.e. attendance and preparation for monthly meetings, review operating and maintenance contracts, etc. Fees are based on prior year legal expenses. Management Consultine Services The District receives Management, Accounting and Administrative services as part of a Management Agreement with Severn Trent Management Services, Inc. Page 4 16 f f A5' Heritage Greens Community Development District GENERAL FUND BUDGET Property Appraiser The Property Appraiser provides the District with a listing of the legal description of each property parcel within the District boundaries, and the names and addresses of the owners of such property. The District reimburses the Property Appraiser for necessary administrative costs incurred to provide this service. Per the Florida Statutes, administrative costs shall include, but not be limited to, those costs associated with personnel, forms, supplies, data processing, postage, and programming. The FY2013 budget for property appraiser costs was based on 1.5% of gross assessments. Special Assessment The District's Collection Agent will be providing financials services which include the collection of prepaid assessments, maintenance of District's assessment roll and levying the annual operating and maintenance assessments. Web Site Development The District incurs fees as they relate to the development and ongoing maintenance of its own website. Auditing Services The District is required annually to conduct an audit of its financial records by an Independent Certified Public Accounting Firm. Communication - Telephone Telephone and fax machine expenses for administrative functions. Postage & Delivery Mailing of agenda packages, overnight deliveries, correspondence, etc. Insurance — General Liability The District will incur expenditures for public officials' liability insurance for the Board & Staff. FY13 has a proposed increase of 15%. Printing & Binding Printing and Binding agenda packages for board meetings, printing of computerized checks, stationary, envelopes, etc. Legal Advertising The District is required to advertise various notices for monthly Board meetings, public hearings, etc in a newspaper of general circulation. A isc — Bank Charges Bank charges that incurred during the year. Page 5 16 1: gag Heritage Greens Community Development District GENERAL FUND BUDGET Misc- Assessment Collection Fee This represents 2.0% Collier County Tax Collector Fees for services rendered in assessing and collecting 2013 Assessment Roll. Office Supplies Miscellaneous office supplies related to the preparation of agenda packets. Annual District Filing Fee The District is required to pay an annual fee to the Department of Community Affairs for $175. Public Safety Contracts — Janitorial Services Currently being paid by the Heritage Greens Community Association in exchange for locking and unlocking of the community center. Contracts — Security Services The District has contracted with Kent Security to have a security officer on duty at the front gate for a set period of time to check guest coming into the community and tour the property to check for any problems that may need to be addressed. Contracts — HVAC To service the air conditioning unit at the guardhouse. Contracts — Sheriff This includes the agreement between the District and the Collier County Sheriffs department to patrol and enforce traffic laws over the roads the District is responsible for. Communication — Telephone This includes any telephone or fax usage for the guardhouse to allow the security officer to be able to communicate with management and residents. This also allows the gate system to be operable when there is no security officer present. Electricity — Entrance Electricity usage for the guardhouse. Costs are based on historical expenses occurred incurred with Florida power & Light (FPL). Utilities — Water & Sewer Any cost associated with the water and sewer used at the guardhouse. Page 6 1611 A51 I Heritage Greens Community Development District GENERAL FUND BUDGET Lease — Carts The District leases a golf cart, for $800 every six months, for the guard to use to do community patrol and to lock and unlock the community center. R &M — Gates This represents any repairs or maintenance that may need to be done to the gates. R &M — Gatehouse Cost associated with any normal repairs and maintenance of the guardhouse along with the cost incurred with Collier County Utilities to run the tele -entry system. Op Supplies- Gatehouse Costs associated with any supplies purchased for use within the guardhouse. Capital Outlav — Equipment Any capital items needed to improve security within the District. Landscape Contracts — Landscape The District is responsible for cutting all CDD property which are common areas which includes the entry way and guardhouse. Contracts — Preserve Maintenance The District has contracted with Uplands, LLC for the maintenance of the preserves. Currently treatments are on a semi annual basis. Electricity — Irriaation Any electricity cost incurred to run the irrigation system as well as the fountain that is owned by the District. R &M — Renewal and Replacement This line item includes costs associated with renewing or replacing plant material on CDD property. Additionally, various repair and maintenance costs incurred as needed. R &M — Canals The District is responsible for maintaining the canal banks of high weeds and must cut them several times per year or be subject to property maintenance code violations. Page 7 16 1, r p5', Heritage Greens Community Development District GENERAL FUND BUDGET R &M — Fountains This is to include any repairs or maintenance that need to be addressed to make sure that the fountains the District is responsible are in proper working order. R &M — Grounds Funding if needed for the District to apply mulch and pesticides to all CDD property identified as common areas. R &M — Irrigation Cost associated with the irrigation system through out the District. R &M — Preserves The District is responsible for having the preserves treated for invasive plants on an annual basis Misc — Special Projects This is a contingency in case the District is to incur costs relating to any special projects that are felt to be needed and identified by the Board of Supervisors. Cauital Outlay — Lake Aerators These monies were used in coordination with the fountain project that is owned by the District. Road and Street Facilities Electricity — StreetliAting Street Lighting usage for District facilities and assets. Costs are based on historical expenses occurred incurred with Florida power & Light (FPL). R &M — Drainage The District is responsible for making any repairs to the storm drainage infrastructure. R &M — Roads & Alleyways This represents miscellaneous repairs of the roads and alleyways of the District. R &M — Sidewalks Includes all costs associated with sidewalks within the District. R &M — Signage Any costs that are associated with any roadway signage the District may incur. Page 8 161 1 p5, RESOLUTION 2012 -3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE HERITAGE GREENS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPROVING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON PURSUANT TO FLORIDA LAW WHEREAS, the District Manager has heretofore prepared and submitted to the Board a proposed operating and/or debt service budget for Fiscal Year 2013: a copy of which is attached hereto, and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered said proposed budget and desires to set the required public hearing thereon; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE HERITAGE GREENS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; 1. The budget proposed by the District Manager for Fiscal Year 2013 is hereby approved as the basis for conducting a public hearing to adopt said budget. 2. A public hearing on said approved budget is hereby declared and set for the following date, hour and place: Date: August 20, 2012 Hour: 6:00 p.m. Place: Heritage Greens Community Center 2215 Heritage Greens Drive Naples, Florida Notice of this public hearing shall be published in the manner prescribed in Florida Law. Adopted this 21st day of May, 2012 Calvin Teague Secretary 1611 7N5 HERITAGE GREENS Community Development District Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Version 3 - Approved Tentative Budget: (Approved at May 21, 2012 Meeting) Prepared by: 161' 1 A51 HERITAGE GREENS Community Development District General Fund Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes In Fund Balances Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed. Budget ADOPTED ACTUAL. PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU MAY- PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2011 FY 2012 APR -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 REVENUES Interest - Investments $ 912 $ 683 $ 292 $ 180 $ 472 $ 400 Special Assmnts- Tax Collector 183,148 217,904 215,010 2,894 217,904 217,904 Special Assmnts- Discounts (6,565) (8,716) (7,973) - (7,973) (8,716) Gate BarCode/Remoies 660 - 640 - 840 - TOTAL REVENUES 178,165 209,871 207,969 3,074 211,043 209,638] EXPENDITURES Adm nis&Wd" 49,762 64,000 27,173 19,665 46,838 48,000 ProfServ- Engineering 44 750 1,695 - 1,695 750 ProfSeiv -Legal Services 6,283 3,500 179 128 307 3,500 ProfSery -Mgmt Consulting Sery 34,000 34,850 20,329 14,521 34,850 35,895 ProfServ- Property Appraiser 1,871 3,269 2,747 522 3,269 3,269 ProfServ- Special Assessment 5,330 5,463 5,463 - 5,463 5,463 ProtServ-Web Site Development 119 120 119 - 119 650 Auditing Services 3,200 3,200 3,200 - 3,200 3,200 Communication - Telephone 6 50 3 65 68 50 Postage and Freight 638 500 326 80 406 500 Insurance - General Uadlity 5,248 5,750 6,023 - 6,023 7,000 Printing and Binding 1,928 1,500 528 972 1,500 1,500 Legal Advertising 2,311 1,200 161 1,039 1,200 1,200 MiscSank Charges 516 500 321 229 550 500 Misr - Assessmnt Collection Cost 2,077 4,358 4,141 217 4,358 4,358 Misc- Contingency 45 - - - - - Office Supplies 126 300 61 44 105 300 Annual District Filing Fee 175 175 175 - 175 175 Total Administrative 63,917 65,485 45,471 17,816 63,287 68,310 Public Safety Contracts - Security Services 49,762 64,000 27,173 19,665 46,838 48,000 Contracts -HVAC - 350 - - - 350 Contracts-Sheriff 510 1,000 - - - 3,000 Communication - Telephone 1,727 2,000 669 501 1,170 1,500 Electricity - Entrance 1,966 2,200 1,105 791 1,896 2,200 Utility - Water & Sewer - 900 368 248 616 900 Lease - Carts 1,500 1,500 750 750 1,500 1,500 R&M -Gate 5,635 4,386 1,053 1,000 2,053 4,352 R&M- Gatehouse 1,172 2,000 283 200 483 1,500 Op Supplies - Gatehouse 171 250 64 25 89 250 Cap Outlay: Equipment 394 7,740 788 - 788 6,726 Total Public Safety 62,837 86,326 32,263 23,180 55,433 70,278 Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Page 1 HERITAGE GREENS Community Development District Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget 161'1 A,5 General Fund ADOPTED ACTUAL PROJECTED TOTAL ANNUAL ACTUAL BUDGET THRU MAY- PROJECTED BUDGET ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FY 2011 FY 2012 APR -2012 SEP -2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 Landscape Corracts- Landscape 11,665 15,060 10,855 6,275 17,130 18,000 Contracts- Preserve Management 2,480 2,000 880 880 1,760 2,000 Electridly - Irrigation 1,803 2,000 1,246 875 2,121 2,000 R&M- Renewal and Replacement 616 11500 - - - 1,500 R&M- Canals 2,590 2,600 1,295 1,295 2,590 2,600 R&M- Fountain 1,032 900 897 375 1,272 900 R&M- Grounds 4,205 8,500 31 1,454 1,485 8,500 R&M- Irrigation 227 2,500 157 - 157 2,500 R&M- Preserves - 500 - - - 500 Misc- Special Projects 5,000 4,000 - - - 4,000 Cap Outlay -Lake Aerators 6,427 - - - - - Total Landscape 36,045 39,560 16,361 11,154 26,515 42,500 Road and Street Fads les Electricity - Streetlighting 8,773 11,000 5,046 3,623 8,669 11,000 R&M- Drainage 2,087 2,500 - 6,465 6,465 2,500 R&M -Roads & Alleyways 270 2;000 - - 2,000 R &M- Sidewalks - 1,750 1,500 - 1,500 1,750 Traffic Signage Rehabilitation 547 1,250 - - - 1,250 Reserve - Roads - - - - - 10,000 Total Road and StreetFacilltles 11,677 18,500 6,546 10,088 16,634 28,500 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 174,476 209,871 99,631 82,238 161,869 209 588 Excess (defidency) of revenues Over (under) expenditures 3,679 108,338 (59,164) 49,174 - Net change in fund balance 3,679 - 108,338 (59,164) 49,174 - FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING 85,131 88,810 68,810 - 88,610 137,984 FUND BALANCE, ENDING $ 88,810 $ 88,810 $ 197;148 $ (69,164) 137,984 $ 137,984 FY2012 FY2013 Gross Assessments 217,904 217,904 Assessable Units 527 527 Gross Assessments per Unit $ 413.48 $ 413.48 Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Page 2 e 161 f i`A5' HERITAGE GREENS Community Development District General Fund Exhibit "A" Allocation of Fund Balances AVAILABLE FUNDS Amount Beginning Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 $ 137,984 Net Change in Fund Balance - Fiscal Year 2013 - Reserves - Fiscal Year 2013 Additions 10,000 Total Funds Available (Estimated) - 9/30/2013 147,984 ALLOCATION OF AVAILABLE FUNDS Assigned Fund Balance Operating Reserve - First Quarter Operating Capital 30,000 Reserves - Irrigation System 7,500 Reserves - Drainage 6,000 Reserves - Wall Painting 6,000 Reserves - Wall Replacement 12,786 Reserves - Fountain 5,500 Reserves - Signs 1,000 Reserves - Roads & Sidewalks 26,201 Subtotal 94,987 Total Allocation of Available Funds 94,987 Total Unassigned (undesignated) Cash $ 521997 Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Page 3 Heritage Greens Community Development District GENERAL FUND BUDGET REVENUES: 16 Ff A5' Special Assessment - On Roll The District will levy a Non -Ad Valorem assessment on all the assessable property within the District in order to pay for the operating expenditures for the Fiscal Year. Special Assessment — Discount Per Section 197.162, Florida Statues, discounts are allowed for early payment of assessments. The budgeted amount for the fiscal year is calculated at 4% of the anticipated Non -Ad Valorem assessments. Interest Income (Investments) The District will have all excess funds invested with the CDs or Money Market Accts. The amount is based upon the estimated average balance of fiends available during the Fiscal Year. EXPENDITURES: Administrative: P/R -- Board of Supervisors Chapter 190 of the Florida Statutes allows for a member of the Board of Supervisors to be compensated for a meeting attendance and to receive $200 per meeting plus payroll taxes. The amount for the Fiscal Year is based upon all Supervisors attending the meetings. Eneineerine Fees The District's engineer will be providing general engineering services to the District, i.e. attendance and preparation for monthly board meetings, review invoices, etc. Lesal Services The District's legal counsel will be providing general legal services to the District, i.e. attendance and preparation for monthly meetings, review operating and maintenance contracts, etc. Fees are based on prior year legal expenses. Manamment Consultine Services The District receives Management, Accounting and Administrative services as part of a Management Agreement with Severn Trent Management Services, Inc. Page 4 ib A5 Heritage Heritage Greens Community Deyeloument District GENERAL FUND BUDGET Property Appraiser The Property Appraiser provides the District with a listing of the legal description of each property parcel within the District boundaries, and the names and addresses of the owners of such property. The District reimburses the Property Appraiser for necessary administrative costs incurred to provide this service. Per the Florida Statutes, administrative costs shall include, but not be limited to, those costs associated with personnel, forms, supplies, data processing, postage, and programming. The FY2013 budget for property appraiser costs was based on 1.5% of gross assessments. Special Assessment The District's Collection Agent will be providing financials services which include the collection of prepaid assessments, maintenance of District's assessment roll and Ievying the annual operating and maintenance assessments. Web Site Development The District incurs fees as they relate to the development and ongoing maintenance of its own website. Auditing Services The District is required annually to conduct an audit of its financial records by an Independent Certified Public Accounting Firm. Communication - Telephone Telephone and fax machine expenses for administrative functions. Postage & Delivery Mailing of agenda packages, overnight deliveries, correspondence, etc. .Insurance — General Liability The District will incur expenditures for public officials' liability insurance for the Board & Staff. FY13 has a proposed increase of 15 %. Printing & Binding Printing and Binding agenda packages for board meetings, printing of computerized checks, stationary, envelopes, etc. Legal Advertising The District is required to advertise various notices for monthly Board meetings, public.hearings, etc in a newspaper of general circulation. Misc — Bank Charles Bank charges that incurred during the year. Page 5 1611 45 Heritage Greens Community Development District GENERAL FUND BUDGET Misc- Assessment Collection Fee This represents 2.0% Collier County Tax Collector Fees for services rendered in assessing and collecting 2013 Assessment Roll. Office Supplies Miscellaneous office supplies related to the preparation of agenda packets. Annual District Filina Fee The District is required to pay an annual fee to the Department of Community Affairs for $175. Public Safety Contracts — Janitorial Services Currently being paid by the Heritage Greens Community Association in exchange for locking and unlocking of the community center. Contracts — Security Services The District has contracted with Kent Security to have a security officer on duty at the front gate for a set period of time to check guest coming into the community and tour the property to check for any problems that may need to be addressed. Contracts — HVAC To service the air conditioning unit at the guardhouse. Contracts — Sheriff This includes the agreement between the District and the Collier County Sheriffs department to patrol and enforce traffic laws over the roads the District is responsible for. Communication — Telephone This includes any telephone or fax usage for the guardhouse to allow the security officer to be able to communicate with management and residents. This also allows the gate system to be operable when there is no security officer present. Electricity — Entrance Electricity usage for the guardhouse. Costs are based on historical expenses occurred incurred with Florida power & Light (FPL). Utilities — Water & Sewer Any cost associated with the water and sewer used at the guardhouse. Page 6 161 1 45'' Heritage Greens Community Development District GENERAL FUND BUDGET Lease — Carts The District leases a golf cart, for $800 every six months, for the guard to use to do community patrol and to lock and unlock the community center. R &M — Gates This represents any repairs or maintenance that may need to be done to the gates. R &M — Gatehouse Cost associated with any normal repairs and maintenance of the guardhouse along with the cost incurred with Collier County Utilities to run the tele -entry system. Ou Suuulies- Gatehouse Casts associated with any supplies purchased for use within the guardhouse. Capital Outlay — Epulnment Any capital items needed to improve security within the District. Landscape Contracts — Landscape The District is responsible for cutting all CDD property which are common areas which includes the entry way and guardhouse. Contracts — Preserve. Maintenance The District has contracted with Uplands, LLC for the maintenance of the preserves. Currently treatments are on a semi annual basis. Electricity — Irrigation Any electricity cost incurred to run the irrigation system as well as the fountain that is owned by the District. R &M — Renewal and Replacement This line item includes costs associated with renewing or replacing plant material on CDD property. Additionally, various repair and maintenance costs incurred as needed. R &M — Canals The District is responsible for maintaining the canal banks of high weeds and must cut them several times per year or be subject to property maintenance code violations. Page 7 161 1"""A5" Heritage Greens Community Development District GENERAL FUND BUDGET R &M — Fountains This is to include any repairs or maintenance that need to be addressed to make sure that the fountains the District is responsible are in proper working order. R &M — Grounds Funding if needed. for the District to apply mulch and pesticides to all CDD property identified as common areas. R &M — Irrigation Cost associated with the irrigation system through out the District. R &M — Preserves The District is responsible for having the preserves treated for invasive plants on an annual basis Misc — Special Proiects This is a contingency in case the District is to incur costs relating to any special projects that are felt to be needed and identified by the Board of Supervisors. Capital Outlay — Lake Aerators These monies were used in coordination with the fountain project that is owned by the District. Road and Street Facilities Electricity — Streetlighting Street Lighting usage for District facilities and assets. Costs are based on historical expenses occurred incurred with Florida power & Light (FPL). R &M — Drainaee The District is responsible for making any repairs to the storm drainage infrastructure. R &M — Roads & Alleyways This represents miscellaneous repairs of the roads and alleyways of the District. R &M — Sidewalks Includes all costs associated with sidewalks within the District. R &M — Signage Any costs that are associated with any roadway signage the District may incur. Page 8 Heritage Greens Community Development District GENERAL FUND BUDGET 1-61 1 ')A5 Page 9 Grau & Associates CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS March 27, 2012 Board of Supervisors Heritage Greens Community Development District 210 N University Drive, Suite 702 Coral Springs, FL 33071 161'1 A5 2700 North Military Trail • Suite 350 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 (561) 994 -9299 - (800) 299 -4728 Fax (561) 994 -5823 www.graucna.com We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide Heritage Greens Community Development District, Collier County, Florida ( "the District") for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012. We will audit the financial statements of governmental activities, and the major fund, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of Heritage Greens Community Development District as of and for fiscal year ended September 30, 2012. This letter serves to renew our agreement and establish the terms and fee for the 2012 audit Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States of America provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI), such as managements discussion and analysis (MD&A), to supplement the Districts basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. As part of our engagement, we will apply certain limited procedures to the District's RSI in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. These limited procedures will consist of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We will not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. The following RSI is required by generally accepted accounting principles and will be subjected to certain limited procedures, but will not be audited: 1. Managements discussion and analysis 2. Budgetary comparison schedule for the general fund Audit Objectives The objective of our audit is the expression of opinions as to whether your basic financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and to report on the fairness of additional information, if applicable, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Our audit will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and will include tests of the accounting records of the District and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such opinions. If our opinion on the financial statements is other than unqualified, we will fully discuss the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have not formed an opinion, we may decline to express an opinion or to issue a report as a result of this engagement. We will also provide a report (that does not include an opinion) on internal control related to the financial statements and compliance with laws, regulations and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a material effect on the financial statements as required by Government Auditing Standards. The report on internal control and compliance will include a statement that the report is intended solely for the information and use of management, those charged with governance, others within the entity, and specific legislative or regulatory bodies and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. if during our audit we become aware that the District is subject to an audit requirement that is not encompassed in the terms of this !61 1 A5 Heritage Greens Community Development District Page 2 engagement, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance that an audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards may not satisfy the relevant legal, regulatory, or contractual requirements. Management Responsibilities Management is responsible for the basic financial statements and all accompanying information as well as all..representabons contained therein. As part of the audit, we will prepare a draft of your financial statements and related notes. You are responsible for making all management decisions and performing all management functions relating to the financial statements and related notes and for accepting full responsibility for such decisions. You will be required to review and approve those financial statements prior to their issuance and have a responsibility to be in a position in fact and appearance to make an Informed judgment on those financial statements. And, you will be required to acknowledge in the management representation letter our assistance with the preparation of the financial statements and that you have reviewed and approved the financial statements and related notes prior to their issuance and have accepted responsibility for them. Further, you are required to designate a qualified management - level individual with suitable skill, knowledge, or experience to be responsible and accountable for overseeing our services. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal controls, including evaluating and monitoring ongoing activities, to help ensure that appropriate goals and objectives are met; for the selection and application of accounting principles; and for the fair presentation in the financial statements of the respective financial position of the governmental activities and each major fund of the District and the respective changes in financial position in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Management is responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us and for ensuring that management and financial information is reliable and properly recorded. Your responsibilities include adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and for confirming to us in the representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. As part of our engagement, we may propose standard, adjusting, or correcting journal entries to your financial statements. You are responsible for reviewing the entries and understanding the nature of any proposed entries and the impact they have on the financial statements. You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud, and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud affecting the government involving (1) management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud or illegal acts could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the government received in communications from employees, former employees, grantors, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the entity complies with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, agreements, and grants for taking timely and appropriate steps to remedy any fraud, illegal acts, violations of contracts or grant agreements, or abuse that we may report. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for tracking the status of audit findings and recommendations. Management is also responsible for identifying for us previous financial audits, attestation engagements, performance audits or other studies related to the objectives discussed in the Audit Objectives section of this letter. This responsibility includes relaying to us corrective actions taken to address significant findings and recommendations resulting from those audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or other studies. You are also responsible for providing management's views on our current findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as your planned corrective actions, for the report, and the timing and format related thereto. With regard to the electronic dissemination of audited financial statements, including financial statements published electronically on your website, you understand that electronic sites are a means to distribute information and, therefore, we are not required to read the information contained in these sites or to consider the consistency of other information in the electronic site with the original document 161` ]. A5 Heritage Greens Community Development District Page 3 Audit Procedures — General An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the entity. Because the determination of abuse is subjective, Government Auditing Standards do not expect auditors to provide reasonable assurance of detecting abuse. Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute assurance and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements may exist and not be detected by us. In, addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors. Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, funding sources, creditors, and financial institutions. We will request written representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit, we will also require certain written representations from you about the financial statements and related matters. Audit Procedures — internal Controls Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the District and its environment, including internal control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. Tests of controls may be performed to test the effectiveness of certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting errors and fraud that are material to the financial statements and to preventing and detecting misstatements resulting from illegal acts and other noncompliance matters that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. Our tests, if performed, will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on internal control and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards. An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify significant deficiencies. However, during the audit, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance internal control related matters that are required to be communicated under AICPA professional standards and Government Auditing Standards. Audit Procedures — Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we will perform tests of the District's compliance with the provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, agreements, and grants, if applicable. However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion in our report on compliance issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards. Audit Administration, Fees, and Other We understand that your employees will prepare all confirmations we request and will locate any documents selected by us for testing. The audit documentation for this engagement is the property of Grau & Associates and constitutes confidential information. However, pursuant to authority given by law or regulation, we may be requested to make certain audit documentation available to a cognizant or oversight agency for audit or its designee, a federal agency providing direct or indirect funding, or the U.S. Government Accountability 161 f A5 Heritage Greens Community Development District Page 4 Office for purposes of a quality review of the audit, to resolve audit findings, or to carry out oversight responsibilities. We will notify you of any such request. If requested, access to such audit documentation will be provided under the supervision of Grau & Associates personnel. Furthermore, upon request, we may provide copies of selected audit documentation to the aforementioned parties. These parties may intend, or decide, to distribute the copies or information contained therein to others, including other governmental agencies. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge that various documents reviewed or produced during the conduct of the audit may be public records under Florida law. The District agrees to notify Grau & Associates of any public record request it receives that involves audit documentation. Our fee for these services will not exceed $3,200 for the September 30, 2012 audit. The fee for each annual renewal will be agreed upon separately. The audit documentation for this engagement will be retained for a minimum of five years after the report release date. If we are aware that a federal awarding agency or auditee is contesting an audit finding, we will contact the party(ies) contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to destroying the audit documentation. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses. and are payable on presentation. Invoices will be submitted in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the terms of this agreement. In accordance with our firm policies, work may be suspended if your account becomes 60 days or more overdue and may not be resumed until your account is paid in full. If we elect to terminate our services for nonpayment, our engagement will be deemed to have been completed upon written notification of termination, even if we have not completed our report. You will be obligated to compensate us for all time expended and to reimburse us for all out -of - pocket costs through the date of termination. The District has the option to terminate this agreement with or without cause by providing thirty (30) days written notice of termination to Grau & Associates. You will be obligated to compensate us for all time expended and to reimburse us for all out -of - pocket costs through the date of termination. The above fee is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the audit If significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee estimate. This agreement is automatically renewed each year thereafter subject to the mutual agreement by both parties to all terms and fees. Government Auditing Standards require that we provide you with a copy of our most recent external peer review report and any letter of comment, and any subsequent peer review reports and letters of comment received during the period of the contract. Our 2010 peer review report accompanies this letter. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Heritage Greens Community Development District and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us. Very truly yours, Grau & Associates v • RESPONSE: This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of Heritage Greens Community Development District. By: Title: Date: — �' 161 1 A5 ' April 15, 2012 JENNIFER J. EDWARDS SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS Mr. Robert Koncar Heritage Greens CDD Severn -Trent Services 210 N. Univeristy Drive Suite 702 Coral Springs, FL 33071 Dear Mr Koncar, In compliance with Florida Statute 190.06, this notice is to inform you that the official records of the Collier Count Supervisor of Elections show the number of registered electors residing in Heritage Greens CDD upon April 15.2012 was 623 Should you have questions regarding election services for the district please feel free to contact me. 161'1 A5 Sincerely, David B Carpenter Qualifying Officer Collier County Supervisor of Elections (239) 252 -8501 DaveCarpenter @colliergov.net F q� 9ffCftUAL Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Building • Collier Government Complex • 3295 Tamiami Trl E Naples FL 34112 -5758 Telephone: 239/252 -8450 • Fax: 23gf774 -9468 ,4 161'1' A5 Heritage Greens Community Development District Financial Report Aprii 30, 2012 Prepared by 161'1' A5 id Heritage Greens Community Development District Table of Contents FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BalanceSheet ........................... ............................... Page 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances GeneralFund ........................... ............................... Page 2 - 3 SUPPORTING SCHEDULES Non -Ad Valorem Special Assessments Cash & Investment Report SunTrust Bank Reconciliation Check Register Page 4 Page 5 .......................... Page 6 -7 ................... ....... ............................... Page 8 -9 161'1' A5 Heritage Greens Community Development District Financial Statements (Unaudited) April 30, 2042 161 - -A-5# Heritage Greens Governmental Fund Community Development District Balance Sheet Aprll3O 2Ol2 GENERAL ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION FUND ASSETS Cash In Bank $ 152,880 Investments: 51 Money Market Account 50,461 SBA Account 210 SBA Account - Restricted 415 TOTAL ASSETS $ 203 966 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $ 6,220 Accrued Expenses 51 Contracts Payable 547 TOTAL LIABILITIES 6,818 FUND BALANCES Assigned to: Operating Reserve 30,000 Irrigation System Reserves 7,500 Drainage Reserves 6,000 Wall Painting Reserves 6,000 Wall Replacement Reserves 12,786 Fountain Reserves 5,500 Signs Reserves 1,000 Roads & Sidewalks Reserves 16,201 Unassigned: 112,161 TOTAL FUND BALANCES $ 197,148 TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCES $ 2032966 Prepared by. Report date: 5&W12 Severe Treat Management Services Page 1 1611 A5' Heritage Greens Cweneml F °"d Community Development District Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the Period Ending April 30, 2012 ProfServ- Engineering ANNUAL 438 1,695 (1,257) ADOPTED YTO YTD VARIANCE APRiL -12 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV) ACTUAL REVENUES 34,B50 20,328 20,329 Interest - Investments $ 683 $ 399 $ 292 $ (107) $ 68 Special Assmnts- Tax Collector 217,904 217,904 215,010 (2,894) 10,697 Special Assmnts- Discounts (8,716) (8,716) (7,973) 743 (8) Gate Bar Code/Remotes - - 640 640 80 TOTAL REVENUES 209,871 209,587 207,969 (1,618) 10,837 EXPENDITURES Administrative ProfServ- Engineering 750 438 1,695 (1,257) 1,695 ProfSery - Legal Services 3,500 2,044 179 1,865 - prof Sery -Mgmt Consulting Sery 34,B50 20,328 20,329 (1) 2,904 ProfServ- Property Appraiser 3,269 3,269 2,747 522 - ProfServ- Special Assessment 5,463 5,463 5,463 - ProfSery -Web Site Development 120 120 119 1 - Auditing Services 3,200 3,200 3,200 - 700 Communication - Telephone 50 28 3 25 Postage and Freight 500 294 326 (32) 14 insurance - General Liability 5,750 5,750 6,023 (273) - Printing and Binding 1,500 875 528 347 1 Legal Advertising 1,200 700 161 539 161 Misc -Bank Charges 500 294 321 (27) 43 Misc-Assessmnt Collection Cost 4,358 4,358 4,141 217 214 Office Supplies 300 175 61 114 Annual District Filing Fee 175 175 175 - - Total Administrative 65,485 _ 47,511 45,471 2,040 5,732 Public Safety Contracts - Security Services 64,000 37,333 27,173 10,160 4,460 Contracts -HVAC 350 203 - 203 - ContractsSheriff 1,000 581 - 581 - Communication - Telephone 2,000 1,167 669 498 99 Electricity - Entrance 2,200 1,283 1,105 178 128 Utility - Water & Sewer 900 525 368 157 51 Lease - Carts 1,500 875 750 125 - R &M -Gate 4,386 2,558 1,053 1,505 - R &M- Gatehouse 2,000 1,167 283 884 - Op Supplies - Gatehouse 250 147 64 83 Cap Outlay - Equipment 7,740 4,515 788 3,727 - Total Publio.Safety 86,326 50,354 32,253 18,101 4,738 Prepared bye Page 2 Report Date: W12012 Severe Trent Management Services 161 1 'A5 Heritage Greens Genera/Fuad Community Development District Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances For the Period Ending April 30, 2012 ANNUAL ADOPTED YTD YTD VARIANCE ($) APRiL -12 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL FAV(UNFAV) ACTUAL Landscape Contracts- Landscape Contracts - Preserve Management Electricity - Irrigation R &M- Renewal and Replacement R &M- Canals R &M- Fountain R &M- Grounds R &M- Irrigation R &M- Preserves Misc- Special Projects Total Landscape Road and Street Facilities Electricity - Streetlighting R &M- Drainage R &M -Roads & Alleyways R &M- Sidewalks Traffic Signage Rehabilitation Total Road & Street Facilities 15,060 8,785 10,855 (2,070) 1,455 2,000 1,000 880 120 - 2,000 1,169 1,246 (77) 170 1,500 875 - 875 - 2,600 1,300 1,295 5 - 900 525 897 (372) 75 8,500 4,958 31 4,927 - 2,500 1,458 157 1,301 500 292 - 292 4,000 2,333 - 2,333 39,560 22,695 15,381 7,334 1,700 11,000 6,417 5,046 1,371 705 2,500 1,458 - 1,458 - 2,000 1,169 - 1,169 1,750 1,022 1,500 (478) 1,250 730 - 730 - 18,500 10,796 6,546 4,250 705 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 209,871 131,356 99,631 31,725 12,875 Excess (deficiency) of revenues Over (under) expenditures d 78,231 108,338 3D,107 (2,038) - Net change in fund balance $ - $ 78,231 $ 108,338 $ 30,107 $ 2,038 FUND BAL, BEGINNING (OCT 1, 2011) 88,810 88,810 88,810 FUND BALANCE, ENDING $ 88,810 167,041 $ 1� 97,148 Propmed by,. Page 3 Report Dale; M12012 Severn Trent Management Services 4 161 i' A5 Heritage Greens Community Development District Supporting Schedules April 30, 2012 161 1 A5 Heritage Greens Community Development District Non -Ad Valorem Special Assessments (Collier County Tax Collector - Monthly Collection Distributions) For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Date Received Net Amount Received Discount / (Penalties) Amount Collection Costs Gross Amount Received Assessments Levied $217,904 Allocation % 100% 10/31/11 $ 484.04 $ 27.36 $ 9.88 $ 521.28 11/16/11 43,957.14 1,869.02 897.08 46,723.24 1 11/30/11 47,458.15 2,017.78 968.53 50,444.46 12/08/11 85,195.32 3,618.12 1,738.68 90,552.12 12/29/11 3,643.35 123.48 74.35 3,841.18 01/25/12 7,712.17 226.28 157.39 8,095.84 03/09/12 3,971.06 82.70 81.04 4,134.80 04104/12 4,672.00 20.65 95.35 4,788.00 04/27/12 5,802.56 (12.40) 118.42 5,908.58 l TOTAL $ 202,895 79 $ 7,972 99 $ 4,140.72 $ 215,009.50 % COLLECTED 98.67% TOTAL OUTSTANDING $ 2,894.46 Report Date: 5/8/2012 Prepared by: Severn Trent Management Services Page I Heritage Greens Community Development District Cash and Investment Report April 30, 2012 General Fund Yield Balance n/a 0.10% Account Name Bank Name Investment Two Checking Account - Operating SunTrust Bank n/a Checking Account - Operating Bank United n/a Operating Acct SBA n/a Operating Acct (Restricted) SBA n/a Money Market Account Bank United Business MMA 1611 A5. I All Funds M t r Yield Balance n/a 0.10% $151,880 n/a 0.00% $1,000 n/a 0.33% $210 n/a 0.00% $415 n/a 0.650/6 $50,461 Total $203,966 Report Date: 5/8/2012 Prepared By: Severn Trent Management Services Page 5 ie i r A-5 Heritage Greens CAD Bank Reconciliation Bank Account No. 9920 Statement No. 64.12 Statement Date 04/90112 OIL Balance (S) t51,879.89 Statement Balance 153,393.25 G1L Balance 151,879119 Outstanding Deposits 0.00 Positive Adjustments 0.00 Subtotal 153,393.25 Subtotal 161,879.89 Outstanding Checks 1,513.36 Negative Adjustments 0.00 Total Differences 0.00 Ending Gll.Balance 151,879.89 Ending Balance 151,879.89 Difference 0.00 Postina !{feared Data Document Tyne Document No. Description Amount Amount Difference Checks 0328112 Payment 2411 PJM LAWN SERVICE 2,510.00 2,510.00 0.00 0328112 Payment 2412 SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 3,383.56 3,383.56 0.00 04105/12 Payment 2413 CENTURY LINK 99.16 99.16 0.00 04/05/12 Payment 2414 FPL 1,000.51 1,000.51 0.00 04/05/12 Payment 2415 KENT OF NAPLES 1,815.71 1,815.71 0.00 04/05112 Payment 2416 RAYMENT POOLS LLC 75.00 75.00 0.00 04105112 Payment 2417 VERTEX WATER FEATURES 72.45 72.45 0.00 04111/12 Payment 2418 AGNOLI BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. 1,582.50 1,582.50 0,00 04/11/12 Payment 2419 GRAU &ASSOCIATES 700.00 740.00 0.00 04/17112 Payment 2421 HERITAGE GREENS COD 900.00 900.00 0.00 04118112 Payment 2422 KENT OF NAPLES 1,858.96 1,856.96 0.00 0427112 Payment 2425 KENT OF NAPLES 928.48 978.48 0.00 Total Checks ....................... ............................... 14,924.33 14.924.33 0.00 Deposits OQ04112 CK #300065089 COLLIER CTY TAX COLL COLLECTIONS THRU 32911 4,672.00 4,672.00 0.00 04/19/12 ACH DEBIT SUNTRUST MONTHLY ANALYSIS FEE - MAR 2012 -42.75 -42.75 0.00 0427112 DEP00037 Clicker Sales 80.00 80.00 0.00 04/30112 ACH CREDIT SUNTRUST INTEREST INCOME - APR 2012 12.48 12.48 0.00 0427112 ACH CREDIT COLLIER CTY TAX COLL:COLLECTIONS THRU 427/1 5,802.56 5,802.56 0.00 10.524.29 10,52429 0.00 Total Deposits ...................... ............................... Outstanding Checks 0427112 Payment 2423 COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING 50.78 0.00 50.78 0427112 Payment 2424 FEDEX 7.58 0.00 7.58 0427112 Payment 2426 PJM LAWN SERVICE 1,455.00 0.00 1,455.00 Page 6 Nerltage Greene COD Bank Reconciliation Posdna Dato DocumentTVoe Document No. DeacdptL,3!n 161 A5 Cleared Amount Amount O tlerence Total OutstancOng Checks ................ ............................... 1,513.36 Page 7 i.1 �L 0 d CL d � O 2 c z E 161 1 A 5 Page 8 !R �2 nt" !� �; �g�ii �� iz 3 Oi P] ^ to N O �O �.N} 00 fO {�j In 1(j Pi NN �Np o ti ti u c o o s °o ° o °0 c 1ppn N t�po7 IfpMi LL7 to ^Op pO 880 .jay[ (x�� pN y~y� m N (Y� O W) G� �] Y m f (� �U �n tq 7 f7 ° v] m f? C,3 p C O _ m L m W c% � N C (`r =wry) ., mcnILcp a m ym `-4 U ai J m u{ Y3 go o 'o w Z E S V G G C C C C S2 'O CoJ w w w U U U U U U S It d 4 U O N pr r r W dd Oa H 9� G C r�% ci cN7i �5 v Q v a U ? U y F C N N U 2 J U a m c�c�c�c�v Y} CD U. >. N Y O N �1I F f ! - ZZ W 4 m G Z Y T I W W Z a N LL W .D Q L U O a N 0 0 0 J J 1 J& J w w w w W w a F U a. c >i� w cc z h < °�° a �aQa cc 7S 9 Lm u°Ciww dn.a Ci(50 >>>�> C�C�Ct z < w r O IL �p N ¢m¢ccRcc < � u_ N �y d op t a v JJ J J J U U U U U U ��N�� ° 0 E d o sn �i Z m Q m N_pp (oy N0 boy mN �co w 0 0 0 0 0 0 a N Vp O N NN_ N �N�pp �N�pp N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ o o 0 0 [°7 (07 W O°7 l°7 W pp Y O O W ° U 2 L C7 W Q J N W U to 4 N(n yw(Aw w w w w W w ca ¢ s a w LU Z J J J J J J O W m 0 m S T. p J Z Z Z Z Z Z �iU 4 3 < m w °o 000000 a o z cc Z LLI U 4.LLLL YY T YY w 4 C7 = N N N N N N N N N_ N N N N_ N N s� J i9` apt �"pQet mQ r me�ara smtd v� m U N O V v v N p O O Y X Y 4 p Z Z p Lu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W p _ $ =� g O p O � LL 2 W o 000 =000000 =o }7 U U m C9 V v v G Page 8 i� v �L a 0 a = C 4i c� e 10 d O Y L v og!q88! N �O�pp 41{G� N rOmp 41p N 410 W f0 {p fa P O N K 1yO� n �l N ^ y 8$ N O m 4110 N p�{{ N $ IA Y 4 $ w ttj q 0 0 0 0 0 0 W n m O O b O Q -Q YKS} r r-F, ro ti [LNZ m rr oQ 0 � a a Z LLI t W ui W lil LLl ll! 3 tll W m E V > wwwwww O Lb www a 21`a cii F g+ gay 2 2 J 2 2 T 0 W a 2 2 W C •c •C Vf Ul y CC V3 9) vl c9 w gS (n (n 4$ �Uy U U la A uQ m Z Z Z Z Z Z S V) (l7 Z 000000 U] U] Gam. A a X 000 c a W F z F W ZW ZW W W W O w W W YY Y XY]C U T CO a � N_ N N_ N N Al r C c r r G AC o� CSC o�C CG [g Cgtg�p�7 � a � qGq C7UU U N N N N N N N a p p 1 m 1 m n n n a s s aaamm� 0 0 0 0 0 0 W n m O O b O Q -Q YKS} r c°omc°o }dQ [LNZ $ U' 0 � a Z LLI t W ui W lil LLl ll! 3 tll W m E V > wwwwww O Lb www a 21`a cii F g+ iii J T 0 W a 2 2 W U Vf Ul y CC V3 9) # aC w gS (n (n =" Z Z Z uQ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z S v �j N N N a p p 1 m 1 m N 0 0 0 0 0 0 W n m O O b ccorlV3 o r c°omc°o U' Z 3 F J T 0 W a 2 2 W W W W W J J J J J J W Z Z Z Cl) Z Z Z Z Z Z U Z 000000 W X 000 W F z F W ZW ZW W W W O w W W YY Y XY]C U T YYY a N_ N N_ N N Al r T r r N N cla � N p 0 0 0 0 o w o w oog wU Z T O 0 n m 0 0 LOU Z O n 0 0 $ L U V U U 16 I 1 A5 Page 9 uz � E �tm m m c CL m a� C I U) r C 1612 i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES October 9, 2012 2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of 2.13.12; 2.21.12; 5.7.12 2) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of 2.1.12; 5.2.12; 6.6.12 3) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of 3.21.12 Minutes of 3.21.12 4) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of 5.11.12; 6.8.12 5) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of 7.6.12 (Special Magistrate); 8.3.12 (Special Magistrate) 6) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of 7.1 9.12; 8.2.12 Minutes of 6.7.12; 6.19.12 (LDC); 6.21.12; 7.19.12; 8.2.12 7) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of 6.20.12 8) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of 7.11.12; 8.8.12 9) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of 7.3.12 10) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee: Agenda of 8.8.12; 9.4.12 Minutes of 6.13.12; 8.8.12 11) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Minutes of 6.19.12 16 I z. 12) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of 6.28.12 13) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 8.22.12 Minutes of 5.23.12; 6.26.12 14) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 5.17.12; 15) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 7.19.12 Minutes of 6.21.12 16) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 7.9.12; 8.13.12 17) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of 8.1.12 Minutes of 6.4.12 (Clam Bay Subcommittee); 6.6.12; 7.5.12 (Ad Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways and Trees) 18) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 8.13.12 Minutes of 6.11.12; 8.13.12 19) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory Committee: Agenda of 8.1.12 Minutes of 6.6.12 20) Water and Wastewater Authority: Minutes of 5.4.12 1612 February 13, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING February 13, 2012 Naples, Florida BY: ....................... .. LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in NON- WORKING SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ---- Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Misc. Corres: Date: kO1°,. \\-2„ Item #:1LoZ 2 aA Copies to CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby John Cowan Christian Davis Bradley Schiffer Stuart Warshauer ( "Ex- Officio') Excused: Michael Diamond Christine Jones Absent: Cormac Giblin, Vice Chair Patricia Fortune Clyde Quinby (Vacancy — Alternate) (Vacancy) Kim Grant, Interim Director — Housing, Human & Veteran Services Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Operations Analyst Al 16 12' `A 1 February 13, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER — CHAIRMAN: Chairman Hruby called the meeting to order at 3:15 PM. 2. ROLL CALL: Roll call was not taken since only four voting members were present. A quorum was not established — six members are required. Note: Stuart Warshauer attended in an "ex- officio' capacity and not as a voting member of the Committee.) 3. AGENDA AND MINUTES — CHAIRMAN: a. Approval of Agenda (No action was taken) b. Approval of AHAC Minutes —January 9, 2012 (Deferred to next meeting) Chairman Hruby noted that a quorum was not present. He stated although "Action Items" were listed on the Agenda, voting could not take place. He proposed postponing the meeting to Monday, February 20, 2012 at 3:00 PM and requested Staff notify the Committee Members via email. Frank Ramsey pointed out that Monday, February 20, was a government holiday. "Action Items :" Interlocal Agreement between Collier County and Marco Island Housing Element — Growth Management Plan Amending Ordinance — duties of Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Mr. Ramsey stated the first two items were time - sensitive and the renewal date of the current Interlocal Agreement was April 1St Bradley Schiffer asked if formal votes were necessary. Chairman Hruby stated although the items had been vetted in the Subcommittee, it was necessary for the full Committee to review, discuss and offer recommendations. He suggested scheduling the meeting for Tuesday, February 21, at 3:00 PM. Kim Grant stated she will notify the members via email of the location if the BCC Chambers are not available. Chairman Hruby noted achieving quorum had not been an issue until the last quarter and suggested placing the item on the next Agenda to determine if there is a more convenient day and time for the Committee members. Kim Grant stated there are two vacancies which have been advertised. 1612 Al February 13, 2012 NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at 3:22 PM by order of the Chairman. COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HoUSTNCA—D—VUORY COMMITTEE The foregoing M' utes were approved b Board/Committee Chair on v� 2012 g g PP [ , "as submitted" OR "as amended" [_]. Fe1Ajo,2 "' A I MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING February 21, 2012 Naples, Florida BY:....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala✓ Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby Vice Chair: Cormac Giblin John Cowan Christian Davis Patricia Fortune Clyde Quinby Bradley Schiffer Stuart Warshauer Excused: Michael Diamond Christine Jones (Vacancy) (Vacancy — Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Kim Grant, Interim Director — Housing, Human & Veteran Services Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Operations Analyst Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor — Staff Liaison Misc. Cones: Date: � ° \°� \ \2. Item * \�—p7r,'1.'A►1 Copies to: 16 12 Al February 21, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER — CHAIRMAN: Chairman Hruby called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM. 2. ROLL CALL: Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. Eight voting members were present. 3. AGENDA AND MINUTES — CHAIRMAN: a. Approval of Agenda Christian Davis moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by John Cowan. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. b. Approval of AHAC Minutes —January 9, 2012 Bradley Schiffer moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Christian Davis. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. (Note: Stuart Warshauer could not vote because he attended the January 9`4 meeting in an "ex- officio" capacity.) 4. INFORMATION ITEMS: A. Single Family Rentals — Federal Reserve Report, January 2012 Frank Ramsey provided a copy of the Report entitled "The U.S. Housing Market: Current Conditions and Policy Considerations. " (Policy recommendation paper) It was noted Staff will provide copies of various reports that may be of interest to the Committee as such become available. B. Review — AHAC Open Positions Frank Ramsey stated there are two vacancies and both positions have been advertised. Categories: Member who represents Employers, and the Alternate position. • One member must reside in Immokalee. • Suggested allowing the Alternate Position to remain open (greater flexibility). • Travel expenses for the member residing in Immokalee will be reimbursed. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: (Speakers will be heard after the topic has been discussed.) 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS /PRESENTATIONS: STAFF A. 2012 Interlocal Agreement Renewal — Review of Subcommittee Findings Background: • June, 2000: Board of County Commissioners and the City of Marco Island entered into an Agreement concerning affordable housing o Collier County was allowed to use population data from the City of Marco Island in its application for entitlement status from HUD 2 1612. Al February 21, 2012 o County's affordable housing services and Staff became available to the residents of Marco Island o Established a compensation schedule for payments from City to the County Agreement Term: 3 -years • May be cancelled by April 1St during any renewal year • Changes /modification must be made prior to April 1St during a renewal year Suggested Modifications (recommended by Subcommittee): "Housekeeping:" o Staff was identified as Housing, Human, and Veterans' Services (previously known as "Housing and Urban Improvement" Staff) Reporting Schedule: o Changed from monthly to annual • Compensation paid by City: o Changed to "10 percent of building permit fees collected" • Previously: 10% of building permit fees collected or $50,000 whichever was gLeate • Payment of $50,000 had become a financial burden for the City of Marco Island due to economic downturn o Policy will be responsive to current market trends • Modifications will be presented to Managers for Collier County and City of Marco Island for review and consideration Chairman Hruby noted representatives from the City of Marco Island participated in discussions at the Subcommittee meeting and requested identification of "value added," i.e., programs that were targeted to benefit the City of Marco Island. Frank Ramsey suggested addressing the issue separately to not limit the Interlocal Agreement to specific types of programs. • Between 2001 and 2009, the amount of Grants awarded to the City of Marco Island totaled $897,567. o Utilized for two sidewalk improvement projects and three drainage projects • The entitlement paid out was slightly higher than the amount collected from the City of Marco Island o Source of funding: from HUD under CDBG • Funds paid to the County by the City of Marco Island were used to: • Offset start-up expenses for the Collier County Housing Development Corporation ( "HDC "), • Contributed ( "match ") to a tenant -based rental assistance program, • Paid permit fees for the installation of 36 FEMA trailers for IHOPE. • Funds have not been targeted as program- specific to Marco Island Brad Schiffer asked if a comment could be inserted stating that funds would be targeted to benefit the employees of businesses on Marco Island to ensure the money was used in the best interest of Marco Island. 1612 "A1 February 21, 2012 Vice Chairman Giblin noted the funds did not necessarily have to be spent entirely on Marco Island since a number of projects, i.e., HDC start-up and tenant -based rental assistance, were benefiting the County at large and would indirectly benefit Marco Island. He cited an example of hotel employees who worked on Marco Island but lived elsewhere in the County. The tenant -based rental assistance program allowed individuals to live closely enough to Marco Island to work there. Buddy Ramsey noted the Subcommittee had discussed various incentives for the residents and/or businesses on Marco Island such as transportation assistance or rental assistance. He stated if the Committee decided to include such language in the proposed modifications, he would revise the document to be reviewed at the March meeting or the Committee could authorize the Chairman to approve the changes on behalf of the AHAC. Brad Schiffer concurred, noting the proposed changes should be reviewed by the County and City Managers as quickly as possible. Chairman Hruby stated two strategies were discussed during the Subcommittee meeting: 1. Developing transportation and /or rental assistance voucher programs to directly benefit employees working on Marco Island 2. Allowing the City of Marco Island to solicit RFPs ( "Request for Proposals ") for whatever was determined to be necessary, as long as the programs targeted to an affordable housing purpose. The County would oversee the programs to ensure the appropriate goals were met. This approach was more flexible Vice Chairman Giblin noted an advantage for Staff was that the funding sources were not accompanied by volumes of "red tape." The program developed were "outside the box" (such as Start-up assistance) and allowed programs to get going more quickly. He stated he did not want the flexibility or creativity of these programs to be stifled. Chairman Hruby stated the Marco Island City Manager inquired about the "value added" component. Buddy Ramsey suggested the incorporating the following language: "The City of Marco Island may, on an annual basis, submit a request to the County for an appropriation of funds paid through this Agreement to benefit affordable housing - related activities of importance to the City. " He concurred that the lack of red tape presents an opportunity for more innovative and unique circumstances to be funded. Vice Chairman Giblin noted during the height of the market frenzy, the amount paid by the City of Marco Island to the County was approximately $100,000 but in the current market, it is estimated to be closer to $20,000. Buddy Ramsey stated the highest amount paid was during Fiscal Year 2003and was over $100,000. Brad Schiffer suggested: "The Department will utilize the funds to benefit affordable housing - related activities in the City of Marco Island. " Vice Chairman Giblin disagreed, stating utilizing the funds for an apartment complex in Golden Gate City, such as "Heron Cove," could benefit the City of Marco Island because there was a high probability that residents worked on Marco Island. - 1612 Al February 21, 2012 Christian Davis concurred, stating he worked on Marco Island for the past four years and the majority of individuals he spoke with who worked on Marco Island resided in Heron Cove and the surrounding area as well as the southern portion of Golden Gate City. He continued, stating he agreed with Patricia Fortune's suggestion that the best use of the funds would be as vouchers for transportation or as rental - assistance. He stated when he managed a business on Marco Island, it had been difficult to find employees. He noted the majority of the workforce came from Naples and gas was very expensive for individuals earning only the minimum wage. Bus service was available from Golden Gate City (ride time: approximately 45 minutes, including transfers). Brad Schiffer stated the concern expressed by the Marco Island representatives was that they did not receive an explanation of how the funding was spent, i.e., "We're giving you [the County] money, and what are we getting back for it? " Patricia Fortune supported inclusion of the suggested language to maintain communication since Marco Island would be required to inform the Committee at least once per year of identified trends or programs determined to be necessary, rather than waiting until the renewal period. Mr. Ramsey concurred, stating it was a way to "take the temperature" of the City of Marco Island on an annual basis to determine issues of importance to the City. He noted one of the ideas discussed by the Subcommittee was the possibility of funding an express bus service for Marco Island employees. Chairman Hruby noted any specifics were included in the Agreement would become "codified." He suggested including a list of suggested activities as examples of "programs which we would entertain" in the transmittal letter accompanying the document. Buddy Ramsey clarified the deadline to modify the Agreement was April 1 st but the renewal deadline was October 1St. If a provision suggesting how the funds were to be spent was added to the Agreement, the Subcommittee and the representatives from City of Marco Island would have until October to iron out the details. Brad Schiffer suggested adding a notation that the funds "would be utilized in a justifiable way for the citizens and businesses of Marco Island. " Buddy Ramsey suggested including language under Item #2(b) of the proposed Modification Agreement that although the County shall be charged with making all decisions regarding the use of the funds, it will provide the reasons why the funds and how the funds were spent. Chairman Hruby asked the Committee if Mr. Ramsey was to incorporate similar language into the Agreement. Brad Schiffer concurred. He again stressed the Modification Agreement should be sent to the parties as quickly as possible for their review and comments. He suggested keeping the language as generic as possible. Chairman Hruby called for a motion. Bradley Schiffer moved to approve authorizing Frank Ramsey to expand the language under Item #2(b) of the proposed Modification Agreement, subject to review and approval by the AHAC Chairman, and to submit it to the Managers of Collier County 1612 Al February 21, 2012 and the City of Marco Island without further review by the members of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. The language should state the funds are to be used directly or indirectly for the benefit of Marco Island's citizens and businesses. Second by Patricia Fortune. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. B. Housing Element (Growth Management Plan) — Review of Subcommittee Methodology Frank Ramsey noted the modifications proposed by the Subcommittee were summarized on a one -page document and distributed to the Committee. He provided the following background information: • The County's Growth Management Plan is undergoing EAR -based Amendments ( "Evaluation and Appraisal Report") — a process that takes place every seven years • "Objective 1 "currently sets a goal of a minimum of 1,000 new affordable housing units to be built each year, but the number is static, not market - driven or responsive to market changes After discussion by the Committee, the following are the final suggestions: • Objective 1 was revised as follows: "Provide new affordable housing units to meet the current and future housing needs of legal residents with very -low, low, and moderate incomes including households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing." • Policv 1.1: (No changes) "By January 2014, establish a method of Indexing the demand for very -low, low, and moderate housing." • Policy 1.2: (No changes) "By January 2014, establish a method of Indexing the availability and costs of very -low, low, and moderate housing." • Policy 1.3 was revised as follows: "By January 2014, based on the Indexes established in Policies and 1.2 above, develop methods to predict future shortages." • (New) Policy 1.4: "By January 2015, establish the strategies, methods, and tools necessary to support this Objective." • Policy 1.5: (renumbered 1.4) "Beginning June 2015, provide an annual report to the Board of County Commissioners on the status of affordable housing within Collier County." x,612 1 Al February 21, 2012 Obiective 2 was revised as follows: "For- profit and not - for - profit providers of affordable- workforce housing shall assist the County and its municipalities in achieving a goal of increasing the number of affordable housing units by the methods contained in Objective 1 and subsequent policies for very -low, low, and moderate income residents of Collier County." Obiective 8 was revised as follows: "Utilize State and Federal grants or other funding sources and, in collaboration with non - profit housing agencies, seek to provide a minimum of 50 rehabilitated or new residential units per year for very -low, low, and moderate income residents. (Families benefiting from such housing include, but are not limited to, farm workers and other populations with special housing needs.) Bradley Schiffer moved to approve and accept the changes to the Growth Management Plan as discussed by the Committee, subject to review and approval by the AHAC Chairman, and to submit it to the Planning Commission without further review by the members of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. Second by Christian Davis. Motion carried, 7— "Yes " /1— "No." Stuart Warshauer was opposed. C. AHAC Functions, Powers & Duties — Review of Subcommittee's Findings (The current governing ordinance is contained in Part 1, Chapter 2, Article 8, Division 9, of the Collier County Code of Ordinances.) Frank Ramsey stated the review was the result of a meeting between the AHAC Chair and Commissioner Tom Henning. The Subcommittee determined the AHAC should focus on policy review and best practices. Proposed changes: • Under Section 2 -972 (2): o Insert the word "proactively" o Strike the phrase, "a plan for any linkage and inclusionary zoning o Add the phrase, "strategy, policy, method, and best practice Under Section 2 -973: o Correctly identify department as "Housing, Human and Veteran Services" o Under (1): Strike the word "To" o Under (2): • Strike the word "To" • Strike the phrase, "Growth Management Plan" and insert the phrase, "affordable housing activities" Stuart Warshauer moved to approve the revisions as discussed. Second by John Cowan. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. . Al 1612 February 21, 2012 D. Discussion: Monthly Meeting Schedule — Alternative Dates and Times Chairman Hruby commented in the past months, it has been difficult to achieve quorum. He requested the Members to email or call the office in advance if they are not able to attend a meeting. It was suggested to contact Mr. Ramsey at least one day in advance of a scheduled meeting. A meeting will be cancelled if a quorum was not available. Chairman Hruby asked the members if they would like to change the day or the month or time of the meeting in the future. Kim Grant noted the BCC Chambers will be available on the first Monday of the month beginning in April. Consensus: Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM on the first Monday of the month. If a meeting is postponed due to a holiday, it will be re- scheduled to the third Monday of that month. 7. STAFF /COMMITTEE MEMBERS: GENERAL COMMENTS Bradley Schiffer o Asked if a value had been determined for the NSP Program o Noted Staff's response to a recent article in The Naples Daily News regarding the results of the Clerk of Court's second audit of the NSP Program. He requested Staff to send copies of the full audit to the Committee. He stated if the audit was public information, it should be provided to the Committee. o Kim Grant stated there were two audits of the NSP Program. She stated one multi - family property owned by the County will be audited separately due to a property management agreement and escrowed funds. There may be an additional audit of the eligibility components of the DRI ( "Disaster Relief Initiative ") Program. o Buddy Ramsey noted the next Subcommittee meeting has been scheduled for March 8th at 2:00 PM in Conference Room 217 of Building "H." Up to five members of the Committee may attend. o A presentation of the Sunshine Law will be made by the County Attorney's office at a future meeting. If a C/D is available, it will be distributed to the members in lieu of a presentation. NEXT MEETING: Monday, April 2, 2012 at 3:00 PM (Note: April 2nd is the first Monday) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:28 PM by order of the Chairman. 1612 Al February 21, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HORDVISORY COMMITTEE , Chairman v The foregoing i utes were approved by Board /Committee Chair on J01E , 2012, "as submitted " ;N OR "as amended" Lj. 16 ' -Al a Y 7, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING W May 7, 2012 S E t <_ Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in gal t/1 V in Administrative Building 'T," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: i<aia N ✓ CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby ' Her 1�nning �(� Vice Chair: ----------- c;�yl� ✓ John Cowan ,detta Christian Davis Patricia Fortune Bradley Schiffer Resigned: Cormac Giblin Michael Diamond Excused.• Clyde C. Quinby Absent. Christine Jones Stuart Warshauer (Vacancy) (Vacancy) (Vacancy — Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Kim Grant, Interim Director — Housing, Human & Veteran Svcs. Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Operations Analyst Misc. Comes: Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor — Staff Liaison Date: Margo Castorena, Grants Operations Manager �o \°� \�2 Item #: �y' 7= -2.'A \ Copies to: 1612 Al May 7, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER — CHAIRMAN: Chairman Hruby called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. 2. ROLL CALL: Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. Five voting members were present. STATEMENT BY CORMAC GIBLIN: • Has served on the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee for several years as the representative for the City of Naples • Has accepted a position with Habitat for Humanity of Collier County • Tendered his resignation to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to avoid potential conflict of interest Chairman Hruby thanked Mr. Giblin for his years of great service to Collier County and congratulated him on his new position with Habitat for Humanity. 3. AGENDA AND MINUTES — CHAIRMAN: a. Approval of Agenda John Cowan moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Patricia Fortune. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. b. Approval of AHAC Minutes —February 13 and 23, 2012 Staff noted some Committee Members had not received copies of the previous Minutes and requested to postpone voting until the June meeting. Consensus: The vote was tabled. 4. INFORMATION ITEMS: A. Neighborhood Stabilization Program — Update on Recently Approved Partnerships Frank Ramsey: • The Board of County Commissioners approved a new strategy to administer the NSP -1 and NSP -3 Grants. • 13 homes have been completed or are near completion. The rehabbed homes will be sold to eligible buyers. • February 22, 2012: The County issued an RFP ( "Request for Production ") to non - profit property management organizations • Goal: To receive proposals from non - profit organizations that would take ownership of six properties which were acquired and rehabbed through the NSP and operate the properties as affordable rental housing • Three proposals were received • A Selection Committee was created • Two candidates were selected to receive awards of the properties o The recommendation will be forwarded to the BCC for review and approval 16 12 .4 Ale May 7, 2012 • A partnership with Habitat for Humanity was approved under two different Developer Agreements: o NSP -1 Developer Agreement: • The County will transfer title (via deeds) for 42 properties to Habitat for Humanity. • Habitat will use its own funds to rehab /renovate the properties and sell the homes to eligible buyers. o NSP -3 Developer Agreement: • Collier County received an award of approximately $3.8M which has not been spent. • Habitat will be provided access to the funds to assist in the acquisition of eligible properties. • Habitat will use its own funds to complete the renovations to the properties and will sell the homes to eligible buyers. • Habitat agreed to a tiered level of assistance for eligible income categories: ❖ Households earning 50% or less of the Area Median Income ( "AMP') — 25% of the award has been allocated to this category ❖ Households earning between 51 — 80% of AMI ❖ Households earning more than 81 - 120% of AMI Periodic updates will be provided to the Committee. Chairman Hruby asked if the two selected applicants could be identified. Kim Grant stated negotiations were in process with the applicants and requested to not disclose any information until the negotiations have been finalized. She stated proposals were received from The Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled of Collier County, and Florida Non - Profit Corporation in Immokalee. Buddy Ramsey noted the third proposal was received from an organization that was new to the County — it operates supportive housing throughout the State of Florida. Mr. Ramsey noted RFPs were submitted for six multi - family properties consisting of five duplexes and one triplex. • The sale of the 13 single - family properties currently owned by the County will result in program income in the future which will be targeted for other NSP - eligible uses. After the properties have been sold and a final accounting has been completed, the Committee will be consulted to determine how to utilize the program income. The current estimated balance in the NSP -1 account is approximately $400,000 to $450,000 and will remain with the County for future use. Chairman Hruby noted there was a commitment in NSP -1 to provide a certain portion of the funds for multi- family properties. He asked if the six properties met the requirements. Buddy Ramsey replied there was a set -aside for low income households of 25 %. Kim Grant noted the Housing, Human & Veteran Services Department will monitor the progress made by Habitat for Humanity, utilizing the 10% allocated for administrative costs. 1612 Al May 7, 2012 Value of the NSP -1 properties: • 42 properties to be deeded to Habitat for Humanity — $2.7M • 13 homes currently owned by the County (and sold) — $13M • 6 rental units (RFP) — $800,00 • The 20 properties that were sold — $2.3M • Program Income received — $1.4M • $400,000 - $450,000 — in the fund B. City of Marco Island — Termination of Interlocal Agreement Frank Ramsey stated: • The Interlocal Agreement between the County and the City of Marco Island was initiated in 2000 with automatic renewals every 3 years. • Either party could terminate the Agreement by notifying the other by April 1St of the termination year. • In February, 2012, the City of Marco Island elected to terminate the Agreement that pertained to affordable housing. • Impacts: • The County will no longer receive compensation from the City of Marco Island ($50,000 per year or 10% of the building permit fees collected — whichever amount was greater) • The City of Marco Island will administer its affordable housing program without assistance from the County Mr. Ramsey explained the County shared Staff and program availability with the City of Marco Island for which the City compensated the County. • There is a separate Interlocal Agreement which relates to the entitlement status of the County which has not been affected. • There is a balance of approximately $210,000 in the County's account which has not been "grandfathered" or tied to any program and may be utilized for affordable housing purposes o More flexibility re: use, i.e., transportation vouchers for non - Island workers C. Florida Sunshine Law Mr. Ramsey noted the County Attorney's Office prepared a C/D concerning a Sunshine Law Workshop held on October 3, 2011. He had copies of the C/D and would provide one to each Committee Member to view. Chairman Hruby stated the Members are required to become aware of the restrictions of the Sunshine Law. Mr. Ramsey stated a copy of the CD will be included in the "welcome" package for new Committee members. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: (Speakers will be heard after the topic has been discussed.) 4 1612 Al May 7, 2012 C. DISCUSSION ITEMS /PRESENTATIONS: STAFF A. Presentation: Debra Mahr, Executive Director, Hunger and Homeless Coalition (A copy of the PowerPoint presentation was distributed to the Committee Members.) • 10 -year Plan to prevent and end homelessness in Collier County by 2020. • Co- authored with Dr. Tina Gelpi, Assistant Professor — FGCU, and Rene Givens of Nonprofit Solutions Consulting • Hunger & Homeless Coalition was established in 1989 and incorporated in 2002 as a non - profit organization that works collaboratively to build a comprehensive system of care • Funding Source: The Community Foundation • Homelessness and housing insecurity are complex issues — caused by economic reasons — the working poor • The best solution to the problem is affordable housing • Goal: To research and offer solutions that foster greater housing security and independence for all members of the community • Conducted focus groups and community meetings for approximately one year • Researched "best practices" • Three groups: either homeless or at risk to become homeless • Families with children — largest growing segment of the population • Unaccompanied youth — fled abusive home situations or were "kicked out" — ages 16 to 24 — "couch surfing" — "aged out" of foster care • Individuals /single adults — including Veterans, Elderly/Disabled, chronic homeless • Florida is ranked #42 of 50 states in child homelessness o 993 children in Collier County were identified as "homeless" by the public school system in 2011 • Federal definition: "At imminent risk of homelessness and precariously housed" • Cost: $2,871,978 per year (based on 2011 figures) • Limiting the time a person is homeless actually saves money • Hidden Costs to the Community: • Jail • Hospital • Mental Health/Substance Abuse • Public Safety • "Housing First" approach and evidence -based model — most cost effective • Provide housing as quickly as possible • Provide support services as needed • Solutions: provide a dignified quality of life • Rent assistance — provided for a limited amount of time (short-term crisis) • Rapid rehousing — provided limited assistance to help get back on feet • Permanent housing with support services (emergency shelters or transitional housing) • Action Plan: • Affordable housing: Increase supply of permanent housing units • Supportive services for housing stability: Increase /enhance services — "wrap around" — case management — link to services — transportation is included 1612 Al May 7, 2012 • Centralized intake for accessing services: Create a county -wide central point of intake for housing services • Resources for Unaccompanied Youth: Develop a "drop -in" center and increase supply of overnight beds — establish a Youth Shelter — researching grant opportunities Ms. Mahr noted there is a lack of rental properties and local rents are increasing due to the demand. Inventory must be identified. New York and Boston have the most successful "Housing First" programs because of the varied types of rental units available. Patricia Fortune mentioned a project in Homestead that was built by GL Homes. She will contact the builder for additional information 4. INFORMATION ITEMS: D. Status Report: Annual Entitlement Funding Application Cycle (2012 -13) Margo Castorena — Grants Operations Manager provided an update on Entitlement Grant Applications: • 21 applications were submitted — total of $6.05M o $5.5M — CDBG o $500,000 —HOME o $96,000 — ESG (Emergency Shelter Grant)Emergency Solutions Grant) • Breakdown: 0 5 applications for Public Service grants 0 2 applications for HOME activities o One "pass through" to the City of Naples o City of Marco Island has declined to use its entitlement ($80,000) 0 3 applications for acquisition 0 2 applications for economic development 0 8 applications for infrastructure Ms. Castorena noted the activities outlined in the applications were determined to the eligible for funding. The Committee consisted of 5 members, including HHVS Staff, as well as Staff from the County's Public Services Division, the Administrative Services Division, and from the community at large. • Some applications will begin a curing process to answer questions from the Committee members. • The applications will be re- scored upon receipt of the cures and ranked. • The Applications Committee will decide how much funding will be allocated to each application depending on how the application was ranked. • Funding will be provided by CDBG, HOME, or ESG. Margo Castorena explained: • "SHIFTING" assists individuals involved in the foreclosure process through 6 1612 Al May 7, 2012 legal consultations, providing counseling, working with the Lender to explore options — if the family can remain in the home through mortgage modification — or helping with the transition to a new location. The Affordable Rental Housing Program — assists developmentally - impaired individuals to move into private or group homes. The application requested approximately $250,000 to purchase two properties which could house between 6 to 8 individuals. The City of Naples is an entitlement city and as long as an allowable activity under HUD is presented, the City can decide how to disburse the funds. The Roberts Center is a community facility in Immokalee which has been the site of the HHVS "Meals" program. The facility is under renovation and a request was submitted for additional funding. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS /PRESENTATIONS: STAFF B. Proposed Concept: To Measure Demand /Availability of Affordable Housing Frank Ramsey: • Housing Element of the Land Development Code: o "Goal One: To create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County." ■ Method: To increase the number of affordable workforce housing by at least 15% of the units approved to be built in the County per year, but not less than 1,000 units averaged over a five -year period. • Goal is static — not market sensitive • Lacks demand component • Not data- driven Minnesota Housing Plan (needs assessment plan) — published in the Spring, 2012 • 100% data driven, based on 24 indicators • Most of the data is available on third -party websites • Measures: "Opportunities for Economic Integration" / "Opportunities for Community Stabilization" / "Opportunities for a Growing Workforce " / "Opportunities for Increasing Homeownership" / "Opportunities for Affordable Rental Housing" / "Opportunities for Maintaining an Aging Housing Stock" • Model does not predict future need — it assesses the current need in the market ■ Can watch the trends • Goals (Housing Element): • To develop a method to measure the demand for and the availability of affordable workforce housing by January 2014 • To develop a method to predict future needs • By January 2015, establish the necessary strategies, methods and tools to support the objective • Prepare a report for the Board of County Commissioners beginning in 2014 1612 Al May 7, 2012 Mr. Ramsey requested the Subcommittee work with Staff to prepare the tools, measurements, and models. A Subcommittee meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, May 10th Chairman Hruby suggested the "prediction" component should be replaced by emphasizing the gross indicators. Christian Davis suggested reviewing communities that have not experienced the rapid highs of lows of the Collier County market, i.e., Pittsburgh. Frank Ramsey will research the communities that were not "on the bubble." C. Housing Workshop with BCC: Nomination of AHAC Member to Attend • Scheduled for June 5th at 9:00 AM Bradley Schiffer nominated Chairman Hruby to represent the Committee. Chairman Hruby accepted the nomination. Committee members were invited to attend. D. Committee Vacancy: Review of Application • Raymond Cabral is a realtor, a member of the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, and a retired police officer (NYPD). • He meets the definition of "represents essential service personnel" • The categories vacant are: o "Represents Employers" o "Alternate" • "Represents Essential Service Personnel" • Nomination by the City of Naples o "Engaged in the labor of home building" John Cowan moved to approve the application of Raymond Cab embership on the Affordable Housing Advisory Comm' rward the recommendation of support to the Board o ommissioners for review and approval. Second by Patr' ne. Carried unanimously, S — 0. E. Discussion: Summer Meeting Schedule • The Committee has recessed during July and August. • Chairman Hruby stated the Committee has already taken a hiatus in March/April. Consensus: The Committee will discuss the summer schedule at the June meeting. 7. STAFF /COMMITTEE MEMBERS: GENERAL COMMENTS (None) NEXT MEETING: Monday, June 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM (Note: June 4th is the first Monday) 1612 Al 7 May , 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 PM by order of the Chairman. COUNTY AFFORDABLE COMMITTEE The foregoing Minutes were approved by Board /Committee Chair on JVW, , 2012, "as submitted" [_] OR "as amended" [,)]. Fiala Hiller — Henning — Coyle ✓ c� — Coletta —� Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 1612 A2 BY, .<< .................... BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE February 01, 2012 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chair Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Gerry Buck, Victoria Nicklos, Sandra Arafet, and Maurice Gutierrez, Carolyn Cochrane. MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit (Project Manager) and David Jackson (Executive Director). 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Mr. Messmer. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved 7 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the January 04, 2012 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Ms. Nicklos Second: Mr. Buck. Approved 7 -0. 4. Projects Report: a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area. i. Ms. Nicklos made a motion to replace the mulch on Bayshore drive with black mulch. The motion died for lack of a second. ii. Mrs. Cochrane made a motion to trim the entire hedge line near the bridge. Mr. Gutierrez seconded the motion. The motion failed 3 -4 iii. Mr. Buck made a motion to trim the hedge line from the bridge to the north 30 feet. Mr. Messmer seconded. The motion passed 6 -1 5. Old Business: a. David Buchheit asked for approval of all bill. Motion: Mr. Buck. Second: Mrs. Dugan. Approved 7 -0 6. New Business: a. David Buchheit informed the committee that a residervtQfdjaVphore Drive south suggested that there was an issue with line of sight due to the palm trees that Date: January 4, 2012 Item #: Copies to: AZ .: l Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 were installed on Bayshore Drive South. Mrs. Cochrane made a motion to get more information and bring it back at a future meeting. Mrs. Arafat seconded the motion. Motion passed 7 -0 b. David Buchheit provided information about painting the sign posts. Mr. Buck made a motion to hire Southern Signal to paint the sign posts. Mrs. Dugan seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 -1 c. David Jackson, Executive Director of the BGT CRA, described the budget challenges that the CRA is facing. Several residents spoke out in support of the CRA. 7. Public Comments: 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: a. Workshop i. 2013 Budget & Millage : Ms. Nicklos made a motion to go millage neutral for 2013. The motion was seconded by Mr. Messmer. The motion passed 7 -1 The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on March 7 at 5:00 PM. T e-m et' adjourned at 7:50. pproved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. January 4, 2012 (0 ) r e, iriir,g _ CCVi Cc)ietta 1612 At 2P� Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 o m r1 S, f 0 F� l BY:....................... BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MAY 2, 2012 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chair Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Maurice Gutierrez (chairman), Sheila Dugan, Sandra Arafet, Gerry Buck. MSTU Staff Present: Sue Trone (MSTU Project Manager), and David Jackson (Executive Director). 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to adopt the agenda. Motion: Ms. Arafet. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved: 4 -0. 3. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the April 4, 2012 Minutes. Motion: Ms. Dugan. Second: Ms. Arafet. Approved: 4 -0. 4. Projects Report: May 2, 2012 a. Landscape Maintenance: Sue Trone reported that Ground Zero repaired two leads to the main line during March. Aside from that landscape maintenance proceeded as usual. Sue announced that she would return to the committee next month with a proposal for infill planting. b. Bayshore Crosswalks. Staff was delayed in installing the hawk system crosswalks due to errors in Southern Signal's proposal. Rectifying the errors took about two weeks in research and cooperation with Collier County Purchasing and Southern Signal. As a result, Southern Signal issued a new proposal with an estimate that was $11,210 lower in cost. Installation should be complete by June. c. Painting of Benches and Trash Cans. This project was also delayed because Southern Signal is not approved to paint benches or trash cans (only to work on approved items associated with the roadway, including signs and light poles). Staff identified a paint contractor approved by Collier County and requested a proposal for the job. This contractor agreed to complete the painting work for $8,160 less than Southern Signal. This project shoyjd be complete before June. iv�;sc;. Corres: Date: ° �°► \ �2 Item #: \ Copies to: 1612 A2 B z& Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 d. Flexi -Pave. Staff consulted with Collier County Roads and Bridges for input on installation of Flexi -Pave as a replacement material for sidewalks. At this time Collier County Right -of -Way will not permit the use of Flexi -Pave in sidewalks. e. CDBG Application for Fire Hydrants. CRA staff submitted an application for a project to plan fire hydrant installation throughout the CRA and install 25 hydrants. f. Gateway Trianqle Drainage Project. Contracts for this project are complete, the CEI professional has his notice to proceed, and the contractor will receive his around the third week of May. g. Neighborhood Watch Meetings. There were two informational meetings for Neighborhood Watch last month. A barbeque for Neighborhood Watch will be held on May 19 at 11AM at Wild Pines. 5. Old Business a. Request for Payment. Staff recommended approval for payment of services. Motion: Buck. Second: Arafet. Approval: 4 -0. b. Thomasson Drive Renderings. The video rendering of the conceptual plan of the preferred option of Thomasson Drive /Hamilton Avenue improvements was viewed by the committee. Staff also showed a video of the project area in its current condition. Overall reaction to the presentation was favorable. Staff announced that the videos were to be presented at a public meeting at East Naples Community Park on May 15. 6. New Business. None. 7. Public Comments. None. 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:02 PM. Motion: Buck. Second: Dugan. Approved: 4 -0. Approved and forwar ed by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. May 2, 2012 Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta 1612 AZ ,3z# 01 2* Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 By...................... BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 6, 2012 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Vice Chair Carolyn Cochrane at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Carolyn Cochrane (Vice Chair), Sheila Dugan, Victoria Nicklos, Sandra Arafet, Gerry Buck, and Bob Messmer. MSTU Staff Present: Sue Trone (MSTU Project Manager), and David Jackson (Executive Director). 2. Adoption of Agenda: Ms. Cochrane asked for a motion to adopt the agenda. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved: 6 -0. 3. Approval of Minutes: Ms. Cochrane asked for a motion to approve the May 2, 2012 minutes. Motion: Ms. Arafet. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved: 6 -0. 4. Projects Report: June 6, 2012 a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross from Ground Zero reported on items that had been repaired over the month of May (breaks in irrigation lines). Vegetation sprayings had been applied. b. Bayshore Crosswalks (Hawk System). The recent hold up with the crosswalks involves the discovery that the engineering contained errors regarding FPL power capacity. In mid -May MSTU staff, Southern Signal, and FPL staff met on site in both locations to discuss alternatives. Allowing for the delays necessitated by this issue, work should begin in mid -June. c. Thomasson Drive /Hamilton Avenue Update. The conceptual planning for this project is virtually complete. Sabal Bay's contribution of $65,000 for engineering outside of the MSTU boundary was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. The engineering must be complete by September 2012. Atkins' contract includes assistance with boundary expansion. Staff will finalize the conceptual plan in June and work with Purchasing to advertise a bid for engineering as soon as the conceptual plan is complete. Staff will suspend Atkins' contract to hold the tasks for assistance with boundary expansion until such time as there is support to this activity. No payment to Atkins will be authorized during the time during which the contract is in S' 06� Rgrdn. Date:_ N o \ ct I VI, Item #: \t9T,2 *:42 Copies to: I ?q-4J0J 2Qi Creaa6vity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 1612 A2 d. Bayview and Lunar Update. This project is still in permitting. CRA REPORT e. Gateway Triangle Stormwater Update. ROW permits have been pulled and Higgins is ready to stage for this project. The public information meeting was held on May 24 at Tree of Life Church on Shadowlawn Drive. f. Planning Commission Approval of Zoning Overlay. The Planning Commission approved the CRA's zoning overlay and it goes to the BCC next for approval. g. Neighborhood Watch BBQ. CRA staff. East Naples Fire, and the Sherriff worked together to provide a bar -b -que for residents of Wild Pines community on May 19. Over 100 hot dogs and hamburgers were cooked up and given away that afternoon. 5. Old Business a. Request for Payment. Staff recommended approval for payment of services. Motion: Nicklos. Second: Buck. Approved: 6 -0 b. Budget Update. Property assessments were released on June 1. Property values in the MSTU decreased by 2.9 %. Several months ago the committee voted for a millage neutral policy. A copy of a proposed budget was distributed. The final budget will be released in September. 6. New Business a. Plant Infill for Medians. Ground Zero and staff worked together to survey the medians along Bayshore Drive to prepare a recommendation for plant infill A proposal for median infill was provided for $5,519.50 and a proposal for shrubbery infill in areas where MSTU shrubs have gotten leggy /craggy for $2, 174.00. Ms. Cochrane commented that the Green Island Ficus was a good idea for shrub replacement. The committee discussed the private hedge at Coco and Bayshore Drive. David Jackson stated that staff would contact the private property owner (Larry Bowein) to see about getting consent from the owner to have the shrubs trimmed. b. Installation of FPL Lighting for Peters Ave., Gordon St., and Collee Ct. FP &L technical staff meet with MSTU staff to survey the subject neighborhood for street lighting. The conclusion of this survey is that it is not lit. 11 telephone poles in the area are equipped with transformers. FP &L can install cobra head lights on these poles at no cost if the MSTU will pay the electric bill with a 10 year contract. The cost of electricity will be between $12 -$14 per pole per month. Staff has been in contact with residents in the area and knows that there is support for this project. By engaging the local neighborhood staff can determine if lights can be placed on poles with transformers or if lights will have to be placed over one or two spans or if lights will need shields (each June 6, 2012 ' $k ?q-4J0J 2Qi Creaa6vity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 1612 A2 d. Bayview and Lunar Update. This project is still in permitting. CRA REPORT e. Gateway Triangle Stormwater Update. ROW permits have been pulled and Higgins is ready to stage for this project. The public information meeting was held on May 24 at Tree of Life Church on Shadowlawn Drive. f. Planning Commission Approval of Zoning Overlay. The Planning Commission approved the CRA's zoning overlay and it goes to the BCC next for approval. g. Neighborhood Watch BBQ. CRA staff. East Naples Fire, and the Sherriff worked together to provide a bar -b -que for residents of Wild Pines community on May 19. Over 100 hot dogs and hamburgers were cooked up and given away that afternoon. 5. Old Business a. Request for Payment. Staff recommended approval for payment of services. Motion: Nicklos. Second: Buck. Approved: 6 -0 b. Budget Update. Property assessments were released on June 1. Property values in the MSTU decreased by 2.9 %. Several months ago the committee voted for a millage neutral policy. A copy of a proposed budget was distributed. The final budget will be released in September. 6. New Business a. Plant Infill for Medians. Ground Zero and staff worked together to survey the medians along Bayshore Drive to prepare a recommendation for plant infill A proposal for median infill was provided for $5,519.50 and a proposal for shrubbery infill in areas where MSTU shrubs have gotten leggy /craggy for $2, 174.00. Ms. Cochrane commented that the Green Island Ficus was a good idea for shrub replacement. The committee discussed the private hedge at Coco and Bayshore Drive. David Jackson stated that staff would contact the private property owner (Larry Bowein) to see about getting consent from the owner to have the shrubs trimmed. b. Installation of FPL Lighting for Peters Ave., Gordon St., and Collee Ct. FP &L technical staff meet with MSTU staff to survey the subject neighborhood for street lighting. The conclusion of this survey is that it is not lit. 11 telephone poles in the area are equipped with transformers. FP &L can install cobra head lights on these poles at no cost if the MSTU will pay the electric bill with a 10 year contract. The cost of electricity will be between $12 -$14 per pole per month. Staff has been in contact with residents in the area and knows that there is support for this project. By engaging the local neighborhood staff can determine if lights can be placed on poles with transformers or if lights will have to be placed over one or two spans or if lights will need shields (each June 6, 2012 ' s'a ` A2 1612 ;RCreatfi'ivity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 modification incurring a cost of between $200 -$800 each). Staff recommended commencing a public process for placement of lights and entering into the contract with FP &L. Ms. Dugan expressed reservations about the project, reflecting on her experience when streetlights were installed on her street. When she requested shading of the light for her home, it took more than a year for FP &L to install the modification. Motion to approve staff's recommendation: Arafet. Second: Buck. Approved: 5- 1, Dugan opposing. c. Repair of Bayshore Sidewalk. Staff has approached several contractors seeking creative solutions to the problem of the raising pavers on North Bayshore Drive. Quotes for pavers and concrete sidewalk were presented to the committee for review. Recommendation for Superior Interlocking Pavers to repair the sidewalk at the quoted rates for time and material. Motion: Buck. Second: Nicklos. Approved: 6 -0 d. Installation of Decorative Signposts on South Bayshore Drive. The Transportation Department removed excess street signs on Bayshore Drive and placed remaining signs in proper locations. Staff obtained quotes for decorative sign posts to match those on North Bayshore. Recommendation to install decorative sign posts on South Bayshore for $11,210.00 by SignCraft. Motion: Nicklos. Second: Arafet. Approved: 6 -0. e. Printing of Fall Banners. Staff obtained a quote for printing the approved Fall banner. The committee determined it preferred to have two banner designs. Some felt it would not be wise to have a Fall banner since it would only hang for less than three months. The committee selected a second design and tasked staff to negotiate the printing of both for the same price as quoted ($2,996.30). Motion: Arafet. Second: Nicklos. Approved 4 -2, Dugan and Messmer dissenting. f. Thomasson Drive /Hamilton Avenue Improvements. Conceptual design is nearly complete. Staff recommended suspending Atkins' contract upon completion of final report until the time comes that the MSTU needs support from Atkins for boundary expansion. During this time Atkins will receive no pay. Staff recommended advertising for engineering when the final report is complete. Motion: Dugan. Second: Messmer. Approved: 6 -0. 7. Public Comments: Phillip Litow raised two issues with hope for MSTU intervention. 1. Mr. Litow requested assistance with reducing the speed limit on Hamilton Avenue from 30MPH to 25 MPH. 2. Mr. Litow requested assistance in getting increased spraying from the Mosquito District. Ms. Trone advised she would pass his request on to the June 6, 2012 1b 12 2P� Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 Transportation Department for assistance. Ms. Dugan advised she would further his request on to the Mosquito District. 8. Adiournment: The meeting adjourned at 6:26 PM. .- Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. June 6, 2012 1612' A3 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda March 21, 2012 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Chairman - Opening Remarks - Roll Call Voting Members: Sheriff's Office MRC Fire Chiefs CERT USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce CAP Non - Voting Members: EMS EM Health Dept Medical Examiner City of Naples Everglades City Neighborhood Watch Physicians Regional NCH City of Marco Island LMS 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update CCSO 3:15 New Business Chairman Sunshine Law DVDs Voting for 2012 Fire Season Update EM LMS Report USCGA Chairman 3:35 Old Business Chairman Individual Reports Members 4:00 Next Meeting/Adjourn Chairman http:// www. citizencorps .gov /cc /CertRef-,Wizard.doc http: / /trainin .fg ema.gov Collier County Citizen Corp Committee March 21, 2012 Voting Members Present: Voting Members Absent: Expert Consultant Present: 1612 A3 BY:....................... Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Aux Russ Rainey, C.E.R.T. Dr. J. Neiween, MRC Jerry Sanford, CC Fire Chiefs Assoc. Chris Nind, Salvation Army Steve Smith, R.S.V.P. Doug Porter, Civil Air Patrol James Elson, Veteran's Council Heidi Ruster, American Red Cross Reg Buxton, Chamber of Commerce Judy Scribner, CCEM Rick Zyvoloski, CCEM Meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Fiala __ —oy Hiller Henning _. Coyle Coletta The minutes of January 18th, 2012 meeting were approved. Threat Update Lt. Jones was excused but reported that the threat update has not changed and remains status quo. Judy Scribner introduced all in attendance and distributed copies of the Sunshine Law Workshop to the members. Judy passed out ballots for the members to vote for positions on the board. The nominations are: Chairman, Russ Rainey, Vice Chairman, Steve Smith, and Secretary Jerry Sanford. The voting will take place at the next meeting on May 16, 2012. Misc. Corres: Date: —0—\C-11 1 �� Item #: Z`A 3 Copies to: 1612 "-A3 Coast Guard Presentation Walt Jaskiewicz introduced Mr. Todd Walter, Mr. John Tyson, and Mr. Jack Slattery from the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Mr. Slattery made a presentation on the new Coast Guard Skills Bank program and how it will help us in Collier County. Fire Season Update Rick Zyvoloski reported that conditions remain hot and dry in Collier and Lee County is like a timber box. The earthquake in Mexico has not affected us. The National Hurricane Conference will take place in April. L. M. S. (Local Mitigation Strategy) Rick Zyvoloski reports that the next meeting is April 21st at 9:30 a.m. There are no new grant opportunities out there. Chairman Rainey attended the last RMA meeting and reported that it was well attended by the participating agencies. Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. in the E.O.C. Meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jerry Sanford for approval. Approved by Russell Rainey, Chairman Date 1612 'A3 ColeMaryAnn From: ColeMaryAnn Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 12:06 PM To: Mitchelllan Cc: scribnerJ Subject: Citizen Corps Meeting Good Afternoon, Ian. Just as an FYI, there was no quorum at the May 16, 2012 Citizen Corps meeting, so the minutes from the March 21, 2012 were not approved. They will meet again on July 18'h, at which time I hope to have the March minutes approved. Mara Avl vL Mary Ann Cole, FAEM Collier County Emergency Management 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway, Ste 445 Naples, FL 34113 (239) 252 -3600 Fax (239) 252 -3700 marvanncole@colliergov.net www.collierem.org 1612 A3 Nominations for 2012 for Collier County Citizen Corps Check your vote Chairman: Russ Rainey -4- / / From the floor: Vice Chair: Steve Smith 4-1-T y / r From the floor: Secretary: Jerry Sanford — From the floor: Officers chosen: Chair: 4-5-S Vice Chair: Secretary: 12 /VISION 2. - STANDARDS FOR THE CREATION AND REVIEW OF BOARDS 16 12 e 3 of 3 3 government center. (b) Prior to making appointments to boards, staff shall provide the commission with a list outlining the qualifications and demographic background of each candidate for board membership, along with a list detailing the qualifications and demographic backgrounds of present members seeking reappointment on each board to which an appointment is being made. (Ord. No. 01 -55, § 6,10-23-01) Sec. 2 -832. - Term of office. (a) Terms of office shall be staggered. (b) All members of boards created by the commission shall serve at the pleasure of the commission and may automatically be removed by a majority vote of the quorum of the commission. (Ord. No. 01 -55, § 7,10-23-01; Ord. No. 2009 -16, § 2) Sec. 2 -833. - Attendance requirement. It is the intent and strong desire of the commission that there be full attendance of advisory board members at all meetings of the boards, recognizing, however, that it may be necessary for board members to be absent from a meeting due to unusual or emergency circumstances. Nevertheless, full attendance at board meetings is encouraged and necessary for the proper operation of the boards and in furtherance thereof the following requirements are established: (1) Any board member who is absent for more than one -half of the board's meetings in a given fiscal year shall be deemed to have tendered his or her resignation from such board. The commission shall, as soon as practicable after such resignation, declare the position to be vacant and shall promptly fill same pursuant to the provisions of section 2 -51 herein. The board members shall not serve at any meetings after his or her position is declared vacant by the commission. (2) In the event that any board member is absent from two consecutive meetings without a satisfactory excuse acceptable to the board chairperson, the board chairperson shall state such fact at the next regularly scheduled board meeting and shall thereafter notify, in writing, the executive manager to the commission of the board member's failure to attend without a satisfactory excuse. The commission shall review the board chairperson's notification at the commission meeting and shall declare the board member's position to be vacant if the commission concurs that the board member was absent from two consecutive board meetings without a satisfactory excuse, and shall promptly fill same pursuant to the provisions of section 2 -51 herein. The board member shall not serve at any meetings after his or her position is declared vacant. (3) A member of aboard shall be deemed absent from a meeting when he or she is not present during at least 75 percent of the meeting. (Ord. No. 01 -55, § 8, 10- 23 -01) Sec. 2 -834. - Reserved. Editor's note —Ord. No. 2009 -16, § 3, adopted Apr. 14, 2009, repealed § 2 -834, which pertained to review of boards and derived from Ord. No. 01 -55, § 9, adopted Oct. 23, 2001. Secs. 2- 835 -2 -845. - Reserved. ..._.-.,_ « „ 11 1 A /TT r^ n X TTTT Tl) 1, +-1 17/1 5/9.009 scribnerJ From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments Good Morning Judith, COMO Walter R. Jaskiewicz [captwrj @aol.com] Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:39 AM scribnerJ COMO Jaskiewicz D7 AMROS_Workshop E- Flier.pdf 1612 A3 Have suggestion for next Citizen Corps Meeting; I can arrange to have one of staff provide a demonstration of our USCGA software that can indicate where are members are who have those extra skills and talents to assist in emergencies such as: IMAT Teams, chefs, mobile coms units, air & water facilities, med teams, interpreters and a host of others. It also has the response times expected for each member. Demo would take 30 to 45 minutes. Also enclosing a flyer for our Miami Division Group Supervisor Teams that I have underway I mentioned last meeting. It two years to get to this point. ? {t101,�, S � vt? S( /h t 'rti't}ftt C7 (' liei'lo Ricv), 1. 1 hon? (.% 1612 A3 ak Formidable Footprint` Pandemic Exercise, tiaod T;,htctop National Community / Neighborhood Exercise Series t On January 28 neighborhood, community and faith based organizations across the 5LIKI country will have the opportunity to assess their capabilities in preparing for and i,p responding to an Influenza Pandemic by participating in the Formidable Footprint KOW Pandemic Exercise. During the past year teams from across the United States have been participating in the internet based series of Formidable Footprint exercises. These exercises have provided participants with the opportunity to assess their capabilities to respond to various disaster threats. Pandemic Exercise — January 28 2012 Exercises have also been scheduled for the following scenarios: Earthquake — Flood — Hurricane — Tornado — Wildfire The Formidable Footprint exercise series has been developed in accordance with Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) protocols. The objectives of the exercises are for CERTs, Neighborhood Watch Programs, Neighborhood Associations, Community / Faith Based Organizations, Citizen Corps, Fire Corps and others to work as a team to become better prepared for the next disaster their community may face. There is NO CHARGE for participation in any of the Formidable Footprint exercises. For additional information or to register for the up- coming Tornado Exercise please access the following web site today: www.FormidableFootprint.org Please Share This Important Disaster Exercise Opportunity With Others Chris Floyd - 850- 241 -3565 Disaster Resistant Communities Group LLC www.d'rc- group.com W Office Locations 6224 Wake Robin Ln Tallahassee FL 32300 12 Stoneybrook Dr - Sturbridge MA - 01566 4 AC June 8, 2012 1 -1 Approval of Minutes * of ................. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 11, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3 r Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: y �-3 �Oic?Clc^� _ - ►l — CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: ALSO PRESENT: John Sorey, III Anthony Pires (via telephone) Randy Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel Robert Raymond (Excused) Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Misc. Corres: Date:_ Item #:\k-o_ '2, UA 4 Copies to: A94ev 2 1612 oval of f Minutes Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 2:00 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Mr. Waldack moved to allow Mr. Pires to participate in the meeting via telephone. Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 7— 0. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Sorey moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes: • Item VIII.10 (Discussion - TDC Fund Redistribution by Jack Wert) to be continued until the next meeting. • Item VIII to be heard after Item VI. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7— 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. March 8, 2012 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the March 8, 2012 meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 7— 0. VIII. New Business 1. Election of Chairman and Vice - Chairman Gary McAlpin submitted the Executive Summary "Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman" dated May 11, 2012 for consideration. Mr. Hendel moved to appoint John Sorey as Chairman and Jim Burke as Vice Chairman of the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 7— 0. Mr. Pires joined the meeting at 2:08 p.m. 2. Summer Schedule Gary McAlpin submitted the Executive Summary "Determine Summer Schedule for CAC meetings" dated May 11, 2012 for consideration. 1618,2012evf 2 k1 royal of Minutes 3of9 Gary McAlpin reported he has a conflict with the June meeting date and would not be present unless the meeting is rescheduled to a different date. Mr. Sorey moved to reschedule the regular meeting and cancel the July meeting of the Coastal Advisory Committee. July meeting to be held only if business warrants convening a meeting. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 3. 195 Grant Applications Considerations Gary McAlpin submitted the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Category "A " Tourist Development Council Grant applications from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY- 201212013 in the amount of $7,671,311, authorize the Chairman to sign grant agreements following County Attorney approval, and make a finding that these expenditures will promote tourism " dated May 11, 2012 for consideration. 1. Regulatory and Permit Compliance Sea Turtle Protection Program - Collier County Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "Sea Turtle Protection Program - Collier County" in the amount of $160,000.00 Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Chairman Sorey stated the approval was based on the understanding representatives from the Program will present a report to the Committee on the ongoing efforts to streamline the Program to improve efficiencies and reduce costs where feasible. Beach Tilling— Collier County — 80171 Mr. Waldack moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "Beach Tilling — Collier County" in the amount of $15,000.00. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Physical Beach & Pass Monitoring - 90536 Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "Physical Beach & Pass Monitoring" in the amount of $200,000.00 Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 2. Proiects Wiggins Pass Channel Straighten /Dikes /Renourish — 80210 Mr. Moreland moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "Wiggins Pass Channel Straighten/Dikes/Renourish "in the amount of $1,700,000.00 Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 1612 c o, z of Minutes 4of9 FY 12/13 Beach Design and Permit with HS Solutions — 80096 Mr. Moreland moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "FY 12113 Beach Design and Permit with HS Solutions" in the amount of $490,000.00 Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. MI Renourish Design & Permit with BW Solutions — 80166 Mr. Waldack moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "MI Renourish Design & Permit with B Solutions" in the amount of $100,000.00. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. MI Renourishment and Erosion Control Structure Mr. Moity moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "MI Renourishment and Erosion Control Structure" in the amount of $3,000,000.00. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Laser Grading North Marco Beach (R133 -R141) - 80203 Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "Laser Grading North Marco Beach" in the amount of $35,000. Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Hideaway Beach Emergency Control Structures — 80198 *Hideaway Additional Photos/Backup Mr. Pires reported he was abstaining from the item. Gary McAlpin noted the project sponsor is the City of Marco Island with the funds proposed to be expended from the "Catastrophe Fund." James Riviere, City Manager of Marco Island presented the application noting the request was approved by the Marco Island City Council and has been deemed an "emergency measure." Mr. Rios moved to approve the request. Chairman Sorey noted there were public speakers for the item, and recommended an action be delayed until they are heard. Without a second, the motion was not considered. Mr. Moity noted the project will aid in stabilizing the beach and prevent sand migration into Collier Creek, an area the County recently expended funds to dredge. Speakers Erik Brechnitz - Tigertail Beach and Caxambas Boat Ramp and restroom Michael Poff, Coastal Engineering Consultants 16 ` VI-A1 App oval oflMinutes 5of9 Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners deny the Grant Request "Hideaway Beach Emergency Control Structures" in the amount of $925,000.00. Second by Mr. Moreland. Chairman Sorey recognized the issue needs to be addressed but expressed concern, Hideaway Beach does not meet the definition as an "eligible beach area" with access to the public as defined in the Ordinance governing the Tourist Development Council (TDC). Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney noted the County Attorney's office has previously opined if the Board of County Commissioners makes a finding that funding the project is in the "public interest," the funds may be expended. The Ordinance governing the TDC defines "ineligible beach area" where if an area is subject to "high erosion" TDC dollars could be utilized to fund the project. Motion carried 4 "yes" 3 "no. Mr. Waldack, Mr. Rios and Mr. Moity voted "no." Mr. Pires abstained. 3. Beach Maintenance Beach Maintenance — Collier County /Marco Island — 90533 Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "Beach Maintenance — Collier County/Marco Island" in the amount of $109,570.00. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Beach Maintenance — City of Naples- 90527 Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "Beach Maintenance — City of Naples" in the amount of $76,850.00. Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Vegetation Repairs /Exotic Removal — County Wide — 90044 Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "Vegetation Repairs/Exotic Removal" in the amount of $75,000.00. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Naples Pier Annualized Repair & Maintenance — City of Naples — 90096 Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Request "Naples Pier Annualized Repair & Maintenance" in the amount of $80,000.00. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 4. Administration Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Grant Requests in the following amounts: "Fund 185 Administration ($487,491.00); Indirect Administration Costs ($107,700. 00); Tax Collector Fee's (2.5%) — ($109,700.00)." Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 16 12 A48,2012 VI -1 Approval of Minutes 6 of 9 Mr. Pires left the meeting at 3:48 p.m. 4. TDC Fund 195 10 Year Projection Gary McAlpin submitted the report "TDC Category A 195 Fund Projections — 11116111 " for information purposes. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club 5. CP &E Proposal - Design/Permitting /the Construction for FY 13/14 Collier County Main Beach Renourishment Gary McAlpin submitted the Executive Summary "Recommendation to recommend approval of award of Contract #11 -5772 for Collier County 2013 -14 Beach Renourishment Project Design Engineering and Permitting Services for Renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples to Coastal Planning and Engineering in the amount of $856,286.00 dated May 11, 2012 for consideration. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners award Contract #11 -5772 for Collier County 2013 -14 Beach Renourishment Project Design Engineering and Permitting Services for Renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples to Coastal Planning and Engineering in the amount of $856,286.00. Second by Mr. Burke. Speaker Bob Krasowski Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club Carried unanimously 6 — 0. 6. CEC Proposal - FY 12/13 Marco South Renourishment/Rebuild Erosion Control Structure Gary McAlpin submitted the Executive Summary "Recommendation to recommend approval of a Work Order with Coastal Engineering Consultants (CEC) for Final Design, Bid, and Construction Support Services for Beach Renourishment and the rebuilding of the five Existing Erosion Control Structures under Contract #09-5262 - CZ for a not to exceed Time and Material amount of $98,762 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism " dated May 11, 2012 for consideration. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve a Work Order with Coastal Engineering Consultants (CEC) for Final Design, Bid, and Construction Support Services for Beach Renourishment and the rebuilding of the five Existing Erosion Control Structures under Contract #09- 5262 -CZ for a not to exceed Time and Material amount of $98,762.00 and make a finding that the item promotes tourism." Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 6— 0. A4 1612CAC June 8, 2012 VI -1 Approval of Minutes 7 of 9 7. Atkins - FY 12/13 Beach Monitoring Gary McAlpin submitted the Executive Summary "Recommendation to recommend approval of a Work Order with Atkins North American, Inc. for Physical Monitoring under Contract #09- 5262 -CZ for a not to exceed Time and Material amount of $135,200 and make a finding that this item promotes tourism" dated May 11, 2012 for consideration. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve a Work Order with Atkins North American, Inc. for Physical Monitoring under Contract #09- 5262 -CZ for a not to exceed Time and Material amount of $135,200 and make a finding that the item promotes tourism." Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. 8. Discussion - Over Budget TDC Revenue Disposition The Committee reached consensus on authorizing Chairman Sorey to submit a letter on behalf of the CAC to the Board of County Commissioners requesting any surplus funds for the FYll 112 Tourist Development Council (TDC) budget be allocated in accordance with the funding requirements of the Ordinance governing the TDC. 9. Discussion - Interest Disposition TDC Funds Chairman Sorey reported the item had been previously addressed. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Collier County Tourist Tax Revenue FY 12 Revenue Report" dated through April 30, 2012. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY2011 12012 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through 5/1/12. 3. Draft Memo of Understanding Longboat Key Gary McAlpin submitted a copy of an email string and draft "Interlocal Agreement - The CityTown of Longboat Key and Collier County, Florida FY 2013114 Beach Renourishment Project" for information purposes. 4. Fecal Report - Clam Bay Gary McAlpin submitted a "Technical Note from David Tamasko PHD — Clam Bay NNC /Fecal Coliform" dated March 2012 for information purposes. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club 5. Wiggins Pass — Update 1612 CAA42012 VI -1 Approval of Minutes 8 of 9 Gary McAlpin provided an update on the Wiggins Pass project and submitted a copy of the document "Statement of Consistency Collier County Growth Management Plan — Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging and Navigation Improvement Project (ST PL20120000168)" for information purposes. • State Park Discussion Meeting • Letter of Consistency Submittal 6. Renourishment Project Gary McAlpin submitted the memo "Marco South Renourishment Project Talking Points — 511112 " for information purposes. He provided an update on the Conceptual Plan for the major beach renourishment project for Collier County, City of Naples, and Marco Island Beaches reporting the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will be reconsidering their action taken on the item at a previous BCC meeting. • Conceptual Plan Reconsideration • Marco Renourishment Points Speaker Bob Krasowski 7. FDEP Cost Share 4/27 Tallahassee Meeting Gary McAlpin submitted the document "Collier County FDEP 62b -36 2011 Rating and Potential Points" dated May 11, 2012 for information purposes. 8. FEMA PW Renewal Tropical Storm Fay Gary McAlpin submitted a letter from Major P. May, Regional Administrator for FEMA to The Honorable Bill Nelson, United States Senator dated April 13, 2012 regarding the County's Extension of Time Request to expend the funds awarded to the County for beach repairs due to Tropical Storm Fay for information purposes. 9. Erosion - Vanderbilt Beach Gary McAlpin submitted a copy of an email from Nick Moore dated April 23, 2012 — Subject "Beach Renourishment — Urgent Need on Vanderbilt Beach" for information purposes. 10. BOEM Update Gary McAlpin submitted a copy of an email from Stephen Keehn of Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. dated April 19, 2012 — Subject "Collier BOEM Telecom 4 -24 -12 " for information purposes. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements None 1612 k4cne 8, 2012 VI -1 Approval of Minutes 9of9 XI. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Moreland reported residents of Pelican Isle have observed raw sewage in the Cocohatchee River at periodic times and requested staff to notify representatives of the County to conduct an investigation. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location To be determined There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 4:47 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee c ohn Sorey, III, Ch irman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on (0 r i as presented ( or as amended 1612 AAst 9, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE U Naples, Florida, June 8, 2012 6 "o ` 1 � yl.. , .`e....... ........,.... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3 r Floor, Collier County Government Complex Na le Florida with the following Fiala "I Hiller members present: Henning --. Coyle ,�. -- ---_ Coletta CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Jim Burke (Excused) Anthony Pires Randy Moity Linda Penniman (Excused) Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney MisC. Cui res: Date: �v \ q I\ 2 Item t 21A q. Copies to: Ac#,oval st 9, 1612 of f CCA C Minutes A Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:02 PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda, Second by Mr. Raymond, Carried unanimously 5 — 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. May 11, 2012 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the May 11, 2012 meeting as presented, Second by Mr. Raymond, Carried unanimously 5 — 0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Collier County Tourist Tax Revenue FY 12 Revenue Report" dated through May 31, 2012. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 201112012 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through 6/1/12. 3. Tropical Storm Fay TDC Comments Gary McAlpin provided the memo "TS Fay Funding Renewal Discussion " last revised June 5, 2012 for information purposes. Speaker Bob Krasowski 4. Renourishment - Updates Gary McAlpin provided an email string from Gail Hambright dated June 5, 2012 "Subject: FW.• — Beach Renourishment Permit" for information purposes. * Main Collier Beaches Al 1612 CAC August 9, 2012 VIA Approval of CAC Minutes 3 of 5 • Marco Island • Consultant Contracts to BCC Speakers Bob Krasowski Marcia Cravens 5. Sand Volume - Public Discussion Gary McAlpin provided an email string from Gail Hambright dated June 5, 2012 — "Subject: FW: Beach " for information purposes. He reported that Staff intends to schedule a workshop for October or November on the subject of beach renourishment. Speakers Bob Krasowski Marcia Cravens Mr. Pires arrived at 1: 31 pm VIII. New Business 1. Discussion - TDC Fund Redistribution by Jack Wert * 6/7/12 Revision for TDC Fund Redistribution Jack Wert, Tourism Director reported that the purpose of this item, was to garner feedback from the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) on the recommendations generated by the Tourist Development Subcommittee. The Committee's comments will be forwarded to the Tourist Development Council (TDC) and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) He also presented a Slideshow "Destination Marketing Funding Proposal, Coastal Advisory Committee, May 11, 2012 " which outlined the following suggestions /recommendations from the TDC Subcommittee. Suggested Reallocation of TDC Funds 1. The overall goal is to increase marketing and promotion allocation from 25% of the total Tourist Development Tax (TDT) Revenue to 45% (that will generate $4.0 million per year for destination marketing efforts). 2. Reduce the Beach Park Facilities Annual Allocation of Category A funds from 16.67% to 6% ($2 million per year to $600, 000 per year). 3. The Collier County Museum Operating fund to be reduced after five years (FY 17) from 11 % to 0% (Any future funding would revert to the General Fund) supplemented by the following new revenue sources: ♦ Charge admission to non - residents ♦ Apply for state, regional and national Museum grants ♦ Annual major fund raising efforts ♦ Tourism Department to direct more TDC funds to Heritage Marketing 1612AO 1 c A A AlkCAC Minutes f 5 4. Increase allocation to "Category A " Beach renourishment from 33.33% to 34% Annually ($100k). 5. Increase the allocation to tourism administration from 11.60% to 12.60% ($13k). Recommendations for Destination Marketing Enhancements 1. Request BCC recognizes excess TDT revenue above current year projections for immediate use in destination marketing. 2. Extend the allocation of interest earned on each TDT fund to Fund 184 for destination marketing for an additional three years through FY15 3. Aggressively pursue State and Federal cost share funding for our beach renourishment projects through legislative lobbying and education. 4. Increase air service marketing funds by $50, 000 per year from base of $100, 000 to attract more direct service and enhance and expand existing air service especiallyfrom U.S. West Coast. 5. Expand Community Relations efforts to encourage more local and regional media coverage of the impact and importance of tourism to our community. 6 Tourism Dept (CVB) included as equal participant in economic development planning for the County. Committee discussion occurred on the pros and cons of each item. Speakers Bob Krasowski Marcia Cravens The Committee recommended Chairman Sorey formulate a written response to the necessary parties on the CAC's position for the items identified below. The Committee reached consensus on the following in regards to "Suggested Reallocation of Funds:" • 41 — Non support • #2 — Non support — Request that the BCC consider re- allocating a portion of the Reserve funds to Beach Renourishment; if necessary and to stress that the funds are critical for acquisition of public beach access. • #3 — Support • #4 — Non Support — Recommend that the allocation be increased from "34 %" Annually to "40 % Annually." • #5 — No position The Committee reached consensus on the following in regards to "Recommendations for Destination Marketing Enhancements:" • #1 — TDT revenue above current year projections be allocated to the individual accounts on a pro rata basis as defined in the Ordinance. • #2 — TDT interest on funds be allocated to the individual accounts generating the interest. • #3 — Support — It is the current practice. 1612 kst 9, 41PIP9,"val of f CAC Minutes 5 of 5 • 44 - #6 — Not within the scope of the Coastal Advisory Committee. IX. Old Business 1. Wiggins Pass Straightening - Discussion Gary McAlpin and Mr. Moreland (Chairman of the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee) provided an update on the Wiggins Pass Straightening project. Mr. Moreland moved to direct Staff to prepare a report on the history of County expenditures in relation to the Wiggins Pass project, Second by Mr. Rios, Carried unanimously 6 — 0. X. Announcements Gary McAlpin reported that Staff will be implementing a policy of uploading the "meeting packet" on -line for members and the public to view; providing a "hard copy" of the packet to members at the meeting. XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location August 9, 2012 — Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:16 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee ohn Sorey, III, Chair an These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented X or as amended 9-° - l 2 16 12 ._ q 5 July 6, 2012 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE p 3933E S Wfl Naples, Florida, July 6, 2012 �.) � Cl I � J I L I ]BY: ....................... 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 Fiala present: Hiller Henning (.-Gyle ��,oeita j� SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Corres: Date: koyc item *I =2 \q S 1 Copies to: 1612. A5 July 6, 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: 9:17 a.m. Reconvened: 9:45 a.m. 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 cases were moved to IV.B — Motion for Continuance • #5 - CASE NO: CESD20100000052 - DEUTSCHE BANK NATL TRUST CO • #6 - CASE NO: CEPM20100002830 - DEUTSCHE BANK NATL TRUST CO Under item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to V.0 — Motion for Continuance: • #5 - CASE NO: PU4831- CEEX20120009279 - MARBELLA LAKES OWNER ASSOCIATION INC • #6 - CASE NO: PU4535- CEEX20120008981 - GL HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II LTD • #7 - CASE NO: PU4870- CEEX20120009532 - GL HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II LTD Under item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to V.A — Stipulations: • #19 - CASE NO: CENA20120003709 - JOANNE CHRISTINE POYER EST AND IRIS M. PAUL • #18- CASE NO: CEPM20120006398 -ROBERT SEYLER • #13 -CASE NO: CEV20120008663 -LARRY A. MASI AND DOUG J. MASI • #4 - CASE NO: PU4534- CEEX20120007863 -CHILE CALIENTE LLC Under item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn: • #1 - CASE NO: PR048505- CEEX20120007817 -SUZANNE VAN ESSEN AND ZACH GOSEY • #9 - CASE NO: CEPM20120002730 - ROBERT RODRIGUEZ AND AIDA RODRIGUEZ • #10 - CASE NO: CEV20120008808 - SEAN MITCHELL BARRON • #14 - CASE NO: CEPM20120006156 - PETE'S TRAILER PARK INC. • #15 - CASE NO: CENA20120007627 - LINDA H. HAINES AND WILLIAM D. HAINES • #16 - CASE NO: CENA20120003543 - KELLY R. CRAIN ESTATE • #17 - CASE NO: CEPM20100022132 - ANGELITA RODRIGUEZ Under VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines, the following case was withdrawn: • #1- CASE NO: CENA20120000461 - SHERI L. GAUTHIER 2 III. IV. A5 The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. 1612 July 6, 2012 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 18, 2012 June 1, 2012 The minutes of the May 18, 2012 and June 1, 2012 Special Magistrate Hearings were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance 1. CASE NO: CESD20100000052 OWNER: DEUTSCHE BANK NATL TRUST CO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED. FOLIO NO: 67291040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 692 GORDONIA ROAD, NAPLES Supervisor Mucha represented the County and had no objection to the request. Jessica Scherir represented the Respondent reporting the property it currently subject to civil litigation. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for a Continuance. 2. CASE NO: CEPM20100002830 OWNER: DEUTSCHE BANK NATL TRUST CO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 424.2.17. NO ENCLOSURE OR FENCE AROUND SWIMMING POOL. FOLIO NO: 67291040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 692 GORDONIA ROAD, NAPLES Supervisor Mucha represented the County and had no objection to the request. Jessica Scherir represented the Resondent reporting the property it currently subject to civil litigation. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for a Continuance. CASE NO: PU4831- CEEX20120009279 OWNER: MARBELLA LAKES OWNER ASSOCIATION INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RAY ADDISON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2001 -73, SECTION 1.4b SUBSECTION 1 CROSSING PROPERTY LINE WITH WATER HOSE FOR CONSTRUCTION AT DIFFERENT FOLIO NUMBER/ADDRESS. FOLIO NO: 56610000208 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6395 LAGUNA CIRCLE, NAPLES Special Magistrate Garretson stated the Respondent's legal counsel submitted the request indicating she had a previous long standing commitment that conflicted with the hearing schedule. 16 121 A5 July 6, 2012 Investigator Addison represented the County and objected to the request due to the repeat nature of violations occuring on site, however it is not a Health, Safety or Welfare issue. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for Continuance in the case until the next hearing date. 4. CASE NO: PU4535- CEEX20120008981 OWNER: GL HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ALBERTO SANCHEZ VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2001 -73, SECTION 1.4 N UNLAWFUL CONNECTION TO WATER OWNED BY DISTRICT WITHOUT CONSENT. FOLIO NO: 72640033407 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3994 BERING COURT, NAPLES Investigator Sanchez represented the County stating the activity has ceased. He had no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for a Continuance, however if the violations re -occur an Emergency Hearing will be scheduled. CASE NO: PU4870- CEEX20120009532 OWNER: GL HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MIKE ANDRESKY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2001 -73, SECTION 1.4 N, Q A HOSE B.I.B. CONNECTED TO THE CURBSTOP. A 3 /4 GARDEN HOSE RAN TO A PRESSURE WASHER. THE SAMPLE POINT WAS BEING USED TO WASH EMPLOYEE HANDS. FOLIO NO: 72640032149 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3813 COLUMBIA COURT LOT 83, NAPLES Investigator Andresky represented the County stating the violation had been abated and the case is not a Health, Safety and Welfare issue. He had no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for a Continuance. C. Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CEPM20090007445 OWNER: ZACK MOEN AND GRETCHEN MOEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE 2004 -58, SECTION 12. THE LEFT REAR CORNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS BURNED IN A HOUSE FIRE. FOLIO NO: 37923600000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4645 13TH AVE SW, NAPLES Supervisor Mucha represented the County. Susan Shorter represented the Respondent and requested a 1 -year continuance because the owner had sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident on July 3, 2012. The owner is investigating the most optimal solution to abate the violation including discussions with the Fire District on the feasibility of using the premise for training purposes. Investigator Mucha had no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for an Extension of Time for a period of I year. 1612 4�6,2012 CASE NO: CESD20110000968 OWNER: ETHEL MATA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A CARPORT ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE AND A SHED IN THE REAR ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 53500360006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 906 TAYLOR TERRACE, IMMOKALEE Investigator Rodriguez represented the County and stated she had no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for an Extension of Time. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 19. CASE NO: CENA20120003709 OWNER: JOANNE CHRISTINE POYER EST AND IRIS M. PAUL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 54 -181 AND 54 -179. LITTER AND DEBRIS CONSISTING OF METAL, WOOD, CARDBOARD, TIRES, PLASTIC, ETC. LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 63505080009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3612 CROTON ROAD, NAPLES Investigator Asaro represented the County. Charles B. Riddle represented the Respondents, who are deceased. He inherited the premise and resides on site. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Charles B. Riddle on July 6, 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 August 6, 2012. 2 Remove all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property and dispose in an appropriate waste disposal facility or store desired items in a completely enclosed structure by August 6, 2012 or $100.00 per day fine will be imposed each day the violation remains. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 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 Respondentfails 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 18. CASE NO: CEPM20120006398 OWNER: ROBERT SEYLER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE 1 6 12 A 5 Jul Y 6, 2012 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(1). BROKEN WINDOW. FOLIO NO: 68343680006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 95 ISLE ST. THOMAS, NAPLES Investigator Giguere represented the County. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Ursula Seyler on July 6, 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 the Operational Costs of $112.29 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before August 6, 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 13, 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, obtain a Collier County Boarding Certificate and board the structure to the required specifications on or before July 13, 2012 and obtain all required Collier County Building Permits inspections and Certificates of Completion /Occupancy by January 6, 2013 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 Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Amount Due: $112.29 13. CASE NO: CEV20120008663 OWNER: LARRY A. MASI AND DOUG J. MASI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: STORAGE AND USE OF VEHICLE CONTROL ORDINANCE, CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130, ARTICLE III, SECTION 130- 96(a). BOAT IN FRONT OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 52391560003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 140 CAPRI BLVD, NAPLES Investigator Giguere represented the County and reported the violation has been abated as of July 5, 2012. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Lenore T. Brakefield on July 6, 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 August 6, 2012. 1 612 A5 July 6 2012 2. Abate all violations by relocating the boat to an enclosed structure, rear yard, adjacent to waterway as permitted, or remove offending boat from area zoned residential by July 9, 2012 or a fine of $50.00 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. 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: $112.29 4. CASE NO: PU4534- CEEX20120007863 OWNER: CHILE CALIENTE LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ALBERTO SANCHEZ VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2005 -54, SEC. 2,3,4 NO COMMERCIAL SERVICE FOLIO NO: 25630440002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 204 BOSTON AVENUE, IMMOKALEE Investigator Sanchez requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Jacob Gallegos on July 6, 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 $55.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case by August 6, 2012. 2. Pay a fine of $500.00 by August 6, 2012. Total Amount Due: $555.00 Break: 10: 37a. m. Reconvened: 10: 45a. m. B. Hearings 2. CASE NO: PR045534- CEEX20120007629 OWNER: SCOTT SCHULTZ OFFICER: PARK RANGER PETILLO JONES VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA, OUTSIDE OF DESIGNATED PARKING SPACE VIOLATION ADDRESS: VANDERBILT BEACH GARAGE, NAPLES Following preliminary discussions on the status of the case, Mr. Schultz withdrew his request for a hearing. 7 16 12 15uly 6, 2012 3. CASE NO: PR047510- CEEX20120008754 OWNER: JAEDEN HAMERNIK OFFICER: PARK RANGER KURT ARAQUISTAM VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE VIOLATION ADDRESS: SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK, NAPLES Ranger Araquistain represented the County. Jaeden Hamernik and Drew Hamernik were present. Both were in the vehicle when it was parked. Drew Hamernik testified: • On May 26 they entered Sudgen Regional Park and parked their vehicle in an unoccupied parking space. • Adjacent to the space were five, clearly marked handicapped spaces delineated with striping and signage. • The space they occupied was not clearly delineated for handicapped parking nor was the concrete parking bumper painted blue similar to the adjacent spaces. • Upon returning from the beach, they noticed they had been ticketed for parking in a handicapped space. Ranger Araquistain testified: • On the day of the incident he was on routine patrol when he observed the vehicle parked in a handicapped space without the proper permitting. • He displayed several photos of the space and the vehicle parked in the space. • Although the space is not delineated with "striping" there are portions of faint blue paint lines on each side of the space. • The concrete parking bumper had recently been replaced and has not been painted blue. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent NOT GUILTY of parking in a handicapped space without proper permitting as the area in question is not properly designated for "handicapped parking" only. 8. CASE NO: C002749- CEVF142O120006230 OWNER: A 1 ON 1 PROFESSIONAL LIMOUSINE SERVICE INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 142, SECTION 142- 30(9), 142- 33(c). OPERATED A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE BUSINESS UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS OF THE COUNTY WITHOUT FIRST RENEWING THE LICENSE TO OPERATE WITH COLLIER COUNTY THAT EXPIRED ON JANUARY 28, 2012. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1012 ANGLER'S COVE D -308, NAPLES Investigator Crowley represented the County. William Reynoso, General Manager of A 1 on 1 Professional Limousine Service, Inc. was present. Investigator Crowley testified: • On May 21, 2012 she issued a citation to the Respondents for operating a Motor Vehicle for Hire without the proper licensing. 1612 aA5 July The licensing was subject to renewal and had expired on January 28, 2012. The company has always been in good standing and subsequently obtained all required permits to operate. Mr. Reynoso testified it was an oversight in not renewing the license and subsequently paid additional fees for new licensing as opposed to renewal fees and requested the fine be reduced. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of Operating a Vehicle for Hire without proper County licensing and ordered they pay a $100.00 fine, $50.00 in Operational Costs and a $5.00 Administrative Fee for a total amount of $155.00. Total Amount Due: $155.00 11. CASE NO: CEPM20120006775 OWNER: ROBERT P. HENDRICKS AND AMANDA E. HENDRICKS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) AND 22- 231(12)(n). AN UNMAINTAINED POOL AND A SCREEN ENCLOSURE AROUND THE POOL WITH TORN SCREEN. FOLIO NO: 38972600005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2531 48TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Scott Morell, son of Robert P. Hendricks and Amanda E. Hendricks was present. Investigator Short represented the County. County Evidence Entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 5/7/12 Exhibit B — 1 photo dated 5/31/12 Investigator Short reported the violation remains. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.12 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before January 6, 2013. 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 August 6, 2012 or a fine of $150.00 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 August 6, 2012 or a fine of $150.00 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. Make all necessary repairs of the pool cage structure on or before August 6, 2012 or a fine of $150.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 5. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 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. 16 12 A5july'6, 2012 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: $112.12 12. CASE NO: CENA20120007047 OWNER: ROBERT P. HENDRICKS AND AMANDA E. HENDRICKS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54 -181 AND 54 -179. AN ACCUMULATION OF LITTER AROUND THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 38972600005 VIOLATIONADDRESS: 253148 T" AVENUE NE, NAPLES Scott Morell, son of Robert P. Hendricks and Amanda E. Hendricks was present. Investigator Short represented the County. County Evidence Entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 5/7/12 photo dated 5/31/12 photo dated 7/5/12 Exhibit B — Exhibit C - Investigator Short reported the violation is 99 percent abated with a couple of minor items remaining in the yard. Mr. Morell stated the items could be removed by July 9, 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 $112.12 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 6, 2013. 2. Abate the violation by removing all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property to an appropriate waste disposal facility and remove any and all abandoned or derelict property from the location in question to a site intended for final disposal or store said items in a completely enclosed structure by July 9, 2012 or a fine of $50.00 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. 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: $112.12 a +1 1 b' 2 5u, 6,2012 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 3. CASE NO: CESD20100007028 OWNER: SVEND PETERSEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SHED ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 40179400009 VIOLATIONADDRESS: 3577 RANDALL BLVD, NAPLES Investigator Short represented the County. Svend Petersen was present and stated the property was foreclosed on 4 years ago by Chase Bank, but the title remains in his name. The Special Magistrate continued the case for 12 months and suspended the acrual of fines. 4. CASE NO: CESD20110004498 OWNER: DANIEL E. OSBORNE AND LISA C. OSBORNE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED. FOLIO NO: 38332560002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6100 DOGWOOD WAY, NAPLES Investigator Musse represented the County. Dan Osborne was present. Mr. Osborne testified he purchased the property and was unaware the shed was unpermitted. He has taken the necessary steps to permit the shed with all inspectons completed. Investigator Musse testified, according to his records, three of the required inspections have not been completed. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case so the parties could resolve the status of the inspections. 8. CASE NO: CEPM20110012228 OWNER: MICHAEL M. MIR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ART FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 -228 AND CHAPTER 110 -46. SWALE /CULVERT PIPING SYSTEM COLLAPSED ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62777000009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 802 99TH AVENUE N, NAPLES Supervisor Mucha represented the County reporting the violation has been abated and recommended the fines be waived. Michael Mir was present. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of fines. 1612 Y ul 6, 2012 CASE NO: CEPM20110016560 OWNER: CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XIV LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(19). OCCUPIED RENTAL UNIT WITH MOLD ALL OVER THE WALLS AND CEILING. FOLIO NO: 00296840003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8664 DILIP LANE UNIT 205, NAPLES Investigator Mucha represented the County reporting the violation has been abated and recommended the fines be waived. Danielle Delgado, the Association's Property Manager was present. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Moton for Imposition of fines. 11. CASE NO: CEPM20120007772 OWNER: LINDA H. HAINES AND WILLIAM D. HAINES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELLE SCAVONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(2),22-231(12)(i), 22-231(l),22-231(11),22-231(12)(b), 22- 231(12)(n), 22- 231(9), 22- 231(5). COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING STANDARDS, WATER TURNED OFF TO PROPERTY BY CITY OF NAPLES, NO WATER ON THE PROPERTY, ELECTRIC TURNED OFF BY FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT, ELECTRIC ILLEGALLY HOOKED UP, COOKING EQUIPMENT DOES NOT MEET ASME CONTAINER STANDARDS, EXTERIOR WALLS HAVE HOLES, BRAKES AND SURFACES ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED, WINDOWS ARE BROKEN AND NOT BEING MAINTAINED, AND FENCE AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS DAMAGED AND NOT BEING MAINTAINED. FOLIO NO: 53352680002 VIOLATIONADDRESS: 3087 LUNAR STREET AKA 3077 LUNAR STREET, NAPLES Investigator Scavone presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/22/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/18/12 Fine Amount: Part B: $500.00 /day Part C: $500.00 /day Part D: $500.00 /day Duration: Part B: 6/5/12 — 7/6/12(32 days) Part C: 6/5/12 — 7/6/12(32 days) Part D: 6/9/12 — 7/6/12 (28 days) Total Fine Amount: $46,000.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $113.08 Total to Date: $46,113.08 William Haines was present and reported he is now in a position to abate the violation and has started by clearing the weeds. He requested more time to abate the violation. Linda Haines, his mother is incarcerated and cannot be contacted. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case for 90 days, suspending the acrual of fines. 12 16 12 A5 July 6, 2012 CASE NO: CEPM20110016069 OWNER: ERASMO ARMANDO ARAGON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 22- 231(12)(i) AND 22 -243. BROKEN WINDOW AND SEVERAL DOORS AND WINDOWS UNSECURED. FOLIO NO: 36435880005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5235 32ND AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/18/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Bosa presented the case noting the violation has been partially abated. Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 3/17/12 — 7/6/12 (112 days) Total Fine Amount: $28,000.00 Abatement Costs: $770.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $28,882.47 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 $28,882.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 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)(i) AND SECTION 22- 231(12)( c). WINDOWS BROKEN IN GARAGE DOOR AND THE SOFFIT IS FALLING DOWN. FOLIO NO: 62423160002 VIOLATIONADDRESS: 789 107TH AVENUE N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/21/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/19/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Mucha presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 5/26/12 — 7/6/12 (42 days) Total Fine Amount: $10,500.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $10,612.47 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 $10,61247. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 13 612, A5 1 July 6, 2012 10. CASE NO: CEPM20110002763 OWNER: MORAD BAHRAMI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(m) AND SECTION 22- 231(12)(1). BLACK MOLD ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOME AND TORN SCREENS ON THE LANAI. FOLIO NO: 32484040007 VIOLATIONADDRESS: 841 BLUEBIRD STREET, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/22/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/15/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Asaro presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 5/4/12 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 5/11/11 — 5/4/12 (360 days) Total Fine Amount: $90,000.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1697.33 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $91,809.89 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 $91,809.89. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 12. CASE NO: CESD20110016465 OWNER: MARTHA BACHELOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A CHICKEE HUT ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 61480009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4801 TRAFFORD FARM ROAD, IMMOKALEE Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 6/22/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 6/15/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Rodriguez presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 6/7/12 — 7/6/12 (30 days) Total Fine Amount: $6,000.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $6,112.38 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 $6,112.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. C. Emergency Cases: None 14 16112' 5 July , 2012 Break: 12:19 p. m. Reconvened: 1: 39 p. m. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued B. Hearings 20. CASE NO: CEEX20120009479 OWNER: JOHN DEIGHEN AND LISA DEIGHEN OFFICER: ANIER MARRERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 14 -35. DANGEROUS DOG. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7239 MILL POND CIRCLE, NAPLES The Special Magistrate stated the purpose of the hearing was to hear John and Lisa Deighen's appeal of Domestic Animal Services determination that their dog "Murphy" be declared a "Dangerous Dog." Colleen Macalister, Attorney represented the Deighen's Dana Alger, Domestic Animal Services Supervisor and Emily Pepin, Assistant County Attorney represented the County. Ms. Macalister stated the letter issued on June 18, 2012 by Domestic Animal Services (DAS) cited both Florida Statute and Collier County Ordinance in the determination that "Murphy" is a "Dangerous Dog." The Statute and the County Ordinance are in conflict, as Legislative Findings (767.10) and related Statute 767. Lb provides "A dog shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person who, at the time, was unlawfully on the property or, while lawfully on the property, was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or its owner or a family member. " The Statute provides a "defense mechanism" for a dog bite, while County Ordinance 2008 -51 does not (Section 14 -35 provides for a dog to be deemed dangerous if it "Has aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property'). She submitted Florida case Law which provides local Ordinances may not be in conflict with State Statutes and requested a determination on how the law will be applied in the hearing The Special Magistrate stated this hearing is not the forum to determine constitutionality or validity of the County Ordinance and /or its conflict with State Statutes, rather, if in the Magistrate's opinion, she agrees with the County's determination the dog meets the definition of a Dangerous Dog under the Ordinance. Witness- John Deighen, owner of "Murphy" Ms. Macalister called John Deighen whose testimony is summarized below: • He has owned "Murphy ", a rescue dog for 13 years. • "Murphy," throughout his lifetime has been plagued by chronic health issues primarily associated with arthritis and other debilitating conditions in his legs (Exhibit 1). • In order to alleviate his symptoms, "Murphy" is prescribed a variety of medications to be taken on a daily basis, including pain relievers. • The Dempsey's have visited their residence 2 — 3 times annually over a period of 14 years, and are very familiar with the dog, and never voiced any concerns over "Murphy." ILI 16 12 A5 July 6, 2012 • "Murphy" has never had any incidents where he has been aggressive or has bitten any individual and has completed obedience training and participates in public events (Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9). • The Deighen's constantly warned the Dempsey's and their children to be careful of "Murphy" and not to touch his hind quarters due to the dog's chronic pain in the area. • On the day of the incident, the victim was very active and was "re- warned" on "Murphy's" condition. • Neither he nor Mr. Dempsey witnessed the incident which occurred on the lanai of the residence. Witness - Lisa Deighen, owner of "Murphy" Ms. Macalister called Lisa Deighen whose testimony is summarized below: • She repeatedly warned the Dempsey's and their children to be careful of "Murphy" as Lucie, the victim, was very active that day. • Following dinner, she and Mrs. Dempsey were seated at a table on the lanai, with "Murphy" by her feet, facing "inward." • Lucie, while retrieving a ball she was playing with, ventured behind her (Mrs. Deighen's) chair, and, in an attempt to step over "Murphy ", lost her balance and fell on his hind quarters startling the dog. • "Murphy" reacted and bit Lucie, however he did not "get up off of the floor," nor "take the child to the floor" when the act was committed. • She did not witness "Murphy" actually perpetrate the bite. In response to a question posed by Ms. Pepin, Ms. Deighen indicated, in her opinion, Lucie did not torment, abuse or assault "Murphy." Witness - Erik Madison, DVM Ms. Macalister called Erik Madison, DVM, whose testimony is summarized below: • He is not "Murphy's" regular veterinarian; however he treats him for his pain and arthritis symptoms. • "Murphy" has a degenerative condition in his joints and suffers with bone grinding and severe bone spur formations in his hips, spine, elbows and knees. • He has not observed any aggressive behavior by "Murphy" and he is a well adjusted dog. • "Murphy" is prescribed several medications to aid in alleviating his pain. • Biting would be a normal range of response for a dog in his condition given the nature of events as they unfolded during the incident. Ms. Macalister reported "Murphy's" primary veterinarian could not be present but has submitted an affidavit (Exhibit 12). Respondent Evidence Admitted - (Ms. Macalister submitted several previously numbered Exhibits for consideration, with the following admitted as evidence) Exhibit 1: DVD "Murphy" — which shows "Murphy" and his difficulty in standing up when called. Exhibit 6: Pet Smart Certificate of Achievement - "Murphy." Exhibit 7: American Kennel Club Canine Good Citizen Test Certificate. Exhibit 8 - (Composite): P.A.W.S. for R.E.A.D.ing Certificate for "Murphy" — Collier County Library and related documentation. 16 16 12 ' A 51 Y 6 2012 Exhibit 9 - (Composite): 10 photos of "Murphy" interacting with the victim's parent(s) and others. Exhibit 12: Affidavit dated July 2, 2012 from Aaron Marie Fry, DVM — "Murphy's" veterinarian. Dana Alger reported the Dempsey's are currently in Paris, France and cannot be present. Ms. Alger and Ms. Pepin reported the determination was based on: • Ordinance 2008 -51 as amended - Chapter 14 -35a.1 — "Dangerous or vicious dog means any dog that according to the records of the appropriate authority: Has aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property. " • Ordinance 2008 -51 as amended - Chapter 14 -35a.3 — "Severe injury means any physical injury that results in broken bones, multiple bites, or disfiguring lacerations requiring sutures or reconstructive surgery. " • Final Medical Report of NCH Healthcare System (Exhibit E). • Photos of injuries sustained by Lucie Dempsey (Exhibits A — D). • The affidavit of Mrs. Dempsey who witnessed the incident (Exhibit G). • The affidavit of Mrs. Deighen who witnessed the incident (Exhibit H). County Evidence Admitted: Exhibit A: 1 photo of injuries to Lucie Dempsey. Exhibit B: 1 photo of injuries to Lucie Dempsey. Exhibit C: 1 photo of injuries to Lucie Dempsey. Exhibit D: 1 photo of injuries to Lucie Dempsey. Exhibit E: Final Report — Dr. Gardner, NCH Healthcare System, for patient Lucie Dempsey dated May 6, 2012. Exhibit F: DAS Activity Report. Exhibit G: DAS Statement of Affidavit or Complaint Form filed by Katarina Dempsey dated May 10, 2012. Exhibit H: DAS Statement of Affidavit or Complaint Form filed by Lisa Deighen dated May 14, 2012. Ms. Macalister concluded by noting "Murphy's" reaction to "bite" was due to "provocation" with the dog reacting to an infliction of pain. The determination references both a State Statute and County Ordinance and the Respondent has a right to challenge the finding based on the determining factors. These factors include provisions in the Statute whereas there is a defense mechanism allowed for a dog's response to an incident of this nature. In addition, no evidence was presented to support a finding "Murphy" is "dangerous." Ms. Pepin concluded the County Ordinance was the determining factor in the decision including, as the evidence supports, a severe injury was inflicted on a human being, regardless of whether the incident was provoked or unprovoked. The hearing is not a forum for the Ordinance's conformance with State Statute or Constitutionality. She requested the Special Magistrate uphold the determination "Murphy" be deemed a "Dangerous Dog." The Special Magistrate took the case "UNDER ADVISEMENT. " 17 1612 Au 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 the 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 the 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: August 3, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 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 4:07 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on 2.o t 2 , as presented X/ , or as amended 18 16 2`*A�t 3, 2012 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATRn Naples, Florida, August 3, 2012 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 P Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta , C, ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Corres: Date: \°�g\ \2. Item*. \t,-D"= '2.. \445 Copies to: A5 1612 August 3, 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: 9:15 a.m. Reconvened: 9:30 a.m. 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 case was moved to IV.B — Motion for Continuance: • #16 -CASE NO: CEPM20120007056 - PACIFICA NAPLES LLC Under VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines, the following case was moved to IV.0 — Motion for Extension of Time: • #3 - CASE NO: CESD20110017216 - SMUDER -FAUST REALTY INC. Under Item V.C, Emergency Cases — the following cases was originally to be added to the Agenda and heard under this item, but moved to V.A — Stipulations: • #1 - CRESTVIEW PARK II, LTD Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to V.A — Stipulations: • 912 - CASE NO: PU4903- CEEX20120010926 - CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XIV LTD Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn: • #1 - CASE NO: S0178239- CEEX20120007279 - LISA M. O'NEILL • #2 - CASE NO: S0138080- CEEX20120009489 - GERARD E. EUSTACHE • #3 - CASE NO: S0177919- CEEX20120009487 - LAURA A. POLAND • #4 - CASE NO: PR048548- CEEX20120008429 - BYRON KEYSER • #6 - CASE NO: PR048586- CEEX20120010885 - KATHRYN FREDSON AND MARK HOLLAND • #18 -CASE NO: CEPM20120004484 - PEDRO ESPINAL The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 6, 2012 The minutes of the July 6, 2012 Special Magistrate Hearing were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. 1612 � August 3!245 IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance 1. CASE NO: CEPM20120007056 OWNER: PACIFICA NAPLES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(19). RECURRING VIOLATION OF AN OCCUPIED RENTAL UNIT WITH ELEVATED MOLD CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 35830040001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4255 JEFFERSON LANE #102, NAPLES Susan Rathbun, Property Manager represented the Respondent. Supervisor Mucha represented the County stating he had no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondents Motion for a Continuance in the case. C. Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20110017216 OWNER: SMUDER -FAUST REALTY INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). FOUR SETS OF STAIRS INSTALLED BEHIND THE BUILDING WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 35832800003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12555 COLLIER BLVD, NAPLES The Respondent was not present. Supervisor Mucha represented the County stating he had no objection to the request as the Respondent has obtained the necessary permits and is in the process of abating the violation. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for an Extension of Time. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 1. CRESTVIEW PARK II, LTD Investigator Sanchez represented the County. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Dora Croft on August 3, 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 $55.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case and pay a fine amount of $250.00 for a total amount due of $305.00. Total Amount Due: $305.00 2. CASE NO: PU4903- CEEX20120010926 OWNER: CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XIV LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR NATALIE SMITH VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2005 -54, SECTION 19C SUBSECTION 9 16 A5 August 3, 2012 LITTER ON THE GROUND NOT CONTAINERIZED CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: PUTRESCIBLE WASTE, PLASTIC, MIRRORS, FURNITURE, PAPER, ETC. CREATING A HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE ISSUE. FOLIO NO: 00296840003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8690 WEIR DRIVE, NAPLES Investigator Smith represented the County. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Danielle Delgado on August 3, 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 $50.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case, a fine in the amount of $500.00 and an Administrative Fee of $5.00 for a total amount due of $555.00. Total Amount Due: $555.00 B. Hearings 5. CASE NO: PR048102- CEEX20120008677 OWNER: JENNIFER WHITESELL AND WILLIS WHITESELL III OFFICER: PARK RANGER BARRY GORNIAK VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE, NO PERMIT. VIOLATION ADDRESS: MAX HASSE PARK, NAPLES Ranger Gorniak represented the County. Willis Whitesell and Jennifer Whitesell were present. The Special Magistrate, County Staff and the Respondent's parties discussed the case including the avenues available to resolve the case without a hearing. The case was withdrawn by the County. (Cases 9, 10 and I1 were combined) CASE NO: PU4535- CEEX20120008981 OWNER: GL HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ALBERTO SANCHEZ VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2001 -73, SECTION 1.4 N UNLAWFUL CONNECTION TO WATER OWNED BY DISTRICT WITHOUT CONSENT. FOLIO NO: 72640033407 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3994 BERING COURT, NAPLES 10. CASE NO: PU4870- CEEX20120009532 OWNER: GL HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MIKE ANDRESKY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2001 -73, SECTION 1.4 N, Q A HOSE B.I.B. CONNECTED TO THE CURBSTOP. A 3 A GARDEN HOSE RAN TO A PRESSURE WASHER. THE SAMPLE POINT WAS BEING USED TO WASH EMPLOYEE HANDS. FOLIO NO: 72640032149 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3813 COLUMBIA COURT LOT 83, NAPLES 4 Investigator Addison represented the County and stated the parties were making an effort to resolve the cases via stipulations. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the cases. (Cases 13, 14 and 15 were combined) 13. CASE NO: DAS12305- CEEX20120010182 OWNER: VERONICA ALI AND RONALD HUBBS OFFICER: KURT ZEITLER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -36, SECTION A 2 ALLOW A DOG TO RUN AT LARGE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2947 12TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES 14. CASE NO: DAS12306- CEEX20120010183 OWNER: VERONICA ALI AND RONALD HUBBS OFFICER: KURT ZEITLER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -36, SECTION A 2 ALLOW A DOG TO RUN AT LARGE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2947 12TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES 15. CASE NO: DAS12307- CEEX20120010184 OWNER: VERONICA ALI AND RONALD HUBBS OFFICER: KURT ZEITLER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -36, SECTION A 2 ALLOW A DOG TO RUN AT LARGE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2947 12TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Officer Zeitler represented the County. Ronald Hubbs was present. Mr. Hubbs testified: • On the day of the incident, he was not at home and his wife bathed the three dogs (a mother and 2 puppies) and placed them in the screened in lanai while she left the house to go to the store. • While she was gone, the dogs broke through the lanai screening and ran into the neighbor's yard. • The dogs ripped through the screening, as it is common in the neighborhood for other dogs to run at large and visit the dogs exciting them. • His wife, does not speak English was signed for the citation unbeknownst of the ramifications of the penalties associated. • No warning was given, the owners of the other dogs running at large were not issued a citation. He requested the fines be reduced or waived. 16 12 A5 August 3, 2012 11. CASE NO: PU4649- CEEX20120009850 OWNER: GL HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES II LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEREMY FLORIN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2001 -73, SECTION 1.4 N UNLAWFUL CONNECTION TO A COLLIER COUNTY WATER TEST POINT. THE CONNECTION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY COLLIER COUNTY. THE CONNECTION WAS TERMINATED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT. FOLIO NO: 72640033407 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3994 BERING COURT, NAPLES Investigator Addison represented the County and stated the parties were making an effort to resolve the cases via stipulations. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the cases. (Cases 13, 14 and 15 were combined) 13. CASE NO: DAS12305- CEEX20120010182 OWNER: VERONICA ALI AND RONALD HUBBS OFFICER: KURT ZEITLER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -36, SECTION A 2 ALLOW A DOG TO RUN AT LARGE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2947 12TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES 14. CASE NO: DAS12306- CEEX20120010183 OWNER: VERONICA ALI AND RONALD HUBBS OFFICER: KURT ZEITLER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -36, SECTION A 2 ALLOW A DOG TO RUN AT LARGE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2947 12TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES 15. CASE NO: DAS12307- CEEX20120010184 OWNER: VERONICA ALI AND RONALD HUBBS OFFICER: KURT ZEITLER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -36, SECTION A 2 ALLOW A DOG TO RUN AT LARGE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2947 12TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Officer Zeitler represented the County. Ronald Hubbs was present. Mr. Hubbs testified: • On the day of the incident, he was not at home and his wife bathed the three dogs (a mother and 2 puppies) and placed them in the screened in lanai while she left the house to go to the store. • While she was gone, the dogs broke through the lanai screening and ran into the neighbor's yard. • The dogs ripped through the screening, as it is common in the neighborhood for other dogs to run at large and visit the dogs exciting them. • His wife, does not speak English was signed for the citation unbeknownst of the ramifications of the penalties associated. • No warning was given, the owners of the other dogs running at large were not issued a citation. He requested the fines be reduced or waived. 1612 Ab August 3, 2012 Officer Zeitler testified: • He responded to a call placed by the Collier County Sheriff's Department on dogs running at large. • When he arrived at the scene, he observed the dogs in question (an adult female and 2 puppies weighing approximately 40 pounds) unleashed, off of the Respondents property. • He apprehended the dogs and placed them in his vehicle and determined ownership. • No other dogs were observed running at large. • Domestic Animal Control officers have previously responded to the scene in April, May, and June of 2012 and warned the respondent to correct the problem of his dogs running at large. • The dogs were not licensed or vaccinated. • Upon determining the ownership, Mr. Hubb's wife and son arrived home and he spoke to her via translation by their 13 year old son. • She signed the citation as "recipient" of the document. • He issued citations for a "minimal" infraction (dogs running at large) and did not issue any citations for unlicensed or unvaccinated animals, or impounded the animals which could have resulted in greater costs to the Respondent. After hearing the testimony, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered them to pay costs in the amount of $371.00. Total Amount Due: $371.00 CASE NO: PU4831- CEEX20120009279 OWNER: MARBELLA LAKES OWNER ASSOCIATION INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RAY ADDISON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2001 -73, SECTION 1.4b SUBSECTION l CROSSING PROPERTY LINE WITH WATER HOSE FOR CONSTRUCTION AT DIFFERENT FOLIO NUMBER/ADDRESS. FOLIO NO: 56610000208 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6395 LAGUNA CIRCLE, NAPLES Investigator Addison represented the County and requested a continuance in the case. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case. VI. NEW BUSINESS Motion for Imposition of Fines 2. CASE NO: CESD20110004498 OWNER: DANIEL E. OSBORNE AND LISA C. OSBORNE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED. FOLIO NO: 38332560002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6100 DOGWOOD WAY, NAPLES Supervisor Mucha presented the case noting the violation has been abated and recommended the fines be waived. Daniel Osborne was present. Abatement Date: 7/6/12 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 6/7/12 — 7/6/12 (30 days) 1612 " A5 August 3, 2012 Total Fine Amount: $3,000.00 Total to Date: $3,000.00 The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. (Cases 4 and S were combined) 4. CASE NO: CESD20100000052 OWNER: DEUTSCHE BANK NATL TRUST CO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED. FOLIO NO: 67291040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 692 GORDONIA ROAD, NAPLES CASE NO: CEPM20100002830 OWNER: DEUTSCHE BANK NATL TRUST CO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 424.2.17. NO ENCLOSURE OR FENCE AROUND SWIMMING POOL. FOLIO NO: 67291040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 692 GORDONIA ROAD, NAPLES Investigator Athey represented the County. Pascale Achille of Panza, Maurer & Maynard, P.A. represented the Respondent and reported the bank has foreclosed on the property, however an appeal is pending so the bank is not in a position to enter the property to abate the violations. There is a hearing scheduled for August 22, 2012 on the appeal. She requested an continuance in both cases until the matter is resolved. Investigator Athey stated the violations do not constitute a health, safety and welfare issue. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the cases indefinitely. 12. CASE NO: CESD20110012635 OWNER: ROCKPORT NAPLES LLC ET AL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B) (1)(a). EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTION WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 391600009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3807 TAMIAMI TRAIL E, NAPLES Investigator Asaro and Supervisor Snow presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: No. 4789 - Page: 1342 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 7/7/12 — 8/3/12 (28 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,800.00 Total to Date: $2,800.00 Jerry Gardner, RMC Property Group represented the Respondents and reported tenants undertook the alterations and are no longer leasing the space. Supervisor Snow reported the owner is in the process of abating the violations. 1612 A5 August 3, 2012 The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until the next hearing. Break: 11:08 a.m. Reconvened: 11:58 a.m. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - (Continued) B. Hearings 7. CASE NO: PU4536- CEEX20120009847 OWNER: CHILE CALIENTE LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ALBERTO SANCHEZ VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2005 -54, SEC. 19, E, 2,3 NO COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE SERVICE FOLIO NO: 25630440002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 204 BOSTON AVENUE, IMMOKALEE Investigator Sanchez represented the County and reported the property in question is a commercial establishment with "on again, off again " refuse service. The Respondent was not present. Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/18/12 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 2. Pay operational costs in the amount of $50.00 incurred in the prosecution of the case, a fine in the amount of $500.00 and an Administrative Fee of $5.00 for a total amount due of $555.00. Total Amount Due: $555.00 17. CASE NO: CEPM20120003507 OWNER: ELEANOR D. VANDER MEIDEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). UNMAINTAINED SWIMMING POOL. FOLIO NO: 68391280005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 346 EDGEMERE WAY N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/18/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/17/12 Investigator Box presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo The violation remains as of 8/3/12. 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 September 3, 2012. 1612 1 A-5 - August 3, 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 August 10, 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 August 10, 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 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: $112.38 19. CASE NO: CEPM20120005148 OWNER: MARK L. SZUREK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(15). A POOL WITH ALGAE GROWTH. FOLIO NO: 53000160007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2305 KINGS LAKE BLVD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/18/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/20/12 Investigator Asaro presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 4/6/12 The violation remains as of 8/3/12. 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 $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before September 3, 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 August 10, 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 August 10, 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 1612 0 August 3, 2012 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 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: $112.38 20. CASE NO: CEPM20120006156 OWNER: PETE'S TRAILER PARK INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CRISTINA PEREZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(11), (12)(b), (12) (d), (12) (i) AND 22 -242. BURNED MOBILE HOME IN A POOR STATE OF REPAIR WITH WINDOWS AND DOORS BROKEN, INTERIOR OF THE FLOOR ROTTED AND FULL OF HOLES, WALLS FALLING DOWN, INSECT AND RODENT INFESTATION. THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE IS OPEN TO THE ELEMENTS. FOLIO NO: 118160007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 302 14TH STREET SE, UNIT 322, IMMOKALEE Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/18/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/26/12 Supervisor Perez presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 7/11/12 The violation remains as of 8/3/12. 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 September 3, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion to make the premise habitable or, obtain all Collier County Demolition Permits) and demolish the structure and disposing of debris in a suitable manner on or before August 17, 2012 or a fine of $150.00 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 21. CASE NO: CENA20120009734 OWNER: JUDITH HARBRECHT HILL TR AND WILLIAM P. HILL TR IN .- 1612 A5 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID August 3, 2012 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(a). WEEDS AND GRASS IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT. FOLIO NO: 55402400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 451 TORREY PINES POINT, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/20/12 Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 6/26/12 Composite Exhibit B: 2 photos dated 8/2/12 The violation remains as of 8/3/12. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.56 incurred in the prosecution of the case by September 3, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by mowing all weeds, grass or similar non protective overgrowth in excess of 18 inches to a height of no more than 6 inches by August 10, 2012 or pay a fine of $50.00 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 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: $112.56 C. Emergency Cases: None VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: (Continued) 1. CASE NO: CENA20120000461 OWNER: 4500 30TH AVE SW TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(a). WEEDS OVER 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT. FOLIO NO: 36002880001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4500 30TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/19/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/18/12 The Respondent was not present. 16 12 A5 August 3, 2012 Supervisor Bosa presented the case noting the violation has been abated by the County and requested the fines be waived as the Operational and Abatement Costs have been paid. Fine Amount: $50.00 /day Duration: 3/10/12 — 4/24/12 (46 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,300.00 Total to Date: $2,300.00 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 6. CASE NO: CEV20120000968 OWNER: JUDITH HARBRECHT HILL TR AND WILLIAM P. HILL TR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130, ARTICLE III, SECTION 130 -95. RED CAR IN DRIVEWAY WITH EXPIRED LICENSE TAG. FOLIO NO: 55402400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 451 TORREY PINES POINT, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/19/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/19/12 The Respondent was not present. Investigator Snow presented the case noting the violation has been abated Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $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 $112.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property. CASE NO: CEAU20120002734 OWNER: ANNE PARKER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX 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: 7/19/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/18/12 The Respondent was not present. Investigator Box presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: (46 days) Total Fine Amount: $4,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $4,712.29 12 12A5' 1 August 3, 2012 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 $4,712.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. CASE NO: CESD20120001635 OWNER: JOSE LANDIN - GARCIA AND MARIA LANDIN - GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID 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: 1 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Snow presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 6/19/12 — 8/3/12 (46 days) Total Fine Amount: $4,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $4,712.29 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 $4,71Z29. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 9. 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 22-23](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: 7/19/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/19/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Snow presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: (46 days) Total Fine Amount: $11,500.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $11,612.29 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 $11,61229. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 10. CASE NO: CEPM20110012536 13 16 A5 August 3, 2012 OWNER: PHILLIP B. WHITE AND JANET IRENE NEBUS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (15) AND 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 4, RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL BARRIER REQUIREMENT, SECTION 424.2.17 THROUGH 424.2.17.3. AN UNMAINTAINED POOL CREATING A SAFETY HAZARD AND HARBORING INFESTATION. NUMEROUS CINDERBLOCKS SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE POOL AREA CREATING AN UNSIGHTLY APPEARANCE. NO RESIDENTIAL POOL BARRIER AROUND THE POOL. FOLIO NO: 67340800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 100 HICKORY ROAD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/19/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/18/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Mucha presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: Part B: 3/1/12 (no fines associated) Part C: 6/12/12 Fine Amount: Part C: $100.00 /day Duration: (37 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,700.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.73 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,200.00 Total to Date: $5,012.73 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 $5,012.73. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 11. CASE NO: CENA20110009062 OWNER: JUAN HERNANDEZ AND ADRIANNA GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI WEEDS, LITTER, AND EXOTICS, SECTION 54- 186(a) AND UNAUTHORIZED ACCUMULATION OF LITTER, SECTION 54 -181. WEEDS AND GRASS IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES AROUND THE 30 FT PERIMETER OF THE HOME AND LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: TIRES, AUTO PARTS, METAL, PLASTIC, WOOD, GENERAL DEBRIS, ETC. FOLIO NO: 37060160005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1521 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 7/19/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 7/17/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Mucha presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: (231 days) Total Fine Amount: $23,100.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,275.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 14 161Z ugust 3, 2012 Total to Date: $24,487.38 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 $24,487.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 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: September 7, 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 12:26 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING nda Garre n, pecial Magistrate The Minutes we approved by the Special Magistrate on�� as presented ✓ , or as amended 15 AGENDA" r7�=.a� COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.1'VN1- THM&I Yyj AffiNs 19 , 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 EVIPC E UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. : l PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES F a d Hii{eC Flonning . Coyle ✓ ��olelta 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 7, 2012, June 19, 2012 CCPC/LDC, June 21, 2012 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS,, 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Q A. BDE- PL20110002669: Toler Boat Dock Extension - A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BD- PL20110002669 for a 53 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 73 feet for the benefit of property located in Lely Barefoot Beach PUD in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, AICP, Senior Planner] Nd Isi,. Corres: Date: ► o \ g \ %'2, item #:�`aT2W _ 1 6 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURS Y, AUGU'�ST 2, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINIATIZSMBUILDING, 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ ---- -- Coletta A. BDE- PL20110002669: Toler Boat Dock Extension - A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BD- PL20 1 1 0002669 for a 53 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 73 feet for the benefit of property located in Lely Barefoot Beach PUD in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, AICP, Senior Planner] MIiloQ, Colrea: DO: %°1Q \ \'2, Item #: \" T 2 vy to Copies to: 1612 A6 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BDE- PL20110000644: Helsel Boat Dock Extension- A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE- PL20110000644 for a 22 foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 42 feet for the benefit of property located in Isles of Capri No. 3 Subdivision in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager] B. PUDZ- PL20110000406: Brynwood Center -- 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 by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district with an "ST" overlay to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Brynwood Center CPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 145,000 square feet of retail and office uses which include a maximum of 25,000 square feet of retail and a maximum of 60,000 square feet of medical office uses. Also permitted are hotel and motel uses at 20 units per acre and group housing (assisted living facility and independent living units) at a floor area ratio of 0.6. For each acre of group housing or hotel or motel use, 10,626 square feet of retail or office use shall be subtracted from the total amount of allowable commercial square footage. The project is located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road, approximately 980 feet east of the intersection of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road in Section 18, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 13.65 + /l acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp 1612 A,b 2012 COLLIER COUNTOY PLANNINGCOMMISSION 0 Naples, Florida 0 June 7, 2012" `` 6 BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ,r Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer Bill Vonier Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney lac Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager j Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District we �,,O -14 Page 1 of 82 Misc. Corres: Date: \01 Item Copies to: L.2c 9 „+ June 7, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, June 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. 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 is not here yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'll probably be here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: ** *Okay, addenda to the agenda. Is there anything from staff? MR. BELLOWS: No changes. I'm using her microphone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me give you two potentials. Under old business we have the continuation of the LDC amendments. Because of the extent of today's agenda, when we finish with the last item, whenever that is today, I'll ask the members here if they want to continue, if it's before 5:00, try to get into the LDC amendment or we can continue those to our next meeting. But we'll make that decision as we see how the day pans out. Second of all, under advertised public hearings, for some, if you didn't pay close attention to the notes under 9.A and 9.13, they appear to be the same. Well, in essence, if you recall last time we agreed to do the final review of the rewrite -up of Bent Creek and the consent at the same time. I didn't want to move 9.13 to 8.A. It would have been out of sequence then. So that's why it appears the way it is. But what that means is we'll do the consent today for Bent Creek. Now, if there are changes in the 9.A version of Bent Creek that require some rewriting, we can always do the consent at the end of today's agenda to give the applicant time to do any more rewriting, if it's needed. So that should all work out. ** *Planning Commission absences. I believe our next meeting --our next regular meeting is the 21st. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on the 21 st? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And on the 19th we are currently scheduled for a workshop for the master mobility plan. Is that -- Ray, do you know if that's still on? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so on the 19th, which is the -- it's on a Tuesday. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, we'll assume we have quorums for both then. ** *Next item is approval of minutes from May 3rd, 2012. They were electronically sent to us. Does anybody have any comments, questions? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show that Mr. Midney is exactly on time with his watch. Page 2 of 82 16 12 4612' Paul, I don't know how you do it, but you're consistently three or five minutes after every single meeting. Nothing's wrong with that, but I think it's interesting you can -- it must be a very accurate watch you have there. Is there a motion to approve the May 3rd minutes? