Backup Documents 04/26/2011 Item #16I
1611 ~
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
April 26, 2011
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1) Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District:
Special District Facilities Report dated March 9, 2011.
B. Minutes:
1) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of November 9,2010; January 10,2011; February 14,2011.
2) Airport Authority:
Minutes of January 10, 2011; February 14, 2011.
3) Animal Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of January 18,2011; February 15,2011.
4) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Minutes of January 4,2011; March 1,2011.
5) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of November 17, 2010.
Minutes of November 17,2010
6) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of January 27,2011; February 24,2011.
7) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of January 20,2011; February 3,2011; February 17,2011.
8) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of February 16,2011.
9) County Government Productivity Committee:
Minutes of October 1,2010 - Library Impact Fee Subcommittee;
October 13,2010 - Law Enforcement & Government Buildings
Impact Fee Reviews Subcommittee.
16' 1
10) Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board:
Minutes of May 21, 2010; September 17,2010; January 21,2011.
11) Environmental Advisory Council:
Minutes of March 3, 2010; May 5, 2010; September 1,2010;
October 6, 2010; November 3,2010; December 1, 2010;
February 2,2011.
12) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of February 9, 2011.
Minutes of December 8, 2010; February 9, 2011
13) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of February 8, 2011.
Minutes of January 11,2011; February 8, 2011.
14) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Minutes of February 7, 2011.
15) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee:
Agenda of November 22,2010; January 24,2011.
Minutes of November 22,2010; January 24,2011.
16) Historical! Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of September 15,2010.
17) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of February 16,2011; March 16,2011.
Minutes of December 15, 2010; February 16,2011.
18) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of February 16,2011; March 16,2011.
Minutes of December 15,2010; February 16,2011.
19) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of January 10,2011.
20) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of February 17,2011.
Minutes of January 20,2011.
21) Library Advisory Board:
Minutes of December 8, 2010; January 19,2011.
161 1
22) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of November 8, 2010; December 20,2010;
January 10,2011.
23) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Minutes of February 2,2011.
24) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of February 2,2011; February 8, 2011 - Budget
Subcommittee; February 16,2011 - Special Workshop;
February 22,2011 Special Workshop; March 2, 2011;
March 18, 2011 - Budget Subcommittee.
Minutes of January 5, 2011; January 12,2011 - Budget Committee;
January 18,2011 - Strategic Planning Committee; February 2,2011;
February 8, 2011 - Budget Subcommittee.
25) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of February 15,2011.
Minutes of February 1,2011 Special Meeting.
26) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory
Committee:
Agenda of February 2, 2011.
Minutes of February 2,2011.
27) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of February 3, 2011.
Minutes of January 6, 2011.
28) Water and Wastewater Authority:
Minutes of October 29,2010.
C. Other:
1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of February 4,2011; February 7, 2011.
I
161'1AIl4
GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT
14575 Collier Boulevard. Naples, FL 34119. (239) 348-7540. (239) 348-7546 FAX
htto://www.aafire.com
I ftI. "'rn!l"M~JIAL DISTRICT FA. CILITIES REPORT
D I.!I \Y t!J a \!II.; March 9, 2011
MAR 2 :3 2011
BY: .......................
The Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District currently operates out of four (4)
stations. Station 71 is located at 100 13th Street S.W., Station 72 is located at 3820 Beck
Boulevard and Station 73 is located at 14565 Collier Boulevard. Stations #71, #72 and
#73 ill\;; 0wned by the Fire District. The tourth station, Station 70 is located at 4741
Golden Gate Parkway. In 1991 this station was replaced and expanded in ajoim venture
funded by both the Fire District and Collier County to now include space for a sub-station
for Collier County Sheriff and Collier County EMS. The Collier County Sheriffs
Department moved out and into a larger facility during April 2002. The County and the
Fire District signed a lease agreement that includes an option to buyout the County Bnd
lease space back to them.
On March 5, 2007, the administrative offices housed at. Station 70 moved 10 their new
location at 14575 Collier Boulevard. Administrative staff is currently at seven (7). In
addition to the administrative staff the District currently hq." one (1) 40 hour training
captain, one (1) 40 hour facilities manager, two (2) 40 hour fire inspectors and two (2) 40
hour fleet vehicle technicians. An operations facility located on the same site as Station
#73 with address of 14565 Collier Boulevard opened in April 2007. Station #73 has the
capacity to house ten (10) firefighting personnel. Currently Station 73 includes an
assigned staff of four (4) shift personnel twenty-four hours a day. Equipment assigned to
Station 73 includes the following: one (1) Class A engine, one (1) 6x6 brush truck and
one (1) USAR Type II Light Technical Rescue Trailer, one (1) Haz-Mat decon trailer, as
well as a Ford pickup towing vehicle.
Station 70 includes an assigned staff of three (3) paid personnel twenty-four hours a day.
Currently the apparatus assigned to Station 70 includes the following: one (1) CIass A
rescue engine, one (1) mini-pumper, one (1) 4x4 brush truck, and one (1) 3,000 gallon
tanker with fire fighting capabilities.
Station 71 includes an assigned staff of four (4) paid personnel twenty-four hours a day.
Equipment housed at this station includes the following: one (1) Class A engine, one (1)
4x4 brush truck with CAFS system, one (1) 3,000 gallon tanker with fire fighting
capabilities and two (2) reserve Class A eng~nes. The expansion of this station was
completed in July 2002 and has the capacity to house eight. (8) fire fighting personnel.
The expansion of Station 71 also provided a workshop ar.ea for the District's two (2) Heet
vehicle Technicians. . . Mile. Corrts:
0*0
--=
Our Family Protecting Yours
Copies to:
1611 A'l
Special District Facilities Report
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District
Page 2
March 9, 2011
During 2003, the Golden Gate Fire District was successful in purchasing property and
securing permits for the construction of Station 72 located at 3820 Beck Boulevard which
has the capacity to house nine (9) firefighting personnel and officially opened its doors in
February 2004. Currently Station 72 houses an assigned staff of three (3) paid personnel
twenty-four hours a day. Equipment housed at this station includes the following: one
(1) eighty-five foot tower Class A engine, one (1) Class A rescue engine, one (1) 6x6
brush truck and one (1) reserve Class A engine.
During 2005 the Fire Board approved purchase of the GIS software to use in targeting the
location of new fire stations. The goals are for all residents to be within a five mile
driving distance of a Golden Gate Fire Station.
During 2006 the Fire District was reviewed by Insurances Services Organization which
included the approval of a tanker shuttle program that covers areas in the District that are
within 5 driving miles from a fire station but do not have hydrants installed. These areas
now have a new ISO rating of 4 in place of the 9 they previously were rated at. All
homes beyond 5 driving miles are rated at a 10. Each insurance company independently
determines what the actual policy rating number will be.
Impact fees and increases in ad valorem taxes will continue to be used to pay for capital
growth items plus working with new developers, when possible, to provide facilities
and/or equipment. In February 2006, the Golden Gate Fire Board adopted a resolution to
accept the 2005 Impact Fee Study which recommended an increase in impact fees.
In fiscal year 2008/09 the District's ad valorem tax dollars declined by approximately
$212,000.00. This is the first time tax dollars have decreased since its creation as an
independent fire district in 1983. This was caused by the decline of property value and
new State legislation. In fiscal year 2009/1 0 property values continued to decline. The
fire board approved an increase in the District's taxing millage rate which increased the
declining ad valorem tax dollars over the previous fiscal year by approximately
$392,000.00. The poor economy has caused a significant decline in new construction
which has drastically cut the amount of impact fees received by the District. This in turn
has created the need to make almost all capital asset loan payments with ad valorem tax
dollars which had previously been paid with impact fee funds.
1611A1
Special District Facilities Report
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District
Page 3
March 9, 2011
Currently no existing facilities are planned for replacement within the next ten years.
The Fire District has property set aside for future growth through the G.A.C. Land Trust
Fund. One piece is located near the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Desoto
Boulevard and the second piece is located in the northwest comer area of Everglades
Boulevard and 1-75. These properties are not large enough to accommodate a fire station.
As a result, the District is seeking alternatives that will secure property for a future
station. Location of a fire station in the area of 1 oth Avenue Southeast and Everglades
Boulevard would help meet the District's goal of covering the eastern part of the District
within 5 driving miles of a fire station. Plans to actually construct another fire station
continue to remain on hold due to the decline of ad valorem tax dollars and impact fees.
In the fiscal year of 2009/1 0 the Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District responded
to 5137 calls for service. This represents an increase of 5.4 percent over the fiscal year of
2008/09. The primary reason for the increase of 263 calls for service cannot be readily
determined.
The Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District remains committed to the goal of having
a minimum of four (4) personnel at every fire or emergency scene within five (5) minutes
of call out.
RECE\VEO
FEB 1 7 201\
, COIftIIJ:lll.-QIft
Ijuard of CountY
Fi21~
Hilii:lr
H'.:mnlng
Cuyie
'-jjle[ta
-"Q ./ /
/
~~=-
vJ:~--~
1611 ~
November 8, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, November 8, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3 :00 P.M. in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government
Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
Stephen Hruby (Excused)
Cormac Giblin
John Cowan
Christian Davis
Christine Jones (Excused)
Kenneth Kelly
Sally Masters
Bradley Schiffer (Excused)
Stuart Warshauer
(Vacancy - Alternate)
(Vacancy)
(Vacancy)
ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing, Human & Veteran Services
Frank ("Buddy") Ramsey, Housing Manager
Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor and Staff Liaison
Mise. Ccrres:
o:.~. corre.: 0
Date;
Item .
Copies to:
161d. Ii
November 8, 2010
1. Call to Order - Vice Chairman:
Vice Chairman Cormac Giblin called the meeting to order at 3 :04 PM.
~
2. Roll Call of Committee Members:
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
3. Approval of Minutes - October 11, 2010:
Kenneth Kelly moved to approve the Minutes of the October 11,2010 meeting as
submitted. Second by Sally Masters. Carried unanimously, 5-0.
4. Approval of Agenda:
Stuart Warshauer moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by John Cowan.
Carried unanimously, 5-0.
5. Information Items:
A. Presentation: Caring for Families - Bryan Lee of Youth Haven
. Founded in 1972
· Sole shelter in Collier County for abused, neglected, and abandoned children
· 2000.' Family Support Services
o Focus: to keep children out of the Foster Care system
o Prevention component
· 2008.' Children and Family Counseling Center
o Inpatient therapy to children in residence
o Out-patient therapy children and family members
o Wrap-around services
Causes of Homelessness:
. Economy
. Unemployment
o Collier County unemployment statistics:
· 2007 - 5.5%, 2008 - 8.6%, 2009 -13.2%, 2010 -13.6%
. Foreclosure crisis
o over 18,000 new foreclosures in 2009
· Seasonal employment
· Affordable Housing
Local providers have been overwhelmed with applications from individuals requesting
assistance for the first time, i.e., the middle class has become "new face" of
homelessness.
The Homeless Prevention Program assists families on the brink of homelessness find
permanent, stable housing.
Some of the services include financial counseling - budgeting classes, resume writing
and employment search, crisis counseling (full-time therapist), parenting classes, tutoring
for children. Clients are connected to other community resources. Monthly meetings are
scheduled with clients and goals are set.
2
11. ,I 1 B J
~vb~8,2010
.
(Christian Davis arrived at 3.'16 PM.)
Intake screening - eligibility:
. income (50% or less of Area Median Income)
. must present an eviction notice
. review of current lease - fair market rental
Youth Haven provides financial assistance for up to six months. Funding is through an
HPRP Grant ("Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing") which is administered by
Housing, Human & Veteran Services.
Direct services are provided by the Housing Authority, Catholic Family Charities, and the
Salvation Army. Wrap-around services are provided by the Housing Development
Corporation and Legal Aid, in addition to Youth Haven.
Other funding sources:
· NCEF ("Naples Children Education Foundation")
. FEMA - direct assistance
Have served 105 households - 362 individuals, 212 children
Need:
· Creation of jobs (construction and hospitality industry)
· Supportive employment specialist
· Job skill retraining with income vouchers
. Housing vouchers
· Ability to provide longer financial assistance
· Counseling services
B. Update: NSP Obligation and Expenditure - Buddy Ramsey
· 11 homes have been sold
· Acquired/closed: 70 properties
· Program income: approximately $730,000
· Clients are required to provide minimum down payment (3 %)
o Example: Sales price = $100,000; buy-down = $20,000; mortgage
amount = $80,000; down payment = $2,400
o PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) is not required
· $320,000 investment has secured approximately $1.1M in mortgages
· Successfully met obligation deadline - $6M to date
o Paid out approximately $1 +M for contractor/labor services
· NSP-3: Application deadline is March 1,2011
c. Subcommittee Updates
· Banking/Financing Subcommittee - Marcy Krumbine
o November 5th meeting was cancelled -lack of quorum
o In final stage to draft Mortgage Financing report
3
1 6 I tl
81
November 8, 2010
o Outline will include information about the mortgage market and the
mortgage financing industry:
· Changes - evolving market
· Statistics re: income qualified borrower - what is needed to qualify
for financing
· Conclusions
· Proposed policy recommendations
o Final Subcommittee meeting will be held in December
o Draft report will be presented to AHAC
o Final Report will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners
· Housing Incentives Review Subcommittee - Frank Ramsey
o Met as scheduled and outlined topics for future meetings
o Density: "Best Practice" model - City of Los Angeles
o Will also use City of Los Angeles "White Paper:
o Second meeting: to review the California plan in detail
o Third meeting: discuss "buy-right" density
o Fourth meeting: discuss density levels
· Concern: Developers placing AH units off-site or in one location
o Fifth: Miscellaneous topics, i.e., appearance of density units, senior
housing, and wrap-up
o Recommendations: to avoid re-writing the Ordinance - recommendations
made/adopted will be brought to the County Attorney's office for final
language
o Draft report will be presented to AHAC
o Final Report will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners
Public Comments:
(None)
6. Review of New Applicants for AHAC
· Three vacancies
· Categories: for-profit provider of affordable housing, advocate for low-income
persons, and the alternate
· One position is to be filled by a resident from Immokalee
· Two applications were submitted - both qualify as an advocate for low-income
persons
· Difficulty: finding an Immokalee resident to serve on the Committee
Buddy Ramsey suggested approving one of the applicants as the advocate which would
leave the "alternate" position open to be filled by an Immokalee resident. He will advertise
specifically for a candidate for the "for-profit provider" vacancy.
Kenneth Kelly moved to approve the application of Gina Downs as the advocate for low-
income persons and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. Second by Sally Masters. Carried unanimously, 6 - O.
4
16 r 1 B' 1 t~
November 8,2010
7. Committee Member Comments
Kenneth Kelly asked if the Members could be polled concerning their availability to attend
the December meeting. He stated he could attend if necessary to achieve quorum but
preferred to cancel the December meeting. Mr. Cowan stated he would not be available in
December.
Staffwill contact the members to ascertain their preference and email the decision.
Marcy Krumbine noted the first meeting of2011 will be held on January lOth in the BCC
Chambers.
Next meeting: December - to be announced
January 10, 2011 - BCC Chambers - 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at
3:54 PM by order of the Vice Chairman.
Collier County Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee
/'?,
~ ---
Cormac Giblin, Vice Chairman
~ L(I 1
The foregoin~~tes were approved by Board/Committee Chair on . ~ - _ , 201 ,
as presented ~r as amended [_J .
5
RECEIVED
FEB 1 7 2011
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
1)/
/
-rjJ/
V'
161'.181
January 10,2011
....---
,
Roard of County COhlffillllollMl
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, January 10,2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government
Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
Stephen Hruby
Cormac Giblin (Excused)
John Cowan (Absent)
Christian Davis
Gina Downs
Christine Jones
Kenneth Kelly (Excused)
Sally Masters
Bradley Schiffer
Stuart Warshauer (Excused)
(Vacancy - Alternate)
(Vacancy)
ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director - Housing, Human & Veteran Services
Frank ("Buddy") Ramsey, Housing Manager
Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processo~ - .StaffLiau;~n (Ex~used)
Megan Paxum, Grant Support SpeCIalIst . COrres.
Oate:_
Item*:
Copies to:
16p1 Bll t
ranuary 10,2011
1. Call to Order - Chairman:
Chairman Hruby called the meeting to order at 3 :04 PM and read the procedures to be
observed during the meeting.
2. Roll Call of Committee Members:
Roll call was taken and a quorum for the January meeting was established.
3. Approval of Minutes - November 8, 2010:
Chairman Hruby noted a quorum of members present during the November 8'h meeting
was required to approve the Minutes. Since only three members were present, approval of
the Minutes was tabled until the February meeting.
4. Approval of Agenda:
Changes:
· A request was made to reverse the order of Items 5 and 6. There were no objections.
Christian Davis moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Sally Masters.
Carried unanimously, 6 - o.
6. Collier County Master Mobility Plan - Phase II: Buddy Ramsey
Phase I of the Plan, which consisted primarily of data collection, has been completed.
Primary focus of the Plan:
· Reduce vehicle miles traveled,
· Demand management infrastructure coordination, and
· Modify the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan.
Since the Committee is interested in locating affordable housing close to public
transportation, Mr. Ramsey asked the Committee to consider becoming involved by
nominating a member to serve as a "contact" for the organization handling the Master
Mobility Plan during Phase II.
He mentioned a recent survey of New Urban preferences indicated
· Transit access - 50%.
· Sidewalks and walkable communities - 75%
Frank Ramsey volunteered to serve as the contact.
Christine Jones moved to approve nominating Frank Ramsey to serve as the representative
of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee as the central contract to the Collier
County Master Mobility Plan. Second by Christian Davis. Carried unanimously, 6 - o.
5. Information Items:
A. Welcome New Member - Gina Downs: Marcy Krumbine
Ms. Downs was welcomed as the newest member of the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee. The Board of County Commissioners approved her application for
membership.
Chairman Hruby encouraged Gina to participate in all discussions.
2
16.'181 l
January 10, 2011
B. Update: NSP 3 - Buddy Ramsey
A PowerPoint Presentation was given.
· Funding awarded: approximately $3.9M
. Application is to be submitted by March 5th
o Draft of the Action Plan will be posted on the website - January 25th
. Time Line:
o Rough draft - completed by January 13th
o Public comment period
o Final version will be presented to AHAC - February 14th
o Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners - February 22nd
· HUD divided Collier County into 223 areas and the Action Plan must include
funding for those specific areas to be approved
o Golden Gate City offers more opportunity - can use recaptured funds from
NSP-2
· HUD has provided examples of "best practices"
o Example: if there is a high supply of affordable housing in an area but low
interest in buying, demolition and land banking are the best options
Regarding HUD's criteria for the targeted areas, Mr. Ramsey stated HUD has assigned a
"needs" score of 17 or higher. He noted he is also focusing on the number of units
necessary to make an impact.
· With an average cost to obtain property of $139,000, there will be enough funding to
complete. 22 to 25 homes.
· Data was provided for areas having vacant land or homes financed by sub-prime
loans because these areas are at risk for further or future decline
· HUD provided an interactive map for
Concerning rentals, 25% is to be directed to individualslhouseholds earning less than
50% of the Area Median Income ("AMI").
Regarding the possibility of obtaining overlapping grants, he stated HUD is requiring
"green" and the renovated properties (NSP-2) received "Energy Star - 46" appliances.
In 2008, HUD would not permit mixing funding. Currently, the leveraging of other funds
does not seem to be not problematic.
c. Subcommittee Updates: KrumbinelRamsey
· Banking/Financing Subcommittee - Marcy Krumbine
o The December meeting was cancelled due to lack of attendance
o It was rescheduled to the first week in January but was also cancelled
o The final draft of the Mortgage Financing Report is ready for review by
the Subcommittee
o Goal: to present final draft to AHAC in March
o Final Report will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners
o Dates for rescheduled meeting: Wednesday, January 26th at 9:00 AM, or
Tuesday, February 1st at 9:30 AM
· Members were asked to email their preference to the Staff Liaison
3
161-181 f.
January 10, 2011
· Housing Incentives Review Subcommittee - Frank Ramsey
o Dates for rescheduled meetings: Tuesday, January 25th, Wednesday,
January 26th, or Thursday, January 27th, from 3:00 to 5:00 PM
· Members were asked to email their preference to the Staff Liaison
D. Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Buddy Ramsey and Michele Mosca
· An Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") of the County's Growth
Management Plan is due every seven years
· The Housing Element of the EAR contained several objectives and goals which
were reviewed
o The County's performance was evaluated using the most reliable data
sources available
· The information was presented to the Planning Commission and will be presented
to the Board of County Commissioners on January 31 8t
· The AHAC may submit its comments/concerns/suggestions
o There is an 18-month period before the County enacts the new language
approved by the State's Department of Community Affairs ("DCA")
o A proposal will be submitted initially, subject to revision
Housing Element Objectives:
(1) Ensure an adequate supply of safe, decent, sanitary and affordable housing:
· Current objective (15% or not less than 1,000 units per year) be classified
as "affordable housing" - the goal was not met
· Data was reviewed to determine the projected need of County using the
Shimberg Center's for Affordable Housing studies and cost burden
projections for the period from 2010 to 2030
o Average yearly increase of 850 units was suggested - the
Objective was revised to 10% or not less than 850 units
o The Planning Commission suggested a reduction to 500 units
o The Growth Management Division Staffwill work with the DCA
and the Board of County Commissioners to determine the most
appropriate figure
(2) Location of Affordable Housing throughout Collier County:
· Need housing in close proximity to employment centers
· Florida Statutes: avoid a concentration in certain areas - distribute
equitably
· Habitat for Humanity representatives voiced concerns regarding the
proposed policy changes
(3) Review of the Density Bonus Program was changed from every three years to
every two years to conform with Florida Statutes
(9) A new objective required by DCA - to support housing programs that promote
development of energy efficient and environmentally sensitive housing
4
16tlBt I
January 10, 2011
Mr. Ramsey noted the County prepared an analysis of unrestricted affordable housing in
the County. ("Unrestricted" = market-rate housing) Currently, market-rate housing may
be affordable but there are no controls over its cost or appreciation.
Other points:
· The Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index measures the percentage of homes
sold that were affordable to an individuallhousehold earning the AMI:
o In 2005 (4th quarter - housing peak), only 16.3% ofthe homes were
affordable
o In 2009 (2nd quarter), 68.1 % of the units sold were affordable
· According to the U.S. Housing Finance Agency, housing prices in Collier County
have fallen from its peak by 48.3%.
· The majority of households served are headed by single mothers (1, 2 or 3-person
families)
· The income limit for a 4-person household is higher than a 2-person household.
Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning Department:
· All of the units sold were from May 2009 to May 2010 and included every
affordable unit -- the number may be higher for 2010 - 2011
· The Yearly Snap-shot will be updated on an annual basis
· There was a controversy concerning the handling of the foreclosure process by the
major lenders - more foreclosed properties may be available in the near future
· The percentage of homes in Collier County that are seriously delinquent on
mortgage payments may be the next wave of foreclosed housing
· The Housing Element was based on 2009 figures and may be amended.
· Collier County has not produced 500 housing units, in general, during the past
year
· The 2010 Census information (not yet released) may provide a better
understanding of the demand
· The average list price in October was approximately $368,000 but the median
sales price was only $164,000
(Sally Masters left at 3:54 PM. Quorum was lost.)
E. Presentation: NSP-l, Resales Update: Buddy Ramsey and Lisa Carr - Housing
Outreach Coordinator
· 70+ properties were purchased (single, duplex, triplex)
· 13 single family homes have been sold (December, 2010) and 2 more are under
contract to close in February, 5 are "reserved" (almost completed)
· Open House will be scheduled for early February
· Will target teachers in the Estates area
· 15 multi-family properties (31 units) will be conveyed to a non-profit to manage
· 11 properties were land-banked
· Only 2 houses have not met the appraised value
· The highest sale price was $102,000
· Drafting new NSP Brochure for distribution
5
161 ~ B 1
January 10, 2011
F. Sunshine Law and Ethics - Brief Discussion: Buddy Ramsey
"To avoid the merest appearance of impropriety"
· A non-profit invited the entire Board attend an event however the County
Attorney's Office requested that only one representative from the AHAC attend
· Additional Training on Ethics and the Sunshine Law will be arranged if the
Committee requests
Public Comments:
Carl J. Kuehner, Chairman - Florida Non-Profit Services:
· Developer of Esperanza Place Apartments
· He apologized for inviting the entire AHAC Board to its Open House and was unaware
of the Sunshine Law restrictions
· He hoped the members will be able to view the finished project at some point
7. Committee Member Comments:
(None)
Next meeting: February 14, 2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at
4:22 PM by order of the Chairman.
The foregoing Minutes were approved by Board/Committee Chair on
as presented [~ , or as amended U .
,201_,
6
16 1111 81 v{
February 14,2011
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING RECEIVED
MAR 1 5 2011
February 14,2011
Naples, Florida
Roatd of County CanlniuIoners
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
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
Stephen Hruby.. ~
Cormac Giblin
John Cowan - ~
Christian Davis
Gina Downs
Christine Jones
Kenneth Kelly
Sally Masters (Excused)
Bradley Schiffer
Stuart Warshauer
y~
v
-rtJ
v
v'
Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
(Vacancy - Alternate)
(Vacancy)
ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director - Housing, Human & Veteran Services
Frank ("Buddy") Ramsey, Housing Manager
Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor - Staff Liaison
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item#:
c:-.....,;~s '~o:
16' I B 1
February 14,2011
1. Call to Order - Chairman:
Chairman Hruby called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM and read the procedures to be
followed during the meeting.
2. Roll Call of Committee Members:
Roll call was taken and a quorum for the January meeting was established.
3. Approval of Minutes:
A. November 8,2010
Kenneth Kelly moved to approve the Minutes of the November 8,2010 meeting as
submitted. Second by John Cowan. Carried unanimously, 5 - O.
(Cormac Giblin, John Cowan, Christian Davis, Kenneth Kelly, and Stuart Warshauer
were eligible to vote to approve the Minutes.)
B. January 10, 2011
Christian Davis moved to approve the Minutes of the January 10, 2011 meeting as
submitted. Second by Christine Jones. Carried unanimously, 5 - O.
(Cormac Giblin, John Cowan, Kenneth Kelly, and Stuart Warshauer abstainedfrom
voting since they did not attend the January meeting.)
4. Approval of Agenda:
Chanf!es:
· Kenneth Kelly requested to provide a Subcommittee Report. There were no
objections and the Agenda was amended as follows:
o Item 5(b) - Subcommittee Report
o Item 5( c) - Request for Proposals
Kenneth Kelly moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Vice Chairman
Giblin. Carried unanimously, 9 - O.
5. Information Items:
A. Financing Options - FHA 203(k): Buddy Ramsey, Lisa Carr, and
Miguel Villarreal, Area Sales Manager - 5th /3rd Bank
· Loan Program - Lender allowed to finance repairs up to 110% of appraised value
· Buyer will pay closing costs and provide down-payment which will be 3.5% of
the total amount financed (including renovations)
· Mortgage terms are the same as a standard FHA Loan - 30 years
· Renovations costs are added to the principal amount of the mortgage
· Two different types of203(k) loans:
o FuIl203(k) - Construction loan - not offered locally
o "Streamlined" - for home renovations
· Streamlined 203(k) - renovations costs are capped at $35,000
o $31,000 - allocated for repairs
o $ 4,000 - held back for additional inspections, unforeseen repairs, etc.,
and additional closing costs
2
16 I. 1 B 1
February 14,2011
. Strict requirements must be met before buyers will qualify
. Properties must be "livable" at purchase, i.e., working NC)
. Negative: Loans will take longer to close than standard FHA
o Minimum - 60 days
. In 2009, 10 FHA 203(k) were originated in Collier County and 12 in 2010
. Repairs must be completed by licensed Contractors - no Buyer "sweat equity"
o References are required
. Detailed estimates of the work to be performed are required to be submitted
o Proposed repairs must add value to the property (i.e., kitchen countertops,
new floors, weather-resistant windows, etc.)
o Funds are held in escrow
. Buyer will act as the General Contractor
o Repairs are completed post-closing
. May be combined with SHIP Loans
. Maximum amount of FHA loans in Collier County: $531,000
. Can refinance an existing property and rehab using the product
. Public is not as familiar with this loan option as other FHA products
o Wells Fargo and Bank of American also offer the program
B. Banking/Financing Subcommittee Report - Kenneth Kelly
(Afull report will be presented at the March meeting.)
Overview:
. Board of County Commissioners requested an update on the state of Affordable
Housing/existing programs from AHAC and recommendations for future
· Representatives from the banking and mortgage financing communities presented
Issues
. In 2010 - 66% of properties purchased were cash transactions
· Most of the foreclosed properties purchased necessitated some type of repair and
could not qualify for a standard mortgage due to the damage
· In 2009, Florida led the nation in delinquent foreclosures while Florida posted the
fastest decline of delinquent properties in 2010
· Deregulation in lending practices helped create record-high selling prices of
homes in 2004 - 2005 demand markets
· Over-reaction backlash makes qualifying for loans difficult for low income
individuals and self-employed buyers were hardest hit by restrictive regulations
. CRA ("Community Redevelopment Agency") loan programs will be eliminated
despite the fact that CRAs have performed better than sub-prime loans
· FHA guidelines are the standard but are revised frequently - in one month, there
were 25 "releases" (changes) to the guidelines
· For income-qualified buyers, FHA requires increased down payment amounts (up
to 10% from 3.5%)
· Income-to-debt ratios are strictly enforced - 31 % for housing/43% for debt
. Down payment funds can no longer be "gifted" and buyer must earn
· New credit laws have been passed and continue to change - Student loans and
medical expenses are now counted as "debt"
3
16 J ~ B, 1
February 14,2011
Continuum of Housing:
. Many of the programs are detrimental and do not help individuals who are trying
to obtain home ownership
. Focus funding on rehabilitation - it is less expensive to maintain existing stock of
affordable housing than to build new
. Rental options - best candidates are those earning 60% or less of AMI ("Area
Median Income") but rates are climbing - assistance may be necessary
. Homeless and transitional housing - serves the growing need and provides relief
to people in crisis - does not promote permanency of situation
. Financial literacy education - absolutely necessary and subject should be taught in
public schools (how to budget, complete applications, maintain a checkbook, etc.)
. Will ask for directive from BCC - do they still believe home ownership is
ultimate goal for residents of Collier County
Mr. Kelly noted the final version of the report would be presented to the BCC in April.
C. Request for Proposals - Buddy Ramsey
. Submission deadline - 02/23 at 4:00 PM (also available on website)
. Funding sources:
o SHIP - new construction or rehab projects
o CDBG-R - energy efficient projects
o CDBG - single family rehab projects
o NSP - any approved NSP-eligible activities outlined in the Action Plan
. Application categories:
o Affordable Rental Property Management
o AcquisitionlRehabilitation of Affordable Multi-Family Properties
o Energy Efficiency Improvements for Affordable Housing
o Development/Operation of Affordable Senior Housing
o Development/Operation of Affordable Veteran Housing
o Health/Safety Improvements to Residential Homes in Immokalee
. Technical assistance will be provided by Staff to complete application
. Total amount: approximately $3M
. Staff will match RFPs with funding sources
· Since exact dollar amount is not identified, the instructions requested each
application to be "scaled" (example: If"x" is available, items (a), (b), and (c)
can be accomplished or if"x" is lower than submitted estimate, only (a) and (c)
will be completed. If "x" is higher, item (d) may be added.)
. Staffliaison: Megan Paxom and Wendy Klopf
It was suggested to schedule a Proposal Meeting to answer questions from applicants.
Public Comments:
(None)
4
161~ B 1
February 14,2011
6. Review of Applicant - Chairman
. Patricia C. Fortune submitted an application to fill one of the two vacancies
. Vacant positions: "For Profit Provider of Affordable Housing" and "Alternate"
. One of the vacancies must be filled by an Immokalee resident
It was suggested that, due to the applicant's experience in the building industry and land
development, she would qualify as the "For Profit Provider."
It was noted that the Immokalee member will be reimbursed for transportation expenses.
Kenneth Kelly moved to approve the application of Patricia C. Fortune for appointment
to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to fill the vacancy as the "For Profit
Provider of Affordable Housing" and to forward the recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners for review and approval. Second by Vice Chairman Giblin.
Carried unanimously, 9 - O.
7. Review of NSP-3 Application - Buddy Ramsey
. Allocation: approximately $3.8M
. The County is required to submit a "Substantial Amendment" to the 2010-2011
Action Plan
. Public comment period has closed
. HUD provided a "Foreclosure Needs Score" - County must have score of 17 or
higher to be eligible to participate in program
o HUD divided Collier County into 223 target areas and approximately 209
areas were eligible
o Must meet "Impact Score" for each area (# of units needed to make a visible
difference in the neighborhood)
o 25% must be set aside for rental units targeted for low income families earning
50% or less of AMI ("Area Median Income")
o Three target areas were selected and tiered: Golden Gate City - #1; Naples
Park - #2, East Naples/Bayshore Gateway CRA - #3
o Can provide housing to those qualifying at 120% of AMI
. Primary focus: continue acquisition and rehabilitation of properties began in NSP-2
· NSP-l allowed funds to be utilized for public facilities but NSP-3 does not - funds
must be used for housing
Mr. Ramsey pointed out in Golden Gate City, funds have allowed 2 or 3 homes on a street to
be acquired and rehabbed.
A question was asked concerning the demolition of abandoned properties for "land banking."
Buddy Ramsey stated no more than 10% of the budget can be spent on demolition in NSP-3.
Only two properties were demolished during NSP-2 although 73 were acquired and rehabbed.
Demolition is not a large component ofNSP-3, but the Program is unique because it allows
land to be "banked" for future development. HUD approves such action when there is low
demand in an area with a high supply of unsellable, distressed properties.
It was suggested tearing down eyesore properties would eliminate blight more quickly.
5
161~1
81
February 14,2011
8. Committee Member Comments:
Q. What projects have utilized SHIP funds in the recent past and will it be affected by
the Governor's proposed Budget?
A. The proposed Budget will eliminate the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (with a
balance of approximately $178M). The Trust Fund allocated money to SHIP. Only
$35M will be distributed statewide and the balance will be transferred to the "General
Revenue" Fund.
Collier County began receiving SHIP funds in 1996 and money had been used for
down-payment assistance, home buyer education, residential rehabilitation, disaster
relief, special needs housing, rental acquisition and rehab. . 1 /
Collier County had received approximately $2.8M per year but has not receiviftg ~
funding for the past two years.
Next meeting: March 14,2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at
4:12 PM by order of the Chairman.
Collier County Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee
~~(;,(~
Stephen Hruby, Chairman
The foregoing Minutes were approved by Board/Committee Chair on J a trv/1 / t/ If , 2011,
as presented [~ OR as amended U.
6
RECEIVED
MAR 1 6 2011
JlI.' -...,:\ Board of County ~unty Airport Authority
'(? ~ Advisory Board Meeting
Immokalee Regional Airport
t · ~ 165 Airpark Boulevard, Florida 34142
January 10, 2011
Fiala ~ ~
Hiller //
~~~I:ing ~ ~ ~ =
Coletta -
v
161 1
S2
Meeting Minutes
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Call to Order. Chairman Lloyd Byerhof called the meeting to order at 1:05 PM.
Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum.
Advisory Board Members Present: Lloyd Byerhof, Michael Klein, James Murray, Byron
Meade, Richard Rice, and Floyd Crews.
Advisory Board Members Absent/Excused: David Gardner, Frank Secrest.
Staff: Chris Curry, Debbie Brueggeman, Bob Tweedie, Thomas Vergo, Jimmy Mullins.
Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached.
Action: A quorum was announced as being present.
3. Introduction of Guests. All present introduced themselves to the Advisory Board.
4. Adoption of the Agenda.
The following was added to the Agenda as item lOA: Presentation by Mr. Greg Shepard
Action:
Mr. Crews made a motion that Public Comment be added at the beginning of
the Agenda, that each speaker be limited to three (3) minutes, and that guests
also be permitted to speak during specific Agenda items. The Advisory Board
unanimously agreed.
Action:
Mr. Murray then made a motion to apprave the agenda, as amended. Mr.
Crews seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
5. Approval of Minutes.
Mr. Byerhof recommended a revision to item 7. Approval of Minutes of the December 13,
2010 minutes for better clarification.
Action:
Mr. Rice then made a motion to approve the minutes for the December 13,
2010 meeting, as amended. Mr. Klein seconded the motion, and it passed by
unanimous vote.
6. Featured Employee.
Jimmy Mullins, the January Featured Employee, provided a brief overview of his
background, education, training, his current responsibilities and recently completed
projects at the Immokalee Airport.
lof4
;)--
Item t:
Copies to:
161182
7. Acknowledgement of Airport Information.
Items under this section of the agenda are for informational purposes. No Advisory Board
action is requested.
· Proposed 2011 Rate Schedule for Collier County Airports.
This item is on the BCC January 11, 2011 Agenda, Item No. 14B. Mr. Curry indicated
that, if a price increase is proposed, the increase will be minimal, and that fuel prices
at Immokalee and Everglades will actually decrease.
Discussion regarding the proposed rates ensued, and the Advisory Board inquired as
to why the mark-up on Jet A fuel is higher than the mark up on AvGas. Mr. Curry
indicated that he would look into this.
The Advisory Board then discussed the proposed hangar rates and the annual three
percent (3%) rate increase implemented on January 1, 2011 in accordance with the
currently approved Rates and Charges Schedule.
Action:
Mr. Meade made a motion to freeze all rates at the 2010 rate for six (6)
months in order to review and evaluate. Mr. Klein seconded the motion, and
the motion passed by a 4-1 vote. Mr. Meade abstained because of a conflict of
interest. (Copy of Conflict of Interest Form 88 attached.)
. DeAngelis Diamond Change Order for USDA Building.
This item has been moved from the January 11, 2011 BCC Agenda to the January 25,
2011 Agenda in order for Purchasing to perform a more in-depth analysis of the cost
increases.
. FAA Complaints.
Mr. Curry summarized the "informal" complaints made to the FAA by Mr. Steve
Fletcher and Mr. Don Ingraham and his response to each. He indicated that his
response to the FAA was due by January 7, 2011. He responded in December, and he
has not had any additional communication from the FAA regarding these complaints
to date.
· Public Records Request.
Mr. Courtright has requested and been provided with a copy of the most recent
license agreement between the Collier County Airport Authority and the Immokalee
Regional Raceway.
8. Director's Report.
Advisory Board action is requested on items under this section of the Agenda.
2 of 4
161'1 82 "
· Recommendation that the Bee approve the attached rate schedule for the
Everglades, Immokalee and Marco Island Executive Airport for 2011.
Action:
Under Item number 7. above, the Advisory Board recommended freezing
hangar rates at the 2010 rate by a vote of 4-1, with one abstention.
9. Finance Report - Month ended November 3D, 2010.
Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to accept the Finance Report for the period ended
November 30, 2010 as presented. Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and it
passed by unanimous vote.
The Airport Authority's proposed FY2012 budget was provided to the Advisory Board for
their review and comment.
10. Old Business.
· T-Hangar Policy/License Agreement
As requested at the December 13, 2010 meeting, the Advisory Board was provided a
copy of the Airport Authority's current T-hangar License Agreement as well as a copy
of the proposed revised Agreement. Mr. Meade recommended adding that the
premises could be used for equipment for aviation related activities in addition to
storage of the airplane to Item NO.5. "Use of Premises" of the proposed revised T-
Hangar License Agreement. Chairman Byerhof requested that any additional
comments regarding the proposed revised T-Hangar Policy be provided to Chris
quickly.
· Change Order NO.1 to DeAngelis Diamond contract No. 09-5234
A copy of the back-up information supplied by DeAngelis Diamond in support of this
change order request was given to Advisory Board members.
lOA Presentation by Greg Shepard
Mr. Shepard addressed the Advisory Board regarding his lease agreement with the
Airport Authority. Mr. Shepard expressed a desire to continue leasing the same areas he
currently leases. Mr. Curry indicated that negotiations with Mr. Shepard will not include
the corner piece of property at the front of the airport.
11. Public Comments.
Mr. Marvin Courtright spoke to the Advisory Board regarding his proposal for a museum
and the use agreement between the Airport Authority and Parks and Recreation.
12. Next Meeting.
The next Advisory Board meeting will be held on Monday, February 14, at the Marco
Island Executive Airport.
3 of 4
161182
13. Adiournment.
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~a,~
Lloyd A. Byerhof, Chairman
4of4
1611
B2
Airport Advisory Board
.January! to. 2011
Public Sign-In Sheet
Name
E-mail! Affiliation
Phone #
fr~L~ tJ / Iv) (~,~ /? 7q;;' /1/
/:1 - 151-7 ,'V;"
#1/2 l/fr7-1lrJ e.//(" cr:::!tJ3
I '
&( ~ 1/' (
J:' 2/-- 2. 7' Y' '7
j I .
lev, i ()-/ l L-- 7 {c i ! -' c (... > L-
rltl) t" ~<-
-" r,~
I) I CSt ,1 t- '.
1
J,.. - 1/ - fl.' < ' ',':,,.-, {"'J }')<:,</,,(' '// ,,-fc' <,,~
'~', , "!<-.(' .. " ~ ,... ...... , ~
--T, vI- \
1'5 I ( vie
;-Jd c4 I::>. I
. c" r (\. d ~J
I )/11 t I( (
, , \
,,-. \ C( \ <-,,}, (' f-K\' -( ('l
.J
\:\\ \ \ (:,c\ (~ c\-\-
) \ C ''0 C r "I c\( ~\ C '(-
L.(, \ 'C\ \=:C.' x
-)
-'--.-.......
'1~ c'-. \ \Y'r'\ \-. \ (....) \ ( '(
\
i
'(' \ c < ~c,... \.\. \...~) (\ '(/
,'0'1 I'" ) l
') . J l '-- ' r -\ ("" ,
\- J i
\ 1 II , \~:~
L \ I <.. \ L \ (I \')~ \ c:.? c(=)
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL. AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE
Meade, Byron Collier County Airport Authority Advisory Board
MAiliNG ADDRESS THE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
1303 Cobia Court WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF
CITY COUNTY DClTY [2] COUNTY [JOTHERLOCALAGENCY
Naples Collier NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
CO!; ler County
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS
January 11. 2011 o ELECTIVE !71 APPOINTIVE
161182
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form IS for use by any person serving at the county. city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board. council.
commission. authority. or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 1123143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure In which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county. municipal. or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she IS retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special pnvate gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163356 or
163.357. FS.. and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre. one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity
For purposes of this law, a "relative" Includes only the officer's father. mother. son. daughter, husband, wife. brother, sister, father-in-law.
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property. or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange)
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting. who should Incorporate the form in the minutes
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However. you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision. whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes (Continued on other side)
16 I 1 8'2
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating
You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
I, Byron Meade
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
January 1 ()
, hereby disclose that on
, 20 22-.
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
o inured to my special pnvate gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
Inured to the special gain or loss of New York Life
, by
whom I am retained; or
Inured to the special gain or loss of
, which
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows
(a) Agenda Item 7. Proposed 2011 Rate Schedule for Collier County Airport Authority
(b) The company I represent provides insurance for an airport tenanUcompany impacted by
these rates.
/)
/1
Date Filed
Si~ature
I /
NOTICE UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES S112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000
CE FORM 88 - EFF 1/2000
PAGE 2
RECEIVED
~' -..,.:\ MAR 1 6 2Gthllier County Airport Authority
t (? ardofCountyCommIlsloners Advisory Board Meeting
Marco Island Executive Airport
..
2005 Mainsail Drive, Naples, Florida 34114
February 14, 2011
16111 B'
Fiala
Hiller
~Xng= ~
Colette
v
-=
Meeting Minutes
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Call to Order. Chairman Lloyd Byerhof called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM.
Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum.
Advisorv Board Members Present: Lloyd Byerhof, Michael Klein, James Murray, Byron
Meade, Richard Rice, David Gardner and Floyd Crews.
Advisorv Board Members Absent/Excused: Frank Secrest.
Staff: Chris Curry, Debbie Brueggeman, Bob Tweedie, Thomas Vergo.
Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached.
Action: A quorum was announced as being present.
3. Introduction of Guests. All present introduced themselves to the Advisory Board.
4. Adoption of the Agenda.
The following was added to the Agenda as item 11.A.: Finance Report for Quarter Ended
December 31, 2010.
Action:
Mr. Murray made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended. Mr. Crews
seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
5. Approval of Minutes.
Action:
Mr. Rice made a motion to approve the minutes for the January 10, 2011
meeting. Mr. Meade seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
Action:
Mr. Rice then made a motion that the Executive Director write a letter to the
Commissioners indicating that the Advisory Board had voted 4-1 in favor of
freezing all hangar rates not just t-hangar rates as Mr. Curry stated at the
January 11 BCC meeting, and that a copy of the letter be sent to Advisory
Board members via e-mail. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed
by a 6-1 vote.
It was noted that the BCC has indicated that if the Advisory Board position differs from
the Executive Director's, the Advisory Board should appear to represent their position.
6. Featured Emplovee.
Thomas Vergo, the Airport Manager of the Immokalee Regional Airport, was presented a
"thank you" token, as provided by the County Human Resources Department, for
outstanding performance.
7.
Public Comments.
None.
Misc. Corres:
lof4
Date:
Item':
CopieS to:
161.182
8. County Attorney Presentation.
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney, provided an overview on ethics and how they
apply to Advisory Board members. The same ethics laws that apply to the Board of
County Commissioners apply to Advisory Board members. Collier County has more
stringent ethic laws than the state of Florida.
The following items were highlighted:
· Voting Conflicts: When there is a voting conflict, the Advisory Board member:
1. may not participate in the discussion without first disclosing the conflict,
2. may not participate in an attempt to influence the outcome, and
3. must announce the conflict and abstain from voting.
· Alternate Members: Alternate members can participate in discussions, but can only
vote in the absence of another member.
. Sunshine Laws:
1. Advisory Board members should NOT communicate with each other in any form
outside of a publicly noticed meeting.
2. Members may send one-way, informational e-mail not seeking a response. The
County Attorney's office recommended and requested that Advisory Board
members seeking to share information with other members in advance of a
meeting send that information to Chris Curry and have the staff liaison send a
one-way communication.
3. Staff was reminded that the following disclaimer should appear at the bottom of
the e-mail: "This is intended to be a one-way communication only. Please do
not respond to this email."
· A violation of ethic laws may result in a civil fine and/or removal from office.
9. Turbo Services Presentation.
Turbo Services, an industrial gas turbine company interested in locating at the Immokalee
Regional Airport provided an overview of their company, a mock-up of their proposed
facility at the Immokalee Airport and the potential benefits they will bring to the
surrounding community.
Action:
Mr. Meade made a motion that the Advisory Board enthusiastically support
and promote this program and that Chris Curry take it, as quickly as possible,
to the BCe. Mr. Crews seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
10. Acknowledgement of Airport Information.
Items under this section of the agenda are for informational purposes. No Advisory Board
action is requested.
· URS selected to perform CEI services for MKY taxiway construction.
Six companies responded to the RFP. URS was selected as number one. The
preconstruction meeting is scheduled for February 15, 2011.
20f4
161 hI! '82
· Recent events at Marco Island Executive Airport.
Bob Tweedie provided details about two events at the Marco Airport at the end of
January, beginning of February: History Flight WWII aircraft and the Collings
Foundation Wings of Freedom Tour WWII aircraft.
Vegetation management program, per FAA airspace compliance, is currently
underway at Marco.
· Immokalee Regional Raceway.
Mr. Gardner read aloud a letter he proposed sending to the FAA regarding the
racetrack. The County Attorney stated that the letter should be sent from Mr.
Gardner as an individual, not from the Airport Authority.
The FAA never approved the non-aeronautical use of raceway at the airport. Mr.
Curry has requested that the FAA approve this non-aeronautical use of the property
and consider a lease rate less than fair market value.
11. Director's Report.
Advisory Board action is requested on items under this section of the Agenda.
· Recommendation that the BCC approve Concession Agreement for aircraft cleaning
and detailing at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
Action: Mr. Klein made a motion to recommend that the Bee approve the agreement
for aircraft cleaning and detailing at the Marco Island Airport. Mr. Rice
seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
· Recommendation that the BCC approve three (3) Advertising License Agreements for
MJA Publicity Corporation for brochure slots at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
Action:
Mr. Rice made a motion to recommend that the Bee approve these three
advertising agreements. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed by
unanimous vote.
· Recommendation that the BCC approve Concession Agreement with Enterprise Rental
Car.
Action:
Mr. Murray made a motion to recommend that the Bee approve the
agreement with Enterprise Rental Car. Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and it
passed by unanimous vote.
· Recommendation that the BCC approve a lease agreement between the Airport
Authority and the CRA to house a Business Development Center.
No Action was taken on this item.
Mr. Courtright stated that he has expressed interest in leasing the same facility that the
CRA is proposing to lease, and requested that the facility be put up for bid.
3of4
16111 &12
1l.A. Finance Report - Quarter ended December 31, 2010.
Mr. Byerhof noted that December fuel sales for 2011 were higher than for December
2010, but were below budget. He also pointed out that because the budget likely
anticipated a three percent (3%) increase in hangar rent, if other things do not change,
the Airport Authority could fall further behind for this fiscal year. No action required.
12. Old Business.
· Conflict of Interest Statement from January 10, 2011 meeting.
Action: As required by Section 112.3143 of Florida Statues, the Conflict af Interest
standard form signed by Mr. Byron Meade at January 10, 2011 meeting was
read.
· T-Hangar Policy/License Agreement.
Action: Mr. Murray made a motion to recommend that the BCC adopt the proposed
standard t-hangar lease agreement. Mr. Meade seconded the motion, and it
passed by unanimous vote.
13. Public Comments.
Mr. Fletcher suggested not only one person, but the Advisory Board also research hangar
rates. Mr. Murray is currently doing so.
Mr. Larry Fox expressed concern about the recent press regarding the Immokalee
Regional Airport.
14. Next Meeting.
The next Advisory Board meeting will be held on Monday, March 14, at the Immokalee
Regional Airport.
13. Adiournment.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
4of4
161 ij, 82
Airport Advisory Board
February 14,2011
Public Sign-In Sheet
~ . E-mail / Affiliation Phone #
.' ~f~ T l!u;I-~,~/ J;;;.,n(/i((:(!ijlOl(,YJ
C- ----=-=1 -- c..--
~'Y'" - ~jt.~-r( / c.tlI! @ I cJ/ZtS')YR Ji CQ1J, I~r
I
d39- y'(;(). l/f/dJ
/\/\ -' C\)
u_ t. r l ~ c\.\ c~)_ \:' 'l.:;:.r'C. e ,r-"
_(BrC'vl ~ AdJ r SCY\
C/;i(5 A c/r((j
-- 1)0 ~1\ J,
__ ,-) C' K'l \ \ i,A: \) \~ LW
f/J-Y-6cij.,(; 77(,
Cr-:;.,-( - '$Cb - (L~i ''5
c~;~~.;;:;;~;;:;;,;o~ ~;;:;~;
11 ~ 1'rj VI ,\ ~1,dJ 0 I,. '" J "t6lL-=-d~~' \('11)(:
--k k) r;:.-,. . '------"' J 4.5L~ ,'. '''''0
t~:~~~:c~Q:CC)'~ A3't'~;~~~7'~
-~~} 2y\Qple:sf!o,/-lo.,urY/\ .~3cr-C)&3- Y7~/7
, j
'1j;71c /); ;J ~ ~ rfJ 1':1.. 15' H;
{)---/-h e,5 f~c:5c' J~
/1 i(' H H; P 'i .& / 0 (/ ;--t /- ,S- J/ c..' $
/
2..1 '1-F-;z i -29 '7 '7
k f i sf I f'C.- 1-1. u I P 6....
I
:5ieve:... F! eTCher-
Vh 0- t')<' /"Y1 / /00 r
C'e'/ lee: 1/) G~L( (--/lG...
----------------....---..
-----"-------~
. ---..--+-+----------------------..--..--------.
r"'-"'..
1<;' ,I
Fiala ~ ~
Hiller ~v
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
161 1
83
,. RECEIVED
MAR 0 4 2011
80Am of County CoIMIiIIbIare
January 18,2011
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DOMESTI ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, January 18,2011
LET IT BE MEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal
Services Advi ory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having
ess herein, met on this date at 6:30 P.M. in REGULAR
SESSION at mestic Animal Services Resource Training Room, Davis
Blvd, East N les, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia
~CECHMRMAN: Mmciallicith~~
Sergeant David Estes
Dr. Ruth Eisele (excused)
Tom Kepp, Jr.
Dan Martin
Jim Rich
ALSO PRES
: Amanda Townsend, Director, DAS
Kathlene Drew, Volunteer Coordinator,DAS
Ekna Guevara, Admlnistrative Assistant
Mi....,o.r..
~
I~~
c9\!""~S to:
{
161 1
83
January 18, 20 II
I. er
Michele Antonia called the meeting to order at 6:33 P.M.
Sgt. D Estes lIW1'ed to approve the age1Ula. Second by DtuI Martin.
Carried II a.nimously 6-0.
II. Attendan - Establish a Quomm
Attendan was taken and a quorum established.
ID.
IV. Approval fMinutes: December 7, 2010
Chtulge spel/hlg o/1Il1111e: EIma GlIl)'tII'a (1UJt GII!JWa) - Page 1
DtuI ~ II moved to opprove the mbul.tes 0/ December 7, 20100, as
amendd. Seco1ld by MtII'cIa Brelt/uuqJt. Carried IllUllllllWusly, 6-0.
v. Old Busin s:
A. Direct r's Report (handouts)
Aman a Townsend reported on the following news from DAS:
. D e to Nan Gerhardt's absence, she has been both Director and "acting
sh Iter operations manager" for a week or so.
. s time of the year evidenced an increase in pet related 'events and
ou each activities. Kathlene Drew assisted in these events.
. T 0 low-cost vaccination clinics were held:
1. Dec. 18, resulted in 97 pet vaccinations and 34 microdrips in a 3 hour
time span.
Jan. 15 resulted in 37 pet vaccinations and 6 microchips.
. R oubling of efforts in advertising planned for Feb. & March clinics
. Im roved reporting methods utilizing the opportunity to obtain a survey of
ci zen's opinion on service options and other animal related issues to
d ermine what is most important to the public
. P . cipation in the MLK Day Parade. Parades provided a great marketing
op ortunity to showcase animals and required minimal staffing.
. Lo king for a donated parade float for future use in parade participation.
. D . age project was completed though some correctionS to outfall still
n ed.
. R: clinics - Amanda met with the District Manager of Paws Plus,
r tly bought out by NIG who owns Petco, was prepar~ to offer DAS a
12 month contract for weekly vaccination clinics with 1 ()91o going to DAS.
C tract had not yet been received. If approved., the DASAB would
ev ntually receive the particulars to vote on their recommendations to the
B C. Question of whether public solicitation for competitive bidding or
j acceptance as a solicited donation would have to be determined before
m ving forward. Also, budget cuts might be a concern. She will keep the
B ard updated.
2
,
161 1
January 18,2011
. A ew PetSupermarket opened at Collier & Davis and have asked ifDAS
w uId place adoptable cats there. An interested vohmteer offered to
h die the task. They will also do a weekly Donation Drive to benefit
D S; just waiting for go ahead from DAS. AccOlmting issues still need to
be checked out.
. Emergency Management meeting with representativeS from the State
w attended by Amanda and Kathlene Drew. They reported on the vast
mmt of resources in place for emergency situations. They will also
art d the SART conference in February enabling them tb network with
th se contacts who will provide assistance and equipment necessary to
D S in disaster and emergency events. .
. thIene Drew noted it was good to know agencies have equipment
to go" in emergencies and would be there to help out.
B. FY 20 1 Fint Quarter Departmental Statistics
Aman a Townsend reviewed the statistical information with the Board
Memb rs, viewing the charts and graphs projected on the overhead screen
for the benefit of all, including members of the public that were present.
Corom ts and questions arose on several of the statistics shown. The Board
req staff to re-check some of the figures and table discUssion until
next m nth's meeting.
Jim R moved to tIlbIe tile review of the First Quarter SIIitistIcs Rqort
e next DASAB lfI<<Iing. Second by Tom Kepp.
"lUIIIimously, 6-0.
ded Usage of Donation Tnut Fund (handout)
Am a Townsend provided copies of the Resolution No. 2006-26, which
declar "A PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR TIlE SOLICITATION, RECEIPT,
AND ENDITURE OF DONATIONS TO COLLIER COUNTY
DO STIC ANIMAL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING CREATION OF
A TR ST ACCOUNT.
Disc sion followed on the interpretation of some of the verbiage in the
Resol 'on and on some of the preferred uses of the Donatiort Trust Fund
(DTF) monies.
The nsensus of the Board Members was to prioritize ideas on ways to spend
fund onies in ways that would be financially sustainable with accountability
to the onors. Input from the community via a donor survey was encouraged.
This i will be put on the next meeting's Agenda for further discussion
VI. New Busi ess
A. DAS esponse to complaints regarding Feral Cat colonies (handout)
Chai Michele Antonia provided copies of an e-mail received from
Dana ger, Animal Control Supervisor regarding the protocol for the
maint ance of feral cat colonies by citizens electing to do so.
Interpr . on of the e-mail caused concern and needed clarifICation.
3
83
16' 1
83
January 18, 2011
Aman a Townsend will address the proper protocol at the upcoming All
Office staff meeting and conduct re-training, if necessary.
B. Demo stration of Chameleon/Go ogle Earth interface
Ad istrative Assistant, Ekna Guevara provided a Power Point
proj . on of Chameleon data maps superimposed over Google Earth that will
allow . sua! pinpointing of neighborhoods where activity calls originate, types
of call , numbers and kinds of animals. It will provide a history and an
indic . on of where education may be needed. The process, will soon be fully
integr
VIT. PublitC meat Topic
A. TBA open discussion)
This onth's chosen topic: Money to Spmce up Entrance; and Lobby for
Tum ane
Step n Wright asked if monies could be budgeted to:
. remove obstructions to the sign
. spruce up the sign itself and the entrance to DAS
. create easier access to DAS with a turn lane off Davis Blvd.
sion followed with several suggestions to improve the mtrance.
Am da Townsend stated the DAS logo had been incorporated into the sign
face' the next budget. She will follow up on sign change ahd bush trimming
to all viate sight obstruction. Since portions of Davis Blvd. ~e a State road, a
turn 1 e may be out of County Transportation's jurisdiction' and/or there may
not enough traffic to warrant it She will check that also.
VllI. Adviso Board Member Comments:
Vice Ch noan Marcia Breithaupt inquired if Donation TrustFunds could be
expended for the donor survey.
Amanda tated they could. It will be handled when the prioritized ideas are put in
survey /0 m and sent out.
Sergeant Estes cited the first step would be to get the Resolution wording
clarified d changed; then to use the funds accordingly, for things such as
hurricane preparation.
Tom Ke P complimented the Animal Control Officer for doing a great job handling
a neighb rhood stray dog situation. He also conunented on an interview with Amanda
Townsen in a local newspaper. In his opinion, there was a missed opportunity to cite
irrespons ble pet owners as the reason for most euthanasia statistics, along with the
other r ons given in the interview.
Jim Ri asked if perspective adoptees are shown around, given personal attention and
infonned of services available to them. He had the opportunity, at another location, to assist
4
"
16111 83
January 18, 2011
with 9 ad ptions by offering personal service. He suggested volunteers could be utilized.
Amanda esponded the ideal would be to see staff or volunteer to promote and accompany
people to the adoption room and provide more personal service to make a good match; the
way they 0 with return to owner customers. The need was to find those volunteers who want
to intera with the people as well as the animals.
Jim Rich ffered to provide training for any interested volunteers.
Michele Antonia commended DAS on honestly apprising the public that
e of animals being turned in to DAS could result in their being euthanized.
people may choose other options for adoption of their animals.
ownsend related a story of a skittish dog that also had heartworm; but,
anted it regardless. They signed all waivers, loved the dog and gave it
all need treatments. She cited this as an example of the constant decisions by
DAS of" hat is the best thing you can do for this pet, today".
Tom Ke p noted the story also was an example that not always was medical and
behavior roblems cause for euthanization.
eeting of the DAS Advisory Board is February 15,2011 at 6:30 P.M.
g no further business for the good oftbe County, 'die meeting was
by the order of tile Chair at 8:00 P.M.
Collier County Domestic Animal Services
~tL,~
C onnan M1thOleAnt .nIa
These minutes
presented
roved by the Board/Committee on
or as amended
~ J..r/j /1 as
/ '
5
RECEI ED
MAR 1 6 2011
Fiala . - D V;"
Hiller. .. :1:Jt~
Henning ....
Coyle An.. V
Coletta ... .
161J 8'3
~ February 15, 2011
BoMI of eounty
MINUTE OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY
DOMESTIC !MAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, February 15,2011
MBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal
Services Adviso Committee in and for the County of Colli~r, having
conducted busin ss herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR
SESSION at Do estic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East
.th the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia
Marcia Breithaupt
Dr. Ruth Eisele
Sergeant David Estes
Tom Kepp, Jr.
Dan Martin
Jim Rich
ALSO PRESE : Amanda Townsend, Director, DAS
Nan Gerhardt - Shelter Operations Manager
Kathy Drew, Volunteer Coordinator
Misc. Corres:
1
Date:
Item#:
C~;Jies to:
l6n
83
February 15, 2011
L Call to Order
Chairman Michele Antonia called the meeting to order at 6:32 P. M.
II. Attendance - Establish a Quorom
Roll call was taken and a quorum established.
ill. Approval of Agenda
Sgt. David Estes moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Jim Rich. Carried
unanimously, 7-0.
Dan Martin requested adding a discussion of the DAS Web site to the Agenda
under "New Business."
Sgt. David Estes amendeil his motion and moved to approve the Agenda, with
the tu/tHtion of DAS Webme discussion u1Uler "New Business. " Second by Jim
Rich. Carried unanimously, 7-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: January 18, 2011
Marcia Breithaupt moved to approve the Minutes of January18, 2011, as
presented Second by Jim Rich. Carried IIlU1.1dmously, 7-0.
v. Old Business
A. Director's Report
Amanda Townsend reported on:
. Smooch a Pooch - Kiss a Kitty adoption event as well as a low-
cost vaccination clinic and micro-chip clinic, which resulted in 67
animals being seen, the adoption of 10 dogs and micro-chipping of
27 animals.
. Hourly shelter tours conducted
. Educational opportunities such as heartworm prevention, spay and
neuter, licensing and providing information input to the database
. Revenue of $2,765 realized
Nan Gerhardt noted:
. A monthly low-cost.arloption clinic was desired in light of success
of these events
· A recent Immokalee event, licensing about 80 pets and bringing in
revenue of $1. 060
. A revelation ofImmokalee pet owner's interest in education, micro-
chipping and proper care of their pets
. New doggie potties installed in the play yard
Amanda Townsend also reported~
· Jim Rich and Kathy Drew participated in the Senior Expo event.
. South Regional Library's "Trucks, Trucks, Trucks" event, at
which were several first responder representatives.
2
161183
February 15,2011
. Animal Control Officers talked with the children in a public reach-
out opportunity.
. New program at shelter to aid disease control- a new leash for every
dog- using inmate labor pool to keep new leashes clean.
. Addition of a dedicated volunteer, learning to be' a vet tech,
volunteering a 40-hour work week in the Vet Clinic.
1. R ognition of Committee Member
Am nda Townsend read from, and presented, a certifidate of recognition
fro the BCC to Michele Antonia in appreciation of her 5 years of service to
DA.
2. ehicular access
Am nda Townsend discussed the correspondence will Michael Greer,
Tr sportation Planning Manager, regarding last month's public inquiry
into creating an improved access to the Domestic Aninial' facility. Three
are of concern were given regarding the feasibility of any action:
1. ossib/e 4 to 6 /aning of Davis Blvd.
2. urrounding properties being bigger trip generators than DAS
3. econfiguring of water management sYstems
Ste hen Wright reported he had talked to FOOT's District Planning
per on in Bartow regarding the possibility of a cut thrdugh or entry
si tion through the Boys and Girls Club property.
Po ibi/ities will be evaluated by State and County Pldnners and updated
dat provided by DAS showing a bigger trip generatoi'for DAS than
fo erly thought.
B. FY 2011 First Quarter Departmental Statistics
Sta 'stic reports were e-mailed to Advisory Board mem~ers prior to the
me 'ng. Reports were projected on a large overhead s'creen.
Am nda Townsend reviewed the reports pointing outj
All outcomes plus a breakdown by dogs and cats
Intake figures by source, method and types
. Euthanasia numbers separated by cats and dogs
. Volunteer hours - 2,000 in first quarter and continuing to grow
. Spay and Neuter surgeries (goal to reach- 1,000 per year)
. Officer activities- diligent hard work complemented by the Board
A visory Board Members requested a comparison frqm last year to the
cu ent year, quarter by quarter" of cat and dog euthanasia numbers.
T eir focuS was to instill in the communities, responSible pet ownership.
N n Gerhardt explained the difficult, but necessary, euthanasia selection
pr cess due to time and space.
C. D partmeot Trust Fuod Priorities
Dscussion revolved around the allowable usage of the Donation Trust
F nd monies and prioritizing that usage.
listing of 16 Advisory Board's recommended ideas was prepared.
anda will check to see if the list fits with the TruSt Fund's criteria.
It will be refined and run by the Assistant County Attorney for any
3
toH,i
~3
February 15, 2011
conflict with the Florida and/or County Animal Control Codes and
present to DASAB for discussion and finalization. Amanda will create a
donor mailing list and a Donor Survey will be conducted.
D. Demonstration of Chameleon / Google Earth interface
Amanda Townsend provided a demonstration on the overhead projector
of the ChameleonlGoogle Earth interface maps showing Animal Control
activities in each neighborhood area of the County and the types of calls
and activity, depicted by various symbols. She explained, as the process is
further developed, dispatches will be by priority levels (8 to 12 to 24 hrs).
VI. New Business
A. New Member Selection (handouts)
A list of applicants for service on the DAS Advisory Board was
distributed. None of the applicants were present except for Sgt. David
Estes, whose application was up for renewal.
The Advisory Board Members asked to expand the selection by re-
advertising the positions, providing a larger selection pool; and, to invite
all the applicants to attend the next meeting.
Dan Mtl11in moved to table the selection process to the next meeting.
Second by Tom Kepp. Carried unanimously, 7-0.
Amanda will check on the possibility of Jim Rich moving to the "animal
activist" category and his voting by proxy as he will be away next month.
She will also check onadvertisingfor additional applicants.
B. Website discussion -Dan Martin
DaD Martin led the discussion on using the County website to post a
postcard type ad that encouraged pet seekers to check DAS first, at the same
time reminded them of the time and space limits of the shelter.
Use of the County web site for promotional ads on adoptions was discussed.
Marcia Breithaupt noted adoptions on web sites are way up and DAS should
utilize that avenue.
Amanda Townsend spoke about the continued reduction in division staff
members, leaving fewer IT staff to work on any improvements. A 3% budget
cut was also anticipated in the coming year. She cited computer security was
an issue -web entry could only be by trained County staff She will continue
to work towards a solution as much as possible.
VII. Public Comment - None
A. Topic TBA (open discussion)
No topics submitted
B. Individual Comments
Stephen Wright suggested using some Donation Trust Funds for:
· Media ads - buying classified ads under heading such as "looking
for pets:' ($126 week)
· Crawler ads such as those shown on the weather station shown
4
16111
83
February 15,2011
. multiple times a day for ($125 a week)
. Try for 3 months and see how it works See if spike in adoptions
· Opportunity to follow up on how people found out about DAS
also offered to provide some ideas to help with return to owner fees.
G sela Rowley, a DAS volunteer, spoke about potential adoptees who
1 ked complete documentation and were upset the pet they wanted
co Id not be put on hold until conditions were met. Some do not return.
S e proposed providing the option of paying a non-refundable deposit
fo a hold of 40 hrs or 2 work days. If requirements were not met, the pet
w uld be available for adoption. A potential adoptee would not be lost.
D Mortill suggested putting the issue on next month's agenda.
VIll. Advisory ard Member Comments
Tom Kepp hanked DAS for working on issues requested by the Board. He
agreed with increased adoption and spay/neuter efforts, but saw enforcement as
the pressing issue and cited the ease of getting free pets from neighbors.
Marcia B ithaupt cited advertising and use of the website for adoptions.
Dr. Ruth E sele favored the once a month ad, proposed by Dat!l Martin, showing
the euth ia numbers. It would portray the seriousness of the problem.
Amanda re onded the Humane Society of the United States ~ conducted a market
research w ich had pre-packaged series of messages which she will send out with
the next me fing's packet.
Dan Marti commended the Animal Control Officers for the difficult but necessary
job they do or the citizens of the County.
stes agreed with the advertising ideas but cautioned stressing the number
of animals thanized could be both a good or bad thing. A public relations backfire
may be an u desirable ad consequence.
Jim Rich w s in favor of the picture ads appealing to compassion for animals.
The next meeting f the DAS Advisory Board is scheduled for March 15, 2011
There being no fu her business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by ord r of the Chair at 8:37 P.M.
These minutes appr ved by the Board/Committee on
as presented .......... or amended
3 - 15 - , I
5
\& J1<lllIJR\VIm,
1\ ;A~ 0 3 2011 lW
1611 B4a'a
Hiller
Henning
THE BAY S H 0 R E / GAT E \VI A Y T R I A N G L ERE D EVE LOP M Emoyle\ G ENe Y
.1't................n- {:6MMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AG~Im:y
V'
4069 BA\'SHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAX 239.775.4456
BAYSHORElGATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 4,2011 MEETING
The meeting of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called
to order by Chairman Mr. Lindsey Thomas at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore
Drive.
1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez,
Bruce Preble, Lindsey Thomas, Karen Beatty, Peter Dvorak, and Jill Barry. Excused: Chuck
Gunther.
CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, Project Manager.
2. Adoption of Aaenda: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published
agenda. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the agenda: Motion: Mr. Dvorak. Second:
Mr. Main. Approved 8-0.
3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the
December 7, 2010 minutes. Mr. Jackson stated that Mr. Gunther was erroneously listed as
absent, as he had a medical appointment and should be an "excused absence". Mr. Thomas
asked for a motion to approve the December 7,2010 meeting minutes as amended: Motion: Mr.
Preble. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 8-0.
4. Executive Director's Report:
a. Proiect Updates. Mr. Jackson advised that in the Board packages there was a projects
update memo. As a further update, he handed out CRA Advisory Board term limits list,
attendance list and latest recall list. Also included was a spreadsheet of the CRA TIF
Grant awards and CRA staff work assignment sheet.
b. Mr. Jackson advised that there was a request for volunteers from the Board members for
the January 29-30, 2011 CRA event.
5. Old Business:
a. January 12, 2011 CRA Board & CRA-AB Workshop. Mr. Jackson reminded the Board
that they had a joint workshop with the CRA Board at the Government Center.
b. Reauest for Payment of Services. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve payment
of CRA work order invoices: RWA - CRA Overlays in the amount of $1,800 and a.
Grady Minor & Associates in the amount of $14,850. Motion to approve Ms. Barry.
Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 8-0.
6. New Business: None.
7. Citizen Comments. Mr. Thomas asked if there were any comments from the audience. None.
8. Advisory Board General Communications. Mr. Dvorak asked what the annual CRA-AB meeting
dates would be and Mr. Thomas explained that they will be first Tuesday of the month; however
the Board may elect to take a summer recess, but that would be determined by the work load.
9. Adiournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 6:22pm.
Misc. Corres:
D":~
,temt:l~ 1. C t~ ~
C:!)ies to'.
\ ~c-ENEO 1 6 I 1 t;u;~~ :::-
R~ Henn;ng~
(\ 6 tM\: ..8 A Y S H 0 R E / GAT E WAY T R I A N G L ERE D EVE LOP MEN T A GadYl~ Y /
~PR ~MMUNITY REDEVELOPMENTAGENC~letta
6QllIQOtcountl 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAX 239.775.4456
1,.....--
BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 1,2011 MEETING
The meeting of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board
was called to order by Chairman Mr. Lindsey Thomas at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting
Room 4069 Bayshore Drive.
1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice
Gutierrez, Lindsey Thomas, Jill Barry, Chuck Gunther, and Bruce Preble (arrived at
6: 1 0). Absent: Peter Dvorak. Excused: Karen Beatty.
CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan and Sue Trone,
Project Managers.
2. Adoption of Aqenda: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the
published agenda. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the agenda: Motion:
Mr. Main. Second: Ms. Barry. Approved 6-0 (Mr. Preble absent).
3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the
February 1, 2011 minutes. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the January 4,
2011 meeting minutes. Motion: Mr. Main. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 6-0 (Mr.
Preble absent).
4. Executive Director's Report:
a. Proiect Updates. Mr. Jackson advised that in the Board packages there was a
projects update memo. As a further update, he gave a short power point
presentation on current business activities.
5. Old Business:
a. Request for Payment of Services. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve
payment of CRA work order invoices: Scullin & Sobelman - CRA audit of
invoices paid for environmental cleanup as vouchers for Voluntary Cleanup Tax
Credit program in the amount of $1,300; Q. Grady Minor & Associates in the
amount of $3,100. Motion to approve Ms. Barry. Second: Mr. Gutierrez.
Approved 6-0 (Mr. Preble absent).
b. Offer to purchase 4069 Bavshore Drive Response. Mr. Jackson presented Bank
of Naples' counter offer of $450,000 to the CRA-AB's offer of $235,000. After a
roundtable discussion on the merits of the counter offer, the current economic
environment the CRA-AB agreed to make a written counter. Motion to respond
to the Bank of Naples with a counter offer of $185,000: Mr. Ingram. Second: Mr.
Gutierrez. Approved 6-0 (Mr. Preble absent).
6. New Business:
a. Consideration of CRA Sponsorship for FY2012 CAPA Event. Mr. Jackson
restated the information in his memo that he recommended that the CRA budget
$15,000 sponsorship or donation (whichever is appropriate) for CAPA's FY2012
event and not allocate any staff time. He pointed out the CRA Event Budget
Expense Sheet that documented the $14,177 the CRA spent on. the event's
activities. He added a timesheet for Ms Jourdan that estimated t~<n~r of
March], 20] 1 CRA-AB Minutes
Date: P;:JgP 1
Item.:
C::~ies ~o:
161 l 84
hours she spent on administration of the event: 240 hours that was equivalent to
$10,800 in fully-burdened hours. He concluded by presenting an e-mail from Mr.
Steve Kutler, CAPA President, that came after the agenda was released asking
the CRA-AB to consider contributing $30,000 in FY2012. The Board discussed
the staff memo and the CAPA e-mail request with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Kutler.
Ms. Barry stated that each event should become more self-sufficient each year
and that CAPA did demonstrate that it could collect $36,000 in sponsorships and
fees. She said that CAPA should take what they learned and attract more funds
from donations and sponsorships. Mr. Thomas thought the CRA's FY2012
budget would be much less than FY2011 because of another decrease in
property values and that an increase equal to twice the amount as this year was
not a good idea. Mr. Ingram expressed concerns about contributing cash without
documentation, and Mr. Preble felt there should be some sort of agreement and
monitoring of what the money was spent on. Mr. Thomas said he supported the
$15,000 and no staff time and asked Mr. Jackson if there was a way to get the
amount approved but still monitor the expenses. Mr. Jackson stated that if the
Board approved the amount ($15,000 or $30,000) he would bring back a draft
proposal between the CRA and CAPA for the Board to review and approve that
would give an accounting of what the funds could be spent on. Motion to
approve $15,000 and no staff time to the FY2012 CAPA Event: Ms. Barry.
Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 6-1 Mr. Preble dissenting.
b. Consideration of Linwood Way ResurfacinQ Proposal. Mr. Jackson delivered a
quote from Better Roads, Inc. to repave Linwood Way for $12,341.00. The quote
would use the County's current contract and would use the County's approved
rates to resurface or re-top the road. Board discussion centered on the project
that caused increased wear on that section of road and why the road repaving
wasn't in the quote with the other streets that were damaged when pipes were
installed. Mr. Thomas stated that he saw the street and it is worn and full of
patched pot holes and should be brought up to standard. Motion to approve a
Better Roads, Inc to repave Linwood Way in the amount of $12,341.00: Mr.
Main. Second Mr. Ingram. Approved 7-0.
c. Consideration of Quote to Provide EnQineerinQ Cost Analysis - SUQden Access.
Mr. Jackson gave a power point presentation outlining five (5) locations that a
bridge over to Sugden Regional Park from Bayshore Drive could be installed.
The presentation included the positives and negatives of each location. Mr.
Jackson presented a quote from Johnson Engineering to survey each location
and provide an engineering design and construction cost analysis for each
location in the amount of $17,500. In discussion the Board covered the benefits
to the community and the high cost and impact if a location was selected
through the CRA 17 acre site before a site builder was found. Several locations
were low-cost however there would be impacts to neighboring residential street.
Motion to table indefinitely: Mr. Thomas. Second: Ms. Gunther. Approved 7-0.
d. Consideration of C-BIG 06-2010 AQreement. Mr. Jackson briefed the Board on a
C-BIG awarded in March 2010 and that the applicant was delayed due to the
permitting process. The site under approval is an old gas station and it's
redevelopment into a restaurant would be a higher and better use for the
community. In discussion Ms. Trone was asked if the applicant had met the
requirements to request an extension, and Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant
March 1,2011 CRA-AB Minutes
2
161/" 1 ., B 4
was going to complete the project and why he couldn't complete it within the
year timeframe. Ms Trone explained the situation and confirmed that the
applicant meant the intent of the program and made an honest effort to get the
project underway and completed. Motion to recommend approval of the
extension to the CRA Board: Ms. Barry. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 4-3 with
Mr. Ingram, Mr. Preble and Mr. Gunther dissenting.
e. Consideration of Extension of Cell Tower Lease. Mr. Jackson presented the
Board with the details of two (2) years of conversations with Crown Castle, a cell
tower company leasing the CRA land that the tower sits on. He added that the
reason it was before the Board was to inform them of the discussion and ask if
the Board desired to extend the lease. In discussion, Ms. Jourdan explained that
the current lease began in 1998 with four (4) five-year extensions. Mr. Thomas
expressed his concern about extending the lease before the CRA has a
developer under agreement for the assembled parcels. Mr. Ingram agreed.
Motion to not extend the Crown Castle lease at this time: Ms. Barry. Second: Mr.
Ingram. Approved 7-0.
7. Advisorv Board General Communications. Mr. Gutierrez gave an update on the
Bayshore Beautification MSTU Master Plan project. Mr. Jackson advised the Board that
the south Bayshore Drive improvement plans were at 100% and had been at the
County for 30+ days and under review; however he wanted Ms Barry to inform Brian
Holley, Executive Director of the Naples Botanical Garden, that the CRAlMSTU was
informed that County staff ordered that all swale vegetation shall be removed from the
design. Since the design was assisted by the Garden's horticulturalist and would
complement the Garden's side of the road, the County's request would delay the project
because of redesign and not enhance the road as envisioned by the community. Ms.
Barry stated she would inform Mr. Holley.
8. Citizen Comments. None.
9.
e ing was adjourned at 7: 15pm.
March 1,2011 CRA-AB Minutes
3
Citizen Corps Advisory Committee
Agenda November 17, 2010
1 6 I 1 a 5 p)
PI.I. , /
F\\iI~r v
Henn\f\~ ~ -r (j/
Coyle ...
Coletta ___,__ i:.C
3:00
Pledge of Allegiance
Chairman
Opening Remarks
Roll Call
Sheriffs Office
USCGA
Salvation Army
CERV Fire Chiefs
Red Cross Veterans Council
Chamber of Commerce
CERT
RSVP
CAP
EMS
Medical Examiner
Neighborhood Watch
City of Marco Island
EM
City of Naples
Physicians Regional
Health Dept
Everglades City
NCH
3:05
Approval of Minutes
Chairman
3:10
Threat Update
CCSO
3:15
Health Update
DOH
3:30
New Business
Chairman
Election of Officers for 2011
3:45
Old Business
Chairman
Start of new Coordinator
Jan 19,2011 meeting possible conflict
General discussion
4:00 Next Meeting/Adjourn
Item t:
s
Ccpies to:
1611
85
Collier County Government
Communication & Customer Relations
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102
Naples, FL 34112-5746
Contact: 239-252-8848
www.colliere:ov.net
www.twitter.com/CollierPIO
www.facebook.com/CollierGov
www.voutube.com/CollierGov
November 9, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2010
3:00 P.M.
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday,
November 17th, at 3:00 p.rn. in the 3rd floor Policy Room at the James V. Mudd Emergency Services Center,
located at 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples.
In regard to the public meeting:
All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in
writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be
limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman.
Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying
activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board
or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,
you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of celiain assistance. Please contact the Collier County
Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suitc 10 1, Naples, FL 34112-5356,
(239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired
are availablc in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
For more information, call Judy Scribner at (239) 252-3600.
-End-
Collier County
Citizen Corp Committee
November 17,2010
16111 85
RECEIVED
. FEB 2 3 2011
BoantotCowaty~
~
V oting Members Present:
Russell Rainey, C.E.R.T.
Reg Buxton, Chamber of Commerce
Peggy Lauzon, R.S.V.P.
Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol
Jerry Sanford, CC Fire Chiefs Assoc.
Jim vonRinteln, American Red Cross
Lt. Mike Jones, CC Sheriffs Office
Dr. Joseph Neiweem, MRC
Walt Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary
Jim Elson, Veterans Council
V oting Members Absent:
Expert Consultants Present:
Judy Scribner, CCEM
Greg Speers, East Naples Fire District
Meeting was called to order at 3 :00 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken.
A change in minutes:
Medical Reserve Corp. Dr Neiweem reported a few cases of West Nile Flu in Collier County
with one death. Flyers were distributed, and he recommends that the young and old be
vaccinated.
Approval of Minutes.
Motion to accept the revised minutes of the October 20,2010 meeting was approved
unanimously.
Threat Update
Per Lt. Jones on Wednesday, November 24,2010 a nationwide boycott is planned at various
airports throughout the country to protest the new airport screening machines. The threat level on
flights in this country and international is Orange or High.
Health Update
Dr. Neiweem reports that there is one case of Cholera in Collier County in a female that had
recently visited Haiti. Her condition is steadily improving. The outbreak in Haiti appeared to be
spreading from the rural areas into the Capital, with water handling being the biggest cause of
the spread and 1,000 deaths reported.
161185
New Business
Election of Officers as follows: Chairman, Russ Rainey, Vice Chairman, Reg Buxton and
Secretary, Jerry Sanford. Motion made by Dr. Neiweem, seconded by Walt Jaskiewicz. Motion
carried unanimously.
Old Business
The new Collier County Emergency Management Coordinator was hired. Ms. Shanti Smith
comes to us from the Tallahassee Division of Emergency Management, having worked on the
Deep Water Horizon spill. She will assume the role that Joe Frazier had with Homeland Security
and will be invited to our meeting in January, 2011. She was a member of the "SERT" program
in Tallassee. Dan Summers will be shifting various responsibilities around to the staff.
Our next meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 19,2011 conflicts with the POD training
scheduled for that day. Several of our board members in CERT are attending the all-day class to
be given at the EOC. Participants wanting to take the POD training course must register via the
internet and insert #6, as we are in District 6. The minimum is 35 and the max number of people
is 65. We all agreed to move the next meeting to Wednesday, February 16,2011. We will not
have a meeting in December or January.
Around the Room
Walt Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary, reports that they have a command post that contains
supplies such as generators, etc.
Greg Speers asked Judy when the next CERT managers meeting would be held. The date is
Thursday, December 2,2010 and all future manager's meetings being held on the first Thursday
of the month.
Greg reported that the East Naples Christmas Toy Drive will begin soon with Jerry Sanford,
North Naples Fire District and the Marine Corp League Toys for Tots in coordinating the
distribution of toys to the children of Collier County. We can both use new unwrapped toys.
Jerry Sanford reported that on Wednesday, November loth at the Hilton Hotel the Freedom
Memorial Model was displayed in the lobby, as the American Red Cross held a fund raising
event to benefit the troops serving overseas. Money raised will provide Christmas packages to
those serving abroad. On Sunday, November 14th we again joined hands with the Red Cross at
Stan's in Goodland and again displayed the Freedom Memorial Model. On December ih we will
be participating in The City of Naples Christmas Parade and will display our banner on the
antique fire Engine of North Naples. More purchased bricks have been place in the walkway
around the perimeter of the flag. Russ reported that the City of Marco Island is having a
Christmas parade on December 11 tho The second annual Freedom Memorial Golf Tournament
sponsored by the Gulf Coast Retired Firefighters Association will be held on Saturday, January
'-
16 1.1 B' 5
15,2011 with the proceeds going to the Freedom Memorial. Last year we received over $10,000
towards the memorial.
Peggy Lauzon reported that a new rep from RSVP will be named soon. Jerry told us that Mr.
Steve Smith has been hired to replace Brian Kelly.
Dr. Neiweem reports that the MRC will be conducting radiation training on December 4th. This
is the second section which includes a review. There is space available to interested individuals.
Jim Elson, Veterans Council, reports that a Memorial Service was held on Veterans Day,
November 11 th, at Cambier Park with sadly another name to be added as another Naples resident
has been killed in action.
Jim vonRinteln reported that the Red Cross held a very successful fundraiser at the Hilton Hotel
on November 10t\ raising over $12,000 after expenses, plus $2,000 at Stan's. Over 100
volunteers stuffed 800 packages to be shipped overseas. A very successful effort by all that
helped, and he thanks to all who helped. The downside was the fact that there was a lack of
parking at the hotel due to the amount of attendees. It was great exposure to all the programs
offered by the Red Cross throughout the year to our citizens. Collier County donated 20 work
station computers to the Red Cross and North Naples fire donated 3 laptop computers as well.
The Red Cross also was part of the Farmers Market on Marco Island on Saturday.
Judy Scribner reminded us to sign up for the upcoming POD training.
Next Meeting/Adjourn
Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 16,2011 at 3:00 p.m. at the EOe. Please
get any agenda items to Judy Scribner before then. Meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Minutes respe~;fu11 submitted by Jerry Sanford for approval.
/~
~fr J/
\.
L.(
APProve~sell Rainey, Chairman
il/~r;(
I
Date
2010/2011
161 L
Collier County Citizen Corps Elections
Nominations:
r:- ----.
~'\
Chairman --- Russ Rainey
Vice Chairman---- Reg Buxton
Secretary----Jerry Sanford
"Write In"
'- C;; L--'- S
V-/1 cJ7 UV'^- ()
or'! 0 V O-f
OJ - ;1117 /d20! ()
85
101
,
J.
Jj5
SECOND ANNUAL CHARITY
GOLF TOURNAMENT
TO BENEFIT THE
COLLIER COUNTY
FREEDOM MEMORIAL
Sponsored by the Gulfcoast Retired Firefighters Association
TOURNAMENT INFORMATION:
SATURDAY, JANUARY 15,2011
Naples Beach Hotel & Golf Club
851 Gulfshore Boulevard North
Naples, FL 34102 - 239-261-2222
Shotgun Start: 8:30 AM
4 Person Scramble: Men & Women
COST: $125 per person -includes golf, continental breakfast,
lunch (cash bar), prizes, raffles & 50/50
$100 HOLE SPONSOR: Includes tee sign with name
$1}000 HOLE IN ONESPONSOR: PGA TOUR SUPERSTORE
PRIZES: 1st place, 10th place} 20th place, closest to pin} longest drive
PLAYER 1- NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE #:
EMAIL:
PLAYER 2: NAME:
PLAYER 3 NAME:
PLAYER 4 NAME:
Please make checl< payable to: Gulfcoast Retired Firefighters Association
Any questions please call John McGowan at 239-514-7149 and mail the check to:
John McGowan
11111 Palmetto Ridge Drive
Naples} FL 34110
. i,,!~k;;:1D<" _
'iC~" r.-~'2'.'" ~ .
-""~~'"5--:-~-.~ - , .
": .r, - ~..;- - ...... _
- '-> ~ t' f
~1J-'~~ \'" ___f "
. ". . . ~ "
If you are unable to attend} donations are graciously accepted for the
Collier County Freedom Memorial
To poy tribute to service members who have sacrificed their lives to preserve our freedom and to honor law enforcement officers,
firefighters, emergency medical personnel and civilians who perished during the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center,
Pentagan and United Airlines Flight 175 and Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 and Flight 11.
NEVER FORGET
-
--
161 1
85
.A -'
19 January 2011
The County Logistics Course gives a brief overview of how the State does logistics, from our
philosophy to how we order and stage equipment and commodities. The course covers how to
select POD sites, the different size sites, how many people it takes to operate the sites, the
positions at PODs, descriptions of duties, equipment needed to operate the sites, and we go over
the forms that are required and reporting requirements. This course also covers how to locate a
site for a County Staging Area, how to establish a staging area, and covers the operation of the
staging area to include duty positions, and position descriptions.
http://www .floridadisaster .org/T rainingCalendar/moreinfo .asp ?id= 1976
16 I Ja\.maJl29, 2011 -I
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Naples, Florida RECEIVED
January 27, 2011 MAR - 3 2011
Soard 01 Coun~ CommlIIIonera
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, havifilfa 17~
Hmer ./
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., i~r.~g= ~ -
REGULAR SESSION at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly
Gerald Lefebvre
Robert Kaufman
Larry Dean
Lionel L'Esperance
Tony Marino (Alternate)
Ron Doino (Alternate)
Herminio Ortega (Absent)
James Lavinski (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement
Jean Rawson, Attorney for the eEB
Page 1
Misc. Corres: /
D~:~~ ~
Item#: Ii.l ~
C':;ies to:
16 I 1 B~6
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call
the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order for this
January 27th meeting.
Notice, respondents may be limited to 20 minutes for case
presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons
wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes
unless the time is adjusted by the Chair.
All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to
observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so the court
reporter can record all statements being made.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the board 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 Code Enforcement Board shall be
responsible for providing this record.
May I have roll call, please.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman?
MR. KAUFMAN: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Levebvre?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino.
MR. MARINO: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Dean?
MR. DEAN: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Ron Doino.
MR. DOINO: Here.
l;.....,j
".:,
Page 2
16118.6
January 27, 2011
MS. BAKER: And James Lavinski and Herminio Ortega both
have excused absences for today.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing as how we have two normal
members who are excused, both alternates will have full voting rights
today.
MR. DEAN: Normal.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now, for the agenda, are there any
changes?
MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. Under Number 4, public hearings,
motions. Letter A, motions. Motion for extension of time, Number 2,
Katherine F. Smith, Case CEL U20 1 00009076, has been withdrawn.
Number 3, Jorge V. and Caridad Jimenez, Case
CESD20090010253, has been withdrawn.
Under Letter B, stipulations, we have two stipulations. The first
will be Case CESD20100009613, Charles H. Bartholf. The second
will be Case CESD20 1 00005204, Crescencio Lopez Garcia.
Letter C, hearings Number 2, Case CESD200900 14131, Winston
R. and Janice M. Vasquez, has been withdrawn.
Number 6, Case 2007090283, AAAA Homes, Inc., has been
withdrawn.
Number 10, Case CESD20100000924, Matty, LLC, has been
withdrawn.
Number 14, Case CESD20 1 00008202, Paul Lombard, has been
withdrawn.
Number 16, Case CESD20100007957, Andrei V. Osinsky, has
been withdrawn.
And we have one addition, which be Number 18. It's Omar Raul
Garcia, Case CESD20100018347.
Under Number 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition
of fines/liens, Number 3, Case CESD20090017445, Emma Houston,
has been withdrawn.
Number 6, Case CESD20090010785, Guillermo Gorostieta and
Page 3
16Jt!, B6 II
January 27, 2011
Susana L. Mora, has been withdrawn.
And that is all the changes that I have.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I entertain a motion to accept the
changes.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Now for approval of the minutes from the November 18,2010,
hearing.
Any changes?
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the notes from the last
meeting.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
Page 4
1 6 J.1 1d16
january~7, 2ch 1
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
MR. DEAN: Abstain.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention from Mr. Dean.
N ow moving on to public hearings/motions, A, motions,
extension of time.
The first case is Richard Mercer and Jeffrey and Amy Mercer.
If we can, real quick, we'll have both parties sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. In these situations
normally, since the respondent has asked for the extension of time, we
just like you to briefly explain the circumstances surrounding it and
maybe answer a few questions that the board might have.
MR. MERCER: Okay, no problem.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So if you would like to tell us why you're
requesting it, that would be great.
MR. MERCER: It's a financial consideration. We had started
making the improvements. The stipulation time frame for when the
improvements were required to be done fell during the Christmas
holidays, and just being unemployed, it put a financial strain on us, so
we just requested a time extension for that.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: In your letter it requested 60 days.
MR. MERCER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: As of today, do you still feel as though
60 days would be enough time?
MR. MERCER: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Has the 81.15 been paid
by you, the --
Page 5
J!n~a~ b, ~~ I~
MR. MERCER: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. LEFEBVRE: How much progress has been made on the
repairs for the work you're doing?
MR. MERCER: I would say about 50 percent. We did the roof
rafter ties and some of the sill -- four seal redhead connections have
been done, and some of the strapping still remains for some of the
bracing and some of the strapping yet to be done.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Has he been -- have they been cooperative in
working towards completing this project?
MR. MUCHA: Absolutely. Mr. Mercer's been in touch with me
the entire time, usually sending me a monthly email just to let me
know the status and --
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Joe, could you let the court reporter
know your name?
MR. MUCHA: I'm sorry. Investigator Joe Mucha, property
maintenance specialist.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend it from
today's date 90 more days.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and second for 90
days.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
Page 6
1 6 ~. 1 8 6 .'~
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ninety days from today.
MR. MERCER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you very much for coming to us.
Next case would be a motion for an extension of time. That's
Mike and Mary Ruth Lucero.
We'll have both parties sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning.
MR. LUCERO: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: What we'd like you to do is just explain,
if you will, briefly, the request why you're asking for additional time,
what circumstances surround it, and we may have a few questions for
you afterwards.
MR. LUCERO: We've been working with the county to try to
get this matter resolved. We've submitted the application, paid our
fee. The structural engineer has gone out and inspected, passed that.
All we're waiting for now is just the electrical inspection.
And that's all we're waiting for right now.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. In your letter that you wrote to
the board, it did not specify an amount of time.
MR. LUCERO: Well, in talking to Maria, she suggested 60 days
at least just to make sure the inspector gets out.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. LUCERO: And I wasn't sure about the time limit, because I
didn't know how long it'd take.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria, would you have any idea how
long it's going to take the inspector to get out there?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
He just has the electrical left to CO it, but they're doing
Page 7
1 6 1.1. a 6 (.
January 27, 2011
affirmative defense, so I figured maybe 60 days would be enough.
MR. KAUFMAN: Has the 80.57 been paid?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, it has.
MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we extend the time.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: How much?
MR. KAUFMAN: Sixty days you said would be sufficient?
MR. LUCERO: Yes, sir.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second for 60 days.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. It's been extended for 60
days. Good luck. Thank you.
MR. LUCERO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That concludes all of our motions for an
extension of time.
We're moving on to stipulations. Are there still only two right
now?
The first stipulation is going to be Bartholf.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning.
MR. PAUL: Good morning.
Page 8
I
16 I ,1 B'~6
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Paul, would you like to read
in the stipulation?
MR. PAUL: Yes, I would. For the record, Renald Paul, Collier
County Code Enforcement investigator.
Mr. Bartolfhas agreed to the stipulation agreement, has agreed to
pay operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing.
Abate all violations by: Respondent is required to obtain any and
all permits as required by Collier County for the addition of the pump
house, shed, and tent-like structure at the residence or obtain permits
for the removal of the pump house, shed, and tent-like structure, and
obtain all required inspections and Certificate of Completion within
120 days of this hearing or be fined $200 a day for each day the
violation remains unabated.
Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the inspector to perform a site
inspection to confirm compliance.
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.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Bartholf, do you understand the
stipulated agreement and agree to it as signed?
MR. BARTHOLF: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we accept the stipulation
as written.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 9
16/11 H..p
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
MR. PAUL: Have a nice day.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Thank you. Good luck, sir.
The last stipulated agreement is Lopez Garcia.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
It is agreed between the parties that the respondents shall pay
operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution
of this case within 30 days of the hearing.
Abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier
County building permit or a demolition permit and request required
inspections to be performed and passed through a Certificate of
Completion/Occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of
250 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated.
The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours
of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a
site inspection to confirm compliance.
That 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.
Page 10
1611 '86!14
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria, any health or safety issues with
the addition to the single-family?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: The property has three structures on one lot.
Two of the mobile homes were placed without any permits back
20-something years ago. There hasn't been any issues at this point,
but you never know.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: They're both occupied?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: If they've been there for 20-something
years, I wouldn't want to put anybody out on the street, you know. It's
a pretty good track record, without incident, I guess.
Any discussion or questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, do you understand the stipulated
agreement and agree to it?
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second?
MR. MARINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
Page 11
1 6 ~ 1 8 p'
January 27, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Very good. You've got about six months. If there's any
problems along the way, please let us know ahead of time.
MR. GARCIA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Good luck, sir.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, we do have one additional
stipulation.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. In that case we'll get the
information and then amend the agenda.
MS. BAKER: It's Number 13, Case CESD20100004524,
Rosarion and Immacula Simeus.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to amend the agenda.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read it in?
MR. PAUL: Yes, I would.
For the record again, Renald Paul, Collier County Code
Page 12
."'"
161196
January 27, 2011
Enforcement investigator.
I have spoken with Mr. Simeus, and he has agreed to the
stipulation to pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred
in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing.
Abate all violations by: Respondent's required to obtain any and
all permits as required by Collier County for the addition of the shed
and enclosing of the lanai or obtain permits for removal of the shed
and the enclosing of the lanai and obtain all required inspections and
Certificate of Completion within 120 days of this hearing or be fined
$200 a day for each day the violation remains unabated.
Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a
site inspection to confirm compliance.
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 property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good.
Mr. Simeus, do you understand and agree with everything that
was read and signed?
MR. SIMEUS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the
board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, I'll entertain a motion.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second?
MR. MARINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
Page 13
16 I.. 1 86
January 27, 2011
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. PAUL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. If you have any problems,
sir, in the next few months, please let us know ahead of time. We can
talk about possibly extension of time or whatever.
MR. SIMEUS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
MR. PAUL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does that conclude our stips?
MS. BAKER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now we're moving on to C,
hearings, Case No.1, Olga Moreno.
Joe, is the respondent here?
MR. MUCHA: No, sir.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD201 00018773.
Violation of ordinance: Collier County Land Development Code
04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a).
Description of violation: Garage converted to living space
without permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 4273 20th Avenue
Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 35756320009.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Olga Moreno, 4273 20th Avenue Southwest, Naples,
Page 14
I
1611 96
January 27,2011
Florida, 34116.
Date violation first observed: September 23, 2010.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October
5,2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 23, 2010.
Date of reinspect ion: November 8, 2010.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator?
MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha,
property maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to Case No. CDES20100018773 dealing with
violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as
amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a), described as a garage that was
converted to living space without permits.
Violation location: 4273 20th Avenue Southwest, Naples,
34116. Folio number is 35756320009.
Proof of service was obtained on October 5,2010, by return
receipt from certified mail.
I would like to now present case evidence in the following
exhibits: I have six photographs taken by myself on November 8,
2010.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'd entertain a motion to accept the
exhibits.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
Page 15
I
161 1 86
January 27, 2011
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries.
MR. MUCHA: This case initiated back on September 23rd of
2010 as a complaint in regards to a garage conversion. On that date I
made a site visit to the property and attempted to reach someone at the
residence. No one was at -- no one was home at the time of my visit.
I looked at the outside of the garage, and it did appear to have
some of the characteristics of a conversion. I saw a window, a wall
unit, air-conditioner, and an entrance to the garage that had a dead
bolt.
At that time I left my business card. On the following day,
September 24th, the owner of the property contacted me at the office.
Due to a language barrier, I had another investigator speak to her. He
advised her of the complaint received, and she did confirm that the
garage had been converted. And at that time he advised her of what
her options were to abate the violation.
On October 24th the owner actually came down to the office and
met with me, and I brought her down to the Permitting Department so
she could start to find out what she needed to do, because she wanted
to keep the garage conversion.
My next dealing was actually on November 8th, and that's when I
actually got inside the interior of the garage conversion, which you
guys are looking at the pictures now. She allowed me in, and I
observed at that time that there was a bedroom, there was a separate
bathroom, and there was also a little kitchen area with a wet bar and a
refrigerator.
And at that time she was -- she was actually currently living in
Page 16
I
16111 Bi6
January 27, 2011
the garage apartment and renting out the rest of the house, and I
advised her at that time that the zoning would not allow for her to use
that property for multifamily dwelling.
She stated that she understood and she was trying to get the
money together to apply for the permit, and that was my last contact
with her. I've made a couple site visits to the property. I've been
unable to reach her. She hasn't called me. And this is where it stands
as of today. No permits have been applied for.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find the
respondent in violation.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have a
recommendation?
MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is that the Code
Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs
in the amount of 80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within
30 days, and to abate all violations by obtaining all applicable permits,
inspections, and Certificates of Completion/Occupancy for alterations
Page 17
16ft18>;6
January 27, 2011
made to the garage or for the complete demolition of all improvements
made to the garage and return to a permitted state within blank
number of days or a fine of blank per day until violation is abated.
The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection to confirm abatement.
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 order, and all costs of
abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Would anyone like to fill in
the blanks?
MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to fill in the blanks, but one
quick question.
MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: So there is electrical and there is plumbing
that has been added?
MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is this a safety and health problem at -- in
your estimation?
MR. MUCHA: It's hard for me to say. I mean, I didn't see
anything that looked really -- you know, I didn't see any, like, loose
wires. I mean, everything looked like it was done fairly properly. But,
you know, again, I'd like to, you know, have an inspector go in and
make that determination.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this -- just quick question. Is this property
in lis pendens or any kind of foreclosure proceedings?
MR. MUCHA: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Dean?
MR. DEAN: I just had one question. This wire hanging down
where you can see the refrigerator, is that a wire hanging down
loosely?
Page 18
1 h I 1 8 6
'1anuary 27, 2011
MR. MUCHA: I'm sorry. Could I--
MR. KAUFMAN: It looks like a chandelier.
MR. DEAN: That little, tiny thing.
MR. MU CHA: Yeah. That's like for, I think, a fan, just the
chain string.
MR. DEAN: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let the record reflect that the
investigator said that it looks like a fan pull string.
MR. MUCHA: Yeah. There was no, like, hanging wires or
anything, I can assure you of that.
MR. DEAN: The place looks in good shape.
MR. MUCHA: I mean, it looks like it was done fairly well, but,
again, it's not for me to call.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to take a shot at filling in the blanks,
and what's on my mind as I do this is that the respondent is not here
and you have been unable to contact the respondent since November.
MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: As far as the 80.57, within 30 days, the 60 --
60 days as far as the time frame or a fine of $200 a day.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion to accept the
county's recommendation with 60 days and $200 per day. Do we have
a second?
MR. MARINO: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
Page 19
1611 86
January 27, 2011
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So the respondent has 60 days or a fine
of$200 per day.
MR. MUCHA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
The next case is going to be Omar Raul Garcia.
MS. BAKER: And, Mr. Chair, we have four cases for this. One
of them was the addition that was Number 18 that we'd like to move in
the same place with these cases as well.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Why don't we go ahead and do that now.
I need somebody, if they will, to make a motion to amend the
agenda to bring Case No. 18 to 5-1, or in this case, the new Number 6,
since 6 was withdrawn.
MR. KAUFMAN: So moved.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
MS. BAKER: And, Mr. Chair, the testimony will be the same
for all four of these cases, so we'd like to do all four at the same time.
Page 20
1 6 Ii 1 B:';~
January 27, 2011
The supervisor will address each case but -- as for violation sake,
but then the testimony will all be the same.
MR. KAUFMAN: Four separate votes -- or five separate votes.
MS. BAKER: Right.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: No problem. As far as you reading the
cases in, do you want to read them all at once or -- I mean, how are we
going to admit testimony for each case?
MS. BAKER: What we could do is, the Statement of Violation is
going to be the same for every single one, except for the description of
the violation. So what I can do is read one with -- is that possible or
no, Jean?
MS. RAWSON: You can, but they're going to have to give me
four different orders.
MS. BAKER: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, very good.
MS. BAKER: Okay. The four cases are Case
CEPM20100018330, Case CENA20100018314, Case
CELU20100018294, and Case CESD20100018347.
They are in reference -- the first case, Case CEPM20100018330,
is violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(12)(i).
Description of violation: Broken windows on the main house.
Case CENA20 1 000 18314, violation of Collier County Code of
Laws Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-181.
Description of violation: Litter consisting of but not limited to
buckets, wood pallets, piled yard debris, window screens, coolers, and
metal mesh.
Case CELU20100018294, violation of Collier County Land
Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1.04.01 (A).
Description of violation: Unlicensed/inoperable box truck
parked/stored on agricultural property.
And Case CESD201 000 18347, violation of Florida Building
Page 21
161186
January 27, 2011
Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1 Permits, Section 105.1 and Collier
County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section
1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a).
Description of violation: Interior of a CBS barn which was
converted to a grow house with extensive electrical alterations, wiring,
outlets, electrical panels, air-conditioning units, irrigation systems, and
partition walls with no Collier County permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 10651 Greenway Road,
Naples, Florida, 34114. Folio 738120003.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Omar Raul Garcia, 10651 Greenway Road, Naples, Florida,
34114.
Date violation first observed: September 8, 2010.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation:
September 14, 2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 28, 2010.
Date of reinspect ion: October 15,2010.
Results of reinspection is that the violation remains.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Code Enforcement
Supervisor Christina Perez.
This case is in reference to -- and I'm going to say each case and
then what the violation was.
This case in reference to Case No. CEPM20100018330 dealing
with violations of broken windows in the main residence; Case No.
CENA20 1 000 18314 dealing with violations of litter consisting of but
not limited to buckets, wooden pallets, piled yard debris, window
screens, coolers, metal mesh; Case No. CELU20 1 000 18294,
violations, an unlicensed/inoperable box truck parked/stored on
agricultural property; and Case No. CESD20100018347 dealing with
violations of interior of concrete blocks structure, barn, which was
converted to a grow house with extensive electrical alterations, wiring,
Page 22
1 6 I 1 Bf6
January 27, 2011
outlets, electrical panels, air-conditioning units, irrigation system, and
partition walls with no Collier County permits.
Service was given on September 14,2010. Notice was posted at
property and courthouse.
And I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make the motion to accept.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And let the record reflect that the
evidence presented is for all four cases.
MS. PEREZ: This case was initiated on September 9,2010. I
received a phone call from the Collier County Sheriffs Office that
they had received a search warrant to enter the premises.
Upon arrival, they found the grow house. During our observation,
we observed extensive work was done to this property.
The pictures that you have before you is a box truck that had flat
tires, that was unlicensed. We attempted to contact the phone number
that you see on that truck, and it has been disconnected.
The notices were posted on September 14, 2010, at the property
in question. Research was done to attempt to locate the property
Page 23
161186'
January 27, 2011
owner, with no luck. Numerous notices were posted on the property,
both in English and Spanish, to attempt to contact us to resolve the
code cases.
I conducted a site visit yesterday. The gate was locked and
closed. I was able to still access some of the photos that you have
before you.
On the second photo you can see -- through the vegetation, you
can still see the image of the white box truck that's still on the
property, and no further contact was -- no contact was ever made with
the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Supervisor, I was under the assumption
that we were getting all the pictures at once.
MS. PEREZ: Okay, yeah. I'm going to pass them. Sorry. I'll
pass them along to you.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the respondent possibly in jail?
MS. PEREZ: The people that were apprehended on the property
did not match the same name as the property owner. I t was different
people.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you repeat?
MS. PEREZ: The report that was in the newspaper for the
people that were apprehended on the property on that day, none of
them matched the same property owner, so it wasn't Mr. Garcia that
had been apprehended that day on the property.
The photos that are before you now is in reference to the case
with the barn that was permitted and was CO'ed, but there was no
electrical in that original permit. So the issue wasn't with the structure
itself; it was just with the alterations that were done for the operation
that was being done inside the unit, that structure.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we also have a copy of the photos for
the court reporter for later?
MS. BAKER: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have a picture of the broken window?
Page 24
- I
"1
161186 '
January 27, 2011
MS. PEREZ: I do. Because of the gate being closed when we
were doing the follow-up, I was unable to enter the property and take
more pictures of the rest of the windows.
But if you can see, the first photo was from the original site visit,
and then the photo behind is a photo that was taken yesterday of
another window that I was able to see from the roadside with the
window still broken. So there's possibly multiple windows that are
broken now on the house.
MR. KAUFMAN: Can I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think we have -- do we have one more
to talk about, or is this all of them?
MS. PEREZ: We talked about the vehicle, the litter, the
windows, and then the alterations to that building.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We just don't have any pictures of the
alterations?
MS. PEREZ: It was the big packet that has CESD201018347.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that the one that showed all the wiring and
everything?
MS. PEREZ: Yes. That showed all the electrical wiring that was
done.
MR. KAUFMAN: The boxes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry.
MS. PEREZ: And you can see some of the partition walls that
were -- that were added in there. The transformers.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. It skipped right by me. Got it.
Go ahead.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that Case
CEPM20 1 000 18330, we find the respondent in violation.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
Page 25
16\118&
January 27, 2011
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. KAUFMAN: The second one would be
CENA20100018314 (sic). I'd like to move that we find that also is in
violation.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries.
MR. KAUFMAN: On Case CELU20100018294, that we find
that also in violation.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
Page 26
I
161'1 86
January 27,2011
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries.
MR. KAUFMAN: And finally, in Case CESD20100018347, that
we find that also in violation.
MR. LEFEBVRE: And is there a fifth case also?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just the four.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Just four, okay.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I need a second.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second, yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Okay. Does the county have a recommendation?
Page 27
16L186
January 27, 2011
.~
MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And would this be the same -- sorry.
Would this be the same for each one?
MS. PEREZ: No. I'll say the case number, recommendation, let
you guys make your decision, and then we'll move on to the next one,
if that works for you.
Case No. CEPM20100018330, the county recommends that the
Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational
costs in the amount f $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case
within 30 days and abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a
Collier County building permit to replace broken windows, request all
related inspections through to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy/Completion if applicable, or apply for a -- or apply for and
obtaining a Collier County boarding certificate to include a detailed
plan of rehabilitation and completing the boarding within blank
amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of blank amount of dollars
will be imposed until the violation is abated.
Number two, if the -- the respondent must notify the Code
Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order
to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement.
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 order, and all costs of
abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have somebody who'd like to fill
in the blanks?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll try. 80.29 as mentioned within 30 days,
$250-a-day fine after 30 days.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion to accept the
county's recommendation, 30-day time frame or a $250-per-day fine.
Do we have a second?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
Page 28
16rl tj;o
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Next one?
MS. PEREZ: Case No. CENA20100018314, county
recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent
to pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by
removing all litter from the property to a site intended for final
disposal or store items of value in an enclosed structure within X
amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount will be imposed
-- per day will be imposed until the violation is abated.
Two, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at that as well. 80.29 is the --
needs to be paid within 30 days, the fine -- the litter should be abated
Page 29
16 I l B 6
January 27, 2011
also within 30 days, or a fine of$250 a day.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion --
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- to accept. We have a second.
All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Next.
MS. PEREZ: CELU20100018294, county recommends that the
Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational
costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case
within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining or fixing a valid
license plate and repair defects so the vehicle is operable or store
within a completely enclosed building or removed from the property
within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount per day
will be imposed until the violation is abated.
Two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement
investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would anyone like to take a stab at this
Page 30
1 6 11 B,6
January 27,201 i
one?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'm on a roll.
I'd like to make a motion the 80.29 be paid within 30 days, the
truck needs to be removed within 30 days or a fine of$250 a day after
that.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. DOINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ron.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
MS. PEREZ: The last case, CESD20100018347, the county
recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent
to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by,
one, applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or
demolition permit for the described and permitted alterations, request
all related inspections through to issuance of Certificate of Completion
within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of X amount per day
will be imposed until the violation is abated.
Two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement
~ ,
Page 31
16\ 1 B 6
January 27,2011
investigator when the violations have been abated in order to conduct
a final inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question.
MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is this house secure?
MS. PEREZ: There is a gate that surrounds the entire property.
The doors do appear to be closed, from what I can see from the
driveway. Just the windows that have, you know, the broken glass.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to make a motion that the
80.29 be paid within 30 days, and the fine of $500 a day after 30 days.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. MARINO: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
MS. PEREZ: Thank you.
Page 32
161186
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. I have all four of these, Jen,
and they're paired with the pictures.
Okay. Next case, Case No.8, Audubon Center of Naples, LLC.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CEDS20 1 00006494,
violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as
amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a), 10.02.06(B)(I)(e), and
1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e )(i).
Description of violation: Interior door that was installed that
required breaking down that portion of firewall to create an opening to
combine Units 110 and 111 without first obtaining proper Collier
County permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 15495 Tamiami Trail
North, Naples, Florida, 34110. Folio 22493000129.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Audubon Center of Naples, LLC, care of registered agent
Fred F. Pezeshkan, 3530 Kraft Road, Suite 300, Naples, Florida,
34105.
Date violation first observed: June 30, 2010.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October
13,2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 28, 2010.
Date of reinspect ion: November 1, 2010.
Results of reinspection: No permits have been issued.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Before we go any further, could we get
your names for the record, please?
MR. DELGADO: Sure. My name's Frank Delgado. I'm with
Summit Management Group of Naples. We're the management
company responsible to take care of the Audubon Center of Naples.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And, sir?
MR. MOYER: My name is Jim Moyer. I'm with Florida Built
Right. I'm a certified building contractor.
Page 33
161;186
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great.
Jean, they're not the registered agents.
MS. RAWSON: No, nor are -- they're not listed on the sheet, so
I guess we need to get some testimony from them that they have the
authority to appear on behalf of Audubon Center.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Typically that's written.
MS . RAWSON: Typically it is, so --
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have -- sorry.
MS. RAWSON: If they don't have anything in writing, you have
each of them testify, and then you guys decide.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have anything in writing?
MR. DELGADO: I didn't bring anything in writing, or I would
have. Weare a contracting management company that has been
managing that facility for the last three years anyways.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we need to swear them in first?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We did. We did swear them in. But
typically we'll allow the testimony just by you stating that you have
been granted permission by the owner. We just don't like to leave any
loopholes --
MR. DELGADO: I understand.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- for later. Okay, great. Thank you.
MR. DELGADO: Sure.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator--
MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator
Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement.
I would now like to present the case evidence in the following
exhibits: One picture that was taken on August 23, 2010, and another
photo that was taken on January 26, 2011.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept.
MR. DEAN: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well--
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second -- I'll second.
Page 34
161~1 86
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Motion by Mr. Dean, seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Motion carries.
MR. MUSSE: This case originally came from an occupational
license complaint that was called in by Fire Marshal Robert Berman.
It stated that he observed a firewall that was -- separated Units 110
and 111, was taken down to expand the club. No permits have been
obtained for this job.
I then spoke with Kambiz Buzz Zand (phonetic), the property
manager, explained the violation, and informed him a permit was
needed for the installation of the door.
Continued to conduct regular inspections with no change in the
violation.
On July 26, 2010, was able to get in contact with one of the
owners of Ultra Night Club, David Edenfield. He informed me that he
hired a contractor to pull the permit and make sure that it receives all
the necessary inspections.
On August 19, 2010, Supervisor Capasso and I met with Otto
(phonetic), the contractor. He explained that he met up with Gary
Harrison, chief inspector, and he gave him step-by-step instructions on
to -- how to obtain the permit.v
Page 35
16 n 1 86
January 27, 2011
....,''i
J'2~
Otto also informed us that he will be meeting with the engineer
on either Friday or Saturday to complete the engineer drawings.
Numerous rechecks have been conducted. No permits have been
issued. Prepared case to appear before the Code Enforcement Board.
Received a call from Mr. Frank Delgado from Summit
Management on January 24,2011. He informed me that he removed
the door and replaced the firewall back to its original settings. But,
unfortunately, no permits have been issued. I informed him that he
would still need to obtain a permit for the newly constructed firewall.
As of yesterday, January 26, 2011, violation remains.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, the only issue here is the
fact that they cut a hole in firewall and put a door, that's correct?
MR. MUSSE: And then they restored it.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And now it's been restored?
MR. MUSSE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And what we need is an
investigator -- I'm sorry, an inspector to verify that what it was
restored with is still fireproofing and properly installed?
MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. Okay, great.
Okay. Gentlemen, if we could just have you state for the record
that you were given permission by the owner to speak on his or her
behalf, and then if you also explain what you've done to this point so
we can take that into consideration.
MR. DELGADO: I have been given to permission to speak on
behalf of Audubon Center of Naples, LLC.
This obviously was a tenant-driven issue, and we've done as
much due diligence as we can to force them to comply, failing to do
so. I would also like to -- we took steps to put the door back to its --
or put the wall back to its original condition.
F or the record, the tenant also is the full occupant of both sides of
this existing wall. So at present, it technically doesn't actually need to
Page 36
I
1 6 I 1 8 ~6
~
January 27, 201]
be fire rated, as -- if it's one tenant.
But regardless, we put it back. I hired a regular contractor,
licensed GC, to do that work for me, which was just recently done to
somewhat avoid having to come here to do -- through this to take this
off the tenant, because they weren't responding.
And we're willing to do whatever is needed to finish this process
for the board. I just need some instruction on what to do. The wall is
back to its former state, so --
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Since you've already been sworn
in, would you like to testify as to the work that was completed, and we
can add that.
MR. MOYER: The work that was completed that was -- it's a
wall that is constructed with metal studs, and there was three layers of
five-eighths on one side and one layer of five-eighths on the other side
is how we reconstructed the wall to make it flush with what it was.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that's consistent with the amount of
time necessary to stay fire-rated approval, if you will?
MR. MOYER: That existing wall now would be a four-hour
wall, and it's only required to be a one-hour wall.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, good. Thank you, sir.
Do we have any questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. You mentioned that
since the tenant occupies both sides that a firewall is not required?
MR. MOYER: That's correct. That is correct. In between tenant
separation -- the only time that a firewall separation is determined to
be feasible is when it's two separate tenants. When it's the same
tenant, we could take that whole wall down and it wouldn't matter to
the fire department. They would still be the same.
MR. KAUFMAN: Has this been run through the fire department
to verify that everybody's playing from the same page?
MR. MUSSE: I'm sorry.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is that what you understood the law to be?
Page 37
. ~ . ..
1 6 It 1 1J16 f:'~
January 27,2011
MR. MUSSE: Basically -- well, especially since this is a
commercial building, it still requires a permit for the removal of the
wall. They can expand -- like they have an occupational license which
covers both units. But since the wall was in place, a demolition permit
would have to be pulled and get inspected.
MR. DELGADO: I think because it was an existing fire-rated
wall at some point in the past, so they want to know the changes on
record. So whatever needs to happen, we're fine with it. We just want
to know what you'd like us to do now.
MR. KAUFMAN: And that tenant had that property from the
beginning?
MR. DELGADO: Before this occurred, yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe what the investigator is saying
is, you probably could have left the door if we'd had, you know, the
fire inspector take a look at it, and the building department also look at
it through the permitting process.
MR. DELGADO: Which is what we demanded. This door has
not been approved by the landlord, nor was it requested, nor were
plans given to us as well.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. DELGADO: So we've been just assisting Code
Enforcement to try to get this to comply.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Well, our procedure here today,
since we've been presented the case, is to decide whether or not a
violation either exists today or at one time did exist. So we'll take that
step.
And then the next thing is to decide, of course, a corrective
action. The action's probably already been corrected; however, from
the county's standpoint, nobody's really verified that yet.
So given the testimony, I'll entertain a motion as to whether or
not a violation exists.
Page 38
16/r186
January 27, 2011
MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have a -- I guess a comment prior to
finding a violation or not.
I'm just a little bit, I guess, dismayed that a licensed contractor
has gone in and corrected this knowing that a permit should have been
pulled. So that's just one of my -- my one comment.
But I do feel that a violation has been -- has occurred. If it's been
corrected, then fine. So I make a motion that a violation does occur--
or has occurred.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
MR. MOYER: Can I address that issue about being a licensed
general contractor without pulling a permit?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please.
MR. MOYER: The only time that I'd have to pull a permit in
that firewall when it's the same tenant that is in -- that's on both sides
is if it affected life safety, fire -- which it didn't because the same
tenant occupied both spaces -- it affected electrical or plumbing. And
through that door, there was no electrical or plumbing running through
that door. So a permit was not required to replace what I did.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's a gray area, because Florida Building
Page 39
I
1 6 Ii 1 86
January 27, 2011
Code does specify that all constructive improvements to any dwelling
of real property requires a permit. Our county is laxed, and so is Lee
County, as to, you know, dollar amounts. But I think you're both
right. It's one of those gray areas. So--
MR. MOYER: Well, I just want to make sure that -- I wouldn't
do anything without -- knowing it needed a permit, I would have
pulled one.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate that. And your comment
was absolutely noted, and I don't think the comment was meant in any
derogatory way towards you personally.
MR. MOYER: Good.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, since the violation has
already been taken care of, does the county have a recommendation as
far as getting this closed out and verified and inspected?
MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. The county recommends that the Code
Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs
in the amount of $82 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30
days and abate all violation by obtaining -- and I -- you guys got a
different copy, so I'm going to update it a little bit -- obtaining a
Collier County building permit for the firewall that's been in place,
and obtain all inspections and Certificate of Completion within X
amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount of dollars per
day will be imposed until violation's abated, or obtaining a Collier
County demolition permit inspection/Certification of Completion
within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of X amount of
dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, hang on. Did you get that?
Okay. It was a little fast.
MR. MUSSE: Sorry. The respondent must notify the Code
Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order
to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement.
If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may
Page 40
161 '1 '86 ~
January 27, 2011
abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would somebody like to--
MR. LEFEBVRE: I can't agree with this motion if, in fact, a
permit is not needed. How are you going to have someone go out and
inspect the property if a permit's not needed?
MR. MUSSE: To my understanding a permit is needed in any
kind of changes in commercial buildings like that -- of that magnitude
with a firewall.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jeff, you need to be sworn in.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
As is stated, it's the same tenant right now on both sides of that
wall; however, in the future how are we going to decide whether a
new tenant's going to go in one side, a new tenant's going to go on the
other side?
We're just here to make sure firewall is safe so in the future we
don't have -- we don't have a situation. I think -- and I'm not an expert
on this permit, that Collier County would like to go in there and have
an inspector, and also the fire department would like to have an
inspector go in there and inspect this wall.
I'm of the opinion they do need to get a permit for this.
MR. KAUFMAN: One quick comment. If the tenant owns -- or
is using and has the right to both sides, that wall is not a firewall. It's a
wall --
MR. DELGADO: That's correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- is that correct?
MR. LETOURNEAU: I would agree with that; however, even if
they were to remove that wall, they would still need to get a
demolition permit from Collier County and have that inspected.
But as of right now, like I said, we don't know what's going to
Page 41
\i?u!~~2~1l t1
happen in the future one way or the other. They put a door in there
without a permit. They replaced it without a permit. That building is
originally permitted with that firewall in there. One way or another,
they need to get a permit so Collier County can come down there and
make sure what they're doing is in a permitted condition.
MR. KAUFMAN: I guess where I'm confused is, you have a
wall. If you have two separate tenants in there, it's a firewall. If you
have one tenant that has the right to both sides, it's not a firewall.
MR. MOYER: That's correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: So if it's not a firewall and you put a door in
between the two locations, that construction in a commercial property
requires or does not require a building permit. Is that where we are?
MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not sure -- that's the first I've ever
heard about the same tenant being in there with the one firewall. I'm
not -- you know, we just went in there at the request of the fire
marshal who stated that he wasn't -- he wasn't happy about what was
going on there. I'm not sure about the tenant rule myself.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think now, if I could, it's elevated to the
point where Code Enforcement's involved, and we do need to have
some kind of oversight in order to verify just that the work was done.
I think that's what it boils down to.
And I agree with the supervisor in that, you know, the building
was permitted originally one way. If there were alterations made to it,
there probably should be a permit. And I also agree with the fact that
if at a later date the owner decides to lease those units out to two
different people, it's probably a good idea to have that inspected just in
case. I'd hate to see any of this -- God forbid, a fire, and come back on
any of us.
MR. LETOURNEAU: Could we modify the recommendation,
just one word, by putting obtaining all required Collier County
building permits, so if we get notification from the fire department and
our planning department that they don't require a building permit, then
Page 42
16111
I
DO ,."
January 27, 2011
we'd be good to go at that point right there. Because, to be honest, I
don't know about the tenant rule at this point.
MR. KAUFMAN: My concern is that the wording in the
violation specifies "firewall." If it's not a firewall, then this would
have to be, I would think, modified.
So what is an easy way of putting this so -- where everybody can
agree? Is it just getting somebody out there from the Building
Department to take a look at the work that was done without the
requirement of pulling a building permit?
MS. FLAGG: I believe the issue is that the fire marshal's
concerned because it was a firewall when the wall was intact, and the
wall was re- -- a portion of the wall was removed. So this request is
coming from the fire marshal.
And they can work with the Building Department, but they're
satisfying a request. The fire marshal has a concern.
MR. MARINO: I have a question. Wouldn't the fire marshal,
knowing that both spots were occupied by the same tenant -- would
that make it a firewall?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, perhaps the fire marshal is telling
us something here. Maybe ifhe raised a red flag on this, maybe
there's a good reason for it.
And I agree with the supervisor, perhaps we should change the
wording on the recommendation to just simply say, "Any required
permits and/or inspections."
MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. And if we get notification from,
like I said, the powers that be, the Planning Department, Permitting
Department, and fire marshal saying that everything's good to go, that
would cover that -- that would cover that with that one word in there.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: You might not need a permit. You --
MR. DELGADO: Well, that's my question, is that possibly a fire
inspection will satisfy that department, and if they need Jim present to
verify what construction was done at the time or -- whatever we need
Page 43
_. __ I
161i18f6
January 27, 2011
to do to comply, I'm, again, more than happy to help.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That could be just it. So if that's okay
with everybody, if you'd like, we'll amend that motion. Did you make
it? I'm sorry.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I didn't make the motion.
MR. KAUFMAN: Who made the -- it wasn't me.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I made the initial motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, that's what it was. Okay.
And then you were going to -- or you just had a question.
MR. KAUFMAN: I seconded that motion, that's it. Then there
were just questions.
CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You talking about the violation?
MR. KAUFMAN: Right.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: But that was already approved, right?
Now we're on recommendation?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. We haven't made any motions.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Well, does somebody want to
make a motion?
MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I'll make the motion that we accept
your change of the wording that you have in there, and $100 a day
after 60 days should be sufficient to get this thing resolved. If it's not,
come back to the board.
So filling in the blanks, it would be, what is it, $82 for the cost,
court costs?
MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what he'd said.
MR. MUSSE: Yep.
MR. KAUFMAN: So it's $82,60 days, $100 a day after 60 days
to get this resolved.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Eighty-two within 30 days.
MR. KAUFMAN: Thirty days, correct.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a
Page 44
- - - I
16 J 1'1 B 6
January 27, 2011
second?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it carries.
MR. DELGADO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gentlemen, thanks for trying to get it
resolved without having to go through all this. But it's like, once it
reaches our level, we have to take care of it.
MR. DELGADO: No problem. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. Next case would be Patton Avenue Holdings, LLC, Case
No.9. Is the respondent here?
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD201 00003342,
violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as
amended, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a), 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e), and
1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e )(i).
Description of violation: An injector sewer pump installed
without first obtaining proper Collier County permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 10295 Tamiami Trail
Page 45
I
161-1 8'6 "1
January 27, 2011
North, Naples, Florida, 34108. Folio 62651120005.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Patton Avenue Holdings, LLC, 8720 Bay Colony Drive,
Apartment No. 301, Naples, Florida, 34108.
Date violation first observed: March 10, 2010.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: April
27,2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 26,2010.
Date of reinspection: November 22, 2010.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator?
MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator
Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement.
I would now like to present the case evidence in the following
exhibits: Four photos that were taken on March 10, 2010, in aerial
(sic) location of the area of -- a photo of the location, and a copy of
Permit No. 2005031857.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits.
MR. DEAN: Second.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think this one actually came first on
this one, Gerald.
Mr. Dean seconded.
MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the exhibits?
MR. MINER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All of those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
Page 46
16 , r B'6 '
January 27, 2011
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries.
MR. MUSSE: On March 10, 2010, I received a complaint from
Gregory Yanda, pre-treatment inspector of Collier County Water
Reclamation Laboratory, stating that an injector pump has been
installed and appears not to be up to code and possibly not permitted.
Conducted a site inspection and met with Mr. Yanda and Mike
Andresky of Utility Enforcement.
Spoke to the property owner of Kwik Pick, Rafael Esteves. He
informed me that when the sewer backs up, the toilet flange starts to
leak.
I also spoke with the owner of Sasobravo (phonetic), Jose Myers.
He informed me that when he bought -- he just bought the business
and -- from the previous owner about three weeks ago and did witness
a contractor installed an injector pump to help with the flow of the
sewage.
Was able to get a -- was able to get in contact with Bruce Miner
of Cameron Realty, who is the property manager for this plaza. Mr.
Miner stated that he hired Sunwest Plumbing recently to replace an
injector pump.
Checked CD Plus. No permits was issued.
At this time I would like to introduce Gregory Yanda,
pre-treatment inspector, so that he can give you more insight and
details of the violation.
MR. YANDA: Good morning. My name's Greg Yanda. I work
for Collier County Utilities as a pre-treatment inspector.
Today what we've got here is a situation that goes back for quite
some time. To tell you the history at this location, there had been
quite a few sewer backups and some permitting issues. And through
Page 47
16 ',1 B 6
January 27, 2011
the years I was trying to get the tenant into compliance.
At one point we thought that we had them into compliance by
installing a grease trap. Got a picture here that shows that the grease
trap wasn't installed properly.
You can see here that --
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, hang on one second. Mr. Musse, did
you intend this to be a part of your original packet? Because we
haven't voted on it just yet.
MR. MUSSE: Yes, I do.
MR. YANDA: It shows here that the grease trap, the outlet T
was installed at the wrong elevation. And I believe at a later date the
correction has been made and -- in completion of that altercation or,
rather, correction. There's still outstanding problems that the grease
trap is creating.
Somewhere after this point an injector pit was installed, I believe,
to correct the problem. And at this point, the problem still exists.
There has been previous backups, and one of the main objectives
that we're trying to get today is that this injector pit that has been
installed, that it has been permitted, and that -- in the future that it's
functioning properly.
MR. KAUFMAN: You're saying that it was permitted?
MR. YANDA: No. Well, at this point, there has been no proof
that it has been permitted.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is there anything further from the
county?
MR. MUSSE: Conducted a -- numerous checks, and finally
received an email from Mr. Miner. He stated that the injector pump
was included in that Permit No. 2005301857.
I then pulled the permit, looked at the plans and drawings, and
did not find any mention of the grease trap in that permit.
Conducted a prehearing inspection yesterday , January 26, 2011.
Violation remains.
Page 48
I
1611 86 ~'~
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything further?
MR. MUSSE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have two questions. In our packet part
of your evidence, you have two diagrams. One is just general
plumbing diagram. The other one is also a diagram of that area and
also shows a picture of this grease trap.
Do you know when these were submitted? Are they part of the
original permit, or are they a supplement?
MR. MUSSE: They're part of the original permit.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you, sir.
Good morning.
MR. MINER: Good morning. My name, for the record, is Bruce
Miner. I'm with Cameron Real Estate Services, and I'm here on behalf
of the owner, Patton Holdings. We're the property manager and have
been for about four years or five years for that particular property.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I could, if you would just state for the
record that the owner did, in fact, give you authority to speak on their
behalf today.
MR. MINER: Yes, sir, he did.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you.
So what we'd like to do is get your side of the story, if you will,
and tell us maybe a little bit of background, anything that differs, of
course, from what county might have said and where we are today.
MR. MINER: Well, originally I received a phone call from Mr.
Musse, who was on site at the time so -- and, you know, he asked me
when we could get together to discuss the issue. So I told him I'd be --
I'd come right over.
So I went over there, and at the time I arrived there, it was about
-- there were four Collier County trucks and about six Collier County
employees. And I figure we had some issues here.
Page 49
I
16 I" 1 B 6
January 27,2011
.1
t '~i
So they indicated that they had gotten a complaint that there were
sewer backups and had pointed to the -- in the grease trap as being the
culprit in the -- at least my understanding was -- being the culprit in
the grease -- I mean the restroom backups.
Consequently I spoke to the new owner of the restaurant and --
who had, in fact, just purchased the restaurant about three weeks prior
to them coming on scene. There were a few other violations that were
corrected by the restaurateur.
And I then contacted the original owner of the restaurant who
had installed the grease traps along with other interior renovations,
and was told by Mr. Musse that the -- that the grease trap had not been
permitted. He was unable to find a permit at the county.
When I spoke with the previous restaurateur, he had assured me
that that had been part of the repairs in the interior renovations and
that it had, in fact, been inspected.
So I went down to the county myself and was able to locate a
permit. Now, when you bring the permits up on the screen, they're
truncated if they're quite involved. So knowing about the time frame,
I asked them to retrieve one of the permits which include -- did have a
permit for the grease trap. And I just -- I turned that over to -- actually
I'd emailed it to Mr. Musse, but I just turned it over to them this
morning -- which said that the grease trap had been permitted and
inspected.
The response I got was that, okay, the grease trap has been
permitted, but the injector pump has not. Well, my reference to
Southwest Plumbing doing a repair or putting an injector pump in, the
injector pump was, in fact, in there at that time. He did a repair on the
injector pump because it had failed which, I think, was causing the
grease to get down into the cleanout where they had -- had the feeling
that it was getting into the -- into the system, the Collier County
system.
It's my understanding and -- that the -- that the plumbing for the
Page 50
I
16 Ii 1 8f6
January 27, 2011
bathrooms does not exit on that end of the building and actually exits
on 41. And the reason I found that out was because I got some calls
from the tenants saying that their plumbing was backing up.
I called Acres Plumbing in to do a -- to find out what was going
on. They camera'ed the line and, in fact, the -- all the bathrooms exit
onto the 41 side of the building.
Now, what had happened was, the -- there's also a grease trap on
that end of the building for another restaurant in there. And I believe
when that company came in to pump that grease trap out, they ran
over the cleanout, the PVC cleanout, and they crushed the pipe below
-- about five feet below the ground.
So Acres Plumbing had to go in and actually dig up that pipe and
do the repair, and that resolved all my problems with the -- with the
restrooms in the property.
Getting back to the grease traps, on the grease trap side, I did
produce the permit that said it, in fact, was permitted and approved,
and -- but there was no indication on the permit that there was an
injector pump approved. I find out this morning that it wouldn't have
been approved because it's -- it's not even a part of the code, so they
would never have approved that.
I contacted the Edgewater Builders, Incorporated, who is the
company that did the renovations in the property and asked him if he
remembered the job, which he, in fact, did.
And this morning -- when I got up, I checked my email, and he
had sent me a letter indicating that he was there and present during the
inspection, including the injector pump. And he sent me an email,
which I have here. And I'd like to pass that in for--
CHAIRMAN KELLY : You're absolutely allowed to. If you will,
show it to county real quick so that they can approve it.
MR. MUSSE: I've already seen it.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, you're okay?
MR. MUSSE: Yeah.
Page 51
16 I 1 8' 6 f
January 27,2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, I'll entertain a motion.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit.
MR. MARINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So basically what you're saying, then, is
as part of the original permit, you would simply permit for a grease
trap.
The injector pump would be part of that assembly and not
necessarily be line- itemed on any permit.
MR. MINER: That's what I'm indicating. And according to a
discussion out in the hall here previous, it's my understanding that
grease pump would not have functioned without that injector pump.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And then, furthermore, you did also say
that although it was originally part of the permit, originally approved
with the permit, that it had malfunctioned since and it was needed --
and it needed to be replaced.
MR. MINER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe county would probably want a
permit on that replacement.
MR. MINER: Well, that was -- that was one of my requests with
Page 52
16 I' 1 8 6
January 27, 2011
f~
the company that did the replacement, because I'm cognizant, being a
property manager, of permits.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure.
MR. MITCHELL: So I asked him if, in fact, a permit was
required, and he said, no, because it's existing equipment and it wasn't
needed. So that's what I was told, and that's what I went with.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're beyond my knowledge. I only
know that AlC units or roofs need to be permitted on replacement.
What about grease traps and injector pumps?
MR. MUSSE: Well, there's no question that the grease trap was
already permitted. It passed inspections and CO's. The only thing is
that my -- my gut feeling is that when this permit was CO'ed, a grease
trap -- or an injector pump was never even installed. It was installed
after the inspection and the permit was CO'ed to assist flow of the
sewage.
MR. KAUFMAN: May I ask? Has everything been resolved?
MR. MUSSE: No, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: As far as the actual-- is the sewage backing
up at all anymore?
MR. MINER: That, in my opinion, was a totally different issue
on the other end of the building, but that has been resolved, the sewer
backup.
MR. KAUFMAN: Are there any more complaints from any of
the people involved in this?
MR. MUSSE: There has been more issues after this -- the first
initial complaint that Mr. Yanda can go into detail.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Also, just be cognizant that we are kind
of limited to the scope based on the charging documents, which refer
to a permit of this particular pump, sewer pump, injector sewer pump.
So anything outside of that really is almost, you know, not related.
MR. YANDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
Page 53
1611 816
January 27, 2011
t~
MR. YANDA: Today what we would like to resolve is, if there
has been a permit for the injector pit and only their injector pit,
produce it -- and a recommendation that if there's not a permit valid to
date, that -- try to get one obtained. And if not, Code Enforcement
would have to take steps from there. And what those steps are is
possibly removal of their injector pit and so forth.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. LETOURNEAU: I'd just like to ask Mr. Yanda a couple
questions.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just real quick, for the record, your
name.
MR. LETOURNEAU: Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code
Enforcement.
Mr. Yanda, have you had a chance to look at the original permit
with the grease trap involved?
MR. YANDA: Yes.
MR. LETOURNEAU: Did you see any -- anything on that
permit that showed the injector pump as part of that permit?
MR. YANDA: No.
MR. LETOURNEAU: In your experience, do you know if an
injector pump like that is permittable in Collier County?
MR. YANDA: Of that type right there, it would have to go
through -- it would have to go through permitting. I could look at our
records as far as our utility standard manual. We have details of what
an injector pit should look like.
It is possible that it could have been permitted. But what it
comes down to is, we're looking for a permit to see if it is -- not just
permitted, but inspected along with -- with it being permitted. And--
excuse me, one more thing. And along with that is the assurance that
their pit was installed properly.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I ask a layman's question to the
expert? If I pulled a permit to get an air-conditioning unit, I wouldn't
Page 54
1611 86
January 27, 2011
~#,~
need a separate permit to also get the air handler, because they come
together, right? Is there a separate permit for injector pumps and yet
another one for grease traps, or are they listed separate on a master
permit in any way?
MR. YANDA: I don't know if there would be two separate
permits. But on the original prints or the documentation that was
produced to the county to install their original grease trap, there
should have been some notification on it, a sketch, a detail, something
showing that, hey, these are our intentions to install this contraption.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand what you're saying. The
only thing I can point to is when Investigator Musse was originally
presenting, I asked about these documents, and he said, yes, both
diagrams are part of it. It doesn't show an injector pump, but it does
show a kind of at-large view of the grease trap.
And I guess what the board is trying to wrestle with is, is the
injector pump just a simple product of the whole grease trap itself?
MR. YANDA: No, no. An injector pit is in -- nowhere close to
being any component of a grease trap.
I inspect, I would say, about 650 different locations here in
Collier County, and there's not one location that has an injector pit
hooked up with a grease trap.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. YANDA: And don't quote me on this, but there's something
else that should be looked into. To the best of my knowledge, a device
like this should be permitted through the Health Department and the
DEP, because knowing firsthand that all private lift stations that are
out there amongst the Collier County sewer system, these private lift
stations injector pits are permitted through the Health Department and
the DEP.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And then last question. We have
a few pictures that were taken by the investigator showing exposed
wiring and, you know, some alterations that seem to be relatively new.
Page 55
1611 86
January 27, 2011
Would this type of construction be consistent with something that
would pass an inspection if a permit was pulled?
MR. YANDA: That -- I personally don't inspect injector pits.
By looking at it, it would have to be -- the lid of it would have to be
opened and the contents inspected, which I believe I'm capable of
doing. I would need approval from my supervisors to go to that
extent.
But even that in itself is a gray area, because it's private property,
okay. Collier County's responsibility, even though that -- we inspect
the grease traps that are private property, our responsibility stops at
the 6-inch cleanout that's out by the street, so --
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. LEFEBVRE: These pictures here -- and I think Mr. Kelly,
Chairman Kelly, might have alluded to it. Is this indicative -- this is
the injector pump, correct? These pictures here, showing the white
piping and so forth, PVC piping.
MR. YANDA: That's a wooden cover that they made for the
injector pit itself. Below that is, more than likely, a pump that
services that line.
MR. LEFEBVRE: But what I'm saying, the plumbing, the pipes,
the PVC piping, would be part of the pump, correct?
MR. YANDA: Can I see which picture you're looking at?
MR. LEFEBVRE: The four pictures.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: It looks like a grease trap for airflow
maybe?
MR. YANDA: That is -- yes. That's exactly what it is. That's a
vent.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. LEFEBVRE: The reason I ask is because those -- those
pipes look like they're fairly recent.
MR. YANDA: Yes.
MR. LEFEBVRE: There doesn't appear to be any kind of dirt
Page 56
I
16 I 1 816
January 27, 2011
~:'
from rain or anything kicked up on it. The glue around the pipes looks
very new. I mean, typically that stuff does fade over time.
MR. YANDA: I agree.
MR. LEFEBVRE: So I think that that looks very new. Maybe
when the new tenant moved in he had it installed realizing that there
was an issue. But it does look very recent.
You know, the wood doesn't look, you know, extremely recent,
but the piping definitely does look recent.
So I'm a little suspect that it's been there since 2005. It doesn't
look like since 2005 to me.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, what we're trying to determine -- and
if you have any further input, please, I would suggest you add. We're
trying to determine whether or not a permit is needed, because that
would be basically the entire premise of the violation to begin with.
MR. MINER: The only thing that I would point to would be the
letter from the builder who pulled the permit in the first place
indicating that, in fact, the injector pump was there and was inspected
at the same time.
Now, I do know that when Southwest went in there to do the
work on the pump, that he had to do some replumbing because there
was damage, and this is what was causing the grease out by the county
line in the cleanout. And that's the whole issue here, I understand, is
the grease getting into the county line.
And previous restauranteur, not being as diligent as he may have
been in keeping that pump clean when they determined that that lift
station was there -- and, here again, been told this morning that that
grease trap would not function without that injector pump.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does anyone else have any questions?
MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess, you know, you allude to two
different companies going out there, Southwest and Acres. When was
Southwest out there, when was Acres out there?
MR. MINER: Excuse me. Acres had nothing to do with the
Page 57
1 6 II 1 8 (,
January 27,2011
,.
~;.
grease trap. Acres was strictly on the backup for the sewer, which was
the initial complaint, which was taken care of on the other end of the
property .
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. MINER: Southwest Florida was a company that that
previous restauranteur had, in fact, utilized to do repairs.
MR. LEFEBVRE: When? When? I mean, the question is, did
they -- did they put the new injector in? Was it Southwest?
MR. MINER: No. They replaced it because it was -- wasn't
functioning.
MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I said, put the new injection in.
MR. MINER: Yes. They put -- I thought you meant the original
one; 12/1/2008 was when they were out there.
MR. LEFEBVRE: So that was --
MR. MINER: Just about three months prior to this.
MR. LEFEBVRE: What year?
MR. MINER: 2008.
MR. MARINO: Two years ago.
MR. KAUFMAN: According to the letter that you got this
morning, it said that the -- it says, pertaining to Permit No. 2005-. So
it looks like the grease pit was installed, the grease trap was installed
sometime in 2005.
MR. MINER: That's correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: And if we had a copy of that permit--
MR. MINER: I turned it in this morning.
MR. KAUFMAN: Does that show the pump?
MR. MUSSE: I have a copy of the permit with inspection
history. Is that in your packet or no? It is, okay.
And then the drawings, which I tried to minimize it as much as
possible. I don't know, maybe you would like to -- can submit this
also into evidence as well. I don't believe he saw it.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept.
Page 58
16 I 1 B 6
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that okay with you, sir?
MR. MINER: Sure.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do have the permit record here, at
least a copy of CD Plus's version of it. There was quite a few failed
inspections, and -- it's kind of a mess to begin with.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Chairman Kelly?
CHAIRMAN KELLY : Yes, sir.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be best to maybe put this case off to
next month to see if we can get the full permit that -- is there -- is there
where it spells out exactly what components are part of the permit?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, can I dovetail on that? Because I'm
-- I agree with you. Because even if we found in the beginning that
there was an injector pump installed, maybe this new change-out
required a permit anyways, you know. And I'd like to know that.
I mean, does a change-out require a permit, and if that's the case,
then it's kind of a -- it's kind of a done deal, because we have
testimony admitting to the fact that there was a change-out.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think we have enough evidence to
Page 59
1 6 It 1 R ;,1"
January 27, 1t11 r
make a decision if there was a permit, in fact, needed or not.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would like to echo the same opinion and
support that motion.
MS. FLAGG: The county would request to withdraw the case.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, we're done. Sorry, sir. We
tried our best, but we just didn't have enough information. We
wouldn't want to rule against it and then, you know, be wrong. So
what we're going to do is our due diligence, and we're going to, one,
find out if a permit was required for the change-out and, two, see if we
can't look deeper into these plans and original permits to see if, in fact,
the injector pump was also added in there.
Perhaps by using testimony from the original contractor, you can
work together with the county investigators, and maybe this won't be
presented to us anymore and we're see you at a local restaurant.
MR. MITCHELL: May I say just -- just on Page 2 of 3 of the
permit, it does show the grease trap as final inspection on January 31,
2006 so--
,
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have that as well. I think the only
question was whether or not a grease trap and the injector pump are
together in the assembly.
MR. MINER: Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good. Thank you.
MR. LEFEBVRE: The other statement that I'd like to make
before, maybe as a suggestion, if -- I don't know if it's possible to
bring in the actual person that did the work, but if he has a receipt
showing -- you know, spelling out exactly what he did -- I mean, I
obviously wouldn't want him to falsify it. But if he has some kind of
record of that, that might also help out.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Very good.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a suggestion.
MR. MINER: Thank you.
Page 60
I
1611 86
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. We'll take a IS-minute
break, and we'll reconvene here at five till 11. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'd like to call the Code
Enforcement Board back to order.
Since that case was tabled, we'll move on next to Richard L. and
Sandra Rathjen.
Are the respondents here?
MR. PAUL: No, they're not.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD201 000 17996.
Violation of ordinance: Collier County Land Development Code
04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a).
Description of violation: Unpermitted storage shed and lanai.
Location/address where violation exists: 4866 21st Avenue
Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 36121360004.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Richard L. and Saundra F. Rathjen, 4866 21st Avenue
Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116.
Date violation first observed: September 7, 2010.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October
13,2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 14,2010.
Date of reinspect ion: November 17, 2010.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
MR. PAUL: Good morning. For the record, Renald Paul,
Collier County Code Enforcement investigator.
This is in reference to Case No. CESD201000017996 dealing
with violations of an unpermitted shed and a lanai addition with no
permits.
Location is 4866 21 st Avenue Southwest. Service was given on
10/13/2010. And I'd like to present case evidence in the following:
Page 61
I
16118f6
January 27, 2011
, '.j
It's four -- it's three photographs and one photograph from the property
appraiser's site.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept--
MR. PAUL: It's an aerial.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- the exhibits.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
MR. PAUL: As you will view the photographs, the first
photograph is of the shed that's in the rear of the residence. There's
also, on the first photograph, a picture of the lanai that had been
added, and the second and the third photograph also that show the
same.
The last photograph is an aerial shot. As you can see, it's dated --
the first one is 2001. And I circled the area where -- where all of a
sudden the lanai appeared.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this property in lis pendens?
MR. PAUL: Yes, it is. This property is vacant.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board?
Page 62
1~r186 ~
hnuary 27,2011
MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find them in violation.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second.
Discussion I would have is, in the original there was no mention
of a lanai or --
MR. PAUL: No, there isn't.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- shed?
All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Violation exists.
Do you have a recommendation?
MR. PAUL: Yes, I do. We ask that the board order the
respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $82.15
incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing.
Respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required
by Collier County for the unpermitted shed and lanai addition or
obtain permits for the removal of the shed and the lanai addition, and
obtain all required inspections and Certificate of Completion within X
amount of days of this hearing, or be fined X amount of dollars for
each day the violation remains unabated.
Respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when
the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to
confirm abatement.
If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may
Page 63
I
16 1 1 816
January 27, 2011
abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. And all costs
of assessed -- all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property
owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Anyone like to talk about --
MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. Have you been in touch with the
respondent?
MR. PAUL: No. This property is empty. We have been in
contact with the bank, but they pretty much didn't do anything because
they don't own -- they don't have title at this time to this residence.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone like to work on the
recommendation?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll try. They pay 81.15 within 30 days, and
they abate the violation within 60 days or a $200-a-day fine is
imposed.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. MARINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And that was accepting county's
Page 64
16' 1 8 6
January 27, 2011
recommendation, 60 days, $200 a day.
MR. PAUL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
Next case, Henry T esno and Jill Weaver.
Are the respondent here?
MS. SCAVONE: No.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD20100017736.
Violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws Chapter
22, Article II, Section 22 to 26(b )(104.5.1.4.4).
Description of violation: Permits 2002050921 for swimming
pool, 2003010443 for fence, and 2003102442 for framed
single-family home have all expired/canceled before obtaining all
required inspections and their Certificate of Occupancy/Completion.
Location address where violation exists: 3117 Areca Avenue,
Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 71800000527.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Henry J. Tesno and Jill J. Weaver, 3411 Basin Street,
Naples, Florida, 34112.
Date violation first observed: August 13,2010.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation:
September 1,2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 29, 2010.
Date of reinspect ion: November 9, 2010.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
MS. SCAVONE: For the -- good morning. For the record,
Michelle Scavone, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator,
presenting all cases for Investigator Azure Sorrels.
This case is in reference to CESD201 000 17736 dealing with the
violations of abandoned or suspended permits, Collier County Code of
Laws Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22-26(b) and 104.1 point --
excuse me -- 104.5.1.4.4, located at 3117 Areca Ave., Naples, Florida.
Page 65
1 6'1 B 6
!tnuary 17, 2011
Folio No. 71800000527. Service was given on September 1,2010,
posted by -- on the property and at the courthouse.
I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits:
A, four photos dated January 26, 2011.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photos.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any more exhibits?
MS. SCAVONE: That's all.
On October 13,2010, this case was generated through a research
of the property. It was discovered by Investigator Sorrels that Permit
No. 2003102442 for a framed single-family home had expired before
receiving all inspections and a Certificate of Occupancy, Permit No.
2002050921 for a pool had expired and was canceled before all
inspections were completed and did not receive a Certificate of
Completion, and Permit No. 203010443 for a fence has expired
without inspections being completed and receiving a Certificate of
Completion.
On September 1, 2010, Investigator Sorrels posted the property
and the courthouse with the Notice of Violation.
September 29, 2010, Mr. Henry Tesno came to the Code
Page 66
161186
January 27, 2011
~
Enforcement Office and spoke to Investigator Sorrels about the case.
He was sent in contact with the Permit Department.
As of this date, there has not been any contact with the property
owners, and the violation remains the same.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is this in lis pendens?
MS. SCAVONE: This property is not.
L'ESPERANCE: Is Mr. Tesno the owner of the property?
MS. SCAVONE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find them in
violation.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries.
Do you have a recommendation?
MS. SCAVONE: Yes. The Code Enforcement Board orders that
the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86
incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, to abate all
Page 67
161186
January 27, 2011
violations by: The respondent must obtain all required Collier County
building permits, inspections, Certificate of Occupancy or Completion
for the swimming pool, fence, and framed single-family home, or
obtain a demolition permit, inspections, certification and completion
and demolish said structures within X amount of day of this hearing or
an X amount of day fine will be imposed for each day the violation
.
remaIns.
The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the
violations, the county may abate the violations and may use the
assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce provisions
of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the
property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any discussion about the
recommendation?
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question or two.
You've picked this up from Investigator Sorrels.
MS. SCAVONE: Correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know what the conversation -- or had
she related to you what the conversation with the homeowner on this
has been?
MS. SCAVONE: He had come to the property -- to the Code
Enforcement Office, and she -- he had told her that he spoke with
Agale (phonetic) over in the Permit Department about the canceled
house permits, and she was going to be working with him on getting
this resolved.
MR. KAUFMAN: And that was the last contact?
MS. SCAVONE: And that -- yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: And have you tried to reach the respondent?
MS. SCAVONE: I've made a couple of site visits there, and the
house is vacant, and I have not been able to get ahold of the owners.
Page 68
I
1 6 I . 1 Sf 6
January 27, 2011
~. ':1
MR. KAUFMAN: And my final question is, on the -- they
pulled building permits, it looks like. They just didn't have the CO on
them.
MS. SCAVONE: The house permit originally was in 2001. It
was re-ap'ed twice, and the second one is the one that it had -- it's still,
like, in an inspect status. It has not received all of the inspections
made.
The fence only has one inspection that needs to be done, and it's
voided now because it hasn't ever been done. And the pool was -- it's
canceled, and it has the three finals; the plumbing, the electric, and the
final pool.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: On your site inspections, were you able
to verify if the fence did, in fact, wrap all the way around the backyard
and isolate the pool?
MS. SCAVONE: The fence -- it did; however, it is not being
maintained, so the one half is kind of pushed to the side, falling over.
The pool is empty with probably about a foot of water in the deep end,
but it's -- it's all dirty. It's not being maintained.
MR. MARINO: According to the picture, it doesn't look like it's
wrapped all around. It looks like it goes side, back, and nothing on the
other side.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, that's what I was concerned about.
And if you look closely, it looks like the neighbor house actually
creates part of the fence. I'm just worried about during summertime, if
this goes this long, or if we have a good rain, we might get enough
water to create a hazard to children.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, the other -- do you want to swear me
.
In.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. BAKER: We did bring a case to the last special-magistrate
meeting for the pool maintenance, and if that is not corrected, the
county will go in and take care of that issue.
Page 69
I
16 I 11 8 6
January 27, 2011
MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you just state your name.
MS. BAKER: Jen Baker.
MR. KAUFMAN: It looks like, if you look at this photo of the
pool, that there is no fence between the pool and the adjacent house.
MR. MARINO: Right. And it does not connect to the other
fence either.
MR. KAUFMAN: So somebody could fall in that hole whether
it has water or not. They may not drown, but they could die from the
fall.
MS. BAKER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I feel confident that because there's
another case that would address the issue, that it's being taken care of,
and I wouldn't want to put double jeopardy on any property owner. In
that case, is there anybody that would like to maybe accept the
recommendation with some time frames and dollar amounts?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll be glad to. 80.86 paid within 30 days,
abate the violation within 60 days, or a fine of $200 a day.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. MARINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE:- Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
Page 70
J. 0 'I 1 'B"6
January 27, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
MS. SCAVONE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Investigator. Are you
sticking around for the next one?
MS. SCAVONE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: How do you say that last name?
MS. BAKER: Sorokoty. That's my best guess.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD20090005007.
Violation of ordinance: Collier County, Collier County Code of
Laws Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22 to 26(b )(104.1.3.5), Florida
Building Code 2004 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 and Section
111.1, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended,
Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a) and 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e).
Description of violation: Mezzanine and stairs in Bays 9 and 10
erected, and electrical work done in Bay 8 without first obtaining
Collier County approval, required inspections, and Certificate of
Completion.
Location/address where violation exists: 2435 Tamiami Trail
East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 387040000.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Roxana Sorokoty Trust and Walter G. Sorokoty, Jr., Trust
Estate, 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 101, Naples, Florida, 34102.
Date violation first observed: April 29, 2009.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 7,
2009.
Date on/by violation to be corrected: May 30, 2009.
Date of reinspect ion: November 24, 2010.
Results of the reinspection: The violation remains.
MS. SCAVONE: Okay. For the record, Michelle Scavone,
Collier County Code Enforcement investigator presenting for Azure
Page 71
16111' 86
January 27,2011
Sorrels.
This case is in reference to Case No. CESD20090005007 dealing
with the violation of improvements prior to a building pe\mit.
Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 22, Article II, Section
22-26(b)(104.5.1.4.4), Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter
1, Section 105.1 and 111.1.
Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Sections
1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a) and 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e), located at 2435 Tamiami
Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio 387040000.
Service was given on May 7, 2009, by certified mail. I would
like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Of three
photos from April 29, 2009.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to approve.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second. Have you seen the photos?
MR. MINER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second.
All those -- any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And we'll call to a vote.
All approved, say aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I was trying to get it out.
MS. SCAVONE: April 27, 2009, this case was generated
through the fire department inspector, John Bigica, for interior
Page 72
16'1 '86
January 27, 2011
remodel being done without permits.
On April 30, 2009, a former code investigator Thomas Keegan,
was on site and observed possible unpermitted mezzanine stairs and
electrical work being done.
Research was conducted May 7, 2009, by Investigator Keegan,
and it was discovered there were no Collier County permits for the
work, and a Notice of Violation was served to the occupant and
signed. Also, Registered Mail was sent and received on May 12,
2009, by the owner.
We had extended time frames to allow the owner to come into
compliance due to financial hardship. And as of January 21st, I -- we
received an email from the property representative, Mr. Bruce Miner.
He stated that the tenants have vacated the space, and due to the
economic situation, they cannot bring the violations up to code at this
time. He stated that the space will remain vacant.
A response email was sent by Supervisor Petrulli that even
though the space is vacant, the violation still does exist and it does
need to be brought up into compliance.
Yesterday I spoke with Inspector John Bigica from the fire
department. He stated that as long as it was vacant, that -- and the
electric was shut of:f, that their issue is fine until -- if it does become --
someone does occupy the space, it does -- everything does need to be
done before that happens.
So as of this date, it remains in violation.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does anybody from the board
have a question for the investigator?
MR. MARINO: Do you know when these pictures were taken?
MS. SCAVONE: They were taken on April 29, 2009, according
to case notes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions?
Sir, if I could, just because this is a different case, just state that
the owner has granted you permission to speak on their behalf.
Page 73
161 1 a,6
January 27, 2011
MR. MINER: Sure. For the record, my name is Bruce Miner.
I'm with Cameron Real Estate Services, and the owner has authorized
me to speak on his behalf.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir.
Anything further to add?
MR. MINER: The only thing that I'd have to add is, in fact, the
mezzanine -- this property was built approximately 1978.
Mezzanine's been in place since 1978, was not put in by the existing--
by the previous tenant.
And, in fact, the previous tenant was in the space for five years,
did have it inspected upon his entrance into the space five years ago,
and has since vacated the space due to this controversy.
So we've lost a tenant, and we have been working together with
-- Don Stevenson had actually come forward. The issue was that the
-- the mezzanine contained an office and hadn't been permitted. They
were unable to find a permit or whatever it was.
But -- so I -- once I found out about it -- they were originally
talking with the tenant exclusively, and I didn't find out about it
immediately. But once I did, I contacted Don Stevenson Design, and
he has -- and he prepared documents that -- so we could draw out a
permit, and that was our intent.
Once we got -- once it went out for bid, it turns out that it was
probably going to be about a $4,000 cost incurred to resolve the
issues. And, of course, the owner was unwilling to pay that. And, as I
said, consequently we lost -- we lost that tenant.
Now, what my desire is here today, because we have the plans all
drawn out and ready to go and because that mezzanine could very
possibly have a value to a future tenant, I'd like to make that available
to a future tenant to, in fact, impose the corrections and get it
permitted and, therefore, be able to use it, as opposed to destroy it and
take it all down and then be placed with less square footage to be able
to lease.
Page 74
1611 86
January 27, 2011
: -1
So that's what my request is, if it's possible to do so.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe as long as the structure was
built correctly to the codes when it was originally built and you get
either the Building Department or a general contractor or an engineer
to give you a permit by affidavit, I believe this board's going to be
okay.
What we need to do is decide whether or not a violation exists
and then come up with some time frame that we feel is appropriate to
get that taken care of.
MR. MINER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, is there any questions from the
board?
MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess not a question, but a comment.
If while you had a tenant there, to keep the tenant and -- to keep
the tenant you'd have to resolve this issue. The owner wasn't willing
to do that. What's the incentive to do that now?
MR. MINER: Well, the owner was willing to do that. The
owner was willing to incur the costs of keeping that -- or correcting
the problems with the mezzanine; however, once the tenant told us
that he was going to vacate the space, you know, we didn't see any
need to move forward to correct it, because we don't know what the
next tenant's going to need or require or be willing to move forward
with.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, you made a correlation that the owner
-- that the tenant vacated due to the fact that there was a violation.
MR. MINER: No, he vacated -- well -- to go into a little bit more
detail, I mean, he also occupied a space -- Space No.7, I believe,
which he was putting in a spray booth, and he was in the permitting
stages of that. And he was utilizing RSJ Builders, David Jeda, as his
contractor to get that permitted. I don't know at this point ifhe's
actually gotten the permit or ifhe's used that Suite 7 or not. He is still
a tenant in that particular space.
Page 75
I
161!1 8i6
January 27, 2011
~
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. MINER: But Suite 9 and 10, because of the outstanding
issues and the cost factor, he's -- you know, and his lease came up, so
he vacated that space. But he's still a tenant in the building in Suite
No.9 -- 7.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I find that a violation does, in fact, exist.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any -- okay. We have a first and a
second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those agree, signify by saying aye.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. A violation does exist.
Does the county have a recommendation?
MS. SCAVONE: Yes. The Code Enforcement Board orders the
respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $82.86
incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all
violations by: The respondent must obtain all required building
permits, inspections, and Certificate of Completion for the structural
and electrical work mentioned or obtain a demolition permit,
inspection, Certificate of Completion, and remove all structural and
electrical work as mentioned within X amount of days of this hearing,
Page 76
1 " 1 . 1. 8 6
-':r~uart27, 2011
or X amount of dollars fine will be imposed for each day the violation
.
remaIns.
The violation -- the respondent must notify the Code
Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order
to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement.
If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may
abate the violations and may use the assistance of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to ensure the provisions of this order, and all costs of
abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Miner, has the owner expressed any
type of time frame that they figured they could get this taken care of
within?
MR. MINER: Well, if -- if it's a short time frame, obviously
we're going to -- we'll probably go with the demolition because we
can't -- you know, because of the cost of bringing it up to code.
As I said, ideally we'd like to make that -- leave that decision on
a new tenant coming in as to whether he could utilize that space up
there and make an arrangement to have it repaired.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think the board would certainly be
willing to work, but we just can't leave anything open-ended, so we do
have to put some kind of time frame on it.
MR. MINER: How about ten years?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Won't work.
MR. DEAN: What'd he say?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ten years.
MR. DEAN : You've already had over a year and a half here.
This started in 2'09 with us.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: But we appreciate where the owner's
coming from, and we also appreciate that the fire department says, as
long as it remains vacant, there really isn't a fire issue; however, for
code and their system and their records, we do need to put some kind
of follow-up date, so --
Page 77
I
16 III 8 6
January 27, 2011
MR. KAUFMAN: You had mentioned earlier that it was a
$4,000 repair?
MR. MINER: I believe that's what -- that was --
MR. KAUFMAN: And--
MR. MINER: In the $3,500 to $4,000 range.
MR. KAUFMAN: And the -- what is the typical rent in a facility
like that?
MR. MINER: Six hundred dollars a month. I mean, it's an
un-air-conditioned garage basically.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you think that giving the
respondent -- let's just draw a date -- six months would give them the
opportunity to get this thing rented or at least be in the position to
come back to the board to say, we have a tenant. We're going to do
the work. We may need a little bit of additional time? Do you think
that's reasonable?
MR. MINER: I believe that's reasonable, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any objections from the county?
MS. SCAVONE: The county doesn't have any objections.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, before we have a second, would we be
able to put in there that the -- it could not be occupied?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a great idea.
MR. MINER: You know, technically it has to be inspected prior
to occupation anyway. So, you know, I mean, that's kind of
self-serving, but it's --
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good idea. Would you like to
amend?
MR. KAUFMAN: I amend the motion to include that it can't be
occupied until all inspections have been provided.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I then second the motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: First and a second.
Page 78
16 1 '1 8 6
January 27, 2011
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oop,oop.
MR. KAUFMAN: We didn't give a dollar price after six months.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're right.
MR. KAUFMAN: So I'll--
MR. MINER: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're a victim--
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make it 10,000 a -- no. Two hundred
dollars a day. Obviously you know that you can come back to the
board --
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- before everything runs its course to ask for
an addition, a change, or whatever.
MR. MINER: I understand.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. During the discussion there was a
second to the original -- to another amendment.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Page 79
1611186
January 27, 2011
l :~
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. MINER: Thank you.
MS. SCAVONE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Investigator.
MS. SCAVONE: Thank you.
MS. BAKER: Do you include the ops cost in your motion as
well?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we accepted the county's
recommendation, which did list it.
Okay. We are finished with hearings and new business.
Now moving on to old business. A, motion for imposition of
fines and liens, Case No.1, Leonel Garza. Is Mr. Garza here?
Is Investigator Maria Rodriguez here?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be possible -- Ken, would it be
possible maybe to move the mike over to the right of the court
reporter? And that way he can wheel up very easily.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria, would you like to read the case.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Violations: Collier County Code of Laws
and Ordinance Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations Article
VI, and Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(12)(b), (f), (g),
(i), and G).
Location: 111 7th Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No.
Page 80
16f1 B~
January 27, 2011
;-~
25582720003.
Description: Exterior walls on a residential structure that has
holes, breaks, loose rotting material and that was not weathertight and
not maintained in repair. Also observed no guardrails on the
approaching footsteps. The stairs consist of unstable blocks.
Windows and doors were not weather- and watertight, nor were they
maintained in good repair. The screens of the windows were missing
or they had been removed. The exterior surface of the whole structure
was in poor condition.
Past order: On July 22,2010, the Code Enforcement Board
issued a finding of fact. Conclusion of law and order: The respondent
was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to
correct the violation.
Order of the board, OR4591, Page 1659. The respondent has not
complied with the CEB orders as of January 27,2011.
The fines of a rate of 200 per day for the period between
November 20, 2010, through January 27, 2011, 69 days, for the total
of 13,800, fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of 84.01 have
not been paid. Total amount to date is 13,884.01.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Maria, I'm just going to read the
top part real quick because I never read the case.
CEB Case No. CEPN20090017577, Board of County
Commissioners versus Leonel Garza, et ai, respondents.
Okay. Mr. Garza?
MR. GARZA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Basically why we're here today is
because originally you voluntarily entered into what's called a
stipulated agreement to fix the violations within a certain time period.
That time period expired, and then because of the original agreement,
you have been, in essence, charged $200 a day since the day it expired
because they continue to not be corrected.
Do you -- would you like to respond to that?
Page 81
16 I 1 8 6 ~:~
January 27, 2011
MR. GARZA: Yeah. Because my sister's the one that was living
there, my sister. I paid over $3,000 taxes, you know. But she is not
here. I don't know how many -- I paid over $3,000, and then, again,
we owed already -- owe 2,000 again.
And she never did fix the house. She never did got out of the
house so I could fix it, because I told her -- I told her I'm going to tear
it down, the house down. She said, no. You tear it down, I'm going to
put you -- before you tear it down, so I never did do nothing with it
because she did got out of the house.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there anybody living there now?
MR. GARZA: Yeah, her. She's still there.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So when it lists here on the charging
documents your name, does that mean that you're the only owner, or is
there other people --
MR. GARZA: No, that -- we're -- see, I told you that my older
brother and my older sister were inside the house, and then my brother
told me for me to pay the taxes at that time.
And I put -- you know, why I didn't do what I wanted to do with
that, in the house. But my sister never did got out of house, she never
did. And my sister in Texas, and she is -- everybody signed it. We're
seven -- we're nine brothers -- nine of us -- five brothers and four
sisters.
And all of -- my brother signed, my brother signed, except my
two sisters, they never did sign, because they didn't want me to do
anything with the house. They wanted my sister to stay there at the
house.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. GARZA: I wasn't going to pay no more. I paid -- already
paid over 3,000. My daddy died ten years ago, and since that time she
been living there in the house, and she never did pay nothing.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So you had an agreement that if
you paid the taxes she would fix up the house that she's living in,
Page 82
161186
January 27, 2011
correct?
MR. GARZA: Well, see -- when my daddy died, she was there
with her -- with him, but then sister -- my older sister, the one that's --
because my brother was taking care of the house, she told my sister,
stay there, when my brother was in jail.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do all your brothers and sisters
understand that when the county imposes fines it's going to go against
the property, which you all equally own? That means everybody
would have some kind of stake in this.
You know, let me also say that it's really not the county's position
or this board's position to get involved in your family matters. We're
really just concerned about the property and bringing it up to current
code.
MR. GARZA: Well, I mean -- like I told them before, they could
tear it down, tear the house down.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: If I may?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: The sister was here earlier. She did agree
with him that she would move out of the house. She's trying to find
something now because they are going to demo it.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: But it's like I told him, you know, they need
to work together. I'm going to try and see if I can find an agency
called "I HOPE" that will demo the house, because they're both
disabled. All of them are disabled, pretty much. They can't afford it.
So I told them I would see what we could do to try to help them demo
the house.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Maybe a recommendation?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Before we impose the fines, maybe we can
draw the case and give them 90 days or maybe extend it 90 days. I
don't know ifit would be of the county's -- if the county would agree
Page 83
I
16 1 11 B 6
January 27, 2011
with that, if they would maybe withdraw the case and then bring it
back in 90 days. And we could keep the fines going at that point
without -- if we don't extend it. So, I mean, there's a couple different
options we can take.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: There are. We could extend our original
-- we can either extend our order or grant an extension of time at that
point.
MR. LEFEBVRE: We can extend the -- or keep the -- you know,
keep their feet to the fire and have them just withdraw the case and
come back in 90 days.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's up to the county.
MS. FLAGG: The supervisor advises that because he's
experienced difficulty with one or more of the family members, that it
would be helpful to impose, and then once they do come into
compliance, we'll go to the board on -- the BCC on their behalf and
have the board waive the fines.
MR. LEFEBVRE: You know, you did -- you said you spoke to
the sister.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: She left. She was here earlier, but she left.
Well, the thing is that she said at the last hearing that she planned to
move out and that they were going to demo it. But, you know, four
months have gone by or five months, and she hasn't moved out. So if
we --
MR. LEFEBVRE: Postpone it.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: -- postpone it, I'm afraid she's going to say,
well, they're not going to do anything, and I'm not going to move out
because I don't need to.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I agree. I don't know that I want this to
leave our venue, because we don't know if the BCC is going to have
the same history with the case and sympathy to the case. It's kind of
just left up to the County Attorney's Office and prosecuting it and, you
know, possibly foreclosures and all that kind of stuff.
Page 84
16111 8 6
January 27, 2011
, '.il
MR. LEFEBVRE: How about shortening it down to one month,
and if she -- if she has made contact with -- you said, "I HOPE", I
think it was. If she made contact with "I HOPE" and they're working
on finding a place, we can --
MS. RODRIGUEZ: I gave her the information the last time she
was here. I mean, all she had to do was go talk to the gentleman and
explain to him her situation, and I'm sure they would have worked
with her, but she just sat there and did nothing.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. I'm trying to work with you and your
sister but, you know -- I understand your situation, but it sounds like
your sister, without imposing fines and having some repercussions,
she's not going to make a move.
So with that, unfortunately, I, you know, would hope that she
would have been more understanding with the situation, but she isn't,
so I make a motion to impose the fines.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
Any comments? Maybe this is helping rather than hurting. You
know, maybe this does get action, so --
MR. DEAN: I agree.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion and second.
All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 85
I
161186
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sir, this is what we've done.
We've imposed the fines which means that a fine will be recorded
against the property for these amounts and it will continue to add up as
more time goes on. And we're hoping that you're able to get help and
to take care of this issue. And maybe by doing this it will help your
other brothers and sisters come together to work together on this.
MR. GARZA: All right.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. One important thing that I have to
also state, although we've imposed the fines today, county -- the
Collier County in the past has been willing to work with people who
show diligence in getting these things taken care of, and you have the
right to come back and ask for those fines to either be reduced or
completely waived altogether.
I would just suggest that you continue to work and continue to
communicate well with the Collier County.
MR. GARZA: All right.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, sir?
MR. GARZA: All right.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Thank you very much.
MR. GARZA: Thank you-all.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The next case is Charles D.
Brown, CESD200900 13027.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Supervisor Snow, would you like to read
the charging documents?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks.
MR. SNOW: This is violations of Collier County Land
Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a).
The location is 414 3rd Street, Immokalee, Florida. The folio
number is 74031280003.
The description is failure to obtain building and land alteration
Page 86
permits and inspections and a Certificate of Occupancy.
The past orders: On January 28th the Code Enforcement Board
issued a finding of fact and a conclusion of law and order. The
respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and
ordered to correct the violation.
See the attached order of the board, OR4537, Pages 1720, for
more information.
An extension of time was granted on June 24,2010. See
OR4583 and Page 2866 for additional information.
An additional extension of time was granted on October 28,
2010. See OR4523 or Page 1815 for more information.
The respondent has complied with the CEB order as of January
13, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order
Items No.1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period of
December 28,2010, to January 13,2011, 17 days, for a total of
$3,400. Operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. The fine amount
to date is $3,400.
MR. KAUFMAN: Did you say they have complied?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was additional paperwork that was
not part of the original document placed at your desk today that shows
that it has been complied with.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. MARINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
Page 87
January 27, 2011
1611 86
161~ 86
January 27, 2P11
~
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: One opposed, by Mr. Lefebvre.
Sir, we've just abated all your fines. Do you have anything to
add or say? You don't have to pay anything, and we appreciate you
working hard.
Sometimes in the beginning when we look at cases, we don't
know exactly how much time to give, and we appreciate you coming
back and asking for those extensions of time and continuing to work
diligently.
MR. BROWN: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Have a good day.
MR. SNOW: We thank the board.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely.
Next case is going to be Eric and Dayle Westover,
CESD20100017039.
Are the respondents here?
MR. PAUL: No, they are not.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. PAUL: CEB Case No. CESD20100017039, Board of
County Commissioners versus Eric and Dayle Westover.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 22, Article II,
Sections 22-26(b), subsections 104.5.1.4.4.
Location: 5891 Star Grass Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio No.
3822680001.
Description: Permit No. 1999110448 for the pool was
abandoned and never CO'ed.
Past order: On October 28,2010, the Code Enforcement Board
Page 88
1qa& b, ~i~
issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent
was found in violation of referenced ordinance -- ordinances and
ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board,
OR4623, Page 1808, for more information. The respondent has not
complied with the CEB orders as of January 27,2011.
The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order
Item No.1 and 2, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period
between December 28,2010, and January 27,2011,31 days, for the
total of $3, 1 00. Fines continue to accrue.
Order Item No.5, operational costs in the amount of $81.15 have
not been paid. Total amount to date, $3,181.15.
There's been no contact from either owner. The property is
vacant.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: The fines will be imposed.
MR. PAUL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
Next case, Case No.5, Sergio and Marie Gomez,
Page 89
I
1611 86
January 27, 2011
I.
CESD201 00003695.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. PAUL: CEB Case No. CESD20100003695, Board of
County Commissioners versus Maria D. and Sergio Gomez.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Chapter 22, Article II, Florida Building Code, adoption and
amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(b),
Subsections 104.5.1.4.4.
Location is 4983 17th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio
36130560002.
Description: Permit No. 2004030440 for the fence, and Permit
No. 2004032107 for the tiki hut, were both abandoned and the
Certificate of Occupancy never obtained.
Past orders: On August 26, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board
issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent
was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to
correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4601,
Page 1821, for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of
January 27, 2011.
The fines and costs to date are described as following: Order
Item No.1 and 2, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period
between October 26,2010, and January 27,2011,94 days, for the
total of $9,400. Fines continue to accrue.
Order Item No.7, operational costs of $81.15 have not been paid.
Total amount to date is $9,481.15.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hi, good morning. You have the
opportunity to explain the current situation, what's going on, you
know, why it hasn't been complied with and so forth, so please feel
free to speak plainly.
MR. GOMEZ: For the record, my name's Daniel Gomez, and I
am authorized to be speaking for my mother, Maria Gomez, and my
Page 90
I
161 1 B 6
January 27, 2011
father, Sergio Gomez.
My parents, due to the economic situation, have not been able to
keep the house. We have been working with Wachovia for a loan
modification program with HAF A; however, they did not qualify. So
recently we're moving on to the next best thing, which is a short sale.
Weare working with them. I have spoken with the
representative from Wachovia stating that we're -- you know, there are
these permit, you know, fees that are being applied to the house. And
he said that Wachovia would have to eventually, you know, own up to
those fees and they'd have to deal with that, and that's where we're at
right now. We're working to see if we can short sale the property.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Just one comment. If the house is sold or in
short sale and this is not resolved, that means that everything that is --
not been certified or the permits haven't been completed, would pass
on to the next purchaser.
So for that reason, I make a motion that we impose the fines here
so that this gets resolved first.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
Page 91
161186 i
January 27, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. What we've done is we've
imposed the fines for now. Our concern as a board is that if these
problems aren't resolved and, let's say, for instance, a buyer would
come into the house and think, great, I'm getting a good deal for this
home, they would suddenly realize that there's additional work that
needs to be taken care of before they could actually move in, and we
just wouldn't want to see that happen.
So what we've done is now recorded these liens down at the
Clerk of Court's office so that anyone interested in buying the property
would see this, not just the bank, but individuals who may have cash
as well. And this way everyone knows about what's going on with the
property and they don't walk into something unseen.
MR. GOMEZ: Yeah. I mean, the real estate agent has listed the
property with the information on.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, great.
MR. GOMEZ: So on MLS Sunshine it does state that there are
these issues that need to be addressed before the property's sold.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Well, I appreciate your
understanding, and good luck. I hope it works out for you.
MS. GOMEZ: Thank you.
MR. GOMEZ: Thank you.
MR. PAUL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now moving on to Case No.7,
Allen Fuller and Barbara Davis.
Are the respondents here?
MS. McGONAGLE: No.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: There are two cases here. We need to
vote on each one separately. Probably best just to take one at a time.
MS. McGONAGLE: Okay. Good morning -- afternoon. For the
Page 92
161:1 86
January 27, 2011
record, Michelle McGonagle, Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to Case No. CEB -- I'm sorry -- CEB Case
No. CESD20080010447, Board of County Commissioners versus
Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A Davis.
Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as
amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a) and 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e )(i).
Location: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida. Folio 00730160003.
Description: Residence on agricultural property has been
altered/added to converting structure to a two-story duplex with
structural plumbing and electrical alterations without first obtaining
required permits.
Past order: On April 23, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board
issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent
was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to
correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4449,
Page 2463, for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of
January 27, 2011.
The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Item
No.2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between July 25,
2009, and January 27,2011,551 days, for the total of$110,200. Fines
continue to accrue.
Order Item No.1, operational costs of$88.14 have not been paid.
Total amount to date, $110,000 -- $110,288.14.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
Page 93
161186 t,
January 27, 2011
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And it carries.
N ow on to the next case, please.
MS. McGONAGLE: This is in reference to CEB Case No.
CESD200800 1 0474, Board of County Commissioners versus Allen
W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis.
Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as
amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a).
Location: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida. Folio 00730160003.
The description: Mobile home on property with utility
connections without required building permits.
Past orders: On April 23, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board
issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent
was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to
correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4449,
Page 2460, for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of
January 27, 2011.
The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order
Item No.2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between
July 25,2009, and January 27, 2011, 551 days, for the total of
$110,200. Fines continue to accrue.
Order Item No.1, operational costs of $87.57 have not been paid.
Jotal amount to date, $110,287.57.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose.
MR. MARINO: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino.
Page 94
1611 86
January 27, 2011
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries.
Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now moving on to Case No.9. It's Palm
Lake, LLC. There's three cases. The first one is CEV, as in Victor,
20100003082.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. SCAVONE: This is in reference to CEB Case No.
CEV20 1 00003082, Board of County Commissioners versus Palm
Lake, LLC.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as
amended, Sections 2.01.00(A).
Location: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio
61842240009.
Description: Approximately nine unlicensed inoperable vehicles
are parked or stored on property, including but not limited to Lots 38,
31, 27, 18, 9, and two vehicles across from Lot 5.
Past orders: On July 22,2010, the Code Enforcement Board
issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent
was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to
Page 95
I
161186
January 27, 2011
correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4591,
Page 1639, for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of
January 27, 2011.
The fines and costs are -- excuse me -- the fines and costs to date
are described as the following: Order Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of
$200 per day for a period between November 28,2010, through
January 27,2011,61 days, for a total of$12,200. Fines continue to
accrue.
Order No.5, operational costs of $80 have been paid. Totals
amount due, $12,200.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question on this. And we've heard
these cases from the respondent in the past. And I'm actually a li~le
surprised that the attorney for the respondent isn't here now. Has
something happened out there that has changed the situation in the
past three or four months or so that you're aware of?
MS. SCAVONE: Not that I'm aware of. I did make a site visit
yesterday. There was three -- there's -- four of the cars were removed.
There was two that I was unable to tell because they were parked too
far up to the back and that I couldn't -- I wasn't able to see. No one
was home. And there was one new car that did not have tags. They
were expired.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess what you're trying to allude to is, why
is the attorney not here representing Palm Lake? I mean, usually he
is. Do you know?
MS. SCAVONE: I do not know.
MS. BAKER: In speaking with the previous investigator on this
case, I believe that there have been some issues with the owner
wanting to take care of the issues. Not wanting to. Oh, sorry.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. Technically you'll have to re-say
that. Sorry.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
Page 96
I
161186
January 27, 2011
MS. BAKER: In discussion with the previous investigator, it
seems that the owner is being difficult in taking care of the violations,
and I'm not sure what the relationship with the attorney and the owner
is at this time.
MR. LEFEBVRE: You seem to have an aversion to state your
name.
MS. BAKER: Jen Baker.
MR. KAUFMAN: It's a new name. She's just trying to --
MS. BAKER: Jen Baker.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, in that case --
MR. KAUFMAN: I think our hands are tied. Motion to impose.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the fines will be imposed.
Next case for Palm Lake.
MS. SCAVONE: Shall I go ahead?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a quick qu- -- up until this point, there's
been no recording of any liens, correct? Okay. And the property's
been for sale, or it was supposed to be listed, I think, so -- just curious.
MS. SCAVONE: Okay. Board of County Commissioners
Page 97
JL&J h, 2~1~
versus Palm Lake, LLC. Violation: Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinance Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 through 23 -- excuse me
-- 22 through 231(11).
Location: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio
61842240009.
Description: Electrical wiring running to the mobile homes are
not in accordance with the current National Electric Code. Electric
meters are not securely fastened, missing covers on energized
electrical parts. Direct wires and conduit are not buried to code.
Past orders: On July 22, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board
issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent
was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to
correct the violation. See attached order of the board, OR 4591, Page
1646, for more information.
The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement orders
as of October 30,2010.
The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order
Items No.1 and 3, fines at a rate of $500 per day for the periods
between July 30, 2010, and October 30, 2010, 93 days, for a total of
$46,500.
Order Items 2 and 4, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the
periods between September 21, 2010, through October 30, 2010, 40
days, for a total of $8,000.
Order Item No.7, operational costs of$80 have been paid. The
total amount to date is $54,500.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me also read the case number in this
reference, because there's three cases. This particular one is CEB
Case No. CEPM20100004292. I usually read that when I announce
the case, and I just said the name, so --
MS. SCAVONE: Okay. That's correct, the case number.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose.
MR. DEAN: Second.
Page 98
161 JB6 -1
January 27,2011
MR. KAUFMAN: Before you make a motion, can I -- just a
comment.
MS. BAKER: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: Ordinarily when we find people that have
paid their operational costs and they are in compliance, if they
appeared here, we're more than willing to listen to someone asking for
that fine to be abated.
Unfortunately, on this case today, there's nobody here, even
though they have complied and paid the operational costs. I just
wanted to put that in the record.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do have a motion, and it was
seconded by Mr. Dean.
Any other discussions?
MR. LEFEBVRE: I -- I have to think for a second. I mean,
there's quite a few other violations.
I make a motion to rescind.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're going to rescind the motion
altogether?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Rescinded. Okay with you,
Larry?
MR. DEAN: Why you doing that? Okay.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So let's start over.
MR. LEFEBVRE: They have shown -- the reason -- I'll explain
to Larry. The reason that I'm rescinding it, because they have shown
good faith in this instance; they have corrected it. It has been -- in all
fairness, in previous cases if they do come into compliance -- to abate
fines, not that all the times I agree with that.
But I think in this case they have done a fair amount of work to
try to come into compliance. So that would be my rationale.
MR. KAUFMAN: And one other comment, since we're all
familiar with Palm Lake -- they've been before us several times. Part
Page 99
161 186
January 27,2011
of this was the emergency portion where we needed them to comply
within five days. And as I recall from the last time they were before
us, they did comply immediately to take that safety problem off the
table.
So I agree with Gerald Lefebvre's comment on this.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, currently there is no motion on the
floor so--
,
MR. DEAN: Would Gerald like to re-motion it?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: He's throwing the ball in your court.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we do not impose any
fines.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We're abating. Is that okay with
you, Larry?
MR. DEAN: I'm only one member.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion.
MR. DEAN: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Mr. Dean is seconding.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And those fines will be abated.
Now on to the third case with a Palm Lake LLC,
CEPM20 1 00003098.
Page 100
1611 86,
January 27, 2011
MS. SCAVONE: Again, this is the Code Enforcement Board
Case No. CEPM20100000--
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We've got --
MS. SCAVONE: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We didn't swear in for this one.
MR. KAUFMAN: It wears off after each case.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, it doesn't last.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, this is a really long summary. Would
you like us just to drop down to the fines? Okay.
MS. SCAVONE: Okay. The fines and costs to date are
described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 5, fine at a rate of
$250 per day for the period between October 21, 2010, through
January 27, 2011, 99 days, for a total of$24,750. Fines continue to
accrue.
Order Item No.2 and 6, fines at a rate of$250 per day for the
period between October 21st through January 27, 2011, 99 days, for a
totalof$24,750. Fines accrue -- fines continue to accrue.
Order Item 3 and 7, fines at a rate of $250 per day for the periods
between October 21,2010, through January 27,2011, 99 days, for a
total of $24,750. Fines continue to accrue.
Order Item No. 10, operational costs of $81.72 have been paid.
The total amount to date is $74,250, and it is not in compliance.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose.
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion, and a second by Mr. Dean.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
Page 101
I
16 1 1 18 ,6
January 27, 2011
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: The fines will be imposed.
The last case, under imposition of fines today, is Daniel
Guerrero.
MS. SCAVONE: Yes.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. SCAVONE: This is in reference to CEB Case No.
CESD200900 15950, Board of County Commissioners versus Daniel
H. Guerrero.
Violations: Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances,
Chapter 22, Article II, Sections 22-26(b )(104.5.1.4.4).
Location: 3240 Caledonia Ave., Naples, Florida. Folio
61780440000.
Description: Permit No. 2008120281 expired on June 3, 2009,
before receiving a Certificate of Completion.
The past orders: On September 23,2010, the Code Enforcement
Board issued a findings of facts, conclusion of law and order. The
respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and
ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board,
OR4610, Page 2371, for more information. The respondent has not
complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 27,
2011.
The fines and costs to date are described in the following: Order
Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the periods between
November 23,2010, through January 27, 2011,66 days, for a total of
$13,200. Fines continue to accrue.
Order Item No.5, operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid,
Page 102
I
1 6 I' 1 B ,6
January 2~, 2011
and total amount to date, $13,280.86.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion from the board?
MR. DEAN: Motion to impose the fine.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any the fines will be imposed.
MS. SCAVONE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That concludes all of our hearings today.
We're moving on to -- consent agenda did not have any items
being forwarded to the County's Attorneys Office.
And we do have a report, Michael and Amy Facundo.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name for the record?
MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, if I could get a report while Ms.
Waldron Baker is providing the information.
The foreclosure team is the -- which is the team that works with
the banks, through January 23, 2011, the banks have spent $1,967,000
in Collier County to abate their violations, and they've abated 1,605
code cases.
The -- right now they're averaging spending about $18,000 a
Page 103
. ~6 1
~ilry~7, 2011
week in Collier County to abate code violations.
One of the cases that came up to you earlier was that it was in lis
pendens, but currently the procedure is, in the Permitting Department,
is that they will not issue a permit to the bank to abate until they have
title to the property.
So all of these code cases that are being abated are issues that
don't require permit, but if it does require permit, we have -- the bank
has to wait -- the bank agrees to abate, but they have to wait until they
take title to the property so that they can acquire permit.
As a follow-up to the holidays, each of the five co-district teams
selected a community service project. They do this every year during
the holidays. Several teams assisted the Salvation Army, St.
Matthew's House, Meals on Wheels, and delivered food and toys to
community members.
The Golden Gate City co-district team worked with their task
force and actually did a complete home makeover for a family in
Golden Gate City.
As of last week, there were 169 new code cases opened. There
were 578 property inspections completed that week. There were a
total of289 lien searches done in that week. Of those lien searches --
you-all had requested to know how many of those lien searches
actually saved a property purchaser from buying a house that had a
code case on it, and there were five.
So of those lien searches that were done, because the purchaser
made the decision to do the code lien search, they found out that there
were code cases on that property and -- so now they're working
through that before they actually buy the code case when they buy the
property .
And the investigators are carrying an average of 47 cases apiece,
which is a substantial load for the investigators. That concludes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good.
MS. BAKER: On Michael and Amy Facundo, you had requested
Page 104
I
161186
January 27,2011
that we come back to you and give you an update on where they're at
in the process, and Supervisor Snow will give that update.
MR. SNOW: Do I need to be sworn in?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's just a report.
MR. SNOW: I had a conversation with the GC yesterday, and I
understand that Mr. Taylor, the contractor -- if you remember this
case, he wanted to keep it with Mr. Taylor. He was the one that
originally constructed and didn't meet setbacks and was over the
property line.
He wanted to keep it with Mr. Taylor, and you gave him a
specific amount of time to do that, 45 days. I understand Mr. Taylor's
license has been revoked by the state.
Mr. Facundo has got his own permit, an owner/builder permit, so
he is progressing. But Mr. Taylor, I guess, is not going to cease -- that
entity is going to cease to function. I can't -- don't know what his
intent is. I haven't talked to him, but his license has been revoked by
the state.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. At least there's progress, though,
since there is a permit now pulled by owner?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. I anticipate him completing everything
that he told this board he was going to do. I see him once a month.
He's the chairman of the Community Redevelopment Agency of
Immokalee, so he appraises me of the situation. So I anticipate no
setbacks.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great.
Is there any comments or other reports?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, the next date for our
meeting is February 24, 2011, and I think we're going to go back
down at the courthouse for that meeting.
MR. DEAN: And I'll make a motion to adjourn.
MR. KAUFMAN: Before you do that, can I just bring up one
Page 105
161186 h't
January 27, 2011
thing?
MR. DEAN: No.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Shoud I second that motion to adjourn?
MR. DEAN: Yes, sir, go right ahead.
MR. KAUFMAN: I think we're due for our annual joint meeting
with the magi- -- magistrate so we can go over the rules, et cetera, et
cetera. Is it possible to schedule that either -- not before, that's too
early -- but after one of our meetings when we don't have a real heavy
caseload? Or not.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We did good. We -- three hours and 15
minutes for 35 cases.
MR. BAKER: Real heavy -- I can tell you, though, that I believe
we have even more than we did this month, so it -- the next -- expect a
long meeting next month.
MS. RAWSON: What day does she hear cases?
MS. BAKER: She's on the fourth, which is next Friday.
MS. RAWSON: Thursday.
MS. BAKER: Next Friday.
MS. RAWSON: Right, Friday.
MS. BAKER: And she's got a very full agenda as well.
MR. KAUFMAN: Maybe for March?
MS. BAKER: Either that or we could -- if everyone's open to
maybe doing -- another day may be better, because it would be a very
quick thing; that way people aren't waiting around for meetings to get
over with and not knowing when those times are.
MS. FLAGG: There -- as we completed 2010, there were over
21,000 foreclosures in Collier County. So as a result of that, these
caseloads are going to continue, so you may want to just select a day
independent of a hearing day for the workshop.
MR. KAUFMAN: How about a week from Sunday?
MS . RAWSON: Is that more or less foreclosures than 2009?
Page 106
16/1 86
January 27,2011
MS. FLAGG: I could bring that back next month. I don't want
to misquote it.
What -- we monitor both -- we start with the beginning and
monitoring the lis pendens. And just to kind of give you a brief
overview, we're still seeing a transition by the banks where they're not
actually filing the lis pendens, which is what that number represents,
but there are people in default.
So there will come a time, we anticipate, in 2011 when that -- the
foreclosure of lis pendens filings are going to, again, increase.
So there was a period of time in 2010 where there were
thousands of people in default; they did not file the lis pendens, but
now there's a transition occurring, and the lis pendens we anticipate to
. .
Increase agaIn.
MS. RAWSON: Just so you know, they've added a senior judge,
a general magistrate, and an administrative assistant for the judge just
to do foreclosures.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: End of 20 1 0, last quarter, the Mortgage
Bankers' Association reported 26.83 percent of all mortgages were in
some kind of default.
Anyways. If it's just an hour, we might be able to dovetail kind
of like our meeting at ten o'clock, rather than starting at nine, and just
do it in the morning or, you know, set a separate day. But either case,
we'd like to have our current rules emailed to us, if possible, so we can
review them.
MS. BAKER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you'll get back to us via email?
MS. BAKER: Yes, sir.
MS. FLAGG: So is your preference a separate day or a meeting
preceding your scheduled meeting?
MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd rather keep it the same day.
MR. MARINO: Yeah.
MR. LEFEBVRE: There's several of us that are Realtors. I'm
Page 107
161'1 86
January 27, 2011
super busy, so --
MS. FLAGG: Okay.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's good.
But you could email us options. Reminder to everybody, do not
reply to all. Only reply back to J en Waldron Baker.
MR. MARINO: Is that Jen Baker?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Whatever. It changes.
MS. RAWSON: Did you change your email address?
MS. BAKER: Not yet.
MS. RAWSON: It's still J. Waldron.
MR. DEAN: I like Waldron. Such a nice name. You know, your
husband could have taken it.
MS. BAKER: You can talk to my husband about that.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Don't bring him here.
You ready to adjourn?
MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: See you next month.
*****
Page 108
I
161~1 86
January 27, 2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:18 p.m.
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
C-.~--
------------- . -=. ------- ~.-. -~.~
/// ~
//> ....--::::::
~LL Y, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board on 8- / J- If/II
as presented /< or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY
PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER.
Page 109
1611 86 ~.;~ /
February 24, 2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE !
RECEIVED CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Fiala '1
MAR 3 1 2011 Naples, Florida ~~I~~lng
, February 24, 2011 Coyle
Board of County eonvniIIIOnInI Coletta
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board, 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:
CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly
Larry Dean
Robert Kaufman
James Lavinski
Gerald Lefebvre
Lionel L'Esperance
Tony Marino
Ron Doino (Alternate)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Page 1
Item':
Cepies to:
1 6 UFet~ary624, 20\ 1
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code
Enforcement Board of Collier County to order for today, February
24th, 2011.
Notice: Respondents may be limited to 20 minutes for case
presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons
wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes,
unless the time is adjusted by the Chair.
All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to
observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so the court
reporter can record all statements being made.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board 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 Code Enforcement Board shall be
responsible for providing this record.
May I have roll call, please.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman?
MR. KAUFMAN: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski?
MR. LA VINSKI: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino?
MR. MARINO: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Dean?
MR. DEAN: Here.
MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here.
Page 2
1 6 I' 1 816
February 24, 2011
MS. BAKER: Mr. Ron Doino?
MR. DOINO: Here.
MR. BAKER: And just as a note of record, Mr. Tony Marino is
now a regular member and not an alternate.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Congratulations, Tony.
F or the record as well, since we do have full board attendance,
our alternate will have full discussion rights but not voting.
Excellent, now onto the agenda. Do we have any changes?
MR. BAKER: Yes, we do.
Under number four, public hearings/motions, B, stipulations, we
have three stipulations. The first will be number five from the agenda,
Kenneth J. Blocker, Sr., Case CESD20100006112.
Second will be number seven from the agenda, Juan Sanchez
Olivera and Pamela Jean Sanchez, Case CESD20100005061.
The third stipulation will be number two from the agenda, James
and Julia M. Askey. Case CESD20100008859.
Letter C, hearings, number four, Case CESD20100008638,
Agniel and Susan Marquez, has been withdrawn.
Number six, Case CESD20100005205, Bruce A. Blocker, has
been withdrawn.
And we also have two additions under hearings. Number 16 will
be Case CEPM20110002247, Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis.
Number 17 will be Case CEPM20110002260, Allen W. Fuller
and Barbara A. Davis.
And we have a few more stipulation agreements.
The next stipulation agreement will be number three from
hearings. It's Case CEOCC20100021455.
And we have two more stipulations as well, which will be
number 14 from hearings, Case CEVR20 1 00020717, Palm Foundation
II, Inc. And number 15, Case CEVR20100020718, Palm Foundation
II, Inc.
And that is all the changes I have.
Page 3
16f18"6
February 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion that was placed up here,
where do you want that to go? There's a motion from -- it looks like
VLDC, LLC for an extension of time.
MR. BAKER: Oh, we should put that under letter 4.A, motions.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other changes?
MR. BAKER: That's it.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the amended
agenda.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries.
Now, on to the approval of minutes from January 27th, 2011.
Any changes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 4
161.186 "1
February 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries.
Now, moving on to public hearings.
A, number one, motions for continuance of time, VLDC, LLC.
The packet was left at your desk up front. Is the respondent here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, you can read over it just briefly.
They're asking for an additional 60 to 90 days. In order to petition the
Board of County Commissioners for reduction of fine in their permits.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: They did in fact pull the permit. It's just a
reduction, I believe, in the amount of the permit fees or the fines
associated with it.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the investigator here?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the investigator from the case here?
That would be -- we don't have the original charging documents so we
wouldn't know who the investigator is.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Michele?
MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, is that this case?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that the same case? Oh, sorry.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Apparently not.
Well, there is a stipulation agreement that they entered into
Page 5
16 h 1 Rt6
February 2~ 2011
4
voluntarily asking for originally 150 days. They did get the permit. It
does say that they did.
MR. KAUFMAN: It says it was done and approved.
Does anybody from the county want to say anything on behalf of
this request?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Supervisor Patti Petrulli,
Collier County Code Enforcement.
We have no objection to an extension.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we extend it 60
-- 90 days. Since it's been approved, 90 days.
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second by Mr. Dean.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries.
Thank you, Patti.
Also, to the board or any of the respondents who are going to
speak for us today, the videographers who televise this event has
asked me to make sure that everyone speaks directly into the mic. It
Page 6
161i.j._ 8.:61
, - $~
February 24, 2011
helps for the television viewers at home for them to hear what's going
on.
Okay, the next is going to be B, stipulations, Case No.1, which is
actually 5 under public hearings, Blocker, CESD20100006112.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
INVESTIGATOR MORAD: For the record, Ed Morad, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
The respondent has stipulated to the violations and has agreed to
pay operational costs of $80.86 within 30 days of today's hearing.
He also agreed to abate the violations by: Obtaining a Collier
County building and land alteration permit for the alterations to
accommodate the change of use; request all required inspections to be
performed and passed through certificate of completion as required, or
discontinue the current use, church/assembly, and obtain a Collier
County demolition permit and remove the alterations and request all
required inspections to be performed and passed through certificate of
completion within 90 days of today's hearing or a fine of $250 per day
will be imposed for each day the violation exists.
The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site
inspection to confirm the compliance.
That 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 the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good.
Good morning.
MR. FREEMAN: Good morning. My name is Earnest Freeman.
I'm representing the owner of the property as his general contractor.
Unfortunately I believe Mr. Blocker got caught in traffic because
I did have to have a -- I guess a document to speak in his authority.
But hopefully he'll be here shortly.
Page 7
16 I J. 8 6
February 24, 2011
4
CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you would -- you pretty much did it
already, but if you would just say that you have the authorization to
speak on his behalf.
MR. FREEMAN: I have the authorization to speak on his behalf.
CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you.
Do you understand and agree to the items that were just read in
this stipulated agreement?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions from the board?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, I have a question.
At the top of the stipulated agreement it says Jerry Blocker as
representative for respondent, and the respondent is Kenneth J.
Blocker, Sr. So does he have the authority to sign the stipulated
agreement?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That may be a Jean question.
MS. RAWSON: You understand what they're saying, do you
have the authority to sign a stipulated agreement on behalf of the
person who's listed?
MR. FREEMAN: There's Jerry now, he's just walked in.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect timing.
Jerry, if you could, we'll just swear you in real quick and let you
catch up on what's going on.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Basically what was voluntarily agreed to
was 90 days to get things -- Mr. Morad, if you want to go into detail.
We haven't heard the case, but if you just want to kind of paraphrase
the stipulated agreement.
INVESTIGATOR MORAD: Like we agreed upon in our
meeting, that you have to pay operational costs of$80.86 within 30
days of to day's hearing. And you must get the permit issued, the
certificate of completion -- the inspections made and certificate of
completion within 90 days of today's hearing or $250 per day per --
Page 8
16 I 1 Jj{~b
February 24, 2011
will be imposed for each day the violation exists.
MR. FREEMAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Jerry, is that your signature on the
stipulated agreement anyways?
MR. BLOCK: Yes, uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So he signed it anyway.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. What's going on at that
location right now? There are no meetings going on from the church?
MR. FREEMAN: No, no meetings going on. To the best of my
knowledge there's no meeting going on.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think I just realized what you were
.
saYIng.
Does Jerry have authorization to speak on Kenneth's behalf?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I got it.
Jerry, if we could get you to state for the record that you have
authorization to sign on Kenneth's behalf, that would be great.
MR. BLOCKER: Yes, I've got a letter of authorization as well.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If you submit that into evidence,
we will actually keep that and it will be part of public record. So I
don't know if you need a copy of it, but we need to retain it. Perfect.
Any other questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
MR. DEAN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald's got it first.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
Page 9
1 6 I i -rq 6
February 24, 2011
J
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you very much. Appreciate your
support.
MR. FREEMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Moving on to case number two under
stipulations, Sanchez, CESD201 00005061.
Is the respondent here?
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No, they aren't, sir.
(Speaker was duly sworn).
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker,
Collier County Code Enforcement.
The respondent has entered into a stipulation which states that
they will pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate
violations by: Obtain a Collier County building permit or demolition
permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed
through to a completion of occupancy within 180 days of the hearing
or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed.
The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours
of abatement of the violation and request the inspections -- that the
investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance.
That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may
abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all
costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Jen.
Are there any questions from the board?
Page 10
161\1 86 "1
February 24, 2011
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question.
These are mobile homes that were on the property?
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Yes, they are, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: Are they occupied?
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Yes, they are, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: They're occupied. There were no permits.
Are they going to be continued to be occupied while this is being
processed?
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: The property owner understands
that according to the agreement that in order to abate the violations
that the actual trailers have to be empty.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is that specified in the stipulation?
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No, it's not specified in the
sti pulati on.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: But it is a requirement in order to
comply with the agreement. So would it need to be line itemed in
there or is it just generally part of what's going to be necessary to
comply?
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: It would be part of what's
necessary to comply.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you feel that the mobile homes are going
to have to be removed, or could they actually be permitted? And is it
an allowable use is what my question is.
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: The property is on residential
multi-family. The actual trailers cannot exist on that property as
trailers, because it doesn't make allowance for it.
MR. KAUFMAN: So that means that those trailers will be
removed from the property at some point in time.
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: That's correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: And the tenants will vacate those mobile
homes.
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: That's correct.
Page 11
16118>~6 ~
February 24, 2011
MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the owner given you a time frame for
when the mobile homes are going to be vacated?
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No, he did not.
MR. LEFEBVRE: So in reality more than likely it's going to go
the 180 days.
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: It could quite possibly go 180
days. The agreement is that he would do it within that amount of
time.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Under -- how many trailers are there again, or
mobile homes?
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: There's three mobile homes.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm not comfortable with $100 a day.
Personally I think that's -- and 180 days I think is a long time. So I'm
not comfortable with $100 a day. I don't think that's a strong enough
incentive to have him act.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion?
MR. KAUFMAN: I agree with Mr. Lefebvre. It's six months. It
shouldn't take six months to have those trailers vacated. And I don't
know what violations there could possibly be in the trailers, if they
might possibly be safety violations, if none of the electrical was
inspected or plumbing, et cetera. So I'd have a problem with passing
this forward as a stipulation without some sort of a shorter time frame
to have them vacated, or at least specified in the stipulation.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: My comment would be I believe you
have to give someone 90 days if you're going to evict them, plus
another 30 days to actually remove the trailers. I think 120 would be
more realistic.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, since the
respondent is not present, can we amend this document?
MS. RAWSON: No, you can't amend the stipulation unless you
have the other party to the stipulation here to agree. You'd have to
hear the case and, you know, enter into some kind of an order. You
Page 12
161186
"lI,j"
J~';r,~,
,
February 24, 2011
know, unless he can call him, get him to come and sign it today, it's
not going to be a stipulation unless the respondent signs.
MR. KAUFMAN: Has there been any problem getting ahold of
the respondent?
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No there hasn't, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: Based on what was just said, is it possible
that a call can be made to him and then enter that line that it would be
120 days, giving him 90 days to give notice to the tenants and then
another 30 days to remove the trailers from the property?
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: We can make that attempt, sir,
but I can't guarantee that I will make contact with him by phone today.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you don't, this case will be pushed
back to normal hearings and maintain its place as number seven in the
agenda and we will hear it as a regular case. So you'll be here to
present, but just without the respondent.
MS. RAWSON: Well, the problem with that is the respondent
thinks there's a stipulation, and he's not going to be here to offer his
testimony. So that probably violates his due process rights.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: As I understand it, the investigators do
ask the respondents to stick around until the case is heard, though, on
a normal basis.
Did you in fact instruct Mr. Sanchez to stay?
INVESTIGA TOR WALKER: At the time of presenting the
stipulated agreement with him, he understood that his presence would
be required. He said that he may not be able to attend. And he asked,
if he was unable to attend, would his stipulation speak for him, and
that's what we did, a stipulation.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we consider
perhaps deferring this item to later in the agenda to see ifhe's able to
successfully contact the respondent and then perhaps address this later
in the meeting.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have no problem doing that, except we
Page 13
161il 8.6 ~~,
tebruary 24, 2011
would need the respondent here to actually physically sign. A phone
call would not suffice. So they would have to get here by the end of
the meeting or the county would have to withdraw or we would have a
make a ruling, since it is on our document.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I agree.
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: And if I could, please, he is an
agricultural worker. Whether or not he would be able to get here on
such short notice, I can't attest to the fact that he would. It may not be
a possibility.
MR. BAKER: The county requests to withdraw the case and
bring it back next month.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
Thanks, Weldon.
INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now, moving on to stipulation number
three, Askey, CESD20100008859.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Good afternoon. Tony Asaro,
Collier County Code Enforcement Department -- or good morning.
The respondent has agreed to enter into a stipulation which states
pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all
violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building
permit or demolition permit for the mobile home, request all required
inspections and obtain a certificate of completion for the structure
within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be
imposed for each day the violation remains.
Respondent must notify the code enforcement department within
24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator
perform a site inspection to confirm compliance.
If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may
abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County
Page 14
1 6 I. 1 8 6
February 24, 2011
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all
costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll ask the same question that Mr. Lefebvre
asked before.
Is this mobile home on the property, is that an existing use for
that property?
INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It was an existing use. They did
have a permit for a guesthouse, but they had swapped -- the prior
guesthouse mobile home, they swapped it with another mobile home.
So basically they don't have a permit for this one.
MR. KAUFMAN: But it's a permitted use?
INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It's a permitted use, yeah.
MR. KAUFMAN: And is it occupied at the present time?
INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It is occupied.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you know if their intention is to keep
the trailer and just have it re-permitted?
INVESTIGATOR ASARO: That's what their intention is. Their
intention is to keep the trailer and work through the permitting
process.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'm just wondering if60 days is going to be
enough for them to work through the process. But I guess if it isn't,
then they'll be back here and ask for an extension of time.
INVESTIGATOR ASARO: They're aware that they can come
back and ask for an extension.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the stipulated
agreement.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
Page 15
1 6 I, 1 B 6
February 24, 2011
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Thanks, Tony.
Next is JCS Realty, CEOCC20100021455.
Is that right?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
(Speaker was duly sworn).
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Good morning. Investigator
Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement.
We have a stipulation agreement. The respondent has agreed that
there is a violation and they have stipulated that they will pay all
operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution
of this case within 30 days of the hearing. And they will abate all
violations by: Applying for and obtaining any and all applicable local
business tax receipts from the tax collector to include but not limited
to a zoning certificate from growth management division within 180
days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed for each
day the violation remains.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement office within
24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator
perform a site inspection to confirm compliance.
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
Page 16
16 1:1 8 6
February 24, 2011
,.~Jt.
to!,
costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I get you to state your name for the
record, please?
MR. SHUCART: Christopher Shucart with JCS Realty Group.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to
everything that was mentioned there?
MR. SHUCART: We do.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have authorization to speak on
behalf of the companies?
MR. SHUCART: I do.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board?
MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess, what kind of business is being run?
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: It's palace games, a coin
operated amusement.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions?
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation--
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jim?
MR. LA VINSKI: I just noticed, I'm somewhat familiar with the
Shucart family. I wasn't familiar with JRS. So I'm going to withdraw
from voting on this issue.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, do you have an extra--
MS. RAWSON: I do.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let the record reflect that Jim has
recused himself from this case.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
Page 1 7
161\1 B()
February 24, 2011
-,
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries.
MR. SHUCART: Thank you very much.
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case, case number five under
stipulations, which is really 14, Palm Foundation II, Incorporated,
CEVR20 1 00020717.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Chairman Kelly, I'm going to be recusing
myself for the next two cases.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Susan, would you like to read it
.
In.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
INVESTIGATOR O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell,
Collier County Code Enforcement.
Mahmoud Gohari, representing Palm Foundation II,
Incorporated, has entered into a stipulation with the county whereby
he will pay operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing.
He will abate all violations by: Replacing required dead plant
material with like material; remove exotics and debris from the
property in a covered container to a Collier County approved waste
disposal facility, and bring the littoral shelf planting area to Collier
County standards within 150 days or a daily penalty of$250 will be
assessed as long as the violation persists.
The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a
site inspection to confirm compliance.
Page 18
1 6 r L B 16
February 24, 2011
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.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
Good morning, sir. Do you understand and agree to everything
that was just read in the stipulated agreement?
MR. GOHARI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the board have any questions about
the case?
MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. On the 150 days, is that
the time that you're allocating so that the plantings will go in during
the rainy season?
INVESTIGATOR O'FARRELL: The rainy season and just after
the rainy season, yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I would --
MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I was kind of thinking along your lines.
You know, that will bring us into July. The rainy season starts about
mid-June. It gives them about a month of actual planting. I was
wondering if maybe we couldn't extend it another month to get into,
you know, the real rains, if that's okay. Any objection from the
county?
INVESTIGATOR O'FARRELL: We don't have any objection to
that.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I was thinking more like 180 days.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is that area watered now?
MR. ARNOW: No.
INVESTIGATOR O'FARRELL: We're at the low point in the
lakes right now.
Page 19
16 I llib Irlfl
February 24, 201]
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it might be a good idea to help _ "
remove additional vegetation by the planting, maybe --
INVESTIGATOR O'FARRELL: They're going to work on
removing the exotic vegetation first and then start putting in the
littoral plants after that.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. What we're basically doing is
trying to get you another 30 days to get into that rainy season. It helps
survivability of the plantings that you're going to do.
MR. GOHARI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objections to that change?
MR. GOHARI: No.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. It's just helping by giving you
more time.
MR. GOHARI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyways, that's the discussion. Does
anyone want to make a motion?
MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we extend the change in
the existing stipulation to change it from 150 to 180 days.
INVESTIGATOR O'FARRELL: Okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: With the rest of it as written.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion, do we have a
second?
MR. LA VINSKI: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Jim.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
Page 20
1 6 I ~'A - 8 6
February 24, 2011
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could we get you, please, to initial the
new stipulation. There's just a couple little notes on it.
We do have another one as well, but we will have to re-swear
everybody in for the separate case.
The next case is going to be Palm Foundation II, Incorporated,
CEVR20100020718.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Susan, would you like to read this one in
as well.
INVESTIGATOR O'FARRELL: Sure.
Mr. Mahmoud Gohari, on behalf of Palm Foundation II,
Incorporated has agreed to a stipulation with the county for Case No.
CEVR20100020718.
He has agreed to pay the operational costs in the amount of
$81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this
hearing. He will abate all violations by: Replacing required dead
plant material with like material; remove exotics and debris from
property in a covered container to a Collier County approved waste
disposal facility, and bring littoral shelf planting area to Collier
County standards within 150 days or a daily penalty of$250 will be
assessed as long as the violation persists.
The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site
inspection to confirm compliance.
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.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks.
Page 21
161.186
February 24, 2011
Obviously by initialing the recent changes you agree to the
stipulated agreement, correct?
MR. GOHARI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the
board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, what's the difference in this case versus
the previous case?
INVESTIGATOR O'FARRELL: It's two different lakes. We
have tract L-2 and L-l.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written.
MR. GOHARI: Same? Should go to 180 for this one too?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: It's on there.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's exactly what she read in, 180
days, and that we do have a motion accepting the 180 days, correct?
MR. GOHARI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good.
We have a motion, do we have a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
Page 22
16 I 1 86
February 24, 2011
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries.
INVESTIGATOR O'FARRELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, we do have one additional stipulation
agreement as well.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Which case is it?
MR. BAKER: It's number lOon the agenda, Case
CESD20090008252, Rene Zafra, Jr. and Maria Zafra.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're going to need an amendment to
our agenda.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to amend the agenda.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Good morning. The parties have
met in Case CESD20090008252, and have stipulated as follows:
Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. And he's
Page 23
161186'"
February 24, 2011
agreed to abate all violations by: Apply for and obtain a Collier
County building permit or demolition permit for the enclosed garage
alterations, request all related inspections through to issuance of
certificate of occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of
$150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated.
The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site
inspection to confirm compliance. That 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.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you state your name?
INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Oh, excuse me. For the record,
Janice Potter, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks.
Good morning, sir.
MR. ZAFRA: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could I get you to state your name for
the record, please.
MR. ZAFRA: Rene Zafra, Jr.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to
everything that was just read and you've signed?
MR. ZAFRA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do we have any questions from the
board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Is the structure occupied?
INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes, it is, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: We're back to the question of--
MR. DEAN: Safety.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- safety and health on that structure.
Have you been in the structure?
Page 24
1611E{) ~
February 24,2011
. .
INVESTIGATOR POTTER: I have.
MR. KAUFMAN: Does it seem to be in order? I know that
you're not a licensed electrician or plumber, but what was your
opinion of the interior?
INVESTIGATOR POTTER: I believe it was fine.
MR. DEAN: My question would be, is somebody living in there
now?
MR. ZAFRA: Yes. I do. It's part of my house.
I did this 10 years ago. And it some reason or another got into
the county. My son's girlfriend I guess turned us in. Something I did
10 years ago.
I didn't know I needed a permit back then to do this. You know,
everything else I've done in my house has been permitted because I
know I needed it. But back then 10 years ago I didn't know I needed
to do that, to take down an aluminum door and put a hard structure
wall up. So that's my fault.
MR. DEAN: Yeah, I know the board's main concern all the time,
which makes sense, is a safety issue. And because, you know, the
wiring and plumbing and things like that.
MR. ZAFRA: I did everything myself. I did electrical work, I
did plumbing, I did everything from cabinets that I put in there to new
tile. I mean, it's -- I did everything.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Typically our concern is really of safety.
In these situations where the home's existed now for 10 years in this
situation and you having comfortable knowledge of those issues, we
probably request that perhaps you could for instance trip the breaker to
maybe the area that that addition is, the garage, just in case there's
problems, until this is rectified?
MR. ZAFRA: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other suggestions from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion.
Page 25
I
1 6 , , 1 8, 6 ,,~
February 24, 2011
What are your plans? Are your plans to try to raise that four-inch
foundation and get this permitted?
MR. ZAFRA: No, no. When they poured my house, my slab
was -- I have blueprints and everything showing that the slab was
poured continuously throughout the house. So I didn't have to do no
slab work. What I did was take down a garage door, put up two
windows with a framed structured wall.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it may be as simple as just getting a
permit?
MR. ZAFRA: Yes, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck with that. If you do run into
problems, you need additional time, please let us know before this
expires. It helps. Thanks.
MR. ZAFRA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: No more stips?
MR. BAKER: (Shakes head negatively.)
Page 26
16 1.1 8 6
February 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, moving on to letter C, hearings,
Case No.1, Marvin and Donna Schroeder, CESD200100003214.
Is the respondent here?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of ordinance
Florida Building Code 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1
and Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended,
Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a), and Section 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e).
Description of violation: No Collier County permits for
construction of two structures appearing to be a garage and a barn.
Location/address where violation exists: 3801 21st Avenue
Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 38050720001.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Marvin and Donna Schroeder, 3801 21st Avenue Southwest,
Naples, Florida, 34117.
Date violation first observed: March 12th, 2010.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation:
November 5th, 2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 6th, 2010.
Date of reinspection: December 7th, 2010.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: Good morning. For the record,
Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100003214, dealing
with violations of no Collier County permits for construction of two
structures appearing to be a garage and a barn.
Location of the violation is at 3801 21st Ave. Southwest, Naples,
Florida, 34117. Folio number is 38050720001.
Service was given on November 5th, 2010 by site posting.
I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits:
Two photographs of the two structures.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Has the respondent seen the pictures?
Page 27
I
16(186
February 24, 2011
"
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: Yes, I reviewed the pictures with
him.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Which is good, because
we see them now.
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: So before you is the barn structure.
And then the other picture will be of the garage.
So this case was initiated on March 12th, 2010 as a complaint.
And upon further permit research and review of the area photos and
property card it was found no permits were obtained for these two
structures.
Investigator Carol Sykora and myself met with Mr. Schroeder on
July 15th, 2010. We discussed an option provided by zoning to
possibly obtain a variance, because the structures do not meet the
minimum setbacks required in their zoning district.
Mr. Schroeder also explained that the buildings were on the
property when he and his wife purchased the property. Aerial photos
show that the buildings were both in the 2001 aerial photo, and Mr.
Page 28
161196
February 24, 2011
and Mrs. Schroeder's deed is dated January 12th, 2004.
After further discussions with Mr. Schroeder regarding the
unpermitted buildings, the respondent has expressed financial hardship
in attempt to obtain the permits at this time.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any aerial photos?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: I do. Which I have also shared with
Mr. Schroeder when we were out in the hall.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are they part of your original packet that
you are entering?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: I could submit them as part of it. I
do have them to ~eep -- you know, leave them as evidence.
So I will submit that there is a total of -- there's a 2010 aerial
photo, a 2002 and a 20 -- a 2002 and a 2001 aerial photo.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept it.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries.
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: And I'd also like to correct
something from my testimony. The aerial photos appeared not in the
-- one of them did not appear in 2001 but both of them appeared in
2002.
This is the most recent aerial photo found on the property
appraiser's website. And you can see the structure furthest down is the
Page 29
16 I "ltfb
February 24, 2011
principal structure. And then the two structures that follow with the
gray colored roofs are the two structures in question.
The house -- there's another structure towards the back end of the
property on the top of the page. That is the guesthouse that is
permitted and C.O.'d, and then the principal structure was also
permitted and C.O.'d in the Eighties.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: The middle structure, if you will, or the
one that's closest to the main house, is that the one that has the setback
issue?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: They actually both do. In
discussions with Mr. Schroeder from his survey, the one that's closest
to the principal structure is 12 feet away from the property line. And
the one north of it is 1 7 feet away from the property line.
MR. KAUFMAN: That's marked on the photos as well.
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: Yeah, I noted it on there, just from
my conversations with him.
MR. KAUFMAN: And the property was purchased when?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: The deed is dated January 12th,
2004.
MR. KAUFMAN: So in 2004 when the property was purchased,
both structures were on there.
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: Right. And there's another
photograph that also shows both structures, which is the 2002 aerial
photo.
MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the minimum setback?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: I believe the minimum setback in
this area is 30 feet.
This is the 2002 aerial photo that shows both structures on the
property .
I also have a 1995 aerial photo that shows what could possibly be
one of the structures, but it's not as large as what is on there as those
two.
Page 30
I
16'18;0'
February 24,2011
MR. KAUFMAN: Little grainy?
CHAIRMAN KELL Y: What about permit history?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: The other two permits that are on
there are the two principal-- you know, the two -- the guesthouse and
the main house. I have a property card showing those two permit
numbers.
And upon reviewing those in the records department, it was 1987
permits and both of those permits were issued and completed for the
house and the guesthouse.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And no other permits subsequent to
those?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: Not for structures. I can't recall --
you know, I'm sure there's -- you know, at this time I can't recall if
there's any for anything else on there.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Anything further?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: How about questions from the board for
the county?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Would the setbacks -- do you know if the
setbacks were the same -- I know we're not talking about setbacks, but
were they the same in '95? Let's say if the structure was built in '95,
were they the same as they are now?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: I can't answer that question. I'm not
sure. You know, I'd be glad to review that with the zoning department
MR. LEFEBVRE: That's all right.
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: -- in Mr. Schroeder's case.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Just curious to see, ifhe goes to get a permit,
a variance is probably going to take some time to get.
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: Right.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, anything else from the board?
MR. LEFEBVRE: All set.
Page 31
16 I 1 1:1 6'
February 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Schroeder.
You haven't seen this type of case yet because we were doing
stipulations. But basically county has presented all their side. Now
it's your chance to basically tell us in plain language your side of the
story so that we can get a good picture on what we can do to help you
resolve this.
MR. SCHROEDER: We just come down here to buy a place,
and this was the place I wanted because it had two nice big buildings.
I weld, I do a lot of other stuff, you know. And I still haven't even
moved my tools down here from Minnesota.
And anyway, we come up with this deal here. And one of the
neighbors, he's an agitator, he don't even like my rooster crowing.
And the dog barks wrong and he's calling the animal control, you
know.
But the other neighbors are fine with everything, you know.
And then my wife had a heart attack here and all this too yet.
And I just don't have no money to operate right at this time, you know.
So that's why I've been kind of dragging on this.
But I'd be willing to go with a variance and try and work with
somebody. But as far as moving the buildings, I think it would be
impossible, you'd ruin the structure.
I'd like to get a variance, because they're both nice buildings.
The horse barn looks a little ragged because I just, you know, ain't had
time to do anything because of all this scuttlebutt. Because I'd like to
re-sheet it with tin, you know, and made it look nice like the other
building.
But that's about all I've got to say. It's -- I'll work with you, but I
don't want to spend a lot of money, because I don't have it. I do pay
my taxes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, thank you.
Do we have any questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Did you have a survey done when you
Page 32
1611 ff6
February 24, 2011
purchased the property?
MR. SCHROEDER: I had a title search. My daughter's a realtor
in Minnesota. She says, get a title search, everything will be fine, dad.
Well, down here I guess they don't go in that far on it. But I paid 500
bucks to have a title search. Everything was supposed to be good.
And this is where I'm at.
MR. KAUFMAN: This is the headlines in the newspapers that
say these are the type of cases where people should have their homes
inspected by code enforcement to see if there are any unpermitted
parts of the deal. So unfortunately you bought it what, eight, nine
years ago?
MR. SCHROEDER: Yeah.
MR. KAUFMAN: And that's before this had come to light.
MR. SCHROEDER: Well, we had the whole structure of the
house gone through because of hurricane insurance. The people we
took the insurance out with had this guy come and check. They said
both the guest house and the house was well structurally built. And
electric was fine. So I took and tried to do everything, you know, but
this got slipped up here.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I know this isn't going to make you
feel any better, but I can tell you, you are certainly not alone. There
are a number of people in this county that are in your exact same
shoes right now who bought property unsuspected and have later
found that there are code violations that exist.
And the way our local ordinances and laws are written, those
violations go with the current property owner. Regardless of who did
the bad, it's up to the guy --
MR. SCHROEDER: Right.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- who owns it now to take care of it. So
I'm sorry that you're in this situation, and I'm sure the board will try to
work with you.
I have a question for the county. As far as variance and time
Page 33
1 6 I 1. q 6'
February 24, 2011
tables and everything, can you give us some ideas of time frame, how
long you think it will take?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: I would say something like that
would at least exceed six months. You know, I don't know is that's
something that we could start with and then we can, you know,
continue to work with Mr. and Mrs. Schroeder and keep in
communication as how that process is going and update the case.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find the
respondent in violation.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And does the county have a
i recommendation?
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement
Board orders the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of
$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and
abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining Collier County
building permits or demolition permits for the described unpermitted
structures. Request all related inspections through to issuance of
certificate of completion with "X" amount of days of this hearing or a
Page 34
16 1 1 Q:6
February 24, 2011
fine of "X" amount of dollars will be imposed until the violation is
abated.
Also, that the respondent must notify the code enforcement
investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement.
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 order, and all costs of
abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you put the --
MR. KAUFMAN: Recommendation.
MR. LEFEBVRE: -- recommendation. Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, it's --
MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll give it a shot. Fill in the blanks, where it
says the amount of days, 270 days. And a fine of$150 a day will be
imposed.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion to accept the
county's recommendation, 270 days and $150 per day.
Do we have a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 35
14JbJary2<f~2~1 ~
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so what we did is we gave 270
days to try to get your ducks in a row, work with county to figure out
how you could work with these structures. If you see a dead end, if
you see as though it might be more trouble than what it's worth, then
this also gives you the option to take the structures down and restore
the property to what it would have been like before they were built.
If you run into a problem or you're midstream in, let's say for
instance, a variance petition or if you go in front of the Board of
County Commissioners and ask for their help, please let us know
before that 270 expires so that maybe we can possibly extend the time
frame for you. I can tell you, good communications helps greatly.
MR. SCHROEDER: Okay, appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. Good luck.
MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you.
INVESTIGATOR PEREZ: Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, we have a translator here for one of the
imposition of fines cases, so can we move that forward and take that?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Only ifmy fellow board members
recommend that we change the agenda.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda. Which
case is it?
MR. BAKER: It's number two under impositions of fines,
CESD200900 14845, Felix and Guadalupe Alvarado.
MR. LEFEBVRE: To move that case up.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion.
Do we have a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
Page 36
I
16 I 1 ~6
February 24, 2011
~-.,:~...c~
,
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. DOINO: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
(Speakers and Interpreter Nora Baeza were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just for the record, you know,
Supervisor, if you want to read the case into the record, please.
SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir.
This is CEB Case No. CESD20090014845, Board of County
Commissioners versus Felix and Guadalupe Alvarado. The violation
is of Florida Building Code 2004 addition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section
105.1.
The location is 4810 Myers Road, Immokalee, Florida. The
Folio No. is 00055000000.
The description is a metal carport erected without first obtaining
a Collier County building permit.
And the past orders: On February 25th, 2010 the Code
Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, a conclusion of law and
order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced
ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached
Order of the Board OR 4546, page is 1070, for more information.
An extension of time was granted on July 22nd, 2010. See the
attached Order of the Board OR 4591, Page 1671 for more
information.
The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of
November 8th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as
follows: Order number one and two, fines at the rate of $200 per day
for the period of October 21st, 2010 and November 8th, 2010, 19
days, for a total of $3,800. Operational costs of $80 have been paid.
The total amount to date is $3,800.
Page 37
1611 fL6 i\
February 24,2011
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you please let the respondent
know that we have abated his fines; he will not owe the county
anymore money. We thank him very much for working hard to
correct the issue.
INTERPRETER: Not anymore?
SUPERVISOR SNOW: No.
INTERPRETER: Not even court costs or anything?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: He already paid it.
SUPERVISOR SNOW: We thank the Board.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: One smile and a wave.
MR. ALVARADO: Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, returning to our regular agenda
items.
Case No.8, Mario and Rosalba Chavez.
Are the respondents here?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
Page 38
1 6 I 1 B'~ 6 .~~
February 24, 2011
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Collier County Code Investigator
James Kincaid. K-I-N-C-A-I-D.
THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
MR. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of ordinance
permit application when required, Florida Building Code 2007 edition,
Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1. Building and land alteration
permits, permits, inspections, certificate of occupancy required,
Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section
1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a).
Description of violation: Unpermitted structures built in the rear
yard of residential property.
Location/address where violation exists: 5305 Confederate
Drive, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 62043160000.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Mario H. and Rosalba T. Chavez, 5305 Confederate Drive,
Naples, Florida, 34113.
Date violation first observed: November 19th, 2009.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation:
November 22nd, 2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 10th,
2010.
Date of reinspect ion: December 13th, 2010.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Investigator.
I have a quick question. Were you able to get good service on
this property?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry to interrupt your flow. Please.
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: For the record, James Kincaid,
Collier County Code Enforcement.
Page 39
1611. 86 ~~,~
February 24, 2011
This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090018083, dealing
with unpermitted structures in the rear yard of residential property.
This is in violation of Florida Building Code, 2007 edition,
Chapter 1, Section 105.1 and the Collier County Land Development
Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a).
The location of the violation is 5305 Confederate Drive, Naples,
Florida, 34113-8780. Folio No. is 62043160000.
Service was by posting on November 12th -- November 22nd,
excuse me, 2010.
The code case on this property was opened on November 24th,
2009 by Code Investigator Michele Crowley. A code enforcement
foreclosure team pursued possible bank or owner corrections of the
violations for several months. These attempts were unsuccessful.
The case was then turned over to Investigator James Kincaid. An
NOV was mailed regular and certified, and the property and
courthouse were posted on November 22nd, 2010. Additional site
visits were made on February 23rd, 2011. The violation remains.
I'd like to submit in evidence four photographs dated November
12th, 2010, taken by me, and showing the unidentified concrete block
structure -- block and stone structure gazebo, a pool deck and then a
view of all three structures.
I also would like to admit into evidence three photographs dated
February, 2011 taken by me as well showing that the concrete block
structure, the gazebo and the pool deck still remain.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits.
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: First photograph is of the --
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Real quick, let's get them entered into
evidence, if we can.
We have a motion, do we have a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Jim.
Any discussion?
Page 40
161 '1 86 \J~
February 24, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, sir, thank you.
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: First picture is of the unidentified
concrete block structure.
Second picture is of the gazebo.
Third picture is of the -- what remains of a pool deck. And the
pool it is not there, it's been removed.
The fourth picture taken from the neighboring property. Kind of
gives you an overview of how the structure is set in the backyard.
Second set of photos taken yesterday just gives you -- just
verifies that the structures basically are still on site. The first one is
the block structure, second the gazebo, and third the pool deck.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Investigator Kincaid, I have a question. Is
this property in foreclosure or is this bank owned?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: It is in foreclosure and has been
for quite some time. It's also vacant at this time.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions?
(No response.)
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
Page 41
1611186
February 24, 2011
"'~
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, does the county have a
recommendation?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir.
The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board order
the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of blank
incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all
violations by: Must apply for and obtain all permits and request or
cause inspections required for described structure/improvements
through and including a certificate of occupancy completion -- or
completion within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars
a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Or must apply for
and obtain a Collier County demolition permit, request and cause
inspections through and including a certificate of completion and
remove structure improvement including materials from the property
and return to a permitted state within blank days of this hearing or a
fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is
abated.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the
violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the
Page 42
161 i 86
February 24, 2011
assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the
provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
MR. BAKER: The operational costs are $80.86.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: You want to post that on the visualizer?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Quick question. Will permits be needed to
remove these structures?
Will permits be needed to remove these structures?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone like to take a shot at it?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a shot. $80.86 paid within 30 days.
$250 a day fine commencing after 60 days.
What else am I missing?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you want that for both number one
and two?
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we're going to accept the county's
recommendation with 60 days and a fine of$250 a day for both one
and two.
Do we have a second?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Question. The way this reads, will it be a
$500 fine after 60 days if --
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes.
MR. LEFEBVRE: -- if one or the other isn't done?
CHAIRMAN KELLY : Yeah, this is the old forms. I think we
got away from these because of the double jeopardy.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Right.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: You know, we can scrap this form if you
wanted to amend it, and we can just construct our own.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chair, it does say "or" at the end of item
Page 43
161'1 B",p
February 24, 2011
').
.../.(.~
number one. It's either one or two.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I want to make sure that it's not 250 --
MR. BAKER: Yeah, it's either/or.
MS. RAWSON: I usually just put that in one sentence, that you
either get a building permit or you get a demolition permit.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so the order will be written the
way we do it typically. Okay, great. Thanks, Jean. She's keeping us
straight.
All right, so we have a motion. Was that your second, Gerald?
MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Thank you, Investigator Kincaid.
How about a break, Cherie'?
THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY : You're welcome.
We'll take a break and reconvene at 10:30.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement
Board back to order.
Page 44
16 1.1 8 6 f'c4
February 24, 2011
We do have a change in the agenda. If we can get a motion and
approval. We want to take number 13 under hearings. It's going to be
a stipulation. We'd like to put that next in line, if that's --
MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to amend the agenda and move Case
No. CESD20100009141 up.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
MR. DEAN: Up to what?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, may we have the parties sworn in,
please.
(Speakers and Interpreter Michaela Perdigon were duly sworn.)
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin,
Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator.
The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida
has entered into a stipulation agreement with Gloria Perdigon.
And therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent
shall pay operational costs in the amount of$83.43 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days.
Two: Abate all violations by applying for and obtain Collier
County building permits or Collier County demolition permits for all
unpermitted structures. Request all related inspections through to
Page 45
16 11 B 6
February 24, 2011
~
issuance of certificate of completion or occupancy within 120 days of
this hearing or a fine of 150 days (sic) will be imposed until the
violation is abated.
Three: The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24
hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to
perform a site inspection to confirm compliance.
F our: That 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.
MR. KAUFMAN: It should be $150, not days.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I'm sorry, fine of$150.
MR. KAUFMAN: Per day, right?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Per day.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're going to give a second and let the
translator catch up.
Cherie', do you have their names for the record?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great.
Could you ask if she understands and agrees to everything that's
in the stipulated agreement that was just read and that you signed?
INTERPRETER: Yes, she does.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is 120 days going to be enough time for
her to complete this?
INTERPRETER: She says yes, she's going to -- that she's going
to try. She's not going to try, she's going to make it happen in 120
days. And if she doesn't, then she will come and ask for the --
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve the stipulation as written.
MR. DEAN: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
Page 46
1611 Id.o'
February 24, 2011
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries.
Thank you very much.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you.
INTERPRETER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, back to hearings.
Case No.9, Carlos and Diana DeLeon.
Are the respondents here?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance
Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section
105.1, Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section
10.02.06(B)(I)(a), Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1,
Permits, Section 110.1.
Description of violation: Permit No. 2000010167 for addition of
a garage and Florida room has expired.
Location/address where violation exists: 5210 Jennings Street,
Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 62310440000.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Carlos and Diana O. DeLeon, 5210 Jennings Street, Naples,
Florida, 34113.
Page 47
- I
16 t 1 8 6
February 24, 2011
Date violation first observed: April 15th, 2010.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation:
November 22nd, 2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 10th,
2010.
Date of reinspect ion: December 29, 2011.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Good morning again. For the
record, James Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100005001 dealing with
Collier County Building Permit No. 200010167 that expired on July
10th, 2000 without the applicant receiving all necessary inspections
and a certificate of occupancy.
This is violation of Florida Building Code 2007, Section
10.02.06(B)(I)(a). And a Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22,
Building Regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Code, adoption and
amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22-26 110 through
110.1.
The location of the violation is 5210 Jennings Street, Naples,
Florida, 34113-7742. The Folio No. is 62310440000.
Service was by posting on November 22nd, 2010.
During the investigation of a weed and grass complaint at the
same address, I observed a possible permitting violation. Further
research of the property found that Permit No. 2000010167 for the
construction of a garage and a Florida room had expired on July 10th,
2000 and is still lacking required inspections and a certificate of
occupancy.
A code case for the violation was opened on April 15th, 2010.
The case was turned over to a code enforcement foreclosure team to
pursue possible bank or owner correction of the violations.
After approximately seven months of unsuccessful attempts, the
case was returned to me. An NOV was mailed regular and certified
Page 48
1 6 It 1 8e~"6
February 24, 2011
and the property and courthouse were posted on November the 22nd,
2010.
Additional site visits were made on February 23rd, 2011. The
violation remains.
I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits:
Five photos date April 14th, 2010, taken by me, and also two
photographs dated February 23rd, 2011, also taken by me.
I'll just kind of explain -- give you an overview of the property
and just help you to --
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, go ahead, sir.
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: I'll just kind of walk you through
the property and give you an overview of kind of where things are
situated as far as the addition and where the garage has been added.
So the first picture I'm going to show you is a street view looking
at the structure from in front of the house. It shows the front elevation
of the garage.
The second picture is taken from the side, kind of at the front
door looking into the garage. And you can see the garage is
Page 49
I
1611 iJ6
February 24, 2011
incomplete and there is no garage door. And some of the building
material as well as quite a bit of litter is actually stored inside the
structure.
MR. KAUFMAN: Did you say originally that this was from
2000?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: It is a 2000 building permit.
The next picture is showing the right elevation of the house and
also the right comer of the Florida room.
The next picture would show you the left side elevation and the
left rear comer of the Florida room.
Then the final picture of the first date submitted into evidence
would be just an overall view of the rear of the property showing the
Florida room incomplete.
The next two pictures taken from the neighboring property show
the house as it exists today. I was unable to access the property on the
other side to take a picture, so I have a picture of the front elevation of
the house and also from a neighboring property, the rear elevation.
MR. KAUFMAN: Could you show that previous picture one
more time?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: (Indicating.)
MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So the permits that are hanging are all
expired?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Sir?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: The permits that are hanging in the
window, those are expired permits?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Those are postings, the NOV,
notice of hearing, and legal documents for the appearance today.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's how you were able to obtain
service?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions?
Page 50
161'1 B()
February 24, 2011
:,-n~;. j
MR. KAUFMAN: Has this house ever been lived in; do you
know?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. At one time it was lived
in. The permits were pulled by the owner of record. Pretty much all
the permits were done on the house. There were no final inspections
done, so all the rough-in permits were done and I think passed. But
none of the final inspections were done, and there was no C.O. ever
issued on the property.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion to find him in
violation.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have one question before
we proceed.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: With the garage door obviously not
present, would it be fair to say this structure is open to people entering
the building without permission?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: They could enter the garage part
of it. The rest of the building is secure.
There is also a window from I guess the existing structure that
would -- if it were broken out or something, it would provide pretty
easy access to the property. But otherwise the property at this time is
secure.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, do we have a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Jim.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
Page 51
I
161186 ~
February 24, 2011
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, a violation does exist.
Do you have a recommendation that we will not put on the
screen?
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Yes, sir. Recommendation that
the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all
operational costs in the amount of -- incurred in the prosecution of this
case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Must apply for and
obtain all permits, and request or cause inspections required for
described structure/improvements through and including a certificate
of occupancy/completion within blank days of this hearing or a fine of
blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated.
Or two: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County demolition
permit, request or cause inspections through and including a certificate
of completion, and remove structure/improvements including
materials from the property and return to a permitted state within
blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be
imposed until the violation is abated.
Three: The respondent must notify the code enforcement
investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions or --
MR. KAUFMAN: Let me see if I can fill in the blanks.
Page 52
16 I J. 1:f"6
iIiI'-
....~
February 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hang on, Gerald's got a question.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Operational cost? What's the operational
cost?
MR. BAKER: $81.15.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: Filling in the blanks, $250 a day fine,
commencing after 60 days, with the operational cost of $81.15 paid
within 30 days.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pick one.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Thank you, Investigator Kincaid.
INVESTIGATOR KINCAID: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Senen Lugo.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance
Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Section
22-26.(b)(104.1.3.5), Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1,
Page 53
1 6 It 1 !fa ~ W;(fi
February 24.,2011
Section 111.1, building and land alteration permits. Collier County
Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section
1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a).
Description of violation: Unpermitted improvements to master
bedroom and bathroom prior to obtaining a Collier County approval,
necessary inspections and Certificate of Completion. Fence with
expired Collier County building permit.
Location/address where violation exists: 4287 12th Avenue
Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 40475200000.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Senen Lugo, 4287 12th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida,
34120.
Date violation first observed: December 29th, 2009.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October
13th, 2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 10th,
2010.
Date of reinspect ion: December 30th, 2010.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record,
Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator.
This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090019403 pertaining to
unpermitted improvements to the master bedroom and bathroom prior
to obtaining a Collier County approval, necessary inspections and
certificate of completion. And a fence with expired Collier County
building permit. Located at 4287 12th Ave. Northeast, Naples,
Florida, 34120.
And --I'm sorry, the note of violation was issued on 10/13/2010.
And I would like to present case evidence as follows with Exhibits
B-1 through 8. They were taken by Investigator Keegan on
12/28/2009. I was also in his presence.
And C-1, photo taken by me on 10/13/2010.
Page 54
1 6 I 8 6 J'!!r1
~. - - I
February 24, 2011
And D-l, a photo taken by me yesterday, 2/23/11.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: This is -- the violation was first
observed by Investigator Keegan and myself on 12/29/2009. The
violations included: The walls erected in the master bedroom and
bathroom, and the fence without a Collier County building permit.
This was a dismantled grow house that we found on one of our
vacant home sweeps. There was also weeds and litter on the property.
We turned it over to the foreclosure team. The foreclosure team
successfully got the weeds and the house boarded up and the
marijuana paraphernalia taken out of the grow house. But the walls
that were erected inside the master bedroom and the bathroom and the
fence still were not permitted, so it was turned back over to me.
I issued the Notice of Violation on 10/13/2010, and here we are
today, still the violation has not been abated.
I'd like to show you some pictures of the violation.
First one is the outside view of the house upon first going there.
Second one is inside the garage.
I believe this next one's a little blurry, it's also taken of inside the
garage.
The next one was part of the master bedroom and -- the next two
Page 55
1 6 I '1 -13 - 6
February 24, 2011
-- next three were part of the master bedroom and bathroom.
And I believe also this next one as well.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this property bank owned?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No, it is in lis pendens right now
though.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The last one was a picture of the
garage.
But all of the marijuana paraphernalia stuff has been removed
from the inside of the property.
MR. KAUFMAN: How about all the plumbing and air
conditioning and all the rest of that that's in there? I'm sure none of
that has been permitted.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Well, I was under the impression
that that stuff has been taken out, but no permits have been pulled.
Since our first initial visit we have not been able to get inside the
house, it has been boarded up. If you want to see the next photo here
of when the property was posted, it has been boarded up.
And this is as of yesterday.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion that we find them in violation.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
Page 56
I
161186 r'1
February 24, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes, I do.
That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay
all operational costs in the amount of$83.43 that (sic) incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by:
One: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building
permit or a Collier County demolition permit for all unpermitted
construction additions and/or alterations; obtain all unrelated
inspections and certificates of occupancy within blank days of this
hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the
violation is abated.
Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement
investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the people
who own this property?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No, I have not.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a shot.
Operational costs, $83.43 within 30 days; $250 a day fine; 60
days to get it under permit.
MR. LA VINSKI: Get a C.O.?
MR. KAUFMAN: C.O.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Or demo it.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, do we have a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded.
Any discussion?
Page 57
1 6 I 1 Be' 6
February 24, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thanks for your
recommendation. Thanks for the case.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you.
MS. FLAGG: If I could offer just some clarification on that.
The bank did spend the money to bring the property to the point that
you saw it in the final pictures. But the bank is unable to obtain a
building permit until they actually have certificate of title, which is
why they can't go in and actually get a permit.
So by the action that you have taken, then there will be a finding
in the court and at the point that the bank does take the title, there'll be
a record that they will need to go in and repair it before they sell the
home.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case is Lisa Prince.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Florida
Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1.
Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section
1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e )(i) and 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( a).
Description of violation: Enclosed garage and added more living
space to the principal structure.
Location/address where violation exists: 4105 20th Avenue
Page 58
161186'-
February 24, 2011
Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34107. Folio 41230040006.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Lisa Renee Prince, 4105 20th Avenue Southeast, Naples,
Florida, 34117.
Date violation first observed: May 11th, 2010.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October
21st, 2010.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 20th,
2010.
Date of reinspect ion: December 30th, 2010.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning again.
F or the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code
Enforcement.
This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100006466, dealing
with the violation of an enclosed garage without permits. It is located
at 4105 20th Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117.
Service was given on 10/21/10. The notice was posted.
I would like to present some case evidence in the following
exhibits: Photos B-1 taken 5/11/2010. Photo taken by me.
C-l photo taken 10/21/2010, also by me.
And D-l photo taken yesterday by me, 2/23/11.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Jim.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
Page 59
__ - I
16''1 86
February 24,2011
"!'I..,-, ~
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Present the details of the case. I
first observed the violation on 5/11/2010. On 6/21/2010 the owner
Lisa Prince called me and asked me for an extension. I granted the
extension to her. And since then I have not had any contact with her.
I have left several notes and I -- I did not call her, I'm sorry, I didn't
have her phone number. I just left several notes on door hangars and
I've gotten no response.
I'd like to present my B-1 photo to show you.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is she living in that structure; do you know?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: She was living in the structure at
the time of my last phone call. Up until now, I'm not sure.
As you can see in my latest photo, I'm not sure that anyone is
living on the property. I know she was going through some tough
times.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: The date on this photograph is,
approximately?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: This first one is 5/11/2010.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. Got it.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: And that shows the garage right
there. There was a garage door there. They installed French -- they
put up a wall and installed French doors.
And then a photo, C-l, dated 10/21/2010. And I believe at that
time someone was still living on the property.
And then D-l, photo taken yesterday by me.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that French door opened or is that
simply a sliding screen we're looking at?
Page 60
16' 1 9,6
February 24,2011
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I believe that's a sliding screen
right now.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: When I was there yesterday and
I approached the front door, I -- when going to the front door and
leaving a notice, I did notice that it appeared that there was no
furniture inside the living room.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board?
(No response.)
MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we find them in violation.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we --
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Jim.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. That the Code
Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs
in the amount of $82 that incurred in the prosecution of this case
within 30 days, and abate all violations by:
One: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building
permit or a Collier County demolition permit for all constructione
Page 61
1~L!2~~11
additions and/or alterations; obtain all related inspections and
certificate of occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of
blank dollars will be assessed and be imposed until the violation is
abated.
Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement
investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know whether this is in lis pendens at
all?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I don't believe it is yet, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I'm not quite sure though.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: The structure is secure?
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a shot. $82 for operational costs
paid within 30 days. $200 a day fine after 60 days.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, accept county's recommendation,
60 days, $200 per day.
Do we have a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
Page 62
161'186
February 24, 2011
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Thank you, Investigator.
INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: The next two cases are the emergency
property and maintenance cases, 16 and 17, both the same respondent.
We'll take 16 first.
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I'm not sure which one is 16.
MR. DEAN: Me neither.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, this is the one -- 2247.
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jen's going to read it in anyway.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CEPM20 11 0002247,
Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis. Violation of Ordinance Collier
County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-243 and
Chapter 22, buildings and building regulations, Article 6, Section
22-231 (12)(i)(l).
Description of violation: Missing and broken windows, missing
and/or unsecured exterior doors, holes in walls, no operational sinks,
tub, shower or toilets.
Location/address where violation exists: 267 Price Street,
Naples, Florida. Folio 730160003.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis, 278 Riverwood
Drive, Naples, Florida, 34114.
Date violation first observed: February 18th, 2011.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation:
Page 63
I
161;18-6
February 24, 2011
i'
! ';~
February 22nd, 2011.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 23rd, 2011.
Date of reinspection: February 23rd, 2011.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the
record, Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20110002247, dealing
with a vacant home with missing and broken windows, missing and
unsecured exterior doors, holes in the walls, no operational sinks, tubs,
showers or toilets.
I would like to present evidence in the following exhibits: I have
24 photographs that were taken on February 18th by me in the
presence of Corporal Gibson.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion?
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second.
All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: These are pictures of the
home. It's located way in the back of the rear of the property.
This case actually came to me through a phone call. The Collier
County Sheriffs Office had previously been at this property and
there's a lot of illegal activity taking place. Corporal Gibson phoned
Page 64
1611186
February 24, 2011
me to request assistance in getting this property secured due to the
illegal activity taking place.
The photos -- from the distance you can see the very top one in
the left-hand comer shows that most of the windows are missing. The
ones that aren't missing are all broken. The upper right-hand comer,
there are the canisters which shows the evidence of drug use. And the
lower two pictures are just showing the unsecured lower -- the lower
level.
The top left comer is the kitchen, what's left of it, just showing
that all the plumbing and fixtures have been removed. There are no
windows in there. The top right-hand comer and bottom left-hand
comer are the -- there's some pornography and different evidence of
sexual activity taking place at the property. And again, the bottom
right-hand comers are showing the unsecured windows.
The top left one is actually turned sideways. It's just showing the
open doorway. And the top right -- well, actually, the rest of the other
three are just showing the evidence of the drug and sexual activity
taking place at the property.
And this is just more of the same, showing the evidence of the
sexual and drug use.
That's showing the holes in the walls that's throughout the home,
and the unsecured openings.
Just more of the same.
I had posted the Notice of Violation on the property and at the
courthouse on February 22nd.
On February 23rd, I posted -- actually, I had a fellow investigator
post the notice of the hearing at the property and at the courthouse.
I phoned Mr. Fuller and I spoke with him yesterday in regards to
the hearing to let him know that the hearing was taking place today.
He informed me that it was his understanding that this is now the
bank's responsibility. The property is in foreclosure. And I explained
to him the bank hasn't taken certificate of title so he is still responsible
Page 65
16 (1 B 6
February 24, 2011
for it. He stated to me that he would not be taking any action to abate
the violation because he believes it is now the bank's responsibility.
I would like to have Corporal Gibson present testimony as far as
what they have observed at the property.
CORPORAL GIBSON: Good morning. My name is Corporal
Sylee Gibson, I'm with the Collier County Sheriffs Office.
I came in contact with this property just a few days prior the 18th
when I was notified by the principal of Manatee Elementary and the
YRD officer there that a fifth grader, l1-year-old little girl, had come
to school with some pornography in her possession. Advised the
principal and the YRD officer that this is where she got this from.
So I was called in because I work in a specific unit in East Naples
that we deal with abandoned homes.
I went out there, I checked the property, I found evidence of
pornographic material in the home. I also found some containers that
were possibly used for drug activity, because the young girl had stated
that her mom and her dad and some fellow family members were
taking her to this property and smoking out of bottles, which was
consistent with what we found there.
I contacted Michele and asked her to come out and take a look at
the property. I was extremely concerned, because the two young girls
that are involved in this live at 256 Price Street, which is right across
the street.
And the father, during a meeting with the principal, advised me
that he was aware that the aunt had taken the girls into these
abandoned homes. So that's why I got them involved.
As a result, the Sheriffs Office is conducting a further
investigation. And I also got DCF involved and our gang unit
involved, just because I believe there's a lot more activity going on
there.
But my concern is the safety of that property and the fact that
now I am aware that there are young children going on this property,
Page 66
161t 1 86
February 24, 2011
even if they are accompanied by an adult.
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your first name, please?
CORPORAL GIBSON: It's Sylee. S-Y-L-E-E.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions for the board?
MR. DEAN: I have one. If -- when we have a property like this,
what does it take to board it up?
MS. FLAGG: We do it.
MR. DEAN: Pardon?
MS. FLAGG: We did it. With an order from the board, we will
board it.
MR. DEAN: So it has to come here before we can board up--
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
MR. DEAN: -- right?
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
MR. DEAN: Nothing with the police department or anything
like that.
MS. FLAGG: No. What we do is you issue us an order that they
either abate it --
MR. DEAN: I understand it. I'm just talking about sooner.
MS. FLAGG: Well, you can set a very short time frame.
MR. DEAN: Okay. But I'm saying it has to come to the board
before they can do anything about --
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
MR. DEAN: -- something like this?
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
MR. DEAN: Wow. In other words, the Sheriffs Department
wouldn't have no jurisdiction to do anything --
MS. FLAGG: No, that's why --
MR. DEAN: -- to order a board up.
MS. FLAGG: -- they're here, though.
Correct.
MR. DEAN: But if there was a fire they'd do it right away.
Page 67
1"tl9()
F~ruary 24,2011
.~:' .~
MR. LEFEBVRE: Not necessarily.
MS. FLAGG: Potentially.
MR. LEFEBVRE: There was a fire on Santa Barbara --
MS. FLAGG: Right.
MR. LEFEBVRE: -- that was in front of us last month or a
couple months ago.
MS. FLAGG: When they board with fires, it's typically with the
property owner's --
MR. DEAN: Okay. So that's really the problem is the property
owner.
MS. FLAGG: The property owner has made the statement that
it's in lis pendens.
MR. DEAN: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Larry.
Does the board think that there's a violation?
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And what is your recommendation?
MR. MARINO: Tear it down.
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Recommend that the Code
Page 68
I
16 II 1 B 6
February 24, 2011
(:'1
Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs
in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within
30 days and abate all violations by:
Number one: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County
boarding certificate, providing a detailed plan for rehabilitation or
demolition and completing the boarding within blank days of this
hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the
violation is abated.
And number two: Repair and secure all doors and windows, or
obtain a Collier County demolition permit to remove the home and all
debris. Obtain all required all inspections and certificate of
completion within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars
a day will be imposed until the violation is abated.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection to confirm abatement.
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 order, and all costs of
abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at it.
Operational cost of 81.43 paid within 30 days. Board the facility
within five days. I think that's about as short a time frame as we can
provide. By the time the order is written and it goes out and you get
the contractor to do it. So five days as far as boarding the structure.
$500 a day fine. Commencing within 30 days -- subsequent to 30
days.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you clarify that second part? Is
that for the demo portion?
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. To bring everything else into
compliance.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you give 30 days?
Page 69
16' 1 B 6
February 24, 2011
."~
, ,
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Five days for boarding and then 30 days
to demo or to fix. And then $500 per day on both of them.
And this one would actually have a double jeopardy situation if
the boarding didn't occur or the demo didn't occur; is that correct?
MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct.
MS. RAWSON: Okay, got it.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there any way to provide personal service
to the respondent?
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, I do have his address.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So maybe that might make it more
effective if it's provided as soon as the order is written up. I don't
know if that's standard or not. But if there's a way to --
MS. RAWSON: We usually just mail them. What I can do is, as
soon as Mr. Kelly signs them and I get them over to Jen, we can serve
them.
MR. LEFEBVRE: It doesn't sound like he's going to do
anything, but this at least -- if he gets it by Friday or the beginning of
the week, he can make a decision if he wants to go ahead and board it
up.
So if it goes past the five days, let's say it goes 10 days, there will
be five days, and then the county boards it up let's say after the 10th
day. Then there would be five days of fines of$2,500, correct, and
then after 30 days --
MR. KAUFMAN: Another $500 a day kicks in.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. But the fines would stop once it's
boarded by the county, correct?
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, very good.
Is that your second?
MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
Page 70
I
1611 86
February 24,2011
MR. KAUFMAN: I think -- do you have something you wanted
to --
CORPORAL GIBSON: I just wanted to make the board aware
that once I became aware of the property that my supervisor, my
sergeant and my lieutenant were aware of the situation and that I've
requested for the patrol deputies to patrol the area and in particular the
night shift guys to actually get out of the car, because you have to
walk to the property to search it to make sure that there isn't anybody
there.
Because that is a big concern of mine, especially now being made
aware that I know that there have been people there. So we are doing
that intermittently until the property gets bordered up.
MR. KAUFMAN: And even after the property is bordered up it
probably needs to do that. Boards can come down too.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, is five days -- are you comfortable
with that time frame?
MS. RAWSON: Well, there's a weekend in here.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, would it be five days from today's
meeting or five days from when the order is signed?
MS. RAWSON: No, it would be five days from today.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Calendar days, not business days?
MS. RAWSON: It's calendar days.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I think with --
MS. RAWSON: Well, I think it would be five days from today.
And so as a practical matter, Mr. Kelly might not sign and we might
not give it to code enforcement until maybe Monday, see.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I think due to the urgency of this and the
testimony from the Corporal, that it's imperative that we get this
bordered up as quickly as possible. So I think, you know, the five
days is a very short window, but I think it's justified in this case. And
also if Monday she could provide personal service to the respondent,
Page 71
1 6 "1 B 6
February 24, 2011
i- '1
that would be --
INVESTIGA TOR McGONAGLE: In the interim, I can actually
contact Mr. Fuller again when I get back to the office this afternoon
and let him know what the Court's findings were so he's aware of it
now.
MR. LEFEBVRE: If you have an e-mail or something?
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I actually have his telephone
number.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. And if you can get his email and just
shoot a quick e-mail, that way he has it, he knows what the ruling was
today. And he has -- he already stated he's not going to do anything,
but --
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- at this is giving him ample notice that
-- what our ruling was.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good. All right, any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that carries that one.
We'll need to re-swear everyone in for the second, though.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CEPM20110002260,
Page 72
1611186
February 24, 2011
Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis. Violation of Ordinance Collier
County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-243. And
Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-231(12)(1).
Description of violation: Mobile home with missing broken
windows and missing and/or unsecured exterior doors.
Location/address where violation exists: 267 Price Street,
Naples, Florida. Folio No. 730160003.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis, 278 Riverwood
Drive, Naples, Florida, 34114.
Date violation first observed: February 18th, 2011.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation:
February 22nd, 2011.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 23rd, 2011.
Date of reinspection: February 23rd, 2011.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Again, this is actually the
same property as the two-story home is on. This is in reference to an
unpermitted mobile home that is also on this property.
There are actually fines accruing on both that two-story home
and the mobile home at this point. We were in front of you last month
for an imposition of fines because neither of these structures are
permitted.
The contact information is the same. I brought this case through
the Collier County Sheriffs Office because of the health, safety and
welfare.
On February 18th I made a site visit with Corporal Gibson and
we observed an unpermitted mobile home with missing windows and
doors, allowing access to the interior. And there's broken glass
covering the floors of the mobile home.
I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: I
have seven photographs taken on February 18th by me in the presence
Page 73
16r 1 B6'
February 24, 2011
~-f;
of Corporal Gibson.
MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the seven photographs.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion, and then seconded by?
MR. KAUFMAN: Me.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Did you say that there's also a code case?
Are they similar in nature to where they could be justified as second or
repeat offenses? Or are they different charging items?
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: The other two are permitting
issues. These are property maintenance.
The bottom left-hand comer is showing the front of the mobile
home. And then the top left is the back side with the sliders broken
out. That's actually standing -- there's a built-in porch, and that's
standing on the porch looking in.
The upper right-hand comer is just looking into the kitchen
showing the unsecured window. The bottom right is just a closer
picture of the sliders. And all the glass has been broken out of the
sliders, as well as all of the windows. And when you go through the
mobile home, it's just totally covered with glass on the floors.
You can't tell very well, but the top left picture is just looking
down the hallway of the mobile home to show the delapidated
condition of this structure. And the bottom two just show the exterior.
The mobile home is in very poor condition.
Page 74
16111" Bo
I
f~~
February 24, 2011
MR. KAUFMAN: This is not permitted to be on the property at
all.
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: So the remedy, un -- likely would be that this
mobile home needs to be removed from the property.
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir.
And the same thing, when I talked to Mr. Fuller I explained what
the problems were here, and he again stated that he has no intentions
of doing anything about it. He feels it's the bank's responsibility.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation.
MR. DEAN: Personal property.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a --
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- motion. And a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation?
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I do.
That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay
all operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by:
Obtain a Collier County demolition permit to remove the mobile home
Page 75
161186 "'~
February 24, 2011
and all debris. Obtain all required inspections and certificate of
completion within blank days of the hearing or a fine of blank dollars
a day will be imposed until the violation is abated.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection to confirm abatement.
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 order, and all costs of
abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Regarding
the other cases that came in front of us on this property, when you
went out there to look for the other cases, was this property in this
same condition?
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I actually did not go to the
property because of the secluded nature of the property. I just
researched the permitting issues through the aerials and through the
office to determine that there were no permits on this property.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Because we could have caught this a lot
sooner if there was a site visit.
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does somebody want to take it?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a shot.
Operational costs of 81.43 to be paid within 30 days. The mobile
home to be removed within 30 days or a $255 (sic) fine subsequent to
that 30 days.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Did you say 255?
MR. KAUFMAN: 250.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: 250 per day.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by -- is it Jim or Gerald?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Gerald.
Page 76
1611B6.
February 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, Gerald.
Any discussion?
Question: Is this being utilized in this same manner as that home
was, for illegal activity?
CORPORAL GIBSON: To my understanding, yes. This is all --
you actually have to walk past this mobile home before you even get
to the two-story. If you're looking -- standing there looking at this
mobile home, you can't even see the two-story house. So you have to
walk by it.
So this is all part of our investigation on the Sheriffs Office end,
that this is where, like I said before, the young girl had several items in
her possession that were taken from her backpack that I subsequently
ended up finding inside of these houses. And I was like, she's been
there. So I know that they've been in there, so --
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just general discussion, I'd like to see the
same time frame as the one prior.
MR. DEAN: I was going to say the same thing.
MS. RAWSON: Did you include boarding in your
recommendation?
MR. KAUFMAN: Not on this. Removal.
MS. RAWSON: Just the immediate removal?
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. It's a--
MR. DEAN: Does it have wheels?
MR. KAUFMAN: It could be towed away in less than five days
if we modified the order.
MS. FLAGG: We would agree with removing as opposed to
boarding. Because it doesn't make sense to spend the money to board
and then turn around and remove.
You may want to give them a little bit more -- I mean, I think it's
pretty clear. Just as a refresher, the other cases that you saw in regard
to this property, there were multiple site inspections.
What that property was, if you'll remember, it was one of the
Page 77
.
161 '1 86 h1
February 24, 2011
reasons why we started the Stop the Bleed Program where these folks
had purchased the property, had been told that they could rent the
property out, and they spent their life savings repairing the property, it
looked terrific, and then they found out that it wasn't zoned for rentals.
And it was one of -- it was the case that we used to implement the
Stop the Bleed Program where -- encouraging these lien searches
before people bought properties.
So what has transpired is the couple that bought this property has
abandoned the property to the bank. The bank just has not taken title
to the property. And so now what we have is because they abandoned
the property you have the deterioration of the property and the
condition of the property.
So in regard to removing or demoing the mobile home, they
would have to get a demo permit to do that, so you may want to give
them maybe 10 days to get their permit and then get a contractor out
there to remove it.
MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? If it's personal property
it's movable, it's not a fixture to the property, why do we have to have
a demo? If they can just hook it up and tow it away --
MS. FLAGG: I don't believe there's wheels on it.
INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: And because of the nature of
this property, even if there was, which I'm not sure that there is, I don't
believe that there are, but even if there were, you would not be able to
get it out.through that property because of all the vegetation that's
there. There are a number of trees. There's just a very narrow path to
get back in there, just barely the width of a car. So they wouldn't be
able to just hook up to it and pull it out, it's going to have to be
disassembled.
MR. DEAN: Thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: Based on the county's recommendation, I
modified my motion to make it 10 days instead of 30 days.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Second.
Page 78
161' 186
February 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
And then also for the record, Jean, if we're not able to get
together by tomorrow, is there a way that I could have the vice chair
sign in my absence, since I'm going away next week?
MS. RAWSON: I'll get them done. If you're going to be around
tomorrow, I'll get you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: At least these two. The rest we can do
by Fed Ex, if necessary.
MS. RAWSON: I'll get them done.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you.
Sorry. No pressure.
All right, thank you both.
Next case is -- sorry, that ends the public hearings. Now we're
going to move towards motions -- I'm sorry, imposition of fines.
Case No. 1 is Romona Garcia.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read this
into record, please.
INVESTIGA TOR BOX: Yes, sir. For the record, my name is
Investigator Box, Collier County Code Enforcement.
Page 79
161\186
February 24, 2011
t: ~
This has to do with a violation at 6872 Trail Boulevard, Naples,
Florida. The violation itself is violation of Collier County Code of
Law and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations,
Article 6 of the Property and Maintenance Code, Section
22-231 (12)( c).
The violation description is: Roof damage that is covered by a
blue tarp.
The past orders was that on November 18th, the Code
Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and
order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced
ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached
Order of the Board OR 4629, Page 273 for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of
February 24th, 2011.
The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order
item number one and two, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the
period between January 18th of2011 and February 24th of2011, 38
days, for a total of$5,700. And the fines continue to accrue.
And order item five, operational costs in the amount of $80.86
have not been paid. The total amount due today is $5,780.86.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this property secure?
INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
Page 80
1611'1 86
February "14,2011
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries.
Thank you.
Next case. Ms. Houston, your turn.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read this
into the record, please.
INVESTIGATOR SNOW: Yes, sir, I was--
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, I apologize.
INVESTIGATOR MORAD: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: No problem.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry about that, Ed.
INVESTIGATOR MORAD: My fault, I was outside.
F or the record, Ed Morad, Code Enforcement Investigator.
This is CEB Case No. CESD20090017445, board of County
Commissioners versus Emma Houston, respondent.
The violation is Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41,
as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i).
Location of violation is 415 Third Street, Immokalee, Florida.
Folio No. is 126960008.
Description is a single wide mobile home converted from a single
dwelling unit into two dwelling units, and an addition added without
obtaining building and land alteration permits, inspections and
certificate of occupancy.
The past orders: On April 22nd, 2010 the Code Enforcement
Board issued findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The
respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and
ordered to correct the violation. See attached Order of the Board OR
Page 81
1F~lJ 2~ 2~11 "1
4563, Page 1861 for more information.
An extension of time was granted on July 22nd, 2010. See OR
4591, Page 1665 for more information. And then an extension of time
was denied on November 18th, 2010. See OR Book 4629, Page 284
for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of
today, February 24th, 2011.
The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order
item number three and four, the fines are at a rate of $250 per day for
a period between October 21st, 2010 and February 24th, 2011, 127
days, for a total of$31,750. Fines continue to accrue.
Order number seven, operational costs of $81.15 had been paid.
Total amount to date is $31,750.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Ms. Houston.
MS. HOUSTON: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to speak to the delays
and --
MS. HOUSTON: The first time I was asked to do the--
whatever is -- may I say, this property, I did not do anything like this
to this property. I got this property through a divorce procedure with
my small children in care. I was not with this person when this was
done. So this is wherever I'm at now. And whatever.
And when I first got, you know, to remove on the person, I had to
first remove the tenant from the premises, which was like -- she was
staying there 14 years. The house, the trailer was there 30 some years.
And I finally got her out after her daughter helped me by moving her
stuff out. She's a non-speaking English person, and she's from another
country. And that was a chore to get her to move, because she really
felt like she really owned the house, not really staying there.
So I finally got her out. And when I finally got her out to come
into the court, like you said, I -- right then we were determining
whether we were going to, you know, tear it down or permit it. And I
Page 82
16 I '1 B 6
tebruary 24, 2011
said okay, we're going to permit it, you know, fix it and do whatever
necessary .
Then Mr. Tyler, he was taken off the case in the midst of doing
this. Was right up to the day that he was taken off the case, because I
was right there and he was here. And so then I had to go and look for
someone else to do the work.
So then I went to Mr. Williams, and Mr. Williams came to get a
permit. First he couldn't find the house. And I said okay, I will come
and show you the house. And I carried him there. And he looked at it
and we discussed it right outside there. We're not going to permit it,
not going to fix it up, we're going to demolition.
And then he went to get a permit. He -- like I say, well, this is
going to be expensive. He said, well, we can probably do it on
payments. So he went and he got the permit. I paid him for the
permit.
And in the midst of his trials and my trials, he decided well, we
can't do it on payment, we have to have all the money.
I have the permit. The permit is nailed on the property. I'm
moving as fast as I can. I cannot do the contracting job, I have to wait
on people. And things is just not done overnight when you have
several delays. And even today. You know, I'm delayed today, but
I'm here.
So this is where I'm at. I have the permit, I'm in process of
getting the money to do the job. And because you just can't come up
with -- I'm a single lady, I'm really running like 2,000 in arrear from
last year, pulling things out, fixing things, whatever, coming into
fines. And here I am. And I have the permit. As soon as I get the
money in hand, and I'm trying hard as I can to find somebody who can
work with me.
And I had someone that will work with the contractor and he's
missing because of his wife prior -- having problems. And so this is
where I am, problem after problems.
Page 83
16 I '1 8 6 ''i
'Femuary 24, 2011
But I do have the permit and I paid him for this. And I think that
it states here that it's good until 7/27/11. So as soon as I can -- you
know, I'm working on it has hard as I can. And it takes time, because
I'm trying right now. If you don't have a lot of money, you try to find
the person that's the -- you know, low as you can. So that's where I'm
at now. And if I could find someone, it doesn't matter what it cost. If
I can pay on time, I can get that person. But if I had to hand that
money out right here, then that means that I cannot pay my mortgage,
my car or anything like that. So that's where I'm at.
And you know this is a time for people that you might not know
they are -- you know, they don't have the money.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I want to thank you very much for
paying the operational costs, because this board doesn't have any
jurisdiction over those.
But what's happened in the past is if something like this where an
imposition of fine is presented before the board, if the fines -- I'm
sorry, if the case has not been abated or the items have not been
corrected, the board typically does not waive the fines. Because once
we do that, we relinquish any ability to reimpose them down the road.
So what we do typically in this situation is impose the fines now,
give you the extra couple of days that you need to get it finished, and
then if you come back in front of us and request those fines to be
reduced or abated, you would tell the story at that time and we would
take that into consideration and possibly either reduce the fines or
eliminate them altogether.
The only other option would be for county to withdraw the case
or for us to go back and originally amend our order yet again, which I
believe we denied last time for an extension. So those are the options.
And if we can, we'll get the board to discuss some of that. And we
might have a few more questions for you.
MR. DEAN: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead.
Page 84
I
16 ,11 B 6 'l
February 24, 2011
MR. DEAN: What does that permit you have entitle you to do?
What are you going to be doing?
MS. HOUSTON: Demolition it.
MR. DEAN: Demolition?
MS. HOUSTON: And as you know -- I'm glad you asked me
that. As you know, we did not start it out that way . We started out
trying to permit the building in. So I'm coming out -- you know, even
though you're fining me, you know, you're doing this, we did not start
out this way. We started out first removing the person from the
premises. I mean, I -- you know. Then we started out trying to fix the
place. And then when I talked it over with Mr. Williams he says -- he
suggests -- and you know, after looking at it and everything, he says,
you know, it looks like it would have been a big chore to do that.
And I don't have the time to get off my job, because jobs are hard
to find, to come in and -- so what I said, let's demolition it and, you
know, get it out of the way.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald?
MR. LEFEBVRE: You know, I think we denied her motion
prior, I think it was in October or November. I don't think I have any
change. So I think we should impose the fines.
I make a motion to impose the fines.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
Page 85
l~lll 86
Yeoruary 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So basically what we've done is we've
imposed the fines. That means that they will accrue until this is taken
care of.
And we have a great relationship, so when you do get it taken
care of, come back in and see us and we'll see if we can't reduce or
maybe even abate them completely.
MS. HOUSTON: Thank you. I'm just being fined for -- if I
know it's the rules -- for something I can't really control, you know.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, but we'll try to work with you on the
back end. Thank you, Ms. Houston. -
INVESTIGATOR MORAD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Ed.
Next case is Case No.4, Jorge and Caridad Jimenez.
Are the respondents here?
How about Investigator Waldren -- Walker.
INVESTIGATOR SNOW: Weldon.
Actually, the respondents are herein absent. They did submit a
letter. He's in Miami receiving medical treatment. I understand he's
severely ill. So he did take the time to write a letter to you. And we
did have it translated. So it's in Spanish but it's in English. So would
you like me to read the imposition or do you want to read what he
wrote?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We need to read the imposition first just
so we're -- the records reflect this case.
SUPERVISOR SNOW: Okay, sir.
MR. BAKER: And Supervisor Snow will know to change that
the operational costs have been paid too, which is different than what's
on your summary.
MR. DEAN: Oh, okay, that's it.
INVESTIGATOR SNOW: Yes, sir, I transported the money
Page 86
16"1 86 '1
February 24, 2011
order myself, so.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
INVESTIGATOR SNOW: This is a case against Jorge and
Caridad Jimenez.
Violations of Collier County Laws, Chapter 22, Building and
Building Regulations, Article 2, the Florida Building Code. Adoption
and amended (sic) of the Florida Building Code, Section
22-26(B)(104.1.3.5), and Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land
Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a).
The location is 1201 Immokalee Drive, Immokalee, Florida.
Folio is 51040040008.
The description is: The primary house that appears to be
converted into two dwelling units. West side of the structure is an
attached addition that appears to be an additional dwelling unit.
Attached to the west side addition is an open area laundry room with
roof housing, commercial coin-operated washers and dryers.
In addition, into the rear of the property is a freestanding
approximately 12x24 dwelling unit with a full fixture bathroom and a
kitchen area, indoor (sic) allowing entry and exit.
Past orders: On June 24th, 2010 the Code Enforcement Board
issued a finding of fact and a conclusion of law and order. The
respondent was in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered
to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4583,
Page 2856 for more information.
The respondents have complied with the code enforcement order
as of January 25th, 2011.
The fines and cost to date are described as follows: Order two
and three, fines at the rate of$150 per day for a period of December
22nd, 2010 until January 5th, 2011, 35 days, for a total of$5,250.
Operational cost of $80.86 have been paid. The total amount due to
date is $5,250.
In Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez's behalf: I would like to submit the
Page 87
161! 86
February 24, 2011
written -- it's written in Spanish but we did have it translated for you.
He is in Miami receiving medical attention. It was very complex to
get this done. He did work diligently.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any objections to
abatement.
SUPERVISOR SNOW: None at all, sir.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate.
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
INVESTIGATOR SNOW: We thank the board.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
We didn't admit that, so it's not necessary.
INVESTIGATOR SNOW: Okay, sir, thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Katherine
Smith.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mrs. Smith? I'm sorry, up here. Up
front.
Are you okay to stand? Are you comfortable?
MS. SMITH: I'm okay. I just have a lot of arthritis. And after I
sit so long, I have troubles getting up.
Page 88
1 6 1 11 B 6
February 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, you let us know, because we do
have a remote microphone.
MS. SMITH: That's okay. I'll be okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: And a massage therapist.
INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe
Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to CEB Case No. CELU20100009076, Board
of County Commissioners versus Katherine Smith. Violation of
Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section
1.04.04(A), and 2.02.03.
Location of the violation is 210 Rose Boulevard, Naples, Florida,
34119. Folio No. 00188600005.
Description is a structure permitted as a storage building being
utilized for living purposes and recreational vehicles located on the
property that are also being utilized for living purposes.
Past orders: On October 28th, 2010 the Code Enforcement
Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The
respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and
ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board
OR 4523, Page 1804 for more information.
The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of January
19th, 2011. The fines and cost to date are described as the following:
Order item number one and three, fines at a rate of $100 per day for
the period between November 28th, 2010 and January 19th, 2011,53
days, for the total of $5,300.
Order item number two and four: Fines at a rate of $100 per day
for the period between November 28th, 2010 and January 19th, 2011,
53 days, for the total of $5,300.
Operational costs of $80 have been paid. Total amount to date is
$10,600.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
Page 89
161,1. 86
February 24, 2011
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: No more fines.
MS. SMITH: No more fines? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: I hope you feel better.
MR. SMITH: I have five great grandkids I'm raising, so they
keep me moving.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks for working with us. We
appreciate it.
MS. SMITH: Thank you for giving me the time, and thanks for
dismissing the fines. Thank you.
INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, I think you're up again.
No? Okay, sorry. Apologize.
MR. DEAN: He's done.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read it in?
INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: He's number seven. We're doing
six, correct?
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're doing Pensenti.
INVESTIGATORMUSSE: Oh, Pensenti. Okay.
This is in reference to Case No. CEROW20100017549, Board of
County Commissioners versus Pierino and Loreta Pensenti,
respondents.
Page 90
16 Ii 1 B 6 i/i
February 24, 2011
Violations, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Chapter 110, Article II, Sections 110-31 (A).
Location is 4110 Third Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida.
Folio number 36616480004.
Description: Unpermitted temporary second driveway for
property that has been partially placed on the neighboring property.
Past orders: On November 18th, 2010 the Code Enforcement
Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The
respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and
ordered to correct the violation. See attached orders of the board OR
4629, Page 237 for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the CEB's orders as of
February 24th, 2011.
The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order
item number one and two, fines at the rate of$150 per day for a period
between December 18th, 2010 through February 24th, 2011, 68 days,
for a total of $1 0,200. Fines continue to accrue.
Order number -- Item No.5, operational costs of $80.29 have not
been paid.
Total amount to date, $10,280.29.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, for the record, could you state your
name please?
MR. PENSENTI: My name is Denato Pensenti.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And your relationship to the
people on this document?
MR. PENSENTI: I'm Pierino's son.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right. And could you just
state for the record that you have the authorization and the authority to
speak on his behalf today?
MR. PENSENTI: I have the authority to speak on Pierino's
behalf.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you.
Page 91
I
1 6 ,) :~, B 6
February 24, 2011
This is a situation where since it has not come into compliance
we are forced to make a decision right here either to impose the fines,
or the other options would be for the county to withdraw the case or
for us to maybe amend our original motion. However, that doesn't
happen very often.
But we would love to hear what's going on and perhaps we could
try to work with you, if we can.
MR. PENSENTI: Okay. Number one, back in 2006 there was a
permit provided for a temporary right-of-way. So the statement here
is not correct. We put a temporary right-of-way in at that time. The
work was done by a contractor.
There are two pins in the crown of the road which to our
knowledge are the property markers. The pin on the east side of the
property is correct. The one on the west side of the property, which is
the side which is in violation, apparently to my knowledge as of the
last month or so was not correct.
Once we received this information, our original determination
was okay, let's apply for a permit for a permanent right-of-way, which
we did. So there's another permit active right now.
We went ahead, moved the existing right-of-way off of the
property which to our knowledge initially we didn't know that was the
case. We moved it off of the property.
We have been in contact with the building inspectors, been out
there on a couple of occasions, you know, bringing up the issue of the
marker at the center of the road, which we used as our basis to initially
install the right-of-way.
After a couple of visits to the site, they determined that there is a
discrepancy between the actual property line in that pin on the west
side of our property.
We have moved it off as of the first week of January. The
right-of-way has been moved over.
N ow the current issue is the culvert is right next to the existing
Page 92
161186
February 24, 2011
culvert from the principal driveway, which apparently is an issue right
now as it stands. We are not encroaching on the neighbor's property as
of the first week of January.
Based on that information and my last meeting with the building
inspector, I've made a determination we're just going to remove it
completely.
So I think -- our intent was never to encroach on anybody's
property. It was installed based on the markers we had at the center of
the road. Which if that pin was correct, we would not have code
violation right now.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: At the time when we heard this case, we
were shown a survey and site plan, and we made a determination off
of the evidence that was presented. I don't know if you were here at
that time or not.
MR. PENSENTI: I don't believe I was.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we went on what we knew to be the
fact at the time. And given that there's new evidence, unfortunately it
still doesn't change the original order, because that's what stands right
now.
MR. PENSENTI: Sure.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Unless the county wanted to withdraw
this to give time to look further into it or we extend our original
motion to give the investigator a chance to go out and maybe take a
look at the evidence and whatnot, we would have to impose the fines
basically. Unless one of those twos other two items happen.
MR. PENSENTI: Well, my intent is to remove it. And I want --
within the next week or so. I want to just remove it and bring it back
to the original state.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: If we do impose the fines, just like you
may have heard with the case prior, you do have the opportunity to
come back and say hey, everything's taken care of. It took a little
longer, I apologize, no worries, we'll either reduce or maybe even
Page 93
I
1611 86
February 24, 2011
abate them completely, like I have seen in prior cases.
MR. PENSENTI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: But I don't want to speak for the county.
What would you like to do, impose and then come back?
MS. FLAGG: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. They're not going to withdraw the
case so we're forced to make a ruling. So what we'll do is probably --
I'm not going to speak for the board.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. The operational costs have
not been paid. Is there any reason for that?
MR. PENSENTI: Quite honestly I didn't know that. And I'll take
care of those today.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: We probably wouldn't have been able to
do anything anyways, because the operational costs are imposed by
the county. This board has no jurisdiction over them. Okay.
MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: And like I said, we went ahead and just
imposed them. They'll continue to accrue. As soon as you're done, let
the investigator know and he'll come out and do a quick little visit and
Page 94
I
1611 JB6
February 24, 2011
then it will come -- you request to have those fines reduced or abated,
it will come right back in front of us and we'll see what we can do to
take care of them for you.
MR. PENSENTI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks for helping. Appreciate it.
And the last case under imposition of fines is Reinstein and Laird
Lile, P.R.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read the charging
documents, please.
MR. MUSSE: This is in reference to Case No.
CESD20 1 0000 1344, Board of County Commissioners versus Reuben
Reinstein and Laird Lile, P.R., respondents.
Violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as
amended, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a).
Location: 4460 Third Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio
No. 36613600007.
Description: Permit No. 1999032149 for swimming pool never
received certificate of completion -- I'm sorry, certificate of
occupancy. Permit has been canceled.
Past orders: On November 18th, 2010 the Code Enforcement
Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The
respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and
referred to correct the violation. See attached Order of the Board OR
4629, Page 239 for more information.
Respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of February
24th, 2011.
The fines and cost are described as the following: Order item
number one and two, fines at the rate of$150 per day for a period
between January 18th, 2011 through February 24th, 2011, 38 days, for
a total of $5,700. Fines continue to accrue.
Order item five, operational costs of$80.29 have not been paid.
Page 95
1611 86
February 24, 2011
Total amount to date, $5,780.29.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, and it carries.
INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: That ends all of our cases today. There
were no items being forwarded to the county attorney's office for
foreclosures on our consent agenda.
Reports. Do you have anything from the foreclosure task force?
MS. FLAGG: I do.
As you know, the Blight Prevention Program was commenced
the end of November, 2008. And the two million dollar mark has
been broken, as Jennifer Baker was featured on Wink News last night
talking about the fact that the banks have expended $2,030,000 to
abate 1,630 code violations.
So just last week, by the banks expending the funds to abate the
code violations, they saved the county $24,490 just in that one week.
Also in a week's time, 183 new cases were opened, 704 site
inspections were done, 153 property lien searches, which is the
program we call the Stop the Bleed Program. And of those 153, four
of them actually revealed a code issue. So the buyer of the property
was advised there were code issues on that property so that we don't
Page 96
I
16 I 1 Bd6
February 24, 2011
have a repeat of what transpired today.
So -- and the investigators are carrying about 50 cases apiece.
And that concludes the report.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wow. That's a lot of work.
MR. DEAN: Can I just ask one question? Are we getting many
code inspections, you know, home inspections from the code?
MS. FLAGG: Most of the -- and we encouraged -- we provided
training for home inspectors, we taught them how to do a code
inspection. Most of the home inspections are being done by the
private industry, which we have encouraged. However, we are
providing code inspections as a department when requested. There are
some buyers that just want code investigators to do their inspection.
But we're also trying to encourage private industry in an area that they
could expand.
MR. DEAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Under our next meeting, just a reminder,
it is our annual meeting. We will have the workshop prior to the
normal meeting starting at 9:00 a.m., same time, but we have an hour
workshop prior to the general meeting.
Is there anything else?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: The day of the next meeting is March--
CHAIRMAN KELLY: March 24th, 2011, 9:00, here at the BCC
chambers.
MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MARINO: Aye.
Page 97
161186
February 24, 2011
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed?
(No response.)
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD
KE~~irman
These minut~s approved by the board on 5\(;)4//1 as
presented fA or as corrected .
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,
Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 98
161 1
B 7
I
BY: .......................
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, January, 20, 2011
J,,~ 2~, 2011
Fiala .v.. ~
Hiller y /
Henning ~
Coyle .
Coletta --iZ~__ ~__ -
10) mcmrnIIWlI1ffi
Jm MAR 0 2 2011 JY)
"'" \,
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 8:30 a,m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of
the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain
Melissa Ahem
Brad Schiffer
Paul Midney
Donna Reed Caron
Karen Homiak
Bob Murray
Diane Ebert
Barry Klein
ALSO PRESENT:
Jamie French, Growth Management Division
Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning
Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney
Tom Eastman, School Board Member
Misc. Correa:
Date.
Page 1 of 69
C:~ies to:
16 I J1uaryB2L
CHAIRMAI:'J STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Will you all please be seated for a moment.
Welcome tQ,the January 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
And now that you've been seated, please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is the fIrst time, I think, that -- Ms. Homiak is usually 30 seconds early,
and now you made it 30 seconds late.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: My load was a little heavy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's going to be a long meeting. I think you're up next, young lady. You
ready?
COMMISSIONER CARON: She's catching her breath.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahem?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is it on?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's on. You're on.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Klein?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to today's agenda.
We have one continuance requ- -- well, actually it's been submitted to staff. It's continue Item 9B. It's the
40-foot boat-dock extension for Little Hickory Shores subdivision. I'm not going to try to pronounce the gentleman's
last name. I would only screw it up.
So it's BD-PL2010-1313. Also--
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. BELLOWS: I believe that item is being continued to the next meeting in February, the February 3rd
meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Also, today we're going to be hearing fIrst the Hacienda Lakes Growth Management Plan amendment
language that was proposed last meeting. We continued it to today because of more information we were able to
receive involving other submittals, and the discussion for the continuance was that we would hear this early, fIrst on,
and then at the end of the day review any issues relative to what we would normally do for a consent, and get that
accomplished in one meeting, since this is a transmittal hearing only.
And we do have an adoption hearing that has to come forward, a PUD rezone request that's coming forward,
and a DR! rezone request coming forward, all for the same project, so we'll have multiple bites at the apple in case the
transmittal doesn't come through as it needs to be.
So with that itHnip.s:l,Je~~s move on. Are there any other changes or addendums to the agenda?
Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is the one in February that -- February 3rd. Ray, are there
.~J!'.>,j
Page 2 of 69
\~ Ii,
16 11arye.2ol
any -- that's the only thing I know coming up. There's nothing else in between that you know of, is there?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't see anything on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Does anybody at this panel know if they're not going to make it to that meeting?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have a quorum. Great.
Approval for the minutes, set of December 16,2010, minutes were distributed electronically.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to -- for approval?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Homiak.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you.
BCC report recaps, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On the January 11th Board of County Commissioners' meeting, there were two
items, the SRA amendment and the development order amendment for Ave Maria. Those petitions were continued to
the February 22nd Board of County Commissioners' meeting.
There were no other land-use items on that agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Chairman's report. There's really nothing new other than we're still -- we've got a long agenda today. So
we'll try to wade through it.
Consent agenda items. This one I -- the flood damage prevention ordinance review, that was moved to the
February meeting, if I'm not mistaken. I have the old agenda. So I think that's been taken off the latest version. Yes.
Then we'll go right into advertised public hearings.
***The fIrst item up is CP2006-11. This has been continued from the January 6, 2011, meeting. It's an
amendment to the CCME and the Future Land Use Map for the Activity Center No.7, which is generally in the
vicinity of Rattlesnake Hammock and 951.
All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I had a meeting with petitioner and petitioner's agent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, did you -- oh, it was Barry?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes. On January 3rd, I briefly had a brief meeting with Mr. Mulhere and about
Page 3 of 69
16 I Jary2~Ot
an hour meeting with Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I also met with the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I met with the petitioner. I'm not sure how many petitioners. Two of
them. David Torres and George Bauer, and then Richard Y ovanovich, and we went over items that we're going to go
over today.
And, Bob, I want to compliment you. I've been on this board nearly ten years, and this is the most
complicated, hard-to-follow submittalI've ever seen. So I ask that you take that into consideration in the way you
approach it, because I'm not usually too confused by these. This one did a good job.
MR. MULHERE: Well, thank you, Mark, for that compliment
For the record, Bob Mulhere, complicator of issues. With me this morning is George Bauer, who is the
owner of the majority ofthe property in the subject project, and David Torres, who's the applicant and project
manager for Hacienda Lakes of Naples.
We have Rich Yovanovich, whom you all know as the land-use attorney; Dwight Nadeau with RWA;
Amelio Robau, who is the civil also with RW A -- civil engineer on the project; Cheryl Rolph and Ken Passarella,
both with Passarella & Associates, the ecologists. Owen Beitsch is the -- he's with RERC Strategic Advisors. He's an
economist. And Fabricio Ponce with Tindale-Oliver & Associates. Did I forget anybody?
Okay. Start out with just a little bit of background, because I know that many of you are familiar with this
process. There's a couple of newer members. I just want to start out with a little bit of background.
As Mr. Strain indicated, this is the first of multiple bites at the apple, because this is a DR!, a development of
regional impact. It's also a PUD -- a development of regional impact The statutes allow you to ask for
Comprehensive Plan amendments outside of the typical cycle of twice a year that each county is allowed, but a
Comprehensive Plan amendment is a two-step process.
And the first step is the transmittal process. So the local government reviews the Comprehensive Plan and
makes a -- determines whether they want to transmit the amendment to DCA, and then transmits it to DCA, and then
DCA will review it and provide an Objection, Recommendation, and Comment Report.
When we come back with the PUD zoning, the DR! development order, and also for adoption of this, you
will-- you will have, you know, as part of your consideration, any comments that DCA would make, so that's the
process.
Of the four -- I think the staff report breaks it into six amendments. We consider it four, because a couple of
the amendments require a change to multiple sections of the Comprehensive Plan, but basically they deal with the
same Issue.
Of the four, three of them have staff recommendation for approval. So I'm going to try to go briefly over
those three after I do a little bit of project -- initial project identification. And then I'll -- the last one is the one that we
do not have staff support on, and I'll spend a little more time on that one.
The -- as was indicated, the subject property, north being this way, this is Collier Boulevard, this is
Rattlesnake Hammock extension, and the property is outlined in yellow on that aerial.
The project contains a total of 220,062 -- slightly above that -- acres. One thousand, six hundred and
thirty-seven of those acres are in the rural fringe sending lands subdistrict Six hundred and twenty-five are in the
urban residential fringe mixed-use district, including the activity center acreage.
At -- as we're still working through the PUD zoning review with staff, some of these numbers may change,
but at this point we have proposed to preserve 1,543 acres. The majority of that preserve acreage is within the NRP A
sending lands designation.
The adjacent properties to this property include the Willow Run Quarry to the north. There are vacant and --
as I said, habitat -- important habitat lands to the east There's the Hammock Park Commerce Center and the Collier
Regional Medical Center, and First Assembly's education and rehab adjacent to the property, and also the Rockedge
PUD to the west, and Winding Cypress and some other vacant lands are to the south.
The subject property is currently zoned ANPUD, and it includes the existing Swamp Buggy Days PUD and
also the Junior Deputies property.
So what we're asking for in the zoning, not related to this, but just by way of background -- not related to the
comprehensive plans, but by way of background, is 170,060 residential dwelling units, a maximum of 375,000 square
Page 4 of 69
161 1
JSa~o, 2011
feet of convenience, general and specialty retail, 70,000 square feet of office space, we would include a 135-room
hotel, a maximum 40,000 square feet of business park use, and the project also includes a public elementary school
site, and as I said, the Swamp Buggy Days and the Junior Deputies property.
So let me just move into the whole -- the first proposed amendment, which deals with amending the
Comprehensive Plan to allow us to be able to utilize all of our eligible TDRs. And I want to talk about what I mean
by eligible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing that might help the board as a whole, we used to -- we see many Growth
Management Plan amendments that are site specific. When a project comes in and wants to have a specific GMP
that's for their area along a certain roadway, they'll come and it will be -- we can tailor then the language within that
site-specific application to that project, and it becomes somewhat of a small overlay.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one's not being done like that Can you explain the differences?
MR. MULHERE: Well, actually, when I first wrote the amendment and submitted it, I had used some
language that would have narrowed it down, I thought, to really, effectively, this property, but there were some
concerns expressed by -- initially, I think, by members of the -- by the Conservancy, and also I think staff expressed
some concerns. And then we went to the EAC. The EAC, a certain member also expressed some concerns.
But anyway, we had changed -- based on staff recommendation, we had changed it to specifically reference
the project, but the reference that we used was problematic, because we referenced the PUD and DR! directly, which
would have caused -- potentially caused problems if we had to change anything in the PUD requiring us to go back
and change the Comprehensive Plan and -- potentially, and that was raised at the EAC meeting.
So since then we have prepared the legal description that will describe the property that we will insert, as we
have done on other similar Comprehensive Plan amendments, so that legal description, which will be referenced in
the Comprehensive Plan, will now effectively limit all of these amendments to the subject property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll wait till you finish your presentation. That didn't answer my question,
but I'll --
MR. MULHERE: Oh, I'm sorry then. I misunderstood then. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. I think I'll wait -- I'll wait till we get further into it
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just would -- still, like I said, this was confusing to review, and I think part of the
reason was what I'm trying to get at, but I'll let you finish with your presentation. Maybe it will clear itself up.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
The rural fringe mixed-use district -- and I was with staff as the planning director when we began that
process, and then after I left the county in 2001, I was hired as the -- to continue in the consulting position as the lead
planner for that process.
During the committee meetings, a representative of some landowners came in and suggested that there should
be a variable IDR rate, that lands closer to the urban boundary on the exhibit you see -- this is Collier Boulevard and
this is the urban boundary.
The argument was made that the lands closer to the urban boundary in the sending lands were of -- should be
of higher value. They were more likely, in this argument, to be under development pressure. They should have higher
value and, therefore, they should have a higher TDR ratio. That argument was never supported by the committee and
never was supported by the Planning Commission or the board as the program was adopted.
But what was supported was a delineation of a one-mile area from the urban boundary moving east where, if
you wanted to use TDRs in the urban residential fringe, you would have to use IDRs from the sending lands within
one mile of the urban boundary.
And it was thought that because there would be demand to develop within the urban area and the urban
residential fringe, that would allow those TDRs to be consumed quicker, and that would be reflected in the market in
terms of their value. So that -- that was the basis for that one-mile IDR boundary.
As we all know, for whatever myriad of reasons, including a significant economic downturn, the demand for
the TDRs never really surfaced. There was some initial flurry of activity in the purchase, but it never really surfaced.
Page 5 of 69
16J -;
lJanua~2o_ !Jll
This project contains 187 -- approximately 187 TDRs that fall within the one-mile area, one mile, you know,
east of the urban line, so there are 187 TDRs that are qualified that can't be used because the Comprehensive Plan
limits the density in the urban residential fringe to a maximum of 2.5 dwelling units per acres; 1.5 base, and an
additional 1 for easement TDR from those qualifying lands that you send in.
Because this is a master plan development, a DR!, and a PUD, it presents an appropriate opportunity to use
those TDRs. It's all under one ownership. And so what we proposed was to increase that cap to allow us to use part
or all of those 187 and change additional TDRs, and to do that we asked to increase that transfer amount from 1 unit
per acre to 1.3, rising the total amount that's allowed from 2.5 to 2.8. So that's the first of the amendments.
The second proposed GMP amendment seeks to amend the density blending and the conservation coastal
management element with respect to the native preserve requirement in the urban area.
We had multiple meetings with the Conservancy, the Florida Wildlife Federation, and Collier County
Audubon Society as we developed this project. Andjust so you understand, this project goes back quite a number of
years, not in its present form, but in previous iterations.
So those folks have been familiar with this project and were very much desirous of being involved in it. And
the applicant, you know, embraced that involvement. And, in fact, we even had some -- they even actually developed
a few plans and shared their ideas with us, and we incorporated many of their ideas into this plan.
But primarily their concern was to minimize any impacts, as much as possible, to the east where those lands
are close to the Picayune Forest and Florida panther reserve, and we did that. We changed the plans several times
based on their input.
And one of the things that we asked of them was, if we were to minimize the development east of the urban
boundary that we were entitled to do, in our opinion, through the density-blending provisions, but if we, nevertheless,
minimized that development and took out a lot of the development that we had in there, we needed to have some
flexibility in the amount of preservation in the urban area, which was of lower quality, significantly lower quality
anyway.
It was patchwork, and it was of lower quality. And the higher-quality NRP A sending lands were paramount.
And in our discussions with those organizations, they supported that idea. We then prepared some language
that would allow us to reduce the native preservation in the urban area, which the requirement is 25 percent in the
urban area -- and to be able to reduce that down to whatever amount we could preserve.
And in mitigation for that, the language would require us to reserve an additional two acres. For each acre we
didn't preserve of the required 25 percent of the urban area, an additional 2 acres would be preserved in the NRP A
sending area above and beyond what the code requires, and the code requires 60 percent of the native vegetation in
the NRP A -- in the sending lands to be protected.
So above and beyond that 60 percent, to be able to reduce our urban requirement, we would preserve on a
two-to-one ratio. Again, staff did support that.
The required native vegetation in the urban area would be 72.44 acres. At the present time our site plan
preserve 47.25 acres, which I think translates to 65 percent of the requirement.
Staff supported that, EAC supported it, and that, I think, is a summary of that amendment.
The next amendment -- I'm trying to see here -- deals with connection to the business park And the code
language is very similar to the language that exists in the RV section dealing with RVs. It says that you have to have
a direct connection to an arterial roadway.
And I'm looking for the exact language here. Right here. It says, when located in a district other than the
urban industrial district, the business park must have direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the
transportation element.
And that came up with respect to, as I said, a different project, but an RV project, and it was determined that
that access could be through a connecting road, as long as that connecting road didn't provide primary access -- access
to a primarily residential area.
And our proposal was to use The Lords Way, which does not provide access to a primarily residential area to
access Collier Boulevard. Staff supported that. The debate then became what exact language did we use. Did we use
the general language that was already in the code as it related to the same issue with the RV park, or did we do
something more specific? And staff supported and wanted something more specific, so the language that we
proposed is as follows: "That when located in a district other than the urban industrial district, the business park must
Page 6 of 69
1 6 1 tanlJ2lol1
have direct access to a road classified as an arterial in the transportation element, except that a business park in
Section 14, Township 50, Range 26 East may have access to an arterial road via The Lords Way."
Now, our proposal was that there was a period after The Lords Way, and that was the end of it. The staff
recommendation added some language, and it reads as follows: "If the design and construction of new roadways and
improvements or extensions to existing roadways providing said access are commensurate with the standards for
accommodating industrial and nonindustrial traffic and consistent with other applicable policies of the transportation
element. "
That last phrase, we don't disagree with it, but we don't think it belongs in the Comprehensive Plan as
something we will deal with through the zoning process. And of course we'll have to meet whatever the standards
are. We always do have to meet whatever the standards are for such design and construction. So we don't understand
where all that additional language is necessary. Something for you to consider.
MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair, I believe staff has agreed to the removal of that language after the word "Lords
Way," but that can be discussed later.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, I was surprised. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a problem easily resolved, isn't it?
MR. MULHERE: That -- that brings us to the last amendment, and that's the one that, at this point, we don't
have recommendation of support, or support from staff.
And this -- this is a recommendation -- that's a little bit hard to see, but I'll just walk through it -- to
reconfigure the quadrant of the activity center here within our property to recapture 9.16 acres that was sold to the
Physician's Regional medical center for development of the hospital.
There are a couple of reasons that we think support that, and I'm going to go over a couple of them, and then
I'm going to ask Mr. George Bauer to come up and discuss his historical perspective on this issue.
Activity centers were generally, historically configured around major intersections of arterial roadways with
40 acres in each quadrant. Over the years -- and they were intended at the time they were adopted to be mixed use,
but there was no requirement for mixed-use development. There is now, in mixed-use commercial activity centers, a
requirement for some residential component, and we have that within our plan, but at the time they weren't -- that
wasn't required. But nevertheless, some of the activity centers did develop with residential uses.
And in this particular exhibit, the hatched blue area, which is a little bit hard for you to see the color, but here
and here are residential.
The other areas that are shown in a red hatched area are commercial undeveloped, approved, or potential
commercial.
The green area -- what's unique about this activity center, at least from one perspective, from my perspective,
one of the unique aspects is, you have a substantial easement that runs -- power line easement that runs through the
property.
And, for example, in this quadrant alone, that equals almost -- very close to five acres ofland that is unusable
for development purposes.
You also have substantial right-of-way and an additional 1.64 acres that we will give up for the extension of
Rattlesnake Hammock. The point that I'm trying to make is that the actual developable area of this activity center,
and particularly of this quadrant, is significantly less than the 40 acres. There's 22.25 acres in this area right here.
What we're proposing to do is take the 9.1 acres and reconfigure it such that it becomes part of this activity
center, the 9.16 acres that the hospital sits on, and reconfigure it such that it becomes part of this activity center. We
would not be increasing the intensity or size of the activity center, from one perspective, that being that the hospital
did not need the activity center acreage for that use. I mean, it was sold to them and they used it, but they did not need
it. You can locate a hospital in Collier County. It doesn't have to be been within an activity.
And moreover, you can have the ancillary medical uses within a quarter-mile boundary of that hospital
without being located within an activity center.
So we think it makes a lot of sense. And I'd like to ask Mr. George Bauer to come up and explain the
historical perspective, because I think that's very important.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, just out of curiosity, what would be the total acreage in quadrant of that
activity center if this was approved?
MR. MULHERE: I have that -- I have that. I'll get it for you -- 49 acres. Yeah. Not all usable though, like I
Page 7 of 69
16 talry2~o}
said, because of the FP&L power line in the right-of-way. But total acreage under the boundaries, about 49 acres.
Significant amount, probably 9 acres, unusable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
MR BAUER: Thank you, Bob.
MS. ASHTON: Let me just make --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a second.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Bauer, could you just hold a second, please.
Robert?
MR MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust need to understand something. That area that is the power line there.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where was the Benfield -- proposed Benfield Road? Was that part of that
area?
MR YOV ANOVICH: Further east.
MR MULHERE: Further--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Further east?
MR MULHERE: Further to the east, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that property -- I remember that being pertinent in some fashion.
Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi?
MS. ASHTON: I just wanted to clarify what Bob said regarding the area not being usable. I think he's
referring to it not being usable for buildings, because it is usable for water management, parking, and a few other
purposes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR MULHERE: Well, actually it may be usable for water management, if they gave you the approval to do
that, and they might. For parking, it's only allowed for excess parking, not for required parking, because they're not --
they're not willing to allow you to put your required parking there if they demand to have it removed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but it's usable to the hospital, correct?
MR MULHERE: For access, and so on and so forth, yeah. Not for parking. Their parking -- they don't
have their required parking within that easement.
We're going to make it a little smaller so you can see it. I know that this is going to be a little bit hard --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike, Bob.
MR MULHERE: I know that this exhibit will be a little bit harder for you to see because typically it would
be landscaped and turned the other way -- but to get it all on the screen. So it's a little bit oriented, you know,
sideways, but I think if you look at the bottom, you can see where -- George, why don't you show them.
MR. BAUER: Yes, indeed. Let me put you -- thank you for your attention. Let me put you in perspective
here. This is the extension of Rattlesnake Hammock, and this is Collier Boulevard.
Some time ago I bought 122 acres from Craig Eagle. You may recall they called it the "Great Eagle
Property" back then.
And in 2003 the hospital was looking for a site to build a 100-bed-expandable-to-300-bed hospital in Collier
County. And they had several sites that they were considering, one of which was mine, and it would go here in this
area. And I was going to sell them 53 acres, and it would have been right next to the activity center.
When they designed the hospital, they discovered that they wanted to put a very large driveway in front of it
here, and they actually wanted to put their emergency room north of the hospital itself. And they asked me if I would
allow them to use the 10 acres of the activity zone so that they could accomplish what they wanted to. By the way,
they also put a medical office building back here, you may recall. And it's presently constructed, as a matter of fact.
It's a very lovely building.
I sold them the land for two reasons. One, I thought it would be a good amenity for the ultimate development
and, two, I have a place on Marco Island, and I thought it'd be nice to have an emergency room 10 minutes from me
as I grew older, which I have, indeed. And I'm delighted that this facility is there, as a matter of fact.
For reasons that I will explain in a moment, I gave them this 10 acres under the assumption that I would be
Page 8 of 69
16 1 1 JR,tO.201]
able to put 10 acres here beyond -- and I will discuss that in detail in a moment -- and, indeed, that's what happened.
They got a PUD for this property. They built the hospital. They built the emergency room. This is a bridge across
the canal and into 951 and, indeed, they have a driveway, and the 10 acres are being very well used.
The question is, why do I think -- at the time why did I think and why, by the way, I still think that this is a
legitimate 10 acres? At the time, a fellow named Mike Taylor was working with me, and he went to the county and
got the regulations for me to read, and the county gave him the regulation.
And as I recall, he -- the county said, after reading the regulations, they didn't think there was a problem. I
read the regulations in detail, and I don't think there is a problem, which I will now try to explain.
First of all, there's a section in the activity-zone regulation that calls out a master plan activity center. There
are spelled out five of them and, sure enough, Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard is one of them.
It says, in recognition of the benefit resulting from the coordination of plan and uses and coordinated access
points to the public road network, master-planned activities are encouraged through mixed-use activity centers. The
boundaries of master-planned activity centers depicted on the Future Land Use Map are understood to be flexible and
subject to modification as provided for below.
There are four criteria. The first is, The application shall have unified control. Unified control, indeed, is
defmed as over 51 percent of that quadrant and, since I own the whole thing, I seem to qualify.
Secondly, the allowable land use for a master plan activity center will be the same as for the other designated
activity centers. And I propose to use this activity center as the other activity centers are used.
The third criteria is, the location and configuration of all land uses within the master-planned activity centers
shall be compatible with and related to the existing site features surrounding the developed entity they are. We have
access both to Rattlesnake Hammock extension as well as 951.
And the last criteria was, The adjacent properties within the activity center that are not under the unified
control of the adjacent -- of the applicant shall be considered and appropriately incorporated. And as a matter of fact,
when I did the deal with the hospital, we have in the covenants specific ingress/egress to the activity center from their
property.
As a matter of fact, I negotiated in that contract the fact that they can only have a pharmacy in-house in the
hospital, which will allow me to put a Walgreens on the comer of this activity center so that people can get their
prescriptions serviced if they're outpatient at the hospital.
So I would suggest that if any of you were me in 2003 when you were deciding whether to let the hospital
have the ten acres and complete their building appropriately, I would suggest you would have come to the same
conclusion I did, and that is that boundaries were flexible and that, indeed, I could use the ten acres as I've suggested.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question of Mr. Bauer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
MR. BAUER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, would you go back to your exhibit.
MR. BAUER: The map?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your exhibit, the handwritten --
MR. BAUER: Yes. I did not go to architectural school.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's fme.
MR. BAUER: It's not bad.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note that you have the ER separated from the physical plant of the entire
hospital, but that's not, in fact, the case, is it?
MR. BAUER: No. It's a separate building. It sits in the middle of the 10 acres.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The emergency room to the hospital?
MR. BAUER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's interesting. I'm not going to do battle with you on that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bauer, I have one question.
MR. BAUER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this page here, how much of that 40-acre tract left do you own? I mean, it's not
40 acres now. It's 40 minus 10. So how much of the remaining tract after the ten was sold to--
Page 9 of 69
16 I Jaly2ni
MR. BAUER: All of it, all of it. Just to review, this is now 40 minus 10 within this boundary. This is the 10
that I'm suggesting I thought I could use. And when I gave them the 10, I -- originally the contract was 53. I moved it
to 63. So that's what those numbers are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ijust wanted to make sure that you still own greater than 51 percent of that
quadrant.
MR. BAUER: I do indeed, and, therefore, I do match the criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Brad?
MR. MULHERE: Just -- we're using round numbers, but the actual number is 9.16.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand.
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. Just understand, then we will take the hospital's 10 acres out of
the activity center?
MR. BAUER: That's what I'm -- that's what I thought was going to happen.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MR. BAUER: They got a PUD with that as a hospital piece of property.
MR. MULHERE: I apologize. No, we would leave that in. We would leave that in the activity center.
We're not going to change the designation on their property. We would just -- it's not being used for activity-center
use. It's being used for the hospital use. It's got limitations on its ability to use -- for other retail uses, so we would
then just add the 9.16 acres to the north of the existing activity-center boundary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That does bring up an interesting question though. You just said for other retail
uses. What uses can go on that 10 acres beyond the hospital use? Because I don't remember that -- I mean, we did the
PUD.
MR. MULHERE: The PUD?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust don't remember the language of that old PUD.
MR. MULHERE: My -- I'd only be speaking from recollection, because I don't have the PUD. Perhaps we
can get a copy of it and let you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think -- and, Brad, you were probably heading in this direction. But if you
move this 10 acres to the activity center and increase it, yet that other 10 acres could be modified at sometime in the
future by the hospital using activity center uses on it, you've actually expanded the activity center by another 10 acres
instead of maintaining the original approximate 40-acre configuration.
MR. MULHERE: That's true. But, again -- and we don't expect that the hospital's going to go away. It's
going to be there. And--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. BAUER: With respect, the regulations specifically say that the boundaries can be changed. We've
essentially changed the boundaries and made 40 acres now without the hospital, if you read the language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But don't you have -- you said you have covenants with the hospital.
MR. BAUER: I do have covenants in terms of access to the activity center, which is required in the
regulation, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As the selling property owner and as a property owner who has significant
investments adjoining the property you sold, did you -- do you have any other restrictions or covenants with the
hospital and to where or how they locate uses and what uses they use on that property?
MR. BAUER: Did not, simply because I was reading the regulations, and it said I literally take the boundary
of the 40 acres and shift them. I never even thought I was selling 10 acres of activity center to the hospital.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what you're doing is you're not taking the boundaries and shifting them. You're
increasing the boundary. So you're still leaving the 10 acres in the south side part of the activity center, and you're
adding another 10 acres to the east; is that a fair assessment?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is. And then --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a little different than I think we were trying -- we were understanding it to
begin with, so --
MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- I mean, I just want to -- I don't -- this was discussed with the hospital going
back, but the hospital-- the hospital staffhas changed, the folks that George talked to originally aren't there anymore,
Page 10 of 69
161 1
8 7
January 20,2011
so -- there was one -- by the way, I want to say there was one covenant, and that covenant was -- or restriction was
related to the drugstore use, which would be the most obvious use that the hospital would put on their property,
external, you know, retail drugstore, and that's not permitted. It has to be within the hospital.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Could you put up a current aerial photograph?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I'm just trying to see one that will be easy -- I don't know what you're looking for,
so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then zoom in on the hospital a second.
MR. MULHERE: Getting there?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. We've got to go further south.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the -- what I was looking for is the emergency -- that site. Can you
show us that site blown up?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's as close as we can get it, but you can see the emergency room on our southern
boundary and their northern boundary.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do see it. What would be the problem of taking that 10 acres out, you
know, since Bob's initial answer was "yes"? I mean, he's confused.
MR. MULHERE: No, I'm not confused. I just misunderstood the question. We never proposed to take their
property out of the activity center.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what would be the problem in doing that?
MS. ASHTON: We need the owner's participation in that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You bet you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. We -- in may? We -- there has been a change in leadership at the hospital.
And I can assure you that I've known George for a lot of years, and he's a very bright man. Had he thought that that
language was an issue where he would have to have permission to move that 10 acres, he would have kept that -- he
would have put that in the contract with the hospital, like he did put the restriction that you can't have a drugstore on
the hospital property. He kept that right.
He thought this language was clear that he had the right to move that 10 acres. We have been told that we
don't have the unilateral right, even though we meet that criteria, to move that 10 acres.
The hospital has consented to our application to add this additional acreage to the activity center, so they're __
obviously they're -- they don't have any concerns about the competition for this extra 9 or 10 acres for retail uses, yet
the current administration is not ready to say, "Take away the 10 acres from us."
So we've gone the amendment route of adding the 10 acres to the activity center. But from a practical
standpoint, we're really not adding 10 acres. Even though the mathematical number increases, the actual utilization
doesn't, because I can't imagine the hospital's going to remove the emergency room from that property.
So the request is to add the 9.16 acres, rounded up, to a total of 49.2, I believe it is, for that quadrant. But
that's how we historically got there and are adding nine acres and not subtracting and moving it unilaterally, because
we do not have a document from the hospital allowing that to occur.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And did you discuss this with the hospital and they weren't --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They -- they're doing like I would do in an after-the-fact situation. I would say, let's
keep it just in case, but we don't have any objections to your going and getting an additional 9.2 acres in the activity
center. Because they're different people, they're different people than we dealt with originally.
MR. MULHERE: And that was why I put this exhibit up here, partly, because if you -- if you look at the
easement which restricts the usable acres and you include adding the additional 9.16 acres, it's actually 7 point -- 7.9-
-- I can't read that -- 7.55 acres of actual usable area added to the 22.26 acres of existing usable area within the activity
center.
So you really are not significantly increasing the size -- usable size of that activity center beyond the 40 acres
that each quadrant was' intended.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The point though is, Bob -- and I've reviewed this with you on a one-to-one; so I--
and I was under -- I did not understand it the way Brad asked the question. And when that answer came, it now is a
different scenario.
And, Richard, you're not moving 9.45 acres, or whatever the number is. You're adding it. You're still-- the
Page 11 of 69
161 1
~ . January 20, 2011
?'j
,-~.
I
hospital still retains that acreage within the activity center to whatever uses are allowed within their PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's not being moved. It's just -- we're increasing the activity center,
period. We're not moving and deleting the uses that are in that 10 acres.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have -- correct. The activity-center acreage in that quadrant is going from 40 to
49.2 acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty, approximately, yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But, you know, fifty -- whatever the -- yes. We are increasing the mathematical size
of that activity center. But as we explained, the hospital did not need to be an activity center, and their current PUD
uses, I understand, are not typical activity center PUD uses. And their actual physical use of the property is not for --
it's not going to be activity-center uses.
So from a practical standpoint, we believe we're not increasing the size, although, mathematically, we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I understand that, but I think what would help clear it up is, while we're
discussing this -- and it's probably going to go on for quite some time -- Ray, if you could go to the ordinance section
ofLaserfiche and pull up the hospital PUD. And just the permitted uses they have -- it's probably all on one page, and
then put it under the overhead when you get a chance, or whoever has a computer in staff could do that for us, that
would be -- I tried it here, and these things are running like mud this morning. I can't get anything to pop up, so no
sense even trying with these computers. So maybe staff can do it for me.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll get that, then we can--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then at least we can see if there's any--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- theoretical threat. And if the hospital has nonessential uses in regards to the
activity center, that means they'd have to come back for a rezone, and we could deal with it at that time.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would kind of help get that issue moving forward.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Great. That's a great idea.
MR. BAUER: Could I just -- I don't need a microphone. Could Ijust close with one--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you do need a microphone, sorry. It's for those listening outside the room.
MR. BAUER: I'm sorry. Is it on?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the other trick.
MR. BAUER: With respect to my dear colleagues, let me, once again, say that if you read the regulation, it
encourages the movement of lines of the 40 acres of activity center encourages to accommodate surrounding other
parts of the master development.
And when I read that, I do believe if you read it, you would suggest that you can move those lines as you
choose as long as you meet the criteria, which I did.
And I know my other friends have some other views, and I'm not even supposed to make this last comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think the question was on any of that issue, more or less on what we're
actually doing. I never saw it as an expansion without a deletion. I saw it as -- and the move is what I didn't see in the
way that that's now being described. You're not moving it. You're just expanding it, and both areas have the potential
to still be part of the activity center and, therefore, the uses become important on what's remaining in the hospital
piece. And that could be solved simply when the PUD gets to us.
Okay. If there's no questions, we've still got more presentation, I would assume.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I think we've -- unless you've got specific questions on the first --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to specific questions, I'd like to ask you one more favor in trying to
understand this simple application. You have six parts to your request.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During your discussion, I tried to make notes to boil it down to what it is you're
asking for in each part.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I come down to four issues, but I know there are six parts. So the first issue, you're
asking for a density increase.
Page 12 of 69
16 I 1 7
January 20,2011
,",,'t
MR. YOV ANOVICH: From 2- -- yes, from 2.5 to 2.8.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're looking for an approval for a change in the way you do preservation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're looking for an approval for Lords Wayas an access right to a business
park.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you want to add -- want to add acreage to the activity center that was
previously utilized by the hospital PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other things in those six items that you're asking for that aren't
included in those four?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That brings it down to a much simpler task to understand and ask questions
from.
So with that in mind -- and I hope that helps the Planning Commission -- are there any questions at this time
of the applicant? We could always certainly hear staff, and then after we get totally confused between all of them, ask
questions of anybody we want.
But, Paul, go right ahead.
Oh, Heidi.
MS. ASHTON: There was -- there was an additional component in the application and in the language. I'm
not sure what draft of the language you-all have. So we probably need to make sure we're all on the same page.
But with respect to the native vegetation change, the proposal was also -- there's a project-area limitation of
how much sending area can be used. So the maximum is 60 percent. And they were proposing to increase that
number.
I don't know if that's still on the table.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What -- no. The native vegetation amendment basically says, for each acre in the
urban area that we impact above -- to reduce where we don't meet the 25 percent, for each acre that we impact, we
retain two additional acres of NRP A. And we had sent some language to make it clear that it was NRP A sending
lands that we would retain in exchange for impacting urban area native vegetation, and that would be above the
maximum 60 percent that code requires.
So there would be 2 acres ofNRP A land above the 60 percent that's already required in the rural fringe
sending land designation under the density-blending provisions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I kind of lumped that into the preservation-quantity issue.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. ASHTON: Right. It's in that same component, but it wasn't discussed that it was exceeding the
maximum, so Ijust wanted to make sure everyone understood.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. This change in the way you want to do preservation, is this in our
regulations now, or are we kind of modifying things or making things up for this development?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We are modifying it for this particular development. And as Bob explained, we had
several master plan iterations under the PUD, which one included relocating the Swamp Buggy out into the rural
fringe mixed-use area, and we had some residential development areas in the rural fringe mixed-use sending areas,
which we can do under the density-blending provisions in the comprehensive plan.
We had meetings with the Conservancy, Florida Wildlife Federation, and Collier Audubon, they said, if you
-- We would like you to pull as much of the development out of the rural area and into the urban area.
And we said, in order to do that, we're not going to be able to meet the required 25 percent. Our collective
group said, okay. Let's propose a Comprehensive Plan amendment to reduce the native vegetation requirement for
this project in the urban area so we can pull development out of sending lands and back into the urban area.
And as Bob had explained in response to Commissioner Strain's question, staff's language to you basically
Page 13 of 69
16 I 1 Ja~2,2011
would allow it to apply -- these provisions to apply to lands within the urban residential fringe.
Our language originally said it will be limited to the Hacienda DR! PUD. We propose that we add to both of
those sections, the native preservation and the -- and the increased density sections, the legal description of our urban
property. So it says that you can only do this reduction in native preservation for our legally described property, and
you can only bring the density in to our legally described property, similarly to the language you did for the
affordable-housing density bonus for property in the area. You said, you can have in the urban residential fringe an
affordable-housing density bonus but only on this legally described property.
So we would do the same consent here to make it very specific that these amendments are for this -- this
piece of property only and not globally applicable. That's -- we proposed that kind of language.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And it's legal to do that through a Compo Plan amendment?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. You've done it in the past. And it's similar to a subdistrict, as Mr. Strain
explained, but not a subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And another question I have, I was a little bit confused, Bob, when you were
talking about, which are the lands that are more valuable to preserve, the ones in the NRP A or the lands that are closer
in?
You talked about the lands within a one mile -- one mile of 951 being granted a higher TDR ratio to
discourage development of sending lands closer in because they were under greater development pressure. So what is
our priority, the NRP A land or the lands that are closer in?
MR. MULHERE: And in could, what I said was that someone wanted a higher TDR ratio. What I also said
was, that was never approved or accepted or adopted. What was adopted was this one-mile band east of -- excuse me
__ east of the urban boundary, and that's the area where you have to get your TDRs. That's the qualifying area, if
you're going to use them, within the urban residential fringe.
If you look at this map, to answer your question, the orange reflects sending lands. And the vast majority--
not all, but the vast majority of the project sending lands are NRP A. And let me -- we use that term, but let me--
natural resource protection area. They are deemed to be the highest value natural lands in Collier County. There are
several natural resource protection areas.
By virtue of that, they have a very high native-preservation ratio. So it made sense to us and it made sense to
the nongovernmental en- -- and to staff as well, that we do everything that we could to maximize the preservation of
those NRP A sending lands and all sending lands, and that in order to do that, since we could develop in that area
using density blending -- but in order to do that, we be given some flexibility as it relates to preservation in our urban
portion.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the crosshatched areas, are those NRP A lands?
MR. MULHERE: No. This yellow crosshatched is the urban residential fringe.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh. I'm sorry. The ones on the right.
MR. MULHERE: Oh. These are showing lands that aren't within the one mile that -- we can't use those
TDRs. So we also have lands that we can't even utilize the TDRs from, and we're not asking to be able to utilize
those.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And why can't you utilize those TDRs?
MR. MULHERE: Because they're not within one mile of the urban boundary. They're not qualified.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I see. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa, then Brad.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Of the 49 acres -- I understood that you were adding it. Of the 49 acres, how
much of that is actually usable? Because I was considering the amount that you're losing on the FP&L easement side.
So what -- what does that bring it to?
MR. MULHERE: Including the hospital acreage or excluding the hospital acreage?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: The 49 acres is including it, correct?
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you include -- if you include the hospital acreage, we have approximately 330 net
usable acres today. If you add the 9.2 acres, you're at 39.2 net usable acres with our amendment.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. Still within the 40.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we're still within the 40 usable acres that I think was always contemplated when
Page 14 of69
1611 87
January 20, 2011
these activity centers were set up. They were supposed to be 40-acre quadrants. So we're still within that number,
even with adding the 9.2 acres.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
Bob, on this drawing you have in front here --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is that all the units eligible, or -- in other words, I'm a little confused.
You have arrows coming out of two parts of that boundary, and then --
MR. MULHERE: The exhibit just shows two arrows to show that the -- all of the lands that are not hatched
that are within the orange that are within our project are within one mile of the urban boundary and can generate
eligible IDRs.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So would you add those two arrows together to get the maximum
you're allowed or --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. The max- -- we have that number, but for all--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: To answer your -- yes, the answer is yes. And there's 187 TDRs that, without this
Comprehensive -- that are eligible that, without this Comprehensive Plan increasing to 2.8, we wouldn't be able to
use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then on the 2.1 swap, would that remove that acreage from TDRS or
what?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They would become TDRs. We would be required to immediately take the first two
levels ofIDRs off, which would be the early entry and the regular-based density in order to be able to use those
eligible units within our project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you would maybe want to do that anyway, right? I mean, are you -- are
you double dipping on that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the point. The bottom line is this: When the sending land was approved, we
lost development rights, and the currency we were given was TDRs. And we're saying, please let us use our currency
within our own project. And that -- and those are the IDRs. Not all of it. We're not asking for every TDR that we
were given as compensation for now having sending lands on our property. Just those that are eligible to come into
the urban residential fringe anyway.
So the urban residential fringe density, if you will, is not increasing. It's just putting those 187 on this
particular piece of property instead of it going somewhere else in the urban residential fringe.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point is, those two acres -- in other words, you want to essentially
remove preservation in the urban area of one acre.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Shave one acre.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're going to let the other two -- you're going to put two acres in
there. But are those other two acres also being -- are they in this calculation also? In other words __
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They would -- those two acres would generate IDRs, and they are part of the 187
extra units.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Yeah, but it just seems like you're going to preserve them anyway,
so where's the --
MR. MULHERE: I guess the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because our previous plan -- our previous plan had development out there. We
would have -- we would have had fewer usable TDRs, but we would have had development pods that we would have
built on.
MR. MULHERE: And preservation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. MULHERE: And by changing our plan -- generally there was agreement that we would get some
Page 15 of 69
161137
January 20,2011
flexibility. And the way we wrote it, we didn't think it was appropriate to have it on a one-to-one basis. We went to a
two-to-one basis so we preserve more.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But am I wrong to think that if you did take an acre and you set aside two
acres out there, you also got the TDRs from those two acres? So if you just took the TDRs from two acres, it would
be the same place. Only this is also allowing you to remove an acre in the -- in the urban area.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, in exchange for giving up developable land. That's the thing that we've given
up is, we've given up developable land that we could have put units on and had a -- we might have had a fewer --
fewer units within our project, but we would have had a bigger project footprint and different product types, because
we're now compacting the development in exchange for impacting.
MR. MULHERE: Andjust -- you know, again, you know, we're not asking for all this 395 TDRs that we
can't use that don't fall within the one-mile boundary.
It makes a lot of sense to me to allow a large master plan mixed-use community to use those TDRs when
there is no other market and it's under one ownership. And you get to see, you know, when we come back with the
final PUD, the design.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you going to do with the TDRs that are beyond the ones you're using on
this project?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to hope that some day this program works and someone's going to come
buy those TDRs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're not restricting you from utilizing your TDRs?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, not those 3- -- I can't read the number -- 395 that we can't bring into this project.
We'll have to hope that some day a receiving land comes to us and says they want to buy those units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe only allowed you to bring into this project the current density, without using--
without using the additional TDRs, what would you be able to do with those remaining TDRs?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The remaining -- the remaining l87?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would, again, be at the hope that somebody who's going to develop a project will
come to us and buy those TDRs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they have a potential to be used?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. But I think if you were to put a market dollar on that potential, I think it would
be very minimal right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The addition -- if you had bought additional land in that one-mile urban area, or
urban fringe area, that would have given you the potential to use more TDRs.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If we -- yes. Ifwe bought more -- well, yes and no, because the density-blending
provisions said that you had to own all of the land or have it under contract at the time this program was set up.
So yes, we could buy additional land and bring in the IDRs, but it would get a little confusing on the
density-blending issue. But you're right, we could go out and buy whatever -- however you divide 2.5 into 187. That
would be how many more additional acres we would have to buy, and that would be an additional cost to this property
owner to get reimbursed for losing the development rights.
And I think we did that calculation, and it was, you know, somewhere between, you know, 1.8 and $3 million
under today's land-value cost for buying more urban residential fringe land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you said losing development rights. You didn't really lose them. You just
couldn't use them on this property.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We couldn't -- no. I mean, if -- remember, when we owned all this -- or George did.
George owned all this property at the time the rural fringe program was going through. At that time all this land was
ag., and he could have done development in this land at one unit per five acres. He could have built golf courses out
in all that land. He could have developed a residential project out in this area, in the pink area.
He lost the ability to do that when this program was set up, and in exchange he was given TDRs. So he was
given a TDR hoping that somebody who was a receiving land would come to him and say, I'd like to buy those TDRs.
He's just simply trying to use, not all, but those that qualify within his project and say, let me -- let me use the
compensations you gave me in exchange for being a participant in this program.
Page 16 of 69
1 6 r 1JanuaSzo_ 21
, ...~
You know, if he really wanted to go to the extreme and say, Let me use everything you gave me, he would
have come in and said, Let me also get those 395 units and bump my density to whatever -- instead of 2.8 -- that
number would be.
But we were trying to be reasonable in using the compensation where it's supposed to be, which is in the
urban residential fringe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in my prior question to Bob about the over- -- how you were handling
this GMP amendment, in the past, we have had GMP amendments site specific.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, the shopping centers in Golden Gate, the Buckley -- I think Buckley was
one. There was one on Orange Blossom. And in those GMP amendments, we tailored them to the site, and we
actually got, in some cases, more detail than you normally would with the GMP --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to assure protection of whatever areas these things were going in. This one isn't
done like that
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the difference I was trying to make clear in my first question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to know why you chose to go this more generalized route than you would
have done under a GMP A where we could have focused more on your site-specific issues and not broadened the
horizon by a more general language change.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I think the answer to that question is that there already was the appropriate
designations over the property. There was the activity-center designation. We didn't need to create a new subdistrict
The amendments deal really with several policies. And when you're just dealing with policy changes, you
change the policies. You can make it specific to a particular piece of property as we discussed, but I didn't see any
need, and I don't think staff would have saw any need for the creation of a new subdistrict as you were referring to in
the case of the Buckley and several of the others.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By separately defining this as a case-only issue within the general language, you've
just, in essence, created your own subdistrict; just done it a different way. But I'm just wondering why you chose that
way. Was it a timing issue? I mean--
MR. MULHERE: No, no. Ijust -- honestly, I don't think we felt that we needed to create a new subdistrict
The activity-center language already existed. It promotes a mixed-use activity center here. The only issue from the
activity-center perspective was that we couldn't use all of the eligible TDRs. That was the only issue.
The other issues kind of surfaced as a result of our meetings with these other groups. When we had to end up
moving some of our development out of the eastern part, more higher-value habitat lands that we were entitled to
develop, but we moved them in to accommodate the concerns expressed by both staff and the -- and the
environmental groups.
At that point we came -- we said, well, look, you know, in order to develop this thing appropriately, we need
-- we need to be able to use a little bit more of the urban land if we're going to take our development out of the -- so
that was really just -- you know, that's how it evolved.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, it originally started out as the density and the -- it started out with
the density and the adding the acres to the activity center. As the process evolved, we ended up with the
native-vegetation amendment in response to comments we were getting from private groups as well as county staff
and all that So that added that one.
And then -- and then at the very end came up The Lords Way. Was that, in fact --let's address -- because
we've always been going through the process with the business park. They all seem to be fairly simple amendments
to do through the process we've picked, instead of going back and starting over and creating a whole new subdistrict
and losing the many years We had in the process going through with what started out as essentially two -- two policy
amendments versus a whole -- which didn't seem to warrant a whole subdistrict for just those two amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're doing another process that's a little unique, too, at the same -- you're
using the process of doing a PUD/DRI simultaneously with the ability to do a GMP out of cycle.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
Page 17 of69
161 1 B 1
January 20,2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to do a separate subdistrict, could you have utilized that process?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Probably. Probably as part of the DR! process, we could have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm asking this is, Bob rattled off some statistics about this
project in the very beginning. I tried to write them as fast as he talked, but only Terri can do that.
Seventeen hundred and sixty units.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three hundred seventy-five thousand square feet of retail, or commercial?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventy thousand square feet of office, 135 hotel rooms, 40,000 --
MR. MULHERE: Hundred and forty. I misspoke, 140.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. That's a critical component now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, it's --
MR. MULHERE: It's in the application. I just neglected to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He didn't have his glasses on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Business park, 40,000 square feet. Is that in addition to the commercial and office?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're really -- okay. So -- and you're looking at a school? How many acres is
the school site? I can't remember without looking.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The school site was actually an exaction that's coming from Collier County public
schools for an elementary school.
MR. MULHERE: About 19 acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom would never do such a thing.
Are those the only uses -- only -- are those the only quantities associated with this project?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, other than the retail commercial number is really 327,500, not 375-, and then the
office, professional office, is 70. Okay. So your number was a little higher.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had 375- because I thought that's what he said.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Plus 70 then, yeah. It was 327,500.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the reason I wanted to bring that up is, if we were doing a subdistrict and we
were doing a site-specific application, those numbers would be part of the application. We would throw them into the
GMP just like we have in all the others, or many of the others.
I want to figure out, since this is not site specific and it's very general, you are coming through with a PUD
and the DR! at the same time. Am I hearing a commitment from you-all that these numbers will not be exceeded,
these or less are what you're going to be putting forward in your PUD/DR!?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we've submitted in the PUD and DR!. Those are the numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So any mix that you come up with, we're going to end up with that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hang on. Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's the hitch. I read your documents.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no. We have flexibility. Those are maximum numbers, but we have flexibility
within those maximums, as you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as the maximum isn't going to be exceeded. I think the flexibility is some
formula that we have yet to have fun with. When that process --
MR. MULHERE: When we do the zoning.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The PUD, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, right. And that formula involves a change between what you perceive in
intensities when you mix and match uses on the site of -- in residential, in particular, and some others. I'm not certain
that's a goad idea, but we'll cross that bridge on those other documents.
But I want to make sure, under no circumstances are we talking about excesses in this, and I want to -- since
you'll be coming through at the same time, I can assure you it will be a bone of contention when we come up here and
hear the next round, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
Page 18 of 69
16 I lJanu~' 2011 t
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just in an effort to get those numbers correct, according to your narrative, the
hotel-- 140,000 you just said for hotel?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: A hundred and thirty-five rooms for the hotel.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A hundred and thirty-five rooms.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But that comes out of your 327,500 square feet of--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Look, we're jumping ahead to the POO, and that was one of the concerns that
we had in doing this.
Let me give you the numbers, and then when the POO document comes back later, we can correct all this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let me correct that statement, though. You make a lot of these statements, and
I want to make sure we're right. Our concern is having a generalization where we normally have specificity in the
GMP.
So the fact that you submitted the POO and DR! and we're pulling information from that to be more specific
now is something that should be done and should have been done, and we're trying to make that system work
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
And Commissioner Caron --
MR. MULHERE: I would --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hang on a second.
Our intention was that the hotel rooms are in addition to the square footages. I don't want to have another -_
and we can make sure that the advertising is crystal clear so we don't have another situation where people believed
that the 135 rooms was coming out of the 327,500 retail.
We will make it very clear in our advertising when the PUD document comes through the advertising process
that these are all max numbers and in addition to each other, not within.
MR. MULHERE: And the only comment I would make is, the difference I thought here, at least we thought
here, was that this is already within an activity center. So typically when you have a zoning action -- I'll wait till
they're done talking.
So what I was saying was, when you have an activity center and you come in for a zoning -- which we were
coming in for a POO and a DRI, that's when the -- in most typical, you know, zoning actions and in an activity center,
that's when those restrictions and regulations are placed on the property.
The only reason you do that in the subdistrict is you don't have the ability to develop mixed-use or
commercial when you're asking for a subdistrict. You're creating a whole new commercial node. And here the
commercial node already exists.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I am reading from your own narrative --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and basis for approval.
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It says here that the 135-room hotel is -- it's listed right here under the retail
square footage, and it's coming out in year 2014.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It wasn't intended to be part of that retail use.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Part of that total, it doesn't -- there's no other total for it.
MR. MULHERE: There is no -- because we don't know what the square footage will be. It's just 135 -- you
know, a room limitation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's valuable to have this discussion to make sure that our exhibits are clear. Our
square footage for the retail is what the square footage is, 327,500. In addition, we can do 135 hotel rooms. Ifwe
need to clarifY our exhibits, we'll do that, and we'll do that at the PUD-1evel discussion.
But, Mr. Strain, you asked us for max numbers, and we're going through that, and I'm just trying to clarify
that issue so we're all -- we're all straight on what you see at the PUD level.
MR. MULHERE: What we were proposing is the maximum limitation would be a traffic -- a trip generation,
a peak-hour trip-generation limitation. So when we get to the POO, that's what we are proposing as the maximum. So
Page 19 of 69
1611 '27
January 2C, :~Oll
there's flexibility, but you can't exceed that trip-generation number, which has been used other times.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I'm not -- what I'm getting at, that trip-generation number will stick.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're also going to hold you to the number of the unit counts and the squ< re
footages and the hotel room quantities and all the other things.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BAUER: Unless they insist on more.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And George says, unless you insist on more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That only happened one time even -- since I can remember, and that's when tr.at
Wolf Creek -- that proj ect near Wolf Creek where we added mixed use where you didn't even ask for it. That's the
only time I think we ever added anything. But anyway --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you see how that turned out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. It's sitting there vacant right now.
One correction, though. It's 135 hotel rooms and 140,000 square feet of business park
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we're talking gross square footage; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's going to be a multitude of questions.
Ray, I saw you come in with a paper. Is that the uses on the hospital?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. I gave it to Mr. Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we get that resolved real quick Well, it won't be real quick, but at least
let's take a look at it.
MR. MULHERE: There's two sections within the PUD. There's the hospital tract, then there's the medcal--
what is it called -- medical office subdistrict.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one is that 10-acre parcel in?
MR. MULHERE: That's in the hospital tract's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the hospital tract's the one we should be focusing on.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm going to get this so you can -- is that readable?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. There's the fairly limited list of uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the way I would use that, as the principal uses. So any accessory use,
like a childcare or healthcare or laboratory or an eating place, which could be a restaurant normally, but it would have
to be as an accessory use to a principal.
MR. MULHERE: And internal to the hospital.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that does limit the uses to non-activity center generally, except bere's
the drugstore and proprietary stores.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Accessory to the hospital.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BAUER: Inpatient.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's not a stand-alone facility?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions now that we've got that in front of us? B-ad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just -- are you comfortable that that is purely accessory or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I think as an access use, when staff gets up here, we can have them con lffient
on how accessory uses is limited, and then that would solve that problem.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. MULHERE: And I mean -- you know, in a typical commercial PUD in an activity center, you've had a
Page 20 of 69
161
lanuaS020 11
~A
much longer list of pennitted uses. This is very limited and related to the medical.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have another question, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it goes back to the TDRs again. Looking at a chart you provided here,
the maximum TDRs you can pull off on the site are what? I mean, you're going to use it to derive a hundred and __
1,760 units, correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. How many does that leave behind? I mean, there looks like a
calculation here -- there's eligible 1,850; is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. The three -- at the end of the day, that exhibit tells you that if we bring all 187
in, we still have 395 that are beyond the one-mile distance that we can't use, and we have to wait until another
receiving land comes to us and says they would like to buy those 395 units.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, there is a calculation and a chart that you provide. It comes
up with a number of 1,850.08. What does--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That -- and, Mr. Schiffer, that's really a PUD-level discussion as to what can the site
ultimately generate. But if you take that number as correct, we could get up to 1,850, but we're only asking for 1,760
in our project. So we're not even asking for the max that you could theoretically get onto the property.
But that's -- let's talk about all that, if you don't mind, at the PUD level, because there may be some
discussions about that table that we need to have between now and the PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I'm asking about it here, I'm still having a little wiggly with that
one-to-two mitigation thing, and should you be able to sell the TDRs off of those two acres. That's--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not. We're bringing them in.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're bringing them into--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're bringing them into our project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're getting the benefit of them. In other words --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're trying to use -- we're trying to use the compensation you're giving us for
putting this area in preserve.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My problem with the loop is that what you're saying is that in the urban area
I'm going to be able to essentially not preserve one acre because I'm going to, out in the NRP A, put two acres. And
then you're taking the TDRs of those two acres and bringing them back into the development density of the urban
things. So--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I'm having a little trouble with that logic --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The alternative would be, is you give us a little lower density in our project, and we
take that density, shift it out into the NRP A, and build on NRP A lands, and it's no longer preserve, which your system
is saying, please preserve it. And in exchange for the preserve, please bring these units in.
So that's exactly how the system's supposed to work. We're preserving more lands -- because we had
development out there. We had some nice single-family development pods out in that -- in that nice area that would
have been nice units to sell. And in exchange for doing that, we're bringing -- we're doing other type of development
within the urban area. So I think it's a fair trade-off.
MR. MULHERE: And maybe this would help if --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me -- when you started that thing off, we start out by limiting our
density, but actually I'm talking about the -- you having that extra acre to build on doesn't limit your density. So the
conversation you just had, I'm not sure I follow.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, my density is capped on whatever the PUD says I'm capped at. What I'm
saying is, if you want to look at development footprint -- and that was the purposes of the sending-land designation,
was to not let development footprint, at whatever density, occur out in the sending areas.
So we're moving our -- we're having a smaller development footprint out in the sending areas in exchange for
a -- one -- for each acre or larger development footprint in the urban area.
MR. MULHERE: But let me -- there's a couple things that maybe would help.
As Rich said, you know, if we did use density blending and impacted more area in the sending lands, we
Page 21 of 69
1 6 I Lu.j, [11
would not be preserving those lands.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
MR. MULHERE: So we've agreed to not do that and to preserve those lands. So you are getting more
preservation, unquestionably, than you would get under our original plan, which would have impacted those lands.
We may not use all of the 187 TDRs that we're now asking to be eligible to use. We may not use all of them.
If we don't use all of them, we're still committing to a two-to-one preservation ratio. So you're getting everything that
you need under any scenario here. We've done everything that was asked of us.
You're saying we would preserve them anyway if we transferred the TDRs off, and I'm saying we may not
transfer all the TDRs off.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you're double dipping on them, because they're -- even if you don't
transfer them, you're going to sell them later; you stated so yourself.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You hope.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or you wish you could sell them later.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You hope. I mean, you hope that the system will some day start working.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what you could sell later is the TDRs off of the land you
preserve so that you could not have it in the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we're saying is, listen, you gave us 187 TDRs for us to put this land in preserve.
Don't make us wait for someone to come to us and use those TDRs. Let us use them in our own project in the urban
residential fringe. That's all we're asking for is, let us use our currency in our own project so we're guaranteed the
value that you thought you gave us by putting us in this TDR program. That's as simple as it can be.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And aIls I'm saying -- which isn't really -- that isn't even an answer to it.
Alls I'm saying is that if you mitigate an acre out of urban area for two acres in the NRP A area, that should be your
reward. Those two acres should not be available for TDRs then. That's all I'm saying. And that's a period at the end.
You don't need to answer it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we need to take a break and -- but before we do, I notice the room's
having some people collect to the back. If you're here for the Vanderbilt Beach Road issue, just to let you know, the
agenda has changed a bit. The second item was a boat-dock extension. That has been continued, so that will shorten
your time to wait.
We have one boat -dock item up after this is fInished. That one boat -dock item is two elements, but it should
go pretty quick, and then we're right into the Vanderbilt Beach thing.
Now, the issue is, how long will it be here with Hacienda Lakes? It could take a while longer. We're just --
we haven't had staff presentation yet. But Ijust kind of wanted to give you an update, because I know you all are
waiting patiently, and we'll try to get to you as fast as we can.
And with that in mind, let's take a break until 1 0 minutes after 10, then we'll resume the meeting. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone welcome back from the break.
Before we resume, I had seen this face in the audience who is -- brings back ancient history in Fred Reichel.
If you don't mind standing, Fred. Welcome back to the dark side.
Fred had left us years ago. He was a very capable county employee. He went into the private sector. And
Fred is now back, and he is doing -- working on the LDC, the administrative code, and issues that are badly needed to
be addressed in Collier County. So we're very grateful Fred could come back to us. And smart move on the part of
the department to hire him back, because Fred always did a great job.
W e'lllook forward to all the fun we're going to have reviewing all the detailed language you write. So, thank
you, Fred.
Okay. With that, we left off with Richard, I think, wrapping up, or fInished?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we were in the question-and-answer phase. And if you were done with
questions and answers, I think staff was coming up next.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I was going to do is -- and I'd like to get general-- if we have any
general questions we want to get over right now, but I think by hearing the staff presentation fIrst and anybody from
the public and then go into our more detailed questions if we still have them would be a more effective way to
approach this very complicated project.
Page 22 of 69
161 1 8i
January 20, 2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's what we'll do.
Thank you, Richard.
Corby, I think it's all yours.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm David Weeks of the county's
Comprehensive Planning section.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not Corby.
MR. WEEKS: I am --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys look a little bit different.
MR. WEEKS: Yeah. No mistaking us, no.
I was just going to address the mixed-use activity center component of the application, just with a few
comments, and then 1'11 step aside and let Corby make his presentation.
I thought I heard it stated that activity centers, or perhaps it was master-planned activity centers, one or the
other, are required to be developed as mixed use, and if that's what I heard, then that's not accurate.
Ever since they were created in 1989 up to the present, activity centers, whether it's a mixed-use activity
center, an interchange activity center, a master-planned activity center, none of those require mixed use. They all
allow mixed use, and it is encouraged, it's desired, but the truth is, for the most part, they are zoned and developed 100
percent commercial.
Secondly, the hospital within this particular activity center, or a portion thereof, as a noncommercial use in an
activity center is not unique. We do have other noncommercial uses in mixed-use activity centers. We have some
residential, a limited amount. But in this particular activity center, as has already been noted, I think, in the northwest
quadrant, there is residential development, but there are ALFs and nursing homes, other types of noncommercial uses
within activity centers.
And following the logic that the hospital is not a commercial use suggests that the activity center should be
developed 100 percent commercial and, to me, following that logic further means that these other noncommercial
uses also should be replaced, their acreage replaced or transferred or simply added to an activity center to make up for
that lost commercial potential.
Activity centers, when they were created in 1989, were half-mile square, which results in 40 acres in each
quadrant, but they have always been and remain measured from the midpoint of the two roads that form the
intersection around which -- around which the activity center is formed.
Point being, all mixed-use activity centers do have road right-of-way within them. So the 40 acres per
quadrant for all of them does not result in 40 acres of developable land, because they all have right-of-ways. With the
exception of Wiggins Pass Road and u.s. 41 intersection, all of them are -- have roads that are at least four lanes, two
roads that are at least four lanes. So there is a significant amount of the 40 acres in each quadrant that is lost to road
right-of-way. That is not unique here.
However, I think the applicant is correct as far as the FP&L right-of-way. I can't think of any other
mixed-use activity center that has that condition. And Heidi's already commented about what can be there as far as __
buildings cannot be. And I would agree with what the applicant said, there's the potential for some components of
development. Might be landscaping, might be water management, might be excess parking, but it is not a given. But
our experience over the past is that the FP&L will allow some component of development to occur within the activity
centers.
And, finally, the master-planned activity center, as has been stated already, is something that is allowed at
that particular mixed-use activity center.
The ownership of this petitioner is in excess of 51 percent of the southeast quadrant, which does allow for the
reconfiguration, and that is exactly what the language states. Reconfiguration, it explicitly says, you cannot add
acreage. And of course, the applicant knows that. They are asking for an additional nine-plus acres of activity-center
land.
How do you get that boundary reconfigured if you were to ask for that? Well, you've got two options. One is
through a rezoning action or a DRI, one of those two. It's through an application process at that level, or the other is
an amendment to the Growth Management Plan itself to change the boundary.
But the master-planned activity center concept was designed to allow that flexibility without having to amend
Page 23 of 69
16 I tary~_Z
the Growth Management Plan so that it could be implemented through a development application, that is, the
rezoning or the DR!, and that specifically stated in the language -- excuse me -- in the subdistrict, that a
master-planned activity center is one with a unified plan of development in the form of a PUD or a DR!. That's not a
quote, but that's almost exactly what it states.
That simply goes to the point that, as I understand the previous ownership of the activity center, all of it was
owned by Mr. Bauer, so he did have the opportunity at one time to have modified the shape of the entire 40 acres, but
it would have had to have been through a rezoning or a DR! application process.
Today the applicant has the ability only to reconfigure the acreage that they do have within the activity center.
But, again, I'm -- they're clearly not doing that. They're asking for an additional acreage. That's all, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does -- any questions?
David, the fact they're doing a DRI/PUD rezone at the same time they're doing this GMP language, you
alluded to a process in the rezone that have avoided the need for a GMP language, and that's not -- that can't be done
because he sold off that 10-acre piece to the south of the activity center; is that what you basically have concluded?
MR. WEEKS: As far as the entire origina140-acre quadrant, that's correct, because it's not a part of this
application. It's not a part of this rezoning or DR!. And as Heidi's already stated, that's the issue. You can't take
someone else's land out of an activity center if they're not part of this application process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The uses that we saw for the PUD that encompasses the hospital, those uses are
mostly accessory to a hospital principal use; the only principal use is a hospital. Is that typical to uses in an activity
center? I mean, I think the answer's no. I don't think you typically include a hospital as a use in an activity. You look
for commercial retail, office, hotel, things like that. Is that generally right?
MR. WEEKS: Yes. To my knowledge, this is the only hospital that is within, or partly within an activity
center and, yes, to your second part, but only as far as commercial uses go. You listed a variety of different types of
commercial uses, but again, the activity centers are intended to be mixed use. They allowed mixed use as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The point I'm trying to make is, even though that 10 acres is still part of the
activity center and they're considering adding almost 10 acres again, the 10 acres that went to the hospital rezone for
the PUD that the hospital has really can't be used for activity-center uses unless they came in for another rezone to
include more uses than they have as accessory uses to the principal.
MR. WEEKS: That's where I disagree with you, because a hospital is an allowed activity-center use. They
allow the full array of uses. They're not limited, they're not specifically designed for commercial uses only. That
would take this -- rephrase what you've stated and say it's residential development. Well, that residential is not
commercial, so that's not really a mixed-use activity-center use. Yes, it is. They're intended to allow the full array of
uses, including hospitals.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the hospital that's there was put there under the auspices of the essential
service, not activity center?
MR. WEEKS: Well, it's not--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, how did it -- what was the basis for the rezone from ago to hospital in the
urban fringe unless it was there -- I mean, it wasn't zoned for hospital originally.
MR. WEEKS: As an essential service, it would be allowed throughout the urban mixed-use district, be it
inside the activity center or outside.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get at.
Anybody else have any questions of David before Corby starts?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, David.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning.
MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, Corby Schmidt, Comprehensive Planning Department.
To touch on a few items before I call for questions, working in reverse order my notes tell me that some of
the uses on the property that were mentioned that are proposed in the PUD, although you're not considering that
planned unit development at this time, I would not want to fail to mention that the possibility of other land uses are
proposed, including the adult living facilities or the like, as well as a travel-trailer RV park.
And you talked about conversion tables that are in that PUD that your consideration of may be delayed until
Page 24 of 69
1 6 I tUmy ijo, 111
that time. These other land uses have similar conversions are -- in a conversion table in the PUD.
Also mentioned earlier, some changes that you may have seen in one version of the FLUE or the CCME
language that may have included the legal description of the property to make it specific to the site.
We also saw that in the past few weeks. We recommend against that. It's not part of your formal packet.
Although including by legal description certain properties has been done in the past in the FLUE, it, A, consumes
space; B, is unnecessary, repetitive at times, it would have been shown twice and consumed pages of space, and it can
be done more simply, consuming less space in the document and serve the same purposes.
The version you have in front of you now that's dated for January 20 is the version that you can be -- should
be working from that includes the appropriate description of the property, and it's referenced by meeting criteria in
another section of the ordinance, and that narrows it down to this piece of property, or these pieces of property. So
there should be no concern about the legal description being included or something like that.
One more item. You may have heard some discussion about the requirement for preserving more than 60
percent of the lands in the -- in sending lands area. We also saw that proposal in the past week or so, and we also said,
that should not be in the -- in the version you see.
Reason being, it's not the requirement for more that staff is asking to change or -- and the applicant is
proposing. They propose to offer more than 60 percent preservation in the sending lands area, but the county either in
a past version or, nor do we intend in the future, to require more than that. So changing that language would be
inappropriate as well.
Those are my quick points, and I certainly can begin to address your questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have to ask you to follow up on your last point real quick before I forget.
The 60 -- change in the 60 percent, if we don't do it in the GMP, how does it get accomplished and fmalized,
assuming that -- I mean, say the GMP goes forward and they pull their DRI/PUD, how do we know that the 60 --
greater than 60 percent then is going to be kept? How are we going to receive that?
MR. SCHMIDT: Their language may seem cumbersome in places, but other phraseology offers to do so, and
the Compo Plan changes satisfies that. It's a matter of either offering or -- accepting the offer or requiring it of
everyone in the county, and that's not our intention.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
Yeah, I read the regulations for the NRP A and, it said 90 percent vegetation preservation. Where did the 60
percent come about?
MR. SCHMIDT: It's a combination of measurements. It has to do with the amount of vegetation that may
characterize more than 90 percent of the property, but only 60 percent of it is required to be preserved.
There's a number of reasons for that calculation or that ratio, because on the other side of the coin, up to a
certain percentage can be developed with these properties that straddle these boundaries. So that 60 percent is a
limiting factor for a reason.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So if you have an area that's in a NRPA and that is, let's say, predominantly--
or let's say 100 percent native vegetation, it's a natural area that hasn't been invaded by invasive plants or whatever,
you can develop 90 percent -- you can develop 10 percent of that or you can develop 40 percent of it?
MR. SCHMIDT: Up to 40.
MR. MULHERE: Depends on the project.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can help.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That wasn't the way I read the regulation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Midney, what it says is, it's 90 percent, not to exceed 60 percent of the site. So if
you had a thousand-acre parcel, the 90 percent criteria would say, you preserve 900 acres.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But the limiting factor in the code says, but it's not to be more than 60 percent of the
site, so it goes down to 600 acres under that limiting number. It's 90 percent of the native vegetation, not to exceed 60
percent of the site. That's where the 60 percent number has been coming back and forth.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You couldn't -- even if you wanted to, you couldn't exceed that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can preserve as much as we want, but you can't make us preserve more than 60
percent of the site. So 40 percent of that site under that regulation we could develop. We can -- we could do more.
Page 25 of 69
161187
January 20,2011
You could also do more, but you cannot force us to do more.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what we're offering is to do more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Corby?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I would certainly like you to address the four points that are being attempted
here today and, especially, I notice your -- you mentioned earlier about the conversion issues, and it's a very big
concern of mine, is what's being attempted by all the conversion issues for the -- in the RV park, the ACLF, and the
others.
In the Collier County, when we designate a unit, a unit is what? Do we -- I mean, I know what it is. It's
basically a livable unit with certain elements to it that are habitable.
Is an RV a unit?
MR. SCHMIDT: It may be.
MR. MULHERE: Dwelling unit?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I'm seeing heads -- these are -- okay. I mean, I'm glad you said that,
because if they're going to intend on putting 15,000 RVs because they're not considered units and the 1,760 only
applies to certain things, I'd like to know that now today before we even venture into the 1,760.
MR. SCHMIDT: Let me explain. RVs or park units, for instance, that may be permanently placed in an RV
park are habitable, but there are other limitations that prohibit them from being inhabited for lengthy periods of time.
And so it's another kind of definition that is not a dwelling unit in the same way that a single-family residence or a
multifamily unit would be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair, under our LDC, it defmes an RV unit as commercial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then how much commercial square footage is used up of 327,500 for an
RV? I mean, I don't -- I can see where this is going to go. Ifwe're -- because it's a subdistrict but it isn't, because it's
generalized and not specific, we're going to get into this push and shove at the PUDIDRI discussion stage, and it's
going to be said, well, you guys approved this in the transmittal. You didn't have a problem with it. I want to have
the problem with it discussed now. I want to get it on the table now. I want to know what they expect to do and what
units are counted and not counted -- and if we say 1,760 units, what does this board mean by 1,760 units? Does that
include RVs? Does it include adult congregate living facilities? Does it include hotel rooms? Let's just get it all on
the table and work it out today.
So you've read all these documents. You read them before we got them. And you probably know where the
confusion's going to be down the road. Why don't we attempt to clean it up today?
MR. SCHMIDT: We could do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: The PUD documents -- and I believe in the second handful or the follow-up delivery to last
-- or the previous meeting in this month included that information for you. Those conversion tables are found in
there. The information about all the uses they propose for the property is found in there. It may not have been in the
earlier version where some of the PUD materials were drawn into the GMP amendment materials. So the review by
staff is very limited of the PUD materials.
We've begun that and it's ongoing, and that's following a different schedule. So I think I'm going to, at this
point, allow the petitioner or their agents to answer some of those questions ifthose conversions are a matter you'd
like to discuss now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I want to know how many units they're going to put on the property, and I
don't know who wants to call what what, but let's just get it on the table.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can -- is it -- I know this is staffs comment, but is it something --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. He just deferred to you at this point, so you're stuck with it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Here's the problem, Mr. Strain. Senior housing has always been measured
based upon a floor-area ratio. So it doesn't count as a unit, but that has always been uncomfortable for the Planning
Commission and for the Board of County Commissioners, because we get a piece of land, and we yield X square feet,
and you say to us, well, how many units are going in that X square feet?
Page 26 of 69
1 6 I lJanuS2~011
So we have typically used a conversion formula; for each standard residential unit, you would get four senior
housing units.
So the answer to your question is, we have 1,760 units. If we decide to do senior housing, we then reduce
from that 1,760 based on our conversion formula.
I can't tell you today how many senior housing units I'm going to have, but I can tell you I provided for that in
a formula to address the concern of that question, about how many units, because they're not apples to apples. They're
treated differently. One is measured in a floor-area ratio. One is measured in regular units, if you will.
So that's why we have that conversion formula in for that type of a use. Same thing with RVs. For instance,
Swamp Buggy, they have RVs that come there now. We certainly didn't intend for the Swamp Buggy RVs to count
against our unit type.
You know, if Junior Deputies want to have a couple RVs there when they're having events there, we certainly
didn't intend for those RVs to come out of our 1,760, but we do have formulas in there to address those eventualities.
Should we do an RV park, we have formulas in there to address those concerns.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't the Swamp Buggy's a separate PUD?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. It's within this PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they have a separate PUD, don't they?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They have a separate PUD which will be coming into this PUD basically verbatim.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't recall, but how are RVs addressed in that separate PUD; do you recall?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't remember off the top of my head, Mr. Strain. But these are -- these are all
very legitimate questions. I just don't know why we need to -- I think we should address them at the PUD/DRI stage.
There clearly is appropriate times to talk about those specific provisions.
Our requests are more global, and then we will talk about -- you haven't approved any intensity in any of
these PUD amendments other than you've given me the ability to ask for 2.8 units on -- per acre when I come forward
with my PUD, if I bring -- if! do the appropriate transfers. You've given me the ability to reduce my native
preservation as long as I bring you a PUD that makes sense to you-all. You've given me the ability to ask questions,
but you haven't predetermined my approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Richard, that's why my earlier line of questioning was, this is a subdistrict,
but it's not. And if it had been a subdistrict tailored in the way we're used to seeing them, we could have got into the
specificity more than if it's a subdistrict created by generalization of the GMP. And it still provides a level of concern
to this board. It's kind of like letting the -- what do they say -- the camel's nose under the tent. Before you know it,
the whole camel's there.
Well, I don't want to see us in the position where we've said, okay, this sounds good and then have that
misinterpreted down the road so that we have a battle going on with the PUD/DRI where you don't need to be there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But remember, those hearings are going to happen on the same day. I'm only at
transmittal right now. The adoption will be simultaneously. The Compo Plan amendment adoptions will be
simultaneous with the PUD and DRI adoption, so you don't run the risk of I get an adoption, and I come back later
and we discuss the very issues you want to discuss.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, you'll be running to the adoption with a flag, waving it saying, see, DCA
said this was okay, and that's going to be a big hammer. And I don't want to give you that if we don't -- until we
understand it. That's all I'm asking. And where I was leading with Corby -- and I fully understand your issues with
the RV park, and I'm trying to figure out how it should be limited, but maybe that's where the PUD comes in -- back
to Corby and where we are with these four criteria.
Corby, they're looking for a density increase, they're looking for changing their preservation quantities in
different ways --
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they're looking for the use of The Lords Way as an access to the business park,
and they're looking to add 9.16 acres to the activity center.
Now, staff has done a write-up. In fact, staffs done so many write-ups, I've got a whole book of them here.
And I'd like for you to tell us, starting with the first one preferably, how you see it, so we can get your read on it, and
then we can go into general questions after that, or actually public, and then general questions.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 27 of 69
16 1 JlarJ~2l
I'm going to keep it in six parts because the density issue -- yes, it comes to you in a tandem or a pair. Both
the density lift and the preservation shift were -- there's two policies or elements involved in each of those.
The fIrst one is in the FLUE, and there's a handout coming your way from Mr. Lenberger -- he's working his
way up there -- with part one of six. And there may have been some confusion -- confusing language in staffs initial
proposal.
So working with Compo Planning staff and county attorney, we've come up with some alternatives. TIlls
page you're receiving at this time is very similar to your one-of-six versions in your January 20 staff report
recommendation.
It's the similar version copied twice on the page. Alternative one, or the top version, is the one that staff
recommends. The bottom version went through the department of -- redundancy department, and it may be more
cumbersome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The redundancy department? I hate to ask Is that Jamie's department?
MR. FRENCH: Wow.
MR. SCHMIDT: The part-one-of-six version is what is being recommended for that portion, and it simply
clarifIes the use of the 10 percent lift by additional enhancements or mitigations in the preserve areas, and also that 2.5
acres and the 2.8 acre totals for density.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
MR. SCHMIDT: The other portion --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, one question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What this is saying, though, is for each acre you're transfening, you get 1.3
dwelling units; is that correct?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
MR. SCHMIDT: -- it does.
MS. ASHTON: Corby, is there a --
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, 1.3 additional dwelling units, yes.
MS. ASHTON: Is there a typo in the fIrst alternative under Item A, 2A? Shouldn't that be up to one unit per
acre via the transfer?
MR. SCHMIDT: In the second version it is. In the fIrst version it gives the totals followed by the
transferred, and the second version it gives you the transfer twice and then the total.
So transferring --
MS. ASHTON: Yeah, but under the fIrst one you've got a base density of 1.5 plus another 2.5, so that's not --
the fIrst one's not correct. I don't know what the difference is between the two alternatives, but the fIrst one's not
correct.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah.
MS. ASHTON: Because you're giving them four units when you add that, 1.5 plus 2.5.
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, it does indicate the transfer of up to one unit per acre for the total of2.5. So I'm not
sure how it's incorrect, except that the phraseology may be backward. But this is as close to the FLUE language as we
could stay without restructuring the document further. It was correct in the version you had for January 20, and it's
still correct today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why are you giving us this?
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, for the other words in green and the intro paragraph, not the numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you do want this -- you're suggesting some ofthese changes in regards to the
submission that you sent out on the 20th; is that --
MR. SCHMIDT: Weare, for part one of six and the top -- or the alternative one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what, if this thing gets any more confusing--
MS. ASHTON: What's the difference between the two, Corby?
MR. SCHMIDT: The top half, alternative one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one on the bottom -- why does staff prefer the one on the top versus the one on
the bottom?
Page 28 of 69
1 6 1 LJl.7011
MR. SCHMIDT: Because it indicates a transfer twice in the same sentence and then refers to a total. And
again, I'm not sure that I need to make the language more cumbersome to mention the same number twice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got me confused, and I'm sorry if I'm --
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, for instance, in the bottom half of the page --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ye~.
MR. SCHMIDT: -- 2A, if! read it aloud, as cumbersome as it would be silently, up to one unit per gross acre
via the transfer of up to one dwelling unit per acre from lands located within one mile of the urban boundary, and it
goes on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what it's saying is you can have an additional one unit per acre for every
additional dwelling unit that you -- get it for every TDR that you create, right?
MR. SCHMIDT: It does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: And the version --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's confusing to you?
MR. SCHMIDT: It's confusing because it says it more cumbersome than -- the version at the top of the page
says the same thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The one on the top says, "Up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of
one dwelling unit per acre from lands located within one mile of the urban boundary." I don't see how those two are
equitable.
The bottom, it seems like you're going to be able to transfer one unit per every TDR, and the top you get to
have 2.5 units total per gross acre for every one TDR transferred.
So you're taking the 1.5 in the fIrst paragraph, increasing it by one because of the designation in A on the top,
and in the bottom you're taking 1.5 and increasing it by one in A, but you're not stating the maximum of 2.5. Is that __
MR. SCHMIDT: It is stated later in the same sentence. It is there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but not in that fIrst line.
MR. SCHMIDT: The alternatives are offered to you to make the choice.
MS. ASHTON: I think the second alternative is okay if you delete "for up to 2.5 units an acre," because if
you do that, it might lead to some confusion since you get 1.5 in the top. You want me to put it on the visualizer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- sure, if it's handy, but I think I know what you're -- actually in 2A on the
bottom of the page --
MS. ASHTON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're looking the third line down where it's added in green. "For up to 2.5 acres
per unit," that redundancy, whoever the redundancy department is, would be perceived as being added to the 1.5 or
possibility of 4, whereas, if we drop that --
MS. ASHTON: It could create confusion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's one to one on top of 1.5, for a maximum of2.5.
MS. ASHTON: And the same comment for the last line under A, "For up to 2.5 units an acre." That can
come out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one says actually, "For up to 2.8 units per acre."
MS. ASHTON: Two-point, I'm sorry. But you still need that "or" in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we were taking those out -- I mean, I can imagine how confusing it is to
read. The people in the audience must think we're nuts. But for the detail that we're getting into on this, it will benefIt
you in Vanderbilt Beach -- Vanderbilt Road, so --
MS. ASHTON: Mark, but I think that works. The only other additional issue is, there may be some other
properties that straddle both of them, and Corby was going to be prepared to mention those properties. So it would
apply to a few other properties in this area.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ~ead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: In reading this, in the materials it said -- the blended-density provision in the
GMP, and they had this property in mind -- they said, "It is capped at 2.5." Who capped this, Corby?
MR. SCHMIDT: That would have been action of the county board when they adopted these provisions.
Page 29 of 69
161 1
r:
-1
7
January 20,2011
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So -- okay. So what this petitioner is doing is wanting to go against that and
take this and make it even higher?
MR. SCHMIDT: That lift from 2.5 to 2.8, yes, that's their request.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Corby, what's the geometric defInition of straddle? I mean --
MR. SCHMIDT: Portions lying on both side of.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we have words in the code, adjacent, adjoining. Couldn't we use
those words or --
MR. SCHMIDT: We could, but it's not proposed for change, so I'm not sure I would want to go there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, this is a double underline, so this is the fIrst time we've seen it, so--
MR. MULHERE: It's used elsewhere.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. It's used in a number of other places. When it talks about the urban residential
fringe and those properties along that geographic area that lie there and in sending lands.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what does straddle mean to you then?
MR. SCHMIDT: Portions lying on both sides of.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, okay. I got it.
MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not thinking equestrian.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Corby, I have another--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Corby, I have another question.
In reading this, it says in here if nothing -- if the GMP A is not accepted, that right now this project is limited
to 1,662 dwellings without all these other things they're asking for?
MR. SCHMIDT: I believe those numbers are offered up, yes, and without the ability to move those unused
TDRs or those buildable rights for additional dwelling units onto the urban portion of their property, that would be the
number they were limited to.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: They were limited to 1,662. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Corby, you have deleted Hacienda in there, and I wonder if you did that on
the basis that it's redundant within the context of the work, or was it intended to allow for it to stand as a basis for
other properties that might tend to or could qualify -- theoretically qualify for this same type of process.
MR. SCHMIDT: Not the fIrst, but at -- in the beginning, or earlier in this process, it could have been the
second, where a change in the language from specifIcally identifying this project by name might have led to
allowances for other properties to utilize the same provisions.
As we moved along through the process and considered more closely other properties that straddle the same
boundary north and south of this property, we found that there were no other properties that could take advantage of
this.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ah, okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: So these double-stricken through then the double-underlined provision that refers to Policy
5.2, those are those -- those are the other provisions that were specifIcally written at a point in the past for this
property, and that's also mentioned, and it could apply to no other.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, you had started on this discussion over those items. Would you just
continue through them as briefly or as succinctly as you can.
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly.
In the other half of the density shift -- or the density lift, I'm sorry, the part -- I've got to fInd it here -- is that
part three of six in the recommendation, which allows them to begin sending the TDRS. The fIrst one of six receives
1.3 instead of 1.0 per acre, and the other half of that same provision to allow for the density to be fully utilized sends it
from the other area. So that's how that -- those two provisions work in tandem.
The vegetation -- native-vegetation and preservation provisions also work in tandem, one of them allowing
them to preserve less than the 25 percent in the urban area of the proj ect and the other provision allowing them to -- in
exchange and to preserve or their -- offer to preserve more than the 60 percent in the sending lands portion of the
Page 30 of 69
1 6 I LuJt.211
proj ect.
The business park acreage, that's the third item, you may have seen between your earlier-in-January version
and your January 21 version, a lengthening of that entry to include the improvement of the roadways to be used,
Rattlesnake Hammock Road extension, to allow for that industrial or that business-park traffic.
Apparently from what we've heard earlier today, that additional language isn't necessary, and I think the
county attorney indicated where that provision or that sentence would end.
Other policies or provisions in transportation planning or the transportation element of the county covered
those requirements. We don't need to state them again.
The last portion of it, the increase in size of the Mixed-use Activity No.7. Much discussion has already been
about that. I'm not quite sure how much to touch on that for you now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think we're -- I think we got that.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, there is one issue I'd like to discuss, and that is this -- for lack of a better
term, this lift that we're talking about, this increase in density. It's a result of their agreement to you to preserve more
area in the rural area.
Richard's shaking his head "no," so clarify that for me.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can hear it rattle all the way up here.
MR. SCHMIDT: Earlier in this process, as staff reviewed and worked with the agent and the applicant on the
proj ect and the proposal, we had the same perception, that they were giving us this for that. If we're preserving
additional lands, you're giving us additional density. That is not the case.
The language is carefully crafted, and there is no intent to do so. There is no connection between the two
provlSlons.
The simpler request for the additional use of existing density or useful density, eligible TDRs, the ability to
use all of them in the urban area is not related necessarily by what you're seeing in the Compo Plan amendments with
the additional preservation. The preservation is a separate issue, and it stands on its owns merits that preserving the
better habitat and the vegetation in the sending lands area of the project is good for the TDR program and the rural
fringe mixed-use district, and the quality or the development of those lesser lands and that vegetation in the urban area
is a fair trade-off for preserving more of the other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the TDRs that are -- would be required for this lift in density, we are
getting those, though, right?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a certain number ofTDRs -- and maybe, Richard, why don't you just __
I mean, he's going to give me some kind of gestures to indicate his agreement or disagreement, so why don't you just
come up and address it to us so we can get it right on the record.
You're using a certain number ofTDRs for this project because of the blending issue, and then you wanted to
go beyond that number. And the way this thing had come about when I was reading it, I thought the benefit for you to
receive a lift in density was that you were going to provide more rural area. But the TDRs from that rural area are not
all being used in the lift of the density or the increase in density.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. What happens is, is we have one provision that says, if you'll allow us to
impact more of the urban area, we'll preserve, at a two-to-one ratio, more of the rural area.
Now, the one that addresses density is, today we have a cap of2.5, because we can bring in--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understand.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have 1.5 base, and we can bring in up to one unit per acre, forgetting the 10
percent that you can also get through other provisions. But just those two together work at a 2.5.
We're saying at the end of the day we have all this sending land out here. Some of it is eligible for transfer
into the urban area; some of it is not. The areas that are eligible to come in yields 187 units we can't use under today's
rules. We would like to use those 187 in our project, which would mean that that 1.5, plus the 1 now need to become
1.5 plus 1.3 . We're simply asking you to allow us to use TDRs that we create through this program of being in the
sending lands within our own project --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then what happened --
Page 31 of 69
16 1 1 8 7
January 2(), 201
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- instead of having to wait for somebody else in the urban residential fringe to come
to us and say, we'd like to use those units, because that day may never come. And you had already planned for these
187 units to come into the urban residential fringe when you designated those lands receiving lands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the designation of the additional acreage from the two-to-one swap has
nothing to do really with the increased use of the TDRs?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're coming from another sector?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the TDRs that would be created from the two-to-one swap, those areas
are still TDRs that you have available to use to the extent you want to use them somewhere else?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: To the -- yes. Bingo. That's the 395 that we hope some day someone will come to us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Heidi.
MS. ASHTON: But I think I -- in his calculation, he used 187 to get up to his density of 1,760 residential
units. So therefore they've got to relinquish the 187.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- but -- yeah, that's what he just said.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
MS. ASHTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's only the 187.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The amount that you gain or that was in place from the increased acreage you're
setting aside as a result of the two-to-one benefit, you're still going to use those TDRs; that's not part of the 1877
MR. MULHERE: That's right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Essentially, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I get that part of it now.
MS. ASHTON: And I do have some proposed language that I think addresses --
MR. MULHERE: Could I just add one thing on this issue that we were just talking about before? I just want
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Very briefly. Okay. So -- because Ms. Ebert asked some questions about the increase,
and I just wanted to make sure that it was understood clearly that we're not talking about new density. These units
exist. They exist within our property. We're only asking to use some of the units that exist within our property that
will be used somewhere within our project. I didn't know if you understood that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Heidi.
MS. ASHTON: Do you want me to put the proposed language--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, wait. Heidi, let me --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From what they just said, we were talking about that one-to-two ratio,
they're saying that those acres are not going to be used for TDRs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. No, they can be used for TDRs, but not the ones that are going to be
used in the 187 that's being used for this project. They can sell them on the open market. Still, they didn't -- they
didn't remove the underlying base benefit of the property by creating the TDRs. They just said they will use that
property for exchange land. They will not develop it. And so they get the benefit of the TDRs from it at some future
possible use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they must know how many --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: TDRs?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- how many acres they're not going to preserve by now then, or do they?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the PUD/DRI would get into those specifics when they worked out their land
plan. But the land plan, I understand, is being changed constantly because of the Benfield Road corridor and other
things that are moving around.
So I think it's a little -- probably premature to nail down the amount of preserve in TDRs they're going to
Page 32 of 69
16 'JalyJt7
have right to the acreage, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So to say it back is that none of the TDRs -- or none of the acreage that was
used in the one-to-two swap, the TDRs from those acres are going to be used to increase density in this project?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're going to hold those and use those to sell them on the market. The 187
TDRs are created within the area that is within the one -- first one mile of the urban fringe, ifI'm not mistaken.
MR. MULHERE: Ninety-five acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. He's -- okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm rattling.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I can see that. Okay.
Okay, Heidi. Go ahead.
MS. ASHTON: Okay. This is the proposed language. And the difference from what you have in your
package primarily is the change right here to base density of 1.5.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back up. Where is this proposed? We just got a handout. That's not the
handout, so --
MS. ASHTON: It's not --
MR. SCHMIDT: It's extremely similar to the bottom half of your handout.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you guys. This is not going to go over well.
MS. ASHTON: What page is this in the book that they have?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about, what page is it in the most latest rendition of the staff report that you
issued?
MR. SCHMIDT: I can assist you with finding that location. It should be the first page of Attachment HL-2,
which is around 29 pages back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh.
MR. SCHMIDT: Or seven from the last page.
MS. ASHTON: Can I see what it looks like?
MR. SCHMIDT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, you handed out a September 20th staff review. It has a series of pages to it.
Can you tell us what page in that staff review this language is found, because that's the one that's on the top of our
pack- -- HL-2.
MR. SCHMIDT: And I believe it's Page 1. We'll put it up on the imagizer as well.
MS. ASHTON: But it's, like, the last six pages, I think, is in the staff report. The last six is the proposed
language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's in the -- if you take the staffpacket that was handed out most recently
dated September (sic) 20th -- or I think it's September 20th, whatever date that is.
MS. ASHTON: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: January.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: January 20th, I'm sorry. I said September.
MS. ASHTON: Yeah. Let me know when everyone has it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twentieth or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: September (sic) 20th there was a packet handed out, and in that packet were
Attachments HL-1, 2, and 3, and that's towards the back of the packet. And if you go to about the fifth page forward
from the back of the packet, you'll see the beginning of Attachment HL-2, and that's the page I believe we're on.
MS. ASHTON: Yeah. We're under A2, and the change is that you're adding the word "base density" of 1.5
units per gross acre, and the language in the book is exclusive of density that may be achieved via CCME policy.
And there were some issues on what that meant, so we made it simple by adding the word "plus any" density bonus
that's achieved under that policy. That's a mitigation of 10 percent. That's the language in the CCME, if you'd like to
'see that.
And then in the one in your book it says, "or higher through the use of the following," and we changed it to
"and either," because if you left A the way it is, it would be 2.5 units, and you wouldn't be able to get the 10 percent
anymore, because now you've opted for the 2.5 instead of the 1.5.
So this language that's on the visualizer has the 1.5 base density plus any density they can get in the CCME,
Page 33 of 69
161187
" January 20,2011
which would be 10 percent if it qualifies, and either an additional one, which would bring it to 2.5 for most of the
properties, if they use the Transfer of Development Rights, except for property that straddles the two districts, which
Hacienda does, would give you a total of2.8 when you add the 1.5 plus the 1.3.
So I think it does what everyone's trying to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does any of the 2.8 -- does it still have an ability to be increased because of
the 10 percent in the CCME?
MS. ASHTON: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 2.8 still is not the cap. The cap is 2.8 plus 10 percent.
MS. ASHTON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under some scenario.
MS. ASHTON: Correct. And I'm not trying to change what they proposed. That's what they proposed based
on what was in their in their calculations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I heard Corby say no.
MR. SCHMIDT: It's already in the calculations. It's not already in the language. The answer was correct
from county attorney.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So--
MS. ASHTON: What we had been told is that staff applied the 10 percent from the CCME. That's how
they've been applying it, if I'm correct. And so this was just to clean up the language to make sure it was clear to
everybody.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on this language change? Ms. Caron, did you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just want to be sure that I understand about additional density bonuses
that can be achieved via the CCME.
Would any of that come on top of the bottom line for -- what I understood to be the bottom line for this
project, which is 2.8?
MS. ASHTON: The way this is written -- now, I don't know if this is how it's intended. But the way it's
written, it would apply to just the 1.5. And if that's not what's intended, then the language needs to be further changed.
MR. SCHMIDT: It does not, not in the way you're asking that. The calculation for the 10 percent -- we'll
call it a lift -- from the CCME for the additional preservation, comes in an earlier calculation which would not
increase their number higher than 1,760, or whatever the count is, and it doesn't affect the ratio, the transfer ratio, of
2.5 or 2.8.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you still want to--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's good.
Okay. So the language that Heidi's proposed would probably be the best scenario out of the multitude we've
had so far to get this accomplished?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is similar to the bottom half of your handout page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But let's not go there. Do you like to one?
MR. SCHMIDT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it --
MR. SCHMIDT: It's the same except for exception.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to ask if it's clear enough for staff. Just, is this -- is this one we could
use? I understand what she's trying to do here.
MR. SCHMIDT: It is our current recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay.
Now, Corby, I think we've finished with your presentation. Are there any questions of Corby at this time? I
think we have it all squared away.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Corby, The Lords Way.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Whose road is The Lords Way?
Page 34 of 69
16\ 1 8 7
January 20, 2011
MR. SCHMIDT: There are portions of The Lords Way, the majority of it today, that -- in private hands. It's
a private roadway. The extension of --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not controlled by this developer, correct?
MR. SCHMIDT: A portion of it may be. When you see the diagram or the schematic they showed for the
mixed-use activity center and those halves of rights-of-way, they may have control of that south half of the
right-of-way east of95l, yes.
They have sufficient control to meet the requirements we're asking of them, if that's the endpoint.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It isn't part of the activity center, The Lords Way end of things.
MR. SCHMIDT: I'll try to get it back up on the imagizer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Lords Way is north of Rattlesnake Hammock, and there's portions of Lords
Way that go through the former church -- well, it still is church property. Different church. And I think the question
is, how much control does the applicant have over the property to approve Lords Way where the church is; is that a
fair statement?
And, Richard, if you can answer --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yes, because -- because we -- their intent is to extend The Lords Way on
their property and then use that road for -- to access their business park. And I just want to know if they have any
control over the actual access point at 951.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer to your question is yes. It is a private road, but we have easement rights
over that property that is a private road.
So we will have to -- obviously when we come forward with our zoning and site plan, we'll have to show you
that we have the ability to deliver on that, but we have -- it's not a county-maintained road is the basic answer, and we
have rights to use that private land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the statement you just made, when you come back through with
your site plan -- no, this will be in -- if we allow this GMP to go forward, we're saying you can use -- that Lords Way
is going to be the route.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe can--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to have assurances that Lords Way can be the route at this stage, not
waiting to the future.
Now, we can get through transmittal, but the -- I was certainly going to point out that we need some further
assurances with Lords Way by adoption.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that may get to where Donna's trying to go.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fme. And we understand that the condition is, is the road's got to be sufficient
to handle the traffic that will go to a business park. We understand that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not only that, but that you actually have --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- an easement.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. We'll get that for you at the adoption hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other part of that is, Lords Way is going to be needed for utilities.
You're going to have to have safety features, drainage elements, all the things that involve a roadway that has to rise to
the level that's needed to support not only the business park, but the other uses within your project. Staffs going to
have to prove that cross-section.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We would need to see it by adoption.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The agreement gives you what you believe are the rights to have the utilities
installed, the drainage installed, the drainage components for the capacity of the surfaces you're putting in, all that
needs to be in place. We need to see the agreements by the adoption --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which will be the same time you do your PUD and DR!.
Page 35 of 69
161 1
E 7
January 20,2)11
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, no problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, did you have something to contribute since we're talking -- you're
standing back there like you want to talk.
MR. GREEN: Michael Green, transportation plaIIDing. I was just coming up in case I was needed, in case --
to back up comments from Corby or Rich in the conditions of The Lords Way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you are needed, because one of the questions would probably be, the
arterial-level requirement, how is Lords Way going to meet that -- or satisfy that as far as capacity improvements,
safety improvements, the type of traffic that would be used in and out of a business park of 140,000 square feet along
with the residential; is The Lords Way easement areas, in the cross-sections that would have to be developed in that
area, capable of supporting everything that Ijust mentioned that could be put there by this project?
MR. GREEN: They could be. That becomes more of a civil matter between the property owners who
actually own The Lords Way. One could argue almost that they would classify this as their driveway and that their
access is The Lords Way to 951; 951 is the arterial.
The alternative to them would be to build a new driveway north of that through the rest of their project and
connect to 951 separately.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You can't do it north of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this road will be used by the public living in that facility and by the public
traveling to the business park or any other places in there, plus its intersection at 951. Since it will be used by the
public, are there any safety criteria and improvements that your staff would have to require?
MR. GREEN: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you see those being able to be done within the easement areas provided
in the private format that they're now provided for for Lords Way?
MR. GREEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of Mike at this point?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ijust want to pursue this a little further. So if you look at the map that is up
there now and where it says The Lords Way it's a lighter color than when you get into this project -- the project we're
discussing today, all of that area -- no. Back up.
I want to talk about 951 and what's owned here now by the church. The church owns from 951 back to the
beginning -- this property owner's property right now, they're telling me that they're going to have an easement to llse
that road which would absolutely be not only logical, I would assume it would be required; however, is it required for
the level that would be needed for a business park?
I mean, we can't put any added burden on the church in order to come up to the standards that we're going to
need to access their business park, which is beyond.
MR. GREEN: The burden -- the burden of improving that roadway to satisfy the projected daily volume
would not fall to the church. The church has in what they have been required to put in for their access, and the
easements are in place. As a matter of fact, there are some easements along the church property in addition to whht
was identified by right-of-way as part of the last PUD amendment that the church was going through with the county
dedicating additional easements for road improvements and stormwater to the county.
So it is a matter of changing maybe structural pavement, the width of the road, the drainage, some other
safety features, to bring the road up to the standards that the new daily traffic would require.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But who's going to be responsible for changing the width of the road?
MR. GREEN: The applicant.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But it's on somebody else's property that they would have to be doing
that.
MR. GREEN: But they have the rights to make the improvements within the easements that exist.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That already exist?
MR. GREEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And you're going to bring that to us --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By adoption.
Page 36 of 69
161 1
B 7
January 20,2011
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- by adoption?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Now, in order for a business park to go where they have it sited now,
it's not supposed to go through a primarily residential area.
On -- this church property right now is zoned for residential on top of that church.
MR. GREEN: There is one tract that the church is working with to go to residential. I don't know what the
existing conditions are since it has changed owners.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it's changed owners, but the existing is -- there's residential there. I don't
know whether the current church wants to keep it. I've been told by someone that maybe they don't want residential
there, which is fme. That actually helps this project.
MR. GREEN: Then you would need to evaluate the difference between what's zoned and what is existing in
use. There's no existing or extremely limited existing residential uses that are constructed and operating.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. GREEN: But there are some areas that are zoned for residential.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So you would rely on the fact that it may be zoned for that but it's not
built to that?
MR. GREEN: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're at this time frame, I'd like to make a note to the people here for the
Vanderbilt Beach Road GMP issue. Being that it's 11: 14 and we haven't fInished this one, my goal hopefully would
be to fInish this one by our break at lunch, which would be an hour. And then we still have a dock, one dock to go
through, before we can get to you.
I could tell you most assuredly we would not hear your project before 1 o'clock. So if that provides any of
you for a longer extended lunch hour, please feel free to take it, because we will not get to Vanderbilt Beach Road
before 1 o'clock. And we're kind of stuck with that -- with the intensity of this project.
So with that in mind, we'll continue on.
Any other questions of transportation at this time?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mike, I notice that it is 60 feet for The Lords Way. So that's one-lane traffIc
each way?
MR. GREEN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: To a business park or a school. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get into a lot more questions, let's see if there's any concerns from the
public for this project, and then we'll get back into general questions.
Do we have any public speakers on this particular project? Nicole?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Nicole Ryan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is she the only registered speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When Nicole fInishes, if there's anybody else that would like to address us on this
matter, feel free to come up.
MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida. And I wanted to put these amendments and the project, because they really are very much linked together,
into context for you from the Conservancy's perspective.
As Bob had mentioned, this project, in various iterations, has been around for a long time, and the
Conservancy has had, and still has, concerns about the project per se. It makes a lot of impacts to wetlands. It's
certainly better than it used to be, but there's still 460 acres of wetland impact. It impacts a lot of listed species habitat.
We have in the past had concerns about the footprint of the development, and we were very concerned about
the proposal to relocate the Swamp Buggy park to NRP A sending lands.
With that being said, we did sit down and meet with the applicant and put together our different maps and
wish lists of how, if this property were developed, we would prefer it to look. Of course, we started out with the
initial map of nothing being developed, and I think Rich was actually shocked into silence with that one, but we did
Page 37 of 69
16' 1 B 7
January 20,2011
have some other proposals going forward.
And the applicant did take a look at our considerations, looked at what we were proposing for the Compo Plan
amendment changes, and they did incorporate not all but a lot of what we had suggested into their environmental
considerations.
So I do want to acknowledge that. We're always up here opposing things, and so I do want to say that they
did really try to incorporate a lot of our suggestions.
That being said, we still are going to be commenting about the wetland and wildlife impacts to those
permitting agencies.
But looking at this strictly from a county planning and compo planning perspective. We do not oppose the
environmental amendments that are before you today. We really haven't analyzed the transportation, The Lords Way
issue, or the activity center, but those environmental amendments are amendments that we are not opposing.
We certainly were happy to see that the relocation of the Swamp Buggy park was taken out. That was one of
our biggest issues.
We also had concerns about a lot of amendments that were Hacienda Lakes specific but could be applicable
to other projects within the rural fringe and the density-blending areas. And I know that it's gone back and forth of
how to address that. There was first the recommendation to have this PUD referenced. That has been taken out. I
believe we're now at the point where the legal description will be attached to the Compo Plan amendment, and we
believe that that's probably the best way to move that forward. So we think that that's a good idea.
In looking at the increased density from the 2.5 cap up to the 2.8, this is something that we also didn't oppose
because we're not increasing the overall density within the county or the density allowed within the rural fringe and
that urban residential fringe, but we're pulling it more into the urban area, and that really is the intent of the rural
fringe program, is to get that density out of the fringe where it could be urban sprawl and get it into the urbanized
area. So we see that as something that could be compatible.
The shifting of the preservation allowing for more impact to those urban wetlands in exchange for additional
and two times the preservation of good wetlands within the sending lands, we also see that as something that can be a
benefit and, again, that's going to be something that really is Hacienda Lakes specific.
In looking at this project and what can be done, I think it's very important, and you touched on it before, the
fact that the NRP A sending standards for vegetation preservation are very high, 90 percent. But then there's this
density-blending provision that says, if your project straddles the urban and the fringe, then you can combine, shift
things around, and you only have to preserve up to 60 percent of the site. You have to have 60 percent preservation,
not that 90 percent.
And because that could allow so much impact in those NRP A sending lands and sending lands, we really
think that the amendments before you in the context of the PUD/DRI that will come to you at adoption, we think that
this is going to be an acceptable balance of things. So we're not opposing the amendments.
I do want to bring up one issue, and it's not on the table for your consideration or recommendation today. But
I do want it brought up, because it is going to be important in the future, and that's the issue of the Benfield Road
extension. The Conservancy and many other nonprofits and many state agencies are actually very concerned and
oppose the extension of Benfield Road because it would impact so many wetland resources and so many wildlife and
listed species habitat resources.
And that road is being very much tied to this project, not only requiring that the project put the road
right -of-way on the master plan, but also the county transportation staff requiring that Hacienda Lakes be responsible
for all or a portion of the design, permitting, and construction of the road through their site.
And we believe that it's inappropriate to tie such a controversial road that may never get its permits to this
project. Certainly the county needs to get the transportation concurrency requirements from the developer. We
believe that there are certainly a lot of roadways in the long-range transportation plan that are less controversial, more
likely to get permitted, and are more shovel ready.
So have those transportation -- I don't want to say extractions, 'but -- considerations and negotiations be put to
those other projects. We really believe that it's going to be a detriment to this project as it moves forward if it's so
intimately linked and tied to actual construction, permitting, design, of Benfield Road.
So I bring that up now because ifthis can't be resolved before it comes back at adoption, I think there's going
to be a lot of concern voiced at that point, so --
Page 38 of 69
1611 r 7
L)
January 20,2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the concerning voices at that point would be more directed at the master plan
that's included with the DRI/PUD, not necessarily the GMP language, because it doesn't really touch on the road
quarter.
MS. RYAN: It doesn't, but I just wanted that out there so that you're aware of it going forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And we appreciate that, because that's something we can look hard at. And I
don't necessarily disagree with your position. So thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody other -- Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Nicole, are you okay with the fact that the lands, that
one-acre-to-two-acre mitigation, that the TDRs stay on that land after that's done?
MS. RYAN: Well, the TDRs -- the TDRs wouldn't stay on that land because those lands are eligible, and
TDRs are being pulled off of that regardless of whether you have this new provision being put in place. So I --I'm
not sure that that's really an applicable policy, and that's not what they're asking for.
Our thought and position on that is that if we can get more preservation in the sending lands, which that
policy would allow, we're okay with them taking the TDRs as long as they're moving them into the urbanized areas.
And because they are moving more of their development than they're required to do into the urbanized areas,
that means that they're going to have to impact some of the lower quality native vegetation wetland habitat in the
urban area. But in exchange we get a more intact preservation -- requirement and preservation set aside in the rural
area. So we're comfortable with that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nicole.
MS. RYAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else wishing to speak on this issue before we go into questions of the staff
or the applicant?
MR. BELLOWS: None registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you don't have to be registered. If you just want to speak, just stand
up. Okay.
And Richard's the only one standing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm stunned into silence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go forward with our questions. Does the Planning Commission have any
general questions they'd like to ask at this time?
I have a few. So let's start. Heidi, where art thou? There you are.
MS. ASHTON: Right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know if you were walking around or not. You had added something on
Page 23 of the January 20th staff report, or think you added it. Someone, and maybe it's not you. It says under part
five of six on the top of Page 23, "Approval of business park access via The Lords Way also has the affect of
preliminarily endorsing a business park at the proposed location within the Hacienda Lakes project."
I don't know if you put that language in or if staff did, but I'd certainly like your input on it. Do you feel that's
a true statement?
MS. ASHTON: No, not necessarily. It still has to go through the POD amendment. It's a -- or the POD. It's
allowing the business park as an option.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust want to make sure--
MS. ASHTON: But that will be clarified during the POD stage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust want to make sure if we go forward with some stipulations that include The
Lords Way working out in the manner they propose, that we're not tying ourselves to a future automatic approval of
that business park.
MS. ASHTON: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASHTON: No. But I would like to comment that if a business park does go along Lords Way in
approximately that location, that there's currently no CAT bus system that goes down that road. So if you agree that it
could be further down on Lords Way and not directly on an arterial, you just need to be aware of that consideration.
Page 39 of 69
16 I lJanu~Zoll
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that's more of a DRI/PUD consideration, and we certainly will,
hopefully, have those comments discussed at the adoption hearing.
Okay. I'll move through what questions --
COMMISSIONER CARON: So before you leave that, what are we going to do with this language? Are we
taking out that fIrst --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not the language we're adopting.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, that's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just a comment.
COMMISSIONER CARON: This is just part of the comment, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I wanted to make sure that the comment didn't bind us, and it doesn't, so
-- in the -- I'm going to have to go back and forth between some of the renditions we've received from staff.
In the original staff report -- I'm not sure it's the original. It's the one dated January 6th on Page 5, and I'll
read it so -- in case you-all can't fmd it. There's a reference to the land uses used within the Swamp Buggy Days
PUD.
Most of them are items that nobody would want in a residential neighborhood, but they're already there. It's
kind of like the aiIport that exists and people move around it. People moving in the area will know there's swamp
buggy races going on, and that's part of it; however, the fourth item is a use that I think is -- raises the level to a
public-safety issue other than just noise, and it's target ranges.
I used to use the range out at the Swamp Buggy grounds years ago. I'm not sure what condition it's in today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's closed.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: It's closed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's closed, but it's still a use within their PUD.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But it's been closed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm more concerned about it remaining as a use within the PUD with its
relationship now to an occupied business park, housing, and potentially a school around it.
So what is the possibility of getting that removed by adoption?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: By adoption?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: YeM.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think there's a possibility, if you're comfortable with it becoming an indoor--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that wouldn't be a problem.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- range. I think that that's a possibility at adoption and the PUD level.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be something we would probably stipulate then.
Staff has analyzed the commercial components, and they've indicated that your need for additional
commercial isn't supported in the area, that there's a dramatic surplus of commercial. You've provided an economic
analysis to support your commercial. I've read your economic analysis, and I certainly don't put any -- any value to it.
But the efforts for our property owner to be able to develop his land if he's zoned commercial I think
supersede that. So I'm not going to base my decision regarding the commercial component on your economic
analysis, because I think it's virtually worthless, but I will certainly provide you with the ability to use commercial on
that site from my perspective. I think that's your right as a property owner.
But having that said, I'm sure staffhas a different position on that, and they've already voiced their reasoning
as to why the commercial shouldn't be moved or should be moved or however it should happen. Ifthere's anything
else you want to say, Corby, in that regard involving the economic analysis, feel free. If you have any comments
about it --
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but nothing else at this time.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Somebody does, though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, David.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, again, for the record, David Weeks of Comprehensive Planning section.
Just, I guess, to make sure it's clear what the staff position is -- and for those of you that have been on the commission
for a while, you've heard me say this over and over. Staff does not look at a request for commercial from the
perspective of, if they build it, will they come? We do recognize that that is the property owner, the petitioner. They
are taking that risk. And if they get this petition approved, and if they build it and it's successful, good for them. And
Page 40 of 69
161 1
I
8 7
January 20,2011
if it's not, bad for them and maybe bad for the community.
We do look at it, though, from a standpoint of inventory. How much commercial inventory does the
community need? That is our perspective. So if they are successful in getting their approvals and they build their
commercial development and it's successful, again, good for them, but that may be bad for some other commercial
location, possibly elsewhere within this activity center even.
So it's not a matter of saying, we don't think that commercial development will be successful at their location.
We're saying, do we need more commercial inventory? Do we need more of it? And the staff answer is, we don't
think so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- but see, then staffs putting government in the position to decide on how
successful or unsuccessful a business or a property owner should be, and that's a property right I think this country
provides to property owners.
I understand your position, David, but at the same time, there are vacancies throughout this county. Maybe
it's because they can't be as competitive as they need to be because they paid too much for their land, built the
building at the wrong time and got loans against their property that were too high.
We have an opportunity now for commercial to go in that might be at a better rate that could flourish because
they can be more competitive. And if others have to lose out because of competitiveness of this project, I don't see a
problem with that. That's going to benefit the public.
So I think you have a valid concern, but I believe in my voting process, mine's going to outweigh yours, at
least from my perspective, so -- but there are some questions I'd like to ask involving the persons-per-household
numbers.
Corby, in your report you wrote up, the changes in the persons per household varied from 2.0 to 2.5. I just
want to make sure on the record our standard is 2.39, is it not?
MR. SCHMIDT: In this area it is, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any reason why it should have varied in their reports?
MR. SCHMIDT: There are some, one of them being that the 2.39 figure takes into account, or does not take
into account, vacancies or part-year residencies. So that 2.39 figure is all year-round residencies. And so numbers
less than that are just as valid.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: However, staff was careful to include calculations in some of our review statements based
on the full figure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I'll try to move through my questions fast. If anybody else has any
while I'm thumbing through, go right ahead.
You had on -- I don't know what version this is -- one of the exhibits, and it was under tab -- oh, Exhibit A
text, the fourth page, you had alternative language involving The Lords Way. You had a one and a two.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that still standing as alternative language?
MR. SCHMIDT: No, neither.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what would we do in this case? You don't need "neither" then?
MR. SCHMIDT: It's not that we don't need either of these. Either -- or both of these versions, however, have
been superseded by what is in your most recent packet in HL-2.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Page 5.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. It's on Page 5. And that has been amended, or at least recommended to be amended
further with strike through of the provisions for street improvements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we've gotten to just about everything.
MR. SCHMIDT: It's on the visualizer now. That should be your Page 5 replacement alternative to those you
just mentioned on Page 4 of Exhibit A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I remember seeing it now. Thank you. Okay.
Those are the questions that I have. Anybody else have any questions of either the applicant, staff, or
anybody else at this time?
(No response.)
Page 41 of 69
1611
January 20, 2011
~.
7
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me make some comments then to the applicant so we're on kind of the
same page -- well, I don't know if we'll ever be on the same page, but let's try.
There are some enclaves within your rural areas that you're preserving. They're owned by Florida
Department ofDEP or something like that. By the time of adoption, do you have any objection to proposing -- or
supplying to us whatever documents you have that guarantee access to those enclaves?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can send that to you if you need it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just said by adoption.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. No, we can send them to you at adoption.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any problem providing a cross-section of Lords Way that
provides the elements needed to assure us that you're protecting the neighborhoods or the other properties it goes
through?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We have no problem doing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever. It shows the sidewalks, it shows any necessary required streetlighting,
but it just meets the standards that we want to see to make sure that the public's safety is protected if they use that
roadway.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can have that at adoption. It will be -- it's part of the POO, but -- so you'll have all
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But unfortunately it comes into play in the GMP, so--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The alternate two-way language that's proposed by the county attorney most
recently in version 100, whatever it was, the one that was put on the overhead, do you have any problems with that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer is, I think I understand it, so we have no problem with it. But obviously,
between now and adoption if we sit down and read it, we can hash out if something comes up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you supply us with the documents by adoption that allow you to do the
improvements --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on The Lords Way as will be required in whatever cross---
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll provide you with the legal documents that give us those rights.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd suggest ahead of time, make sure that they include utilities and
landscaping and maintenance and irrigation, all those good things that road access normally doesn't mean. So it has to
be greater than road access.
You would modify the Swamp Buggy Days POO to remove that -- or modify the target range so it becomes
either indoor or removed altogether.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then at the same time I'm going to say this but probably -- but not make it as
a stipulation, because I don't know how we're going to -- we would put it in the language, but you have committed to
certain numbers of units. I know we're going to see more detail in the POO/DRI, but I think today's discussion got
that on the table very, very clearly, so I'm going to suggest that you try to not deviate from what you told us today, and
that was 1,760 units, 327,500 square feet of commercial, 70,000 square feet of office, 135 hotel rooms -- these are all
up-to numbers -- 140,000 square feet of business park, and a school not to exceed 19 -- 919 students.
Those are what's in your either writeup or verbally expressed to us today as maximums, and those are what
we would be relying upon in order to review the upcoming documents for adoption.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And as you know, there's some conversion formulas in there, and we will -- we will
be prepared to address all of those issues at the POO stage to either defend or give up on our conversion formula, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we're -- I mean, from my perspective --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'll be breaking down those conversion formulas to the simplest basic --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- common understanding. If a unit is a unit is a unit, it will be a unit. So however
you --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
Page 42 of 69
16 I Lu.,120.ZI
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we've accepted something in the past--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's a good precedent. But keep that in mind when we get there.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: But I'm not sure you want to indicate to them in any way that those figures are
necessarily acceptable until after we've actually analyzed --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they're not going in the --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they're not going in the transmittal. I wanted to make sure we knew where
they're saying their maximums would not exceed so that when we get there, that's the first line of concern is, where'd
you fall in relationship to what you told us.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. We understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I wasn't looking to add something that's subject to--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But -- and I'll just give you an example. Because, for example, if in the
expanded activity center the average is 20,000 square foot per acre and the county average is 5,000, we may want to
give them something in between that, not what they're requesting, whatever came out to, 327,500. So I just want to
make sure that that's clear to everybody that, you know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because we had the benefit of the PUD and DR!, there are a lot of issues in
those documents that were confusing. I'm making an attempt now to at least minimize the confusion to maximums
not to exceed, but they always have to be rational, and that rationality will come into play when we analyze it prior to
adoption.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct, we understand that. We understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'mjust making it clear, because I was involved in something last month that had
intentions that were told to us supposedly in 2005 that nobody understood, so I want to understand them all from now
on. Anyway, so much for that.
Anybody else have any other questions of anybody in the applicant's, staffs side, or whatever before we close
the public hearing and further discussion, then a motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we will close the public hearing, and we'll have discussion. I don't
mind leading off, if you-all would like.
And there's four items in discussion here, and that is the density increases, which are called lifts in this case,
the preservation quantities and movement that's making that possible, the use of Lords Way as an access to a business
park -- or an access to the project for a possible business park, and the addition -- or the movement -- or the addition,
actually, and movement of 9.16 acres within that activity-center quadrant.
I previously asked the applicant if they had any objection to certain stipulations. The five that I pointed out
were access to the surrounding parcels in the rural area, provide that, show us a cross-section assuring the safety use
of Lords Way and the compatibility issues that would address Lords Way with the other uses that are not their project,
the alternate two-way language that the County Attorney's Office had put on the overhead and worked out, the use of
the improved Lords Way as far as what rights they have to improve that roadway to the element -- to the level that
they have to to use it for a business park access, or for whatever access it's deemed to be, and then the modification of
the Swamp Buggy PUD to remove the target range.
Those are the things that I made notes of. I iterated the issues. Any comments from anybody on the Planning
Commission?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You mentioned remove the target range. I think you had suggested the
possibilities or had suggested --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remove or internalize.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, correct.
Page 43 of 69
16' 1 B 7
January 20,2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, yeah, make it enclosed in a building, so--
Anybody -- Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I still think the mitigation acreage is double dipping, but if
the Conservancy doesn't have a problem with it, who am I to wony about it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there someone that would like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I will.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: May I make a comment?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa -- oh, go ahead. Barry, you're making a comment or a motion?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'm making a comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll go for a motion.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I just want to say that I am in favor of something being done in this area. I've
lived in Naples for 11 years, and I live close to this development. My running route would take me to the intersection.
And I do believe there is a need for additional services in retail, et cetera, in this area.
There's about 7 or 8 miles from Radio Road where Collier is to the north and to the Tamiami Trail to the
south, and right in this middle there's a supermarket, a strip center. There's all kinds of people living in the area. It
has grown. And I think that the commercial development is not only good, it's needed for that area. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Melissa, did you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. I will make a motion to approve CP2006-l1 with your stipulations for
transmittal.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion has been made by Melissa, seconded by Barry.
Richard is standing there with a puzzled look on his face.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I missed -- did she say with staffs language?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. As I stipulated.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As you stipulated, okay.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: No.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's right, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, before we call a vote, I'd like to make sure that staff understands the motion
and it's as complete as it needs to be to provide staff with the direction to come back with a consent agenda
finalization at today's afternoon conclusion. Because it's all being done today.
MS. ASHTON: Was the motion to approve except for the two items that were placed on the visualizer, the
language that was in your Attachment H, what was that, H-l ?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: H-2.
MS. ASmON: H-2.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The latest rendition provided by staff is the September -- or why do I keep saying
September -- January 20th date. That staff presentation was the one that I was going on.
MS. ASmON: That's what you're approving subject to the changes that were placed on the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the exception that staffhad certain recommendations, one of which was not to
transmit. We did not buy on that. We're saying move the quadrant and transmit.
MS. ASmON: Correct.
MR. SCHMIDT: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Or to expand the quadrant and transmit. So that's where we're at. That's the
only change to staffs that I've seen.
Richard, is there any issues there that bother you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We're good. It's Heidi's language on 2A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is.
Page 44 of 69
161 1 B 7
January 20,2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then the extra red language regarding the roadway on Lords Way, that came out.
So everything remained the same in H-2. So it had be -- we're on the same page as to what you should see at the
consent this afternoon. They're very minor changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're looking for.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Very minor, yes. We're on the same page.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Works with the motion maker, works with the second?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 9-0. Thank you. It's a challenge to say the least.
Okay. We normally break at 11:45 and come back at 12:45. We have a boat-dock extension and variance
that's going to be up first. I suggest that we probably handle that at 12:45. Is everybody okay with that? Okay. Let's
break till 12:45. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from the lunch break.
Before we left we had finished off the Hacienda Lakes project till consent discussion later this afternoon.
The Item 9B had been continued earlier today. That's the Little Hickory Shores boat-dock extension.
*** And we have a single boat-dock issue but with two items coming up. I'll read them both because we'll
hear them both together, and then we'll vote on them separately.
The first one is a boat-dock extension, BD-2008-AR-13142, for Paul Schneller at West Pelican Street on Isles
of -- I think it's Isles of Capri, and then the second companion item to that is a variance. It's V A-PL2010-739, same
applicant, same address.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussions on the part of the Planning Commission, or disclosures? I'm sony.
Anybody have --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about discussion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could have both, I assume.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I guess I talked to Rocky. I don't know, but I think it was the other one we
talked about. I don't think it was this one. I did get a piece of correspondence. I can tell you the name in just a
minute. I think we may all have gotten it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, an email.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From Rafael Puente who is --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- wrote to us about a court action involving this particular property. So before we
start with Rocky's presentation, I did look the court action up, and county attorney had done the same thing.
Page 45 of 69
8
~\
161 1
auato, 2011
Heidi, does this have any bearing on this -- on our hearing today?
MS. ASHTON: Well, the letter questions whether the owner has the ownership rights to do what they want
to do. There was a pending civil action. The property owner was named in the action. There were a couple
judgments filed, but there were no judgments that were filed that related to Lot 81.
So I'd just suggest that when you put the owner under oath that you ask him if there are any agreements
pertaining to Lot 81.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. ASHTON: Other than that, I think we proceed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will do. Thank you.
Rocky, it's all yours.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Good afternoon. Rocky Scofield representing Paul Schneller at 39 West Pelican
on Isles of Capri. It's Lot 81.
If everybody's familiar with where this is on -- and it's on Pompano Bay, section back in the comer. We've
had three -- there's been three previous boat docks in this area that have come before you and been approved.
That's the aerial showing the three docks there on the left side and their protrusions into the bay, and then our
proposed dock is the one down at the bottom on the south end. The other three are to the north.
Those boat docks extend out. The adjacent lot, Lots 84 and 85, have a 159-foot extension for a total of 179
feet. The next lot to the north, Lot 86, has 139-foot extension for 159 feet, and then the one furtherest north, Lot 87,
has a 153-foot extension for a total of 173 feet.
The two lots -- the two extensions to the north were measured from the mean high-water line, and then the
one furtherest north was measured back, which was in '05. It was measured all the way back to the property line.
And I'm sure some of you will remember, on these boat-dock extensions, they always -- they were saying at
one point in time we always measure from the most restrictive area. So when that was brought in front of you for that
__ I didn't -- Tim Hancock brought that one for Westlick, LLC. At that point in time the staff said, well, we have to
measure it all the way back to the property line, so that one was measured back to there. The other two were
measured to the mean high-water line.
That's a closer-in shot showing you our proposed dock there on the bottom and the three existing docks that
have been permitted just to the north. That I can -- I'll show you a survey in a minute, but this area back in this comer,
it -- originally when Isles of Capri was built, the platted property line went back all the way back -- you see back
where the mangroves in back of there -- it went back. That was originally all supposed to be dredged out and
seawalled. It was never done, like a lot of Isles of Capri and, therefore, most of Isles of Capri is in the state of aquatic
preserve now. So these were never -- a lot of the seawalls were never put in anywhere on Isles of Capri.
So when we started doing this -- and you've seen this quite a few times in Isles of Capri -- land has accreted
out beyond the property lines. And in order to get a boat dock onto your property, you have to prove riparian rights to
the state that your property does touch the mean high-water line.
So what we've done -- most all of these docks here, all of these have gone through the process, and it's called
a certificate from the state, the Internal Improvement Trust Board, and they -- it's called lands filled prior to 1975.
We have -- we have that certificate in the file. What most of the people do, they prove that that land was
there -- we do it by aerial photographs. We showed it was there before 1975. Then the state gives you a certificate
that says, we have no claim on that land. You can do with it what you want, and most people take that claim or take
that certificate from the state, they go to the county, and they have it in -- then it's put into their deed, and then the
property lines now show that their property extends out to the mean high-water line. That's where these extensions
are measured from. There's a lot more dock coming back through there to get to the upland.
This is Mr. Schneller's lot, and that -- yeah, thank you, Ray.
And that shows you where the property rights extend out to. Now, originally the platted line was back here.
They were all squared off. And now it extends on out to the mean high-water line.
That's a drawing that was done by Tony Trigo, surveyor, back in -- when we were dealing with the Hughes
case back in '96, which established the riparian lines for all of these lots in there. Mr. Schneller is Lot 81 there, back
in the comer.
These lines were done by Tony Trigo, as I said, back then, who -- this has been -- this is what the state has
used ever since then for these riparian lines. That's what all the three docks before us have been permitted to, staying
Page 46 of 69
:"'1
M
\',-t
1611
aZZO,ZOll
within their riparian lines. Two of those docks also had companion variances along with them.
And to -- one to zero -- zero setbacks, and the other one to two-and-a-half-foot setbacks, because it had a little
bit more room.
The Hughes dock -- I could not fmd a variance. He has zero setbacks. That's Lots 84 and 85, just to the north
of Mr. Schneller's.
I did that -- back in '96 was the BDE. And I can't find anywhere in the records where there was a variance
done. And, quite frankly, at that time it probably slipped by everybody, and it was just run through as a BDE, and it
was approved -- it was appealed to the Board of County Commissioners from some of the neighbors back then, but
the Planning Commission's vote was upheld at the BCC, and the resolution -- the BDE was granted in that case.
I'm going to put this -- this is a survey by Trigo that was done. When you opened this hearing in reference to
Mr. Puente, this was the survey done when all of that came about, and Ijust wanted to show you in relationship where
Mr. Schneller's lot is. He's right here. Can you get out? Mr. Schneller's lot is right here. This is Mr. Puente's lot right
here. And if you can make that out, I can zoom in if you want. The discrepancy back then was between Lot 79 and
78 in here.
There was a seawall that was pushed way out to the water line, a seawall put in, and a dock, and it straddled
riparian lines. Back then they thought -- this is just a quick little history, and I don't know if you want to get into it or
not, but if you do, the owner can talk to you about it.
But what Mr. Puente is -- what happened there is the owner of Lot 78, he thought the riparian lines way back
then, they just extended the property lines straight out, which a lot of times it was done back then.
Obviously, in this cove case, that's not the case today. But he thought it was. He extended the -- put in a
seawall out there, put in a dock, which clearly straddles riparian lines. And this was the fight back then that happened
in the lawsuits between those two neighbors.
My client is down here in the comer where there's a Lot 80 even separating, so it doesn't even come into play
with this. I think there was misinformation that everybody -- most everybody around here got dragged into the
lawsuit in one way or another, and people were dismissed. The Schnellers were not part of it.
So that's what -- the letter you received saying there was some discrepancy on riparian rights, but it does not
affect my client's lot.
The criteria on the BDE, we meet all of the primary criteria. We meet five out of the six secondary criteria.
The navigable waterway here -- you'd think I'd learn it after a while, wouldn't you?
There's -- the line underneath, which is 519 feet, that's the open navigable waterway. Where Mr. Schneller's
dock is, it only extends out roughly 20 feet. And if you want to call that navigable water, there's only 2 feet of water
under where Mr. Schneller's boat is going to be moored. So there's clearly over 90 percent of that waterway that's left
open for navigation just like the other docks surrounding it.
So if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi, Rocky. Just one regarding -- and there's a better photograph of what I'd
like to suggest. But even with this one here, would it be possible to put a little right oblique, maybe six-inch jog
before you get out to that convergence to allow for more safety for the mooring of those vessels?
That other photograph you showed rather early on showed just exactly how close those vessels are. And in a
storm, they take a hell of a beating out there anyway. But look at that where you've drawn it. It basically lies against
the hull of the other vessel.
So what I'm asking is, within the limitations that you have, is it possible to put a jog in there that would help?
MR. SCOFIELD: Not really. If you -- the riparian lines -- as you can see there, when we get out there, that's
what we're dealing with. You know, we've got to -- we're just -- we're -- we've only got a few -- a foot or two on each
side of where that boat has to go.
The neighbor is right on the riparian line with his -- with a larger boat. lbis is really the only place that we
can go and -- to get out to that kind of water.
You know, we've -- the last -- I think it's the last 87 feet of this dock is -- violates the seven-and-a-half-foot
setbacks, so we're dealing with a very small area, so that's why we're -- the companion variance will be coming up
next.
But that's what we're dealing with. We're going to be asking for O-line setbacks, O-foot setbacks to the
Page 47 of 69
8
161 1 B 7
January 20,2011
riparian lines here just to get this boat in here.
And Mr. Schneller is -- that's it. You're looking at about a 17-foot skiff that draws about 18 inches of water,
and that's what he's limited to, and he's well aware of that. Mr. Hughes next door is well aware of it, and they--
they're both compatible with it, and they're okay with it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. And I thought I would ask even though it looked like it was
awful tight.
MR. SCOFIELD: It is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it's a shame, but -- all right. Well, they know going in what the realities
are.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Rocky, the -- this site is Lot 81?
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. When you look to the left of that site, there's 82, I'm sure. How are
those people going to get a dock out?
MR. SCOFIELD: Eighty-two can't.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They can't. So it's not even considered right now a boat dock.
MR. SCOFIELD: No, they don't. They have --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Eighty-two and, I think, eighty-three.
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, here. If you see 82, you see those double lines.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's their riparian lines. They cannot. They can't have a boat dock or anything in there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. No, that's all--
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So there was no accommodation made in the beginning to make sure that
everybody could get out?
MR. SCOFIELD: No, there was not. See, originally, if you look at those property lines, if you look at the
old, old plats of Isles of Capri, that's where it was going to be dredged back to, and then, you know -- well, even then,
82 could not have had a dock, even if they put the seawalls back there, so they're out.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And 84 is one of the three we see already, right?
MR. SCOFIELD: Eighty-four and eighty-five are combined. Mr. Hughes owns both lots, and that was the
first extension, so his dock straddles the property lines. So he owns both lots.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
Rocky, I -- one of the aerials you have shows the lines extending out, the riparian lines, with the -- Mr.
Schneller's boat at the end of it, but it also shows the boat next door. I think you said it's owned by a guy named
Hughes.
MR. SCOFIELD: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: His boat's clearly over that riparian line, which is pushing up against, really, Mr.
Schneller's lot. You see that big white boat? I mean, it looks a bit oversized for the amount of area he has, because the
amount of area he has is pretty close to what your applicant seems to have. So how did that happen?
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I can tell you that it's -- you know, surveying that and getting things exactly right is
a tough situation. What I can tell you is that Mr. Hughes and Mr. Schneller are completely aware of this.
When these -- when this came about for Mr. Schneller going in, Jim Hughes came to him and saw that his
piling was over the line for his boat, and he offered -- he said, "If it's a problem, I will move it." Mr. Schneller said, "I
don't mind it. It's okay." And he said -- but he is aware of it. It's a little bit over the line. It's -- and Mr. Schneller's --
they've agreed to it, and Hughes has given him a letter of no objection and likewise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do Mr. Hughes' dock?
MR. SCOFIELD: I did the -- I brought it to -- I didn't do all the original work, but I did bring it before the
county for the BDE.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm saying is, if you had done it, wouldn't your length of extension gone
Page 48 of 69
7 \,1
1 6 I 1 JaBary 20,2011
out past the front of the boat where this one -- where the boat now goes out past the extension in this case, and is that
the boat size that you did it for, because that's maybe a bigger boat -- certainly a bigger boat than what Mr. Schneller's
got? And I'm just wondering why we would have approved -- why somebody would have approved it.
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, I can tell you -- he has two lots, so he has double the riparian line -- width there, and
it's even -- his is a little bit wider. He has two lots worth of riparian lines, which they're zeroed on.
That line I showed -- the blowup I just showed you a minute ago, we used the same measurement lines.
Now, you've got to -- you've got to take into account these are aerials, and we try to rectify them. These
measurements can be within 10 feet when we show -- you know, when we show you an aerial like this. Because
when you look at this one blown out and we use that same line measurement of 179 feet, it appears to go to the front
of the boat.
So I shouldn't say 10 feet -- it 10Qks like a discrepancy of maybe 4 feet. But, you know, these are aerials shot
up, and it's hard to get it exactly rectified. . But they're within -- they're pretty close.
Now, whether he sticks out beyotld that or not, I have not had it sur- -- we haven't had it surveyed, but they're
all aware of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going by what you had supplied in that aerial, so --
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The variance application is being considered simultaneously, so do you have
anything you want to add for the variance aspects? I mean, I think you explained it all, but you said you were going
to talk about that next, but I thought you already addressed it, so --
MR. SCOFIELD: Again, that's the only thing -- I've shown you that. That's the only thing I would show you
on the variance where the boat is, and we're just asking for -- from the seven-and-a-half foot required to zero, which
has been granted before, so we can get the boat in there. That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Rocky.
Mr. Schneller is here. Can I ask him one question, please, sir. If you could come up to the microphone,
identify yourself for the record. And you were sworn in, I believe, at the beginning.
MR. SCHNELLER: Yes, sir. My name is Paul Schneller. I live at the residence, 39 Pelican Street West.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We all do what our attorneys tell us to do, and our county attorney suggested we ask
you if there are any agreements on this property that involve a -- this dock situation or your property in regards to the
riparian lines or anything of that nature.
MR. SCHNELLER: No, none whatsoever. Jim and I have spoke about it. I was aware that the one pile on
the end is right on my riparian lines.
Suggestion, that that's one of the poles I'll tie my boat off of if I need to, he said. And Jim and I get along
great, as well as many of the other neighbors, and there's no discrepancy here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the issue with the -- was raised involving the court case that Mr. Puente,
I believe, sent us a letter on.
MR. SCHNELLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That case didn't seem to involve your property. We just want assurances that you
have no -- you have no re- -- there's been nothing as a result of that case or any similar case that involves your
property in any way?