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Barry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *Ray, do we have any recaps, BCC? MR. BELLOWS: Board of County Commissioners met on May 22nd, but they did not hear any land use petitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, I bet they were grateful for that. ** *Chairman's report. I have a couple items I want to discuss in detail in the Chainnan's report. I was going to move them to new business, but that would be after the hearing of today's items, and because they're relevant to issues on today's items, it's important we hear them -- we talk about them first. In reviewing the three cases we have up today and recalling testimony from our last meeting, some things struck me that we need to understand as far as process goes, and I've briefed the County Attorney and I talked with staff on these matters to try to make sure that today we can get some direction. And I just notice his eminence is here to assist us today for the first time in any meeting. Nick's around. So what that means is we've got to have a really big issue for Nick to be here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We do. MR. CASALANGUIDA: DCA's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: DCA's. Well, there are two issues. One is DCA's, and one is deviations. And I'll explain the background to them and how we got here. And we'll take them one at a time, and the County Attorney -- and I know Richard and Bruce both have applications here today and I'm inviting both of them to comment on these issues as they're discussed with us and the County Attorney. So I want it to be open and I want it to be absolutely as much input as possible. Yesterday in talking with staff about today's agenda items it was obvious that we have more interaction with DCA's than we have had in the past. I've been on this board now for 11 years and we've not seen that many DCA's. But all of a sudden they're coming in quite a bit. And all three applications today -- by the way, a DCA, for those people who aren't familiar with the acronyms, is developer contribution agreement. Usually it's a separate agreement to the side of a zoning document that explains how the developer's going to make improvements in the infrastructure leading up to or surrounding or near or within his development. But it's outside the zoning document. It's a separate agreement. It does not normally come before this board; it's out of the official review of this board. When we -- over the years the DCA's have come along and a few of them -- we've asked that they be given to us if they're originating at the time of the zoning document. Well, last meeting I recall we were told that some of the nonnal mitigation criteria for roads and I think utilities as well that would be found in a zoning document that we would hear and weigh in on have been moved into the DCA's. And because they're in the DCA's, the staff was very comfortable with the zoning having met its criteria. Page 3 of 82 16 Z A6 I ne 7, 2012 And that's good for staff and that's good that they found a way to get it done. The problem is that since we base our decisions on the zoning document, and the zoning document is what gets attached -- as it's a PUD it gets attached to the land, and if anybody wants to know what the zoning is or how they got their PUD, they go to the PUD list and there it is. Well, DCA's is not there. And that poses a problem. Because if something's in the DCA that needs to be there in order for the zoning to be official or zoning to be actually granted, the zoning document could get approved. We could approve it. We could recommend approval to the Board, the Board approve it. But if that DCA isn't executed, then the basis for the zoning becomes questionable. So I asked -- I posed this problem to the staff and County Attorney yesterday. And I asked them just to bring a response today so that we can structure our motions correctly on that issue. And when we finish discussing that we'll get separately into the deviations. And I know -- Nick, do you want to speak before Heidi, whatever -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division. I've worked on, you know, many DCA's in the past eight years. Little brief background and history. One of the primary functions of a developer contribution agreement is to deal with the financial aspect of the, you know, contribution, hence contribution in terms of the agreement, in terms of impact fee credits or cash being transferred. So we don't like to put those in the PUD because they're a financial agreement that's back and forth. So that -- working with Jeff over the past couple years has always come out of the PUD and been in the DCA. You've noticed three today in front of you. And the Chairman correctly so has said, you know, if you can get them done in the appropriate time, we'd like to see what's in there, because they're relevant. When they get to the Board of County Commissioners they're companion items. We say don't approve the zoning unless you're approving the DCA, don't approve the DCA unless you're approving the zoning. Because there are obligations and commitments that are in one document that relieve impacts that are in another document. For instance, the traffic that's involved, a lot of these are road, but in this case for Bent Creek there's utilities as well too. So the primary function of DCA is to establish a financial agreement. You pay this, we pay that. We give you credits. And it's easier to modify a DCA than it is a zoning document. In other words, if the amount gets changed later down the road, if it's a million dollar credit and something in the agreement changes, then modifying that financial contract is much easier to do in an agreement than it is in a PUD document because it has to go through the whole zoning process again. It's an anomaly that you have three in front of you right now, it's just timing wise. Naples Reserve has a $4 million cash contribution to accelerate a road. There's not much there other than we're paying more money up front, and we're going to use no credits for the first 300 units. Bent Creek is a clean -up of a prior DCA, $5 million, to construct a roadway network from the prior developer or actually call the letter of credit for two and a half million dollars and we give them some money back. So we're putting that all in the agreement. So it's financial terms. Parklands the same way. I think in Parklands we could have eliminated the DCA, except there's one middle portion of the road where we're going to share some costs that they're not required to, so that triggered a DCA. Some of the improvements that are in Parklands, the intersection improvements could certainly have been put in the PUD, but we thought they would be -- since we're doing road improvements in the DCA, let's put them all there and make them clear, because there might be some adjustments down the road. The Chairman is correct, if they're referencing or companion items, you should see them. And he's asked me to work diligently to try to get them up here. And I know Lori and I worked last weekend and a couple of weekends making sure that we have all the documents prepared so we could get them to you so you could at least see them and understand what the terms are. But the big thing is, if there's a financial obligation in there, we try not to put that in the PUD and put it in a contract that we can monitor. As far as tracking, they're in the commitment tracking system. They're attached and referenced. So if you -- you have access to the Intranet, when you pull up the PUD, we have a section that says contracts and agreements, they're in there as well too, so they can be tracked there. With that, I'll entertain any questions or just offer any other comments from Heidi or members -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first off you said if you have access to the Intranet you can find this. I agree. Just so everybody knows, the Intranet is the internal network for the Board of County Commissioners system here. Page 4 of 82 1612 A June 7, 20 2 The public doesn't have access to that. Only staff has -- only the staff or people with a county computer that has the VPN connection has access to that. So in essence most of this board, everybody in this room don't have access to that DCA. So we have a -- but they do have access to the PUD. So what I'm concerned about is there's got to be -- for this board to approve a PUD to find it compatible, consistent and concurrent, and if the DCA has the relevant issues, I'm not caring about the dollar values, I'm caring about the functional aspects of the DCA, a road will be built. I don't care about the money part, that's fine for an agreement. But if a road needs to be built, to be concurrent or consistent, then this board's basing its zoning system on the fact that that road will be built. But if that road's -- but if the act of building that road isn't delineated in the zoning document and it's just in the DCA, how can this board recommend that it's consistent with the zoning needs if it's not in the document that we have the review of? That's where my concern is, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've done it in the past, maybe we can address it this way. In the transportation commitment section, also if we have a public utilities section, under a commitment we could reference the DCA. And I'll have to work with Heidi on that. But I know in the past we have said there are commitments and attached recorded developer contribution agreements. So there would be a reference in the PUD document. It is recorded in the public records, so someone could find it and we'd know it's there. And then the Intranet is going external pretty soon. We're working with IT to make the commitment tracking system open for the public as well. So if your direction is to work with the County Attorney's Office to put a reference in the zoning document so it's clear, I think we can find a way to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go there, though, when I walked in yesterday to discuss these DCA's and I started reading from the ones that I had, they were given to everybody here in their packets. The first thing, oh, that one's no good anymore, we've redone them all. Now, so how would you put the DCA that you're actually using, and now you use the word recording, in the zoning document that we review when that document isn't even in good draft form by the time we get it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we've done in the past is in the transportation section reference maybe just a bullet point list of commitments towards specific road A, B and C are a companion item to the approval of this PUD and in an adopted DCA. And not put the book and page yet because you would know it's there, that means you would go look for it, and when it gets adopted and recorded that would be the official terms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I asked staff to do in preparation of this discussion today was to be prepared to take those items in the DCA that should be in the zoning document in order to assure concurrency and consistency within the document that we have to review by, so that we could get those put back in on the fly at today's meeting. Because -- and that way we have a zoning document that's complete, we have the needs for the road system stated in there, and that how those details monetarily are worked out, if they're subject to a DCA, that isn't -- I don't think that's as much of a concern, the monetary part of it, just -- but the acknowledgment that that's needed to be consistent and the zoning can be done that way I think is the most important part. So I need to find out from Heidi if she concurs or if she sees a solution here that will work for us. Because we have three of them coming up today and they all got to be addressed. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, there are several ways we can address it. I mean, the concern arose yesterday because Mr. Strain was told we used to put these in the PUD's and now we're putting them only in the DCA's, okay. And so to the extent that there are things that you are relying on in making your traffic impacts analysis as part of the zoning application, to the extent you need, you know, some certainty that it's going to occur, we can move those over. And the one way is to actually move them into your zoning document. The other is, for example in -- the Naples Reserve that you have before you today, that one does cross - reference the developer agreement. But, you know, you're seeing a draft of what it looks like today. I don't know whether it will change at all between the time it goes to the Board of County Commissioners for approval as a companion item to the PUD. So there are two ways you can address it. One is referencing the developer's agreement, or the other option is to actually take the commitment and put it in the zoning document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to be honest with you, referencing a developer's agreement is no different than referencing other documents in the PUD. They're out of our control. And I've asked that any time a document is referenced for this board to have it in its packet so we can review it. The problem is we can review it, but if it's not locked into the zoning document, then it's out of our control until it gets finalized by the Board. And they're at a Page 5 of 82 a a 1612 June , three -two, they don't consider it a zoning issue, it's more or less a separate agreement. And so I'm more comfortable seeing the duplication of the concepts that are needed for consistency and concurrency in the zoning document because that's what this board is supposed to be doing. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And I think you're more concerned with the actual infrastructure improvements than you are with the donations of money is what I'm hearing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- today. So we can put it in the PUD so that it's in a form that if some of the monetary details need to be refined or changed, then that won't be impacted by the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I asked staff to be prepared to explain to us today when we get to each element -- each of these cases, to let us know which paragraphs or which parts or which concepts within each DCA should be moved back -- or duplicated into the zoning documents. So hopefully they'll come prepared today to tell us that. Which means by consent we can get it all accomplished and nobody's schedule will be held up because of it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. We'll make that attempt. I'm not sure on Bent Creek, if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bent Creek is going to be heard first. But the consent can be heard at the end of today's meeting instead of immediately following the discussion on A. That way they've got time to insert the language needed to -- or we can approve it with the presumption the language is going to be added. So either way. Yeah, if you and Bruce, if either of you got to say anything in this regard -- and I ask you to think generically, don't try to focus on your case today, because this has got to apply as we go forward. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. And generically -- but also I have to go specifically, because there's examples. I could tell you for a fact the Naples Reserve PUD, which was approved in'07, had a companion developer contribution agreement at that time. It was separate from the PUD and it involved many different property owners. If you remember, there was a U.S. 41 consortium that related to that agreement. And all of those PUD's relied on that developer contribution agreement in order to meet the concurrency. And I don't believe any of them referred to the specifics in their PUD documents. And I think that was for a good reason. That consortium ultimately got reduced in scope and size, which resulted in the change -- a change to the actual infrastructure improvements that were constructed. Now, the amendment to the developer contribution agreement was brought back to the Board of County Commissioners. They confirmed with staff that the reduction in the infrastructure improvements would allow those projects that were part of the consortium to continue to move forward. Had it been in the PUD, those -- I'm sure that those infrastructure improvements would have been referenced in the scope of the original consortium agreement. That would have required us roughly a one -year process to amend the PUD documents when really all we needed to do was amend an agreement regarding the commitments related to the project. So that's the Naples Reserve project. In'07 they were separate. I can't remember Summit Lakes. I think you had -- that's now Bent Creek. I was involved in the original approval of that, and we also had a DCA that was companion. I think they were separate? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: They were also separate. And so I think -- it hasn't been historical that the commitments have also found their way into the PUD. I think the historical application is that they've actually been separate. Because it allowed the flexibility for the Board to look at the developer contribution agreements to confirm that they -- that they were adequate to satisfy concurrency. It's gotten -- you know, and I don't want this to be a negative comment towards staff. It has gotten to where the process of PUD's has gone much smoother, doesn't take quite as long as it used to. But to amend a PUD is both an expensive process and a timely process, where amending the developer contribution agreement can be -- it's a public hearing process, and it can be much -- much more flexible to the schedule that's necessary to keep a project moving. So I would hope that what we can do is we can do as we're doing in the Naples Reserve project, and this is global. I mean, where there's a reference to that document, I certainly have no issues with bringing the document to the Planning Commission for their review and understanding of what it is that we're agreeing to do to meet concurrency. But I would like to keep them separate in case there are changes in circumstances that justify an amendment to the developer contribution agreement and not make us go through an amendment to the PUD process, Page 6 of 82 1612 J° ° °A$ which under best case is probably six to nine months, probably closer to the nine months, to make it happen. So that's why I say globally I think you can handle it the way we're doing it without moving the commitments, because historically commitments have changed due to changes in scopes of the projects and participants in DCA's. That's my two cents on the two I've been involved in. And the one specifically today had a DCA in '07, and those commitments were not in the PUD back in '07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, several comments. First of all, if we have made mistakes in the past, we need to correct them as we recognize them. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think it was a mistake, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is a mistake in the sense that if this board has to base its approval of a zoning request on having enough in the document so that it's concurrent -- it shows concurrency and consistency with our code, but now you're telling us we did that previously based on documents outside the zoning document, I'm concerned about that. I didn't discover this was an issue until last meeting when staff acknowledged to us on record that some of the transportation commitments they would normally have put in the PUD that they need are in the -- they're comfortable that they're in the DCA, so therefore they're okay with the PUD document. That may be fine for staff to do because they have all the records and documents in front of them and they're existing today. But this board still has to base its zoning on the document itself, not extraneous documents. I'm not looking for the detail you're concerned about. If there was an acknowledgment under the transportation section of the PUD that simply said there are road improvements needed on "X" road, those improvements will be detailed and refined in a separate DCA, developer contribution agreement, I'm fine with that. I want it acknowledged, though, that we recognize that as a need in order for the zoning to be approved. So that if it -- see, here's my ultimate fear, and not from you, Richard. I don't think from you. We could approve something zoning wise, Board could take it and approve it, and all of a sudden the DCA is abandoned. Not you, but somebody could say we got our zoning, we don't need a DCA. Well, all the commitments we thought were there are gone. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want that chance to happen. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. Let me assure you that that won't happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, you live in this town -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me tell you why it won't happen and it can't happen. Naples Reserve is a perfect example of that. What happened there, remember -- if you remember, that was a global DCA that included multiple residential developments and multiple commercial developments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a $45 million DCA for the over -- I'm very familiar with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And it went to you guys, you guys got to see it. We brought it to the Planning Commission. What ultimately happened, the economy changed, residential went totally away. The residential guys never ponied up the money they were required to do under that DCA, yet the commercial guys could, because they still had a market. The DCA was amended to allow the commercial guys to go forward to fund the improvement that Nick is working on doing at that intersection that we're also going to fund. The zoning for Naples Reserve stopped because we had no concurrency. I wouldn't be here today to amend the PUD because I didn't -- I don't have concurrency, so I had no ability to go forward. So it was -- there are safeguards in there to where you don't have to worry about if it was me representing the developer, or Bruce, which we wouldn't do anything improper. If it was someone else, you don't have to worry about that. So the safeguard was there. So I don't think you have to worry about that issue. Mr. Strain, I'm more comfortable now that you've said you're talking generally about an improvement versus specifics regarding the improvement, because it would have been a nightmare to -- if you would have put the level of improvements that were contemplated when you had all these projects coming through at the same time in a particular PUD. But if you talk globally there'll be an improvement at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Collier Boulevard, if that's what you're talking about globally pursuant to a separate DCA. That's -- I'm much more comfortable with that than specifics -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to know that staff has acknowledged there are either intersection or road Page 7 of 82 16 12.... <A_A improvements needed to make this zoning consistent and concurrent, that this board's been told about it and that we base our decision on the knowledge that the reference to those would be accomplished in some manner. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm trying to go. Because if we leave that door open, 20 years down the road someone looks back at some of these projects and decides how in the world did we ever approve that and they start going through our documents and find out our basis for zoning wasn't solid because we were relying on documents that weren't zoning documents, I'm not sure that's good for the applicant, well enough for the public. It puts a flaw in your, me and possibly the applicant's ability to have the zoning in the first place. So I would much rather see the definitiveness in some regard or reference in our zoning documents. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm fine with the reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, does that -- will that work from the County Attorney's perspective? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, it will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Bruce, did you want to comment at all? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I agree that it can be done by simple reference. For example, the existing PUD for the Summit Lakes project, in its transportation section it lists some of the obligations and then it says should the county approve a developer contribution agreement, such agreement shall provide road impact fee credits for the design, construction and permitting, including environmental mitigation for the upgrade from a local road to a minor collector road. That's the kind of thing that can easily be put in a PUD. It lets people know that there's detail about it somewhere else but that there is a tie -in to an agreement that provides financial details. I'd look at this as the PUD provides the skeleton and the DCA kind of provides the flesh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you. My concern arose because of staffs comment last meeting that they've taken all the requirements for transportation and put them in a DCA and they were comfortable with that. I want to make sure that that works for them but there's some reference in all the documents that works for us and then keeps this a zoning matter as well as a separate agreement. So, yeah, I appreciate it. And I think we're on the right track. County Attorney said there's no problem with it. And so at each submittal today I'll be asking county staff to make sure that that language is incorporated somewhere in that section. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, just so I understand. In the petitions before us today, one on consent -- well, a couple on consent, I guess -- the proposed developer contribution agreement is included in our packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So obviously we're obligated to read it and make notes on it. I have questions on it. Some of these questions in fact I discussed with Mr. Yovanovich the other day specific to the DCA. So as far as I'm concerned, part of what I'm obligated to do is to review that document as part and parcel to the petition. Now today is the first time I understood that in terns of when we approve or deny a petition it's strictly based on zoning and is not based upon the DCA, per se. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The DCA is a supporting document to make us feel comfortable. But at any point it can be changed. And it can be changed without our review. So it's real relevant to know that something specific to zoning that's in the DCA, let's just keep it in the zoning document as well -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, I'm with you on that. And I also heard that any subsequent change to a DCA agreement goes back through the Board of County Commissioners for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. What would preclude us as a Planning Commission with reviewing or having the obligation to review any substantive changes to a DCA that were submitted as part of a petition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may undermine the purpose of a DCA altogether. I have to agree with the Page 8 of 82 1612 June, 6 2 i applicants in regards to why a DCA is necessary. You do have monetary dollar values and items like that that don't need to be in a zoning document. All the zoning document needs to do is acknowledge that they need to happen. But those other things can fluctuate, especially when you have estimates that are based on civil engineering probable opinions of cost in the future or things like that, or changes to the lanage or the turn lanes, or the -- anything little thing at all. I'd rather -- and if you make that kind of stuff, say a $4 million DCA in better times -- better times meaning worse times for construction but better times for bidding -- is $3 million. Well, that's a substantial change, it's 25 percent. But legitimate. They got a better price, they were able to do it for less. I don't seethe need to push that back through the system. Because just coming back being before us and this board would be a time - consuming effort for an item in the DCA that's non - zoning related. I tend to agree that the purpose of the DCA is well utilized. It's just that I want to make sure the zoning pieces are in the right document as well. I think that's what we ought to focus on. I'm not sure that it matters to us what the monetary value is. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, I'm not concerned about the monetary value either. I would have the same concerns that you do as far as any substantive agreements to building roadways or infrastructure of that sort that were pertinent to our approval or denial. I was just really -- if we can accomplish this as I think you're down to with Nick and Heidi, by references including the commitments or specifying the commitments in terms of infrastructure improvements referencing the DCA, then I guess I'm good with that. I wanted some clarification as to why a DCA was outside of our approval purview. I hadn't understood that before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is a zoning board, and unfortunately the only two zoning documents in Collier -- well, there's probably a couple more, but the primary zoning documents are the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. Specifically we are told that is part of the process we have to be involved in. Those other documents are like any other documents in front of the Board of County Commissioners. They have a stack of books this high, almost a foot high every meeting. There's all kinds of agreements going on. But if they're not zoning related, it's outside this board's purview. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Then I'll ask one more question, procedural. Then why include a DCA in our packet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did that as a result of other DCA's in the past that seemed to provide latitude to do things that we weren't aware of. I mean, I think Ave Maria was the first big one that came up. It had a DCA that was done before the PUD process. And it wasn't reviewed by this board at the time. And that was -- after that one we said, you know, if you got DCA's that solve some of the problems that are expressed in the PUD or that we would talk about in the PUD, give them to us with the PUD so we can understand that those issues have been resolved. What it didn't dawn on me at the time, and I'm at fault as well as anybody else, that some of the things that were in the DCA were zoning matters that weren't duplicated in or referenced in the PUD. That's the error that I'm trying to correct. And it didn't strike me until last meeting when staff said they removed the things from the PUD to the DCA and that's why they are comfortable with the PUD. That's what triggered the thought. I'm thinking, wait a minute, that works for staff but it doesn't work for a zoning board who strictly has to look at zoning. So technically, as Richard's example pointed out, we could have been in violation of zoning matters in regards to why we're approving something when the document that we're approving was relying on another document we had no purview over, except voluntarily. Staffs been kind enough to give them to us each time. And I think that's great. The problem I found out yesterday is the drafts we get a week early are changed radically within one week. And I'm trying to correct that by keeping the concepts in the documents. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I agree with you, this is -- you did ask at the last meeting that we get copies of the DCA. And that is very important, because I do find a lot of things in there. I don't care about the money wise, it's just what's listed. And so had you not even asked, you probably would have not gotten them with these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A while back we had this discussion, and I think -- I think it's somehow staffs -- there's been a lot of staff changes. And over the years, I think, especially with the last one, we didn't get the DCA timely, and it was probably something that was inadvertently omitted because staff people have changed so much. Page 9 of 82 612 A 1 b June 7, 2012 But routinely we were supposed to have gotten those for all -- as we've gone along. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I think hearing broad discussion, when you say they radically changed, radical change could be that we agree to build the road and they pay us back. And flip it around, they agree to pay for the road and we give them impact fee credits. Ultimately what you're hearing is the road gets built. So a radical change is who could do it and who gets paid and who gets credit, that's a radical change in an agreement, but the end result is the road gets built. So I'm hearing from -- in talking to Bruce and Richard and as well as hearing your concerns, if we can put a specific paragraph that says this, you know, PUD is being approved subject to improvements being done at this intersection, which specific details are included within a developer contribution agreement, it's something you're relying on to feel comfortable with the zoning, we should put that reference there specifically to what it is, the construction of a road. Leave it general. The improvement of an intersection, leave it general. You understand what it is. That way we reference the DCA where the detailed terms can fluctuate, as Mark pointed out, OPC's, opinion of probable costs, design fluctuations, timing, those things can also be put in the DCA, not in the PUD. And that way it gets you your end result, it gives you the coverage you want, and it gives us the flexibility to be able to move and move quickly, make minor adjustments, but not substantial to what your approval process or review involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Nick, as a follow -up, in yesterday's conversation, one of the comments made to me by staff was that -- and I don't remember which of these cases today, but one of the cases, the DCA was so important that if some of the elements in the DCA were not to happen, the PUD would be then in violation, inconsistent with FLUE Policy 5.1. So that's why it's got to be in this document. We cannot approve something that the document doesn't make whole. And if we're not whole, then we've got a gap. And I want to make sure that our PUD's at least have the completeness so that no matter if the DCA fails or changes, the PUD can still stand on its own zoning. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I agree. And I think Heidi and I and Jeff can definitely come up with a paragraph that references the DCA and then maybe lists what I would call a general improvement that you're relying on so you get a good feel that a road will be built, an intersection will be done, a donation will happen to right -of -way, something that's specific to that that is material to that concurrency, we can put that as a general and then the details can be in the DCA. I think we can accomplish that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. Nick, does a DCA ever include items that are not part of utilities or transportation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That are not part of utilities and transportation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You mean something outside of utilities and -- yeah, it could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stor nwater is one, for example. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, stonnwater could be one -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, all right. MR. EASTMAN: School. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, school. There's some school issues today, so we'll be hearing from Tom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the review from those departments, isn't that where they request or note that these improvements are going to be made? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. Good discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad. And then as we hear today, I'm going to ask staff to comment relevant to this to each one of these. So transportation, utilities, if you're listening, those questions will be asked to make sure we're complete. The other item that I wanted to discuss is the deviation issue. This board's -- again, this board's purview is the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. But you will see in some of today's hearings, just like a lot of hearings, we have a whole slew of deviations. This one --today's are more than we normally see. But some of Page 10 of 82 6 1 7, 20 12une 6 those deviations are not relative to the Land Development Code or the Growth Management Plan. And then some cases, if they are relevant to the Land Development Code, the same standard is in the Code of Laws, which we don't have the ability to recommend basic changes on. The Code of Laws is not part of the LDC. Now, where my concern was is, first of all, the mere fact we're being asked to do a deviation to the Code of Laws is a problem. We don't weigh in on that. But the other problem is if a Land Development Code standard is in another code, not in the Land Development Code, then that means that other code can be changed by a different political process or public process than we have here today. It doesn't come before the Planning Commission. It doesn't have a NIM, neighborhood information meeting, it goes straight to the Board. And it's a three -two, it's not really a zoning matter. I'm worried that even if we were to provide a deviation and it's duplicated in both the Land Development Code and the Code of Laws, because the applicant walks out of here today with a deviation from the Land Development Code he still doesn't have a deviation from the Code of Laws, because we can't authorize that. And I've asked Heidi to take a look at that. And one of them in particular today added a deviation that was strictly pursuant to the Code of Laws. Another one referenced codes that may or may not be in existence today. And all that needs to be cleaned up at today's meeting. But at the same time, 1 want to understand from this board's review how we can limit what we -- to what we're authorized to do and take those other ones out of the deviation list. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the deviation authority that you have in your zoning capacity is to the Land Development Code. Our Land Development Code provisions regarding deviations says you can deviate in PUD's from the Land Development Code. So I've always opposed deviations to the Code of Laws. With that said, under the Code of Laws in most instances there is a deviation provision there. And usually those deviations can be made by the transportation administrator. And usually they come later on in the process. However, I believe that you could put a deviation to the Code of Laws if the transportation administrator has authorized those in accordance with the procedures under the Code of Laws. So -- and I have provided some language on other PUD's, you know, that specifically references those deviation processes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it be better -- and I asked -- and staff is supposedly -- I think Caroline's looking into it. And specifically there was an administrative code adopted in 2004, it's called 2004 -66. And in that code you'll find a bunch of general references, which are fine. But then you'll get into some specific standards. One of them is, as example, is the 23 -foot setback to garage doors. And we've heard before in these meetings, well, that's in the code now. Well, it's not, it's in the Code of Laws. It only appears in a couple very definitive references in the Land Development Code. Bayshore overlay for example has the language, but in the general code it does not appear. So that means every time someone's -- we want to assure the 23 -foot setback, it does have to be restated in a footnote on the developmental standards table or it doesn't get there, because it has to rely on the Code of Laws to get there. And that code could be changed much more easily than the Land Development Code. It doesn't go through an LDC amendment process. That's -- Code of Laws is just changed by the Board under public notice on their agenda. So I'm looking to have staff consider moving those things back into the Land Development Code where they belong, because they are land development regulations. And those specific standards ought to be in our code. That way if they are amended or they are in the code we don't need to keep listing them separately under every PUD. Is there anything wrong with that process, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: With asking staff to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we get the land development elements of the Code of Laws, such as 2004 -66 contains, the specific standards, move them back into the Land Development Code and delete them from the Code of Laws. The reason I'm concerned about it is back to if, say, the County Administrator disagrees with what this board does for some reason in the Land Development Code, they don't have to give the applicant that deviation, based on the Code of Laws. So the applicant's walking out of here, they're selling product, they're doing everything thinking they got a deviation that gives them the ability to put a product in a certain way, but the Code of Laws isn't consistent. And it doesn't necessarily mean they've got it. I mean, to me that might be a flaw in their title or who knows what in the zoning process. But I would -- I'm as much concerned for the applicants in this regard as I am for this board's process. Page 11 of 82 -A-6 1612 June 7, 2012 So is it logical to move just the standards for land use back into the Land Development Code? Is that something that staff could do, or do you see that to be a problematic process, there was a reason to duplicate land use standards? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I don't think they should be duplicative. I don't think we should have them in the Land Development Code and then in another section. So I guess you can -- I think the transportation administrator's or the, you know, growth management administrator's here and he's heard, you could forward that direction on in a request to the Board of County Commissioners to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After staff gets done comparing the specific one in question right now, that might be wise to then consider approaching the Board and trying to put those standards where they belong. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. I have discussed this with both Chris Scott and Caroline, who's doing our LDC amendments. And we are going to analyze everything that's in the Code of Laws and ordinances that are land use related type standards and then have those put back appropriately. If it's a process, it will go in the new administrative code, and if they're standards, they'll go back into the Land Development Code in the appropriate sections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, did you have -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. In years past the Land Development Code provided that a PUD could provide for a variance or other departure from any ordinance in Collier County. It got advertised, it got noticed. It was removed by a prior planning director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was removed? MR. ANDERSON: The ability to approve a deviation or an alternative to a general county ordinance to put it in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: And frankly, the fear was these elected officials can't be trusted to make those decisions. So their hands were tied by the old planning staff in that regard. And I just wanted to suggest that maybe we go back to the way it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- as far as I'm concerned, I don't mind which way it goes, as long as it's legally sufficient to go that direction. My concern has been more from the point of the applicant. Because I've been in the applicant's shoes in regards to land use. You get an approval for land use from this board or from the BCC in regards to the Land Development Code and you walk away happy. And all of a sudden you find out that the Code of Laws doesn't mirror what your deviation approval was here. To me that could be problematic in the long -term play -out of a project and reasonably unfair. And so I'm trying to make sure that the consistency awarded here or recommended here goes forward throughout the entire process of all documents. I don't know if this board can be -- can include the review of ordinances that are done by the Board of County Commissioners through the Code of Laws. I mean, I know that in reading our entitlements it's for Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. But if the old way is abetter way to go and it can be legally sufficient, I'm fine with that too. I just want everybody to walk away knowing that what was said is what we can do. We're basically -- there's no side door coming in and blindsiding you down the road. So that was the purpose of the discussion. And Heidi, I think -- have you researched if we reverted back to the way Bruce is saying, that if we left the language for deviations to apply to all ordinances and codes, can that be done through the zoning process or is that a separate process that can only be done through an ordinance change through the Board of County Commissioners? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think you'd have to do a Land Development Code amendment to indicate that you can approve deviations from the Land Development Code and any other county ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or recommend approval. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, do you have anything? You walked up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just briefly. I think you'll see a lot of times we actually ask for deviations where staff -- where there is a process that exists for staff to grant that deviation. And the reason we do that, Mr. Chairman, is exactly what you said, we want the Page 12 of 82 2 ' 1 6 1A 6012 4 Planning Commission to hear why we want this deviation and make a recommendation, and the Board to ultimately decide for a concern that maybe staff will not agree with us to grant the deviation, even though they have the authority to do it. So you'll see lot -- we're asked a lot of times why do you have the deviation in the PUD? It's to go through the process of having the Planning Commission and the Board consider the deviation and not wait to see what the result will be later on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't mind having the process be as complete as possible, I just don't want it to be having a hole in it that is problematic down the road. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm okay with -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And I agree with Bruce's suggestion that we have a process where we can ask for deviations to both the LDC and the code, because things moved from the LDC to the code. And some of the stuff that we used to ask deviations for technically we may not be able to ask for deviations now because it's in the Code of Laws. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm not saying you can't put it in the PUD, it just has to reference the process. So if it's the transportation administrator who grants those things, then it's the transportation administrator has granted this deviation and you can specify it in your PUD. I'm okay with that. But you can't say the Planning Commission is authorizing it, because that's not the process that's set out in the code. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I thought you were talking about putting something in the LDC that would allow for us -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To bring it before the Planning -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to bring it to the Planning Commission. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, but that's not our situation right now -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- but if it's amended and you can do that, then certainly. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this was supposed to be a global discussion regarding the fix -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. And I think what we'll do is we'll follow up with staff on the possibility of looking at a broader review so we get everything caught in one meeting instead of making multiple levels of codes and laws. Well, good. I think that brings us -- and I'm sorry to have taken so much time this morning. But because this is up on every single one of these, I didn't want to have the same discussion three times. And that may move the rest of the meeting ahead faster. * * *So with that in mind, we are now ready to move into our regular public hearings. We have no consent items under consent today. The first advertised public hearing is 9.A. It is Item PUDA- PL20110001497, Bent Creek Preserve RPUD. This is a continuance from the last meeting in which there were numerous suggestions made to the applicant to improve the document. They have resubmitted it and we're going to be rereviewing it. Following our review, if the review does not bring up a lot of new issues that can't be addressed quickly, we will go into a consent on this. However, if there are issues that need to be addressed we'll do the consent later today. With that in mind, anyone who -- anybody wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a discussion -- I had a discussion with Bruce on the Parklands, and the applicant, but I don't know if we talked about -- Bruce, I think maybe you and I might have talked about this on the phone. So that's the best I can recall on that. And with that, let's move into the public hearing. Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress Law Finn on behalf of the property owner. We took to heart your many suggestions and believe we have addressed most if not all of the excellent points that you brought up two weeks ago. Patrick Vanasse is the one who did the actual crafting of the language to put in Page 13 of 82 1612 A6 une 7, 2012 the PUD, with consultation from the client and myself, and I'm going ask Patrick to come up and walk you through those changes. And he or I or any other member of our team will be happy to try to answer your questions. Thank you. MR. VANASSE: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Vanasse, Certified Planner with RWA and planning agent to the applicant. If I may, what I'll do is I'll walk through each of the changes that we made to our PUD exhibits. And if you want me to just move on quicker and you're okay with the changes, let me know. If you have any questions, feel free to interrupt me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the best way we could do is as you go through the pages, if we have any questions from those pages we'll just bring them up at the time. Okay? MR. VANASSE: What I have here is a list of all the changes that we've made. And we could walk through those and look at the strike- through, underlined document that should be in your packet. So the first changes we made were to Exhibit 8 under permanent and accessory uses within the R tract. If you recall, the R tract allows for some recreational uses that are found in the RA tract. There was concern about not allowing some of those recreational uses on residential tracts that would abut adjacent properties. We added that note under principal uses and under accessory uses to the R tract. So if there's no questions, I'll just move on to the next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VANASSE: The following changes were made to Exhibit B. They were the notes associated with the development standards table. And the first change was made to note number two regarding side yards. And the clause within one building was added as requested by the commission. The next change that we made was to request that we eliminate note number three. If you recall, note number three dealt with a -- an 85 -foot setback from Immokalee Road. There was quite a bit of discussion as to if this requirement was really needed and also how that 85 -foot setback was measured. So what we did is we created an exhibit to bring before you today and kind of walk through that. So what I have here is the cross - section for Immokalee Road. There's quite a bit of detail on there so I'll walk you through it. The area shaded in gray over here is the outside lane of Immokalee, outside travel lane. That's the closest lane to our project. The jagged line in solid black is the property boundary and, conversely, the right -of -way boundary for Immokalee Road. The hatching is our 20 -foot required buffer along that property line. What we see here is we've also added the conceptual development tract that would be closest to Immokalee Road. And we put a typical lot over here. As you can see, those lots would be at least 130 feet in depth. So if you look at the minimum separation that could ever exist between our rear yard and the closest travel lane, we would have 60 feet. We also have a rear yard setback which is 15 feet. So if you add the 60 plus the 15, no structure, no principal structure could be any closer than 75 feet from that roadway. We feel that's ample, and that really the 15 -foot setback might be unnecessary, and the request is to remove that setback completely from the notes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have a note from the prior hearing that on the minimum rear yard setback on single families it would be 15 -foot. But there was a note I added, from buffer. Is that where your -- on your exhibit that's up now, is that 15 -foot -- MR. VANASSE: I think the question was where is it measured from. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct. MR. VANASSE: And there was debate, is it measured from the buffer, is it measured from the rear lot line. And what we have here is we've measured it from the rear lot line. In some instances the rear lot line is right up against the buffer. For example, over here. However, where the boundary jots, the rear lot line ends here and there's additional space. But no matter what, at the very closest point we still have a 75 -foot separation, no matter what. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. VANASSE: And the thought is that this 85 -foot setback becomes, you know, unneeded and also confusing to staff and also anybody else that might be looking at this. And I think there's ample assurance right now Page 14 of 82 1612 A6 June 7, 2012 that no two -story single families are going to be built right up against the roadway. Also, keep in mind that we have a 20 -foot buffer with the ability to provide up to an 18 -foot wall /berm combination for that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While you're on that issue, what's the dotted line that's in the rear -- the 15 -foot rear setback? What's that represent? MR. VANASSE: Are we talking about this line here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. VANASSE: That's the setback from the rear yard property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's the 15 feet. MR. VANASSE: Yeah, that's the year yard setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the solid line doing there then, just the -- MR. VANASSE: The solid line is the rear lot line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Something's wrong. If that's -- show me the rear lot line with your -- MR. VANASSE: Rear lot line is over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next line down, the dotted line is your -- MR. VANASSE: Setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's your -- okay, what about the -- MR. VANASSE: The other line over here? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MR. VANASSE: Is the 85 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Never will the lot line be within the buffer or closer than the inside edge of the buffer; is that true? MR. VANASSE: Can you repeat that, just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the concern we have with this buffer is we don't want you measuring from a property line, because there's a 20 -foot buffer. We don't want you to be 15 feet in or in any way put the back -- setback in the buffer. So that would never occur in this layout; is that right? MR. VANASSE: No, it wouldn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on the table, Mark. Is now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, now is the right time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You added -- in number seven you state that we can't go more than 10 units. And when you state without a side setback, you mean two side setbacks, don't you? Or can we word that without -- MR. VANASSE: Without a side yard is what we put in there. But the intent was really to have separation, no more than 10 units clustered together without that separation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but you worded a side yard setback, which is a single setback. Essentially normally there would be a property line and a setback on each side. MR. VANASSE: But if you have a cluster of 10 on this side, it needs to provide a side yard. And the same thing applies to the next cluster of 10, they need to provide a side yard. Therefore, you have two. So I think it's just semantics. But we can -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me try it this way: If you had a property line between townhouses, would that setback be larger than what you're describing here? MR. VANASSE: Yes, we would have a greater separation than just one side yard, we would have two side yards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then that could pinch them kind of close. I guess maybe let's look at separation between buildings would be the greater of 20 feet or one -half the building height. So based upon that being in the -- no, I'm sorry, 12 feet. Okay. That would actually rule you then. If you're building these on the same lot, the separation between buildings would kick in, which is 12 feet, which is two side yards. Okay. Page 15 of 82 1612June 7,46 Maybe if you worded that instead of a side yard just say somehow meeting the separation between buildings so this doesn't reduce the -- MR. VANASSE: We can certainly make that correction and clarify that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you wouldn't want townhouses six feet apart. MR. VANASSE: No, that's not the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you could do it according to this, so -- MR. VANASSE: We can make that change. Or I don't know if the Planning Commission's comfortable that the minimum separation addresses that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll go with -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here's the problem: You're specific here, and I would always assume that something specific would trump a general requirement. So if you remove it from the specific, you know, just say that no more than attached dwelling units are permitted, then you achieve the intent. MR. VANASSE: No problem. We can make that change. Moving on to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you leave the table, minimum front yard, on the table you have 20 feet with an asterisk, then you have 20 feet under single - family attached townhouse without an asterisk, then you have 20 feet with an asterisk. Why did you omit the asterisk on the 20 feet? Wouldn't you want to be able to do a side entry garage with a single- family attached at 15 feet? MR. VANASSE: Well, we're looking at single- family attached or townhomes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh -huh. MR. VANASSE: And typically they don't lend themselves to a side garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't want it, I don't see what it would hurt, but if you don't want to put it there, that's fine. But the next question would be, how do you see then 20 feet coming into play? If you've got 23 feet if you have a front opening garage and you can't have anything but a front opening garage with a single - family attached or townhouse, then why would you want have to have 20 feet in there as a setback? MR. VANASSE: Our setback is 20 feet, and that allows us to have the residential component, the living area closer a little bit to the road with the garage setback a little further. It will provide articulation in the building. And by no means can we go less than 23 feet from the garage to the sidewalk. And we've added that note in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the only change on Exhibit B would be Brad's suggestion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more quick question. Number two, why did you add that wording about having side yards within a building, which wouldn't make any sense? MR. VANASSE: I believe it was at the request -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I requested it. Only because I didn't want it to be construed as side yards at the -- from end units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, what did we -- in other words, a building could have multiple residential units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the confusion would be is that somebody would require a side yard between those units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, somebody would require a side yard -- you've got four units in a building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're trying to say they want no side yard separation between the center units, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. VANASSE: For example, if you have a townhome layout, there's no need for side yards within that cluster of homes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they're adjoining, the buildings are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the units are adjoining. MR. VANASSE: The units share a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it provided further clarification that we wouldn't apply it to the outside Page 16 of 82 1612 AA June 7, 2 walls of the building. That's all I was concerned about. MR. VANASSE: The last change that we made on there, number seven, and I apologize, in our haste to get back to staff we copied and pasted that back in. There's some language missing. Actually, sorry, I'm on the deviations that we'll discuss further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? MR. VANASSE: We can just wait till we get to deviations. I was at the wrong point. So number seven is not more than 10 units in a row without a separation, so that's the last change we have on the notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VANASSE: So moving onto the master plan. And I'll put this on the overhead. We made several changes, as requested by the Planning Commission. The first change that we made is we had a discussion regarding boundary markers. And we were asking for boundary markers along Immokalee and Woodcrest Drive. Through our discussion at the last hearing we concluded that Woodcrest Drive is not a collector arterial and it made a lot of sense for us to remove the potential for boundary markers along Woodcrest Drive. So that's a change that we've made to the master plan. Those have been removed. There was a label associated with the off -site dry detention area and excavation related to that. And that's to the northeast portion right here. That label related to excavation of that dry detention area has been removed because it was an off -site item. With regards to the notes associated with the preserve area, we were asked to change the word may to will, and we did that. And lastly, we added revision triangles on the master plan where those changes were made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions about the master plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, Patrick. The -- it goes back to the lake in the center that's a current stormwater management pond for transportation. It's already constructed. You're changing it. And I haven't seen where you have the authority to change that yet. MR. VANASSE: Actually, the -- if I recall, we had a discussion, and I forgot to put this in my notes, about the easements related to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Conservation areas we did, but did you ever -- I mean, has anybody got transportation's agreement on doing that? Because your DCA doesn't use this master plan. The DCA that I was given uses the master plan showing this untouched. So I'm still not sure how far you guys have gotten negotiating that lake. MR. VANASSE: My understanding, and I'll leave that to other folks when we get into the DCA, I think there are some proposed changes to the DCA where reference would be made to the Brent Creek RPUD master plan and not the Summit Lakes RPUD master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was one of the points I was going to make. MR. VANASSE: So I think when we get to that point, Bruce and our engineers can provide you more detail, if they'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'll need transportation or Nick or somebody to address this at some point. Because what's happening is we're asked to approve a zoning document with a change on a lake that was constructed for Immokalee Road that has an easement to the county and it was paid for by taxpayers for that Immokalee Road expansion. You guys are utilizing it. Which is fine, as long as someone's got this written down in some kind of agreement it can be done. Because if it isn't, then how can we be approving it? So I don't know where that stands. MR. VANASSE: And I think it's been discussed with staff and it's part of the DCA. But we feel comfortable providing full assurance that we'll be taking on that water, just like we committed to previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get to the DCA we'll probably need to look at the specific language. MR. VANASSE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the master plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. VANASSE: The next changes were related to the deviations, Exhibit E. So the first change that we made was to deviation number two. If you recall, we talked about the boundary markers. And again, we made it Page 17 of 82 6 6 112june 7, 20 2 explicit that boundary markers would only be for frontage along Immokalee Road. So that's the first change that we made. We made a change to deviation number three with regards to the wall/berm combination. I think we were talking about the ability to go 18 feet on that screen along Immokalee Road. And the Planning Commission wanted assurance that it would be a wall/berm combination. We put that in there. Also, with regards to Woodcrest Drive, the discussion was that we wanted to limit that to 12 feet rather than 18 feet, and we clarified that. And we also clarified that it would be a walVberm combination. And I think there were questions about how we would -- what that wall/berm combination would look like along Woodcrest, and I created an exhibit to show you. So this is the exhibit. We have a 20- foot -wide buffer using a four -to -one slope. We achieve an elevation of two and a half feet, and the wall would be -- to reach a maximum of 12 feet, the wall would have to be nine - and -a -half feet tall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that in our packet? MR. VANASSE: The exhibit is not in the packet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It will be in the file ultimately or -- MR. VANASSE: We can include it. We don't have a problem with that. I think it was just for illustrative purposes. The language does mandate a wall/berm combination. So in our minds it's the logical way to go, it's what makes sense, and we can certainly include the exhibit, if it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what's the ratio wall to berm that's going to happen up in Immokalee? 18 feet's a pretty big wall. MR. VANASSE: I think we haven't yet determined that, in that we have the option, we have enough room that we might exceed the 20- foot -wide buffer in some areas. So our berm might, you know, might reach a height greater than two and a half feet because we're going to have wider berms in some areas. So I think we haven't determined that at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the location of it. If I have a unit on Immokalee and you put an 18 -foot wall/berm behind me, I mean, I have two stories that can't look out. I guess that's intended too, but -- MR. VANASSE: As we've shown on the exhibit that I had previously with the 85 feet, I can put that back on. We have an articulated property line, and even going 130 feet deep with our lots. In some areas we have the buffer, and where the been would sit we have extra space. So the intent was really to take advantage of that articulation and come up with a nice berm that would vary along the roadway. So at this point I can't really determine exactly what that -- the height of the wall would be in the benn combination. But it will be a wall/benn combination. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. There could be some units, if it's in the middle, that would be, you know, what, 20, 25 feet from that wall. But anyway, it's what it is. MR. VANASSE: But I don't think it's our intent in any way to put them that close to a big wall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can project their television on it and have a big screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would like that put in the document, this example, when you -- MR. VANASSE: The exhibit? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, the exhibit, please. MR. VANASSE: No problem. The next change to the Exhibit E is we added two deviations, number four and five, that were previously approved as part of the Summit Lakes RPUD. And both of them relate to the discussion that we had earlier on as to they had been removed last time we were up here last month. And the idea was that they could be approved administratively, and that's why we didn't include them. It was suggested that we go back and look at that and consider putting them back in. We had discussions with staff, and staff liked the idea of having those back in there. So we put them back in. Number four deals with a deviation associated with right -of -way width for internal roads going from 60 feet to 50 feet if needed. And the last one, and that's where I was apologizing early on, in our haste to get back to staff quickly last Page 18 of 82 1612 June 7,A16 time, we didn't do a good job copying and pasting. And basically we put the reference to the code of ordinances, but we did not say what it was for. And that is the section that deals with having to provide tangents between reverse curves for internal roadways. So not sure where the Planning Commission stands with regards to those. We could either remove them, if you believe this is not the right place for them, or we can keep them in there. And obviously if we keep them in there, language would be -- we'd have to add language to deviation number five. And I've got written language here that I can suggest. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I recommend deletion of number five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's another little issue that -- this is what triggered my whole discussion and concern, and obviously it overlapped on the other items today. But the same code of ordinances that you're referring to, and I did print it out, it does also contain the deviations. You're asking for a width deviation, number four. That is in the LDC, but it's also in the code of ordinances. So it goes back to the concern that I have more for your clients' consideration as they go on in the future than anything else. You think you're getting a deviation to the Land Development Code. Today if we approve it, which we could recommend approval and I think that's consistent and fine. But I'm not sure it covers you down the road because you've still got the Code of Laws to deal with. And Heidi, how does that -- we routinely have approved deviation four. We understand its justification, it's been provided many times by many different applicants to reduce the width of the right -of -way, it is a requirement of our code. But it also is in the 2004 -66 Code of Laws. So how would they have to deal with this? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, deviation number four I'm okay with. You are deviating from the Land Development Code. Now, the fact that you've got a deviation, apparently the same exact requirement in the Code of Laws, you know, I think it would be -- I think that they should feel satisfied that they received the deviation. I don't think it's reasonable for the county to say no, it's in the Code of Laws and we gave it to you in the LDC but not in the Code of Laws. It's just not a logical conclusion. So if you grant number four, I think it's appropriate and they can rely on it. As to number five, I don't think this is the appropriate forum for number five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't checked, and I don't know, Ray, you probably -- I don't mean to catch you off guard because you probably haven't checked this either, but is there a reverse curve tangent reference in the Code of Laws -- or in our Land Development Code specifically that you recall? MR. BELLOWS: It used to be. And I'll have to check to see if it was removed and put in the Code of Laws CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Because we've -- it's been a routine request, and it's one that's not been denied. And the justification for it has always been provided. So I'm not uncomfortable with it. So I'd like to see us be able to weigh in on it, but I don't -- but if it's not in the Land Development Code I'm not sure, as Heidi's saying, it should be here. So where I'd like to leave it is if you can find it in the Land Development Code, then leave deviation five with the reference to the proper section of the LDC, and that would cover it. And if it isn't, deviation five would have to be struck. Does that work, Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it does. MR. VANASSE: And we appreciate the clarification. I think it's going to help us in the future as we come forward with these deviations again. Moving on, the next changes were made to the developer commitments. And the first two changes were made to the planning commitments. We added B and C. And the first one was related to the timing of the construction of the clubhouse. And what we did is we put in a commitment there that construction would commence prior to the issuance of the C.O. for the 45th residential dwelling unit. The other condition that we added in there was related to tracking the number of model homes in the development associated with the deviation that we requested, and we tied that to the building permit phase. And we would provide evidence as we came in with a building permit for a model home. And the idea is that we would never exceed the 15 maximum that's been discussed. The last set of changes were associated with the public utilities. And as discussed, we struck through E Page 19 of 82 16I2 ,A6, through H. And that kind of concludes it on the changes that we've made. If there are any discussions or questions, the whole team is ready to field those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couple comments, Patrick. The planning change you made on B that references the clubhouse? MR. VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Besides putting it there, can you duplicate it in Exhibit A, Roman numeral two, under one of the -- probably A, so that it's there -- it's a reference to tract A only. MR. VANASSE: Not a problem, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, I thought if I remember Mr. Brougham's point at the last meeting was he wanted you to -- you acknowledged the location of the clubhouse would be that central RA site. That would need to be stated in the tract RA reference too. MR. VANASSE: And I think you may have mentioned that to Bruce when you met with him. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I did. I think I called hun about it. MR. VANASSE: I've prepared some language in anticipation of this. And I'll put this on the overhead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, that works. Phil, does that meet with your -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's fine. It's according to my notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that gets us to the end of those issues. Does anybody have any issues of the applicant at this time? And don't sit down, Patrick, because I have a few. (No response.) MR. VANASSE: Hopefully they go to Bruce instead of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they probably will, it's to do with the DCA. Okay, if no one has any, I just simply want to get a couple of questions on the table from the DCA. And if it's staff that has to respond to this or Bruce. The DCA document that I've got apparently was a draft and it's been redone and some of the issues may be cleared up. I want to discuss this issue involving the water management lake that this main road's going through coming in. I basically need to know either from Bruce or from staff how this is happening. What kind of agreement do we have, where's the language, how do you get that road through the middle of the county taxpayers' excavated stonnwater management lake dug for Immokalee Road? And hopefully you know where the compensating area is going to go. MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi for the record, Transportation Planning Manager. We just talked to -- it's a little more complicated because it's part of the PUD that John can address. But I can tell you in the DCA we've talked to their design engineer, Nick and 1, and decided in the DCA to add -- a little language will address this. It's in number 11, which is on my Page 8. I know they've changed slightly, but this part has not changed. And the DCA language currently says Bent Creek at its sole cost and expense to permit and contract may excavate additional material from the county's roadway drainage pond adjacent to the Summit Lakes RPUD. This is specifically talking about the dry area that's oriented north - south, just to the northeast of the project or just east to the north. Now, if we add in after -- it was the county's roadway drainage pond, make it plural, ponds, adjacent to and within the Summit Lakes RPUD, we believe that may address that lake issue. But you may remember, and I'll bring John up here to talk about it because he was leading this discussion last time, there was discussion about bringing that -- the Bent Creek development will actually treat the water from Immokalee Road, which currently goes to that pond that is in question. And they'll bring it in. And there was an exchange of easements -- excuse me, the easement exchange goes away when the easement is redrawn over their lakes system and their lake system is maintained. So it doesn't happen until such time as the lake system is maintained. But I'll let John speak about that because he has more information than I. Page 20 of 82 'A4 June 7, 20 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I think in your reference to adding language to number 11, not only do they intend to permit and contract and may excavate additional material, if you were to pluralize that for ponds adjacent to and within their PUD, they're actually going to fill it. They're going to put in road in there. So that's more that what this paragraph allows. So I think you need to expand on the language. MR. JARVI: I believe, as I related to, probably excavate or fill would work. But I'll look at the language a little more carefully. And John can explain about the water management system, because he's looked at that more than CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but who's the DCA person, you or John? MR. JARVI: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then stay right there and let us finish with the DCA. Okay, you want -- whatever you guys want. I still have questions on the DCA. If, John, you want to get into the lake we'll finish it up then. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, for the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. Very briefly on the lake, we received -- and I think I might have stated this at the last meeting, we did receive an application to vacate some of the lake easements that are currently within this property boundary from the applicant in, you know, hopes that they could vacate the old easements in favor of dedicating new ones at some later point that will handle the water management from Immokalee Road. I think at this point if I recall correctly we have a rejection on that until the new plat comes in that dedicates those easements, okay, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I just -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- we are expecting the plat to dedicate those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll probably have to stipulate any recommendation around that issue, so -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The next question on the Bent Creek, it's probably more of a legal question. Paragraph 12 says the agreement is dependent on whether or not if this agreement is terminated by Bent Creek. But there is no termination paragraph in the draft I received to afford Bent Creek the ability to terminate. So Heidi, did you look at that? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. And that has been revised. The draft -- you just have a draft in here, there's been multiple revisions since. And there is a paragraph that does address that in the current agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The plans for Woodruff (sic) Tree Farm, Massey Road, basically upon execution of the DCA. And again, if this has been changed, just correct me. The county will receive full ownership of the design plans for Woodcrest Tree Farm, Massey Road as completed to date, free and clear of any claims or encumbrances. My question was, I think I told you, how complete are those plans? Are they up to code? Are they ones you could use? What good are they? And is that a benefit to this -- is there a monetary value attached to it that's a benefit to us if it's -- if they're usable or not usable? MR. JARVI: Yes. Again, Reed Jarvi, for the record. I've talked to the design engineer, and with the acceptance /adoption of this, they will have to modify their plans somewhat to address what's been -- is part of the DCA, which is the -- basically the road improvement to their southern access, and then the Lyme Rock Road from there down to Acremaker. But the plans themselves will be complete, 100 percent plans. There won't be pen-nits for them, because the permitting outside of the Summit Lakes area to the south more, south of Acremaker, the water for those plans goes into Wann Springs. And until such time as Warn Springs develops, you won't be able to permit those plans. But we're not using that part of the road anyway. So the future plans will be good, but they're able to -- excuse me, we're not able to build them right now because they're not permittable until such time as other development projects come on -line. But the plans themselves are good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I needed to understand. Anyone else have any questions on the DCA? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Reed, thank you. Page 21 of 82 16 12,.; �6 MR. VANASSE: I'd like to bring something back up with regards to the exhibit and the berm. In talking with my team members, the concern about putting that exhibit in the document is that there might be variations to the wall height or the berm and that we don't want it to be static. So we would be okay with an exhibit that would be for illustrative purposes, and that could vary. But we don't want to be stuck with necessarily two and a half feet and nine- and -a -half feet of wall. I think as we design this we might find that the conditions need -- require something else. So the idea is to indeed provide the wall/berm combination within the 20 -foot buffer. But exactly what we need, do we need 12 feet? At this time we don't know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in any case, it will not exceed 12 feet in combination thereof. MR. VANASSE: It will not exceed 12 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That work for you, Diane, since you -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think if you modify that exhibit just to indicate a generic that the wall/berm combination at no time will exceed 12 feet, I think that will kind of cover you and make it so we understood what you're trying to do. MR. VANASSE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a staff follow -up on any of this? Nobody's jumping up. Oh, Kay. I didn't -- I was looking out there for you, sorry. MS. DESELEM: New rules, we sit over here now. For the record, Kay Deselem -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both of you? Because -- MR. BELLOWS: You could have sat here. MS. DESELEM: Just a quick question to clarify what you were just saying. So do you want the exhibit in with the clarification language, or you don't want the exhibit in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think the indication is the exhibit will go in, but instead of having a definitive height for the berm or the wall, it will be that the berm/wall combination will be used but at no time will it exceed 12 feet in height. MS. DESELEM: So that would just be illustrative then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. DESELEM: Okay, that's what I wanted to make sure I understood. Thank you. I think the intent is to show that it was not going to be all solid wall 12 feet high. If they're going to put a wall in, there's going to be some use of a berm. Okay, the notes that I made, and you guys can correct me where I've not taken the notes properly. Brad, yours is the one I got -- I was writing something at the time so I may not have gotten it right. You had a footnote change concerning the length of the building? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. What it was is -- give me a second here. It was footnote seven to -- after the word permitted, it says no more than 10 attached dwelling units are permitted. Just erase everything after that. And what that will do is throw it into the distance between buildings requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the first stipulation would be pursuant to Brad's change in footnote number seven, all the verbiage after "as permitted" stops, and the sentence ends there. The second item was that there will be an exhibit added with a berm/wall combination that will show that that combination will vary but will not exceed 12 feet in height. The third one is that deviation number five will be reviewed. If it's an issue pertaining to the Land Development Code and they can cite a reference, it will remain. If not, it will be taken out. Number four, the -- you're going to move the reference to the RA tract that's in the planning section B to the RA tract and duplicate it there. But in addition, you're going to add the language in the RA tract involving location of the clubhouse. Number five, staff is going to address specifically the changes needed for the existing stormwater management lake that you're going to use as your entrance lake in the DCA. Anybody else have any issues other than that? Page 22 of 82 1612 ,,,,,e, (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: To forward PUDA- PL2011- 0001497 with the stipulations you just -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Melissa, seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the stipulations, I think they're straightforward. Normally we're trying to accommodate consent today. So I would hope that we can go straight into consent, because I think staff can review this to make sure they're consistent with what we've said and we can be comfortable it will be done that way. So I'm certainly in support of the motion with the stipulations. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree. I'll make a motion if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the motion's been made for the first one. So let's all vote. And the motion for approval -- recommend approval with the stipulations as noted. It was seconded. All in the favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Now let's take up consent. The consent is going to be with the assumption that the recommendations that we made are going to be entered into the document as we have explicitly stated. And staff will have to review that for concurrency and it then will go forward there, we'll not see it again. Everybody comfortable? Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we accept PUDA- PL2011- 0001497 as a -- as an approval for consent. Those items are small enough that they can be handled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. Motion by Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 23 of 82 1612 June 7, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Thank you very much for your time. We completed it. Good luck on your project. With that, it's 10:35, let's take a break till 10:50, and we'll come back in 15 minutes. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, we're woefully behind schedule. So if everybody will please take their seats, we'll resume the meeting. ** *The next item up is a PUDA. It's PUDA- PL2011 -1168, the Naples Reserve RPUD. It's located one -third of a mile north of U.S. 41 and one -and -a half miles east of Collier Boulevard and 951. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Staff and Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I had a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: As did I. And I met with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Staff. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Melissa? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich is a popular kind of guy. I spoke to him too. And everything that we spoke about will be reiterated today. So with that in mind, Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. I have several people here that I'll introduce to you that can answer questions that I can't answer. Don Mears with iStar is the project representative. Emilio Robau from RWA is our project engineer. Patrick Vanasse from RWA is our project planner. Ken Passarella from Passarella and Associates is our ecologist. And Bill Oliver from Tindale- Oliver is our transportation consultant. On your visualizer is the location map that shows the location of the Naples Reserve RPUD property. It's about two miles east of Collier Boulevard and about a little over --right around a mile north of U.S. 41. It's shown to you in the red square on the visualizer. It's an already approved PUD for 1,154 units. Part of the property is within the urban residential fringe subdistrict, which has a base density of 1.5 units per acre. And that would be the southern portion of the project. And I don't have a pointer, so -- it's represented by the property that is to the south of this diagonal line, and that's the urban residential fringe. North of this diagonal line is rural mixed fringe -- rural -- it's receiving lands under the rural mixed use district. The existing PUD -- I have both the existing master plan on the left and the proposed master plan on the right to highlight for you the changes that we're requesting under the project. As I mentioned, the project has an existing approval of 1,154 residential units, with an 18 -hole golf course, with typical recreational amenities for the project, together with 63.7 acres of preserves. The request, which is on the right -hand side, is to continue with the 1,154 residential units, eliminate the golf course and replace it with other recreational amenities, including walking and jogging trails, recreational lakes, and continues with the 63.7 acres of preserve. If you go back to the visualizer for a moment, you can see that the site is pretty well cleared and the preserve areas are already identified on the property. As I mentioned, the base density in the urban residential fringe is 1.5 units per acre. We can go to 2.5 units per acre through the TDR program. And the base density on receiving lands is one unit per five acres, which we can go to one unit per acre through the TDR program. And that's how we got to the original 1,154 units. And that's what we're keeping. In order to attain the 1,154, we will acquire 612 TDRs. If we don't acquire 612, we'll do something less than Page 24 of 82 , 201 161 une 7 6 1,154 units. Other changes other than removing the golf course that I'll highlight. I'll highlight the major ones. There's several smaller changes. And if we need to discuss those, we can. Regarding major changes, we're deleting the affordable housing payment that was included in a lot of PUD's at that time. The thought was there was going to be a countywide affordable housing program where all development was going to make some type of a payment. That never came to fruition. And with the change in the economy, the need for affordable housing is not as acute as it was at the time. So we're asking to have that provision removed. We've included greater detailed provisions regarding the conveyance of four utility well sites to the county. We're decreasing the development area from 609 acres to 592 acres. We're increasing the recreational area from basically 15 acres to almost 32 acres. We're asking for an off -site sign deviation. And the way that sign deviation works is if we reach agreement with the developer of the Walnut -- I think it's Lakes PUD, it's known as Reflection Lakes is the actual development. If we reach an agreement with them to be able to have a sign within their property, then we would be permitted to have a sign. We do not have the right to build a sign without coming back and amending the Walnut PUD. So the deviation would allow us to have that sign once we get the Walnut PUD amended. It avoids me having to come back again to amend the PUD simply to get the sign. I note that staff is recommending denial of that deviation. I think that's the only issue we have with staff at this time. I did have conversations with several of you, and we did discuss different issues. And if you'll give me a moment to kind of go page -by -page in the PUD document, I think I can address those comments in my presentation. And if I miss anything, I'm sure I'll be -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Reprimanded. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- reprimanded or you'll catch my inadvertent error and point it out to me. I'm working from the Ordinance number 12 dash blank. And I'm starting on Page 1 of 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit A, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Exhibit A, Page 1 of 11. And I'm going basically down to Item A.6, and it's entitled commercial excavations. And I would like to clarify something that was brought to my attention, that we really don't -- the lakes really aren't listed as R on the master plan. They're accessory to the R. But for purposes of clarification that we can do the commercial excavation for all areas labeled L on our master plan we'd like to add the following language. It would read: Commercial excavations for all lakes identified as L on the master plan. So that would eliminate any ambiguity as to the ability to excavate all of lakes that are labeled L. And we're not talking about other lakes that may be actually constructed on R parcels. Then if we go to Page 4, which is in Exhibit B, it's Table 1. A question came up regarding under the patio homes and villas, the minimum side yard. It provides for three feet or nine feet. And then under minimum distance between structures, it does have a minimum distance of 12 feet. I just wanted to point that out. Because it's a little bit different than the zero and six we're used to seeing for zero lot line projects. So I just wanted to point that out that there is still a requirement of 12 feet between structures. And you can't end up with a six -foot separation. I'm going to the next page, which is Page 5. It's the notes section. Under side yards, I believe there have been some modifications for other projects to that note to make it clear that we're talking about internal units. So I would propose note two to have a small change. It would read: No side yards shall be required between units internally to a structure when more than one residential unit is in a single structure. So that would make it clear that it applies to internal units in the building of multiple units. And 1 think based upon the earlier conversations in the old PUD, in ordinance number seven we had a note addressing the 23 -foot separation. And I would -- and you have the old PUD in front of you as your back -up. I would simply take that 23 -foot note that's in the old PUD and move it into this PUD as note number five to address the 23 -foot minimum requirement based upon an earlier conversation that we had. Turning now to Exhibit F, which is the list of developer commitments. And it's Page 9 of 11 in the -- of the ordinance. Under transportation item number -- I'm sorry, item letter B, that is the reference to the DCA that you also have in your packet. I would propose adding the following sentence that I talked to Nick, Reed and John about: The DCA provides for improvement of the intersection of U.S. 41 and/or improvements to U.S. 41 east of Collier Page 25 of 82 1612 ,,,A412 Boulevard. So it describes generally what we'll do with the $4 million payment that we'll be making under the DCA. And I hope that will address the items we discussed earlier as far as identifying what type of improvement will be made. I haven't drafted the language yet, and we can do that when we come back for the consent agenda, but other transportation commitments based upon conversations we had is that we would use Greenway as our construction access to the extent that all legal accesses provided exist for Greenway. If there's legal access to use Greenway, we will use Greenway, which is to the east of our project. So we would not be coming up Naples Reserve Boulevard, which is the front door to Reflection Lakes. So we would use that as our construction entrance, assuming that all the public easements exist for our using that. And also, at build -out of the PUD, assuming all the easements are still there for Greenway, we will have a second project access accessing Greenway for ingress and egress for the community. There are communities out there that only have one access point, and we have the ability to have a second access point, and we can make that commitment, assuming that, again, all the necessary public easements are in place and we can do that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Rich, if I may ask you a question. Provided that, have you had any discussions with transportation concerning -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm almost positive that those easements exist for us to have public access. But I have not done my own independent title review to be able to tell you today. I'm not worried. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If this comes back, and I assume it will on consent, then we would have resolution of that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that I'll be able to review title in the next two weeks or not. You know, I don't know how quickly I'll get the title information back. But again, I think we're okay. But, you know, if they exist, great, we'll do it. If it doesn't exist, then I can't. And then finally, under -- on Page 10, under the planning, and this is where I would think to put it; if it needs to go somewhere else, we could put it somewhere else. We would include a provision regarding our community clubhouse that would provide no later than the issuance of a C.O. for the 231 st residential dwelling unit, the developer shall commence construction of the community -wide clubhouse. And let me kind of go to the master plan, if you will, to better describe that. The way the new master plan is broken down is it generally lends itself to three communities within the community. And they also will have their own recreational facilities, as identified as these smaller RA parcels. What I was talking about community -wide is we're going to have a larger clubhouse and community -wide facility on one of these three RA parcels, which could be modified into two, depending on how we dig the lakes, or one or whatever. So we're going to have a larger community -wide clubhouse, basically in the southwest quadrant of the project. So we would commence construction of that by the 231 st C.O. So I know that there's a desire to have certainty as to when the community -wide amenities will be provided to the residents. So we will propose adding that under the planning developer commitments. And that will become an item C. And we'll work with staff between now and consent to come up with the exact language. But that's the concept of what we would change. And then finally on the last page of the document, which is 11 of 11, the first full sentence where it reads: The Collier County Water /Sewer District shall pay the owner $15,930 per acre for those easements that are conveyed. I would like these words added: Conveyed, reserved or dedicated to the Collier County Water /Sewer District. Because you don't always give a deed, sometimes it's by plat dedication and sometimes it's by reservation on a site development plan -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, that's not acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yesterday I spoke to Heidi about that. Because it seemed -- I wanted to make sure that the money got transferred at the time the land was tied up. And she informed me that until the actual deed is exchanged that she wouldn't go along with any language change. Is that -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, we don't pay for reservations. We'll pay at closing, which is the time of conveyance. That can be when the plat is recorded, if it's going to be a dedication or an actual easement document is recorded in the public records. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern was that -- Page 26 of 82 3 16 1 2June A6 MR. YOVANOVICH: Is dedication okay? Can we say conveyed or dedicated? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. Well, a dedication is, you know, a conveyance to the county. So I don't see why you have to put dedicated or conveyed. But dedication is okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that okay? So take the word reservation out? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it could be conveyed or -- that's fine, conveyed or dedicated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then if it's conveyed or dedicated by plat, how long before a closing would occur in which the values would exchange? The dollar -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the plat, unless I have to also do a deed for those sites or an easement, once the plat is approved by the Board of County Commissioners on its agenda, that's the county's land, and I would expect a check shortly thereafter. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And that would be correct. You'd just make sure you're coordinating it with the acquisition folks for the county so it doesn't get forgotten -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that we don't have apiece of land sitting there that's tied up and not being paid for for 10 years. That isn't fair, so -- okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that. I think I caught all the changes related to individual conversations that I had with the Planning Commissioners who met with me or talked to me on the telephone. And I hope I've described the major changes related to the PUD. The real major change is the elimination of the golf course and replacing it with other recreational amenities. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, questions of the applicant? Brad, then Phil. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Diane. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, one thing. On the ownership of this, there's actually no owners listed but there's a long list of officers. Can we assume that those officers are the owners? MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer is they are members of the LLC and there's one other, which is iStar Financial, Inc., which is a publicly traded company. So if it wasn't a publicly traded company, I would be obligated to tell you who the shareholders are. But those individuals together with iStar Financial, Inc. are the members of the LLC that owns the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you verified the iStar Financial, Inc., okay, as a publicly traded company. Because that was one of our issues yesterday as we -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess the other question then, it might be -- let me wait and discuss it with Ray. Thank you. I'm done. MR. YOVANOVICH: With who? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a staff question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, Rich, on the lake excavation do you anticipate blasting or just drag lining? MR. YOVANOVICH: We may do some blasting. And then we'll obviously comply with the county's blasting ordinance regarding notifying residences within the required distance. We'll also have our own individual out there, seismologist, as well as making sure beforehand we properly document the status of structures prior to the blasting. Serves protection for them as well as it serves as protection for us. So we'll follow the blasting ordinance. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is that SOP, Mark, standard procedures, or do we need that as a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's standard. It's in the LDC. They can't do anything without it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, I do have a couple questions. Yes, it is on the lake. It is taking the fill off property. These are not -- it says in here that these will be deeper lakes, because rather than a golf course you're going Page 27 of 82 1612 A6 June 7, 2012 to do activities on these lakes, so they'll be deeper. How -- with taking this fill off, is this just for the road project only? MR. YOVANOVICH: If any fill is removed, and that's a big if, if any fill is removed, the fill can only be utilized for roadway improvements at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Collier Boulevard or improvements to the East Tamiami -- improvements to U.S. 41 east of that intersection. There's limitation. And that was the limitation that was existing in the original PUD as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So it's any fill taken off will be used for roads for Collier County. MR. YOVANOVICH: Above -- any fill above the allowed 20,000 cubic yards that you're allowed to -- you can do as a matter of right under the code. In order to go above that, you have to get a commercial excavation approval. And anything above the 20,000 cubic yards has to be used for those limited improvements. Make sense? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, to a certain extent it does. But do you really -- 20,000 is a lot, but I'm sure the county will need it for their road system. You really don't plan on taking any other fill out other -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If you want, I can give you the history of that, where that provision came from. And it goes back to an earlier discussion we had regarding a DCA for that area. The anticipation was there was going to be a much greater improvement done at the intersection of 41 and 951. And the thought was we have the ability to over - excavate these lakes, if you will, to generate fill that we could sell to the county at a reduced rate, and there will be less truck traffic from other pits, and we can recover some of our expenses related to those improvements and the county could get some fill at a reduced rate to bring the cost of those improvements down. That option still exists, but that was the history of that provision in the first place, is there was an opportunity. If the county comes to us and says they want to pay, if we're going to remove 20,000 cubic yards or less and the county strikes a deal with my client, we'll sell the fill to the county. Or if someone else strikes a deal with my client for that 20,000 cubic yards, we'll give them the dirt. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So with you taking it -- I did not know you were going to charge the county for this. I thought it was for county roads only. So you're saying that yeah, at a price. MR. YOVANOVICH: It has always been at a price. Which presumably the county will negotiate -- will get a price that's better for the county than they would have to pay for another fill -- another fill site. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Little help. Because there's state roads and there's some state grants and MPO's, I can't do that. Typically on a local county road sometimes we can put in a price, a fixed reduction. On this one we were applying for some state and federal grants, which everything has to be competitively bid. They would hopefully bid a lot more competitive because they're right there. So that's why we just said it would be great to use the dirt if we can, but if -- if the value makes sense at that time. So that's why. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Rich, let's start the transportation part of it. And I understand the language now that's been added pursuant to the DCA and the Policy 5.1. This Naples Reserve Boulevard, that's already existing, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a -- who owns that? Your applicant? It's not a public road yet from what I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not public, but we maintain it. We have an agreement with -- we being the owner of this property or the predecessor which we succeeded to has an agreement with basically the developer of Reflection Lakes where we built that road and we maintain it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's a recorded document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a sidewalk along that road? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't remember. No, I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The comment that you made that you're going to be using Greenway as your Page 28 of 82 1612 A6 June 7, 2012 construction entrance. Greenway's a public road. And if you use that as a construction entrance, it's convenient because all the beat up of the road is going to be at the cost of the public, because your private road is going to be left untouched, the one you maintain. And I didn't know this until I heard it mentioned earlier. Also along Greenway we have approved, and I think they even exist to some extent, some developments that were low- income affordable housing. And one of the big issues with the approval of those developments was that there were a lot of children, and Greenway wasn't improved enough to accommodate sidewalks or things that the children could use to safely get around without being in a lane of traffic. I didn't know you were -- of course, I didn't pick up you were using Greenway as the construction entrance. But how is Greenway a better construction entrance with the concerns that there might be? And I'm going to ask somebody from transportation to verify the condition of Greenway at this point versus a road that you maintain, the taxpayers don't. Why is there an advantage to that to the taxpayers of Collier County? MR. YOVANOVICH: Really, the advantage is is there are lesser homes utilizing Greenway than will be using Naples Reserve Boulevard. If the preference -- this was something that we were requested, can we commit to using Greenway. If that's going to be an issue, we'll just -- we won't make that commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a fairness issue, Richard. I mean, there's people living on Greenway. I mean, they may not have the money it takes to fight the people on Walnut Lakes if they have to, but there are people living there. So how is it fair to them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Either way -- again, Mr. Strain, I don't want to be argumentative. We're taxpayers too. And the tax dollars that we'll be generating from this site will go into the county's maintenance fund and can be utilized to repair any damage to that road. Again, that came up at a request of one of your colleagues, can we commit to using that, because there's more homes using Naples Reserve than using Greenway. It was more of a -- yeah, for Reflection Lakes. There would be more residents -- fewer residents impacted if we used Greenway than using Naples Reserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but Greenway -- I mean, Naples Reserve Boulevard being a more modern road is undoubtedly going to have better standards, widths and access -wise than Greenway we know currently has, unless Greenway's been improved since the last time this board discussed it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, if that's an issue, we'll just -- we won't use it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's an issue. And I don't know if maybe staff can point out to me the differences in the road systems that are good or bad. And Phil, go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll take some of the heat because I'm the one that requested consideration of that. And my concern with construction traffic is that you have lowboys, dump trucks, et cetera, et cetera proceeding up and down a road adjacent to residences. Whether they're south of this development or as this development is developed, you're -- you would be alternately coming up Naples Reserve Boulevard and through the main gate, quote, unquote, and you would continue that as you built out to the north, going by succeeding numbers of homes within the development. And that was my concern, to try to minimize the noise and disruption to existing residences, whether they're outside the development or inside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But did anybody look at the number -- because I was -- and it was before you were on the Board. The issues we have with Greenway involving the Regal Acres, for example, was -- were concerning. I mean, the biggest issue was it wasn't a safe road for kids to be traveling with the additional traffic that would be generated from the project there. And I don't know how the fix came about and how it all happened, but there were a lot of concerns over Greenway. And it's an older road. And I am concerned that the road that was picked is one that's maintained by taxpayers versus one that's maintained by the developer. MR. YOVANOVICH: What if we agree to this: What if we agree to maintain Greenway at its current condition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, safety is a bigger issue, Richard. I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I'm trying to understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two issues. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Okay, I can address the level of the road to where I don't make it worse than it Page 29 of 82 1612 ,d,,,46 exists today. That's one issue I think I heard. You know, if we create any potholes, we'll fix the potholes. I don't want to have to bring it up to a higher standard than it exists today but I'll maintain the standard that's there today. Now, on the safety issue, I don't know that I can do anything to address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I haven't got the ability while we're discussing this to bring the aerial up close enough to see if there are sidewalks or pathways along Greenway. I don't know if staff can do that for us -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They're shaking their head no, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there aren't? Okay, well, what about -- and John or Reed, if whoever is looking at this, if you were to take a look at the Naples Reserve Boulevard and look at Greenway, from a safety perspective which one is the least safe one? And especially with considering the families that are going to be already in existence on Greenway. It just may not be the right thing to do. And Phil wouldn't have been involved in this discussion because this all came about before he was on this board. But I do remember it, it was a very -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Notwithstanding your comments, and I appreciate the history and I also could appreciate if there's a safety concern along Greenway, you know, with this added traffic. I don't know what the safety issue -- how the safety issue today is mitigated along Greenway, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying not to make it worse, that's all. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't know if there is one or there isn't one. But I know if we put additional traffic along an unsafe, quote, unquote, road, it's going to make the situation worse. But I think somewhere in here I hope that there can be some compromise so that we give due consideration for the residents that live along the boulevard there or the road, whatever it is, Naples Reserve Road and the future residents of this development. I mean, I've lived with construction traffic, and it's very, very disruptive. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, we do too. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, I appreciate your point, Mark, I do, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just as disruptive though to the developments that are along Greenway. And so if -- and in looking at who owns what roads, I just don't understand -- I understand your point now, but I didn't understand the reasoning when it was mentioned we were going to use Greenway as a construction entrance. It seems contrary to logic in regards to ownership and maintenance and safety. So that's why I'm trying to explore -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I first noticed it -- I mean, I'm alert to these things anyway. But I first noticed it was brought up in a neighborhood information meeting that they had, and someone that was asking the question of where do you plan to put construction. And that was obviously somebody that lives outside of that development now. And I believe the gentleman lived along Naples Reserve Boulevard. So that's the genesis of the concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Naples Reserve Golf Club maintains, and apparently may have built, Naples Reserve Boulevard. It's named after them. It just seems like a logical street they should use for their project. And that's -- and John, have you looked at both roads, Naples Reserve Boulevard and Greenway on your aerial? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, for the record, Transportation Planning. Yes, I have. I've got them pulled up on the iPad here. If you'll bear with me, I'll show you the conditions of both as of the latest aerial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. That would be helpful, thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just another question, if I might. How far north -- I'm assuming that's north, Rich -- does Naples Reserve Boulevard proceed? Does it proceed clear to the northern boundary of the project or not? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it goes about a third or so of a mile north and then into our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's across the street from Naples Reserve Boulevard? That's another entrance to Fiddler's Creek, is it not? Oh, yeah. Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You folks will notice that this is the -- a two -lane roadway with drainage on either side and multiple driveway connections. This is Greenway Road on the north side, top of the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a swale along both sides of that road? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe so, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it looks like there's culverts and swales but no pathways or walks. Does that seem consistent? Page 30 of 82 16 12 ' A6 June 7, 2012 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Where's the low- income housing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to the north end close to -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh, there it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is -- yeah, well, this is Naples Reserve -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Naples Reserve Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a sidewalk coming in off of 41 that goes north along the east side? Yeah, it sure is. This is almost -- yeah, so there is a sidewalk along it. And it goes all the way up, it looks, north. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And there are no direct driveway connections save for one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, so why would we do it on -- Phil, I just don't -- I don't see the benefit of doing this and forcing it on Greenway to the people that live on Greenway. I think that would be highly detrimental. Walnut Lakes doesn't have the exposure from either driveways or walking on the asphalt that you would have on Greenway. Are you -- is that -- do you see where my concerns are? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I see where your concerns are, I just don't agree with them. That's all right, I'm only one vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just want to -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But I just saw on the visualizer a whole load of houses up along Naples Reserve Boulevard there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but they're none of them -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- and I saw very few house on Greenway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many driveways on Naples Reserve empty into Walnut Lakes? There's only one main entrance. There are no driveways connecting to Naples Reserve Boulevard. There are multiple driveways through all the residences on Greenway connecting to Naples Boulevard. That's where the -- that's another point of concern. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Was also a safety concern with the children. I have another question. Getting the long -term transportation information, is this the start of Benfield Road? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. What happened was -- is this the start? Are you talking about the payment we're making or are you talking about the commitment to dedicate land? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The commitment to dedicate land looks like this is the beginning of Benfield Road. MR. YOVANOVICH: That happened in'07. In'07 we had an obligation to dedicate right -of -way. We have not requested relief from that obligation. That already exists in the zoning. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So that was from the'07 and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the'07. It was something that was requested of us that -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That Nick requested of you in '07. And so this will be the start of a -- but are you giving this to the county free of charge, this dedication? MR. YOVANOVICH: I need to go look again, because I can't remember. I can't remember if Nick got it for free on that one. I think he did. Did you, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: He got it for free. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's get back to the questions on the exhibit. Let's start with Exhibit A, the -- accessory uses under B.1. And maybe staff may have already responded to this. The last part says that the accessory uses to the R tract would be other outdoor recreation facilities. Does that mean they would be typical to single - family houses or is this any outdoor recreational facility? MR. YOVANOVICH: Meaning -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning you just can't build tennis courts on an R lot or anything like that. You're talking strictly swimming pools or something -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Residential, single - family and multi - family, because we have both uses. i just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Because it's the same language you used on the RA tract. I wanted to make sure you weren't trying to do what the previous one did, was use the RA tract uses into the R zone. It doesn't appear Page 31 of 82 1612 June 7 2012 that way, but I thought I'd double question it. The Walnut Lakes PUD reference under your signs, if you didn't have the reference in here, then all you'd still have to do is go to Walnut Lakes and get their PUD amended so your sign could be put up there. MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding, and if I'm wrong, if I don't need to have a reference in my PUD allowing me to have an off -site sign -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding is in order for me to have an off -site sign, my PUD needs to allow me to have an off -site sign. Because the LDC doesn't currently allow me to have an off -site sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I was getting a different indication possibly from staff. Nancy, is that -- or Ray, is that correct? To assure that this can go through without any problems if it's approved, is there any problem referencing it under the conditions noted in this language? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It's not a problem to reference that they are attempting to get an off -site sign permitted through another PUD amendment to the applicable PUD. We have done this in the past. But we didn't include that language in the subject parcel requesting the off -site sign. So it's not necessary, but I don't think it hurts in this case, considering it's an unusual circumstance. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think I meet the current criteria in the LDC to have an off -site sign. That's why we want it in our PUD. And heaven forbid the code changes to where you cannot have off -site signs. I just would feel that much better if I have it in my PUD letting me know I can have an off -site sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no damage done, I'd prefer the safety net of having the additional language there to make sure that there's no question in the future. As long as there's no major objection from staff. MR. BELLOWS: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your master plan, Exhibit C, and Patrick will relate to this, where it says P, preserve tract, on the lower left side and again on the upper left side, the language is the preserve may be supplemented. Remember the language change, we need the preserve shall be supplemented. And that's only where needed. So if you could make that annotation of those two points on this master plan, that would be helpful. The remaining questions I believe are going to be of staff. Thank you. Anybody else? Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One more shot. MR. YOVANOVICH: At who, at me? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: For my construction preference here. If I'm looking at your master plan and I -- when John had his display up there, if you came in off of Greenway down in that lower right -hand corner, if you will, very close to 41. Are you with me where I'm at? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm with you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Rather than proceeding the full northern route of Greenway up to the north and put a potential construction entrance up there, would that, Mark, relieve your concerns about safety? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The two projects, or at least one of the projects that we worked on, maybe two, were south of Naples Reserve Golf. Where the words Regal Acres goes across there, those are Habitat projects. They have a lot of families with children in them. Then if you go further down along Greenway there were a bunch of homes, maybe they were considered like two -acre or five -acre lots, that had driveways opening directly onto Greenway. And the entire length of Greenway had no sidewalks. And it was a narrow road. In fact, there's not even a dividing line down the middle of it. And there was a concern that the width of school buses and things going down that road would create a very dangerous situation at the time we discussed the prior projects. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understood you meant here. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I was looking down there, yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anyway, I'm -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. I just feel sorry for those people. I don't know how you're going to build this out, whether -- you're probably going to start at the southern end and build it north. But you're Page 32 of 82 1612 6 June 7, 201 going to be rumbling trucks by those people forever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're going to be rumbling by somebody's place. It just seems the least negative impact is what I was looking at from safety. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Anyway, anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes, Rich, that -- whether you use Greenway for hauling or not, that does not preclude that being a site for a second entrance for the property; is that true? In the future? MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't see regular car traffic as a safety issue. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I don't either. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We're still willing to have that second access point if that's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public road, I'm not sure you can stop you from being on a public road. Making that a dedicated construction entrance I think is going to have a liability for the people on that road. And I think it would be as equally concerning for your applicant to know that he's forcing -- that he's going to accept putting traffic on a road that is more unsafe than the road that is his main entrance, it's what's named after his development. So it just doesn't seem like a good idea at this point. I think the history of that road is where the problem lies. With that, we'll go to staff presentation. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So I guess that removes item number E from Exhibit F. MR. YOVANOVICH: The new E, yes. And 1'11 just have an E. Hopefully that will be enough that there won't be an issue for any commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you've got a new E, you're ahead of me, because I don't have -- mine stops at D. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I mentioned two things -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And he added E. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- one was the construction entrance. The second thing we would add that you would see at consent was having a secondary access for the development. That would be the new -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you said it was in the DCA, that's why -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no, we would add it to the development commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: Well, good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Land Development Review Services. And staff is recommending approval of this petition. If you -- it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. And if you have any questions, it would be my pleasure to answer them this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions from the Planning Commission? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Nancy, would you clarify for the benefit of the Commission the changes in your staff report that you addressed to me in an e -mail, please? Not that it's substantive, but I think it bears going -- MS. GUNDLACH: We have a few edits to the staff report. And on Page 14 under the last item number six, the first sentence should state: Currently the roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity. And I'm adding these words: With the proposed mitigation to serve the proposed project at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Because that conflicted. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that it? MS. GUNDLACH: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I have a question. Why did you want to not allow them to have temporary Page 33 of 82 1612 2012 signs? MS. GUNDLACH: It's not allowed -- actually, the request is for permanent signs out by U.S. 41. And they don't own the property out by U.S. 41, so we're not allowed to grant them permission to regulate property they don't own. MR. BELLOWS: In addition, they don't meet the requirements for an off - premises sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you include the reference in this here as they're trying to do and then go to Walnut Lakes and make the modification, it's allowed. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct. And that's --just for your information, Commissioner, that's been done at least one time before that I can remember. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nancy, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I went to the Appraiser's website. Is Winding Cypress owned by Collier? The Colliers? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, that's just to the west of the petition. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, that's to the west. And when I looked at it, the very triangle at the bottom is Rookery Bay. And to the west it says Barron Collier, Barron Collier. And so I'm going, hmmm, it says Winding Cypress. And that's where I -- in looking at that, that's why I asked you if the Colliers owned Winding Cypress. MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, I didn't research the ownership of Winding Cypress. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's been around for a long time. The project was approved many, many, many years ago. Divosta is building in the north end, and I believe the south end's going to have a mix of more residential and golf course. It's been quite a while, though, since we visited that project. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because it just shows the owners of that property as the Colliers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing wrong with that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, but they just -- I could not find Winding Cypress in the list, Mark, is what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the PUD list under -- isn't it under -- in there? It should be. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I looked under, could not find it, but okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, question on the setbacks that Rich brought up. Side yard and all the other setbacks are measured to property lines, correct? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The distance between buildings, is that the distance between buildings on the same lot or do you apply that across property lines? MS. GUNDLACH: I think that applies across property lines. Can you clarify which standard you're talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's patio villa on Table 1. But the question is, it was my impression the distance between buildings are buildings on the same lot, to regulate them. Other buildings are regulated by setbacks to property lines. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe under multi- family where you talk about minimum distance between structures, you're correct, those are structures on the same lot. However, if you look at the patio and villa homes they're talking about, under minimum side yards, a zero foot or six -foot, they've just guaranteeing under minimum distance between side yards that they're going to have a 12 -foot separation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what you said is what I believe, is that the requirement for the distance between building is for buildings on the same lot. MR. BELLOWS: Typically that's the way it's applied. It's a little different with this table though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have here is how do we prevent the buildings from getting closer than 12 feet if -- in other words, if I design a patio home there's -- a patio home will have a defined property line. And there would be two buildings, they would be on independent lots and I could take the three and three. Page 34 of 82 4 i 1612 � June , 12 MR. BELLOWS: And that's a concern staff has had with this language in other PUD's where as a subdivision develops and it's been developed in a piecemeal fashion, there could be an instance where you have a vacant lot surrounded by two developable lots where they've utilized some of the different setback options and renders it impossible to meet that 12 foot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Well, we could solve it, Rich. Would you have a problem adding a footnote to the three feet or nine feet, by the three feet noting that that can occur only when the adjoining property has a nine -foot setback? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have an objection. I think you probably need a footnote not only there, you need a footnote like that for the single - family, for the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, single's six feet, so they would be 12 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But the zero or six. But that's only attached. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. So obviously zero is pretty obvious there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, okay. You're right. I was thinking a lot of times we have zero or six for zero lot line detached -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you want a tip, I would put the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. I have no objection to making sure that we have a footnote that says we can't be closer than 12 feet to any structure located on an adjacent property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Just a tip, I would put the greater than symbol in front of three feet to avoid a conversation about fire dampers with dryer vents. In other words, if it's three feet and a nanometer, it's a different code requirement than three feet. But anyway, the next question is this thing has something unique where they actually in multi - family have only the actual building height. Nancy, you guys comfortable with that as a way to regulate the height of a building? MS. GUNDLACH: Could you repeat the question, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Multi- family has actual building height, doesn't have zones. Which the other ones, by not noting actual I assume they're zoned. Are you comfortable regulating the building? I could be -- MR. BELLOWS: I'd prefer they put the zoned and actual. Because the LDC has both definitions. And the purpose of having an actual is to address Board of County Commissioner concerns that the zoned height doesn't necessarily convey to the public what the actual building height will be, because the LDC allows for deviations from height, depending on, like, pergolas and things like that on the rooftop. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it was also to stop Rich and Frank Halas from using the word tippy top. MS. GUNDLACH: We'll add that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, should we put in a -- or, you know, I mean, the word actual is the problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or make them all consistent and have them all say actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just run a separate line and do zoned height, then actual height like we have in every other PUD? I think that's where Brad's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I wouldn't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I just was hoping that that would still qualify us to be on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't want to get into you don't like my zoned height number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We may not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We may not. Actual. I prefer actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us what your zoned will be right now so we know where you're going to go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd be curious as to what product they want to put in. If they are going to actually -- the abuse I'm afraid of is they could really build a tall building, the parapets could be at 65 feet. Today you don't have to have elevator rooms, so the only thing that -- that would be the highest part of the building. So, I mean MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, should we call -- the footnote says that those are all actual -- I mean, sorry, zoned. So we do need to put an actual number. Is it -- Page 35 of 82 1612 A6 June 7, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not looking for actual, I'm just looking to clean up that one. I mean, I think I would not call those actual, because that could diminish your second story use and stuff like that. You don't want to do that. Just, you know, maybe what you would do is put in 65 actual in that topic and maybe pick a number, 55 feet zoned or something. I mean, how many stories you want to go? I mean, we don't want -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. No, I'm fine. I'm writing that down. So zoned would be 55 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And we don't want flat roofs as a result of this, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But I think that Mr. Strain is going to now tell me, Rich, since you have 35 feet for single - family as zoned, what's your actual for single - family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we may as well just pick the number now, as -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You might as well run through the actuals for each one of those right across the board. Let's get it done. Good catch. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why do we do actual on single - family homes and stuff? If we had a lot of A -frame construction, we might have some abuse of that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think one of the reasons is cupolas and bell towers on expensive homes. I just saw one plan I reviewed that had a cupola that went many, many feet way above the main ridge of the roof of the house. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Mark hit the nail on the head. There have been developments where it hasn't been clearly stated what the actual height is. And there's some unusual architectural designs out there that created much larger structures than the surrounding neighborhoods had intended. So I think the -- the reason we put both is to address direction from Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What are you trying to say, Ray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say there the fault is the architect's, right, Ray? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think historically we've probably had a 10 -foot difference between actual and zoned. So why don't we just -- the next line we'll add 10 feet to these. These will be the zoned heights and we'll add 10 feet to each of those to make -- that will be the actual height. So 35 for residential, 45 actual. Forty, 50, 35. And on the other one it will be 55, 65 like we just did. That work? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The thing that scares me is we're just picking numbers out of the air that the result of picking a bad number means you're going to flatten the roof. And Naples does have a lot of houses maybe without cupolas that have beautiful roofs on them -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But these are -- the only time that a -- but you've taken care of that on the multi- family, because we're at 55 and 65. The rest are really single - family type uses. So having a 40 -foot townhome with 10 feet of architectural embellishment should be enough room. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we measure actual roof to the midpoint of the roof. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's not like you're getting 10 feet above the ridge of the roof. MR. YOVANOVICH: But that's single - family attached, so it's going to be a townhome. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- yeah, I mean, you can do it, let's just be careful. The bad decision here would be you'd lay the roof down. And we have some big roofs in neighborhoods. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think this will give us enough flexibility on the single - family homes to not lay the roof down. And it clearly requires us not to lay the roof down on the multi- family, with the 55 and 65 distinction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, that's -- thank you, that's my comments. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I didn't use tippy top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- yes, I do. Rich, could you answer something for me, please. In the NIM meeting it says here that there -- I noticed on when they divided property, they didn't put the Page 36 of 82 1612 J 012 amount of acreage for the lakes and stuff. Now they're putting everything into open space, because one has to be 70 percent in the one portion of it, and the other is 60 percent. But here the open space, including 87 acres of stor nwater management lakes that are separated by 74 acres of recreation lakes that will allow for canoeing and enjoyment of the water. Which is fine except when I turned it over to the water management portion of this and the diagram, I see stuff running into every single lake. MR. YOVANOVICH: You see stuff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Connections. I see connections running into the lakes. I -- MR. ROBAU: For the record, Emilio Robau, engineer of record on the project. You can still have a recreational lake connected to other lakes. The thing is that the recreational lake requires that any water going into it be pretreated for water quality. So, you know, the scheme is that you essentially collect runoff from surfaces, treat it in a treatment lake, then you can discharge it into a recreational lake. And that's the way the system is currently designed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, because everything was just -- and I'm going wait a minute, because the Picayune Strand is behind and they're putting looks like flowway in there too. There was just a question I had, because it said separated, and I'm going, I see -- MR. ROBAU: Yeah, they're separated by water quality treatment. That recreational lake has -- all the water going into a recreational lake has already been treated for water quality in accordance with the District criteria and actually, you know, 150 percent, and then it's discharged into a recreational lake. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, very good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else of staff, applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question of utilities. Aaron, you're familiar with the question. You have in your -- in the PUD under utilities and engineering that the Water /Sewer District will purchase the easements for 15,930 per acre. Of course then it will be conveyed or dedicated to the Collier County Water /Sewer District. And since that is a public purchase of a private easement, I believe 106 -132, the code of laws applies and there needs to be an appraisal. Since that number was different than some other appraised properties I've seen come through, I was trying to understand how you got to that number. And I've asked you for the appraisal. What I got was a memo, and I believe the memo value may have been different than the value in here. But regardless, I haven't seen the appraisal yet. So what's the status on getting that? MR. CROMER: For the record, Aaron Cromer, Public Utilities. We have had a letter of opinion, which is an official document for our internal state certified land appraiser. And that's how they prepare that number for you, seventeen - seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you get me a copy of that letter of opinion before consent? MR. CROMER: Sure. We sure can, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because when we'd met I asked for the appraisal, I got a memo. The memo -- can you explain? And I gave my paperwork to Heidi, so I don't have it in front of me, but I believe the memo said around a $17,000 per acre price, yet in the PUD we're putting 15,930. How -- can you explain that? MR. CROMER: Sure. This is little bit -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You want me to try? MR. CROMER: Yeah, please. That would be better for me. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's a discount to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't have it, I gave it to you, so -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. Mr. Roosevelt Leonard is a state certified real estate appraiser who is employed by the county. And he did a letter opinion of value. The only thing in your letter that you received from Mr. Roosevelt is the date is omitted. I have some a -mails from -- dated back in February, February 16th of this year that sets forth the value in a similar letter form, but by e -mail. And the -- what he came up with is, as of the February date, a value of 17,700 per acre. And when you value an easement, you're not taking the full rights of the owner, so therefore he valued it at 90 percent of fair market value and that's how he came up with the $15,000 figure. And my opinion is that this is a sufficient appraisal. However, Mr. Roosevelt should have a file somewhere Page 37 of 82 16I ,A6 that's got his comparables and so forth that he used in coming up with this value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this particular dedication or conveyances, whatever you want to call it, fall under our Code of Laws? And if so, what section of our Code of Laws? I provided you with a section that I thought it might fall under, and it's 106 - 132.1), because it's less than a million dollars, so which means it can be done by a county salaried appraiser. And if it does, are we consistent? That's all I'm trying to find out. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The section that you gave me is Section 106 -132 of the Code of Laws, and that really contemplated when we were purchasing property that would probably go forward through eminent domain, and it was to set forth the number of appraisals that you need and some minimum qualifications. In my opinion, being involved in the drafting of this and the legislative history of the section, that the values set forth in a PUD weren't contemplated under this section. So no, I don't believe it falls under that section, but I don't believe that he did not comply with the section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What section would it fall under? I mean, at some point to establish a value on which taxpayers are going to be purchasing a piece of property, and for fairness to the applicant who we're purchasing it from, there's got to an established fair market value. You just can't pull the number out of the air. I can understand we got one in this case based on what you've said and it should be in the file that I'll see, but where's the requirement to have done that? I want to make sure the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, this is also a negotiated value. A PUD is a negotiated document, and the value was presented to the owner and the owner accepted it. So therefore I believe it's an appropriate number. The county doesn't unilaterally set the number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But on other PUD's where we've taken areas of right -of -way and things like that, we've not approached it this way, we've established an appraisal and we've acquired it through a value that apparently was a fair market value. This just seems different. I want to make sure that it's fair. And I'm not --we don't have any code that pertains to how we handle a purchase like this, is that what you're saying to me? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, I don't believe that we do. No. And I think the number is fair. The valuation is based on the value prior to the rezone. The value goes up after the rezone so the taxpayers would be paying more. So I think this was cost effective and in the best interest of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that document that you've got in front of you provide us with the knowledge that it was appraised prior to the entitlement? The date of the appraisal or date of the value establishment? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Does this say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah -- no, does the memo that I gave you? I don't have it in front of me so I can't recall. Does that memo acknowledge that the value was established prior to the entitlements on the property? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The e- nail that I have would, because it would value it as of February 16th. The memo that they provided you is undated, and it should be dated. That's the only deficiency that I see with the letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The e -mail that you got that was February 16th, what year was it? The reason I'm asking, Heidi, is this is an old PUD, it's been around a long time. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, I believe it was 2012. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have entitlement to the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I know. So was the well request established in the prior PUD or just this one? MR. YOVANOVICH: Prior. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I believe it was in prior as well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior. So that means the entitlement has to be before the prior PUD was established. That's the date I'm trying to verify. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I can tell you that in doing eminent domain valuations, the owner is typically at least three or four times higher when we go to eminent domain than the county's number. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not enough money for us to fight over, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not fighting over it I just want to make sure the process that was done by the county is pursuant to our rules. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me clarify an answer I just gave you, if you don't mind. There was an original Page 38 of 82 16 1June 2 7 2012 A 6 PUD for a golf course community for 36 holes with less units. Then in'07 we came through with another amended PUD. That's when the well requirement came in. We went through this process again, and Aaron knows, we said we don't want to give you any wells, you have no plans for well sites, so take it out. Aaron then negotiated with us and said, hey, if I'm willing to pay you for the well sites, will you leave them in. And that's where those negotiated provisions came in for what he's going to pay us and when he's going to make his decision as to when he needs the well sites. The dollar value is -- again, I never saw the appraisal. I asked where it came from. It wasn't enough money per acre when you look at the total acreage that we may ultimately give the county for four 100 -by -100 well sites. It probably would have cost us more money to figure if it was a fair price for the delta. Really, honestly, I'm not trying to be -- we just made the business decision to say it wasn't -- it wasn't worth it to argue over a few dollars, so we'll accept the 15,000 whatever price. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you, Richard. I'm just looking at the precedent this will set as we go down the road. That's all I'm trying to establish is that the right procedure was followed in order to establish this. I don't care if it was 10 cents or 10 million, it needs to follow the process that's in place. And I'm just trying to make sure it did. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope it has. I hope it has. It's up to Heidi. I think it has, because I've dealt with Roosevelt on many eminent domain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not -- I haven't -- I asked for the paperwork and all I got was a memo that now Heidi says is deficient. So I haven't even got the paperwork I asked for. I want to see how the value was established by whatever official document's in the file. It won't holdup today's process, I --just send it to me, will you? MR. CROMER: We're going to do that for you. That's not a problem. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The only thing that was omitted is the date. And according to my e -mail, the date is February 16th, 2012. And I was provided these values by Mr. Cromer at the time when I assisted him in coming up with the language. Because the prior PUD did require well -field easements. I don't remember whether the requirement was that they be donated or the county pays for it. And in my opinion it's a better practice for the county to establish the values up front. Because we've even had to acquire some of these parcels when we've had road projects through eminent domain and wasted taxpayer dollars when we have had commitments that we were unable to enforce through letter requests. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was the February, 2012 date a retrospective appraisal or was it as of that date? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't know if he's here to answer the question. My understanding, that it was as of that date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll wait to get the paperwork. Thank you, Aaron, appreciate it. Okay, anybody else have any questions of staff, the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, is there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing, and we'll have a discussion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On the DCA? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything. Do you have any -- do you have questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, just mainly on the DCA, like you did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to reopen the public hearing and go back into questions. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's mainly on the road. And I would like Nick to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', we're going to be a little bit past 12:00. Will it be okay for you? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's the road that I have questions on. And I did go yesterday over to transportation. Obviously, yesterday you were not in the transportation side, you were in the growth management side and, you know, when you run both places -- Page 39 of 82 A6 4 1 ' Z ne 1, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He didn't run until he knew you were coming. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know, yeah. This project originally could not go ahead because you only have what, 93 trips available? So as soon as this is approved, that road fails, 41 fails. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fails is a relative word. Part of the intersection, the way you measure capacity on a road, you look at the intersections as well as the characteristics of the road. And then when you look at 41, it's interesting, with that intersection, as it progresses east, and when you take the counts, if I set up the traffic, too -- I had this discussion with Reed and John -- really close to the intersection and I take the counts, I pick up all the turning movements. If I set it towards the other end of the link at the very opposite end, there's no traffic at all. So it's -- when we do say it fails, it fails as an overall. But when I widen that intersection and then this $4 million with DOT having 100 percent plans to go east right now, we're going to have a little more capacity. So whenever we do that AUIR, and we say we put a definite number to the single digit in an AUIR book, it does have flexibility in it. So when we looked at this, I had Reed look at it with John and said, look, are you comfortable with the intersection improvements and taking traffic counts at the midblock that there's enough capacity for this project? And they both said yes. So that's where we're comfortable making this recommendation to this commission. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I also called the FDOT and they said they understand your -- Collier County's problem, but they don't have the money. And they put this in their construction phase, you know, down the line from 16 to 20. And that's only like in the -- and I also have our MPO, I went and got a copy yesterday. Just to Henderson Creek was very expensive, in the millions. And doing this whole road segment, your next -- the first phase then after Henderson Creek, because of the bridge, then it would be to Greenway Road and then to San Marco. It's well over -- and she said things change, but it's 50 million or -- she said we just don't have the money, so we don't know when it will happen. And I'm going, wait a minute, we're adding -- if the road only got 93 trips available to it and -- coming this way, and I know 951 has some problems where there are failed parts down, that just concerned me. Are we going back to no more two -year concurrency, that we just okay everything and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. That's the good thing about the program is concurrency does allow us to put the brakes on. With the $4 million, remember, they're also paying their impact fees on the first 300 units. So we're getting $4 million right there up front. And sometimes prodding FDOT is putting money on the table. I've been calling FDOT and we plan to have some discussions at the MPO. We've actually asked these gentlemen to write the Department of Transportation Secretary at the state level and say, hey, we're -- government's all about putting jobs together, we're putting $4 million on the table. So I'm encouraged that we're going to have some project pretty soon. DOT's not going to tell you on the phone that they're going to commit to anything. But having that 4 million plus their commitment to pay their first 300 units of impact fees before they use any credits, I don't know what those 300 will generate, an additional about a million dollars. So $5 million before this project really gets going. I think we'll have something on the books fairly shortly. So that's why we did the agreement the way we structured it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So the other -- the road impact fees of what 5,700, whatever it is, 72 -- so they're going to pay for the first 300 plus the 4 million, so you're close to what -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Close to $5 million. So we're going to do some project with that money. Now, again, $5 million, does it take you another half mile? That's what we'll do. They're going to have 100 plans, and our goal would be to say to DOT, County's -- and that's what we said I think in the DCA as well as the executive summary -- that money will stay in a specific project account only for this road. The fear would be if pay and go, put it in the impact fee count for the district and I move the money up to a project that at -- you know, miles away. So what we stipulated was the money would stay only on 41 or that intersection. That way we know that you know that we're going to do the project, it's just a matter of when we get a little bit more matching money to get that project on its feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, because they said, well, the 4 million that they're giving right now will do 2,500 feet, a quarter of a mile. That's all it will do and we don't have the money. That was their explanation to one. I wanted to clarify it so that we all were kind of on the same page here. And thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. So specific to 41, it can't be spent anyplace else. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. Page 40 of 82 w 1612 , A a Juue 7, 2 12 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have anything else of anyone before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and we'll go into discussion before a motion. I made some notes, I'll read them to you all. There are eight items that we discussed that we may want to consider as stipulations. The first one is that in the commercial excavation reference on the R page, we'll add the reference to tract L as where it is applicable. On number two, we're going to add internal to the structure on note two in the standards table. Number three, we're going to add 23 -foot setback note to the development standards table. Number four, we're going to add a further reference to the DCA about intersection improvements. Number five, we're going to add a community clubhouse start date with a trigger for C.O.'s. Number six, going to accept deviation number two. Number seven, we're going to add -- and we went back to the development standards table again. We're going to add a footnote about the principal structure setback when it's on different properties. We're going to add a line for defining both zoned and actual heights as discussed today. And those are all the notes that I have on this. Is there any others? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If we approve it today, what would be the construction access to the site? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wouldn't be defined as Greenway Road, it would be whatever they work out with transportation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. The only thing I had in my head that you might have missed is the commitment to a second access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on -- you have a -- it says on there you have a potential -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, but I think what we were asking was a commitment. Not potential, but a commitment that there would be. And we had committed to that second access at project completion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any problems with transportation staff on having -- I see heads going back and forth indicating no, there's no problem. So I don't -- any problems? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mark, I think that's important to me, that they commit to a second access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we'll add a second access as noted on the plan under the word, that's already there, but it's called potential. We'll strike that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to happen is what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're just going to take the word potential off the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to change the note on the master plan where it says may to shall for the vegetation supplementation in the preserve areas where needed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And what about construction? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the construction was something that was suggested be added. If it's not added then it's not an issue. I don't think we can say on a public road they're not allowed to use it. But I think the safety features that have been -- or the safety concerns that have been expressed here today will make transportation keenly aware that they have two roads to choose from. They hopefully will choose the right one so we don't have a liability issue with the residents on the worst road. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment regarding construction. I would just encourage the developer to have consideration for new homeowners in his development if this is approved so that you minimize construction traffic internal to your development past existing homes. And that has to do with the order of construction, I understand that. And it might make you travel a bit more distance to the north and start up there and Page 41 of 82 1612 „,.AG work south or whatever, but I would just encourage you to have consideration for your homeowners once you've sold them the properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there a motion? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion that we approve PUDA- PL2011 -1168 with all of the stipulations you listed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Barry? Oh, you were seconding it? I'm sorry. Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. We'll see it return on consent and hopefully it will all be cleared up with the right language. Thank you. And with that, the Planning Commission will take a break for lunch. We'll return at 1:15 and resume with Parklands. (A lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the lunch break. When we left we were trying to -- we finished up the first two or three items on our agenda. We're going to move into our last two. The last two are about the same project, so we'll discuss them simultaneously and vote on them separately. I'll read the both for the record. The first one is PUDA- PL2001- 00001551, the Parklands PUD located east of Quail West and south of the Lee - Collier County line, north of Immokalee Road. The second part of that same project is the DRI portion of the Parklands. And it's DOA- PL2001- 00001550. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be worn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you a court reporter or a court recorder? THE COURT REPORTER: Reporter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sometimes I interchange those words. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start on my left with Mr. Brougham. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I had a lot of discussions with staff. I have spoke with Mr. Anderson and also with Kevin Ratterree. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: For myself, I met with Bruce and a representative of the developer. I forgot his name. But anyway, things we discussed will be rediscussed today for sure. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? Brad? count? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce offered to let me go ahead of him at line at lunch today, does that Page 42 of 82 1612 June ' COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I think it does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Didn't buy me anything. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff? Okay. Well, then let's move right into Mr. Anderson's presentation. If you ever watch the Matrix, that's all I can think about every time I hear your name, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: I don't have any response. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it, George, he needs a sign. You come up here any day with those sunglasses on, we're going to know what's up. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chainnan, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm on behalf of the property owner, an entity of GL Homes. I'm pleased to represent GL Homes today. They are the developer of several successful communities in Naples area: Saturnia Lakes, Marbella Lakes, and its newest project, Riverstone, which had people lined up outside the first day it opened, to buy, just like the good'ol days. With me today are Kevin Ratterree, vice president of GL Homes, and Bill Fenno, the director of land development. Also present are other members of the project team, Robert Duane of Hole - Montes, George Hermanson of Hole - Montes, David Wheeler from TR Transportation Consultants, and Robert Mulhere, from Mulhere and Associates. I want to walk you through a little bit of history on this project. This DRI straddles the Lee - Collier County border. The Collier portion of the Parklands DRI consists of 642 undeveloped acres. The Lee County portion has its own separate DRI development order issued by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners and later by the City of Bonita Springs City Council. Those are separate D.O.s, just as Collier County has its own separate development order. The Parklands was first approved in 1985, and it has undergone several amendments since then. Over the ensuing years as the development plans in Collier have changed, environmental pen-nits were issued and later challenged in federal court. Two years ago GL Homes acquired the Parklands and they proceeded to settle the environmental litigation based on the amended land plan that's the subject of these applications. Access to the Parklands will be from Logan Boulevard extension that runs from Immokalee Road north. And Logan Boulevard will ultimately extend along the east side of the development up to Bonita Beach Road. And that's where it will connect. The Parklands is presently permitted for up to 1,603 dwelling units, multi- family dwelling units, which are proposed to be reduced to now allow a maximum of 850 dwelling units, whether single- family or multi - family. The Lee County portion of the Parklands DRI has been substantially completed by another developer under the name Palmira, I believe it's been developed as, and as I said before, it's subject to its own separate DRI development order and really has nothing to do with what we're here about today. The pending applications. The DRI development order amendment is a companion item to the PUD. And there is also a draft developer contribution agreement that has been submitted to the county. And I believe you have a draft in your agenda packet. The requested changes to the development order generally mirror the changes that are proposed in the PUD amendment, with the following additions that are specific to the DRI. First, the DRI amendment extends the build -out date to January 22, 2026. And that is based upon extensions that are provided for by statute. Secondly, it eliminates a multi - family to single- family dwelling unit conversion table. It also removes obsolete and redundant provisions that are now addressed in the Land Development Code or have been moved to the PUD, or provisions that are no longer applicable because of the reduction in density and the associated reductions in impacts on infrastructure, such as Logan Boulevard. These proposed changes, to a large extent and in addition to other planning considerations, are the result of the settlement agreement that I referenced earlier between the property owner and various environmental stakeholders. I believe you all received a copy of a letter of support from The Conservancy. As a result of that settlement agreement, not only is the overall maximum density reduced by almost 50 percent, the golf course use and the associated flowway have been eliminated, and the on -site preserve acreage has been more than doubled, from 158 acres to 341. The settlement agreement also required the relocation of Logan Boulevard to the present location shown on Page 43 of 82 1612 A6 June 7, 2012 our PUD master plan. And it also required the relocation of the 15 -acre school site. The Regional Planning Council has approved this DRI amendment. Now, as to the changes in the PUD that are not also changes that are found in the DRI. Those significant changes are: A change to the new PUD format was required by staff, previously approved deviations have been added to Exhibit E. These previously approved deviations were known as subdivision regulation exemptions and they were set forth in the 2003 DRI development order. At the request of staff these were removed and relocated to the PUD. It makes no difference to us whether they are moved to the PUD or remain in the DRI development order. But it was of no substantial consequence to us so we cooperated with the staff request. A new list of deviations is also contained in Exhibit E, and they have to do with signs, sidewalks and improvements for the Logan Boulevard extension. Among other exhibits to the PUD are the typical internal roadway sections and details, and they are Exhibits C -2 and C -3. And they pertain to some of the requested deviations. There are provisions contained in Exhibit E, new deviations, number 15, for excavation and transport of fill in excess of 20,000 cubic yards to be removed from the site. But it's only to be used for Logan Boulevard. We felt that it was necessary to ask for this, because there is a portion of Logan Boulevard that is not abutting the Parklands project, namely that portion in Lee County. So this will enable us to use fill excavated from the development project to build this road. A buffer 35 feet in width has been incorporated along the western property line. Provisions for a 7.23 -acre park have been deleted from the PUD. The prior provisions required the county to issue impact fee credits for donation of a neighborhood park site. And instead there's going to be an approximately six -acre park site internal to the Parklands to serve the residents' recreational needs. The PUD, the developer, will still be responsible for the payment of park impact fees. The right -of -way for the extension of 951 has been eliminated from the PUD, as that's no longer a necessity in this location. The school site provisions have been revised to dedicate 15 acres as previously required, and to delete a provision that an additional five acres are available for purchase by the school board. We've discussed this with school system staff and the five acres are no longer sought. So we've removed that. We do have a restriction on the school site that it cannot be used for any other purpose than an elementary school unless the developer or after turnover the homeowners association consents to it and records a notice in the public records that that restriction to use of the property as an elementary school has been waived. If that occurs, if that waiver should occur, other residential uses that are permitted in this PUD could occur on that property. If there were any other uses other than an elementary school or residential, it very likely would require a PUD amendment. And this restriction of the school site use will be recorded in the public records and included in the deed to the school board. There has been provision for emergency access added. It is now depicted on the PUD master plan. And provisions have also been incorporated, transportation conditions, that will require that a second entrance, a second full entrance be constructed to the Parklands along Logan Boulevard if they are going to build any more than 651 homes. If that occurs, if they decide they're going to build more than that, then the emergency access would disappear and in its place but not necessarily in that location there would become a full access point. As to the deviations, we are in agreement with staff on 13 of the requested 15 new deviations, but we respectfully disagree with them on their recommendation for deviations number four and 13. The areas of disagreement are about signage and the ability of the developer to market their project along Logan Boulevard where they're donating the right -of -way. The Parklands has about a mile and a half of frontage along Logan Boulevard, and much of that is either preserve or lake area. My client knows how they need to market this project in this business environment. They are requesting deviations from a sign code that was approved when the county was in the middle of a real estate boom. My client firmly believes that it needs those sign code deviations in order to effectively market this project. I would respectfully submit that now is not the time for the county to make it harder to build and sell new homes. People need the work. There is also a developer contribution agreement in your packet. And the essential teens and timing of the Page 44 of 82 1612 June 7, A 20 construction of Logan Boulevard that are contained in the developer contribution agreement in your agenda packet are essentially unchanged. What has changed is that the provisions dealing with the remote possibility of the county doing the construction are being removed. The construction of Logan Boulevard will be by GL Homes, and it will be broken into two phases. Phase I is from the present end of Logan Boulevard, which is at the entrance to the new Riverstone development, and Phase I will be from the entrance to Riverstone up to the entrance to Parklands. That Phase I portion must be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or shorthand I'll call it C.O., before they can get the first C.O. for that project. And additionally, the developer has agreed that no more than 181 certificates of occupancy may be issued within the Parklands unless the developer has also completed an expansion of the intersection of Logan north and Immokalee Road as depicted in the color photograph that's an exhibit to the DCA. The developer will not receive road impact fee credits for either the road intersection improvements or the construction of Phase I of Logan Boulevard. Under the developer contribution agreement it is the obligation of the developer to construct Phase II all the way up to Bonita Beach Road. Under the terms of the developer contribution agreement, the developer would receive road impact fee credits for just over 81 percent of the actual construction costs of the Phase II segment that are within Collier County. And that percentage is based upon traffic study. My client has also agreed to a cap of 297 certificates of occupancy until Phase II of Logan Boulevard has been completed all the way up to Bonita Beach Road. Yes, commenced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subtle but important point. MR. ANDERSON: A few housekeeping items, if you please. In the development order on Pages 10 and 13, there are two typos. On Page 10 of the development order, sub - paragraph B that's near the bottom, it makes reference to the developer's satisfaction of its obligations. It's under section A.9 and section B.3 of the development order. The reference to section B.3 should be struck because section B.3 itself has been struck. The other change is to Page 13 of the development order. The paragraph small A where it refers to the amended master plan as Exhibit B, that should instead be Exhibit H. And based upon some discussions that we've had internally and with some of the members of the Planning Commission, we have some revisions to the PUD document. Over your lunch hour I distributed a copy of those changes. They are shown as strike - through and underlined in red for ease of reference. And I'll try to briefly walk through those and -- yes, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just one comment so the other Planning Commissioners are aware of it. There's a lot of changes here that we won't have time to thoroughly understand during a walk- through today. In my discussions with the applicant, I had asked them to consider that -- we'll go through everything today and request a continuance for a final vote at our next meeting but do it in conjunction with a consent agenda at the same time. That way it gives us time to digest all these changes, and if we have anything before we vote on it, we can get those final moments in before the vote's taken, and then we can do the consent. So don't feel like we have to understand everyone of these sitting here today. It's just a --hopefully it's a preliminary. And if that's in agreement with where we end up today, Bruce, I mean, that's kind of what I think we were doing. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. Do you even want me to spend some time on them? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I think it's important to understand what's been changed and lay it out. And we need to know if -- you need to know if there are any other concerns from this panel as we go through each item so that you can have everything done at once and we haven't got to come back for a third time. MR. ANDERSON: As I go through these, if you have a question, please let me know so I can stop and we can deal with it while you're on that particular page. On Page 1 of the PUD document, it's identified as Exhibit A, permitted uses. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're going to the PUD document? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That hand -out will be -- you were thinking is the one he's probably going to be reading off o£ Page 45 of 82 June 7 10 1612 , COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Under section 1.A.1, instead of reference to an area, we're using a more precise term of a tract. The second change is the removal of the reference to essential services. That was a holdover from the old PUD. In keeping with the Planning Commission's direction not to duplicate the Land Development Code, that is being removed, since the Land Development Code does in fact permit essential services practically anywhere. So we will be governed by the Land Development Code in that respect. We've also similarly removed the reference to lake excavation. Again, redundant with the LDC. Item number six we have added to clarify that walls may be used in conjunction with landscape features. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Bruce, you said to interrupt you as you went through so I need to interrupt you on that one. But is says in accordance with the LDC, so if the LDC is prevailing, what good is this language doing you? Because if the intent is to get walls that are not consistent with the LDC, then we need to know what those walls are, where they're going, how high they are, what they're comprised of, and all that, which you're not willing -- which you couldn't provide to us today. So I'm wondering if six offers any value at all. And staff, do you see anything in six that is needed for other than what you could do -- basically it says per the LDC, which is the same redundant language we're trying to remove. MS. DESELEM: Staff agrees with your position, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, do you have any heartburn over that? MR. ANDERSON: Probably not, no. Unless there's something that the engineer's been withholding from the lawyer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the next time you come back -- okay, well, next time you come back, if that turns out to be something, let us know and we'll try to understand it better. MR. ANDERSON: The next item that's struck are parks and recreational facilities and community centers. That is being relocated in this PUD document. And I'll get to that in a few moments. Under the accessory uses, the tennis club, health spa references, again, that is being relocated along with the parks and recreational facilities language to a recreational site tract. The reference to maintenance areas as an accessory use, maintenance areas and buildings, has been moved to the recreational site portion of this PUD. And all of the rest, six, seven and eight, are all being moved to the recreational section of the PUD. Item number nine regarding telecommunication facilities has been removed in that the Land Development Code generally permits those. On the next page, 3 of 18, we have struck number seven, which would have allowed any use listed as a general use to be placed in the residential section. Again, that's redundant to other provisions of the PUD. At the bottom of Page 3 we've made it clear that where there is a combination of housing types in proximity to one another, that each housing type has to meet its own separate setback requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, before you move on, C.2, can you tell me why that needs to be in this document? MR. ANDERSON: It doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so C.2 is coming out as well. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, that was not -- thank you for reminding us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C.3, on what you're talking about, I think a concern is between non - identical units, if they're mixed on a tract. You go along, you have a patio home, then you pop in with a single - family. The concern I think is how do you judge the setbacks in that case? The way you've written this, providing each housing type meets the applicable development standards. So that still means the zero lot line could be zero and the single - family could be whatever you've got. It still doesn't -- like the last one where Brad pointed out we have to maintain a principal structure setback, this is more of a relevant example of how even on the same tract you'd have to do that. So I guess that's what I was trying to understand with number three is how is it that you're making sure you've got the consistent separations needed, regardless of the types you've got together and their side yard setbacks. MR. ANDERSON: Perhaps we can add some language to make that clearer. Page 46 of 82 16 1 2me 7, 201 A0 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a suggestion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think maybe just put in there, Bruce, the most restrictive applies. So if one has a three -foot, one has a six -foot, the six -foot applies. MR. RATTERREE: Sometimes I just have to jump up. For the record, my name is Kevin Ratterree. I'm vice president with GL Homes. I provided the court reporter a business card so she doesn't type her fingers out trying to spell my last name. The reason for that specifically relates to the model row. Typically in model rows you have a combination of single- family and zero lot line homes. We wanted to make sure that A, we could have two different product types in the model row. Typically what we do is take the zero and put it on a single - family lot so that the house actually meets the setbacks of a single- family residence, even though it is a model of a zero lot line home. We just wanted to make sure we still continued to have the right to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the future, though, when you're done with your models in the project, you would sell those off as residences, then, right? MR. RATTERREE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'd still have to self stand on their own. And I think that's what I'm trying to make sure that paragraph does. MR. RATTERREE: We can work on some language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that'd be great. That works for you, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. But you bring up a point, though. I think if it is a zero lot home, it would be nice if it was represented in that position so that the market's not confused as to what the setbacks are. And then -- could you just note that these are for the model homes only? MR. RATTERREE: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just take this clause and make it for model homes. Because the more accurate you represent the actual condition the less likely there will be confusion. MR. RATTERREE: For the record, outside of the model row we don't mix product type. We have single - family pods and we have zero pods and we have patio pods, but they don't intermingle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So just add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to add model homes only to paragraph three and then any clarification needed after that. Good, thank you. MR. ANDERSON: On to Page 4, please. You'll see that we have struck all the references to the preserve and replaced it with recreation site development guidelines. This relates to the clubhouse area. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: There's only one RS site on the plan, right? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right above the school site by two parcels there in the middle of -- there it is, right there. MR. ANDERSON: And you'll see that the uses that I discussed earlier -- I missed some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He shot that laser at my eyeball so I couldn't see what he was talking about. Just kidding. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Bruce, as long as we're on clubhouse, when do you plan on construction? MR. RATTERREE: We usually commence construction of our clubhouse facilities when we're about a quarter way through the community in sales. So it would be approximately 200 pen-nits. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Would you agree to include that? MR. RATTERREE: Commence construction, sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Generally how long would you envision the construction to take? MR. RATTERREE: These type of facilities and this type of community usually are somewhere between one year -- around a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you get off that subject, and I'm --just when it comes back to us with the Page 47 of 82 1612 June 2 0 Y language, you said approximately 200 permits. Staff will have a hard time wondering -- agreeing -- may have a hard time wondering if your approximately is equal to theirs. MR. RATTERREE: 200 building permits we will commence construction. I removed the word approximately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That just makes it easier. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not to be weird about this, but essentially a multi - family building is built under one permit with multiple units, so therefore you could trick that a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about C.O. -- MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. It's tied to dwelling units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then that's good then. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 200 dwelling units. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Moving on to Page 5, if you will. We've relocated the preserve area and cut way down on how we describe the uses. And essentially it's any use that's pennitted by the Land Development Code in a preserve area, and it ties it to those uses that are pennitted in the preserve area as of the effective date of this PUD. It also has the standard language about any use or structure or any use that's comparable to those that are permitted in preserve areas by the Land Development Code. Also you'll see where I've added the reference to in the event of turnover, that the master homeowners association has the authority to waive the restriction to elementary school uses on the school site. And under lakes we have added -- there's a provision of the Land Development Code, I believe, excavation ordinance, that allows the opportunity to reduce the setbacks to a minimum of 20 feet. And like your earlier discussion today, we're putting that in there, and that sentence would say if requested by the developer rather than if required by the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If -- on that one in particular, Bruce, if it's already in the LDC and it's allowed and all you have to do is request it, why do you need to restate that in this document? MR. HERMANSON: Good afternoon, George Hermanson, Hole - Montes. The reason is, and I discussed this with the county engineer and he suggested we leave it in. The Land Development Code says those reductions may be granted, not will be granted. So there is a discretion here. In this particular case we're saying if we provide the necessary safeguards, we will get the reduction. So it's a matter of getting it versus just asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but then that would override possibly the qualifications because may is based on certain criteria. You're saying if you ask for it you get it, but you're not telling us that you have to provide the criteria then. MR. HERMANSON: Oh, yes, we have to, we have to provide barriers or something of the sort to prevent -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If this is a deviation, then I think it needs to be specified as a deviation. I'm not really clear -- MR. HERMANSON: Well, we're not asking for a deviation from the setback reduction, we're merely saying that we will get it. We're not asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm familiar with some of your work. I remember on a project there was a lake that was -- where water's edge and the maintenance was closer to a roadway and there had to be a guardrail added. All you're saying is you want to have the ability to do that. MR. HERMANSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The LDC already allows you to do that. You're just worried that the county engineer will say no. MR. HERMANSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the county engineer can only say no if there's good health, safety and welfare criteria. So I'm not sure what you're concerned about. MR. HERMANSON: Well, the guy that's there now, yes. A guy in the future, you never know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any county engineer better be playing by the same rules. MR. HERMANSON: That's what -- frankly, that's the bugaboo you're always worried about is a staff or Page 48 of 82 A6 16 • i 'Jane 7, 2012 someone in the future may have a different interpretation. And we just don't want a different interpretation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think that you're going to be able to regulate interpretation by including deviations that aren't called deviations to the code. This could open up doors that we don't anticipate. We've gone through plenty of county engineers, and I haven't heard of one yet where we've had problems. I shouldn't say plenty, Stan was here from the beginning of time. MR. HERMANSON: I can remember one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Jack is almost a mirror image of Stan, So -- well, yeah, you're right. I know who you're talking about too, oh, yeah. But honestly -- MR. HERMANSON: Why don't we think about it. We'll make it right next time. We just want to make sure that we have the ability, if we provide the necessary safeguards, that we get the reduction -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you have that ability now -- MR. HERMANSON: -- and not be a whimsical thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have that ability now. If you provide the necessary safeguards, the county -- unless the county engineer has an awfully good reason, he'd be putting himself out on a long stick to say no to you. And I'in not sure why you're trying to CYA on this one, there's probably not a need to, so -- Kay? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. This is not in the LDC, this is Code of Laws and ordinances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, well, there's another reason. Now we've got a real difference. How does that work, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I guess I don't really understand why we're changing the language we had originally in the PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the language in the PUD -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- because it says the minimum setback may be 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the language in the PUD isn't -- where do you see it being -- why do you see it being necessary? If the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I'm looking at the language we had in the first draft of the PUD, and I'm looking at how he changed it. And if this is some kind of deviation then, you know, I would never have been able to guess that the way it's written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we're hearing from Kay, it can't be a deviation because it's a change to the Code of Laws. It's not an LDC issue. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't know what the Code of Laws provision is, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we as this board change the Code of Laws by a PUD? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, not at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you can find it in the LDC and come back and look at it as a deviation or however you want, we'll discuss it then. But right now it doesn't look too good to leave it in. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, we'll revisit that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: On signage we've made specific references to the applicable deviations so it's easier to understand what kinds of signs and what changes we are asking for. For example, there's no such definition as a boundary marker in the sign code. And there are changes to Exhibit B, the development standards. Some of the footnotes I think were cut off during the copying process. Those have been made more legible. And there has been a clarification on footnote 4.13, which talks about the garage setback of 23 feet. That would be applicable to a front- loading garage. If it's a side - loading garage, the setback would be 15 feet. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave the table, let me know. I want to walk through and make sure we've got everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some table questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. Are you done with the table, your part of it, before we ask? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Page 49 of 82 1612 Jin_Ab COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, the multi - family, why are the setbacks not applicable? MR. ANDERSON: To? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The multi - family dwellings, except townhouses. If you go -- there's N/A all over the place. Is that what I'm -- am I mistaking something there? We like setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This would be saying you have no setbacks for your multi - family? MR. ANDERSON: You know those engineers. MR. HERMANSON: No, I honestly think it's better this way, because multi - family don't have a front yard because they don't sit on lots individually, they sit in clusters on one common tract. Therefore, the setback is better expressed as setback from the boundary of the project, whether it's the back of the building, the front of the building or the side of the building, or set back between the buildings. Remember, they're on the same tract. There's no lot line in between. So it's really more applicable to talk about those setbacks rather than front yard and side, because those apply to single - families, which is one house on one lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're the only person that's ever said that, George. So I guess everybody else isn't doing it right, huh? MR. HERMANSON: No, I think it's actually easier. Because we've gotten into a situation where we're doing multi - family side developments and we're arguing about where is the front of the building or the side and what setback applies here. If you cover it with the setback from the project -- from the tract line and between the buildings, you've covered everything. There's nothing else to cover. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're not even doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so where are those setbacks? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then let me go back, because I'm not sure I agree with what he just said about how they get in the way. Because essentially that means you could put them right up on roadways, you could put them right up against, you know, buffers, you could put them -- and even though multi - family, the units are mixed into one big building, the building's a building. Buildings have setbacks. MR. RATTERREE: Let me try to make this a lot easier. We're not doing multi - family here, so what we'll do when we do the revision is just provide some setbacks that are typical to your PUD tables and just call it a day and move on, because it's kind of an irrelevant fact for us. For us to spend all that time trying to figure it out is a waste of all of our time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a great idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You kill the whole column. MR. RATTERREE: I don't want to kill the whole column, because you never know. But I will say that I understand the issue that is being brought forward. And we will just take what was done for the typical PUDs that have come through here, apply those setbacks, and then if we end up doing them and George is right, he was right all along and everybody else was wrong, then our bad. MR. HERMANSON: I do want to answer Brad's question. You have to look further down that column. If you look down to the box that says distance between principal and accessory structures, there's a number there. If you look distance between principal structures, there's a number there. And the very last number is the distance from the parcel boundary, there's a number. Those are your setbacks, regardless of which way the building is turned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's it between buildings? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty feet. MR. HERMANSON: Twenty feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're right about that. It is down at the far bottom. But I don't see the advantage of not having any setbacks on a structure. I mean, try that again. Because you could put it right on the road, you could put it right on the buffer, you could put it right on the property line next to another -- MR. HERMANSON: No, you can't, you have to be 20 feet away from the property -- MR. RATTERREE: The parcel boundary. The bottom column of parcel boundary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The parcel property line is the outer -- yeah. The outer parcel is that one, correct, within the -- Page 50 of 82 1612 A6 June 7 2012 MR. HERMANSON: The 25 feet is -- every building would have to be 25 feet inside of that parcel, whether there was a lake next to it, a preserve next to it or another tract or a road, 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is -- MR. HERMANSON: And the buildings within have to have a separation so they can't can be too close together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is all the setbacks are 20 feet. Okay, and when you're saying parcel, you don't mean the overall parcel, you mean the actual lot. So why don't we use the word lot then. MR. HERMANSON: Maybe we can change that, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that's exactly how we describe normally the outside parcel. That would -- MR. HERMANSON: Doesn't that make sense? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. Kay and I were just talking, and it should have said tract boundary, because it's not the PUD boundary he's referring to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that helps. So what you're saying is you're going to keep it 20 feet away from the edges. MR. HERMANSON: All the way around. All the way around. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty -five, I think. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty -five, okay, 25. And then if you split it into two buildings, they're 20. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The distance between the buildings, the side yard separations more or less is 30 feet. MR. HERMANSON: Uh -huh. Because there's no lot line in between them. It's just how far do you put the buildings apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as close you want to come to the front row, which would be a driveway in this particular case because it would be private, is right up against the parking space? MR. HERMANSON: You could -- I'll tell you, we could add a setback from the internal driveway. That's probably missing. I think if we had that in, we'd cover everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then if you -- by the footnote, if you have a garage, the building can be 10 feet from the garage. MR. HERMANSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The garage can be how far from the boundary of -- in other words, the garage would probably be on the access road, the spine road. MR. HERMANSON: That's going to be probably further into the property. But it still has to be 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we have no ground coverage, you know, maximum or anything. So you could build one really big chunk of building, I guess. That brings up the other question. On the townhouse, you have to limit to the length of those townhouses, they could theoretically travel the perimeter of all these residential zones. Should we put a limit on how many -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have another project, so we ought to be consistent with the way we look at it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at Collier on these aerial photos, it looks like a box of zippers, and it's because of that. MR. RATTERREE: I have no problem putting a limitation on it. I mean, if it's -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You can look and see what we've done to others or come up with one yourself the next time we come back. Just as long as something's there, I think that's the objective. MR. RATTERREE: Is 100 good enough? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Only if you put a caboose on the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not intending I know to develop these, but if you do and you're looking for a height of 50 feet but you only have two stories, that means you're going to have 25 foot per story. I mean, if you're going to get 50 feet, why would you only put two stories in it and end up with a 35 -foot high -- I mean, that's probably good in some ways, but I'm just pointing it out, it could be something you're not counting on. MR. RATTERREE: I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Again, I didn't spend a whole lot of my brain cells trying to figure out the multi- family column simply because it was not something that we were anticipating doing. But we'll Page 51 of 82 16 12 „e72A6 take a look at it and make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will give you a density that you might otherwise not use. Okay. Anybody else got anything on the development standards table? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- oh, yeah, side yard setbacks under zero lot line. It's not O. 1 mean, that O should be zero. It's a B. Instead of capital O, just stick a zero there so we -- okay, let's move on. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, Exhibit E, Page 9 of 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we jump there, there are --in our packet there's a whole bunch of intermixed pages. One showing your master plan, one showing the schematic of the master plan with signage, and then we get into the road cross sections. I know you don't have -- you may not have suggested any changes to these, but let's see if there's any questions from the Planning Commission on those pages before we jump into page Exhibit D -- Exhibit E next. Anybody have any questions up to Exhibit E on the graphics? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, then Brad. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, let Brad go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ladies first. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are you looking down here? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, these pages here. After we leave the developments table, he was going to jump to Page 9. But in between those are all the graphics pages. I just want to make sure that if we have any clean -up on those, that we point it out. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, he's asking for a deviation on the sign. Could you explain that to us? Is this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the sign, yes. MR. RATTERREE: Right, thank you. For the record again, Kevin Ratterree. This deviation process is a little strange to me, so just bear with me for a second. What these all relate to are project related signage. And I want to walk everybody through, using my pointer that I wouldn't give to Rich this morning, and talk about what's there today. Because one of the comments from staff was signage blight. It's a term of art. This is Immokalee right here along the southern boundary of that aerial. This is the Olde Cypress community right here. This is Riverstone right here. This is the Parklands PUD under discussion today. And this is the Lee County portion of the DRI, Palmira. And this is Bonita Beach up at the northern side. All told, obviously, this is four sections of land, one, two, three, four, so it's four miles south to north from Immokalee up to Bonita. And as Bruce mentioned earlier, because of the curvature of Logan Boulevard around the development parcel and west of the preserve and a little south of the preserve for that northern leg, the Parklands project has approximately a mile and a quarter to a mile and a half of frontage along that road. It was interesting this morning during Mr. Yovanovich's presentation that he mentioned one PUD that had in effect an off - premise sign for the development. That is the Riverstone project right here where we came through and modified the development order for Longshore Lake to allow an off - premise sign there on the corner of -- I knew I was right, it was my sign. I raised my hand, nobody saw. This was, you know, Logan here. And that sign sits right there. Sony it's --when you get a little distance away it starts to jiggle a little bit. But it's on this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's age, not distance. MR. RATTERREE: Among other things. The extreme southeast corner of Longshore Lake. And for those of you all that are familiar with the area, Olde Cypress actually has a parcel of land between the Logan Boulevard travel lanes and the Longshore Lake. But as we were coming through the approval process, we wanted to get corner signage, because basically as it exists today, Logan is in effect a long driveway. But eventually, as Bruce mentioned, Logan is going to connect up to Bonita Beach. So what you've got is that one sign there on the corner that Mr. Strain may remember was a condition that once that roadway connection was made up to Bonita, that sign goes away. You've got Olde Cypress, which has one sign right there on the corner. You have Riverstone, which has one sign right there on Logan, and then you come to Page 52 of 82 Y 1612June Ab the Parklands project. Palmira does not have access onto a road that doesn't exist, being the northern extension of Logan. For those that have not been out there yet, this is the entry feature for Riverstone. It is a single -faced sign. And the reason it is single -faced is because we knew most of our traffic, at least for the life of this particular project, was going to be coming from the south going north to the project entry. So this actually sits on what would be the north side of the intersection of Seven Seas and Logan Boulevard. This sign is three feet, three inches by 25 feet, three inches, if I can remember those numbers correctly. And again, this is where I get into different jurisdictions do different things with their sign regulations. Collier County calculates their sign face area by the box that the sign sits in, not the actual lettering of the signs. They don't box in the letters, they do it by this box. This sign right here is 61.3 square feet. Terafina was allowed one sign of 80 square feet. And if we split that sign into two sides, it would then be 40 square feet. For Parklands we envision -- well, I'm going to use this. Can everybody see that okay? It's black and white, but I'm going to use this anyway. This is the main project entry for Parklands. So you're going to be coming from the south going north to this entry for that initial phase of construction up to the 297 commencement, and then eventually Logan will connect down. So we do expect traffic to be coming from both directions. The initial phase of the construction, everything will be coming from the south. But after the connection is made, then obviously we would have traffic coming from the north as well. I just want to cut to the chase and tell you what I'm after. Does that make it easy? I would like 64 square feet if I have one sign face. That is the Riverstone example that I just used to you. If we go to a two -faced sign, which would not be on each side, but we went to a V, I would want to make sure that I had 60 square feet for each side of that V, because we're trying to make sure that that visibility of that sign comes up. And again, my unfamiliarity with the code. But when you do two different signs versus one sign that's a V, I interpret what's in the staff report as being you're limited to 40 square feet per sign face. And we would like that to go up to 60 square feet for that sign face, because we want to carry basically the same sizing that we had. But again, there's a total of three signs, project entry signs, for that entire four -mile link of run unless we build that second entry at 651. I don't need a deviation for that entry, that will just be a small sign. It will a resident only entry, that type of thing. But project corners are important. And that's why we asked for that deviation. And I know that's a new concept. But we like to at least tell people, hey, you've reached Parklands. And because this is a mile and a half of frontage, we wanted to have two boundary marker signs. I think we asked for 64. I think staff, it I -- Kay, help me out, it was like 16 square feet. I would ask that that be a 32 square foot sign, simply because again you're boxing in. So we like to do a decorative element, but it's kind of restrictive to say well, your decorative element has to include your lettering and whatever. So what you end up doing is you end up maxing out your lettering and not having that decorative element around the sign. We really like to provide that decorative element. As you can see from that Riverstone entry, some of those 30 -foot oak trees, I mean, it took me a whole weekend to carry them up to the top of that element, so -- you know, I just wanted to make sure that everybody understands what was our intent was and our desire was with the project. The second deviation that was under discussion relates to temporary signs. And here's the difference. Four by eight, 32 square feet, which would be your left side, and eight -by- eight, which are what we asked for in the deviation, which would be 64 square feet. I mean, I can live with 48 square feet. But as you can see, when you do 32 square feet, you really don't have a lot of room to do anything else. A lot of times with these temporary signs you like to say things like pricing from 350, 360,000, or whatever the pricing is going to be. Models open. You like to have the logo of the company so people know, hey, I can to go GLHomes.com and find out the information. Because these are temporary signs and because we're the only project for that mile and a half of frontage, we felt it was appropriate to have a little bit larger temporary signage. And that's what we asked for. But that, you know, that looks twice as big because it is twice as big. So I'm more than happy to kind of split the difference and take that 64 square feet down to 48 square feet, if that works for everybody else. I don't want to be egregious about it, but it is important to put as much information on that as you can regarding pricing and things like that, opening, whatever date, those are all things that are relevant to us. As Bruce said earlier, we've had a lot of success with Riverstone. That project came out of gate strong, it Page 53 of 82 1612 A6 June 7, 2012 stayed strong. We expect this to be the continuation of that project. So a lot of those elements that we did at Riverstone that we deemed to be successful, the signage on the corner of Logan and Immokalee, that was very important to us. We went through, and are the only PUD that's ever done it, to get that signage because it was important to us to get that element on our roadway visible. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody have -- now we're back on the -- well, that question first. Anybody have any other questions about that graphic? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just, yeah, one quick thing. If you were given the square footage, boxing the letters that the code allows and then given the background more square footage, would that accomplish what you want? Essentially we're not giving you more square footage, we're allowing you to just measure the signage itself. MR. RATTERREE: I think that's a deviation by itself, because then you're deviating from the code as to how they interpret the sign face. So we would just rather just do it as a clean bill of health of this is the amount I'm in. On Terafina it was 80 for the one. We ended up building 61.3 square feet of sign face. So that 641 felt like was a reasonable amount for the one sign. But if we go to a double -sided sign you don't want to have that lettering so small, especially on a curvature of road like that, that it's hard to see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we start with the master plan graphic. In that particular graphic, you have an OS/B area along all your roadways shown on that graphic. Some of that is internal to your project, some of it is external to the Logan Boulevard north section as it goes up and around the project. The settlement agreement that you have with the various conservation groups, I think as a result of all the Mirasol or whatever flowway issues there were, require that you provide 337 acres of preserve plus 11 acres of preserve buffer. I understand from the master plan that you have 341 acres roughly of preserve, which I'm assuming are the two big areas, the one to the north and the big one to the south. But I can't understand because I have seen no cross - section, nor a calculation based on the width of the cross - section and on the lineal footage adjacent to the preserve along Logan Boulevard that that's what remains in that buffer. The OS /B is in fact the preserve buffer required by the settlement agreement and if in fact it calculates that way. Can you provide that information by the next meeting? MR. RATTERREE: I can. But I want to walk you through what it is so that we can just make it easy for everybody. And I did have a conversation with Nicole. I just know her as Nicole, I'm sorry -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Nicole Ryan Johnson. MR. RATTERREE: Nicole Ryan Johnson. Did it used to be Nicole Ryan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ryan, yeah. MR. RATTERREE: All right. I had a call with Nicole Ryan Johnson yesterday, so -- and I believe that in your packet you have -- actually probably -- there was a letter from The Conservancy. But let me walk you through. And I apologize for the kind of change in orientation of the board. But on the left -hand side is the actual exhibit from the settlement signed off by the environmental parties -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mic went out, there, Kevin. MR. RATTERREE: It went out because I didn't have it on. Let me start over again. My name is Kevin Ratterree. This is the exhibit from the settlement agreement. The acreages are the same. 337 plus 7.6 is 338 plus -- 348 plus of preserve and preserve buffer. This plan is the same amount. The difference, so everybody knows, is that strip right there and that strip right there, which we show on the master plan as simply preserve. So we prepared an alternative exhibit, Mr. Strain brought this issue up, where the master plan reflects that preserve buffer and that preserve buffer, the acreages are the same. It then goes 337 plus and 11.1 plus for the same 348 acres of combined. Now, in my conversation with Nicole yesterday I wanted to remind her that when you label that strip there as preserve and that strip there preserve, its uses are very restricted. Because as you know from earlier, we amended that section to reference just the uses allowed in the Land Development Code. Once that becomes a preserve buffer, that is basically a landscape buffer. So that is, you know, vegetation, that's native trees, that's material. It's actually more Page 54 of 82 2 iJuA0,012 ne restrictive to have that as preserve than labeled as preserve buffer. And I made it clear, I don't care. It's one in the same to GL. But the difference, and I pointed out to her, is let's assume for a second we have some very unhappy residents at the Riverstone project, which could never happen, but let's just assume that we have some unhappy that live along that north property line and they really don't like the view of that preserve. They just -- you know, they had a grand oasis in their head when they bought this project. Well, we then have that preserve buffer. If it's on the master plan we can basically take out that preserve and put a regular landscape buffer in there. That would be consistent with the settlement agreement because it is a preserve buffer. And that's all it is is just a buffer to the preserve, a regular landscape buffer. So I can do it either way. It doesn't matter to me. If the goal is to make it 100 percent consistent with the settlement agreement, we'll revise that master plan to put that there, and we'll revise the master plan to put that there. The 341.2 goes down to 337 point something, George, and then the 7.6 of preserve buffer goes from 7.6 up to 11.1. You get to the same acreage. In fact, it's a little over the acreage of the settlement agreement. But you get to the same point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern wasn't necessarily along those lines. Your settlement agreement was 337 plus 11. When I reviewed this I found 341. So basically that -- it met the 337. It was minimum. Then I tried to figure out the 11. And I figured the 11 was because of the OS /B. But when I went over and looked at the OS /B in your master plan table, it just says Logan Boulevard open space buffers OS /B, 7.6 acres, it didn't tell me what part of Logan Boulevard. Because in some cases it runs along both sides and it's up along a lake in another location. I wanted to see -- I wanted you to separately show on the master plan the OSB that you're defining as part of Logan Boulevard that would be the preserve buffers. And I think you can sense what it is, I just wanted you to show it -- MR. RATTERREE: Let me give it out. Because what I did to make it very clear is we broke out those two categories. Instead of an OS /B category, we did an OS/13 plus a P/B buffer, preserve buffer on the plan that takes cares of it. I did not want to call it a POS because of the problem with the acronym. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine, I think that would work. I just -- it isn't clear with the way the master plan's written now, that's -- MR. RATTERREE: Let me just have him hand this out, and I think that makes it perfectly clear what the program is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, this is good. This is much better. What happens is the OS -- the P/B is 11 -- now wait a minute. Oh, but now you've taken back and reduced the P/B in the north and south, which doesn't need to be done. Your 341 would have been better instead of the 337. MR. RATTERREE: Well, remember, that's why I went through that. That's the difference. The 341.2 included that P/B on the north and that P/B on the south. You take that 7.6, add it to 337, you get to 348. This is 348 point something, same thing broken out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But again, I don't think you understood what I was trying to find out. The 341 is acceptable, I like what you did; I like saying that the buffers along the north and south edge are preserve. That is actually better than being a landscape buffer. All 1 wanted to know was that the -- where the P /B's that you show on here are now located, you had them as OSB on your other master plan, not differentiating where they might be, other than all over. So this says the PB's along Logan Boulevard are the ones you counted. The P /B's along the west side of the north preserve and both sides, east and west of the north preserve, and -- that's fine. You didn't need to include the P /B's on the south property line or on the north of the two preserves. I would prefer you left those like you had them on the 341 table. MR. RATTERREE: Okay, so that's the Nicole Ryan conversation that we remove the north P/B and the south P /B. So that 11.1 will come down to 7.6 and the preserve will go from 341.2 on this down to the 337. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, just the opposite. This 337 goes to 341.2. MR. RATTERREE: Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But honestly, all you've got to do is use the master plan you had and just change the reference to OS /B on those points that you've put P/B on here along the boulevards and on the east and west sides, and then just change the reference on that master plan. It would be simpler. Then we're done. And disclosure, I did talk to Nicole, I forgot to tell everybody that. But it was after that. MR. RATTERREE: Nicole Ryan Johnson. Page 55 of 82 1612 4 6 June 7, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. RATTERREE: I just know her by Nicole. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, just for clarification, we are not going in the preserves to build buffers, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not with this plan he's showing, no. MR. RATTERREE: Not with the plan, correct. That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on the road cross - sections, does anybody have any issues with the road cross - section? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one comment. In the cul -de -sac you show it as not having an island and everything. And I wouldn't mind if you'd look at putting an island in there. I've lived on cul -de -sacs and -- where people drove straight at you all the time, and it's a bit fright -- until you discover putting stained glass in the window and make it an asset. But could you put, you know, islands in there? MR. RATTERREE: No. Be direct. But Bill Fenno is here. That creates a fire problem with regard to the interior radius of the fire truck being able to get around. The other side of that is also in a family community we get a lot of complaints about the fact that the kids don't have that little cul -de -sac to go play the ball games and stuff in. So we actually prefer not to have those in here. But I'll -- if you have any questions about the fire radius, Bill can answer. But we've -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, too, I'm aware of the requirements for turnaround. There is an interior radius, so you're allowed to build islands with the fire code. And secondly, you want the kids playing in the streets? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, yes. MR. RATTERREE: Kids are going to play where kids are going to play. And it's very -- the answer to that question is I can't tell kids where to play and where not to play. But what we have found is a lot of communities the parents complain because the kids like to have that wide open cul -de -sac to go play certain of their games. I'm just -- that's just the reality of what we've heard on our sales floor, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not good testimony. But anyway, I still think that it's a feature to landscape then. But you don't have to, I guess, and you've told us why. And hopefully no one later gets hurt and gets the minutes of this meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Backup to the master plan and just talk about the school site situation relative to the main entrance to Parklands. I'm making the assumption, and I just want to clarify, that there's enough space in there. Will the main entrance to Parklands be served by a traffic signal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess transportation or somebody will have to answer that. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. If the county finds that the warrants are met, the developer's required to put one in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does, just out of curiosity, and Tom, you might -- that's a good point. How does the school site have access? If it's off of Logan, they're on a radius for most of the part, and the part that isn't on the radius, they're proximity (sic) to the existing opening. I'm not sure that poses problems to transportation or not. MR. RATTERREE: We provided both the school district and the county a conceptual plan of the school layout showing the entry to that school. And both looked at it and were fine with it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as Reed will acknowledge that, we're in good shape. John's nodding yes, Reed's nodding yes. They're both pointing to one another, smiling, so I guess that means it's okay. MR. EASTMAN: So there's room there for a traffic signal to serve both the main entrance of Parklands and a traffic signal to serve the school site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, that's a different issue now. And road cut -- John and Reed, now Tom's questioning the ability to be able to put a traffic signal at both locations, the main entrance to Parklands and at the school site on whatever location they previously showed you. They're different spacing criteria for just an opening versus a traffic light, so that -- Page 56 of 82 161 ? A6 une 7, 2012 MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, Transportation Planning Manager. _ I've not actually seen the proposed school site. But just looking at the graphic we're showing here, the likelihood of two traffic signals would be very remote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they have to meet criteria for the traffic signal distancing? MR. JARVI: They would have to meet distance criteria and then the warrants, which would be the volumes, volume criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the school met the warrants first and got the traffic light, the project could theoretically not get one? MR. JARVI: I think that's a theoretical process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oooh. MR. EASTMAN: Is the reverse true? i IVNR LT /t�'� CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but see, I wanted to make sure the developer understood the impact, because if you guys got the warrants because of the capacity of the school moving up faster than they got sales, and they were late going in with their traffic light, you would have it and they wouldn't. And I'm sure they're counting on one for their development. So somehow that could become an issue either between both parties. MR. EASTMAN: I would think the school was counting on a traffic light just in terms of safety. I don't know that we have a school site that is not served by a traffic light. MR. JARVI: There are at least one I can think of on a two -lane road. Remember, this will be a two -lane road and it will remain a two -lane road. From what I've seen typically, and I can only think of one, actually, on a two -lane road, they do not have a traffic light. MR. EASTMAN: What is that? MR. JARVI: 111th and Naples Park. MR. EASTMAN: Naples Park -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Naples Park -- MR. JARVI: Elementary or middle school, I don't remember which it is. And it could be others, but I just -- MR. EASTMAN: Would be it fair to say that that's more the exception than the rule? MR. JARVI: I think --I don't know that that's a true statement. I just don't know the answer. I know typically on like on six -lane roads, four -lane roads, schools typically have a signal. But I don't know on a two -lane road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's important that this get worked out. We actually have extra time on this one. It would be nice, Tom, if you got with your people and the developer and transportation and figured out a solution to the issue, so you all could come back and agree there's not a problem in the next meeting. MR. EASTMAN: That would be good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure we'll resolve the problem today, but at least we've got a couple of weeks in which to get it accomplished. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, let him finish. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Architects first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just teasing you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're going to say no anyway, so it will be quick. Bruce, when you're looking at the spine road here as it goes up, the ability to turn around, could you put instead of T intersections or X intersections, could you put traffic circles there so that a vehicle, and maybe an emergency vehicle, could turn around in that area quickly? You know what I mean? There's like -- you have -- coming out of what will probably be the gatehouse, going up there's an intersection that goes into the two residential. You show two little arrows. Do you see that? MR. ANDERSON: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's one location. Continue on further, there's the next one. That's one Page 57 of 82 1612 A6 June 7, 2012 location. Where it goes just to the left, forget that. And then up at the end you kind of show one, at least a cul -de -sac. And hopefully kids aren't playing in that one. Before you go into the other thing, could those maybe be designed or looked at to be traffic circles? And they could be larger than code minimum. And the intent is just to be able to come back quickly. MR. RATTERREE: You and I are just not going to get along together today. We have one in Saturnia Falls. It is a problem. People are driving through it all the time. I hear you, but I think if you were to see the conceptual plan there, there are plenty of opportunities for people to turn in the pods and turn around. It's just it's -- these balloons in the middle of the roads are just problems. They've been a problem for us and we just don't like doing it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What kind of problem could a traffic circle give you? I mean, you have two stop signs going into it and the main spine goes straight through. MR. RATTERREE: If you don't mind, I'm going to let Bill answer that, because he's the guy in the field that deals with them. MR. FENNO: For the record, Bill Fenno, GL Homes. We have one now in Satumia Falls, Riverstone, and for construction traffic to maneuver it, the signs are getting knocked down all the time. We've had them in regular roadways where we've had fatalities, people going right through them. So we've had major issues with them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, okay. I mean, you don't want to kill people. But, I mean, New Jersey has highways that are on traffic signals. MR. FENNO: At one point they were supposedly a traffic calming device. And that's why everybody started recommending to install them. We did that and we've had issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you have traffic circles that have two stop signs going into it. MR. FENNO: They're not -- correct, no, there are no stop signs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think you would -- MR. FENNO: They're yield conditions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But don't make them yield, make them stop signs. So the roads that would normally be stop signs -- MR. FENNO: It's not a stop condition issue. It's the turning around them when you're trying to get an 18- wheeler through there is very difficult. We've had a mountable curve on the inside that we've installed and the back wheels of the vehicles take the signs down all the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Maybe make them bigger but -- I told you they'd say no. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm going to have to agree with Bill. In Olde Cypress we have -- on our cul -de -sacs we do have center islands. It is a big problem. You cannot get vehicles around those at all. They are going over onto people's property. In fact, a couple of people have gone out and put rocks there because there -- it's just not big enough. And to be honest, when you do have the children, they have to play -- I mean, GL I know has great areas for them to play, but the kids still go right out in that little circle and play. So that -- but one other thing on the road I would like to bring up is it says that it will be made out of the multi -use path, Nick, the multi -use path. Said it will be concrete here, six -inch. And actually on the original plans when Parklands was doing it it was going to be a multi -use path. It was supposed to be 10 -foot on the Olde Cypress side and nothing on the right -hand side going up. I understand going in they made them put cement on both sides. People are looking for the multi -use path. And when worked with Mike Green on this, because I'm very familiar with all three properties in here, Marisol's going to be coming up, people were really looking forward to the multi -use path. And at the one start at the end of Olde Cypress it was going to be a 12 -foot multi -use path on the west side which would go all the way around and up to Bonita Beach Road, and it was going to be asphalt. I would prefer that because that's what the people really like. They like it for biking, they like it for jogging, absolutely love it for Page 58 of 82 16 I jogging, and they won't run on the hard cement. They want to do the asphalt. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're correct, Commissioner. The preference of the multi -use path has been asphalt. But typical section DCA we did not specify concrete or asphalt. The note -- or on top we didn't. Our preference is asphalt because it's easy to maintain when it becomes a public road. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, it is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Our preference for joggers and bikers, since I do both, is asphalt as well too. Discussion to take it out and just put asphalt, I don't think they'd have an objection. It's cheaper to construct. So we're happy to put it down as asphalt. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, we could do that. I'd appreciate it, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the road cross - sections? Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Just to echo Diane's statements, in Imperial we have cul -de -sacs with islands in the middle. They are a huge pain. And people demand they be landscaped and they want them watered and then you have to maintain it and it's no good. And Brad, I don't know where you played baseball, but I grew up when we all played in the road, that's where we played, for crying out loud. And you these are neighbors. And look out for your neighbors' kids playing in the road. You're happy to see them playing ball not looking at television. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, like I said, I lived on a cul -de -sac, and we spent a lot of time keeping our kids out of there; that's not a safe place to be. But anyway, I fold -- I know when to fold. MR. RATTERREE: We agreed on the asphalt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately I have my last question. It's about cul -de -sacs. In the -- unfortunately in the administrative code, Section 2004 -66, we have a detail on how cul -de -sacs are to be built. It's outside the Land Development Code but it's a -- it differs from what's on the exhibit that we've got attached here that says cul -de -sac dimensioning. Now, I don't know if staff has reviewed the contrast between these two, and I don't know if we need to ask for -- how we suggest it proceed to be different. This board oversees the LDC. I can't remember, you got 15 plus about, what, 10 or 11, you got 25 or so deviations. I can't remember how you've addressed the cul -de -sac in your deviations offhand, but if you've addressed it with a proper reference to the LDC then that's fine, we can consider it for the LDC. But if you haven't and it still pertained and here's the detail, it's still part of 2004 -66,1 don't know what to tell you, because that's not part of the LDC. So I noticed that discrepancy, I wanted to point it out. By next meeting I hope to have it resolved between you all and county staff and whoever else has got to review it. But 2004 -66 is going to enter into a lot of issues as we go forward with this hearing as well as the Planning Commission in general. Then also, the footnote that Nick referred to and that -- or you all referred to Nick concerning the concrete path, my suggestion is to strike it. It's redundant. You build it the way the LDC allows you to build it. I don't care if it's asphalt or concrete. To have a specification in here may be then another deviation that I don't believe you're asking for. Is that -- do you care? MR. RATTERREE: I do care. Let me explain why, and I apologize. But this issue was created because a -- I'm not going to use names -- individual at staff mandated to GL that the existing pathway by Olde Cypress be done in concrete. And our permit was held in abeyance until we agreed to do that. So if the intent of everybody is to do asphalt, we should put it in here so that we don't -- like George's example earlier, depends on who the person is. Well this one did depend on who the person was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I got a problem for staff. First of all, I don't know how it was demanded if we've heard it could be either. If the LDC says it could be either, why would we have to restrict this developer by putting in -- it in concrete. But if we do have to restrict them and they don't have the rights of the LDC, then isn't that a deviation to the LDC, and shouldn't it be put forth as a deviation if they're going to use it as a footnote as part of the PUD? MR. RATTERREE: I didn't say it was you. It's not you. It wasn't him, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, oh boy. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Leave people alone once they leave. Page 59 of 82 i June 7, 2012 Anyway, Commissioner, there are times where it's considered a multi -use path, six or eight foot to 12 feet. Once it gets below eight feet, you start getting into is it a pathway, is it a sidewalk. There are certain folks that felt for maintenance purposes concrete is better than asphalt. I'm not going to get into the who, what, when, where again. Going forward, asphalt pathway is fine. It is our standard in the LDC at that width. If it was to shrink down and then it becomes non- multi -use then you get into well, maybe it should be concrete because it holds up better and the edges don't get fractured. So I understand his concern that it should be noted as asphalt. The LDC does state that a multi -use path is asphalt. So it's the Planning Commission's reference. I have no -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So up to 10 feet it could be asphalt or concrete. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Below 10 feet it goes -- we can request concrete. Ten feet, 12 feet is considered multi -use, the cross - section is asphalt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The decision on whether it's asphalt or concrete, whose decision is that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's review staff, engineering department or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So staff can demand that the alternate -- or the option in the LDC not be an option, it can be whatever they say. MR. CASALANGUIDA: When the width goes down, sir. At this width it would be asphalt. The LDC shows a cross - section of asphalt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This particular detail shows eight -foot and 10 -foot multi -use paths. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I -- so to take this argument away, I would agree that we just call it asphalt all the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Again, it's a technicality. Is by stating that it's going to be asphalt all the way, removing the option that's in the LDC to be asphalt or concrete, is that a deviation? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm not sure what the code section says. If it is a deviation, let's make sure we spell it out under the deviation section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By next meeting when they come back we can get that clarified, can we not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can. And the exhibits along Parklands, none of them are less than 10 feet; they're 10, 12. So, yes -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ten to 12 feet? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I've got -- the Terafina entrance, is that going into Terafina then, it's not along -- and then the one at south of Terafina entrance to section line 1621, that shows eight feet. Isn't that -- isn't that the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're looking at the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I'm looking at the PUD document. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm looking at the DCA document with the notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I have a note in the top of mine, it's inconsistent with the DCA. So maybe that's another thing that needed -- but I only -- I had an only -- early DCA. MR. RATTERREE: It's in. It's built already. It's concrete. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the one that's constructed. Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That one is already constructed? With -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I just -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll clean it up by the next meeting. We'll be clear, so if it's a deviation, we'll call it as such. If it's not, we won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I just wanted to point out an additional issue. I do believe that the documents currently, and that was shown to me by the transportation folks, it restricts any additional access off of the Logan Boulevard North, other than what's shown on the master plan. So we do have the entrance into the residential project. We pass the school site and we've got another emergency entrance to the north. But the plan is unclear showing that access to the school site would go through this main gate. So we have that issue of where the actual access is. We have the competition for the light in close proximity from -- if our entrance is off of Logan to your main residential entrance. Page 60 of 82 1612 A6 June 7, 2012 And then if our entrance is off of Logan, there may be a need for a turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think those are all goals to get straightened out by the next meeting. MR. RATTERREE: Yes, just to be clear, that master plan just needs to show an access point on Logan. That was always the intent. The one that's coming in from behind the main gate was if the school district decided that they were going to build a school there and that property reverted back, that that could then access from internal to the PUD versus having to access exclusively from Logan. But the issue of the signal we need to have a discussion on. MR. EASTMAN: As well as the turn lane? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Turn lane's a given. The road's wide enough. And in fact the cross - section of the road shows the turn lane's based on stacking -- MR. RATTERREE: I don't understand why we're obligated to build -- not trying to be argumentative, but I don't understand why we're obligated to build you a turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys need to work this off. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Tom, are you asking him to build a turn lane for you, is that what you're asking? MR. EASTMAN: I'm asking if our entrance is in fact off of Logan and we're in need of a turn lane, and you have plans and specs for the Logan extension, which county transportation is receiving the road, does the road contemplate having a turn lane in it as it's built and being required by the county, or are we going to have to do that after the fact as the school district? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You would have to -- once you permit your site, because they would be putting a turn lane where they don't know where your entrance or site plan looks like. So that will be done at the time you do your site plan. MR. EASTMAN: So if we don't know where our entrance is and the documents currently say that the only entrances off of Logan are the ones that are depicted and we're not going to depict where our entrance is, are we in essence shut out completely? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're going to put an arrow on your site that shows an access point. MR. EASTMAN: Then that would indicate where a turn late would be needed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would just indicate that you need an access point. And they're conceptual on PUD master plans, so it could slide several hundred feet, depending on your site design. And you have a median based on this typical section from Parklands' main entrance to the Collier line that's got a 16 -foot median, so you'd have ample space to put a turn lane in. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the issue's going to be before you put that arrow on the plan, make sure that you've worked out the traffic light issue so we know where that's going to go, by the time we get back. Okay, does that get us through the pages of the graphics? By the way, when staff sends us the new documents for this, when it comes back, could you send us the most updated version of the DCA? Because currently the DCA that we have is inconsistent with -- the draft I got was inconsistent with the cross - sections that we've been reviewing today. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we'll work with the folks putting together the DCA and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will members of staff also check this document against 2004 -66 to point out how many discrepancies we have between that set of standards, and which are covered by the LDC and which ones are not. Because we're getting into all kinds of tangents that we shouldn't be getting into, but there's no way to avoid it when we have multiple documents in the county describing land use standards when they all should be in one document. And with that, let's just give the court recorder -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Reporter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but 1 wanted to say recorder. Let's give her a break till five after 3:00 and we'll resume. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from break. If everybody will resume their seats. The Planning Commission, when we do have all -day meetings, they need to stop at 10 minutes to 5:00. So Page 61 of 82 1612 A 6 June 7, 2012 we have an hour and 45 minutes left to finish this meeting up. Besides finishing up the Parklands, we also have to, if we can get to them, we have some LDC amendments. The first item on the LDC amendments that we wanted to hear today was the exotic mitigation issue regarding the rural fringe, because there are members of the public here for that. I don't know if we'll get to it today. The only thing I can suggest at this point is we monitor the progress and maybe around 4:00 announce if we're even going to be able to get to it in the last 45 minutes of the meeting. Right now it's touch and go. During the break I think Bruce indicated he was nearly finished or finished. He may be finished, but this board may not be. So that's going to take some time. And unfortunately I know I have a lot of questions when we get into the deviations. So with that, we left off with finishing up the graphics. And Bruce, you were going to go into Exhibit E. So why don't we just continue there. And I have a lot of specific questions about the deviations, Bruce, but in order to get you through the rest of your document first before I start asking mine, why don't we get through the rest of your document and then we'll fall back on the deviations into the more detailed questions, at least for some of them that I have. I think the item that you may want to hit on about the deviations in particular are especially what you've done on deviation number -- it was 12. Looks like you just moved it or did something. MR. ANDERSON: Of the new deviations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: That's been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what the intention was by cross -- okay. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then on the first section of your deviations one through 10 are your old deviations. And in those your -- the deviations have to be relevant to a section of the Land Development Code. But the section you referenced is the fact that the Land Development Code includes a reference to the construction standards manual. So in essence you're asking for deviations from the construction standards manual. MR. ANDERSON: With all due respect, I'd phrase it a little differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: We are seeking to retain the rights which presently exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you repealed your other PUD, so -- MR. ANDERSON: Well, these weren't -- these were not in this PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the other PUD has been repealed by this new PUD, correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, but these things that are listed as existing approved, they were not in the old PUD, they were in the DRI development order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But aren't both of them up here for review today? MR. ANDERSON: They are. The DRI development order is being amended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ANDERSON: The PUD is being more or less replaced with a new format. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're bringing these new ones into the new PUD from the old DRI. MR. ANDERSON: At the request of staff. We are perfectly content to leave them in the DRI development order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think by doing that it wouldn't open them up to questions from this board? MR. ANDERSON: The engineer tells me they were in both documents, the PUD and the DRI development order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In either document, since they're both up for discussion today, we wouldn't be -- we wouldn't be -- you don't think we -- think we're restricted from discussing those because they were in the old document? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the decision this board will have to make is we don't have to accept anything of your recommended changes of either one of your new documents and you just fall back on your old document and do the best you can; is that what -- I think that's a counterproductive argument. We've come a long way. But my concern with your deviations is twofold. Number one, I don't know what sections of the code you're Page 62 of 82 + � June 7, 2� 1612 6 deviating from, because I can't get it nailed down. And number two, I don't know why you need 25 deviations on such a small project. And it is a small project. At one time it was a big project, in fact so big it warranted a DR], it had commercial, it had double the density, it had two counties. Now it's a rather small project. So what is the purpose -- MR. ANDERSON: We're only talking -- you know, the new ones are fair game. We're only talking about the 10 that are listed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I still need to understand why you're asking for them and what sections of the code they're trying to be from. The code changed. 91 -102 went away. We came in with 04 -42, which is the new LDC. Some of these may not even be inconsistent with the new LDC. I can't tell because I can't get the -- the only reference I get is the construction standards manual. If that is the only reference, then I need staff to understand how we're issuing deviations to the construction standards manual. And Heidi, do we -- is this -- can you weigh in on this in any direction? Where do you see this coming from as far as legally? Are we entitled to review these items, to question them? Can we provide deviations to the construction standards manual in lieu of the LDC, or how does that work with your legal department? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think the issue that maybe Bruce has is that some of these things at the time they were going forward before might have been in the Land Development Code and then moved over into the Code of Laws. I prefer to work with Bruce and see if we can't come up with language, have him pinpoint where these things are in, I think some of them are probably in the Code of Laws, and see if we can't have the appropriate mechanism, like the transportation administrator authorize those and put them in here so he can still retain them. So I guess I'd be asking to continue to work with Bruce to come up with appropriate language to bring it up to date. And we've tried to work with him, both me and Kay, to bring these up to code, you know, as we've been going forward. And with your further direction, I think we can come to conclusion with some appropriate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I don't have a problem, as long as the intention is to get it more defined and worked out by the next -- by whatever meeting you come back at. I'm assuming it will be the next one. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And remember earlier in the day when we were talking before any of the hearings today and I commented about how the old Land Development Code used to read that you could use the PUD forum to vary from any other ordinance in the county. And at the time this was approved, I believe that provision was still in effect in the Land Development Code that would have allowed that back when this was last amended in 2003. So that's -- you know, that's part of the reluctance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as I said to you on break, though, you may be fighting a fight you don't need to fight. This project, I took a look at your layout, you are not -- this is not any kind of strange project, it's a typical residential project of a size you find all over Collier County. And you've got good product I would assume to put on there, you're going to have nice signage, it's on a new road, it's in a clean area. I think you'll do fine with it. But I'm not sure you need all this stuff that you seem to be so much so protecting so badly. And I'm trying to understand why you think you need it. So maybe by next meeting you can take a look at it from a developer's perspective and an actual build -out perspective through your in -house people that are going to be on the ground building it and see if you really need that issue. Because there's 25 deviations or so here. I can't imagine that you need all those. And I've tried to go through the first 10 to figure them out, and I can't nail it down. So if you can come back next meeting with maybe more of a discussion -- MR. ANDERSON: Let me let George address some of them at least now. MR. HERMANSON: Keep in mind some of the newer ones have to do with the signage program, and that's a very organized way they want to approach their marketing. But with respect to the old ones, there are still in existence some street standards that have to do with street geometry. They're in a book called the County Construction Standards Manual. That's where they're at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get a little closer to the mic. MR. HERMANSON: That's where they're located. In your disclosures, Mark, remember we had a conversation too yesterday and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right, we did, thank you. MR. HERMANSON: The -- you expressed this concern, that that document is not the Land Development Code per se, it is a different publication. So you were scrolling up through your LDC and I later found it in section Page 63 of 82 �a 12 A6 June 7, 2012 four where it does reference the Construction Standards Manual. So the best that I could do to comply with what you're talking about is to reference section four of the LDC, which refers to the Construction Standards Manual. It says streets shall be constructed according to that. It's very explicit. But I'm not asking for every standard to be waived. We're only asking for those that typically no one does anymore: The tangents between reversed curves, the monuments and water valves. Nobody does that. But again, somebody could come along and say the code says it or the manual says you have to do it. So I felt we need to keep those. Now that's irrespective of whether we can just carry those through or not. The point is I think we need them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand that. And I asked you when we spoke to tell me the justification as to why you need them. MR. HERMANSON: Well, we didn't feel we needed that at the time. We weren't asked for it because they were a carry from the old. If you needed justification, certainly, we've written those many times before, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every deviation that we've gotten staff does an analysis based on the applicant's justification, and then staff comes back with theirs, whether they weigh in or not, approve or deny it. On these existing ones that were moved forward, none of that occurred, which also provided a void in regards to if it didn't occur what is the reason for it and what exactly is it we're deviating from. And that was where I was trying to understand it. We don't have the Construction Standards Manual. Now, I think that's an issue that I'm glad you all brought up. Ray, could you send us the Construction Standards Manual, all nine of us? MR. BELLOWS: I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And next meeting we'll come back with a lot of questions involving -- MR. HERMANSON: There are others. There's the Right -of -Way Manual, you know, things, other things that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you want to -- if we're going to open doors, then believe me, we'll open the door real wide. MR. HERMANSON: We're not going to get into that. But my point is there are other documents that are related to the code by reference. And if you're going to be exact about it, yeah, you can point out the section in the code but then you have to take it from there and say in the actual document this is what we want. Otherwise we'd be asking for the -- to throw the whole manual out. We're not doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, and that all leads back to the discussion I started out with under Chainnan's Report this morning, is what exactly are we allowed to issue deviations to? If you read the strict letter of the code, what does it apply to? You're trying to throw in the Construction Standards Manual. Earlier today it was the Code of Laws. It was 2004 -66. It was everything. And I'm not sure we're allowed to even recommend changes to everything as a deviation, because I'm not sure that's written that way in the code. I've asked the County Attorney's Office to look into this issue and by next meeting, with meetings with you, hopefully we can get it worked out. Heidi, did you have something you wanted to add? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, the manual that he's referring to is in section 2 -10 through 2 -12 of the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Therein lies the problem. So we're back to the Code of Laws then, deviations to a document that we may not be able to make deviations to. So -- MR. ANDERSON: And that gets back to my point about why we wanted to retain them. Because they were approved at a time when the Land Development Code permitted you to do that. That's why we're reluctant to relinquish them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the fallback -- after you guys get together and decide how vital these are to you, I mean, if you're not going to need them, don't bring them forward. But if you do need them, I'd simply need to understand them then. We need to walk through them, the ones that are not understood at least by me, maybe some of the others as to what it means you're doing differently than what everybody else in this country does. So, okay? Page 64 of 82 A6 1612 June 7, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And particularly look at why you need to not have the 1,000 foot requirement on your cul -de -sacs. Look into your plan. I don't know how you would get a cul -de -sac greater than 1,000 in there to begin with. But just to keep it clean. I don't think you need those. You are at the perimeter of the county. I mean, you can't -- Bonita Beach is north of you. So you are probably in the extreme distance for a fire department. So let's not -- and that's why that's there. Okay, if a station's close, then I guess that's not an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess that takes us, Bruce, through the deviation Section E. Did you want to move into Exhibit F? MR. ANDERSON: Did you have any questions on the new deviations, or concerns? There are 14 of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Anybody want to start? Anybody else have before I go forward? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 10, could you explain that particular deviation? I understand Logan Boulevard. Here's the problem: If we have an arterial road or collector, in our standard set of details it's shown as a four -lane road, but now this one's going to be -- so your deviation's allowing it to go down to two lanes. Now, that's a pretty good north -south link from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road. I mean, to be honest with you, I'll pick it up at Vanderbilt and I'll take it all the way up to Bonita Beach Road and it will work well for me. But why are you limiting it to two lanes? And traffic got into this, answered it partially with me yesterday. And I think it was because it necks down at Olde Cypress. But, you know, if you continue with it two lanes, you eliminate any possibility of expanding it in the future. Are we sure that that's the right thing to do? Because this deviation would lock it in and it would be done. MR. ANDERSON: I think it's always been contemplated as a two -lane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh -huh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happened to Nonn Feder's everything in the world becomes six lanes? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Norm's gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, John, or Reed, whoever is coming up, is there any possibility of making this a four -lane road in the future? Do we have to eliminate the possibility? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's unlikely it would ever be possible. I think we would need to eliminate the possibility. The first reason why is the long -range transportation plan that's drafted by our MPO demands only a two -lane need in that section, okay. And the other reason is that Olde Cypress development is currently in place. And also, I believe it's Longshore Lakes to the west, the right -of -way is constrained in that area. We'd have to probably look at, you know, contemplate taking homes if we were to widen it any more. So it doesn't look like it would be a feasible option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't want to see -- no, I agree, not a good idea to take homes. They take them -- only time you get to take homes is when it has to do with Golden Gate Estates, I realize that. MR. JARVL• Reed Jarvi for the record. Just to add on to that, and what we are calling Logan Boulevard North extension from the county line to Bonita Beach Road, that segment that's in Lee County, what is planned is actually the western two lanes of a future four -lane road. So that segment is anticipated to eventually be a four -lane road. And the only time I could see that really happening is when and if a 951 extension comes north and jogs over and meets it, which will be -- let's see, I don't see anybody that's young enough here that will see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's the only one I had a question on, with the exception of 15, deviation number 15, the last sentence. I think we want to drop that, don't we? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we've struck that in this morning's hand -out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your new one? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to -- unless anybody else has any questions? Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I do have a question. I think they made a very good point on number four with the signs, because of where they're stuck. I don't Page 65 of 82 Ab 1612ne 7, 2012 see a problem okaying that one out of what has -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree. Next time we'll probably -- if we have any concerns, we can express them next time or vote on them if we don't. COMMISSIONER EBERT: All right, very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you want to go into Exhibit F? MR. ANDERSON: The changes to Exhibit F are again to remove the reference to hauling off -site for anything other than Logan Boulevard. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question of Heidi on Exhibit F. It refers to the vesting of the Parklands DRI. When a DRI is vested, Heidi, what parts of it are vested? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It's essentially vested for the density that it gets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the actual text of every paragraph and all that is not a vesting issue. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does the vesting of a DRI also denote automatic vesting of a PUD? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The vesting of a DRI, does it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it automatically mean the PUD is vested? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Not all the provisions, but the density part, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is why I'm questioning your carryovers from your prior documents. MR. ANDERSON: Well, may I say that I respectfully disagree with my colleague. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Did you do a VRD, a vested rights determination, for this project? MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had an opportunity to do one. MR. ANDERSON: Perhaps. I mean, we're relying on the statute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the statute is relevant to the DRI. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, the 1985 Growth Management Act that provides that nothing in there will have an effect on a previously approved development of regional impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, I have some questions on the developer commitments and perhaps on the DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question. On the second project entrance on Logan, after the 651 st dwelling unit out of 850, that just seems like the extreme tail end of the build -out. I mean, just can you talk to why so late in the development that you would put that second entrance in? Because if you're coming from the north to get down to your house -- or maybe the other way, it would seem it would facilitate an easier travel if you could come in to your property on the north side through a north side entrance rather than have to go clear down to the main entrance and then all the way back up. If you're following my question at all. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, yeah. MR. RATTERREE: Good evening. For the record, Kevin Ratterree with GL Homes. That was actually a negotiated number. Staff had some concerns that a PUD of 850 units needed to have a secondary access point, and so we negotiated to a number. If this community builds out like Riverstone, Riverstone was approved at 850 homes. That project will probably end up being somewhere closer to 700 homes. This site is -- this developable portion of this property is smaller than that. So we anticipated that if we do like a Riverstone, this would be a single -entry project and fall below that 650. We're big fans of single -entry projects. But obviously we understood staff concern that if this thing got too big that it needed to have that secondary entrance, and so we agreed to that number. It is based on building permit, not certificate of occupancy. And as many of you who have been up to Riverstone have seen, once we get going on construction, we move pretty quick. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Approximately how many -- I know this isn't a site development plan or Page 66 of 82 1612 A6 June 7, 2012 anything, but how many approximate dwelling units would you have in that residential area north of the emergency entrance? I'll term it that. MR. RATTERREE: That pod would probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 to 80 homes. Back to my pointer that I stuck in my pocket. This pod right here? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, that and the one to the west. MR. RATTERREE: That would probably be double, if not closer to 200 homes, because that other pod's a little bigger. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: 200 from 850. You're down to 600, you're right at about the number that -- okay, I see that. For the benefit of the two members of the public that have been sitting here all day, I'll ask you a couple of questions on their behalf, okay. There's a reference, and I asked Bruce about that, there was some reference to the expansion of the intersection with Immokalee Road and Logan. And that is depicted in your -- as an exhibit. Could you put that up on the visualizer, someone? I think that will respond to one of your questions, ma'am. It's Exhibit D. MR. RATTERREE: What was it earlier, the visualizer? Was that the term? I call it an overhead projector. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You're behind the times. MR. RATTERREE: Basically what Nick had asked us to do is go ahead and do a traffic analysis, assuming the connection to Bonita, and model it after a series of different assumptions, the development of Olde Cypress and Riverstone itself, what roadway improvements were needed. None were needed to the existing configuration. Then to model then Olde Cypress, Riverstone plus Parklands without the connection to Bonita Beach, where would we need intersection improvements to get the roadway to function at a proper level of service. And then the other model was all three projects plus the connection to Bonita. And it was determined through that analysis that in the Olde Cypress plus Riverstone plus a portion of Parklands, that that particular intersection may fail and that would need the addition of the two additional turn lanes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So those would -- those additional turn lanes would be constructed at what point? MR. RATTERREE: It's prior to receipt of the 181 st certificate of occupancy. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second area of concern on the part of these folks that live in Olde Cypress is the flow of traffic going up and down Logan can be substantial. And to exit Olde Cypress might be problematic if there's nothing to interfere with that traffic flow. Are you considering or would you consider some stop signs on Logan going northbound- southbound? MR. RATTERREE: That discussion has been ongoing, for a lack of a better way of putting it. The first conversation with the Olde Cypress residents was relative to a traffic signal at that intersection. The county has presently installed two stop signs, one at Olde Cypress and one on the north side traveling south approach to that intersection. And then the southbound lane heading north having free flow. Those stop signs are there today. It's my understanding, based on my conversation with Bill this morning, that there was consideration that that would be a permanent condition where those stop signs would stay. But to be clear, I think that is an issue that Collier County needs to work out with that development. It's not something that this project having been approved for so many years and having been approved at 1,600 plus units, that issue was a situation that was not created by us, it's just simply the traffic that is now coming to be realized based on those existing approvals. I did make it clear to Olde Cypress, I'm not interested in paying for a signal in front of their development. I don't think that should be our obligation to do that. But the stop sign configuration, they are there today. And we have no problem if the county wants to continue that, to continue it. Do I personally like it? No. I think when you have a road that has somewhere between 18 and 20,000 trips per day, to have a stop situation in that road in two out of three directions, that's a little odd. But if that's what the county and community work out, that's what the county and community work out. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Reed, any comment on that? You ought to sit closer. MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi for the record. Page 67 of 82 1612 A 6 June 7, 2012 We have talked to the Olde Cypress people, the GL representative, the design engineer several times over the last several months. Probably a lot since I've been here, which is about five months, come to the agreement that it's set up as it is, which is the stop sign southbound and westbound to give the Olde Cypress people a chance to adjust to having to stop. They've always had to stop, but since there was no oncoming traffic, they maybe didn't stop as long as they should by the law. But we want to do that. Eventually Logan, as it punches through to Bonita Beach Road in the next few years, will become a through road and the stop signs will be removed there, plus there aren't any currently at Riverstone, but it would be the same situation eventually, and this will be a through road. There would be -- I mean, at the times when traffic gets to be a lot more than it is now, I'm sure that there'll be something looked at for signal warrants, but at the present time it is our anticipation that there will not be signals on this road. Not saying that's not -- that couldn't change, but that's our anticipation. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just so I'm clear regarding the stop signs, there are currently stop signs on the south? MR. JARVI: Southbound. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Southbound. MR. JARVI: It was primarily to stop and slow down the construction trucks coming, oh, I don't know, three - quarters of a mile on a straight road going as fast as they wanted. So it would improve the safety situation for them stopping. Coming northbound they're coming through curves, and the thought was it wasn't as much of a safety because they weren't going as fast. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And that stop sign is envisioned to remain? MR. JARVI: No. No, the stop sign southbound will go away with the construction traffic. The stop sign on Olde Cypress, which will be westbound on Treeline Road, at Treeline will remain, which has always been there. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I don't know if that helps you folks, but if not, you could certainly remain for the public portion of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, before you leave the podium, is the Logan Boulevard from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road, assuming it's completed, what kind of road is that considered by Collier County? MR. JARVI: It would be a minor arterial. It would be a continuation of Logan, which would probably be a minor arterial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can have a minor arterial, based on our codes, at two lanes? MR. JARVL• Yes. Arterial is really a function of what it does versus how wide it is. I will say typically we would not see a two -lane arterial, but it could be a major collector, it could be a minor arterial, which the functions are fairly similar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? Phil, do you have more? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Reed, looking at that photograph up there, is this thing going to be -- I mean, it looks like it's going through a building in Longshore Lakes. I mean, I know the Appraiser site's is not perfect, but if you look at the road coming out of the island, it's not that far off. So how tight are we going to be on Longshore? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Longshore? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that Longshore down there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the project to the west is Longshore. MR. RATTERREE: The project -- well, Olde Cypress owns -- Olde Cypress owns to right here, okay? And then west of that is Longshore Lake. So Olde Cypress actually has the corner. We've actually looked at it from an engineering standpoint and the improvement can be accomplished. We have to make some changes to the culvert that's there, but we can get those turn lanes in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But where you put that line saying that's Longshore, what is that stuff to the east? Isn't that buildings? Page 68 of 82 3 e 4 1612 " =A6 MR. RATTERREE: No, it's actually some minor landscape stuff that Olde Cypress has done. There's -- it almost looks like they tried to do a design element of a golf hole there at the corner, but there's nothing really there, other than just some landscape improvements. There's no structures there unless it's like a little utility shed or something like that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, there is nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where the word -- where 415 is there, those things that look like roof structures, those are not roofs? MR. RATTERREE: Those are trees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brown trees? MR. RATTERREE: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, the coloration of the photo I think is mis -- it looks like rooftops, you know, the terracotta rooftops of some kind, but it's not, it's all trees. MR. RATTERREE: Right. And just a reminder, the 415 dimension is just a dimension. The actual lane improvements are farther to the east of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was concerned that that was structures in there that -- okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Reed. Bruce, we might as well move on to your Exhibit F. Under -- on Page 16 of your exhibit there are three references to utilities that need to be struck, because they're already in the code, D, E and F. I had met with staff on that, so -- On Page 17 of yours, in the reference under 5.A.2 where we're back to the developer or master homeowners, you need just to change that to be consistent with the first one. MR. ANDERSON: I guess that was -- George tells me that was the purpose of the red addition there was to refer back to that section where we had the reference to the turnover. But we can do them both -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All it would take is you cross out four words and put in four more. Why don't you just do that. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6.A, or six all together doesn't need to be here. I don't care who you pay your fire impact -- I don't think anybody does, you just have to pay them, unfortunately. MR. RATTERREE: Okay, this one's -- this one is one where I'm going to ask for your permission. This DRI had a condition of approval in it originally, because it originated before impact fees were generated to pay a certain amount of dollars to the North Naples Fire Improvement District for their equipment, personnel, et cetera. And through this process we were asked by staff to get a letter from them acknowledging that now that there are impact fees that we no longer need to make those payments. When -- I went to them and said this is the situation, we're asking you to change this to impact fees, because at the time of the DRI it made those payment reference, but if impact fees come along, you just pay your impact fees, I represented to them that we were going to incorporate this into the PUD document. I understand your issue, that it's repetitive. I would just ask for your deference, since I told them I don't like to be accused of somebody saying to me, well, you told us you were going to do something. I know I don't have the authority to do -- to actually end it in here, but even though it is repetitive, this particular one I just ask you to leave in. Because we told them that we were going to make sure the PUD document contained it. I know if you decide you want it out, that's within your purview. I just ask for your deference, since we did that make that representation, that we keep that one in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, knowing the fire departments, that if you get this in here, they will make sure the next developer, they tell them to make sure you tell us this so you can go the Board and tell them same as you guys did so everybody has to put it in. I don't really -- fire impact fees are a matter of record. You've got to pay them. You're not going to get out of that, whether it's in here or not. I understand your dilemma. I think you've tried the best you can. I think your obligation has to go as far as you can control. So I personally don't like these kind of things in here; they don't do us any good, and I don't care how Page 69 of 82 1612June 7, A6 they collect their impact fees, they need to do it legally and that's the way they're doing it. So I don't believe 6.A should be in there, so -- and I'll continue on that mode. Then anybody else? I think that takes us to the end of the document. Anybody else have any questions on the document? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we end with Bruce, is there any other questions on any other parts of this application for either the PUD or the DRI? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The DRI is the second package back. It's as thick as the first. We also -- and Diane, so we don't do what we did last time, that includes the developer's agreement. So if you've got any issues about the developer's agreement, now is the time to bring them up. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, when I met with you, I brought up the point that the entities that are named in both documents are not provided for as far as individuals, it's just companies. And actually, they differ between one document to the other, so -- MR. ANDERSON: The PUD document disclosure is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to redo that into the DRI disclosure. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are the entities -- are you going to provide us those entity individuals by the next go around? MR. ANDERSON: Probably not, no, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Heidi, can he say that? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The LDC requires that they disclose the property owners. And the breakdown is for purposes of the conflicts, to determine if there's a conflict of interest. So if you feel looking at the names of the entities that that's sufficient information for you to do your disclosures, then they've complied. If it's not enough information for you to do your -- you know, to do your conflict evaluation, then he needs to break it down further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got four different entities named here, none of which are individuals. I will need to know the names of the individuals of the four different entities. Unless you have a reason why you can't provide them. Are they on the stock exchange or something like that? MR. RATTERREE: This has been a long arduous task with this particular issue. One of the entities, MFV Holdings, which I think was -- is a private equity firm, private equity firms will not under any circumstances release the names of their private equity members for public record. I mean, we've asked, we've been there 100 times on this issue. The purpose of listing the name is to hope that a sitting elected official can look at that name and make an informed decision whether or not. But you're asking for the individual, and some of these could be hundreds of thousands of members of equity firms that individual names would have to be listed. They just simply will not do that. For the GL related, we have an issue with doing it because ultimately what ends up happening is the children of the president of the company who are listed as members start getting phone calls from people because their names have been listed in public documents. So we try to avoid that if at all possible. We've done what we thought was sufficient for the purpose of the County Attorney's Office. I would just ask for your deference. Some of these things we just can't simply produce. I mean, they just won't produce those documents for us. They're private for a reason. For the GL ones there are children involved, and we'd like to maintain their privacy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, from your department's perspective, this requirement is in the application section of their project. Can you review whatever code or ordinances require this to make sure that it's not required to break it down further versus it's in -- it's up to us to ask for it if we feel it's necessary? If we have that option and none of us feel uncomfortable with it, that's a different animal to deal with than if the ordinance that created the need for this says it's mandatory that individuals are listed; that's a whole different ballgame. And I just want to know which one we have to guide -- which we're guided by. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I have already looked at it. And like I said, it indicates they have to disclose Page 70 of 82 1612 June 7, A 6 the property owners, but it doesn't require necessarily the further breakdown, unless you're unfamiliar with these entities and you need to know who the particular individuals are for purposes of your conflict determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we don't ask for anything further and we just accept this and by some fluke some one member of the 1,000 that happen to be in MFV is a member through some investment, even could be one of us, do we have a conflict? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think you've requested -- you've requested it prior to this meeting, you've requested it in this meeting and he's given you the information to the extent he can. So I would say that you shouldn't have any concerns approving it with the information you've been provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, that takes us to the end of I think questions of the applicant. Thank you, sir. Ray, staff report, is that -- who's still here, anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: They left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly don't blame everybody. But do you have a staff report, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm filling in for Kay Deselem. I have been working on this with Kay and I'm familiar with it, and I think the recommendations outlined in the staff report for both the PUD amendment and the DRI amendment, I don't really have anything more to add other than staff has found this consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have. I may have to call Kay on the phone if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2, the fourth bullet up from the bottom. MR. BELLOWS: For the staff report for the rezone? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report for the rezone, Page 2. The sentence with a semicolon above the first bullet on that page and towards the bottom. I just want a technical correction before it goes on to the next level. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says on that page, due to changing market conditions, the petitioner is requesting to amend the PUD to allow the following changes. Actually, isn't it due to the settlement agreement that forced them to reduce from the -- not this particular owner, whoever it was at the time. Oh, it was you guys? Okay. Well, they had to reduce it because of the settlement agreement they worked out. So it isn't changing market conditions. Usually that has a different connotation than what really happened here. So I'd just like to get that corrected so it reflects the real reason why we have to entertain this. And then the Page 3, the third bullet, there's a reference to the fill being taken off -site to also possibly be used for fill for other county roadways. They have agreed that that's not what's going to happen, that's only going to be for Logan. So we need to make sure that reference is crossed out. Everything else is with Bruce. Thank you, Ray. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do we have any registered public speakers first, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two speakers. The first one is Paul Schultz, to be followed by Carol Wilsey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure appreciate your patience all day waiting. Please just come on up and use the mic, identify yourself for the record and then we'll be glad to hear from you. MR. SCHULTZ: Paul Schultz, the vice president of the master association for Olde Cypress. And I'm here, I've been working with transportation and engineering for the last three or four months regards to safety of Olde Cypress in our community. We only have one access out of our community for the last 12 years. And with this oncoming of GL Homes and the 800, 1,400 homes, we feel it's a real detriment to the community. I feel it's a real safety hazard. I've had 20 years in reconstruction of accidents, and I feel like it's an obituary waiting to be written. I thought we had an agreement that we could put a three -way stop sign in there going south and north. And that would deter, you know, the opportunity for any accidents to come up. I've met with many times Gene Calvert of transportation. I talked to Nick. I spent time with Reed. I've spent Page 71 of 82 1612 A6 June 7, 2012 time with Bill Fenno, the director of land development, and he was in agreement that if we were going to do something, that a three -way stop sign would be the appropriate thing. Again, because we've been here for 12 years, we have an older community and we have no other access to come out -- to come on into Logan Boulevard. Right now we have a stop sign that is working. Hopefully we can keep that on a permanent basis. We had also -- that's going south out of GL Homes. We'd like to have one going north, because we have a blind area with all shrubberies that can't be taken down coming out of our community. But there is a stop sign there. So we think a three -way stop sign would be appropriate to safety of the community. And that's my position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll ask Reed to address the issue after we hear from the next speaker too, so we get all transportation related issues in one shot. He's been getting up a lot so we have to minimize the amount of times. Thank you for your time, sir. MS. WILSEY: For the record, my name is Carol Wilsey -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you live at a different location years back, south of I -75 and 951? MS. WILSEY: No. I've been before this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought so, yeah. I remember it was on this -- MS. WILSEY: It was relative to Logan Boulevard. I'm a resident of Olde Cypress as well. I've been there for 12 years, from the beginning. I serve as the neighborhood rep from the Olde Cypress Homeowners Association to our master association. I concur with Paul on the issue with stop signage, at least a stop sign coming out of Olde Cypress. But I wanted to amplify some of our other concerns about Logan. You know, we think that Kevin Ratterree and GL Homes has been frankly a pretty good neighbor to the north of us and we don't really have any gripes at this point with what Kevin wants to do, with one exception. And we think that we do need some assistance in whatever manner GL Homes may give us, or you may, in concert with adding more homes to the traffic along Logan. I would like something that clarifies or reiterates what we agreed to when Logan Boulevard was approved. I mean, it's still being referred to as a two -lane road. Reed Jarvi referred to it as a minor arterial, I think he called it. It had been called back then potentially a couple of different things, a collector road, a minor arterial. But it still needs to be no more than a two -lane road, and I just want that reaffirmed. We also got -- I was fairly instrumental in getting it constrained to no more than 35 miles an hour. I would have liked it even less, but the reality is is that when you have 35 miles an hour, really most people don't do that. And that's why we need the current stop sign that's coming south at least and going north, we think, when we get more homes in there to slow the traffic down. We did try for a calming device at one point at a traffic circle, but there wasn't enough room for it. We'd ideally love to have a street light, a traffic light. But I don't know if that's going to ever be possible. But I'm basically looking to you at the Planning Commission level to make sure certain that we keep on the record at least what we have now. I heard Kevin say earlier that he felt that because the DRI had, you know, before he got involved, before GL Homes got involved in this project, he didn't think that it meant that he was required to assist us in getting egress out of our community. But then on the other hand he's asking you for the rights when it reaches a certain point to change and expand the intersection that is our signage coming in off of Immokalee. I don't think the two jive. I really don't, Kevin. Because there are no rooftops at that point, Brad, as you questioned. But there are a couple of monuments, entry monuments to Olde Cypress. And I think adding a second turning lane is frankly only going to encourage higher speeds. I do. So I need to go on record as saying that. I didn't hear anyone say in any of the documentation today what kind of traffic monitoring reports they're going to do and how often they're going to do that and at what point that traffic monitoring may trigger other signals, other traffic calming approaches along Logan. My own personal opinion is that I was very happy to see those big 90- degree turns. I talked about that years ago when they were first planning the road. But if you give people another access point, there are people that speed and that's just the way that it is. It's been very difficult for us up to this point to get in and out of our community already. And we still have another 100 plus homes coming in our own community from Stock Development. And now we're going to have 700 finalized at Riverstone and approvals being granted at some point for another 850 at Page 72 of 82 6 1 2 June 7 ,� 1 6 Parklands? I would like to see a much more carefully detailed outline telling us at what point we're going to have to try to find -- and we haven't got another way out of Olde Cypress. We can't go out east because the slough's out there. We can't go across the Cocohatchee canal. We only have this way in and out. And we really don't have a lot of room. So I'm here basically trying to make certain that you who serve as the protectors of everyone, in fairness to us look at what can be done. And, you know, if all we're asking for is a three -way stop at this point and if that's not going to work then a traffic light, we need to have something, because we've got 427 home sites in Olde Cypress, another 120 coming. I mean, I agree and concur with Paul that we will have accidents. And even with the stop sign, people are not stopping. So that's my position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing that I believe we've assured is that the road will not be wider than two lanes, because what's being done today will lock it into two lanes. But I think that also may be a double edged sword. With the amount of capacity that you have just told us is on that road, the fact that this project is cutting it in half is a good thing, it's actually helping it. MS. WILSEY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But still, that's a -- when you take Palmira, which will go south to use to get into Collier County, that project -- and I think most people probably come to Collier before they might go to Lee, that road's going to -- for two lanes, that's going to be a pretty, pretty busy road. But that's the downside of making it restricted to two lanes. MS. WILSEY: Oh, I understand. The reason it was restricted to two lanes, if you recall, Mark, was that there was not enough room for it to become more than two lanes. I did a very careful detailed analysis from FDOT on the width that roads could be. And we couldn't -- it could never become more than a two -lane road, at least at our section. So even if you made it wider at another point, you're only going to create another problem by bottlenecking everything down in. The problem is that it was never, I don't think, intended. When it was approved way back when, there should have been changes made to even our development or Longshore as to giving more greater birth, but it wasn't there. So we're stuck dealing with what we're stuck dealing with at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll be listening to Reed in a minute. Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else in the public, Ray, that asked to speak or was on the registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody in the public who has not spoken and wish to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, can you just put everything you canon record regarding how this is going to go, so we just got it clean as best we can. MR. JARVL• Reed Jarvi, Transportation Planning Manager. And I'll address the ones I can remember and add to the ones I forget already. But I'll reiterate what Mark said, is that two lanes will be the only thing we'll see, other than turn lanes, of course, up to the county line. And remember I did say at the county line it's planned to be a future four -lane road, county line to Bonita Beach Road. Don't know when that will be, but there is plans for that. And this particular developer does not control the right -of -way for the northern two lanes -- or the eastern two lanes, future northbound lanes. But it is, I guess, reserved from the project to the north. So that's what we'll be seeing in the future. In relation to the stop signs at Treeline, when we talked about this over the last several months, as was mentioned, I believe -- I believe we came to a consensus that put what was out there. If that's not a true statement, we'll revisit it and look at putting a third stop sign. I don't think GL will have a particular problem with that and I don't think our traffic operations will if a three -way stop is the right answer. But please understand that the intention of that three -way stop was to get Olde Cypress used to having a stop sign, and from truck traffic from Riverstone. Future -- this is an arterial or a collector, either one, it's a fairly large road. And the idea is it's connecting -- or it's a bypass for I -75, it's connecting northern Collier County with Bonita Beach Road area. So it will be a through road mainly and we won't have stop signs on it. Traffic signals would be possible but only when they meet warrants. And until such time as we have through traffic, I would be real surprised if Olde Cypress can meet warrants. Could in the future -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you expect that the stop signs would be in place though until the warrants Page 73 of 82 1 _ A 6 June 7, 2012 are met for a traffic signal? MR. JARVI: I would expect the stop signs remain in place through the construction phases of Olde -- excuse me, of Riverstone, or to the majority of the construction phases. We've made some -- we've had some discussions with the GL about when that is, and we're probably going to lengthen that because of other issues we found out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something else you said, that this is the north -south link for I -75? MR. JARVI: It may be a bypass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bypass? You know, in thinking about that, this is the only north -south link east of I -75 forever. I mean, forever out, I don't mean forever ever in the future, but for as far as we go there's not another one -- MR. JARVI: Well, 951 extension -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't go through, does it? MR. JARVI: Well, it is eventually planned to meet Logan at the county line, which is why the four lanes is set up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't that all wrapped up in all this flowway and going through wetlands and elevated -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. MR. JARVI: I don't think it's wrapped up, because those are all pen-nit issues. It hasn't been -- those are issues that the 951 extension will have to deal with, but they're -- it hasn't been dealt with yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you go east of I -75 and you want to get north, your only choice is going to be Logan for quite a -- MR. JARVI: For the foreseeable future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JARVI: The 20 -year plan, the 2030 plan I think doesn't have 951 extending north and 2035 does have it. So that's 23 years from now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carol, you have to come up and use the mic. But please remember, this isn't to get into a debate with Reed. That's not what these meetings are -- MR. JARVI: And I may have missed some of the points about -- MS. WILSEY: No, I understand that. But can you respond to the question about traffic monitoring on the road and how often it will be done and who will you report it to? MR. JARVI: The traffic -- there is no traffic monitoring required from GL Homes that I can remember, is there? Other than the PUD monitoring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that is traffic monitoring, though, isn't it? MR. JARVI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's once a year, it's at your entrances to your road, and that's how it comes out, right? MR. HERMANSON: (Nodding.) MR. JARVI: And then as Logan Boulevard expands it will, I would anticipate, become part of the county system, which we monitor quarterly. MS. WILSEY: Like a time table? Because if you're going to determine signage or lights based on traffic counts, how can you do that if you don't do monitoring? MR. JARVI: Well, the traffic -- what you would do as a development would ask our -- if you're looking for a signal warrant, you would talk to our traffic operations people about doing a warrant analysis. MS. WILSEY: What's the requirement? Just so we know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does vary. There's warrants that even have levels of accidents. So the more accidents you get in, the better possibility you have of having a light. MS. WILSEY: Oh, that's really refreshing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I've been frustrated with the same issues, so -- that is the truth. MR. JARVI: There are warrants, and it depends on the situation there. I can't tell you the -- MS. WILSEY: Is that a published document somewhere? MR. JARVI: Yeah, it's in the F14WA Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. It's also in the FDOT Manual of Traffic Studies. Page 74 of 82 1612 ,.,,eAb MS. WILSEY: I've looked at a lot of FDOT but I don't remember that. MR. JARVL• Yeah, they're in there. And it depends -- its actually fairly easy once you get the numbers and it's just punching a table, and it goes yes or no. But it -- MS. WILSEY: I may ask send you an e-mail asking you to send me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that would be the better way to handle it. MR. SCHULTZ: Reed, just one question so I can report back to the community. When you say construction and -- is when the stop signs may or may not come down, can we put a time table on that, Kevin? Is it three years, four years, five years? I mean, there's something I could tell the community? Since we're agreed on stop signs at least we can -- MR. JARVI: Our earlier discussion was about a year or so. But that was under any false understanding of their construction schedule, so -- MR. RATTERREE: Kevin Ratterree again for the record. Let me answer one question she said regarding the Olde Cypress �mionument sign. The turn lane additions that are necessary do not affect their monument sign whatsoever on the east side of Logan Boulevard. The answer is it's market driven. As I told you earlier, this was a continuation or planned to be a continuation of Riverstone. To give everybody a reference point, we're in the mid -120's in terms of contracts since we opened January 28th. So this community is selling at a very, very brisk pace. I would anticipate that we would be in a position to start land development probably two to three years, maybe four years at the pace we're on. I expect that pace to slow down a little bit naturally, so probably four to five years before we really start gearing up into the Parklands project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you get into the Parklands project. So that means you could be in the Parklands project another four of five, based on 800 units, 200 absorption a year, four of five years for that? MR. RATTERREE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're looking at nearly 10 years by the time the construction is near completion. MR. RATTERREE: Right. Remember, Mr. Chair, that the DO obligation for the 297th C.O. to commence construction for that connection up to Bonita, and I would expect that construction could take anywhere from six months to a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And okay, that connection -- MR. RATTERREE: Because once that connection gets made -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a different story. MR. RATTERREE: -- it's a different story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. And Ray, just another thought. Since we're now talking about five years before the project starts, do they have any issues with sunsetting? Because I'd rather address them as an exemption now in this document than having to show them back up and -- no? MR. ANDERSON: No. That's the DRI build -out date controls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's so you have it -- okay, that's fine. I wanted to make sure. MR. SCHULTZ: So we're roughly saying 10 years, is it, whenever -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could be up to 10 years. MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. Thank you for your time, everybody. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, because I live in Olde Cypress too and have monitored all these, we have Mirasol coming up, the environmentalists held all developers up for six years or whatever. Mr. Ratterree I know wanted to start his project much earlier. Originally on Logan Boulevard, and I can go back in 1985,1 don't even think you had questions on it. You're right, it was originally going to be on the west side of Olde Cypress and then that became -- when it was the Woodlands that was very precious land and so they had problems with right -of -way, so they wanted to reserve something on the west -- or excuse me, it was originally supposed to be on the east side. Then they made a reservation on the west side. And they didn't ask for enough at the time and it wasn't right at the line either. But originally when all these were put up, it was going to be Terafina, which is now Riverstone at 850, Page 75 of 82 1612 June 7, 2012 Parklands was going to be 1,602 or 1,603. And there was going to be a school there. A lot of people that moved into Olde Cypress had no idea, because we didn't -- when you moved in, there was no road there. So I mean, that's a long history. This is a very old DRI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions of anyone at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that gets us to the end of all the discussion we need to have today, pending whatever comes back in the next meeting. Bruce, are you requesting a continuance to the next meeting? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to continue to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is both the PUD and the DRI, which are PUDA- PL2011 -00014 -- no, sorry, Cherie', that's the wrong page. Let me get the right page. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, can we confirm that -- can we continue this to a date certain? My understanding, we weren't going to do any land use petitions on the 21 st of June. MR. BELLOWS: Good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why aren't we doing land use petitions on the 21st? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I won't be here. But if you want to hear it on the 21 st you can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, life has to go on for us. MR. ANDERSON: What other meetings do you have this month? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one on the 19th for a workshop and then on the 21 st we have our regular meeting like this. Other than that, Bruce, we'd be to the 19th of July. MR. ANDERSON: Might we try for the 19th of June? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 19th of June is a workshop for the master mobility plan, we can't -- the 21 st is the meeting we have, that regularly scheduled Thursday meeting. Heidi, would there be -- Ray, do we have anything else scheduled on the 21 st? MR. BELLOWS: The only thing we have scheduled is the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Heidi, would there be any -- the workshop for the master mobility plan is a morning workshop. If we were to hold this one on the afternoon on the 19th, would that be acceptable, or do we have an advertising -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: As long as you continue it to a date and time certain then I think we're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be an opportunity. Would you be here on the 19th? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See what we do for you, Heidi. MR. BELLOWS: It might be difficult to get the documents revised in time and in your hands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd have to get them to us by next Wednesday. MR. BELLOWS: Or earlier, since it's the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to need all the way to -- that's going to hurt Bruce. You've got to have some meetings with the County -- discussions with the County Attorney's Office as well. You could brief somebody else to fill in while you're gone on this one issue, couldn't you? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it might be the only way to do it unless they want to go to the 19th of July. If you're not going to start for five years, are you that concerned? It's not like you're going to rush in to run out there and build. MR. RATTERREE: Based on when we started this process, I'm going to have to pay for my kids college. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We all have to do that right now. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, it's going to be driven by the BCC date. What date do you have for the BCC? Does anyone know? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, we're scheduled to go to the County Commission at their July 24th meeting. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay, then, yeah -- Page 76 of 82 2 A6 i 16 June 7, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would hurt. Do you need the 24th meeting? I mean, do you have to hit that date since you're not going to build for so long? I mean, it's up to you guys. If it's a rush is all I'm trying to say is it's up to you all. You're the ones that are going to have to perform. MR. RATTERREE: I've got people in my ear. We filed in December of 2010. So we just feel like this process has taken its process. It's time to finish up. We've got partners involved with this deal that need to know that we finished. Obviously we have a settlement agreement with The Conservancy. We would appreciate if we can continue on to the June 21 st meeting so that we could stay on the July 24th. Most of the stuff that we were talking about today are really technical things. The fundamentals of this project is a reduction of density in half and the doubling of preserve. And I just feel like those should take precedent to some of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think the 21 st is fine, but it's you all that's going to have to produce the documents in time and have the meetings in time for staff to manage it. So, you know, that's why it seemed to be a hesitance on your part more than ours. So if you guys are fine with the 21 st -- MR. RATTERREE: Yeah. The other side of it is the Commission, of my understanding, doesn't even meet in August, so if you miss that cycle, then you're really talking about -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct, they do not meet in August. MR. RATTERREE: -- September. That's why we were trying to make sure we made that last BCC agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question for Heidi. Heidi, will you have time to review this before you leave? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It depends on if they submit it -- the reason I'm not going to be here is I'll be at the Florida Association of Counties meetings. And there's very few meetings that we ever request that, you know, we have a light agenda, and this was one that we asked because of the -- due to the meetings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is more for your reviewing the documents than sitting there in the hearing. So as long as you have time to review it, I'm comfortable with that date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, she'll get to review it no later than we do, right? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. As soon as we get the packets, we can have it to Heidi. But the key is can the applicant give it in time for staff to review, in time to make adequate comments to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's up to them. MR. RATTERREE: Why doesn't somebody just give us a date you want the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what date do you want the document, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Well, speaking for Kay, she would want it tomorrow, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: He's got a half hour left today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have to get the package to us by Friday, you need to review it before then. Heidi can review it simultaneous with us, and whoever is going to fill in for her can come and make any comments they need to from the packets. So that would -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Actually, that's not correct, because we'll finalize the document with Mr. Anderson before it goes in the package; otherwise it can't go on the agenda. MR. RATTERREE: Right. As I remember, it's been a long meeting, but as I remember the fundamental issue with the County Attorney's Office was the legal vesting status of the old deviations discussion and getting that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The schools. MR. RATTERREE: The schools is a separate meeting. And I understand, we've tried -- I think there's trying to be a meeting set up for Tuesday sometime, so hopefully. But we will go ahead and amend the master plan to put the two access points on it for the school parcel. The issue of the signal I think can just be a continuation discussion about how that occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we need to know that result in order to vote. And I think that Tom can get with his people to see how necessary the signal is for the school in question. So that would work. Well, I mean, Ray, when do you need the documents by? MR. BELLOWS: I think if we had a day and a half, Monday aft -- like 12:00. Too soon? The 11th. Page 77 of 82 16 ' Zne 7 2012 6 MR. RATTERREE: Is that Monday? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. RATTERREE: That's fine. Here I am committing for my guys that have not told me anything about their vacation schedule. Sure, 12:00. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, for us, can't we just move it to the --continue it to the 21st? Then if they don't make it, they don't make it, and we'll continue it again at that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let me do that. I make a motion we continue till the 21 st of June. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's made and seconded. The two items that have been continued are PUDA- PL2001- 00001551 and DOA- PL2001- 00001550. Motion was made and seconded to continue both until the 21 st. There's been -- all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Thank you Bruce, thank you, Kevin, everybody, appreciate your time today. ** *Okay, that ends our regular hearings. And Caroline, I'd like to ask you a few questions before we jump into your issues. MS. CILEK: Hello. Caroline Cilek, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, we have 30 minutes to go or not to go. You have on the 21st most the day, from what it sounds like. I'd like to see us be able to finish everything on the 21 st, subject to any things that have to be rewritten. But that's the way the schedule's looking right now. And even if you wanted to, we could probably look at something on the 19th if we got it early enough, because that's a workshop, we're going to be here. Subject to advertising or whatever we got to do today, I think we could contemplate that day. MS. CILEK: The items that we prepared for today could be reviewed on the 19th because they're ready to go. Any additional at least amendments that we would be bringing forward after that, I don't have enough time to prepare and get in the packet and stuff, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I would -- my concern is that we look at these carefully, especially the first one, which is the exotic preservation, I know that's been contentious in a lot of ways. I guess from Bruce and Bob's viewpoint, do you guys have any concerns whether it's today or the 19th? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve? MR. LENBERGER: As long as Heidi is here on the 19th, we're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Heidi will be here on the 19th, that may help the matters. What do you think, Caroline? MS. CILEK: I just want to make sure the room's available first, just on the 19th. I know that the master mobility has it from 9:00 to noon. I just want to confirm that we would be able to meet after lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you do that -- well, if we take a five- minute break? MS. CILEK: Yes, I can run and find out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we don't do the l 9th, if would have to be on the 21 st, as in it's already scheduled on the 21 st. Heidi isn't going to be here. Is it necessary for Heidi to be here for this particular one? Oh, it is. Okay, then we will try -- then let's focus on the 19th. Let's take five minutes to find out. And if not, we'll just -- we won't get Page 78 of 82 A 7 1612 b ne 7 2012 much done today but we can jump right into it if we have to. Hi, Ian. MR. MITCHELL: Hi. Sorry, I -- I always listen to your meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad someone does. We're still on record, so just -- can you tell us if we have the 19th? MR. MITCHELL: Ian Mitchell. Yes, the room's available for you all day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Then I think that is the solution. If you guys can confirm to Ian that we want the room for the 19th for at least part of the afternoon, why don't we move these LDC amendments to the 19th. Heidi will be here and we can get into them to whatever detail we need to. Does that work for everybody? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we need a motion to continue them to the l9th? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Are you going to start at 1:00 or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'd start -- the master mobility plan, Ray, do you know how long that's going to take on the 19th? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Twenty minutes. MS. CILEK: At least till noon. MR. BELLOWS: My understanding was it would take at least till noon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Till noon, okay. Let's make a time certain. We'll continue the LDC amendment hearing till 1:00 on the 19th in this room. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll be there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll so move. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Barry, seconded by Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're continued for the LDC. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the LDC amendments we're continued until the 19th at 1:00 time certain in this room. ** *And that takes us to the end of our agenda. Does anybody else have anything else? COMMISSIONER VONIER: New business? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER VONIER: This concern has been expressed previously by members of the CCPC, but I think the proposal I want to make is new. And after finding that the BCC allowed the Wahl boat dock variance, which staff had recommended for approval but the CCPC had denied, I read the transcript of the BCC meeting in order to better understand for future petitions where we went wrong in our deliberations. I was surprised that specific items discussed by the CCPC were -- which led to the denial were either not Page 79 of 82 16 12 �; � A(k discussed or were mentioned only in passing. It is my understanding that the function of this board is to filter land use issues from staff recommendations and to provide an opportunity for considerable public comment. It seems that when the CCPC and the staff differ in their recommendation that a red flag should be present in the consent agenda. My proposal is simply that we establish a policy that whenever the CCPC and the staff recommendations differ that the Chairman of the CCPC or his designee shall write a position paper outlining specifically the reasons for the CCPC majority opinion. A minority opinion may also be included if a board member requests it. These reports should be forwarded and made a part of the consent agenda. I believe it is unfair to ask the staff to interpret our thoughts and rationale to the BCC when we differ. Likewise, I believe it is irresponsible for us to not ensure that our positions when they are counter to the staffs are properly presented to the BCC. The Jaffee boat dock variance I think is an excellent example. It has not come before us yet for a consent agenda. And if the board were to approve this approach, I think that would be an excellent place to start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've always relied on staffs unbiased position to carry forward. And I think the example you cite has already been discussed. Brad did bring it up and it was pointed out. And I think through -- at that time, and now with your emphasis, I think staff understands clearly that our sides need to be fairly presented to the Board. I am concerned about any member of this board trying to write a paper to represent the whole. I think that could be really detrimental to the individual, including -- because I happen to be Chainnan right now, I don't know how I could ever articulate all your reasons. Sometimes I don't hear them, sometimes I'm busy, and other times if I were to do it and I was wrong or I put more of my inferences in than of yours, I really don't think that's the right way to go, so -- But we do each have the opportunity to go to those Commissioners that have appointed us or any of the Commissioners that are willing to see you and express your concerns prior to the meeting. And you also have the opportunity to stand up at the meeting. Personally, I see our forum as this board, and we do the best we can on this board. I don't bother the BCC with this board's position based on my own thoughts after this meeting. Now, in that regard our system is maybe not the best, Bill, but I think with the emphasis that Brad earlier put on it and you have today, I can't imagine Ray's going to let something go wrong at all at this point forward, including with the Jaffee boat dock when that ever gets to the Board. So I don't disagree there's a problem, I'm concerned about how to solve it based on your direction. I think that might be dangerous for somebody, so -- Brad? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I agree. And I just also want to put on the record that staff is sometimes constrained by the Board, they sometimes cut staff off and we can't put out everything we want to say because they've read the executive summary, they read the staff report, they've either watched the minutes or read the minutes from the Planning Commission. And I believe on the Wahl variance they did not allow staff to go on much longer. They said they read the staff report, they were ready to make a motion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. BELLOWS: -- so I don't think staff had a complete. But in the executive summary presented to the Board, it contained all the reasons cited by the Planning Commission for denial. Like I said previously, staff is also staff to the Board of County Commissioners and we provide them staffs professional recommendation, and where it differs, we note the difference. Certainly we are not favoring one position over the other, we just note both positions. COMMISSIONER VONIER: No, I wasn't implying that. I didn't mean to imply that. I just thought it was difficult for us to expect you to get into our heads. MR. BELLOWS: I think the better way may be if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's hard for me to do that too, so believe me. MR. BELLOWS: If that is a concern, maybe the minutes of the CCPC could be attached. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I was going to say. Whenever we part company, maybe the Commission doesn't hear it into until the verbatim minutes are prepared and that's what they get to review. Page 80 of 82 i 612 June 7 Ab CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might help but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then that way they could look at the tape or they could review that thing and they can make a judgment based on that. I don't know, you know, that's a lot of time for them to review, you know, a hearing -- MR. BELLOWS: That's the only way to convey your thought completely when there's a difference. You know, the applicant when they disagree with staff they have all the time to present to the Board their position. Staff doesn't necessarily have that same amount of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I think a solution, now that at least two board members now have brought this up, highlighted it during a Planning Commission meeting, if you just come back to us in the future with how you're going to handle when we disagree, if it is by inclusion of a section of minutes, just state that so at least we know that's going to be the consistent pattern that will go forward every time there's a disagreement between staff and this board. MR. BELLOWS: And I just want to remind everyone that we did, last time this issue was raised, come up with one process was to put on a consent item the following meeting the -- all the items cited by the Planning Commission for the recommendation of the denial of the petition. So you'll see either resolution of denial or a memorandum outlining what goes into the executive summary for the reasons for the denial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That gives us a chance to adjust that if we're not comfortable. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And if you want the minutes to be added in addition to that, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think the minutes is a -- or the section pertaining to that is a good idea. If they want to read it they have the opportunity to easily do it, or they could just discard it then. Okay, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What I found to be effective, at least with my Commissioner, is on selected hearings or issues I make it a point to either meet with her personally or to send her an e-mail or a telephone call so at least she understands from my perspective where I was coming from, if not the entire board. And at least it gives you an opportunity of providing some color commentary along the way, which they don't necessarily hear from either side in their formal hearings. I know that in the case of the Wahl petition, which Commissioner Fiala tried to have reconsidered, but it was deemed, you know, you can't do that procedurally, she did not fully understand the implication of that. Not whatsoever. Because there was the variance petition and then there was the extension. We denied one and approved the other. But in the extension with the restriction we put on it, it still precludes, unless they come back through, it still precludes Wahl from adding that boat lift on the one side of that dock, which was what Commissioner Fiala was hearing loud noises from Isles of Capri residents about that. So I explained as best I could to her where we stood or where Wahl stood with both of those issues, and I can tell you she didn't quite understand it fully after the hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then there's one other thing too is the applicant in that thing. And you can go back and look at it. Ray, I think you should too, because I think your comments about not having time isn't necessarily bulls eye. The applicant kept saying this is only about safe access to the boat. The lift is not that. The boat would be there in the exact same position to enter it or not. So I think the staff also has to listen to what the applicant's saying and make sure the Commission understands that that may not be exactly the case. If the Commissioners are sitting there listening to this guy repeatedly saying it's safe access to boat, it's safe access to boat, they were confused, and that's not fair to them either. MR. BELLOWS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bill, for bringing it back up. I'm glad we -- it's always good discussion, with which we stay on track. So is there anything else anybody has? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, seconded by Bill. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 81 of 82 A6 1612 June 7, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK . STRAIN, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on /_ )9, 1 Z , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 82 of 82 5 x 1612# -A6 CCPC /LDC meeting June 19, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Naples, Florida June 19, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planting Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: F.- Y&O8IJT1WazII D Fiala Hiller Henning —'--- Coyle ✓ Coletta Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern (Absent) Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney (Absent) Brad Schiffer Bill Vonier Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Caroline Cilek, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Page 1 of 22 Misc. Corres: Date: ► o\ Ct \ �� Item* I u Z 'z„rq Copies to: 1612 CCPC/LDC meeting June 19 20� V CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome everybody. I would say back from lunch for the afternoon meeting, but it's a whole different meeting. So with this, I'll announce it's the continuation of the Land Development Code meeting that we started, I don't know, a long, long time ago. We have an agenda in front of us with a specific number of LDC amendments that we were supposed to discuss at the time of our last planning commission meeting but we ran out of time and we continued it to today. So with that in mind -- first of all, I believe there's at least one, maybe two people here specifically for the exotic issue. And that is the one we'll start with so that we can get you done. And if you want to leave, you'll have the opportunity to do so. So with that in mind, Steve, I guess you want to steer us to the right direction? We'll go from there. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Growth Management Division, Stormwater and Environmental Services Department. A few things. First, I just want to turn your attention to the amendment itself. There's one little citation in here that I noticed was wrong, so it needs to be corrected on Page 4. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Which amendment, Stephen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, we're doing 3.05.07.F.4.d. MR. LENBERGER: The Rural Fringe Exotic Vegetation Removal Mitigation. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's in the back. That's in the second packet that you should have. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: That I should have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's under a tab that says 3.05.07.H. 1.g. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What? MR. LENBERGER: There was initially an error that said H, and it was corrected later on to subsection F. So I don't know how it's in your book, but it is under subsection F now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the tab is -- MR. LENBERGER: But the tab may be H. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: H. 1.g. 3.05.07.H. l .g is what the tab is in the book. But if you don't have the tab in the book, it's just 3.05.07 on the amendment request written out by staff, so -- okay. MR. LENBERGER: On Page 4 of the amendment there's just a minor citation that needs to be corrected. And down under three, rural fringe mixed use district, little letter b where it says wetlands, and you go all the way over to the right side where the citation says -- on the paragraph, it says 3.05.07(B). That should be (C). (C) is the reference to the rural fringe preservation requirement. (B) is the urban. So the correction has to be made. (At which time, Commissioner Schiffer enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show Brad Schiffer showed. And for that matter, we better do a quick -- since this is a new meeting and we officially have a court reporter, why don't we do a roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Ahern is absent. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 2 of 22 CCPC,]6 mletZ* June 1 q" Sorry, Steve, but I forgot this is the second meeting today. MR. LENBERGER: No problem. Since our last meeting we had on this, and it's been quite a while, you had asked me to provide you with some information, and I did regarding the history of the amendment. Basically the amendment went to the Planning Commission with the rural fringe amendments 2003 -2004. The requirement -- or the prohibition of using exotic vegetation removal to let out -- to count as mitigation was not in your packet. The item was discussed in the minutes, and I did give you the minutes of the meeting. And it says the item was discussed and there would be a sentence added for clarification, but what that sentence was was not brought out in the minutes. When the item was -- went to the BCC afterwards, the prohibition of using exotic vegetation removal as mitigation was in the amendment, and I gave you the materials for that, sections of the verbatim minutes and also the agenda item and executive summary, pertinent pages. Also, since the time we last heard the amendment, we were provided information regarding the statutes. It would be -- let me turn to that, please -- Chapter 373 -414 regarding additional criteria for activities and surface waters and wetlands, which I emailed you and I think Caroline also provided to you. There was also a Florida Attorney General advisory legal opinion which I forwarded to you as well. It was provided by some of the speakers, and it's dated December 6th, 1994. Interesting, it's about a decade before actually the rural fringe amendments were finalized. You asked Heidi to take a look at that, the Florida statutes, and I believe she's going to speak on that today. And there are some public speakers. There's at least two here, three now. And however you want to proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to hear Heidi's comments on it first, if Heidi's prepared. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the question that was presented to me was under Section 3.05.07. And it's on your Page 6, the change to subsection D, which removes exotic vegetation removal. And the issue presented was whether or not the county could have more restrictive vegetation removal requirement than the state. So I took a look at that issue and my conclusion is that the county -- we have the full authority to prohibit touching wetlands in any way. We can establish that through our comprehensive plan primarily. But once we allow the owner to impact the wetlands, we're pretty much subject to the state and federal permitting requirements. And that authority for that is under Section 373.414.1.(b)4. And it essentially says that our wetlands mitigation has to be reconciled with the state when there's a conflict, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to read one sentence in that section so everybody who may not have seen it understands what it says. It's under paren 18. Once the department adopts the uniform mitigation assessment method by rule, the unifonn mitigation assessment method 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. I believe that's the section that you're -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Actually, the section that I'm looking reads: If mitigation requirements imposed by a local government for surface water and wetland impacts of an activity regulated under this part cannot be reconciled with the mitigation requirements approved under a permit for the same activity issued under this part, including application of the uniform wetland mitigation assessment method adopted pursuant to subsection 18, the mitigation requirements for surface water and wetland impacts shall be controlled by the permit issued under this part. And the permit they're referring to is the state permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Both of them say the same thing. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions on this issue? It's the removal of on Page 6 the one sentence under D. Anybody have any questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to the public speakers. Page 3 of 22 Ju�fB 6t, A6 CCPC /LD mee 19 2012 g Ray, anybody registered or are we just going to call them out? Doesn't matter to me. MS. CILEK: Yes, we have two registered public speakers. And the first -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll go first. Okay. MS. CILEK: -- is Bruce Layman. MR. LAYMAN: Hi. For the record, my name is Bruce Layman. I'm a senior ecologist with Stantec, and I'm here in support of the proposed amendment. It sounded to me as if what we just heard here was that the code as it's written is in conflict with the state statute, and as a result would get trumped by state statute. So what I'm saying really may not matter much, but I'll do it anyway, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. At least the record in this particular case will be clear. MR. LAYMAN: Yes, yes. When you heard this amendment previously, I stood up and spoke and reflected that I believed that the code is in conflict with the Growth Management Plan and referenced a couple sections. Andy Woodruff did the same. For the sake of time, I don't want to restate those arguments, but instead I'd like to touch on two other issues. As this amendment has moved forward, we've heard testimony, we've heard questions and answers, and it occurred to me that there may be a hesitation to remove the portion of the code because there might be a perception that by removing it you're basically going to open the door to rampant wetlands impacts in the rural fringe area. And I'd like to suggest that this isn't the case. This zoning district actually has one of the greatest levels of wetland protection in the county, irrespective of the particular segment of code that is being proposed to be removed. When the Transfer of Development Rights Program was established, and I'm grossly paraphrasing here, the county basically said over here there's some environmental resources of significant value. We want to protect them. They've got nice quality wetlands, they've got listed species, we want to protect them. Let's call those sending lands and discourage development there. And over here in this area, these resources aren't quite as good, let's encourage development here. We'll call them receiving lands. I mean, again, that's a very gross generalization. But basically what it did was the program itself set up hey, it's protecting the really good stuff and allowing development to occur in the not so good stuff. But on top of the Transfer of Development Rights Program the LDC says well, in addition, if you have a good quality wetland, you can't impact it. Don't even think about it. And on top of that, if you see a listed species in it, a wading bird, for instance, you can't impact those either. So as I said, the level of wetland protection in this district is one of the highest in the county. And it's not going to -- at least my opinion would be that it would not result in rampant wetland impacts with approval of this amendment. Let's see, where are we here? The second issue I'd like to address is the manner in which this code was approved or adopted, but also to what the adoption of this code means to the stakeholders within the rural fringe. Traditionally wetland mitigation plans primarily were composed of -- or are composed of enhancement activities to wetlands as mitigation. And that's primarily by removal of exotic vegetation. There are also other mitigation types: There's creation of wetlands and there's also preservation of wetlands. The preservation of wetlands is traditionally pretty successful, but it may not be very cost effective because you need so many acres of preserve wetlands to offset the impact to a wetland. It's not very cost effective. The enhancement activities are likewise very successful, and they're more cost effective. And then there's the creation. It's the most costly, but it's also the least successful mitigation type statistically. As a result, the agencies really don't like creation too much. In fact, the Corps of Engineers even puts it in writing saying, priority-wise we want to see you use a mitigation bank first. If you don't use a mitigation bank, do enhancement on -site or off -site. And if you don't do enhancement, then last resort do creation. They really don't like it. So basically this code, by not allowing exotic eradication to count as mitigation, you're basically relegating the owners at the rural fringe to use the most costly, the least successful mitigation type and the least desired mitigation type that's out there. Page 4 of 22 '- ' A ACU I tm June 19 012 g> You might say, well, have them go to a mitigation bank, buy credits and avoid all this nonsense. Well, unfortunately mitigation banks also use wetland enhancement through exotic eradication to generate their credits, in addition to creation and preservation. But they don't distinguish these credits were generated using enhancement, these credits were generated using creation. So there's really no way, if you take it to the letter of the law, to be able to go to a mitigation bank to offset your wetland impacts. So it's a significant burden on the stakeholders of the rural fringe by keeping the segment of code in the LDC that's currently there that's proposed to be removed. As Steve mentioned earlier, looking at the transcripts from 2003, 2004, the EAC didn't review the code as it's currently in the LDC. This body did not see the code as it's written in the LDC. It did discuss the topic, but the code wasn't actually generated until the Planning Commission hearing was over, but before it went to the Board of County Commissioners. So it went to the -- it was -- the code was generated, put into the amendment, went before the County Commissioners, it was reviewed without discussion and approved unanimously. One striking thing when you look at the transcript is there was no input from the regulated community at either -- well, no input from the owners within the rural fringe or the consulting community during the Planning Commission meeting or the Board of County Commissioners, which begs the question were they even aware of it. So -- which is a big question. Because it has significant impacts on the stakeholders within the rural fringe mixed use district. So it's for these reasons previously stated, comments about the inconsistency between the Growth Management Plan and the code, the significant level of wetland protection that the code already offers, irrespective of the particular segments that's proposed to be removed and the lack of full review during the adoption process back eight years ago, it's for these reasons I'm in strong support of the amendment as it's proposed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MS. CILEK: Our next speaker is Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Afternoon. Jeremy Frantz with The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. There were two issues that came up since the last meeting that I didn't get a chance to talk to staff about, unfortunately. The first is just a reference that I think is wrong, and the very last section on the very last line there's reference to the county's submerged marine habitat regulations, and it points to 5.03.06.I. But it should read J. 5.03.06.J. The other change that was made was to section 3.G.i(B), and it reads -- or it did read: Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with A and B above. The reference to A and B above was a broken reference. There was no B above. If you go back to the GMP policy where the language was taken from, which is actually in this amendment packet, it's 6.2.5. The reference that was lost was to a requirement that created preserves used as mitigation should be encumbered by pennanent conservation easements. And rather than simply striking that reference, we'd like to see the original reference incorporated back into the policy. Getting back to the issue of exotics clearing as mitigation, I did see the material that was sent out, and it did bring to mind that The Conservancy's initial concerns about this amendment were related to the mitigation incentives, and that it's kind of brought to light that there are two separate issues here: There's the ability to apply exotics clearing to mitigation, and also the incentives, the density incentives that they received for that mitigation. I think that those issues can probably be separated here and would like to see at the very least that maybe that -- the incentive is lost if the exotics clearing is applied to mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, do you have any -- let's take his points one at a time under the Page 5 under B. Do you have any issues with incorporating the original language? MS. CILEK: I'm going to let Steve speak to that, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If you could also refer us to the page where he's proposing the change? Because frankly, I couldn't follow what he was saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5,1 believe. And it's number (sic) B from the bottom. Second paragraph up Page 5 of 22 CCPC /LDC1e g 129,2A6 from the bottom, isn't it, Steve? MR. LENBERGER: Where it refers -- correct, it's under -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Line 44, 45. MR. LENBERGER: -- 44. Well, it's struck -- it's G, new G.b on the second paragraph up from the bottom of Page 5. And A is referencing the loss of conveyance volume, which is out of the comp. plan. The comp. plan also talks about loss of wetland function, which is under G above it, that there'll be -- in order to result in no net loss of wetland function. And there -- the conservation easement is a requirement, and it's required in another section for all preserves. Are you talking about for the mitigation area, Jeremy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to get back to the speaker, Jeremy, until we finish this so we get it all on record, not like what happened last time. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, it refers to the mitigation area specifically. The GMP language was 6.2.5(6). And what it was referring to read -- it was subsection three, it read: Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland or upland vegetative communities, offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the land in perpetuity. It goes on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, you got documents in front of you we don't have. MR. FRANTZ: It is the document that you have. I'm sorry. I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm getting lost, you need to -- MR. LENBERGER: Actually it's on -- MR. FRANTZ: On Page 2. MR. LENBERGER: -- in the comp. plan on Page 2. The last -- the bottom part, six, mitigation. Number three, below (6). It says: Protection shall be provided for preserved or created wetland and upland vegetated communities offered as mitigation by placing a conservation easement over the land in perpetuity. It's interesting that that language is not in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did that happen, Steve? MR. LENBERGER: It's not even in there at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And if it's in the GMP, then -- MR. LENBERGER: It would still be required. But we should put it in the code too. So I would agree with Jeremy that we will have to add another line and reference it in there, the conservation easement requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this open up any problems that don't already exist? MR. LENBERGER: No. The comp. plan language is pretty specific, so -- I'll have to add that, that paragraph in the comp. plan, and reword it in the LDC form, if need be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good catch, Jeremy, thank you. Caroline? MS. CILEK: Yes, and I can speak to his second comment regarding the bottom of Page 6. I should be J. And I'm 99 percent sure that's correct, it should be J. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So staff hasn't got any problems with those two corrections? MR. LENBERGER: I don't. I haven't checked the J. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can -- MR. LENBERGER: But Caroline said it's fine. MS. CILEK: I'll make sure, but I'm pretty sure. It's after the boat dock section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else in the public? Brad, did you want to say something? MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon Florida, which owns Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. I've spoken to you a couple of times about this recently, and we're here to advocate keeping the policy as it is. In other words, we strongly believe that prohibiting exotics clearing as mitigation is an important at least temporary tool to protect Collier County's local wetlands, particularly shallow seasonal wetlands. Audubon has done a significant amount of research on the local wetlands here that support wood storks at the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and lots of other wading birds and wildlife. And we have analyzed hundreds of environmental resource permits: The State Wetland Destruction Permit that is issued by the DEP or the South Florida Page 6 of 22 1POLIT Zin g Junk ,612 Water Management District. Our research is summarized in a couple of different reports. The most succinct one is the one I'm holding here. And I've shared that with staff and I'm happy to share it with you all if you would like. It's an analysis of 17 representative ERP's that all demonstrate significant shallow seasonal wetland losses. And this is despite having been approved for permits by the state. And these are all in Southwest Florida, by the way. This research and analysis to us indicates that there are problems with the way the state is implementing its own regulations that are supposed to be protecting wetlands. State regulations as well as federal and local are -- protect wetlands. There's no net loss policy. That no net loss policy is somehow being violated. And we have the data to show that. And how could this be? Well, there are a number of factors. One is that South Florida is predominantly wetlands. It's the greater Everglades. It's very difficult to find a large parcel to develop any kind of project without having significant wetland impacts. I think we all understand that. And it's also the case that the shallow wetlands, as I had mentioned in our research shows, that's where the heavy impacts are, that's where we're getting unmitigated losses. Shallow wetlands is where the exotics are, particularly melaleuca, which is the subject of our advocacy on this. And you have to understand that when the state and any agency that has a regulatory program is doing permitting, they aren't looking at acres of wetlands. So if a project destroys 100 acres of wetlands, you've got to replace that with 100 acres of wetlands. It's all done on functions, wetland values. And when you start to assess values, you have to use some sort of scientific tool. The tool that is prescribed is the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method, which we're heard discussed already. That tool is a very powerful tool. It's not perfect, but it is very useful. However, we have discovered in our analysis that the state, and the federal government for that matter, are not using it properly. They are missing the values of shallow wetlands, particularly shallow wetlands that have exotics on them. This is an important value. They still grow fish, they still hold water, they still protect from flooding, they still recharge aquifers. Just because they have melaleuca doesn't mean that those values have disappeared. State regulators tend to undervalue those wetlands and they overvalue the mitigation value of clearing them, if you understand my equation here. I think I've tried to illustrate this in the past. So that's how we get to state permits that allow losses. In South Florida we have so much melaleuca, so many shallow wetlands and so many projects that impact wetlands. Much more than in North Florida. All you have to do is look at mitigation bank credits and you'll realize that the credit values up north are much higher than south. They sell a lot more credits in the south because of this inequity and this problem. So the UMAM rule I also want to point out does not preempt local government from having a stricter policy on mitigation. If you read the rule, and we heard it read today, that particular sentence, it's talking about the amount of mitigation. So they preempt local government in determining how much. We're here talking about what kind, the type of mitigation, whether we should allow exotics clearing alone to count as compensation for destroying complete wetlands. Should clearing exotics compensate for destroying a wetland? We think that's not right, you at least have to do some hydrologic restoration. That's not the way it's being implemented. And so the UMAM rule, if you read it, does not preempt local government from stricter type of mitigation regulation. So I want to underscore that. So based on the no net loss policy and the laws that we have nationwide and the current faulty implementation of UMAM by the state, Collier County needs to at least temporarily be prohibiting exotics clearing -- you know, exotics only clearing as mitigation until the state can address their shortcomings in applying UMAM. And we're working with them. We think we have some very useful tools, notably a tracking tool that uses an Excel spreadsheet. We think that they can fix these problems and we are having that dialogue, have been. But in the meantime, Collier County's interest is served, the citizens are served by having a policy that at least temporarily prohibits exotics clearing. That's where the wetland losses are happening when you count wetland loss, wetland clearing as mitigation. So that's the bottom line. We have losses, we've demonstrated it, our research shows it, and this is a way to prevent that, at least for the time being until the state can do a better job. Thanks very much for considering that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, is there anything, Steve, you want to add to it? Page 7 of 22 1 11� } A6 CCi 6C [ JIne 19 2012 , MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger. In the mitigation incentive, there is one criteria under -- on Page 6, on top where it says mitigation incentives. If you go down to B, it does talk about create enhanced and restore wading bird habitat to be located near wood stork and their other wading bird colonies in the amount that is equal to or greater than 50 percent of the on -site native vegetation preservation acreage required or 25 percent of the overall project size, whichever is greater. But it doesn't talk about seasonal shallow wetlands. So I just --just to bring that to your attention that it is there. It also -- similar language is in the comp. plan as well on Page 3 of the amendment under mitigation incentives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Comments from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think we have two things to consider besides the motion, besides the -- whether the striking of that sentence stays in or out. One is to make sure that whatever motion is made it incorporates the corrections suggested on Page 5.13 and on Page 6, number six where the L goes to J. So is there anybody here wanting to make a motion at this time? MR. LENBERGER: May I intervene? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. LENBERGER: Also, the correction on Page 4, 3.13, the citation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, thank you. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. MS. CILEK: I also just checked --Caroline Cilek for the record --and it is J. CHAIRMAN STRA]N: Okay. Anybody from Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm going to vote against it, so you don't want me to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what you're making a motion for, so do whatever you want. I mean, whatever you guys want to do, I'm -- I mean, as far as I'm concerned, the state law is clear. If we disagree with the way the state's handling itself, well, then when the state changes the statutes, that's when we can change the way we do things. And right now I disagree with a lot the state's doing, since our new governor has been in place. But we have to abide by the laws of the land. COMMISSIONER VONIER: May I hear Heidi read that again, please, the interpretation? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Heidi, where are you? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, in reviewing this I read a lot of cases, I read HEO's, I read a lot of review articles, and they all came to the same conclusion, which was that you can prohibit touching the wetlands, but if you allow them to be touched, then you have to defer to the state. So there may be other avenues to approach what Mr. Cornell is attempting to achieve, but based on the question that was presented to me, I don't believe that we can be that more restrictive. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Is it quantity or type? Do they -- Mr. Cornell referred to the type of wetlands; did you not, Brad? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Functions. MR. CORNELL: Yes, if I may, Brad Cornell, for again, for the record. There are two state statutes that are governing here that Heidi has brought to your attention. One of them is 3.73.414 sub - paragraph 18, which is the UMAM statute. And the UMAM statute clearly says that UMAM reserves that the state reserves to itself the power to regulate the amount of mitigation, but not the type. The type is -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Excuse me. Heidi, is that true? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I'm not sure if I understand what his statement is, because I don't really know all the technical details of wetlands and the different types. However, I can tell you that if we're going to allow those wetlands to be touched, then we essentially have to defer to the mitigation of the state is what my research indicated. Now, whether we determine that whether we want to do a comp. plan amendment and say certain types can't be touched, then that needs to be analyzed as a separate comp. plan amendment. Because I don't know what kind of property rights issues we would have, so we would have to explore the pros and cons of that, not necessarily through the LDC plan process. Page 8 of 22 CCPCIL C meetm g Tune 19 2 Did I answer your question with a long- winded answer? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Thank you, Brad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm still looking. Brad, if you could stay up there. I'm struggling with this just a little bit. The proposed LDC amendment change is to allow removal of exotic vegetation to count towards mitigation for impacts to wetlands. And I think if I understand your point is if this amendment passed and we allowed someone to go in and remove exotic vegetation, as I think I heard Heidi say, once we allow it, allow exotic vegetation to be removed, then the state basically steps in. And then we're at the mercy of the state. You're shaking your head, but let me finish. If I'm confused, I think I am. And I think you made the statement that the state is not utilizing the UMAM modeling appropriately, so there's the crux of the problem? MR. CORNELL: The crux of the problem is that the state is improperly using the methodology to assess values, UMAM. They're not doing it properly. So they're missing important values. That's where the losses are occurring. Our research shows that. And the statute issue is that, what Heidi was referring to, is as soon as you allow an impact to a wetland, then she's suggesting that you're subject to whatever the mitigation outcome is and the permitting process from the state rather than local. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there's more to be added to that. First of all, this isn't all of Collier County, it's a very small fraction of Collier County called the rural fringe. Everywhere else in Collier County can use exotic mitigation as a basis for -- I mean exotic removal as a basis for mitigation. Somehow this got added to the code inadvertently between the Planning Commission and the BCC back when it was initiated, which I would consider unfairly since it wasn't a stakeholders represented issue. Brad is opining that he doesn't feel the UMAM is handled properly. Well, anybody that's an environmentalist is probably going to opine that on the other side of the coin the developers and people who have to deal with these rules are probably saying it's being administered too strictly. So it just depends on who you talk to and who you listen to. I don't know of any court case where they said UMAM is being used improperly to the extent that you seem to believe it is, Brad. You've just got some statistics that you believe rationalize that. That's great, take it to the legislature and have them change the rules. I think that's the -- MR. CORNELL: We are. We're working on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they get changed, I think Collier County can consider violating it -- not violating Florida statutes and abiding by the statute. Until then, we are in violation of Florida statute. I don't see how -- because you assume it's not being handled properly it automatically means we can take that approach and accept it. I'm not there. MR. CORNELL: They're local wetlands that we suffer the brunt of the impacts, not the state, not Tallahassee. So it seems logical and it's been done in other countries that you have stricter wetland protection rules than the state does because of these various types of things. The state doesn't really understand wetlands. As I said, we have more wetlands per acre in Collier County than they do in Tallahassee, in Leon County. So, you know, they don't understand that it's very difficult to protect our wetlands down here. We need every help we can get. And Collier County has a role to play, and that's what I'm suggesting. And it's certainly, you know, reasonable to say well, we should be deferring to the state. But I'm saying to you our research shows deferring to the state is giving us loss of wetlands. And we've shown it. I can share the reports with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you that the state certainly isn't working as well as it could with counties like ours. But I don't see how we can decide that we don't want to defer to the state in this matter when the state statute indicates what it does in regards to jurisdiction, what can be used for mitigation. Once you accepted a destruction of wetlands, this is the method that the state has decided can be used and it's clear that local jurisdictions can't violate that. Unless your legislation or your proposals come forward and work. Page 9 of 22 1612 k CCPC /LDC meeting June 19, 2012 MR. CORNELL: Unless you have -- I think the language is unless you can reconcile the differences between the local regulations and the state permit. If you can reconcile those differences, I think one way to do that would be to have a dialogue with the South Florida Water Management District or DEP and say we have a particular problem here, we would like to make an arrangement to have no exotics clearing only. And maybe exotics clearing with hydrologic restoration, sure, but not just exotics clearing, we don't want to have that as mitigation, and make that the reconciliation. Because that's the way the statute reads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's not illogical. I just don't know if it's the cart before the horse. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad, remember last time we were here we wanted you to kind of add unless. Why didn't that happen? MR. CORNELL: It could. And I was surprise that the unless disappeared. I thought that was a good idea. And if I were to finish that sentence, unless -- prohibit exotics clearing as mitigation unless it's for secondary impacts only. Secondary impacts being not dredge or fill of wetlands but rather, you know, if you've lowered the groundwater level and now a wetland, shallow wetland is no longer a wetland, it's because the water table is too low. That's a secondary impact. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Steve, can we add that? What's your thought on that? MR. CORNELL: Exotics clearing for that is logical. I would be fine with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's compromised. It's in the middle. MR. LENBERGER: The state statute dictates the mitigation criteria methodology that the local governments have to follow by, so I don't know if we can do that. Brad was right, it does say reconcile I think on the Attorney General's opinion. MR. CORNELL: And it's in the statute as well. MR. LENBERGER: In the statute, right. So that's an interesting thought. But I don't have a clear answer for you, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, I didn't want to spark a debate. I was looking for clarification so that I think that I understand the issues. And I accept what you say, Mark, this is not county -wide. It says rural fringe mixed use district. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that where probably most of the wetlands would exist? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rural land stewardship district is probably where most of the wetlands in the county exist, not certainly in the -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So what's this fall, second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, I haven't done an analysis that way. There's a lot to -- there's ROMA's to be considered, areas that were considered ROMA's that are outside the rural fringe, there's areas along the north end, all over. I mean, Mirasol was an area of large -- but those aren't part of the rural fringe, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, Olde Cypress. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I am not a fan of deferring to the state. The state is cutting back on everything known to man, and I'm not a fan of deferring to the state to do much of anything. I think it's our responsibility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we ask this to come back with the wording that Brad had on there? I hate to do it on the fly. It would be much more -- it's much better if we see it. We were going to -- that was supposed to happen anyway, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I don't know why -- if there's no motion, then I guess it has to come back. But I'd just as soon try to get a motion struck here today. If you know what language you think is right, try for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad, can you say it again? Unless? MR. CORNELL: Retain the language and add: Unless mitigation is for secondary wetland impacts. And that'd be it. Secondary would be defined as not direct, not dredge and fill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then my motion would be to remove the strike - through, add that Page 10 of 22 1612 A6 CCPC /LDC meeting June 19, 2012 wording and accept all the other scrivener issues that this thing had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Brad, seconded by Bill. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am strongly opposed to this because it is inconsistent with the Florida statutes. And while I'm not saying we defer to the state, we have to defer by the overall statutes. And the fact in how this got into place is so vague, and maybe not even vague as intentionally, who knows, added at a time when the stakeholders who are the property owners out here were not allowed to properly participate is wrong. This board has stood up for stakeholder participation on every amendment we've ever made and every issue we have, and this omitted that process. And so until it goes back through the right process, I am not in favor of it and I will support the striking of it and not support the motion that's on the table now. Is there any other discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what I'd like to do is get you to kind of -- I think after this is over we could talk to staff about how that happened. We've caught that before. This isn't the first time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And each time we've acknowledged it's wrong. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think the anger of that probably shouldn't blur looking at what this is. If the state criteria is going to trump it anyway, then what difference does it make? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the anger is not where I'm coming from. The point is that the stakeholders were not involved. In any case, whether it's an environmental concern or a business concern, it's wrong. If we're going to treat everyone fairly, all of the stakeholders ought to be involved every time an action is present that regulates their land. And this wasn't done that way, Brad, and I'm -- I will not support something -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How long has this been in the code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, look at the rural fringe. It's probably been there since the rural fringe was initiated. But look how lax or let's say lack of activity we've had in the rural fringe. This could be part of the reason. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Steve, have people honored this? And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has there been any development that's honored this? MR. LENBERGER: We have not had any development orders impacting wetlands in the fringe since the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so nobody stepped up to this and we're saying they wouldn't have to now. I don't know, I think with the wording in there we end up with a proper mitigation by removing the exotics. Two good things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, there's been a motion made to retain the language, not accept the strike- through and add some clarification to it. It's been seconded. We've had discussion. All those in support of the motion, signify by saying aye -- better do that by raising hands. All those in support, please raise your hands. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VONIER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four in favor. All those against? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three against. Motion carries 4 -3. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: May I request a modification of your language if you're going to proceed with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Because I'd hate to recommend something that, you know, isn't really going anywhere. Page 11 of 22 16I 6 CCPC /LDC meeting June 9, 201 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I would suggest that you add also: And unless it is reconciled with the state or federal permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you read the whole thing then? I'm not quite sure -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So it would read: Exotic vegetation removal shall not constitute mitigation unless it's for secondary impacts only, (not dredge and fill), and unless it is reconciled with the state permit. Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does reconciled in that case really mean? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, under the -- well, you know, it's the state statute that says that our permit has to be -- our mitigation requirements or whatever we're going to require for mitigation has to be reconciled with the state's permit. So that would open the door. So I don't know enough about how the permitting part works, but that would open the door that, you know, whatever entity or agency or state or county employee wants to work with the state to attempt to reconcile the permits, it just opens the door, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As the motion maker -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's make sure Caroline understands it right, because she's the one that's going to have to put it into language. Can you read back what you think Heidi just indicated? Or can anybody on staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi. MR. LENBERGER: Not word - for -word. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Read it again. I mean, you're not the one writing the code, these people are going to write the code. I want to make sure that everybody understands what you're trying to say so the motion's clear. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well the language would stay in under D. So it would read exotic vegetation removal, period. Exotic vegetation removal shall not constitute mitigation unless it's for secondary impacts only, (not dredge and fill), and unless it is reconciled with the state permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that the language, Brad Schiffer, that you're going to support? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think it has to be reconciled with the state. The state trumps us on this issue, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my understanding of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you know, whether we want to reconcile or not, that's just acute gesture, it has to be reconciled. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But it's no harm. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doesn't hurt. So as the motion maker, I accept. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I'll accept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's make sure there's no other changes. Heidi's still discussing. We're all set with that language, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It sounded fine to me. I don't know if Mr. Cornell still has an issue with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Cornell isn't the lawyer, you are. So Bill, did you accept it as the second? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, does any of the motion makers change their position based on the clarification of the language? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean the voters? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The voters. I'm sorry, the voters who supported the motion. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Not 1. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I said what I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Diane, you're fine? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the other side change their mind? Okay, four to two -- or four to three. The motion still carries. That's the language that will go forward to the Page 12 of 22 161 A6 CCPC /LDC meetinune 19 2012 g BCC. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, let me ask you a question, Mr. Chair, because Mr. Lenberger said he's going to add a whole new paragraph in here. You know, I would recommend you see it again in final form. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then bring it back to us in final form. You know the intent of the board based on the motion. So then we'll do a final sign -off in final form. MS. CILEK: That's fine. level? Can I bring it back on Thursday if it's ready? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. That's great. MS. CILEK: Great. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do it quick before it changes. MS. CILEK: And Heidi, will you work with us to make sure we understand what reconciled is on a staff MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I won't be here, so good luck. MR. LENBERGER: I'll work with you on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, let's -- Steve, you want to finish up anything you've got while you're here? MR. LENBERGER: I believe that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Thank you for those of you who have participated in this. We will move on to number one on the agenda, which is the administrative adjustment. It's Section 9.04.08. MR. LENBERGER: 9.04.08. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- Caroline. We have in our packet for Thursday an administrative adjustment thing too. Is this the same one, or -- MS. CILEK: There are only three amendments scheduled for this coming Thursday. And that includes the kenneling definition, the 4.06.03 landscaping vehicle use one, as well as the boat dock amendments. So there's only three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why do I think that's -- MS. CILEK: This is on the agenda for today, which would have been June 7th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. CILEK: We haven't made any changes since then. I do have some updates, however. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. It's just me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: Well, since this amendment has been moving forward, we've received some input from community members on questions with it and have also got some direction from the County Attorney's Office to revisit this concept and come back with something that is already established elsewhere in the county. So I believe at this time we're going to revoke this amendment. I still think the concept is going to be discussed at the board level to say there is a need for something like this. But at this time I don't know if we're going to pursue this language. And the community member who made comments, they're very good comments, but I don't know if I'm going to work to fix them if this amendment as it is written isn't going to move forward. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is that Mr. Pires' letter? MS. CILEK: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So instead of trying to correct the amendment by looking at Mr. Pires' critique, which, you know, it's -- certainly he hit some good points, you're going -- you're not withdrawing the amendment, are you? MS. CILEK: I think we're withdrawing the amendment in this language form. But the concept we really want to bring forward and say this is a need. I believe the author Nick will be speaking to the need for something like this and will be coming back with something that is in existence elsewhere in the state to proceed with this type of Page 13 of 22 A6 cc C meeting une 19, 2012 concept of an administrative type procedure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've been waiting for this for a long time. I mean, this was discussed before Nick took the reigns of that office. It was discussed years prior to Joe Schmitt leaving. And it's been watered down tremendously from what I anticipated seeing, and it keeps getting watered down. Maybe we ought to revisit it as its whole and see -- I mean, I don't agree with you, it's becoming a bigger problem than anybody anticipated, but we need something. MS. CILEK: I agree. And I don't believe the intent is at all to let it go. The concept remains and is important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm worried about what the alternatives would be. So I guess maybe we'll have to wait and see. Because some of the alternatives may not be something this board weighs in on, and I'm concerned about that. MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a comment too on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Caroline, I'm really from a designer's standpoint using a code not comfortable with any kind of a system where you blur the requirements for setbacks and stuff like that. You know, obviously we've had some after - the -fact situations that we want to be compassionate with. But if designer A goes by the straight regulation and designer B becomes very good at, you know, stretching it through these processes, that's not fair. And Collier does have codes that should be able to be read and should be crystal clear. And this ordinance just -- this fuzzes the edges. And so what is the real setbacks? Is the real setback what's in the code or is the real setback the fact that I can hire an attorney or make up a story and get a better setback? So I think I would be careful of preconstruction, you know, methods of changing setbacks. We do have things that are allowed to go past the setbacks, so if there's more things you want to add to that, that makes sense. But anybody reading the code any time of the day should be able to read the same thing. MS. CILEK: Comments noted. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if we're going to bypass that one, let's move on to 10.02.03.B. Lb I think it is in the book. That's the tab. It's submittal requirements for SDP plans. MS. CILEK: Oh, would you mind doing the next one, number two on the agenda, which is 10.02.13? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, I -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: His fingers just flipped too much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- went to the wrong 10.02. MS. CILEK: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. I did that so I could mess Cherie' up on all the numbers she's got to type. 10.02.13.F. And this one is planned unit development procedures. MS. CILEK: Yes. And we reviewed this amendment on the 17th last month, and you requested that we come back with some information on the funds that had been distributed to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lot of money out there. MS. CILEK: And in your packet was a spreadsheet. I don't believe there are a lot of concerns with the actual language of the amendment, but if you do have questions, there have been a couple tweaks welcomed as questions. But mostly I think you were interested in the future process for this. And we have Amy Patterson here to answer any questions related to the funds. But most of these decisions will be decided by the board. And this is one step in that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if I'm not -- if I'm reading this right, there's about $600,000 paid to date based on these programs. Is that money in some kind of account or fund where you intend to now refund it to these projects that have paid it? Is that how it works? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson for the record. The money is in its own fund. And whether or not it will be refunded has not been discussed yet. There was an item brought to the board a couple of months ago by one of the people on this list, asking for their commitments to Page 14 of 22 A6 CCPC meeting une 19, 2012 be removed, which opened up the greater item. And the board gave some direction as to how they wanted staff to proceed, first addressing a method by which these developers could remove the commitments, either from their PUD's or from agreements. There are only a couple on the list that are agreements. And then to notify the property owners of the potential revised language and the process by which they could follow to request the removal of the commitments. And then third, the potential refund of any of these dollars. Oh, I'm sorry, and the first was to suspend collection. So these funds are no longer being collected at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you said the potential refund. How did -- was that -- do you have any language prepared for that? MS. CILEK: That was not included in the amendment, because they haven't made that decision yet, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but they are considering, because it seems highly unfair to have collected this money from those that were willing to pay and then all of a sudden give it all back to those that aren't willing to pay. I mean, as much as I know we need our money, I hate to see -- I see the unfairness of that. MS. PATTERSON: That's a concern that has been raised by at least one or two commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now we're talking $600,000. That's a lot of money. But it's in an account that's not been earmarked for any use in Collier County but affordable -- MS. PATTERSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and so therefore it's not part of the budget, per se. MS. PATTERSON: No. And there's no -- there was a resolution that set out the guidelines pertaining to that money. However, there is no plan to spend the money. And in order for them to access the money, they would have to have a plan approved by the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My questions are only on the formatting of the thing. MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what it is, essentially we have three different types of change we're going have. Let me find where it's listed. We're going to have substantial, insubstantial and minor, correct? And we're -- MS. CILEK: Yes, I believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when you -- the way you have it organized under E, for example, E.1 -- well, E explains it. And then you go to sub number 1. MS. CILEK: And E on what page, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 1. E is the category in which these all occur under. And then it's broken down to 1 is substantial changes now. It used to be something else. Two is insubstantial changes, okay. And then 3 is substantial change procedures, which I think should be under 1. So I would move item number 3, line 12 on Page 3 to occur under 1. Four is insubstantial changes. I would move that to be under 2. MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then make -- and then language changes, by the way, I would move number 5 to be up in that introductory sentence on E. And then I would make 6, 3. And -- because you see, what you've done is you've set up three categories, and then you just started listing stuff. Some stuff is the category, some stuff is how to do something in a category. So in terms of the hierarchy of code -- you know, code's not just the list. Where things are placed and what they're on is pretty important. So I would recommend looking at that. MS. CILEK: This was revised in connection with the administrative code, which is currently being worked on by staff. And I think your suggestions are good. And Heidi reviewed this, so as long as she's fine with the restructuring, then that sounds like a good plan. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you'll rewrite it and bring it back? MS. CILEK: Yeah. I'll bring it back on Thursday, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's just try to get -- we've been kicking these few around way too long, so Page 15 of 22 1612 'A6 CCPC /LDC meeting June 19, 2012 let's try to finish it on Thursday then. MS. CILEK: That sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any other comments or changes to this piece? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to the next one. MS. CILEK: Great. The next one is 4.06.02, buffer requirements. And this one was reviewed last month on the 17th. And we discussed modifying on Page 6 the acreage requirements. And I worked with Nick, the author, and we sort of found a balance of what we thought would be appropriate for this section. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And the only changes you've made are the highlighted changes? MS. CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It seems pretty straightforward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on 4.06.02, buffer requirements? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I was good with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve it as -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- modified and changed? By Bill. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Phil. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yay, we got one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One. MS. CILEK: One is good. One is good. We're making progress. COMMISSIONER VONIER: What's next? MS. CILEK: Okay, next one is 6.06.01, street system requirements. And this is coming back to you following a discussion about sidewalk concrete thickness. And following our meeting, staff went back and reviewed it thoroughly. And what we realized was that what we had proposed was actually existing language, but it was very convoluted and hard to understand. So what we'd like to do today is to clarify what the code actually says and to include the small removal of an option. And I can explain that. But the overall goal here is just to make this simpler to understand at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said you could explain something? MS. CILEK: Yeah. The one change is on Page 3. And you'll see under LA that we're striking four inches thick. Then there's some specifications. And be constructed over a compacted four -inch lime rock base. That's an option, and we're just removing that option. Because it's not utilized. And then as proposed last time, we are removing the specifications, because they are consistent with FDOT standards. And that is illustrated in the first sentence which says that all sidewalks shall be designed and constructed Page 16 of 22 �A6 CCPC /LD e 6 ng 1 u 19, 2012 in accordance with the latest FDOT design standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you do, I got one -- go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, pathways. MS. CILEK: I'm going to ask Reed to come up and join me. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. He needed the exercise anyway. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Reed, could you please explain on Page 4 the asphalt pathways. The six -inch stabilized subgrade, which is not a problem, can you please explain to me, because I don't -- type S -3 asphaltic concrete? MR. JARVEY: It's called asphaltic concrete. For our purposes, it's asphalt. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. But they -- MR. JARVEY: S -3 is a type of asphalt. It's what's used on roadways. It has a structural -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Stronger? MR. JARVEY: Yeah, years ago we used -- typically it was a Type 3, which was almost like a veneer. It really had no structural value to it but it had a wearing surface. Type S -3 has a structural surface to it and a wearing surface. And so it's almost universal in the use now, except for maybe in the Superpave and some other things that they do, super highways. But it is the standard asphalt for roads and pathways. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Perfect. Thank you kindly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: What does the structure come from, gravel? MR. JARVEY: I don't actually know, but yes, it's gravel and there's asphalt, oil. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It comes from the base we're reducing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Reed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, I've got one. On Page 3 we refer to the brick paver sidewalk must be installed for a four -inch thick compacted lime rock base and sand cushion. What -- I mean, I know what a sand cushion is, but can you tell me what somebody would assume a sand cushion must be, based on that? MR. JARVEY: I mean, the construction of pavers is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Requires sand, right. Is it a quarter inch thick sand or is it three inches of sand or is it two inches of sand? I think we need to put something there because someone will come in and put a quarter inch of sand there and say there's a sand cushion. So what is -- do you know what the spec is? I do know it's required, but I don't know how much. MR. JARVEY: I don't remember. Unless Caroline can remember from all the various discussions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The think we do in the building code to escape this is we put as per manufacturer's specification. And then that punts it. So each manufacturer could have a different spec. You can't come up with one that would cover them all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine with me. I don't -- does that work for staff? MS. CILEK: I believe so. So we would add language that says and same cushion per -- or would it not be necessary in this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As per -- you know, I mean, pavers are going to be manufactured by somebody. I can't think of natural pavers that -- MS. CILEK: Definitely. MR. JARVEY: After the sand cushion put as per manufacturer's recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would work. And then Caroline, the only other question I had is under your fiscal and operational impacts, number three, it Page 17 of 22 1612 A6 CCPC /LDC meeting June 19, 2012 says: The change to subsection 6.06.01.1', which I think you're referring to on the next page, but that's 60.60.2.F. MS. CILEK: I'm sorry, you are correct. My error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should it be a two? MS. CILEK: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other than that, that's all I've got to say. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to the changes -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Subject to the notations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. MS. CILEK: Two. Progress. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're down to the last one. 10.02.03.13.3. That's submittal requirements for site development plans. MS. CILEK: Yes. We spoke about this one last month as well and there was a request, actually if you turn on Page 4, to modify little four, iv. And we modified B, which dealt with the reconfiguration to a preserve or conservation area. What we did was to identify items that would be significant when you have a reconfiguration to a preserve or conservation area. So these things would trigger a significant change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how do you decide if it is significant? Because in every paragraph you say: The following may be considered significant changes. So who makes the decision and what criteria ought to be determined if it shall be or may be? MS. CILEK: Right, so staff will be looking at these, all of these different criteria that are outlined. And you can see they're kind of -- transportation, then stormwater /engineering, utilities, environmental. So the staff will be looking at those. And if these are triggered, then that will pull it into being either a more reviewed amendment or possibly a full amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then it isn't a may, it's a shall. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's a shall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The following shall be considered significant changes. That way staffs not making an arbitrary decision. May means you can make a decision. If A is triggered, it may be, but it's not. So wouldn't you mean the following shall be considered significant changes? MS. CILEK: Let me discuss that with staff before I make that large decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you want -- Thursday? MS. CILEK: Yeah, Thursday. It's a --just I want to have a discussion before Igo ahead and okay that. And as you'll see, we had a couple other revisions as well, and we reworded ii.1, double 1. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where are you? MS. CILEK: Page 3, just in the front. We just made things a little clearer. We worked with Heidi to do that. Page 18 of 22 1612 A6 t CCPC /LDC meeting June 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: You have may on that page, too. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, that's what I was going to say. MS. CILEK: Yeah, it's consistent throughout. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On 3.B.i, or 3.13.1, and 2 and 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What were you -- did you have more? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, I was just agreeing with Bill that may be is also included on Page 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- and we were talking on Page 4. So I would assume that the same comment would hold over. MS. CILEK: Yes, it's used for every single one. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, on Page 4, Roman numeral iv.B. In B you've got a bunch of separated things that would be considered significant changes. Reconfiguration to preserve a conservation area which is used as a buffer for neighboring use, semi colon. Then you go on: The reconfiguration contains an area with listed species. Wouldn't those -- and I'm surprised Brad didn't point this out -- be structured as sub - letters to B? MS. CILEK: They could be. That's just a matter of they're all part of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have an "or" until the third line up from the bottom of B. So does that mean all the other things have to apply before you reach the "or "? MS. CILEK: No, it's any of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just think it might be clearer if you're going to refor -- maybe either reformat it or put or's in between each one so we know it can be any of those that trigger it instead of all collectively together. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can do that by Thursday, right? MS. CILEK: You bet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Same area. It says: The following may be considered significant changes. We just had something which was Parklands, which is still coming back, they were talking about one set of buffer and you're going to have preserve against preserve there. So are you saying this is going to be significant changes? MS. CILEK: Are they reconfiguring the buffer? Or are they just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're coming in for a whole new PUD, so whether it's significant or not on that particular case, it doesn't matter, they're coming in -- MS. CILEK: That's separate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they're all -- MS. CILEK: That's a PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they're coming in for a whole PUD amendment. That would trigger a PUD amendment. That's what they're doing, they're giving us the PUD amendment. MS. CILEK: It would never see this section of the code. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that wraps up all of the issues for today, doesn't it? MS. CILEK: It does. I have some to bring back to you on Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully we'll be done with them on Thursday. Kind of like that Scotch tape that sticks to your fingers. MS. CILEK: Just a quick overview, we had the portable storage container community meeting for the Estates last Wednesday, the 13th. And I'll be bringing that amendment back in July. A lot of information to compile Page 19 of 22 161 A6 CCPC /LDC meeting une 19, 2012 and comments to compile. So as requested by Mr. Gaddy, that will be coming back. So if we get all done on Thursday, that would be great, but I will be back in July. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You might inform the board how many people were there. MS. CILEK: There were 27. It was a really good meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I'm glad that would happen. That's a good thing, yeah. MS. CILEK: It was a great opportunity for people to provide input on the amendment and their ideas, and hopefully there will be some people who come out as well in July for the CCPC meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on your kenneling definition that you have as an update but that's going to be in front of us on Thursday, did I copy you with that e-mail I sent to Heidi? MS. CILEK: Yep. And I've been working on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I think that's going to be very, very important. Because that will have a huge impact on the Estates if that Code of Laws change is made by Animal Control so that every 10 or more animals in the county of the same species have to be registered and then inspected yearly by -- that's crazy. You're going to have to hire a whole staff just to keep track of something like that, plus there would be fees associated with it. So I'm not sure where that came from, but it doesn't seem like it's logically written. Oh, I only saw an excerpt, so maybe there was more to it. MS. CILEK: Sure. And Amanda will be here to answer any questions. But just to keep in mind, that's only if there is a nuisance complaint made. So it's not that they're regulating anyone who has that. Just that there's a nuisance -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But nuisance complaints are done anonymously. So that means I could sit in (sic) a phone and dial in every agricultural parcel in Collier County and file a complaint anonymously over thousands of them, and that means all these inspectors run out and create jobs for themselves, which is wrong. We should -- MS. CILEK: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So no, I think that somebody needs to interject that that particular way of approaching the kenneling question certainly opens a Pandora's box of other problems for Collier County, and the Estates residents I know will open a -- a problem for. MS. CILEK: Well, I spoke with Amanda and she'll be here. And we have a couple ideas for how to amend that so that it won't inhibit the fowl -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before they would enact something like that, I'd hope they would do the same thing you've done with the storage containers is go out to the people mostly involved and try to have a public meeting so that everybody knows what's coming down. MS. CILEK: That's a good recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCFUFER: Mark, you're referring to a part of the administrative code that has something? Or is that something that was there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's just the part of the Code of Laws that they're trying --in order to fix the kenneling issue, they went to Animal Control who is under the Code of Laws, and they I guess proposed to fix -- MS. CILEK: Currently -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but since they're in the Code of Laws, their fix would bring the Code of Laws into play on that issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we don't see that fix. I haven't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm concerned. It's in our packet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so we're relinquishing or causing something to go free, and you say there's another section of code that's going to cover it. How come we wouldn't see that section to help us in our judgment on changing this section? MS. CILEK: I did and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in our packet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is in our packet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. In fact, if you read the staff report to the packet, it lays out what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's in there. But I just --the only thing I saw is the one page just changing the kenneling. Page 20 of 22 6 # 1612 CCPC /LDC meetin g June 19 MS. CILEK: Yes. I gave an excerpt and explained what was going on in the process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'll read it. MS. CILEK: But I will definitely bring those documents for you on Thursday, or I can e -mail them out as well, if that would help. They're still proposed. They're still working drafts, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question, though, was the excerpt that you showed me may -- there may be more to it. I was hoping there was. That's why I sent you the emails that my goodness, you know, this could take on a greater picture than we imagine. And if it's exempting certain uses or certain types of zoning in the county, that would certainly help. But it didn't say that in the part that I saw. MS. CILEK: Right. Amanda is writing that for her constituents, so we're working on it. I talked to her yesterday, and Ray as well. It's -- staff is definitely discussing that issue. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. One of the things we wanted to try to fix is we don't want to regulate through a definition in the LDC. So in the effort of trying to come up with criteria it was deemed where is the best place to regulate the animals. And Animal Control seemed to be a logical choice. But I understand your concern and we will look into that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know it conflicts with the zoning. So you've got an LDC who's saying one thing in regards to raising of animals, now you've got a Code of Laws that would be in direct conflict. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. And the attempt was not to supersede the Estates or any other zoning district that has specific criteria on the number of animals that could be allowed on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll make a motion to continue this to Thursday afternoon after our regularly sessioned meeting. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Barry. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This meeting's continued. MS. CILEK: Thank you. Page 21 of 22 2A6 CCPC /LDC meetin g �64 ne 19, 2012 * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:19 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK TRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on ' 11— 12- as presented Y-/Or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 22 of 22 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 21, 2012 21,'20 6, 16 I RE - I BY : ......................a 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: Hiller Henning T 1� Coyle✓---- - Coiei>:r� Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer Bill Vonier Jeffrey Wright, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District L� 'Y-irl PAP Page 1 of 52 Misc. Comes: Date: \y \g \fir —. Item #: % Copies to: A6 16 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, June 21 st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now I know the roll call by the secretary is going to be a little hard this morning because Paul's here actually early. So when you get to his space, you can see him. So would you mind doing 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? 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: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Brougham. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. ** *Addenda to the agenda. Ray, is there any changes from staff? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, I don't see the necessity for any from us unless anybody has an issue. * * *If not, Planning Commission absences. We have a break. Our next meeting isn't until July 19th. If you all recall, we canceled the July 5th meeting because it was over the 4th of July weekend. So our next meeting will be July 19th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. ***Approval of minutes. We were electronically sent the May 17th, 2012 minutes. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to approve with one change on Page 18 where it says Commissioner Coyle, it should say Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm sure Commissioner Coyle wouldn't want to be interposed with me. So okay, so that one change is a good catch, because I didn't even notice it. Motion made to approve subject to that change. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ebert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. Page 2 of 52 ,:r r 161Rn-e 21,A6 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *BCC report, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I'm going to steal yours. On June 12th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the Cultural Arts Village rezone. It was approved 5 -0, subject to the CCPC conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. ** *Chairman's report. There's nothing today because we have a lot of discussion to get into on all the items we have. So let's just move into consent agenda item first. First one up is CU- PL20110001157, Ichthyo -- I can't say that -- Ichthyo Park Conditional Use. All those wishing to testify on this item, please rise to be sworn in of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures by the Planning Commission. This is a consent item, but I'm going through this because there are some issues that we're waiting to confirm on consent. So we will have discussion on this. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I had an exchange of E -mails with staff and Mr. Hancock two to three weeks ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I spoke with Tim and the applicant out in the hallway before we came in. And what I said out there will be exactly what I will say in here. So let's go forward. Tim, it's all yours. MR.14ANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. First of all, by way of apology, when we left here at the last meeting, the information the assistant county attorney had that we'd received from the Clerk's office indicated on one of the deeds that it was for 294 Morgan Road. And that was written by the clerk who handed the deed to Mr. Jarikov. When we went back and was looking at the information, Heidi found out that that legal looked a little bit different than a prior deed for the same property. So we went back and we began checking every single deed that we had to make sure that the exhibit we gave you at that point was accurate. What we found was that there -- we found one that we didn't have, but what we found is there were two missing pieces, if you will, that remained at that time. On the right is what we call property number four, the Craumer piece. It's 154 feet of frontage by 417 feet of depth. That one we did not at that time have any deeds that reflected easement across that -- the westerly 30 feet of that piece. The second one is the horseshoe shaped piece. That one actually was retained by the Carters until Mr. Carter was deceased and conveyed as a part of his estate. That one we could not find access for. So those were the two missing pieces. And as you can see, it's really that Craumer piece and the south leg of the horseshoe is the hole in the doughnut. Otherwise we have 30 feet of the easterly side of the center line, with the exception of the Craumer property. So what Mr. Jarikov did is Mr. Jarikov ordered title reports on both properties. And that's why we requested a continuance from the last consent agenda item for two weeks in order to have time to get the title reports. We received those reports about two days ago. Unfortunately I was -- fortunately I was out of town on my honeymoon and -- thank you. Fortunate for me, not so much for her, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did she come back with you, I hope? MR. HANCOCK: The fun with the honeymoon is you spend every minute with them and they get to know Page 3 of 52 1612 'A6 June 21, 2012 you. It's not working out for me real well. But I was able -- Mr. Jarikov went through the best that he could to identify where there may be easement. And because there's not another meeting and a further continuance would end up probably in Mr. Jarikov incurring a $1,000 readvertising expense, if you'll bear with me, I'd like to walk you through in the course of five to 10 minutes we have -- (cell phone) and I'll admonish him later for that. What we have, and I think you'll see that we do indeed have access. And if it needs to be subject to the County Attorney's further review, we're comfortable with that. The first deed we came across, and this was previously provided to the County Attorney's office, was a warranty deed that Judge Murphy prepared, who's fairly meticulous. And it was a little confusing to me that the language there says subject to easements and restrictions typical to the subdivision at the time. We went back to when Barron Collier had this land, and Carter bought the land from Collier, a large section, and then began to parcel off. Every time Mr. Carter made an arm's length transaction, he ensured there was a 30 -foot easement along Morgan Road, either on the easterly or westerly side. And you can see that pattern through and through and through. When Judge Murphy did this, he didn't indicate a 30 -foot easement, and we weren't really sure why. We started to figure it out as we went through the history of the deeds. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, my. MR. HANCOCK: That's the best available copy from the title company. Couple of things. If you go back to that first exhibit I showed you, the only piece of property on the east side of Morgan Road that is 154 feet of frontage is the Craumer piece. Everything else is 208 feet and greater. And all of the deeds confirm that. All the deeds in the possession of your record confirm that. It's the only piece that's 154 by 417. hl this jumble you can pick up the numbers, 154 and 417. Sorry, that's the next one. On this one you can't find those numbers. You can see where they're supposed to be, but you can't read them. However, the sentence you see in the midpoint, and it's that magenta colored box in the bottom left, states that there's an easement over the westerly, and you can't read it, X number of feet. It could be 10 feet, it could be 30 feet. You can read that there's an easement. You can read that it's on the westerly side. And from the title company, based on the OR book and page, this is the Craumer parcel. Unfortunately again somewhat unreadable. So we go to the predecessor warranty deed of that one. We're getting better. But we're not quite there. Just make sure this is on, okay. As you go through this one, you can actually see here is -- and I'll provide these hard copies as a part of the record. But you can see on this one you can pick up two dimensions in here, and they are the 154 and the 417. I did it under magnifying glass, so my apologies, but they are here. And you can pick up that it is a parcel, 154 by 417. It does have the point of beginning that it needs. The missing piece on this one for me is, right here is the linear distance from the start of the legal description to the point of beginning for the parcel. It should read 362 feet. I cannot tell you that it reads 362. I can tell you that it should read 362 and I can tell you that, again, it has the dimensions of 154 by 417. And the Craumer piece is the only one that carries those dimensions on that quarter section. What's nice here though is that we do have a little clearer understanding and a clearer reading that the shown parcel is subject to an easement over the westerly 30 feet. So if this is the Craumer piece, there's an easement over the westerly 30 feet. The only thing that causes question for me is it does indicate an acre and a half, and again the Craumer piece was a little unique. Most of those pieces, when they were conveyed, were for the entire east -west link. This one only went 417. So you begin putting it together, the pieces come together a little bit better. We go to the predecessor deed of that one, and the only benefit here is the -- where the 417 and the 154 are supposed to be are barely readable, but the 362 shows up a little bit better here. And again, that's the distance we need from the starting point of the legal to the point of beginning for the Craumer parcel. This is the best we can provide you. These are the best available records. Mr. Jarikov is not responsible for their condition. And we have to actually put the three of them together to make sure. And all three of them have elements and pieces to indicate that it's the Craumer piece. Whether or not that will pass the litmus test with the County Attorney's Office to define legal access or not, it is the absolute best we can provide. There are no other records. And we have to put them together in succession in order to make sure that we are dealing with the same piece of property. I'm confident that we are dealing with the Craumer piece. We have a title report that indicates these are OR Page 4 of 52 A 1612June 21, 20 book and pages for the Craumer piece. And we have three documents that deal with an easement and identify an easement along the westerly side. If you put them together, we get there. No one of them by themselves gets us there. And so that is our dilemma at this point but it's the best information we have and the best we're going to be able to provide to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, your applicant, for his property did he obtain title insurance? MR. HANCOCK: He did not. It was a cash purchase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bummer. Okay. I would -- because if a title company would insure over this, that would give us some assurance that this is exactly what you believe it is. MR.14ANCOCK: The title companies are going to face the same problem we all face sitting here today, and that is having to look at three or four successive deeds and put pieces together from each of them because of the quality, or poor quality of the records. It's not that the legal descriptions are insufficient. And each one of them, I can get -- you know, I can get to a certain point and I can get to another point. It's only when you put them together that I'm confident all three are the Craumer piece. And by way of background, my Bachelor's degree is in geography and urban planning, which included cartography. And we were required to both read and lay out legal descriptions as a part of my core work. So I do have some background here other than just doing this for the last 23 years. So each of these, I can tell we get to the starting point. I can't -- one of them I can tell is about 360 some odd feet to the point of beginning. Another one I can see the 417 by 154, and in two of them we can see an easement on the westerly side of 30 feet. We are unfortunately at a point where we can't bring any more information to you. The only options by Mr. Jarikov are to sue his neighbor to gain access, or to show legal access. He has spoken with Ms. Craumer one time. Ms. Craumer's not objecting to the project; she has made no objections whatsoever. She has not told him that she has a problem with access. However, she is hesitant to give anything away. She just -- I think she felt, you know, a little uncertain as to why Mr. Jarikov was even contacting her. So, you know, we can't do a handshake and we can't, you know, get affirmation from her. But we don't have her objection in written or verbal form in any way. So I don't think we have an access problem physically. The question is with these three documents together, can we convey to you that at some point in the history of this property there was an easement over the westerly 30 feet. I believe they do that. It's my testimony that they do that. I'd be happy to sit with the County Attorney and walk them through each of them with a magnifying glass and do the absolute best we can to get a comfort level beyond what I can provide you today. But I'm here to try and avoid Mr. Jarikov having to come back in six weeks or eight weeks at additional expense if that can be done. And that is my request of you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your conversations with Heidi though did not include what you now showed us? MR. HANCOCK: They did not. We just got the title report two or three days ago. And I just got back in town yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the last correspondence I've seen between you and Heidi Ashton was that she could not confirm that you had the full access. MR. HANCOCK: She said, Tim, you have an access problem. And she has not seen these documents. And I got here early today, hoping Heidi would be here. But -- no offense intended -- but to get you up to speed in seven seconds would be a little difficult. But unfortunately apparently she's somewhere else today. But again, we're bringing to you the absolute best that we can. It's the only thing that's available. And I don't think further digging is going to help. Because we do have the chain of title going back from Barron Collier all the way through today. It's the quality of the documents that we're fighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did your applicant ever out of, say, due diligence or whatever even just ask for a title policy review, title insurance on this property? And did you get a preliminary or some kind of exceptions report or anything like that from the title policy? MR. HANCOCK: If I'm incorrect, Viktor, please clarify this for me. But just prior to closing there was an issue raised about access. And the attorney for the seller, you know, provided a statement in writing that the property had legal access. It wasn't a title insurance policy but it was from a local attorney representing the seller that yes, you have legal access. And that's what Mr. Jarikov went forward on. So access was a question. He did not obtain a title policy though. Page 5 of 52 1612 � A6 June 21, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The Morgan Road, it's a paved road? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is it located in the private right -of -ways? MR. HANCOCK: It's primarily on the easterly side of the centerline; is that correct? MR. JARIKOV: More or less. MR. HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's been there for years? I mean, everybody's been using that as access to their properties north of -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. It's been there a long time. We even uncovered a maintenance agreement between the prior owner, Jonathan Green and an adjacent property owner for a section of the roadway that was recorded in Collier County records. As to what enforceability it has, I think it's limited. But yes, apparently the issues of maintenance on the road and the road being there for -- let's see, Jonathan Green bought it in the Eighties, and it was paved at that time. So it's been paved for probably 20 years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the neighbors have all used it as access to their residences over the years? MR.14ANCOCK: Residences and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jonathan -- MR. HANCOCK: -- businesses and -- there are a couple businesses on the street. MR. JARIKOV: There are five neighbors and businesses past the Craumer lot. If I have no access, they would not have access. MR. HANCOCK: They can't hear your testimony unless you're here, so, but -- but yeah, the Craumer piece sits where there are beyond that five parcels, four of which are developed as homes or businesses and have been in use for an extended period of time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the Palmers have never complained about people using it. So wouldn't it by estoppel be a very difficult thing for them to close? I mean -- MR. HANCOCK: It would. And I think if we were to file a claim, we would be successful because of the length of time and use. You'd rather not sue your neighbor and have them incur legal expenses, nor do you wish to incur legal expenses yourself for an existing paved road. But it appears we have an access easement over from all best available information. Best we can bring you today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Not a question necessarily, but Mr. Hancock, you're aware of our exchange of emails and Mr. Sawyer and so forth, and it concerns the quote, unquote structure that was pictured in the Naples Daily News perhaps the week after you were here. And I would like just for clarity of the record that -- first of all, I'd like to put this up on the visualizer so that everyone here sees what was published. And then review our questions and our dialogue and where we are now with respect to permits and so forth. I know that we approved subject to consent a conditional use for the aquarium operation. However, I recall, and I'm paraphrasing, that within the petition it was stated that the aquarium operation would be contained within existing structures. And that's what I want clarified. Because there seems to be a little bit of misunderstanding in what is a structure versus what is a new structure. So you got the floor. MR. HANCOCK: And I appreciate that, sir. There are four permitted structures on the site. One is the primary home, one is a studio. And those are concrete block construction. There is a screened lanai that extends from the existing home to the studio, and then there's an additional screened lanai to the rear of the studio. So in succession you have the house, you have a screened lanai, you have a studio and then another screened lanai. By saying contained within existing structures, the intent was to say we're not going to go out and build a new structure over here. When I was made aware of this photograph -- which is a very nice photograph of Viktor, I want to point out, Page 6 of 52 1612J A16 I thought they did a nice job with that, was the first that I was aware that he was actually -- what he's doing here is basically creating greenhouse over the existing pool cage. And by greenhouse, it's a shade so that the fish in the aquarium will not be subject to direct sunlight and so forth. In ag. zoning you can construct a greenhouse on your property without a permit. But once you start attaching it to an existing structure, it requires a permit. Once I got the phone call from Mike Sawyer based on your inquiry, Viktor stopped immediately, went down to Horseshoe Drive, found out what he needs to do, which is going to be a permit by affidavit. He has a structural engineer working with him now to create the drawings necessary, and he will not be proceeding with anything until such time as a permit is in hand. But what it will be is, it will be instead of having a screened lanai there, it will be a greenhouse type shade structure which serves the health of the aquaria better. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have no issue with that. I just wanted it put on the record as to what was being built and how it's being controlled and permitted and so forth. So thank you for that. MR. HANCOCK: I appreciate it. And as I indicated, the first I saw of it was when the article was made aware, and again, the layman sometimes can have a hard time working through our code, and Mr. Jarikov is following the rules as he has been -- as they have been described to him by Development Services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Tim. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I like your project. I hope that in the end we figure out a way to approve it. But I want to read you one paragraph in the conditional use provisions that I need your help with and suggestions. And I'm asking that in conjunction with the County Attorney's acknowledgment that we could craft a way to get this approved, if that's the way the Board sees it. My concern is under the findings category of the conditional use. It says, D, Findings: Before any conditional use shall be recommended for approval to the BZA, the Planning Commission shall make a finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest, and that the specific requirements governing the individual conditional use, if any, have been met by the petitioner and that further satisfactory provision and arrangement has been made concerning the following matters. First one is consistency with the code and Growth Management Plan. But the second one is the ingress issue. It says: Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. I know in your correspondence to us you included an agreement, which I think is something that certainly is useful. And you also included a document that indicated there was a maintenance arrangement. But as I told you out in the hall, that only ended up being for a five -acre tract immediately south of this tract and then go for the full length of Morgan Road. And also, I notice that you all have agreed to put up, I think it was $2,000 for your contribution towards getting this road maintained as it need in the future. The language here is concerning in a sense that it's got to be set up so that it assures public -- automotive, pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. I think that road's been operating for a long time, and I think the indication from Brad may have been that you're looking at a prescriptive easement possibly situation. I'm not an attorney in regards to those issues, and I don't know how that can happen. I also feel that the evidence you provided today provides adequate information that the intention was that there would be an easement there. Now, because it's so old it doesn't seem like it's gotten through. I'm concerned, though, that we have not seen the evidence that there is satisfactory ingress and easement. So -- ingress and egress, I'm sorry. But is there a -- when Heidi gets back, because she's much more familiar with this, Jeff just got dropped in today, unfortunately, and this has got a history of it. And when Heidi gets back, I would like the opportunity for her to review your latest findings to see what comfort level she has with this from a legal perspective. And I would also -- hopefully she could recommend to the board a solution. I'm certainly suggesting that this board recommend approval subject to Heidi's recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, which we won't have the opportunity to hear again. I don't know if that can be done. But I think the board, because they are the ultimate policy makers in this county, could by policy accept your conditions Page 7 of 52 r ;q M1 1612+ b6 June 21, 2012 and say it's fine. I think that would be up to the board to do. But if they got a nod from us that from a use perspective and everything else this seems to fit the envelope, then that may help get this moved ahead. Jeff, do you have any comment? MR. WRIGHT: The only thing I would like to add to that is we like things to be airtight. And if it's not airtight, there's a possibility that there might be some sort of indemnification or release so the county doesn't get in any sort of trouble because of this. So I think that's a smart way to go. You could approve it subject to confirmation that access is airtight, in whatever form that must take. Right now these deeds, I think I wouldn't insure it if I was an insurer, and I don't think that the county should take on any risk. So that's the caveat I'd add. Heidi might want to add some sort of additional protection on top of what he's provided today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the concern that I have is from a -- I know you're going to open the facility up to tour buses, bring in -- they're limited to size and quantity. And I guess it would be primarily children who would look at this place. It would be horrible if for some reason access was lost and there was some emergency out there. And that's where my ultimate concern is. I know that's probably very remote of happening, but I think if this -- if everything you've produced is viewed under that regard and the ability to shut it down at a -- in a less than a moment's notice, because that's where the concern would be. If you know something -- if your neighbor's going to stop letting you have access I think that might take some time, so you would know enough that you would have a dangerous situation. But I just don't want to see anybody caught out there without the access. But I will take the County Attorney's comments, and as far as I'm concerned that would be a stipulation that we would add to this to get this through. MR. HANCOCK: I think you'll be pleased to know that stipulation has been met. Mr. Jarikov has already filed in the official records of Collier County an affidavit that states -- and I'll have to ask that we make copies here or make it part of the record because what I have here is the original. But what we did is we took the same thing that the county requires of an individual who is building a single- family home in a rural subdivision, where they indemnify the county, where they indicate that the county is not responsible for access, those exact same criteria and conditions have been placed into a signed and notarized agreement by Mr. Jarikov, Ms. Labachova, and have been recorded in Collier County records. And I'll point you to item number six, which is a hold harmless included in there, just as you require of a single - family homeowner. And quite honestly, if I were to go pull a building permit on this roadway for a single- family home, this is the agreement the county may require if they deemed it to be a rural subdivision. Because it's inside the urban boundary, Collier County's rules don't call it a rural subdivision but the State of Florida does. So what we've already done is we've already filed this, which codifies the $2,000 a year maintenance agreement and it also includes all of the hold harmless and indicating the county is not responsible in any way, shape or form for the access to the site. Thinking ahead, not understanding that we were going to get the information we presented to you today, we were trying to present the best case scenario that did not put this body or the Board of Commissioners in a position of feeling as if they signed off that the property had quote, legal access. With respect to the points you raise in your findings, Commissioner Strain, we believe safety and convenience has been addressed by virtue of two separate things. Number one is the maintenance agreement that has been put out there. To our knowledge we're the only entity that will be responsible for maintaining any element of this roadway for safe passage. And that's -- while it's capped at $2,000 a year, if it comes down to having access or not having access safely on the roadway, the property owner and the business is going to come first and they're going to take care of that. Secondly is access in case of fire or catastrophe. Unlike a lot of projects we see in the Estates where we have unpaved roads that during the wet season are sometimes impassable, and we get into the issue of whether or not the property owner has the ability or the right to maintain the stretch of roadway, here we have a paved roadway that's been in existence for an extended period of time. Every property on the street is accessible via that paved roadway. And while we cannot show you with absolute definitive conclusion, you know, a definitive conclusion that we have legal access, physical access over a paved roadway I believe is far better than a lot of situations we find in this county Page 8 of 52 A6 1612 Jlune 21, 2012 on projects that may have been approved. In case of fire catastrophe these lots are accessible. So I think we meet the minimum standard there. Not to the degree that I think everyone would be more comfortable, but again, we'll work with the County Attorney's Office, we will walk them through everything we have. And we're comfortable, if you can move us forward to by the time we get to the board, that we can resolve that issue more fully with the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just one comment. In all fairness to your statement about the maintenance and that you are putting up $2,000, I have no problem with that. I'm certainly willing to accept that. But we've seen no evidence that $2,000 is sufficient to maintain that road. So, I mean, it's like saying you're going to put up $20 or $200 or $5,000. It's kind of irrelevant when you don't know what the conditions are on a lineal foot basis for a road of that character to be maintained. So from that -- but I still see it's a step in the right direction and it does help. Anybody else have any comments? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on this number six. Wouldn't that read better if you said we release and hold Collier County harmless in perpetuity for the maintenance of and access on Morgan Road? The way you've written it, it's only discussing the maintenance. MR. WRIGHT: We would probably need something a lot broader than simply maintenance. We're talking about everything. Hold harmless for anything that might happen as a result of this approval. MR. HANCOCK: If I may, item number three states it is recognized that the access rights or personal rights between the grantor and grantee and the county's approval of the use of the access way in no way implies the use is permitted. MR. WRIGHT: We'll just have to hammer out indemnification language. MR. HANCOCK: Understood. If we need to repeal and modify this, that's not an issue. It was our effort to put something into the record to codify what we knew at the time and to take the county out of the position of being responsible for access to the site. We wanted to make sure that we were not implying that in any way in our application. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there anything else from anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't normally do public speakers on consent items, so let's just move forward with the -- any discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I see code enforcement here. Is that for this item? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter. This is consent. So we'll move forward with consent like we always have. Does anybody have any discussion on the matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have conditions of approval that were attached that we did last time. The conditions of approval don't address all the issues we've now discussed about the road. I would suggest that we add a condition that the approval today is subject to further refinement by the County Attorney's Office to assure there's an airtight access to the property and that any indemnification needed is worked out and agreed to between the applicant and the County Attorney's Office prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing. And does that -- you think that works, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if there's no objection to that condition of approval, if there's a motion and that's acknowledged and the second does so, we can then go forward if -- because this has had a motion to approve subject to today's discussion. Is there any motion on this? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. Page 9 of 52 "Al, 1612 June 21, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa made the motion, seconded by Bill. The motion included the new condition concerning the County Attorney's review and indemnification? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the second agree to that too? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Tim, thank you very much. Congratulations on your wedding or honeymoon. I hope you can go back and resume that now. MR. HANCOCK: That is precisely the plan. Again, thank you for your time this morning, I greatly appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. ** *Okay, the next consent item up is Naples Reserve RPUD. It's PUDA- PL2011 -1168. That's in our packet as the changes we discussed last time. Does anyone see any further corrections needed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it, Mark. I move we forward that this represents the hearing of PUDZ- PL2011 -1168. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Brad, second by Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 9 -0. ** *That takes us to our first advertised public hearing. And the agenda is written so that the advertised public hearings are also followed by their consent. And in the case of the next item up it's the Parklands PUD and DRI. So you'll see the next four items of our advertised public hearings are all Parklands related issues. The first two will be the discussion part of the agenda for the PUDA- PL200100001551 and the DRI portion, which is DOA- PL20100001550. Both of those are, one is the Parklands PUD, the other is the Parklands DRI. Page 10 of 52 16 6 une 21, 201 All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. I had some correspondence between Bruce and myself regarding the changes they made to the deviations. Other than that, I don't think there's any. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I had a discussion by phone with Mr. Anderson. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I also had discussion with Mr. Anderson, staff and Mr. -- and Kevin Ratterree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I noticed in front of us when we walked in this morning there's another document. Please tell me this is no different than what we reviewed. MR. ANDERSON: For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm. The document that you have before you with the strike- through and underline is simply to assist you in evaluating and understanding the changes that are reflected without the cross - through and underline in your agenda packet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to make a comment to staff. Don't -- you really should not send out the application until we have the strike - through. That was very difficult, putting the two on your desk, making your own strike - through version at home. So if it takes another day or it has to be emailed after it, I mean, there's a lot of work without the strike- through and underline, the legislative version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think under this particular instance, though, Brad, with the -- staff was under the gun in a short period of time because we weren't going to have a consent. So we had a lot of changes from last time. I'm not sure if they took another day we would have gotten our packages, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They could print it this morning, they could have emailed it last night, just to make it easier -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wouldn't have been able to see it last night, because that would mean we would have had to print, which is against the policy we adopted that says the maximum pages we'll print by email is 10. This is 20. But anyway, let's just muddle through it and we'll do the best we can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't print everything, I can read it on the screen. But anyway, just -- it was really difficult having to play where's Waldo with everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, do you want to make any kind of presentation to start, I would assume? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes, thank you. First of all, we have the group of consultants and ownership that we had at our last meeting, led by Kevin Ratterree, the vice president of GL Homes. To dispose of this, the development order for the DRI, there were no changes to that from the prior meeting. So let's move on into the changes to the PUD document. And I'll give you a broad overview first of the most important ones and then we can go page by page, if you like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sounds good. MR. ANDERSON: The big picture changes that have been made are: We have deleted all old deviations. And we have one deviation that could be characterized as old that has become new again. And that is with regard to the street right -of -way widths. And you'll also see that justifications have been provided for that one. We had a meeting with Mr. Eastman and the transportation staff to iron out access issues for the school district property, and we have identified two access points on the master plan now for the school district property. And I think Mr. Eastman is satisfied with that. Staff, after we came to agreement with Mr. Eastman, then transportation staff had some additional changes after discussion with the County Attorney's office, and those are reflected in the master plan that you have before you. We've made revisions to the PUD master plan to reflect the discussion from the prior meeting about pertaining to preserve and preserve buffers. We have also changed the cross - section for Logan Boulevard north to reflect the asphalt rather than the Page 11 of 52 A6 16 1? 2l 2012 concrete multi -use path. And I had a discussion with Commissioner Brougham regarding the trigger for clubhouse construction. And off the cuff, two weeks ago the number of 200 building permits was thrown out. And upon further reflection, we would request that it be 250 building permits. I believe Mr. Brougham is satisfied with that. We also have a completion date that we have added for the clubhouse that requires it to be finished within a year after construction has started. And then if you like, we'll start with the PUD document and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, can we get Tom Eastman's input on the arrangement with the school board first as a general issue? MR. ANDERSON: Sure. MR. EASTMAN: We had a meeting with Reed Jarvi representing county transportation, other members of county transportation, Mr. Anderson, and we were able to resolve the issue related to school access. And it's indicated on the conceptual master plan. In addition to that we also have a provision and a commitment from the developer that there will be pedestrian access to the school site. We feel that that will be very beneficial, not only to the school but also to the Parklands community for their kids walking to the school. All in all, I think we're in real good shape here and appreciate the time of Mr. Anderson and the county transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the two questions. The pedestrian access from within Parklands could be gated. Does that have any issues for the school? MR. EASTMAN: No, provided that the gate is located on their property. And as you can see in the notes on the master plan, it allows the developer to gate the pedestrian access. And I think the reasoning here is that the community can feel safe that they don't have an open access. This is, after all, a gated community. However, the gate can be opened to allow pedestrian and bicycle access during school hours. For example, in the middle of the night, that won't be wide open, and the community can feel safe that that can be closed by the developer or the follow -up homeowners association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the -- from the staffs perspective in regards to the accesses for the school, were you anticipating those to be full median openings, or did you get a confirmation on what kind of opening they would be from county staff? MR. EASTMAN: We don't have that level of detail. We discussed it in depth at our meeting. And upon review of the County Attorney's office we have what you see today, which does not get into the turning movements or the medians. But I do believe that given the notes, our second access, and by second I mean as you're proceeding in a northward direction, has the potential for a traffic signal, which would imply an open median. The specifics of the turning, although discussed at the meeting, are not reflected here. Which is okay. During the school board review process whereby the school board engages the county for a full review of the facility it's about to build, the transportation department would certainly be a part of that. And they could dictate, basically, orally traffic movements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. My concern now isn't -- I see Reed's coming up, is that we need to get it on record as to what your connection there could be so that if you don't have the possibility of a full median opening but you find it necessary you have access to the possibly the light at the entryway from an internal road or something to give you the access both left and right that you need, if you need it. I just want to make sure there's no mistakes made in regards to what you need versus what you're going to get. Reed, what is -- what could go there? MR. JARVL• Reed Jarvi, Transportation Planning Manager. We discussed fairly in depth the two access points and their locations. And you'll see that there is notes from a distance standpoint that they need to be 660 feet apart, the three access points. And we talked about the movements and potentials. And some of the early drafts of the master plan had that, but we've been advised by the County Attorney's Office that we will show access points only. And according to the law that they -- the access points are mandated at a maximum of a right in right -- minimum of a right in/right out, and that we don't put in full access points or turning movements at this point. Page 12 of 52 1612 A6 June 21, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. But it's important to know if that's going to be a school site what the school needs, what the potential is that they might have so that if they don't have it prior to the approval of this PUD, we can look for another alternative. And Tom, is a full median opening so that you can make left turns out and left turns in very important to you or very necessity in this kind of school at this location? MR. EASTMAN: It is important for one access. And with the blessing and approval of the county transportation department, we discussed that possibility for the second or the most northern access point. With respect to the first or the one that is to the south, we did not think that we'd have the ability to make a left going north; is that correct, Reed? MR. JARVI: That's correct. We discussed and in our group agreed to a potential full access on the northern access and a restriction of no left outs on the southern western access. But once again, from the PUD standpoint they're just access points, there's no restrictions one way or another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the word you used was potential. And again, if we're counting on this as a necessity for the school system, the school system says they need it, then to find out two years down the road that Reed Jarvi has gone on to be assistant county manager and now they have somebody else in charge of transportation planning that says, no, this isn't right for a full turning access, we're not going to grant it, we said it was just potential. And then the school board's into a fight they don't need to be in. So I'm just trying to get the acknowledgment. On the record now. And Tom, I think a stipulation ought to be is that we ought to add to that northern access that should it be required by the school board that that northern access would have the -- will have the ability to be a full turning movement. MR. EASTMAN: That would add certainty and clarity and be very much appreciated by the school district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JARVI: We would have no objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that stops any potential, let's say, disagreement in the future that we don't need to hire a bunch of attorneys for, even though Bruce would sure love to take the case. They're conferring. Don't mean to distract you two guys. MR. RATTERREE: It's important stuff going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were working our way, now we're going to go through page by page. Bruce, is that where we left off before we got into general discussion on the access way? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. But before we depart from that, even though my client and transportation department might deem it desirable to place that in the PUD, the County Attorney's Office was quite adamant that it not be in there that it's full throated access. They have a concern from a case law incident that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that Jeff or Heidi that made that? MR. ANDERSON: It was Miss Ashton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's not here today. So as far as my -- I personally I would like to see it added as a stipulation. And if she feels strongly it's the wrong stipulation, she can certainly convince the Board that very easily. Without her being here today, I'm not sure if -- Jeff, are you up to speed on what her concerns were? MR. WRIGHT: Well, my understanding of her concern is she didn't want to vest in the PUD ordinance the right to turn a certain way. And I think that you've addressed that by updating the master plan to just show access points and then work out the turn movements later. That's my understanding of Heidi's concern. I'm not really sure how that ties into actual language in the PUD. I may be missing the link there. MR. ANDERSON: She didn't want any. What is reflected on the master plan was blessed by her and was specifically to address her concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Appreciate the input and we'll move forward when we get to the stipulations. Want to move in the document then? We normally -- anybody have any -- let's take five or six pages. Let's take Pages 1 through 5. Does anybody have any questions on Pages 1 through 5 of the PUD document? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, on Page 2, item B.4, this is under the residential tract. B.4 says any general permitted accessory use listed in section 1.13 of this ordinance. 1.13 is the general uses penmitted, which includes -- so you're saying in the residential tract you want utility storage buildings, irrigation water, and effluent storage tanks and ponds, signs permitted by the LDC provisions, open space uses and structures including but not limited to nature Page 13 of 52 16 IZ242012 6 trails, riding trails, fitness trails, you're going to do all that in a residential section? Docks, piers and the like, for residential use constructed -- can you explain to me what you're trying to do here? Because you've got -- in number one you've got almost all the recreational facilities that someone would normally ask for or expect to find in a residential. You got three, you've got common area recreational and utility facilities, which is like your FPL transformers, things like that. So why do you need all those general permitted accessory uses in 1.B? MR. ANDERSON: Other than the general principle of providing some level of flexibility in final design and construction -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have that under B.1, two, three and five as it stands now. I don't understand what beyond the typical residential tract uses for accessories you're trying to get at by including LB uses. I don't -- because those are general uses throughout the RPUD. I don't get it. MR. ANDERSON: I think that that was just something that --well, since we didn't talk --I don't recall that we talked about it at the last hearing. Perhaps we did. But it really is a leftover from the prior one that probably should have been removed. So if you want to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think it should be -- I don't think it fits. I don't think you need it, so. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we're going to extract it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to remove B.4. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: 2.13.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.B.4, yeah. Anybody else on one through five? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to Page 3. And this is probably a question in combination with staff. We normally -- we understand and we have routinely included uses that are commercial and retail in nature that are for the residents of the community, but I don't know if we limit them. Usually they're related to the clubhouse. They're like gift shops and cafes or stuff like that. Like Divosta does in their project. Kay or Ray, does the general language under 3.A.2 where it starts out commercial retail establishes, including, would that open it up to all C -1 through three, or how would you look at that? I understand what they want to do and I have no problem with it. I just want to make sure it's limited to what you normally find within a residential community, and someone doesn't come in there and wants to put a car wash in or something that isn't generally considered normal commercial retail establishments as part of a community clubhouse facility. Or how were you looking at it? Was this a neighborhood commercial area? That would be a commercial use then. Kay? MS. DESELEM: I'm trying to understand your question. We're on Page 4 of 19 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're on Page 3. MS. DESELEM: Page 3, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 3.A.2. Recreational site. They start out with the words commercial retail establishments. How limiting is that? Or how unlimiting is that? MS. DESELEM: I'm looking at the strike - through/underline version, so I'm probably looking at the wrong one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I didn't have the ability -- I didn't have that last night, so. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's the same one we had in our packet before anyway. MR. ANDERSON: I'm advised by the project engineer that this language was reviewed and tweaked by the County Attorney's Office, that they were comfortable with it. And I think that the limitation language to similar uses provides some guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want staffs concurrence for the people that are going to be reviewing this through the planning process. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. Yes, I would concur with Bruce's analysis. Page 14 of 52 16 12 A6 June 21, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have no problem with the reference to commercial and retail establishments. MS. DESELEM: Yes, I think that it's limited enough to keep it for this PUD to serve those residents and guests. I think that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 5 under 8.A, why -- if this isn't a deviation and it should be okay with the code, if it is a deviation it shouldn't be here, it should be in the list of deviations. So what is 8.A trying to accomplish inconsistent with the code? And if it's already in the code, we don't need it here. This is on Page 5. MR. ANDERSON: It's in the code and it provides -- it already allows the county to make that call. This is to make sure that they do make that call. There's been -- there was discussion with the county engineer about whether there was discretion or not, and some feeling I think on the part of county that there was a certain element of discretion. And we simply want to tighten that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If it's in the code, the verbiage on the fourth line, it says roadway access easements or external property line is properly protected. What does that mean? Put up hay bales? I mean, I'm surprised if our code is that loose in the way it describes how this area will be addressed. Which then brings into the question, what is it you're trying to ask for? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: They qualify it, Mark, by berm, fencing and landscaping in the next line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, fencing -- if the purpose of this is -- I was familiar with one project that had a roadway that went right up to the 20 -foot lake maintenance easement, but the requirement to protect the traffic was a guardrail. The guardrail was not pretty, so they had to put shrubs around it. But regardless, it was a guardrail. That's not what I'm picking up here. So you're saying that you could go up to 20 feet and just put a berm there or a picket fence or a bush. What happens to the things like guardrails that have been required in the past for safety? Would that then not be a requirement because of this 8.A? He's right on the money. That's probably why he's the guy that owns the place. MR. RATTERREE: Just work, just work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is protected by a guardrail and landscaping, is that what you're going to say? MR. RATTERREE: Yes. C14AHZMAN STRAIN: That's only going to occur if you need to get that close to a lake, which certainly will be relegated by how you design your project. So -- okay, let's move on to Pages 6 through 10. Does anybody have any questions on Pages 6 through 10. MR. BELLOWS: For the rec -- Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: If I may, I just want to make sure we understand. Are we going to ask for revised language for that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You're going to have to -- it doesn't reference a guardrail. Basically, when you get that close to the water, you're supposed to have traffic safety railing added. And the way this is written, it wouldn't necessarily require it, because this would then supersede the code, which I'm sure wasn't the intent. And I think -- it says it's not going to waive the Collier County laws or ordinances, but I think that if they're going to mention what they're going to use, we ought to make sure guardrail is included. MR. BELLOWS: I concur. I just wanted to make sure that was the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would be. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And we strike - through berm fencing or landscaping and substitute guardrail and landscaping, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Fencing wouldn't do any good. I mean, it wouldn't be a barrier. MR. ANDERSON: Just so we're clear, we'll be striking the words of the lake by berm, fencing. And it will be replaced by, by guardrail and landscaping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the property line is -- and then we drop the word properly, is protected by guardrail and landscaping. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, drop properly? Okay. We've already taken care of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You attorneys love words like properly. So I'm trying to get away from that. Page 15 of 52 1612 A6 June 21, 2012 Okay, Pages 6 through 10, anybody, Planning Commission have any -- let's take it through 11, since that is the graphic. Same thing, projects 6 through 11? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was hoping -- I think you would, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, where is it that the setbacks are measured from buffers? I mean, you do have N/A from the tract boundary. And obviously there will be a buffer on the tract boundary. MR. ANDERSON: You're talking about Exhibit B? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. And I'm worried about setbacks of the different building types. And we really don't want buildings up against the buffers. MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson from Hole Montes. Typically a buffer can be in the setback and part of the setback. So there is no setback from a buffer. It's from the property line or the parcel or tract line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But hence the problem, because -- MR. HERMANSON: I've never had it done any other way. It's always been buffer is within the setback. Unless the buffer is actually wider than the setback, then the buffer governs. But we've never put a setback from a buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's the problem. That puts like the back of buildings, stuff like that, people's yards, and they're in the buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I think the problem, Brad, is that a lot of buffers are platted common areas, they've not part of the property that you're selling. So in your case you're telling me this project's being set up so that the lot itself includes the buffer, which is generally -- well, where would be the problem? Because if you're -- where Brad's going is 100 percent -- MR. HERMANSON: Typically a buffer is a maybe a maximum of 15 feet. It's usually 10 or 15 feet. We have setbacks of say 25 feet, so there's still going to be space between the buffer and the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your setback is going to be measured from the lot property line, is in the case of a lot -- MR. HERMANSON: Property line or the tract line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if it's from a lot property line, which is where most of your -- in your fee simple, how are you going to build -- how are you going to sell a common area buffer as part of a lot? MR. RATTERREE: Good morning. For the record, Kevin Ratterree with GL Homes. R- A- T- T- E- R- R -E -E. We find a lot of time spending on things we're not even doing here. So can we just please put a note on this that says the buffer for a multi - family tract shall not be included in the tract of the multi - family parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RATTERREE: That covers it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your assistance in getting some of these things resolved is greatly appreciated. MR. RATTERREE: Just so everybody understands, a lot of this is you're using a framework that supposedly has been set through projects before you. So you take that and you kind of use it as the framework. And so what we're dealing with now are those things, as each one comes through it becomes well, wait a minute, that probably should be read a little differently. So that's what we're dealing with. And I appreciate the comments. I agree with Mr. Schiffer, let's just move on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, before we move on -- MR. RATTERREE: Sorry, I tried. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's point out the fact that in this table there is no setbacks for multi - family. So that means the multi- family unit is up on the buffer. Can be. MR. RATTERREE: I would disagree with that assessment because of the red at the bottom of the table which is dealing with setback from the tract boundaries are clearly specified and they're as George said at the last meeting of this group, on a multi - family tract the setback are set by the tract, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're saying the 25 feet around the building -- MR. RATTERREE: Is the setback from the tract -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The buffer could be -- MR. RATTERREE: The buffer would not be included in that tract. So therefore it would resolve your issue Page 16 of 52 A a 6 16 12 une 21, 2012 that the buildings then the buffers are inside the tract and then the buildings are right on the buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can move on. MR. RATTERREE: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anything else on through Page 11? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, the -- on Page 7, footnote 11, this is one for Brad, so -- he's getting coffee, I'll wait for him to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead, I can hear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Footnote 11 was in response to Brad's request at the last meeting. It says a maximum of 10 units attached in one building. That may work. I just want to make sure -- I wanted to point it out in case Brad didn't see it. Did your intention during that discussion have a maximum length associated with lineal footage of a building and irregardless of the number of the units? Because I don't know if this is different than what you were intending. Normally in the past we've looked at length of buildings, not number of units in a building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, it's -- the minimum width is 35 feet, so they could have larger than that, it'd be a 350 -foot building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, is that what you were thinking? Previously we -- yeah, we didn't go that way. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes. On Bent Creek Preserve you had the similar limitation by dwelling unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that one we just got done hearing, what a mistake. Thank you for correcting us on that mistake, Bruce. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it does cause them to break it. Otherwise they could, you know, look like a railroad train running around the development. But they're going to design nice units. They'll be playing with the look of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work from your perspective? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm okay with that. If we learn from it, we'll deal with it next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then my last question on this section would be Pages 10 and 11. They show a whole series of road section cross sections. I know they've brought over from the last document. From a perspective I guess of Ray or Kay, we have road cross sections in our Land Development Code too. And maybe Reed needs to jump in. Do these road cross sections differ in any way from what's in the Land Development Code? And if they don't, then we don't need them. If they do, they're a deviation. So -- MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. My understanding was that these -- the top two were going to remain and the others were going to come out so that they would match the DCA. But I will let Reed address the specifics as far as whether they match or do not match what's in the LDC. MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, Transportation Planning Manager. I'm sorry, which exhibit are you looking at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 10 and 11, all the brackets. All of them. MR. JARVL• Yeah, okay, all of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's nice that they're all here and they tell us what the road's going to be, but so does the LDC. So what is it we're trying to accomplish? MR. JARVL• Yes. On the Page 11, if we go to that one first, it's simpler. The top two exhibits are for the Logan Boulevard north adjacent to the Parklands. And that's slightly different than the LDC talks about for a collector road. But that will be a --it will be a county road eventually. So we've just put these inhere to say this is how we'll do them. We don't typically do a divided two -lane road. But for this purposes they wanted to do it, and we've accepted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's not go past these two before I ask you a question. So you just acknowledged that the top two are not consistent with the Land Development Code, right? Page 17 of 52 MR. JARVI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: MR. JARVI: Um -hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1612 A6 June 21, 2012 Then aren't they deviations? And if they're not, why not? And if they are, has one of the 18 deviations addressed it? Because I didn't -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it did -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I can't go back and read them all, at least right here on the fly. I didn't expect the answer you just gave me, to be honest with you. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. If you look at deviations, I see 10 and 11, it does reference the exhibits. It references Exhibit C -2, and I think if I looked quickly, I think I'd find references to C -3 as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on, I believe -- MS. DESELEM: Number 12. Deviation 12 and 13 both reference Exhibit C -3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as C -2, then all those including the cul -de -sac are covered? MS. DESELEM: There again, I'd let Reed address those, because I was under the impression that some of these came out of the DCA and we would want the two documents to match, I would think. MR. JARVI: The DCA covers Exhibit C -3, which is your Page 11. The internal roadways are covered on Page 10, and those are deviations and it's mainly sidewalk and width of -- I think it's width of right -of -way. And they are covered in the deviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Reed, appreciate it. That gets us through Page 11. Next -- well, let's just finish up. Does anybody have any questions on the rest of the document? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing no further questions, are there any -- I guess Bruce, any final comments you want before we go to staff presentation or staff comments, if there are any? MR. ANDERSON: Just that we would appreciate a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got that figured out. Kay, do you have any -- MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. Staff is comfortable with what has been changed. We are still recommending that it be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And we are recommending approval as stipulated today and with the exhibits that you have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any public speakers registered or otherwise? Okay, Reed's going to be a public speaker. MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, Transportation Planning Manager. I just didn't know if you wanted to go over the DCA, any issues with that, or is that a different -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we had that many issues from the DCA last time. If you want to raise some so we can get into a long protracted discussion on it, I'm sure that would work. MR. JARVI: We did have -- Bruce had like 50 pages of additions, but we cut them down to minor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the attorney working his numbers, you know. MR. JARVI: Basically we did have one thing early this week after discussion, and it is in addition to number four, which is Page 5. I'll read it out loud, and we've all agreed to it. It says: Collier County expressly agrees to take over the maintenance of Logan north from the northern limits of Olde Cypress, tract R -1, to the county line one year after the opening of Logan north to Bonita Beach Road and upon a satisfactory final acceptance of the road by Collier County Growth Management Division. Acceptance shall be based on the typical sections as proposed in this agreement, the Collier County right -of -way permits for the roadway, and Collier County codes in place at the time of this agreement. Basically says we'll take it over when it becomes a through road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wanted to add that or it's already -- MR. JARVI: That's added to the DCA. I know you don't probably like this, but that kind of tends to be a living document as we go through. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 18 of 52 4 A6 1612Jute 21, 2012 There are no public speakers registered, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wishing to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, may I say something on this project? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I've been very familiar with both projects behind Olde Cypress, along with Mirasol coming up, because it affects all of us. In fact, this DRI is from 1985. And I think that being it's such an old DRI that they tried to put everything in there to try and make some corrections. Because it's really not even a DRI anymore practically because of aggregation and everything. So I just think it just seems so long and involved only because they were trying to do the right thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll close the public hearing. And we're going to have to have four motions, one for each in order that they appear on our agenda. The first would be 9.A. Is there a motion for PUDA- PL200100001551, the Parklands PUD? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, would you like to review the changes we made? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, well, soon as there's a mo -- if there's a motion made in the affirmative, which I would expect -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil made the second. Discussion. I would suggest that the motion and the motion make allow the following four items to be added. One: That there will be language providing a full turning movement if requested by the school board at the most northern access of the school's property. Two: That we remove Section 2.2.13.4 regarding the accessory uses in I think it was I.B. Three: That under 8.A we add the language pertaining to a guardrail, and substituting it for the language we previously discussed being struck. And number four: Add clarification for buffer. What was that about? There was a -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: It's the guardrail? Is it the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got the guardrail language. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Oh, that the buffer would not be in the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. We had a discussion about the buffer not being in the setback. It was agreed to by the applicant. And we're going to add that clarification to the language. Those are the four stipulations that I'd written down. Does anybody have any else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to clarify, that was only for the multi units. The other ones are -- so I would make sure that's in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, for multi - family. Is staff comfortable with those stipulations, knowing what they mean? Because we're going to do consent right after this and I want to make sure there's not going to be a language issue. MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, I understand what you're asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. On deviations, staff, there were some that they did not want allowed that they suggested. I think three and four are fine to go through. Looking at this, the only -- so -- I believe number 13 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, when you said earlier that staff was in acceptance with the package that was Page 19 of 52 1612 A6 June 21, 2012 most recently provided to us, wasn't that meaning you were agreeing with the deviations? MS. DESELEM: I do apologize, I had forgotten that we in fact had not supported some of the deviations. And the applicant has, through his resubmittals I believe, changed some of the deviation language. But we look to you for your recommendation on those deviations to see if you concur with staffs recommendations or if you have another recommendation. So that we can take that to the Board. And I apologize, I didn't catch that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were removing your concerns and we were going with a clean slate. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I think we should approve it with all the deviations in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else have any concerns with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think it will stand that the approval recognizes the document in front of us today, which includes all the 15 deviations that have been resolved from previously a larger number. MS. DESELEM: If I may ask. If you go to the staff report that was originally prepared, on Page 28 there was a stipulation for deviation number one regarding the models not remaining more than 10 years without the C U. And the approval of deviation two. I believe that the applicant has acquiesced to these and they're included in CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I'm looking at it now. They did, so -- okay, can you tell us if the applicant hasn't agreed to something that you were concerned about previously, based on the new document? MS. DESELEM: As far as I know, they have agreed to stipulations on deviations one and two and 15. And then we recommended deviations two and three have stipulations, and the applicant is not agreeing with those. And I understand -- if I'm -- if I understand your recommendation correctly, you're not agreeing with staffs position on those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. MS. DESELEM: And you're also not agreeing with our recommendation of denial of deviations four, 12 and 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER Al ERN: Correct. MS. DESELEM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? There's been stipulations -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So the -- one of the stipulations going to be against Heidi's advice on the school ingress and egress on the north side. She doesn't want vesting of a turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was right, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And you're saying you want it in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm saying that to protect a future controversy with the school board over something that they basically expect they can have, why don't we just put it here. Because if there's a change in anything as this time goes on, there's no reason for the school board and Collier County to fight over an intersection improvement. We can settle it now. So yeah, I'm recommending it go in there. And if the County Attorney has a legal reason why it shouldn't be there, then that argument can be made before the BCC and the BCC can correct it pursuant to any legal reason that is brought forth. So that's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And that's what -- you think it's all right to -- MR. WRIGHT: Yes. And this goes back to my prior comment. It really comes down to the depiction on the master plan of a turn movement. We don't want to vest that movement. But we do want to vest the access point. So it's been addressed and I don't see any problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, we're giving them the right to these turn lanes. And what if in the future traffic engineering -- because it is on an inside curve. It is kind of on a dangerous site. What if they deem that it's unsafe? Does that mean the school builds it same that the PUD made them build it? Page 20 of 52 x 16 16 Z June 21, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my point is if they're going to -- if that's going to happen in the future and there's a potential for it, then we need to open the PUD back up and the DRI for another access that the school board may need to get a signal there with a full turn movement in order for them to have a site that is viable for it. If the site's not good because you can't get in and out of it, then what are we doing even asking for the site in the first place? So the fact we even asked for it, that it came part of this whole discussion and has to be functional, doesn't make any sense asking for things that aren't going to be functional in the future under a potential disagreement, and then saying we've got to withhold that property from the developer for a school site that we can never build because in the end it's not functional enough to build. So I'm saying let's make sure the functionality is there now, and if it isn't, find a solution to that functionality now before we approve this thing. Let's -- seems to -- try to nip it in the bud early instead of waiting til late. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, the only downside I could see is if they built an intersection, someone got hurt and a traffic engineer said nobody should have ever built that intersection. But they said, wait a minute, they had to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's not saying that, though. He got up there and said it's got a potential. He's not telling us it can't be done. I just want to make sure that someone in the future doesn't say, well, I've decided it can't be done. I'm a new traffic engineer working for the county, I'm not the old guy. Not that you're old, Reed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we can go on. I'm done, thanks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just have one thing. Looking at this where a school is going to be is Collier County. It is at the very end of Collier County. They're pretty much only going to make right turns out of there. Because right next to it is Lee County. So that's -- was my feeling on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they'd have to make a left turn in, see, and those are the kind of things. Anybody coming north to make a left turn in, if you didn't have a median opening there, you couldn't make the turn. So whatever the school board needs we want to give them that ability so it's a functional site. And if they can't reach an agreement with the -- at least they got that to start with so that there's no disagreement in the future and all of a sudden the site becomes useless. That would be a wrong way to go today. Anyway, those are the four stipulations. I read them. I don't know if the motion maker or second agreed to them or not. I'll ask the motion maker first. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made, it's been amended and stipulated, both in agreement. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to thank Kevin for your assistance in getting us through this. It was an old difficult project. The county has quite a few of those. And you did a great job in working with us to get through it. So thank you. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0 with a recommendation of approval. Thank you all very much. Let's take a break. When we come back we will go into our LDC -- Page 21 of 52 A1612 6 June 21, 2012 COMMISSIONER AHERN: We have to do the rest -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Let's go to -- MR. ANDERSON: Those little niceties, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know, we have to do these one at a time. I keep forgetting. MS. DESELEM: Excuse me, if I may. Can I get a clarification on who seconded that motion? I have two -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane seconded it. MS. DESELEM: Okay. Because I had Phil or Diane. I didn't know which one. So it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they look alike, but -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, Diane. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mustache. MS. DESELEM: So it was Diane Ebert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it was Diane. Okay, the next item for recommendation is for denial or approval of DOA- PL200100001550. It's the Parklands DRI. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Melissa, seconded by Diane. how's that? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion for recommendation for approval. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Diane, I'll give you the next two, Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. The consent items, PUDA- PL200100000 -- oh, there's only four zeros -- 1551. It's the Parklands PUD on consent. Is there a motion to approve subject to -- there wouldn't be any subject, we've -- assuming all the stipulations are in place. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion we approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion this time made by Diane, seconded by Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) Page 22 of 52 A6 1612June 21 20TL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. The last is the consent for DOA- PL200100001550, the Parklands DRI. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I make a motion that we approve it for consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Seconded by Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Again, thank you very much for your cooperation and time. We got through it. Appreciate it. Okay, with that we'll take a break until 10:40, come back at 10:40. At that time we'll go right into our LDC amendments. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. * * *We are going to move into the second part of our meeting, which is a continuation of the LDC Amendments 2012 Cycle 1. And that's under old business, IO.A. Coordinator is Caroline Cilek. We have a distribution of a lot of items that we've already -- in fact, we've heard some of these two or three times, maybe four already. But we're going to hear them today. So hopefully we can resolve and move forward and try to get things done. I want to address those members of the public that are here first. How many -- and I think there's two of them that are controversial. How many are here for the docks? Okay. And how many are here for -- Rich doesn't know why he's here but he knows who he's going to bill. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why I was there, but I'm going to bill you all. Okay, and who is going to be here for the exotic removal issue? Okay, two to one. So we'll go with the exotics first. And if Richard leaves, we know which one he was here Page 23 of 52 1612 A6 June 21, 2012 for. Caroline or Steve, you want to -- let's start -- that's in our new packet we were just handed out this morning, if I'm not mistaken. Okay. And that is -- it's in the new packet and it's a little ways, second or third from the back. It's 3.05.07, Preservation Standards. This was the one we talked about on Tuesday. And staff was able to get all this rewritten for today's meeting. Appreciate it. You guys do a good job. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Very good, Caroline. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section. I made the changes you asked. Hopefully I captured your intent. And I've highlighted them in the document. I also sent it to stakeholders to see if there would be any input. I did get three responses back. I can read those to you, if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's -- if two of them were from the people that are here, you don't have to read those. But if they're not from the people that were here, because I'm sure they're going to speak for themselves, we can -- MR. LENBERGER: Two of them are here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, can you read whoever isn't here. MR. LENBERGER: Sure. The issue, Steve, is like Mark Strain stated, the insertion of language to the LDC that did not go through the proper vetting of stakeholders, public or subcommittees. So now we are inserting language and debating when the fundamental issue is still being ignored. If the item is pulled and taken through the appropriate channels, the language issues can be adequately addressed. I thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Who was that from? MR. LENBERGER: Marco Espinar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marco Espinar? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't know my name was in there, so -- I hadn't seen that. Okay. And I think what we're do (sic) is we'll open it up to discussion from this board first, then we'll hear the public speakers and -- I mean, my position hasn't changed, I don't believe we're doing the right thing with this language change and we should just strike it. But I'm sure that others have opinions and we'll -- go right ahead. Anybody that's got a thought on this, let's hear it. Nobody's got a thought. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Are we going to be able to change -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this isn't -- no, no, we voted at the last meeting to insert language, but we don't have to accept the language today. We can still say no -- because we weren't even a full board last time, we were seven instead of nine. We can go back now. If the majority decides that this language really isn't right, then we can strike it and make a motion to approve staffs strikeout of it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm comfortable with the modifications that staff has inserted that it correctly reflects the majority vote at the last meeting on this. And just another, and I may or may not be correct in this, but one of the issues that has been raised, and raised again just now, is that long ago in history when that was inserted into the LDC, it was done without proper vetting and so forth and so on. And the public and the stakeholders didn't get adequate time to weigh in on it. But I believe this hearing today is at least the second time that this LDC amendment has been advertised and discussed. And from my point of view, if there were significant objections by stakeholders, they could have appeared at the first hearing or at the first reading, whenever that was. And I only saw and heard from one person, I believe last week or earlier this week, two people. So just an observation, whether it's a correct one or not. I think this is part of the public process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me, you know, pile on with Phil. I mean, if the public was that interested in it, they've really had the opportunity. We had more than two hearings. We've -- I can think of probably four on this issue. So, you know, we did have some public, there are some people that don't agree with it. Page 24 of 52 j 1612JuneA,612 time. But the bottom line is this is wording exactly what we wanted and exactly what we voted on, actually, last CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah, Mark, I'm a little confused as to what we wrote, what it actually means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I think -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Can staff explain it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Steve? MR. LENBERGER: What -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said sure, Steve. Go ahead, explain what we mean. MR. LENBERGER: I feel comfortable about that. Maybe you ought to point to the specific paragraph you're talking about. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I'm looking at D. MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, am 1. And -- well, I'll read it. It says, exotic vegetation removal shall not constitute mitigation unless the mitigation is for secondary impacts, not dredge and fill, and it is reconciled with the state and federal permits. So I would say that that would have to be in agreement with the state and federal permits to allow the exotic vegetation removal to account for secondary impacts. It says it does not allow for it to count for direct impacts. But if the state and federal permits allow it, they would prevail, unless we were in agreement with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that answer your question, Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Well, sort o£ COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm kind of going with Bill. I -- what's the difference between a secondary impact and a primary impact? Would primary be dredge and fill and secondary would be anything else? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, pretty much everything else, affecting the water table, things like that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So how would you affect the water table if you weren't doing dredging or filling? MR. LENBERGER: If you would do dredge and fill as a direct impact, let's just say you alter the flow of water, therefore wetlands outside your project could be affected by, for example hydrological loss. Then they could be adversely affected. And that would be a secondary impact. It's not directly related to your dredge and filling project, it's on the outside of the project. That's just an example that could be. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is the secondary impact usually less than the primary impact? I'm just not sure on a practical basis how common it is to have significant secondary impacts. Or is that a big part of the loss of wetlands or is that a small part? MR. LENBERGER: It could vary. There's all kinds of pennitting. Like a boat dock, you can impact hard bottom or sea grasses directly, you know, shading effects could affect sea grasses on side. So it depends on the project. If you altered flow of water by diverting water on a project, I guess you conceivably can affect quite a bit of wetlands secondarily. Although I imagine the state would not allow that. They would -- state permitting has gotten a lot better, it has over the years, and they look at things like watersheds and flow ways. So that kind of impact would be less. But there still could be. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm kind of at a disadvantage because I wasn't at the meeting on Tuesday. But when you're talking about allowing removal of exotic vegetation to count towards mitigation, is only allowing it for not dredge and fill, is that going to be any different from what the state agencies would be saying? Is this something where the county is going to be restricting more than what the state says? MR. LENBERGER: If the amendment gets approved, it would be more restrictive, but we still would have to be in agreement with the state, whatever the issue and the permits. The state would allow exotic removal to count for direct impacts to wetlands and secondary impacts to wetlands. This language here does not allow mitigation -- exotic removal to count as mitigation direct impacts to wetlands. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm in agreement with in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment. I think in my opinion there were some very convincing statements, I won't call them arguments, statements made at our last meeting on Monday regarding the data and the Page 25 of 52 A6 1612 June 21, 2012 reports that have been collected, which demonstrate or at least the testimony was to the demonstrate that the state has not been diligent in following through on adequate -- my words, adequately policing the permits that they issued. Therefore, there have been a lot of unintended consequences as a result of the state issuing permits. And I for one am very reticent about this county giving up the rights to be more restrictive than the state, given the fact that the state agencies are being constantly trimmed back, their staffing is being reduced. And I think in my judgments you're seeing the results with less and less oversight on these permits, whether they be environmental or otherwise. And I finnly believe that. So just a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree with you 100 percent. If you go to -- how do I want to say this. If you go to the Big Cypress Basin where people have to go in for these permits and everything, they'll give anybody a permit on their land, and they'll modify them with really not having all their people here all the time. And the state is not following through on a lot -- they don't come down and look at any of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER VONIER: That's -- excuse me, Diane, that's not rural fringe district that you're referring to, is it? This is only refers to the rural fringe mixed use district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This particular issue is only for the rural fringe, it's not for any other part of the county. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couple things. I did not hear any substantiated testimony on Tuesday that the state is not doing their job. I heard one person's opinion, and that varies just like everybody else's opinion. So I saw no evidence and heard no substantiated testimony, I just in the person's opinion that the state wasn't doing a good job in this regard. Second of all, in 1999, for those who have been here in '99 when the Governor issued his order and demanded that we put a moratorium on the eastern part of the county and we address these areas, we had dozens and dozens of public meetings with the stakeholders involved, the property owners out there. That is the vetting that occurred at the time. This was not part of that vetting. This was inserted between the Planning Commission and the BCC and to now say that we can't take it out because we had two meetings or three meetings on it as an LDC amendment that nobody reads in those fine prints. The evidence is look who isn't here today is not a fair way to expect it to be vetted to the stakeholders. So I do not believe this was properly vetted. I think it is illegal in its substance and I think it is wrong. It is inconsistent with the way this board has led itself for years in trying to make sure all stakeholders had a fair say in things before we decide on them. And I don't see this being applied that way. So, with that, I asked everybody else for comments -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with that reasoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. And then we'll go into public speakers at this point. Ray, do we have registered or not? If not it doesn't matter, you can still speak. So we'll just take the registered ones first. MS. CILEK: Our first registered speaker is Bruce Layman. MR. LAYMAN: Good morning. For the record, my name's Bruce Layman, senior ecologist with Stantec. I'm here in support of staffs originally crafted amendment. For the record, I've been here for the past couple of times when the Planning Commission has been reviewing this amendment. I'm not representing anybody within the rural fringe misused use -- or mixed use -- sorry, about that, guys, misused district. So anyway, my presence here is not reflective of a grand announcement to the stakeholders within that district that this process was going on. Two days ago when this amendment was before this commission, it was -- the County Attorney brought to light the two portions of the Florida Statutes that have bearing on this. And one of them -- well, without getting into the details, as the discussion went on, the comment was made that because one portion of the statute basically said it Page 26 of 52 tune 2 1612 regulates the amount of mitigation that you quantify, that because we are trying to suggest the type of mitigation, there was a distinction between the type of mitigation versus the amount of mitigation, therefore the statute does not nullify what the code is trying to do by saying mitigation as a type of -- I'm sorry, exotic eradication as a type of mitigation is allowable because it's not quantifying it, it's the type of mitigation. But the other part of the statute that addresses the same issue does not distinguish between type and quantity of mitigation. It basically says if the local permit does not reconcile with the state permit, that the state permit controls. And the state permit issued by the Water Management District, they're bound by applying their basis of review plus the UMAM analysis that is in the state -- in the Florida Statutes. Now, if you -- if they quantify a series of impacts and come up with a mitigation need and then they take the same basis of review and UMAM analysis and try to apply it based on exotic eradication only working for secondary impacts, not primary or direct impacts, you would end up with two very, very different amounts of mitigation. It would be a very different impact on the landowner. And I don't see that as being reconciled. That's two very different analyses. If it's not reconciled, the statute's very clear, the state permit controls, which basically means unless -- unless the Water Management District changes the way they apply the basis of review and their UMAM analysis, you really can't reconcile the two permits. As a result, the state permit would control. So you're essentially keeping code in the LDC that has no regulatory bearing because it will get trumped -- well, almost all the time. So anyway, that being said, I'm strongly in support of the original amendment which was to strike the portion of the code that we're considering. The code that's before you now where it's only addressing secondary impacts, it's still the same code. It's still regulating how you address deriving mitigation. So again, it would, based on what I heard from the County Attorney and based on my interpretation of the Florida Statutes, it would still -- the state permit would still control. And as a side note, Mr. Midney, your question about the relative magnitudes of secondary impacts to direct impacts. Secondary impacts typically are a very, very, very small component relative to direct impacts. Five percent, you know, a very small component. So even though it's throwing you a bone, okay, we'll let exotic eradication count as mitigation for secondary impacts, in the scheme of things it's not going to mean a whole lot to the stakeholders. They're still stuck with a huge differential in the amount of mitigation that they would have to provide based on the code as it exists, versus the way that the state permit would be calculated. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, to leave exotic removal as a form of mitigation, does that increase the potential for preservation or decrease the potential for preservation? MR. LAYMAN: I'm -- well, ultimately it would be considered preservation. If you took exotic removal -- if you didn't allow exotic removal to count towards mitigation from a county perspective, it would be as if the exotics didn't even exist, so you would essentially be counting that same acreage as preservation, versus enhancement by exotic removal. If you understand where I'm going with that. A given landowner doesn't have often time the luxury of preserving a bunch of land, because they simply don't own that much. Typically. I mean, if you had the luxury of owning thousands of thousands of acres and they were all wetland and you weren't able to develop them anyway, simply through the avoidance and minimization process of the state or federal government, maybe you could offset your impacts with preservation only. Most projects don't have that luxury. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the rural fringe program is somewhat stalled. Would allowing this as mitigation potentially have the benefit of seeing the rural fringe move a little bit faster ahead possibly, whereas that program would create sending areas, which are more preservation and more environmentally positive, and then concentrate the development in receiving areas where it should be and where the surface areas are already mostly disturbed? This program is not working as well as we had thought. And I don't know how much this bears on that. And I just didn't know if you had a feel for that or not. MR. LAYMAN: Well, that's a good question, because the program has been in place for eight years and there's not been a single PUD approved in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LAYMAN: Even in the boom years, which says something. I've done a little bit of work on a project in the rural fringe a couple years back. Ultimately we got almost to Page 27 of 52 A6 161 2we 24, 2012 the 11th hour but the plug was pulled and it was not -- it did continue forward. So we went through some of this. My feeling is that I don't -- I can't say for firsthand experience whether there's a project out there that considered moving forward on something and then realized, holy crow, our mitigation cost is going to be 10 times what it normally would and that's going to break the budget and we can't move forward. I don't know if there are any that are out there. But it certainly does set this district, this mixed use district, zoning district aside from any other district in the county because it's being treated differentially by this imposition of not letting the exotic removal count as mitigation. I mean, you've -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it counted in the RLSA? MR. LAYMAN: I believe it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the RLSA further out than the rural fringe? MR. LAYMAN: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the RLSA has potentially more environmentally sensitive areas than even the rural fringe does? MR. LAYMAN: I've not looked at that specifically, but that's possible, I mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next public speaker? By registration. MS. CIL,EK: By registration? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Who's registered? You said there were two. MS. CIL,EK: I think one is coming up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. MS. CIL,EK: There are no more on my paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? MS. CILEK: Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, everyone, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here on behalf of Audubon Florida and Collier County Audubon. And I'd like to respond to some of what I've heard in your discussion and perhaps elaborate a little bit on what our discussion was on Tuesday. First of all, I want to congratulate you. We have collectively gotten the attention of the state. I was at a meeting yesterday in Fort Myers with regulatory staff for the South Florida Water Management District, and after the meeting I was called aside and was asked what's going on in Collier County. So you have gotten their attention. And I think that's a good thing. And if I may suggest, this is one of, I think, an important strategies for a local government to bring to the attention of the state, the state who may not be aware of the specific needs and situations of, let's say in this case, wetland protection for our own local public interests. We have particular situations here because Collier County was over 90 percent wetlands originally. A lot of those wetlands were shallow seasonal wetlands. Those are the wetlands that have been disproportionately impacted by development both historically and currently under the permitting systems. I do want to point out, Mr. Chair, that we have done a considerable amount of research at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, our science staff has, and analysis of hundreds of state permits, environmental resource permits. They show a considerable trend, a significant amount of shallow seasonal wetland losses. Those are the wetlands that do not get protected under the state's permitting process. We have documentation to show that. I would be very happy to share that I have two reports, one of them's very long, one of them is only 1 I pages. That's a little bit on the technical side, but it's very convincing. And I shared that with the South Florida Water Management District staff in Fort Myers yesterday, and we've also shared this for the last two years with staff in West Palm Beach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like that information. I'd like you to send it to Caroline so she can distribute it to the Planning Commission. MR. CORNELL: I have shared it with staff. I don't think it's been forwarded on, perhaps -- Page 28 of 52 . =i } 1612 June 2 ,412 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If staff has it, maybe they could forward it on to us. MR. CORNELL: I'll send it to staff again and ask them to forward that on. I think you will be convinced by some of the problems. I don't think any of this is intentional on the South Florida Water Management District's part, I think it's inherent in the problem that is specific to south Florida. That is that the greater Everglades system as has a lot of shallow seasonal wetlands. Those are the ones that are particularly impacted by exotics, particularly melaleuca. I think we all understand that. If you look at the landscape as you drive across I -75 or up 41, that's where you see melaleuca. That's the problem when you have melaleuca, which we don't have in north Florida. Then you'll see the regulatory staff discount the value of those wetlands, overly discount, overestimate the impacts on the assessments that they do under the UMAM assessments. And on the mitigation side, they overestimate the value of taking off those melaleuca. So that's the problem that we have. We've been in a dialogue with the state to try and fix that. However, I think it's at least on a temporary basis until we achieve those adjustments and those fixes, I think Collier County is in every respect right in pointing these things out to the state. And one way to do that is to put this LDC or Growth Management Plan policy in your own regulations to point this out. Now, relative to the state regulations 373.414, what is it (1)(b)4, that Bruce Layman just quoted to you, it is true that it reserves, apparently reserves to the state the power to regulate mitigation. Local governments have every power to regulate land use and protecting wetlands, as Heidi said on Tuesday. However, if you read that statute, it clearly contemplates and mentions and assumes that local governments may and do from time to time adopt regulations on mitigation that may be stricter than the state. When that happens, the statute says that the state's pen-nit would rule unless you can reconcile those differences with the state. I think this is an opportunity for us. We're not doing anything illegal. I respectfully disagree, Mr. Chair, this is not an illegal step for the county to take. It's contemplated in the statute. It may be strategically ineffective in terms of implementing, but it also sends a message to the state, which I'm telling you they're hearing. And I think it's an important message. I think we ought to open up a dialogue to say we're losing wetlands and we're not happy about that. We want to have a dialogue with you, South Florida Water Management District, Department of Environmental Protection, on how we can better protect our wetlands. And this is what we think. One way is to reserve exotics clearing alone for only secondary impacts. That's why I suggested to you that we keep this policy and modify it as that. I hope I'm making myself clear. I don't at all believe I am suggesting to you an illegal action. I think it's completely within the state regulations, and I think it sends an important message. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the illegal part of that this is simply a decision by the attorneys who have weighed in on it. They're -- each attorneys are going to have different positions. And so I happen to have read it, and my limited ability to understand some of the legalese, I would tend to agree more with the attorneys who have weighed than it is improper or illegal to do. In comparison to Florida Statutes, I understand your position though, so -- Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I think the word reconcile is very interesting. Because reconcile means an active process. It's not that the county or the one not in the state has no validity whatsoever. The word reconcile means that there's going to be some kind of dialogue, and that would open the door I think to saying that they may not be in agreement and they still might be reconcilable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Brad. MR. CORNELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next public speaker, registered or otherwise. Mr. Yovanovich, are you going to talk? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir, if you don't mind. I didn't register -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wouldn't matter, would it? No, I'm just kidding. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it wouldn't. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. And I do have one client who has recently had a project approved, Hacienda Lakes, that is directly impacted by this proposed regulation. And there are others out there that will be Page 29 of 52 1612 June 21, 2012 impacted by a determination on whether the removal of exotics counts towards mitigation or not. I think it's important to do just a brief history lesson back to 1999, as the Chairman indicated. Basically the rural fringe area and the Eastern Lands were shut down while we came up with appropriate regulations for lands that were out east. What ended up happening is we created two different areas. We created the stewardship lands, which were further east. And then we had that middle portion which is the rural fringe mixed use district. Now the rural lands, the stewardship areas, had few property owners, and they took it upon themselves to develop regulations that they could support that would address the appropriate mechanism to allow development to go forward while at the same time allow for the preservation of important environmentally sensitive lands. And they came up with the concept of sending lands and receiving lands out in the rural area. And when they came up with that concept, they also came up with a concept that was supported by environmental groups, that you could impact wetlands and you would apply the same standard for the impacted wetlands as you apply in the urban area, i e, you get credit for impacting -- or for removing exotics as part of the mitigation for impacting wetlands. Now, you had that concept out there. Good concept. Few property owners. That concept was then applied to those many thousands of property owners in the rural fringe mixed use district that then had the same concepts applied to them, sending lands and receiving lands. Now, they were small number of property owners. This was a program that was implemented further east with a small number of property owners that made sense. So you had TDRs. So sending lands became undevelopable lands. You changed the development standards. You said these are going to be preserves, and in return you're going to get as currency a TDR. Initially that didn't work and we changed it to where you got bonus units to hopefully stimulate the program. Because again, you're trying to compensate those people who formally had development rights that you took away from them by making them sending lands. And where they could take those TDRs is to receiving lands. When this was going through the process, there was no prohibition of using exotic removal as mitigation. It was inserted, we all know how it became inserted. It was not vetted in front of the Planning Commission. The development community became aware of what happened, and frankly the amendment you have from your staff was in fact proposed by the development community. So it came from some stakeholders. So that original language that you had was stakeholder language. The stakeholders -- and with all due respect to us not being here, there has never been an exact day where we were going to hear this thing. And it kept moving around. There were days I was here, I had to leave. There were days Mr. Mulhere could be here, he had to leave. Today he can't be here, so I'm here. So we are here, and Bruce has been here for many of the meetings. So we are here to advocate language we as a stakeholder group advocated in the first place. Now, I think you have a lot of legal issues with this language. One, I don't think there's any scientific justification for treating wetlands in the rural land stewardship area differently than wetlands in the rural fringe mixed use district. They were both part of the order to slow down development, or until we can address environmentally sensitive lands. They were all lumped together. I don't think you provided any scientific information or justification for saying removing exotics is okay for mitigation in the stewardship area but the removal of exotics is not okay in the rural fringe mixed use area. So one, I think you have an equal protection argument, you have no scientific basis for it. Two, the purpose of the LDC is to tell the property owner what they can or can't do with their land. This does not do that. All it tells me is there's going to be some amorphous mitigation process out there if you impact -- primary impact a wetland in the rural fringe mixed use district. It doesn't tell me what my mitigation will be, it doesn't tell me what the process will be to determine it. It just says there's going to be something out there that you're going to have to pay for impacting wetlands, but we're not going to tell you what it is. So I think you have a vagueness problem, which I think is legally unenforceable. I think it tremendously impacts the TDR program. I will tell that you in order for TDRs to come in, they've got to come into receiving lands. Receiving lands have got -- if they have got to impact, pay additional mitigation for impacting wetlands within that receiving area and also pay for TDRs, I will tell you that economically there's going to be a breaking point and people are not going to buy the TDRs. People aren't buying the TDRs right now. It's a fact. They don't justify the price that you have to pay today to get a TDR if you throw additional costs on there because you're saying you're going to impact receiving areas so you can bring those TDRs in, people are just not going to buy the TDRs, they'll scale back the impact, and you will Page 30 of 52 1612 A6 .., 6 June 21, 2012 4 have harmed everybody in the sending areas who you gave them as compensation TDRs because you took away their development rights to protect the environment. You have heard for years that county staff doesn't have the expertise to implement a wetland program. You have not been told what this program's going to cost, how many staff new people are you going to need to come up with a program and then implement the program. You've not been provided any of that data, and you have heard throughout for the many years that staff says they're not capable of doing it. They are going to need to hire new people. You haven't been provided any of that information. You should have that information before you decide to implement a program that's going to be costly to the taxpayers. And you haven't told us as developers what's it going to cost us in additional mitigation. You're just going to adopt a policy when nobody knows the fiscal impacts without any analysis. There's an existing wetland permitting process when you go through the state. Everything's cyclical. Years and years ago, they didn't want county employees, they being environmental groups, didn't want county employees making these decisions, so they transferred everything up to the state for the state to make those decisions. Now they're unhappy with how the state's making decisions, they want to bring it back home, and we don't have any ability to regulate it back home. So I ask you some questions as I'm leaving today. Why is the rural fringe mixed use district being treated differently than the stewardship area? There's no scientific basis for it. Two, what is the standard that I go to tell my clients today when you -- if this gets adopted, that they will need to meet? It doesn't exist. And three, I'd ask you to tell me what reconciled means. I don't think you all can do that. I think that's a difficult concept. I would be interested to hear what the Planning Commission thinks the term reconciled means. I'd be interested to hear what the County Attorney thinks the term reconciled means. I don't know what it means. I can't leave here today and tell my client what they need to do. I don't think Bruce can tell his clients what they need to do. So we request that you go back with the language that is consistent with the rural land stewardship area, which is exotics can be used as part of mitigation. It would be treating similarly situated wetlands the same. It would be putting people in the rural fringe mixed use district on the same footing as those in the urban area and in the rural land stewardship area. It would be consistent with what we all thought was happening in the first place when this program was going into place. And it would be consistent with the science. So with that, I ask that you go back to the language as originally proposed, which was to remove the prohibition on counting exotic removal as mitigation for lands within the rural fringe mixed use district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other public speakers on this issue? MS. CIL,EK: Not that I'm aware o£ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I guess the discussion then is for the Planning Commission to decide how to move forward with this particular amendment. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question. Why was it -- this is to staff. Why was it only applied to the rural fringe and not the RLSA? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In answering that question, if you know that answer, I'd like to know when then it was you decided that to insert it. MR. LENBERGER: I don't know the answer for sure, but I can tell you this. The final order came down, we had to address the rural lands outside the urban area, and county staff worked on the rural fringe. And the rural lands owners took it upon themselves to write their own regs. So county staff was involved with the rural fringe. But the rural lands, the owners out there wrote their own program. So the language here that county staff has is what they wrote for the fringe. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's interesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying the county staff wrote the language that has the removal of the exotics not to count as mitigation. Then why didn't they present it to the Planning Commission when this came up for LDC amendments for the rural fringe back when? Page 31 of 52 F A6 16 12 tune 21, 2012 MR. LENBERGER: I was referring in general to the rural fringe, not the specific -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's talk about the specifics, since that's where the question was really coming from, since that's what we're discussing today -- MR. LENBERGER: The specifics, I can't answer that. The back -up data I gave you shows that it was added. The item was discussed by this board, clarification of that exotic removal. I wasn't involved, so I'm sorry I can't give you any history there, all's I can do is what I've read, and I gave you the information. We did have consultants working, and I copied the page from the executive summary so you can see how those consultants were. But the language, from what I see, was added after the discussion of the Planning Commission. Then it went to the Board. That's when it appeared. I was not involved so I can't answer the specifics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think this language was vetted with any of the stakeholders, do you know? MR. LENBERGER: Given the sort amount of time between the Planning Commission and when that language was prepared for the Board for their first hearing, which they actually didn't hear the item till their second hearing, I would say no, because I believe it was just a couple of weeks at the most. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that, could the language have been added at the request of the Planning Commission during the hearing? MR. LENBERGER: The minutes which I did send you show the item, the one Brad Cornell came up for discussion talked about exotic removal, that was a requirement anyway. And about whether -- how you applied to exotics, it really wasn't really clear, just that it was discussed and that it would be clarified. That's all it had. It was very vague. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately nobody on this board today was here on that board in'99 or 2000 or whatever year it was in. So we kind of lost the ability to be there. Okay, anybody else have any questions? Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Well, I sort of had a change of heart, because I think, listening to all this, I think we're making a mistake by creating a conflict. And I think that's going to come out and bite us down the road. And I think we should back off now because we are creating a conflict. And I think we shouldn't be walking into those waters blind, so to speak. So that's my feeling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm going to ask Ray, were you here at the time, do you have any more to add to this? MR. BELLOWS: I was here, but not involved in this issue. So I have no -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's not too much -- a lot of history in the county, but it's not all on the same subject, unfortunately, so -- Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is there anybody on staff that was here and involved in this issue? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. In the executive summary I gave to you, the Board hearing, it had the consultants that we hire, and one of the consultants was Bob Mulhere. And the only staff member I see is Bill Lorenz. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've had more discussion, more presentation, more public involvement. We need to bring this to a resolution, if we can. Is there any motion from anybody at this point in time? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to move that we adopt the language that was presented to us today, which is that the exotic vegetation count towards mitigation for secondary impacts only, not dredge and fill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Brad. Is there discussion? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Is that Mr. Yovanovich's position? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Paul is saying he's supporting the position that was established on Tuesday Page 32 of 52 6 161L June 21, 2012 for language change. The language that's in front of us is the result of that. And now he's saying he supports this language. And that's what the second is saying; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I'm asking for discussion. Does anybody have any discussion? I mean, I certainly do not support this motion. I support staffs original recommendation to strike it, out of fairness in particular, out of lack of going out, proof that it went out to the stakeholders, secondary. And I just think it's the wrong thing to do. If it can come back through an effort through the staff to do it if it's needed, to go through a stakeholder involvement process that is focused on the rural fringe, that's fine. But this didn't happen that way from all we can -- we have no proof it happened that way originally. I don't know that it did. And I certainly don't feel that it has, based on what we've heard, so -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I espouse your thinking, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, it is the stakeholders that presented this thing to be there. So they're aware this is happening. And we haven't seen really much testimony. I mean, Rich's today is the first we've hear from Rich. I mean, we could cure the problem -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They wanted it removed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They wanted it removed, then they're not in here telling us why. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They just did. COMMISSIONER AHERN: They just did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They just did. He spent 20 minutes telling us why. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In Rich's mind. But anyway, I mean, are the stakeholders just represented by Rich, everybody? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, no, we're going on with our discussion. No, there's no rebuttal to rebuttal to rebuttal, we'll just get done with it today. I mean, that's Brad's opinion on what he heard and he has absolute right to see it that way, so -- Is there anymore? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. I'm not a scientist and I haven't served on this board for more than six months. I wasn't here in 1999, except living in my house in Fiddler's Creek. When I joined this board, maybe I mistakenly understood that we should rely upon sworn testimony put forth before this board by experts or non - experts or opinions. I've heard some testimony, my words, characterized as opinions. Well, everyone has opinions. But I'm an amateur in a lot of these issues. I'm not a lawyer, and I rely upon what attorneys swear to in front of here. I rely on what I hear from county staff. I also give credence to what we hear from environmental people, from The Conservancy and so forth. I don't think they would be up here, quote, unquote, lying. They're expressing their opinion. In my opinion, without actually seeing the reports that Brad alluded to and would make available to this commission, he has stated that there's evidence in those reports that the state has not been adequately administering their permits. And I for one have to give some credence to Brad's opinion on that. I don't know the distinction I'm trying to make here, but I for one don't have the time or inclination to go around and research law, I rely on the County Attorney for that. Nor research scientific findings and conclusions and modeling and so forth and so on. I don't know that that's a responsibility of the commissioners that sit here. So I rely upon testimony or opinions from people that are professionals in their line of work before this board. Editorial is finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, with regard to your point, Mark, that there wasn't due process when it was adopted I guess back whenever that was, that may be true, but I think we are having due process now because it is an LDC amendment, everybody's aware of it. If they weren't aware before, they certainly are aware of it, and it's Page 33 of 52 1612 76 June 21, 2012 coming before the Planning Commission now. So I don't agree with your point that it's not due process to have this considered the way it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understood. Anybody else? Melissa? COMMISSIONER A14ERN: I just wanted to follow upon Bill's comment. If you've ever had to go through the state permit process or deal with it at all, I think you would probably have a different opinion as to what they are or are not enforcing. And to Rich's point, at this point we have no analysis from the county of how they're going to regulate this program, what it's going to cost and if that's going to be an additional burden as well. So I think I agree with Mark, there's a lot of issues that need to be worked out before adopting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that wraps up the discussion. So we'll call for the motion. I'm going to ask that you signify by -- if you're in -- now, the motion on the table right now is for approval of the highlighted yellow document that's in front of us today. All those in favor of that motion, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three in favor. All those against, same sign. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay, it would be 6 -4, so that's six to -- six against, I mean, three in favor. So the motion fails. Is there a another motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion to strike the language. I think that was staffs original? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, staffs original request. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to strike the language pursuant to staffs original request and seconded by Bill. Now for discussion. MR. LENBERGER: I just wanted to mention too, though, if you're going to do that, just also include all the other corrections and reformat we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I believe that was the intent. We'll verify it, and I was going to do that. But thank you. And Melissa and Bill, the comment is that there are other corrections that weren't effective in regards to just the exotic removal. Melissa, your motion was specifically to strike the original language proposed by staff to omit the exotic removal from the rural fringe. But do you accept the other needed corrections in this document? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second. Acknowledged by the motion maker and second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the new motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. Page 34 of 52 A6 1612June 21, 2012 COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. And raise your hand please, so we -- one, two, three, four, five, six in favor. All those against. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three against. So it's the motion carries, the language is being struck. And we appreciate the time and effort everybody here today put in. Thank you for your input. And with that, we'll move into the next item that we want to get for public attention -- from the public's benefit, is the dock issue that is up next. MS. CILEK: There are -- Caroline Cilek for the record. There are two LDC dock amendments. The first was provided in your packet and was sent out last week. And there's a new one in the packet that was distributed this morning. And you could pull them both out. And all of the changes are on -- well, the substance of changes are on Page 5 of both documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to suggest too that because of some of the changes that this will need to come back again after it has been properly re -vetted to the stakeholders involved. Because obviously some of the changes are going to have a -- could have a substantial impact that we don't know about today. MS. CILEK: Right. And as you'll see on the new LDC amendment passed out today, there is a section that's highlighted in blue under little 4.b. And this language is at the request of Commissioner Brougham. And he will be introducing this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the next time a Planning Commission requests language to be introduced to the board we should continue as we always have in the past that the commissioner introduces it during the board hearing instead of staff bringing it forth as a possible staff accepted position. And I don't know, Phil's new so he probably -- that's a different -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's what they informed me of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, well, I -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- that's what I'm going to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not how we usually -- yeah, but usually staff doesn't send it out as language already put into the document. MS. CILEK: Right. We're both new. That will happen from now on. Today you have it before you and it's highlighted in blue so to separate it from that. And he'll take it from here. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't know if I'm allowed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, that's the way -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, at the -- when we talked about this particular amendment the first time, I was not totally comfortable with the words -- wording that was in there, which basically stated that the petitioner shall demonstrate. And that's the word I had a quarrel with, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.J, if seagrass beds are present and so forth within 200 feet. Subsequent to that, there was a meeting arranged by Caroline with Steve Lenberger, myself, Caroline, Nicole Johnson and Kathy Worley. Kathy Worley was The Conservancy scientist that testified before us in The Dunes petition on seagrasses. We met earlier this week and went around and around to some extent regarding where we could grab something of substance which would have a petitioner demonstrate that they've used due diligence in a seagrass survey. And the language that you see in here was a consensus agreement, and I believe amongst everyone, that basically says what you can read here, a submerged resource survey, seagrass survey, shall be required for docks located in natural water bodies or along shorelines without seawalls. And the distinction there is if you have seawalls on each side of a waterway, it's normally a canal. Including those adjacent to rip -rap and water depth equal to or less than six fee measured at mean low water. Surveys should be conducted during the months of June through August, which was a direct input from Ms. Worley as to that. If you have seagrasses present, they are going to show their little sprouts normally during that period of time. Shorelines completely within canals or seawall basins shall be excluded from having to perform this Page 35 of 52 1612 June 21, 2012 survey. And that's the substance of the language. I believe that it reflects scientific input and certainly satisfies my concern about what we're going to require a petitioner to demonstrate or not demonstrate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During this meeting that was held between the environmental staff, the code writer for staff and two members of a private conservation group, did you have any other stakeholder representatives like Turrell and Associates who represent 90 percent of the dock presentations before the Board? Was any of their expertise asked for just in case it may have a different -- differing opinion or view than maybe the other organization did? MS. CILEK: No, this language has not been vetted by any of the advisory boards or other stakeholders. It was sent out yesterday and is new language that was requested by Commissioner Brougham. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you called up Nicole and her group, why wouldn't you call up Todd Turrell's group, why weren't they called? MS. CILEK: The meeting was at the direct request and those who attended were at the request of Mr. Brougham. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Shame on me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Phil, I think that the stakeholder, that both sides to be involved is a much more balanced way to approach it. That's the only thing I was -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, I'm certainly not looking for imbalance in this. I wasn't comfortable with vagueness. And I've heard you say the same thing, vagueness is not good for this board. So okay, staff or anyone, tell me how a petitioner, we can request a petitioner to demonstrate compliance without being more specific. And so that was the genesis of my request. Next time I'll say your request that we have, and I'm happy to go to a list of consultants, let's have this list of other people that might have a concern or input invited to the meeting. I didn't do so, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest that it might be easier just to limit with staff, as I do, I've had plenty of meetings with staff on various issues. And then when it comes to this meeting, the consultants that do show up and the people involved, we can see to what extent there are, and if there's not enough, we go out. And if it's a stakeholder issue we go back to the stakeholders. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Take your point. The issue here was in my opinion there's no one on staff that is a scientist who specializes in seagrass. That was the issue. Because, no harm, when I'm asking yourself about seagrasses and where they occur and et cetera, you know, I get some deferment because you're not an expect and you don't profess to be. And what we heard was evidence or testimony from an expert, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil, I'm just --all I'm --I mean, I'm back to where I'm trying to make sure there's a balance in the way things are presented, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No offense, no offense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we just need to make sure at all times everybody that can be -- if we're going to open it up, we should open it up to everybody or both sides -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I'll rely on staff to keep me on board with the proper procedures in the future, so -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I thought of this as the first step. We'll bring it to your attention today for the CCPC direction. And the direction is to go back to get all the stakeholders. That was kind of the idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I think -- okay. MS. CILEK: This is of substance, so this would be best -- be brought back through all of the advisory boards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then I will refrain from trying to comment on the particulars of this request because I will wait for it to come back. But there may be others who may have comments. Anybody from the Planning Commission? This is going to come back to us. But do you have any comments today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on Page 5, double ii up at the top. We're eliminating the Page 36 of 52 1612*A June 21, 201 requirement that maximum boat length, that the facility can be 50 percent of the property 1 ne. S o I guess we're getting rid of that as a requirement. And again, the intent was in the early days these were all wharf docks and they wanted to restrict that. But I think that what we should do is restrict the dock facility to be no greater than 50 percent. So that means if you're alongside parallel with the seawall and you have one boat, you're 50 percent. If you're perpendicular, all of those perpendicular docks can exceed 50 percent. MS. CILEK: If you look at the new amendment that was put forth this morning in the new packet, we've actually been working on this language. It's a tricky criterion. And what we're proposing to have is that -- so it's not -- which are not perpendicular to the waterfront. Instead -- sorry, just misplaced my LDC amendment -- rather it would be for single family dock facilities the configuration of the dock facility, which includes both vessel and dock that is parallel to the shoreline. So the nexus is the waterfront property and then what is parallel, part of the dock facility that is parallel to the shoreline shall not exceed 50 percent. So I have three different diagrams to kind of illustrate how this would unfold. And we feel like tweaking this language, which is reflective of what's currently there, will help staff make sure that it is enforced the same way each time. So if you take a look at this diagram, you'll see that the combination of two boats and a six -foot dock exceeds the halfway mark of a 60 -foot lot. So it's 26. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute. How many 60 -foot lots are we going to find on canals? MS. CILEK: We use just used a general lot width of 60 to show these because that's the smallest one. But it could be any lot that's larger, and you would have different setbacks for each one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, you're being to go find the generic lot width is not 60 feet. They're all much larger. I mean, if you want to maybe give a variance for a 60 -foot, that might make sense. MS. CILEK: We're not asking that. We're just -- it could be 100 feet, and then 50 percent would be 50 feet, right. And you could say that, and this would actually meet that. Because we're -- if it was -- did I say 100 feet? So 50. So this would be fine, because it's 26 feet. Sorry. Lots of numbers. I have a couple of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is that you're trying to prove something based upon the smallest lot possible. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm concerned about something based upon the normal sized lot. MS. CILEK: I think the numbers can be extrapolated to those larger lots. I mean, you would just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's see the other. MS. CILEK: Okay. So here there's an L- shaped dock. And so the configuration that we would be looking at was from one side of the boat, right here, and then all the way across until the end of this boat. So including the L shape. And this, this 25,1 believe it says, would be what would be measured against the 50 percent of the lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, then maybe the wording here is confusing. Are you saying in ii that the boat dock facility can't be greater than 50 percent? Because -- MS. CILEK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you're using the word parallel. Or are you saying that only -- because you're only referring to one type of dock, essentially the wharf dock, the one that's parallel. MS. CILEK: Three different docks. The other one is -- and first off, if it didn't make the administrative criterion -- or didn't make the administrative approval, excuse me, it would come to the Planning Commission. So any of those that are over 50 percent. Let say we have an angle dock. So in this case you would measure all the way across that area that is being taken up along the shoreline, which would be all of the dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the case of a 60 -foot lot this wouldn't work then. MS. CILEK: No, because that is 37. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. CILEK: But it still could be 37 on an 80 -foot lot and that would work. You would have three feet of room for 50 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So maybe I'm -- okay, the wording of this says for single - family dock Page 37 of 52 1612 A6 June 21, 2012 facilities the configuration of the dock facility vessels and dock that is parallel to the shoreline. So you're not referring to the design of the dock being parallel, you're referring that the -- it is that dimension that is parallel. Okay, it's not really well written then -- MR. BELLOWS: We can fix it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- let's work on that, then. Because I've got -- because the last one you sent out said perpendicular docks -- MS. CILEK: I understand. I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then this one looks like you went to describe it the opposite. But -- MS. CILEK: We worked with Heidi on this and she did feel it was clear. Do you have any idea of what you would think would be clear if this is the type of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I just think for single- family lots, dah, dah, dah, dah, the configuration of the dock facility, parentheses, vessels and dock, shall be measured parallel to the shoreline and not exceed 50 percent. Okay. So we, actually we're in agreement. Because what you're showing here is not the need, you're showing here that some on small lots are going to have a difficult time making it work, as they should. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying, though, is they wouldn't make a difference whether it's perpendicular or not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's just the facility itself is more than 50 percent then you got a problem. MR. BELLOWS: That's why we showed the three examples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: His way of saying it might be a simpler way for it to be understood. Basically, the facilities can't be more than 50 percent width of the lot, period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whether it's perpendicular upside down, or crossways, don't matter. I think that's a clarification, it would help. Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I was concerned that we had totally forgotten about the dock that was going to be parallel to the shoreline. But what Brad says covers that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, we're covered. COMMISSIONER VONIER: It covers everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then my next question is iii, 30 feet, you moved it to 40 feet where the setbacks change, why? MS. CILEK: Right. We actually just want to talk about this one in general. We were brainstorming ideas of how for large -- excuse me, docks that protrude pretty far out in the water, how to get them so that, you know, they're centered on the parcel, and that the mass of the boat, which we felt was something that was discussed at the last meeting, would be on that person's property rather than closer to someone else's. So we wanted to gauge how you felt about this concept and then go into the feet number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're given 20 feet. We're allowed to do that now. And that's what everything was written for. So what you're saying is that as the dock gets 40 feet, which means administratively you've given them another 20, it's only at that point you start pulling it into the setbacks -- MS. CILEK: Because it is an extension, they're probably going to be quite a couple feet over the 20 to begin with, that's why they're coming in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the most you can give in the administrative is 40, correct? MS. CILEK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So theoretically, a 60 -foot dock -- MS. CILEK: Is halfway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- would have 20 more feet of setback on each side or -- MS. CILEK: Uh -huh. So at the 40 -foot level we sort of did the numbers and we felt that that was the -- at that protrusion level they could actually have a boat out there. At the 30 it was a little restrictive in length, even having a boat and a dock up Page 38 of 52 161n2l, 2012 6 there was getting really crunched. And when we proposed the 30 we hadn't done the numbers yet, we hadn't crunched numbers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concept is, though, on that typical 100 -foot lot, at least typical in my district. The -- actually what would start to happen is the setback would start to increase such that you'd have to -- the 50 percent would even be trumped by the setback increase. MS. CILEK: Yes. Well, 50 percent would be one criterion. This would be another, that if you're over a certain threshold. It's kind of like a wedding cake, kind of goes up -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 40's fine. If it was any smaller, it would really start to constrict, but -- MS. CILEK: It would. And we talked to Heidi about it, and she was a little concerned that it might be very restrictive. And first we want to see if you guys even gauge your idea on it, and then talk about the footage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I'm good with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only question -- go ahead, Phil, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'd like some comforting words regarding the -- what's being proposed, which is an administrative approval. And which would not come -- granted, would not come before the Planning Commission. And if I'm understanding correctly, if we were to go forward and this were to be adopted, then staff would be reviewing the petitions for boat dock extensions. And if in your judgment all the criteria was met then you would grant the administrative approval. Is that -- am I understanding that correctly? MS. CILEK: I don't know if it's our judgment, but if the dock was laid out and met the criteria -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If you find that all the criteria, the primary and the secondary were met, then you'd grant the administrative approval; is that correct? MS. CILEK: They have to meet all of them. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All of them. What concerns me is that in the past recent history we've had a number of boat dock extensions requests come up here where -- and I'm sorry, I don't have the exact quotes, but where I believe staff has stated the criteria has been met, whether it be primary or secondary, and then in the hearings before this board we found quite to the contrary, particularly in the area of undue hardship, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And that concerns me a bit that we're losing some of our oversight there. Not to be overly critical of staff. But I believe that's happening. And that concerns me that some issues that this board has picked up on and actually rejected boat dock petitions or extensions might have gone through if this amendment goes forward. And just a question. I would like some rationale behind it. MR. BELLOWS: I think I can give you some assurance. If there's a boat dock that doesn't meet any of the criteria or one of them, it automatically goes to the Planning Commission. Two, the ones that were denied recently had variances associated with them. They would automatically come CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None of those would qualify for the administrative review because it would have been kicked out because they don't meet the minimum criteria. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What if a variance was not associated with it? MR. BELLOWS: If the variances were not associated with it and with the limitation we're trying to impose to keep them to be the minimalist type of boat docks that everyone would have assurance that there aren't any real issues, then those would be something that, based on previous direction from the Planning Commission, is something that we thought that you'd want not to be bothered with. But if it was a long dock exceeding the limits that we've outlined, then those would automatically come to -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Don't misunderstand, I'm all for having government get out of way where appropriate and to make life easier for the residents of the county, and within certain boundaries. But we've had oversight on boat dock extensions and variances for years, or historically. And if we're going to give up that prerogative to staff, then I for one would like some assurance that there are at least criteria or additional criteria that -- or considerations that staff will bring to some of these and say, whoops, you know, I remember precedent in the past where this was an issue before the planning board so perhaps we shouldn't approve it, perhaps it should go. I don't know what I'm asking for, I'm just uncomfortable in losing what oversight we've had in the past on this, in view of the recent ones. Page 39 of 52 16 121,112A6 'A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I know you're new on the board, but we have asked staff repeatedly to look at the simpler boat dock extensions and not bring them before us because it was such a costly burden for the public to have to go ahead and hire experts to come in with all kinds of studies and things on a boat case that was so slam dunk it really didn't make any sense them force them to spend the money and time to come here. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have no disagreement with your statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well that's all that this -- that's all that this is alluding to, Phil. That's all that this was -- and then the examples that were recently used, neither one would apply to this, because both of them had setback violations, which they couldn't even come in here for. So they'd be back before this board anyway, because staff couldn't have done them. That's what I think the purpose was. We started this years ago, trying to get this in the works. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not trying to be argumentative. I agree with the spirit of what this is trying to accomplish. My concern is in the past, within the last six or eight months, irrespective of whether a variance was applied or in conjunction or not, there have been primary and secondary criteria that the staff has agreed that the petitioner has met that we disagreed. And that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, I didn't recognize anything you've said as argumentative. I'm simply trying to tell you the history that you weren't here for. I wasn't arguing with you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, I accept the history. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Phil, one of the things I was going to ask at the time we vote, which obviously is next time, is that out of courtesy, that maybe staff could send us electronically, no, don't waste paper, just, you know, as they approve them just send them to us, just so we can just, you know, no authority, I nothing other than just look over your shoulder. MS. CILEK: Oh, for those that are approved administratively? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just for awhile until we tell you to cut it out, you know. But -- MS. CILEK: I'll let Ray speak to that. That's a process -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're going to have an application and you're going to have some sort of a judgment letter. So I mean, just copy us on that when it's done, with the understanding that we can't do anything other than watch it. And if we have a problem we could bring it up on our agenda someday. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's my only concern. And it may be a false concern, that's all. I'm all for simplification where it doesn't lose proper oversight. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other thing is I've looked at Phil's language, and I'm comfortable with that. I think, I'm not sure if the industry's going to have a problem with it. It does kind of set boundaries stating that don't measure anything deeper than six feet and stuff like that. May save people money wasting time measuring stuff. So other than you have to do it between -- in the summer months could be a problem for somebody coming down in the winter trying to get a boat dock permit. But other than that, I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: I have one suggestion in regards to Brad's concern and Phil's concern. If an administrative boat dock extension is approved by staff, we could put it on the next CCPC consent agendas just to show you what has been approved by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't put it on consent, but do it as just regular information on the staff report. Don't do it consent because then we have to vote on it, so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, I'd suggest just send an email out. Don't even make it cost money, I mean. MR. BELLOWS: Okay, just an email. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just keep it cheap. And anybody's who's curious can peek in and look over your shoulder. Because if you send it to the meeting, what if we don't have a problem with it, we'll start discussing it Page 40 of 52 1612 A6 June 21, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: That's true. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if we do develop a problem with it, we'll -- and we're not shy, so any piece of paper presented will get our interest, so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do you have any registered public speakers? MS. CILEK: I believe so. I believe there are speakers. None of them have registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I always ask registered because they'll be the first ones up. So members -- anybody, members of the public that wish to speak to this? Is there anybody here that wants to address the boat dock issue? It is going to be coming back to us, it is going out for vetting, so that could take two or three years. Hi, Tim. MR. HALL: Good morning. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell Hall and Associates. I apologize for my appearance, I got off of a plane to come here and I didn't have time to do a lot of clean -up. But I wanted first off to kind of complain a little bit about the short notice on some of the new language that went in. You guys have already done that, so I'll leave it go. We are, in the industry, in terms my business and people that we work with in favor of the staffs position trying to create this administrative process for the easier single - family dock projects. And we've been trying to work with staff in terms of the language, and specifically with the yellow configuration of the dock and the dock length, boat lengths and correlation to the shoreline. And I think the way that they have it now, meaning the overall width of the facility parallel to the shoreline being under 50 percent and the provisions that they have in there for the length are good or acceptable to us. The only thing I wanted to make sure is occasionally when you guys are talking it sounds like these are set in stone criteria for any BIDE. And we wanted to make sure that it's in there that these are, if you meet all of these criteria it's in association with the administrative process. If you don't meet them, then you come back to the board. It doesn't mean you can't get the BDE. It just means you have to come to the board. That has kind of gotten fuzzy a few times. And then since I'm here, I'd like to make a couple of comments associated with the additional language related to the submerged resource surveys. Generally the state requires surveys to be done between March and October. And in a lot of waterways that earlier time frame can be important because you'll get grasses that will grow as the water starts warming up, and then they'll die when the rainy season starts. So if you wait until the middle of summer when the rains may have started to do your seagrass surveys, you could actually not see those. Paddle grass is the one that specifically when we do our surveys in May in Clam Bay, we'll find evidence of paddle grass. And if we wait until August, it's all gone. So you should be aware that a longer time frame is what the state allows. And in some cases that's important in terms of finding that. And I don't understand what the limitations were associated if it's only in natural or rip -rap shorelines. There are a lot of submerged resources that can grow in sea - walled canals as well. Oysters, sponges and seagrasses will all grow next to a seawall just as easy as they will next to a shoreline. So the fact that you're limiting it here could result in more impacts than your anticipating. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If I might, can I just comment on that. It might be helpful the next time around also that we invite Kathy Worley to come. And just to your point there, your question there, observation there, Tim, this lady specifically stated to us in her opinion that the grasses are prevalent during that period and that's why you see that language in there -- MR. HALL: That's a time frame -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- that's contrary to what you're saying to us. MR. HALL: It's a time frame, the June to August is a time frame that's associated with a specific grass, Johnson seagrass. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. MR. HALL: But there are other seagrasses that we have here that may not be as appropriate a time frame. In general it's fine. That's the center of the time frame that the state allows. But when you get areas that can be affected by freshwater or temperature drastically during, you know, the March, April time frame versus the July, August time frame, you can have grasses that will only grow in the early part -- Page 41 of 52 1612 , A6 June 21, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for an observation, I would think we'd want to modify this language then to be more conservative then restrictive in terms of calendar, based on what you're saying. MR. HALL: The other thing that is a potential impact to homeowners or to people trying to permit these is if they get a permit submittal in or BDE submittal in in September, then under this language they would have to wait until July before anything could be done with that, or before final approval could be made. Extending out the time frames to allow the October to March time frames, which is what the state allows, would then not be as onerous a burden on them in terms of the time frames. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's important that you get your thoughts together with staff when this gets vetted and gets out to everybody and any, like the boating association and other people who are involved in it, so everybody's working from the same playing field and understanding of this. So I think that would be a good point -- MR. HALL: I apologize, I am a little scattered. I just saw this an hour and a half ago. So I'm trying to get caught up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, when you're looking for grasses, the grasses that have died off, do you have evidence that they were there? I mean, do they disappear? MR. HALL: In some cases. Paddle grass is very difficult. It's very ephemeral. It will come and go rapidly. With some of the other ones, the shoal grasses and all, you can find evidence of the root masses that are still there, even though the leaves aren't. So the answer I guess would be yes and no, it's very site dependent. I just think, you know, as far as the state's concerned and as far as submerged resources go, we're not only talking about seagrasses, although that is the one that seems to get the most press. But there are a lot of other resources that could be present that, you know, can be in any waterway. So I'm uncomfortable limiting this I guess to not include the seawall portions, especially given that those sea - walled areas are the ones where we need those resources the most. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other public speakers on this matter? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see. Strange person, never met this person before. Welcome back, Donna, it's good to see you. MS. CARON: Donna Caron, for the record. I just wanted to say first of all, I agree with Tim on the seawalls. It was something that I was going to bring up according to this language. You know, taking out seawalls is not a smart move when it comes to seagrasses or any other sensitive materials. Or excluding them, rather. But my main reason for being here actually rather echos what Phil's concerns were. I've been -- I was a part of the board for seven years and I monitored it for probably 10 or 12 years. And I would safely say that of all the boat docks that have come before this board, 99.9 percent of them have been made better by the judgments of this board. And I think just turning things back over to staff is not a wise move. We have had numerous things, and long before you were here, Mr. Brougham, many, many instances, and I am not talking about the recent ones, where staff put through the -- or criteria was presented to staff, staff said okay, it's fine by us. And it came to this board and this board has found numerous things to make it better and make it better for neighborhoods. And that's the whole point of having this board here. And what you should be doing, I think. When the Board of County Commissioners turned over this responsibility to the Board, it wasn't so that this board could then turn it back over to staff. That's my opinion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Donna. Okay, are there any other public speakers on this matter? Okay, well that will -- you got further direction to go forward. We'll wait for the next round. We have a choice now. We can try to get these done say within the next hour for the remainder of them, or if we don't think we can accomplish that we ought take lunch and give the court reporter -- well, regardless, we'll take a break in a few minutes after we discuss it. What's the feelings of this board? I think the kenneling one I've got some issues with but I think they can be discussed rather rapidly. And hopefully they'll make sense so we can resolve the issues quickly. But -- Page 42 of 52 - � 1 6 ' June 21, A 2012 6 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ten minute break. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a short break? Let's just take a break. Is 10 minutes okay? We'll take a break to 12:15 and we'll resume at that time. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Cherie's back, we're all good to go. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the last issue, Ray, along with the legislative strike- through and underline, could you send a clean copy so that we can read it without the strike- through and underline, because -- MS. CILEK: For the dock? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For the dock. For next time. MS. CILEK: Actually, if you look in the packet for today, I believe there's one included. And typically there is. Unfortunately, in your packet that came last week there wasn't. But yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What she's saying is everybody gets it but you, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, everybody in the -- I always go to the legislative -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Particularly if it's boat dock related. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll look a little more carefully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next one, because I know there's staff members here to address it, we'll move right into the kenneling definitions. It will be 1.08.02. And there's two or three people from staff here to help us get through this today. MS. TOWNSEND: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good to see you again. MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you. Amanda Townsend, your Director of Domestic Animal Services. Just to bring you back up to speed, this amendment comes to you as a result of a public petition from a person who had a code violation as a result of having more than three dogs in a residential single - family area. The Board directed staff to put a stay on enforcement on that portion of the kenneling definition within the LDC and to do something to revise the LDC to accommodate folks like the petitioner. We've brought you forward changes in the definition of kenneling here. And I know there have been some concerns. When we talked in May, animal services was working on a process to revise our animal control ordinance, and your process was a little ahead of ours. And I think we may have caught up with you, and we may be able to give you a few reassurances that I didn't have available for you in May that where code enforcement may no longer be involved in mitigating nuisance from multiple animals congregating in one area, domestic animal services should be, provided that our amendments to the animal control ordinance move forward, should be able to step in and provide for both public safety as well as ensuring proper animal care and mitigating nuisance. I can give you some specifics on the revisions to the animal control ordinance if you're interested or I can answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I had emailed staff of a concern I saw that was inconsistent with our Land Development Code, which is what this board primarily has to abide by. And that is in the quantity of animals allowed in certain zoning districts by right by zoning. I just wanted to make sure that the paragraph -- and it has nothing -- and this board's purview doesn't go over code of laws. But since it was presented to us, and that's only the excerpt I read from the one that you all discussed, it didn't seem to except out those species of 10 or more animals that could be allowed by the zoning ordinance. And if they are, I would suggest that your oversight and yearly inspections and all that not abide. I think that is burdensome to rural landowners, especially agricultural districts, both the Estates and the agricultural area. And I would hope that you can have an exception for those types of zoning elements. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir. And in fact the definition that we've shown you here of animal related entity does except out bona fide livestock operations. And I understand if there's a concern to except out fowl as well, that I could suggest to our ordinance revision subcommittee and our advisory board that that language be added in. I doubt that seriously that they would have any trouble with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest even in a broader brush maybe you take a look at it as excepting out that which is allowed by zoning, in regards to, for example, fowl. Page 43 of 52 A6 1612June 21, 2012 In the Estates you're allowed to have a series animals, not just fowl, but there is a list in the zoning ordinance that you can have livestock. But you know what, it's not even 10 livestock. So there it might be appropriate. But I think if you address it to the zoning ordinance as the hierarchy, that would save a lot of trouble maybe on the part of code enforcement as well as part of your department running out and doing things where people were permitted to have them from their zoning ordinance alone. So that was my -- that's my suggestion. If you could take a look at it, that would be helpful. MS. TOWNSEND: I will put that language just as you've said, excepting out that which is allowed by zoning, forward to our subcommittee. I'm sure they won't have a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would sure be helpful. Thank you. Anybody else have any issues with kenneling? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, I'm in favor of the way this is zoned. I think three was a good number. So show me how we protect the animals. For example, last night on the news there was in Buckingham in Lee County a story about the neighbors can't sleep because there's 10 German Shepherds in the yard next door. The night before that was a lady who was hoarding animals, and here they are, she's starting to stick them in cages in the backyard. And it, you know, just downhill. There's a tipping point with the number of animals that does not have a happy ending. So how will we control that in Collier County? MS. TOWNSEND: What we're proposing in the changes to the animal control ordinance are -- would be to provide DAS regulatory oversight any time someone congregates more than 10 animals of the same species in a given space at a certain location. In a residential area that would be a complaint driven process only. However, if that person were required to hold a business tax receipt or in other way had a 501(C)(3), you know, had some other sort of commercial -- was commercially established, that would be a proactive effort on our part. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not afraid of people who are breeders in kennels. I'm really afraid of like the hoarding situation and stuff. So there would be no way -- I mean, a lady has six dogs and then she has seven dogs and then she has -- I mean, where's the line drawn and how does it get to the point where it's stopped before the dogs are the one that gets hurt by this? MS. TOWNSEND: Of course all of those animals are required to be licensed and vaccinated. And so there's a financial disincentive to have a large number of animals, and there's also a financial disincentive to have a large number of unsterilized animals, because -- which of course produce more. And that's how you get into the hoarding kind of situation. A licensing fee, for example, for a cat or a dog who is sterilized is $10. But for one who's unsterilized it is $60. So, you know, our -- that's one of the ways we help people keep their population down. And this will -- the changes to the animal control ordinance will actually provide us with additional regulatory oversight that should help with the problems you're talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like what? Because what your answer is that the person won't have that many animals because the licenses and the vet care will be too expensive. But they probably aren't doing that, so -- MS. TO" SEND: Absolutely. And we work these cases on a continual basis. We have a number of those kinds of cases going on right now. It's a -- it is extremely resource intensive. But it's a matter of continuing to apply pressure to the animal owner to keep their population down and to assure that the animals are receiving proper care. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When is your ordinance coming into effect? MS. TOWNSEND: We're on schedule to have a first reading at the first meeting in September. I wanted to add one other thing that may add some comfort. Is that in addition to the changes to the animal control ordinance, we will also be bringing forward a resolution that will lay out a schedule of penalties that should remove discretion from animal control officers and ensure a certain amount of enforcement happens when there are violations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And these violations would be what? Let's -- the person has -- let's say they have 10 animals in the house and they do have 10 licenses. So there's nothing going to happen to them until the animals start to -- the care starts to slip and then somebody reports them and you come in and -- or what? Page 44 of 52 June 2 1612 A6 MS. TOWNSEND: As well as ensuring proper animal care, the animal control ordinance already provides for mitigating of nuisances such as sanitary nuisance or barking or any other kind of objectionable noise. And of course the noise ordinance does as well. So I think as far as mitigating nuisance, the controls are already in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the Buckingham example, the county was there frustrated because they have no limit in their regulations. And how would we handle the barking? What happens? I've got these 10 German Shepherds living next to Mark. How does Mark get to sleep at night? Because they do like to bark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: .45. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And see what that brings. MS. TOWNSEND: We don't recommend that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is another point. See what that can bring out in the community if we have too many dogs around. But go ahead. MS. TOWNSEND: Any time there's a violation there are two ways in which a person can be cited, which obviously is a disincentive to allow the behavior of the animal to go on. Number one, the animal control officer can witness the violation. And we have a lot of instances of noise complaints in particular often coming from birds where we have to do quite a bit of monitoring. And we're able to park a few houses down, roll down the window, see if we can observe the nuisance, that sort of thing. The other way that we can establish that a violation has occurred and issue a citation is when we receive affidavits of complaint from two neighbors within the vicinity that where the story matches, if you will. And we can cite on that as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in this case it would be easy. Drive up to the house next door, the dogs are barking. So what happens? How is that protected? How's that neighbor -- I mean, anything happen immediately or is he -- you take him before the magistrate or what happens? MS. TOWNSEND: Generally speaking, we will -- and here again, we're coming forward with a schedule of penalties for violations, so that's going to be spelled out how many chances someone gets or that sort of thing. But when we get to the point where we've established a clear violation, we can issue that person a citation, they can choose to appeal it to the special magistrate if they so desire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, does anybody have any questions about what we're here to discuss today, which is strictly the definition for kenneling on Page 3, which is only one sentence? That was my fault to get you off on tangents. I apologize. But because so much was provided, it -- we had to COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's the thing we're missing. That definition was a smart way to control how many animals you have. Because they define that if you have more than three animals, you are a kennel. And that brings code enforcement in that people have an illegal kennel once they have that fourth animal. So it is a way of controlling the number of animals. A very good way. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: A lot of the homeowners associations in condos don't allow even three. And that's the majority of what is in area anyway. It's -- you're talking about somebody who has room for six dogs can't have them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hopefully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other thing, though, the board did order -- I mean, Board set a policy. They wanted the change. So we can debate about whether that was good or bad. But the point is it's going to change whether we debate about it or not. And I think that we probably need to look and see what is the best definition pursuant to their direction that we can send them. And that's kind of where we're at with 1.08.02 on Page 3. Is that a -- is that -- does that get the definition to a point where we can send it to the Board with a recommendation to approve or is there more tweaking needed to it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment on that is the Board, I think they're right, a guy with four little dogs, it isn't fair. Because, you know, I can have three Mastiffs maybe, and that's not fair. But the way we came to the conclusion -- what we did is, the solution was we're not going to put a limit on the dog numbers. In other words, we went from three to unregulated. And I'm not so sure. I mean, maybe we should have put a -- you're allowed, you know, 100 pounds of mammals or something and that would have been the solution. Page 45 of 52 4 1612'A6 June 21, 2012 But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the LDC is going to remove the requirement. But we've had the acknowledgment from staff that the requirement is going to be not only in the code of laws but it's going to be strengthened in the code of laws with further refinement that would actually tighten it up probably better than what a three sentence definition would do in the Land Development Code. So in the end I think we're going to be better off. And the Land Development Code sticking strictly to uses, which is what our objective is, by defining a kennel as a use as shown here, really takes the burden of how many and the quantity off and puts it on the operational aspects, which is more what the code of laws could address. So I think this is a good way to go. I think that we've had plenty of testimony today to indicate that the right change is being made in other directions. In the end I don't think we've lost anything by it, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When does -- yeah. I mean, I'm not a big fan of people having multiple dogs. And we discussed before the pack mentality. And I've seen some disasters. I'll step away from that. There is one other thing in here that limited the number of dogs that could be used for security purposes in commercial, industrial. So we're just going to throw that away too and --because it is very common in some fenced -in industrial areas for people to bring dogs in at night as security, and that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this prohibit that from happening? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This does not regulate it. A guy can bring in, you know, 50 dogs and put them in a yard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, more than 10 he'd have a problem with the Amanda's department. MS. TOWNSEND: He'd be subject to regulatory oversight at a minimum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, he brings in nine. Nine Dobermans is a problem. MS. CILEK: And they'd have to be registered to the owner, and hopefully they'd be registered to that property as well. So people would have to really know where those dogs are coming from, who owns them, what the purpose is. MS. TOWNSEND: We have contemplated in animal control ordinance revisions addressing the commercial use of dogs for protection or guard dog kind of commercial entities. In our discussions we haven't come to that topic yet, but it was floated when we sort of were looking at our scope of work. So I can bring back a recommendation from the Planning Commission to our ordinance revision subcommittee that perhaps that should be addressed in the animal control ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be good. The other thing is since it looks like it's going to be approved, could we hold off the effective date of this until you have the effective date of your regulations? MS. CILEK: It just so happens that this amendment as well as Amanda's work will coincide to go toward the BCC in September, the first date, September I Ith. So they will go together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then they'll be matched together. That's a good idea. Good. About time the code of laws is coordinated with the Land Development Code. We just found out where it wasn't, and so at least something is. Okay. Does anybody have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any -- no public speakers? Okay. Is there a motion in regards to the definition that's on Page 3. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve the definition as written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve as written by Ms. Homiak. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. Page 46 of 52 16 12 ;,,A612 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're opposed. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My dog. I've got to live with my dog. I don't want to talk about it later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight to one, Brad is opposed. Thank you both. Appreciate your time today. Okay, where do you want to go next? MS. CELEK: Okay. Take a look at our agenda. I will find mine. Actually, let's stick with what we had after kenneling, which was in the packet from last week, which is 4.06.03, landscaping requirements for vehicle use areas and right -of -way. That's the first of the three. And this was reviewed probably last month. And at your request I met with NABOR, the president of NABOR, Mr. Poteet, and discussed with him what this amendment outlined, which is a change from 180, 60, and then the last one is 180 days to one year. And that's the grace period for the first two sections that a business has the opportunity to come into a use that has ceased. They have that grace period before they have to bring up the site features into to code compliance. And he relayed that one year was a good balance and he liked the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. Thank you for going back to him. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing is looking at the evidence you've given us, the time on the market and stuff like that. I mean, you could see that it's growing and growing, even since the second quarter, 2010. So do you think the one year is the appropriate date? I mean -- MS. CILEK: Yes. Actually, these are from December. I think the trends are leveling out now so that these are not as accurate as they were when this was first submitted. I apologize for that. But yes, both Mr. Poteet from NABOR and CBIA, Collier Building Industry Association, supported the one year. It's a balanced approach because they want to come into business that are also keeping up their site features. Because those businesses around you reflect your business. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so especially the chart at the bottom that shows we have quite a few projects that are really over 22 mon -- I mean, they're long on the market. MS. CILEK: Right. If you look at that table, actually, those are very large box stores. And those tend to be kind of exempt from this criteria. They're more in PUDs, they're more connected to other buildings. And this provision really gets to those that are stand alone buildings. Because if one unit goes vacant, then you have to account for the other units that are still being occupied, and so this provision isn't brought into the process as much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Essentially when a building becomes nonconforming it's because the regulations have grown past the regulations that existed when it was built, correct? MS. CILEK: That can be one way, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's another way, I mean? MS. CILEK: Off the top of my head -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They took out the landscaping? I guess they could have. Okay, I mean, I'm a fan of a little more time, but, I mean, we're in an economy where buildings are out there for more than a year. And it's a major -- it's the loss of value. If you all of a sudden have to put in the things that are Page 47 of 52 1612'A6 June 21, 2012 referenced here, it's the value of the property diminishes the day after that year. MS. CILEK: Well, we are jumping from 60 days, 180, 90 days, to one year, consistent with a lot of other provisions in the neighboring communities. And it's supported by the community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you mean neighboring communities? What time frames do they have? MS. CILEK: Well, when we were doing our research we often look around and find out what other counties are doing. Collier is, you know, it's own independent. But I'm saying that one year for nonconforming is pretty consistent across the board. 180 is rather a short time period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is Lee county's time frame? MS. CILEK: It's been a while since -- I'm not going to speak to the exact year. But I recall that this was consistent with what other counties are doing as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's one year in Lee County? MS. CILEK: I'm going to speak to the exact year. But we'll say that one of our goals is to make sure that we're, you know, relative to other areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I mean, it would be nice to make it longer. It's not going to hurt the community to give people a little more time to get vacant buildings back on the market. That's one of our major problems is commercial vacant buildings being held out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm satisfied. Our instruction was for staff to go out to some of the stakeholders and get their opinions. Both the primary business community representatives have expressed this as fine. They're in agreement with the amendment. I'm not sure we need at this time to extend it. But maybe if it comes back and there's a problem we can always look at extensions in the future. But it's harder to take away than it is to give, so we ought to be careful how much we give, and then if we have to give more that might be a better opportunity in the future to do it. Right now this is better it was, thought, Brad, we ought to get this off the table and running. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it was -- there is a task force. Too bad Diane left. The economic recovery task force, this was the major problem with people coming online is that these buildings aren't useful because of the major work they'd have to do to bring them into the current codes. MS. CILEK: Right. And I know in the introduction that that is where this amendment comes from, is from the economic task force, and this is their recommendation. And I think it provides a balance. I mean, the economy isn't going to be this way forever. And in the future this code will still be in place, unless there's an LDC amendment. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To shorten it, yeah. If in the future if it got -- we'd be back to where the old -- MS. CILEK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no members of the public. Anybody want to make a motion then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if I make a motion, it will be for a longer time period, so let's try that. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Melissa. Oh, did you want to make a motion, is that what you said? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it would be for a longer time period. So if somebody thinks 12 years, they should jump in quick. I said 12, one year, one year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion to approve it as written. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 48 of 52 � 1612 A6 June 21, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Okay, let's move on to the PUD 10.02.13, planning unit development procedures. MS. CILEK: This one was reviewed on Tuesday. And at the direction of Brad we went back and reorganized it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the future, I think you're well aware now that Brad likes codes and organization. He spent a long time doing these things, so I have a feeling you may want -- benefit in getting together with him earlier than later, so -- MS. CILEK: This one was actually done by another individual. And I should note that much of this will be actually removed and put in the administrative code. And then it will be in a whole new form. But will still -- still needs to go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I think you were the only one that had issues with this last time. You fine with it now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I am. Actually, I'm still looking for it. It was in today's packet, right? MS. CILEK: It is, yes. And I kept in the strike- through language just so you could see what was coming out. That will go, in the final form. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have you found it yet? That's good. You did it. It's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that a motion to recommend approval, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Bill. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Let's move on to 6.06.01 and 6.06.02, system street requirements, sidewalks, pathways. MS. CILEK: If you look on Page 3 at the bottom, the recommendation to include per manufacturer specifications, which was a recommendation on Tuesday, has been added. And we looked at the section again and we said how else can we better organize this. So what we did is we moved on Page 4 a section to kind of create an overall umbrella under F that sort of guides how people will utilize the 2.17 dot -- Page 49 of 52 1612 A 6 June 21, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad's not going to like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just kidding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't wait for me, I still haven't found the background. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you haven't found that one yet? Here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Next time staple them for me. MS. CILEK: Well, yes, I actually think that's a good idea. I'm also suffering from the paper everywhere. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't thing it -- when I look at mine, I don't think it has anything to do with mitigation, so we're in trouble. MS. CIL,EK: No, not this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you want to see my copy? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I got him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Bill. Does anybody have any questions, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, there is a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommended by Brad, second by Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. The last one up is Section 10.02.03, submittal requirements for SDPs. That again was one we heard on Tuesday. There's -- may was changed to shall. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that was it, wasn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then there's some reformatting in the last page, number four. Looks good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Brad, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. Page 50 of 52 1612 A0 21, 2012 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Thank you, we got through it all. Couple setbacks, but we'll get through them all. Thank you very much, Caroline. MS. CILEK: We'll be back in July. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In when? MS. CILEK: We will be back in July. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 19th of July I believe is our next meeting. So with that, that wraps up today's meeting. Is there any new business? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can't we just have an informal get- together between now and July 19th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, sure, off the record without a public meeting, we do that all the time, yeah. That would be fun. The paper would have a heyday with something like that. Okay, with that, is there a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.) C14AH MAN STRAIN: Barry. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We're out of here. Thank you all. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:45 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK . STRAIN, Chairman Page 51 of 52 16 12 ' A6 June 21, 2012 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board ono—[9— P , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 52 of 52 r k } r� TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 19, 2012 A6 1612uly 19, 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, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Page 1 of 45 CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William H. Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham 1612 6 July 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, July 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm 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: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And, Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're all here. And welcome back, Heidi. It's good to see you back. We missed you. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Thank you. I missed you all, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you bring us back anything from your vacation? No. Didn't miss us that much, huh. Addenda to the agenda. Anybody have any changes or issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of the minutes? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Absences? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were electronically -- pardon me? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Absences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Good point. Planning Commission absences. Our next regular meeting is the first meeting in August, I believe. Ray, is there any change in that? We don't have anything in between, do we? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe you have anything. I don't have my calendar in front of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got it, and I don't see any. It will be August 2nd. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the August 2nd meeting? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I will not be present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why you wanted to make sure we brought that up. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Wanted it on the record. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we have anything for that meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we have anything for that meeting? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Will you check that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. We'll -- do we have -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have items for August 2nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Mr. Brougham won't be here, but the rest of us will, hopefully. Thank Page 2 of 45 { Jul AO6 1612 y l you. Okay. Now we'll go to the approvals of the minutes. And we had three packages electronically sent to us. I'm hoping everybody reviewed them. Let's start with the first one, June 7, 2012. Is there any corrections or notations? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry made a motion, to second, by? Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: (Raises hand.) 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. The June 19th minutes, same question. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that Phil? Okay. Phil made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. 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. The last one is the LDC hearing on June 21 st. Any corrections or changes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Page 23, it said Chairman Lefebvre, and that should be Chairman Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. That's my alias. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's code enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Thank you. With that one correction, is there anything else? If not, is there a motion to approve subject to that one correction? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak made the motion. Is there a second? Page 3 of 45 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry made the second. 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? July 19, 2012 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Okay. That gets us through the simpler stuff. BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they haven't met since the last time we did, yeah. I didn't think so. Chairman's report. I have just a couple things. First of all, I had mentioned a couple times that I thought my end of my term was September of this year. I do not believe that's accurate, so it looks like I'll be here staying with you guys longer. And I certainly will be enjoying and looking forward to my continued presence on this board. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: How much longer? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Until you're tired of me, Barry. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: That won't be soon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- I went to see Ian, but he's not here, so -- but I'll keep you abreast of any changes to that. The second thing is, I have gotten a series of requests from residents in Golden Gate Estates about two facilities, neither of which I'm really familiar with or ever been to, but I had heard about them. And I don't even know how to say the first one. I drink a tea called Kombucha, and that's the best I can tell you. It's Komabuchowa (sic) or something. It's a preserve or wildlife preserve. And the other one is Shy Wolf Sanctuary. Both of them seem to be a zoning- related issue from what I can tell, and some of them -- one of them in particular, I know, has been there for decades. Is there any way that you could provide a -- by the next meeting either a brief synopsis or something to the Planning Commission to let us know what's going on on an issue like that? Since this is the zoning board, and it's logical for people to ask us why things are happening. Because I don't understand it myself. I haven't seen the data. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I'd be glad to. We've already prepared it for the Board of County Commissioners, who requested it, and can forward it to each planning commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that would be great. Thank you, Ray. And has the County Attorney's Office looked at it in relationship to estoppel or the doctrine of laches and things like that; do you know? MR. BELLOWS: I'll let Heidi answer what part she has played. It's a code - enforcement action, so I don't know how they've coordinated with her or not. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Would you mind repeating the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole question? I'd -- apparently, there was some code action on two wildlife preserves, and I'm not sure if they're Golden Gate Estates or ag. properties. I just wanted to get some background on that so when people ask me about it I have more infonnation in which to reply, but at the same time I wanted to know if the County Attorney's Office had weighed in on it in regards to either the estoppel arguments or the doctrine of Page 4 of 45 1612 July 19, 1 �6 laches argument and things like that. Have you guys reviewed it at all? Because if you have, I'd like to see your report on it, too. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I have not done anything. I would just have to follow up with Mr. Klatzkow and find out if he's had any involvement with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you have, if you could just send us that with Raj's report. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- that way when -- because it's -- apparently it's -- I've never been there, but a lot of people are concerned, and I've been bumping into more and more people that have asked questions about it, and I have to tell them I don't know anything about it, and that -- to them it seems kind of puzzling since we are the zoning board. So maybe you could just brief us on it in case me or anybody else is asked. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just a synopsis in writing is fine. MR. BELLOWS: We have it all ready because others have asked, and we've prepared a response to outline the zoning of the history of the sites, both sites. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On both sites. MR. BELLOWS: They're the same issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. Consent - agenda items. There aren't any on today's agenda, so we will move directly into our advertised public hearings. ** *The first one is DBE- PL20 1 1 0002669, the Toiler boat -dock extension located in Lely Barefoot Beach. 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. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I was with Rocky and Jeff on another matter, and we -- they did show it to me. We briefly discussed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Well, Rocky called me and asked me to drive all the way to his office, to which it cost me two or three gallons of gasoline to talk about nothing and then to return back to my house. So I did have a conversation with Rocky and Jeff on this. MR. SCOFIELD: I'll reimburse you when you leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, you can't do that, but next time we could have done it by phone. Go ahead, Jeff. MR. ROGERS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, as everyone knows, my name is Jeff Rogers, and I'm with Turrell, Hall & Associates representing the petitioner, Bill Toiler. As you know, we're here today requesting a boat -dock extension for the petitioner, and his site is located as shown on the screen at 202 san Matteo Drive. This is just south of Bonita Beach Road in South Port on the Bay area. The petitioner is here requesting a BDE for a 50 -foot protrusion extension from the allowed 20 for an overall 73 -foot dock into a waterway that is approximately 700 -plus feet in width. We have down 720 feet, as shown here on this exhibit. You might want to zoom out. There you go. It's an approximate. We show 720, but we're saying it's 700 -plus. It's somewhere in there. There's plenty of waterway. We're sticking out 73 feet. The surrounding docks are also -- have extensions as well. It's a thing -- it's a normal thing in this area. The dock to our south has a 76 -foot protrusion. We actually did the BDE for him, and we got a 77 -foot extension into the waterway for that one. The dock has been minimized in regards to overwater structure. It has two boat lifts associated with it, and it's shown here on this exhibit. The dock is a little odd - shaped, but due to the vessels that he has, this was the best design that we could go with to accommodate the vessels as well as accommodate all of his wishes. Currently there is a single - family home being constructed on the upland. It is expected to be done at the end of August, and he's hoping to go ahead and install his dock somewhere at the end of August, beginning of September, Page 5 of 45 16 A6 July 19, 2012 upon this approval. Upon your approval we will finish the state and federal permitting process. I put that on hold due to the state giving us questions and concerns in regards to the design, and we wanted to make sure that the county was going to give us their approval prior to finalizing the state and federal permits so that we would not have to go back and do a modification and cost the petitioner more money to do that. With that, if you guys have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. We're providing setbacks to accommodate state and local requirements, and we will not interfere with anyone adjacent to us either north or south, and the waterway remaining is plenty of width for vessels to pass with no interference. If you have any questions, be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just follow -up on one of your comments. Jeff, you said you had put the state permits on hold because they were -- they had some questions regarding the design and so forth and you didn't -- could that work in reverse? I have no appreciation for what the state was questioning. MR. ROGERS: Their issue is a number of slips. When a single- family dock is proposed, they allow two slips. And if you do more -- if you propose a design like this, if you look at the design, there's a lot of areas that you can moor other vessels. The state's requirement was either we do a submerged land lease, due to the fact that this is state lands, in order to accommodate more mooring areas, or we propose to put handrailing on the areas where you potentially moor other vessels. And if you look closely at this drawing, it's hard to see, but there is some black bold areas along the flat surface of the dock, and that's handrailing that we're proposing. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could you point to those, just for clarity, please. MR. ROGERS: Right here, all along here. All along this area is handrailing as well as this 30 -foot area and the back side of this slip here. All that is going to be handrail. And that's in order to prevent mooring. That's why we put it on hold, because we weren't sure if you guys, per the criteria in place, minimization of decking, other things, you know. We're just unsure, so we decided to put it on hold, and we'll go back upon approval here and finalize that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one other comment, Jeff, and it's more of a -- probably scrivener than anything else. But if you look at site information on your application -- MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --you cite a 58 -foot protrusion, and I think that's just a typo. And I don't think it makes any difference. MR. ROGERS: What page are you on? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The second page of your application under -- MR. ROGERS: Site information? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Site information. MR. ROGERS: Total protrusion in the facility, yeah, 56 feet. Yes, sir, that is a typo. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't know if it makes any difference or not. I wanted to point it out. MR. ROGERS: No, it's 73 -foot extension is our request overall with a 53 -foot extension from the 20. That was my mistake on that. Good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Jeff, would you have any problem if we limited -- or we did a stipulation as part of this that this facility will be limited to two vessels only? MR. ROGERS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because even though you don't have railing on -- you have railing on a lot of it, there's a piece down inside there that doesn't. I could see someone pulling in with a Ski Do or one of those -- MR. ROGERS: Right. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: -- personal watercraft. MR. ROGERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, those are vessels, so -- MR. ROGERS: Now, we would be -- if the petitioner changed the design and we came back, could we change that? That's -- that criteria? Page 6 of 45 ' S 1612July 19,A6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it, too, is what we're limited to unless there's a -- Ray, is there -- I can't recall ofthand without pulling the code. If they want to go beyond two, is that something that needs special review? Because I believe two is the maximum you're allowed, and if you go above that, you've got to -- MR. ROGERS: You have to have a submerged land lease. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think you'd be coming back in for staff rereview of it, too. MR. ROGERS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- you know, the way this is configured, I -- and the railing, it does help but, you know, someone could slip a personal watercraft inside that one short dock. MR. ROGERS: Right. I see what you're saying. In this area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ROGERS: And that's somewhere where we could propose handrailing, too, in order to prevent that. That's a good catch, and I'm surprised the state didn't say anything about that area as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ROGERS: Yes, you can put that criteria in there and /or we can put handrailing in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't -- you know, to me, it would be up against the mangroves. It would be a great place to fish. So I'm not sure handrailing will ruin that idea, as long as you agree -- as long as your applicant's only going to go to two vessels, I think we're covered. MR. ROGERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, as part of -- if there's a recommendation for approval, that stipulation will stick. That would be helpful. MR. ROGERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a staff report? MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with planning and zoning. As you read in the staff report, staffs opinion is that the proposal meets five out of five primary criteria and five out of five applicable secondary criteria. I also wanted to mention that there's a conservation easement that you can see on the diagram on the screen now, extends 20 feet landward of the mean high -water line, and it does permit docks. And the dock -- the portion of the walkway of the dock going through is 4 feet in width, so we feel that that's minimized. And because it meets all the applicable criteria and only protrudes less than 11 percent of the waterway, we recommend approval. And we also wanted to mention that because you are considering the administrative boat -dock change, that this petition still would be before you because of the length of the protrusion. So this would not be one -- under the draft LDC amendment, this would not be one that would be administrative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's other reasons but, yes, I agree with you, so -- MR. REISCHL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of -- the size of the dock itself, I think, would trigger it to come into us regardless of the administrative, I mean the width of some of the decking area, because I think there's a 6 -foot maximum on the staff approval version, and this has got an 8 -foot section. So -- okay. Well, with that in mind, is that the end of the staff report? MR. REISCHL: Yes, sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers? Anybody wishing to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a discussion from the board? And if no discussion, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion to approve BDE- PL20110002669 with the stipulation to limit to two vessels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Ahern, seconded by Commissioner Homiak. Page 7 of 45 1612 July A 6 2 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when Rocky called me and said he wanted me to come to his office to review this dock extension, I thought, oh, my God, what did I miss? This has got to be the most horrible dock extension. He's got to be concerned about it. We're going to tear it to shreds. And I got there; of course, there was nothing, and I think that's now also proven out in the public meeting. So, I -- guys, thanks for calling me down there. I appreciate all that wasted time. With that, is there a -- we'll call for the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Thank you -all. MR. ROGERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. We have one more -- actually, two more on the same dock, and I'll read them -- we'll hear them both together and vote for them separately. The first one is the Variance Application PL20 1 1 0002627, the Donald Gray variance located on Lot 6, Block G of Little Hickory Shores Subdivision, and the second part of that is BDE- PL20 1 1 0000940, same dock extension, same location. 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. Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne, it's all yours. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. I'm here representing Donald Gray, the property owner for the subject variance and dock extension. And this is a little different than the last request, although it's in the same general vicinity. This is in the Little Hickory Shores area where these lots have been previously approved for boat docks. They're too small to support homes, and through the conditional -use process many years ago, they were authorized to have boat docks on these lots. Also -- and I'll talk a little bit about the variance process -- as you'll note in your staff report, there were exhibits in the prior variance that authorized almost all those lots to have a variance to 0 -foot setback. Mr. Gray, unfortunately, was out of the country at the time that that gentleman who was representing other property owners had sent mail notices, and he was unable to participate back at the time. But he does need the variance in order to go ahead and construct a new dock on the property. He hopes to moor his 34 -foot pleasure boat there, and he is currently now storing that off site on a trailer. So we have -- I think the exhibit -- I'll probably go ahead and put up the proposed dock. As you can see, we're asking for a 30.3 -foot extension beyond the 20 feet that's authorized in the code. And there's a couple factors for the extension and why that's necessary, and partly it's because you measure from the most restrictive of either the top of the riprap mean -- high water, mean low water, or the property line, whichever the case may be. And in this particular case, the most restrictive seemed to be the top of the riprap, so we're measuring the total protrusion 50.3 feet from that line. Page 8 of 45 1612 Jul 1 y�,6 2 And you'll also note when you look at where the shoreline actually is, it sort of runs in an opposite direction to the actual lot line itself. So those two factors contribute a little bit to the needed extension, just in addition to the fact that with this 34 -foot boat you need a couple feet of draft. So you can see that exhibit -- there are water depth's shown on that exhibit to demonstrate that we really couldn't pull it that much closer to the shoreline in that location. I know that staff has gone through the various criteria, but from the variance standpoint you'll note in those exhibits that almost every other property owner in the area had a variance. This is the exhibit that's in your packet. And there were -- all those that are bold and highlighted were part of the original resolution that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And you can see there were only a handful of lots. And I don't know the history of why some did or didn't. I only know Mr. Gray's situation, and that was because he was unavailable to even sign the documents at the time. So all the others are allowed to go to zero feet. And when you look at the exhibit that we prepared, we've noted the location of the adjacent boat lifts and docking facilities, and you'll see that those were constructed at essentially zero lot line. So what we're hoping to do is to obtain a 0 -foot on the western side, keep it just off the property line on the east so we can put our mooring pilings in there, and he can have both lifts for both boats that he intends to moor there. And I think when you look at the numbers, the lot is about 32 feet wide in total. So when you start looking at just the sheer numbers of trying to support two boats with any type of docking facility, it's really impossible. And even a larger boat with even a single dock, it makes it difficult because, if you apply the seven - and -a- half -foot side -yard setback to each at 15 feet, you only now have 15 feet in which to construct your boat, a docking facility, and a way to service your boat. So we believe that the variance is necessary in order to even really achieve any docking facility of any size. And as staff noted, the existing facility that's there is nonconforming and we believe legally so because permits were secured for it. With regard to the extension, I had a couple different exhibits that I wanted to show you, and I think one of those is simply the zoning map. And you'll note -- in the middle of the page you can see how many boat -dock extensions have been granted and variances in this cluster, and part of that's reflective of the prior approval for the variances, and part of that is that many of those have had extensions. And that exhibit -- it's a little larger. What I've tried to show here is that we have all the other variances noted, and it's a little closer in, and it shows you the number of boat slips in the area and the fact that almost everybody has two of those, and many, many of them are at the 0 -foot setback. And I don't know if you have any specific questions of me. That's kind of the facts as I see them, and I'm happy to go through some of the specific criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just an embellishment, maybe, on your presentation. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Had your client been responsive to the mailing when all these were done in a blanket format, would there have been any reason why the board would not have approved this particular lot with those others as routine -- did any of them get singled out for any reason for an exception other than the fact they just weren't available to reply, that you know of? MR. ARNOLD: I do remember reading the minutes. I don't believe that any of them were singled out for naught. I think it was either -- I think, as Mr. Scofield told me before the meeting, he remembered some of it was a cost issue for some of the people who opted out. They just chose not to spend the money to do it because they had no immediate plans to build a dock. And then others, like Mr. Gray, unfortunately, were not in the area to even sign the forms at the time. Mr. Gray was indicating to me prior -- in our prior discussions that, you know, upon returning back to the country, found a stack of mail, and in that was the letter request, and each person had to pay $500 for the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He would have saved a lot of money. MR. ARNOLD: Would have saved a lot of money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's what you get an hour right now. MR. ARNOLD: That's right. Well, I wish I could bill that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, Rocky only gets 50 an hour, so -- MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Page 9 of 45 pb r 1612 July 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some. Wayne, looking at the dock -- I have no problem with the setback, obviously. And I recall it. I think that even carne before us, and nobody, I think, really had a problem. But the wood decks I'm having -- do you have a wood deck on the -- it would be the westerly side, a very small 2- foot -wide wood deck. Why are you doing that? MR. ARNOLD: This boat is -- it's a troller style, and it's got a wide beam on the boat. And this would be a platform so you could stand on it and hose down the boat from that side of the boat and service it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that kind of goes to the second question. It's a 16- foot -wide lift. Is that vessel appropriate for this waterway? MR. ARNOLD: I think so. And I can let Mr. Gray address that. He's a licensed captain, Coast Guard certified, and this is his boat that he uses for fishing. And, you know, the water depth is adequate, the waterway width is fine when you look at some of the others extensions. The problem here is that the boat itself is 34 feet, which isn't a very lengthy boat by standards if you want to go out to the Gulf, but the water depths are fine. It's just a matter of, when you take a 34 -foot boat and you hold it off the riprap line enough to reach a couple feet of water depth for it, you're protruding with the boat itself, obviously, more than the 20 feet you're allowed to protrude into the waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you were going to have Mr. Gray respond to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And the answer would really be, what kind of draft does this boat have? MR. ARNOLD: I'll let Mr. Gray answer that. MR. GRAY: Good morning, everyone. It has 18 inches in draft when it sits level on the plane. And the boat itself is about 12 feet wide. It's I 1 feet, 10 inches, .75 or something like that. And from what I understand, the lift to lift the boat up is another 2 feet added to the width so that the carriage that lifts the boat up and down will have room so you can get the boat in. And the outside platform was there only strictly for cleaning purposes so you can stand there and take a brush and clean the outside of the hull and -- if you have any barnacles or repairs or something like this, that's all that it's used for. It's not going to be -- it's right on the edge of the property, and you can't moor a boat or anything. It's going to be up kind of like even with the gunwale of the boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern would be, would it get in the way of the neighbor if he wanted to bring his boat dock out like that? MR. GRAY: Actually, there's piling there for the lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. One thing, in the drawing, the pilings actually are centered on the property line. I think, in reality, you won't be able to do that. You'd have to push them totally within the property line, correct? MR. ARNOLD: I think you will, too, Brad. You're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess the other question is, up in the front there's a big wood deck, a 6 -foot wood deck that really serves no purposes for accessing boats. So why is that there? MR. ARNOLD: That is the existing dock facility, and I believe Mr. Gray intends to keep that portion of the dock existing. MR. GRAY: It's already there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a drawing in the packet of the existing? MR. ARNOLD: I'll show you. That's a specific- purpose survey, and maybe Mike can zoom in on that a little bit. But it will show you the existing dock configuration and the setback encroachments that are there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the concern I have is it's closer than 20 feet to the property line, which means people trying to park here, especially more than one vehicle are -- I mean, but you're saying it's the top of the riprap anyway, so they're not going to go over that. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. GRAY: That's out over the water. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. That dock is completely out over the water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hold on one second. I think that's it, but -- I guess that's it. One -- one little thing. If you look at the photograph that's on Page 5 of our packet, there's a red, like, property line thing. And I know Page 10 of 45 1612 ' ' JA601= this is the appraiser's site and -- but the drawing that you showed earlier when you showed all the boat docks that opted in, if you look at that, there's also a line there. What is that line? If you can -- MR. ARNOLD: Are you on Page 5 of the variance staff report? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's 5 of the variance, you see a red line running from west to north, but you could see this actually better in your -- the piece you put in that showed which lots opted into the conditional use. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. Let me put that one back up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We may have put others on top of what's already on the overhead. MR. ARNOLD: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that one's not quite showing it, but there is some sort of a line there you can vaguely see. You had another drawing where you could clearly see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the one that was a colored aerial with the lines going -- referencing the OR book and page. I think that's what he -- or the reference -- the Code of Laws. MR. ARNOLD: That exhibit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I thought it might be that one. MR. ARNOLD: You have the color version of that. Maybe, Mike, you can -- I've got it. I tore it out of mine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's not there. Anyway, is there any kind of a -- is that the center line of the channel? Is that a property line? What is it? I believe that's the property line. MR. ARNOLD: I believe that's the property line that's being reflected; the platted property line goes into the water. MR. GRAY: Actually, I own way out into the water. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, your client will have to use the mike. MR. GRAY: I apologize. I think that's the property line, because from what I understand from our surveyor, I own way, way out into the water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GRAY: But, of course, you know, due to many years' erosion, this is the actual land that's left. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But are you -- you know, if you look at this thing and you look at your neighbor, you're going out quite a bit past him, so you're nowhere going over that line. So we -- I mean, from what was shown on there, it looks like it is probably a property line for the boat docks, the whole group of docks at one time. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I don't know the history of that line, Brad; I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it has nothing to do with the channel or anything? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on either the variance or the boat -dock extension request? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a staff report? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, project manager for planning and zoning. You've got both the variance staff report, as well as the BDE staff report. We're recommending approval of both items. With regard to the primary and secondary criteria for the boat dock, they're meeting all of the primary and four of the six secondary and two -- actually, I'm sorry -- three of the secondary criteria, but two of the secondary criteria are not applicable in this case, so they're still within the requirements of the code. I can answer any other questions you might have. I believe the red line that you're looking at from the Property Appraiser's Office is actually a zoning designation line between the RSF4 portion here and the PUD just to the north. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, just to -- if you look at -- it's red on the overhead. The line I'm Page 11 of 45 A..� 16 12 A6 July 19, 2012 worried about has a -- looks like a G interrupting it in a circle, which is not the zoning lines. MR. SAWYER: Oh, okay. Ray is pointing out that those appear to be the block -- MR. ARNOLD: I see what you're talking about -- MR. SAWYER: -- designations for those areas -- MR. ARNOLD: -- the block number. MR. SAWYER: -- the block numbers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And while I'm, I guess, questioning, since their drawings do show the piles centered on the property line and we know that wouldn't be allowed, there's nothing in this approval that would ever be taken to construe that they're allowed to put it on the center line? I mean, shouldn't -- they would have to adjust their drawing to show the pile totally within their property. MR. SAWYER: Correct. They would have to do that at the time of the building pen-nit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SAWYER: And they are going to require a building permit for the facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we don't make it a condition; it would happen that way no matter what? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of staff on either of these actions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any there any members of the public who would like to speak on this? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we do? Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Kim Ellis? MS. ELLIS: Oh, not on this matter. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, okay. MS. ELLIS: Did I mark the right thing on there, l0A regarding -- MR. BELLOWS: Sony, yeah. It's 10A, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, do you have any rebuttal to all the opposition? MR. ARNOLD: No, I'd rather not say anything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. We'll start with the variance first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we approve. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Brad Schiffer, seconded by Melissa 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: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. And the boat -dock extension? Brad? Page 12 of 45 1612 ulyl�,62 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Also move to approve. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And I'll also second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same motion maker, same second. 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, again, carries 9 -0. MR. GRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you -all, and that concludes our advertised public hearings. ** *And then next matter of old business is -- Caroline. Where's Caroline? MR. GRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, is Caroline going to be here today for this? Well, okay. Is she coming in? I saw the hand wave. Does that mean we're going to see her, or she's just going to stand out in the hall and wave? Okay. It's a little early to take a break. We could go onto the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While we're waiting, Mark, could you refill my coffee for me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here comes Caroline and her caddy. Nice dress. MS. CILEK: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline, we almost gave up on you here this morning. MS. CILEK: I'm so sorry. I apologize. You guys moved very quickly this morning. But I've been outside just hanging out. We are here today to, hopefully, wrap up some of the LDC amendments. And let me grab my agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have -- I believe there's only two on today's agenda. MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one is the portable storage containers; the other are the dock facilities. And the portable storage containers, the first one listed, which is -- it's under 5.03.07 in our book. Since it started, there's been a definition added, which is 1.08.02. But for those of you who have got the books, if you turn to 5.03.07, 1 think you'll find the information we need to start with. Now -- and, Heidi, I need to ask you, this is a reconsideration hearing for a motion that was already made and passed by the Planning Commission unanimously a month or two ago, and then we were contacted by some of the civic group in the Estates who felt that they needed a little more vetting on the issue. The Planning Commission agreed. Staff went back, had another public meeting, I understand, or maybe more than one. But since this is a reconsideration, is there any limitation on actions that we take today in regards to this issue? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. I characterize it a little bit differently, because while it is the same item, what is being proposed to you is different than what you saw before. So staff is requesting to replace this amendment should you decide to approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure. Caroline, especially important, I think, to us is explain to us the process of the public meeting, what occurred, Page 13 of 45 1612 Ab July 19, 2012 and why the changes that we have now being presented are in front of us today. So it's all yours. MS. CILEK: Most certainly. The public meeting was following the request by Mr. Peter Gaddy, who is the president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, and I believe he made that request on May 17th. We worked together and we put a meeting for the Estates community. It was -- put a meeting together, and it was held on June 13th at 6 o'clock and lasted over an hour and a half. And at that meeting 27 people attended. And what we did is we provided a brief overview of the amendment, the direction from the board to bring this amendment forward, and we also walked through some of the recommendations that the two civic groups have provided to us from the Estates community so far at that time. And then we opened it up for public comment. And we asked people to come up to the podium and present their views, reasons for and against this amendment, suggestions they had, comments they had, concerns they had, and we had a very lively discussion. And as they were making comments, we wrote them on a large easel pad so that people could see that the comments were being taken down, and we made it very clear that these comments would be taken forward through Planning Commission and the board. And so what I've put in your packet today is a compilation of all the comments that were submitted either on the easel pad -- so the voices of the people -- the meeting notes from the meeting, and we have by individual the comments that they made as well as the comment slips that were provided at the meeting -- there's, like, five or so of those -- and then, additionally, the comments that I've been getting through emails, people -- I have said, you know, if you have any comments, please let me know, and so I've provided those to you as well. There are several people who did email me yesterday, and they were sorry they couldn't be here in attendance, but -- because it is kind of a working day, and 9 o'clock, they couldn't come, but they wanted you to know that they would have been here if they could have. So there's been a lot of public involvement on this and, as I said, in the LDC amendment, both support and opposition to the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question. It was very comprehensive in terns of recording and providing to us the comments, and I don't know the addresses of all the people that were at the meeting or that commented, but did you have folks from other areas zoned agricultural, for example, that commented pro or con? It seems to me that most of the comments were from Estates people. MS. CILEK: Yes. That's a really good question. I would say that the majority of people who did come were from the Estates because it was sort of requested by an Estates community person that it was really for the Estates community because they were the ones that were coming forward asking for the reconsideration. It wasn't as publicized to the agricultural community; however, it was in the paper. There was a little blurb in the paper notifying people of the meeting as well as there were signs that were on several of the arterial roads in the county. And so people, you know, coming in forth (sic) both to the Estates and the rural agricultural area would have been, you know, in somewhat of a "know" of what was going on. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, that was my concern, if there was enough publicity given to other areas of the county that it -- had people wanted to comment pro or con. MS. CILEK: Right. And I will say there's, you know, always more you can do, but this meeting on June 13th received more publicity than we've ever had for another LDC amendment, and we got really good feedback saying, you know, more of these meetings should be held. They really liked the open dialogue between the community members about it. So I got some feedback, like, we need more of these, which was nice -- which was nice. But I would say that, you know, the combination of the signs on the arterial roads, the newspaper, and then the emails to the community members in the Estates from their specific organizations as well as mine, that was -- it was a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did notice that in the changes you have -- and they're on Page 4. First of all, you added a definition, which I think is a good idea. And on Page 4, under B you talk -- you added the zoning limitations to lots that meet the minimum lot size and lot requirements provided in 4.02.01, E you Page 14 of 45 A6 1612 July 19, 2012 have 480 feet per container, and then you also talked and limited it -- no vertical stacking, and then you required screening for all these units; is that correct? MS. CILEK: Yes. And I can tell you sort of what replaced what was here before and why we replaced it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can see it. MS. CILEK: Under -- oh, but, you know, why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: For B we had conforming lots of record, and we just wanted to be really clear what that meant, so just meeting the lot requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'll be conforming lots of record, not nonconforming lots? MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: And we just had 480 square feet, period, and then we really wanted to make sure that it was per container. MR. BELLOWS: Because in ag you can have more. MS. CILEK: Right, exactly. We just had stacking before. We wanted to make sure that meant vertical stacking. And the screening was just highlighted because -- and the -- F2 has not actually changed. I highlighted that simply to show that that was still a part of it -- part of the Amendment W, commercial and industrial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've talked -- I've had phone calls with some people in the Estates, and they were concerned that -- they were under the impression that the original process that had already occurred here, when there was nobody in the audience to discuss this with us, did not require the screening in the Estates. Does this language -- it appears it does require screening if it's in the Estates, or it does not? Yes or no? MS. CILEK: It does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would you omit the Estates from the screening requirement? MS. CILEK: Because other accessory structures do not require -- do not currently have a screening requirement, so there would be -- other sheds do not require a type of screening, and then a portable storage container would. Now, it's up -- that's a really good discussion topic to have. I mean, coming forward, this amendment does not have screening for the Estates, but that was something that the community did talk about, and so it would be a good discussion to have whether you would like to add that to this amendment for the Estates community. But the reason behind it was because it is not required for other accessory structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The difference here, though, is when you create another accessory structure like a shed, it's usually done with a building permit, and it has certain styles to it. Storage containers look like industrial storage containers. So the act of having a screening in a community like the Estates to avoid that appearance, I think, is more logical than requiring it in an industrial/commercial or even an industrial or a commercial center. So I think that the screening part of it should be considered for the Estates as well as part of this. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that it's been pointed out and I understand now why there were concerns from the residences. I had not -- personally, I did not catch that the first go- round, so I'm glad it was pointed out. The second thing I notice is you talk about temporary permits for these storage containers are allowed in other parts of the county. Would this eliminate the ability for the Estates to have a temporary storage container? Because say someone's rebuilding their home and they need to move stuff in. So they could always come in and still get a temporary one. MS. CILEK: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that's reserved, because those are handy for that purpose alone. MS. CILEK: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And -- go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. I'm sorry I missed my opportunity the first time around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you can't talk again. Sorry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. On Page 2, one, two -- third paragraph, you speak to the letter. We're talking about residential here, and you speak to the letter dated October 2, 2003, from the zoning director, Page 15 of 45 i�uly 19, 2A 6 1b12 which would cover residential structures on a temporary basis. Why would you not have included the specifications or restrictions, if you will, from that memorandum in this LDC rather than have to -- someone would have to go find this letter to see what was specified? MS. CILEK: Well, this is a letter -- Ray, do you want to speak to that? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I believe that has already been incorporated into the LDC as part of the temporary allowance for PODS or for the remodeling of homes and things like that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: In another section of the LDC -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- that I'm not looking at? MR. BELLOWS: The temporary-use section, yeah. MS. CILEK: The one that Mark was just speaking of, you know, would residents in the Estates district continue to be able to use them for temporary structures? Yes. And that is what that was speaking to. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. On Page 4, one more question. MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Item C, talking about setbacks, one, two, three, four -- fifth line down, third word in. Would it be more appropriate to put "containers" rather than "structures," since we're talking about containers? MS. CILEK: This is actually saying if you - -1'm going to read the whole sentence just to put it in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but isn't the purpose of the paragraph, though, to make sure that a container is still separated from not only another container, but also anything considered a structure? And since it is a structure, it automatically applies, then, to containers and structures. I think that's what they were getting at. Is that -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If that's clear to everyone. MS. CILEK: Yes. We're saying it's like a principal structure. It's similar in the way that the setbacks need to be applied, so we're just comparing it to the principal structure. So we're not comparing it to the -- a container. MR. BELLOWS: Or other accessory structures. MS. CILEK: Or other accessory structures. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MS. CILEK: Because a principal structure has different setback requirements. It's a comparison. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I accept what you're saying, but you added a lot of -- MS. CILEK: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- supplemental definitions here that are not in the printed form. MS. CILEK: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill and then Brad. COMMISSIONER VONIER: To the definitions, you mentioned that the containers have some wood. Is the bottom steel or wood? MS. CILEK: From what I understand, it can be either steel floor or wood floor. COMMISSIONER VONIER: That would make a -- that would make a big difference in how you mounted or how -- the foundation that you put underneath it. Wood doesn't do very well in this climate. MS. CILEK: Understood. So that would be addressed through the permitting process, I believe, whether -- you know, what type of structure it was and what kind of floor it had and what would be closest to the ground. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And any venting or openings, all the rest of that goes through the building permit process? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- and that's kind of -- one of the questions is, what are you expecting from the building permit? Somebody wants to install one of these. What will they be providing to the county? MS. CILEK: The process would be to apply for a building permit, and most likely it would be a tie - down -type pennit, and the structural -- or the reviewers for the building permit would make sure it was meeting -- if it had any FEMA requirements, setback requirements, you know, they would look at the type of construction it was, and that it was -- if the manufacturer's standards weren't supplied with it, to ensure that it would meet all of the necessary building -- wind requirements, wind loads, all that, then they would -- that the engineer of record or the Page 16 of 45 jt 1612 J , 2012 architect that is signing off on it has done their job, and due diligence, make sure the structure isn't going to move. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So there will be -- you know, because it would only take about 30 pounds to roll one of these over, which would be available on a single -story building. So there will be a tie -down or a foundation -type tie -down? MS. CILEK: Yes. It will go through the building permit process, and they will ensure that it needs (sic) what it requires. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The wood floor, Bill's right, it would decay except for the fact that there must be some nasty wood treatments put on that material to exist out in the ocean like they do. Is anybody going to be checking for what that is, or is that part of the process or -- MS. CILEK: I'm not familiar if that would be part of the process or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be part of the building permit review, wouldn't it? MS. CILEK: I would think it would be, but it's not a conversation I've had. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we should check because there may be some treatments on that that we wouldn't want laying on our ground. The setbacks, you describe it as the container shall be placed in the rear of the principal structure, so that means the principal structure -- this thing is behind the back wall of the principal structure. MS. CILEK: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not behind the front face of it. It's -- when you say in the rear -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And this other sentence that says no container shall be located closer to the abutting road than the principal structure, I mean, that could never occur if it's also behind it, so -- MS. CILEK: I believe that is for a corner lot or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, these sentences are all in the same paragraph, so that doesn't necessarily mean it's only for the corner lot. And the -- what are you expecting with the minimum separation requirements? The Florida Fire Prevention Code doesn't cover single - family buildings, so there won't be one there. And the Florida Building Code residential, not the other building code, is the only one, and there is no real requirement there. So why was that put in there? What does that mean? MS. CILEK: Because this LDC amendment also covers portable storage containers in commercial/industrial districts, so we'd need to ensure that those minimum requirements are met in those areas as well. So it may not apply to residential, but it may apply to other areas. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would then; you're right. Okay. The 480 feet, where is that coming from? Because that's a 60 -foot container. That's -- I don't know what road system that's going to come down, but -- MS. CILEK: I think it's a48-by-10. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A 10- foot -wide container? COMMISSIONER VONIER: No, they're 8. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I couldn't find any. MS. CILEK: Eight. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the research I did on containers never came up with that, but -- but did somebody say they would like to? I mean, that's what they -- MS. CILEK: I think this came from -- MR. BELLOWS: Standard sizes. MS. CILEK: We looked at the standard sizes of industrial shipping containers -- MR. BELLOWS: That was the largest one. MS. CILEK: -- and that was, yeah, the largest one that was out there. MR. BELLOWS: That was the maximum, overseas shipping. MS. CILEK: There's one even larger, actually. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let me see. That's good. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I have a question. Page 17 of 45 1612 July A62 Caroline, you know, with -- could you have them put down like a cement place to hold this? You do that for your pool heaters and stuff. But that would make a good ground base so you don't have to worry about the wood. And what is the nonnal size of the containers? I heard you just say 10 feet tall. MS. CILEK: It's actually been a week or so since I've reviewed the sizing. But they range. I mean, they can be many different sizes, because there are many different types of containers, and this would allow anything from a PODS type one -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I was thinking of is a PODS type. MS. CILEK: -- you know, to an industrial shipping container. So there's a large spectrum of what sizes -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you've limited to 8 feet. So they can't have a taller one? MS. CILEK: Correct. It's at -- the limit for height is at 8 feet for a -- I think for all of them. That's all zoning districts. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because when you said there's all different sizes, they can only put in a certain size then. MS. CILEK: Well, I think the -- and I'm speaking without looking at the specifications for the sizes, but I do believe most of them are at 8 feet in height. But the area, the floor area would be different for different types, industrial shipping containers versus portable storage containers. I don't have the specs in front of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I think it boils down to is they can't exceed 8 feet in height -- MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or 400 square feet in area unless they go to an SDP, and then they can only go to 480. So no matter what the configuration is, whether it's a triangle, octagon, square, or rectangle, 400 square feet is it unless you want to go to 4 -- another 80 feet with an SDP, which becomes more problematic and costly. So I think that's pretty discouraging. MS. CILEK: You --yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the staff? Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mentioned to Ray, but I think you need a little bit more input on temporary versus permanent, because I'm not really clear reading this LDC amendment when it's considered permanent. MS. CILEK: A permanent would be -- would come in for a building pen-nit and would get approved by a certified engineer of record or an architect. Temporary-use permit, most likely, is used when there's construction going on, so the construction company would get a temporary-use permit for a specific amount of time. I think it's up to a couple weeks. MR. BELLOWS: I can verify that, but that sounds about right. MS. CILEK: So there are two different types of permits that would be supplied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think what Heidi's trying to say is that somewhere in here we ought to indicate that this process is for a permanent storage container -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- whereas if they want a temporary storage container, we refer to the other section of the code. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And we can add that to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would clarify her concern. And that's the same concern -- that's why -- that's why I had my question. I didn't read it that way either, so -- okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to the public speakers. I know we have people here to speak. If you'll please come up and identify yourself on the microphone and let us know what your thoughts are. MS. ELLIS: I want to show you a picture of the storage container. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Use that mike and try to put it on the overhead. Ray will help you. MS. ELLIS: Okay. Or you could just pass my phone down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, the problem we have is we've got to keep -- we've got to keep -- I guess it's kind of like evidence. We don't want to keep your phone. MS. ELLIS: Oh, that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a better phone than I have. Let me keep that phone. MS. ELLIS: Can you see that? I just thought of that when you were asking about the size and what have Page 18 of 45 16 12 A6 July 19, 2012 you. My name is Kim Ellis, by the way. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I work in the community, and I think I'm a typical resident. Been there quite some time but in Collier County since the'70s and out in the Estates since the mid '80s. And, you know, I can't believe I'm here today discussing this or giving you input on this. I feel like we're moving backwards. I think when you're young and you buy a home and you're growing in your home with your family, you want to improve your neighborhood and your community and do whatever you can to, you know, improve where you live, and I think that this is -- that this being open for discussion in Golden Gate Estates is absolutely ridiculous. There are too many options available to everybody out there with extra buildings. I mean, sheds. What is the purpose? You know, I did just happen to take that. Diane Ebert, I wanted you to see what those look like. That's the storage container we're speaking of That one happens to be on a construction site off of Airport Road. But screening isn't going to hide it, vegetation isn't going to hide it, and I -- I just don't think it can be regulated. I mean, they dug one out of the -- they probably haven't even dug that one up that the Sheriffs Department found as a grow house out in the Estates. It was buried, and it was being used for a grow house. I think that they're going to become dangerous. They'll rust. I mean, who's going to take care of them, or how are you going to regulate it? I mean, I just have so much I could say, but I think you know where I'm coming from. And, again -- oh, I'm the president of the Homeowners' Association of Golden Gate Estates, by the way, and I'm here on behalf of myself and my family. We really haven't had time to put this to our members for a vote or even to let them know about it. I mean, we did know about that meeting June 13th, but we haven't had an association meeting since then. You know, that happens a lot, too. We just feel like we don't find out about things -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Until it's too late. MS. ELLIS: -- until it's too late. I can't believe this has gone as far as it has, to be honest. And one question I have that I would really like to be considered is, could you take the Estates out of that amendment? We're not agricultural. We love horses. We love dogs. We love cats, birds, I mean, even potbelly pigs, but I don't think they're allowed there. I'm not sure. But, you know, we don't -- this doesn't belong in our back -- I mean, can you imagine driving down Oaks Boulevard and seeing that on a corner lot in somebody's backyard? I don't know why we're here. I don't know how this happened. It's just devastating, seriously. I think you get my point. I could go on all day, but I won't, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. ELLIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next public speaker? Peter? MR. GADDY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Peter Gaddy for -- president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. We also have not had a meeting, you know, since we found out about this, so we really have not had an opportunity to vet it with our members. That being said, I want to congratulate Caroline for having conducted one of the finest public meetings I've ever seen. I think she should be in charge of all the county's public meetings. As she indicated, it was a very contentious issue. My guess is about -- probably about 55 percent of the people were opposed to it; 45 percent of the people were in favor of it. I haven't seen a meeting that contentious in Golden Gate Estates since the stupid Vanderbilt Beach Road extension was proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give us your true opinion of that road extension, will you, Peter. MR. GADDY: Oh -- well, too many ladies present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just -- I understand. MR. GADDY: But, you know, I think Kim puts it in a nutshell. I mean, the plain fact of the matter is is these things can be ugly. That being said, if you have a screening requirement and the screening requirement is enforceable, I think that takes away a lot of the objection. I think the main concern that a lot of people have is that this could adversely affect property values. There was some anecdotal stories told by a couple of real estate people where they have a $500,000 house Page 19 of 45 16 12j 1*6 and they can't -- you know, the people love the house, and then they look out the window and they see the storage container next door. MS. ELLIS: That was me, Peter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you're not allowed to speak from the audience, so you'll have to use the mike. MS. ELLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Peter? MR. GADDY: Yeah. So, you know, it's a serious concern, and I really don't have, you know, a complete answer. But I want to tip you off about something, and that's something that Caroline put together for the meeting. She put together a map showing where Estates zoning exists within Collier County. There were no people from North Naples; there were no people from East Naples at the public meeting as far as I'm aware. I didn't see anyone. These storage -- you know, Estates zoning extends far beyond Golden Gate Estates, and it extends into metropolitan Collier. So I'm not sure what kind of reaction, you know, the residents in those areas of the county would have for one of these storage containers being installed. You know, along Pine Ridge Road or Goodlette Road, I'm not sure that residents there would be as tolerant of these kind of containers as the people in Golden Gate Estates would be. But if -- I would definitely be opposed to this if there were no amendment specifically requiring screening. But one of my concerns about that -- and I'd like to ask Mr. Bellows about that -- is, is this going to be an enforceable screening criteria? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, definitely. If it's in the Land Development Code as a criteria to be provided before somebody could get a CO for the structure or the container to be placed on a lot, it will be inspected by county staff. And if there's a landscaping requirement or buffer or screening requirement, that would be inspected, and then all that has to be in place before the -- it would be issued a final certificate, or CO. MR. GADDY: Is there a -- you say it says screening. What does screening mean? Is that -- are we talking about vegetative screening? Are we talking about fencing? MS. CILEK: It could be a combination of either. It could be vegetative, so shrubs, bushes around the container or fencing or a combination thereof MR. GADDY: Is there any height limitation on fencing in the Estates? MR. BELLOWS: No. The Estates doesn't have a maximum height limit on the fence. MR. GADDY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we're looking for is the opacity requirement if it's vegetation, and that's important. And if it's a fence, a requirement that the fence makes sure the screening covers the entire structure, meaning full sized. Instead of 6 -foot fence with an 8 -foot structure, that wouldn't work. But also something that is -- and I -- when I was reading this stuff, I was first surprised that the issue's even come up for the Estates for a different reason than Ms. Ellis's. Mine is that -- I'm from the old school out there. A lot of people moved out there because it was more agricultural than it was residential. And we didn't -- nobody seemed too concerned about these things. But having seen her picture, I now think I understand better why there is a concern. The picture does say in a thousand words what we couldn't say otherwise. And so I do see, now, more of a need to regulate these. And so I think as even -- we'd have to understand the screening part of this much better than the way it's just written in here now to the opacity, the size, and the requirements. I think that would be an important factor because, like anything that's not good looking, it can be screened. If it's screened, it kind of takes it away. But at the same time when you've got -- I think the -- if it's 400 feet, we're looking at a 10- by -40. So 40 feet long. The picture kind of made that sink in. Why are we letting them -- why are we suggesting 40 feet long for a container is acceptable? Is there -- I mean, on a temporary basis when you move your furniture in it, it makes more sense because you're trying to get your house rebuilt or whatever you're trying to do. But why would anybody need a 40- foot -long storage container on their property for permanent? I mean, I'm just trying to understand that. I mean, if you need a small one for your landscaping or for your mower or whatever else you're going to put in there for a little shop or something. But, my goodness, 40 feet, that's a long container. Page 20 of 45 1612 July '4012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Another building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just so I understand, as currently drafted, is screening a requirement -- would be -- would screening be a requirement for the Estates? MS. CILEK: Currently, no. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Currently, no. Okay. I just wanted to be sure of that. MS. CILEK: Currently it's only provided for commercial and industrial. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Because that's what we -- MS. CILEK: And that's kind of why I highlighted it. It wasn't a change, but I wanted to draw attention to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, then Bill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's kind of -- why would you want it in industrial? I mean, industrial kind of looks like this. It might be the nicest part of it. But the -- I mean, you've got it behind the building also in industrial, correct? And so I don't think it's necessary there. MS. CILEK: If you look at the last sentence, it says containers in industrial zoning districts that are located more than 200 feet from property line are not required to provide screening. So we are saying those that are more off the beaten path are not to provide it, and this screening measure comes from another area in the code. I believe it's for COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the 200 feet, I mean, these lots rarely will ever hit that. So -- I think if you made the 200 feet from a commercial zoning or anything other than an industrial zoning district, that starts to make sense, but 200 feet from a property line doesn't. Because lots -- they're not all that big, those lots. You would never get it. So -- but, again, you know, why do we have it for industrial, and why wouldn't we want it -- let's take an Estates lot. It's got 30 -foot setbacks, 75 in the back, so 150 feet away from your neighbor in the back, 60 feet away. You're going to see it sideways, and it's a storage container. First of all, they're not new storage containers. These are -- when their life is gone on the shipping, they're all banged up and rusty; that's when you get to buy them for your house. And they're going to decay. I mean, they're going to look the best the first day you put it down. Most of them are -- or some of them are Corten steel which will decay into nothing. So why aren't we hiding these in the residential areas? MS. CILEK: Well, we certainly can make that recommendation. We heard a lot of discussion at the community meeting to do that. I wanted to wait to talk -- have the board discuss that and that recommendation come from you following the community meeting, and that's really why it isn't in there right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the word "screening," is that something that's defined in the code? In other words, there could be a 9- foot -6 box. How do you screen it? What do you think? Do you grow vines on it? Do you -- MS. CILEK: That might deteriorate it further. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you build a fence in front of it? Do you, you know, put a movie screen around it? I mean, what do you do? MS. CILEK: Well, currently this provision comes from another section of the code that provides for screens, so this is what we went with because it is the standard. If we wanted to create a new type of screening just for portable storage containers, that research would need to be done to find out if any -- you need to talk to the landscape architects on staff to find out, like, what capacity types of fences -- you know, we don't allow for -- well, I don't know about the Estates, actually, but fence restrictions may be applied, and the type of material used as well, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's -- the other parts of the code have, like, 6 -foot screening can't be -- there's a certain amount of transparency you can have. But this would be a big piece. The smallest one's eight feet. So I mean, you're talking pretty expensive materials to screen it. So you add the screening if it's there, which it should be, and you add the cost of the container and the delivery -- and, by the way, the reason people drop them in the front yard -- if you saw the trucks that deliver these things, you know, you're not going to go scooting around the corner of the house with it. So you would be better off building the building, the conventional building, building a shed. It's the elimination of the screening that makes this a cheap thing, but it's the elimination of the screening that makes it look cheap to the neighborhood. Page 21 of 45 t 6 161 2 "July July 19, 2012 Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes. I'm referring to Page 4 of the minutes of one of the meetings, Ray, and this is -- I'm addressing this to you because they're both your comments. First, there was an indication that the county had permitted these in the past. And your comment was that that was true, but it was stopped. Why was it stopped? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Peter, I haven't forgotten you didn't finish. So as soon as we finish with this sidebar, we'll get back to you. MR. GADDY: I have another 20 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're here to lunch, sir. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm not 100 percent sure why the -- for the reason why it was stopped other than it may be due to the fact that it was inconsistently applied originally, what is the structure, and can you get a tie -down permit and call that a structure, and I think there was some confusion on that, and we stopped doing it until we clarified that a little bit more. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Now, does that relate to the paragraph above that refers to code enforcement received complaints about storage containers and asked the Board of County Commissioners for direction? What were the complaints? MR. BELLOWS: I believe the complaints were that there were some -- these POD units out there, and some of them were done without any kind of tie -down permit. Some were there legally because they were through a time when the county did allow for them with the tie -down permit. But as they were increasingly being used in the Estates, it became a bigger code enforcement issue which necessitated or resulted in code enforcement bringing an executive summary to the Board of County Commissioners seeking direction, and the board directed staff to prepare this amendment. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I want to talk more about code enforcement, but I'd rather let Peter finish. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question, first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What's wrong with a Ted shed? I mean, I really don't go along with the containers either, because I know what they do. They have some very nice Ted sheds that you can put on. I would -- and if anything, I think it should go back again. So, I mean, Peter, would you -- would you require a couple more meetings on this? I mean, this is not something that has to be put in place by the September meeting, does it? Does this have to be put in place, Mark, by the September meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but here's -- and you're getting to a point where I eventually was going to get to with staff. Peter and Ms. Ellis have both expressed concerns that their associations may not have fully vetted this at one of their meetings where they took a vote. It has been on the books for a while. We all know that. I don't know what the reasons are why it wasn't brought up previously, but it would -- may benefit this board to provide time for these two associations to meet and actually take a vote and the request that at least a county staff member attend that meeting to verify that the vote was taken and counted properly. And I don't mean by secret ballot, but just somebody acknowledges that the count was closely accurate, and then bring that information back to us so we can get a feel on how the Estates residents who participate in the community feel about this issue, and that may be one way to get a better feel for this. And, Peter, you had said that some -- what, a 45/55 split. I'd be kind of curious to see if that stays true with an open meeting. MR. GADDY: Sure. I'm sure Kim would be happy to do that. We'll do that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we were to agree to defer this until such time, how much time would you need to be able to have a meeting in which you could discuss this where you could do exactly what we're talking about? MR. GADDY: We would have to give 30 days' notice to our members, which we could do, and probably do it at the October meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we were to schedule this sometime after October to be discussed by this board, you would have input to us from -- the best you could with your Estates residents; at the same time, it would snake it clear that all residents could respond to this board by email or letters, too, so we'd have that in addition to your comments, and that might be a better way to vet this for this board's input for the community, but we also Page 22 of 45 1612 AA 9=012 ought to consider discussions we've had today to add to the language so when you take it to your board, it's got the best input that we could come up with to this point in time, and then hear what your people have got to say once they understand that there will be screening or -- assuming this board says that -- the screening will have a 100 percent opacity or it will be a solid fence so that it can't be seen. All that stuff will be on the table. And if the answer comes back from your groups and from the correspondence we received that says under no circumstances do we want it, period, none of this is acceptable, it's not needed, well, that's a lot of more valuable data for us to consider in our recommendations to the BCC. That might be a good way to go to get this off dead center. But, Peter -- Bill stopped talking for a moment so Peter could finish. So let's let him finish, and we'll go back to us. MR. GADDY: I don't have a whole lot to add to that, Mr. Strain. I think the board has picked up on the issues very -- you know, very fast here, and I think you understand it completely. Mr. Teaters, this morning at 5:45 a.m., I think he sent you an email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and I got it at 5:46, so -- MR. GADDY: I missed it. I didn't see it till 6:00. So I don't know if you had a chance to distribute a copy to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it was sent to all of us. At least the copy I saw on the government's site was sent to all of us, I believe. MR. GADDY: But I think it pretty well sums the issue up, and I would support his comments in that letter. And I thank the board for giving all the consideration they have to this matter. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I think we're going to be considering more, but let's go ahead. And, Paul, Bill, and Phil, in that order, please. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I just have a question. When it is considered and vetted and talked about, if they could also think about what to do about grandfathering some of the ones -- or not grandfathering the ones that are objectionable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. Let me get back to code enforcement. There were a lot of comments made at these meetings you had relative to code enforcement, and I really would like to know what the history of code enforcement is with regard to the containers they had, and then I would like to see an outline of what code enforcement would do to enforce anything we put up there because there have -- there were comments about the fact that code enforcement couldn't get on the property if they had a no- trespassing sign, and there were other comments made that code enforcement said that they were -- they would view these from afar. Well, if they're screened, you can't do much viewing. So, my concern is, are they going to be enforced by code enforcement and how? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we even go there, if you're asking for a report and an outline, as I think you said, by the -- I have a feeling that this will be deferred through the conversation we're having so far today. So by the time we get this back, if code enforcement could respond to Bill's request by email to all of us so we could have that as background information prior to our next meeting on this subject, which may be months off, that would give you guys time to put it together and compare your notes with the County Attorney's Office so everything's in order, and that might be an easier way to go than try to do it on the cuff here today. So it's up to you, though. MR. LETOURNEAU: That sounds good to me also. We'll put something together and work it with Ray, get his input, and then we'll send you on so you have something for the future meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would like to make sure you coordinate with the County Attorney's Office. Anything -- any time code enforcement moves into an issue that involves zoning, it's -- the particulars in that I want to make -- I'd love to make sure they're coordinated right with legal so we don't have any issues at all. So -- because I read some of this stuff, and the people were talking about we'll have it so that code enforcement could walk on the site and inspect these inside for -- see what articles are in there anytime they wanted to. Well, that's kind of an infringement on one's freedoms, rights, and I'm not sure that's the right way to go. But before we get into that, I'd like to make sure that the County Attorney's Office signs off on your analysis or summary. MR. LETOURNEAU: Sure. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Obviously, Page 23 of 45 1612 � July 19, 2012 we're bound, like everything else in our business, by the Fourth Amendment and, you know, the county's attorneys would definitely have some input on our summarizing this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That work for you, Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You want to allow -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After -- we're still responding to Peter's comments. I assume that's where you were going. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment that -- it looks like we're going to defer this to allow time for the associations to meet, and picking up on Peter's comment that there are other areas in the county that are zoned estates that could put this till we have significant input. I don't know what we can do to advertise to those folks or if there are associations that cover Estates zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are. There's, like, the Oaks -- like, the Oaks Advisory Board, Karl Fry. He'll be on record here somewhere. He's one of the people. There's a few people that have changed hands in that group, but that's a very good group to be in touch with. In East Naples just south of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard, there's an area that's zoned Estates. I know there's a homeowners group in there. They've come before this group before. I think you can check all that. We have a registry of homeowners, and that's a good point. We might just want to notify them that this issue's coming up and get their collective input. But by establishing a date in November, we could ask that they provide that by the end of October, and that's a good idea. That would work. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That would take care of it, if we can just let them know, and they'll have an opportunity to weigh in as well; otherwise, we might go back around again. MS. CILEK: Certainly. I can look into those civic associations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that would -- as thoroughly as we can vet this, I think that would be a much better way to move forward with it and -- or not. And I appreciate the efforts that Ms. Ellis and Mr. Gaddy had brought to us today. That picture was worth a thousand words. Thank you. MS. ELLIS: I'm so glad I took it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, did you want to say something on this matter? I know you're here for boat docks, too, but we'll get to that. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I did want to speak on this. Thank you very much. Donna Reed Caron, for the record. But Phil actually brought up the point I was going to make. I'm concerned about the rest of the estates zoned areas in the county. It's fine that Golden Gate has had a meeting, but the rest of the areas need to be more involved; otherwise, as you know, the outcry will come when the first container is plunked in somebody's yard and, you know, the proverbial "all hell will break loose." So I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good input, and having extra time in order to respond to this would give staff time to start notifying groups in other parts of the county that may look, as most people do -- and everybody talks about the Estates. They think east of 951. They don't realize there's estates all over Collier County. MS. CILEK: There is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that issue, too, what do we do with the industrial and commercial? Should we -- I mean, we can't notify every owner, but it would be nice if the press picked up this story and made sure that commercial property owners realize they're in the same boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the lady -- young lady that's smiling in the back, she must be with the press. So maybe that will get out in the story, and hopefully we'll get a lot more input on this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Page 24 of 45 a A6 1612 July 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think -- is there any other public speakers on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'd like to suggest -- and then I'll turn to the board afterwards. I'll read what I -- first of all, I wanted -- I'd like to see this thing brought up to -- as far along as we could get it so that when we give it to these groups and everybody reads it, it's the best we could do at the time, so that's what we're actually considering is what they're considering. • - And that would mean that we need to add screening to the Estates areas, but we need to define what the screening is and its opacity requirements so that everybody knows what to expect. And then we need to write a clear explanation of what we're talking about, permanent versus temporary portables in this particular section of the code. And Brad's idea of reducing the screening requirement in the industrial area needs to be included somewhere, because that is a good idea, and maybe there's a better way to address it than just a blanket 200 feet in from any property line, because industrial alongside industrial alongside industrial in these industrial parks may not have the impact that we need to worry about so much. MR. BELLOWS: That's a good point and though -- some of these industrial districts do abut residential districts such as along J &C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a different animal. MR. BELLOWS: We receive a lot of complaints about incompatible -- residence deemed incompatible, but they are permitted industrial uses. So we will look at maybe proximity to residential -zoned property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, to help that, all you'd have to do is just take out the "from" and then scratch out "a property line" and replace it with "nonindustrial zoning," and that means that if you're 200 feet away from nonindustrial zoning, you buffer it. If you're more than that, don't worry about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the other caveat is that -- come back to us with a rewrite that -- and it's not one that we're going to air for recommendation. It's one we're simply going to say, yeah, this is as best we can do now. Let's get it to the various groups and have them come back with input on it. So that's the kind of review I think you can expect next from us. And that should be a quick turnaround. And then provide the time from now until the end of October for input of any kind we can get from anybody involved, any property owners, and you might go to the board of realtors because they would have -- and CBIA, all these groups are involved with properties, get their input, then in November we'll rehear this thing and try to bring it all together. Does that work with this board? Is everything I've said okay with this board? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to discuss one other issue, and that's the square footage. The building commission, we had a lot of problems with, you know, shed makers -- the Ted's Shed which, unfortunately, went out of business -- Ted's Shed and some of these other people with meeting the building code for door heights, travel distance, stuff like that, so it was determined that any building under 400 feet was exempt from that. That's also what you're proposing for SDP to not be required. So I would go to your -- the building department or suggest that you do limit the size of these to 400 feet. That's a 50 -foot container. The research I've done, there's nothing bigger. Knowing the limitations of transport on a highway, I can't see us really cutting people off from access to a container. So I would think that one of the wise things we might do to keep it out of code issues and to, you know -- I mean, any -- 50- foot's a huge container. Forty-five is the biggest one I've come up with my research anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, honestly, if this thing is structured the way we're talking about and you require screening around it, anybody could build a structure cheaper than they could screen one of these at 40 feet long. So in the end, hopefully the regulation, if it does come to pass, would end up self - prohibiting the bigger containers and would get it down. I mean, the 10- or 20 -foot container to help as a backyard utility container, it would be a lot easier to screen and it would be a lot less offensive. That 40 -foot is -- that's a monster container. The picture was impactful. So we ought to consider that, and maybe the groups will consider it when they review it as we get further along, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the 400 feet, you do bring in after that some building -code issues about Page 25 of 45 161:2 A6 f. July 19, 2012 hardware, crazy stuff that you don't want. So I would do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So just striking the reference to the 480, limit it to less than 400 and be done with it as a way to present it to the Estates group, or to the various groups. Anybody else have any comments on this one? Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Or we could still remove them being allowed in the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but I think before that's done -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is -- what we're trying to do is get the best language we can, if it's to be regulated. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go out to the various groups and publics throughout the county who are involved property owners and who may be involved in this, get their input back. If the input's coming back that the vast majority say, look it, this isn't -- we don't want it at all, then that's a decision this board can consider as a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. We're not taking that off the table. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're just trying to get it to a point where we can get better input on how it could be regulated if it was regulated. Maybe it would be possible. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because we're trying to keep the -- are there hundreds out there now, or a couple? MS. ELLIS: They're scattered, a few. I've been out there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you'll have to use the microphone. MS. ELLIS: I've been out there 25 -- 27 years, and I've seen a few. But I have seen them off of Pine Ridge Road. I am a real estate agent. I didn't bring that up before, because this is personal to me and it wasn't important. But your issue lends to that. I've shown a home on Pine Ridge Road, for example, a few months ago, and it had a storage container in the backyard of the next -door neighbor's property, and I believe that's what Peter was referring to when he spoke, because I mentioned that at the meeting, the other meeting, that people didn't want to have anything to do with that half -a- million - dollar home -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. MS. ELLIS: -- because you could see the storage container in the backyard. But that's one I've seen. I've seen a few scattered here and there. I would say the ones -- I've seen 10 over 27 years. And they're -- so I don't think it would be that big a hurdle COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it's not going to hurt anybody if they couldn't have them. MS. ELLIS: Exactly, exactly. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, these are -- to me, they're shipping containers, they're cargo containers; that's commercial. MS. ELLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't -- MS. ELLIS: Yeah. I think that you will -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You know -- and I've heard today -- I've heard it referred to here today as industrial shipping container. Why do you want them in a residential area? MS. ELLIS: Yeah. And they are huge, and they're ugly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys can't both be talking at the same time. MS. ELLIS: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone has to stop while the other one -- MS. ELLIS: I just -- right, I'm sorry. I just wanted to say, something you brought up, too, made another point -- well, first of all, I think when we get the public input that we're looking for, you're going to see that the best thing to do is to just take the Estates out of the whole thing; take the Estates out of the equation. There's too many opportunities for crime. I mean, I'm not like going off the deep end here, but there was one Page 26 of 45 1612 AY6, 2012 buried as a grow house. There's plenty of opportunity to cut windows out of them and use them for temporary residences for rental, extra income. Stuff like that happens when you can't -- you know, when there's one house on a street. It's just --there's so many things. I get up here and I get nervous, but I just tell you that I think you're going to find that most people just don't want them, that you can take the Estates out of the equation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But to get there, I think we need to -- MS. ELLIS: I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- properly vet it like -- MS. ELLIS: I think it sounds vague. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we've suggested. I'd rather make sure and not make an assumption, because the last time we voted, there was nobody in this room opposing this. We received nothing against it, so the assumption was it was acceptable. MS. ELLIS: It was okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is a complete turnaround. MS. ELLIS: Right. And on that point, Peter said he thought it was 55/45, 55 opposed and 45 for; I would agree, but I think some of the people that were for it were more for no more regulations. They didn't necessarily want a storage container; they just wanted government out of their lives kind of thing, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we could stipulate that. No on the container, but no more regulation. MS. ELLIS: But that's the feeling I got, you know, because when I spoke, that's what people said back to me. Oh, you know, we just don't want any more rules. Well, there's rules, and they're to be followed, and it's all for good reason. But whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Well, I think the goal is to get the full community input, and I think we're on the right path to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, these existing containers, were they permitted? Were they permitted structures? MR. BELLOWS: My understanding from talking to code enforcement that some are legally grandfathered in. Some are -- were never legally permitted. They're just brought out there, and they would be subject to code enforcement and after - the -fact permitting if this amendment is approved. If this amendment is not approved, then they would have to be removed. But those that are legally grandfathered in could remain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what is -- the "legally grandfathered," they were permitted then? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because a structure is anything over 30 inches. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they've always been a structure in the eyes of the -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, with the tie -down permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. They actually came in with a drawing, calculations, and the building department signed off on it? MR. BELLOWS: With the tie -down permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they got a building permit and inspections. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So they were allowed. MR. BELLOWS: Atone time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have anything? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I did. I'm glad that we are letting this go forward so that you may bring this to everyone's attention. The other thing is, to me, because of our soil and everything, if this is ever done they should have to have a cement pad that they're placed on, because they will -- they'll do -- yeah. I would just -- Caroline, if you could just bring -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have a building code, and that would be a building code issue. So I think Page 27 of 45 1612 Ab July 19, 2012 we ought to just see what the code says and make sure we're compliant with the building code. I mean, we don't want to start rewriting the building code in the LDC, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think we want to -- you know, we've got that already. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you look really anxious to say something. It's good to see you're not in a cast of some kind today. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That we can see. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not yet, not yet. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. Commissioners, I just think it should be clear to you folks, as we listen in the back to the discussion, Peter's comments about it being divisive. We've gotten a lot of feedback from people in the Estates. It's true, when we have staff meetings to discuss these LDC amendments -- and it's a pretty open discussion -- I want to make sure that the Planning Commission understands, we're not advocating one way or another. The folks that are on one side that have these -- whether they were permitted or installed without pen-nits -- feel strongly that they should be allowed the freedom of the Estates. There are other folks that have concerns. Surely, when you look across to your lot and you see a 40 -foot storage container -- and that picture is worth a thousand words when you look at it -- you don't want to see a rusted steel structure next to your newly landscaped backyard or your pool because, as you know, offsets in the Estates, one structure could be closer to the street and one behind it, what is the rear yard of one lot could be the side yard of another lot. So that is a concern with screening. The fact that you've asked us to come back to go work with the community, both what I would call urban Estates and rural Estates, makes a lot of sense, because everybody gets to understand what it is. But I want to make sure you understand that this is a problem that's evolved over time. Some people pulled permits in the'80s and'90s and early 2000 period to install these. The building official at the time made sure they were properly tied down, considered them structures, and allowed them to go forward. Other folks just had theirs dumped in their backyard. They just purchased one, let them drop. So you've got contingents that feel that they should be allowed to put these in and those folks that feel that they should be nowhere in sight of a residential zoning district. So I think for -- staffs perspective is we're trying to work with the community on both ends. So I think your recommendation, I want you to know, we agree with. It's a good opportunity to get some feedback from the urban and rural Estates. I think industrial owners are going to want these things, and I think sometimes it makes sense to have some storage in the back of an industrial lot to be able to put these down for a year or two. I know some of the packinghouses use them. So I think, giving us that direction, we're fine with coming back sometime in October after, you know, Peter has a scheduled Estates meeting is fine as well, too. But be very clear, we're not advocating one or the other. I think we're just getting a lot of feedback to make it work one way or another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In all the discussion I heard today, I don't think anybody assumed staff was advocating either way. In fact, I think with Caroline's presence here, she has done a fabulous job. So 1'd think just the opposite. You've shown a strong propensity to work with both sides equally. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's no question on my part, and I'm not sure of anybody on this board. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good. I just wanted you to be clear. And Caroline has been a real welcome addition. She smiles to our staff. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: She's turning red. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And she'll be working on the LDC amendment with the Immokalee Mobile Home Housing Initiative, so if she survives that, I think she -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that will be an easy one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else on the storage containers? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for clarification, we will see this in a redraft form before it would be Page 28 of 45 A6 1612 Jul Y 19, 2012 available for the meetings in October? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it will be just -- not for consideration to move forward to the BCC. Simply to make sure the direction we've given today was followed as closely as it could be, that it goes into the organizations, they meet. Sometime by the end of October, sometime in November or thereafter we will hear it when staff brings it back to us. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, let's take a break till 10:50 and come back and do the docks. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody please take your seats. Okay. The last item on today's agenda for LDC amendments is the dock facilities, 5.03.06 in your books. And this is another rendition with some refinements from our last discussion. And, Caroline, I'll let you go forward. MS. CILEK: Sure. At the last meeting we kind of left it looking at both the amendment -- we made some small tweaks, and I tried to relay those in the criteria revisions, and then we also had a discussion about looking at seagrasses. And I wanted to get direction on the boat -dock amendment on moving forward today as well as the seagrass issue and what the Planning Commission would like to see coming forward in the future in future cycles, and to look at the boat -dock amendment, back to that, and to see if there's any areas that you might want to see more -- see more compromise. Maybe we look at less of an extension out that would be approved administratively, see what areas would make the Planning Commission more comfortable, if that's an opportunity to keep it going, and if not, then direction to remove it from the cycle or to look at it through another administrative process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions to start off with? Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I have problem with the waterway definition only because in the Jaffe boat -dock amendment I thought the staff was a little creative in their waterway width. And a waterway width is a waterway width, and it doesn't change because a property is at a particular location. And those widths are as plotted or as shown on NOAA charts, marine charts. I don't know how you want to state it, but I would be very uncomfortable unless we defined how the staff was going to view the width of a waterway as it related to the boat dock. If you recall the Jaffe, that was a 100 -foot waterway, but the staff approved it because they said the house was -- or the dock was on the end of a waterway, and so their waterway width was 1,500 or 1,700 feet. That -- you know, the neighbors who all are abiding by a 100 -foot waterway couldn't see they couldn't have the same advantage. MS. CILEK: Okay. Well, I will say that what he -- the criterion he's assessing is on Page 3. What I did, following Brad's comments, was put all the clean text first, so that's the bottom of Page 3, Criteria No. 4. And this is simply a reiteration of what is currently in the LDC. So we weren't really looking to change it in this amendment, and that wasn't something we had, you know, brought through any of the other advisory groups to look at. When you're looking at individual boat docks, you know, and how it's applied there, I'm not as familiar with, you know, looking at the Jaffe boat dock in relation to all of the boat docks as a whole in this criterion. It's something we could look at in the future, but for this amendment, since we're -- you know, that's one instance. This is, you know, trying to do -- provide a provision for all of them. I don't know if we'd be up for any serious changes to it at this point in time. But if it's something you want to recommend for the future, we could look at it that way. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Well, Ray, what do you use for -- when you analyze a boat -dock proposal, what do you look at for waterway width? Do you look at a NOAA chart? MR. BELLOWS: I believe that staff would use whatever resource is available to help determine the waterway width. It's not just one source. My understanding is they look at many different sources to verify information provided by the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what Bill's getting at, the Jaffe boat dock experience provided us with an anomaly in relationship to the way our code is interpreted. And maybe we ought to address those somehow in some of this language. Because at the end of a 100- foot -wide waterway, because it's a long, long canal, to say that the waterway width -- because the perpendicular point in this particular item is 1,500 feet away, that's a little bit unfair of Page 29 of 45 1612 July 19, 2012 an analysis if you really think about it, because at the end of a waterway you're pretty crammed in even to turn around with boat docks on boat sides of you. Now you've got three corners of a box covered with boat docks. I don't know what the solution is, but I believe that's where Bill's point is is that it's more about those anomalies and how do we catch them when they don't fit the criteria, when it's obvious there isn't 1,500 feet of really open waterway. It's a congested messy waterway full of a lot of other docks. And how do you really take that into consideration if the black- and -white text says he's got a 1,500- foot -wide waterway. So I think that's where he's coming from. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a fair statement, Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes. The waterway width that's on a chart you can't change because a house is located at a certain angle. I mean, that's crazy. MR. BELLOWS: No, I understand what you're saying, and there are other criteria that we would use in regards to the safety of navigation to take that into account. But you're right; there's a right way to measure the width, and you shouldn't be taking the length of a canal as your width. And that's something we can look at as a future amendment. But, certainly, I wouldn't have done it that way. And I think that when you look at the overall boat dock in relation to all the criteria, part of that would be -- is there's problems with navigation in regards to being at the end of a long canal. And then, like the Jaffe one, if you have to back in and out, there's some safety issues. And that's what I believe staff was trying to say with the particular angle of that dock; it would make more sense for that kind of a dock extension. But it should not have been referenced that the width is the length of the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the width and length are two separate measurements. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the length cannot be the width. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And we can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The width should have been stated. It's a 100 - foot -wide canal. MR. BELLOWS: We can clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is at the end of the canal. And even though it's at the end of the canal, if it were along one of the sides, its depth is still no more than 25 percent of the width of the canal as it would have been measured had it been a side dock or something of that nature. I think that would make it plainer for us to understand because the unknowing eye just reading the text would say, my God, what's wrong with a 30 -foot dock on a 1,500- foot -wide body of water? So I believe that's where you're coming from. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I think it's a good idea that we eliminate some of this and let staff handle it. But I think -- I'm just concerned that the rules are pretty clear. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we don't want to have language that would allow for that kind of confusion. And certainly tweaking the language to define what is a lot or water width, how that is defined, that shouldn't be too difficult to incorporate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's consider -- I think Phil was next, though. So, Bill, Phil, and then -- Bill, are you finished? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I'm finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, and then Brad. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Could you go to Page 5. I'd like to work with the strikethrough underline because it shows, to me anyway, what was there -- what exists today and what you're proposing to change. Starting on Page 5, under Item No. 1 -- excuse me. You're adding language that reads, in the second sentence, in that -- the facility and the conceptual dock layout. Why conceptual and why not actual dimensions? If you look at the applications for boat -dock extensions -- and we've seen some of them today -- you require a site plan showing dimensions. And I don't know how you define conceptual versus dimensioned plan. But to me that's a door that could be open and say, well, this is conceptual. You can't hold me to it. Comment? MS. CILEK: Go ahead. Page 30 of 45 3 A6 1612 July 19, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: My understanding, when we were reviewing this language, we're talking about proposed or conceptual. These are plans, and they're being brought to the Planning Commission as a conceptual plan, and they're not finalized until after the Planning Commission makes a decision. But would proposed dock -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, all I'm saying, Ray, is it -- that language conflicts, at least in my mind, with your application for a boat -dock extension which says -- which requires a site plan showing dimensions. If somehow you could be more specific with the word "conceptual," I'd be more comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think "proposed" would suit your needs, too -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because that means you're proposing it subject to approval, so that probably would clarify it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Proposed with dimensions or -- I mean, take the conflict away, and I'd be comfortable. MS. CILEK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's -- yeah, that would help. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The next sentence, we're still on Page 5, Item 1, envelope the facility. Envelope? To me that's vague. MS. CILEK: Okay. We actually reviewed this with the Planning Commission many meetings ago, this sentence. And one of the reasons why we have maximum square footage of the dock area is that we wanted to have a dock plan that would provide for any future changes that we made, and so that would encompass it. So it would just be the maximum that would be laid out. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No problem. MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm picking on the word "envelope." MS. CILEK: Envelope identifies the area where the boat would also be. So we want to know where they're going to be positioning their boat as well. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could we say that? MS. CILEK: And so would it be the facility -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, my envelope may not be someone else's envelope. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think it's a derivative of the common term we use for building envelope when you have your setbacks. In this case, you'd have riparian lines and the extension. We ran a distance -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you do a site plan, you lay out the building envelope. And by the building envelope you mean all the area you can build in -- within -- within the setbacks areas, and I think that's the envelope you're referring to here -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is all the area you could potentially build into. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Phil wasn't here when we originally discussed that, because it was before his teen started, so that was quite a while ago. MS. CILEK: Sorry about that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think you can delete the word "envelope," and then you should be okay, because we've defined the facility in a number of places as both the dock and the boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this isn't a definition of the facility. This is a definition of the area that the facility could be used in. The facility itself could be different than the envelope. I think that's what staffs trying to say. But what they're asking for is tell us what the potential envelope is, and your facility will fit somewhere within that envelope, and that's okay -- so I think -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we don't want to take it out. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Could we go to the next page, please, under primary criteria, Item iii. Now, you deleted -- you completely deleted the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and substituted the present (sic) of one or more site conditions. Can you just tell me what Page 31 of 45 A July 19, 20 1 16I -- the rationale for why you deleted that entire formerly Item No. C. MS. CILEK: Sure. We removed adverse impact language because it was seen as being subjective, and we were trying to make this amendment more objective. So solid numbers, site conditions, things that we could measure. And we worked with the county attorney and, I believe earlier, with Planning Commission, and that was seen as language that would be subjective. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I hear you,but -- MR. BELLOWS: So we're replacing an objective -- a subjective criteria. What does that mean when you say "adverse impact "? And if you start putting specific numbers into the code throughout that provision, then it's easier to define what those impacts are. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The problem I'm having, Ray, is formerly you were addressing adverse impact on navigation as a secondary criteria, and I don't see in the proposed new language any reference to adverse effect on navigation. I see site conditions, reinforcement mangrove, blah, blah, blah, blab, blah, blah, but historically if we've considered adverse impacts, I was just questioning why all of a sudden that's not viewed to be important. I would accept it's subjective. There's a lot of subjective things in this. MS. CILEK: Right. And we were asked to make this amendment more objective so that staff could administratively approve boat docks that met all of the criterion -- criteria. I would say that No. 5, the facility shall not obstruct the use of neighboring docks does get a little bit to making sure that other boat docks aren't being adversely impacted, but that does not get to the adverse impacts of the navigable waters. So they're different. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The former language said the facility should not intrude on any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic. And a navigable channel is pretty objective, and intruding on that channel is dimensional. I would think that's pretty objective. I'm just -- I'm throwing it out there. I'm not comfortable that we should remove all references to interfering with navigation. MS. CILEK: Well, if it's something that the Planning Commission wants to bring back that adverse - impact language -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm just offering my comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think part of the problem may be is on No. 3 you did -- when you struck some language there and you brought other new language in, you actually cited examples. Maybe within -- when you suggest the presence of one or more site conditions, maybe navigability is one of them that you just list there as one of them. Now all of a sudden then we know that site conditions related to navigability have to be thought about. I know you put it down on 5. MS. CILEK: Four is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four, I'm sorry, yeah. MS. CILEK: Yeah -- is really trying to get to the navigable. We definitely want to keep that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, maybe --well, then maybe you stress just make --just make that a little broader, that navigability overall will be a criteria that has to be considered for site conditions, not just the fact of 50 percent of the waterway, because I think where Phil's coming from and where this board has had problems in the past is closeness to an actual navigable channel, regardless of whether they're 25 or 50 percent of the waterway. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. MS. CILEK: Okay. We could extend criteria for -- to include of -- because right now it's just being maintained for navigability between dock facilities on either side of the waterway that -- it's, you know, very specific in how it is applied, but we could expand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And -- maybe "and navigability of the waterway," something to that --just put that in there, and I think it covers -- it opens the door -- MS. CILEK: I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for any issue we would have with that. MR. BELLOWS: Good comment. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 7 under little "i," formerly B, what is minimum dock area? How would you interpret minimum dock area if you're evaluating the criteria? MS. CILEK: Can you reference the criteria one more time for me. Page 32 of 45 ' u � 1612 y' 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's on Page 7. And it's, really, formerly B -- MS. CILEK: Oh, little "i." COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- now "i," little "i" -- MS. CILEK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- second sentence. You say the proposed dock facilities shall be limited to the minimum dock area and allow for reasonable and safe access. Minimum; what is minimum? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't you define that in the next sentence where it says reasonable deck width shall be considered up to 6 feet? MS. CILEK: It is very much connected to the next part of the criterion, the reasonable dock width, but there might be instances where a dock width may be -- may need to be larger for, you know, wheelchair access or something like that and may need to go beyond, so that's just allowing a little bit of leeway. But, mostly, they would be 6 feet in width. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. I'm trying to put myself in the position of staff that would review these. MS. CILEK: These are very good questions. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And my minimum is not necessarily your minimum as an applicant, for example, and that's what I'm picking at. MS. CILEK: Well, I guess the question is, is it clear that the minimum would be seen as what is reasonable with a -- with few exceptions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if staff felt that the minimum presented wasn't reasonable, you'd have no -- you could just automatically move it and say, look it, this isn't going to be done administratively. MS. CILEK: Exactly. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I guess it's a level of comfort from your perspective, too, is if you're -- if something's being asked for that's beyond what you would consider reasonable, you don't have -- you have the ability to say we're not going to do this administratively. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Perhaps somebody comes in with a 15- foot -wide dock or whatever, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. They'd say, look it, this is beyond what we've seen in the past and it's not typical. We're going to move this to the Planning Commission. MS. CILEK: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I'm just going through here with an eye as to openings that perhaps should be closed up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree. I just want to make sure that the communication between what staffs nodding their head and what you're saying is clear, and sometimes -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I just want to make -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I think we're probably going to see this again, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is going to be with us for the next 15 years. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can we drop down to Item iii. And, again, formerly D was completed completely, and that referenced a major impact on the waterfront view on neighboring waterfront property owners. That entire criteria is now struck and substituted with a criteria that doesn't address waterfront view whatsoever. MS. CILEK: Are you saying little iii? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Three -- yes. MS. CILEK: Well, looking at D, the original D, and saying that you don't want to have a major impact on the waterfront view shed, basically -- and little iii is trying to get so that the mass of the boat dock is centered on an individual's property so that it's not on the side and it's not interfering as much as possible with those view sheds. So it's centered, and they're the ones who have it in their view shed, not their other -- not their neighbors. So it -- the direction is really to help with the view shed, but it is to center it behind that person's lot. MR. BELLOWS: And if I might add, it goes away from a subjective criteria, what is an impact on the view to forcing a setback requirement. The further out you go, the more you have to set back from the riparian line. So the Page 33 of 45 1612 A6 July 19, 2012 idea is getting away from what is a view impact to forcing the property owner to build in the middle of the lot. Because the further he goes out with his dock, the more you would typically impact the view corridor, but that forces that to go more into the middle of the lot. That's the reason -- the rationale behind that particular change. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What comes immediately to my mind is our deliberations on the Dunes and the impact at least on the part of some of the commissioners of the view -- waterway view from across the waterway looking at a boat dock that extended for -- I forget the exact dimensions, but for a long ways. And that was a consideration -- I think, a key -- one of the key considerations of this commission, and now I'm seeing proposed language that removes it from any consideration, yours or ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the view of a dock is generally referenced from the property itself -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to protect a view of someone who's looking across a spanse of open space that could go on for miles isn't part of the criteria that we've ever applied. It's really -- and I didn't have that concern. The view of those people across the waterway in those condos looking down at the Dunes docks had no more right to that view than the view people behind the Dunes docks looking at them had been destroyed by them building their condos there. So I think we have to limit the view to the adjoining properties and judge it based on that, because if we go to a wide panorama view as a protective right, we've got a whole'nother ballgame we need to get into on a lot of different subjects. Just as example, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And that -- I hear what you're saying, but neighboring waterfront property owners versus abutting, to me, has two different connotations as well. I take your point on abutting or adjacent, but neighboring does widen the panorama. Again, just a comment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This thing really does a good job, because this thing can take up to a 40 -foot extension to a 60 -foot dock. If they're out at that point, they're 27 and a half feet in on each side. I wish we were doing that on some of the past applications. So to fit in the administrative process, they're going to really be pulling these things in towards the center of the lot. And the Dunes would have to come before us anyway. It's a multifamily dock. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Good point. I'm finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, did you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a couple. Yeah, I do. Let's go to the clean version, Page 3, H1. And I like the word "proposed dock." That's fine. That keeps it from being -- makes it more visible. I wouldn't mind adding after that -- where it states "dock layout," I wouldn't mind adding the words "with water depths." One of the things in reviewing these that I look at is the dock and how it's situated with the depth. On the application today, one of them showed the proposed dock with the depths; one of them didn't. Now, he showed the depths on another drawing, but I think the one drawing you're looking at should show that to see if they're reaching out further than they need for the -- to get the depth they need. So I think -- just add that. 2B, I would -- I'm a little uncomfortable with this, because it makes it sound like you have a threshold that would -- they have to get to a public hearing, and I think they should be able to go to a public hearing if they want it. So I would propose changing that to -- and I'll go down to where it says -- and for multifamily uses, maybe -- I would remove the word "approved." I would say "consider for approval" -- I guess don't remove the forward, just spell it differently -- "consider for approval by the Planning Commission," and I would drop the rest of that. So what that's saying is that, you know, you have the ability, if you can't make it in your process, to come before us. The good thing about that is it sheds the scorecard once and for all from us, which -- now, you've used it as a threshold, which means somebody may not have access to a public hearing, maybe through an appeal of your decision, but I would think that setting up something that provides a threshold to come before the Planning Commission essentially for a public hearing is not a good idea. MS. CILEK: I think the option for them to bypass administratively and come to the Planning Commission is a good one. I'm interested to hear from everyone what they think about dropping the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's read the whole thing. It says, extensions for single - family Page 34 of 45 July 19, 2012 residential uses that cannot be approved administratively and for multifamily residential uses, and I'd like to add "may be considered for approval by the Planning Commission." Bang. COMMISSIONER VONIER: That's clean. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't like -- and, again, it does happily get rid of the scorecard, which we've never seen eye to eye on ever, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aren't you, though, by the way you've included four of the five primary and four of the five secondary saying by this paragraph that if someone doesn't even reach that minimum threshold, they don't even come before us because they haven't qualified to come before us? Is that what that says? MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm asking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what I don't like about it, because you're denying people access to a public hearing because they don't meet your scorecard again. So let's dump the scorecard from the Planning Commission. You can enjoy it all you want. It's yours now. Have fun with it. But don't bring it up here anymore, you know. MS. CILEK: I mean, our scorecard is all criteria. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MS. CILEK: So they have to meet all of the criteria. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. CILEK: And then if they -- they can choose. If they, you know, would rather -- they can meet all the criteria but they could want more, or they could have a really good reason for it, but staff doesn't feel comfortable approving it, so they would say, we'd like to go to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Here's what you're saying. You can't come play here unless you hit this score, and that's not right. MR. BELLOWS: No. What we're saying is that we were giving you some baseline criteria to recommend approval or denial on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't want that. MR. BELLOWS: What I'm hearing you saying is you don't want a baseline. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We didn't to -- you've -- that's the argument we've always had, the scorecard. You know, the scorecard is wisecrack. You know, that's not a -- meaning anything. It's my way of saying it was never a -- you know, an ability to add things up and you win. But now that you can have that, to get access to the Planning Commission, the scorecard shouldn't be involved. MS. CILEK: I mean, it's an interesting concept. They could be both beneficial and harder for applicants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you know the findings of fact we use for conditional uses or PUDs? MS. CILEK: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we take a look at the criteria as findings of fact as a not -- so it doesn't really become a scorecard. It becomes a basis on which we base our facts, we base our findings on. MR. BELLOWS: That's a good concept. I think we can explore that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's a little different, but it does match what we do in other parts of the code. So we don't have a scorecard in which we can -- someone could argue, well, we meet all the criteria. You've got to approve us. We really have an approval process based on findings of fact, and these are all the facts that we believe are the basis for the approval or denial. And we could --we could elaborate on them just like we do with PUDs and conditional uses and the rest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Mark, that's what it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the way it was worded, it said, in order for the Planning Commission to approve it, it had to meet — you know, in other words, so it really did set a minimum threshold of findings in these same criteria. These criteria will still be here for us to deal with, and I think it would be the criteria we use for an approval and any adjustments we make to it. Page 35 of 45 1612 .. 9, 2012 But I think -- first of all, you know, to have access based on a certain score is not a good idea, you know, based on the form of govennnent we have. I mean, you don't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we ought -- you guys ought to take a look at some of the alternatives and see if there's another way of approaching it. I do think there's a value in letting applicants know they have a potential for approval. MS. CILEK: I think so, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that may be why the primary and secondary criteria are important is that, you know, if you do qualify for four or five of these, you at least know you've got a shot at being approved. If you don't, you better figure out how to get there. So that is helpful to the property owner and applicant. But I don't necessarily completely disagree with Brad; it does hurt us. If we want to deny something for other reasons outside those criteria, it becomes a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because one of the things we've always done good with them is we really model and play with and adjust and mitigate, you know, the boat -dock extensions. We reduce it. We really work with it. So coming here is a wise thing if they're having trouble getting administrative. And I think anybody that seriously wanted their boat dock, even -- rather than even study the criteria, would be to come here and tell us why and what they're doing, and we could deny it or we could accept it. And it's usually recommended with the conditions that we put on it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If I could just make a comment. I have some concerns if you do completely remove the four to five and four to six, or whatever the numbers are, because remember you're the final reviewer of these boat -dock extensions, and you've been delegated that authority to review that by the Board of County Commissioners. So if it becomes so discretionary, you may not be able to be delegated that authority anymore, and then it would have to be a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. So I'll evaluate that with Caroline, but that's my concern with where we're going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you do, go back to the old wording and maybe make it better that in order for us to approve it -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- they have to meet that. And that was like a minimum, and then we could go on beyond that. It got to be where the staff would say, look, they met the four out of the five, they win, bingo, they hit the score, and that's not what it was intended to be, I don't think. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And that's a good point to clarify that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing is, the last page, 8, and it's "i," you refer -- if something happens beyond the specified limits, it's determined administratively, and the section of code you quoted is the -- I believe, unless it's been renumbered -- the standard for boat -lift canopies. MR. BELLOWS: Could you repeat what line you're reading from? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I3, it's Line No. -- 35 is the problem. Check that reference. When I looked it up on mine -- on MUNI code, it's a standard for boat -lift canopies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The very last line of the entire section. MS. CILEK: Oh, 5.03.06.G. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. CILEK: Okay. I'll just look at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It might not be what you want. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else before we go to public speakers, other than me? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a few points of clarification. And I like the strikethrough version, so -- or the underlined version. So let's go to Page 5, H 1. When you talk about -- it says plan requirements, requests for boat -dock facility extensions shall include a plan that illustrates the facility. Are you referring to the dock facility? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Since that's a defined term, can we put "dock facility "? And the conceptual dock layout, are you referring to the -- which will be now "proposed dock layout," do you mean dock - facility layout or dock -- because you define dock and dock facility separately, and I caught that and thought, we better make sure we're talking about each one separately. Page 36 of 45 :1 16 s r Zuly 19, zo 1 Then the next sentence, it says the facility envelope, I think you mean the dock - facility envelope, not just -- or the -- are we looking at dock -- yeah, the dock envelope, the dock - facility envelope. I'm suggesting, though, you insert the word "facility" wherever needed in those two sentences; that's all. If that's what you intend to mean. MS. CILEK: We can look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 2A, dock - facility extensions for single - family uses shall satisfy all the criteria, then it talks about if the projection does not go beyond 40 feet into the waterway, provided a written objection is not received as provided in Section 5.03.06.H.5. I thought I mentioned this before, and you may have had a good reason not to do it, so I just need to be refreshed. My memory sometimes is not as good as it should be. I have a concern that if you've got a whole series of docks running in a line that everybody was satisfied that 35 feet works. Someone comes in because they can do administratively 40 feet, and this says that they can do 40 feet, they get 40 feet. Besides the criteria that you have here of 40 feet, it also should be that they're not out of alignment with their adjoining docks. And I think that's important. Same -- we do the same thing with the coastal construction setback line variances on high -rises along the beach. They have to be in line with the building next to them. They can't protrude out further. It's the same kind of criteria I'm suggesting we look at for No. 2 as an addition to make sure that we don't have an abnormal dock popping up in the middle of a row of docks without justification. MS. CILEK: Well, one question would be first, do you guys look at that? And I know this is different because it's administrative, but I'm just curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. I did today. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I drew lines between each one of the docks to make sure that if they -- if they're going to go out beyond it, I'd certainly look harder at it. I'm wondering why. If their neighbor could get by with this, why do they need more. MS. CILEK: Great. Good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I look at it. I don't know if the rest do or not. But it's relevant to me. MS. CILEK: I like Brad's comment about including the water depth in the layout. And one thing would be that that needs to be comparable to, you know -- or make sense, be consistent with how far out the dock is reaching. So if that water depth, you know, is too deep and the dock is going out more than it needs to, that kind of triggers, like, why -- why are you going out that far? I think that one thing about bringing in the alignment of neighboring docks is that a lot of areas may be just -- there might be a lot of varying in the coastline, or it's more labor intensive to go out there. I'm just bringing up other concerns that that may bring along with it and see if just the -- including the water depth, making sure that that is appropriate for the protrusion of the dock -- would be sufficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, I -- if the water depth and the neighbor's allows them to live with a 35 -foot extension but this guy wants 40 because instead of -- he's got a deeper -draft boat that he maybe doesn't need or he's going to back it in and put his motor in first, I don't know if that's criteria that staff should be reviewing or it should not come to us because there's justification for it. So that's all. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I like the idea. It's just --one of the things I was thinking is how much further out beyond the basically line -- the setback line, so to speak, do you want it to become a CCPC review; 10 feet, five feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think the -- right now --well, first of all, I've got more to add to that as we get into this. But if someone's going out beyond the line of the adjoining docks, I think that needs to be considered by this board. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. But how much more? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for you to want to consider it would be detrimental to you, because that's going to be like a thumb sticking out, and someone's going to say, well, why did staff do that? You're safer letting us take a look at it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't care what the criteria is as far as distance goes, but if they go beyond adjoining docks without -- I don't think you guys should be handling it, because I think it will open you up to more criticism than you need. Page 37 of 45 A6 16 1 2uy 19, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Is there a specific distance beyond that you have in mind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't thought about it that way, Ray. I mean, if you guys want to take a look at some historical stuff and come back with a suggestion, I'm all for it. But I think you should consider that because I don't -- MR. BELLOWS: No -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to see staff in a position where you're criticized for making a decision you're allowed to make because of this, and it turns out -- MR. BELLOWS: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we didn't think it out. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? And on that point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you've got to be careful, because those are the dangerous docks; those are the ones that people don't see at night and hit and stuff. So you have to -- MS. CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- put criteria. Also, if they're going out to get greater depth, you have to really make sure the Manatee Protection Plan, whoever's reviewing this is aware of that, because like today when the guy said he had a troller he was putting in, that scared me, but somehow -- if a troller draws 18 inches, I didn't worry about it, but the trollers that I know, you know, are usually picking up oysters or something. But, you know, that's a pretty big boat. So you've got to be careful that you're not hurting, you know, the Manatee Protection Plan. What we did before is we've always figured four feet, and that gave them one foot underneath a three -foot draft, which kept the world safe out there. So you in -house are probably going to have to come up with some understanding with the industry on what is an appropriate lift dimension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 6, under primary criteria, you talk about no more than two slips for single - family, and I don't disagree with that, but what's happened is certain dock submittal people -- I'm not going to talk about Rocky being in the audience for this. But the -- they tend to come in and now believe that if you can't have two slips it's a hardship. And I want to snake sure that that isn't something that can be construed by being in the primary criteria. I'm just throwing that on the table for the county attorney to think about and for staff to think about. It's not -- I haven't got a suggested change to it. But we had two hardship cases come in, and both were because they couldn't have two slips. Well, okay. You got one. Why is not having two a hardship? I mean, three, maybe four, maybe five. Where do you stop? So it didn't seem like a hardship to me. And I want to make -- but staff approved it as a hardship, and somehow I think that needs to be understood, and that's why I'm pointing it out. If there's a way to clarify it, fine. If this doesn't open us up to anymore rulings on hardship than what we have had, that's fine, too. Number three, little iii, the third line, configuration or property riparian lines shall justify the proposed dimensions and location of a dock facility. That means that wherever those lines fall, the dock facility has to be within those lines and subject to those lines; is that right? Because I was thinking the word "shall" should be "may," but I don't think "may" is right now. I think "shall" is the way it belongs. So I'll drop that one. On No. 4, about the fourth line, or third line, there shall be a minimum of 50 percent of the width of the waterway maintained for navigability between dock facilities on either side of the waterway. Does that apply only to existing dock facilities? MS. CIL,EK: That's a good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I ask that is if -- say someone comes in, it fits them because the other guy hasn't build his dock yet. So it becomes first come, first serve. So do we need to snake sure we consider not only the existing dock facilities but the potential dock facilities that could be built within the code as it stands, like the 20 foot? MS. CILEK: I actually would like to hear what Heidi suggests on that one, having considered future dock facilities and looking at the amendment. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I mean, I think we can address it with some language, and I'll work with Page 38 of 45 1612 ,AI (J�6 12 Caroline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think it's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- five is similar. The facilities shall not obstruct the use of neighboring docks. Is that existing neighboring docks or potential neighboring docks? And, again, I would have to fall back on what is standard criteria for what we would expect as the neighboring dock. So as long as we leave latitude for a neighbor not to be wiped out by the first come, first serve basis, if he's on the water, by another neighbor putting in their dock ahead of him, I think that protects everybody, if it's to minimum code. Now, if the guy comes in and he wants -- and the second guy coming wants an extraordinary dock, that's a whole different ballgame, and I don't think it's one we have to anticipate, so — and those are my questions, my comments. Thank you. Now we've got public speakers. Jeremy and Donna and Rocky. Who would -- ladies first; is that appropriate? No? I see the head shaking no. Oh, and while she's coming up, one other thing I'd like as a suggestion to consider. We have an administrative adjustment process that started -- it's kind of in limbo. You're going to get more input before it goes any further. Shouldn't we consider putting the administrative adjustments that are -- that could potentially be allowed for docks in that process so we don't have two separate processes? MS. CILEK: And that's a really good question. I'm glad you bring it up. I actually got some direction from Nick to put together all of the different administrative procedures we have in the code so they're under one process, one procedure. And so when that time comes to do that, this will be one of those that goes in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So whatever is determined as to the process of the overall master administrative process, the dock process that could be subject to staff review becomes part of that process? MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means -- well, that's a whole set of standards we haven't even seen yet. MS. CILEK: Future date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to say that, because I believe you have some issues about that. MS. CARON: Yes. Donna Reed Caron for the record. Thanks for bringing up that point, because I did think that this was all coming back as a part of the overall administrative. And also, based on just what happened earlier with the container situation not going out to the community and just making these changes and making them administratively is not a really good way to go. For example, who came up with 40 feet and why was that? I mean, was there any real reason, or did that seem like a good thing or, you know, did Rocky have a 40- footer he wanted? I don't know. But that's not been vetted. It hasn't been vetted as far as I know with the people at Turrell. It hasn't been vetted -- certainly has not been vetted with the citizens, and I think that's always an important part, before you go making sweeping changes in people's lives, that you get their input, and you talk to them about it. I think that staff has worked really hard to try to get some solid criteria that they can work with, but I still have grave reservations. I just know that over the years this board has made incredible changes that have only made things better for the community, and I hate to see that go away. I want that maintained because there's not been any that haven't turned out better as a result of your work and your thoughts and your input. So I just hate to see it go just away to administrative. I think that putting things behind closed doors like that is not a good thing. It's not a good thing for the community as a whole. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Donna. Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. One of the things that we liked about the way that this amendment went was that there was a defined set of criteria that we knew that we could expect an application would be required to meet. Maybe we're not necessarily Page 39 of 45 A6 16 12july 19, 2012 married to the idea that it, you know, needs to be that wording. Maybe if it morphs into a findings -of -fact situation or something like that, just as long as it continues to ensure to the public -- and I think that is also important to applicants, that they know what to expect when they go through the process. That's important to us. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Rocky? MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield. I have a solution. I can be the hearing officer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why not? MR. SCOFIELD: I don't think Donna heard that one. No. I don't have too much problems with what was said this morning. We're going to be in session again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCOFIELD: All this stuffs going to be brought up. We're going to be at the table again. I would say one thing -- or a couple of things. We've been here before talking about this administrative hearing process, and then we start piling on things, and it gets very complicated, and then it's always falling apart. I hope it doesn't go that way this time, but you can almost feel that it could go that way. So it's a very tough process that we're working through to try to get this stuff straightened out. And I'm -- you know, I'm all for going, you know, back to the drawing board and trying to get all this language right. [just hate to keep piling on more and more. And so we need to be careful about that. I took notes of what was said. I don't have too much problem. I think all this can be worked out; maybe, maybe not. You know, it always can wind up back here -- is a hearing process is -- which has happened in the past. So rather than go through the list of things that was discussed, we're going to be doing that anyway before it comes back to you, so I'll reserve my comments and we'll work through these problems and come up next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Rocky, one of the important things I think that would happen is if this got put into the overall administrative adjustment process, then I think some of it would survive. And I think creating a self - standing process on its own for administrative approval for docks doesn't -- that's going to be -- to me that's a harder one to overcome. But if we have the right administrative adjustment process and this can fit into that process, like anything else in our code, it would apply. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number two, I think that if we look at what we just did with the storage containers and the controversy with those and approach the docks the same thing, this board will work out the best language it can with staff, we propose this language, then we put it out to the stakeholders involved, give them time to review it, get back to us, and then make a final decision after that's done, that would be a better, I think, way of approaching this, especially that -- there are interested parties that may not have had the opportunity to review the length and the dimensions. So I'm going to suggest that that's the approach we take, just like eve did with the storage containers, and it gets us to a package that can go out, we can get final review on it from the groups, and then make a decision after all that input's received. It might take a little longer, but I think it would be a more thorough vetting, so -- MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I think if you go out to -- and I have no problem going out for public opinion. I think if you were to hold -- if this is going to be approached the way the container issue is going to be looked at and you have public workshops or whatever you have there, this probably would be debated forever and nothing come to a head, but -- in that scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that scenario's not --what you just described is not the scenario the storage containers are going. They're going back to the civic associations and the stakeholders involved specifically for them to provide us with any additional input they have on the final language that's drafted -- MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. And then come before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by October 30th. The same thing would occur here. With that additional input -- and I would hope we wouldn't have community members come up saying, this hasn't been vetted in our community. This hasn't been vetted in Port of the Islands. I bet you nobody in Port of the Islands knows this. They've got docks down there. Isles of Capri. I mean, I was going to try to facilitate a meeting with some of these people, but this whole thing got wrapped Page 40 of 45 16 12 A419,2012 up into a bigger discussion of administrative adjustments, so that didn't happen. But I think we can provide the time for that to happen. We can provide the incentive to staff. And if staff has language that's near final that's been fleshed out by us, when they go to these groups, they've got something more substantial to sink their teeth in by saying, well, this hasn't been reviewed by the Planning Commission yet. Well, yes, it has. Here's our suggestions. What do you think? That may be a more affirmative way to get an answer. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, I agree with that. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Rocky. Now, with that suggestion I just threw on the table -- MS. CILEK: I'm going to be busy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you are. Well, that's called job security. Nick said to make sure we provided -- he's got to have budget justification for you for next year, so we just created that. And he said a raise, too. MS. CILEK: Oh, really? I like that idea. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Promotion's in there somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think then what we've boiled down to is a whole bunch of data we've just thrown at you with the suggestion that we look at this like we're looking at the storage containers. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that acceptable to this board? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes, it is, but just to comment on this existing administrative adjustment process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There isn't one yet, but they're working on it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh, I thought there was an overall county -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. There's a package that we were considering that's now on the -- that's now on hold. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's gotten -- it's gotten more convoluted than anybody anticipated, so I think, administratively, Nick and others are trying to figure out, okay, what can we propose that will try to make this a little bit easier. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm suggesting this get put into that once it's all figured out. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. I had misunderstood. I thought there was a preexisting administrative adjusted process that this would potentially fit into -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- and I have no appreciation for any existing process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's some administrative allowances right now, but nothing that we're talking about. No. This isn't -- this could not go into any existing process. This would have to be the new process once it's figured out what it is. And we would be part of that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nope. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that criteria work for everybody? Okay. Caroline, are we done? MS. CIL,EK: Yes. Well, real quickly. I included two other LDC amendments in your packet for today just for discussion. I wanted you to be aware of additional language that was added to them to explain how they will be presented to the board. Both of them are votes by the Planning Commission to either remove a provision -- if we look at LDC Amendment 6.02.01, which I think is the next one -- oh, it's the last one, I apologize. On Page 3 staff will be bringing forward this amendment, and the highlighted section identifies that the Planning Commission voted to remove one of the individual amendments, which is 6.02.03D, and that was regarding the change in the years for the work schedule for Collier County. So we will just be identifying that we recommend -- or the Planning Commission recommended that be removed to the board. But we're -- it's going to be an amendment as it goes to the board. We'll be speaking to it. And then the other one was for 5.05.08, and we outlined what occurred following the review by the Planning Page 41 of 45 July 19, 2012 Commission to bring this back to the authoring committee which was -- which is called the review committee -- architectural review committee in 2004. So staff will be making the recommendation that we look at 5.05.08 in entirety. But DSAC does have their individual recommendations that they will be -- that will be voiced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's my understanding that our recommendation was, in the architectural criteria based on, especially, Brad's input, because he was involved with it, was let the original group take a look at it and play it because they wrote the language, but DSAC disagrees with that position? MS. CILEK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, here's something that makes no sense. First of all, after the meeting -- the -- was to establish a committee, the five architects were chosen, staff informed us that they're not going to go through with it, that they don't have the authority to reconvene the committee because they don't have the budget. I pointed out that these are 10 volunteers that would be doing it, and we could gladly fill staff in after we meet. MS. CILEK: It really is that we would like direction from the board, which we're going to the board next week to request. So that committee will be started, hopefully, sooner rather than later. But staff is looking for board direction to do a review of 5.05.08. And then, yes, the volunteers will play an integral role in that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then let me read something in your executive summary, and tell me why this shouldn't bother me. And it's discussing DSAC looked at it, made some further recommendations, and following discussion, they recommended that the amendment, as written, and their recommendation regarding spandril windows be presented to the board of county (sic) for consideration and direction to the staff. So isn't that saying, nice going, Planning Commission, but we're going to jump you, and we're just going to go to the board directly. And the spandril glass thing, I hope the board does understand what a horrible mistake that would be. MS. CILEK: Yeah. And here's the thing. They can't jump. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. By law they have to go through us for an LDC amendment. MS. CILEK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm wondering what their exercise was trying to do. MS. CILEK: They're just voicing their recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do any of them have any experience? MS. CILEK: I'll let Nick -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Caroline's in a no -win situation sometimes, because DSAC will say, you don't take our recommendations. We you go this -- and I said, no, no. We're going to tell what you said to the board. Staffs going to recommend what the Planning Commission recommended is (sic). So, you know, in fairness to DSAC, Commissioner Schiffer, we'll take it to the board because they've asked us to, but staffs going to tell the board, look, from staffs perspective, we agree with the Planning Commission. If you're going to open this up, then you need to go through and do a thorough review of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then my answer is, the board could approve it. They could say, well, that lazy Planning Commission. Let's not -- you know, let's just start -- let's do this. You can put spandril glass in a picture frame and call it a window -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which is like a cheap cowboy -town move, you know. So they could actually approve it. In other words, you're presenting it in such a way that they could go against staff, which is hopefully supporting us, go against -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not hopefully, sir; we are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the fact that we were told that it was withdrawn. In other words, these are things that came back to us as being withdrawn, so we didn't pay any attention. I mean, if you said to me, Brad, we're going to rewrite -- even though Planning Commission doesn't want to do it, DSAC wants to do it. Maybe some of us would have gone to that meeting and, you know, pointed out some of the problems with -- especially the spandril glass one is a really cheap move I can't imagine Collier County would ever support. But how's it going to be presented? It's all happening away from us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But see, I believe the way our -- the code -- the law is written, they can't do an Page 42 of 45 1612 A 6 July 19, 2012 LDC amendment without some kind of recommendation from this board. We didn't make a recommendation on this. It was withdrawn to go back to the stakeholders. So I don't know how the board -- and maybe Heidi can chime in how BCC could legally approve an LDC amendment without some record of recommendation from us regarding that amendment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could direct it to come back to you and get a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So they could say, we want to hear it, process it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're -- aren't we wasting the board's time? I mean, what -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, because I think we're getting -- our staffs recommendation is to get board direction to say don't go back to the Planning Commission, don't adopt the amendment or bring it forward. Go back and do a thorough review. Exactly what you're asking us to do is what staffs asking the board to do, is go through a thorough review with the whole group, because Caroline discussed it. Lsaid, this isa4what we started with. This is not what Planning Commission recommended. In fairness to DSAC, because we're trying to work with everybody, we'll take it forward, and if the board says, we agree with DSAC, take it back to the Planning Commission, you're going to make your recommendations. You might recommend to deny it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No one ever said we didn't want to make a recommendation. That's not fair. I mean, the point was that we were going to establish -- CBIA was here. We were going to develop this -- reconvene the committee. I did my homework. I got the architects from the past, and then that was it. Nobody -- didn't happen. Carolina (sic) said that you guys weren't going to allow it to happen. And it would have happened, it would have been over. We would have been reviewing the report of that. And Carolina (sic) came before us and said it was withdrawn. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And DSAC made a motion to go forward and submit this to the Board of County Commissioners. So we will do that, and we will say to the board, we don't agree with DSAC. We agree with the Planning Commission. It should be vetted, and we'd like to get board direction to do it that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you can get LDC amendments by short- circuiting the Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, that's not what your chairman said, and that's not what I said, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they can't do that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could direct us -- if they agree with DSAC, they could say, submit it as written to the Planning Commission and get a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forward us a recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they've done that already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It was withdrawn because we weren't told we had to review that specific language. We simply said, withdraw it, take it back to the stakeholders, then bring it back to us with that input that you recommended. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying, the outcome could be that they state, skip the stakeholder part of it, just go right back to the Planning Commission with it as written? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And, of course, the obvious question is -- and I'm surprised that DSAC -- why would any publicly appointed service body, like we are, like DSAC, not want the public's input? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think they felt it was the first phase, and they wanted to go forward as such, and they said, if you want to do a thorough review afterwards, fine. At least get this portion through now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Afterwards it's a done deal. What good is it then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, Commissioner, we're agreeing with you, so -- that's why we're going to make that recommendation to the board for a thorough review and say, this isn't ready for prime time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, another point is that staff came here and said it was withdrawn, and then it comes to life in the shadows that Donna worries about, you know. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Look, Commissioner Schiffer, that's why Caroline put it on your agenda item, so it wouldn't be in the shadows. She's telling you, Planning Commission, DSAC wants the board to hear it. We want you to know we're backing up the Planning Commission. We're letting you know so that we can have this discussion and Page 43 of 45 1612 A6 July 19, 2012 make sure it's not (sic) clear. I really get concerned when you make comments that it's being done in the shadows, because one thing -- we meet once a week and they explain things to me, and I said, transparency, transparency, transparency. We've got to make sure everybody knows what's going on, and if there's any inkling from the community, Planning Commission, or DSAC that something's not right, put the brakes on, because we're not going to go through this and get, you know, that -- that challenge that we just didn't vet this properly. So we're agreeing with you. This needs more work. This needs the committee, so that's the recommendation we're taking forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do understand, it's uneasy when something's withdrawn and then it shows up heading to the final say. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's why we're here telling you that that's what's going on, not to do it without you knowing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll see what happens. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And I believe that wraps up today? MS. CILEK: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no new business. No public comment. No discussion of addenda. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. We're out of here. Page 44 of 45 1612 A6 y 19, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK TRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on �" -1 G ` l 2 , as presented I✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 45 of 45 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 2, 2012 16 A6 August 2, 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: Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Philip Brougham (absent) Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer Bill Vonair Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 of 43 1612 A6 August 2, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning everyone. Welcome to the August 2nd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you 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 is absent. Mr. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm 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: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Brougham is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. He had told us last week, so. ** *Okay, addenda to the agenda. Do we have any changes from staff? Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have a request from the applicant of 9.13 to be moved up to 9.A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll keep going on the way it's scheduled. It's too late to make changes and I'm sure there are people here for the docks. And if it takes too long so be it. Anything else, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And what's the LDC amendments? We're not done with them. So when is the next round of those coming forward? MR. BELLOWS: I have on my agenda that we have LDC amendments coming on the 16th, August 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they are not going to make it to the August 16th meeting? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I will not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll still have a quorum. ** *Approval of minutes. We don't have any. ** *BCC recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On July 24th the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for Parklands, and that was approved five to zero. No changes from the CCPC recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's GL Homes? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, good. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, they also, on the LDC, said they were going to put together the architectural review committee, remember, that we suggested, this board? MR. BELLOWS: I believe they are working on it but I don't have an update on that. Page 2 of 43 Augu 2 1 �� 2 A6 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who is handling that with -- MR. BELLOWS: Caroline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean that they took this Boards's advice and went -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, good. That's the right thing to do. I'm glad that was done. Excellent. ** *Chairman's report. On the 16th -- Steve, thank you for this beautifully big book. We really wanted it. This is just one issue, on an ST permit, right? He's not here. He's lucky he got out before -- I don't think we've ever had an ST permit with that thick of a background information on it. MR. BELLOWS: There he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks for the book, Steve. You want to give us heads up on anything we should be concerned about, since you went to so much trouble to give us a four -inch thick three -ring binder on an ST application? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Steven Lenberger, Growth Management Division. Product's gone very smooth. It's got an approval by the EAC. So I don't see any hang -ups. The analysis for the project's in the engineering report in that binder. There is a separate CD which I will deliver, will get delivered with the staff report in the regular materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: That is a number of references to the different materials made in that binder and it's included on the CD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we not only have to -- when we read the binder, we, every time those references hit up, pull the CD up to see what it is specifically saying. MR. LENBERGER: Actually, there are -- some of the tabs it just references the CD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: It's pretty easy actually to follow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's quite a load you've provided us with. Do we have any other items that day, Ray, on the 16th? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have a presentation of the Collier County inventory of shelter space availability, emergency management. That's, I believe, Mike Bosi's part of that presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We should be able to handle the day, thank you. ** *Okay, that takes us to the first consent agenda item. It's 8.A, BDE- PL20110002669, the Toler boat dock extension. Are there any comments, concerns from the -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendations for approval from staff or the paperwork from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to approve or -- yeah, I'm assuming it's approve, since there's no objections. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with a recommendation that the summary shows exactly what we did at the hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Brad, seconded by Bill. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 3 of 43 r COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) 16"'12 nb August 2, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. I can't see on the other side. Is our nameplates in front? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wanted to make sure. ** *We'll go to our advertised public hearings. The first item up is BDE- PL20 1 1 0000644, the Helsel boat dock extension. It's on the Isle of Capri. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is a rare one, we didn't have any. With that we'll go to the presentation. Who is -- MR. THOEMKE: Good morning. My name is Kris Thoemke. I work for Coastal Engineering Consultants, representing the client, Mr. Ron Helsel, who's also here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kris, I didn't recognize you. I was asking -- MR. THOEMKE: I got older. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we all have, yeah. I honestly didn't recognize you. Quite a few years. Good to see you again. MR. THOEMKE: It happens. Thank you. Just to give you an -- okay. MR. BELLOWS: Do you have a map? MR. THOEMKE: Well, that's fine, but I can use this. MR. BELLOWS: Whatever one you want. MR. THOEMKE: Just to give you an overview of where this is on the Isles of Capri, it's just as you come onto the Isles of Capri, a road coming in. The project area is here. Probably can't see my thumb. The project area is right here where my thumb is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to use the mike, the portable mike if you go there. MR. THOEMKE: Is that better? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. THOEMKE: As you come onto the Isles of Capri --and you -- just to give you an idea of what it looks like, a little bit closer aerial there, this is off of the most current aerial from the Property Appraiser's website. Let me adjust this. This is the -- Mr. Helsel's property right here. These are pilings from an old dock that was destroyed in Hurricane Wilma. And this is county land right here, Blue Heron restaurant. This is obviously a dead -end waterway. And what it looks like on the ground at this point in time is something like this. This is Mr. Helsel's property and you can see, just give you an idea what the area looks like. I know you've reviewed our application, or hope you have, I assume you have. Our plan is to construct a dock that meets the DEP requirements because we have to be mindful of those as well in terms of what is allowed. This is in an aquatic preserve so there are other restrictions. We went out and did a detailed bathymetric survey of the area, also located a seagrass bed which we had to avoid, and came up with a dock proposal that will also meet the DEP's criteria for depth, which is, you can't go any lower than minus four feet mean low water. This dock as designed -- the actual dock length is 29 and a half feet, which is about a half foot shorter than the previous dock that was there, which was the big pilings came out to about 30 feet. And then the boat is on the outside of that in order for depth purposes, and it would be on a lift. On your drawing that you have, just so that it's clear, the depth values that you see there are in a datum called NAVD. You subtract 1.62 feet to reach a mean low water on that. So those -- and we have to use the NAVD datum for DEP because that's what they require. Page 4 of 43 August 12612 A6 The staff report that you have, and we worked with Mike Sawyer on this, we meet the criteria for this. Staff has recommended approval, and we would request that you approve it, although I do understand that there has been a couple of a -mails from a neighbor which I'm not quite sure how to address some of the comments in there, and so I'm not really sure exactly what issues might exist. But we believe that this dock in this configuration meets thecriteria of the county and also the state and request that you permit it. Or approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kris. Okay, questions from the Planning Commission? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kris, one thing is, the water is deeper where the old dock was, why didn't you keep it in that area and why didn't you make it a perpendicular dock, which looks like there's that before. MR. THOEMKE: The old dock, as far as we can tell, was not a legally permitted dock. It also did not meet the side setback criteria. And in its size it probably wouldn't even have been allowed by DEP. So we couldn't go back and recreate that dock. We put the dock in the location it's in so we meet the setback criteria. The DEP has setback criteria as well as the county. And so this dock meets all of those criteria combined. The reason that we don't have the boat perpendicular is due to depth issues. With the boat on a lift you need about a foot or so underneath the hull of the boat for the lift to sit because it's not a good idea for the undercarriage of the lift to sit on the bottom, it's not good for the cables. So we allowed enough room so that the boat at mean low water could be safely -- come up off the lift and go back on again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But could you push this over towards the west a little more, because if we have seven and a half feet, you are 22 to the dock but you have no dimension to the nose of the boat, so -- but because the concern is you will be blocking a good bit of the view of the neighbor to the east. So is that as far west as it could be and meet all the setbacks? MR. THOEMKE: The county setbacks, yes, I believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's county -- MR. THOEMKE: Without a variance -- we could get a variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the county setback is seven and a half feet, so, I mean, looking at that -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, 15 feet. MR. THOEMKE: It's 15 feet, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is 15? MR. THOEMKE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, will you verify that? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, project manager for the project. It is 15 on the side lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is the nose of that boat at about 15? MR. SAWYER: I believe so, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So he can't push it any further to the west. MR. SAWYER: Not in the current configuration. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then, the next question is what do you need such a large platform, the terminal platform for? MR. THOEMKE: That is what the applicant would like, that is what the DEP allows. It's a 10 by 16 foot area. With the boat also on the end of the dock like that you need more than a three or four foot wide area to safely access the boat and service the boat lift and make that safe. So we need something wider out there for the state ingress and egress to the vessel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I couldn't tell from the picture, does the home to the east have any shoreline? Are they on the water or is their property totally landlocked? MR. THOEMKE: I can't give you a 100 percent accurate answer to that question. I can show you -- I believe you are talking about this property here. This is county land, and this may be shoreline here, but as you can see it's filled in. There's probably a question as to when that filling in occurred relative to the creation of this area. This whole area is fill, there was Page 5 of 43 August 2, 2116 ' 2A*6 actually a channel through this area back prior to around 1940, I know the channel existed. So the ownership of there is something I can't answer. That would be something you would have to probably talk to the applicant. I think their representatives are here, they might be able to shed some light on that question. But I don't know what else to tell you. COMMISSIONER VONIER: All right. Thank you. MR. THOEMKE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Kris, as a follow -up to that question, we're used to seeing riparian lines on some of our docks, especially ones that are more questionable. This particular one, where is the riparian line that would give us an indication of that house that Bill just pointed to and the rights they may have to access the water? MR. THOEMKE: Riparian lines are a touchy issue, a difficult issue. The state has not -- there's no statute in state law that specifically defines how riparian lines are established other than it says that it can be mutual agreement of two neighbors or by a Court of competent jurisdiction. So riparian lines are not set, preset by anybody. In this particular instance, I assume you are talking about the riparian line on the east side? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. THOEMKE: That would be something that we can make the contention -- if we make the contention that they have no waterfront rights then the riparian line could be an extension of the property like. Had there been a marked channel in this area it could have also been perpendicular to the marked channel back to those. Those are the two common ways in which riparian lines are set. That doesn't mean that's the only way. This is an unusual situation in that you have a dead -end area. The property to the east is, it's unknown as to where -- how much waterfront rights they have because I'm not sure who owns that land. That land seaward of the county land naturally accreted, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it belongs to -- as I understand it it doesn't necessarily mean it belongs to the property owners, it could belong to the state because it depends on what caused the accretion to occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kris, let's go back to the basic question. MR. THOEMKE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you under the contention that that property has no riparian rights? MR. THOEMKE: I don't have an opinion as to whether it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In one of your previous statements you said that the riparian lines could have been set by a mutual agreement between the property owners. Did you get an agreement with that property owner setting a riparian line? MR. THOEMKE: We have not discussed that with the property owner, did not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would have been vital to today's process, as far as I'm concerned, to just at least have that courtesy to go to your neighbor and say here is what I'd like to do, do you have any objections. If not, would you mind giving us consent. Then it would have made my job a lot easier as far as reviewing this from that aspect. And I think that is important, the riparian line for not only them but the potential riparian line for Collier County. We recently had a boat dock application that had a dock situated at the end of a canal, similar to what you've got here. And if you were to give rights to any of the other properties you're already going by 42 feet out of a 118 feet because part of that end is already cut off by the restaurant. You're down to, what, 60, 70 -- let's see -- 80 feet. I just want to make sure that everybody's rights are protected, including the county's, in regards to the property. And I'm not saying yours is right or wrong, I just want to make sure the others are understood. MR. THOEMKE: We have thought about that recently and there is one potential scenario that might work. This is not the only one. But in this scenario here, if this corner lot has waterfront rights, as I understand the Land Development Code sets the riparian line between the county and this property owner at a 45- degree angle. I found this -- language for this in the LDC. The property -- the riparian line here does not necessarily have to be 45 degrees. The intent of riparian law as I understand it, is to give everybody access to the water. That would include this property here, the Blue Heron, the county's land, this property owner, they form basically the cove there. So if we set this angle at 30 degrees, we would still meet the setback criteria from the riparian line for this dock. This owner has access to the water. They have their issues to deal with obviously with the land that's there, but that's not an issue that is a factor to us. But this provides this property owner access, it provides the county access and Page 6 of 43 °lb °I ^�' Ab also the Blue Heron's should they need that. They all have the right to have it. So this solution is one that would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that does work. I just don't know, though, since you have not had any conversation with the one house to, as you have said previously, to find a mutual agreement for a riparian line. MR. THOEMKE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we do show on a survey from a licensed surveyor the riparian line is coming straight out, so -- MR. THOEMKE: Yeah, we have changed that since then because we -- when we did that, we were under the impression, initial impression that that property did not have waterfront rights because there is a 1962 aerial that seems to indicate that there was, it was landlocked at the time. So in the event that it does have waterfront rights, this would be a solution, that riparian line we're willing to change if that's what we need to do. We're not trying to be unreasonable, we're trying to come up with a solution here. Our thinking has evolved as we have gone through this and we found out about potential objections, which we found out about a week or so ago. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the riparian line on the survey, ignore that? MR. THOEMKE: Assuming that that property has waterfront rights then we would have to change that riparian line if that's what it -- if that would be a mutual agreement between the two property owners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kris, you've got a boat that has a two -foot draft that's going to go in that location and you want one more foot for the lift, correct? MR. THOEMKE: Yeah, we'll also have the motor down too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's two -foot plus an -- let me read it. The proposed vessel has a draft including the motor of approximately two feet, plus an additional foot of depth is required for the boat lift. So you totally need three feet, right? MR. THOEMKE: Give or take a few inches, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three feet occurs 10 feet offshore, or 12 feet, why are we going 42 feet? You could have done this whole thing without a variance to the boat dock --without a boat dock extension. I'm just wondering why you are going so far out. We have a lot of applications that come in and they plead to get to just three feet of water. MR. THOEMKE: Please keep in mind you have to subtract 1.62 feet from the numbers on this drawing to get to mean low water. So you don't get 10 feet off the dock, you are not getting -- you only have about a foot and a half of water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the mean low water is your -- okay. If that's, I don't remember seeing that differentiated on other boat dock applications but I understand then. You are farther out because you keep pushing to get to a depth but if you -- so you would need 1.6 plus three, so 4.6 would be the minimum that you would be looking at. MR. THOEMKE: Right. And that's -- the landward edge of the boat is right around there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question for staff but then I'll wait to get to them. Anybody else have any questions? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to understand. You know, the NAVD is a number based on -- I mean why is high tide, low tide, mean tide, a different number than you show on the drawing. In other words, on the plan itself you show some datum. MR. THOEMKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you are saying that's the NAVD datum? MR. THOEMKE: Right. DEP requires us to submit -- we submit this application to DEP as well. And in the upper left -hand comer of the drawing that we submitted there is a thing called tidal information, which shows you how to make the corrections for the various tide stages, the mean high water, the mean tide and mean low water. Page 7 of 43 n 16 =1o2 A 6 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So my question is, and I saw the data, what is that you are actually measuring then? In other words, is it based on some benchmark somewhere and -- MR. THOEMKE: It's based referenced to a benchmark. This is a standard that's used throughout the state to -- in surveying. I'm not a surveyor so I'm not sure I can explain this to you as a surveyor would. But there is a benchmark that is used, and we use a unit that -- called an RTK unit, Real Time Kinematic Unit, which collects very accurate data on depth and we reference this to the benchmark and then all the information is posted in this datum called NAVD. It relates to mean low water by correcting it for 1.62 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Yes, that is -- but what have we been looking at in the past, then when we see datum? I thought it was low water datum. MR. THOEMKE: I don't know. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Is the benchmark in NGVD and now you're just converting it to NA -- MR. THOEMKE: NGVD is another benchmark like NAVD. The state went from using NA --went from using NGVD to NAVD several years ago. So it's like the NGVD. I have no idea what other applicants have brought to you in the past. But this is the standard way we have been doing it for years and years and years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Understand, thank you. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I think there -- other applicants are converting it probably and showing us the actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what --I just know the three --most of our applicants are trying to get to the depth that you've gone past. But I understand your reasoning. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Staff report? MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, project manager for the petition. You've got the staff report, revised date July 12th. Our analysis has indicated that the applicant meets four of the five primary. And with regard to the six secondary it fails to meet two of those criteria. There is also one of the secondary criteria that are not applicable in this case. I'm here for questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mike, this one would fit under our administrative program, correct? MR. SAWYER: Quite honestly, because that has been changing, the amendment has been changing over time, quite honestly I can't quite answer that. I don't believe it would, simply because with the current criteria it is missing one of the primary and two of the secondary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. MR. SAWYER: So, I mean -- and we've got those criteria being revised again. I'm not sure if this would or not. I would have to guess that it probably would not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SAWYER: This would probably come to you anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the question is, what's your thoughts on this large terminal platform? One of the things we've done and always done in the past is to prevent unnecessary docks, especially when it's an extension. MR. SAWYER: Correct. And we did find that it did not meet that criteria. It is -- while it may meet the state criteria as far as allowable decking area, it exceeds what we would consider the minimum needed for safe ingress, egress and maintenance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess, Kris, is there a problem if we cut that down? I mean, everybody would like it. People come in here and they'd, you know, put a basketball court down there if they could, but -- MR. THOEMKE: Understand. I would like to maybe have the client address that so that he can tell you his thoughts on that. MR. HELSEL: So I understand then your goal would be to just cut down the square footage of the dock? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. HELSEL: Okay. As long as the dock still stays in an L configuration we can cut some off that inside corner. Page 8 of 43 16=,1 22 A6 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's where we'd cut. MR. HELSEL: Okay. All I'm worried about is, you know, I've got 80 year old parents getting on and off a boat. Once I'm down there they have to be able to go out to the end of the dock and step into the boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. HELSEL: You're going to have -- if you cut me down to four feet at the end it's going to be tight because of where the boat may be in the lift. I think that dimension that we have on there is 10 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have 16 foot of depth that I don't think you need. Let's -- the 10 feet wide is fine, it's just how much of that inside corner can we cut out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you take it to the next -- the first -- the piling back, so you go instead of 10 by 16, it would be 10 by eight. MR. HELSEL: That's acceptable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, could you turn to -- I got a staff report without pages on it, maybe it's not the report. Actually it's the secondary criteria, could you turn to number four? And I probably should have called you before the meeting to check this so I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to. Number four says whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring waterfront property owners. The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner. And it says consistent, the proposed dock does not protrude into the water further than adjacent docks. Okay. The question is asking for the dock facility, it refers to facility. We have separate definitions for dock and dock facility. A dock facility includes the boat and the lift and all of the other items. Your answer only says the dock. Do we know what the dock facility, in order to answer this question accurately, is for length on the other side, the one that you are referring to? But the answer that you provided to the question doesn't answer the question, I don't believe. MR. SAWYER: With regard to this particular criteria, basically if you look at the decking area itself, the decking area is fairly consistent with the adjacent docks that are already within this area. The issue would be whether the lift and the vessel itself being placed on the end of it increases that viewing area. There certainly is an argument to be made that it would increase the visibility of that vessel simply because it's being lifted up. Any of the other docks in that area can certainly have a vessel at the end of those existing decking areas, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the neighbor next door, do you know what the total dock facility length is? That's the question, because that's what the -- that's the -- MR. SAWYER: It's approximately 31 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the dock. MR. SAWYER: That's the dock itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what about the dock facility? MR. SAWYER: The dock facility would include whatever vessel they chose to moor at the end of that existing decking area or that existing dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back. The question, do you agree that it refers to the facility and not just the dock? MR. SAWYER: I think, honestly I think you would have to look at it both ways. And since you would be able to have a vessel at the end of each of those existing dock areas that would be at least the same size as the lift and the vessel being proposed in this case, all things being equal, this one is approximately the same distance either with -- if you look at just the decking area, or if you look at any potential dock facility, which would be the decking and a potential vessel at the end. All things being equal -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are going in a direction I'm not trying to go. MR. SAWYER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just simply want to know what is the neighbor next door authorized for the dock facility for distance from the shore. The 31 feet doesn't represent that, the 31 feet represents only the dock. And we're Page 9 of 43 1612 A6 August 2, 2012 trying to compare the dock to the requested dock facility and we should be comparing a dock facility to a dock facility. And honestly, I'm not sure it's going to have any bearing on the whole thing, but just to be accurate I just wanted to understand for the record what the approved facility dock length was next door. And we don't have that information, is what it boils down to. MR. SAWYER: Correct. What we do have is the distance for that decking area, which again is fairly consistent with what the request is for. Again, they can put whatever vessel would actually fit, and we basically, as staff, we look at it as well as we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And I understand, Mike, I think though if we -- and I apologize for not calling you and giving you a heads up before today's meeting. I should have done that because then you could have been prepared with any kind of research needed to answer the question better. But I would have, when we answer these questions if we pay attention to the -- because we do have -- we have adopted different definitions for dock and dock facility. And if we're going to ask a question for a facility then it ought to be responded with a facility comparison not just a dock comparison. And that's all I was trying to get to. MR. SAWYER: I would certainly agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only point I was trying to make so in the future we can have that information and be more accurate. MR. SAWYER: We'll provide it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mike, on the same lines, the house two doors down, is that a covered area for the -- and then next to that it looks like a large platform. Is that -- and then -- MR. SAWYER: I believe that is accurate. COMMISSIONER AHERN: But it is covered out to the 35 feet? MR. SAWYER: It definitely looks that way, yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Is there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two speakers, Rocky Scofield to be followed by Craig Woodward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Craig, you look a lot like Mark. MR. WOODWARD: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So everybody knows, Mark and Craig Woodward are twins. MR. WOODWARD: That's correct, that's correct, he's my brother. I don't usually admit to that in public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you're better off not to. MR. WOODWARD: Craig Woodward. I'm an attorney from Marco Island, and I'm here representing the neighbor to the east, the one that we've been talking about for a while. The neighbor to the east, Doctor Wasserman and his wife, own the property and it's -- I'm going to show you a photograph that was taken on Tuesday, a couple of days ago. This photograph was taken on Tuesday by Rocky, who is here. And you can see where -- you can see they have a davit here on the property and they have water that runs from the seawall here all the way over to the rock, riparian, the rock embulkinent (sic) there by the park. And this photo was not taken at high tide, it's kind of hard to see, but you can actually see the growth line. The water is much higher when the tide is up. Our client was not mentioned at all in the petition, and it looks sort of intentional. They mention property to the south, which is the restaurant all the way across the bay, and they mention property to the west, but they sort of ignore our client who is here. We agreed with the comment that was mentioned earlier that they could push this dock to the west. The reason why the old boat dock where the piling still exists, is to the west is because that, as was well pointed out, that's where the deep water is. If you look at the water depth chart that the petitioner provided, you'll see out there along the west riparian line you have water depths at 5.1, 5.5, 5.2. All of those are much deeper than they -- as you come back closer toward the shore, toward the beach area, and that's why they had the original dock out there. Page 10 of 43 16A2 A 6 They have put their dock 28 feet back, and I realize the terminal platform is at 22 feet, but it's 15 feet, so they could easily move the boat dock itself over seven feet and get closer to deeper water. That would enable them to bring the dock platform back, all right, so that they aren't so far out. In addition to that, the -- and I think this was well mentioned by Mr. Strain, in order to get all of the number of questions correctly that they had to, they mis- answered one of the questions, as you pointed out. Instead of mentioning the entire boating facility, they just mentioned the length of the dock. Here is another photograph. Here, as you can see again, this is my client here, who doesn't have a lot of water, she has about -- she has 28 feet on the water there. And then you have the petitioner's house, and you can see the old dock way over here. And this is correct, they do go out to 31 feet. This one goes out to 31 feet. And this one goes to 35 but that's -- a lot of that is the overhang of the boat roof. And then you can see a 31 line all the way down, which has worked historically for many, many years for a lot of these people. We don't believe that these people got boat dock extensions, a lot of them are grandfathered structures, so it's kind of questionable what size boat they can actually put in there because they really didn't get permitted. My client's position is that they can -- everyone else can get in at 31 feet and the petitioner should also be at 31 feet. And that that 31 feet should include everything, including the mooring facility, which is the boat and the dock, and not just the dock itself, leaving the boat out there in sort of no man's land. I would also point out that the -- one of our biggest concerns is once you approve this, you basically are approving an envelope and then the petitioner can do whatever he wants in the future. He's talking about a Pathfinder, which is a flats boat, 24 -foot Pathfinder, which according to -- I have a Maverick, a same sized boat, draws one foot not two feet. And if you draw one foot you need one foot for the cradle, that's two feet. You can easily obtain that two feet even under their own diagram by staying at the 31 protrusion, moving the boat slightly to the west to pick up the deeper water there, and that would avoid any kind of complications to my client or any of the people coming off of the county park property. We also had agreed with the staff that the terminal platform was too large, and we're happy that the petitioner is going to reduce it. But notice that the -- you know, our concern is this, really, for this Pathfinder boat or in the future is the plan to bring in a much larger, you know, boat. And once these things are approved they don't come back for the boat size and they can now put in the lift, put in a much larger boat, which would have a much bigger bearing on the navigability of this little area and also, of course, on the view issue. Keeping it within the 31 feet we really don't have a problem with that. The other point I mentioned was the riparian line issue. And my experience as an attorney doing a lot of this is that when you are at the end of a canal, end of a -- this is a little bay but it's similar to being at the end of a canal, and on Marco we have a lot of lots that are platted as hip lots, corner lots, which are very similar to this. They have a property line that goes out over the water but then typically they turn and go around the corner a little bit. But the riparian line coming off of this point would go out at a 45- degree angle into the center of the channel. And it doesn't have to be a channel that's marked, it just has to be a channel. And the channel, obviously there are people coming and going from this beach area, there is a lot of kayaking going on there, the channel that runs the length of this bay. So our position is that our riparian line really comes off at this point and goes out at a 45- degree angle to the middle of the channel. But, again, as was pointed out, there is no agreement with the neighbor, we never heard from the neighbor, the only way we had advice of this was through the public notification procedure, although the neighbor did obtain written letters from the other neighbor to the west and somebody across the bay. So obviously they knew they were proceeding. So our position is quite easy. This has historically worked at 31 feet for all of the neighbors and we would like to leave it at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: The neighbor, 579, he's at the 31 feet but that would not include where his boat would be positioned. MR. WOODWARD: That is correct. But from our research we don't believe that any of these people here were ever permitted, they just sort of built their docks. Of course this is -- Isles of Capri was built in the Fifties, and so we don't know how long they've had these structures and, you know, we don't know what kind -- in other words if Page 11 of 43 16 August 2, 2012 you were to go in and modify your dock now you would have to come back in and get approved and then there could be some restrictions. But you are correct. We don't know what size boat they could pull up. They are far enough away from my client that there is no view issue there, it's an old grandfathered structure, we don't have any control over it, but we're trying to preclude that happening again. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you are saying that the 31 feet is typical and acceptable -- MR. WOODWARD: That's historically acceptable and we have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and you're at 31 -- your client's at -- the 579 clients, not you. But the 579 is at 31 feet. So these guys are at 29.5. MR. WOODWARD: No, 31 one would be the entire envelope including the boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not the 31 that you are showing here. The 31 one you are showing here for 579 is not the entire envelope. You just acknowledged that by the fact they would put a boat on the outside of that dock. So if it's -- MR. WOODWARD: They're the only -- notice they're the only one, all right. If you look down here their boat is back here in a lift. These people have their boat in a boathouse. These people, according to my client who's lived there for a long time, brought their boat in like on the side here. And these people, I don't know, they could be bringing their boat in here. I don't really know where their boat is being brought in at. We're not happy with the people at 579 being out that far but that is not a view issue for us, we're far enough away, and that's been the way it's been grandfathered. But just because they were grandfathered in with an unpermitted structure doesn't necessarily give everybody rights to do the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going by --I thought you indicated in the beginning of your presentation that you didn't disagree with the 31 feet. MR. WOODWARD: No, we know 20 feet is allowed. But in this situation people need 31 feet because of the depths of the water, and you can see everybody down the street is doing it. So we're being liberal and saying 31 feet is what's required in this situation. But we don't think you need to go to 42 feet, which is the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the real issue is 579 at 31 feet is really 42 feet because they have a boat on the outside of that dock. MR. WOODWARD: Again, I don't -- they may be at 56 feet. We don't know what -- they may be pulling in a yacht. I don't know what they are pulling in there. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to make sure the comparisons are accurate. My biggest concern is what you pointed out and what I see in the right hand side of that screen. The previous presentation by the applicant seemed to indicate no one knew if these guys had any rights at all to the water and stuff like that. But in reality they have a boat lift and everything and they are apparently using it, otherwise I don't imagine why it's there. So I'm a little puzzled as to why we had a presentation that seems a bit disingenuous in the way it was presented in regards to that house when we specifically asked about it on the corner, so we'll readdress that before we finish. MR. WOODWARD: Again there maybe is -- the picture taken on Tuesday, I wish we had taken at a little higher tide because you can see the dark line there. But you can see there's -- yeah, exactly there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This property owner has water access, which we were led to believe that the fill, the shoreline had receded almost to their property line or to the point where they may not even have any water. So this photo says a lot. Further down on your -- the client, the applicant's property, there is a, can you move the photo? On 578, in the middle of the property there is a -- some kind of facility, little white dot, what looks like four posts around it. Is that a lift, do you know? Does your photograph show it? Yeah, does your photograph show what that is? MR. WOODWARD: No, I don't know what that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? MR. SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing you are not pointing out is that after the 31 feet we're lifting it in the air. The other guy's floating in the water. MR. WOODWARD: That's a very good point. Page 12 of 43 U�ust, 212 A6 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what are they lifting into the water? The photo you show showing water, showing riparian rights has a -- I mean is that for -- no, no, not that, the -- MR. WOODWARD: This one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, the actual photograph you opened with, showing that there is water at the property line. MR. WOODWARD: That one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's to lift the boat in and out or -- MR. WOODWARD: The davit? Yeah, this davit was to lift my client's boat in and out, and these little white PVC pipes here were bumpers along the seawall, so when it was in the water it tied up there. That's any client's mooring facility, which again, was not mentioned at all in any of the petition or anything before this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Why cannot that boat, the bow, face the area -- just put it on the side over this way? Why does it have to come out the other way? If the water is deeper over here, it would be plenty deep, then, for the -- MR. WOODWARD: Right. You know, the depth of the water -- and again it's sort of interesting on this diagram, they have the depth along the property line here but you've got 28 feet of no depth calculations, and so it may well be that this is plenty deep and you could move the platform over here and pull the boat in, as you just mentioned, pull the boat in like this. And, you know, the -- and most people I know can lift their motor, you know, and if you have a flats boat that draws one feet you lift your motor, you should be able to get into a fairly low area. But it could well be enough depth here on the side of the terminal platform instead of in front of the terminal platform, and then if they want to bring the terminal platform out further to the 31 feet we don't really care what's out at 31 feet. But we would prefer that because that would put the lift and the height issue to the side of the terminal platform instead of in front of it. That's a good point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, that's where I was going. Thank you. MR. WOODWARD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: It seems to me that even a large parallel dock would work if it came out far enough. And having seen that picture I'm a little concerned that we're not addressing properly the neighbor who has waterfront access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. By the way, were the both of you sworn in when we started? MR. WOODWARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield representing the -- Karen Wasserman and Ted Wasserman. I just have a couple of comments on that, when you were looking at it it wasn't panned all the way out. That line extends all the way down that canal, that's the 31 foot line. And all of the boats are contained within that line except the neighbor immediately adjacent to the applicant. So, again, Craig said that these, you know -- and I'm fairly sure a lot of these things were not ever received at BDE, they probably got a county permit at the time. But BDE's, these were put in a long time ago so they wouldn't show up that way. But that line is -- you can see all the way down even the mooring pilings out on the very end, the boats, everything is contained within there. If the neighbor, you know, if they ever came back in, of course they would have to go through the BDE process. To answer your questions about the water depths, you are probably used to seeing surveys. When we submit them, they are relative to mean low water. But this is, we see this, you know, it's, you just have to do the math when you see these. These are NAVD and you have to subtract to get to the mean low. When we submit them they show the depth below mean low water. The other question, Brad, you had, this would not be acceptable under the new rules because we limit it to six Page 13 of 43 6gil 1 2± A6 foot wide docks, if -- the administrative. So that's the point on that one. This lot, when it was platted, the original plat was for 60 feet on the waterway. It was never dredged to that. As a lot of the properties in Isles of Capri were, especially down in Pompano and Snook Bay, they were not finished dredging, a lot of land has accreted in these waterways, especially on this end. So the applicant wound up with 28 feet of water at high tide there, as you can see, or medium tide was what that photo was taken at the other day. So historically there was access. They have a davit, they probably pulled a skiff up there, a flats boat, something very shallow draft in there. And we're just concerned about maintaining riparian rights for our client. If you have any questions I'll be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the photo that you have in front of us right now, when was that taken? MR. SCHOFIELD: That's a county aerial photograph, so it was taken within the last couple of years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, the reason -- and, Ray, can you take the photograph on Page 3 of our application or of our staff report and put it on the projector? Now, look at the difference in those two photos. In the photo that we have in our packet, it appears that the shoreline has gone almost up to the property line of the applicant for the neighbor to the east. So the question of access to the waterway becomes somewhat moot because it appears like they didn't have waterway in the first place. The dock to the south, which is the Blue Heron restaurant, shows columns or piling in the water alongside the restaurant. Now, go back to the other photo, which I'm not sure which photo is the most recent now. If you could pan out. Let me finish. MR. SCHOFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could someone move out pan out on this, Mike? No, farther. Okay, right there. Look at the dock configuration on this one for the Blue Heron restaurant, missing the piling and the extensions going out on the waterway, as well as this one clearly shows the shoreline giving access to 577. How did we end up with the difference in photographs, do you know, Mike? MR. SAWYER: The one that -- again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, project manager. The photo that's in the staff report is from the most current 2012 aerial from Property Appraiser's. Where the other photo came from, I'm not sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Rocky, what are you trying to show us? MR. SCHOFIELD: No, ours is probably a couple of years old. It was -- that's either -- and I can't be -- I don't know if that was a Google Earth or the county, but -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's the county because I looked this past weekend -- MR. SCHOFIELD: It's county, okay. It's a county arrow so it's obviously older than the staffs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you're sitting there with a computer, would you pull up the Appraiser's website and take a look and see what it shows on the most recent -- MR. BELLOWS: My computer crashed, I'm restarting. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, you can't talk off mike record, Kris. So we'll get to you in a minute. Ray, as you find that let me know because that would be important to see. I would like to know -- this is a completely different photo and presents a completely different picture than the one that was in our packet. You took a current photo when you were on site and it was shown by Mark or -- Craig, I'm sorry, you guys look alike. Craig, can you put that photo back up? So this resembles more of the aerial photo that you presented, Rocky, then the one that's in our packet because it shows the shoreline quite a ways back from the property line. That's why I'm trying to understand which photograph is the most recent. We should have the most recent in our packet. MR. SCHOFIELD: It could be recent or not. But if the photographs are taken at high or low tide that's -- I believe that's what you are referring to. The tide, it's a shallow area and the tide swings quite a bit here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is low tide. MR. SCHOFIELD: Pardon? This is about a mid -tide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But still, I mean, it's not -- I mean, at high tide it would even look worse. The point is, your client's property does have what looks like to be bona fide water access and that's a critical factor in our review of this. It was not what I saw in the beginning of this discussion, and the photographs have made that blatantly clear. Page 14 of 43 August 2, 2012 So anybody else have any questions? 16 12 A6 COMMISSIONER EBERT: That was taken this last Tuesday, correct? MR. SCHOFIELD: I took that photograph Tuesday. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Rocky. Just a minute, Kris. Are there any other public speakers or anybody else wanting to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, have you found the website yet? MR. BELLOWS: It's logging on now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kris, did you want to have -- we definitely want to talk to you again anyway. MR. THOEMKE: I have numerous things to say. First of all, I have aerial photographs from 1962 through 2012 I can show you here in just a second. And I'll start with that, because I am a bit concerned. I told you at the beginning it's unclear whether this property had legal waterfront access. Here is the aerial photo of this area in 1962. And this is the point where the Blue Heron restaurant is. If you go straight across from there you are about at my client's property. And the property that we're talking about you claiming had waterfront access clearly did not have it in 1962. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But look at the -- look at the lines around the north end of your client's peninsula, you see the solid line deferential between the water and the uplands, where there probably is installed a seawall? And if you look at across the bay, you see the solid line between the water and the uplands where the seawall forms a straight line and it goes around to the end of the Blue Heron restaurant? It doesn't look like the seawall was even in place at the time this photo was taken. MR. THOEMKE: I don't believe there's ever been a seawall. Are you talking about -- there's seawall along here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right -- MR. THOEMKE: -- but there's never been seawall over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but there's no -- the seawall doesn't look like it was finished on the area that you, your client lives in, in this particular photo. MR. THOEMKE: In 1962 that property didn't have waterfront access. This is why I said to you in the beginning it's unclear as to what they had. And now if you look at 1985 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Mark, just to be clear, none of the properties on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- east side of that had -- or west side had waterfront access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't developed yet. I mean, they would have to go in and finish dredging the channel and then put the seawall in. That's the picture we should see, from the -- from that time -- MR. THOEMKE: This is 1985, and you can see there is vegetation here but the property doesn't look like it had waterfront access in 1985 either. This is why I said to you originally, I was not being deceptive and I sort of resent the fact that you would suggest that. To me, it's unclear whether this property had it. So now if we go and we look ahead, in 2005 -- okay. In 2005 it appears as though there is waterfront access there but it looks to me there is a pretty straight line right here. I don't know if that area was dredged, and if it was dredged was that illegal dredging or not. I don't know. So now all of a sudden in 2005 there is waterfront access there. How it got there from the previous slides I can't tell you. Was it illegal or not? I'm not the attorney, I can't tell you that. But my presumption going into this was I wasn't sure whether or not this property had waterfront access. I guess I'm still not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did you think the boat lift was for? MR. THOEMKE: Well, if you illegally dredge the area you could put in boat and boat dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now they illegally dredged the area? MR. THOEMKE: I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that 1962 the property didn't appear to have waterfront access? In 1985 it didn't appear to have it. In this picture in 2005 it does, but how did that happen? I don't know the answer to that question, okay. But let's assume that they have waterfront access for the moment. If you want to do that, that's fine, I'm not sure that you all can decide that. I know I can't decide that. But if we want to come to some resolution here, which is Page 15 of 43 612 A6 ugust 2, 2012 ,what we wouldj&6 to do -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you dispute the photograph Rocky took yesterday? MR. THOEMKE: Well, it depends on when the tide was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The fact is at one point in time yesterday water was licking the property line, right? MR. THOEMKE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, you don't dispute that. MR. THOEMKE: I don't dispute that, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Bill, then Diane. COMMISSIONER VONIER: The question I have is would people bother to build a seawall if they didn't have water access. And this property definitely has a seawall, the one to the east. MR. THOEMKE: A lot of structures on Isles of Capris, as was pointed out by those folks, were done illegally. I mean, I don't know if there was a permit for this or not. But I tell you what, we can solve this problem in a different way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you do, Diane, did you want to -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Does -- when was the seawall put in? MR. THOEMKE: The seawall on their property? I have no idea. I would have no way of knowing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When was the seawall on your client's property put in? It looks like they are continuous, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. It looks continuous. MR. UNIDENTIFIED: They are not the same seawall. MR. THOEMKE: They're not the same seawall, but his seawall was put in in the 1970's. But, I tell you, we've been listening to what you said, and we have a drawing here that sort of shows something that might be a solution, okay. If we were to move the boat perpendicular to the dock, we can -- under this scenario here, the total length was going to be 39 feet, which is not 31. But by doing this, we could also shift the entire structure a little more to the west to get closer to that 15 -foot setback, and that might give us enough depth to shorten the dock to get it into around 31 feet, under this configuration. And that's something we're willing to take a look at to see if we can make that work and see if that wouldn't be an amicable solution to the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't you put the boat on the other side of the dock. I mean, put the edge of the boat -- MR. THOEMKE: Well, then the problem is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and this would be a good example of when a variance would be something that would probably be acceptable. MR. THOEMKE: We'd have to have a variance to do that and we were trying to avoid that. We also have to have a variance from DEP, but I believe that we have that issue covered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the width of this would be the same if you put the boat on the other side and you slid the dock over. In other words, put the edge of that 12 -foot boat, you know, the lift on the 15 feet. Why wouldn't you do that? Because the water is deeper over there, why would you propose this versus that? MR. THOEMKE: Originally this is what the client preferred to have, so we did what he asked us to do. But he would like to comment on this, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here is the thing, is it looks like he's trying to keep open the same vista that the people on the east are trying to keep open, then. MR. THOEMKE: What are the rights in your opinion of the property owner over here? Being on an angle to the water, do they have a right to have a view going like this -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. THOEMKE: -- through the neighbor's property? Where does their line -- their line doesn't go -- a view right doesn't go along riparian line. And in riparian law as I understand it, the primary concerns of the courts has been Page 16 of 43 A16,21 22 A6 to provide access to everybody, with the view issue being clearly a secondary issue at the state level. So I understand a person has a right to have a view but what view do they have a right to have? And if we move this dock over and move it in a little bit -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it -- MR. THOEMKE: How do you -- when do you get to the point where we can't have a dock because they want a view? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't. And it's secondary in your criteria too. But as you show here, the riparian line, which we now believe exists coming off at 45, then they should have a better view across there. MR. THOEMKE: I would disagree with what you said though -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's not the only thing that -- but why wouldn't your guy move his boat further to the -- you said that he had a reason he wanted to put it essentially straight off the front of his backyard. So why wouldn't he push it as far west as he could, the boat itself? The boat is going to be lifted in the air, the dock -- MR. THOEMKE: We were trying to avoid the variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not causing the variance yet. I wish you would request one but I'm not causing it. MR. THOEMKE: Well, we can't -- but I want to correct when he said -- the riparian line is not established at 45 degrees on this property, okay. And in fact -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's just deal with the western property line. Why can't the one thing you propose, shove it over until it hits the 15 feet, no variance. And the boat is on the deeper water then. In other words, why would that be a problem? That would put it further away from the eastern property. It's the exact same dock just mirrored over. Slide it over so that the lift is within the setback and build it that way. MR. THOEMKE: I would like the owner to answer that because that was not what we originally had discussed and it's not originally what he wanted. So I would rather let him answer that question than me talk, speak for him on that behalf. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. MR. HELSEL: I would like to take a minute and give a little bit of background. I purchased this dilapidated property two years ago almost to the day, walked in the back, saw the pilings and thought this is what I've wanted and I've worked for all my life. Just going to get a permit, put the boards back on. Okay, two years later here we are. The reason that the dock is moved and has been shoved and reconfigured around, and it has been reconfigured upwards of probably eight times, it took a year and a half to get through the DEP and the Rookery Bay. Then we had to have the underwater study done for the seagrass. Then we had to get the depth study done per the comp. That's fine, you know, these are the rules, let's follow the rules. I'm willing to accept almost anything that let's me have egress with my -- I'm sorry to say, your client is not exactly a boat expert, I do not have a flats boats, I have a 21 -foot Sailfish center console boat. It's easy to tell because it says Sailfish down the side, not Pathfinder as she explained in her letter. The reason I didn't contact the neighbor is, quite frankly, I live on probably one of the greatest streets I could have landed on, with the exception of one particular person. I did not know that I was going to violate any of her rights. I'm willing to work and make this so she's comfortable with it. She has property that she owns, the water access puts value on the property. I understand that. I have property on the water, it has value. I need a dock too because I just want to go fishing. I don't have any ideas about bringing in three large vessels, as she indicated in her letter. You couldn't get three large vessels in there. Some of the comments that she had were off the wall. Some of the comments, and her attorney and her engineer pointed out, you know, obviously are concerns for anyone that own that property. So I'm willing to concede anything that lets me have a comfortable dock that I can get my boat in and out of and I can safely get on and off my boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So would you mind the design that's on the screen now, just flipping it over so the boat's on the other side? MR. HELSEL: So what you're saying is if -- because I don't understand the rules, you are going to have to help me, Mr. Sawyer here. Then the first piling for the lift is going to be 15 feet off the property line? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, yes. MR. HELSEL: Then I don't have a problem with that at all because that means that I'm within the rules, we Page 17 of 43 ,lb.1z ab don't need a variance and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You just need the extension from us. MR. HELSEL: Then that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you were to do that and get -- MR. HELSEL: That acceptable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, we don't need to do that here, but I think what -- in stepping back from this whole thing rather than seek an action from us today, which we would have to vote on the plan you submitted, you might want to ask for a continuance, resubmit a more -- the details to what we talked about today, resubmit it to Mike Sawyer, get it done quickly because he's done all the basics, get the late -- make sure we have the latest photograph in our packet, get together with your neighbor. Now that you know that they are going to be objecting it. To this point it would be wise, just to give them a heads up, say, here is what I'm going to resubmit, so you know what you are going walk into next time. And if you all can come to a mutual agreement and you can come with no variance and just a 31 -foot extension or whatever it is you think it will all come out to, life would be simpler and it would make it easier for this board to find approval on it. So I would highly suggest that you consider that when we fmish talking today. And that is recommendation and resubmit. It wouldn't take you that much time for a resubmittal to Mike Sawyer. Mike's quick. He's got a history behind this stuff so you go through it fast and put it back on our agenda. And it might delay you one or two meetings of ours. We meet again on the 16th. We meet the first Thursday in September again. So that might be a way to go. Anybody else have any comments? MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair, if we are going to continue it could we continue it to a date certain in September so that they don't have to readvertise? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they ask for a continuance we'll get Mike to give us a date certain on when he could re- review it. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else on the Planning Commission have a comment on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He has a comment, Mark. MR. HELSEL: First one in September. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First one in September? MR. HELSEL: Well, we have a conflict with the 16th and I won't be able to fly back down. I flew down to attend the meeting because of all the concerns issued here. I won't be able to leave my business again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you get this put back together and you don't have the opposition you got here today, or most of those issues are gone away, I think you will find that you will not even need to be here. It would be a lot simpler process. Normally, docks -- MR. HELSEL: Cheaper too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it would be. And I'm sorry that you have to go through so much, but -- MR. HELSEL: It is what it is. I mean, I said it's -- I'm very happy with the property I bought. I didn't buy it to flip, I bought it to have somewhere to have a winter home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the general consensus from this board has always been waterfront owners have rights for docks. It's just a matter of how we get those docks put in place. MR. HELSEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Kris, are you as representative officially requesting a continuance to the first meeting in September? MR. THOEMKE: Yes, til the first meeting in September. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, is that sufficient? MS. ASHTON: Yes, I believe that's September 6th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: September 6th. And they will be -- because they are a continued item they would be the first one up at that meeting. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. THOEMKE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the Planning Commission? Page 18 of 43 7 August 2, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. 1612 A6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? Is there a motion to approve the continuance to September 6th? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Melissa, seconded by Brad. Discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. We'll see you back here then. Thank you. You doing okay? We usually take a break around 10:30, so -- okay. We'll get into Brynwood Center, then we'll take a break around 10:30. ** *The next item up is PUDZ- PL20110000406, Brynwood Center. And this is located on the south side of Pine Ridge Road approximately 980 feet east of the intersection of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. All of those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures from the part of the Planning Commission? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I also did yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's been getting around. I had a meeting with Mr. Yovanovich. We went over a whole bunch of blue tabs and we will be going over them again today. Okay, Richard, its all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today I have George Hermanson from Hole Montes. He's the professional engineer on the project. I have Bob Blaine from Hole Montes, who is the professional planner on the project. I have Dave Wheeler, who's our transportation consultant. And I have Larry Gluck from the bank on behalf of the petitioner. I'm going to put on the visualizer -- I have no idea if I got it right, I think I did -- a location map and a zoning map. The property that we're seeking to rezone is located approximately 980 feet to the east of the intersection of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. We're on the south side of Pine Ridge Road. As you can see, the site is approximately 13.65 acres. It's currently zoned agricultural, and we're seeking to rezone the property to commercial PUD. To our west you have a North Naples Fire District fire station that fronts a portion of our western boundary. And then you have what's known as the Marquesa, I think, Plaza shopping center that also -- which is a commercial PUD that fronts a portion of our western boundary. To our east you have another commercial PUD. You recently heard a petition, I believe for what's the vacant piece of that property for a car lot. I think that's been withdrawn or continued, I'm not really sure of the status of that. But we have commercial on both sides of our property. And then when you go north across Pine Ridge Road, that has also been rezoned for commercial uses. We qualify under the Growth Management Plan to ask for commercial under the office -- commercial and Page 19 of 43 Atuk, 101? A6 .a office infill criteria which your staff has reviewed in good detail in your packet. Our request is for a commercial PUD. I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the zoning to the south. The zoning to the south is the Brynwood Preserve residential PUD, which goes across our southern boundary as well as the southern boundary of Marquesa. We're requesting 145,000 square feet of retail and office uses with the ability to convert some or all of that square footage to hotel and/or senior housing. Our -- we have some caps as far as the retail and office uses, you know, should the development occur as the retail and office uses. We have a maximum of 25,000 square feet of retail and we have a maximum of 60,000 square feet of medical office. We did our transportation analysis under the 25,000 square feet of retail, 60,000 square feet of medical office and 60,000 square feet of general office analysis. Those maximum trips are caps that are included in our PUD document, so if there is any conversion to a hotel or any conversion to senior housing, we're still capped at those maximum number of trips. So the conversion formula we put in there really is a conversion formula addressing square footage, not really addressing transportation impacts, because we already have the transportation cap in the PUD. I'm going to put up -- this is the proposed PUD master plan for the project. As you can see, we have substantial preserve and buffers along the -- as you can see we have a substantial preserve along a portion of our southern boundary and another preserve with enhanced buffer along our southern boundary as well. We met with the president of the Brynwood Preserve homeowners association regarding the preserve and the location of the preserves. You received a letter from one of the residents of Brynwood Preserve preferring that the width of the Marquesa preserve be carried continuously along our entire southern boundary. And I believe that preserve is approximately 130 feet wide. This preserve right here is about 260 -- okay. This preserve width is approximately 275 feet in width so we exceed -- obviously exceed what Marquesa had. When we met with the president of Brynwood Preserve we explained to her that we felt that this configuration of a preserve together with an enhanced landscape buffer and a wall provided better protection to the residents in Brynwood Preserve. And perhaps -- let me put an aerial up for you to -- to better show what we were talking to them about. You have -- the residents in Brynwood Preserve are oriented with their front doors facing the project, so they have a lake behind them, where they are going to spend most of their time in their home is going to be facing towards the lake not really facing the project. For most of the properties, the larger preserve addresses their front door entrance. And for this area here the preserve, together with the enhanced landscape buffer, together with the wall will address this person's side yard and these couple of people's front yard views of the project, should view become an issue, as well as noise, with having the wall here. What we explained through the process was we have a conceptual layout with this building oriented right now with the shorter end of it, if you will, on the side, closest to our residential neighbor, and then they have their preserves here as well. If we were to cant' through the preserve at the width that they are requesting, you would force a design of the site plan where this building would flip and you would have more of the building facing the residents and more than likely that would be the hotel building, which they don't object to, more than likely you would have the rear of the hotel facing the residents. And we felt and they agreed that this gave us a better layout of our site to have the building oriented in the manner that it's oriented together with the enhanced landscape buffer and wall to address concerns they may have with view of the building. And that was the primary concern was view, together with noise, and that's the wall. I will tell you, noise is an issue because of what happened at the Marquesa Plaza. Now Marquesa was approved, I don't know, I think 2004 -ish and they received an administrative waiver of a wall requirement along their southern property line. They have a nice buffer, and I could show you pictures. I went out there on, I think it was Monday, and took some pictures of the buffer for Marquesa, but they don't have a wall. And what they put on the very southern boundary of their property was a tire and automobile repair center, that's at the end of their project. That's a very noisy use. We understood that going in and we made sure we did not make that same mistake. We limited where we could have a tire or automobile repair center to a minimum of 600 feet from the southern property line. And you can -- and Kay can shoot in if she wants -- I think I have a -- yes, if you shoot in on that you can see where that 600 -foot line is on that aerial. We have a requirement -- so we have a minimum distance requirement of 600 feet for that type of use within Page 20 of 43 r . Ju6t 1 2 2 A6 our project. And we also have a requirement that the bay doors need to stay closed. And we also have a requirement that the bay doors are oriented in an east -west direction and can't go in a north -south direction. So we took great care in deciding where the different uses could go in this project and met with the residents to show them that we had taken concerns that we knew they would raise and did raise as we were going through the process. And I think that's one of the reasons why, when we met with the president of the HOA, she agreed that together with the restrictions on where uses can be, together with the wall, together with the enhanced' landscape buffer it was not necessary to carry the 130 -foot wide buffer from Marquesa all the way through along our southern boundary. We also had, you know, the -- we also had concerns raised about a standalone restaurant. I don't want to name the name of the entity, the restaurant that's brought us all to this position, but we have those typical protections in the PUD regarding no noisy, amplified TVs, anything outside, and we have a -- and I'm going to go through some changes in the PUD documents for some clarifications that came about with various discussions with members of the Planning Commission. But we don't provide for a standalone restaurant in this PUD within 400 feet of the southern property line. The only restaurant we can have within 400 feet is associated with the hotel. And when I go through the clarifications you'll see where we make sure, because that was always our intent. There were some asterisks, I think, deleted in one of the versions but -- so we wanted to make sure we took care of what are the potential noisy users that might be near Brynwood Preserve, our residential neighbor. And I believe we've done a very good job with that and I believe that that was clear in our discussions with the president of the association. We -- I think it probably would be best if I just take you through the changes at this time to make the clarifications that will provide further clarification of our original intent. And I'm in the PUD document itself under the ordinance. And I don't know -- it's right after the staff report, I believe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- in your package. And I'll take you to the first change is on Page 2 of 16. Is everybody with me? If you look under item number 34, we have the five asterisks which provide -- well, the five asterisks, it says not permitted within 400 feet from the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's three asterisks. MR. YOVANOVICH: Three? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five asterisks says, no outdoor music, television or windows shall be pennitted other than for a passthrough food service. And I think you were going to add the three asterisks -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right. I understand. There should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON: Is it going to be five and three? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to be both the five and three to say that it can't be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happened to little footnote numbers, you know? MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to work with -- we need to work on a better way of doing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: But anyway, we need to add three asterisks there to make sure it's not within 400 feet, a standalone, because you'll see that we have as an accessory use for the hotel, limitations on where we can have those uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since this is the only five asterisks, why don't you add the 400 note to the five asterisks. And then that way we don't have asterisk, comma, asterisk, comma asterisk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since you don't need three asterisks any more, why don't you reduce them all for the rest of them after three by one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we just fix it and we'll come back with a concept -- I agree, if we can combine them, I'm with you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't do comma -- don't do -- because people are sitting here copying asterisks. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm with you. When we come back on the consent we'll make sure that -- Page 21 of 43 lugOst Z 2�'!'L A6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a staffs perspective, why don't we use little numbers, footnote numbers from now on, and request that. It's not hard to do. We've done it for most of them. This is the first time I've seen so many, I think, of asterisks. MS. DESELEM: We can use that. For the record, Kay Deselem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can set an asterisk limit, like no more than three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does get confusing when you -- because if you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, you're counting the -- it's really not right. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Stupid. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well -- and then there is going to be, whichever asterisk it's going to be, the one that does deal with no sound speakers. There are some words in there after it says, the only sound speaker systems permitted are for drive - through windows. And it says, for uses such as banks. In talking to the chairman, and I agree, taking the words uses, such as banks, avoids some ambiguity that we can argue that anything is like a bank or a fast food restaurant, so we recommend deleting the -- MS. ASHTON: Rich, can you tell us where you are, because I have no idea where you are. MR. YOVANOVICH: Page five of six, I'm sorry, under the development standards table. I jumped ahead, I thought everybody was with me. CHAIlZMAN STRAIN: We're back to the asterisks again, though. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we're still more asterisks. I believe that's double asterisks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is the double under the development standards table instead of the uses table, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's where I confused myself. I actually had jumped to that and that's why I had the wrong asterisk when I was referring to you guys. So your point is well taken. On Page 5 of 16, the double asterisks, we need to take the words "uses such as" out before the words "banks" or "fast food ". If you go to the next page, Page 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6 or 16 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Page 6 of 16, sorry. Under item Roman numeral IV.B, the last sentence, it says, this use is not permitted less than 600 feet. I think grammatically it should read, these uses are not pennitted, because we're referring to automobile service and repair shops. I think these uses is -- these uses are, is grammatically correct. And that deals with what I spent some time earlier talking about regarding addressing the Marquesa shopping center issue. If you'll go to Exhibit C, I believe it is, the master plan, second page, and that's the one that has total site area 13.65 at the beginning and then it has a notes section. And -- there is no asterisk on this page. It should look like that. Is everybody with me? Under the third note, we wanted to make sure that we are consistent with the Land Development Code as to what is an insubstantial versus a substantial versus an administrative change that could be made with regard to changing the location of buildings. So as long as we don't trigger either the insubstantial change process or the substantial change process, we can make changes to the location of the buildings and configuration of the buildings. So we added, and I hope I got the concept correct, Mr. Strain, was I added at the end, as provided for in the LDC. And that's the concept of making sure -- if the LDC would claim what we're doing is some type of an insubstantial or substantial change, one of which would come to you -- the substantial would come to you all. If there was a substantial it would come to you and the BCC. We would still have to come through that process. We weren't asking for a deviation from that processes by that note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I had asked Kay to check that particular, and when we get to the staff report, as long as she concurs that that explains it, I'm fine with it. l just want to make sure staff is clear, as we go down the road in the future. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And then, this was a biggie, now I'm on Page 16. According to the notes in the NIM, from the NIM meeting, on the last page of your write -up from your staff, and it happened after the meeting, and I don't remember saying it but maybe I did say it, but apparently someone on our team said that we agreed to paint the wall that we would construct Page 22 of 43 Y Ast , 2012 1612 A 6 brown. It didn't show up as a PUD commitment. The Chairman told me that it should. So I would recommend adding a Roman numeral four entitled Wall, and we can call it something else. And then I would add, the wall depicted on the master plan shall be painted brown as a developer commitment, since it shows up in the staff report but didn't make its way into the -- okay. I guess we want to clarify that is the south face of the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what happens is, you build this wall, and those people that occupy your property get to see pink but on the side facing Brynwood they get to see brown. How much sense does that make, why don't you just leave it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They actually get to see vegetation. Remember, we plant both sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But you guys -- I mean, we have a process here. Any time you make a commitment in the NIM it has to be reflected in the PUD and as -- I'm surprised you made such a commitment, but since you did -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It was after the NIM -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in our report. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it needs to be there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that they really cared what side -- I think they were worried about what side of the wall would be brown not -- they couldn't care what was internal to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think it's funny you guys care. But anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, do you want to note that that's painted once. You're not going to maintain the paint job, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they have to, don't they? MR. YOVANOVICH: I sorry, I got -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you going to maintain that paint job or are you just going to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's on our property, we have to. It's within our property, it's not on theirs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's closest to the drive isle -- or the pavement to provide better sound protection, so-- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Rich, are these concrete walls that you are going to build? Is it a concrete wall? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's going to be some type of solid wall. It's not wood. I mean -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: I have one behind my house and it's concrete, it's clovered brown. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, again, I didn't really anticipate -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: I don't know why you would bother to paint a wall, you can buy them in brown concrete and they are there forever. MR. YOVANOVIC14: Okay. I would like to have the option of buying one not painted brown and we'll paint it brown. But brown is there. It's going to be a commitment to be brown -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The wall will be brown in color. That just takes care of it. And it's a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Brown. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Is that dark brown or light brown? MR. YOVANOVICH: Any shade of brown under the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The point was it's important to somebody and the commitment was made at the NIM. And even if it may not seem important, the fact that it was committed to and made gets in our documents. Otherwise, don't make those commitments at the NIM. MR. YOVANOVICH: It couldn't have been made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it could have been made. Somebody made it otherwise it got in -- unless you are telling me Kay made an error in what she wrote down. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not, Mr. Strain, it's not a big issue for us. I only say that tongue in cheek because Kay and I have a running joke, I try never to make a commitment. I try to come back and tell you, you know, let me think about it and I'll get back to you. I try not to -- Page 23 of 43 A162122 A6 N v CHAIRMAN' STRAIN: We know you do. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we need to make some clarifications in the PUD document regarding the number of trips under the transportation commitments. If I get it wrong I'm sure John Podczerwinsky will correct me. I think this is what it's supposed to read. I think the 565 unadjusted is supposed to go to 577 and then we're supposed to delete what we struck through. And those were, I believe, the comments from John. I hope we have the right numbers there to talk about what he wanted. And he can correct it if -- during staff presentation or now, Mr. Strain, if you prefer, either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, I've got other questions of transportation, why don't we just wait for staff presentation to get into all that at one time. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe, now, Mr. Strain, if you want I can answer some of the clarification questions you had now. They don't result in changes to the documents but you do have some questions regarding -- on Page, basically Page 5 of 16, the development standards table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think maybe the best thing to do now is take a break for the court reporter and we'll come back and we'll finish up, we'll go right into it at that point. Let's take a 15 minute break and come back at 10:50. (A recess was taken.). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. When we took break we left off with the applicant's presentation getting hopefully to closure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to point two things out that I forgot to point out during the review of the master plan, which I put back up. We've provided for interconnectivity to the -- for properties to the east, which carries on the theme to those other PUDs where you could basically go from Whippoorwill Lane to Livingston Road without having to get onto Pine Ridge Road. And as you can see we've identified two potential interconnections depending on how the property to our immediate east decides to develop. We've already constructed in Pine Ridge Road, we're going to have a right in, right out as well as a left in. The right in -- the turn lane for the right in has already been constructed and the turn lane for the left in has already been constructed. And then, going now back to Page 5, one of the two asterisks pages, a question was raised regarding the fourth asterisk, which refers to a setback from preserves, and it says, measured from the preserve tract structural buffers are permitted within the setback area. And then it says, see also the master plan. A question was raised whether or not that required a deviation or not to have the structural buffer within the setback. Not within the preserve but within the setback. We had originally submitted a deviation because we thought we may need one. As we went through the process, I believe it was Summer Araque from your environmental section said, you don't need a deviation. We did leave the note on the table to make clear that we had the right to do those things. But we do not need a deviation according to staff, and that note there is for information purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and as you know, we've tried to eliminate redundancy or items that aren't needed or are already in the code from PUD language. Kay, I had asked yesterday when I talked to you, if you could check on that to make sure that there was no deviation that -- and I don't know why we would care what they put in the 25 -foot setback as long as it isn't an accessory or principal use that violates the setback. So the whole purpose of having those four asterisks there seems kind of unneeded. And Kay, did you have time to take a look at that? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. No, I didn't. Summer is on maternity leave and Chris D'Arco has been out of the office until today so I haven't had a chance to chat with him. But I see he's coming forward, hopefully he can respond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. D'ARCO: Good morning. For the record, Chris D'Arco, environmental services. Yes, it is allowed per code 3.05.07.H. 113. So it's permitted by the code, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need it in the -- MR. D'ARCO: You don't need it in it. Page 24 of 43 ,,gt6o12 A6 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the kind of things, if we would stop cluttering up PUDs with them, it helps. So why don't we strike that four asterisks. And that means you have to change the five to four and you got to go in the table. Enjoy. MS. DESELEM: Oh, yippee. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just going to do the old trick where you leave the four asterisks and you say intentionally deleted, so I don't have to change anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever. You have to come back to us anyway so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll fix it. I believe I've gone through the history of how we got to where we are with the limitations of the uses, the buffer, the wall deviation request. I know your staff is recommending denial of the wall deviation request. I hope with the explanation that we've given that the Planning Commission can support the wall deviation because it really doesn't make any sense to have another wall ringing that large preserve area based upon where we've limited the uses and placed the wall to address potential noise uses as well as the limitation on things that can happen within 400 feet of the property. If you have any further questions about the PUD request, I'm happy to answer it. And if I can't answer it someone from our team will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions from the Planning Commission. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The first one is just kind of curious. On Page 6 in the group retirement you require notifiers for emergency. Just out of curiosity, why is that there? MR. YOVANOVICH: That actually is language that came up originally, like on the very -- one of the very first senior communities that we did, people were concerned we were actually trying to get around the density limitations for multi - family. So we needed to assure people that we were going to provide certain services and amenities, that this was really a senior housing project, like transportation type uses. And one of the things was we really wanted to have an ability to notify if someone fell or needed immediate help, we -- that was something that became the standard list of uses for senior housing and has been carried forward I don't know how many years now, I believe, have to believe it's probably six or seven years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Been a long time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When it says notify emergency service providers, is that outside the building, is that the fire and rescue? MR. YOVANOVICH: It was intended that -- we didn't ever -- Mr. Schiffer, we never got to that detail if it was going to go first to our office and then there would be a notification, but the mechanism was to make sure that emergency personnel could be notified if someone needed assistance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because there is required statutes and stuff like that. I wouldn't, for example, the Alzheimer rooms to be able to flip the switch and bring the fire department, you know. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would think that if there's a statutory provision that trumps something that's in the PUD I would imagine the statutory provision would prevail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the fear is this could be additive to that, you know, in the statute, so -- but anyway -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if everybody is happy. Could you explain -- I'm having, when I look at some of these conversion factors, we kind of get into some unknown land. So I guess step one is it the intent that when you say for each acre of hotel or motel or group housing you mean that somewhere in there there will be a subdivided, platted area that becomes the site for the hotel, motel, group housing, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's the acre you're referencing, as opposed to a building or anything. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. How did you come up with it? I think I figured it out that you divided into the -- let me see where I thought I figured it out. MR. YOVANOVICH: We took 145,000, divided it by 13.65. Page 25 of 43 1612 A6 August 2, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: Acres, which is the project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Including preserves and everything. MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything. And it came back to a 10,000 square foot reduction, keeping in mind that there's a transportation cap that we can never exceed as far as the number of trips. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's probably -- okay. Well, that would probably be the best balance of the whole thing, do you agree? I mean, you would hit that before you would hit some of these other numbers -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, absolutely, and that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --particularly if you build a huge amount of group --you know, with the .6 FAR you could build a, you know, a 300,000 square foot building. MR. YOVANOVICH: But I'll be capped at the trips. And I think that -- that that would address the -- plus the development standards. But we would be capped so we can't put more traffic on there, had we done a retail office project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let me, I'll step off until John. But then one other thing is why is it that you're not intending to put sidewalks along your roadways there? MR. YOVANOVICH: We believe there's a better way to provide for pedestrian interconnection between the different developments on the project. And frankly, forcing pedestrians on that driveway /road may not be the best for them as far as how to walk through this project as well as the other projects. And staff agreed. I mean, it's hard to get staff to agree to a sidewalk deviation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you saying that you're going to provide other means of walking? MR. YOVANOVITH: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that outlined somewhere in here? MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have it on the master plan, it will be as part of the SDP process we will have to show that we have provided an alternative that is better than sidewalks along the roads. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because there was a lot of testimony when we were going through the car dealership that maybe that should be a grocery store, et cetera, and it should be accessible from these semi - residential buildings and from people shopping in these other areas. But you say that will be provided, just not as a sidewalk along the roadway. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. There will be pedestrian interconnects marked for people to use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, let's start with Page 22 of the staff report. It's concerning the NIM again. You made a commitment at the NIM that you would meet again with the residents to review the issue of the wider buffer area. I just want to confirm you did do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We did that through the president of the HOA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In Page 3 of the PUD, let's move on to the PUD, then. Actually it's on Page 4 and it's back to that little touchy subject of asterisks. Just so we're clear, the single asterisks shown on Page 4 don't carry the same weight as the single asterisks shown on Pages 1, 2, and 3. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's specific to that Roman numeral two section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just wanted to make sure. In the development standards table on Page 5, the lake control elevation measurement, so that means you are going to plat these lakes to the water's edge instead of to the 20 -foot maintenance easement. So any setback measurements are from the water's edge? MR. YOVANOVICH: We may not plat the lake tracts, they could be part of a site development plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So if it's part of a site development plan it obviously wouldn't be a platted lake tract. So the thought was, let's make sure we measure the setback from the maintenance easement that will go around, well, Page 26 of 43 Au t , 20 2 2 A6 actually we need -- typically there is a main easement that goes around the lake. We'll use the control elevation to make sure we don't get closer than that setback to the control elevation. And within that setback area will also be a maintenance easement, typically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you harden the shoreline of the lakes, either through bulkhead, riprap or anything else, where would the -- and then in those cases you don't have the 20 -foot maintenance easement because it stops prior to or after the hardening, where would you measure from? MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson, Hole Montes. No, if the edge of the lake is vertical you still are going to have a 20 -foot maintenance easement and you still will measure the setback from, in that case, the bulkhead. There will always be room for an easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but you'll measure the setback from the bulkhead, so in no case will the setback from a lake, bulkhead or lake water control elevation be less than 20 feet. MR. HERMANSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. On Page 7 of 26, your conversion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On Page 7 of what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven of 16. Twenty -six is what I said, sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: It can happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your commercial area conversion. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are not -- the conversion doesn't apply to any specific use because right now you're talking three general uses, medical office, retail office and what was that third one -- MR. YOVANOVICH: General office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: General office, yeah. So you can pick any of those to reduce or change from the conversion, is that the way you're looking at it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. That's why the trip cap stays in there to make sure we never exceed the number of trips we analyzed under this project, which was based on 60,000 square feet of general office, 60,000 square feet of medical and 25,000 feet of retail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The amount of acreage is calculated by the way you plat the use, so you create a tract for a hotel. The use that the -- the tract that the hotel sits on, the acreage is for the entire platted tract; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you just said you wouldn't necessarily plat the lakes, which are part of the water management for presumably the hotel. So how are you going to get into those common elements that are used throughout the property when they are used specifically for uses that would generally require a conversion? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm going to probably in that case plat the lake, and then I'll have the hotel parcel, A, I'll call it, and if it's two acres, it will be two acres for the hotel parcel, take out 21,000 and change square foot from the 145, do my calculation of trips to make sure I don't exceed I think it's 577, as modified, and I would be -- I would have whatever that hotel is plus a potential 122 -ish thousand square feet of other development, assuming I can stay within the trip cap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what I'm trying to get at is if you calculate the acreage based on the pure tract of the upland use -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then the common uses such as roadways, lakes, preserves and all of the other things don't ever get counted into the conversion calculation. So if you were to set aside the preserve, the lakes and the roads you would never use that in the calculation, so you would never get to the full conversion. MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson again. That's why we may not have a property line at the lake because a portion of the lake and preserves does count towards the density of a hotel so we don't want a property line there. We may -- for instance, part of the preserve may be part of the hotel tract. It will be an easement but it will be part of the density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to understand. Kay, does staff see it that way? Would you have -- how do you know to look at that in a future application if this conversion is used? Say Page 27 of 43 A6August1 , 612 they take half the property and want to use six acres for conversion to ACLF or a hotel, how would staff know that portions of the lakes, the preserve, the roads and whatever have to be attributed to that six acres that is going to be used for conversion? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. I would think we would just use that portion of the property that's being developed with that use. We wouldn't have any way to go over and try to calculate and add in the incremental portions of any water management areas or anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, see, staff wouldn't do what you are saying you intended to do. Staff wouldn't use the water management lakes. They wouldn't use the preserves, they wouldn't use the roadways, they would just use the tract for the upland use, is what I think I hear Kay saying. MS. DESELEM: Yes, and Ray is shaking his head that he -- CHARUV AN STRAIN: Well, then if you take a project of 13 acres and you have four acres, say, that aren't even used for anything but those common elements and you convert the whole thing to hotel, you are only then going to count for, of the 13 take off four down to nine acres, so they still have four acres unconverted more or less that they could use for density count for upland uses. MR. YOVANOVICH: But if I've used the full nine acres of uplands, the only thing -- I can't build anything on the lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, I'm just curious as to how -- what we do with that residual that's not being converted. You have an outstanding, an amount of calculable commercial space that is going to sit on John Podczerwinsky's books forever for traffic counts or whatever. I'm just curious as to have we have ever -- how staff handles it, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And probably I think my understanding, and John can correct me, is he doesn't reserve capacity based upon the PUD, it's when I come in for a site development plan or a plat or whatever it is for building permits, and I come in for the hotel and the hotel is X number of units and it takes up Y number of trips and I've got no land left. He's not going to reserve for this ghost number of square footage that theoretically is out there but practically is not. That's my understanding of how the system works. So there won't be a reservation for the ghost strips. And then we, hopefully at some point we close out the PUD so we don't have to keep doing the annual PUD monitoring reports with the annual counts. And as you're seeing, there's more and more PUDs that are trying to go through the process now of actually closing out, which is addressing the ghost density concerns I think that are out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But when you bring in these conversion factors, which we don't see that often -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there's this unknown leftover pieces that go to common elements like water management and preserves. I don't think we've thought out as far as how they apply to a conversion ratio. And I don't think this is thinking about that way either. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we try to do it both ways, where we've gone in and said, okay, instead of converting based purely on square footage let's try to get really detailed and say, you know, X hotel rooms equal Y retail square footage. And then we would have who knows how many permutations there would be for that. And staff has said, you know, we got the trip cap so we know you are never going to exceed that number. Instead of coming up with a lot of different permutations of what the actual conversion could be, based upon transportation, let's just come up with something that is relatively simple to understand, cap it at the trips and address it that way. Because historically the major issues have been, can the roads handle what you are asking, have you done an analysis for a max, and that's where the maxes comes in, can I come in and ask for X and get you guys to buy off on it and then theoretically blow past what my transportation analysis showed. So I think we've tried to address it the best way we could and make it relatively understandable for the public, for staff and for the developer, and hopefully this works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how to make it any better than what it is. I'm just kind of curious as to what we do with that void. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just following up, because it was a question I asked also, is -- so, Kay, if Page 28 of 43 Augus 2,6121 2 A6 they show, like, the centerline of the road and they include the lake, if you look behind you, you know, the southern part of that thing from the centerline of the road, they could say that's the hotel site. So you are saying you are not going to -- because the documentation here says they are allowed to -- you are not going to count those preserve and lake areas in the acreage that they can develop density from, because the paperwork says they can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, what that does, if you split the site in half, then you end up with a greater quantity of square footage still buildable on the north half of the site when your intention, from what I think George said, was that you would include the lakes, the roads and the preserves in that acre calculation for density reduction. That's a totally different number than the way staff would look at it. And that's where I think the confusion of this conversion's coming in. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I would think we would plat that parcel -- I'll put a number on it. Let's call it five acres, and it would include the preserve and the lake, if there, okay? That's five acres of density -- wrong word. Intensity times 10,600- something square foot that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. That's what George said. But that's not what the staff is going to consider. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope they will because that's what the document says and that's what the plat would show. MR. BELLOWS: I think the clarifying language would have to be that it needs to be depicted on a platted tract of some kind, that this is the acreage set aside for a hotel site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we say that the 10,622 square feet will include the appropriate acreage for water management and other allocations needed for the site as a whole. That way, if you have a piece of the preserve that, say, you use 50 percent of the site for a hotel, 50 percent of the preserve gets calculated to it. Maybe that is a solution to it. Because otherwise I'm not sure how anybody is going to read this calculation in the future. Is that where you were going, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going -- and it's awful, if you could get a large building, if, you know -- now, one thing. I'll wait til John comes up, I don't -- you know, since you are saying don't worry about these conversions, we're going to do with the transportation caps, why don't you do your system with transportation caps. In other words, why don't you say, based on trips, that you can take so much off of retail if you build -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, and that was -- again, I've submitted projects, and admittedly it is very difficult to have a lot of different conversion formulas, a hotel room equals -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hacienda, for example. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've been here before. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. So what the -- if the overall concern, and historically the overall concern was how many trips are you going to put on Pine Ridge Road for this project or you're going to put on Livingston Road. You gave us a transportation analysis that says you were going to put X number of peak hour trips on there. We want to cap you at X number of peak hour trips. Now, I could probably go out and have Dave Wheeler do a very detailed analysis of one hotel room equals X number of square feet of retail, one ALF unit equals Y square feet of retail, same thing for general office, same thing for medical office and you'll have a nice, very complicated table that's going to get you to the same place as the maximum number of trips. And we've done that on other projects. And staff said, uncle, you know, let's keep it simple because we understand the maximum number of trips you are going to come through that process, through either the SDP or the plat. We track the number you've been approved. We, staff -- and I agree as the developer's agent -- don't want to have five or six or seven or however many you need, different conversion formulas and subtract it from the 145 and the different categories. It just became very difficult to manage. And I've got another one that we're coming through the process of doing, and staff said -- I started it that way and staff said no, don't do it that way, let's not have conversion formulas that complicated. And that's how we got where we are, Mr. Schiffer, and the remaining members of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But between you and staff, if this goes forward, by consent you could come back with some kind of definition on how staff would look at -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, that's fine. They would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a conversion acreage. MR. YOVANOVITCH: When we thought we had addressed that on Page 7 -- Page 29 of 43 g 1 `2 A6 An dbto I2 , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Roman numeral VII of 16, under development intensities, VII -- VI. Roman numeral VI.D. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on your Exhibit C.I I.B. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we had thought we had addressed that on how to calculate it. If we need to clarify it to make sure our intent to give more land towards the calculation is in fact implemented, we'll work with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that could be done by next time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I think -- because I do think the intent is to use the gross acreage that they define for each project. And that's how they'll probably sell it, that's how it will be built and permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's something we should -- this board needs to be cognizant of, is that this has been -- the entitlements are being requested today at the request of a bank that owns the property. Most likely the bank will not be the developer. So it will be sold to someone, and who knows how they will interpret this document. So we have to be careful on how it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's not our goal. Our goal is to make it very clear, and that's why we worked closely with the neighbors. Because the bank's not the happy owner of this piece of property, they're just the unfortunate owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next question I have is still on Page 7, but this time it's D. So in order to qualify for infill criteria, which is what this project is, you couldn't be over 12 acres. So to avoid that you are just saying, we're going to give away 1.65 acres in preserve so it's not counted. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what the Comp. Plan says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did you say that, for the conversion factor, you divided the 145 by the 13.65 instead of by the 12? MR. YOVANOVICH: We looked at the project as, overall as a whole, and the 13.65 was the number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's how we did the math. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you wouldn't use that. If you had to use that you wouldn't qualify for infill. So it's kind of like you want your cake and eat it too. Don't you think the conversion factor ought to be based on what you qualify for, and that's infill, which means 12 acres? So if you do that, your 10,622 is slightly higher. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Did you do the math? I know you did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't do the math. It's intuitive, that it's going to be higher. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know it's higher, but [just thought, I thought you were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I figure I'll leave that up to you. You're good with numbers. But I think that ought to be your conversion ratio instead of the -- well, the number that you are trying not to use because you wouldn't qualify then. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Understand. I understand. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the master plan, that's one -- it's your Exhibit C. LA -- you note deviation number one on the master plan, and generally on the master plan we see deviations when they pertain to the master plans. That one really doesn't. It's just a textual deviation that says you can have on the site, an FAR up to 6.0. Is it necessary to show it on the master plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: Our understanding is that whenever you request a deviation you are required to identify where it can occur on the property. Thus we put the note. As you can see, the deviation's the entire property. If we could take it off, it's fine with me, as long as I don't have to -- and I won't have to change any asterisks or take the number off. It's fine with us. We just understood we were required to do it. We did it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the Parklands, the GL Home property, when it first came in there was something like 25 deviations. I don't recall all those being noted on the master plan, but they may have been. Were you the attorney for that one? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did -- George, you were involved in that. Was all those deviations shown on the master plan? No. Page 30 of 43 „Nip „,t � ab MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess the answer is no, they were all not on there, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then what's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm happy with taking it off. If staffs happy, I'm happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a master plan related issue, it's a general requirement. So why don't we drop that. Over on deviation number three, I need you to help explain that one. It says it's LDC section, so forth, to require a wall adjacent to the developed commercial area only. Actually, the wall's being required adjacent to the developed residential area only, isn't it? Maybe you can explain to me, because the wall, you are showing it to Brynwood Preserve PUD to the south. Isn't that residential? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. As I understand, the Land Development Code is, for the portion of your project that is adjacent to a residential development, you are required to have a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Now we have a boundary that -- I think this shows it better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not disputing your deviation, Richard. I understand that. The terminology threw me on the way it's written in the PUD master -- on the master plan. It says it's to require an adjacent to the developed commercial area only. What does that mean? Because I thought you were trying to put it adjacent to the residential tract, which is Brynwood -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Brynwood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brynwood, however you pronounce it. But this says it's developed commercial area only. What is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it was intended to show -- as you can see, the building on there, we envisioned that this is the developed commercial area and the wall would be along that developed commercial area. This is developed as preserve and lake, if you will. And that's, you know, that's not -- I mean, it's going to be a preserve. It's not a commercial development. And this is -- I guess the lake doesn't really matter -- but just the preserve. And if the terminology -- if we could clean up the terminology. But the intent was, we're going to put up a wall where we have the potential to put a commercial development, which is identified on the master plan. We've shown exactly where the wall is going to be. So if there was any ambiguity, it's covered in the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and I would just suggest you change it to the developed residential area only. And that way you're -- George is shaking his head, no. Okay. If -- MR. YOVANOVITCH: Because then I've got -- I've got residential along my entire southern boundary. Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would have to go into the big preserve. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. That's why we asked for the deviation is -- right here. This is developed residentially. I mean, on the -- you know what I mean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So that was our concern is we have the big preserve here. We talked to our neighbors. They definitely want the wall here with the enhanced buffer. So that's why we used that. That's why we maybe flip- flopped the terminology to say, along the commercially developed, instead of residentially, because that would then mean I would need it along the preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: Why don't you just put future developed commercial area. That might be what the confusion is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Future developed commercial area. That would be helpful. While we're on the preserves, you've got these hatched lines that show where you intend to put the water management berm and buffer with native plantings. And that is the area that we're saying is outside of the preserves; is that true? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even the south part of the big preserve, for example, that shows that water management berm along the entire back side, and you have it along the west side as well, all that is going to be a structural buffer created to separate this preserve from all the adjacent preserves that it adjoins to; is that right? MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson. That's correct. It's meant because preserve -- the large square Page 31 of 43 August 262 2 A6 preserve is part of the retention system, so water has to be contained in it. Just for your information all of those berms will be planted, though. They will be more upland plants, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you are going to build a berm, so you are going to destroy the preserve vegetation or the natural vegetation that's there now. MR. ITERMANSON: Yeah, but it will be replaced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. So we're going to bulldoze it all down and then we're going to build a berm and replace it all. MR. HERMANSON: We've been through this with the water management district, and we're that far from getting a permit, so they're okay with it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're not the water management district. So I'm still trying to figure out where the practicality is. You have a berm to the north, and all around it, it adjoins other preserves. And I think its positioning was purposely so that it's contiguous to other preserves. And I know Chris is here, he's environmental. Don't we try to make preserves contiguous? But if you are using that as a water management preserve, is the hydrology in it going to be different than the preserves around it? Are we going to -- MR. HERMANSON: Slightly, yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does it qualify still as a preserve? MR. HERMANSON: We had to demonstrate that the hydrology that we're creating would be acceptable. And I'm mentioning the state again, but we had to go through a hydrologic analysis of what the water levels would be in that because they'll be a little different than the other preserves. And that was acceptable. The water levels will be a little bit higher there during summer. But I will say this, that large preserve discharges through the berm. See the preserve along the west side, that skinny one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. HERMANSON: That will be receiving all the water that discharges from the system. That goes under a box culvert that's shown under that road, which goes into the next preserve and eventually up to Pine Ridge Road. So all of those preserves, not just the big one, but all of them will be hydrated from the system. It's just, it goes in steps, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the reason that you need the preserve for the water management is because you don't have enough lake area on the site? MR. HERMANSON: Partly, yes. But I mean, that's a common way to use preserves. They want water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But it's for that purpose that you are going to have to destroy part of the natural vegetation to recreate it to berm, to berm it and then recreate it, which just seems counterproductive. MR.14ERMANSON: A lot of those preserves, though, are very much disturbed. We tried to avoid getting into the heart of them. The middle of that large preserve is the best part, and we're going around the edges, which is not really creating an issue with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your calculations for your preserve acreage, when you did your survey work, where did you draw your preserve boundary lines for the calculations? MR. HERMANSON: In the calculations for the water management? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. What area specifically on this map were counted as preserve acreage versus anything else? MR. HERMANSON: Well, as far as the -- and I'm going to refer to the state again because we're much farther along, we had to count them both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both being? MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question for the county is we did not count the buffers towards our preserve acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the berms did not get counted as preserve acreage for the county. MR. YOVANOVICH: For purposes of meeting and exceeding the county's required minimum native vegetation number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all the little dotted areas are the pure preserves, and that's all that you -- those total, if someone were to calculate those, those would total the number of preserves you are saying you are setting aside. Page 32 of 43 1612 A6 August 2, 2012 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. That's what I'm told. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like your conditional statement, Richard. MR. YOVANOVITCH: Well, I have to rely on the experts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the next Exhibit C. 1.B, just the conversion factors listed there again, so if that -- as that gets relooked at, you may want to make sure it gets changed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just for -- so it doesn't look totally like we wanted our cake and eat it, too, we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You never ask for such things, do you. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we believe that the uses that we're converting to, the hotel and the senior housing, are actually lesser intensity type uses than office, medical office, general office and retail, so we thought that it wasn't unreasonable to use the full 13.65 since the conversion was to a lesser intense traffic use. And that was the thought process, to be fair to our side, as to why we thought it would be okay. And it really never came up as -- until today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today. And I'm just trying to be consistent. And if staff has looked at this consistently as 12 acres and you had to qualify it as that to qualify for the county terms that allow you to do what you're doing, then we should use the 12 acres throughout. That's all. That's the only reason. If you had the use of 13.65 acres, it wouldn't have mattered, I would have been fine with that. But unfortunately you didn't use that through the entire process, you used 12. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You already cleaned up that -- we're going to refer to the LDC on note three, so that takes care of that issue. On your application, Richard, we need disclosure for ownership. And you have First Community Bank of Southwest Florida, 100 percent. Normally we get a breakdown of who the individuals are so we know if there is a conflict. MR. YOVANOVICH: I provided to Heidi this morning, after meeting with you, I got the list of every shareholder within the bank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, could you get those to us by e -mail so if there is any conflicts we know ahead of time, we can make that announcement at the consent agenda then? MS. ASHTON: Sure. It's 38 pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just pdf it to us, if you could. You don't need to kill a bunch of trees to print it. MS. ASHTON: Sure. Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that will be added to the package as part of their disclosure for -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the end of my questions of the applicant, not staff. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Richard. Kay, do you want to go forward? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner with zoning. And we also, as you have noticed, have John Podczerwinsky with us for transportation issues. And we have Chris D'Arco for environmental issues. I won't belabor the issues as far as the staff report. We've gone into all the detail about what's proposed. I would just note that we have provided findings of fact in support of our recommendations. And the recommendation can be modified somewhat, I think, because of the concession that Rich made regarding the eating places, how he's clarified that, that it won't be within a certain distance. So the issue discussed in the staff report about having an eating and a drinking place within 90 feet of the south property line would no longer be an issue. However, staff still is recommending denial of deviation three. And we have provided the information to support that recommendation in the staff report. Other than that, if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have questions. Page 33 of 43 T 16 A6 August 2, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. Can we hit Kay real first, if we don't mind? Is there anything -- I have one or two of Kay on the -- MS. DESELEM: If I may, one correction I need to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was going to say. That's one of them. MS. DESELEM: Yes. Bob Duane brought it to my attention and I thought the correction had been made. However it was not made in the NIM discussion. It was not Patrick Vanasse, planning director of RWA, who made the presentation, it was in fact Rich Yovanovich. And I apologize for that error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They look alike. Okay. Anybody else? If not, John. Thank you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John Podczerwinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, the question is, in the traffic study it definitely shows the three commercial uses. But what kind of trip generation do hotels and the adult living have? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If you wouldn't mind, I'm going to put up the graphic of the trip generation table so that everybody can see it. And generally, hotel uses per unit, which would be per hotel room, and also ALF uses, I think was the other question, per bed, those units are typically a far lower trip generator than the per square foot or the per thousand square foot units that we use in these trip generation reports. Shopping center and medical office typically in these type of PUDs are usually our highest trip generating uses, with a few small exceptions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it can be safely said that if they fully develop the site with the other uses, that they would never get near these trip generations. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's safe to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that means they could build the 350,000 square foot adult congregate living center. So the trip generation is not giving us any protection from, you know -- we're discussing this in terms of use of the roads but also the size of the object that they are going to build there could get pretty huge if there wasn't something limiting it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, sir. My intent, from the transportation standpoint, is not to touch the square footage or to limit the square footage. That's based on other parts of the PUD document and it's not under my purview. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then, Kay, when I asked Rich, he kind of gave me the impression not to worry about it, the trip generation will take care of it. But it will never, according to John, become a denominator in the process. So we could -- it's going to -- we could have some huge buildings if they, you know -- a.6 FAR on a 12 -acre site or 13 -acre site, if you want to call it that, is a lot, lot of square footage. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. One thing, that is a deviation that's being requested. So if you have concerns about that, there is the action that you could do on the deviation that would prohibit .6. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a good point. So we could maybe give them the .6 at a smaller site but keep it to .3 on the whole site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings in another question. Would the .6 be calculated on the 13.65 or the 12? MR. BELLOWS: It would be the 12, which was the amount you are allowed under the commercial infill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be a lot. I mean, if you take out all the preserves, it's still, it's a quarter of a million square foot building. So, you know, take out -- subtract 4. 1, which is all the preserve and lake areas. I don't know what the intent is but we could drive down the street one day and find a huge adult living center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's something to consider. I mean, are you -- if you guys were to build an adult living center on there, were you -- do you have a maximum limit you were thinking of? Or you wouldn't -- you're not going to build it -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We have development standards, okay. We have maximum heights, we have setbacks from the different parameters. We haven't laid out what could that building footprint be within a three -story configuration. But where this project is actually located, would it be the end of the world to have a senior housing facility in this location of the town surrounded by commercial on both sides with appropriate height restrictions and appropriate setback standards, capping on the trips? Frankly, we never thought that that would be a bad thing. And it might be actually a good thing, if it became a senior development versus a retail office, because we thought the development standards there to protect the public Page 34 of 43 �i 1 (ag1t ZO12A6 from a big, long -- you're not going to -- you remember, they're not going to want to be long and spread out because people want to walk towards the common elements. So it's going to be more than likely multi -story, three to four stories. So it's not going to be a long rectangular building at one story. There is a portion that can be four stories but mainly it's a three -story building. So we never thought that that was going to be a major issue and would be a problem if that was the use that was developed on the property versus, you know, a retail office community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything further? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Just pointing out that it's there. I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I believe we have to meet the architectural standards -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for that type of use. It's considered institutional not residential. I think there's plenty of safeguards there, if that's the use that gets developed on the entire site at the .6 FAR. And we've done it for similarly sized acreages at a.6 to make sure we have appropriate unit size and common elements. It's not, not -- I think we did one up on Vanderbilt Beach Road that's a little over 10 acres, if I remember correctly. Similar standards. By Tiburon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you built at the full .6? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a.6 approved. We haven't built the project yet, but, yes, that was approved. And that was one of the earlier projects that came up with those required amenities, so I wasn't -- or my client wasn't getting around the limitation on four units per acre. MS. DESELEM: If I may, for the record? There is, in the property development regulations, height restrictions for the group housing limiting it to three stories and a 40 -foot zoned height and 50 -foot actual height. So that is going to somewhat limit how much they can do at the group housing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That means they could take their .6, make it .2 per story and essentially cover -- I mean, you know, the site would be big enough to build the maxed out building. And you're right. Maybe it's a good location. I mean, it is close to 75. I would imagine better uses of the land than something passive like this. But whatever, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's there. If they go the full route the other way it's a big building. What would control you with the hotel? Obviously the room count is -- but you have no control on the size of amenities or anything like that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, and you're right, Commissioner Ebert. I was -- the four stories apply to a portion of the hotel site not the group housing. We're controlled by a maximum of 20 units per acre, I believe it is, for hotel rooms, again at the trip cap, again with the development standards that are in place. And we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But no requirement on -- amenities aren't limited or anything. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not. But at some point the market is going to say -- this is not going to be the type of hotel that has a huge resort style pool, with, you know -- it's just --you're right. I don't have those in there but there are some safeguards I think by location of where this site is that you are not going to have a big resort convention center on this particular piece of property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you note that it's -- like, the restaurant's only for guests with keys, essentially, guests that are staying overnight. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can't even bring their friends to the restaurant. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope that really isn't the interpretation but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, code enforcement probably won't get into that. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what? Do we need to -- I hope that's not the interpretation. Can we -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Told them it wouldn't be a public restaurant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't interpret it that way but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. That was kind of a wisecrack. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, I just want to make sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you read -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, I've been around long enough where that's not a wisecrack, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 35 of 43 161 A6 August 2, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you could add, and their guests. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And let's -- please do that. Can we -- does anybody object to making we don't -- and their guests? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understood that to be the intent anyway, okay. Anything else? Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question but it's of Chris. Chris, could you come -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's finish with John first. He's waiting in the wings. Chris, we're just going to be just a minute. Anybody have any other questions of John? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, I've got a couple. In the land use you use 25,000 for shopping center because that's the limit to retail, but there is no limit on general office. So there could be 120,000 of general office. General office is a little higher than medical. Does that change anything? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Actually, medical is higher than general office, believe it or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the first column you've got 110 for general office, 109 for medical. So I made the -- okay. So if medical was -- so you used the highest of all of the combinations then. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other thing is, the applicant started to get into the transportation development commitments and the confusing language that was clarified now to be read differently than what's in our packet. Are you -- have you reviewed that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, I did. And there was a communication that I sent to you yesterday, I believe it was, in an attempt to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't get a chance to read it before today's meeting. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The letter that I had originally sent was incorrect. I did bring a copy of that and I have a mark -up that reflects the applicant's changes to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you in agreement with the applicant's changes? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Absolutely. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the key number, the 565 changes to 577. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we strike that second, part of that second sentence. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, that's correct. And the only other change to that should be the date of the TIS should be referred to the October 13th, 2011 TIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything of John? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. I have one quick question, John. This is an activity center, right, the corners, all four? Is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: The corner is. But to be totally accurate, we're not within the activity center. We're adjacent to it but we're not in it, and that's why we're under the commercial, the commercial infill criteria. But yes, it's the four corners of the activity center, but we're adjacent to it and not within it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Have you counted -- has the other -- let me see. On the north side of Pine Ridge, there is a large vacant property there. Has that already been zoned and do you have traffic counts for that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It has been, to my understanding. It's -- they've acquired their zoning and I believe they have gone through an SDP process on some of their buildings but not all. It may be a commercial plat at this point. A commercial plat would not have all of the trips recorded yet until they come in for individual SDPs within the plat, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: John, the only reason I'm asking is because Pine Ridge is stretched out to its limit and so is Livingston. I guess there is a question, because it is such an active area, is all this kind of already taken into account? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, ma'am, it is. In fact, this is the majority of the reasoning behind our seeking Page 36 of 43 s Aguo 22 10? A6 the additional route through this parcel to create basically an alternative corridor to Pine Ridge for the local residents to be able to access all of these commercial properties at some point in the future. It's a little bit of a circuitous route but at least it would help to keep people from using Pine Ridge that currently use it today. That's the intention here, and the applicant has addressed that by working with the county in our request for that alternative route through their site. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, John. Is there other questions? Did you have some more. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Chris. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to talk to Chris? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Chris, on Exhibit C.l .A it shows that there is a wildlife crossing. And the gentleman from Hole Montes said it is for water. What is it? MR. D'ARCO: I'm sorry, what was it? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here it shows a wildlife crossing under the road and he said it is -- it's for the water. A culvert for water. MR. D'ARCO: It's labeled as a wildlife crossing. I'm not sure if that's a requirement of the district permit or whatnot. It's labeled as a wildlife crossing. MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson. It's both. The pipe for water would have been much smaller but they wanted an animal connection between the two, so it's a much larger conduit. It's built at grade so it doesn't fill with water all the time. So there will be periods where it's wet and dry and that's -- the animals that are indigenous to that area would be able to use that. So it's both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are you putting appropriate signage up on the berm so that the animals know which way to go? MR. HERMANSON: Yep. Especially the drivers, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a typical example. You have a little skinny preserve in the north and you're putting a wildlife crossing to get to the -- this makes no sense. MR. HERMANSON: Seriously, we did have to put traffic notification for drivers through there, what it is, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We wonder why regulation gets in the way of business. Anything else, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any other questions of staff, the applicant or anyone? Are there any public speakers registered, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do any members of the public wish to speak on this item? Yeah. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We will then -- Rich, you have no rebuttal, no speakers, so we will move into our -- do you have any final comments you want to make? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm just here to answer any questions and hopefully respond to any revisions, if you'll give me that opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got nine potential stipulations I'll read to the Planning Commission members if we're inclined to vote for recommendation of approval, and we can see if these all fit. The first one is you're going to redo the asterisks in all parts of the document, either redo them or figure out a way to fix them so it's clearer to what the intention is. You are going to make some grammatical changes that we talked about during the course of the meeting. You are going to add the wall color as a developer commitment. You are going to adjust the trip values to the way John Podczerwinsky has confirmed that we had presented to us. We are going redefine how acres are used for conversion, meaning the discrepancy over gross acres versus what, you know, the water management, the preserves and how that -- the acres, and bring all that into consideration. We've going to have a new conversion factor based on the 12 acre value instead of the 13.65. Page 37 of 43 16I2�AS August 2, 2012 We are going to add the ownerships disclosures to the packet record. And that's it. That's the ones that I have. Does that seem to be consistent with everything we talked? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You forgot the, with guests, in the hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was one of the changes, okay. Yeah. hi the PUD textual changes, we went over a bunch of them during the meeting, and that was one that needs to be corrected as well. MR. YOVANOVICH: The only one I would like one last shot at talking about is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the deviation denial? We haven't talked about that. MR. YOVANOVICH: We haven't talked about the deviation denial. And I don't -- actually, two things. The note. When you were talking about the grammatical changes, were you referring to the reference to the LDC in note three on the master plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And also in the development standard table under the, use such as, grammatical. MR. YOVANOVICH: Those things. Okay. What I really -- I believe that the conversion square footage that we proposed is fair because it's based upon converting to, as John has already said, a lesser intense use. So even though we were using the gross square footage and we're capped at the same number of trips, the square footage conversion, I don't think is a cake and eat it too because it's a conversion to a lesser intense use, as testified to now by your staff as well. So I would hope we could continue to leave the 10,660, I thing it is, square feet as the conversion fonnula instead of recalculating it at 12 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's easy. Just drop the 145,000 to 12 times 10,000, whatever the number is. So you don't want 145,000 in intensity then? Richard -- MR. YOVANOVITCH: I've just -- Mr. Strain, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When your testimony was that you used the 13.65, I can't sit -- I can't rest with that on record as the basis for a calculation when the whole intention of this application was to fit into an infill district that required you to be 12 acres or less. So it's just not -- it doesn't seem consistent. And I'm -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Then why don't we just take --would it be wrong to just simply based on trips? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to get into all of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just saying we'd try to look at something that made sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking traffic engineers, and they have 15 different ways to explain things. If you ask them something, they'll always come to the conclusion that you want them to come to. And I don't really want to go there. I'd rather not get into a confusing issue like traffic science. I would rather stick to a simple thing that you calculated out. You told us what the calculation was. Correct it one way or the other. I'd prefer -- and I don't think you can correct it to 13.65 because this application is not supposed to be based on 13.65, it's supposed to be based on 12, otherwise you don't qualify for infill. And if you don't qualify for infill we're looking at a whole different ball game, so -- Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I support that Mark. And every one of these conversion acres gives you 26,000 square feet to build. So, in other words, the reward for conversion in terms of the group home is a large amount of square footage. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I understand what you are saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything --then let's just talk about the issue of the deviation. I think it's number three for staff. They recommend a denial on it. Basically what staffs saying is that the required wall ought to go around the entire preserve, regardless of whether it's not where it's located; is that correct? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the applicant's suggesting it makes more practical sense just to put it along where it's most needed, and that's along the residential portion of the south side of the project. What's the consensus on this board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I support what the applicant wants, because I don't like digging in the Page 38 of 43 1 4 i 161 A6 August 2, 2012 preserves just to put a wall. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I likewise support what the applicant wants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think general consensus is we're going to not approve the denial but approve a recommendation of approval for that deviation. Okay. A So with all of those, the stipulations read and the -- MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON: I think that some of your discussion was that the .60 FAR, if it was going to be developed as group housing for the entire site, would apply to just 12 acres. And I think that needs to be clarified in the document because, arguably, 13.65 acres would be eligible, I believe, for the .60 FAR because they don't need the infill district to get the group housing, they could have done that as a conditional use, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they came in and got it through the infill -- MS. ASHTON: Right. So I think you need to clarify that because there might be a difference of opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the group housing multiplier becomes part of the 12 acres not the 13.65. And again, that was what was applied for, the 12. That was the focus of the whole application. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. But Heidi is correct. I mean, that one use doesn't rely at all on commercial infill. So I'm just asking -- and I think that's a legitimate distinction. I understand the commercial -- hotel is a commercial use, and the others did not give me the FAR on the commercial, limiting me to the 12 acres, Commissioner Strain. But I do think it would be fair to allow the existing conversion to apply to the group housing use and then recalculate the 12 acres on the commercial uses, if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would staff have looked at -- if this project came in as a group housing project on 13.65 acres, would you have proceeded to review the project differently than the application in front of us today for the 12 -acre infill project? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I can't go along with your request. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't understand the question. I mean, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you came in for a 13.65 acre project for group housing in this location, that's it, that's your standalone, or you came in, as you have, with a 12 -acre project for infill, and this included as part of that, Kay just said she would look at it differently. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm going to tell you she did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Until she looks at it differently, I don't know if we have a way to render a decision on it. MR. YOVANOVITCH: Then let me -- I'll ask the question through the chair, because I think that's the way I'm supposed to do it. Our request was for 145,000 square feet of retail and office. With a conversion formula for the reduction of, for each acre, I take out 10,660 square feet for either a hotel or senior housing. So your staff did look at this project as the potential that a hundred percent of it could be either hotel or senior housing, and they recommended approval. They didn't ask for any changes in the conversion formula. Their only concern was the restaurant use, which we clarified, and the wall. So they did in fact look at this project with the potential that the entire site could be either senior housing or a hotel. I've already acknowledged that there's a difference between the commercial infill, 12 acres, but on the residential, I mean, on the senior housing, there is no difference. So I don't think we're being unreasonable and I think your staff has in fact looked at the conversion formula and signed off on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they did look at that but they looked at it as a 12 -acre project. Is that not right? MR. YOVANOVICH: They had the numbers. They had the numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But in your PUD you said you removed the 1.65 from consideration so you qualify for infill. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, they asked us where we came up with the number and we told them. Page 39 of 43 .1.6! 1 2 'A6 MS. DESELEM: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. DESELEM: Staff looked at it as the total acreage, but in light of what's come up today, I think that was in error: And I think what you pointed out is very important to consider, that it is the infill and it's only 12 acres. So we erred in our initial evaluation. I think you're correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, Richard, if you pursue this, you might end up with a split vote where would you go forward and have to be -- off of potential consent. It's up to you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not that -- well, maybe I am, at home. So I'll qualify. I won't make my statement. I understand. It's not worth the argument. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it is. I think you guys are getting a good project with the right acreage. I don't know what we're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We understand. And we appreciate the differences of opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCI- HFFER: I'm starting to come around. The point they make is a good point, that they could build the 13.65 acre site without any infill issues, and that's's what they used to make their conversion factor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they had a standalone application for a group housing at 13.65 acres with a .6 FAR, based on what you previously said about the size of the building, would you still think that's reasonable? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We might not give them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Therein lies the difference. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's accepted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we've got the stipulations. We added to it that the group acres will be based on a 12 -acre count. The group -- MS. ASHTON: FAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The group use that Heidi brought to our attention was based on a 12 -acre count. Anybody else have any others? Is staff clear on the stipulations and the discussion? MS. DESELEM: I believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, before you -- you want to hold that motion for just a minute, Bill? Go ahead, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: With the changes that are being made, is staff willing to change their recommendation on the wall issue? Because, if staffs going to fight me on that issue, I'm on regular agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The reason we wanted the wall there was the concern of, if there's clearing of the preserve of exotics, it thins it out rather heavily. And I think that's what was the issue with the other part of the development, as was mentioned earlier about the tire store, because there was a lot of clearing of the exotics in there and it thinned out that preserve. But if it's -- the Planning Commission is strongly supportive of approving the petitioner's request, then I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody on the Planning Commission -- go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't understand what you mean, that they would thin out the preserve. MR. BELLOWS: Exotics need to be removed from preserve areas, and some preserves have a lot of exotics. And when you remove all of them you can start seeing through the preserve areas, and noise and sound travels through those preservers a lot easier then. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So the wall would be a visual aid to the people in the adjoining development. MR. BELLOWS: And, more significantly, a sound barrier. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sound barrier to the adjoining development? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But I think our attitude would be that this is going to fill in because they've agreed to pretty strict filling in and a lot of planting and a lot of monitoring, and it's supposed to be filled in 80 Page 40 of 43 Augur x, 2, 6 12 12 A6 percent, I think, within three years. MR. BELLOWS: In regards to Rich's question, if that's the intent and that's perceived to be what is going to happen, that it be a thick preserve, then I believe we can support that and we will not fight that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And wouldn't, at the same time, though, where the wall's not going to go the preserve areas, is more adjacent to adjoining commercial uses than it is to residential to the sought, where the wall is going to go, it has a residential area to the south, and that's why they are putting the wall there. So I'm not sure if they -- if they want to protect themselves from the commercial to the east or west, then they can put a wall up on their own. But if they don't want to, who is losing? The commercial area's got the -- if you look at that Marquis (sic) shopping center, it's the back side that faces them. So if anybody's going to want a wall, they are going to want to put it in on their own, for their own tenants rather than have Marquesa complaining about it, because who is going to complain about it? Their delivery trucks? MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope not. I just put up that picture I took on Monday. That's the view from Marquesa. Through Marquesa's preserve, you can't see any houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you went and you stood in front of the one clump of trees and took a picture? MR. YOVANOVICH: Just to show you that -- I didn't. I drove a little further along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Two clumps of trees. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just to get a better idea, because the question was asked of me about the preserve, and I know staff was saying that that was a -- the preserve along Marquesa had thinned out. That's the thinned out preserve. And I'll testify that those are representative and not cherry picked. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mark, if I may. I drove by there and looked at that myself. And I would agree with Rick. This is what it looks like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that substantiation, Rich, I think we'll tend to believe you. So what we're considering then is the stipulations previously read. We're going -- and staff has agreed with the Planning Commission's position and the evidence shown that they are not going to seek a denial on that deviation. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Which means theoretically you would be on summary agenda at this -- or consent agenda at this point, if we're unanimous. And that's where we're going to go next. Who would like to -- Bill, did you want to make the motion? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Sure. In the matter of PUDZ- PL20110000406, Brynwood Center, I move approval. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the motion maker and the second saying they're moving approval subject to the stipulations we just got? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Subject to the stipulations as noted. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Both are acknowledging. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you all very much. Appreciate your cooperation in getting through this asterisk - ridden document. * * *We have no old business scheduled. Page 41 of 43 16 12 A6 August 2 2012 * * *We have no new business. The next time -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have one little question. In watching the commission hearings on the LDC I noticed that some of the hearings had people giving expert opinions. Some, I guess lobbyists or people came before the commission that didn't come before the Planning Commission. Is there any kind of requirement that if somebody is going to provide evidence or testimony to the commission that they've done it to the Planning Commission prior? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I wish there was. No. In fact I think it's a bad habit. I shouldn't say habit, but a bad situation that sometimes occurs. People realize, if they save their ammunition to use it at the BCC where it can be more, let's say, impactful with the final voters than us, they would hold off and drop the bomb there instead of trying to negotiate it here. And unfortunately that has happened and it could happen again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what it does, it means that they're making a point that, where the Planning Conunission didn't know this, so it's kind of an unfair strategy. Is it something that other communities have it where, if you are going to lobby the commission, you have to first lobby the planning commission and their judgment? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. In my experience with Lee County where they have a hearing examiner's process, you have to have standing with the hearing examiner before you can address the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because, if somebody had an important bit of info, which it appeared they thought they had, we should hear it too and use it for our judgment, not just let it go there. Because the point comes as, well, maybe if the planning commission knew that, they would have done something different. MS. DESELEM: Historically -- MR. BELLOWS: The board could refer it, right, or remand it. MS. DESELEM: I've seen other planning commissions and zoning boards where they don't have that requirement. But the board does always have the option to remand a petition if they think it needs further consideration by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's their judgment to say, well, maybe that's something you should have told the Planning Commission, and send it back. MS. DESELEM: Possibly, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, it might help if, in those instances where that is obvious, that staff at least tell the board, by the way, you're hearing information that was not provided to the Planning Commission, so they know that they could make that decision to consider sending it back to us because that information is valuable enough that we should have heard it. That would be helpful. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think so, because I think it would be fair for everybody if everybody heard the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good point. MR. BELLOWS: We can inform -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Talk to Nick about it and -- yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Other staff members involved and see if we can come up with some policy in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be helpful. Anything else from anybody? And the public's gone. So a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Melissa, second by Barry. We're out of here. Page 42 of 43 1612 A6 August 2, 2012 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:03 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK . STRAIN, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on — Z.,- as presented (f or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR, FPR. Page 43 of 43 �p 16 20, 2012 OF THE BY: .......... ......... C1.•, I�!: �• 1►1• �• ►11::•1 • : r�!► 1► : • e : �, ME ZING Fiala Hiller June 20, 2012 Henning Naples, Florida Coyle .� Coletta G- 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: Vice Chair: Excused. ALSO PRESENT: Lee Horn Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Jon Walker Patrick White Robert Meister Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq. — Assistant County Attorney Misc. Cwes: Ian Jackson — Licensing Compliance Officer Date:_�n \a \�z Item #:�l. 7Z 2 W'} Copies to: 16 12 A?o, 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 9:04 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: (None) III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Patrick White moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 16,2012: Changes: • James F. Morey, Esq., Attorney for the Board, noted that during the May 16" meeting, Mr. Lykos stated he would abstain from voting during Case #2012 -07, Robert E. Elwell, d/b /a Service Star Cooling & Heating, LLC, due to a possible conflict of interest. o Mr. Lykos stated he had no direct financial connection with the Respondent's company, but the company has a history with one of his ( Lykos') clients. While the project was completed approximately two years ago, Mr. Lykos' company performs regular maintenance for his client. • Mr. Lykos signed the "Memorandum of Voting Conflict" on May 30. 2012 and circulated it to the Board members. Mr. Morey requested to include Form 8 -B, entitled "Memorandum of Voting Conflict," in the Minutes (at Page 9) and referenced it as County's Exhibit "A." Chairman Horn called for a motion to add Form 8 -B to the Minutes as the County's Exhibit "A." Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve adding Form 8-B to the May 16th Minutes. Second by Kyle Lantz. Motion carried, 6— "Yes "12 — Abstained. Mr. Lykos abstained from voting. Mr. White could not vote because he did not attend the May 16th meeting. 2 r - A 16 i+ Thomas Lykos read the following "Disclosure of Local Officer's Interest" into the record: "A Hearing was held on an Administrative Complaint against Robert E. Elwell, d/b /a Service Star Cooling & Heating, LLC, the "Contractor'). My company had been retained by a consumer who had recent dealings with the Contractor for which we had taken, or would be taking, remedial measures. Since there may be a private gain due to my company's involvement with the Consumer, I abstained from voting in that matter." Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve the Minutes of the May 16, 2012 meeting as amended. Second by Kyle Lantz. Motion carried, 7— "Yes " /1— Abstention. Patrick White could not vote to approve the Minutes because he did not attend the May] 6'h meeting. V. DISCUSSION: Vice Chairman Joslin provided copies of a brochure on the installation of heat pumps for swimming pools and the Contractors who were allowed to do so. Michael Ossorio stated he understood mechanical contractors could install heat pumps while air - conditioning contractors cannot, but he will confirm this information with the State's Contractors' Licensing Board. Vice Chairman Joslin stated he thought the language in the Ordinance was clear, i.e., that only pool contractors may install heat pumps. VI. NEW BUSINESS: (None) VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Kyle Lantz moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Note: In the following case, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Case #2012 -08: Daman Keath Sharp, d/b /a "Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc." Chairman Horn noted Mr. Sharp was not present at the Hearing. 16 12 °• =0A7 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: • Whether the Respondent was guilty of the offense(s) charged in the Administrative Complaint, and a vote will be taken on the matter. • 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 -08, Board of County Commissioners vs. Damon Keath Sharp, d/b /a "Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc., "License # C.C. #23844, into evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. • Chairman Horn entered the information packet into evidence, marked as County's Exhibit `B." Attorney Morey referred to Page 2 of the Administrative Complaint and noted the reference to the Florida's Workers' Compensation Statute 440.10(1)(a) was correct. Compensation Insurance" and not simply "compensation." 4 16 1a -'A7 June 20, 2012 Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve including the clarification, "Workers' Compensation Insurance," in the information packet as admitted. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. In response to Chairman Horn's question concerning proper notification, Mr. Jackson referred to Exhibit E -12, "Notice of Hearing," mailed on May 22, 2012, and to Exhibit E -13, "Certified Mail return receipt," signed by Jeanette Sharp on May 31, 2012, as proof of proper service upon the Respondent, Daman Keath Sharp. He further stated Mr. Sharp obtained a copy of the Evidence Packet on June 13, 2012 at the County's Horseshoe Drive office. Patrick White asked if Mr. Sharp had notified Mr. Jackson that he would not attend the Hearing, or if he had requested a Continuance in the matter. Mr. Jackson replied the Respondent had not contacted him. Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's Opening Statement: The County will show through sworn testimony and documented facts that Daman Sharp, "Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc.," violated Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, as follows: o Section 22- 201(2): "Contracting to do any work outside of the scope of his competency " by contracting for the construction of a paving driveway which is not included within the scope of a of a Registered Residential Swimming Pool Contractor; o Section 22- 201(6): "Disregards or violates, in the performance of his contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance, or Workers' Compensation Laws of the State, " by not providing Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage to his employees, pursuant to Florida Statutes 440.10(1)(a); o Section 22- 201(10): "Failing to promptly correct foully workmanship" in relation to the paving block driveway. Mr. Jackson presented the County's "Case in Chief. " Direct Examination of Complainant, David Clark, by Ian Jackson: Q. Are the payments shown on Exhibit E -15 the payments made to Daman Sharp of Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc.? (Total Amount: $45,000) A. Yes, they are. Q. Is Exhibit E -17 the bid proposal that initiated construction of your paving block driveway? A. It is, yes. (The document is an e -mail from Sharp Pools/Decking to David Clark; and the price for paver block driveway: $49,019.70) 1612 A7 June 20, 2012 Mr. Clark stated he lives in the United Kingdom and all communication between Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc., and himself was via e -mails and phone calls. He stated he did not receive a copy of the signed "contract" nor did he receive a receipt for his tax return. Ian Jackson referred to Exhibit E -34, Florida Statues, Chapter 489.105(6), "Contracting," for the definition of a Contract: "The attempted sale of contracting services and the negotiation or bid for a contract on these services also constitutes contracting. " He continued the bid provided at $49,019.70 constitutes a contract. Patrick White stated the email was an offer and Mr. Clark testified that he accepted the offer and made payment on it, which is the consideration which made it a contract. Chairman Horn noted there was an offer and consideration. Q. Were the photos on Exhibits E -24 and E -25 taken of the construction at your property? A. They were. But they were not taken by myself. Q. Regarding Exhibit E -26, is this an email correspondence between yourself and your Leasing Agent indicating that workers other than Daman Sharp were performing construction on the pool and driveway? A. Yes, that's correct. To elaborate, the Agent went `round to check on the property for me — nothing to do with the work — she found the kitchen had been used, the toilets were rather disgusting to put it mildly. I trusted Daman with the entrance codes and, as it turned out, he had given that to the workers who were actually using and abusing the place. Consequently, she took the pictures of those workers and forwarded it to me in the UK to explain the situation." Chairman Horn asked Mr. Clark how the Respondent represented himself during their conversations — if he stated he could other jobs such as the driveways in addition to the pool and decking. How did he go from being a pool contractor to a driveway contractor? Mr. Clark replied he was not familiar with Collier County's rules and regulations. He stated one of the reasons why the job was delayed so much was because Daman Sharp stated he was studying for his full Building Contractor's [General Contractor] license, and he indicated he was also qualified to do driveway construction. Mr. Clark further stated he would not have agreed to allow Daman Sharp to do the driveway work if he had not been assured that Mr. Sharp was qualified. David Clark: "I, personally, am an engineer and I was told, consequently, of how he would fulfill that work which is, clearly, not the case." He continued, "Most of the conversations were done by phone because, quite frankly, trying to get Daman to write anything was extremely difficult." G7 161 A7 ?Une 20, 2012 Direct Examination by the County was concluded Questions from the Board: Patrick White asked Mr. Clark if he was present when the photographs (E -24 and E -25) were taken. A. Not when these photographs were taken. I subsequently, when I came back, I did see the said workers. Q. Is it your opinion that these photographs, on the date they were taken, accurately reflect the condition of the property at that time? A. Yes, it is. David Clark: "The only thing I would like to state is — you know, I know Ian, as well, has given Daman every opportunity — I don't want to see anybody in the particular work environment, as it is today, lose their ability to work. But I do — obviously, this has caused me a great inconvenience and considerable cost because there are other problems as well — but the simple fact of the matter is that I do feel until things are corrected that he doesn't have the right to do further work." He further stated, "Daman has been given every opportunity to meet and to resolve these issues." Chairman Horn stated Mr. Clark's comments were relevant. Terry Jerulle asked if the work had been resolved. David Clark: "Not only is it not resolved, I am having to resolve issues also with the pool and many other things which I'm doing myself at my own cost, and that's one of the reasons I'm back here is to resolve these issues because they can't be left." Vice Chairman Joslin asked if the work on the pool had been done and completed to Mr. Clark's satisfaction and if it had been C /O'd [received a Certificate of Occupancy]. Mr. Clark stated it was not done and he didn't have time to add it to the complaint. Michael Ossorio cautioned the Board to avoid confusion with another case to be heard at another time. Chairman Horn stated he did not want to get into the second case. He further stated the Board had not been aware of a potential second case on the project. Chairman Horn thanked Mr. Clark for his time and testimony, and he was excused. Gilbert Anuez, Jr., Collier County licensed Paving Block Contractor and qualifying agentfor "Accurate Pavers" was called to the stand Direct Examination of Mr. Anuez by Ian Jackson: Q. How many years' experience do you have in paving block construction? A. Twelve years. 7 16 0, A7 lun ? 2012 Q. And how long have you been licensed and a qualifier for "Accurate Pavers ?" A. Ten years. Ian Jackson asked the Board for a motion to consider Mr. Anuez as an expert witness in paving block construction. Terry Jerulle stated he knows Mr. Anuez and is a subcontractor whom he has hired. He did not think his relationship with Mr. Anuez would have any bearing on the outcome of the case — he would not be swayed by the testimony. He confirmed that Mr. Anuez is an expert at paving block construction. Chairman Horn asked the Board's Counsel if he had an objection to Mr. Jerulle's further participation. Attorney Morey stated he did not because Mr. Anuez was not the Respondent in the case and was appearing as an expert witness, Mr. Jerulle's prior relationship would not have any bearing on the case since Mr. Anuez will be providing extraneous information. Vice Chairman Joslin stated he wanted to question Mr. Anuez before he could accept him as an "expert." [Vice Chairman Joslin is a licensed Pool Contractor.] Q. A pool contractor has been hired to install a pool but has not been hired to do the pool deck. You have been hired by the General Contractor or the homeowner to do the pool deck portion of a contact. Do you pull a Permit to put in the pool deck? A. I do not. Q. Who pours the footers for the pool deck? A. The pool contractor or the General Contractor. I'm not licensed to do footers. Q. Is it your responsibility to go in and compact that pool deck if it's been dug out and a brand new pool has been put it — and the direct has been removed seven feet down? And do you put in a lift or is that the pool contractor also? A. We do. We poke around the pool and we compact. (He explained the compacting process in detail concerning the equipment used, etc.) We do not install the backfilling. It is seven feet. down. We weren't there to do any kind of lifting. You should be doing lifts on a pool every three inches. A pool should be backfilled probed and compacted every three inches to get the proper lift and compaction. Unfortunately, we're not there to do that. When we come in to do a pool deck, we probe around the pool coping with water jetting and we compact what we can of the upper three to four inches. If it's very silt -y sand and you can't get the proper compaction, then we discuss about bringing in a sub -base to harden the surface for what we need to lay our pavers on. Q. Is your compaction test done so you know you don't have compaction? A. On a roadway, you do need the 97% proper density. On a pool deck, there are no guidelines — we do our own field testing as the Subcontractor. 1612neA7,2 Q. After six months of sitting on a pool deck and all of a sudden the paver deck starts to settle, if you had done your job, whose fault would it be? A. Of course — that always goes to the guy who installs the deck. Unfortunately, it's not the paver guy. I am very involved with the ICPI — [The Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, founded in 1993, is the North American trade association that represents the interlocking concrete paving industry] — they developed the standards used for the installation of pavers. It's basically the fault of the pool contractor who did the backfilling and the compacting and the lifts of it. But it's always put on the paver guy — in good faith, I usually go back and fix the problems for the contractor just to maintain standards. Q. So, in your opinion, do you think that there should be an inspection required for a pool deck before the pavers go on — or at least a compaction test? We're not talking about a driveway because driveways aren't generally dug out to be seven foot deep and a pool is. It should be done — a compaction test — I feel. I've been in situations before where that's happened, and naturally the pool contractor has to pay to have the deck removed and a new paver deck put down because the pool contractor didn't wash it in or compact it correctly and the then paver doesn't want to do it either — and it becomes like a "Catch 22." A. Exactly. Q. Are you in agreement with that? A. As it is relative to building a pool, yes. Q. The new codes — as far as the Statutes go — there is a new code that says you have to have a Number 8 ground wire all the way around the pool if it's a paver deck. Who does that? A. The pool contractor. I don't do any bonding. It's not in my scope of licensing. I guess that would be in the structure of forming the pool. We don't connect any handrails — we don't do any of that. Q. No, I understand that. A. That has nothing to do with the paver installer. Patrick White directed a question to Ian Jackson: Q. Is it the intention for the gentleman to only speak to the driveway portion of the compaction? And other issues regarding the paver blocks that were installed and not anything around the pool? Which things is he going to talk about? A. The intent of the County with Mr. Anuez is for him to comment/explain his inspection and assessment of the construction of the driveway. Q. And not the pool area? A. No. 1612 'A7 June 20, 2012 Vice Chairman Joslin stated it was the same principle and applied to the pool deck as well. Q. Does a driveway, that's permitted, have to have a compaction test done on it also? A. Not in Collier County. Vice Chairman Joslin: "Not in Collier County. That was my point." He continued questioning Mr. Anuez: Q. So there is no way for you to know, 100 %, if that driveway was compacted or not? Unless you do it yourself or get a compaction test done? A. Correct. Chairman Horn: Q. Your licenses with Collier County and the State — what are they in currently? A. Paver Block. Chairman Horn called for a motion. Patrick White moved to accept Mr. Anuez as an expert in the area of paver block installation and contracting. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Direct Examination of Mr. Anuez by Ian Jackson (Continued): Q. On October 31, 2011, did you perform an inspection and assessment of the driveway constructed at Mr. Clark's property with myself and Mr. Clark? A. Yes, I did. Q. Could you describe the generally accepted Standard in Collier County regarding the construction of the paver block driveway — specifically, in relation to the Standard of base rock? A. The Standard is — you to go and get a Right -of -Way Permit to do work in the right - of -way — it provides six inches of base — compacted base rock. There's not regulated, compacted test or inspection done here. But the Industry Standard is four inches of compacted base rock for the driveway after the right -of -way. Q. Four inches is the Industry's Standard. And the County's Right -of -Way requirement is six inches? A. Correct. Q. If we could look at Exhibit E -30. Mr. Anuez, could you go over your assessment shown here on E -30 regarding the driveway construction of Mr. Clark's for the Board? A. As we spoke earlier, I was invited to Mr. Clark's address at 258 Kendari Drive 10 16 1 � A7 June 20, 2012 and as we went walking over the driveway, I lifted up several — three areas in different sections of the driveway — and dug down and there was approximately an inch of bedding sand that was just for the pavers to be level and we did not find any base rock or sub -base —just natural soil. Q. The four -inch Industry Standard of base rock did not exist on Mr. Clark's driveway? A. Correct. Vice Chairman Joslin: Q. So, in your opinion, this was done improperly according to Standards? A. Correct. Patrick White: Q. What would be the proper way to fix this? A. To remove all the pavers, stack them, come back and excavate eight inches of soil — dirt — remove it — re- install four inches of compacted base, compact it, install your bedding sand, your pavers, and your concrete for extra strength, and then finish up with a final compaction. Q. Is that process essentially what you provided as an estimate on Page E -32? A. It is. Chairman Horn: Q. That applied to the entire driveway? There were no sections that were exceptions that were done properly and didn't need to be re -done? A. Not that I could find. Vice Chairman Joslin: Q. How many areas did you check? A. I would say between three and five. I'd say three as a low number and I checked in various locations. I think there were more, but we'll just go with three. Chairman Horn: Q. Have you already finished this job for the homeowner? A. Absolutely. Q. Once you re -did it and things shifted as you went down a little deeper, was there any need to purchase new materials or to add to it — to this estimate — or did everything work out? A. By new materials, do you mean the proper base rock? Q. Yes. But I was thinking of the pavers. A. We were going to purchase more brick pavers because as you lift them you lose — so you would try to match the brick pavers. 11 16ijun.� A 7 � 20 2012 Q. So you don't foresee any future additional costs, then, on top of this? A. No. Direct Examination by the County was concluded. Ian Jackson requested the Board to review Exhibit E -33. i.e., a "Notice of Order to Correct" which was issued to Mr. Sharp and was signed for by Jeanette Sharp at the Horseshoe Office on January 24, 2012, explaining the steps that would be required to have the faulty work promptly corrected per the Code. He noted the steps have not been taken and the Respondent has had from January 24th to June 20th to correct the condition. Chairman Horn noted Jeanette Sharp was the same person who signed for the information packet. Patrick White asked if the nature of relationship between the Respondent and Jeanette Sharp was known. Ian Jackson stated Mr. Sharp indicated his wife would pick up the Notice from the County's Horseshoe office. Michael Ossorio stated he was present when Jeanette Sharp came in and signed for the copy of the Notice. She stated she was Daman Sharp's wife. Vice ChairmanJoslin directed his question to Ian Jackson: Q. On Pages E -7 and E -8, there is a timeline that you had written as part of the investigation. Does that accurately express the amount of times that you contacted Mr. Sharp? A. The notations on E -7 and E -8, I will testify that they do not accurately depict the correspondence that I had — there's far more correspondence than what is indicated here. Q. Is it the minimum amount of time, then? A. At a very minimum. Patrick White: Q. But what's there is accurate? A. What is there is accurate. The language in those documents is accurate. Ian Jackson: "I would also like to point out between the issuance of the "Notice of Order to Correct" on January 24, 2012 and approximately April 9th, I had extensive correspondence via telephone with Mr. Sharp explaining the process that would be required and arranging for a new Contractor to come in and provide the County with documentation on how to correct the driveway, coordinating with Mr. Clark the homeowner — possibly twice a week — I would touch base with Mr. Sharp and try to make sure that he knew what he was required to do." Jon Walker asked if Mr. Sharp was cooperative and if he wanted to resolve the issue. Ian Jackson confirmed the Respondent showed an interest in correcting the driveway. Since he was not licensed to do the work, the County was not in a 12 1612A7 June 20, 2012 position to allow him to correct it. That's why an arrangement was made with a licensed Contractor. One option mentioned was for Mr. Sharp to work as an employee of a licensed General Contractor or Paving Contractor who would do the work on the driveway. The responsibility for the reconstruction would fall upon the General Contractor. Michael Ossorio explained the General Contractor or Paving Block Contractor who have a signed contract at no cost to Mr. Clark. He stated Mr. Sharp was very aware and that he communicated with him several times. He further stated Damon Sharp wanted to do the work but did not have any money. Ian Jackson confirmed the telephone conversation during which Mr. Sharp admitted he was not in a financial position to correct the faulty workmanship took place on April 9th Vice Chairman Joslin: Q. In the contracted amount for the driveway — was that am unt of money paid in full to Mr. Sharp? ,� A. Exhibit E -15 shows the payments made by Mr. Clark o Mr. Sharp. David Clark was recalled to the stand. Vice Chairman Joslin: Q. Mr. Clark, all the monies that have been paid by you paid for all the work that was done on your property under contract — including the pool, the driveway — everything was included in the monies that you have paid so far? A. Correct. Thomas Lykos asked Mr. Jackson to review the three Counts contained in the Administrative Complaint and to provide all the evidence and/or documentation with regard to each Count individually. Ian Jackson: Count 1: "Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his competency as listed on his competency card and as defined by this Article or as restricted by the Contractors ' Licensing Board. " o Evidence: Exhibit E -17 — the emailed bid/proposal for the construction of the driveway; Exhibit E -34 — Florida Statues, Chapter 489.105(6), "Contracting:" "The attempted sale of contracting services and the negotiation or bid for a contract on these services also constitutes contracting. " Thomas Lykos asked if the Respondent's license was as a "Registered Residential Swimming Pool Contractor" and, based on the documents provided in Exhibit E -19, 13 1612 A7 June 20, 2012 the construction of a paver block driveway was not included in the Scope of Work allowed for a Residential Swimming Pool Contractor (Ordinance 06 -46, Section 1.6.2.8). Ian Jackson: "Correct." Michael Ossorio referenced Exhibit E -10, "Certificate Detail Report," which is Mr. Sharp's actual License, his "d/b /a," and his Competency Card (Certificate of Competency) stating he is a Registered Residential Swimming Pool Contractor. Patrick White asked if the purpose of Exhibit E -20 was to indicate the Scope of Work that was performed, relative to the paving blocks in the driveway, and that the proper type of Contractor to perform this type of work would have been a Paving Block Contractor (under Section 1.6.3.29). Ian Jackson: "Correct." Count 2: "Disregards or violates, in the performance of his contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance or Workers' Compensation Laws of the State or Ordinances of this County. " [Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, Section 22- 20](6)] o Evidence: ■ Exhibits E -24 and E -25 — photographs of the workers Ian Jackson stated Mr. Sharp was unable to provide payroll records showing that there was coverage for the employees and he subsequently acknowledged the fact that he was not providing coverage to them. Patrick White noted Exhibit E -10 indicated a Workers Compensation Insurance exemption was claimed for Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc. He asked if the only person who could be considered "exempt" was Mr. Sharp. Ian Jackson: "Correct." Patrick White stated the photographs showed other employees of the Corporation. Exhibit E -27 is a document from the State's Department of Financial Services and it showed, as of June 11, 2012, there was no history of coverage. Ian Jackson: "No coverage history — correct." Mr. White noted Exhibit E -10, a County document, did not contain any information concerning the expiration date of any insurance coverage. He stated his comment about not filing an Annual Report was to indicate that the Corporation would probably be administratively dissolved by the Department of State's Division of Corporations. He further stated there was only one director or officer who could fall under the Statutory exemptions allowed was Mr. Sharp as the only employee and only officer. Kyle Lantz: Q. On the Division of Finance page, if his employees were leased, would his company be listed or would the leasing company be listed? A. The leasing company and the insurance company who provided coverage to the leasing company would be listed there. But there are circumstances where that will not show up on the State's website." 14 16 12- A7 June 20, 2012 Mr. Jackson stated it was his understand that a leasing company is not required to provide the information to the State for inclusion on the website. Kyle Lantz: Q. Did he ever mention that he hired subcontractors? Could those employees be the employees of a subcontractor? A. In the meeting at Horseshoe Drive with Mr. Sharp, Michael Ossorio and myself, we touched on subcontractors and Mr. Sharp indicated they were not subcontractors — they did not work for a subcontractor — he initially said that they were "day laborers." We asked Mr. Sharp to provide documentation or certificates from the day labor organization but he was unable to provide those. Ultimately, he acknowledged he did not have coverage for those employees. Q. In your experience, are day labor companies pretty good about keeping records? A. The day labor organizations keep their own records and also provide Contractors with individual certificates for their day -labor workers. There is a record. Patrick White: Q. Is your testimony that you requested those [records] and were told that none existed because those were his employees? A. Mr. Sharp was unable to provide the County any documentation to show that there was either daily coverage or coverage through a leasing company or a blanket -type of insurance policy covering those employees. Mr. Sharp, in acknowledging not having the coverage, took responsibility for them as his employees. Chairman Horn: Q. Did he tell you how he compensated them — cash or check? A. No. Ian Jackson continued: Count 3: "Failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction contract. Faulty workmanship means work that is not commenced, not continued, or not completed in accordance with all specifications of the applicable written agreement. Faulty workmanship includes any material flaw(s) in the quality and/or quantity of the unfinished work product, including any item that does not function properly as part of the entire project. If there is no written agreement provision regarding the specific faulty workmanship issue, faulty workmanship exists if the work, process, product or part thereof does not meet generally accepted standards in Collier County in relation to the entire project. Faulty workmanship does not include matters of aesthetics unless the aesthetically related item clearly violates a written contract specification directly related thereto. " [Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, Section 22- 20](10)] o Evidence: 15 1612 A7 June 20, 2012 ■ Sworn testimony from Mr. Gil Anuez, an expert witness, that the construction of the driveway did not meet the generally accepted Standards for that type of construction in Collier County Patrick White stated he did not remember Mr. Anuez making a specific summary statement. He suggested Mr. Anuez could clarify his expert opinion. Gilbert Anuez was recalled to the stand. Patrick White: Q. Mr. Anuez, is it your expert opinion as a paving contractor that the work you inspected on the subject site does not meet the generally accepted Standards in Collier County for that type of work? A. Correct. Vice Chairman Joslin: Q. When you arrived at the home to do the inspection, was the work totally, 100% completed? A. It was completed. Yes. Q. When you arrived there, what defects or flaws did you see on your own? Or were you advised to remove the pavers and check the substrate? A. There were depressions in the driveway. Q. It had already begun to sink? A. Yes. Chairman Horn stated Mr. Jackson had thoroughly shown evidence on all three Counts. Michael Ossorio noted, as stated in Exhibit E -33, the Code is very specific about "failing." He stated it was not enough to perform faulty work — it was also failing to correct it. He further stated Mr. Sharp was given Notice that he needed to correct. He failed to correct and that was the basis for the Hearing. Vice Chairman Joslin: Q. Mr. Clark, what was the reason to begin with — in the very beginning — of why the driveway pavers — the original pavers — were taken up, redone, and then put back down? A. Where the garage was installed — basically, there was an original drive for the garage — this was an extension of that area to the edge of the where the pool screen and pool deck were. Q. This was a brand new add -on to an existing installation? A. Yes. Terry Jerulle: 16 161 une2 2 A7 0, 01 2 Q. Just to verify, Mr. Clark, you testified that you did hire Daman Sharp, Sharp Pools & Decking, Inc., to do the driveway? A. Initially, to do the pool. Then he offered to do the driveway. Q. You hired him to do the new pavers in the driveway? A. Correct. Q. And you paid him to do the pavers in the driveway? A. I most definitely did. Ian Jackson stated his Closing Statement was to be offered in support the three Counts which was done. Ian Jackson concluded the County's presentation and its case. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to close the Public Hearing. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Discussion: Patrick White questioned what the Respondent may have done in his own defense. He asked if anyone in the County had been asked to provide a defense packet on behalf of the Respondent. Ian Jackson spoke with Mr. Sharp on Tuesday, June 12th, and advised him that the packet to be distributed to the Board would be ready for distribution on June 13`h. He stated Mr. Sharp was advised that if he had a defense packet, he was to bring it with him to the County's office at Horseshoe Drive the next day when he picked up his copy of the County's packet. Mr. Jackson further stated Mr. Sharp was aware of the fact that he had the option to provide a defense packet. Mr. White asked if anything had been provided. Mr. Jackson responded that none had been provided. Chairman Horn called for a motion. Thomas f ykoc moved to approve finding the Respondent guilty on all three Counts. Second by Jon TValker. Attorney Morey reminded the Board that he had not read the Charge to the Board and outline the Charge as follows: • The Board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent • Pursuant to Section 22- 203(g) (5) of the Codified Ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence set out in Florida Statutes do not apply. • The Board shall consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its deliberation of this matter. 17 161a A7 e 20 2012 • The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. • The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a Court of Law or Equity. • Hearsay evidence may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence but hearsay, in and of itself, is not be sufficient to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The Standard of Proof in actions where a Respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession is that the evidence presented by the Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. • The Burden of Proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the "Preponderance of Evidence" Standard set in ordinary Civil cases. • The Standard of Evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the Complaint. • The only charges the Board may decide upon are the ones to which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense. • The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges. • The decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and is effective upon being read, unless the Board orders otherwise. • The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors' Licensing Board, the Courts, and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, pursuant to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. • The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint. • The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the charges set out in the Complaint. Chairman Horn noted a Motion was on the floor and he called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously, 8 — 0. The Respondent was found guilty. Chairman Horn asked Mr. Morey to present possible Sanctions. Attorney Morey stated if, after a Hearing has been conducted, the Contractors' Licensing Board finds there has been misconduct by the Contractor within the meaning of Section 22 -201, the Board may, but shall not be required to, impose any of the following Disciplinary Sanctions individually, or in combination: (1) Revocation of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (2) Suspension of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (4) Imposition of a period of probation of reasonable length, not to exceed two years, during which the Contractor's contracting activities shall be 18 A /I 1612 June 20, 2012 under the supervision of the Contractor's Licensing Board, and/or participation in a duly- accredited program of continuing education directly related to the Contractor's contracting activity. Any period of probation or continuing education program ordered by the Contractors' Licensing Board may be revoked for cause by said Board at a Hearing noticed to consider said purpose. The Board may order: (5) Restitution; (6) a Fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000); (7) A public reprimand; (8) Re- examination requirement; (9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County (or City) Building permits or requiring the issuance of such permits with specific conditions; (10) Reasonable investigative and legal costs for the prosecution of the violation. Attorney Morey further advised the Board that, when imposing any of the possible Disciplinary Sanctions on a Contractor holding a Certificate of Competency or a State - certified Contractor who has been found to have violated the Ordinance, the Contractors' Licensing Board shall consider the following: (1) All of the evidence presented at the Hearing; (2) The gravity of the violation; (3) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare; (4) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s); (5) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and (6) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as to the Sanction which is appropriate for the case given the nature of the violation(s) or the violator. Chairman Horn posed the following questions to the County: 1. Did the gentleman have any prior complaints? 2. Were there any outstanding Permits? 3. What sanctions does the County recommend? Michael Ossorio stated: • The County did not have an on -going investigation of Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc., • There were no pending cases concerning Mr. Sharp; • There were no previous cases or violations concerning Mr. Sharp other than some issues with expired Building Permits (not closed out properly); • There are no active Building Permits that he is working on but there may be some expired Building Permits that have not yet been found. Mr. Ossorio stated the County incurred investigative costs of $1,024.00 (Ian Jackson's time = 32 hours x $32.00). IR 1612 A7 June 20, 2012 County's Recommendations: • Count I — Working Outside the Scope: o Imposition of a Fine of $1,500 to be paid within thirty (30) days; o A recommendation to the State of Florida to conduct a full investigation; o Probation for a period of two years; and o Payment of investigation costs: $341.33 • Count 2- • Imposition of a Fine of $1,500 to be paid within thirty (30) days; • Re -take and pass the Business Procedures Test within six (6) months; • Payment of investigation costs: $341.33; • A recommendation to the State of Florida to conduct a full investigation; and o Probation for a period of two years. Count 3: • An Order of Restitution requiring paying to the homeowner in the amount of $4,202 within thirty (30) days; o Payment of investigative costs: $341.33; • A recommendation to the State of Florida to conduct a full investigation; and • Probation for a period of two years. Jon Walker asked if the figure of restitution was based on the estimate for repairs by "Accurate Pavers" and Mr. Ossorio responded, "Yes." Mr. Ossorio further recommended revocation of the Respondent's license: • If payment is not made, on all three Counts, within thirty (30) days, and • If the Respondent has not taken and passed the Business Procedures Test within six months (in Count 2). Michael Ossorio will write to the State requesting a full investigation and revocation of the Respondent's license, if necessary, as well as the imposition of probation. Thomas Lykos agreed with the County's recommendation except for Count 2. He stated the amount of the fine was not sufficient — it was not a significant enough deterrent. He stated the Contractor had placed the workers and the homeowner at great risk by not providing Workers' Compensation Insurance Coverage. Mr. Ossorio responded the recommendation and the amounts were the same as were handed down to a painting contractor during a previous Board Hearing — the only difference was that the painting contractor was permitted six weeks for repayment. (See: April 18, 2012 Minutes - Case #2012 -06: Walter Paesano, d/b /a Paesano's Painting, LLQ Mr. Lykos stated he did not agree with that decision, either. 20 16 12 A7 June 20, 2012 Chairman Horn stated the total amount of money was over $8,000 which he did not think the Respondent would be able to pay. He stated an additional fine, even though it may be warranted, would probably be useless. When asked about other options available to Mr. Clark, Michael Ossorio stated he could pursue the matter in Civil court using the Findings of Fact of the Hearing as a basis for bringing suit, but it was the intention of the Contractors' Licensing Office for the Respondent to adhere to whatever decision the Board made. Vice Chairman Joslin noted the Respondent did not file an Annual Report for his Corporation and did not attend the Hearing which he thought indicated the Respondent would probably not cooperate with any decision of the Board. He further stated if the Respondent cared about his business and reputation, he would have attended the Hearing to "face the music." He stated he did not think it would matter whether or not the Board revoked the Respondent's license at the Hearing or in the future. Mr. Ossorio outlined the process: • In 30 days, the Board's Chairman will sign an Order to pay which will be attached to the Finding of Fact; • There will be a consultation with either the Board's attorney or the County Attorney's Office to determine the best avenue to take. He explained the State of Florida will impose a find for full restitution with penalties including revocation of the Certificate in the State of Florida. The revocation usually contains a caveat that the Respondent cannot obtain a license again until such time as full restitution has been made. He stated it may take up to two years to make full restitution, but typically it is made and cited a recent case that had been before the Board to restore a license. Mr. Lykos stated the Board should not decide to impose a fine based upon the Respondent's ability to pay it. He continued if the Board was to make a "statement" concerning the penalty for operating in Collier County without having Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage, the ability to pay a fine should not be relevant. Patrick White stated while he understood Mr. Lykos' argument, he also considered the other factors that the Board was required to weigh — i.e., the gravity of the violation and/or the risk involved as well as the impact of the Respondent's action. He noted no testimony concerning any type of injury was presented. He continued nothing else was presented to indicate imposing a more severe penalty than has been imposed in the past for a similar violation. Vice Chairman Joslin noted the most important responsibility of the Board is to ensure that Mr. Clark is made "whole" again by completing the repairs to his driveway in the proper manner. Kyle Lantz stated the purpose of the fines is to deter the Respondent from repeating this behavior and to prevent another Contractor from committing the same violation to another homeowner. The Board has the ability to make determinations on a case -by- case basis. There is no set formula for determining fines. Mr. Lykos stated the fine should be at least $2,500. He stated a Contractor who makes a conscious decision to not obtain Workers' Compensation Insurance weighs 21 1612 A7 June 20, 2012 the cost to obtain the insurance coverage versus the risk of being caught and having to pay a fine. He continued the Contractor made a business decision. If, for example, the insurance coverage costs $30,000 to obtain and the Board hands out fines of $1,500 for operating without having the insurance — it is a "no brainer" decision to make, regardless of whether or not it is an ethical business decision. If the fines are severe, a Contractor will think twice before placing his employees and the homeowner at risk. Vice Chairman Joslin concurred, stating there was no reason to take such a chance — the cost to obtain Workers' Compensation insurance coverage is approximately 16% of the dollar value of the Contractor's payroll. He further noted if the Respondent pays the amount of $4,202 within thirty days, he will not lose his license, especially if he is able to obtain an extension to pay the remaining fines. He will be able to operate because Mr. Clark has been made whole. Michael Ossorio explained as long as Mr. Sharp makes restitution to the homeowner of the $4,202 within thirty days, he could petition the Board for relief concerning payment of the other fines. David Clark: "The point I would like to make — on a Saturday morning, these workers came back with their families — I was woken up at 8:00 in the morning — and basically found their children running around a pool with no water in it. So what Mr. Lykos was saying about "injury" obviously was of great concern. Having said that, Mr. Sharp's personal circumstances — having spoken with the screening company who came back to do some repairs of their own — apparently, he has not worked on a pool since so I gather that his business finances, presumably, are not great." He asked if there was another way besides fining and inquired if the Board could order the Respondent to perform community service of some type. He further stated he knew he was not "going to see" the $4,202. Vice Chairman Joslin asked Mr. Clark if he had received any paperwork from other contractors or subcontractors about liens being placed against his property. Mr. Clark stated the screening company assured him verbally that there would be no lien against the property because they had been paid. He further stated as far as he could determine, the cost for materials had been paid. There was fiurther discussion about prioritizing payment to the homeowner and for the County to extend the deadline for payment of its costs from thirty days to six months. It was noted the Board had the discretion to make such changes. Mr. Ossorio confirmed the County would not object to such an extension of time for repayment. Discussion continued concerning the points to be considered: • The gravity of the violation; • The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare; • Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s); and • Any previous violations committed by the violator. 22 1612 A7 June 20, 2012 Thomas Lykos conceded that the issue of liability insurance was no longer "on the table." He stated the evidence presented concerning the abuse of the property, the fact that the employees were not monitored, and that their families were on site were indicative of the Respondent's apathy toward professionalism and the careless method in which he operated his job sites. He continued the information supported his position that the fine for not securing Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage should be much higher as a deterrent. Mr. White stated while he supported Mr. Lykos' position, he stated the Board's goal should be to provide some restitution to the homeowner. He suggested extending the time frames for Counts 1 and 2, and for payment of the investigative costs. Mr. Lykos agreed with higher fines and an extended time period for re- payment in deference to first making restitution to the homeowner. Kyle Lantz asked why a fine was not imposed for County 3. Terry Jerulle pointed out the Board had the ability to modify the County's recommendations. Discussion continued. Jon Walker suggested raising the amount of restitution by $500 to compensate the Homeowner for the additional cleanup that he was forced to do. Attorney Morey reminded the Board that no testimony had been presented concerning additional costs incurred by the homeowner. Vice Chairman Joslin stated the homeowner, by giving his codes to the Contractor, allowed for such abuse to his property to take place and became liable. Mr. Walker stated the Board should prioritize restitution to the homeowner as the first payment to be made by the Respondent. Kyle Lantz moved to approve order the Respondent to: • Make restitution of $4,202 with in thirty days and if not made within that timeframe, the Respondent's license will be automatically revoked; • Pay a fine of $4,000 within 90 days and if the fine is not paid within the time frame, the Respondent's license will be automatically revoked, • Pay costs of $1,024 within 60 days and if the fine is not paid within the time frame, the Respondent's license will be automatically revoked; • Take and pass the Business Procedures Test within 90 days, if the test is not taken within the time frame, the Respondent's license will be automatically revoked Mr. Lantz continued his Motion: The Board will send a recommendation to the State for the maximum punishment deemed appropriate. Patrick White suggested amending the motion to include each Count separately. The option of adding a two -year probationary period was also suggested. Attorney Morey stated the County did recommend a two -year probationary period. Kyle Lantz amended his Motion to add approving a two-year probationary period. 23 1612. p7 June 20, 2012 Michael Ossorio began to summary by Count but was corrected by Mr. Lantz who stated the total amount of fines in his Motion was $4,000 which divided by three was $1,333.33 per Count. Mr. Lantz further stated the reimbursement to the homeowner was $4,202, and the total cost to the County was $1,024. The fines of $4,000 are to be paid within 90 days and the restitution was to be paid within 30 days. Kyle Lantz clarified his Motion as follows: • At 30 days, the restitution is to be paid; if not paid by the deadline, the Respondent's license will be revoked; • At 60 days, the County's investigative costs are to be paid; if not paid by the deadline, the Respondent's license will be revoked, • At 90 days, the fines of $4,000 are to be paid; if not paid by the deadline, the Respondent's license will be revoked • At 90 days, the Respondent is to have taken and passed the Business Procedures Test or his license will be revoked; • A probationary period of two years, and • A recommendation to the State to conduct a full investigation and impose whatever penalties are determined to be appropriate. Mr. White confirmed that even if the Respondent met the other terms by the deadlines, he will still be under probation for two years. Patrick White offered a second in support of the Motion, as restated and clarified. David Clark stated with respect to the issue of restitution, if Mr. Sharp entered into an agreement which stipulated he could only afford to pay "X" amount of money for a year or two years, he would not object. Chairman Horn stated the goal was for the Respondent to make restitution. He further stated Mr. Sharp could present such an agreement to the Board and the terms of the Order could be amended to reflect the agreement. Mr. Clark clarified when he gave Mr. Sharp the access codes to his property, it was only for Daman Sharp's use to store is equipment in the garage — the codes were absolutely not to be given to anyone. Mr. Clark continued he was not aware that Mr. Sharp's workers had access to his home. Chairman Horn restated the terms of Mr. Lantz's motion and then called for a vote. Motion carried, 7 — "Yes " /1— "No. " Michael Boyd was opposed. Mr. Boyd asked if the Respondent was still able to pull Permits. Attorney Morey clarified that the Respondent's probation began immediately and his actions will be supervised by the Contractors' Licensing Office. Mr. Ossorio explained the Building Department would "red flag" any permit application submitted by the Respondent and would notify him. He stated he would also inform the homeowner of the status of the Respondent's license. 24 1612. A7 June 20, 2012 Chairman Horn stated: • This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board on June 20, 2012 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint in Case #2012 -08 filed against Daman Keath Sharp, d/b /a "Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc.," the holder of record of Collier County Certificate #23844. • Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended. • The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, therefore issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findin ,as of Fact: • Daman Keath Sharp, d/b /a "Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc.," is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate #23844. • The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter. • The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent. • Respondent, Daman Keath Sharp, was not present at the Public Hearing held on June 20, 2012, and was not represented by Counsel at the Hearing. • The Respondent had been properly noticed concerning the Hearing. • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, had been properly issued and were personally delivered. • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinance and is the one who committed the act. • The allegations of fact as set forth in Administrative Complaint are as follows: • Count 1, under Section 22- 201(2): "Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his competency as listed on his competency card and as defined by this Article or as restricted by the Contractors' Licensing Board; " • Count 2, under Section 22- 201(6): "Disregards or violates, in the performance of his contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance, or Workers' Compensation Laws of the State or Ordinances of this County; " • Count 3, under Section 22- 201(10): "Failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction contract, " have been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing Conclusions of Law: The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count 1, Count 2, and Count 3 have been approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: "The Respondent violated Sections 22- 201(2), 22- 201(6), and 22- 201(10) of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of 25 1612A7 June 20, 2012 his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Sections set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity. Order of the Board. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of eight (8) in favor and none (0) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of 7 in favor, 1 in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanctions and related Order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency #23844, to wit: • Restitution in the amount of $4,202 to be paid within thirty (30) days, per Count 3; • Imposition of a fine of $4,000 to be paid within ninety (90) days, per Counts 1, 2, and 3; • Investigative costs in the amount of $1,024 to be paid within sixty (60) days; • The Business Procedures Test is to be taken and passed within ninety (90) days • His Certificate of Competency will be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years; • A recommendation will be made to the State to conduct a full investigation; • If any of the conditions are not met or if the fines are not paid in a timely manner as outlined above, the Respondent's Certificate will be immediately revoked. Chairman Horn noted the case was closed. IX. REPORTS: (None) X. MEMBER COMMENTS: • Vice Chairman Joslin suggested the County should consider instituting an inspection program for pool decks to avoid the type of problems presented during the Hearing. • Patrick White noted the Building Department holds an open meeting on the 2nd Thursday of each month commending at 10:00 AM at the Growth Management Offices on North Horseshoe Drive. • Michael Ossorio will send an email to the members detailing the exact time, date, and location for the meeting as well as the meeting for the Fire Code Office. • It was further noted the Consumer must do his/her homework by only hiring licensed Contractors — information is available online or call the County. 26 1612 A7 June 20, 2012 XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, 3rd Floor — Administrative Building "F," Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 11:10 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Lee Horn, Chairman The Minutes were approved b the Board /C airman on ! 2012 pp Y `K > "as submitted" U OR "as amended" K 27 16 ' MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITT ( PE aromilD Naples, Florida, July 11, 2012 BY: LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier Growth Management Division Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: David Dunnavant Laura Spurgeon DeJohn James E. Boughton Clay Brooker Chris Mitchell Fiala , Robert Mulhere Hiller .f Mario Valle Henning '( H' Coyle (Vacancy) Colette 1-C.- Excused: Dalas Disney Blair Foley George H. Hermanson Ron Waldrop Absent: Marco Espinar Ray Allain - Resigned ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Staff Liaison Ken Kovensky, Operations Manager, GMD, P&R Reed Jarvi, Manager, Transportation Planning Nathan Beals, Project Manager, Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner, LDC Coordinator Chris Scott, Principal Planner misc. Corres: Date: o V41 t2.. Item#: 11.0=1-‘SS pies to 1 16 2 A8 ..4 • I d ,► July 11, 2012 I. Call to Order- Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:05pm II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Mulhere moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 8- 0. III. Approval of Minutes from June 6,2012 Meeting Mr. Mulhere moved to approve the minutes of the June 6, 2012 meeting as presented. Second by Mr.Dunnavant. Carried unanimously 8- 0. IV. DSAC Positions—Vacancy & Vote Chairman Varian reported Judy Puig has been named Collier County Employee of the Month. Chairman Varian noted: • There are now two vacancies on the Development Service Advisory Committee as Ray Allain has resigned. • The public notice seeking individuals to "fill" Mr. Allain's seat has not been issued. • Two applications to fill the existing vacancy have been filed by Stanley P. Chrzanowski and Gary McNally. Mr. Mulhere moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners appoint Stanley P. Chrzanowski to the Development Services Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Dunnavant. Carried unanimously 8—0. V. Public Speakers None VI. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Public Utilities Division Update— [Nathan Beals] Nathan Beals reported the Division has engaged a consultant to aid in addressing the requirements for the "sizing" water meters and other issues raised by the Committee at the June 6, 2012 meeting. He intends to provide a report to the Committee at the next meeting. B. Fire Review Update— [Ed Riley] Ed Riley,Fire Code Official submitted the following documents for information purposes: • Office of the Fire Code Official—Summary of Plan Review Activity—May— 12 • Fire Plan Review— Time Frame Summary—May 12 C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Engineering— [Jay Ahmad] Reed Jarvi, Manager, Transportation Planning presented the update noting: • The improvements to Oil Well Road's western segment are completed, with the eastern segment expected to be completed soon. • The County is undertaking intersection studies over the next year for the following areas: 2 1612 A 8 July 11, 2012 • Right turn lanes, southbound on Airport Pulling at Davis Blvd. • Pine Ridge Road, westerly of US 41. • Immokalee Road in the area of Corkscrew Swamp. • Whippoorwill Lane Extension south to Livingston Road. • Valewood Drive connection to Autumn Oaks. In addition, Staff is still in the process of studying the proposed I75 Interchange and continues to develop the Master Mobility Plan. Discussion occurred on FDOT's policy (effective July 1, 2012) where the "vendor" is required to indemnify the State for certain improvements placed in the right-of-way with an annual inspection required. Mr. Reed reported the County is aware of the issues created by the policy and Staff is in the process of investigating the ramifications to the County. D. Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Update— [Jamie French] Ken Kovensky, Operations Manager, GMD, P&R submitted the "June 2012 Monthly Statistics" and provided an overview of the statistics. He reported Staff is aware "FEMA inquiries"have placed a burden on the Division(there are currently 3 persons funded through the General Fund, however the demand has required 2 additional employees funded by the Division) and are researching avenues to address the issue. VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business The Committee determined to hear item V111 13 first. B. Transportation Corridor Preservation Ordinance [Reed Jarvi] Reed Jarvi, Manager, Transportation Planning submitted a draft of the"Collier County Transportation Corridor Preservation Plan Ordinance" for consideration. During Committee discussion,the following concerns were raised: • The Ordinance requirements may open up the County to "Bert Harris" claims or be deemed a"partial taking" in certain cases. • Section Five A: May require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and as currently worded, may create an unintended"conflict of interest" (i.e. the density transfer requires approval by the BCC who would also oversee any eminent domain considerations for the same lands affected). • Section Six B: The uses allowed as"interim uses" are to restrictive for lands located within the"Transportation Corridor" and should be restricted to lands within the "Protected Corridor. " Mr. Jarvi reported he would review the concerns with Staff and return the Proposed Ordinance for consideration at a later date. 3 1612 A8 July 11, 2012 A. LDC Amendment updates [Caroline Click] The Proposed Amendments in the current Cycle are scheduled for consideration by the BCC on July 24, 2012 at 1:00pm and July 25, 2012 at 9:00am. Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner presented the following Land Development Code Amendment for consideration. LDC SECTION(S): 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts; 4.02.33 Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee-Mobile Home Park Overlay Subdistrict; 10.02.05 Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans CHANGE: This amendment seeks to make revisions to the Immokalee Mobile Home Park Overlay Subdistrict by making the following changes: • Removes the time limit for when a nonconforming mobile home park must get a site improvement plan(SIP). • Makes the SIP process voluntary. • Parks that get an approved SIP will become legal parks and be allowed to replace units. • Parks that do not go through the SIP process will remain nonconforming and be subject to the nonconforming provisions of 9.03.00. These parks are not guaranteed that they can replace units. • Provides a 3-year extension for parks that received an approved SIP, but expired prior to improvements being made, to make the approved improvements. • Clarifies who is responsible for the removal of unpermitted/unsafe mobile homes, consistent with 723.024 F.S. • Limits the required improvements for parks with fewer than 5 units to only meeting the dimensional standards. • Allows for nonconforming parks that cannot meet design standards to be approved through a Settlement Agreement approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Additionally, the amendment moves all design requirements to Section 4.02.33 and references that submittal requirements will be provided for in the Administrative Code. The submittal requirements will be removed from the LDC as part of the Administrative Code. text amendment. Chris Scott, Principal Planner provided an overview of the proposed Amendment noting it has been revised since its distribution to the Committee. The revisions were based on a review by the County Attorney's Office with the "major" changes cited below: • Section 2.03.07.b.ii—Cite sections of Ordinance(s) as necessary. • Section 2.03.07.c—deletion of this Section. • Section 4.02.33.A—Dimensional standards table - removes line 1 "Design Standard" and last line to read"Minimum floor area." Discussion occurred on the Proposed Amendment including the Stakeholder input garnered and rationale for some of the language. 4 1612 'A8 July 11, 2012 Mr. Mulhere moved to forward the Proposed Amendment to the Collier County Planning Commission for review and recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment as presented by Staff. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously 8-0. IX. Committee Member Comments None X. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates August 8,2012 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm September 5,2012 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm October 3,2012 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm November 7,2012 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm December 5,2012 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3:55 PM. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman,William Varian These Minutes wer .approved by the Board/Chairman on e f , as presented , or as amended 5 .......,.: l:..:... 1612 A8 August 8, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITT Naples, Florida, August 8, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Ad #Tory ..................• Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala Hiller�� Henning Coyle Coletta Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: David Dunnavant James E. Boughton Dalas Disney Marco Espinar Blair Foley Chris Mitchell Mario Valle Laura Spurgeon DeJohn George H. Hermanson Ron Waldrop Stan Chrzanowski (Vacancy) Excused: Robert Mulhere Clay Brooker ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Administrator, Growth Management Division Jamie French, Director, Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Staff Liaison Reed Jarvi, Manager, Transportation Planning Nathan Beals, Project Manager, Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner, LDC Coordinator Jack McKenna, Senior Engineer Bob Salvaggio, Assistant Fire Code Official Steven Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialis4'sc. Corres: Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Dept. Directorpete: \Q �q t t- Item * 1 Copies to: A8 ] 2112" Au st'S I. Call to Order - Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:03pm II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Espinar moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Boughton. Carried unanimously M -0. III. Approval of Minutes from July 11, 2012 Meeting Ms. Dejohn moved to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2012 meeting as presenteiL Second by Mr. Dunnavant, Carried unanimously 11- 0. IV. DSAC Positions Stan Chrzanowski was welcomed as a new member of the Committee. V. Public Speakers None VI. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Public Utilities Division Update — [Nathan Beals] Mr. Beals reported Staff and consultants are in the process of reviewing the County's requirements for sizing of water meters. He anticipates a report will be presented to the Committee at the November meeting. B. Fire Review Update — [Ed Riley] The Committee reviewed the documents "Office of the Fire Code Official — Summary of Plan Review Activity — June -12 " and "Fire Plan Review — Time Frame Summary, June — 12. " Committee discussion occurred on the rationale for only 62 percent of applications submitted approved on the first review. Bob Salvaggio, Assistant Fire Code Official reported the rate was due mainly to the inferior quality of plans submitted for review. C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Engineering — [Jay Ahmad] Reed Jarvi was present and reported: • Oil Well Road Improvement Project — The eastern section has been opened, with the western portion scheduled to open in the near future. • Davis Boulevard/Collier Boulevard Improvement Project - continuing on schedule. • Corridor Protection Plan — Staff continues to develop the Plan and will present it to the Committee for review at a future meeting. • Master Mobility Plan — StafflConsultants continues to develop the Plan • Proposed I -75 interchange - Everglades Boulevard area - Staff continues to monitor developments. D. Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Update — [Jamie French] 2 Ak§ 8, 1 0 � Jamie French submitted the "July 12 Monthly Statistics" and outlined recent building plan review activities. The following was noted during his report: • Staff will add a statistic to the Report identifying the total construction value for reporting periods. • Staff continues to address FEMA inquiries and avenues to insure the costs are not a burden to the Division. • Staff continues to undertake the necessary steps to implement an electronic permit application filing system with the goal of reducing demand for walk in services. Some Committee members expressed concern with various components of the CityView portal (the software system utilized for electronic plan review). Mr. French recommended interested members of the Committee meet with Staff and review the procedures so he may address any issues raised. In order to facilitate the review, he requested the members submit comments or questions in advance of the meeting. VII. New Business DSAC F000dnlain Regulation Review Subcommittee Bill Lorenz and Jack McKenna appeared before the Committee requesting a Subcommittee be formed to assist Staff with their detailed review of floodplain regulations as they relate to the Flood Prevention Ordinance and Land Development Code. The review is necessary to determine proposed requirements for construction of buildings within the floodplain given the recently adopted FEMA flood zone designations within the County. Discussion occurred on: • The duties and responsibilities of the Subcommittee. • The history of DSAC's previous involvement (and requested "non involvement ") in the area of floodplain management. Staff noted the purpose would be to provide technical input to County Staff for any proposed policies and regulations. Mr. Chrzanowski moved for the Development Services Advisory Committee to form a Subcommittee for the purposes of reviewing floodplain management and County regulations for construction in the floodplain. Second by Mr. Foley. Motion carried 10 `yes" — I "no. " Mr. Disney voted "no." Mr. Disney reported his "no vote" was not based on Staffs request, rather the County's past history with DSAC in addressing floodplain management. The Committee reached consensus on appointing Stan Chrzanowski, Chris Mitchell and Blair Foley to the Subcommittee. Mr. Valle arrived at 4: 05pm VIII. Old Business 16I August 8, 20 A. LDC Amendment updates [Caroline Cilek] Caroline Cilek and Stephen Lenberger presented the following proposed Land Development Code Amendments for consideration: LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.04 Submittal Requirements for Plats CHANGE: Currently, a developer has the option of submitting a Preliminary Subdivision Plat or a Final Plat. Most often, applicants prepare a Final Plat for review by the County. The Preliminary Subdivision Plat option is utilized when the division of land is more complicated, such as incorporating easements or environmentally sensitive lands. Following a Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval, the applicant proceeds to a Final Plat application. The LDC allows for one site development plan (SDP) to be submitted concurrently with the second review of the Final Plat. The amendment proposes to remove the limitation of submitting one SDP and allow more than one SDP to be submitted concurrently with the second review of the Final Plat. The proposed multi -step process is as follows: 1) Applicant submits the Final Plat to Collier County for approval. 