MR. SCHNELLER: No, nothing. There was a case that the neighbors brought in -- because we have a
deeded right to the property when I had bought it. We had researched it before we had bought it.
From my understanding in the courts, the Hugos, who own the property, and two other residents were
dismissed before the judgment came, which was not involving the riparian lines, but the two neighbors on the other
lots and their side lot.
So what my neighbors were looking for, that I didn't want to come and take their properties, that was all
resolved. And as everybody in the back -- they're all neighbors, we all talk, and everybody's fme with everything
right now.
Mr. La Puente (sic), I believe, was upset on the judgment, which his letter did not reflect the true judgment
that the Court came down with. My wife had researched that before we moved into the house, as well as this morning
Page 49 of 69
161 1
El
January 20, ::011
for two hours to retrieve what the verdict of that judgment was with La Puente (sic) and Hugo, and we weren't ev( n
mentioned in it, we were never summonsed, we weren't a part of it, and it did not -- and the land prior to us owning it
was released from that suit before.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that satisfy you, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON: Yes, it does. And I just wanted to note for the record, the other judgment that I found, it was
a different case number, 05-l4l9CA. It involved the Hughes and the Schnellers, and it's recorded in OR Book 43(16,
Page 1296. And in there it expressly states that it doesn't affect the property located between the boundary of the
Schnellers' platted lot in Pompano Bay, and that was a 2007 different action but same parties, some of the same
parties.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time.
Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a staff report?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal plmmer
with the Department of Land Development Services.
And staff is recommending approval of both the boat-dock extension and the variance for this particular
petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's nice and short. Thank you, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've had a long day already, and we've only been through basically one case, W --
any questions of the staff at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public registered to speak?
MR. BELLOWS: No one is registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a
motion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. We've got to have two motions, by the way, one first on the boat dock
and then another one on the variance.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the boat dock, yes.
Well, I'll make the motion that Petition BD-2008-AR-13142, Schneller dock, be approved according to staff
recommendations.
And I would make a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's take that motion first.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the first one?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON: When we spoke the other day, you wanted to add some language that a condition that
pertained to the '82 -- 1982 ordinance be added into this resolution.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That was for the other boat dock, the one that got continued.
MS. ASHTON: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one doesn't pertain to that.
MS. ASHTON: Okay. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion has been made, seconded by Barry.
Any discussion?
Page 50 of 69
1611 E;7
January 20, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Murray, did you want to make the next one?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Petition V A201O-739, Schneller variance, the companion item, and I offer
that for approval.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'd second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made, and seconded by Ms. Ebert.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Thank you. Long wait for a short item.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Hey, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes, sir?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm just wondering on these companion items if there's any way to reduce
some of the redundancy. It seems like we got basically duplicate packets for the same -- all of the same information
twice. It just didn't seem --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's staffs call. Staff'?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- necessary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the record has to be clear for both. So if someone looks up a variance,
they're going to fmd one record in one document -- or one section, and if they look up a boat-dock extension, they'll
find another. So that may be part of this.
MR. BELLOWS: That's exactly the main reason. But I will look at redundant information. I agree with you
wholeheartedly. Some of it can be provided for the main one, which would be the extension.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. The item up is what I think the most people have been waiting for. It's
-
tt
Page 51 of 69
16 1 1 8 7
January 20,2011
CP-20l0-1. It's a Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan modification. It's for a project at the
corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road.
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 behalf of the Planning Commission?
Anybody? Go ahead, Ms. Homiak.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich, the gentleman from Ever, Mr. Nelson, Wayne
Arnold, I spoke to the neighborhood association, a whole group of people. I don't remember all your names, but
they're all in the audience. So that's about it. All the issues I discussed will be probably discussed here today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I guess I should say I was told I was going to talk to Mr. Y ovanovich, but I did
not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, whoever wants to make the presentation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. And
with me today is Doug Nelson, who represents Ever Bank, and Wayne Arnold, with Grady Minor & Associates, who
is the professional planner on the project.
In front of you today is basically an amendment to the Vanderbilt Beach Road neighborhood commercial
subdistrict, which was approved in 2005 by the Board of County Commissioners. And on the visualizer is an aerial
identifying that subdistrict. As you can see the subdistrict, it was originally approved as two separate parcels. You
had a Parcell, which was the parcel at the intersection of Livingston Road, which runs in the north/south direction,
and Vanderbilt Beach Road, which goes in the east/west direction.
Parcell was approved for C1 through C3 uses at a maximum intensity of 100,000 square feet, and Parcel 2
was adopted as also C1 through C3 type uses with an intensity of up to 80,000 square feet, and also on that parcel we
could put senior housing.
As we were going through the original subdistrict process of getting adopted, there were concerns raised
regarding landscaping, architecture, noise as we were going through the original adoption process. And if you look at
the existing subdistrict language, you will see that for both Parcels 1 and 2, when we came through with the zoning
process, we were required to address specifically landscaping and architecture.
And in particular on Parcell -- Parcel 2 it is, I'm sorry -- Parcel 2, which is the parcel to the east, as can you
see we have residential on our east boundary, which is part of Wilshire Lakes. We were required to address hours of
operation and noise-related issues for Parcel 2 because of our close proximity to residential.
So when we came through and did the zoning, on Parcel 2 is senior housing. There is no commercial on that
piece, on Parcel 2 next to the residential. And then on Parcel 1 we've come through, and it's already zoned Bradford
Square, consistent with the Compo Plan amendment.
As we went through the original process, at the adoption hearing in front of the Board of County
Commissioners, we were asked about big-box stores on either of these parcels. At the time -- there is no definition of
big box in the LDC. We looked at what could we use as a measuring standard for big box, and the architectural
standards, I believe, at 20,000 square feet apply a different standard. And that's where that 20,000-square-foot
standard came in for "No individual user can exceed 20,000 square feet."
So we agreed to that condition as part of the original Growth Management Plan amendments. The -- at the
time this project was going through, we envisioned a boutique-type shopping center. The reality is that the market has
changed, and those boutique-type shopping centers aren't really making a go of it.
Ever Bank owns the property. They took it back. They didn't want it back but they got it back, and they're
looking at what can -- what can they do within reason to make the property more valuable, and as the property
. increases in value, I believe the quality of the tenants also come along with the increase in value.
And in marketing the project, the 20,000-square-foot limitation has been raised by prospective purchasers.
So we've submitted a Comprehensive Plan amendment to request a change to the commercial subdistrict to
allow a limited number of uses to exceed the 20,000-square-foot limitation and go up to a maximum of50,000 square
feet.
Page 52 of 69
16 I 1 Ja}lZ2011 ,j
And they're the uses you would fmd in a typical neighborhood shopping center. We've asked for a grocery
store, physical fitness facility, a craft hobby store, a furniture store, and a department store to be those only -- only
those five uses can exceed the 20,000-square-foot limitation that's currently in the Growth Management Plan.
All of those uses are already allowed uses on the property. They're just simply capped at that
20,000-square-foot -- 20,000-square-foot cap.
We've had two or three or maybe more meetings with the surrounding neighborhoods. We have Tiburon to
our north, we have -- is it Verona Walk -- Village Walk. I always get the Divosta ones wrong -- but Village Walk to
our south, and Wilshire Lakes.
So we've had meetings with representatives of the various properties, and we have come up with a list of
prohibited uses to include in the Comprehensive Plan amendment, because there was concerns about uses that could
go in on that property, together with the 50,000-square-foot use.
So we've provided a copy of the list of prohibited uses to your staff and to our neighbors. I believe we got the
list of prohibited uses correct, and we would be prepared to add that list of prohibited uses to the Comprehensive Plan
language. There already are a list of some prohibited uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you give us copies?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do we have copies for everybody? We can get some copies made real quick if that's
-- we thought we could do it through the visualizer, but if we need to make --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before the meeting -- before we get done, I'd like to have a copy for my folder.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure, okay. Yeah. We have a couple of extra copies that we can give you right now.
But we were going through, and some of these uses are presently allowed on the property both through the
Comprehensive Plan and through the existing zoning on the property, so we are -- this list of prohibited uses would
actually take away some of the uses that are already allowed on the property.
And I'm not going to read all of them to you. But going through the first page, there's veterinary services,
there was some concern about bigger animals, so we listed that as a prohibited use. Animal specialty services.
There's -- as you go through the SIC code book, as you all are aware, there are a lot of uses. And we sat down with
the neighbors and went through the SIC code book, and this list of prohibited uses is the list of -- now that we've all
sat down and gone through the list of the book, these are the uses they have asked us to take out. Poultry dealers, they
don't want retail nursery, they didn't want auto home and specialty stores, generally. There are some specific specialty
stores that are allowed, but no outdoor repairs.
If you've had a chance to look at that, I'll go to the next page. We've eliminated drinking places, we've
capped the size ofliquor stores. There are no used merchandise stores allowed any longer. Automatic merchandising
machine operations are prohibited. Power laundries are out, coin-operated laundries are out, dry-cleaning plants are
out. And some of these were, you know, allowed under the current zoning, so they're out now. A host of
miscellaneous personal services are eliminated.
Then we get down to business services. A lot of these are the general catchall categories in the SIC codes.
That's eliminated. Refrigeration and air-conditioning repairs are out.
So as you could see, a lot of these more intense, or I would -- I don't want to use the word "industrial,"
because I don't know whether that's right either, but more intense uses have been eliminated and are shown now as
prohibited uses within the district.
We believe that by adding this list of prohibited uses, it protects the neighbors from not -- a bad use going
onto the property that could, you know, affect the value and appearance and aesthetics of the center.
We believe that addresses the concerns. There's existing zoning on the property which has extensive buffers
in it, it has architectural standards on those. We're not asking you to change anything that's currently allowed under
the zoning document.
Ifwe do decide to increase the square footage from the 20,000-square-foot cap, we would have to come back
and go through the PUD amendment process, so there's -- there is another step that we would have to go through that
involves the public in the process, including changing the master plan. So all of that would have to go through a
public-hearing process.
We have provided a letter to our -- the neighbors acknowledging -- thanking them for working with us, and
we do appreciate their working with us, but also acknowledging that, you know, when we come back through the
process, we know they may have concerns depending upon what we put on here with noise. We told them we can't
Page 53 of 69
1611 8 7
January 20,2011
change the architecture without basic getting their approval, because we'd have to amend the PUD to do that. We'd
have to amend the PUD to change the buffers.
To do all that -- we know that they have concerns regarding basically noise, hours of operations, and things of
that, if we do make the change, and we're committed to working with them to address -- or to -- one person doesn't
like the word "address," but to address their concerns to hopefully everybody's satisfaction.
With that, that's the overall view of what we're asking. The intensity of the center's really not changing. It
stays at 100,000 square feet. It's just trying to change the 20,000-square-foot cap for those five uses to allow up to
50,000 square feet for those five uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think a lot of our questions may hinge upon the comments from the public and
staff. So why don't we proceed with the rest of the presentations.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: This is a nine-acre site; is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, nine or so.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi?
MS. ASHTON: Ijust need to make a statement. The handout I've seen, like, one minute before we resumed
from lunch, just like you-all. So if there are any problems with the SIC code, we can take care of them between
transmittal and adoption.
But the way this is written is a little bit different of what I was verbally told by staff, because the way this is
written is, as soon as this is adopted, those uses are prohibited on Parcell regardless of whether you do the 50,000
increase or not; is that what's intended?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct, that's correct, yes.
MS. ASHTON: Then I think that if -- when you go forward with adoption, you're going to have to have the
PUD amendment at the same time as the adoption; otherwise, you're going to have a Growth Management Plan that
differs from the PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- that's not unusual. I mean, there are other instances where the Growth
Management Plan prohibits uses on property, and it's not clearly spelled out that way.
If we need to -- if we need to put something in either the text language to make that clear that those uses are
no longer allowed uses on the property, we're willing to do that. We're also willing to record a deed restriction on the
property to address that concern as well.
There's just -- frankly, there's just no way for me to do a PUD amendment and get it through the process by
the adoption hearing, timewise.
MS. ASHTON: Because the way I see it, there are two options. Either the additional prohibited uses kick in
if you exceed the 20,000 square feet, or you do a PUD amendment. I'm not really sure how else Nick's staff, Jamie's
staff, can administratively process it once -- if you have a preexisting PUD. But I'll give that to them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first I heard that you weren't going to modify the PUD was when I met
with you that day; what was it, Tuesday?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We met early in the morning, and you had -- I didn't realize that you hadn't intended
to modify the PUD until you said so then. I don't know how to -- I don't know how to protect the neighborhood and
work it out without some way of assuring that this doesn't happen as a result of the PUD being in conflict with the
GMP. I'm trying to fmd a solution and--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I am also. Well, let me --let me take it a -- I haven't said we are not -- I haven't said
we're not amending the PUD. I said there's -- if we decide to take advantage ofthe additional square footage,
eliminate the cap, we absolutely have to amend the PUD'
Right now we don't know if we have a potential buyer who needs the extra square footage, or if we have to
make changes to the master plan, we would have to amend the PUD. So there are other opportunities that may kick
us into the need to do a PUD master plan.
So I don't want to say we're not going to do a PUD amendment, but I also didn't want people to say, you're
Page 54 of 69
161 1
7
January 20,2011
absolutely required to do a PUD amendment through this process, because we're not.
Now, we're trying to work with our neighbors to assure them that these uses won't appear on the property.
There are other mechanisms to do this. One is to record a deed restriction on the property to the benefit of our
neighbors. We can do that so they themselves could say, hey, Rich, even though the PUD still has that use in there
and even though the Growth Management Plan says you can't have it, the belt-and-suspenders approach could be to
give them a deed restriction that they can further assure themselves that if there's a mistake, they have a remedy
against the property owner if we were to put in a bar. They themselves would have a remedy through the
deed-restriction route.
We are committed to making sure that these people will not get these list of prohibited uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like the fact that you're offering the uses -- the restrictions up regardless of
whether or not you modify the PUD for the 20,000 or 50,000.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So right away it's a given for the neighborhood. It's a positive for them because
these uses get restricted.
For that reason alone, it's important we figure out a way to make this work. And maybe Michele can shed
some light on it, since she was the person reviewing it for the county. I know you've had these documents much
longer than we have, which has been a whole minute, so that means you've had them for two.
Do you see a way this could work?
MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning staff.
I just spoke with Heidi, and she had suggested the restrictive covenant. I had suggested possibly, if the
amendment is adopted, that there's a specific time frame after adoption which the PUD would have to be amended to
reflect the prohibited uses that are being proposed in the Growth Management Plan, but I defmitely defer to legal
staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the sunset time on the current PUD; do you know?
MS. ASHTON: I think it's five years.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I can't tell you for exact sure, because there was an am- -- there was an
ordinance adopted by the county that included a tolling period for PUDs, and I haven't done the calculation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The ordinance was adopted --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In '07.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in April 24th of2007. And I believe -- what is it, three or five years?
MR. BELLOWS: Under the new LDC amendment, it's five years.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which would put it into '12, but in the interim there was another ordinance adopted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that ordinance had to be -- you had to apply for the extension. It didn't -- it
wasn't automatic at least --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, there was one--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was a county --
MR. BELLOWS: -- initiated by Mr. Joe Schmitt that, for those active PUDs between May of2008 through
2012, you could be vested or have your PUD extended up to May of 20 12.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the answer, so I don't want to misrepresent. It's -- at the earliest it's
2012.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, what I'm getting at, if you were coming up for sunset, it would take care of it.
You'd have to revise the PUD anyway, or ask for an extension. The extension clearly wouldn't be going -- wouldn't
be needed without revising the PUD. But that's out the door.
But the restrictive covenant would be a practical way to go?
MS. ASHTON: Well, it doesn't address the staff error, but it does provide another layer of restriction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that could be something we could ask as a stipulation prior to adoption,
or at the time of adoption?
MS. ASHTON: Y eah. You could ask them to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That could give the opportunity--
MS. ASHTON: -- record it.
Page 55 of 69
161 1
81
January 20,2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the neighborhood to sign off on it and endorse it, and then you come back with
your signatures, and we'd be good to go at that point.
Then the restrictions for these prohibited uses would be in place. You'd option to go to 50,000, and it would
be there if you wanted it. But regardless, the neighborhood benefits from the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. They get these prohibited uses now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions? Well, let's have -- are you done with your presentation?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any more questions of the applicant before we go to staff'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, come on up. Tell us about all your studying of this new application that
you've had for two minutes.
MS. MOSCA: Well, actually, I'm probably going to follow Nancy's -- Nancy Gundlach's lead and be very
short.
Staff is -- staff supports the proposed Growth Management Plan because of its limited scope and impacts.
The agent has pretty much addressed all of the specifics regarding the Compo Plan amendment, the change from
50,000 to -- I mean, I'm sorry -- 20,000 up to 50,000 for five specific commercial users.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, yeah, it's pretty straightforward, and I like the solution. I think that's
good that the staff will be willing to work to get this accomplished. It will be good for the neighborhood.
So anybody else have any questions of staff before we hear from public speakers?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I want to hear from public speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where I was going.
Those -- I guess, Paul, you're the only one that was going to speak. You're more than welcome to come up.
And if anybody else does want to speak after Paul, just acknowledge, and we'll call you, and you're more than
welcome to speak.
MR. FEUER: I'd like to thank you and the members of the Planning Commission.
MR. BELLOWS: Would you state your name, please.
MR. FEUER: My name is Paul Feuer. I'm the president of the Village Walk Homeowners' Association, and
today I'll be speaking on behalf of not only Village Walk, but on behalf of Wilshire Lakes, Tiburon, and the Orchards.
Again, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak.
We've held, as Mr. Y ovanovich has said, a series of meetings, very productive in terms of coming to
agreements on the non-uses of the property, which I believe he laid out quite well.
However, we did prepare a mission statement which we turned over to Mr. Y ovanovich that outlined our
major concerns, which we requested that Ever Bank agree to in principle.
They have assured us in writing that they will work cooperatively to respond to our concerns but did not
agree in principal to the mission statement that we did provide them with.
So, if I may, for the record, I would just like to address what our concerns are and then read our proposed
mission statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most certainly. Go ahead.
MR. FEUER: The parcel of land, for your information, as shown by Rich before, is directly in the middle of
several pristine residential communities. Each one was designed carefully and integrated carefully with a pleasant
atmosphere.
Among these communities is the highly regarded Tiburon Golf Course, which is designated as a certified
Audubon cooperative. Parts of this course border directly on this parcel of land. So you have the golf course directly
behind it with the lakes and homes, million-dollar homes that are going up directly behind it.
It is for this reason we requested the petitioner to agree with the following mission statement. We didn't need
anything legal or -- just in principle that they would agree.
One, every effort would be made by the developer to ensure that the location and configuration of the
structures as well as all detached components and all used (sic) thereto, such as dumpsters, will be designed to ensure
for the least amount of odor, noise, and disturbance to the surrounding communities.
Two, the hours of delivery and pick-up for the various users of the parcel will be established to adequately
serve the users while at the same time not create unreasonable noise, however so -- howsoever caused, and
Page 56 of 69
16 I 1 JanE2o(11 ·
disturbances to the surrounding communities, particularly the communities to the north and east. Reasonable being
defmed as no noise or disturbance during normal sleeping hours; otherwise, no noise or disturbance which would
interfere with the enjoyment of the adjacent homeowners' property, i.e., noise, odor, site lines.
The designated hours should allow for efficient and effective receipt and return of goods for the users without
sacrificing the comfort and quality of life for the surrounding communities.
Three, the location of any and all dumpsters will be based upon ensuring that they will not be an eyesore to
the surrounding communities and will be located at a distance far enough to adequately preclude any odors of vermin
from reaching the nearby residential units and will be enclosed.
Four, every effort will be made by the developer to ensure that the architectural theme shall be similar or
equal to the previously approved MPUD, which had established a mediterranean theme. The roofs would be pitched
and have barrel tile or similar material.
While the developer cannot guarantee the same exact architectural theme, the petitioner agrees that whatever
theme that is offered by the developer will be attractive, appealing, and complementary with the surrounding
communities.
And lastly, the landscaping, buffer zones, berms, lakes, setbacks, including the required preserve of 15
percent native vegetation, as well as the retained preserve vegetation as stipulated in the original approved MPUD,
will remain essentially the same as previously approved with possible minor changes that will have little or no effect
on the overall appearance of the development.
In conjunction with this, there shall remain a 75-foot buffer zone to the north comprised of present vegetation
subject to statutory and regulatory exception, as well as reasonable similar buffer zone to the northern one-half of the
east border of the properties.
If we can be assured that the bank and the developer will agree in principle with our statement, our
community would be only too happy to agree to the request that's being made.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before you leave, Paul, there's a couple things I'd like to mention to you.
The -- I understand your mission statement, but there's -- on a GMP level, there's no way for us to inteIject the issues
in your mission statement into this.
Now, some of those could be addressed in zoning, which is like your PUD. But if they don't modify the
PUD, that opportunity won't arise very quickly. There are other items that you mention that are already covered in
our code, noise and litter and things -- vermin, things like that our code already address either through our Code of
Laws or our Land Development Code.
And some of the language that you phrased would be difficult for anybody to sign. When you say, every
possible way or every -- they'll do it to every extent possible, "every" is a very ambiguous term, and most attorneys
won't touch that with a lO-foot pole, because what you think is "every" might be different than what I think.
But I also see an opportunity for your organization to work closely with the applicant to get this deed
restriction written in a manner that makes you feel more comfortable for those items in a practical way. And I would
suggest -- and Richard's pretty knowledgeable about our code -- sometimes too knowledgeable -- but he could go
through and find elements of the code, either in the Code of Laws or the Land Development Code, to assure you
during the process of reviewing the deed restriction that addresses these prohibited uses that either your issue is
covered or, to the extent it's not offered, a compromise can be reached in a paragraph in the deed restriction.
I think if that happened, by the time it got to adoption, you-all would feel more comfortable, and then we
could feel more comfortable at that phase.
That's the best, I think, we can come up with as a solution to what you're proposing.
Go ahead. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That, of course, is very good guidance to you. It occurs, too, that the
possibility of a memorandum of understanding that you might have with the developer that would include some of
those and be more particular in their intent and purpose.
MR. FEUER: Right. In all fairness to Rich, everything that you both said, he had already told us. We
needed the comfort feeling of at least bringing it to the Planning Commission's attention, and that's the reason for
putting the mission statement together.
I like the idea of a memorandum of understanding, and I would like to work with Rich on that if we can,
Page 57 of 69
1611 87 ~"~~
January 20,2011
something that would be agreed to by both parties.
But thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for today, I think in the best interest of your community, I think this board--
to accept the proposals today for the language change backed up by a deed restriction to be successfully endorsed
before the adoption hearing or at the time of the adoption hearing -- I think that gets you where you need to be, and
you'd be in a better position than you are in today. So that's where we might be going.
So, thank you very much.
MR. FEUER: I thank the commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of anybody at this time?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where this property lies is pretty much -- is all around family units. This is not
a mixed-use activity center. It's just a neighborhood commercial development.
I thought 20,000 square feet -- because I was going through the records -- it was a big deal in front of the
BCC, and they limit it to 20,000 square feet.
So with you coming along and asking for -- you know, not increasing over a hundred, but asking for larger,
I'm just wondering if the neighborhood around there is comfortable with going with a 50,000-square-foot building.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. FEUER: You're asking us if, under those circumstances --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to come up to the record -- to the microphone, Paul. Thank you.
MR. FEUER: Your question is a good one, because our concern was to get the word to Commissioner
Henning, who is very concerned about the big-box theory.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
MR. FEUER: And I did send Commissioner Henning an email notifying him of the results of all our
discussions, how we've been working together, how we've arrived at an agreement in principle on a number of things,
and suggested that if we could get the Planning Commission to, again, approve this, that we would want his support as
well, meaning that we would go along with the proposed amendment to 50,000 square feet under those terms and
conditions.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's -- just one of the things, because in reading this, this was a big
subject in front of the BCC that day, and the only thing is a grocery store, you are so close to a main activity center
where there is so much vacancy. You have Publix just down the street. You have everything with -- that is convenient
right in the area, so I was a little concerned about --
MR. FEUER: You are correct.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- the big-box theory also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, before you walk away, Heidi, this idea of a deed restriction -- and I know it
may come up after the meeting. We know who the applicant is. Who would be the other signer on the deed
restriction?
MS. ASHTON: Well, it would be by whoever the owner is, which I understand is Evergreen. It would be a
declaration of restrictions, and it would prohibit the following uses, and it would be for the benefit of --
MR. FEUER: The four communities.
MS. ASHTON: We have to decide which communities -- or I guess Rich can work out with them which
communities would be included in that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think you can do that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. And frankly, I think that that's to their benefit, because should we decide --
you know, we find out, you know what, we've got -- one of the prohibited uses makes some sense, I've got to go
coordinate with them, not just you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm not saying that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, I'm saying I have to coordinate with them and convince them, so I think that
the deed restriction is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't want someone coming back here later on from the public and another
community who's saying, wait a minute, we didn't sign that. I'd rather -- just to make sure it's all covered.
Page 58 of 69
~ J 6 I lanl1o,ll
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would -- I expect that it would be our -- it would be Village Walk, Wilshire Lakes,
and Tiburon. Those are our immediate neighbors.
MR. FEUER: And the Orchards.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Orchards, okay. Everybody who -- there was representatives from all of the groups.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as you feel --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We aren't going to be selective in who we pick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Paul.
MR. FEUER: Can I just make one point?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. FEUER: Because the question that may come up by the commission would be, how come all of a
sudden we are asking for these uses to be eliminated? Why didn't we do it the first time around.
And so for the benefit of the commission, the first time around when we were proposed Bradford Square, the
only thing we were aware of at the time is was what they came to with us and told you they were building.
We knew exactly what we were getting. The layout was there. We had no idea of all these SIC codes that
could be used later on in the event that wasn't built. Somehow, in all fairness to the communities for the future, if
something's going to be built, we should know up front. I take the hit because I assumed that this is exactly what we
-- what we saw is what we were getting.
And the Turner sisters worked quite closely with us, as well as Rich, in putting the plan together, getting the
full approval. As a matter of fact, we applauded their efforts on this.
So the concern that I have is, in the future, if there's going to be any changes, I think the community needs to
be well aware of these SIC codes and the fact that there's a number of things that could, in fact, be put in there other
thanjust what you're seeing on the rendering.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Thank you, Paul.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Mr. Chairman, may I make --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Barry.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: May I make one -- just comment as some advice for the people who are asking
for the changes? I've been in the shopping-center business for almost four decades, and I have been, for the most part,
successful. And I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and I commend you and I commend the attorney to -- for
you to -- you know, to work together.
No matter what happens, you cannot legislate how a shopping center's going to turn out. So just remember
that. Sometimes what you want might come true as far as what -- your restrictions, but you also don't want to have
ten vacancies.
I think you did make a very good move by allowing the up-to-50,000 square foot, because that size shopping
center you need an anchor tenant, and 20,000 won't make it for any kind of supermarket anymore.
But good luck. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Ijust wanted to put in the record that the county doesn't enforce deed restrictions, but we
can reference that through our computer tracking system to flag the lot so any future development that comes in, we'll
reference this Compo Plan amendment and those deed restrictions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fair enough.
Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of staff'? Oh -- yeah, everybody's done, so anybody have any
questions at all?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. We'll have
discussion fIrst.
The only note that I have is the reference to a deed restriction being enacted at the time we redo this for
adoption relevant to the uses that were prohibitive and any other issues that, you know, they put into that deed
restriction.
So anybody have any comments, questions.
Ms. Caron?
Page 59 of 69
16' 1
January 20,2011
l"'"
7
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just to remind the public that essentially the deed restriction puts the onus hack
on them, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's basically--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- because we don't enforce them as the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the deed restriction, I would suggest, would be a placeholder until the pun is
modified, if it is modified. If it gets modified, you could really deal with all the issues you need to at the PUD level,
so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And let's not forget, there's a very specific PUD master plan in place that we believe
addressed every one of the concerns they raised in their mission statement in great detail, and there was some
ambiguous language. The concepts weren't ambiguous, but -- how do we get to an agreement was a little ambiguous,
and that's why, as Mr. Strain pointed out, I was reluctant to sign on the dotted line, if you will, because we believe the
PUD already addresses those concerns. And any change would have to go through a very public process.
But we're committed to the deed restriction on the uses, and we'll look at the other issues to the extent we can
include them in those deed restrictions, if we can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did print out your PUD, and it did actually have an architectural rendering in
it, which is advantageous to the neighborhood as well, so that does tie that project to that rendering, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. I mean, there -- I think it's a pretty safe PUD regarding architecture and buffer
uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we had a lot of safe things until recently.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll call for a motion. Does anybody wish to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve CP-201O-1 with the amended language and the deed
restrictions.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.
Any discussion?
Barry made the second.
Your voice was so recognized, Barry, I didn't need to say your name. The amended language being that
language that was presented on the screen involving the prohibitive uses and the up-to-50,000 square-foot uses and
the deed restriction we talked about.
So with that, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
***Okay. Next item up is CPSP-2010-2. It's a petition requesting amendments to the FLUE and to modify
the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle overlay. It's proposed by staff.
David is up again.
MR. WEEKS: Afternoon, Commissioners. Again, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section for
Page 60 of 69
16 I 1 JanSry2lo11
the county.
Commissioners, when you discussed this previously on December 16th of last year, after your discussion, this
item was continued to today's hearing, and my notes reflect there were five issues or items of discussion, the first of
which pertained to Policy 5.1, which is found on Pages 1 and 2 of your staff report, provided for the last hearing, and
the second was pertaining to the office and infill commercial subdistrict which is found on Page 2 of that staff report.
And in response to those two areas of discussion, a revised text was provided to you, I think about a week
ago, with your packets for today's hearing. It's just a two-sided single sheet of paper. And that contains the revised
language for Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element and, again, the office and infill commercial subdistrict.
And staff worked closely with the County Attorney's Office. And, in fact, I'll give Heidi her due. I'd say she
did -- pretty much did the writing itself. And it's much more concise and, I think, clear than the original versions
provided to you.
And I'll stop there in case there's any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, just to be sure it says, "The property may be combined and
developed." The intent really is to make sure the properties are adjacent and everything. Could that ever be
misconstrued to be properties that are not contiguous? I mean--
MR. WEEKS: Well, I would say no because I don't know how you can combine properties that aren't
adjacent. I mean, if you have --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I could legally combine things that aren't adja- -- I mean, it's -- I guess
it's a legal answer. If it's clear, it's clear. If it's not, let's make it clear.
Heidi? I mean--
MS. ASHTON: I think that if you try to clarify it, you're just going to create some confusion. I think if you
can put the -- create the legislative history, that the intention is that it be properties that are adjacent, that helps.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, what if a property's across the street? That's adjacent, isn't
that, in our definition?
MS. ASHTON: I mean, we could put, "With other adjacent property," or "contiguous property," whatever
language you want to use. Any property --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we have -- don't we have a definition for adjoining and adjacent?
Isn't adjacent across a street?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Abutting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Abutting.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And then abutting would not allow for an intervening street.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And abutting is what you were really talking about here.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Heidi was saying adjacent, so she's actually saying they don't have to
be contiguous.
MS. ASHTON: Okay. Well, then you could put "with other abutting property," so that would be the end of
the first line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But maybe -- would we want properties that are across the street? Would
that make sense ever or --
MR. WEEKS: That's not what we had in mind.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: So if I'm clear, we would simply, at the end of the fIrst line on this new paragraph, D, in
between the words "others" and "property," we would insert the word "abutting."
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Abutting, yes.
Okay. Any other questions in the fIrst part that David presented to us? If not, David, you want to move on.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. The next area at issue pertaining to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment
Overlay -- and there was some discussion about the proposed deletion of the 14 feet-per-story height limitation and
also some discussion about the proposed use, theater use.
And you have not been provided with any revised language, because staff does not believe any is necessary.
First of all, the existing overlay does allow C1 through C3 uses, and within the C3 zoning district, a movie
Page 61 of 69
16 IJant2o~o]
theater is allowed by conditional use. So the movie theater use is already covered.
And furthermore, the implementing zoning overlay, both of them, the Bayshore mixed-use district zoning
overlay and the Gateway Triangle mixed-use district zoning overlay, both include movie theater as an allowed use. I
think it's by conditional use but, again, it is allowed in those zoning overlays.
Secondly, the specific language that is proposed, the specific mouthful of a term pertaining to the theater use,
was very deliberately chosen by staff because it is -- it is the exact language that is used in the standard industrial
classification manual. And the reason for wanting to use that language directly is so that we have a frame of
reference. There's no question about what uses are allowed. We'd go right to the SIC manual, and we look at that
phrase and we see, these are the SIC code uses that fall within that phrase, that is what is allowed.
How that would get implemented, the addition of this -- these uses, would be through an amendment to the
zoning overlays. And possibly ifthere's an independent rezoning petition, then it could be implemented through that
rezoning action.
The third area pertains to the deletion of the 14-feet-height-per-story limitation. And as I had stated
previously, the CRA is in support of that removal. In fact, they are the genesis for that removal.
And Jean Jourdan of the Bayshore CRA is here in attendance, should you wish to hear from her.
I know there was some discussion. Mr. Schiffer, you had asked about that height limitation that, perhaps, the
intent -- or maybe you stated it as a fact, that the intent was to maintain a visual line, that the first floor would be the
same height for all structures.
I could only say, again, the CRA has asked for that to be removed and, secondly, to express an observation
that even if the limitation remains, that does not ensure uniformity. It assures a maximum.
If one building comes in at the maximum of 14 feet for the fIrst floor, the next -door neighbor could come in
at 10 feet. You would still have some variation in height.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I looked at it. The concern I had about the fIrst-floor height is
covered in a total different section, not even referencing stories. It's giving dimensions.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. The third point, Commissioner Caron asked about the estuarine base map, which is
found on Page 6 of your staff report, the text about it. And no map change has been proposed. I've done some
research, including looking back at the original 1989 map that shows estuarine bays in Collier County. And the
Wiggins Pass area is identified as Hickory Bay. I know there's a distinction between Little Hickory Bay further to the
north, but Hickory Bay is identified as the large water body that encompasses the Wiggins Pass area.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And is that on the map that I questioned?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it labeled as such?
MR. WEEKS: It is labeled as Hickory Bay, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I'll go back and look at that, David.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. I could not fmd a map that I -- that labels that water body as Wiggins Bay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just going back to the movie theater thing, just so I'm clear, you mentioned
the SIC codes. And is live theater involved in the SIC code? What I'm trying to establish is that we're not limiting it
to movies alone, are we?
MR. WEEKS: Correct. Movie theaters are allowed presently. The addition would allow for a live theater,
amongst other things.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what I needed to understand.
MR. WEEKS: And the last thing, Commissioners -- and this you were only emailedyesterday.This is the
wellhead protection map. And there had been some discussion about the lakes within the northeast quadrant of U.S.
41 and Collier Boulevard. Those lakes are at least one of the water sources for the City of Marco Island.
Page 62 of 69
161 1
8 7
January 20,2011
As a result of that discussion, you can see that the lakes have been added to the map, identified with text, and
the concentric circles, the protection zones, have been added to the map.
And as before, Ray Smith, the pollution control director, is here should you have any questions of him. And
that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of anyone involving this? Second time around,
so I think it's got cleaned up.
With that, I'll ask for a motion to recommend transmittal, or denial, whatever you want to do. I'm assuming
it's going to be positive.
Anybody want to recommend?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move we recommend with the discussion we had today with a
recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Diana Ebert.
Discussion? I assume it includes the change of adding that word "abutting?"
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Thank you.
***Next item up is the consent hearing for Hacienda Lakes, the one we started with this morning, Petition
CP-2006-11.
Somebody have something to give us?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're waiting for Corby.
MS. ASHTON: If you want to take, like, a lO-minute break.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know he was --
MS. ASHTON: I have it. I can distribute it. I've checked it. It's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll wait. We'll get it copied. Let's come back in 10 minutes and wrap it
up then. So ten after two let's resume.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you'll please take your seats so we can resume the meeting.
Okay. Corby, I heard that sigh way over here. It isn't that bad, is it?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's warm. Corby's trying to let you know he's warm.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
Corby, you want to walk us through the -- through what's been done?
MR. SCHMIDT: I certainly may, or I can, thank you. Again, for the record, Corby Schmidt with the
Comprehensive Planning section of the -- some bigger division.
There are four changes made to what you saw earlier today in your HL-2 attachment, and I'll go through them
one by one. The Item 1 of 6 was revised with those "base" and "either" text entries, and in the second paragraph
removed the 2.5 and the 2.8 references. That's as you approved it or recommended for approval this morning.
And Part 5 of 6, the entry with a little "h," we removed the end of that longer sentence regarding the design
Page 63 of 69
1611
f'I
."",
,.j
I
January 20, 2011
and construction portion of The Lords Way.
Now, the other changes that I made that appear in your consent version now in front of you that you did not
necessarily pick out from the HL-2 version but was part of your recommendation overall was to the Part 4 of 6 -- I
believe that's on Page 4 of your handout.
And in your original version ofHL-2 you had alternative languages for whether you would recommend
approval of the additional language in the mixed-use activity center or if you did not.
I've removed those alternatives, and what you're seeing now is the language that matches your
recommendation to increase the size of Mixed-use Activity Center No.7, and that begins in that larger Paragraph
1 C 12, with the wording, "The maximum amount of' off on the left side, and that's where the acreage figures are
corrected to be the larger mixed-use activity center, and then immediately below that where there is a note and the
map series entrance, or entry, for those portions of the document where we would change that map series showing the
increased size of the mixed-use activity center.
That being said, Mr. Chairman, to review the other direction that was part of the recommendation or part of
the motion, there were five items. I won't go over those. They were clear enough to staff. But there were two items
from Page 26 of your staff report that staff had recommended that we assumed were part of the motion. I want to
clarify that they are. They have to do with -- let's look, shall we?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you talking about the bullet items that were added on Page 26?
MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct, a couple of bullet-pointed items, just to make sure that they're included
where they were intended to, and they should be included as part of your motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I assumed they were. Does anybody have any objection? I think that was the--
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Are they in this handout?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're in the new -- not the handout you got just now, but the January 20th staff
report; it's on the -- Page 26 of that staff report just before the signature page.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They gave their books away.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You gave your books away?
MR. SCHMIDT: That's all right. I can read it for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can put it on the overhead, if you want.
MR. SCHMIDT: I can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That David doesn't miss a beat with collecting those books, does he?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, he doesn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the two bullets that you see there.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right. The original version or the previously recommended language -- I'm sorry --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the mike.
MR. SCHMIDT: -- is struck through, and there are two entries -- two entries to replace that to cover the
proper timing and use of the TDRs.
The highlighted portion I simply crossed through, and you can leave that out as well. It refers to a fonn that
previously had been prepared and provided by the county. That form no longer exists. But the correct terminology is
now in there, and they are still useful direction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody feel that the motion made earlier did not include this correction that
was in our packet?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: Understood, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, there is one item I'd like to bring up for clarification.
MR. SCHMIDT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The handout that you provided, the last page, Page 6; the last two sentences reads,
"In no instance shall the amount of native vegetation for the urban portion of the project be fully removed or shifted
entirely to the sending areas."
Now, if someone wanted to be cute with that paragraph, they would leave one-tenth of one acre there and say
they met the intent of that paragraph. Is that what you're intending?
Page 64 of 69
161 1 B 7
January 20,2011
-
MR. SCHMIDT: That certainly is not the intention, and I'm sure that neither the Planning Commission nor
the county board would allow that kind of minimum. But we're looking at a ratio here of, I believe, 35 percent
removal and 65 still being preserved, percent of that requirement.
We were asked by the county attorney to simply indicate that there should be no zero or complete removal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wouldn't we be better offlooking at --
MS. ASHTON: I just said, "Let's just make sure everybody knows what we're approving." So if the
number's zero, then everybody -- as long as you know what you're approving, that was my concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a concern with that wording in regards to the fact that someone might
use it to eliminate all but a small percentage, smaller than what's intended?
MS. ASHTON: No. I just raised the issue that before you inserted the sentence, the urban area could be -- all
the preservation could be shifted out of the urban area, and as long as everyone knew that that was a possible
consequence, that's what I wanted -- you know, staff came up with that language in response to my comment. But I
agree, somebody could do something cute, and it could be one-tenth or less. I mean, you know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you feel the language is good enough to protect us from that?
MS. ASHTON: No. I think that you could pretty much eliminate all preservation in the urban area, and as
long as you understand that, you know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't think that's the intention. All I'm suggesting is, should we put a
percentage in there instead of "fully removed"?
Go ahead. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think from the petitioner's point of view, they're looking for maximum
flexibility; however, I know that I had a long discussion with him about the fact that we needed more than just a
viable community left in the urban area, that I didn't want to see it be zero. And I think their intent is -- and right now
it's at 65 percent. I don't know if that's, you know -- if being that specific is an issue. It was --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: May I? I mean, I know -- I think we're in the consent, so I want to make sure I
understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are, but I'm trying to -- we did the consent today to accommodate you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the same time, we may have a little more cleanup to do. And I'mjust suggesting,
if we can catch it now, it would sure be better than later.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. We had -- obviously we have to go through and do a rezone of the property
anyway, so we would bring a master plan to you so you would have your opportunity at that point to make sure we
didn't go to zero, unless you thought it was a good idea to go to zero on that particular plan. Who knows? It's not our
intent to go to zero, as you know.
We have a master plan that's winding its way through the process subject to revisions, so I hesitate to commit
to the 65 percent, but we -- what we had talked about, at least with Commissioner Caron, and I think Commissioner
Strain -- in separate meetings -- putting a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just wanted to make sure the record was clear -- that put a floor, that at no time could
we go less than 25 percent of the native-vegetation requirement. So it would be more than a tenth of an acre.
That's what we had discussed. I don't think we have an issue of -- if you think we needed to do that now as
part of the agenda. And that should give us enough flexibility with what's winding its way through the process right
now to address the concem we would have to be pigeonholed into -- too closely at this point.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So would you suggest --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that I'm -- go ahead, Heidi.
MS. ASHTON: Well, he just said 25 percent of the 25 percent native-vegetation requirement. So whoever
can do math could cOme up with one number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one-quarter of one-quarter.
MS. ASHTON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "In no instance shall the amount of native vegetation for the urban portion of the
project be less than 25 percent."
Page 65 of 69
16 I 1 8 7
January 20,2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that one-quarter of one-quarter?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's an eighth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That would be 13 and -- 12-and-a-halfpercent -- well, no, that would be--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be an eighth, an eighth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would be an eighth, that's right, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twelve point five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight point two five.
MR. SCHMIDT: A 16th.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A 16th, even?
MS. ASHTON: Yeah, what's a--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quarter divided by -- yeah, you're right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri, how you getting all this? You getting all these numbers going back and
forth?
Has somebody got a number that works for that? Where are we at, Corby?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's one-sixteenth, he's right.
MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Four times four is sixteen. One-quarter times one-quarter.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: One-sixteenth.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of an acre.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby?
MS. ASHTON: Oh, one-sixteenth? And convert it to a percent.
MR. SCHMIDT: Working with the structure of the sentence already in place, in no instance shall the amount
of native vegetation for the urban portion of the project be -- shall no more than 75 percent of. That leaves you with
25.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What?
MR. SCHMIDT: "In no instance shall more than 75 percent of the amount of native vegetation for the urban
portion of the project be removed or shifted entirely in the sending lands." That gives you your 25 percent floor.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just do 6.25?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about we just say no -- it's 6.25 percent. That's the number. It's 6.25 percent.
Now, it's a little scary when I'm doing the math part.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the percentages, that's why I figure we better talk about it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We could originally -- it was 25 percent. Your floor is, we'll keep at least 6.25
percent of our native.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what does that number mean? I mean, we're just picking a number out
of the air.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what it means is, right now our requirement is somewhere around 80 acres. I
don't have my cheat sheet in front of me. I can find it, but -- so I can't go to zero. I'd have to do at least whatever -- let
me get my cheat sheet here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And according to what's planned, you are telling --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're higher than that right now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- us right now that it will be around 47 acres--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that you intend to keep out of that 80 original?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But because ofthe land plan changes, some of which are instituted by the county--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're not sure you can retain the 47 acres once they try to move the road system
around.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I mean, we need to have some flexibility to --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe 45 or whatever.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- come back to you. Yeah. I'm not really sure. So if you don't want to -- if you want
a floor of! can't go -- I can only keep a tenth of an acre and I'm technically okay, we're offer- -- we're saying, we'll
Page 66 of 69
1611 B 7
January 20,2011
keep at least six-and-a-quarter percent of our native vegetation in the urban area.
Obviously that's the floor. We'll be coming through with a rezone where you'll see a number that's probably
higher than that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just for making things simpler, "In no instance shall the amount of native
vegetation for the urban portion of the proj ect be less than 10 percent."
Doesn't that just cover it? You're not going to be that low anyway. You claim you're not going to be. It
solves the problem for today, and it's a real simple number to compute.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Now--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Strain likes round figures.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. I noticed that you rounded up. You couldn't go to five. You couldn't go to
five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can go 15 or 20. I mean, I don't think it's going to hurt you. You're going
to want to have some green space in there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I think -- I think you're --
MR. BAUER: That works.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's okay, okay. I have to ask the engineer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the project -- the answer would be then --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- "In no instance shall the amount of native vegetation for the urban portion of the
project be less than 10 percent."
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That just protects the bottom line so it doesn't read a tenth of a percent.
Okay. Are there any other --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can -- I have a question on this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, there was mention during there that the TDRs on these sending
lands would not be used for density on this project. Is -- is that right? There was testimony to that effect when I was
questioning it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. The TDRs within the -- area -- the qualifying area will, in fact, be utilized in our
project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm concerned --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's TDRs beyond the qualifying area that will not be utilized on our property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern was, the TDRs that were generated from these two acre -- you
know, this mitigation system here. It was -- you know, there was testimony that that -- those TDRs were not to be
used on this project.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can accommodate that through putting the extra preserve beyond the boundaries
-- the one -- half-mile boundary. So if that -- if that's -- yes, we can do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I still don't like it. But let's just move away. It's something I
don't like.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, you heard the Conservancy not object.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm allowed not to like it. I know, but it is, to me, a double dip. But forget
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we've got --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pick your battles.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- some tweaking to the final language. Staff understands what that is.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is consent. You've acknowledged the changes of -- through Pages 1 through 6
in the handout, and we've got the other five items on the table to address by the time we get through the adoption
process.
Okay. With that in mind, could -- Heidi?
MS. ASHTON: And the language that you mentioned, the "less than 10 percent" goes in two places. One's
Page 67 of 69
161 1 B I
January 20,2011
)
on Page 2 and one's on Page 6.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
Okay. With those stipulations, those conditions, is there a motion for approval, or a recommendation of
approval for transmittal?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- Barry, and seconded by Mr. Murray.
Okay. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Thank you for an enlightening day.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was fun.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your patience and indulgence on the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can only hope that the adoption isn't nearly as complicated.
Okay. That takes us to old business. Anybody have anything?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? Everybody's gone.
Discussion, we're over with.
Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, seconded by Barry.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We are out of here. Thank you.
Page 68 of 69
161 1
r 7
January 20,2011
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:27
p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
:\~~f~
M STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the board on ~ -{ ( as presented V' or as corrected_.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 69 of 69
RECE\VED
MARl 3 2011
Boerd of eounty COfYlJ1\ISIIOl*
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
February 3,2011
161 1
87'
v'
February 3, 2011
Fiara 7) /
Hiller ~
~~~r~ng = J -~ =
Coletta -:7- ==
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 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of
the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron
Melissa Ahern
Paul Midney (absent)
Bob Murray (absent)
Brad Schiffer
Karen Homiak
Diane Ebert
Barry Klein
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, County Attorney's Office
Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services
Thomas Eastman, Director of Real Property
Page 1 of 23
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item':
C::,ies to:
" .."
:It "
C
16 I 1 B. 7
February 3, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Morning everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, February 2nd meeting of the Collier'
County Planning Commission.
W ol,lld you all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, would you mind doing the roll call?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure.
Ms. Ahem.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here,
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And, ta-dah, Ms. Homiak.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Murray is absent.
And Mr. Klein.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, the mikes are a little bit higher pitched or higher toned than usual.
Okay. That may help.
Addenda to the agenda. We have a revised agenda to include an item that was continued. So if you didn't see
your E-mails recently, the amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, CP-2008-5 that was added to the revised
agenda as 9.B, has been continued to February 17th.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question on that. What was the strategy of adding it and then
continuing it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think to legally show that it had been planned for today, and then so that anybody
wishing to be here would be so notified that it would be then continued. So that might have been it.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It was advertised for today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But for scheduling they moved it to the 17th. So they intended that but they needed
-- so we don't have to readvertise.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ironically, the 17th is probably going to be a lot busier than today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would have been good to have it today.
The addenda to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mark--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a new item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you want me to talk about it now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Just state it so I can put it down under ll.B.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, meeting times.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. I'll put that as 11.B.
Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they are not going to be here on our 17th meeting?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Looks like we have a quorum.
There is something I think I'll talk about now instead of under Chairman's report.
About a week or two ago I got a notice I think from Ray that there were two meetings of ours that were
regularly scheduled~ I think one was in March and I'm not sure when the other --
MR. BELLOWS: March 3rd. And the other one was June.
Page 2 of 23
1611
P7
LJ
February 3,2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: June. Both of the days that we were regularly scheduled to ha...ethose meetings in
this 'room, the room is now going to be used for something else, so we can't be in this room. And the choice was to
have the meeting over in Developmental Services. As we all know, it's a little difficult over there and staffhas to
spend quite a bit of time to mobilize the cameras, the crews and everybody else to make that place newsworthy.
So I suggested that we just not schedule anything those two days. And that worked for the June one.
MR. BELLOWS: The March 3rd one is the one that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the one that what?
MR. BELLOWS: Is the one we're not scheduling any items for at this time. And I'm not sure if June has any
items scheduled at the present time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: June was the one I understood there was no problem with. But on March 3rd I had
an E-mail from Nancy Gunlach that there was an item scheduled, and it was for landscaping amendment to the PUD
for Bay -- for somewhere in Pelican Bay.
MR. BELLOWS: That's been rescheduled.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I have a trail ofE-mails here where they were trying to get it
rescheduled but --
MR. BELLOWS: And it has been. So there is nothing on the third now, and that's where I'm trying to
schedule this orientation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the question she was asking me then is irrelevant?
MR. BELLOWS: After she sent that we got it continued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, no one told me, so--
MR. BELLOWS: I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. I will not bring up what I was going to bring up. So we don't have a
meeting scheduled those two days so we won't have any change in meeting location.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What was the June date, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us both those days again, Ray. We have to issue another one of
your agendas any -- your calendars anyway.
MR. BELLOWS: The March 3rd meeting was originally scheduled to have the item that Mark was
referencing. That item has been rescheduled, the second meeting in March. I think that's the March 17th meeting. So
there will not be a regular Planning Commission meeting on March 3rd.
However I'm putting together an orientation to be held at the Growth Management Division Conference
Room 609 for the new CCP members. And that will be an advertised meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the second cancellation?
MR. BELLOWS: The second one was the fIrst meeting in June, I believe, and I don't have the date on me at
the present --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The second.
MR. BELLOWS: That is being -- that will be continued due to lack of petitions at this time. And if there is
something trying to be scheduled, we'll schedule around that date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Okay. Approval of minutes from January 6,2011. Is there a motion either to change or approve or
discussion? If not, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve those minutes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Ebert. Seconded by --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Page 3 of 23
161 1
.'0 7
February 3,2011
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll have to abstain because I wasn't here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6-0, with one abstention. So I guess that's the way we'll word it.
BCC report and recaps. Ray is there anything?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On January 25th the Board of County Commissioners heard the conditional use for
the Golf Driving Range. The motion for approval failed by a vote of three to two. Commissioner Coyle and Hiller
opposed the motion for approval. The motion for approval included CCPC recommendations.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, did they ever come up with, you know, the fencing thing that we were
supposed to see at consent?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. They -- yes, they did. They did -- the applicant did prepare or have a consultant
prepare a fence type of -- or netting plan prepared by a consultant expert in the design of these golf driving range
nettings. However, there was still concern by some of the residents about providing bufferings that was adequate to
cover the net height, even as it diminished at the end of the golf driving range. And they couldn't come to a consensus
of how to mitigate the visual view of that. And I think that's was the reason the two commissioners opposed the
motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: I have a clarification from Ian that the meeting is the 16th -- June 16th meeting that we'll
be scheduling around.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So not June 2nd, so it will be the second meeting in June?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm glad -- thank you, Ian, wherever you are. That was helpful. We all
would be showing up at the wrong one and not here for the right one.
Okay. Chairman's report. Nothing today other than -- the item on 8.A is our consent agenda item on the
floodplain management ordinance. And I want to thank the County Attorney's office for a job well done. I notice you
went through and cleaned it up quite a bit. And that was very helpful. So thank you.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. Jennifer White worked on that and completed that. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it.
Okay, first item up is the consent agenda item for the floodplain damage prevention ordinance.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I have question on Page 11. The very first item crosses out "and
nuisance". I think the word "nuisance" needs to come back in because it's public safety and nuisance that is injurious
to health and safety, not public safety that's injurious to health and safety.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have a defmition of what a public nuisance is?
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what this is. This is defmitions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, this says public safety. So you're saying the words "public safety" --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Read the paragraph and then -- yeah -- see if I'm right or wrong. It doesn't
make any sense to me the way it's written. We're missing a word or a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe it should be public safety nuisance and drop the word" and" .
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. I think that's what they meant to do. But I need that confmned by the
County Attorney's office.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could you tell me where the nuisance part was removed?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on the top of Page 11.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You're under public safety. My numbering is a little bit different. Oh, okay. I don't
have the same copy as you do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's the defmition of public safety.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let me read it.
I think you can put that back in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think Donna has brought up a good point. And I think they probably meant to
Page 4 of 23
.
'r"
1611
Bi
February 3,2011
strike just the word" and", not the word "nuisance".
, COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't need the word "and" in there. That's what should come out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what threw the monkey wrench into it.
MR. WILEY: May I speak?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Wiley.
MR. WILEY: Robert Wiley with Land Development Services.
As we went through it, the use of the term only uses the term public safety further on in the ordinance. Public
safety and nuisance is really not the term that is used. That's why the two words were stricken.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. How can you read this paragraph and have it make any sense: Public
safety means anything which is injurious to safety or health of the entire community?
How can you say that? I mean --
MR. WILEY: I'm simply relating why the words were stricken. On the original defmition it included them
in there. So--
COMMISSIONER CARON: You need to have it make sense. Whatever it is, Robert, it's not making sense
right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is this defined term used in this document? Can you show us an example?
Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A fix might be, wouldn't you say: Public safety means anything which is
not injurious to? That's your point, you're saying--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Fine. That's okay, too.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're describing the good thing as the bad thing, when what we really
should be doing is describing the good thing, not the bad thing.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe have the context in which it's used, that may help explain why it needs to
change, if it --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I wasn't adding words, Brad. I was using the words that had been crossed out,
and that's the only reason I didn't go to the more logical way, which I think is probably to put the word "not" in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom?
MR. EASTMAN: It is used on Page 33. In the middle under 3.e.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. EASTMAN: Public safety.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But there it talks about threats to public safety.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the opposite reference that the defmition should be used for.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So that would be, any time you threaten to not be injurious, we're
going to stop -- I think adding the word "not" is the solution. I think the word "nuisance" might be annoying, and
getting rid of that is good --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Brad, if you add the word "not", then how does that work on Page 33?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I didn't really read the 33 but--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will tell you what. Robert, why don't you get with the County Attorney's office mId
make sure we don't have any other questions. And after we hear the boat dock, we'll come back and see what the
resolution of this is.
Anybody else have any other --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 3 we eliminated essentially private facilities. So we say: To
minimize damage to public facilities and all -- and public utilities. So we added the word "public" instead of "all
utilities" .
So does that mean private utilities are not covered by this?
MR. WILEY: Okay. Let's go back into our discu'ssion that we had on this. The recommendation from the
Floodplain Management Planning Committee was to substitute out the word "public", which is the word that's in the
State's model ordinance, and replace it with the word "all". And their concern was that we would not be addressing
the private utilities but we would only be addressing those that were publicly owned and operated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Page 5 of 23
16' 1 8 7
February 3, 2011
MR. WILEY: Well, that's really not the intention. The intention is, when you talk about a public facility,
that's facilities that are used by the public, your water, your sewer.
So we've batted this around back and forth, and the last time we came before the Planning Commission was
when you all said no, take out the word "all" and put the word "public" back in.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think that came from the County Attorney's office, not from us. But
-- so maybe they could answer it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think, Brad, if everybody looks at the minutes that we just approved, the
issue was brought up that Robert and the County Attorney's office actually were supposed to get back to us and
explain why they wanted the change made, why they wanted "all" taken out and just "public". Because, when we had
the discussion at that meeting, they weren't -- they were unsure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here we are.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And so here we are. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jennifer, shed some light?
MS. WHITE: Good morning. Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney.
I did go back and look at my notes. I also reviewed the provision. And what I determined is that the
provision was internally inconsistent. It started out -- and I don't have the same page numbers that you do in my
version -- but what I remember is that the beginning of the provisions start out with "government" and then it later
said "all". So I wanted to harmonize the provision and stay consistent.
If the intent is different and the ultimate recommendation is to make it for all utilities, then we should remove
the word "with government" or something along those lines, is what I remember.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the other utilities that we're trying to bring in here are ones for telephone and
cable TV and Internet service and things that are not regulated by government departments.
I am not sure why we wouldn't want to minimize damage to those as well.
Anybody have any --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think the sentence -- again, I don't have the same page numbers as you do. I think
the sentence was intended to deal with public facilities, because I think it placed obligation on the county to be
responsible for the public facilities. So we weren't comfortable putting in "private utilities".
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that makes it a little bit clearer.
MR. McKENNA: Mr. Chair? This is a draft under Chapter 367, Florida Statute. And I only know this
because I do serve as the position of the regulator for the Collier Water and Wastewater Authority as well as the
franchise authority. And the state is very clear, because all utilities are regulated either by state or federal agencies, no
matter who you are, if you are a privately owned or investor-owned utility. A utility is a utility that serves the public.
As to whether or not they are privately owned or publicly, the state make no reference between the two, it's
simply considered a utility.
And it does provide guidance that a utility means a utility except as provided in other chapters throughout that
statute, that includes every person, lessee, trustee or receiver, owning operator or managing or controlling a system or
proposing construction of a system who is providing or proposes to provide services to the public for compensation.
So now, this strictly deals with water and sewer. But I would almost be willing to bet that it's also going to
include cable and telephone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say just water and sewer. And I was just going to say, it kind of meets
what you're already saying. By referencing public utilities --
MR. McKENNA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think it's, as you are indicating, it's any utilities that are used by the public,
because, as you read this sentence, it says, such as water and gas mains. Gas are not public, those are TECO.
Electric, which is FP&L or Lee Co-op. Telephone, which is a variety of vendors right now. And sewer lines.
So water and sewer lines, roadways and bridges and culverts may be public in the sense that they are owned
by the government, but the other ones listed are all what we would consider private utilities but they are publicly --
they're to the benefit of the public.
MR. McKENNA: All of which -~ which are regulated by the state agencies, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Public Services Commission has overseeing responsibility in all these
anyway --
MR. McKENNA: Absolutely, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I think leaving "public" in still covers it.
Page 6 of 23
161 t Di
February 3,2011
Does that work for everybody? Okay.
So we will leave that one with the word "public" in it and drop the word "all".
Then --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that same page?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aren't those really acronyms? I know acronyms are a subset of
abbreviations, but just -- Tor's not here to do this, so I'm doing it for him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doing a goodjob, too.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they're acronyms, definitely. But again --
MR. WILEY: We went to the Land Development Code and it uses the term, defmitions and abbreviations.
So we imitated the LDC.
If you want to say "acronyms", I can change that in a heartbeat. Ijust need specific direction here --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was the spirit of Tor that made me do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we leave it "acronyms", because that's what they are? Are any of those
not -- I mean, they are all acronyms. Let's just label them acronyms. That makes it simpler.
Anything else, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Page 17. We brought up something and it looks like the -- it was
discussion where you were stating that a professional engineer -- I certainly know a professional land surveyor can,
but a professional engineer can certify elevations or can establish --
MR. WILEY: Which page are you on, sir?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 17. I'm under construction stage, and that would be H --
MR. WILEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- paren two in your definition there. So you went through and looked
where a professional engineer is allowed to establish land elevations?
MR. WILEY: What I did is I talked to various licensed surveyors and surveying fIrms around the county.
We also looked at what the law says.
It takes a licensed surveyor to establish a benchmark. Now, they can establish a benchmark. In this case
you're talking about a particular site. So they go by the acreage. They have to establish so many benchmarks per so
many acreage figures, and then increase, as you increase your acreage. You can only go a certain distance from an
established benchmark to transfer an elevation as certified by a surveyor to a particular spot on a construction site. An
engineer can do that transfer but the engineer cannot establish the initial benchmark.
We had -- I had several surveyors went through with me. They are all saying the same thing. So that's why
we have worded it the way we have.
In the situation here where a particular building is involved, the engineer can certify it ifhe has certified
surveyors. Each of the professional fields know their limits of what they are allowed to do. So this -- basically the
language allows them the flexibility for the site-specific situation on who does what portion of establishing the
elevation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let me say it back, is that, a licensed professional engineer in the State of
Florida can establish land elevations.
MR. WILEY: From an established benchmark put there by a land surveyor, provided he meets the criteria of
distance and number.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So he can carry it from a benchmark only.
MR. WILEY: He can carry it from an established benchmark, and the distance I was given was 700 feet on a
construction site.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. WILEY: Beyond that he has to have the surveyor re-establish another benchmark.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No. That was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see if we've -- I see the county attorneys have stopped discussing it, so maybe
they have already resolved that one remaining issue that Ms. Caron brought up originally about "public safety" and
"nuisance" .
Page 7 of 23
16 I 1 87
February 3,2011
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: On the "public safety", I think the change--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to pull that mike. There you go.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think the change is going to be the insertion of the negative. So it will read:
Anything which is not injurious to health -- to safety or health of the entire community or a neighborhood or any
considerable number of persons or does not unlawfully obstruct the free passage or use in the customary manner of
any navigable lake or river, stream, canal or basin.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'd still drop the letters -- the words in red and you'd add the word "not" before
the word "injurious"; is that right?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. And "does not" before "unlawfully obstruct".
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that work with the place that is used on Page 33, which is item D.3.C of
section six?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you under --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Variances.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- D.3.C?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I think it works there the way it reads, because, additional threats to public
safety --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, that works.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that means additional threats to anything that is not injurious to the public.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That would work.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's kind of an awkward way to defme it but it works.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any other issues?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure, as complicated as this one is going to be, the board is going to have plenty
of questions, most likely different than ours, so it will be an interesting time.
MR. WILEY: Thanks for the encouragement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well -- you know, each reader is going to fmd this thing a little different.
And we caught as many as we can catch, I believe.
So with that, is there a motion to accept the current version as we just corrected it for the flood damage
prevention ordinance under the consent agenda?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Signifying.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Ebert.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you, Robert. It's been an enjoyable period of time, dealing with that flood prevention ordinance. I can
only imagine what is coming next.
The one item up that we have today is an advertised public hearing that has been continued from our last
meeting. It's a boat dock petition, BDPL-2010-1313. The unlucky 13. '
Anybody wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part the Planning Commission.
I had a discussion with Rocky on this before the last meeting. And most of the issues will be discussed again
Page 8 of 23
1 6 1 Flary ~ol
today~
Okay. It's all yours, Rocky.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Good morning, Commissioners. Rocky Scofield representing Mr. Lysikiewicz at
267 Third Street West. It's in Little Hickory Shores. The map on the overhead, I assume everybody knows where this
is, up in the north end of town, Bonita Springs.
This -- these are the boat dock lots you've seen. We've -- pretty much every one of these lots has come before
you for boat dock extensions. These are mangrove shorelines, shallow waters, natural shorelines, and the boats all
have to -- most of the boats -- well, no, all of them park -- they moor perpendicular to the bank, and most of these lots
up here were granted the zero lot lines, the zero setbacks.
So I'll show you in the overhead, most of these lots have two boats per lot, and they go right out to the
property lines.
That's an overhead aerial of the proposed -- Mr. Lysikiewicz's proposed boat, right in the middle there. It's a
large Catamaran. His boat that he wants to moor here is 45 feet in length. It's 23 feet of width, of beam. And the boat
draws two feet of water.
This -- each pontoon, the pontoons on this Catamaran, they have removable centerboards so they can pull
them up to two feet, is the shallowest draft that he can pull the boards up to. When they are out sailing, under sail,
they put the boards down for stability.
This boat -- we're proposing a boat lift. The lot is 30 feet wide here. So the lift will be inside of the riparian
lines. And we are asking for a 40-foot extension to the allowed 20 feet for a total protrusion of 60 feet from the --
from the mean high water line.
That's a closer-up shot of the same thing. The dock -- the dock, which is just a small fmger dock, 6 feet wide,
protrudes out only 15 feet from the mean high water line.
These Catamarans are boarded most of the time from the front. As you see, there is a gangway that runs
down the middle between the pontoons. There is usually -- most of these boats, they have a netting area where you
can walk all the way across the front. But this is normally how these boats are boarded.
This way we can get the boat in closest to shore. The pontoons, we come right up to the mangrove edge line,
and the water is shallow there, but the boat doesn't draw hardly any water at the front of the pontoons. But we've
pulled it up into the shore as much as we can.
That's just to show you how people board these boats. Ours is going to be a little safer than that. But the
reason for this photograph is, somebody that had it beached up -- I mean, from the way they moored up, with the
boards sticking there. But if you can make it out, there is a boarding place between the pontoons that goes all the way
back to the wheelhouse, and that's how these are. And this will be pulled right up to the end of the dock and boarded
across.
This is an overall view showing the extensions of the boats, the BDEs around it, and the width of the
channels that are here. The width of this waterway is 420 feet, and again, the waterway measurements are measured
from the mean high water line to the mean high water line, which goes across to the island, which is a mangrove
preserve.
On the north side, these -- there is no, no -- nothing can be built over there. It's a mangrove preserve, so no
docks can ever be built across the waterway. There is quite a large -- you want to zoom out just a little bit, Ray,
please.
You can see there is a large sandbar coming off of that mangrove island. And the other measurement there is
the width of the navigable waterway, which is 220 feet.
So we protrude only 60 feet into the navigable waterway, which leaves 100 -- 160 feet of navigable waterway
open. And I just -- I want to go over to criteria.
We meet all the criteria in the primary and secondary, with the exception of number three in the secondary,
and it's not applicable. That's the one where the total of the boat length, is it more than 50 percent of the property
line? That's not applicable in these boat dock lots because most of these lots are between 28 and 30 feet wide.
So -- but criteria number four of the primary, if you'll look at that, it -- in your packet, that will say that
criteria was not met: This was a mistake done at our office that I didn't catch until a couple of weeks ago. And I've
talked to Mike Sawyer at staff and he's agreed with me that we do meet this criteria. And I'll briefly explain why.
What was done originally, they took the 60 feet -- well, I'm going to read criteria. Let's see, this was the
primary. Okay.
On the number four it says, whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent the width
Page 9 of 23
1611 B l
February 3, 2011
of the waterway and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway is left open.
So, in understanding that, there are two things that would be met. And a lot of times they are confused.
When you protrude into the waterway -- into the navigable waterway, that length is taken of the overall width. We
only protrude 14 -- the dock protrudes 14 percent of the waterway width. That's the first part of that question -- of that
criteria.
The second part of that criteria is, do we leave 50 percent of the waterway, navigable waterway open? And
we actually leave 73 percent ofthe navigable waterway open. The mistake is made in applying the 60 feet into the
220 feet. And if you do calculate that out, it comes out to 27 percent. But that's assuming there's people that are
going to be on the other side of the navigable waterway building docks out. That's why that criteria is there.
So we do meet this criteria. We leave 73 percent of the navigable waterway width open. And staff has agreed
with that. So we do meet all of the criteria.
This aerial, I drew this line in there just to show you, yes, where the neighboring boats -- this is -- connects
the ends of the docks along this shoreline. Mr. Lysikiewicz's boat, it fits right in that line. I know, when you zoom in
on it singularly and look at the boats on either side, we're sticking out 15,20 feet past, but in the overall shoreline
there we're within this -- within that line where all of these docks protrude out.
Now, on the east end up there, keep in mind, at the top the waterway width gets down -- the navigable
waterway width where it bottles down, there is only 70 feet of waterway width open. We're leaving the 160 feet open
at this area. Again, these are boat dock lots. There are no residences that can be built on these, strictly for boats.
We don't -- unless someone is here today, we have not had any letters of objection to this.
And I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions?
Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you sold this lot, the next people don't have a Catamaran, how big a dock
can they build, based upon what's approved today?
MR. SCOFIELD: If you look at the neighboring docks, they -- now you're talking about, they can have two
boats there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. SCOFIELD: He's choosing to have one.
Now what is your question again?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll cut to the chase there. My concern is, you sell the boat, we've given you
a 60-foot dock. Isn't it based totally upon this application and this layout? In other words, somebody can't come in
and extend that 20-foot dock 60 feet out based upon today's hearing, correct?
MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, no. If this is sold and the next owner comes in and wants to get, let's say, a
conventional, which usually, up here with a walkway with two boats on each side, that dock is going to go out past the
20 feet. So we're going to be back here again. They're going to make us come back for another boat dock extension.
We only go out 15 feet with this dock. It's just the boat that sticks out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we are not giving approval to anything other than what is shown
on this site plan?
MR. SCOFIELD: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, in your application under secondary criteria --
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have number three. And it talks about the 50 percent of the subject's property
linear waterfront footage. And your response is, not applicable for boat dock lots per PU-87-23.
Can you show me 87-23?
MR. SCOFIELD: You might have to get that from staff. I have 87-260.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have that. I found some others, but I cannot fmd 87-23. But, since you put it in
yoUr application, I assume that your office may have it. I'd sure like to read that and understand why you feel number
three is not applicable. I'm not disputing whether you are right or wrong, I would just like to see the document,
because that supports your written application.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. I don't have that.
I can tell you that, in most of the -- in all the applications that we've had come before this, we probably have
Page 10 of23
-
I
1611 B 7
,
February 3,20 II
not put that number in there. We've just said that it doesn't -- this criteria is not applicable because of the width of the
lots.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These are boat dock lots, so you are saying that you can do what you're doing, a lot
of it, because of resolution 87-260?
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. I would suggest that -- pardon me?
MR. BELLOWS: If you're referring to what you've listed in your application, 87-23, I checked that, that is
not the boat dock extension resolution. That's refers to something else. I think it was for a bank or something like
that.
But attached to your packet is the correct resolution.
MR. SCOFIELD: 260. We were -- now, maybe if that was -- that was another -- different people put
together these applications in our office. And I apologize, it's no excuse. But we were asked by staff to put that in.
Maybe Mike Sawyer can clarify that. We were given that number.
Now, whether it was transposed wrong or whatever, but we've never -- we've never put that number, those
numbers in there before. But it was asked by staff that we do it on this one, and maybe it's the wrong number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I have other questions related to the resolution, the resolution I think
you believe applies. So I'll wait and ask staff about those.
You had said that this boat -- I'm not -- I don't know the terminology they use, has a device that they will
lower when they get out in the Gulf where they are using the sailboats?
MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. Those are movable or removable centerboards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that -- there is nothing like a rudder that goes -- that you -- there is
nothing that drops down in the boat, in further, deeper in the water? That seemed to be what you were talking about.
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the rudders, the skags are the centerboards that they drop down. You have rudders
that go off the end of the pontoons, which steer the boat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCOFIELD: But they do not go down further than the -- the centerboards, the most you can bring them
up is two feet. The rudder does not extend down past that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The skags go down how far?
MR. SCOFIELD: Seven -- fully deployed, 7.2 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how does the boat -- what does the boat drop those for? What is the purpose of a
skag for that boat in the ocean?
MR. SCOFIELD: The purpose is, is when you're under sail and you have a lot of pressure against the sails,
boats tip over. That's why you have deeper skags. Racing sailboats have very deep keels where; they are leaning way
over, and that's what holds them in the water to keep from spilling over.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just like my kayak. A little bit smaller though.
So if you're coming into the pass, through the Wiggins Pass, which is rather choppy, and you are under high
wind coming through that pass, you are telling us you are not going to stabilize your boat by dropping your skags, you
are going to leave them up, since a three-foot draft is the maximum you can use without -- throughout Wiggins Pass
channel ?
MR. SCOFIELD: Right. Because what you're going to do, coming in the pass, is, you're not going to be
under sail, you're going to pull your sails down, pull your boards up, and you're going to motor in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they are going to motor all the way from Wiggins Pass back to this lot
here.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. You can't sail in a big -- a boat like that, those waterways, you have to be
under power.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the rest of my questions will be staffs.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: This isn't a commercial vessel, is it?
MR. SCOFIELD: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
MR. SCOFIELD: No. This is strictly his personal boat that he's -- he's going to purchase.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe wanted to maximize the use of the boat with bodies, how many could be
placed on that boat?
MR. SCOFIELD: On a Catamaran you can put quite a few. I don't know what the legal limit is. But you cml
Page 11 of 23
16' 1 B 7
February 3,2011
put quite a few people on there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: More than four?
MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where would they park?
MR. SCOFIELD: That, I don't know. You would probably have to pick them up somewhere else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I notice you don't have much parking with this lot.
MR. SCOFIELD: No. On any of these lots, you don't have much parking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay.
MR. SCOFIELD: He would have to go down to Cocohatchee or one of the -- public place and pick people
up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Staff report.
MR. SAWYER: Good morning. For the record, Mike Sawyer with Growth Management Division, Land
Development Services.
Staff has put together the staff report as you see it. Regarding the primary criteria number four, staff is in
agreement that the applicant actually does meet that criteria, and that does not change our recommendation for the
request.
And I'm here to answer any other questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's short and to the point. Thank you, Mike.
Anybody have any questions of staff'?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, do you agree with the answer that they could build nothing more than
shown on this site plan?
MR. SAWYER: Correct. If they were to come in with a modified version of this, either with the vessel or
with the actual dock itself, they would need to come back in and gain approval again.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, the resolution that apparently does apply is 87-260; is that correct?
MR. SAWYER: Correct, yes. I think the confusion, honestly, with that is that the actual petition number for
that was actually, I believe, 8717.C. I believe that's where the confusion actually came in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree that was the right one.
If you go to resolution 260, you have two conditioning criteria, A and B, on Page 2 of that resolution. Under
A it talks about the right-of-way permit for the -- what will be soon to be parking for that parcel.
Do you know where they -- how they would get parking allowed on this site, in review, as -- anything been--
any criteria set up? How many cars would they be able to allow to park here? How do they treat the edge of the
asphalt as it rolls off onto the dirt? Are they -- do they have to clear out the vegetation that's there?
MR. SAWYER: I apologize. That's a really good question. I don't have a great answer for it. That actually
would wind up being something, if there is a building permit required -- because there isn't a primary structure for the
site, which you would normally have, that would be the point at which you would do a vegetation removal permit at
that point. Because we don't have a structure involved with this, other than the dock itself, I would have to research
that for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm asking is there is an entitlement that runs with the land, is the
resolution 87-260. And 87-260 has specific criteria this applicant was supposed to meet, as well as all ofthe boat
docks up there that were supposed to meet.
And I know we've reviewed some of these previously. This one caught my attention because of its
uniqueness. And A was the first one I looked at, and then looked at the aerial and tried to figure out how they'd fit the
parking on there, especially with a bigger boat. And, as previously testified, it could have a substantial number of
people allowed on the boat, which would create more of a need for parking.
In B it says: All boats erected on the subject lots must comply with Section 8.46 or zoning ordinance 82-2. I
have all the old ~- not all, but I have quite a few of the old zoning ordinances. So I pulled up 82-2. And the criteria in
82-2 is substantially different than the secondary and primary criteria we use today. And, from the applicant's
information, the criteria that they paid attention to was the criteria that we have today, not the criteria in 82-2.
Page 12 of 23
161 1 8 7
February 3, 2011
But I'm not saying it's wrong or right. I'm trying to figure out legally what is the right criteria they were
supposed to use.
When I called, I believe I asked the County Attorney's office this. They said that what they would probably
have to do is include, in the new resolution approving this boat dock, a reference to the old resolution being invalid in
its application and that the new LDC language would be effective. But I didn't fmd that in the new resolution.
Does anybody know --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That was a change that I was going to make on the floor when we got to that point.
So I appreciate your bringing it up.
There will be, on the second page, an additional sentence that will say: Be it further resolved that condition B
of resolution 87-260 is hereby terminated as to lot 14.
I can put it on the visualizer if you would like.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Just so the record is clear, we have a video of it, that would be fme.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The new sentence right here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Heidi. That's what I needed to see.
Any other questions from the Planning Commission?
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. So all of that resolution is not invalidated, just that one portion?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. And that resolution does refer to three, I believe, three other lots. There is
another condition in there about getting a right-of-way permit, and that's not extinguished.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not excluded?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mike.
Ray, do we have anybody wishing to speak?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered to speak.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wanting to speak on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rocky?
MR. SCOFIELD: I just wanted to make one clarification that Mr. Schiffer talked to Mike about pertaining to
your question, again pertaining to this specific boat and dock.
And Mike said that if they changed the size of the boat they would have to come back. Well, that's only if it
goes larger. If a smaller boat was put on, that's not going to affect it. And if the dock goes out -- if the dock were to
go out more than 20 feet, that would affect it. So I just wanted to clear that up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm comfortable. The thing I was concerned is, sell the boat, somebody
shoves a 60-foot dock out there. And that's not available.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And, to help staff in the future determine that, the exhibits are attached to
the resolution.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that will close the public hearing. Entertain a motion.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we approve BDPL-201O-1313.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded by Ms. Caron.
Discussion?
Double 13, and you're still passed. I don't know . You've got a bunch of Irish luck on your side for some
reason, Rocky.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page 13 of 23
161 1
.~.
,1Oli
-7
February 3, 20 1
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you.
MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That brings us to one item -- well, we have old business. I don't think there
is any. We have two items under new business.
First one is 11.A, Collier County's Master Mobility Plan, Phase II Briefmg, presented by Jeff Perry.
MR. PERRY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry. I'm (
transportation planner with WilsonMiller Stantec. And I appreciate a few minutes of your agenda this morning to
give you a briefing on the start -up of the Phase II of the county's Master Mobility Plan.
You may recall, back in May of last year, the county wrapped up Phase I of the study, which was the data
collection, documentation, cataloging of what we know today of the existing conditions, as well as plans and
programs that are already approved and/or in process.
Last month the county selected a consulting team headed by Tindale-Oliver & Associates to include
WilsonMiller Stantec, Mulhere and Associates, White Smith, Dr. Robert Cervero, and Aim Engineering to perform
the Phase II of the master mobility study.
And, quite simply, the master mobility study, which is funded in large part by a grant from the U.S. EPA, is
simply to try to develop a plan with strategies that can be implemented to reduce vehicle miles of travel. It's a much
larger study effort. But that's the -- that's the key to the study, is finding ways long term that can be put into place that
would help us reduce vehicle miles of travel.
And that goes a long way to satisfying the county's requirements under House Bill 697 that the Florida
Legislature passed, that said that, in the Growth Management Plan, cities and counties must adopt strategies to help
reduce greenhouse gases, one of which is to reduce vehicle miles of travel.
Vehicle miles of travel, quite simply, is, a trip of a certain length calculates to a vehicle miles of travel. Y 011
travel 5-miles -- one trip, 5 miles to work, that's five vehicle miles of travel. It's a very effective metric because we
can actually measure using traffic data. Ifwe know that there's 10,000 cars a day traveling a road that is 5 miles long,
we have 50,000 vehicle miles of travel per day in that particular road segment.
Collectively across the network we have millions of vehicle miles of travel each day, as people go to work,
shopping, go to school, recreational activities and the like. And the concept is to try to fmd ways to reduce the
amount of travel that is necessary to satisfy those personal needs.
I mentioned the consulting team. The county's management team is headed by Project Manager Debbie
Armstrong, assisted with Michael Green, Mike Bosi and Bill Lorenz. They are sort of the team on the ground at the
county that will oversee the project to make sure that we are meeting all of the objectives and goals of the scope.
As I mentioned, the project is funded in large part by a U.S. EP A grant. And the focus of it will be to help
develop those objectives and policies and Land Development Code regulations that ultimately will fmd their way
through the process.
Things that come out of this sort of vision plan, as it's often been called, would ultimately lead to, we belieye,
new policies and objectives that would go into different elements of your Growth Management Plan as well as
perhaps new changes, additions or changes to the Land Development Code.
The original Phase I study looked at all of the existing data that was available. That meant the environmelll al
data, socio-economic data, that, to what the plans and programs of the different agencies. We looked for
inconsistencies, we looked for gaps in the data.
We found that, from a horizon year standpoint -- every sort of plan has a horizon year, from going out,
looking out ten years or 20 years, every work program has a sort of a horizon year limit -- we found that almost
everybody was working with a different horizon year. The transportation studies were looking out 20 or 25 years.
The long range plan looks out 20 years. The water and sewer people are looking out one distance. The jail facility
planners are looking out to a distance out into the future. Solid waste, again, looking somewhere else.
Everybody seemed to have their own mechanism for doing their planning activities, but there was, in large
part, no consistency and certainly no cooperation in terms of making sure that we were getting all of the planning
done in the same horizon year.
Page 14 of 23
1611
r
.~
f-<
7
February 3,2011
, The Master Mobility Plan is actually looking to build out. It's looking all the way out. Under the current
Growth Management Future Land Use Element, there is a maximum capacity, if you will, of the county. The urban
area, the rural fringe, the Eastern Lands has a certain capacity, and that's the target that we're looking for. We don't
know exactly what year that is, because, depending on the growth rate that is used, it could be 2065, it would be 2085,
it could be anywhere in between or even beyond that.
That year is, in large part, really irrelevant. What's important is trying to identify not only what is going to be
on the ground, where it's going to be on the ground, but also what public facilities have to be in place at that time and
in such a way that it's sustainable and provides us with these -- meeting these objectives of trying to reduce vehicle
miles of travel.
Simplistically, putting jobs and employment opportunities close to where people live is one way of helping to
reduce vehicle miles of travel. Multi-motel transportation systems providing opportunities for choices for people to
ride transit or high speed rail or ride bicycles or walk or van pool or car pool, or some technology perhaps that we
don't even know about yet, that would allow people to have options in the way they travel to move from one place to
another.
As I mentioned, the goal of the plan is to reduce vehicle miles of travel. And we're calling it one plan, but it
is in fact, under our scope, four distinct plans. There is an infrastructure master plan, a land use master plan, a
mobility master plan and a wildlife crossing and habitat preservation master plan. Those are the four concept plans
within the plan that are going to make up the county's vision master mobility plan.
A couple of other interesting aspects ofthe study is the county would like to try to put in place a collection of
memorandums of understanding with the stakeholders, those agencies, those NGOs, those groups that have a stake in
this battle for the future, that there is an understanding of what it is that they expect, what they want to get out it, what
they would contribute to the process.
So that, while we're not going to make everybody happy with a study like this, that's not possible, what we
can do is try to come to consensus on the importance of the issues. What are the issues? What are the issues? What
are the ways that we can reach the end goal without stepping on anybody adversely, without trying to eliminate
anybody from the process? We want to make sure that everybody is involved.
And, in doing that, we have an extensive public involvement process. And I have a schedule which actually
lays that out, and I'll provide copies of this, put it on the visualizer as well as provide copies.
We start with actually the development of the public involvement plan itself. It's in draft form, being
reviewed by the county staff.
We also have an extensive stakeholder list currently in the neighborhood of200 individual agencies and
people, stakeholders from other lists that have been aggregated together to -- that will be on mailing lists and that will
be invited to participate in certain upcoming events. That list, of course, is sort of a living list. It will be updated
periodically. Anybody that wants to get on that list can be put on the list.
We have a number of specific events that are planned. The kick-off workshop is actually later this month, in
February. There will be, as part of that, we hope, a few break-out sessions with the attendees of the kick-off
workshop, to get sort of a fIrst cut at what the issues are, what the hot buttons are, what are the things that we need to
be aware of and be concerned with to make sure that we can properly address.
Following that, we intend to have group interviews so that we can dig a little bit deeper into those issues to
make sure that we clearly understand what we learned at the workshop and flush some of those issues out, give people
-- giving people an opportunity to think about it a little bit more, giving them an opportunity to sort of tell us in a little
bit more detail what and how they would propose to address certain kinds of issues.
We would then have a number of large stakeholder group meetings bringing everybody back together,
because it's not only important to go to a group of stakeholders that are interested in the environment or interested in
transportation or in some other aspect of public infrastructure, it's important to bring them all together so that they can
hear each other. That's the way you build a consensus, is by making sure that, I understand what your issues are and
you understand what my issues are. So those large group stakeholder meetings will actually put all of these people
back together so that they can hear each other's issues and perhaps interact in a way that would help build a consensus
on the solutions. .
There will be several public workshops where the public will be invited to see the fruits of these labors, to
react to the documents and the maps and weigh in on issues and topics.
There will be about six newsletters. There is a comprehensive website that's currently being developed, that
will be up very shortly, linked to the county's website, so that people will be able to go there, interact with the website,
Page 15 of 23
16 I 1 8 7
February 3, 2011
provide comments, take surveys, download documents, see maps and the like. And it will also be for our stakehblders
to gather documents, review them, provide comments back into the system.
The last part of the project will actually be the brick and mortar part of it, putting together all of the data and
analysis, the review of everything that we've learned through all of the public involvement, putting together the
current studies, trying to normalize a lot of the data that we've accumulated, making sure that we are all dealing with
sort of the same data set, and coming up with the individual concept plans that I mentioned earlier.
Finally there will be a series of public hearings with the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners to review the draft materials, take input, provide comments back, and then ultimately to a formal set
of adoption.
What we're anticipating is that this would be a 12-month cycle, would be -- by the end of the year we would
be back in front of the Board of County Commissioners, having gone through the whole process. And we hope what
would lead to a concise set of recommendations that the county could then move forward with implementing some of
these -- some of these concepts.
This will be the -- to wrap it up, this will be the fIrst comprehensive build-out study of the county,
countywide, that is, to my knowledge, has ever been done. We've done one of the urban area, there's been the
Horizon Study. Eastern Lands has done some work. This will be the -- sort of the compilation of all of that work in
such a way that it comprehensively looks at the entire county to try to give us a vision of what it is that we're going to
grow up to be some day. This is something we need to start worrying about today because, while we can plan and
program for the next five to ten years, what we need in the immediate future, there is a long way out that we need to
be planning for.
And if you have any specific questions, I'll be more than happy to try to answer them for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You said Phase I is done, and that was the gathering of data?
MR. PERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that available to the public? Would that be available on the website when
it --
MR. PERRY: Yes. We'll put it up on the website, yes.
A lot of it is cataloging information, where the sources of information are, what's available, who to contact.
A lot of the information was actually gathered, physically gathered. If it was static kind of information, maps and data
sets, and things like that, those were actually compiled. But a lot of the information is sort ofliving information that is
continually updated. And in those instances we provided the data sources, the links to those particular pieces of
information that were available.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the next things you said, it was federally, for the large part,
funded?
MR. PERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For the small part, who funds that?
MR. PERRY: There is some local money -- some county money involved, transportation or growth
management. I'm not exactly sure which pot of money it comes from. But there may have been some local match
money. There is also some additional transportation funding money that went into some ofthe modeling that will be
necessary.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then --
MR. PERRY: But the large portion of it was the EP A grant.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that funding carries us to the conclusion of the report, which look likes,
on this schedule, is the end of the year?
MR. PERRY: Is in December, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's it. It will be a fmite report at the end?
MR. PERRY: Yes. That will be the report, will include the recommendations. There may be some
implementation that would be necessary after that, I suspect, in large part, by the county, maybe through your EAR
process, LDC amendment process, those kinds of things. What we plan to have is a complete end product that would
then be provided for implementation if the county wants to move in those directions.
Then there would ultimately be some sort of follow-up that would be required by the county to make -- to
implement those changes, for instance. Just changes that might be required in your Growth Management Plan or
Page 16 of 23
161 1
February 3, 2011
r'-.':
,.
r', ~.
7
L",.':
might be required in the Land Development Code to implement some of these strategies.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else -- or, Tom, I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. EASTMAN: Jeff, do you have a date for the kick-off meeting, a time and place?
MR. PERRY: The date is February 25th, 25th at the South Regional Library in Lely Resort. And it starts at
-- 9:00, 9:00 to 11 :00.
We probably will have a short presentation, half an hour, 45 minutes, kind of get everybody up to speed on
what has been done in the past. And then we would propose to break out into some group break-out sessions,
depending on how many people attend, and sort of interact a little bit and get some issues out on the table.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a few, Jeff.
MR. PERRY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : We have a lot of plans in Collier County already existing. I'm going to ask you
about them. Maybe you can tell me how this interacts with them.
Let's start with the Growth Management Plan. Is this going to replace the GMP? Is it going to coincide with
the GMP? Is it going to require the GMP to be amended? What do you see the outcome in its relationship to that?
MR. PERRY: I would suspect -- no, it doesn't, certainly doesn't replace the GMP. The GMP is the document
we're starting with. That's the set of rules we have in place today.
In large part, the question is whether or not any of those rules should be changed. In order to achieve the goal
of reducing vehicle miles of travel, are there certain things that we can do, certain policies that should be put in place,
certain regulations that need to be adopted that would achieve that goal?
We identify those, and that may, in fact, require amendments to the GMP, maybe in the Transportation
Element, maybe in the Land Use Element, maybe in the Environmental Element. Those are the -- those are the
follow-up activities that would be necessary in order to accomplish some of these goals.
We don't think that there are things in place today. Ifthere were, we wouldn't have -- need to do the study. If
there were things that were in place today that were already accomplishing the goal, then I doubt seriously that we
would be going forth through this effort. But we believe that there are ways to improve upon the planning process,
and that would ultimately lead to amendments to the -- if the county approves them and wants to go in that direction,
then that would be the mechanism to implement those, as well as LDC amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The GMP has had over 20 years of community input. And there are some parts of
the GMP that are very tailored to particular neighborhoods, Golden Gate Area Master Plan being one, the Immokalee
Area Master Plan, which is now going through its final revisions.
How are you -- how is this group going to approach changes to those sections of the master plan? When
these communities spent years doing them, they did them through involved stakeholder meetings specific to their
communities to get the outcomes they wanted. They are being challenged today in many areas, unfortunately, rather
than wait for the committees to reconvene.
What will your committee's interaction be with those more focused portions of the GMP?
MR. PERRY: I think we're looking at a different level. We're looking at about 30,000 feet as opposed to
5,000 feet, where those plans are actually implemented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me talk about that level. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I want to make sure
you get to my question.
There are a series of MPO plans, I believe, where they have attempted or may still be attempting to put six
lane corridors in large swaths through Golden Gate Estates, as a prime example. The community didn't want that.
The community didn't vote for it in 2001, 2002. The community didn't go forward with all the meetings we had for
two years. But yet there seems to be some mindset that those thoroughfares and those corridors are needed to break
up Golden Gate Estates.
Would this study you're working on promote such an item like that? Or, if it does, would it look at that item
as a focus? Because that's not 30,000 feet, that's on the ground. .
So, based on that kind of an example, does the 30,000-foot example that you started to come up with still
apply?
MR. PERRY: I think part of the problem that we have is that we have these sort of disparate kinds of
planning processes that go on every day that don't really communicate with each other. They really don't have a nexus
Page 17 of23
161 1 8 7
February 3, 2011
between the two.
The MPO transportation planning process, almost nobody shows up at any of the meetings, none of the
public. It's only when their ox is being gored does somebody decide that they want to show up and complain about a
particular roadway. And it's then only if someone tells them that, you know, there is a new bridge being planned or
there's a new road being planned that is going to go past your front door. That's when they come out to those
meetings. There is very, very little public involvement that actually takes place in those kinds of venues.
So there is oftentimes policies and plans and programs will get put into place that are perhaps inconsistent or
not appreciated, if you will, by the people that they are designed to help or to work with.
So I think a study like this, if we can get the participants from these different groups and different agencies,
different areas, to participate in the process, they at least have a venue, an opportunity to sit down with the same
people and present their issues and have those other people, that are perhaps on the other side of the table at the
moment, listen to what their issues are. And if we can fmd a common ground to achieve the goal of reducing vehicle
miles of travel, maybe it's not eight lane, six lane highways through Golden Gate Estates, maybe there is some other
alternative that can be examined or proposed that would achieve the same results.
Each of these different sort of groups has their own agenda. They have their own issues. They have their own
goals in trying to accomplish what it is that is important to their particular -- their particular issue. And I think what
we want to try to do is bring everybody together, look at all of those issues, get them all out on the table, and try to
deal with the longer term issues of where we are going beyond when the MPO plan stops.
The MPO plan only goes out to 2035. There's probably at least 50 more years worth of growth that's going to
occur after that. And no one is looking at that.
How is Golden Gate Estates going to build out ultimately someday with its network of roads and bridges and
employment opportunities and shopping and provisions for public facilities, public schools and fire and things like
that? Are all of those things in place? Those are the kinds of things that we want to fmd out, whether or not there is
any gaps that need to be filled.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One comment you made, I just want to kind of correct.
The public shows up when their ox is being gored, as you put it, because they don't get paid to be at those
meetings and they can't afford to spend the time away from work and their families all day long, every day,
consistently. So that's why you don't see the public there until they, unfortunately, hear about it at such a late date it's
progressed.
MR. PERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think we need to accommodate that any time it occurs.
As far as your organization, and you listed a few others that are involved in the process, Stantec, which is
now -- which was WilsonMiller, Tindale Oliver. Aim, I guess that's--
MR. PERRY: Aim Engineering, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aim Engineering. Do any of those entities, besides working on this plan for the
government sector, work separately on various mobility issues for the private sector?
I know the answer is going to be yes. You guys do work for the RLSA folks, the big landowners out there.
You do -- it's specific work for individual landowners. I'm sure Tindale Oliver does. I've seen studies where they've
done things.
How is it that the public can be assured that the job you're doing for the mobility plan for the Collier County
government is not being designed in such a manner to benefit something else that's unintentional for the general
public? Is it a purely plan to the best interests ofthe public?
I know that's kind of an ambiguous question, but it concerns me. We have restrictions on government
employees for working two years after they leave their government service from working in the private sector. But
yet fInns like yours come and work both sides of the table concurrently. And I think that's a concern. And I'm just
wondering how that's -- if anybody's -- how that's being addressed. Who is overseeing that, if it isn't the stakeholders
and value of the stakeholders' input?
MR. PERRY: I think the end result is whether or not the plan achieves the necessary goals that the
stakeholders envision. We accumulate a listing of 1'00, 150,200 stakeholders, and they are, in fact, the people that are
going to be guiding this particular effort. We have a county management team that is going to oversee every word
that's written on the paper, every map that's drawn. I have to believe that this is a fair and impartial exercise that we
are going through.
Our fIrm works for a variety of agencies. Some of our biggest clients are government agencies. In fact, our
Page 18 of 23
16f187
February 3, 2011
biggest clients locally here are government agencies. We do -- yes, we do work for private individuals. We -- as does
Tindale Oliver. Mulhere and Associates perhaps does work for private individuals.
I think the effort -- whenever we put a work effort in place, we work for our client. It goes without saying
that we are working for the county in this case. We are working for the public. Tindale Oliver has a long history of
working for Collier County. They are doing their transit work, they are doing -- all of your impact fee development
work has been done. Impact fee ordinances and studies have been done by Tindale Oliver. They are the prime
consultant. They are running the show in terms of the consultant team.
I don't have any question in my mind about whether or not this is going to be a fair and impartial exercise.
Everybody is not going to like the end result, but that's not going to be because, you know, so and so is a client of
somebody else.
This is an effort that is going to lead to some, we believe, productive policies and objectives that will lead to
vehicle miles of travel -- reductions in vehicle miles of travel that will benefit everybody long term.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when will you be producing a list of participating stakeholders?
MR. PERRY: That list is available now. It's an ongoing list. We have a -- there is a database of names and
addresses, agencies, NGOs, private individuals. Whoever came to us as part of a collection of other lists, we've sort
of compiled. It gets bigger and bigger. And we've identified those people that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you send that? Is that something you can E-mail to us or --
MR. PERRY: Sure. Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to see the list. Because your statement that you're going to be looking
for what the stakeholders envision, that's important.
MR. PERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how you are going to weigh the value of some of the stakeholders,
because if -- hopefully some of the civic groups that are involved, if they are involved, they represent a substantial
body of people versus one landowner who may not.
MR. PERRY: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the compatibility of this system with the local community is, I think, what is
going to be most critical.
You have an item on here called stakeholder group interviews, parenthetical 12. What does that mean?
MR. PERRY: Those are the smaller groups that would perhaps be six, eight or ten individuals that we would
interview with, following the stakeholder workshop. The break-out sessions are intended to sort of get stuff out on
the table, fmd out what the issues, what the hot buttons are, and see where we need to dig a little deeper and get more
detail. A lot of people are going to, for the first time at this workshop, initial workshop, are going to be -- sort of begin
to think about certain things. Thinking about the build-out horizon.
If they've only been thinking in terms of five or 1 O-year plans, now all of a sudden we're going to be asking
them to think 50 or 60 or 70,80 years out into the future. So we would expect that they need a little bit of time to
think about things like that.
So the follow-up group workshops, we would try to collectively put people together that have this common
interest, for instance, environmental or transportation or public utilities or whatever, put those groups together. The
county agency staff, for instance, we would look at certain growth management administrators and growth
management staff, the utilities administrators, people like that we would call together into one group meeting and go
back through some of the issues that we learned up there at the workshop and dig a little bit deeper and get more input
and provide some sort of commentary as to what -- where we should be going with some of these things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your master plan, would it include, I guess, kind of take under its wing the
pathways plan we currently have, for example --
MR. PERRY: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the CAT transportation plan and all that?
MR. PERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You also said that it's going to be sensitive to population, I guess the future
population, the grow-out population.
MR. PERRY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you going to get those numbers from?
MR. PERRY: The Growth Management Plan has the land use constraints, if you will, the totals built into it.
There is an adopted future land use map, a Future Land Use Element that can be used to calculate population and
Page 19 of23
161 1 B 7
February 3, 2011
employment and everything else. So that's the starting point.
Where that future land use -- some of it is pretty vague. Obviously, you have large areas of rural fringe or
rural lands that are pretty vague as to where and how development might take place. We would sort of like to be able
to understand a little bit better how that is going to occur in relationship to the complementing public services that are
necessary.
For instance, where development occurs, there needs to be the public facilities to support it. Where the public
service, you know -- understanding how the public service providers, fire stations, for instance, provide service, what
their limitations are, what their constraints are, it's important to know in relationship to where land development is
going to occur.
But the population control totals, if you will, for build-out, are really established by the Growth Management
Plan. Whatever is in there today is the starting point.
That may lead to recommendations concerning densities or intensities or locational criteria, or something else
may come out of this at the end of the process. But what we're starting with today is what we're given in the form of
the future land use plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a big driver of density or population called the RLSA that started a process
to expand its size three times what it originally went in for, from 16,800 acres to 45,000 acres of developable land
available for credits. That's going to greatly increase the population.
Which number are you guys using for the population in your RLSA, as an example? Are you using what's in
the code -- what's in the GMP today or are you using what was applied for but hasn't been followed through with yet
and probably won't be for the end of 20 11 ?
MR. PERRY: What the Future Land Use Element holds today is the starting point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then the --
MR. PERRY: Now, there is some disagreement about whether or not that 16,000 acres or some other
number -- I mean, that, notwithstanding that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm sure --
MR. PERRY: What is in the plan today is the starting point.
Now, if, during the course of the study, if something else comes up, you know, we'll make some adjustments
if necessary. But, generally speaking, we have to start somewhere. The Future Land Use Element today dictates
densities and intensities. Doesn't provide a lot of locational criteria, but it does provide at least some control total caps.
The county has an interactive growth model that includes all of that for the area east of 951.
So all of those kinds of things will be used as the starting point for the study effort.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That population that is going to blossom out in the east, it will probably be equal to
or greater than what's in the urban area. And the points that that population uses to access our area is going to be
crucial to your mobility plan.
MR. PERRY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interchanges, as an example. If that whole area depends on an interchange that goes
through an existing community, that's going to have an impact on that existing community.
So that's why it's critical to use what is going to be the right population. And that's what -- that's hence my
question. I'll be interested to follow along with your statistics and see where you get to.
That's most of what I had now. Anybody else have any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jeff.
MR. PERRY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Jeff, I just wanted to make sure that this board is on your list, so that we all get
everything.
MR. PERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Ebert, you had item 11.B, an add-on.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I did. It has to do with what time we meet in the morning.
Speaking with different people who participate in this, they would prefer 9:00. We are the only one that
meets at 8:30. And, for convenience-wise, maybe it will help Ms. Caron, too. They--
If we meet at 9:00, part of reason for it is, some of the employees need to get their things done when they get
Page 20 of 23
16 1 Flruary~201l1
to the office at 8:00, and it's -- I was just wondering how this committee felt at meeting at 9:00. And the court
reporters that we've had, I know would prefer 9:00, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have a hard time getting up in the morning.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ah, you bet we do --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice those court reporters, they just constantly want to sleep in.
It doesn't matter to me. Does any -- 9:00 is a good time. But does anybody have any preferences one way or
the other?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like 9:00. I'm pretty lazy. I like to sleep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: 9:00 is fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it means 9:00 for you, does that mean you are getting here at 9:00 on the dot?
Barry, do you have any concerns?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: No. This way or I could do 9:00. I'm amenable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, or the County Attorneys, between the two of you, is there -- we have a
lot of entitlements in various LDC or code of laws for the Planning Commission. Do you know offhand if there are
any restrictions on our starting time for regular meetings?
MR. BELLOWS: None that I'm aware of.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I am not aware of any restrictions. There may have been a couple of meetings that
-- a couple of items that have been advertised, I don't know the status, for 8:30. But, I mean, staff can show up or I can
show up at 8:30 and wait ti19:00.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. If you've got -- fIrst of all, the consensus doesn't seem to be a problem, so
maybe we ought to look at moving to 9:00. We don't need to move it to 9:00 until the current advertising has expired.
So if you could look at that, and at the next meeting report to us at what date we could move to 9:00, and then
make sure all future advertising coincides with that, then we would be good to go.
Does that work for the board?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Just remember to come at 8:30 for the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's 8:30 until the -- until Ray and the County Attorney--
MR. BELLOWS: Until--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Until you hear otherwise.
MR. BELLOWS: -- probably the second meeting in March.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We want to have it as a discussion item here so that everybody on the board knows
that we've changed it as well effective whatever date. So the next meeting we'll solidify that idea.
Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, while we have everything in flux, would it be wise to meet in the
evening sometime, just for the public's sake? We do have some items -- or maybe we meet in the afternoon that can
go into the evening with certain items. But it does seem --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for the length of our meetings, to start at night -- I mean, all of us, quite a few
of us work. And if you start kicking in at 5:00 or 6:00 at night, and some of our meetings go for three to five to six
hours, and we never know how long they're going to go, I honestly think that could be real detrimental to the
decision-making process, to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I do feel sorry sometimes, when you can see people obviously are
taking off work to sit here and watch a boat dock and then wait for their item and -- but anyway --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I mean, 9:00's a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, with the staff attendance as well and the overtime, that we'd have to look at
that, and keep the cameras rurining. Kady would be here at night. I -- yes, Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Do we ever do time specifics for certain items that are going to be highly
attended?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe have a meeting that is rather lengthy and there is a sensitivity to a particular
item, yes, we have in the past. But on our board it doesn't occur as often because we don't have so many no-zoning
Page 21 of 23
161
1
Jj
7
,-
February 3, 2011
issues. The BCC has a lot of stuff to deal with, so they sometimes try to separate it out. So, I mean -- yes, we -~ if
that did occur, we could do that. And we have in the past periodically.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll leave it. Next meeting we'll get an update on that time change and see how
that works.
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Since we're talking about meetings, our schedule, are just the regular
meetings throughout the year. Are there any other others?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There will be --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we have any other meetings besides the regular meetings?
MR. BELLOWS: You will have some items, such as the EAR or Growth Management Plan special
meetings. And you would have -- coordinate the time of those entities, or we would. Certainly I'll be coordinating
with Mike Bosi and everyone else within the Growth Management Division about the 9:00 start time, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think she means they don't show up on the calendar--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. We have nothing but regular meetings on our calendar. So I was just
wondering what the other dates would be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, as they come up, he will add them to the calendar, because he distributes
that calendar every week.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There is nothing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think--
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, last year we had them and they were all already on, for, like, the
whole year, at the beginning of the year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are any future dates set?
MR. BELLOWS: Additional dates other than your normal CCPC dates? I'm not sure I understand the
question.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. Any other meeting dates throughout the whole year.
MR. BELLOWS: I will double check --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Last year we had the whole calendar at the beginning of the year and now we
just have the regular meetings.
MR. BELLOWS: Those would be some compo planning items, special items. And I'll follow up and make
sure that calendar you have has all the other dates.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Good.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do also have a question. And it was so funny, because this morning I did ask
Ray. I said, can we save some trees and maybe only do this three to four months out? Because you are right, that's all
I see on here are, you know, so -- just save some paper.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A massive amount of public here. I guess we're not going to have a lot of
public comment.
Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Melissa --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- seconded by Ms. Ebert.
Weare adjourned.
*************
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:56
a.m.
Page 22 of 23
1611 8 7
February 3, 2011
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
-
P.STRAIN,Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on 3", I -,.-- U
corrected
, as presented
/'
or as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY
ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR.
Page 23 of 23
" RECE\VEO
M~R 2 '3 20\\
eoerO of county ~er&
~ii~:r Jl ~- 1-6 1 1 8'./
Henning~ February 17, 2011
Coyle
Coletta
TRANSCRIP(OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
February 17, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 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
Donna Reed-Caron
Diane Ebert
Karen Homiak
Barry Klein
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Jamie French, Director, Operations and Regulatory Mgt.
Ray Bellows, Planning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Bill Lorenz, Director of Land Development Services
Page 1 of 90
Misc. eon.:
Daee:
1t8mt:
C:pies to:
1611
7
,'~
February 1 7, 20'11
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. ...
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the February 17thmeeting 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, Ms. Homiak, could you do the roll call, please.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure.
Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is absent.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Klein?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
*** Addenda to the agenda.
Ray, is anything changing on today's agenda? To be that lucky.
MR. BELLOWS: Not that I know of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay.
Just so the audience knows, we have a small consent item to start with. It will be quick. Then we have three
items all involving Olde Cypress, that will be up next. They'll be heard simultaneously but voted on separately.
(At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After that we have the Immokalee Master Plan for anybody -- well, actually, we
have Addie's Corner after that and then the Immokalee Master Plan. And we'll fmish up with the Davis
Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use district.
Mr. Midney has shown. Hi, Paul.
***Okay, Planning Commission absences. The next meeting is March 3rd, is it, Ray, or somewhere around
that neighborhood?
MR. BELLOWS: The March 3rd meeting was canceled.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're having it as a workshop --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for the new attendees over in Developmental Services, Room 609; is that right?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And that meeting starts at 9:00.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for those that wish to attend that, that's where it will be. There will be no issues
on the agenda, there will be no voting, it will simply be an orientation meeting.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And I'll be sending the agendas out within a week or so for that meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the meeting after that in March would be the 17th again?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And that meeting will also start at 9:00. And that will be the start of our
regular 9:00 meetings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The meeting on the 3rd starts at 9:00 as well?
MR. BELLOWS:"J'ThM"s correct.
CHAIRMAN STR.AI:N",: .. Okay. And Ms. Ebert had made the recommendation, it was followed through by
-,,0,.
, ; !';~-~,:
Page 2 of 90
"
1611 '8 7
February 17,2011
staff, we are going to be meeting at 9:00 in the morning starting in March for all our meetings heretofore. ~.'4f
And that's kind of nice for those of us that have distances to travel.
Mr. Midney, I'd love to see if he's going to be 9:01 or 9:02 on those meetings.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Probably.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody know if they're not going to be attending the March 17th
meeting?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we'll have a quorum. Great.
*** Approval of the minutes. The set that we have e-mailed to us was January 20th, 2011.
Does anybody have any changes or corrections on those minutes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry makes the motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ebert.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
***Ray, the BCC report and recaps.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On February 8th the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD rezone for
Marsilea Villas PUD. That was approved on their summary agenda, subject to Planning Commission
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
***Chairman's report. Due to the obvious length of to day's meeting, I will forego any further waste of time
and move directly into the matters at hand.
***The fIrst one up is the consent agenda items. Item 8.A. It's CP-201O-1. It's the Future Land Use Element
for the Growth Management Plan to modify language on the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial
Subdistrict.
That is on our consent agenda from last time.
Does anybody have any -- see any corrections or clarifications needed to that submittal?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, there is a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Melissa.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms. Ebert.
Discussion?
(No response.)
Page 3 of 90
'.
ct
.,
.......
1611 B 7
February 17, 20U
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Thank you.
***Now we get into the issue that's probably going to consume most of the day. If it does, that's fme, that's
what we're here for.
I'd like to ask anybody that -- for disclosures ftrst. Anybody wishing to testify on behalf of any of the
following items, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. They are all items to do with Olde Cypress. I'll have
to read them off for the record: PUDA-PL2010-388, DOA-PL2010-1052, PUDZ-PL2010-1054. The names are read
as Olde Cypress Development LTD, Olde Cypress Development LTD and Vita Pima, LLC. And then Vita Pima,
LLC, which is formally or is part of -- known as HD Development RPUD.
Anybody wishing to testify on behalf of those, please stand so the court reporter can swear you in. And I've
got something to say about our court reporter in a minute.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want to welcome Cherie' back to our board. She abandoned us last month.
Although Terri was here and did a great job, Cherie', it's good to see you back. So thank you for gracing us with your
presence today.
With that, is there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission on any three of those items?
Let's start with the Barry on the end.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Okay. On the 11th of this month I had a conference call with Mr. Yovanovich.
And on the 12th I received an e-mail from Mr. Cavenaugh and responded to it and we went back and forth for about a
day or two on a couple things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull that mic a little closer, too, Barry.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Okay. Should I start all over again?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, that's fine, I think we're okay. Just as we go on for the day, it would be
handy.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: First of all, I have to say this is my community, I do live in Olde Cypress, love
Olde Cypress, and I will give my ex parte of whom I have spoken with.
I met with Mr. Brian Stock, Mr. Keith Gelder, Mr. Ken Lannagan. I have talked to Ross McIntosh, Mr. Paul
Hardy, Mr. Dan Trescott. I have spoke with several staff members. I've had several e-mails. And several people
have stopped me in Olde Cypress. I have spoken with the Big Cypress Basin and the South Florida Water
Management District and God.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've been pretty busy, young lady.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No contact.
,CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich and e-mails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I too spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich, I've had numerous e-mails.andl.ve
read them all, from various members of the community. But I think they're the same e-mails that this board has
received. And I had forwarded those -- even though they came to my county site, I still forwarded them to Kay for
Page 4 of 90
161 1
""":-'-i.. .,
tJ ,
February 17,2011
-
distribution. So I think most of you have gotten them.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No contact.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No contact.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: E-mails, and I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Okay. And David?
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now who are you representing here today? I'm afraid to ask.
MR. WEEKS: Comprehensive Planning Section for the county.
Commissioners, I think we need to backtrack. Unless I misunderstood, I believe your motion on consent
agenda only covered --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh.
MR. WEEKS: CP-201O-1, and we do have a second petition--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't turn the page. You're absolutely. David, thank you for the reminder.
We will interfere with our Olde Cypress issues for just one moment. Is there any -- we have CPSP-2010-2.
It's for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment overlay.
(At which time, Commissioner Caron entered the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The modification that we heard last time and approved.
Is there any corrections or changes or clarifications needed to that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Okay, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
And let's make it -- for the record, Ms. Caron is here and looks like she's anxious to jump in --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Such as it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll move back on track.
David, thank you for the reminder. Appreciate it.
And Richard --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we ready?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is there a presentation? I asked -- I want to ask the Planning Commission, we
have three issues involving this: We have the DR! level issue of Olde Cypress; we have the PUD issue of Olde
Cypress; and then we have the PUD issue of the HD Development modifications.
I'd suggest that we just listen to the discussion on all of them, the presentation all wrapped up into one, we ask
our questions to whatever degree we want to and on each piece of it, but we vote on them separately. Does that work
Page 5 of 90
1611
8 7
February 17, 201,1
for everybody?
(Nods of affirmation.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, hearing that, you'll need to proceed that way as well, okay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Good. Because that's how I had my presentation set up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's change it then.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And actually in the same order you just described them.
Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of all three petitions.
With me today are Brian Stock with St~ck Development, Keith Gelder also with Stock Development, and
Chris Mitchell with Waldrop Engineering to answer any questions regarding the project that I can't answer.
As the Chairman has pointed out, there are three separate petitions, although they are related.
The fIrst __ I put up on the visualizer an aerial which outlines Olde Cypress in yellow. And I note that there's
an error that I need to point out. And it will be clearly -- it will be shown better when I show you the DR! master
plan.
But this project right here is also within the DR!, and that's also shown as part of the Olde Cypress PUD. So
the yellow line didn't go far enough to the east. But I'll be able to clarify that by showing you the DR! master plan
boundaries, as well as the Olde Cypress PUD master plan. And I have those as exhibits to go through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But while you're clarifying what's in front of us, DaVinci Estates, is that now
a part of the DR! or not a part of the DR!?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, Da Vinci Estates, as you can see on here, is a hole in the doughnut, if you will.
And let me put the DR! master plan up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not outlined in yellow, that's why I was wondering.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me put the DR! master plan up, and let me hand that out to you all as well.
Because Commissioner Caron pointed out a couple of the parcels didn't match the Olde Cypress master plan, so I
need to correct that on the record.
The DR! master plan, as we're proposing to amend it, would add in one of the out parcels that's referenced on
the Olde Cypress PUD master plan, which would be this property right here, which is your third petition, which is the
amendment to the HD Development PUD.
The map that's in your packet incorrectly showed this parcel as C and did not identify these two parcels
around the lake as "R"s. And that's inconsistent with the Olde Cypress PUD master plan, so we needed to correct that
inconsistency.
So the DR! boundaries, as we're proposing to amend it, does not include the DaVinci Estates outparcel that
was separately owned at the time Olde Cypress was done, and has its own separate PUD. It's about 40 acres in size
and I think it was approved for 61 units. That is not part of what we're proposing today as part of the DR!
amendment.
The DR! amendment is to add about 64 acres. There will be no increase in the overall number of units in the
DR!. And we're also proposing to delete the reference to the 3.9 acres of parks that was in the ADA. Not the actual
DO, but the ADA as referenced in the DO. And that was a response to question 27.A of the original ADA
application.
So that's the first petition is to add that 64 acres in and delete the reference to the 3.9 acres of parks.
The second application is to amend the Olde Cypress PUD. And although we're not making any changes to
the Olde Cypress PUD master plan, I'll put it up there for information purposes.
The Olde __ and that's where you'll be able to see that the parcel that was shown on the proposed DR! map
was really not at C, it was an R on the original Olde Cypress.
The proposal __ the proposed changes briefly, and I'll come back to this particular petition in a few minutes, is
to delete 158 units from the Olde Cypress PUD. These units will be assigned to the HD Development PUD. That's
why we're able to keep the DR! overall density of 1,100, because we haven't used all the units in Olde Cypress, we
can transfer those to HD, the HD Development PUD.
That application amends the existing HD Development PUD by adding -- I'm sorry, I confused my petitions.
And then we're also deleting the reference to the 3.9-acre parks that are found in Section 4.5 of the PUD, and
also deleting the reference to the nature trails that are also in Section 4.5. And I'll explain why we believe those
should come out in a few minutes.
Page 6 of 90
16'187
February 17, 2011
And then fmally, the last petition is the amendment of the HD Development PUD to add the 18 acres to the
west that's currently zoned agricultural.
The current HD Development PUD for the acreage of roughly 46 acres allows 71 single-family units as well
as 33 multi-family units. We would be increasing the single-family units from 71 units to 125 single-family units
under the PUD. We're not doing anything to the 33 multi-family units because we do not own the property on which
the multi-family units are located. And here is the HD Development master plan.
So we're adding about 18 acres in this area. As you can see, we've laid it out as single-family lots. The
multi-family parcel is actually located here. We don't own it. It has access directly to Immokalee Road. And it
doesn't come through the gates of Olde Cypress.
The original HD Development PUD has its access through Olde Cypress, and so with the new, the
single-family portion of the HD Development project had its access through Olde Cypress and so would the new
single-family portion ofOlde Cypress.
The current HD Development PUD limits single-family units to one story. We're requesting that they can be
two stories, which is compatible with and consistent with the Olde Cypress PUD.
We're requesting to reduce the lot size to 6,000 square feet from the originally approved 9,000 square feet.
6,000 square feet is the same lot size that's found in the Olde Cypress PUD.
To put the product that we want to put on these lots, we're requesting to reduce the side setback from five feet
-- I'm sorry, to five feet from six feet. And again, five feet is consistent with what's within the Olde Cypress PUD as
far as the side yard setback.
We're requesting to reduce the minimum square footage from 2,400 square feet to 1,600 square feet. The
Olde Cypress PUD has a minimum square footage of 1,200 square feet, so we're still larger than the minimum size
authorized in the Olde Cypress PUD.
And as I previously mentioned, we're not making any changes to the multi-family parcel, since we don't own
the multi-family parcel. And in fact the multi-family parcel's not actually going into the DR! boundary for the fact
because we don't own it.
The issue that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just said the multi-family parcel is not going into the DR! boundary?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct, it's not going into the DR! boundary because we don't own it and we
can't include it into the DR! since we don't own it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the multi-family parcel is not going to be part of the DR!?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it is going to be part of the PUD, which is part of the DR!.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's part of the HD Development. And part of the HD Development, yes, will be part
of the DR!.
Now keep in mind, if we were starting all over, and we're not -- if we were starting all over, we wouldn't even
be a DR!, because the thresholds for single-family are now 2,000 units and we're at 1,100.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not starting all over, so let's deal with what we have at hand today. I didn't
realize that little subtly. You are familiar with aggregation?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't study that 33-unit parcel for the aggregation, so -- although I did
study another parcel for that issue.
Do you feel confident you can exclude that from the DR!?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. There's no common ownership, there's no common sharing of
infrastructure, there's no promotion, common promotion. We don't trip any of the five aggregation criteria on that
piece of property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are the people going to get in and out of that parcel?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're going to come in off of Immokalee Road, like they currently do now. That's
always been the way it's been set up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through what other parcel?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess they're going to come through the commercial parcel within the Olde Cypress
project.
Page 7 of 90
161187
February 17,2011
And as you know, if you're required to share infrastructure based upon a government approval, it doesn't
count as sharing infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the government approval is the only option that you had, if you have other
options, you certainly can't --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was the only --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- dump it on the government's reasoning for that. And that's going to come up in
just a few minutes on that other parcel.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Keep in mind that the HD Development we're talking about, we're not touching
anything in that area that isn't already approved. That project was -- you couldn't get access through Olde Cypress
because of the preserve, okay, so the only option was -- because county transportation wouldn't give them direct
access onto Immokalee Road -- was to require the sharing of access with the commercial parcel.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are five paragraphs that trigger aggregation. Paragraph number one has
three options in it. During the breaks today, because this will go on longer than our breaks will, I'll have to take a look
at that separately.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something coming back to discuss.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. The issue that certainly has received the most comment regarding -- of the
three petitions, the issue that seems to have received the most comments from the public has been the deletion of the
3.9 acres in parks, which is the second petition, which is the amendment to the Olde Cypress PUD.
And I need -- we kind of need to go a little bit back into the history of the development ofOlde Cypress
PUD.
I should have highlighted this. It's highlighted in the your agenda in your staff report.
But the original what is now known as the Olde Cypress PUD was approved in 1986 and was known as the
Woodlands. And there was a corresponding Woodlands PUD that went with the DR! approval and it was approved
by Ordinance 8675.
The original PUD allowed 1,460 residential units. It allowed 200,000 square feet of retail on about 15 acres.
And it included both in the text of the PUD and on the PUD master plan a reference to 3.9 acres of parks. And for
purposes of people in the audience, the parks were located here and here.
This park, the only way you were able to get access was to go through the moderate income multi-family
parcel and walk through the preserve to get to that park. The other park was basically at the end of one of the two
main roads into the proj ect.
So -- and you can see that that project originally contemplated access on the east side of the project and
included development on the east side of the project.
In 1996 the PUD was -- the PUD and the DR! were both revised to reflect the reality of the environmental
permitting that occurred with this proj ect.
And this is the current PUD master plan. But the only real difference between -- oops, that's not the PUD,
that's the -- that's the current PUD master plan. The only real difference between it and what was originally approved
in '96 was the addition of the parcel to the east and the inclusion of the driving range and the boundaries of the PUD'
But what you can see, there was a significant change to the development plan that occurred in 1996 as a result
ofthe PUD -- as a result of the permitting. The development that was previously on the east side of the project and the
access road and the two parks went away. They became preserves. Okay?
What -- the error that happened in our opinion was they forgot to delete the reference to the 3.9 acres of parks
within the text of the PUD to make it consistent with the change of the master plan. It was a mistake, in our opinion,
because the development change; we lost development footprint. It went -- and the project went from 1,460 units to
1,100 units, the commercial acreage went from 15 acres to 13 acres, and the square footage went from 200,000 square
feet to 165,000 square feet.
And, you know, I went back and I reviewed the Planning Commission minutes and the Board of County
Commissioner meeting minutes and they were both very quick hearings, because the focus was on there was going to
be additional preserve, there was going to be reduction in number of units and the park issue was never addressed in
any of this, other than it was addressed on the master plan.
Now, keep in mind, back in 1986 when the DR! was approved, the ADA, which is the question and answer
Page 8 of 90
1611 8 7
February 17,2011
document, it was very specific as to the location of where the parks were going to be. And it specifically referenced
the two locations I showed you on the 1986 master plan.
So the ADA said the parks will be where they are depicted on the master plan. The new DR! master plan and
the new PUD master plan do not depict any parks.
So again, it's our belief that the requirement to provide these 3.9 acres of parks was intended to go away when
the new development scheme was approved.
In addition, in 1986, single-family homes or any residential didn't have the obligation to pay community park
impact fees or regional park impact fees, so I think back in 1986 we weren't -- we didn't have the sophisticated park
system as we had in 1996. And since this project has been developed a conservatively low estimate of the payment of
park related impact fees is a half a million dollars.
And as you all know, because we've had this debate for several PUD's where -- there is no requirement at all
to provide neighborhood parks in the Land Development Code or in the comprehensive plan. So a park is not
required under the current regulations; it was not required in 1996 when the amendment occurred. There was -- the
park that was included in the original DR! was not a regional issue. It was purely a local issue that the RPC said sure,
if you want to provide the park, go ahead, just tell us where it's going to be. And it was identified in the original
master plan. Since that time, it's no longer identified on the master plan.
So it's our belief -- and the RPC has basically said the DR! references a park. It's not a regional issue, it's a
local issue. We just think you need to clean up the documents. If you're going to do a park, do a park. If you're not
going to do a park, take it out of from the DR! documents. That's why we're cleaning up the paperwork for the
reference to the park in the DR!.
Interestingly, the last time this PUD was amended, it was in the year 2000. At that time the entire Olde
Cypress project -- and I'm calling it -- when I refer to Olde Cypress, I'm talking about the area within the gates. The
entire Olde Cypress project had been platted.
So all the single-family lots were platted and shown. And on none of those plats was there ever a reference to
any parks.
So again, we believe it was never intended that this 3.9 acres of parks actually be built.
Now, the PUD document, as its currently structured, allows parks in only one area of the PUD. And it's those
areas that are designated R for residential. And they're permitted uses.
So under the PUD documents, should we be required to build a park, we can build a park anywhere on the
property designated R, and we don't need any further approvals from -- other than doing a Site Development Plan,
probably, from either the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners. Because that issue is
addressed in the PUD document if we're going to talk about having to continue to do those 3.9 acres of parks.
We don't think we're supposed to do them, but if we have to do them, they'll have to go on property
designated "R" within the Olde Cypress PUD'
In addition, since it's both a PUD requirement as currently written and as a DR! requirement, we believe that
all owners of property within the DR! or PUD would have access to those parks. And that includes the two
multi-family parcels that are outside of the gates ofOlde Cypress. And I'll point those out on the master plan.
It would be this project and this project. And one of them is fairway preserve. Which one is it? Which one is
my fmger on?
This is Amberton, which is a condominium project, and this is Fairway Preserve, which I understand is an
apartment project or it could be a condo project. They're both multi-family.
So both of those projects, as the documents are currently written we believe would have access to those parks
if we are in fact required to build them.
Your county staff acknowledges that there is no requirement under the current regulations of the county to
build neighborhood parks. Your staff also correctly points out that this community is in fact a recreational type
community. It has a golf course, it has tennis courts, it has a swimming pool, it has fitness facilities.
And I would point out that the fitness facilities are commonly found in county parks. So they should count
towards our park requirement as well, if we're in fact required to provide the 3.9 acres of parks.
Now, we have, and I will point out to you, the Land Development Code does not require any certain facilities
to be in these parks. It doesn't require any minimum sizes for these parks. So what I -- a lot of the comments that
we're seeing in e-mails is that people want a big 3.9-acre park, which was never the intent under the original
Page 9 of 90
1611 8 7
February 17, 2Ull
development scheme that it would be one 3.9-acre park. And that they want a kids park. Which again was never in
the PUD documents or the DR! documents, or required under any definition the county has of parks.
So if we have to do the parks, we'll follow the county regulations dealing with what the parks will be and
we'll put them on the RP's.
Now, this is not a one-way street, as it has been described so far.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What happened is in about -- a little over a year ago the parcel that everybody knew
as HD Development originally, the original 46 acres, had been cleared. And the development had started and it
stalled. And it failed. And the project was up for -- it went through the foreclosure process and it was up for sale at
the courthouse steps.
Brian said hey, I think I'll buy this project, and I'll coordinate my efforts with the residents ofOlde Cypress,
including the master association, to talk about how it's beneficial for me, Brian Stock, and my companies to buy this
property instead of someone else going to the courthouse steps and buying this property. And he basically builds a
nice quality project, quality product, so you know ifhe buys the project he's going to build a nice quality single-family
community fitting in the character for Olde Cypress.
He also offered to provide additional landscaping along Logan to the tune of about $100,000. And he also
agreed to double the size of the fitness facility from its current size.
Our belief is buying the land next door and assuring these people a quality subdivision that will have access
through Olde Cypress, doubling the size of the fitness center and providing the residents with additional landscaping
makes up for the perceived loss of that 3.9-acre park.
The park, to my knowledge, was never identified on any master plan document out there. I believe since -- if
people believe they were going to have an active park in their community, they would probably want to know where
that was going to be. Because most people don't want -- they like to have the park, but they probably don't want to
live near the park or next door to the park. Some might, but most people don't really want to live next to that amenity.
It would have been very important to those people, and I believe we do that now when we do our PUD
master plans, we identify where these community type facilities are so people can buy in and know what they're
buying next to.
Right now the way this PUD master plan is set up, I could put it anywhere labeled "R".
We believe if the park was truly important to the community, they would have wanted to know exactly where
it is so they could have made purchase decisions based on that.
And we believe, if you look at the entire history of this project, it was an error that occurred in 1996 when the
reference to the 3.9-acre parks was left in, because the whole master plan had changed, the whole development plan
had changed to go from 1,460 units to 1,100 units.
And in fact, as Olde Cypress has developed over time, it has changed. It is a -- I think it's a high end
single-family goWcountry club/tennis facility community, and we think it never was intended to have children's parks
within the park facilities.
Your staffs recommending approval of the three petitions, and we're available to answer any questions you
might have regarding our three applications.
And I focused on the park issue, because I think that's mostly what the community wanted. But we can
answer any questions regarding any of them that you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going to have a long period of questions. And we'll start with Mr.
Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Rich, two points. One is prior to you bringing up the desire to strike it
out, what was the community's plans to do for parks?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There wasn't any. The entire project had been platted as a single-family project.
There was never a -- there's no plans to put a park in there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this was a silent issue until you wanted to cross it off'?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It became an issue when we were getting ready to look at PUD close-out. And there
was the recognition that the PUD still said 3.9 acres.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Next question, and it's kind of on the site plan. The elevated
walkway, is that something that's new to this plan? If you -- or that is an existing walkway?
Page 10 of90
L
-
If 6 I 1 8 i
February 17,2011
MR. MITCHELL: Chris Mitchell for the record.
It is a reservation for a boardwalk easement, should the county have the funds and desire to build an elevated
boardwalk through that area, based on there's a concrete weir where an asphalt path goes, and it drains the Slough into
the Cocohatchee Canal. And for six months out of the year, according to the transportation department, it's under
water. So it's just a reservation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the one I'm talking, looks like it's connecting. If you look on your
map, you'll see the dark -- like it's connecting a golf hole.
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that existing or not?
MR. MITCHELL: That is existing. That's part of the golf development. Sorry, I thought you were talking
about out front.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I just wondered why it's on the master plan if it's existing. But just to
point it out, just to point it out.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any -- Ms. Ahern. Melissa, that's easier.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Rich, do you know when the ftrst lot was sold?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: About 2000. Is that right? I don't know that there were any in 1999. I know there
were some in 2000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you know, on sales literature offering to the people, at any time was any
indication of a park located on any of the sales literature?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not to my personal knowledge.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not to Brian's personal knowledge either.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, that's more important.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, can you put the -- what you believe is the DR! master plan that you had
previously to this one up?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The original or the one that we're proposing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you handed out. I guess then for definition purposes, can you tell me what
that one is?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is what's commonly referred to as map H in DR! documents. And that's the DR!
master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this is the one that you would prefer we use and substitute into the
record as the master plan for this project, is that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the DR!, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the Olde Cypress PUD, the only -- is it going to be a similar -- do you
have a master plan for that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We're not changing anything in the Olde Cypress PUD master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a copy of it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just -- it was just up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the Olde Cypress master -- okay, then that's fine. Leave this one up, it's
clearer.
In both master plans there's an error on the plan. And I think it's one that should be changed and I think it's
one that's relevant to the Regional Planning Council and DCA.
The legal access to that out-parcel is not there. That legal access is a golf course. The legal access happens to
be an internal road to Olde Cypress. I found all this out yesterday. When I had met with you, this was the plan I
thought we were talking about. But the fact that that entranceway to that outparcel changes as internal to Olde
Page 11 of90
1611 B7
February 17,20'11
Cypress does change some parameters. It brings in the question of aggregation for this project.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was always part of the original Da Vinci Estates PUD. There was an option for
alternative access going through the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I believe that you believe that option was a requirement of Collier
County, and it wasn't. It says, prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for access in the northeast corner of the
property, an access agreement shall be provided to the county for permitting legal access through the Olde Cypress
PUD.
That was the alternative. The -- in number 7.4 in the Da Vinci Estates says: Existing legal access as depicted
in the southwest corner ofthe property in the PUD master plan and planned alternative future access is also depicted
in the northeast corner of the property.
So the aggregation rule that you can avoid if required by a government agency really doesn't fit this. That
was your choice to use that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, in 2000 when the Olde Cypress -- the Da Vinci Estates at Olde Cypress --
which ironically was called something different, I think it was called La Siena, and the county's addressing
department said La Siena I believe was an overly used name so they forced the owner ofDa Vinci Estates to change
the name of the project and he picked DaVinci Estates at Olde Cypress.
The owner of that outparcel was not the same owner ofOlde Cypress. There was no common ownership.
There was no common promotion.
We didn't -- even if you want to argue that we tripped the sharing of infrastructure, we didn't trip two out of
the five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's talk about that. I'm glad you brought that up. Number one, and this is the
aggregation rules: The same person has retained or shared control of developments.
B, the same person has ownership or significant legal or equitable interest in the developments. Or there is
common management of the developments controlling the form of physical development or disposition of parcels in
the development.
The president of Da Vinci Estates is also vice president of the Olde Cypress Homeowners Association. So
there's a connection there. And his name --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When was that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now. I got --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that ownership?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's control. His name is Jeffrey Folkman. He's registered -- and I pulled this up last
night, because this is when I found all this out. The Da Vinci Estates Homeowners Association, he's registered as their
president/director. He's also on the Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association as vice president/director.
That does pertain to some control that would trigger number one.
Number two: There is a reasonable closeness in time between the completion of 80 percent or less of one
development and the submission of a governmental agency of a master plan or series of plans or drawings for the
other development which is indicative of a common development effort.
I went to the county assessor's website and I pulled up the maps from 2001. I have it right here. And if
someone could pass it down so Ray could put it on the overhead. It looks like the projects were both started at the
same time and they built out as time progressed.
And the interesting thing is this particular center parcel, the out-parcel, was only accessed from the very
beginning. If you look on this map, you'll see where the northeast corner is their access point. The golf course and the
legal access was never used.
That becomes important because that was an alternative access. The county didn't care if you used that, you
had a legal access. The county didn't require you to use that access, you chose to use that access. And because you
did, that's what triggered the need to have a legal access through this interior Olde Cypress.
Which triggers number four, which is the voluntary sharing of infrastructure. Now -- and then number five,
there's a common advertising scheme or promotional plan in effect for the development sought to be aggregated.
They're all called Olde Cypress.
Page 12 of 90
1-
1611 B i
February 17, 2011
I would argue you've got some triggers of aggregation there. Now--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you know who enforces that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: DCA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Did you -- and that's where I'm going, thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fme. Well, you know what we'll do?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll apply to DCA for a letter after this is all done and ask them if we need to come
back with another petition to add Da Vinci Estates to the DR!. If that's what you would like us to do, we will go do
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an issue that's got to be resolved, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we'll resolve it by going to DCA after we get through this process. And if they
say that an error occurred in the year 2000 for two already completely built out subdivisions and they say come back
and clean up the map, we'll do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not asking for any more, and I want to say out of fairness to your client,
had I known this on Monday when I met with Richard I would have got into an intense discussion with him on it and
we could have had some better answers for today. I honestly didn't fmd this information out till last night.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's okay. And I found out about it Monday as well and called Dan Trescott and I
said Dan, what's going on? And Dan said, Rich, it's an issue that I would like to see cleaned up but it's not required
that we clean it up. That's what I heard back.
Now -- so I said fme. I let it drop. We talked about it with our client -- my client about that. But if we need
to take it another step up to fmd out if we need to fix the DR! map to bring in 61 units, we'll do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to see the DR! issue resolved so we've got -- if we have an error on the
books, I want it corrected. That's all I'm trying to do.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just keep --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, as far as how you propose this argument to DCA, a lot of an answer to a
question is the way you ask it. And I'm not sure, based on your presentation, how much of what I just told you you
were aware of. But I would certainly hope that you disclose all this information to DCA in the way you describe the
workings and operations of this proj ect in relation to the rest of it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If! had known this was an issue, Commissioner Strain, there's no question in my
mind adding 61 units to this project or DR! would have amounted to an insubstantial change to the DR!, and it would
be very easy to fix. Worst case scenario.
So we'll go give them all the facts as you've pointed them out, and if they say you need to do another
amendment to the DR! to include the out-parcel in map H, we'll do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm not disagreeing with you on what you just said. I'mjust saying if it
needs to get done --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do this right, it needs to be done.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we move into -- and again, if any of you have any questions, I don't mean to
dominate, but I have got a lot of questions. But you guys can ask yours in between.
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'm a little blurry on the point you brought up.
What you're saying is that to the best of your knowledge you think that that parcel should be included and not
be an outparcel on this DR!?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe that at all. Mr. Strain and I have a difference of opinion. And we'll let
DCA decide. And if DCA sides with Mr. Strain, we'll fix it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what Mr. Strain did was present the facts. The facts need to be presented to the
right agency so they can come back with the right answer. It's like a poll. When you take a poll and you say do you
want something, everybody says yes. But do you want something under these conditions, somebody might come
back with a different answer.
Page 13 of 90
161 1
P. 7 I
February 17, 2dll
Same thing applies here. When you approach the agency, you approach them with all the facts, they come
back with a good decision. It's clean, it goes away for everybody, including Mr. Stock and his development. And I
don't think anybody needs anything hanging over them as the future goes on.
So that's where I was coming from, Brad. It's DCA's call, in my opinion, on whether or not this is a problem.
Whether it is or not, I'm not the one to tell you legally. That's something I would expect DCA will do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But affecting the issues we're dealing with, does it have an affect on it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only in processing wise. It just means they got to come back in the process again.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The part of it that came about, I think one of the homeowners notified staff and
that's how I heard about it, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, got it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, let's get back into the--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you still need this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
Ray, if you could pass that back up to me so when Richard wants all this in one package, I'll be glad to give it
to him. I'm sure he'll want it.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: At some point I'd like to clarify some of the facts that Rich stated, make sure that
you understand the park in both the DR! and the PUD. So if you'd like me to do it now or do it later, whatever you'd
prefer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I bet you my questions are going to do that, but lets have your clarification
first and then I won't ask my questions.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I think this is what Rich said. And if anything I state is not correct, I wasn't
sworn in, let me know.
The DR! DO-86-1, that was the Woodlands DR!, that did not depict a map on -- excuse me, it didn't depict
the park on the map, nor did any of the text reference the park. Where it was referenced is in the ADA.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no. What I said was the DR! map did in fact depict the two locations of the park.
And also, the ADA answered a question, 27.A, said they are located on the master plan.
What I said was the DO, the development order itself made no specific reference other than by incorporating
in by reference the answers to the ADA and the map.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The question 27.A in the DR! did not refer to the master plan. So if you're going to
say that, you need to say it accurately.
What it says is, and I'll read it for you: Two areas in the northeast corner of the project totaling 3.9 acres
adjacent to the Cypress Preserve and access from the moderate income garden apartments provide additional active
open space for community recreational facilities to supplement individual tract amenities.
It does refer to the location, it just doesn't refer to the master plan as being the location in which it's at.
Now, it's a minor point, but I thought for what it's worth.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, look at the question. It says locate on map H where the facilities will be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It did.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we said they're in the northeast corner, so you go look at map H.
The question asked you to put them on the master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say it has to be, though. It tells you located on the master plan, but it
doesn't say on this particular you'd -- you're refrained from moving it around and changing it, or that if it's in the text it
still has to be on the master plan.
Go ahead, Heidi.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just ask a question on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We do have in our packet that Ordinance No. 86-75 showed a park and they
Page 14 of90
161 1
1:1' 7
February 17,2011
blew it up. Is that true?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The 86-75 I believe is the PUD, correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry? 86-75--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: 86-75 is the PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. But also concurrent with that was a resolutiOn that adopte:d the development
order for the J?RI. And the ~UD master plan and the DRI d~velopment order master plan were the sa,e:.
And m your packet IS where the parks were located m 1986. . .
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the location of that is a really lousy location. First of all, you have to
walk through the preserve -- I mean, what was the intent that that park was going to have? You couldn't even access
it. Okay, you don't have to answer.
But I'm saying, was this an afterthought where somebody said quick, show the park and then they --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the park I'm -- you know what, that was originally what I was supposed to
build, okay, was these two small 1. 7 and 2.2-acre parks. One of which you had to wade through the preserve to get to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But was it located because somebody was reviewing it said hey, the park's
not shown, quick, fmd three acres and stick it somewhere? Because this is an area that's not even accessible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you it's common for developments to use filler spaces and just say they're
parks. And they call them linear parks. That's not an uncommon thing to see. I wasn't surprised to see it where it was
located. But it also makes its value questionable into what you really would do with it. Which brings into the whole
play of if it's dropped what does it mean, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, in the reality it's in a swamp, a wetland, so -- thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something, Donna? Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think on the original-- weren't there also -- that's where the
multi-family was going to be, closer to there, and I think it was -- there was a road access. I don't know that it would
-- again, I don't think it was a really functioning situation ever, but -- this up here was --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I'll point to it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- was multi-family. Which got moved to that additional piece that hangs out
to the east, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It went away. I mean, that piece, that whole development went away, as well as the
other development coming up the eastern boundary. That all became preserve. And that's when they lost the 360
units is because they lost acreage related to the project.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But when that went away because of --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Permit.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- whatever permitting agencies, South Florida Water Mimagement or
whomever, said that this is a wetland and we need to it to be preserved. Is that when you had to go out and buy the
land to the east where the multi-family is --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- right now?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. That was added in much -- that was added in later.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Yovanovich, can you tell me, how many PUD's have you written?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Approximately?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Approximately? 25 to 50. Maybe more.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do some of the things change in PUD'S from your first plan, from your first
conceptual plan?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: In looking at the fIrst one here of the Woodlands, I notice that only 125
single-family homes would be in that whole community.
Page 15 of 90
161 1
B 7
February 17, 2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which -- where are we talking about now?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: In the Woodlands, in reading their master development plan. It was only going
to be 125 single-family homes throughout all of Woodlands.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you talking about HD Development now?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, I'm talking about the Woodlands, the whole site plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Woodlands was the predecessor to Olde Cypress, which I imagine you know.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will go back and pull that ordinance out. I don't -- I can't tell you that I remember
the breakup of the 1,460 units.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well, I did have that. And I looked at it and I went wow, 1,460. And
there were only going to be 125 single-family homes. That's what was in there.
And also --let's see, also on there were depicted the bike and jogging trails on the original Woodlands map. I
did not see that on the new revised map for Olde Cypress. Can you tell me why that wasn't put on that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're talking about the nature trails now?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, we are talking about the bike and jogging trails.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Presumably because there were changes in the plan of development.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Your mic's not working.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know why it's not working. Where's the hand-held?
I guess presumably because there were changes in the plan of development. That's our whole point. Our
whole point is the plans for Olde Cypress changed from the original Woodlands project to what's currently known as
Olde Cypress. The whole development scheme, the number of single-family versus multi-family changed. The
number of units went down. The areas that can be developed went down.
I think most people are very happy with how Olde Cypress turned out and wouldn't want what was originally
proposed in 1986.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely. I agree, we are -- actually, we are like three separate portions,
because Amberton is also gated, and so is the Preserve also gated.
I just was wondering where the bike and jogging trails went to, because they did not take away the roads.
And in this one, if we would have had a big blow-up, you could have seen where it was shown on there, where it was
shown where the bike and jogging trail would be on the inner roads. That's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go on, anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, on the --let's go back to the master plan that isn't a master -- that
isn't complete, the one that you handed out to us.
I'm going to ask you about a correction on that plan for the record.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the map H?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you handed out to us when we got here this morning.
No, the one you just took off! think is it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The writing's a little small.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you straighten that out for him so he can read the map? Thank you.
That entryway to the out-parcel, I just want one more comment on that. Since it's not being used, I think it
should be -- this should be corrected to show the real entryway to that outparcel and that the one that's not being used
be removed from the master plan.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Then at least it would be -- that's what misled me. I didn't know there was
any other entry until I found out yesterday. And then that changed the whole dynamics ofthat outparcel, at least from
my perspective.
Now, as far as residential goes for parks, is there any residential in this property that's not been developed?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show me where those are?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, there's not houses, they are lots.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we've got two R pieces. Now, I can't show them to you on -- can I go back to the
Page 16 of90
....... ....
master plan, please?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is the master plan.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the both the combination. But if you look at right here, can you see that that's
February 17,2011
1611 B i
anR?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And can you see that that's an R?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are two parcels that are undeveloped, there are no homes on them. They are
both over 1.3 acres each. And then there is where we have currently built the fitness facility, not counting the tennis
courts or the swimming pool, is also about 1.3 acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and that's an interesting point. Because where the fitness facility is, and
unfortunately the maintenance facility, that parcel is 3.94 acres, which would have ironically met the 3.94-acre size
you needed for a park all at one location. But you've got half of it being used for a maintenance facility, which
probably isn't useful as a park.
Now, the two "R"s you got right there, what were your plans for development of those two "R"s?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I guess if we have to they'll become parks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your eyes could they be anything else? Considering their location, blocked in by
a golf course.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Probably not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Their accessibility, do you still retain control of the clubhouse as developers.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you could provide access to those through the clubhouse site.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, there's parking for all that compound, if you will, of those three parcels.
There's adequate parking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the club house accessible within our outside of the gatehouse?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you have to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No what?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- go through the gates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to go through the gates?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no, mile bad, my bad, my bad, you're right. You don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've been there, I didn't think you had to.
Okay, so what that means is if this had to be opened up to the entire DR! PUD, even by the parcels that are
further to the east, for those people to get access to those two park sites, they could still come in will without going
through the security gatehouse, they could go through the clubhouse parking lot and walk to those two sites.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a quick question.
On the original DR! master plan which you corrected to put the "R"s where they belonged, the southerly most
R that's showing up on the visualizer right now was labeled driving range.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When this project was originally done, they had an aqua-driving range.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then they later on added the driving range parcel to the PUD and moved it to a
non- aqua-driving range.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So there is nothing there right now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just a nice lake and nice green area, yes. And a putting green, I think on the southern
-- the one you pointed to specifically is a putting green?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
Okay, the other thing you're striking from the language besides the parks is the nature trails. And the nails
trails were depicted on a previous plan.
Is there any reason you couldn't put those in if you were required to?
Page 17 of90
161 1 B 7
February 17,2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the only place you could put them, based upon the current PUD language is in
the preserve areas. And the preserve areas specifically allow for nature trails subject to approval by the community
development director, which is old terminology. But yes, we could do them if we had to. They would be -- access
would be a little tricky because all of the preserve areas either abut residential homes or the golf course. But we'd
have to work out access. But we could put nature trails in the preserves if required to do so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it looked to me like the nature trails ran along the very perimeter edge of the
preserves. Is that what you guys --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's where generally the upland boundary -- you know, you have the wetland and
then you have an upland boundary within the preserve. The upland boundaries would be on the outside of the
preserves, closer to the homes and fair ways or roves.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So ifthe nature trails were put in as planned, you'd end up having to put them in the
back yards of quite a few of the homes that border the preserves where they now don't have trails.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- the only reason I'm pointing that out is during the discussion and the
public's discussion with us, I want to make sure everybody knows the options that are on the table.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just personal comment. As somebody who lives in a home backed up to a
preserve, it would not be good to have people walking along the backs of your houses. I'm not sure about you, but I
appreciate my preserve and it allows me certain freed elms that other people don't have, so I wouldn't want other
people walking behind my building, for sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that is, though, being an issue being struck, I certainly want to make
everybody aware of it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Can be careful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when the public that is going to speak comes up today, I'll be asking you some
questions, and that will be one of them, what your thoughts are on that. So--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question, Mr. Yovanovich.
On these two park proposals that you have, if we have to -- if you have to put them in, this is really on the
golf course. What about liability? How are the children going to get there? Even if it's just open green space and
they go to kick a ball or something, they have to go on the golf course to get there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they don't have to go on the golf course for the southern piece.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But the northern piece --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the northern piece we'll have to put signage up, and hopefully they'll be
accompanied by an adult to make sure that they're walked into the park. But you know what? That's no different than
the one that was out in the swamp that was originally approved. This is probably better than what was originally
approved by having it walk through the swamp to get to the park area for -- and hopefully maybe the kids won't go to
that one, people will just -- adults will go there to sit and relax. And, you know, I don't know, but we'll have to put
signage up and hopefully parents will take responsibility for their children and walk with them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for that matter, of the two parks, the one that would be the most concerning
involving golf balls would be the one to the north, because that would have to be accessed alongside the fairways.
The one to the south is far enough from the tees and could be buffered enough on each side that the liability or the
accidents would be hopefully minimal, if there were any at all. But that's something to consider when we get in more
today.
In the NIM -- oh, Ms. Caron, you had one other question, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Could you just remind me again how many units have been platted in Olcle
Cypress?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Keith, do you know off the top of your head?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Since they're all done and --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in your packet, I just need to fmd it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I know, and I just can't remember, and I couldn't fmd it here.
Page 18 of 90
161 1
8 7
February 17,2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't tab that particular page. I know there's 400 and something I believe that's in
the multi-family. And--
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, just the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I know. And the remainder minus 158 is -- are platted lots. Correct? I'll fmd it,
Commissioner, while we're --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know it's in your backup material. I just didn't tab that particular page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the neighborhood informational meeting, Richard, Mr. Stock said the following:
Weare going to have to do some type of fence or security structure on Immokalee Road. At a minimum we'll have a
security fence. And your response to that was that we will let your association know.
What was the outcome of that question and answer period? What did you let the association know?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: A fmal answer wasn't made, but he's prepared to put a wall across Immokalee Road
-- or across the boun -- you know, not across Immokalee Road, I know I said that wrong.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that was good. Good luck.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Along. Along is the word I was looking for. I'm still trying to find the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would this be similar to what they have at Longshore Lakes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's a -- isn't that a wooden fence?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's a -- I think it's cedarcrete, which is a concrete cedar appearing looking
fence.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it would be concrete. I don't know that it would necessarily -- I don't know the
design yet, but there would be a wall versus a chainlink type fence thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you do know you can't put it across the flow way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll have to -- obviously we'll put it where we can legally put it and not block that --
Commissioner Caron, I think I found the right page.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Tell me.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer is the total lots that have been platted is 366; built to date is 360. And
multi-family is 576; built to date is 396.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Built to date is what?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Built to date is 396 between the two projects. And if you want me to break those two
multi-family projects down, I can.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank you. Ijust --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And at the NIM, Richard, you said the following: Let's cut to the chase, we
believe that this project and the improvements to the entrance more than offset the obligation to build a park.
Can you tell us what those -- because we weren't there, what the improvements to the entrance are?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are landscaping improvements that were coordinated with the association.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then the improvements to the fitness center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I'mjust worried right now about the--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're all -- this is all proposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the entrance. The entrance.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is all proposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the entrance improvements haven't been made, they're proposed?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, everything's proposed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's an interesting twist. So if you haven't done it yet and you're proposing it
and the proposal is based on what?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Getting approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means we have to stipulate all that. Otherwise what's tying you to do
that proposal?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you could make it a condition. We don't have a problem. We were willing to
Page 19 of90
1 6 I 1 B, 7.
February 17,2011
put it in writing. We're willing to put it in writing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. The problem is, to make it a condition we need something succinct
that we can sink our teeth into to improve the landscaping. You go out there and put one cabbage palm and say well,
we improved it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we have a plan that we can easily enter into an agreement with the association
that has exhibits to address everything that was proposed. And we're not far away from being able to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I asked the County Attorney to research an issue -- and I'mjust going to go
in order of my documents, some is going to be repetitive, so we'll have to wade through it -- concerned the LLC
designation. The Olde Cypress LLC that I believe that is the question today is owned by Stock Development. Stock
Development is listed -- in the name and address section of our disclosure, they listed Brian Stock and Kenneth Stock
at 50 percent ownerships. But I believe I saw on the website Stock Development actually is -- has several other
people, or couple other people involved in it.
Did you check any of that out, Heidi? Did you have time to?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, somewhere in your agenda package there's the corporate checks. I agree that
the disclosure part may have been incomplete in naming any of the, you know, officers of this entity. But the
corporate checks were in the backup that provided the additional names.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the references to the ownership of the company, it also said officers as
well. Since this isn't -- it's an LLC, which is limited liability corporation, I just suggest that you want to list officers.
It's not a big deal, it's just part of the completion of the paperwork.
In the current PUD that's in effect for Olde Cypress, I believe it's 2000-37, is that right? Do you agree with
that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there was a scriveners error, and 2000-53 is that ordinance. So the
combination of the two is yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In that document under Section 3, Page 1, 3.02, general plan of development,
it culls out some items. I want to know if they're there, and if so, where they are. One is water recreational facilities.
Do you have water recreational facilities?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, at the risk of trying to -- can people fish in the lakes?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do you have a swimming pool?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have a -- I was going to say a swimming pool, but I was afraid you were going to
say --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is not that hard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wasn't sure if you were going to count that. So the answer is yes, we have a pool.
And if you consider that water recreation, we have it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just going through a check-off list.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't know if you were talking about the lakes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, I was just going to help him along that he had a pool.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any bicycle trails?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think you just ride along the roads, the sidewalks and the roads of the bicycle trails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll eventually ask county staff if that's acceptable for bicycle trails.
Do you have any jogging trails?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not specifically identified.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the nature preserve section of the current PUD it talks about the function of that
area and it says: The area will also provide unique recreational opportunities and an aesthetic experience for the
pleasure of project residents.
I certainly understand the aesthetic experience. What unique recreational opportunities were provided, if any?
Do the residents have a right to access that preserve area? Are there any restrictions on that? '
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not aware of any signs.
Are there signs prohibiting people going into the preserves?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
Page 20 of 90
1611 B7
February 17,2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there signs prohibiting people from going in the preserves?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It says, preserve area, do not disturb.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I'm pointing all this out, if it isn't accurate, you're cleaning
this PUD up, you may want to clean it all up, assuming that's the outcome of today's meeting. Because these are --
these other things to me are the same hooks that you've got dealing with on your park and your walking trails.
The treatment and use. It says you could put these things in, which include jogging trails, boardwalks -- are
there any boardwalks?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the preserves?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Mr. Schiffer pointed at least one of them out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's for the golf course.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It goes through the preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But is it limited to people using -- members of the golf course?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's for the golf.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Nature trails. Do you have any nature trails?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we'd have to -- we're trying to strike that as a requirement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same as the walking trails then.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's -- all those are subject to approval of developmental services director.
And it says permitted uses and structures, you are permitted to put paths and bridges to provide access from
and through the uplands of the area.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact, you've already done that in one.
I saw a request in the staff report that it be defmed who is in charge of maintaining all these recreational
facilities if they are installed under 9.06 in the PUD' It says that they shall be funded through a system of revenues
collected by the homeowners association. So the maintenance is clearly already defmed --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if that happens.
Conservation areas. I have found a conservation easement, but it did not include a large section of the
conservation area. And I brought this up to staff. I think I mentioned it to you as well, Richard. Has anybody found
the balance to see if you've actually got conservation easements covering all the property that is shown to be
conservation on your master plan?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: My understanding is there are areas within what is depicted as preserve on the master
plan that are not within a conservation easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if they're outside a conservation easement, that gives you a little more
flexibility in how you can use that area; is that correct? Because you don't have to go through other agencies, you
basically go through the allotted uses that are in the preserve area of your PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a map showing us where the preserve areas are that are not
included on the conservation areas?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have that. We had not intended to use the preserves. We had hoped to leave
them as is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that may be fme. That may be the way today ends up. I'mjust trying to
make a list of alternatives in case it turns out these are badly wanted by the community and it's something that should
be there. And we'll just have to deal with it when we get down that far.
In your question 27.A in the ADA, you went into the following: Residents of the Woodlands will have
access to the lakes and preservation areas, which I believe they do. Improvements such as docks, picnic areas and
nature trails may allow their uses predominantly passive open space while protecting them from unlimited intrusion.
Are there any docks or picnic areas?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
Page 21 of90
16 I 1 8 7
February 17, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A bike/jogging path will parallel the major interior roads. Does such a path parallel
the roads now, or are they just the roads?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have sidewalks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But do you have a bike/jogging path --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- parallel to the major interior roads?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, for the record I want to make it clear, Mr. Stock's company is not the
company that committed to all this originally.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was done by somebody else. The only thing I have to suggest is the due diligence
done at the time this was acquired hopefully would have picked all this up and figured out some way to address it.
In addition to the above private recreation facilities that are planned within the larger residential tracts, are
there any private recreational facilities within the larger residential tracts?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They will be sized to serve the needs of residents of that particular parcels residents
and may include swimming pools, recreation buildings, tennis, shuffleboard, racquetball and barbeque areas.
But you've provided some of that in the clubhouse or that area to the south that's your tennis court area; is that
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct, we have -- yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are all things that, you know, when you get into the actual marketing of
subdivisions within the project you'll provide what the residents want. And as you know, as we've talked about, the
whole project has taken on a different form than originally contemplated in '86.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you. The reality of the problem is, though, is when you come
before a panel such as this and the BCC trying to sell a project, this kind oflanguage is highly beneficial in
convincing people you're doing a very well amenitized (sic) project. And the fact that it's not there, I'm not sure it
would have risen to the level of a denial, but it sure may have had impact on some people as to why they did or did
not vote on the project originally.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And generally we list these uses as we may provide these uses. In this case the
language doesn't say shall, but has been interpreted to mean shall provide all these things. But generally we include
the authority for the developer to include all of these and then as you get into the actual development of the project,
you'll let the market decide what amenities that community in actuality wants. And that's the way it worked in the
real world. It may not have worked that way on paper, but in the real world it worked to what did the market really
want for Olde Cypress to become.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That piques my curiosity
That information would somehow be translated into sales literature inducing people to buy property based on
what they would perceive are the full range of amenities related. But you're now stating that they were there and you
really have no obligation to do any of them, or you may do some? And you say the market. So when we say the
market, who are we talking about, the people who purchase it or how much the developer can afford?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what people -- what the people who move in there want.
And if we want to get into the entire sales history, there's a master property owners association declaration
that was referenced in everybody's deed that bought from the developer. And that declaration recognized that there
was a development order, and it also recognized that the developer can change the plans because -- in reaction to what
does the market really want.
So the declaration that everybody took their property subject to -- and I'm paraphrasing, I can put the exact
language up if everybody wants to see it -- reserved to the developer the right to make changes. And that's what in fact
happened, the developer made changes as the project went along. From '86 to where we are in the year 2011 right
now.
Page 22 of 90
161187
February 17, 2011
-
But basically all the lots were sold. The single-family lots were sold by the year two thousand -- by the end
of 2005.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, we may be chasing dogs that have died already, but I will tell you
this, I think you're aware of it, that there have been in the past developers who have promised the world and given the
people a lot less. And this government entity has one bite at that apple, and that's what I'm -- you piqued my curiosity
when you indicated that way.
I think yes, everybody who acquires property should do their due diligence. But the use of the word may
there is not often used in sales literature. There will be a, there will be these, that's what the typical thing is. That's
why I asked the question before about the sales literature. Because what's in --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've asked for it as well.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've asked for it as well. Because I've asked people, you know, was there a big map?
When you go into a sales center, usually there's a big map that says here's your community, pick your lot. Was there
something on there that said here's the park? I've been told no, you know. So I'mjust --I've asked the same thing, is
there something out there that said you are going to have one big 3.9-acre park that's going to have children's facilities
in it. And to date I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm not going to beat the dead horse here. But quite frankly, if
someone is an avid bicyclist and they say there may be bike trails, they're induced, I don't have a problem that changes
may be necessitated due to the market and the decisions of the people. But I do think it's important that we get it clear
what it is that we do want to. Maybe it should have been shall, I don't know, we'll fmd out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a piece of sales literature that was included in some of the e-mails --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that I think we all received. That may be why Mr. Murray's asking the question.
Because when I got this, I didn't see the parks in it, but I did happen to catch the fact that there's talk of trails. Do you
know where this came from?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know if it was Brian Stock's, I don't know if it was the prior owners,
but that is something that apparently the owners were told at one time or another.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. So again, if we need to put the trails in, we can put the trails in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'mjust responding to Mr. Murray, that's the only literature I seen that was e-mailed.
I think we all got it, but it was an attachment and it was a little hard to open. So that was the only one that -- yeah, we
may have gotten it in the packet, but that's the only one I saw with a reference to some of the issues we're talking
about.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. Because that is what I am relating, that oftentimes we
have people frustrated who acquire property because they have inducements that collapse. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And before I get into the HD Development PUD, which is the next issue, then I'm
going to --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Strain, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- move on.
Okay, go ahead, Ms. -- we're going to be taking a break here in a few minutes, that's what I was --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Yovanovich, do you know the original owners of the Woodlands?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do I know them personally? I need to look --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you know who the original owners are?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure if I go back and look in the ordinance I can find that out. I haven't focused
on who they were. I came into this project well after all the documents were done, so I haven't gone back and looked
at who they were.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And when did -- could you tell us when your clients acquired this property?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The entity was acquired by my client in -- end of2002, beginning of2003.
Now, Mr. -- Brian's dad was essentially the bank for the original project. They acquired the entity in total in
around -- end of 2002, beginning of2003.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're saying that Mr. Stock was not involved in this from the beginning?
Page 23 of 90
161187
February 17,2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not in -- not till 1986.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, when this was purchased from the original owners.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When Olde Cypress, Ltd bought the property, Brian's dad was essentially the bank
that helped fInance the acquisition.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: And when was that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know. I'd have to look. '98, '99 sometime; around that time frame.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. It was a question that I had on this.
Before we leave, I have one other question on the parks.
Did you ever read the recommendations from the Regional Planning Council?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: 1986, in August. May I read something?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You can, but what the legally binding document is is what was actually approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ms. Ebert, you can read anything into the record you'd like.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Recreation and open space. It said the project impact. Now, this is
coming from the regional planning. It says: The Woodlands DR! will contain 377 acres of open space and parks.
And this is referring to your 27.A. It says: Table D-1 gives the breakdown of acreage.
County standards recommend neighborhood parks of two acres per every 1,000 residents. Based on an
estimated population of3,500 people at build-out, 6.2 acres of park would be required, and only 3.9 acres are planned.
Additionally, the 3.9 acres of park are remotely located in the northeast corner of the project. They are further
isolated from the project by wetlands, meaning the cypress preservation areas, and from major internal collector
roads.
The remedial action said: The total park size needs to be increased to Collier County standards. The park
should be more strategically located throughout the project. The parks planned for the northeast corner require
pedestrian access, either boardwalks to go through the preservation area. All open space should have general
pedestrian access.
Prior to any development or construction, the applicant should meet with Collier County Parks and
Recreation Department to determine park needs, locations and degree of facilities to be provided.
Did your clients meet with the park people?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, these are recommendations that came from the RPC. They did not find
themselves into the approved development order. So they make comments. The Board of County Commissioners --
staff and the Board of County Commissioners decides which recommendations to follow or not. And clearly they did
not follow that recommendation because they only approved -- well, required 3.9 acres of parks with two locations
identified on the master plan.
And I would point out today there is no neighborhood park requirement. And we have shown you where we
can meet the requirements that currently are in writing on the master plan.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is this not a DR!?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Meaning development of regional impact?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: In 1986, if you were going to put 1,460 homes west ofl-75, would that have
been big for this county? In 1986.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, because the DR! threshold in 1986 I believe was 799.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: 1,000 units.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it was --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- 80 percent of the 1,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 800 or above.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you stay under that by doing 799. That's why you'll see that magic number in a
lot ofprojects. And the rules have since changed, but yes, it was a DR!. And there was a DR! development order
issued that required 3.9 acres of park through reference to the application for development approval and the master
plan. And we're trying to clean it up.
Page 24 of 90
161 FLrIa20]
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all for now, Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, that's all for now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take a break and we'll come back at 10:15. Thank you.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please resume their seats, we'll get on with the meeting.
And we left off moving into the third part of our packet. At least that's where I was going. But I want to
make sure at all times everybody on this panel has opportunity to ask any questions they have.
Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ijust have one question for Mr. Yovanovich.
Mr. Y ovanovich, when we talked about these local issues and everything, I believe you said that it was
voluntary from the recommendations of the Regional Planning Council?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I said that the regional-- if you're going back to the documents you said to us --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh-huh.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that was a recommendation. And it was a recommendation that apparently the
Board of County Commissioners did not follow. Because it didn't find its way into the approved development order.
And that's not unusual.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, may I read something from the '86 original development order? In the
conclusion oflaw it says: Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commission of Collier County in
public meeting, constituted and assembled November 6th of 1986, that the development of regional impact
application for development approval submitted by Ross McIntosh, agent, is hereby ordered approved subject to the
following conditions, as recommended by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, or in response to their
recommendations and the commitments specified in the PUD which are hereby adopted as conditions of approval of
this development order.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What was the map attached to that resolution?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: There's no map.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There is a map that went with it, Ms. Ebert, and that map was the map that's map H
that showed the two separate preserves. And the board -- the PUD that was adopted on that very same agenda had a
reference to 3.9 acres in parks. That's what the board adopted. They considered the recommendation and they took
the recommendations that they wanted and put them into the PUD document. Similar to the recommendations that
you all make. They generally follow your recommendations, but sometimes they don't. They were recommendations
that did not fmd themselves into the original documents.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else, before I go into the HD Development?
Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ijust want to follow up.
Rich, did this -- once the change was made by environmental, did it go back to RPC?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The RPC has seen a few notice of proposed changes to this document. So to answer
your question, they've had multiple opportunities to review this PUD; when we added the driving range, when we
added the multi-family piece that I believe was Amberton. So yes, the RPC has seen this and other amendments to
the development order.
Specifically in 1996 when the changes to the density were made, it went to the RPC and they saw it and the
new master plan was approved by it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm going to be on the HD Development package for now.
First issue I have with that package is the -- well, one that's not really mentioned. The entryway, we need to
put that master plan so we can read it. Or if you want to put the HD Development master plan on there, that would
probably be easier.
Okay, the entryway for this project, is that where it's shown? I think it's on Treeline.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that inside the gatehouse, Olde Cypress?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. I wanted to make sure I didn't make a mistake again. Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to be bringing in a lot of construction traffic for this project. And
Page 25 of 90
16110"
February 17, 201'
since I have built projects like this, it always is nice not to bring those heavy trucks and all that equipment and all
those construction workers through the gated entrance. It ends up slowing traffic down and being a problem for
anybody trying to get in and out of the facility easily.
For this project, would you have any objection with putting a construction entrance in in the northwest corner
through one of those pie-shaped lots? Because those don't need to be your first sale. And then when you're 90 percent
built out you can undo the construction entrance and finish it up through the other entrance.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What Brian just told me is those are actually part of the first phase of sales.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe you will need to change your phase of sales; it would be worth it.
I'mjust -- you know, you really could do better for this community. I've been through their gatehouse. Going
through that gatehouse with the dump trucks, the loaders, you're going to have backhoes coming in on multiple
lowboys. It's going to be a mess. And you really ought to consider building out, maybe from -- and, you know, you
don't want to build your best first, but from the south side north and then get the east and do that corner last.
Well, I'm throwing it on the table, you guys can consider it before the day's over, I'll ask you about it. Okay?
Go ahead, Ms. Ebert -- Ms. Caron. I'm so used to calling Diane lately.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Could you indicate here where the gatehouse actually is? I thought the
gatehouse was west of that corner as well. Maybe not.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is your gate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you can't --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You would have to go through the driving range before you go through the gate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but what's that -- where your thumb is, is that just a tee box?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the driving range.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, is that part of the tee -- is that your northern tee? So you have double tees,
dual tees both south and north?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we just have north. I don't think we have dual.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that won't work. Because you're going to have a lot of traffic coming
through that gatehouse to build this project out.
Is there any alternative you can look at for a construction entrance?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We told the community, you know, we would work to minimize the impact, because,
you know, a lot of it -- we're going to go in and hopefully do all the land clearing at one phase and do that quickly.
Then we're talking about individual homes as they get built.
But yeah, we talked to the community about -- you know, we understand that that's an inconvenience, but,
you know, we'll do our best to coordinate our efforts to minimize it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that brings me to a reason why I started asking this. I looked at your
deviation number two. And deviation number two asked for a change in your lake slopes. We have a 10 to -- we
usually go four-to-one down to 10 feet below control. Control fluctuates with the water table. In the your area I heard
from county engineering it was around four feet. You want to go down I think to seven feet instead of 10. That
leaves a three-foot ledge for anybody trying to get out of the lake. The whole purpose of the to-foot from control is
so if someone falls into the lake they have an area to swim out and crawl out of.
You would basically leave three foot if the accuracy of the four-foot drop in the water table is accurate.
Therein lies my question. I did not see any documentation in here to show what the low season water table fluctuates
on that property. Do you have any? I don't have.
MR. MITCHELL: I got a response to a comment from the engineer, county engineer, saying that that area,
based on his research -- and I'm paraphrasing conversations between Stan and the current county engineer --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mic's not picking up, is it? No, I'm sorry, that thing seems to be -- I thought
Kady fixed it, but maybe not.
MR. MITCHELL: Sorry.
The response of seven feet below control was issued from a comment response from the county engineer. He
looked at and actually was involved in the change of the code. The code changed in 2004, I believe 2004, where the
code was that the break point on the slope from a four-to-one slope to a two-to-one slope was three feet below the low
water. And the opinion was at the time that low water wasn't being determined for projects. And based on his
research reviewing the county and the area that seven feet below control pretty much took care of all of Collier
Page 26 of 90
16 1 lruji, 2!
County. And again, I'm paraphrasing the conversation I had, not with the current -- or with the former county
engmeer.
So it became 10 feet below so we wouldn't have issues.
Now, as far as swimming out, I have not heard that. I know that it was a safety issue based on exposed lake
bank and a four-to-one slope. So his information said that it was about four feet below control for low water.
I do have canal data history for 10 years showing that there's two elevations, two control elevations out there,
the highest being one 3.5, which is adjacent to the slough, and 11.75, which is the western half of the property.
And the canals in the dry season get to about a seven and a half, seven. With a 10-year data, I think the
lowest I saw was a 6.7. So that's your seven feet from your 13.
Now, you will have a gradient from the canal up to the lakes such that it won't get that low. And that's the
high side was -- and the low side were about the same in the dry season. There's a weir right there kind of in the
middle of the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And weirs tend to hold back the water?
MR. MITCHELL: The pwpose of the weirs are to hold back the water, yes, in the dry season, and they let
the water out during the preparation for hurricanes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how the study was done by the county engineer to determine the
depths of change in that lake?
MR. MITCHELL: I do not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. He went around during a period of one -- one period of time during I assume
the dry season and looked at the lake and said wow, it looks like a four-foot drop in this lake and went throughout the
county and did that. That's not too scientific.
And I was hoping that if you're asking for a deviation that affects public safety and welfare as an exit does
from a lake that you'd provide backup data significantly enough so we could look and see yes, you deserve the
deviation --
MR. MITCHELL: I do have the canal data that I can provide.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would rather see on-site data. Canal data is subject to the weir. And I don't
know if that's as reliable.
So I would rather see you have seasonal data tables. Has there been any monitoring done on that site through
South Florida or anybody else that you could pull water table data from?
MR. MITCHELL: We put some shallow wells in. I don't know that we monitored them throughout the
whole time. It was more related to the environmental, but I can get that information and take a look at what we have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how much additional fill would be generated through your calculations by
going from a 10-foot -- from control to seven foot?
MR. MITCHELL: I haven't done that calculation. We're not in that part of the development. I wouldn't
assume that it would be a substantial amount.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're asking for this and going to the effort of doing this without even knowing
if it's worthwhile?
MR. MITCHELL: Well, it provides on-site fill, which reduces impacts to the county infrastructure, so I
would say that it is worth it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, digging deeper provides on-site fill. And I'm assuming you're going to the
maximum depths you can?
MR. MITCHELL: We will be going to the maximum depth you can, and we're still on a fill depth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to modify the lakes, or had any lakes been dug on that site? I thought
there were some already dug.
MR. MITCHELL: They were and and they were filled in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were filled?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that will be easy dig to get them back out, you're not going to hit any rock.
MR. MITCHELL: It should help.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not comfortable with this without data. If you provide the data, that
would make it a lot simpler. If you've got the data, that would be helpful. And before the day's over, we'll talk about
Page 27 of 90
161 1
8 7
February 17, 2011
how we could get ahold of that data.
MR. MITCHELL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Jack, you seem anxious to jump in.
MR. McKENNA: For the record, I'm Jack McKenna, your County Engineer. Good morning.
As I walked in, I heard you questioning how the data that we do have was obtained, and my understanding
was that your previous county engineer, Stan Chrzanowski, he went out and measured lakes throughout the county,
yes, during the dry season. I don't know how many seasons that was over, but it was more than a visual yeah, this is
about three foot or four foot, it was actually measuring from the control structure down.
This was really done as a result of -- historically the way the break point was determined was the engineer of
record would indicate what the low or the dry season water table was. And that was really often a very arbitrary
number. And so Stan went around looking at different areas of the county and determined gee, we were -- in a lot of
cases this may have not been an accurate number. And he logged all this. There is a map in my office that has the
various readings that he got around the county. At that--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Excuse me, this witness has not been sworn in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I believe him, though.
Would you swear him in for everything he's about to say and has said?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. McKENNA: So in any case, when the code was rewritten in 2004, Stan Chrzanowski thought that to
simplify it they'd take the worst case scenario, which was about a seven-foot drop in the water table out to the far east
and utilize that as the standard, understanding that that may be overly conservative as we move further west. He did
have readings in the neighborhood of this project of a four-foot drop. And so if we go to the three-foot below low
water as historically had been done in the county, and I think provides for adequate safety, because a person can climb
out at that point, that was his recommendation in reviewing this amendment, which was just prior to my coming on
board with the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The burden of proof to show that part of the fluctuation is what Stan
estimated it to be really is on the part of the applicant when a deviation like this is supplied.
And the reason this is important, not so much for this one, but the precedent that it's going to set throughout
every application. Richard has a tendency to fmd if something works, he uses it in all the future clients.
We have a road now, a standard for a road of 50 feet. If you look at all the deviations we get, we get 50-foot
road deviation requests almost in every PUD. And I can see that if this one has a value to it, it would be a logical one
to include as a deviation request in future PUD's. But I'd certainly like to set the precedent that in doing so we have
the proof needed to say that this is a legitimate deviation and the public safety and welfare is not impinged by it.
And to get there we need some backup data in our packet that shows there's been a study done to show the
dry season water table. Stan going around at some time during the dry season is one way to approach it, but not as
hard evidence with an engineer saying it's that way. And the engineer's liability being put in the record in case
anybody ever has a problem in that lake.
So I would certainly like to see the proper documentation done before this kind of deviation is approved. A
lot because ofthe precedent that it sets and that it will set in future applications.
So thank you, Jack, I appreciate your -- and by the way, you said something, I love it when people say things.
You said the county eng -- you have a map in your office. Can we be getting copies -- can you give us copies of that
map? I don't care if it's electronically or hard copy.
MR. McKENNA: I'll see what I can do about getting that, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Just before the day's over, this will come back as a discussion item, I'm sure.
MR. McKENNA: Sure, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
In the HD Development document, Exhibit A, list of permitted uses, the Item A.2, it says principal uses and
structures, there are two of them. Single-family dwelling units and then you have multi-dwelling units.
By your testimony today the only multi-family are going to be used on the existing multi-family tract; is that
Page 28 of 90
1 ~eLJ17'2o~ 7
correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the master plan reflects that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I would like the language here to indicate that the multi-family dwelling
units will be isolate to that tract. Because you do not have that tract's property owner's permission to change the PUD.
And you don't want to change anything that affects him. If you were to have competition with him, I'm sure that
would affect him. So I would like to get this item isolated to only his tract by some reference on here that references
that tract.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fme. Can we just say as depicted on the master plan? Because all the others
are identified as single-family on the master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Works for me.
Ms. Caron, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you would not --I'mjust concerned about not being specific in the
language there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, if you look -- I don't know, either in your packet you should have a larger
version of the PUD master plan.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it is very clear that the lots are laid out on it. So you have -- it says single-family
all over the master plan.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that. But as we are here today, we know that master plans and
maps change, so we need to -- so why wouldn't we try to be as clear on both, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I would suggest you label it Tract A and then in a couple locations on the exhibit
under -- on Page 1, A.2 and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2, D.2.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And then there's another page in here somewhere.
The reason is the language single-family is so small, and I agree that he's attempted to depict it on the master
plan, but it will make it more clear for whoever that is to administer this later, especially if they can't read that fine
print.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problem with that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'll -- the master plan would be changed in approval is granted to the
make that a Tract A and the multi-family will be limited to Tract A.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the next page, page two of 11, D.2, you'd have to make the same
reference there.
And while we're on that interesting page, C.1 and 2, are you going to do those things? Are you going to do
passive recreational areas, are you going to do biking, hiking, nature trails and boardwalks, now that you're bringing it
up again?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're not required uses, they are allowed uses. And we should have the flexibility,
should we want to do that, to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not trying to take it away from you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't say we shall do those things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is just another one of those things that makes everybody feel good that
you have the opportunity to do it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I mean, we don't want to have to come back to you and say, you know what,
we've decided that putting a passive -- you know, putting a nature trail in a preserve area I had to come through and
amend the PUD. Is it okay to have one in there or not? If it is, then give me the right to do it if I so choose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the conservation tracts that have been dedicated to South Florida and items
like that may be difficult to put stuff in, but the ones that are not dedicated, which I'm hoping one of the things we'll
Page 29 of 90
~~ () I 1
B 1
February 17,20] 1
get out ofthis meeting today is the conservation map showing which ones and who the) 're dedicated to.
If we go to the development standards table, which is Pages 3 and 4, on Page 3 mdcr front yard setback, the
19 feet has a parenthetical two. The parenthetical two is substantially different than the non ml one that we see for th ~
23-foot setback and different from the one that's in the approved PUD master plan that {xist; today for lID
Development.
Now, that's one of these items that started years ago and we keep it intact and it s be;m the same language. I
don't like the fact you're trying to change it again, because what you're saying here is a] ,ttle hard to follow. Is there ,i
reason you can't live with our regular language so that it becomes somewhat of a standa:d " e've always used?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I need the -- the engineer's going to look at that to see i :there's any impact of going
back to the other language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, the important thing is we're keeping the 23 fee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then say it simply, you're keeping the 23 feet. "ou"re got multiple added
language here that differs too much. It makes me wonder what you're trying to do. WI- y cc uldn't you just live with
the language you've always used? It's simple.
So we'll look at that then before this fmishes out today.
And this __ well, I've got a question for staff about the landscape buffer, so I'll (lefeJ that to them.
In the old PUD there was a long paragraph to discuss the construction traffic ir the Olde Cypress
neighborhood. And that's why I was trying to find a solution to this project. And it saill, to minimize overall effects
of construction traffic on the Olde Cypress neighborhood, construction related traffic irducing but not limited to earth
moving equipment and dump trucks -- but specifically not including pickup trucks shal l on] y access the project site
through the Cocohatchee Canal maintenance easement.
Now, that's the easement that you can't do because South Florida won't let you do it, if I'm not mistaken. And
so your alternative is to bring everything now through the gatehouse. And that's why I brought up the idea of a
construction entrance. If you do own the driving range, if there's a possibility of makir g ai nodification to the
northeast corner of that driving range to bring a road in before the gatehouse on a temporary' basis to let access to your
project, I'm not sure how disruptive that would be to that driving range. Because in tht war that it's located, it might
be just a very small piece. But I think it's something you ought to carefully look at. 1\ e ex perienced, as you know, a
lot of heavy traffic coming through gatehouses, and they do not leave it in good condiLon "fterwards.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to go back to the side yard setback. Y ou'r,~ reducing the lot area,
you're reducing the square footage for the building, you're putting people a lot closer t()getller. As you well know, lve
many times said that I'm unhappy with the idea of five and five.
How critical a factor is this? I mean, you're going to build two story and yOU') e gcing to have visualization
from one location to another. How critical is it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's important to the product type that we're proposing to construct. And it's also
consistent with what's already allowed under the Olde Cypress PUD. The five feet is ,llre<J dy allowed under the Olde
Cypress PUD and the minimum unit size that we're proposing is greater than allowed mdcr the Olde Cypress PUD
And we have product that we're building in other parts of the county that has five foot 10 teet between structures.
That's popular. And--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Popular.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Popular. And from the market's perspective they're s~lling.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They will ifthey don't have any other choices. lilld as you've indicated,
you'd like to have us believe that they should be that way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm pretty confident that in today's market there's pie! lty cf choices. And I don't mean
to be flip, but there are plenty of --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it sounded flip.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't mean to be. And I apologize if that came thal way. But--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm very sincere about that. I made the comment before and I'll make it
again, and maybe I won't even vote in the positive because of it. People are entitled tc ha, e distance so they don't have
Page 30 of 90
-
161187
February 17,2011
to listen to each others conversations and smell the cooking odors, et cetera. And particularly when you get into two
story you now have a question. So I think you ought to give that consideration during the course of this morning.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question and I'm hoping Brad can help me out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad's a very helpful individual.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead. I'm ready.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, on Page 4 when they are talking, it said the second one, number two, it
said the front yard setback for side loaded garages may be reduced to 18 feet with the home remaining at 19 feet
where the applicant demonstrates that two vehicles can be adequately parked and da, da, da.
How can you have a side load garage at 18 feet and the house at 19 feet? Can you help me on that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what they're saying is that if you swoop in through your front yard
and hit the garage on the side, then the requirement we have for making sure that cars aren't backed up over the
sidewalks --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is 18 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- doesn't need to apply -- yeah.
Theoretically you could make it less, I think, so I don't have heartburn with that.
So what they're saying is the drive is not going straight into the garage. The garage door is not facing --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand. But on a 50-foot wide lot and you put a side load garage which
can be reduced down to 18 feet but the house is going to remain at 19 feet, unless -- I don't know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Will it look good? I don't know either. But there's room to do it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: The garage sits here and the house is a foot -- I mean, attached but still within
one foot. Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what they're saying is that, you know, the house will stay back 19
feet, but you can bring garages as close at 18 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a graphic that would help us depict what you're trying to do?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can tell you that on our 50-foot lots we don't have any side loaded garages.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, so they're all front loading.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the 50's. On the 60's we would have the side loaded option.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll try and finish up. I've got a few other points and then hopefully will
be done for now.
On February 11 th, 2011 Stock Development sent a letter to the Olde Cypress residents indicating that --
basically they're hoping to get the approvals. They have certain things they're going to do. Some of them are based
on whether or not the approval is successful.
The new sidewalk in between Strada Bella and Terramar apparently is already in, you've already done that.
The Logan Boulevard fence repair -- and the reason I'm asking all this is you guys can say everything you
want to the residents. Unless it's in writing somewhere and agreed to, either on -- through a board level here, if it's
such a matter we can address or through agreement with them, it becomes hard to enforce once we walk away. And I
don't think you're trying to do that, so let's just get it on record.
The Logan Boulevard fence repair, is that a white fence that separates you guys from Long Shore Lakes, or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, I missed what letter you're reading from. Can you tell me the date? That's
all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: February 11 th of 20 11.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I think it was -- it says it's been fixed. It's done. It says completed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think you got it in the wrong location.
Mike Greene, can you come up and tell me what you told -- tell us what you told me?
MR. GREENE: Do I need to be sworn in also?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you've got a beard, you got to swear the guys with beards in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. GREENE: It's come to our attention that that fence is actually located inside of the road right-of-way
Page 31 of90
161 1
B 7
February 17, 2011
and not on private property. And as part of this opening of the PUD, we would ask that the fence be relocated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I'm assuming you've had surveys done or someone has a survey to know how
this happened or that it is -- you're actually speaking from factual measurement?
MR. GREENE: I do not have a survey.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that something you think the developer ought to do or somebody ought to
do to prove your your concern?
MR. GREENE: The developer should be responsible to survey the location of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was a permit issued allowing for the current location, or was the permit issued
showing it was outside the right-of-way?
MR. GREENE: I do not know how the permit was issued. Since it was not a right-of-way permit it would
have been through a different section of the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are all facts we ought to know, but I wanted to make sure we got it on
record, because before the day's over that's an issue we have to deal with. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Before Mr. Greene leaves, I would like to also put something on the record.
As long as this PUD amendment was opened up, Mr. Stock did tell us at the town hall meeting that he knows
the golf cart path -- I don't golf so I can't tell you what hole, I think it's two and three -- is on the county property and
that he would be willing to move it. Can we also put that in the record?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just did. But I think that--
COMMISSIONER EBERT: But it's different than the fence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. These are items that we need cleared up.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have a golf cart path you believe is in the county right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is, for Logan Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm making notes. I've got a list that is about a dozen items long right now,
but we'll continue.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
There are six bullets. The third one is in that letter, enhanced community landscaping. And it said we have
committed the funding for additional landscaping to enhance the front entry of the community.
We talked about that earlier. Apparently there is a plan, and at some point we'll discuss about how to --
getting our hands on that plan.
The fourth bullet is Olde Cypress pool and tennis center update. In October we completed an update to the
pool and tennis center with new pool and patio furniture, along with new awnings for the tennis center and additional
landscaping. In addition we will be adding seating for grandstand viewing at the tennis center and court
improvements.
That's not an issue relative to the Planning Commission but it is something you could work out an agreement
with the homeowners.
2011 fees and dues, you've made another commitment about not to increase their fees and dues.
And the last one, Olde Cypress fitness center renovation. You've hired an architect, David Humphrey, and
you've retained Hole-Montes to work on it. Those issues are outside of I believe the purview of the Planning
Commission, but they're not outside of you working out an agreement to hopefully give us that -- mitigate some of the
concerns of the residents. And that's why I was bringing it up.
Before we finish today and after we hear all the public comments, I'm certainly going to suggest to you a path
that might help with finishing up today's hearing.
That's the last question I have right now. Anybody else have any?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, thank you. it's been entertaining. Kay's the next individual.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just to clean up the record as well, because I wasn't here for disclosures,
Page 32 of 90
161 1 B 7
February 17,2011
I have received numerous e-mails and did have a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Oh, it's the Nancy and Kay duo team. That's good. I want to thank you guys, you did a good job. And we'll
certainly look forward to what you've got to say now.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach for the record, Principal Planner
with the Department of Land Development Services.
Can you hear me?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, good.
I prepared the staff report for the Olde Cypress PUD amendment. And just wanted to let you know that staff
is recommending approval of that PUD amendment. And if you have any questions, it would be my pleasure to
answer them this morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, when I talked with you on this one, I briefed you on a couple questions I
was going to have. Actually, it's only one that's left, and that's a comparison of the landscape buffers that were in the
old PUD versus the one in the new PUD. We had three ranges oflandscape buffers in detail. We've now condensed
that to one smaller paragraph in the new PUD, and I wanted to make sure that we were getting the same buffers. And
you were going to check on that.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, can I answer that when we discuss the HD Development PUD, which is
Kay's PUD?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. That's fme. Sure. There's been so many --
MS. GUNDLACH: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. No problem, I'll wait till then, thank you.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There are three of these things so I want to be sure I'm not on the wrong
track here. PL-2010-1054, is that what we're discussing right now?
MS. GUNDLACH: No, actually, mine is --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right.
MS. GUNDLACH: I just drew a blank.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'll wait then.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Nancy, there was a poll that went around to the residents. I'm not sure how
involved you were. Do you feel confident that the residents understand that the other developments would also have
access to any additional amenities inside Olde Cypress?
MS. GUNDLACH: That's a difficult question for me to answer, because I did not conduct the poll. I'm just a
recipient of the information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Nancy at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I guess you're going to wrap up the other two, huh?
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner in
Zoning in the Growth Management Division.
And I was a coordinator for the staff reports for the Olde Cypress DR! and the HD Development PUD' But
before I begin, I'd like to enter some documents into the record. I will provide them to the appropriate person.
I have the regular minutes of October 22nd, 1996 of the Board of County Commissioners. It says, wherein,
Ordinance No. 96-64 for the Olde Cypress PUD referenced by Petition No. 86-261 was adopted.
Also Resolution 87-2007, which was a resolution adopted after the settlement agreements by DCA on the
Olde Cypress DR!.
Page 33 of 90
161 1
DID
Feftary 17,2011 n
Development order 86-1, which was the original development order for Olde Cypress.
Ordinance 86-75, which is the original PUD document that was adopted along with that original DO
ordinance.
And Ordinance 96-64, which was an amendment to the PUD done in obviously 1996.
And going on from there, as I said, I did do the staff report for the HD Development and Olde Cypress. And
you've seen several things change today. We've gotten a new map H that more correctly depicts the residential area. I
did go back and check the map H that was in effect prior to this and it did depict those areas. So somewhere in the
process of the submittal of this DR! note of proposed change, that error was made. But to change that does not
change or effect the notice of proposed change.
You do have the staff report. It is last revised 2/3/11 for the DOA, and it does incorporate the information
from the Regional Planning Council and from staff, and it identifies the park issue as a local issue.
And there is is a discussion in there regarding the park, and there is information showing you where the park
was. And we go into some detail about the park and the Immokalee Road impacts.
Staff is recommending that the petitioner's request to remove the park be approved. However, noting that if
the park issue remains, we need some clarification just so that staff can ascertain later on that the commitments are
met. Because it makes it kind of difficult if there's no timing or no -- you know, the who, what, when and where, if
that's missing, it's very difficult for staff to ascertain if commitments are met within the PUD and the DR! documents.
Going on to the HD Development, again you have a staff report. It is last revised with a parens 201-31, and it
discusses the action, the location, provides the maps to describe what's being proposed, it has a project description,
goes into the surrounding land uses, has a Growth Management Plan discussion that includes both the FLUE and the
transportation element as well as the conservation and coastal management element.
Staff is recommending that the petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. We did
provide analysis, both of zoning, environmental and transportation issues, as well as zoning issues, providing some
comparison between the original ordinance from 2005 and the proposal, as well as comparison between Olde
Cypress, its neighbor and the HD Development amendment proposal.
Staff is recommending that the petition be found consistent and compatible with what's in the area.
And there are two deviations. Deviation one is that one that you mentioned earlier about the roadway widths
of 50 feet. And deviation two again, as was already discussed, is a deviation from the slope.
And staff is at this time recommending approval of both deviations.
Staff has provided both PUD and rezone fmdings in support of our recommendation. And again, we are
recommending approval ofthe petition to rezone the land to HD Development PUD.
And there is an ordinance for the PUD document, and there is a resolution for the DO. And I'll be happy to
attempt to answer any questions if you have any.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Kay, with regard to the deviation having to do with the road width, did any
issue regarding guest parking come up with --
MS. DESELEM: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- respect to that?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir. Nothing--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we ask people -- I mean, we're cutting a road down in size. I know
we've done this before. And I know there are a number of gated communities that have roads that are pretty narrow.
And when guests come, it can be a real dog trying to get parking and people's lawns are ruined and the common
property and the whole business. It's not the responsibility of the county to look at that?
MS. DESELEM: There are separate requirements for guest parking and within the parking regulations, and
we've never really addressed it as part of the deviation process for a road right-of-way width reduction.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, just seems reasonable to me that if you have this and you make
it that and you're asking vehicles to be there like that and although it probably doesn't happen that often that people
have large numbers of people over, it does present I think an eyesore. But beyond that it's potential safety issue.
I'm not going to make a big deal out of it but would think that may be in the future we might start thinking
Page 34 of 90
16 tJroyl~O}
about looking -- connecting that to that. I think it's important. If we're going to reduce the size of the road, we ought
to facilitate parking for people who are going to inevitably come to visit.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Keep in mind the pavement width doesn't change.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you for your concern. We will look into that in the future.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to follow up on that, Kay, when you get a permit for the structure, it has
to have required parking. And would not you deal with it on a lot-by-lot basis?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, that's what I said, there are separate requirements for parking, aside from what the
right-of-way width requirements are.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So you would look to see that the parking requirements of the code
are met on-site, right?
MS. DESELEM: I personally wouldn't, but yes, someone would.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Kay at this time?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, just to follow up with Mr. Murray, I think Mr. Murray is stating a very real
and practical problem living in communities, as a lot of us do, where the road widths have been narrowed and we are
-- we all have driveways that will fit the two cars that go in the garage and not much more than that. And it becomes a
real issue of when people have company, you see it all the time, people pull over onto grass areas in front of homes
and there goes the landscape, you know, sprinkler system. And it becomes a cost to the overall development, not just
the individual homeowner.
So I don't know, I think perhaps it is something that in the future we need to look at. Because it's a real
practical issue. It has nothing to do with whether a car can drive down the road in this development or any other
development.
MS. DESELEM: I see Rich hanging over my shoulder, I think he'd like to address your question.
COMMISSIONER CARON: He just wants to say that the road width will be the same.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exactly. The pavement width remains the same. And the county's ordinances
prohibit parking in streets. Now, whether that's ever really enforced would probably be a very unpopular thing for
county to do in any community. 24 feet is 24 feet. Whether you have a 60-foot wide right-of-way or not, you're only
getting 24 feet of pavement. And I doubt the county -- 20.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is why I said that this is not -- it's a practical issue--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- of what happens in these communities. And should we have some
requirement for some additional parking is probably a good thing for us to be discussing. Because in practical terms
people do park within these private gated communities on the roads. And they upset landscaping and other things
when they do that. It is a practical issue, not an issue of how wide the road in particular is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, ifImay?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In addition, if they're single-family lots that there -- people are effectively
parking on other persons properties. And that -- I mean, I realize it's commonly done because there's no alternative. It
doesn't make it right. And so I'mjust -- thank you, Commissioner, for your view.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of Kay?
Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Well, not of Kay.
Aren't these issues normally addressed in the HOA policy as well?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are. And, you know, besides the two-car garage, there's two spaces used in
front of the garage. There's a lot of issues that this would open up far beyond what we're talking about in this project
today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any other questions of Kay?
(No response.)
Page 35 of 90
1 6 IFe~ lal
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Kay, thank you.
Now comes the opportunity for the public to participate --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just, I have one question before the public. And I think it's one for Mr.
Y ovanovich.
There's a boardwalk easement that's required in this project. Can you show that to me on this plan? Is it this
darker line that's running along the preserve?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me get it for you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're talking about this one?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, Ijust -- I can look on the little plan that is labeled PUD Exhibit H for
HD Development, and there's a little tiny map there.
MR. MITCHELL: Right up here is the location.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you look at the bigger map H -- and it won't all fit.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Got it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You'll see --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Where does it show it on this one?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's this area right here. And it's labeled 15-foot --I'm sorry. It's labeled 15 feet,
boardwalk easement, and it's starting right here. Can you see how -- and it goes all the way along the preserve area.
And then if you look -- if you want to -- on the insert you can see kind of where it's depicted. That's where
it's real difficult to see it. But in the blown-up version you should be able to see better the 15-foot width of the
boardwalk easement and its location.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's the bigger version of map H, I believe it is.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or Exhibit H. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: May we have Mr. Greene from Transportation come up and explain that for
everyone?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. GREENE: Again, Michael Greene, Transportation Planning.
The requirement for the easement came about when the original pathway was being built along the canal.
And that South Florida Water Management required the asphalt pathway to be pushed down at grade for almost 800
feet. During seasonal high water events you have nearly three feet of head flowing over this area. This easement is to
put an elevated boardwalk section so that the pathway can be used year round.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of staff or anybody at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need one question fmished, which I had started asking Nancy about, and that's the
landscaping issue.
MS. GUNDLACH: Did you want me to go ahead and answer the question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course.
MS. GUNDLACH: I just wanted to make sure there weren't other portions of the question.
Anyways, to refresh everybody's memory, the question was whether the language in the current HD
Development PUD regarding the landscape buffering along the northern edge ofHD Development PUD was the
same as what was previously in the old PUD.
And it is. It's stated a little bit differently, but it's the exact same landscape design.
And for the record, I just wanted to clarify the name of that exhibit. It is Exhibit G. And it was called'Olde
Cypress south buffer. And I'd like to change -- revise that to state the new name, which is schematic buffer design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So under Exhibit F, number two, you're going to change Exhibit G to instead
ofOlde Cypress south buffer it's going to say?
MS. GUNDLACH: Schematic buffer design.
Page 36 of 90
16 11ruar8, 2~
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: And we're changing it in the PUD document under Exhibit F to A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Great, thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that brings us to the public participation part. And everybody that is going to
speak for the public, first of all, we don't have the strict time limits. And we don't ask that if you want to register,
although it's nice if you do, I'll still when everybody's done ask if anybody else would like to speak. I've got to make
sure you're all -- anybody that does speak was sworn in, and if you weren't, it's just a simple matter of standing up and
being sworn in by the court report.
However, when you do speak, those of you that can, I would like you to try to address for us a couple of
issues that have been predominant in today's meeting. That is this 3.9-acre park. There is a location that it could
possibly go. But it would certainly open your community up to everybody within the DRI/PUD.
If you have concerns about any of these, we'd like to know it.
The nature trails. Nature trails were called for, but putting them in will disrupt a lot of your homesites, to
some degree, and may not be something you want. And if it's not, we'd like to know that as well.
The bicycle and jogging trails, they're not there, and most likely can't go in at this point, but I'd sure like to
know your thoughts on these.
Now, we're going to go through this process today, and at the end we will have a lot of comments to the
applicant based on everybody's input. So your input is valuable and we're looking forward to hearing from you.
And with that Ray will be calling people, and we use both -- either podium is the one to use.
So Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: The fIrst speaker is Charles Slaght.
MR. SLAGHT: It's still morning. Good morning.
I'm a resident in Olde Cypress. My name is Charles Slaght. I live at 2918 Lone Pine Lane.
I've written a number of e-mails to everyone concerned in county staff referring to this.
I have been in previous times a bicycle pedestrian coordinator for Duval County. So those are sort of my
credentials right now. I'm also a board member within that homeowners association that's probably most impacted.
And I have some suggestions, if you'd like to ask for them.
One of my big concerns is that I filed a code enforcement violation, and at that time I was told, and Mr.
Y ovanovich communicated with county staff, that the PUD was not closed and therefore that the notice must be
rescinded.
And so here we are today, you know, and the code violation was in regards to parks, nature trails, et cetera.
Here we are today talking about amending that. And therefore, you know, sort of my rights are then vacated because
you're going to wipe that out. And then when I go for a code enforcement violation when the PUD is closed, I have
no recourse at that time. So if I can't file that code enforcement violation, I feel that that's an infringement on my
rights.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't made a decision yet, sir.
MR. SLAGHT: Right, right. I'm just saying that should you make that decision, that would violate my rights
and open up litigation as well.
So my big thing is I've got a letter here, I have nine copies which I'd like to give to be included in the record.
And it's just sort of that, a summation of everything that I've already written to you. And I wanted to make sure that
you had that as well. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While you're -- while those are being passed out -- and make sure there's one
for the court reporter as well.
Mr. Slaght, I'd like to ask you, we have discussed some alternatives, and their alternatives I think are viable
and well within the code, they wouldn't be a code enforcement violation. Are you in favor of such alternatives? Do
you see that as a solution to the problems, or do you still think there's a problem?
MR. SLAGHT: I think there's some things that we can do together as a community with Stock Development,
with Brian Stock. I'm sure he'd be glad to work with us. And with county staff working on the pocket park concept.
We went from 91 acres of preserve to 149 acres of preserve. And mentioning the nature trails and access to the back
of the properties, there's enough room in the preserves to do a out and back elevated boardwalk, per se, which would
Page 37 of90
161 1 B i
February 17,2011
take care of that situation.
The pocket parks, when I went through with the Stock representative at that time for sales in the community,
and later you're handed off, but it was pointed out to me that at the end of Wild Orchid and also the end of Lone Pine
Lane there could be possible access to a future park or with nature trails in that area.
If you look at the end of Wild Orchid, very easily you could extend an out and back type of boardwalk or
nature trail with the preserve and it would not be unsightly. And you don't have golf cart path issues then with people
in the community going onto a golf cart path to get access to a park. Which is a liability issue for the owner.
All the other things I think that were presented are beneficial to Stock Development, because he still does
own all the amenities that are outside the gate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You said you live on Lone Pine. Do you have a preserve in your backyard?
MR. SLAGHT: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want a walkway between the preserve and your house?
MR. SLAGHT: I wouldn't mind that, absolutely. I don't have any qualms with people being in my backyard,
so that would be okay with me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as the boardwalks, elevated boardwalks, they're very costly. There is no
obligation to provide those. I mean, those are nice and I certainly think it would be an asset not only to the
community but to future sales, but that's really a developer's decision on the way the --
MR. SLAGHT: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --language is written, so--
MR. SLAGHT: And I understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When did you file your complaint with code enforcement?
MR. SLAGHT: That was November 18th of last year, 2010. On or about that date.
And I never received any formal notification back from county until I started to investigate. It had come out
from I believe this organization that you were actually going to hold a hearing on February 17th. And that's when I
telephoned and started e-mailing to county to see what the deal was with my violation, and I would told that it was
rescinded.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How long have you lived there?
MR. SLAGHT: I've lived there since -- I believe we bought in 2004.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
MR. SLAGHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark, one more question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Where did your violation come from? Was that after the neighborhood
information meeting or what?
MR. SLAGHT: It was in a combination of the town hall meeting and the neighborhood information meeting.
Sort of concurrent with that I said what are my, you know, remedies here? So I sought out just the least possible
impact to try and give notification to the county that I was unhappy with what was going on.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Greg Schmidt.
MR. SCHMIDT: Hello. I'm Greg Schmidt, a resident ofOlde Cypress. I've been a resident for almost 10
years there.
And I'd like to touch on just two things. One is, if this is approved a couple key things happen: The fitness
Page 38 of 90
16 Lelary1ao1l7
center is doubled in size, there's bleacher seating put in for the tennis center, there's additional landscaping involved at
the front entry, and a huge vacant lot that has weeds growing on it and dust blowing around when the wind blows
from the south goes away. And the houses that are built are commensurate with Olde Cypress. All those things I
think are really positive. And--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You need to slow down just a little bit. She's trying to type as fast as you're talking
and I -- she gets mad at me a lot, so you're doing pretty good too.
MR. SCHMIDT: Is this better?
So those I believe are positive things for the community for me as a resident who's been there 10 years.
If for some reason this is not approved, I think it's been made very clear that there were will be no expansion
on the fitness center, that there will be no additional tennis court seating added, there will be no landscaping added at
the front entry. And in all likelihood that parcel will be resold to another party who will take their run in developing
it, which is a big unknown for me as a resident as to whether that would be higher density, anything commensurate
with what's already in Olde Cypress. A lot of unknowns with a future builder in there and what kind of track housing
and so forth might go in.
And the third point would be is if for some reason a requirement for a park is determined to be required, and
that's an interpretation. And based on the questions that I've observed and heard, I think that the correct interpretation
inevitably will result from that, and I have confidence that that will take place.
But if a park were to be required, the options that I think are very clear to where they would be to me is just
not acceptable. And a park's not worth it. Taking over the areas that are designated "R", and attributing those to park
space that would affect the area by the clubhouse or the golf course or areas that inevitably will not be used, will not
have any equipment, nothing on them, but they'll become park land that nobody uses to me is just not a prudent use of
space.
And I would agree with the comment made by Commissioner Caron and others that I can't imagine people,
the majority of the people, wanting paths right next to the back of their home. There's a preserve area near my home.
I personally would not want to have a path right next to that.
And so as a resident I fully support the development that's been proposed from the standpoint that I think it's
the best alternatives compared to the other options that exist. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Doyle Boyd.
MR. BOYD: Good morning. I think it's still good morning. Almost noon.
I wasn't planning on speaking today, but I did have a couple of points that I wanted to address. I've been a
resident there for nine years or so at the end of Wild Orchid. Therefore, an access to a park at the end of Wild Orchid
is not high on my list of things to see.
There's no parking. There's no access other than sidewalk to get there if you don't park in the cul-de-sac.
I'm kind of curious as to how that would even work out, so I of course don't even want to see it.
The other point that I would like to address is that when we bought, the salesman said to my wife and I there's
potential for a park. We could also do something around trails -- he didn't say anything about bike paths. There was
nothing promised, there was nothing in writing. I didn't see anything on a map. And I thought, well, if they do that,
that might be great. So it wasn't something we really expected. And this was nine years ago.
So I don't know if I was miss -- the salesman misspoke to me. I don't think so. But I have not seen anything
in writing, I haven't seen anything on a map, and I wasn't expecting anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. BOYD: Any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as far as the park goes, if the developer were to actually build part of the park
or a portion of it where we're suggesting and the other outside areas outside of Olde Cypress, the multi-family over to
the east and the other access to it, is that a -- do you see that as a problem for your community?
MR. BOYD: I bought in that community because we wanted to be in a gated community without outside
access. So I wouldn't prefer to see unlimited access to anything in the area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, next speaker, Ray?
Page 39 of 90
161 1
B 7
February 17, 2011
MR. BELLOWS: Henry Floreani.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, how many speakers do we have total?
MR. BELLOWS: Approximately 15.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so everybody knows, about a quarter of 12:00 we break for an hour for
lunch. So we'll have to come back and fmish up after lunch for anybody that hasn't spoke and probably have a
conclusion to our meeting at that point.
Yes, sir, go ahead.
MR. FLOREANI: Hi, everyone. Henry Floreani. I'm a nine-year resident in Olde Cypress and I'm one of
the few people that does have a child in Olde Cypress.
And I have to say that if we had a park, we would not use it. The alternatives of where it's going to go, it
covers a putting green area. I'm a golfer, I use the club. I don't think it makes sense, as Greg Schmidt said.
And I am not in favor of the walkways, preserve paths. I live in a preserve, would not like to see one. I
consider -- if there's a park that's required, I consider the fitness center, the tennis courts, the basketball hoops in the
parking lot next to the tennis courts, that's goods enough park for me.
I'm in favor of Stock building this development for the reasons that Greg Schmidt illustrated. And he's a
known local developer, not a big national. We know what we're getting. He's been very fair I think as far as I'm
concerned in everything he's done in the development, and I support what they're doing. I know they're going to do a
good job, given what they've done in the rest of the county. And I hope that you guys vote in favor of what he's
proposmg.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, do you play tennis?
MR. FLOREANI: Occasionally. Very, very rarely.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Mr. Stock wants to put in some additional seating in there,
presumably for events that occur from time to time, some kind of tournament or what have you. Would you be
offended if as a result of that that you were precluded from using the park -- I'm sorry, the tennis courts, unless you
had to pay a fee?
MR. FLOREANI: I don't understand the basis of the question. Why would I be precluded ifhe puts in
bleachers?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, perhaps if he holds a tournament and decides to sell tickets to it. You
wouldn't necessarily then have the right to go there unless you bought a ticket.
MR. FLOREANI: I mean, if he wants to do it I may buy a ticket because it may be fun to watch. Other\!/ise,
I'll wait till the tournament's over. I'm not going to be petty over it.
And honestly, I think this issue has gotten very large, in my opinion. In speaking to some of my neighbors,
they can't believe that it's gotten as big as it has. And I think that some people have gotten some personal issues
letting them cloud their better judgment.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry you thought I was being petty.
MR. FLOREANI: Oh, no, I wasn't referring to you. I'm talking about some of the community scuttlebutt. It
wasn't referring to you specifically at all.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Real quick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir? I'm sorry, Melissa had a question.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Real quick. The same question in terms of having the other communities have
access.
MR. FLOREANI: Oh, I absolutely am against that. Yeah, just as Mr. Boyd said, we did buy in a gated
community for that reason, and if you take that out -- that's why we bought.
And also, I want to make it clear too that I had no expectations or no representations were made to me when I
bought about a park or walking trails, and that did not make my decision. And I wasn't even aware of it until this
Page 40 of 90
16 1 kebruS17,(11
thing arose years ago.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Herbert (sic) Bud Grane.
MR. GRANE: My name is Hubert Bud Grane. I reside at 2750 Olde Cypress Drive. Olde Cypress Drive is
the main access road for about 70 percent of the community.
I want you to know that I love Olde Cypress community, its people, the clubhouse and the golf course. I am
a charter member, having joined in 2000. I want Olde Cypress to succeed. But in order to ensure success, it is
necessary to achieve all that was originally promised.
In 2003 I was elected the fIrst president of the Olde Cypress Homeowners Advisory Council. Later as head
of this association, I was exposed to a lot of its history, which I will not go into at this time.
Olde Cypress is primarily a golfmg community with approximately 38 percent of the residents being golfers.
We also have a number of non-golfing residents who purchased homes in a non-condo area to raise a family. There's
a family across the street that has two young teens and a grade school girl. Almost every afternoon I see them playing
in the street because there's no park available.
The reason I'm here is about two and a half, three weeks ago I witnessed almost a tragedy. A car passed a
landscape truck, applying screeching breaks, to avoid hitting one of the teenagers on a dirt bike. Do we have to wait
for some child to be injured by passing traffic before anything is done?
I urge this committee to recommend a park or parks be kept in the documents and to be installed as soon as
possible.
Like the proposed expansion of the fitness center, it's long overdue.
Now, with reference to your question, Mr. Chairman, regarding the parks area and so forth, as chairman, I
spent time with Mr. Hardy, Mr. Stock and a number of his staff.
One of the things that we proposed was the fact that we -- instead of having one big park, that we would have
some smaller parks. One of the areas involved was the area between the driveway and the practice range, which is
about 30 foot wide, which we were going to put in a kiddie park and recommend some benches for picnic tables.
That would extend all the way to the far south end and there would be an expansion at the back end of that facility.
There is room for all of that back there.
Also at the same time there's an entranceway there for heavy truck traffic which can go through the back end.
All you have to do is stone it down.
But I thought I'd bring that up at this time, since that was one of the questions that you had asked.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir.
Ray, next speaker.
MR. BELLOWS: Liz Hines.
MS. HINES: Hi. My name's Liz Hines. I've been a resident in Olde Cypress for about seven years.
I'm very much in support of vacating the requirement for the park and the PUD and the DR! documents.
I think everything that's been outlined today in terms of the accommodations that Stock has made and has
proposed make up for the value of the park as it was stated in the original documents.
Also, just echoing what other people have said is having Stock develop the HD Development area is in the
best interest of Olde Cypress. The quality of the product that has been proposed there, the density, is consistent with
Olde Cypress.
To the issues that you've asked about nature trails and bicycle and jogging trails, when we bought, frankly, I
don't remember any of that being mentioned. It was not a decision point in terms of us buying in the community. I do
jog, I bicycle now and then, but I use the sidewalks and use the fitness center for those things, or use the path along
Immokalee Road. So I don't see any issue with those being vacated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. HINES: Any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody?
Page 41 of90
1611 B7
February 17, 21)11
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Andy D~amoos.
MR. D'JAMOOS: Good morning. My name is Andy D~amoos. I live at 7465 Treeline Drive. ['ve bet-'ll a
resident in Olde Cypress since 2003.
I'm a parent with two young sons who prefer to play outside instead of inside, fortunately.
And we fmd Olde Cypress to be very conducive to our lifestyle. They actively use the tennis courts. The
Stock group has made a basketball net available to them near the tennis courts, which they actively use. We're not
allowed to keep basketball nets up overnight in our association, and I'm getting too old to take it in and out every
night, so we take advantage of that.
I bought a lot that allowed enough room for my kids to play outside. It was -- we looked at Saturnia Lake >,
which was a very kid friendly neighborhood and we chose Olde Cypress, so -- we were never told about a park or
anything like that, and it wasn't an important decision for us with young children.
Regarding the preserve opportunity, I can tell you, I've been out at night walking the golf course and I
literally came face-to-face with a black bear right next to the preserve down the fairway from me. And I wasn't m)re
than 10 feet. And I watched that bear go from the neighborhood back into the preserve where I believe it came frem.
So.
I for one would not allow my children to go anywhere near a preserve where I have physically seen a blac k
bear go into the woods. I've chased enough golf balls in the preserve to know there's snakes out there and other kinds
of animals, so it prefer not to have that as an option.
The clubhouse is a very wonderful amenity that we have there. And I feel that if we lose Stock -- and Stock
has always been forthright, in my opinion. They've done what they said they'd do. He and his family and the
company have been very responsive. I'd be very concerned as a resident there if Stock was not able to accomplish
what they're trying to accomplish. They'd put the clubhouse up for sale and the golf course up for sale and then we
don't know what we have anymore.
We've got a beautiful facility, something to be proud of. If you're trying to sell your home, it's a nice amt:nity
that people buy into. And I would hate to see that go away in hands of people we don't know and what they could do
to it.
So Stock has been very forthright in supporting the club in a very turbulent time, and I think we need to
consider that as well. And that's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Marie Rotunda.
MS. ROTUNDA: They all said everything I wanted to say. Positive stuff.
My name is Marie Rotunda. I live on 3033 Renaissance Court in the DaVinci section.
And the only thing that I really want to add here is that when the county -- when you wanted the vote as co --
or take a poll as to whether we wanted a park or not, it was very, very close. But less than half of the population in
Olde Cypress voted.
One of my new neighbors questioned me about it because she said she had voted for the park and she as<:ed
me what I did and I said well, no, I didn't vote for the park. And she said -- I said, well, why did you?
And she says, well, everybody told me, the group of people that I was having lunch with, that if! voted :.:or
the park then we could get more concessions from Stock Development. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Kelly Peffes (sic).
MR. P AFFEL: Good morning. My name is Kelly Paffel. I live at 3064 Strada Bella Court.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name for this young lady?
MR. PAFFEL: P-A-F-F-E-L.
Page 42 of 90
1 () I 1
r 7
c
Februarv 17,2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. P AFFEL: Resident of Olde Cypress for about five years. I have children that lived in Olde Cypress.
And if you have a park, my children -- or child would not be using the park, you know.
Just a point. You know, the thing is that years ago parks were for kids and so on. Today if you put an X-Box
in, they'd probably go to the X-Box to the rec area or whatever. But a park?
You know, between Santorini and Strada Bella we do have a little park. Not classified on the plot as a park,
but it has a bench, has grass and it has trees. I've been there for five years, I've seen one person use the bench. One
person.
So, you know, I'm 1000 percent in Mor of Stock doing the development and increasing the rec. area and
things like that. But to make us put a park in that no one's going to use -- and I have children. And other people say
oh, we need a park. For what? We don't need a park, you know.
The other thing about it is here in Collier County is very special because of the park areas we do have
available for our children with soccer, football, with the water park, everything there. That's where we go. So we're
not going to use a park in our community. I've got a park 50 feet from my house nobody uses, you know, so why
would I put a park in? We live in a park, really. I mean, it's beautiful. My kid fishes and everything else.
So that's all I have, so -- and I am in agreement with everybody else that's in favor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Charles Kansy.
MR. KANSY: Good morning. My name is Charles Kansy. I live at 7499 Treeline Drive.
We purchased our lot in 2001, moved in in 2002, and at no time was a park, walking trails, biking trails ever
mentioned to us. I'm an avid biker, I'm an avid runner. I don't run in Olde Cypress, I don't bike in Olde Cypress. It's
not really designed for that. Olde Cypress, as mentioned before, is a park. We play golf, we use the fitness center, we
play tennis, but we don't use a park.
When I moved in, my daughter was five at the time. And she never would have used the park. She's 14 now.
And somebody was mentioning teenagers. If I could get my daughter to go to a park, that's like pulling teeth. She
wants to go to the mall, as most teenagers want to do. They're not going to use a park.
I believe that Mr. Stock has made some concessions for us in expanding the fitness center, putting the
stadium seating in for the tennis courts. I feel that is more than fair.
And as mentioned before, nobody's going to use the park. And that's really bottom line. I'm in full favor of
the development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Gary Lusher.
MR. LUSHER: Good morning. My name's Gary Lusher. I live at 3080 Terramar Drive, in Olde Cypress.
That's in the Terramar community.
I'm here today to voice opposition to the release of the commitment of the PUD in part. I totally support the
building, the addition of the homes within the Vita Pima/Vita Toscana area of the Olde Cypress or their proposed
building. I am opposed to the release of the requirement for nature trails and park.
I've heard several comments as I've listened to the comments of previous speakers. One problem we have in
Olde Cypress is speeders. Very close at the heart of many of the folks representing the maste:r association and the
community in general.
The roadways, the sidewalks with the challenge of vehicle speed enforcement is going to result in a problem
at some future date where children are present and playing. That's inevitable if that is not put under control and there's
not other recreational opportunities within the community for potentially something to happen.
The other thing I would like to clarify from my perspective only is that I've heard reference that there was a
vote concerning the park. There was a poll. It was a rather short time frame poll. It was not a vote. It was not done
in what my interpretation of the bylaws would indicate required, processed for the community in order to be
considered a vote. It was not duly noticed. It was information collected by poll by the neighborhood representatives
and furnished to the representative of the master association.
The rules -- or the bylaws require that any vote concerning master issues be cast by the neighborhood
Page 43 of 90
161 1 7
February 17, 2011
representatives themselves, not -- and certainly not through a polling process.
I am not anti-Stock Development. I've lived in the community since 2002. I've owned two homes there. I
like our low density community. I do believe that there is room for discussion. And if reasonable discussions
occurred and some of the recommendations or the issues or maybe solutions to this particular PUD amendment
request were put in place, that this would cease to be an issue for the community. Thank you for your time. And if
you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, if there was a park, a 3.9-acre park, what kind of amenities would you
visualize that it would have?
MR. LUSHER: Well, to give you an example, right now in get out in my community early, say 7:00 to 9:00
in the morning, I find -- especially during season, I find numerous, numerous people walking the sidewalks as the
only option for walking within the community. That's very, very common. A lot of people walk. I'm a walker. I
wouldn't want the community to have to have a trail for me, but I see other people taking advantage of that.
There is -- I think it was referenced before about basketball, swimming, so forth. Those opportunities are
available at the clubhouse or near the fitness center and the pool.
One of the issues I have with that is that's not a protected area, that's outside the gate. Anyone could walk in
off Logan Boulevard right into those areas. However, the fitness center is protected with pass keys.
So that's a little bit of an issue when you're offering that as recreational opportunities where there is not the
security of the community gatehouse.
I think that I see a lot of bikers in the community. I think are roadways are safe enough and wide enough to
accommodate them. But -- and I certainly wouldn't be a proponent of having to change the community to
accommodate bicycles.
I heard also the walk paths through the preserve areas. I can tell you from my discussions with people both
within the community and potentially new residents of the community that they would consider opportunities like
boardwalks and at least an ability to access the preserve areas as a plus. Whether or not they would use them on a
constant basis, I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I still am not satisfied about what would you envision in the 3.9-acre park.
MR. LUSHER: I would envision both children and adult recreation activities. And you can go to many
communities in Naples, they have everything from horse shoes to bocce ball to basketball to areas specific -- I don't
think -- well, maybe a 3.9-acre park you could have some ball fields and so forth.
And personally I'm not even sure we need a 3.9-acre total area park, that it might be possible to reduce the
size or reduce -- or increase the number of parks.
We have a large community. It's a significant distance from the gatehouse to the northern boundary of the
community. And it kind of disadvantages the people at furthest points away if they want to take advantage ofthe
ancillary available recreational facilities that are now available.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. LUSHER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa's got a question.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just to follow up with that.
Several people have made reference to kids playing in the streets. And it seems like in most of the
communities I've dealt with, even when you have facilities or park areas, it doesn't deter the kids from playing in the
streets. So my question is, do you think that's going to alleviate that problem?
MR. LUSHER: I have no background that would indicate that a park would improve or have no effect on
those activities. Very honestly, I think that's parental control that you're talking about. And I certainly have no
expertise in that, or haven't had in many, many years.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: And just one follow-up question on the parks.
Knowing that the PUD doesn't specify any amenities that have to be there, does that change your opinion?
MR. LUSHER: My opinion is this: As I've listened to the questions and Mr. Y ovanovich, I think there's
middle ground. And my personal opinion is, both from talking with people, that if there was a very candid discussion
with the community, that those agreements could be resolved very quickly. I don't think anyone wants a bear park to
Page 44 of 90
161
.c
I
7
....
February 17,2011
look at. And I certainly know that Mr. Stock would not want to dedicate 3.9 acres of very valuable property for that
purpose. So I think there is possible some type of middle ground on this particular issue.
Unfortunately what I have been offered is a no-park park situation. And I have doubts about the wisdom of
that type of poll best serving the community.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: And you have no issues with other communities having access inside Olde
Cypress?
MR. LUSHER: The access issue is another big question mark. The other communities that are being
referenced are far west of Olde Cypress. They -- I believe it was Amberton and the Preserve at Olde Cypress that
were referenced. I have -- I don't have any basis to think that they would make the park or a park at Olde Cypress a
destination, so I'm really not in a position. I think that would only be determined by actually having a park and seeing
what happens.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Normally this board takes a break at a quarter to 12:00. It would be nice if we could finish with the public
speakers. I think we have four more left.
MR. BELLOWS: Two.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two more left.
And then I will open that up. So there may be a few more added to that. If that's okay with all of you, we'll
just fmish with public speakers before we take our break.
Okay, Ray, would you call the next speaker.
MR. BELLOWS: Adrienne DeLuca?
MS. DeLUCA: Good morning. Adrienne DeLuca, 2766 Olde Cypress Drive.
Maybe I'm the only person here who is off-base or doesn't understand. Today is the fIrst day I have heard the
park described as a children's park, except over gossip throughout the community. During any ofth(~ NIM meetings
or Town Hall meetings, parks were mentioned.
The developer does have a right to change his original plans. He may change outside structures; there are --
defmitely this is his option.
The requirement for the park comes through the DR!, state agency, developed to make sure that there was not
an overgrowth of housing, of concrete space and to provide, as I believe the DR! defmes park as, green space.
It is also within the PUD. And those are the ones that I'm concerned about. The park space only has to be,
from the way I've read the document, the DR!, whatever, is green space. It is not necessarily a kiddie park, a play
park.
There is an existing park at the end of Olde Cypress Drive. During talks prior to turnover and in trying to
reach a solution, that area wasn't noted, it's already there. That is part -- I would see that as part of the park
requirement.
During the discussion today it was mentioned that the clubhouse facilities, the tennis courts, the basketball
courts, this pool, would be -- could be considered our park area. Well, we're also talking about leaving our park area
open to the residents of Amberton Fairway Preserve. Now, that would then say to me that they are now going to be
available to -- if that area is the park area, does that statement of allowing the other people within the large PUD
access to that park area? That's a question that I had with them.
As well as -- all right, speaking about some of the items in the letter that came out in early February about
items that were given to us and should be considered as -- instead of having a park. Again, maybe 01T-base, but I don't
see how repairing a fence -- I would expect from a developer as good and as honorable as the Stock Development, I
would consider repairing fences an ordinary procedure that would be done.
I believe that around 2005 an enlargement of the fitness center had been presented to the community as
something that would be done. And this is prior to the Vita Toscana issue.
I'm also questioning on the amendments, the one to remove the park area, which again to me is a contract
with the DR! and with the PUD for green space, not active parks.
One of them has an addition of 60 plus acres. Two different because of that A section that was discussed
before. In all the time that we're speaking, the only place we're speaking about is the original Olde Cypress area.
We are adding 60 plus acres with the Vita Toscana PUD to our DR! and our PUD, which gives area to
Page 45 of 90
16
1
87
February 17,2011
possibly be used as passive green space.
At the Town Hall meeting and at the neighborhood information meeting we were 1 old that Laquoia at Lely is
the model community for the homes that will be put into the Vita Toscana name to be charged. If we wallted to see
what was going to be happening, we should go down, take a look. We received invitattons to an opening.
I would like to read something that was in the Naples Daily News about the Laquc ia neighborhood ofLely,
which was presented to us as the model community for Vita Toscana. And I apologize for reading at you.
Enhancing Laquoia's natural serenity are several passive parks, featuring paver sid ewalks and stone arches,
leading residents past lush landscaping and water features.
These, according to the newspaper, and according to blurb, have been put into the Laquoia neighborhood.
All I'm asking the Commission to think about is the requirement is not a developeJ requirement in as far as
the amenity that he gives. The park requirement is green space. One of the things that ha\i e been discussed was
mitigation by buying green space elsewhere to -- in place of the park, that it couldn't bt, dOlle.
I think there may be options. I don't think that the options that are listed in the lett ~ to us are necessarily
viable options. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Rosemary Lewis.
MS. LEWIS: Good morning. Barely. Hello, my name is Rosemary Lewis, and I have a property in Olde
Cypress which I've been enjoying with my husband for the past seven years. Weare part-1 ime residents. We only
come for weekends, vacations and holidays.
And to us, Olde Cypress is an oasis of beauty and peace and quiet. And I agree w len the people said it's a
garden. It is. We're not golfers, but we enjoy the view of the golf course.
And when we purchased the property, we were enchanted by the combination ofuilderness that comes from
the protected preserve, untouchable, and the landscaping that the gardeners have created. ] t has -- it was a factor in
deciding for Olde Cypress.
As I said, we are not golfers. It's also true that when we walk, we use the sidewalk. And sometimes the
sidewalk is the golf cart path. So we have to be very aware. I have dogs. If they're busim ss (phonetic), anything, it's
difficult for me to pull them, because they might not cooperate. When we bike, we stay OIL the side, because
obviously there are cars.
The idea of the park is appealing to us because it seems to me that it adds to the beauty of the place. And also
at a time when we are heartbroken by the fact that our property has lost value. Because th~ market is what it is,
probably the presence of a park can be an incredible marketing feature, as somebody said ;lere, a bargain chip for the
buyers, and I believe that can be very good for everybody involved.
But from the conversation that I heard this morning, I also have a better understanding of all the details. And
nobody told us about amenities, about kids areas. So to me a park was just simply green SJace. And that's what I was
looking for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, ma'am.
Ray, is there any other registered speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody who has not spoken wish to address us?
Okay, sir, why don't you come up fIrst and then after he's done, sir, you'd be next.
Were you two gentlemen sworn in by the court reporter earlier in the day?
(Both respond no.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you'll both rise and -- well, one of you is alread y standing, so -- it's all
yours.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. MUIR: My name is Jim Muir. I live at 7480 Treeline. I bought -- my wife bought in Olde Cypress in
March of2005.
We have a letter on file in favor of not allowing the park requirement to be deleted from the requirement. I
think, we think, my wife and I think, the nature trail, bicycle trail issue, that pie has already been baked. I don't see
how we can go back to that.
We live on a preserve. Between our preserve and our house is a golf cart path. So during good weather and
Page 46 of 90
-
1611 B7
February 17,2011
especially during season every eight minutes people go past our swimming pool. And I can't imagine how a trail
would be worse. It would probably encroach into the preserve, but in answer to a frequently asked question, I don't
see that it could be worse.
I have a couple of things that haven't been brought up, and that's the reason I didn't register.
Mr. D'Jamoos, who's already spoken to this group, is a builder, interestingly enough. He's a neighbor of
mine. And his children play roller hockey in the street. I don't think his children would play in the park. But they
terrify me, because we live on a curve, and cars come around that curve at 25 and 30 miles an hour and brake very
hard and the hockey game goes off onto the grass.
And like the l4-year-old that would rather be in the mall, those are not people who would be affected by the
park. My two-year-old granddaughter, my six-month-old granddaughter, they will play in the park.
I am firmly of the opinion that Mr. Stock in his letter of February 11th will do every one of those
improvements in order to sell homes in Vita Toscana.
The fitness center is an embarrassment. It has broken plaster in it and it's been broken for two and a half
years. The exercise equipment in there, he's made an effort to put in enough exercise equipment to accommodate the
existing residents, and you have to walk sideways between some of the equipment to move around in that exercise
center. I can't imagine more residents using that fitness center with its currents size.
The existing landscaping off Immokalee Boulevard does not match the Satumia Falls, does not match many
of the subdivisions in North Naples. Ours needs to be upgraded. Those things are all going to happen whether this
gets changed or not.
And the people who say this is a trade-off! think have had wool pulled over their eyes.
I have not heard this group address an issue that has been on my mind, and some of my neighbors minds.
Why could a park not be carved out of the Vita Toscana space? We have said 3.9 acres would be -- or we have
calculated it would be six percent. And I cannot imagine Mr. Stock is working on what he thinks is going to be a six
percent margin. And a park along Treeline Drive near the access would be very accessible to many of the residents.
And I don't have a vision for it. I would want to see it. I don't see it with monkey bars and swings, and I don't see it
with soccer goals and a baseball diamond, I see it as a green space and then let the homeowners decide. I would love
to have it deeded to us and let us decide what it would be, let us maintain it.
But also, the amenities, if it's outside the gatehouse, everything that's outside the gatehouse is part of the club
and it can be sold. Just like the dues can be raised next year. If it's outside the gatehouse it can be sold and we'll lose
it all like that anyhow. So if it's inside the gatehouse, I see it as being ours. And it will become part of Olde Cypress.
Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. MUIR: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. OLDMAN: Thank you so much. And I apologize for taking us to the lunch hour. My name is Bob
Oldman, O-L-D-M-A-N, and I live on Treeline.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's unique.
MR. OLDMAN: Well, I'm feeling it more these days.
And I really would maybe come up and speak more. It's not so much about the park and walkways. Mr.
Strain had lit in my mind a very critical issue that Ijust want to make a point of and hopefully consider as this goes
on.
It's the ingress/egress that this will have on Treeline. And over and over again people have commenting on
traffic. And we live with it every day there. Golf carts have rights of access, cars have rights of access. We only
have one ingress/egress in and out of there to the gatehouse. And as this traffic comes back through the communities,
there's a tremendous amount of traffic. I think it's something in the range of 1,300 cars a day, not including the
service cars and others that come in, coming up that road. So I would ask you to focus on with your traffic manager
just how much traffic we're talking about in this area.
The entrance here happens to be maybe convenient, but I don't think it's practical to access this. This will be
another 200 cars going into that traffic at a very critical point. And it may be in the middle of the -- of this proposed
subdivision, but it may be more appropriate to have it further -- closer to the gatehouse and away from this corner.
There's been a number of accidents, all of us know, on that corner where they actually run up into the people's
Page 47 of90
161
1 D 7
~bruarH 7, 20 i 1
lawn there. They've installed stones, they've put other retainers to try to stop any further damage. And I would ask
you to take that into consideration, I think particularly the comments of Mr. Strain about access, ingresses and all the
traffic that's going to be affected by this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Okay, ifthere's no one else, I'd like to know if Mr. Paul Schultz is still in the audience, or if he was to begin
with. Mr. Schultz, could I -- could you come to the speaker, I'd like to ask you one question.
You're president of the HOA, I believe.
Wherever.
MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Damian is now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is now?
Well, Mr. Damian, could you come up then? I just need one of you who are -- I'm sorry to bother you, but if
you could --
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I'm sorry to have to drag you up here.
I want to know if the Amberton project or any of those other projects outside of Olde Cypress -- I mean,
they're within the DR! but they're outside your physical area -- are members of your master homeowners association.
MR. THOMAS: No, they're not currently. They don't exist. So to my knowledge the only members ofthe
master association are the people who live within the confines, current confmes of Olde Cypress.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I needed to know. Thank you very much.
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please.
MR. THOMAS: First name Damian, D-A-M-I-A-N. Last name Thomas, T-H-O-M-A-S.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, with that, I think we've ended the public speakers. We will go to lunch. When we come back, we're
going to go into a debate period over all the issues at hand. We'll be talking more with the applicant. But the public
participation has ended at this point, so we'll take a lunch break.
And is it okay with everybody still 1 :OO? We'll come back at 1 :00 and resume.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please take their seats. We've -- we're five -- we cut five
minutes short on our lunch and oh, my goodness am I getting chastised for that. So I'll try not to do that again. So
with that, let's resume our meeting.
And we had left off with the public discussion and participation in the last meeting.
Normally after we hear the public we allow some time for the applicant to rebut any comments they wish to.
And Richard, that's where we're at. So--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could I ask --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- one question that I haven't been able to figure out yet? And I've asked the
engineer at lunch and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, the -- I guess it's DaVinci or whatever it is, the eye of the donut there?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hole in the donut.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The hole in the donut. Yeah.
Are we changing the access to that? Or where is the -- do you have an aerial that shows? Because I'm
confused, because some of these drawings look like there's a change in that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's part ofthe issue. The access that you see in the drawings is not the access.
That's one of the things that should be corrected on the master plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because there is no other access shown but the one that's not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is no other access shown but the one that's not. He's right. It's a convoluted
way of saying it, but he's an architect.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's defmitely--
Page 48 of 90
161 1
l';) 7
lJ
February 17, 2011
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's the world I live in.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what we did at lunchtime, but this is--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Serendipity there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Rich, do you have any good aerial photos so we could -- because we do
show it coming in on the southwest area. I've seen some things where it looks like it's coming in the northeast area.
And these are current drawings, so --
So this later set of drawings from the engineer is not representing what that aerial is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the intent of this is not to change it. So we should change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the right depiction. It's in the northeast corner is the entryway. The only way
to access that is through the gatehouse at Olde Cypress. The legal access which took them straight over to Livingston,
I think --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Logan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or Logan --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Logan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- has now got a golf course through it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this application is not changing that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this drawing has to be revised to not show it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The DR! master plan will be updated to show the actual as-built access for Da Vinci
Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the PUD has to be updated.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As will both -- I think the PUD showed it as the alternative access, and that's really
what was built.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the other access should come out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. We'll do as-built. We'll revise all exhibits to make them as-built.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that the only question you had, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think if it's the pleasure of the board, we can just kind of go to the discussion. I
think we've kind of laid out our position, and you've heard the position of the speakers. We believe that the package,
if you will, that we've offered regarding the development of the HD Development project, as well as the
improvements to the fitness center and landscaping at the entrance, that we will work with to confIrm with the
association is sufficient and we believe that the park requirement and the nature trail requirements -- and I guess we
need to clean up the bike path and other issues like that -- that they should just be removed from the PUD to reflect
where we are within the development. And that's what we're proposing to do. And we hope the Planning
Commission can support our request and follow staffs recommendation of approval. And we'll answer any questions
you may have regarding the three petitions during the discussion portion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I made a list of 14 issues to discuss with you, but I certainly want to make
sure that the other members of the commission have an opportunity to ask any questions or comments they may have
at this time.
Does anybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yours first.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll start a discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Originally I didn't have issue with removing the park. My biggest concern was
what the residents were sold. And it seems that the residents have stated that that was not a commitment and that was
not something that they were sold on, so I don't have an issue removing the park.
The one item I think we showed that was on collateral material was the trail, but it seems that's not desired
Page 49 of 90
161 1 1:7
February] 7 2011
either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I've got -- I can bring up some issues for discussion, if you all want to join
in as we get to each one and I'll try to elaborate on them.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, some of the things you're asking for need supporting documentation.
There are some things that need to be cleaned up.
The PUD itself needs some language changes. And I'm going to walk through all my concerns, becaust' I
don't have the data today to answer some of these.
The DR! cleanup is important. And I think that the master plan change that has to coincide with that cltanup
and the letter that you would format to write to DCA with whatever, let's say, issues you would address in that ktter
are important to know. Because you can ask a question different ways and get different answers, but this one needs to
be asked, giving all the facts.
And I really don't care what DCA says. Whatever they say is the way we'll go. But it just cleans it up. And I
think a staff correspondence from Dan Trescott on the Regional Planning Council side said from his perspective it
wasn't required but it would be a good thing to do is clean it up during this NLPC process. So I think that should be
done.
You asked for a wall along -- or you suggest you're going to put a wall along 846. The details of that wall
need to be locked in. You could put a wall two feet high or six feet high or eight feet high. You could put a wall 100
feet long or you could put 1,000 feet long. I would suggest we need some clarity on that.
The landscape plan for the entry. You acknowledge you're going to improve the landscape plan, assumng
this goes through. So we would stipulate then a landscape plan would have to be part of and part and parcel to the
process. We don't have a landscape plan for the entry that you're going to show.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But the association does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't. We're not the association.
You listed other improvements, half of which were relative to issues that Planning Commission could
address. And I brought up the point about Logan Boulevard and how to resolve this fence issue. That's something
that transportation is going to be looking towards. And we found out there was a possibility of a golf course path and
a right-of-way as well. Those two issues have not been addressed.
The conservation area, some of it has been deeded apparently to agencies, some of it has just been plattt:d,
which means it's under different jurisdiction. That jurisdiction will dictate what you could do with that. It'd be nice to
know what parts of the project have the more stringent conservation easements to the agencies and which parts 1all
under the PUD restrictions.
The park site. Park site is critical to some people. I took a tally. We -- I found six people against dropping
the park and eight people for keeping the park -- or allowing the park to be dropped.
Well, I think the resolution to that might simply -- and a lot of that though depends on when you drop -- if
you were to put the park in and these facilities open up to all the neighbors, that might not be good. If you -- not
neighbors, I mean the other developments that are not really part ofOlde Cypress. If you want to -- and if you ate
required to build the park, honestly and as you well know by the Land Development Code, you stick a couple of
benches in, there's your park. So I'm not sure the community's gaining a lot by forcing you to develop the park. But I
think the HOA could gain a lot if you were to deed the park property on those twos R parcels we talked about around
the Aqualane (sic) to the HOA. Then it becomes their park. They can let in anybody they want and they can develop
it anything they want and that becomes their problem internally. They want to put a couple benches on it and sa ve
money, they can do that. If they don't want to or they want to put a tot lot in, they could do that too. But they cOlld
make the decision then. And when the decision's made, it retains itself within their properties.
That's an option I certainly think ought to be explored. '
The deviation you're asking for, that's a public safety issue from my perspective and I think even that's
probably why it was written the way it was originally.
The hydrology of that area, we ought to have some supporting documentation to show that you're not going
to put somebody in a position where they could be in more danger than they are now.
Page 50 of 90
1611
B 7
Fefruary 17, 2011
The county engineer's map, Jack said he had one, I think we all should have that, it would help us understand
the hydrology in the area.
The construction entry. I think that construction entry, if you could fmd a way to do that, I think that would
be very positive for your company to do. And I think the residents -- if I was them, I'd sure appreciate that, because
that sure solves a lot of damage issues that could come up in that gatehouse.
The footnote number two on the developments standard table, with the change you want to make for the
setback for the 23 feet, I'd like to see a graphic showing what you're trying to do there, because I don't understand it.
The fence on Logan, we talked about that.
The golf cart path and right-of-way.
And then there was a couple of items that you had put on a list in a letter that were for you to work out with
the residents. It would certainly be nice if Mr. Schultz were to come back, if this were to come back to us, and he told
us how those things got resolved, if they did get resolved to the satisfaction of the HOA. They're basically already in
your letter.
Now, I don't know how all those things sit with you, but right now today without those things, it doesn't look
real positive for me on this project. And I need to know what your position is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Side setback was an issue I raised. I'd like that to be part of the question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let's talk about some of this, because timing is an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because we are actually trying to move forward with the project for -- we call it Vita.
We want to move forward with that so that we're ready for next season. Or if we need to pull the plug, we want to
know whether to pull the plug.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but timing--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So timing is important to get the plat done so we can do the clearing, hopefully
during the summer season, so that all of that is done in one full swoop, if you will, to have the -- we plan on doing all
the site work for all of the lots in one phase.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't do much, though, without your approvals to the public process.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we need to either know whether we're going to get approved or not, or we'll --
because we can and we have been processing the administrative type approvals, like plats and things like that.
So we need to know whether we have a project or not so we can meet our proposed construction schedule,
which would be to be doing the site work this summer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But when do you need approval by the board in order to get on schedule?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had pushed it out to March. Right now we're scheduled to go to the board in
March.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you're not.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jamie, you want to tell him when he might be scheduled?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did that change?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. FRENCH: Well, I can tell you that we, staff, had a meeting with the chairman on Wednesday, and I'm
sorry to say, Mr. Casalanguida is not here, but we did go -- we did look through the board's schedule. And Nick's
direction was that we probably would not be able to get this until probably the fIrst meeting in April, Rich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, I --I'm stunned. And I'm not happy about that. I think we should
have been told much sooner. Because we have put our signs up based upon dates that we were told, okay. So--
MR. FRENCH: Nowthat's not the CCPC meeting, that would be the Board of County Commissioners'
meeting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that, but we were told we had a March CCPC hearing and we had
actually gotten pushed, our schedule, but things came up with other projects to where we lost the scheduling of going
to the CCPC a couple of months ago. But we are where we are.
Page 51 of 90
1611
-7
February 17, 2011
You know, if April 1st is when we're going, we still need to get things done in time t,) mlet that schedule.
And I don't know necessarily what that means as far as Planning Commission hearings.
Some of what you've raised are issues that we don't believe are PUD related issues. '[he) 're issues related to
the association and the developer. And I would say those are issues related to the expansion ,)fth~ fitness facility, the
landscaping. Those are all things that I believe are related to our relationship with the Olde Cypn ss master
association community.
And we have already sent to them, Commissioner Strain, just so you know -- and I know you haven't seen
those, because we didn't think they were really PUD related issues. We've already sent them land ,cape plans and
we've already sent them proposed plans for the expansion of the fitness facility.
We can very easily reach an agreement with the association to pin down, if you will, the . evel of the
landscaping improvements and the level of the fitness facility improvements, certainly to meet thl: board's schedule,
the BCC schedule. I don't think that's unreasonable. I think that's what you were saying, get thos~ details worked out
with the association. We can do all of that.
Addressing the issue relating to side setbacks, that's an easy one. We've looked at th~ pia ns. We have
product that can go on to five-foot, but we've looked at that and we have planned at our worst cas,~ scenario where we
were at the six feet and we can live with the six feet, okay.
Now, I don't -- I'm trying to remember in my head all of the issues. And I'm sure you'll C itch me for anything
I've missed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If your position's going to be you want to get this to a point wht re it can be voted on
today --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm just wanting to understand schedule.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And -- because I -- we can walk through these, but you would Deed to -- we need to
figure out, they're not that easy to -- I don't know where you're going to do some of theses things, and that's where my
concern is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, for instance, I don't think it would be acceptable to convey the putting green
area ofthe OR to the association. That's the southern piece.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that brings in a different twist. Then you're saying you don't have property to
put the park on.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe had to do it as a worst case scenario, we would do that But I don't think the
golfers really want that result, and I don't think the community really wants that result.
Okay, so, you know, what we're saying is if we're pushed in a corner we'll have to do it. t\gain, it's our
position that if you look at the legislative history, the park's really not required, shouldn't be requi oed and will really
not be used. And I think that that's the predominant feeling of the community, especially if it's got to get opened up to
the two multi-family projects that are outside of the gates, if you will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but see, the way I was suggesting it, it wouldn't have to.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that, I understand that. And it's important to the go] fers in that
community that the -- at least the southern piece on that the lake not become a park.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, are the golfers members of the HOA?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. But the way you structured it, you said the MPOA can do \ vhatever they want
with the property. Now, if we can require that it always stays a putting green, then we can work through some of
those issues. But if they have unbridled discretion to do on that R piece whatever they want, we're probably going to
have some issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, a putting green is a -- would be considered a park use.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. But what --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in this case they would actually have ownership of it irLStead of it being part of
the golf course that they don't have ownership of.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And I'm not saying we can't work through some of these issues. But the way
they were originally described was it becomes the association's, they can do whatever they" ant. And I'm telling you,
that's the problem on the southern R for sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, what I'm doing is throwing the mix on the table that is a problem
right now in how to overcome.
Page 52 of 90
-
I
1611 e i
February 17, 2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And that's what I'm trying to work through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to get ways to overcome it.
You've got a developer that's got a, from everything I heard, a good reputation. I don't mean from necessarily
the people here today but throughout the community. And you don't get that by not working out compromises in
working with people the people of the neighborhood you build.
So I'm trying to find a way for you guys to get to a compromise that you can come back to this board and
have this thing a little more palatable with the majority of the people involved.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm not discouraging that. But I think that the mistake we may have made is we
offered up front the compromise. And the up-front was, you know, these are the improvements. And it seems like
we're being asked to do more to -- in the spirit of further compromise for the 3.9-acre parks site to go away. And I'm
trying to figure out what we can or we can't do in addition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see it that way. In fact, when I started out discussing the letter from Stock, I
was clear to tell you the last three things aren't something this board really has purview over. It was the fIrst couple
that do, Logan -- the Logan Boulevard fence, which in this case you called a fence repair, I'm just pointing out you put
it -- you repaired it in the wrong location.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the enhanced community landscaping, that is something when you come in and
ask for something -- and you are asking for more density and smaller lots in a parcel. And most developers will come
in and try to sweeten the pie to get something they want by adding things. Instead you're saying we're going to take
away the park, we're going to take away nature trials, we're going to take away bike and jogging trails because the
prior developer really didn't do them.
I'm not arguing that point too much. All I'm trying to say is you're not putting that much on the table that you
wouldn't have put on anyway to get the HD Development for the increased density you're getting there. All I'm
suggesting is that we work a little harder to fix the problems in the existing Olde Cypress development in the
meantime.
So that's where I'm coming from. It has nothing to do with issues outside this board nor your qualifications
for the fees and dues and fitness. I was reading that in for the record; I made that clear when I read it.
So starting back, back to the park. If those two park properties can't be used for residential but they are R,
and one of them needs to be -- is a putting green that the golfers use, and if this was -- if there was a way as a
compromise to deed those two properties to the HOA with a restriction that the putting green remain, that might be
something that the community would be receptive to.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what I heard the community say was they wanted open space.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's all--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I finish?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the northern piece can there also be a restriction that it remain open space?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, open space in the sense of the park. What difference does it make?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the difference is, is -- there's a difference between putting benches and it being
a passive area for the residents to enjoy, which is what I heard most of the people who testified -- who even spoke in
favor of keeping the park -- say, they didn't want a children's playground.
So what I'm saying, in the spirit of compromise, if we're going to do the northern piece, let's have that remain
green open space without active features like a playground, and then we keep the southern piece as the putting green.
The community's concern was keeping green space and open space, which I think we all have to admit that the Olde
Cypress project is a very green, open community.
If that's what their concern was is green open space, we could probably work through some conveyances to
the association that meets both sides' interest.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. And then Brad after Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Would it actually even have to be conveyed to the HOA if it were put on the
master plans and labeled as such, that those two R tracts now become park tracts, passive park tracts or something,
and you put them on the plans as everything else. We certainly have a very clear record here of what the intent is. I
don't know.
Page 53 of 90
q".."
~
{~'f
1611 B7
February 17,2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem with that is it opens it up to the other communities that are really not
part of the main Olde Cypress community. And that is a security issue or a concern that the residents have.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by deeding it to the HOA, it retains just the HOA's limitations, which is why I
asked the president of the HOA to tell me if those other properties were part of the HOA, and they're not.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're trying to balance -- we're trying to balance the golfers' interests in what
they thought they were getting as well. So we need to balance that with trying to fmd a way to address the park
related issue through conveyances. So we need to balance that.
So I don't have the solution today, but Ijust ask that we keep that in mind as we're going forward on that
issue, if in fact we have to do a park.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First thing, we didn't hear anybody from Amberton Lakes today come in
and say we want park access, so I'm not sure that's a big issue.
Rich, the northern residential thing, piece, you would never be able to build on it anyway, there's no access,
you'd have to put a drive across the golf course and stuff, right? So that's not a potential residential site, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. But it looks like and feels like part of the golf course.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So what if you did this: What if you put a nice little gazebo down
there, let the people be able to walk past the putting green, walk around the golf cart, walk down there, all the
neighbors have access to it from the golf cart and a place as a destination that they can walk to and pretend it's part of
the park, and don't call it anything, just build a destination to walk out to. It would look nice on the peninsula. Keep
it under the control of the clubhouse so that it's maintained.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I think if we could fmd a way to keep that under the ownership -- and
remember, everybody that lives in there is a social member --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- so they do have access to a lot of the facilities.
If we could keep those two areas as part of the golf course and put some -- we could talk about what you just
mentioned by the next meeting, come back with a proposal.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just make it an amenity, an amenity that would be walking towards it you
would want to walk towards. Don't put vending machines and stuff, just make it a place to walk out to.
And I think if it's owned by -- as the putting green should, by the clubhouse, then it will be maintained and
not be an eyesore for the clubhouse ever. And after dinner people can take a walk to the gazebo and come back.
So I think if you did that, that's a parklike activity that doesn't exist today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just want to qualify something. The golf course is owned by?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Olde Cypress, LTD, the applicant.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The applicant.
If the putting green were made the HOA's property, they would be required to maintain it, would they not?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Who?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The HOA?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we would make sure that we had control of that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Good. Because I wouldn't want to see them burdened by having to
do that. And that's fine.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If they'd be open to it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think whatever solution we come up with, we need for assure that that putting green
stays part of the golf course and could never go away from part of the golf course. Likewise, what's north can never
go away from the golf course.
If the concern is making sure we keep green open space and not further build within the community, we can
accomplish that through agreements.
Page 54 of 90
161 1 B 7
February 17, 2011
But, I mean, again, what I heard people say is green open space in their concern for a park. Those who -- I
think most of them said that. There may have been one or two said I really want children's facilities. But I -- maybe
one said that.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: What exists there today?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just beautiful green open space. And a putting green on the south. On the north is
green open space. It used to be part of the aqua-range.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Yovanovich, I have a question.
I don't golf, but I do know a lot of golfers. In 2008 when they were going to put the other one, it divided the
community. I don't have little ones, but I do have little grandchildren.
Would you feel safe letting your -- well, you don't have grandchildren -- letting little ones go on the golf
course and go around to get to that park?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I'm -- okay, I'm going to take a step back. Yeah, I do have -- I have 11 year
olds, they were little not too long ago. And walking with me to go to that park, yes would be the answer. Would I let
them walk by themselves? No. But I wouldn't expect that any parent would allow little ones, regardless of where the
park is located, to go unattended.
So I think -- and again, I don't know where this concept of is that we owe the community a children's park. I
mean, I don't know where that came from in any of the documents.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think anybody here said --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I just -- when you're saying -- so why would the children walk there? Why
would they walk there?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: To kick a ball or to throw a football.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, but, you know, if that's what they want to do, then, you know, I'm assuming
I'm going to be the one lugging the ball and grabbing my kids to make sure that they're not running all over the place,
whether it's adjacent to a golf course or not.
I mean, I take my kids -- I live in a community that doesn't have a community park. I go to the Pelican Bay
Park and, you know, we go play on the big field that's there. But I'm with my kids and that's the way it would always
be and they could do that there. If that's really what the community wants, we could do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think building an amenity there. And by the way, in five more years
your kids will be driving off and you won't have that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if that's better or worse.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's worse, trust me.
But anyway, I think that if you did build an amenity, a passive something or other, they could go there.
There is a downside to that. I mean, that could be a place for all the teenagers in the neighborhood to hang
out. And going back to my up bringing, that's not a good thing. So maybe it's best left as an open field.
But the point is, I do think it should be part of an amenity. If there's another destination for people to walk to,
whether it's just a big rock bench, it's better than it is now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Your idea of a gazebo sounded good to me.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's look at the issues.
And the idea of those properties being somehow worked into open space, whatever, if there's something that
locks them in is what we're looking as a compromise.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fme.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The wall along 846, which is Immokalee Road, the height and details on that
wall, is that something you know here today?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, it's six feet. And it will be -- we would use the typical PUD language we use.
We say solid or -- it can't be -- you know, it won't be wood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, it would be the typical six -- it would be six foot tall.
Page 55 of 90
1611 E 7
February 17,2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you can produce a plan that would show where it would extend to?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we'll -- we can produce a plan that shows where it could go and not interfere
with the flow way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The DR! language cleanup -- I mean the cleanup of the master plan for the exits and
entries to Da Vinci Estates --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we'll take care of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to create a letter to go to DCA to clarify the aggregation issue
regarding that piece of property.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the risk of coming off flip like I did earlier, and I don't mean to, I would like for
you to work with me on the letter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's dangerous.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not saying I'm going to agree with everything you put in it. But I -- it's better that
we sit down together than I take a shot at it and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I'll be glad to go over my paperwork.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I would appreciate that assistance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The landscape plan for the front entry, you already have that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's one that the association's has accepted?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The conservation area, it may not even be an issue now, but I would like to know
the breakout of that conservation area. Do you have any problem providing that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If it's a relatively easy document to do, we will. I think what you were envisioning is
kind of showing where the legal description is of the deed of conservation overlayed on the plat where we've
dedicated preserve; is that what you're asking for?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm -- you have two types of conservation that I so far have seen on this
property. You've got one that's dedicated by plat --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which really its limitations are those in the PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have another that's more intense dedicated on the plat and to South Florida
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and other agencies.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a different animal.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes a whole different level of concern.
So it would be nice to see the two differences so that if there is some potential to do something to those
others, at least we've got the opportunity to take a look at it. I mean, you can provide that either way, though, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can provide that, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the consensus from the public in a lot of ways didn't seem to want to go with
those walking trails. So that may not even be an issue anymore, but I would like for clarification on the record to
know the differences in the conservation areas.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. We can provide you a graphic that shows you that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The hydrology issue, in order to get past this deviation you're asking for, and this is
something that is precedent setting in Collier County, do you have any problems in getting that accomplished?
. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would prefer is that we be allowed to collect the data and have satisfied the county
engineer that we've had that data supports the deviation (sic).
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you already satisfy the county engineer; he was here today. He doesn't have
an issue with it. So that was an easy one for you to agree to.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we'll provide data. You know --
Page 56 of 90
1611 7
February 17, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I want to see the hydro -- the date --I'd like to know that it's being done on a
basis of science, not one on just rule of thumb. That's what I'm concerned about.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. I understand that. And we would have to do -- we'd have to
provide appropriate data, not rule of thumb Stan walking by the property for the engineer to make a professional
judgment that the deviation is justified.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to make sure I understand that. The performance of that slope is for
the safety of somebody who fell in the thing? Or what is the actual reason we're discussing this?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My understanding of when it was originated is that when people -- if you fall into
one of these lakes, at one point the county allowed slopes one-to-one or two-to-one. And when you dig at that kind of
a slope and you try to crawl out of a lake and you're grabbing onto sand, you can't grab anything. So this allows you
to get into shallower water where you can actually pull yourself up with your legs and get out of the water.
And if you cut it off too short your legs are pushing against nothing but deep water.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the way we have now, it's designed such that in the low water season
the littoral area there has how much water at the one-to-four slope?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this isn't a littoral area, first of all, it's a four-to-one. Littorals are ten-to-one.
So what happens is in the four-to-one area -- ten-to-ones are even better, you haven't got to worry about those.
In a four-to-one area what happens is you go from your break point where your medium water is and you go
down 10 feet to your next break point, and that 10 feet is enough so that if you've got water fluctuation, say you've got
three or four feet of water fluctuation, you still have five or six feet of sand to grab onto to get yourself out of the lake.
That was what I understood the principle to be.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But five to six feet seems a lot. So--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and it may be, and that's why I'm telling them to please justify it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it is something they could design it based on the performance of the
hydrology in that area. And it's -- it would be precise. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AND if it is, it sets a precedent so the next guy comes in, he better have the same
supporting data.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We understand the need for a measurable standard--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that an engineer would understand is safe.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me ask you this: For the performance, what would be the depth of
water at the point where you break the one-to-two? What is the performance? What's the minimum requirement?
MR. MITCHELL: Well, the standard now is assuming that it's a lO-foot drop in water. So it's at the break
point. They're saying it's at the low water point.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the way we have it right now, the water could be right at the
break point, the way the county standards are?
MR. MITCHELL: The way the county standards are, that it satisfies the worst case that was experienced at
the time, which is about a seven-foot drop in water from control and then an additional three feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was how it was originally set up and it wasn't challenged until this issue came
up. And if you can do it, fme. If it works, fine. Let's just make sure everybody has the same opportunity.
The construction entrance to this new HD Development, would you be able to explore the possibility of
getting a construction entrance squeezed into a minimal temporary entrance through that northern piece of that driving
range?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have the answer today. I mean, we're willing to look at that, but we can't let
the result be that we lose the driving range.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying --
Page 57 of 90
16Ll17,e}
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know that. I'mjust saying, I don't know how far we can push that to have it be a
safe construction -- we're committed to looking at it, but it may end up being we can't do it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And someone testified today that you could come in and go south; in other
words, go down at the further southern part of the driving range and come in. Do you think -- will you look for that or
COMMISSIONER CARON: You can't do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can't do it?
MR. MITCHELL: No, I think you're talking about coming in actually off of Logan at the southern part of the
driving range.
That was actually the case in the existing PUD. And Big Cypress Basin, which controls the right-of-way for
the canal, has taken that off the board. They will not allow it. No access on the--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The last person to testify stated that he felt, and I have no idea, that you
could -- you have a drive entrance that you could come down and come through the lower part of your driving range
and access it, affecting only those people who can hit the ball far.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You need to move this whole thing up.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or let's put it this way, giving target to those people who can hit the ball.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you were to cross the canal, then immediately go to the right with a temporary
entrance,isthatundoable?
MR. MITCHELL: And I assume that you're talking about right here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go across the canal, go over the bridge. And as soon as you cross the bridge,
take a right and go through the south part of that parcel.
MR. MITCHELL: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would take it out of your first phase of development too.
MR. MITCHELL: No, you cannot. That's the -- Big Cypress Basin won't allow the access there. That's their
right-of-way for the canal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a blowup of where their right-of-way is? And I think that's
where Brad's going. Let's get outside the right-of-way.
MR. MITCHELL: Right there is -- those are the -- I believe those are the greens for the driving range. I
mean, you would impact --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the entrance.
MR. MITCHELL: -- a huge corridor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're asking, are they the greens for the driving range?
MR. MITCHELL: I believe they are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when I pull the plans up on that driving range, it's going to show greens there?
You've got greens through the trees? That would be a hard one to hit.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are the -- when you drive down Immokalee Road you see the decorative
greens. That's what those are --
MR. MITCHELL: That's the monument sign.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- right there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gmcha.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. So you'd have to go beyond that and then you're into the driving range.
MR. MITCHELL: This path is in the right-of-way of the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we understand that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We get that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're fme.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what if you come north of that. Go north of the sign, come around,
you know, mess up the temporary greens for a little bit, put them back when you're done and come into the property
down there. Stay away from the gates, stay away from the public. It's a little bit of a dangerous slowdown as soon as
Page 58 of 90
16IFe~Jf201(
you're pulling in. But anyway, look at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The desire is to find a construction entrance; I think you understand the point--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that something needs to be looked at.
The graphic showing the intention of footnote number two, as you've written it versus what we previously
had, I certainly think that would be beneficial to have.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fence issue along Logan. Somehow that needs to get straightened out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will. It was surveyed before it was built, so we'll figure out what's going on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'll permit it and we'll find out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The golf cart path in the Collier County right-of-way on Logan. That is the same
Issue --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that needs to be checked out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are -- we see those as issues, but not necessarily PUD related issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We went through the documents and we came back with some minor tweaking to
some of the language, adding the Tract A reference and the six-foot setbacks, side yard setbacks--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and things like that.
What I'm going to suggest, Richard, is that we continue this meeting to the next Planning Commission
meeting, we wrap up the whole thing, including the consent at that meeting, based on the ability for you to respond to
the things we just walked through.
Now, I want to make sure the board members are obviously in agreement and that everybody puts everything
on the table they think we need to resolve it so we can have a final vote at that next meeting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can somebody remind me what we now have as our BCC date? I just want to look
at --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, one thing you never did have is a consent time frame factored in anyway.
We can't even get to consent till the next Planning Commission meeting, which won't be till the 17th of March.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I get that now. But when this all was set up you were having a meeting on March
3rd.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We knew you were counting on that and we changed it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I appreciate that. So now all I'm asking is can you tell me what is now our
board date?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Jamie, or Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: It's April 12th.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: April 12th.
MR. BELLOWS: That was the one that was done at the last Wednesday--
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem.
If you will still want a consent hearing after this continuance, assuming you're doing a continuance --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we will wrap it up at the next one.
MS. DESELEM: So there would be no consent hearing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is a pretty tight meeting, so we'll wrap everything up at the next meeting,
both consent and a fmal either denial or approval.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, because staffs concern is we have to have our stuff for the board like a month ahead
of that board date. So it's getting it really tight for us to try to make the changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you didn't have a consent until the same date anyway, so you're still--
MS. DESELEM: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- no different than you would have been.
MS. DESELEM: It was tight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing changes.
Page 59 of 90
1611 B I
February 17, 2011
MS. DESELEM: Okay, good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Ebert.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because I live there, I know there is -- where they're going to put the homes in
Vita Toscana, which will be part of Olde Cypress, there is the driving range on the west side. Do you have the other
__ Mr. Y ovanovich, do you have the other piece where it shows the lots?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be the HD master plan.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is it still on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. Ray, can you put it just a little more so we know where the driving
range is? The driving range is -- well, for me it's on the left.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: What do you plan on putting up there? Because those are the people's back
yards. I mean, what -- can you tell us what --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we will put up appropriate screening to make sure that anybody who hits a bad
hook or if you're left-handed a bad slice, it will catch it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: So are you saying then if you build a home there, they're going to look out at
netting?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure we're going to have to put appropriate screening to this net screen in order to
make those lots marketable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll have to do something either with landscaping or -- otherwise the lot's going
to be hard to sell.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I mean, we're --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not sure that we've looked at what the landscaping was for that
corridor, but just to let you know, the BCC recently turned down a golf driving range that was going to back up to
some homes further away than this. So having a good landscaped screening plan, as well as obviously you're going to
need the netting --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The nice thing about this is in the other situation you bought a home and you didn't
know a driving range was coming.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. No, I know --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In this particular case there's no risk that you don't know about that driving range.
And, you know, we're going to have to take care of that for sales purposes anyway. I think you can distinguish those
two cases.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else?
Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do have another question.
There are different acreages. Why the different acreages? The PUD does not match the DRI in acreages.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, are you -- and I want to make sure I understand the question. We're doing our
DRI amendment, and 1.42 acres of the HD Development PUD will not be going into the DRI, so there's going to be a
1.42-acre discrepancy between the total acreage and the DRI, and then the acreage with the HD Development PUD.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Why are you leaving it in the HP (sic) Development?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: HD?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The HD Development PUD is an already approved zoning document. So that
multi-family site has zoning rights on it. So we can't do anything to change it, because we do not own it or control it.
So we're keeping what rights they currently have today to develop, and we're adding 18 acres that will become
single-family to the HD Development. So we're preserving the rights that exist for that multi-family developer.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: A developer owns that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe it's a developer. But I don't -- it's not us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The person who owns it who can develop it.
Page 60 of 90
..t
February 17, 2011
,
161
.;::'-
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one little --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the ordinance, the first one for the PUD for 9.A, if you look at section
two, it's discussing an amendment to Section 3.02.
At the last line after water recreation facilities, the original one says, comma, bicycle paths and jogging trails.
I think we should add that in and strike it through, just as a good habit, a healthy habit.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, when this comes back, we'll clean up -- there's another area that we need to
underline some other language, so we'll take care of that. But thank you for pointing it out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the only other thing is I think Mr. Murray's five-foot is still up in the
air and I don't want it --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we gave it up. We went to the six feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they went to six feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, wow, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've had a lot of discussion.
Is there anymore discussion anybody else has?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the direction that seems to be okay is to have them come back with the
responses to all the issues we've raised at the next meeting, our next meeting, which will be March 17th. They'll be
first up on the agenda, so it will be done early in the morning. We'll try to focus on the issues relative to what we've
asked for supporting documentation for and anything obviously that would generate from the those issues, but then
we'd be ready to vote on this and at the same day have our consent hearing at the same time.
Is everybody satisfied with that? Is everybody comfortable with it?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just wondering how --I'm just wondering how if we have additional
items how the consent can follow, I guess, because we can't adjust the consent, so I've been informed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've done it in the past before.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, but at one time you made the statement we couldn't change
anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we can't on consent. But this wouldn't be consent. We wouldn't vote today.
We'd continue.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I fully understood what was stated, but you're not understanding me.
What my concern would be was that if it comes back and questions to be answered and they're not answered to our
satisfaction, we would have to say no to them then.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or could we adjust and if we did, would the staff have the right
documentation for consent?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Because what's happening --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's my question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this is going to be no different than this hearing, except probably significantly
shorter, in which we clean up the outstanding issues. And all those issues you may have or anybody may have we get
cleaned up right there at the meeting. And then we don't go to consent until we're satisfied with all our questions and
answers.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's just an unusual thing. And I'm happy we can do that if we have to do
that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that -- without it being any kind of a vote, and I know you don't want to vote on
this, but I would hate to go through this exercise and then fmd out we've made all these changes and they're not
Page 61 of 90
f..() I 1
87
February] 7, 2011
acceptable. Is there a way to kind of poll the Planning Commission to say if you make tl- ese ;hanges you're on the
right track, or are we going to end up at the end of the day with a recommendation of del: ial CO nyway?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I mean, I'm the one that brought up -- kept the lis . of. ;hanges. I kept it
because there were issues of concern. I think if you clear these issues up satisfactorily,!'] n ll( t going to have a
problem.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Neither will I.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I'm just looking for the nods of the head that we'r e on the right track.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you want, Mark, I'll make a motion to c mtillue it. Anybody who
would have a problem with it would probably vote no to that motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Rich, do you want to request a continuance until tile M arch 17th meeting first
up?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that cost me any money?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it will either cost you that or votes. It's up to you
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I would request a continuance to the March 17th mc etin:~, with the understanding
we'll have the foll-- immediately following that we'll have the consent agenda and a conI i.rm ltion that we have an
April 12th BCC date. And that's not going to further--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can't make the continuation on the confirmatior oft 1e BCC date, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand, I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we can tell you we'll hear it the first up on the 17th.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would just like staff to tell me, hey, Rich, you're not going 0 come to another
Planning Commission day, you've been here for the first time, you've lost your BCC date. Tl at's all I'm asking. I've
got a client who's probably a little not happy with me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, honestly, your client's coming out further ahead tnan (thought we'd be today,
so I think, you know, that's probably a good thing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made and seconded to accept the l:ontmuance request to March
17th, first up on that date.
All those -- discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Thank you for a long day.
The next item is the same applicant's representative who's got an unclear head ri:~t LOW, so let's take 10
minutes, we'll come back at 2:00 and resume the agenda at that time.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back for (sic) the lO-minute bn:ak so the land use
attorney could gather his wits about him.
***The next item up on our agenda is PUDZ-2009-AR-14425. It's the Addie's Corner MPUD located at the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard.
Page 62 of 90
,-
1611 B i
February 17, 2011
This was an item continued from last meeting to now for some issues that the Planning Commission found in
regards to the intensities and how it was advertised.
Now, all those wishing to be participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part ofthe Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just spoke briefly to Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke to Mr. -- I think we -- yeah, we addressed this the same day that I --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- met with you on Olde Cypress.
Okay, Richard, it's all yours.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just real briefly, when we were at the last Planning Commission hearing, there was a
question of whether or not the hotel units or the continuing care retirement community, the square footages for
constructing those buildings was within the 135,000 square feet of the project or not. I said it was in addition to. Staff
was concerned that we didn't properly advertise that, so we decided to continue this hearing to go have another
advertised neighborhood information meeting.
We did that. The ad was approved by the County Attorney's Office to make it very clear that the CCRC and
the hotels were in addition to the 135,000 square feet.
Other than Ray Bellows, Bob Duane and myself, nobody came to the NIM, so it must not have been an issue
of concern. The documents have been revised to make it very clear that the hotel and CCRC uses are not part of the
135, but there is in fact and on the visualizer, there is for each acre of development of either a CCRC or a hotel, there
is a reduction in the square footage, a little over 10,000 square feet. It's on the visualizer.
There's also been an addition to the document under the hoteVmotel section that staff made, I think
subsequent to your receiving your packet. And I'd like to point that out. It's at the very bottom, you'll see some
parenthetical information.
You could either do a hotel by referencing 26 units or referencing an FAR, but you don't do both. So we're
just making it very clear in this document that the intensity of the hotel will be measured by units and not be measured
by the FAR. And that's an addition that staff made subsequent to your receiving your packet. And they asked me to
read that into the record.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, that arose by a comment that I raised because the tract is essentially a
commercial tract, and there's an FAR under C-4 and C-5 of .60.
And the 26 units an acre under a chart that we had for residential, it does allow 26 units an acre. So I wanted
it to be clear that that other FAR did or didn't apply, and so that's why they put the FAR not applicable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Is that the end of your --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. I think everything else the Planning Commission was comfortable with, we just
needed to go back out and hold the NIM again, and we've done that. And I'll answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, it's actually on Exhibit C. Ijust want to make sure we're
defining. Tract B is just the preserve area, correct, it does not go to the perimeter boundary line?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Tract A, how do we really know what that is? It mean, you have exact
acreage for it, but -- but is there -- do the boundaries of that go to the property line?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, Mrs. Schiffer, I believe they do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So -- and then the right-of-way easement is -- in other words, the
problem is I'm not sure these drawings really outline the tracts. I don't see how that could be the big problem, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I mean, they're --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're defmed in acreage.
MR. DUANE: We defme the acreage in the commitments for transportation. And it's everything that falls
outside Tract A.
Page 63 of 90
16 I Jruary t1z11
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, for example, the area between the lake and the preserve, Tract B, is
that Tract A?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Bob?
MR. DUANE: The lake is part of Tract A.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The lake is part of Tract A?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the answer to that is yes, that's Tract A.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that the lake area would be deducted from Tract A.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This lake subset of Tract A.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is -- okay. Is the right-of-way easement a subset of Tract A?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then the preserve is essentially a subset of Tract A.
The area between the preserve and the northern property line, who does that belong to?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What do you mean who does -- it belongs to us.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but I mean, is it Tract A? I mean, the game we're playing here, is it --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess it would technically be within the acreage calculation of Tract A.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Which some of these things which are based on acreage,
that just concerns me that some of this acreage isn't as clear as it could be.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And again, you know, it's conceptual as far as the exact acreage numbers go.
But you've got the master plan that shows you where development will be and how much preserve there is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then on Page 6 of 12 in our supplemental report, in the triple
asterisk, I think just to avoid somebody having too much fun, could you put a period after the word development?
Otherwise you could read on. I know there's a capital F for four, so the intent is that it's a new sentence, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mine has a period.
MR. DUANE: Mine has a period.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll-- mine has a period, but if yours doesn't, we'll make sure it does.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. We don't. Ours up here don't have periods. And you could, if you
ran into that sentence, you could turn it into something else.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we'll fix that.
MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Schiffer, could you tell me on the bottom what the last date revised is so we make sure
you got the latest and greatest?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine is 1/26/11.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we have 1/27. So they must have -- when they fixed the FAR they must have
caught the period as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good.
All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant?
Okay, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ijust wanted to on Page 4 of 12 it lists the Tract A permitted group housing,
and it lists what's available. Shouldn't you then follow that with the requirements which are over on the next page?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You mean the commitments?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I mean, format-wise, the way they're working now is to list all the uses on the
different tracts and then follow later with commitments. To me it's format -- it's six on one-half, dozen on the other.
If you prefer that we move that under that, we can do that, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just trying to make it clearer. If it's clear to everybody, then I don't
have an issue.
So if it's clear to all of you, then fme.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your point's well taken. It would make it nicer.
Page 64 of 90
1611 87
February 17, 2011
COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just trying to make it flow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to find out --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because those seven items don't reflect on Tract B, the preserve areas.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, but it does say that those commitments in paragraph Roman numeral V only
apply to group housing/retirement. So it's a -- again, I'll do whatever. Ifwe want to move it, we can move it. It's not
a --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want it to be clear, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what's the consensus? Does everybody want it moved? It doesn't matter to
me.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It doesn't matter. It makes it nicer if it's in line that way, I completely
understand that. But it doesn't much matter at this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody care? We'll let it go.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I don't think anybody really has a big issue one way or the other, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else, questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll hear from staff, for what little staff may have to say, if anything.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Don't feel obligated.
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem.
I really hadn't planned on saying anything, but I'll respond to any questions you have. You do have the
supplemental staff report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, FAR calculations are taken against the gross area of the site, correct?
MS. DESELEM: Gross area of the tract, not the whole site. It's whatever tract it might be on.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So therefore that little bit of A running around behind everybody, we're
calculating the hotels and stuff based on that area around the preserve?
MS. DESELEM: Not necessarily. Not if it's on a separate tract from that. Because they might pull out
different uses on that thing. And you might have -- you know, when they plat it they could plat it and then have a
separate platted tract be the ALF and have other uses on the rest of the parcel.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is that there'll be a legally defined site within
Tract A, because B's all preserve, and the FAR will be calculated upon that.
MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding. Now, I mean, they could potentially develop the whole site with
that use, in which case it would -- I was just talking to Bob on the break, because if you look at the breakdown at the
bottom of the master plan, they've actually broken out Tract B and Tract A and the right-of-way and the lake are not
included in either one of those.
So I'm not sure that the lake is actually part of the Tract A.
MR. DUANE: The preserve area has specific acreage.
MS. DESELEM: Yes, the preserve area has a specific acreage. And they all seem to have -- but it's -- I
agree, it's kind of ambiguous. You can't really tell whether Tract A and the lake are -- I'm sorry, whether the lake is
part of Tract A or whether the right-of-way is part of Tract A.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where -- like in other words, if -- normally if somebody bought a
whole site and they set aside some preserve, they would get the benefit of the whole site.
So where does it say what you're saying, that it has to be broken down in tract?
MS. DESELEM: The FAR is deter -- if you use FAR, it's determined by the lot or tract or parcel where
they're building it. So if they come in for an SDP for some segment of this project, that would be where the FAR
would rule.
But like I said, they potentially could bring in the entire Tract A for development of that use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, why wouldn't they get the benefit of -- what in this tells that you that
the acreage that you take the FAR from is based upon tracts, not based upon 10t area?
MS. DESELEM: That's my understand -- well, the lot -- it is based on lot area, but it's not the project lot, it's
Page 65 of 90
16FLl17,6n 7
the lot within which that use is going to be done.
MR. BELLOWS: If! may, Kay.
For the record, Ray Bellows.
The floor area ratio is calculated either on -- if the lot is platted, you have a platted specific lot or tract size. If
it comes in under an SDP for the entire parcel of A, or Tract A, it would be calculated for that entire Tract A.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we would subtract each acre that is the actual CCRC, we would subtract roughly
10,000 square feet from our 135. So the FAR is calculated based on we do an SDP for all of Tract A. We take that
area, multiply it by whatever, 430 -- whatever, come up with our FAR square footage. And then if the footprint of the
CCRC is two acres, we take out 20,000 square feet. So we'd have 115,000 square feet left of retail, plus our CCRC.
Same thing with the hotel.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you did a group care for the whole site, somebody come in and said I
just want to do group care, what would be his gross -- what would be the acreage that you would be taking --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be Tract A.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Only Tract A?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Tract A.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why?
MR. DUANE: Everything outside the preserves.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because my planning consultant tells me the intent was that we took out the preserve
from the calculation of FAR for the senior group housing.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you want to make that clear, I think we should do that at this point in time. If
you're suggesting that the preserve area should not be included in the calculation --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not sure it should or shouldn't be. One of the things Collier's done
is they've allowed people to take density and stuff off of the preserve, and I think that's a good thing. It causes you to
tend the preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No? You don't like that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to get a no vote real quick.
Brad, if you used all of the acreage on the site for a calculation of let's say the hoteVmotel because that doesn't
have an FAR, you're 606 units.
Now, was anybody expecting 606 units of hotels to be built on the site? Is that what you're intending this site
to be used? That's using 23.33 acres times 26 units per acre. That is one huge hotel.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that was --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, hopefully it has a casino and everything.
No, but the point I'm making, what is -- but you're taking the acreage around the preserve and stuff, because
the preserve is a subset of Tract A.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the preserve is Tract B. Everything else that's not preserve is Tract A. Everything
else that's not in the preserve is Tract A. So whatever that acreage is, we could theoretically multiply that by 26 units
and come up with a hotel density. I don't think we'll even go that high, but I understand Mr. Strain's concern, if you
throw the preserve in there as well, you end up with a huge hotel. I get that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But floor area by defInition is not going to tell you based upon tract, it's
going to be based upon the site, the area of the site. So if somebody bought this whole site, it comes with the
preserve. But the area of the site -- in other words, I don't think it's clear that, you know, you're taking preserves out.
And what you said, the rest of the site is Tract A, is true. But then subset of Tract A has a lake and a
right-of-way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why don't we say that the floor area ratio for the CCRC and also the density for the
hotel will be calculated on the entirety of the property minus the preserve area, which is 8. -- whatever the acreage is.
And then we can put that in there so there's no ambiguity on how we calculate that.
Does that address --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that could.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- the concern you had about what are we're using for the basis. Whether you agree
with having to take it out or not is a different issue. But I believe at least others on the hotel definitely don't want the
Page 66 of 90
1611 7
February 17,2011
preserve to count against towards the hotel intensity.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the reason I bring it up is that I use floor area in other
communities. We don't use it much here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a tool that's used throughout the state. And it would mean the gross site;
it would include the preserve.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
And we have done that in others. Sonoma Oaks most recently, we included the preserve in the calculation of
the FAR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, you did.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark was absent that day.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We try not to bring it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was absent that day.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, I thought I'd get a smile out of it. I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did.
Same issue we're dealing with here but there it got through, so -- are you satisfied with that explanation that
they're going to provide --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Don't forget you have development standards for how -- for the building. And you
also traffic. You have all those things that protect the community from senior citizens running amuck.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're going to add a clarification sentence concerning how the FAR and
hotel density is calculated, correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The way I described it, does that work?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, it's -- I mean, you just fine tune it, but it will work. You're going to come
back on consent anyway.
Kay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have any -- no, this isn't consent.
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. Yes?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, when I'm finished with you I don't think -- anybody else have any questions of
Kay?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I've got one. Is a lake considered a use?
MS. DESELEM: It's not a structure. I guess it's a use, per se.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, if you're a fish.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because in Tract A they don't have any lake that I can see or water management
listed as a use. Maybe I missed it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Isn't it an essential service?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in other PUD's we see them listed as accessory uses, and I'm just trying to
make sure that we don't have a -- make sure you throw that in if you want to or need to.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, that can be taking care of so it's very clear that that is an accessory use, it's a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, water management facilities to service the project.
Anybody else have anything else?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I have a question for--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- Mr. Y ovanovich.
Did you ever listen to that 19 minutes of that original NIM meeting?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, because I figured I was doing another one, I didn't need to figure out what was
originally committed to because that's why we did another one.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: It was also a very short meeting. But in that, when I listened to it, I asked you
why only 139,000 square feet, because with this I thought you would have put much more into it. And you said that's
all we're asking for. So it was -- when I went back and listened to it, I went, oh, he could have really had a lot more in
Page 67 of 90
1611,j7
February 17,20] I
there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, in the retail. And I probably heard it with regard to the retail and wasn't
focusing on the CCRC hotel use.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of staff or the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, how many public speakers do we have?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want a rebuttal, Richard?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not at the risk of making this go longer in the wrong way.
Are we having a consent hearing on this? When's the BCC date? I thought we were --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been no arrangement otherwise. You didn't ask for any, so--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I couldn't remember if we were trying to keep the original schedule or not on this
one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When's it going to the BCC, Ray; do we know?
MS. DESELEM: I believe the current scheduled date is April 12th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got time for consent; we'll leave it like it is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's right. I remember, it's coming back to me now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I would move that PUDZ-2009-AR-14425, known as Addie's Corner
mixed use planning unit development, MPUD, be recommended for approval.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Klein.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
We'll see you back on consent.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: 17th, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 17th of March, yes.
You can come the 3rd if you want to learn something, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll just walk away.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item up -- do you need some time?
MR. MULHERE: Well, he's just -- he's going to put in the data in case we need to pull up the map or
anything. We can start.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. The next item up was continued from the February 3rd meeting. It's the
CP-2008-5, the amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land
Use Map.
This is the adoption hearing that -- and we heard the transmittal quite a few months ago.
Page 68 of 90
1611 B 7
February 17,2011
So 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: Okay, are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I think Mr. Mulhere and I got back and forth a couple of times and ended
up not touching base, so we're here today. I think I said something to him before the meeting and it's kind of
narrowed down right now, so --
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And I'll try to be very brief.
For the record, Bob Mulhere here on behalf of the Immokalee CRA and the Immokalee community.
Coming down the home stretch now for the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Planning Commission's
adoption hearing. This has been something like about a seven-year process, though. I want to put on the record that
we haven't been involved in it that long, just a couple of years.
Just by way of refreshing everybody's memory, we had the transmittal hearings before the EAC, the CCPC
and the BCC, and we transmitted the document to DCA. And then we received the Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report from DCA, the ORC Report.
And actually, I was actually quite pleased, there were only really two major objections; really only two
objections in the report, it was a pretty brief report.
After we received that report, we spent the next several months working with staff and with the Immokalee
CRA board and the community to resolve those work issues, which I'll go over injust a moment. And we also spent a
lot of time talking back and forth to the DCA and DCA staff. We wanted to be sure that whatever resolution we
offered was one that would be acceptable.
They don't commit 100 percent, but I think in the end they were very comfortable that we had addressed their
issues. And of course when we get through the board's -- your hearing and then the board's hearing, we'll send up the
final document to them.
There was one issue that wasn't part of the ORC, and it's in your staff report on Page 7 under the Evaluation
and Appraisal Report, CCPC comments. And you'll probably recall that that dealt with the fact that although the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system overlay boundaries system were adopted in 2007, I think, into the Conservation
and Coastal Management Element, it was unclear what preservation requirement would apply to those properties.
And so staff evaluated that and made a recommendation that based on the fact that those properties, which
you can see on the visualizer are outlined in green -- let's see if! can point it out to you. It's this large slough area
here, the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay.
That's an urban area. And as an urban area, it allows for the base density in the urban area, although it's
designated low residential. And the staffs position was that that's quite a bit different than the preservation standards
that were subsequently supplied to rural areas during the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District process.
As a result, their recommendation was to go with a preservation standard that was applied to neutral lands,
which would be a 60 percent preservation requirement with a maximum of 45 percent of the site or not to exceed 45
percent of the site.
There was some public testimony at the EAC, I think from The Conservancy, that a 90 percent preservation
rate was preferable, which is the preservation rate that was applied to sending lands. But staff didn't support that, nor
did the EAC.
So where we are today is that you have a recommendation from the EAC and from staff for a 60 percent not
to exceed 45 percent of the site preservation requirement for this urban overlay. And certainly I would defer to staff
on any further questions you might have on that.
Now, moving into the objection/recommendation comments. Just very briefly, that the two major issues dealt
with providing -- the DCA commented that we hadn't adequately provided a cap, which is statutorily required, or a
maximum level of intensity for nonresidential uses.
And as Mr. Schiffer indicated, floor area ratio is the tool that's most often used to provide a cap that's applied
on a parcel-by-parcel basis in other communities.
Collier County has rarely used that, only used it in a couple of circumstances. We had a discussion about it,
we had a discussion with the County Attorney's Office as well, they were involved. And there was a reluctance to
apply a floor area ratio because it wasn't being used throughout Collier County and it might be precedential.
Page 69 of 90
a
1611 B.7
February 17, 2011
The other alternative is just as acceptable, meets the statute, and that's a maximum limitation on the overall
square footage, and we applied it to the entire Immokalee urban area.
So that's how we addressed it. I think DCA's comfortable with that.
The other issue they raised was inadequate data and analysis as it related to water and sewer. We've
responded to that. We believe that they're okay with the additional data and analysis that we did.
So really, there's only a couple of issues on the table. One is the preservation applying to the Camp Keais
Strand/Lake Trafford mixed use -- excuse me, overlay. And the other one deals with density blending as it applies to
properties within that area.
And you'll recall that the major landowner in there represented by Wilson-Miller had requested that the
density blending provisions that apply to other properties in the Immokalee urban area, which straddle the RLSA in
the Immokalee urban area, that that same provision be applicable to these lands. And the EAC supported that at
transmittal. The CCPC did not support that, based on -- I think and I'll be paraphrasing, and you can correct me if I'm
wrong, but I think based on the fact that there was insufficient data and analysis related to the potential impacts to the
RLSA from increasing the density blending provisions to include this area.
And the board placed that language back in the document that was transmitted, but with the caveat that the
additional data and analysis be brought back and submitted for consideration.
And I believe that you have that data and analysis that was prepared by Tim Durham of Wilson-Miller. And
he's here and he can certainly speak to the issue; I don't think it's my place to speak to that issue.
Generally we support the idea of density blending; I know staff does as well. But whether or not the data and
analysis is sufficient that's I think up for discussion, part of what I think you would be considering today.
So I'm trying to, you know, just focus on the issues that I think are outstanding. Those are the two. If you
have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them. But in the interest of trying to keep this as brief as possible, that
concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any questions of Mr. Mulhere?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to hear from Mr. Durham, hear that presentation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim, could you -- I guess your report is what we're wanting to hear about.
MR. DURHAM: For the record, Tim Durham with Wilson Miller Stantec, representing Williams Farms.
Yeah, one probably clarification to what Bob said, the density blending language actually came out of the
committee that was overseeing everything. It wasn't the landowner coming forward at the last minute and requested
this language. It was what the committee came up with and thought was a good idea. It only came out last year in the
planning counsel meeting which I was not able to be at, unfortunately. So I think we've come full circle on this issue
now.
The primary question, as I understood it from reading the minutes of that particular Planning Commission
meeting, was where is the data and analysis, what is the ramification of this, how many other properties could avail
themselves of the density blending provision if it's allowed to go through the way it is.
We went back subsequent to that and did a GIS analysis and tried to identify all the parcels that would qualify
for the density blending, and the only property that would qualify under it was Williams Farms.
We then went about looking at, based on the language as proposed by the committee, what would that impact
be. Turns out there were roughly 732 acres of flow way high-quality wetlands as part of Williams Farm. That land,
the density from that land would be eligible to be transferred into other property that Williams Farms owns. That's
just outside but adjacent to the urban boundary.
We submitted that to the county quite a while back. And the follow-up question was kind oflike, well, so
what? You know, here's the raw number, what does that mean.
So we did go back and kind of arbitrarily picked a credit number that had some basis in discussion from the
past. There had been discussion at various points about potentially having a cap on the RLSA program, 45,000 acres
of development.
While that's still just a discussion item, there's nothing formal about that, I went ahead and used that as kind
of a base line to kind of compare what would be the impact if Williams Farms availed themselves ofthis density
blending provision and if that full density was transferred into that adjacent land, what would it be.
And it worked out to be about 1.6 percent of the total RLSA area. So, you know, does it warp the RLSA
program? No, not at all. It's a very small percentage of the overall RLSA that this property represents.
Page 70 of 90
~
17
161 1
.".....
""
February 1 '7,2011
So our position at that point was that the trade-off of saving 732 acres of this great flow way within tile urban
area in exchange for being able to use some -- entitle some RLSA land was a reasonable position.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that get your --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I support that the point of view. I mean, you can't just take something away
from landowners, there has to be some way that they can compensate for the value. And I think this is an excellent
alternative that can benefit a substantial portion of this flow way, which is very important. So I would SUPPOlt us
putting it back in.
I know that you had had some objections, Mark, to it before--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have stronger ones now, but I'll explain those to you in a minute.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The RLSA area, how lucrative has that been in this current economy? Or let's say
for the past five years. Has anybody hit their absorption rates that you know of in that area? Has the place caught on
fire with the monetary value of the stewardship credits? Or has (sic) Immokalee have the better potential of growth?
And I know you can't answer those, Tim. But where I'm going is you'd be better off providing incentives
within the urban area of Immokalee to use and preserve that flow way, because it has a potential of being used quicker
and sooner and more adaptable than you do in a RLSA program where the major landowners already have pl~nty of
credits available to them in their preserve areas. And the fact that anybody would want to buy those credits from the
Town of Immokalee may not be as great as if we incentivized properties within the urban area of Immokalee to do it
all right there, including the potential of the airport's growth and their master plan and all the new stuff I'm hearing
that may happen out there.
So I think by moving it to the RLSA, you're actually damaging it, not helping it. Because you're going to
delay its ability to be used. Where in the urban area you would increase its ability to be used. That's why originally I
argued that the TDR's ought to be used within the urban area of Immokalee, and I still believe that.
I think contaminating the RLSA with this kind of a program isn't going to help the program. It could
potentially set a precedent that the RLSA through the Governor's order was never intended for. And I will strongly
vote against that particular issue. I still don't believe it's the right thing to do.
MR. DURHAM: May I respond?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. DURHAM: Having sat through many hours of the committee's meetings laboring over these points,
various issues were discussed. And I think nobody came up with the brilliant solution that would address all of that.
So I would suggest to you this was offered as some way to give the landowners something back in exchange for the
protection overlay going on some of those wetland systems.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but then again 10, 15 years ago, I wouldn't have thought anything
out in that area was going to happen. So, you know, the landowner has no plans for that property right now, Mr.
Strain, they're just looking for options and flexibility in the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my problem, Tim, is the performance standards of the RLSA is terrible. And
the performance standards of the urban area of Immokalee is probably better. And if you think that we're going to
encourage preservation by creating stewardship credits that have no value and no use, because even the perfOlmance
standards of the one existing SRA are 90 percent off. I'm not sure there's an advantage of seeing this preserved in any
close proximity in the future.
MR. DURHAM: And I would argue that time will tell on that. I'm not sure we've had enough time to --
especially in this economic climate to decide some of those things.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. This economic climate is not a good time to look at it.
But Mark, we're granting so much density in this master plan and we haven't set up a TDR program. Where
are you going to get the density -- there's so much already out there, it's been so generous, where are you going to get
the density to create a TDR program at this point in time?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we write the language for the Land Development Code that implements this
plan, we incentivize it through that language. Through bonuses, through additional whatever we want to put in that
plan.
So the use of the airport, the way things are done there, we could look at -- I mean, I'm not -- I haven't spent
the time studying that issue, but I can tell you that would be a better way to look than something that isn't prohably
Page 71 of 90
16118'7
February 17, 20 II .
going to happen in any our lifetimes. So, I mean, that's just -- we're going to have a difference of opinion on this one,
so --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. Well, I think that, you know, this -- right now there's very little that
you can offer the landowners to compensate, and this at least is something. They may not use it, they might not use it
for 20 or 30, 40 years, but at least it will be out there; it will be something that can be usable.
And I just don't see with the amount of density and intensity we've given away in Immokalee there's going to
be anything else that we can trade for this.
I wish that we had set up a little bit more stringent density so that there would be something like a bargaining
chip that we could use in exchange for the environmentally sensitive lands. But I don't think we can do that now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing's approved.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: How does -- how would those units that could be created, how would it affect
all ofthe lake area that's outside the Immokalee area in the RLSA? I mean, could it all-- could all of that be used
around the lake? Could you suddenly dump another 3,000 units?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, none of it could be around the lake. It would all have to be in the part
that's cleared now. Right now it's being used for farming.
MR. DURHAM: It would have to be land already owned by the --
COMMISSIONER CARON: So it has to be the same owner.
MR. DURHAM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So they can't sell those credits to Barron Collier, who owns all the--
MR. DURHAM: Those credits would have to ride with their land, correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's the other point I wanted to make, that you'd be -- all you'd be doing is
shifting density out of the flow way and you'd be putting it on an area that's already cleared and being used for
farming. Now, it wouldn't have a broad impact on anywhere outside of Immokalee in the immediate area. You
wouldn't be impacting other areas of the RLSA, you'd just make a very, very small geographic shift. But it would be
of a huge benefit to the flow way.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And how does that help us protect ago in the RLSA?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, this would be way off in the future when the landowner decides that
they don't want to farm anymore and that they want to develop residential.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of Tim?
(No response.)
MR. DURHAM: Let me off easy, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Bob, are you done with your presentation?
MR. MULHERE: You know, I was, except there's one additional change that staff brought to my attention
just a few minutes ago, if I can fmd it.
Carolina, do you have that language?
MS. VALERA: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Just wanted to read this into the record. I don't think it will be a problem.
Steve Lenberger indicated that if the density blending provision is approved, rather than -- or recommended
for approval, rather than using the language -- this is the phrase that exists today: Shall be placed in a conservation
easement in perpetuity. So that's the language where you take off the rights.
What's being recommended for greater flexibility is the following: Shall be protected by a permanent
conservation mechanism to prohibit further development, consistent with the requirements of this policy. It mayor
may not be an easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, Ijust -- yeah, I did have a question. Mechanism.
MR. MULHERE: It could be just a deed restriction. There's lots of ways to prohibit future development and
protect conservation besides just an easement.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, we learned that perpetuity sometimes is construed as 30 years,
Page 72 of 90
,. .~,
....
I )
... "":
16 IFeb~uary 17:20}
MR. MULHERE: I don't know about that. For me it's forever, but, you know.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, we learned it here. Our County Attorney helped us with that one.
And so I would agree that it would be useful to try to fmd a better language.
Mechanism conveys to me -- but I've gotten to be a lot more careful about my choice of words --
MR. MULHERE: Anyway, I just wanted to get that--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- in an effort to make sure we do the right thing. So I don't know,
mechanism seemed to me a little bit -- still a little bit loose.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's intended to provide greater flexibility for how to do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staffreport.
Carolina? You're moving that direction, so we might as well catch you.
MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Comprehensive Planning Section.
As noted on the staff report, we are recommending approval. We have two recommendations: One that you
do approve the 60 percent vegetation retention; as well as the language that Bob just mentioned about the mechanism.
We have it in the CCME, and I have Steve Lenberger here, he can provide more clarification on why mechanism is a
better word than what we have right now.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going to argue with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's not waste time with things that aren't going to be argued with, so let's just
goon.
MS. VALERA: Okay. As you saw in the staffreport, the EAC made some changes to the data and analysis
language, and that has been done in the document.
That's about it. Do you have any questions for me?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. You know, the one thing that the ORC Report brought out rather
strongly, it's their fIrst item, is the fact that we're really not controlling the intensity, the mix of the nonresidential uses.
The conclusion we came up with is we'll essentially establish a checkbook. And we put I think it was 8.45
million square feet into that checkbook.
MS. VALERA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How does that give any vision or anything as to what's happening in that
town? I mean, we -- you know, we've seen some development standards and presentations that are rather intensive.
Immokalee is kind of like a one-story cowboy town look to me, which looks good. But that's not what's described in
the standards. And that's --
MR. MULHERE: And I don't think that's what the community envisions for Immokalee in the future either.
Maybe what you think is nice, but it's certainly not what the community supported moving forward.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So they want downtown --
MR. MULHERE: Correct, they want an urbanized mixed use intensive downtown.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So just giving, you know, essentially a balance in the checkbook,
how does that give us a vision of what the downtown --
MR. MULHERE: Well, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we could argue what's in the GMP and what's in the LDC and stufflike
that.
MR. MULHERE: I think that's a good question.
It doesn't. Just that number by and of itself does not give you a vision for what Immokalee's intension for the
future is. What gives you that vision is the entire master plan looked at as a whole, and all of the land use patterns that
are described and all the uses that are allowed and all of the protections that are in place. What you have there is a
statutory requirement for a cap that we've provided to meet the test to get adopted.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but --
MS. VALERA: That is basically it. DCA was just looking for a way so they can make sure that the intensity
that is being requested will be supported by all the services, period.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how did you come up with that number?
MS. V ALERA: It was a rather lengthy process. We have some gurus at our GIS department, Beth Yawn. I
mean, she took every single parcel of land in Immokalee, looked up the use for each parcel and came up with the
Page 73 of 90
161 1
B7
February 17, 2011
difference, you know, commercial, industrial, all the uses. And we were able to come up with an Inunokalee area
FAR.
And with that, we gave that existing FAR to the consultant and they were able then to --
MR. MULHERE: What Carolina -- just for the record, what Carolina said is right. We looked at the ex isting
commercial, which I think totaled about five million. So the Delta is what could be added. And then we used
population projections and other standardized, you know, commercial-- drivers for commercial need to predict the
growth in five-year increments over -- through the year 2025.
MS. VALERA: Correct.
MR. MULHERE: So it's basically a l5-year commercial needs analysis that established that eight plus
million square feet.
I don't think that's going to happen in 15 years, if you ask me professionally. But there was a need to provide
a cap and we used the standardized methodology to develop that cap.
MS. VALERA: Based on actual existing data, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I guess I go back to the question of a vision of what this is. This
is supposed to be the master plan that causes something to happen.
What were -- when did the options of that -- where was that reviewed? I know we had a meeting out there. I
don't think I missed any meetings, but I never really saw anything other than essentially development standards
similar to Ave Maria or downtown Naples.
But when you said that they don't want that to be a one-story, but was there ever studies where maybe the
main block is one story and the block behind it's four stories, stuff like that?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, there was a substantial amount of work done. There were numerous public
meetings, there was an actual design plan prepared and referenced, and there will be further work done through the
LDR's as it relates to that design plan. And that was done by a sub-consultant for us, L.D.I.
And that was reviewed by the committee, revised by the committee, and then ultimately adopted.
And what you see in the master plan incorporates or includes that design for the downtown core.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we had the meeting out there we were given -- there were some
design elements, little pocket miniparks were shown --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And some elevations of single-story borderline suburban houses with
arches and stuff like that.
Is that the report you're referring to?
MR. MULHERE: I guess in part that's it, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because the reason I'm bringing it up --
MR. MULHERE: It's entitled the Public Realm Plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Is that the plan we were looking at that night?
MR. MULHERE: Those were portions of it, yeah, portions of that plan.
You know, and if you're going to ask me if! watched that movie, no, I never did.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Which is sad. But the --
MR. MULHERE: I know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The thing that I still am missing sitting here is we never really saw the
vision. I mean, like if Walt Disney took over the town, I'm sure it would come out different than just the regulations of
Fifth Avenue in Naples. And enough said, you don't have to answer that.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I mean, I guess I'd only respond to you that I think there is a vision. Is it the do all
and end all? No, I suspect that Disneyland or Disney World have evolved over the last 25, 30, 40, 50 years that
they've been opened and they've revised their plans over that period of time too. We can only look so far into the
future and have any validity. And I think we've done that here. And if we accomplish, you know -- a large ponion of
what we propose here, which is primarily focusing on economic development and diversification, then we will have
succeeded in moving the community to the next level. Then somebody else is going to come in and take a look at it
again and sort of revamp that one more time and that might be 10 or 15 years from now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
MS. VALERA: I will also add that remember this is our GMP. The specificity and the details of how high
Page 74 of90
161
1 ~.~."'.')..' , l
'~~ .}1
U
February 17, 2 11
those buildings -- you know, what setbacks they should have should be as far as the land development relations that I
believe you are bringing back, Bob, to this commission.
So as far as the GMP, I think we have -- I believe we have a plan that is cleaner. You have -- you know,
more density/intensity along the major thoroughfares of Immokalee have been more defined than it was before. So in
that sense I think it helps for the next step for the details, for the specificity that I believe they're going to bring back to
you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff?
Carolina, I've got one, but it really is more of a David question than you. When I talked to David the other
day, you were present and we brought up the percentage of preservation; the difference between the 90 and the 60.
And David said something that I wanted him to say on record, if he's so willing -- and he's not moving -- because I
want to understand it better.
He said that by keeping it high at 90 percent, we would in effect could also be -- might also be considered a
taking because the uses to the density that would be allowed would almost not be able to fit on those properties. And
that has a big factor in how we weigh the percentages of preservation.
So I'd certainly like a clarification on that statement or an elaboration on it.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. David Weeks, Growth Management Plan Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
for the county.
I believe you're referring, Commissioner, to the preservation requirements that are proposed for the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lake Trafford.
MR. WEEKS: -- Lake Trafford Strand development. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: An important distinction between the preservation requirements and the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District versus what is proposed here are the differences in land uses. In the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district
sending lands where there's an 80 percent preservation requirement and some sending lands that also are within a
NRP A overlay, natural resource protection area, they have a 90 percent preservation requirement. But the land uses
there are very restrictive. You can only have one dwelling unit per 40 acres, and very few other land uses are
allowed. And of course those lands are broadly under the designation of agricultural rural.
Here in Immokalee the lands are designated urban, and the densities and intensities of land use are far greater
than what you have in the rural fringe. So to have a 90 percent preservation standard and yet still have a relatively
high, by comparison to the sending lands, high level of density and intensity that is allowed on that small amount of
acreage, relatively small amount of acreage that you can actually develop, my conclusion is it would be very difficult
to be able to get the eligible development on that small amount of the property that you could actually develop.
So while I understand -- you know, staff understands the habitat value of the flow way area. If we're going to
allow urban intensity of land uses, it is not congruent with a high level of habitat preservation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the density that would be allowed because it's in the urban area, in the area we're
talking about, would be how many units per acre?
MR. WEEKS: I think it's four. Yes, four units per acre.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So because of that, the 90 percent would be so restrictive you're in essence telling
the guy you can't get what you've always been entitled to get and that we're restricting you in another way, and I
understand that.
Now, so we jump from 90 percent down to 60. And the reason I believe we chose 60 was because that's what
we're using in the neutral areas already, or one of the other areas, whatever area you're using, and 60 is already in use
somewhere else.
So is there another percentage in between that still gives the landowner the right and the ability to develop at
the units per acre that he's provided but not dropping all the way down to 60?
MR. WEEKS: We don't have anything presently established. This would be new grounds. Because in the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District now it fUflS from receiving lands with a 40 percent vegetation retention requirement,
neutral has a 60 percent, sending 80 percent, sending NRP A 90 percent.
And then if you go to the urban area, I think it's something like maybe 25 percent; it's far, far lower.
So if we were to come up with a new figure, it would be just that, new, and we would need some type of data
Page 75 of 90
16l117,ell 7
and analysis to support that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, this isn't a new figure, because it's applying to something that hasn't
been applied to before. This isn't considered neutral, you're just saying it's like neutral. So since it hasn't been applied
here before, why wouldn't we look at a figure that meets the criteria to keep us out of a Burt Harris claim for not
allowing the proper amount of development versus the minimal -- the maximum amount of preservation we could get,
based on the development that could go there.
Have we approached it that way or we've just picked numbers because they exist today? What we're
discussing is that the existing language in the Immokalee Master Plan for preservation requirements in that flow way
area refers us to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 6.1.2, which is where the preservation
standards are located for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.
So the plan is already directing us to a policy that has 40, 60, 80 and 90 percent requirements. So from the
staff perspective it was okay, which one of these was it intended to apply? It wasn't let's go look at something new,
it's we're already directed to use one of these, but it was vague, it never said which one of those percentages. So that's
why staff looked at what we think is the most appropriate.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark?
MR. WEEKS: Sixty percent was the one that staff chose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before I forget my thought, let me ask.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that the plan directed us to use Policy 6.1.2. Is that direction from a
historic perspective or from the new perspective?
MR. WEEKS: It's what's in existence now. It was adopted in 2007 as part of the EAR-based GMP
amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the plan said to use that area, but it didn't tell you -- it allowed us to pick and
choose which part of that 6.1.2. we use?
MR. WEEKS: It was silent. It was -- it is a shortcoming of the plan referring us to an area that doesn't have a
single standard to use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But since we are changing the language in the plan, couldn't we simply put a
percentage in there without having to refer to Policy 6.l.2?
MR. WEEKS: We could. Again, we're back to do we want to create something new, a standard that doesn't
presently exist, or do we want to clarify by making one of those in a policy that's already directed to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem I have is the density that's applicable in the Immokalee urban area is
not the density that was used to establish the percentages in 6.1.2. As you testified, it could be different. So why are
we arbitrarily picking something that was never meant for the purpose to begin with? Just because that's all we have
to pick from when we're writing new language. Why don't we write the language correctly for the area in question?
That's what I'm getting at. I know the study hasn't been done, and so now we're back to a no position.
But go ahead, Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I want to put this up on the visualizer.
Okay, this is 6.2.5. And it says within the rural-- 6.2.5., within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and that
portion of the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system, which is contained within the Immokalee urban designated
area, the county shall direct land uses away from higher functioning wetlands.
If you look at the sentence, it clearly puts both areas on an equal footing. If there was a distinction that was
intended, 6.2.5. could have read Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system wetlands outside the Immokalee urban
area. But they didn't write that. They could have said wetlands within the rural fringe and to a lesser degree those in
the Immokalee urban area, but it didn't say that either.
If you read the sentence, it just says that portion of the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system contained in
the Immokalee urban area, and it's in the same sentence as the RFMUD. So to me it's clear that the wetlands in the
overlay are meant to be treated like those in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're not debating that point. But the problem is in the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District we have four levels of treatment. Which one do you think is the right level of treatment? And why do
you think that, when none of them are based on the density or intensity that's allowed in the Immokalee urban area?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, to me that sentence -- how would you say it -- reraises that, because it
Page 76 of 90
...
7
16 1 1.
'~
-
February 17,21)11
says they're to be treated the same. In other words, what you're depending on is how high quality are those wetla nds,
not in which system are they located. So in other words, if you have wetlands that are within the Immokalee area --
urban area that are equivalent to those in the rural fringe, they should be treated the same, because that's the way ~h~
sentence reads.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not the proposal in front of us today. The proposal in front of us todcy is
to treat them all at 60 percent.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. I disagree with that, obviously.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, so do I, so I think we're partially on the same page.
But now how do we get there is where we both haven't -- you got one direction, I'm not disagreeing with
yours, I didn't look at your direction, I looked at the direction that I was -- had a discussion with staff on that kinG of
threw me. Because if we don't have a preservation standard based on that density because it's the fIrst time, mayl >e
instead of just arbitrarily accepting one from another density that we don't know how it was created, why don't we
create one for this?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, let me make my argument then for the 90 percent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: By the way, I agree with you in that regard. We need to, because he's
making the case -- excuse me. He's making the case for -- or you made the case for Burt Harris as a possibility. l\:nd
unless you really know what you can get it down to, you're really just arbitrarily picking them. We'll be in trouble
later on, so --
MR. MULHERE: This issue obviously came up at the tail end of the whole process.
The EAC recommendation was to support the 60 percent, but that it could be further evaluated. David and I
were just talking, perhaps -- what I would like to avoid is any holding up of the Immokalee Area Master Plan for this
Issue.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I agree.
MR. MULHERE: Perhaps what we could do is adopt the 60 percent with some additional language that
would require that this issue be analyzed and that it may be more restrictive based on that analysis as part of the
LDR's, which are forthcoming --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You mean as a target--
MR. MULHERE: -- because the Land Development Code can be more restrictive than the compo plan.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can I develop my argument?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right. So again, 6.2.5. says wetlands within both areas are to be treated
the -- the county shall direct land uses away from the higher functioning wetlands in these two lk'U11ed areas.
So the next step is to look at the map of the overlay. Are there any lands in the overlay which are not
wetlands? No. The overlay consists exclusively of wetlands.
MR. MULHERE: No, I'm sorry, but I don't think that's true.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, look at the map.
MR. MULHERE: I don't have to look at the map, I know there are some scattered uplands in that overlay. I
know that --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, that's not what the map says. The map is a wetlands map and over it is
drawn the map of the overlay. They're identical.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Midney, it's a broad overlay. No one has -- I might be wrong. Is Bill Lorenz in?
Okay, Steve.
I don't think anyone has field tested any of those down to the acre specific. No one has done an analysis other
than probably some fairly high level analysis that based on vegetation and based on soils, most of those are high
quality wetlands. And they map that. But that doesn't mean it's 100 percent accurate. I know --
MR. LENBERGER: They haven't been ground truthed.
MR. MULHERE: They have not been ground truthed. That's what I thought.
So there probably are some --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, it looks like they're pretty close.
MR. MULHERE: Up -- yeah, it's close, it's close.
Page 77 of 90
1 ~eblJI7,20H i
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Well, let's just say that they're almost identical. Because it's very--
they weren't trying to say that they were identical. It is a map, the title says Lake Trafford Urban Wetlands. And the
green line, the solid green line around the edge is the map of the overlay. I think if it's not identical, it's very, very
close.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. No, I don't disagree with that. I think the issue on --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, no, wait a minute, let me fInish, please.
So all the lands in this overlay are wetlands. Now we have to decide what kind of wetlands these are. Are
they higher functioning wetlands? And how do you determine what is high functioning? Not all NRP A's or national
resource protection areas are wetland, but the highest quality wetlands are called NRP A sending lands. And our
Watershed Management Plan which we looked at a few months ago, there was a section outlining county policies
which define what kind of a wetland a NRP A wetland is. And there were two things that were written down that
make them special. The fIrst is that they're a major flow way. And the second is a high quality functioning wetland
system.
A flow way means that there's sheet flow. Usually it's a depression where the water tends to pass through
during times of heavy rain. And you can easily see this in the Immokalee overlay during the rainy season because
you'll see a heavy flow of water passing through the culverts under any kind of road or farm road that bisects it. The
Immokalee Road, the road leading to the Immokalee water/sewer sprayfield are examples.
Next, what are the functions of a high functioning wetland system? First they can't be small or isolated. It has
to have a larger function. And one big function that this system does is to filter and purify surface water. This
overlay drains about three-quarters of Immokalee, the whole western part and the southern part of Immokalee and the
whole western and southern parts of town.
And this is very important because of our recent history with Lake Trafford where we've recently spent $20
million trying to clean it up. Lake Trafford is a jewel, and the people of Immokalee want it protected.
The value of the lake far exceeds the value of any development that might take place in the wetlands of this
overlay. We don't want Lake Trafford to end up like Lake Okeechobee.
The second function of this overlay is to prevent flooding by accepting large volumes of stormwater and
slowly releasing it. By storing flash floods and releasing them slowly, this overlay keeps Lake Trafford and the
Corkscrew system healthy.
Then the third function is aesthetic. People in Immokalee enjoy being close to such a large natural area. It
makes our town special and it makes it a better place to live.
And then fmally, this is the value that I think the county seems to rate above all the others, is the habitat for
wildlife and especially listed habitat species. We know that there's panthers in the overlay because we see them
sometimes or we see their tracks. But to the people of Immokalee, the number of collared panther telemetry points is
not that big of a deal. Even though the county has not done a formal scoring of the overlay, I think that everybody can
admit it's probably not as pristine as the center of Big Cypress of the Everglades. But I'm pretty sure most people in
Immokalee will agree that it comes out about the same as NRP A lands in the urban fringe. Because most of it is
inaccessible. Most of it hasn't been disturbed very much. It's big, and it's connected to Lake Trafford and the large
wetland systems in the RLSA which have been found to be NRP A sending areas.
And that's why I think 90 percent -- this hearing is not a hearing where we can determine if something is a
NRP A sending area, but we can determine what level of vegetation protection is appropriate for the area. And I think
these are the reasons that __ this is obviously not neutral land, which is suitable for some types of development.
The fact that it's 100 percent wetland really limits the landowner's options, even before you get started. And
if you take the 60 percent native vegetation and you only require that on 45 -- 45 percent of the site, you multiply .60
times .45, you get to .27, which is only two percent more than the 25 percent that's already mandated. So that's
obviously, you know, way out of line.
I'll stop there, and we can discuss that much. I have some other points, but that's what I want to leave about,
why I think that the wetlands are NRP A quality wetlands.
MR. MULHERE: May I just briefly?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, I don't know that anybody would disagree with what you just said. There's no
question but these are high valued wetlands, that's why they're proposed to be protected. The question is from a
Page 78 of 90
16 Llryl~olli
public policy perspective, how do you balance private property rights, which we're required to do because of the u.s.
Constitution and Burt J. Harris at the state level with these protection strategies? And I'm not suggesting that we have
answer to those. We don't. Because anybody can allege anything and, you know, we go from there as to whether
that's a, you know, true taking or a partial taking. There would need to be more data and analysis conducted to
determine some number that may be between 60 percent and 90 percent.
I would have less concern if the density blending provisions remained in the plan, because then I know the
landowner has an option to --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree with that.
MR. MULHERE: -- to -- and they're not losing their development rights because they have an option.
I just want to remind you all that there's another policy in this plan, as Mr. Strain referred to it, that requires
the consideration of mitigation in urban parcels by allowing acquisition of high value natural resources in other areas,
i.e., in this flow way, put into conservation, and you don't have to, you know, put your.15 acres of preservation on
your urban half acre of development, you can mitigate. That's proposed in the plan.
Also proposed is to look at a TDR program that might allow transfer of development rights from here through
some incentive based TDR program. But the densities are pretty high in the Immokalee urban area and the question's
going to be whether or not there's a market for that.
So those are things that will be looked at in the future that don't exist today. You know, my recommendation
would be that you adopt the staff recommendation and the EAC recommendation and that you allow for a process to
analyze this and come back to you. I mean, it could be just through the LDR's, because they can be more restrictive.
If you make this a minimum preservation standard and subject it to further ground proofmg (sic), we could come back
to you as part of the LDR's with something that's more realistic based on the quality of those wetlands. But we're
going to have to figure out how to balance those private property rights, too.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The thing about the property rights is that Immokalee is not a flat area like a
lot of areas in the county. There's a pretty steep gradient. And almost anybody who owns land that's in this wetland
also owns dry land that's adjacent to it. And I think that if the landowner were able to cluster his things on the dry part,
he would still be able to leave the wet part as a preserve. And if it's 100 percent wetland, he's not going to be able to
do anything with it really anyway.
MR. MULHERE: Well, that's something that is going to be allowed, the clustering and promoted. But we
haven't done that analysis. I mean, no.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You know, the landowners have the option of clustering their development
onto the dry part of their property. Density blending, if we approve that, mitigation banking, which is also in this
master plan, and possibly down the road transfer of development rights or sale to some Conservation Collier or other
preservation entity. But the system has to be protected.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, if you really want to protect it, you buy it. If you don't want to buy it, you provide
a balance between the protection and the private property rights, and that's what we've tried to do.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But I think, you know, we have to protect this, because this area is not
appropriate for development. It's not something that Immokalee will be the better for in 30 years if we do allow
development to take place within this area. So that's why I'm hoping that the CCPC will go along with my suggestion
that it be 90 percent. And if it can't be 90 percent, I would say the minimum 80 percent. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think I would just go about it in the opposite way from Mr. Mulhere. I
think it would be easier for us to state right now that it's 90 percent and that we will analyze that --
MR. MULHERE: That would work.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as opposed to trying to get it down to 60 and then try to build it back up.
That never happens, and Bob, you know that. So better that we start out protecting it to the most max we can --
MR. MULHERE: That works.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and then if we get data and analysis to support that it has to come down for
whatever those reasons might be, then I think that's an easier process.
MR. MULHERE: No, I don't disagree. I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we, though, have a greater protection in the GMP and then come up with a
lesser protection if warranted in the LDC?
Page 79 of 90
a
"
i
.......
1611 B 7
February 17, 2011
MS. V ALERA: I don't believe so. I mean, the GMP will dictate the minimum. And you can have greater
protections through the Land Development Code. But you're not allowed to go any, you know, number below what
the GMP will dictate.
I would like to also have some -- maybe some opinion from the County Attorney. Our concern as staff is
liability to the county, including that amount of preservation requirement that seems to -- will be infringing into
property, you know, rights.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question for Brad. You remember, Mark, that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad over there?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, this Brad.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What Brad? Who Brad?
MS. VALERA: Bradley Muckel with the CRA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know his name. I thought you were talking about our
architect.
MR. MUCKEL: Brad Muckel, Immokalee CRA.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You remember, Mark, that you had asked what do the stakeholders think
about this 90 percent? That was at the meeting that I wasn't able to be at.
And Brad, you talked about it with CRA members. What was their reaction?
MR. MUCKEL: I can only say that one of the members, Mr. Floyd Cruse's, reaction was that the 60 percent
level was unacceptable to him and he'd like to see it more in the line of 90 percent.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But was there anybody who strongly objected to 90 percent?
MR. MUCKEL: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you used the word stakeholders. Stakeholders involve the property
owners. How many of the property owners voted for the 90 percent?
MR. MUCKEL: Yeah, none. I mean, this plan was vetted in public forum a number of times, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm in favor of where Mr. Midney's trying to go. I think we both have different
ways of getting there. And all I want to do is make sure that if we put something in the GMP and the Immokalee
Master Plan, and I've used this term before, that it's bulletproof, we don't come back and subject Immokalee to a Burt
Harris claim that the county's got to pay because we've done something we don't have the data and analysis for. And
it seems to be in this particular case by arbitrarily picking a preservation standard that we don't have data and analysis
for, we're running the risk of hurting someone's property rights.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, what do you mean by data and analysis? What kind of data are you
looking for?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I asked David about earlier, where is the analysis that shows how much
percentage you need to have in order to protect the four units per acre that they have a right to today.
MR. MULHERE: Well, we know if you cluster development, if you had 100 acres and it's 100 percent
native and you're required to preserve 60, you can fit that development that's allowed, that 400 units, on the 40 acres.
We know that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: We know that. And we can do the data and analysis. We know the answer to that. What
we don't know is does the environmental quality -- we presume we know and we probably are correct intuitively, but
does the environmental quality of this land equate to a NRP A sending at 90 percent, does it equate to just regular
sending at 80 percent, or does it equate more to neutral at 60 percent?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How would you evaluate that?
MR. MULHERE: You'd have to go out and do some ground proofmg. You'd have to actually go out and do
some ground proofmg (sic).
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What would you look at?
MR. MULHERE: Vegetation, soils.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I think that you pretty much can do that. I mean, it's not that -- usually
by aerials and soil maps --
MR. MULHERE: But just so you understand, even if you do that and you conclude that it's at 90 percent,
somebody needs to still measure the public -- the risk; and I'm sure that's what Jeffwants to talk about -- to the county
Page 80 of 90
".-,
, "
>....
\, ...
\
1611.
:<<-~
_J .
7
,
.......
February 17,2011
of a claim. Because you are taking away -- you may be taking away some rights. And like Mr. Strain said, I don't
know, if 10 percent is what's left, I don't think they can fit all the intensity on 10 percent of the land.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But nobody owns a piece of the land that's just only entirely in this overlay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff--
MR. MULHERE: Well, that's addressed by density blending. They own upland, but the upland is adjacent
to it in the rural land stewardship area.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, it's on -- if they own it, it's also going to be in the Immokalee area that's
not inundated. It's going to be dry Immokalee land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have something you wanted to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question on the development. If you do put it at 90, would you allow
the development to be higher structures? I mean, if you want highrises sitting on 10 percent of it, then maybe it
balances out. Maybe it's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but those options haven't been determined. And that's the concern that we're
running into today.
The side bar going on over there, gentlemen, do any of you want to address this panel on anything, please do
so now.
MR. KLATZKOW: You need to bring this back. I mean, if you want 90 percent, okay, you need to bring
this back. Because I'm not saying this is a good idea or bad idea, I'm just saying that you don't have the facts --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're there --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- to be flushed out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what we're arguing about, Jeff. I agree with you. And of course we're
hearing from Mr. Mulhere it's going to cause a problem to delay the Immokalee master plan until that issue is
resolved.
MR. MULHERE: Hey, it's been seven years so far, why not another whatever?
It just wasn't part of -- it just came up at the last minute. It wasn't part of what we analyzed. It wasn't even
something that we prepared. We didn't even put the language in the plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree --
MR. MULHERE: The plan's already -- the language is already in the plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you. I think you're right.
Now, are we going to go to see if we have any public speakers, is that -- or do you want other questions of
staff?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just want another comment to make. I know we have some public speakers.
But I think part of the analysis would be land ownership and see if there's anybody who would really be put
in a really bad way if this 90 percent went through. In other words, is there anybody who owns a substantial piece of
land that's entirely in this overlay and they'd be stuck? I'm maintaining that there isn't anybody like that. And that's I
think what should be part of the analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, do we have any registered public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. Caitlin Weber.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then -- that's okay, Tim, I was going to call you eventually. I just want
to get the registered people fIrst.
MS. WEBER: Caitlin Weber here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I would just like to share some of our concerns on the staff proposed amendment to Policy 6.2.5 in the
CCME. The intent of this policy is to direct land uses away from higher functioning wetlands and limit impacts to
wetland systems within the rural fringe --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to slow down just a little bit.
MS. WEBER: Sorry.
-- within the rural fringe and the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand in the Immokalee designated area.
The issue we are faced with today is that Policy 6.2.5 directs both rural fringe and the Lake Trafford/Camp
Keais wetlands to follow preservation standards within Policy 6.1.2. However, this policy is only really designed to
address the rural fringe, with the preservation standards established for receiving, neutral, sending and NRP A sending.
Classification of rural fringe lands into one of these categories is based upon a thorough review of
Page 81 of 90
161i81
February 17, 2()'11
environmental data. The policy does not establish a comparable standard for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais wetlands.
The change proposed for Policy 6.2.5 attempts to clarify this oversight by specifying which of the rural fringe
land use standards will apply to the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais wetlands.
It is the Conservancy's opinion that any such clarification must be based upon the same level of data and
analysis that was used to classify the rural fringe. Such an assessment would involve mapping the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais wetlands to determine their quality and functionality.
Based on this assessment, the county could then compare the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais wetlands to the
quality and functionality of rural fringe wetlands as classified within the Policy 6.1.2 to determine Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais categorization. This should be the basis for clarifying Policy 6.2.5.
Unfortunately this was not the process used by staff to propose the amendment to Policy 6.2.5. Staff has
taken the position that the rural fringe neutral vegetation preservation standards should be applied to the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand wetlands, meaning that 60 percent of the native vegetation on-site, not to exceed 45
percent of the total site area, would be protected. Such a determination is arbitrary, was not based upon--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Slow down.
MS. WEBER: Sorry.
Such a determination was arbitrary, not based upon scientific data and analysis and should not be adopted.
The Conservancy encourages the county to do the level of research necessary to correct Policy 6.2.5 and base
the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand wetlands vegetation preservation standards on appropriate data and analysis.
And we offer our assistance in this process. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't go away. I have a question for you.
In your consideration of trying to fit this into the rural fringe, did you take into consideration what staffhas
not or Bob Mulhere and his team have not to date, and that is the density impacts -- the density allowed in Immokalee
area? That's where the problem occurs. The density allowed there is greater. And if you take that into consideration,
what percentage would you come up with?
I'm suggesting we don't want to limit it to just those percentages in the rural fringe. We may fmd that it's
better than neutral but not as good as sending and that somewhere in between is where a four-unit density count will
fall.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we may fmd it could be above or more or less too. But I think that's an
analysis we need to have. So I don't know if you all took that into consideration. But I think the options are greater
than just picking one of the four that's in the rural fringe. So that's my comment to your position.
MS. WEBER: Okay. And I would need to check to get more information with someone at The Conservancy
on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Anybody else have any comments for The Conservancy? If not, we have another public speaker. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: I would just add one item, if I could then. If that's the case, it's going to take a little time
to do the analysis and come back. Maybe we could do it as part of a subsequent amendment cycle or the EAR-based
amendment cycle.
But I would implore you then to leave the plan as it is, no preservation standard which exists today -- up until
three weeks ago this wasn't an issue -- and then require that that analysis be done. But don't hold the entire plan up for
this issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- as long as we can have some assurance it's going to come back. I mean, I
can see it now, there's no preservation there now, so okay, let's just forget about bringing it back.
MR. MULHERE: No, no, we would make it a policy that we do come back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, we'd have to -- I don't know when. How much time do you need?
Steve?
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Steven Lenberger, Land Development Services Department.
Perhaps adding a policy in 5.1.1. we need to talk about. The county's going to explore the feasibility of doing
a TDR program in Immokalee in two years, maybe tying it to that analysis, doing it together.
Page 82 of 90
r1
,....
'~
161 F~ry~,2Z
As far as in the interim, though, I mean, it is beneficial for staff to have some guidance on what to apply.
And whatever you decide, it's certainly up to you to recommend. But, we'll do -- maybe add some language for a
further evaluation at the time we evaluate the TDR's, maybe in two years. And of course when we do the TDR
program, the evaluation. . '
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure this needs to be tied to the TDR program. We're looking at
percent of preservation. And that's really a sticks and bricks analysis based on how much density there's going to be
allowed in that area.
MR. MULHERE: I just talked to David, and we could agree that it needs to come back and be decided as
part of the next comprehensive plan amendment cycle, which is the 2011 cycle.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What a shame.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather see --
MR. MULHERE: Not sooner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I'd rather see it done right. And if it takes that to do it right, I think the
community's going to be better served because of that.
MR. MULHERE: Well, we'll work with The Conservancy and other stakeholder groups, the landowners, to
set an analysis that's similar to the one that was done in the rural fringe on -- in terms of the natural resource value, but
also considering the urban intensity that's allowed.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think you can't just look at the natural resource value, because something
that's out in the middle of nowhere doesn't serve the important functions that this system serves, which is storm
control and purification of the water going into Lake Trafford.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If you strictly look at, you know, how many panther telemetry points are
there and, you know, what's the level of exotics, it might be a little bit higher. But you have to balance that with the
increased value that it has by being next to Immokalee, and also the aesthetic value for the people of Immokalee of
having a natural area so close by.
So I'mjust afraid that they're going to do this environmental analysis and say that well, this isn't pristine
enough, you know, let's knock it down a few notches.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Paul, if we push this to be now and they hook this to the overall approval of the
master plan, and it's obvious the master plan, there's a desire to move that forward quickly, they rush it, you're going
to get more of what you just said versus if we now segment it out from the master plan, put a time table on it as being
done by the next GMP cycle this year and then that allows time for The Conservancy, David Weeks, Carolina,
yourself and other people to be involved in it more to make sure it's accurate than trying to tag it to this master plan
and push it through quicker because they're in a rush. Which, I mean, after seven years I'd be in a rush too.
MR. MULHERE: It's not so much in a rush, but I feel bad, you know, for the community. This kind of came
up at the last minute. There's no question it needs to be addressed and resolved in the appropriate way.
And Mr. Midney, I would encourage you to be involved and make sure we do look at all the issues. You're
going to see the data and analysis, so you'll be able to judge that on its face.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And also, I think the land ownership is important, because I still maintain that
there's nobody who owns land exclusively in that NRPA. Most of the land is owned by two entities. And then there's
a few smaller ones. But everybody who owns land in it also owns land outside of it adjoining.
MR. MULHERE: As long as we allow for increased intensity on that other land they own, we might be able
to address it that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think we've kind of beat this one up pretty good.
We have three issues on the Immokalee Master Plan. We need to consider an approval of the master plan
itself as a whole. But before we do that, we ought to decide how to handle the two items that seem to be still
somewhat contentious. One is the preservation standards. I would suggest that this board vote to recommend that
those standards be pulled out of the Immokalee Master PIan for reconsideration within the next GMP cycle in 2011.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that works for everybody, I think that gets us where we're trying to go.
Before we vote, Mr. Murray, could we hold off for just a minute while --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely.
Page 83 of 90
8
'\
...
161
wI.
67
February 17, 20.11
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Caron has a question?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I'mjust expressing --
COMMISSIONER CARON: So we will not have any percentage in there now?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is what it is today. It just doesn't change.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I know what it is today.
All right, so you're not going to put anything in even on a temporary basis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on hold until they analyze it. I don't think there's a ru ~h to develop that area right
now anyway.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The land isn't very developable anyway. It's llll " etland.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one could get through the Corps of Engineers in timt to come back to us, so--
MS. VALERA: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You're going to screw it all up, right?
MS. VALERA: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good.
MS. VALERA: But I would like clarification, because staff needs to go by sllmething today. I mean, if we
get an applicant tomorrow and ask us, you know, what is the preservation requiremem tha you're intended for Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais, we might need to say that it was 25 percent, because it is in the urb, n area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, you're asking us to make a choice on a dati and analysis that we don't
have.
MS. V ALERA: Understood, understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now you're saying that you don't like leaving it Ii ke it is because you want us to
make a decision, but we can't make a decision because we don't have the information we teed.
You know, I mean, today is no different than it was six months ago and six montl s is no dijference than it
was five years ago, so I don't think you're under any different gun than you were then So whatever the standards are
is what they are today. I don't know how we can change it. I mean, right now I'd be "ery ;autious moving ahead with
anything else.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to understand the down side you see ifw ~ don't do something like
you're asking.
MS. VALERA: Well, in conversations with, you know, other more knowledgeal ,Ie environmental staff,
that's what their concern is, that right now as it is, it is 25 percent, the requirement for that area. And that was the
intent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, can you offer any --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm not finished.
But couldn't we offer in our motions or in some form a stipulation that we are req wring a study so that the
number is not to be deemed the permanent determination?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be somewhat like a moratorium on it? I don't know if we've got the--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It would have to come before us anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, did you --
MR. DURHAM: Listening to this discussion, I just wanted to throw in a coupleandowners perspectives I've
heard on this.
Mr. Midney, your point about nobody owning only land within this, that's tme. ] [owever, I know of one
landowner who has some land that is active agriculture today that shows up with a green, ,lob on it. When these maps
are typically created, I think there's a rebuttable presumption that they're accurate. But when you come in with a piece
of property, I think you have an opportunity to say this map isn't quite right, here's where the wetland is.
I think the idea of doing a study out here really defining those areas more aceurat ely and then putting the
restriction, clearing restriction, would be much better received by the landowners. When we sit in a room like this
and say oh, that map's off by just a couple of acres, it doesn't sound like much. But when you're talking to the
landowner __ you know, imagine if someone came to you and said I'm taking two acres y')U have and doing something
else with it. I mean, it's a much bigger difference to the landowner.
I think right now the landowner's looking at a map like that saying that's not totally right, we're not sure we
want standards based purely on that map. I think if we did go back, define those areas a little bit better, have some
Page 84 of 90
-
I
16' 1 B i
February 17, 2011
..,
quantifiable criteria, then put the restrictions.on, I think it would be much better received b) the landowners.
That's just my personal opinion. We'haven't had a meeting and discussed that, but that's my perception on it.
Again, there aren't any development pressures out there right now. I don't think YOLl would find any of those
landowners who live out there and who have high quality flow way wetlands on their property have any idea that they
want to go out and clear those or do something with them. I mean, that's just not the minds~t out there right now.
So if we held off, defme the area more accurately, had some criteria, I think you'd find almost 100 percent
buy-in from the landowners and say yes, we do need to protect the high quality wetlands out here.
Where you lose them is when you start saying hey, we've already got a map, let's just put restrictions on it, off
we go. So I think you're on the right trail.
But you all had mentioned a couple of times, what's the landowner perspective, and I spend way too much
time with them some weeks, so I get to hear that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Tim, appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have -- I am not real familiar with this because I am new on the Planning
Commission, but I did hear you say the word silent, and that scared me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean silent?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: When we are silent on an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, nothing's silent. The code that is there already today would fall in place, that's
what we mean. Silent means if we don't bring it up, whatever is in place holds, it remains.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. But there was a case recently where the word silent meant a very big
difference to this county and that's why I was asking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, I know the case.
MR. MULHERE: Notwithstanding the staffs concern that something might come in, I think the risk is pretty
low if we come back, you know, within that time frame. Nothing has come in to speak of that I'm aware ofin the
previous 100 years or so. And it would take somebody some substantial time, other than a very small project, you
know, putting a garage on a single-family home or something, because there is a little bit of development out there.
But anything substantial, any kind of new development would have to go through that jurisdictional
permitting process, and that would take longer than a year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a consensus on this board that we can move this out ofthe approval
for the Immokalee Master Plan at this time, subject to further studying and coming back in 2011 with the next GMP
round?
Looks good. Is there amotion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a motion on it, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made such a motion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klein.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Page 85 of 90
14JJ17,2a i
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
Now, we need to give a little break to Cherie'. We'll come back at 3:45 and try to fInish up the Immokalee
Master Plan quickly and then get into the last issue for today, so --
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray.
If everybody will please take their seats, we'll try to finish up. And we have basic -- well, basically three
items to vote on from my notes on the Immokalee Area Master Plan. The fIrst one was the percentage of preservation
that's already been handled; that was voted to be delayed till further study.
The second one is the TDR issue that came up involving the transfer development rights to the -- as it sits
now, the RLSA.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Density blending.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Density blending. Okay, I'm sorry. Similar thing, density blending with the RLSA.
And I guess any discussion on that?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would just like to say --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- that you're not really doing any harm by shifting the intensity out of this
wetland onto the dry land. You're not impacting other parts of the county. The impact is going to be very limited and
it's going to be exclusively positive. You're not going to hurt anything by taking the density out of this slough and just
moving it onto dry land, and that way you're compensating the landowner so the landowner is getting something for
their return. So to me it's a win/win situation. I don't see what harm you can get from doing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion?
Mr. Midney, would you like to make it?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, I would like to say that we approve the density blending provision that
was also approved by the Collier County Commission and go along with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer seconded.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll be voting no on the motion because I think realistically looking at the economic
motivation, I do not see the benefit to contaminate the RLSA program by setting a precedent that encourages
preservation outside the area of the Governor's order in comparison incentivizing the uses within the Immokalee
urban area.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, and I happen to agree with you. I agree with you that it belongs I
think to the benefit to the community out there afraid of density blending and going into the TDR's through the
RLSA. That creates a number of other problems besides, so I'm going to say no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion to approve the density
blending as provided for in the documents, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page 86 of 90
,tj
1 () L
...
i. 7
F nruary 17, 2011
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four opposed and five in favor.
Let's do that again. All those in favor of the motion, we'll have to do it by hand call. Raise y( ur hand.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four in favor.
All those against, same sign.
COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion fails 5-4.
Now, for the -- just so we don't have any mixup, does the County Attorney's Office suggest w ~ do another
recommendation with an affIrmative form of vote for the opposite position, or how -- does anything ill :ed to be done
at all or just goes forward like this?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you can go forward with the motion failed. Therefore, there'; a
recommendation of not going forward with that provision. I don't think you need to take another vote
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Fine, then we'll move on to the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
The Immokalee -- any discussion on the overall aspects of the balance of the master plan, othl:f than the two
issues we already voted on?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion?
Mr. Midney, it's your area, you want to try?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I move that we forward this with a motion to approve to the County
Commission.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
So we are done today so far with the Immokalee Area Master Plan?
Mr. Mulhere 100ks like he's confused and has got a question.
Page 87 of 90
16' 1 e. 7
February 17, 2011 -
MR. MULHERE: Oh, I'm not confused at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to --
MR. MULHERE: Other than normal.
My client has asked me to ask this question. I don't know if you have an answer. That is: Do you have any
insights on funding for the additional analysis, where that funding might come from?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you can do some pro bono work, Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: I'm not qualified to do environmental analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't have any information.
MR. MULHERE: I told him that would be the responsibility --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't tell you how that funding should occur. I don't even know what sources you
have out there at this point.
MS. V ALERA: Just as an information matter, there's a sign-up sheet outside, if anybody from the public
wants to receive a notice of intent from the Department of Community Affairs. There's a sign-up sheet outside.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
***Okay, let's move on to the last item on today's agenda. It's Item CPSP-201O-5, the Davis
Boulevard/County Barn Road mixed use subdistrict.
This one's come back to us so many times, I don't even know what to think about it.
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: Okay, disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. Does anybody have any
disclosures?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Corby, it's yours.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon. For the record, Corby Schmidt with the Comprehensive Planning
Section.
December 14th, while considering the Davis Reserve planned unit development that I know you've seen once
or twice yourselves, the county board made an agreement with -- a verbal agreement with the applicant of that PUD,
and based on this subdistrict to do a number of things. Part of that agreement was that that planned unit development
proposal was withdrawn from further consideration. The Board of County Commissioners agreed to have a board
initiated comprehensive plan amendment, and that's what you have in front of you now, that would in some manner
remove the affordable housing requirement from that subdistrict, and the commercial component.
Also, as a commitment in return for the county following through with the subdistrict or the compo plan
change, the applicants themselves would follow through with the planned unit development to go on the property
next. So that's what brings me here now is that change to the subdistrict. Today it's a mixed use subdistrict. And
knowing what we know from previous board discussions and previous activities, staff came up with two ways to do
this. And you have both alternatives as part of your packet.
One of them -- or one of the alternatives is to rewrite the subdistrict provisions, to change it from a mixed use
subdistrict to a residential use only subdistrict. And the other alternative is to simply delete or remove the subdistrict
language in its entirety, along with the mapping and listings that go along with it.
To this point, although you have both alternatives in front of you, staffhas recommendation for one over the
other. And that is for the alternative number two in your packet, which is the deletion or the repeal of the subdistrict
in its entirety. For a number of reasons, including that it's a little bit cleaner than leaving subdistrict language in the
document for a residential subdistrict only. It would be the fIrst time or it would be the only subdistrict that has
residential uses only with a cap, perhaps, on the density allowed in that subdistrict.
The applicants themselves have already made a commitment to, as part of their PUD, limit their density to
five units per acre so it's unnecessary to rewrite the subdistrict to do so. And staff is comfortable with the deletion of
those subdistricts in their entirety.
That's it for presentation, really. I'll answer questions, if you have any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
Mr. Murray?
Page 88 of 90
1611 8 7
February 17, ?Pll
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for clarity. If we remove the subdistrict in its entirety, it reverts to the
district that it was formerly. And are the units in that district appropriate, five units or four units per acre or whatever
it is?
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, in the planning designation it falls back into the urban residential subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MR. SCHMIDT: If there were no rezone taking place, you'd have whatever the zoning district allows today,
and that's about 10 units.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So he's below that.
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That's what I wanted to confIrm.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Corby?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is basically a good housekeeping cleanup issue that has been around too long.
Anybody have -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So the commitment to five units per acre is one that he made to the BCC. So
we don't have to worry that a project would come back at 10 units; is that what you're saying to us?
MR. SCHMIDT: I would agree with that. There's enough history behind this where all of the parties
involved have made those statements, made commitments that it's urmecessary to rewrite compo plan amendment -- or
language to do so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby, thank you.
Ray, are there any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: There are no registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody wish to speak on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Petition No. CPSP-20 1 0-5 be forwarded with a recommendation of
approval, based on the February 17th hearing date, and all of the criteria cited, with the second recommendation as the
appropriate recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak.
Is there discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0.
That will be absolutely the shortest one that you've had on record for a while, Corby.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike just told him he couldn't do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, please.
Page 89 of 90
1611 Sf
F!ruary 17, 25J'1'
Okay, I think that's the last item on -- well I think, I know it's the last item on today's agenda. I don't believe
there's any old business other than the announcement that starting next month our meetings are at 9:00.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay, any new business? None that I know of.
***Public comment?
Corby, you're still standing there. You want to say more?
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, let me say this: No thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
We are adjourned. Thank you all.
************
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair
at 4:16 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
1I\o.lt p~
MARK\STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on 3-- n -I \ as presented _or as corrected ~
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,
Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 90 of 90
RECEIVED
MAR 1 6 2011
Fiala . [) t../ .
- ., /
Hiller _ I'
Henning:::J !}/
coylE!
Coletta _ i/""
1611~f
February 16,2011
Board of CountY com~"
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
Naples, Florida, February 16, lJU(} 20 l(
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:
Kyle Lantz
Lee Horn
Michael Boyd
Terry J erulle
Richard Joslin
Thomas Lykos
Robert Meister
Jon Walker
Patrick White
ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Esq., Attorney for the Board
Robert Zachary, Esq., Assistant County Attorney
Michael Ossorio, Contractors' Licensing Supervisor
Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer
Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer
Reggie Smith, Licensing Compliance Officer
Gary Harrison, Collier County Building Official
Mile. Correa:
D*
Copies to:
161 1 88
February 16,2011
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board 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 that testimony and evidence upon which
the Appeal is to be based.
I.
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Lantz called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM and read the
to be followed to appeal a decision.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
procedures
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Changes:
· Item V, "Discussion" - add (A), Introduction of New Licensing Compliance
Officer
· Item VII, "Old Business" - add (A), Signing of Orders of the Board
. Item VIII, "Public Hearings" -
o under (B), Case #2011-04 - James G. Schuck, has been continued and
o under (C), Case #2011-05 - Karin R. Sacacian, has been postponed
(Robert Meister arrived at 9:04 AM)
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Richard Joslin moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Thomas
Lykos. Carried unanimously, 8 - o.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 19,2011:
Patrick White moved to approve the Minutes of the January 19,2011 meeting as
submitted. Second by Michael Boyd. Carried unanimously, 8 - o.
V. DISCUSSION:
(A) Introduction of New Licensing Compliance Officer Reggie Smith
Michael Ossorio noted Reggie Smith, a Code Enforcement Investigator for the
past four years, was selected to fill the newly-created position.
Mr. Smith, a Naples resident, gave a brief outline of his background and work
experience. He was welcomed by the Chairman and Board members.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
(Note: In each of the cases heard under Sections VI and VII, as follows, the
individuals to testify were sworn in.)
(A) Carol L. Method - Contestine: Citations
The Respondent was represented by her husband, James Kibler.
Citations: #5943 and #5944
Date: December 28,2010
Fine: $300.00 each
2
16 1 1 88
February 16,2011
Description of Violations:
(#5943) Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or
advertise self or business organization as available to engage in the business, or
act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly registered or certified.
(#5944) Commence or perform workfor which a Building Permit is required
pursuant to an adopted State Minimum Building Code, without such Permit
being in effect.
Mr. Kibler presented the case:
· Carol Method is the President ofDME Shoppe - Ft. Myers, Inc.
. Have been in business for 24 years - the company is employee owned and
operated
. The Company:
o Does not employ subcontractors
o Offers 401-k Plan, full health benefits, and Workers'
Compensation for every employee (6 full-time/2 part-time)
o Carries $2M liability insurance policy
oVans are owed by company
o Is virtually debt-free, has an open Line of Credit, and has an
excellent credit rating
. Received HQAA ("Healthcare Quality Association on Accreditation")
accreditation
. Have never been required to obtain a Building Permit in any of the
Counties or Cities listed because DME installs stairway lifts in private
residences only - not in commercial buildings
o Lee, Collier, Charlotte, Sarasota, Hardy, Glades, Manatee OR
o Cities of Marco Island, Naples, Ft. Myers, Englewood, Venice,
Sarasota, Arcadia, Boca Grande, Sanibel, Bonita Springs, or
Cape Coral
. Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business
and Professional Regulation, Chapter 30 - Elevators and Conveying
Systems,
o Item "c" defines an "inclined stairway lift" as "... a device used to
transport physically handicapped persons over architectural
barriers. "
. Under Chapter 30, a private residence is an exception to the Florida
Building Code
. "Private Residence" is defined as a "separate dwelling or a separate
apartment in a multiple dwellings which is occupied by members of the
same family. "
. The Jilek home complied with the definition of a private residence
. He and Carol Method consulted the Department and were informed if a
staircase serves a single unit, the unit is treated as a single-family residence
(Lee Horn arrived at 9: 11 AM)
3
161 1
February 16,2011
8B
· Consulted the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District for
clarification prior to the installation at the Jilek residence
· Under Section 7.3.4.1.1- Item 1 of the Fire Code: "... the width shall be
not less than i8-inches at or below a height of 38-inches, and not less than
28-inches above a height of 38-inches. "
· The size of the stairway lift chair falls within the guidelines and the
clearance has to be only 18-inches.
· DME does not install a stairway lift system if the existing staircase is
narrower than 36-inches
· Obtained special approval as a Residential Elevator and Accessibility
Contractor from the City of Sanibel' s Contractor Licensing Board - the
classification was created under the Handyman umbrella.
· The license is active and in good standing with Sanibel
Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's case:
· December 20,2010: the case was referred by Code Enforcement
concerning stairway lift installation in a condominium complex without
obtaining a Building Permit
· The source of electricity for the lift originates from inside the residence
after the firewall was permeated due to the external installation of the
stairway life (Photo E-8)
· December 28,2010: met with James Kibler, DME Shoppe, and Tatiana
Gust, Collier County, to explain the permitting requirements for the
installation
. Two Citations with fines of $300 each were issued
Gary Harrison, Building Code Official, Collier County testified as a witness:
· Has worked for Collier County for the past 16 years and has been the
Building Code Official for the past year
· Building Official Number: BU 1336
. Is solely responsible for interpreting the Florida Building Code
· Motorized stairways are allowed in the Building Code but because the
building is a condominium, it is designated as "R-2 - commercial" by
Collier County
o Contractor is required to produce the manufacturer's specs
detailing how the unit is attached to the wall (masonry or wood)
o How electric is fed - drilling through a wall or plug-in
o A Fire Plan Review may also be required
Questions from Board members:
Q. Is an Electrical Contractor required to perform the work to connect the electric
to the source and a Permit is required?
A. Yes, that is correct.
4
16111B8
February 16,2011
Q. And also a Fire Review?
A. That would be correct.
Michael Ossorio stated the East Naples Fire Department inspects the installation
for egress after a Permit has been pulled.
Q. Has anyone from DME ever contacted you regarding licensing or installation
of one of the stairway lifts?
A. No.
It was noted DME did not contact Contractor Licensing for information regarding
installation of the stairway lifts in Collier County.
Q. In the last ten years, approximately how many permits have been issued for
the installation of motorized stairways?
A. (Mr. Harrison was unsure of the number.)
Q. What license is required to perform this work?
A. (Michael Ossorio) The only license that would fit that category is a General
Contractor or Building Contractor. The Permit will list the Electrical
Contractor who is doing the connections. The State has an "Elevator"
category but Collier County does not. A Certified License is required by the
State.
Q. Is this a cord and plug unit or hard wired?
A. (James Kibler) It plugs into the wall. Everything from the charger, which is
inside the home, was inside the home for protective purposes. It is 24-1ow
voltage and is fastened to the floor, not the wall. He stated he did not think
an Electrical Inspection was necessary to simply plug into a wall outlet.
Mr. Harrison clarified when a Contractor applies for a Permit and the specs are
reviewed, if an electrical inspection is not required, it is marked ''N/ A." If it is
necessary to drill through a wall, an electrical inspection would be required. We
review the plan as presented on an individual basis because the feed source may
come from different areas. The Building Code stated the egress width must be
at least 20-inches and the Fire Code specifies 18-inches.
He continued that Collier County has not prohibited the installation of stairway
lifts, but requires a Permit before work can begin unless a Contractor obtains a
formal declaratory letter from the State of Florida acknowledging the stairway
lift is not required to be permitted.
Mr. Kibler referred Mr. Harrison to Chapter 30 of the Florida Building Code.
stating private residences are excluded the requirement to obtain a Permit and
cited the definition for private residence. He noted as long as a stairway is
dedicated to serving only one unit, the Florida Building Code treats that unit as
a single residence despite the number of units contained in the condominium.
5
1611
1='8.
;-
February 16,2011
Q. Will the Fire Review only look at the egress plan or will it also include the
electrical application?
A. (Gary Harrison) It would probably include only the egress plan. However,
if it can be determined it is penetrating a fire-rated assembly - yes, then they
would want to see that, too. How it is protected and how it will be repaired.
Q. Was the fire wall penetrated?
A. (MichaeIOssorio) I believe the photographs show it was an exterior
building wall. But we would not know unless plans were provided.
A. (Gary Harrison) That would be correct. Here, again, without a plan, we
could not determine what will be done. That's the only thing we look at.
If a Contractor can provide a declaratory statement or a letter from the State
- I called Mary Katherine Smith, a "guru" on the subject to accessibility,
and she indicated there were not be an exemption. If the stairway served
one unit, the installation would be allowed but not if other units were also
served by the same stairway. The Code does not specifically say that a
Permit is not required. What happens is when you're dealing with any type
of electric - if someone sits on the metal chair and the unit is not correctly
hooked up, and it's a rainy day, you know what will happen --- any
everyone will be pointing to the Building Department saying, "why didn't
they look at this?"
Mr. Kibler stated if the installation is determined to be a commercial
application, the owners would be required to obtain a yearly inspection at a cost
of $500. The County will be imposing a $500 tax on a disabled person on an
annual basis. The condo is considered to be a single-family residence because
the stairway serves a single unit. It is specifically stated in the Code.
He continued the interpretation on accessibility usually applies to the ADA
(Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) and is not applicable because this is
not a public building.
Q. What kind of building is this? Is this a multi-family condo?
A. It is a condominium.
Q. And they have an elevator, I'm assuming, or just stairwells?
A. There is a single staircase for every unit.
Q. Every unit has its own, private staircase?
A. Yes - and that's why it's defined as a single-family residence as well it
should be rather than require the owners to pay for annual inspections.
Mr. Kibler reiterated each unit has its own staircase serving only that unit.
Mr. Lykos asked Mr. Harrison to clarify the confusion. He stated Mr. Kibler
commented it is considered to be a single-family application because the
stairway serves one unit only. Because it is a multi-family condominium
building, the building - as a whole - is considered to be "commercial." The
stairway, itself, may be considered to be "single family," but the building is still
6
1611 B 8
February 16,2011
considered to be a multi-family building which means there is a commercial
application. .
Gary Harrison agreed.
Mr. Lykos continued when Mr. Kibler stated it is a single-family application,
he was only talking about the stairway itself - not about the building as whole.
The building, as a whole, is still considered to be "commercial" based on the
Florida Building Code.
Mr. Kiebler pointed out the definition for single-family residence is contained
in Chapter 30 of the Florida Building Code under "Elevator, Escalator and
Conveyance. "
Mr. Lykos stated the reason why it was relevant is because if electrical is
involved, an application for a Permit must be submitted by either an Electrical
Contractor or a General Contractor because it is a commercial building. An
Owner-Builder Permit would not be approved for a commercial application. A
commercial building has different permitting requirements than a single-family
home.
Patrick White stated the electrical service power supply, or "feed," was derived
from a receptacle on a wall which may be an exterior wall. He asked if the wall
was on the first or second floor.
James Kibler stated it was a second-floor wall.
Mr. White referred to Photograph E-8 and asked if the penetration pertained to
the two plastic mounting screws for the transformers to go from 128-AC to 24-
volt DC.
Gary Harrison stated it appeared the penetration was going through the wall -
drilling through the outside wall into the interior wall. He stated he did not see
a receptacle on the outside anywhere. He did not know if the wall was fire-
rated. The assembly was probably not fire-rated.
Michael Ossorio noted Mr. Ganguli stated there was a wire penetrating the
exterior wall to go into the unit.
It was noted by the Board that the picture was not clear as to whether or not
there was penetration of an exterior building wall.
Q. Did it go from the interior to the exterior or not? How does the power get
to the unit from an interior wall to the exterior wall where the lift is located?
A. (Investigator Ganguli) He stated he was present at the site and referred to
Photograph E-8 stating it depicted the electrical outlet on the inside of the
unit. Photographs E-7 and E-6 show the application of the stairway lift
externally. He confirmed he observed a hole which penetrated the wall to
allow the wire/power cord to go to inside of the dwelling to be plugged into
the electrical outlet. There was no photograph showing penetration from the
interior to the exterior.
James Kibler stated the picture showed the two battery charging units on the
7
Fl~ J 20l
B 8
inside. The cords leaving those two boxes - the wall was penetrated by a ~-
inch hole to allow the two 24- Volt wires to power the lift. The manufacturer
has a traveling cable which provides more reliable service.
Q. Can you tell us where there is an exception in Chapter 30 ofthe Florida
Building Code that allows you to penetrate what is either a fire assembly or
could be a fire-rated wall?
A. (Mr. Kibler could not answer the question.)
Gary Harrison stated he spoke with the Building Official for the City of
Naples who agreed the Code requires a Permit when electric is involved. He
informed Mr. Kibler what documents were required to apply for a Permit.
James Kibler stated he is not a commercial contractor and does not have a
license. His company installs only in single-family residences and was not sure
if he could pull a permit.
Patrick White stated the permitting issues should be understood first and asked
what kind of Permit is necessary to drill a ~-inch hole from an interior wall to
an exterior wall.
Gary Harrison stated both an Electrical Permit and a Building Permit were
required.
Chairman Lantz stated he considered the installation to be that of an appliance,
and compared it to the installation of a window AlC unit which is exempted in
the Code and does not require a Permit. He stated he drew on his experience as
a Licensed Electrician and Licensed General Contractor.
Mr. Harrison stated the Board was missing the point and asked the following:
. How is the lift itself fastened?
. If lag shields are used - what size screw is used and how deep must it go?
. How much can the lift support - what is the maximum load?
. If it is attached to the wall, rather than the floor, is it a stud wall or
masonry wall?
. How is it attached to the wall to ensure proper egress.
. The electrical connection is only one component.
He continued if it could be determined that the power source was merely a plug-
in, an electrical inspection or Electrical Permit may not be needed. A Permit
will be needed for the structural attachments to ensure the unit is installed
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
Q. Page E6 shows the lift chair. On the wall above the chair is a push-button
assembly which operates the lift. On the top of the staircase is a wire that
runs somewhere through the staircase. How does it pump the unit? How
does the power get from the push-button to the interior of the unit on the
second floor?
A. (James Kibler) There are two separate units and both are 24-Volt.
Comment: If an electrical source is necessary to feed the unit, it is an electrical
issue. The voltage is not important.
8
1611
February 16,2011
B 8
Gary Harrison stated an application for a Permit is needed to determine what is
necessary .
James Kibler noted the assembly is a "Call/Send" and is hard-wired because it
has proven to be more reliable.
Comment: It if were a remote controller unit, there would be no electrical
problem.
Gary Harrison noted there is still low voltage which is required to be
permitted.
Patrick White stated it appeared the case is becoming a "test" case. One of the
key issues is to determine if the exemption or exception exists and if it has been
properly investigated to determine the scope of the exemption or exception. If
Mr. Kibler obtained a declaratory statement from the State, it would be an
absolute determination of the issue.
He continued he would not be comfortable upholding the Citation if the defense
is that there is an exemption or exception. He is not satisfied that the County
has reviewed Chapter 30 and concluded that it does not apply and why.
Attorney Neale stated he had not reviewed Chapter 30 of the Florida Building
Code prior to the Hearing. He agreed there is a significant public policy issue
that will have more impact that just one staircase and will be precedent-setting
on the specific type of installation.
He suggested the Board continue the matter until the County Attorney's Office
could review the applicable portion of the Code with him. He further stated it
would be a better idea to present the case to the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals before returning it to the Contractor Licensing Board.
Q. Can only a private individual or a business request a declaratory statement
or can local government also ask for one as well?
A. (Gary Harrison) To obtain a formal, declaratory statement from the State,
the first step in the procedure is to appear before the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals who would rule on the issue. Then you would file for a formal
statement from the State.
He noted even if the statement is obtained, it still may not pass the Fire
Code requirements. The Fire Code stands alone and has nothing to do with
the Building Code.
He further stated the most restrictive Code will apply and confirmed he did
not review Chapter 30 of the Florida Building Code.
Mr. Kiebler was asked if DME had scheduled other installations of stairway lifts
in Collier County in the near future and his response was no.
Chairman Lantz requested either an opinion of the issue from the Fire Code
Official or a representative from the Fire Code Office to be present at the next
Hearing on the matter.
9
!it,!l1 B 8
Gary Harrison offered to obtain an opinion from the Building Association of
Florida which would be an "informal" interpretation from other Building
Officials, and would take less time (2 - 3 weeks) than the obtaining a formal
declaratory statement from the State or the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
process.
Michael Ossorio noted the County would have no objection to Mr. Neale, as
the Board's Counsel, withdrawing the Citations and forwarding them to the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals since a Fire Official sits on that Board. He
stated if the BOAA found that a Permit was required, the Citation would stand.
If it was not required, the Citation would be dismissed.
Attorney Neale concurred and suggested the Contractor Licensing Board
continue the matter with a referral to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for
its decision. He noted a specific request could be made to the BOAA to address
the Chapter 30 exception.
Patrick White moved to approve Attorney Neale's suggestion. Second by
Thomas Lykos.
Patrick White brought up a point of order and asked the Respondent ifhe
would agree to participate in the Board of Adjustment and Appeals process.
James Kibler stated he would participate.
Attorney Neale suggested amending the motion to include that the Respondent
is notified directly of the BOAA proceeding.
Patrick White moved to amend his Motion to include direct notification to the
Respondent by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Second by Thomas
Lykos.
Thomas Lykos stated if DME is presented with an opportunity to install a
stairway lift in Collier County prior to the issue being resolved by BOAA that
he bring the project to the Contractor Licensing Board prior to beginning it. He
suggested to amend the motion to include that requirement.
Patrick White asked the Respondent if he would agree to the requirement and
to provide plans to Building Official.
Mr. Kibler agreed.
Gary Harrison stated it would be sufficient to present the manufacturer's
specifications.
Attorney Neale restated the Motion for clarification:
That the matter will be continued and referred by the Contractor
Licensing Board to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for review of the
Chapter 30 exception to the Building Official's decision and a return to the
Contractor Licensing Boardfor further review upon the decision of the Board
10
161188
February 16, 2011
of Adjustment and Appeals. Any new projects of a similar type that are
proposed by the Respondent during the pendency of the action will be brought
to Collier County or the relevant permitting agency for review, and the
Respondent will be notified directly by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
of its procedures and Hearing date/time.
Patrick White agreed with the restated Motion. Second by Thomas Lykos.
Carried unanimously, 9 - O.
(B) John H. Glenn - Contestine: Citation(s)
Citations: #6004, #6004, and #6005
Date: January 11,2011
Fine: $300.00 each
Description of Violations:
(#6003 and #6004) Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a
Contractor, or advertise self or business organization as available to engage in
the business, or act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly registered
or certified.
(#6005) Commence or perform workfor which a Building Permit is required
pursuant to an adopted State Minimum Building Code, without such Permit
being in effect.
Mr. Glenn presented his case:
· He was not performing landscaping or installing a new irrigation system
. He was making repairs to an existing system and no permit was required
and an Irrigation License was not required
. He was replacing some tubing, some hoses and sprinkler heads
. Since it was an old system, exploratory digging was necessary to locate
and inspect the integrity of the existing system and to determine if it was
necessary to hire an Irrigation Contractor to install a new system
. He delivered the plants that were ordered - he is allowed to pick up the
plants and deliver them to the job site and lay them out - to be installed
by a landscaper
. His company primarily mows grass - "J&S Professional Law Care, Inc."
Q. Does the guy who installs the plants work as your subcontractor?
A. Yes - I pay him to put the plants in the ground.
Q. The homeowner pays you and you pay him?
A. Yes.
Ian Jackson presented the County's case:
. On January 11 th, an anonymous complaint was made to Code Enforcement
Department for the City of Naples and the matter was referred to the
Contractor Licensing Division
. He met with Mr. Glenn at the site
. He stated observed the installation of plant material
11
1611 88
February 16,2011
John Glenn objected stating he was not installing any plant material.
Ian Jackson continued:
. Observed the irrigation work taking place
. Explained that a Permit was required because the old system was being
substantially replaced
. Building Permit was issued by the City of Naples to a licensed
Landscaper on January 12, 2011 for the installation of a new sprinkler
system/well (see E-32)
. Asked Mr. Glenn ifhe was paid in full or only to the point where the
"Stop Work" Order was issued
. Mr. Glenn stated he had been paid to the point of the "Stop Work" Order
which confirmed that compensation had been made to him for
landscaping and irrigation work
. The three Citations were issued for unlicensed landscaping, unlicensed
irrigation, and commencing work without a required Permit
Chairman Lantz asked if there were any exceptions to the Irrigation Law
which would allow someone to repair a system without requiring a license.
Michael Ossorio referred to Page E-30 and cited Section 1.6.3.24 as follows:
" ... any person who is qualified to install, maintain,
repair, alter, or extend all piping and sprinkler heads
used for irrigation ... "
He continued if a lawn person accidently ran over a sprinkler head while cutting
the grass, he could repair it but could not charge the homeowner for the work.
Mr. Glenn asked if a full Irrigation License was necessary to set a time clock
and run a system to check it to see ifit was working properly.
Mr. Ossorio answered affirmatively.
Patrick White stated what was presented as authorized "Scope of Work" under
an Irrigation/Sprinkler Contractor's license did not define the issue of the Permit
as to whether there is an exception for maintenance or repair in the permitting
standards. Because a license allows the work to be done does not mean a
Permit is necessary. He wanted a more clear answer concerning whether or not
there is a maintenance exception from permitting as the Respondent claimed.
Mr. Ossorio stated "maintenance" refers to maintaining a system. The system
was altered the system - the Respondent did not maintain it. He changed the
configuration of the system. It is not a maintenance item.
Mr. White clarified if there is such an exception - no one has pointed out
where the language exists in the rules - the Respondent exceeded even the
claimed exception by doing more work.
Richard Joslin referred to the photograph on Page E-22 which showed several
12
1611 B B
February 16,2011
bundles of piping and asked the Respondent if he bought or delivered the
pIpmg.
John Glenn stated he did not buy the piping and did not know who owned it
but thought it looked like PVC -- not irrigation piping.
Mr. Joslin referred to Page E-28 and asked what the digging represented.
Mr. Glenn replied he had been tracing the existing system.
Mr. Joslin referred to Page E-29.
Mr. Glenn responded there were pieces of poly-tube and sprinkler heads visible
at the top of the photograph. He reiterated he was checking the integrity of the
existing system to determine if a new system needed to be installed. He stated it
was his belief that an entirely new system was not necessary. He claimed the
Irrigation Contractor who reported him to Code Enforcement did install a
$6,500 system - he stated the system could have been repaired for
approximately $200 in parts.
Jon Walker referred to Page E-27 concerning the landscaping issue and noted
Mr. Glenn's statement that he just delivered the plant material and "laid them
out" to be planted by someone else. He asked why there was a hole that seemed
to be a perfect fit for the round potted plant a few inches away. He
John Glenn stated he dug the hole to find the irrigation pipe.
Chairman Lantz inquired about any licenses that the Respondent possessed - a
construction license or handyman..
Mr. Glenn stated he does basic lawn maintenance.
Chairman Lantz stated the Respondent indicated he hired someone else to do
the landscaping work and explained that the Respondent must first possess a
license to do so. If the Respondent was paid by the homeowner, he then became
the "middleman" who, in turn, paid the "landscaper." He explained the way the
law is written, the Respondent acted as a "General Contractor." In the case at
bar, he was cited for acting as a "Landscaping Contractor" and an "Irrigation
Contractor." Whether the Respondent did the work himself or subbed it out, he
was required to be licensed
He further stated the Respondent was guilty of the violations cited in #6004 and
#6005 by his own admission.
Q. How the determination was made that a Permit was necessary?
Ian Jackson stated a Permit was issued then ext day to a Licensed Contractor to
perform the work If a Permit had not been required, the City of Naples would
not have issued one to Earthcare Landscape for the substantial replacement of
the system.
Thomas Lykos noted in the Respondent's opinion, a new system was not
necessary. He pointed since the Respondent was not a licensed Irrigation
Contractor, he was not qualified to make that determination. He stated in the
opinion of a licensed, qualified Irrigation Contractor, a Permit was pulled in
order to perform the work he determined was necessary. He further stated the
Respondent's opinion did not carry the weight.
13
1611 B B
February 16,2011
Mr. White asked if anyone could see a pipe at the bottom of the hole shown on
Page 27-E although he could not see a sprinkler head.
He continued that in his mind, there were violations as a Contractor.
Michael Ossorio noted the Respondent signed a two-page document (alk/a
"Handyman's Affidavit") on August 14,2009 verifying that he would not
perform any of the work listed on the documents from Compliances Services.
The Respondent should have read and understood that he could not sub-
contract.
Chairman Lantz questioned Ian Jackson asking why he issued two individual
Citations instead of one for acting as a General Contractor.
Ian Jackson stated he issued the two citations to recognize the licensing aspects,
i.e., that two separate licenses were required for the work the Respondent was
contracted to do. Even if he cited the Respondent as a General Contractor, there
still would have been a second Citation for the Permitting violation.
Chairman Lantz expressed his concern over the number of fines issued which he
construed as excessive.
Respondent Glenn reiterated his opinion that the new irrigation system was not
necessary and that he did not offer to install a new irrigation system, so a Permit
for the repair work was not required.
Richard Joslin stated there was photographic evidence ofPVC pipes delivered
to the job site which the Respondent claimed he did not do. "Someone" was
going to contract for it and no Permit had been pulled on January 11,2011.
There were three pages showing trenches had been dug which indicated that
"someone" was going to "something" with the PVC pipe. There was a
photograph of a hole that had been dug large enough to accommodate a plant
container located in a few inches away. He concluded the evidence in the
packet indicated that the Respondent was going to try to do the work but he got
caught. I have enough evidence to say the Respondent is guilty of all three
charges.
Thomas Lykos referred to the Photograph on Page E-18 which showed white
PVC pipe sticking up from the ground and running to a fenced area. He stated
for the Respondent to claim that this was a "minor repair or maintenance" to a
sprinkler system with all the trenches that were dug and the pipes in evidence is
not a reasonable evaluation of the situation.
Respondent Glenn asked how many other Contractors were on-site that day.
Ian Jackson stated none.
Mr. Glenn responded there were at least four Contractors present because the
house was undergoing a complete renovation and the Building Permit was
posted in the yard.
Mr. Jackson noted he did see a Painting Contractor who was working for a
General Contractor who was not present.
14
~e~lJ2011B B
Mr. Glenn maintained the General Contract was present and watched the
Citations being written.
Mr. Jackson reiterated he did not speak with a General Contractor.
Mr. White asked the Respondent what was the basis for his belief that there
was an exception to the requirement for a Permit when performing only
maintenance and/or insubstantial general repair work.
Attorney Neale noted there were three pending Citations and a separate Motion
should be made for each one and stated the Board has the option to dismiss the
Citation. He cited Florida Statutes, Chapter 489, Section 127, entitled
"Prohibitions; penalties:"
"If the person who was issued the Citation, or his/her designated
representative, shows that the Citation is invalid or the violation
has been corrected prior to appearing before the Enforcement or
Licensing Board, the Enforcement or Licensing Board may dismiss
the Citation unless the violation is irreparable or irreversible. "
"If the Enforcement or Licensing Board or designated Special
Magistrate finds that a violation exists, the Enforcement/Licensing
Board may order the violator to pay a civil penalty of not less than
the amount set forth on the Citation, but not more than $1,000 per
day for each violation. "
"In determining the amount of the penalty, the Enforcement/Licensing
Board shall consider the following factors:
1. The gravity of the violation.
2. Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation.
3. Any previous violations committed by the violator. "
Attorney Neale answered a question about abatement stating his interpretation
of the Statute was the violator was to have corrected the situation prior to the
Hearing, not a third party, and reiterated that the Board's ability to dismiss a
Citation was discretionary.
It was noted Mr. Glenn sat for the Tree Contractor Exam in September 4, 2009
and his (failing) score was 45. Taking the exam is the first step toward
obtaining a Landscaping Contractor's license.
Richard Joslin moved to approve upholding Citation #6003 and #6004 issued
to John H. Glenn, owner of "J & S Professional Lawn Care, Inc. " and that
he is found guilty of the violations cited. Second by Patrick White.
Chairman Lantz expressed his opposition stating the Respondent acted as a
General Contractor and should be subject to only one Citation and one $300
fine.
15
1611 B 8
February 16,2011
Michael Ossorio noted if the Respondent is charged with a violation of acting
as a General Contractor, the State (under Statute 49) will notify the Contractor
Licensing Office that a license is not required for irrigation and landscaping
work. However, the Statutes does permit Cities and Municipalities to regulate
Specialty Contractors.
Motion carried, 7 - "Yes"/2 - "No." Chairman Lantz and Jon Walker were
opposed.
Chairman Lantz directed the Board's attention to the Permitting issue.
Richard Joslin moved to dismiss Citation #6005 issued to John H. Glenn,
owner of "J & S Professional Lawn Care, Inc. "for unpermitted work. Second
by Patrick White.
Michael Ossorio stated the law requires that a Permit is obtained before work is
begun.
Patrick White stated while he recognized the County's position, a permit was
obtained and he proposed to split the difference in the fines to give some relief
to the Respondent. He noted the Board has the discretion to dismiss the
Citation.
Thomas Lykos outlined the reasons for objecting to the dismissal of Citation
#6005, as well as citing the document signed by the Respondent in 2009 in
whi~h he promised not to perform the work for which he was cited. The only
reason why a Permit was pulled was because the Respondent was caught.
Motion carried, 7 - "Yes''l2 - "No." Lee Horn and Thomas Lykos were
opposed.
Chairman Lantz noted the Respondent is required to pay the fines imposed in
the total amount of $600 and suggested he contact Michael Ossorio for further
instructions.
BREAK: 10:56 AM
RESUMED: 11:11 AM
(C) Felipe D. Santos - Qualify 2nd Entitv:
Michael Ossorio noted Mr. Santos is a qualifier for "All Storm Secure, Inc." as
a shutter installation and awning Contractor. He would like to qualify "5-Star
Hurricane Shutters, Inc."
Felipe S. Santos stated he originally opened "Five Star" with his father. He
later opened "All Storm Secure" with two partners and was the qualifier for that
company. He re-opened "Five Star" one year ago as the sole owner but he did
16
161 1 e 8
February 16,2011
not perform any work under that company. He is petitioning to re-qualify "Five
Star" as the sole owner because the work he would do under "Five Star" would
not be new installation work, and his "All Storm" partners did not object.
Mr. Ossorio stated there was no activity under "Five Star" and noted Filipe
Santos has been licensed for many years. He confirmed the County has no
objections to Mr. Santos as the qualifier for both companies.
Richard Joslin moved to approve the application of Felipe S. Santos to
qualify a second entity, "Five-Start Hurricane Shutters, Inc." Second by
Jon Walker.
Carrier unanimously, 8 - "Yes''11- "No." Terry Jerulle was opposed.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Si2llin2 of the Orders of the Board (bv the Chairman)
Thomas Lykos moved to approve the signing of the Orders of the Board by the
Chairman. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 9 - O.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Case #2011 - 03:
Brian Jeffrey Goldberg/James S. Fields
d/b/a Advance Solar & Spa, Inc.
Chairman Lantz outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be
conducted:
. Hearings will be conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in Collier
County Ordinance #90-105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Title XXXII,
"Regulation of Professions and Occupations, " Chapter 489.
. Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature.
. Formal "Rules of Evidence" shall not apply.
. Fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and govern the
proceedings.
. Irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative evidence shall be excluded.
. All other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent
persons shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible
in a trial in the Courts of the State of Florida.
. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining
any evidence but shall not be deemed sufficient by itself to support a Finding,
unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in
Court.
. The "Rules of Privilege" shall be effective to the same extent that such Rules
are now, or hereafter may be, recognized in civil actions.
. Any member of the Contractors' Licensing Board may question any witness
before the Board.
17
161 1 as
February 16,2011
· Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call and examine
witnesses, to introduce Exhibits, to cross-examine witnesses to impeach any
witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut
any evidence presented against the party.
· The Chairperson or, in his/her absence, the Vice Chair, shall have all powers
necessary to conduct the proceedings at the Hearing in a full, fair, and
impartial manner, and to preserve order and decorum.
· The general process of the Hearing is for the County to present an Opening
Statement to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how the County
intends to prove the charges.
. The Respondent will present his/her Opening Statement setting forth, in
general terms, defenses to the charges.
· The County will present its Case in Chiefby calling witnesses and presenting
evidence.
. The Respondent may cross-examine the witnesses.
. After the County has closed its Case in Chief, the Respondent may present
his/her defense as described previously, i.e., to calVexamine witnesses, etc.
. 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 ajury, setting forth the parameters on
which the decision will be based.
. During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and
clarification from the parties.
. The Board will decide two different issues:
o Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the
Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter.
o If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions to
be imposed.
. The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions and the
factors to be considered.
. The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote.
. After the matters are decided, the ChairNice Chair will read a Summary of the
Order to be issued by the Board. The Summary is a basic outline of the Order
and may not reflect the same language contained in the Final Order.
. The Final Order will include complete details as required under State laws and
procedures.
Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, requested to enter the packet
delivered to the Members into evidence with the exception of Exhibit E-19
18
161 1
February 16,2011
B~8
contained therein. He distributed a single-page Stipulation, marked as Exhibit E-
19, which will be substituted for the prior document, and entered into evidence.
Richard Joslin moved to approve entering the information packet submittedfor
Case No. 2011-03, Board of County Commissioners, Petitioner, versus Brian
Jeffrey Goldberg/James S. Fields, d/b/a "Advance Solar & Spa, Inc.," State
Licenses: CVC 056664/ CWC 043077, Collier County Certificates: #33809/
#23278, Respondents, and the Stipulation Agreement marked as Exhibit E-19,
into evidence. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 9 - O.
Rob Ganguli presented the following information:
. A site visit was made to 8130 Valiant Drive, Naples, Florida, on January 20,
2011
. A complaint had been made concerning possible work being performed
without obtaining a Building Permit
. He met with the owner
. Swimming pool solar heating panels had been installed by Advance Solar &
Spa, Inc. on January 19,2011
. The Contractor had not obtained a Permit for the installation
. On four prior occasions, Advance Solar & Spa, Inc. was cited for performing
work without obtaining a required Building Permit
. The result was two "Cease-and-Desist Agreements were signed by the
Qualifier
. Violations: Florida Building Code, Section 105.1 and
Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.2.2
Mr. Ganguli read the terms of the Stipulation into the record, as follows:
"BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Collier County, Florida,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2011-03
vs.
Brian Jeffrey Goldberg/James S. Fields,
d/b/a Advance Solar & Spa, Inc.,
State Licenses: CVC 056664 / CWC 043077
Collier County Certificates: #33809 / #23278,
Respondent( s )."
COMES NOW, the undersigned, Brian Jeffrey Goldberg and James S. Fields, on
behalf of themselves or as representative(s) for the Respondent, and enter into this
Stipulation and Agreement with Collier County as to the resolution of the
19
1611
B 8
February 16,2011
Administrative Complaint referenced in Case Number 2011-03, dated the 16th day
of February, 2011.
In consideration of the disposition and resolution of the matters outlined in said
Administrative Complaint, for which a Hearing is currently scheduled for
February 16,2011, and to promote efficiency in the Administrative Complaint
process, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1) The violations noted in the referenced Administrative Complaint are accurate
and we stipulate to their existence. (Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section
4.2.2)
THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties that the Respondents shall:
1. Failure to abide by Florida Building Code, Section 105.1 shall result in
immediate referral to the Contractors' Licensing Board.
2. The Findings of Fact in this matter shall be forwarded to the Florida
Department of Business and Professional Regulation with a recommendation
for no further action."
/s/ Brian Jeffrey Goldberg - 02/08/11
Respondent - Date
/s/ Ian Jackson - 02/08/11
Supervisor or Designee - Date
/s/ James S. Fields
Respondent
- 02/08/11
- Date
Board Chair
- Date
********
Patrick White requested clarification of the action to be taken in Item 2.
Michael Ossorio stated the recommendation to the State will be that no further
action is taken. He explained the procedures governing State-certified Contractors
or Specialty Contractors.
Q. Was any financial harm caused to the homeowners?
A. No.
Q. Has a permit been issued?
A. Yes.
Richard Joslin asked the Contractors why, after signing previous Cease & Desist
Agreements, they failed to pull a permit.
20
I
1611 a8
February 16, 2011
A. The procedures that had been put in place but failed due to the illness of the two
individuals who usually handled the paperwork. The job was pushed through
before the error was caught - "It fell through the cracks." New safeguards have
been put in place to prevent such problems.
MichaelOssorio referred to Pages E-3 and E-4 which detailed the license
information for each Contractor. Mr. Goldberg is a Certified Solar Contractor and
Mr. Fields is a Certified Specialty Contractor.
The Members noted that no penalty was assessed.
Mr. Ossorio stated within IS-days of the Hearing, a recommendation is sent to the
State.
Discussion ensued concerning why fees were not assessed to State certified
Contractors and the discrepancy between the price noted on Page E-9 ($3,000) and
amount of the Job Value noted in the Permit ($2,450). The Contractors did not have
an answer.
Thomas Lykos expressed his discomfort that the Board had no recourse other than
the Hearing since there had been who previous Cease & Desist Agreements signed by
the Respondents prior to signing the Stipulation.
Michael Ossorio noted some Counties are imposing fines or Operational Costs
incurred by the County to the Company but not the Contractors. Collier County is in
the process of drafting a policy. He will bring the draft to the Board at a future date.
Discussion continued concerning the Board's options if the Motion was defeated.
Consensus: Board Members may vote to accept and approve the Stipulation as
presented but they will not do so a second time, should the Contractors return for
another violation Hearing.
Robert Meister moved to accept and approve the Stipulation as presented/or
signature by the Chairman. Second by Michael Boyd. Motion carried, 7 - "Yes"
/2 - "No. "
Thomas Lykos moved to close the Public Hearing. Second by Patrick White.
Carried unanimously, 9 - o.
(B) Case #2011 - 04: Will be CONTINUED pursuant to amended Agenda.
(C) Case #2011 - 05: Has been POSTPONED pursuant to amended Agenda.
IX. REPORTS: None
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, March 16,2011
Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Administrative Building "F,"
3rd Floor (Courthouse Complex), 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112
21
1611 8 a
February 16,2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Vice Chair at 12:00 Noon.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR
LICENSING BOARD
I1h7~
Kyle Lantz, Chairma
The Minutes were ~proved by the Board/Chairman on )r!tI/'tt: 1..
as presented ~, or as amended ~.
/b
.
, 2011,
22
BY: .......................
PRODUCTIVITY LIBRARY IMPACT FEE
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 1,2010 AT 2:00 P.M.
161 1 B 9
~~
J.f,/
.
/
:>
~m@mll\Vlm~
R\\ MAR 1 4 2011 JYJ
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
/
V
V
Members In Attendance: John Kerns
Staff Present: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager; Paula Fleishman, Impact Fee Coordinator;
Marilyn Matthes, Library Director; Mike Sheffield and Barbetta Hutchinson, County Manager's
Office.
Others Present: Carla Grieve, Friends of the Library
Amy Patterson told the group that there were 12 impact fees related to the construction of
facilities based on population growth. All fees are related to the building permit and are broken
down per dwelling unit. The methodology is consistent as in the past. The main changes are
land values and construction cost declines, which will reduce the impact fees by a fairly
dramatic amount for the first time in 10 years. The basic fee is going from $343.50 in 2006 to
$265.00 this year.
There is also a credit included for donations and grants that have been received. The
population methodology uses peak population with a seasonal adjustment. The impact fees
that are currently being collected are paying back the $21 million dollars in related debt that was
borrowed to build what we currently have. We have a unique circumstance because we are
slightly overbuilt because of the situation with the economy and the population decrease people
are not moving here, people are moving away.
Amy explained the role of the Productivity is to go through the study, ask questions to see that
everything is reasonable and give a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
John Kerns asked about of levels of service and Marilyn explained that there are public library
standards that are recommended for all libraries to work toward based on actual population.
She said that she applies for grants for additional funds. Fees for the use of the library
computers were also discussed. Carla gave a brief overview of what the Friends of the Library
does.
At the Productivity Committee meeting on October 1ih, John will tell the group about this
meeting, they will ask their questions and then give a recommendation to the Board.
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
~~~
Item.:
Copies to:
161 taBif' /
fo} I1@lUWIi 1m ~~~~ing I!f!f
R\\ MAR 'I 1 2011 JY) Coyle
PRODUCTIVITY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTIfSIE6N v'
BY: ..._.~~~.._._..JaAW ENFORCEMENT & GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
IMPACT FEE REVIEWS
OCTOBER 13,2010 AT 2:00 P.M.
Members In Attendance: Doug Fee, Jim Hoppensteadt, Leslie Prizant and Janet Vasey.
Staff Present: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager; Paula Fleishman, Impact Fee Coordinator;
Andrea Marsh, Sheriff's Office; Hank Jones, Facilities Management; Mike Sheffield and
Barbetta Hutchinson, County Manager's Office.
Doug Fee called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m.
Amy Patterson told the group that the latest update of the law enforcement impact fees was
2006 and is required every three years. There was no deviation in the methodology of this
year's calculation which involves taking total costs and dividing by the number of people. The
upside this year comes from value added in equipment, Sheriff's special operations, and
changes in building and land costs. The figure used for land is taken from locations where we
are going to build, not property we have now.
Nilgun from Tindale-Oliver was called and asked several questions by the members of the sub-
committee. She said they went very conservative on government buildings weighted toward
insurance costs and do not included many new building costs such as foundation costs and
other prep costs. Janet asked about land costs in East Naples. Janet asked Paula to add some
information so that the analysis can be easily made. Amy will make corrections and pass them
out to the members of the Productivity Committee before the next meeting.
The Sheriff's inventory will be left at the 2006 level instead of revaluing 2006 and 2010. The
value of computers and in-car video which was left off from the previous study amounts to
$4.3M. Jim Hoppensteadt suggested to put the $4.3M back in and leave the rest at the
previous value.
Government buildings has an across the board decrease and the cost per resident will go down.
The subcommittee agreed to meet at 1:45 p.m. right before the regular Productivity Committee
Meeting on October 20th to review the documents with the changes.
Doug Fee motioned to adjourn the meeting, Jim Hoppensteadt seconded and the group voted
unanimously in agreement. The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
~~~
Misc. eorres:
Date:
Item #:_----- __._
C:D;' '0.
BY: .........................
Fiala r-vV;
Hiller ,/
~~ng I t
Coletta
16 LJ1'20~ 1 a
\D) Ii (gnn \VI m ~
R\\ APR 0 5 2011 WJ
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
POLICY ADVISORY BOARD
Naples, Florida, May 21, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
3 :30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette
Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
James Talano, M.D.
Chief Robert Metzger
Chief Walter Kopka
(Vacancy)
(Vacancy)
ALSO PRESENT:
Fred Coyle, Collier County Commissioner
Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director
Jeff Page, Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services
Jennifer Florin, Administrative Assistant, EMS Misc. Corres:
Dan Bowman, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency tiIlvices
Item t: .
1
C,:,?ies to:
1611 al0
May 21,2010
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
Chairman James Talano called the meeting to order at 3:40 PM and a quorum was
established.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Commissioner Fred Coyle attended.
2. Agenda and Minutes
A. Approval of Today's Agenda
Chief Walter Kopka moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Vice
Chairman Metzger. Carried unanimously, 3-0.
B. Approval of Minutes from January 15,2010 Meeting
Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Chief
Walter Kopka. Carried unanimously, 3-0.
3. Old Business
(None)
4. New Business
A. Current vacancies
. Linda Mitchell, R.N., and Steve Shafor resigned from the Advisory Board. They
represented the Nurse and Phannacist components ofthe Committee.
. A letter was sent to the Medical Society asking for recommendations to fill the
vacancies and the nominations will be presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval.
B. Brief Overview of the Blue Ribbon Committee
. Membership: local professionals, community leaders, and citizens (14)
o Sheriff s Office
o EMS personnel
o Chamber of Commerce
o Physicians Regional and NCH
. Goal: to determine ways to improve the EMS system
. Will try to enlist assistance from statisticians and industrial mathematicians from
the Industrial Engineering Department of Florida Gulf Coast University to
develop a statistical report
o FGCU has requested funding of approximately $40,000 to develop the
statistical program/model
o County Manager Leo Ochs has been contacted
. Results of meeting will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on
June 22,2010
Commissioner Fred Coyle noted the Blue Ribbon Committee was a civilian committee
and not under the auspices of the Board of County Commissioners.
2
161,1
May 21,2010
810
by Career Fire Departments"
. Chapter 5 - Fire Department Services (5.3.3.3 - Service Delivery Deployment)
o Under 5.3.3.3.2: "Thefire department's EMSfor providing a first
responder with AED ("Automated External Defibrillator") shall be
deployed to provide for the arrival of a first responder with an AED
company within a 240-second travel time to 90% of the incidents as
established in Chapter 4. "
o Under 5.3.3.3.3: "When provided, thefire department's EMSfor
providing ALS shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of an ALS
("Advanced Life Support") company within a 480-second travel time to
90% of the incidents provided for a first responder with AED or BLS
("Basic Life Support") unit arrived in 240 seconds or less travel time as
established in Chapter 4. "
G. Review of EMS First Aid Courses
. The Medical Examiner's Office training department will begin a series of basic
first aid courses (8-hours) for Collier County employees - first to be trained will
be Parks and Recreation employees, and Water Department employees.
. Working with the CCSO to enhance the CPR capabilities of Deputies. It was
noted almost every police vehicle is equipped with an AED ("Automated External
Defibrillator") .
. Several deaths have occurred due to anaphylactic shock caused by bee or wasp
stings. It was also noted that Deputies, who are usually first on the scene, are not
permitted to administer EPI-Pens due to State legislation.
5. Public Comment
(None)
6. Board Member Discussion
. Chief Walter Kopka distributed a memo to the members entitled, "Improving Fire
District Responses to Medical Calls." He stated the closest fire department unit does
not always respond, especially to certain areas of the county (incorporated versus
non-incorporated) and gave examples.
During discussion, it was noted the issue should be directed to Board of County
Commissioners for possible discussion with representatives for the City of Naples.
Anticipated obstacles: jurisdictional concerns, as well as a lack of a coordinated dispatching
system
Commissioner Coyle volunteered to speak with the Mayor and the Naples City Council.
He suggested an agreement between municipalities may be required and stated it would be a
complex process.
Chairman Talano stated the issue merits further study and suggested forming an Ad Hoc
Committee.
4
1611810
. '
May 21, 2010
. By consensus: A letter will be sent to the Blue Ribbon Committee inviting a
representative to attend the next Policy Advisory Board Meeting to discuss their
progress.
7. Next Meeting Date: September 17 at 3:30 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by
order of the Vice Chair at 5:00 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD
The Minutes were ap~ved by the Board/Committee Chair on
as presented V , or as amended .
qjnj;/)
5
10) II em m n \VI II li\)
I APR 0 5 2011 l!!)
/
Fiala ~~/
Hiller
Henning ~/
Coyle
Coletta v
=
1611 B1IJ
September 17, 201 (J
.BY: ........................
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
POLICY ADVISORY BOARD
Naples, Florida, September 17, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
3:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 121 Goodlette
Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
James Talano, M.D.
Chief Robert Metzger (Excused)
Chief Walter Kopka
Rosemary Bally, RN
Jerry Pinto
ALSO PRESENT:
Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director
Jeff Page, Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services
Wayne Watson, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services
Richard D'Orazio, EMS Battalion Chief
Misc. Correa:
Date:
Item':
C-'"\ies to:
1611
p 1 0
September 17, 2010
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Chairman James Talano called the meeting to order at 4:08 PM and a quorum was
established.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Commissioner Fred Coyle attended.
2. Agenda and Minutes:
A. Approval of Today's Agenda
Chief Walter Kopka moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Jerry
Pinto. Carried unanimously, 3-0.
B. Approval of Minutes from May 21, 2010 Meeting:
Jerry Pinto moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Chief Walter
Kopka. Carried unanimously, 3-0.
3. Old Business:
A. Status of Blue Ribbon Committee Initiative
Dr. Tober noted:
. Successfully petitioned the Board of County Commissioners for funding
o FGCU will conduct a Study - Dr. Lisa Zidek, Statistician
o The Statistician will analyze current data:
(1) where calls emanate and what resources are geographically
closest to the locations
. Goal: better use of existing resources and deploying manpower to reduce call
response time
. Anticipated completion date: December, 2010
Commissioner Coyle stated:
. Jurisdictional issues between the Fire Districts and the municipalities should be
discussed between the parties.
. The subject is beyond the scope ofthe Statistical Study and details of the existing
situation are probably not known to the FGCU consultant.
. He has broached issue with the Mayor of City of Naples who is willing to discuss
and consider possible trading of areas as appropriate.
. Funding is not available.
. The population in the eastern portion of the County is growing more rapidly than
the western portion, but the transportation network complicates rapid response to
emergency medical calls.
. The Study should provide a "better handle" on the impediments to response time
but not a comprehensive or definitive answer.
The Commissioner doubted the results of the Study will be accepted as the primary
solution to the problem. He noted the Committee will present the Study Results to the
Board of County Commissioners at their first meeting in December.
2
161 1
B 10
September 17, 2010
Chairman Tolan noted Dr. Tober is the Chair of the Medical Society's Liaison
Committee and will report the findings of the Blue Ribbon Committee.
B. Fire Department District Borders
. Deputy Chief Watson concurred if the Mayor is willing, discussions should be
held between the City of Naples and the bordering Fire Districts.
. Commissioner Coyle offered his assistance to facilitate meetings and asked to be
supplied with the names of the principal negotiators for each Fire District and of
other attendees so he could devise a schedule for the meetings.
Dr. Tober asked Chief Walter Kopka to summarize the situation:
. Problem is in areas where City - County borders meet.
. Currently, the geographically closest fire department does not respond to an
emergency call.
. The issue has not been addressed previously with all the Fire Districts
o there may be objections to revising their response protocols.
. The present system has evolved over time.
4. New Business:
A. Targeted Response Strategies to Improve Call Intake to Patient Bedside
Richard D'Orazio, EMS Battalion Chief, responded as the Chair of the Tiered
Response Committee:
. Reviewing the EMS system as a whole to determine what can be done to improve
overall services
. Focus: Response time issues (What can be done differently?)
. Fresh approach to "Alpha" responses - least serious emergency call - to reduce
liability and accidents when on emergency runs
. Motor vehicle calls have been examined - coded as "unknown injury" - have
responded without lights and sirens for the past year until confirmation of injury
is provided
o Safety issue and wear/tear on equipment
. Committee consists of representatives from EMS, the Sheriffs Office, a BLS Fire
representative, an ALS Fire representative, a representative from Emergency
Management, and Dr. Tober
(Rosemary Bally, RN, arrived at 4:26 PM)
Dr. Tober added:
. The Tiered Response Committee is also examining "911" call delays
o Dispatcher asks questions - the caller's answers are coded and entered
into an algorithm to determine the level of dispatch
o It is approximately 90 seconds before a dispatch order is sent
o One option: change the "scripting" to allow a unit to roll without lights
and sirens - the call will be updated regarding urgency within 60 to 90
seconds
3
161181(
September 17, 2010
Dr. Tober noted there has been a resistance to changing the rntake algorithm from the
911 Dispatch. It can take from 1 lf2 to 2 minutes before of an EMS vehicle moves. He
stated the algorithm is a national algorithm and difficult to change. A conference call
was placed to the company that developed the algorithm and it was agreeable to inserting
a "pre-alert" voice package. Local dispatch has not indicated they would accept it.
Wayne Watson stated one of the problems is the Sheriffs Office Dispatch has been
nationally accredited and part of the accreditation is tied into following specific
algorithms. Any alteration must be approved and is time consuming to obtain permission
to do so. The company confirmed to Sheriffs Office that different areas of the country
are using certain variations and the Sheriff's Office is trying to determine if one of the
pre-approved variations can be used locally without compromising its accreditation.
Another concern is the language barriers which have contributed to the 90-second to two-
minute delay. The Sheriffs Office is conferring with the company regarding the issues.
It was noted at one time there was an EMS Dispatch "Gatekeeper" who routed the
vehicles in response to a call, but the position was eliminated due to budget cuts.
Dr. Tober stated there was been controversy concerning the necessity of the position and
whether the Gatekeeper contributed to the reduction of response times.
Chief Kopka stated the Gatekeeper was critical because the only responsibility of the
Gatekeeper was to send information from a call to the responding units. When the
position was eliminated, two other individuals became responsible for sending out the
units, and talking to the responding units as well as answering incoming calls. Two
people are doing the work of three. Calls are stacked up because a Dispatcher cannot talk
to units and dispatch a call at the same time. Computer-voiced dispatch may be an
option, but it has not been explored yet.
Chief Page stated other Counties have personnel from the actual office to staff the
positions. The Sheriff, Fire, and EMS Dispatchers had overlays on their computer
screens allowing them to track where equipment had been dispatched and what was still
available. He stated the EMS Office has offered to attempt the same in Collier County
but it is a civilian position and the Sheriff's Office Dispatch Center has a high turnover
rate. It is difficult for the Sheriff's Office to keep the positions filled. EMS has offered
to take one full-time position from the Sheriffs Office, which is funded by the County,
and provide a full-time Paramedic or EMT dispatcher to fill that seat on a permanent
basis. An EMT or Paramedic Dispatcher, because of his /her experience, would be able to
tell a unit about to leave a hospital to remain in place because another call was coming.
EMS has always worked well with the Sheriff's Department and will continue to do so.
Dr. Tober stated the controversy is because certain Fire District Chiefs have stated the
Gatekeeper position is not necessary while the personnel who actually work in Dispatch
have a significantly different opinion. He did not understand the resistance to reinstating
the position.
It was suggested to discuss the situation with the Sheriff s Office.
4
161 1
8' 10
September 17,2010
Commissioner Coyle stated there had been discussion about the City and the County
having separate dispatchers and did not make sense from a budgetary viewpoint.
Dr. Tober noted the County relied upon the City as "back-up" and determined it was
necessary to continue the dual system. The County did not state it was in favor of a
unified dispatch system.
Discussion continued concerning telecommunications switching capabilities, cell phone
calls, and the handling of excess calls to the system.
Commissioner Coyle stated there are ways to handle the problem.
Chief Kopka stated that with the volume of calls that come in during the day, having a
Gatekeeper even for 8-hours or 12-hours would be a tremendous help.
When Commissioner Coyle asked who was the best qualified or interested to meet with
the Sheriffs Office, Dr. Tober suggested Richard D'Orazio, Jeff Page, Wayne Watson,
Walter Kopka, and Tabitha - all of whom are constantly on the radio.
Commissioner Coyle offered to set up a meeting with the Sheriff s Department to
discuss the option mentioned by Chief Page.
Dr. Tober noted politics are an issue and every possible emergency stakeholder has been
invited to participate. He stated any paraml;:dic who is on the radio all day knows how to
fix the system, but the hierarchy from Emergency Medical Dispatch will not accept that
anything can make a difference. He suggested EMS should set up its own EMS Com.
Question: There are two issues - one is the roll over of the calls. Could that be handled
if EMS had its own dispatcher?
Chief Page stated if the backlog of vacant positions were filled (12-14), it would make a
difference.
Dr. Tober stated it has not been identified why Emergency Medical Dispatch is reluctant
to accept a recommendation, let alone some of the paramedics.
Commissioner Coyle stated creating a separate, competing agency may not be the best
answer and will contact the Sheriff s Office to set up a meeting.
B. Challenges in On-scene Medical Direction
Dr. Tober provided an example of an incident which occurred during August. If a
doctor, at the scene of an accident, attempts to modify the accepted protocols, the doctor
must accept responsibility for the patient, ride in with the patient, and sign the run report
at the hospital.
He described the incident: A physician employed as a medical educator for the North
Naples Fire District responded with a paramedic supervisor to a call for chest pain. They
arrived on scene shortly before the experienced paramedic. The paramedic could not
follow the protocol because the doctor insisted certain things were to be done out of
order. After the patient was delivered to the hospital, the paramedic contacted Dr. Tober
directly.
Dr. Tober stated the paramedics work under his medical license only. If a paramedic is
forced to deviate from medical protocol because of instructions from a doctor at the
5
1611 B10
September 17, 2010
scene, that doctor must accept full responsibility for the patient and accompany the
patient to the hospital.
He clarified the paramedics know the protocol to be followed and if a physician at the
scene is not willing to accept responsibility for the patient, the paramedics are entitled to
follow the protocol in that particular instance.
C. Discussion of Progress in training County Civilian First Responders
Wayne Watson stated the program has trained over 120 Collier County employees, such
as Domestic Animal Services Officers, Code Enforcement Investigators, Park Rangers,
Bailiffs at the Courthouse, etc., in the basics of CPR, and first aid began a few months
ago. The program has been tailored to specific County protocols, but is not a certification
course. The classes teach compression-only CPR, as well as basic first aid and runs for
six hours. The goal is to make County buildings a safe place if someone is experiencing
a severe medical emergency. The specifically trained County First Responders would
have access to an AED ("Automated External Defibrillator") and would know what to
tell the Paramedics in order to mesh with the system.
He stated the response from County employees has been overwhelming positive. Each
graduate receives a small medical kit with gloves and some bandages.
Dr. Tober mentioned some developments regarding the "ATRUS Program" which will
be a fully automated system capable of informing a caller of the location of an AED unit.
The problem is the HIPP A Law does not allow the release of medical information
without written consent which means calling to say a person is having a heart attack
violates the privacy component of HIPP A.
Example: If a customer at Midas Muffler, located next door to the Clinic, was
experiencing a heart attack, Staff could bring the AED unit to the scene more
quickly than an ambulance could arrive.
Various representatives are working to modify the law.
5. Staff Reports:
. Grant funds have been secured to purchase 18 to 20 AED's which will be distributed
to trained County employees - such as DAS Officers or Park Rangers
. Pagers will be furnished to certain County workers
6. Public Comment:
(None)
7. Board Member Discussion:
. The new Board members were introduced: Rosemary Bally, RN, and Jerry Pinto, a
retired Pharmacist.
. Dr. Talano mentioned a new procedure - the administration of cold saline for acute MI
patients. It will be followed to determine if it could be applied in Collier County
8. Next Meeting Date: January 21,2011 at 3:30 PM
6
161 1
F~ llU
September 17, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by
order of the Vice Chair at 5: 12 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD
~'D., Chairman
~~
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on
as presented , or as amended V.
/ /~t!ll
. ( /
7
BY: .......................
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
1)/
,/
-r 'C/
v
1611816
lO) 1i@1in\Vl1i~
R\ APR 0 5 2011 J!lJ
. -
January 21,2011
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
POLICY ADVISORY BOARD
Naples, Florida, January 21,2011
LET IT BE RE~MBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical
Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
3 :30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette
Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
James Talano, M.D.
Chief Walter Kopka
Rosemary LeBailly, RN
Chief Robert Metzger
Jerry Pinto
ALSO PRESENT:
Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District 2
Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director
Jennifer Florin, EMS Administrative Assistant,
Jeff Page, Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services, Staff Liaison
W ayne Watson, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Misc. Cartws:.
Dan Bowman, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services ~fe'
Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief Medical Services/Community Relations
ltem#:
C:pies to:
1611
810
January 21,2011
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Vice Chairman Metzger called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M. and a quorum was
established.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Commissioner Fred Coyle was present earlier but left to avoid a violation of the Sunshine
Laws due to the presence of Commissioner Georgia Hiller.
2. Agenda and Minutes:
A. Approval of Today's Agenda
Chief Walter Kopka moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Jerry Pinto.
Carried unanimously, 4 - O.
B. Approval of Minutes from September 17, 2010 Meeting:
Changes:
· On Page 4, last paragraph, substitute EMD Supervisors ("Emergency Medical
Dispatch") for "Fire District Chiefs" in the fIrst sentence.
Chief Walter Kopka moved to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Jerry Pinto.
Carried unanimously, 3 - O. Note: Vice Chairman Metzger did not vote since he was
not present at the September meeting.
3. Old Business:
A. Review of Blue Ribbon Committee Report
Vice Chairman Metzger stated staff added the topic to the agenda and asked if there
was a specifIc item to be reviewed.
(Dr. Talano arrived at 3:40 P.M)
Chairman Talano thanked the Blue Ribbon Committee for their efforts to study the
existing problems and for visiting other areas around the country to establish a basis of
companson.
Vice Chairman Metzger concurred that committee presented a "solid report."
It was noted two members of the advisory board did not have an opportunity to. review
the document and the topic will be added to the next agenda for action.
4. New Business:
A. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman for the 2011 Term
Chief Walter Kopka nominated Dr. James Talano to serve as Chairman. Second by
Vice Chairman Metzger.
There were no other nominations from the floor. The Motion carried,
4-"Yes"/1-"Abstention." Dr. Talano abstained.
Vice Chairman Metzger nominated Chief Walter Kopka to serve as Vice-Chairman.
Second by Chairman Talano.
There were no other nominations from the floor. The Motion carried,
4-"Yes"/1-"Abstention." Chief Kopka abstained.
2
1611810
January 21,2011
B. Establish Schedule for 2011 Meeting
The Advisory Board Members adopted the following schedule:
. March 25, 2011
. June 10,2011
. August 19, 2011
. October 7, 2011
. November - to be determined
The meetings will be held at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 121 Goodlette Road North,
commencing at 3 :30 PM, unless otherwise notified.
It was noted the terms for Rosemary LeBailly, RN, and Jerry Pinto will expire in
September, 2011.
Chief Robert Metzger moved to accept the meeting schedule as above-referenced.
Second by Vice-Chairman Kopka. Carried unanimously, 5 - O.
5. Staff Reports:
A. Review of COPCN ("Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity") Application
from North Naples Fire District
Chief Jeff Page stated the application had been provided to the Board and Naples
Community Hospital was also submitting an application for renewal.
He explained the 2007 advisory board established the policy for COPCN applications to
be reviewed by subsequent Boards. He noted the NCH application consisted of two
letters, dated November 15, 2010 and January 7, 2011, addressed to Dan Summers,
Director - Bureau of Emergency Services.
(Copies of the documents were provided to the Board)
Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera, Medical Services - North Naples, stated he would
answer any questions from the Board.
Chairman Talano inquired about any changes from the September 2009 application.
Deputy Chief Aguilera stated there were no changes. The application was heard by the
Board of County Commissioners in October 2010, but failed to be approved. It was
placed back on the agenda by unanimous consent of the BCC for reconsideration. The
BCC will meet on Tuesday, January 25,2011 to reconsider the application.
Chairman Talano questioned reviewing the application since the recommendations of
the Blue Ribbon Committee had not been incorporated into the application.
Chief Robert Metzger asked if the application had been reviewed by the previous EMS
Policy Advisory Board.
Deputy Chief Aguilera stated it had not.
Chief Metzger questioned why the Policy Advisory Board was being asked to review the
application when the Board had not reviewed it upon initial presentation.
3
1611 810
January 21, 2011
Vice Chairman Kopka referenced the policy outlined in Ordinance 2009-01 which
stated the Policy Advisory Board is to review any pre-hospital emergency medical care.
The Ordinance states:
"The Advisory Board is created to assist the Board of County
Commissioners with all issues affecting pre-hospital emergency
medical services within all of Collier County. "
Section Two of the Ordinance, entitled "Functions, Powers and Duties," states:
"The Advisory Board shall have the following duties:
1. To review and advise the Board of County Commissioners of all
issues concerning pre-hospital emergency medical services within
Collier County. "
He stated reviewing the COPCN by the Advisory Board falls under the directive since the
goal of the application is to change the current EMS policy in North Naples.
Chief Page pointed out the last meeting of the Advisory Board was held in September
2010 and the application was submitted in October.
Chairman Talano reiterated the Blue Ribbon Committee's recommendation has not
been reviewed by the Advisory Board or incorporated into the COPCN Application. He
stated the Advisory Board should review the report before considering the application.
Vice Chairman Kopka stated he was not sure if fragmenting the services was the goal of
the Blue Ribbon Committee and cited some of the recommendations in the report:
"Mandate that all agencies providing ALS ("Advanced Life Support'')
also provide patient transport to hospitals;
The Blue Ribbon Committee considered functional consolidation
of Fire Services in Collier County and re-allocation of resources in
response to demographics and professional standards,'
... encourage all Fire Services to collaborate in order to develop
Common Response Protocols ... "
He further stated there was much more in the report that did not "dove-tail" with
approving the COPCN for North Naples.
Chairman Talano concurred and pointed out that transportation issues were not
addressed in the COPCN. He stated the COPCN's Protocols were not clear enough.
Chief Metzger noted the Blue Ribbon Committee's Report referenced a three-year
time line for phased-in implementation of their recommendations. The process is to be
determined by the various stakeholders and subject-matter experts. The application made
by North Naples is for a system enhancement to take place in the near future.
4
161 1
810
January 21,2011
The Chief continued the application could be integrated into the overall recommendation
made by the Blue Ribbon Committee. He stated the ideal is a new, progressive, common
service and to postpone consideration for North Naples may not serve the best interests of
their residents, especially if North Naples' capability can be improved.
Discussion ensued and the following points were raised:
. Did North Naples COPCN Application support the conclusion that there would be
an improvement in the delivery of care to the residents?
. The report recommends system changes that may never happen.
. The Blue Ribbon Committee is trying to work toward a functional consolidation
of the system and for continuing the current two-tier model.
. The Blue Ribbon Committee's report should be thoroughly vetted to determine
the feasibility of the recommendations.
. Since North Naples is willing to enhance their ability to respond to patients, it
could have some positive impact to the overall system - potentially by allowing
other ALS resources to be diverted to other areas of the County.
. "Enhancement" is a presumption. A number of paramedics in North Naples have
less clinical experience.
· The two-tiered system supports early BLS ("Basic Life Support") intervention as
the key to saving patients' lives.
. The academic literature points to prompt BLS with conservative ALS by a limited
cadre of paramedics.
Dr. Robert Tober stated the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee should be
analyzed and a determination made concerning the type of authority to be created before
separating out one independent state of ALS activity when there is nothing to support
such action.
Vice Chairman Kopka again cited from the Committee's Report: The Panel also
strongly believes in one medical leader for the County. "
He stated his defInition of "fragmenting the service" is having a different Medical
Director in a particular district with different protocols, procedures and levels of care.
Chief Metzger agreed that Dr. Tober's position regarding cardiac care was correct but
there were other medical conditions that benefIted from early ALS intervention. He cited
Canadian studies which identifIed airway obstructions, anaphylaxis, and other types of
medical emergencies respond to the immediacy of ALS procedures and have a positive
impact.
Dr. Tober noted the engines and the BLS equipment carried by the engines include
airway emergency equipment and "Epi-Pens." He further stated the majority of the
Canadian studies that examined cardiac and trauma found no more morbidity benefit
from ALS procedures, and the procedures should be limited and those resources diverted
to early/prompt BLS.
He had not found any medical literature to support extending ALS privileges to those who
do not regularly practice the skills have been shown to be a benefIt.
5
1611810
January 21, 2011
Dr. Tober continued:
. Enough airway equipment has been distributed to the engines to intervene - they
carry King Tubes and Subcutaneous Epinephrine.
. During the past six months, North Naples calls had been analyzed and in
approximately 6,000 calls, only 4% required technical ALS procedures and half of
that number consisted of connecting the patient to a cardiac monitor.
. One option under consideration is to train a small number of paramedics from North
Naples to a higher level to create a small cadre of ALS Early Response should there
be a delay.
. All of the BLS engines have everything that is needed.
Chief Aguilera noted only a summary was provided. He requested that the Board review
the entire application before any recommendations were made. The Canadian system is
much different than the U.S. - the certifications, qualifications, and classifications are
drastically different.
Chairman Talano stated to take action without comparing both reports was premature.
Public Comment:
Commissioner Hiller noted the Board of County Commissioners has not adopted the
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee, but merely accepted the report. The
BCC decided to schedule a Workshop to determine if a Public Safety Authority should be
created and its structure. The recommendations of the report will be deliberated and
decided by the Public Safety Authority.
She expressed concern over the details of the report which she described as "vague."
She was also concerned that Dr. Tober intended to de-certify some paramedics.
Dr. Tober explained EMS is the "Court of Last Resort" and must transport. His concern
was trying not to overly spread the distribution of drugs into inexperienced hands.
Approximately fifty paramedics are loaned to the Fire Districts and, after a two to three
month rotation.they must go back to ambulances to reinforce their skill levels (at their
request). He stated there are only so many opportunities to practice clinical skills and he
was trying to cut back on the unnecessary expansion of paramedics.
Deputy Chief Dan Bowman stated the Blue Ribbon Committee discussed a number of the
same issues expressed by the Advisory Board but its conclusions have not been clarified.
The details need to be more completely described. He continued the application may be
justified by the Blue Ribbon Committee and there may be elements for North Naples to
include. He further stated the EMS Board is in a position to encourage whether the COPCN
should be considered and he suggested waiting until a final product has been produced.
A question was asked concerning the sunset of the COPCN.
Chief Page noted a COPCN is renewed annually. If a COPCN (non-transport) is granted,
North Naples will take over the responsibility. The number of EMS units in North Naples
theoretically could be reduced by approximately 40% and could be relocated to rural areas or
further reduce the number of units provided to the County for a tax savings.
He suggested if a COPCN is granted, it should contain transport to allow the County to
Re-disburse the units. There are a number of factors to be considered by the BCC. He will
6
1611
r 10
'~.'
t;{;'.(;,..
January 21,2011
meet with Chief Stoltz and Dan Summers at the conclusion of the BCC meeting.
Chief Metzger stated the COPCN could be phased in, first without and then with transport,
as a way to move the system forward. A potential benefit could be the redistribution of
assets.
Chief Page stated North Naples has the capability of providing ALS engine transport and
could have the same agreements as East Naples and Marco Island.
Chairman Tolano stated to have a non-transport agreement was not good medical policy
and he would not support it.
Vice Chairman Kopka stated the current request is for ALS non-transport.
Vice Chairman Kopka moved to recommend not approving the North Naples COPCN
application and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Second by Rosemary LeBailly.
Ms. LeBailly stated all members of the Advisory Board should be fully informed.
Chief Metzger stated his concerns:
· Two members have not had the opportunity to read the Blue Ribbon Report in its
entirety, and
· The EMS Policy Advisory Board has not has an opportunity to review the COPCN
Application in it's entirety.
He suggested tabling any action until the members have had the opportunity to review the
documents.
Dr. Tober pointed out to table the motion is to take no action, and no recommendation
will be made to the Board of County Commissioners who will vote on the application at
the next meeting. He suggested sending a recommendation to the BCe to delay their
vote for at least one month.
Chief Metzger noted if North Naples does not have consideration within a specific
timeframe, their process will begin again. He contended for the Advisory Board to take a
position without being adequately informed is not responsible and misleading.
Chairman Tolano questioned Chief Metzger's opinion. He stated if the BCC has more
information to make a decision than the Policy Advisory Board, then advice from the
Policy Advisory Board would be of no consequence.
Dr. Tober questioned whether there would be any "harm" in recommending that BCC
delay making a decision for one month.
Vice Chairman Kopka restated his motion: He moved that the Policy Advisory Board
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to not approve the North Naples
COPCN Application at this time. Second by Rosemary LeBailly.
Motion carried, 3 - "Yes"/] - "No"/] - "Abstention." Chief Metzger was opposed and
Mr. Pinto abstained.
Rosemary LeBailly stated the goal is to make an informed decision - it should not be a
battlefield. There must be a way to present the motion to make sure it is the logical,
informed way to do the right thing and is best for all.
Chairman Tolano suggested the Policy Advisory Board could recommend to the Board
of County Commissioners to delay the decision until more study is done -- integrate the
7
161 1
8 1 0
January 21, 2011
recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Committee as compared to the full document
from North Naples.
Rosemary LeBailly stated the door was not being closed on the North Naples COPCN
Application. She voted "no" as the only way to hold offuntil everyone could be
informed.
Chief Metzger stated "further study" will take a very long time
Chairman T olano disagreed, noting the Advisory Board could make a recommendation
to the Board of County Commissioners next month. He stated the report has been out for
only a short period of time.
It was suggested an explanation for why the Board of County Commissioners voted
against approving the application when it was fIrst presented was their comment that the
Blue Ribbon Report was not available at that time.
Deputy Chief Aguilera stated Chairman Coyle directed the COPCN to be brought to the
Advisory Board after it had been reviewed by County staff, was heard, and denied by the
BCC. The application will be brought back for a second hearing by the BCC for
reconsideration. He confirmed the process has been followed.
Chairman Talano acknowledged that while "the process" has been followed, he stressed
that, as a scientist, he could not make a decision before reviewing both documents
completely.
The status of the Motion ("carried" was confirmed.
Public Comment:
Commissioner Hiller stated the Board of County Commissioners will be exploring
whether or not to create a Public Safety Authority, and to what degree it will have the
ability to make public policy decisions. If established, the Public Safety Authority will
determine what the protocols or strategy will be, and the decision will not necessarily be
based solely on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee's Report. All
options will be considered. She reiterated the Board of County Commissioners has not
adopted the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee as binding. "To compare
whatever North Naples is applying for to the report is not an exercise that will lead to
anything. "
Chairman Talano pointed out the Advisory Board was asked to make a decision on
what was actually happening in terms of the report. To approve it without knowledge is
like "putting the cart before the horse."
Commissioner Hiller continued the comment that the service to be provided would be
less than what is currently provided is not a true statement because once someone
assumes the duty as a Medical Director, to provide a certain level of service, the level of
service has to be provided - there is a duty, a responsibility, and a standard of care. To
suggest by North Naples having a Medical Director would compromise the level of
service received by North Naples residents would not be a true statement.
Dr. Tober noted, that when North Naples had drugs for two years, there were serious
errors in medical care. He had to determine what would be more harmful to the
8
161 1
810
January 21, 2011
community. He made the decision to withdraw ALS from that group of paramedics,
many of whom were inexperienced, rather than continue it. His decision was carefully
deliberated and he concluded there would have been a greater danger to the community if
he had not decided to withdraw the ability to dispense medicines. He continued the
assumption of whether North Naples will or will not improve care is up for debate.
Commissioner Hiller countered any Medical Director who assumes responsibility has
liability for the decisions made with respect to protocols, training, supervision, what
drugs should or should not be allowed to be disbursed. The [proposed] Medical Director
for North Naples would assume the legal liability. It would be his duty to ensure the
North Naples paramedics were properly trained and their actions in the field meet the
protocols he determined were necessary to meet the standard of care.
Dr. Tober reiterated he was the Medical Director for North Naples and he decided to
withdraw medicines from North Naples because it was not complicit with training and
quality management.
Commissioner Hiller stated when North Naples has its own Medical Director, it will be
that individual's responsibility to make those types of decisions.
Dr. Tober asked how her statement related to what she had said - that it would be
"automatic" when North Naples has ALS skills, it will be an improved system. The
system was not improved when North Naples reported to him.
Commissioner Hiller claimed when North Naples has ALS paramedics under a Medical
Director whose concentration is directed to the training, supervision and management of
only those paramedics, the level of concentration will hopefully allow... at a minimum,
it will be equal to what is provided for the rest of the County because that is what the law
reqUIres.
Dr. Tober stated the law requires that we do our best to oversee - it does not require that
the paramedics perform at a certain level of perfection. There is a training office that
spends considerable time reviewing calls and cases to determine how the paramedics are
functioning. You oversee the system by reviewing how the runs come down.
Chairman Talano concluded the time for public comment.
B. Review ofCOPCN Renewal from NCH
Chief Page stated the letters submitted constituted the renewal application but did not
contain information regarding insurance records and proposed charges for patient care.
He outlined a problem for Mr. Summers to consider:
· NCH currently has only one unit available for transport.
· Service is supposed to be available, by Statute, on a 24/7 basis but NCH has not
complied.
· There have been instances when service was shut down for an evening and N CH
requested the County provide transport.
9
1611810
January 21,2011
· In the past year, the County has covered 190 transports for NCB from the Marco
facility.
· Transports coming from Marco have also been problematic because NCB has
utilized the Marco Medic Unit to handle transports between facilities.
· In some cases, HMA's facility on Collier Boulevard has been bypassed. It was
pointed out to Marco and they have complied.
· Marco sent a letter to Dan Summers stating it will add a second unit in February
to facilitate Marco-area transports but apparently this claim has been made before
and never materialized.
· There have been staffmg issues with Marco.
Chief Page stated Chief Murphy on Marco Island provided information and concerns
since he helps staff the Marco unit with two paramedic/frrefighters. The situation
has become burdensome.
Be stated additional documents has been requested before Mr. Summer can make his
recommendation.
The Chief noted his report was presented as an "FYI" for the Board since the issue may
become contentious. Be was not sure when the application will be presented to the
Board of County Commissioners.
Dr. Tober stated there was a situation again on Saturday with a NCB transport that did
not want to take the patient to Physician's Regional on Collier even though it was the
closest appropriate hospital for the call.
Chief Page stated a call was received from NCB during the meeting claiming their
unit had a two-hour back-up and requesting EMS transport a stable patient. When
informed EMS would only transport emergency patients, a second call was placed by
NCB declaring an emergency situation. It is the same situation with Marco Island.
Vice Chairman Kopka asked ifNCB was currently in compliance with its current
COPCN and the response was "no."
Chief Page outlined a challenge for North Naples if the COPCN is granted:
· The current COPCN language requires all paramedics to be certified by the
Medical Director and some in North Naples are not.
· Another issue is the paramedics are required to ride on a transport unit for at least
one month on an annual basis - North Naples has not complied.
· Be noted NCB has also not complied with the requirement.
Dan Summers requested Chief Page present the update to the Board because Mr.
Summers was unavailable due to surgery.
Chief Metzger questioned how long NCB had a COPCN and who handled their inter-
facility transports prior.
The response was three years and EMS provided the service.
Chief Metzger asked why NCB received a COPCN for inter-facility transports.
Chief Page stated NCB claimed it would save approximately $lM if allowed to do so
and it had the ability to transport outside Collier County because EMS would not.
10
1611 B 1 0
January 21,2011
Chief Metzger asked what would be the result ifNCH's application to renew its COPCN
was not approved and the response was that EMS would take over the service. He noted
EMS does currently transport outside the County if it is an emergency situation. EMS
currently transports for HMA to Lee County.
Dr. Tober stated there have been problems moving stable patients from Marco Island - if
the wait time for the hospital is four-hours, for example, a call is placed to him to upgrade
it to emergency status. When EMS ambulances are pulled from Marco, it is a significant
step backwards for coverage in Marco. He stated it would be easier to take it over
completely.
6. Public Comment:
(as noted in Item #5-A)
7. Board Member Discussion:
. Commissioner Coyle was present before the meeting began. He is the liaison assigned by
the BCC to attend the Policy Advisory Board's meeting.
o It was unfortunate that Commissioner Coyle was put in a position where he had to
leave.
o When asked to remain, Commissioner Coyle replied he did not want to risk a
violation of the Sunshine Laws as the reason for leaving.
o It was noted it would not have been appropriate for Commissioner Coyle to hear
Commissioner Hiller's comments not permissible since the subject will be
presented to the BCC for a decision.
o It was suggested future meeting notices contain language that one or more
Commissioners may be in attendance.
· A request was made for Jennifer Florin, Administrative Assistant, to draft a letter for
Chairman Talano's signature advising the BCC of the Policy Board's recommendation
concerning the North Naples COPCN Application.
Chairman Talano movedfor approval to request the Staff Liaison draft a
letter to the BCC for his signature and the letter reflect the Advisory Board's vote.
Second by Vice Chairman Kopka. Carried unanimously, 5 - O.
· Jennifer Florin noted the North Naples COPCN application was approximately 500 pages
and would make hard copies available for the members.
8. Next Meeting Date: March 25, 2011 at 3:30 P.M.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by
order of the Chair at 5:22 PM.
11
1611810
January 21,2011
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD
The Minutes wer~pproved by the Board/Committee Chair on MCllf)l (;II..\"
as presented ~ , or as amended .
,2011,
12
RECEIVED
APR 0 7 2011
161 1
B11
Board of coun~ COIM\iIIiOJlInt
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
i/
l~
:/
March 3, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, March 3, 20 I 0
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental
Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at the
Administrative Building "F" 3rd floor Collier County Government Complex,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon
VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman (Excused)
Noah Standridge
Michael V. Sorrell
Patrick Peck (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Summer Araque, Sf. Environmental Specialist
Stephen Lenberger, Sf. Environmental Specialist
Misc. Corres:
\
Item':
C:pies to:
1611811
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 3, 2010
9:00 A.M.
Commission Boardroom
W. Hannon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of February 3, 2010 meeting minutes
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
VI. Land Use Petitions - none
VII. New Business
A. EAR Project Management Plan - discuss selection of date for review of Plan
B. LDC Amendments
1. LDC sub-section 3.05.01 H.1.h: Stonnwater Uses Criteria In Preserves
VIII. Old Business
A. Update members on projects
IX Subcommittee Reports
X. Council Member Comments
XI. Staff Comments
XII. Public Comments
XIII. Adjournment
**********..********tr*****llr.".*****'Itt#t****"****.*.***..************'"
Council Members: Please notify Summer Araaue. Environmental Services Senior Environmental
Specialist no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 26. 2010 if you cannot attend this meetlnq or If you
have a conflict and will abstain from votinq on a oelitlon 1252-6290).
General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based,
1611 B11
March 3, 2010
l. Call to Order
Chairman Bushon called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Standridge.
Carried unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval of February 3, 2010 meeting minutes
Mr. Standridge moved to approve the minutes of the February 3,1010 meeting.
Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 3-0.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
None
VI. Land Use Petitions
None
VII. New Business
A. EAR Project Management Plan - discuss selection of date for review of Plan-
Summer Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist reported there will be a
Workshop Session conducted by the Comprehensive Planning Department for the
EAR Project Management Plan on August 11, 2010. Location to be determined.