2) Collier County Staff provide the first set of review comments on the Final Plat. 3) Applicant submits responses to staff s first set of review comments on the Final Plat and submits one or more site development plans(s). Mr. Dunnavant moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Land Development Code Amendment. Second by Mr. Waldrop. Carried unanimously 12 — 0. Mr. Dunnavant left at 4: IOpm LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation CHANGE: Revise exemption and permitting requirements for mangroves, for consistency with State law. REASON: Under Section 403.9321, F.S. et seq, the County may not regulate trimming and alteration of mangroves per Section 403.9324, F.S., unless permitting has been delegated to the County from the State. Committee discussion occurred on the requirements proposed for Section 3.05.05.G.2.b. Members noted there are instances where trimming is required for vegetation located within a preserve, however, has vegetation which overhangs outside the preserve area, jeopardizing the integrity of approved uses located outside the preserve. Mr. Valle moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Land Development Code Amendment subject to the following change: 4 11 6I A y t8,2 2 1. Section 3.05.05.G.2.b to read - "the mangroves are impacted by a use allowed within preserves or impact an allowed use outside the preserve pursuant to Subsection 3.05.07.H or by PUD Ordinance, or (or similar language). Second by Mr. Espinar. Carried unanimously 11— 0. LDC SECTION(S): 4.05.02 Design Standards - 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements CHANGE: This amendment proposes to remove the 200 parking space threshold for public parks and similar private recreational facilities, such as ball fields, playgrounds, and privately owned neighborhood parks and allow these facilities to utilize grass parking for up to seventy (70 %) percent of the off - street parking requirement. Consistent with the current Code, the grass parking areas will be compacted, stabilized, well drained and surfaced with a durable grass cover. Driveways, handicapped spaces and access aisles will be paved. The amendment also seeks to consolidate all grass parking provisions into Section 4.05.02 - Design Standards. It is proposed that the existing provision in Section 4.05.04 - Parking Space Requirements is removed and relocated to Section 4.05.02. REASON: Public parks and similar private recreational facilities are designed to accommodate seasonal parking needs, peak time parking needs and parking for large events. This results in unused parking spaces the majority of the time. This type of usage presents an opportunity to employ a cost effective and low impact design strategy. Discussion occurred on the proposed wording in Section 4.05.02B.l.a.iv with Committee members noting the language is "redundant" as consultants, when submitting development applications provide similar opinions. Mr. Hermanson moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Land Development Code Amendment subject to: 1. Deleting Section 4.05.02B. Ladv - (In the written opinion of the applicant's engineer, the grass parking spaces will not have an adverse affect on the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Collier County)." 2. Section 4.05.02B.1.b —line 5 revised from "...parking spaces with paved parking spaces..." to "parking spaces with improved parking spaces..." Second by Mr. Valle. Carried unanimously 11— 0. IX. Committee Member Comments None X. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates September 5, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm October 3, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm November 7, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm December 5, 2012 GMD Conference Room 610 — 3:00 pm 16 lu2t8,228 0 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:27 PM. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE r Chairman, William Varian These Minutes w e approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented , or as amended 2 July 3, 20116 12 A9 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, July 3, 2012 ", F i) -, ;; i 2 BY: ....................... 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: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman David Bishof Gina Downs V, Michael Sorrell (Excused) Gary McNally (Alternate) a o.wc. Corres: Date:_ a X41 � 2. item 2, YN Q Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Manager Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management 1 July 3, 20116 12 A9 L Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Ms. Downs moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. NcNally. Carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Approval of the June 6, 2012 meeting minutes Ms. Downs moved to approve the minutes of the June 6, 2012 meeting as presented Second by Mr. McNally. Carried unanimously 4 - 0. Mr. Dickman arrived at 9: 04am V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None The Council determined to hear item VIILA before item VIA VIII. Old Business A. Approval of Memo to BCC regarding Fertilizer Ordinance The Council reviewed a proposed memo to the Board of County Commissioners — Subject: "Improving Collier County's Fertilizer Ordinance " dated July 3, 2012. The following documents were submitted for the record: • Copy of the adopted Collier County Fertilizer Ordinance (Ordinance 11 -24). • Previous draft of a Collier County Fertilizer Ordinance containing more stringent requirements than the adopted Ordinance. • "Analytical Results of Nutrients and Chlorophyll Relative to the 2008 Fertilizer Ordinance in Lee County " prepared by Jim Ryan and Ernesto Lasso de la Vega last revised 05 -25 -12 and Appendix A,B. • Email from Amber Crooks dated Wednesday, June 06, 2012 5:41 PM to Council members and Staff - Subject: "Lee County Stringent Ordinance Reduced Nutrients - Study Attached' Ms. Downs moved to approve the memo as drafted and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration. Second by Mr. Bishof. Speakers Amber Crooks, Conservancy of Southwest Florida spoke in support of the motion. Katie Parrish, Sierra Club spoke in support of the motion. Carried unanimously S — 0. N 4 July 3, 2012 1612 A9 The Council requested Staff to contact the County Manager and have the memo placed on the September Board of County Commissioners meeting agenda. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging and Navigation Improvement Project Special Treatment Permit (ST- PL20120000168) - Sections 8, 17 & 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East The presenters were sworn in. Staff submitted the "EAC Staff Report — Meeting of July 3, 2012" for the record. Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management provided and overview of the application noting: • The project involves re- alignment of Wiggins Pass which is bordered on the north by Barefoot Beach and Delnor Wiggins State Park on the south. • The area is currently dredged for navigation purposes approximately every 24 months at a cost of $750,000 per event • The County is seeking to lengthen the dredge cycle, reduce maintenance costs and improve navigation of the Pass. • In order to find a solution, the Board of County Commissioners appointed a Stakeholders Workgroup of individuals representing the boating and environmental community, State Division of Parks and Recreation, Friends of Barefoot Beach and other parties. • The Workgroup developed a proposal and forwarded it to the Coastal Advisory Committee where a 3 member Subcommittee was appointed to implement the proposal. • The proposal is straighten the channel (which is currently an "S" curve) through a "soft engineering" design approach. • The realignment is intended to lengthen the major dredge cycle to approximately 4 years. • The proposal is designed for navigation of a 3 foot draft vessel maximum and will be completed outside of sea turtle nesting season. • The proposed solution consists of 3 components: • An initial construction phase as provided in the application. • A major dredge event (50,000 CY) anticipated every 4 years. • A minor dredge event (8,000 — 10,000CY) every 2 years. Steve Keehn and Lauren Floyd of Coastal Planning and Engineering presented the Slideshow "Wiggins Pass Improvement Project — Presentation to the EAC" and provided an overview of the application noting: • The area is unique for the County as the net sediment transport is from the south to the north unlike other coastal areas in the county where it is the opposite. • Over the course of time, the channel has migrated northerly causing environmental damage and reconfiguring itself to an "S turn" as opposed to a historically straight channel. 1219 July 3, 2012 In addition, sand accretion out the mouth of the channel impedes navigation and requires frequent dredging. The accretion is caused by a combination of natural conditions and man made events such as dredging of adjacent bays. The proposal was developed with the following goals in mind: • To lengthen the current dredge cycle required to maintain the Pass. • To find an environmentally friendly solution. • To improve navigational safety. • To curb the erosion occurring at the south end of Barefoot Beach. • To find a cost effective solution. • The proposal is based on a variety of data including extensive Stakeholder input, data collection and analysis, "ground truthing" and detailed computer modeling of the morphology of the Pass. • The proposed project protects endangered species, oyster beds and gopher tortoise nests within the area affected. • There will be no direct negative impacts on the hard bottom or sea grasses. • During the construction phase the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission "construction conditions" will be effect including monitoring of turbidity. • The project is in conformance with the Coastal and Conservation Management Element and the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Council discussion occurred on: • Concern on the lack of a study for the projects potential impacts on any infauna in the area. • Concern the environmental disruption to the area may not lead to achieving the goal of lengthening the dredge cycle given the natural dynamics of the area. • An inlet in Bogue, NC, which was addressed with a similar solution and has exceeded expectations over a 5 year period. Break: 10: 50am Reconvened: 11: 00am Speakers Joe Moreland, Coastal Advisory Committee, Wiggins Pass Subcommittee Chairman addressed the council noting the project was developed with a substantial amount of Stakeholder input. Approximately $437,000 has been expended to date for study, design and permitting of the project. The project provides benefits in the area of increased flushing of the system, improved water quality, improved safety for navigation, and decreased liability to the County. It addresses a negative economic impact to the County (reduced collection of boat ramp fees at the County Boat ramp and decreased property values for landowners relying on the pass for access to the Gulf of Mexico). He requested the Council to recommend approval of the application. 1i r JU1 3,611 2 A9 �i Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida supports the project noting the goal was to find a balance between protection of the environmental resources in the area and the ongoing rights to navigation. She recommended two conditions be attached to any recommended approval: the project provide adequate navigation for a 3 foot draft vessel maximum; and the scope of work be completed outside of turtle nesting season. She submitted written correspondence to the Chairman in the form of a letter dated June 26, 2012. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging and Navigation Improvement Project - Special Treatment Permit (ST- PL20120000168 subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed project be designed to a depth required for navigation of a 3 foot draft vessel, maximum. 2. Construction elements (dredging, sand placement, etc.) of the project be undertaken outside of sea turtle nesting season. Mr. Bishof expressed concern a study was not completed on the potential impacts on the infauna of the area. Mr. Dickman expressed concern the project may not meet the goal of lengthening the dredge cycle given the natural dynamics of the Pass. However, in accordance with the policies under the auspices of the Council, the project meets the goals of the Coastal Conservation and Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. Mr. McNally noted the project will be an opportunity for the County to analyze a soft engineering solution to these issues and should provide valuable data for projects as the County moves forward. Chairman Hushon noted, in relation to infauna, the area is already subject to continuous disturbance via the ongoing dredging events and the consultants analyzed data (including ground truthing) for the natural resources associated with the area. Gary McAlpin reported the Agencies involved in permitting the project did not require a study on potential impacts on infauna. Second by Chairman Hushon. Motion carried 4 `yes " — I "no." Mr. Bishof voted "no. " VII. New Business (continued) B. Update members on projects Steve Lenberger reported the Bayside Cultural and Performing Arts Center application was approved by the Board of County Commissioners absent of the conditions recommended by the Environmental Advisory Council. IX. Council Member Comments A. Subcommittee Report Mr. Dickman reported the Subcommittee is conducting a comparison of environmental regulations between Collier County and adjacent Counties. They are currently addressing stormwater management planning. A91 " July 3 (6 12 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 11:50 AM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Chairman, These Minutes we e approved by the Board /Chairman on as presented , or as amended 0 16 ,t A1-0 BY:..,.....� .............. FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKESADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 August 8, 2012 Agenda I. Call to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — June 13, 2012 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. "iala Hillat Henning Coyle Coletta Landscape Architect Report - Windham Studio Old Business New Business Public Comments Adjournment Next meeting is August 8, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 Misc. Corrov Date: 10 1a 112, Item #: % Lo'Z'L w % 0 16124,10 J,-; W September 4, 2012 Agenda I. Call to Order Fiala .._- Hiller — II. Attendance Henning Coyle C o I e t t a III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes – August 8, 2012 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report – Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report – Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Report - Windham Studio VII. Old Business VIII. New Business A. Clubhouse Flag IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment f 01 11 i 1 !! 1201233 a w; I M.T.-NIONTO UJI.X377UNIM lroymm OR • 1 1... 1612 1A&Qnvx1 I L ,1 , 2 " ` ) FOREST EST RC3ADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S." .U. LAKESADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 June 13, 2012 Fiala Hiller Minutes Henning Coyle Coletta �<< I. Call to order —"-- Meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Robert Jones, George Fogg, Dick Barry, Kenneth Bloom (Excused), Kevin McKyton County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Michelle Arnold -ATM Director, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich-Landscape Operations Manger Other: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty- Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes - May 9, 2012 George Fogg moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 2012 as submitted. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Discussion took place on the mail distribution. The Committee agreed to discontinue mailing services for the Minutes and Agenda. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) • Outstanding Ad Valorem Tax $9,437.38 • FY13 Budget (See attached) - Projected Ad Valorem Tax $148,300.00 Discussion ensued on the Maintenance Contract and various Project Phases. After discussion it was concluded Tree Maintenance is the responsibility of the MSTU. George Fogg suggested incorporating the initial Tree tr 6f ing f6the Phase I Contract. Item 4: tlflT 21q %G Copies to: 1612 'A10 B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard presented the following document requests by Windham Studio: (See attached) • Change Order No. 1 - $6,576.00 - Request is due to numerous Project extensions (MSTU value added design modifications) - Change Order was ratified by the BCC • New Work Order Request Phase II Lighting Project — Total $29.978.00 George Fogg moved to approve the Consulting Contract (Change Order No. 1) for Phase I of the Forest Lakes MSTU Project (F -58), not to exceed $9,000.00. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Phase II discussion took place. Scott Windham stated 240 days is projected for Phase II Construction. George Fogg moved to approve the Scope of Services for site observations for Phase 11 development, not to exceed $30,000.00. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Discussion ensued on the wooden fence installed by Publix (the top of the bank on Woodshire.) Bob Jones expressed concern that the shortcut to Publix is a liability to the MSTU if a pedestrian is injured. George Fogg suggested installing a Fence on MSTU property to resolve the issue. After discussion the Committee and Staff concurred with the suggestion to install a Fence on Forest Lakes Property. George Fogg moved to install in the Phase 11 Contract a 6 ft. Fence (on Forest Lakes Property) from the end of the existing chain link Fence on Woodshire Ln. towards Pine Ridge Rd. to the distance that the Consultant feels is appropriate. Second by Dick Barry. Discussion continued on installing the Fence on Forest Lakes Property and potential liability. It was suggested to obtain a legal opinion on the liability to the MSTU for the Fence. The motion was amended to include. "and to obtain the County Attorney opinion on the Fence prior to construction (to minimize liability.)" Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. 2 16 12 A10 VI. Landscape Architect Report- Windham Studio — (See attached) Previously discussed under V. B. VII. Old Business A. Gordon River Update Darryl Richard reported Quality Enterprises is removing large quantities of rock from the Gordon River outflow. The Project will be complete in mid -July. VIII. New Business - None IX. Public Comment - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 11:27 a.m. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Jones, Chai n These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented X_or amended Next meeting is June 13 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 m Y 5i 0 88888;- 1.1.22891.1. N 16 m m N M q N 88- 8 M aaaaaeaaaaa ° °� °� oars °88SP�p�8 H y wNw C5 Y 4q1 M N V, NN N�M'N MN w w . 8 aww °o g N w w w .. ............. $ °o82 FO 08J S o m QQ C N O N M 888 $ 88 °0.80 8 88 888 8 H§H 88 sg w w�wiw wwww� wwwwwww. w N w w w w w w w w wtw�.u, Nz 6, O Z. W � W ZO�(OOOQ '� U ss: Zt-J4 %f, R .V._' .0 W U1 C.nwQ J v,' wz s 0o Q LLH> P 4Wi.4 Q V'2K S Y O `1Z Z.txi (Y :1 J W 2 FCY fY z i-a z27m z�sZL i- �Z en >nim ;fin, O D i=-> t�i`�2 V1 g9 Yffi' 'W Y.$ g 3 5 E 4YL Z 2 � Z- W GBr ;n t2t[[ } ¢.I- LL �. p^. SWL 3�`[Qg o�� 4 Z('Qi[ 0 op N U 11.0??C KQ 7.' R- �w (�i:6W�K` G W Zi�'4 CY �G L3 _:.v G.'�i. GO+n�i {j K K W3�1 C�J K 16 12 A110 A 7 $ � n � P a w w�wiw wwww� wwwwwww. w N w w w w w w w w wtw�.u, Nz 6, O Z. W � W ZO�(OOOQ '� U ss: Zt-J4 %f, R .V._' .0 W U1 C.nwQ J v,' wz s 0o Q LLH> P 4Wi.4 Q V'2K S Y O `1Z Z.txi (Y :1 J W 2 FCY fY z i-a z27m z�sZL i- �Z en >nim ;fin, O D i=-> t�i`�2 V1 g9 Yffi' 'W Y.$ g 3 5 E 4YL Z 2 � Z- W GBr ;n t2t[[ } ¢.I- LL �. p^. SWL 3�`[Qg o�� 4 Z('Qi[ 0 op N U 11.0??C KQ 7.' R- �w (�i:6W�K` G W Zi�'4 CY �G L3 _:.v G.'�i. GO+n�i {j K K W3�1 C�J K 16 12 A110 1612 A10 To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: June 13, 2012 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Repot Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree and Culdesac Improvement project: FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F -58 and F -60 CULDESAC PROJECT: PHASE I: • Light pole base further actions: • 3R's change order #1 and #2 were scheduled to be reviewed and ratified yesterday, 6/12 by the BCC which includes all or the light pole spread footer installation, LED landscape lighting, final planting adjustments, etc. • The final sidewalk sections will be poured during the final light pole footer and culvert / drain pipe construction this week as practical to project flow. • Final grading along the sidewalk is being completed as light poles are set and street trees planted. Sod will follow at the end. • Street Tree and Landscape Lighting Installation Status: ■ Hannula has made significant progress with street tree planting and will continue through to completion installing watering bags as they go. ■ WSI has completed field adjustments throughout the layout and planting process to accommodate utilities needs, large existing trees and neighboring resident requests. • Landscape lighting will commence once final change order to change to LED is approved by BCC with the street tree planting completion. • WSI Construction Services / MSTU Mtgs Change Order Request: ■ WSI has prepared the attached change order request to finish out phase 1 construction services and new work order request to W'indliam Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC: 2600036: P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: 239) 390 -1936 Fax: x2391 390 -1937 Email: scott;ri��indhari�stuclio.com complete phase 2 construction services and to continue en� 4 A10 MSTU mtgs throughout phases 2. i & The project schedule has been extended numerous tim throughout the design and phase 1 construction in order to accommodate MSTU value added design / scope changes as well as unforeseen site conditions as have been reported throughout the phase 1 construction. As a result, the quantity of weekly construction coordination meetings has far exceeded the base contract allotment and will need to be increased to accommodate the end of phase 1 and all of phase 2 construction. Additionally, the quantity of MSTU monthly meetings to be attended by WSI has increased far beyond the base contract and will continue to increase over the course of completing the phase 2 construction. PHASE 2: • WSI Submitted Phase 2, 90% construction drawings to George Fogg last Thurs, 6/7 and to staff on Mon, 6/11 for final review and comment prior to final 100% submittal for putting out to bid. PHASE 3: • ABB has started surveying Forest Lakes Drive and Quail Run Blvd and the Pine Ridge intersection and have tied in their controls to begin working their way down the streets. MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS / MANAGEMENT PLAN: • WSI will work to finalize the maintenance specifications and management plan for Phase 1 and 2 by the end of June in order to coincide with the completion of the phase 1 construction so that maintenance can begin. • WSI will coordinate with George Fogg on the management plan. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect LA 000 -1516 \Vlndhaim S!udlo, Inc., Landscape Architecture, L.C_:. 2600063 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Horida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1935 Fax: (239)) 390 -1937 Email: Cott!i7 �tindl�a�nstc�di < }.cofn -'v-tiv -'v' -ind]Ya IT) studio.Coll 161210 June 12, 2012 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Change Order Request, Phase 1 Services During Construction - Increase to Finish Darryl: Below please find a scope increase change order to complete additional construction services for Phase 1 of the Forest Lakes Sidewalk and lighting project in order to complete the project. This increase is requested because the project schedule has been extended numerous times throughout the design and phase 1 construction in order to accommodate MSTU value added design / scope changes as well as unforeseen site conditions as have been reported throughout the phase 1 construction. As a result, the quantity of weekly construction coordination meetings, site visits, field coordination meetings and MSTU meetings has far exceeded the base contract allotment and we request that it be increased to finish out the and of phase 1 construction. Task 600A. Services During Construction; (Increase to Existing Task) includes services during construction as follows: AA) W Sl- Construction Services 1. Attend weekly construction site meetings with county and contractor throughout construction completion 2. Provide contract document interpretation and assistance with RFI's and unforeseen contractor questions. 3. Site visits during the remainder of construction to review contracto(s compliance with bid documents, review plant material layout, field direct layout as required, provide periodic observation visits of construction site, etc 4. Attend one substantial completion walk through and one final walk through for sidewalk and street lighting, planting, irrigation and landscape lighting. 5. Complete field related revisions as arise during construction completion 6. Actively track and update drawings throughout construction and complete final As Built plans Please refer to the attached Fee Matrix for professional fees. Sincerely, Scott D. Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000-1516 \V"ndhjn-1 Inc., 1.(" 2600016.5 is k, 1 '239 1" el.t.€ `l rit Ht:,. rida 14 133 15h, 3 191)- f j V)3 �-O �'t ndh trn'�tud ff V N O a 3 O W U1 � C O r W C 0.0 Z = Y U w .. c K 00 0 c O p � a � 0 V LL r o d U) Cn c _ O O R� M Y 'm C1 R � �LLa T L Q �w V r 0 to o a N d 0 0 c 0 O O. CA c l6 r' R C N Q a c 3 0 U AD U r' Z W U H 2 m W � U � C 2 C O j U y ` C N U Uc 3 m o� N N d O N US3 Q Q O Y a r 0 0 CD 0 0 N a 1612 A10 rn 1612 b10 June 12, 2012 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Forest Lakes Sidewalk, NEW Work Order Request, Phase 2 Services During Construction Darryl: Below please find a scope increase proposal to complete construction services for Phase 2 of the Forest Lakes Sidewalk and lighting project. Task I. Services During Construction; Includes services during construction as follows: 1.1) WSI- Construction Services 1. Attend one pre -bid meeting and complete necessary bid package revisions with staff 2. Attend weekly construction site meetings with county and contractor throughout construction 3. Review contractor submittals and pay applications 4. Provide contract document interpretation and assistance with BFI's and unforeseen contractor questions. 5. Inspect stored materials and prepare affidavit documents 6. Site visits during the course of construction to review contractor's compliance with bid documents, review plant material layout, field direct layout as required, provide periodic observation visits of construction site, etc 7. Attend one substantial completion walk through and one final walk through for sidewalk and street lighting, street signage, planting, irrigation and landscape lighting. 8. Complete field related revisions as arise during construction 9. Actively track and update drawings throughout construction and complete final As Built plans 1.2) James Abney — Services During Construction 1. Attend one pre- construction meeting 2. Review contractor submittals 3. Periodically attend weekly construction site meetings with county and contractor as requested by WSI 4. Site visits during the course of construction to review contractor's compliance with bid documents and prepare status reports \V11idhatn Studio, Inc., Landscape _architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239": 39(1 1937 I. mail: ,Cott([r windliatn ttzclio.com «-��v.�ciTZdizatn studio. corn 1 1612 A10 5. Attend one irrigation substantial completion walk through and one irrigation final walk through 6. Actively track and update drawings throughout construction and complete final As Built irrigation plans 13) ABB —Services During Construction 1 , Attend one pre-construction meeting 2. Review shop drawings submitted by contractor for compliance 1 Provide contract document interpretation and assistance with RFI's and unforeseen contractor questions. 4. Review and assist in field changes 5. Attend weekly progress meetings with the county and contractor as requested by WS1 6. Review contractor pay applications 7. Attend one substantial completion walk through with punch list and a final walk through meeting in the field. 8. Provide 2 sets of sealed `For Construction' Plans for the contractor and county 9. Assist Collier County during construction phase as requested. 10. Review, provide recommendations and approve any change orders to work orders. 11, Provide periodic observation visits of construction site as directed by WS1 IA) TRT —Services During Construction 1. Attend one pre-construction meeting 2. Review shop drawings submitted by contractor for compliance 3. Review and assist in field changes 4. Attend one substantial completion walk through with punch list and a final walk through meeting in the field. 5, Provide periodic observation visits of construction site as directed by WS1 Task 11. Reimbursable Expenses'. Includes $200 for reimbursable expenses Please refer to the attached Fee Matrix for professional fees. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott D. Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000-1516 Wmd'kon ,�mkfi, LunkV�cjp,,: Avolwccoak, L( 26( PA:). lso,, 1239, Bomta Spr.ngl9, 1"], Wida ' 4131 Plif mi_ 3)0-1 91�, h "231;,391€ P I Jnwil-, i 2 rn 0 rn E r 3 z a J J N 2 U a s _a ri 3i c 2 Y v WNN U a o 3E y ��G06 N3'aar G r yY r 16 12- A10 August 8, 2012 Fiala T G Minutes Hiller Henning Coyle I. Call to order Coletta — Meeting was called to order at 10:11 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Robert Jones, George Fogg, Dick Barry (Excused), Kenneth Bloom, Kevin McKyton County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Other: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Sue Flynn - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: Vlll, A. Meeting Location Vlll. B. Clubhouse Flag Change: Next meeting date from August 8, 2012 to September 12, 2012. George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes - June 13, 2012 George Fogg moved to approve the June 13, 2012 minutes as submitted. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) • Outstanding Ad Valorem Tax $145,999.15 • Available Operating Expense $137,049.90 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard - Addressed under Vl. VI. Landscape Architect's Report - Windham Studio (W *. Corres: Scott Windham distributed and reviewed the Forest Labs StaM,,O rt Dated August 8, 2012 as follows: (See attached) Ibm t 1 to Z ILK % a 1 COpin w. 1612 'A10 o Phase I — Project Completion Status - Walk Through on July 26 generated a minor punch list. - Final Walk Through is scheduled for August 10. Scott Windham complimented 3R's and all Contractors involved on a job well done and he noted it was a pleasure to work with everyone. o Phase 2 - 100% Construction Drawings and Bid Documents were submitted to Staff on July 23 for final review and preparation to put out to bid. (See attached) - Extensive revisions were completed to accommodate the redline review comments provided by George Fogg. WSI provided and reviewed a request for additional funds for Redline Review Revisions and Services During Construction including reimbursable expenses in the amount of $41,159. George Fogg moved to approval on the issue of additional fee request that will be included in the Change Order that is currently being processed. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Kenneth Bloom suggested utilizing Engineer Fees and Other Contractual Service funds to cover the change order request so Engineer Fees does not go negative. George Fogg suggested placing the Community names in alphabetic order on the signage to be installed at the southwest corner of Forest Lakes and Woodshire. Motion was amended to read: "not to exceed $42,000." Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. o Phase 3 ABB has completed a cad topographic survey of Forest Lakes Drive and Quail Run Boulevard which included the Pine Ridge intersection. TRT will begin the street lighting design project. ABB will continue on turn lane design development and sidewalk connection. Conceptual Drawing Strategy for Staff and Transportation review in mid September. The Advisory Committee requested WIS have the Conceptual Drawings available for the next Forest Lakes MSTU meeting scheduled for September 12. 2 16 12 'A10 o Maintenance Specifications /Management Plan - Commercial Land will maintain Phase 1 project area per contract. - Final maintenance specifications and management plan for Phase 1 and 2 will be coordinated with George Fogg and is scheduled to be completed by the end of August. WSI provided the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, F -58 — 100% Opinion of Probable Cost Summary dated July 23, 2012 showing a net increase of $153,234.34 and Bid Schedule — Sidewalk Lighting Phase fl. (See attached) Kenneth Bloom expressed concern when Phase 2 and 3 are completed, adjustments to maintenance will be necessary FY 2013 — 14 and the mileage rate may need to be raised if property values do not go up. Discussion was made on uncollected ad valorem taxes and creating a budget to maintain the property. Darryl Richard responded Staff is evaluating that maintenance issue. I was noted a State Roll Back Mandate has been in effect since 2007. Mileage rate is currently at 4. A referendum would need to be approved prior to raising any mileage rates. Property values may also go up and provide additional revenue required. Staff stated Phase 3 should have minimal maintenance. Costs could be cut if the County purchased the lighting poles for the Woodshire Lighting project directly from distributor. Kenneth Bloom moved to give pre- approval the County to purchase 88 poles for Phase 2 and not exceed $300,000. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Discussion was made on the project status for Phase 2 & 3 and it was decided the Bid Tabulation by October meeting. It was decided to hold a special meeting when bids come in. Phase 2 & 3 was estimated to be complete within 8- months. VII. Old Business — None VIII. New Business A. Meeting Location It was noted Staff working with MSTUs, under the reorganization will fall under Public Services and will be moving to the County Government Center this month. Staff reported speaking with Lee Dickson regarding utilizing a meeting room at Turtle Lakes Clubhouse. This location is not confirmed. A consensus was formed to hold meetings at the Turtle Lakes Clubhouse if available. Staff will confirm if any fees are required. 3 IX. 1612 ' A10 B. Clubhouse Flag Robert Jones expressed concern the flag has never been taken down or flown at half -staff and has never been illuminated. He suggested the MSTU take over maintaining the flag. The issue will be discussed at the next meeting. Public Comments — None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 11:30 A.M. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee r Robert Jones, Char an These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended Next meeting is September 12, 2012 at Growth Division Horseshoe D, South Naples, 1 ld A, m m�c O M o X cn m m m N T ;a � z ai 0 n O m fA I69IM 69 W 00 QO N �`P4 40 69 M 69 16 �Z 'A10 N+ O (WO OWO V OW) (W)N A W N+ O 0 ONO V ON) N A W N+ O ro W V O H A W N+ O OD V 07 N A W N + 0' ��-i 0 - pW O' T" OOrcnvr�cnzm�- O�zmDcnm- 11zc)c)� -i �--I n v �� -4mO RIT- mD2�mm�mro OU0zpAaocz O �m1D Am2<mT c p ro �TxG�rzx c ro �= ;0 < -n -I G)��D <mmrl -n,, >c o<>. o mm�y�zzm2�m�T�mm��Mm�T «m nzm- Nio-xi o m m -vro cn�_ DDOOyrz- MX8 mm TT ccn� 2 (a Clem �W mvcn <X��<?SmCD mO O0Z ---i ;cmi�OOmoM -4,>< D z m� -ri<z m c»n�maJDZ0,O =- ZimO�m� m y��A � HOC O ooc�mNV Cl) = iivo --j (5M - �n�zmm ComDDOOC ,002 D Oz < -0 m �c �� cnmzm �m �no�p�m mO <mayKr- QomK2 m ;o p00 X m y. C) a) K,D- �D1Co� �� OmX_zmm m . Co O m Z Cl) p zmO� mO m n�r T -I v) w <A '69fo 69 69 wte 0) w�wjvi��i�i�� r - O N (n W 0) O cn N W CD CO O OA Cn OCn(OO O OOOCn O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 .pp pp 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 00 0 O 00000 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 A 69 fA fA 69 (A (A fA 69 (A 69 69 69 (A 69 fA 69 69 fA fA fA H 69 fA 69 fA d) W c O I IMP cn Wl" m a o: o 3 0 Z 3 j r p O. a< O Dm N O O -+ i o O 0,1 o CD o CD O CD O O N n % CL < n d °f D-) A 7 0 (D CD » Q CD ,D CD D to ro C0 < G X M m 16 �Z 'A10 N+ O (WO OWO V OW) (W)N A W N+ O 0 ONO V ON) N A W N+ O ro W V O H A W N+ O OD V 07 N A W N + 0' ��-i 0 - pW O' T" OOrcnvr�cnzm�- O�zmDcnm- 11zc)c)� -i �--I n v �� -4mO RIT- mD2�mm�mro OU0zpAaocz O �m1D Am2<mT c p ro �TxG�rzx c ro �= ;0 < -n -I G)��D <mmrl -n,, >c o<>. o mm�y�zzm2�m�T�mm��Mm�T «m nzm- Nio-xi o m m -vro cn�_ DDOOyrz- MX8 mm TT ccn� 2 (a Clem �W mvcn <X��<?SmCD mO O0Z ---i ;cmi�OOmoM -4,>< D z m� -ri<z m c»n�maJDZ0,O =- ZimO�m� m y��A � HOC O ooc�mNV Cl) = iivo --j (5M - �n�zmm ComDDOOC ,002 D Oz < -0 m �c �� cnmzm �m �no�p�m mO <mayKr- QomK2 m ;o p00 X m y. C) a) K,D- �D1Co� �� OmX_zmm m . Co O m Z Cl) p zmO� mO m n�r T -I v) w <A '69fo 69 69 wte 0) w�wjvi��i�i�� r - O N (n W 0) O cn N W CD CO O OA Cn OCn(OO O OOOCn O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 .pp pp 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 00 0 O 00000 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 A 69 fA fA 69 (A (A fA 69 (A 69 69 69 (A 69 fA 69 69 fA fA fA cn W W OWD N CT) N V (ND O W O 0) coo J W W W Cn O Cn O O J OD W cn O (n OD (O A Cn W O COO V O O O N W N J 4 0 0 O? A O O O O (n A fA 69 W WW fA 6969 fA 69 6969 69 fA W WfA 4W fA 69 W J H 69 fA 69 fA d) W c O V N N cn cn LO .�.. ro CO J V 0 O W W W (n -+ W O) i i i O O -+ i V i O O O O N m UNi A O N ,0., W CD W CD CD W W W w w W j W W CD W W O MW A V O O W A A p p V O) tD A C) O O (1 N N (n J 0 0 0 O O O W O "' "' a j Co V J (n 1� O N O i O i W J O i 69 fA fA 69 (A fA 69 W1 69 fA co O co w O O W (n O M 69 EA H 69 69 f/1 W9 fA fA 6A fA 69 69 fA 69 69 69 fA 69 fA W 69 69 69 W 69 69 cn W W OWD N CT) N V (ND O W O 0) coo J W W W Cn O Cn O O J OD W cn O (n OD (O A Cn W O COO V O O O N W N J 4 0 0 O? A O O O O (n A fA 69 W WW fA 6969 fA 69 6969 69 fA W WfA 4W fA 69 W J H 69 fA 69 fA d) W c O V N N cn cn LO .�.. ro CO J V 0 O � en O N O O W O O O O O O O T co O A O N ,0., W CD W CD CD W W W w w W j W W CD W W O MW A V O O W A A p p V O) tD A C) O O (1 N N (n J 0 0 0 O O O W O "' "' a O O Co V J (n 1� O 69 fA fA 69 (A fA 69 W1 69 fA co O N N+ Cn to J CO W 0 CO W O OD y N O Nm 9 O 3 H W 69 fA 69 fA 3 7 (o ro (D y a °) ? (n (o a p� c m D N ° n C7 p ro c m 'c �. m W (0 7 ro 3 a ro ro (� 7 K on . ro n 7 7 -O W .C+ .. N CD 01 ro O T ro y _O O N= O N O ?. (A 69 fA fA H 69 fA 69 fA d) m A A N CAj) A A A A A A OAi A A A A A A A A A A A A A A m m - o o m o o (n Ch o p (n cn m (n m (n m x u) J m (n (n m (n °°o ° °°°°0O ° ° O °°°°0 °°°°D 0 ° 0 ° o _ N W (D W N V N W W W W W (D N W O O T co O A O N ,0., W CD W CD CD W W W w w W j W W CD W W O MW A V O O W A A p p V O) tD A C) O O (1 N N (n J 0 0 0 O O O W O "' "' a O O Co V J (n 1� W O V W W Cn J (n O V "' W "' W OD N W A W J W N N "' OD W O) m 0) O CO W (D OD N N N 0 03 O V O A V A W w W W J 0) (D (D W 0 N OD n 0 0) (n W co (D N 0 CO O co N -+ W N 0 O V O w A CD co O N N+ Cn to J CO W CO W O OD y N Nm 9 O 69 69 69 69 H W 69 fA 69 fA W W W n + to N N N Ou V V A V co co O W N (n W (O ."q 'N N So O O A O O N -N + W A N O O n O O O V )D W O O O O N NO N(D n N0 0) O (n W O. O O (D OD (D Cn O O O CD PO CO W v n f0 O cn O CA n 0 J O A W O O A O O O O O N O O O O O m A O co co W O v v (n O O O O O O) A O v O 00 N J A (n In c) <G�)p.-110�i m Zvi nG7TT TTCj (" 0> o _ oan�o°- ''��_m°mm��z am mono 3�0a 7 7 m m m D- m y p v v m m ro x a a o m N N SU N N C C 7 �7 .O N 7 ti 7 7 f11 SD N 3 3 - N (O p 3 N CD Q d O 7 U m SV ro N :L) N N N 7 i (D BID 9Z C1 N O 7 �c N -CD "O �' O X K d O. d ro ro f)1 fU OT 7 ro Z �- N O 7 CJ OT -{ N N 0' N r r N (n CD O O o - nnaa n•'n1 �(S CD c ? a (� 7 r� > > CD 0 0 CL CL CD CD n CD 3 (n anO O CD 0 m W 0 CD (D a O w -i O A W A v W N N p V N J N O ID V O O O O O O O D M N. C oa N ()) m O_ m cn N U) (n C '0 O 9 CD A A N CAj) A A A A A A OAi A A A A A A A A A A A A A A m m - o o m o o (n Ch o p (n cn m (n m (n m 114 u) J m (n (n m (n °°o ° °°°°0O ° ° O °°°°0 °°°°D 0 ° 0 ° o N W y W N V N W W W W W (D N W O O co O x N ,0., W CD W CD CD W W W w w W j W W CD W W O MW A V O O W A A p p V O) tD A C) O O (1 N N (n J 0 0 0 O O O W O "' "' a O O Co V J (n 1� W O V W W Cn J (n O V "' W "' W OD N W A W J W N N "' OD W O) m 0) O CO W (D OD N N N 0 03 O V O A K) ONO O_ J O ] W W J 0) (D (D W 0 N OD n 0 0) (n W co (D N 0 CO O co N -+ W N 0 O V O w A CD QI N w OD V O 00 N bi Nm 9 O ca? 2 (^ 5 N 7 (7/) N CD CD C Q (O [� O ro N O ro ro CD ro ro SA iV. N N T (D (Dro,.,.0 -vromoc M. 7 (o ro CD �, =-ova m p o< y a °) ? (n (o a p� c m D N ° n C7 p ro c m 'c �. m W (0 7 ro 3 a ro ro (� 7 K on . ro n 7 7 -O W .C+ .. N CD 01 ro O T ro y _O O N= O N O ?. W O y _r (O 'D N < O K N W CD < C O QO T ro 7 7� 7c C7 N C O 7 )v 9- CD 7 N .7r. N O a O W CD N 2 N O C. II N W 0 N N p ro in O r (O �• p O a CD ro O 7 N 7 T CD < 7 N O 7 W y CO s "'I CD p (O O ( In < N CD r 7 d d 0 7 _ CD 0 S a CD N 3 m CD W N fn (D C "O 7 CA CD ".-i 7 N F ch r< 7 3 " - CD O O d O �. (D 7 < c T m C) N O N rn "O 77 T 7 V CD W N - co N ry' O (0 N < C2 fA 69 fA fA 69 69 fA (A (A Efl (A EA EA fA (A fA fA f!) to EA 69 to to id) fA fA 6, fA EA 69 fA 69 69 ffl CD ro + W + N N J N W (n N N N N 7 OO N A O A N (N �(n O (n 00 W OD 01 01 N W J W Np O 4 t0 O O � N0 V O A A O O N O O A O N CO O O W O 0 O O O co O) O O W O O O Cl fA 60 fA fA 69 69 69 fA fA 69 69 fA <-A 69 69 fA fA EA 69 6) to 69 69 fA fA fA CA (-A fA fA 69 fA EA 69 w A J D CD N O O W 0, O 0) W Cn W O A CA A co Cl) N y O 0p QD A J, N J A � N J (n N N (n (n CL 0) o N to N: V V O A' 4D OD N W Aj W A N -+ O W W (O O Cn (O j A O W OD j N OD O O O w Cn O O O O m O V O O (n N Cn w w co T (n Ut 0 0 N T O W O O O O O O J A W J Cn O O W N O C A O A CD 0 0 m N O O O .P O V O O O W m (D O O N O O W O V N O O O O A A (n O Cn O O 000 Cn O N 4 0 0 0? co IN O Q 0 O n 00 N CO N ,< (D ` 17 T T T (n V N ro O O O W `< N (U Ol O N O N N O) N N O 0� N y ro CD CD ro N b N y < C c G A a) W N N O CD CD CD O 0 to O N 0 co CD -i O A W A v W N N p V N J N O ID V O O O O O O O D M N. C oa N ()) m O_ m cn N U) (n C - 16121A10 STATUS REPORT To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: August 8, 2012 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Repot Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree and Culdesac Improvement project: FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F -58 and F -60 CULDESAC PROJECT: PHASE I: • Project Completion Status: • The Substantial Completion Walk Through occurred on Thurs, 7/26 and generated a minor punch list. • The Final Completion Walk Through is scheduled for Fri, 8/10 and it is anticipated that all will be signed off on. • We compliment 3R's and all involved on a job well done and for their flexibility and persistence throughout the anything but conventional construction process. Their hard work, creative brainstorming and professionalism were greatly appreciated and it was a pleasure to work with them all. PHASE 2: • WSI Submitted Phase 2, 100% construction drawings and bid documents to Darryl on 7/23 for final review and preparation to put out to bid. • In order to finalize the plans, specs and bid documents for the Phase 2 bid submittal, WSI and all sub consultants had to complete extensive revisions to accommodate the redline review comments provided by George Fogg. To this end, we have prepared the attached revised new Work Order request to incorporate the associated revisions into the previously approved scope of Phase 2 Services During Construction. PHASE 3: • ABB has completed the cad topographic survey of Forest Lakes Drive and Quail Run Blvd as well as the Pine Ridge intersection and we have emailed the file to TRT to begin the street lighting design. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com ABB is continuing forward with the turn lane design development at 6 "A 1 U incorporating a sidewalk connection from Forest Lakes Blvd across from the Quail Run Clubhouse parking lot entry along the west ROW to Pine Ridge Rd. MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS / MANAGEMENT PLAN: • The Phase 1 project area is currently being maintained by Commercial Land as per their existing services contract. WSI will work to finalize the maintenance specifications and management plan for Phase 1 and 2 by the end of August for bidding. • WSI will coordinate with George Fogg on the management plan. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @ -,vindhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 1612 A101^ FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK, F -58 PHASE 2, 100% OPINION OF PROBABLE COST SUMMARY Prepared by: Windham Studio, Inc. 7/23/12 WSI AND ABNEY: LANDSCAPE / IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION Budget Item Estimate Landscape, Irrigation, Site Furnishings, Directory Sign, Street and Traffic Sign Replacement (Includes 10% Contingency) $762,772.29 SUB TOTAL: $762,772.29 ABB: SIDEWALK / STRIPING / DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Budget Item Estimate Sidewalk, striping, drainage (Includes 15% Contingency) $77,599.70 SUB TOTAL: $77,599.70 TR TRANSPORTATION: LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION Budget Item Estimate Lighting Supply and Install (HPS light, 20' pole, upgrade powdercoat) Includes 15% Contingency $496,433.15 SUB TOTAL: $496,433.15 IGRAND TOTAL: 1 $1,336,805.14 1PREVIOUS 90% GRAND TOTAL: $1,184,570.80 I-NET INCREASE: 1 $152,234.34 *Includes additional shrubs, ground covers, street trees, sod, irrigation, extended sidewalk and lighting to Pine Ridge Rd � 16 12 AIO \ 0/ c 0 0 0 0 0\/ G r> z z z z m j k j\°= c 0 0 0 c G) ) e x \ \ \ \ 0 z z 0 m g o 0 o// 00-0- � m 90// x/§ _ @_ > C) C)� z /\ ƒ ƒƒ 0 0 C) 0 7 m z == 2= o o e G= o= z z z m- § m f» z/ s a w y/ % o% 2 c o= m= m c / � / \ / § / > a \ g ® > ® z ƒ / / = Q. o ƒ t / / § / j > \ k @ ° R o > < < \ < > / z z x 7 7 0 3@ @ p g% f C) e 7 \ \ / m > > \ 2 _ » $ _ } 0 z 0 / 2 2 f_ \ 2 m \ ƒ \ 0 2 \ > \ o -om 2 \ 2 \ 2 22§ \ § \ \ \ \/ z w 2w= o / p_ // 0 z G \/ E \ z � G \ g \ I 3 7 9 a > S S § \ \ T T / \ 3 3 § 3 > - / / > % G % % % § § \ 0/ c 0 0 0 0 0\/ G r> z z z z m j k j\°= c 0 0 0 c G) ) e x \ \ \ \ 0 z z 0 m g o 0 o// 00-0- � m 90// x/§ _ @_ > C) C)� z /\ ƒ ƒƒ 0 0 C) 0 7 m z == 2= o o e G= o= z z z m- § m f» z/ s a w y/ % o% 2 c o= m= m c / � / \ / § / > a \ g ® > ® z ƒ / / = Q. o ƒ t / / § / j > \ k @ ° R o > < < \ < > / z z x 7 7 0 3@ @ p g% f C) e 7 \ \ / m > > \ 2 _ » $ _ } 0 z 0 / 2 2 f_ \ 2 m \ ƒ \ 0 2 \ > \ o -om 2 \ 2 \ 2 22§ \ § \ \ \ \/ z w 2w= o / p_ // 0 z G \/ E \ z � G \ g \ I 3 7 9 a > \ / 3 3 3 > > > > % G % % % § § n® § § § _ / Cl) S / ®� " w > Z o _ % ° 2 S �m> 0 to e e e s ~ e e 2 e 9 to 9 e a e e e e G G t 2 f« « 2 2 o ƒ 0 9"\ o G o 6 g P, 3 z 9 S» ° S 9 2 7 0 0 0 /e/ e H± e e e e e e- 0 a / / 4 t % © D 0& g 0 m \ \\ \ 9 P 9 o o 0 9 o S 0 0° 0 S° C) 0 U) e / k E Q } 0 § CA �2 {} !/ 2 gym§ �§ /� k r-r- \ § ;)2 32G 0 1612 N10 June 12, 2012 REVISED 8/7/12 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Forest Lakes Sidewalk, NEW Work Order Request, Phase 2 Services During Construction and Redline Revisions Darryl: Below please find a scope increase proposal to complete redline review comment revisions for bidding and construction services for Phase 2 of the Forest Lakes Sidewalk and lighting project. Task I. Plan and Bid Documents Revisions; Includes revisions as follows: 1.1) WSI- Revisions Revise Plans, Specs and Bid Documents as per extensive redline review comments including addition of shrubs, ground covers, street trees, extension of sidewalk to Pine Ridge Rd 1.2) James Abney- Revisions Revise Plans, Specs and Bid Documents as per extensive redline review comments including addition of expanded irrigated areas and to accommodate new plant beds vs original sod, etc. 1.3) ABB- Revisions Revise Plans, Specs and Bid Documents as per extensive redline review comments including expansion of sidewalk to Pine Ridge Rd 1.2) TRT- Revisions Revise Plans, Specs and Bid Documents as per extensive redline review comments including addition of lights to Pine Ridge Rd Task 11. Services During Construction; Includes services during construction as follows: 11.1) WSI- Construction Services 1. Attend one pre -bid meeting and complete necessary bid package revisions with staff 2. Attend weekly construction site meetings with county and contractor throughout construction 3. Review contractor submittals and pay applications Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 1 1612 A10 4. Provide contract document interpretation and assistance with BFI's and unforeseen contractor questions. 5. Inspect stored materials and prepare affidavit documents 6. Site visits during the course of construction to review contractor's compliance with bid documents, review plant material layout, field direct layout as required, provide periodic observation visits of construction site, etc 7. Attend one substantial completion walk through and one final walk through for sidewalk and street lighting, street signage, planting, irrigation and landscape lighting. 8. Complete field related revisions as arise during construction 9. Actively track and update drawings throughout construction and complete final As Built plans 11.2) James Abney - Services During Construction 1. Attend one pre- construction meeting 2. Review contractor submittals 3. Periodically attend weekly construction site meetings with county and contractor as requested by WSI 4. Site visits during the course of construction to review contractor's compliance with bid documents and prepare status reports 5. Attend one irrigation substantial completion walk through and one irrigation final walk through 6. Actively track and update drawings throughout construction and complete final As Built irrigation plans 11.3) ABB - Services During Construction 1. Attend one pre- construction meeting 2. Review shop drawings submitted by contractor for compliance 3. Provide contract document interpretation and assistance with RFI's and unforeseen contractor questions. 4. Review and assist in field changes 5. Attend weekly progress meetings with the county and contractor as requested by WSI 6. Review contractor pay applications 7. Attend one substantial completion walk through with punch list and a final walk through meeting in the field. 8. Provide 2 sets of sealed 'For Construction' Plans for the contractor and county 9. Assist Collier County during construction phase as requested. 10. Review, provide recommendations and approve any change orders to work orders. 11. Provide periodic observation visits of construction site as directed by WSI 11.4) TRT - Services During Construction 1. Attend one pre- construction meeting 2. Review shop drawings submitted by contractor for compliance 3. Review and assist in field changes 4. Attend one substantial completion walk through with punch list and a final walk through meeting in the field. 5. Provide periodic observation visits of construction site as directed by WSI Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 2 16 12 ' A10 Task III. Reimbursable Expenses: Includes $200 for reimbursable expenses Please refer to the attached Fee Matrix for professional fees. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott D. Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 3 161E A10 �m � i3s "c p a E 7 � `i a 9' N 1 -P> r 1•r [�_i AtitYs �` 7p a �? 3141 is � Y 4 ! r p^ p G.i e'` w i tom' }fro P'q� t•ra,� > P za i s K !i �1 o a I q. s � i p J C zzzrr.r[�rCs f ✓' ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ `n z z ✓ f ti y x ti z r Z ^ Apr 1J V r� V � 0 I r n 1612 A10 2 V m O 0 rl- �T '♦'^^V V' 00 IL D 0 c� r♦ 0 cyl W 0 =3 �/''� LL 00 CL V! CD i—r D O O 0 + 4 r G) 2 Z G) r D Z D 0 D G) X m n m Z V Z U) X O t l i ' /c ^^ 1 I1 W m D r r D O c Z U) 0 TZ V r z Z G) T� G) O Z D L/ J D V m T m m 3 C PHASE 2 PLANTING, IRRIGATION, F k' FOREST LAKES MSTU z y yr qp ay5 5;, N K ?y - s5_y i > O If : IL 5 Q9 co �HU zzzrr.r[�rCs f ✓' ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ `n z z ✓ f ti y x ti z r Z ^ Apr 1J V r� V � 0 I r n 1612 A10 2 V m O 0 rl- �T '♦'^^V V' 00 IL D 0 c� r♦ 0 cyl W 0 =3 �/''� LL 00 CL V! CD i—r D O O 0 + 4 r G) 2 Z G) r D Z D 0 D G) X m n m Z V Z U) X O t l i ' /c ^^ 1 I1 W m D r r D O c Z U) 0 TZ V r z Z G) T� G) O Z D L/ J D V m T m m 3 C PHASE 2 PLANTING, IRRIGATION, F FOREST LAKES MSTU z } \\ \�/ 3 \ \a0 ji1( E (� }E ! QL # i 2. # ! | i ƒ { k \k $ §§A 0 Z ƒE\ 2 # § ! ) § } k 16 t2 A l o PHASE � KEY P ` ` i id r F FORT EKE MSTU ; a K R 4:i std $ C F� 'e p TV �` i i 1.41, 11 Q 161'2 A10 i til • DO AO 0 m M - - -- -- � e - - -- zD n = m r Y- C —I PHASE 2 SIDEWALK = =na t t. r F FOREST LAKES MSTU � D i rl w r -+ li O II Ii 14 1612 -A10 . -I F ' G ;see H l\lu a m I+ m . W `� T I W O tlR \ 'f O '' 0 a z m C7 I� m 0 0 G) z r- 0 D --I 0 z z F sa R q i S I ti 1 Ta I I I RI F I 'I ' =1 I � I � R \'I D N :I O d III + e 0 3 N o I �a I I I I I I I 1 4 II s y ! e 'e m 0 —�° WOODSHIRE LANE I I I I I I I I I la I� I I PHASE 2 SIDEWALK F FOREST LAKES MSTU z 161'2 A10 I0 0 Nb nil All PHASE 2 SIDEWALK = =yy j jr t F FOREST LAKES MSTU ��X S�v om nob °o vvm no . ItIIII aaaaaa 555555 te N Vyyti -m 8888$8 maamne ^ boo @no a �m m�mme �aaaaa 5666E6.E556 IIS•��r� &g && 9959999999 asssssssss �9�9r£�9�r£r1 >F >i• >i & iF 4 rI >I � g � 1612 A10 m < sHwi; "., t Sic A O s e , C 'sP v x fs u t , � � N t � �L �r as � m Dy p1� �z �� b AiFiSu�:'d? J 691 MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN I r -Migiva° 8 r► F --------------- o uvH .v .,tititru 9 8 S 5 9 E ff j a a 3 ��X S�v om nob °o vvm no . ItIIII aaaaaa 555555 te N Vyyti -m 8888$8 maamne ^ boo @no a �m m�mme �aaaaa 5666E6.E556 IIS•��r� &g && 9959999999 asssssssss �9�9r£�9�r£r1 >F >i• >i & iF 4 rI >I � g � 1612 A10 m < sHwi; "., t Sic A O s e , C 'sP v x fs u t , � � N t � �L �r as � m Dy p1� �z �� b AiFiSu�:'d? J 691 MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN I r r► F FOREST LAKES MSTU � 16 f2 A10 ISIGNAGETABLE PLANT ? I i ?r F � jjjbjjjjjjkjjjjjjjj- •"jjjjjFj'7'< yy >rDr >zyp » >D >D<YYF » >X >bY » yOlti��jOOOb >ry DOX; Y�3 >A'�DjY��AY >N�rYYjOOmmm�200D <a G ,y R Ayggq qq q qqq q,yQq A pYY rgo r4�r+�i�r�%srg-rgr r9�rgw�$Srg�rgw r�rg�r4. rg��.�rD4 nDg ng�rgD rg. mis QQ..T99.. ROi n4..5 n4. 5sS3TT�Y "Q i T1.$TmZTT�TSiY$. S�Tiy�5� RY.i r4 ng a�R Qzq rg�yyyy }}��$S ,y,y'' qTqT r-4R Rqpq qxq qTq '�$ r�, ya r�� bbb$ bbb '-0bb$7ebbbbbb'-0$pyb.Tb'2b�.'A iF biF�bplb $b$$b�bbb b3�'.b b�bbb$blgb AA b�bzSgS+ to $�byybb�gy Ab6b•AA b�o�b$bY�SbbT 2 � A��b� aka a � a � � _, - - -- -113 -- gp; o�aNN; =d � =lam=la'9m ga'9 $ mm! �nnFm P � aa°giaE3lEE3€I££3€t£5f3I9f€I4tf€Iifs� F a�3 F�£ I� I~£a£3:££4 l a f aa£3a£s F�Fs � � � n'��a p5 0,66 :o 64,4'At'sRR A5 mWem " S � 4 mm.R • 3 Y{ ` gill s n ^nnnn nnnaS §ymR3ID �^ � ^ n k n ^n,�n ^ t��€ ^n 106 ^ ^ ^k RR$ Q4RRRR� q 4 R � RRA a °� q m' a5 �n m 4 555_545555_55554554 -5 55559 'ama�a�'ammmw�IDmmaaeam�v'am m al ^ 5s x Klan 5 X' kl :m m mmmmmmmmmmmDrmmmmm mmrmr m nn ^nnnnnn n�i�nn�n� nnnnn n �i �i m m m m m m �i ^ �+ x ,^� A� mmjm x 8 ^n9 ^ �i p gppp ppp pp�R ppppp p m889 88888x888 888x�eii888�8 gg g p p gei8i8i9 5 �;� d,7r ° 8. 2t� Run sa pp o 9 }• ��'ai�s- 9�9e8�a88�o� �' z��; ��a��a�� E�SiB� =i��z� °I��Es's�� 999�999999�99999999if99999�9 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa .aaaaa a a a a a a �asann ; da g��? 3Sa m�� as �� a° as -a a all 4^ "R ; a[fill I mm� wmmmm� mmm�nmmw remms"� ° ° aaa a 9 � � s e� g�,� _ as laa � »° $�� w 9998999999n99999999 99999 9 9 k g 3 9a Rp 98aa 8g 9 C D � a � mm mmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmm 'UHRZ 31i RUM £££ 3b£d3 1 aaa aaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaa a $ a H 9 s$ j3 11 ask S ss S ^ aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaa a g a M8MM��UM MHg3 83 3 83 383 839 883 3338893 x881989 9, 8, r 499 999999 99999999 99999 9 aaaaaaaaa a as a sa aaa 9S3 939 Ingaaaa 9 aaaaaaaa aaaaa 999 999999 99999999 99999 9 9 9 y ISIGNAGETABLE PLANT ? ?r F FOREST LAKES MSTU s as � �t'b f ti =z �W FY �� 2S 0 Q i i j�itf o3� t P 1z i N�i^G �=c s ":< YY� N� 2i ez s 5 i F. `s 3 ❑00.0 090000 O � -p O U 061 �F5 R �^ F m� uy -o v n D m Z n O O m X N Q O Z 'O n D r m m Z n X 0 O m N O Z 161� A10 C } A t n m y 3 a 0 al ica Sa yy� PpP Pq� 7't �w� �'� p � is al' `s� F e � �■y4 %! 7• � �9 F� R 'I, z S ff� n M z O �n a S' F 7eP`k.. ! 3 m n 3 L• °z2 ;.t �R i H jig aka 3 8 r w E �"ase A age's a kiti F m� uy -o v n D m Z n O O m X N Q O Z 'O n D r m m Z n X 0 O m N O Z 161� A10 C } A t n m y 3 a 0 al ica Sa yy� PpP Pq� 7't �w� F F� R 'I, z S ff� n M z O �n a F 7eP`k.. 3 m n 3 L• °z2 ;.t �R i H jig aka 3 8 r w �"ase A age's a Illwl, 4*7 �►IIQ`III n S 3 � js3 °TgR s�_s b 3 E B � e S �a� SITE FURNISHING DETAILS I r r r F %.SG FOREST LAKES MSTU [ y ica Sa yy� PpP Pq� 7't �w� 7eP`k.. c. r 3 L• °z2 ;.t �R i t kiti SITE FURNISHING DETAILS I r r r F FOREST LAKES MSTU [ T m Z n m m X I m Z 0 Z m D O Z O D D n 3 m v D r �a ee ee ve Q. � z dr d Fd t �4 s� p p 35 �� V tb FS<�F 4m jf FOREST LAKES MSTU g �g o 11 ? 9� R D m 0 4 m O Z n D r co Z n D Z v 2 X R m D n r m E 1612 A10 'a t r I � � m� - 4 w u i I b L� e s ?tea P y 4 p� O SITE FURNISHINGS DETAILS 2 f fi! r F FOREST LAKES MSTU g $ ; �$ _ �| s §� �2 (e !! a� , _ * < � ,e.DS in t |E�; § B F FORT EKE MSTU | !� | |� | § §[ , M� �s 2 � 26.74 in 4.57 in 2E� 9L. b] y �cE — k +4afa $�f«� ■ <r\� � E � � , « ++ §I§�/ ?� 2 ct 0 / O q -4 / C) 2 \ k 16 1 2 A I 0 7((E _ !# ! 5 ;§ |�E £\ � f{�( sT�EFURNISHINGS DETAILS 3 3 § § B F FORT EKE MSTU | 161 -A10 �— FOREST LAKES BLVD. z m a 0 m m O r � D 1 °rj► F FOREST LAKES MSTU cn 03 , 10 p i ► ' iN 1 ► 1 1 , O J , '3 �- _ m _.. ' ► -- - - - - -- - - - - - T - - - - - - - - y -- - - - 1 --------- - - - - -- , — -- ---- -- -- - - - -- ' r ' ' �'� r r--------- ------ -+--- ----- - - - - -- >: 0' WOODSHIRE , ;0 K CL p LANE ED r, cn , CD 0 CL (DD -0, , a D] O i :w o S �� i i S I E LANE -- - - - - -- Top Pf3i^j HAHPHtopw H2 �� i; Fx � 3_ o a —sa egg °sr$$ 'ggg �>T s :n i� ;�1� $ $pg� � �� >:jza a a� ga T.$ �R4 �5 �g $ p c ur I - ilz.1. ISSf �$3�� . &NO .cam �R�Ap.� -X1 $ $$ 8 v9 a fill d uu�. i n $ R$ Q g�� 14g m 3 % st gS ggSS$ 8s 8 38'9gY 3 ea °as ssa °sg °s° 8 v 3 33 9s3s9 sss8gss_sQ g .. •rt� @ W ;� $a y■ qEi� •'Q��44 r 01 �o s�;F�4 gE� ssaalisa ti0t4 02 444 R4 R4 RR RRRRR SRRRRRRRR g� zza zz «za zzz zzzzzza zzz xz— zz <zzz. z z <z zz< zz<zzzz PHASE 2 PLANTING KEY MAP" ° °rj► F FOREST LAKES MSTU N Q s a R� I �I R x I •I / I / I / I I a >TSbS'��i "Gii I � I / / I / I I f a Fri-1, i Is s; � e D m v, OI c 5g m o ;o -- v D p�� n a D A I � I I; H 2a i.q r - O I �a I cf I .r` I 4� I I � I � r , 1 •I I I I I I i I � 1612 A10 3 ' n" 9 stag ug" " °'' °° F [e�� '� �p5.�47Rpy N� v� ��q W �a^ gNO � &N GiA�r 9 30� A <0 Dll 11 a3.suJ 3 A 6� Wn - ' 9 C Rs 93 yJmp ym �p�ym SXXGY 44,.gRc �S 7�2��7 Mai z� zzb zzz <z� PHASE 2 PLANTING PLAN I [ " °'' °° F [e�� FOREST LAKES MSTU S Q Re � I � I ry [h� �e� I ih��l► In�F DNS 3.app i cm .nR Q +G --t — �F "4- i I i , a �I � I � Ic , , "I I •l I I I I 1 I I I I I ! 1 1 �l 1 1B 1 1 rl 1 1 1 1 + m 1 16 I'2- A10 4 / 7 i 4/ �1+= 1 i 4sEs 9� L I I t- 1_,, PHASE 2 PLANTING PLAN 2 t t, r F FOREST LAKES MSTU g jai ya ^g8�u{ m m ii F '^ �C �2NTm lj ti O g 8ro � QQjN b i gg ��gY �R � � F 3i�S��$$$p$p O jppg4gjtty�'kj7k7 � $ gp F YY2a 8 _3 g$88 QflR �rS of 8 a�gg °Og �- S$ Y888Y88 K < zz zz<zzzz_ �F "4- i I i , a �I � I � Ic , , "I I •l I I I I 1 I I I I I ! 1 1 �l 1 1B 1 1 rl 1 1 1 1 + m 1 16 I'2- A10 4 / 7 i 4/ �1+= 1 i 4sEs 9� L I I t- 1_,, PHASE 2 PLANTING PLAN 2 t t, r F FOREST LAKES MSTU g Q x'S \ u R� r� �C a I� 4D , I� d© aa�o� O O a 0 16 12 A10 0 0 IT! r Z m CD D cn 0 D cn I cn 3 l am38�L�' ul �ffi 2� ni9�$H Z � m _ -ail f 33 � tia+mb� � z � m or �r nnnn m HIM. S NMI seas mm44 K @�� Is cz m°Paa8sa g^ k� 3 � aaaa�a ease 8 � m RR RRRRR° $ za zza zzzzza zzz zzz <zz IPHASE 2 PLANTING PLAN 3 tl °r r FOREST LAKES MSTU BOND PROJECT F -58 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. mnoue ItR \, y 46 4d 0 0 IT! r Z m CD D cn 0 D cn I cn 3 l am38�L�' ul �ffi 2� ni9�$H Z � m _ -ail f 33 � tia+mb� � z � m or �r nnnn m HIM. S NMI seas mm44 K @�� Is cz m°Paa8sa g^ k� 3 � aaaa�a ease 8 � m RR RRRRR° $ za zza zzzzza zzz zzz <zz IPHASE 2 PLANTING PLAN 3 tl °r r FOREST LAKES MSTU BOND PROJECT F -58 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. mnoue z � R S �Ir h� QI �OC�C 0♦ O pOCOL 0 t.000�70C t100ntf 0 0 °00 X04 o�? o 00 11 0 1\,D\ 11 oq RRRRRRR zz zz zzz6 n ti u Wi #ors D a Bq C WR zz — — = = = m ■ 1 1 1 OA H it p_ rrcc RRRR b ��S \n i of PHASE 2 PLANTING PLAN 4 ` I I r F I I I\ WX 122 ggggg m, �a S fill S88nS89c 5�4�539' �Q +QG a�Q99sggasEaa .�q� yt� IT $aSdS . �aaa¢ RRRRRRR zz zz zzz6 n ti u Wi #ors D a Bq C WR zz — — = = = m ■ 1 1 1 OA H it p_ rrcc RRRR b ��S \n i of PHASE 2 PLANTING PLAN 4 ` ` °r r r F FOREST LAKES MSTU g m / f� kn N r r r r r i r i im / i i / W V. 'u-� +aa uP ?o.QA� 4.� A� S= � ga e m Yff , 01% mall tom / I I � z I i I I / I / I � I I I I I I I I I _ D I Wig$: � W 3R{{ P�g¢2oj Rq � pa cr¢ RRR RRRR II .�nn CT1 I I I ml �s I --M I $, I '\ I Wit � f' I $ - saran[ 1612 A10 I m I l Ev M/.T. ILNE' i 1 1 1 - I _ 11 I I I ! i � I I I E7 i X I v I I I I i r� I ( I I ` I 'J -L E V II O l r iTl m I f I m 1 4' _ m S Z I I Z I 3 m -� a m I h D I �qq D II \r' '• �. � is ^� I, h- �. � � ni:� m / f� kn N r r r r r i r i im / i i / W V. 'u-� +aa uP ?o.QA� 4.� A� S= � ga e m Yff , 01% mall tom / I I � z I i I I / I / I � I I I I I I I I I _ D I Wig$: � W 3R{{ P�g¢2oj Rq � pa cr¢ RRR RRRR II .�nn CT1 I I I ml �s I --M I $, I '\ I h PHASE 2 PLANTING PLAN 5 Wit � f' I $ - saran[ I = I m - 9\1i 1 1 1 - '\ - 11 I I I ! i � I I E7 i X I v I I I I i r� I I I ` I 'J -L E V h PHASE 2 PLANTING PLAN 5 Wit � f' FOREST LAKES MSTU BOND PROJECT F -58 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIERCOUNTYD.O.T. saran[ 9i r•� �3 d E- �t L4., Z m X ^v^ Y, m O D , v D z v 91 O ak__ r A P M 0� m 1 1 1 m pm�ti 3 I4 6m Rg m P m 0 6 0 0 16 11 2-- A19 00 ;o O my in mm o� m m� m I\ � a Z �— a L qL0 A.^ ,WOODSHIRE LANE G C T O a pr m 1 M (9 ieppnol \ - - r r r F FOREST LAKES MSTU n ' �\ \ \1 5��1:' � '� b Bt'gtilRmtd � W � � � •ri P m' �I111 I� $�mn$$° / n oob IrrN�atlon/ 0 3 H I M, 3 g g F6F 33 b�� iiL$k[i aa pp o GG a n g N 3 Y4C°°�'S 6a C agag - �p R RRARRR 5 z� zzzzzz� zzz� z PHASE 2 PLANTING PLAN 6 - - - r r r F FOREST LAKES MSTU n Z 0 O rF 3 I ;W fIJ 1612 .1111W Iii �4 q 5, Pli -oc Yid tt it !q o Q g % W. PHASE2 0 i. W.,� I A - - to m C3. 4�s c -Z 2 1-' 1612 .1111W Iii �4 q 5, Pli -oc Yid tt it !q o Q g % W. PHASE2 - I RANTING SPECIFICATIONS FOREST LAKES MSTU H ., !it 111 1 a Nib BOND PROJECT F-58 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LL8 I i i t, ps PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. I i� == -,• - - - O ffl 9 i I 0 + > An C, 0. r + 5000-40% za WOODS"FIELANE gill I Eggs gig v + WOODS"RE LANE A I-1, =, + pos LgsnBnV 'IS 1612 A10 R fit z - 1— F FOREST LAKES MSTU o m R fit z om,* [PHASE 2 LIGHTING PLAN Wr f BOND PROJECT F-58 F 7 LT- COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COLINTYD.O.T. - 1— F FOREST LAKES MSTU o H 9 .......... lip 41 - I gi ca RE rq 1612 A10 0 o 0 EY IV x ry t j, I C: of' j I 1. 00 t < q 4 UZ < 0 > S C) m C) m tA 3E 2 rc PHASE 2 LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS1 1 11trif F FOREST LAKES MSTU o 0 W r I 1 i vj FOREST LAKES BLVD. 16 12 - A10 W O O g° ! D FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK J ` _�_— ____�______T'__�_____ ____ 77 `1 3:11 �I x a, y 6 WOOD SHIRE II I I> o m LANE W i im 1' o 3 3 of i �1 1 I '(1 I I 1 I 1 I W O O Z4 ; I r I D 1 UI W� C .. 0 1 1 I I 1 � 1 W � IN le IW b I i ;a , � (D a I 1 I y A ' m � m p I i 1 1 1 rra t z z } } t ars s e i p� iii $PaaQpp� E � � a a 1 !• 1 I �� + i.r ��. 7 3 p B� :k I � � � e= g �E y} !o !a la }c • ., �! k ,, � o a� � t�� - I� t I }! a i I I tit d i d ,a 1 "� ji i'is } t t t lit a a a a a a a a a e e a a a s a a a a s a a s a 4 a o a g 8 a as 8 1gg� a 8 1 pg 1 1 g8I E g g a ap a 8 a R a a s B! 1 5 ig8� tl6! rygg 8 gea tgE7 7 X X O D 0 z m z 0 IRRIGATION PLAN KEY MAPL g g° ! !(I, F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK J ' 111 ' II 1' Z4 ; I r I D 1 UI W� C .. 0 1 1 I I 1 � 1 W � IN le IW b I i ;a , � (D a I 1 I y A ' m � m p I i 1 1 1 rra t z z } } t ars s e i p� iii $PaaQpp� E � � a a 1 !• 1 I �� + i.r ��. 7 3 p B� :k I � � � e= g �E y} !o !a la }c • ., �! k ,, � o a� � t�� - I� t I }! a i I I tit d i d ,a 1 "� ji i'is } t t t lit a a a a a a a a a e e a a a s a a a a s a a s a 4 a o a g 8 a as 8 1gg� a 8 1 pg 1 1 g8I E g g a ap a 8 a R a a s B! 1 5 ig8� tl6! rygg 8 gea tgE7 7 X X O D 0 z m z 0 IRRIGATION PLAN KEY MAPL g g° ! !(I, F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK it Ij I II I l r_ Q rV 1612 -A10 0 ;R :k cQ m m�4% I to Id� 916�id 4a EE�ski In In +1�✓ Jul d1�a��gif9�i�� ip��AAAg�'! T j + �v 22ill �A�aaaaa�� P A m m �m z T g 0 mn m m m M m z ! I fix{ gg z � �fil- Jill CIF of " :i1 All 1M� $ #' � �g q fill" r i p6 ®m o I a G) m z m 0 N GI M Z m A O IRRIGATION PLAN 2 l lei, F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK ASS ®4p \\FV_ - ^�n SStt �2C it Ij I II I l r_ Q rV 1612 -A10 0 ;R :k cQ m m�4% I to Id� 916�id 4a EE�ski In In +1�✓ Jul d1�a��gif9�i�� ip��AAAg�'! T j + �v 22ill �A�aaaaa�� P A m m �m z T g 0 mn m m m M m z ! I fix{ gg z � �fil- Jill CIF of " :i1 All 1M� $ #' � �g q fill" r i p6 ®m o I a G) m z m 0 N GI M Z m A O IRRIGATION PLAN 2 l lei, F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK s� ill! 1 \ 11 11 � e 111 I Ill 11 1 u 1 I\ f II , W.'�LNE I rn 's II gill � II g II -T ��E Q I I I I I I I I ti e I �I I`e i I �E€ I_ I I I iml INN a 1 f 161'2--A10 m m O C_ m D � En >'E D `x N 4 0 cn 0 0 D Jill, N Im,rn A� 1 �F 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I II I II I II I II I II I I II I I II I �1 II 1 III III 11 �I II 1 II I 111 I I� I ? IRRIGATION PLAN 3 �r� r (STA0+00TO STA 135 +81) COWER COUNTYP.O. #4500113538 - I R -3 .. �4 •� .. -� `° ...., �! �+ } COLDER COUNTY, FLORIDA € � � 6 PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. t � 9 " = E e �""''=M' F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK ? � ke, II \ 90�0� n�oea R 3� +E oR c I^. •1 4 I� IRRIGATION PLAN ' '� -"� } }r► F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK > a m r D N= a o d ! fil! P, g I I'll fill -1 lot p •�3 " s!F G i 4 00i� m � B � � ea� m a1 g mm �55a RE Y A i 1N ID $+ X I i$ ;•. y .10 Y aY d3 a a MA4rh� +l +Iddd $m I lyiFF$�i; '• ! A�YY �1 $�� g 0 Lo m m T m z m z m 1> m z 0 8a��ri �J\VOy oil�v 000ll Moll 11 �P i0y zs A eYF�m s�F'•s e�F9 OWN No, 1612 A10 I �I� 1�1 I Y 1 I I / I ' � n I Ig 0, rn I n{ + I { { I � I � I I $ I I I a- IRRIGATION PLAN 5 " ° _�' Mr FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK (STA 0 +00 TO STA 13S +81) COWER CO UNTY P.C. # 450D 113538 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA IR -5 w.De N411.f.wYn��:111Htj1n LNFYW -i, PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. 1 I II k; O II O r�, ii •" Vii I •�'Y M m ;pp m- , . En { I I _ i kl Ytlp f� uws� ri lm sei , �a r �i yl.r ✓R �� i I �I� 1�1 I Y 1 I I / I ' � n I Ig 0, rn I n{ + I { { I � I � I I $ I I I a- IRRIGATION PLAN 5 " ° _�' Mr FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK (STA 0 +00 TO STA 13S +81) COWER CO UNTY P.C. # 450D 113538 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA IR -5 w.De N411.f.wYn��:111Htj1n LNFYW -i, PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. 1 I II k; O II O r�, ii •" Vii I •�'Y � m ;pp m- , tl En { I I _ i kl Ytlp I �I� 1�1 I Y 1 I I / I ' � n I Ig 0, rn I n{ + I { { I � I � I I $ I I I a- IRRIGATION PLAN 5 " ° _�' Mr FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK (STA 0 +00 TO STA 13S +81) COWER CO UNTY P.C. # 450D 113538 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA IR -5 w.De N411.f.wYn��:111Htj1n LNFYW -i, PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY D.O.T. 1 Q I D A o� 0 �tv'3 8�> �E i� �5 1612 A10 E; E I i c g 0 Ili m �Yr 1 '131 fit €g. HAI a 9 Pg o Tali a if i a U1 I I , aR EEiE is, a,- J m All ' - ', lEE 9 p•� a ��;<>i6 Id B a c p�� jig i i€ p zj III I _ I iti I G : ■ m crJ� ; ® m @@ Y I I d �(• li�i p�pg�'1�p� 9Y I N� I I 0n �y I as H1 ��pplt a ��► .. =�Iava�il��;7iy4 vR d• ` � @��i ya I a - ji� i��v99 �■i■ (IRRIGATION PLAN 6 SQV-- '-=" �A R3 { 1r FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK (STA 0+00 TO STA 135 +81) COWER COUNTY P.O, # 4500113538 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIERCOUNTYD.O.T. vnrs•Rx R -6 �....�x,..s w�• •• • „" ,, ,� wo.ww +.. u..4 I. II y ,I. i N • Jr • �-v 7.�e D A o� 0 �tv'3 8�> �E i� �5 1612 A10 E; E I i c g 0 Ili m �Yr 1 '131 fit €g. HAI a 9 Pg o Tali a if i a U1 I I , aR EEiE is, a,- J m All ' - ', lEE 9 p•� a ��;<>i6 Id B a c p�� jig i i€ p zj III I _ I iti I G : ■ m crJ� ; ® m @@ Y I I d �(• li�i p�pg�'1�p� 9Y I N� I I 0n �y I as H1 ��pplt a ��► .. =�Iava�il��;7iy4 vR d• ` � @��i ya I a - ji� i��v99 �■i■ (IRRIGATION PLAN 6 SQV-- '-=" �A R3 { 1r FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK (STA 0+00 TO STA 135 +81) COWER COUNTY P.O, # 4500113538 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: COLLIERCOUNTYD.O.T. vnrs•Rx R -6 �....�x,..s w�• •• • „" ,, ,� wo.ww +.. u..4 m Z m m -Di 0 Z 0 m z m Dr m O Z Z 0 n n n 0 n n 0 0 r; n R 1= -7 1 Z. 1 zm y m � o m z O z z P 0 m r r D a Z 0 m H tD R+ �1 f ft 11 1 a� ji X F a aHa a F C I 'r Z E LI i cn` AU D n r Z r i ii a� I� O _j m feat 4 p� ��q� la co z I'll, y E all, $ r n D O ^% �c O r a� Z Z AN D < 11 q,O D D 1612 A10 < 3 DD r — <Z m r Z Z �m D to r O rr D D 00 Z Z O e mD -� Z rD C �r D 7 �i a a�CR :ea a� � a eep 8 X ee !fir F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK _ a , Iry -I�r • i; a� Z O O " Z r C) i H O Z m v m a IRRIGATION DETAILS I ' � a eep 8 X ee !fir F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK _ a , Z O O " Z r C) i H O Z m v m a IRRIGATION DETAILS I ' 'G�''=�' ! !fir F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK _ I 8 n6 Z N y 511 y O — AAE All z�s � g 5 D � Afi Si� 7� Fg m M x � m D O „ E1 t 7E i!fi ##� + t tt�t�3 _ i it fill tic • [fig 't y 4 �8 F t"NI ids �� g afRaf' < I� D D r — < Z m r z z [o m a D D r ,Z) r < D D -� o O C z C v K m m -4 m D_ r wr D co m as ` t— tip, } if #z i till Ili[ t tit #T •aEli flip iii °f Jig > z, a• =r }t. • } Olt .fit # i q y It Iff i�t }j[F rt 8 # r ,tt tc r, lilt'#'# it fit a+ e r t tt r = t L T} N3r 1612 A10 < as r— < z m r z z C/) m -4 v D a r m r N D N � C O m z a m m -4 r D m �r T r I ��t fir A . s o . t rr {1 S. Z I , t, 4 0 I t I ttt;; _�if�f to {Ii #tia (IRRIGATION DETAILS 2[� _ _�' $ $re F m c� t I % � Fp99 gyg z O �E z z f ■� M 3 a1 8 D Oz Z � m D O �8 ,a er �� a %4 �E it ` t— tip, } if #z i till Ili[ t tit #T •aEli flip iii °f Jig > z, a• =r }t. • } Olt .fit # i q y It Iff i�t }j[F rt 8 # r ,tt tc r, lilt'#'# it fit a+ e r t tt r = t L T} N3r 1612 A10 < as r— < z m r z z C/) m -4 v D a r m r N D N � C O m z a m m -4 r D m �r T r I ��t fir A . s o . t rr {1 S. Z I , t, 4 0 I t I ttt;; _�if�f to {Ii #tia (IRRIGATION DETAILS 2[� _ _�' $ $re F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK (STA 0+00 TO STA 135 +81 ) s l 1 N3C�3�' WALL 1• =M' 7 ir7909030© FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK (STA 0+00 TO STA 135 +B 1) a 9��© �B3�a�3�0�0c13c7a�36�99999a9 ©901iiOF1�lOOl�OO Nil © �@ 013�00109001000�09�090003�003�003�09�090000��00�0�330��0903011000�00�9 0�000�090000�0�00�0909 ® NI1 MEMO] 011111111911SEIZED III III OII Oo0oI0111110:0111I I0IIII0o001011o0Iom MINIMUM II III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11I1IIIIIHIM III011111101 1111010111I 10101111I10IDIIIIIIDMANNED Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllm IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII® I I I I I I I I I I N I I I I I I I I I N 111111111111111111111111111111111118 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I111111111111111111111111111111111111© F r I 4FLF OFF: f �: f k 16 12 A10 tl��Fs g � $¢�Q@a B YYnKtYtYgga YyyYita: yyc�pp�sggtgpp y F # i 9 F 1 �SAn9b9 n5 SJe.1185a9 s y 3 689a 1", All Ill lip 9 as gt¢! z 3 F a =- $��l�o ��YdQ�d ! i� F Md ;d;ddCdd�d�d�d ddddd °Qi• � � p ■� � e a zkz �g z g a z zzz � D F EEQQ fp a yy5H m = $ slF :Sdslddbid�drd;�ddd�dd ? g� x p ' kR !g A - ' 'Q SR g'1, R Q 6g AR ia q f fA 6 q &a 1 24 R � 4O 6p A 6 11 11 r q ^� � y CC�CC_ �_jtt Ni iitti0 �0 Litt t tt t '!tt � y i x�d.�:i�ead:f<dlS:d:�deddLdzl c m e s r a€ a S. �li �Y 6i � ° s o Y • a �9 t I ; 1F ! it Pl 4Pt lPgpgylPlPPpEplPagqlglggPRa@Pl4PPlP4! �8gs�8�e8LJie�29sEA5SD3$;i86gs$ 14 M - � 1 A � � 1 , � �' �' 4' � s A V Y Y S V V Y t a ♦ t � € I I I t i 7 o !ip �3: ##7((' •� � _ _ m i iIp ! P It se Z «�t {�3t g� ;�� 19 1 E �} lj � � t�� } ! }I }� F ■ � i F t i ig g } � }� !g !s l;z t�� !�� a' jl a1 �!� ��a 1� � 1� ad �� } d � } } r! � � } } d � E } yy tt � •a � � I< s; lj� d� } }Il} 'd I 1 ( t a t ddb E. - a a a a a e a a a a a a a a s a a a a a a a s a a a a a a a a a a N e a e to J g % gg a p e J g pE p7 p E qI g 8 t t g d 8 e e l g g g7 g g ge a 7 (IIRRIGATION DETAILS W WALL 1• =M' 7 7 7 F FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK (STA 0+00 TO STA 135 +B 1) a T 8� 86 P F 6 C 0 N 7=-i D z >0 Z D N > — 0 � Z TN y ;A m m mx O t (p- - �N m ;2 T O M M cn M M cn t7 m O< M� I r G) z cn M IF," m ommz rrn > v (n iz_ N mva� Z C) ,Zp z�mo z c)�zvz nDr-'n m Mo vm�� omv a z -Di r . o 1 J� E� � �Si4 I, ♦ � Y _• .� I _�� ,��'S�,o.ss "+..mot "kF -_°. I — r J UT S a-...+rR —ei - I - W C— -t0 —�. vi : r co � 2 m m C -j D o1 in A w N r Z 0 W M'a U) CD U) Cl) z'D v-1 0 N r a M mm mm o 0 0 a 2 z< <<« m m m c M n mm mm n r a 70 m° ,- a '00 00 MO 00 'D m :=! o n < ZZ zZ n z � O —I -i -i - ?n 0 z �y _ r- acn 1 = 0 a z � a 3 3 R" za v a —F r m m N m 0 a z � v v M O r 2 Y/ r Z CA 1b12 A10 a c r 1 � N �0 m M< � m R1 n x y Cl) r a CD m'� 0 � m 70 irr D r= a M 2 C/) m Z r O v m z =q )� Q` §�§ �f\ \ \z \§ 4§ /z k )( /)�( );qG |q /\ \ }\ § \ \ \ t \ \ / f= ) ] ) E I«§ \ j § � 2 20 § 0 r\ \ \§ Ok ke /f K / $x k R \�) E%% ??§n 2 § AX§ MZ )( )§ \q / Zr- OZ k c a m n 0 @) 0 0 po j§ E > \R 3k \ \ �xm k) - k x2 fz � c 7 /� )z - \ C/ \� } } Aa x p o (o / \ j 9 ® 2 » r § k § / ( - ( Z § q \ > § \ U) \ M / § § / / § \ 0 e 0 = I m > ) G) £ ) z - c -n § § ) 2 k 2 } \ \ ) ® \ M § ) } --, -0 i K j \ % ( q \ § # E 2 \ o § / 2 j I § 7 7 ) / } c \ § M M -0 z p I \ n )_ § \ ( ) £ { o a / � ( k e § § § \ / )( / §k %§mK| 3a`a\ §m %m� m8`G§ �� «\ §� §2 Z \/ \ \k 2 0 / � k k § § \ \ § § 5 5 ! 2 ! § m k 16 | A I O 16112-, aio g� m o 0 W N N Y O cn O G? ° m z O D 2 o ''0 y 0 cn V z i X O� >��c� y/� m Zr— Co M x- mM 2nO��rr-n�i CA Z G) m zm�rnmc� 12—,A0.80 N v mx?psVm N 0 =v2 =CA D O m ° O m ,Z 1 = C m L7 o s co Ia D N z n C � O Z� N D n m n z 0 0 0 O no m y o m D ma m y 0Tm ,ZnN NT� I O n �gm Tm �Om - fomm >D M4 S te" mm n N�-o <D AEG) �yxmz NM,,�o S< z mm D-n ^�'zm oD �A"A`°pm ax�cmZ _ v MZ g' �O mn m _ .mi"a,m O m 'oi�m2 m >> nj OT•Z c 1 O p p D n X6 N Zy N i n O� mb°oxO N m N; O W ONSO 7O z 7 C) K O A w nO m m[n 0Om 10 Nm 0 yC °n 0 �> -0Q-4 6i A.c. •`O N� nm yzC SZ. `�) g•O �� m r{-m Some _p -.t [n 22 m m v m mm GOO m m ef� O Cb CD D r cn > Z m D 0 z (A D = y N z mOG Om -0oi 4' ;Qo Act ZW cDi� m m0 TAD m D r 6 r m N � A D �C7 D 4 rm w $m 16112 A10 T pO_ Z�Z A O 0 O T 0 V P U P Y N+ O m 8f V� N A W N� O m v Y N +• m !3 N A N�N � � � -I- gDm Ol W N� O� O Y N+ O m P V P U A W N+ y m m m 44P444PP444P4P44P4444P44PP44� n n W W OiQI P W W m m m m m m m m m m m D D D D D D D DID D D D D +4>4 D D N N D N N D N N IJ N N N N N D N N N N N N N+ + 1 N A D N+ t��y Nf� 0 0 m ONi 11JJ NN V O N A I� a; NN Nf� NN i o} ♦m opf nf� q mm♦ n MM nN♦ yi qq ♦ Of y♦ ++} ♦ } ♦ pf}p f C f D waaae�PPPPP�+JP CD y J 4 O N f � P V � } O N f ♦ P � f f � � f f } i 4 ♦ � # ♦ + ♦ ♦ i � � { � � � }O O i � 0♦ i � � } i ' 44 �� }ppp ��♦ipp P J {{{{}}�� A W N + + p} P (Wig T 0 P m� W Ol � U Oi P V P P� O N Q P P U O P O W W N A QP P P �� O N m aD A P P a' P O P m N A OD P P OI QD O N O Q i0 + P P m 01 .T�4FTR�8�iiG4Sie4�8R3B�t�^� Of p V p GW P Gf P CW a' P G U_ U A U U U U {1� U U V U U U U U U U U � J 0 0 V J 0 0 V V J V 0� J J V� V 0 J V V J V J V J J ♦ P 0 V c MI: T S C O VO p+p m iD mNm � (Ot VNV yNy pmp fWil yN yO� pJo O �Up ippD NVN NON O NOO� NOO� A b OpNpi �+ pp N WW oW (/OU� Abp NNN O yta (U(�� P p�p JNJ O yAy pv r p+� + m p (0y.� PO�r,, � N N y + y Np m 0 ��pp� T_ r O D o P S U U U U U U U U N U U U U U U U U U N U U U U U U N U U U U U U U U U N U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U= mM z m $ V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V J 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 J J 0 0 V V 0 0 0 0 J J 0 0 V V 0 0 J V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 0 V V 0 V V V c Dy m0 O� x 2 2 2 2 x x 2 2 2 x 2 x S 2 2 Nf�/1 x 2 x S S 2 2 x 2 2 x 2 2 x S 2 2 2� S x 2 2 x 2 2 2 x 2 x S 2 S 2 2 2 0 S 2 'P9 0 0 2 S o 2 y 82 PmNPN[�Dmmf�d tOP f�/•N f9A [�D Of�/1 (�!1 V�1 M 1 l�/)f�/)f�/iN Nf�A Nf�A f�//N (�/1N Pf�O NfA (�!1 NUl N W y W N PNN4�i Nf�/1 f�D f�//f�/14�1p m mm ma CA i N N tii N -i N 11 D N D y -i D Z Cl) Z 0) 2222 111 F r F r F FF F FF FFFF �> Z 0 0o a To 0 T 00 T T 0000 T T T Nm Z c z p D z zz o0 D D zz z 0 D zz 00 D D z 0 D cc 00 D D cccc 000a D D D D g m m > m m mm myym z m zz mm myym Z m Zz mm zzzz mmmm o D ym ymy ymy mm mmmm a f a M m D p !A m z C3 mm zi m m m z m mm ii m m m i m mm 2 m Z m mmmm 2 2 Z Z x x 0 ti oN m D x D D x x D x o D x D x D x D D m D 0000 m m D D➢ m pxp oo� a S $ D D D D D D D D 9 rD JC rD 7Cx x rD r x x7c r x7cxx r D D D D O mmm D O D O D O D O D O D O D D D D m m m m T T O T O O 11 O n m nn mm n m m nn mm m m n m can mm l�Sn�� mmmm T T ZT_ D r mmmm C r N o_ N 0- D N N C � 1 D� zD zO n Z m A Aw �O m x A O v ww� D � T D w y m QQ Zi O m m m v o o m m y a � Dr G7 2 Z m r � 44P444PP444P4P44P4444P44PP44� n W W W W W W W IJ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N� 1 N A W W N+ t��y Nf� 0 0 m ONi 11JJ NN V O N A I� a; NN Nf� NN i o} ♦m opf nf� q mm♦ n MM nN♦ yi qq ♦ Of y♦ ++} ♦ } ♦ pf}p f } f D waaae�PPPPP�+JP mwP�PPPPPPPP�'vPPV +'t�Jf W O N N •p Nd U W m VO 0� W U O 01 O N� m U�u N m N N U 0 0 0 NP J A (Wig T .' �r4�al�rY. 3�& �R8A8Fi .T�4FTR�8�iiG4Sie4�8R3B�t�^� U_ U U U U U U {1� U U U U U U U U U U U U U= J 0 0 V J 0 0 V V J V J V J J V J V 0 J V V J V J V J J J V V V c MI: S S 0 0 S x 0 0 S S 0 0 S S 0 0 x S 0 0 S x 0 2 S 0 0 S S 0 0 x S 0 0 S x 0 0 S x 0 0 S S 0 0 S S 0 0 x S 0➢ S f�/1 f�/i 49l NfU Nf�li N (�/1 (N NfU f�pNN (�gNNN W NNf�AN NNNf�AN N Np m 0 T_ r x x o pp oo pxp oo� D D D D D D D rD JC rD 7Cx x rD r x x7c r x7cxx r D D D D O D D O O D O D O D O D O D O D O D D D D m m m m T T O T O O 11 O n m nn mm n m m nn mm m m n m can mm l�Sn�� mmmm T T ZT_ D r 44P444PP444P4P44P4444P44PP44� n W W W W W W W IJ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N� 1 N A W W N+ t��y Nf� 0 0 m ONi 11JJ NN V O N A I� a; NN Nf� NN i o} ♦m opf nf� q mm♦ n MM nN♦ yi qq ♦ Of y♦ ++} ♦ } ♦ pf}p f } f D waaae�PPPPP�+JP mwP�PPPPPPPP�'vPPV +'t�Jf W O N N •p Nd U W m VO 0� W U O 01 O N� m U�u N m N N U 0 0 0 NP J A (Wig T .' �r4�al�rY. 3�& �R8A8Fi .T�4FTR�8�iiG4Sie4�8R3B�t�^� U_ U U U U U U {1� U U U U U U U U U U U U U= J 0 0 V J 0 0 V V J V J V J J V J V 0 J V V J V J V J J J V V V c MI: S S 0 0 S x 0 0 S S 0 0 S S 0 0 x S 0 0 S x 0 2 S 0 0 S S 0 0 x S 0 0 S x 0 0 S x 0 0 S S 0 0 S S 0 0 x S 0➢ S f�/1 f�/i 49l NfU Nf�li N (�/1 (N NfU f�pNN (�gNNN W NNf�AN NNNf�AN N Np m 0 T_ r .14 . 161-2,-, All j�1�161BIIMl��j 3Y:. ...................... GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY N. 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 June 203 MINUTES Fiala` Hiller — Henning co "ie ✓ Cioi ; la � I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m. by Pat Spencer, Vice Chairman. A quorum was established at 3:45 p.m. II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Barbara Segura, Peggy Harris (Excused), Michael McElroy (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Michelle Arnold - ATM Director Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, Manny Gonzalez - Hannula, Robert Kindelan — Commercial Land Maintenance, Sue Flynn — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda — Addressed after IV. IV. Approval of Minutes — Addressed after V.B. V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report Staff reviewed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated May 15, 2012. (See attached) • Ad Valorem Tax Collected $218,731.26 • Operating Expenses Available $49,782.10 • Capital Outlay Available $524,795.90 • Total Budget Available $580,518.33 Staff reported the preliminary budget is scheduled to be pre %it�Msihe BCC on June 28th & 29th for final approval. Date: \Qp ck \ k.Z 1 item #: 1 "-= 2 %c4 k Copies to: 1612 'A11 B. Project Manager Report — Addressed after VII. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report A. Hannula —Addressed in VII. B. Commercial Land Maintenance —Addressed in VII. VII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Mike McGee distributed and reviewed the Landscape Architecture Reports on Maintenance Services and Observations and Recommendation on Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Landscape for period May 2012 — June 2012. (See attached) Tropicana Boulevard • Pump station controller received. Installation to be scheduled. • No major plant issues found. Irrigation is being monitored and under control. Structural pruning is being done by arborist to allow more light on plant beds and less strain on trees. Sunshine Boulevard • Missing trees replacements are scheduled. • Main line leak at median #5 was detected on May 3, 2012 which resulted in the loss of 249,000 gallons of water within a one month period. Mike McGee recommended a new procedure be implemented by the Maintenance Contractor. The Contractor shall with each irrigation check; take down the pump station flow meter reading and forward to McGee & Associates to enable them to monitor weekly water use by comparing it with the projected weekly water use based upon the operating schedule. Golden Gate Parkway • Tree and plant replacements have been approved; purchase order is pending. • Irrigation checks and structural pruning. • Plants installed by sign to block light. Staff noted the Civic Association want to place approximately 1500 flags in the parkway on the morning of June 29 and will remove them on July 5th. A request was received from the Civic Association not to mow or water the medians during that period. Hannula Landscape will change schedule to oblige. Collier Blvd. Part A & B, and Green Blvd Median #1 • A proposal for the replacement of existing crown of thorns in median 1 has been requested. • Poor condition of crown of thorns renovation is recommended to match plantings on ends of median 2 and 3. 14 1612 All ■ Parameter mulch has been placed. It was noted the State removed the 951 project (between Green and I75) from the State's 5 -Year Work Program Schedule. This may change the maintenance schedule. Staff will research details. Coronado Parkway & Hunter Boulevard He reported Hannula will provide McGee & Associates pictures of oak trees and tabebuia replacements for review. The search for oak trees will continue. He suggested an alternate for the tabebuia could be crepe myrtle (lavender color) it blooms 2 -3 times a year that are readily available in any size. Richard Sims arrived at 3:45 p. m. Mike McGee reported an automobile accident at median 410 with damage to the light pole and where multiple society garlic plans had been run over and crushed. V. Transportation Operations Report Darryl Richard reported Fund 111 does not have the funds to landscape the Parkway Entrance. He noted the GG MSTU has adequate funds available if they would like to proceed with the project. (See attached) Mike McGee stated the industry prices have not had changed since they submitted the proposal. A proposal was provided for areas around the sign, in front and the next median. The trees on the south side have been broken down and are shown as alternates. Richard Sims stated he was against adding trees on the side and against turf. He suggested drought tolerant plants be installed in the next median. Some concerns expressed were the canopy trees as shown on the proposed plan would hinder visibility of the sign. Staff suggested plans be presented to the Advisory Committee without sod and with something other than trees not to hinder the visibility of the entrance sign. Discussion was made not to use turf and not to use canopy trees in front of sign. The Advisory Committee requested Staff consider the installation of a flag pole surrounded by a flower bed and pavers in front of the entrance sign. IV. Approval of Minutes — April 17, 2012 Richard Sims moved to approve the April 17, 2012 Minutes as presented. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried, 3 -0. 3 1612 All III. Approval of Agenda Richard Sims moved to approve the June 19, 2012 Agenda as presented. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried, 3 -0. VIII. GPS Report — None IX. Old Business - None X. New Business A. Future Pump Replacement Funds — None Staff reported department changes made by County Manager. MSTU and CAT are moving to Public Services. Landscaping will remain with Growth Management. The consensus was formed to cancel the July 17th meeting and reconvene on August 21, 2012. XI. Public Comments - None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advdaory Committee Richard Sims, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on as presented X or amended The next meeting is scheduled for August 21, 2012 3:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, Fl. 2 0. 9 n . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. r [z I o 000 o 0 NO 000 .2 .,q S. 3 Z Z ol e,!5 9 i . MM MM . . . . . . MM . M M M MM - - - - - - - - - 00 w w 0 1 10 G) 0 m z m C: z O Y -n 0 z All Im, �mu CW -.1 M� cc -01 17 100 �Z�l M- ` , oz nf n 'r, m Z!00 I m MO MO Cc, �" -, -5 � -, -1, �0; v 0,1 Im, 2- i 'k �- 2 11 � �8 � m . 'i PVV-.zz m . *. - - r- M rn M m MM to -0 X-1 Zi C� > C m 57 z m r� m 2 1, MO 00 :j z M;p M - 0 M 0 Z K 2 m 0 0 b 9, x x A"IM, i�, , 0 Z In W C,6 z I'm 00-1 > z C"� z , G: n M� i 'C' z 2" 0 z 'M r, , Z C-) m z n 2 W;� z --4 -V mo 2> W , 7� 00 c m m 0 0 m m mz w M 1� 4 z 0 0 M, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 7A S 0 o o 11 11, V. 11 1? 11 1 fo . MFR . . . . . . . . 0. 9 n . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. r [z I o 000 o 0 NO 000 .2 .,q S. 3 Z Z ol e,!5 9 i . MM MM . . . . . . MM . M M M MM - - - - - - - - - 00 w w 0 1 10 G) 0 m z m C: z O Y -n 0 z All a m \ 0 \ K k CD wN) _ ] Q � � ® �mm $ -0 A p R @ o . o a m 3 m o 0 ® ¢ <m-4 CL n 0 g M= 0\\ m ®_ 7 $ £ S 0 2 jC / % i \ \ k \ \ % m _ %% e 8 2\ j° q ( \ m - = 3 7 o E\§ -<Rƒ-V \ \ \ / m � �. � k - r Cam/ � i CD cn S o = o � = f 5' © / $ \ z 3 CD \ m = 5 _ 2 > & J \ -0 § S § � 2 s E v to —a ±_ cu xm k a $ & O _ Cl) k CL 7 r § k k _ % / E / @ O � 19 @ m o = o z 00 Oo C) -cn_## \ cr C AP ° % \ o = \ S 3 % AMm IM101W WICD co w m - 0 o p - ul m m o Q c to o o = 1612 |m cn > > C: 60 co \z10 a 0mMZ M _ 0 0�\ /r > §�Z2 �mm zm O CL o 8 m §k // mm == :3 m E # \o$ 5" Z / w go J 70f S ® /0 � 90 @ U. / \ , �« 20 C� 0 ■ CD v� CO) 0 I m O c m EmE c @ @@ E O � ®___ c k F / opi (n m E//$ o -D - �z SSS O -- ## z 0 � M & 0 Eq Eo2g gggg @ 0000 0000 Roo v�E z�� 1cc \�� X00 Uo. r� z 0 �. Q. � m � � X A � � m Cl) w m z w 7 @ 0 z a f 9 � 16 12 All m m m/ m/ m O��O� 2a Oa � N) - 5o=nwwoo wr%)2a .z...Z..2....2... z ƒ §@�c�ƒƒ=ƒƒ0)(1) ��r, 7 0 q= 2] c /// m m 8 7 M Z zy I/ a R z G& CO o ®@ 2 7@ _ LT o m @ ?.m m' z n� 2 / 7 7 `. `. 5' n CD - Q j \ \k— k/ 1 u60 > W , Rf9�b\ �¥�a m \ \ CD 7 C5 k� CD oc r § z @ ƒ/ �0 w\ 2 / /m \� _Q /� ± > w � r � a @ m 2 0 @ m m n 3 /z @ }Cj)# o �/w _ # G/N kG� d/A @mm mm mmmm mmmm \5/ =:E m m / / \o /%\ co� \\// /\�\ �O/ 2 \ 9 \ _ Q K E ƒ « / = a E __+ ## 7 ##_# \\\ �\ -0 333 // J E%0 g2R \ 0 p \ oef PO 0) /// $ \// N3 N) 0 -4 -4 -4 Ul Ul oo ow 0000 0000 o / to 4(A 40 _ _#a# ] o ] oN) k �eww woo w" oocc CD .9h, w \a� $a \%\$ \% \q Baal =o o##D6 d d oom o0 // 0? W f S k k a %\ m z $ CL 7 C 7 - co 7 7 =1 D C) C) kff ¥#ƒC #f9\ 7 \\ cn �� / R \ R P P /_/ G p P e e ul « \GG jE _ /w c ] = ` $ t3 \:33 co K 9R w @mm mm mmmm mmmm � m m m m m m m m /%\ #% $wwN) w __+ ## - ### ##_# p \\ /p oef PO 0) /// N � � N3 N) 0 -4 -4 -4 Ul Ul oo 00 aCA ow 0000 0000 _ #_ to 4(A 40 _ _#a# owa oN) k �eww woo w" oocc CD .9h, w :-4m5 41. 00 g910 e@MM Baal =o o##D6 o«oo oom o0 0000 0000 � \) [ i | ■ o / § ! k � c Z C § � m � � < | n § ] 2 z § m Ch U 90 @ CD 0 / � c � O � c � n k � i w m m a m r m m 0 m X O 3 v z 0 `m n y c m m m 0 1 1 O z a r O z N 1 m A D z m X x W y a r r A c D Z m ch a� m a N c m 3 m z U) a M m M a A m b m M Cn 3 m m U, 16 P2''Al I CO -I O Ul A W N m ao Z ° v . . . . . . . . Co Cn D Dorm tANNO —o �� 2(p 2� -Ir ��N —� �O °- ° O v ° v° oo m m °—' c° v m < O O °z 3 ,< -u -0 6 cn a cn o o c m (NV m 3 3 v _n o p m Cn o 3 3� Spl?ll?1nwQCWa �-o ��.w °o <3 ° o �° O�z v v __l d m (fin o ° in No ny o N,<ZCA xCi DD (D -o o m In '° m °o 0 0 o m cNn rn v D< 3 ° W O CD co �,� to ° �•3 CD �.7- - XA= ��L•NO �,� vm �3sz �jcQm�cu'cn sll rn 3D m CO - CD U7 U7 0 (� U) ((D N O N Cn 7 Z] C.n ? < N O 7. O - O CA ic X m o o m N O O o n n (� D m ° -' < cn ° (� o m 0 CA z 3 CD CA UA � ° u, m m iv CD -' m c o v (n (D & vvo m0 cn3 �3 p3 �(nfJ inZ 3 D m m �. C7 3 N N m a o Cn Cn CA 6 _ cQ ° to CD Cr- C G1 fn fD m 0 6 O go O 90 L o CD N 0 01 * N p y fD fD D 'O 7 N V, N O 0 • v ° O X r O of��voXX °oo °oo r°, ?r°,nmrncn�°'0o' -"(Q my 00 ° 00 v v v X 6 X Q °� (D < CD '� v N N< m co (Q Z m -o -oo -33 —m —m =v�v < m sumD3CD G7 ¢ n(Q m m m (oD m _(Q (a �� N- m W v ;z - v g Q 3 3 n C, N O N O m N •(Oi, = x O 0 N 0 O a m CD �. v 0 c c m o CD �, 3'm v v m pm O� °o �� v mx m_ 3 v D 3 _O C1 CD CL CD o -u - o m m M ;p CD (� N CD CD 7 CD 7 oo O n � 0 °' < CD 7 ° CD cr CD (n v co (Q' m. m v_, m o -o <, m w m m° (D m g Co w c� o C v sy F)- ° < m n 3 ° v v °? �, < D m m C� v. D 3 O== Z Z O CD 3 O U) t U, O N ° m �. m rn (D o CD o < (° CD c CD CD CD CO co O CD = ° � �' 0 3 3 O �' N a V' 0 v �3�7' ° m QOo a° �� m ° go C ..W_° w C n cr CD CD = z 3 m c°i w (°' v (ten o = v x a) °� °' (n Cn N a CD < V) N 00 3 �' (n3 m m m� m� v ° O N y �. 0 CD (� ° (Q v v v v � � s -» z CD 3 0 �• m a m n v Q ° o = r o (D CD CD CD v v CL m c m 3' D 3 a g' cr 3' o (n ca z ° N° 6 3 p o o N y v °. o m °.(Q �.(Q °- m n CA cn -p v, 0 m cQ tII o j 0 3° v° m amm =r 0(Q o rn o -o v Q v c c o O < LT w Qo CD O COD CS (D 6 fl1 (D D O _ D o y, f?° v o c° c ° (o 7 X s r Co' O O CD CD CD ::r D::r o a0i cn N D CA — o 0 m m m 90 n p 00 < z j 41 (D v m r-rm m mm m m mmmmmr- c CA A v -n -n 0 N N N sv N N iV N N N T 7 m - o - A rj Z N COJi -th. co 0) � (''� J N N ON Ln S C CO Z V-3 Ffl FA FA FA kA E9 Efl Efl (-A FA Fig Efl Fib F 9 C O Q i 3 a- Z r U l Cn N O C _1 v -• Cn (n CJi Ul UUi N N � N O A COD co c N —mm b) oo(D 6 66 b) 6 000000 C ;u C7 O O O N N O W W O O O O O O O O EA FA m Cl) G9 FA Ffl FA FA to ffl FA EA FA FA FA FA FA Ffl N vZ O CD N O_ � O O v v .-P -I v Cn O - � al O O Z W Cn C.1i Ul W O 7I A N N O .A O CD O U7 CF) ci N OO-I C) 00 v O 000000 Cb — O O O CA N O CD O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O eC N N 7 � a �3 m �3 < ran � n�N � �vm e r x � .. m � w m m O .Ne 3 n 3 v n 3 n 3 3 3 3 Ov d � w d r d � m m �O m ri a - n f1 � m 1 � ° O '0 2 E E w0 v � D < A m C �m'°'°`° �x ;oN mA - -m H ya'n� m 3 3 one o m °- o _ 3 3 m a 3 v n a N n o m = m o a=te 3 N r 3 » o m o m 3 53`" 2 - - - a s m o mw m Er ig o- O D 0 3 a. m m �. m m G m 1 Z ° 3 SE - `" - N a ° N3 AN P _ 3 3 0 < - Z D � ui 3 3 a m � A c xl 3 j _ _ K 3 m = �m�m m H rnm m » mm moz m m m »m c c�v o - r # # R # �o Er 5 H z -ZI z z - y Z Z 0 v V1 o C7 O o C7 C < 3o O N 4f ¢ as ii N N N N N H N F 3 4 3 E F \ o 1612 All O �p � A 0 0 9 0� O m o r . mo3� .. m m o o< aoc io d y M. z 3. H�mo�N[Dil D d 3 o o v — O °tea dyo (n o y o N c Ica n N fDc 0 m m ° a O m o N 0 � m Z °: m_ =^ a �o ;oz.m M: 0 N Z7 T m Oov 'm z< H ry N n > > O mm 3 3 2 m m O D 3 0 � N m 3 m a f m m m m n a H m n r a N ro m rt n m I� am H m 3 0 � 3 m m b v CO N T M A k A V T 0 0 w� u D Q N 161'2 All a n N b m r o .d+ 7 G y. AQpA 7 N � n t1 lj. d W a m 3. no o.� mom I Z if 3 a�v'mA' m O p1 r ^ � N 7AC m IA T1 N �� p g O 3 m TI TI N p 3 3 0- I - - - E m 3 - _ -_S` � � _ m•2 3 mo � 3 fD m ° o - - o - - - - 3 m v H £ n °o - m - N 14 - m. n N° _ Q o D A� A 1. m f1 = o' A m m D go £ n O _- 3 2 3 z - A m O £ _ _ O N 3 m no ,.m '.°5wogm mmm N# N# # # #p A N V j m 9# 622. n m ° # a 662 m J" p D T 0 ONN + A wN..�fn 0 A N WA NO N� u = = =1 m �ntN NS x N � S =S m m of O m o 3 R o �A n Z o Z Z Z m IR Z Z O '"9 __ G O NO( N 4 7P Z - V O V U H ^oS {{� VI O.N D. .N NNN O N NNNZ _ m m Po 37 go _3 o o 3 cF _ o Et 3 3 a n N b m r o .d+ 7 G y. AQpA 7 N � n t1 lj. d W a N ° 3 fli m v ° _ 3 < •O d N x i to m iNm 3 m � m Z � b� a m T d o � A � v 0 w 16712 .2 n- 7 n Hal p . 3 _ J " — 51 g � � m 30 � dNrmG7 x n m m d d m v d O O N R^ D � ° — o '9 5o d > D m 3 o d y j N O oFN y � QA c J z R jl �Im o y�0 o >>° oaf m zom Z O »_ m F � m � m m d a � n F � � � d m o D m m � (D O W m - a d a All d u u �'>• 3 r��J'poNV � d > > > a 2 w u ou`c mN'm m m D m a C ;O N X No v A Z y n ? � m o ° N = Z � o I� �.0 d N Q o F 3= 3 3 d¢ N ° o — f m a o w 3 3 z ^g o Z _ o.n m� m = - - = = m m o 3 3 D O H = w - v+ $ m t < 3 C N C > � �' O Em vmi 3 vii to m 5D rw O C] — � m' m Z O 3 m f IN 3 a ° d O ol ° 3 Z 2 Z �^ `D T v 0 0 3 o �mgm Fmm rr.N n �v max= x x o.a m N O H Z v v� z H N m 3 ° 3o , f m f1 N N 3 N d N 3 o � m E F £ f 16712 .2 n- 7 n Hal p . 3 _ J " — 51 g � � m 30 � dNrmG7 x n m m d d m v d O O N R^ D � ° — o '9 5o d > D m 3 o d y j N O oFN y � QA c J z R jl �Im o y�0 o >>° oaf m zom Z O »_ m F � m � m m d a � n F � � � d m o D m m � (D O W m - a d a All ti v3 0 � 3 m y �} A b ;o 00 r ~ m e Z �N o O m� m 'o 3 d m m 3 D O ti 1612 All - �z_romrNrc gZ >3 Amm naa 3 n ^ D m N o m- -ro m.,mq gat H 2 a » 7 Nom, "'nn D °'ro N C 2 o Z 3o o 31 =m - _ 3 3Pn3n3gZ o 3 m3JmD' j39. 2 °o N m o 3° 15 m m °.d 3F Tm m g F3m _ m - m 2 - oFn °-'d 2 3f 0 1 3 my'.,z 3aN = m3 m _� m3 3O R 3 1. D 3 xf.` Z3 F Io _ - - - _ o 3 3 1 O f _ _ � F � EF N � ro m o m v � I m A o n m N "..',m'� 3 � m h ova f f - " o s 3 3 3 A .i o .d. 0 y c N N m FL r v m n m : m e 3 _ 3 r.m mob» o'�v � o m DAN �z 0 bw mQ A X3333 33 333�3�3 3 3 333333 Y Y Y 33 n 33 n n O AN NAAA �A A�� Y p�+R A A �� V OAi tAtiA NA w 3 vm v� m.iD.r 3N m a 1 oo O o v Y � a v'm m a a ° m m D P6 N p 9 1� 10 ]1 .0 .0 n _ o f m - f o St �¢ YY° N" °3 °N' oon a D _ g n d n o 3 g < z e-3 q33 m3 03 3 3 3 0 � 0 - m A m m - d � 3 a T o' Z D Sa Z f D v my v 1. v ° m N mn� (ll C1 O ma _ acs nc.N ym� N N - N N Y O Z £ V A 0 o m m ON O O"� p mN nO - 53 e o m Z o �^ 3 _ 1 0 �. Y N 91 a� C Y �'• A Y >? n C Y O ° ong mm G) 3 op -+oo N�L�3 nr own o�md�� c o N m d u F Nay "cn' Q D O O N D 50 J i Y � z o y m w 3 Y j N aan 1 cn- d c �'m m m g 74 vFm th 0 �. 3 y ^n0 a>>° n m z ns J Z O � _ s m °° J � F m m Y � J _ m � o � N � N s d Q 612 r m n v m 7 r m n C m All e H v3 � 3 2° m a b v v m x n _ o �z m °m m O m 3 a m m m D Q p .m. 1612 All r N m n v" _ m ' M ° n .yi 7 Y Y5 L C m .J a D G O N N N M 0 O 3 z 0 m m a n n n _ A N -o N T O D G o -4 o z m ° O N g A D o A m v D la 6--tax a ODa� 3333.3 vF��mmm- m°n3o33r - -mf Tm D OTn� mQC°, mm n no,a 3 o m c 3 X5'0 --� `" �J o'i 3° �� m J ..-•� ° m m z _ �3p m.m - w o FF n Z m° n o0- xFD °nn M. -Ma no J d S m J S n E m a m m m no a_ o a 3 a DI ff s 3m w- m n33 m p n �md J 5D m g o O° d n 3? R, - `° 303�m o O M m T_ m 3 - m m 3 m O 3 n m 3. n 3 f R 3 _ — �JZnv3 — - oa 3 n 3 _ _ 3 3E o -- W _ .y cN - 3 C3 v mmv �c m o °° o -oo 6. mo Ro mvmvm 61. 5 Omm E N mmm o °o mmm nF a� of m m�N rnmm A A T D D z o O D D D D D 9 N m N m m N \ mmm Ornm Z n - n - V O V O m _ m U a 0 T O G o c 0 0 00 V m p N m a 5 m a °m a a m a R n O m 2 1 r N m n v" _ m ' M ° n .yi 7 Y Y5 L C m .J a D G O N N N M 0 O 3 z 0 m m (\ (/ R ( \ \ 2 � U \ ƒ ) [ � (� \ � \ \ ) ! 2 § n } }�\3 _ § ) \Er \ EF k _ it \\ /\ ) -\ k � ? k } \{ 2 ) � lz ! }& , }( § E k 9 k R ( \ \ 2 � U \ ƒ ) [ � (� \ � \ \ T � � 3 0 _ 3 u� c^oy T `O ;d m Dw Z � T S A TTm N O'< iTV O b O�i IN. iiiii A A A A A i A i Q diS i i O d 0 O y y m >> > > D d y 3 Nm o NDo _ NQ o. n n Pt n - o u N D 20 ro 7C W C P D m D la n 'o. nn nn �3g N z o ? _ C3 -3 - 3? - - ; - - - 5m, 0 3 -- RL S: Ot =�oW ago -w RL Z RL F -_ - - - - n am - -° - to 70 - m 91 m_ ' a3 _ ' - - 0 ca S. -- '0 3 3 2 G -4 0 w 3 3y 3i3> O 1 w — — — W N _ T N - O b 0 ft 3 - Wo ZED o a m a m \ m Nero n m Z m 3 3 A 0 - 0 o v 4 3 a3 O " m o 3 m S n o Z 1 of Z�� o ° i � ° E 3 w C � O O 0 0 0 4 °K n 3 ° m � O m O m N m N 0 0 Ingo O � m � m � m m � v o � m Qy� nio o � � Fyn m n � m a f y c � 9 n a 3 Z N m ^. 0 N'O �m 3 n m m m ZI N f 3 m n 1612 All �009 0u a � c � o m O j L n � N vop N C N N A p N W m Z I d y r d m j ° m g m` N D m Q. NQO D�� dnn °i r L7 D � Am0 m m � m -m y n C n� 0 D 3 0 m o C) � 9 � O Z� Z B m �aa N 7 N m m m� m m c � m � o D N d v m r w N p] m C M N -1 v3 3 � 3 c � y - d. 3 v � m n A n y J a „oo N N x N NN m 2 F ae � D 0 S 8_ gS 8 3 3 3 3 O Z M m D C C! O z P 9 9 7 9 9 1 C v L V 9 Z n n a H m v ro m 7 �11�t 12'A11 n n n N n a• a n_ 3 N - O S ei u u u a u� u xDD n��N ° N N m z O :.O O z D O � 7- a3$ D W n 0 A P X � D Egg- dc VZ vZV 3n3n ,vv —�3w d�3a_ - 'c 3 3? 3 3 m a n v30QU '" 2 3 x u N - d N_ 'j ° o ° u ' N ' -a 3 f �° - °31. ? y m o.a °3n °° - -'N° -' o 3 3 R X30°. _ s_ E _n - �° _ - D_ - lcom lcon �A xo= s -= Z £� o o3dNO o 3� po 3 3 SL a 2 ur -a 1 BL ET 3 a J T�yop =lo °c Jp� v 3 3 3 _? o dN o{ G RL j, _ o - C 1 F F n£ 3� G 3 3 Qm fm1 -c a o v Da - °o m o <= S o °tea g D ° ° F ° _ - i _ 3 1 1 0 P x N o- T V m N S - o SL 03 19 mm mmm m m m m s v a mmMm =3 v O N N 66 m"m N 6 mmO1 N 6 01 N 6 m N 6 m - N o- m'F N m = N 'm N= mm o N 'm 1 - tAOm� T fAi� A W W 3 3 ° DOD DD ° Z- D O D 1 .0 1. oo N o m N < O fin"m o N m N N a m ? 2 Q N N N , N , N m N 2 N m O A N m A (1 O 3 3 ' m 2 S 8_ gS 8 3 3 3 3 O Z M m D C C! O z P 9 9 7 9 9 1 C v L V 9 Z n n a H m v ro m 7 �11�t 12'A11 N -1 v3 o 3 A y �v �bv o p � " o �z a l=7 m J O 3 A N m D Q w s 3 3 i 3 3 1412 All m 347 ; m �`3 D ��n 1 p� m O � D A � a D + IA N � _ m � °'- - » m m _ — g o 1 m z D 2.:E N m Sam �Ta. A — � `a•m m o s 3 o s 0 N 3 N - G Au,- 3 O z £ RD y - � A m 3 3 s Z o D 1 _ Z N N £ m 3 mvo N H mmm N N N mm N N z° ONO D W A D D D D N 3 m y a ONO Nra N m O f7 O 3 3 m Z 1 R 0 z O m m ED C n D O Z 1 C O i l D ] 1 u' V J v I D V 0 D ] S ] n D S J r w �(� a m �i n N m n C �3 0 =m ti 3 v H r ° m O �b9 T "O rm m DAZ W T 1 A N N N R N f 9 0 9 MEMO nia.n Masa�nnnnn Q A m w A '°m 9 Wmv� Nmm D =O m Z ND A m D la cc 3 NpTT=DB m m -i A -f0 v s w T x c 3a?N� u PL 613-65;., ° 39 Z - _- = 7 m lo, O m m cc cc g m m 'mo O vmi ym n 3- 3 aR n _ 3c -O'<_ _ _ p 'a o' �? m'T o m � C. O m m _ 2. C. w < 3 o f = 3 p � F � _ 2 0 m T n 3w 3 m m w zm N � -° 3 v 2 m O n Pf o 3 3 °z o d N 3 m O O m 9 O m O O R , Ho wq �•y m oco�o�m a O j ry ° a K O Z, m O (7 m� � 1 oiN rvGl J � D o° g3 m a m m o m N J y 2 C O5 T Zj �mm J 2 mD w3° - Aa0 J p p 0 3 m a K o-11,13 w C C n �ma n c <° o a F c ° D 1 m � J N N O? U N w 9 J m 5.,4m _r D c ° y:. m H Zxao N N N N o m_ n m m 3 m .... z Q 3 m m a c T D 3 a� o J m f J � � m a f m > 3 m m m m m n n m n 1612 All r N w m w ro N 7 n p C 1' w 11 v3 � 3 ro !° v � P w b � Vm �bx n x m �N �z A+m V o °m A n I'o 13 13 "C 9 io D O N 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 D 9 i i J J i D J J 0 i l 3 1612 All r a t1 a N n ro m M m rt C n m 3 3 3 3 a a?x� np a # # # # #QOm #3 0 # # c'Ap? N O � N ur 9�� v O ZZC n N y 3333 Z G -A m� Nn D w A IA v00 n °m fD l Om m m ? N o Am_ ° -im °�i AOAO �.0 m a, m N Z »3- E 1. cv T- F c c m o 5eo m f r o 3 r- _ 0 3 s n y N Dt ? F m N N A 3 3 in — m N 0 D'»� '< N ' A C N p N o m- £ m m m 3 3 F mo.o n n33 m f.x n 'm moo n m m _ nmpo m° a 3 a it R ' 1 n o E °- n n. 3 n y ? 1D n m m m a m m - m 3 w 3 m o 3 - i 3 j m_ e E, g Q x g m o? - 3 T= _ m - H 3 3 o n i 3 m o 'm 3 D Nj N r°-' R. nm 'w W° mm° _ < mf o 3 m m U d o N'o s O o. mA3 Imo 3e cp cpom < ° _ - - 3 n ` m 3> - 3 Z _ 3 _ m N N O f/1 3 S A - m O Z � T 0 rw O 3 N � m 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 D 9 i i J J i D J J 0 i l 3 1612 All r a t1 a N n ro m M m rt C n m (� } \\ � \ 16 12 Al- ( � (� } � \ � \ � ( ) _ E § n „ m }} Er ) d -�} 3 E \ \{ } \\ � }�� \\ � �k o }!} !_ (k / � jk \ _} �) } §k ,§ \ § ( ■ § 16 12 Al- ( � (� } � \ � 1b Al2 ` June28, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, June 28, 2012 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," 3`d floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Manuel Gonzalez Fiala ! HillerT Henning L Coyle ✓' Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Marlene Serrano, Staff Liaison . EIVED - r� 0 4 2012 1 ,u�arri ox Cow7ty oomrrKssioners Ileana Ramos Valaree D. Maxwell Albert Batista Zetty Y. Rivera (excused) Misc. Corres: Date: ►n \� \ ►`� Item#: ► �� 2 �a �'� Copies to: 1612 AtZ June28, 2012 I. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Manny Gonzalez at 6:54 pm and a quorum was established. Il. Approve the Meeting Agenda: Manny moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Albert. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. III. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of May 24, 2012: fleana motioned to approve the minutes, Albert seconded. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. A suggestion was made to allow the Supervisor of Elections Representative to make his presentation before other business was conducted. IV. Old Business: V. Public Speakers: A. Timothy Durham- Chief Deputy Supervisor of Elections Mr. Durham started with a brief introduction to the Supervisor of Elections role on a 2011 request from the media where they compared voter registration rolls against juror excusal forms on the Clerks of Courts database against the DMV database. This comparison provided about 69 names. Out of the 69 people, Mr. Durham reviewed the list, 15 potential names had the signature on the excusal form that matched the signature on the voter registration database. To falsely register to vote is a 3 degree penalty under Florida Law. He had a list of 15 that they contact individuals to seek documentation in order to disqualify the person as a voter. Out of the 15, five provided proof of citizenship, 10 were non citizens and 2 are being prosecuted by the State Attorney's Office because they voted on the 2010 Election. In the State around April through the DMV records, provide a statewide list of names when drivers obtain their license and register to vote. Collier County out of a list of 2600 got 27 names. They started the process of contacting the individuals. Racial composition, 10 white non- Hispanic, 3 black non Hispanic, 11 Hispanic and 3 others. The media focused on this being a Hispanic problem and it was not the case. Four were confirmed immediately in writing that were not citizen, 3 were confirmed by phone that were not citizen, 9 signed the certified letter that matched the voter's registration records, 2 were registered as non citizen and were registered by a clerical error, 1 provided proof of citizenship and 8 people that were 2 16 12 Al2 June28,2012 contact on several occasions but never responded were published on the newspaper per statutory requirement. To conclude, 1 was a citizen and 26 were removed from the voting rolls. The Supervisors of Elections Office does not foresee this issue to arise again. Manny asked Mr. Durham's opinion about the State of Florida asking for 180,000 names to be purged and according to organizations like the League of Women's Voters, the names were extracted from a flaw database and you said Collier County only had 27. Mr. Durham said that he concurs that the list could have been better. He explained that by law all the correspondence is by Certified Mail and if it comes back undeliverable, and then you publish their name on the newspaper, wait 30 days and then remove from the voters list. Mr. Durham explained that in Collier County they go one step further since they know that a lot of people don't look in the newspaper and what they do is that they look for a better mailing address or telephone number to find the individuals. Manny stated that the latest statement that was made by the US Department of Justice it was stated that Florida Law has a clear racial impact. What authority does the Department of Justice have over your office? Mr. Durham stated that they have minimal authority over the Supervisors Elections. Valaree spoke about her interaction with Jennifer Edwards, the Supervisor of Elections during Politics at the Park event. She mentioned an incident with a lady that received a letter stating that she was not a citizen and could not vote and her name was not even Hispanic. Albert mentioned that in Miami the voter receives a voter registration card every couple of years and if you don't respond they remove you as a voter. Mr. Durham stated that every odd year they do a mass mailing to all registered votes to keep track of residents that move out of the area. The person would become inactive if they don't vote for the next two general elections. Mr. Durham spoke briefly about the primary elections and the ballots for the upcoming elections. Albert asked about is the department of elections making an effort to reach out to the Hispanic voters. Mr. Durham stated that his office has a couple of Hispanic staff members that offer outreach information and also visit the Spanish radio and provide information in Spanish for all voters. They go to the high schools and also provide information to Hispanic voters. M 16 AIZ une28 2012 Lt. Rene Gonzalez- Invited the Board to attend the Minority Meeting in Immokalee on July 12 th VI. New Business: A. Side Walk and Bike Path Initiative — Information provided by the County Manager's Office for the Board to review. Members of the Board didn't have any comments. Albert stated that the sidewalks should increase and they are a benefit to the community members. B. Traffic Light and new school zone in Manatee School: Ileana stated that the light would not change in that intersection and is blinking instead of being a steady light. She feels that the speed is 60 miles and there are two schools near the intersection and its very dangerous. A girl was killed in that intersection and she wants to know what the regulation is to change the speed or the way the lights function on the intersection. Manny explained that these changes have to go to the BCC for a formal request to FDOT. Manny asked Lt. Gonzalez to check on the process. Information was provided to Ileana to request a Public Petition with the BCC. C. Law Enforcement Presentation by Manny: Manny stated that he would make the presentation next meeting. D. Next meeting location: The next meeting will take place at the current location on August 23, 2012. E. Letter from Letter from Mr. Jordan objecting to HAAB Chairman's support of CCSO vehicle safety check/stops in Immokalee and East Naples. F. Valaree spoke about the Deferred Action Program recently in place by the Federal government and the requirements to qualify for the program. VII. Public Comments: VIII. Adjourn Manny motioned to adjourn, Valaree seconded. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. Next Meeting: August 23, 2012. Chairman 4 Date 16 12 A13 MSTU Board Commissioner Chair Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Georgia Hiller MSTU Advisory AGENDA Immokalee Li Wing and Beautification MSTU 1320 North 15` Street Immokalee, FL 34142 August 22, 2012 - 10:00 A.M. Im A. Call to Order. F6,dfTlOko�22 ceMvy B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Introductions. D. Announcements. E. Adoption ofA-eg nda. F. Communications. a. No Littering flyer. b. Carson Road Sidewalk Plans. c. Main Street Improvements Plans. G. Approval of Minutes for May 23, 2012 a. May 23, 2012 (Enclosure 1) Committee Cherryle Thomas b. June 26, 2012 (Enclosure 2) Chair H. Old Business. Lucy Ortiz a. Budget Report (Enclosure 3) i. PO Report (Enclosure 4) William Deyo ii. Expenditures (Enclosure 5) Andrea Halman b. Code Enforcement Report c. Project Manager Report Norma Ramirez i. Carson Road Sidewalk Report (Enclosure 6) ii. Main Street Improvements Report CxA staff iii. Street Lighting Report Penny Phillippi iv. Christmas Decoration Update Executive Director v. Ninth Street Sidewalk Bradley Muckel d. Contractor Reports Project Manager i. Maintenance Report — CLM (Enclosure 7) ii. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design (Enclosure 8) Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant e. Community Redevelopment Agency Report i. Stormwater Project Update tBUC staff ii. Crosswalk Project Update Marie capita iii. Ist Street Plaza RFQ update IBDC Manager I. New Business. Rosemary Dillon a. MSTU member renewal. Norma Ramirez and Lucy Ortiz (Enclosure 9) (Action Item) IBDC Administrative b. JRL Design contract renewal. (Action Item) Assistant c. Street light replacements. (Enclosure 10) (Action Item) 239 - 269 -9628 J. Citizen Comments. MSTU Staff K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting September 26, 2012 at 10:00 A.M. Jeffery Nagle L. Adjournment. Project Manager 239.867.4121 * The next MSTU Advisory Committee meeting will be held August 22, 2012 at 10:00 A.M. at 1320 North 15th Street Immokalee, FL 34142. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please contact Jeffrey Nagle, MSTU Project Manager, 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 Jeffrey Nagle at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the MSTU Lighting and Beautification Advisory Committee may also members of other Boards and Committees. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Committee may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Immokalee Lighting and Beautification MSTU 1320 North 15`" Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Imnokalee Lighting and Beautification MSTU Certification of Minutes Approval Form 1612 A13 tve� BY: ....................... Prepared by: Approved by: J/ /It r' ti l f r Penny PI illippi, Exect� t, e Director Cherryle Tho s, Chairman ItmnoWee Lighting and Beautification MSTU Liaison r These Minutes for the May 23, 2012, MSTU Advisory Committee Meeting were approved by the MSTU Advisory Committee on August 22, 2012 as presented. * The next MSTU Advisory Corrunittee meeting will be held September 26, 2012 at 10:OOA.M. at the Inunokalee CRA located at 1320 North 15'11 Street Immokalee, FL 34142. 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 Jeffrey Nagle, Immokalee MSTU Project Manager, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the MSTU Lighting and Beautification Advisory Committee may also be members of other Boards and Committees. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Committee may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Fiala Hiller ' ✓ _ Henning Coyle / Coletta . Corres: Date: 'Nc�ARW2. Item #: \L-eZ2 \A V3 r n�aS to: Minutes 1612 'All Immokalee R, Immokalee Il.d_c,r Immokalee Lighting and Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Meeting May 23, 2012 Enclosure 1 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 10:24 a.m. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee Members Present: Cherryle Thomas, Andrea Halman and Norma Ramirez. Advisory Committee Member Absent /Excused: Bill Deyo and Lucy Ortiz. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Alberto Sanchez, Christina Perez and Robert Kindelan. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel, and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. All present introduced themselves to the Committee. Penny Introduced Christina Perez -Code Enforcement and Alberto Sanchez - Utilities Code Enforcement. D. Announcements. Contact information was passed out. Photos of CRA /MSTU Staff on the job with street light knock down response. E. Adoption of the Agenda. Action: Ms. Ramirez made a motion to approve the agenda; it was seconded by Ms. Halman and the motion passed by a vote of 3 -0. F. Communications. Ms. Phillippi passed around the Communications Folder which contained photos of the Ninth Street sidewalk replacement area on a resident's property along the roadway frontage and a graphic of the Carson Road sidewalk project which identified potential bus shelter relocation as discussed with design engineer. G. Approval of the Minutes. Action: Ms. Ramirez made a motion to approve the minutes for the month of May 2012. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas and the motion passed by a unanimous vote of 3 -0. H. Old Business. a. Budget Report. Christie Betancourt reported on the current budget, provided Purchase Order and Expenditures Reports to the Committee. The report was accepted by consensus. Staff was directed to review fund 111 budget for discussion at next meeting. b. Code Enforcement Report. — Christina Perez provided a report on the Eden Park clean up conducted on Saturday, May 19, 2012. She said that 22.76 tons of waste, 9.99 tons of tires, and 11.69 tons of construction waste were collected. Ms. Thomas asked CRA staff to inquire as to who should be contacted for the removal of discarded tires along the roadside swale at Pepper Road. Ms. Ramirez also inquired about Shoeman's Curve and the property there that is zoned Ag needs to be cleaned up. Immokalee CRA 2012IMSTU Master File /Agendas /June 2012 /May Minutes 1 1 612 -A 1 Immokalee ,�a �a,��,..<lee Mr. Sanchez reported on the Recycling Program and the challenges faced such as debris left following garbage pickup and indicated that recycling bins will be used at the Southside across from the Casino instead of the tubs. He said they are working on a picture Brochure to better educate the community on recycling. Mr. Sanchez also said that Choice Environmental will do a garbage round up every 6 weeks in the areas of First and Ninth and Roberts and Main. C. Project Manager Report - Mr. Muckel passed out the MSTU Project Managers report and reviewed it with the Committee. i. Carson Road sidewalk project - Staff was directed to investigate how long the ROW permit would be good for on the project after issuance for discuss at next meeting. ii. Main Street Improvement project - The Committee Members were informed that the JPA for FDOT project funding of $61,947 was brought before the County BCC and approved on May 22. iii. Street Lighting - Staff was directed to investigate if there is a requirement for street light replacement for those street lights that are habitually knocked down due to accidents. The street light knocked down this month, near McDonalds on N. 15th Street was discussed and as well considering the installation of a "No Parking" sign in that location. Possibility of storing extra street light poles at the Road and Bridge facility was discussed. iv. Christmas Decoration - investigation progress into the additional wind loading on the street light poles from the lighted angel was discussed in the report. V. Ninth Street Sidewalk replacement — photos of the existing site conditions from the communication folder was discussed. d. Contractor Reports. i. Maintenance Report. Mr. Kindelan of CLM reviewed report. Mr. Kindelan indicated that there was evidence of a traffic accident that damaged some median plantings at First and Eustis Streets and inquired if anyone had seen a traffic accident report for it. The potential for storing street light materials at Road and Bridge facility was discussed. Committee directed MSTU Project Manager to schedule an appointment with Road and Bridge to discuss further. ii. Landscape Architect Report. Christie Betancourt reviewed Landscape Architect report provided by JRL. The reports action item suggested an irrigation water use study be conducted and checking for easements along First St. for future plantings. Committee recommended moving this action item to next meeting. Immokalee CRA 2012IMSTU Master File /Agendas /June 2012 /May Minutes 2 N 1612 V13 Immokalee k fda 4,,z,., -1- Committee discussed problem of trash being discarded on the ground near the Family Dollar and ADP stores on Main Street and made a motion to have the existing trash receptacle relocated near the Family Dollar relocated to a more suitable location, in that area, where it will be utilized appropriately. Action: Ms. Ramirez made a motion to approve the existing trash receptacle relocation; it was seconded by Ms. Halman and the motion passed by a vote of 3 -0.. e. Community Redevelopment Agency Report. i. Stormwater Project — Mr. Muckel provided an update on the project schedule. The Committee was invited to attend the project weekly progress meeting at 3:00 pm held every Wednesday at the CRA office. Mr. Muckel discussed an issue regarding the removal existing metal pipe, originally installed by a homeowner where the homeowner is now requesting the pipe, which has scrap value, be returned to them by the projects contractor that removed it. The schedule for installing the fencing around the pond for safety purposes was also discussed. ii. Crosswalk Project — Mr. Muckel told the Committee that phase 1 of this project consisting of the study and preparation of construction documents based on study recommendations have been put out to bid. Estimated time for this phase will be approximately 3 months. Crosswalks and landscaping will be reviewed in the study and will determine what devises are recommended which may include crossing flashers in the pavement. I. New Business. Citizen Comments. a. MSTU Committee discussed not having meetings in June and July. After discussion with the CRA staff committee suggested not meeting in July. J. Next Meeting Date. The next meeting will be held June 27, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. K. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 11:36 a.m. Immokalee CRA 2012 /MSTU Master File /Agendas /June 2012 /May Minutes 3 Irntnokalee Lighting and Beautification MSTU Certification of Minutes Approval Form by: Ilippi, Exec t Director e Lighting n Beautification MSTU Liaison 1612 p13 AUG 2 6 !� � Approved by: Cherryle Thoma , Chairman ,............ These Minutes for the June 26, 2012, MSTU Advisory Committee Meeting were approved by the MSTU Advisory Committee on August 22, 2012 as presented. * The next MSTU Advisory Committee meeting Will be held September 26, 2012 at 10:00A.M. at the Itmokalee CRA located at 1320 North 15t" Street Immokalee, FL 34142. 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 Jeffrey Nagle, I umokalee MSTU Project Manager, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the MSTU Lighting and Beautification Advisory Committee may also be members of other Boards and Committees. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Committee may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. �. Fiala Hiller _ Flenning Coyle _f C,uletta Misc. Corres: Date: \O\ q \ I Z. Item* ffk %'3 Codes to: Minutes e13 1612 . Immokalee fkr =d� .� rho 23 sr :.are,�r Immokalee Lighting and Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Meeting June 26, 2012 Enclosure 2 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 10:15 a.m. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee Members Present: Cherryle Thomas, Bill Deyo and Lucy Ortiz. Advisory Committee Member Absent /Excused: Andrea Halman and Norma Ramirez. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Richard Tindell. Staff: Jeffrey Nagle and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. No introductions were needed. D. Announcements. Contact information was passed out. No other announcements. E. Adoption of the Agenda. Action: Ms. Ortiz made a motion to approve the agenda; it was seconded by Mr. Deyo and the motion passed by a vote of 3 -0. F. Communications. Mr. Nagle passed around the Communications Folder which contained photos of blue Immokalee street light wiring and an email from Collier County's John Miller regarding issues of concern for the MSTU awareness, an email from Mr. Steedman, MFR representative for Immokalee Blue street lights, regarding the Effective Projected Area (EPA) of the proposed holiday angel, RFQ from CLM for the previously requested trash can relocation near Family Dollar store, and latest CLM maintenance report from June 20, 2012. Approval of the Minutes. Action: Ms. Thomas made a suggestion to table the approval of the minutes for the month of May 2012, since members have not yet reviewed them, until the next meeting. No action was taken. G. Old Business. a. Budget Report. Mr. Nagle reported on the current budget, provided Purchase Order and Expenditures Reports to the Committee. The report was accepted by consensus. Ms. Ortiz inquired as to where on the budget report is the MSTU Project Managers salary shown and Ms. Betancourt pointed out a line item in the Capital Outlay section of the report. b. Code Enforcement Report. Ms. Christina Perez from Code Enforcement was not present to provide a report. Mr. Nagle informed the Committee that Code Enforcement has planned a Community Clean Up in August. Immokalee CRA 2012IMSTU Master File /Agendas /June 2012 /May Minutes 1 (mmokalee C. Project Manager Report - Mr. Nagle reviewed the MSTU Project Managers report with the Committee. i. Carson Road sidewalk project — Mr. Nagle provided the Committee with (Enclosure 5), a preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) estimate of $95,238.00, prepared by Q. Grady Minor, for discussion. Mr. Nagle requested the Committees action on this item. Mr. Nagle informed the Committee that the current project budget and scope of this project provides for the engineer to provide bid assistance and some Construction Phase Services (CPS), however it was recommended that approval of an additional 10% over the OPC is advisable. Mr. Nagle stated that the project is a sidewalk improvement project that begins at Westclok Road and extends along the west side of Carson Road to the intersection of Lake Trafford Road. Ms. Thomas informed the Committee members that the MSTU has been waiting for this project for a while and recommended that the MSTU approve the project to move forward. Mr. Deyo suggested that a budget of $109,000.00 be considered for approval. Action: Mr. Deyo made a motion to approve the project budget not to exceed $105, 000.00 and directed staff to prepare a formal RFP for the project; it was seconded by Ms. Ortiz and the motion passed by a vote of 3 -0. ii. Main Street Improvement project - The Committee Members were informed that the MSTU has received 100% construction plans for the project from JRL, however there are concerns with the ownership at some of the road intersections where sidewalk and handicapped ramps are proposed. Mr. nagle indicated that he had a meeting with RWA and JRL to discuss these problem areas and that additional title information from Stewart Title is required to investigate a solution. The Committee was also informed of an FDOT- Highway Beautification grant was available for this project for landscaping and irrigation, with special consideration given to REDI areas, with an amount not to exceed $100,000.00 for which the MSTU will be submitting an application due in October. iii. Street Lighting — Mr. Nagle informed the Committee that there was yet another light pole knock down over the past weekend at 1st Street and Eustis consisting of a median light pole. iv. Christmas Decoration - The Committee was informed of the status of the holiday angel decoration investigation that revealed a new concern with overloading the existing electrical circuit with the added decorations. Mr. Nagle stated that he is currently reviewing this issue with the MSTU electrical contractor, Southern Signal. investigation progress into the additional wind loading on the street light poles from the lighted angel was discussed in the report. V. Ninth Street Sidewalk replacement — The Committee was informed that discussions with Collier County Transportation Department, Immokalee CRA 2012IMSTU Master File /Agendas /June 2012 /May Minutes 2 1612 A Immokalee ibr,da =n 1� 71 n cw:ey ROW Permitting has identified that any sidewalk replacement is required to comply with Co. standards which entail a 5 feet wide concrete sidewalk although the current sidewalks in the area appear to be 4 feet wide, asphalt construction. Mr. Nagle is.*till investigating this matter with the County ROW permitting agency for an appropriate resolution and has conversed with Alison Bradford from The Co. Transportation Department. d. Contractor Reports. i. Maintenance Report - The Committee was directed to (Enclosure 6) reports from CLM. Mr. Nagle described an onsite meeting he held with Mr. Kindlan to discuss landscaping in the medians on 1St Street and Main Street. A Request for Quote (RFQ) has been made for the removal of dead /damaged plants on 1St Street near Delaware Avenue, quote to include soil removal and replacement as well as plant replacement. Mr. Nagle told the Committee that a significant issue with the maintenance of landscaping in the medians is the fact that pedestrians cross the streets outside of the designated cross walks and trample the landscape material and suggested some type of public education with signage in the medians. Ms. Ortiz referenced a publication in graphic form for the community's non - English speaking residents and recommended we can get the word out through the Community of Farm Workers Association, Coalition of Immokalee Farm Workers, and perhaps a radio spot with the local station. Mr. Deyo indicated that we need to educate the community on trash disposal. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that there are no trash cans on recreational property in the community, but they seem to remain clean. ii. Landscape Architect Report - Mr. Tindell from JRL reviewed (Enclosure 6) Landscape Architect report and photos provided. The reports action item suggested an irrigation water use study be conducted and checking for easements along First St. for future plantings. Committee recommended moving this action item to next meeting. e. Community Redevelopment Agency Report. i. Stormwater Project — Mr. Nagle provided an update on the project schedule informing the Committee that the project is on time. ii. Crosswalk Project — Mr. Nagle informed the Committee that the bids for this project are currently being reviewed for contractor selection in mid -July. H. New Business. a. YR 2013 Fund 162 Budget i. Fund 162 Budget (Enclosure 8) ii. Fund 111 Budget (Enclosure 9) Immokalee CRA 2012IMSTU Master File /Agendas /June 2012 /May Minutes 3 1612 -A 13 Immokalee Mr. Nagle explained that the MSTU Committee must take action on the budgets so that they can be presented to the BCC for approval. The budgets were reviewed and it was explained to the members that Fund I I I is not currently in the Immokalee MSTU, but that it will be turned over at the end of this fiscal year and that is why they must act on that Fund at this time. Action: Ms. Ortiz made a motion to approve the 2013 Fiscal Budget for Fund 162 and Fund 111 without change; it was seconded by Mr. Deyo and the motion passed by a vote of 3 -0. Citizen Comments. a. None I. Next Meeting. The members discussed not holding a meeting in July and unanimously agreed to conduct the next scheduled meeting in August. Mr. Nagle brought it to the Committees attention that he had a conversation with Mr. Halman whom indicated that Ms. Halman would not be able to attend the regularly scheduled morning meetings due to prescheduled appointments for next few months. Mr. Nagle suggested that the Committee could consider rescheduling the next few meetings later in the afternoon to accommodate Ms. Halman's temporary schedule adjustment. The Committed agreed to hold the next 6 scheduled MSTU meetings starting at 3:00 p.m. The July meeting will be cancelled. The next meeting will be held August 22, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. J. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 11:28 a.m. Immokalee CRA 2012IMSTU Master File /Agendas /June 2012 /May Minutes 4 le 16 12 A14 AUG 2 Q 2012 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE'!),'3rd of County Commissioners ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MAY 179 2012 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Joe Langkawel, Chairman Jim Hughes, Advisory Committee Member Jim Gault, Advisory Committee Member Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle II. OLD BUSINESS Coletta A. Chief's Report. B. April 19, 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve April 19, 2012 Minutes by Jim Gault. a. Motion seconded by Jim Hughes. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Langkawel. C. Report from Isles of Capri Budgetary & Oper. Investigative Committee Phase 2. 1. BCC is considering an Emergency Services straw ballot for Aug. 24, 2012. a. "Would you support consolidation of Fire & EMS under the Sheriff ?" b. To include 5 independent fire districts, 2 dependent fire districts, EMS. c. Janet Vesey of the Productivity Committee has proposed this idea. d. If the voters overwhelming vote in favor, the next step is unclear. e. The Fire Steering Committee will discuss this on 05/21/12. 2. This Committee continues to work on forming a dependent special district. disc. Corres: a. The Committee is working on formulating the required ordinance. Date: Q �a� �� 1. John Rogers spoke with Laura Donaldson. a. Her expertise was recommended by the County Attorney. Item #:" °"T' 2-'a1`"t b. Committee has determined she cannot be used. 2. A body of documents has been found to use as a model. Copies to: 3. Chief Murphy is assisting the committee in this endeavor. b. Nothing will be brought to the BCC prior to Aug. 24. c. After Aug. 24, the Committee plans to bring the ordinance to the BCC. 1612p1p D. Status of Hummer sale. 1. Executive Summary prepared. 2. County Attorney legal review completed. 3. Item must be approved by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. a. ICFD must obtain approval for funds to be returned to our MSTU. b. Executive Summary must be approved pre- auction. c. BCC May 22 meeting is hopeful. d. After approval, the hummer will be put up for auction quickly. 4. Funds from the sale will increase our FYI carryforward and reserves. E. Forestry grant for the purchase of a skid unit has been awarded. 1. The 50/50 grant will result in grant funds to ICFD of $4,900. 2. Award approval will be on the 05/22/12 BCC Agenda item 16F F. FF/EMT Dave Thomas will be awarded the Phoenix Award on 05/22/12. G. ICFD FY 13 Budget Draft discussion. 1. County Manager has reviewed and approved the ICFD budget draft. 2. BCC Budget Hearings are scheduled for June 28 & 29. 3. ICFD will be notified of preliminary property values on June 1. 4. ICFD budget is millage neutral. H. Holiday Pay update. 1. HR current estimate of 2 years of backpay is approximately $25,000. 2. County Attorney has completed a legal review. 3. County Attorney is in agreement of the 2 year time frame for payment. 4. Holiday Pay payment is currently under review by the Clerk of Courts. I. Update on a possible plan of management job sharing between ICFD & Ochopee. 1. Jim Hughes asks for an update on this proposal. 2. Joe Langkawel states that this proposal is not being considered. J. Update on inquiry by Philip Brougham of Fiddler's Creek. 1. Chief McLaughlin spoke to Mr. Brougham about his concerns. 2. It appears that it is just this one resident who is seeking a fire district change. 3. It does not appear that any large group is behind Mr. Brougham. III. NEW BUSINESS A. ICFD received a "Thank You Letter" from Peggy & Frank Kloiber. 1. A copy of the letter was distributed. 2. The letter complemented our emergency services responders. B. Public Comment. 1. Does ICFD have plans to activate CERT? a. Chief McLaughlin is not aware of an active CERT team. r b. Chairman Langkawel states that CERT fell apart 5 years ago. i 1612 +A14 c. Chief McLaughlin states that we can revisit this issue. d. Chief McLaughlin will contact Ann Hall regarding CERT. 1. Are residents interested? 2. Interested residents should contact ICFD if interested. 2. What is the status of hiring a new ICFD Fire Chief? a. Chairman Langkawel states a Chief will not be hired until October. b. Chairman Langkawel states the County Manager controls this. c. Personnel issues are not handled by the ICFD Advisory Committee. d. Chief McLaughlin will continue his supervisory position at ICFD. 3. Does ICFD have a Fire Marshall or a Fire Inspector? a. Chief McLaughlin states that we have 2 state - certified inspectors. b. This is an additional function of a firefighter. c. Lt. Perry was overzealous in referring to himself as a Fire Marshall. d. Lt. Perry has been counseled to not represent himself as such. 4. Is the ICFD notified of outside County law enforcement investigations? a. Chief McLaughlin replies affirmatively. 5. What is the status of the FF Tomei investigation? a. Chief McLaughlin replies that all charges have been dropped. C. The next ICFD Advisory Committee Meeting will be held on July 19, 2012. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Jim Gault at 7:32 p.m. 1. Motion seconded by Jim Hughes. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approved: Date: 1612 A15 It tf GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, F1 34104 July 19, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: June 21, 2012 V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera D 0J A t� ; 0 BY:...................... Fiala Hiiier Henning —" Coyle Coletta _ L VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM and McGee & Associates VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Dora[ Bridge Project B. Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Future Projects A. FY 2012 B. FY 2013 i. Paver Cross Walk at Entrance - US 41 and St. Andrews ii. Front Entry Refurbishment X. Committee Reports XI. Old Business XII. New Business XIII. Public Comments XIV. Adjournment iv sc. uorres: Date:�� \11_ Item #: \L°= 2%4�\ b to The next meeting is August 16, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 1612 A 15 it tf GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 June 21, 2012 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 2:00 p.m. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Darlene Lafferty —J u ristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: Xll. A. Reorganization of the Alternative Transportation Department Xl. A. Weir Fence at Doral Circle Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: May 17, 2012 Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the May 17, 2012 minutes as submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) o Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax $7,711.56 o Available Capital Outlay $91,805.15 o FY13 Budget (See attached) - Budget is Pending BCC approval - Proposed Revenues $185,100.00 Robert Slebodnik noted the Reserves Line Item was reduced to $100,000.00. Gloria Herrera replied the monies are reflected in Capital Outlay $222,500.00. Darryl Richard stated a Budget Amendment can be requested after October 1, 2012. VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Robert Kindelan reported: o Minor Irrigation issues were corrected 1612 A15 o Second application of insecticide was performed on the Bougainvillea for Caterpillars VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report - Mike McGee reviewed the following: (See attached) At US41 • Main spear frond is still missing on the Foxtail Palm (Median No. 1) - Replacement may be required • Broken Irrigation Head repair is pending • Washout of sand is occurring inside the Bougainvillea (outbound side) - Requested CLM determine the source of the washout Doral Circle o Large Royal Palms are showing signs of deficiency - Recommendation was made to apply additional treatments immediately on all Royal Palms to reverse the nutrient deficiencies - Homeowner approval may be needed to install a mulch ring around (2 -3) Royal Palms located on the ROW line (on the west side) to avoid yard damage from the applications Discussion ensued on installing a mulch ring and treatments for the Palms located on the ROW line. After much discussion the following was concluded: • Install Fertilizer Spikes in lieu of installing mulch rings around the Trees • CLM will submit a Quote to install Spikes (50 Trees) • Homeowners will be notified of the Fertilizer Program - Applicable Homeowners may opt out of the Fertilizer Program Jennifer Tanner moved to appropriate $3,000.00 to save the Royal Palms by adding Fertilizer Spikes as soon as possible with notification to the Home Owners for their approval. Second by Robert Slebodnik. Staff stated a door flyer will be posted at each residence to notify the Homeowners. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Water Chart (See attached) o Elevated Water usage was anticipated in May and June due to Plant Material replacements o Recommends relocating the rain sensor (behind the entry wall at US41) to the pump station - Sensor is located under a Tree canopy and is shielded 2 1612 A15 Vinca Cora Seasonal Color Selection (See attached) o Option No. 1 - Colors include white, Apricot, Burgundy and Deep Lavender o Option No. 2 - Colors include Apricot and Deep Lavender Discussion took place on the color selections. After discussion it was agreed by the Committee to install Option No. 2. Jennifer Tanner moved to use Option No. 2 and add Burgundy for the Plant Beds on US41 and St. Andrews. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. B. Doral Bridge Project — Mike McGee presented photographs of base cover options for the Light Poles. After discussion the Committee agreed to install the standard octagon shape base. Jennifer Tanner moved to approve the octagon base for the Lights on the Doral Bridge. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. C. Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Mike McGee gave a status report on the Project: o 100% Plans were submitted to Staff o Alternate Items were added to the Bid - Median Open Cut and Trench due to the Sewer Force Main (depth unknown) Light Pole base nut cover options were discussed. The Committee agreed to install the standard base cover to save cost. • Base Bid - $177,273.70 • Total Bid to include the Alternate - $199,606.55 Jennifer Tanner moved to approve a Budget amount not to exceed $200,000.00 for the Pebble Beach Blvd Lighting Project as planned and to proceed with the Bidding Phase. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Vlll. Transportation Operations Report — Darryl Richard A. Project Managers Report (See attached) Mike McGee and Darryl Richard reviewed the following: (L -50) Modifications to Fence at Weir • Fence will be installed at a 5 ft. height on the outside of the wall • Project will be completed by mid -July 3 "'6 1612 A15 B. Review of the To Do List (See attached) Item No. 4 Mike McGee reiterated the suggestion to install Bahia Sod during the rainy season in the Utility Box area to impede the down wash of sand. Reorganization of the Alternative Transportation Department Michelle Arnold reported the BCC endorsed the County Managers reorganization plan as follows: o Alternative Transportation Modes - CAT and MSTU was moved to Public Services - Public Services Department includes Parks and Rec, Museums, and Housing Index Services - Steve Carnell is the interim Administrator - Landscaping and Irrigation Staff was moved to Road Maintenance - Landscape and Irrigation Services will continue to be provided to the MSTU (additional cost may be incurred) - Changes are effective September 2012 - Public Services (CAT and MSTU) will be relocated to the Government Complex Discussion took place on holding the MSTU meetings at the Government Complex. The Committee agreed to meet at the Government Complex for the monthly MSTU meetings. IX. Future Projects A. FY 2012 B. FY 2013 — Paver Cross Walk at Entrance — US 41 at St. Andrews Mike McGee reviewed an estimate to install the walkway is as follows: o Install the walkway — $25,000.00 o Plans and FDOT Permitting - $1,500.00 o Total $30,000.00 (approximately) Robert Slebodnik stated the Front Entryway and Signs need refurbishment and suggested holding a special meeting to discuss the Front Entry. After discussion it was agreed by the Committee to add the item to the July Agenda. X. Committee Reports - None XI. Old Business A. Weir Fence at Doral Circle — Previously discussed under Vl/l. A. XII. New Business - None 4 � 1612 p15 A. Reorganization of the Alternative Transportation Department - Previously discussed under Vlll. B. XIII. Public Comments - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:33 p.m. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Slebodnik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on '%- ! 9 as presented X or amended The next meeting is August 16, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 16 12 A15 A AA A-N W W W W W W WWW W N N N N N N NNN M ;g - ;3 --WW V0(T?WN� A W N -+CDW CO -4 0W A WN�CDWW V MO4-W N O(000 V Opt AC4 C, o -ice U�7�wm��C� OOTOOrrxr'cno�Z�mOrzu�m- a'ZC�C� �'�7zzZTOc� cmmi>cmi> Do�DD�mm_= �mZ2�� _QcDm=z��G>�DG>�ADDG�mm�r> �� cznmm(zn�yO;>oxm= Cm ;D(Z, -�x2� xcm��mmmm�czi��czi�czi)zDm��oD W IM T�IT�rM� Nm DmZZ r7m— z> 0C�C)�m�T° 'f1TmmCZw�2G0 pM,TTxZ�7.Z�7(�j)o�mGG)MX, <Cc, oD� x mp�OZmc��plG�c�n�xm��.mD D�pOr G7 OOC�DD ��Zm�xv0MmoD Oc��z -- RnmDDo- 600XZpm0 -r^i ��Ozczi�cZi) cDC�i»��m� -{T0� (n zm Dc��mmmn��o�n�z�m cZi)0C,,> z�pmZ�_vcnz��m m mm �pmCn�1 =.,,Z oo�DvmOmzDD�DD cz O7x z mzz m��WD D� cz� i OTmDm cmmmXX >z 0> 0 zm p p �Zz r D-{ � m cn z� Ory X X m c 00 D rDc w zmny o��m (n m r p cn mz mm O Dr x 0 cn CDr-m �p C) x m m m r—m D O D n D W L m D z O <nV1E9E9 <A<n <n to fn En Fntn fn696ntA<n<A(AGgGgtn69 <A69 tF. 69 <n6A69<n 69 6969(A<ntn69 A �W coW N (D W p7 Cn A N A (0 N Cn Cn W N O A m A (T O N N 10 CT Cn a (p - m0 W m N00NO O OO(n (TOO W Om OAS CT 0) cn 0) A O A V O O O O O (0 00 O O O O O O 0 0 0 (T O O O W O J O O O <D 00 O O 0 Cl O N 00 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ou 0 O O N O O 0 O O O 4-P, 00 Cl 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 CY O (T O O O w O O O O O N 0000 O 000 0000 00 O J 0(00 O O to 69 to to to to EA En fn fA En to EA(A 09 fn <n cq 69<-A<A 69< -n<n <n to 69 fn to <n to En <n <n <n0 3 0� a 3 00 < o D. o% H N N a ° ° ¢� v F H m m x m - m '^ I60 <n W � <A A A m (fl J V � roItn 691 to N � 0 CD CD CD CD CD O O I(D m � v `G d 3 0 m o N J D o $ , o ° 3 a N N N J O O N O N A O N J O N J A (000000 0(DN (DW m0 O(OOm ONCn W 41 W OAO Omm co OON O A O J O O O O J O J tn(A<n to 6969 to 69 En 6969 to to 69<A to 69 H3< to(A(n Un< -9lotn 694<n<n<n C�« T IKI Am C C 0 7 7 G) T OT T T T � O 0 0 0 0 N� (n (7 n n n N Q N � O O O N (MD 7' �- = = 7 .7•..' n N N N N N N 7 �' C r N 7c Od 3 N ry 7 a (D d a N N N (D (D (D (D O� 7 .O-. (D ,Z j j 7 N C C) (] y 7' °O °m0�G7v°ro ..a -a nDDDD CD ovm° -vimr-L N to ` r W y N Vl In (A (D r m O `G `G N i (D (D O O C°) n 7 (D (D D 7 7 y c ;o O O W A N N N CT N N -Mm(Tm O CD m CD m v (T° V N (n 3 m _ � = N j O JO m o. tc 00 mm m O C A V W O O O(T (TA 000000 (00 Om(TNOO W W W m m A 00 ON COO JO ... (TmCn O(D A co 0 O J W O A O O W O W O O O D O N C n( n 60Ggtn<9 6909 <A 61 69 69 to 69En<A 69'69 fAtn 69<n fA<A to 61 <n <n to 69<A<n A - m N W CO (T (T CT 0 JO O OJ Cn(TO) Om cri m(Tm A OOH (T DI 8 0) O O O O W O N J O J O V O O C- O O O- O N O W O W W O W O C) J W O O O O W Cn O cT O ()I Cn (T <D ON O Om OOO Ov 0000 Cn W O N (T C�« T IKI Am C C 0 7 7 G) T OT T T T � O 0 0 0 0 N� (n (7 n n n N Q N � O O O N (MD 7' �- = = 7 .7•..' n N N N N N N 7 �' C r N 7c Od 3 N ry 7 a (D d a N N N (D (D (D (D O� 7 .O-. (D ,Z j j 7 N C C) (] y 7' °O °m0�G7v°ro -a nDDDD CD ovm° -vimr-L N to ` r W y N Vl In (A (D r m O `G `G N i (D (D O O C°) n 7 (D (D D 7 7 y c ;o O O C)o N m (D Q3 =0 Z o a: c) o w c m N N CD O CD m CD m v (T° N (n 3 m N ° C A A A A A A A A 0 A A A A A A A A A A A A (AT A A Cn (T Cn (T Cn Cn (T Cn O 0 Cn Cn Cn CT Cn Cn (T Cn en (T J O CT CT N > 00 000000200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O_ O_ O_ O_ 0_ O_ O_ O_ _ O_ O_ O_ 0_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O O O °�° u i m W WSW NW W�N(NO C)-N WNW W WW W W WO�(O W W °w- A (T (.,) O(nW WIb 0)0) mNO 00000W O OOOW N o m NN Wm JJNON W-N -ANA SAW �ANOO WO (OA CO NN �N NCnN (0 W (D N (O(DN W OmJ mCn NA(T 0)m�0NO Nam Cl) OON O N OA 0 (n � r� T T 'Ti - —1 L7 Z� O � r-1 < < o xcnO�r rm rn 7 o m mo uo ID c = m d N (U 7C ID (D (D N N `G n N N N 7 -- m�mCn� r -00007 (D(3.2 DCD CD �-D d x x m�a7n�c)n(pm (DT ;U m < v� X70 -p rn N (D (D In (D (D p) 7 (D 3 (D Q O -O In 7 fn N Cn ?. 7 N Q Q Q* '' (n O < < << boy °� °�� °rn (('Dm � o3m n�o _v io' �tv Tm m O? w pO r-C CD .c ° o m o 360'7 O (D � Qa i 7 3 O N 0 (D 6 (D (D N N � N N In n N= -O 'a 7 ?F 7 7— O Z N K O. w n j W j j C) N ID CD N In 7 {D (D -i N N 0 N n � � CL 7 N p� (D T ID 7 O Z WZ2 0 CD j to O 7 (OD C- N N O (D N (n 0 pl W A W _ _ W 3 V A O N O J N y o Cn N mA -N - co N O O O N O O 7 (0 O co NW NW(D N mNm CD OW A O SOD 0),o (TAN(O m(DJOW O(0 Z's 00 O co O —6 O O m 0 W m N O W O O N O co O J O O J O O O N J 0 0 O O to in <n to 69 <A to <A 69 69 to <A <n to 69 69 to 69 <n Ld <-n 69 (A <n 69 <n (A CA W (0 n Nmm N(DN O �(T 00 N NOO y A �N W mNm(TNCn (Tm mJ m (0 A Om A p.y O(DO (T<Dm NNm 00 0)0 0� W O OOP- (ONmAN W (000 mCn OW N m O(D O -0� Om OCn(0000000 (0 J NN J N ON 0 A co 0 A' O N O O m O W 0 0 0 W 0 00 0 W O 0 J O OI 0 3 x o m N N• 7 3 <_ rim o nvw �v- T .O y r 'n 3 O X O m Ww'n 3 D � N m w �d V 9 k V w pOD T d O � 3 CL m o D P O fp ° m A m N l o o -O c d C (Oj C O O N o . c � n o 0� n 3g m 7 C N Q O N N N N O N 0 ro 7 N N m � c o ?m m N m 0�0 o. :3 �Ca N. m 'M CD a 0 F y n m � :3 O O N (3 M n N CL fL A H � O 3 m En m 3, co CO) W 0 0 N C N 3 N F CD ID rL f 0 3 N m M 0 m n. MO0'0 lb1 C O. O O 3 0 N v fD a C w w N �' ww m F Z M O C !p3 1p3�p 6 1p3�p 6 13�pp 6 dpi�p n » lu Nr > m d d & d > � � O � n a w � Z N A O D rn D A N N N A A V V N W W N N W O1 OI N N I'A mm�2Ammmmm <�� Au- dmam =m22mXmmMM00 �Omcmcmzy= ca "�W< 3 33m3 �M�m��d omm�m$g�mm°- "o�' "IDmd Q O° c E o O a O 0 3 7 c n c N N Q a ,. d- —< o m n , C n m Q - m 0 o c 3 3 o rJ 7 0 c 5= Jt-'' ? rS i O N N X D .�. c y X— N ci rmn on A =m M O m �°:, N C �"�m Ow C yo m oo'w m c �'iOx�OQa N N N 5. m ma <� i n 7. m �2 M m �' W j w 3 N ry�(p 0 m n g c m A N C °C� Q C fOD d n N c nG m N m 2 a C m a .m m .A � p? c m J o n °, Q 0 fD c m m s p c 0 a m oo- od(�pry�(p�'rn�D G . n �" am�Nmymai' n dmm' w -• °`-' m 3' m d m° m° m , 0 3 0 m < 0 N d m O. 0 j .°.. c c °. N (�p o C m N N N T N F O S ° N 0 n C n C qQ y° t0.. N tip„ 3 C �. a N N 6 O y W N N 3m m� °�w5m N :. n D . c m O dm f a O0 < m �n m D mC 0gm �°Q `4 3 m m° • N 00 @. m D33ma O = Q , . , c _ N 7 L. __.yO - m Na C � Z N m M N m y [ Q1 ° m � m O a m , 7 ° N c O F � N M s m 0a.00 mC a m 3 m e � 3 A M j. O >: m m n O< ?c t0 N fC N y' H C{} C O ° 3 N N N !ti' .0.. M N �. m 7 7 �1 N $ m y 0 a Q m N. �m N d. j n N N n .m+ En O fn m Z yrymtnm CD N yo= O 3 N O 3 0. m 7 D C C N° 0 O W n N< N O m A n f0 N N ° <p y < 0 < m 0 O H a rna 3 mF �_ m m z m a 0 m y < co _. m m m m m m 0m m 0 5 ° a W" d c 2 a M 0 m m .O m ° O m 0 0 c °m m c B. g x o x m m a, rn H V O Z H M O n O 9 3 rr z 1 N ° m A m N l o o -O c d C (Oj C O O N o . c � n o 0� n 3g m 7 C N Q O N N N N O N 0 ro 7 N N m � c o ?m m N m 0�0 o. :3 �Ca N. m 'M CD a 0 F y n m � :3 O O N (3 M n N CL fL A H � O 3 m En m 3, co CO) W 0 0 N C N 3 N F CD ID rL f 0 3 N m M 0 m n. MO0'0 lb1 C O. O O 3 0 N v fD a C w w �' ww m Z 00 3w �m m3 pm m 20 m CG) 50 -rn f N O C. Z1 M m n 05 0.700 pEj N W O M pm o.ID �Om �Q D� o ° > \ n y p 00 0 � d � N C7 N n � � C v I D 1 7 7 7 CL d no o CD N N O CD CM M 0 N N m :3 M O m� A M 0 o cr fi Mm c`_ N O � � N o I 7 N c m m q N n� O N 3 3 3 3 3 3 BE s s a s A 3 A W N r ' N Mm 0 0 C m 8 d v3 sd 3 m � w d. mFn n � -� m 6 X00 r � co N T M k 03 O N N fD d 6-, °m° a d 0 v v oc m N O W m 0 7 3 O 7 ir d D Q O W 3 3 3 3 3 3 e 3 ° 3 1612 A15 n 0. m n �y n K m � n m � D M D m 0 O N O Q w m O O O V 00 N MO ,dG.. a mx C m-i mMrya Q SC �p3�p3 66 �p3 aim 60.c < m T ryary p3T�p3 �p3 �p3 �p3 m303 60. (7 O ,m� R�� SE m d` m 7 7 d d 7 7 d 7 d Q 7 m 7$ 7 7 7 7 7 �" y � � a N� �+ M /0 Of -401 NAd � Nf�_0�� a c Fl � z � r. 2 co 0 0 1 a a mo n a c a n 0 C Deb 0 N w A °— 7 N Z T y J 7! d r C C A N w D 3 m m a A A N N A Ut N N W W W A W I'A dm aoam aoam cmm °.: o ��m °.:°:� 2'Nam o�2 m 3 m° =dc mrm 0$•o- Via. mmmm3�3c g3 mM-0 m o of 003�m� M im3 O m m�xm ��o� m N m �9.m q y m xp° m i m m a' as <t0m a° a C '� 3Q< m e a api a o. d m ?° d^ ! A nOn 0$ p O. o o. < iQ N< 0 0 m M m m H O d m a N Q 6 m 0 7 d co M p f0 yy N O .y.. O O. O F 9, G? O X_ 10 5 W N tll m ° (p L R Q � d. C >>$ yN 8 3 p d m f0 10 O. . m $ o fag 5: m�20 F S0 vg °- �- o C 00 C o-Hm R N c O J a°f��n y 01 y 00 cm O f ' Am po$02 < m ° mm �c$gnwm3 � c m ma y 0 O 3 � m m C j .C.. p, ff, m Ci o ado fD m = c<- O m o� M m O m CL 7 T m c m dmm m $$d c3^�a.o '^m 0 me ism ° m 3 $ w0 prM � �n •- mad o o 5a Z mm m W� w m$ m m� m. w w 2 m Bay °. �c m 9' A 3 so 0 n o o°.p m w M > >� ' 0-iS 10 F� O F m y a p j. 06% O c O c d C M y C 3 m 3= m m N O. N d Z 3 M a m mm as o M o 3 ,a'' dN FL a ' pm JG 0 0 CL0 o y o m TT X x CI o o j O M. � � � 99 S, m H F F M' E;y d m 4 m c m m _ o p N N S F O 3 m H '9 O Z H M O 1 O 3 3 m Z N 3 3 3 3 3 3 e 3 ° 3 1612 A15 n 0. m n �y n K m � n m � D M D m 0 O N O Q w m O O O V 00 N �i b d v3 �d � 3 m� w 91 t°. m v- $b� � v � • m d � x c 4 N mz v� T c CL a 0 v w m w 0 w m 0 7 3 W m D Q O a m ; m � B. d � C N mv w mm y r O d d D m z m � CA O z x D m m D 5—L v 1 v e N D .Z1 .Z1 m m F F �•'0� y 0 m Z. m <� d 33.� f1 m N yn O palm d It ?4n < O d A N e m N < j 0 W ry CD N O > m fDA�daw y(W=p T c...m�0 O . # A �. X d . a m O O N d A m m O� d O n 3 ryry `C N 3 m C M _+ O 3 A 3 d 3 a' d Cl (D : O ��' ' Fg 0 o W to CL m a+ � m o23c .4i� ( �a0 c � ? , _ < D O s 0 tnd -�3dO N m c a m m 3 2 O's m O z >`-°3 vCD'i0 $' s0 > 'Y ov fp 3 d c m� -03 C d 3�a d A P1 m 1. a= s C M Nth C ?N d C m 3 C d !n N �+Qw <�v >> m � > d N. C N S ?n CL �m � m wr0 3 m 4 =4 a c"gms'1 ad°�m O c v (D ;o 0 m c O A � a d C O Vzi n SPydCD m a � �m A m c m c d 3 a m >> m o g so VJ0 x O m F g m r0 CD m m (A O z N m O f1 O m m z -I N r m O 0 T m m U) m c C T_ C7 1 0 Z in C A O O N O co N O O' w O N O 3 O m m O V iz F N � NQ n y `QO n N C N m A15 1612 A15 me Ln l0 Ln r-I N z r-. r-I N O 00 N w O O O O ix U J z 2 — z J Z ,j o Q LL 0 0 0 0 r-I O In Ln I- 00 r-I O It N r-I-I O Ql Ql ri d' 0) r-I Ol r-I 00 ri ri LU ri N ri r-I d' N 00 Q t-1 � D ri J W Q J H a O Q O O O O r-I O^ O O O O O 0 O M O O O O O O Ln Z OM O c-i N N l0 N 00 00 Q J N f� Ln O Cr IJ1 I- l0 n 00 Q ri r-I M r I W Ln Z) w w V) w 2 O O O 0o O O O o o O z Ln 0l l0 O L � N M MM O < H O n O N 00 Il O O Ln en n n N Q w r4 00 0 t\ Ol a O � � V � w O N W w X � x 0 O O O 00 O O ° 0 °o 0 O O O 00 0 O 0 C W N r�i M r-I Ln � LO a i V) OC W z N O M W M N Q H 0 Q a � C7 O O n N L7 O M M Ln Ol �' -NL H rL Z � d' N Ln LO W w l0 Q Q O N N N � N N N N N N N~ O w w w O J tr 00 O Ox ~ ~ o > D W W Ln Ln Ln Ln Il Ln Ln Ln O � lD rl CO l0 lO Cl - W Ln LL 0 a: o_ ui G G G G C G G G G G O C:, O O E In In In cn 0 0 0 0 O0 ° Z t w N 00 00 O 00 Ql It M Ol Ol V U t1 W a X Q C Q c 2 Q C 2 Q n C 2 Q C 2 Q c C C C c G LL V) V) F- LL V) V) LL V) V) F- F- LL V1 V) � H LL V) w 01 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N sp r-i r-I r-I ri ri r-I ri ri ri r-I ri ri r-I rl ri ri ri rl ri ri ri ri c-I rl ri ri r-I ri r-I ri 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 O O O O O r-I /n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r\-I N lY L l\O N 0000 a) O rH N N E LL l LO N 0000 0\1 O r\i N f\Y) -t Ln W N 0000 S O N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I ei r-I ri rl N N N N N N N N N N M \ L w L.O lD l0 lD lO lO lD LO LO L LO lD lD lO l0 lD lO lD LO lO lO lO lO LO lO LO lO lO lO LD LD o 3 me W J m W O w CL w ■ Tr Ir r ;q O O N lD t!1 Ol N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t00 N O co O N b 1612 m v u r�6 ate. 2 " Q 4! v N CL 2 R' M A15 N r-I O N l\O ri N Updated: July 19, 2012 Lely MSTU Project Status 1612 'A15 (L -50) COMPLETED - Fence Modifications to Fence at Weir 04- 18 -12: Final Plans are presented to advisory committee with cost estimate of $942.50 (does not include demolition and disposal of existing fence.) 05- 07 -12: Gatekeepers (Vendor #: 119733) provides quote for $1,020.00 per Contract #10 -5481 Fencing Installation and Repair. This quote is lump sum and includes demolition and disposal of existing fence. 05- 17 -12: advisory committee for approval for Gatekeepers proposal. 06- 01 -12: Notice to Proceed issued to Gatekeepers for fence project. Final Completion by 7/16/12. 07- 19 -12: Project is completed per original specifications. Review for some minor modifications underway by McGee. McGee to report on status of review. (L -49) ACTIVE — Pebble Beach Lighting Project 04- 18 -12: PUD confirmed approval of deviation request to install the light poles as per proposal by McGee & Associates. This approval requires some modifications to project plans. 05- 17 -12: Final 100% submittal is pending from McGee & Associates. 06- 06 -12: 100% revised plans received from McGee. 06- 21 -12: Plans are under review with PUD for approval for construction. 07- 19 -12: ROW Permit Application and associated plan review in progress anticipated to be completed by July 27, 2012. (L -34) - ACTIVE - On Going — Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches "; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service (ref: notification originally sent on 6 -30 -09 to CLM via email) 07- 19 -12: Ongoing Maintenance is by Commercial Land Maintenance (L -45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 07- 19 -12: McGee & Associates under ongoing contract. e N N J H N J D F- 16 12 A15 +-+ m QJ L aJ Q 4� M 4- N l/. O + •+ + 1, 4-+ O E U t>p t10 'CS C O f6 O Q Q L -a Z) N c0 (6 u t C Q) Q v -0 C: \ a QJ co E N t C U 4J L QJ aJ Ql O +-� + U O .� z t (A > Q) O u L 4- QJ C Q) 'a om -a o l6 +� w E +1 ro N E O O c 0 bn � ca Ec L O Q) p c6 UA ++ E up �_ Q) a v L Q C u C O tap -a U � N O f6 +p+ L i +� lE L c>3 t -p N X Ln p U Q) Q Q O Q cn ca co Q) N L1 Zi. Q) Q1 t 4- N L O (6 of Q1 Q Ln `�' •� v O .v v sao O v O E >, bf a L fE c O N O L O L C i i QJ X Q LJ cr L O Qu 41 41 O O O __j U -0 w U 00 Q. cc +S+ -0 4- m V O m d 0 0 0 U v U +-' w w z w w w CL z z o z z z 0 E 0 0 w 0 0 o a V A v u O C Q) Q O _ cu t O U C: E N Lva QJ > X O4- C N L " v Q.a a C -0 � hA Q O to C 41 O m Q) ' m O N u N O t O u L to U u .� ci Ln = O =3 L O D ' (0 41 Q = > > C 1�+ L t]A (6 -Q Q f6 2 O u 3 v a O i O QJ v 'a u f0 -Q O O M + m r , O +- p Q .N O L E �_ Qi 1 Q) Ln L Q Q O x Q Q) 41 co O O O 0 O N p L c a U U co L u rl N M t11 to 16 12 A15 1612 pis 2268 Southeast 28" Street Cape Coral, Fl. 33904 Phone: 239 - 573 -9427 Fax: 239 - 573 -9477 e -mail: RLUMENATOR @aol.com USS MANUFACTURING To: Collier County attn: Darryl Richard Fax: From: Ron Steedman Date: July 13, 2012 Re: Lely Pebblebrook CC: As manufacturers representative for Philips /Lumec, we propose to furnish the following Lumec items for direct purchase by Collier County for the above referenced project: (2) DOS - 002 -60CW -SG2- 240 -LR- DBB- 1A -R60E- 15.5 -BK -TX @ $2075.00 each (21) DOS - 002 -60CW -SG2- 240 -LR- DBB- 2 -R60U- 15.5 -BK -TX @ $3250.00 each CALCULATIONS: 2 X $2,075.00 = $4,150.00 21 X $3,250.00 = $68,250.00 TOTAL PROPOSAL: _ $72,400.00 Purchase order should be made out directly to Philips /Lumec, 640 Cure Boivin Blvd, Boisbriand, QC, Canada J7G 2AT but forwarded to us for editing and order entry. The order must be entered by July 27 to avoid the July 1 price increase. We look forward to working with you on this project. Thank you! L D. Lely Golf Estates Homeowners' Association 297 Bay Meadows Drive Naples, Florida 34113 (239) 404 -8898, Fax (239) 732 -8109 Email: LelyGolfEstatesgaol.com Web Site: www.TheLelyGoIfEstates.com July 19, 2012 Dear Lely Golf Estates Homeowner, In coordination with Lely Golf Estates Homeowners' Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Commit improving the general appearance of our communitt& Our landscape architect consultant has advise line our main roads are showing signs of nutri susceptible to disease. Most of these trees were the community was first developed. ,, The Beautification Committee recogil has approved the necessary funding to state. The fertilization plan includes tl of each palm (approx. he t If you are receiving I treatment. If you are in It is anticipated Thank you for your Sincerely, 1612 A15 Board of Directors the Lely various landscaping projects koadway medians. the royal palms that ►make them when add to the community and fully return them to a healthy Lin the ground at the drip line r front Mn qualifies for this fertilization i1 palm(s) on your front lawn fertilized by this program, there is no action required 7.ed please contact the Lely Golf Estates 1 Richard, at 239 - 253 -9083 and we will remove be completed within the before September 2012. helping us to maintain the appearance of our community. Jennifer Tanner, Property Manager, Lely Golf Estates Member of Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee G1� OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON JULY 9, 2012 The following were in attendance: 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 The meeting came to order. Approval of Minutes for 4 -10 -12 and 5- 14 -12: 1612 Fiala Hiller ,i'- ---- -- Henning — --- Coyle Coletta The minutes for 4 -10 -12 and 5 -14 -12 were approved and signed by the Chairman Ronald Gilbert. Ron Gilbert – He brought the board members up to date. Chief McLaughlin asked him to get some insurance estimates on ten different properties at Port of the Islands. The estimates were obtained in regards to if the fire truck and Personnel are at Port of the Islands and what it would be if they were at Everglades City. Tony Davis being an active insurance salesperson He handled contacting the insurance companies. The properties chosen were in different communities with in Port of the Islands and were comprised of 5 condominiums and 5 houses. He asked Tony Davis to share his findings. Tony Davis – He is still working on this information the carriers are not very cooperative regarding their rates they are very secretive. These carriers have several agencies that they work with. One of the carriers came back with percentages not specific numbers. He didn't know if we could work with that or not. He is still going to try and work with somebody else to see what he can find out. We may have to go with those approximations. Ron Gilbert – We might be able to establish some base numbers with those percentages. Tony Davis – Because it is like a discount figure you get points for certain items. Page 1 Misc. Corres: Date: % n \Q V q Item #: 'LA Copies to: A16 �. 16 A16 . Chief McLaughlin — We can come back to that this is a project that we are working on for next year we've got some time for that. Tony Davis —The thing is they are not going to be that open. Chief McLaughlin —The fire department might have to get involved and contact them directly to ask specific questions regarding insurance coverage. When he was at the City of Naples they had to do this they contacted the insurance companies directly and gave them specific addresses. We'll come back to that. Tony Davis — We at least have something we can work with. He will continue to try and obtain the information they are looking for. Ron Gilbert — The Chief and I feel before we make presentations to the Commissioners or their designated committee and the CID Board it would be good to have some concrete numbers saying what kind of money we are talking about if we should lose the fire truck that is what we are angling at. Chief McLaughlin — Part of that is we are going for an ISO re -rate next year which is a very complex and lengthy process it takes about nine months to prepare that paperwork to get it in place. It takes a year to prepare. Tony Davis — He suggested instead of calling the insurance companies maybe a formal letter from the Advisory Board would be more successful. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, and I've got those numbers for you we will pursue that later we are starting with the ISO information officially in September. Ron Gilbert — He was going to suggest a letter from him to the Advisory Board saying what we need or directly to the insurance contact. Chief McLaughlin — We will pursue that. Tony Davis — I think we can come up with something it is just going to take a little more to get somebody to work it up for us. Page 2 161 OLD BUSINESS: A16 Budget Approval: Chief McLaughlin — The budget was tentatively approved by the BCC on 6- 28 -12. The budget has changed again because the July numbers came in so there have been some adjustments to the evaluations in the reserve for salaries which is part of the vacation buy outs, a 2% cost of living added for contract employees, there was a change in retirement and insurance. We had a drop because the property values went down. Over all we landed up with $431,000 from general fund to keep us solvent for this year. This is the second year we have received funds from general funds to keep us a float. There were some questions that came up about the fire station at Port of the Islands came up. The questions were form Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Fiala which he directed back to Mark Isackson and Leo Ochs. He felt it wasn't the time to answer them he had some direction that there is a time and place to answer them some of those questions need to be taken care of in a special meeting and there needs to be some research on some of those questions. However, we haven't seen any movement; the direction Commissioner Fiala gave to the staff was to find some sort of creative financing to fund the construction of the facility. So we'll see how and where that lands up. July 30th is the last day the budget can change then it goes for the final approval in September. Ron Gilbert — Did you get any encouragement from Commissioner Fiala. Chief McLaughlin — Nothing more than what we have seen in the past. He was surprised that Commissioner Hiller was more interested in getting the facility up than anyone. She had some questions about consolidation issues as well. She did seem very concerned and she did ask some questions about Pilt. She would like to do some research to find out what's been going on just for general information. He directed her back to Mark Isackson and the County Manager. NEW BUSINESS Public Safety Authority: Chief McLaughlin — You should all have a letter stating that The Public Safety Authority was approved. The Public Safety Authority was created to improve the Emergency Medical Services throughout the County and looking at all the parties involved in patient care from the street to the hospital emergency room how we work together and what our protocols are to get a better feel of that flow of information and that patient contact. Page 3 1612 r Chief McLaughlin -- It was really pushed by the Fire Chief's Association and the Blue Ribbon Committee that was overseeing that initial phase about a year and a half ago. It's a reality after two and a half years. The Authority doesn't have any jurisdiction per say or authority over Independent Fire District or Municipalities because they are governed by their own policies just as the County what they do have is regulatory authority over what the process is and how it should be conducted between agencies in working out issues. In a way it is replacing the old MSAC that wasn't going anywhere. He feels it will be a better format being that you will have emergency room personnel, field personnel, and fire personnel from different areas of the service. He feels this authority is going to give the County as a whole a great oversight for future EMS care and provision out in the field. James Simmons —This is going to happen sometime in the future? Chief McLaughlin — This has already been formed it has just been approved. Now they have to appoint personnel to this Authority then they will have the first meeting. So it may be some months before we have an active Authority looking at issues. Ron Gilbert — They are asking that we formally name a representative to this Public Safety Authority. Chief McLaughlin — You can't that has to be done by Mr. Summers we don't have one. The letter states that the representatives for the Fire Departments will be selected by the Fire Chief's association from a municipality either an independent or dependant district. There is no independent or dependant board that is going to select any one. The letter doesn't make sense there is no independent selection it will be done by the Fire Chief's Association. We don't have a board to select on the dependant side and we don't have any authority over EMS or the hospitals or agencies. He called up Mr. Summers after he received the letter from the County Manager's Office regarding the Public Safety Authority. He stated to Mr. Summers per the letter the fire side has been selected but we could appoint someone to be selected that would have to go to Mr. Summers then the Fire Chief's. Which you have four independent boards out there selecting people. Tony Davis — He just looked over the letter but it was his understanding as well that each District would select someone and submitted that name to Mr. Summers and then it would be his decision or someone higher up to pick one. Ron Gilbert — What you are saying we don't even have to submit a name. Page 4 A16 1612 A16 Chief McLaughlin — We would only have one person we could submit and that would be out of a pool of 50 and once that gets to the Fire Chiefs between the Municipal, Independent and Dependant Fire Districts there will probably be at least 100 names to choose from. Ron Gilbert — So the Advisory Board doesn't need to respond to this. Chief McLaughlin — You could send a reply back stating that the Advisory Board is going to leave the decision as to who is going to represent the Ochopee Fire Control District to the Chief. Chief McLaughlin — When we pick someone then it has to go to the Fire Chief's Association. Chief McLaughlin — Linda, make sure McBeth Collins gets a copy of the Public Safety Ordinance. CERT Team: Chief McLaughlin — Tom Wise called me last Friday if there is any interest in the CERT Team at the Port because there is money for it. What would we do with the money do we give it back to Ochopee Fire Control District? He told him that a check could be made out to the Ochopee Fire Control District and would be deposited into the budget or he could wait and bring it up at the next Advisory Board Meeting to see if there is any interest in a CERT Team. Tony Davis — He just thinks it is a lack of interest in the community. They couldn't seem to get people to come to the meetings. Chief McLaughlin — They have the same thing at Isles of Capri it is a small community and we don't have the infrastructure or the money to train people. If you don't have regular training and events people lose interest especially if you have hurricanes every 15 years. Tony Davis — Most of the people interested were snow birds which means they wouldn't be around to do anything if something did happen. Chief McLaughlin — They are not here when events happen. Tony Davis — The key would be to hit the people that are hear year round and the snow birds would be extra people when they are here. Chief McLaughlin — The CERT Team came out of California because of earthquakes back in the 90's. They have earthquakes regularly even small ones but we don't have hurricanes regularly we have more tropical storms to actually activate a team in a community like that if you don't have the events they lose interest. In the summer you are stuck with five people and you are trying to merge them into an emergency response at the same time they are trying to take care of their own things it makes it difficult. Page 5 1612 p16 Chief McLaughlin — If you think there is not interest in the community I will respond to Tom and give him the direction. Ron Gilbert — He was involved with the CERT Team six or seven years ago and it kind of died because of the same things you are describing here. Chief McLaughlin — I've seen it go through this cycle twice at Isles of Capri and it died. Tony Davis —John was tired of doing it. Chief McLaughlin will get back to Tom and give him direction to deposit the funds in our budget. Applied for Grants (FEMA & DOF) Chief McLaughlin — We have applied for the FEMA Grant we went through the process and it's on the way. The grant is to replace all our mobile and portable radios. Our radios are about 15 or 16 years old and we can't buy parts for them anymore. The radios are $3400 each the mobiles are a little cheaper than the portables. The new radios are amerceable and water proof. In the past 15 years there has been an incredible surge in technology plus now they are digital not analog. He spoke to Amanda Wood who is our lobbyist she reviewed it and she thinks we have an extremely strong case and a well written grant. We are asking for $84,000 it is a 95/5 match so we have to come up with $4,000 which we put in capital outlay for that project so it's in there if we get it we have it. We also applied for the DOF Grant it is a 50/50 match it will be $1,000 on our side and $1,000 from Forestry it is for class A foam. We usually do the DOF Grant once or twice a year it can be applied to more than once a year. The 50/50 grant is great for obtaining brush fire supplies. It traditionally outfits our foam supply which is expensive through that 50/50 grant, brush gear equipment and we built a large part of our brush truck through this grant so it is very beneficial for us. Jim Simmons — is you base station antennae sufficient to cover you area for radios? Page 6 1612 q16 Chief McLaughlin — Yes, our base station only has to reach Carnestown because the 800MHZ system is on all of the towers throughout the County. 5o all we have to do is it the tower at Carnestown and it is off to the other locations. Most of the state is 800MHZ we can talk state wide with our radios. A motion was made to adjourn it was seconded by McBeth Collins it was passed and the meeting ended. Ronald Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 7 1A j '21 .i 8 1 161 A16 3 i O OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 13, 2012 The following were in attendance: 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 Tony Davis, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member Frank Hawkins, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member McBeth Collins, Everglades City Advisory Board Member James Simmons is on vacation The meeting came to order at 4PM then there was a roll call of attendees. Approval of minutes for 7 -9 -12: The minutes were approved as read. OLD BUSINESS FEMA & DOF Grant Updates: Fiala Hiller Henning �- Coyle Ccletta v Chief McLaughlin - We were approved by the board to apply for the DOF Grant and it will be for Foam. The FEMA Grant has been submitted at the end of June for radios that is a 95/5 matching grant. We are requesting $38,000 to replace all radios and bring them up to standards. We lost another radio is failed on us they are 15 to 20 years old that is an exceptional life expectancy out of a service radio. This is the third radio we've lost in seven months and it can't be repaired. One was damaged and we did get an insurance claim on that one the covered about 80% of the replacement cost. The only way we can replace these radios is through a grant. Captain Morris - The new radios are submersible if you drop them in a puddle it won't ruin them. Tony Davis - When you say the split is 95/5 they give us 95% and we pay 5 %. Misc. Corres: Page 1 Date: •o\5:1 k k1- — Item* 1 "Z 2—A � to Copies to: 1612 AU Chief McLaughlin — Yes and it has been built into the budget. We put in for the FEMA Grant last year and we were turned down. He spoke with a person who had been on the grant assessment team and realized that we presented our budget incorrectly on the grant it did not show the need. So this year he followed the suggestion of the assessment team member. He submitted the SAFER Grant for Ochopee and Isles of Capri. He asked for six personnel for Ochopee and four people for Capri. The SAFER Grant is 100% funded and it is for personnel only. There are three criteria for that grant re -hire laid off firefighters, retention of volunteers and to add firefighters to meet the minimum national standards per NFPA 1710. We used the 1710 rule giving us six personnel. We did an after -the —fact approval because the board in recess. The County Manager read over the application and signed a memo approving the submittal. The application was submitted electronically 8- 10 -12. That grant opened on the 16th of July and closed last week. There is a very short time period to apply for the grant. There was a lot of research that had to be done we didn't even know if we could apply for it. We will have to create a whole new cost center to pay these employees because they will be contracted. There are a lot of stipulations as to how the grant money is to be used and how these people will be paid. The minimum is it will give us three people all the time on the Engine at Port of the Islands. There was an NIST report out that stated a three man company has a 25% increase in his productivity regarding his fire ground performance over a two man and four man company. Both grants are closed and they start awarding them in the fall which would be October. The 1 -75 Stake Holders Meeting for today was canceled because the construction is still in contest. We are not sure who is contesting. We also have a little hiccup with FDOT they are saying there is no money after the County has expended over $25,000 in their plans. The County Manager sent a letter to Johnny Limbaugh at FDOT for District One. He gave Mr. Summers and me the go ahead to meet with some of the legislators that signed this legislature. We have a meeting tomorrow with Senator Richter in his office and I think he will be contacting the Governor because he signed the bill. We think what happened was the FDOT Official that was heading this up is on leave and undergoing cancer treatment. Whoever they moved up into that position decided it was not a priority and wants to move the money somewhere else well that was not in the plan. So we are looking for some legislative action on this. There is plenty of money they raised the toll and they said they didn't need their Southwest Florida Water Management money which was over three million dollars. NEW BUSINESS Len Price Inspection of Fire Stations & 1 -75 MM 63 Site on 8- 17 -12: Chief McLaughlin — We have a new Administrator Len Price she was scheduled to come out on the 17th but that was canceled and changed to the 20th. Len has been with the County a long time she oversees IT, Facilities, Purchasing Risk Management, Parks and Recreation, and Emergency Services. She oversees seven divisions, directors and administrators. Tony Davis — Did she replace the lady who left parks and recreation. Page 2 16 12 A16 Chief McLaughlin — No, she is over her. Tony Davis — I thought that lady left. Chief McLaughlin — She did but Steve Carnell who was in purchasing went to Parks and Recreation and Joanne Markiewicz took over Purchasing. Technically without the title she is the Assistant County Manager because she can sign executive summaries and she can act in Leo's absence. We have already seen an improvement with IT and Purchasing we have been able to get more done. Port of the Islands Marina Building: Chief McLaughlin — We had a brief discussion about this and it looks like it isn't going to happen. Ron Gilbert — Who is we? Chief McLaughlin — Mark Isakson, myself, Walter Copka, Barbra Shea, Dan Summers, Artie Bay and Len Price we were at a Board of County Commissioners workshop meeting and a question came up about the Capital items. The Port of the Islands station came up. He was told that we couldn't do an assessment because we are an MSTU not and MSTUB. When this first happened I went to Jim Mudd and asked for a government loan. Originally I wanted to purchase the five acres up front put it up for collateral and build a two bay facility out on US 41 we could have even put a training facility in the back for the whole Bureau of Emergency Services that did fly so we ended up with this because they wanted the Marina. There is no money but the CID offered to give us a loan at one time to finish this and Jim Mudd said no. Now we've gone full circle four years later the environment has changed after the bottom fell out basically now Mir. Isakson said the District will have to get a loan in order to remodel the station. We are back where we started four years ago so that is where we are at with that. We are looking at a $380,000 to $410,000 loan to finish this facility completely. He is going to pursue that avenue to see what is available. Tony Davis — Do you think the CID would be interested in re- offering a loan? Chief McLaughlin — I would have to go back and ask them. He doesn't know what the County's position would be regarding that. But if their direction is to obtain a loan then that would be something to look at however any one giving us a loan would have to go through our legal Department. Tony Davis -- They have a meeting this week. Page 3 1612 �� 1 Chief McLaughlin — Even a ten year loan would not be a whole lot of money it wouldn't impact us even with the new truck payment. The other two trucks are going to be paid for so once that is done we could pay on a loan and the new truck the payment would be the same. Ron Gilbert — Are you going to meet with somebody at CID. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, I'll have to wait until their next meeting. Ron Gilbert —The meeting is next Friday. Tony Davis — The meeting is this Friday and if you miss it the next meeting will be the third Friday of next month. Chief McLaughlin — He will ask them if they would entertain having a meeting regarding a loan for the station at Port of the Islands. If they agree then he would bring some of the finance personnel along. Tony Davis — He said they are going to be electing a new chairman and it will probably be Noreen. Chief McLaughlin — She has always been a big supporter of getting a facility at Port of the Islands. Tony Davis — That's why I mentioned it. Chief McLaughlin — He asked McBeth Collins if there was anything going on in Everglades City that would affect the District or the Advisory Board. Mc Beth Collins — He said no they had their first meeting since summer break. Ron Gilbert — Asked Chief McLaughlin if he was going to be at the CID Meeting on Friday. Chief McLaughlin —Yes. Ron Gilbert — He plans to be there but over a different issue. Chief McLaughlin — Is it still over at Orchid Cove at 10AM? Tony Davis — Yes. Page 4 1612 A16 Chief McLaughlin — He asked Steve Carnell at Parks and Recreation since they have equipment stored at the Marina if they would be interested in renting the space. They are not going to rent the building they are going to get their equipment out Steve Carnell didn't know they had a bunch of stuff stored there. He then made an offer for Chris to rent the building they said no so he told them to remove all of their belonging out of the building and they did. He re -keyed everything as well. We are going to make this building a meeting and recreational area for the fire personnel because they are cooped up in a room about the size of a bathroom all day long. He is going to rearrange the space. He has money in the impact fees he can use for gym equipment. Ron Gilbert — Their communications equipment is portable they are not tied to that room? Chief McLaughlin — Yes, but we are going to set it up where we can put an outside antennae on this building. Ron Gilbert -- That is my primary drive getting something done with this building is he doesn't think it is fair to the firemen to be confined to two rooms and cooking on hot plates. Chief McLaughlin — There is probably not a Fire Department Union anywhere that would have gone along with this kind of arrangement. They have been stellar in their understanding and service. We have the upcoming ISO inspection next year it will take us 8 or 9 months to get ready for it. We don't have a training facility which would give us a large number of points. The burn part of a training facility we can take care of out at the Ochopee Station with some shipping containers. The maze is going to be built at the Marina facility. He feels they have plenty of room to do that. These training facilities will be a big point boost with ISO. We are going to look into the parking lot issue with all the boats. The bottom line is we own 17 spots and we have first pick according to the sales rights. The 17 parking spaces right around the building belongs to Ochopee Fire Control District. Ron Gilbert — When you say they you mean the hotel or the home owners association? Chief McLaughlin — The homeowners association. Per the SDP it states very clearly that the County has the first choice of 17 parking spaces and the homeowners association gets what's left. Eventually we are going to put up a swipe card gate and a security hedge it's in the plans. The homeowners association has been using these spaces for years and wants to continue to use them. We are going to use the facility to our advantage. Ron Gilbert — Have you considered making this station the official Ochopee Fire Station are your facilities better here than in Everglades City? Page 5 .� A16 16 Chief McLaughlin — We have the provisions for an administrative office on that side if we ever had to leave because something happened to the buildings out there. Because they are metal buildings anything can happen to them. The last time they got flooded nothing was replaced. So the first year I was there I had the walls cleaned and sprayed and the furniture replaced. Ron Gilbert - Everglades City is more the geographic center of the District. Chief McLaughlin — Yes and there are other things that it provides. Currently the Administrative Assistant lives on Plantation Island which is a three mile drive as opposed to an 18 mile drive for me it is closer but if I am out there doing work if I need something from both of the stations or anything at Ochopee its more convenient. We are going to built this end for future use if we need a fall back facility but there is nothing in the plans right now. The man power wouldn't change only the administration. We have already rebuilt station 66 as a fall back station but there is no room for administration personnel. The thought was if something was to happen to the Everglades City Station the operations could go to Ochopee it would still be close to the area the administration could move to Port of the Islands. Tony Davis — From an emergency stand point are you equipped to move in if a hurricane were to demolish the station is this building ready to go? Chief McLaughlin — It wouldn't be ready to move in until the construction is done. I will bring the plans to the next meeting. In the construction plans most of that is going to be torn out. One of the issues with the building is that there is only one power meter that has to be split because we are not going to pay power for everybody else. The water line in the building now is illegal and would have to be redone. Ron Gilbert — You know Everglades City is more flood prone than here. Chief McLaughlin —Yes I know. Ron Gilbert — A storm would have to push a storm surge through four miles of ten thousand islands then the last three miles up the Fakaunion river. When Wilma came through Everglades City had water even in the circle. Chief McLaughlin — We had 7 inches of water in the station. Ron Gilbert — There is an 8 inch cap on the sea walls here and the water never got above the bottom of the cap. Page 6 Chief McLaughlin — Even Faye brought in a surge that was two foot away from the front door of the station. Tony Davis — I have seen the circle flooded just during a good thunderstorm and high tide. Chief McLaughlin — We had a spring high tide and it came over all the sea walls. Tony Davis — He asked if the taxes have been paid on the north side hotel at Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — No, but somebody paid them. Tony Davis — He heard that he paid it but it looks like he got somebody else to buy the tax lien. Did he pay all the arrears or a portion? Chief McLaughlin — I don't recall there was a year that was missed but it had been back paid. Ron Gilbert — If they pay the back taxes do they have to also pay the CID assessment I think that is separate. Tony Davis — That is part of the taxes. Ron Gilbert — It is a non advalorem assessment but you pay it on your tax bill. Frank Hawkins — The water was out twice last month. Do they have similar problems with the non potable water that drives the hydrant systems? Chief McLaughlin — No they do not they actually called us because they were replacing a valve. Capt Morris — The water maintenance guy calls all the time when ever the water is going to be off they let us know. Chief McLaughlin — No we have not had an issue. Tony Davis made a motion to adjourn it was seconded by Frank Hawkins it passed and the meeting ended. Ronald Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 7 A17 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit ; NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY,$rGUST 1, 2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 AGENDA Fiala The agenda includes, but is not limited: Hiller 1. Pledge of Allegiance Coyle 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval Coletta 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. June 4, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee b. June 6, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session c. July 5, 2012 Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways & Trees 5. Administrator's Report a. Crosswalks i. Cobblestones ii. Landscaping at North Tram station b. County's Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways "overlay" project update c. Berm L South berm restoration permitting status ii. North berm maintenance update d. Landscaping (Phase II) update e. St. Raphael water management permit conversion and County Attorney review f. Monthly financial report 6. Chairman's Report a. Draft Board rules and procedures b. Committee assignments Ceres: c. Announcements Date: VSIR 12- 7. Committee Reports 8. Old Business Item #: \"=-2 vzo.->f 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments Copies to: 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 CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICAN BAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. 7/27/2012 3:05:08 PM 1612 A17 CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES } MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, June 4 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members were present: Clam Bay Subcommittee Dave Trecker, Chairman Susan O'Brien Tom Cravens Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst absent Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Five (5) attendees. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Clam Bay monitoring 3. Dredging permit application 4. Audience comments 5. Adjourn ROLL CALL All Subcommittee members were present. INTRODUCTION Chairman Trecker explained that the purpose of the meeting was to take input on Clam Bay and consider specific requests that the Subcommittee could recommend to the full Board for action. Requests regarding water quality monitoring were: 1) to enter data into STORET; and 2) request the County's annual monitoring report. Chairman Trecker reported that he received the County's report and requested that staff distribute. DREDGING PERMIT APPLICATION Dr. Ted Raia, President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) recommended that the Pelican Bay Services Division support MAG and notify the Army Corps of Engineers of concerns related to the County's Clam Bay dredging permit application. Dr. Raia presented information and alleged the application: 1) allowed more extensive r.. dredging than was authorized in 1998 and implemented in 2007; and 2) did not contain legally binding triggers for dredging. Ms. Marcia Cravens, Co- Conservation Chairman, Sierra Club reported that she jepresentatrves from the Conservancy and Audubon Society met with the Army Corps of Engineers to provide ml`ormatt6n carding the u Clam Bay dredging permit application that alleged the proposed dredging would negatwel s impact #lie benthic community and cause erosion to the adjacent shoreline. Mr. Cravens speculated the purpose of increasing the dredge cut was tQ,gbta10 kt dre salM for the beach. w Mr. John Domenie was concerned about excessive sand. 4 3 i i Z 1612 A17 CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES } MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, June 4 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members were present: Clam Bay Subcommittee Dave Trecker, Chairman Susan O'Brien Tom Cravens Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst absent Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Five (5) attendees. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Clam Bay monitoring 3. Dredging permit application 4. Audience comments 5. Adjourn ROLL CALL All Subcommittee members were present. INTRODUCTION Chairman Trecker explained that the purpose of the meeting was to take input on Clam Bay and consider specific requests that the Subcommittee could recommend to the full Board for action. Requests regarding water quality monitoring were: 1) to enter data into STORET; and 2) request the County's annual monitoring report. Chairman Trecker reported that he received the County's report and requested that staff distribute. DREDGING PERMIT APPLICATION Dr. Ted Raia, President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) recommended that the Pelican Bay Services Division support MAG and notify the Army Corps of Engineers of concerns related to the County's Clam Bay dredging permit application. Dr. Raia presented information and alleged the application: 1) allowed more extensive r.. dredging than was authorized in 1998 and implemented in 2007; and 2) did not contain legally binding triggers for dredging. Ms. Marcia Cravens, Co- Conservation Chairman, Sierra Club reported that she jepresentatrves from the Conservancy and Audubon Society met with the Army Corps of Engineers to provide ml`ormatt6n carding the u Clam Bay dredging permit application that alleged the proposed dredging would negatwel s impact #lie benthic community and cause erosion to the adjacent shoreline. Mr. Cravens speculated the purpose of increasing the dredge cut was tQ,gbta10 kt dre salM for the beach. w Mr. John Domenie was concerned about excessive sand. d 1612 A 17 Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes June 4, 2012 Mr. Dorrill said it was unclear whether the information that Dr. Raia presented was new or a new interpretation of old information and suggested inviting the appropriate Coastal Zone Management (CZM) department staff and engineering consultants to the June 6 Board meeting to present the rationale for the increased dimensions of the dredge cuts. The Subcommittee agreed with Mr. Dorrill's suggestion. Additionally, at the June 6 meeting, the Subcommittee would present to the full Board draft correspondence from the Board to the Army Corps of Engineers supporting Dr. Raia's concerns about the dredging permit application. CLAM BAY MONITORING Ms. Cravens presented a recent Atkins Technical Note that concluded Clam Bay was impaired due to high levels of fecal coliform, but was inconclusive as to the source. Ms. Cravens requested that the Pelican Bay Services Division consider funding 1) fecal coliform "caffeine" testing; and 2) additional fish and bird surveys. She recommended that Turrell -Hall & Associates do the work. The Subcommittee agreed to obtain proposals and cost estimates to present to the Board. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m. Dave Trecker, Chairman tr. Minutes by Lisa Resnick 6/21/2012 2:35:16 PM 1612A17 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, June 6, 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 absent JohnIaizzo Michael Levy absent 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 Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Joe Foster, Humiston and Moore Engineers Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Ken Humiston, Humiston and Moore Engineers Approximately 50 attendees REVISED AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes 5. Administrator's Report a. Pathways i. County's plans to "overlay" Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways ii. Pause the pathways project (Dallas) b. Crosswalks i. Status of Cobblestones ii. Landscaping issues at North Tram station c. Berm i. South berm restoration permitting ii. North berm maintenance d. Landscaping (Phase 11) update e. Monthly financial report 6. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Board rules and procedures b. Board summer schedule c. Board member terms d. Announcements Old Business New Business a. Conducting a joint survey with Foundation for feedback Pelican Bay Boulevard (Chandler) Audience Comments Miscellaneous Correspondence Adjournment 40 8. 9. 10 11 12 8556 accelerated paving on 1612 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes June 6, 2012 ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Levy, all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL { A-111 «A Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended changing the order of agenda items: 1) pathways Sbii first then Sbi; 2) crosswalks Sa second, and 3) Clam Bay Subcommittee report at 2:30 p.m. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. PATHWAYS COUNTY'S PLANS TO OVERLAY PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported that the County's Road and Bridge Maintenance department is planning to overlay the pathways along the east and west sides of the length of Pelican Bay Boulevard with 3/4 inch asphalt. The County intends to remove roots, but not install root barriers or address inevitable future root problems. Prior to the overlay staff would participate in a site visit, consult with an arborist, and mark the areas where root removal should take place. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to direct the Administrator to indicate to the County to proceed with overlaying the Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed PAUSE THE PATHWAYS PROJECT Due to three recent Board votes and most recent decision to widen pathways to only six feet along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Commons to the North Tram, Chairman Dallas suggested the Board "pause the pathways project" or hold off on any decisions until the Board procures an arborist to assist with studying alternative approaches. Chairman Dallas presented photographs of the safety issues caused by the uneven conditions of the pathways. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Montenero residents Mr. Kevin Shanahan, Mr. Peter Klein, Ms. Patricia Gothot, and Ms. Noreen Murray; Mr. Frank Butler (St. Marissa; Strategic Planning Committee); and Mr. Henry Bachman (Claridge) were in favor of Chairman Dallas' proposal to "pause the pathways project ". Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to pause the pathways project. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. The Board discussed how to move forward with studying alternative approaches and consensus was to hoc committee that would make a recommendation to the full Board at the October meeting. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to form an Aio study alternative approaches to the pathways project and be prepared to make a the full Board at the October 3 meeting. The Board voted unanimously in favor passed. Chairman Dallas assigned himself, Vice Chairman Cravens, Dr. Trecker the Ad -Hoc Committee. CROSSWALKS STATUS OF COBBLESTONES Mr. Chandler reported that at the May 2 meeting, due to noise recommend to the Foundation Board that the Foundation remove 8557 the Board voted to Marino and remaining mid- S lot 16 12 A17 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes June 6, 2012 block crossings. However the Foundation Board did not address the issue. Mr. Chandler suggested reconvening the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) working group to decide. Dr. Trecker did not participate in the CIP and was concerned about the decision - making process. Mr. Dorrill presented Bateman Contracting's $46,400 proposal to remove and replace cobblestones with brick pavers at four midblock crossings. The unit price to do this work at the San Marino or `Beachwalk" crossing was $11,600 plus an additional $1,800 for installation and materials. The Board discussed whether there were ways to reduce cobblestone noise at the mid -block crossings without removing them, but Mr. Dorrill did not believe that there was an effective or efficient way to do so. Members questioned whether the Board needed to do more research on noise before removing the cobblestones. However the Foundation had already performed a decibel reading at San Marino and the noise did not register as louder, just different. Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt and Ms. Noreen Murray supported reconvening the CIP to reestablish plan objectives and provide an opportunity to revisit other issues; and agreed that resident complaints about noise do not necessarily justify the Board's decision to remove cobblestones; such decisions do not meet CIP plan objectives and could result in setting community precedent. Mr. Kevin Shanahan advised against reacting to particular situations because it is likely that the problem with noise existed long before cobblestones were installed. Mr. Domenie reminded the Board to make consistent decisions. Ms. Marcia Cravens, Mr. Jerry Moffatt, and Dr. Ted Raia did not support reconvening the CIP group. Mr. Iaizzo made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to remove the cobblestones and replace with smooth stones from the San Marino mid -block crossing only. The Board voted 4 in favor (Chandler, Cravens, Iaizzo, and Trecker) and S opposed (Baron, Dallas, Hansen, O'Brien, and Womble) and the motion ailed. The Board directed staff to look into comparable alternatives and provide report at the next meeting. Mr. Dorrill said that the crosswalk projects at North Pointe and Myra Janco Daniels that were planned to be done this summer have been delayed due to issues with the contractor's surety bond and the County requiring that the project is rebid. In his opinion, if the projects are deferred for one year, there could be a significant cost increase. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to temporarily suspend proceeding with the crosswalk projects planned for this summer. The Board voted 6 in favor (Baron, Cravens, Dallas, Hansen, Iaizzo, and Womble) and 3 opposed (Chandler, O'Brien, and Trecker) and the motion was APPROVAL OF MAY 2 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mn Iaizzo to approve the May 2, 201 Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes. The Board voted unanimously i rnd the motion was passed. .. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTm Dr Trecker reported that the Clam Bay Subcommittee met June 4 to tak t on y and specific requests for Board action. Requests regarding water quality monitoring nter to STC on the list to receive the County's annual monitoring report; and 3) perform fe dditional n made to: 4) perform fish and bird surveys; and 5) inform Army Corps ne ncems about Count, permit application. 8558 1612 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes June 6, 2012 A170 Ms. Marcia Cravens requested: 1) that the Board adopt the Conservancy's benthic report as a baseline study; 2) consider funding additional fish and bird surveys; and 3) consider funding fecal coliform "caffeine" testing to rule out humans as a source. She recommended Mr. Hall to do the work. Vice Chairman Cravens suggested the Board consider adopting the Conservancy's benthic report as an agenda item at the next meeting and requested that Mr. Hall provide proposals to implement the surveys and fecal coliform testing. Mr. Dorrill said if the Board decided to implement the proposed projects that a budget amendment was required. Mr. Hall said the surveys and fecal coliform testing are not permit requirements and outside the scope of his current contract. The cost estimate was upwards of $30,000 per year, but he would develop a proposal to present to the Board. Dr. Ted Raia, President, Mangrove Action Group requested that the Board inform the Army Corps of Engineers about concerns related to the County's Clam Bay dredging permit application. The draft letter was included in the agenda materials that alleged the application 1) would allow more extensive dredging than was authorized in 1998 and implemented in 2007; and 2) there are no legally binding triggers for dredging. Ms. Linda Roth compiled the data that showed large differences in measurements and was the basis for concern. Mr. Ken Humiston, P.E. and Mr. Joe Foster, P.E. were asked whether there were any differences between the current dredging application and what was done in 2007 specifically in regards to the horizontal limits of the dredging as well as the depth limits. Mr. Humiston explained the state standards for calculating depth had changed and concluded that the horizontal limits did not change; the depth limits at the entrance channel "a" and first embankment inside the inlet "b" did not change; the depth limit at the easternmost part "c" is one -half foot deeper than it was in 2007; and other than a possible error in converting the data, he did not hypothesize as to the reason for the increase or its impact. Additionally, phase lag and tidal data is used as the "trigger" to determine dredging. Ms. Cravens, Dr. Raia, Mr. Domenie, and Ms. Roth did not agree and were still concerned. The Subcommittee determined that no action was necessary and there was no further discussion. Management District surface water management permit. Staff and the Foundation will work together, provide necessary access to residents and trams and it is staff's intent to have the bid complete by Thanksgiving. NORTH BERM MAINTENANCE Mr. Dorrill reported that the north berm maintenance work does not that there is not enough fill material in the swale to repair the erosion. The ; whether a permit is needed. 