B. LDC Amendments
1. LDC sub-section 3.05.07 H.1.h: Stormwater Uses Criteria in Preserves
LDC PAGE: LDC3:39
LDC SECTION: Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards
CHANGE: Add criteria for when treated stormwater is allowed in preserves.
Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist presented the
Amendment noting the EAC had approved the proposed Amendment at the
February 3,2010 meeting with the exception of final language for Section
3.05.07 H.1.h.ii.e.ii., paragraph 2.
Speaker
Katie Crosley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Council
noting the Amendment was proposed by Stakeholders and they have reached
consensus on the language proposed in the Section. She recommended the
EAC approve the proposed Amendment.
Stephen Lenberger read the language into the record:
Section 3.05.07 H.I.h.iLe.ii, paragraph 2 to read: "or, if on-site groundwater
data exists during a normal wet season, the applicant must demonstrate that
2
1611811
March 3, 2010
the addition of stormwater to the preserve will not cause the groundwater
elevation in the preserve to exceed the existing recorded peak groundwater
elevation. A wet season typically spans June through November, and rainfall
is considered normal if the monthly totals during a given wet-season fall
within 25 percent afthe average rainfall volume per month, as computed
using nearby long-term regional rainfall data. "
Chairman Hushon moved to approve the proposed re-wording of Section
3.05.07 H.l.h.ii.e.ii, paragraph 2 as presented. Second by Mr. Standridge.
Carried unanimously 3-0.
Stephen Lenberger noted the proposed Amendment has been submitted to
the Collier County Planning Commission for review and does not include the
above language. He and/or Kate Crosley will notify the Planning Commission
of the proposed language approved by the EAC.
VIII. Old Business
A. Update members on projects
Summer Araque reported "Town of Big Cypress" developers have submitted
their Development of Regional Impact application to the County. A review was
conducted by Staff with comments provided back to the developer.
IX. Sub-Committee Reports
None
X. Staff Comments
None
XI. Council Member Comments
None
XII. Public Comments
None
3
. ,,- .-.__.,-....----_...---,.__...-.._~-..~.- --.......,. -....,..-.-..... .,.
161 1
March 3, 2010
*****
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 9: t 8 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY
COUNCIL
t;i':#J hi f.t{5J.-,~..
rman, Dr. Judith Hushon
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on s/ s /, ()
as presented /" , or as amended
4
811
RECE\VED
APR 0 7 201\
Board ofcounti ~
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
v
f5
,/
1611
BJ. :
May 5, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, May 5,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental
Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon
VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman
Noah Standridge (Excused)
Michael V. Sorrell
Patrick Peck
David Bishof
ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist
Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager
Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist
Misc. Corres:
1
Date:
Item#:
Ccpies to:
I
1611 Ell
May 5,2010
I. Call to Order
Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:01AM.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Peck. Carried
unanimously 4-0.
Mr. Dickman arrived at 9:02am
IV. Approval of the October March 3, 2010 meeting minutes (note: there was no
April 7, 2010 meeting)
Mr. Peck moved approved the minutes of the March 3, 2010 meeting. Second
by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5-0.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
The June Regular Meeting of the EAC will be held at the Community Services and
Environmental Development Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive.
VI. Land Use Petitions
A. Bay House Replat -Final Plat PL2009-1449
A replat of all of Tract 1 of Cocohatchee River Trust P. u.n as recorded in
Plat book 18, Pages 97 and 98 of the public records, lying in Section 21,
Township 48 south, Range 25 East
The presenters were sworn in
Michael Poff of Coastal Planning and Engineering and Peter Tierney of the
Bayhouse Restaurant provided an overview ofthe project noting:
· The proposal is to subdivide 0.27 acres of designated Preserve ar~from
an existing tract of 8.66 acres.
. The Preserve Area will be reduced from 2.98 acres to 2.70 acres, but still
meet the requirements for Preserve Area under the Collier County Land
Development Code.
.--
Mr. Bishof noted the boundary survey for the tract indicates a portion of the
Preserve area is located within the Cocohatchee River and questioned if the
landowner has a "submerged land lease" from the State of Florida, Internal
Improvement Trust Fund?
If the land actually belongs to the State of Florida without the proper lease
documentation, the project may not meet the requirements necessary to reduce the
Preserve Area.
2
101 !
ti 11
May 5, 2010
Mr. Poff and Mr. Tierney noted the original PUD was developed by a previous
landowner and they have no knowledge of how the property line was determined.
Discussion occurred on how the previous application was approved, Staff noted it
was in 1991.
Susan Mason indicated current Staff was not involved in the 1991 application,
but a 1991 Department of Environmental Regulation (now FDEP) document
indicates the State approved the application with property line shown as it is today
on the map.
Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager indicated he received a real time
email from another Staff member which stated the map filed for the parcel
contains a title certification indicating the property lines are as shown on the map
provided by the applicant.
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney noted professional persons have
certified the property lines shown (land surveyor, Title Company) and at this
point, the property dimensions should be deemed as depicted on the survey map.
Mr. Dickman moved to approve the Petition (Bay House Replat -Final Plat
PL2009-1449). Second by Mr. Peck. Carried unanimously 5-0.
B. North Naples United Methodist Church Planned Unit Development
PUDZ - 2008 - AR -13375
Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East
The presenters were sworn in
Tim Hancock, Davidson Engineering provided an overview of the project
noting:
· The property is located on the east side of Goodlette Frank: Road, 1500
feet north of Pine Ridge Road.
· The property is approximately 13.0 acres in size and proposed for mixed
use development for religious and educational facilities, assisted living
facilities and independent living units for individuals 55 and older.
· There is 7.96 acres of native vegetation on site requiring 1.19 acres to be
preserved under the requirements of the Land Development Code.
· The 1.19 acre Preserve Area and stormwater retention lake are located on
the South side of the Property.
· The stormwater drainage control system will be constructed and operate
independently from adjacent properties.
· There were Gopher Tortoises residing on site, necessary permits were
obtained and the Tortoises were relocated to the City Gate parcel.
· The relocation effort was an educational opportunity for professionals
interested in the proper technique of relocating Gopher Tortoises.
3
. #W -, .. ....
1611
I
. .
8 11
May 5, 2010
. The landowner continues to monitor the site for presence of Gopher
Tortoises.
Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Petition (North Naples United Methodist
Church Planned Unit Development PUDZ - 2008 -AR -13375) Second by Mr.
Dickman. Carried unanimously 5-0.
VII. New Business
None
VIII. Old Business
A. LDC Amendments
1. LDC Section 5.05.02 Marinas
(Manatee Protection Plan shoreline LDC amendment)
LDC PAGE: LDC5:28 - 5:30
LDC SECTION: 5.05.02
Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist provided the proposed
LDC Amendment noting the Board of County Commissioners had reviewed the
proposed amendment and recommended language which is intended to
determine the maximum number of wetslips allowed under the Manatee
Protection Plan. The amendment has been returned to the EAC for review. The
Board of County Commissioners recommended the following language for
Section 5.05.02-G:
1. Shoreline within County required preserves or within State and Federal
conservation easements which do not allow wetslips within their
conservation easements shall not be used in calculating the maximum
allowable number of wet slips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan,
except that project which make 50 percent or more of their wetslips
available for public use may request additional boat slips as a Conditional
Use. Any existing or vested right with respect to wets lips shall be exempted
from this Ordinance. "
Mr. Bishof expressed concern the Ordinance as written may be a disincentive
for developers to place land in conservation easements (should they not be
allowed to use the shoreline for wets lip density calculations.) In addition,
property boundary descriptions may be configured in such a way to make the
Ordinance irrelevant (i.e. starting the Preserve property line in the area intended
for conveyance 0.01' off of the Mean High Water line).
Stephen Lenberger noted the Ordinance does not prohibit land to be conveyed
in this manner.
Speakers
Kathleen Robins, Vanderbilt Beach Residents Assoc. addressed the Council
noting they support the wording proposed for the amendment.
4
1611 ti 1~
May 5, 2010
Rich Yovanovich, Attorney, Signature Communities, expressed concern the
language proposed will be retroactive as past interpretations by the County did not
prohibit using these areas for wetslip calculations. He provided an example of
developments such as the Dunes which was originally approved in 1998, with a
development permit stipulation for amaximUIll number of wets lips to be
requested in the future. The landowner never intended to place lands in Preserves
that would not be allowed to be used for wets lip density calculations. The current
proposal is for a total of 49 boat slips to be located within the Development. In
his interpretation of the language contained in the Ordinance, the rights to develop
any boat slips within the Development will be prohibited. When designing and
permitting wetslips, density calculations are one issue, however, beyond those are
requirements for locating the docks in acceptable areas. The State of Florida and
Collier County have stringent environmental criteria for the placement of
wetslips. These requirements ensure proper placement of the wetslips and
generally allow less than the number allowed under "wet slip density
calculations." He requested:
. The language be stricken as proposed, or
· The language previously approved by the EAC to "if the conservation
easement prohibits boat docks, the shoreline may not be counted" (or
similar language) be utilized or
· Existing PUD's (in permitting process or already approved) be allowed to
finish the process they were approved under, and require new applicants
be subject to the language currently proposed.
Mr. Dickman expressed concern over the language "Any existing or vested right
with respect to wets lips shall be exempted from this Ordinance" as the definition
of the term "existing or vested rights" is unclear.
Rich Yovanovich, Attorney, Pelican Bay Foundation expressed concern the
language may authorize public docks in Natural Resource Protection Area's and
requested the Council consider adding language that prohibits this activity.
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida provided a copy of an email
from Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney to Nick Casalanguida dated March 09, 2010
which states "if there is no reservation of rights in the easement, there can be no
shoreline development, including boat slips ...If a property owner wishes to retain
such rights, they must do so by an express reservation in the easement deed" His
interpretation indicates it is current County Policy that existing lands within
conservation easements are required to expressly identify their intention to reserve
the right to use the shoreline to calculate boat slips densities. If they do not
contain this reservation, they have the option to return to the necessary parties and
amend the easement reservation to include boat slips. The Conservancy supports
the language as currently proposed as it is consistent with the interpretation of the
County Attorney. She expressed concern the language for allowing additional
boat slips if 50 percent are made available to the public will be difficult to
enforce. In addition, the term "vested rights" should be clarified to ensure
5
161 1
811
May 5, 2010
conservation easements language will be consistent with the language as proposed
in the Ordinance.
Lou Schmitt, Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association noted he utilizes the
waterway in question regarding the Dunes development. The area is pristine and
is environmentally sensitive and would like to see the area preserved. If the
proposed language is revised there will be 49 boat slips in this area which will
negatively impact the public. The proposed language allows for 28 boat slips in
this area and requests the language be approved as written.
Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall and Assoc. noted the State of Florida has 3 types of
conservation easements: Standard, - limiting any type of development or use;
Passive - allowing boardwalks, etc.; Proprietary - to allow uses such as wetslips.
They regulate the construction of the wetslips and they are not allowed in "State
Conservation Areas." He recommended the language state "ShorelimPwithinll. _
County required preservtwhich dc/IA.ot allow wetslips... "as opposed to W
"Shoreline within County reqUirewreserves or within State and Federal
conservation easements which doAnot allow wetslips..." In addition, he agrees
with Mr. Yovanovich the Ordinance should not be "retroactive."
Mick Anderson, Marine Industries Assoc. agreed with Mr. Yovanovich's
comments.
Josh Maxwell, Turrell Hall and Assoc. expressed concern the riparian rights of
upland properties will be negatively affected by the shoreline restrictions as most
docks are not built on private properties but over State owned waters.
Break: 10:38 am
Reconvened: 10:55am
Mr. Bishof asked if Staff or any individuals had examples of County proj ects
where shorelines within conservation easements have been allowed (or not
allowed) to calculate wetslip densities.
Stephen Lenberger stated Staff could not find any examples either way.
Tim Hall, Turrell, Hall and Assoc. stated Fisherman's Village on Halderman
Creek was allowed to utilize their shoreline located within the Conservation
Easement in calculating wets lip densities. Regatta Development also was allowed
to utilize the shoreline in the Conservation Easement as well.
Mr. Dickman raised the following issues for consideration:
. Possible concern that Developers may be reluctant to place lands in
Conservation Easements as the incentive for the practice may be hindered
by the proposed language.
. Projects previously approved or in the approval process may retroactively
lose their rights to use the shoreline for wetslip density calculations.
6
16' 1 81
May 5,2010
. The language in Section 5.05.02 - G which states.. ."except that project
which make 50 percent or more of their wetslips available for public use
may request additional boat slips as a Conditional Use" may hinder the
incentive of providing public wet slip in certain cases." The number of
public wetslips to be provided could be negotiated at the time of the
Conditional Use permit with public input at the time of the hearings.
He noted the last sentence in Section 5.05.02 - G should be reworded to clarify
the definition of "vested rights."
Rich Y ovanovich stated "vested rights" is unclear for projects currently under
review or already approved. He recommended projects "in the pipeline" that have
not applied for the wetslip permits be extended a period of time to file and/or
obtain the necessary approvals for construction.
Nicole Ryan noted the email provided by Jeff Klatzkow currently interprets the
lands in Conservation Easements not to be counted in the wetslip calculations.
She recommends the language in the Ordinance be consistent with this
interpretation.
Discussion occurred on the ramifications on the various positions outlined herein.
The Council noted the document was returned to them for review and they should
provide direction the Board of County Commissioners on the proposed
amendment.
Mr. Bishof moved to recommend the proposed amendment not be adopted in its
currentformat. Second by Mr. Peck. Motionfailed 2 'yes" - 3 "no."
Chairman Hushon, Mr. Dickman and Mr. Sorrell voted "no."
Mr. Dickman moved to recommend the language in, Section 5.05.02 - G., line
2-3 be amendedfrom "...except that projects which make 50 percent or more of
their wetslips available for public use..." to "...except that projects which make
wet slips availablefor public use..." Second by Mr. SorrelL
Mr. Dickman amended the motion to recommend the language in Section
5.05.02 - G., line 2-3 be amendedfrom "...except that projects which make 50
percent or more of their wetslips available for public use..." to ".. . except that
projects which make some wetslips available for public use..." Second by Mr.
Sorrell. Motion carried 4 'yes" -] "no." Mr. Bishofvoted "no."
Mr. Dickman moved to recommend the language in Section 5.05.02 - G, lines
8-9 be amended from "Any existing or vested right with respect to wetslips shall
be exempted from this Ordinance. "to "Any existing or vested right with respect
to wetslips or all completed applications already under County review or
approved PUD 's that have not yet obtained approval of their wetslips shall be
exempted for a period of four years from this Ordinance." Second by Mr.
Sorrell.
7
16' 1
e11
May 5, 2010
Discussion occurred on the ramifications of the proposed wording including
individuals may be exempted from the entire Ordinance and Manatee Protection
Plan.
Mr. Dickman amended the motion to recommend the language in Section
5.05.02 - G, line 9-10 be amendedfrom '~ny existing or vested right with
respect to wetslips shall be exempted from this Ordinance. " to '~ny existing or
vested right with respect to wetslips shall be exemptedfrom this Subsection." In
addition, the term "existing or vested right" be defined by the County Attorney's
Office. Second by Chairman Hushon. Motion carried 3 'yes" -1 "no" and 1
abstention. Mr. Bishof abstained and Mr. Peck voted "no. "
Chairman Hushon moved to recommend thefollowing language be added to
Section 5.05.G, line 8 after "Conditional Use." "This Ordinance is not intended
to allow publicly owned wetslips in Natural Resource Protection Areas. "
Second by Mr. Dickman. Motion carried 4 'yes" -1 "no." Mr. Sorrell voted
"no. "
B. Code of Laws and Ordinances
1. Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23
(EAC Powers and Duties: Proposed changes to scope of land development
project reviews)
Chairman Hushon moved to incorporate the species Burrowing Owl, Florida
Panther and Florida Black Bear into Section 3. Powers and Duties, M-6 of the
document. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 5-0.
Chairman Hushon requested the Environmental Advisory Council be provided
the opportunity to review and comment on any proposed Environmental
Protection Agency, Estuarine and Saltwater Water Quality Standards (or similar
standards) if they are made available to the County for formal comment.
Susan Mason noted she will check on the County procedure for reviewing such
standards.
Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the document "Proposed changes to Article VIII
(Boards, Commissions, Committees and Authorities), Chapter 2
(Administration), Code of Laws and Ordinances" subject to the addition of the
species as referenced in the above motion. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried
unanimously 5-0.
IX. Subcommittee Reports
None
X. Council Member Comments
None
8
1611811
May 5, 2010
XI. Staff Comments
A. Update members on projects
Susan Mason reported the Growth Management Plan Amendment for the
proposed ATV Park at the Miami Dade Jet Port site on US 41 will be returned to
the Council for review.
B. December EAC Meeting - December 6 in Boardroom or December 1 at
CDES?
XII. Public Comments
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:27 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on
as presented , or as amended ../
1.2.//0
9
RECE\VED
APR 0 7 20\1
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
../
y"'/
-7 ~>
v
septelr4.l J
Board of county eomrnilllOnera
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, September 1, 2010
LET IT BE REMEl\1BERED, that the Collier County Environmental
Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a 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
Michael Sorrell
David Bishof
ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Summer Araque, St. Environmentalist Specialist
Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist
Misc. Corres:
Date:
811
Item#:
1
C:pies to:
1611
B 11
September 1,2010
I. 'Call to Order
Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Sorrel moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Mr. Dickman.
Carried unanimously 4-0.
IV. Approval of the August 4, 2010 meeting minutes
Page 5 - Dave Tomasko overview - rt bullet should read Coliform as one word
Page 7 - 2nd paragraph changedfrom Anyd to Anv
Mr. Sorrel moved to approve the minutes of the August 4,2010 meeting as
amended. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 4-0.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
Dr. Hushon will not be present at the October 6th meeting.
VI. Land Use Petitions
None.
VII. New Business
A. Watershed Management Plan Performance Measures and Alternative Evaluation
Mac Hatcher gave a slide presentation on Watershed Management Plan - Development
of the proposed Performance Measures. (See attached)
The Performance Measures to be used to assess the potential benefits and impact
resulting from implementation of a specific program or project are:
· Freshwater discharge from Estuaries will be the quantity of water moving
through the system.
· Pollutant Load will be anthropogenic loads.
· Flood Risk is the impact to urban area properties.
· Aquifer Recharge/yield will be ground water levels.
· Natural Systems evaluate habitant.
It was noted the D-Firm map (proposed by FEMA) and the Mike SHE estimate does not
exactly match. The Mike SHE estimate of canal capacity, habitant and ground level
values are more accurate and easier to extract from the model then would be available
from the D-Firm data. The Mike SHE model does not consider coastal surge.
Dr. Hushon expressed concern and stated the Advisory Council will need Staff
guidance and recommendations on:
. Lows and water recharge
· Wetland mitigation that occur in same water or flow body
· Identify properties or areas where mitigation within each drainage area, where
mitigation should be targeted to do optimal good; i.e. water storage that could
benefit by keeping other areas from flooding.
2
16' 1
Bl1
September 1,2010
Discussion was made on the water quality problems, on land development and water
mitigation issues.
Mac Hatcher addressed many questions on scoring measures and concerns from the
Environmental Advisory Council. (EAC)
Mr. Dickman asked Mac Hatcher if he had an opportunity to review the I 0 page letter
from Jennifer Hecker, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida dated August 23,2010
regarding concerns on the Watershed Management Plan.
Mac Hatcher stated his intentions are to review the letter with the Consultants, respond
and post the response letter on the web page. He stated Ms. Hecker has always been
actively involved in water quality issues and currently is a Technical Advisor for the
State's storm Water Rule, actively involved in the America Neutural Criteria
Development. He has an open dialogue with her and he values her input and comments
but does not always agree.
Mr. Dickman expressed concern due to a comment made in the letter from Jennifer
Hecker - "there is no scientific nor legal basis for the County to dispute state and federal
water quality regulations in the development of these plans. "
Mac Hatcher responded Florida is subject to the Clean Water Act. The EPA has taken a
backseat to the DEP in water quality standard issues. The EP A has been pushing for
several years for a specific limit on nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. This is a
current issue that will not be resolved prior to finishing up the WMP. He stated the issues
are being actively debated. The DEP has a narrative standard that basically states you can
not degrade water quality.
Dr. Hnshon expressed reservations about the timeline proposed to meet deadline to
complete the WMP. She asked the Staff to consider extending deadline a month or two
without adverse consequences.
It was noted the Staff and the Planning Commission share her concern.
Dr. Hnshon recommended the Staff hold public meetings when "Draft" Watershed
Management Plans are completed on each basin for public feedback.
Mac Hatcher stated the local public meetings are planned.
Sueakers
Jennifer Hecker, Director of Natural Resource Policy - The Conservancy of Southwest
Florida gave a slide presentation on the following items in regard to the Collier County
Watershed Management Plan Development: (See attached)
Improper assessment of water bodies believed to be impaired due to natural
conditions
Improper assessment of dissolved oxygen impairments
Inappropriate contesting of salinity characterization
Need for separate but compatible Basin Management Action Plans (BMAP) and
Watershed Management Plans (WMP)
Agricultural lands should not be assigned a zero in resource value evaluations
She urged the Watershed Management Plans be designed to adhere and comply with existing
state and federal water quality policies and laws, as well as reflect the hydrologic and habitat
values provided by agricultural lands in order to ensure that the most accurate and effective
plans are produced. She asked the Advisory Council to work with Staff to redirect the
Consultants in order for the plans to serve the purposes they were intended.
3
1611
811
September 1, 2010
Nicole Ryan, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida commented on a statement
Mac Hatcher made. After fundamental technical basics are complete on the WMP, it
will be a planning and growth management tool. She stated a component to allow
plan to be proactive instead of reacting to each individual development on a case by
case basis and identifying areas that are designated, labeled, placed on map as
potential preserves or conservation areas. She thought she heard Mac state there
would not be individual parcels selected or called out as potential mitigation preserve
areas.
She stated the Coastal Management Element Policy 6.2.4 states in the urban areas the
Water Management District and DEP will be jurisdictional agencies that determine if
wetlands criteria and mitigation are met accept for the WMP preserve areas.
Discussion was made on who directed the Consultants to dispute the DEP and States
process and it was noted the Consultant contract was approved by the Board of
County Commissioners. Staff stated direction is given within the Scope of Work,
where they are directed to do a thorough evaluation which commonly could cause a
dispute with the DEP and States process.
The EAC expressed concern on the Deviation Process with additional time involved
and it was determined that no recommendation was given by the Board of County
Commission to go through the Deviation Process.
Break: 10:28 am
Reconvened: 10:38 am
VIII. Old Business
A. Update members on projects
Dr. Hushon distributed EAC Comments on Watershed Management Plans to the
Advisory Council for their review and signature for presentation to the Board of
County Commissioners. (See attached)
She recommended the EAC monitor and revise the WMP at regular intervals with
historical data. She suggested every five years.
Discussion was ensued on the recommended EAC Comments WMP. The EAC
asked if signing the recommendation would be binding. County Attorney stated it
is equal to making a motion.
Dr. Hushon requested a revision in the last paragraph, first sentence on page one
to read "Since Collier County's waterbodies have not met State Standards and are
not pursuing such deviations presently, these WMPs shouldfocus on
compliance. "
Dr. Hushon moved to correct and sign the recommendation (EAC Comments
on Watershed Management Plans) and put into record. Second by Mr.
Dickman.
4
161 1
I
811
September 1, 2010
Mr. Bishop suggested changing the third paragraph, second sentence on page one
to read "Existing water quality regulations take in to account any natural sources
of "pollutants" in the setting of the appropriate TMDL pollutant reduction target
once a water body has been found impaired.
Discussion ensued on water quality and State regulations and The Conservancy
of Southwest Florida concerns.
Dr. Hushon expressed concern on the proposed agriculture land performance
measure. She stated it is not a "10" but it is not a "0." She suggested Staff
readdress the values.
Mr. Dickman opposed signing the WMP recommendation.
It was suggested to submit recommendations in a memo form and hand deliver to
the Board of County Commissioners prior to their next meeting.
Dr. Hushon amended her motion to put recommendations in a memo form as
discussed and to request Staff hand deliver to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
IX. Subcommittee Reports
None.
X. Council Member Comments
None.
XI. Staff Comments
A. Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Workshop August 11,2010
None.
XII. Public Comments
None.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order ofthe Chair at 11 :30 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
5
..,
16f1811
September 1, 2010
,A-e..f'\~'fhairman, Dr. laditk HU:SB9R
A~oJ r -'l.. -...r
j) ....c.Ic......... a.....-:.
These Minutes were approved by the Council/Chairman on
as presented , or as amended ~.
'% //0
6
RECE\VED
APR 0 7 20\1
soard of coun~co~,
161 1
~
-(}
,
~
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
October 6, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, October 6, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental
Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION at the
Administrative Building "F" 3rd floor Collier County Government Complex,
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon (Excused)
VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman
Michael V. Sorrell
David Bishof
ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Spe<M~~~:
1
Date:
Item':
Copies to:
B~1
1611
October 6, 2010
811
I. Call to Order
Mr. Dickman called the meeting to order at 9:02AM.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Rishofmoved to approve the Agenda subject to thefollowing additions:
. Item Vlll.B - EAC Vacancy Update
. Item VIILC - EAC Ordinance Update
Second by Mr. SorrelL Carried unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval of the September 1,2010 meeting minutes
Mr. Bishofmoved to approve the minutes of the September 1,2010 meeting subject
to the following change:
. Page 5, paragraph 1, line 1 - from "Mr. Bishop..." to "Mr. Rishof...:"
Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 3-0.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
Mr. Sorrell will be absent for the December meeting.
VI. Land Use Petitions
None
VII. New Business
A. Watershed Management Plan Update
http://www.colliereov.net/Index.aspx ?paee=2297
Mac Hatcher, Stormwater and Environmental Planning presented a
Slideshow on the status of the Plan. Its purpose is to develop a comprehensive
watershed management plan to assist in protecting the County's estuaries and
wetlands by restoring historic discharges and improving the water quality of the
watersheds and wetlands. The focuses for today's presentation are Potential
Projects and Regulation and Policy Issues.
Potential Proiects
Peter deGolian, PBS&J provided an overview of the methodology for
identifying the proposed/potential projects which included:
· Review projects previously identified or proposed.
. Better define the projects previously identified or proposed.
. Identify new projects.
He outlined the proposed projects for the Cocahatchee/Corkscrew, Golden
Gate/Nap1es Bay, Rookery Bay, and Fakahatchee Strand IFakahatchee Union/OK
(Okaloacoochee) Slough Watersheds.
2
1611811
October 6, 2010
Ree:ulatorv and Policy Issues
Moris Cabezas, PBS&J noted the objective is to allow a sustainable water
management program promoting the minimization of pollutant loads into area
water bodies. One of the major concepts will be utilization of Low Impact
Development (LID) standards which promotes the management of stormwater on
site by maintaining or restoring the sites natural hydrology. This occurs by
minimizing the area of connected impervious surfaces, maximizing the sites
assimilative capacity and minimizing the sites area of disturbance. To achieve
this concept, developers of new projects would need to be provided regulatory
"incentives" or "credits" in the design their projects. This would require revisions
to the Land Development and/or Zoning Regulations.
Another avenue for consideration is improving the Stormwater quality of existing
developments by retrofitting their storm water disposal systems. This may require
establishment of a "stormwater utility ordinance" which would provide fees based
on the amount of discharges and provide incentives for improving/retrofitting
onsite storm water systems and improving water quality and reduce off-site
discharges.
Other examples for implementation of LID concept is narrowing road widths
required of low traffic streets from a 20 foot width to a 16 foot width, promoting
cluster development by allowing minimal single family lot densities, etc.
Mr. Bishof expressed concern over Homeowners Associations or other groups in
control of the existing stormwater systems have a tendency to alter the systems by
filling in areas, dismantling certain components, etc. as they see them as a
"nuisance or visually undesirable." This causes road flooding and/or inadequate
treatment of stormwater before its off-site discharge. He questioned if the Plan
addresses the problem?
Mac Hatcher noted there are discussions for the County to develop an inspection
program to address the issue; however it has not been implemented at this time.
Mr. Sorrell expressed concern over possible cross contamination issues with
potable drinking water and ASR water (Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells) for
storing storm water. The concept was outlined in the meeting and an example was
given on how the City of Naples is utilizing the process by storing water from the
Golden Gate Canal to reduce demands on irrigation water requirements.
Mac Hatcher noted these waters are treated before they are pumped into the
ground and monitored before they are re-used.
Mr. Dickman noted at the previous meeting, the Council had submitted
comments to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the proposed Plan.
He requested an update on the concept of the County requesting a deviation from
certain State Water Quality standards in the Total Daily Maximum Load Program.
Moris Cabezas stated the concept is still under consideration, and being
presented as an "option" available to the County.
3
1611
B 11
October 6, 2010
Mr. Dickman noted some of these waters have already been declared impaired
by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and questioned if the
County's resources for improving water quality would be better utilized in other
areas (implementing the action plans identified, etc.).
In addition he noted:
. He received an email from the Golden Gate Area Civic Association and
requested Staff forward it to the consultants and Staff members.
. Requested Staff forward him a copy of all PowerPoint presentations
presented to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC).
. Will the projects outlined be categorized by priority?
. Emphasis should be given to developing public education program to assist
citizens in understanding the importance and solutions to the issue of
stormwater management, etc.
. Consideration should be given to not only developing Low Impact
Development standards for new development but improving the
infrastructure and treatment for existing developments (i.e. the Florida
Power and Light incentives programs).
. Are there any outside sources (Grants, etc.) for funding various aspects of
the proposed plan.
. What are the next steps for the EAC?
Moris Cabezas and Mac Hatcher noted:
. A key component of the Plan will be recommendations for public
education.
. The projects will be prioritized based on a matrix concept.
. Alternate funding sources are highly competitive and generally require
demonstration of a "shovel ready project."
. There will be a status update for the EAC in November with a final
presentation and recommendation requested at the December EAC
meeting. It is anticipated the Plan and associated recommendations will be
forwarded to the BCC for review in December.
Mr. Bishof noted there is no inexpensive solution to the hydrology issues
identified, however postponement of addressing the issues will create a much
greater expense to those involved. If the issues are not addressed, they will have a
potential negative impact on the areas economy (tourism, beach visitation,
property values, etc.).
Mac Hatcher noted the PowerPoint and other related documentation associated
with the plan are available on line at:
http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=23 02
He will attempt to provide additional links to the documentation on the Collier
County Government website.
Speakers
4
l~12t B 11
Michael Ramsey, Golden Gate Area Civic Association expressed concern there
is a lack of coordination of the different parties involved in addressing stormwater
concerns (Floodplain Management Advisory Committee, those involved with the
FEMA floodplain issues, mitigation issues associated with the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection and Southwest Florida Water Management District,
Transportation Department, etc.). He recommended a Department be formed to
address all these issues (i.e. a Surface Water Management System Department).
The Department could coordinate all issues and develop a full scale Master Plan
to prevent a "piecemeal approach" to the solution.
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida the Conservancy is supportive
on the development of watershed management plans and appreciates Staff's
attempts to address the concerns outlined by the Conservancy. She outlined 3
concerns: First, the consultants are producing work products that are not
adequately shared with the public or posted online preventing all Stakeholders
from providing comments. Second, the policy issues and goals are being driven
by the Consultants, when they should be driven by Staff, the public and the
Stakeholders. Thirdly, the Regulatory measures proposed need more analysis and
to be vetted through a public process.
Mac Hatcher noted Staff is open to comments anytime throughout the process
and attempts to provide material as timely as possible given the constraints of the
deadlines required by the Department of Community Affairs. There is no
recommendation requested from the EAC today, (the presentation is an update).
There continues to be public meetings, with one tonight at the Growth
Management Division Building.
Mr. Dickman noted this is the initial Watershed Management Plan proposed by
the County (other than the 1989 Stormwater Master Plan). The Plan may be
reviewed and amended as necessary over time. It would be beneficial to
implement the Plan as soon as feasible to begin addressing the solutions to the
problems identified in the Plan.
VIII. Old Business
A. Update members on projects
None
B. EAC Vacancy Update
Mr. Dickman recommended Staff send the press release regarding the vacancy
on the EAC to the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and the Collier County
Bar Association.
C. EAC Ordinance Update
Mr. Dickman reported the new EAC Ordinance has been adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners. A copy has been provided to Council members.
5
1611
October 6, 2010
IX. Council Member Comments
None
X. Staff Comments
A. Discuss November agenda - Full agenda: Carryover date may be needed.
Summer Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist noted the November meeting
will contain 3 major items on the Agenda (the Immokalee Area Master Plan, an
update on the Watershed Management Plan and the proposed Evaluation and
Appraisal Report Amendments). Staffwill provide the applicable documents as
far in advance as possible.
B. December 1,2010 meeting at Growth Management Division
Summer Araque reminded members of the location change for the December
meeting.
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 :20 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
,
l
/l
'\ j C //c-'"
i
,0-'''<\
j /
/1/ .~
J/,l~,~...,_//"// (,..~....w...-..../ \,
.",==~- ' ",-"
.-
if",}
>",W
Vice Cliairman, Andrew Dickman
These Minutes w)fe approved by the Boar1fCMryran on
as presented ')( , or as amended,(/i" %
,/
6
B
11
RECEIVED
APR 0 7 2011
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
v
~
I~/
/
./
161 1
8 lv1
November 3, 2010
Board of County ~
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, November 3, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
Herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at
Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government
Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon
VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman
Michael V. Sorrell
David Bishof
(Vacancy)
ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist
David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner
Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist
Michael Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Michelle Mosca, Principal Planner
Mac Hatcher, Stormwater and Environmental Planning
Misc. Corres:
1
Date:
Item':
Ccpies to:
1~J3,tlO B 11
I. Call to Order
Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:02AM.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Bishof moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following additions:
. Item IV to be heard after item VIlLA
. Item X.l - Gulf of Mexico Oil Drilling Discussion
. Item X.2 - Wildlife Warning Systems Discussion
Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval ofthe October 6, 2010 meeting minutes
(Item heard after Item VIII.A)
Mr. Bishofmoved to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2010 meeting. Second
by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 3-0.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
Summer Araque, Sr., Environmental Specialist, reported Mr. Sorrell will not be
present for the December meeting.
VI. Land Use Petitions - None
VII. New Business
None
Mr. Sorrell arrived at 9:09am
VIII. Old Business
A. Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Adoption
Michael Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager, provided an overview of the
process noting the EAR Report contains recommended Policy changes to the
GMP (Growth Management Plan). Based on Florida Statutes the County is
required to evaluate the Plan every 7 years to determine the effectiveness of its
goals. The purpose of the meeting is to review the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element, Drainage Element, Natural Groundwater and Recharge
Element and Future Land Use Element of the Report. There have been
Workshops on the EAR with input from the Collier Planning Commission and the
Environmental Advisory Council. The Report was submitted to the Department
of Community Affairs for comment. After adoption of the Report, the County has
18 months to adopt formal amendments to any policies necessary to implement
the revised Plan. The EAC will review the amendments when they are proposed
for adoption.
2
161 1 6
November 3,2010
11
Michelle Mosca, Principal Planner presented the proposed Policy changes and
requested the EAC adopt the proposed EAR and recommend it be forwarded to
the Department of Community Affairs. Final adoption of the Report will be
required by the Board of County Commissioners.
The Council recommended the following changes in the proposed EAR:
Conservation and Coastal Mana2ement Element:
Obiective 2.1. Policy 2.1.3 - Add Measurement tools to the Policy for the
improvements to watersheds over time.
Obiective 2.1, Policy 2.1.6 - Utilize Watershed Management Plans to recommend
ongoing data collection guidance.
Objective - 2.2 and 2.3 -Both the CCPC and EAC recommendations on these
sections be forwarded to the Bec for consideration.
Objective 6. Policy 6.3.3 - discussion occurred on the current language, "The
protection of Sea Grass beds shall be factor in establishing new, or revising
existing speed zones to regulate boat traffic" and whether it should be amended to
reference the protection of Manatees.
Sueaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida stated they are in favor of
retaining the language as written.
The Council recommended for the language to remain "as is."
Objective 7, Policy 7.1.6 - continue the policy for protection oflisted species, but
strike language on "within 1 year regulations should be adoptee!' (the regulations
have already been adopted).
Objective 10.1 - provide a definition of "Marine Wetlands" and/or "Salt and
Brackish Waters."
Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist stated the Comprehensive
Plan defines Marine Wetlands as "Areas with a water regime determined
primarily by tide and where the dominate vegetation is salt tolerant plant
species. "
Speaker
Marcia Cravens. Master Naturalist. cited a definition from the Coastal Zone
Management Plan: "Marine areas with a water regime determined primarily by
tide and the primary vegetation is salt tolerant plant species including those
species listed in subsection 17.4.002(17 Florida Administrative Code (F AC))-
Rule 9J-5.003 (48 FA C). "
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner presented the following Sections of the
Report.
3
1611
11
November 3, 2010
Drainae:e Sub Element
The EAC recommended the following revisions to the Report:
Obiective 2. Policy 2.1 - Providing the parameters, applicable cross references
and/or definition of the "Levels of Service C and D" cited in the Policy.
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Rechare:e Sub Element
Obiective 1. Policy 1.5 - Revise the previous EAC comment to read "Question
whether the County Department involved with preparing and utilizing this
publication should be identified by this Policy. "
Obiective 5 - revise the term "critical recharge areas" to "recharge areas" as
necessary .
Mr. Dickman noted comments provided by the Department of Community
Affairs dated October 15, 2010 request the Phase I and Phase II RLSA overlay
Assessments be incorporated into the EAR and to include a complete sufficient
assessment of the effectiveness of the RLSA Overlay and to demonstrate that the
recommended revisions to the policies are based on the assessment.
Mike Bosi noted the BCC accepted the RLSA Assessment and the issue is who
will fund (the private sector or the County) any proposed Amendment Cycle and
related data analysis. The Phase I and Phase II assessments will be incorporated
into the EAR, however the data analysis is not intended to be included as it has
not yet been developed. In addition, Staff is awaiting completion of a proposed
Habitat Conservation Plan for the area.
Mr. Dickman expressed dismay the County will not fully address the
Departments comments in this area.
Dr. Hushon moved to transmit the Report to the Board of County
Commissioners with recommendations provided herein. Second by Mr. Bishof.
Carried unanimously 4-0.
Break: 10:24am
Reconvened: 10:41am
B. Watershed Management Plan update
Mac Hatcher presented a memorandum to the Environmental Advisory Council
dated October 18, 2010 - Subject "Staff Summary -November 3, Watershed
Management Plan Workshop." He noted the timeline for the adoption of the
proposed Plan has been altered to provide for additional public input and
Stakeholder meetings. It is anticipated the Plan will be adopted in March or April
of2011.
4
1611
11
November 3, 2010
Mr. Dickman noted he is in receipt of an email from the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida indicating Staffhas agreed to a 6 month extension for the
adoption of the Plan.
Mr. Hatcher noted Staff has not agreed to any extensions at this point in time and
no additional studies are proposed. The next EAC review will be in March
following the Stakeholder meetings. Staff will attempt to provide the document at
least 3 weeks in advance. As the process continues, Staff will notify members of
changes to the Water Quality Documents.
Speakers
Marcia Cravens, Master Naturalist stated the proposed Plan is fundamentally
flawed as the firm contracted to assist in preparing the Plan (PBS&J) has a
conflict of interest (recommending projects where they are awarded exclusive
contracts to perform the work) and failed to review and/or incorporate existing
reports and data into the Plan. There has been no Stakeholder or public input and
no Outreach to the neighborhood communities affected by the Plan. She urged
the EAC recommend a 6 month extension for adoption of the Plan to allow for
public education and input.
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted the Conservancy
supports a 4-6 month extension and requested the EAC direct a letter to the BCC
in support of the extension. The letter should recommend the Plan require the
County to comply with existing State Water Quality Standards. Also, consider
how the Council will address the issue should the extension not be approved by
the BCC and a recommendation be sought at the December EAC meeting.
Mr. Sorrell moved to send a letter endorsing Staff's request for an extension
(until March or April of 2011) to the adoption of the Watershed Management
Plan. Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 4-0.
C. Update members on project
None
IX. Subcommittee Reports
None
X. Council Member Comments
1. Gulf of Mexico Oil Drilling Discussion
Mr. Dickman expressed concern over the possibility of Off Shore Oil Drilling in
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico which could have a negative environmental and
economic impact on the area. He sought direction from the Council if they would
support a recommendation to continue the State of Florida's ban on off shore
drilling. No decision was reached on developing an official memo.
2. Wildlife Warning Systems Discussion
5
161 1
B 11
November 3, 2010
Dr. Hushon reported the Defenders of Wildlife are testing motion sensor and
thermal sensor devices to warn motorists on possible wildlife in the vicinity of a
roadway. She will contact them for more information.
XI. Staff Comments
A. December 1,2010 meeting at Growth Management Division
Summer Araque reported the Council needs to elect a Chairman and Vice
Chairman.
Mr. Sorrell moved to nominate Dr. Judith Hushon as Chairman of the
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) and Andrew Dickman as Vice
Chairman of the EAC. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 4-0.
XII. 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 :45 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
These Minutes we;e/approved by the Board/Chairman on l:;j I /10
as presented r/ , or as amended. I
6
RECE\VED
APR 0 7 2011
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
v
,/"
-r t/~.
./
16' 1
B ~1
December I, 2010
Board of County CommisSioners
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, December 1, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental
Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at
the Growth Management Division Building, Room 609/610 2800 N.
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon
VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman
Michael Sorrell (Excused)
David Bishof
(Vacancy)
ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney
Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist
~a . d Weeks, Comprehensive Planning
/~r Schmidt, Principal Planner t'l.,
( Ray mith, Pollution Control Department
"--..Ma atcher, Stormwater and Environmental Planning
Misc. Corres:
Date:
1
Item':
C::';:lies to:
16' 1
811
December 1, 2010
I. Call to Order
Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:00AM.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Dickman moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried
unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval ofthe November 3,2010 meeting minutes
Mr. Dickman moved to approve the minutes of the November 3,2010 meeting. Second by
Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 3-0.
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
Chairman Hushon noted she will not be present for the February 2011
Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) meeting.
VI. Land Use Petitions
None
VII. New Business
A. Growth Management Plan Amendment CP 2006-11 Hacienda Lakes - Corby
Schmitt
Robert Mulhere of Mulhere and Assoc. presented the document "Hacienda
Lakes aka Toll-Rattlesnake PUD, CP-2006-11, EAC Hearing, Attachment A,
CMP Language and Map" for transmittal approval. He noted:
. The Petitioner is Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC, represented by David
Torres.
. The Petition is for Amendments to the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use
Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan for a specific parcel
controlled by Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC.
. The project is subject to a Development of Regional Impact and Planned
Unit Development Review.
· The purpose of the item is to seek a recommendation for the Board of
County Commissioners to "transmit" the proposed Amendments to the
Department of Community Affairs for comment.
· The EAC review is subject to those Amendments proposed with
"environmental implications."
· The parcel is 2,262 acres in size located east of Collier Boulevard with
frontage on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Road Extension.
2
16 J 1
B11
December 1, 2010
. The property lies within the Rural Fringe Mixed District (RFMUD)
Sending Lands which encompass regulations assisting in protecting
environmentally sensitive lands within certain portions of the County.
. A component of the RFMUD Sending Lands is a Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR's) Program developed for compensating landowners for
surrendering their development rights of Sending Lands within the district.
. Landowners transfer these development rights to areas slated for more
intensive development.
. The area in this project slated for more intensive development is the Urban
Residential Fringe (URF) District.
. The URF allows for a base density of 1.5 units/acre to a maximum
allowable Density of 2.5 units/acre through the use of "incentives (early
entry, restoration credits, etc.)
Requests with Environmental Implications: (See Attachment A for exact
wording)
1. Future Land Use Element - 1.A.2. and 1.A.2.a - (Urban Residential
Fringe District) and 1.B.2.f(c) - (Transfer of Development Rights)-
Allow Sending Lands located within 1 mile of the Urban Boundary to be
designated at a maximum density transfer rate from 1.0 unit per gross acre to
1.30 units per gross acre for the Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI. This change
would increase the current maximum density allowed in the URF from 2.5
units/acres unit to 2.8 units/acre. This would provide an additional 187
dwelling units of density in the URF for the proposed project.
2. 1.B.5.2.(f) - Native Vegetation shall be preserved as follows:
A reduction in the required native vegetation preservation in the URF in
exchange for an increase the native preservation required in the land within
the RFMUD Sending Lands.
Mr. Mulhere noted:
· The "TDR's" are intended to be removed all the way to the "designation
layer."
· There have been discussions with the State of Florida on the applicant
conveying the lands slated for preservation to them.
· The applicant's representatives have met with Stakeholders (Conservancy
of Southwest Florida, Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County
Audubon Society) who are in favor of the proposed Amendments.
Discussion occurred on two points contained in the "Environmental Advisory
Council Staff Report, Meeting of December 1, 2010" - page 11, Section VI.
"Recommendations":
1. "The acres associated with providing lift to the URF receiving capacity
should however be required to (1) meet the same preservation standards as
lands qualifYingfor the TDR program - as a provision to be added to the
GMPA or as a condition applied to the PUD."
3
1611811
December 1, 2010
The applicant contends this language is unnecessary as it is already a requirement
of the Growth Management Plan.
2. "The acres associated with providing lift to the URF receiving capacity
should however, be required to (2) surrender further participation in the TDR
program insofar as severing credits from said acres - as a provision to be
added to the GMP or as an condition to be applied to the PUD. "
Applicant conversations with Staff indicate the acreage associated in providing
the TDR's for the additional 187 units should not be available for use in another
area.
Rich Y ovanovich, Attorney for Hacienda Lakes addressed the Council noting
the applicant objects to the requirement as it is an "additional payment" to utilize
the TDR's created for the additional 187 units.
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner noted when the TDR program was
developed, it was intended with a specific overall density in the proposed areas
slated for development. Therefore, staff recommends the acreage used for
creating the additional 187 TDR's not be available for use in another area. In
addition, the applicant is requesting a reduction of native vegetation preservation
in the URF. The proposal will allow the applicant to transfer development rights
into an area which they cannot currently provide the density for under the native
preservation requirements.
Rich Y ovanovich noted the applicant can provide the densities proposed under
the native preservation requirements in the URF by increasing the "intensity" of
the developed area (if necessary).
Speaker
Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida acknowledged cooperation
with the applicant on the proposed development and related GMP amendments
for the project. The applicant has addressed the organizations concerns including
incorporating language specific to this site. They support the proposed
Amendments.
Mr. Bishof requested clarification on the increased acreage slated for
preservation under the proposal.
Mr. Mulhere noted the preservation required currently is 992 acres, the proposal
is for 1484 acres of preservation lands. The intent is to convey the preservation
lands to the State of Florida, if possible.
Mr. Dickman noted the Applicant is basing today's request on certain
density/preservation area calculations which have not been provided to the EAC.
Mr. Yovanovich stated at a future date, the proposed DRI/PUD and adoption of
the GMP Amendment will be subject to review by the EAC. At that point, the
formal calculations will be available for review. The request of the EAC today is
to recommend transmittal of the proposed amendments to the DCA for comment.
4
1611 b 11
December 1, 2010
Mr. Dickman expressed concern on the format of the proposed amendment
language. It is site specific and may set a precedent for future landowners with a
similar set of circumstances to request the same consideration be given to their
project or parcel of land. He recommended removing the reference to a specific
property (Hacienda Lakes) and provide language allowing density increases, etc.
in cases where the "increases are warranted under the certain conditions."
Chairman Hushon moved to recommended transmittal of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment language (see Attachment "A'~ for CP-2006-
1 (without the Staff recommended language changes). Second by Mr. Dickman.
Mr. Dickman noted he is in favor of the concept of the Amendment but
expressed concern on the procedure. He recommended Amendments to the GMP
be developed without citing particular properties or projects.
Mr. Bishof agreed.
Carried unanimously 3-0.
The Council requested the applicant "set aside" all TDR's (some usedfor the
project and some held by the Applicant) and offer to convey the lands set aside for
preservation to the State of Florida.
Break: 10:50am
Reconvened: 11:00am
B. Growth Management Plan Amendment CP 2010-2 - David Weeks
David Weeks and Ray Smith presented Petition No: CPSP-2010-2 "Various
Amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Maps in the OMP - Wellhead
Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map ONLY"
(Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment initiated by the Collier County Pollution
Control and Prevention Department). They noted the maps are available in digital
format.
Mr. Dickman moved to recommend transmittal of Petition CPSP -2010-2.
Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 3-0.
VIII. Old Business
A. Watershed Management Plan Update
Mac Hatcher presented the document "Fertilizer Ordinance Comparison Table"
which outlined Fertilizer Ordinance requirements from some jurisdictions within
the area (City of Naples, Lee County, etc.)
Chairman Hushon submitted a similar document "Landscape and Fertilizer
Management Ordinances in Southwest Florida dated November 30, 2010."
Mr. Hatcher noted Staff is preparing a "Fertilizer Ordinance" intended to
regulate the fertilization of turf grasses within the County. He noted there is a
5
1611811
December I, 2010
State "model ordinance" and the County may adopt more stringent criteria if they
so desire. He provided an overview of the documents identifying the
requirements of each jurisdiction. The item is a primer, as Staff will be requesting
input from the EAC when the proposed Ordinance is officially presented for a
recommendation.
Speaker
Jennifer Hecker, Conservancy of Southwest Florida provided the following
documents for information purposes:
. "Collier County Fertilizer Ordinance - Ordinance No.1 O-XXX"
. Map titled "Collier County Impairments Related to Nutrients"
. "Effective Elements of Fertilizer Ordinances Comparison - Conservancy of
Southwest Florida"
She provided an overview of the documents.
The Council noted it would be advisable to review the City of Naples Ordinance
to ensure the Ordinance proposed by Collier County and the City of Naples
Ordinance are similar in requirements as the jurisdictions abut each other and the
entities engaged in the businesses provide services in both jurisdictions.
B. Update members on projects
Susan Mason reported the Board of County Commissioners approved an
extension for the adoption hearings for the Watershed Management Plan.
IX. Subcommittee Reports
None
X. Council Member Comments
Chairman Hushon referenced a memo to Mac Hatcher, PM Collier County from
Moris Cabezas ofPBS&J- "Re: Watershed Model Update and Plan Development,
Contract 08-5122, PO 4500106318, Phase 2, Element 4: Watershed Management
Regulatory Review" dated October 2, 2010.
She requested Staff place the memo on the next EAC meeting Agenda as a discussion
item.
XI. Staff Comments
None
XII. 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 12:25 PM.
6
1611 Bl1
December 1, 2010
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
C'\ 0 ." \ ~~~
C)Iairman, Dr. Judith Hushon
\ i
...._".........
These Minutes were approved by the BoarCYChairman on
as presented , or as amended"'/ .
11y-11I
( I
7
RECEIVED
APR 0 7 2011
Fiala ~
Hiller _ .--
Hennin. ~ .! ~
Coyle .=- _
Coletta . . .
16fl :Bl~
February 2, 2011
l-lOard of county commillSlOntfS
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Naples, Florida, February 2,2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental
Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at
Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government
Complex, Naples, Florida with the following members present
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon (Excused)
VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman
Michael Sorrell
Gina Downs
David Bishof
ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist
Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist
Misc. Corres:
1
Ollte:
Itln I:
Copies to:
1611611
February 2,2011
I. Call to Order
Mr. Dickman called the meeting to order at 9:02A.M.
II. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Riskof. Carried
unanimously 3 - O.
IV. Approval of the Jannary 5, 2011 meeting minutes
Mr. Rishofmoved to approve the minutes of the January 5,2011 meeting. Carried
unanimously 3-0.
Ms. Downs arrived at 9:04am
V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences
Mr. Sorrell may be absent for the March meeting.
Mr. Dickman may be absent for the March meeting.
Summer Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist reported due to a request by
consultants involved in the Watershed Management Plan, the regular meeting in April
may be held on April 13th.
VI. Land Use Petitions
None
VII. New Business
A. Phase Two of Collier County Master Mobility Plan - Jeff Perry
(WilsonMiller Stantec)
Jeff Perry, WilsonMiIler Stantec submitted the document "Collier County
Master Mobility Plan - Phase Two Project Schedule" dated 2/1/2011 and
provided an update on Phase II of the Plan highlighting:
. The purpose of the Plan is to reduce "Vehicle Miles of Traver' (VMT)
throughout Collier County by promoting more efficient infrastructure, land
use planning concepts, provision of government and commercial services,
etc.
. The popluation basis utilized in developing the Plan is the maximum build
out density projected for the County.
. The study is partially funded by Grants from the Environmental Protection
Agency.
. Phase 1 has been completed and consisted of data collection.
. Phase II will encompass 4 different components:
. Infrastructure Plan
. Land Use Master Plan
. Master Mobility Plan
2
161 1
11
February 2,2011
. Wildlife Crossing and Habitat Preservation Plan
. To assist in implimenting the Plan it will. be necessary to:
. Develop a collection of Memorand~f Understanding for approval
by the applicable Stakeholders.
. Maximize public outreach.
. A website linked to the Collier County Government website will be
launched to promote the Plan.
~
Under Council discussion, the following was noted:
. One environmental concern is the plan may encourage urban sprawl by
promoting commercial type developments in existing or future residential
neighborhoods in areas now considered "rural."
. The Plan may need to provide different sets of development parameters for
the urban and rural areas of the County given the varying expectations and
desires ofthe existing and projected inhabitants of these areas.
VIII. Old Business
A. Watershed Management Plan Update - Mac Hatcher (Land Development
Services)
Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist provided an updated on the Plan
noting:
. On January 24, 2011 there was a public workshop to discuss the Natural
Habitat Assessment.
. At the meeting, a petition was delivered requesting an alteration of the
boundaries of the "Naples Water Basin."
· The Naples Water Basin is not part of the Plan and the Petition was
forwarded to the Coastal Zone Management Department as they manage
the water quality in the basin.
· On January 26,2011, there was a meeting with the Fertilizer Industry to
discuss the proposed Fertilizer Ordinance.
· At the meeting, there was strong opposition to some of the more stringent
measures proposed in the plan, especially the "Blackout Period."
· Staff intends to prepare a document summarizing the rationale for the more
stringent measures and submit it to applicable parties for comment (Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Florida Institute of Food and
Agriculture Science, etc.).
· On February 21,2011 there will be a meeting with the Developmental
Services Advisory Committee to discuss the proposed changes to the Low
Impact Development Standards.
· The schedule for completion of the Plan has been revised to May, 2011.
Speakers
Amber Crooks, Conservancy of Southwest Florida addressed the Council
noting the Conservancy proposed to Staff a more stringent Ordinance than the one
required State of Florida Model Ordinance. The main industry opposition to the
3
1611 8 11
February 2,2011
more stringent Ordinance is the Blackout Period. One avenue to alleviate the
concerns is requiring the use of slow release fertilizers during this period. She
noted the industry is providing a series of studies completed on the negative
impacts a blackout period has on water quality. She will forward copies of the
studies to the Council for review.
Frederick Talbott, Village Walk Resident provided photos of a pond located in
his development that has been the subject of an algae bloom. He has studied the
issue and endorses the concept of the blackout period and buffers zones for
fertilizer applications. He is concerned on not only the water quality issues, but
also the health issues associated by the algae blooms. He submitted a document
he prepared titled "Proposed Collier County, Florida Fertilizer/Nutrient
Ordinance Recommendations" for review by the Council.
Tim Hiers, Florida Turf Grass Association addressed the Council noting he is
opposed to a Blackout Period as independent scientific studies prepared by a
variety of institutions indicate blackout periods actually have negative impacts on
water quality. He will submit the studies to the Council for their consideration.
Bill Davidson, Florida Golf Course Superintendants Association
recommended any requirements proposed for a Fertilizer Ordinance ~ "science---
based." bJ.......
Mac Hatcher noted the proposed Fertilizer Ordinance will apply to County
properties including applications at institutional facilities and traffic medians.
Sports fields will be exempt.
B. Update members on projects - Board recaps
None
IX. Subcommittee Reports
None
X. Council Member Comments
The Council requested Staff to review the status of the permits for Valencia Lakes.
XI. Staff Comments
Summer Araque reported Jack Mckenna is the new County Engineer and he will
provide input regarding the UDAR maps or any other issues as requested by the
Council.
XII. Public Comments
None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order ofthe Chair at 10:52 AM.
4
16' 1 61 j
February 2, 2011
COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
~fkt'{Y-
~~~r~
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on
as presented , or as amended .,//
1a1J l
I
5
.1 ~:~~~I~1
161
1ala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
BY: .......................
FOREST
LAKES
ROAn\VA Y ANn nRAINAGE l\1.S.T.l.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH
NAPLES, FL 34104
February 9, 2011
Aaenda
I. Call to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes - December 8,2010
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera
B. Gordon River Extension Maintenance
C. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard, Chris Tillman I Malcolm
Pirnie
VI. Landscape Architect Report-Windham Studio
VII. Old Business
A. Election of Officers
VIII. New Business
A. Lighting Quail Forest Blvd.
B. Master Plan Discussion
IX. Public Comments
X. Adjournment
Next meeting is March 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
Misc. Corres:
Oate:1{)
1 Item': d--'
Copies to:
161 1
Bv12
FOREST
l~AKES
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE lVI.S.T.U.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH
NAPLES, FL 34104
December 8, 2010
Minutes
I. Call to order
Meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by Robert Jones.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Harold Bergdoll, William Seabury (Excused), George Fogg
(Excused), Robert Jones, Dick Barry
County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Gloria Herrera-Budget Analyst,
Michelle Arnold-A TM Director, Mark Isackson-Director Corporate Finance
Other: Chris Tilman-Malcolm Pirnie, Scott Windham-Windham Studio,
Darlene Lafferty-Juristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
Add: V. D. Mark Isackson Report
Change: Mark Isackson was moved to V. B.
All Subsequent Agenda Items were modified
Harold Bergdoll moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second
by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - November 10,2010
Harold Bergdoll moved to approve the minutes of November 10, 2010
as submitted. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously
3-0.
V. Transportation Services
A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See
attached)
o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $16,336.26
o Available Capital Outlay $1,333,890.00
o The letter C was added to the P.O. Number column to indicate
the item is a Capital expenditure
1
1611
B 12
B. Mark Isackson Report
Michelle Arnold reviewed the Budget questions that were raised by
the Committee at the November meeting:
o Budgeted Ad Valorem Tax amount of $38,100.00 compared to
the percentage that Taxable Values are decreasing
- Noted information (Carry Forward Analysis Fund 159)
was provided by Mark Isackson (See attached)
o (Bond) Amortization Schedule of 2022 versus the 2012 date
Mark Isackson reviewed the Carry Forward Analysis (Fund 159):
o 2007 -2008 Column was prior to issuing Bond monies
- MSTU Cash Fund Balance was $850,000.00
o Subsequently Bond Proceeds were issued to reflect Net
Proceeds of approximately $6,100,000.00
o Announced Funds are tracked independently as follows to
distinguish the MSTU Cash amount
- With Bond monies
- Without Bond monies
o Taxable Value History Table
- $236,119,741.00 in FY2008
- $145,888,723.00 in FY2011
o Declining Taxable Values have a substantial effect on
- The I nterest Rate
- Allocation of monies for Debt Service and Operating
o Annual level Debt Service is $550,000.00 for the remaining
useful life of the Bond Proceeds
o Operating Tax Rate Debt Service Rate Table
- Operating Tax Rate FY11 decreased 17%
o The Budget Office determined that an Arbitrage Penalty will not
be associated with the spending down of Bond Proceeds due to
current low Interest Rates
o End of Fiscal Year 2010
- Available Bond Proceeds $3,621,197.00 (to be spent)
- Carry Forward was $1,500,00.00
- Ending Fund Balance $5,205,688.00
o Earned Interest Income is $416,891.00 can be used for
Expenses not related to the Bond Proceeds
Discussion ensued on spending options for the remaining Bond
Proceeds.
Robert Jones suggested loaning monies to the County for the Gordon
River Extension Maintenance Project.
Michelle Arnold stated the issue was discussed at previous meetings
and it was concluded the Forest Lakes Community must agree to
spend MSTU Tax monies for the Gordon River Project.
Mark Isackson perceived Bond Monies may be spent for a Project
outside the MSTU Boundary as it benefits the Community but was
uncertain if Monies could be loaned to the County.
2
161 1
B12
Mark Isackson suggested the following options:
o Partially defease the Bond Issue
- A Fee is applicable
- Conversely all flexibility is lost for future Projects
o Transfer Fund 159 Bond Proceeds to Debt Service (was the
preferred method) to provide
- Lower Debt Service Rate
- Increase Operating Rate
- More Operating dollars
- Flexibility
Discussion continued on utilizing MSTU monies for the Gordon River
Project.
Staff reiterated that the Committee previously expressed reservations
on funding the Gordon River Project as it is outside the MSTU
Boundary as is perceived as a Storm Water obligation.
Mark Isackson questioned from an Engineering standpoint what
proportional benefit is associated to the MSTU as opposed to that of
the greater Public.
Chris Tilman noted the Forest Lakes MSTU is the beneficiary of the
Gordon River Project as it is the lowest development in the Basin. He
noted that successive large Storm events are the main threat.
Mark Isackson expressed the following:
o If the MSTU funded the Gordon River Project reimbursement
may be transferred annually from Storm Water (Fund 325) to
MSTU (Fund 159)
o Requested Malcolm Pirnie provide a dollar value to reflect what
the Storm Water System should contribute toward the Project
o He will confirm with the Bond Council if Bond Proceeds may be
utilized for the Gordon River Project
Chris Tilman perceived the entire upper Basin will benefit from the
Project as the blockage is located mid point. He stated FEMA may
conduct a Flood Risk Assessment.
Darryl Richard recommended the following Services by Malcolm
Pirnie:
o Proceed with a Study
o Work with the County Planning Department
o Provide a Report to Mark Isackson for repayment by Storm
Water
Discussion took place on pending Easement Acquisitions by Royal
Poinciana and Country Club of Naples.
Staff will request the (County) Property Acquisition Department
negotiate the Easement Acquisition or Right of Entry from Royal
Poinciana and Country Club of Naples.
Michelle Arnold requested the following:
o A cost estimate for Bond defeasement by Mark Isackson
3
1611812
o An Informational Pamphlet on the Drainage System for
distribution to the Forest Lakes Residents from Malcolm Pirnie
C. Gordon River Extension Maintenance
Darryl Richard noted the revised letter to the BCC is included in the
meeting handouts. (See attached) Staff requested the Committee
review the letter and Committee signatures will be obtained throughout
the week.
D. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard / Chris Tilman - Malcolm
Pirnie - The Forest Lakes Master Project List was reviewed. (See
attached)
Proiect F-53 Quality Enterprises Chanae Order #1 (See attached)
o The current cost is at or below the approved Contract amount
Darryl Richard reviewed draft version of Questions from the Public
Meeting. (See attached)
Proposal was submitted for additional Services $59,480.00 by Malcolm
Pirnie. (See attached)
Harold Bergdoll moved to approve $59,480.00 for the additional
compensation (F-53 Project) for Malcolm Pimie. Second by Dick
Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
11:14 a.m. Harold Bergdoll left.
Quorum was broken. The meeting continued for informational purposes.
VI. Landscape Architect Report
Scott Windham reviewed Status Reports for the following:
A. Cul-de-Sac Project (See attached) Reviewed under VI. B.
B. Sidewalk/Lighting/Street Tree Project (See attached)
o First section of the Woodshire sidewalk alignment was reviewed
with Thomas Roadman
o Water Use Permit was submitted to the City of Naples
o Master Signage Replacement Plan was reviewed
- In some locations 3-4 Signs were posted by Residents
- 167 Signs are posted on 109 poles (concentrated at the
Turtle Lakes corridor)
Michelle Arnold noted the Community is polluted with Signage that
was posted by Turtle Lakes Residents and suggested the Resident
signage be relocated to the respective Developments.
Staff noted the excessive Signage will be addressed at the Public
meeting.
4
161 1
812
Discussion occurred concerning Malcolm Pirnie conducting a Speed
Limit Study.
Chris Tilman responded the Committee requested a 30 mph Speed
Limit which does not require a Traffic Study. Stated Malcolm Pirnie will
conduct a Horizontal Curve Study for a speed recommendation at the
curve.
Cul-de-Sac Proiect
o Project was rolled into the Sidewalk Project
The dumpster located on Woodshire was discussed.
Dick Barry perceived the location as a safety issue.
Robert Jones relayed Public request (Joe Benner) to relocate the
dumpster.
After much discussion it was determined the dumpster is the property
of Emerald Greens.
Staff will contact Joe Benner (239) 430-0007 and Emerald Greens
Property Manager to review the dumpster issue.
Liahtina Update
o LED Lighting is not available in the Omega Light
o Reviewed a brochure with Bell Style Lighting in lieu of Dome
Shaped
o Omega Light comes with an Induction System
o Powder Coat Lighting Fixtures with Primer first is available
o Reviewed various Mounting Brackets
Darryl Richard stated 15 ft. is the preferred Lighting height for
aesthetics.
After discussion it was confirmed Windham Studio will proceed on the
following:
o Utilize the same Mounting Bracket that was previously planned
on the 20 ft. Pole
o Obtain a Efficiency Report on the Induction System Lighting
o Obtain quote for Powder Coat Lighting Fixtures
Staff will provide the quotes from Windham Studio to the Committee.
Discussion took place on Resident use of proposed Picnic Bench
location and approval by the Home Owner.
Staff will contact the Home Owner to obtain approval to place the
Picnic Bench on the property and use by Forest Lakes Residents.
Darryl Richard conveyed a Resident request for Lighting on Quail
Forest Blvd. He suggested tabling the item until the next meeting (with
a quorum established.)
VII. Old Business-None
5
161 1
VII. New Business-None
VIII. Public Comments-None
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the
meeting was adjourned by the Chair a.t 12:07 P.M.
Fo:rest Lakes Roadway and Drainage
MSTU Advisory Committee
~k~~~.t......
Robert Jones, Ch3'i{Plan
These minutes approved by the Committee on
as presented /--<:.. or amended.
6
8 12
~~~o~~~S"~~:::1
~CD-r-' a.~CC:~
aa&3 g-g >~ fI! CD C;
6'of Sii ~ a
~!; ~a~ ~ ~
to . ~ CD ::J )(
~!15 a~~
;c: ! <W'
~.. <1
"II
a
i
i
. ~ ';}
'" )C
",Co - 8: ~
- .... 0'" :;l 3'
t-lW ...'" 0>
-..IUl 3lCo "'0 ~ ii:
--..I "'~o '" ct.
0>'" -..I ... 0
Q'fCl? m ~ =
O<lD ~ lii' 3'
i ~. 3 = <C 'C
II> CD III
iil ~ S' ci" ~
d:CDCD =
.g ~ 0
IllCC
m'~~
III 3
~ S'
C CD
=;c
d:1ll
.glD
00 Q'
0
C
c:l ... 0 :::1
CD co t-l
.. "0
III '" ....
'" &:
= CII ....
Cl.
C
II>
CD
II>
a
.,.,
C
=
Cl.
II>
00
CD
:l.
CD
II>
N
0
0
-..I
.,.,
0
a
~
~
III
,..
CD
II>
III
0
=
Cl.
1ii'
..
C
CD
;c;c
mm
0000
mm
;c;c
<<
mm
00.,.,
o
;c
(")
o
Z
-t
Z
Gl
m
~~t;~=~~t:
w W W N N N N N N N N N N _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ - 0 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ W N - e _ . ~ . ~ ~ w
16.l~1 B 1
;::::~UI
I>>
"'...
"'C11
""C11
(n ""0 Co\)
0> NO
... co 0
N NO
-1>0 ClIO
... ... (')
o
3
2.
3
CD
=
lil'
~~~~~~~~oo~~~~~~~~Z~8~>z~~~
~cc~>"II>~~~~~~~z~CIl;c~~CIl~~~m;cGl
~~~~~~~o~~;c~~~~~iz~-t~~CIlm;c~.,.,
~-t-t~-t~(")~~oom~~~~>~z~;c(")~~~~~
~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffi~~8~~CIl
ozz _-t_zm~>(")' ;CZ-Gl~Gl ~-t 00>""
ZCIlCll c~~~~-t~ffi ~C~ CIlm -t~~-tz~
~-t> Z~-GlmzZ~ CIlzm -tZ C(")-;CCCIl
(")"11 Z ~mZGlGl ZGlZ mm "II-tCm;c
(")"11 (") ~zCIl m Gl > ~~ CIlC~~m
~;c ~ ~ m g ~ ~~ ~~lll~
=0 ~ r::!CIl
~~~_~M~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-tZ(")(")-t-t ;CzzC"" (")
~m>>~~m-t<m:;; C
z~~~zziii~rn;:~ ;c
CIl~~~CIlCllZm-tc-t ~
.,.,o.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,CCIl~<~
mmoommm-tm>- :;:;
;UCll;C;C;C;CCll-tZ~;C ~
CIl-t::iE::iE""""-t>-toC 0
lIO;C>>;C;C;C><-;CO ;C
(')o~;c;c~~~(,,)o~~z m
CC -t m -~
Z OGli!>c:=;c ~-t
~ .,.,m><::g;Cmrn m~
as mz(");cm(")-t ;C
zmo> -t m
Q~~ ~ ~
... ...
... ...
N'"
!~
en -0>
00
00
06
00
... ...
N
en
N"'C11
N-\.-\.u)COCD
-:""O--....JN-I\J U.
ooooocn
ooooow
cooooN
00000'"
-
o
0-1>0
00
00
00
00
1\.)0'1(.0) W
o,OtnwCn
00000
00000
00000
00000
'"
o
I>>
.....
'"
""
t-l
'"
~lll~
"'CCD
_"" Cl. =
OCDe.
0"'&
6
,g
_~~_~~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... ...
...
o
co
en
'"
o
'0
'"
-1>0
o ""
00 ...
~m W
~ ~
o '"
'" -..I
'"
~
'"
-'"
co ...
'-I I>>
-1>00
~o
"'0
~I\.) ~o J:l,.
0000
0'-10
000
0'-10
'"
o
o
6
o
'"
-~~-~-~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~$$0~00
Ul co - W
N I>> ... -::;:
.... N '" N '" ... 0 ... CII-I>o
... '-I"" ... '" N ~ ~ '" '" '" u.~ :..
'" -1>01>> "ol '-I "'I>> ""-JcoO'lm 0 UlCO ...
......0 co 00 ...co !=' I>> (.nCO.c:..N 0 "'0 '"
NCnCn Co Co wCo Co oeoi\)i\) 6 :"00 Co
UlCOO ... -1>0 ...."" 0 ... oc.nc.no 0 ~"" S
-tIt-6l9-6l9-6l9-6l9-6l9-t1t-6l9-6l9-6l9-6l9 -6l9m
)C
c;;~1:
0Cl.-
m2'~
~C;;
SUI
_**~~$-tIt~$*~ $
-~~~$~~~-tIt$~~~**~~$~~~~*~~~-6l9
....
:"NCO
"''''-..1
ClIO> co
:-"'wJ.
....-0
....
W
NI>>N
UlCO"ol
NNW
OON
00'"
cON
00'"
J
...
-
,lID
~
,'.....
~:::1
. -
0:;
':"a
-I
<!
@
~
.....N
'" ...
~~I\)~~b
N -.......... ~o 0
.c:..woooo
i\) NO:...a. 0 0
.c:.. -"'1\).9.90
>
ci~
litiii'
-::;;-S!:
:..... -.c:.. CD
... ...
'" 0
Co '-ol
o>,g
c.n ~~NN
I\)c.nw Ut wc.no~
Uroo N.c:.._ .......'Wo,-oo)..
OOOI\)UtUt'""'-lI\)Ooo.c:..
oooc.no.c:..~oooo~
oooooi\)Cnooooo
ooooo,2!o.goooo
N-
N'"
:..""CO
00
... co
Oo:...a.
~I>>
~~~CIlCll~O~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~
s.s.3.ii~~~~~~~~~~~_.00~~gQ
~~~~~(")~m~~~~~~lil'~~~@~~a
~~~aam~c333333~~~~~-~1ll
3330o~m~~~~~~~~_~~CD;C ~
~~~~~~i~~'~.~~~'~'~~OOQ~ !
&&&OO~~~ffi'ffi'~~~~~. ~~ 5'
6.6.6.gg~~'~ Q ~ ~~ ~
~~ m ~ ~ -~
CD ~ CD
00 3.
~(")(")(")(') >
o -. 0 0 0 .a
::l. ~ 3 3 3 ~
g.Q333~<
"'CZ~CD~ ::1 CD
o III O.Q.O. x'a
::E'!2.!!!.!!!.!!!. CD
~CDr-r-r- ..,
~II> III III III Z
-'O~::J::1 cu
'g.5Cl.Cl.C, 3
-II>~~~ CD
CD Q) Q) Q)
aaa
.c:...c:...c:.. .c:.. .c:...c:...c:...c:...c:..
.c:..c.nUtc.n.c:.. c.n.c:...c:..U'lc.nU'lc.nc.n
c.noooc.n Oc.nc.noocoo
g~~~gc~gg~~8~~c
~ ::j ::j (0 ~ ai' ::j ~ ;::; 0 :$ ~ :$ :$ ai'
~~~~~Sl~~t(O~~~~o.
Q)c.n.c:.........co .c:..NNCOWI\)COCO
Q)hhh....... hcoc.nhhhhh
.,.,
o
.,., ;C
:g. m
~.,.,CIl
~c-t
-< z s;:
oC"
.fD ~ m
I>>"'CIl
~ ~
- CIl
-t
C
...
...-1>0'" ......
c.nc.nO c.nc.n
~8~ccgg
N~i~'ai'~~
~~o",_Sl~~
I\) CO ..............
m~h .......co
............-1>0
c.nc.nc.nc.nc.n
00000
00000
~~r\)r\)r\)
Nc.nWc.nW
~~~~~
.c:..O)coO)w
-1>0
'"
o
0"11
~i
'"
~
~~Q~~~OSQ~~~~~~fC~~~Q~~~~~~~~
~'~7~~C~Q)S. 0o~c~~~~Sl~~~_S'g
a~~0~~=-~OOOOO~~g<Q)~~.~~.~O_mff
(")~~-~:J;C>c<<<<<<Clil'a.8:J CD-O-tO>
g~~~o~~~g~~~~~CD~.g~~O~~~mc~a~
~r-o~<Or-!o~~~.~'~' ~~m g Q) ~;g~~ 0
~~~0~~~~5~~~~~ ~~~ i & ~CD~~~ i
:Jd:~~ :JCD:J~CIlCllCllCllCll <~CD ~ c~~~e.~=
<C=o- CD~<Cd:CDCDCDCDCD -~~ 6 ~~Ill~03"11
CIl<C~m CIl~ m<<<<< ~~~ ~ m~~~ 0
~~~~ ~i C~~~~~ II>~C ; ~~!CD ~
"'C~.Q.< 0. m!:UtUto,' ~~, ::J ~Citar~
~.~~~ ~ ~'~mwo~ ~.~ ~ S. ~
~~~ ~ ~ fC r~ ~ fQ -
~~~ ~ ~CD~.
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
S-
CD
..
...
N
+
...
CII
...
CD
...
"'0
~
'-ol
...
;C""
N CD -<
~ ~ ... '" 3 -
'" co V> I>> co "" "" 0 N '" '" _-1>0 N III 0
en en --1>0 0 ..... --1>0 -1>0 -co N "" '" N 0 N 0 -N '" '" N ... 0 S' >
'" co -1>0 0> I>> 0> 0 I>> co co co 0 00 '" 0 0 0 ~ - I>> '" ~ S' a
-1>0 N '" 00 '-I 0 '" I>> -1>0 '" "" -..I 0 -1>0 0 0 '" 0 0>
6 co '" '-ol N 00 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 00 6 6 t-l 0 a o .
0 -1>0 -1>0 '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 '-I 0 '-I 0 0 '" 0 0 0 0
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~
CD
~
Co
...
N
t-l
CII
~
... ",'", I>> ~
0> I>> co C
-..I'" co 0 00>-1>0 ... ... -"" -.... -'" -..I '" !!!.
N'" '" 0 :""'Uro 0 ~ - 0> o,w N :..., 0>
co 0> 1>>... 0 ... -..I co ... '" ... -..10 co- o 0 -..I "II
-..II>> , co", , 0 ... 0 0> 0> -1>0 '" , !'> '" 0 ""0-..1 0 "'Ill
c.no (ceo 6 6 Co 00 00 t-l Co - 6 6 eo:...a.i\) 6 oa:
- 0 "" 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" ... ... 0 0 '" 0 0 0 0
. .
ject eeocription Estimated Schedule S1ll1uo Eotimoted Cool Completed Coot Differential Noteo
1 Combined old project nos. 14
Overlav Woodshire Lane and Forest Lakes Blvd and 16
Overlay Forest Lakes Blvd. from Tennis Courts on Woodshire to Project funded by MSTU
1a Gardenia Lane and from service entrance on Woodshire Lane to Completed $610,000 $145,000 $465,000 funds, not bond revenue.
Pine Ridae Road (aDDrox. 6500 I.f.\ Proiect Comoleted.
1b F-41 - Restore drainage in cul-de-sacs, regrade side yards Mar - Jul 2008 Completed $1,050,000 $149,022 $900,978 Project Completed.
throuohout sinole famUv area
1c F-47-Overlay cul-de-sacs and Forest Lakes Blvd. from Gardenia Feb - Jul 2008 Completed Project Completed.
Lane to Main Entrance
2 F-42. Overlay Quail Forest Blvd. from Main Entrance to Jan - May 2008 Completed $731,000 $88,586 $642,414 Project Completed.
southern end and restore drainage
3 Quail Run Swale Restoration and Lake Improvements Combined old project nos 4-
13
3a F. 43- Regrade Swale Nos. 7-11 and install culverts. Total Feb 2008 - May Completed $147,000 $165,715 -$18,715 Project Completed.
regrade lenoth aDDroximatelv 5 974 L. F. 2009
F-45 - Regrade Swale Nos. 1-6 and install culverts. Total Completed I
3b regrade length approximately 8,415 L.F. Apr - Aug 2009 with 3c - Project Completed.
F-45- Regrade Swale Nos. 12-17. Total regrade length Final change
3c Apr - Aug 2009 order $333,000 $160,374 $172,626 Project Completed.
approximately 11 ,289 L. F. processing
3d F-38- Construct engineered partitions in Lakes 8 and 10 Feb 2008 - Oct Deleted Project Completed.
4 F-47. Overlay Forest Lak.. Drive and side streets from Feb 2008 - Jan Completed $495,000 $314,731 $180,269 Project Completed.
Forest Lak.. Blvd. to south end 2009
5 F-60. Woodshlre Lane Improvements (Phase 1) Mar 2008 - Aug Completed Project Completed.
2009 with 3c
Quality Enterprises awarded
F-53 . Quail Run Lake Shoreline Restoration and May 2008 - Sep BCC Approved contract for $1,153.254.75.
6 Stabilization 2010 on 4/13/10 $1,153,254.75 $1,153,254.51 $0 Project Under Construction
(net $.25 decrease in final
contract per C01)
7 F-64 . ReDlace culvert crosslno Falrwav No.5 Jun - Oct 2008 Comoleted $145,235 $66,328 $78,907 Proiect Completed.
8 f-65 . Forest Lak.. Blvd Improvements from Quail Forest May - Sep 2009 Completed $180,000 $68,667 $111,333 Project Completed.
Blvd. to Woodshire Lane
9 F-66 . South Woodshlre Ditch Improvements Jul 2009 - Sep Project Under $349,000 $404,612 -$55,612 CO#1 added $90,300 to
2010 Construction Haskins Contract,
10 F. 57 . Drelnage System Mapping and Adjustments Jul 2009 - Feb Final $50,000 $50,000 $0 Project Completed.
?n1n
11 F.58 - Sidewalks, Lighting Improvements, and Roadway June 2011..Qct. $1,982,831 Cost estimate base<! on
Tree Plantlngs 2011 100% design estimate from
. Windham Studios/ABB
12 F-69 . Lighting Improvements Jan -May 2010 Combined with F-
I~R
13 f-60 - Cui de sac Improvements Jun 2009 - May combined with F-58
?n1n
14 f - 51 . Drainage system mapping Jul - Dee 2009 Combined wtth F-
1!i7
15 f. 62 . Maintenance Dred"ln" of Lake 8 Jan - ADril 2010 ComDleted $100,000 $143,845 -$43.845 Completed 3/26/10
16 f-63 . Property Line Wall along Woodshlre Lane Oct 2009 - May Combined with F-
2010 58
17 F-64 . Roadway Tree Plantlngs TBD Combined with F-
I""
ORIGINAL BOND ISSUE PROCEEDS $6,068,171
BOND-FUNDED PROJECT EXPENSES AS OF $2.910,134
FEB 09, 2011
BOND ISSUE FUNDS REMAINING AS OF $3,158,037
FEB 09 2011
COMMITMENTS AS OF FEB 09 2011 $0
.(need to confirm - is this consulting fees?) $392,964
ACTUAL EXPENDITURES
ESTIMATED BOND ISSUE PROJECT EXPENSES $1.982,831
REMAINING
ESTIMATED BOND ISSUE FUNDS REMAINING $782,242
AT COMPLETION (LINE 31)
Forest Lakes MSTU
Master Project List
Updated January 12, 2011
1611 B 12
. .
@
DAVEY~.
I
5515Y8hls1h.1 1 B 1 2
Nap/es/F/orida/34109
Office: (239)403-9665
Fax: (239) 403-9662
www.davey.com
Collier County
Growth Management Division
Attn:Darryl T Richard,RLA
Cell # 239-253:9083
Eamil DarrvIRichard@collieraov.net
Direct inquiries to:
Dan Powell
239-349-5002 (mobile)
Dan.powel/@davey.com
1/31/11
Thank you for the recent opportunity to visit Woodshire Lane property. As requested, I have developed the
following proposal for your consideration. Enclosed is a brief outline of the specification to be used during the
project. This will pertain to some sixty two assorted Sabol palms, Laurel oaks and Royal Poinciana trees
located adjacent to the roadway.
Tree Pruning/Removal
~ All trees will be assessed for deadwood removal of dead, dying, weakley attached limbs 2 inch or
greater in diameter.
~ Crown elevation of 10 feet over the sidewalks and 15 feet over the roadway will be performed to all
trees not meeting this requirement.
~ All palm trees will be pruned to county code and have broken hanging dead fronds removed.
~ We will safely dismantle the Ficus tree and remove to grade level. The stump will be ground to a
depth to permit sidewalk construction. The additional roots will be ground 4 to 6 inched below grade
level.
~ Australian pines limbs will be pruned back to the fence area reduce competition.
Root Collar Excavations (RCX)
~ Excavate as needed to expose the trees natural root flares, apply 2inch depth of shredded pine
mulch to the base. One row of sod will be removed and replaced with mulch per tree.
Hazard Tree Assessments
~ One Royal Poinciana tree and one Laurel oak have had major root flares removed during the
sidewalk construction. Further testing is needed to evaluate the trees root support systems as
current visible signs indicate structural support weaknesses'. We will remove larger limbs to
reduce weight; however tree failure could occur at any given time.
Project Costs- $3360
Fertilization
~ Hydro inject at 200 PSI Davey Arbor Green Pro fertilizer a liquid slow release fertilizer with the
essential micro/macro nutrient ratio in to the root zones of the assorted trees to help restore vigor,
aid in recovery from the construction damage and maintain optimum health levels.
. Would recommend 2 x year to help offset the root damage and disturbance
Fertilization Costs- $360 per treatment
THE DAVEY GUARANTEE: We use superior products which are administered by professionals.
And we follow up on every job. That's the way we do business. That's the "DAVEY" guarantee.
Acceptance of Proposal
The above prices and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
to do the work as specified. Please sign on the line below and return it to us. Upon receipt,
our office will contact you for scheduling.
6)
161 1
PROPOSAL
Si~ature Tree Care,u.c
812
February 3 2011
Page 1
Proposal # 4076
.~
,. tiifiiIi' --
( ... - \
F=ii..:\
l-_':
signaturetreecare.com
eCOIOgiC~n...d..c.a.re..;:;-:? .~.~.'_
I'. .
. I.;'
4SiIOth:\\.enuc' ,\.1.. N.lpl(',;. flu,:f!.l l"li:U
(lllicp' :.!)q ~-w. 1 .~)() · r.lx: .::, \q ;li'>,! '"
Fn1il11: inf()td'''tl~ntltljH:lrCI.t ,:r~ \ifl'l
IAN ORlIKOFF
1.\1, C"rur"i'f!'\rhuri;,t :tlt- iu :-\
J/~)(i(la CC1n'/n.(j !-i, ;rli< u/tU/"I'_' /lro(e":J',;:,u' :;{'iidi ',;'l 'j
f ilGlA
Collier County Board of County Commissioners
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
Proposal Date 02/02/2011
Customer # 1491
Sa/esRep: Ian
Unlls
UnitPrice Tax
Item# Quantity Description of Services
Item Amount
2
3
4
62
Trees 58.70 No
Prune for clearance of Right of Way Traffic, signs. parking, structures ete
Pruning shall be performed to achieve a desired height of fifteen feet over roadway and three
feet inside of curb and eight feet over grade of root zone Clearance shall be achieved by
selective removal of scaffold limbs andlor lateral reductton to outer portions of the crown so as
not to over lift or cause severe imbalance
Removal of deadwood 2" or greater in diameter and removal of agreed upon scaffold limbs and
major leader during time of walk thru that may decrease some weight and Increase balance of
trees that were severely foot pruned
This includes Pruning Australlian Pines back to fence line encroaching on POlncianna and any
clearance of sidewalks. Le Ficus and Viburnum. etc.
6
Palm each 25 00 No
Removal of all dead fronds, seed pods and loose boots Removal of debriS. Remaining boots will
be shaped and canopy will be tnmmed to a nine and three o'clock level to comply with the county
code. Spikes will not be used with the exception that a mechanical lift, or ladders cannot be
employed. Specialized climbing techniques are a consideration that must be discussed if the prior
methods of ascending are not an option Please note that removal of live fronds above the nine
and three position is not indicated as It reduces the vigor and health of the palm. Pruning of live
fronds with nutritional deficienCies can speed up the defiCiency process as well
F~us No
Pine Ridge and Woodshire Lane intersection
Removal of tree and grinding of stump 12" below grade four feet from edge of street and 4"-6"
below grade for remainder of stump
62
Trees No
Sub surface root injection of a custom well balanced fertilizer that IS low in salt, blended for
ornamentals which meets the needs of a plants nutritional deficiencies A pattern of injections are
applied from the trunk to just beyond the drip line. A high quality. water soluble fertilizer will be
applied via high pressure injection pump directly to the root system. This is a program
recommended to be pertormed on a quarterly basis, All supplemental nutrients are included
Including minor elements and humic acids for soil conditioning and Increased nutrient uptake.
Estimate is Valid for 15 Days
3.985.00
15000
1 . 150 00
980 00
@
161 1
B 12
signaturetreeeare.eom
.ea,agiell..ode a...re..._.... -~:.'4
, . .~; t....
PROPOSAL
Si~ature Tree Care.u.c
February 3. 2011
Page 2
Proposal # 4076
.Wl lclth 0\\('1111(' NJ.. i\dpl('~. fiiHidi ;..; 1-'\1
Ollit c.: i:~ ~q)..+()-l \ \1I · 1.1... '.'ii' )--ih.; I .~ .;
r rl'l.li!- inf;J/ii';"'I~/)dtlHt_ltri 't..( ,1(1.' ': d'l:
/~~,
~ .-.~.~.
(=&'\
iv-.-
F 1) G Cf.
IAN ORlIKOFF
!.'''I.; ( ('tUf'i i.\!1~()ri>/ :; r[. ! i ;,;';- 1_
l!fifj(j,J ("i"fir-tlt."/ f! tj( uhur,J Itrt.'):t~"r~'~;"; 1/ :.;f l;df'~i-t
Item# Quantity Description of Services
UnilS
UnitPrice Tax
Item Amount
5
62
Trees No
ExcavaUng of basal root flare back to original grade removing excess soil. removing one sectional
ring of sod surrounding trunk Installation of Pine bark nuggets regular size, not fine or large. for
protection of basal root flare
3.48500
Trees were viewed on Woodshire Lane that were impacted by sidewalk construction to varying degrees Some of which
represent significant hazards to Right of Way and Pedestrian traffic. Removal of large stabilizing buttress roots were noted
within the basal flare on some of the trees viewed during the group walk through Signature Tree Care can not assume any
liability for the trees stability, health or vigor. All trees possess a potential for failure. posing a threat to the safety of the public
by using any areas surrounding these trees If trees that are most severely Impacted are to remain,it is my profeSSional
opinion that a hazard tree evaluation sliould be performed on approximately four trees that were most impacted and ideally for
the remaining trees. be ~a~.g9Jized in this evaluation as well The fee for a hazard evaluatton would be 12500 per tree.
Ian Orli~~ /7 /;7 / f~. /)
,~- / / /"./4 ./ ,/
.0.'~.. / ,..ililt.&~../_--"
..,.'Ut;( (.,/.'/ ~~
, ~-.~
All methods accomplished thru ANSI Z133.1 Specs In compliance With Collier County code and industry standards
Not responsible for underground irrigation tines
Terms' payment is due upon completion unless other arrangements have been made
Should you have any questions. or if you wish to make any changes to this Proposal.
please do not hesitate to call us. Please sign and rerum as soon as possible
Proposal SubTotal
Required Deposit
State Taxes
Proposal Total:
000
000
$9,750.00
Signed
Date
Estimate is Valid for 15 Days
~
I
1611 B 12
STATUS REPORT
To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee
cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM
Jim Carr, ABB
Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc.
Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pimie, Inc.
From: Scott Windham
Date: February 8,2011
RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F-58 Sidewalk Project and F-60 Culdesac
Improvements Status Report 6
Committee and team:
The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street
Tree project and Culdesac Improvement project:
I FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F-58 and F-60 CULDESAC PROJECT:
100% Landscape Construction Plans (Windham Studio and Abney and
Associates):
. An information meeting with the Turtle Lake residents was held at their
clubhouse on 12/9 to review the entire project. We have been evaluating their
comments and input with staff.
. WSI completed 2 additional sidewalk layout site meetings with Malcolm Pirnie on
Woodshire Lane. The sidewalk alignment was again minor field adjusted due to
existing trees, grades and various utilities. Also, again, WSI has revised the
base drawing and planting and irrigation plans accordingly.
. In addition to sidewalk layout changes, we met with representatives from
Emerald Greens concerning an irrigation supply line which comes from the
Woodshire Lane east ROW area back across the road to irrigate a parking lot
island. We discussed providing a new directional bore and valve across the
parking lot on the west as an alternate water source in order to abandon the
random fragment of irrigation supply across the street on Woodshire.
. The 2" effluent irrigation water meter was installed on Mon, 2/7.
. WSI has continued to hold on submittal of the final revised 100% landscape and
irrigation plans to county staff together with final Opinion of Probable Cost and
Bid Tabular for bidding in order to address the public information meeting
feedback and Woodshire sidewalk field adjustments related revisions. WSI is
working with staff to address donated R.O.W. for the sidewalk areas vs existing
R.O.W. along the residential culdesac areas of the project and the possibility of
phasing the project. If the committee elects to phase the project, additional fees
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
6)
. 1611812
will be required to revise the plans and specifications via an approved change
order.
. WSI and staff have reviewed condo docs for four of the condo properties and
they appear to have various 60' ROW areas already in place, but this will be
confirmed.
. WSI anticipates that the plans will be submitted once the R.O.W. and phasing
related revisions are completed and following staff review of the street signage
plans, specs and budgets.
. WSI has prepared the attached Master Opinion of Probable Cost Summary
which includes cost estimates for the alternate LED and induction system lighting
as discussed in the last meeting.
100% Sidewalk Construction Plans (ABB):
. The plans and specs are complete and WSI anticipates submitting final revised
sidewalk construction plans to county staff together with final Opinion of Probable
Cost and Bid Tabular together with the other project plans.
. Please note that the plans will need to be revised if the project is phased.
100% Sidewalk Lighting Construction Plans (TR Transportation):
. The plans and specs are now complete including the entry landscape lighting
FPL components and WSI anticipates submitting final revised sidewalk lighting
construction plans to county staff together with final Opinion of Probable Cost
and Bid Tabular together with the other project plans.
. Please note that the plans will need to be revised if the project is phased.
Maintenance Specifications and Opinion of cost:
. WSI has completed the preliminary Maintenance Specifications and Opinion of
Probable Cost to maintain the project areas and submitted the information to staff
for review and collaboration.
We've moved our office; please notice our new mailing address below and update your
contact information for us.
Please email or call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
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@windhamstudio.com
www.windhamstudio.com
@
161 1
FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK, F-58
100% OPINION OF PROBABLE COST SUMMARY
Prepared by: Windham Studio, Inc.
2/9/2011 (Revised)
WSI AND ABNEY: LANDSCAPE / IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION
Budget Item Estimate
Plantina (Includes 10% Continaency) $238 833.05
Irriaation (Includes 10% Continaency) $219,537.45
Landscape Lighting (Medians and Signs) $24,500.00
Site Furnishinas (Includes oet waste stations) $17,365.00
New Directorv Sian $11.500.00
Street and Traffic Sians $127,680.00
Green Screen (Includes chain link fence demo) $120,840.00
SUB TOTAL: $760,255.50
*
*
Slgnage Alternate
Street and Traffic Si ns
$116225.00
*
ABB: SIDEWALK / STRIPING / DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION
Budaet Item Estimate
Sidewalk, strioina, drainaae $275,000.90
15% Contingency $41,250.14
SUB TOTAL: $316,251.04
TR TRANSPORTATION: LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION
Bud et Item
Estimate
$788,108.25
$118,216.24
$906,324.49
SUB TOTAL:
Lighting Alternates:
$985,444.49 *
$1,064,564.49 *
IGRAND TOTAL:
$1,982,831.02
~GRAND TOTAL (LESS CONTINGENCIES):
"Denotes new budget item
$1,786,146.70
812
0J
Proj. Mgr.: Darryl Richard
Date posted: Febru\lJy 7. 2011
Date due:-
Opinion of Probable Cost
Forest lakes MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance
161 1
D Otic:ts:,
~sd*ad.-
Bids received: -
Non-Responsive: -
Windham Studio Oplnon of
Drobable Costs
I: QJY UNIT UNIT PRICI TOTAL
ITEM DESCRIPTION
BID SCHEDULE FOR FOREST LAKES BOULEVARD ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE
B4.!itIC . 14.1 ['..',.....^NS FOR WORK AREAS:
1 Mowina & Edaina 52 Ea 290.00 15080.00
2 Weeding (min. per week cost $150) 52 Ea 150.00 7,800.00
3 General Site Prunina 52 Ea 90.00 4 680.00
4a WeeklY Irrigation Systems Functions (min. per week $200) 52 Ea 150.00 7,800.00
4b Monthlv Irriaation Svstem Functions 12 Ea 90.00 1 080.00
5 Trash Removal 52 Ea 35.00 1 820.00
6 Street Cleanina 52 Ea 80.00 4 160.00
SECTION II:
srrl; sp CI; FUNCT WORK AREAS:
CANOPY TREE AND PALM PRUNING
Canopy Trees: . (April. SeDtember)
7 All CanoDY Trees lvarious soeciesl 368 Ea 7.00 2 576.00
Palms. (June)
8 All Palms (various soecies and sizesl 133 Ea 18.00 2 394.00
FERTILIZATION ICountv will SUDDlv aranular fertilizerl Turf Groundcover Shrubs and Trees
9 8-2.12 (Four times a vr: Unit Price oer baal 128 Ea 6.13 784.64
10 So-Po-Maa 4 Ea 20.00 80.00
11 Perform Seauestrene Iron Drench AoDlication 1 Ea 225.00 225.00
12 20-20-20 with Ferromec AC 13-0-0 Dlus 6% Iron (Optional\ 1 Ea 225.00 225.00
ORNAMENTAL SPRAYING (Min. per application $200)
13a Groundcover, Shrubs, & Trees: Insecticides & Fungicides(Min. per application $200) 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
14a Groundcover, Shrubs, & Trees: Herbicides(Min. per application $2oo} 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
13b Turt Insecticides & Fungicides(Mln. per application $200) 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
14b Turt Herbicides(Mln. per application $200) 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
MULCHING
15 Oraanic Aoplication (Calculated usina 37 873 SF coveraae (2" mulch 2 cu. ft. baas 234 CY) 3156 Ea 0.90 2 840.40
Pro EucalvDtuS Transoortation Blend - Forestry Resources or approved eaual
SODDING
16 St. Auaustine Floratam Sod 1 SF 0.55
17 Bahia Sod 1 SF 0.40
SECTION I and II SUBTOTAL $ 52,345.99
SECTION III: General Services & Emeraencv Landscape Maintenance Services:
A. General Services
18 Irriaation Suoervisor (oer man hourI: 1 Hr. 55.00 55.00
19 Irriaation Technician loer man hourI: 1 Hr. 45.00 45.00
20 LaborerlHeloer (oer man hourI: 1 Hr. 45.00 45.00
21 Irriaation System Review' Unit oar hour 1 Hr. 45.00 45.00
22 Stakina of Small Palm (4"-6" Calioer) 1 Ea 45.00 45.00
23 Stakina Laroe Palms ICalioar areater than 6") 1 Ea 45.00 45.00
24 Stakina Small CanoDv Tree (2x2 DOSts and auv wire 4"-6" calioer) 1 Ea 45.00 45.00
25 Stakina Laroe Canoov Tree (2x4 DOSts areater than 6" calioer) 1 Ea 45.00 45.00
26 Restandina and Stakina Small Palm (4"-6" Calioer) 1 Ea 125.00 125.00
27 Restandina and Stakina Laroe Palms (Calicer areater than 6") 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
28 Restandina and Stakina Small CanoDv Tree 12x2 oosts and gUY wire 4"-6" caliper) 1 Ea 125.00 125.00
29 Restakina Laroe CanoDv Tree (2x4 DOSts. areater than 6" caliper) 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
B. ntananCA SArvicAS
30 MDwina and Edaina: Unit Sa. Fl 1 Ea $ 0.20 0.20
31 Weedina (Hand removal and hand scraved herbicide): Unit Sa. Fl 1 Ea $ 0.20 0.20
32 Prunina (Removal and deliverv of debris to landfill site): Unit oer Hr. 1 Hr. $ 32.00 32.00
33 Fertilization (Labor far broadcastina 50 lb. Baal: Unit per bag 1 Ea $ 9.00 9.00
34 Mulch Aoplication (Labor far aDDlvina 2 cu.ft. baas): Unit oer baa 1 Ea $ 1.50 1.50
35 Trash Pick-uD and RemovallBaaaina and disoosal to a landfill of trash from
landscaoe areas and on-site containers): Unit Per Hr. 1 Hr. $ 32.00 32.00
36 Travel time' Unit oar hour 1 Hr. $ 32.00 32.00
37 Truck Ooerator (Class B or hiaher current State of Florida Driver License): Unit per hr. 1 Hr. $ 45.00 45.00
38 Stumo Grinder and Ooerator: Unit per Hr. 1 Hr. $ 75.00 75.00
39 Bobcat and Ooarator: Unit oer Hr. 1 Hr. $ 75.00 75.00
SECTION III SUBTOTAL $ 1,221.90
TOTAL MEN (Crew Size) TO PERFORM SERVICES
Per Week: 5
Annual (52) 5
ESTIMATED TOTAL MAN- HOURS TO PERFORM REQUIRED SERVICES
(The contractor shall submit the amount of man-hours that they intend to provide to this Contract on
a weekly basis)
Hours per week 6
See Page 19 For Minimum Description
Page 1 of3
@
I
Proj. Mgr.: Danyl Richard
Date posted: Febntaoy 7, 2011
Date due:-
Opinion of Probable Cost
Forest Lakes MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance
1 ()Jl 8~12
Notices sent: -
Notices download: -
Bids received: -
Non-Responsive: -
Windham Studio Opinon of
probable Costs
Crew size (Personnel on Site) 5
Man Hours 30
SECTION IV: PLANTS
1 Gallon Container
40 Green island ficus 1 Ea 5.00 5.00
41 Liriooe 'Everareen aianr 1 Ea 5.00 5.00
42 Muhlv arass 1 Ea 5.00 5.00
43 Crown of Thorn 'Dinni' 1 Ea 5.00 5.00
44 Asian iasmine 'Minima' 1 Ea 5.00 5.00
45 Neoreaelia 'Maner 1 Ea 15.00 15.00
46 Crown of Thorn 'Bia Rose' 1 Ea 5.00 5.00
47 Wart Fern 1 Ea 5.00 5.00
48 lIex 'Schellinas dwarf 1 Ea 5.00 5.00
3 Gallon Container
49 Dwarf A10casia 'California' 1 Ea 15.00 15.00
50 Clerodendrum soeciosissimum 1 Ea 12.00 12.00
51 Green island ficus 1 Ea 12.00 12.00
52 Muhlv araSs 1 Ea 12.00 12.00
53 Pink Ice Oleander 1 Ea 12.00 12.00
54 lIex 'Schellinas dwarf 1 Ea 12.00 12.00
55 Thunberaia vine 1 Ea 12.00 12.00
56 Confederate Jasmine 1 Ea 12.00 12.00
57 Varieaated Ginaer 1 Ea 12.00 12.00
10 Gallon Container
58 Clusia 'Dwarf 1 Ea 56.00 56.00
59 Crinum Lily 1 Ea 56.00 56.00
15 Gallon Container
60 Hona Kona Orchid (Seedless) 1 Ea 80.00 80.00
61 Yellow Cassia 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
62 lMlite Geiaer 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
63 Golden Shower 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
64 Floss Silk Tree 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
65 Oranae Geiaer 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
66 Roval Poinciana 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
67 Jacaranda 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
68 Live Oak 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
69 Muskoaee Crece Mvrtle (Lavendar) 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
70 Queen Crece Mvrtle 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
71 Pink 108 Tabebuia Tree 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
72 Yellow Elder 1 Ea 75.00 75.00
25 Gallon Container
73 Hona Kona Orchid (Seedless) 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
74 Yellow Cassia 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
75 lMlite Geiaer 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
76 Golden Shower 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
77 Floss Silk Tree 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
78 Oranae Geiaer 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
79 Roval Poinciana 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
80 Jacaranda 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
81 Live Oak 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
82 Muskoaee Creoe Mvrtle (Lavendar) 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
83 Queen Crepe Myrtle 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
84 Pink loe Tabebuia Tree 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
85 Yellow Elder 1 Ea 150.00 150.00
45 Gallon Container
86 Hona Kona Orchid (Seedless) 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
87 Yellow Cassia 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
88 lMlite Geiaer 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
89 Golden Shower 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
90 Floss Silk Tree 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
91 Oranae Geiaer 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
92 Roval Poinciana 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
93 Jacaranda 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
94 Live Oak 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
95 Muskoaee Crece Mvrtle (Lavendar) 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
96 Queen Crece Mvrtle 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
97 Pink loe Tabebuia Tree 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
98 Yellow Elder 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
See Page 19 For Minimum Description
Page 2 of 3
@
I
Proj. Mgr.: Darryl Richard
Date posted: Februtlry 7. 2011
Date due:-
Opinion of Probable Cost
Forest Lakes MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance
1611 81s2
Notices sent: -
Notices download: -
Bids received: -
Non-Responsive: -
Windham Studio Opinon of
Droba ble Costs
65 Gallon Container
99 Hona Kona Orchid (Seedless) 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
100 Yellow Cassia 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
101 White Geiaer 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
102 Golden Shower 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
103 Floss Silk Tree 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
104 Oranae Geiaer 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
105 Roval Poinciana 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
106 Jacaranda 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
107 Live Oak 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
108 Muskoaee Creoe Mvrtle (Lavendar) 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
109 Queen Creoe Mvrtle 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
110 Pink loe Tabebuia Tree 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
111 Yellaw Elder 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
Various Sizes
112 Hona Kona Orchid (Seedless)! 14' oa x 6' sod. 3" cal 1 Ea 280.00 280.00
113 Yellow Cassia 110'oa x 4' sod. 2" cal 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
114 White Geiaer 110'oa x 4' sod. 2" cal 1 Ea 250.00 250.00
115 Golden Shower 114' oa x 6' sod. 3" cal 1 Ea 350.00 350.00
116 Floss Silk Tree 114' oa x 6' sod. 3" cal 1 Ea 350.00 350.00
117 Oranae Geiaer 11 O'oa x 4' sod. 2" cal 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
118 Roval Poinciana 1 14' oa x 6' sod. 3" cal 1 Ea 350.00 350.00
119 Jacaranda 1 14' oa x 6' sod. 3" cal 1 Ea 350.00 350.00
120 Live Oak 100 aal. 1 Ea 500.00 500.00
121 Live Oak 200 aal. 1 Ea 900.00 900.00
122 Live Oak 300 aal. 1 Ea 1 600.00 1 600.00
123 Muskoaee Creoe Mvrtle (Lavender) 10' oa 2" cal Multi-t/1< 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
124 Muskoaee Creoe Mvrtle (Lavender) 14' oa Multi-trk 1 Ea 250.00 250.00
125 Queen Creoe Mvrtle 110' oa 2" cal Multi-t/1< 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
126 Pink loe Tabebuia Tree 110'oa x 4' sod. 2" cal 1 Ea 250.00 250.00
127 Yellow Elder 114' oa x 6' sod. 3" cal 1 Ea 350.00 350.00
128 Coconut Palm 110'-15' GW 1 Ea 800.00 800.00
129 Pvamv Date Palm 6'oa Triole 1 Ea 200.00 200.00
130 Royal Palm 17'-10' GW 1 Ea 500.00 500.00
131 Roval Palm 112'-16' GW 1 Ea 800.00 800.00
132 Sabal Palm 110' -18' OA 1 Ea 175.00 175.00
SECTION IV SUBTOTAL $18,503.00
TOTAL BASE BID $72,070.89
Math corrected
File Request
Local Preference Affidavit N
Experience in S Florida y
Irrigation Experience y
License y
List of Owned or Leased Equipment y
MOT Certification and W4
Purchasina Aaent Brenda Brilhart
'Mtness: Carol Ropp
See Page 19 For Minimum Description
Page 3 of 3
@
. I
RECE\VEt?
MAR 2 \ 20\\
1611.8.12
V'"
Board ofCOunl:Y ~
FOREST
LA S
ROAD\VA Y ANn llRAINAGE l\1.S.T.U. "7)",,/
Fiala L
ADVISORY COMMITTEE Hiller I""
2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH ~~~I~ng y y-
NAPLES, FL 34104 Coletta .........
February 9, 2011
Minutes
I. Call to order
Meeting was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Robert Jones.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Harold Bergdoll, George Fogg, Robert Jones, Dick Barry,
William Seabury (Excused)
County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget
Analyst, Pam Lulich - Manager Landscape Operations, Michelle Arnold-
Director A TM
Other: Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie, Scott Windham - Windham Studio,
Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second
by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - December 8, 2010
Robert Jones moved to approve the December 8, 2010 minutes as
submitted. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously
4-0.
V. Transportation Services
A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See
attached)
o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $30,669.30
o Available Capital Outlay $1,327.324.24
o Final Audit will be conducted in March
Michelle Arnold stated a meeting was held with Mark Isackson to
discuss the Committees questions pertaining to utilizing MSTU monies
on the Gordon River Extension Project and the FY11 Bu~.~:
Valorem Tax $38,100.00. She conveyed the following inf~:ation:
1
Item t.
Copies to:
1611812
Bond Proceeds
o May not be spent beyond the MSTU Boundary
Staff noted the proposed Letter to the BCC was withheld pending a
response from Mark Isackson on using MSTU Monies for Projects
outside the MSTU Boundary (Gordon River Extension Project.)
Discussion ensued on the Gordon River Extension Project and it was
deemed:
o To proceed with submitting the Letter to the BCC urging the
County to undertake the Gordon River Extension as it is the
County's responsibility (Storm Water Management)
o The Letter will be amended to stress that the MSTU Committee
attempted to undertake the Project and the following was
determined
- The Gordon River Extension Project is outside the
MSTU Boundary
- The Committee is not authorized to spend MSTU monies
on the Project (per the Bond Council)
o Staff will distribute the revised Letter via email for Committee
review and approval prior to submitting to the BCC
Ad Valorem Tax
o Majority of Tax Monies are applied toward Debt Service resulting
in a lower amount of Operating Funds
- Debt Service Millage Rate 2.7532
- Operations Millage Rate. 5228
- Total Millage 3.276
o Debt Service levels may be moved to increase Operating Funds
as a short term fix
George Fogg questioned the inconsistency between $38,100.00
Budget Ad Valorem figure and the $110,600.00 Operation Millage on
the Budget Report.
Darryl Richard provided the following explanation:
o The Forest Lakes MSTU Millage Rate is 4.0 and is broken down
in Property Tax Limitation Impact section as
- FY11 Millage Rate .2606 ($38,065.00 incoming Ad
Valorem Tax)
- Millage Rate 3.7394 ($546,200.00 toward Debt Service)
o Revenue Stream is affected by decreased Property Values
Michelle Arnold reviewed (2) options suggested by Mark Isackson
concerning the Revenue Stream:
o Determine a Project List that will be performed within the 18
month period that Bond monies must be spent
2
16' 1
812
- Upon completion of Projects the remaining Monies can
be prepaid on the Bond
- If the Bond is prepaid Penalties are assessed
o Continue with the current method
- Preserve the level of monies allocated for Debt Service
- Limit Operating cost
- Subsequently change the millage rate to reduce
collections
o Noted the majority of Interest earned is generated from the
Bond Proceeds $100,000.00 - $120,000.00
- Interest Monies are not restricted
George Fogg reaffirmed concern on providing ongoing Maintenance
Services after Project(s) are completed based on the FY11 incoming
Revenue Stream.
Chris Tilman noted the
o The Bulkheads are virtually maintenance free (40 -50 year life)
o New Drainage System was installed
o Landscape Maintenance will be the bulk of Maintenance cost
o Perceived repaving the roadways in 2012 - 2015 will be the
largest Maintenance expense
Darryl Richard requested Malcolm Pirnie provide recommendations
for a future Maintenance Program based on assessed cost.
After discussion it was agreed that the Forest Lakes MSTU needs a
Financial Plan (long term plan.)
Michelle Arnold reviewed:
o 10 year Bond was issued in 2007
o Bond payment may be extended 5 years (until 2022)
B. Gordon River Extension Maintenance - Previously discussed V. A.
C. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard I Chris Tilman - Malcolm
Pirnie - The Forest Lakes Master Project List was reviewed. (See
attached)
Darryl Richard questioned if the Estimated Cost $1,982,831.00
covered the entire (F-58) Project.
Scott Windham responded affirmatively.
Proiect (F-53) Quail Run Lake Shoreline Restoration and Stabilization
o Fence Rail installation is 99% complete (Quality Enterprises)
3
1611 812
Woodshire Lane
o Tree roots were cut during sidewalk construction
o (2) Proposals were reviewed for Licensed Arborist Services
- Davey Tree $3,360.00
- Signature Tree Care $9,750.00
Discussion ensued on the debris and exotics along Naples Bath and
Tennis Property.
Scott Windham suggested installing vines in lieu of the Green Screen
as it would save $120,000.00 on the Project.
Darryl Richard noted Naples Bath and Tennis is opposed to a 6 ft.
height Barrier.
After much discussion it was suggested:
o To extend the (2) Post Caps up to 8 ft.
o Attach a cable to the (2) Post Caps for the climbing Vines
o If needed remove the (2) existing Post and install 8 ft. Post
George Fogg moved to hire an Arborist to take care of the
specified work not to exceed $4,000.00. Second by Harold
Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
VI. Landscape Architect's Report - Windham Studio
Scott Windham reported the following information:
(F-58) and (F-60)
o Field adjustments were made to the final layout and Irrigation
and Planting Plans
o Effluent Water Meter was installed for Irrigation (South side of
Forest Lakes Blvd.)
Darryl Richard reported:
o Condo Documents indicate a 60 ft. ROW may be available
along Forest Lakes Blvd (between Quail Forest Blvd. and
Woodshire)
o Survey is required to confirm the centerline of the Roadway and
Field verification
o Easement Agreements will be negotiated with Property Owners
Discussion took place on the 60 ft. ROWand Project Bidding.
George Fogg suggested including an Alternate Bid for the 60 ft. ROW
section that is under review.
4
161 1
812
George Fogg moved to allocate Funds up to $25,000.00 for the
necessary property Survey. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion
carried unanimously 4-0.
Staff will email the RWA Survey Proposal to the Committee.
George Fogg moved to (Bid the Project) as an Alternate between
Quail Forest Blvd and Woodshire. Second by Dick Barry. Motion
carried unanimously 4-0.
Opinion of Probable Cost (See attached)
o (109) Decorative Signs in the Community $127,680.00 (on the
Perimeter Road of Forest Lakes and Woodshire)
o Lighting cost increased $235,000.00 due to upgrades
- Install 20 ft. Light Pole
- The existing bracket can only be used on 20 ft. Light pole
(bracket is mounted at 15 ft. height)
- Powder coat for better longevity
George Fogg was opposed to the increased cost for Lighting.
Darryl Richard stated Powder Coat will minimize Maintenance cost. He
requested a cost break down to determine the cost of the Powder Coat
versus the ornamental feature.
o Induction Light is a cost increase of $80,000.00
o LED (Omega Light Fixture) is $1,000.00 per Fixture
($160,000.00 increase for the initial installation)
- In return cost savings on the monthly Power Bill
Darryl Richard requested the monthly Power Bill cost be included in the
Maintenance evaluation (by Windham Studio.)
After discussion it was concluded the Lighting Bid will be based on the
following criteria:
o Powder Coat
o 15 ft. Mounting height - 15 ft. Poles
o Include an Alternate Bid for various Fixture styles
Harold Bergdoll left 12:14 p.m.
Grounds Maintenance (See attached)
o Estimated Annual Budget $52,345.99
Staff noted the Maintenance Annual Estimate does not include mulch or
incidentals.
5
1611 B 12
Harold Bergdoll returned 12:16 p.m.
VII. Old Business
A. Election of Officers- None
VII. New Business - None
A. Lighting Quail Forest Blvd.
Darryl Richard renewed the request for consideration to install
Lighting on Quail Forest Blvd.
The Committee was in agreement that the item should be considered.
It was suggested to table the discussion until the current Project is out
for Bid.
George Fogg moved that consideration be given for Lighting on
Quail Forest Blvd. and Forest Lakes Dr. similar to what is on the
current Contract and to take place immediately after the current
Project is out to Bid, as a separate Project. Second by Dick Barry.
Motion carried unanimously 4-.0.
B. Master Plan Discussion
Darryl Richard stated the purpose of the Master Plan is to identify
future Maintenance Goals.
VIII. Public Comments - None
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the
meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 12:35 P.M.
Forest lakes Roadway and Drainage
MSTU Advisory Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee on
as presented >< or amended
Next meeting is March 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Fl 34104
6
RECEIVED
MAR 2 1 2011
1611813
~/
Y
Plaia
1'-1 iller
Henning ~
Coyle
Coletta
..
Board of County Comlri<L<t.i--
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes - January 11, 2011
V. Transportation Operations Report
A. Budget
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula
VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL
VIII. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates
A. Hunter & Coronado
IX. Old Business
A. Master Plan Revisions
B. CR 951 Roadway Modifications
X. New Business
XI. Public Comments
XII. Adjournment
Misc. Cones:
~
1
Copies to:
RE.CE.\\lEO
t.\~ \ () 1.0\\
eoerOotCOUl'\'f~
. .
116 11)./ rL13
~~ng~ -:
Coletta /'
~
G
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
MINUTES
I. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Pat Spencer, Vice Chairman.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Michael McElroy, Peggy Harris,
Barbara Segura (Excused)
County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Michelle Arnold - A TM
Director
Others: Michael McGee - McGee & Associates, Manuel Gonzalez - Hannula,
Richard Tindell - JRL Design, Sue Flynn - Juristaff
All documentation was submitted to Staff prior to meeting and was provided to
the Advisorv Committee and other attendees with an overhead vro;ection screen
to help provide a paperless environment via MSTU's request.
III. Approval of Agenda
Add: X C. CR 951 Roadway Modifications
Revise: X A. Landscape Architect Consultants
Peggy Harris moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mike
McElroy. Motion carried 3-0.
Richard Sims arrived at 4:07 pm.
IV. Approval of Minutes ~ December 14,2010
Add: VI Page 3 - Notation to Motion made by Barbara Segw:a - (Issue
forwarded to Road and Bridge) MISC. Corres:
~:
1
,.", #:
eo pies to:
1611813
Pat Spencer moved to approve the December 14,2010 Minutes as amended.
Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4-0.
V. Transportation Operations Report
A. Budget
Darryl Richard provided the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153
Report dated January 22,2011 and reviewed the following: (See attached)
· Ad Valorem Tax - Collected - $206.310.02
· Operating Expense - Encumbered - $124,749.09
Operating Expense - Available - $144,482.51
Total Budget - $1,850,908.06
· Improvements General- $1,468,100.00
· Purchase Orders Paid - $485,738.71
Staff is working with electrician to correct a lighting moisture issue on
Sunshine.
Discussion was made on the Carry Forward Account and which month of
the year it shows the exact Carry Forward dollar amount. Staff clarified the
fiscal year ends October 1st and the accounts are audited in February.
Discussion was ensued on Budget Item - Engineering Fees Other. Staff
stated the Maintenance Consultants Fees are paid out of this account.
Richard Sims asked the Committee to give some thought to the
Landscape Architect services the MSTU wants.
Pat Spencer stated she would be in favor of hiring for specific tasks but not
doing without a Landscape Architect.
B. Project Manager Report
Darryl Richard provided the Golden Gate MSTU Project Status Report
and reviewed the following: (See attached)
o (G-35) CR 951 Roadway Modifications (In planning stage)
FDOT funding approved. Next step is to obtain a permit from
SFWMD for the construction. Construction is anticipated to begin
in either 2013 or 2014. The project will impact existing landscape
and irrigation installations on CR 951 between Green Blvd. and the
canal.
o (G-34) - FDOT Grant Application for Safe Route to Schools Project
FDOT Application has been finalized and will be submitted to
Collier County Pathways.
o (G-33) Replacement or Demolition of Old Signs for Golden Gate
Community
Deteriorated signs on CR 951 have been temporarily removed.
o (G-31) Hunter & Coronado Design - Curbing, Landscape and
Irrigation
Purchased Order issued today for:
Phase I Curbing - Bonness $764,985.16
2
1611 813
Phase II Landscaping - Hannula $315,959.86
o (G-25) - Golden Gate Master Plan Revision
Staff will coordinate with Pam Lulich and McGee on revisions.
VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula
Manuel Gonzalez reported
VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL
Richard Tindell distributed and reviewed the Landscape Architect's Field
Report dated January 10,2010 and made the following observations. (See
attached)
Routine maintenance work has been performed.
Site lines on over hanging branches still need to be addressed.
· 2 dead palm trees on Collier.
· Pine tree on Golden Gate just east of Sunshine has severe damage.
Overall cold damage is evident.
Richard Tindell announced the Pathway Project is now a "Sidewalk" Project.
(See attached) He recommended having someone overlook the project and
reported the following:
· Focus is on sidewalks for Coronado. (See attached)
· All Pathway meetings are completed and now working with PE.
· The next step is for application package to be submitted to State for
Grant approval. (See attached)
· It may take 2-3 years before any sidewalk construction begins after
approval of FDOT Grant from the State.
A Cost Estimate for Coronado Parkway was provided. (See attached)
Pat Spencer recommended keeping the design flat unlike a roller coaster.
Richard Sims voiced his appreciation to Richard Tindell for doing a great job
on the Pathway Project and getting it changed to a "Sidewalk" Project.
VIII. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates
A. Hunter & Coronado
Mike McGee reported waiting on Purchase Orders.
Staff reported Purchase Orders have been approved and will be issued.
IX. Old Business
A. Safe Routes to School Project - Discussed in VIl
B. Master Plan - Discussed in VB.
C. Water Symposium
Richard Sims stated taxpayers are saying they do not want an irrigation
filtration system and want to know "Why can't they have Palmettos."
He noted the Committee is waiting on costs encumbered on the Hunter
and Coronado Project without change orders and stated there could be
3
161 1
8 13
unused funds to use for landscaping Median 21. He requested Mike McGee
email original plans to the Committee for further review.
Mike McGee responded Palmettos do well without water but need to be
watered until established.
Mike McElroy left at 5: 15 pm.
X. New Business
A. Landscape Architect Consultants
Darryl Richard stated staff can coordinate and manage specific tasks.
Richard Sims asked Architect Landscapers for feedback on
recommendations to "get the best for the buck."
Pat Spencer requested a list of tasks and fees.
Staff will provide at task list and further noted some tasks originate from the
Committee.
Richard Sims stated he will send a "Thank You" letter to the Water
Symposium.
B. Meeting Schedule - None.
XI. Public Comments - None.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned at 5.25 P.M.
Go en Gate MSTU Advis ry Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee/Board on ~ - g -I I
as presented X or amended
The next meeting is scheduled for February 8, 2011
4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center -
Naples, FL
4
1611813
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS
II. Approval of Agenda
Add: X C. CR 951 Roadway Modifications
Revise: X A. Landscape Architect Consultants
Peggy Harris moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mike
McElroy. Motion carried 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - December 14,2010
Add: VI Page 3 - Notation to Motion made by Barbara Segura - (Issue
forwarded to Road and Bridge)
Pat Spencer moved to approve the December 14,2010 Minutes as amended.
Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4-0.
1
-'..
161 1
B 13
Golden Gate MSTU Project Status
(G-35): IN PLANNING STAGE - FDOT FUNDING APPROVED- CR 951 ROADWAY
MODI FICA TIONS
01-11-11: Meeting with Project Manager Marlene Messam, P.E. and Gary Putaansuu,
P.E. the project funding from FOOT has been confirmed and that the next step is
obtaining a permit from SFWMO for the construction. Construction is anticipated in FY-
2013/2014 timeframe. This project will significantly impact existing landscape and
irrigation installations on CR 951 between Green blvd. and the canal.
(G-34): ACTIVE - FDOT Grant Application (Safe Route to Schools Project)
01-11-11: FOOT Application has been finalized and will be submitted to Collier County
Pathways/LAP Coordinator Allison Bradford.
(G-33): ACTIVE - Replacement or demolition of old Signs for Golden Gate
Community
01-11-11: Per Committee direction the 2 deteriorated signs on CR 951 will be removed
and sent for disposal. Hannula quote was for $360.00 for removal of the 2 signs. Staff
approved Jan. 3, 2011
(G-32): ACTIVE - Water Symposium Collaboration - Median #21
01-11-11: Water Symposium presented plan to MSTU committee on 12-14-10. In the
absence of motion to approve - no action required at this time.
(G-31): ACTIVE - Hunter & Coronado Design; Curbing, Landscape, and Irrigation
12-14-10: BID RESULTS:
The total funds required for this award is $764,985.16 (Part One - Bonness) plus
$290,879.86 (Part Two - Hannual) for a total of $1,055,865.02
01-11-11: BCC to approve award today (01-11-11)
(G-25) ACTIVE - Golden Gate Master Plan - revision; (PO 4500100242; Work Order:
TLO-MA-3614-07-04; Original Contract Time-Line: NTP 12/8/2006 to Final Completion
12/30/2007; Original PO Amount: $4,800)
01-11-11: Staff coordinating with McGee on revisions.
1
; "
161 1
l~
~
g I
i I
m
~ II
!I
GREEN CANAL
z
8 13
(fJ
o
I
o
o
r
1611 8 13
"U-i(')5:"Umm:D:D(')(f)-i5:
~" Si 0 ;::;.: -Co 3 ~ ~ CD CD CD ill 0
;a.-~~CDCTQlo3~9:::;;g
CD CD CD (') ~ < fJ ~ S' 3 C"l N'
Q.. .-+Q..C::"'~'-+Ql<cCD::::>'Ql
"U 0) m <' 3 o' CD - ;a. ~ =-.
Ql = ::::l CD CD ::::l m m l2<> I'T'l -. 0
< (f)Q..;::::L - X X G)........::::l::::l
CD3 0: (f) ;a.:D 00" 00" "'" ~ CD
CD CD CD .-+ =-. c:: :::!" ::::l
CD <C"l <C5:::::lCTCDQl
::::l <,=. C::Ql<cg:""'::::l
.-+ ~o iii'=)>::::l C"l
5: "'::::l ""'CTUl<C CD
~::E ~-g.
'" I Ql
S" Ql F
<C ::::l
Ul Q..
o'
Ql
-C
5:
~
Ul
(')
o
::::l
C"l
CD
CD
l2<>
o
ill
S'
Ql
-"'
0-"' .j:>.
coO) 1\)1\)1\) CD
CO--..l I\) 0 O'ICO-"' 0
-"'CDCDO)OOOW-"'-"'O
r(f)(f)mr(')(')mrrrrr
(f)-<-<)>'Tl-<-<Ql(f)(f)'Tl(f)(f)
(') C"l
I =r
~ ~
~ I\)~ ~-"'
W ~ ~ .1\) sn .--..1 .1\)
W ~O'I~~~-"'CD.j:>. --..IW
.j:>.~I\)O'IW.j:>.I\)I\)I\)O'I~-"'CD
.j:>.-"'OO--..lI\)I\)I\)O.j:>.OCOO
tou,Coo~:""wCno~~~to
W-"'--..IWWO).j:>.1\)0'I0--..lW-"'
~
-"' ~~~ ~ ~ ~
.j:>. ~-"'W-"'~-"'~~I\)~~~-"'
CO Wo)O'I.j:>.--..IOO)-"'I\)O)W--..I1\)
'" w~ow~o,,,,o,Co~".....i".....iw
0) .j:>..j:>..j:>.OCO.j:>.O'ICDI\)O'I--..1-"'CD
-"' O'II\)-"'-"'O)OO'l.j:>.OO'lWCO-"'
.. '.
(')
o
a
::::l
Ql
Q..
o
"U
'"
::E
'<
o
o
en
-
m
en
:=.
3
Q)
-
C'D
(f)
o
c::
:T
(f)
0:
CD
(f)
Ql
::::l
Di
III
Ql
0-
Ql
ill
0"
G)
o
c::
CD
:J
G)
Ql
CD
. .
~
161 1
8 13
f .~
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN
405 5th AVENUE SOUTH SUITE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 239-261-4007
DCIDITD@]@@CID[F)@ CID[f@[}uofi@@fi5J@ lfo@D@] [f@[F)@[ffi
COpy TO : [gI OWNER 0 ARCHITECT 0 ENGINEER 0 CONSULTANT [gI_MSTU Committee_
PROJECT: Golden Gate MSTU - POI 4500118406
CONTRACTOR: Hannula Landscaping - Mike Anderson 992-2210
Date: 12/14, 12/28,
1/3 & 1/10
Time: 2:30 - 3:30
PRESENT:
WORK IN PROGRESS:
OBSERV ATIONS:
REVIEWS:
REPORT:
REPORT NUMBER:
JRL COMM No:
11
9018
Weather: Clear
Estimate % Complete: N/A
Temp Range: 68
Schedule Conformance: As scheduled
Dec 14: Darryl Richard, Mike Anderson & Richard Tindell
Dec 28, Jan 3 & Jan 10 : Richard Tindell, landscape architect
Contractor not present
Other than cold damage on Collier Blvd, Site is looking pretty good,
Very little trash observed on Collier Blvd, Sunshine, Tropicana and
Golden Gate. Routine maintenance work has been performed. Site
lines on over hanging branches have still not been addressed. Yellow
crown-of-thorns, juniper and beach sun flower needed. Two palm
dead trees on Collier, one and 2 knocked over tree near Green on
Golden Gate, knocked over tree on Sunshine observer. Pine tree on
Golden Gate just east of Sunshine is in severe decline. Cold damage
is most evident on the length of Collier and western part of Golden
Gate.
Welcome sign at the North end of Collier Blvd has been repaired
County and FDOT Standards. Maintenance agreement. previous
suggestions, designs and work orders.
Reviewed last report. over all conditions and status of work orders and
direction from County with Mike. Pathways grants - application is
attached for January submission. Pathways have been upgraded to
concrete sidewalk to conform to County Standards. Estimated cost
for the improvement is $148,261.00.
In recent months there has been steady improvement however
specific corrections like those in the observation section (above)
have not been addressed.
(Repeating from last 6 reports as un-resolved) The beach sunflower on
Collier is very sparse weeds seem to be under control. At the August
1611 B 13
~
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN
405 5th AVENUE SOUTH SUITE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 239-261-4007
pre MSTU site review we agreed to try Beach Sunflower on more time
and received approval of the Board. The allamanda and juniper in
the median south of Green needs filling in or replacement with a
more substantial material.
2 dead sabal palm (possible lightning strike) was noted on Collier
south of Golden Gate have not been removed. Knocked over trees
on Sunshine and Colier median at Green Road median has yet to be
corrected or replaced. Dead palmetto, ilex and juniper are still
observed on Collier and should be replaced.
Recent cold weather will add to the distress especially to the crown of
thorns and bougainvilla
All planting areas continue to need to be trimmed to meet County
and FOOT standards, especially within site triangles. Ornamental
Grasses over hanging the roadway and low hanging tree branches
require immediate attention. The required clear view zone is between
24" and 72", FOOT also requires 14'6" clear over traffic areas and 10'
clear over sidewalks.
A meeting with the Project Manager and Hannula is needed to
address these issues.
New calibration of irrigation volume metering has been requested
ACTION REQUIRED:
Review with county setback requirements for mountable curb as
along Golden Gate. Meet with staff and landscape contractor.
Review schedules and contractors reports. Review outstanding work
orders, designs and proposals previously requested or issued to
Hannula. Request more direction from County and MSTU Board.
Reported by:
Richard Tindell, asia, registered landscape architect LA767
1611813
l!
~ I
I I
m
~ II
!,
GREEN CANAL
z
z
II::
s
I-
en
o
:c
o
o
r
o
1611 B 13
"'0
CIl
C.
0 "'0
~ CIl
0 C.
N 0
0 ~
Q) 0
0 N
I 0
Q)
~ 0
co I
.c
.... C.
co
co Z.
co ~
1: Q)
co 'S:
C/) fii
....
co co
Q) w
c .s:::
fii :;
co 0
w C/)
I
>- >-
co co
~ ~
.><:
.... ....
co co
c.. c..
0 0
"'0 "'0
co co
c c
e e
0 8
()
N "'"
"'0
CIl
C.
0
c; "'0
N CIl
0 C.
Q) 0
0 ~
I 0
N
~ 0
co Q)
-e 0
co I
co Q)
.s Cl
:2
c ....
co .c
C/) iii
iii ~
~ Q)
Q) 'S:
os: fii
fii co
~ w
>-
~ co
~
~ ro
ro c..
c.. 0
0 "'0
co
"'0 C
co e
c
e 0
0 ()
() ('t)
161 1
8 13
"0
VI
a.
0 "0
.... VI
a.
0 0
N
(.) 0
Q)
0 N
(.)
I Q)
Qj 0
1:: I
Q) Q)
() (;j
OJ OJ
c: c:
'0. Q)
a. "0
0 '0
.r; (!)
(J) ...
(;j co
Q)
1ii c:
co .r;
w "5
.r; 0
"5 (J)
0 I
(J) >-
co
>- ~
j ...
co
... a.
co 0
a. "0
0 co
c:
"0 e
co
c: 0
e ()
0 !Xl
()
<0
"0
"0 VI
III a.
a. 0
0 0
0 N
N (.)
(.) Q)
Q) 0
0 I
I Q)
i5.. ~
~ :::J
(.)
~ (;j
Q)
'S; 1ii
.r; co
"5 w
0 .r;
(J) "5
I 0
>- (J)
co
~ >-
co
... ~
co
a. ...
0 co
"0 a.
co 0
c: "0
e co
0 c:
() e
LO 0
()
r-
161 1
""C-los::""Cmm:D:Doen-lS::
III c: 0 ;::;:'6' 3 x (1) (1) CD (1) ii3 0
:r~~ (1) (1) o-fJ 03 III g,~g:
ro ~ ro o III < (') o~. 3 o' =
c. ga, c. c: ~ e. e. 03 c5 (1) s:: &l
""C 0> m <' 3 o' (1) - 3. III =:
III = ~ (1) (1) ~ m m S20 OJ -. 0
:;; en c. ~ ~ -...... ~. ~. (j) III ~ ~
'" -'en -"""enen~~"..
3 g. (1) (1) - =: c: ~. ~
(1) :lEU <CS::c5g:~~
~ III -. S. III -. ~
- _0 Ill=>~"
S::"~ ~O-en<C (1)
1ll:lE 0'0
:1 X::T
'" I III
:j' III F
<C ~
en c.
o'
III
'0
s::
e.
en
o
o
~
(')
~
(1)
-
(1)
S20
o
~
~.
~
III
0...... ,j:>.
000> 1\)1\)1\) CD
OO-....ll\)oc.noo...... 0
......CDCDO>OOOt.) ......0
r(J}enmroomrrrrr
en-<-<>"-<-<Illenen"enen
o (')
I ::T
(fi (fi
(fi I\)(fi (fi......
5N (fi (fi .1\) sn .-....1 .1\)
t.) (fic.n(fi(fi(fi......CD,j:>. -....It.)
,j:>.(fiI\)c.nt.),j:>.1\) I\) I\) c.n(fi...... CD
,j:>.......OO-....l1\)1\) 1\)0,j:>.0000
<oo,CXlo~:""Wmo~~~<o
t.)......-....It.)t.)O>,j:>.I\)c.nO-....lt.)......
(fi
...... (fi (fi (fi (fi (fi (fi
,j:>. (fi......t.)......(fi......(fi(fil\)(fi(fi(fi......
s>> t.)0>c.n,j:>.-....I00>......1\)0>t.)-....I1\)
I\) W~OW~o'No'<O~-.....,.......JC.-)
0> ,j:>.,j:>.,j:>.OOO,j:>.c.nCDI\)c.n-....l......CD
...... c.nl\)............o>oc.n,j:>.oc.nt.)oo......
B 13
o
o
~
o
~
III
C.
o
""C
"
~
o
o
t/)
-
m
t/)
~
3
m
-
(1)
en
o
c:
:f-
en
a:
(1)
en
III
~
-
III
OJ
III
~
0-
III
ii3
-
o
(j)
o
a:
(1)
~
(j)
e.
(1)
1611
813
Name of Applying Agency: DRAFT - GOLDEN GATE - CORONADO PARKWAY
Collier County Government; Growth Management Division,
Alternative Transportation Modes Department, Immokalee MSTU
Contact Person (Name & Title): Darryl Richard, Project Manager
Email: DarrylRichard@Colliergov.net
Phone: (239)252-5775
Mailing Address:2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Your signature indicates that the information included with this application is accurate.
Signature:
Date:
Check below which of the required agencies is anticipated to be the Maintaining Agency:
D City~ County
Name of Maintaining Agency: Collier County Government; Growth Management Division, Alternative
Transportation Modes Department, Immokalee MSTU
Contact Person (Name & Title): Michelle Arnold, ATM Director
Email: MichelleArnold@Colliergov.net
Phone: (239)252-5841
Mailing Address: 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Your signature indicates your concurrence with the information provided within this application
and your agency's willingness to allow this improvement within your right-of-way and enter into
the appropriate Local Agency Program (LAP) or maintenance agreement as applicable.
Signature:
Date:
If the City or County is located within an M/TPO area, a M/TPO representative must nIl in the
required information below:
Name of MrrPO: Lorraine M. Lantz
Contact Person (Name & Title): Lorraine M. Lantz,Principal Planner
Email: LorraineLantz@colliergov.net
Phone: (239) 252-8192
Mailing Address: 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104
Your signature indicates the MPO has reviewed the application for consistency with all applicable
adopted plans as well as program requirements and supports the proposed project.
Signature:
Date:
For FDOT Use Only:
Application Complete DYes D No
Implementation Feasible DYes D No
Liaison
Project Eligible DYes D No
Recommend Programming DYes D No
1611
8 13
LAP Coordinator
Production Staff
SWAG Director (if applicable)
Director of Production
Project Information:
Project Category: Choose an item. If other, please indicate funding source being sought.
Pathways
Project Name (Street Name): The south side of Coronado Parkway
Project Limits (From & To) (if not at an intersection, use logical termini): from Santa Barbara
Boulevard to Golden Gate Parkway
Detailed project description: (lane width; design - rural or curb & gutter; shoulder width, paved
or grass; signals; median width, painted, grass or raised, etc.)
a. Existing Conditions (provide labeled & dated pictures): Atteched
b. Proposed Improvements: add new and repair existing concrete sidewalk - make ADA
compliant - 2517 LF
Cost Estimate by Phase:
Planning
Study
PD&E
Design (PE)
ROW
Construction
Cost Estimate
(Present Day
Cost)
$8,784.00
$148,261.00
Fiscal Year
Funding
Available
Phase Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started
030% 030% 030% 030% 030%
060% 060% 060% 060% 060%
090% 090% 090% 090% 090%
o Complete o Complete o Complete o Complete o Complete
~N/A ~N/A ON/A ~N/A ON/A
Funding Type Federal Federal Federal Federal Federal
(Local, State or o State o State o State o State o State
Federal) o Local o Local o Local o Local o Local
Date project was endorsed by local jurisdictional board/council. Provide certified meeting
minutes: The project was endorsed by the MSTU to prepare the initial study and
1611 813
recommendations. Formalize approval of each project will be obtained and formal motions made
to satisfy this document through the A TM Department.
Is the Project in the Metropolitanffransportation Planning Organization's (MffPO) Financially
Feasible Long Range Transportation Plan: Yes i:8J No D N/A D If yes, provide page #:
If no, the project cannot be considered at this time.
Is the Project in the local jurisdictions Capital Improvement Plan: Yes i:8J No D If yes, provide
an adopted copy.
Is the applicant LAP certified? Yes i:8J No D
Constructability Review:
For items 2 - 7 provide labeled & dated vhotos.
1. Are there any other projects programmed (local, state or federal) within the project
limits? Yes D No i:8J If yes, please provide details, including but not limited to, project
scope and schedule.
2. Does the applicant have an adopted ADA transition plan? Yes D No i:8J Identify areas
within the project limits that will require ADA retrofit.
3. Bus Stops/Shelters/Benches: (Number, type, etc.) None
4. Drainage Structur~s: (Number of Culverts or Pipes currently in place; type, replace,
extend, etc.) 13 Does the project fall within an area covered by a stormwater master
plan? Yes i:8J No i:8J If yes, please provide a copy of the plan.
5. Any excavation greater than one foot below land surface? Yes D No i:8J If yes, give
locations:
6. Utilities: Yes i:8J NoD If yes, please list specific utilities within project limits and any
Issues. 1) COLLIER COUNTY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, 2) COLLIER COUNTY
UTILITIES, 3) COMCAST, 4) EMBARQ, 5) FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT, 6) US
TELECOM LLC, 8) TECO Gas, 9) FGUA (The Florida Governmental Utility
Authority)
7. Bridges within project limits: Yes D No i:8J Can existing bridges accommodate
proposed improvements? Yes D No i:8J
8. Right-of-way (Existing Width) See letter E under "Required Documentation": DARRYL
9. Additional Right-of-way/Easement Required: Yes D No i:8J If yes, project is not
eligible at this time. If Right-of-Way was previously acquired, please provide
documentation supporting process consistent with 49 CFR Part 24 was followed.
10. Is there a railroad within the project limits: Yes D No i:8J If yes, project cannot be
considered.
For items 11 - 17. if the answer is ves. please provide additional details. including the
credentials for the person responding and by what method was the information obtained. If the
answer is no. please note how this conclusion was drawn.
1611 813
11. Are there any permits required?: Yes [gJ No D Right of way permit for cosntruction
within right of way.
12. Are there any wetlands within the project limits: Yes D No [gJ
13. Is there any critical habitat within the project limits: Yes D No ~
14. Are there any endangered species within the project limits: Yes D No ~
15. Is a historic survey required: Yes D No [gJ
16. Is Recreational or 4(t) property within the project limits: Yes D No [gJ
17. Are there any contamination areas within the project limits: Yes D No [gJ
18. Additional Information: None
1611 B 13
Required Attachments:
A - Project Location Map
B - Dated & Labeled Pictures of the project
C - Detailed Cost Estimate including pay items
D - Local Capital Improvement Program (if necessary)
E - Survey/As-builts/ROW documentation (provide enough detail to show that adequate right-
of-way exists for the proposed improvement)
F - Property Acquisition Process (if necessary)
G - Certified Meeting Minutes
Resources:
A - Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual
(http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdemanlpdeman 1.shtm)
B - Local Agency Program (LAP) Manual
(http://www.dot.state.fl.us/proiectmanagementoffice/LAP/LAP TOC.shtm)
Glossary of Terms:
ADA Transition Plan: An adopted list of the physical barriers in a public entity's facilities that
limit the accessibility of its programs, activities, or services to individuals with disabilities; a
detailed outline of the methods to be utilized to remove these barriers and make the facilities
accessible; the schedule for taking the necessary steps to achieve compliance. If the time period
for achieving compliance is longer than one year, the plan should identify the interim steps that
will be taken during each year of the transition period; and, 4) the name of the official
responsible for the plan's implementation.
Bridges: A box culvert greater than 20' long is considered a bridge (for construction purposes)
Contamination: The presence of any regulated material/chemical contained within the soil,
surface water or groundwater on or adjacent to project, that may require assessment, remediation
or special handling, or that has a potential for liability.
Critical Habitat: Area essential to the conservation of a listed species, though the area need not
actually be occupied by the species at the time it is designated.
Endangered Species: A species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Historic Survey: The act or process of determining the location and identification of historical
and archaeological sites and properties. An aspect of identification is evaluation, meaning
161 1
813
determination of the historical significance or values represented by historical and archaeological
sites and properties which have been located and otherwise described.
Logical Termini: The end points to a transportation improvement allowing for the review of
environmental impacts.
Recreational or 4(0 property: FHW A and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land
from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and
private historical sites unless the following conditions apply:
· There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land.
· The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from
use.
Survey: Measurement of a specific parcel of land to ascertain area, corners, boundaries,
topography, and divisions with distances and directions of such parce1(s). An instrument that
specifies precise property boundaries.
Wetland: 1) lowlands covered with shallow and sometimes temporary or intermittent waters 2)
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
oSlo oSlo oSlo oSloWWWWWW
NN....OCDCO....CI)enoSlo
~88~~~~
zG>G>ZZ=i~
<<~~~~~~<
rn~!B;ti;ti!Bog~
O())>)>en~-lm
:::cOzz ......r~
()zenen c~en
~~<i~ ~ ~
::! ()"O () Z
Z 0:::C 0
G> r :::c
m
.,.~.,.~~.,.~.,.~
.... ......
':,.".!>.
NNCOOO
NNO......WCI)O)COoo
gg"g:~~k~
OOOOOOOWW
ooooooo~~
oooooooenUl
~~~~~~~.,.~
.... ......
co 00
en 0.
W W
, :'l:--l
..........
en Ul
~~.,.~~.,.~.,.~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CDCO""CI)enoSloWN""
oo~oorc"Ocr~enzm"Oorzmm -lZ()()-l-l:::Czz~O()
"O-lm~-lm():::CG>~c"OenrO-l~oZZ :::cm)>)>:::c:::cm-l<~mc
m~:::C~~G>mz~Zr:::Cc~en~Z-G>G> )>G>:::C:::C)>)><mm-lr:::c
:::cm-lom)>Z-l-lOen()z:::C-l-lmenO:::C~z zUl:::c:::czzm:::cen~)>)>
)>:::C~m:::cren-- ~^)> ~:::c mmm en~~~enenZm-l-lOo
::!omen~~m~~~ rmz()~:::c()~~mm ~o~~~~Ccn~I<
Z"O:::Cc-~_UJ "0 () mO en:::c mmOOmmm-lm-)><
G>m~~en()<m"O)>~m :::Cm=i^z"Om()ooz- :::cen:::c:::c:::C:::Cen-lz:::Cr)>
u mz)> ~UJ en-l<<~~-l)>-lOOr
~~~~~~:::COZ~)> ~~ ~;tizen~G> ~:::c~~:::c:::c:::c~-o:::c~
"O-lmmr-~O-l enz )>()-lm~ ()~:::c:::cOOC()~Zmm
mz~en~~=i:::cm~ ~m ~()5:::C:::C~ 0 oO~~~Om-~~
ZG> zzen~z:::c ~~ en-lmm en z oG>-l)>cr:::cZ-l-l
~~ 8G> z~~ ~r ~~~ ;ti ~m$<~:::c~rn~$<$<
"0 c O()~)> r)>c ffi mz():::cm()-l:::C
"0 en m - enmr z 0 -l m
() r m ~
.,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W
....
W ...... 00
NOo
Cl)00
oSlo 0 0
~oo
....00
......
N N
OUlO
000
,!=,!='!='
000
000
......
~w....l. O1I\J~ro.J
UlOON N......ooUlCOUl
0000. 0000. 0l0:""t..>
OOOOOOO~OON
OOOOOOONOON
'ooooooowooo
0000000......000
~~~~~~~~~~~~
.,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....
N
~ ...... ~
-:..... WNWW
oSlo ~O"""N
CD ooOUl......
0' 000 i-.>
CD OOOON
......
_VJ
N
CO
......
'u,
00
......
CO CO
~""-.J
...... N
N ......
I OW
~Ul
0.
CO
0)
'u,
o
.,.~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ul ......
".!>.-......
~VJ
l~!'-O
......~
o)N
Ul
CO
0)
'~
~
t N
en ~...... .... ...... N o COOO
CD WOl -:..... -...... b 0) ~ ......NNO) CoNo.Ol
CI) 0)0 00 W N...... UlO)OVJ 0...... UlN
, CI) ......~ CI) 0) N ~oo , ~ , ooOOW , ......ooOUl
~ u,eo 00 ~ (o~ eou,oi-.> omou,
.... ......0 00 .... N 00 N ~OOOO) O)UlOO
.,.~.,.~~~~.,.~
.... ......
':,.".!>.
NNCI)O)
0)0) CO 00
C:oo,:.a.~
0000
0000
0000
0000
<!g"::O
::ori g
~ii~
~~a
~~;
g~-<
!fa
fJ 8
I\J
00
VJ
0.
o
o
'0
8
01
'001
00
00
'00
88
)>
~tll3
NeCD
iilQ.~
OCDQ.
0"" CD
o Q.
'0
8
~~~~~~~~~~~~
m
><
~CD)>
N~n
OQ.....
0) _. e
- .... Dl
VJe_
........
, g::
~
.,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....
t...... ...... N
':,.00)"'0......0
COOUlOOOO
NONOOOO
enoooooo
....008000
~CD ~
m'
::l 'fi:
~'
....
E
.,.
Ii"
~ ~
N Ii
~@
)> :::!
.Q ~
, a
o
6'
I i ~ =
'"
~ ~ ~
i 8 =
'"
;:
l'i
3'
c:
3
"
~
1 19 J
_w 01~ ....l.
......O~ OOUlCOUl
OO".!>.UlO)",o.OlOo.O
......OOOOVJONOUlO
NOOOOOOVJooo
~ooooooi-.>ooo
8000080......000
enenenz
.....Oom
Illcc"O
"0___
iDii~
l/l ..... .....
::J::J 0
en en !!!,
cO' cO' -<
::J::J z
!!!.!!!.CD
~
r
S'
CD
~~~~~
+0000
VJoooo
O1....1.....l.....l.-""
IItl~tltl
........01():)....l.
VJNo)......
VJ~NCO
E
o
!!l
...
~
"T1
-<
N
o
5J'l
00
co
Ul
'i-.>
VJ
~-::i:
0......
0)00
'u,m
S~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~<-<-5'5'~
oo!:;:::Cl/la.1ll
G> G> iij' r c ::;. ::J
CDCD-oiilCD::J
CDCDIllCD::Jn.~
::l:l/lO III
~ ~ 5' cO' CD ()
)>~fl::JG>~
~tn m-
o 0 ::J
fl fl
~~~~
UlUlUlUl
0000
0000
....l..............ll. .....ll.
o ON......
......ONoo
......NUl~
N~NO
ONOOO)
-lorenrrrenr
o ::l: cO' c CD III III CD III
lit o' ;?; ii: <g a a Q a
- CD S' ::r - l/l l/l !!t l/l
en co S' )> l;l l;l ~ l;l
c ~ CD ~"O "0 iii'"O
Ill~CDCDCD-CD
ffi'a[~~~W~
l/l ~ S' g. g. s. g.
~ (Qs=~~s=
@ UUrn!J.
=
.,.~~~~~~~~
....
oSlo
W ......0) 00 ~......
tg~~~~~~l~n8
Cl)O~N""""""NUlo)
Oooeo~i-.>~wou,
oSloOooONUl......ooO
~
......
':::)
0)
Ol
o
~
'~
......
~
Utw
CO N
VJ ......
':""w
~s
~~~~
"00--
I en g, g,
l/l:>l"a.
-Ill III <
-<::J-CD
::0 3. a
CD co CD
~ ~...
c 0 Z
..... ::J Dl
@ 3
l/l CD
~
Ul
o
z~
)>~
Ul
co
co
~~~~
UlUlUlUl
8888:-0
~~~~~
~~~~~
VJ co 00 ......
N~OOCO
()rm~~en
O~iDQCD~
5 a. n. CD ~ S'
~ ~ ~.!e. N' 25:
en III -, -< CD CD
CD~~:::C""'~ 0
S. ~ ~ III 'i
o III 0 S'-
CD -. c - S' ~
l/la 0 '3"0
. ~ b
ill
~~~~~~
:::c~
CD ~
~......Ul............~~
:....O'-~w-......:j')>
coco~~VJ-.3
I:-'"~:-"~~:::::s....
0............ 0 ~ .
OO~o)ON
.,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~-lDl
...... 0 -.
_...... lit iii"
O)-C'
00 -
co CD
'(0
~
C)
0
r-
C
m
Z
C)
(.. :>
III -I
~ m
c "m
III C:m
-< z:>
..... Cc:
..... .....-1
CIl-
~ won
0 (1
.....
0 ~
0
z
3:
rn
-I
c:
)>
n
....
oSlo N e
en N 00 co...... !!.
-:..... ~ -...... O)OlNo.:"" 0)...... N"O
W ...... 0 NNOUlOO VJ Ul O)Dl
co ~ 00 0) ~UlOOUl woo 0-'
~ ...... ~ 0 , (ou,oo~ i-.>eo , . Q.
Ul
.... N 00 0 ~ooa"""" (J) ~ 00
1611 B 1-3 /
o
2885 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
MINUTES
I. Call to order
The meeting was called to order at 4:08 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Michael
McElroy (Excused)
County: Michelle Arnold - A TM Director, Darryl Richard - MSTU Project
Manager, Pamela Lulich - Landscape Operations Manager
Others: Michael McGee - McGee & Associates, Manuel Gonzalez - Hannula,
John Ribes - JRL Design, Sue Flynn - Juristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Barbara
Segura. Motion carried 4-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - January II, 2011
Richard Sims moved to approve the January 11,2011 Minutes as submitted.
Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4-0.
Pat Spencer asked for an update on the standing water by Wachovia Bank
located on North side of Golden Gate Parkway.
Staff will research with Road and Bridge if issue had been resolved.
Pat Spencer suggested checking location when it rains.
1
161 1
B 13
V. Transportation Operations Report
A. Budget
Darryl Richard provided the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153
Report dated February 8, 2011 and reviewed the following: (See attached)
Ad Valorem Tax - Collected - $215,205.22
· Operating Expense - Available - $144,122.51
· Total Budget - $1,850,908.06
Improvements General - $1,468,100.00
· Purchase Orders - Paid - $47,632.57
It was noted Purchase Orders for Hannula Landscaping and Bonness on the
Hunter and Coronado Project are scheduled to be provided to vendors in the
near future. It will adjust the available Improvement General Account to
$574,433.30.
Peggy Harris voiced concerns the Budget Excel Spreadsheet may not be
formulated properly.
Discussion occured on the Carry Forward Account and which month of the
year it shows the exact Carry Forward Accounts' dollar amount. Staff
clarified the fiscal year ends October 1 st and the accounts are audited in
February.
Staff stated Purchase Orders cause variances and the Carry Forward may not
be updated at the time the Monthly Report.
B. Project Manager Report
Darryl Richard provided the Golden Gate MSTU Project Status Report
and reviewed the following: (See attached)
o (G-35) CR 951 Roadway Modifications (In Planning Stage)
Staff met with Project Manager Marlene Messam, P.E. and Gary
Putaansuu, P.E. FDOT funding has been approved. The next step is
to obtain a permit from SFWMD for the construction. Construction
is anticipated to begin in either 2013 or 2014. The project will
impact existing landscape and irrigation installations on CR 951
between Green Boulevard and the canal.
Darryl Richard reported Marlene Messam, P .E. may form an Ad
Hawk Committee to watch the CR 951 Roadway Modifications
Project.
o (G-34) - FDOT Grant Application for Safe Route to Schools Proiect
FDOT Application has been finalized and will be submitted to
Collier County Pathways.
o (G-33) Replacement or Demolition of Old Signs for Golden Gate
Community - Has been completed
2
1611- B 13
o (G-32) Water Symposium Collaboration - Median 21
Committee formed a consensus at the January 11, 20 II meeting on
not to implement the Water Symposium proposal. The Committee
will continue utilization of water conservation practices.
Richard Sims suggested he send a "Thank You" letter to the Water
Symposium.
o (G-25) - Golden Gate Master Plan Revision
Staff recommended the Advisory Committee add maintenance costs
back into the Master Plan.
Darryl Richard recommended adding the maintenance component
prior to holding a Public Meeting to review Master Plan. He asked
for a motion to add actual maintenance cost back into the Master
Plan. He stressed the importance of knowing the revenue stream
(mileage rate) will cover maintenance costs. He further
recommended McGee & Associates evaluate maintenance costs and
asked Advisory Committee for direction to proceed forward.
Pat Spencer asked if Staff was recommending identifying
maintenance costs prior to submitting the Master Plan to BCC.
Staff stated the Master Plan could always be updated.
Mike McGee suggested re-evaluating and updating the existing
maintenance cost spreadsheet since the mileage rate has changed.
It was suggested the Civic Association be made aware of the time
and date of the Public Meeting.
Darryl Richard reported water hammer issues with pump system on
Tropicana Boulevard. He distributed a quote he received from FIS
Outdoor (Naples Electric Motor Works, Inc.) in the amount of
$1,150. (See attached)
Richard Sims expressed concerns on using the existing pump in
well and suggested Staff request FIS Outdoor to quote with a new
pump and same warranty.
Discussion ensued on hiring a Landscape Architect to evaluate the
size of the pump, gallons per minute, frequency drive controls,
warranty with capabilities of running 110% above the largest zone
and only run at 90%. Staff stated the County will evaluate without
hiring a Landscape Architect.
Staff stated Pam Lulich has been coordinating with Roger Dick to
calibrate existing pumps.
Mike McGee recommended calibrating the pumps after
replacement.
John Ribes suggested consideration be made on the size of the
pump and water restrictions.
3
1611'
B 13
Mike McGee stated there may be a more reasonable way to address
the issue and suggested an evaluation of the system.
Richard Sims stated something is different with the system. He
recommended Staff request a Service Ticket. The service ticket
should rate it, show actual amps, voltage, bladder tank, contactor,
etc. and if they go through these steps, they should be able to tell
exactly what is wrong with the pump.
Staff will have Naples Electric Motor Works do a Pump System
Evaluation and provide results to the Committee.
VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula
Manuel Gonzalez reported the majority of drive through maintenance
concerns' identified at the last meeting had been addressed.
Staff recommended Hannula replace 2- damaged yellow tab trees and the
yellow Crown-of- Thorns damaged by cold be replaced with mulch.
Advisory Committee reported Santa Barbara Boulevard has a trash problem and
suggested "Weekenders" collect trash on weekends.
VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL
John Ribes distributed and reviewed the Landscape Architect's Field Report
dated February 7, 2011 and made the following observations. (See attached)
He said the landscaping has steadily improved and reported the following:
· Routine maintenance work has been performed.
2 dead palm trees on Collier.
Pine tree on Golden Gate just east of Sunshine is in severe decline.
Cold damage on Crown-of- Thorns on CR 951.
Site lines on over hanging branches still need to be addressed.
Manual Gonzalez stated the County put a hold on trimming for the last 6
weeks.
Discussion was made on using mulch in medians on Coronado and Hunter, and
keeping the "Natural" look. It was noted sod had been removed and replaced
with plants and mulch to hold moisture and to keep weeds to a minimum.
VIII. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates
A. Hunter & Coronado
Mike McGee reported waiting on Purchase Orders.
Staff reported Purchase Orders have been approved and will be issued.
A Notice to Proceed date will be issued.
A suggestion was made to hold Completion Ceremony when projected is
finished.
Discussion was made on the landscaping at Golden Gate Parkway and Santa
Barbara.
4
161 1
B 13
Richard Sims expressed interest in knowing the number of the plants
destroyed and the costs to replace; and the cost to replace with better plants.
Pat Spencer inquired if CVS would consider funding some of the ROW
landscaping for that location.
Mike McGee volunteered to begin communication with the owner of the
CVS Shopping Center regarding ROW landscaping.
Richard Sims suggested the Advisory Committee download a document
named "MSTU West Entry Sign" to review and discuss at the next meeting.
ROW on planting trees and maintenance will also be reviewed.
IX. Old Business - Previously discussed in V B.
A. Master Plan
B. CR 951 Roadway Modifications
X. New Business - None.
XI. Public Comments - None.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:00 P.M.
~~ommittee
Richard Sims, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Committee/Board on :3 --6 - / I
as presented j')( or amended
The next meeting is scheduled for March 8, 2011
4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center -
Naples, FL
5
161 1
8 13
Golden Gate MSTU Project Status
(G-35): ACTIVE - FUTURE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION: IN PLANNING STAGE-
FOOT FUNDING APPROVED- CR 951 ROADWAY MODIFICATIONS
02-08-11: Meeting with Project Manager Marlene Messam, P.E. and Gary Putaansuu,
P.E. the project funding from FOOT has been confirmed and that the next step is
obtaining a permit from SFWMD for the construction. Construction is anticipated in FY-
2013/2014 timeframe. This project will significantly impact existing landscape and
irrigation installations on CR 951 between Green blvd. and the canal.
(G-34): ACTIVE - SUBMITTED: FOOT Grant Application (Safe Route to Schools
Project)
02-08-11: FOOT Application has been finalized and will be submitted to Collier County
Pathways/LAP Coordinator Allison Bradford.
(G-33): COMPLETED - Replacement or demolition of old Signs for Golden Gate
Community
02-08-11: Per Committee direction the 2 deteriorated signs on CR 951 will be removed
and sent for disposal. Hannula quote was for $360.00 for removal of the 2 signs. Staff
approved Jan. 3, 2011
(G-32): COMPLETED - Water Symposium Collaboration - Median #21
02-08-11: Per discussion at January 11, 2011 MSTU meeting - committee will not
implement Water Symposium proposal verbatim - but rather will continue utilization of
water conservation practices in projects.
(G-31): ACTIVE - Hunter & Coronado Design; Curbing, Landscape, and Irrigation
02-08-11: Contingent upon PO Issue and Contractor mobilization schedule. Staff
anticipates Notice to Proceed during the 1st or 2nd week of March with Part A (curbing)
120 day construction from Mar. 15,2011 to July 13, 2011 and Part B (landscape) 120
day construction from July 13, 2011 to November 10, 2011.
(G-25) A.CT1VE - Golden Gate Master Plan - revision; (PO 4500100242; Work Order:
TLO-MA-3614-07-04; Original Contract Time-Line: NTP 12/8/2006 to Final Completion
12/30/2007; Original PO Amount: $4,800)
02-08-11: Staff coordinating with McGee on revisions. Submittal to be reviewed by staff
and committee in preparation of a (1) Public Meeting to review the Master Plan, and (2)
BCC approval of revised master plan. Note: "on-going" Maintenance cost needs to be
identified in the master plan discussion.
1
1611
r~.~
,
.J 13
f1~ Guldoo!: Inc.
5565 Shirley St., Naples, FL 34109
Tel (239) 594-0904 Fax (239) 594-1262
Proposal
Company:
Attention:
11 0 1 02
Collier County
Roger Dick
02/01/11
RE: Collier County / Tropicana Blvd.
Variable Frequency Drive Controls
Naples Electric Motor Works, Inc. will furnish one UL Listed Packaged V.F.D. pump system
model VFD-LP-SUB-7.5-230-3-C pressure demand flow maintained irrigation pump system controls with
the following features:
. Fiberglass flip top cover color dark green.
. Welded aluminum frame.
. UL Listed Industrial Control Panel
. NEMA type 3R fiberglass enclosure for VFD and controls.
. Fused disconnect switch with type-R current limiting fuses.
. Yaskawa Variable Frequency Drive providing soft start, accurate pressure control via Pro 4-20ma.
transducer feedback, under/over voltage protection, low pressure shut off, elapsed time monitor, LCD
fault display.
. Transient surge protection.
. Input and output line reactors.
. Thermostat controlled cooling fan for VFD cooling.
. 2 gal. Hydro-pneumatic pressure tank.
. Netatim hydro valve with pulse output.
. System features start/stop control and fault monitoring/resetting by Motorola controller (controller
provided by others).
. Includes removing existing controls and skid. Install new skid on existing concrete pad and use
existing pump in well. Start and calibrate system and make connections to Motorola controller.
Price $15,200.00
Alternate Spin Clean filter mounted external to pump station; Price $1,150.00
NOTE:
Price good for 6 months.
Thank You
FlS Outdoor, Inc.
Chip Bridges
1611 8 13
~
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN
405 5th A VENUE SOUTH SUITE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 239-261-4007
O~IJi)@]@@~[F)@ ~[f@[}u01l@@1l9@ lJO@O@] [f@[F)@~
COpy TO: 1SI OWNER 0 ARCHITECT 0 ENGINEER 0 CONSULTANT lSI_MSTU Committee_
PROJECT: Golden Gate MSTU - POI 4500118406
CONTRACTOR: Hannula Landscaping - Manuel Gonzalez
REPORT NUMBER:
JRL COMM No:
12
9018
Date: 1/11, 1/26 &
2/7/2011
Time: 12:30 - 1 :30
Weather: P Cloudy
Estimate % Complete: N/A
Temp Range: 81
Schedule Conformance: As scheduled
PRESENT:
Jan 11: Darryl Richard, Manuel Gonzalez & Richard Tindell
Jan 26 & Feb 7: Richard Tindell, landscape architect
WORK IN PROGRESS:
Contractor crew not present
o BSERV A TlO NS:
other than cold damage on Collier Blvd, Site is looking pretty good,
Very little trash observed on Collier Blvd, Sunshine, Tropicana and
Golden Gate. Some dry patches in turf noted along Golden Gate.
Routine maintenance work has been performed. Site lines on over
hanging branches have still not been addressed. Yellow crown-of-
thorns, juniper and beach sun flower needed. Pine tree on Golden
Gate just east of Sunshine is in severe decline. Cold damage is most
evident on the length of Collier esp in Crown-of-thorns.
REVIEWS:
County and FOOT Standards. Maintenance agreement, previous
suggestions, designs and work orders.
REPORT:
Reviewed last report, over all conditions and status of work orders and
direction from County with Manny.
In recent months there has been steady improvement however
specific corrections like those in the observation section (Sightline and
side clearance for example) have not been addressed.
(Repeating from last 7 reports as un-resolved) The beach sunflower on
Collier is very sparse weeds seem to be under control. At the August
pre MSTU site review we agreed to try Beach Sunflower on more time
and received approval of the Board. The allamanda and juniper in
the median south of Green needs filling in or replacement with a
more substantial material.
2 dead sabal palm (possible lightning strike) on Collier south of
~
1611 8 13
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN
405 5th A VENUE SOUTH SUITE
NAPLES, FLORIDA 239-261-4007
Golden Gate have been removed. Knocked over trees on Sunshine
and Collier median at Green Road median righted although I have
concerns about additional damage from their root systems being
exposed for several weeks. Dead palmetto, ilex and juniper are still
observed on Collier and should be replaced.
Recent cold weather will add to the distress especially to the crown of
thorns and bougainvillea much of the bougainvillea has re-sprouted.
All planting areas continue to need to be trimmed to meet County
and FDOT standards, especially within site triangles. Ornamental
Grasses over hanging the roadway and low hanging tree branches
require immediate attention. The required clear view zone is between
24" and 72", FDOT also requires 14'6" clear over traffic areas and 10'
clear over sidewalks.
Conntinued meetings with the Project Manager and Hannula is
needed to address these issues.
New calibration of irrigation volume metering has been requested
ACTION REQUIRED:
Review with county setback requirements for mountable curb as
along Golden Gate. Meet with staff and landscape contractor.
Review schedules and contractors reports. Review outstanding work
orders, designs and proposals previously requested or issued to
Hannula. Request more direction from County and MSTU Board.
Reported by:
Richard Tindell, asia, registered landscape architect LA767
Fiala j)~ 1"11 Q 14 ~
Hiller ~~ = ~e ruary 7 2&fl
HennIng ~ _ - '
Coyle _ V
MINUTES OF THE ~~TING uf' THE COLLIER COUNTY
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
RECE\VED ADVISORY BOARD
MAR 2 1 2011
Naples, Florida, February 7, 2011
soard of County CQml'l\ISIIoI*S
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier,
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a
REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "C" of the Golden Gate
Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIR:
Jim Klug
Kaydee Tuff
Bill Arthur
Darrin Brooks
Peggy Harris
ALSO PRESENT:
Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III
Vickie Wilson, Community Center ~~_r
o.J11)0l \~
nemt: Ie \ ~~
1
Copies to:
Fe~ 7~20J
f3 14
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6: 15 PM by Chairman, James Klug III.
II. Attendance - Establish a Quorum
A quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda
James Klug moved to approve the February 7,2010 Agenda as submitted.
Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. Approval of January 4, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Bill Arthur moved to approve the January 4) 2011 Minutes as submitted.
Second by James Klug. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
V. Public Comments - None.
VI. Old Business - Discussed after VII
VII. New Business
A. Monthly Budget
Annie Alvarez distributed and reviewed the Monthly 210 Fund Report. (See
attached) She reported the Monthly 210 Fund Report reflected Budget was on
track. She addressed prior questions received from the Board regarding the
balance ofthe Carry Forward Account and gave the break down as follows:
y Total Carry Forward for 2011 - $311,800
Y Capital Carry Forward - $79,200
Y General Carry Forward - $232,600
She noted the Carry Forward Report was prepared during the Budget Process
by Finance Department. (See attached)
She reported Tropical Fest was a success with approximately $8,000 net
profit.
Annie Alvarez stated Security for Frontier Days will require I-Sheriff
Deputy. She stated the Fire Department was strict on the number of trained
Crowd Control Managers should be at events. One Crowd Control Manager
is required per 250 people. Some Staff members have attended Crowd
Control Management Class.
James Klug asked how they know the number in attendance.
Annie Alvarez responded they know just by looking. She stated some of the
other Parks have provided tickets to everyone entering an event; using
different colors for those who paid and for younger children not required pay.
2
1611 n14
February 7, 2011
James Klug recommended using the ticket system for Frontier Days.
VI. Old Business
A. Recreation Highlights
Vickie Wilson reported:
· Tropical Fest was held the first weekend of February.
· Senior Expo is scheduled for February 8th.
· Yard Sale will be held on February 1ih.
· Farmers Market-
The vendor requested permission to hold the Farmers Market on
Saturday morning inside the Community Center during the summer.
Staff will take request into consideration.
B. Field Lighting Update
Staff reported the project is complete and lights were working. There are 2-20
amp receptacles at the bottom of each pole. The GGCC has a state of the art
system in place would be more than sufficient to hold concerts.
Vickie Wilson recommended installing electrical plug-ins for performing
mUSIC groups.
James Klug suggested the Plug-Ins be a considered item for next year's
Budget.
It was noted the Flag Pole Lighting issue had been resolved.
C. 6' Fence from Tax Collector to Lucerne
Staffwill research and review with County and Tax Collector office.
D. Tropical Fest - Previously addressed VIlA.
E. Security Cameras
It was note the Staff had not received a status update on the GGCC
burglary. Security cameras will be put on next year's Budget.
VIII. Member Comments
Kaydee Tuff requested Annie Alvarez's list of the Bands who played at Tropical
Fest.
James Klug suggested both a fence and plug-ins for electrical be put on next
year's Budget.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:40 PM.
3
1 ~Jary~,201~ 14
COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY
BOARD
These Minutes wyapproved by the Committee/Board on
as presented or as amended .
., - 1 - { I
4
1611 8 14
$ 1,189,100 Total Expenditures
59,500 Res for Contingencies
225,600 total indirect
$ 1,189,100 check to GovMax
12,000
138,700
311,800 Total carryforward for 11
79,200 Capital Carryforward
232,600 general carryforward
(27,800)
,termine Ad Valorem needed:
0.925 = 5% revenue reserve and 2.5% o'f total
advalorem revenue for tax collector fees.
2,065,250,533 2009 adopted taxable value
2,018,001,134 2009 final taxable value
1,816,201,021 Est. 10% decrease
2.29% Actual decrease
508,100 Total 111 contribution - 2010
525,200 Total 111 contribution - 2009
498,940 95% ok
508,100 Need $120,000 off for 75%
Nm_.J
000
000
000
000
Nm_.J
000
000
000
000
Ul
""
""~ I_' _.J
N m O""_.J I_' NUl
~ WN
Ul I_' 0 m _.J
I_'_.J~~
o~om
0000
0000
0000
~ WN
Ul 1_'0 m_.J
I_'_.J~~
o~om
0000
0000
0000
NN
mo_.J
WmN
000
000
NN
mo_.J
WmN
000
000
m
I-'
NUlO
~I_'Ul
I_' I_' m "" _.J
I-'
I-'
mN
_.J _.J
I-' I_' I_' I_'
""N""~~""N
WUlUlUlO1
NI_'I_'WW
I_'mmUlO1
wwwmco
00000
00000
00000
00000
I I I
WUl Ul 0)0)
N 1_'1_' 1_'1-'
I_'mmUlO1
WWWU'101
ooowW
0001_'1-'
OOONJ\)
00000
I I I
I-' I-' 1-'1-'
I-' 0 Ul UlO1
N ~ "" ~ ~\O
m I-' N ~ ~\O
m N Ul Ul UlO1
m W ~ ~ ~\O
N _.J "" "" """,-
m "" m m mO)
-------------------------
"" I-'
I_'m""Ul
_.J Ul "" Ul
I_'WI_'Ul
Nmm~
""OmUlUll_'m_.JNN~""
000000000000
000000000000
000000000000
000000000000
Ul
""
""~ I_' m
N mo",,_.J I_' NI_'
I-'
""
W I_'
I_' NI_'
mW_.J~
_.J "" Ul _.J
N I_' I_'
N O_.J N _.J
_.J Ul 0 Ul
UlOOO
I
_.J~WN
",,~om
omml_'
OmNUl
oml_'o
I
Ul
o
o
o
o
O~_.JI_'Ul
00000
O_.JOOO
00000
00000
I
m
I-'
NUll_'
~I_'W
I_'I_'mw_.J
""OmUlUll_'m_.JNN~W
000000000001_'
OOOOOoooooom
000000000000
000000000000
I-'
I-' "" I_'
~Ul W
Ul
o
o
o
o
O~_.JmUl
ooowo
0_.J01_'0
OOONO
00000
I
I_'W
_.J "" 0
_.JON
UlN~~ ""~~NI_'
ml_'l_'~WUlmUlW~
WI_'Ulm""Nml_'''''Ul
W_.JUlmUlOUl""""O
UlWmmOOmUlOO
I
I_'''''Ul ""Ul UlUlOW_.Jmm~m mUl~N~~~ UlNUl~ Ul~_.JmW
mNUlUlO~_.JOO""oOOOOmWN~ON~UlN_.Jml_'m~W""N""WO
NmUlUlONOOOWOOOOOm""UlNOOm""mNWI_'''''m""mOm_.JUl
Nwm
I_' _.J _.J
W _.J I_' _.J
""m
O_.J
_.J 0
~W
WO
WO
mm
00
00
I-'
I-'
N
"" W m NI_' ""
_.JUl""W NW W I_'m _.J~ N W
mwmUlOOWOOI_'OOOOO_.JUlOUloom_.JUlOW_.J""mUlO""UlWO
mm""~OmUlOOI_'OOOOO~oooOOm~OOUlWNmOONUl""O
I I I I I I I
_.J N
mUlO
~W
"" Ul
1_'0
UlO
00
00
I-'
NI_'
01_'
mUl
""0
_.J Ul
~O
Ul
I-'
NN
Ul Ul
N
Ul
NN
mm
N
~
""NN""
Ulm_.JON
ON
00
00
o 00 I_' O_.JUl
0000000
0000000
NWW
WNNl\.)J\)
CXlUlUll\.)J\)
_.JUl m""I_'~OI_'N ~I_'I_'~\O
WOI_'Ul~ml_'''''_.J''''NUl''''mm~'''-
I_'mmWmmm_.JUlNNW~WWCOCO
_.JmmmO_.JmUlOUlm~mOOO)O)
_.JO_.J""o_.J~oommwm~~~\O
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
00
00
I I
0000000
0000000
I I I I I I I
Nm WUlml_'~UlN WI_'I_'U'101
m~I_'''''OWmUlNUlNUlUlI_'I_'NJ\)
ml_'mm""I_'I_'NUl_.JNWOmmOO
1-'1-'""",-
m~~-.J...J
NWWCXlCO
mN
_.J _.J
I-' I_' I_' I_'
""N""~~""N
NNmWONI_'UlO""m~W~~~"'-
wO_.JmOWI_'OONmW""I_'I_'WW
I I I I I I I I I I I I
ON
00
00
OOOI_'O_.JUl
0000000
0000000
00
00
I I
0000000
0000000
I I I I I I I
"" I-' I_'
_.JI_' W """"NOI_'
WI_'
~Ul
I-' I_'
1_'~""m""l_'
Ul ""
""N
~NNNNm
1_'''''~UlN~~
_.JmmNJ\)
""NNNJ\)
UO"':l"':lItl"':l
Os::: s::: (1).....
a::l::lI1C1l
a 0.0......0
(1) rt..... 0 III
o.CIlS'ful 0.1-'
Itl (1)::l t<
11 ::l rt (1)
o rt (1) III
\Q 11 11
11 H
~ lti
a
t<
to
o
00
lto
18
1-3
10
~
1-3
~
**(J)I_'I_' N
CUlW 0
2_.J001_'
2-.J I_'
~I-' rt
710 0
r<
I-'
W
71GlGlOO
roOOrt
<: t-' t-' III
roCJCJrt
::J MM.....
,:: ZZCIl
ro rt
Gl Gl.....
AJ~~O
::J >-'J>-'J1ll
o.MMI-'
MOOH
:>< 00::l
'D 220.
ro22.....
::J C 0
Ul ZOIll
ro HZrt
>-'J>-'JO
(J)r< 11
,::
tro
1M
>-'JZ
O>-'J
rtM
AJ71
I-'
Ul
rtrt rt
00 0
Gl
o
t-'
CJ
M
Z
Gl
~
>-'J
M
o
o
2
2
o
Z
>-'J
to
s:::
~
(1)
rt
rt
o
>
o
rtO
s:::0
III I-'
1-'1-'
.....
0(1)
011
a
"00
III 0
11S:::
.....::l
CIlrt
0"<
::l~
to "':I
01-'
000
11
t:l .....
110.
.....Ill
I-'
I-'
0.
o
~
::l
\1j
~
o
11
rt
II
Gl
o
t-'
CJ
M
Z
Gl
~
>-'J
M
o
o
2
2
o
Z
>-'J
OI-3t:l
I-' .....Ill
.....a rt
(1)(1)(1)
::l
rt
I_' 0
WUlN
0.._____
OUlO
"" _.J
..-----
UlN
00
I-'
I-'
0)0)
OONI--'
1--'1--'1--'
I--'NN>I:>Oo)l--'>I:>WNUl
1--'1--' WUl\.DW I--' CDCDW
N I--' 0)
I--'Ul NNUlUlO)N>I:>CDI--'UlUlUlUlNO)\.Do)CD
OOW\.DO)>I:>OUlUlUlOOUlONOO>l:>UlUlOUlO)N>I:>ONW
0000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000
ONOCD
0000
0000
UlOI--'~NOOOOO~OOOCDO)>I:>O~UlCD
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000 0000 000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000 0000 000000000000000000000
I--'
~O)W
WOWNI--'
I--' I--' f-'
f-'NN\.DOo)f-'>I:>WNUl
f-'f-' WUl\.DW f-' CDCDW
N f-' 0)
f-'Ul NNO)UlO)N>I:>CDf-'UlUlUlUlNO)\.DO)CD
CDOCDW\.DO)>I:>OUlUl>l:>OOUlONOO>l:>UlUlOUlO)N>I:>ONW
1--'0f-'0000000f-'000000000000000000
UlOUlOOOOOOOO)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ONOCD
0000
0000
UlOI--'~NOOOOO~OOOCDO)>I:>O~UlCD
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
NONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0000 000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000 0000 000000000000000000000
Ul Ul f-' >I:>
Ul Ul NUlN NI--' f-' N f-'NOWN
, , , , ,
~ ~ CDO)O Ul CD >I:> Ul Ul 0) f-' 0 CD W WUl~UlO)
0 0 W O)NUl W 0 f-' N~CD 0 0 Ul 0) f-' 0 CD 1.0 I--'
0 0 0 CD CD CD >I:> 0 N ~NO 0) 0 ~ N 1.0001--'1.0
0 0 0 0>1:>0 ~ 0 >I:> ~CDO ~ 0 Ul f-' o)Of-'CDN
0 0 0 1.00)0 N 0 I--' UlOO CD 0 0 0 >l:>OOUlO)
f-' f-' N
CD CD f-' Ul >I:> f-' N Nf-' f-' f-' Ul N >I:>
f-' f-' W\.D OWl--' O)~ >I:> f-' f-' f-' 1.0 f-' W ~ WUl 00) WN >1:>0) >I:> CDW>I:>
f-' f-' N 1.0 0) N~N 0) >I:> f-' ~ ~ ~NNO Ul W 1.0 >1:>0)>1:> 0>1:> WCD OO)\.D\.DNCD
Ul UlO OW f-' f-' Ul Ul >I:> O)Ul Ul N~O\.D 0 I--' W CD 1.0 1.0 ON f-' 0)0 OOUlCDf-'O
N NO 01.0 ~UlCD NCD >1:>0 0 NNOUl 0 W N O~O OUl W f-' >I:> OWOW\.D~
0 00 00 1.0>1:>>1:> CDUl NO 1.0 UlOOO 0 W N 0>1:>0 00 CD \.DN 00)0 CD N >I:>
I
- ------------------- ___u_________
0) 0) f-' I--'
OONI--' f-'I--'NNf-' Nf-'NNNW
I--' Nf-'UlN
~CDW
N f-'
I--'Ul NI--'UlWf-'N>I:>CDf-'>I:>WUl>l:> WO) f-'
OON\.Df-'UlOUlUlUl
OOCDOCDO)OOON
OOOOOWOOOO)
CDUlCD>I:>O~NUl\.DOUl\.D~O)O)NUl
1--'00UlOCDNOf-'00000\.DOUl
O)OOUlOWUlONOOOOOOOO
\.DNOCDNUlO Wo)OOUlOO~Oo)WCDN>I:>O\.DUl~
o)OOOOOOUlWUlOOOOOOOO)UlOONO~CDO
CDOOOOOONOI--'OOOOOf-'OW~OOOUlCDO)O
OOOOO\.DOOOf-'
OOOOOOOOON
I
1--'00f-'OUlOOUlOOOOOUlOO
O)OOUlOCDOOOOOOOOOOO
O)OOOOOOONOOOOOOWOCD>I:>OOOO>l:>NO
~OOOOOOOo)OOOOOOCDOI--'CDOOOOCDWO
I I
f-'
o Ul
o UlO
>I:>
~\.D
Of-'
f-'
>I:> 0 f-'
001.0
WN
OW
N>I:> W
>l:>W 1.0
f-' 0) >I:> f-' Ul
\.D~OO ~
o
>l:>f-'Nf-'>I:>~
CDWUlO)OUl
f-'
W NCDf-'~\.D\.D
o O)N UlNCDf-'f-'~
1611915
Memorandum
To: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager
Board of County Commissioners
From: Jason Bires
Property Acquisition Specialist
Date: March 29, 2011
Subject: Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee Meeting
Minutes - Signed by Chairperson
Ian,
Please find attached to this memo the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee
meeting minutes signed by the Chairman along with the meeting agendas.
The following minutes were signed by Chairman Jeff Curl.
November 22,2010
January 24, 2011
Thank you.
Attachments as stated
Real Property Management Department
\O)m@mn\VIm~
ll\ MAR 2 9 2011 WJ
fD~fDoM~~~ ~Ial
Monday, November 22,2010 Hiller
6:30 p.m. Henning
Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 1 0 g~~~
l1J~ 15
y
-r'Y
V
BY: .......................
Committee Members
Chainnan: Jeff Curl
Vice-Chairperson: Karen Acquard
Member: David Fanner
Member: Pat Humphries
Member: Vacant
AGENDA
I. Call to Order - Approval of Agenda -
II. Election of Officers -
III. Approval of Minutes - September 27, 2010 -
IV. Approval of Treasurer's Report -
V. Max Hasse Park Expansion (Update) -
VI. Solid Waste Management - Designated Driveway Request - Parcel 37807880001
VII. Signing of Minutes - July 26th & September 27th
VIII. Public Comments/Other Discussion
IX. Next Meeting Date - Monday, January 24, 2011
X. Adjournment -
Misc. Corres:
.G
Item t:
C:-"*'5 to:
161 1
B 15
floIdtmfla/8 ~ ~~ ~
CJult (/nwtkan &vtp0JUdi0n (GAC)
Monday, November 22, 2010
6:30 p.m.
Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10
13240 Immokalee Road
Naples, FL 34120
k~-~
~~-~~
~~-~
{5}FfDJldY~ -~
~-~
Jason Bires - Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management
Distribution: Treasurer's Report
NOTE: Karen Acquard was not in attendance until item IVon the agenda.
I. Call to Order - This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was
called to order by Chairman Jeff Curl at 6:32 p.m. At this time, Chairman Curl called for a
motion to approve the agenda as presented. A motion to approve the agenda was made by David
Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the
agenda was approved unanimously, 3-0.
II. Election of Officers - The next item on the agenda is the election of officers for the Land
Trust Committee. A motion was made by David Farmer to keep Jeff Curl as Chairman and
Karen Acquard as Vice Chairperson. A second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries.
With no further discussion, the motion to keep Jeff Curl as Chairman and Karen Acquard as Vice
Chairperson was approved unanimously, 3-0.
III. Approval of Minutes - September 27, 2010 - The next item on the agenda is the
approval of the minutes from the September 27,2010 meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land
1611
f.
~" 15
-&".
Trust Committee. The minutes were received by the Committee members and they have all had
an opportunity to read them. With no discussion regarding the minutes, Chairman Jeff Curl
called for a motion to approve the minutes as presented. A motion to approve the minutes of the
September 27,2010 meeting was made by Pat Humphries and a second to the motion was made
by David Farmer. With no further discussion, the minutes were approved unanimously. 3-0
IV. Approval of Treasurer's Report - The next item on the agenda is the approval of the
Treasurer's Report. Staff provided the Committee members with a copy of this month's
Treasurer's Report. Staff advised that the ending cash balance in the Treasurer's Report is
$1,407,594.64. The available cash balance is $1,107,594.64. The difference of $300,000 is the
amount designated for the Max Hasse Park Expansion (Item V on this agenda). With no further
discussion regarding the Treasurer's Report, Chairman Jeff Curl called for a motion to approve
the Treasurer's Report. A motion to approve the Treasurer's Report as presented was made by
David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Karen Acquard. With no further
discussion, the Treasurer's Report was approved unanimously. 4-0
V. Max Hasse Park Expansion (Update) - The next agenda item is an update on the status
of the Max Hasse Park Expansion. Staff advised that this item went before the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners at their November 9,2010 meeting and the item was approved
unanimously as part of the consent agenda. As a result, the Agreement provides for a
reimbursement of 60% of the total cost of the project, not to exceed $300,000.
VI. Solid Waste Management - Designated Driveway Request - Parcel 37807880001 -
The next item on the agenda is a request on behalf of the Solid Waste Department to use a GAC
reserved list parcel for a designated driveway in Golden Gate Estates. Making a presentation on
behalf of the Solid Waste Department was Sue Zimmerman from Collier County Real Property
Management. Ms. Zimmerman explained the designated driveway property to the Committee
and explained the need for this driveway in this particular area. The Committee raised some
concerns about how this proposed designated driveway would affect the parcel in the future. The
Committee stated that although the parcel is on the reserved list at this time that does not mean
that it will not be sold in the future. The Committee is concerned that the installation of a
designated driveway on this parcel will adversely affect the value of the parcel in the future. The
Committee members discussed the request with Ms. Zimmerman. The Committee recommended
denial of Staffs request to build a designated driveway on this particular parcel. It should be
noted that while the Committee denied the request, no motion was made for the denial. All
parties left with the understanding that the request had been denied.
VII. Signing of Minutes -July 26th and September 27th - The next item on the agenda is
the Chairman signing the minutes from the July 26th and September 27th meetings. Staff
provided the minutes to Chairman Jeff Curl who then signed them and returned to staff.
VIII. Public Comment/Other Discussion - There was no public comment nor was there any
further discussion amongst the Committee.
IX. Next Meeting Date - Monday, January 24, 2011 - The next proposed meeting date of
Monday, January 24, 2011 is good for all members.
16' 1
X. Adjournment - With no further business to discuss, a motion for adjournment was made
by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Karen Acquard. The motion to
adjourn was approved unanimously. This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust
Committee was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. 4-0
~
J. /~~ . 00- -- - , ~
'15
@~@tlM~~~~6Ijp<{ 15
Monday January 24 2011 Hiller, /
, , Hennln9E
'ii5I @ ~ U w m \\\\ 6:30 p.m. Coyle
\0) '~ M Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 Coletta .
I tIt~R 2 9 LOll
Committee Members
Chairman: Jeff Curl
Vice-Chairperson: Karen Acquard
Member: David Farmer
Member: Pat Humphries
Member: Vacant
BY: .......................
AGENDA
I. Call to Order - Approval of Agenda -
II. Approval of Minutes - November 22, 2010 -
III. Approval of Treasurer's Report -
IV. Max Hasse Park Expansion (Update) -
V. Big Corkscrew Fire Control and Rescue District Funding Request (Chief Greenberg)
VI. Public Comments/Other Discussion
VII. Next Meeting Date - Monday, March 28, 2011
VIII. Adjournment -
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item#:
C :-~i~s to:
161 1
B 1 sf
~~~aM~~~~
quq anwuam &tp0JUdi0n. (GAC)
Monday, January 24, 2011
6:30 p.m.
Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10
13250 Immokalee Road
Naples, FL 34120
N~-~
~~-~~
~~-~
QJFf.llIidY~ -~
~-~
Jason Bires - Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management
Distribution: Treasurer's Report
Big Corkscrew Fire District Packet (Provided by Chief Greenberg)
I. Call to Order - This evening's meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust
Committee was called to order by Chairman Jeff Curl at 6:30 p.m. Chairman called for a motion
to accept the agenda as presented. A motion to accept the agenda was made by Karen Acquard
and a second to the motion was made by David Farmer. With no further discussion, the agenda
was approved unanimously. 4-0
II. Approval of Minutes - November 22, 2010 - The next item on the agenda is the
approval of the minutes from the November 22, 2010 Land Trust meeting. A brief discussion
was had regarding language in the minutes under item VI which was a request made on behalf of
Solid Waste Management for a designated driveway. Chairman Curl did not like the language
stating that the Committee denied the request and asked that the language be changed to reflect
that the Committee recommended that the request be denied. As brought up by Chairman Curl,
although the Committee recommended denial of the request, the County is still able to bring the
request before the Board of County Commissioners. Staff advised that they understood and
would make the revision in the minutes to reflect that the Land Trust Committee recommended
161 1
815
that the request be denied. After that discussion, Chairman called for a motion to accept the
minutes reflecting that change. A motion was made by Pat Humphries and a second to the
motion was made by David Farmer. With no further discussion the minutes were approved
unanimously pending the revision to be made by Staff. 4-0
III. Approval of Treasurer's Report - The next item on the agenda is the approval of the
Treasurer's Report. The Treasurer's Report was provided to all Committee members by Staff at
the beginning of this evening's meeting. Staff advised that the cash balance at this time was
$1,407,594.64 and the available cash balance is $1,107,594.64. Staff advised that the difference
between the actual cash balance and the available cash balance is the $300,000 that was
approved for the expansion of the Max Hasse Park expansion project. Staff advised that this
pending amount would show up on the Treasurer's Report until the project is complete and the
money has been distributed. There was a brief discussion regarding the Treasurer's Report.
Karen Acquard inquired about the money in the Market Adjustment and Capital Outlay sections
of the report. Staff advised that they weren't sure about the Market Adjustment but that the
Capital Outlay was money that has been distributed to groups requesting money from the Land
Trust. Staff advised that they would get clarification from Finance and that they would have a
report for the next Land Trust meeting in March. With that discussion, Chairman Curl called for
a motion to approve the Treasurer's Report as presented. Karen Acquard made a motion to
approve the Treasurer's Report as presented with the understanding that Staff would get
clarification on her questions for the next Land Trust Committee meeting in March. A second to
the motion was made by David Farmer. With no further discussion, the Treasurer's Report was
approved unanimously. 4-0
IV. Max Hasse Park Expansion (Update) - The next agenda item is an update from Staff on
the status of the Max Hasse Park Expansion. Staff advised that as stated in the November
meeting, this item was approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that Parks and Rec
was moving forward with the project. Staff advised that they had met with Parks and Rec staff a
couple of weeks ago and discussed the GAC process. Staff advised that per the Agreement,
Parks and Rec has 12 months from the date of the Agreement to complete the project. Staff
advised that Parks and Rec was notified that if they need to go beyond the 12 months allotted in
the Agreement that they would have to come before the Committee for an extension. Staff
informed the Committee that it was their opinion that this may go beyond the 12 months and that
Parks and Rec could come back in the future to ask for an extension of time. Chairman Curl
made a request that they be kept in the loop as to the status of the project. Staff advised
Chairman Curl and the rest of the Committee that they will be working with Parks and Rec staff
throughout the course of the project. Staff advised that they would provide the Committee with
progress updates when the Committee meets.
V. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Funding Request - The next
item on the agenda is a request for funding by the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue
District (District). Chief Rita Greenberg was in attendance to make a presentation to the
Committee for the request. Chief Greenberg provided the Committee members with a packet
outlining the details of the request. As outlined in the packet the request is for personal
protective equipment (PPE) to be used by the firefighters in their duties. The equipment is to
include coats, pants, boots, gloves, helmets and face pieces. As explained by Chief Greenberg,
1611815
the equipment that they currently have has been deemed to be out of compliance by current
safety standards. Chief Greenberg stated that they have purchased as much as they could on
their own with their current budget. In addition to the PPE, the District is also requesting
funding for a supply hose for the fire engines in order to maintain compliance with NFP A
standards. The total amount to be requested per the packet given by Chief Greenberg is $24,527.
Chief Greenberg states in the packet that the request will not exceed $25,000. After hearing
Chief Greenberg's presentation, a motion was made by David Farmer to provide an amount not
to exceed $25,000 for the purchase of the requested equipment. A second to the motion was
made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the motion to approve the request was
approved unanimously. 4-0
VI. Public Comments/Other Discussion - There was no public comment. Staff advised at
this time that they would bring the revised minutes from the November 22, 2011 meeting to the
next Land Trust meeting in March to have Chairman Curl sign.
VII. Next Meeting Date - Monday, March 28, 2011 - The next scheduled meeting of the
Land Trust is scheduled for Monday, March 28, 2011. David Farmer stated that this date may
not be convenient for him however the other three members had no objections. Therefore, the
next scheduled meeting of the Land Trust will be Monday, March 28, 2011. Chief Greenberg
advised that the Land Trust Committee has the room reserved through the end of the year.
VIII. Adjournment - With no further business to discuss, a motion for adjournment was made
by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Karen Acquard. The motion for
adjournment was approved unanimously. This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust
Committee was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. 4-0
~
/'
Je , airman ~
MEMORANDUM
16 I t RJ!EI!B
NOV 1 9 2010
Board of County Commissioners
Growth Management Division
Planning and Regulation
To:
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager
Board of County Commissioners
Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst c:;;y--
Impact Fees /I
From:
Date:
November 17,2010
Subject: Approved Minutes of the Historic Archaeological Preservation Board
Attached are the approved minutes from the September 15,2010 meeting of the Historic
Archaeological Preservation Board.
Iggs
Attachments
1611 B 16 J
September 15,2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD
RECEIVED
NOY 1 9 2010
Boan:! of County Commissioners
Naples, Florida, September 15,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Historic/Archaeological
Preservation Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
9: 15 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County
Growth Management Division - Planning and Regulation Building, 2800 N.
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
William Dempsey
Sharon Kenny (Excused)
Pam Brown (Excused)
Patricia Huff
Elizabeth Perdichizzi
Richard Taylor
Craig Woodward
Flal~4?/
\+1\ \~ r./
\~"\'\ \t\<j ~
Co,\ \~
Col€-thA ~ V".
ALSO PRESENT:
Ray Bellows, Planning Manager - Zoning Services
Glenda Smith, Operations Analyst
Misc. Corres:
II
l t?-l ~
Item#:
C:~ies to:
1611 B J.~)
September 15,2010
I. Call to Order:
Chairman William Dempsey called the meeting to order at 9:18 AM.
II. Roll Call:
The Roll was called and a quorum was established.
III. Approval of Agenda:
Betsy Perdichizzi moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Craig
Woodward. Carried unanimously, 5-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - July 21, 2010:
Ray Bellows noted:
. the April 21, 2010 Meeting Minutes were not signed by the Chairman, although
they were approved as amended by the Committee at the May 19th meeting.
. the Minutes for the January 21,2009 meeting had not been signed by Chairman
Betsy Perdichizzi.
Corrections to Julv 2Ft Minutes:
. On Page 6, under "VII. (C) - Historic Brochure: Status Report," the reference to
Indian Hill was removed and it will not be included in the Brochure.
. On Page 5, under "VII. (B) - Update: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore," the
Motion was to approve the Requestfor the Waiver, not the PUD.
. On Page 3, in the last sentence of the last paragraph, the word "publicly" was
misspelled.
Craig Woodward moved to approve the Minutes of the July 21st meeting as amended.
Second by Patti Huff. Carried unanimously, 5-0.
V. Land Development Services Report - Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Svcs.
. No new information to report
VI. Old Business
A. Review: History Brochure - Patti Huff
(Copies of the latest version of the Brochure were distributed to the Members.)
PaJ!e No. Revision(s)
Cover Remove photograph ofCapt. Horr's house - substitute Old Marco Inn
4 Under "Naples Pier:"
. Capitalize name: The Naples Company (2nd sentence)
. Both pictures will remain as situated on the page
5 Under "Mercantile Building:"
. Last sentence: Substitute "a" for the name of the restaurant
(Campiello)
. The sentence will read: "... [comma] now operates as a restaurant."
2
.~
16
161
l
September 15,2010
PaJ!e No. Revision(s)
6 Under "Naples Depot:"
. First sentence: Remove the comma between "impenetrable" and
"frontier"
. Last sentence: Change "Air" to "Coast" (Railway)
Under "Collier County Museum:"
. Second sentence: Add an "a" before "recreated," and remove the
"a" after "recreated"
. Second sentence: Add a comma after the word "fort"
7 Under "Rosemary Cemetery:"
. Insert correct address: 1000 Pine Ridge Road (verified with Collier
County Addressing Dept.)
8 Under "Old Marco Inn:"
. To caption, add: "[dash] - Marco Hotel
. Third sentence: Remove the apostrophe from Colliers
. Sixth sentence will read: "Collier sold the hotel to a New York
syndicate that had the financial backing of George E. Ruppert, part
owner of the NY Yankees, and others."
. Seventh sentence: Change "Herman" Blomeier to "Wilhelm"
. Eighth sentence: Remove phrase "with Marcy and Pat Kruchtener
as resident managers" and surrounding commas
. The last sentence will end at "Manchester, New Hampshire."
9 Under "Captain Collier House:"
. Last sentence will read: "The Collier House was moved in 1957 to
its present location on Bald Eagle Drive and has been operating as a
restaurant since it opened in 1995."
Under "Marco Island Historical Museum:"
. First sentence: Add "History" between "Rose" and "Auditorium"
. Third sentence: Add the phrase "of the shell mound" following the
word "top"
. Craig Woodward will provide a different photograph
10 Under "Otter Mound:"
. Last sentence will read: "Otter Mound, which is the north half of
Block 15, was purchased by Conservation Collier and has been
opened as a County park."
11 Under "Old Marco Lodge:"
. First sentence: Add "Old" between "The" and "Marco Lodge"
. First sentence: Remove second "Old" and add "located" before "in"
3
I
1611 8 16
September 15, 2010
PaJ!e No. Revision(s)
11 Under "Mar-Good Park:"
(Cont'd.) . Fourth sentence: Remove "in the basement" after "cistern"
Under "Old Railroad Depot:"
. Last sentence will read: "The movie, Wind Across the Everglades,
was filmed in this location."
12 Under "Old Collier County Courthouse:"
. "Courthouse" is one word
. Add "the" between "became" and "Everglades City Hall."
. Last sentence: Remove the slash after 2005 and add a period
Under "Everglades Community Church:"
. First sentence will read: "In 1888, before there was a building,
George W. Gatewood was the first visiting pastor."
. Continue text chronologically.
16 Under "Fakahatchee Island Cemetery:"
. To title: Add "The" before "Fakahatchee"
. First sentence: Remove extra space between "Fakahatchee" and
"Island" and add a period after "families"
Under "Chokoloskee Church:"
. To title: Add a space between "#27" and "Chokoloskee"
Under "JT's Island Store:"
. Last sentence: After "designation" change "of' to "as"
17 Under "Ted Smallwood's Store:"
. Replace photograph
Under "Chokoloskee Cemeteries:"
. To title: Add "The" following "#30"
18 Under "Episcopalian Cemetery:"
. To title: Add "The" following "#32"
Under "Brown Cemetery:"
. To title: Add "The" following "#35"
. Add "Family" before "Cemetery"
19 Under "Pepper Ranch:"
. Second sentence: Remove "s" from "acre" and add "which" after
"property" and change "surrounding" to "surrounded"
. Insert address under title
4
1 6 1 Sltembe 1_2~O
PaJ!e No. Revision(s)
19 Under "Black Cemetery:"
(Cont'd.) . To title: Add "The" before "Black"
Under "Sunniland Oil Field:"
. Last sentence: The sentence will end after "1965."
20 Under "Tamiami Trail Way Stations:"
. Third sentence: (Following "intervals") change "across" to "along"
and add "provide" before "primitive"
. Add "still" between "are" and "visible" ("The following sites...")
. Change order of Stations:
(a) Royal Palm Hammock
(b) Weaver's Station
(c) Monroe Station
21 Under "Joanie's Blue Crab Cafe:"
. Last sentence: Change "is said to be" to "was"
Other revisions:
. Reposition all offset photographs - ask for assistance from Katie Varano from
Paradise Advertising (via Jack Wert)
. Check whether or not Captain Collier House is a "designated historic site."
. Check date of hurricane - 1926 -- ??
. Are all cemeteries of the pioneer era? If not, do not include.
. Insert text for all applicable cemeteries.
. On Page 10 (title), add "F." to Captain John Horr's name
. Remove parentheses when listing address
. Tin City and Naples City Dock were not included because no information was
provided.
. On Cover, add "See" before "Map"
New Brochure deadline: September 27th
. All suggested revisions and photographs will be forwarded to Ray Bellows
. Mr. Bellows will forward information to all members, including Pam Brown
VII. New Business
A. New Member Selection
Ray Bellows noted:
. Elizabeth Perdichizzi and Craig Woodward submitted applications for re-
appointment to the Preservation Board
. An application was submitted by David Eastlick, Jr. and his qualifications were
reviewed by the Members
5
1611 B 16
September 15, 2010
. Staff will send a letter to Mr. Eastlick explaining there were no current vacancies
but his application will be kept on file for future reference
Richard Taylor moved to accept Craig Woodward's applicationfor
re-appointment to the Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board and to forward
the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by William
Dempsey. Motion carried, 4 - "Yes"/I-Abstention. Mr. Woodward abstained.
Richard Taylor moved to accept Elizabeth Perdichizzi's application for
re-appointment to the Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board and to forward
the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Patricia
Huff. Motion carried, 4 - "Yes"/I-Abstention. Ms. Perdichizzi abstained.
VIII. Public Comments
(None)
IX. Board Member Commentsl Announcements:
. Pam Brown was absent from the May and July meetings. She has changed
positions and may resign. She applied under the "Real Estate" category.
. Interviews are being conducted to fill Ashley Caserta's position.
. Museum of the Everglades
o "Sea Food Festival"- first weekend in February, 2011
. Marco Island
o Rose History Auditorium will be leased to the Historical Society for
$1.00/yr.
o Agreement was reached between the City and County regarding the
Museum
o Several Traveling Exhibits are planned
o "Re-enactors" workshops are scheduled monthly at Rose History
Auditorium - history coming alive through re-enactment
. 100th Anniversary of The Killing ofMr. Watson - play will be presented at the
Smallwood Store and at County Museum and an exhibit will be displayed at the
Museum
Ray Bellows asked the Members to review the new directory for accuracy at the
conclusion of the meeting..
Next Meeting Date: (To be determined - Ray Bellows will advise the Board via email of
possible October date)
. Chairman Dempsey is not available on October 20th
. Patricia Huff is not available on October 27th
6
1611816
September 15,2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by Order of the Chairman at 10:42 AM.
Historic/Archaeological Preservation
Board
William Dempsey, Chairman
The Minutes w~oved by the Board/Committee on ~. ~ kr 17.;;; d Q
as presented , or as amended .
7
. .-
CRA Governinl!: Board
Commissioner
Donna Fiala
Chair
Commissioner
Tom Henning
Commissioner
James N. Coletta
Commissioner
Fred W. Coyle
Commissioner
Georgia Hiller
State Enterorise Zone
Develooment Al!:encv
Board (EZDA)
Michael Facundo
Chairman
Edward "Ski" Olesky
Jeffrey Randall
Robert Halman
Ex-officio
Julio Estremera
Kitchell Snow
Floyd Crews
Ana Salazar
James Wall
Eva Deyo
Carry Williams
Melissa Martinez
Daniel Rosario
Lt Drew Lee
CRA Staff
Penny Phillippi
Executive Director
239.252.2310
Bradley Muckel
Project Manager
239.252.5549
Christie Betancourt
Administrative Assistant
239.252.2313
Robert Soter
IBDC Manager
Rosemary Dillon
IBDC Administrative
Assistant
239-269-9628
RECE\VED
FEB 2 2 2011
soard ofeountY ~
Collier Counl'( CommuniI'( Redeve,16Alcl
fi8~ !>~
H\\\er - ~
H8f\~hlg ~.. :e-~
C(JYI8 .
Co\elt~
IMMOKALEE eRA
i The Ploce to Coli Home!
EZONE MEETING AGENDA
State Enterprise Zone Development Agency
February 16,2011 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM
Southwest Florida Works (Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee)
750 South 5th Street
Immokalee, Florida 34142
A.
Call to Order.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum.
C.
D.
E.
Adoption of Agenda.
Communications.
Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of Minutes.
i. EZDA Meeting - December, 2010 (Enclosure 1)
b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report - December, 2010 &
January, 2011 (Enclosure 2)
c. Enterprise Zone Quarterly Report - Ql, FY2011 (Enclosure 3)
Old Business.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
New Business.
Citizen Comments.
Next Meeting. March 16,2011 at 9:30 A.M.
Adiournment.
Item t.
C'.. .'"'::,.... ~t):
eRA Governinl! Board
Commissioner
Donna Fiala
Chair
Commissioner
Tom Henning
Commissioner
James N. Coletta
Commissioner
Fred W. Coyle
Commissioner
Georgia Hiller
State Enterprise Zone
Develonment Al!encv
Board (EZDA)
Michael Facundo
Chairman
Edward "Ski" Olesky
Jeffrey Randall
Robert Halman
Ex-officio
Julio Estremera
Kitchell Snow
Floyd Crews
Ana Salazar
James Wall
Eva Deyo
Carry Williams
Melissa Martinez
Daniel Rosario
Lt. Drew Lee
CRA Staff
Penny Phillippi
Executive Director
239.252.2310
Bradley Muckel
Project Manager
239.252.5549
Christie Betancourt
Administrative Assistant
239.252.2313
Marie Capita
lBDC Manager
Rosemary Dillon
lBDC Administrative
Assistant
239-269-9628
Collier County Community Redeve,opme!g6v I
REcElveqMMOKALEE eRA
MAR 1 6 2011 i The Ploce to Coli Home !
Board of County ComrnIIIIoners
1 FialB tJ)..t- 7
Hiller ~
Hennin9E: .
Coyle .
Coletta
EZONE MEETING AGENDA
H.
1.
J.
State Enterprise Zone Development Agency
March 16,2011 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM
Southwest Florida Works (Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee)
750 South 5th Street
Immokalee, Florida 34142
A.
Call to Order.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum.
C.
D.
E.
Adoption of Agenda.
Communications.
Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of Minutes.
i. EZDA Meeting - February 16,2011 (Enclosure 1)
b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report - Feb, 2011 (Enclosure 2)
Old Business.
F.
G.
New Business.
a. Pending Changes to the EZDA Programs, Effective July 1,2011: HBl275 &
SB 1820 (Enclosures 3)
Citizen Comments.
Next Meeting. April 16, 2011 at 9:30 A.M.
Adjournment.
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item#:
C:pies to:
1611
L;
17
~ 'e,.tifkatioll of :\linutes A.pprmaJ JForm
Prcp,lI',:db)): "
// /, / ':.'} i /
12~~~, jl:l,I?r~_-
Penll\' PhiIU'ppi, Executive DiIffilctor
, ..; /.
[mlllOk(\lft\: Commul1it:Rede\"elopment Agency
Approved by:
i
. I:
~, ..
iVfichae l-~';vfikec\.,. Facllndo. Cha;t;~;~l~l
'Jl'iH',',C I\ilinutes for the lkcemhe~' 1~~ 2010, eRA Advisory BoanllEZDA lV[eeting 'Nen'
appnn'ed b.'i Hw eRA /liIdvisory Board/EZDA em ll~ehruary 16,,201] as pn:'sented.
Ihc' IlC:\t ioinic\d\'isol') Board/EZD/-\/IJ\ilPVC meeting \\,ill be held Tvlarch 16. :2u 1] at
S:3U\.!\l. at the Cm:er and Service Center located at 750 SOllth 5111 Street in Tmll1okaJe(:.
[here js no scl1\:~dlllecl UyIPVC l11eetinQ at this time, Further meetin~s will he held at :':30
jl,l\t at SOllthwest Florida 'vVnrks ]ocatc(1 at 750 South 5th Street in l~nmokalee and will hc'
appropriately lHlticed (md announced in advance of such JJ1tctings.
.-\11 l!lc'di!l!-,s '.1 iii be publici\' noticed in the \V. Ilarn1l1n Turner Budding (Building r), p,'stccl ar rhe Imnwk;lb'
l'lIl'lic Lii'I;\r\ ,;!ld pl(\vid",cI tu the CUlm!\' F'llbiic Ini'ormatioll Depul'tJllc'nt !()r disrribution. l'kase call Chri.,tl"
l:kLlIkOilrl. Acil1linisrnniw :\sSist;lIll, <11239-2:"2-2313 !()r additional infonnatiOl1. ,,, accoldance \\ith the i\merican
I\ilh Di:;;lhiiiIIC,' ;\CL PCI"OI)'; needing a",isliHlce to participate ill any of rhese proct'edill).:S should ('''OleIU Chrislie:
fkulh'Ourt. Ad:ninistrmi\'c Assisrant, at kasl 48 hOllrs before the l1leetmg The public shuulc! be' iiciviscd that
tllemhel', ut the Il1lll1okalce i\1a"ter Plan and Visioning Commillee and the eRA /\(hisor:' Bo;trd ,m: alsu [m:l1lhers
,\1 tlk' (\(hn HOiirds and C\)Jlllnitfe,'s. including. but not limited to: LZDA. 1111111Ukcdl:e L.ucld Rt:c:klclo!,mclil
n()~lrd. 1IIIIlII)kilk,; I'ire COlllmissii)il, ami the' Cullier C(ltlllty Housin~ Authoril\'; elL. In lilis
11liltll'IS C\)1I1 i 11.,'. bdore lk~ r[vlPVC illld tile A.dvisor.\ Board may C0111e hefore Ollt' or llJore of tile rcli::rt'llceci Board
;lIhl ('(llrlmit1Ccs liolll1illk to rime
~oihef County Community Redevelopment Agency
IMMOKALEE eRA
161 1
B 17
Enclosure 1
v
i The Place to Call Home!
MINUTES
State Enterprise Zone Development Agency
December 15,2010
A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Mike Facundo at 10:30 A.M.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum.
EZDA Members Present:
Robert Halman, Mike Facundo, Floyd Crews, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera,
Lt. Drew Lee, Ski Olesky, Carrie Williams, Daniel Rosario, James Wall and.
EZDA Members Absent/Excused:
Melissa Martinez, Ana Salazar, Julio Estremera and Jeffery Randall.
Action: A quorum was announced as being present,
Others Present: Steve Hart, Chief Burge, Chris Scott, Chris Scott, Bob Mulhere, and Bill
Tindell.
Staff: Penny Phillippi, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt.
C. Adoption of Agenda.
Action: Ms. Deyo made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion
and it passed by unanimous vote.
D. Communications.
E. Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of the Minutes.
i. Joint Meeting November 18,2010
Action: Ms. Williams moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Wall seconded and the
Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote.
F. Old Business.
G. New Business.
H. Citizen Comments.
I. Next Meeting January 12, 2011at 9:00 A.M.
J. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 A.M.
1
Collier County Community Redevelopmcllt ^~ellcy
( :..; ';;'.:"~_:-~ :"':J:.;:';:;--:;': .;J'~.!".~~~.,'::.;;'"'l.:", :-":::";:"~.'-=..;O:-=~-:;-=":::':~=."":':"'7.; ..::~~ -:":~.' ~:-.. ....' ,; .c".-';::',", ~.. ',,',-._ ~._ I
fj M,.'" ." !l ((~ rt.~ <<...' fO) A~
f .. t'l(\;)t!r,,:J ....:")~" .~~
1611
B
17
Certification of Minutes Approval Form
Prepared by:
,'...",! ",!..,..I ,
- -;. ;'~': .~'
I
Approved by:
~--j ~/~t-
Michael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman
l ~" ., j. " "l I.', //<',.(,/",:",P~./J
Penny PhiHippi, Execnti'ye' Director
lmmokalce COIl11l1uni{y Redevelopment Agency
These Minutes for the February 16, 2011, eRA Advisory BoardfEZDA Meeting were
approved by the eRA Advisory Board/EZDA on March 16,2011 as }u"cscntcd.
'" The next joint Advisory Board/EZDAJlIvJPVC meeting will be held April 20, 2011 at
8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 51h Street in Immokalee.
** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30
P,M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be
appropriately noticed and alUlounced in advance of such meetings.
All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W, Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the [mll1okalee
Public Library and provided to the COllnty Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Clu'istie
Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239-252-2313 fOI: additional information, Tn accordance with the American
with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie
Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting, The public should be advised that
members of the TIlllllokalee Master Plan and Visioning COllllllittee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members
of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board, Jmmokalee Fire COIllmission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc, [n this regard,
matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board Illay come before one or more of the referenced 130ard
and Committees from time to time.
):olher CounTy Community Redevelopment Agency
16lJsure~ 11
IMMOKALEE eRA
i The Place 10 Call Home!
MINUTES
State Enterprise Zone Development Agency
February 16,2011
A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo at 10:30 A.M.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum.
Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Present:
Mike Facundo, Ski Olesky, Jeffrey Randall, Robert Halman, Julio Estremera, Kitchell
Snow, Floyd Crews, James Wall, Eva Deyo, Carrie Williams, Daniel Rosario, and Lt.
Drew Lee.
Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused:
Melissa Martinez and Ana Salazar.
Action: A quorum was announced as being present.
Others Present: Steve Hart, Ralph Hester, Teri Widis, Robert Borch and Gary Kendall.
Staff: Penny Phillippi, Bob Soter, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt.
C. Adoption of Agenda.
Item Eb was pulled from the Agenda and moved to Fa by the Chairman.
Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to adopt the Agenda with the changes, Mr. Olesky
seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote.
D. Communications.
E. Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of the Minutes.
i. Joint Meeting December 2010, the December 2010 and January 2011
Monthly Activity Report and the Enterprise Zone Quarterly Report.
Action: Ms. Deyo made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Wall seconded and
the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote.
F. Old Business.
a. EZDA Monthly Activity Report - Brad Muckel, Project Manager reviewed the
monthly report with the EZDA.
G. New Business.
H. Citizen Comments.
I. Next Meeting March 16, 2011 at 9:00 A.M.
J. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 A.M.
1
CRA Governinl! Board
Commissioner
Tom Henning
Commissioner
Donna Fiala
Commissioner
James N. Coletta
Commissioner
Fred W. Coyle
Commissioner
Georgia Hiller
CRA Advisorv Board &
State EnterDrise Zone
Al!encv Board
Michael Facundo
Chairman
Ana Salazar
Carrie Williams
Edward "Ski" Olesky
Jeffrey Randall
Eva Deyo
Floyd Crews
Kitchell Snow
Melissa Martinez
James Wall
Julio Estremera
Lt. Drew Lee
Daniel Rosario
Robert Halman
(Ex Officio)
CRA Staff
Penny Phillippi
Executive Director
Bradley Muckel
Project Manager
Christie Betancourt
Administrative Assistant
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency
IMMOKALEE eRA
i The Ploce to Coli Home!
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
March 16,2011
Sam Tucker, Executive Aide, BCC
1611 B 18
Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant
lmmokalee Community Redevelopment Agency
Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval
Attached are the Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval from March Meeting
for your conveyance.
Thank you.
Immok4lee Community R.eclevelopment Agency
310 Alachua Street, Immok4lee, FL 34142
239.252.2313'" 239.252.6725 (FAX)
CRA Governim! Board
Commissioner
Donna Fiala
Chair
Commissioner
Tom Henning
Commissioner
James N. Coletta
Commissioner
Fred W. Coyle
Commissioner
Georgia Hiller
CRA Advisory Board
Michael Facundo
Chairman
Edward "Ski" Olesky
Jeffrey Randall
Robert Halman
Ex-officio
Julio Estremera
Kitchell Snow
Floyd Crews
Ana Salazar
James Wall
Eva Deyo
Carrie Williams
Melissa Martinez
Daniel Rosario
Lt. Drew Lee
CRA Staff
Penny Phillippi
Executive Director
239.252.2310
Bradley Muckel
Project Manager
239.252.5549
Christie Betancourt
Administrative Assistant
239.252.2313
Robert Soter
IBDC Manager
Rosemary Dillon
IBDC Administrative
Ass istant
239-269-9628
Jai~1 ~
~ille~~ ..'.
Henning ..
Coyle -
Coletta -
RECEIVED Collier Counly Communily Redevelopment Ag
. FEB 22 2011 IMMOKALEE C
Board of County CornmIIIIonerI
i The Place to Call Home!
Community Redevelopment Ae:ency Advisory Committee Ae:enda
February 16,2011 - 8:30 A.M.
A. Call to Order.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum.
e. Introductions
a. Robert Soter, IBDC Manager
b. Rosemary Dillon, IBDC Administrative Assistant
D. Announcements.
a. lAMP CCPC: February 17,2011
E. Adoption of Agenda.
F. Communications.
a. Public Notices
G. Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of Minutes.
i. CRA Advisory Board December 2010 (Enclosure 1)
b. Fayade Grant Program Monthly Activity Report, December 2010 & January 2011
(Enclosure 2)
c. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices
i. RW A, Inc.
1. December 2010 & January 2011Monthly Activity Reports (Enclosure 3a)
2. December 2010 & January 2011 (Enclosure 3b)
11. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM)
1. December 2010 & January 2011 Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 4)
H. Old Business.
a. Immokalee CRA 2010 Operational Plan (Enclosure 5)
b. Immokalee Housing Condition Report - Update
c. Stonnwater Master PlanlDRI Grant - Update
d. Ninth Street Plaza, Texas Roadhouse - Update
e. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights - Kitchell Snow
f. Marketing - Update
g. Land Development Codes - Update
I. New Business.
a. IBDC Update
b. Immokalee Sidewalk Projects
c. Immokalee Raceway Discussion - at the request of Mr. Estremera and Ms. Williams
J. Citizen Comments.
K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting March 16,2011 at 8:30 A.M.
L. Adiournment.
* The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held March 16,2011, at 8:30 A.M. at Southwest Florida
Works (Career and Service Center) located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee, 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 Christie Betancourt, Administrative
Assistant, at 239.252.2313 for additional information, In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act,
persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt at least 48
hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the CRA Advisory Board are also
members of other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Fire Commission, and
the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Board may come
b,fo" on, 0' mo" of th, "fu"nood Boa,d and Committees from tim, to tim,. :: Corr..~ I I
I. \ ~
C 3 to:
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency
IMMOKALEE eRA
i The Place ta Call Home!
Certification of Minutes Approval Form
::J ~ ~.
ichael" 1 e' Facundo, Chai~an
-
These Minutes for the December 15, 2010, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were
approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on February 16,2011 as presented.
* The next joint Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC meeting will be held March 16, 2011 at
8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 51h Street in Immokalee.
** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30
P.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be
appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings.
All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Hannon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee
Public Library and provided to the County Public Infonnation Department for distribution, Please call Christie
Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239-252-2313 for additional infonnation. In accordance with the American
with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie
Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting, The public should be advised that
members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members
of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc, In this regard,
matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board
and Committees from time to time,
Coil1er CounTy Community Redevelopment Agen<:y
161 iB
Enclosure 1
1~
'IMMOKALEE eRA
i The Place to Call Home !
MINUTES
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency
December 15,2010
A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo at 8:35 A.M.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum.
Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Present:
Robert Halman, Mike Facundo, Floyd Crews, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera,
Drew Lee, Ski Olesky, Carrie Williams, Daniel Rosario, and James Wall.
Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused:
Melissa Martinez, Ana Salazar, Julio Estremera and Jeffery Randall.
Action: A quorum was announced as being present.
Others Present: Steve Hart, Chief Burge, Chris Scott, Chris Scott, Bob Mulhere, and Bill
Oliver.
Staff: Penny Phillippi, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt.
C. Introductions.
Introductions were made by all.
D. Announcements.
Ms. Phillippi announced the Civil Servant of the Year Award, the CRA Annual Report
Meeting of January 12, 2011; the BCC approval of Lt. Lee and Daniel Rosario; and the
approval of the partnership between the CRA and the Housing Collaborative.
E. Adoption of Agenda.
Ms. Phillippi stated that the Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) November Activity Report and
Invoice has not been received and asked that the item be moved from the Consent Agenda to New
Business.
Action: Mr. Halman made a motion to adopt the Agenda with the change, Mr. Olesky
seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved
F. Communications.
Public Notices and news articles were passed around in the Communications Folder.
G. Consent Agenda.
a. Minutes - Joint meeting ofthe CRA and the EZDA November 18,2010
b. Fayade Grant Monthly October Report
c. RW A November Invoice (no Monthly Report received)
Action: Mr. Halman made a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded
the motion and it was unanimously approved
H. Old Business.
a. Stormwater Master Plan/DRI Grant Update - Brad Muckel provided an update on
the project, the public meeting and the status of the grant.
b. Christmas Decorations - Brad Muckel informed the group that the decorations on
the light poles are some garland with lights. The MSTU was unable to provide
the wind load in order to procure FDOT permits.
c. Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights - Kitchell Snow stated that there is a
concern about the murals in Immokalee. If the mural has lettering it is considered
a sign and will be cited as a violation.
d. Marketing Update - Steve Hart provided an update on the eNewsletter, the on line
magazine, and the produce stickers program.
161 1
B 18
I. Presentations.
a. Immokalee Land Development Codes - Chris Scott presented a PowerPoint of the
jest of the Land Development Codes as they are being developed by RW A. Mr.
Scott informed the group that he will send a draft copy to Brad Muckel to forward
to each of the Advisory Committee members.
b. Immokalee Transportation Plan - Bill Oliver of Tindale-Oliver discussed the data
and the modeling for proposed plan and he discussed the Transportation
Exception Area as it applies to Immokalee.
J. New Business.
a. Recommend the CRA Executive Director's Annual Evaluation to the CRA Board. Ms.
Phillippi called the Committee's attention to Enclosures 5a-5e and asked the Committee
for a recommendation to the CRA Board for approval of the annual evaluation.
Action: Ms, Deyo made a motion to recommend the Executive Director's annual evaluation to the
CRA Boardfor approval, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote.
b. CDM Invoice and Monthly Report. Ms. Phillippi stated that the Camp Dresser &
McKee, Inc. (COM) November Activity Report and Invoice has not been received and
asked that the Committee approve payment of up to $60,000 upon receipt of the invoice
and approval of the report.
Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to approve payment of up to $60,000 for CDM upon receipt of
the invoice and approval of the report.
J. Citizen Comments.
K. Regular Meeting and Annual Report to CRA Board January 12,2011 at 9:00 AM
L. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM.
2
eRA Governine Board
Commissioner
Donna Fiala
Chair
Commissioner
Tom Henning
Commissioner
James N. Coletta
Commissioner
Fred W. Coyle
Commissioner
Georgia Hiller
eRA Advisory Board
Michael Facundo
Chairman
Edward "Ski" Olesky
Jeffrey Randall
Robert Halman
Ex-officio
Julio Estremera
Kitchell Snow
Floyd Crews
Ana Salazar
James Wall
Eva Deyo
Carrie Williams
Melissa Martinez
Daniel Rosario
Lt. Drew Lee
eRA Staff
Penny Phillippi
Executive Director
239.252.2310
Bradley Muckel
Project Manager
239.252.5549
Christie Betancourt
Administrative Assistant
239.252.2313
Marie Capita
IBDC Manager
Rosemary Dillon
IBDC Administrative
Assistant
239-269-9628
R E C E IVE allier Counly Communily Redevelopment Agenc 6iJa 1 B 1 8
MAR 1 6 2011 IMMOKALEE eRA Hiller. J/'
HennIng ,- hr-
Rolin:! of County cOlllITIIsaIoneI i The Place to Call Home! Coyle {j
Coletta ~
Community Redevelooment A!!encv Advisory Committee A!!enda
March 16,2011 - 8:30 A.M.
A.
B.
C.
Call to Order.
Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum.
Introductions
a. Marie Capita, IBDC Manager
Announcements.
a. EZDA 5-Years of Service Award, Feb 22, 2011: Julio Estremera
b. lAMP Schedule:
i. CCPC Consent Agenda: March 17, 2011
ii. lAMP BCC ADOPTION HEARING: April 12, 2011
c. Reappointments to the CRA Advisory Committee and the EZDA Board
Adoption of Agenda.
Communications.
a. Public Notices
Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of Minutes.
i. CRA Advisory Board February 16,2011 (Enclosure 1)
b. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices
i. RWA, Inc.
1. February Monthly Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 2)
ii. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM)
1. February 2011 Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 3)
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Old Business.
a. Immokalee Land Development Regulations - R W A Consulting, Mulhere & Associates
b. Immokalee CRA 2010 Annual Report (Enclosure 4)
c. CRA Project Manager Report
i. Fa9ade Grant Program Monthly Activity Report, February 2011
11. Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan
111. Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP)
iv. Transportation Update
d. Immokalee Airport Letter (Enclosure 5)
e. Immokalee Housing Condition Grant - Update
f. Immokalee Business Development Center (IBDC) - Update
g. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights - Kitchell Snow
h. Marketing - Update Mise C .
N B . . orres.
ew usmess.
a. CRA lease for space in the Barron Collier Building Date:
Citizen Comments.
Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting April 20, 2011 at 8:30 A.M./tem #:
Adjournment.
I.
J.
K.
L.
~-""";....) -~):
* The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held April 20, 2011, at 8:30 A.M. at Southwest Florida
Works (Career and Service Center) located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. 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 Christie Betancourt, Administrative
Assistant, at 239.252.2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act,
persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt at least 48
hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the CRA Advisory Board are also
members of other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Fire Commission, and
the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Board may come
before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time.
1611818
COllier Counly Community Redevelopment Agencv
IMMOKALEE eRA
i The Place to Coil Home!
Certification of Minutes Approval Form
Prep~r~d by:
/ !
} /
} i
Approved by:
~~
Michael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman
These Minutes for the February 16, 2011, CRA Advisory BoardlEZDA Meeting were
approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on March 16,2011 as pl'csented.
>Ie The next joint Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC meeting will be held April 20, 2011 at
8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in lnunokalee.
** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30
P.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be
appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings.
All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee
Public Library and provided to the County Public Infonnation Department for distribution. Please call Cluistie
Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239-252-2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American
with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to patticipate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie
BctancoU1t, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that
members of the Inunokalee Master Plan and Visioning Conunittee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members
of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board, Inunokalee Fire COllunission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard,
matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board Illay come before one or more of the referenced Board
and Committees fi'om time to time.
, IMMOKALEE eRA
Collier County CommurlITy Redevelopment Agency
1611 B 1~
Enclosure 1
i The P10ce to Coli Home!
MINUTES
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency
February 16,2011
A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo at 8:30 A.M.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum.
Advisory CommitteelEZDA Members Present:
Mike Facundo, Ski Olesky, Jeffrey Randall, Robert Halman, Julio Estremera, Kitchell
Snow, Floyd Crews, James Wall, Eva Deyo, Carrie Williams, Daniel Rosario, and Lt.
Drew Lee.
Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused:
Melissa Martinez and Ana Salazar.
Action: A quorum was announced as being present.
Others Present: Steve Hart, Ralph Hester, Teri Widis, Robert Borch and Gary Kendall.
Staff: Penny Phillippi, Bob Soter, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt.
C. Introductions.
Introductions were made by all.
D. Announcements.
Ms. Phillippi announced that the lAMP will be heard by the CCPC on February 17,2011.
E. Adoption of Agenda.
Pull Item Gb (Fayade Grant Report), move to Item Id.
Add Item Ie (Advisory Committee Recommendations to BCC)
Add Item If (IBDC Lease)
Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to approve the Agenda with changes noted, Mr. Olesky
seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote.
F. Communications.
Public Notices and news articles were passed around in the Communications Folder.
G. Consent Agenda.
Approval of the Minutes for the CRA Advisory Committee for December 2010; the
Fayade Grant Program Monthly Activity Report for December 2010 and January 2011;
Approval of the Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices: RW A, Inc. and Camp Dresser
& McGee, Inc.
Action: Ms. Deyo made a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda, Ms. Williams seconded
the motion and it was unanimously approved.
H. Old Business.
a. Immokalee CRA 2011 Operational Plan - The Committee's attention was called to the
final Operational Plan for 2011 as Enclosure 5. The Executive Director requested that if
any of the Committee have any changes they wish to be made that they let staff know as
soon as possible.
b. Immokalee Housing Condition Report - The Executive Director stated that the Housing
Collaborative met to discuss implementation of the approved grant ($22,000 CRA funds
and $20,000 Community Foundation funds) to conduct the housing condition study over
the next 3 months. The CRA has conveyed the funds the Housing Authority (the fiscal
agent). Barbara Cacchione and Anita Jenkins (who was a senior planner with
Wilson Miller) are the consultants retained to execute the study and report.
1611 B18
C. Stormwater Master PlanIDRl Grant - Project Manager, Brad Muckel reported the
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application was submitted to The South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) on 12/23/2010. This will be the governing
construction permit for the entire Downtown Immokalee portion of the Immokalee
Stormwater Master Plan Implementation. The Immokalee CRA received an official
response (request for information or RFI) on 1/27/11 from SFWMD in response to our
ERP application submittal. The response is mostly clerical questions and will not create
an encumbrance on the progress of the project. Further, CRA staff and consultants have
a meeting scheduled with the SFWMD for Wednesday, March 2nd to discuss questions
and submit our official response to their concerns. The permit application fee of $3500
has been paid. The Army Corp of Engineers permit application was also submitted during
this reporting period.
d. Ninth Street Plaza, Texas Roadhouse - The Director reported that she and Brad met with
the folks from Texas Roadhouse on the 9th of February. They stated they do want to help
with the 9th Street Plaza but it will not happen this year. We continue to work with them
toward the April 16th volunteer day as they complete other projects around town.
e. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights - Kitchell Snow provided an update on
code enforcement activities reporting that there will be a "clean-up" on the 19th of March
from 8:00 am until noon in the Washington Avenue area.
f. Marketing - Steve Hart brought the Committee up to speed on the latest marketing
activities reporting that the ENewsletter has been highly successful at drawing visitors to
the CRA Web Page.
g. Land Development Codes - The Committee was informed that the consultants from
R W A will attend the March 16th CRA Advisory Board meeting to conduct a workshop on
the LDRs, although they will not review them line by line. Therefore, the Committee
was instructed to please read them and make notes on any concerns or questions you may
want to ask. Approximately 2 weeks after the March meeting, all changes will be made
and the LDRs will be submitted to the County to begin the review and Hearing process.
It was decided that the CRA Advisory Committee will meet on the 11 th of March to
review the LDRs line by line and to receive comments from the development and
business community.
I. New Business.
a. IBDC Update - The IBDC Manager, Bob Soter, provided an update on the IBDC
activities, specifically the scheduling of classes and partnership contacts that have been
created.
b. Immokalee Sidewalk Projects - Brad Muckel reviewed a chart that cited the upcoming
sidewalks projects scheduled for Immokalee, pointing out the funding agency and relative
time frame for execution.
c. Immokalee Raceway Discussion - at the request of Mr. Estremera and Ms. Williams, Mr.
Ralph Hester discussed various problems that have been experienced at the Immokalee
Regional Airport referencing leases and his opinion that the current administration is not
"business friendly."
Action: Ms. Williams made a motion to instruct staff to draft a letter of concern to the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners encouraging them to further review the activities in reference to
businesses and leases at the lmmokalee Regional Airport. Jeffrey Randall seconded the motion and it
passed by unanimous vote.
d. Fayade Grant Monthly Activity Report - Brad Muckel reviewed the monthly activities.
e. Advisory Committee Recommendations for Advisory Committee Members
Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to recommend all seven applicants; Michael Facundo, Floyd
Crews, James Wall, Carrie Williams, Ana Salazar, Julio Estremera, and Kitchell Snow, to the Collier
2
1611
8 18
County Community Redevelopment Agency for approval. Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it was
approved by unanimous vote.
f. Lease Agreement for CCAA - The Executive Director informed the Committee that the
Airport Authority Advisory Committee voted not to lease the unit at the airport to the
CRA for the IBDC and therefore the lease was a mute point.
J. Citizen Comments.
K. Regular Meeting and Annual Report to CRA Board March 16,2011 at 8:30 AM
L. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM.
3
RECE'VED
MAR 2 1 2011
161
'iala
JLiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
~
Board ofeountY ~
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2011
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION
ATTENDEES:
Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief
Joe Langkawel, Chairman
Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member
Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member
Kevin Walsh, Advisory Board Member
Dan Summers, BES Director
Chief Mike Murphy, Marco Island Fire Dept.
City Manager Jim Riviere, City of Marco Island
Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer
I. CALL TO ORDER
Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. Chief s Report.
B. November 2010 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes.
1. Copy of Minutes distributed.
2. Motion to approve November 2010 Minutes by Kevin Walsh.
a. Motion seconded by Ted Decker.
b. Motion carried unanimously.
c. Minutes signed offby Chairman Langkawel.
C. Excessive automatic aid to Marco Island.
1. Presentation of Advisory Board Letter to Chief Murphy.
a. ICFD will cease automatic aid to Marco on 02/15/11.
b. Calls to Marco are 40-50% oftotal ICFD calls.
c. Marco auto aid is 58% of total 2010 ICFD engine calls.
d. ICFD aid to Marco has increased our operating costs.
i. Manpower.
ii. Fuel. Misc. Corres:
iii. Fire engine maintenance. 0 te'.. ~ l J
e. ICFD cannot afford this Marco aid in the current"e.: . ( )BJ
Itemt:J to.- \ \)
Copies to:
1611 819
f. ICFD will continue to provide mutual aid to all fire depts.
g. ICFD does not seek to discontinue other mutual aid to Marco.
2. Mr. Summers' comments on concerns of Collier County.
a. The high level of auto aid has been highlighted in AUIR for 2 yrs.
b. Current economic times require a closer look at dept. budgets.
c. Goal is to reduce, not eliminate all responses to Marco.
d. Sharing of false alarm fees by Marco could be considered.
3. Chief Murphy's comments on concerns of Marco Island.
a. ICFD auto aid is contributing to recommended personnel to a scene.
b. ICFD auto aid is a positive factor in the Marco Fire ISO rating.
c. Marco cannot remove ICFD from only the false alarm call run cards.
d. Marco will continue its auto aid to ICFD.
e. Marco fire district charges fees to false alarm repeat offenders.
4. Chief Rodriguez is highly concerned that the Isles of Capri is left unmanned
whenever the ICFD is called to Marco for a false alarm.
5. Capt. Purcell stated that the CAD does have the capability to specifically
remove ICFD from Marco fire alarm calls.
6. City Mgr. Riviere questioned the possibility of the ICFD charging Marco
for all of the false alarm responses to Marco.
D. BCC to award boat dock project to lowest bidder at 01/11/11 BCC meeting.
E. ICFD was informed ofa Florida Division of Forestry grant.
1. Received a grant of $4,680.
2. Funds to be used to purchase foam and protective equipment.
F. Chief Rodriguez' meeting with Mr. Summers & HR regarding 07/2010 directives.
1. Chief Rodriguez completed all of his behavioral directives.
2. No further requirements, steps, or conclusions were made.
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of new ICPD Advisory Board Officers.
1. Motion to nominate Joe Langkawel as Chairman by Ted Decker.
a. Motion seconded by Kevin Walsh.
b. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Motion to nominate Ted Decker as Vice Chairman by Kevin Walsh.
a. Motion seconded by Jim Gault.
b. Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Blue Ribbon Committee will present its report at the 01/11/11 BCC Meeting.
C. The ICFD 2010 Annual Report is almost complete and will be distributed soon.
D. Chief Rodriguez met with Commissioner Fiala on 01/06/11.
161 1
L19
1. Discussed ICFD frustration with excessive Marco Island automatic aid.
2. Discussed the status of the ICFD boat dock project.
E. The next ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be held Mar. 7,2011.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Ted Decker at 7:40 p.m.
1. Motion seconded by Kevin Walsh.
2. Motion carried unanimously.
Approved: ~~~
Date: /' ~yh/
- /
161 1
B 20
GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU '1)~
ADVISORY COMMlnEE FI.ala -j,L ~
. Hiller /'
10 11 <aJ 1111. wm\jflS ~a':~~~~ f;;: South ~~;~ng ~ '..r
MAR 0 Q 2011 J!lJ Coletta..
v February 17, 2011
By:nn............... .-.. AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: January 20, 2011
V. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera
VI. Irrigation System Evaluation
VII. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM
VIII. landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates
A. Maintenance Report
B. Reuse Mixing Chamber - Warren Street
C. Doral Bridge Project
D. Lighting Study - Pebble Beach
VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard
A. Project Manager's Report
B. Review of the To Do List
IX. Committee Reports
X. Old Business
A. Pinehurst Estates Signage
B. Christmas Decorations
C. Preparation for Lely Golf Estates Annual Meeting on Feb 22nd
XI. New Business
A. Master Plan Discussion
XII. Public Comments
XIII. Adjournment
The next meeting is March 17, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. M;sc.~Corres: 6
Growth Management Division - Construction & MaintenanceDate:~ll
2885 Horseshoe Drive South T U '" ,"
Naples. FL 34104 ltem#: l r.J.-&-U
2:"'''''';:') -\J:
1611 B 20 /
GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMlnEE
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FI 34104
January 20, 2011
Minutes
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M.
II. Attendance:
Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David
Larson, Jennifer Tanner
County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Pam Lulich-Landscape
Operations Manager, Gloria Herrera-Budget Analyst, Roger Dick-Irrigation
Project Manager
Others: Mike McGee-McGee & Associates, Jim Fritchey-CLM, Darlene
Lafferty-J u ristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
Add: VI. Irrigation System Evaluation
All subsequent Agenda Items were renumbered.
Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: December 16,2010
Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the December 16, 2010 minutes
as submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously
5-0.
V. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera reviewed the Budget Report:
o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $166,171.47
o Reserves Insurance Claim $400,000.00
o Final payment was made on (2) P.O.s to McGee & Associates
Darryl Richard made a correction to the Lumec P.O. description to read
Light "Fixtures" for Doral Circle and stated that the Fixtures are on order.
VI. Irrigation System Evaluation
Robert Slebodnik stated Pam Lulich emailed the Lely MSTU Water Cost
and Usage Report to the Committee (See attached)
Pam Lulich noted the Report is based on monthly billing.
1
1611
t3 20
Robert Slebodnik gave an update on the Irrigation System issues (after
distribution of the Water Cost and Usage Report):
o Prior to January 2011 he observed the Irrigation System
running at Medians 1,2, & 3
- Staff and Mike McGee were notified
o 1-2 hours later the Irrigation was still running and
subsequently shut off
o The same evening the Irrigation System was on and ran for
a few hours
o Meetings were held to discuss the Irrigation System issues
(Mike McGee, Staff, Jim Fritchey) and the following Plan was
implemented:
- Zones will be ran at 10 minutes intervals
- A water reading was taken before and after each
cycle to determine water usage (See attached)
- Irrigation was turned off during testing to trouble shoot
the System
o From May to December over 1,000,000 gallons of Potable
water was consumed
o He perceived the issue is critical based on the cost and
quantity of Potable Water consumed and requested the
status on repair
Jim Fritchey reported the results from the Irrigation readings:
o Actual Irrigation run time
- 600 gallons per 10 minutes
- 900 gallons per 30 minutes
o Discovered (2) leaks
- One leak is pumping 30-40 gallons of water over a 2
day period (in the Main Line)
Mike McGee noted the following:
o The leak is constant when the Irrigation System is shutdown
o The Irrigation System is shutdown by 2 methods
- Manually at the Warren Street (Master Valve)
- Electronically by Roger Dick (Motorola System)
o Presently Roger Dick is not able to Electronically read or
control the Master Valve (DC)
- Consequently the Main Line stays pressurized
o The saturation point from the leak can be determined when
the Pumping Station comes online
o Observed the (Entry) Zone was running 1-19-11 in an odd
cycle (during the day)
Discussion ensued on the Irrigation System.
Robert Slebodnik questioned items that were covered from the (3)
previous Expenditures for Irrigation System upgrades.
2
1611
20
Roger Dick replied Antennas were purchased from (1) Expenditure. He
stated the Antennas are fully operational however overgrown Vegetation is
interfering with the Antennas and they need to be elevated.
Tony Branco stressed the need to manually shutdown the Warren Street
Valve as he perceived the System does not need to be pressurized if it is
leaking.
After much discussion on the Irrigation System issues Robert Slebodnik
summarized the Action Plan:
o Finalize the (Zone) Operating Schedule by January 24th
o Install Unique Clock on the Master Control (Bermad)
o Roger Dick will provide a required Equipment list to include
proper Antenna installation after Communications Test is
complete
Pam lulich noted Motorola will need to perform the Communications
Test.
Robert Slebodnik moved to approve $400.00 for Antenna and
Communications Testing work. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
Robert Slebodnik stressed the Irrigation issue is an emergency situation.
VII. landscape Maintenance Report - elM
Jim Fritchey reported the following:
o Routine Maintenance is underway
VIII. landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates
A. Maintenance Report
Mike McGee reported the following items: (See attached)
o Sod was damaged by Utility Contractor (Mastek) at the Front
Entrance (US41 & St. Andrews)
Robert Slebodnik noted Mastek is responsible for Sod repairs.
o Recommended to replace declining areas of Xanadu with
Blueberry Flax Lily
Jennifer Tanner moved to replace Xanadu with Blueberry Flax Lily
at the Front Entrance (US41.) Second by David Larson. Motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
Darryl Richard reported the plastic lens cover for the Doral Light
Fixture will be installed tomorrow (1-21-11.)
3
16' 1 '8 2 0
B. Reuse Mixing Chamber - Warren Street
Mike McGee reviewed the following:
o Tanks are installed
o The Pump Station is fitted
o Anticipates the Mixing Chamber will be operational in 30 days
C. Doral Bridge Project
Mike McGee reviewed the revised Bridge Sidewalk Construction Plans
and Cost Estimates: (See attached)
o 5 ft wide Paver walkways are included
o Incorporated the additional concrete and curbing
o Cost Estimates were based on a current Project (Golden Gate
MSTU)
D. Lighting Study - Pebble Beach
Mike McGee stated the Presentation was given at the Lely Civic
Association Board.
Jennifer Tanner reported the Civic Association Board voted
unanimously in favor of the Project.
Darryl Richard presented McGee & Associates Proposal for Annual
Services in the amount of $11,334.00.
Kathleen Dammert moved to approve McGee & Associates
Contract for $11,334.00 for FY11. Second by Robert S/ebodnik.
Motion carned unanimously 5-0.
IX. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the
following Reports:
A. Project Managers Report (See attached)
(L-48) Modifications to Doral Circle Bridae
o Bridge Plans are under review for the ROW Permit
B. Review of the To Do List (See attached)
Item 5 - FPL Liahts on St. Andrews
o Observed the Lights illuminate after dusk
Tony Branco reported an inoperable light (FPL) on St Andrews and
Pebble Beach Circle.
Item 7 - Paintina Pinehurst Estates Sians
o Tony Branco and Darryl Richard met with the Paint Contractor
o Complete Painting and Restoration Proposal was reviewed
$1,500.00 (See attached)
o Tony Branco presented updated colors for the Signs
The Committee concurred with the color selection that was presented.
4
1611 3 20
Robert Slebodnik moved to approve $1,500.00 for refurbishment
of the Pinehurst Estates Signage. Second by JennHer Tanner.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Darryl Richard presented (2) Quotes by Signcraft
o Refurbish the Sign at Forest Hills and Augusta Blvd. - $390.00
o Doral Circle Sign refurbishment - $1,966 (per sign)
Tony Branco reviewed the following information pertaining to the
Doral Circle Sign Quote:
o The Sign will be removed and refurbished at the shop
o The existing letters will be removed
o The Base will be sanded
o Replica of the Artwork will be produced
o Marble faux finish is needed
David Larson moved to approve the Signcraft Contract (in the
amount of) $2,356.00 to refurbish the Lely entrance sign (Doral
Circle) and the small Lely ground sign (Forest Hills & Augusta
Blvd.) Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously
5-0.
Darryl Richard reviewed a ClM Proposal ($5,370.00) for the lely-
Valley Stream Cul-de-Sac Renovation. (See attached)
Robert Slebodnik moved to approve $5,400.00 for the Renovation
of the Lely Valley Stream Cul-de-Sac with the installation to
commence after the Irrigation problems have been resolved.
Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Darryl Richard submitted a Quote by AG TRONIX in the amount of
$6,926.65.
Mike McGee stated the Pedestals line item ($585.00) can be removed
from the Quote as it is not needed for the Project.
Jennifer Tanner moved to approve payment to AG TRONIX for the
Pump Station at Warren Street for $6,340.65. Second by David
Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IX. Housekeeping Item
X. Committee Reports-None
XI. Old Business
A. Pinehurst Estates Signage-Previously discussed under IX. B.
B. Doral Circle Light Fixture Repair-Previously discussed under VII. A.
5
, .
161 1
20
XII. New Business
Tony Branco suggested allocating funds for Christmas Decorations that
will be equivalent to the Lely Entrance at Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
Jennifer Tanner stated the HOA will partner with the MSTU on the
Christmas Decorations.
XIII. Public Comments-None
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the
meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:40 P.M.
Lely Golf Estates Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee
~~
These minutes approved by the Committee on d-..- 1-" (I
as presented or amended .x
The next meeting is February 17, 2011 at 4:00 p.m.
Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance CC
Transportation Building
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
6
c
CD
Ul
cQ'
::;,
*
m
"'C ::;,
::T ::.
0
::l a
III ::;,
N 3
w CD
~ ::;,
... ~ -
n II)
0 .....
\D ..... :;:
co b.
* ..... II)
." 0 ::;,
... ...... II)
.... .. (Q
0 CD
N ."
Vol Ql 3
J> >< CD
N ::;,
w -
~ *
~ "tJ
..... ii
..... -
b ::;,
..... ::;,
0 S'
00
(Q
*
)>
..,
c-
o
..,
C;;.
-
-0
QJ
O'Q
ro
I-'
o
.....
.,.
s: s: s: s:en ~ men I.
ID III III III - Ql !'"'
0. 0. 0. c.> (/l ~>
Dj' iii' iii' -. ::l -
Ql 0. " ,,::l
::l ::l ::l ::l ... :eo.
'It 'It 'It 'It III :e ~
~ W N .....~ ~
(/l
OJ OJ
< <
~ ~
QO
C r-
en 0
~
..... n
)>
:j
0
Z
~
0
AI
"
)>
::a
m
. )>
-0 ::0 ::0 -f -f ::0 ::0 tIl(/) )> 0 )> xox ~ tIl ::0 ::0 -0 ::0 5' ~ 5 .g> ::00 ::0 ::0 0 itiXoX
.., ro CD -0' -0' CD CD 0. - a. tIl a. tIl 0 tIl iti CD CD .., CD CD 0 CD CD tIl ::l tIl 0 III
I:: "0 "2- :3 < 9:iti a. 3 a. ::l 0 ::l tIl"O :3 I:: 3 :E 0 .., .., 3 ::l "0 3 3 o ::l 0 ::l
::l iil "0 ~ ro' ~(J) III I:: III ~ 'iil ::l ~ ;% 0 5' iil < III ~ III
CD III .., (,.) ~ --" a.~a. CD 0 00 0 ~
3- 0 I:: I:: I:: :E o C/) I 3 0 I:: < a. :::r;>> <- @ < III a.::I, a.
m CD ::l ::l 0 ::l CD a. CD OJ I:: 5'1:: CD 0 a. CD _(Q III m CD I:: CD CD ~C::::JC:
--" 3 CD CD ::r C/) III a. :E a. 0 III (Q III III :::r CD :T...,::1..., ~g: a. o IlllC III
X I 0 ::;;en III I:: ::l' .., ~ iti tIl ::0 CD tIl lC ::r 0 ::0 :J ::J' ...,
- a. CD 0 0 III a. CD 0 =1, 2" lC a.;::::; CD 3 III a. ~ ::la.CDCD c:: ~ 2" tIl a.;::;: CD
iti CD 3- a a a ~' a _CD a. III CD ::l
III ::l.a. OJ =1, tIl iti en'5 0 a a.o ~ =1, ..., -':::::J:
CD III :E :E I:: iti = III 5' I:: III :::To-a. III CD iti C/) 0
a. :c 0 III < i CD .., 0 C/) ~.=r :g Ql
::l ::l ::l N"m ~ "0"'- :::!l CD ::l ::l ~~m::::
I:: III 0 a. III $ iti _CD_ tIl a. a. ::l01ll- C/) .., tIl iti
"0 ~ 0 0 C/) atll m III 0 0 lC a. o:::r 0 CD CD "0 fill 0 0
::l - - III ::l0- iti en 3" N III ~~ .., - III 3" tIl ::l0-
- a. iti Q' 0' -, III <:!:3~ C/) 0. .., . g: 3 ~
0 - - ::l C/) 5' ..... III CD 0 tIl III ::l =r
::r ::r "0 a ::l "0 ~c5 ~ lD :T
3' --" iti Q 0 III ~ en c53-< CD III tIl s- en ::l 0 en 0 l(Q 3 '<
:3 CD .., ~. en tIl(Q 3 ::r :E CD iti CD a. ~. CD ~~ena. a.lii I:: CD 3 :E CD iti 0
"0 ::l ::l 0 ::l a m .., 0 CD "'0- C/) CD
a en' 3 a. E!::E iti I:: _,::l en a. -f - 9: :::r_::r:E ~m 9: iti ;:;: a.{!l g,
0 0 a. tIl 0- - a. "0 8" III a. -0 ~02s: 0-
< C/) en' ::l ::l ~ 0_, :i 0 5' ::rCDO 0- III 5' CD ~' 0 ::rCDo Vi
~' .., ::l .., iil-g
CD C/) .., CD OJa.::l CD .., (Q (Q III 0- _, a. CD OJa.::l m
::l en .., ::rlC 0- I::
5' 0 0 cO' CD 3- =r - - a. CD 0- cO' g, en CD ::!l::l,::l @"O :E C/) 3- - - a. AI
en III tIl -, m I:: 0 -, I:: a _XC/)N I:: 0 _,
cO' OJ lC ::l. S- a @ ::l .=! c:: 0 ~ !!l,c5 .., iii' =r :::re: ~ =r c:: ~ !!l,c5 <
::l a~~ar
~ 0 ::r ::r 0' a.(') ::l 3- CD 0' en' 0 CD "0 0 ::l )>
c:: 3 c- a. CD Ill_ 3 - 3 3C/):cm. 3 a. CDIll_
lC S1<> CD ::l :E 0 0 0 iti ::l "0 III en c- ....
5' ::l CD CD - .., ::l. 0 0 III a. "0 c:: CD "'::l. 0
tIl C/) a. < 3- tIl ::l ::r ca en .:21ll,,< < CD < 3" ~, tIl=fCDo ::l en ca .:21ll,,< 0
~ 5' 0 III m::!: ::l CD tIl ::rc::Ill_ :E iil "2' ::r
~ c:: <" III .., ::l en a cO' :!!itim a. 0" <" C/) :T Illo-a.- ;=;:'< 2 a :!!itim z
:T CD C/) c:: 0 c:: ? III _ 0 CD 5' =;; ::!.: ~ ::r::r !!! 0- I:: Ill::l-
m CD ::l. ::l X ::l 3 :::;; III 0- en ::l x 0 3
III CD 0- ::l 8" g a. 'OCD "0 lD C/) Q, g: ::r CD --"CD "0 a. !CO
::l 0 CD ~~3. .., 0 ::r NIll III c:<~
C/) a. x CD ~ 0 a. x .., ()...,~c.. 5'~ iil ~ ~~- ::a
::r ~ CD a. iti m' CD I:: m~, ;;:cg
0 . -, en 0 en 0 -,en
.., ~ CD (/)gtll 0- 0-, Ci)gtll m
c:: ~ 3 g ~ $l ::l en 09=(1)0 :::ren :!, n
0- 0 CD "0 ::l :T ~~ I '< III "0 ::l
en < :E CD.., a. iii' tIl Illtlliti;;;' :E 0
CD CD 0" 3.., a.
0 0 CD 0 III 0 ::l o ::l 0" en 1"90 0 "OOtll S
::l ~ ~ ::l 0 en 0 ::l .., m@en
a.rnlll 3 0 (Q ~~~c: c:: ::l I ~
C/) g ::l. C/) -O::r "OC/)tIl
0 CD "0 -N-CD
g,cnCi1 ::r c: !!! m~~ 3 CD -.en ~
I:: a. m $lo-CD m
:T C/) 0 .., 0- C/) 10 CD CD o III Z
CD '< c:: ::l :E 000- a.g. c:: '< en
III g ;;;~::l;~ .., I::
CD ::l -gm;::;- a. III CD_ ~ro;::;: C
::l a. ::l.3~ 0 ?" _. ::J ..... ::r '-0 cn3::l ~
0- - a. to ::r tIl l*
"0 0'00 :T CDCDCD= CDoCD
a .., =,=,~ en' en CD<:E
3 CD =t:Ea.:5 -'(Q 0
0 iti c5 ::r en "O:::rCD- ~~ ~ c5 a z
lD :J _ ui' ::r ~,~ ~ g a.:T~ Vi
~ffi!!l, 0 a.
::l "0 =::r~iil 'Dr 8,CD:::r
CD ~, :E 3 "0 @ iti ~ en'
:E 5' 0- CD III -,
00_ (Q CD III ::l C/) 3-
(Q ::l iil CD itig.a.~ "0.., en
0 oen-
a Ill_a. 8" ::l.-C::
iti III 0 CD .0 tIl :T III III ::l
:E ::l III
W CD ;; ~ !:. ..., co 0- cr""m
5' iti CD ::l 0 en ..,ma.
C/) III 0 ~3iil;% c:
0- 8,- "0 C/) 0
'< III 't 0 -'lC CD o ..,
5' .., ;%g:a ~ .....::l
;>> -0
CD 5' o a.a.c:: ?" ::r -
lC i- a CD
::a
m
Vi
."
0
Z
II)
m
0
.,
n
0
~
~
m
Z
....
Vi
'. '-- --.
z"U(')
0-0
,.CD:J
CDDl.....
. en ....
CD Dl
(')CDSl
0..... 0
"Oc....
'< 3 en'
"2, CD CD
(') -.0
2'~c
..... ..... CD
CDaen
g :2. ro
.....(')0.
age
(') "0 Dl
0'<0.
3.....0.
3 0 CD
CDoen
:J 5; ~,
.....0.....
O-=llCD
0-,3
x (') en
CD CD Dl
en "0 en
Dl ::I. en
~Qo
.....0
:;0:J
CD :J Dl
:J CD en
"0 ~ "0
3l3~
ro 0 !'!!.
ro..-aS!:
o ::r CD
Dl en' Dl
a.S::J
g,en~
-, -f :J
gC9:
Dl en (')
- -, Dl
en..........
::rCDCD
CD .... -,
CD CD :J
:: ~, ;;tJ
.;'::Em
_. en
(')Dl"tJ
2':JO
CDa.Z
-.3 en
enCDm
a.CD-
CD!::!:O
!,!!,~ 0
......5:
~ 5:
-. m
~ z
Dl -I
<<3 en
CD (')
..... 0
en -
-, C
N 3
CD :J
::E
::r
CD
:J
Dl
:J
a.
::E
::r
c'i"
::r
--.::::-
------
----.
161 1
;;tJOo"'Cr"'C
CDOO"'O'"
"C ;:, ;:,..2. n ..2.
o~enCD!!l.CD
~ I>> =. g, cn~.
Og,!il' ;:,"
1>>0;:,5:..
,.....,...1>>
CD " .. ;:,
.. I>>
c.a
CD
:"!
~(')s:Os:fTi
:::. ~ B_~ ~ r
:::::!3CD'S.C-<
......CDCD:;u G)
...... .... no. -. 0 0
(') ><"'(')-
iii' )> ::r en r
-enDl-l.,.,
rena.:;Um
o gj ~Len 0 en
C' a. iii':"", =i ~
~s:ro;:;U-l
< !!!. en ~ 0 m
I>>a ('))>C/)
!:!:CD ;.....OOJ
O:J --<m
;:'gj ~:s)>
0(') O-<C
II)CD 'en-l
lD I::;:;
.. ;l> 0
-I )>
. -I
s: -
, 0
o z
CD -
-g, s:
, en
~
c
o
N
-
......
en
I
......
"'-.I
-
......
......
ro
3
en
ll:l
CD
(')
o
.....
CD
(')
ro
po
(')(') r
0 0 Dl
:J :J :J
.....en a.
03s.. en
(')..... (')
.....Dl Dl
o :J "0
..... ..... CD
en en' 0
:;U:;u 0-
CD CD en
"0"0 CD
CD CD <
en en ~
CD CD
:J :J 0'
..... ..... :J
DlDl
~e; :;u
CD < CD
.. ~ "0
S:::s: 0
3 (';' ?-
.,.,::r .,.,
.., Dl CD
;::;:(0 0-
(')- .....
::r)> c
CD, Dl
'< s: -<
(') ~
G) Dl
CD n
_CD ::r
.., N
Fl 0
......
en' ......
Dl
8 2{J '.
~
~
~
t
'.
i I r
!
i i I
GI
'::' '::' '::'
c
CD
UI
cO'
::J
*
m
" ::J
:r ::5.
0
:::I ..,
III 0
::J
N 3
w CD
.!! ::J
r- "" ...
n II)
0 ....
\D .... s:
00 o.
* .... II)
." 0 ::J
r- .... . II) ;:0
... .. cg CD
0 CD <
N ." iii'
w III 3
;too )( CD :E
N ::J c:
... ....
w o'
.!! * "0
CD
"" " !!l.
.... Dr
.... 0-
I - ::J CD
0 :J
.... ::J (')
0 :i" ::r
co CD
cg 00
* ~
> 00
0.
.., 0.
D" ;:;:
0 0'
.., :J
(jj' ~
... CD'
a:
N'
!!l.
o'
:J
00
:J
0.
Q
0.
iii'
CD
00
00
CD
00
:J
0.
5'
00
CD
Q.
(')
0
;3.
Q.
"'0
OJ
Otl
III
N
o
-
.j:>
mCa!:I:a!-1
1ll01ll1ll...:r
~iil"c-~~'~
- :rC'l:::l
~0!!11ll=C'l
::E~2."'::lliil
en~r-~
~" 0 ? r-
:::I ili 0:::1
III r- 7 ;.,
:::I a. c
. III I
o ell a.
5. 1llC'l cp
I III
a. 'It III
cP N C'l
1Il....'It
III N
C'l 0
'It
N
N
(i) 3:3:3: 3: 3:
o III III III III III
::;;a.a.a.a.a.
0;';';';';'
III :::I :::I :::I :::I :::I
;::$.'It'lt'lt'lt'lt
O...a....a....a._-"
Ulco....O)en
a
III
III
:;'
lC
3:"
III III
a. 0-
-. 0-
III -
:::I III
'Ita!
....Ill
""Ill
C'l
:r
a!
<'
~
~
~
en
..
iil
III
3
o
:"
."
o
...
iil
III
..
:I:
iii
o
III
;::$.
o
...
o
III
III
:;.
c
Qo
r-
III
~
III
3:3:6'3:3:3:3:3:
~~~~~~~~
;. ;. l: ;. ;. ;. ;. ;.
:::I :::I .. :::I :::I :::I :::I :::I
~~=~~::~
N....;:O ~
a!
<'
a.
;:0
CD
3
o
<
CD
::I:
o
~
~
CD
0-
(')
00
CD
0.
o
:J
:T
CD
00
o
S.
::r
CD
:J
0.
o
-
3
CD
0.
iii'
:J
!
g
1611 820'
;:O"s:"'O
CD...........
~. 5'~ 5
CD CD CD CD
:E ::I: 0- 0
~ g, !;l ffi
Q.'<-m
_.....CD:;,
m CD ~ vt
!!l.3l:.(')
"'0 ..... ::r ill
c:OCD"O
3 ;:j; 3 CD
o-oa:s:
r~ 00 0. '<
o5CD2:
_"OOCD
~r< -20
(')03::I:
::r<CDO
_. CD a._
== ..., ii)"-<"
~~?~
:l. 0. m
"O:E 00
_. 00
ill~
CD
Q.
!'Il
--~ -
-- ~-
,~
3:
III
a.
;.
:::I
'It
0)
3:
III
a.
;"
:::I
'It
en
r
m
r
-<
G)
o
r
.,.,
m
C/)
~
-l
r- m
o C/)
n IJ)
~ ~
o :::!
z .,.,
~~
o -l
:xl 6
^ z
t s:
", C/)
> ~
!=
;:O;:O;:Oiil;:oenenenen(');;1"=l
CD CD CD "0 CD CD CD CD CD OW"O
=r ~ ~ Q)""2.. CD CD CD CD 3. m-c
CD W W :J 00 (') (') 0 (') 5" ....
cn 0000""'0 =!:::!':::!':=:c: r:::
::r::r::r 5' CD ~ ~ ~ ~ CD :J
333lCo.---,.;;::- CD
CDCDCD' CD'<'<'<,-Ci 0
0.0.0.-100"0"0"0"03 C3
w" ffi' w' ..., Q 2 2 2 2 ~
:J :J :J ~ 0 :J :J :J :J g :J
~::J::::::J""'''''CDCDCDCD;::::;: 0
cccm3.....---o """"
3 3 3 = -. 0 0 0 0.... .....
0- 0- 0- X ~, iil iil iil iil ~ if
CDCDCDlll:J3333c. 3
Cil CilCiliilcc 0000.....
OOOo.co<<<<iil
:J :J :J C + CD CD CD CD 00
(')0(')"0....20202020.....
CCCCD~CDCDCDCDJ1
..., ..., ..., ..., X ::::::J ::::::J ::J ::J C
~_0-~>1ll0(')8(')3
> ~iilggcgg
""C 0.."""""'''''
~ iil_C&&&~cg
"0 CD CD CD CD 00
00 ~;:Occcc::r
0. .....CD"O"O"O-g....
& iil3:E:E:E:E5-
0' (') 0 00 00 III III 00
:J ~~i3.i3.i3.i3.0'
~ 3 ~ <Q <Q <Q ~ :::.
CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 :J
~ :J=~~~~~
N' g- ffi ::r ::r ::r ::r Q.
!!l. go.S,S,S,S,!'Il
o' ill 6;< ::I: ::I: ::I: ::I:
:J .:J Q.Q.Q.Q.
.Q lll-<-<-<r<
c: 0......_..........
a: ;;mmrom
00 ~CDCDCDCD
:J ~ !'Il !'Il !'Il 00
~ en
ill 00
:J :J
C 0.
~ a
"0
III
iil
0'
....
3:
III
a.
iii'
:::I
'It
....
W
:::u
CD
1:1
o
;::$.
C
Dl
..
~
~
~
~
t
en
CD
CD
Q.
<'
CD
-<
"0
2
:J
CD
Ci
ro
3
o
<
CD
20
CD
:J
o
o
c
ill
cc
CD
C
"0
:E
00
i3.
cc
C3
~
::r
o
-
en8~en~;:O:T:E~>gs:;:oen~~"'O"'O
C3CD~"OCD~!!l.ClC....lll~~CD::r22
:J !!l.>....~~03....oo::r~CDlllCD:J:J
~~3COCD~::r"OgCSlllQ.:J:JCDCD
~lg~i:Eg!:E"O~oo@liilro::I:::I:
CD_.....oo....:T"OOooO~:J3_~"OQ.Q.
s: '< 00 ~ 0 CD .... 00 - s. '< '< < ill -.;-
-OOOOffi~~s'~o(')~~f"OCD(')~~
3~iil""'ill~(')0s.~gm~2Ci~iiliil
g -. III !:; ~ cg ~ i3. c. 0- ..... 00 I<C ffi ~ lC3 3l 3l
1ll:J"O-O..... OOOO:J~ 0
oo"O-:J~o-CD:Ecc CD-Ci--..........
cn~==cn. ::J~...,::JCDmCD~ ~cnoo
3111=CD:Tenoo~Ci""'"030.+ro ~__
~c.....o"O 000000.........3 :J==
~ccCim~~illl:T~<O~o cc(')o
CDs:....~~~-3CD'CDoo~~6;<< ~~~
~_CDcO- CClC.....O<:JCD 0-00
~331115~OOc....0:ECDOO20 CD~~
OOO~ 000-000..........0. 0-1<-
~~oo<CDO'_CD....C::rlll::rcCD Coo
lllCD.........:JCDC.:JCD:JCD :J ~<<
oo~oo::r_x.....O':EO' -1(') CD CD
~~~mao~~ro~~~o m~~
~!~~;3.~;~~i~l~ 3~~
=oos'~O!!l.OQOo."OooCC ~c.o.
g. :E ~:: CD'Dl 00 :: 0-'< = CD CD:E:E
~(')CDCD::rC.-:J::rill=x~ CD 00 00
oCD....CDO"OOCD:J=Ill~ x'<'<
en:J 0. ..... 00 C III C. en 0 CD :J:E -,
c !!!. 00 0 <<5' ..... ~ ~ <<5' ::r 0. 00 ~ ~
illg.OO:T:J~.....3:J3l~g-C. ~
:r.ill~CD~o.rolll:Eo~....1<Q 00
:JCD~~:E0:TCD2':r:J.....i60 0
o "" CD :J CD CD ,.;;::- ::r .... S -,
s::J == ~ cc ~~ iil'Q; CD >;::,. ;-
-, OO:J .....::r III C _.... 2O::r 0
3::rCD S,::r Q.;3.oo 00 00 r 0 :J
o 0 CD CD CD -. :J:J III - m
00 c 0. :T < ~~ 8 0 fa 5t iil ::I:
~ c::..... CD ~ == 00 :J c:: ~ "" M 0 5'
o 00 - CD " ~ III (5 = 5'
:E 0- ~ .;:;' CD 0. 5' 00 0. CD ';< ;::l. '< cc
00 CD ~I-='< . CD.... .....
;:;:lC CD :J lC III :T -I III 0 "'0 ro iil
5' <' ro iii' s. ~ CD ::r c. ~ 2 0 CD
CCCD:JOOCD3111CDoo :JO!'ll
o :J 0 00.... iil c. ~ !!!. 5' 3
:J Ci Dl 2" 0' =. III ~ ~ g.cc 3
"'C""m@""g.;::;:~t9... cn(1)
a ~ c. CD CD ! (ii".g ~ ~if ~
rg 0 g:, po ~ I': .... 3 ~ ~ =. &:
00 ~,CD III l!l CD lC 00. 0
~~.... ~ 0 ~ ~ =-g ill
i'C'-"..... :E 0 er 3 0 C (')-
l;r!= m .... =-3 III 00 c
2=1..0. m:::J=t' ~
j:L :J 0- CD :J
...... 0. CD CD 0.
! ~
o
I\.)
-.
.....
-...J
-.
.....
.....
o
c-
UI
o CD
'" <
V) !!l.
m c)"
::0 ::I
~ C
-t !!l.
o ~
2
Ci lCO ~
;:j;::O :.:
(') "'n c:P
III .....
:J 0 -...J
.g s: :.:
~ s: .....
~ m
.... 2
C3 C
~l>
~ ::!
~ 0
;:02
CD V)
en
m
"
CD
o
C
CD
CD
:J
00-
(')
ill
"0
CD
:xl
m
V)
."
o
2
V)
m
o
..,
n
o
s:
s:
m
Z
-t
V)
i
I
I
ti
:'!
i
I
I
10'
~
3'
CD
00
er
:J
CD
00
:J
0.
::I:
Q.
-<
ro
"0
ill
(')
CD
:E
s:
------
'.
-',
161 1 B 2 D.
c
(I)
1/1
ca.
::J
*
m
." ::J
::r ~,
0
:l 0
CD
::J
N 3'
w (I)
.!! ::J
.... .,. ...
n II)
0 ....
\D ..... 3:
I
00 ~.
* II)
on Q ::J
.... ..... . II)
I-> " (Q
0 (I)
N ."
\AI III 3
)> )( (I)
N ::J
w ...
.!! *
.,. "
.... Di'
..... .
I ::J
Q
..... ::J
Q :r
co
(Q
*
)>
..
C'
0
..
(ii'
...
s: ~ r
CD m
c. III r
iii' - -<
:l ::0 0
'It ~
N 0
W r
"TI
m
en
~
-I
r- m
0 en
~ OJ
~
::! c
0 :::!
2 "TI
~ ()
:t-
O :::!
:::0 0
" Z
)> ~
:::0
m en
)> ~
!=
;;a
(I)
'0
0
;;1.
C
III
)>-10 !1!
m CD (J'JO (J'J (J'J " ::0 &0
m QoCil"O :J CD C CD CD CD CD ;:+CD
!!L 0- -t;CD 0 S: < 0
1m::!: o CD -.m
... _ 0 0 iii' ~o. N
en Eig -0 :J N'
~ xiil w::!: :E -~ ~ -
to' m < :J < 0. CD ......
:J 00- co CD Cii~ 0 ~ m :::!
;:+m~ CD';;: lj a :J 00 ......
to' 0. 00.
:::renCD c en en " :J ... ......
;:?; III :::r 0 "0- en 0 III ~([)
o....m ... III :E ~ 0. :J 3
0 c c ~<g 0.
0 crCT~ III !!!. Cil Co
< ... en 0 -"0 ;;;: ~ CD < 0
CD S'~. iil 'Q2 ... en -CD
... C - en ~o. C'
:J m
(j)' CD-'" o :J CD 3' 0. Cil 0 1/1
:::r,< ~CD :!l CD 0 (I)
c- &'<a-l 0 0 en III III 0 ~
a :::r:J a 0. _:J co
:J 0 Cil . 0 en ~, U
7':" III -Ill (I :E te' m VI III
CD 0....- :J S' :J m ..
:J .C a 3 :J 0. ::a o.
0 f9
0 )>_CD - (j)' 0. ~ ==
CD C :J S' CD C CD C
~:J- c: Q, Cil
III co~ 0 0 III -t III
... <" sI !!L ... :J en :J !!l. ..
0 :J :i" ~ 5' 0 !I!
0 III 0. c.... - ."
!!l. 0. CD III "6' co co 2,
0.' a- en fa 0
(j)' "+-1 CD 0.
-, ... "0 0 3 0 120 0
"0 o CD )> 0 N
:J III :::r CD III -
CD III Cil :J C ::a ......
~ Ill- -a
=x en 0. ur co m (J)
~. !ii C C C n I
a 0 @ III !!L en ......
:J m :J :J ~, 0 -..J
0 0. 0. 5' -
~ Ial~ III S' CQ CD S' S ......
a. ......
en 3~ CD i CO s
:g' "0 III
0 :J CD
:J III en iil C :J m
~ 5' "0 Cil 3- ~ CD 2
...
::r -CD 3 en ~ C
! CD ... 0 0 "0 ~
:J en < Dl a
III III CD c- 3' a
i'l3 :E III 0
CD CD 0 & !a.
CD 7':"
I'2Cil en S: 2
iii 0 2'
- N' VI
CD 0 3 0 :J
o 0 C CD co
:ii3 "0 a- =-' c)"
&1 3 0 5' ~ c:
::!:CD ;:+ ~ CD
0 :J o' 0
:J 0. :J 0 g Qo
en !!l. 0 III
o' - 0 0.
:J 0 :J 0.
en Dl a ;:;:
Dl :J en o'
en 0 :::r :J
- "0 CD ~
'<
:::r - Dl
CD 0 ...
::a
m
VI
'C
0
2
VI
m
0
..
n
0
3!:
S
m
2
-t
VI
-- ----- ---- ---
"
OJ
Otl
m
w
o
-.
~
.....
i
I
i
to'
10
-::'
f
I,
~',;,-/':'~~::~:'~:;J {.
-.,.,.. ..-"-
,
.
I
~
~
~
t
1611 B 200 ~
c
CD
en
cC.
:::l
*
m
"C :::l
:T ~.
0
::l ...
ID 0
:::l
N 3
w CD
~ :::l
h~ ...
0'" !!!..
<0"" s:
co'
o. Dl
* ""
.,.,0 :::l
r- "" . Dl
... .. lQ
0 CD
'" "Tl
IN III 3
:l> >< CD
N :::l
...
w
~ *
~ "
... iU
"" .
, :::l
0
"" :::l
0 :::l
co
lQ
*
~
...
C"
0
...
(ij"
...
~ men r-
III r+ m
III ~)> r-
- -<
;:u ;:U::l
~a. G')
~ iil 0
~ r-
.,.,
OJ m
<" en
?- :;!
1lO -f
c: r- m
en 0 en
~
... n OJ
>< ~ ~
III
::l C
III 0 ::!
a. Z
c .,.,
;:u ~ ()
ID )>
::l 0 -f
~ :;g 0
III " .z
..
o. ~ s:
::l :;g
)> m en
iil ~ ~
III
III ~
:::tI
CD
"
0
;+
C
III
t~ cgx ~x ~
OJX (Ox ~~
:-g: 0111 III III III III
<Eiil III ::J :-::J i~ 0
~~ rill l/l III rill N
= a. llIo. t~ ~g- '::1'0. -..
':<t: 3't: o t: ......
:;0 I~ :s, :;0 f[ g.~ ::::!
CD =CD ~~ ......
::J CD ::J ::J ......
0 &-~ III 0 0
< en< < <
!!l. _,Ill !!l. !!l.
0' o' s== 0' 0' 0'
00 0
::J ::J t: ::J ::J ::J ::J
)> )> CD)> )> )> )> r::r
en
CD CD ::I: CD CD CD CD 0 CD
III III CD III III III III ~
.T1 m ~.o .0 .OJ }> g,
VI III
l~ m ...
~ z en CD CD o.
::J" III III ;:g
0 0 0 !a. !a. ~ ::::l
..." ..." "0 "0 C
0'" 0'" "0 "0 0 0
CD CD 3' 3' ..." ..." III
0'" N ...
::J ::J (0 (0 CD ::J 0 ~
(') (')
::J" ::J" g g ::J 0.
0 IJl (') Z
::J ::J ::J" to'
;!:: 0 CD CD ~ 3: 120 0
t: N
~ .., .., -..
iil CD CD !a. "0 :;g ......
3 0 ;a. ;a. 0 m 0>
..." 0 .co I
III V> .., .., ..." n ......
::J ~ '< 0
0. ...: . w :;0 ::::!
..Dl :;0 :;0 2 CD s: ......
to' CD CD to' 3 ......
:;0 3: 3 3 0 ~
CD "0 0 0 3: <
3 0 < < "0 CD m
0 CD CD CD 0 ...... Z
< ...... Ol CD "" C
CD :;0 N X X
N CD X III :;0 III ~
0 3 III ::J CD ::J
X ::J III 3 III 0
0 III 0. 0.
III < 0. .t: 0 .t:
::J CD < Z
III ...... .t: "C CD "0 VI
0.
.t: "" "'0 iil ...... iil
X iil N ;a.
"'0 III ;a. ;a. X
iil ::J W III .....
;a. III ...... I ::J t;J
0. 0 V> III ......
N .t: W (0 0.
~ !!!. t: (0
"'0 (0 . ~
iil ~ "'0
(0 is: iil
!!!. ;a. t: ;a.
N 3'
c: t;J '< .....
N
-< ..... ~
:;g
m
VI
"'C
0
Z
VI
m
0
...
n
0
s:
s:
m
Z
~
-- 00- .-
"'0
'"
Otl
m
.j::o
o
..."
.j::o
.--...
f ~
~
~
~
t
1611
B 20
... $ ~ "ll $ n n n m 2 := :I> "ll "ll $ ~ ~ ~ ::a (/) ~ ~ ::a 3: ~
Vi > 0 0 0 )( m n VI > ~ ~ ~ ;:a' 3:
-l := c: ::= 2 2 2 Vi :E := := ~ ::= ~ 2 m 3: 2 m
m C5 2 Gi -l C5 m 2 Gi p ... n p ... n 0 ~ 2 m 0
:= -l -l -l < J> p ... n
0 :I> 0 -l := := := Z "ll :I> :I> ... -l -I 0 ~ < -I 0 -I .... .... .... .... <
~ ~ m m -I 0 -I
:I> -l -l 3: 0 0 0 > -l Cil 3: :<! .... m ::a N .... m 0 w N .... 0 lD 00 ...., O'l VI .j:> W N .... m
0 Cil 0 m 3: 3: m 0
lJl Vi ~ 0 ... ... ... 2 :I> 0 0 3: ::a -I . 3: ::a 0 3: ::a 3:
0 ... ... ... "ll d "ll Z Z ::a
2 "ll m m m > -l 2 m m m 3: ~ m 3: Z ::a
< 2 (/) rr' (/) 0 ~ m 3:
N :I> m := := := Z VI VI ~ 2 0 0 0 0 2 rr' (/) 0
!" ... := 2 ii :x: > 0 ~ 0 0 0
0 s: > VI 2 2 2 Cil 0 -l :I> ~ .... m ~ .... > m S; ~ VI .... .... W N N N .... .... III .... .... .... > m S;
2 U; P P P -l ~ c: := := "ll "1:l 2 c: 2 < 2 c: 2 0'6' 0'6"
m VI ... :2 := C5 c: ~ "ll -l ~ -l ~ -l :l :l 2 ~ c: 2
III -l !':' !':' !':' ~lJl =l:I: :::a C =l:I: :::a C c.n
III ReI Cil .... n :I> := roo m m m m =l:I: :::a C -
I-- :l> III m N !'!I n III C I-- <: n m I-- III <: n n '-- VI :::a
... c: s: m m m ~ 0 -l III m m <: n m
2 <: VI VI III !'!I 0 m ~ ~ m C :I> 0 0 m C 0 :I> III VI III III III III III III III III III III III m :!!
n ~ ~ ~ m 0 ::c ~ 0 m I :::a 0 0 m :'"' :'"' :'"' :'"' :'"' :'"' :'"' :'"' :'"' :'"' :'"' :'"' :'"' m C
0 Vi III I III
m :x: 0 III :l> m I III ... ... C 0 :::a VI ... ... ... c :::a III :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> ... I 2
m ~ c: 0 ~ 6 c: ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 :l> :l> :l> :l> :l> :E 0
< 0 :I> "1:l lJl lJl lJl < III ... 0 ffi c: ... 0 "'0 c: :l :l :l :l :l :l :l :l :l :l :l :l :l ... 0
:l> III m ... ... ... m m ~ 2 3: n 0 ~ "'0 3: n n 0 E "'0 3: Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. 0 ~ J> "'0 m
m ::= Vi Vi Vi lJl ... ~... ~ :::a m :'" ~... ~ 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... -I
2 :0; n ... III n ~ s: m -l J> m :::a m m ... ... ~. m
III ::c ~ :x: :x: :x: Vi ~ 0 0 J> :::a 0 ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID -l :::a
:x: c: ~1Il 0 ::! ~ 0 J> :::a 0 =: =: =: =: =: =: =: ffi =: =: =: =: =: :::a
III :l> 0 m m m :x: :I> ~ 3: ::! J> 3: J> - ::! 0 :::a :::a
"ll :E 6 0 0 0 lJl III ::c 2 0 2 r- Z ~ 0 2 r- :::a :2 ..'" .VI ..'" ..'" ..'" .VI ..'" ..'" .VI ..'" .VI ..'" J>
m ... m ... s: p ... :E ID ::! 0 ID 0 2 m :::a
n -l 2 2 n n n 0 Vi )> ... ~ 2 n ... ~ 2 n ::! :!! ... := ::c ::c ::c ::c s: ::c ::c ::c ::c s: s: s: 2 2 ::!
:;; m := := := lJl III 0 2 0 m 0 ....... ~ ~ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ~ Ci')
:= 0 ::= 0 0 0 :E :x: m 'i= ~ ::c ~ 2 ::c :::a 2 Ci') ::c ~ ~ ~ ID ~ ~ ~ ID ID ID 2
n 0 ... m "ll "ll "ll m 3: := :I> s: Ci') n s: Ci') J> s: ~ ~ ~ ~ c.n J>
VI n m m :E 0 "'0 "'0 :E :E :E m m :E m m m. m m Vi ~ -I Ci') ::!
2 -l :I> :I> :l> :0; 2 ::c 0 :I> 0 :I> ::! :I> :::a
"ll m :x: 0 2 2 2 ::j n -l 0 (/) -l 0 (/) -l c.n
:= < 0 s: 2 2 2 !< -l m 0 0 > n 2 0 > n 0 0 ReI m n 0
Z :x: < m
m := c: c: c: VI :E Z 2 :t -I 2 :t 2 m :t 2
I-- :0; :I> ~ s: :I> :I> :I> c: m VI I-- III - ::a I-- 2 '-- -I
... ::c m ... ... ... "ll m :x: n :x: 2 .111 = m 2 III = m 2 III m n
m n :x: := 0 E c 0 ~ c n ~ :::a
:= m 2 m m m "ll :0; "ll c: r- 0 r- 0 C 0
III 0 ~ III III III ... !< "ll 0 -l 2 m c: r- -l 2 m c: 0 -l .... .... .... .... 2 m
:x: ~ 0 -l -l -l m ... lJl .... P r- N .... P -l W N .... 0 lD 00 ...., O'l VI .j:> W N .... P -l c: c: 2
3: c: Y' ... 0 ... 0 2 ... 0
m 2 ~ ~ ~ :I> 3: ~ m ~ r- m m 1M r- m r- -I
:I> lJl -l 6 m "ll III ... 2 m :::a ... 2 m -I ... 2 c.n m
0 ... :I> :I> :I> 2 "ll "ll U"I U"I m ::a
I-- Vi .m 2 I-- III - 0 I-- 0 ::a - 0
VI -l -l -l ~ ... III -l V. J> 2 J> :E J> 0
3: :x: III VI m m m ~ ~ m ~ ~ 0 ~
s: "ll 0 0 0 ... := c: VI N :E 2 0 III VI N :E 2 III VI III III III III III III III III ::c III := 2 r-
~ n := "ll :<! := "ll "ll :<! r- "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll 0 0 :<! N J> r-
6 ~ ~ ~ :I> -l -l m 0 C 0 C ::c "ll 0
m 0 0 f;) n :;; ~ J> :;; ~ ~ ::; r- :;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -l ~ d -I C m
2 "ll c: "ll 2 U"I "ll 2 "ll 2
2 m "ll c: m m -I ~ m m ~ m m 0 m ::a
-l ::c -l -l -l 2 .2 ... < m < < m :::a < < < < < < < := < m m :E
m ... :l> m c.n ::c
m "ll ... m m m E ::c 2 0 m n 0 m 0 :::a 2
- 0 m ~ I-- := := := :I> 36 Iii - ::a ::a 2 J>
::c -l :J: "'0 0
c: c: c: -l ::c N ~ ~ ~ ~ -I
d 0 III III III 0 !'!I ~ :-J VI Cil 3: m m .... Cil 3: m Cil c: m
0 III !'!I !'!I !'!I :x: .j:> "ll <: .j:> N "ll ... N N O'l .j:> .j:> .j:> w VI w 0 .j:> .... .j:> "ll 1M
:l> .... ::c .... 3: m :::a c in .j:> s: m :::a ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s: <: 3: ::a
lJl III :E 2 U, -l VI c: -I < -I c.n
m ~ 0 .j:> m c: c: m c: m c:
- n :x: d 0 N - lJl m r- m c.n "'0 n
... 0 ~ -l 2 lD Y' :I> ::a c.n m Z :l> :::a c.n n :I> c.n c.n :t
0 c: ... ..... !'!I n Cil :x: Z "ll m "ll m :t :2 "ll > m m
III ... s: .... ....... "ll # I ....... "ll # ....... "ll
m 0 ..... U'1 .... 0 :l> 'P :x: ... :x: ... m :x: ... C
0 := m N U'1 0 ~ Z 2 ... :x: ::a m 0 r- ::a m 0 c ?:l m ::! c:
0 m ~ W ....., 0 n -l ... 0 0 m 0 0 c: 0
0 ....., 0 :x: := 0 m 0 !< 0 0 r-
I-- 0 f;) Z 0 2 r--- ::c 0 - 0 - r- - m
:E c: Gl Gl Gl n "ll III lJl -l m -l -l -l -l -l -l -l -l -l -l -l 2
36 0 :I> :x: m r. :I> -l 0 - -l ::0 0 ."ll ."ll "ll "ll ."ll "ll "ll "ll "ll -l "ll "ll I
2 ~ :I> :I> := n ~ n 0 0 0 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
m :- :- :- I :E m "ll :<! "ll 0 ."ll :E :<! "ll ~ ~ :E "ll "ll -I r-
Z 0 0 ~ > 0 > 0 r- ~ :<! > m m
2 X X X ... 0 .., :E III 0 m III :x:
0 ::c m c: "ll OJ 'ill "ll 'ill 'ill 'ill 'ill 'ill % % "ll 3: !<
0 m ... 0 III 2 - Y' 2 !< :x: VI 0 III :x: "ll 2
... w w w m III 'ill m 0 m 0 0 p 0 0 0 'ill m
::c :I> "ll :0; m -l m Y' -l ."ll III Cil ."ll ~"ll ."ll -l
lJl ....., ....., ....., m := !:!! "ll 0 n % % % -", % % "'0
0 0 0 :t: :"' "ll m :x: m m 0 m m Vi
~ ~ ~ := Cil m "ll - 0
m 0 c: n ::c - 0 "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll "ll r+
- ::c ::j - m m m :E 0 2 - m :::a ~
-l 0 Cil m m m m c: m 2 "ll "ll 0 "ll J> )>
0 :l> ^ ^ ^ m 2 0 > := 36 := 36 .., ::c 36 ::l
Z 0 0 OJ 0
2 VI VI VI :0; :<! s: ::c ::c - ::c :::a c..
"ll :l> < ... r Cil Z .... .... Cil :2 n .... .... .... .... lD 00 ...., O'l VI .j:> W N .... Cil Z < ..,
:= II II II :I> N N .... 0
0 ... ;:: 0 s: ::c := :"' ::c /1)
)( 0 :I> m :I> m :I> m ::E
< ii ... ::c -l -l - -l "'0
6 := m m 0 ~ q'l s: s: s: 0 Vl
- C5 J> III - -l - r-
m -l 0 c: 0 VI III III > C:l
2 :l> ~ ~ := s: ::c ~ ~ ~ <'
0 -l 0 ... 2 .... :x: .... .... :x: .... .... .... :x: = c..
0 lJl U'1 :I> > :l> N 0 ::c N N 0 := w w N N N N .... .... .... .... N N N 0 :=
lJl ... 0 -l ;.:. 0 -l ;.:. 0 :.:;. w ;.:. 0 :.:;. w ;.:. ;.:. :.:;. w 0 -l r-
36 .j:>. N U'1 -l 0 s: c: c: c: f20
::c .2 :I> U'1 ..... U'1 m n ~ 0 ::c -l VI 0 := -l VI Cl VI 0 VI 0 VI 0 VI VI VI 0 0 ::c -l m
Cil U'1 W 0 0 m m :I> III ~ :I> :I> III ~ :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :l> :I> :I> :I> III ~ C
C5 m m ..... 0'\ 0 2 2 m .... m
)( w I ~ s: m s: s: s: s: s: s: s: s: s: s: s: s: s: s: s: VI
:l> ~ 0 ....., 0 ...., -l m VI m VI m i.n II'
- -l n - ::c - -l -l :::! oj:>,
0 m ... Gl Gl Gl :E 0 ... := 3: := 3: := ~
"ll s: s: s: s:
-l s: :I> :I> :I> m ... Cil c: c: c: ~
2 Y' r- r- r- m s: Cil := :2 2 ~ Z 2 ~ :2 2 ~
~ :2 r- r- r- :0; "ll :l> c: c: c:
0 0 0 III :I> 3: III -l -l -l
m III 0 -l ~ m 0 0 -l ~ m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -l ~ m
)( Z Z Z "ll !!l m ;.:. m C ;.:. ;.:. m C ;.:. ;.:. ;.:. ;.:. ;.:. ;.:. ;.:. ;.:. ;.:. 0 w ;.:. W m -I C
-l -l VI VI VI m ~ III III m III m III m m
m ::c := m . VI m VI VI m VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI 0 0 VI 0 m f---
I-- := r-- - "tl "tl "tl r--- := I - VI VI ::a II'
-l m m m m < m -l .... m -l -l .... .... m ~ -l .... .... m -l
s: m n 'P 0 N 2 0 N N 2 0 w w W N N N N .... .... .... .... N N 2 3:
0 ;:l:l ;:l:l ;:l:l :l> 0 :x: )> :x: W ;.:. 0 :.:;. w ;.:. 0 :.:;. w ;.:. ;.:. :x: )>
m -< -< -< := 2 ." m ~ ;.:. 0 0 Cl:l ~ W ;.:. 0 0 Cl:l ~ 0 VI 0 VI 0 VI 0 VI 0 VI VI :.:;. W 0 0 Cl:l
m !:!! < VI Cl VI VI 0 m
III 0 m m m -l m ... c: -l roo ... c: -l roo ~ :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> :I> c: -l -I roo
~ ::c :I> )> )> ::c := ~ :I> ::c ~ Vi ~ :l> :I> := ~ Vi :I> :I> ::c ~ Vi
0 ;:l:l ;:l:l ;:l:l 0 Cil s: III :x: s: 3: III :x: s: s: 3: s: s: 3: s: s: 3: 3: s: s: s: III m :x:
lJl c: ... := m m m m m ::a m
I-- !:: Cil III - I-- m C C 0 f---
III :x: < m "ll Cil ." Cil "ll Cil #
:x: :-l III 2 m :l> "1:l m :I> "1:l m :l> 1M "1:l
m -l ." ::c ... roo ::c ... roo := ... 1M roo
0 m 5 )> ... J> ... )>
s: m ::c Z := 0 Z ...., .... .... ::c 0 ~ Z
"ll := O'l O'l c: VI N W c: VI w W lD O'l O'l O'l .j:> ...., .j:> N .... N c: 0
> m .... .... 2 2 -l ...., .... O'l 2 2 -l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI VI VI 0 VI 0 2 2 -l
2 VI VI III ...., ...., 0 III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 III ....
- 2 > C C ~ C 0
-l ." m C "ll m C "ll 0 m
3: r m s: III m s: III m s: III
:= ~ .. := 0 .. := ~ N ..
:I> )> !I! :E ~ )> !I! :E )> !I!
-l :E < z z Z
m m III C 0 m III C 0 m III C 0
:= m N m N m N
> N :0; -c; .... .... :0; - N N N N N N N N N N N N N :0; -
- 0 0
... W W W
III Cil - Cil - Cil -
:I> d ... :I> -l ... :I> -l N
... ... ... 0 .... .... ... 0 0
... ~ ... ~ ... ~ ...
.... .... 0 0 VI .... .... .... .... .... N N 0 ...
N N 2 ... VI N W 2 ... 0 O'l O'l 00 N N N lD VI lD .j:> W .j:> 2 ...
w w ...., .... O'l 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl 0 III ...., ...., 0 III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 III
:0 "Cl "Cl :5 n n m 2 :0 J> "Cl "Cl :5 ~ < ~ :;lO :;lO ~ ~ :;lO ~
J> 5; 0 0 )( m n VI 5; ~
:11:1 C :11:1 2 2 1;; :E :11:1 :11:1 .la ::D 2 J> J> m ~ 2 m
C5 :11:1 2 15 -I -I -I C5 m J> 2 15 ~ ~ <: n 2: ~ ~ <: J> n 0
~ 0 -I J> :11:1 :11:1 Z "Cl J> J> ,... -I :; m -f 0 N N N N ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... -f 0 -f
3: 0 0 5; -I ~ 3: ::c! N ... m w N ... 0 ID co .... .... en U'I 01:> W N ... 0 ID co .... en U'I 01:> W N ... m
5 -I -I ~ 5 m ~ ~ m ~ 0
1;; ~ 0 ,... ,... 2 J> 0 I 3: :;lO - I 3: ::a
,... ,... "Cl 0 "Cl Z :;lO Z ::a
2 "Cl m m 5; -I 2 m m m tit ~ m ~
N J> m Z :11:1 :11:1 Z VI III ~ Z C C 0 C co en U'I w ... ... C tit 0
:11:1 :0 :r ... ... > 0 ... ... ... ... ... co co en U'I w ... ... .... ... ... ... 0
0 ,... > VI 2 2 2 ~ 0 -I :J> n w w m n N N ... ... 0 ID J> Z V. .... Z v. Z v. 01:> Z V. ID co Z .... en U'I 01:> > m !f;
2 3: -< ~ ~ -I ~ C :11:1 :11:1 "Cl "tl J> 2 c: 2: ::a ~ v. 2 c: 2:
m VI In !!l z :11:1 C5 C ~ "tl -I ~ <
III 120 ~ ~ ~ en n ~co I"" m :II: ::a 0 ::a m :II: J> ::a 0 tit
III m 0 ~ :11:1 n III <: n III <: n n
J> ~ ~ m m - m
,... c 3: m m VI J> < < ~ J> .,., .,., .,., .,., III VI III VI VI III III III III III III III III "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl
2 <: n III III C :11:1 ~ C m :; !!!.. !!!.. m m 0 0 0 0 0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 :-0 III III III III III III III .m m 0 ::a
~ ~ m J> .!C VI I J> VI I
C :r 0 m V. 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ tr tr tr tr tr tr tr ,... 0
m III -< I III iD iD ~ III III III III III J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> :e
m 0 J> "tl tll tll ~ C 0 "Cl 6 c ,... 0 ::! c III III III III :J :J :J :J :J :J :J :J :J :J :J :J :J tr tr tr tr tr tr tr ,... 0 0 :E
< III m ,... ,... m III C J> 3: -< -< 0 ~ ." 3: .. .. .. .. Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co iD iD iD iD iD iD iD 0 ~ J> ."
J> tll III m ,... Z III III 0
m ;:ol; n ~ 1;; 1;; ~ ...... 3: m .. .. n r- m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tll tll tll tll tll tll tll n 0
2 ,... n ~ -I ~ -I III III III III III III III III III III III III III J> -I ::a m
III :r :r 1;; 0 C ~ ~ r- 2: c III III III III III III III
:11:1 :r c .Yl III III 5 ::a iii iii iii iii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ::a
III 0 -I m m tll :J> m III III III III III III III -I ::a -
"Cl J> 0 C C :r ,... J> III :11:1 ~ Z III III 5 2 -< J> Z tll III III III III III III III III III III III III .., .., .., .., .., .., .., 5 2 J> ::a
m .,., :E m 1;; 3: r .,., ~ 3 3 n tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll tll ::T ::T ::T ::T ::T ::T ::T m
-I n n C .,., 2 ::! 0 .,., <" ~ ~ [ 2 ::! 22
n 2 Z 0 tit 0 <" <" [ <" <" ~ <" ~ <" <" <" <" <" tll tll tll tll tll tll tll 2:
:;; m :11:1 :11:1 :r tll :e n n p..
:11:1 0 ::D 0 0 :E 3: m -;: :11:1 :" :" -f 2: 2: :11:1 p.. p.. p.. p.. p.. p.. p.. p.. p.. p.. <" <" <" <" <" <" <" 2: ~
n :11:1 tit
0 .,., m "Cl "Cl m m J> 0 3: :;lO ~ -f 3: p.. p.. p.. p.. p.. p.. p.. -f ~ J>
III 2 -I n J> J> m 2 :E :11:1 J> m J>
;:ol; 0 ::a ::a -f
"Cl m :r 0 2 2 ~ -I =i n C -I J> tit -I tit
:11:1 0 3: m 5 0 5 m 0
Z -< 2 2 :E :r -< ~ n n
m :11:1 C C III Z - r- 2 r- r- 2 m
;:ol; J> ~ 3: c m U'I III III ::I: r- III -f ::I: 2:
J> J> m :r co
,... :11:1 "Cl :r n 2 ~ n m m 2 ~ m
m m ,... ,... ;:ol; :r :11:1 6 :;lO
:11:1 m n Z m m "Cl ,... "Cl C 0 2 ::a 0 ::a 0 N N N N N ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2 0 n
III 0 III III ,... -< 0 -I N ... ~ -I -I 01:> W N ... 0 ID co co .... en U'I 01:> W N ... 0 ID "Cl .... en U'I 01:> W N ... !=l -I m 0
:r ~ 0 =l -I ::! m J> "Cl .,., tll .,., 5 c: 2: .,., m 5 c: c:
m 2 3: 3: "Cl C .Yl ;;; 2 ." ;;; 2 2 2:
J> tll 6 3: m 3: ~ r- !' tit r-
-I "Cl III ,... 0 m ,... m -f
c ,... ~;;; J> J> 2 ,... "Cl t- III r- C r- c m
III 1;; Z -I -I ~ n -I v. ~ ::a
:r VI III < :11:1 :11:1 J> w ~ J>
3: III m m J> ~ m C 0 Q N III III VI III VI III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III N ." 0
3: "Cl C C ,... -I :11:1 n J> ::c! 0 2: tit "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl "Cl ::c! 0 c: 2:
J> m 6 ~ ~ J> 5 -I m n :11:1 -I ~ :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 :11:1 r-
-< !:) :;; 0 0 "Cl 2 0 n :;; J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> "Cl 2 ~ 0 r-
2 "Cl 5 c m r- m
2 -I m "Cl 2 C ,... ;;; :11:1 :11:1 m m ::I: ;;; -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< m m
m :11:1 -I -I ,... :11:1 ~2 J> m C III III :e m c ." :e ::a
"Cl ,... m m n 2 N
m m ;:: r- :11:1 :11:1 J> ::6 In t- O tit
C :11:1 J> -I -I < J> < J> 2:
~-< c C -I :11:1 N . ~ c: ~ ~
0 5 ~ III N ... J> :e -f N N N W W w 01:> N N ... 01:> 01:> 01:> w N W N W N W W N N J> -f 0
III VI 5 C5 .... :r "Cl 0 "Cl
C VI ~ ~ iD ..... :11:1 N co 3: <: m r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: <: m
J> 2 J> J> m ::!
tll III :E 0 U'I C m ::a m ::a N
m -I
:r :11:1 0 5 01:> - tll -f c: I 0 c:
n 0 "Cl J> N ~1Il J> m r- J> tit
,... C J> -I 2 ID Z "Cl tit m Z "Cl 2: tit n
0 ,... ,... I-' ~ ... n :r ...... "Cl ::a m ...... "Cl I m ::I:
III C 3: I-' 0 Z ~ "P :r ,... !< :r ,... -f
m .... 01:> ... 0 J> ;;; ~ ;;; m
c :11:1 m .j:>. 0 ...... n 2 ,... :r ? ? m
c m :l 0 0 N :r -I 5 m c m <: c ~ 0
0 !:) ~o Z "Cl :11:1 2 - :11:1 -f - Q.l I-- c:
:E c G) G) n m 0 tll -I -I m . -I -I -I ." r-
III J>
::6 c )> )> :r :11:1 :. "Cl ~"Cl "Cl :;lO ro -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I ~"Cl "Cl -I -I -I -I -I -I "Cl "Cl 0 m
2 m ~ r r :E n .:!:. n ffi ~~ ::c! 5; -< :;g :;g ~"Cl ~"Cl :;g :;g ~"Cl ~"Cl :;g ~"Cl ~"Cl :;g :;g ~"Cl "Cl :E ffi ~"Cl ~"Cl "Cl ~"Cl ~"Cl ~"Cl ffi ::c! 5;
i m ::a I
Z 2 X X m 0 :- 0 "Cl 2 :tI: Vl ~ ~ :E :E :E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :E :E :E :E ~ .Yl ~ :E ~ :E ~ ~ "Cl 2 J>
0 :11:1 m ,... C m 0 ..... m r-
0 w w ;:ol; ,... C III III -I """" .... III VI III III III III III III III III III III III VI -I :;lO m
J> .,., "Cl ;;; III C C (1) C C III
:11:1 .... .... m r-
c c tll f-- m :t :11:1 III t- "Cl N I-- Q.l -< - -<
0 :E :E :11:1 C5 m ~
m C C ~ n :11:1 "Cl 3 "Cl
:11:1 =i m m :E 0 2 :11:1 ::6 """" :11:1 :0 ." -
~ m iJ
0 5 m m m C m 2 0 :11:1 en n 0 :11:1 0 (1)
J> ^ ^ m 2 C > ~ Z ... :'" ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ID .... en ID co .... en U'I U'I w 01:> w N N ... ... ~ Z
2 Z l/'l l/'l ;:ol; ::c! :11:1 - W W N N ... ... 0 0 :11:1 ~ C"
"Cl J> < II II .,., 3: or J> m ~ J> m C"
:11:1 ,... 0 J> 3: -I ~ 3: -I iil
0 ;:: 3: 0 ~
< ::6 ,... :11:1 - X - ~ 0 r- - C::J
m 0 3: III 0 III
6 :11:1 }> m 0 I ~ ~ m (1)
m C5 ~ c 0 ... ... :r ... ... ... ... :r ... Q.l
2 J> n w 3: :11:1 3: :11:1 N N 0 :11:1 U'I U'I U'I 01:> 01:> 01:> 01:> 01:> w W w W N N N N ... ... ... ... ... N N ~ N 0 :11:1 . n
0 -I J> 0'1 00 0 2 iN 0 C -I :Ii. N j.;. in :Ii. N N j.;. in :Ii. N j.;. in :Ii. N 0 :Ii. :Ii. iN j.;. 0 :Ii. iN ... 0 C -I U1 :::r
5 tll .,., J>
tll .j:> .j:> J> 5; ,... 0 0 :11:1 -I 0 U'I 0 U'I 0 U'I U'I 0 U'I 0 U'I 0 U'I 0 U'I U'I U'I U'I 0 U'I 0 U'I 0 U'I 0 :11:1 -I n
:0 ~2 J> w 00 -I 0 3: J> J> III 3: J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> III 3: :'"
00 0 m n m :e m
:11:1 ~ C ~ m 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3:
C5 m 0 0 m 2 m !!l m !!l reo
x m w f-- 2 - ~ J>
J> n "Cl G) G) .... -I I 3: :11:1 ~ 3: :11:1 ~ Vl
-I m J> )> )> :E :11:1 ,... C c -f r+
5 "Cl ,... r- r- 0 ~ Z 2 :; Z 2 m :J> )>
-I 3: r- r- m ,... :;lO -I
2 Z .Yl 0 0 m 3: ~ :11:1 C -I m C -I m :::l
~ 2 2 ;:ol; "Cl J> 0 0 -I 3: 0 0 !;l 0 0 !;l 0 0 0 0 !;l !;l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -I 3: ~ 0 a.
III J> 3: III iN iN m j.;. j.;. j.;. j.;. 0 j.;. j.;. j.;. j.;. j.;. j.;. N N 0 j.;. j.;. j.;. j.;. j.;. j.;. j.;. m
m l/'l l/'l III III m ... ... ... ... III m ....
~ "Cl III 0 0 m U'I VI VI VI VI VI 0 U'I VI VI VI VI VI VI U'I 0 0 0 VI U'I VI VI VI VI VI m (1)
"'0 "'0 m m
- t-- m - -I 18) r- ~1Il -I II) -I II) ~
m :11:1 m m :11:1 m ... m ~ ... ... ... m -f ~
:11:1 m ;;0 ;;0 :11:1 I m 0 ... N :r 2 0 U'I U'I VI VI 01:> 01:> 01:> .j:> 01:> W w w W N N N N ... ... ... ... ... N N ~ :r 2 m Vl
-< ~ 0 ~ in :Ii. N j.;. in :Ii. N N j.;. in :Ii. N j.;. in :Ii. N 0 :Ii. :Ii. iN j.;. 0
-I 3: -< -< m n "Cl iN 0 C tll :Ii. iN ... 0 c ::a tll C::J
0 m m J> 0 m 0 0 C I"" VI 0 U'I 0 VI 0 VI VI 0 VI 0 U'I 0 VI 0 U'I VI VI VI 0 U'I 0 VI 0 U'I I"" <'
m )> )> "Cl Ri J> -I Vi Ri J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> J> C -I :tI: Vi
m C :11:1 2 !a < J> :11:1 3: J> J> J> :11:1 3: a.
III :11:1 ;;0 ;;0 -I m 3: 3: III ::J: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: III ... ::J:
~ 0 :11:1 :11:1 m m m ... m -
0 - - ~ 0 C -
tll C ,... :11:1 ~
,... ~ III m "Cl ~ "tl "Cl ~ 0 "tl
1;; :r Vii m m J> > m J> ... >
:r ;-l 2 :11:1 ,... :11:1 ,...
m -I ... :11:1 5 z ID :11:1 5 ~ 2
m "Cl 0
C 3: m N en U'I C 2 -I 01:> W W W 01:> 01:> 01:> en w w ... en en en 01:> 01:> en w 01:> W 01:> 01:> W W C 2 -I
0 en 01:> 2 0 0 0 0 U'I U'I U'I 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 U'I 0 U'I VI 0 0 2 N
"Cl :11:1 0 0 0 III C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 III C
5; m
2 m 0 m 0
2 > "Cl 3: "Cl 3:
-I m :J> III m III
or :11:1 C .. :11:1 C :J> ...
3: J> 2 /I) ~ 2 /I)
J> :E ~ 0 0 :E 0 0
-I m N m III
m m m N
:11:1 ... N ;:ol; c5' ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... N N 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ;:ol; c5'
> ~ ~
In ~ - ~ -
J> -I ... J> -I ...
,... 0 ... ,... 0 ...
,... ~ ... ,... ~
... ... 0 0 ... 0
.... en 0 2 ,... 01:> W W W 01:> 01:> 01:> en w w ... en en en 01:> co N W 01:> w 01:> 01:> w w 2 ,...
01:> en co 0 0 0 0 U'I VI U'I 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 VI 0 VI VI 0 0
0 0 0 III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 III
1611820
1611
B 20
ttt~~~~~~~tt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~WN~
;:u;:u;:u~roro~~o~oo~oorC~C~(J)ro~~mor~(J)m:.~
mmm;:ucc;:U~>~~~~~~~O;:UQC~&(J)>~~~OCZ
(J)(J)(J)>oo>-~~mI~~I~/m~Ir;:U~c~ I -;:UQ
mmmzQQzz~6;:um~~m>z~~0~~;:um~m(J)O;:U<~
;:U;:U;:U(J)mm(J)(J)> >;:Urm;:ur(J)--I^~>;:u ;:u mmm
~~~~~~~~r~~ON(J)~~m~~ r;:uz>~o~~~m
(J)(j(j ~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~8~~;
;:u;:uOZZ -~~~~~~~~~O~ ~ ~m ~~(J)~~.i.'
-OZ(J)(J) C~(J)~~;:Umr-;:uO~ (J) Z< >O~mm
~o~~> Z~Qm~ro(J)~~~;:um ~ m< Oa;:U(J);:ul
CZ o~ ~ mZQ~ ZZ~roZ ~ ;:u~ ~m~
~g 8~ 8 ~m ~ ~Q(J)~~ ~ ~ ~~~
ZQ r~ ;:U;:U C go > >c
Om r(J) ~ > 0 (J) zm ~ r;:u
mz ~m 0 r I Q ~ (J)
00 ~;:u ~ ~ m m
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
;;; 0 r- ()
~zoo~~;:u---~oo
;:Um>>~~m~~~:;:;mc
>Q;:U;:U--<cmm~r;:u
z01;:u;:uzzm;:U;:U(J)I>>
(J):.e.~~(J)(J)Z>m~~oo
~O~~~~CZ(J)~I<
mmoommmo~m-><
;:U(J);:U;:U;:U;:U(J)m~z;:Ur>
(J)~~~~~L:: >~Oo5
SlO;:u>>;:U;:Uc-8><-o;:u;:u
om;:u;:uOO~ oZzmm
O<OO~~~;:UO~-~~
~ Q~~~-2~rn~~~
C3 mZo;:U zo~;:u
zmo> o~ m
O;:Ureii (J)O (J)
C~rm ;:u ~
~ m;:u
ro 0
ro ~
~ Q
W
CnO'>'--.l
N.I>.O
<O-,JO
0,<06
010W
.....l.....lr.~-Jo.
CoW~N
.....ll.<o~m
W-,JO-,J
'~o",o,
COOl.............
'NlJI )>
::;: Oe 3
.<0 Q. CD
0 ::I
.I>. Q.
0 OCD CD
0 0- Q.
6 6
.9 .9
~ ~"H"H"H'" ~ 0
0
3
3
;::;:
3
CD
, , , , , , ::I
r;r
~~~~~~m
Ie
::;:CD )>
- :::!::I !l
- ~ -Q. e
0- ~::;
WN !!!.
W.I>. O'>e
~o, . iil
S~ ~(II
w~ ~
010 !!!.
- oS' Ai
WN 01- 0-
W.I>. , ~ CD
~Co -
000 .9
~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0'>-
-,J N NN.I>. 00.1>.01010'>01
o 0,01000NO'>OO~0:"'0-
o 000000000-000
o 000000000.1>.000
6 6666666660.666:'"
o 00000000001000
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W 01
Co 0 WW01
<0 0 -,J01<O
W 0 00<0
Co Ol~~(o
<0 0 010-,J
N
~ ......o>w
.....l.ocn'OJ'".....Io
01 00.1>. WW01
OO'>NONO
oo,<ow~o
O......01.a:.WO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CJ) (X)....I.I\J.......W01
'Ow I\).tlo. o""....J~ (::)0'0.
0000100'>.1>.0010
-00000.1>.000
~666666666.
0.900.900000
~~(J)(J)~Z~~~~~~~I~~~~~~ooroO><
5.~~~~~onoon3~.~0e~QOQog~g~~
~1ll<~~-QQQQQroB::I~~r~i~3~~~q~
~01ll~~~~rerererereO~~~U~1ll1ll3~~~gCD
Q. ~ -Ill 0 ~::I_roo o-~
ao ~SlOSlOSlOSlOSlO ~ roO ;:u ~oomoxz
g =>>>>>::1 QO ro ~~L::~C III
m ~0000m ~ ro~ m ~-a~a 3
Dr z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =';c 0 g: r,< :::!.'< (1)
::I ~ooooo roro ~ ::I~co;:u
g iii 0 0 !il3'16 Q.~ 0
m ~ ~ g CIl ~
t: (bCD ~ ;E'
3 :3
ro ;::;;
.I>..I>..I>..I>..I>..I>..I>..I>..I>..I>.~ .1>..1>..1>..1>..1>..1>..1>..1>.
010101010101010101010 01010101010101 01
00000000000 0000000 0
~-~oooooooooo___ooooooo_o~
(t)Q(t)-Jo......l......l......l............l......l......l.......-Jo.I\)QQ.................l.............-Jo......l.Q.....l.O
DOD~~~8~oo~~~~00~~~~~~~0~_
-O'>O'>O'>NNN-,JN-,JN OO-,J-,J-,J~OO~.I>.
W.....l.(X)~.....l.OONWO....... WOOO.....l.O)O 01
O1.1>.N<OO'>-O<OOO010 -~O'>wooooo 01
-n
tD
C"
...
I::
AI
~
~~
ro III
::Ice
!e. ro
o
::I
...a.
~.....
N
o
...a.
...a.
-nl
C:P:!
Z~
C~
...a.CJ)
en.....
Nc:
NN~
~o-(
'We....
ClIO....
....0
~~~~
~oii
ill;:
2: ~.-j
ro .
~
E"
~lll
~I
i
~
o
!!:
~~~~~~~~~~~~W3.~~W~~3.~~~~~
aOCllolll~2 ~Q~ccu~a~Ill-~<3
~~0m=-mOOOOOOOO m_~~~~=_~m=<~
~~~(J)~>-!!!!~~~::Iq~~~~~;~~~
~roro~~~~_._._._.~~.~QOO~ ~~m mro~
~~~roa16161616C1l~~ ~ ~ ~~W::l:3~
ro=_~. CIlCllCllCll (J) ~ CIl ~Q~Q.;::;;1ll
~mQ~~~~~~ roi @ g ~a~~ g
(J) O::l::llll~~~ ?ro CIl ~ SlOL:: ~ ::I
~ Qcei!~~~16~ 16;:u~ a ~
::I III oro-3c- CIllll CIl roCll ro 0
o - m~~ ~ ro -z m~ ~ ~ ~
OJ () ""CQ)~"'O-.., ....::::.. Q) .., CD
~ ~ rog~~: (J) I &~ ~ ~i::l
C ~ro;:U~ro 0 ;::;;~ ro (J)3~
CIl O(J)ro-lll ~ ~ ro::l - 0
~ s!~g~ 16 E 3~ ~ ~
o ~_roQ.ro;:u CIlO-
~ -@~m< ro ro
~(J)2!.cC.?- 5
- ro::lr <
W w~cC. ~
< g ~ ~ g'
~. 0 8:~
CIl ro ~ ~
00
.,.."';::;;"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;:u~
CD-(
N W 3....
..............0 wwoo............ mo
.l>.w:"'oo, wO'>:"''--.loCoCn ~)>
:::!~~~$ ~~~~~~~ ~~
NOOO<O 0<0<0000-00 .
......00.......0'1 CJ100 w....... co 0'1
~
-(
....
....
,
-
N
~
'#.
>
.9:
~!'J-n""'"
<00-(0
Oog~o
~oC)~
-
S.
CD
(II
W
.,..
+
w
~
N
~
o
III
"
N
o
o
o
'6
o
N
o,NW01
00010
000'>0
6666
0000
o
.I>.
01
6
o
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N
o,c.ncoc.o......
NN01-,J~
010'>0'>0.1>.
6:"'6",6
000.1>.0
W
......w W 01
CoCo.......ooow
<0.1>.0101.1>.01
WOOONO
'Cooo6Co~
<0000010
N- )>
W.I>. WOl~!l
O1CoOWOW!!!.e
<owoo-,Jo.l>.Q.!!!.
1~~!=7'!=J!='~
<0......00......00')
.......W......010c.n
.,
RECEIVED
FEB 1 7 2011
Naples, Florida, Dec~pf~&o"'"'t68ionel'$
LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular
session at 10:00 a,m. in the Main Library with the following members present:
I
F.IBla ~ I 1 al j
Hiller ~.._..
Hen. n\i1'g ,,-
Coyle ...--.
Coletta . .. u. - ..
CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis
VICE-CHAIR: Loretta Murray
Carla Grieve
Rochelle Lieb
Connie Bettinger-Hennink
ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director
Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator
Judith Kraycik, Administrative Assistant
Nick Linn, President, Friends of the Library
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Lewis asked for additions or corrections to the minutes of October 13,2010. A question
was raised concerning the agenda. Mrs. Murray asked for clarification for the Employee of the
Month item and whether the Board needs to choose an employee for October, November, and
December. Mrs. Matthes confirmed that the item is correct and that three selections are needed.
Mrs. Matthes stated that unfortunately it was decided that the employee selected for October
should not have been eligible for the award at this time. Mrs. Grieve moved to approve the
minutes, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and the motion was carried unanimously that the
minutes be approved.
LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT
Mrs, Reiss stated that the conversation club at South Regional Library is standing room only
which means the seasonal people are back. The program not only brings many people of very
diverse backgrounds together, it has provided a medium for informing residents of the resources
that the Library offers. Mr. Linn asked if the Spanish community is represented in this program,
Mrs. Reiss stated that they absolutely are, She stated they have made a strong effort to recruit
tutors from this community. He stated that it is his understanding that the concept of a free public
library is not something that is familiar to the Spanish community, Mrs, Reiss stated that is very
true and as a result, the idea of a free public lending library is something that is emphasized in the
very beginning of the program. Mrs. Lieb asked if there is a Spanish publication for the area.
Mr, Linn stated that it no longer exists. He continued that the radio stations seem to be the
primary method of communication to the Spanish community. Mrs, Matthes asked Mrs. Reiss if
she has participated with the group that meets in Golden Gate run by Mr, Forbes, a Board
member of Friends of the Library. Mrs. Riess stated she does not attend on a regular basis. She
added that she has learned that the Spanish speaking radio stations and TV stations are a very
effective means of communication with the Spanish community as well as some of the churches
and the Catholic Charities. Mr. Linn asked if there was a way to have a marketing campaign
promoting the library geared to the Spanish community, would that be a desirable endeavor?
Mrs. Reiss stated it would be very desirable. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink stated that a
communication problem exists in the Haitian community as well. She also suggested that the
CAT bus may also be a venue to communicate with these communities. Mrs. Lieb suggested that
grocery stores may also be a good resource for communication. Mrs. Matthes _~he has
contacted Publix and she received a letter from the corporate office stating they wou~O)e ej '", I I , I
Date:~
1 Item': \ loIL\) 6-~1
.. .
1611 821
interested in doing something to promote the Library. Another suggestion may be McDonald's.
In the past, they have done promotions on the tray liners.
Mrs, Reiss also reported on the proposed partnership with Edison State College for the Library's
People and Stories Program. The program will be part of the College's remedial English classes.
In addition, a professor of English at the college provided another contact with the Director of the
Academic Success Center. The Center provides tutors, computer and test preparation aid. She is
hoping to develop a partnership with the Center to provide assistance.
REPORT OF OFFICERS - None
COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs, Murray stated that the Kwanis Club has approached her to see ifthe Library has any
children's books that could be donated. Mrs. Matthes stated she would check as they did not sell
very well at the book sale.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Employee of the Month - October, November, December
Mrs. Matthes suggested that the employee who had previously been selected for October would
be re-submitted when it is determined that she is eligible and another employee should be chosen
as Employee of the Month for October. Mrs. Murray nominated David Chalick as Employee of
the Month for October, Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink seconded the motion and all in favor. Mrs. Lieb
nominated Sonja Williams as Employee of the Month for November, Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink
seconded the motion and all in favor. Mrs. Murray nominated Kathleen Dolan as Employee of
the Month for December, Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink seconded the motion and all in favor.
Unattended children in library policy
Mrs. Matthes distributed a copy of the draft of the most recent version of the policy which she and the
branch managers have agreed upon. She stated the draft was sent to the County Attorney's Office for
review about two weeks ago and she has not yet received any communication from their office regarding
the document. She also stated that she placed more emphasis on the fact that the library is a public place
and all are welcome. She also added verbiage to the draft regarding 'stranger danger' and renamed the
policy 'The Child Safety Policy'. Mrs. Grieve stated she likes the fact that there is a reference in the
document to safekids.org. Mr, Linn asked if once the policy is approved, would it be posted in the libraries
or publicized. Mrs. Matthes responded that generally is has been found that posted items are usually not
read. The policy would be provided by staff on an as needed basis. She explained that the intent is to
move away from age specific policies to behavioral policies. The policy could be applied to any individual
or situation where the behavior would be deemed as inappropriate for the library. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink
made a motion to approve the policy contingent on the County Attorney approval. Mrs. Lieb seconded the
motion and all in favor.
Courtyard Renovations
Mrs. Matthes reported that the bids for the renovation came in considerably higher than expected. She
continued that she has called Facilities Management in an effort to see if they can make any suggestions as
to how to lower the cost. Initially it was estimated that the renovation could be completed for a total cost of
$30,000. The lowest bid came in at $49,000. One donor has given the Library a check for $25,000 to be
2
161 1
21
used for the renovation and a number of other donations have been received from private donors. In
addition, donations have been received by the Friends of the Library for this purpose. There are a few
items that were specified by the architect that if changed, could reduce the estimate and these are being
looked into. In summary, she stated the bids are too high and even if the funds were available it would not
be in the best interest of the Library to spend that amount of money on the renovation. Mrs. Matthes stated
a 'Friends ofthe Library' program will be held in the present courtyard on January 14. Nick Linn stated
that additional funds may be available from the Friends however Mrs. Matthes recommended that
alternatives which could reduce the cost should be considered before accepting additional funds. The
project manager from Facilities has advised Mrs. Matthes that the bids are just too high for the work that is
to be done.
Senior Resource Center update
Mrs, Matthes stated that the center will be named the Brookdale Center and the program is also
changing. As it has been determined that there will not be a health clinic at the Center, the major
donor for the project has asked whether 11,000 square feet is still needed. Mrs. Matthes stated
that she has met with the architect to see if the square footage can be reduced due to the exclusion
of the health clinic. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink asked for clarification regarding the square footage
for the library. Mrs. Matthes stated that 7,000 square feet has been designated for library space
and that will not change. The meeting room space may be reduced from seating for 150 to
seating for 100. The donor is requiring that a building permit be obtained by June of 20 11. This
does not allow much time for changing the basic footprint. In addition, the project has
encountered problems with fund raising. Without the health clinic, almost all ofthe center can be
considered shared library space with the exception of a few meeting rooms. Mrs. Bettinger-
Hennink asked if the Lighthouse will still be included. Mrs. Matthes responded that there will not
be a room but there will be equipment and resources for the blind that will be staffed with people
either from the Lighthouse or from the Collier County Association for the Blind. Mrs. Bettinger-
Hennink asked ifthere are major changes to the original plans, will they be required to go back to
the Board and to the other groups who were involved with the project. Mrs. Matthes responded
that they would need to go back to the Board but she was not certain if they would go back to the
other groups. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink asked if the health clinic was what had initiated this
project. Mrs. Matthes stated that it was but an alternative location is being used which is working
out quite well. However, the Resource Center will be a valuable tool for non-profit organizations
that provide services to senior citizens. It is her experience that once these centers are established
they expand and need additional space. She posed the question to the architect whether the plan
would easily allow for expansion and he stated that would be difficult. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink
asked if the 2-1-1 system would have a presence at the Center to which Mrs. Matthes responded it
would not. Mrs. Lewis asked if the changes are extensive, could that discourage groups who
were initially supporting the project. Mrs. Matthes stated she did not know. She explained that
even though there is money available for the construction of the project, there is a need for
working capital. She has approached the Friends of the Library to see if they would be willing to
provide some funding. The question was raised whether once the Center is up and running,
would there be enough funding to continue to support it. Mrs. Matthes stated that if the Center
cannot continue to operate, the building would revert to the Library.
NEW BUSINESS
Library Foundation
Mrs. Matthes stated that Mr. Culligan initially contacted her to possibly establish a Library Foundation
when it was rumored that the Vanderbilt Beach Library may close due to lack of funding. She encouraged
3
1611821
him to work with the Friends of the Library but he declined, She did not hear anything from him for quite
awhile. Then in October he sent this proposal to her and she told him that the County Attorney would need
to review it as would the Library Advisory Board. Mrs. Matthes stated that the Library has a long standing
relationship with the Friends of the Library, However, this proposal may provide additional funds but she
is questioning the methods for obtaining these donations. For example, it appears that one plan is to solicit
donations from on-site library patrons and she does not support that for many reasons. Mr. Linn stated he
feels this proposal if approved would be disruptive to the goals and objectives of the Friends of the Library.
He does understand that the additional funds would certainly benefit the Library. However, he suggests
that it may be beneficial to find out why Mr, Culligan objects to working the Friends of the Library because
the best scenario would be for him to work with the Friends and not separately from them, Mr. Linn also
stated that soliciting donations at the actual libraries never works. Mrs. Lewis added that some patrons may
even be offended by this practice. Mrs. Matthes stated that many donations are received from people who
do not have library cards nor do they frequent the library, Mrs. Matthes suggested she set up a meeting
with Mr. Culligan, Mr. Linn, Mrs. Grieve and herselfto discuss this proposal. It was agreed by all that
more information is needed from Mr. Culligan to understand his intent and motivation.
Literacy Buddies
Mrs, Matthes stated she received a proposal from Barry Williams, who is the director of the Parks and
Recreation Department, who also is a Big Brother. He is asking that the Library establish a link on their
website to the Literacy Buddies program. The purpose of the program is for kids to sign up for a literacy
buddy who they would communicate with and who would commit to buying a few books for the child
during the course of a year. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink asked if this program is duplicated anywhere else.
Mrs. Matthes responded that she is not aware that it is, Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink stated that if the link is
provided through the Library, it will appear that the Library approved the program. The benefits of the
program would be that the child improves their letter writing skills and also receives books. Mrs.
Bettinger-Hennink stated there are current programs that provide free books to children. The Board was in
complete agreement that this program is something that should be run through the school system and not
the Library. Mrs. Grieve stated the program could be problematic for the Library. Mrs. Lieb stated that it
sounds like a very good program but agreed it should be run through the school system. Mrs. Bettinger-
Hennink moved that the Library do not provide a link for this program on their website. Mrs. Grieve
seconded the motion and all in favor.
Library Advisory Board Applications
Mrs. Matthes stated that there were two applications for the open positions. Both Connie Bettinger-
Hennink and Loretta Murray applied for their current positions. There were no other applications. Mrs.
Lieb made a motion to accept the applicants for the open positions. Mrs. Grieve seconded the motion and
all in favor.
GENERAL CONSIDERA TrONS
Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink stated her high school graduating class will be celebrating their 30th anniversary
and they have expressed a desire to make a significant donation to the County commemorating this
milestone. She has suggested that the donation be made to the Library for something tangible, At this
point she is looking for suggestions from the Board.
Mrs. Matthes reported that a few months ago a woman had fallen in the Library courtyard and was
hospitalized. Mrs. Matthes contacted the Risk Management Department at that time to investigate whether
the County (Library) had a responsibility for this accident. She has received the determination from Risk
4
1611821
Management that the Library has no liability for the accident. She has not heard anything since the
determination was made but feels she may receive further complaints regarding the situation.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Budget
Mrs, Matthes stated she provided circulation figures for November, 2010 compared to November, 2009. At
most locations the figures are dropping. She stated she tried to obtain enrollment figures from the school
but was unsuccessful. She is hoping the census results will provide population figures that may explain the
drop in circulation. In addition, the Library is not purchasing as many books which also could contribute to
the reduction. She has also eliminated a database and is looking at other elements that may be eliminated
in order to provide more funding for books. Mr. Linn added that Mrs. Matthes has approached the Friends
of the Library for the first time in years to see if they would be receptive to buying books, He stated that a
campaign is being prepared to solicit for donations for books.
Staffing
Mrs. Matthes stated the Library is currently interviewing to hire 8.5 temporary positions to work from
December 15,2010 until April 15, 2011. These temporary positions are to assist regular staff during the
increase of library usage that occurs during the winter season.
Mrs. Matthes stated that a gentleman has just been hired as a reference librarian for the Naples Regional
Library. He has experience with genealogy which is why he will work at the Naples Regional Library.
In addition, the Library is in the process of selecting a candidate to replace Julia Clark. This should be
finalized in the very near future.
New Media
Mrs. Matthes stated we have started floating the audio books and large print books. Thus far there have
been no problems.
Mrs. Matthes stated that a project has been given to the Library by the company that produces PlayAways.
The new devices are called ViewAways and she distributed a device to each of the Board members to try.
They come preloaded with four stories and the replacement cost is $99. They are rechargeable. The
vendor has provided them as an experiment to see if there would be a market for them. They will be
available at the Estates and Headquarters branches only. They are only intended for young children. Mrs.
Lieb asked if they are all the same. Mrs. Matthes responded that they are not, there are different titles.
Mrs. Matthes stated that January 25 is snapshot day for Florida Libraries and she distributed a flyer for the
event. The purpose is to profile libraries in the state but she added that it ties in with the entire Country.
Our Library will participate in the event.
REPORT OF THE FRIENDS
Mrs. Grieve stated that at the last Board meeting a member resigned but three new members will be voted
in on Friday.
A long range planning committee is being organized to look at where the Friends will be in 5 or 10 years.
5
1611 821
Mrs. Grieve stated she intends to write a letter to the Naples Daily News encouraging residents to donate
books, especially hard cover bestsellers, to the Library. She will explain that less money is available to
purchase these books for the Library.
Mrs. Grieve reported that the recent book sale netted between $10,000 and $12,000. Many book sellers
who attended the book sale stated that their sales are down. As a result they did not buy as many books as
they normally do.
Mrs. Grieve also reported they are still working on the by-laws and the term limits for Board members. It
is felt that getting new members on the Board is healthy to obtain new ideas and suggestions,
The Read White and Roulette event netted approximately $14,000 and there was about $32,000 worth of
donated goods and services from the community.
The Nick Linn lecture series is going well. It is almost sold out.
Mr. Linn stated that the Library sign in Immokalee should be replaced. Mrs. Matthes stated she is
aware of this and has contacted Facilities Management. Mr. Linn stated that if finances are a
problem, the Friends would assist.
Mr. Linn stated that the sign for the South Regional Library is not very visible. He asked ifthere
is something that can be done. Mrs. Matthes stated she intends to contact Edison State College to
see if possibly we could replace their sign and add the Library to their sign.
Mrs. Reiss stated that information and maps to all the libraries should possibly be available in
every library.
Mrs, Murray asked if there is anything that can be done about the little green signs. Mrs. Matthes
stated there is not. They are officially approved road signs.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to corne before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Lieb moved to
adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and carried unanimously the meeting was
adjourned at 11 :50 a.m.
g (ttLo \~ ~
Approved by: J
Doris J. Lewis
Chair, Library Advisory Board
6
RECEIVED
MAR 1 6 2011
16Ft 1 !>~ 1
Hj!10[" ----;~-
HtHlj1i. 19. 1:21i:::__
Coyle___'7 L-_
Coloit; i7
~
Naples, FlolJlffl&~ %~ ~n;.
LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIDRARY ADVISORY BOARD met 01 this date in regular
session at 10:00 a,m. in the Main Library with the following memJers present:
CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis
VICE-CHAIR: Loretta Murray
Carla Grieve
Rochelle Lieb
Connie Bettinger-Hennink
ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director
Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator
Judith Kraycik, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Lewis asked for additions or corrections to the minutes of Decem Jer 8, 2010. Mrs. Grieve
moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and the mojon Nas carri,~d unanimously
that the minutes be approved.
LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT
Mrs. Reiss stated that the Conversation Class at South Regional Librar:' is over subscribed. Th:s
is due to the influx of seasonal residents. As a result, the class has beelL split into two separate
classes.
Mrs. Reiss reported that the partnership with Edison College is moving forward with a People and
Stories hour scheduled for February 4 with the Remedial English Class. Additionally she has
suggested to the instructor of the class that the group schedule a library tour whi,~h she is setting
up at the South Regional Library.
Mrs. Reiss stated that she has been involved with the Volunteers for Acult Literacy of Florida
which is a statewide literacy group that focuses on volunteer based liter ary organizations. The
president of the organization invited all of the library literacy program representatives to a
webinar last week to discuss the different programs, budget challenges llld the different
partnerships they have formed. The state library and the state organizations consider Collier
County a pioneer in the library literacy field. She added that it wa~ a great experience to speak to
the different people that we mentored and shared ideas with in this fiek. Mrs. Murray asked if
the conversation groups are made up of working people. Mrs, Reiss stated that members of the
group who attend year round are working people typically Spanish speaking. The seasonal
members of the group are mostly retired and many of them are from Quebec. Mrs, Murray asked
if a connection had ever been made with the hospital. Mrs. Reiss said tile branch manager from
South Regional has visited the hospital and provided brochures on library programs however they
are not actively recruiting additional members because the classes are clITently filled to capacity.
Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink asked if something had been done with Habitat for Humanity. Mrs.
Reiss responded that the library helped design a training program for th,~ir mentors.
Misc. Corres:
REPORT OF OFFICERS - None
Date:__
Item.:
:;opies to:
161 1
821
COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Grieve asked if there was any response from the letter she had written to, and was printed
by, the Naples Daily News asking for donations of books to the library due to the current budget
constraints which are limiting the number of best sellers the library can purchase. The letter was
printed on December 27. Mrs. Matthes stated that there is no way to determine what prompts the
book donations. Mrs. Grieve stated that many of the highrise buildings in Pelican Bay have their
own library, She stated she will make the suggestion that these libraries review their inventory
and possibly donate some of their books that they no longer want.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Employee of the Month - January
Mrs. Murray asked if it would be possible to provide the committee with information on the
nominees such as whether they had ever previously received the award and also the length of time
they have been employed by the library. It was agreed this information would be provided. Mrs.
Lieb nominated Gayle McTeigue. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and all
in favor.
Unattended children in library proposed policy
Mrs. Matthes stated that the County Attorney has approved the proposed policy. She added that she
discussed with Colleen Greene, the attorney assigned to the Library, that the primary focus of the policy is
behavior rather than age. Mrs. Greene has signed off on the policy and Mrs. Matthes stated she will
provide a copy to Mrs. Lewis for her signature.
Mrs. Matthes provided the Board with the proposed meeting dates for the new calendar year. Mrs. Murray
asked about the meeting date for December which is shown as December 14. The members of the Board
agreed to change the date to December 7. There was additional discussion regarding the August meeting
date because some members may be unable to attend but it was decided to not change that meeting date.
Mrs. Grieve asked if it would be a good idea to occasionally meet at a different library. Mrs. Lieb stated
she would like to see the Marco Island Library. The members decided that they would tentatively meet at
the Marco Island Library for their May 18 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Hours of Operation - Vanderbilt, Commissioner Hiller
Mrs. Matthes stated that Commissioner Hiller has inquired about the hours of operation at the Vanderbuilt
Beach Library. She has responded to Commissioner Hiller's questions stating that it was decided to close
that library on Friday and Saturday due to the reduced use of the library on those days. In addition, due to
the reduction in staff, employees who work at the libraries that are not open on Friday and Saturday can be
utilized at the libraries that are open on those days. The public is under the impression that the libraries
should remain open on week-ends for the school children. However, studies have proven this is not the
case. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink stated that being the mother of a school age child she can attest that week-
ends are taken up by sporting events or other community events and would not be spent at the library even
if they were open, Mrs. Murray asked how many employee positions has the library lost. Mrs. Matthes
responded that currently the library is budgeted for 84.5 full time employees. Before the recession the
library was budgeted for 121 employees. This is a 30 percent reduction in staff. In addition, no overtime is
allowed. There are also two other libraries that are currently closed on Friday and Saturday for the same
2
1611 621
reasons and she has received inquiries regarding the hours at these libraries as well. Mrs. Matthes
concluded that if staff and money were not a concern, she would like to have the Library open more hours
to accommodate everyone and hopefully that will happen one day.
Mrs. Matthes provided reports to the members showing circulation and door count statistics by day by
branch for the last three months of2010. There was a discussion regarding the days of heaviest usage
because the figures indicate that Monday and Tuesday are the busiest circulation days. The question was
also asked how the door counts are gathered to which Mrs. Grieve responded there is a device at the door of
each library that collects this information. Mrs. Matthes also stated that even when all the libraries were
open six days a week, Monday was still the busiest day at all the branches except one. Mrs. Matthes
confirmed that these figures include some of the on-line activity as well which is why there may be activity
showing on Sunday for branches that are closed.
Mrs. Matthes stated she has subscribed to a new reporting program to collect additional statistical
information but she has not yet obtained a report from this new program. Mrs. Murray inquired about
Homebound which is shown as a location on the circulation report. Mrs. Matthes stated that this is the
books that are checked out to be sent to library patrons. It was also discussed that because the libraries
were used for early voting, the door counts for October would have been skewed. It was also observed
that due to holiday closings, certain days' figures may be affected. Mrs. Lewis commented that because of
the change in movie rentals to five days rather than three, this would affect circulation figures. Mrs.
Matthes stated she has run reports on DVD rentals since this change and it did affect circulation figures by
about I to 2 percent. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink asked if there was a decrease in overdue fines to which Mrs.
Matthes said there was not, they are about the same.
Literacy Buddies
Mrs. Matthes stated that Mrs. Lieb had requested that this item be revisited from last month's meeting.
Mrs. Lieb stated that circumstances required her to be at the Learning Coalition Office in Fort Myers.
While she was there she noticed a flyer about the Literary Buddies which provided more information about
this program. She reported that this program is only for preschool age children. In addition, the adult
receives no information about the child except for a first name. It is coordinated through the preschool
classroom who is already a participant in the program. The Literacy Buddy provides a book for the child to
keep and the child sends a drawing or letter back to the adult. This link already is provided on the Lee
County Library website. Mrs. Lieb stated she sees no reason not to provide this link on the Collier County
Library website. Mrs. Grieve asked if the Library provides any other external links. Mrs, Matthes
responded that we do not. Mrs. Lieb stated this program is provided through daycare centers and
preschools that have elected to participate. She asked that Lee County Library be contacted and asked to
provide feedback on the program.
Mrs. Matthes reported that there is also an on-line vendor of books, dvd's, music, etc., that if an item is
bought from them, they will provide 20% of the purchase price to your local library. The name of the
website is Giving Reader. It is possible to provide a link to this site on the library website.
So the question she is posing is whether the Library should provide links to web sites outside the County,
She stated she will do additional research on both the Literacy Buddies program and the Giving Reader
program. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink asked if information could be obtained regarding whether programs that
provide donations for the purchase of products are really successful.
3
161182
Friends of the Library/Book Fund partnership
Mrs. Grieve stated that she attended a meeting with Mr. Culligan that included Mrs. Matthes and Nick Linn
from Friends of the Library. Following that meeting, Mr. Linn intended to meet with the executive
committee of Friends of the Library to discuss this matter. Mrs. Matthes stated that Mr. Linn has met with
the executive committee but she has not received any information regarding that meeting. Mrs. Matthes
also stated that she and Mr. Linn met with Mr. Culligan to learn more about his intentions regarding the
book fund. She said they learned that he had no previous relationship with the Friends of the Library which
is probably why he did not approach the Friends for this project. She added that his intentions are to do
something good for the Library. Mrs. Matthes stated Mr. Culligan plans to solicit funds from people who
have charitable trust funds. She has sent a request to Mr. Linn stating that Mr. Culligan has a proposal to
raise money for books for the Library and asking that the Friends work with him on this project. She stated
Mr. Culligan's plans include developing the public information literature, a website and a campaign for
donations. He is willing to work with the Friends public relations firm and has stated he will donate
$10,000 to help initiate the project. Any donations that are received will go through the Friends, Mrs.
Matthes stated that having the Friends handle the financial process will be more practical than having to
utilize current staff who are already overwhelmed due to staff reductions. The funds will be used to buy
books for all of the libraries and Mr. Culligan does not plan to participate in the selection or placement of
the books.
Drawing for annual EOM and nominator winners
Mrs. Matthes stated that she has assigned the coordination of Employee ofthe Month program to Sharon
Berrueta who is a Library Associate at South Regional Library. Tanya Saldivar previously handled this
task but recently her workload has increased so Mrs. Matthes decided to assign the task to Ms. Berrueta.
Tom Siebold's name was drawn to receive the Annual Employee of the Month award and Denise
McMahon's name was drawn to receive the nominator award. They will each receive a ticket to one of the
Friend's programs.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Mrs. Lieb asked about the repair of the carpet at lmmokalee Library where there is a large bleach spot in
the entrance area. This was caused by a member of the cleaning staffwho spilled bleach on the carpet.
Mrs. Matthes stated that the entire carpet will not be replaced however she is working with the cleaning
company to find a reasonable solution.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mrs. Matthes spoke about the upcoming Snapshot Day on January 25 which is taking place throughout the
state of Florida. Libraries will be taking pictures of events and happenings and sending them to the State
Library or the Florida Library Association. The information will be used for legislative lobbying and also
to provide information for possible funding. This is something that is being done across the country but not
necessarily on this day.
Mrs. Matthes reported that she had an inquiry why there are not enough catalog computers. Mrs. Matthes
stated that this situation is being addressed.
Floating Collections
Mrs. Matthes reported that there have not been any significant negatives to this program. Currently staff
4
1611 B 21
is making adjustments to the large print and audio collections when they observe multiple items at one
location. As of April I , it has been decided that non-fiction will be added to the floating collections
program. It was determined that non-fiction would be more manageable for the program at this time.
Prior to that date, staff will be removing outdated material at each branch which would intlude timely
medical, travel and financial material for example. Mrs. Matthes stated that the real benetltofthe program
will be realized when we stop transporting books back to the originating branch. Mrs. Lewis asked if the
color coded dots will remain on the books. Mrs. Matthes responded that she has reluctantly agreed to allow
this to continue. The color coding system does provide information regarding the original location of the
book and should the floating collection program be discontinued, the books would not need to be recoded.
REPORT OF THE FRIENDS
Mrs. Grieve reported that the Friends held their member appreciation night. There were three speakers
which included Mrs. Parks who spoke about the history of the work her husband and others did for the
Library, the second speaker was Maureen Sullivan-Hartung who has written a book about Everglades City,
and Mark Atkins who is a policeman from Gainesville who he wrote a book called the Oasis Project that he
self published, A reception was held following the program.
Mrs. Grieve asked if there was an update regarding the fountain renovation. Mrs. Matthes stated the
project is going out to bid again.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Bettinger-
Hennink moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Murray and carried unanimously the meeting was
adjourned at 11 :30 a.m.
ca~\~. ~
Approved by: j
Doris J. Lewis
Chair, Library Advisory Board
5
l~iibl
III<mm:llWm) Henning
U Coyle
. MAR 1 4 2011 Calett;
THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
BY: ..--............. ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
HELD ON NOVEMBER 8/2010
22
I
In attendance were the following:
Alan Mclaughlin, Fire Chief
Caleb Morris, Captain
Mitchell Roberts} Chairman, Copeland
John Pennell} Plantation Island, Advisory Board Member
Tod Johnson/ Everglades City, Advisory Board Member
James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member
Ron Gilbert, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman Mitchell Roberts at
approximately 7PM and then roll call of the attendees took place.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2010:
Mitchell Roberts made a motion to accept the minutes as read it was seconded by
James Simmons and passed.
Ron Gilbert - He asked when the typical meeting date was each month.
Chief McLaughlin -It's the second Monday of the month.
Ron Gilbert - So we met September 20th because it was postponed.
Chief McLaughlin - Yes, we had a conflict I don't remember what it was. I think
we were waiting for information.
OLD BUSINESS:
Chief McLaughlin - The new bunker gear was purchased and new lockers have
been installed. We've purchased some new hose and nozzles.
Page 1
Date:
C(;pies to:
1611 B 22
Chief Mclaughlin - We've tied a lot of our operational stuff up right up front to
get it out of the way to sit out the rest of the year. We have a very minimal
operating budget this year but we did have some things we had to purchase for
operational purposes. There is no other old business at this time.
NEW BUSINESS:
Chief Mclaughlin - We talked about next year's budget coming up. The Advisory
Board would have to make a recommendation to the budget office and the Board
of County Commissioners. The Chief's job is to give them the information so that
they can put a letter together. This year our Advalorem revenue was $1,346,300
we carried forward $406,526 there is no carry forward next year so we're going to
be short that next year. The $406,526 equals six firefighters because it is $68,000
per firefighter with benefits this means we would lose six firefighters next year
which is half our Department. We can't do that obviously. He suggests that we
ask the taxpayers of the District to pay the fire tax that they paid three years ago
to maintain the level of fire service that has been established. We are not asking
for an increase in your taxes we are asking for what you paid three years ago to
maintain our level of service. Because of the depreciated values of the properties
the 4 mils no longer gives us the same dollar values. He showed them a table
explaining the millage increase. If we were to go to 5.5 mils with no depreciable
value this year or 5.81 we could get by with that. We lost $543,000 but we really
need about $423,000. We are looking at $408,000 which is just under the wire.
We will have an insurance increase like we do every year. We need to get back up
to the 1,899,000 or somewhere close to that number. If the State come back and
says you have a 5% decrease this year instead of a 20% or 30% then we would
have to go to a 5.8 or 6 mil increase to split that difference. If they give us a 10%
decrease in taxable value weill have to go to 6 mil it gives a short of what you paid
in 2008. Even though there would be a millage increase you would pay less than
the fire tax then what was paid in 2008. With the budget at $1,899,000 there
would be enough money in the budget to cover salaries, operating and to finish
the station at Port of the Islands. This may only have to happen for two years if
the property values come up then we can drop back to 5.6,5.5,5.3,5.1 or 4.8.
Page 2
1611822
Chief McLaughlin - He would recommend that once the property values come up
to adjust the millage rate accordingly to keep the budget at the 2008 millage.
There is a contract being approved tonight by the union with no salary increases.
There has not been any salary increases in two years and there are no salary
increases in the next three years. Doing this means personnel will not have any
salary increases for five years. This is just to maintain employment for current
personnel and keep the fire protection the same. If we don't do this Port of the
Islands will lose all their fire protection and their new ISO rating plus the rating
will drop in Everglades City, Plantation Island and Chokoloskee Island because we
would have to split our fire protection in half that also impacts our response to
1-75 if we leave here there will be no one to respond. Doing this millage increase
just allows us to continue doing what we are doing today.
Mitchell Roberts - Some of the other Fire Districts put on the voting ballot millage
increases. Do we have to put this millage increase on a ballot or is it at the
discretion of the County Commissioners?
Chief McLaughlin - The Independent Fire Districts have to and Corkscrew got their
millage increase because they were about to lose 50% of their staff. Because
Ochopee is an M5TU it is by the Board of County Commissioners discretion they
can raise that cap but it would have to be by the recommendation of the Advisory
Board and presented to the Board of Commissioners. He feels it is prudent to
address this early so that we are not doing this in June or July after the fact. So
that when January or February comes around we know what we have to do to
maintain the local service.
Ronald Gilbert - Are you talking about 2011?
Chief McLaughlin - We are currently in the 2011 budget now we are talking about
the 2012 budget. In the 2012 budget we are asking the people to pay the taxes
they paid four years ago.
Ronald Gilbert - You are not talking about this coming year.
Page 3
161 1
822
Chief McLaughlin - Our fiscal year begins October 1 we just entered out fiscal year
so October 1,2011 will begin the new 2012 budget.
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
,
James Simmons - He wanted to know how much has the property value dropped.
Chief McLaughlin - The property value has dropped 29% across the whole District.
Everglades City had the largest drop. The Port dropped about 14% the City
dropped 29% when you balance up the rest of the County it came to 29.6% across
the District which is a large chunk. Our total loss from our 2008 budg~t wa.l.
$543,600 we've lost about 1/3 of our budget. The governor had a 2.5% roll back
on taxes in 2008 and on top of that the bottom fell out. We went back to 3.8 then
the bottom fell out of that so it compounded the affect.
James Simmons - So we are talking about the 2012 year.
Chief Mclaughlin - Yes. These numbers came from the budget office.
Ronald Gilbert - If the District no longer responded to 1-75 calls would that
decrease the size of your work force?
Chief McLaughlin - No.
Ronald Gilbert - Is there a way we can use this as leverage to discontinue
responses to 1-757
Chief Mclaughlin - He did some research and that when the District was created
Alligator Alley was in the District. The road was built on the STR line that divides
the township and ranges. When the District was created the road was in it but
when they rebuilt the road the STR line runs down the middle of the interstate so
from the 72 mile marker to the 51 mile marker the north side of the road is not in
our District. The north half of the road is in District 1 but the south side of the
road is still in the Fire District. He feels it really doesn't make a difference. There
is not enough District 1 money to make up what we are losing here. We only
receive 32% of District 1 money but we cover 71% of the area which he has
brought up in the past.
Page 4
1611 B 22
Chief McLaughlin - The money we used to receive from District 1 has been cut
from $141,000 to $92,000 even at that there is not a lot of money there. We are
talking about $100,000 to $120,000 other than fuel costs and maintenance costs
for running up the road and back it would add some to our operating budget but
it does not fix this problem. Going to 1-75 or not doesn't change this. This is a
problem that has to be addressed. The problem of the reduced property values is
going to affect us not whether we respond to 1-75 or not.
Mitchell Roberts-Just last month over 50% of the calls were to 1-75.
Ronald Gilbert - Either we need to stop going there or we need some subsidy.
Chief McLaughlin - We have two separate issues here they are not related.
Whe.ther we go to 1-75 or not is irrespective of being able to have the man power.
If we lose the man power we are in a real bind with 1-75 if we never went from
today this does not change this issue.
Ronald Gilbert - If you didn't respond to 1-75 that would cut your operating
expenses enough to make up this money.
Chief McLaughlin - It cost $7500 a year for us to respond to 1-75. If they could
offset the District 1 funding by 45% that would cover the wear and tear on the
vehicles. We still have to find a way to make up $500,000.
Caleb Morris - The issue of 1-75 isn't the money is the protection we are losing
when we run up there.
Chief McLaughlin - If we diminish our personnel by half the ISO rating would
reduce in the District and Port of the Islands would go away. We would be back
to where we were ten years ago.
Mitchell Roberts - The whole push for an 1-75 station on paper if it is only costing
$8500 to respond would then be to save a life.
Page 5
1611 B 22
Chief McLaughlin - By responding to 1-75 we increase the possibility of saving a
life. The station on 1-75 would help the District and taxpayers by not moving 50%
of its personnel out of the District every time we respond to 1-75 both areas
would be covered.
Ronald Gilbert - If this board recommends the increase in the millage rate that
you are requesting it would be District wide?
Chief McLaughlin - Yes it would be everybody because the protection affects the
whole District.
Mitchell Roberts - What is the time frame and what do the Commissioners want
from us regarding the raising of the millage rate?
Chief McLaughlin - We will probably get out first budget bump in January that1s
why he wanted everyone to get a look at this. It would be a letter from the
Advisory Board making a recommendation to the County Commissioners based
on the information we have here to follow up on the millage increase to maintain
a 2008 budget of 1/899/000 or there about so that we can maintain our level of
service and complete these projects. He can1t keep our personnel in the hotel
forever plus there are some issues with the union about that. We already have
about $80/000 tied up with architectural and engineering for the building. He has
been advised that he needs $350/000 to complete the building. The renovation
costs have dropped so if we can do it within the next year before the prices go
back up we could do it for that amount. If the millage increase were to pass he
could ask for a loan from general fund do the re-modeling and pay them off in
two years @ 2%. We could finish that project move in and be done with it. As
the property values come back up we can start dropping the millage rate
whatever it would take to maintain the 1/899,000. We don1t want the people to
pay more just what they paid four years ago. We are trying to maintain our level
of service there won't be any raises for three years.
Ronald Gilbert - Currently for fire protection only its 4 mils and we're talking
about raising it to 5 mils if there is no property value decrease. The other
segments that make up the total millage rate in the same boat?
Page 6
1611 822
Chief McLaughlin - No this is strictly for fire.
Ronald Gilbert - But won't they face the same decrease there as well?
Chief McLaughlin - They do but) am not worried about everyone else.
Ronald Gilbert - I am about to argue for you addressing this early politically we
may stand a better chance of making it happen.
Chief McLaughlin - First come first serve.
Mitchell Roberts - Yes, because water management is going to want an increase
or any other department.
Chief McLaughlin - Those all come out of general fund and then you've got your
school board. Actually for them to affect us as a public protection if we were to
make the decision up front and get to them early it would be a benefit to us first
comes first serve. We would be the first in the door to recognize that we have to
do something here and there are really no solutions. One of the Commissioners is
not in favor of any special assessments and made a comment that the millage
increase is the route to look at. So he is following that direction from
Commissioner Colletta that he would be more favorable towards a millage
increase which could be adjusted either up or down as the times changes than a
special assessment. They are not going to be favorable towards a special
assessment.
Ronald Gilbert - Can you put the difference between 4 mills and 5.5 mills in dollar
value to a property owner?
Chief McLaughlin - Yes, about $500,000 district wide that depends on the
assessment of the property. You are paying four dollars per thousand so if you
value dropped from $100,000 to $80,000 we are asking to go back and pay that
2008 value of $100,000.
Page 7
1611 B 22
Ronald Gilbert - So based on a per person bases we are talking about a relatively
few dollars.
Chief McLaughlin - Depending on the value of the home it could run from
anywhere from $50 to $200. It would be worth it to pay $200 more and not lose
your insurance.
Ronald Gilbert - You are helping me with the defense of this millage rate increase
to the home owners at Port of the islands. This millage rate is going to cost you
$100 how much did you save on your insurance after we got a fire truck.
Chief Mclaughlin - He figured you are paying $80 on a $200,000 home at 4 mils
so if you went to 6 mills it would be $100. The fire protection is worth it some of
the residents at the Port told him that they saved $3/000 going from a nine to a
five depending on the appraised value. That affects the City of Everglades as well
because they are a five so it affects the whole District. Your biggest savings for
residents is that 10 to 6. He could actually get those numbers when it gets down
to that.
Ronald Gilbert - You are talking about the appraised value the County puts on the
property.
Chief Mclaughlin - Our Advalorem dollars are based on what the property
appraiser has appraised it at. Because of the property values decreasing our
Department no longer has the funds to maintain the current level of service. The
reserves have been depleted due to the budget cuts these last two years.
Mitchell Roberts - We appreciate you getting those numbers for us. If you could
get the dollar amount for us so that we can let people know what it will cost per
$100,000 of value.
Chief McLaughlin - I will do some numbers based on $100/000, $200,000 and
$300,000 house and then the reduced values of 10% or 20% of those then what
the difference in paying would be and go back to what those dollars would be.
Page 8
161 1 B 22
Chief McLaughlin -I will probably have to go to a CID Meeting to explain this. We
are asking you to pay the dollars that were paid in 2008 for the level of service
that we established for everybody in the District.
Ronald Gilbert - That would be a good idea and a good presentation to put it on
the dollar value not a lot of people attend those CID Meetings but I have a feeling
that a lot more people read the minutes because they are on line.
Chief McLaughlin - We are not asking for a tax increase. We are asking the
citizens to pay what they paid for a level of service. Some people have had a
decrease and some haven't we just need to get back to that dollar amount of
2008 when we established this level of service.
Ronald Gilbert - This is PR because this board can recommend it and if weJre
successful and they accept our recommendation then it just happens there is no
vote. But I like for people to be informed by a presentation at the CID Meeting I
can help you set that up.
Chief McLaughlin - I agree with you Mr. Gilbert I think that our presentation to
the public is key if we get the support of the people and the get the facts as to
what is going on then I think there will be an over whelming support to maintain
the level of service.
Mitchell Roberts - Especially when you get a couple of people that will take the
time to send e-mails to the commissioners prior to saying they support this.
Chief McLaughlin - It is important to present the facts and get the people behind
it and sending those e-mails I donJt think we will have a problem maintaining our
level of service.
Ronald Gilbert - Would it help if the CID responded.
Chief McLaughlin - YesJ absolutely they have a lot of pull.
Page 9
16 J 1
B 22
Chief Mclaughlin - The two big entities that have a lot of pull with the County
Commissioners are the cm and the other one is the City of Everglades. Those are
the two biggest entities that we serve in our District if they are behind us in this to
the commission that's huge on behalf of the District. He will probably have to
present this to the City of Everglades as well.
Mitchell Roberts - He received a letter from the County today his third term is up
next month. He received his five year pin in the mail. He is going to look for a
replacement he is not going to renew. His property taxes have not dropped but
he thinks they are going to stay the same he does not think the taxes are going to
drop any more.
Chief Mclaughlin - He has been notified that we will have a single digit decrease
between 5% and 10% in our budget this next year.
Mitchell Roberts - A final adjustment in the lower values.
Chief McLaughlin - Yes, so that's why we put the 5% and 10% in here and we will
probably have to go to 6 mils to maintain that. We will know when it comes
through but they were pretty accurate last year. He thinks the whole millage rate
in Everglades City is 8 or 9 mils.
Ronald Gilbert - Said that Everglades City's full millage is 15 it is the highest in the
County.
Mitchell Roberts made a motion to end the meeting it was seconded, passed and
the meeting concluded.
f~t( ~jJ{
~onald Gilbert, Chairman
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
Page 10
.BY: ..........~. I. ....,J
16 I ~~I. B
j=@fir
f:.fennlfifJ
~yte
'edl'BM
=
/
I~A~~~~l~J
.... THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
HELD ON DECEMBER 20, 2010
In attendance were the following:
Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief
Caleb Morris, Captain
Mitchell Roberts, Chairman, Copeland, Advisory Board Member
James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member
Ron Gilbert, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member
The meeting was called to order at 6:02PM.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2010
A motion was made to accept the minutes as read it was seconded and passed.
Mitchell Roberts - He has been thinking about it and his position comes up at the end of this
month. He has decided not to renew. He has notified residents in his community about his
position becoming available so that it will be filled. He has notified some of the Fakahatchee
employees.
Chief McLaughlin - He didn't know if they have to be property owners or not he will review that
in the bylaws and get back to them.
Mitchell Roberts - It would really be good because then you would get some interagency
feedback.
Chief McLaughlin - Yes it would be I will review the bylaws to see if they just have to be a
property owner or If they can just be a resident.
Mitchell Roberts - So with that said do I preside over the meeting or should be elect a new
chairman.
Chief McLaughlin - We have to have a quorum to elect a new chairman. You can't vote for the
new chairman we need another member here someone would have to vote for themselves.
They put off the vote for a new chairman until the next meeting In January.
Page 1
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item t:
Copies to:
1611 B 22
OLD BUSINESS
Chief Mclaughlin - He went over the District Monthly report which is a hand out to all board
members at each monthly meeting and is attached. No new construction Inspections so no
new plan reviews. We did have one on site inspection that wasn't really ours we just did a
courtesy inspection for the City of Everglades. All the vehicles have been for their schedule C
which is their full PMI inspections the engines have a clean bill of health we have one going
back in for some front end work, The attack truck has been processed as well. We have one
brush truck that Is currently in the shop a bearing was spun on the pump which is a little 18
horse pump which Is being rebuilt as we speak. We are in pretty good shape on our
maintenance side. The RO system was installed at station 60 and was painted, New signs are
being made for the building. The County put in the $10,000 RO system all of the water Is on the
system not just the drinking water. We had problem with spotting which we think this system
will remedy. Our 40 gallon water heater went out last week and the County replaced It with a
60 gallon. We talked about the budget at length and that we are $535,000 short this year
which is about 7 people its $408,000 for three people. So we have serious windfall here we
talked about the drop in assessed values. We had a directors meeting with the County three
weeks ago. He heard from the budget director and from the State. It was generally felt that
the local tax assessor over shot its projections and went a little high this year at the evaluation
decrease. He was shooting at 11%, 12%, or 13% it really should have been 8% or 9% in some
areas and we are one of them. Thirty percent here was probably an over kill they are expecting
for it to come back this year a little bit we are looking at single digits. Maybe middle to low
single digits to offset the overshoot of last year.
Mitchell Roberts -Increase in values?
Chief Mclaughlin - Yes, or a flat bust across no drops. There are three Counties in Florida that
have had an upswing that is a great sign they are pulling the other way so far. So this maybe a
sign that we have hit the bottom with that being said we still have to take a look at next year's
budget. We did the numbers no carry forward no reserves. We looked at the 2008 Advalorem
that was $1,888,000 that's when we establish the level of service we are operating at now. We
are down to $1,358,000 so we are about $530,000 short. He was told the Board would not look
at special assessments they would favor a millage increase. So he went back to the OMB Office
(Budget Office) to obtain some projections as to what we are looking at. We can get back to
the $1,888,000 at about 5.5 mils about a mil and a half more than now to get us back to the
2.008 rate. It would probably be a good Idea for the Advisory Board to get a pulse from the
public with a petition letting them know what we are trying to do. The Advisory Board would
have to make the recommendation to the County Commissioners to raise the millage rate cap
to 6. There has been three emergency millage increases in the Ochopee District, 1977, 1986
and 1998 and that was from 1 to 2 and to 4. The Board has the ability to raise the millage cap.
When you raise the cap it allows us to find a millage rate under that cap that will work.
Page 2
1611822
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT MONTlll- Y REPORT
FOR NOVEMBER 2010
TRAINING: 498 hours see attached.
FIRE PREVENTION:
New Construction Inspections None Reported
Man Hours:
Plan Reviews:
On Site Inspections:
Certificate of Occupancy Inspections:
Existing Structure Inspections None Reported
Man Hours:
Violations Cited:
Public Education Activities
None RepOlied
z
g.
~
~
C)
-
-
'i3
o
.9
~IO 10)15
~ ~ '""""
>-l Uj rLl t-
o b b 8
\0 t-,)
~ I I J
'"0" ~ ~ ~
~ ~ a <:
_. ;I> ~
o ~ ..
~ !;; 'g P:>
rLlgp!o
P:>~~~
tt:l '" lZl l:T
!:) ll> P>
ij $~
~ i~.
>-l 0. 0
i P
~
f
Cl'Cl
0'
o
~.
o
l:j
~
p..
~
1,;;'
~
Cll
p..
S'
g:
'"
a
'0
~
8 ~
<:) t.n
t-,) <:)
C\
::r:: .
o tt:l
~ ~
OOtl
~ g
gj ~
0. ~
~ ~
a' ~
B >-l
~ g
o l:T
<> ::I
o'
~.
tn
~ ~=-
o or?
~ ~~
lZl tJ
g.g
~ ~
s 11
J3 '"0"
g e-
o$.! o'
~.
~ y>
~ g;
~j
~ ;:0
~
~
o'
!;l
.
to
!2i.
o
>-' WWNWN
ONOOOOOO
OVtOooooo
>;j
~
(1)
>-'
o
H)
N
I-:l
[
en
t:r'
~
~ 10 10
;a ~
rLl rLl
b b
\0 IV
> 0 I
I,;j "tI >ij
~Ii
d ~ ~
lZl g e
P:> .. '"
tt:l !;:l en
ij j
~ I
~ ~
~
~
10 )0
~ 6:
J b
a
:;.:: >ij
~ ~
~
~ f
E'
..
~
a
!:4
G='
a
<>
-;a
i
~8g~CIJ
s 8 0...1 0
I I · ~
"T"::r:OI
[ ~ a ~
...._~
O[[~
a 0. "tI ~
gja-3'8
0. (JQ g 5.
:;.:: >ij g- !:4
el. g ~
::I 0. lil
g 3
~ g
g g,
'"
^
tn
~ Ej=-
~ or?
~ <:>>
CIJ 0
@.g
;I> ~
r 51
Otl "tI
g g.
o$.! o'
'"d ];i'
a ;:0
~ [
1l ~
~
g
o
::I
'"
~............t-l ......:a v')~WN
v.oooooooooo
00000000000
....
-.l >-' w .... >-' N \0 Vt ..... .j:>. >-' ..... >-'
0'1 Vt ?' ~ P N 00 lJ1 \0 \0 0'1 0\ N N -.l 00 0'1 co N
0 0 0 0 0 b b b C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <:> 0 0 0 <::0 0 <::0 0 0 0 0 0
....
'"d -.l .... w .... .... N co Vt .j:>. .... ..... N
::l. 0'1 Vt 0\ co 0 N 00 \0 \0 \0 0\ 0\ 0\ N -.l 00 0'1 00
::I b 0 0 0 0 0 0 b C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b b 0
1;"
Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <:> 0 0 0 0 0 <::0 0 0 0 0 0
i1 ....
..... )ool w )ool )ool .... \0 lJ1 )ool 01>0. )ool )ool )ool
C) ?I !JI ?I 5l" <:> t-,) 00 N Ul \0 \0 C\ C\ N t-,) ..... co 0'1 co N
S <:> <:> 0 0 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c C
8 0 0 0 0 0 <:> <:> 0 0 <:> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -= <:> 0
C)
~ ....
..... .... tH .... .... .... co lJ1 01>0. )ool )ool )ool
g 0\ lJ1 0\ co -= N co N \0 \0 \0 0\ 0\ Cl'I N ..... 00 ?I co N
i-.i (:) (:) (:) c c c ;:, ;:, ;:, ;:, (:) ;:, C b C b ;:, -= c ;:,
Ul 0 0 Q Q Q <:> -= 0 <::> Q Q Q Q -= Q Q -= <:> 0 I:)
1611 B 22
~
o~o
= Q Il)
;;I .c g:
~
~o
;;I g,
0 ,0
0.
- q-
)ool
~~
;;1.8
>
~it
"'1 ::s
'" 0.
0 ,0
~ ....
"'1
N
~~
;;1.8
>-
~S-
., ::I ,0
'" 0.
"' ....
0. "'1
,....-- W
?;
..c
=:
;;l
>-
~it
"'1 ::I
'" 0. ,0
to>
~ ....
.,
~0I>0.
to>
.c
=:
;A
>-
=i
., ::I
'" 0. >-
t'>
0. ::I
~ =
c
"' !.
..c
=
;;'!
r./1 I:;l Cl
Il)
000 .... 0
o - to> 53
_Cl>~
o n
n ....
s-2.=
Q, bCl'Cl
en ~
!=.B""':I
~!:!;6
3 g a
.. '"
~.-. ....
~....
-'. ;::z.
>~
=0
....
<::)
~
0
....
.... 0
~ ..,
-= l"'I-
~
<::)
....
<:>
101
!
o 122
1611 B 22
ADMINISTRATION
Budget Report: Cun-ent Advalorem - $1,346,300-/Reserves - $77,006.62
Operating Expenses - Actual- $93,949.51/Total Available -$270,476.02(This is a
combination of the Operating Expense Bal of $256,456.02 and Capital Bal of $14,020)
Significant Purchases: Two lap top computers fi'om CDWG $4362. UnifOlm pants from
RSVP $922.60. Nine sets of bunker gear purchased fi'om Fisher Scientific $14,131.35.
Seven nozzles were repaired through TFT in the amount of $3,083.40.
f. ~
Goals Progress Report: The DOF Grant application work has been submitted for Board of
County Commissioners approval. Personnel are labeling commercial buildings regarding
the trusses.
Number of Meetings Attended: 11-2-10 Meeting with Dan Summers 8:30AM/11-8-1O
OFCD Adv Board Meeting 6PM/l1-10-1O BCC AUIRIBCC AUIR-CIE/11-11-10 OFCD
Dept Meeting/II-17 -10 Union Negotiations/I 1-18-1 0 Staff Meeting/11- 23 -1 0 Meeting
with Dan Summers
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE & REPAIR: None Rep0l1ed
Everglades City Station Rep0l1
Ochopee Station Report
Costs by Project With Total
1611
OPERATIONS REPORT NOVEMBER 2010
Structure Fires 0
Vehicle Fires 0
Brush Fires 2
Auto Accidents 21
EMS Calls Excluding Vehicle Accidents 19
Miscellaneous Fire Calls (Trash, Etc., .) 2
Special Services Calls 0
1-75 Calls for November:
Vehicle Accident 16
EMS Calls 5
Hazmat 1
Tota122
Out of a total of 44 calls for the month of November 2010 twenty two were on 1-75
making that 50% of the call load.
B'"
t 22
C"'lNVlC"'lNC"'l
fJgcCg:!
!..l.O:gtCQnl
~ ." 0 W_." "
"o;g~o~
:>::1--. :>::1
00\ t:l
~O ~
V1 -0
o m-
S 3
9 ~
0:> m
r
z)> z)>
mOm 0
mom 0
o on 0 on
~E f9E
o 0
VI VI
t:; C;;
o 0
~ ~
~ ~
() n
I :c
m m
() ()
G G
Ci) Ci)
o 0
o 0
o 0
.... IV
IV ....
W 0"'1
0"'1
No:>
00
~~
00\
-"'0
N
z)>
mO
mo
Oon
fTlr-
Oc
o
VI
C;;
VI
m
m
)>
~
()
I
m
o
1-'1-'
o to
(g"
000
O'I<;D
~;lJ
DC
OVl
.,,:c
~;d
:cC
nR
[ii~
~ 0'1
z)>
mO
mo
O"T'\
mr-
Oc
o
Vl
G;
o
~
~
()
:J:
m
()
^
Vl
Ci)
o
o
o
2:
o
:J:
o
C
;lJ
s:
i;j
;lJ
b!;~~~&11:np;3g~
(gcag~s:g&10g~~
OooO'l--o-"'-ZO):>O
V1;Qoo2;m./:>2;mlD-::j
~c r;j;lJ ;:;:1m Z_
gVl ;lJ0'I ;lJ1-' 0'10
.,,:r ZO z oz
<;;j::; ~ ~
~~ (5 0 fil
()X Z Z ."
r"0'I P ):> 0
rnx r r :>::1
-0) to rr' a
o 0
o Z
m
z)>
mO
mo
Oon
mr-
Oc
o
Vl
C;;
o
~
!<
()
:J:
m
()
G
Ci)
o
o
o
a
z)>
mO
'"0
0."
'"r-
Oc
o
lI'l
)>
VI
o
~
~
()
:c
m
()
^
Vl
Vl
m
m
)>
~
()
:J:
m
o
Ci)
o
o
o
VI
W
z)>
mO
'"0
O-n
mr
Oc
o
Vl
C;;
o
;!::
~
n
:c
'"
n
^
VI
Vl
m
m
)>
~
()
:r
m
o
(j)
o
o
o
N
o
N
z)>
mO
'"0
Oon
mr
Oc
o
Vl
C;;
o
;!::
~
()
:J:
m
n
^
VI
Vl
m
m
)>
~
()
:J:
m
o
Ci)
o
o
o
I-'
N
t;;
161 1
ID-Io-mNro)>
1-'):>0'I2Z0>--''-I
ozo-lGlOC-l
oxom-o):>)>
lJ1m./:>:>::1Z00C"'l
"':>::1\JlZmWnx
0'1 ~O'I~PO'I
o _0 OlO
I-' rN IV
to mo 0
~ 6&1 ~
Gl iij D
s: -I 0
C"'l:>::1 D
-I):> Gl
;lJ D m
~:3 ~
r- 0 0
<;D Z 0
~
N
m
z)>
mO
mo
Oon
mr-
Oc
o
Vl
C;;
o
;!::
!<
()
I
m
()
G
Ci)
o
o
o
en
o
o
z)>
mO
mO
0."
mr-
Oc
o
Vl
)>
VI
o
)>
~
()
:J:
m
()
^
Vl
Ci)
o
o
o
o
o
~
~
()
:J:
m
()
^
Vl
G'l
o
o
o
I-'
I-'
o
en
z)>
mO
mo
0."
1'Tlr-
Oc
o
Ul
)>
Ul
S-o
)>;;lJ
-~
2m
~2
z~
J>'-1
Z-
n<
mm
~s;g~
J>m-o
!<z;:;:iJ>
~~~~
~Z)>S
~~::!m
n<~
mm
Vl
m
m
~
)>
()
:J:
m
o
G'l
o
o
o
0"'1
\D
0'1
B
22
<
m
::c
n
r-
m
RO
n
o
C
Z
~
J>
en
en
m
~
o
n
::r:
o
"'tl
m
m
"Tl
:::0
m
n
o
z
-4
:::0
o
r
o
Vi
-4
:::0
Cl
"Tl$:
00
:::Oz
Z-4
O::r:
~~
;:;:i ~ $: <
Z-Ol)jm
O:!::m::r:
g~:::on
OJ N r
-< 0 m
I-'$:
0)>
Z
-4
m
Z
)>
z
n
m
)>
Z
o
:::0
m
"'tl
)>
:::0
VI
;:0
m
"'tl
o
:::0
-4
O;;lJ
mm
-0-0
J>:!::
~;;lJ
s~
m-<
Z
-I
no
~:!::
n!::;:
Gi<
m
::c
n
r-
m
<
m
::c
n
r-
m
;l:I
o
J>
o
s:
r-
m
en
Equipment Total Costs
1611 pa~o~2
4-(,0
Colr Cou.ntY
Fleet
Management
.~... ~ - !,
.".... -----...\
.. -.:-- "
\~--Z\
\~, . .J/",,--.....JII.
$}-' -
~ ,~'..-
Hm.fE FLEET STAFF
~
EMAlL US
FLEET SHOP
Locations and OpeJ[,lion HOUIS
~ .
: PM SCHEDULE
VEL LOCATIONS Preventive Maintenance Pro2ram
. ~
"~':"'\:~:,, elM
.;~ ~:AL-FLEET
fO~IS VOYAGERFUELCARD
Fuding S ile 1 in\:
--
1.._',
.:D~;
PICTURE GALLERY CUSTOMER SURVEY
Details for Work Order Numbel' 0000087049 on 2008 DODGE 5500 QUAD CAB
Date In: 11/30/2010 Date Out: 10/0 Total Cost: $321.20 Mileage: 29085
Click on Repair Code for Details
lVlllintcnnnce Noles: 11/30/2010 02:12
Replace Damage Radiato Was damage when replacing water pump,m No Charge to Dept.
Labor Costs: Total Hours: Total Amount: $0.00
Parts Costs: Total Amount: $321.20
REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION
2042R60100BN 11/30/2010 RADIATOR/DODGE TRK.
EACH QTY COST
$321.20 1 $321.20
OutSource/Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00
Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00
Credits: Total Amount: $0.00
Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here
http://cww2!FleetIWOSummary .cfm?WOID=167194&year=2008&make=DODGE&mod... 12/13/2010
G~I
1611 ge22
Equipment Total Costs
eo'lr County
Fleet
Managerrlent
'.._.....JIa-..t
~..._W{___\
\- -_...~.,
.' ~... .,d. ......~
.' ~,-,. ,..,:.-
\l1}' .
~ "~,\
HO~IE FLEET STAFF
~
~
EMAIL us
. ~ .a
>>
fUEL LOCA nONS
--
PM SCHEDUl.E
Preventive Maintenance Pro..ram
FLEET SHOP
I v.ct1tim1:i i"fnd f )ptratitlri I "1m',';'
. ~
f""";".,'~;":':'~_ ~
6";'/ ~...
"C1~1 O~';AL-FLEET
FORMS VOYAGER fUEL CARD
rtlding Sill) T ink
Ii
~~-~)/_:
,~. f{J
PICTURE GALLERY CUSTO\tER SURVI:Y
Details for Worl{ Order Number 0000087106 on 2006 INTERNATIONAL E-ONE
TRADITION
Date In: 12/02/2010 Date Out: /0/0 Total Cost: $2,864.26 Mileage: 49412
Click on Repair Code for Details
i\Il1illt(,lUmce Notes: 121021201010:32
PMA.....LOSS OF AIR PRESSUREAIR DRYER KEEPS POPING OFF
253/259PERFORMING PM SERVICE.@ 14:51:00StepEMSIFIRE PM Service
Tasl<sOKAdjustRepairReplaceCab, Body, Engine Compal'tment.lRoad test,ck
brakes,retarder,steering, etc. x2Check gauges, warning lights,buzzers.x3Check high idle at 1500
rpm (diesels)x4Check door warning lights x5Check parking brake & operation.x7Chech: AlC,
vents & heater performance.x8Clean or replace A/C filtersx9Check extinguisher, flare & triangle
kit xlOInspect interior seats,seat belt,handles. xllInspect storage
doors,covers,locks,strutsxl2Check horns for proper operation x13Inspect glass,mirror for cracks
x14Inspect wiper blades/washer jetsxl5Check exterior lights,light bars,strobes etc.xl6Note
ph)'sical damage.small scratches, dents17Check tire condition & wear, air to specs.replacing 2 left
rear18Replace tires> 4/32replacing 2 left rear19Inspect & lube door latches and handles
x20Inspect battery box and hardware.x21 Test batteries and test charging system 22Inspect
battery shutoff switch and cables. x23Inspect 02 bottle holders.x24Inspect fuel tanks,check vents
and capsx25Inspect air filter replace if nec.x26Inspect coolant system and hoses x27Inspect drive
belts xUnder CarriageOkAdjust RepairRepairReplace28Inspect exhaust system x29Inspect
steering columnlcomponents.x30Lube chassis as needed.x31Inspect fU'e pump,lines & mounts if
equippedx32Inspect steering linkage for looseness x33Inspect king pins and front end for wear
x34Change engine oil and filters.x35Inspect engine for oil leaks x36Inspect starter, cables,
mounts.x37Inspect trans bellhousing loose bolts x38Inspect oil line for leak and cracks x39Inspect
parking brake asm.x401nspect bl'ake actuator x41Check brakes,drums for wear and rotors
x42Note brake pad/shoe condition (%)FRSORear5043Check slack adjuster
operation/adjustment.x44Adjust brakes if nec.x45Inspect frame,mounts,accessoriesx46Inspect
undercarl'iage for damage or loss x47Inspect all attachments, proper operation x48Inspect springs
for cracks;worn bushing x49Check axle U bolts,l'e-torque to specs.x50Check V-joint and lube
http://c'rvw21F1eetlWOSummmy.cfm?WOID= 167259&yeaF2006&make=INTERNA no,.. 12/13/2010
. Equipment Total Costs
(S~(
1611 B 22
Page 2 of3
x51Drain air tanks & check auto bleed sys. x52Inspect air riding height/air bags na53Inspect air
system for leaks 2leaks54Test/inspect air dump system.na55Report items,wires,accessol'ies that
do notxbelong or looli suspicious56Test shore line auto eject and chargingx57Sign off that PM is
completed 259PMB & PMC SERVICE ITEMSOkAdjustRepair Replace1Clean engine & frame of
dirt,oil if nec x2Test starter draw, test alt output and noteSt.ll.2 crank v Alt.14.2 v3Test coolant
with PH strip or refractometerreplaced coolant4Pl'essure test coolant system xSReplace coolant
filters if equipped.na6Drain & flush cooling sys if necx7Change differential fluids if nec. x8Change
t.-ansmission filters & fluids if nec. xsee Alison manuals for fluid type if unsUl'e9Replace fuel filters
xlOCheckltest emission system components.xllChecklservice air dryer operation.x12Road test to
verity repairs.x12Check UV lamp if equipped.na13Sign off that PM is completed 259FIRE
PUMPSOkAdjustRepairReplace1Check pump interlocksx2Run primer pump and check
vacuumx3Prime pump and checli operation.x4Check pump panel lamps and gaugesx5Adjust
pump packing ifnecessary.x6Checli ladder racks & interlocksx7Check generator and 110v lights
if equippedna259: Completed PMA.
259: Found lealdng air fittings in engine compartment near foot pedal connections. Replaced
fittings. Replaced one section of 1/4" air hose.
259: Replaced air brakes dryer spin on filter.
259: Found left side foward compartment roll up door was jammed. Removed him and guides for
access. Dis-assembled roll up door. Found that door came loose. Pretensioned roller and re-
assembled d001. and other components. Adjusted door.
259: Replaced both left rear tires.
259: One of the battel'ies did not pass the load test. Replaced all 3 batteries.
259: Diagnosed electrical system for compartment light staying on. Re-adjusted compartment
dOOl'S and top work lights that were not all the way down.
259: Repaired wiring and changed bulbs on two side marker lights.
WAITING ON ORDERED POWER STEERING PARTS. 12/08/2010 @ 14:27:05
259: Vehicle was needed and will return for ordered parts. Vehicle already picked up.
12/10/2010 @ 09:00:00
Labor Costs: Total Hours: 22.99498 Total Amount: $1,356.70
REPAIR CODE DATE IN DATE
OUT
PMA BS 12/03/2010 12/03/2010
PMA BS 12/0312010 12/03/2010
1051MH0100BN 12/06/2010 12/06/2010
PMA BS 12/06/2010 12/06/2010
PMA BS 12/0612010 12/06/2010
PMA BS 12/0612010 12/06/2010
1017TM1100BN 12/07/2010 12/07/2010
1017TM1100BN 12/07/2010 12/07/2010
1017TM1100BN 12/07/2010 12/07/2010
1032BOOOO1BN 12/07/2010 12/07/2010
1032B00100BN 12/07/2010 12/07/2010
1051MH0100BN 12/07/2010 12/07/2010
1103MH0165BN 12/07/2010 12/0712010
1030000001BN 12/08/2010 12/08/2010
1030000001BN 12/0812010 12/08/2010
1032B00100BN 12/08/2010 12/0812010
1032B00100BN 12/0812010 12/08/2010
1103MH0001BN 12/08/2010 12/08/2010
HOURS
0.70000
1.73194
0.94694
1.42833
1.81361
3.62306
0.89667
0.57833
2.61833
0.28528
0.96111
0.74111
1.63000
0.45111
2.94889
0.04111
1.25333
0.34583
COST
$41.30
$102.18
$55.87
$84.27
$107.00
$213.76
$52.90
$34.12
$154.48
$16.83
$5671
$43.73
$96.17
$26.62
$173.98
$2.43
$73.95
$20.40
http://cww2/FleetIWOSummary .cfm ?WOID== 16725 9&yeal=2006&make==INTERNA no... 12/13/2010
Equipment Total Costs
(Jf91
161 1Faget'n 2 2
Parts Costs: Total Amount: $1,695.67
REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION EACH QTY COST
1042F50010BN 12103/2010 ANTIFREEZElFLEETGARD $24.26 4 $97.03
1044MH0155BN 12/03/2010 FUEUADDITIVE DIESEL $6.26 $6.26
STANADYNE
2051F10100BN 12/03/2010 CARTRIDGE REPLACEMENT $10387 1 $103.87
AIR DRIER .
B017P50165BN 12/03/2010 TIREl11R225G287 $375.76 2 $751.51
PMA as 12103/2010 WDWWASHER SOLVENT $1.14 1 $1.14
PMA BS 12/03/2010 SHOP SUPPLIES $2.54 8 $20.32
PMA BS 12103/2010 LUBRICANTfFlEET $2.34 32 $74.94
SUPREME EC 15W-40
~ 12/03/2010 FILTER OIL INTERNATIONAL $24.37 524,37
EMS
1015MH0100BN 12/08/2010 CAP/PWR.STEER.INT. $13.87 $ 13.87
1015MH0100BN 12/06/2010 HOSElPWR.STEER.lNT. $2.59 $2.59
1042C20100BN 12/06/2010 CAP RADIATOR $8.27 $8.27
1058J61100BN 12/06/2010 GREASE SYNTHETIC TUBE $4.46 $4.46
1061MH0100BN 12106/2010 GLOVES LARGE PERMATEX $11.65 $11.65
NITRilE
2058MH0155BN 12/06/2010 LUBRICANT WD 40 $6.60 $6.60
BATTERY -W/STUD- $116.47 3 $349.42
1032B00100BN 12/07/2010 1125CCN1260CA
1032MH0100BN 12/07/2010 MISC./HARDWARE & PARTS $6.37 3 $19.10
1034MH0100BN 12/08/2010 MISC.lHARDWARE & PARTS $6.36 1 $6.36
1015H51100BN 12/09/2010 HOSElPWR.STEER.lNT. $12.07 1 $12,07
1015MH0100BN 12/09/2010 HOSE $92.09 1 $92.09
1015MH01 aOBN 12/09/2010 RESRVIORlPWR.STEER.lNT. $83.99 1 $83.99
2034SY0100BN 12/10/2010 ROCKER SWITCH/LIGHTED $5.78 1 $5.78
OutSource/Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00
Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00
Credits: Total Amount: $0.00
Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here
REPAIR CODE DESCRIPTION
1017TM1100BN 1 Repaired !"rom PM Service I TlresffubesNaJ I Tire Heavy I
Replace I Billable
1030000001BN 1 RepaIred From PM Service I Electrical I System I Diagnosis
I Billable I NOT S
1032B00100BN 1 Repaired From PM Service I CrankIng System I Battery I
Replace I Billable I N
1051 MH0100BN 1 Repaired From PM Service I Air Supply I Mlsc Parts I
Replace I Billable I NOT
1103MHOOOl BN 1 .Repait~d F~om PM Service I Accessory Emer I Mlsc Parts I
DiagnOSIs I BlIlable
PMA BS P PM Service I A Service Us! I Billable I SCHEDULED
PMA BS P PM Service I A Service List I Billable I SCHEDULED
http://cww2/Fleet/WOSummary.cfin?WOID= 167259&year=2006&make=INTERNA TIO... 12/13/2010
Equipment Total Costs
~foo
16Ip~el~ 22
Co~r County
~-
Fleet Management
.---......~-
;-..~--..--
~..----~
mt
=
~
IJ.llUn!I
~
~
~
~
.;Ji
fl'FI t O("A T!O~"i
*
~
PrtT~;..t 'h...~~..~.~~ Pr:-.,;:~
~
, ,...:...!':7"" "'J. ~ ::. r1. ..
..r;7'''''"
~::r~
=
.
...",
{iI.OB.\l-fl.EET
\"nv,I,C'rAt FUR ("un
r '-:':.'; f~-~l..l.
Ii
, ~--;'.
:- ~ I Z
~''''-,n:~L (..\1 r pn
CI:mAflo"'R. i;fJR\'F.Y
Details for Work Order Number 0000086661 on 1998INTERl"l'ATIONAL 4900
Date In: 11/08/2010 Date Out: 11119/2010 Total Cost: S6,206.89I\fiIeage: 45106
Click on RepaiJ Code fOJ DCt3i1S
;\l;ljll''''''lJICC X"I<;; Ilill~I201O 1I~:36
PMA...POWER STEERING LEAKS...GENERATOR NOT WORKING, WONT RUN ANY APPLIANCES.
.Am. HOlli"', SCENE LIGHTS, RED FLASHERS L'iOP
253JPERFOR.'UNG SERVICE.@ 14:36:06
253/ U!\'1T HAS AIRLEAK,FmING@FOOTPEDAL VALVE WILL REPLACE AFTER SERVICE. WATER PUMP HAS SOME PLAY WILL ORDER &
REPLACE AWNG WITH COOLANT & Fll.TER. 217 ADVISED 253 GENERATOR IS BIENG REMOVED & NEW SCENE LIGHTS llIENG INSTALLED
WAITING FOR THEM ARRIVE. REAR U-JOINT IS BAD WllL ORDER & REPLACE.FINISHING SERVICE. 11/0812010 @ 16:24:23
2531 FINISHED SERVICE, UPON PERFORMING FOUND MASTER SWITCH CABLES LOOSE CABLES NEED TO BE CLEANED & SWITCH REPLACED.
LUBED ALL DOORS SET TIRE PRESS. UNIT HAS ONE TIRE THAT IS SET TO 120 PSI PASS. REAR AS SPEC REQIURE ALL OTHERS AT 105 PSI.
TIGHTEND HANDLE ON PASS REAR DOOR REPLACED BOLT ON HANDL ON DRIVER REAR DOOR HANDLE WAS RUSTING INSTALLED
STAINLESS. AIR ROlli'! FUNTIONED NORMALY. WINDSHIELD WASHER HOSE NEEDS REPLACE. PIS PRESSURE HOSE ALSO NEEDS TO BE
REPLACED. PERFOR~nNG REI' AIRS MENTIONED ABOVE AS PARTS ARRIVE. 11/09/2010 @ 08:38:07
253/ REMOVED GENERATOR ALONG WITH MOST OF WIRING, ALSO REMOVED QUARTZ LIGHTS, TOOK EXTRA IDlE TO REMOVE DRIVER
SIDE QUARTZ LIGHT WAS CORRODEDAYELDED ON TO EXTENSION POST AND BROKE OFF LEA VING TREADS INSIDE POST. HAD CmSEL OUT
CLEAN TREADS & POLISH POLE OUT. WORKL'iG ON OTHER REPAIRS. ll!(l9/20IO@14:41:56
253/INSTALLED U-JIONT, WATER PUMP, REPLACED AIR FmINGS, AIR HOm~ SOLENOID, AND REPAIRED BAD WIRE CONNECTION FOR RED
FLASHING LIGHTS. MADE POWER STEERING PRESS. HOSE & INSTALLED. 11II0/2010@16:23:25
253/WAITL'iG ON L.E.D. QUARTZ UGHTS.
11110/2010@ 16:26:48
253/INSTALLED PROVIDED QUARTZ UGHTS. WillING IS AS FOLLOWS. ALL POWER WAS TAKEN FRQ;\1 CENTER CONSOLE WICH IS
SWITCHED FROM MASTER. POWER FEEDS A FUSE BLOCK THAT WAS INSTALLED FOR LIGHTING. FUSES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
S Al\lP FUSE FOR llOTH RIGHT & LEFT L.E.D. LIGHT SWITCH Ol'l'LY.(SWITCHES OPERA IE TRIGGER GROUND FOR RELAYS)
20 AMP FUSE FOR POWER SIDE FOR RELAY COIL Ol'l'LY.
40 AlIII' FUSE EACH ONE FOR EACH (RELAY POWER FEED)L.E,D. QUARTZ LIGHT.
RELAYS ARE INSIDE FIRST CmIpARTl\IENT ON DRIVERS SIDE WHERE OLD BREAKER PM'EL WAS MOUNTED. A WALL PLATE WAS
FABRICATED & INSTALLED TO COVER HOLES. RELAYS ARE BEDIND WALL AND LABELED RIGHT & LEFT.
StepEl\lSIFIRE PM Serl'lce TasksOKAdjnstRep3irReplaceCab, Body, Engine Compartment.1Road tesl,ck brakes,retarder,steering, ete. X2Check gauges, warning
Iights,buzzers.l'3Cbeck high idle at 1500 rpm (diesels)4Cheek door warning lights X5Check parking brake & nperalion.X7CheckAfC, \'ents & heater
perform3nce.X8CIean or replaceAlC fIltersNfA 9Check extinguisher, flare & triangle kit XI0lnspect interior seats,seat belt,handles. X 1lJnspecl stor3ge
doors,covers,locks,strutsX 12Check borns for proper operation X13lnspect glass.mlrror for cracks X14Inspect \,iper blades/washer jetsX15Check eterlnr
IIghts,Ught bars,strobell etc.16Note ph)'Sieal damage.Xl7Cbeck tire condition & wear, air to specs.X18Replace tires> 4f32X 191nspetl & lube door latches and
bandies X 20Inspect halleT)' box and hardware.X2lTest batteries and test charging s)'stem X2naspee! battery shutoffsnitch and cables. X23lnspect 02 boUle
holders,X24Inspeel fueltanks,cbeck vents and capsX25Inspeel air filter replace lfnec.X26Inspeel coolanl sfstem and boses X27lnspect drh'e belts XUnder
CarrlageOkAdjust RepalrReplace28Inspeet exhaust srstem X29Inspecl steering columnlcomponents.x30Lube cbassls as needed.X3lInspect fire pump,lines &
monnts If eqnippedX32lnspecl steering linkage for looseness X33lnspect king pins and front end for wear X34Change engine 011 nnd fillers.X3Slnspect engine for
oil leaks X36Jnspectstarter, cahles, mounts.X 37Inspect trans bellbonslng loose bolts X38Inspect ollliue for leak and cracks X 391nspeel parking brake
asm.X40lnspect brake aelnator X41Check brakes,drums for wear nnd rotors X42Note brake padfsboe condition (%)FR7S%Rear80%43Check slack adjuster
operationladjustment.X44Adjust brakes Ifnec.X45lnspecl frame,monnts,accessoriesX46Inspect undercarriage for damage or Joss X47Inspect all attachmenls,
proper operation X48lnspect springs for cracks,worn bushing X49Check axle U boIls, re-torque to specs.X50Check U.joint and lube REAR ONLYX51Draln air
tanks & cbeck aulo bleed s)'s. X52Inspeelair riding height/air bags NfA S3Inspect air s)'Stem for teaks X54Testf'mspect air dnmp s)'Stem.N/A 55Report
Items,llires,aecessorles that do notXbelong or look susplclousS6Test shore line anto eject and cbarglngX57SIgn off that PM is completed 253 GONE
Re\iewby217
11I1912010@ 15:06:59
</PLAINTEXT><PRE><!PRF.></Q></S></SAIlP></ SCRl PT></SELECT></S.'{}\U></STRIKE><!STBONG></SUB></ SUP></TABLE><! TO></'J:EXTi\J\EJ\></T!l></T I TLE></'J:R><!TT
<.UJ..,></TJL></VAR></WBR><XHP><!XHP><FON1 face-ax 181></ I'ONl'>
<SCRIP! language.=JavaScript>
function 5howHide (tarqetllar:a) (
http://cww2IFleet/WOSummary.cfm?WOID= 166764&year= 1998&make=INTERNA no ... 12/13/2010
Coir Co""~Y
~
J Df OD (
fiJ() f r It fA- VI (
Fleet Management
16 I 1 paSof2 2
. Equipment Total Costs
,~........-~
';~~~
~..--.-:-_.~-
.@
lIDME
~
ll!'l:ilLUI
..
~
~
~
~
~
r ..:.;:. "" '-d' ~c
J'
funt.oc..s..uoss
...
f".~<:.(J-TrJ!-i I'
f.,......,.-_.'.<...,::-:.:-'_.:i-.,..,
'J>~,'
:.J~
~
Oloa..\L.nrET
VOYAGfR f1 1FT _ C>>,D
Fl":-",;. ~:",'1;'1
Ii
.':'._lj
:,"~; r.,;
Cl15in~n SlIR\'FY
F'cnmFO..\llERY
Details for Work Order Number 0000079146 on 1978 AM GENERAL J\135A3
Date In: 11/0512009 Date Out: 02/10/2010 Total Cost: 520,304.90 Mileage: 13973
Click on Repair Code for Details
."";1IIW'1I1CC \ol<!: I 1I1l511U1l91Il:46
Flat tire on new brush truck install spare...just east of bIg cypress bend on 41.. military duce & In.collier lire
COLLIER INVOICE 70355 RECD BY 222 11/05/09
."24-28 VOLT SYSTEM'.. PLEASE DO NOT 1I1OUNT ANYTHmG TO CAll ROOF.CHECKlREPAIR COOLANT LEAK.
2. REPAIRIREPLACE DOOR HANDLES. 217: On order
3. REPLACE ALL 7 TffiES. 222: ll/O512009@ 15:37:05 HAS CALLED COLLIER TIRE. RICH IS WORKING ON IT. Tires "ill cost 510563.00 three needs out
maybe. Alan would like us to find something cheaper. Rick is working on it.
4,REPAIR SPEEDOj\IETER
S. mSTALL 24V DC TO 13V DC CONVERTER FOR 12 VOLT RADIOS, LIGHT BAR, AND ACCESSORIES. "NOTE" A SECOND CONVERTER 1I1A Y BE
NEEDED AS MAX OUT PUT IS 25 MIPS. READ mSTRUCTIONS A1'o.'D CALCULATE LOAD. Ligbt bar need 20 amps. siren controler needs 20 amp. Hose reel
needs 40 amps and starter for waler pump needs 30 amps. Tbis converter Is not Sufficient to hold all tbese loads. Fleet "ill use the conYerler for the Radio's
SUl'PLlED: 800l\lHZ RADIO, VHF RADIO, CONVERTER, SIREN P A CONTROLER AND SWITCH BOX.
CflECK WITH TmI FOR BEST LOCATIONS.
6. PORTA PUMP Arm HOSE REEL NEED POWER. CHECK YOLTAGE REQUIRED AND ADVICE.
217!Z53: Hose reel "ill be wired "ith a solinoid and a 40 breaker for main power and han Iwo mitches. One s"ilcb In cab \\ire to main light snitch controler and
one at reel.Water pump motor will haye two switches, one at pump and one at main light switches.
217: New tires are here. 'York with Rich, remove two front tires and spare. Remove airing system front wheel. Rich may have a \'all'e slim to Install, so we cau
remo\'e airing slsem from wbeel, Jfnot Ricb will bring one ofthe wheels back, so Fleet can make up new blocks.
12fQ7I20ll9 @ 13:52:47
254 ASSISTED 253 IN ALL METAL WORK FABRICATION OF TRUCK.
2531 INSTALLED ALL WIRING FROM FRONT TO REAR.
1) PERFORMED SERVICE TO TRUCK. CHANGED FRONT AXLE OIL HAD WATER. LUBED ALL JOmTS.
CHANGE OIL & FILTER, PUMP ENGINE, CHANGE OIL & FILTER
2) UNIT HAD COOLANT LEAKS REMOVED COOLANT EXPANSION TANK CLEANED & PAINTED RE1\10VED ALL HOSES EXCEPT TO HEATER
ASSY. (NEED TO REiUOYE HfR TO GET ACCES TO HOSE INSIDE CAB) REPLACED ALL CLAMPS. ADDED FLEETGUARD COOLANT.
3) REPLACED BOTH DOOR HANDLES, ALSO NE HEAD LAi\1P L'{OP, REPLACED BOTH. LEFT SIDE MOUNT WAS LOOSE TRIED TO TIGHTEN ONE
JlIOUNT BROKE REPAIRED AJI.'D REPLACED ALL FASTNEns. JlIANY OTHER RUNNING LIGHfS BURNED REPLACED & REPAIRED GROUJ\'D.
4) CHECKED SPEEDOl\IETER GEAR IN TRAJ\'FER CASE IS O.K. WORKS AS INTENDED. CHECKED CABLE ALSO IS O.K. SPEED IS READ IN
KILOl\1ETER DO NOT KNOW IF IS ACCURATE 1\IA Y NEED NEW SPEED CLUSTER.
5) TffiES WHERE REPLACED, AIR SUPPLY SYS WAS DISCONNECTED PUT PLUGS ON ALL TIRES ON TOP OF DJSCONl'o'ECTING SO NO WATER
WOULD ENTER HUBS.
6) WIPER WAS DISCONNECTED ON PASS SIDE REPLACED BOTH WIPERS & REPAIRED ARM ON PASSS SIDE. FILLED WASHER PUMP & PRIMED.
REi\IOVED SPARE TIRE HOLDER FRO:\t SIDE OF TRUCK AS REQUESTED.
253/INSTALLED FUEL TANK FOR PUMP ENGTh'E FABRICATED MOUNT FOR TANK. REPLACED PLUGS, AIR & INSTALLED FUEL FILTER.
REPLACED STARTER MOTOR & SWITCH \'\IAS PULLING TO MANY AMPS. ALSO REPLACED LlGHf FOR DISPLAY. ADDED SHUT-OFF WIRE FOR
SWITCH IN CAB. ENGINE HAS HARD START 1\'EEDS DIAPHRAM ON SIDE OF CARll AJI.'D BODY HAS CRACK. REBUILT CARll ALSO.
2S3IHOSE REELIIAD NO CHAIN INSTALLED ORDERED CHAIN. UNIT OPERATES AS INTE1\'DED AFTER WIRING. INSTALLED FLOOD LIGHIS ON
LIGHTBAR 1II0UNT. ALSO CUT HOLES ON SIDES FOR L.E.D. LIGHTS IN REAR OF BED. FABRICATED COVERS FOR LIGHTS IN REAR OF TRUCK
OUT OF ALmI. DIAMOND PLATED STAINLESS ON TOP.
253/ USED ACCY. STAJ\'DTO MOUNT RADIO SIREN & SWITCH PANEL. FABRICATED 1IIANY PARTS WELDmG METAL & DRILLING TllROUGH
FLOOR BOARD & PAL'\'TED.lIIOUNTED AIL CO~'TROLS ON STA1~D. FABRICATED.
2531 FILLED WATER & FUEL TANKS HAD PUMP RUNING PRESSURE OUT OF HOS WITO NO NOZZLE FULL THROTTLE RUHCED 130 PSI LEFT
pmIP RU1\'ING CmCULATING IN TANK CLOSED VALVE SLIGHTLY TO BUILD PRESS. TO 100 PSI FOR COUPLE OF HOURS. HAD PROBLEM
http://cww2/Fleet/WOSummary.cfm?WOID=158195&year=1978&make=AM GENERA... 12/13/2010
Equipment Total Costs
lof~ : 1611piJof22
pof rfl-wc.{(
WITH RUN LIGHT IN DASH FEEDING GROUND TO COIL AFTER WARM WILL TRY TO FIX WHEN TRUCK ARRIVES AGIAN FOR SERVICE. UI\'1T
ALSO NEED PINS IN REAR DIFF WORt'! ~IAKING NOISE. nWCK IS USABLE UNTIL PARTS ARRIVE.
REEL: lIAS POWER SUPPLIED FRO"1 SOLENOID IN GRAY J.B. IN BED OF TRUCK, AUlO GROUND. 1.'1 GRAY BOX IS ALSO A REA VY DUTY
i\1OJ\lElIo'TATY SOLENOID WHERE LOAD IS PULLED. SOLENOID ACTI\' AnON IS COl\'TROLLED THROUGH SWITCHES ON BOTH SIDES OF
TRUCK BED & INSIDE CAB ALL TO SAME SOLENOID PROVIDING POWER TO ACIlV ATE. FOR SWITCHES ON BED A FUSE WAS INSTALLED IN
GRAY J.B. FOR SWITCH IN CAB FUSE FRO"1 FUSE P Ai'\'EL IN MAL'! DIST. BOX, BLACK BOX AT HOSE REEL HAS TWO RELAYS AS SET FROM
i\lANF.
WATER PUMP ENGTh'E: lIAS POWER SUPPLIED FRO"l SOLENOID INSIDE GRAY J.B. IN BED. POWER IS ONLY SUPPLIED TO SOLENOID WHEN
MAIN MASTER IS TUlli'\'ED ON. TillS WILL FEED POWER TO SOLENOID BUT NOT ACTN ATE IT. ACTIV AnON IS DONE THROUGH CRAI>iK
i\lOJ\IElIo'TARY SWITCH ON DASH OR MOl\1ENTARY SWITCH ON PUMP PAi'\'EL. SWITCH ON DASH IS PROVIDING A POWER SIGNAL TO REAR
CRAt'IIK SOLENOID WITH FUSE IN MAIN DIST. BOX IN CAB.
FLOOD LIGHTS: SWITCH ON DASH IS FEED WITH POWERFROltlDIST. BOX Hi CAB ACTIVATING A 40AMP RELAY WICH IS FEED WITH A 30
AMP FUSE IN DIST BOX. LIGHTS ARE GROUNDED AT MONTING BASE.
LIGHT BAR: LIGHT IS FEED BY 70 AMP RELAY. RELAY POWER IS FUSED @ 40 Ai'tlPS SWITCH ON DASH ACTIVATES RELAY POWER ALSO
FUSED IN DIST. BOX.
RADIO/CONVERTER: 24V CONY. IS POWERED OFF' 40 AJ\lP FUSE m BAIT BOX FEEDL'iG 24V CONSTANT LOAD SOLENOIDWICIIIS SWITCH BY
12V SWITCH ON DASH. lIAS 20Ai\lP FUSE ON 12\' SIDE. FEEDING RADIO.EXTRA 40AMP FUSE IS IN MAIN DIST BOX.
!\IASTER: IS SWITCHED BY CONSTANT LOAD SOLENOIDWICH IS FEED BY 200Al\lP RESETABLE BRI{ INSIDE OF BAIT. BOX. SOLENOID IS
SWITHCED BY MASTER SWITCH IN DASH FEEDING IT POWER WICH IS FEED STRAIGHT OFF OF CaNST A",{T POWER SIDE OF SOLENOID.
TRUCK IS DONE RELEASED TO DEPT. 1129110 S:OOPMBY 217
02l1012010@09:38:18
</PLAnnEJtT><PRE></PRE> </ Q></s></s...MP></ SCRIPT></ sELEcr></s:ro.L></ STRlKE></S TROl{G> </SUB></ SUP><I TABLE></'j'ID</TEJ('j'AREA><!IH></'j'I TLE> < /IR></'iT
<UL>< /UL></VAR:></WBR><Xl~P></Xl~P><FONT faco=arlal></FONT>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
function shc'"ft-Ride (tarqetUace) {
if ( dOCUEent.getEle;:entByld) ( / / NS6t
target - doc:unent. getEle:r.entById (tarqettlace) ~
elso HI doc=ent.all I ( // IE4+
target -.::: doc\l.!:i.e.nt. all [targe.tllanel;
if I target I r
if ( targst. style .display -. nnone-
target. style . display = lIinlinetll
else {
tarqetrstyle.dlsplay"" vnone";
<I seRI Pi>
<TABLE border~1 borderColot=D000808 cellPaddin9-3 b9Colot='e7e7e1>
<TBODY>
<'IR>
<'to bqColor-=j.000066><FOUT style.-"~Jr; Ilpt/13pt vez:danl!l; COLOR: whit~n
colox-white>Error Occurred While Processinq R.equest </ronT></TD><11R>
<'i'R>
<TD><FO}lT 5tyle::::<IIFO~:T: 8pt/l1pt verdana; COLOR: black">
<TABLE border~O collSpacing~O coUPaddlng=O width=500>
~TBODY>
<'r-R.>
<TO lc1-<hbleProps2 vAl19Tl-center width-SOO align-left>
<HI style-wFOIIT: 13pt/1Spt verdanal COLOR: black"
id-te"tSectionl>String index out of range: 6708 </Hl></m><f'j'R>
<iR>
<TD id~tableProp'liidth wldth-400 colSpan-2><FONT
.tyle~nFONT: 8pt/llpt verdana; COLOR: blackw></ro:IT><ITD></TR>
<IR>
<TD>&.nhsp; </J:D></"fR>
<"f.R>
<TO wldth-400 colSpan-2><FONT
style-fTFONT: 8pt/l1pt verdana; COLOR: blackill>The error occurred 1n
<B>D: \weba\w3root\Fleet\liOS""-,,-ary. cm: l1ne l22</B><BR></FOllT><!TD></TR>
<:l'R>
<TD colSpan-2><PRE>120 : 'It;CFELSE'qt;---'qt/
121 : &1 t:Font color:zlfgreen"'gt; &It;BR>l 'ltJbr>J <Jb>Halntenance Notes: &:It: cfoutput query=:notes>J DDateForeat (Notes. miDa
<9>122 &1 t; en _FLEETCO:.Q{ENT 'IEX'r'z""lnotes .NHDATAt" 'gtJ <Is>
123 :
http://cww2/Fleet/WOSummary.cfm?WOID=158195&year= 1978&make=AM GENERA... 12/13/2010
Equipment Total Costs
C/(~.~JZ6 {;)
16 J ~elB 2 2
Fleet
Management
,)_ ~ ... 1
\" "~l-'_-\
'-- ----
\\- .---'.
\.1" --.-.,
\. -_....-,~~". .~.:.~,...,~".-
'~,....,_.;..'.' '".' .
IJ".
HOlvlF. FLEET STAFF
r1~
EMAIL US
.
~ *
FUEL LOLA TIO~S PM SC~F.DlJ~E
Prevenltve Mamlerumce Pro~ram
FLEET SHOP
Locatioll; ~nd Opemtion Hours
..,c\,'-,. IltiiiiI
...."'1.. ~
t.~...:,,~_- ~&
~,:j~ GLOBAL-FLEET
fOR1IS VOYAGER FUEL CARD
Fuding Sil~ I. ink
~
.....
. _.
',...}).
:.-:/~j
PICTURE GALLERY CUSTOMER SUR VEY
Details for Work Order Number 0000087153 on 2008 FORD EXPEDITION EL
Date In: 12/06/2010 Date Out: 12/08/2010 Total Cost: $0.00 Mileage: 61597
Click on Repair Code for Details
IVlaintenance Not~s: 12/06/201008:53
217: Accident damage to right side of rear bumper. Cheif do not wish to repair.
***Need to upload photos***
12/08/2010 @ 11:58:44 photo uploaded by 222
Labor Costs: Total Hours: Total Amount: $0.00
Parts Costs: Total Amount: $0.00
OutSource/Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00
Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00
Credits: Total Amount: $0.00
Repair Code Description: Matcb Repair Codes Above to their Description here
REPAIR CODE DESCRIPTION
AO02000020BN A AccidenlI Cab & Sheet MU I System I Inspect I Billable I
NOT SCHEDULED
http://cw\'/2/Fleet/WOSummary .cfm?WOID= 167315&year=2008&make=FORD&model... 12/13/2010
1611822'
It doesn't mean we will go to 6 it just means we can get somewhere up to that number to meet
that target range. It doesn't mean the millage rate is going to stay there as the values come up
we are going to target that number. At some point we will have to increase man power but
that would be in the future if we ever add but currently we are trying to maintain our level of
service for the next three years. We are trying to build in a payback to finish the Port of the
Islands facility. Once the engines are paid off there will be an additional $42,000 that will be
going back into the budget. We have a tanker that is no longer functional but we will purchase
that on a five or ten year loan at $200,000 which will put us back into a $25,000 or $30,000
annual payment that will put us a little ahead. It will give us a little bit of money to put back
into the reserves. All the rest of the vehicles are paid and the smaller ones we pay up front.
We need to get a petition out to see how much public support we would have regarding the
millage increase. As the property values increase we should be able to reduce the millage rate.
Ronald Gilbert - One of the problems with Port of the Islands is that probably 50% of them are
not registered to vote here.
James Simmons - Wouldn't an assessment be easier.
Chief McLaughlin - He was told by Commissioner Colletta to stay away from speclal
assessments. Because once an assessment is set it's there. If we have a good year we can roll
that millage back.
James Simmons - The way he understood it the speclal assessment would be for one year right.
Chief McLaughlin - We'll have to go longer than that. They don't like special assessment.
James Simmons - If they build those ten stories over there then some of the impact fees could
be used for a new engine.
Chief Mclaughlin - There is only about $40,000 in impact fees that can be used on vehicles
there isn't enough there to do anything with the building.
Mitchell Roberts - He thought it would be enough to offset the station like $300,000.
Chief Mclaughlin - There isn't enough to do anything with the building there is actually only
$42,000.
James Simmons - The tax base Is going down but in the last four years we certainly had a big
increase at Port of the Islands. There has been all that development on the north side.
Chief Mclaughlin - The problem is some of those properties are in foreclosure. They only
developed a third of that land the rest is just land value it's not worth as much as Orchid Cove.
Page 3
1611
22
Ronald Gilbert - That's not true two thirds of it has been developed.
Chief McLaughlin -( didn't think it was that much. If it was 100% developed it would have a lot
more value.
Ronald Gilbert -It would be 144 units to be fully developed and 96 units have been built.
Chief McLaughlin - It looks like the developer for the RV Park has his funding and is going to go
ahead with the RV Park. They even want to tear down the hotel on the north side and use it as
part of the RV Park.
Captain Morris - He is familiar with the developer and was told he wants to come back and
develop the RV Park and tear down the hotel on the north side so far the owner hasn't been
willing to sell. But the developer is going to pursue it.
Chief MClaughlin - The County Code Officials are going to go back to the motel he feels he may
want to sell it.
Captain Morris - He heard the motel is in foreclosure.
Ronald Gilbert - Doesn't understand how he got a CO.
Chief Mclaughlin - He is only has a CO for a portion of the building. He only has a CO for the
one wing and the central area nothing else.
Ronald Gilbert - Asked how he passed the fire inspection.
Chief Mclaughlin - He put in a $130,000 sprinkler system including the roof and the dead
space. He also put in a fire alarm system. He probably spent over all $150,000 to $160,000 just
to bring it up to fire code alone not including doors and enclosures that he had to take care of.
Sun Stream wants to get the eleven story building started next year and if it's successful they
are going to do another one. These are all good signs for us as a district because that would be
big dollars for our Advalorem not just impact fees.
Ronald Gilbert - High density in a small land area which we really don't want at Port of the
Islands but it helps the Fire District.
Chief Mclaughlin - I think they approached it right on the eleven story building they are going
to make it a time share. They've doubled up the units so there are more of them on the RV side
even though they are developed lots the properties will be worth more than just an
undeveloped piece of property. These are going to be Advalorem dollars that will come back to
the District and will affect us.
Page 4
1611
B 22
Chief McLaughlin - As these Advalorem dollars come in we can adjust that millage rate down
and that would be our recommendation to the board.
Ronald Gilbert - He asked if the taxes are being paid on the RV Park now.
Chief McLaughlin - Yes just the land there is no development.
Ronald Gilbert - [ don't know how many ERe's were assigned to that property but if they are
paying the taxes they are paying those as well. You can't pay one without the other.
Chief McLaughlin - So that's where we are going with that and this needs to happen within the
next couple of months because we are going to have to look at the budget by March.
Mitchell Roberts - He wanted to clarify where they were going. In the five years that I have
worked here the only thing that I have really understood is that we work for the five
commissioners. We are there eyes and ears to get the feel of the community as to what this
District needs to provide to the community and report back to the commissioners that's our
job.
. Chief McLaughlin - That's correct.
Mitchell Roberts - This special assessment thing is bad because it hurts the little guy a lot more
than the multimillion dollar mansion. So it needs to be property value assessed. If you go to
Collier County's website and you click on Fire District's it states that part of our job is to
I
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners what should be set for our millage rate or
whatever terminology they use there.
Chief McLaughlin - Yes that is correct.
Mitchell Roberts- As a Board all we have to do Is go to the County Commissioners and say we
have reviewed the budget information and we need this amount of dollars to keep the
standards established since 2008. In order to do that the millage cap has to be raised from 4 to
6 this will give us some wiggle room until such time the property values increase then the
millage rate can be lowered. Who validates your budget that yes $l,888JOOO is what you need
to maintain this level of service or do we do it, does the County Manager do it.
Chief McLaughlin - No, the County Budget Director Mark Isackson he would pull those numbers
from the Tax Assessors Office. He pulls those numbers out he has the projections from the tax
assessor's office which has the information as to what is needed to obtain the necessary
dollars.
Page 5
161 1
b 22
Mitchell Roberts - He validates your budget.
Chief McLaughlin - Yes he validates my budget. He comes back to me and tells me what I need
to operate and last year we had multiple discussions about where we were going to be and how
to find money. Using our reserves we had $328,000 in carry forward that is gone just to survive
this year. They knew that this year was going to be interesting he told him that he would
probably have to make a presentation to the Commissioners as to how to resolve this problem
and that he would need his advisory board's backing regarding his solution. If he does not we
will lose seven people that would be 50% of our employees that's going to affect everybody.
Mitchell Roberts - I would not waste time informing the public by getting letters ready for
them. I would get a dollar amount and get on the agenda to the commissioners and say our
budget needs to be this to maintain the level of service we currently have. Because we have
grown we have to keep up this level of service we need this amount of money. Have them
validate your budget. Because that is the only gray area to me we need to raise the millage rate
so that we can function.
Chief McLaughlin - The petition was Just for a general feel. The Board of Commissioners
because we are a MSTU does not have to go to a referendum vote it was not set up that way.
The Board can Just take emergency action and change that and they have done that three times
in the past. He has already had the County Attorney's look Into it. The Advisory Board could
write the letter of recommendation to the Board of Commissioners to raise the cap to 6. He
also recommended that they insert the following as well:
That it has been determined by the OMS Office that we need to target the 2008 Advalorem
rate and that we need 5.6 mils of the current value to operate. We recommend setting the cap
at 6 and recommend the OMB Office set the millage rate at 5.6 adjusting it as the value
increases. He would recommend they also put in the letter to adjust the millage rate
appropriately in the following years as the assessments change.
That would add a little safety in there that it will not necessarily remain at the 5.6. He can get
the target number from the OMB Office.
Mitchell Roberts - We need to freeze the budget for three years to get through this bad time.
Chief McLaughlin - We just signed a contract for three years it has no pay raises in it. The
$1,888,000 gave us enough that if we could make an emergency purchase if necessary and be
able to put $30,000 a year in reserves in case we did lose something. It would also give us a
little bit to payoff general fund. He also needs a separate letter from the Advisory Board
recommending the District take a loan from general fund in the amount of $350,000 to finish
station 61 at Port of the Islands. He's going to get some information as to exactly how much it
will take to finish the building.
Page 6
161 1
8 22
Chief MClaughlin - If the quotes come in at $360,000 or $380,000 then he will request a loan
for that amount over a four year period right now $64,000 is going to the Port so that is almost
a fifth of it one of those full payments could be a chunk of it.
James Simmons - Who is In charge of this $160,000 or $200,000 worth of Pilt fund we don't get
anymore? Who controls that?
Chief Mclaughlin - He doesn't really know all he can tell them is the last meeting he had with
the former County Manager he was instructed to leave it alone.
James Simmons - Do we have to leave it alone, could we look into that.
Chief Mclaughlin -I can't answer that question.
Mitchell Roberts - That is something the board should take up.
Chief Mclaughlin - He has received phone calls over, the years from a former Port of the Islands
resident and she has been an advocate several times for the Pilt. He has not heard from her in
a while. In reference to 1-75 we do receive District 1 funds of course the same amount as
Golden Gate Fire District and East Naples Fire District receives. He mentioned something to
Dan Summers because the agreement as to how the funds are going to be divided Is coming up
again and we service 71% of the area. The reality is the Picayune is going to be flooded we're
not going in there anymore so no one will be servicing that and East Naples services a portion
on the west side and Golden Gate service a portion on the north side. We have basically
everything from Everglades to the Fakahatchee but we also cover everything six miles north of
1-75 to the Hendry County line and the Broward County line that is also District 1 because our
actual District boundary was set on highway 84 (Alligator Alley, 1-75), State Road 84 was the
actual STR line when the road was created. The creation of 1-75 expanded that road way if you
actually look at the STR lines from 71 mile marker to the 51 mile marker the whole west bound
lane is not in our fire district it is in District 1 so we have no obligation to the north side of the
road. We do for the south side because it is in our District. So we've been responding to at
least the west bound lane 30 miles of it since 1990 when the road was four laned. I am
assuming that part of those District 1 funds we get every year help fund the fuel, cost and
maintenance of the vehicleswhich used to be $141,000 and is now down to $91,000 because of
the devaluation of properties. As far as the Pilt goes we did receive it for a number of years.
He did some research he talked Chief Rodriguez he said that something happened in 1999
where the former director of EMS Diane Flagg, who is now with code enforcement, had it taken
out. He said that the former Chief Vince Doerr made a protest about it and he left soon
thereafter. He had received it for 20 years prior to that. He can't really find any information
regarding It what he has uncovered is second hand information.
Page 7
161 1
B 22
All he knows that it is paid out of in lieu of tax and about 82% of the Big Cypress buyout Pllt
money is within our Fire District boundaries. It Is going to take someone outside of my level to
pursue it.
Mitchell Roberts - We have to think about how the whole budget thing works for the County
and when your money is released. You put in a budget request now and at the same time put
in a request to adjust the millage rate to squeeze a budget out of it.
Chief Mclaughlin - We will start working on our budget in March. Our final projections for our
tax dollars come In May 15 so therefore by the first week of June we know what is set then we
can work on finalizing the budget. There are two or three processes up to September that
finalizes the budget. But we start looking at it in March, April and May to kind of get a feel as to
where we are at and what we are looking at. In June is when we know what is actually there.
It is beneficial to start early regardless of what happens we are going to be short we are
recommending we do this that allows the OMB Office and the Chief to adjust in order to reach
that target number of $1,888,000 which was the 2008 Advalorem rate.
Mitchell Roberts - 2008 was the highest year.
Chief McLaughlin - No, actually 2009 we might have been a little better than that but we
operated well in 2008. Not going up but actually finding the budget year we operated well at.
Mitchell Roberts - That would be the ideal budget to latch on to.
Chief McLaughlin - We are asking the residents to pay what they paid four years ago.
Ronald Gilbert - He asked the Chief if he would put in writing the budget amount he is going to
need and the budget numbers we need to get to and e-mail that to me.
Chief Mclaughlin - He will get the actual numbers down to the dollar. He had the OMB Offfce
run projections on 5 mils, 5.5 mils and 6 mils currently not including the loss issue. Then he had
them run at 5 mils, 5.5 mils and 6 mils with a 5% loss again on top of the numbers lost this year
he thinks we would have to go to 5.8 if we had another reduction. He rounded it up to
$1,900,000 because it was an easier figure to work with. He will get the information to Ronald
Gordon as he requested. He let the board know that he was off the rest of the week until
Tuesday but he will be available by cell phone and e-mail.
Ronald Gilbert -If when he gets the numbers he will start working on a letter.
Page 8
161 1
822
Mitchell Roberts - He suggested that maybe the new Advisory Board Chairman should make a
preliminary visit to Commissioner Colletta. Just to meet with him officially just one on one to
let him know what the Advisory Board wants to do just to give him a heads up and obtain some
guidance as to how to proceed.
Chief McLaughlin - Once you have your numbers you could invite him to an Advisory Board
Meeting to discuss it. This is a public meeting.
Mitchell Roberts - Make it an information gathering meeting and as to what the next step
would be.
Ronald Gilbert - What public meeting?
Chief Mclaughlin - These meetings are public meetings they are advertised. If a big turnout
was anticipated it would be best to have the meeting at Port of the Islands and set up a bunch
of chairs at our building there. This way he wouldn't have to drive as far.
Ronald Gilbert - Thought that would be a good idea. Port of the Islands Realty does a quarterly
news letter that's e-mailed and mailed to all property owners at Port of the Islands that would
be a good place to advertise the public meeting. It does two things it brings the people there to
see we do have the fire facility and that there is the prospect of losing it if we don't do
something.
Chief McLaughlin - He agreed with him. We should probably shoot for the February Meeting
because by the January Meeting we will have all the numbers. If you invite the commissioner
to that meeting that gives Parks and Recreation to get their stuff out for our public meeting.