8559 to a survey revealed will determine I& Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1612 'A 17 June 6, 2012 LANDSCAPING PHASE II UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that work will begin on Phase II landscaping next week. LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Chairman Dallas appointed himself to the Landscape Water Management Subcommittee. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that 96% assessment revenue was received and year -to -date operating expenses are $191,000 under budget. The Clerk adjusted the audit report to include depreciation and fixed capital assets, but he would obtain more information and provide report. BOARD SUMMER SCHEDULE It was the Board's consensus to cancel the July 11 meeting due to lack of quorum and next meeting is August 1. BOARD RULES AND PROCEDURES It was the Board's consensus to develop rules and procedures and directed staff to distribute the sample rules and procedures for advisory boards, Board of County Commissioners' rules for reconsideration, and request that the County Attorney elaborate on his opinion that Roberts Rules on reconsideration do not work well for advisory boards. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Mollie Moffatt expressed discontentment with the community landscaping and was concerned about the Board's "flip- flopping" decision- making. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman i • Minutes by Lisa Resnick 6/20/2012 10:08:27 AM 16 12 A17 AD -HOC COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP AN APPROACH FOR STUDYING PATHWAYS & TREES A OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY, JULY 5, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways and Trees of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 12:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways & Trees Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Dave Trecker Tom Cravens Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager absent Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation John Iaizzo, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Michael Levy, Pelican Bay Services Division Board 19 attendees AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Discussion of developing an approach for studying pathways & tree a. Scope of project b. Selection of experts c. Project timeline 3. Audience Comments 4. Adjournment ROLL CALL All Ad -Hoc Committee members were present. INTRODUCTION Chairman Dallas explained the general purpose of the Ad -Hoc Committee is to develop a process to study the sc of the pathways project, selection of experts, and project timeline; meet again in September, then in October, re findings to the full Board and make a recommendation on how to proceed. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPING AN APPROACH FOR STUDYING PATHWAYS AND TREES trees. The proposal suggested the process include 1) hiring experts (engineer /arborist) to analyze SP44W ods that general approach and would meet once more on September 24 to decide on the October 3 1 make to the full Board on r t Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways & Trees Meeting Minutes July 5, 2012 1612 A17 The Ad -Hoc Committee also acknowledged the County's project to overlay pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard that was planned to start this summer. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Michael Levy suggested the Services Division do a pathways demonstration project at a strategic location to gain community support. Mr. Alan Kaplan (Montenero) was opposed to a demonstration project before an evaluation was done regarding the impact to trees, pedestrians and bicyclists; and was concerned about the process -in -use to determine tree health. Mr. Robert Uek said there are many damaged trees and suggested the Services Division determine tree health on a tree -by -tree basis. Ms. Sheila Mondo (St. Marissa) supported the County's plans to overlay Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways. Ms. Mollie Moffatt recommended that the Services Division hire arborist Bob Bitner, Club Pelican Bay, preferred concrete pathways, and was concerned about alleged trip- and -fall incidents and liability. Mr. Brendan Culligan is preparing a video survey that solicits input from residents as to what purpose(s) that they prefer to use the Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways that he would provide when complete; and suggested the Services Division build quality pathways for a variety of uses, regardless of the quantity of users. Mr. Culligan and Ms. Patricia Gothot (Montenero) supported bicycle lanes in the roadway. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 1:14 p.m. Keith I Dallas, Chairman 0) Minutes by Lisa Resnick 7/26/2012 1:13:16 PM August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Crosswalks - Cobblestones - Comments by John Chandler Page 1 of 1 A17 1612 From: John Chandler To: ResnickLisa Subject: Cobblestones Date: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:49:14 PM Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication or include it with the 8/1 Board Meeting materials. Since "Cobblestones" is on the agenda, I'd like to mention my thoughts about the idea that the tactile feel of running over cobblestones will cause the driver of a car to approach such a crosswalk more slowly in the future. An analogy to this idea crossed my mind recently. Within a few miles of where I live in Akron, there are a couple of railroad crossings. One is quite rough to cross and one is pretty smooth. Both have crossing signals. When I approach the rough crossing, I slow down (even when the lights aren't flashing) since I know I'll feel quite a jolt if I cross that track at the posted speed. When approaching the other crossing, I don't reduce my speed unless I see the lights flashing. I know, from experience, that I'll only feel a slight bump when I cross that track. Because crossing our Pelican Bay cobblestones in a car is not very rough, the stones don't cause a driver to slow down. I'm not advocating rougher cobblestones! I'm just making the case that once a driver has gone over our cobblestones once or twice, he /she realizes that there's no reason to slow down for them. Thus, they're just an added cost and a noise nuisance to those who live close to them. John Chandler w C E O @ N f` Wn o m 7 � O 'D fl- O U O `n OJ "O O C O co _ J N i � N j Y 6 U N O /) m O CO n c U - N N � d O N � O N N N r � O N < r 7 Q N Q u-) a- i r t WOW nv V) LU W 0� �_ tnQCN + a O N C'' LLJ to - 0 J N F- Z SW 1 W 0/ a/�L 0- W oe 0 LL W W W 57- O (j Q `_ W N 50 0 ix W U W Li. Z~ Q _U JO a- Z s > t i V) LU W 0� �_ tnQCN + a O N C'' LLJ to - 0 J N F- Z SW 1 W 0/ a/�L 0- W oe 0 LL W W W 57- O (j Q `_ W N 50 0 ix W U W Li. Z~ Q _U JO a- Z 4 1 i2A17 Y.: { o U) �E o a N F N � O co Z :3 @ rn °c' a. � 'a cz @ U O N 07 "O 2O co > N Y N �6 0 ' w L N o Q �� 0 Q T co f- w Co Q W W Z a Z U ' N s - <W O Q 2Q N N W < N O N N 'O N ,-j Q J O (n Q Q 0 0 . E`o a m Q m:Fzm — N (' U J Zr . Fn w w Zi w J j a MR i 1612 D A.0 s. xw ryl Ti M cn � a MR i 1612 4 11,14 T'll A I I A1; C, 0 ) Zr CD 0 o co cn CD 0 CD C: cn 0 Pi CL X CD (a cn CD ch En 0 0 0 z M cn � ;o m m 0 m 0 > U3 U) > 5- m z 0 4 11,14 T'll A I I A1; C, 0 ) Zr CD 0 o co cn CD 0 CD C: cn 0 Pi CL X CD (a cn CD ch En 0 0 1612 A17 3 Q � 3 iS$S'o 80.x �° 'NI� 93 3 c { � S SoS�3'$'.6 JI 25tl Y3� 3 88888$888888 zg c a� I r� i to �88g 3 A0SS88R 'gg RSSSSSS 1612 A17 i 3 r o °g £mow 3 i D N Co N O S N 3 N N N O j O N 7 `G N (D 3: CD. CD � O c 0 N co 0 v ;7 CD c v U) CD N N O 7 3 Q � 3 iS$S'o 80.x SS7'�gW�8N888g c { � S SoS�3'$'.6 JI 25tl Y3� 3 88888$888888 zg c i 8$ss• L'$�g�° to �88g 3 It 'gg 'q. S�o3iN $888 A CW °$$SgS$$8 g3�8 g�da.N w8�aa &8 - $$88$$x$85888 �oww�NW�� W 888 $ � 8° 8 88 oo°8888888888 88 i 3 r o °g £mow 3 i D N Co N O S N 3 N N N O j O N 7 `G N (D 3: CD. CD � O c 0 N co 0 v ;7 CD c v U) CD N N O 7 1612 4-.■ ,..,4,-. . •' , ; 4‘..,, . VOS. ,fi _ i, .,,s p, =v ...•,... , 7-.. t. I 6. ;;,, ..;.:,„ ' •, ,..,441,....,,,,• ' \ A - , 44 ... _, , Irv,- ......, Jiki, ' f / .),„„•;,,.,„..'`. . :. -, _ ,, - ' , \ , • , -.0 vab , ,, • , , . ,,. t • ,... ,..... ..... , . , , , „ 1,, , •.., or-x• , I - r ). _ ,, , ,sia „Ir. .. .,,.. i. -) \ \ ,26.../ •-■., . 11111P-.. -.0.•Adlirteft 1.11.4 ' ...OP • Jr tii0 ,.......0. ' . . 'N, • vo.,' 101..b' .4v *.%111 ...s.,‘ . ,t „s• . i• ,I 041/4 441i' '• -'1',Iiirt .1•Ir.! ' ' - '' . - • ' "4- 4*.v"' ' ' ,n' , ' iiiiA Ilt .. '' 1 ,*41‘;'.- .4111 " lk S • AL( ) .411X• 'X. ' ' Ai '41 ‘-,:a . -,-taith ' \::[;.' vi, it . s „....0.., ,„;4;,.- I .• 4.411411114 "4"1".:' 80;70.7 ii,, , ,, ,./7 'Air ' , • , , r..= 1,,.•.,- '- 'jUe: -4 ' ‘ - . ' 4.‘ 6.'' ‘ • y• .. . .. .., ...--,, --- ..-.1,_, ,. , . • , „ w„,,,...$• ,..•. •-•, ,, ,,\.41A• ,• 0\ ,\ . . _ r.• : , . ,. ." *.- ... . , •. ,_ • 1 . ler-...:-.::.-1, 1 • • ., , - ■*'\ I! t \ ,,,.. - ,!--- -411k. ‘ .• \ 1 k '' 1 „ if t........ lit , 1,.. , -......„\ s . ...r.....,... .../ - . .......Ai et .... , *414VP.:1,41.00"vr- k Mt, ....'• , IV \_ ' A 4.1111irr:'1'. 'AIM' AP! - 4■4 . 1.' ‘it• - % AP:, ' , . . ,. *0. •Stk*S%44"=t ', $94\41' St 4.•'!. * - • 4" ' ' . S '- 05. "..,/, 4,-;•': -4._ - '' 4 , •/. \ X;\.°.*- OF,'', q‘s . ea\af:1 , ■ - 0- . .. . , . ‘ . • .i., • - * : .- 1 1' ,. '.1 ' •• • /4 A 1. 4 .11 . , . ... . ,, .::: ,„ .=, 4' i 4-.•• -: . . ,- ....iik / .* 8. ' fj‘;';- ft., , "Re 1 49 lit •, 7114W • -ft 4 4 ..'- 14• I l .14 re 1 ' ' r, Is.. ‘1,, fp l FP' At ' ,P,.. ' ••■• ,• , • N 4 ,, .. .. A„.. .- .4., ,..rtk ,,_ . ..... . . . or!,0-1.• % -.. -4,- ., . .1N , offit4 - th •A , . -. .4 ... 1111$2.. ,k , _ ".„,--1.0,, , 6 ,..sf, 4 1 isit4 ., ''f. '' 'i ' .7 'Atka" ' t ,...41 •` `- ''• , . ,. -, ,,, . , ...- ■ vi,(\ iE - , • *AR?* ' ., , . ,. fi. 1.. tlee, i ::•4 N', ',' '4; • lik -, .4%.i..,, % . ,pw.,.,,,,.,..., . -.;Ep,. r - . . ick ,4 '..17-. . . . . . . % ' !* * tibia"1,4 • . ;$ . . \ t-- ,, S. e ' '4 '-- '.. ;-" ' • . , '41'\I'' s '-' • .. , .,, ..1, 4, 4*. • --t, 4■11* .. .t. 444 ......aw---• N 4-7 4,0 41,/kajill, -' , ' •.44 1!--' • 4r- , Ap, A.aw- IS v As, . ...... ....- - ..ii SS ,. ,,,, ., '-... ...kis, ..iftw„_..r.-' • c .' r t•' CU ). 4.' 4 4IP W, i ...oak -, ,t;,..,, . . . • 4 .-'e v..''.'•i,'y"r'o'l.ovn ir44, 4., 1404,4 4r .•4 t, t, . -- . V * t • f,c_e.,,..ft,.,, rtR 1a m■.<g2 z,,14 74' • it , . ..2 2 11/40,14 • Ysiii,.Ag4, 3, 1 . - e' = ' -4-4. 9 -o g m :!..1411. tir,:'- ..°# ':•,'. ''. ' Of ...,-.1iii- 4- ,,, . vs: .• ,p'..:,. a. ,''. i• mor .. r• 1 , ' lk. • • • a 1 , 1 I i'I"' . ii 1 i i mac.ma, PELICAN BAY ........ rill!•4'III lee:z f , ,T, 0 E il I ! 1. I N.BERM(SYSTEM III&IV) PELICAN BAY .11 j.SERVICES DISTRICT DISTRICT IIII1;Ilifil (3, rr, < - b -1 rr, E a ■ it I a 2 S'.? I R E I mom una CD 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE,SUITE 605 a c.• 4 = ,.-.. I•■•1 r- OVERALL EXHIBIT I r t 1- NAPLES,FL 34108 ■ I -...4 4 , August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 y 5e. Administrator's Report - St. Raphael Water Management Permit and County Attorney Review f Pagel of 2 Resnick Lisa A17 Subject: St. Raphael Water Management Permit/County Attorney Review From: WilliamsSteven Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 3:37 PM To: McCaughtryMary Cc: Klatzkow3eff Subject: RE: Club Raphael at Pelican Bay Condominium Association, Inc. Conversion of SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit Dear Ms. McCaughtry: I see no obligation or responsibility for the Pelican Bay Services Division to sign the proposed form. That being stated, there appears to be perceived additional liability to the Pelican Bay Services Division should it elect to sign the form in some spirit of cooperation or assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Steve Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney Collier County Attorney's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Ste. 800 Naples, FL 34112 -5749 Telephone: (239) 252 -8400 From: Klatzkow3eff Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 1:07 PM To: WilliamsSteven Cc: McCaughtryMary Subject: FW: Club Raphael at Pelican Bay Condominium Association, Inc. Conversion of SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit Importance: High Steve: Please review, and see me before responding. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow County Attorney (239) 252 -2614 From: McCaughtryMary Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 10:24 AM To: Klatzkow3eff Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle; ResnickLisa; Jim Powers Subject: FW: Club Raphael at Pelican Bay Condominium Association, Inc. Conversion of SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit Importance: High Mr. Klatzkow — Neil Dorrill, Administrator, would like to know from you if we should be responsible for this since we already have an easement on their property. Why would we want to be a third party to a separate agreement between Club Raphael and SF Water Management District? Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. AtaW .McCaccg&w, Up"aamm a=t wt Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Dr., Ste. 605 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session iNIT 5e. Administrator's Report - St. Raphael Water Management Permit and Cou y Ajj��rnete a Page 2 of 2 � (.� t Naple „FL 3> 1081 'y v `239 -50- 174i,E g poni :, 239 - 597 - 4502 -fax www .pelicanbayservicesdivision.net www.colliergov.net SUPPORT OUR TROOPS From: Spector, Sarah fmai Ito: SSpectorftecker- DOliakoff.com] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:48 PM To: Neil Dorrill Cc: LukaszKyle; Keith Dallas Subject: RE: Club Raphael at Pelican Bay Condominium Association, Inc. Conversion of SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit Importance: High Neil- The Association recently approved an amendment to its Declaration and Articles of Incorporation to recognize the responsibility for the portion of the overall Pelican Bay surface water management system that exists on the condominium property. However, pursuant to your response below and in recognition that there is a conversation easement over the property in favor of Pelican Bay Improvement District, its successors and assigns (a copy of which is attached), it is our understanding that Pelican Bay Services Division maintains the property covered by the easement'which is part of the permit we are trying to convert. In order for the permit to be converted to the operation phase, the party responsible for maintenance must execute what the District refers to as "Form 920." Given that PBSD effectively maintains a portion of our surface water management system, the District is requiring that the Association and PBSD execute a Form 920 and agree to act as co- permittees, with the understanding that each party will only be responsible for the portion of the property over which it has control (PBSD as to the area covered by the conservation area and the Association as to everything else). I have completed Form 920 for execution by the president of the Association (and am in the process of getting his signature) and have also prepared a Form 920 for execution by the Chairman of PBSD. Both forms are attached together with an explanation as to which party is responsible for which portion of the property. By executing the attached, the Chairman of PBSD will not be obligating PBSD to do anything more than it is already doing. It is simply a requirement of the District to get the permit out of the name of the now defunct developer. I would greatly appreciate it if Mr. Dallas could execute the attached and return same to my attention at the Fort Myers address below. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please let me know. Thank you so much. Sarah . Sarah E. Spector 0 Attorney at Law Six Mile Corporate Park 12140 Carissa Commerce Court Suite 200 Fort Myers, FL 33966 239.433.7707 Phone 239.433.5933 Fax SSpector(d )becker- poliakoff.com www.becker-poliakoff.com w August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Report Page 1 of 11 1612 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - June 30, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) 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 Assets 1,818,438.92 1,154,585.56 $ 2,973,024.48 $ 2,973,024.48 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 30,759.07 13,369.03 $ 44,128.10 1,292,615.54 1,636,280.84 2,928,896.38 $ 2,973,024.48 p17 ► August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Report Page 2 of 11 ' Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - June 30, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Carryforward Special Assessment- Water Management Admin Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification Insurance Co. Refund Charges for Services Surplus Property Sales Miscellaneous Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenace and Repairs IT Direct Capital IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. Indirect Cost Reimbursement Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Fees Advertising Other Office and Operating Supplies Training and Education Total Water Management Admin Operating Water Management Field Operations lO L Variance $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 4,949.12 666,300.00 641,646.90 642,037.41 390.51 1,907,800.00 1,837, 211.40 1,838, 349.89 1,138.49 4,800.00 3,600.00 298.00 298.00 1,500.00 84,500.00 - - 13,400.00 - 20,418.00 20,418.00 26,900.00 20,200.00 403.48 403.48 15,300.00 11,473.00 8,485.23 (2,987.77) $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,612,631.30 $ 3,632,292.01 $ 19,660.71 $ 41,400.00 $ 31,800.00 $ 26,850.88 $ 4,949.12 8,800.00 - - - 400.00 300.00 300.00 14,000.00 4,800.00 3,600.00 3,600.00 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 84,500.00 84,500.00 84,500.00 400.00 13,400.00 10,100.00 10,050.00 50.00 26,900.00 20,200.00 18,582.00 1,618.00 3,900.00 2,900.00 2,134.30 765.70 3,000.00 800.00 672.79 127.21 11,300.00 8,500.00 8,954.11 (454.11) 1,200.00 600.00 600.00 - 2,300.00 200.00 - 200.00 2,000.00 200.00 Motor Pool Rental Charge 200.00 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 349.61 1,15039 1,100.00 800.00 85.00 715.00 $ 209,000.00 $ 166,200.00 $ 156,678.69 $ 9,521.31 Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 102,200.00 $ 87,195.64 $ 15,004.36 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 9,000.00 9,305.25 (305.25) Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 5,300.00 812.65 4,487.35 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 400.00 - 400.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 15,100.00 12,106.25 2,993.75 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 800.00 286.42 513.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 33,400.00 37,629.00 (4,229.00) Telephone 500.00 400.00 288.32 111.68 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 4,800.00 4,769.87 30.13 Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 100.00 188.65 (88.65) 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 4,100.00 1,478.59 2,621.41 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 6,700.00 2,059.45 4,640.55 Tree Trim Ing 30,000.00 22,500.00 21,216.00 1,284.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 900.00 951.00 (51.00) Page 1 of 3 August 1, 2012 201 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Reqular�es n 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Report 166 Page 3 of 11 A17 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 1,423.60 (923.60) Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 66,400.00 55,548.56 10,851.44 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,100.00 388.11 711.89 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 3,400.00 3,765.12 (365.12) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 278,700.00 $ 241,012.48 $ 37,687.52 Right of Way Beautification - Operating 10,14 8.74 2,500.00 1,900,00 1,150.71 Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 32,800.00 $ 27,663.30 $ 5,136.70 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 23,200.00 21,151.00 2,049.00 Telephone 3,900.00 2,900.00 2,143.30 756.70 Postage 3,000.00 800.00 672.70 127.30 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 12,500.00 9,400.00 9,709.29 (309.29) 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 1,900.00 561.78 1,338.22 Training and Education 1,500.00 1,100.00 135.00 965.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 83,850.00 $ 73,119.37 $ 10,730.63 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 $ 621,000.00 $ 459,155.10 3,300.00 - - 89,900.00 65,800.00 65,171.16 5,000.00 5,000.00 8,325.00 2,500.00 1,900.00 550.64 29,500.00 24,100.00 22,632.00 190,100.00 183,300.00 202,556.10 3,200.00 2,400.00 1,777.93 3,400.00 2,600.00 1,513.86 17, 000.00 11, 700.00 10,14 8.74 2,500.00 1,900,00 1,150.71 300.00 200.00 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 22,300.00 22,082.12 67,300.00 46,000.00 28,510.72 800.00 600.00 101.94 63,600.00 63,400.00 60,715.50 9,400.00 4,500.00 4,417.84 3,000.00 2,300.00 1,576.60 62,000.00 54,000.00 53,967.91 46,000.00 46,500.00 42,411.60 53,100.00 37,200.00 29,387.00 6,000.00 4,000.00 - 30,000.00 16,500.00 9,296.01 800.00 600.00 28.66 3,000.00 2,300.00 837.70 3,000.00 2,300.00 2,765.89 9,000.00 6,800.00 4,361.50 $ 1,556,600.00 $ 1,239,300.00 $ 1,042,919.16 $ 2,289,200.00 $ 1,768,050.00 $ 1,513,729.70 Page 2 of 3 161,844.90 628.84 (3,325.00) 1,349.36 1,468.00 (19,256.10) 622.07 1,086.14 1,551.26 749.29 123.07 700.00 217.88 17,489.28 498.06 2,684.50 82.16 723.40 32.09 4,088.40 7,813.00 4,000.00 7,203.99 571.34 1,462.30 (465.89) 2,438.50 196,380.84 254,320.30 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Report Page 4 of 11 16 1 2A17 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 $ 1,864,650.00 $ 1,610,267.70 $ 254,382.30 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 51,740.00 49,603.74 2,136.26 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 39,294.58 1,020.42 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 $ 1,131,955.00 $ 1,128,798.32 $ 3,156.68 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,996,605.00 $ 2,739,066.02 $ 257,538.98 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 616,026.30 $ 893,225.99 $ 277,199.69 Page 3 of 3 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A17 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Report 161 2 Page 5 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - June 30, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 471,323.26 Interest Receivable - Improvements, Vehicles & Equipment 63,807.36 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 535,130.62 Total Assets $ 535,130.62 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable $ 69.73 Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd 2,249.43 Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities $ 2,319.16 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 194,157.20 Excess Revenue (Expenditures) 338,654.26 Total Fund Balance 532,811.46 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 535,130.62 Operating Revenues: Carryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Report A17 Page 6 of 11 1612 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - June 30, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual 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 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 436,800.00 420,638.40 420,905.01 $ 18,330.25 $ 4,500.00 1,800.00 1,497.12 $ 598,900.00 580,038.40 598,332.38 Variance 266.61 18,330.25 (302.88) 18,293.98 $ 41,400.00 $ 31,800.00 $ 26,850.77 $ 4,949.23 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 5,300.00 $ - 26,900.00 $ 20,875.00 18,582.00 $ 2,293.00 3,900.00 $ 2,900.00 1,599.48 $ 1,300.52 2,000.00 $ 800.00 672.79 $ 127.21 12,100.00 $ 9,100.00 9,429.23 $ (329.23) 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 $ - 800.00 $ 600.00 15.36 $ 584.64 1,000.00 $ 800.00 - $ 800.00 93,700.00 4,063.58 72,325.00 62,599.63 9,725.37 62,500.00 48,100.00 41,478.64 6,621.36 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 500.00 - 500.00 400.00 300.00 299.63 0.37 44,200.00 33,200.00 25,082.71 8,117.29 800.00 400.00 400.00 - 900.00 450.00 450.00 - 1, 700.00 4,300.00 3,200.00 2,946.73 253.27 1,200.00 900.00 429.55 470.45 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 500.00 400.00 - 400.00 7,300.00 7,300.00 8,546.30 (1,246.30) 12,400.00 8,600.00 4,536.42 4,063.58 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) August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Report Page 7 of 11 1612 A17 146,800.00 103,450.00 84,234.38 19,215.62 240,500.00 175,775.00 146,834.01 28,940.99 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 241, 500.00 175, 975.00 146, 834.01 29,140.99 13,500.00 8,775.00 8,460.81 314.19 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 - - 357,400.00 326,670.00 321,460.81 5,209.19 598,900.00 502,645.00 468,294.82 34,350.18 - 77,393.40 130,037.56 52,644.16 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 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Report Page 8of11 Pelican Bay Services bI2A17 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - June 30, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 371,095.87 292,810.40 663,906.27 $ 663,906.27 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 10,880.25 2,846.00 303,213.58 346,966.44 13,726.25 650,180.02 $ 663,906.27 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 7,253.75 $ 7,300.00 $ 26,298.75 $ 143,000.00 59,600.00 250.00 $ 150,253.75 $ Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ Non - Operating Expenditures: 66,900.00 $ August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 157,000.00 $ 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Page 9 of 11 Report 1612 A17 - Property Appraiser Fees Pelican Bay Services 2,600.00 1,818.00 Municipal Services Taxing Unit 335.63 Revenue Reserve Income Statement w/ Budget - June 30, 2012 6,700.00 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2012 - Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) (Unaudited) 15,900.00 15,900.00 Annual YTD YTD Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: $ 616.72 Total Expenditures $ Carry Forward $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ - Special Assessment 56,608.77 127,100.00 122,397.30 122,445.92 48.62 Miscellaneous Income 269,161.18 $ 1,414.45 1,414.45 Fund 111 34,000.00 34,000.00 34,000.00 - Transfer from Tax Collector - - Interest 700.00 700.00 1,643.82 943.82 Total Operating Revenues $ 451,311.88 $ 446,609.18 $ 449,016.07 $ 2,406.89 Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 163,368.75 $ 39,800.00 $ 39,126.25 $ 673.75 Other Contractural Services 70,151.60 35,800.00 35,332.95 467.05 Tree Trimming 29,000.00 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 Other Equipment Repairs 349.77 - - - Aerial Photography 7,500.00 - - Minor Operating 588.01 - - - Other Operating Supplies 1,000.00 - - - Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 271,958.13 $ 90,100.00 $ 74,459.20 $ 15,640.80 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 7,253.75 $ 7,300.00 $ 26,298.75 $ 143,000.00 59,600.00 250.00 $ 150,253.75 $ Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ Non - Operating Expenditures: 66,900.00 $ 26,548.75 $ 157,000.00 $ 101,007.95 $ (18,998.75) 59, 350.00 40,351.25 55,992.05 Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 2,730.00 $ 2,448.91 $ 281.09 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 $ 19,831.28 $ 616.72 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 177,448.00 $ 120,839.23 $ 56,608.77 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 269,161.18 $ 328,176.84 $ 59,015.66 Page 1 of 1 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Report A17 Page 10 of 11 6 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - June 30, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (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 Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Assets $ 2,628,383.46 1,246,461.28 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 1,978.75 2,161.70 3,874,844.74 $ 3,874,844.74 4,140.45 2,582,84&52 1,287,855.77 3,870,704.29 $ 3,874,844.74 t � Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Foundation Payment for Crosswalks Special Assessment Transfer from Tax Collector Interest Total Operating Revenues August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5f1. June, 2012 Financial Report Page 11 of 11 1612 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement wJ Budget - June 30, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance 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) $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 - - 53,487.00 331,900.00 319,619.70 319,703.75 2,453.47 19,500.00 14,623.00 11, 538.66 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,324,126.74 $ 3,377,066.92 $ 53,487.00 84.05 2,453.47 (3,084.34 52,940.18 $ 131,654.37 $ 23,697.79 $ 23,125.35 $ 572.44 2,956,362.25 561,708.83 430,885.74 130,823.09 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 40,715.30 (1,146.60) 21,323.00 - - - 50,000.00 - - - 85,000.00 - - - 500.00 - - - 22,275.72 - - - $ 3,306,684.04 $ 624,975.31 $ 604,248.37 $ 20,726.94 $ 10,300.00 $ 6,695.00 $ 6,394.21 $ 300.79 6,800.00 4,216.00 3,896.51 319.49 17,500.00 - - - $ 34,600.00 $ 10,911.00 $ 10,290.72 $ 620.28 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 635,886.31 $ 614,539.09 $ $ - $ 2,688,240.43 $ 2,762,527.83 $ Page 1 of 1 21,347.22 74,287.40 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 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session M. July, 2012 Financial Report � � � � •.� Page 1 of 11 17 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 27, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets 1,456,341.04 1,140,698.96 $ 2,597,040.00 $ 2,597,040.00 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 8,681.82 37,687.06 $ 46,368.88 1,292,615.54 1,258,055.58 2,550,671.12 $ 2,597,040.00 I , August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5f2. July, 2012 Financial Report � � ' Page 2 of 11 2A17 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense Pelican Bay Services 112,400.00 $ 106,448.54 $ 5,951.46 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 Municipal Services Taxing Unit (684.00) Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 Income Statement w/ Budget - July 27, 2012 812.65 4,987.35 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 - 400.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 (Unaudited) 12,106.25 2,993.75 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - Annual YTD YTD 1,000.00 800.00 286.42 Budget Budget Actual 36,400.00 Variance Operating Revenues: Telephone 500.00 400.00 378.36 21.64 Carryforward $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ - Special Assessment - Water Management Admin 666,300.00 641,646.90 642,127.50 Insurance - General 480.60 Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 1,907,800.00 1,837,211.40 1,838,607.82 900.00 1,396.42 Insurance Co. Refund Building Repairs & Mntc. 298.00 - 298.00 Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - 1,636.59 - Surplus Property Sales 8,900.00 - 20,418.00 5,139.62 20,418.00 Miscellaneous 25,000.00 21,216.00 403.48 Clothing and Uniforms 403.48 Interest 15,300.00 12,748.00 8,485.23 (4,262.77) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,613,906.30 $ 3,632,640.03 $ 18,733.73 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 33,600.03 $ 1,399.97 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 400.00 400.00 IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 84,500.00 84,500.00 Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 13,400.00 13,400.00 - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 22,400.00 20,676.00 1,724.00 Telephone 3,900.00 3,300.00 2,453.80 846.20 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 800.00 672.79 127.21 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 9,400.00 9,786.96 (386.96) Insurance - General 1,200.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 1,200.00 507.50 692.50 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 1,700.00 431.28 1,268.72 Training and Education 1,100.00 900.00 85.00 815.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 179,400.00 $ 172,513.36 $ 6,886.64 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 112,400.00 $ 106,448.54 $ 5,951.46 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 10,000.00 10,684.00 (684.00) Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 5,800.00 812.65 4,987.35 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 400.00 - 400.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 15,100.00 12,106.25 2,993.75 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 800.00 286.42 513.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 36,400.00 46,193.00 (9,793.00) Telephone 500.00 400.00 378.36 21.64 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 5,300.00 5,382.87 (82.87) Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 100.00 188.65 (88.65) Insurance - General 2,300.00 2,300.00 2,300.00 Insurance - Auto 900.00 900.00 900.00 Building Repairs & Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 5,400.00 4,500.00 1,636.59 2,863.41 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 7,400.00 2,260.38 5,139.62 Tree Triming 30,000.00 25,000.00 21,216.00 3,784.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 1,000.00 960.00 40.00 Page 1 of 3 Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Other Repairs and Maintenance Other Operating Supplies and Equipment Total Water Management Field Operating Right of Way Beautification - Operating Payroll Expense Emergency Repairs and Maintenance IT Direct Capital Office Automation Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Legal Advertising Office Supplies General Training and Education Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 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 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Tgu 1' 5f2. July, 2012 Financial Report Page 3 of 11 591,254.56 1 6 - 89,900.00 500.00 500.00 1,423.600 5,000.00 (923.60) 2,500.00 98,400.00 77,100.00 59,296.36 25,900.00 17,803.64 190,100.00 1,500.00 1,300.00 433.11 2,700.00 866.89 3,400.00 2,500.00 3,600.00 4,864.31 11, 900.00 (1,264.31) 2,500.00 $ 394,300.00 $ 310,300.00 $ 277,771.09 $ 32,528.91 8,800.00 $ 42,600.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 34,616.13 $ 1,383.87 1,700.00 7,400.00 - - 24,400.00 - 67,300.00 400.00 400.00 300.00 700.00 100.00 63,600.00 14,100.00 14,100.00 10,500.00 4,900.00 3,600.00 3,000.00 34,300.00 26,100.00 21,151.00 55,500.00 4,949.00 46,000.00 3,900.00 3,300.00 2,143.30 39,800.00 1,156,70 6,000.00 3,000.00 800.00 672.70 25,000.00 127.30 800.00 12,500.00 10,400.00 9,709.29 2,500.00 690.71 3,000.00 500.00 500.00 250.00 7,500.00 250.00 2,600.00 200.00 33.00 167.00 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 2,500.00 1,900.00 561.78 1,338.22 1,500.00 1,100.00 135.00 965.00 $ 129,300.00 $ 95,200.00 $ 80,072.20 $ 15,127.80 $ 807,300.00 $ 683,100.00 $ 591,254.56 3,300.00 - - 89,900.00 72,500.00 71,230.91 5,000.00 5,000.00 8,325.00 2,500.00 2,100.00 562.59 29,500.00 25,900.00 24,167.00 190,100.00 199,100.00 225,756.26 3,200.00 2,700.00 1,993.12 3,400.00 2,800.00 1,513.86 17,000.00 11, 900.00 11,446.21 2,500.00 2,100.00 2,309.66 300.00 200.00 76.93 8,800.00 8,800.00 8,800.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 1,700.00 700.00 - 25,100.00 24,400.00 25,445.95 67,300.00 51,100.00 33,386.24 800.00 700.00 101.94 63,600.00 63,600.00 60,715.50 9,400.00 4,900.00 4,760.80 3,000.00 2,500.00 1,576.60 62,000.00 55,500.00 55,410.91 46,000.00 50,300.00 42,411.60 53,100.00 39,800.00 29,830.25 6,000.00 4,500.00 - 30,000.00 25,000.00 9,483.09 800.00 700.00 28.66 3,000.00 2,500.00 1,997.45 3,000.00 2,500.00 3,015.49 9,000.00 7,500.00 4,893.11 $ 1,556,600.00 $ 1,362,400.00 $ 1,230,493.69 $ 2,289,200.00 $ 1,947,300.00 $ 1,760,850.34 Page 2 of 3 $ 91,845.44 1,269.09 (3,325.00) 1,537.41 1,733.00 (26,656.26) 706.88 1,286.14 453.79 (209.66) 123.07 700.00 (1,045.95) 17,713.76 598.06 2,884.50 139.20 923.40 89.09 7,888.40 9,969.75 4,500.00 15, 516.91 671.34 502.55 (515.49) 2,606.89 $ 131,906.31 $ 186,449.66 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division oar eg ar ion'M q 17 5f2. July, 2012 Financial Report 1 Page 4 of 11 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 $ 2,043,900.00 $ 1,857,388.34 $ 186,511.66 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 51,740.00 49,610.70 2,129.30 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 39,294.58 1,020.42 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 $ 1,131,955.00 $ 1,128,805.28 $ 3,149.72 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,175,855.00 $ 2,986,193.62 $ 189,661.38 Net Profit /(loss) $ - $ 438,051.30 $ 646,446.41 $ 208,395.11 Page 3 of 3 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5f2. July, 2012 Financial Report A17 Page 5 of 11 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 27, 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 $ 450,847.99 62,982.42 $ 513,830.41 $ 513,830.41 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 58.20 2,132.85 $ 2,191.05 194,157.20 317,482.16 511,639.36 $ 513,830.41 L Operating Revenues: Carryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Bd gul 5f2. July, 2012 Financial Report Page 6 of 11 o r ise2nAl 7 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 27, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual 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 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ Variance 436,800.00 420,638.40 420,972.83 $ 334.43 33,599.90 $ 1,400.10 18,330.25 $ 18,330.25 4,500.00 1,800.00 1,497.12 $ (302.88) 598,900.00 580,038.40 598,400.20 $ 18,361.80 $ 41,400.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 33,599.90 $ 1,400.10 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 5,300.00 $ - 26,900.00 $ 23,116.67 20,674.00 $ 2,442.67 3,900.00 $ 3,300.00 1,863.99 $ 1,436.01 2,000.00 $ 800.00 672.79 $ 127.21 12,100.00 $ 10,100.00 10,309.10 $ (209.10) 300.00 $ 300.00 300.00 $ - 800.00 $ 700.00 15.36 $ 684.64 1,000.00 $ 800.00 - $ 800.00 93,700.00 5,363.58 79,416.67 72,735.14 6,681.53 62,500.00 52,900.00 50,624.16 2,275.84 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 600.00 - 600.00 400.00 300.00 335.67 (35.67) 44,200.00 36,800.00 25,082.71 11,717.29 800.00 800.00 800.00 - 900.00 900.00 900.00 - 1,700.00 4,300.00 3,600.00 3,096.73 503.27 1,200.00 1,000.00 468.67 531.33 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 500.00 400.00 58.20 341.80 7,300.00 7,300.00 8,546.30 (1,246.30) 12,400.00 9,900.00 4,536.42 5,363.58 Page 1 of 2 I 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) August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A17 5f2. July, 2012 Financial Report � � � � � Page 7 of 11 ' 146,800.00 114,600.00 94,513.26 20,086.74 240,500.00 194,016.67 167,248.40 26,768.27 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 241,500.00 194,216.67 167,248.40 26,968.27 13,500.00 10,125.00 8,461.40 1,663.60 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 - - 357,400.00 328,020.00 321,461.40 6,558.60 598,900.00 522,236.67 488,709.80 33,526.87 - 57,801.73 109,690.40 51,888.67 Page 2 of 2 r, 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 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session W. July, 2012 Financial Report Page 8 of 11 -4 A17 Pelican Bay Services 1612 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 27, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 357,386.46 291,707.80 649,094.26 $ 649,094.26 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 18,000.00 12,038.75 303,213.58 315,841.93 30,038.75 619,055.51 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 649,094.26 t August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session W. July, 2012 Financial Report Page 9 of 11 6 1 2 A 17 � Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ Pelican Bay Services $ 2,925.00 $ 2,449.25 $ 475.75 Municipal Services Taxing Unit 2,600.00 1,948.00 1,482.37 Income Statement wj Budget - July 27, 2012 465.63 Revenue Reserve 6,700.00 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2012 - - Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) 15,900.00 (Unaudited) 15,900.00 15,900.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ Annual YTD 20,773.00 YTD 19,831.62 $ 941.38 Total Expenditures Budget Budget $ Actual $ Variance Operating Revenues: 69,894.68 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 225,836.18 $ Carry Forward $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ - Special Assessment 127,100.00 122,397.30 122,463.10 65.80 Miscellaneous Income 1,414.45 1,414.45 Fund 111 34,000.00 34,000.00 34,000.00 - Transfer from Tax Collector - - Interest 700.00 700.00 1,643.82 943.82 Total Operating Revenues $ 451,311.88 $ 446,609.18 $ 449,033.25 $ 2,424.07 Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 163,368.75 $ 64,400.00 $ 50,605.00 $ 13,795.00 Other Contractural Services 70,151.60 54,200.00 53,892.95 307.05 Tree Trimming 29,000.00 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 Other Equipment Repairs 349.77 - - - Aerial Photography 7,500.00 - - Minor Operating 588.01 - - - Other Operating Supplies 1,000.00 - - - Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 271,958.13 $ 133,100.00 $ 104,497.95 $ 28,602.05 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees $ 7,253.75 $ 7,300.00 $ 26,298.75 $ (18,998.75) Other Contractual Services 143,000.00 59,600.00 250.00 59,350.00 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 150,253.75 $ 66,900.00 $ 26,548.75 $ 40,351.25 Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ 200,000.00 $ 131,046.70 $ 68,953.30 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 2,925.00 $ 2,449.25 $ 475.75 Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 1,948.00 1,482.37 465.63 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 $ 20,773.00 $ 19,831.62 $ 941.38 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 220,773.00 $ 150,878.32 $ 69,894.68 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 225,836.18 $ 298,154.93 $ 72,318.75 Page 1 of 1 r" 1 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session July, 2012 Financial Report Pa �� Page 10 of 11 16 Q Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 27, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,733,198.10 Interest Receivable - Improvements, Vehicles & Equipment 1,239,929.18 Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets 3,973,127.28 Total Assets 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 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 1,462.50 15,944.93 2,582,848.52 1,372,871.33 $ 3,973,127.28 17,407.43 3,955,719.85 $ 3,973,127.28 i Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Foundation Payment for Crosswalks Special Assessment Transfer from Tax Collector Interest Total Operating Revenues August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session W. July, 2012 Financial Report Page 11 of 11 ' 16 A17 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 27, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance 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) $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - 436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 - - - 53,487.00 53,487.00 331,900.00 319,619.70 319,748.61 128.91 2,453.47 2,453.47 19,500.00 14,623.00 11,538.66 (3,084.34) $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,324,126.74 $ 3,377,111.78 $ 52,985.04 $ 131,654.37 $ 23,697.79 $ 24,780.35 $ (1,082.56) 2,956,362.25 561,708.83 435,371.72 126,337.11 11,146.68 (11,146.68) 86,085.49 (86,085.49) 1,000.00 (1,000.00) 22,754.24 (22,754.24) 39,568.70 39,568.70 40,715.30 (1,146.60) 21,323.00 - - - 50,000.00 - - - 85,000.00 - - - 500.00 - - - 22,275.72 - - - $ 3,306,684.04 $ 624,975.31 $ 621,853.78 $ 3,121.53 $ 10,300.00 $ 7,725.00 $ 6,395.10 $ 1,329.90 6,800.00 5,100.00 3,896.51 1,203.49 17, 500.00 - - - $ 34,600.00 $ 12,825.00 $ 10,291.61 $ 2,533.39 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 637,800.31 $ 632,145.39 $ 5,654.92 $ - $ 2,686,326.43 $ 2,744,966.39 $ 58,639.96 Page 1 of 1 E ResnickLisa August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Possible rules and procedures for Boardeti (Dallis) 6 Pagel of 4 1 PI r 1 17 Subject: Possible Rules for PBSD Meetings - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Dallas [ mailto :keithjdallas(a)gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:20 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Possible Rules for PBSD Meetings Lisa, Please distribute this discussion of possible PBSD meeting procedures to all Board members and include it with the August 1 st Agenda. The purpose of this is to encourage Board members to start thinking about the subject. At our August 1 st meeting we can discuss when we think we would want to discuss the subject in more detail. Since it is probably advisable that most Board members participate in such a discussion, we may want to wait until our northern members have returned to have that discussion. Keith I August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Possible rules and procedures for Board meeting (D 1612 ) All Page 2 of 4 Possible Rules for PBSD Meetings The question has been raised about the appropriateness of the current methods the PBSD is using to conduct meetings, and to what extent Robert's Rules apply. The purpose of the following is to discuss our current practices, where I see them not working, and possible ways they could be changed. My intent is to encourage Board members to begin thinking about possible approaches so that at a future meeting we jointly can decide which approaches are most desirable. Community Input Currently we allow 3- minute comments on each individual subject, as well general comments at the end of the meeting. Individuals are supposed to speak only once on each subject (although I have not done a good job policing that rule). The problem is that especially on controversial matters, comments can take a huge amount of time, often with the same thoughts being said again and again. Recent meetings have been long, with topics at the end of the agenda having to be carried to the next meeting. Looking at what other area Boards do: • The Foundation allows 3 minutes at the beginning of the meeting for general member comments, plus an additional minute before any specific Board action is taken. • The BCC allows 3 minutes on any subject, including general topics at the beginning of a meeting. However individuals must sign up to speak BEFORE the subject begins to be discussed. Individuals may also cede time to others. • County committees often function like the BCC. The issue is how we can speed up our meetings without instituting procedures the public will feel unduly limits their input? At a minimum I intend to more strictly enforce our current rules. However I would encourage a Board discussion of any other ideas. Amending a Previously Adopted Motion The situations where Board members want to revisit prior Board votes are probably the most controversial. Our recent multiple votes on the width of our pathways are a classic example. How do we allow revisiting prior decisions without creating chaos and encouraging gamesmanship? T K August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Possible rules and procedures for Board meetings (Dallas) Page 3 of 4 Some p ossibilities are: A17 • Currently we allegedly use Robert's Rules. It allows motions 612 uring the same meeting to be revisited ( "reconsideration ") only if a Board member who voted with the prevailing side of the prior vote makes the motion to reconsider. The losing members can't bring the motion up again that day. Motions voted in prior meetings can be brought up by anyone. If they have been "properly noticed" before the meeting, a simple majority can "amend something previously adopted ". If not properly noticed, a 2 /3rd majority vote is required to change the vote (more on this later). • We could require, like the BCC, that any motion to reconsider, even in subsequent meetings, can only be raised by a Board member who voted with the prevailing side of the prior vote. • Alternatively we could allow any Board member to make a motion to amend something previously adopted, with proper notice, but require a more substantial vote for passage (for example, a super majority or 2 /3rd majority). The real question is how comfortable the Board is with making it more difficult to revote previously decided matters, and what are the kind of rules are we should use? Prior Notice of Motions To Be Considered The above discussion highlights an area that has concerned me, to what extent should the community and other Board members have notice that a particular motion will be considered at a particular meeting? Some of our more contentious votes have happened when some member wanted a vote on an item that caught people by surprise. Not only had other Board members not had a chance to think about a subject in depth, people in the community who felt one way or another on the subject often did not even come to the meeting. Some possibilities: • Roberts Rules has no requirement for noticing most motions, other than the above - mentioned motion to amend something previously adopted. • The Foundation includes any motions to be voted in their agenda. Some specific items must actually be discussed at 2 consecutive meetings and then require a super majority vote. (The PBSD only requires a majority vote, but the Budget must have at least 7 Board members present for the vote). • The BCC also includes all motions to be considered in their agenda, and requires super majority votes on some items. August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sess' n I Al�l 6a. Chairman s Re ort Possible rules and rocedures for Boardetir s (Dallas P P Page 4 of 4 I would like a Board discussion regarding your desires for requiring or not prior notice of motions to be considered at upcoming PBSD meetings. Other Procedures? Are there other situations where we want Robert's Rules to be modified? If so, please think about them and contact Lisa so your thoughts can be distributed in advance of the meeting where we discuss these matters. KJD — -- August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a1. Chairman's Report - Sample Rules and Procedures for visgpt Board Page 1 of 5 Z A17 COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCEDURES FOR CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 24, 2009 A. General: 1. Meetings: Regular meetings of the advisory board shall be held on such day, time and place as may be determined by the advisory board, and at a minimum of once a month, except for one month in the summer. 2. Quorum and Voting: At all regular or special meetings of the advisory board, a majority of the membership of the advisory board shall constitute a quorum. Voting shall be by voice unless a member of the advisory board requests a roll call. The roll shall be in alphabetical order with the first name called rotating with each motion upon which the vote is called. The Chairman shall always vote last. A record of the roll call shall be kept as part of the minutes. Special Meetings: Special meetings may be called by the Chairman at any time provided adequate notice is given pursuant to Paragraph 4 below. The chairman may also call a special meeting when requested to do so in writing by a majority of the members of the advisory board or by a County staff member. The notice of such a meeting shall specify the purpose of such a meeting and no other business may be considered except by unanimous consent of the advisory board. All members of the advisory board shall be notified in advance of such special meetings by the staff liaison. 4. Notice and Publication: The staff liaison shall give notice and keep record of such notice of its meetings and the meeting of the subcommittees including the date, time, and location of each regular and special meeting. Notice shall be posted in the county administration building and other appropriate locations as recommended by the advisory board and to the County Public Information Department for future distribution. Open Meetings: All meetings of the advisory board or its subcommittees shall be open to the public and governed by the provisions of Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law. August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a1. Chairman's Report - Sample Rules and Procedures for Advisory Boards Page 2 of 5 All 612 6. Minutes: The minutes of all meetings shall be promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection, in accordance with applicable law. 7. Location: Meetings of the advisory board, or any of its subcommittees, shall be held in a location accessible to the public. Meeting Agenda: There shall be an agenda for each meeting of the advisory board which shall determine the order of business conducted. The board shall not take action on any matter, proposal, report or item of business not listed upon the official agenda unless a majority of the Board present consents. Any advisory board member, in the case of an advisory board or a subcommittee member in the case of a subcommittee, may place an item on the agenda by submitting it to the Chairman for forwarding to the staff liaison prior to the deadline for publishing the notice of such meeting. The Chairman shall determine whether the item submitted by the board member is relevant to the purposes of the advisory committee. Upon his/her finding that the item is relevant, it shall be included in the agenda. Staff - initiated agenda items are not subject to prior review by the Chairman. 9. Order of Business: The order of business at regular meetings shall be as follows: (a) Call to Order (b) Pledge of Allegiance (c) Roll Call (d) Changes and Approval of Agenda (e) Public Comment (f) Approval of Minutes (g) Chairman's Comments (h) Staff Reports (i) New Business 0) Old Business (k) Announcements (1) Committee Member Discussion (m)Next Meeting Time, Date and Location (n) Adjournment B. Agenda Items Requiring Action (Old Business and New Business): General: All members of the public who address the Board shall utilize the speaker's podium to allow their comments to be recorded, and shall identify themselves by name and local addresses, if applicable. Further, any speaker speaking on behalf of an organization or group of individuals ... }. r August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a1. Chairman's Report - Sample Rules and Procedures for Advisory Boar Page 3 of 5 *J 1 16 2 Al (exceeding five) shall indicate such and shall cite the source of such authority whether by request, petition, vote, or otherwise. 2. Speaker Registration: Persons, other than staff wishing to speak on an agenda item shall, prior to the item being heard, register with the staff liaison on the forms provided. Five (5) or more persons deemed by the Board to be associated together or otherwise represent a common point of view, as proponents or opponents on any item may be requested to select a spokesperson. All persons may speak for a maximum of three (3) minutes each unless otherwise approve by the Chairman. Restrictions on Comments Deemed not Germane to the Item: Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any board member may interrupt and/or stop any presentation that discusses matters that need not be considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration. At any Board proceeding, the Chairman, unless overruled by majority of the Board members present, may restrict or terminate presentations which in the Chairman's judgment are frivolous, unduly repetitive or out of order. C. Order and Subject of Appearance: To the extent possible, the following shall be the order of the proceeding: Preliminary Statement: The Chairman shall read the title of the Agenda item. 2. Initial Presentation by Staff County staff shall make the initial presentation to the Board regarding any item under consideration. After completion of the staff presentation, the Board may make inquiries of staff at this time. 3. Initial Presentation by Petitioner or Proposer: Petitioner or Proposer shall make the initial presentation to the Board regarding any item under consideration. After completion of the presentation by the Petitioner or Proposer, the Board may make inquiries of the Petitioner or Proposer at this time. 4. beakers: After Board inquiry, speakers shall be allowed to speak based on the time limitation guidelines outlined in the preceding subsection B above. During and after a speaker's presentation, the Board shall have an opportunity to comment or ask questions of or seek clarification from such speaker. The Board may also allow staff to comment, ask questions of or seek clarification from speakers. 5. Restrictions on Testimony or Presentation of Evidence: Notwithstanding any provisions herein, any board member may interrupt any presentation August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a1. Chairman's Report - Sample Rules and Procedures for1Ad vissry Bird ? t Page 4of5 LVV� a that contains matters which need not be considered in deciding the matter then before the Board for consideration. At any Board proceeding, the Chairman, unless overruled by majority of the Board members present, may restrict or terminate presentations which in the Chairman's judgment are frivolous, unduly repetitive or out of order. D. Rules of Debate: The following rules of debate shall be observed by the Board. Except as herein provided questions of order and the conduct of business shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. 1. Motion under consideration: When a motion is presented and seconded, it is under consideration and no other motion shall be received thereafter, except to adjourn, to lay on the table, to postpone, or to amend until the question is decided. These countermotions shall have preference in the order in which they are mentioned, and the first two shall be decided without debate. Final action upon a pending motion may be deferred until the next meeting by majority of the members present. 2. Chairman participation: The presiding chairman may move, second and debate from the chair, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a committee member by reason of being the presiding chairman. 3. Form of address: Each member shall address only the presiding officer for recognition, shall confine himself to the question under debate, and shall avoid personalities and indecorous language. 4. Interruption: A member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted except by the Chairman if the Chairman determines that the member's participation is irrelevant, frivolous or out of order. Any member may appeal the decision of the Chairman to the committee for decision by majority vote. 5. The question: Upon the closing of debate, any member may require a roll call vote. Any member may give a brief statement or file a written explanation of his vote. E. Public Comment on General Topics: Members of the public may register to speak on general topics under the Public Comment portion of the CBAC agenda. The number of speakers permitted to register under public comment on any given agenda shall be limited to a maximum of five, unless the Chairman recognizes additional speakers. 1. Speaker Registration: Individuals wishing to speak to the CBAC under public comment at any regularly scheduled meeting of the CBAC shall 0 1b1 e 11 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Re ular�ssion 7 9 Y 9 6a1. Chairman's Report - Sample Rules and Procedures for Advisory Boards Page 5 of 5 register to speak in writing on the form provided by the County prior to the public comment portion of the agenda being called by the Chairman. F. Conflicts of Interest: Any Member having a potential voting conflict shall publicly state the nature of the conflict at the Clam Bay Advisory Committee meeting and complete Form 8B (Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal and Other Local Public Officers) within 15 days of the scheduled meeting. q4 & hn Arceri hairman August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessio1612 C6a2. Chairman's Report - Collier County Code Board of County Commissioners Rules & Proces t Page 1 of 6 Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances PART I: CODE. Chapter 2 ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE II. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. DIVISION 2. MEETINGS Sec. 2 -36. - General provisions. Sec. 2 -37. - Addressing the Commission. Sec. 2 -38. - Sergeant -at -arms. Sec. 2 -39. -Action to be taken by resolution, ordinance or motion. Sec. 2-40. - Adjournment. Sec. 2-41. - Reconsideration of matters generally. Sec. 2-42. - Reconsideration of land use matters. Sec. 2-43 -2-65. - Reserved. Sec. 2 -36. - General provisions. (a) Regular meetings. The Board of County Commissioners shall normally hold its regular meeting at 9:00 a.m. each second and fourth Tuesday, except on a day designated as a holiday, interim recess, or as otherwise directed by an affirmative vote of the majority of all Board members present. Meetings may be postponed or cancelled by an affirmative vote of the majority of all Board members present. Meetings shall normally be held at the Collier County Government Center and shall be open to the news media and the public. Meetings may be held in other locations within the County. (b) Special meetings. When the Chairman or a majority of the Board calls a special meeting, the County Manager or his designee shall notify the Clerk, the County Attorney, and issue press releases advising of the place, date and hour of the meeting and the purpose for which the meeting is called. (c) Agenda. There shall be an official agenda for each meeting of the Board, which shall determine the order of business conducted at the meeting. (1) The Board shall not take action upon any matter, proposal, report or item of business not listed upon the official agenda, unless a majority of the Board present consents. (2) The County Manager shall prepare each agenda in appropriate form approved by the Board. Matters may be placed on the agenda by the County Manager, any County Commissioner, the Clerk, the County Attorney, and the constitutional officers. The agenda shall be prepared and distributed not later than four days preceding the regular meeting. (3) Prior to the publishing of the agenda, matters placed on the agenda should include as much supporting documents, information, and materials as is needed to aid the Board in its preparation and deliberation of the agenda item. Documents, information and materials will not be accepted by the Board following publication of the agenda. Should additional documents, information and materials be presented to the Board following publication, the Board may, by a majority vote of those present, elect to either continue the agenda item to a future Board meeting, or waive this requirement and hear the matter if it determines that the agenda item is of significant public importance and should not be postponed. (4) All requests for a continuance of an agenda item, including matters advertised for a public hearing, require Board of County Commission approval. No person shall be entitled to rely for any reason upon any assurances that an agenda item or public hearing will be continued. A continuance shall only be granted by an affirmative vote of the majority of the Board Members present. (d) Presiding officer, election, duties. The presiding Chairman and Vice - Chairman shall be elected by a majority of the members of the Board of County Commissioners and said election shall occur at the first regularly scheduled Board meeting in January of each year. In the event that the Chairman and /or the Vice - Chairman are not reelected as Commissioners in any given year, unless a Special Meeting is called, the Board of County Commissioners shall elect a Page 1 of 6 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a2. Chairman's Report - Collier County Code Board of County Commissioners�RulgC & P ce�s Page 2 of 6 r. Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances PART I: CODE. Chapter 2 ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE II. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. DIVISION 2. MEETINGS Chairman and /or Vice - Chairman, as applicable, at the first regularly scheduled Board meeting on or after the second Tuesday after the election to temporarily serve until the first regularly scheduled Board meeting in January at which time the scheduled election shall take place. However, the Chairman and the Vice - Chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The Vice - Chairman shall preside in the absence of the Chairman. With respect to all matters outside of meetings (see subsection (e) below), in the absence of both the Chairman and the Vice - Chairman, the immediate past Chairman shall act as temporary Chairman, and if there is no immediate past Chairman, then the longest tenured Commissioner shall so act. The Chairman shall become the presiding officer immediately after his or her election. The Chairman shall preserve order and decorum at all meetings. He shall state every question and announce the decision of the commission on each item of business. The majority vote of the members present shall determine all questions of order not otherwise covered. The Chairman may vote on any question, his or her name being called last. The Chairman shall sign all ordinances, resolutions and legally binding documents adopted by the Commission during his or her presence. In his or her absence, such ordinances, resolutions and legally binding documents shall be signed by the presiding officer. (e) Call to Order. At the hour appointed for the meeting, the Chairman shall immediately call the Commission to order. In the physical absence of the Chairman, and the Vice - Chairman, the Board members present shall elect a temporary Chairman and a temporary Vice - Chairman by majority vote, and the Chairman so elected shall then call the meeting to order and shall serve until arrival of the Chairman or Vice - Chairman. (f) Quorum. A majority of the Board shall constitute a quorum. No resolution, legally binding document or motion shall be adopted by the Board without the affirmative vote of the majority of all members present. Should no quorum attend within 30 minutes after the hour appointed for the meeting, the Chairman, Vice - Chairman, or in their absence, the Clerk or his designee, may adjourn the meeting. (g) Super - Majority Exception. Whenever provided by general law, special law, ordinance, or as specified by resolution adopted by a majority of the full membership of the Board, and notwithstanding subsection (f), a motion, ordinance, legally binding document or resolution may be required to be adopted by an affirmative vote of four -fifths (4/5) of the full membership of the Board. (h) Rules of debate. The following rules of debate shall be observed by the Board. Except as herein provided questions of order and the conduct of business shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. (1) Motion under consideration. When a motion is presented and seconded, it is under consideration and no other motion shall be received thereafter, except to adjourn, to lay on the table, to postpone, or to amend until the question is decided. These countermotions shall have preference in the order in which they are mentioned, and the first two shall be decided without debate. Final action upon a pending motion may be deferred until the next meeting by majority of the members present. (2) Chairman participation. The presiding Chairman may move, second and debate from the chair, and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Commissioner by reason of being the presiding Chairman. (3) Form of address. Each member shall address only the presiding officer for recognition, shall confine himself to the question under debate, and shall avoid personalities and indecorous language. (4) Interruption. A member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted except by a call to Page 2 of 6 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session :. e ..f 6a2. Chairman's Report - Collier County Code Board of County Commissioner Rul s Page 3 of 6 TcZs i 1 Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances 1 / PART I: CODE. Chapter 2 ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE II. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. DIVISION 2. MEETINGS order or as herein otherwise provided. If a member is called to order, he shall stop speaking until the question is determined by the presiding officer. Any member may appeal the decision of the Chairman to the Board for decision by majority vote. (5) Privilege of closing debate. The Commissioner moving for the adoption of an ordinance, resolution or other act shall have the privilege of closing debate unless otherwise directed by the Chair. (6) The question. Upon the closing of debate any member may require a roll call vote. Any member may give a brief statement or file a written explanation of his or her vote. (i) Minutes. The minutes of prior meetings approved by a majority of the members present shall become the official minutes. Each resolution, ordinance and legally binding document shall be signed by the presiding officer at the meeting and by the Clerk and entered in the minutes. (Ord. No. 75 -16, § 1(1); Ord. No. 85 -20, § 1; Ord. No. 87 -14, § 1; Ord. No. 89 -04, § 1; Ord. No. 90 -27, § 1; Ord. No. 2007 -02, §§ 1 -3; Ord. No. 07 -50, § 1; Ord. No. 2009 -52, § 1; Ord. No. 2011 -01, § 1; Ord. No. 2011 -17, § 1) Sec. 2 -37. - Addressing the Commission. (a) If a subject is not on the agenda for a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners it may be added by motion and an affirmative vote of a majority of all Board members present that the subject should not be delayed until the next meeting. (b) Any person appearing to provide the Board factual information or expert opinion to consider prior to taking official action shall be governed by the following procedure: (1) Prior to addressing the Board the speaker shall approach any podium or any other place otherwise designated by the Board of County Commissioners for this purpose and clearly state his or her full name, home address, the name of the person or entity that he or she represents and the subject of his or her address. (2) Before providing factual information or expert opinion the speaker may ask, and any Commissioner may require the speaker to be placed under the following oath with right hand upraised: "I willfully swear under oath the facts and testimony I furnish this Board to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and not inconsistent or contradictory with other statements made by me under oath." No person shall be required to take this oath more than once in any given day, but shall be reminded he is under oath before again addressing the Board. Each commissioner, shall take the oath one time and be considered under oath during the term of his office. Those asking questions or desiring to comment on a matter before the Board shall not be required to take the oath. Any Commissioner may at any time request such a speaker to take the above oath. (3) Each person shall limit his address to three minutes unless granted additional time by the Chairman or by an affirmative vote of the majority of the Board members present. All remarks shall be to the Board as a body and not to any individual member. No person other than a Commissioner shall discuss directly or through a Commissioner, without authorization of the presiding officer. (4) Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous Page 3 of 6 i 0 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a2. Chairman's Report - Collier County Code Board of County Commissioners RulesIP6duls 2 �-- A i*7 I Page 4 of 6 Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances PART I: CODE. Chapter 2 ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE II. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. DIVISION 2. MEETINGS shall be instructed to remain silent by the presiding officer, until permission to continue is granted. (Ord. No. 75 -16, § 1(2); Ord. No. 07 -50, § 1) Sec. 2 -38. - Sergeant -at -arms. The County Sheriff, or his deputy, shall be the sergeant -at -arms at meetings of the Board of County Commissioners and shall carry out all orders of the Chairman to maintain order and decorum. (Ord. No. 75 -16, § 1(3); Ord. No. 07 -50, § 1) Sec. 2 -39. - Action to be taken by resolution, ordinance or motion. Each action of the Board of County Commissioners shall be taken by resolution, ordinance or legally binding document approved as to form by the County Attorney, except approval of administrative matters may be by motion adopted and recorded in the minutes. (Ord. No. 75 -16, § 1(4); Ord. No. 07 -50, § 1) Sec. 2-40. - Adjournment. A motion to adjourn shall always be in order and decided without debate. (Ord. No. 75 -16, § 1(5); Ord. No. 07 -50, § 1) Sec. 2-41. - Reconsideration of matters generally. (a) Any matter which has been voted upon by the Board of County Commissioners may be reconsidered as follows: (1) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if such motion is made prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter was voted upon. If there were no public speakers on the item, or if all of the public speakers for the item are still present in the boardroom following a successful motion to reconsider, the Board may elect to rehear the matter during that meeting, or direct the County Manager to place the item on the agenda for a future meeting as set forth in subsection (2). If there were public speakers for the item, and not all of the public speakers are still present in the boardroom following a successful motion to reconsider, the County Manager will place the item on the agenda for a future meeting as set forth in subsection (2). (2) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if such motion is made at a regular meeting following the meeting at which the matter was voted upon, but only in accordance with the following: a. Where a member who voted with the majority wishes the Board to reconsider a matter after the adjournment of the meeting at which it was voted on, the member shall deliver to the County Manager a written memorandum stating that the member intends to introduce a motion to reconsider. The memorandum shall state the date of the regular meeting at which the member intends to introduce such motion, and shall be delivered to the County Manager at least six days prior to such meeting. The purpose of this requirement is to allow the staff to advise the Board of the legal or other ramifications of reconsideration. b. No motion to reconsider shall be made any later than the second regular Board meeting following the Board's vote on the matter sought to be reconsidered. Page 4 of 6 { I �, ", 1 ') � A17 t .e August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 wi 6a2. Chairman's Report - Collier County Code Board of County CommissionerSlTUle3r& Proce s Page 5 of 6 Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances PART I: CODE. Chapter 2 ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE II. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. DIVISION 2. MEETINGS c. Upon adoption of a motion to reconsider, the County Manager shall place the item on an agenda not later than the second regular Commission meeting following the meeting at which the motion for reconsideration was adopted. d. All parties who participated by speaking, submitting registration forms or written materials at the first hearing, shall be notified by the County Manager of the date of reconsideration. (b) This section shall apply to any matters which may lawfully be reconsidered except those matters which are covered by Paragraph 7 below. (Ord. No. 81 -54, § 1; Ord. No. 07 -50, § 2; Ord. No. 2009 -52, § 1) Sec. 2 -42. - Reconsideration of land use matters. (a) Applicability. Any matter in which the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Zoning Appeals, as the case may be, has denied a request to change the land use designation of a parcel of land, a request for site specific rezone initiated by a petitioner or his or her agent, variance, conditional use, license, permit or other land use - related request. (b) Request for Reconsideration by Petitioner. A request for reconsideration may be made only by the petitioner. The petitioner may request reconsideration of a petition in writing to the County Manager no later than 15 days from the date of the Board's action denying the original petition. Except as provided below, this request shall be jurisdictional, and no motion for reconsideration may be made by any member of the Board where such a request was untimely. If State or Federal submission and /or approval schedules pertaining to the petition are extended within 6 months following the denial of the original petition, upon Public Petition initiated by the petitioner, the Board may extend petitioner's request for reconsideration by majority vote, and on a second motion made by any Commissioner, place the issue of reconsideration for a date certain on which the action or petition will be reconsidered, but in no event shall such reconsideration take place less than 14 days nor more than 45 days from the date the motion to reconsider is adopted. (c) Motion for reconsideration by a Board member who voted in the majority. Any member of the Board who voted with the majority (or in the case of a rezoning or change in land use designation, voted against) on the original action or petition may move for a reconsideration of the action or petition at any regular meeting of the Board within 15 days of the date of the request for reconsideration. If no regular meeting of the Board occurs within 15 days of the request for reconsideration, the Board member may move for a reconsideration of the action or petition no later than the first meeting of the Board that follows the County Manager's receipt of the request for consideration. This motion shall be made during that portion of the Board's agenda entitled "Board of County Commissioners." If no motion for reconsideration is made during this time period, the request shall be deemed denied. The motion may specify a date certain on which the action or petition will be reconsidered, but in no event shall such reconsideration take place less than 14 days nor more than 45 days from the date the motion to reconsider is adopted. (d) Action on motion for reconsideration. The Board shall either act on the motion for reconsideration at the meeting at which such motion is made or may table the motion for no longer than the next regular meeting of the Board. If the motion is not finally acted upon by the adjournment of the next regular meeting of the Board after the motion has been made, it shall be deemed to have been denied. (e) Scheduling of petition for reconsideration. If the motion for reconsideration is granted, the Page 5 of 6 S! ` I August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b � A 17, r f n 6a2. Chairman's Report - Collier County Code Board o County Commissioners R ues & Procedures Page 6 of 6 Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances PART I: CODE. Chapter 2 ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE II. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. DIVISION 2. MEETINGS County Manager shall schedule the petition on the agenda for the regular Board meeting which was specified in the motion for reconsideration, or if no date is specified then on the second regular Board meeting following the meeting at which the motion is granted. (f) No hearing or debate on motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration shall not require public hearing, and neither the petitioner nor any other person shall have the right to address the Board considering the merits of such a motion. However, the Board may request information of the petitioner, the staff or any other person in order to better inform itself prior to acting upon the motion. The purpose of this provision is to prevent either the petitioner or any other person from debating the merits of the petition prior to its full consideration at a regularly scheduled Board meeting where the petition is reconsidered. (g) [Procedures outlined.] The procedures outlined herein shall not constitute an administrative remedy, and the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies shall not be raised if a petitioner declines to utilize these procedures and instead elects to pursue judicial remedies following the denial of the petition. The time period for seeking judicial relief following denial of those matters contemplated by subsection (a)(2) of this section shall run from the time the Board votes on such matter, and a motion hereunder shall not alter such time period. (h) [Initial vote.] Where the initial vote was made after an advertised public hearing, any reconsideration of such vote shall comply with all advertisement and notice provisions that were legally required for the initial public hearing. (Ord. No. 81 -54, § 2; Ord. No. 88 -41, § 1; Ord. No. 07 -50, § 2; Ord. No. 2012 -15, 1) Land Development Code reference — Zoning amendments, § 2.7.2. State law reference— Adoption of rezoning ordinances, F.S. § 125.66(5). Sec. 2- 43 -2 -65. - Reserved. Page 6 of 6 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 22 6a3. Chairman's Report - Ordinance 2012 -15 - Board of County Commissi ers les r r sideraA Page 1 of 4 r� By t _" ORDINANCE NO. 2012 - 15 = AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 75-161 AS AMENDED IN ORDER TO REVISE PROCEDURES ~ ' a ;FOR = _ RECONSIDERATION OF LAND USE MATTERS; PROVIDING ;FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION-IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOA AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on April 22, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted Ordinance No. 75 -16 which established the time, place and conduct of its meetings; and WHEREAS, subsequent amendments to Ordinance No. 75 -16 reflect the evolving practices and procedures relating to the meetings of the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend Ordinance No. 75 -16, as amended, as it relates to a request for reconsideration by a petitioner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION ONE OF ORDINANCE NO. 75 -16, AS AMENDED. Section One is hereby amended as follows: 7. Reconsideration of land use matters a. Applicability. Any matter in which the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Zoning Appeals, as the case may be, has denied a request to change the land use designation of a parcel of land, a request for site specific rezone initiated by a petitioner or his or her agent, variance, conditional use, license, permit or other land use - related request. b Request for Reconsideration by Petitioner. A request for reconsideration may be made only by the petitioner. The petitioner may request reconsideration of a petition in writing to the County Manager no later than 15 days from the date of the Board's action denying the original petition. Except as provided below, Tthis request shall be jurisdictional, and no motion for reconsideration may be made by any member of the Board where such a request was untimely. If State or Federal submission and/or approval schedules pertaining to the petition are extended within 6 months following the denial of the original petition upon Public Petition initiated by the petitioner, the Board may extend petitioner's request for reconsideration by majority vote and on a second motion made by any Commissioner place the issue of reconsideration for a date certain on which the action or petition will be reconsidered but in no event shall such reconsideration take place less than 14 days nor more than 45 days from the date the motion to reconsider is adopted Underlined text is added; StuGk4hfev0 text is deleted Page I of 3 14 i August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session . 6a3. Chairman's Report - Ordinance 2012 -15 - Board of County Commissioners rules for reconsider tion S Page 2 of 4 6 2 C. Motion for reconsideration by a Board member who voted in the majority. Any member of the Board who voted with the majority (or in the case of a rezoning or change in land use designation, voted against) on the original action or petition may move for a reconsideration of the action or petition at any regular meeting of the Board within 15 days of the date of the request for reconsideration. If no regular meeting of the Board occurs within 15 days of the request for reconsideration, the Board member may move for a reconsideration of the action or petition no later than the first meeting of the Board that follows the County Manager's receipt of the request for consideration. This motion shall be made during that portion of the Board's agenda entitled "Board of County Commissioners." If no motion for reconsideration is made during this time period, the request shall be deemed denied. The motion may specify a date certain on which the action or petition will be reconsidered, but in no event shall such reconsideration take place less than 14 days nor more than 45 days from the date the motion to reconsider is adopted. SECTION TWO: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinances may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon filing with the Department of State, and shall apply to all land use petitions that were denied after December 1, 2011. Underlined text is added; S#Hs #g#} text is deleted Page 2 of 3 17, August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session W. Chairman's Report - Ordinance 2012 -15 - Board of County Commissioners rules for reconsideration r . ► Page 3 of 4 ' 16 Z A17 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 2ngWay of \kg.� * , , 2012. ATTEST DWIG10%-E: DROCK -CLERK Y. XtW4, asto..CsN��' � Jerk .. A4ovj&s to form and lead1ALffwicncv: Jeffry'} A. Klatzkow BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA B W• Y• FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRl N This ordinance filed with the Secretary of �.to�,te,,�'s`. .Office the ADelvay of �, zoCZ. and acknowledgement of that filin rec ived this day of B o.rwey d«k Underlined text is added; StFaek4hfeuO text is deleted Page 3 of 3 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a3. Chairman's Report - Ordinance 2012 -15 - Board of County Commissioners rules for reconsideration ., Page 4 of 4 a� 1bIZ A lf� 4 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2012 -15 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 27th day of March, 2012, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 29th day of March, 2012. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts ,and -Clp, 'rk.'7 Ex- officio to Roam "of. ' County Commiss-brrtrp y• _ rs, — � r v x -�A T V a Polaski, Deputy Clerk i August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Reg1m6t r iory III'''�� 6a4. Chairman's Report - Board Rules and procedures -s I� Jo�t/ChaA17 r Page 1 of 1 ` L Resni ckLisa Subject: 6a4. Chairman's Report - Board rules and procedures - Comments by John Chandler From: John Chandler fmailto :iohnchandler219(abgmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:08 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: PBSD Meeting Rules Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication. Since I will not be in Naples for the August 1 board meeting, I would like to pass along my thoughts as regards meeting rules. Our "flip flopping" on major decisions is now a running joke within the community and an embarassment to all of US. Community Input We should not be voting on any issues (other than emergency items) that are not on the published agenda. Our agenda should be published seven days prior to each board meeting. I think that our current rules for public comment are fine. However, they need to be strictly enforced. When there is a large crowd, I recommend that our chairman ask audience members to not extend the length of the meeting by repeating comments that have already been made. This request may need to be reiterated later in the meeting.. Meetings typically go longer when important issues are being discussed. Our "flip flopping" has caused some of the the same issues to be discussed over and over. If our meetings started at 8:30 instead of 1:00, we'd have time to finish our business without the pressure of dinner plans creating a desire to adjourn. Amending a Previously Adopted Motion A board member who has voted against an item that has been approved should not be allowed to ask for it to be reconsidered. If a person who has voted for an item wants it to be reconsidered at a subsequent meeting, that person should submit a written request that it be put on the next meeting's agenda. This request must detail why the member has changed his/ her position. At the next meeting, a 2/3 majority vote will be needed to reverse the decision. Members who were not present at the meeting at which the original vote was taken should be asked, by the Chairman, if they have reviewed the minutes of that meeting and all related documents that were available at that meeting. If they have not done so, they should not be allowed to vote on the issue. John Chandler From: John Chandler fmailto :iohnchandler2l90gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:24 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Meeting Rules- Postscript Lisa, Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication. Further to my opinion regarding meeting rules, I feel that a member who was absent at a meeting at which a particular motion was passed should not have the right to request another vote on that issue. Regardless of where we are in the world, we all have access to the agenda via the Internet and can "weigh in" with our opinion via a one way email communication. If our emailed opinions are based on fact and sound logic, they will have an influence on the outcome of the vote. John Chandler August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Reg ar S sion 6b. Current Committee Assignments Page 1 of 1 16 ResnickLisa Subject: 6b. Current Committee Assignments Ad -hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways and Trees Keith Dallas (Chairman) Tom Cravens Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble Budget Subcommittee Mike Levy (Chairman) John Chandler Keith Dallas Geoffrey Gibson John Iaizzo Susan O'Brien Clam Bay Subcommittee Tom Cravens Susan O'Brien Mary Anne Womble Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Toni Cravens (Chairman) Keith Dallas Geoffrey Gibson Dave Trecker August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence - 7/25/2012 Technical Memorandum "Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed G 'da "7 Page 1 of 10 ;. 1612 �� Cardno ENTR /X Technical Memorandum Date July 25, 2012 To: Mr. Benjamin Ralys; Ms. Julie Espy; Mr. David Tyler Florida Department of Environmental Protection cc: Mr. James Hoppensteadt, Pelican Bay Foundation Mr. Gary McAlpin; Ms. Pamela Keyes Collier County Coastal Zone Management From: Daniel Hammond; Sheri Huelster; Jason Jendrucko; Stacey Villanueva RE: Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance This Technical Memorandum was prepared on behalf of the Pelican Bay Foundation and the Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department to provide the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) with recommendations concerning the draft listing of Clam Bay as a category 4d impairment. Waterbodies listed in category 4d are shown to not attain one or more designated uses, but no causative pollutant has been identified, and is typically applied to waterbodies shown to have low dissolved oxygen (DO) measurements (FDEP 2012a); as is the case with Clam Bay. The purpose of this effort is to recommend to FDEP that Clam Bay's proposed listing be changed from a category 4d to a category 4c. Waterbodies listed in category 4c are shown to not meet one or more water quality criteria, but the impairment is not caused by a pollutant; therefore Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development is not needed (FDEP 2012a). This category typically applies to waterbodies with low DO resulting from natural conditions (FDEP 2012a). The data and analysis provided in this memorandum are expected to be sufficient to indicate the low DO observed in Clam Bay is the result of natural conditions and warrants the listing as a category 4c waterbody, instead of a 4d. Clam Bay is an approximately 570 acre, mangrove dominated estuary in coastal Naples, FL consisting of three bays with interconnecting channels and one open pass (Clam Pass) to the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1). Clam Bay is home to a large, diverse biological community of birds, fish, and invertebrates. In addition, Clam Bay provides many recreational uses for the people of Collier County, such as kayaking, bird watching, and fishing. Mangrove dominated communities, like as Clam Bay, also play an essential ecosystem role as habitat and nursery areas for many species of fish, provide floodwater retention, and prevent coastal erosion (Worley 2006). For these reasons, Collier County adopted Clam Bay and associated mangrove forest as its first Natural Resources Protection Area in 1995. Protection of Clam Bay is of utmost importance to Collier County and the nearby residents, including those of Pelican Bay which is located immediately adjacent to Clam Bay. Australia • Belgium • Canada • Ecuador • Indonesia • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea Peru - United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 70 countries Shaping the Future Cardno ENTRIX 3905 Crescent Park Dr Riverview, FL 33578 USA Phone 813 664 4500 Toll -free 800 368 7511 Fax 813 664 0440 www.cardno.com www.cardnoentrix.com August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session r 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence - 7/25/2012 Technical Memorandum "Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance" Pago P of 10 1 1 2A 7 0 1 2 Car ha July 25, 2012 ENTRIX Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance Shaping the Future Figure 1. Clam Bay, Southwest Florida. The following sections of this memo present data, analysis, and discussion to support the recommendation that Clam Bay be listed as a category 4c waterbody. Raw water quality data used in the analysis and not already available in the Florida STORET database are provided on the attached CD. CLAM BAY WATER QUALITY FDEP is currently proposing to list Clam Bay (WBID 3278Q1) as a category 4d impairment based on the number of low DO measurements collected within the WBID over the Verified Period (January 1, 2005 — June 30, 2012). Although the available data points to the fact that Clam Bay DO does not meet the current criteria (Shall not average less than 5.0 mg/L in a 24 -hour period and shall never be less than 4.0 mg /L. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained, 62- 302.530(30) F.A.C.), additional DO data not currently available in STORET provides a more complete characterization of the DO regime in Clam Bay and indicates the observed condition is natural for this mangrove dominated estuary. In anticipation of the need to collect more robust water quality information in Clam Bay, the Pelican Bay Foundation, City of Naples, and Collier County agreed to implement a monitoring program that included quarterly continuous recorder deployments at four locations throughout Clam Bay during 2011 (Figure 2). Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department biologists deployed the continuous recorders for seven to eight days, once www.cardnoentrix.com August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session X11. Kscepaneoqs Correspondence - 7/25/2012 Technical Memorandum "Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impai men Listil, P osed G ' aA17 ' / �age•3 of k 3 Cardno July zs, zolz C70) ENTRIX Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance Shaping the Future J per quarter, which were programmed to collect dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity, and salinity data at 15 minute intervals. Each recorder was anchored to the Bay bottom with the probes floated at a depth of approximately 0.5 meters below the surface to ensure proper data collection at a consistent depth through changing tidal cycles. The four deployment time frames were as follows: • Deployment 1 — March 29" —April 4th 2011 • Deployment 2 — May 16th — May 23`d 2011 • Deployment 3 — August 10th —August 16th 2011 • Deployment 4 — November 8th — November 14th 2011 Each continuous recorder was properly calibrated according to manufacturer's recommendations and FDEP Standard Operating Protocols (SOP) prior to deployment. Upon retrieval of each data sonde, dissolved oxygen measurements were verified with an acceptance criteria of +0.3 mg /L to ensure accurate data collection. This effort included a total period of approximately 30 days, spread throughout the year, and resulted in the collection of over 8,000 dissolved oxygen measurements in Clam Bay.I Figure 2. Clam Bay continuous recorder deployment locations. t Logistical and technical issues prevented the collection of useable data during the April and August deployments at the Clam Pass sampling location. Clam Pass DO data was not used in this evaluation, however the raw data is provided on the attached CD. www.cardnoentrix.com August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ,11. loiscellaneous Cp�rrespondence - 7/25/2012 Technical Memorandum "Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment L& Ipc2G I n� Pa 4 of 10 t- 1 4 4�j� Carrdna July 25, 2012 ENTRIX Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance Shaping the Future Continuous recorder DO data collected within Clam Bay were compared to similar data collected in Estero Bay from the same time period. Biologists with the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve maintain continuous recorder water quality monitoring stations within the preserve boundary (Figure 3). As part of this monitoring program, dissolved oxygen measurements are collected every day (except during times of maintenance or equipment failure) at 15 minute intervals, similar to the Clam Bay effort. Figure 3. Estero Bay continuous recorder deployment locations and reference WBID 3258A. In addition to its status as Florida's first Aquatic Preserve and an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), Estero Bay WBID 3258A was used by FDEP as a reference location for the development of the Hendry Creek dissolved oxygen TMDL because of its minimal anthropogenic impact (FDEP 2008). One of the Estero Bay continuous recorders (station EB01) is located within this reference WBID, and data from this location were used as a reference for comparison to Clam Bay DO. Figure 4 depicts the continuous recorder DO data from the three Clam Bay locations during all deployments along with the DO data from the Estero Bay reference location (EB01) over the same time period. As Figure 4 indicates, www.cardnoentrix.com r, August 1, 201 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 Miscella�ieous orrespondence - 7/25/2012 Technical Memorandum "Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impair ent 'sting, p d dance" e5of10 a r w* 16 1 Z 5 C77) Cardno July 25, 2012 ENTR /X Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance Shaping the Future although the overall DO range in Clam Bay is larger than Estero Bay, the median and 25th quartile values are similar between both estuaries. A T -test of the deployment mean concentrations from the three Clam Bay locations and the Estero Bay location concluded Clam Bay DO is not statistically different from Estero Bay DO (p > 0.05). 12 10 J 8 E C N x 6 O m 0 CD 4 2 0 Figure 4. Median = 5.06 mg /L Median = 4.78 mg /L 25th Quartile = 3.75 mg /L ` 25th Quartile = 3.95 mg /L Clam Bay Estero Bay Clam Bay and Estero Bay (WBID 3258A) continuous recorder dissolved oxygen data collected over the same days in 2011. In order to fully characterize the DO regimes, the diel variation in DO data was compared between the two estuaries. Figure 5 depicts the raw Clam Bay and Estero Bay reference WBID DO data by time of day. The median concentrations between the two estuaries are almost identical with the only deviation occurring late in the day. This is likely the result of slightly higher productivity and reduced flushing in Clam Bay compared to Estero Bay resulting in higher DO concentrations. 2 The 25"' quartile value is significant in this evaluation because the prevalence of a low oxygen condition is what triggers impairment. These values indicate both estuaries exhibit a similar likelihood of falling below the Class III criterion (4.0 mg /L). www.cardnoentrix.com w, August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session //////�� 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence - 7/25/2012 Technical Memorandum "Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairlt stingtro2ed Guid A17 Page 6 of 1t) �,,..� ,. July 25, 2012 Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance 14 12 10 J E c 8 a� X X 6 O O 4 2 0 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Time of Day (Adjusted for DST) Figure 5. Clam Bay (blue) and Estero Bay (WBID 3258A) (red) continuous recorder dissolved oxygen data collected on the same days in 2011 by time of day. Solid lines denote median concentration and hashed lines denote g0 h percentile prediction limits. 6 C"7) Cardno ENTR /X Shaping the Future CB- DO -mg /L %*k. EB- DO -mg /L ° 00 0 0 0 ° ° 0 so 0 0 0 0 00 °000800 00 ego o oo_ 00 ° o: I B�pe8� oe8' • o oo � °° ° °�7S °oo$ @go�+ ° °° � °° g Q� ege�e��e�g�8g�, ge $oo°�ge08e0 0% 0 888gy�og°o� °' eo8$� o e o 8Y8 0000 ll�� , 9 °� �e �o;088 ° °oo ie e° o o i ,'•e, E fib" ° 8000 °�. 61'oeo °'�0�..�e� °}ej to ° B.� GGG °oo S.�0 011 �po 0 O °0 00 0 oG�-LY 6,° moo 6 p I e , ° °3 g °oe °0 g8 °80o8goo °go� °gep8o e o B ohe o!E•0 080 °9 0� °6°0° �c o 0 0 °00 °oe8000� o 0° ° °ggSeop °p �'• e 0 ° °e ° 000p0 0° °° ° 0 00 ° o 0 0 00 0 o e0 ` B1eoe� 8 8 QoBoeo 0 0 0 8° 0` g° o o 0 0° 00. 0 00000000 ❑O 0 � g OI,� e o eeOOOOB o° ° °o O -OO G o° °, oe� ° ° °$ o00 o 0 0 o 0 ° ee 0 000 In summary, a comparison of continuous recorder DO data between Clam Bay and the reference Estero Bay location indicates the DO regimes are statistically similar. Since Estero Bay is a known reference location, used by FDEP in TMDL development activities because of it minimal human impact, we can determine the Estero Bay DO regime to be a natural condition3. The similarity between the Estero Bay and Clam Bay (located approximately 15 miles south along the same coast) DO regimes indicate that Clam Bay exhibits the same natural DO conditions as the Estero Bay reference location. FDEP is in the process of revising the freshwater and marine DO criteria for Florida and has provided a Technical Support Document (TSD) describing the proposed criteria (FDEP 2012b). For Class II and III marine waters (including Clam Bay), the proposed criteria are: "The daily average DO concentration shall not be below 42 percent saturation in more than 10 percent of the values, AND the weekly and monthly average DO percent saturations shall not be below 51 and 56 percent, respectively" (FDEP 2012b). In fact, the Hendry Creek TMDL states "...the anthropogenic influence is minimal, making it a good reference waterbody for developing a target concentration representing natural conditions" (FDEP 2008). www.cardnoentrix.com 4 Aug �t 1, 201 "Deli n Bay Services Division Board Regular Session §1.:. iscellaneois Crrespdndehce - 7/25/2012 Technical Memorandum "Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listin ,Pro osed ice" Page 7 of 10 "' e A-17 16 7 carw"0 .July 25, 2012 ENTRIX Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance Shaping the Future While the Clam Bay continuous recorder data are not sufficient to evaluate the proposed monthly criteria4, we can compare the continuous recorder data to the proposed daily and weekly average criteria (Figure 6). As the figure indicates, Clam Bay currently meets the FDEP proposed daily and weekly average criteria with less than 10 percent exceedances in both instances. 120 i[eA; c 0 r m 80 co 60 on a X O a 40 0 Ln qA O 20 a A A Oat 11 Pp` 11 0 N Nor 1ti Proposed Daily Criterion • Middle Clam Bay -Daily • Middle Clam Bay - Weekly v,'N w N � N p110 pew Proposed Weekly Criterion ♦ Upper Clam Bay -Daily • Outer Clam Bay -Daily a Upper Clam Bay - Weekly • Outer Clam Bay - Weekly Figure 6. Daily and weekly average Clam Bay DO percent saturation measurements collected during 2011 and the proposed FDEP DO criteria. As an additional evaluation of Clam Bay DO data, the DO data in STORET used to list Clam Bay as a category 4d impairment were compared to the proposed criteria (Figure 7). The percent saturation was derived from the DO concentration, temperature, and salinity associated with each sample and calculated using the following equation: In(C) = - 139.34 + (1.5757 x 1051T) - (6.6432 x 107IT2) + (1.2438 x 10 "/T3)- (8.6219 x 10" /7-0) - S (1.7674 x 10.2 - (10.754/T) + (2.1407 x 10, )J where: C = equilibrium oxygen concentration (mg /L) T = temperature ( °K) = °C + 273.150 S = salinity in ppt (APHA 1992) 4 Continuous recorder data were collected over the course of seven to eight continuous days during each deployment and do not represent different weeks of the month as proposed by FDEP (2012b). www.cardnoentrix.com August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 11. Misgellaneous Correspondence - 7125/2012 Technical Memorandum "Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impair a U4 P2osed AS 17f, Page 8of 10 1 6 8 C07) Card" , July 25, 2012 ENTRIX Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance Shaping the future Since FDEP is suggesting the use of grab samples collected anytime during the day as a surrogate for the daily average condition (FDEP 2012b), the individual grab samples from STORET can be used to represent the daily average percent saturation condition. As Figure 7 indicates, of the 128 measurements available in STORET for the Verified Period, only eight exceed the proposed daily average criteria (42% saturation). According to the Impaired Waters Rule (62 -303, F.A.C.) 17 or more exceedances would be required to place Clam Bay on the Planning List for DO. Therefore, Clam Bay will not be considered impaired once the proposed DO criteria are finalized and implemented. Clam Bay illustrates the very reason FDEP is revising the DO criteria; to prevent the listing of waterbodies with naturally low DO as impaired based on inappropriate criteria (FDEP 2012b). 120% _ 0 100% M 41 4A 80% c a T O 60% 0 40% 'c a 20% U f7 v 0% �i O` O s ' ,y0 ,y0 ,y0 ,y0 ,ate a� p h O Figure 7. Clam Bay DO percent saturation measurements and the proposed FDEP DO criterion. Percent saturation calculated from the DO concentration, temperature, and salinity measurements available in Florida STORET for the Clam Bay WBID (3278Q1). CLAM BAY BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY Although a robust biological monitoring program for Clam Bay is lacking, we used the available existing data to evaluate the biological health of the system. A 2010 benthic survey conducted by the Conservancy of Southwest Florida (Worley and Schmid 2010) provides the most recent assessment of the biological health of Clam Bay. This study identified 45 different types of organisms including polychaetes, crabs, shrimp, bivalves, and seagrass found in Clam Bay. The list includes species that are commonly used as indicator species for changes in ecosystem quality including the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica, (Barnes et al. 2007) and the bay scallop, Argopecten irradians, (CHNEP 1999). In addition, it includes species that are considered equilibrium rather than opportunistic species such as Ophiophragmus filograneous, Mercenaria mercenaria, and Diopatra cuprea (Grizzle 1984, Dauer 1993) as well as species that can be indicative of undegraded, stable environments, such as large- bodied bivalves and polychaetes (Pearson and Rosenberg 1978, Engle et al. 1994). FDEP's proposed revisions to the DO criteria for marine waters were developed based on an adaptation of the Virginian Province method which uses laboratory dose - response studies to identify biological responses to low www.cardnoentrix.com t August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session t` 11. MisFellanepus Correspondence - 7/25/2012 Technical Memorandum "Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen D I�irint 2ng, Pro�e 117 ce" age 9of10 g C� cdvlwncp .July 25, 2012 ENTR /X Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance Shaping the Future oxygen stressors (FDEP 2012b). The method was adapted to include more Florida specific organisms (fish and invertebrates) making the resulting criteria more accurate and specific to Florida waters and climate (FDEP 2012b). An evaluation of the oxygen sensitive species list used to derive Florida's revised DO criteria indicates that several of those are currently found in Clam Bay. Specifically, six of the invertebrate species (Eurypanopeus depressus, Callinectes sapidus, penaeid shrimp, Crassostrea virginica, Rithropanopeus harrish, and Mercenaria mercenaria) collected by the Conservancy during their 2010 assessment of Clam Bay (Worley and Schmid 2010) were also used by FDEP in the derivation of the proposed marine DO criteria, representing approximately 38 percent of all the invertebrate species in FDEP's evaluation. The presence of species in Clam Bay that were used to derive FDEP's revised DO criteria indicates that the DO regime in Clam Bay is supporting an oxygen sensitive biological community and points to the overall health of Clam Bay. In addition to the above evaluations, a draft report by Atkins (2011) for the purpose of proposing Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) for Clam Bay cited water quality, pollutant loading model, benthic invertebrate, toxin quantification, and sediment accumulation rate assessments regarding the health of Clam Bay. Atkins (2011) conclusion that Clam Bay functions as a healthy estuary provided the basis for the NNC development process proposed. The NNC developed by Atkins (2011) were incorporated into the NNC rule approved by FDEP providing a de facto conclusion that Clam Bay is healthy. The absence of a robust biological monitoring program in Clam Bay notwithstanding, the weight of evidence supports the conclusion that Clam Bay functions as a healthy estuary. The diversity of invertebrates, the presence of indicator, equilibrium, and oxygen sensitive species indicate the DO regime in Clam Bay is supporting a healthy biological community. This determination provides further evidence that Clam Bay DO is natural and biological communities are not being adversely affected. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FDEP has proposed to list Clam Bay (WBID 3278Q1) as a category 4d impairment for DO as part of the Group 1 Cycle 3 TMDL assessment. Category 4d listings are submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and added to Florida's 303(d) list of impaired waters. This listing would indicate Clam Bay is impaired for DO, but no causative pollutant could be identified, and target the waterbody for further evaluation to identify a causative pollutant so a TMDL could be developed. However, data and analysis provided here suggests that a category 4d listing is not appropriate for Clam Bay. A more accurate category would be 4c, which would recognize that Clam Bay does not meet the current DO criteria as a result of natural conditions, and not caused by a pollutant, therefore eliminating the need for a TMDL. FDEP has concluded that Estero Bay WBID 3258A represents natural conditions with minimal anthropogenic influence and is an adequate reference waterbody (FDEP 2008). The data provided in this Technical Memorandum indicate Clam Bay exhibits a statistically similar DO regime to this reference estuary segment, therefore concluding Clam Bay DO also represents a natural condition. FDEP does not intend to list marine systems with naturally low DO as impaired and acknowledges that natural estuaries in areas surrounded by mangrove forests or tidal marshes (of which Clam Bay is an example) are especially subject to low DO (FDEP 2012b and Hendrickson et al 2003). Furthermore, biological evidence suggests Clam Bay functions as a healthy estuary. The diversity of invertebrates recorded in the estuary, and the presence of indicator and oxygen sensitive species indicate that the DO regime in Clam Bay is supporting a healthy biological community. Based on the data and analysis provided here, a category 4c listing for Clam Bay provides a more appropriate water resource management goal than the proposed category 4d listing. The Pelican Bay Foundation, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department and Cardno ENTRIX respectfully request FDEP change the proposed listing for Clam Bay (WBID 3278Q1) from a category 4d to a 4c listing. Upon finalization of the revised DO criteria for marine waters, it will be appropriate for Clam Bay to be removed from the 4c category for DO with the determination that the DO regime in Clam Bay meets the revised DO criteria. www.cardnoentrix.com August 1, 20t Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 11. Misdel1 a4 ous Correspondence* 7 /25/2012 Technical Memorandum "Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment 'stin Pro s uidank Page 10 of 10 1 10 C07) .July 25, 2012 ENTRIX Clam Bay Dissolved Oxygen Draft Impairment Listing, Proposed Guidance Shaping the Future LITERATURE CITED APHA. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th Edition. A.E. Greenberg, L.S. Clesceri, and A.D. Eaton, editors. APHA, AWWA, and WEF, Washington, DC. Atkins. 2011. Technical Note: Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria, Proposed Guidance. Submitted to Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. Barnes, T. K., A. K. Volety, K. Chartier, F. J. Mazzotti, and L. Pearlstine. 2007. A Habitat Suitability Index Model for the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica), a Tool for Restoration of the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida. Journal of Shellfish Research. 26: 949 — 959. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 1999. Synthesis of Existing Information Volume 1: A Characterization of Water Quality, Hydrologic Alterations, and the Fish and Wildlife Habitat in the Greater Charlotte Harbor Watershed. Technical Report No. 99 -02. Dauer, D. M. 1993. Biological Criteria, Environmental Health and Estuarine Macrobenthic Structure. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 26: 249 — 257. Engle, V. D., J. K. Summers, G. R. Gaston. 1994. A Benthic Index of Environmental Condition of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. Estuaries. 17: 372 — 384. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. TMDL Report: Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for Hendry Creek (WBIDs 3258B and 3258B1). Division of Water Resource Management, Bureau of Watershed Management. 39 pp. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2012a. Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update. Prepared by Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Tallahassee, FL. May 2012. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2012b. Technical Support Document: Derivation of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to Protect Aquatic Life in Florida's Fresh and Marine Waters. Prepared by Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Tallahassee, FL. Draft July 2012. Grizzle, R. E. 1984. Pollution Indicator Species of Macrobenthos in a Coastal Lagoon. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 18:191 — 200. Hendrickson, J, E.F. Lowe, D. Dobberhuhl, P. Sucsy, and D. Campbell. 2003. Characteristics of Accelerated Eutrophication in the Lower St. Johns River Estuary and Recommended Targets to Achieve Water Quality Goals for the Fulfillment of TMDL and PLRG Objectives. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL. Pearson, T. H., R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic Succession in Relation to Organic Enrichment and Pollution of the Marine Environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology- An Annual Review. 16: 229 — 311. Worley, K. 2006. Relating Mangrove Die -offs to Encroaching Human Development in Southwest Florida. NOAA Technical Report 160R2407. Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Naples, Florida. 59 pp. Worley, K. and J. Schmid. 2010. Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Benthic Habitat Assessment. Submitted to Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., and the Mangrove Action Group. Environmental Sciences Division, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. December 2010. www.cardnoentrix.com r 9 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessia; N. , 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence t A Page 1 of 2 16 io,z -ZO,a Realtors advise Pelican Bay to build on strengths PELICAN BAY By Strategic Planning Committee FOUNDATION BOARD MEMBERS Chair Ronnie Bellone Vice- Chair /Treasurer Robert Uek Secretary Noreen Murray Directors Bill Carpenter Mary McLean Johnson Jerry Moffatt Robert Pendergrass Pelican Bay is doing many things right, according to Realtors participating in a focus group meeting at the Community Center May 17. The session was hosted by the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee as a first step in the process of updating the Foundation's Strategic Master Plan. Focus group sessions are often used to tap external sources for objective, con- structive and purposeful feedback that can help an organization —or in our case a community— maintain its appeal, the demand for what it has to offer, and ultimately, its market value. The Real- tors who attended the recent meeting are not residents of Pelican Bay, but they have experience selling properties in Pelican Bay as well as other communities in the area. The objective of the session was to gather information about potential buyers perceptions of Pelican Bay, how Pelican Bay compares with compet- ing communities, and what must be done to keep Pelican Bay vibrant and competitive. The three -hour session of open and frank conversa- tions with four Realtors and an appraiser centered on four main topics: First Im- pressions of Pelican Bay, Com- petitiveness, Conmutnity Image and Ainenities. The opin- ions and recommendations received from members of the focus group are summa- rized below. The Realtors agreed that first impressions of Pelican Bay are very positive. They commented on the great coastal location —close to services, shopping, arts and entertainment, I -75 and two five -star hotels. They also mentioned beautiful land- scaping with a natural "Old Florida" feel, enhanced by wide medians, upscale cross- walks and views of the golf course. However, there are two areas where they believe Pelican Bay can do better. The first recommendation is to visually improve all the street entrances to Pelican Bay to give a feeling that it's a defining moment and "We've arrived!" The second area of concern is that some associations have landscap- ing that looks tired and is not in keeping with the quality along the boulevards and common areas. In terms of competitive strength, the overall consen- sus of the group was that the beachfront is Pelican Bay's greatest asset. They offered that the number one objec- tive of Pelican Bay should be to keep the beach facilities up- to-date and to continue to enhance the beachfront that some potential buy - "club" features — especially ers choose other beachfront the quality and consisten- communities because they cy of the restaurants food feel that our beach is "too and service. They indicated continued on page 3 August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessia; N. , 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence t A Page 1 of 2 16 io,z -ZO,a Realtors advise Pelican Bay to build on strengths PELICAN BAY By Strategic Planning Committee FOUNDATION BOARD MEMBERS Chair Ronnie Bellone Vice- Chair /Treasurer Robert Uek Secretary Noreen Murray Directors Bill Carpenter Mary McLean Johnson Jerry Moffatt Robert Pendergrass Pelican Bay is doing many things right, according to Realtors participating in a focus group meeting at the Community Center May 17. The session was hosted by the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee as a first step in the process of updating the Foundation's Strategic Master Plan. Focus group sessions are often used to tap external sources for objective, con- structive and purposeful feedback that can help an organization —or in our case a community— maintain its appeal, the demand for what it has to offer, and ultimately, its market value. The Real- tors who attended the recent meeting are not residents of Pelican Bay, but they have experience selling properties in Pelican Bay as well as other communities in the area. The objective of the session was to gather information about potential buyers perceptions of Pelican Bay, how Pelican Bay compares with compet- ing communities, and what must be done to keep Pelican Bay vibrant and competitive. The three -hour session of open and frank conversa- tions with four Realtors and an appraiser centered on four main topics: First Im- pressions of Pelican Bay, Com- petitiveness, Conmutnity Image and Ainenities. The opin- ions and recommendations received from members of the focus group are summa- rized below. The Realtors agreed that first impressions of Pelican Bay are very positive. They commented on the great coastal location —close to services, shopping, arts and entertainment, I -75 and two five -star hotels. They also mentioned beautiful land- scaping with a natural "Old Florida" feel, enhanced by wide medians, upscale cross- walks and views of the golf course. However, there are two areas where they believe Pelican Bay can do better. The first recommendation is to visually improve all the street entrances to Pelican Bay to give a feeling that it's a defining moment and "We've arrived!" The second area of concern is that some associations have landscap- ing that looks tired and is not in keeping with the quality along the boulevards and common areas. In terms of competitive strength, the overall consen- sus of the group was that the beachfront is Pelican Bay's greatest asset. They offered that the number one objec- tive of Pelican Bay should be to keep the beach facilities up- to-date and to continue to enhance the beachfront that some potential buy - "club" features — especially ers choose other beachfront the quality and consisten- communities because they cy of the restaurants food feel that our beach is "too and service. They indicated continued on page 3 Ooh la la! August 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessi 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence Page 2 of 2 16 Al By Lynn Nolan, TAG Member Here are some photos of players attending this year's Grand Slam Summer French Open Mixed Doubles June 10. It was a beautiful morning and as you can see, we were blessed by the surprise visits of some of the tennis world's greatest —both finalists from Roland Garrosgraced uswith their presence. Just kidding; but Ican personally attest, our players would have knocked the socks off the pros. As the real heat of sum- mer starts to permeate our daily lives down here in paradise, it is time for the annual /semiannual /every month reminder: hydrate... Whether it be your favorite sport drink, loaded with electrolytes or just simple, plain, tasty tap water... glug and glug and glug some more. We really have to be so careful, especially on those days when there's a little cloud cover —so don't for- get: hydrate. And while I'm being bossy and telling you what to do in no uncertain terms, here's- Wimbledon Mixed Doubles Saturday, July 7 • Sam Tennis Strawberries & Cream and Wimbledon Finals & Brunch • 9:30atn Don't miss out... Call for a reservation 597 -4497 realtors advise ... continued from page t crowded" and they want something more serene, or they prefer housing lo- cated directly "on thesand. "Manywho purchase elsewhere do so because of price and size con- siderations. Larger, newer, less expen- sive homes are avail- able east of routes 41 and 75 and tend to attract the younger families with chil- dren still at home. Thegroupcautioned wwuwv.pel ica nbay.org that Pelican Bay should strengthen its first -class as- sets and not try to be like other communities. The group defined the im- age of Pelican Bay as one of understated quality, featur- ing an active lifestyle and appealing natural ambi- ance that extends from the boulevard, to the berm, to the mangrove preserve and to the beach. To ensure the community stays strong and property values remain high, the group emphasized that continuous improvement and attention to detail will be required. Pelican Bay's amenities are very attractive to po- tential buyers— especially the easy access to the beach, first class fitness center and tennis facilities. These are all strong selling points for their clients. Buyers are looking for active communities with opportunities for social inter- action. The group challenged us to continue to reinvest in another thing you mustn't forget: sunscreen. Especially on those days when there's a little cloud cover, we urge you to slather and slather and slather some more. The rays will find you, so protect yourselves as best you can. And while you're cooling off or getting ready to go out and smash that ball, don't forget there's a lovely sale going on in the pro shops with all sorts of bargains on hats and visors, among other delights. Take this op- portunity to snag some sun protection with style. & isa Pelican Bay to make sure that all common facilities are kept "new and shiny" with "state -of- the -art" amenities. They also recommended that we find new ways to pro- mote Pelican Bay to area Realtors as well as apprais- ers, many of whom have not visited Pelican Bay or are not familiar with our facilities and the amenities included in our membership fee. Although some of the rec- ommendations from the Re- altor focus group are includ- ed in Pelican Bay's current Strategic Master Plan and Community Improvement Plan — affirming much of the work that has been ac- complished in the last few years —many of the group's suggestions are unique and will become integrated with the revised Strategic Plan next year. It was reassuring to hear that our current upgrade plans are on the right track! isa Around the Bay 20 As I See It 23 Ciao 22 Classifieds 2-I -25 Community Forum 5 ?? Foundation News l -7 0o' a Pelican Bay New Members 7 Pelican Bay Property Owners Association 10 Pelican flay Services Division B Tennis 3, 12 What To Do In Pelican [lay Peach RestaurawN 12. 13 -16, [ti f:;umntuttit}' Meeting, 17 litnc�ss 12 GTOttp Activities 17 Hour, of Operation 13_ AN, � s Pelican Bay Post, July 2012 612 A17 Pelican Ba Services Division Board Director Y Directory 16 Address Contact Information Appointed Term Expires Committees Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Resident (H) 239 -592 -7230 3/31/2009 3/31/2013 "Pathways- Ad-Hoc 7575 Pelican Bay Boulevard, #1603, Naples, FL 34108 keithidallas @gmail.com (Chairman); Budget; (re- elected Chairman 4111112 for one -year term) KeithDallas @colliergov.net Landscape Water Management Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman Resident (H) 239 -594 -8256 3/10/2009 3/31/2013 "Pathways" Ad-Hoc, 6075 Pelican Bay Boulevard, #703, Naples, FL 34108 (M) 239 -537 -9574 Clam Bay; and ' (re- elected Vice Chairman 4111112 for one -year term) nfn16799 @naples.net Landscape Water TomCravens @colliergov.net Management (Chairman) John Baron, General Manager Commercial (B) 239 -598 -1605 3/31/2010 3/31/2013 The Forbes Company at Waterside Shops (F) 239 -598 -1773 5415 Tomiami Trail North, Naples, FL 34108 (H) 239 - 643 -3324 Residence 1083 Albany Court, Naples, FL 34105 ibaron @watersideshops.com JohnBaron @colliergov.net John P. Chandler Resident (H) 239 -592 -7206 3/31/2010 3/31/2014 Budget 6361 Pelican Bay Boulevard, #502, Naples, FL 34108 (M) 330 - 962 -9616 Secondary Residence 1736 Brookwood Drive, Akron, OH 44313 (SR) 330 - 869 -0354 0ohnchandler219 @gmail.com 1ohnChandler@colliergov.net Geoffrey S. Gibson Resident (H) 239 -592 -7736 9/9/2008 3/31/2013 Budget and 8171 Bay Colony Drive, #1504, Naples, FL 34108 (M) 412 - 889 -6535 Landscape Water Secondary Residence 2154 Hycroft Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15241 (F) 412 - 854 -4915 Management iosiegeoff @aol.com GeoffrevGibson @colliergov.net Hunter H. Hansen, Managing Director Commercial (B) 239 -594 -6002 313112010 3/31/2014 Waldorf Astoria Naples (M) 561- 602 -9447 11/18/2008 475 Seagate Drive, Naples, FL 34103 (F) 239 -597 -3128 Residence 645 Broad Ave South, Naples, FL 34102 (H) 239- 692 -8722 hunter.hansen @waldorfastoria.com Send all correspondence to Donna Cox donna.coxC@waIdorfastoria.com John laizzo Resident (H) 239 -592 -0678 313112011 3/31/2015 Budget 6573 Marissa Loop, #1902, Naples, FL 34108 (F) 239 -592 -0678 3/25/2003 iaizzo @comcast.net Johnlaizzo @colliergov.net Michael Levy Resident (H) 239 -594 -1741 313112011 3/31/2015 Budget (Chairman) 6710 Pelican Bay Boulevard, #435, Naples, FL 34108 mikelevv435 @gmail.com 3/27/2007 MichaelHLevv @colliergov.net Susan O'Brien Resident (H) 239 -592 -5329 911312011 3/31/2014 Budgetand 6537 Marissa Loop, #3, Naples, FL 34108 SusanO'Brien @colliergov.net Clam Bay naplessusan @comcast.net Dave Trecker Resident (H) 239 -597 -5675 512412011 313112015 "Pathways" Ad-Hoc and 709 Turkey Oak Lane, Naples, FL 34108 (M) 978 - 460 -4472 Landscape Water ditrecker @vahoo.com Management DaveTrecker@colliergov.net Mary Anne Womble Resident (H) 239 -597 -8224 2/27/2007 3/31/2013 "Pathways" Ad-Hoc, 816 Kingbird Court Naples, FL 34108 (M) 239 - 290 -3207 Clam Bay, and Pelican teedupl @aol.com Bay Foundation's MarvAnneWomble @colliergov.net Strategic Planning Committee W. Neil Dorrill Administrator (B) 239 -592 -9115 Dorrill Management Group (F) 239 -594 -1422 5672 Strand Court Suite 1, Naples, FL 34110 (M) 239 - 287 -3070 neil @dmgfl.com Send all correspondence to Jim Powers jim @dmgfl.com (M) 239 - 777 -2173 Kevin Carter Field Manager kevin@dmgfl.com Pelican Bay Services Division of Collier County Government Mary McCaughtry Operations Analyst marymccaughtrv@colliergov.net Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Lisa Resnick Recording Secretary Iresnick @colliergov.net 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605, Naples, FL 34108 (B) 239 -597 -1749 http:/ /pelicanbayservicesdivision.net (F) 239 -597 -4502 office@ pelican bayservicesdivision .net Utility Site aka "Field" Office Kyle Lukasz Operations Manager kvlelukasz @colliergov.net 6200 Watergate Way, Naples, FL 34108 (B) 239 -597 -2265 (F) 239 -597 -5400 Revised 7/17/20121:46:48 PM LRJ CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2012 16o R# LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, June 4 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members were present: Clam Bay Subcommittee Dave Trecker, Chairman Tom Cravens Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Five (5) attendees. I . Roll Call 2. Clam Bay monitoring 3. Dredging permit application 4. Audience comments S. Adjourn ROLL CALL All Subcommittee members were present. INTRODUCTION Susan O'Brien Mary Anne Womble Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst absent Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary AGENDA Fiala Hiller �- Henning _ Coyle _ Coletta _Tc- Chairman Trecker explained that the purpose of the meeting was to take input on Clam Bay and consider specific requests that the Subcommittee could recommend to the full Board for action. Requests regarding water quality monitoring were: 1) to enter data into STORET; and 2) request the County's annual monitoring report. Chairman Trecker reported that he received the County's report and requested that staff distribute. DREDGING PERMIT APPLICATION Dr. Ted Raia, President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) recommended that the Pelican Bay Services Division support MAG and notify the Army Corps of Engineers of concerns related to the County's Clam Bay dredging permit application. Dr. Raia presented information and alleged the application: 1) allowed more extensive dredging than was authorized in 1998 and implemented in 2007; and 2) did not contain legally binding triggers for dredging. Ms. Marcia Cravens, Co- Conservation Chairman, Sierra Club reported that she and representatives from the Conservancy and Audubon Society met with the Army Corps of Engineers to provide information regarding the Clam Bay dredging permit application that alleged the proposed dredging would negatively impact the benthic community and cause erosion to the adjacent shoreline. Mr. Cravens speculated the purpose of increasing the dredge cut was to obtain more sand for the beach. Mr. John Domenie was concerned about excessive sand. Misc. Corres: Date: IolCt 1 k- Item * copies to: .� Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes t6 12A'17 June 4, 2012 Mr. Dorrill said it was unclear whether the information that Dr. Raia presented was new or a new interpretation of old information and suggested inviting the appropriate Coastal Zone Management (CZM) department staff and engineering consultants to the June 6 Board meeting to present the rationale for the increased dimensions of the dredge cuts. The Subcommittee agreed with Mr. Dorrill's suggestion. Additionally, at the June 6 meeting, the Subcommittee would present to the full Board draft correspondence from the Board to the Army Corps of Engineers supporting Dr. Raia's concerns about the dredging permit application. CLAM BAY MONITORING Ms. Cravens presented a recent Atkins Technical Note that concluded Clam Bay was impaired due to high levels of fecal coliform, but was inconclusive as to the source. Ms. Cravens requested that the Pelican Bay Services Division consider funding 1) fecal coliform "caffeine" testing; and 2) additional fish and bird surveys. She recommended that Turrell -Hall R Associates do the work. The Subcommittee agreed to obtain proposals and cost estimates to present to the Board. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m. Dave Trecker, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 6/21/2012 2:35:16 PM o ,v,q r— l-awe*6-5- W 1 bu *1 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, June 6, 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 absent John laizzo Michael Levy absent 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 Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Joe Foster, Humiston and Moore Engineers Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Ken Humiston, Humiston and Moore Engineers Approximately SO attendees REVISED AGENDA Fiala Hiller �- Henning Coyle _ Coletta� Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Agenda Approval Approval of May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes Administrator's Report a. Pathways i. County's plans to "overlay" Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways ii. Pause the pathways project (Dallas) b. Crosswalks i. Status of Cobblestones ii. Landscaping issues at North Tram station c. Berm i. South berm restoration permitting ii. North berm maintenance d. Landscaping (Phase I1) update e. Monthly financial report 6. Clam Bay Subcommittee Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Board rules and procedures b. Board summer schedule c. Board member terms d. Announcements 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 Misc. Comes: 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment Dafe: 10\ c� k vL 8556 Rem *: kLe-x Copies to: 1612 A17 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes June 6, 2012 ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Levy, all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second ly Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended changing the order of agenda items: 1) pathways Sbii first then Sbi; 2) crosswalks Sa second, and 3) Clam Bay Subcommittee report at 2:30 p.m. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. PATHWAYS COUNTY'S PLANS TO OVERLAY PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported that the County's Road and Bridge Maintenance department is planning to overlay the pathways along the east and west sides of the length of Pelican Bay Boulevard with 'le inch asphalt. The County intends to remove roots, but not install root barriers or address inevitable future root problems. Prior to the overlay staff would participate in a site visit, consult with an arborist, and mark the areas where root removal should take place. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Afs. O'Brien to direct the Administrator to indicate to the County to proceed with overlaying the Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. PAUSE THE PATHWAYS PROJECT Due to three recent Board votes and most recent decision to widen pathways to only six feet along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Commons to the North Tram, Chairman Dallas suggested the Board "pause the pathways project" or hold off on any decisions until the Board procures an arborist to assist with studying alternative approaches. Chairman Dallas presented photographs of the safety issues caused by the uneven conditions of the pathways. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Montenero residents Mr. Kevin Shanahan, Mr. Peter Klein, Ms. Patricia Gothot, and Ms. Noreen Murray; Mr. Frank Butler (St. Marissa; Strategic Planning Committee); and Mr. Henry Bachman (Claridge) were in favor of Chairman Dallas' proposal to "pause the pathways project ". Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to pause the pathways project. The Board voted unanimously in avor and the motion was passed. The Board discussed how to move forward with studying alternative approaches and consensus was to form an ad- hoc committee that would make a recommendation to the full Board at the October meeting. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to form an Ad -Hoc Committee to study alternative approaches to the pathways project and be prepared to make a recommendation to lire full Board at the October 3 meeting. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. Chairman Dallas assigned himself, Vice Chairman Cravens, Dr. Trecker, and Ms. O'Brien to lire Ad -Hoc Committee. CROSSWALKS STATUS OF COBBLESTONES Mr. Chandler reported that at the May 2 meeting, due to noise complaints from residents, the Board voted to recommend to the Foundation Board that the Foundation remove the cobblestones at the San Marino and remaining mid- 8557 16 #2 A17 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes June 6, 2012 block crossings. However the Foundation Board did not address the issue. Mr. Chandler suggested reconvening the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) working group to decide. Dr. Trecker did not participate in the CIP and was concerned about the decision- making process. Mr. Dorrill presented Bateman Contracting's $46,400 proposal to remove and replace cobblestones with brick pavers at four midblock crossings. The unit price to do this work at the San Marino or "Beachwalk" crossing was $11,600 plus an additional $1,800 for installation and materials. The Board discussed whether there were ways to reduce cobblestone noise at the mid -block crossings without removing them, but Mr. Dorrill did not believe that there was an effective or efficient way to do so. Members questioned whether the Board needed to do more research on noise before removing the cobblestones. However the Foundation had already performed a decibel reading at San Marino and the noise did not register as louder, just different. Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt and Ms. Noreen Murray supported reconvening the CiP to reestablish plan objectives and provide an opportunity to revisit other issues; and agreed that resident complaints about noise do not necessarily justify the Board's decision to remove cobblestones; such decisions do not meet CIP plan objectives and could result in setting community precedent. Mr. Kevin Shanahan advised against reacting to particular situations because it is likely that the problem with noise existed long before cobblestones were installed. Mr. Domenie reminded the Board to make consistent decisions. Ms. Marcia Cravens, Mr. Jerry Moffatt, and Dr. Ted Raia did not support reconvening the CIP group. Mr. laizzo made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to remove the cobblestones and replace with smooth stones from tine San Marino mid -block crossing only. The Board voted 4 in favor (Chandler, Cravens, laizzo, and Trecker) and S opposed (Baron, Dallas, Hansen, O'Brien, and Womble) and the motion ailed. The Board directed staff to look into comparable alternatives and provide report at the next meeting. Mr. Dorrill said that the crosswalk projects at North Pointe and Myra Janco Daniels that were planned to be done this summer have been delayed due to issues with the contractor's surety bond and the County requiring that the project is rebid. In his opinion, if the projects are deferred for one year, there could be a significant cost increase. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to temporarily suspend proceeding with the crosswalk projects planned for this summer. The Board voted 6 in favor (Baron, Cravens, Dallas, Hansen, laizzo, and Womble) and 3 opposed (Chandler, O'Brien, and Trecker) and the motion was passed. APPROVAL OF MAY 2 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. laizzo to approve the May 2, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Dr Trecker reported that the Clam Bay Subcommittee met June 4 to take input on Clam Bay and to consider specific requests for Board action. Requests regarding water quality monitoring were to: 1) enter data into STORET; 2) get on the list to receive the County's annual monitoring report; and 3) perform fecal coliform testing. Additional requests were made to: 4) perform fish and bird surveys; and 5) inform Army Corps of Engineers of concerns about County's dredging permit application. PM Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes June 6, 2012 1612 A17 Ms. Marcia Cravens requested: 1) that the Board adopt the Conservancy's benthic report as a baseline study; 2) consider funding additional fish and bird surveys; and 3) consider funding fecal coliform "caffeine" testing to rule out humans as a source. She recommended Mr. Hall to do the work. Vice Chairman Cravens suggested the Board consider adopting the Conservancy's benthic report as an agenda item at the next meeting and requested that Mr. Hall provide proposals to implement the surveys and fecal coliform testing. Mr. Dorrill said if the Board decided to implement the proposed projects that a budget amendment was required. Mr. Hall said the surveys and fecal coliform testing are not permit requirements and outside the scope of his current contract. The cost estimate was upwards of $30,000 per year, but he would develop a proposal to present to the Board. Dr. Ted Raia, President, Mangrove Action Group requested that the Board inform the Army Corps of Engineers about concerns related to the County's Clam Bay dredging permit application. The draft letter was included in the agenda materials that alleged the application 1) would allow more extensive dredging than was authorized in 1998 and implemented in 2007; and 2) there are no legally binding triggers for dredging. Ms. Linda Roth compiled the data that showed large differences in measurements and was the basis for concern. Mr. Ken Humiston, A.E. and Mr. Joe Foster, P.E. were asked whether there were any differences between the current dredging application and what was done in 2007 specifically in regards to the horizontal limits of the dredging as well as the depth limits. Mr. Humiston explained the state standards for calculating depth had changed and concluded that the horizontal limits did not change; the depth limits at the entrance channel "a" and first embankment inside the inlet "b" did not change; the depth limit at the easternmost part "c" is one -half foot deeper than it was in 2007; and other than a possible error in converting the data, he did not hypothesize as to the reason for the increase or its impact. Additionally, phase lag and tidal data is used as the "trigger" to determine dredging. Ms. Cravens, Dr. Raia, Mr. Domenie, and Ms. Roth did not agree and were still concerned. The Subcommittee determined that no action was necessary and there was no further discussion. LANDSCAPING ISSUES AT NORTH TRAM STATION CROSSING Chairman Dallas presented photographs of a pedestrian crossing Pelican Bay Boulevard from the west side to the east side at the North Tram station mid -block crossing to show how landscaping impedes visibility. The Board directed staff to resolve. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMITTING Mr. Dorrill reported that staff received the notice of intent to issue from the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide permit and received verification that the south berm restoration work (to reestablish the south berm cross - section and reconstruct a wider path atop the berm) will be done under a letter of modification to the existing South Florida Water Management District surface water management permit. Staff and the Foundation will work together during construction to provide necessary access to residents and trams and it is staff's intent to have the bid awarded in August and project complete by Thanksgiving. NORTH BERM MAINTENANCE Mr. Dorrill reported that the north berm maintenance work does not require a permit. However a survey revealed that there is not enough fill material in the swale to repair the erosion. The amount of fill material needed will determine whether a permit is needed. 8559 - 16 12 A17 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board Regular Session Minutes Y � June 6, 2012 LANDSCAPING PHASE H UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that work will begin on Phase 11 landscaping next week. LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Chairman Dallas appointed himself to the Landscape Water Management Subcommittee. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that 96% assessment revenue was received and year -to -date operating expenses are $191,000 under budget. The Clerk adjusted the audit report to include depreciation and fixed capital assets, but he would obtain more information and provide report. BOARD SUMMER SCHEDULE It was the Board's consensus to cancel the July 11 meeting due to lack of quorum and next meeting is August 1. BOARD RULES AND PROCEDURES It was the Board's consensus to develop rules and procedures and directed staff to distribute the sample rules and procedures for advisory boards, Board of County Commissioners' rules for reconsideration, and request that the County Attorney elaborate on his opinion that Roberts Rules on reconsideration do not work well for advisory boards. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Mollie Moffatt expressed discontentment with the community landscaping and was concerned about the Board's "flip- flopping" decision - making. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m. Keith J. s, U01 11 L-114 . 1 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 6/20/2012 10:08:27 AM AD -HOC COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP AN APPROACH FOR STUDYING PATHWAYS & AREES OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES gg •• THURSDAY, JULY 5, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways and Trees of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 12:00 PM at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways & Trees Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Dave Trecker Tom Cravens Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager absent Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Fiala John laizzo, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Hiller Michael Levy, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Henning Coyle .i 19 attendees COletta Jt, AGENDA I. Roll Call 2. Discussion of developing an approach for studying pathways & tree a. Scope of project b. Selection of experts c. Project timeline 3. Audience Comments 4. Adjournment ROLL CALL All Ad -Hoc Committee members were present. INTRODUCTION Chairman Dallas explained the general purpose of the Ad -Hoc Committee is to develop a process to study the scope of the pathways project, selection of experts, and project timeline; meet again in September, then in October, report its findings to the full Board and make a recommendation on how to proceed. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPING AN APPROACH FOR STUDYING PATHWAYS AND TREES The Ad -Hoc Committee discussed Chairman Dallas' proposal that outlines an approach for studying pathways and trees. The proposal suggested the process include 1) hiring experts (engineer /arborist) to analyze specific methods that address root upheaval (root barriers), materials (asphalt vs. concrete), and evaluate existing sections of pathways, then provide their opinion of the potential impact to adjacent trees for each of the options (take no action, rebuild to existing width, widen to six feet, or widen to eight feet); 2) review standards for multi -use pathways and potential uses, perform a community survey regarding current usage, frequency of use, and alternatives (bicycle lanes in roadway); and 3) present final analysis and recommendations to community and obtain feedback next year during season. The Committee agreed with the general approach and would meet once more on September 24 to decide on the recommendation to make to the full Board on October 3. Misc. Corres: 1 Date: % o V4 X12 Item #: k t— 2A tt Copies to: 16 12 A17 Ad -Hoc Committee to Develop an Approach for Studying Pathways & Trees Meeting Minutes July 5, 2012 The Ad -Hoc Committee also acknowledged the County's project to overlay pathways on Pelican Bay Boulevard that was planned to start this summer. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Michael Levy suggested the Services Division do a pathways demonstration project at a strategic location to gain community support. Mr. Alan Kaplan (Montenero) was opposed to a demonstration project before an evaluation was done regarding the impact to trees, pedestrians and bicyclists; and was concerned about the process -in -use to determine tree health. Mr. Robert Uek said there are many damaged trees and suggested the Services Division determine tree health on a tree -by -tree basis. Ms. Sheila Mondo (St. Marissa) supported the County's plans to overlay Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways. Ms. Mollie Moffatt recommended that the Services Division hire arborist Bob Bitner, Club Pelican Bay, preferred concrete pathways, and was concerned about alleged trip- and -fall incidents and liability. Mr. Brendan Culligan is preparing a video survey that solicits input from residents as to what purpose(s) that they prefer to use the Pelican Bay Boulevard pathways that he would provide when complete; and suggested the Services Division build quality pathways for a variety of uses, regardless of the quantity of users. Mr. Culligan and Ms. Patricia Gothot (Montenero) supported bicycle lanes in the roadway. ADJOURN There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 1:14 p.m. Keith J. as, Charm n Minutes by Lisa Resnick 7/26/2012 1:13:16 PM 7 s 1 a Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee By . z885 Horseshoe Drive South " " " "'•• Naples FL 34104 August 13, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order Fiala Hiller II. Attendance Herining Coyle III. Approval of Agenda Caletta _ IV. Approval of Minutes: June 11, 2012 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Review of Operation & Maintenance Responsibilities VII. Old Business VIII. New Business IX. Committee Member Comments X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment The next meeting is September 10, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 i�riisc. Corres: Date: 4c;,, Item #: ► U-Z2 -6 Copies to: I Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 June 11, 2012 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 2:00 p.m. BY........................ Fiala I? ✓ hiller Henning Loyle ua 1r, II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Helen Carella, John Weber, Jerry Parillo County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera- Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Others: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Manny Gonzalez - Hannula Landscaping, Carlos Herrera - Hannula Landscaping, Dale Hannula- Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff, David Orr- Applicant, Kenneth Ekberg - Applicant III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: IX. A. Review Applications for the Radio Road Advisory MSTU Committee Dale Lewis moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 14, 2012 Change: Meeting date should read: "May 14, 2012 " John Weber moved to approve the May 14, 2012 minutes as amended. Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $289,027.69 • Estimated FYI Current Ad Valorem $307,900.00 2:05 p.m. Jerry Parillo arrived. B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following information: Exhibit E Change Order - Devonshire Blvd. Refurbishment o Change Order includes ROW Irrigation for the Berkshire Lakes Signs Ii ", Ci,lIrss: Date: %d \!�. it -2, Item #: V t&T 2114 Vt- Copies to: / r I 11 � 1612 A18 o Bid Tabulation was reviewed (See attached) - Installation of new pipe in the median is needed as the size of the current irrigation lines is insufficient (Item No. 87 -92) Dale Lewis moved to approve (the Change Order amount) $32,092.00. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Hann ula —Discussed under VI. B. B. Windham Studio — Scott Windham and Manny Gonzalez reviewed the Monthly Maintenance Report: (See attached) • Hannula is having difficulty locating Plant Materials • Irrigation zones are overlapping Plants in most of the turf zone areas (Turf and Planting Medians from Devonshire to Livingston.) The following suggestions were made - Install a battery operated Piccolo as a prototype - Employ James Abney to troubleshoot the area • Recommended applying 3`d application of Fertilizer to avoid a state of decline Discussion ensued on the cost to apply the 3rd application of Fertilizer. After discussion it was concluded that the estimate for the additional application was $3,000.00. Dale Lewis moved to pay for only (1) additional application of Fertilizer as an experiment in the amount of $3,000.00. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. David Orr gave a brief introduction stating the following: • He resides year round in Berkshire Lakes • He was a Landscape Contractor for 50 years Michelle Arnold reviewed the Applicant process. Rich King Greenway Entrance • FPL submitted a Formal Agreement to the County - Changes are needed per the County Attorney - Staff will email the Agreement to the Committee (Staff Action Item) • The buried irrigation valve was located VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT - Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment — Previously discussed V. B. VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None IX. NEW BUSINESS 2 16 12 A18 A. Review Applications for the Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee Michelle Arnold explained the application process to Kenneth Ekberg. Kenneth Ekberg stated that he resides in Foxfire. The Committee reviewed qualifications of the 3 applicants. After discussion it was noted that Frederick Rogers has been involved with the MSTU for many years and is very involved with Community Activities. Dale Lewis moved to recommend (to the Board of County Commissioners) the appointment of Frederick Rogers for the duration of Betty Schudel term. Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS — None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee r Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented__X_or amended The next meeting is September 10, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 3 161218 1zMA�Aa000 �� n� 0m00 n0rr�33�z2mmprZmm- l- izc>C»� AzzioC� �timDmm �D v� mw <5i m AxOmz�ZACm mN =Z��G>�DG>DD <mm��m ��tziipp Zz �p m �m,D- zmc��zx] �mmo�ZZ DzNxxzz m��xDy m<G T-mi T� yG �d ypr In 2m TD W �7c9m mm rtn� ��f9to zm��p r _i cv N D mC1 �1 nn m° m t_ x m m mp m Znv m m �p�D zmztnno ny� mm mmm mmm m m,�xG G m� 'M "' V Cm �� N'�'AnmDm Z 0m� � ZmnZZ <N�ZplZpl U71N- DDiZ�� z mOzz -Iz mays mm�o3 mo0�' mxzmOG� ZQ°�0 A>c�0_�0 w O-Z0 D z_ <� mo c W �tnm -I yam Nn�Amm mOG oAO33 c�� D� z I nm Z m z nzzxx z�m cmrmmmmm ZZpO�D CrA��X r- m N mp�c�iDCDriD NDr DC 0 �mmZn mnc)M mm Z mm p r x� v_� mrmm C) O�cn n,m m Z x CDr x Q 3 D n m co r n A A m z m z y 0 ffl169 I 169 (6fl 40169661696169 6A 1.9169 'A 6fl f9 69 f9 fA 6s 6s ffl fA fA 6A 6A 69 69 10 1140 1 69 169 ffl fA ffl 69169169,69 69 69 69 N N V v O J N O O (0 W N A J O O O O N 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0000000" 0000000-N 69169 691-.9169 1"164 140 J. 49 169 69 fA YD 69 fA fA 69 w fA 69 v) 69 6fl 69 69 fA 69 69 iA iA 69 69 III^I'A den 69 fA fA fA 169 169 iA 6fl fA 69 N N O W N V J N W N W O V� w c0 A N O c0 A V N V CO V m 0 cD O t0 V O 0 O N N O N N A A IV N A O co O O O O A N J . . . 0) V O O W O W W O c0 O u, 69 169 169 169 Iw 169 6A 69 ffl ffl (A f9 69 69 v) 6fl <fl w 69 69 69 11f016fl 169 f9 6A 69 to Iffl 169 69 69 f9 69 Dn 9 m y 1 a 1. v C >> 3 n V A .- A N W W OVD O A N N N N f0 N m N V N A N Cl c0) A V N) _ F3 _ N N N W OW V W O O O O O O 0 0 O N N O A V � N D. N W 0) 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0. O O O O O O O S O O O O O A O O O O N A N N A 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 O O O O O O N O O O O A N N A A O N O O A O f9 69 W 69 6A fA 69 W 6% 69 69 fA 60 69 Vi O O O O O O YD 69 fA fA 69 w fA 69 v) 69 6fl 69 69 fA 69 69 iA iA 69 69 III^I'A den 69 fA fA fA 169 169 iA 6fl fA 69 N N O W N V J N W N W O V� w c0 A N O c0 A V N V CO V m 0 cD O t0 V O 0 O N N O N N A A IV N A O co O O O O A N J . . . 0) V O O W O W W O c0 O u, 69 169 169 169 Iw 169 6A 69 ffl ffl (A f9 69 69 v) 6fl <fl w 69 69 69 11f016fl 169 f9 6A 69 to Iffl 169 69 69 f9 69 69 Iw 169 160 169 JA 169 6fl fA 69 69 fA 69 69 69 69 vi vi vi 69 69 f9 (A 69 69 69 pfA169169 69 69 Fn 69169169 6A 6fl 69 Efl Dn 9 m y 1 a 1. v C >> 3 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222202 (D ,Y 7 7 7 7 7 7 N �) N W W OVD N N N f0 N m N V N A 000 W W N (0J) O mm _ N N N W "m O O N O c0 N A W J _ N N O N O O O O O O W W N Op W W 0 0 O O N W V O O — O W N, O O V O O A O cA O W V co O N W N V N N W O V c0 O(D O O N N N N V W 0 O 0 O 0 A O 0 O N N N W A V O O O O V O O(A . . . . . N O O N N W O N O O O 69 Iw 169 160 169 JA 169 6fl fA 69 69 fA 69 69 69 69 vi vi vi 69 69 f9 (A 69 69 69 pfA169169 69 69 Fn 69169169 6A 6fl 69 Efl O" A m Dn 9 m y 1 a 1. v C >> 3 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222202 (D ,Y 7 7 7 7 7 7 N �) A A *< � -W • mD0mo0F0m�cn30m < o e W Y m (D 0 0 m 0 0 0 � _ N N N W _ W A W W _ N � V _ N V O w W nnn n W co O O O J C A 0- W N N A N O N A A 0 N OD (" O N N 0 W ()O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O N V W O O A N O O A P O .P O N O O N W A N N W O N W N O in in 'A 69 f9 fA 6A 69 69 fA 69 6A 6A f9 69 W 69 6A fA 69 W 6% 69 69 fA 60 69 Vi Cl) N W 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O N V N O N O N O O N N O N O c0 A r -� 0 co O O O OD O O W W O to f9 6A f9 fA 69 69 69 fA 69 f9 f9 69 69 69 64 69 69 69 f9 W 69 OA 69 E9 W 60 EA O O O O O O O O A A A O� O CO N O O A cO C C c c Nd d N O 'V O a D) D) N D) O] N O O W W O 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 , , r ii 0 0 0 a Q N S S S S S CC (p y y D) n< C C C C c C N N 3 x 3 3 3 3 3 pD y m m n m m m d d d Z 7_ 3 3 O" A m Dn 9 m y 1 a 1. v C >> 3 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222202 (D ,Y 7 7 7 7 7 7 N �) ° m o *< - V mD0mo0F0m�cn30m < o e ° m Y m (D 0 0 m 0 0 0 � � m m n m m C7 p � N N N N N 0) CD (D d 3 g 3 3 Z N V^ v 'o w m m nnn n x nn7 O O 3 o CL 3 o CD m O N co_ Q CD O .. (D ft m N N N CD CD CD N Q i OD OD a y M N CD cn 7 � 0 �W d C - N ca in in 'A 69 f9 fA 6A 69 69 fA 69 6A 6A f9 69 W 69 6A fA 69 W 6% 69 69 fA 60 69 Vi 3 n S Cl) o t9 cn m m N m n m n p °° 3 d d d m v m m N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >> 3 C C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222202 (D ,Y 7 7 7 7 7 7 N �) a s ,� a o O O a Q a a a Q 0 mD0mo0F0m�cn30m cp y � o 0 0 0 u n n m (D 0 0 m 0 0 0 � � m m n m m C7 p N N N N N N N 0) CD (D d 3 g 3 3 Z N V^ (D m 3 w m m nnn n 7 0 3 7 N d O N N N N O 'O m nn7 O O 3 o CL N N o CD m O N co_ Q CD O .. (D ^ rn m cD @ 7 iD N N N CD CD CD N :Ll v C7 N f OD OD E - m m m � � m m s O D r IF w A 0) M O V V H eu A O N A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (AJ) A A A A A A A N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N O (P N N V N O) 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 222202 55500000 Cl) ID A OND OWi N m A n 0 4 4 0 n n n N OWi O A .J, O O O O A N W 0 0 0 0 to 0 W O O W W Cl) m m A N c07) CA A 0) A O A O N A A W V N O N 0� V V A 00 N� A co J W A O mD0mo0F0m�cn30m -n NAA�m �o mg W O s< << v a c c mm o c a v v �. 0 cOD o m. DD. 7 c< (o 3 0 O v ° r m. N O N N N N C Cn d 7 O Q N 0-. O t0 3 v c m m O N c 3 v -o c c ni (D cD m� m m - c O o y m c O 3 d 3 g 3 3 Z N V^ m m 'v m m C fD ^'O O O N n N \� 1G ? N ti 3 N D) .7. 7 v O 'D 7 N< (D p O C Q 7 . DD Cai .i7 7 0 3 7 N d O N N N N O 'O m m S c S f0)) 7 O' N OD "� D OD O N 7 3 o CL Q 7 x 7 a m o o CD m O m ti m o z co_ Q CD O .. (D ^ rn m cD @ 7 iD (0 (D CD W :Ll v C7 N f � 7 N 0 N CD cn 7 � 0 d C - N ca in in 'A 69 f9 fA 6A 69 69 fA 69 6A 6A f9 69 W 69 6A fA 69 W 6% 69 69 fA 60 69 Vi Cl) N N W V N 0) V N W N ON) W 00)) N c0 C> CC) A O V N N A N A A N J O O c0 N c0 N O co N O N N A O O O O N J W A r -� 0 co O O O OD O O W W O to f9 6A f9 fA 69 69 69 fA 69 f9 f9 69 69 69 64 69 69 69 f9 W 69 OA 69 E9 W 60 EA c0 N A N— V N N O —9). W DD (0 N O -+ N N A 0— N N O A— 04 N A O V A 0 0 O O O O 0 V N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O W W N c0 N V ow O O WE O N N N O O O O N O CO (n N V O N O cn V W (l) 0 0 c0 O 00 O c0 A N O N 0 0 0 0 W O O O N W W O O V O 00 000 � O N O A V V O N n O 3 3 :i 1D 3 N D 3 CD 7 a a D C SI D Q A m C CL z d 3 CD b 4 A 3 A 3 7 D m d a = v C c r" Z 0 -" -,vU O CO ic N � C xx zy; ki0GG(DY x �1. (D rt N• o P I p.m rrn p,r t �.-" j r�r: 10 ((D � K C �*m 0Xw o w mrnmmm10Id03 p Q n K c iA rA tP W';ia CrJ tz7 cs H aiww :A dzcijy C rt iAr�0::co m:'O O. E� (D f-N P P 1-0'O H $U zm�r c i', Lzj O a= r Y3" F-I 'TJ ti✓yt yCr1 On fD G) F' ON O t�r�itx rooms co ct x��nzA11Hn O En F- no'.ro� O H - w n, (D (DS rt 0\ m co-: W m N m N Ul N O rt bT O UlONOUlNml�) 0000000:0.'0 n 000 o oOOO"o €q` fDr: rt C. 0 0 0 0 0 o o O o .:rr": O 0000000o0 P7 H rl- (D m rt N H d K (D r- 0 cD G I GD (n zS r tij rt W O H z tom- ri G xd t] n r- G m m m cuco M 0 NUI N OO.O'O si b >v Q., r m rr 00 Ul O N O Ul N N;N`N '- : -; n y H o 0000000:0 LQ. 10 U] [l, n H m =: (D m H- Ul O 00000000'0 to W t7H (D rt n R O N• 6) (n n F- 0 O.. �S y O rt H H N (n Cnlrr (n (D W W rA N W wG>- w :;(D; rt Ct rt O < r0UIWW Li: W . ?: OO O fi W o 4 O co CO IN`m ::('I'; rt l0 m O O 4 U] m 0oom0) cyy0) y d G7 C�] Z Ci] H Ll m 00 .00-m iANInt0CnJJ;]'J (n A 6) Ul Ul N 0D.07 0 d n y C1 41 iA l0 Ol W W W -W.' w o IA In o H- rt H I-, H .N: r (D (D (D �u1o000 ,1 p rt ro Www' 0.. C) H H v w G` N N A :> 00 a>�7wwW 00.0 "O , <UJl N M J J J-J N (n C O W OD m. W:. m :(D:.. pj OUIOOHWW co- .W O Ul O O m 11 -1 i o \° tom, C <r'P OH l0 W:10:W W Ui O W N N N:N'N •\ 'rr; - T . 16 I A�8 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South l� Naples FL 34104 s� 7 �► August 13, 2012 — Special Meeting Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Lewis at 2:00 p.m. II. ATTENDANCE: Members: Dale Lewis, Helen Carella, John Weber, Jerry Parillo, Fred Rogers County: Michelle Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard, MSTU Project Manager, John Vliet — Road Maintenance Director, Pam Lulich 61fandsCap� Operations Manager, Hiller _ Flynn — Juristaff Henning Others: Sue Coyle Coletta ;�rG III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA John Weber moved to approve agenda as presented. Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 11, 2012 John Weber moved to approve the June 11, 2012 minutes as presented. Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT A. Budget Report Darryl Richard reviewed Fund 158 as follows: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $295,057.36 • Available Operating Expense $14,359.51 • Available Capital Outlay $173,365.54 • Open Purchase Orders $309,748.37 It was noted line items 1 — 13 are revenues. Staff will investigate Del Ad Valorem Tax balance difference between Actual and Available totals. Darryl Richard reviewed Fund 111 - 163835 (MSTD General,E r §: follows: (See attached) • Available Operating Expense $6,078.37 Date:�dl� (�-- ■ General Fund for Radio - Airport SBB Item #: k Ls71Z 2 W \ $ dries t0: 1612 A18 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 August 13, 2012 Summary of Minutes and Motions III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA John Weber moved to approve agenda as presented. Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 11, 2012 John Weber moved to approve the June 11, 2012 minutes as presented. Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VI. REVIEW OF OPERATION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES Pam Lulich reported a weed control issue on Radio Road. Dale Lewis moved to re -mulch Radio Road medians (within the MSTU boundary) after the weeds and spray is under control not to exceed $14,000. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 1612 A18 B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard gave a status report on Devonshire: • Contractor's insurance should cover the magnolia hit on the roadway. • Plant material adjustments that will result in a net decrease. • Change order may be necessary just to swap out the final quantities of plant materials. • Irrigation being made ready for installation of bigger taller trees. • Trees are ready to ship in next couple of weeks. • Completion date is scheduled for September. • Staff will provide the Status Update from Contractor. • Schedule delay due to having to redesign irrigation system. It was noted the Landscape Architect attempting to work with Berkshire Commons to improve their hedges. Staff will request the Landscape Architect to give a status report. Staff gave an update on FPL's power for walkway. • Project is in FPL easement. • There is an issue. The current Ordinance controlling language needs to be reviewed. • MSTU planned to dress up entrance to the walkway down easement off Radio Road. • Agreement ready for legal to be reviewed. Dale Lewis reported an issue with the Landscapers cutting back the bougainvilleas every 3 weeks. He voiced concern the bougainvillea watering shoots are going into the sight line which could cause a problem. Staff will address problem with Hannula. VI. REVIEW OF OPERATION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES Darryl Richard explained how the reorganization of departments would not affect the quality of services provided. Discussion was made on concerns over losing control over all the work efforts and funds spent on Radio Road; once Radio Road is turned over to the County for maintenance. Advisory Committee want the project maintained and plants replaced when necessary. John Vliet stated he plans to attend as many meetings as possible. Pam Lulich will represent Road Maintenance and attend the Radio Road MSTU meetings at no charge. John Vliet recommended the MSTU replaces any plants with another plant with the same maintenance level or less. He added different plants may require additional maintenance. Discussion was made on current mileage rate and maintaining the roadway and keeping the MSTU tax funds within the MSTU. Advisory Committee want funds spent on MSTU. -2- 612 Darryl Richard noted under the reorganization; Public Services will e moving to the County Government Center. He reported some MSTUs have decided to hold monthly meetings at a location in their area. The Advisory Committee was given the same option. Discussion on where to hold future meetings took place. Staff stated meeting place can rotate between meeting locations on a yearly basis. Fred Rogers will research the holding the meeting at his clubhouse. Staff is ready to put Maintenance Contract out to bid. It was suggested Radio Road and Devonshire Boulevard be bid separately. Staff voiced concerns over the Landscape Maintenance current level of service. Staff has a meeting scheduled with Hannula on August 14. Pam Lulich reported a weed control issue on Radio Road. She suggested the weeds be pulled and sprayed before placement of mulch. Staff recommended placing an order the mulch for October. Dale Lewis moved to re -mulch Radio Road medians (within the MSTU boundary) after the weeds and spray is under control not to exceed $14,000. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VII. OLD BUSINESS — None VIII. NEW BUSINESS - None IX. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None X. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the public meeting was concluded at 3:02 PM. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on— /D z as presented_ - or amended The next meeting will be September 10, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 -3- 1612 0 'ILI A " Z. � E3z 9 0 2 2 2 'gig. 1 1A, C7 w 0 2 U9 N H O o N In M [l- rl H O c0 M M O H 11 N N N 11 E -H 0 P4 N a G 3 O rd H H rd rI T1 i4 rO-I U F-4 W �Om O (d U a E �-A0 NU rl ri H (d O ;� U 4-1 0 J.1 E+ �I Q �I :n J 1-1 tT 'CS a W z W t7 q H ln� W z W i7 Q E-� 0 41 00 ro O H i A O J.1 N rd m mR H E-1 W P. rt a� �zaLd .uw� Q) m () ;� -r-4 o a 41 Q Hq(� N I UiQ N co] E P4 P4 M H o (n 11 M N CO H O H M C) H Lo N HHUI•k -k N E H i-( r4 s4 M m Q) O �(1) a Q) H rd U rd U .1-1 t7 ro E 'LS rn i4 rq d r~ �N �jOp�$ 44 arZ4 rZ4 U0 w 1612 X18 o waoU, w : r CO U. H! a w x (dzU a:: x HHa)wrnx�+xz; a);MOIOIHOd'Hh � H H w'. rZ H I I l-:L?:h C-NO O LnO Mrl OO Lno { CO W.W co OlOo LnN L-:C�:.- r- L- o l0 N Ln.L- ' 0 M (M M h "o 'r-l' lO :EO' lO l0 N rl lO =r�l; r1,rn >C O s� rd .'O w �+H .. . rt- L- r- c000Ln� H:rrHHrO(ndo M:rq: CO MOl W 0) d+ dl r=; m:ooc000 LnLnwd•Ln r:r:h�LnmLnNd� OC).Cmo Ln r ij Lo :w - 'DwooO w d.q 1,d'o0Ln rn oJmcoco0d o Cl) r) xi MLnOH L- ,,�, -'tn to :Ln to N rl rl :o r o00000000 ts' 0;0oO0000O ':trj 0:00000000 O;0o0o0000 -: N -NNN Lo NO Lo 0,O 00 N Ln N CON 00.0co co klo aX 0.0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o 0 0 0 QY, . . . . . . . St51 C)C)0O 00000 ?d: 0,00000000 N:N N N Ln O N O Ln O. C D O O N L n N C N 0 :00 00 co w 4J.: «i 1612 X18 o waoU, w : r CO U. H! a w x (dzU a:: x HHa)wrnx�+xz; U, 0 P WU;wH. � \ 1;Nx xw;Hx rZ H { rd H O at OO r[ .M r1,rn >C O s� rd .'O w �+H .. . r=; xx>. 1612 X18 M.S.T.U. Ak:" C"ws- � 2855 5. Houau Ds4t Nom, Ft 34104 August 1, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - June 6, 2012 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard C. Meet & Greet — Hannula Landscaping �H Fiala Hiller _ Henning Coyle Coletta VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU — Sue Chapin IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Disc. Corres: Deb- q1 \2 item 0: \ "—X--'Lvzk,�1% Copies to: The next meeting is scheduled for September S, 2012 at 10:00 a. In. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 'iwlco i"d E44 M.S.T.U. Ak:," C#- 299S S. Ham « N4, Nr-l", fl 34104 Minutes June 6, 2012 1612 A19 I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 10:00 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, Pamela Lulich — Landscape Operations Manager, Gloria Herrera — Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: VII. A. Meeting Schedule Remove: V. C. Meet & Greet Hannula Landscaping Sue Chapin moved to approve the Agenda for June 6, 2012 as amended. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — April 13, 2012 Meeting Sue Chapin moved to approve the April 13, 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 June 6, 2012. (See attached) • Ad Valorem Tax Received - $146,511.11 • Operating Expense Available - $7,228.47 • Reserves Available - $131,900.00 • Purchase Orders Paid - $21,100.72 • Open Purchase Orders - $29,030.39 1 B. Project Manager Report 16 12A19 Darryl Richard distributed an Executive Summary making a Recommendation to approve a Resolution accepting a proposal from Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB &T), per ITB 412 -5829 Radio Road MSTU Fixed Term Loan, to provide a fixed term loan to finance cost for the Landscaping and Irrigation construction project within the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), approving a loan agreement in an amount not exceeding $649, 000, with a maturity date for the Note no later than ten (10) years from the date of issuance, and authorizing such note to be payable from ad valorem taxes in an amount not to exceed. 5 mills on all taxable property within the MSTU. (See attached) He distributed the Current Construction and Current Loan Schedule Projections on Median Landscape and Irrigation Project dated June 6, 2012. (See attached) He reported the BCC awarded BB & T Bank the Bid on May 22 and the loan closed on June 1, 2012. He reviewed the schedules and the breakdown for the closing costs to be paid out of existing MSTU Funds currently available. Staff reported a Steps to Create an MSTU /MSBU brochure was created to assist other future MSTU locations within the County understand the process. (See attached) They commended the RRE MSTU for the progress made on the loan. Darryl Richard reported an Executive Summary with a Recommendation to award Bid #12 -5878 for "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit Landscaping and Irrigation Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc., in the amount of $467,914.63 was approved by the BCC on May 22, 2012. (See attached) Dale Hannula has received the contract from the County and is currently working to line up a bonding company. Staff will monitor progress on the bonding prior to it going to Risk Management, Legal Department and Purchasing for approval. Construction may begin as early as July 23, 2012. Staff will email attachments submitted with the Executive Summaries to the Advisory Committee. He reported an Executive Summary for the Recommendation to approve an amendment to Collier County Ordinance No. 2009 -44, the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Ordinance, to remove the six -year sunset provision and provide for the dissolution of the MSTU upon recommendation by the MSTU Advisory Committee and approval by the Board of County Commissioners was approved by the County Attorney's Office. 2 1612 A19 Darryl Richard distributed an Ag- Tronix Proposal 2340 dated April 19, 2012 for Radio Road East MSTU Landscaping and Irrigation in the amount of $29,752.77. Urban Green stated the Ag- Tronix proposal meets the project requirements. He recommended the Advisory Committee approve the proposal. Renato Fernandez moved to approve the Quotation /Proposal from Ag- Tronic for the Motorola Controller. Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. The FPL power up cost will be approximately $1,200. This is an operational expense. VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report Dayna Fendrick reported Urban Green is currently hunting down plant materials to meet with the standards for the project. Staff will research the status on the traffic light installation and report to the Advisory Committee via email. Madison Parks' Pulte PUD is scheduled to be turned over to homeowners on July 1, 2012. VII. New Business A. July Meeting Schedule A consensus was formed to cancel the meeting scheduled on July 4, 2012. The next meeting will be held on August 1, 2012. VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU - None IX. Public Comments A consensus was formed not to use an MSTU construction informational sign on Radio Road during construction. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 A.M. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Yohnson, C irman I 6 2 (A19 These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on t z , as presented x or amended The next meeting date is August 1, 2012 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 „,j,” " """ 12 Alco W N ""m N N N N N N 6 O �D 00 V O0� W N" O CD 00 V O0� W N s O CO O V C1 0� W N �7x;u -- oMM �—I n— 0000r-r- 5 m --i -- CZ00— - -1 x22ji00 mmm Xcc X D -0 3* (D cn z 0 70 mDDX70 m <,nmc ww'M D00 DD M� M 7 - _0 w c 0 --1 00��DD <mm MM< Czi�mm CznCZn D0 DOcnmm DE3 rn > Z oxxczzn zm- W -I—IO> «� m� -� m� rrn �� N QM m xmm -n-nrnm CWkM<< � 0 C�0 0�� Cn m �� OnDD mncn O m z m � � �D -zi00p T5CD z X� �o 0 z z r-� cl) x r- CD v = c mDDOO c z — m z z z� z 3 "z < p p D� O m z —gym C)� C) z m`` -nmx� �mmmDD r n 0 c co m z n� m 0�� x x m Cl) z O D M W C) r Cn c r m m — 69 r.9 -69 69 4.9 G9 69 r.9 Efl fA r04 ka rn in 09 kn GG 40 vq be rug rfl 69 r,g b9 Efl rfl Efl -69 Efl Nom. _ 3 W N N N Cn A N (3J O CSl Cn Q Co 00 �I -N W O CA �I v CD N� v O N 00 000 (D 00 _ O O O Cr 6 w w O W �I V Cn Cfl v v N N M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn O O O Cn O Cn O Cn O O CD ' Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D O O O CO W Cfl O CO O O O 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cn O O O Cn O Cn O Cn O O O 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 O O O M M 00 O 00 O O O 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 40 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 {fl ffl 69 69 69 ffl 09 69 69 69 69 69 r0 ` CL O = -n O. 3 m C CD Z =- CD0M CD N O Cb CA CO rt C a rt i W i N CA i N ic cri cfl c0 O o N co 69 Efl ffl 69 6A Efl 69 E!9 Efl Efl Efl ffl Efl 69 Efl Efl 4A eA Efl 69 69 Efl rfl 69 1W V) t9 EA 69 GG C M x �. CD D A w rn rn �, 0) 0') �. 0 � j O Cn Cn s N N Cn Cb w O A Cr W DJ I O O O w Cn 00 Cn CA V —1 -- A 1 CC) W Cn O Cl O (D 00 W O O V v N W CD , i i Cn 00 Cn W O O V O N � O 'A A. -th, 00 00 CA W w O O O N O O J W X169 r.9i<Alt.9 r.91<,g1�1691 rug I<A1vq -rug -.9 69 <A 69 <A pts316A1(.9 <A 69 v9 -.9I -rug I6A 69 69 rug fn W N N ( N N I N D o 4h. A CA Y co N w co co 00 00 CA C O -N w Cn CD � O�� D a o m o c fn C W N A oo` o 33Z� ID N CL "' n W < 0 O (D CT W A W v N N = < N 0) D ?< c B N m OO CL O T 0 a 0 x x r 3 d O 7 a O) n X (D v W m o' iA tM w A �D 00 U7 .O lD 00 T T T T N T T O T (O (b W A ' N a) N N 00 O O N N O O- N N N N 01 (D O 0) D 0) Q � CD (A < 0 w m to 00 N a O < 0 O (WO O O O W A W N 0 N W U7 OO O T — (fl 00 O X (D v W m o' iA tM w A �D 00 U7 .O lD 00 T T T T N T T O T (O (b W A ' N a) N N 00 O O N N O O- N N N N 01 (D O 0) D 0) Q � CD (A < 0 w m to 00 N a r A 191, 0 0 dl 71 N X O Iv CL m 0) olt l O < C < (7 N (D Q � � N m 7 v (D o m o v m z (D CD D 3 nZ() 3 n CD y CD N N (D N (D (D �cnmmr- -ink 0 v cD v CD (n v �3 TTI (n (D (D (D go CD (D Q (n N - � (n� < N n � (D (D (D 3 (D O N m 3 3 m cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn zz�7� O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 D D(D N -N w W Co N Co O (D n W A 0 A J J w" O Cn Cn O w O O CO — W J 69 69 .94.9 Ei9 kn4fl69696969 6969E9 N N 3 J � Oo N (n O N to O O O X69 <n ffl ffl Efl 69 6969 EW 69 69 69 6969 w— Cn a i O O N W A J N (n W 41 J Cn � i O O O W W Cn O- I� I OA. O J O O 0 0 r A 191, 0 0 dl 71 N X O Iv CL m 0) olt l 1612 Date: June 6, 2012 CURRENT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECTION Radio Road East MSTU Median Landscape & Irrigation Project Activity Date aBCCAwardofiBLLd May 22; 2012 [BCG DATE] 60 DAYS RISK, LEGAL, PURCH. REVIEW OF CONTRACT May 22nd to July 21, 2012 Construction Start July 23, 2012 [BEGIN CONSTRUCTION] 180 DAYS OF CONSTRUCTION July 23, 2012 — January 19, 2013 Final Completion January 19, 2013 [END CONSTRUCTION] p 149 4-01 1612 A19 Date: June 6, 2012 CURRENT LOAN SCHEDULE PROJECTION Radio Road East MSTU Median Landscape & Irrigation Project Activity Date Soliatation Starts February 23, 2012 PROPOSAL DIEDATE March 9,20i2 [BB & T SINGLE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED] MS`FU�dso"�o rn'�te Revi�wof i3idR s s Re ornrnendatio �oBCC April 13; -2012 Loan ClosngDate June L2012; Total Loan amount: $550,000.00 y (which includes a 10% contingency) BCC Budget Amendment June 12, 2012 First Payment Due July 1, 2012 Maturity Date May 31, 2022 The breakdown for the closing cost is: [ To be paid out of existing MSTU Funds currently available ] • $1,500 misc. expenses • $5,500 FA PFM • $15,000 Bond Consul [ is a flat fee charged to any county 'bank loan' per agreement with county —see attached ] • $3,000 BB & T $25,000 Total Closing Cost s, AGsTRONIX SPECIALIiING IN MOTOROLA IRRIGAPON CONTROL SYSTEMS 1304 N. 15th STREET IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 239 - 657 -5519 I CUSTOMER NAME Clerk's Finance Department 3299 Tamiami Trl. E. Suite 700 Naples, FL 34112 -5749 1612 A19 QUOTATION /PROPOSAL DATE QUOTE NO. 4/19/2012 2380 QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. Sam @ag- tronix.com www.ag - tronix.com Page 1 I TERMS REP SHIP VIA PROJECT Net 30 SLC Radio Rd East MSTU ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY PRICE TOTAL Radio Road East MSTU Landscaping & Irrigation 1 - Irrinet M AC 24 Station w/2 Radios (1 High Power - 1 Low Power) F4860A IRRInet -M AC 12 DO and 4 DI, Without Radio 2 1,350.00 2,700.00 FUE5523 CDM750 Radio 403 -470 MHZ 2 888.00 1,776.00 FLN4305A CDM Radio Installation Kit for Moscad 2 217.50 435.00 967 -0159 Power supply, switching, in:85- 264VAC, out:12VDC, 2 110.00 220.00 12.5A, 150W, power factor corr 15348 115V - 24V, 75VA Transformer for IRRInet M 2 160.00 320.00 MLB -I2 -AC Surge Protector AC 4in/12out (NON BID ITEM) 2 275.00 550.00 51020 -WM Leviton Surge Protection 1 190.00 190.00 7299 -NW (8299 -... GFI W /Switch and Cover Leviton (15Amp) 1 39.00 39.00 TP7010 (T -11) Single Gang Box 1 4.57 4.57 50537 450 -460 5.OdB Fiberglass antenna omni with N female 1 220.00 220.00 connector 70072 Yagi Antenna 450- 470UHF 7.ldb (N Female) 1 179.00 179.00 451969 LMR400 20' Antenna cable w/ conn (LMR400) 2 65.00 130.00 AEP Antenna Extension Pole 2 40.00 80.00 SB -24DSS SS Enclosure DD 24W X 36H 24D 1 2,280.00 2,280.00 PED -24DSS SS Pedestals 24W X 12H X 20D 1 585.00 585.00 TS1 Technical Services 6 85.00 510.00 3 - IRRINET M DC 24ST. F4960A IRRInet -M DC 12 DO and 4 DI, without radio 3 1,275.00 3,825.00 V260AM ADD DC 4/12 PO Expansion Kit 3 375.00 1,125.00 FUE5523 CDM750 Radio 403 -470 MHZ 3 888.00 2,664.00 FLN4305A CDM Radio Installation Kit for Moscad 3 217.50 652.50 MLB -I2 -DC Surge Protector DC 4in/12out 6 299.00 1,794.00 Thank you for your business. TOTAL QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. Sam @ag- tronix.com www.ag - tronix.com Page 1 I AGaTRONIX SPECIALIZING IN MOTOROLA IRRIGATION CONTROL SYSTEMS 1304 N. 15th STREET IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 239 - 657 -5519 CUSTOMER NAME Clerk's Finance Department 3299 Tamiami Trl. E. Suite 700 Naples, FL 34112 -5749 1612A19 QUOTATION /PROPOSAL DATE QUOTE NO. 4/19/2012 2380 QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. Sam @ag- tronix.com www.ag - tronix.com Page 2 `0 TERMS REP SHIP VIA PROJECT Net 30 SLC Radio Rd East MSTU ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY PRICE TOTAL 34965 Sunsaver 10 Voltage Regulator 3 74.95 224.85 BSP65 -12 65 Watt 12V Solar Panel 3 530.00 1,590.00 SPBLG Solar Panel Bracket (Large) 3 115.00 345.00 BBF27T130 12V HEAVY DUTY MARINE BATTERY 3 142.00 426.00 BK730 -4009 Battery Box 3 26.95 80.85 493711 Cable/ antenna kit 17ft RG58 phantom MHz 450 -470 3 90.00 270.00 61600 Mini UHF Male Crimp -RG58 Connector 3 4.00 12.00 SB -18SS SS Enclosure 18W X 36H X 12D 3 1,290.00 3,870.00 PED -18SS SS Pedestals 18W X 12H X IOD 3 375.00 1,125.00 TS1 Technical Services 18 85.00 1,530.00 Thank you for your business. TOTAL $29,752.77 QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. Sam @ag- tronix.com www.ag - tronix.com Page 2 `0 1611 A19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award Bid #12 -5878 for "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit Landscaping and Irrigation Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc., in the amount of $467,914.63. OBJECTIVE: To obtain the Board's approval to award Bid #12 -5878 for "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Landscaping and Irrigation Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. CONSIDERATIONS: On March 12, 2012, the Purchasing Department sent out 894 notices for Bid 412 -5878 "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard MSTU Landscaping and Irrigation Project." Fiftyrseven (57) companies downloaded the bid package. The County received four (4) bids on Ap it 11, 2012, from the following contractors: Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc., Valleycrest Landscape Development Inc., Arazoza Brothers Corporation, and Superior Landscaping & Lawn Service, Inc. Two out of the four vendors (Valleycrest and Superior Landscaping) were deemed non- responsive because of failure to submit all the required documentation related to previous experience (Motorola or equivalent), and MOT Certification respectively. Consistent with the MSTU's Advisory Committee's April 13, 2012 recommendation, staff is recommending award to the lowest, responsive and qualified bidder, including selected alternates, to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation Inc. Contractor Base Bid Amount Base Bid + Alternates Hannula Landscape $456,296.59 $ 467,914.63 Valleycrest* $631,358.90 $ 651,355.17 Arazoza Brothers $635,713.97 $ 654,086.57 Superior Landscape* $689,970.76 $ 717,836.01 *Deemed non - responsive — vendors did not submit all required prequalification documentation. FISCAL IMPACT: Also on the May 22, 2012 agenda the Board will consider approval of a loan with BB &T to fund this project. Upon approval of the loan a project budget will be established in Radio Road East MSTU Fund (166) with loan proceeds as the source of funding. A Budget amendment will also be processed to establish the debt service budget in fund (266). The cost for on -going operation and maintenance is estimated to be $93,354.00 on an annual basis and will be funded by the MSTU. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and only requires a majority vote for approval —SRT. 1612 A19 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board award Bid #12 -5878 to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc., authorize the Chairman to execute the attached contract after final review by the County Attorney's Office and approve necessary budget amendments. Prepared By: Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager, ATM Department Attachments: (1) Bid #12 -5878 Bid Tabulation; (2) Copy of Contract #12 -5878 Hannula Landscape, (3) Urban Green OPC On -Going Maintenance q* 161 LA19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a Resolution accepting a proposal from Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB &T), per ITB #12 -5829 Radio Road MSTU Fixed Term Loan, to provide a fixed term loan to finance cost for the Landscaping and Irrigation construction project within the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), approving a loan agreement in an amount not exceeding $649,000, with a maturity date for the Note no later than ten (10) years from the date of issuance, and authorizing such note to be payable from ad valorem taxes in an amount not to exceed .5 mills on all taxable property within the MSTU. OBJECTIVE: To accept a fixed term loan proposal from BB &T to finance cost for the landscaping and irrigation project within the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) and enter into a formal loan agreement in an amount not exceeding $649,000. Such note will be payable from ad valorem taxes from all taxable property within the MSTU, with a maturity date no later than ten (10) years from the date of issuance. CONSIDERATIONS: On July 28, 2009, the Board enacted Ordinance No. 2009 -44 creating the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit. The principal purpose of the MSTU is to provide landscaping and irrigation systems for the section of Radio Road from Santa Barbara Boulevard East to Davis Boulevard. In response to a request by the MSTU Advisory Committee, the Board authorized the placement of a referendum on a ballot to determine if qualified electors residing within the MSTU were in favor of utilizing debt secured by and payable from existing ad valorem taxes levied against all taxable property within the MSTU to allow the MSTU Landscaping improvement project to be completed sooner. On January 31, 2012, voters within the MSTU approved, with a 71.71% margin (682 -yes; 269 - no), utilizing the existing ad valorem property taxes to support a loan not to exceed $649,000, with a maturity no longer than 10 years. A request for proposal was advertised on February 23, 2012. The e- procurement system recorded that 200 notifications were sent to potential bidders, 21 packages were downloaded, and one proposal was received on March 09, 2012 from BB &T. On March 23, 2012 the Finance Committee reviewed the single proposal and recommended Branch Banking and Trust Company, as a qualified, responsive bidder. FISCAL IMPACT: The principal amount of the loan shall not exceed $649,000 and is secured by the ad valorem property tax receipts collected from property owners within the Radio Road East MSTU. The annual fixed interest rate is 3.44% and the term is 10 years. The fee for legal review and underwriting payable to BB &T is $3,000. 10, 1b�L A19 Debt service on the loan will be paid from a separate debt service fund (266) and the millage rate will be split between that tax amount required to be raised to satisfy debt and that amount for operations. Level debt service will occur on this loan over the 10 year period from FY 13 to FY 22 at $76,800 per year. Each year the debt service levy will be calculated first. Budget amendments will be required to establish the project in fund (166) as well as the debt service budget in fund (266). LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and only requires a majority vote for approval —SRT. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Resolution accepting the fixed term loan proposal from BB &T to finance cost for landscaping and irrigation improvements within the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) and enter into a loan agreement in an amount not exceeding $649,000 and requiring such note to be payable from ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable property within the Radio Road East MSTU. Additionally, authorize staff to process necessary budget amendments. Prepared By: Darryl Richard, Project Manager, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Attachments: (1) Resolution, (2) Loan Agreement, (3) Distribution List, (4) Proposal I � 1V 1612 A19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve an amendment to Collier County Ordinance No. 2009 -44, the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Ordinance, to remove the six -year sunset provision and provide for the dissolution of the MSTU upon recommendation by the MSTU Advisory Committee and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. OBJECTIVE: To approve an amendment to Ordinance Number 2009 -44 to remove its existing six -year sunset provision and provide for the dissolution of the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (the "MSTU ") upon recommendation by the MSTU Advisory Committee and approval by the Board of County Commissioners after the landscape and irrigation project is completed and all indebtedness, which is in the process of being financed, is paid. CONSIDERATIONS: On July 28, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners established the MSTU. The Committee has been meeting since October 2010 and in that short time hired a landscape architect and developed preliminary plans for the beautification of the roadway. When the Ordinance establishing the MSTU was enacted, it contained a six -year sunset provision. With the downturn in property values it would take additional time to accrue the funds needed for the construction of the project. On March 29, 2011, the MSTU Advisory Committee held a public meeting for review of preliminary project plans for landscaping & irrigation on Radio Road between Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. There were 41 residents who attended that publicly advertised meeting, representing various communities within the MSTU boundary. The overwhelming comments received during that meeting indicated that the community wanted to see the project done as soon as possible and that the MSTU should pursue financing to advance the construction to take advantage of lower contractor pricing. On June 14, 2011, the MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman petitioned the Board of County Commissioners seeking direction for staff assistance in acquiring a loan for the landscape and irrigation installation project. The Board directed staff to assist the MSTU in obtaining the appropriate financing to advance the project. In order to meet the MSTU Committee's financial goals, a referendum question was posed to the qualified electors residing within the MSTU to determine whether they agreed that the capital improvements project should be financed through a loan and whether the ad valorem taxes already being levied can be utilized to repay said loan. County staff worked with the Supervisor of Elections office to coordinate the timeline to submit the referendum question for the Presidential Preference Primary. On January 31, 2012, voters within the MSTU approved utilizing the existing ad valorem property taxes to support a loan not to exceed $649,000, with a maturity no longer than 10 years. I Z I 1611 A19 In order to proceed with project financing the existing ordinance must be amended to remove the six -year sunset provision to allow the life of the MSTU to extend, at a minimum, through the 10 year life of the loan. On April 24, 2012, the Board authorized staff to advertise a proposed amendment to the Ordinance. The Ordinance amendment has been advertised and staff is at this time recommending approval of the amendment in order to move forward with the project and provide for the ability to repay the project loan within the timeframe prescribed for in the loan agreement and consistent with the Referendum approved by the voters within the MSTU. FISCAL IMPACT: Extending the life of the MSTU will result in additional years during which properties within the MSTU could be subject to the Radio Road East MSTU tax levy. The immediate cost for recording the Ordinance amendment is approximately $27. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and only requires a majority vote for approval. -SRT GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve an amendment to Collier County Ordinance Number 2009 -44, to remove the current six -year sunset provision and to provide for dissolution of the MSTU, upon recommendation by the MSTU's Advisory Committee and approval by the Board of County Commissioners, after completion of the landscape and irrigation project is completed and all indebtedness is paid. A copy of the proposed Amended Ordinance is attached for the Board's review. Prepared By: Darryl Richard, Project Manager, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Attachments: (1) Amended Ordinance 3, 1612 'p19 1, ORDINANCE NO. 2012-17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2009' 44 J:" HE RADIO ROAD, EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT); AMENDING SECTION THREE, PURPOSE AND GOVERNING BODY; AMENDING SECTION FOUR, FUNDING AND LEVY OF TAXES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on July 28, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners enacted Ordinance No. 2009 -44 creating the "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard MSTU (the "MSTU')" to fund and implement the installation of landscaping and irrigation capital improvements within that geographic area; and WHEREAS, the MSTU's Advisory Committee requested that the Board of County Commissioners amend and revise Sections Three and Four of Collier County Ordinance No. 2009 -44; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners as the governing body of the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit approved this amendment to Ordinance 2009 -44. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE. Section Three, Purpose and Governing Body is hereby amended as follows: Section Three. Purpose and Governing Body. The MSTU is created for the purpose of providing landscaping and splilddefsysta m irrigation capital improvements for the section of Radio Road from Santa Barbara Boulevard east to Davis Boulevard. This MSTU ' shall be dissolved_ upon recommendation by the MSTU Advisory 1612 A,19 Committee and approval by the Board of County Commissioners after payment of all indebtedness incurred for the proiect, and completion of the project SECTION TWO. Section Four, Funding and Levy of Taxes is hereby amended as follows: SECTION FOUR. Funding and Levy of Taxes. For the purpose of implementing this Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners shall annually, at the time required by general budgetary law, make an itemized estimate of the amount of money required to carry out the business of the MSTU for the next fiscal year, which shall be from October 1 to and including September 30 following, until the project is eidw completed all related indebtedness is paid and the MSTU is dissolved as provided in Section Three The estimate shall describe the purpose for which the moneys are required and the amount necessary to be raised by taxation within the MSTU. At the time and place for fixing the annual rate of taxation for County purposes, the Board shall fix and cause to be levied on all properties within the MSTU subject to taxation a millage rate not to exceed .5 mils per year. SECTION THREE. Conflict and Severability In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any court of competent jurisdiction holds any phrase or portion of the Ordinance invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION FOUR. Inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and may be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The section of the Ordinance may be i�12,4ai9 renumbered or re- lettered to accomplish such, and the word "Ordinance' may be changed to "Section," "Article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION FIVE. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this 22nd day of May, 2012. ATTEST. — ; , DWIGQ$;' CLERK Approved as to form and Legal sufficiency: Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: W. CJ,,,, FRED W. COYLE, C This ordinance Secretory of St( 9SNOY of ji end acknowledc filing received I filed with the re's Officeltho emfn �O f that ,is,— .l..W.. day 1612 "A19 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2012 -17 which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 22nd day of May, 2012, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 24th day of May, 2012. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex- officio to Board of County Commissioners All By: Martha V�i•gara, Deputy Cterle. �'• O��li� •.,fir .„�. 16 12 A20 May 4, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORIT Naples, Florida, May 4, 2012 BY:....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division Building Conference Room 609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jerry Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Fay Biles Lowell Lam Dr. Sherwin Ritter (Vacancy) Fiala _ Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Operations Director, GMD P &R Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Ken Kovensky, Financial & Operational Support Manager Misc. Corns: Date: ►x14112. 1 Item # I -L as 20 Copies to: I Of 12 A20 May 4, 2012 I. Call to Order (Determination of Quorum) and Roll Call Chairman Morgan called the Workshop to order at 3:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Approval of Agenda — Meeting of May 4, 2012 Dr. Biles moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Dr. Ritter. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of January 23, 2012 Dr. Biles moved to approve the minutes of the January 23, 2012 meeting. Second by Mr. Lam. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. IV. Items Requiring Action by Authority A. Final Order 2012 -01— Annual Price Index Jamie French recommended the Authority approve Final Order No. 2012 -01, establishing the 2012 Price Index Factor for investor -owned water and/or wastewater utilities operating in Collier County and in the City of Marco Island. He requested the Authority review and accept the Florida Public Service Commission Order No. PSC- 1 2-0068-PAA-WS issued February 14, 2012 establishing the 2012 Price Index of 2.41 percent and to approve Final Order No. 2012 -01, establishing the equivalent 2012 Price Index for investor -owned utilities operating in Collier County and in the City of Marco Island. Mr. Lam moved to approve the Final Order No. 2012 -01 establishing the annual 2012 Price Index at 2.41 percent. Second by Mr. Morgan. Motion carried unanimously, 4 -0. B. Annual Election of Officers Mr. Lam nominated Dr. Biles to serve a one year term on the Water and Wastewater Authority as Chairman. Dr. Biles nominated Mr. Lam to serve a one year term as Vice Chair on the Water and Wastewater Authority. V. Staff Discussion Jamie French provided a copy of a letter to the Collier County Development Services Center from the Ave Maria Utility Company regarding Developer Agreements executed between Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP and Pulte Home Corporation dated January 26, 2012 with The Master Developer Agreement (Arthrex at Ave Maria) dated January 23, 2012. Staff stated recognition that the Developer Agreements were submitted was the only action required by the Authority. Jamie French gave an updated on Goodland Isles: ■ The Francise was not legally transferred. ■ The ROW Permit was never signed off for final inspection. • The City of Marco Island is interested in having the line installed to the lift station signed over to them to be a part of their system. 2 N 41 1612 A201 . May 4, 2012 I ■ The City of Marco Island is not interested in assuming the liability of the lift station. They do not want the liability. ■ Owner does not want to be in the utility business as is willing to legally transfer ownership of the franchise to the new owner. • Owner is also willing to allow property go into receivership. • It would be beneficial for the homeowners in the Community to take ownership. • Public have been notified. Direction was given to Staff to work with Mr. Inglis to look for a 3`d party to resolve the issue. VI. Open to the Public None VII. Authority Members Discussion None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice Chair at 3:35 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Q aL- ' Dr. Fay fliles, Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on 7/3c)//9 as presented t,-'- or as amended 3