Mitchell Roberts - He asked where do the property owners meet at Port of the Islands.
Ronald Gilbert - It might have more impact at the marina but at Orchid Cove we have a very
nice club house there. In fact beginning January 2011 the CID is going to start meeting there.
Chief McLaughlin - That would be up to you the board where you want to have the meeting.
Ronald Gilbert - Let me think about that.
Chief McLaughlin - He will have all the numbers you are asking for before the next board
meeting I'll just e-mail them to everyone on the board.
Mitchell Roberts - As long as the crowd is interested in keeping the fire department and
doesn't mind pay more taxes but you might get those that will say we don't want to lose the
fire department but we don't want to pay more.
Page 9
1611822
Chief McLaughlin - He said there is no choice you don't have both on this.
Ronald Gilbert - That's why he feels placing the information in the news letter would be
helpful. He will mention that if we do nothing we stand a chance of losing our fire department
at Port of the Islands and back that with do you want to pay a little money here or more money
in insurance.
Chief McLaughlin - It's not just going to affect the Port that loss of man power will affect
Everglades City, Chokoloskee, Copeland it will affect their ISO rating as well.
The Department won't be responding to 1-75 either. The ALS Engine Program would probably
end and that gives us two extra firefighters in the District by participating In this program. The
medics participating in the program are also firefighters. We would be losing 2/3 of the
firefighting force by man power reduction and ending the ALS Engine Program.
Mitchell Roberts - You said the Port will lose it first before Everglades City. We are looking at
potential development of the high rises out there whether good or bad the property values are
going to go up once that starts happening.
Chief McLaughlin - Yes, eventually.
Mitchell Roberts - The stability of haVing a Fire Department at Port of the Islands is probably
the best thing for property values in these bad times right now, being able to have a fire
department and paramedics right on site.
Ronald Gilbert - The estimate of bring the facility at Port of the Islands up to where it will hold
the fire engine you are talking about the marina right not constructing a building.
Chief Mclaughlin - The District owns 2/3 of that bulldlng all the engineering has been done on
that building we've paid them $42,000. All the architectural work has been done we've paid
$21,000. He is ready to go to permit and start building but there is no money for the
renovation. We are to the point if we had the money we could go out to bid and start this
project and It would be done in 3 months. They told him it would take 90 days to renovate the
building turnkey finish so we could move in between 90 and 120 days. Unfortunately J had that
money but it all went away that $385}000 it went toward the budget and reserves. If we had
not had the devaluation we would be close to being in that building right now.
Ronald Gilbert - This devaluation do you mean ....
Chief Mclaughlin - The property values dropping.
Page 10
16'1
lj 22
Chief MClaughlin - We already had the money projected in the budget then we got the bad
news after the fact so we had to pull that money out and move forward.
Mitchell Roberts - When you get that Fire Department out there running in 18 months.
Chief McLaughlin -I would like to do it in 12 months.
Mitchell Roberts - Is it going to be minimal} how much more of the operating budget because
you are going to have utilities?
Chief McLaughlin - Currently J am spending $16}000 for rent our projected operating costs for
that whole building for the year to be about $8500 for that structure which would be about half
what we are paying in rent.
Captain Morris - He said the truck would be out there more as well for training opportunities
you can't train in a motel room that's one of the reasons it leaves all the time. CID asked him
why it was gone all the time and it}s because there is nowhere to train.
James Simmons - Didn't the hotel at first donate the room. He was under the impression that
they had.
Chief McLaughlin - No, they never donated it and we had to pay to have it modified to put a
kitchenette in it. I think we paid $4500 to do that.
Captain Morris -It was part of the agreement to renovate it then put it back after we move out.
Chief McLaughlin - They probably won}t do that now they'll keep it as a suite so we won}t have
to pay for that. We paid $4200 for the shed which we will take with us we also had to pay
another $1700 to change the curb and widen the drive and then renovate the room. So we had
some money Invested just to get out there originally that whole project was about $9}000 just
to get in the door.
Ronald Gilbert - There is a unit for $22}000 on the market and we are paying $16}000 in rent a
year. That is the lowest he's seen one most are over $50,000.
Chief McLaughlin - We could have bought it and sold it back. Actually we had some one that
wanted to donate a room to us at Orchid Cover but the problem was what we do with the
truck. We can't by code park that truck. The motel room actually ended up being the closest
thing that we could change and we were within code to do that.
Page 11
161 1
8 22
NEW BUSINESS
Chief MClaughlin - The only new business he has is the Department has started the truss sign
project. We only have two or three left we pretty much have everyone covered or informed.
Sunset Cove or Sunset Cay and Orchid Cove are the last two we have left.
Captain Morris - Welve contacted them and they are on board with take care of the issue,
Cardinal Management.
Chief McLaughlin - We faxed them all the information. We will be starting our hydrants
sometime in January. We're going to be painting all the hydrants that are not reuse hydrants to
the proper NFPA yellow.
James Simmons - Did you or the Department paint those hydrants out there purple?
Chief Mclaughlin - They have to be by state law.
James Simmons - Purple?
Chief Mclaughlin - That is the state law for reused water. Reused water lines are purple.
Those hydrants are reused water they have to be purple by state law.
Ronald Gilbert - Cardinal Management handles Sunrise Cay. The company Guardian handles
Orchid Cove. Most of Sunset Cay lakes and Villas is Resort Management.
Captain Morris - We've spoken to both of them.
Chief McLaughlin - We've contacted everybody we are probably at 98% compliance with every
structure welve gone through them all. We are going to do the hydrant painting in January
the flush and float test them and make sure they are all up to the NFPA colors so thafs where
we are at with new business.
Mitchell Roberts - Said there are a couple of the buildings that a lot of the aluminum placards
were on the wall a couple have stickers on glass. It seems for long term purposes they need to
be on placards because if it catches on fire the glass would be one of the first things to go"
Chief McLaughlin - We actually did that and we asked some of them what they wanted but we
have enough stickers we can always go back and give them another sticker. We would prefer
the placards on the building but weIll see how that works if they start to wear out if they start
to peel we might just go ahead and put a placard on them.
Page 12
1611
Ronald Gilbert - Have you had any contact with PCS.
Chief Mclaughlin - No.
Captain Morris - I haven't.
Ronald Gilbert - Professional Community Services they handle most of the villages at Stella
Maris.
Chief Mclaughlin - That is the one we have not had contact with Stella Maris. Two of the
buildings have placards and three of them don't,
Ronald Gilbert -I can e-mail the management company information to you.
Chief Mclaughlin - Then he will send them a copy of the Information we gave to everyone else.
Ronald Gilbert - He will do that tomorrow.
Ronald Gilbert made a motion to adjourn it was seconded by Mitchell Roberts and the motion
was passed the meeting ended.
/~ ,OJJ
Ronald Gilbert, Chairman
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
Page 13
8 2~
BY: ..........T"HE.O.CHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
HELD ON JANUARY 10, 2011
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
v
~ ~:~~~~i
1611 8 22
In attendance were the following:
Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief
Caleb Morris, Captain
John Pennell, Plantation Island, Advisory Board Member
James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member
Tod Johnson, Everglades City, Advisory Board Member
The meeting convened at 6:07PM.
APPROVE THE RENEWAL OF RONALD GILBERT TO THE ADVISORY BOARD AND HAVE THE
CHAIRMAN SIGN THE RECOMMENDATION LETTER.
Chief McLaughlin - Since the Board does not have a Chairman I will take over the meeting until
one is appointed. The first order of business is to re-appoint Ronald Gilbert to the Advisory
Board.
A Motion was made to re-appoint Ronald Gilbert to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Board and was passed.
ROLL CALL OF ATTENDEES
Attendance was taken.
Chief McLaughlin - The second order of business was to appoint a Chairman and Vice Chairman
to the Advisory Board because Mitchell Roberts resigned. He thought that Darcy Kidder was
the Vice Chairman.
John Pennell-I didn't know there was a Vice Chairman.
Chief McLaughlin - We don't really have a Vice Chairman right now so we could do that also.
Ronald Gilbert was not opposed to being named Chairman but it is up to the Board who they
want to nominate.
Page 1
Misc. Correa:
Otde:
Item':
Copies to:
1611 822
James Simmons made a motion to nominate Ronald Gilbert to be Chairman of the Ochopee Fire
Control District Advisory Board and it was seconded and it was passed. Ronald Gilbert became
the Chairman of the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board.
James Simmons made a motion to nominate Tod Johnson for Vice Chairman of the Ochopee
Fire Control District Advisory Board it was seconded by John Pennell and was passed.
Tod Johnson became the Vice Chairman of the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board.
Chief Mclaughlin - We do have one vacant position right now which is Mitchell Roberts and
that will be going out for advertisement so If you know someone who is looking just have them
put an application in and It will come to the Board for review and a recommendation.
James Simmons - Would it be a problem to have three from Port of the Islands on this board
would It?
Chief Mclaughlin - There is only one seat on the board Is assigned and that is Everglades City.
The other four seats are open to anyone in the District. Traditionally they have attempted to
get one from Chokoloskee, one from Copeland, one from Port of the Islands and one from
Ochopee but that is not in the bylaws anywhere.
The Vice Chairman, Tod Johnson, signed the recommendation for Ronald Gilbert's renewal to
the Advisory Board.
Chief Mclaughlin - He turned the meeting over to the new Vice Chairman.
OLD BUSINESS:
Chief Mclaughlin - He went over the monthly report for December which is attached.
The Department had 603 hours of training for December 2010 and for the year 2010 we had a
total of 11,105 hours and 38 minutes of training that is a lot of hours. We don't have any new
construction right now. The Truss Program has been completed all the buildings within the
District have been marked. So we are 100% compliant within the District regarding the State
law. At the last meeting the Board asked me to go back to the Budget Office and do some
number crunching for potential millage increases to match the 2008 budget depending what
the current losses would be at 3%, 5% or 7% coming up the next year. He sent the information
to Ronald Gilbert he was the board member who wanted the information. He met with Budget
Director Mark Isackson this morning along with Captain Morris. There has been some
movement by Jean Kungle from Port of the Islands she has been pushing the Pilt funds. She
has been at the County asking a lot of questions he doesn't know any of the details. However,
from the conversation that they had today Jean Kungle has a meeting with the Budget Director
Wednesday.
Page 2
1611 B 22
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT MONTHLY REPORT
FOR DECEMBER 2010
TRAINING: 603.75 hours for December 2010 and 11,105.38 hours for the year 2010
see attached.
FIRE PREVENTION: None RepOlted
New Construction Inspections
Man Hours:
PIan Reviews:
On Site Inspections:
Celtificate of Occupancy Inspections:
Existing Structure Inspections
Man Hours:
Violations Cited:
Public Education Activities
z
~
~
~
o
.....
.....
'i3
<:>
.9
J-o( ~ Joo-1 ::z:; lotj
,Q 10 10 N 8
~ 000
\0 VI VI O\--..J
. t J I I
8~~t1'11
tIt g ff
~ ~ Q g s
~~a~2:
tot1 ~ ~ 5. ()
d~~f}.k
~8'Coc::
e! '" p> l:l Q;
6 ~ ~ ~
::I. r. g ~'
~ a g. PI
~ '" ~ 1}
o t S.
;:J ~ (J(j
!'l
'"
l:l
o
co
co
g
g:
(]q
0'
o
fl
o
l:l
~
Po
~
....
'"
~
co
{]>
Po
a'
Ir.
co
>-j
(]>
'U
o
;:t
N.j:>..j::o. -I-->
0000000
0000000
'"d
~
CD
-
o
....,
tv
~ ~~
~ €fj;.f
I ~I;lj
'>:I.
~r tIl
o a
o Ja
[ g
~
E;::
o
0-
[
>-l
o
~
o'
~.
I
V:J
el
o'
Pi
o
s-
.....
rIl
::r
~
(l) tI.I H H JooooIIl ...... ~
~ ~ 10 10101010
~ 0 ~ ~ p..oI 0 0
. I CIJ~~i^'i'
d ~ 0 0 0 <:>
~ ~ W \0 \0 .j>. N
it ~. ~ ~ > n ~
~'" ~~~~~~
.. gt 0 -. 5 ;:J
~f;l<Rga.'
g.'>:IP>CI)~
o' s' ~'g bj
" g ~ g ,
?;-"'td~E;::
O. S ~ el
g. ~ ~ ~r
::s "'''
M I ~
?? ~~~
g S <: ~
'" P' ej ~
(/l g? ~ ~
~ El ~ g
.:< % 0
-6' ~
G a
'd
'""
tf.l
~ '7j "'11 ~ m=-
~ 9 g ~ ~i=ji
r;-> I ~ ';' 5:>-
[ [ ;r ~ ~
;;;t3~e;[
,g~GEl~
OG~~~
5.r~~rg
~ c:: l:ll p-
OQ; ~!l
'<:l '" l:t.
C1 >,j l:l
Pl;'j' (J(j
g. I:!l
[;l os.
O.
i:l
(J(j
tv---NtvN.j::o. .....Ntv
v.ooooooooooo
000000000000
.j::o. N N
N - 1-1 ...... -..J tv tv ..... N ..... ....
0\ 00 .j::o. C\ 0\ .j::o. ?\ -..J C\ 0\ VI .j::o. 0 tv 0 C\ 0\ tv tv
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UI V. 0 0 0 0 0 0 <:::. 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
"" .j::o. ~ N tv tv tv
>-' ...... 1-1 >-' -..J >-' .... -
:3. 0\ tv 00 0\ 0\ .j::o. ?\ -..J 0\ 0\ VI .j::o. 0 N 0 0\ 0\ tv N
::I 0 0 0 0 0 0 <:::. v. <:::. (:, 0 b 0 0 (:, 0 (:, (:, 0
<1 UI
P- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ N N
1-1 ~ """ """ 1-1 ~ N N 1-1 N 1-1 """
~ ?\ N (XI f' 0\ 0\ ~ ?\ ;-l ?\ 0\ 0/>. 0 N c:> 0\ <:1\ N N
c:> <:. c:> c:> b <:. c UI UI 0 C C b 0 0 b <:::. b <:. b
8 c:> <;;) c:> c:> c c:> c:> c:> c:> c:> c:> c:> <;> 0 c c:> c 0 0 0
.....
0 N
~ 1-1 .I>, N ... 1-1 ,... "-..t ~ N .... N ,... 1-1
0\ ~ 00 .j::o. ?' 0\ f' s:" -..J s:" !" VI 0 N c:> ?'- 0\ N N
~ <:. c:> b b 0 <:. 0 VI Ot 0 0 <:. <:. b 0 b 0 b b b
t:::i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <:> 0 c:> 0 Q 0 <;) 0 c:> c <;) 0
1611 8 22
I!l (')
o~_
= co II)
~.Q ~
>-
lIlg
;;l 5.
." to
~ q-
....
1Il~
... ('l)
"".c
~
I:i:ltl>
., ::s
"" 0-
('l) to
~ 11
N
tI:l~
... ('l)
",..c
>-
1Il~
;;l g, to
('l) ~
---E:.
~ w
('l)
.Q
~
.,
""
~
lIlt!>
., :::r
CIl Q. to
III
~ ....
...
~oI>o
('l)
,Q
....
j.Ioi
;;l
>-
~~
., ::s
'" Q. >-
('l)
-E: :::r
:::r
~ =
('l) ~
.Q
~
;;l
tf.l51
tf.ltll....
tlI - CD
;-~!:d
a g~-
." Q, ::s
Q, t"'~
tf.lo"
e:g~
p!s:a
*1;lS
....... 1-1
.e.N
II )::;i:
>-t:)
=0
)-I
Q
~
o
.....
N
Q
I-'
i:)
o
l-1
Q
(j
"
S
z
g
fl:
::?
l>>
S'
S'
t]q
0'
('l
f}.
o
l:l
~
Po.
~
~
8
-5
o
e
~ ~ ,0 ,0 ,0 10 to ~ ~ ~ ~
g ::r:::;::::;::..............~N8;::
, cnC(JCf.)~<f. . I I
~ , ~ 0 b ~ 0....... ,^ ~ ~ 0
./>. \0 N, w -.
S. >- I . I $:l , '1:l a ~ '1:l
~ ~ CI.l ~ ~ ~ ~ [ ~ ~ ~
~. ;;:; g -a @ e: g 1f ~ ~ ~.
Qs;::~fr>~ a C/Ja~~
~ ~ i! l!!.:g ~ g. g o' ~ 8
f@Q~~ ~r~.g.itff~
<> R> ;:::: ~ i! .., ::I. -d' Q S' tIl
tIl.g '" ~OQ':::l <> o.~.g
to '" II! g: A ~ f;l Iii. ii'
q <> ~ i:I' G <> ~ S
ttl ~l1Q~~ ~g
:< a-oCl.l~o ....
@ a ~ g
2:i a.~ '"
~ ~
~
~
en
tIl V:I V:I::r
~ (') >$
~ 8 S..
<:> , t n
I V:I 5"
~ S. .gj
... 0: <>
o ~. a.
6 V~ :::l
~~~
g <>
g. ~
;:l ;:l
.'j g,
;a ~,
~ l1Q
R> CI.l
.., g
~ >
a
.-.
Cf}
~
'"
(11
Po.
S.
~
.0
tl
~
::l.
Q
::!.
""l
I-j
o
[l"
I;;'
F3
o
et
fJ)
::r
~
>-j
,g
o
?-
V~Nv}.......NNNNNNN.....NN
oooboobboboooo
00000000000000
I;;l
<ffl
(11
N
o
....,
N
C\ .... N
C$ ~ ....... N C\ N N ....... ..... ..... 0 ..... o..J
IV -!>o C\ 0 00 -!>o ..... a -!>o QQ IV ""' N 0\
~ e:, 0 0 b 0 b 0 (:) (:) b 0 0 b b N b ~
0 <:> a 0 0 a 0 a a 0 a a 0 a 1Il 0
C\ ,... N
4' ,... \Cl ..... ~ C\ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... <::> N o..J
o' I-' I-' N C\ 0 N N 00 -!>o ..... 00 0 -!>o 00 N f'- C\
2. ~ Q 0 0 0 b (:) 0 0 0 0 b b b b 0 ~ b ~
tit <::> a 0 0 0 a C> 0 0 0 0 0 a a a 0 Vl
:=: g: ,... N
~ ,... ~ C\ .... I-' ,... I-' ,... Co ,... -..I
:::: w N P' Co N N QO f'o ,... <::> ~ Of) N .,.. tJ P'
0 ~ e:, Q Q 0 Q Q Q Q Co Q e:, Q Q Q l-,) Co N
N 1Il Co Co Co Co Co <=> 0 Co 0 Q Q <=> Co Co 1Il Co tit
:=:
-
0 C\ ,... N
~ ,... \Cl ,... t C\ ~ ~ ,... ,... i'=' <=> ,... -..I
,... ,... N P' <::> Of) .,.. ,... Of) <=> ... QO N ~ N fi
!'? ~ Q <::. Q <=> Q Q Co Q <::. <::. b 0 Q Q Q l-,) b
t:; Q Q <=> <=> Q <=> Q Co Co Q 0 <::> <::> Co 0 1Il <::> tit
I-j
o
.....
~
Cfl
::r
8;
ff
N.....
ON
a Vl
1611
8 22
~
o;eD
I: n l>>
;;t .Q ~
~
~fl>
~ 5-
n I:)
Co q
I-
......
~!
~
~fl>
"1 ::I
<1.1 Q.
fl> .0
~ ....
""f
N
~~
<1.1.0
>
::t
~n
"1 ::I t:J
'" Q.
fl> ....
-== ""l
~ W
.Q
~
;;t
>
::t
=n
"1 ::I
'" c- .0
fl>
~ q-
~ ""'
..0
l:I;
;;l
>-
=it
"1 ::I
'" Co >-
'"
Co ::I
~ ::l
C
n ~
..0
~
Cfl
CI.l Q:'
~, ::i!
t;; ::tl..
I 'ft:;l
Q 0,
::1. \0 -..
v r C":l
gj 1-;;10
l-ol ::r =
;:I.... ~~
-'::1
~ [=
~ .., 2-
S......
eJ
'"
z
o
....
~
~
~:
(JQ
0'
g
!:t.
g
S
0..
~
ti.
g
('jI
p..
s'
e:
'"
>-i
.g
o
~
~
8
.....
t3
b
.s
gS~~gg~~g~~
N ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ..... B
· 1 1 00 0\ t..It .p. 1 I I
~ ~ 0 L I I I I 0 ~ ~ ~
~. -. 9 ~ m W ~ a ~ ~ 8. i
a ~ q g. g ii ia g ~ ~f o' ~
~ g,Z15~~ ~a~ ....iaS:
..,PoE('jIt:l~CIl0d Og
~ ~ ",' tj .Q ~ .g ~ ~ ~.-+
g, ~ ~. ~ ~ 2. g .g 3 8 ~
~ .-+ .., 8. 8. ~ -. '< g ~. s
~ ~ rl~ [~ S .... ~ ~
(fQ -. . - ~ G 0 (fQ
g. -. Gl ~ tj ;S
CIQ ~ g. C> 1/;" .@'
S. 1[ ~ 0
9. g. g ~
~ t:l 'T< ~
I to ~ ~
~ ~ h=! S'
~ o' tti (fQ
~ <
to to
a a
o 0
N ....
,
~
o
N
I
to (,I)
S. a
0: !t'
S' r-
CIQ t<1
a 3
o cia
~ 9
~ ~
o' ::v
t:l 0
~8.
~ ~
~ ..
~
CIl
g
(l
'"
b 6 6
'0.....1-'
'0 N 0
I I I
~.., [~i
tj~~1l
:J. 0'1::;1 0
<'0<>'1::;1
I! ~ a ~
o o. 8. ~
~ 0 ~ 0
~ tl ~ ..,
~ g.
g ~
;: o'
El '"
S'
CIQ
rn
6 6 ~ ~;;
o 0 '0 ort
'":' :- ;' ';">
~ 0 tj
~ E}.g
~ ; ~
o Po <>
'8 8. a
i't 8. "'0
o :4 0
.., ~ ~
g. ti"
::t'
>-'l B1
I: ~
OQ ir
OS
~.
o
l:l
'"
~1-'~-~I-'~W~I-'NWWOI-'~~""'I-'~
Oo~ooobooooooo~booooo
OOOooaoaoaooao~oaoooo
0\
o
o
.....
0<:>
o
o
0\
o
o
'1:1
~
.....
o
....,
\0
I-'
00
b
o
0\
o
o
0\
o
o
I-'W
wOO\
\';'00
000
0\
o
o
0\
o
o
..... u)
wo",
\';'00
000
w
~ p
o 0
00
~
~
o
o
.....
00
o
o
~
./>.
o
o
I-'
00
o
o
N
b
o
I-' ..... I-'
~ 00 N
000
000
~
3'
Ft
Q.
I-'
N
b
o
..... I-' I-'
Noo~
boo
000
C>
--
~
:::
....
w
U10
00
00
w
o
o
o
w
o
o
o
I-' I-'
0<:> 00
00
00
..... I-'
000<:>
00
00
U1~
00
00
Woo
~o
U10
NN
-/>0-/>0
00
co 0
~~
bo
00
-..:r
o
a
-..:r
o
co
WO\
00
00
u) 0-
00
00
~~W ~~~~ "'H~ NN ~
~NW~"'~~N~"'~~~~~oo~~-..:rw'O
~Q~~QbQQQOQQO~~QobbQb
Q~OQOQQQOQ~~QQ~QQQQOQ
C>
:!
,...
~
~HW ~~~~ "'H~ NN ~
"'NW"''''~OON~~~Qoooowoo~~-..:rw~
oo~o=bQOQooboo~Q=booo
QQQQQQ~OQQ~~QO~O~QOOQ
1611 B 22
~
.....
o
a
rn
!!.
Q
n
....
8,
~
\I>
..
~
o~Q
= (';> l:)
;A.Q~
>-
~;:
""l :s
..., Co
Q~
~
P'"
~~
;;1.8
>-
~;:
""l =
'" Co
Q I:)
--=:: q-
N
~E
~
l!jQ
""l = to
'" c.
2 q
~ W
Q
.Q
II:
t;l
~
~Q
~ ii ,0
Q
~ :t
~ ~
('jI
.Q
~
~
>-
~F;
""l ::l
'" Cl. >-
('jI
~ ::l
::l
~ =
Q ~
.Q
b::
~
rni
!tg-
atr
8,=
t'l~
rn 0 ..
-:!;1~
~ go d
.....i;l8
~8S
_..~
~Q
-~
~
~
o
g
P'"
i:J
o
H
Q
..,.
.....
b
o
I-'
N
b
o
I-'
N
b
o
(]
o
6
o
~
z
~
~
~
~:
()Q
a
o
~.
o
::l
S
p.
'"
$
.....
'"
k
'"
{1>
p.
S'
S:
'"
'"i
.g
o
;:+
l-(l-4Jo-l)-(tI;~~::r:~
to 10 10 10 N N 0 0 0
~~~~S8~U;~
b b b b I :0 I ~
~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~n<i~g,q~~
~ 0 ~ ~ s Os ~
ti g o' ~;;; ~ g :
i ~ i ~ f ~. ~ ~
(11 g n' G1 0 !'t, tl~ 0
(11 l'! , 'd 0 .E'
~i:t.~!ttl.~
g~!:l.g.~ 0-
g~g~g.
I ~ ~ a
~ '" I'> 8i
El R> if !!
9 ~ ~ g'
g g. '"
to tl g
.g' ~
I;l !::
~
N ,...,
NW~~WWNWN~NNN~WN~~~_W~W_WNW
ooooooooooo~oooooooooooooooo
0000000000000000000000000000
~
.....
....
,0
....
-
,
o
'D
I
>-
~
~
(>
(11
'"
:r:
o
to
<1>
to'
!::
tl
P.
C>
l:l>
o
El
'"
~
;:J
.g-
-a'
o
,01010 )0
)0-4 ~ 0 0
.....000'1
. r I I
o 0 0 0
0'1 ~ i'-J .....
I I I
~61t;<
~sg;~
5 ~ q ~
<> ~ 0 o'
~(1I-gtl
~€a~
[ g_ gl S
n(rqV)~
S? ~ 13
~ g g
a. 2. g,
g 1:; '"
~
13
a
,g
N~
+:>'>-'00
000
000
'"0
&
(j)
N
o
H,
\D
N_
+:>.~oo
000
000
~
00
o
o
~
00
o
o
~
00
o
o
,.....
00
o
o
N
.j:>,
o
o
4'
5'
fi
c.
N
~
o
o
8
....
~
8
....
N..... l.JJ..... 'I N
f'o CO.jlo, 1,000..... 0
0000000
0000000
o
~
....
tl
NFl Wl-'l.I)N
.jlo,\lOr-I,OOO.....O
ooobbo=
000000<::0
w
+:>.ooW
000
000
W I-'
~OOWlll
0000
0000
III
0\
o
o
1--l ~............... ~
N NOONO\OO
o 00000
o 00000
~
0\
o
o
>-'
N
o
o
I--L........ ~ ~
NooNo,oo
00000
00000
~
III
o
o
*'"
'to)
W
00
o
o
~
W
w
00
o
o
.....
o
o
o
,.....
o
o
o
,.....
VI
o
o
N
o
o
o
NN
~O
o 0
o 0
N
o
o
o
......N
00 0
o 0
o 0
::r:: ::r:
o 0
..... 0
.... -4
I ,
tr.I ~
'" .....
::I. ~
2. .
Co >-
Q i:t
tr.I '"
g ~
0-
'0
-a'
o
~
~
<>
;;l
<>
~~7t"I1~
006 '" ",
00008
.". l'-) ..... .::. I
I I I ~ ~
61~~!f~r
~~~o'~
~oO'tI1~
e.: ~ ~ go g
i[Jf~,g
af.g;
::s p. 0
~ 8 <i'l
~ 9 8
o !! '"
o '"
>,j '"'1 >,j ~ ~
goggg
\0 t; 'I .". 0
I . t I I
Q~~~~
?r ~. ~ g. ~
'"'1 (11 :::I 0 os.
::;. 0 g. ~ ~.
;;sC>~~
0" 'C ~ OQ .-,
&~~g~~.
o '< -. f'^
- >- ~ OQ a
., II >,j
~. l2. @.
. ~ l:!l
~ <: ~
g 5-
a. OQ
o
p
'"
~
N
o
o
-
N
o
o
-
\D
o
o
I-'
\D
o
o
0\
o
o
~
III
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
a
o
o
....
000\
00
00
~
000\
00
00
t;
~~~~~~0\~~~~'1~~~~~~6~~
obooobbbboobbbooobbob
000000000000000000000
l.Il
o
o
III
o
o
0\
o
o
0\
o
o
......
N
o
o
I-'
N
o
o
III
0\0'1
000
000
III
0\0'1
000
000
0\
o
<::>
,.....
III
o
o
t
l.I)l.JJ~i'-Jl.JJ..... .......... ~ N.....Fl ~...............
CO~CO~WNO\CON~~~~~I,O~O\NOOOCO
bbbobbbbooooobbbbbbob
000000000000000000000
-
00
o
o
0\
o
o
-
00
o
o
0\
o
o
1611
B 22
-
N
o
o
~
o~D
= t'lI t)
;;J..Q ~
~
~n>
"I :l
en Co
8,.0
~ r:j
....
tIl~
-. t'lI
"'..0
~
~~
flI ..0
~ ...
'1
N
~~
~.c
>
tIl~
'1 :l .0
.. Co
l'll ...
r--!= '1
~ l.JJ
l'll
..0
;=
;;J
>-
::f:
tIll'll
., :l
.. Q, to
l'll
~ ...
.,
~ ~
('l)
..c
=
;;J
~
1Iln>
;;J 6- >
--E: =
=
~ c:
l'll ~
,Q
=
;;:l
fJ1
~ '"'1::r
g g::;;
.....:t l...h"
,>
o 61'
c; 9. ()
i} <1' (;)
[ G"a
"d ~ S'
a ~;
~ Co
go --
~
&j
.....
N
o
o
~
~
i
I7Cl
a
()
l'1
0.
o
):S
~
p.
g
.....
en
51
C1>
P.
S'
8:
en
,g
o
~
~
:::;
is
a
~
a
~
.....
:;;.
w
~
~
.....
N
o
-9
(I) CI.I
('J c:
\Q 0
, ,
~f
~ 0
~ 1:t
~ ~
8 ~
" c
rl l>
~. ~
s' l'l
0<1 o'
:1
II>
~o~~~
o 0 W
0\ Vt W a
i?~~~
~ ~ '0 l:l
t:!l ~ a ~.
~
a.~R>Q
(l)a~~
-g 8 0 !::l
g Q (it
7J
~
8
"
~~~
15',~0
~S:?o8:~
~g'Vfjo.
:a~~n[
o.H>-l!'io.
W~~~~a
~ ~ ~ 0
o b:1 l'l: ]
q >-l ,0 a' I'l
~ijgg.
~ ~ ~ ~
s
I~
b:1
~
88
o a
VI W
1 I
!;: Q
g I~
tyjl
e;; c;
I
t-. g:
S. M
0. ~
a <
g.
o'
0-
>
o
o
a:
~
(I)
o
"
l:l
"
(I)
~
~
~ H ...... ....... ..........: """'C ~ H
I::": 10 ,0 ,0 ,0 [0 JO [0
>Il :ti ::r: :II :II ::r: ~ p::
(I) I/) CI.I (I) tIl tIl ~ is::
,!.. b b b b I.... ' I
7 '::' ~ ~ ~ v. ~ ~
t1":1.,;lt1~W' :"b
--_.... ~ ;:;; l>.. Si 0
~ 0: ~ CP N
o Q' - l:l >- II> ~ >-l
a e. EJ g).:g ~ "" 0
g~A~~EJ!:.[
0. S" ;;1 ~ !t '" :1 Q
(I) ~ 1; ~. II> 118 5: g
~ II> ~ S' (I) S " 0
~ g.~~giw
~ g >1j o;s.
~e.a 8.~
~.g 0 q
"a. <>
11>':: II>
..
<>
1611822
..... H
[0 ,0
t1 .....
o \0
b ~
--.),
I "%j
d' ~r
a tIl
"0 ;:>'
" "
.. ;:;'
o q
't:I
~
o
l:l
'"
Cf.l
1-1 """'C ~ H .......::r
[o,O,O,OIOS;
~ ..... ~ ....... )--I....
\0 --.) N N ..............
b b b b _"
w ...... .p.r. w ......._
. I t'-"
H 7.l "%j 'Ij (I) (j
~ g, ~'j' w gg
g: o' ~ ~ P.< g.
a ~ 0 :r ac
f g !5 ~ :z::2.
" 0. >-l '<-'
0. 0 '" 0.
.e1 ~ Q;l
n "0 P". l:l
B g g ~
g o' S
tIl ~ ~
~ ~
l> '0
8 ~
o
2"
!:t.
o
l:l
W
~WWNW~~N~~~~)~~~~~~ ~ ~J~~ ~
~~o~oobb~bboooooooooooooooo~
0000000000000000000000000000
NW
Nt-'
~~
00
>-;j
cI'cl
C1I
W
o
.....
1.0
~~
~u.
o 0
t-' t-'
1.0 00
V. 0
o 0
..... .....
'0 00
~ 0
o 0
41
~r
"
Q,
..... .....
00 00
o b
o 0
..... .....
00 00
o 0
o 0
.....
~
~
o
.....
-..l
~
o
~~~.p.
0000
0000
~~~.p.
0000
0000
0\
o
o
0\
o
o
0\
o
o
\0
o
o
0\ ~ N
000
000
..... .....
O\ooN
000
000
.....
..... 00
00\.....
000
000
.....
..... 00
00\.....
000
000
.....
o
o
o
..... .....
00 N
o 0
o 0
t-'
00
o
o
~
o
o
-..l
o
o
~
o
o
W
o
o
0\
o
o
1.0
o
o
W
u)
1.0
N
u,
0\0\
00
00
~
o
o
w
o
o
u)
u)
00
N
u,
0\0\
o 0
00
.....
N
o
o
.....
00
o
o
t-'
00
o
o
u,
o.
o
u,
o
o
~~~~~ ~~~ ~N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~-..l~~~~~~~~~~~~~-..l~~~~~N~~~~
Q~Q~OObQbOQOOONOOOOOOOQbOObo
OOQOOCOOOOOCOO~QOOQOOOCOOOOO
I-'
~
(>00\
v.o
00
u,
o
<::)
\0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~~~~~~
b~b~oOOboOObObNOboboOOObOQbo
COOOOOOOOOOQOO~OOOOOQQOOQCCO
.....
~
0\0\
~o
00
u,
o
C
01
o
o
N
o
\0
V.
C
.....
010\0\
000
000
0\
C
o
N
o
u,
V.
<::)
.....
~O\OI
000
000
0\
o
o
~ 0
c: ~ III
;;J .8 ~
>
~~
;;J [
ClI ,0
~ r:t
1m'
~~
tnoQ
>-
~
b:lCll
"f 1:1
'" Q.
ClI ,0
~ ..
'"l
N
~IP';
~.8
>
I:Q~
- =
~ Q. I:)
ClI r:t
---.E:
ll:l ~
"'
.Q
~
~
~[ I:)
ClI
----=:. ~
:::1~
"'
oQ
~
J
>
~~
'1 ::s
'" Q. >
"'
~ =
==
~ c
"' ~
.Q
~
;;!
0\
o
o
~
ff
f:
CIQ
a
o
g.
o
;:l
~
p..
~
~.
g
G
P.
S"
B:
'"
.g
~
~
o
.....
-5
o
.g
"Ij "r1 "Il I-;j 'Tl I-;j
o (') 0 0 (') 0
~ t::) C; ~ g ~
. I I I I ,
~g~~g;v
oo:~<:=:a
1-;j()~Jl:~~
~' a t:T <> :::z:: co
~ 17. 'oj f:l tI:1
;:?g~a~::l
S~l'>~[g.~
~. 8-. E;
~ ~
!!
(/l
~
3
~~~2:l;:J
0001.00
N W N 1.0 .....
I I a I
I-;j(/ll-;joo
~l~~l
~ ff a ]I S'
....'""'EtdOQ
g. (/l Cl ~, (/l
~P"''''''El
~ ~ ~ ~
l ;:?,&1
p l'::. e.
'" ::l '0
~. ~
gs~~tI1tI1~~
~, Q~~~~~~
0\ ~ 1 [ I
~ . I > tI1 :::r
~t.J[f~~~~
~ cB. ~ o' ~ ~ 15:
~~9~p.~a
~ 5'<" ~ S ? <: 'oj
8 ~ 0 ~ g. .....
o' Q n t:I ~ _. g
E":l&.~'<Q.~
g' f:L !! ~ ~ ~ ~.
Ro~'~~~S'
7-lOq g., <> g;
.g e. S '"
o o. 9 a
:+ ~ "0
~ I 0
a: ~ ~
~ o' El
Po
td
~
t..J
I
S'
'"
"'"
a.
::l
~
~
~
e:?
e
e!,
::l
5'
CI'l
(/l
(')
td
>
CI.l
~ r; r; E; ~ E;S;
o 0 0 ~ 0 0..
tv ;' ': . ~ 7t:d
(/l 'oj ::9 I-;j tl tl
g~82..g.g
~~~it~~
~ ~. g ~ a a
~g~Jt~o
=' ~ ~ b 5' ::;.
~ g g~' s.
'oj ~ .y' i:t,
g 7-l 7-l g
2. ~ Eo
~ ..... ~
'" ft. ;;
o co
i;1 ~
s-
::to
o
::l
'"
161 1
B 2a
i
F3
o
~
CIl
e:
~
~N-WN -WNI-'_I-'WN~I-'NWWW~~_N~ _
0000000000000000000000000 0
0000000000000000000000000 0
~
o
o
'"d
~
~
~
o
H)
~
00
o
o
t--l t--l ......... .........
oO~OQ
0000
0000
........ 1--1 Jo-l. J--\.
oOOQ~
0000
0000
N
~
o
o
N
.j>.
o
o
'"
...
S'
<t
0.
~
S
8
.....
OQ
o
o
~
o
o
-
o 0'1
o 0
00
.... N
OQ~
00
o 0
0'1
o
o
~~~
000
000
- I-'
0\ OQ
00
00
>-' I-'
0\ 00
00
o 0
- .j>.
W o:l
00
00
I-'
00'1
o 0
00
I-' N
OQ~
o 0
o 0
0'1
o
o
N N
~ OQ ~
000
000
w _
00\00
000
000
w _
00\00
000
000
0'1
o
o
0'1
o
o
I-' N
00 0
o 0
o 0
I-'
N
o
o
0'1
o
o
0\
o
o
N
C\ C\
o 0
o 0
0'1
o
<=>
N
C\
o
o
..... N
~ 0
o 0
o 0
-
N
o
o
0'1
o
o
~
o
o
>-' W
O\No
000
000
W~N~~ ~N N~N ~~~~NW ~~
~OQ~~Q~~OQ~O\~~~~~~N~OQOQoo~~~
OQOQOQobbbbQCCQ==bboooboQ
QOOOQOOOOOOOOOQQOOOOOQOOO
o
~
,...
::;.
w
C\
o
o
N
N
o
o
>-' W
O\No
000
000
W~N~~ ~N NI.ON ~~~~NW ~~
~OQ~OQo~O\OQ~~O\~~~~O\No\OQOQQoO\~OQ
bbboCQo=Qo==oQ=cbQQQobbbb
QOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOQ
w
00
o
o
w
OQ
o
o
I-' ~
w 00
00
00
Ul
N
-..l W
Q 0
o 0
Ul
0\
~ W
~ 0
Ul 0
~
-..l
N
llt
C\
00
0\
N
Ul
""
00
o
\C
u..
o
~
~
o
-..l
u..
o
~
o
b
o
~
o
o
o
0\
b-.
1.0
W
~
tJJ
0\
b-.
~
u..
c
tf.l
en:::'
~:;;
..,IT
0>
~I
~n
(/lO
<::=
:gg.
0;::
:+~
<:0.
0-'"
P'
C;'
0-
1:1
'"'
~.
~
~
S'
5'
(fQ
~
o~Q
= rIl J>)
;;! .Q ~
>
l:Q~
"1 :::I
fA c::l.
rIltO
I~l:t
l-l
~~
;;!.2
t
~rIl
"1 ::I
'" p,
(';) 10
~ ....
"1
l;Y
l:l:!~
., (';)
fI>.Q
~
~S
"1 =' ,0
fA Co
(';) q-
--'=
" W
(';)
.Q
=
"1
fI>
~
1Il(';)
;;!6, to
(';)
~ l:t
oj>..
(';)
.Q
l!l
;;!
>
=~
., ::I
fA Co ~
(';)
~ =
~ =
(';) ~
,Q
III
"I
'"
~
b
c;::.>
w
o
o
z
o
<+
~
;t
~:
(JQ
0'
o
~.
g
~
p.
<n
g
~
.....
<n
g
C1l
P.
~.
w:
.g
o
rt
~
o
.....
.....
t3
o
e
~ 0,0,0,010,01010,01010,0101010 JO ,0[0
It-.-f loor"l ~ ~ ~'T< ~ ~ ........ ...... ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ b b b I ~ .' b b b b b b b b b b b
~ 0 a 0 ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ w N ~
~~~~~~NI I I I 11 r 1 Ii'
E':'"031'"O~~bE':~~~~d'~Q~ w
o ~ 3 a ~ ~ 0 ~ d ~ < ~ 8 ~ ~ =. ~
g !!l. > 'g I ~ >-i 0; ~ 0 ~ !} ~ .... 8 e. g.
<~'1:l.... E':o:>.oO'"O'"OG'1:l"'::>;In G. (..<>
~~l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
!}N~~ ~6:8'~ 3 ~~ g ~~ g ~.~~
~~E~!I~~~~I~i ~~~~
p: ~ ~ w ::r ~ CI.l g 0 5. ~ ~ S' 0
I '"d .g' g g q' ~!! '1:l s g. n ~ G ~
CI.l (3 (J " G ~ d o. ~ g::1 I 0 ~ '-'
"2"'CI.l~ ::1 tt....'" >to~
! i t~ ~~ i~~
~ ~ g. ~
~ .g'q
~ c
.g
,
~
~
en
~
tIj
D
ij
~
?j
~
fQ ~ :r: :r:
o 0 ~ 9
0\ ~ N "'"""'
r I . I
tJ '"0 > en
('il ""1 0 "d
000 "'1
o a- 0; S'
~ ~ g 0:
~ .-+ ~
::1. C'i> '"0 en
~. ~ ~ [
~ ~ g.~.
:3' ::> ::1 "
~ (..<> ~
a-::;: ~
~ g ~
g
g.
o
::>
1611822
~'Tl~l7j
ooo:g
~ 13 ::: ';""
1 t 1 "'r1
61 g: S ;:j'
~ ~ rl '"
~O=r'd
~ @ [ 9
'g. g 9' g.
gAO<I:::I
... ~ g
'a.
g e
g ::l
~ !
-- - ~N~W_-W""'W~WWW~~~_N_WW_~
OONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oo~ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>;j
P>
(JQ
o
~
o
....
'0
."
.,
sr
"
0.
-
Vt
!Vol>-
00
00
00
o
o
P-
o
o
01>-
o
o
~O'I~
000
000
~-,....
~ooOC>:l
0000
0000
~..........
"",00000
0000
0000
.....
co
o
o
.....
co
o
o
W
0'\0'1
o 0
00
W
0'\0\
00
00
W
0'\ 0
o 0
o 0
W
0\ 0
00
o 0
~
;::,
o
~
o
....
....
~~N ~~~W~ ~ ~~~~N N~ ~ ~ ~~
~N~CO~N~~O~~CO~NOPCO~~~O~N~~~~~
bb~OQbOQOQQo=ooo=obob==bo=ob
0000000000000000000000000000
o
~
....
....
:.;,
w
.....
~
~0I>-
o 0
o 0
00
o
o
0\
o
o
-l'>
o
o
~ .....
~O\tv
000
000
'I
~CON ~~~w~ ~ ~~~~N N~ ~ ~~~~
~N~CO~N~NO~~CO~~OO~~~~O~N~_~~~
=Q~bobbQbQQbbobbOOQbOQbbobo=
0000000000000000000000000000
.....
...... 0\
tvC>:lO\
ONO
o Vt 0
..... ......
tv -!>-
b b
o 0
-
~
o
o
......-1>0.....
O\OO~tv
0000
0000
.....
...... 0'1
tv 00 0\
ONO
OVlO
..... ......
tv 01>-
00
00
.....
~
o
o
........~~
0'100 tv tv
0000
0000
N
W
\00\0\
~OO
VI 0 0
...... tv
00 .....
00
00
tv
W
\00101
~OO
Vtoo
......tv
00 ......
00
00
0\
o
o
~
tvI--'
0'1 tv
v.o
00
tv..... 01>-
0I>-~00
000
000
..... ..... .....
~OO~O\OO
00000
00000
0\
o
o
tv
tv.....
0\ tv
v.o
00
~Nt
000
000
..... ..... I--'
tv 00 0'10\ 00
00000
00000
~
o
o
~
~
o
o
tv
G\
o
o
~
01
o
o
~
"'"
o
o
tv
.\>.
o
o
Cf.l
~=-
0.'
....
.........
-..)..
.1;r;I
~I
(Q
!3-~
CO'=
1:"'=
..0'&
c__
0:
'"
"<l
1;'
'"
i::'l
~
g.
0<1
~ (')
o~_
I: ~ ~
;;! .Q en
>
~~
.... =
en C.
fl>~
~q
....
~~
"1 fl>
<Il"c
>
~g
;;! li
~ to
~ q
N
~~
;;1,8
~
~~
;;! [ ~
.2:
~ ~
fl>
..Q
~
....
en
~
1Il~
;;! a ~
Q
-E: ....
....
::o~
Q
,.Q
P:l
;;:!
>
1:LlS:
t:! a ~
C'i>
~ :l
::0 :::
~ !:!.
.Q
~
;;!
0'1
o
o
0'\
o
o
z
o
ff
g
~:
()Q
0-
~
o
t:l
~
p.
'"
P"'
f$
,....
'"
g
C>
p.
Er
e:
'"
>;
.g
o
;:+
~
p
(:,
.s
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
I I 0\
>- >-0 0
!t ~ to
rl- g 0
q 0' ~
~ 03. 0
g g, --g
~ t<1 R
~. J ~
~ g
o n.
<7 f:!
~
&.
o
t:1
'"
tottltdto~tdtd~~~~~
g\09.....(;:!;o~~..........ooo
\0 ~ W N ..... N a \0 ~ ~
I I l' l' I J t I .
OtdOen!fen~~"l;1"l;1"l;1~~
g-~~g] @e S'~~] 8.1l.
~ :; "'1 >- }4. .- 5. ~"\j () q a
_"~". ~ ~ () EJ' t<l ~ 0" 0 ~ ... 0 01:l
- () to 0 ~ a ~ '1:l '1:l e. 8 '0 :y;
a: o~ >-.g ~"JJ ~ ;;j ~ ~ n ~ ~
Qq g ~ ~ g 5. o. Q !? ~ 0 0
Qa!=j'~ ~~~g::qg ~... a
~ o' 5..... e. '"d Q '" d. " ~~,
::f ::I O"tl ~ g Cl S' ~
o ~ "I::'. [ O"tl..... 0
g. ~ El S' f;;l ~~. g
::I", PoQqdtd "
f/l> ~en"'>- [
'Tj e. g
~ g >-
a g
"
fJ)
SSg Q~
~ W 7' ';'()
Ot;lO
~ .a ~
~. ~ ::.
o 3 1:.
e. g rl
Q ~ ~
~ g' ~
~ It a'
o. S'
g QQ
W.....NWNNNNWNNWNNW_N=N
0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000
I-d
~
(tel
o
0'1
o
H:I
\0
...... ......
=lV=
000
000
...... -
ooNlXl
000
000
'1:l
::I.
:::I
~
Po
s
o
j;)
Z
~
0'1
o
o
-
=
o
o
- -
NO'I
00
o 0
-
N
o
o
.....
N
o
o
N_
.j>..o
o 0
00
N_
.j>..o
00
00
00
o
o
00
<:>
o
.j>..
o
o
.j>..
o
o
19
o
g:
{f.l
::r'
~
.!)l.
tJ\
tJ\
o
o
.!)l.
tJ\
!.II
o
o
tJ\
.... N
.;.. .j>..
N 0
tJ\ 0
tJ\
.... N
o/ll. -'"
N 0
tJ\ 0
tJ\
0'1
F'
-4
tJ\
tJ\
0'1
?'
-4
VI
VI
-4
po
tJ\
C
tJ\
......
00
111
o
1611822
::El ::El en en en I;ll
U) I;ll l:5 ~ rg ~
S8\Oowt:
I . r 1
~ ~
~ ~
U) U)
'< c
s-:g
:3 <<
~~
~~ ~
~ ~
:::I '"
El
n
"
f/l>
~
;:l
Qq
~~$'
n 2 '<:J
"'"' .... ~
7;l ~ F;o
g 7;l
grxG'l
" g 0
~ " &t
~ ~
2: e
~ El:
o
t:S
to
CIl
::-!::i'
7lS
..... ..
~C:1
Q I I
C} 00 -.
El .!..Q
5' ~a
0.... .....-.
\0::1
~ as:
o ..,..2-
li'--
a'
g
....
0'1
o
o
0\
<:>
o
-
N
o
o
-
N
o
o
N
~
.... l-.l........,... N....
""" ""'po~OO",,"N""
111 coocccc
00000000
N
)..
~ ~~~P:;~~;l>-
th boo=obo
o c::>oooooc
.... w....w WO'l........ ....N,... N....
OON OONN O'I"""O'IOONOON,,,,"QON ",,"00 ",,"0
QCCCCCC~ccccbcbcccc
0000000000000000000
C)
t!
~
~
......
0\ 00
o 0
o 0
,.... -
NO\
00
00
~N~~~?,~~~~QO~~OO~",,"QO~~
ococoo01l10bbbobbcccb
0000000000000000000
,....
N......
au,
00
.....
o
o
o
-
N -...l
ou,
00
- -,....
NIVIV
000
000
-
IV
o
o
.....
N
o
o
00
o
o
-..... .....
IV IV IV
000
000
-
IV
o
o
.....
!'.l
o
o
00
o
o
00
o
o
IV
o
o
o
00
o
o
~!:i
00
o 0
00
o
o
00
o
o
IV
o
o
o
00
o
<:)
IV .j>..
IV-...l
o 0
o 0
!Xl
<:)
o
.j>..WIVWulN_
0000000
0000000
.....
N
o
o
-
N
o
o
..... -
00 00
o 0
o 0
- .....
0000
00
00
,....
OQ
o
o
-
00
o
o
.j>..
o
o
~ ()
g~tr
;;! ,g ~
~
t:I:l!\l
;A So
!\l ,0
g,
- :t
....
lIi~
;;!"c
~
~[
!\l ,0
~ ....
'1
N
~~
;;!,g
>
~ft
'"'l ::I to
'" Q.
!\l ....
Q. .,
~ ~
!\l
,Q
lI:
;;!
~
l:l:l!\l
'1 ::I
<IJ Cl- to
!\l
~ q-
~ """
!\l
..Q
::c
;A
>-
~s:
'1 ::l
"" Q. >-
!\l
~ ::I
::I
~ =
!\l ~
..0
lI:
;;!"
.j>..
o
o
~
~
i
S'
()Q
0'
o
fJ..
13
R
~
1;:;'
Q
'"
n
p..
a'
So
1;:;'
.g
o
i4
~
o
.....
.....
'N
(:,
.s
10,0
o 0
VI V>
I I
o 0
W N
I ~
~ ;;
~ ~
t<l>"Ij
~. ~
a I
o' ~
'7 S.
:;J ~
~ ~
!<l> Ii
~ ~
g. ~
::l g
J50 (1
~ 'S
'" ~
ffi~i386
8 ~ t;; t::) ~
I t I I I
i[~[~
~~~ij~
i i ~ g
a. ~ 6l ,go
~ o' ;J ii'
U! t1 !'l" ~
.g Po <II
.;;;' -<
a ;;j
(> <II
::l
~
.-,
~ I-j( ~
00\0
~ ~ ';'
I I 0
~ ~ 9-
~ ~ q
~::T~
c=J [ "
~ g: ~
Po Qq ~
~ ~ g
e. g, g.
a ~ t1
g (> ~
~ a -.
g !!!. e.
'" ~
~ ~ ~
000
~ W N
I I I
"l;1 >"Ij 'Tj
s ~. ;f
5' 5' 5'
tTl -< ~
Po g. <>
~ oq' a.
S-. g, g
o 0 V>
t:1 t1 0
~ 8-
1 g
'"
::J"'l"'Tj'Tj"'Tj
o g g g ~
..... N \0 W N
I I I 1
'Tj 5' trJ () 'I:l
~'o.. n~, a, 0 ~.
::I ~
~gaan~
< r+ &;" a ;.
~.fg:ga
g ~ ). ~ g'
~ ~ ~ ~
~ a ~ ~
ii
"
p
~
'Tj t<1 tTl
)>.0.0
000
..... w .....
I I I
e'JfJ
~ ~ ~,
CI.l " ::l
~ ~ %
S d a
~ ~ ~
::I' ~
~ e.
!}]
~ g
....
{f.l
tTl t<l tIl tTl tIl tTl U!::l"
~ ~ ~ R' R' R' R'$
~ ta CIJ Ei3 t3 (J C3..
~ (5 ~ ~ ':' ~ :"n
I , I J 3 > >-0'
"0", >- tTl n ~ ~~
~ a tI g -, \ 1
~ n()~~go
8.....oa():::Iv...::I
~ il' g 0 ::J fl. ;;;-g.
~5l~~~<T~;
~ ~ 8.g 3.9
~. &. -. '< "
-, ~ !:l
R g ~
~ ~
<> v
() -.
S w
_. ~
9. g
El ...
to ~
~. ea
n <:
NtvNNNtvNN~""'N!'.lNNWWNN NN- NWNNW
oooooooou,u,o-OOOOOOOOOu,oooooo
00000000000......0000000000000000
u) ,....
ON
00
00
I-d
~
C1l
-...l
o
H:I
\0
W .....
o N
00
o 0
.....
Noo
00
00
-
Noo
o 0
00
00
o
o
'1:l
'"
~.
CD
Po
co
o
o
:=:
;:::,
i5
o
~
~
N,....~
ONN
000
000
N_~
ONN
000
000
~ .....
OOWN
000
000
..... ,.....
00 W N
COO
000
00
o
o
00
o
o
~ ,....
No
o 0
00
,.... ,....
No
00
00
.j>..
o
o
W
o
o
0,
o
o
0'1
o
o
.j:>.
u,
o
v)
OOWoo
~gg
N .....
..... IX> 0,
000
000
..... ,....
N V\ N
000
000
.....
IV
o
o
00
o
o
--.l
U,
o
.j>..
o
o
w
o
o
.j:>.
u,
o
W
exlWoo
0,00
-...loo
N _
......000,
000
000
,.... .....
NlIlN
000
000
00
o
o
00
o
o
......
1Il 0'1
00
o 0
..... -
00 N
o 0
o 0
,....
N
o
o
......
N
o
o
00
o
o
-
N
o
o
.....
000\
o 0
o 0
.....
00
o
o
00
o
o
,....
N
o
o
N
0,
U,
o
-
00
o
o
...... w ~
0-4-'" 0\ N
Ou,ooo
00000
- Ul _
ooO-...l.j>..O'IN
bbthboo
00000.0
tJlNNW....~........ ~Nw....~l-.l
OQO....NNN?'Ow;l>-o\QOtJlN"""~N......~
bbbbcbobbtJIbo,~Qbbbbb
00000000000......0000000
o
~
,...
.....
~
tv
0\
U,
o
.....
00
o
o
~~"""~~~~~
btJIctJJbbbb
000<:10000
~~~~~~....~ ~NW""~N ~ O\~....~~
gggggg~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
o
o
o
.....
o
o
o
1611
B 22
I
~
co
o
o
~~Q
Cl l'lI l:)
;;l ..Q ~
~
~[
C1l t::J
~ ....
"l
....
~~
;A..2
>
~;:
;;l E.
(1) ,0
---.e: ....
"f
N
~~
1oO"Q
~
~~
., ::I ,0
'" Q.
(1) ....
~ "'l
~ W
..Q
~
>
=~
;;'l p.. ,0
~
~ ....
"'l
~ """
l'lI
..Q
=
til
>-
/:t1g
""II ::I
"" Q. >-
Q
Q. =
~ =
I::
~ =-
..Q
=
;;'l
-
00
o
o
z
o
~
::;3
~:
()Q
0'
(1
Fl.
5'
t:l
~
p.
!}
~
,....
'"
p
'"
~
p.
s'
f.
>-t
(1)
';:j
o
;:+
~
Z
~
"f:)
(:,
.s
C/1 !Zl rt.I
~rgrg
,... \0 .....
I I J
t;l td 7;l
~. ~ ~
e: ~
U) l:l 0
() {Ill I:I1
[~s.
~'<:J
>-l.tJ 8
R ~ 9
l:l ....
S' 0
QQ ::1.
9
g
o
::J
~ ~IO 10 ,0 1010
~ ~~tI::tt:~
~ C/1!ZlU)I:/lC/1
.1.!-r!-..bbb
~ )-01 \0 t'-J ........
t(> ~ I I I I I
~~g~~~~
~~f}Q[.G-~
~da.g'Tj~~
g,U)Qg.Efa~
it R> = en ~ '"
~1:I1.g~~l:/lif
~ij~<<! ij:
~ [ ~
I ·
~
HHH~H
,0 ,0 ,0 10 10
l:E tj t;l ,..... .-
;S. 0 0 :g 'P
'66Vl8
~ 00 N I ,
J · I ~ Cf.)
~.G-dlp:~
'l' '<:J 8 ~ %
~I~e.;'"d
!f!rQ~r~
~~.g 'Tj:O
"" ~
~ a. g 0; ::I,
rfgi!~g
9 '" '" U) g,
() R> ~ 0
~ ~ jJ l:l
q ~.
g
El
C>
C>
CIl
(0,0,0,0,010,010 (0101010 log
1--11 J-oI ~ r-a )-01 ~ ........ """" ~ 0 0' 0 0.1
00 U\ w tv l--I )o-ol ~ ~ 0 \0 00 0\ 'fA
b b b b ~ b 6 b b b b b 0\1
- ........ - W 0 ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~I
I I . J I I I I I I I i-"
'Tj to ). 'Tj '7:l >- t;l ::r: 61 '"d t"' 'Tj ::El~
@. g, ~ ~' ~ "" -< :;: ~ ~ g. ~r ~ g
l-;je:Og~;J ~ 'Tj1:!..8", g-l:/lqE:t.
~::l ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ n ~=
~ Qq j:t ~ 0. c; '::l 't:J 1=:' :, 0 '::l Ii' =
g () n' q .?:- ~ ~ ~ C1l G' '<:J :>. to 8-
o. g.if >-l V~::q cl. El ~ 5. ~ ~~--
g ~ ::I.!1 :;:::r: n ~ q ::t. 0
2 ::I..., () '< O::t. 0 0
:f () i:i: g 9 to El- :f ~. ~ [;l to
5. ~ q - 5 El l:l '"d" f/l>
E!!l:lrt.l ~r:>.::.~~i! t<1
:3 '< <:: 0' C" :3 g o' .Q
o g '" ~ ~ 0 "l:l f;;l
g ~ () 0 ~ l:l r:>. '" ~
~ to ~8g.g~ 8
o ~ 0 tI) U) 9
ErU):::J r+
5' g
;3 p.
'1:l
>0'
C>
WWNNNW_ NN-NN.....!'.lNWNWWNWN.....N_ -'"
0000U,00000000U,00000000000~u,0
OOQooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I-d
d'cl
~
00
~
\0
0'1
o
o
-
00
o
o
~
o
o
4'
~.
'"
0.
......
tv
o
o
~
......
......
C)
~
o
......
~
N_w
.j>.../:>o
000
000
N
- -
O'IWlo.)
o~u,
0-...10
N
.j>..0
00
o 0
N
.!:> 0
00
o 0
-...... ......
NN\Ooo
0000
0000
- >-'
tvoo\QOO
0000
0000
.....
tv 00
00
o 0
-
Noo
00
00
.....
tv
o
o
>-'
o
o
o
-
N./:>
00
o 0
......
00
o
o
N-w
.j>...j:>..~
000
000
N
- -
o\WN
o:':"u,
0-...10
.......... -
N tv 0
000
o 0 0
-
N .p..
00
00
.....
!Xl 00
o 0
o 0
IV
o
U,
o
N
-
~oo
o 0
o 0
-
N
o
o
-
N
o
o
>-' N
N \Q .j>..
000
000
N
o
U,
o
N
.....
o 00
o 0
00
-
N
<::,
o
-
N
o
o
N\O~
000
000
N
0\
U,
o
.....
IX> tv
......j>..wO\
0000
0000
-
o
o
o
>-'
o
o
o
0\
o
o
N
0\
U,
o
-
ooN......
--"'NO\
0000
0000
-
o
o
o
......
o
o
o
0\
o
o
0\
\a 0\
00
o 0
-
ooN
-4 .j>..
00
o 0
00
o
o
-
o
o
o
>-'
tv
o
o
0\
\a 0'1
00
0<0
.....
OON
-4 .j>..
00
00
00
o
o
......
o
o
o
.....
N
o
o
,... ......
?'~~~~O\O\~~~O\~~~~~~oo~
ooobbbb~~bbbobbbQbo
QOOOOOO......OOOOOQ~QOQQ
w........ _w W
ONN",,"OOO\O~
oobbbboo
OOOOQOoo
C)
~
......
~
~
........ ~~ ~O\.... ~NNN....~ ....~w~.... ....w W
QON~",,"O\O'IO\-PONO\?,OO~O\ONOONNONN~QOO\ON
QboQQob~~bbQbcbQob=boCQbb=ob
ooooooo~OOOOOOOOQQQOOOOOQOOO
161 1 82 2
00
o
o
~~p
;;JZ
~
~C'l>
., ::I
(,'j 0.
C'l>tO
0....
.,
,...
~~
., C'l>
<1>..0
~
~C'l>
;;! l5.
C'l>tO
Q.tj
N
~~
;;I,Q
>
~S
;;IS-tO
g.q-
~w
C'l>
,Q
~
.,
'"
>
l:!Ift
., ::I
'" g. to
p.....
.,
~o/:l.
C'l>
,Q
~
ih
~
1IlS"
., ::I
...,~>
Q..g
~g
..Q-
=:
.,
'"
z
o
~
~
o
-
~
'i3
(:,
.s
I
IJQ
0'
o
~
g
~
p.
8:
::p
to'
~
<1>
P.
S.
8:
'"
.g
o
;:+
'"d
cI'ii
o
\0
o
H:I
\D
F-<
~ ~
~ ~
....
00
td
11.
c
-
00
....
N
111
o
tJ\
~
~
VI
00
VI
\0
io
N
'1:l
;:l,
a
<1
Q.
....
00 0\
.... 0
o N
~ b
<:) 0
,....
~ 0\
o )-0
00 0
lit =
o 0
....
.... N
;... N
o \0
~ ;:
00 W
....
.... N
l-a tJ
""" """
o ;--l
Bi 1;)
z
......
~
:=:
.....
o
~
-
~
1611822
10
=:
III
:4-
~
~
~
o
a-
lii
"'"
~
o
\0
~
......
~
o
~
Cf.l
~ ~~
Cll I;ll a;
8 o.
I ~()
:r: ..d t
'< ~......
Ii' (;l n
~ '" 0
~ ~g.
16 ,,~
~ 98.,
g 2:::......
~ S'
R> g
;5, El
t:1 0
o "
-5' F;o
[i.
::l
OQ
~
:i
IVW
00
00
fj
......
~
......
tJ\
\0
i-<
b
o
......
OOlh
o 0
o 0
01
~
N
b
<::>
......
OOlh
00
o 0
~
-..J
P.
~
~
01
~
--t
....
00 tJ\
b b
00
....
:0 V'
00
<::> 0
~ ()
Cl~5'
~ ro In
.!!:L..Q In
>-
~s
too> Ii
1':1,0
~t:t
....
l:!:l~
(;l~
>-
~I
~~
N
~~
"'f ro
tIl,.Q
>-
~g
(;l =
~~
~"'f
~w
t;)
,.Q
~
;;!
>-
~g
;;! Ii
2~
~"""
l1>
,.Q
II:
;;J
;;;;
=g
.., ::I
tile.>
ro ::I
~::I
~=:
ro $>>
"c-
~
;;l
1611
822
ADMINISTRATION FOR DECEMBER 2010
Budget Report: Current Advalorem - $1,346,300-lReserves - $77,006.62
Actual Operating Expenses - $ 156,029.77/Tota1 Available- $206,719.01 (This is a
combination ofthe Operating Expense Balance of$$192,699.01 and Capital Outlay
Balance of$14,020)
Significant Purchases: None
Goals Progress Report: The DOF Grant Application is set to go before the Board of
County Commissioners on 1-11-11. The payment on the engines was processed in the
amount of $42,689.11. Ochopee Fh-e Control District Advisory Board member Ronald
Gilbert is up for renewal a recommendation to renew him and a letter has to be submitted
to the Board of County Commissioners per Ian Mitchell the Executive Manager for the
BCC.
Number of Meetings Attended: 12/7/10 Everglades City Council Meeting
5:30PM/12/09/10 Meeting with Dan Sununers/12/16/10 Staff Meeting 9AivI/12/17/IO
cm Meeting/12/201l 0 OFCD Advisory Board Meeting 6PM
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE & REPAIR: None RepOlied
Everglades City Station Report
Ochopee Station Report
Costs by Project With Total
161 1
OPERATIONS REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2010
Structure Fires
o
Vehicle Fires
1
Brush Fires
5
Auto Accidents
15
EMS Calls Excluding Vehicle Accidents 18
Miscellaneous Fire Calls (Trash1 Etc.. .) 3
Special Services Calls 0
1-75 Calls for December:
Brush Fires 1
Auto Accidents 9
EMS Calls 2
Total 12
Out ofa total of 42 calls for the month of December 2010 twelve were on I-75 making
that 28% of the call load.
8 22
I-
et::
o
a..
LJ.J
0::::
V)
0::-
~
LJ.J
0:::
o
Z
<(
l.!.J
U
Z
<(
Z
I.U
I-
Z
;;(
~~
UJO
-lC'\!
Uo:::
:r:UJ
UJCQ
>~
>-UJ
-JU
IUJ
1-0
20:::
00
~u.
t;
cr:::
I-
~
o
-l
o
0::
I-
Z
o
U
UJ
0::::
L!..
t.U
lLJ
a.
o
:r:
u
o
I-
Z
>-UJ
~~
-<(
~Cl.
UJ UJ
0:::0
>-
co
Vlcr::
0:::0
-0
~Z
UJUJ
0:::>
I-UJUJ
Z;?::~~
UJ!:;:<(U
~~ZI1J
~~~O
<(>.?::~
Cl.UJ<(_
~g:~C!i
wUJ
>u
-Z
!:;:<(
I-Z
Zw
wI-
~.?::
0:::<(
Cl.~
j!:
VI
UJ
VI
VI
<(
~
z
::>
o
u
00
~
!::!
:I:
w
>
VI
UJ
~
~
a
<(
o
0:::
LU
...J
U
:I:
L!J
>
W
...J
!::!
:r:
w
>!D
~u
:<(~
au
~
L1'l
o
o
o
(!)
~
Ul
o
50
-lw
LJ..0
Ow
Ow
<(2
::1
M
o
o
o
(!)
~
u
UJ
:r:
U
::;
~
U"J
<
Ul
o
50
-lw
LJ..0
Ow
ow
<(2
~
U"J
Q
50
u:w
ofa
OUJ
<2
UJ
S
o Z co
00-,
~ ~ ~
l!J <l: U
8 f;: 2
o l.U l!J
eo <1)Z 0
o 09 01
~ ~~ ~
gallDO~ &
<(<1)<0<:(
~U01l.UZU)O::N
uOQzo::'<t~U)
~<:(8G~g2g
~a~~~:g~cr:
o
o
o
o
(!)
~
U
w
:r:
U
::J
~
to
o
00
o
o
o
(!)
~
U
UJ
:r:
U
>-
-l
<(
Q
~
Ul
o
50
-lw
lJ..0
Ow
Ow
<(2
~
U"J
o
50
-lw
lJ..0
Ow
Ow
<(2
0'1
N
M
M
o
o
o
(!)
o
UJ
:r:
U
~
<(
UJ
W
Ul
~
U
w
o
::;
<(
o
~
Ul
o
50
-lw
lJ..0
Ow
ow
<(2
'<t
to
.-l
o
o
o
(!)
o
w
:r:
U
~
<(
w
w
Ul
~
u
UJ
:r:
U
::;
<(
o
~
Ul
Q
::::lo
-lw
LJ..0
Ow
Ow
<(2
w
2: 0
o 0
o W ~ tO~
~ <i! <i! ~L!j
u. 2 2 o!;1
~ Q Q::::liE
o ~ ~ cc>
N 2: Z ~lJ..
20 rlC!: OC!: Bio
01.0 <1)~ lOw ;:)0
E?;O'lUJ2:2'<tffi!zoo~;;;
O~O -'<ta.-<O~a
~~8G:g82m8~fC
(;)i)~iil~~ir~~~~
o
o
o
o
(!)
o
w
:r:
U
~
<(
w
w
Ul
~
u
UJ
:r:
u
::;
<(
o
~
VI
o
50
-lw
LLO
Ow
OUJ
<(2
1O .-.
~~
~u
u-
;:)J:
f;:~
J:u.
tIlO
::lCl
ct:~
c:l1O
o
~fC
~~
o
o
o
o
(!)
~
U
UJ
:r:
U
::;
<(
o
~
Ul
o
50
~UJ
LLO
Ow
Ow
<(2
N
o'<t
too
!;(~
08
CON
ct:
~
~
C!:
::l
o
J:
o
2
o
o
o
(!)
~
U
w
:r:
U
:::;
~
o
~
Ul
o
50
-Jw
LLO
Ow
ow
<(2:
1611 B a
r-..
rl
N D
rl II')
o 0
o 0
o 0
(!) (!)
o
w
:r:
U
~
<(
w
w
Ul
~
o
w
:r:
U
~
<i:
Q
~
U
lJ.J
:r:
U
::;
~
Ul
<(
U"J
o
30
-Jw
LJ..0
Ow
Ow
<:(2:
-'
UJ
2:
o
j::
Ci
UJ 0
0... Ul
@ o~
o <00
o~rl!:;::~r--
tou.oou.'</"
u.. 010.. 'f
~~,(ro..gJN
J:OU::lOU
UN () ,,........, (1
CO
~
1611 B 2a
Equipment Total Costs
f(q()
Page 1 0:f2
Go. er County
~~#"~~";!i"~i<~",
I~,: ,.'", " 't
.".ee.
Managernerlt
;_ ~ _..1
.. -...-.-:
~-~.
. .. ........
1fi";( .
J2U '~.,
~ FLEET STAFF
~~
EMAJL US
ii '"
fLEET SHO~ J.. PM S~DULI:j
I (I~ations and OpmliQn llQlIls fUEL lOC,\ nONS Preventive Maintenance Prol!l'aJj)
:.,,:,/- A:
':y ,c',~ ~ _ ' ,.'"
~..; GLOBAL.FLEET ,:,i./;
fQBM1! VOYAGER FUEL CARD PIC'flJli..E GALLERY !:;USTOi\I1:R SURVEY
F'u~ling Site tin!:
Details for Work Order Number 0000087620 on 1998 INTERNATIONAL 4900
Date In: 01/01/2011 Date Out: /0/0 Total Cost: $1,435.47 Mileage: 45410
Click on Repair Code for Details
Maint(~!.llli,H~f; NOtl~S: Ol/04120lt 06:07
STREETSIDE WORK STATION REMOTE THROTTLE INOPERATIVE...
233- RUN OUT TO EVERGLADES CITY. HAD LAPTOP WITH ME IN HOPES THAT TIDS
WAS A CUMlVIINS
UNIT. IT 'VAS IN FACT AN OLDER INTERNATIONAL. I DID NOT HAVE THE
EQUIPMENT NUMBER PRIOR TO MY ARRlV AL. DISASSEMBLE CONTROL PANEL TO
GAIN ACCESS TO THE FLYBY WIRE THROTTLE ASSY.
CRE'V THOUGHT THAT THE CONTROL MAY BE BROKEN FROM GuYS OVER
TURNING THE KNOB.
UNPLUG THROTTLE ASSEMBLY. REMOVE THE MECHANICAL PART OF THE
CONTROL TO THE SENSOR. THE KNOB WILL MAKE TWO COMPLETE TURNS TO
COlVIPLETE A QUARTER TURN SWEEP OF THE SENSOR. IT IS SET UP CORRECTLY
AND WILL CLUTCH OUT BEFORE lIARMlNG THE SENSOR.
ECM 5 VOLTS ARE PRESENT AS WELL AS THE GROUND. PLUG THE THROTTLE BACK
IN AND SWEEP SWITCH. THE SIGNAL RETURN VOLTAGE VARIES UP AND DOWN AS
DESIGNED.
AT TillS POINT I HAVE NO PIN OUT SCHEMATICS. ALSO I DO NOT KNOW IF TIDS
CIRCUIT RUNS THROUGH ANYTIDNG ELSE BEFORE IT RETURNS TO THE ECM.
THERE IS A LIGHT NEXT TO THE CONTROL THAT STATES NOT TO THROTTLE UP
UNLESS IT IS LIT. IT NEVER DID ILLUMINATE WHILE I WAS THERE. I ASKED THE
CREW IF I WAS MISSlNG ANYTHING, THEY HAD NO ANSWERS FOR ME.
I INFORMED THEM TO BRING THE UNIT INTO FLEET FOR FURTHER DIAGNOSES ON
TUESDAY. .
221-diagnos remote throttle complaint
had several codes set for remote throttle, cleared codes, when using remote, codes reset
1611 B 22
Equipment Total Costs
60(Po
Page 2 of2
no wiring diagrams available
traced problem out to poor ground on parking brake circuit
fill tank back up with water and test pump....working normally now
2S1-ASSIST with diagnostics
2S3-assist with diagnostics
217-made several phone calIs to tech support
team effort
Labor Costs: Total Hours: 22.83000 Total Amount: $1,435.47
REPAIR CODE DATE IN DATE HOURS COST
OUT
8730000020BN 01101/2011 01/01/2011 3,00000 $265.50
2044000001Bt'l 01/0412011 01/04/2011 0.90500 $53,40
2044000001Bti 01/04/2011 01104/2011 0.01944 $1.15
2044TG0001 B~ 01104/2011 01/04/2011 2,59889 $153.33
2044TG0001 B~ 01/04/2011 01/04/2011 2.15111 $126.92
2044TG0001 BN 01/04/2011 01/04/2011 0.53639 $31.65
2044TG0001~t:i 01/05/2011 01/05/2011 0.95806 $56.53
2048MH0001 BN 01/05/2011 01/05/2011 1,68972 $99,69
2048MH00018/'o{ 01/05/2011 01/05/2011 0.95278 $56.21
201300000IBN 01/06/2011 /0/0 0.00000 SO,OO
2048MH0001BIi 0110612011 01/06/2011 1.40278 $82.76
2048MH0001 B"l 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 5.59222 $329,94
2052000001BN 01/06/2011 01/06/2011 3,02361 $178,39
Parts Costs: Total Amount: $0.00
OutSource/Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00
Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00
Credits: Total Amount: $0.00
Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here
REPAJR CODE DESCRIPTION
2044000001 BN 2 General RepaIr I Fuel System f System r DIagnosIs I Billable
I NOT SCHEDULED
2044TG0001BN 2 General Repair I Fuel Syslem I Throllle Body I Diagnosis I
Billable I NOT SCH
2048MH00018N 2 General RepaIr I Driveabllily I Mise Parts I Diagnosis I
Billable I NOT SCHED
Equipment Total Costs
Co, ~r Cou'nty
. "'~";il->?',^,~,~ ,._"".<l'."'..",..
[tj'~-;'"' . -~ '%"Q~'~ ._-.:rr,~\',2
~. ,
JZl'~~ ."
~ FLEETSrAFF
~
~
EM AIL U~
, ,".
:i-~:':~l,1 ~
J..';] GLOBAL-FLEEl:
~ VOYAGER FUEL CARD
FI~',lil)g Sit~ tin\:
Ii
PICTURE GALLERY CUSTOMER SURVEY
'.-- :',
~.~.:/;~
.") :-.' :':~
1611
B2?
Lifo I
Page 1 of2
F";: I Iti.., ,ut
\,,~ '
Managernent
J>__~___;
--':.-:e.
-.. .. -
~,.~.,
~
J~.'e~ ~
~ ~
fUEl LC C^ nONIi PM SCHEDULE
- , ) Preventive Maintenance ProllT8IIl
fLEET SHOP
l-ocotiQII; and OperoliQn lIQlns
Details for Work Order Number 0000087616 on 2006 INTERNATIONAL E-ONE
TRADITION
Date Ill: 12/31/2010 Date Out: /0/0 Total Cost: $4,218.92 Mileage: 50541
Click on Repail' Code for Details
Mahllem!HCe Notes: 12131/201 () I J :48
Coolant poring out the coolant tank cap at stops white smoke coming out the exhaust. just for one
sec. engine not over heating.
WAITING ON ORDERED POWER STEERING PARTS. check with parts--- parts are in parts
room.
217: block check engine okEGR system leak or plug and oil cooler pluged order parts
Removed EGR cooler and oil cooler. Had to remove Ale comp.and turbo.
259: Assisted tech 217 in replacing oil cooler and EGR cooler.
Labor Costs: Total Roul's: 23.78139 Total Amount: $1,403.11
REPAIR CODE DATE IN rggrE
2042000001BN 12/31/2010 12/31/2010
2045MH0160BN 12/31/2010 12/31/2010
2045CN0160BN 01/04/2011 01/0412011
2045CN0160BN 01/04/2011 01/04/2011
2045MH0160BN 01/04/2011 01/04/2011
2a45CN0100BN 01/05/2011 01/05/2011
2045CN0160BN 01/0512011 0110512011
2045CN0160B~ 01/0512011 01/05/2011
2015H50100BN 01/06/2011 /0/0
.2042MH0100B"l 01/06/2011 01/06/2011
.2042MH0100BN 01/08/2011 10/0
HOURS
1.70917
2,16722
0:06194
1.91972
0.98722
3.44528
6.28028
0.14500
0.00000
2.37417
0.00000
COST
$100.84
$127.81
$3,65
$113,26
$58.25
$203.27
$370.54
$8.56
$0.00
$140.08
SO,OO
1611
8 22
Equipment Total Costs
Page 2 of2
2042MH01558~ 01/06/2011 01/0612011
g045GN0100BN 01/06/2011 01106/2011
4,34750 $256.50
0.34389 $20,29
(56/
Parts Costs: Total Amount: $2,815.80
REPAIR CODe DATE IN DESCRIPTION EACH QTY COST
WSA051008N 12/31/2010 RESRVIOR/PWR.STEER.INT. $83,99 1 $83.99
2015H511008N 12/31/2010 HOSE $92.09 1 $92,09
2015H51100BN 12131/2010 HOSElPWR.STEER.INT. $12.07 1 $12,07
1047MH0100BN 01/04/2011 EGR COOLER EXH,GAS $1,921.15 1 51,921,15
RECIRC.JNJ.
2042H70100BS 01/04/2011 COOLER Oil W/GASKETS 5621,62 1 $621,62
1Q42F50010BN 01/0~/2011 ANTIFREEZE IN GALLON $14,27 4 $57.07
o CONTAINER
1045F10100BN 01/06/2011 FILTER OIL INTERNATIONAL $24.37 $24,37
EMS
1061 MH01558N 01/06/2011 CLEANER/DEGREASER_ALl $3,45 $3.45
PURPOSE
OutSource/Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00
Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00
Credits: Total Amount: $0.00
Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here
REPAIR CODE DESCRIPTION
20420000018N 2 General Repair [Goaling Engine I System I Diagnosis I
Billable [ NOT SCHEDULE
2045CN0100BN 2 General RepaIr I EngIne Block I Cooler Engine 0 I Replace I
Billable f NOT S
2045CN0160BN 2 General Repair I Engine Block I Cooler Engine 0 I Remove
[ Billable I NOT SCH
2045MH0160BN 2 General Repair r Engine Block J Mise Parts I Remove I
Billable I NOT SCHEDULE
~"".t..;.
Co 8Y County
,;.;;.;.;};' ' ..., '-'=Z:.i\:A.;.,.",..,:::,::~,~
() () f -:((VVI- <4(
l f) fOos'
Fleet Managernent
1611 a22
Page 1 of4
., Equiprllent T'otal Costs
'~...~~~
.-.......... -
.~e-.---.~--
~' :~
W r.(,,:-
HQMe FLEET STAF~
rh\<:
~
EMAlJ.US
~
fLEET SHO~
LQ,;,~tions and Op"i"tion HoOfs
~
jJ au
PM SCHEDtJUi
Mk 1.()CArJO~" PrC\'enli~e Maintenance l'IOI!raI1}
~
:i:.~1 ..=:..
Sh-J GLOBAL-FLEE'{
~ VOYAGERFUELCARD
1'11~lillg Sjt~ 1 ink
Ii
PICTURE GAI.I ERX CUSTOMER SURVEy
;C',
,;-.:.'
. "
Details for Work Order Number 0000087154 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3
Date In: 12/06/2010 Date Out: /0/0 Total Cost: $1,932.75 Mileage: 14319
Click on Repair Cod,~ for Details
lHninti:l.fllttt.' Notes: U/06/2010 09:03
Fire Water pump not worltingt lock up wWle pumping water. PMB
255: COOLANT SIGHT GLASS WAS MISSING AND COOLANT DRAINED OUT. INSTALLED PLUG AND FILLED
SYS. BRAKE FLUID WAS LOW ORDERED FLUID AND TOPPED OFF.
255: FOUND PUNIP ENG HAD VERY LITTLE OIL. SEPERATED ENG FROM WATER PUMP TO VERIFY ENG
WAS SIEZED. WATER PUMP SPINS FREE NEEDS NEW ENGINE.
255: BRAKE RESVOIR WAS EMPTY, CHECKED FOR LEAKS AND FOUND UNION LEAKING. TIGHTENED AND
CHECKED OK. WHILE LOOKING FOR LEAK FOUND WHEEL SEAL LEAKING. REMOVED AXLE AND HUB.
ORDERED BEARINGS AND SEALS.
12/0712010 @ 13:41:16
222: ADDED 12/13/2010 @ 15:57:00 SPOKE TO ALAN.
CHECK ENGINE FOR REPAIR DEPT CANNOT REPLACE AT THIS TJlIrlE.
StepEMSIFIRE PM Service TasksOKAdjustRepah'ReplaceCab, Body, Engine Compartment.lRoad test,ck
brllkes,retal'der,steering, etc. ok2Check gauges, waming Iights,buzzers.ok3Check high idle at 1500 rpm (diesels)ok4Check
door warning lights na5Check parking brake & operation.ok7Check AlCt vents & beater pel'formance.8Clean or i'eplace
AlC filtersna9Check extingUiSher, flare & triangle kit oklOInspect interior seats,seat belt,handles. okllJnspect storage
doors,covers,locks,strutsold2Check homs for propel' operation ok13Inspect glass,minor for cracks ok14Inspect wiper
blades/washer jetsreplace15Check exterior Iights,Iight bars,strobes etc.okrepairl6Note physical damage.ok17Checl{ tire
condition & wen, air to specs.ok18Replace tires> 4132ok19Inspect & lube door latches and bandIes ok20Inspect battery
box and hardware.ok21Test batteries and test charging system ok22Inspect battery shutoff switch and cables. ok23Inspect
02 bottle holders.na24Inspect fuel tanks,check vents and capsok25Inspect air filter replace ifnec.clean26Inspect coolant
system and hoses repalrcoolanttank27Inspect drive belts okUnder CarriageOkAdjust RepalrRepairReplace28Inspect
exhaust system ok29Inspect steering columnfcomponents,ok30Lube chassis as needed.lubed31Inspect fire pumptlines &
mounts if equippedneeds pumpeng32Inspect steering linkage for looseness ok33Inspect king pins and front end for wear
ok34Change engine oil and filters.replace35Inspect engine for oil leaks ok36Inspect startert cables, mounts.ok37Inspect
t"ans bellhousing loose bolts ok38Inspect oil line for leak and cracks ok39Inspect parking brake asm.ok40Inspect brake
actuator ok41Check brakestdrums for wear and rotors ok42Note brake pad/shoe conditIon (%)FRRear43Check slack
adjuster operationladjustment.ok44Adjust brakes if nec,ok45Inspect frame,mounts,accessoriesok46Inspect undercarriage
for damage Dr loss ok47Inspect all attachments, proper operation ok48Inspect springs for cracks,wom bushing ok49Check
axle U bolts, re-torque to specs.ok50Check U-joint and lube okIubedSlDrain air tanks & check auto bleed sys. ok52Inspect
ail' riding height/air bags na53Inspect air system for leaks ok54Test/inspect air dump system.na55Report
items,wirestaccessories that do notokbelong or look suspicious56Test shore line auto eject and chargingna57Sign off that
PM is completed okPMB & PMC SERVICE ITEMSOkAdjustRepah' ReplacelClean engine & frame of dlrt,oil irnec
ok2Test starter draw, test alt output and noteSt.Alt,3Test coolant with PH strip or refractometerreplace4Pressure test
coolant system okSReplace coolant ruters if equipped.na6Drain & flush cooling sys if necok7Change differential fluids if
nee. ok8Change transmission filters & fluids if nee. replacesee Alison manuals for fluid t)'Pe if unsure9Replace fuel filters
replacelOCheckltest emission system components.ok11Check/service air dryer operation.ok12Road test to verify
repalrs.ok12Check UV lamp if equipped.na13Sign off that PM is completed okFIRE
PUlHPSOkAdjustRepairReplace1Check pump interlocks2Run primeI' pump and check vacuum3Prime pump and check
operation.4Check pump panel lamps and gauges5Adjust pump packing ifnecessary.6Check laddei' racks &
interlocks7Check generator and HOv lights if equipped
:~quipment Total Costs
C---L' -/
i1( e./-c.o ()
Go> er County
-'~~"--~~",,-- .
~. ~- ~~'~~'_' i~
Fle1et
Managernent
~. .
frfl ;:J
~ .'
HOA~ ILEEfSTAFF
,\. .
::<'vl ~'
~J GLOBAL-flEET
FORMS VOY MER FUEL CARD
tl'"ling Sjl~ T.inJ.c
(~~
EMAIL US
....?\.
.... - ':,,-
.
FLEET SHOP
l.o(:atiOJl; and Oper;,tionlloulS
-
. :.;....;7
:".-. ','
-, .-
::-;-'.;';1
PICTURE GALLEl\Y CUSTOMER SlJRVEY
1611
Page 1 of1
-\Ii ... ""..'
. -,..-2j
._~--
" ---,
, .......,.._,........
~' - '-'
7
lli
FUEL toeA TION~ PM SC~EDUI;ij
Preventive MaIntenance Pro2lal)]
I~'" :-~
J
Details for Work Order Number 000008'7153 on 2008 FORD EXPEDITION EL
Date In: 12/06/2010 Date Out: 12/08/2010 Total Cost: $0.00 Mileage: 61597
Click 011 Repair Code for Details
M}\hilt~l.HHil~C Notes: lU0611010 OR::H
217: Accident damage to right side of rear bumper. Cheif do not wish to repair.
***Need to upload photos***
12/08/2010 @ 11:58:44 photo uploaded by 222
Labor Costs: Total Hours: Total Amount: $0.00
Parts Costs: Total Amount: $0.00
OutSource/Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00
Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00
Credits: Total Amount: $0.00
Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here
REPAIR CODe DESCRIPTION
A002000020BN A Accident I Cab & Sheet Mill System I Inspect 1 Bilfable I
NOT SCHEDULED
B2Z
i
I
I
I
I
;
I
!
I
!
i
I
I
r
j
I
. ,
1611
8 2,
They are aware of our budget deficit the County doesnJt want to do a millage increase and they
are looking right now at infusing our budget next year from general fund to offset our losses
without going to a millage increase whether they are going to do that from Pilt monies or other
funds 1 didn't ask. 1 do have a meeting with the Budget Director in the near future to find out
where we are at in our budget and what we are looking for that will include what we talked
about the Port Station construction being a priority and the new water tender we're going to
have to purchase. The current vehicle Is beyond its serviceable life. They are aware of that and
we talked about being at a bare bones budget this year, Once we sit down with the Budget
Director and he knows the exact numbers we are looking at plus our Reserves try to get those
back into a healthy form we'll get a better picture of it. He wants to start our budget process by
March. I asked him once we have this meeting and direction if he would come down and speak
to you as the board so that you can hear from the County what their intensions are plus how
they are going to supplement our budget. They really don't want to go to a millage increase.
The millage Increase in a MSTU effects many things in the County. They are really looking for a
way to undergird this to meet our needs. He mentioned we respond to areas that are not in
our District the 001 budget areas such as 1-75, There are areas we respond to that are not
directly in our District and off set for that coverage to undergird the budget. He told the Budget
Director that he would go back to the Advisory Board before anything is proposed to the Board
of County Commissioners. If they come up with an answer that the Advisory Board Is happy
with then whatever that direction is you could support it and give a recommendation. At least
they realize where we are at and they are not going to let us die on the vine. They are looking
for a way to supplement our budget without going to a millage increase which will please the
public and still finish the Port of the Islands project.
James Simmons - He Is all for them coming to the board meeting to bring them up to date. He
would also like for Jean Kungle to come in and fill them in as to what she is doing,
Chief McLaughlin -I have no idea what she is up to but I am sure 1 am going to find out.
James Simmons - He would like for her to come in and give them a report.
Chief MClaughlin - Let's wait until she meets with the people at the County then we can invite
her to the next board meeting then she can update you and get direction because we are not
privy to the conversations she is haVing with the County Manager and the Budget Director. He
was told that she has been asking questions by Mike from the County Managers Office. He
thinks after Wednesday when she meets with the OMB Office we could ask her down. He
thinks by March the budget director will meet with the board and we should have some solid
direction. He felt confident that they were going to have a solution without a millage increase.
Page 3
1611 B22
.. '
NEW BUSINESS:
Chief McLaughlin - The second brush truck Is In the process of being completed. He Is hoping
that it will be completed before the end of the month.
Our other brush truck is in the shop we spun a rod we had to get a new crank it's been on back
order for two weeks. All the reports coming out are stating that we are going to experience a
very bad wild fire season everything you know is dead or dying. The weather office is predicting
that we are going to see between four or six more cold fronts come through like the last ones
before March that being said with the winds and the dye off it's not that it affects us so much
because most of ours is either Park or State land and we don't have a lot of area that we have
to protect that's what we call urban Interface. We do have some mutual aid agreements. We
got a note from the State that this year is mimicking that 1985 wildfire season that killed one of
the Rangers out there, Marco Miranda, in the Estates. All the patterns, the dryness and the die
ofts are mimicking it so they are very concerned about the next 2 }oS to 3 months. We had both
engines go down. Of course they both happened right before the holidays everyone was on
break couldn't get anything out. Isles of Capri loaned us one of their engines for five days, Both
our reserve truck and frontline truck were out. The front line truck the inner cooler on the
turbo went out which I guess is common with these freightliners but getting the part during the
holidays was a problem but they did over night It and was repaired in two days once they
opened back up. The Pumper had an electrical problem a wire shorted out on the frame which
shut down the ability of the pump to engage and pump water which throws the transfer
SWitching from road to pump. It doesn't do any good to have an engine that the pump won't
engage and pump water. It took them three days to find that broken wire on the frame. We
got them both back on the same day. He has to give the shop credit they had people down
there working double time to get this done, We've been trying to put hard covers on the
trucks. We've talked to three tarp companies and we can't get anybody out here to do the
work. So we are getting some quotes for hard covers but they were too high. He feels we
could purchase the materials and manufacture the lids ourselves. The cost savings will be
$5,000 per truck. The guys are glad to do it and we have some guys that are really good at
welding so they will be done well. We are at a point that we need the covers on the trucks.
We've been trying to get a company out here we get quotes and then they never show up to do
the work. The tarps tear we have tried different type of deSigns and they all tear. The tarps are
not designed for highway running. We are going to the hard cover design and that should solve
the problem and these trucks have at least another ten years on them. We have our annual
hose testIng coming up next month. The hydrants will be done. We are hoping to have all the
hydrants done in the City, probably Plantation Island and maybe Copeland, I don't think
Chokoloskee by the Seafood Festival but if not we are shooting for the second week of February
completely finished all painted and done. We brought them up to the current NFPA Standards.
The new signs are up in front and the side ofthe building. We are putting up no parking signs in
front of the Fire Station at Port of the Islands because we've had some people parking there
and that's where they wash the trucks.
Page 4
16 J 1
8 22
;
Chief Mclaughlin - We can't really tow the vehicles until we put up the no parking signs.
Eventually we are going to take that second brush truck when the season gets bad and parking
it at that facility.
James Simmons - He wanted to know if the brush trucks belonged to Forestry.
Chief Mclaughlin - Yes both the brush trucks are on loan from Forestry. They give them to us
and we have to maintain them. We got the trucks for nothing. We have about $2,000 on one
of the trucks and $3,500 in the other one so total between the two trucks we have an
investment of $4500 to $5000 including the labor, If you were to go out and buy one knew it
would cost $180,000. I can't justify buying vehicles when I can get a 6x6 which are almost
indestructible that are tri fuel that will run all day long.
Captain Morris - You don't want to buy a new truck to take in the woods.
Chief Mclaughlin - We've had these almost two years now and we are going to have them up
and running for this Brush Fire season. He is having a plaque made for Mitchell Roberts for his
five years of service on the Advisory Board for them to present to him at the Meeting in
February.
James Simmons made a motion to adjourn the meeting it was seconded by John Pennell and
passed the meeting ended.
/~ J2jJJ
Ronald Gilbert, Chairman
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board
Page 5
.1~~~~w1m~
'=1ala ---!~,/
,-liller . ,
Henning -::!:... .
'::;oyle ~' /
Coletta 1/
t~J2,~11 8 2 3'
BY: MiNUTES'OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Naples, Florida, February 2,2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. at North Collier Regional Park Exhibit
Hall, 15000 Livingston Road, Naples Florida, with the following members
present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIR:
John P. Ribes
Edward "Ski" Olesky
Barbara Buehler
Phil Brougham
Gary Davis
David Saletko
Commissioner Donna Fiala
Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator
Barry Williams, Parks & Recreation Director
Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinator
Nancy Olson, Regional Manager I
Shari Ferguson, Regional Manager
Tona Nelson, Administrative Assistant
Tony Ruberto, S1'. Project Manager
Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager II
Zebedee Harris, Jerry Blackwell,
Ricardo Badillo, Jose Martinez,
Ron Holder, Alberto Rives,
Marcelino Ramirez, Tom Walsh,
Annmarie Mitchell and Pablo Ramirez all Pa~:
Recreation Department. d-0 II
IiJ
1
ltemt:
;1?
'-'
C:pies to:
1611 tJ2j
February 2, 2011
I. Call to Order
John Ribes, Chairman called the meeting to order at 2:05 PM.
A quorum was established,
II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held.
III. Approval of Agenda
Add: V D. Update - Susan Cone Letter Regarding Parking
V E. Update - Port of the Islands Boat Ramp
Move: V C. Applicant Interviews to V B.
V B. Presentation on the Parks Master Plan to V C.
Phil Brougham moved to approve the February 2,2011 Agenda as amended.
Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 5-0.
IV. Approval of December 15, 2010 Minutes
Gary Davis moved to approve the December 15,2010 Minutes as submitted.
Second by Phil Brougham. Motion carried 5-0.
Edward "Ski" Olesky arrived at 2: 15 pm
V. New Business
a. Employee of the Month - November and December
Sidney Kittila announced the November 2010 "Team of the Month" was Golden
Gate Community Park Staff who will be commended and receive individual
awards at that Golden Gate Community Park.
· Mike Granato
· Austin Kirtion
· Vinnie Ippolito
· Steve Ippolito
· Chris Ippolito
· Kaylnd Spaulding
· Todd Irby, Supervisor
The Advisory Committee commended and presented the December 2010 "Team
of the Month." with individual awards:
· Zebedee Harris
· Jerry Blackwell
· Ricardo Badillo
· Jose Martinez
· Ron Holder
· Alberto Rives
· Marcelino Ramirez
· Tom Walsh
· Annmarie Mitchell
· Pablo Ramirez
2
1611823
February 2, 2011
b. Interview Applicants - Board Members
The Advisory Board received applications and interviewed the following
candidates: (See attached)
· Diane Worrall, PH. D.
· Lenice DeLuca
· Murdo Smith
Each Applicant gave a brief summary on their education, experience, community
activities and groups they are associated with,
Staff distributed paper ballots to Advisory Board Members,
John Ribes informed the applicants of the voting and recommendation
procedures to the BCC, He directed the Board to vote,
Tona Nelson collected and counted the ballots.
Advisory Board recommendations were announced during V c.
c. Presentation of the Parks Master Plan - Tindale Oliver Consultants
Steve Tindale gave a slide presentation on the Draft Master Plan as follows:
· Master Plan Overview included - what is needed, what is planned, public
input and recommendations.
· Demographic Analysis included - location of existing residents, projected
population growth, age distribution and income.
John Rihes requested questions be held until the end of the presentation.
John Rihes announced Murdo Smith was voted the candidate to be
recommended to the BCC to fill the P ARAB vacant position.
He thanked the applicants for their time and interest. He urged them to reapply
in the future,
· Existing and Planned Inventory included - Community and Regional
Parks, conservation land, both State and Federal Park land.
· Needs Analysis included - park land needs drive-time analysis, utilization
analysis and financial overview,
· Focus Group Workshop discussion results determined - what do we want,
where do we want it and how do we get there.
· Master Plan Recommendations
Master Plan Recommendations made:
· Development of Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park
· Eagle Lakes Community, Fitness Center and Pool
· Additional Athletic Field Needs
· Development of Manatee Community Park
· Development of Vanderbilt Extension Community
· 2010 Boat and Beach Access
3
16JJtY2,Bl 23
Public Speakers
Margaret Winn, President of The Friends of Barefoot Beach Preserve voiced
concerns over the proposed dock and pier provided to the inland side of the island
to accommodate waterborne visitors while protecting the beach and dunes at
Barefoot Beach Preserve and pointed out, visitors can view mangrove habitat at a
half dozen other places in the County without damaging protected and vital
mangrove trees in a preserve setting that limits the number of canoes allowed in
the back water, If the County is serious about protecting this beach preserve, they
will protect it not exploit features available elsewhere.
Additional concerns expressed were on existing overcrowded parking at
Cocohatchee Park and the inadequate boat trailer parking at Conner Park.
Marcia Cravens commended the Parks and Recreation Department and Advisory
Board for their outstanding job. She asked why not use actual date and wait for
the 2010 Population Census that will be available soon instead of using estimated
2009 population.
She expressed concern on the survey sent to the waterfront property owners with
home docks and stated it was an error to make the assumption they were the only
boaters, She noted the State guidelines recommended 1 boat ramp per 10,000
people and there was a need to know actual population numbers.
The current trend for outdoor recreation shows non-motorized recreation was up
and motorized recreation was down. She asked consideration be given to the non-
motorized recreational population. Currently only Clam Pass Park and Barefoot
Beach have canoe trails.
Commissioner Donna Fiala stated the most growth occurring is in the Eagle
Lakes area. There is a need for an assessment for this Community due to the
number of low-income and high number of persons per household. She
recommended making a Community Center and pool a high priority for the
younger residents in the surrounding area,
The A'dvisory Board asked many questions that were addressed by Steve Tindale
and the Staff.
Discussion was made on strategy concerns, recommendations and identification
of immediate needs as demographic and population changes throughout the 1 0-
year Master Plan.
Further discussion was made on prioritizing the Consultants' recommendations.
Marla Ramsey noted Staff will take the Master Plan with the Consultants,
the Advisory Board and Staff recommendations to the BCe.
Barry Williams agreed with the Consultants' recommendations and was reluctant
to prioritize any of the recommendations. He suggested submitting caveats with
4
161 1 ~~ 23
Itbrthry 2, ~ll
the Consultants' recommendations, Prioritizing recommendations will depend on
funding as it becomes available.
The Advisory Board formed a consensus on submitting the following caveats
to the BCC with the Consultants' recommendations:
~ Recommendations are not necessarily listed in priority order.
~ Give consideration in utilizing existing lands when moving forward and
strategy manage funding.
~ Keep recreation facilities compatible within the surrounding community
interest.
Gary Davis moved to approve Master Plan Revisions with the caveats as
directed by Advisory Board to the BCC for consideration. Second by Barbara
Buehler. Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
Below is the exact verbiage used when Parks and Recreation Master Plan is
submitted to the BCC:
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board requested that in approving the
recommendations that the recommendations are not prioritized according to
importance; future capital expenditures should be first directed towards
completion of planned amenities within existing park inventory before investing in
new park construction and; consideration of the recommendations being
consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.
VI. Old Business
a. Alcohol in the Parks Policy
Nancy Olson stated the current County Ordinance 2007-66 language allows the
Director of the Department the discretion to allow alcohol possession and sales,
She reported on November 9 of20l0 the BCC directed Parks and Recreation
Staff to work with the County Attorney's Office to develop an Ordinance and
Policy regarding the possession and use of alcohol in Collier County Parks.
Steps to acquiring an Alcohol Permit are outlined in the Policy. Alcohol was
defined as beer, wine and champagne only.
John Ribes asked why the Advisory Board would need to be involved in the
approval process.
Barry Williams responded the Advisory Board's involvement would help
formalize the process and have the advantage of only serious applicants would
apply. The Director approves with recommendations by the Advisory Board,
Phil Brougham moved to approve the Executive Summary (on the Polices and
Procedures for the sale of Alcohol in County Parks.) Second by Barbara
Buehler. Motion carried unanimously 6-0.
VII. Turf/Irrigation Highlights - Pelican Bay - None.
VIII. Capital Project Highlights - None.
5
16Fl12,2~1 23
IX. Adopt A Park - None.
X. Director's Highlights
Barry Williams reported
XI. Informational Items - Read only
XII. Public Comments/Board Member Comments - None.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:50 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION,
ADVISORY BOARD
These Minutes were approved by the Committee/Board on
presented X or as amended
:2 . \Co . lJ
, as
6
16118 24
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2011
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION,
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN
BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES.
The agenda includes, but is not limited:
AGENDA
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Roll Call
Agenda Approval
Approval of Meeting Minutes
a. January 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
b. January 12, 2011 Budget Committee
c. January 18, 2011 Community Improvement Plan Town Hall
Audience Participation
Administrator's Report
a. Update on Community Improvement Plan
i. CIP Issues (J. Chandler)
ii. Discussion of Next PBSD Steps
iii. Recommendation to Proceed with Phase One Community Improvement Plan
Projects (Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage Proposal)
b. Monthly Financial Report
c. Status of Permit for Clam Bay Maintenance
d, Status of RFP for Environmental Services
e. Discussion of Health of Mangroves (T, Raia)
f. Status of Conservation Area Exotic Vegetation
Chairman's Report
a, Update on PBSD Election Process
b, Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update
c. Landscaping issues on U.S. 41
d. Announcements
Community Issues
Committee Reports and/or Requests
a. Budget Committee
b. Landscape Committee
Old Business
New Business
a. Discussion of Need to Repave Oakmont Path (K. Lukasz)
b. Signs at Clam Pass Park (T. Raia)
Miscellaneous Correspondence
a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet
Audience Comments
Adjournment
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Mise, Corres'
11.
Date:
12.
13.
C:f)ies to:
SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES, ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, THEY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR
SUCH PURPOSE, 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, ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) S97-1749,
1/28/2011 3:02:36 PM
,
.( >>,
, ~l
l..l
!\
~
1611 8 24
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5,2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on
Wednesday, January 5, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,
Naples. The following members were present:
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman
John P. Chandler
Tom Cravens
Johan Domenie
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill
Kyle Lukasz
Geoffrey S. Gibson
John laizzo
Michael Levy
Theodore Raia, Jr,
John Baron
Hunter H, Hansen excused absence
Mary McCaughtry
Lisa Resnick
Also Present:
Jim Burke, Member, Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association
Marcia Cravens, Vice-President, Mangrove Action Group
Stephen Feldhaus, Secretary, Pelican Bay Foundation & Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Member
Douglas Finlay, Member, Naples City Council, City of Naples
Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates
Georgia A. Hiller, Esq., Collier County Commissioner, District 2
James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation
Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group
Kathy Worley, Co-Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
REVISED AGENDA
I. Roll Call
2. Agenda Approval
3. Audience Comments Regarding Resolution to Affirm Operating and Reporting Authority for Clam Bay
4, Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update
5. Remarks by Commissioner Georgia A. Hiller
6. Approval of Meeting Minutes
a, December 1, 20 I 0 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
b. December 6,2010 Landscape Subcommittee
7. Audience Participation
8. Administrator's Report
a, Monthly Financial Report
b. Status ofPerrnit for Clam Bay Maintenance
c, Status ofRFP for Environmental Services
d, U,S. 41 and Pelican Bay Boulevard North Crosswalk Update (K. Lukasz)
9. Chairman's Report
a. Update on Community Improvement Plan
b. Status of Canoe Trail Markers (J, Domenie)
c. Announcements
10, Community Issues
11. Committee Reports and/or Requests
a. Budget Committee
b. Landscape Committee
12. Old Business
13, New Business
14. Miscellaneous Correspondence
a, Ongoing Projects Status Sheet
15. Audience Comments
16. Adjournment
8421
16 11 8""2 4
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
ROLL CALL
All members were present with the exception ofMr, Hansen, excused.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS REGARDING ITEM 5D - DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM
OPERATING & REPORTING AUTHORITY FOR CLAM BAY
Chairman Dallas allowed audience comments regarding item 5d, "Discussion of Resolution to Affirm
Operating and Reporting Authority for Clam Bay,"
Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) submitted a statement. "At the present time, the
PBSD's authority includes the maintenance of the conservation and preserve areas in Pelican Bay and the PBSD
remains actively involved in a variety of activities to that end. The Mangrove Action Group Board supports and
endorses this involvement. However, we have concluded that the time is not right to revisit the PBSD's authority in
the wide-ranging manner implied by the proposed resolution, We feel it could have unintended consequences, We
respectfully request that the PBSD Board withdraw this resolution from further consideration."
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to withdraw item 5d from the agenda.
Mr, Gibson agreed that the timing is not right and asked if withdrawing meant they could never reconsider,
Mr. Cravens said they could always reconsider,
Dr, Raia did not think the timing was wrong, but that they should amend the language then reconsider,
Ms, Marcia Cravens, resident of Pelican Bay, said the resolution went beyond the scope of the discussion
held at the December I meeting. She respectfully requested that the Board completely withdraw the item.
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to withdraw item 5d, "Discussion of Resolution
to Affirm Operating and Reporting Authority for Clam Bay," from the agenda. The Board voted
unanimouslv in favor of the motion and item 5d withdrawn.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Chairman Dallas moved item 6b, "Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update" and a presentation
made by Stephen Feldhaus, Secretary of the Pelican Bay Foundation and member of the Foundation's Ad Hoc Clam
Bay Committee to be the first item heard, He added, "Remarks by Commissioner Georgia A, Hiller" to follow
immediately thereafter.
FOUNDATION AD HOC CLAM BAY COMMITTEE UPDATE
Mr, Stephen Feldhaus reported as a member ofthe Pelican Bay Foundation's Ad Hoc Clam Ba
and Foundation Secretary that the Foundation and Collier County are in the process of negotiatin
manage Clam Bay mutually. The Pelican Bay Services Division historically managed Clam Bay.
dispute between the Services Division and the County over several issues, including re
markers, resulting in the County taking away Clam Bay responsibility from
Foundation became involved. June 30, 2010, Mr. Feldhaus, and Mr, Hoppenstea
Zone Management Director, Mr. Gary McAlpin, and Public Services Admi
they could work out an agreement in principle on how to manage Clam B
with the Foundation's protective covenants and restrictions govemi
urging of many people from the County and City of Naples. T
eting took place at the
agreement that the County
8422
}'elican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1 6 liB 2 4
January 5, 2011
and the Foundation would each have an equal say on how they would manage Clam Bay and in the event of a
dispute, that dispute would be resolved by arbitration,
Since June, Mr. Feldhaus, and Mr. Hoppensteadt have met regularly with County staff and technical
experts hired by both sides, The Foundation ~ired its own non-lo'flfnvironmental consultants and coastal
engineers, Larry R, Olsen, Douglas J. Durbin, and Daniel p, Hamm. The Foundation did not hire local experts
because the County told local exp~rts that there was a conflict of interest if they worked for both the County and the
Foundation.
The Foundation and County have had an open and favorable working relationship, however to date, no
binding decisions made. Mr. Feldhaus stressed the importance of community feedback and for the larger
community to be onboard, He informed Ms. Johnson and Ms. Worley that they have until the end of January to
provide their feedback, then the Foundation can respond based on their input.
Mr. Feldhaus composed a "first draft negotiating discussion document" and submitted it to the County,
however, he expressed that he did not want to share it with the community before receiving the County's reaction to
ensure they are "in the same ballpark," He believes the document will provide a mechanism that he described as
"baseball arbitration" to resolve the problems that have developed with respect to Clam Bay, i.e., if the County and
Foundation do not agree on the dredging cut, then they would employ "baseball arbitration" to resolve. This type of
arbitration encourages the parties to come to reasonable conditions, Each party would submit a resolution and the
arbitrator picks the most reasonable one.
Mr. Feldhaus said that Mr. McAlpin was going to bring an issue to the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAe)
on January 13 regarding the red and green markers and the cost of a required study to move forward. He believes
that the County "will see us in court" before the red and green markers are ever installed, He said that the red and
green markers issue is not a part of the current proposal, but is cautiously optimistic that by the end of February they
could have the red and green markers issue "behind us" and agreement on the table that the community can evaluate.
Nothing is final now, nor will it be final until there is community input, County input and a mutual agreement made
on how to deal with the issues, He acknowledged Commissioner Hiller, Commissioner Fred Coyle, and Mr. Leo
Ochs, and thanked them for their assistance. He offered to answer questions,
Dr, Raia said his main concern is the red and green markers and asked if the County is applying to i
red and green markers "on their own," or if the County is stating that the permit is requiring the red
markers.
8423
Mr. Feldhaus responded that with respect to the red and green markers issue that they all
out as an internal County process. He offered to discuss privately. He added that Mr. McAlpin has
that the 1998 Clam Bay Management Plan required installing red and green markers.
attend the CAC meeting on January 13 to hear how Mr, McAlpin presents the issue.
Dr, Raia responded that this is the fundamental reason for mistrust.
Corp, of Engineers (ACOE) required the red and green markers, Dr. Raia ho
they do not require red and green markers. He believes that by not address
Mr. Feldhaus disagreed that the issue is suspended, He s
that the Foundation would not proceed with a written agreement arker issue is resolved. He
stated that with the help of Commissioner Hiller and things air
1611 B
V-Z-4
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
convince "Mr. Burke and others" that the solution of not installing red and green markers is in the best interest ofthe
County and the Pelican Bay community.
Dr. Raia asked if the agreement would address the purpose of dredging.
Mr. Feldhaus said the agreement's intention is to indicate that the purpose of dredging is for the health of
the mangroves solely. There would be no other purpose. The right to dredge would be triggered, but the decision to
dredge would require the joint approval ofthe Foundation and the County at that point and would hinge upon
whether dredging is required for the health ofthe mangroves.
Dr. Raia referred to past meeting minutes where a Seagate resident referred to the Services Division
damaging the environment and Seagate's property values and denied them from being involved in a process that
affected their community, He asked what entity is responsible for the small body of water south of the County line
in the City of Naples.
Mr. Feldhaus said that because part of Clam Bay is in the City of Naples, that the City and Seagate
community need to be involved in the process,
Dr. Raia said that there must be a solution other than dredging that can keep the water moving and flushing
the system,
Mr, Feldhaus said dredging to increase the flow may not be the solution, but the good news about the
agreement they are developing is that whatever the scientific solution is will be incorporated into the agreement and
the issues will not be debated from a political perspective,
Dr. Raia referred to an email between Mr, Feldhaus and Ms. Susan Boland, President of the Pelican Bay
Property Owners Association regarding the Property Owners Association's support for Mr. Feldhaus' action and Mr.
Feldhaus' response that they have the continued support of Commissioner Hiller. With the Commissioner's support,
Dr. Raia said he was satisfied. With that announcement came applause.
Mr. Iaizzo asked if the County had approval to install red and green markers and Mr. Feldhaus said no.
Mr. Chandler asked when a draft agreement would be available for review.
Mr. Feldhaus said he intends to have an agreement available for review as early as February.
Mr. Levy said that the Foundation is in a position where they could block installation ofred and green
markers, Ifthere were disagreements after an agreement is in place, an arbitrator would be making that decisio
Mr. Feldhaus said generally, yes, but as a matter oflaw, the regulatory agencies still have their juri
Mr. Domenie referred to a meeting one year ago between the County and other Clam Bay stak
The Foundation guaranteed water depth toward Seagate and asked if they addressed this in the agre
Mr. Feldhaus said he would recommend that the Foundation support Seagate's legitimate ri
the depth of water to prevent shoaling.
Dr. Raia argued granting a depth of water guarantee would permit dredging for na
Mr. Feldhaus disagreed and said Seagate has historic ingress and egress
would obtain their own dredging permit and pay for it; the Foundation would
support it. There are no plans to dredge the ebb shoal.
Dr. Raia described a scenario where the ebb shoal is obstruc '
historically, Clam Pass has closed and then opened up again, but'
channel. He supports Seagate's historical rights, but objects to
ity to maintain a navigation
the expense of other users' rights,
8424
..-
1
1611624
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5,2011
Mr, Feldhaus said there would be an appropriate forum before the Foundation Board, which is the only
body that has the authority to enter into such an agreement and raise such questions.
Ms, Martha Dykman, Seagate resident, said their main concern is dredging for the health of the system. The
last permit maintained a four-foot deep, forty-foot wide channel that allowed for flushing of the system, It is not
about boating, They want a safe and healthy estuary for swimmers and boaters and urged the community to work
together to resolve.
Mr. Iaizzo asked Ms. Dykman if she wanted red and green markers installed,
Ms. Dykman responded that the problem is that the Services Division publicized that the system is not
navigable even though Seagate boaters have been using the Pass since 1957 and have the historical right to use it.
"You have created a problem for us, and it is a safety problem."
Mr, Feldhaus agreed and said Seagate boaters have the right to enter the pass without endangering or being
endangered by swimmers. He clarified that what they have agreed on are that clear signs are needed on both sides of
the Pass, identifying swimmers and boaters ofthe presence of each other.
Ms, Womble said most swimmers in the Pass are tourists and most likely not residents of Pelican Bay.
Ms. Dykman said Seagate is not the enemy and hopes that Pelican Bay stops seeing them in that light.
Chairman Dallas asked if the condition of the Canoe Trail markers is part of the discussion.
Mr. Feldhaus said ifthey are able to get the red and green markers issue behind them, they should be able
to deal with the Canoe Trail markers and is cautiously optimistic that there will be a positive outcome.
Dr. Raia said the County is in violation of the permit due to deterioration of the Canoe Trail markers.
Mr, Feldhaus asked Dr. Raia again to let the process of the red and green markers play out,
REMARKS BY COMMISSIONER GEORGIA A. HILLER
Commissioner Hiller said she represents not only residents of District 2, but all County residents' interests.
She said she found out about the Foundation's agreement yesterday from Mr. Feldhaus and needs to study the
information before she can form an opinion on it. She spoke with County staff regarding their involvement and the
response was that they are working well with the Foundation on addressing the technical issues, The negotiations are
just beginning, not concluding, Everyone is invited to come to the table. She urged Mr, Burke, Mr. Doug Finlay,
Ms. Dykman, and Services Division Board members to meet with her for further discussion of individual conce
She introduced her aide, Ms, Jennifer Rainey and said to contact Ms, Rainey to schedule appointments at th
Blossom Government Center by phone at 239-252-8602 or by email atjenniferrainey@colliergov.net.
Commissioner Hiller reported that she held discussions with County staff whether the pu
being proposed was for navigation and the answer she received was no, She asked County staff ifth
markers were required for navigational purposes and the answer she received was no. Sh
informational markers that clearly define where swimmers and boaters should be and seeks
Regarding the water quality issue, she said that Moorings and Clam Bay are two
pollution problem in either water body, Seagate has flushing problems. It is a
manner where adequate flushing was not provided. The flushing problems
either side of the community. They want to ensure that any dredgin
water quality and adequately flush the system, allowing the man ant to preserve the beauty
of the Natural Resource Protection Act (NRPA) area as it exist
8425
161 1
L '24~"
","", c,j
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
to the extent necessary to promote flushing, not for navigational purposes. Whether or not the County agreed or did
not agree to do something in the past is irrelevant. She is concerned about coming to a resolution of this matter that
brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people, now and into the future.
Ms. Marcia Cravens agreed and said the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the conceptual
framework for conservation. The primary designated use is for conservation of habitat and preservation of
waterways in their natural condition. The secondary use is for compatible passive recreation, Incidental use is for
powerboat use.
Mr, Rick Dykman, Seagate resident suggested that they include the Seagate community in future
stakeholder discussions about Clam Bay.
Commissioner Hiller agreed and said that all stakeholders should be represented with the intent of coming
to a consensus. This means that they do not have to agree for the same intentions, but that they agree upon the
conclusion that serves the common good, She is going to do what she can to promote that.
Chairman Dallas agreed and thanked Commissioner Hiller, Mr, Feldhaus and other speakers. He added
that he hopes they can keep up the good attitude.
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 1.2010 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Chandler amended page 8414 to read, ".. ,$500 million..."
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to approve the December 1, 2010 Pelican Bay
Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously
in favor of the motion.
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 6. 2010 LANDSCAPE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to approve the December 6, 2010 Landscape
Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board meeting minutes as presented. The Board
voted unanimouslv in favor of the motion.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
8426
Mr. Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks resident, recalled that he attended a Services Division Board meeting in
October to discuss the non-ad valorem assessment. This Board administers both non-ad valorem and ad valo
funds, so there is precedence for an ad valorem tax,
Mr. Dorrill clarified Mr. Doyle's statement. The question was how they might convert fro
of assessment for all services to an ad valorem tax rate for services. Currently street lighting servi
millage based ad valorem rate tax, All other services are a non-ad valorem flat rate assess
Mr. Doyle suggested that the Budget Committee consider both types of ad valore
valorem assessment for projects and make recommendations to the full Board. He a
project priorities for the Budget Committee on January 12.
Mr, Dorrill said this Board's current authorized approach is to us
capital improvements, but they have decisions to make regarding the u
appropriate for the Budget Committee as they take early action 0
. -.-
f
161 1
8 24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
Ms, Kathy Worley expressed concern regarding closed-door meetings between the Foundation and the
County because it has excluded many stakeholders, She met with Mr. Feldhaus once, but he is not a scientist and
cannot answer her scientific questions. Without seeing data, she does not know how the scientists arrived at their
conclusions, She hopes they can have a more open discussion in the future, Dr. Raia suggested that the Foundation
avail the services of Ms. Worley for her extensive knowledge of Clam Bay,
Ms, Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) submitted a statement that MAG "does not
support an expansion of the scope of work for the PBSD's enviro, nmental monitoring co!:' t, which was originally, '",
, -.
intended as a simple continuation of the biological monitoring required to maintain the ma rove ecosystem."
Mr. Dorrill said that the stated purpose ofthe RFP process would result in one environmental consultant
having two separate annual contracts for two different intended purposes. One contract will deal with the biological
and environmental issues specifically for the Services Division in Clam Bay. The other separate contract will deal
with environmental issues on other unrelated land, i,e., Pepper Ranch. The County "takes a broad brush approach to
procurement." Rather than having many departments developing their own specifications, the County avails itself to
a single provider to serve as many end users as possible.
Ms, Marcia Cravens said that she discussed the RFP with Clerk of Courts, Dwight Brock and Ms, Crystal
Kinzel, the Clerk's Finance Director. This RFP process is for a continuing contract for services. Because the
Services Division has very specific needs, they could request a fixed term contract.
Regarding the dredging permit application that Mr. Feldhaus is preparing, Ms, Cravens said that the dredge
cut is for 80 feet wide and 5.1 feet deep at low tide with a cross-section of 400 feet. The parameters are double what
the 1998 permit authorized and alleged that regulatory agencies could find this problematic,
Ms. Cravens alleged that contrary to her earlier statements, Ms. Dykman is on record at Naples City
Council meetings stating the Pelican Bay Services Division would not dredge Clam Bay for Seagate navigation,
She alleged that Ms. Dykman also made comments that motor boating in the Clam Bay system has not caused
problems to natural resources, however, Collier County records indicate that motor boating in Outer Clam Bay is the
cause of extensive prop dredge scarring,
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Mr. Dorrill reported that there was a transposition error and the monthly financial report would be r
and reissued to reflect the complete month. The first page of the income statement should show a negati
because revenues were less than what were budgeted, $5,64 million is available in cash. The prima
account is approximately $120,000 under budget through the first quarter.
Mr. Chandler said regarding the income statement for Capital Projects Fund 322, t
year to date budget does not show the year-to-date actual.
Mr. Dorrill said that column would show funds that the Clerk receives from
a quarterly posting, much like the way the County applies overhead charges,
Finance Director.
Mr, Chandler said that revenue was most likely received, just not
8427
1611 B 24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
STATUS OF PERMIT FOR CLAM BAY MAINTENANCE
Mr. Dorrill reported the Services Division received notice from the Army Corp. of Engineers (ACOE)
stating their intent to authorize the permit to perform Clam Bay channel maintenance,
Mr. Levy asked if the work that needs to be done is budgeted for Fiscal Year 2011 and Mr. Dorrill said yes.
Mr. Dorrill said the standard conditions ofthe permit do not conflict with any historical work done,
Mr. Hall said the only change involves water quality testing. Historically, they have done a simple spot
reading when they do the collection sampling. The new permit requires a quarterly diel study, which means they
must take one reading every four hours over a 24-hour period at least once every three months.
Mr, Cravens said specific conditions of the permit on page 5, number 9, address exotic and invasive
vegetation and reported a serious problem with Brazilian Pepper in the area located next to the Clam Pass Park
boardwalk and said that no efforts have been made to remove.
Mr. Lukasz reported they removed some Brazilian Pepper, but because Season was starting, not all of it.
Mr. Cravens said he did not notice removal of any Brazilian Pepper, and reported that there are at least
twenty Australian Pines on the beach from Clam Pass Park as you go north to the Ritz Carlton.
Mr. Hall said that some Brazilian Pepper removal is included in the permit conditions and project
description area, but Australian Pines removal is not because the Pines are located on the beach. To his knowledge,
the Coastal Zone Management department has applied for a grant to fund exotic removal along the beach.
Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division could address the Brazilian Pepper along the Clam Pass Park
boardwalk by spraying it in place, rather than removing it.
Mr. Hall said spraying in place is a better way because removal can cause more damage.
Mr. Cravens said one problem is the Conservancy leads nature walks along the Clam Pass Park boardwalk
and identifies exotic invasive vegetation in "our pristine mangrove forest and does not bode well for this
community,"
Mr. Domenie asked who is responsible for exotic removal at Clam Pass Park,
Mr. Hall said that the County's Parks and Recreation department is responsible for the land that Clam Pass
Park is on, "but in some instances when things do get bad" the Services Division has cleaned up the area.
Mr. Dorrill directed Mr, Hall to get clarification from the FDEP regarding the Services Division's
responsibility for exotic removal and the precise location, Taken to an extreme, this particular condition co
that the Services Division is responsible for exotic removal in the mangrove restoration area as they ha
historically, as well as the beach, which would be very costly.
Mr. Cravens asked Mr. Hall ifhe knew whether Coastal Zone Management's grant applica '
funding to remove exotics countywide or for a specific location and Mr. Hall would inquir
Mr. Hall clarified that page 7 of the permit refers to information regarding ground
testing will include water in the water table, which may contain reclaimed water.
STATUS OF RFP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Mr, Dorrill said shortly after he became Administrator, Turrell, H
consulting contract expired. Last year, the Services Division was ab
through a Humiston and Moore subcontract, however that contr
working under an "emergency administrative authorization" or
8428
-_r
lolJ.
S24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5,2011
they complete the current RFP process, It is conceivable that this process offers two separate contracts to two
separate firms for different types of environmental services, i.e., Section A, one contract for a coastal environmental
consultant for Services Division work in Clam Bay; and Section B, one contract for another environmental firm for
other work, but the outcome is dependent upon completing the process. The County Manager designated a selection
committee of five individuals, three of which are Mr, Dorrill, Mr. Cravens, and Mr. Lukasz, to carry out the process
and they will report individual rankings to short list firms at their next meeting on January 21.
Mr. Cravens expressed that he is not happy with this RFP process. The County Manager appointed two
County staffers to the selection committee who are not involved with Pelican Bay making decisions affecting
Pelican Bay. When the Services Division Board hired Mr, porrill, they had a s,*ion committee of three Services
Division Board members and the process worked. He made a motion to direct the administrator not to proceed with
the current RFP for a continuing contract for the Services Division, and subsequently, develop a separate RFP with a
selection committee comprised of only individuals with involvement in Pelican Bay,
Mr. Dorrill said Commissioner Hiller, on behalf of the Services Division made an inquiry to the County
Manager regarding the RFP and "for reasons that were not elaborated on, Mr. Ochs prefers to keep it the way it is
and for the moment, Commissioner Hiller is satisfied with that."
Mr, Cravens clarified a motion to direct the administrator not to proceed with the RFP process as it exists
for a continuing contract with the Services Division. Dr. Raia seconded the motion.
Mr. Dorrill said Mr. Cravens' motion puts him in a difficult situation because he and Mr. Lukasz work for
the County Manager and the County Manager appointed both to the selection committee. The other dilemma is
whether Turrell, Hall & Associates can continue to work without a contract. He suggested a more appropriate
motion would be to request to the County Manager that he make a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners to reject all the current RFP responses and start anew, establish the Services Division's specific
parameters by narrowing the scope targeted to coastal environmental consulting firms only for only Section A.
The Board acknowledged that the selection committee vote is by simple majority,
Mr. Cravens withdrew his motion, and Dr, Raia who had seconded the motion, accepted.
Mr, Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens that the Board request that the County Manager
support an action to reject all current RFP responses and start anew with a specific, standalone RFP targeted to
coastal environmental consulting firms only.
Ms. Cravens said the reason this is a "big boondoggle" is that this is proceeding under a count
continuing contract policy, which is meant for generic needs, The new permit defines specific nee
Services Division could proceed with a RFP for a fixed-term contract.
Mr, Dorrill said did not fully agree with Ms, Cravens. Mr. Hall does perform gen
for this Board, including attending Services Division's meetings to answer questions and t
continuing services contract.
Mr, Hoppensteadt agreed and although he understands this Board's
suggested that they reconsider forestalling it.
Mr. Dorrill said if this Board is not satisfied with the short Ii
reconsider Mr, Chandler's motion at the February 2 meeting.
Mr. Chandler withdrew his motion and Mr, Cravens,
8429
,. ,
H
..
1611
B 24 ,'v~~1
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
A short recess was taken and the meeting reconvened,
U.S. 41 AND PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD NORTH CROSSWALK UPDATE (K. LUKASZ)
The State is preparing to make some improvements to D,S. 41 and Pelican Bay Boulevard, which include a
new pedestrian crosswalk at that intersection across Pelican Bay Boulevard. The state is willing to do the work, but
not willing to pay to upgrade the materials, Staffis developing ajoint participation agreement with the Foundation
that authorizes payment for material upgrades, Le., brick pavers, so that this crosswalk will match all others to be
built within the community as part of the Community Improvement Plan. When available, he will bring the
agreement with cost back to the Board for approval.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
UPDATE ON COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Mr. Dorrill reported that staffselected a local civil engineering firm, Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage (ABB) to
develop a preliminary proposal for design plans and specifications for construction of pedestrian crosswalks and
median improvements proposed in the Community Improvement Plan. For uniformity, the proposal would also be
used for Foundation projects and the cost prorated accordingly. They did not choose Wilson Miller (WM) to
develop a proposal because WM's project hour estimate was approximately 20% higher than ABB's.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said the Foundation has done extensive work with ABB and estimates were reliable,
Chairman Dallas is hopeful that this Board can discuss crosswalk project parameters at the February 2
Services Division meeting and Mr, Dorrill said he would provide an update under February 2 Miscellaneous
Correspondence.
STATUS OF CANOE TRAIL MARKERS
Mr. Domenie reported that he planned to present the Canoe Trail markers material he submitted for this
meeting to the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAe) on January 13 however, Mr. Feldhaus requested that he abstain
pending the outcome ofthe CAC's discussion of red and green navigational markers. Mr. Domenie agreed to
comply with Mr. Feldhaus' request.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
8430
eeting January 12 at 3 p.m.
Chairman Dallas announced the deadline to apply to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board is January
11. The Budget Subcommittee plans discussion of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) on January 12 at 3
The Coastal Advisory Committee meets January 13 at 1 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners' Cha
On January 18, a presentation will be made regarding landscaping best management practices at the Me
9 a.m, and a CIP Town Hall at 1 p.m. A CIP presentation will be made at the Men's Coffee on Jan
Foundation Board meets January 28 at 8:30 a.m. The next Services Division Board meeting is Februa
Ms. Cravens announced a Watershed Management Informational Workshop on January 2
Community Center,
COMMUNITY ISSUES
Mr. Cravens said recently there were reports of some burglaries in P
COMMIITEE REPORTS AND/OR REOUESTS
BUDGET COMMITTEE
Mr. Levy said the Budget Committee is holding a Fisca
..... ,~
1611 8 24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
Chairman Dallas said he is not attending and provided Mr. Dorrill with some ideas to present on how to
approach the budget process.
Mr. Dorrill referred to Mr. Doyle's comments made today suggesting that higher valued commercial and
residential property assessed a disproportionately higher share for the services they receive, This is a policy decision
that has enormous implications.
Mr. Levy said street lighting services are based on millage, but all other services are based on non-ad
valorem assessment.
Mr. Dorrill said he is proceeding based on the historical revenue raising mechanism unless directed
otherwise, emphasizing that it is through the non-ad valorem assessment the Services Division receives funding
from non-profit and government entities that are millage or ad valorem tax exempt.
LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
Mr. Lukasz made a presentation, displaying photographs of recent littoral, or plants that absorb nutrients,
planted in Pelican Bay lakes.
Mr, Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy that the Board formally adopt Best Management Practices
(BMP) in its own landscaping and encourage employees and residents of Pelican Bay to do likewise,
Ms. Womble said she liked the idea, but wanted to know what the budgetary implications were.
Mr. Cravens said adopting BMP should reduce expenses for fertilizer and watering requirements.
Mr. Dorrill said staff supports Mr. Cravens' motion. The overall intent of implementing BMP is focused
on promoting water quality and conserving water resources. In the course of daily activity, where appropriate, the
Services Division can begin applying BMP and encourage the community to follow suit by setting an example.
Mr. Chandler asked if staff follows BMP, does that mean costs would not increase.
Mr. Dorrill said not necessarily. There are ongoing costs for training and accountability and better quality
fertilizer costs more. For this fiscal year, there should not be any significant budgetary implications,
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy that the Boardformally adopt Best Management
Practices (BMP) in its own landscaping and encourage the employees and residents of Pelican Bay to
do likewise. The Board voted unanimousl in avor 0 the motion.
8431
OLD BUSINESS
Regarding the call for applications to the Services Division Board, Mr, Levy and Mr, Iaizzo said
reapplied for two of the three vacancies. Dr. Raia's term is set to expire, but he was not present at tha
comment. Mr. Chandler requested that staff notify the Board when applicant information is availab
January 11 application deadline.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr, Cravens said in the past, it was tradition for this Board to send out newsletters
about what the Services Division is doing. This activity was budgeted under "e
into two videos about Pelican Bay and the Board should consider doing thi
Caldwell, an urban horticulturalist of the Collier County University ofFlor.
about landscaping best management practices. Chairman Dallas s
the Board could discuss this as an agenda item at a future mee .
161 1 B.2 4 >
.,. ..~ j
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
Mr. Iaizzo is concerned about the condition of Pelican Bay Boulevard. The Boulevard needs resurfacing,
Through the Community Improvement Plan, they are planning to install new crosswalks. They must ensure that they
do not damage the crosswalks when the roads are resurfaced and suggested they ask the County for funds to do it.
Mr. Dorrill estimates that it would cost $3 million to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard. Staff inquired with the
County's Road Maintenance department last fall about this and due to lack of funds, the County does not have plans
to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard anytime soon.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
No discussion
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No discussion
ADJOURNMENT
ns made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously i
tion and the meetin was ad"ourned at 4:31 .m.
Keith 1. Dallas, Chairman
Minutes by Lisa Resnick \1/14/2011 2:58:41 PM
8432
1611 8 24
BUDGET COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 12,2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on
Wednesday, January 12,2011 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,
Naples, with the following members present:
Budget Committee Members
Michael Levy, Chairman
John Chandler
Keith 1. Dallas
Geoffrey S. Gibson
John laizzo
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill
Kyle Lukasz
~
Mary McCaughtry
Lisa Resnick
AGENDA
I, Roll Call
2, Audience Participation
3. Summary Update ofFY 2010 Actual vs, Estimated Actuals Contained in FY 2011 Budget and
Impact (if any) on Available Capital Funds
4, Status ofFY 2012 County Guidelines regarding Salaries, Benefits, and Tax Rates
5. Initial Discussion of New Capital Funds for FY 2012 Budget and Beyond
6. Review of Last Year's Format for Budget Preparation
7. Schedule for Preparation ofFY 2012 Budget
8. Review of Current Format for the Monthly Financial Report
9. Audience Comments
10, Adjournment
ROLL CALL
All Budget Committee members were present and quorum established,
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Mr. Joe Doyle said that some of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects should be ad-valorem
tax based and others based on non ad-valorem assessment.
Mr, Dorrill explained that the Services Division is adverse to debt and not interested in increasing
assessments, For Fiscal Year 20 II, there is approximately $2.3 million available for capital improvements
on the Board's stated priorities this would allow funding for pedestrian crosswalks with brick pavers c
and some associated median landscape renovations. Funding methods for future projects have not
Mr. Doyle said because the available cash was collected by a non ad-valorem assessment th
used to fund non ad-valorem based projects. Street lighting and widening pathways from
Tram station should be ad-valorem based projects.
Mr, laizzo said street lighting is an ad-valorem based tax.
Mr. Doyle said the Board should consider funding crosswalks, lands
using an ad-valorem tax method. Based on the laws of principles and equi
values, then property owners who have more expensive property sho
Board should use a non ad-valorem assessment to fund improve
1105
I increase property
an ad-valorem tax, The
ys equally, i,e" pathways.
1611 8 24A~.~
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2011
Mr. Dorrill said there is an ad-valorem portion to pay for street lighting, but "it does not jump off the page
on the tax bill."
Chairman Levy said in the past, the Services Division used an ad-valorem based tax to fund extra security
services from the Collier County Sheriff, but currently, the ad-valorem portion is only for street lighting.
Mr. Dorrill said since the 1970's, the County has created special taxing districts, employing an ad-valorem
millage-based tax to fund street lighting in new developments,
Mr. Doyle suggested the Services Division inform the County to reformat the tax bill to reflect there is an
ad-valorem portion.
SUMMARY UPDATE OF FY 2010 ACTUAL VS ESTIMATED ACTUALS CONTAINED IN FY 2011
BUDGET AND IMP ACT (IF ANY) ON AVAILABLE CAPITAL FUNDS
Chairman Levy reported that in FYIO, the Services Division was under budget overall, by a net of
$370,000. All line items were under budget with the exception of Capital projects, which was over budget by
$7,770 for extra service fees incurred by Wilson Miller for the Community Improvement Plan (CIP), $134,000
from the FYI 0 Clam Bay fund, rolled over to FYII for the Clam Bay channel maintenance permit project because
the work was not complete, In theory, they can use these funds to install the Canoe Trail markers. The remaining
$232,000 could be placed in the FY 11 Capital Projects fund for a total of$2,69I,000 to fund high priority CIP
projects.
FY11 ASSESSMENT
Chairman Levy referred to the "Pelican Bay Services District FY 2011 Assessment" document in the
agenda backup material. The Committee discussed how a commercial property's assessment is calculated. From
the document, staff estimated that an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is the equivalent of one acre, i,e., the
Services Division's 12-acre facility on the golf course calculated assessment is equivalent to 12 ERU's or 12 times
the assessment, portioned into maintenance component of$4,200,84 and capital component of$246.67 for a total of
$4,447.51.
Mr. Dorrill said the County uses multiple ratios to determine ERUs most likely based on three categories of
residential, institutional and commercial use. He is certain that an official methodology was adopted.
want to know how they will be repaid and who will be paying them based on perceived benefit.
Chairman Levy pointed out that by assessing properties on an ERU basis, they are collecting fro
they would not receive anything from on an ad-valorem basis,
Mr. Dorrill agreed and said that staffwill research the methodology and report back.
STATUS OF FY 2012 COUNTY GUIDELINES REGARDING SALARIES BENEFIT
1106
rojects, the Board of
oval process, the
Chairman Levy added the County's Fund 111 contribution to this list of County
Mr. Dorrill said the County has not determined their FY 2012 budget guidelines re
and tax rates, but they expect to have that information by the end of February or
Chairman Levy said over the past several years, they have aligned
based on the County's tax rate or millage guidelines however, they do not
Mr. Dorrill agreed that ifthey wanted to raise the assessm
County Commissioners would probably react favorably. Durin
1611 B 24
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2011
Commissioners did acknowledge that the Services Division was involved in a community redevelopment project
and that the Services Division might be coming back to them with funding mechanisms outside of their prescribed
. . i
mIllage-based parameters. ' .
INITIAL DISCUSSION OF NEW CAPTIAL FUNDS FOR FY 2012 BUDGET AND BEYOND
Chairman Levy said in FYll, they have approximately $2.7 million in Capital funds available, During the
FY 2012 budget process, they can determine how much additional Capital funds would be available, if any by
initially holding the assessment and millage rates the same. He distributed a worksheet that explains how they could
increase income by increasing the non ad-valorem assessment and ad-valorem millage rate.
If the Board decides they want to raise an additional $100,000 in Capital funds, in FY 2012, they could
increase the non ad-valorem assessment by $13.13 or 3.54% per ERU. To raise an additional $100,000 they could
increase the millage rate of 0.0531 by 36.6% or 0.01944 to 0.07254 resulting in a tax increase of $9,72 on a
$500,000 property,
Mr. Dallas said it would cost approximately $9 million to do all of the CIP projects, but completing all of
the projects and spending the last $2-3 million is debatable.
Mr. Chandler summarized Mr. Dallas' Pelican Bay Post article regarding the Services Division's CIP
projects. He explained that the Services Division has $2.5 million available and "key" projects total $5.6 million. If
the Board decided to do "key" projects only, they would only have to increase the Services Division assessment
spread out over several years by approximately $410 per unit.
Mr, Dallas said he based his calculation on employing a non ad-valorem assessment, but indicated that in
practice, they would need to raise $2 million in ad-valorem taxes for street lighting projects,
Chairman Levy reviewed the assessments levied over the past five years. In 2007, it was $422.98; 2008,
$382.30; 2009, $370.46; 2010, $370.64; and in 2011 it is $370.63.
Mr. Chandler suggested that if they decide to increase the assessment to save for the CIP, then they should
show it as a line item,
Chairman Levy explained that the Services Division sends the first notice of proposed assessment that
identifies it as one part maintenance and the other part capital. The County's property tax bill does not describe or
separate the assessment.
Mr. Dallas said that to avoid over or under committing, they should come up with a plan to save
can reevaluate after several years. Further, some proposed projects are many years away.
Mr. Iaizzo said he is concerned how much the County might try to encumber.
Mr. Gibson said they should move forward on the priority CIP projects as soon as p
Mr, Dorrill said staff hired a civil engineer to have design specifications ready to
Mr. Dallas distributed his "Ideas for Developing Budget" document that suggests s
to consider areas where they can divert resources from regular maintenance prac .
to implement CIP projects.
Mr, Dorrill said it could be a useful exercise, but targeting a reduc
"across the board" cut would be a better approach.
1107
161 1
B i2.4;~ t.
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
January 12,2011
Mr. Levy said they are talking about using existing funds to get some of the CIP work done and Mr. Dallas
agreed that was what he was suggesting.
Mr. Chandler said it is a useful exercise but not something to do every year,
Mr. Dorrill said they renegotiated the office lease for three years in one-year increments with a 20%
reduction in rent. In the event they were to leave, they can continue to rent the radio tower space on the top ofthe
building for communication with irrigation transmitters for a nominal fee,
SCHEDULE FOR PREP ARA nON OF FY 2012 BUDGET
The Committee discussed their schedule to prepare the FY 2012 budget. At the February Budget
Committee meeting, they could start discussing how they should spend and save for CIP projects. At the March
Budget Committee meeting, staff can present a tentative budget to the Committee, At this meeting, the Committee
should determine whether to increase the assessment and by how much to save for future CIP projects, as well as
give staff final input. At the Committee's April meeting they Committee should approve the proposed FY 2012
budget to recommend to the full Board at the May 4 Services Division Board meeting, This will enable submission
to the County by the June 1 deadline. Ifnecessary, the Committee would schedule more than one meeting per
mOJlth. The Committee requested that staff provide this budget preparation schedule to members,
REVIEW OF LAST YEARS' FORMAT FOR BUDGET PREP ARA nON
Chairman Levy referred to backup material showing the format the Committee used last year to prepare the
budget. By line item, the first two columns show the prior years' budget and actual; the next four columns show the
current year's budget, year-to-date expenditures, estimated balance remaining, and actual total expenditures; and the
last column shows the proposed budget for the next fiscal year. The Committee's consensus was to use this format
to prepare the FY 2012 budget.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mr. Doyle said thank you for letting him voice his concerns, He suggested they revisit the methodology
used to calculate ERD's for commercial and institutional properties. In his opinion, religious institutions should be
exempt from the assessment.
AFTERTHOUGHTS
1108
The Committee discussed CIP projects to install several crosswalks with brick pavers on Pelican Bay
Boulevard and protecting this investment. The Boulevard needs resurfacing and the County is responsible
project however, it is not on their 5-year plan, It would cost roughly $3 million to resurface the Boul
community wants it done, they would most likely have to pay for it. Mr. Dallas said he has asked
out how much it would cost to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard and report at the February meet'
Mr. Gibson said the irrigation system is spraying traffic signage in the communi
brown, He suggested they start replacing the signs and prior to installation, they have the si
"automotive grade" quality paint.
Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division is responsible for the traffic
etc., located in the public right-of-way (ROW) within the Pelican Bay com
old, but replacing them is not part of the crp or this year's capital b
the public ROW within the Pelican Bay community is estimate
1611 8 24
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
January 12,2011
install new replacement signage. Mr. Lukasz said he identified some high priority lank bank restoration projects,
but they are not budgeted and estimated to cost $75,000. Last year, the Services Division budgeted $375,000 to
repair the south berm, Hole Montes evaluated and identified areas along the south berm that had eroded and
estimated it would cost $25,000 to repair. The Foundation had Wilson Miller evaluate the south berm because as
part of the CIP, they want to install rest areas along the berm. Wilson Miller estimated they could re-slope and
resurface areas along the berm for $125,000. The Foundation is responsible for the resurfacing, but the Services
Division is responsible for the water management portion. There may be rollover funds available from that project.
The Committee also discussed pathways and bicycle lanes i~ roadway. Generally, they agreed that
pathways are in poor condition communitywide and that the County .d not contribute funds for improvements.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Iaizzo made a motion second by Mr. Gibson to adjourn. Members voted to adjourn un
and the meetin ad'ourned at 4:36 .m.
Michael Levy, Chairman
Minutes by Lisa Resnick\1/21/2011 2:02:51 PM
1109
....
1611824
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD & PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION STRATEGIC
PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18,2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation
Strategic Planning Committee held a Community Improvement Plan Town Hall on Tuesday, January 18,
2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Keith J, Dallas, Chairman
Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman
John P. Chandler
Tom Cravens
Johan Domenie
Geoffrey S. Gibson
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill
Mary McCaughtry
Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee
Bob Vek, Chairman Rose Mary Everett
Ronnie Bellone, Co-Vice Chairwoman Gerald A. Moffatt
Merlin Lickhalter, Co-Vice Chairman Noreen Murray
Carson Beadle Mary Anne Womble
John Iaizzo
Michael Levy
Theodore Raia, Jr,
John Baron absent
Hunter H. Hansen absent
Lisa Resnick
Pelican Bay Foundation Staff
James Hoppensteadt, President
Suzanne Minadeo
Frank Laney
Jeff Shafer
Wilson Miller Stantec
Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PRESENTATION
Mr, Bob Vek gave a brief introduction. Mr, Hoppensteadt made a Strategic Master Plan presentation to
approximately thirty-five attendees showing the plan improvement areas, proposed conditions for crosswalks,
pathways, the Commons, community berm, street lighting, and public art, and probable budgets.
Mr. Dallas explained that the Services Division is responsible for street lighting and long-term irrigati
improvements and the Board plans to determine how start saving for these projects during the coming budget
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
112
Mr. Bob Sanchez, Oakmont resident said that a barrier along V,S. 41, affects safety, qual"
property values.
Mr, Hoppensteadt responded that the Foundation is working on studying the V,S
what type of barrier they need to construct. For the solution to be effective, science will d
Mr, Bill McCormick said they should consider widening pathways along the en
Bay Boulevard, Regarding street lighting, the Services Division should do n
along Pelican Bay Boulevard to improve obscured lighting, then reevaluate,
Mr. Dallas responded that the Services Division has done some t
16 I 1 B 2 4-~'1
Community Improvement Plan Town Hall Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2011
Mr. McCormick said there are many trees that the Services Division could attend. Based on Collier County
Sheriff reports, there is no crime problem in Pelican Bay. The Foundation should hold off on spending money for a
wall to address security issues until they investigate further. Noise is a separate issue.
Mr. Hoppensteadt agreed that the U.S, 41 berm is a complex issue and this group needs to understand the
issues before they can communicate them to the community.
A Claridge resident said that where he comes from, no one rides bicycle on pathways, but in the street.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said the pathways are multiuse and bicycle paths are not required on roadways, The
pathways in the community are in poor condition, so they have decided to improve areas along the west side of
Pelican Bay Boulevard, but there is still much to consider.
Mr, Vito Suziedelis said that he is not happy with the Wilson Miller report, but praised the Board and
Committee for the presentation that combines both entities' projects. There appears to be a preoccupation with using
expensive pavers at existing & future crosswalks and questioned whether several of the proposed crosswalks,
specifically 4, 5, and 9, are needed. It is desirable to widen the pathways along the west side of Pelican Bay
Boulevard but the amount budgeted is probably underestimated.
Mr. David Roellig asked if the County is contributing to roadways and pathways improvements because it
is the County's responsibility to maintain the public roadways and pathways.
Mr. Dallas said the County has no money and no plans to improve the roadways or pathways in Pelican
Bay. If the community wants improvements, they would probably have to pay for it.
Mr. Roellig said they should pursue county funding with the help of Commissioner Hiller, Regarding
widening the pathways, he is concerned about tree removal and tree trimming should be a maintenance activity.
Mr. Dallas said one of the reasons they chose the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard is because there are
minimal trees,
Ms. Rose Jones, St. Lucia resident, said that owners in St. Lucia are concerned about their views of the
Tram Station and noise generated by it.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said they would not do anything that will negatively affect property values and would
communicate a proposal to the community prior to making a decision,
A resident said they should limit the number of trees they remove. He cannot imagine that "older" resi
would want to ride bicycles in the roadway. This is the third street lighting improvement being contemplat
community and hopes they are not trying to fix something that does not need fixing. The pedestri
crosswalk on Myra Janco Daniels Parkway works great.
Mr. Dallas said they are sensitive to issue of tree removal. The Myra Janco Daniels automat
expensive. They will be installing conduits upon initial construction of each crosswalk later
add lights.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said a raised tactile surface provides a traffic calmin They
plan to leave more trees than remove trees, Tree removal depends upon what
Mr. Sanchez said there is a need for additional space in the comm
113
Community Improvement Plan Town Hall Meeting Minutes
January 18,2011
1611 B 24
Mr. Hoppensteadt said due to its central location, the Commons is the nucleus for the Foundation's Food
and Beverage Operations, so the issue oftraffic conflicts would still exist.
Ms, Sanchez asked if when they resurface the roads, would it affect pavers and concrete at the crosswalks.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said no,
Mr. Iaizzo said the crosswalk like the one at Myra Janco Daniels Parkway is expensive, but effective,
giving a positive indication for the motorist to stop. The roadways need resurfacing and he urged the community to
provide feedback.
Mr. Domenie said they could install yellow warning signs for drivers to expect bicycles in the roadway,
like in the City of Naples. He said that the new crosswalks require too many warning signs.
Mr. Steve Seidel referred to warning signs for drivers to expect pedestrians that are in the road at the
Naples Beach Club.
Mr. Gibson said he had showed the group photos of the signs in front of Naples Beach Club during past
discussions. Too many lights would make it look like the Las Vegas strip,
A resident said pedestrian activated lights are effective,
Another resident said Pelican Bay is a beautiful community, but crosswalks should be aesthetically pleasing
and agreed that the pavers are a good approach,
Ms. Murray said the group concluded that improvements should be made for safety and security, but in
keeping with the idea of Pelican Bay as a first-class community and aesthetics in mind, a consensus was made
unanimously to choose pavers, "Piano stripes just didn't cut it."
There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Minutes by Lisa Resnick/1/24/201l 2:51:04 PM
114
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Administrator's Report - Update on Community Improvement Plan - CIP Issues (J, Chandler)
Page 1 of 1
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
John Chandler
ResnickLisa
CIP
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:59:32 PM
161 1
824
Lisa,
Please forward this email to all PBSD Board members as a one way communication,
I think that we need "CIP Issues" to be on the agenda for our 2/2 meeting, It would be beneficial if the
staff could obtain answers to the following questions and requests prior to the meeting:
-If the presently proposed revision to the median cut at the North Tram Station is made, how many
trees and bushes north of the new cut will need to be removed in order to provide adequate visibility in
this area? A diagram showing exactly what will be removed would be helpful.
-Pedestrian accident statistics going back for several years covering the entire length of Pelican Bay
Boulevard would be helpful to confirm that the four new mid block crossings are needed.
-Also related to the mid block crossings, exactly what type and how many signs are required by law for
each crossing? What type and how many signs does the PBF envision?
, "
John Chandler
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Administrator's Report - Budget Amendment and Authorization for Community Improvement Plan Implementation
Page 1 of3
1611
82~
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 26, 2011
To:
From: W. Neil Dorrill, Administra or
RE: Budget Amendment and Autho . ation for Community Improvement Plan Implementation
Following the final C1P Town Hall meeting on January 18, 2011 and the Pelican Bay Services Division's Budget
Committee meeting of January 12, 2011, staff is now requesting the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to
authorize Phase I of the Community Improvement Plan and associated budget amendment.
Over the course of 2010 ten strategic planning workshops and board meetings were held resulting in wide
community support for projects in the following three areas:
.
. Traffic /Crosswalks
. Pathways
. Landscaping
Within these categories, fifteen COD redevetopment or safety projects were identified that total
$, :t^-9 I q 01
and
are summarized below,
Trafflc/CnGsswvalks Cost Cumulative Total
. New Crosswalk Pelican Bay Blvd / Ridgewood $100,150 $100,150
. New Crosswalk Pelican Bay Blvd / Gulf Park $218,003 $318,153
. New Crosswalk Pelican Bay Blvd / Myra Daniels $58,440 $376,593
. New Crosswalk Pelican Bay Blvd / North Pointe $68,987 $445,580
. New Crosswalk Pelican Bay Blvd / Hammock Oak $66,620 $512,200
. New Crosswalk Pelican Bay Blvd /Oakmont $96,966 $609,166
. New Crosswalk Gulf Park / Ridgewood $68,105 $677,271
. Gulf Park / Green Tree $71,042 $748,313
. Pelican Bay Blvd / Crayton $67,388 $815,701
PathwvilV$
. Improve Pathway Pelican Bay / Commons to N. Trl $205,700 $1,021,401
. Improve Pathway / Myra Daniels $ 39,500 $1,060,901
~oo ....:l:0 Ill:-~o-~ ~Ol:
\\
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1611 B ~ 4
Administrator's Report - Budget Amendment and Authorization for Commun' m e nt Imple ntati~
Page 2 of 3
Landscape
. Improve Visibility and landscape on 9 median bull noses
. Add Canopy Trees
. littoral Planting
Cost
Cumulative Total
$212,000
$34,000
$122,900
TOTAL
$1,272,901
$1,306,901
$1,429,801
$1,429,101'"
*includes design/contingency
BudJl:et Summarv
The Budget Committee at its meeting on January 12, 2011 identified sources totaling $2.5 million in available
funding.
Non ad-valorem assessment
$2,057,850
$ 370,009
$ 121,600
$ 7,700
Existing cash
Additional FY 2011 carry forward
Interest
"'All Funds
$2,557,159
As you are aware, the Board has authorized an engineering agreement with Acnoli, Barber, & Brundage that will
result in plans and specifications for the crosswalk projects which are scheduled to go to bid later this spring and
construction this summer.
As a result, staff is recommending that the Board authorize a budget amendment to transfer funds to recognize
the additional carry forward and design services and authorize the Phase' projects to proceed.
CC: leo Ochs, County Manager
Kyle lukasz, PBSD
Mary McCaughtry, PBSD
~oo ;t:l:O Il:- ~o- ~ ~Ol;
e
o
~
1::
OJ
E
OJ
a.
E
e
ttI
a:::
1::
<ll
E
OJ
>
o
a.
E
~
'c
:J
e E
,Q g
~U
<ll ~
C/)~
~B
5,~
OJ N
a:: "i::
"CO
ro~
o :J
CC<{
"0
e e
o ttI
00_
:~ ai
o E
rJ)"C
~ ai
,- E
~<{
(/J-
~~
CC-g
eCC
ttI ,
,!:2 1::
ai8.
Q.OJ
~~
C;o>
N -~
-.8 (')
NttI_
~-t; 0
~:~ ~
.cEo>
OJ "0 III
LL<{Q.
III
W
Ill:
::;)
~
Q
z
w
C1.
X
w
....
<
::;)
t
<
!:
tii
5
w
Ill:
o
....
o
"
o
N
>=
u:
GI
U
C
III
'':
III
>
'"
GI
U
C
III
Ii
co
l
:s
....
ii
:s
~
'"
ell
U
c
..!!
~
l
:s
....
-g
ell
t;
111
U
f
o
....
~
.-1
tI"I'
I'
V).
o
.".
en
<D
.".
tI"I
V).
.-1
tI"I
DO
tI"I'
I'
N
V).
...
c:
CII
E
ell
QO
111
c:
III
~
~
ell
...
..
::
DO
N
.".
..;
tI"I
.-1
V).
DO
en
\0
,.,.,
o
DO
V).
o
I'
N
cl
\0
\0
V).
c:
o
<J
..
u
<+=
<J
:J
..
CII
co
>-
...
"c
:::l
E
E
o
u
.".
tI"I
tI"I
N'
tI"I
V).
DO
I'
"
N'
o
N
V).
~
DO
en'
\0
.-1
V).
till
c:
<J
.r::.
till
:::;
...
ell
ell
....
...
VI
*
DO
o
en
,....'
tI"I
.-i
V).
\0
\0
tI"I
N'
.-i
.".
V).
DO
Ln
.".
.".'
I'
N
V).
>-
'"
co
E
III
iJ
a
I'
I'
1'-.
~
tI"I
N
.".
cl
'3.
.-4
V).
tI"I
en
.-i
,.....
Ln
en
.-1'
V).
'"
...
u
'!:!.
e
0..
..
...
"Ci.
..
u
8
o
I"-
M
"'"
....
~
o
~
...
CII
IlO
]
co
.-i
.-i
o
N
>=
u:
""C
ell
""C
c:
CII
E
..
~
...
-
o
1::
..
Q.
"~
~
..;
tI"I
.-1
V).
*
1611 B 24
~
~
-
lil
tli
~
AGNOIl
"BARBER &
.&UNDAGE, me.
1611 8 24
;,
REceIVED
JAN 2 5 20"
IE1.tc:AN BAY 8fRVICE8D1~
January 17,2011
Mr. Kyle Lukasz
Operations Manager
Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division
80 I Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605
Naples, Florida34108
Re: Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan - Crosswalks
Dear Mr. Lukasz:
At your request, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., is pleased to submit this proposal to render
professional Engineering services on the above referenced project
Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc, hereinafter referred to as ABB, proposes to provide Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division, hereinafter referred to as Client, the professional services outlined in
Exhibit "A" attached. Since the basis of the contract is time and materials and fixed fee, a copy of our
current rate code sheet is also included.
I. ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND EXTRA WORK
Services not specifically included in Exhibit "A" Scope of Services will be performed as
additional services on an hourly basis, plus reimbursable expenses in accordance with the Rate
Schedule enclosed with this Agreement. Services and fees provided in this Agreement are based
upon governmental rules, regulations and policies in effect at the time of execution of this
Agreement. Should changes take effect during the period services are being performed and result
in additional ABB work requirements, this Agreement will be modified by approval of the
parties. In addition, ABB will perform additional services beyond the work described within this
Agreement as requested and authorized by the Client. When such work can be identified in
advance, ABB will provide a reasonable estimate for such work and written authorization
obtained.
2. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
ABB will start services promptly upon receipt of the following: a retainer in th.e amount of $
Nt A . and one executed copy of a signed proposal. Upon receipt of the above listed
ABB will complete our work within a reasonable period of time. All funds provided as retainer
shall be credited to the last project billing.
Projects:2011: II..()()() I Pelican Bay Community Imprv. Plan - Crosswalks:Correspondenees:Proposa1:Pelican Bay Community
Improvement Plan - Crosswalks Proposal rev I.doc
1\.,o!
10n.
]. ,~()
! i F\\
\\~,\ \\.;1 t,l~.i.n( .(,'( ~n 1
~oo 6~:U S~-~O-~~O~
1611 8,24'
3. OUTSIDE SERVICES
Outside services not specifically included in this Agreement are as follows:
A. Geotechnical Engineering
B. Structural Engineering Services
C. Transportation Planning/Engineering Services
D. Materials Testings
E. Hazardous Waste Assessments
F. Legal Services
G. Landscape Architecture
H. Survey Construction Stake-Out
I. Services not specifically described in Sec. I of this Agreement
4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CLIENT
ABB's performance under this Agreement is contingent upon the Client or others designated by
the Client providing ABB with:
A. All documents, information relating to special or extraordinary considerations, existing
permits, maps, deeds, easements, abstracts, surveys, topography or other information in
the client's possession relating to the project.
B. In writing of all client's criteria, design, construction and other requirements for the
project.
C. Any existing surveys of the property.
D. Guarantee of access to and make provisions for the Consultant and subcontractors to
enter upon .public and private lands as required to perform their work under this
Agreement.
E. Client shall pay all agency review fees.
5. FEES AND COMPENSATION
Billing for services and reimbursable expenses will be submitted on a monthly basis. All invoices
are due and payable upon receipt. Invoices not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrne interest at
a rate of 1.5% per month from the due date until paid. If payment is not received within forty-
five (45) days from date of invoice, work will stop until the total unpaid balance has been
received. The project schedule and schedule of deliverables will be subject to the Client's timely
payments of fees. In the event it is necessary for the Consultant to employ an attorney to collect
sums due under this Agreement, Client shall be responsible for all costs incurred, including
Consultant's reasonable attorney fees.
Fee Disclaimer: Client agrees that Consultant has been selected to perform services on this
project based on .qualificationsand expertise in the area of Civil Engineering, Land Surveying,
and Land Planning. Client also agrees that the current permitting climate is unpredictable due to
2
Projects:20 11: 11-000 I Pelican Bay Community Imprv. Plan - Crosswa1ks:Correspondences:Proposal:Pelican Bay Community
Improvement Plan - Crosswalks Proposal revl.doc
Z;OO 6Z;:Z;~ gZ;'Ur~ ~OZ;
1611 8 24
continually cbanging regulations and interpretations .of same. Engineer bas presented good faith
budget estimates based .on.pastperf.onnance .of similar w.ork but in n.o .way can guarantee that
these budgets will be sufficient far the successful completi.on .of the pennitting tasks represented
berein,.or thatpennits can be obtained far the Client's project.
6. PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS
1, Acceptance Period. This prop.osal is effective far a period.of sixty (60) days from the
date shown. If n.ot accepted in writing within this peri.od, tbe C.onsultant rese['\l'es the
right to modifY any porti.on there.of .or withdraw the prop.osal in its entirety.
2. Ownership .of Documents. All documents, including.original drawings, nates, data and
report .originals are andsball remain the pr.operty .of the C.onsultant as. an instrument .of
service. Ifs.o requested in writing, the Client will be provided reproducible drawings and
.other documents in c.onsideration .of which the Client agrees t.o use /them with.out
alterati.on s.olely in c.onnecti.on with the pr.oject.
3. Pr.oposed sc.ope and fee is based.on Client pr.oviding the Pelican Bay B.oulevard and Gulf
Park Drive drawings in CAD f.onnat far .our use in preparing design plans.
7 . TERMINATION AND LIABILITY
This Agreement may be tenninated with .or without cause by either party upon seven (1) days
written n.otice. In the event .of tenninati.on, Client shall be bound to pay C.onsultant far all
services rendered t.o the effective date .of tenninati.on, all reimbursable expenses and c.ollecti.on "'..4
and/.or legal fees. Neither the C.onsultant.or C.onsultant's subc.ontract.ors shall be j.ointly, severally
.or individually liable t.o the .owner in excess .of the compensati.ont.o be paid pursuant to this
Agreement.
We h.ope that this Agreement satisfactorily resp.onds t.o y.our request. If the Agreement is acceptable, .one
.original c.opy, signed. by a duly auth.orized representative .of the Client, sh.ould be returned and will serve
as .our auth.orizati.on t.o proceed. By signing bel.ow, the undersigned hereby represents and warrants that
they have full auth.ority t.o contract .on the Client's behalf far the services and fees proposed herein. If y.ou
have any questi.ons, please d.o n.ot hesitate t.o call.
Sincerely,
rI:;BR
James A. Carr.~
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Auth.orized Signature and Title
Date
3
Projects:20 J J: 11'()()01 Pelican Bay Community lmprv. Plan. Crosswalks:Correspondences:Proposal:Pelican Bay Community
Improvement Plan. Crosswalks Proposal revl.doc
EOO 6Z:Z~ SZ-~O-~~OZ
16 I 1 B 2 4 I'.
Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., (ABB) is pleased to submit this proposal to render professional engineering services.
It is our understanding that the Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division (CCPBSD) is requesting a proposal from
ABB for the engineering design and permitting for proposed crosswalks and associated sign and markings within
Pelican Bay. The following is a description for the scope of services:
Fourteen existing and proposed crosswalk locations have been. identified in the Pelican Bay Community Improvement
Plan as prepared by Wils()n Miller Inc. The Traffic Calming Improvement Study (page 44.ofthe report) identifies a
unified crosswalk proposal throughout the major .roadwayswithin theconununity.Plansw~ll~preparedtodevelop
specific details for each location showing geometric alignments, construction materials, striping, slgnage and other
markings as necessary for permitting and construction.
The scope of services under this proposal for CCPBSD include crosswalks 1,2,3,6,7,8,12 and 13 as identified in the
Pelican Bay Community IInprovement Plan. A separate proposal will be provided to the Pelican Bay Foundation for the
professional services associated with crosswalks 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11. It is understood that both projects will be
simultaneous for plan preparation and permitting (one overall plan set, one Right of Way permit).
1. As-Built Survey Data.Colleetion. ABB will collect topographic survey elevation data
at each of the proposed crosswalk locations (1,2,3,6, 7, 8, 12,13) including sidewalks,
curbs, signs and striping. The field survey information collected will provide the
required information necessary to design the curb cuts and sidewalks in accordance with
ADA and FOOT/County standards.
2. Site Development Plans. Prepare site plans in AutoCAD for the overall project
including enlarged views at each of the proposed crosswalk improvements. Provide
geometric layout of existing and proposed sidewalks, curb cuts, ramps, pavers,concrete
bands, striping and signage. Provide grading and drainage information for compliance
with existing drainage patterns, Arnerican Disabilities Act (ADA) and Collier County
and FOOT design standards. Use the Community Improvement Plan as a basis for
proposed mid-block and intersection crosswalk locations, and develop conceptual plan
into engineered construction drawings.. Considertraffic.c@ningmethods . and other
FOOT and MUTCDstandards to provide a uniform . signing and marking design for
pedestrians and drivers.
3. Collier CountvRieht of Way Permittio2. Coordinate with Collier County staff on
submittal criteria and pre-application meeting if necessary. Prepare submittal data,
opinion of costs, fee calcul.ations and information required for application. Prepare cover
letter outlining project scope and proposed improvements. Provide multiple copies 0
plans, letters, applications, etc. for submittal. Sign and seal documents as required.
Collate and copy documents and attend submittal meeting with County. Track permit
progress, coordinate with staff and respond to reviewer comments. Resubmit revised
lans and documents staff comments.
4
$4,225.00 FF
$6.825.00 FF
$3,250.00 TM
Projects:20 11: 11-000 I. Pelican Bay Community Imprv. Plan - Crosswalks:Correspondences:PropQsal:Pelican Bay Community
Improvement Plan - Crosswalks PropQsal n::vl.doc
toO 6<::<:~ g<:-~o-~ ~o<:
1611 B 24
4. Contract Documents. Specifications and Biddin~. Prepare final construction plans
and technical specifications sufficient for bidding purposes. Prepare summary of bid
quantities and final opinion of cost. Provide plan copies and construction documents for
bid sets (costs of documents to be reimbursable). Coordinate and attend one pre-bid
meeting with Client. Respond to bidders inquiries and prepare infonnation for issuance
by Client. Review contractors' unit price bid tabulations and make recommendation for
award.
$2,925.00 FF
5. Construction Services. Review and comment on shop drawings and submittals by
contractors. Attend one pre-construction meeting. Provide assistance during construction
to answer contractor questions and coordinate design. Provide construction observation
services to the extent necessary to provide certifications to agencies. Provide record
drawings of improvements based on field adjustments/additions (surveying not included)
$2,925.00 TM
Reim bursables
Per Attached
Rate Sheet
FF = Fixed Fee. Billings will be based on percent completion.
TM = Time and Materials. Billing will be based on actual time and materials expended in accordance with our rate
schedule. Budgets given will not be exceeded without prior authorization.
5
Projeds:20 II: I 1-000 I Pelican Bay Community Imprv, Plan - Crosswalks:Correspondences:Proposal:Pelican Bay Community
Improvement Plan - Crosswalks Proposal revl.doc
SOD O~:Z ~ SZ'~O'~ ~OZ
"
16 I 1 8 24
-/ I
Schedule B
Contract No: 09-5262 "County Wide Engineering Services"
Standard Hourly Rate Schedule for all disciplines
Personnel Cateaorv
Principal
Senior Project Manager
Project Manager
Senior Engineer
Standard Hourlv Rate
$195
$165
$148
$155
$119
$85
$85
$140
$110
$115
$100
$115
$145
$100
$80
$130
$85
$130
$160
$180
Engineer
Senior Inspector
Inspector
Senior Planner
Planner
Senior Designer
Designer
Environmental Specialist
Senior GIS Specialist
GIS Specialist
Clerical
Surveyor and Mapper
CADD Technician
Survey Crew - 2 man
Survey Crew - 3 man
Survey Crew - 4 man
This list is not Intended to be ail-inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support
and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as
needed.
900 Ot:G~ gG-~o-UOG
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
Current Liabilities
Accounts/Trade Payable
Accrued Wages Payable
Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd
Total liabilities
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
Total fund Balance
Total liabilities and Fund Balance
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - January 31, 2011
Operating Fund 109
(Unaudited)
Assets
2,526,225.66
1611
24
8
$ 2,526,225.66
$ 2,526,225,66
liabilities and Fund Balance
$ (26,859,05) j'
, l
(28,879,39)
$ (55,738.44)
(1,173,770,02)
(1,296,717,20)
(2,470,487,22)
$ (2,526,225.66)
Page 1 of 1
~oo EE:~~ ~E-~O-~~O~
J
1611 a24
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement wI Budget- January 31,2011
Operating Fund 109 . FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual
Budget
YTD
Actual
YTD
Budget
Operating Revenues:
Carryforward
Special Assessment - Water Management Admin
Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification
Charges for Services
Surplus Property Sales
Interest
Total OperatIng Revenues
Operating Expenditures:
Water Management Administration
Payroll Expense
White Goods
IT Direct Client Support (Capital)
IT Office Automation
lndirect Cost Reimbursement
Interdepartmental Payment
Other Contractural Services
Telephone
Postage
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
Variance
$ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00
728,400.00 640,992.00 645,357.37 4,365.37
1,938,600.00 1,705,968.00 1,717,586.22 11,618.22
1,500.00
11,700.00 425.00 415.41 (9.59)
3,623,300.00 3,290,485.00 3,306,459.00 15,974.00
800,00
400,00
126,400.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
83.80 $
55,00 $
86,293.42
11,200,00 $ 11,595,36
100.00 100.00
4,000,00 4,000,00
93,100.00 54,100,00
10,300.00 9,853.80
1,400.00 935.66
200.00 247,79
4,500.00 4,997.01
400,00 325,00
$ 41,200,00 $
8,800.00
200.00
8,000.00
108,200,00
14,600.00
30,800.00
4,100.00
3,000.00
13,600,00
1,300.00
2,300.00
4,000.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
1,100.00
245,700.00
Water Management Field Operations
Payroll Expense
Engineering Fees
Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc.
Flood Control Replanting Program
Inter?epartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab)
Plan Review Fees
Other Contractural Services
Temporary Labor
Telephone
Trash and Garbage
Motor Pool Rental Charge
Insurance - General
Insurance - Auto
Fleet Maintenance and Parts
Fuel and Lubricants
Tree Trimlng
Clothing and Uniforms
Personal Safety Equipment
Fertilizer and Herbicides
Other Repairs and Maintenance
134,300.00 39,000.00 37,752.92
16,381.25 5,500.00 1,286.25
14,000.00 2,333.33
8,500.00 2,831.33 2,986.00
22,600.00 5,700.00 2,047.75
1,500.00
1,000.00 300,00
42,400,00 14,100.00 13,793,00
500.00 200.00 144.16
8,300.00 2,SOO,OO 1,686,28
200.00 100.00
2,400.00 800.00 600.00
900.00 300.00 225.00
4,500.00 1,500.00 249.00
3,200.00 1,100.00 588,42
30,000.00 10,000.00 4,992,00
1,100.00 300.00 495,06
500.00 200.00
98,400.00 27,100.00 28,965.75
1,500.00 500.00 34.30
Page 1 of3
(395,36)
39,000.00
446.20
464,34
(47.79)
(497.01)
75,00
716.20
345.00
40,106.58
1,247,08
4,213,75
2,333,33
(154.67)
3,652.25
300.00
307.00
55,84
813. 72
100,00
200,00
75.00
1,251.00
511.58
5,008.00
(195,06)
200.00
(1,865,75)
465.70
ZOO €€: ~ ~ ~€-~o-~ ~O<:
1 6 I 1 8 24
Other Operating $' Ipplies and Equipment 2,500,00 800,00 1,376,78 (576.78)
Total Water Management Field Operating 394,681.25 115,164.67 97,222.67 17,942.00
Right of Way Beautification - Operating
Payroll Expense 42,400,00 11,600.00 11,946,23 (346.23)
White Goods 7,400,00
IT Direct Client Support and Capital 7,000,00 3,500,00 3,500,00
Other Contractural Services 37,500:00 12,500.00 10,152.40 2,347.60
Telephone 3,900,00 1,300.00 935,66 364,34
Postage 3,000,00 200.00 1,79 198,21
Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 14,000.00 4,700.00 5,380.56 (680.56)
Insurance - General 500.00 125,00 125,00
Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00
Clerk's Recording 4,000.00
legal Advertising 2,000.00
Office Supplies General 3,000.00 1,000,00 216.40 783.60
Training and Education 1,500.00 500.00 25.00 475,00
Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 128,800.00 35,425,00 32,283.04 3,141.96
Right of Way Beautification - Field
Payroll Expense 827,700,00 231,400.00 199,997,20 31,402.80
White Goods 3,300,00 t
flood Control (Water Use & Swale/Berm Mntc,) 136,900.00 47,700,00 40,065,17 7,634.83
Pest Control 5,000,00 1,700.00 1,700,00
Other Contractural Services 29,500,00 9,800,00 17,679.55 (7,879.55)
Temporary labor 204,500.00 68,200.00 60,360.69 7,839.31
Telephone 3,200.00 1,100.00 938.81 161.19
Electricity 3,400.00 1,100.00 986.37 113.63
Trash and Garbage 24,900.00 9,800.00 2,708.88 7,091.12
Rent Equipment 5,500.00 2,800,00 136.28 2,663,72
Motor Pool Rental Charge 700,00
Insurance - General 9,000,00 2,250,00 2,250,00
Insurance - Auto 9,900,00 2,475,00 2,475,00
fleet Maintenance and Parts 21,200.00 7,100,00 9,936.11 (2,836,11)
fuel and lubricants 44,200.00 14,700.00 9,260,83 5,439.17
licenses and Permits 800.00 300,00 300.00
Tree Triming 35,900.00 34,100.00 36,377.50 (2,277.50)
Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 2,400.00 2,338.11 61,89
Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,000,00 512,00 488.00
Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 27,400.00 30,226.09 (2,826.09)
landscape Maintenance 60,200.00 27,090,00 46,393.55 (19.303.55)
Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 10,000.00 10,122,70 (122.70)
Painting Supplies 800.00 300.00 300.00
Traffic Signs 3,000.00 1,000,00 1,000.00
Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 1,000.00 868.34 131.66
Other Operating Supplies 11,500.00 3,800.00 2,704.77 1,095.23
Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating 1,548,500,00 508,515.00 476,337.95 32,117,05
Total Operating EJ<penditures 2,317,681.25 785,504.67 692,137.08 93,367,59
Capital bpendltures:
Water Management Field Operations
Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 300,00 300,00
General Improvements 13,200.00 3,300.00 3,300.00
Total Water Management Field Operations Capital 14,200.00 3,600.00 3,600.00
Page 2 of 3
tootn~ ~t.~o-~~OZ
1611 824
Right of Way Beautification - Field
Building Improvements 13,600.00 3,400.00 3,400,00
Autos and Trucks 28,000,00 24,000.00 23,597.00 403.00
other Machinery and Equipmeny 17,000.00
Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital 58,600.00 27,400.00 23,597.00 3,803.00
Total Capital Expenditures 72,800.00 31,000.00 23,597.00 7,403.00
Total Expenditures 2,390,481.25 816,504.67 715,734.08 100,770.59
Operating Proflt/(loss) 1,2U,818.75 2,473,980.33 2,590,724.92 (116,744.59)
Non-Operating Revenues and (Expenditures):
Transfer to Fund 322 (259,200.00) (259,200,00) (259,200.00)
Tax Collector Fees (82,500.00) (49,500.00) 47,258,87 96,758.87
Property Appraiser Fees (75,300.00) (45,180.00) (43,502.36) 1,677.64
Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) (555,025,00) (555,025,00) (555,025.00)
Reserves for Equipment (124,875,00) (124,875.00) (124,875,00)
Revenue Reserve (140,300.00)
Total Non-Operating Revenues and Expenditures, net (1,237,200.00) (1,033,780.00) (935,343.49) 98,436.51
Net Proflt/(loss) (4,381.25) 1,440,200.33 1,655,381.43 (18,308.08)
Page 3 of 3
VOOEn~ ~E-~O-~~O<:
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
Current liabilities
Accounts/Trade Payable
Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd
Accrued Wages Payable
Total Liabilities
Fu nd Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
Pelican Bay Services .
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - January 31, 2011
Clam Bay Fund 320
(Unaudited)
Assets
$ 384,295.31
384,295.31
$ 384,295.31
Liabilities and Fund Balance
$
$
(522.50)
(3,314.75)
(3,837.25)
(423,553.80)
43,095.74
(380,458.06)
$ (384,295.31)
Page 1 of 1
1611 8 24
SOOOv:~~ ~t-~o-~~o~
1611 824 '\
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement wI Budget - January 31, 2011
Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual Variance
Operating Revenues:
Carry Forward $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $
Special Assessment 35,000.00 30,800.00 31,009.75 $ 209.75
Fund 111 35,000.00 $
Interest 1,300.00 400,00 414.12 $ 14.12
Total Operating Revenues 506,519.1' 466.419.17 466,643.04 223.87
Operating Expenditures:
Clam Bay Restoration
Engineering Fees $ 102,943.75 $ 3,700.00 $ 2,018.75 $ 1,681.25
Other Contractural Services 137,390.00 9,500,00 5,324.40 $ 4,175.60
Other Equipment Repairs 485.42 200,00 506.00 $ (306.00)
Minor Operating 4,800.00 1,600,00 $ 1,600.00
Other Operating Supplies 1,000.00 300.00 $ 300.00
Total Clam Bay Restoration 246,619.17 15,300.00 ',849.15 7,450.85
Clam Bay Ecosystem
Engineering Fees 11,300.00 3,800.00 417.50 3,382.50
Other Contractual Services 25,000.00
Total Clam Bay Ecosystem 36,300.00 3,800.00 417.50 3,382.50
Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures 282,919.17 19,100.00 8,266.65 10,833.35
Operating Profit/Closs) 223,600.00 44',319.17 458,376.39 (10,609.48)
Non-Operating Revenues and (Expenditures):
Transfer to Fund 322 (65,000.00) (65,000.00) (65,000.00)
Tax Collector Fees (1,100.00) (660.00) 620,20 (1,280.20)
Property Appraiser Fees (700.00) (175.00) (175.00)
Revenue Reserve (1,800,00)
Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) (155,000.00) (155,000.00) (155,000.00)
Total Non-Operating Revenues and EXpE (223,600.00) (220,835.00) (154,379.80) (66,455.20)
Net Profit/floss) $ (0.00) $ 226,484.17 $ 303,996.59 $ 55,845.72
Page 1 of 1
900 OV:~ ~ ~t-~o-~ ~Ol
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
Current Liabilities
AccountsjTrade Payable
Goods Received Inv. Received
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - January 31, 2011
Capital Projects Fund 322
(Unaudited)
Assets
1611 8 24
$
2,369,125.65
Liabilities and Fund Balance
-
$ 2,369,125.65
$
452.36
452.36
(1,960,586,75)
(408,991.26)
Page 1 of 1
(2,369,578,01)
$ (2,369,125,65)
LOOOv:~~ ~~-~o-HOZ
161 1 B 24
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement wi Budget - January 31, 2011
Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual
Budget
VTD
Budget
VTD
Actual
Variance
Operating Revenues:
Carry Forward
Special Assessment
Interest
Total Operating Revenues
$ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987,30 $
121,600.00 107,008.00 4,116,37 $ (102,891.63)
7,700.00 2,600.00 1,993.17 $ (606.83)
2,073,287.30 2,053,595.30 1,950,096.84 (103,498.46)
Operating Expenditures:
Irrigation & Landscaping
Engineering Fees
Other Contractural Services
Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures
$ 113,628.45 $
2,354,658.85
2,468,287.30
$
$
$
Non-Operating Revenues and (expenditures):
Transfer from Fund 109 General $ 259,200.00 $ 259,200.00 $ 259,200.00 $
Transfer from Fund 320 Clam Bay 65,000.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 $
Transfer from Fund 778 Street lighting 83,600.00 83,600.00 83,600.00 $
Tax Collector Fees (3,800.00) (2,470.00) 2,154.74 $ 4,624,74
Property Appraiser Fees (2,500.00) (1,625.00) $ 1,625,00
Reserve for Contingencies (100.00) (100,00) $ 100.00
Revenue Reserve (6,400.00) $
Total Non-Operating Revenues and Expenditure! 395,000.00 403,605.00 409,954.74 $ 6,349.74
Net Profit/CLoss)
(0.00) 2,457,200.30 2,360,051.58
(97,148.72)
Page 10f1
900 ot>: ~ ~ ~&-~o-~ ~m:
1611824
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - January 31, 2011
Street lighting Fund 778
(Unaudited)
Assets
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
$
296,061.57
$
296,061.57
Total Assets
$
296,061.57
Liabilities and Fund Balance
Current Liabilities
Accounts/Trade Payable
Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd
Accrued Wages Payable
Total Liabilities
$
(1,249.05)
(2,361.99)
$
(3,611.04)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenue (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance
(208,670.25)
(83,780.28)
(292,450.53)
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
$
(296,061.57)
Page 1 of 1
600 ~n~ ~t-~o-~~O(;
1611824
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement wI Budget - January 31, 2011
Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual Variance
Operating Revenues:
Carryforward $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $
Curent Ad Valorem Tax 273,200.00 ' 240,416.00 238,590.93 $ (1,825.07)
Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax $
Interest 1,200.00 398.00 '187,69 $ (210.31)
Total Operating Revenues 444,200.00 410,614.00 408,578.62 (2,035.38)
Operating Expenditures:
Street lighting Administration
Payroll Expense $ 41,200.00 $ 13,700.00 $ 11,595.34 $ 2,104.66
Indirect Cost Reimbursement 6,300.00 $ 3,200.00 3,150.00 $ 50.00
Other Contractural Services 20,800.00 $ 6,900,00 7,781.40 $ (881.40)
Telephone 4,100.00 $ 1,400.00 674.79 $ 725.21
Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 200.00 1.79 $ 198.21
Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 13,600.00 $ 4,500.00 5,176.41 $ (676,41)
Insurance - General 400.00 $ 100.00 100.00 $
Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 300.00 4.90 $ 295.10
Total Street lighting Admin Operating 90,200.00 30,600.00 28,484.63 2,115.37
Street Lighting Field Operations
Payroll Expense 62,900.00 18,200.00 17,594.86 605,14
White Goods 9,600.00
Other Contractual Services 800.00 300.00 300.00
Telephone 500,00 200.00 144.16 55.84
Electricity 44,200.00 14,700.00 11,660.55 3,039.45
Insurance - General 800.00 200.00 200.00
Insurance - Auto 900.00 225,00 225.00
Fleet Maintenance and Parts 1,100.00 400.00 75,00 325.00
Fuel and Lubricants 400,00 100,00 160.86 (60.86)
Other Equipment Repairs 200.00 100.00 100.00
Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 200,00 200.00
Electrical Contractors 7,300,00 2,400,00 4,147.66 (1,747.66)
Light Bulb Ballast 12,400.00 3,300,00 3,597.24 (297.24)
Total Street Lighting Field Operating 141,600.00 40,325.00 37,805.33 2,519.67
Page 1 of 2
o~o ~v:~~ ~&-~O-~~OZ:
16' 1
L
24
Total Operating Expenditures
231,800.00
70,925.00
66,289.96
4,635.04
Capital Expenditures:
Street Lighting Field Operations
Other Machinery/Equipment
General Improvements
1,000.00
13,200.00
300.00
3,300.00
300.00
3,300.00
Total Capital Expenditures
14,200.00
3,600.00
3,600.00
Total All Expenditures 246,000.00 74,525.00 66,289.96 8,235.04
Operating Profit/CLoss) 198,200.00 336,089.00 342,288.66 (10,270.42)
Non-Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): t ,;'
Transfer to Fund 322 (83,600.00) (83,600.00) (83,600,00)
Tax Collector Fees (8,400.00) (5,460.00) (4,797,94) 662.06
Property Appraiser Fees (5,500.00) (3,575.00) 3,575.00
Reserves (2 1/2/ months for Operations) (58,800.00) (58,800.00) (58,800.00)
Reserves for Equipment (27,500.00) (27,500,00) (27,500.00)
Revenue Reserve (14,400.00)
Total Non-Operating Revenues and Expl (198,200.00) (178,935.00) (174,697.94) 4,237.06
Net Profit/Closs)
157,154.00
167,590.72
(6,033.36)
Page 2 of 2
HO ~":H ~~:-~O-HOZ
1 6 IRlfcE8'Ei 4
JAN 2 4 2011
i'EUCAN BAY SERViCES DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1520 ROYAL PALM SQUARE BOULEVARD, SUITE 310
FORT MYERS, FL 33919
JAN 1 9 2011
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
January 19, 2011
Regulatory Division
South Permits Branch/Fort Myers Section
Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division
801 Laurel Oak Drive
Naples, FL 34108
Attention Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has completed the
review and evaluation of your Department of the Army permit
application, number SAJ-1996-02789. Our regulations require that
you have an opportunity to review the terms and conditions prior
to final signature by the Department of the Army. Enclosed is an
unsigned Department of the Army permit instrument (permit).
Please carefully read the Special Conditions beginning on
page 3 of the permit. These were developed to apply specifically
to your project. Water Quality Certification is also required
prior to issuance of a permit. The Corps has received a copy of
the State of Florida certification for your project. In
accordance with General Condition 5 of the permit, any special
conditions of the Water Quality Certification have been attached
to the Department of the Army permit.
Instructions for Objecting to Permit Terms and Conditions:
This letter contains an initial proffered permit for your
proposed project. If you object to certain terms and conditions
contained within the permit, you may request that the permit be
modified. Enclosed is a Notification of Administrative Appeal
Options and Process fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA)
form. If you object to certain terms and conditions of the
permit, you must follow directions provided in Section 1, Part A
and submit the completed RFA form to the letterhead address.
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps
must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria
under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been received by the
District office within 60 days of the date of the RFA. If you
100 Wd 8S:11 HOl-vl-lO
1611
8
24
-2-
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the
letterhead address by March 20, 2011.
Instructions for Accepting Terms and Conditions and
Fina1izing Your Permit: It is not necessary to submit an RFA
form to the District office, if you do not object to the
decision in this letter. The permit must be signed by the
applicant in the space provided on the signature page of the
permit; in the case of corporations, acceptance must be by an
officer of that corporation authorized to sign on behalf of the
corporation. The party responsible for assuring the work is done
in accordance with the permit terms and conditions must sign the
permit. Please type or print the name and title of the person
signing below the signature and the date signed.
SIGN AND RETURN THE PERMIT, IN ITS ENTIRETY, TO THE
LETTERHEAD ADDRESS. THERE IS NO FEE.
The permit will be signed by the District Engineer and returned
to you. It is important to note that the permit is not va1id
until the District Engineer signs it.
The Corps Jacksonville District Regulatory Division is
committed to improving service to our customers. We strive to
perform our duty in a friendly and timely manner while working
to preserve our environment. We invite you to complete our
Customer Service Survey at: htto:lloer2.nwo,usace.armv,mil/surveV.html. Your
input is appreciated.
If you have any questions concerning this application, you
may contact Linda A. Elligott in writing at the letterhead
address or by telephone at 239-334-1975, Ext. 32.
Enclosures
Sincerely, ~
~~ 4r t{~~
folZ
Donald W. Kinard
Chief, Regulatory Division
ZOO Wd 8S:n nOZ-vZ-lO
See Section below
A
B
C
D
E
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the pennit
. ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit. you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP). you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard
Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit. including its terms and
conditions. and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit,
. OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain tenns and conditions therein, you may request that the permit
be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received
by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future, Upon receipt of
your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit
to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written, After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered pennit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the pennit
· ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit. you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP). you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard
Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit. including its terms and
conditions. and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit,
· APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may ,J
appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the forJ j
to the division engineer, This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice,
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial ofa pennit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing
Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the
date of this notice,
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information,
· ACCEPT: You do not need to notifY the Corps to accept an approved JD, Failure to notifY the Corps within 60 days of the date of this
notice. means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD,
· APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal
Process by completing Section II ofthis form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice,
E: ~~LlMIN~Y JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The
Prehml~ary JD IS not appealable, If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for
further Instruction, Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
fOO Wd 6S:n noz-t?z-W
1611 B
24
ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): December 13, 2010
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division, 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Naples, FL
34108
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: SAJ-1996-02789
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: tidal
Clam Bay near Pelican Bay residential development, Naples, Collier County,
Florida
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WA TERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: FL County/parishlborough: Collier City: Naples
Site coordinates: (Iat/long in degree decimal format): from Northern limit:
Latitude 26.247024N; Longitude 81.818878W to Southern limit: Latitude
26.214063N; Longitude 81.814505W
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: tidalClam Bay/Clam Pass to the Gulf of Mexico
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres,
Cowardin Class: Marine/estuarine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 0.0 acres.
Cowardin Class: estuarine sub-tidal
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal: tidal Clam Bay/Clam Pass
Non-Tidal:
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPL Y):
I:8J Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 12/13/10
D Field Determination. Date(s):
1
100 Wd 00:10 nOZ-i7Z-lO
16 J 1
b 24
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time,
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre-construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F, R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "may be"waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
2
lOO Wd lQ:lQ HOl-17l-lQ
1611
24'- '
IJ
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
[gJ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant:
[gJ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consu Itant.
[gJ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
D Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report,
D Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
D Corps navigable waters' study:
[gJ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
D USGS NHD data.
[gJ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps,
D U.S. Geological Survey map(s), Cite scale & quad name:
D USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
D National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:USFWS web-site
December 2010.
D State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
D FEMAlFIRM maps:
D 1 DO-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
[gJ Photographs: [gJ Aerial (Name & Date):Collier County Property Appraiser
web-site .
or [gJ Other (Name & Date):Google Earth Pro,
D Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:.
D Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later iurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
3
EOO Wd lQ:lQ nOZ-i7Z-lQ
1611 B 24
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Pera1ttee: Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division
801 Laurel Oak Drive
Naples, FL 34108
Per.mit No: SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Issuing Office: u.s. Army Engineer District, Jacksonvi11e
NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this
permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term
"this office" refers to the appropriate district or division
office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the
permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office
acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms
and conditions specified below.
Project Description: The project is to conduct periodic
ecological maintenance activities over a 10-year timeframe
within the tidal Clam Bay estuary involving: a) manual clearing
of existing hand-dug channel cuts (using round-point
shovels/machetes); b) creation of additional hand-dug channel
cuts; c) mangrove trimming and vegetation/debris removal, along
56,660 linear feet of the estuary system. Removed natural
.materials to be dispersed along the channel cuts, mulched for
reuse, or disposed of at the Pelican Bay Services landscape
disposal site or a licensed local disposal facility; no
mechanized equipment use; clearing is contingent upon conditions
of >50% flow reduction due to bloCkage/obstructions. The work
area consists of a network of hand-dug channel cuts of 3 various
widths (Type 1: 36-inch wide along 28,480 linear feet; Type 2:
12-inch wide along 19,720 linear feet; Type 3: 6-12-inch wide
along 8,460 linear feet) that improve flushing and eliminate
water ponding. The proposed work would continue ecological
restoration work that has been conducted as part of the Clam Bay
Restoration and Management Plan (1998) and has resulted in
successful restoration of mangrove habitat. The volume of
material to be removed is -20 cubic yards per year on an as-
needed basis; the annual work has historically been conducted in
May/June for a 1-2 week duration. Site access is by foot from
upland areas, or via small vessels; the work area is generally
at or above the Mean High Water (MHW) line in waters that are
characterized as having a maximum water depth of 18 inches. The
applicant has agreed to comply with the Sea Turtle and
100 Wd ZO:lO noz-t>z-lO
16 J 1 B 24
PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco-restoration work
PAGE 2 of 9
Small tooth Sawfish Construction Conditions and Standard Manatee
Conditions for In-Water Work.
The work described above is to be completed in accordance with
the 9 pages of drawings (Attachment 1) and 2 other attachments
(Attachments 2-3) affixed at the end of this permit instrument.
Project Location: The proposed work area is located within tidal
Clam Bay, in Sections 32-33, Township 48S, Range 25E and
Sections 4-5, 8-9, 32-33, Township 49S, Range 25E, Naples,
Collier County, Florida.
Directions to site: From 1-75 near Naples, take exit 107 toward
Naples/Golden Gate (CR 896/Pine Ridge Road); continue west 3.9
miles (crossing u.S. 41) onto Seagate Drive; proceed straight
0.5 miles (ends at Clam Pass Park). The site extends north for 3
miles from the northern limit of the park. By boat: use the
public boat ramp at Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee Park. From 1-75
near Naples, take exit III (Immokalee Road); continue west 3.6
miles to u.S. 41; turn right onto u.S. 41; continue 1.5 mile to
left onto Wiggins Pass Road (ends at Vanderbilt Beach Road);
boat ramp immediately southwest of intersection.
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE (NAD83) 'Site Coordinates:
Northern limit: Latitude 26.247024 N; Longitude 81.818878 W
Southern limit: Latitude 26.214063 N; Longitude 81.814505 W
Pe~it Conditions
General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends
, 2021. If you find that you need more time to
complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time
extension to this office for consideration at least one month
before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in
good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions
of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you
abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good
faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General
Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the
lOO ItJd m:lQ nOl-l7l-lQ
1611824
PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco-restoration work
PAGE 3 of 9
Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the
authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a
good faith transfer, you must obtain a permit modification from
this office, which may require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or
archaeological remains while accomplishing the activity
authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this
office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and .
State coordination required to determine if the remains warrant"~
a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places.
4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you
must obtain a signature and mailing address of the new owner in
the space provided and submit to this office to validate the
transfer of the permit authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification or a waiver has
been issued for your project, you must comply with the
conditions specified as Special Conditions to this permit. A
copy of the certification is attached if it contains such
conditions.
6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect
the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure
that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the
terms and conditions of your permit.
Special Conditions:
1. Reporting Address: All reports, documentation/correspondence
required by the conditions of this permit shall be submitted to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division/Enforcement
Section, 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310, Fort
Myers, FL 33919. The Permittee shall reference permit number
SAJ-1996-02789, on all submittals.
2. Commencement Notification: within 10 days from the date of
initiating the authorized work, the Permittee shall provide to
the Corps a written notification of the date of commencement of
work authorized by this permit.
mo Wd m:{Q nm:-pl-{Q
16 I 1 B 24
PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco-restoration work
PAGE 4 of 9
3. Manatee Conditions: The Permittee shall comply with the
Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (Attachment 2).
4. Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions:
The Permittee shall comply with the Sea Turtle and Smalltooth
Sawfish Construction Conditions (Attachment 3).
5. Assurance of Navigation and Maintenance: The Permittee
understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United
States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of
the structures or work herein authorized, or if in the opinion
of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative,
said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to
the free navigation of the navigable waters, the Permittee will
be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to
remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions
caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim
shall be made against the United States on account of any such
removal or alteration.
6. Regulatory Agency Changes: Should any other regulatory agency
require changes to the work authorized or obligated by this
permit, the Permittee is advised that a modification to this
,permit instrument is required prior to initiation of those
changes. It is the Permittee's responsibility to request a
permit modification from the Fort Myers Regulatory Office.
7. Work Methodology: The work activities shall be limited to
manual-clearing methods using hand-tools; no mechanized
clearing; no blasting.
8. Self-Certification: At the expiration of the construction
~indow of this permit, the Permittee shall complete and submit a
~Self-Certification Statement of Compliance" form (Attachment
4). If the completed work deviates, in any manner, from the
authorized work, the Permittee shall describe, on the Self-
Certification Form, the deviations between the work authorized
by the permit and the work as constructed. Please note that the
description of any deviations on the Self-Certification Form
does not constitute approval of any deviations by the Corps.
Further Information:
VOO Wd m:lO nOl-vl-lO
16'1824
PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco-restoration work
PAGE 5 of 9
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to
undertake the activity described above pursuant to:
(x) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
(33 U.S.C. 403).
(x) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
2. Limits of this authorization.
a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other
Federal, State, or local authorizations required by law.
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or
exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the
property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any
existing or proposed Federal projects.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the
Federal Government does not assume any liability for:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a
result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from
natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a
result of current or future activities undertaken by or on
behalf of the United States in the public interest.
c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or
unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity
authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the
permitted work.
SOO Wd m:lO nOl-vl-lO
1611
824
PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco-restoration work
PAGE 6 of 9
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification,
suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination by this
office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the
public interest was made in reliance on the information you
provided.
5. Re-evaluation of Permit Decision: This office may re-evaluate
its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances
warrant. Circumstances that could require are-evaluation
include, but are not limited to:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this
permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit
application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate
(see 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did
not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.
Such a re-evaluation may result in a determination that it is
appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation
procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures
such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The
referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an
administrative order requiring you comply with the terms and
conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action
where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any
corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to
comply with such directive, this office may in certain
situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170)
accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and
bill you for the cost.
6. Extensions: General Condition 1 establishes a time limit for
the completion of the activity authorized by this permit.
Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt
completion of the authorized activity or re-evaluation of the
public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable
consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.
900 Wd m:lO nOl-t>l-lO
161 1 8 24
PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco-restoration work
PAGE 7 of 9
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept
and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this
permit.
(PERMITTEE)
(DATE)
(PERMITTEE NAME-PRINTED)
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official,
designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed
below.
(DATE)
(DISTRICT ENGINEER)
Alfred A. Pantano, Jr.
Colonel, U.s. Army
District Commander
LOO Wd \70:10 nOZ-\7Z-lO
161 1
PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco-restoration work
PAGE 8 of 9
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still
in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms
and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the
new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this
permit and associated liabilities associated with compliance
with its terms/conditions, have the transferee sign/date below:
(TRANSFEREE-SIGNATURE)
(DATE)
(NAME-PRINTED)
(ADDRESS)
(CITY, STATE, AND ZIP CODE)
B 24
800 Wd t>0:1O nOl-t>l-lO
16 J 1 S 24
PERMIT NUMBER: SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
PERMITTEE: Clam Bay Eco-restoration work
PAGE 9 of 9
Attachments to Department of the Azmy
Pezmit Number SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
1. PERMIT DRAWINGS: Location maps/construction drawings
(Attachment 1; 9 pages) dated August 19, 2010.
2. Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (FWC 2009)
(2 pages)
3. Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions
(NMFS 2006) (1 page)
4. Self-Certification Form (2 pages)
5. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION: Specific Conditions of the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection ERP Permit No.
11-0128463-005 dated December 17, 2010 in accordance with
General Condition number 5 on page 3 of this DA permit (7
pages) .
600 Wd VO:W noz-vz-W
..J
(
it
w
(
~
Z
:J
o
o
~~
lrlw
~~
lIll1.
5~
ww
0311.
~~
lIll1.
,
~ Eet
3: 1
>-
- w
r! ~
0
.J
LL ~
U.
0 Z
:J
W 0
~ 0
~
~ W
-
U) .J
.J
0
0
~
Z
o
U)
Wu.,j
~U)
8!i
~o
Q..-
C)l:;
z~
i=al:
t::ti
I~
wO
Q..al:
al:O
o~
~o
WW
al:0
oe(Z
U)W
C)I-
z~
-I-
!~
OW
w~
@I~~
01-0(
zO
. .
~8l
~~
o 0
UI....
NCD
z3:
U)
~
ic( 01)0
3Ew~2j;
o oJ . .
al:~ON
o~~~
ogggg
00 COOl)
W
Z
:s C)
Q.. ~C)
LLi..J:z
I-wl-j::
ic(zal:U)
I-'Oo.c:
U)NZul
^ ^ ^ ^
v v v v
Iii
'"0
~i:!
~-
t::C)
I-Z
~g
^ ^
v v
u::l
--~
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE) ~
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
August 19. 2010
Figure 1/9
~~
lrlw
0311.
~~
lIll1.
~ o~o?~co
~
z
__..d _pWln-.zJnIDl..1oImy ~h..Z1_0_CHAIlNEL..JlAlll1ENAE.dwlI
w
:!l
Iii I
W
I ti ~ ~
~ ~ i
!II
:i! .. ~
!;~~~
I
~
8
.. ,
t-= ~ GIl
,.: N - i 0
...: S ~ I
Z
" ;;: 0
51 III ~ .. J:
~ I ; i (,)
.. ~ l!l w
! Q U -a III
>
~
m D.
<C
:::IE
z
0
~ ~
(.)
0
~ ..J
W
l-
ii)
J
U
o
~.....
,
N
~
I
N
Cl
.......
.......
Cl
.......
.......
~
'U
3:
Cl
Cl
.......
.M .N s ~
oA'1~~
.Ea;S;C;;-
.SS _ ti a..
g~ rf~
en C1) ''is..~
<~:02
-yg~~
~.> B.......
~&S ~i
:::X:::~c:td ~~
~'~ji
~~ ~s:
E--< ~
;:t
~~
,I
I
1
o
.......
,
N
..j:>.
III '
III N
N 0
, .......
III .......
(!l 0
i ~
..j:>.
'U
::s:
Gl 0
, 0
N
,
II.
i
Gl
Z
~
g
III
o
"-
III
o
,
Z
.. 0
I.. &i ~ ~ ~
I i ~ =
>
~
m
U)
I-
:J
o
..J
W
Z
Z
c(
:a:
o
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
August 19. 2010
Figure 2/9
-bl)NN
.s~~ ~ ~
<1':219-::6
.B8~G;'
~ ....:l~
.~13 lor. ~
o c:l Jf~
<l':2uc:>.
< ~z
e o~
~ of> ~ <;;
~~~~
~ctd ~~
... Q) --..... N
~o~Ji
~~ ~lf
Eo- ~
~~
-I
I
l
161 ,0
.....
I ft I ,
IV
.J>-
1\1 ,
III . IV
. 0( 10 0
N .....
Iil ~ .....
! .. ~ " 0
~ .....
! I. .....
.J>-
'1J
3:
Ul 0
:i! a , 0
~ ! ~ ~ , W
II.
~ ~ i
Ul
~
l-
S
0 ..
..J ...: ~ III
W ~ ~ ~I 0
~Z I
Z
a.~ ~ >: 0
a1~~ t
~~ Ili~ ~
a:lw
..J 09 ~
w ....'"
C1Z In 0:
o~~ ii!w
a:I:E:
.... :E: w....
"'::It> C1W Z
ii!~::I
Illwi 0
C1a:1ll. ~
C!)"O Q"O m 0
w
z en ~
.- 0 U)
w
en a.. ~
>< 0
w rx: -I
...J a.. W
W"'" ...J"", Z
Z W Z
Z Z <(
<( z :c
I<i <( . U
U I<i CD -I
...
U . <(
T"""
W T""" Z
0..", W'" ~
~ a.. w
>- ~
.- Z
-
C~Docu.....llIond SolIInplvlnoont.zlnlwo,ta\my d.......__b1Ioh.Jl11G\2010_CHANNE~MAIIIT1!NANCE.dwg
~f~~
r:A' ~ _ ;z
08....c;;-
- .....~
.~":l ~~
U.;:s ..
o elf ~
t'-)ll)Q,
<~~
_00,) e a:i :g
;;.~ .i 9
~rfi ~S;
.........cId...c;;-
~\I) < ~
llJi
F-t Ol:i
~~
.~
t
1
SAJ-1996-o2789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
August 19, 2010
Figure 3/9
l~ "'-1Ii""
-'
w
ez
o!Hi
....0:1:
en:EO
ii!~:E
19wi
elD...
(!)"'"
Z
~
en
(;]
-1
W
Z
z
<C
IOi
()
N
W
0..",
~
C~Docu_ and SelllnIlllWlncontzlnlwo,tolmy documonlolA<:Publloh_211012010_CHANNEL,.,IIAINTENANCE.dwg
1611 B 24
GO ~
~ · m
l:l ~
Iil
! ~ ~
! GO ~
o
......
,
I\J
.l:>
I
W I\J
III 0
l'l ......
, ......
w 0
CI ......
z
~ ~
"'0
:s:
III 0
ell 0
" .l:>
,
II.
:t
II)
z
~
..
!
z 0
g I ~ ~
I ·
-'
~~
~~
en...
wo
IDw
08
....en
enD:
ii!w
ID:I:
wI:
ew
co ...
"'..~~!
~;!~I I
z
Q )-., 0
lI! III ~ d j:
!21i:jzu
~~rs~~
>
~
m
z
o
~
o
l-
f/)
W
~
..J
W
Z
z
<C
::E:
(J
..J
<C
z
~
W
I-
Z
-
0"",
W
en
o
a..
o
a::
a..
-1
w
Z
z
<COi
I
()
N
w'"
a..
~
~
~
J
o
ub.O~~
c.g ~ :g
,..:::;.;l;3t.:.
"'-'~19 :;;:!
..Bo~O'\
CdU-'l~
.......... t%.o-
g~ ~- ~
~Q;;!i'
< Hz
':g
o'd '> ~ c;
~&3 ~ ~
~cl(oJ~C;::-
~cu--'~
;:::::::: 5 !;'.,':":'
~~JJ
Eo-< ~
:q~
"
'I
l
,
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
August 19, 2010
Figure 4/9
0
1 ......
on I ,
N
-1>0
~ .. i I
W N
:ll ~ III 0
N .......
I .......
Iii W 0
I .. .. ~
z .......
! i i ~ .......
-1>0
-c
3:
III 0
~ 0
~ = U1
,
I I ~ ~ II.
~
III
Z
~
GI
0
.. ..
..I . 0; III
W ::: ~ - i 0
~~ .., :Jj ~ Z
IS ~.. 0
a.U ~I~~ t
1/)", ~~~~~
wO
IDw
..I oS! >
W 1-1/)
CZ I/)~
o~~ Q:W
ID:J:
I-O:J: wI::
I/):EU cw Z
iii~~ ~ 0
wwa: ~
CID...
C!).... 0.... m 0
W I-
Z en U)
I- 0 W
en a.. D::
~ 0
a:: ..J
a.. w
..J Z
Woq- ..J Z
Z W c(
Z Z
<( Z :J:
I 1'/ <(1'/ 0
() I . ..J
() CD c(
('I) .
W ('I) z
a..", w'" D::
>- a.. w
I- ~ I-
Z
-
C:\Docu_..,d _ngalvlncent.zlnlw..llI\my documanlalAcPubllall...ZlI01Z010_ctlANNEL_IlAlNTENAJlCE.dwg
. bON N
. ..s.il ~ ~
CD .-n] ~ i
<1>O"'d'"~
~U :;~
......-1 p:...-
g~ if ~
"'-' ~~...
< ~ z
e .:g
d'd.;; ~ <5
::g &3 ~ S;
::r::c:Id~O:;-
-11) < ~
~ 6 ~':":'
!U"a 11 ..
~~ J3~
E-< ot
~~
.i
,
I
~
'"
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
AU9ust 19, 2010
Figure 5/9
Ul
ell
~ C> .,
.. i ~ ~ Ii.
~ :t
... Ul
Z
~
...
g
C> ...
.J ~ ~ ~ i III
W Q
II m! z
~ ~ ~ .. 0
ILO z I 0 t
O::J Ill... 52 i Z
W....l wO :z iI 8 w
~... IlIw Q Q ... f/)
~~ 00 >
I-iii
III a IIlffi
a::w <<:I;
00 Ill!:
0<
w~ ow
0:1; ~ UJ
fi ..J
w
Z
Z
'>\) o'>\) m <
W ::E:
rn rn 0
Z 0
0 c.. C)
0 Z
I- ~ -
::E:
0 c.. UJ
Z ..J :::J
0 W ..J
() Z LL
(!) Z C
<(ti
Zti I W
I- () UJ
rn T"" 0
>< 0..
W'" W", 0
c.. 0:::
~ 0..
C~Docu_ _ 8olltnplVIn__.....l8\my dOClUmontaIAcPublloh...2181l\2010_CHANNEL__NTEIWlCE.dwll
1611824
! G i
w ..
.. <(
o
.......
,
N
~
,
W N
III 0
N .......
W .......
Cl 0
Z .......
~ t;;
iJ
3:
o
o
0'1
Iii
! ~ ~
! i ..
U bO~ ~
...s.13 ~ ~
"'-'~] ~:i;
a..>o~G\
1;:; U ~
.u- Ii ':':'
~~ ~~
<~l
Ol%i~
cl'd '$;I .8 9
~~~:i;
=:C:cId~6=;"
.-<~Cl><a
.-< S t'\, '.
<U'~ 11 ..
S~ J3~
~ ~t
I
i
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP.LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
August19,2010
Figure 6/9
C)
....
,
N
~
W ,
N
10 C)
C'4 ......
Iii iii ......
~ ~ ~ Cl C)
Z ......
!1i! III <C ~ ......
:z: 0
I-' OS OS VI
iJ
3:
III C)
Z '" , C)
2 I ~ ~ , "
! II.
z z 5:
De . III
Z
~
~
CII
0
'" ...
..I ..,: ~ II
W ~ ~ ~ i 0
il ~I ,
z
>= ~ 0
II .. t
Iii:! a.u I i g
11)1&.
181&. wO il! 8 II
~~ IDw o ... III
00 ~
t;::! ~iij
1ll:5J II) Ill:
ii!W
o~ ID:C
oz wt:
w- ow
o:c U)
z~
2~ ..J
W
Z
Z
01) 001) m <C
W
en en :t:
Z 0 0
0 a. C)
~ 0 Z
0:: -
0 a. :r:
Zq- ...J U)
0 W :J
() Z ..J
LL
(!) Z C
<C..,
z.., w
~ J:
() U)
en C\I 0
>< Wc> 0.
W<:l a. 0
~ 0:::
0.
C:\Do...........d _gs\vlnc:ent.zlnkva.1s\my dacu~bl""_2111O\2010_CHANNEL..MAJNTENANCE.dwg
. bO~ N
..s.il ~ ~
<n~ 1 ~ i
CU8~6\
1d ....:l:::.l
.~ ~........
8i If ~
~@l
_y 0 t!i :g
'-'Q.!:l ~ c;;
........ >'S '"
;3&3 ~~
........~ ~s
~., <8-
:::::lEl~"
!U"t;J lii ~
S::!1] If
E--o at
~~
-J
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE) =1
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
August 19, 2010
Figure 7/9 .
III
~ 0 ~
; ~ ~ Ii.
! i:
II: III
Z
~
to-
lD
0
0 ...
oJ t-' 0;- Il
W t-' tj - i 0
II ~z t-' > ~ ,
z
~ >= 2
eJ III ~ d to-
Q:J 52 I i Z u
~~ wO ~ ~ ~ w
~~ IIIw III
09 >
li;:J 1-1/)
en a:
a:5f jjj!W
o~ III:Z:
wI:
Qz QW
w_ ~ en
Q:z:
ZI- ...I
2i w
Z
Z
"<) 0"<) m <C
W J:
CJ) CJ) 0
Z 0
0 0- ~
i= 0 z
a:: -
0 0- J:
zq. ...J en
~
0 W ...I
() Z LL
(!) Z C
<CCO{
ZCO{ :r: w
i= () en
CJ) ('t) 0
>< We::. a..
we::. 0
0- ~
~ a..
C~lIOCU_...d _1I8\_.....ta\mf__h_Z1llG\2010_CHAHNEL...ILUlTENANCE.dwg
161 1 B
24 ,-,
w
I ~ 5
~ i III
o
I-"
,
N
~
,
N
o
I-"
I-"
o
I-"
I-"
U1
"'tJ
:s:
o
o
ex>
W
III
N
ib
o
~
c.) " ~ ~
"s-s t..,
""'~ fg ..... ~
cuo....~
~u ::3~
-os ~- ';';
~51!J!
""'air
< El :z;
e '::8
~,~ ~9
::::::l I:l os ...,
c:d ~ en ~
::C~!l~
1f! i J
~::iS &S....
E-< ;;t
.,., 8
M.I
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE) )
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
August 19, 2010
Figure 8/9
C>
Z
I-
en
><
w
en
en
w
U
U
<(<,,/
W
o
z
<('"
U
~
Ci
I~
,
.. I N
..f>.
I
N
('1 . UI 0
. ~
c C\I .....
. .....
III Iii W 0
13 l .. i ~ .....
u z Iii i
~ a i .....
VI
Z '"0
~ :s:
z to 0
~ 0
~ i ~ ~ ~ \0
e .
II.
C f
W II: III
C z
III ~
z 0
~ ..
~
c 0
W 0 ...
:E .,.: ~ D
:E. ~ ~ ~ i 0
ij!..J ,
I-j Z
.. >: 0
WI- 51 D ~ '1
lIlw i=
00 ~ Iii u
I-~ III ill 8 w
l3u l:l CI ... III
>:z:: >
iCl
CI::J
~~
::Ei=
~ w
(.)
z
<C
m z
w
...
z
C(
~ :E
U)
U)
w
(.)
~ (.)
<C
w
0
J z
<C
(.)
0
. eoN N
..s'~ ~ ~
<'-l~] ~~
.Bo~6'
~Uo-l~
'Os ....--:-:
05rl.~
~~~
-< z
~.!:l~~
:::::l Ji ':;1 ~
"" ." ;:!;
~~~ ~ ~
~~.,~
QS. .fJ
~~~
E-< ;;t
~~
SAJ-1996-02789 (I P-LAE) -I
Clam Bay Eco-restoration d:I
August 19, 2010 I
Figure 9/9
:I
C;IDoc:umon" Ind ..lIInll"lvln..nt.zlnku....\my _monIaIAcPublfoh...21111\2Ol0_CHANNELJlAINTENANCE.dwg
1611 B 24
STANDARD MANATEE CONDITIONS FOR IN-WATER WORK
2009
The permittee shall comply with the following conditions intended to protect manatees from direct project
effects:
a. All personnel associat,ed with the project shall be instructed about the presence of manatees and
manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees. The
permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for
harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act.
b, All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "Idle Speed/No Wake" at all
times while in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less
than a four-foot clearance from the botrom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever
possible.
c. Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which manatees cannot become
entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly monitored to avoid manatee
entanglement or entrapment. Barriers must not impede manatee movement.
d. All on-site project personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence
of manatee(s), All in-water operations, including vessels, must be shutdown if a manatee(s)
comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s) has moved
beyond the 50-foot radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the manatee(s)
has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation. Animals must not be herded away or harassed
into leaving.
e. Any collision with or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the FWC Hotline at 1-
888-404-FWCC. Collision and/or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in Jacksonville (1-904-731-3336) for north Florida or Vero Beach (1-772-562-3909) for
south Florida.
f. Temporary signs concerning manatees shall be posted prior to and during all in-water project
activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the project. Awareness
signs that have already been approved for this use by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FWC) must be used (see MyFWC.com). One sign which reads Caution: Boaters
must be posted. A second sign measuring at least 81/2" by 11" explaining the requirements for
"Idle Speed/No Wake" and the shut down of in-water operations must be posted in a location
prominently visible to all personnel engaged in water-related activities.
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bait Eco-restoratinn
January 19, 2011
Attachment 2, Page 1/2
010 Wd SFW HOl-t>l-1O
,161 1 B 2:4 9
~
,
IV
~
,
IV
0
~
~
0
~
~
(]I
'U
:s:
0
I- ~
~
<( . .
1&1 <L>
I- (1)
~ ....,
- ~ ~ CO
0 C
CO C ~ CO
<( E
~ \I-
0 ............
:r: ........ CO (\J
(1)U) Z 0 (\J
(1)::S ...., en
LLI fit 0 \l-E ~ ~
- M
. OU) ~ ()
LIJ fit Z 10(1) ::s . . '-"" ~
.~ ....., (.)
fit .- 0 c: '- LL.
l- . C.... (1) (.) =-=
" .- .-
.c .:: -
<( :> ~ ~ <t~
0 ~
.... .... 0
.... .- U
Z u .I:a ~ (0 .c (1)LL ()
. ..... "l-
.- I ~
<( .... 1.1.1 U) .... I- ~ =c.q-
0 .- CI)
~ .. 1&1 (1).... ::) c: =0 *
a. Q)(O 0 ~q- -
....:;= -
- A. .- I Q)
- (0. Z U) 00 0
. . C c:C:
z en (0'- 0 ex)
E= en ex)
u
0 (0 I
1&1 (0 ~ ~
c:
- c: m
I- ... (1.) .....,
.c ~
:::> I:a ~ 0
Co
<( - Q)
a::
U
SAJ-1996-02789 (I P-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
January 19, 201
Attachment 2, Page 2/2
16'1 1 B 24
~.
~TI~~
., .
\....._y
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
SEA TURTLE AND SMALL TOOTH SAWFISH CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS
1be permittee shall comply with the following protected species construction conditions:
a, 1be permittee shall instruct all personnel associated with the project of the potential presence of
these species and the need to avoid collisions with sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish, All
construction personnel 8r'e responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of
these species.
b. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for
harming, harassing, or killing sea turtles or sma1ltooth sawfish, which are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973,
c, Siltation barriers sball be made of material in which a sea turtle or sma11tooth sawfish cannot
become entangled, be properly secured, and be regularly monitored to avoid protected species
~Iitrapanent. Barriers may not block sea turtle or smalhooth sawfish entry to or exit from
designated critical habitat without prior agreement ftom the National Marine Fisheries Service's
Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida,
d. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "no wake/idle" speeds at all
times while in the construction area and while in water depths where the draft of the vessel
provides less than a four-foot clearance from the baltom, All vessels will preferentially follow
deep-water routes (e.g" marked channels) whenever possible,
e, Ifa sea turtle or sma11tooth sawfish is seen within 100 yards of the active daily
construction/dredging operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions shall be
implemented to ensure its protection. These precautions sball include cessation of operation of
any moving equipment closer than 50 feet of a sea turt1e or smalltooth sawfish. Operation of any
mechanical construction equipment sball cease immediately if a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish is
seen within a 50-ft radius of the equipment. Activities may not resume until the protected species
has departed the project area of its own volition.
f. Any collision with anellor injury to a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish sball be reported
immediately to the National Marine Fisheries Service's Protected Resources Division (727-824-
5312) and the local authorized sea turtle stnmdingIrescue ~i73tion,
g. Any special construction conditions, required of your specific project, outside these general
conditions, if applicable, will be addressed in the primary consultation,
Revised: March 23, 2006
O:\fonns\Sea Turtle and SmalItooth Sawfish Construction Conditions,doc
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
January 19, 2011
Attachment 3, Page 1/1
.......... ....
fil
~~J}"
no Wd 9T.:1O nOZ-VZ-lO
1611 B 24
SELF-CERTIFICATION STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Permit Number: SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Permittee's Name & Address (please print or type):
Telephone Number:
Location of the Work:
Date Work Completed:
Date Work Started:
Description of the Work (e.g. bank stabilization, residential or
commercial filling, docks, dredging, etc.):
Acreage or Square Feet of Impacts to Waters of the United States:
Describe Mitigation completed (if applicable) :
Describe any Deviations from Permit (attach drawing(s) depicting
the deviations):
********************
I certify that all work, and mitigation (if applicable) was done in
accordance with the limitations and conditions as described in the
permit. Any deviations as described above are depicted on the
attached drawing(s).
Signature of Permittee
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-~E)
Clam Bay Eco-restoratlon
January 19, 2011
Attachment 4, Page 1/1
Date
no Wd 9FW nOl-vl-1
16~ll
824
You are advised to read and understand these conditions and drawings prior to
commencing the authorized activities, and to ensure the work is conducted in
conformance with all the terms, conditions, and drawings. If you are utilizing a
contractor, the contractor also should read and understand these conditions and
drawings prior to commencing the authorized activities. Failure to comply with these
conditions, including any mitigation requirements, shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the Permit and appropriate enforcement action by the Department.
Opemtion of the facility is not authorized except when determined to be in
confonnance with all applicable rules and this permit/ certification/ authorization and
state-owned submerged lands authorization, as specifically described above.
SPECIFIC CONDmONS . PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
1. At least 30 day prior to each construction event, the permittee shall identify a
qualified biologist/wetland scientist(s} familiar with the ecosystems of Florida, and
submit their qualifications to the Department, to serve as the supervising scientist that
oversees the biological components of this restoration pr<?ject and will halt construction
if ~/ she suspects that violations of the permit have occurred.
2. All required submittals such as certifications, monitoring reports, notifications,
etc., shall be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, South
District Office, P.O. Box 2549, Fort Myers, FL 33902-2549. All submittals shall include
the project name and indicated permit number when referring to this project.
Note: In the event of an emergency, the Permittee should contact the Department by
calling (800)320-0519. During normal business hours, the permittee should call
{239)332-6975.
3. Construction and operation of the project shall comply with applicable State
Water Quality Standards, namely:
a. Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C. - Surface Waters: Minimum Criteria, General
Criteria; and
b. Rule 62-302.530, F.A.C. - Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria - Gass II
Waters;
4. If at any time during construction of the pennitted facility, unforeseen
construction impacts to adjacent surface waters occur, or complications preventing
compliance with the specifications of this permit arise, the Permittee shall immediately
cease work and notify the Department's South District Office, SLERP Section, P.O. Box
2549, Fort Myers Florida 33902-2549, 239-332-6975. The Permittee shall submit an
alternate construction plan to the Department to allow construction to proceed without
Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010
Permit No: 11-0128463-005
Page 3 of 14
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
January 19, 2011
Attac~~~we~llOZ-vZ-lO
~
1611824
, I
,
additional impact or non-compliance. Work shall not continue until the Department
has approved the modification in writing. Substantial changes from the permitted
activities may require formal review and modification of this permit.
5. Turbidity baniers shall be installed and maintained at all locations where the
possibility of transferring suspended solids into surface waters exists due to the
authorized work. Turbidity barriers shall remain in place at all locations and be
properly maintained until construction is completed and soils are stabilized and
vegetation has been established. All practices shall be in accordance with the guidelines
and specifications described in the State of Florida Erosion and Sediment Control Designer
and RevienItT Manual, FDOT, FDEP (2007),_avallable on the Department's website at
http:// www.dep.state.fLus/water/nonpoint/docs/erosion!erosion-inspectors-
manual.pdf. Following the completion of construction, the Permittee shall be
responsible for the removal of the turbidity barriers and shall correct any erosion or
shoaling that has the potential to cause adverse impacts to wetlands or surface waters.
SPECIFIC CONDmONS - CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
6. All work is to be conducted by hand. Access to the flushing channels shall be
accomplis~ by a small boat or on foot. Any blockage to the flushing channels shall be
cleared by hand with material being broadcast out to the sides of the flushing channels.
Any new channels to be dug shall be dug by hand and their location identified on a site
pIan of the area. At no time shall any blasting occur to create new flushing channels.
7. All mangrove trimming activities are to be supervised by the qualified
biologist/wetlands scientist(s) described in Specific Condition 1 of this permit. All
trimming shall be done in accordance with Sections 403.9321-403.9333, F.S.
8. All mangrove trimming sluill. be done on an as needed basis and shall be
conducted by hand from the existing boardwalks or from a small boat only in areas that
need to be trimmed in order to maintain access through the existing canoe trail or
boardwalks. Mangrove trimming procedures must be followed pursuant to Sections
403.9327, F.S. No trimming of mangroves to create or enhance views within this
ecosystem is permitted. No alteration, removal or defoliation is permitted. In the
event that a tree has fallen and completely blocked the waterway, the tree and all limbs
shall be removed to maintain navigational access. All trimmed debris shall be removed
from the site and disposed of in uplands.
9. All exotic and invasive vegetation, including Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius), punk tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Australian pine (Casuarina
equisetifolia), vines, and other exotic and invasive vegetation listed on the latest Category
1 and Category 2 list of the Florida Exotic Pest Plan Council shall be removed from the
Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area. Maintenance shall be conducted in
Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010
Permit No: 11-0128463--005 SAl-19.96-OVa.!i (!,P-~~~
Page 4 of 14 Clam Bay Eco-restoration
January 19. 2011
Attachm!!nt 5 PaQ..e 217
slO Wd ~n:lO HOl-pl-lO
."'~
1611 B 24
accordance with the Oarn Bay Restoration and Management Plan amended on July 8,
1998 (CBRMP) to enBure that the area is maintained free from Category 1 and Category
2 exotic and invasive vegetation (as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council at
the time of permit issuance). Maintenance in perpetuity shall also ensure that the area
maintains the species and coverage of native, desirable vegetation specified in the
permit. Coverage of exotic and invasive plant species shall not exceed 1 % of total cover
between maintenance activities.
10. Within seven (7) days of comple~on of the authorized fdivities within each
work area (including the mangrove trimming, interior channel\xcavations, and
removal of nuisance exotic vegetation) throughout the Garn Bay ecosystem, the
contracted crews shall return to each work area and remove the trimmed branches and
trees (dead trees approved for removal) greater than 1 inch in diameter to appropriate
upland locations. The crews shall also side cast spoil material in such a manner as to
avoid creation of a berm or pile. The spoil shall be leveled and distributed such that
there is no impediment to sheet flow and no created uplands as a result of the project.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - MONITORING
11. Water Quality Monitoring: The permittee shall implement a long-term water
quality monitoring program, to be conducted on a quarterly basis, track trends and
patterns within the Oam Bay ecosystem. Monitoring stations established by the
previous permit throughout Upper, Inner and Outer Oarn Bay shall continue to be
monitored and record the following parameters. All measurements and analyses for
each parameter shall be made using approved methods providing a PQL (Practical
Quantification Limit) below the water quality standard for the parameter as listed in
Rule 62-302, F.A.c.:
Parameter
(a) Dissolved Oxygen-mg/l (2 samples taken diel per quarter samples 4 hour
intervals through a 24 hour period)
(b) TKN, N02,-N, N0:3-N,
(c) Specific Conductivity
(d) OUorophyll
(e) Phosphorus
(f) Pheophytin
(g) pH
(h) Suspended solids
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
January 19, 2011
Attachment 5, Page 3/7
Permittee: Collier County BOCC - ,Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010
Permit No: 11-0128463-005
Page 5 of 14
91:0 Wd 9FW 110l-\7l-1:O
i'~"
-16 I 1 B 2 4 "
Reporting
All data shall be submitted with the documents containing the following
infonnation: (1) permit application number; (2) dates of sampling; and analysis;
(3) a statement describing the methods used in collection, handling, storage and
analysis of the samples; (4) a map indicating the sampling locations; (5) a
statement by the individual responsible for implementation of the sampling
program concerning the authenticity, precision, limits of detection and accuracy
of the data; and (6) documentation that the laboratory performing the sampling
and analyses has an approved quality assurance plan on file with DEP.
Monitoring reports shall also include the following information for each sample
that is taken:
(a) time of day samples takeni
(b) water temperature eqi
(c) salinity (ppt);
(d) depth of water body;
(e) depth of sample;
(f) antecedent weather conditions;
(g) tidal stage and direction of flow;
(h) wind direction and velocity;
(i) sedimentation;
G) rainfalli
(k) other influential flows, such as groundwater and storm water
flows;
(I) identification of the sample location which corresponds to the
sample location number shown on the sampling location map;
(m) the appropriate Rule 62-302, F.A.C., standard for the parameter
being measured; and
(n) the detection limit for the parameter being measured.
In addition to the above, all data shall be reported in a table (or tables) which
clearly list(s) the results of parameters measured at each location, and the
information described above.
12. Based on the data previously collected and on going water quality monitoring
analyzed in conjunction with the permitted activities, should the data continue to show
a correlation between elevated nutrient levels in the Oam Bay ecosystem and the golf
course and development fertilization schedule, a remediation plan must be prepared to
address this issue within 6 months of submittal of the second monitoring report. This
Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010
Permit No: 11-0128463-005 SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Page 6 of 14 Clam Bay Eco-restoration
January 19, 2011
Attachment 5. Page 4n
no Wd n:lQ UOZ-t>Z-lQ
;':~>
1611 B 2.4
~ .
plan should include detailed descriptions of the problem and the actions proposed to
address the problem, maps, activities to be conducted and the methods used to conduct
those activities. The intent of the plan is to reduce discharge of nutrients into the
system and avoid the elevated nutrient levels, through modified management
techniques, best management practices, etc. In the event that the continued. monitoring
reveals other water quality concerns, or impacts to the habitat and/ or productivity of
the preserve area, the Permittee shall submit a plan of remediation along with the
required monitoring reports.
13. Biological Monitoring
a. The permittee shall provide flight dated aerial photography of the Oarn Bay
ecosystem annually. The aerials shall be taken during July of each year and
submitted to the Department annually for the duration of the permit. The aerials
must be color, vertical aerial photographs, controlled and rectified. at a scale
appropriate for post-production digitalization and a scale sufficient to delineate
differing habitat zones and dominant species within each zone. The flight line
shall include all of the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area and the
nearshore zone to at least 400 feet offshore (from the mean high water line);
b. As concurrently as possible with taking the aerial photographs, ground-truthing
activities shall be conducted in areas of special concern within the Clam Bay
Ecosystem, including areas of widespread dead and dying mangroves, Inner,
Upper and Outer Oam Bays, the areas receiving water discharges from the
uplands, and areas contiguous with the main pass. The ground-truthing
activities shall include the use of the latest accepted scientific methods to survey
the types of habitats of concern within the Oam Bay ecosystem, including
mangrove and seagrass dominated habitats. These surveys shall include a listing
of species present, percent coverage species, size ranges and averages, and
overall health/biological trends for each fixed quadrat, transect, or plot studied..
These surveys and any associated drawings/mapping shall be conducted prior
to conducting the maintenance activities once each year (in July) thereafter for
the life of the permit.
c. Annual biological monitoring reports (BMRs) shall be submitted beginning one
year following permit issuance. The first annual BMR shall contain a summary
of the result of the monitoring and restoration actions from the previous permit
as well as the time-zero conditions of the Oam Bay ecosystem existing prior toacommencement of the permitted activities and a progress report of the activities
conducted since permit issuance. Thereafter, each BMR shall contain a progress
report of the activities completed since the previous BMR and all data collected
pursuant to a. and b. above. Each BMR shall include graphical representation
and overlays of the collected data on computer generated drawings of the aerials,
and ground-level color panoramic photos of each study area at fixed stations.
The annual BMRs shall also contain an analysis of the collected data and make
Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010
Permit No: 11-01~5
Page 7of14
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
JanuaJY. 1,.9, ?Q1 ,
Attac~~~~e W711 OZ -toZ -1 0
1611 B 24
conclusions and recommendations concerning the impacts to permitted activities
have had on the Clam Bay ecosystem based on the analysis of the data collected,
including the biological monitoring data and the water quality data monitoring
data as well as any tidal or hydrological information collected as part of the
permitted activities.
SPECIFIC CONOmONS - MANATEE AND MARINE TURTLE CONDmONS
14. All personnel associated with the project shall be instructed about the presence
of marine turtles, manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions
with or injury to marine turtles and manatees. The permittee s.hall advise all
construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming,
harassing, or killing marine turtles or manatees which are protected under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida Manatee
Sanctuary Act.
15. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "Idle
Speed/No Wake" at all times while in the immediate area and while in water where the
draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels
will follow routes of deep water whenever possible.
16. Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which marine turtles or
manatees cannot become entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly
monitored to avoid marine turtle or manatee entanglement or entrapment. Barriers
must not impede marine turtle or manatee movement.
17. All on-site project personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities
for the presence of marine turtles or manatees. All in-water operations, including
vessels, must be shutdown if a marine turtle(s) or manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the
operation. Activities will not resume until the marine turtle(~) or manatee(s) has moved
beyond the 5O-foot radius of the project operation, or unti130 minutes elapses if the
marine turtle(s) or manatee(s) has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation.
Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving.
18. Any collision with or injury to a marine turtle or manatee shall be reported
immediately to the FWC Hotline at 1-888-404-FWCC. Collision and/ or injury should
also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (1-904-731-3336) for
north Florida or Vera Beach (1-772-562-3909) for south Florida.
19. Temporary signs concerning marine turtles and manatees shall be posted prior to
and during all in-water project activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee
upon completion of the project. Awareness signs that have already been approved for
this use by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) must be
Permittee: Collier County BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division
Permit No: 11-0128463-005
Page 8 of14
Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
January 19, 2011
Attachment 5, Page 6/7
6lO Wd LFW nOZ-t>Z-lO
1611824
used (see MyFWC.com). One sign which reads Caution: Boaters must be posted. A
second sign measuring at least 81/2" by 1111 explaining the requirements for "Idle
Speed/No Wake" and the shut-down of in-water operations must be posted in a
location prominently visible to all personnel engaged in water-related activities.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. All activities authorized by this permit shall be implemented as set forth in the
plans~ specifications and performance criteria as approved by this permit. Any
deviation from the permitted activity and the conditions for undertaking that activity
shall constitute a violation of this permit and a violation of Part IV of Chapter 373, (F.S.).
2. This permit or a copy ~f, complete with all conditions, attachments~
exhibits, and modifications shall be kept at the work site of the permitted activity. The
complete permit shall be available for review at the work site upon request by the
Department staff. The permittee shall require the contractor to review the complete
permit prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this permit.
3. Activities approved by this permit shall be conducted in a J;Il8Ilner which does
not cause violations of state water quality standards. The permittee shall implement
best management practices for erosion and pollution control to prevent violations of
state water quality standards. Temporary erosion control shall be implemented prior to
and during construction and pennanent control measures shall be completed within
seven (7) days of any construction activity. Turbidity barriers shall be installed and .
maintained at all locations where the possibility of transferring suspended solids into
the receiving water-body exists due to the permitted work. Turbidity barriers shall
remain in place at all locations until construction is completed and soils are stabilized
and vegetation has been established. All practices shall be in accordance with the
guidelines and specifications described in Chapter Six of the Florida Land Development
Manuali A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (Department of
Environmental Regulation, 1988), unless a project-specific erosion and sediment control
plan is approved as part of the permit. Thereafter, the permittee shall be responsible for
the removal of the barriers. The permittee shall correct any erosion or shoaling that
causes adverse impacts to the water resources.
4. The permittee shall notify the Department of the anticipated construction start
date within thirty (30) days of the date that this permit is issued. At least forty-eight
(48) hours prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this permit, the
permittee shall submit to the Department an "Environmental Resource Permit
Construction Commencement" notice (Forin No. 62-343.900(3), Florida Administrative
Code (F.A.C.)) indicating the actual start date and expected completion date.
Permittee: Collier COWlty BOCC - Pelican Bay Services Division Permit Expiration: December 17, 2010
Permit No: 11-0128463-005
Page 9 of 14
SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE)
Clam Bay Eco-restoration
January 19, 2011
Attachment 5, Page 7/7
OlO Wd n:lO nOl-vl-10
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Administrator's Report - Status of Permit for Clam Bay Maintenance - M. Levy's Comments
Page 1 of 1
1611824
ResnickLisa
Subject:
Mr. Levy's 2/2/11 Agenda Request
From: Mike Levy rmailto:mikelew(Cilembaramail.coml
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 201111:48 AM
To: ResnickLisa
Subject: Re: 2/2/11 Agenda Requests?
Hi Lisa,
Regarding PBSD's newly acquired Mangrove Maintenance permit, I would appreciate hearing whether or not it includes
any responsibility for mangrove's outside of what is considered Pelican Bay, namely Clam Pass Park; and if there are any
conflicts or potential conflicts with the PBSD permit and the pending PBF - County joint Clam Bay management plan.
Thanks,
Mike Levy
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Administrator's Report - Discussion of Health of Mangroves
Page 1 of 1
1611 B 24
From: "Tim Hall" <tim@turrell-associates.com>
Subject: Re: Feedback on Mangrove condition observed from Grosvenor
Date: January 23,2011 1 :33:54 PM EST
To: "James Hoppensteadt" <jimh@pelicanbay.org>
Cc: "Keith Dallas" <keithdallas@comcast.net>, "Tom Cravens" <nfn16799@naples.net>,
"Feldhaus, Stephen" <sf@feldhauslaw.com>
All of the affected trees that I have looked at appear to have been attacked by boring beetles. I have
not yet identified the specific beetle. Usually they attack trees that are already stressed from other
reasons (such as cold or fire) and are not able to resist them. There isn't much we can do about them
cause they are under the bark and not exposed to simple treatments. I am coordinating with Doug
Caldwell to lId and get more info.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 21,2011, at 5:33 PM, IIJames Hoppensteadt" <iimh@pelicanbay.org> wrote:
Tim,
Any thoughts or preliminary evaluations?
Sincerely,
Jim Hoppensteadt
President
Pelican Bay Foundation
6251 Pelican Bay Blvd.
Naples, FL 34108
239-596-6180 ext. 223
239-597 -6927 fax
239-398- 7074 cell
ZOO 6v:~0 9Z-~0-~ ~oz
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Chairman's Report - Update on PBSD Election Process
Page 1 of 1
1611 B 24
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Cc:
..
McCaughtryMary <MaryMcCaughtry@colliergov.net>
PBSD APPLICANTS
January 14, 2011 9:27:12 AM EST
Neil Dorrill <Neil@dmgfl.com>, Keith Dallas <keithdallas@comcast.net>
LukaszKyle <KyleLukasz@colliergov.net>, ResnickLisa <LResnick@colliergov.net>
1 Attachment, 1.8 KB
I just spoke to Ian Mitchell again and he has stated that he will put on the consent agenda
for the next Bee meeting that the 2 applicants be appointed, which we know are Mr.
Levy and Mr. laizzo. He will then re-advertise for the one vacancy and forward all
applications to me for our boards consideration. The PBSO would then, by motion, make
a recommendation to the Bee for who they would recommend. There will be no election
for this year. Per the CAS this is how all advisory boards are handled.
Mary McCaughtry l Operations Analyst
Pelican Bay Services Division
801 Laurel Oak Dr., Ste. 605
Naples, FL 34108
239-597-1749 - phone
239-597-4502 - fax
www.Delicanbavservicesdivislon.net
www.colliereov.net
. SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a publiC
records request do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
~oo 5.:\:0 liIl:-~o-~ ~Ol:
February 2, 2011, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
~;;~:~(' Rep'rt - Ch~"","', R,port - F,,,"da''" Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update - MoAtpto emall ~.Ci "6 Mar' i,""'OCBMee"O'2 4
ResnickLisa
Subject:
2/2/11 PBSD Meeting - 6b Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update
From: Keith Dallas fmailto:keithdallas@comcast.netl
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 3:30 PM
To: ResnickLisa
Cc: Neil Dorrill
Subject: Fwd: Clam Bay/Pass Marker Discussion
Lisa, Please include this email as part of our 2/2111 PBSD meeting package, under item 6.b. Foundation Ad Hoc Clam
Bay Committee Update. Thank you. Keith
Begin forwarded message:
From: McAlpinGary <GarvMcAlpin@colliergov.net>
Date: January 28, 2011 3:12:37 PM EST
To: Mike Bauer <mbauer@naplesgov.com>, Ernest Wu <wu e@vahoo.com>, "sf@feldhauslaw.com"
<sf@feldhauslaw.com>, Keith Dallas <keithdallas@comcast.net>, Mary McLean Johnson
<MLMAssocAICP@aol.com>, "kathyw@conservancy.org." <kathyw@conservancy.org>, OchsLeo
<LeoOchs@colliergov.net>, RamseyMarla <MarlaRamsev@colliergov.net>, KeyesPamela
<PamelaKeves@colliergov.net>
Subject: Clam BaylPass Marker Discussion
All,
As follow-up to the direction given staff by the Board of County commissioners on 1/25/2011, this is our plan to discuss
and resolve the marking of Clam Pass/Bay. Please share this memo with other interested parties.
. Two public meeting will be set up to discuss a marking plan with the public. The first meeting will be held on
2/17/2011 and the second will be noticed on 2/23/2011. Gail Hambright will notice these meeting today or
Monday 1/31/2011. The meeting will be held at 9 am and open to the public. Locations will be identified in the
Public Notice. Summary minutes will be taken and recorded with the Clerk's office. The second meeting will be
held if there are follow-up items to the 2/17/2011 meeting and can be canceled if not needed.
. The following groups have requested the opportunity to participate in these meetings. A representative from each
group will be offered the opportunity to participate in the discussion and speak for their respective communities.
In addition, the entire public will be afforded the opportunity to individually speak during public comment.
a. Mike Bauer - Natural Resources Manager for the City of Naples
b. Ernie Wu - President of the Seagate Homeowners Community
c. Steve Feldhaus - Secretary of the Pelican Bay Foundation
d. Keith Dallas - Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division
e. Mary Johnson - President of the Mangrove Action Committee
f. Kathy Worley - Environmental Specialists from the Conservancy
g. McAlpin, Ramsey and Keyes from the County
h. Staff will consult with FWC prior to the first meeting and solicit their participation. Based on the
outcome of our discussions, FWC may also participate in the second meeting.
· CZM will propose a plan to start the discussion. This plan will be posted on the web site several days prior to the
17th.
. Other meetings will be held as needed to reach closure.
1
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1 L I 1 B ~ '4
Administrator's Report - Chairman's Report - Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update - McAlpin email re: Clam Bay M e~cu sion eting ~
Page 2 of 2
J. Gary MeAl pi!', DireCtor
Coastal Zone Management
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 103
Naples, Florida 34112
Gary McAlDin(a),collierl!ov .net
(239) 252-5342
Fax: (239) 353-4061
2
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
~;;"~':;';o(' "'po" . Fo""",'" AD Hoc Gl'm Boy Commll\e' I6AI "'1""""8 2 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory
Committee on how to proceed with the permitting and installation of the
proposed Clam Bay navigational markers based on recent regulatory findings
and agency requirements.
OBJECTIVE: To endorse the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory Committee on
how to proceed with the Clam Bay navigational markers permit application based on
recent regulatory findings and agency requirements.
CONSIDERATIONS: At the June 23, 2009 meeting, the Board of County
Commissioners directed staff to proceed with permitting and installing the Clam Bay
navigational markers to come into compliance with the US Army Corp of Engineers
(USACE) permit requiring the installation of navigational markers on the main channel in
Clam Bay that meets US Coast Guard standards (USCG). Installation of these markers
requires permitting from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP),
USCG and the Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC).
FDEP previously issued a "Consent by Rule" approval based on the Florida
Administrative Code to install navigational markers. This "Consent by Rule"
authorization was subsequently rescinded by FDEP when water depth concerns were
identified. On January 26, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to
file for the permit using a "Letter of Consent". A stipulation was added that this could be
accomplished within an $8,000 budget. Staff performed all the work in house and
submitted the request for "Letter of Consent" to FDEP on March 5, 2010. Since the
submittal, staff has received and responded to four (4) Requests for Additional
Information from FDEP on June 15, 2010, July 12, 2010, July 23,2010 and September
19, 2010. On September 2, 2010, FDEP classified this project as a "Heightened Public
Concern Project" due to Pelican Bay community concerns.
In September 2010, the USCG permit for the navigational markers within Clam Bay
expired. This permit was not eligible for renewal from the USCG due to heighten public
concern from the surrounding community. Staff consulted with Mr. Joe Embres, Chief,
of the Waterways Management Section of the Seventh Coast Guard District, for
submittal of a new permit. Mr. Joe Embres, advised staff that due to new regulations
within the USCG an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) would need to occur prior to the new permit application submittal. An
EA or EIS determines the cumulative affects of the project on the environment. This
requirement could not be waived due to the heightened public concern status of this
project.
Mr. Joe Embres advised staff to submit the new permit application once approval of the
FDEP permit had been received. However, on October 8, 2010 staff received a
Request for Additional Information from FDEP requesting a valid USCG Permit for the
navigational markers in Clam Bay. This requirement from FDEP forces staff to initiate
an EA or EIS through the USCG. In a joint conference call with both the USCG and
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
:":~"i'~~O(' Report - F"'m'''," M Hoo CI.m B.y Comm_ Updole - IC 6OO1mey"" B 2 4
FDEP it was identified that if an extensive EA and/or EIS is required, it can cost up to
$40,000 and take as long a year to complete. The scope of the EA and/or EIS would be
determined once all environmental concerns were identified through consultation with
the USCG by related state and federal regulatory and permitting agencies.
The CAC recommended on 1/13/2011 that Collier County not move forward with the
permit application or installation of navigational markers in Clam Bay and also
recommended that the County petition the USACE to close the permit noting that the
County has acted in good faith to come into permit compliance but that the denial of
timely and cost effective permits from FDEP, the USCG and FWC has prevented this
from happening. . Additionally, the CAC also recommended that the County, Pelican
Bay and Seagate community jointly meet and resolve the marking of Clam Bay to
facilitate safety and overall community acceptance.
At this point, staff cannot move forward with the study without further direction from the
BCC. If the BCC directs staff to move forward with the navigational marker permitting, a
funding source for these environmental studies will need to be identified. If the BCC
directs staff not to move forward with this permit application for navigational markers,
staff will petition the USACE to close the permit.
Staff believes that the County's petition to close out the permit will be accepted by the
USACE.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMDATION: At the January 13, 2011 CAC meeting
the following recommendation was approved 9 to 0:
This item will be presented to the TDC for approval on January 24, 2011.
FISCAL IMPACT: To date, Coastal Zone Management has expended approximately
$4,500 in hourly charges dealing with this item. No out of pocket expenses have been
incurred to date.
In addition to the out of pocket expenses that the County will incur conducting the
environmental studies, additional agency requests will require $5,000 to $10,000 in staff
time to complete. A total cost of up to $50,000 can be expected to complete this
application based on these new requirements for the EA and/or the EIS.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: No impact to the growth management plan would
result from this Board action.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office, requires simple majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG
RECOMMENDATION: To endorse the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory
Committee on how to proceed with the Clam Bay navigational markers permit
application based on recent regulatory findings and agency requirements.
Prepared by: Gary McAlpin and Pamela Keyes, Coastal Zone Management
ResnickLisa
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Chairman's Report - Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update
S"bm;ttod by T. R,;, l6.l..l...B 2 4
Subject:
RE: Agenda
From: Theodore Raia rmailto:tedraia@yahoo.coml
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:11 PM
To: ResnickLisa
Subject: Agenda
Lisa,
Pass this through Keith and onto the Board. The BCC has authorized a public meeting on Clam Bay signage
and the following was included in an email from Gary McAlpin:
The following groups have requested the opportunity to participate in these meetings. A representative from
each group will be offered the opportunity to participate in the discussion and speak for their respective
communities. In addition, the entire public will be afforded the opportunity to individually speak during public
comment.
a. Mike Bauer - Natural Resources Manager for the City of Naples
b. Ernie Wu - President of the Seagate Homeowners Community
c. Steve Feldhaus - Secretary of the Pelican Bay Foundation
d. Keith Dallas - Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division
e. Mary Johnson - President of the Mangrove Action Committee
f. Kathy Worley - Environmental Specialists from the Conservancy
g. McAlpin, Ramsey and Keyes from the County
h. Staff will consult with FWC prior to the first meeting and solicit their participation. Based
on the outcome of our
discussions, FWC may also participate in the second meeting.
I don't recall the board ever establishing a position that the president could represent to the group
no less the public. Since our next meeting will be the only meeting before this event this should
be on the agenda.
Thanks
Ted Raia
February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Chairman's Report - Landscaping Issues on U.S. 41
Page 1 of 1
1611 824
From~ "James Hoppensteadt" <jimh@pelicanbay.org>
Subject: RE: Filling the landscape gaps on US 41
Date: January 19,20114:50:18 PM EST
To: lIKeith Dallasll <keithdallas@comcast.net>, "LukaszKyle" <KyleLukasz@colliergov.net>
Cc: "Neil Dorrill" <neil@dmgfl.com>, "Lisa Resnick" <LResnick@colliergov.net>, "Mangan,
Kevin" <Kevin.Mangan@stantec.com>
There are not gaps to fill, as I had actually initially thought, there
is park-like landscaping along the berm which would require significant
landscaping to in-fill...hence WilsonMillerls estimate of $100,000+ in
landscaping. A week and a half ago, Steve Sammons, Kyle, and I walked
the entire berm; we photo documented numerous conditions and challenges,
none of which could be solved by anything short of a massive overhaul of
whatls out there and how its maintained. Kevin Mangan is taking another
look at this, but at this point, I think trying to "fixll anything with
stop-gap measures would be a waste of money. Sorry, I had meant to send
you an email on this before now.
Sincerely,
Jim Hoppensteadt
President
Pelican Bay Foundation
6251 Pelican Bay Blvd.
Naples, FL 34108
239-596-6180 ext. 223
239-597 -6927 fax
239-398-7074 cell
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas@comcast.netl
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:40 PM
To: James Hoppensteadt; LukaszKyle
Cc: Neil Dorrill; Lisa Resnick
Subject: Filling the landscape gaps on US 41
Jim,
Where do we stand on filling any gaps on US 41 ? We talked about
replacing where invasive were removed, but has anything been decided
on doing the length of 41 ? I note, at least on the north end, and
probably elsewhere that there are pretty significant gaps in the
foliage, with which I can understand the residents being unhappy.
Keith
~oo Og:~o 9Z-~O-~ ~oz
c
o
.w
<I)
<ll
(1)-
ro ~
-.!:
:JII)
~~
0::_
-02
roll)
0<1)
[l]t)
g'~
:~ a:
,2: Ol
o c
<1)'0
<ll0l
U c
'2: 0
<ll '
1I)<ll
:-,U
ctl C
[l]~
C C
ctl 0
Ua.
_ <I)
<ll <ll
0..:::
~O
~()
0<1)
N :J
. 0 ~
N<ll_
C=-~O
ro=~
:J <ll <ll
.o~Cl
<ll'- ctl
LL~o..
t::
o
a.
III
a:
III
:I
....
III
....
11'1
III
1:;
III
'0'
...
Q.
1lO
t::
'0
1lO
t::
o
>
III
co
t::
III
.!::!
Qj
Q.
c
o
'i
.;:
~
11/
jQ
"tl
11/
C
.!P
1lI
<(
~
.9!.
e
ll.
S
III
o
Ifl
a
III
t;;
<ll
....
<ll
a.
E
o
u
vi
....
c
ctl
a.
-
o
<ll
a.
Z"
o
....
III
ctl
g C
~ .~
~ 'S
~ is
'0
~'
<ll
..0
M
<:T
vi
::J
tl.O
C
..Q
'"
III
....
C
-a~
tl.Oo
c M
'Vi '+- "-
.~ 0 ~
E..c:o
....0
o 0 0
~ ;: M'
o 0 M
....o</)
C 0 <ll
<ll 'Ill
> M .....
C M :J
,- </} ..0
<ll tl.O E
~ .~ 'OJ
.... .....
1Il
.~ QJ
..c .~
tl.O 2:
c <ll
'Vi V')
:J <ll
J1:5
c ..c:
'" ....
a. ';::
c
..Q
';::
<ll
>:5
:..: ,-
:::::- ;:
'w "0
Z <ll
<ll
M U
.......0
M .....
M a.
-'
:..:
M
<:T
vi
::J
tl.O
C
o
<i:
tl.O
c
'0.
'"
U
III
"0
C
'"
-'
-
o
>
o
....
C
<ll
>
C
o
M
.......
M
o
.......
M
M
M
-
o
....
1Il
o
U
tl.O
'E
:J
U
C
Cii
tl.O
"0
:J
..0
<ll
....
<ll
a.
E
o
u
~ +-' ..c.I'I ""'C.~'
Q)c"E
c QJ fC ..c
o E 0 f--
'u) QJ co vi
.V'J Q.O c.I'I Q:j
i~;~
~o<l ~
+-' C "'C '(5
5 ,Q ~ ~
8 ~ ~ ~
,+-OOC
o t;; E a
"E iJ!. ,~ "0
'" > ~ c
J: 0 ctl '" '"
co co <ll vi"
l!EZJc
+-' rc U 2
~uCQro
:5rn~:V
.... c .... g.
d] .~ ~
6-o.s-g
QJQJ......ro
'- .c VI OJ
....'..c:+-' ~ ~
~+-,C"ra
~ .~ ~ E ~
""'C ""0'" C +-'
~ 5 Om 0
ctl u E >
'u OJ >- +oJ
~ V') co .~
VI a.i co ..c
~ ~ E '5
o .!!! co ro
~V1UQJ
u'"-....c
ro Q) Q) +-'
Qj-t:6E
"EEZ"fE
2 5 'g ~
~~:5"tJ
<ll tl.O ~ ~
~.~ 0 >-
~ c ~ ~
"'C "'C QJ ~
C C Co Cts
ro rc U) c-
Q) +-' ~ ~
cs .~ :5 OJ
~ ~ .~ to
t:3 ~~~
coc:eijj
1Il
:.c:
....
o
-
1Il
C
o
:;::;
1Il
<ll
tlO
tlO
:J
1Il
1Il
'-
~
VI
.......
M
c
o
....
<ll
>
o
....
Cl
Z
1Il
.....
<ll
C
o
'Vi
,!!!
E
E
o
u
>
....
C
:J
o
U
-
o
"E
'"
o
co
o
....
c
o
'+:;
:J
(5
1Il
<ll
cr:
o
M
.......
M
o
.......
N
M
N
o
....
"0
<ll
(g 0 ~
a..... '"
a.c:J
o 0 c
~t~
-6"''0
o .!!!
..0 5
<ll
> 1Il
'ZJ ~
~ '"
t; 0
:~ ~
E :.c:
"0 ....
'" ~
C <ll
'" -
1Il 1Il
'" C
OJ g
o ....
E 2
"E"' ~
'" u
o c
co ~
'0
o
>
c
'"
c
tlO
,!:
E
o
u
a.
:J
c
'"
C
o
"0
<ll
U
'"
a.
<ll
..0
"0
"S
o
..c:
1Il
:t=
.....
<ll
..0 C
.8 ;:
u ~
0"0
~:5
~ ';::
'" E
U <ll
~ :!:
~::1
<ll.......
"OL/'l
:J:::;-
~ ~
co
';:: E
"ED
ctl _
.il 0
III
<ll <ll
:5 .~
~-g
t; :J
ctl 0
-'..0
c'
..g co rn
:J-gg
5l~:E
~ ~ ~
~~l:i
~ +-' So ~
.~ CD ~ +-'
~ e ~ ~
82:~~
<ll '" 0 '"
-5 "E :~ ~
~2lE]
..... co E ....
.r::....~ 0 "'C
t.cUQJ
::J +-' >:::0
~ Q:j c ~
~ :J 1Il
i<8~
..8,~b~
~c"'E:S
~ <ll 2l c
'S: Qj co ~
"'C :5 n 0
~ g 8 E
roroNI..O
<ll
....
<ll
a.
E
o
u
<ll
>
"O~
C
'"
1Il
<ll
.!:
a;
~
:J
tlO
1Il
<ll
',:
..0 ....
co ~
E -g
<ll
~
....
1Il
<ll
co
Q)
..c:
....
a.
o
"0
ctl
o
....
,
c
o
'+:;
'"
'u
o
1Il
1Il
'"
<ll
..c:
....
....
ctl
Q)
C
o
"0
Q)
..0
C
'"
u
....
'"
..c:
....
1Il
tlO
.!:
..c:
....
<ll
a.
>
....
..... Q,
Q):iS
~ '6"0
3: ~
....
c
o
'+:;
:J
(5
III
Q)
.....
ctl
o ~ QJ
+-' co :5
~ ~~
a. a. rl
,S 0 <;::
~ .~ .~
:~ ~ .5}
.!S-o:gt
.~ g ~ .~
;:c-o
g:5"E
:;::; ';:: 2l
~ <ll' co "0
C V'I 'f"""f "-
::J ::J -... ca
o 0 N 0
u."c'f"""fa:J
c
ctl <ll
-0 <ll
~ t5
tlO <ll
<..c:
....
>
..0
1Il
<ll
~
:J
o
1Il
Q)
cr:
L/'l
.......
M
C
o
Q)
....
o
>
"E
ctl
o
co
:J_
'+- 0 "0
ctl C C
.... 0 '"
V') +:i V)
Q) U <ll
6- Q) :5
~ e co
o a.. :E
.... ..... c
Q) 0
Q)-
~ c-
,- ~
E co
E
o 1Il
U <ll
QJ ,~
a.t;
r3 ~
1Il c-
"0 ....
C C
'" Q)
-' E
l! ~
I- '"
1.0 C
........ '"
~ ~
Cl
Z
0::-
~
~
....
'"
..c:
....
<ll
Q) 1Il
.... <ll
.... U
'E'13
E ~
8~
<ll C
a. Q)
'" E
~ Q)
"0 tlO
C '"
'" c
--' '"
E ~
e ~
_ <ll
C co
~o.
'" 0
"0"0
C <(
<llE "E :J1
,!:
E2la;
8 co ~
Q) :J :J
cr:_~
o
......
........
1.0
o
.......
N
M
<:T
L/'l
........
......
C
o
'+J
ctl
....
C
Q)
1Il
~
a.
Q)
-""
ctl
E
"0
C
'"
1Il
tlO
C
.+:;
C
'"
a.
c
o
+:;
'"
U
:J
"0
<ll
,~
:is
:J
a.
<ll
E
o
1Il
a.
o
a;
>
Q)
"0
'"
o
....
~
-
o
1Il
..c:
a.
~
tlO
o
....
o
..c:
a.
Q)
-""
'"
....
o
....
<ll
>-
:..:
1.0
........
N
M
--'
><:
1Il
.~
"0
o
co
Q;
....
ctl
3:
,!:
~
c
'"
c:
'"
o
~
~
-
o
1Il
..r:
a.
'"
So
o
....
o
..c:
c-
o
M
.......
1.0
o
........
N
......
1.0
Q)
....
Q)
a.
E
o
U
1Il
1Il
Q)
U
o
5-
c
c
'"
.~
a;
c-
"0
C
..... ctl
.E c
-"" 0
u 'Vi
~ 'S:
+-'0
~ CD
.... U
g 'c::
U <ll
"OVl
Q) Q)
d -:S
a.c
o Q)
5-Q)
'" ~
tlOQ)
C ..0
'L: +-'
..0 ~
-g"Q
ctl 5-
VI ....
.l!l c
g :Q,
C" '"
,~.E N
Qj ~ "N-
Q) Cij c
,!: ;: 0
~ ~ QJ
QJ 0 ~
c b we
're '+- a.
.... 0 :J
-gCD~
o ,~ 'S:
~ c: 0
~~~
V) C ,_
"0 tl.O ;:
Q) 'Vi
N QJ '(ij
'~~ z
-€ c e:"
:J '" 0
ca c 'z:;
~ ..8 ~
ctl U C
~ ~ g
M 1Il LL
....... C >
NO'"
M U co
-'
><:
.......
Cl
Z
o<l
c
o
'+:;
U
;:
....
III
C
o
U
o
-
....
U
~
....
c
o
U
"0
<ll
1Il
o
a.
o
CL
.......
1Il
Q)
"0
:J
o
1Il
-""
Cij
;:
1Il
III
o
U
-
o
1Il
Q)
U
'~
Q)
Vl
C
tlO
'Vi
<ll
Cl
o
M
.......
M
o
.......
N
M
m
1Il
1Il
<ll
U
o
5-
c
Q)
-""
..!l1
-
o
>
Q)
2:
:J
1Il
o
....
C
<ll
E
1Il
1Il
<ll
1Il
1Il
ctl
C
o
c
o
:;::;
U
~
'0
<ll
>
'QO
o
....
<ll
<ll
....
:!::
E
E
o
U
Q)
a.
ro
U
VI
"0
C
ctl
-'
"0
Q)
Q)
;:
""'"
U
:J
"0
e
....
c
o
U
o
....
e:
ctl
U
1Il
1Il
ctl
So
tlO
C
'f:
o
a.
a.
E ~
eO
- 1Il
<ll
1Il
o
e:
:J
a.
c
o
'+:;
ctl
"0
C
<ll
E
E
o
U
<ll
cr:
1.0
.......
N
M
o
-
c
o
:;::;
'"
....
<ll
tlO
Q)
>
o
z
~
<ll
.l!l
....
'E
E
o
U
<ll
a.
'"
U
1Il
"0
C
ctl
-'
E
e
-
c
o
'+J
'"
"0
C a.
<ll .....
E '"
E U
o ~
~ ~
cr: ~
o
M
.......
1.0
o
........
N
M
L/'l
Collier County Sheriff's OfficI 6 J 1 B 2 4
Crimes/Incidents - Pelican Bay - Grid 1201 - Traffic
01/01/2008 - 02/16/2010
N
+
r--;}.",; .- f-'=:=::;,_-:',:_->~:':':";'::~
, .
i~---.,!/
~. ~" _<; {I?
=,
Vanderbilt Beach
--1.
. : -. -"';"---_.,,-~ j :
/r~,,- . ,I, t-'-;:7(.-ob.
" .......'" ~ ",. .j,.',','" .....,..",.0.:.
/ \ \\ Pelican Bay Community Park
~~~_':' , . ,27~J '
Q /<~... ,>"~-,::o:.:. . I
I \\ " /;-'- , ':.>. () i
\\"0 .'. 0 c<:::::::.,:' I
." -. -' -=--
//-'0. ....'-.- I
)-....
WARBLER LAKE
....--...
/-1
/ \
/.
r
0:
~.~- .
~
8-;.
?-,
!
\_--;:
'.0;-
LAKE cARDINAL ..'
INNER CLAM SAY
~
o
s\ '\
-0 n-e,
i-f>
, f
----_.
MOCKINGBIRD LAKE
9
! I
b
6
CLAM PASS
q
MIDDLE LAKE
"-
\ \'"
-',5~,
00
,a cP
T --.0' .
/
"../\
Legend
. CUI
. IMt.SR
. """",",TRAFFlC\IlOlATlON
. TlW'FlC Cf'FENSE. 00
o TlWT'lCACCIllEHT
Clam Park
Clam Pass Park.. :.... '.
Clam Pass Par'K .
. 0."._:
C/amPaSs Park OUTER CLAM BAY
.0
. " o.~
SOUTh LAKE
Clam Pass Park Clam Pass Par'~
I
L
SEA GA7E ELEMENTARY
,
N GULF SHORE BCH ACe
North Gulf Shore AcceSs :
'---.J
Prepared by: 3117
12/18/2010
1611 8 24
COMMENTARY
For nearly two years a dedicated group of residents have held
Innumerable meetings to discus our aging infrastructure emphasizing:
safety & securtty, preservation of property values, and promote the
quality of life within our community. In addition many public Forums have
been held at the Community Center to which a" residents have been
Invited to attend and make their views known.
Are you aware that 14 new pedestrian croesings are being recommended
which will require 8 total of 148 (that is one hundred and forty eight) traffic
signs along Pelican Bay Boulevard. As an example the proposed
pedestrian crossing at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Glenview Place wiN
have 13 traffic signs! Will the presence of 148 traffic signs in 8 stretch of
2.5 miles promote safety and preserve property values?
And each crossing will consists of. one foot painted Stop Une, fotlowed
by 20 feet of Asphalt, then a 12" Concrete Header. 36. Cobble Pavers. 10
feet of Clay Brick Pavers, 36" Cobble Pavers and finally another 12"
Concrete Header. Thus each pedestrian crossing will occupy 39 feet of
Roadway. And on the other side of the median there will be another 39 feet
designating the pedestrian crosswalk. Is this really necessary? Can we
not reduce the width of each such crossing without affecting the safety of
pedestrians at a considerable cost saving? And are the residents aware of
the cost of each crosswalk? The estimated cost for the new crosswalk at
Ridgewood would be $100,150; the crosswalks at Gulf Park Drive would
come to an astonishing $218.003; others will coat between $58,000 and
$97.000.
Surely safe and attractive crosswalks can be installed at critical locations
at considerably tess expense. We have the money available - but do we
need to spend it in this manner.
John Domenie
161 1 B ~<A
'~.~
.~
i a
i 0
. u
fl
l~
16' 1 B
2)4
~
.~
. a
o
u
5
\c:
i4)
1611 B 2'1
~~
.(Q) ~
;, 8
B C4'
2,4
\;U
~.~
\~~,', ...:8
i!!:n;3
. a
8
ctl
....
",!:l
'4J
s 24
J
. :S:: 00
~.;E
.:m
-~
, 0
. v
I
161 1 8 24
I
1611824
24
1611
The Pelican Bay Services Division supports efforts to have the various stakeholders
of Clam Bay meet to jointly resolve the marking of Clam Bay to facilitate safety and
overall community acceptance. We remain concerned that any agreement not
encourage inappropriate boating activities within Clam Bay and not become the
basis for dredging that would increase the depth of navigable areas beyond current
depths. Any agreement should reflect the delicate environmental nature of Clam
Bay.
8 24
~oo ..~:~~ iQ-~o-HO~
1611824
The Pelican Bay Services Division supports efforts to have the various stakeholders
of Clam Bay meet to jointly resolve the marking of Clam Bay to facilitate safety and
overall community acceptance. We remain concerned that any agreement not
encourage inappropriate boating activities within Clam Bay and not become the
basis for dredging that would increase the depth to create navigable areas beyond
current depths. Any agreement should reflect the delicate environmental nature of
Clam Bay.
16 I 1! B 2 4
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 1)
Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8,2011
THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8,2011 AT
1 :00 P.M. AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, 8960 HAMMOCK
OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108.
AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2. Audience Participation
3. Schedule and Goals for Preparation of FY 2012 Budget
4. Review of line item savings (5, 10,20%) to allocate additional funds for CIP
5. Discussion of Capital Projects outside the CIP
6. Update on Methodology
7. Audience Comments
8. Adjourn
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO
APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING,
HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH
PURPOSE, HE 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. ANY PERSON
REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A
DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION
OFFICE AT (239) 597-1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING.
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
.."..- -
~7I-
~/
0/
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item#:
C:f)ies to:
1611 8 24
BUDGET COMMITTEE SCHEDULE AND GOALS
February 1. 2011
Feb. Meeting - Discuss funding for capital projects outside the C1P.
· Lake Bank Enhancements - Estimated Cost $100,000
· South Berm Complete Slope Renovation - Estimated Cost $150,000
(Alternatively to the above renovation would be the repair of eroded sections only estimated at
$25,000 with funds previously forecasted in the Clam Bay budget).
· Traffic Sign Replacement and Renovation - Estimated Cost $150,000
· Oakmont Lake Bank Pathway - Estimated Cost Asphalt Overlay $75,000; or
Estimated Cost Concrete Replacement $200,000
(If no replacement of pathway is done we would need to budget approximately $7,500 for
necessary asphalt repairs).
Mar. Meeting - County Budget instructions and actual calendar update. Staff to present preliminary FY
2012 budget. Discussion to include FY 2012 ad valorem and non ad valorem assessment amounts with
possible increase to save for future CIP.
Apr. Meeting - Approve proposed FY 2012 budget for recommendation for approval to the full board in
order to be submitted to the county by the June 1 deadline.
ZZ
~~~~~S~~~~~~WN~p~
[ [ ~ ~ & ~ ~_.' ~ ~-'. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ :::-:ro.iD (')::J -~ C
;+ ~ ... QI AI "0 ; 0 QJ'= ~
0':::00 ~;; S!!-;;r ~ Ii ~ ~'tJ....
::J~N'''''53:J:'''' ",Ii
a~~.... til ~ -a0 2.3.0 ~ 5
c; ., - Q:i"-'
~i'til: ~5 ~ ~'::Ji'.i
~-n~2g5'< gq~~.a::r
_. ~ n ::J < OQ 0 0 0 A'
3~ ~:rQl ,~ "-=-:i
~C tiQ-mnO ~g'::J
AI;:ft O::J ~. -- "2-
jl;O~::J c;S ~ ::J q Q1 liU - i! QI
3 QJ r+ ~.5 <o.-..:c ::J
-t !eo C ::J -. 0 iil lit
3~~.i~~~ a:;,~al1l
'tJQJgAl,Jilo1/'> oS.gl4~
0'tJ ...,.....0 ::J=....QJI1l
Q1-o NQJ::J -f11l ::r::J'tJ
~ QI 3 I~ ':"I QJ -< g. ....
<0-0-' I""'" 1113......QJ
r- !S."2. -< ~ a. ....
~~j;r~ f 3';:OO~
o .... .... I/'> .... -. s
2-~g'~ 3 ~~~
::JwJe.~ ~311l
9: ~ I-<" 3 ~. QI I/'>
~ ~ I~ g i 3 jl;O
~ iD~"8
at i1' &t C
~ 3iir5.
CT - QJ
I>> -< !:!.
::J 0
~ ::J
~.... N
~~oo800g~08~
~~~c
3 E.!!. II
-. 9- ::J n
~a' i I
::J~::J ::J
o 5' ~
.....11l-n!t'
~~~;
::J .... -.
r;~~~
~3i
111 'tJ -0
.... a 0
::J < :lI
~ 11l Q"
<' 3 6"
~ 11l ..
I/'> ~ Z
I/'> i
X-
I
-
~Vlo ~ ~ ~
W~~ N ....~ W~
o~.... N O~,JiloN
~~~~~~~~~~~~'8~~
~ ~ Vlo~
....~~~~~ .... ~N""
~ P .:-I .:-I 1>> 1>> ..~ ~ $1' .!N P .!-"
~g888~888~8~8~8
3:E:fU
I g g-
~ .... ....
00
- -n
3 C fU
-0 i g-
a,....
n~
3X';~
lC!iiJ"
nn~i'
"'''0-
.........
~Vlo~ ~ ~ ~1.f). 1.f).if).-t
JS1B..:::~~p~~..:::~~~~P..:::&
~8888g8~88888~8-
~~e~~~~ee~b~~~
~~~oo.....~~....~oow~\O
*'*'~'#.~'#.'#.'#.'#.~~~*''#.
:3
.... .... .... .... ....
.....~!-"oo~..........~~~~N!"'O
;....N,JiloCn;....O'\Cn;....oo;....:....Cn~o:-.t
~~~~~.p......N~~,Jilo~Wo,\__
*'*'~'#.'#.*'*''#.'#.'#.'#.'#.~'#.'#.
c;;
~
~
..-
~
0::0
oGll-oO
:.... a ~ :IE
.......=+-n
*'~6"ir
011 a:
;:on
,. C
Q,,3
c c
~i>>
i)....
:lI f
161 1
-*'
a ::0
3 l
o'~
Iitg-
o
1
~
o
:lI
!!.
)-
if
3
III
....
~.
I/'>
III
::J
Q"
X'
C!
;;.
'"
Jt
~
::0
l
C
a
o
::J
I/'>
B 24
~
....
....
.....
....
N
GlI
C
Q"
!
::0
'"
Q"
C
~
0'
::J
o
~
0-
::J
~
en
'"
C!
;;.
'"
JD
!!
3
-0
QJ
&
0.
/1)
0"
-.
iii'
:::r
llJ
5.
:;'
OQ
ill
..0
c:
:;.
/1)
3
/1)
~ -g ~
II> .~ ;:;:
~ _. :::r
= ~ g.
~ [@
B !" 3
l:: ~ ClI
ClI ~, ~:
-< :::s :::s
-OQOQ
011>_
.., -. 0
n30"
ii' '0 /1)
llJ ~ _
:::s .... /1)
c:::r;:1:t
'0 ClI :::s
o III llJ
.....0"....
0. /1) ~
/1) /1) llJ
0" :::s ~-
a, ~ :;'
g. c' g.
ClI ~ 0.
r+ /1) -,
~ 0. i
=S':J3
~ill~
::tI _
a~.!"
..... n
3 Qj' 0
....0"3
ii" 0 3
.., c:
~ 2,
o.~
n '"Q
C1l ..,
:::s c:
..... :::s
~ tTI
.!" g
i-<
llJ llJ
n .....
:::rtTI
iif':::S
n !:t
::llJ
;:;:' :::s
ii' B
~ yt
N
8
.....
C')
8
~
~
.....
.....
o
N
....
o
\.0
~
ill ';}.
g. iii'
~ :G
0' <
:::s ri"
~ /1)
g iii'
o:~
ill fij'
ii'o.
~'O
... ~.
:::r3
/1) '"
:G ~
< -<
rr 0'
/1) ..,
-g 8
~ ~
s:a
~o
.....
O'ill
-. n
8 8
:::s 0
... :::s
a III
-:::s
o /1)
..... llJ
... ..,
:::rr:r
(1) /1)
ill ~
R :::r
o it
o n
:::s ::
III ;:;:'
~ ii'
III
.-+ I>>
:::r:::s
tTI 0.
0"..,
/1) /1)
~ 3
:::ro
iit'<
n ~
~a
~' li
. /1)
::I
(1)
~
-f
::r
iii'
iii'
.-+
(1)
?-
00
-...J
!!!
3'
:;'
I>>
.....
0'
:::s
o
.....
3
o
~
:;'
OQ
:;'
-
::r
tTI
:::s
llJ
.....
c:
ill
/1)
:::s
<
a'
:::s
3
/1)
:::s
-
~
llJ
ill
IU
llJ
o
ci
:;' ~ ~
.... '0 c:
:::r/1):::S
(1) :::s C1l
~ 0. gJ
:;' :r g
.....OQOQ
~ c: llJ
. '0 -,
-f 0 ~
:::r :::s -,
iii' ~ iir
n /1) I>>
o III llJ
c: r+ '0
0: if '0
iil .., a
II> 8 ~
5.:::s3
-0.1>>
:;' a: nr
og-<
ii III /1)
cil1 ~ ii
a 3 -<
~ ~ g
0" .... :::s
ill !:to ....
:::s 3 ~
9- /1) c:
-, '0 3
ci 2 3
"D 2, /1)
I>> :::s ~..,
~ OQ i"
2" iii'
ii' ~ ~.
.... "'C Q.
-<ac:
0. x :::!,
c: -, :::s
:::!, 3 OQ
:::s IU ~
011 lit -,
ill-<~
-. .... /1)
~ -I:lo'"
III Q. 3
/1) llJ 0
~ ~ ~
o I>> 1Il,:::r
:::s :::s
, 0.
3
o
:::s
.....
:::r
-<
r+
ill
3
g-
...
3
III
o
"'C
/1)
!"
0\
g.n3n
I>> 0 0 c:
...~~@
~c;::!:~
III c: -< -
c: lit 0 ~
~....:::S:::r
N' 0 ..... /1)
~g.if3
/1) 3 !!!.
3 III llJ :::s
~_, ~ :;' 0"
-, 0
N38'5.
~~~~
o~a.
~a.1Il
:;' III ~
OQ ~ C1l
:;' g ~
g. 0: .g
/1) ::r ....
~ :! ~
o /1) C1l
:::! llJ ;0;-
:::S:::s-<
~ !! ~
nr:::ro.
.., ~ !e,
3 n' :::s
llJ -, OQ
:::s 3 ii'
~ "'C iit'
C1l ~ 3
3 .... -,
/1) :;'-<
~ III 3
l ~ ~
/1) llJ :::r
3ill~
:::s
';}.B9
iii' a ~
~ a~'
~ I>> OQ
",Q.r+
III :::r
..... llJ /1)
iil :::s
..oo.::r
c: /1)
/1) ..0
:::s c:
~ ~
~
r+
o
U1
1611824
-I:lo
"
...
c:
~
o
....
:::s
I>>
3
/1)
:::s
aT
in
o
:::s
/1)
r+
3'
/1)
3
:;'
3'
I>>
"
Qj'
:::s
.....
I>>
:::s
:::s
c:
llJ
Vi'"
I>>
r+
....
:::r
/1)
/1)
:::s
.....
ill
:::s
n
/1)
II>
I>>
:::s
0.
-n
o
c:
:::s
0.
I>>
.....
0'
:::s
at
Q:
~
o
:::s
-<
~
;:;:'
:::r
I>>
;:;-
tTI
...
:::s
I>>
.....
;;:'
/1)
"'C
Qj'
:::s
.....
:;'
OQ
III
c:
~
N'
/1)
0.
r+
'5'
"'C
:;'
OQ
0"
llJ
n
r:-
w
.... tTI 0 C
~ ~ ;- !e,
~ :::r _, :::s
"= ~ :::s OQ
o -, /1) llJ
c: n II'
0: 3 @ ~
:::r '0 II'
I>> llJ ~ /1)
ii ~ ~ i
2' )>"'C :::s
~ ~ n' II'
:::r -, ~ <'
/1) !:!. 0' /1)
... 0 :::s 3
~ ~ _ c:
.....-On
:::r II' :::r
~ :! g /1)
n' :;' /1) 0.
3''l}t ~ 5'
"'Cn"'C;::!.
llJ 0 = n'
~ =- lil c:
0.....;:;-
O"oC:
/1) :::s iil
1>>:<-0'
~ /1) ...
!!!. ~ "'C
:::s ~ 0
~;:;:,a
~ :::r 0
r:;: 3 ~
:::r :;' 0
I>> -'.....
..... 3 iil
~llJ3
n ::r 0
o ~ lit
~ ii" I>>
3 2, iil
_, :::s I>>
o OQ II'
;::. ~ I>>
o :: 0
_ :::s
..... :::r OQ
if:!~
3 /1) ....
c: 3 ;-
g: :;' =r
/1) 3' /1)
~ ~.g
o /1)
~ :::s
n' ~
c ...
;:+ /1)
c: 0.
~ ~
:::r 0'
o :::s
~ 0
~ .....
/1)
~
N
ZZ
.... ~i
-<.n-z
-I:lo /1)
On
~~
llJ-<
oat
lil 0,
r+ ::
a.~
0" 3'
~"'C
~ a
/1) <
/1) /1)
:::s 3
.... /1)
:::r:::s
~Iir
n ::r
51 :!
.... /1)
B li
~ /1)
/1) :::s
iA 8
8" 3
ClI'2..
..... /1)
~ nr
llJ 0.
00'
..... -.
-<.n-n
U1 c:
~ ..,
~ ~
. r+
iil
..0
c:
;0'
/1)
3
/1)
:::s
Iir
llJ
:::s
0.
2'
:::s
0.
:;'
011
iil
Q.
C
n
/1)
0.
a
3
c -f
::I ::I"
~ iii'
"C ii1
tD ::!I
~ tD
::ta
tD 01
< ~
~ c
lit !!!..
o tD
.., )(
.., "C
tD tD
.c ::I
c 0-
tD ;:::;
V> C
_ ..,
tD tD
O-V>
V> -
tD a
S,3
~ _
~ g-
IV
o
!->
o
0"
C
0-
~
~
..,
8
c;;
8
~
~
~
!->
VI
~
iii'
~ s =1
~ ~~'
::I ~ g
~ 01 a::
0" ~ tD'"
tD 01
0.... ::I 0-
_O-c
o!->lil
~, qo g.
::I !-> tD
OQ 1.0 3
.., 0-
tD 01 0
S ~ ~,
3 .., ::I
3 lJ: OQ
tD "C ::r
::I tD 0
0-~3
tD <" tD
0- tD <
3<tD
01' -<
:r ~ ......
nr iii' 0-
;: ~ ~
::I 0 II>
lil 5. :r
0-_
"C ::I" ::I"
iil 01 tD
~ < II>
_, II) C
lil 01 3
II> ::I 3
0' J: tD
.., 01 ..,
- ..... 01
C <" ::I
~tDO-
, II)!->
:a ::.
::1"0-
II) 01
!:!.~
n
3 3'
"C g.
01 tD
~ ~
~ :;
O-nr
..,
~
o
c
a::
ii'
01
<
tD
::I
o
-
C
::I
0-
:f
OQ
0'
..,
1611 B
!->
::.
ii'~r;
e; ::I 0-
_ C C
::I" 01 n
01--
::I 01 ci"
_ "C ::I
::1"'2..0
tD r:r _
ii1 ~ ill'
n -, ..,
o 0 ~
3 ::I N'
3 a ~
~ ~, 01
0-!:t"C
tDo'2..
0- ClQ -.
01 tD Q
::I ::I !:!.
::I ::r 0
c 0 ::I
!!!..3_
iil ::. a
nrg-3
o "C ::.
.... tD .....
::. .., 3'
g...!-"tD
~ ~i
;:.- V> ..,
~ .c-<
s;;!;:;>m
cs......,
Cf'l 0 -
.c IV 0
, - IV
;:;>0"_
, ~-,
!-> 3
~~
.c ::
-II>
?~
~5.
_, 0-
Il> ..,
~ ::t
5.~
o-tD
VI-
0::1"
~I'D
!->
VJ
Q:I-f
01 ::I"
::I iii'
r:- iii'
....
::I"
I'D
"C
2
::I
3'
OQ
o
-
....
ii1
tD
II>
o
Q
-
tD
0-
01
0-
Qj'
n
II)
::I
....
....
o
.....
::I"
I'D
Cf'l
5'
OQ
ii'
ar
~,
<
o
lit
o
::I
....
::I"
tD
o
01
~
3
o
::I
.....
I>>
~
I'D
!->
IV
5' ~
OQ 0-
ii'g.
ar..,
~, ~,
<tD
01 iii'
ii1 ::I
01 0
Cf'l _
~ QI
o ~
5.C
O-!!!..
n<
o 01
a ::I
3' ~
fi ~
..... r;'
o Cf'l
go
-
3 ~
2!, 0
::I C
liT c::
3' 0"
I'D I'D
0- -
~~
~ ::I
01 ~
=:c
. iil
o
::I
c:
~
!->
....
..,
I'D
tD
.!"
o
01
~
3
o
::I
-
24
!->
!->
"C
!!:!..
3
V>
::I
01
-
C
iil
~
PBSD Capital Funds Status
February 8, 2011
Current Hardscape Project Fund
FY 2011 Capital Allocation
FY 2010 Actual Carry Forward (Funds 109 & 778 only.)
CAPITAL FUNDS CURRENnV AVAILABLE
· Excludes Clam Bay Funds and $22,700 in lake
Bank Enhancement Project Fund.
1611
$2,057,850
$ 401,000
$ 232.100
$2.690.950
B 24
~oo ~g:o~ QO-~o-noz;
1611 B 24
."".'ller
MEMORANDUM
to:
FROM:
Frank Laney, Pelican Bay Foundation. Inc.
DATE:
Dan Waters, PE IV \
November 24. 2010 VVV
SUBJECT: Pelican Bay South Berm
Erosion Considerations I Side Slope Restoration
Permittina Historv .
The 1,200 acre Pelican Bay subdivision wasoriginBlly permitted by the SFWMO as Permit No,
04178-C in August 1978 and by the US Army Corps of Engineers, The original permit
approvals authorized the constructlon of a 50 foot wide berm and spreader swBle from Saagate
Drive along the western bOundary of the developed areas of Pelican Bay northward to what is
now the Montenero condominium. The berm was designed to serve both 8S 8 recreational
facility and as part of the infrastructure of the Pelican Bay surface water management system.
The berm was permitted to have a ten foot asphalt path on Its top; the asphalt path remains in
place and SeNes as a shared-use pedestrian trail as well as the travel way for trams conveying
residents and visitors to the beaches. The berm also acts as the perimeter containment that
allows for stormwater to be stored within the detention areas on the east side of the berm while
stormwater control structures that are placed intermittently along the berm's length discharge
the runoff from the developed areas west to the existing wettand areas adjacent to Clam Bay at
a controlled rate.
The permitted berm cross section consisted of a four foot high berm with four to one side
slopes. a ten foot wide asphalt patfl on top of the berm. and an eight foot wide spreader swale
on the westem side of the berm, A copy of the permitted berm section is shown in the center of
sheet 41 of the Water Management Plan attached to this memorandum as Attachment A. The
permitted section consists of a 50 foot vAde envelope (a 42 foot wide berm and an eight foot
spreader 8W8Ie),
Current Permitting Requirements J Desian Standards
The Collier County Land Development Code (LOC) contains standards for berm and
embankment slopes and the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) Plans Preparation
Manual provides standards for sideslopes for pedestrian facilities.
LOC Section 4.06.05.J provides for the required treatment of slopes (a copy of the LOC Section
has been included as Attachment B). For slopes of four to one (horizontal to vertical) or flatter,
grass groundcover may be used as stabilization. Embankments with slopes no steeper than
three to one (horizontal to vertical) may utilize trees. groundcover (pinestraw, mulch, etc,).
ornamental graaaes, and shrubs as stabltlzation. Embankment slopes that are not steeper than
two to one (horizontal to vertical) may utIIi2:e rfp.rap or other forms of scour protection.
Section 8.6 of the FOOT Plans Preparation Manual provides the criteria for Shared Use Paths
(a copy of Section 8.6 has been provided as Attachment C). Section 8,6,5 of the FOOT
standards suggests that a two foot wide flat area be provided adjacent to paths that are typically
,_,. ''''''1 V"'Oll.llW"Tt~
-.
1IS):)s -t.oo~ I"COR tIQe:
~oo K:eo 6O-to-HOZ:
1611
Pelican Bay South Berm
Side Slope Erosion Evaluation
Page 2 ot "
utilized bV pedestrians, joggers, in-fine, skaters, and bicyclists, The intent of this two foot wide
IIat area Is to provide an area of relief and recovery outside of the pathway for pedestrian users
prior to the steeper skIe slope back to existing grade. This, two foot flat area for recovery was
not proposed as part of the original design of the berm' pathway system, however we
recommend that it be added as a part of the improvements to bring the path to the current
....equired standards.
Problem Statement I Existino Condition
, Based on several site reviews and the compilation of survey information for the berm. the most
significant maintenance problem on the south berm is the erosion of the sldeslopes on the
western side of the berm adjacent to the preserved wetland areas. As a part of this evaluation,
WilsonMiller Stantec performed topographic survey cross sections of the berm at 200 foot
intervals; the existing-condition survey information was then interpolated to create cross
sections at 50 foot intervals for use in evaluating the current condition of the berm. The plan
containtng the existing condition survey information is Included with this memorandum.
A review of the existing-condition survey indicates that severe erosion of the side slopes has
occurred along the western side of the berm, In contrast, the eastern side of the berm has not
experienced significant erosion from the original design standard. fa appears that the erosion
has occurred from the toe of slope of the berm and proceeded up the slope toward the pathway,
In this case. the erosion appears to have potentially been caused by either storm surge or grass
die off 'lack of .....~tion ""tead of wash outs from stormwater runoff.
r
Some of the concerns created by the eroded condition of the berm are as follows:
· Oroo Off Hazard: As stated above. the design plan and existing condition do not
provide any flat area for relief from the side of the path to the bottom of the berm. This
could potentially create an unsafe condition for tram operation. bikers, in-line skaters,
or pedestrians. The lack of the flat area to provide relief for someone that Inadvertently
leaves the path Is exacerbated by the fact that the eroded slopes are extremely steep
In some areas and make recovery difficult,
· Maintenance Difficulties: Generally, a four to one (horizontal to vertical) side slope or
flatter Is required to allow for the use of riding mowers for maintenance, Based on
conversation with Pelican Bay Foundation staff and Pelican Bay Services Division staff,
the defICient portions of the berm are currently too steep to be cut with a mower and
t1>2:l1iC110-f204,.._, .!lWAI(IlS
~'103'ctl8{1fO .I:OQR .. t..'l)t"
I:J 24
ZOO K:eo 6()-Zo-~~OZ
1611
Pelican Bay Soulh Betm
Side Slope Erosion Evaluation
Page 3 of 4
maintenance is currently performed with weed whackers.
6 Aesthetics: As stated above, the severe erosion makes maintenance of the grass
difficult and therefore creates aesthetic issues.
· Berm Stabilitv: The continued erosion of the berm side slopes Is likely to continue and
could eventually undermine the Integrity of the berm and pathway,
"
Prooosed Remedies
The correction of the erosion obviously requires that the berm sideslopes be restored and that
the appropriate slope coverage be provided to provide stabilization and prevent future erosion,
Potential stabilization options that have been Investigated include the following:
· Ootion 1 - RiQ Rao at Toe-of-Slooe: An on-site investigation indicated that the vast
majority of the erosion occurred at the toe of slope of the berm along the western side.
This erosion at the toe of slope may be caused either by the movement of the tidal
waters within the wetland areas or could be a result of the die-off of grasses at the toe of
slope that are not tolerant of water with high salinity. The placement of rip rap at the
base of the restored slope would provide a maintenance free solution and provide the
stabiity for the portions of the slope above the mean high water levels. Reference sheet
two of the plans for two typical cross sections depicting the restored berm with rip rap
protection at the toe of slope. The two sections evaluated for Option 1 are as follows:
o Restoration of the berm to its original cross section with four feet of rip rap at the
toe of slope on the western side and a sodded four to one slopes to the top of
berm, This alternative would include placing additional along the west side of the
berm to 6reclaim" the original berm footprint and would include trimming of
vegetation to allow for the construction to occur.
o Restoration of the berm within its existing footprint with eight feet of rip-rap at 8
two to one slope from the existing toe of slope to the top of the berm. This
alternative would either eliminate the need to trim the existing vegetation or
require only minimal trimming, It would also preserve the low areas that currently
hold water adjacent to the existing toe of slope at their existing elevation.
· aotion 2 - Slooe StabUlmtinn Product at Toe-of-SIooe: There are a wide variety of slope
stabilization products avdable for use in this type of application. These systems are
typically high strength ceUular confinement systems that can be fiMed with soil material
and planted with sod to provide stable slope protection from concentrated flows and long
term erosion, If, as suspected, the high salinity levels in the brackish water within the
preserved wetlands are responsible for the die-off of the grasses at the toe-of-slope. the
grasses would continue to die-off if planted on the cellular confinement system and
periodic replacement of the sod would be required. A picture of a typical ceUular
confinement system is provided below.
'tQ3~'O. notn . v.,. I . OWAtf1;M
N'''Cl:>>OM,01O leak->>1}'
B 2.4
tOO St:90 ao-ZG-HOZ
1611
Pelican Bay South Berm
Side Slope Erosion Evaluation
Page 4 of 4
.. ODtion 3 - Different Sod Varieties: If neither of the above two methods are utilized for the
slope restoration, it would be advisable to test and observe the performance of a variety
of sod types in small areas prior to Installing the best sold alternative along the entire
length of the restored berm. Typically a berm of this type, where irrigation is not
available, would have been planted with bahla sod, Bahia has poor tolerance to shade
.. and saltwater, and in light of the fact that the erosion has generally occurred on the
western' side of the berm, the Influence of the brackish water in Clam Bay and the lack of
sunlight due tD the shading provided by the encroachment of vegetation on the western
side of the berm, have likely been detrimental to the bahla sod planted on the western
side of the berm. The ideal sod to be planted along the western side of the berm should
have a combination of good drought tolerance (because no irrigation Is available), good
shade tolerance (because the vegetation along the western side of the berm blocks
sunlight), and a high tolerance to salinity.
Due to the uncertainties associated with the survivability of grasses In options two and three, II
is our suggestion that one of the alternatives shown on sheet two the plan for Option 1 be
pursued.
Construction Considerations
As a part of this evaluation, we conducted a site visit to review the existing berm with an
earthwork contractor to receive an evaluation of the existing conditions and considerations
related to access and staging of materials.
It is anticipated that two weeks will be required to complete the construction of the berm
restoration. The two week timeframe assumes that the work could be completed in the end of
the dry season (April or May) to avoid delays as a result of washouts caused by heavy rains
during the construction. To ensure safety during construction, access to the berm by
pedestrians and tram traffic would have to be eliminated or restricted to early morning and
evening hours (periods during which work is not occurring),
The construction work could be completed using small rubber-tired vehicles that would not
damage the existing asphalt path and require repairs. An Opinion of Probable Cost has been
prepared for the two alternative cross sections for Option 1 (shown on sheet two of the plans),
The unit costs included in the attached Opinion of Probable Cost (Reference Attachment D)
assume the following:
· The parking lot at the Pelican Bay Foundation can be used for storage and staging of
materials (rip-rap, filter fabric, fi! material, vehicles, etc.);
· The turnarounds on the berm, specifically adjacent to Heron Point, the Glenview, and
the boardwalk, can be utilized for staging of materials;
· Construction traffic traveling along the berm will be able to drop off material at locations
along the berm and exit at the southern end of the berm through the county park
Qnstead of having to turn around and travel back north to the Pelican Bay Foundation
site);
't.'J.1O\O~"", . v.,. ".OM\trN
'*OtCLl'~"eoR ),ut.5
B 24
tOO 9t:90 6O-~o-~ ~o~
3
I
I
I>
f,~':":"
/..., .'.,
-", '
51 k.
I I '...'
! B~ '.'
l.. .
121 \/,,/;>.:.\,.. :
.. ,."'....... ',,"
w .-::;;?:(~:;.. (,'.
f ...,.{. ".
. ....1... ....,+
"'81' ',: ';:':":;'~':'~..'
1.'1 ..: {. . ....
.... ;..... ",-,:.;,
.~:f;~:~t:;\:.:'~.
1...."" . ,.... ....
r~'::,~;:,;'.<'~"?- '
/. . ., '. .
".".-'" "
.' ,
Mil(". .
-$ ,. :--,-:::::> . '
.
:E
I
I
i
~
~
z
o
~
Lt.J
(I)
en
(I)
o
~
. . :5 ::> ~
Ili (.!)
"Ii ~
D g
.,.' '.~ Lt.J
iD~:.'. ... 0 0::
I ",I~;!f : ~
-i I ~ 1 Vttl::: 0::
'( ~5> . ~
V ~
\ Ii:
~ II w a: \";,,. . ..'.':;, I <( 0
:~ ~ ~. \,'<':'::'.',.::'~ U
h~ '\;', ,,' -
'<, .. C';'" a..
I!I-I~- '.;' l:~;~{~ ii ~
f~ ~~ I/~,'.I
:II t,. '
;f~/:';
hll
...
~
I
~: -:.. : '
.... .'
:::~:~>-".:.. "
:.(~<.-;.~~;
t:fj%
~
!
hi I
I
I
I
I
~
hll
I
:E
2
. II
III
~ 161.1
I
r:
,:..>"
"
r. .
5 I.,,;
III r..
~ ~ t. /'''" '
I!!I ~~.;.,~.:.:,~,,;
I ,:..
r~. \;'
~;JE:?; -; >
,.-,..; ".
Z::.<.,:
,- ..;.;.......
I. :;: :'~': ';.
(.:
:!l r .
B 2~
2
2
i
w
UI
8
UI
z
o
~
w
(f)
:I:
~
a.
.' !S ~
fll
~ ~
., . i~ <C
~j ",Ii';!, 0 ~
- \ . 5~ ~
~ \ ,':~5 .1., f-
\..d:. . ta:. v:
. ,~,/' ::.:!1~:~:!~ ~
-=.'x. '~""ll' ~
.'K;t"~ : ~...r
~xr~~::' ~I~;~
.' . 12 Do..
~
I
( I
. ..; Ill'
. . ,.'..
,u:t:.,_. "
'.;~:-'/;~: I
...,.....bli/
;:'"J.::':;:.:~':' DI~
'<
,----
16 1 1 8 2 4~
2
i
w
UI
~
..
I 8 0 \I) 0 g g 0 ~ , ~
Q 0 N 0 N (:j ~ ~
~ ~ 8 ~ g ~ ~ g
8{ -
0 i ui ~ ! -
I ~ i t; ~ i \I)
... - ..
tit tit tit fit
.. II II
i ~ (I) ~ ~ ~ G ~ I GI I
...J
-- - -- -- -- .... -- ~ 1)
8 8 \I) 8 \I) \I) fq 8 t
~ IX! .., ,...
~ ~ ... g IiO iii ..-
tit ~ c;; fit, ~
..-
u ~ m ~
l! ~ ~
-
. !J !I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
D.
.
a: ~ ... ..- \I) ... ~ ~ 0
re ..-
,...
~ i i ..; N ... \I)
rZ
I ~
c ~
! ~ I
-
..
il D.. I
~.. f
.' ~ i
II f i I
(.!J I
'I
i j c:: ~ "ii J
j I , i
~
I a. ~
I if !
i
~ l:
~ a
J '
. I
I .
I~I
1611 B
Zl
2
~
(,)
UI
8
~
I 0 8 t() re ~
0 to 8 0 ~ rZ
0 N c:i c:i ij 18
8 8 ~ g ... ~ fit ...
4( g It'l ~ S
q ~ ... cO CD
i oj c:o
0 CD ,.. C') ... c:o
vi ~ en en .... en ...
~ ~ ~
I. . II
~ ~ 11.. ~ > t; ! ~
f ...J (/) ...
- -- - - -- .Q C 1J
~ ::r
0 8 ~ 8 It'l to 8 l
~ 0 "It ,..
~ c:i ... g ~ an
8 en ..... ~
..... en
N ;g i 0
fn N
f ~ :e
-
B. ::) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~
I) 0
a:: i ..... ..... It'l ..... 0 ~ 0
~ 0 .....
E c:o 0'1
.; f'i ..... C')
I) a
&Xl a:
i 0..
11..
0
C ~
. I
.2 &
-
il :. I
~-e Q
c
.' E :& J
~ i af I
C!)
! "0 ~
c if
c III
C I ... g ~ i !
j 8
:f J I
. i i I if ~
CD
r
..
:c
! ~
~ ii
a ,
~ I
~ '
I~!
:h
1611 B 24
Throughout the years, these services have been paid by the residents of
Pelican Bay as part of the yearly tax bill you receive from the Collier County
Tax Collector.
The methodology that has been used distributes the assessments equally
among the residents on the basis of the gross acres of property that each
resident owns. This results in assessments that vary greatly among the
residents, primarily due to the density of a parceL
For example, a resident in a high-rise parcel pays anywhere from $30 to $170
per year for these program services, whereas a single family resident pays
anywhere from $260 to $790 per year, for essentially the same services.
During the past few months, the Pelican Bay Advisory Board has been
studying the issue to address these differences in assessments, and to select a
method of uae..ment which more equitably distributes the cost of these
programs to the community.
The Pelican Bay Advisory Committee will recommend to the Board of
County Commissioners a method which is based on the number of
equivalent residential units (ERU'S) within Pelican Bay. This method 11
valuable where there are multiple land uses such a. residential and
commerdal property and where the program services that are being provklecl
benefit each unit in the community equally. ThiJ new method is s1mUar to
the way each resident pays for the Foundation Fees yearly.
In order for each resident to assess the impact of this charge, the following
summary has been provided for your information:
Existing
Method
Proposed
Method
Single Family
Villas
Mid-Rise
High-Rise
$260 - $790
$120 - $245
$50 - $120
$30 - $170
$150
$150
$150
$150
-606-
~oo H:\>o Lo-Zo-~ ~oz
.=
,.
.
..E
'-
..
IllEI
,_ I
.. I
- I
- I
.. ... I
.. I
- I
- I
..... I
0- I
....... I
... I
... I
- I
- I
- ...... I
= ~
~ - i
~ 0.-
~ :
...
...
I ,,~
...
:: .
- -
- ...,~
...
-
... -
is .
....
-
:: ~~
_ D
:: a
-'!
-
-
-
-
II
-
"'"
""...
Ii
-
ClIO
-
"'&=.
;;1
1611 B 2;
6
....
~
....
....
~
.. .".
. . . . . '.' ,'. .. ..,;
, .. ,"...,..;. !>" '. ...'u ...,.......~~#. ':'0"'."1':.,.. "'. -,
~& '" .' - ;.... . . ~ ., ,.. , . ..
~.........- 'I'I!".-... ~ . ...........; ..... ,.~ ....,'ff'....'. .... .. ., .<. ,.-
. .. .:1..' "; . . .#', "'. _..- '. .0
------~..._--~~-~------_...
~~~==~..._----~...::~~:=~~=
~ - ~ - , - ~ - ~
---------
--- --
-
~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~-
.._-----~~--~----- ---
~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~
~ 4rIo .... r- ... .....
--
;~~==:=~~=~~=~~==---:=~
~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~
.;,.;..; .....;"
-- -
=~=~=~~:==~~~==-.---===
----_...._----~---~- --..
.",;.,:..; ".ft~
1ft 1ft _
----~------------------
....-..........-----..--..---------
--------- - -------..-
- ~ . . ~ . . . ,
___on__..__
------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=.:~===
-----------_________.._Ift
- - - ~ ~ - - - -
-------.....-
------
-----__on____on____on__Ift__
~~~===..._------~~~====~=
~ - ~ - - - . - -
___onlft____
---- --
...___Ift_~________________
~~~=..=--------====~=~=~
~ . - . . - . - .
---------
-- --
-
-------~---...-----------
---------~---------_..._-
------- ____on____
. - . . . - . - .
-.-------
--..---
-
-----------______Ift_____ _
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
-------~---~~---------- -
------~~______Ift__...__-__ _
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~
..
-
---..............~....-..
c=t'--........~.-.ca~....
---....--...--
...,...........-4~.....CIJ_4D
.......
-------1-=
_...._~--- -
-----~- ~~
----------
. . . . . . . . . .
,... ...... -- ... -
-----
-
====
----
-..--
. . . .
-- --- ..... ....
-
~------------------
------....--__...._...Ift__
-----------....-----
.. .. ..
---
--
----
on__
..~ -
.. .. ..
--~
-
CIIa _ ::i'
Q
I: 8 CIIa _ ... =-
.. ..
.. == -Ii: =:2~= =~il--::"'''' .. .:5
.....- :;;;;~r:_ ~S =i8EBSt:.!
. ,.- ' , ~ =12
,', . i: .'. . ~. -.... -
" '. - ..~ "'1 Iii:-S---a I 'l.J
.. ::E:~ -...- B!E
::-- EcJl:&5E"",=t:!.E=E..
--
... t: 0.3
" ... dd ~E~Bl!
-
0.3 .... .... ..... fiE ~ -
~ .... .... ..... ..... .... .... .... eo .... .... .... C>
...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... .... ...... ..... .... .... .... .... Ut _YOU ou
. . . ~; .:. .!. ~,~ ~~~ .
-
~
1ft
..
-
....
-
..
-
1!t
<<>>
..
I
1611 E 24
APRIL 1993
6251 PEUCAN BAY BOULBV ARD
NAPLES, FLORIDA 33963
PBSD: Future Funding for Program Services
The Pelican Bay Services Division
(PBSD) was established by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier
County to provide landscapins and street
lighting services, along with Jake and
storm water management services that
were fannerly provided by the Pelican
Bay Improvement District. With the Di-
vision being an ann of Collier COWlty
rovemment. the Board of County Com-
missioners of Collier County has com-
mitted to provide each resident widJ qual-
ity services and to meet the cba1lonses
of the Pelican Bay Community.
In order to usist in these efforts, the
Board of County Commissioners bas
appointed an Advisory Commiuee for
Pelican Bay to recommend the level of
services required and a corresponding
budget for annual approval by the Board
of County Commissionen. As with the
many useful Advisory Couunittecs Ip-
pointed by tbeBoard of County Com-
missioners, our Board's charge is to ad-
vise, with the final decision resting with
tbe County Manager and/or the Board of
County Commissioners.
Easter Egg Hunt
The Foundation's Annual ''Oreal Eas-
ter Egg Hunt" wiU be held Saturday,
April 10th. from 10 to II a.m. at the
<;andpiper Beach Club, Oaildren up to .5
ears of age are invited to enter. Enter-
tainment. refreshments and prires are
included. Pre-re8istradon ii required,
Please call The Foundation OffICe, 597-
8081, to get further details and to regis-
ter your children for this exciting event.
Throughout the years. these services
have been paid by the residents of Peli-
can Bay as part of their yearly tax bin
from the Collier County Tax Collector,
The methodology that has been used
distributes the assessments equally
among the residents on the basis of the
gross acres of property that each resi-
dent owns. This results in assessments
that vary peatly among the residents,
primarily due to the density of a parcel.
Forexample. a resident in a hiah-rise
parcel pays anywhere from $30 to $170
per year for these propm services,
whereas a single family resident pays
anywhere from $260 to $790 per year
for essentially the same services,
Durinl the past few months. the Peli-
can Bay Advisory Committee has been
studying these differences in assess-
ments, in order to select a method of
GROUP TYPE
L
assessment which more equitabl)' dis-
tributes the cost of these programs to
the community.
The Pelican Bay Advisory Commit-
tee will recommend to the Board of
County Commissioners a method which
is based on the number of equivalent
resideatial units (ERU'S) within Peli-
can Bay. This method is valuable where
there are multiple land uses such as
residential and c:ommen;ial property and
where the prosnm services that are be-
ing provided benefit each unit in I he
community equally. This new method
is similar to the way eacb resident pays
for the Foundation's yearly assessment.
In order for each resident to assess
the impact of this c:harae. the following
summary has been provided for your
information:
Single Family
Villas
Mid-Rise
Higb-Rise
EXISTING METHOD
RANGE
$260 - $790
$120 - $245
550-$120
530-$170
PROPOSED METHOD
SISO
$ISO
$ISO
$ISO
We bope this change will insure that each resident is treated equitably in paying
for the services that are being provided.
The Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Committee will hold its Public
Hearing on April 7, 1993 to answer any questions, and we look forward to seeing
you at that time,
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
April 7, 1993
2:30 P.M.
THE COMMONS
62~ I Pelican Bay Boulevard
Naples, Florida 33963
tOO 9~:toO Lo-ro-HOt
1() 11
8 '24
. . I _.
Severn Trent Services/ ST-Moyer
210 N, Liniwrsity Drive, Suite 702
Coral ~prings, Florida 33071
">hone: (954) 753-5841
Fax: {954} 345-1292
Memorandum
To:
James p, Ward, Division Manager
From:
Michal Szymonowicz
Date:
October 15, 2002
Re:
Modification of Method of Paying for Services Provided b:-r Pe lican Bay Services
Division
The Pelican Bay Services Division of Collier County provides a variety of valuable services to
the Pelican Bay Community, The Division's history goes back to 1974 when the Clam Bay
Improvement District was first established to provide an administrative framework to allow
for orderly development of the area, In 1978 the District was reestablished as Pelican Bay
Improvement District which existed in that form and name until 1991 when it was assumed by
Collier County and renamed Pelican Bay Services Division. The Division {'ncompasses a total
of 2,104 acres and serves numerous permanent and seasonal residents.
The Division provides a variety of operating services including community appearance, beach
cleaning, aquatic system maintenance, street sweeping, street lighting, street sign maintenance,
Clam Bay restoration, and security. In addition, the Division also providE"S capital programs
including community wide landscape & irrigation system renovations, U.S. 41 berm
improvements, Oam Bay restoration, and landscaping,
To finance its operating and capital programs, the Division levies a combination of non-ad
valorem special assessments and ad valorem taxes. Non-ad valorem special assessments fund
services primarily benefiting the property and are assessed for based on the size, use and type
of the property. Ad valorem taxes fund services primarily benefiting people and are levied
based on ability to pay utilizing the ad valorem method.
Of the seven funds utilized by the Division, five account for operating and capital activities
pertaining directly to the property. The Water Management Fund, Community Beautification
Fund, Clam Bay Restoration Fund, Uninsured Assets Fund and Other Capital Fund benefit
primarily property and not people as they improve the functionality, appearance,
environmental vitality, and manageability of the land. Consequently, given that these services
toOO 9~:YO Lo-to-UOt
1 6 I 1 8 a~
2
b
....,
and improvements directly benefit the land within the Division, costs of providing these ~
services and improvements are defrayed with non-ad valorem special assessments. 00
~
r--r--------------I
n I I t
I I
~ 8 ~ ~ ~
co
! .n ,.: i M
,.. ~ N
N 0>
N N
4It ... 4It
~ 0> 8 8 ~ ....
... E
~ ~ ~ ~ N co
0 ~ ~
z: ,.. fit S 0
0 N
4It .... ~
~ ~
ti
..,
0 0 ~ 8 0 ~ 0
0 fit ....
N )1 ~ a II co
[:: ,.. ~
....
, .., sf
~ c~ 0 It)
::J 0 ::J ti
N
0 8 0> .... [:: 8 ! I
i ... cot
!l . ~ 0 il .
N fit N ~
.~~ .... c .... ci
.... 0
.. ~I 8l
~~ iJtn (J It)
M
s::O s::O ....
;:;I~ \''':\0;;:;:' 5J W';'zd,+'i'"JiW~,,;;:J);_;l:;',~.,tl~';
8 ~ I N 8 ~ I
.... C.2,2 ,.. co ,.. co
. U ~. f ;t ~ .... .!! u~ f ;t ~ ....
2i "'<1> 0 .c ...,. 0
~ :I ~ ~ :a ~
.~ >0- J 8i QI J ~
on ELi,
== cI c g ti
C Cz ccl
u 3 . I ~ ili i u. I ~ ~ N
.20 co =
if ~ N ~ 0 ~ N ~ 0
N 0 l. .... 0
N
! .... ~ J '" sf
i i on
tn M M
i .... fit
U 8 0> = I ~g 8 ~ ....
... ..
. ;t i . ~ ....
~ cO CI ~ ! "":
~ !::: .... 0
~ ....
.. 0- JI ... ~
;5 4It ....
8.1 M
'"
II ~ 0> . ... ~ ~ Ie
... to
~ ..; c co cot
i a Ii i ~ ....
ci
~ ~ sf
. . It)
:I :I ti
::J
f5
i ! !
c ...
.. I ~ ~
~ ! ~ ; ! ~ i
E II> I
~ ;:) ! .. ~
~ 0:: ~ i ~
I- W :I
2
161 1
8 24
The two remaining funds of the Division are financed with ad valorem taxes, The Street
Lighting Fund uses ad valorem taxation for primarily historical reasons as in the past this
service was provided to the area by a separate dependent district of the County utilizing ad
valorem taxation. When the Pelican Bay Improvement District became a Pelican Bay Services
Division, the street lighting district was made a part of the Division, which continued taxing
properties on the ad valorem basis for street lighting services,
The Security Fund of the Division is also funded with ad valorem taxes. The justification of it is
that security services benefit primarily persons and only secondarily property. That is why the
Security Fund is financed with ad valorem taxes.
Notwithstanding the previous discussion, the Pelican Bay Services Division requested staff to
analyze the effects of modifying the current method of funding services into a purely ad
valorem assessment. This Report presents the effects of changes in the assessment
methodology on the assessment levels experienced by different properties within the
Division's jurisdiction.
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate respectively the current and modified, ad valorem only, assessment
summary based on the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget for the Division, As can be seen in the bottom
left corner of Table 2, in order for the Division to collect the same total amount of revenue
under the new system (ad valorem assessment only) as under the existing system of
assessments, the resulting millage rate would have to total 0,8125 mills. Given that millage
number, one can now perform an analysis of the financial impacts of such a change in the
method of assessing properties on the total dollar amount paid by such properties to the
Division,
Table 3 outlines the effect of assessment method change on average residential units. An
average unit is one of the arithmetical average taxable value, which is given along with the
minimum and maximum value in each class. According to the information in Table 3, an
average single family residential unit would see its assessment increase by just under $400 as a
result of the change in the methodology. On the other hand, average condominium and coop
units Oointly classified as multi family dwellings) would see slight decreases as a result of the
change in the methodology, realizing savings of about $16. Table 3 additionally provides
information on the Breakel'en Residential Value, which is the taxable value of a residential unit at
which change in the assessment methodology would result in no change in the amount of the
total assessment. The value for Fiscal Year 2003 is $463,447.
As the information in Table 3 relates to average units with the inherent statistical imprecision
associated with arithmetic averages, Table 4 attempts to quantify exactly how many or what
percentage of the residential as well non-residential properties would have increased or
decreased assessments,
3
900 8~:t>O J.O-l;o-nOl;
1611 B 24
Table 3
Collier County
Pelican Bay Servlcn Division
Average Unit Comparison
Unit Type
! Current
W AsHument
Number of Minimum Maximum Average ~ for Average
Units Tueble Value Taxable Value Taxable Value! Unit
MocIIfIed
An...ment
for Average
Unit
Dlfferance
Single Family Unils
Condominium Units
691
5579
$0 $12,400.978 $1,087,043
$0 $5,670,250 $437,917
. $G3......,
$488,80
$37196
$883.22
$355.81
($3'.....2)
$1S.15
$0.00
Breakeven Residential Value
$376.55
$376.55
Table ..
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services DIvision
Actual UnIt Comparison
Unit Type
Number of I;
Units I
,
~:~
r
4094 fl:.
1485 i
I
381
4t;
Percent of
Total
Single Family Units Below Breakeven Value
Single Family Units Above Breakeven Value
26.63%
73.37%
Multi Family Units Below Breakeven Value
Multi Family Units Above Break_n Value
73.39%
26.61%
Non-Residential Parcels With Deerealled Assessments
Non-Residential Parcels With Increased Assessments
90.48%
9.52%
Figure 1: Changes in Assessments by Group Type
~_._----
100 00' ?;
90,00% I
80.00%. //r
70,00% -t/
6O,oo%r //
50.00% +/
'/
40.00% .t. //
30.00% ..[///
/ /
20.00% . ./
10,00% ..///
1/
0.00% +C
'1
Singll' Family
Multi FaroU)'
Non-Residential
. Units with lJecrl'a5l'd As.wssml'llts
. Units with Increased Assessments
4
LOO e~:w> Lo-l;o-H~
1611
B 24
As illustrated in Table 4 and accompanying Figure 1, the majority of single family homes in
Pelican Bay have taxable valuations above the breakeven value, resulting in higher
assessments if the methodology was changed. On the other hand, a sizeable majority of
multifamily units are valued under the breakeven value, making then susceptible to
assessment savings resulting from application of the new methodology. Additionally Table 4
and Figure 1 also illustrate that most of the non-residential parcels of land currently assessed
would benefit from the new strictly ad valorem assessment method.
Table 5
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Methodology Change Impact on Single Family Units
I c...., Modlfled
1 Ann.ment AnHslI'Ient
Taxable Value for Number of for Average for Average
Single Family Unltla Units Under I ~. Unit Olfferanc:e
$100.000 3 1 $311,13 $81.25 ($ZZ....)
$200.000 0 $329.13 $162.50 ($111.1))
$300.000 29 $347,13 $243,75 ($10U')
$400,000 95 I; $365.13 $325.00 (S40.13)
$463,447 57 I $376.55 $37U5 $0.00
$500.000 29 '1 $383.13 $406.25 $23.12
$600,000 85 I $401,13 $487.50 SlU7
$700,000 46 $419.13 $568,75 $1...,.2
$800,000 42 I $437.13 1650.00 $212.17
$900,000 43 $455.13 $731.25 $271.12
$1.000,000 25 $473.13 1612.50 $331.37
$1.500,000 108 1563.13 $1,21'.75 $IS1.12
$2,000,000 65 $ll53.13 $1,625,00 $171.17
$2,500,000 18 I $743.13 $2,031,25 $1,211.12
15.000,000 34 $1.183,13 $4.062,50 $2.....17
$10,000.000 6 $2.093,13 $8,125.00 "'031.17
$15,000.000 6 1 $2,1193.13 512.1117,50 ".114.37
Table 6
Collier County
Pelican Bay Servlc.. Division
Methodology Change Impact on Multi Family umts
Taxable Value for
Multi Family Units
Number of
Units Under
5100.000
$200.000
$300,000
$400.000
$463,447
$500,000
$600.000
$700,000
$600,000
$900,000
$1.000.000
$1.500.000
$2.000.000
$2.500.000
$5,000.000
510.000,000
120
1313
1530
824
56
350
294
205
200
163
120
234
104
18
43
5
I Currant
t; Aa....ment
; for Av......
. Unit
~
IJ
I
t'
!
"
f:
[.
~
~'
$311.13
$329.13
'347.13
$365 13
$376.55
'383,13
$401.13
$419,13
$437,13
$455,13
$473.13
$563.13
1653.13
5743,13
$1,193.13
$2,093.13
Modified
Ann.ment
for Average
Unit
$81.25
$182,50
524375
'325.00
$318.55
$406,25
$487.50
'568,75
1650.00
'731.25
$812.50
$1.218-75
".625.00
$2.031.25
$4.082.50
$1.125.00
Oiff.ranee
csu....)
($1....3)
($10303')
(140.13)
50.00
52).12
SII.37
$14...2
$212,17
5271.12
SUI.3?
51$5.12
$171.17
$1,211,12
$2.....37
",031.87
5
900 6~:to Lo-lo-Ht2
1611
8
24
Tables 5 and 6 illustrate the specific monetary effects of change to the assessment methodology
on single family and multi family units by property valuation, extending the conclusions that
numerically most single family units would not benefit from the change in the methodology
and numerically most of the multi family units would. Similarly, Table 7 seven illustrates that
overall the amount of assessments paid by other non-residential properties would decrease,
and breaks down which classes of property would benefit from lower assessments and which
would experience higher assessments.
Table 7
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Changes In Assessments for Non-Residential Properties by Class
Current Modified
C.... ERU Taxable Value Anessment Aueument DItIentnce
Club at Pelican Bay 273.38 $9,372,318 $81,823 $7,615 ($74,208)
Govemmentnnstitutional 129.83 SO $38.057 $0 ($31,057)
Hotels 330 $195,951.374 $132,116 $159,210 $27,095
All Other 772.38 $123,196,635 $248.583 $100.097 ($148,411)
Total 1505.97 $321,520,327 $500,57' $281,'23 ($233,151)
To conclude, modifying the Division's current methodology from a combination of non-ad
valorem special assessments and ad valorem taxes to ad valorem taxes only would lead to a
redistribution of the share of assessments paid by different categories of property. Figure 2
shows the percentage shares of assessments paid by the single family, multi family and non-
residential units under the existing and modified methodologies. Figure 2 clearly shows that
the most significant effect of the change in methodology is the transfer of the assessment
burden from other non-residential units to single family units. As a group, the single family
units under the modified methodology would on average pay almost double, whereas non-
residential units as a group would enjoy significant, almost forty-six percent savings. Multi
family units would experience a slight, two percent, decrease in their share of total taxes paid
to the Division.
6
600 6~:\>O J.O-Z:O-~ ~oz:
161 1
Figure 2: Tax Burden Changes by Group Type
/:....-
100% :;;;;-'
::' :/;.,
/' //
70%//
60% /'
::~
30%1 ~
20% ~/ /~
l::t:/~
Existing Methodology
I '-'''-"-'-~--'____'''_'.____~__~~''O'"~.~~_"_~_._____~_..,---1
Modified Methodology
. Single Family
. Multi Family
_ Non-Residential
24
7
o~o 6~:.o lo-Zo-~ ~OZ
161l_B 24
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~g5~
ooooooooooooooooooooo~~~~
WWNNNNNNNNNN~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~O~~~~~~WN~O~~~~~~WN~~~O~
::!l~~
*** * ~
~~~****** ***~***** Qwww
~W~~~~~~N*~~WO~~~N~ ~OON
~~g~g~~~~~~g~e~~~~~ ~oo~
, ~ ~ , ~ , , , , , , ~ , , , , , ~ , m #~#
W~WONNN~N~O~N~N~~~~ ~
~~OO~~~~~~O~~~~~~~O**n
~~~~~~N~~O~~W~NN~~~OO~
c
o
* * *
~ ~ ~
o ~ ~
o ~ ~
~ ~ w m
*****~****~**~*******~
ooooO~OOOOWOOOOOOOOOOv
g
*********************~
ooooooooooooooooooooo~
******************** ~
NNNNNNN~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
~WWN~~O~~~~~~~~~~~~W
~~p~~p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0
WNN~O~~~~N~~WW~~N~~W 0
NO~~~~~~~~~O~~N~~~~W*~
OW~~~N~~~~~N~O~~N~NNO~
...
********* ******** ~
~~~WNNN~~*~N~NWN~~** ~
O~NW~~~~N~W~~NO~~W~W ~
~WN~~~w~w~~b~~~~~~~~ ~
~O~~~N~~~~O~~~~~~~W~*~
~N~W~~WW~~~~~N~ON~~~O
m
**** * 0
~~~~****** ***~***** <
~~W~~~~~~N*~~WO~~~N~ ~
~~~O~O~~N~N~O~OON~~~ ~
~~p~~~~~~~~~p~~~~~~~ W
~W~WONNN~N~O~N~N~~~~ ~
~~~oO~~~~~~O~~~~~~~o*Q
N~~~~~~N~~O~~W~NN~~~O'~
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww~
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww~
ooooooooooooooooooooo~
ooooooooooooooooooooo~
~I~~~#~~~#~~~~~~~~~~~g
o
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwo
.....................~
000000000000000080ooo~
0000000000000000 oooo~
~##I~~~I~~~II~~~~~~~~~
::!l
Q
"C
;:;:
~
g'
~
n
l>OO
~O""
~~"
C:~l>
3~~
(I)~<
~ 0 ~
oQo
5;-02
~;:;3
~~Q
~-:::~
w~::r
~3:."
3J;o
--~
iii' " ~
'lJ ~
S. ~
c: ~
n ~
~ ~
z ~
o N ~
O'
o~
~~
~
~
g
Q;i
~Q
~ ~
-,.,.
n
c:
~
~
~
,.,.
~
~
~
"8 ?i ~
ii' ~ &.
~ a:
0' ~ ~
~ r- 0
~ ,.,. liS
~ r- 'lJ
10' :T ...
<" ,.,. ~
~ ::r ::!l
~
VJ- I>> >< 3
~
"8 c:
~
iD ~ ~
VJ -
.... ~
8 -
~ ~
~
8
~
~
...
....
0
N
8
~
8
9
q
...
~
1611 B 24
n__
NNNNNNNNNNN O:J:J
ooooooooooo~~~;-
NN....................................QI.,tttiJ
.... 0 \000 ,,0\ \J1.,.. W N....., 5'0 1/'1
::!I:J....
~~~~ ~~~~*~
NN........~iA-................N-<WWW
\o~oo~\O.,..\o':...,oo~a.mOON
O\....\OOWooW\OO\N\OQlOO\J1
N.,...,..O...."W\O\J1"O-O.J;JO
...................................... f>>~tS"~
NWO....\J1....ooNo\OO:J
OOo\""WW.,..\o"\o\oOn
\J1O\OO\ow\Owooooo"
~ ~Q
~~~ "'''0
OOW\J1 .,.._
\ON.... NQ'
'"'00\0 \0-
OoWv. Oom
~~~~~~ W 0\ N~ 0"0><
OOOOOOW.,..WO....
~~~~~~~~~~~~
OOOOOOOOooon
~~~~~~~~~~~n
ooooooooooog
ggggggggggg~
>
0.
C;:
^
'-'
o
~*~~~~iA-~~~
WWWWWWWNNN
O\\J1.,..WN....O\o\ooo
~ ~ !" !" !" .." !>> !J ~ ~ n
,",OO\\J1"NOOWoo 0
oo"'''''''''\J1.....,..W'''~~
\J1WWo\N\J1""WW"'O.,
~ -
....iA-~~~~*~~*~:J
0\0 ",\J1""N.,..O\O\\J1O\Z
00 0 W " .... " W W N 0\ 0\ ...
\0 00 a. wOO.... '0 \0 ':..., ':..., 00 tiJI/'I
.,...,..\J1NWWo\.,..o\N\o....
WO\""ooWWNoo.,..W\o
~~~~~ ~~~~~
.!N!"!"~~iA-~~~~~-<
\J1\O"" 00.\0.,.. \0 "'OO.m
WO\....\OOWooW\OO\NOI
~ !" !'- !'- ~ ~ .." .!N ~ !f1 ~ C>>
ONWO....\J1....ooNo\O:J
.... 00 0\"" WW.,.. \0 ,,\0 \On
.,.. \J10\00\0 W\O WOO CO"
WWWWWWWWWWW:;
NNNNNNi....,;VNNNnf
\J1\J1\J1\J1\J1\J1\J1\J1\J1\J1\J1tiJ
f1.f1.f1.f1.'#f1.f1.'#'#f1.f1.'A
-
WWWWWWWWWWW:J
OOOOOOOOOOO~
00000000000....
f1. f1. f1. ~ ~ '# '# ~ ~ '# '# g'
n
WWWWWWWWWWWO
OOOOOOOOOOoa
00000000000"
'#'#~'#~f1.f1.'#'#'#~5'
::!I
~:;o
-o.g "
m-'A
m""
....
3Q1..!!!
" 2. G')
0.-"
--<
~"O~
I/'IQI""
""::r
~C/'I
-on
::r-
QI -0
1/'1-
"fi
....3
n
>>-
C/'IQ,."
C/'IQ,.z
C..=o
3 n:J
(Do>
C/'I:JQ,.
m""<
QI ., QI
!a,S 0"
~n2
.... ClI- 3
0"0 n
o - ClIO
'06T~
o "
o -n
n 0"
o ~
~ C/'I
., 0
.... <
o (D
Q ~
'2. ~
fi1~Q1
-w(jI
"
'#
o
-..
n
c
~
:J
....
....
o
.,.
tv
-
co
-
....
....
RE.CE.\\IE.O
\-\"R 1. \ 20\\
O1#'il1i1r'lDIt PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
6Q11dQi~t:I Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
Fiala ~
16 ~~'ng_n -
~o~f /
Coletta t/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL HOLD A SPECIAL
WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS CLAM BAY MARKERS, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16,
2011 AT 9:00 AM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT
8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES.
AGENDA
The agenda includes, but is not limited:
1. Roll Call
2. Audience Participation
3. Clam Bay Markers Discussion
4. Audience Comments
5. Adjournment
SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE
ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, THEY WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, 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, ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL
ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD
CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING AT (239) 597-1749,
Mise, Corres:
Date:
ltem#:
2/16/2011
Copies to:
I Caution - Clam Bay Sign
,
////i"
/'
Caution - Clam Bay Sign
N
A
~
3:
W
::>>
...J
m
<(
en
::>>
..J
<(
o
!=t
W
0:::
(!)
1611 B
~
W
::>>
...J
OJ
<(
(/J
::>>
...J~
<(q
0;;
~~
W:ii
D::ffi
(!)a.
1611 824
~
'1\
~ct
OW
cCfIt
.,cC
~
..- 16 I 1 8 2 4
Submitted by M, Cravens at the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers, 2/16/11
Page 1 of 1
u-----IT>>Tl... UB24 ~
N
o
......
......
o
N
~
N
"1J
'5:1
8!
......
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UNIFORM WATERWAY MARKERS
BENEFITTING SAFE RECREATION COMPATIBLE WITH CLAM PASS/
CLAM BAY NRPA PRESERVE DESIGNATED USES:
1) Retain the Clam Pass Canoe/Kayak Trail. It benefits thousands of
resident and visitors for passive recreation that is compatible with
the Primary designated use of the Clam Pass/Clam Bay creek and
lagoon system a Conservation and Preservation of its shallow
meandering condition with dense mangrove vegetation and other
habitats that support listed and other wildlife especially but not
exclusively aquatic and avian species,
2) Implementation of NEW Information Markers to better protect ALL
Clam Pass/Clam Bay waterway users. EX: "Local Knowledge Required
Due to Shallow Waters, Shoals, Tidal FIC;I.tS, Mangroves and Seagrass"
Similar Information Markers identify shoal and seagrass areas,
3) "Status Quo" remains for the Seagate residents', Pelican Bay
residents' and general public use of the Clam Pass/Clam Bay
backwaters, This includes historic limited access to the Gulf of
Mexico through the small dynamic tidal exchange of Clam Pass.
Backwater lagoon and creek access includes naturally occurring tidal
flats, sandy shoals, mangroves roots/branches and seagrass areas,
4) All permits authorizing activities within the Clam Pass/Clam Bay
system are consistent with restoration and maintenance of the
mangroves ecosystem. Past and Future activities are recognized by
all that excavation/construction and maintenance of drainage
channels within this system ARE NEVER done to improve navigation.
~,
C-
S,bmltt" by M. C,"W"' "th, P,II,," B" S,"",,, """00 SO,,, ""'" w",,1,6J C1,mty M"'~ '/~' 4
Page 1 of 2
o
N
,:..
'T' '
N
o
>-'
>-' ,
0'
NI
~i
N'
"0 .
S:i
o
0,
NI
Clam Pass /Clam Bay: Designated Uses
as Considerations for Uniform Waterway Markers
PRIMARY USE:
Conservation/Preservation of the Clam Pass/Clam Bay coastal barrier resource
system in its natural condition. This is meant to protect specific natural environments
and their associated environmental functions from degradation/destruction by human
development. Protection is for wildlife use of habitats including fish spawning and juvenile
nursery amid mangrove roots and seagrass, bird rookeries, rest and foraging among
mangroves branches and intertidal flats, marine mammal forage and rest areas in Outer
Clam Bay, creeks and other lagoons; visual esthetics of natural vistas including broad
shallow lagoons, meandering creeks mangrove tunnels and expansive canopy; and
protection of developed uplands from storm surge and hurricane by the mangroves
interwoven tangles of roots and branches.
Four specific designations have been adopted to protect the Clam Pass/Clam Bay natural
resources by our local, State or Federal governments:
1) Designated by Collier County as Sensitive Treatment (Sn indicating environmentally
sensitive estuarine area, This designation was included as an overlay on the County Atlas,
This protection was meant to discourage development or other human perturbations that
would disrupt, degrade, or destroy Clam Bay,
2) Pelican Bay / Clam Bay Conservation Area designation was created by a Conservation
Easement Deed in 1982 in fulfillment of DA permit 79K-0282 Special Condition
requirements, BCC conditional approvals for development of Pelican Bay, consistent with ST
area policy.
3) Clam Bay / Clam Pass Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA) designation was
approved with stipulations by the Collier County Commissioners in 1995 as the county's
first NRPA.
4) Congress first adopted the undeveloped coastal barrier segment of Clam Pass to the
Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System as Unit FL-64P around 1990 The FL-64P map was
updated in 2005 and subsequently a corrected map was adopted by Congress in 2008, The
newly Congressional adopted map exactly follows the boundaries of the Pelican Bay - Clam
Bay Conservation Area which later also became known as the Clam Pass/Clam Bay NRPA
distinguishing and designating it to have another layer of protection from development.
Development is described in relevant literature as man-made changes or alterations. '
SECONDARY USE:
Passive Recreation that's compatible with the primary designated use,
Passive recreation has been consistent and concurrent with the history of primary
designated land uses which includes submerged lands, swamps, and waters. Thousands of
residents in Pelican Bay, Seagate, and Naples Cay enjoy their unique access to the back bay
lagoons and thousands of other city/county residents and tourist visitors to Clam Pass Park
benefit from passive recreation opportunities at Clam Pass Park that is highly compatible
with its Primary Designated Functional Uses. Residents and visitors from near and far
benefit from Clam Pass Park beach and waterway access with opportunities to walk/hike on
the boardwalk, nature trail or open beach; lou.nge at the concession or on the beach;
observe and photograph wildlife; safely wade, swim, snorkel, float, and fish at Clam Pass;
and many visitors enjoy paddling the popular Clam Pass Park Canoe Trail with access from
several sites.
{ ..
" '[,
Submitted by M, Cravens at the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers, 2/16/11
16 I 1 {6"2 4
o
I).l
....
'"
,.:.,
o
....
....
o
N
:i-
N
"
s:
o
o
w
INCIDENTAL USE:
Operation of small motorized vessels is reported on various records as being limited to
good weather and tides. It should be clearly known that the small outboard motor vessels
with 2 ft or less draft (stated to be used by Seagate residents by the County Coastal Zone
Management Department Staff) that are safe for use in the Clam Pass system's shallows and
flats are generally not safe to take out into the Gulf*. Very limited Gulf access was reflected
by a notation on NOAA chart 11430 of Clam Pass "rep. non-navigable" that was continued
on the chart for over twenty years. This notation was removed in 2009* Bathymetry
surveys across Outer/Lower Clam Bay in multiple years consistently show areas which are
less than 2 ft deep at mean low water (ebb tides). A review of 1993-2009 Public records of
public meetings in Collier County revealed Commissioner and County Staff statements and
public comments and correspondence indicating variously that Clam Pass had closed that it
was not a navigable pass and that motorized vessels traversing Outer/Lower Clam Bays
shallow waters caused extensive propeller dredge scarring that was destructive to the
seagrass beds.
* NOAA chart 11430 notation, that Clam Pass was reported non-navigable, was removed
after NOAA staff in charge of such chart notations received a phone call from someone
claiming to be the Seagate Homeowner Association and another call from someone claiming
to be a local legislator erroneously informing NOAA Staff that lateral aids to navigation were
going be installed (establishment of a motorboat channel). The calls were followed up a
letter and documents with approval of permits authorizing markers, but NOAA staff didn't
do a field site visit or otherwise wait to verify if the reported markers had ever been
installed, Despite a Bathymetry Study in 2009 in the Southern Clam Pass tributary and
Outer/Lower Clam Bay which caused a Consolidated Notice of Denial rejection of State
permit approvals for lateral aids to navigation (by reason of water depth too shallow/no
discernible channel), NOAA has not resumed the notation on chart 11430 that assists
boaters' safety in region of Clam Pass.
, '
--
R.ECE'VED
MAR 2 1 2011
16Ft,.1 ~~. 4
Hiller ~_.
Henning -~
Coyle . --
CQlettA -" ---- - . "--
~rdofeountyC~ PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2011
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL HOLD A SPECIAL
WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS CLAM BAY MARKERS, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2011
AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960
HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES.
AGENDA
The agenda includes, but is not limited:
1. Roll Call
2. Audience Participation
3. Clam Bay Markers Discussion
4. Audience Comments
5. Adjournment
SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. ADDITIONALLY, THIS
NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN
BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS
MEETING, THEY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE,
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,
ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A
DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597-1749.
Mise, Corres:
Date:
Ite~~2,'281l 8.-41.;::;: Ar.l
~_.
'""
D:
16'1 B 24
Possible Statement to be used at Red/Green Marker Meeting of 2/23/11
Because we have no new materials on which to comment, I have only a
couple of follow up comment from last week's meeting.
1. We are pleased that the County has recognized that the 1998
permit does not require red/green markers. That is helpful to
resolving this marker issue.
2. The other thing I want to discuss is the permitting process:
· We recognize that the specifics about the type and locations of new
markers in Clam Bay will be decided thru community input like this
meeting.
· We also assume that the final details will be agreed upon in a
formal document between the County and the Pelican Bay
Foundation.
· Once that has occurred, the County wants to develop a new permit,
with the County as record holder.
· We are disappointed that The County would not just revise the
existing marker permit to incorporate the new design and locations
and continue to have the PBSD be the record holder. Amending a
permit should be easier than starting over.
· We believe the PBSD has been a good steward of Clam Bay and
would only be implementing the decisions that were agreed upon
by the County.
· To have the County then want to create a new permit with
themselves as record holder has to make some wonder if there is
some hidden agenda?
· We respectively ask you to rethink that approach.
Thank you.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 1 2011
16
L'al~
rHl\I~
HennIng
Coyle
Coletta
(/
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Bo8rdofCounly~nicipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION,
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY,
LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES.
AGENDA
The agenda includes, but is not limited:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Approval
3. Approval of Meeting Minutes
a. February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
4. Audience Participation
5. Administrator's Report
a. Community Improvement Plan Update
i. Sign Requirements for Crosswalks
ii. County Rating of Condition of Pelican Bay Boulevard (J. Chandler)
iii. Status of Engineering Diagrams and Bidding Process
b. Monthly Financial Report
c. Update on Health of Mangroves (T. Hall, T. Cravens)
d. Status of Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park (T. Hall)
e. Status of Removing Exotics along Beach (T. Hall)
f. Proposed Project to Repair Erosion along South Berm
g. Other 2012 Capital Projects (K. Lukasz)
6. Chairman's Report
a, Update on PBSD Election Process
b. Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update
i. Results of Meetings on Clam Bay Markers (J. Domenie)
ii. Update on Dredging and Settlement Agreement (J. Domenie)
c. Dorrill Management Group Contract Renewal
d. Announcements
7. Community Issues
8. Committee Reports and/or Requests
a. Budget Committee
b. Landscape Committee
9. Old Business
10. New Business
a. Discussion of Need to Repave Oakmont Path (K. Lukasz)
b, Signs at Clam Pass Park (T. Raia)
11. Miscellaneous Correspondence
a. Executive Summary re: Brick Pavers at U.S. 41 & Pelican Bay Boulevard Crosswalk
b. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet
12. Audience Comments
13. Adjournment
SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES, ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY
DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDEREEMi84~NG, THEY WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, 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, ANY PERSON REQ~~ SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT
THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SE~ 1e'1"lmm Qrr'(~ ^T I ~^CT FIVE
CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597-1749,
1t8mt:
Copies to: 2/25/2011 4:12:40 PM
16 J 1
b 24
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on
Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,
Naples. The following members were present:
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman
John P. Chandler
Tom Cravens
Johan Domenie
Geoffrey S. Gibson excused absence
John laizzo
Michael Levy
Theodore Raia, Jr.
John Baron
Hunter H. Hansen
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill
Kyle Lukasz
Mary McCaughtry
Lisa Resnick
Also Present:
Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association
Marcia Cravens, Vice-President, Mangrove Action Group
Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates
James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation
Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee
Kathy Worley, Co-Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
REVISED AGENDA
1. Roll Call
2, Agenda Approval
3, Approval of Meeting Minutes
a. January 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
b. January 12,2011 Budget Committee
c. January 18,2011 Community Improvement Plan Town Hall
4. Audience Participation
5. Administrator's Report
a. Update on Community Improvement Plan
i. CIP Issues (1. Chandler)
ii. Discussion of Next PBSD Steps
iii. Recommendation to Proceed with Phase One Community Improvement Plan Projects
(Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage Proposal)
iv. Other Capital Projects Discussion (M, Levy)
b, Monthly Financial Report
c. Status of Permit for Clam Bay Maintenance
d, Status ofRFP for Environmental Services
e, Discussion of Health of Mangroves (T, Raia)
f. Status of Conservation Area Exotic Vegetation
6. Chairman's Report
a. Update on PBSD Election Process
b. Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update
c, Landscaping issues on U.S. 41
d. Announcements
7. Community Issues
8, Committee Reports and/or Requests
a. Budget Committee
b. Landscape Committee
9. Old Business
10. New Business
8433
1611
B 24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
a. Discussion of Need to Repave Oakmont Path (K. Lukasz)
b. Signs at Clam Pass Park (T. Raia)
c. Making Minutes Accessible on Website (T. Raia)
11. Miscellaneous Correspondence
a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet
12. Audience Comments
13. Adjournment
ROLL CALL
All Board members were present with the exception of Mr. Gibson, excused.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Dr. Raia added "Making Minutes Accessible on Website" to New Business.
Mr. Levy added "Other Capital Projects Discussion" to Update on Community Improvement Plan.
Mr, Cravens made a motion, second by Mr, Chandler to approve the agenda as amended. The Board
voted unanimously infavor of the motion.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 5. 2011 REGULAR SESSION
Dr. Raia amended the minutes to reflect that Mr. Feldhaus is Co-Chair of the Foundations Ad Hoc Clam
Bay Committee. Ms. Womble amended page 8423 to read, "... more reasonable one."
Mr, Cravens made a motion, second by Mr, Chandler to approve the January 5, 2011 Pelican Bay
Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor
of the motion.
JANUARY 12. 2011 BUDGET COMMITTEE
Mr. Levy amended page 1106 to read, "... Clam Bay mangrove channel maintenance..." page 1108 to
read, ".. . estimated total current year expenditures;" and page 1109 to read, ".. .lake bank restoration projects."
8434
Mr, Levy made a motion, second by Mr. 1aizzo to approve the January 12, 2011 Budget Committee
minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimousl in avor 0 the motion,
JANUARY 18.2011 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN TOWN HALL
Ms. Womble amended page 113 to read, ".., many trees the Services Division could trim." Pa
amended to read, ".. .additional office space..."
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the January 18, 2
Improvement Plan Town Hall meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted u imous
the motion,
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Ms. Noreen Murray, Foundation Strategic Planning Committee (SPC
support the Community Improvement Plan projects on today's agenda.
Ms. Marcia Cravens said there are three existing options to m
users, including replacing the Canoe Trail markers, regulatory m
d no wake, and information
1611824
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
markers, i.e" caution seagrasses present. The Board should consider the knowledge of Dr. Raia, Mr. Domenie and
Mr. Cravens on this issue when representing the Services Division at the February 17 Stakeholders Clam Bay
Markers meeting.
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
UPDATE ON COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN - ISSUES
Mr. Dorrill acknowledged Mr. Chandler's previously stated concerns regarding Community Improvement
Plan projects, Mr. Chandler's first concern is regarding trees at the median cut adjacent to the North Tram station,
which is a Foundation project. It appears there are two oak trees that could be affected by the median cut adjacent to
the North Tram station project, and seven to nine Sabal palms as part of the southbound u-turn lane to go north,
however Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage are still working on the design.
A second concern Mr. Chandler has is whether there is a need to construct so many midblock crosswalks
on Pelican Bay Boulevard. According the Collier County Sheriff's report, there were 24 incidents along Pelican
Bay Boulevard between January 2008 - February 2010, and two of the incidents involved pedestrians, The report
does not show where along Pelican Bay Boulevard that the pedestrian incidents occurred, but staff could inquire
with Corp. Carmine Marceno,
Mr, Dallas added that there was one pedestrian incident recently at the North Tram Station.
Mr. Levy said the midblock crosswalk at the North Tram station is the only crosswalk that currently exists
for residents that live in communities along the east side of Pelican Bay Boulevard to cross Pelican Bay Boulevard
without jaywalking. The incident reports might be of interest but are not completely relevant.
Mr. Dorrill said the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the standard for all traffic
signs. He would research the signage requirements and report at the next meeting.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said the midblock crosswalks are the Foundation's responsibility.
Mr. Chandler said Pelican Bay residents are paying for the crosswalks regardless of whether the
Foundation or the County is responsible and he wants assurance that the additional crosswalks are required because
"signs that are really not needed are an eyesore."
Mr. Dallas said he is concerned that, "they are going in circles" and is getting pressure from the communit
to make a decision. If they do not make a decision soon, they will not accomplish anything this summer.
Mr. Chandler said he would be voting for the resolution to approve budget amendment to mov
with the projects, but said more debate is needed and Mr. Domenie agreed, Other members pointed
issues were discussed prior to Messrs. Chandler and Domenie's appointments to the Board.
Mr, Iaizzo said if they are concerned about pedestrians then they should give them positiv
and night, and install midblock crosswalks with lights, like the one on Myra Janco Daniels
Mr. Dallas said they are installing conduits during initial installation at all of th
later decide to add lights.
Mr. Dorrill said Mr. Chandler's third concern is regarding the gene
experiment" on Pelican Bay Boulevard. According to the County's Road
road "does look bad," but did provide structural benefits. The micro-
inspection. Mr. Dorrill requested last year's County road surv levard and Hammock Oak
8435
1611 B 24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
Drive, specifically the north end. Milling and funding and resurfacing of these roads are not in the County's five-
year plan, however once they review the survey, they can compare it to roads in the County's current plan. Roads
can be resurfaced following construction of crosswalks with pavers without causing damage or problems.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said based on independent district research, roadway resurfacing would become the
Foundation's responsibility and they are awaiting a response on the cost of maintenance from Better Roads,
Dr. Raia said there are no incidents at Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard because there are stop
signs in all directions. The intersection of Ridgewood and Pelican Bay Boulevard is dangerous and that intersection
should have four-way stop signs,
Mr. Cravens said they should remove the signs in the middle of the road at the North Tram station
midblock crosswalk because they cause confusion and give pedestrians a false sense of security. He made a motion
to remove the "Stop for Pedestrians" signs in the roadway at North Tram station midblock crosswalk immediately.
Mr. Dorrill said staff would check whether a right-of-way permit was required to install the signs and take
the necessary steps to remove them. "We will rely on the experts,"
RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED WITH PHASE I COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECTS (AGNOLI. BARBER. & BRUNDAGE PROPOSAL)
Mr. Dorrill referred to the memorandum in the backup material. He said it appears that there is wide
support for the Phase I projects listed for a total of$1 ,429,801 million. There is an error on the memo. $2,96 million
is available for Phase I projects, not $2,557,159. Preliminary design plans and specifications from Agnoli, Barber
and Brundage with costs are in process and should be ready in March, He will notify ABB to include crosswalk
traffic signs in the proposal.
Mr. Levy said the pathways project on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard is for a five-foot wide concrete
pathway, not asphalt.
Regarding the possibility that St. Williams might be willing to assist with funding for the Myra Janco
Daniels Boulevard pathways, the Board never discussed it with St. Williams. Mr. Baron said St. Williams entered a
contract with Waterside to use two hundred parking spaces.
The Board discussed possibly widening pathways to eight feet along the entire west side of Pelican Ba
Boulevard, but consensus was to proceed as planned and reassess later.
8436
Mr, Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. Womble that the Board support stafFs recom
and authorize a budget amendment to transfer funds to recognize the additional carry
design services and authorize the Phase I projects to proceed, The Board voted unanim
the motion.
Mr. Chandler said he would like to get closure on adding four additional c
Boulevard. Based on one pedestrian incident yearly, he does not see the need. Additiona
additional signs.
Chairman Dallas said members of this Board and the Strategic PI
that there was a need for midblock crosswalks along Pelican Bay Boulev
allow places for pedestrians to cross, which currently are few and fa
loll
B C."I
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
Mr, Levy said all of the suggested midblock crosswalks are to "destination points," i,e., the berm, and the
reason why the Foundation is paying for the majority of them.
The Board discussed whether they are installing the midblock crosswalks for safety or for aesthetics and
consensus was for safety, but in deciding how to implement, aesthetics.
Mr. Chandler called for a yes or no vote of the Board of whether to install four additional crosswalks.
Chairman Dallas said it would be a non-binding vote because they are Foundation projects.
Ms. Murray said pavers versus lights is not an either or. When the crosswalks are constructed, they are
installing conduits, so they may consider lights going forward.
The Board discussed the cost of solar powered lights, motion activation, and pavers. No votes were taken
and no further discussion.
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Mr. Dorrill presented the January financial report. There is approximately $2,5 million available, $27,000
in payables, and they have received 89% of assessment payments. Year-to-date revenue is $16,000 over historical
performance. Expenditures are $100,000 under budget and major purchases for pine straw, tree trimming, and other
seasonal expenses were made.
Mr, Chandler said the annual budget under operating fund 109 for landscape maintenance is $60,000. They
have spent $46,000 and he asked if the amount was for pine straw.
Mr. Dorrill said yes. Staff must use line item descriptions from a state chart of accounts for uniformity.
Staff can research whether there is a more descriptive line item that they can use to better identify expenditures.
Mr, Chandler said under fund 109 non-operating revenues it appears that the tax collector paid the Services
Division and Mr. Dorrill said the $47,258 should be in brackets and the variance column should be $2,241.
Mr. Hansen pointed out the they have spent less than budgeted on trash and garbage and Mr. Lukasz
explained that line item is for horticultural debris, however they contract out for some of the Sabal palms tree
trimming and that is reflected under the line item for tree trimming.
Mr. Chandler said under Capital projects income under special assessments, the year-to-date budget is
$107,000, but only $4,000 received. Mr. Dorrill explained that the amount should be offset in the general fund, a
"due to" however, it was not. He directed Ms, McCaughtry to verify with the Clerk's Finance Director, Ms. K"
Mr. Hansen said there is a line item for "other contractual services" in the Clam Bay Fund 320
be better described, Mr, Dorrill said that line item is for Mr. Hall's Clam Bay channel maintenan
agreed that staff should look to the state chart of accounts to describe vague line items better.
Mr, Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens to accept the January F:
record as resented. The Board voted unanimousl in avor 0 the motion.
8437
STATUS OF RFP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Mr, Dorrill reported that the Selection Committee ranked Turre
firm to award the environmental services contract.
with three one-year extensions,
10 .
1611
824
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
STATUS OF PERMIT FOR CLAM BAY MAINTENANCE
Mr. Dorrill said the Services Division has received the Army Corp. of Engineers permit to perform Clam
Bay channel maintenance.
Mr. Hall said the first thing to do would be to spend some considerable time in the system to get a feel of
where it is, but at the same time, marking the channels that are most in need of maintenance and prioritize them.
Based on the funds that are in the budget, they will do what they can afford, The identification should be done by
late March or early Apri], and the work done in late Apri] or early May before the rainy season.
Mr. Cravens asked how the "muck" is collected and disposed of. Mr. Hall said they do not collect and
dispose of the "muck" because it can cause damage and is prohibitively expensive. The permit allows them to
continue to broadcast the "muck" out to the sides. The topography of the area is very flat, so they do not have the
problem of material falling back into the channel. The materia] is held in place by the vegetation that is there. The
method has been very successful. It has been about six years since work was done in many areas, Maintenance is
necessary following a storm, i.e" fallen branches blocking a channel, or every three years in some sections.
In response to Mr. Levy's question regarding the geographic area, Mr. Hall explained that the area of
responsibility is within the mangrove system only. It starts Vizcaya and goes south to Seagate, There is one
channel east of Clam Pass Park that they maintain as part of the permit.
In response to Mr. Levy's question regarding whether there are conflicts the Services Division's permit and
the pending Foundation and County Clam Bay agreement, the presumption is that the Services Division will
continue to maintain the mangrove channels as the Foundation moves forward with its Clam Bay agreement with the
County. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit allows the Services Division to
perform maintenance in an operational phase, which means they can continue maintenance activities without having
to renew the permit as long as they can show they are not adversely affecting water quality. The Army Corp. of
Engineers (USACE) permit is good for ten years. Mr. Dorrill has signed it, and Mr. Hall has conveyed it to the
USACE and the Services Division should be receiving a fully executed permit soon.
DISCUSSION OF HEALTH OF MANGROVES
8438
appears that the
eedes. A healthy
ing with bug experts,
Mr. Hall made a presentation about the health of the white mangroves. When the temperature gets be
forty degrees, mangroves can suffer stress. About a year ago, Ms. Kay Potter contacted him after observi
mangrove ]eafloss that he had attributed to the cold weather of January 2010. Recently, however, fro
the Grosvenor, he and severa] others observed the mangroves and it was apparent that there were s
dying larger trees. He and Mr. Cravens went out in the field and noticed boring beetle activity and a
foliage in a band to the north, Taller, white mangroves appear to be the type of mangrove
trees underneath, closer to the ground appear to be protected, They are still trying to i
boring beetles. The beetles are eating the bark and entering into the cambium layer.
cambium layer then the tree can no longer get nutrients and everything above
trees that were damaged by the cold last January are weaker, and the one
tree will produce sap that will suffocate the beetle before it can do too much
including Doug Caldwell of the Extension Service to identify the
16' 1
824
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
STATUS OF CONSERVATION AREA EXOTIC VEGETATION
Mr. Hall said within the mangroves, the main exotics they are responsible for is Brazilian Pepper and they
will mark those areas as they are out in the field over the next few months, On the beach, there are Australian Pines
and Inkberry. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) applied for a state grant to remove exotics on the beach from the
Ritz to Naples Cay. Mr. Dorrill directed Mr. Hall to address areas of concern and the status of the CZM grant.
Mr. Cravens said there is Brazilian Pepper thirty feet high on Clam Pass Park boardwalk and Mr, Hall said
he and Mr. Lukasz are trying to address it without disruption, as well as maintaining cattails and vines along the
berm.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
UPDATE ON PBSD ELECTION PROCESS
Chairman Dallas reported that there were two applicants for three Board vacancies. The Board of County
Commissioners' (BCe) intend to appoint Messrs. Iaizzo and Levy. On the second Tuesday in February, the BCC
will re-advertise for the third vacancy, Based on the application(s) received, the Services Division Board will make
a recommendation to the BCC.
A short recess was taken.
FOUNDATION AD HOC CLAM BAY COMMITTEE UPDATE
Chairman Dallas reported that the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAe) made a recommendation to the
BCC that the stakeholders in the community would meet on February 17 and if necessary, February 23 to decide
what kind of markers should go in Clam Bay. The meeting is at the County Complex in the Risk Management
building, which is across from the snack bar,
Mr. Cravens pointed out that the original recommendation was modified unexpectedly and consensus was
that many were not happy with the new language, however it was approved by the BCe.
Chairman Dallas said he and other stakeholders have been invited to speak as representatives of their
respective entities. This is a public meeting that is has been advertised so that Board members can participate. He
suggested the Board hold a special workshop to discuss the Services Division's position on Clam Bay markers on
February 16 at 9 a.m., and if necessary February 22 at 1 p.m.
Mr. Cravens said that historically, CZM sets the agenda for meetings, chairs the meetings, and foll
the meeting prepares an executive summary that does not accurately reflect what happened at the meeti
reflect the goals of CZM. He suggested they bring their own tape recorders. He asked Ms. Resnick
the exact wording of the resolution that was passed by the BCe.
Dr. Raia said he likes the idea of a workshop because at the CZM meeting, they
minutes to make comments. His main concern is the interpretation of the permit by CZM a
that red and green markers are required to close the permit. The permit does not r
prepared a summary of the history of Clam Bay markers with list of docume
He did not distribute it because it was 138 pages, but is posted on the Foun
Ms. Murray said the Foundation's attorney, Mr. Yovanovic
and green markers were not required to close the permit, and it a copy of the transcript.
8439
16 J 1
I
8 2-4
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
Mr. Cravens asked Ms. Resnick to contact Jeff Shafer at the Foundation to get the information out to the
community via email blast.
Mr. Dorrill said it appears the meeting that Ms. Murray is referring to was on June 23, 2009. At this
meeting, the BCC directed staffto proceed with the red and green marker permit.
Chairman Dallas said they might not have any information about the stakeholders meeting prior to the
meeting, He read and distributed a document he prepared with a brief statement regarding the Services Division's
position regarding markers in Clam Bay, Consensus was they would discuss it at the February 16 workshop.
LANDSCAPING ISSUES ON US 41
Chairman Dallas reported that landscaping on U.S, 41 is more complex and significant than originally
anticipated and the Foundation is exploring the possibility of getting the Florida Department of Transportation to
assist in resolving,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Dallas announced upcoming meetings. The Strategic Planning Committee meets February 3 at I
p.m. The Budget Committee meets February 8 at I p.m, The Foundation is having a "Meet the Candidates"
presentation on February 8 at 4 p.m. The CAC meets February 10. The Foundation Board meets February 25. The
next Services Division Board meeting is March 2.
COMMUNITY ISSUES
Mr. Dorrill said they would discuss erosion of the south berm at the March 2 meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS AND OR REQUESTS
BUDGET COMMITTEE
No discussion
LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
Mr. Cravens wrote an article for the Pelican Bay Post about best management practices, which included
Mr. Dorrill's suggestion for homeowner's associations to amend their contracts with their landscaping contractors to
follow best management practices. Mr. Doug Caldwell's presentation about landscaping best management practices
at the Men's Coffee was videotaped by Blue Sky Media and he would find out when it will be available.
OLD BUSINESS
8440
No discussion
NEW BUSINESS
DISCUSSION OF NEED TO REPAVE OAKMONT PATH (K, LUKASZ)
Deferred to next meeting
SIGNS AT CLAM PASS PARK(T. RAIA)
Deferred to next meeting
MAKING MINUTES ACCESSIBLE ON WEBSITE (T. RAIA)
The Board directed Ms. Resnick to work on making old minutes ac
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
No discussion
1611
8
24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No discussion
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr, Chandler to adjourn, The Board voted unanimously in favor of the
motion and the meetinl{ was ad;ourned at 3:57 p.rn.
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Minutes by Lisa Resnick\2/14/2011 3:52:47 PM
8441
161 1
824
ResnickLisa
Subject:
FW: Pelican Bay Blvd, Micro surfacing
From: GossardTravis [mailto:TravisGossard@colliergov.netl
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 201110:26 AM
To: Neil Dorrill
Cc: VlietJohn; BlancoAlexander
Subject: FW: Pelican Bay Blvd. Micro surfacing
Neil FYI, have a great day.
Travis D. Gossard Sr.
Superintendent
Road and Bridge Maintenance Department
Growth Management Division
PH: 239-252-8924
Fax: 239-774-6406
mailto:Travisoossard@collieroov.net
From: BlancoAlexander
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 201110:12 AM
To: GossardTravis
Cc: VlietJohn
Subject: RE: Pelican Bay Blvd. Micro surfacing
Asphalt Rating
Pelican Bay Blvd---61%
Gulf Park Dr--------82%
Alexander Blanco
Supervisor of Contracts & Projects
Road & Bridge Maintenance Dept.
Growth Management Division
Tel. 239-252-8924
Fax 239-774-6406
AlexanderBlanco@collieroov.net
From: GossardTravis
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:41 AM
To: BlancoAlexander
Cc: VlietJohn
Subject: FW: Pelican Bay Blvd. Micro surfacing
Alex please get me the ratings.
Travis D. Gossard Sr.
Superintendent
Road and Bridge Maintenance Department
1
Growth Management Division
PH: 239-252-8924
Fax: 239-774-6406
mailto:Travisaossard@collieraov.net
1611
B 2,41
From: Neil Dorrill rmailto:Neil@dmgfl.coml
Sent: Monday, February 21/ 201110:26 AM
To: GossardTravis
Subject: RE: Pelican Bay Blvd. Micro surfacing
Travis: Thanks for the recent update concerning the condition at Hammock Oak. Could you also provide pavement
condition for Pelican Bay Blvd and Gulf Park Dr. I think you told me once before that this information is updated
annually and is done either by a consultant or some type of objective process. Thanks for the above. Neil
From: GossardTravis rmailto:TravisGossard@colliergov.netl
Sent: Wednesday, February 02/201111:48 AM
To: Neil Dorrill
Cc: VlietJohn; BlancoAlexander
Subject: Pelican Bay Blvd. Micro surfacing
Hello Neil, as per our earlier phone conversation today here is the info you requested.
Pelican Bay Blvd. North and South was Micro Surfaced in FY 05/06
Hammock Oak From Pelican Bay Blvd. To VBR has a current rating of 67%/ Which would Tentativelv put it in the FY
11/12 overlay schedule.
Thanks
Travis D. Gossard Sr.
Superintendent
Road and Bridge Maintenance Department
Growth Management Division
PH: 239-252-8924
Fax: 239-774-6406
mailto:Travisaossard@collieraov.net
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
2
161 1 8 24
ResnickLisa
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
GossardTravis
Tuesday, March 01, 201112:18 PM
ResnickLisa
BlancoAlexander; VlietJohn
Pavement condition scores
RCS Scores,xlsx
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Hi Lisa, attached is the RCS score spread sheet. Currently we do not have Fiscal Year dates entered as to when the roads
are scheduled to be paved. The current scores were done in house. We currently have a bid out on the street to hire a
contractor that will do a RCS County wide to continue to provide continuity of the scores. If the Contractor's scores are
very different we will average or adjust the current scores. Collier County will then schedule the roads from worst to
best and pave as many roads as possible within the allocated budget for that Fiscal Year.
Thanks
q'raw (]). qossartf Sr.
Superinterufent
~ aruf (}jritiiJe ~aintenance (])ep4rtment
qrowt6 ~a1UlfJement ([)i'fIisitm
(}!}f: 239-252-8924
p~ 239-774-6406
mail'to:q'rawgossam@colliergOfl.net
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
1
m"'D
a ~.
&;>
g,:E
0""
Cll r
3~
o 0
::l ll>
-Cll
"'Do.
""m
:!5.
0'
o
ll>
Cll
a.
o.>OG)r;oo.OOOC'lO-lO:r
m ~~cn~ c:m ~m D1m 3m 2-
o.~3~iil~o.o.o.':S.o.Cllo.-<
ll>::To--:ell>OmOm::l,m!:f
::l ll> ::l iil 00 ::l :e ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l -.
F!:Cll-ll>Cll oe,r~;o~o.e,21
o."'Do~o. Cll-o. C'l r
CJ~..,-.... ;:l\ . ~ ::J
~ ~. ~ m ~ .
':""':.,.Q :'" !; ~ ~ ~
o c Q , ~ ~ ~
~ ::;; ~ "6 m cc cc
3 "'D "'D ll> ::l ~ ll>
~~21 ~18.~
"'D 0' "" ~ ~ a.
~ 8" ~ < ~ ~
~ 8" !=1- 0"
0'
ll> "'D
:::J S'
o.ll>
goo
~g:
~!;
ll>'
"'~
g,l?
O~
Cll ll>
""::l
3 a.
~O'
"'Do
""lll
O':!o.
"'D
~
c:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
<0
en
"#.
~
<0
io
....
(II
w
c..>
...
""
""
'"
~
:...,
o
<0
<0
en
o
o
""
o
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
W
....
....
""
~
c..>
...
00
c..>
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
c..>
U.
~
W
c..>
~
en
":!>.
c..>
"'"
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
"'"
o
c..>
~
~
io
(II
'"
"'D
~
c:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
00
""
"#.
...
....
u.
""
o
Co
c..>
...
co
":!>.
o
00
o
""
c..>
....
(II
o
o
""
o
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
'<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
:...
"'"
""
co
c..>
c..>
en
<0
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
'"
c..>
c..>
W
c..>
...
en
:..
co
....
<.n
o
...
o
o
o
~
(II
""
o
o
...
....
c..>
(II
:...
0'
"'D
~
c:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
co
""
"#.
~
""
<0
U.
""
en
Co
o
~
"'"
""
N
(II
<0
'"
.....
(II
'"
00
""
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
""
o
c..>
<0
...
"'"
'"
(II
""
...
...
co
"'"
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
""
io
en
c..>
N
o
...
...
o
en
U.
en
c..>
'"
o
...
o
o
o
...
~
~
<.n
o
~
o
U.
~
"'D
~
c:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
00
o
"#.
~
en
co
~
co
<.n
c..>
~
co
"'"
io
....
"'"
<.n
co
en
Co
<0
co
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
""
'"
~
...
00
en
~
...
u.
"'"
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
<0
Co
(II
co
:...
c..>
~
c..>
co
U.
en
o
:...
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
Co
c..>
en
<.n
""
...
...
c..>
~
<0
"'D
~
c:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
co
o
"#.
...
~
Co
""
o
:...
"'"
...
""
"'"
'"
<0
"'"
:...
en
... ""
"0 U.
~ ~
o 0
o 0
"" ""
o "'"
o 0
"" ""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
""
""
~
co
...
<0
<0
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
c..>
Co
en
00
:...
"'"
~
....
io
(II
""
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
"'"
~
o
o
...
-""
...
c..>
~
"'D
~
c:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
....
....
"#.
...
(II
o
~
...
Co
o
...
(II
en
'"
""
c..>
W
en
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
z
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
to
en
c..>
en
":...i
....
en
(II
(II
<0
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
(II
o
~
...
Co
o
...
o
o
o
~
"0
""
<0
to
(II
...
"'"
io
~
"'D
~
c:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
....
en
"#.
...
co
U.
....
c..>
:...
o
...
<0
U.
<0
....
Co
o
"'"
c..>
c..>
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
z
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
~
en
"'"
...
...
(II
(II
<0
(II
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
00
u.
....
c..>
:...
o
...
o
o
o
~
....
(II
~
...
co
"'"
~
"'D
~
c:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
....
(II
"#.
...
""
""
u.
c..>
""
:...
o
...
""
(II
N
""
"'"
~
...
:..
c..>
co
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
z
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
:...
~
c..>
"0
c..>
(II
""
(II
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
""
u.
c..>
""
:...
o
...
o
o
o
...
"'"
~
N
....
...
""
N
~
~ -~O'~~~~~l?&;"~~a!g'l?:El?~l?g'
0- 0 < 3 eo ::l ::: "" Cll :f"", :::I~ ::l Cll =. Cll .E Cll ::I:
:e =~3-~&l3o."=&l'liiio.3o. 0.0
-l ~~o o::lg~:5; ::l:eOOo~g~~~5-
o n "'m~~a to .~ ~ c
iil a. "" ll>Cll"'D:::Cll CllOo.9:-~ 9:", Q
ll> C'l 0 Q< "" C'l '< a. 0 C'l C'l ::T
n ..... m ..,mS rt" me:", !'* ~ r ta
,... , "" ll>--C <""....~ -;:;:; '@ ? ll>
- '=i -:c CD~.:..... '$ 1""", \N a
~ !. ~ ;:!.:""G) ~ !=to ~ a a 0 iil
~ O"c:;'iil iil~;Z~ g g lllll>
i :E Cll ll> ll> :E l!O :E 0- 0- a. 0'
o ~ ::J 0' a 0 ~ 0 C c: m 0
8.:E g'l?~ 8.c8.~~5.111
~ ~~~~o~~~~o~
0" ~ 0" 8" 8" 0 8" ~
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
....
"'"
~
o
~
.!"
...
...
""
to
"'"
...
~
'"
en
....
<.n
co
<0
(II
c..>
o
o
""
o
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
W
~
1'>
...
...
co
...
....
(II
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
c..>
'"
co
co
:...
"'"
~
(II
":...i
""
"'"
<.n
o
...
o
o
o
...
c..>
co
en
N
co
~
Co
en
!'O
0'
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
~
"#.
~
(II
en
~
'"
o
~
....
u.
(II
(II
w
c..>
....
<0
""
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
z
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
W
o
o
~
...
""
...
.....
"'"
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
(II
en
~
'"
o
...
o
o
o
...
c..>
~
o
""
~
u.
(II
""
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
....
o
"#.
~
"'"
U.
<0
""
;"
o
~
en
'"
c..>
en
~
....
c..>
....
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
z
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
N
....
<0
...
Co
en
(II
...
en
""
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
"'"
U.
<0
""
'"
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
<0
co
:...,
c..>
~
":!>.
"'"
"'"
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
en
....
~
o
...
c..>
c..>
en
en
o
o
o
...
c..>
....
en
co
...
to
o
...
":...i
o
o
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
z
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
'"
"'"
"'"
"'"
u.
c..>
c..>
c..>
....
"'"
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
c..>
c..>
en
en
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
en
00
<0
o
....
...
c..>
'"
c..>
""
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
en
en
~
o
...
co
'"
""
c..>
o
en
...
<0
'"
o
"'"
Co
....
~
(II
o
o
""
o
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
:...
(II
....
<0
""
""
....
en
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
":!>.
....
(II
<.n
en
...
en
Co
"'"
....
<.n
o
...
o
o
o
~
en
co
~
...
~
t'
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
en
(II
~
o
~
o
<0
"0
""
""
o
o
...
...
~
Co
co
""
'"
""
(II
":!>.
c..>
en
o
o
""
o
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
""
o
(II
<0
...
""
"0
co
o
<0
<0
.....
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
<0
'"
""
co
o
o
...
co
<0
en
<0
"'"
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
N
o
c..>
W
<0
~
o
en
!:'1
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
en
""
"#.
...
<0
":!>.
co
""
N
....
~
o
~
"'"
:...
o
c..>
<0
"'"
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
?
...
"'"
<0
...
"0
~
co
....
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
en
~
o
....
...
....
Co
~
N
o
...
o
o
o
~
(II
<0
:...,
o
...
....
....
~
C'l
2.
(j)
n
Q
""
~
~
o
~
"0
en
<0
~
(II
Co
o
~
...
en
<0
io
"'"
co
to
o
I
....
""
o
"'"
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
z
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
...
c..>
'"
"'"
""
...
"'"
"'"
"0
(II
en
...
...
Co
co
(II
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
...
"0
en
<0
en
...
(II
Co
o
...
o
o
o
~
00
en
o
(II
Co
co
...
~
":...i
~
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
en
o
~
o
...
~
Co
(II
o
:...,
c..>
...
00
<0
Co
<0
en
to
o
c..>
":!>.
~
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
...
N
co
co
<0
"0
en
<0
....
"'"
co
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
"'"
u.
...
o
to
c..>
...
en
....
'"
c..>
<0
Co
o
...
o
o
o
~
'"
....
co
<.n
"'"
...
en
en
en
....
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
en
o
"#.
...
(II
":...i
<0
en
o
en
...
en
":!>.
....
<0
:...,
co
""
co
<0
o
o
""
o
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<:
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
:...
o
<0
en
"'"
""
(II
c..>
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
...
"0
""
....
<.n
en
...
"'"
":...i
en
co
<.n
o
...
o
o
o
~
...
....
:...
"'"
...
(II
en
!"
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
(II
co
~
o
...
en
":!>.
c..>
(II
o
o
...
....
N
o
c..>
Co
<0
c..>
""
(II
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
z
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
?
...
""
c..>
co
en
.....
....
""
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
en
":!>.
c..>
(II
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
~
:...,
c..>
...
en
c..>
....
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
(II
en
"#.
...
(II
....
Co
o
"'"
:...
o
...
en
c..>
U.
<0
en
<.n
....
""
":!>.
o
en
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
...
en
~
en
(II
""
<0
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
o
N
en
(II
'"
o
...
"'"
....
en
c..>
co
Co
o
...
o
o
o
...
<0
....
(II
N
c..>
...
"'"
~
'"
-l
iil
3
Q
ll>
:E oG)oooo~m-l
= ll> (j)ll> iij"ll> Cll::l III
0" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-
:E m -, m"t:l m'" Q
:e ::l~::l:;'::l:E '
o ~ ~ll>9:C'l '@
o-3!C'l_c
a. , ,... , ::I:
!;, ,,~'@o
ll>_ ~ C ::l
ll> ::I: 0-
C:;' ::l 0 C
Cll !:l' ::l '"
::l ~ 0- ::T
~ 0 c r
~ 8. ~ ?
~ ~ r 0'
<" ? 0
Co 0' 0' m
a.
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
(II
(II
~
o
...
....
en
....
""
<.n
o
...
co
":...i
....
""
~
"'"
en
(II
o
o
""
o
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
z
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
~
....
en
...
"0
c..>
c..>
co
(II
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
....
en
....
""
<.n
o
...
o
o
o
~
co
co
:...
co
...
~
...
"0
Cll
""
3
o
;:!.
"'D
""
~
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
(II
""
~
o
...
co
N
....
co
to
c..>
...
<0
"0
<0
""
:...,
co
c..>
"'"
"'"
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
?
...
c..>
o
~
.....
....
en
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
":!>.
en
....
:...,
c..>
...
en
~
...
N
o
...
o
o
o
~
c..>
<0
:...
c..>
...
en
....
~
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
(II
""
"#.
~
(II
:..
co
en
o
....
~
en
en
....
00
to
o
en
~
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
N
c..>
<0
...
en
00
c..>
...
c..>
<0
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
en
<0
""
N
....
...
...
""
":!>.
<0
c..>
Co
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
(II
(II
:...,
....
~
N
!d
0'
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
~
"#.
~
9'
...
...
c..>
Co
....
~
en
U.
<0
<0
'"
o
en
""
co
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
N
c..>
00
...
en
....
(II
...
c..>
co
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
en
.....
<0
:...
....
~
""
":!>.
c..>
"'"
:...
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
(II
"'"
<.n
(II
~
N
<:'f
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
"'"
<0
~
o
~
...
":...i
<0
""
;"
....
~
""
io
(II
...
to
""
"'"
<0
o
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
?
...
co
en
...
'"
o
....
...
o
co
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
""
"0
<0
o
'"
....
...
<0
":...i
o
""
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
<0
co
~
...
<0
en
?
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
"'"
co
~
o
~
o
Co
c..>
o
o
o
~
-""
...
o
....
<.n
(II
(II
"'"
o
o
o
""
o
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
N
o
(II
...
N
o
o
<0
<0
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
Co
""
o
o
o
...
co
~
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
~
co
Co
co
~
"0
~
l?~~~~~~~
~~~g:m~l?S'
m::T ll>-~Cll:e
::I;:;: "'~oa.=:
9:~ ;!!:"'a~g
? '@ ll>~~
~ g. ~ ?
~ :e
10 ::T
(I) ;:;:
:e ll>
o r
8. ?
o 0'
:'" 0
0' m
a.
~:!!
o.i'i
o ::T
::!:>
g,:g
O(j)
Cll r
""::l
3'
go
~~
""
:![
0'
o
ll>
Cll
a.
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
"'"
(II
"#.
~
_co
...
...
?
...
....
...
""
o
N
"'"
en
~
<0
o
c..>
o
o
""
o
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
W
"'"
""
""
"0
o
....
...
en
en
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
c..>
N
...
o
'"
....
~
"'"
Co
<0
<0
<.n
o
...
o
o
o
...
c..>
en
en
o
""
~
":...i
::::!
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
"'"
c..>
"#.
...
""
(II
en
....
!"
...
c..>
...
""
co
N
o
c..>
:...
....
...
"0
en
....
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
:...
o
"'"
""
Co
"'"
(II
""
c..>
(II
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
"'"
u.
(II
""
<.n
c..>
...
""
...
...
""
en
'"
o
...
o
o
o
...
"'"
c..>
""
:...
<0
...
""
"0
<<?
"'D C'l"'D
~ 2. ~
(i" iD n"
Cll n Cll
~ Q ~
Cll Cll
'< "';=
""
"'"
""
"#.
~
_0
...
c..>
""
o
....
~
...
...
""
co
o
00
"'"
~
o
o
""
"'"
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
~
(II
<0
...
...
""
c..>
<0
c..>
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
...
":...i
<0
en
N
....
...
co
'"
c..>
(II
Co
o
...
o
o
o
~
....
o
'"
(II
...
co
""
(II
<:
~
;0
0'
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
""
c..>
....
~
o
...
"'"
....
Co
<0
"'"
'"
....
...
(II
c..>
"0
c..>
o
Co
co
1'>
...
~
o
o
""
""
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
o
Co
""
""
(II
'"
o
....
"'"
c..>
co
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
00
":!>.
~
o
""
...
c..>
<0
":!>.
o
c..>
'"
(II
...
o
o
o
...
co
....
<0
to
co
...
"'"
N
~
"0
Cll
""
3
o
;:!.
"'D
~
"'D
~
C:;'
Cll
::l
~
Cll
'<
""
""
""
"#.
...
en
~
co
W
c..>
...
....
'"
<0
<0
o
en
c..>
c..>
o
o
o
""
o
o
""
...
<0
o
o
o
o
o
-<
...
en
(II
o
o
o
o
o
?
...
""
(II
....
c..>
c..>
~
...
o
o
o
...
o
o
o
...
...
...
....
c..>
W
c..>
...
(II
":!>.
"'"
(II
o
o
...
o
o
o
~
c..>
c..>
:...,
en
...
en
"'"
en
~
~ "TI
'" m
'" m
Co ...
o
~
... m
~ ~
Gl
m
z 0
o ...
>
en ;ii
~ ~
Gl
m
"TI
o III
...
"TI
o III
...
o
o ;<
24
...
...
"0
'"'
...
-...
'"
...
~
...
...
N
:!::
-...
'"
...
~
r-
oo
...
m
o
~ r
....... "TI -f m
'" m 0 Z
'" m );! G)
o-lr-"""'i
o :r
"TI ~ :E
~ ~ ~ ~
... ~ :r
Oz
"TIc:
~i5
"J~
r-
oo
...
m
o
o
Om
"''''
......
"'O~
m>
;0...
...m
00
z
lD Z lD
c c c:
.g ~ 5- ~
t/I ~ f/)
r- Z r-
o c 0
.g g 5- S6
en ~ (JJ
-<
m
th
;:
;=
r-
r-
OO
...
m
o
o m
> m th
~(IJ"-1
en "'C ..... i:
U'I :::J: :I: )>
o ~ c: ;if
-I!.c
r-
OO
...
m
o
r- m
Z ::E ~ ~
"TI 6 m i
m...;o>
!!1 :I: g ;if
" 0
r-
OO
...
m
o
r- m
Z 0 ~ ~
'TI m m i
m " ::u )>
m ... 0 ...
-f :::E: (") m
" 0
m
-< 0 ~
~ iji ~
~ 0 ~
o
r-
OO
...
m
o
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
Current Liabilities
Accounts/Trade Payable
Accrued Wages Payable
Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - February 25, 2011
Operating Fund 109
(Unaudited)
Assets
2,330,580.40
$
2,330,580.40
$
2,330,580.40
Liabilities and Fund Balance
$
(4,552.01)
(41,423.85)
$
(45,975.86)
(1,173,770.02)
(1,110,834.52)
(2,284,604.54)
$
(2,330,580.40)
Page 1 of 1
1611824
161 1 B 24
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement wI Budget - February 25,2011
Operating Fund 109 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual Variance
Operating Revenues:
Carryforward $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00
Special Assessment - Water Management Admin 728,400.00 640,992.00 645,357.37 4,365.37
Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 1,938,600.00 1,705,968.00 1,717,586.22 11,618,22
Charges for Services 1,500.00
Surplus Property Sales
Interest 11,700.00 3,510.00 3,562.98 52.98
Total Operating Revenues 3,623,300,00 3,293,570.00 3,309,606.57 16,036.57
Operating Expenditures:
Water Management Administration
Payroll Expense $ 41,200.00 $ 17,200.00 $ 16,061.23 $ 1,138,77
White Goods 8,800.00 $
IT Direct Client Support (Capital) 200.00 100.00 100.00 $
IT Office Automation 8,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 $
Indirect Cost Reimbursement 108,200.00 93,100.00 54,100,00 $ 39,000,00
Interdepartmental Payment 14,600.00 $
Other Contractural Services 30,800.00 12,800.00 11,926.20 $ 873,80
Telephone 4,100.00 1,700.00 980.42 $ 719.58
Postage and Freight 3,000.00 200.00 249.63 $ (49.63)
Rent Buildings and Equipment 13,600.00 5,700.00 5,931.00 $ (231.00)
Insurance - General 1,300.00 700.00 650.00 $ 50,00
Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 $
Clerk's Recording Fees 4,000.00 $
Advertising 2,000.00 $
Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,500.00 1,000,00 377.08 $ 622,92
Training and Education 1,100.00 500,00 55.00 $ 445,00
Total Water Management Admin Operating 245,700,00 137,OOO.0~ 94,430.56 42,569.44
Water Management Field Operations
Payroll Expense 134,300.00 56,000.00 51,463.60 4,536.40
Engineering Fees 16,381.25 6,800.00 1,536.11 5,263,89
Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 2,916.67 2,916,67
Flood Control Replanting Program 8,500.00 3,539.67 2,986,00 553,67
Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 9,400.00 8,284,00 1,116,00
Plan Review Fees 1,500.00
Other Contractura I Services 1,000.00 400.00 400.00
Temporary Labor 42,400.00 17,700.00 17,018,00 682.00
Telephone 500.00 200,00 180.20 19.80
Trash and Garbage 8,300.00 2,600,00 1,759,10 840.90
Motor Pool Rental Charge 200.00 100,00 100.00
Insurance - General 2,400.00 1,200,00 1,200.00
Insurance - Auto 900.00 450.00 450,00
Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,500.00 1,900.00 332,00 1,568,00
Fuel and Lubricants 3,200.00 1,300,00 782.95 517.05
Tree Triming 30,000,00 12,500.00 7,488,00 5,012,00
Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 300.00 529,40 (229.40)
Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 200.00 200,00
Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 32,500,00 28,965,75 3,534.25
Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 600.00 34,30 565,70
Page 1 of 3
16 I 1 B 24
Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500,00 1,000.00 1,635.55 (635,55)
Total Water Management Field Operating 394,681.25 151,606.33 124,644,96 26,961.37
Right of Way Beautification - Operating
Payroll Expense 42,400.00 17,700.00 16,546.72 1,153,28
White Goods 7,400.00
IT Direct Client Support and Capital 7,000.00 3,500.00 3,500.00
Other Contractural Services 37,500.00 15,600.00 13,247.60 2,352.40
Telephone 3,900.00 1,600.00 980.42 619,58
Postage 3,000.00 200.00 3.62 196.38
Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage 14,000.00 5,800.00 6,400,72 (600.72)
Insurance - General 500.00 250.00 250.00
Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00
Clerk's Recording 4,000.00
Legal Advertising 2,000.00
Office Supplies General 3,000.00 1,300.00 266.39 1,033.61
Training and Education 1,500.00 600.00 25.00 575.00
Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 128,800.00 46,550,00 41,220.47 5,329.53
Right of Way Beautification - Field
Payroll Expense 827,700.00 344,900.00 280,900.15 63,999,85
White Goods 3,300,00
Flood Control (Water Use & Swale/Berm Mntc,) 136,900.00 53,550,00 52,904.25 645.75
Pest Control 5,000.00 2,100.00 100.00 2,000,00
Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 12,300,00 21,655.41 (9,355,41)
Temporary Labor 204,500.00 85,200,00 76,429.69 8,770,31
Telephone 3,200.00 1,300.00 1,155.79 144.21
Electricity 3,400.00 1,400.00 1,194.51 205.49
Trash and Garbage 24,900,00 12,300.00 2,927.35 9,372.65
Rent Equipment 5,500,00 4,000.00 145.47 3,854.53
Motor Pool Rental Charge 700.00
Insurance - General 9,000.00 4,500.00 4,500,00
Insurance - Auto 9,900.00 4,950.00 4,950,00
Fleet Maintenance and Parts 21,200.00 8,800.00 12,242,84 (3,442,84)
Fuel and Lubricants 44,200.00 18,400.00 13,016,39 5,383.61
Licenses and Permits 800.00 300.00 300.00
Tree Triming 35,900.00 35,900.00 51,315.50 (15,415.50)
Clothing and Uniforms 9,400,00 2,400.00 2,606.57 (206.57)
Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,300.00 512,00 788,00
Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 30,200.00 30,980,09 (780,09)
Landscape Maintenance 60,200,00 37,200.00 46,393.55 (9,193.55)
Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000,00 12,500.00 12,038.87 461,13
Painting Supplies 800,00 300.00 300,00
Traffic Signs 3,000.00 1,300.00 1,300.00
Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 1,300.00 918.78 381.22
Other Operating Supplies 11,500.00 4,800.00 3,018,32 1,781.68
Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating 1,548,500.00 681,200.00 619,905.53 61,294.47
Total Operating Expenditures 2,317,681.25 1,016,3S6,33 880,201.52 136,1S4,81
Capital Expenditures:
Water Management Field Operations
Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 400.00 400,00
General Improvements 13,200,00 5,500.00 5,500,00
Total Water Management Field Operations Capital 14,200.00 5,900,00 5,900.00
Page 2 of 3
Right of Way Beautification - Field 16 I 1 8 24
Building Improvements 13,600.00 5,700.00 5,700,00
Autos and Trucks 28,000.00 24,000.00 23,597.00 403,00
Other Machinery and Equipmeny 17,000.00
Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital 58,600,00 29,700.00 23,597,00 6,103.00
Total Capital Expenditures 72,800,00 35,600.00 23,597,00 12,003.00
Total Expenditures 2,390,481.25 1,051,956.33 903,798.52 148,157.81
Operating Profit!(Loss) 1,232,818,75 2,241,613.67 2,405,808.05 164,194.38
Non-Operating Revenues and (Expenditures):
Transfer to Fund 322 (259,200.00) (259,200.00) (259,200.00)
Tax Collector Fees (82,500.00) (49,500.00) (47,258,87) 2,241.13
Property Appraiser Fees (75,300.00) (45,180.00) (43,502.36) 1,677.64
Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) (555,025.00) (555,025.00) (555,025.00)
Reserves for Equipment (124,875.00) (124,875.00) (124,875.00)
Revenue Reserve (140,300.00)
Total Non-Operating Revenues and Expenditures, net (1,237,200.00) (1,033,780.00) (1,029,861.23) 3,918,77
Net Profit!(Loss) (4,381.2S) 1,207,833,67 1,375,946.82 168,113.15
Page 3 of 3
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - February 25, 2011
Street Lighting Fund 778
(Unaudited)
1611 B 24
Assets
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
$
275,284.37
$
275,284.37
Total Assets
$
275,284,37
Liabilities and Fund Balance
Current Liabilities
Accounts/Trade Payable
Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd
Accrued Wages Payable
Total Liabilities
$
(58.35)
(2,961.92)
$
(3,020.27)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenue (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance '
(208,670.25)
(63,593.85)
(272,264.10)
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
$
(275,284.37)
Page 1 of 1
161 1 B 24
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement wI Budget - February 25, 2011
Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual Variance
Operating Revenues:
Carryforward $ 169,800,00 $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $
Curent Ad Valorem Tax 273,200.00 240,416.00 238,590.93 $ (1,825.07)
Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax $
Interest 1,200,00 498.00 493.09 $ (4.91)
Total Operating Revenues 444,200.00 410,714.00 408,884.02 (1,829.98)
Operating Expenditures:
Street Lighting Administration
Payroll Expense $ 41,200,00 $ 17,200,00 $ 16,061.21 $ 1,138.79
Indirect Cost Reimbursement 6,300.00 $ 3,150.00 3,150,00 $
Other Contractural Services 20,800.00 $ 8,700.00 11,926.20 $ (3,226.20)
Telephone 4,100.00 $ 1,700.00 710.57 $ 989.43
Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 200.00 3,62 $ 196.38
Rent Buildings/Equipment/Storage, 13,600.00 $ 5,700.00 6,114.76 $ (414,76)
Insurance - General 400.00 $ 200.00 200.00 $
Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 400,00 4.90 $ 395.10
Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 90,200.00 37,550.00 38,171.26 (621.26)
Street Lighting Field Operations
Payroll Expense 62,~00,OO 26,200.00 24,063.99 2,136.01 .
White Goods 9,600,00
Other Contractual Services 800,00 300.00 300,00
Telephone 500.00 200.00 180.20 19,80
Electricity 44,200.00 18,400.00 14,566.43 3,833.57
Insurance - General 800.00 400.00 400.00
Insurance - Auto 900,00 450.00 450,00
Fleet Maintenance and Parts 1,100,00 500.00 100,00 400.00
Fuel and Lubricants 400.00 200.00 243,49 (43.49)
Other Equipment Repairs 200,00 100,00 100.00
Personal Safety Equipment 500,00 200.00 200.00
Electrical Contractors 7,300.00 3,000.00 4,147.66 (1,147.66)
Light Bulb Ballast 12,400.00 4,100.00 4,458.76 (358.76)
Total Street Lighting Field Operating 141,600.00 54,050.00 48,610.53 5,439.47
Page 1 of 2
Total Operating Expenditures
231,800.00
86,781. 79
91,600.00
Capital Expenditures:
Street Lighting Field Operations
Other Machinery/Equipment
General Improvements
1,000,00
13,200,00
400.00
5,500,00
Total Capital Expenditures
14,200.00
5,900.00
1611
4,818,21
400.00
5,500.00
5,900.00
Total All Expenditures 246,000.00 97,500.00 86,781.79 10,718.21
Operating Profit/(Loss) 198,200.00 313,214.00 322,102.23 8,888.23
Non-Operating Revenues and (Expenditures):
Transfer to Fund 322 (83,600,00) (83,600.00) (83,600,00)
Tax Collector Fees (8,400,00) (5,460.00) (4,797.94) 662.06
Property Appraiser Fees (5,500.00) (3,575.00) 3,575.00
Reserves (2 1/2/ months for Operations) (58,800.00) (58,800.00) (58,800,00)
Reserves for Equipment (27,500.00) (27,500.00) (27,500,00)
Revenue Reserve (14,400,00)
Total Non-Operating Revenues and EXpl (198,200.00) (178,935.00) (174,697.94) 4,237.06
Net Profit/(Loss)
134,279.00
147,404.29
Page 2 of 2
13,125.29
B 24
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
Due from Tax Collector
Total Current Assets
Total Assets
Current Liabilities
Accounts/Trade Payable
Goods Received/Inventory Recv'd
Accrued Wages Payable
Total Liabilities
Fund Balance
Fund Balance - unreserved
Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
Total Fund Balance
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - February 25, 2011
Clam Bay Fund 320
(Unaudited)
Assets
$ 379,591.46
379,591.46
$
379,591.46
Liabilities and Fund Balance
$
$
(522,50)
(4,151.25)
(4,673.75)
(423,553.80)
48,636.09
(374,917.71)
$ (379,591.46)
Page 1 of 1
1611 8 24
161 1 B 24
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement wI Budget - February 25, 2011
Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual YTD YTD
Budget Budget Actual Variance
Operating Revenues:
Carry Forward $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $
Special Assessment 35,000.00 31,150.00 31,009.75 $ (140.25)
Fund 111 35,000.00 $
Interest 1,300.00 500.00 998.52 $ 498.52
Total Operating Revenues 506,519.17 466,869.17 467,227.44 358.27
Operating Expenditures:
Clam Bay Restoration
Engineering Fees $ 102,943.75 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,018.75 $ 2,581,25
Other Contractural Services 137,390.00 11,900,00 7,820.40 $ 4,079.60
Other Equipment Repairs 485.42 200.00 506.00 $ (306.00)
Minor Operating 4,800,00 2,000.00 $ 2,000,00
Other Operating Supplies 1,000.00 400.00 $ 400.00
Total Clam Bay Restoration 246,619.17 19,100.00 10,345.15 8,754.85
Clam Bay Ecosystem
Engineering Fees 11,300.00 4,700,00 4,046,25 653.75
Other Contractual Services 25,000,00
Total Clam Bay Ecosystem 36,300,00 4,700.00 4,046.25 653.75
Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures 282,919.17 23,800.00 14,391.40 9,408,60
Operating Profit/(Loss) 223,600,00 443,069.17 452,836.04 9,766.87
Non-Operating Revenues and (Expenditures):
Transfer to Fund 322 (65,000.00) (65,000,00) (65,000.00)
Tax Collector Fees (1,100.00) (660.00) (620.20) 39,80
Property Appraiser Fees (700.00) (175,00) 175.00
Revenue Reserve (1,800.00)
Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) (155,000,00) (155,000.00) (155,000.00)
Total Non-Operating Revenues and ExpE (223,600,00) (220,835.00) (220,620.20) (214,80)
Net Profit/(Loss) $ (0,00) $ 222,234.17 $ 232,215.84 $ 9,981.67
Page 1 of 1
Current Assets
Cash and Investments
Interest Receivable
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
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Balance Sheet - February 25, 2011
Capital Projects Fund 322
(Unaudited)
Assets
$
2A75,845.17
Liabilities and Fund Balance
$
452.36
(1,960,586.75)
(515,710.78)
Page 1 of 1
1611 B 24
2A75,845.17
$
2A75,845.17
452.36
(2A76,297.53)
$ (2A75,845,17)
Pelican Bay Services
Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Income Statement wI Budget - February 25, 2011
Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011
(Unaudited)
Annual
Budget
16' 1 B 2
YTD
Budget
YTD
Actual
Variance
Operating Revenues:
Carry Forward
Special Assessment
Interest
Total Operating Revenues
$ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $
121,600.00 107,008.00 107,736,76 $ 728.76
7,700.00 3,200.00 5,092,30 $ 1,892.30
2,073,287.30 2,054,195.30 2,056,816.36 2,621.06
Operating Expenditures:
Irrigation & Landscaping
Engineering Fees
Other Contractural Services
Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures
$ 113,628.45 $
2,354,658.85
2,468,287.30
$
$
$
Non-Operating Revenues and (Expenditures):
Transfer from Fund 109 General $ 259,200,00 $ 259,200.00 $ 259,200,00 $
Transfer from Fund 320 Clam Bay 65,000,00 65,000.00 65,000.00 $
Transfer from Fund 778 Street Lighting 83,600.00 83,600,00 83,600,00 $
Tax Collector Fees (3,800,00) (2,470.00) (2,154.74) $ 315.26
Property Appraiser Fees (2,500.00) (1,625.00) $ 1,625.00
Reserve for Contingencies (100.00) (100.00) $ 100.00
Revenue Reserve (6,400.00) $
Total Non-Operating Revenues and Expenditure! 395,000.00 403,605.00 405,645.26 $ 2,040,26
Net Profit/(Loss)
(0.00) 2,457,800.30 2,462,461.62
4,661.32
Page 1 of 1
March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Sf - Administrator's Report - Proposed Project to Repair Erosion Along South Berm
Page 1 of 7
Wi_.,ller
1611
Sf 24
~
MEMORANDUM
I"
':~ I
to:
FROM:
. DATE:
Frank Laney, Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc.
Dan Waters, PE IV. \
November 24, 2010 VVV
SUBJECT: Pelican Bay South B,rm
Erosion Considerations / Side Slope Restoration
Permitting Historv
The 1,200 acre Pelican Bay subdivision was originally permitted by the SFWMO as Permit No.
04178.C in August 1978 and by the US Army Corps of Engineers, The original permit
approvals authorized the construction of a 50 foot wide berm and spreeder awale from Seagate
Drive along the western boundary of the developed areas of Pelican Bay northward to what Is
now the Montanaro condominium. The berm was designed to serve both asa recreational
facility and as part of the Infrastructure of the Pelican Bay surface water management system.
The berm was permitted to have a ten foot asphalt path on Its top; the asphalt path remains in
place and serves as a shared-use pedestrian trail as weR as the travel way for trams conveying
residents and visitors to the beaches. The berm also acts as the perimeter containment that
allows for stormwater to be stored within the detention areas on the east side of the berm while
stormwater control structures that .re placed intermittently along the berm', length discharge
the runoff from the developed areas west to the existing wetI8nd areas ac:Jiacent to Clam Bay at
8 controlled rate,
The permltted berm cross section consisted of a four foot high berm with four to one side
slopes, a ten foot wide uphalt path on top of the berm, and en eight foot wide spreader swale
on the western side of the berm. A copy of the permitted berm section Is shown In the center of
sheet 41 of the Water Management Plan attached to this memorandum as Attachment A. The
permitted section consists of a 50 foot wide envelope (a 42 foot wide berm and an eight foot
spreader awaIe).
Current Perml~ Requirements I Desion Standards
The CoHier County land Development Code (LOC) contains standards for berm and
embankment slopes and the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) Plans Preparation
Manual provides standards for sideslopes for pedestrian facilities,
LOG Section 4.06.05.J provides for the required treatment of slopes (a copy of the LDC Section
has been Included as Attachment B). For slopes of four to one (horizontal to vertical) or natter,
grass groundcover may be used as stabilization. Embankments with slopes no Sleeper than
thr.. to one (horizontal to vertical) may utilize trees. groundcover (pin.straw, mulch, elc.),
ornamental gl1lllel, and shrobs as stabilization, Embankment slopes that are not steeper than
two to one (horizontal to vertical) may utilize rip-rap or other forma of scour protection.
Section 8.6 of the FOOT Plans Preparation Manual provides the criteria for Shared Use Paths
(a copy of Section 8,8 has been provided as Attachment C). Section 8,8.5 of the FOOT
standards suggests that a two foot wide flat area be provided adjacent to paths thet are typicaHy
'~'200-".l"'J VrDlf. OW"fElItI
.....
~.fJCIOClOl.IC~ tw.:M
~oo K:80 6O-C:O-~ ~oc:
March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
~:~~";;;~I"l"" R'port - P"pored p"joct to R'p.1e E'{ 6"" rIm 8 2 4
Pelican Bay Soulh Berm
Side Slope EroaIon Evaluation
utilized by pedestrians. joggers, In-line, skaters. and bicyclists, The intent of this two foot wide
flat area Is 10 provide an area of relief and recovery outside of the pathway for pedestrian users
prior to the ....per side slope back to existing grade. ThI~ two foot flat .rea for recovery was
not propolGd as part of the original design of the berm I pathway system, however we
recommend that It be added as a part of the improvements to bring the path to the current
orequlred standards.
Page 2 of 4
Problem Statement I Existino Condition
. Based on aeveraI site reviews and the compilation of survey information for the berm. the most
significant maintenance problem on the south berm is the erosion of the sldeslopes on the
western side of the berm adjacent to the preserved wetland areas, As a part of this evaluation,
WilsonMiller Stantec performed topographic survey cross sections of the berm at 200 foot
intervals: the existing-condition survey information was then interpolated to create cross
sections et 50 foot intervals for use in evaluating the current condition of the berm, The plan
containing the existing condition survey Information is Included with this memorandum.
A review of the exisUng-condition 6UfV8Y indicates thet severe erosion of the side slopes has
occurred along the western side of the berm. In contrast, the eastern side of the berm has not
experienced significant erosion from the original design standard, It appear. that the erosion
has occurred from the toe of slope of the berm and proceeded up the slope toward the pathway.
In this case, the erosion appears to have potentially been caused by either storm surge or grass
die off I lack of . n inttNd of wash outs from stormwater runoff.
,
Some of the concerns created by the eroded condition of the berm are .. follows:
· Droo Off HIl7Ard: A!J stated above, the design plan and elOlting condition do not
prOvide any flat area for relief from the aide of the path to the bottom of the berm. This
could potentially create an unsafe condition for tram operation, bikers, in-line skaters,
or pedestrians. The lack of the flat area to provide relief for someone that inadvertenUy
leaves the path is exacerbated by the fact that the eroded slopes are extremely steep
in some areas and make recovery difficult,
. MaIntenance Dlfflcuttlas: GeneraUy, a four to one (horizontal to vertical) side slope or
flatter Is required to allow for the use of riding mowers for maintenance. Based on
conversation with Pelican Bay Foundation staff and Pelican Bay Services Division staff,
the deficient portions of the berm are currently too steep to be cut with a mower and
'fJt3mtIO. t20471 .v.,.., .DWAna
P<<ltM.OIfiOh.fCOq,t"Ull
ZOO K:80 eo-Zo-UOl:
March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Sf - Administrator's Report - Proposed Project to Repair Erosion Along South Berm
Page 3 of 7
161 1
tJ
24
Pelican Bay SouCh Berm
SIde Slope Erosion Evaluation
Page 3 of 4
maintenance is currentty performed with weed whackers.
. Aesthetics: As stated above, the severe erosion makes maintenance of the grass
difficult and therefore creates .esthetic Issues,
. Berm Stability: The continued erosion of the berm side slopes Is likely to continue and
could eventually undermine the Integrity of the berm and pathway.
-
ProDOSed ~emedies
The correction of the erosion obviously requires that the berm sideslopes be restored and that
. the appropriate slope coverage be provid8d to provide stabilization and prevent future erosion.
Potential stabilization options that have been Investigated Include the following:
· Ootion 1 - Rio Rao at Toe-of-SIooe: An on-site investigation indicated that the vast
majority of the erosion occurred at the toe of slope of the benn along the western side.
This erosion at the toe of slope may be caused either by the movement of the tidal
waters within the wetland are.. or could be a result of the die-off of grasses at the toe of
slope that are not tolerant of water with high salinity. The placement of rip rap at the
base of the restored slope would provide a maintenance free solution and provide the
stability for the portions of the slope above the mean high water levels. Reference sheet
two of the plans for two typical cross sections depicting the restored berm with rip rap
protection at the toe of slope. The two sections evaluated for Option 1 are as follows:
o Restoration of the berm to its original cross Qctlon with four feet of rip rap at the
toe of slope on the western side and a sodded four to one slopes to the top of
berm. This alternative would include placing additional along the west side of the
berm to .reclaim- the original berm footprint and would include trimming of
vegetation to allow for the construction to occur.
o Restoration of the berm within its existing footprint with eight feet of rip-rap at a
two to one slope from the existing toe of slope to the top of the berm. This
alternative would either eliminate the need to trim the existing vegetation or
require only minimal trinvnlng. It would lIIso pr.erve the low araas that currently
hold water adjacent to the existing toe of Ilope at their existing elevation.
. Ootion 2 - SIooe gta~7ation Product at Toe-of.SIooIt: There are a wide variety of slope
stabilization products avalable for use in this type of application. These systems are
typically high strength celular confinement systems that can be filed with soft material
and planted with sod to provide stable slope protection from concentrated flows and long
tenn erosion, n. as suspected. the high salinity levels In the brackish water within the
preserved weUands are responsible for the die-off of the grasses at the toe-of-slope. the
grasses would continue to die-off if planted on the cellular confinement system and
periodic replacement of the sod would be required, A picture of a typical cellular
confinement system is provided below,
'lq3l'2Q\O. 7lOIl1 . VtIt; I . OWAI"ER5
...:'nli).ClMf)H .IC:~.>>'I'
tOO 9&:;0 eo-zo-~ ~()l;
March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
Sf - Administrator's Report - Proposed Project to Repair Erosion Along South Berm
Page 4 of 7
1611 B 2.4
Pelican Bay South Berm
Side Slope EfO&lon EvaJuatlon
Page4of4
. Ootion 3 - Different Sod Varieties: If neither of the above two methods are utilized for the
slope restoration, it would be advisable to test and observe the performance of a variety
of sod types In small areas prior to JnslaHlng the best sold alternative along the entire
length of the restored berm. Typically a berm of this type, where Irrigation Is not
available, would have been planted with bahla sod. Bahia has poor tolerance to shade
and saltwater, and In light of the fact that the erosion has generally occurred on the
western' side of the berm, the Influence of the brackish water In Clam Bay and the lack of
sunlight due to the shading provided by the encroachment of vegetation on the western
side of the berm, have likely been detrimental to the bahla sod planted on the western
side of the berm, The ideal sod to be planted along the western side of the berm should
have a combination of good drought tolerance (because no Irrigation Is available), good
shade tolerence (because the vegetation along the western side of the berm blocks
sunlight), and a high tolerance to salinity.
Due to the uncertainties associated with the survivability of grasses In options two and three, it
Is our suggestion that one of the alternatives shown on sheet two the plen for Option 1 be
pursued .
Construction Considerations
As a part of this evaluation, we conducted a site visit to review the existing berm with an
earthwork contractor to receive an evaluation of the existing conditions and considerations
related to access and staging of materials.
It is anticipated that two weeks will be required to complete the construction of the berm
restoration. The two week timeframe assumes that the work could be completed In the end of
the dry season (April or May) to avoid delays as a result of washouts caused by heavy rains
during the construction. To ensure safety during construction, access to the berm by
pedestrians and tram traffic would have to be eliminated or restricted to early morning and
evening hours (periodS during which work is not occurring).
The construction work could be completed using smaR rubber-tired vehicles that would not
damage the existing asphatt path and require repairs. An Opinion of Probeble Cost has been
prepared for the two alternative crOlS HCtions for Option 1 (shown on sheet two of the plans).
The unit costs Included In the attached Opinion of Probable Cost (Reference Attachment D)
assume the following:
· The parking lot at the PeHcan Bay Foundation can be used for storage and staging of
materials (rip-rap, fiher fabric, fiU material, vehicles, etc.);
· The turnarounds on the berm, specifically adjacent to Heron Point, the Glenview, and
the boardwalk, can be utilized for staging of materials;
· Construction traffic traveling along the berm will be able to drop off material at locations
along the berm and exit at the southern end of the berm through the county park
(instead of having to tum around and travel back north to the Pelican Bay Foundation
site);
".'11010 'H041' .v.r.' .0N4TI'N
fW"O:'(l]~ .StOR J>>'1,
tOO !it:80 so-c:o-HO<:
E
lii
co
.c
"S
o
en
C)
c c
0.2
'Uj <(
en c
Ol 0
en ,-
en
.... 0
III ....
"'5W
C)....
&.11
"OOl
....0::
~.9
co_
c ~
o .~
.- 0
en ....
.s; a..
0"0
~ ~
.~ 8-
~ e
Ola..
en,
~t::
coo
0.
C Ol
r)o::
=0
Ol -....
a...9
~1Il
~.l:;
2.~"""
--C_
.'- 0
NEL()
ti~Ol
(ij,0l
",,_Ill
..::L()a..
. , :5
J!I
..' .. II
>,-: .. i~
.1 . j![;IIl' D
hI; -1 \;'::-1. Ill:;.'
'1('.., Q'.'
\" IS)'" ~
~ 6
~ -'\ ~
I, ~ E II I ~" \j....~:..::;:.SI
I "'5 ' \.. .,' -
iC . '.' ';, ....
5 \-.-,., ·
~ Ifl-!;-'; f-W: ~I
l..
g
I
I
t.,
h,.
,,'.... .
..
r r.
III ('..
I I I .:' .
Ii! ~t:::.:::...
KI ) ~":':":.'
~ (:x~;r.~::.:?
[;'f;""; ",
'~1:"~' :, ~~~:' '.
J'~(';~:~)
Mll.~ ' .
-I ".;'\r.> .
~~
loll
I
I
I
I
~
...
!!
I
.......,
!
z
o
ti
lLJ
(I)
(I)
(I)
o
a:::
o
hI I
~
C)
0:
o
g
I.&J
a:::
~
a:::
i
I
I
I
V
hI I
I
I
1611 B 2"
~
~
~
i
Ii
i.:>
Ul
~
I
I
[,
1".';.,.,
t. .
,... .
~ J.
111 r:'"
I I~ f ,<,.
it! '- L:',.;:';
\!!I "('"
I,.': ..'
F'.f;... .
'jc. .~( . ,'.
.-.....:
:E
z
o
~
w
(f)
::r:
~
0...
!5 ~
~I
II ~
Ie <(
~tll 0 ~
!! ~ \ I ' 'I~. ~
- . e C
~\ : .'~' ~I,: lr.
. .~ "..:~~:.S~ ~
... .~~~~: :'.I~ ::5-
~:,;,; ;-:.:- ill~
;n . .1 0:
~
2
..
I
/ I
. .; I~f
. '....h
I..I<-~;- ,
>>~J~. ~til
. .'1.',' ~~. III:!
~~,/::-,;..;:.~
E
W
co
.s;:
"5
o
C/)
OJ
C c
0.2
'(jj <(
~ 5
C/) ,-
Co e
3W
OJ~
Q)'-
o::~
"C Q)
~O::
~ 0
co-
cti
,Q .~
VJ ~
.S; a..
O"C
VJ Q)
Q) VJ
<.) 0
._ c.
~ 0
~O:
~~
coo
c c.
1'3&
~ _VJ
a...8
~ l"ll
~ ~
~~~
""EO
.s;:"C<O
e<(Q)
l"ll'OJ
"",_l"ll
""'lOa..
I
I
.
~I
s"
.1
II
I
I 8 8 ~ c g 8
~ ! ~ 81 g ~ ~
! :g Li i t: t
5
I
~
i
i !J !3 ~ !J >- 6
-
- .... .... II)
8 g - -
~ on g ~
0 0 cq ~
g g :it d ci Iti
fi li ~ ~ ;;;
a
! (I)
.... !I !!J !i ~ 6
- ~
- on -
~ 8 ~ c
. N l=::
- VI
I
I
f
f f i I
C I .. I
. i1lciJJ
! I I r I
~ &
it '
I !
14
. . II
! ,
~ 1)
~ t
~
1611 B 24
~
i
i
w
(II
~
i
i ~
; i
) ,
. I
I '
.: ,
hi
E
Qi
ca
.r:
"S
o
Cf)
C)
e e
0.2
'(jj <(
CIJ e
Q) 0
Cf) ,-
CIJ
.... 0
<Il ....
"5W
C)....
8nl
-oQ)
....0::
<Il 0
0_
ca_
e al
o'~
,- 0
CIJ ....
'$ 0..
0-0
gj 5l
<) 0
._ c.
c: e
Q)o..
Cf),
~t::
ca 0
c.
e Q)
rlO::
:= CI)
Q) -....
0...8
~ <Il
~.b
~.~!:::
C\d~ ~
"fi~Q)
role>
::2in~
Jil
~..
If
II
I
f
1 ~
i I
~ ~
~ ~
J
: ~
1611 B24
J 8 It) 01 ~
8 C'I
0 U) g C ~ i
c C'I ~ ~ "! i
g 8 ~ g i
~ U) ~
0 01 m ~ cD i
i ui ...: ~
~ fi tit lit 0 en en
II II II
~ ~ ~ ~ > f:) ~ ! !
i en
- - - - - - ~ i
g g U) g U) U) ~
~ cq .., ,... l
~ ~ c;; g ! III -
... f1.
r- ut
t1l ui ii ~
...
! ~ ~ ~ CIl in > in
..J 0
... ... on ... 2 ~ 0
CO 0;
N
..; ri ... C'?
c ,g
S
~
::E
j
I
E -l! I
f J ~ I
I II Co
~ e ,g } 'I J
i a I I I I
~ I Jj if if ;I
!
i .
. Ii
} ,
. ~
I .
i~!
.~,
~
~
2
i
w
en
8
....
March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
5g - Administrator's Report - Other FY 2012 Capital Projects
Page 1 of 1
1611 824
BUDGET COMMITTEE SCHEDULE AND GOALS
February 1. 2011
Feb. Meeting - Discuss funding for capital projects outside the C1P.
· Lake Bank Enhancements - Estimated Cost $85,000
· South Berm Complete Slope Renovation - Estimated Cost $150,000
(Alternatively to the above renovation would be the repair of eroded sections only estimated at
$25,000 with funds previously forecasted in the Clam Bay budget).
· Traffic Sign Replacement and Renovation - Estimated Cost $150,000; phased over 3 years @ $50K/yr
· Oakmont Lake Bank Pathway - Estimated Cost Asphalt Overlay $75,000; or
Estimated Cost Concrete Replacement $200,000
(No replacement of pathway in FY2012 budget; $7,500 for necessary asphalt repairs only)
Mar. Meeting - County Budget instructions and actual calendar update. Staff to present preliminary FY
2012 budget. Discussion to include FY 2012 ad valorem and non ad valorem assessment amounts with
possible increase to save for future CIP.
Apr. Meeting - Approve proposed FY 2012 budget for recommendation for approval to the full board in
order to be submitted to the county by the June 1 deadline.
02/25/2011
March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
6a - Chairman's Report - Update on PBSD Election Process
ResnickLisa
Subject:
One Pelican Bay Services Division Board Position Available!
24
From: ResnickLisa
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 3:48 PM
Subject: One Pelican Bay Services Division Board Position Available!
The Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board has 1 vacancy for a member in the category resident, the
term will expire on March 31,2015. This 11 member Board was established by Ordinance 2002-27, as
amended, to provide input to the Board of County Commissioners in carrying out the purposes of the Pelican
Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit as set forth in the Ordinance; recommend to the BCC an
itemized budget, work programs, and priorities to the BCC in accordance with the adopted budget or budget
amendments, The board will exercise decision and control of the day to day operational affairs of the Unit to
the maximum extent allowed by law, unless and except when there is some overriding governmental reason to
do otherwise. Terms will be are 4 years.
The deadline for acceptance of applications is March 8, 2011.
How to apply for an advisory committee on-line:
Go to www.colliergov.net
Across the top of the screen you will see tabs:
Click on "I want to"
Click on "apply for"
Click on "advisory boards & committees"
After you complete the application, at the bottom,
Click on ..E-mail Ian Mitchell"
You will receive a confirmation that your application was sent. Note: You must put your e-mail address in
the application to receive a copy of your application.
Residents interested in applying for advisory committee positions can also obtain an application by calling 252-
8097 or from www.colliergov.net. Please forward to the attention of Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager, Board
of County Commissioners, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, Florida 34112-5746, and FAX to 252-
6406,
Lisa Resnick
Pelican Bay Services Division
80 I Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605
Naples, FL 34108
Tel. 239.597.1749
Fax 239.597.4502
Iresnick@colliergov.net
hUp:1 Ipel icanbavserv icesdi v ision.net
hUp:/ Iwww.colliergov.net/index.aspx?page=2 7 62
March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
6b - Chairman's Report - Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update
Page 1 of2
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
~
Resn ickLisa
Fwd: Marker meeting tomorrow cancelled
Tuesday, February 22, 20114:13:21 PM
16' 1 B 24
-----Original Message---n
From: Feldhaus, Stephen <sf@feldhauslaw.com>
To: Mary Johnson <mlmassocaicp@aol.com>; Bill Carpenter <wrcjks@gmail.com>; Bob Naegele
<ronjr@naegelenet.com>; Bob Uek <rwuek7@gmail.com>; Doug Esson <essondoug@msn,com>; Jim
Hoppensteadt <jimh@pelicanbay,org>; Mike Coyne <mikecoyne08@gmail.com>; Robert Pendergrass
<robpender@comcast.net>; RonnieBellone <vbellnpls@yahoo,com>; Feldhaus, Stephen
<sf@feldhauslaw,com>; Geoffrey Scott Gibson <josiegeoff@aol.com>; Hunter Hansen
<hunter,hansen@hilton,com>; John Baron <jbaron@watersideshops,com>; JohnChandler
<jpcbac@comcast.net>; John Domenie <hobodory@comcast.net>; Johnlaizzo <iaizzo@comcast.net>;
Keith Dallas <keithdallas@comcast.net>; MaryAnne Womble <Teedup1@AoI.Com>; Mike Levy
<mikelevy@embarqmail.com>; Theodore Raia <tedraia@yahoo.com>; Tom Cravens
<nfn16799@naples.net>; Joanne Hobin <downbucket@comcast.net>; Joesph Chicurel
<jchicurel@gmail.com>; Lee Canning <hiIUop47@hotmail.com>; MerlinLickhalter
<mlickhalter@comcast.net>; Pat Bush <pjbushwork@comcast.net>; Philip St. Germain
<phil@pstgermain.com>; Stanley Farb <stan4mignon@earthlink,net>; Susan Boland
<JOHNSUSANBOLAND@aol.com>; W.Terry Upson <wtupson@gmail.com>; William Klauber
<waklauber@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 22, 2011 3:55 pm
Subject: Marker meeting tomorrow cancelled
Dear All,
Please help to get the word out that the public meeting scheduled for tomorrow to discuss the
Clam Bay marker issue has been cancelled. The county has not yet been able to obtain the
additional input that it is seeking. The meeting will be rescheduled as soon as that input can be
obtained.
Sea gate has its annual meeting at the end ofthis month, and will make a decision on how it wants
to proceed with respect to the markers. Based upon input I have been getting, I am not optimistic
that Sea gate will in the end support anything other than red and green markers, although there
are clearly members of the Seagate community who would like to put this controversy behind
them.
We are working closely with the county, and are staying in close touch with many of the parties
involved in the ultimate decision of what type of markers will be installed. We believe that both
the Foundation's Ad Hoc Committee and the county have bent over backwards to try to
accommodate Seagate's reasonable concerns about a safe passageway from Seagate to the Gulf.
And even more importantly, the decision makers appear to recognize the efforts that have been
and are being made.
Up until late last year, the county was leading the charge to install red and green lateral
March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
6b - Chairman's Report - Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update
Page 2 of 2
1611 824
navigational markers. That is no longer the case, and we must all be very careful not to cause
county decision makers to change the current approach. I remain cautiously optimistic that the
path we started down last November can reach an outcome that will be acceptable to our
community and to all those who believe that red and green lateral navigational markers are
inappropriate for Pelican Bay. However, how we handle this end game is critically important. If we
are seen to revert to a "it's our way or the highway" approach, we could see the decision makers
go back to where they were on this issue two years ago.
I thus ask all ofthose participating in this debate on behalf of our community to show restraint and
to continue to work with the county and with Sea gate to find a solution that appropriately meets
the legitimate concerns of Seagate residents. We have agreed to work with Seagate to determine
the number and location of the markers, have agreed on information signs to warn swimmers and
boaters of the presence of each other, and have agreed to number the signs to show an access
path from Seagate to the Gulf. We are thus attempting to meet Seagate's legitimate concerns.
In the end, we cannot control what Seagate is going to do. There are clearly some in Seagate who
recognize that a boating channel maintained for navigation would dramatically increase their
property values, and it appears likely that they will not accept anything less. However, if the
county continues along the current course of believing that red and green lateral navigational
markers are inappropriate for Clam Bay, that our community has made a bona fide, serious effort
to appropriately accommodate Seagate's legitimate concerns, and that Seagate's refusal to accept
the compromise on the table has nothing to do with boating safety but rather reflects an intent to
increase property values by the installation of a navigation channel, Seagate's options will be
greatly circumscribed.
With the payment of a filing fee, anyone can file a lawsuit, and Seagate may ultimately decide that
a lawsuit represents its best course of action. However, the brainstorming that I have done on this
so far with our counsel does not indicate a clear litigation path for Sea gate, and any such litigation
would be quite expensive.
Stay tuned.
Best,
Steve
=
March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
6c - Chairman's Report - Dorrill Management Group Contract Renewal
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
McCauahtrvMarv
Keith Dallas
ResnickLisa
NEIL"S CONTRACT
Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:59:02 PM
161 1
824
Keith -I had an email from Contract and Purchasing wanting to know about renewing Neil's
contract for the next year. It expires 6/22/2011 so it is early, but they start at least 3 months in
advance to make sure they have time to do something new if need be. I suggest you get a vote
from the board at the upcoming meeting and then I will advise them to renew it. Let me know if
you have any questions.
.A;lwuJ .Md~a<<9fWuJ-, (9p~ ~t
Pelican Bay Services Division
801 Laurel Oak Dr., Ste, 605
Naples, FL 34108
239-597-1749 - phone
239-597-4502 - fax
www.pelicanbayservicesdivision.net
www.colliergov.net
__ SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records, If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public
records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity, Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing
March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
11a - Miscellaneous Correspondence
Executive Summary presented to BCC on 2/22/11 re: PBSD MSTBU to provide funds for brick pavers crosswalk at U.S. 41 & PBB
16'1824
Executive Summarv
Recommendation to approve a Locally Funded Agreement Between Collier County and the
Florida Department of Transportation and a Resolution Authorizing the Chairman to sign
the Agreement.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval of a Locally Funded Agreement with the Florida Department
of Transportation ("FDOT") whereby Collier County will provide the FDOT with brick pavers
and $6,683.58 for installation at the crosswalk located at US 41 at Pelican Bay Blvd.
CONSIDERATION: The Community of Pelican Bay has been designated a dependent
Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit (MSTBU), whose governing body is the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners. The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) oversees
the operation of this Unit. The Community receives County Services directly from Collier
County and special, non-County services and benefits from the Pelican Bay Services Division
(PBSD). Pelican Bay property owners (both residential and commercial) tax and assess
themselves each year to pay for the special PBSD services and amenities. These PBSD funds are
collected by the County but have been administered by the PBSD Board with the assistance of a
Staff and a Manager.
Whereas the FDOT has included in its five year work program a project on US 41 at Pelican Bay
Boulevard to add pedestrian features for bicycles and extend the existing bike path to existing
pedestrian features,
Due to the development of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) with the MSTBU the
Pelican Bay Services Division has requested that brick pavers be used in order that the crosswalk
follows the CIP adopted by the community,
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds have been budgeted in the FY 2011 budget in the amount of
$6,683.58 in the Pelican Bay MSTBU Fund 322.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated
with this executive summary,
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-SRT.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approves the Locally
Funded Agreement with FDOT and the attached Resolution required by FDOT authorizing the
Chairman to sign the Agreement.
Prepared by Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst, Pelican Bay Services Division
Attachments: Locally Funded Agreement; Proposed Resolution.
.....
.....
o
N
........
o
N
........
.....
.....
r- ""0
0> ...,
::l 0
a. "0
'" 0
n '"
0> 0>
"0
III """"
3 (3
"0 3
..., r-
o 0>
< ::l
III a.
3 ~
III 0>
::l "0
v:- III
)>
...,
n
::r
;:;:
III
n
....
Q
Q
""0
;lJ
o
:E
^
r-
N""Oo-N""
~~~~~
o tp 0> 0 ~'
0> o::l 0> a.
~~~~~
n;o>....n;:;
~..;r:4~(D
('D w ~ C'D a.
c.............ca.;:;:
(J') I'V Vl Vl I'D
Clr~S.01~
~-n~o
,-+ C'D 0 l"'t
~~~~~
01"0 ~a.~
5,(3 f)ln; 0
"0 S, ::l ~ ~
...,~Ill:E""
~cS:;:;:8
OUCJ'::TVl
~g-~=1~
iti ~ 3 ~
~ ~ -~
~ ",- w
VI - QJ ;:r
~ ~. s: r-t-
0> '" ::r
~ liT ~ 0>
.-+ =' "<: l"'t
~Jil~cil
Ill.... V>
3::r"Oo
o III (3 s:
~~5:~
~ ~, III ~
o -, C
1""1' OJ "C QJ
n' ::l a. ~
'" ""0 0> III
QJmnr~
O":g 3
::l III III
(lQ..., ::l
a- 'n r-t-
III 0>
0> ....
n ....
::r 0>
0> Vi"
::l 0>
a. ::l
na.
aT :s.
3 ::l
""0 m
~ 0>
'" 0"
::l
(lQ
...,
liQ'
::r
....
6
,.,
:E
0>
-<
Ql
::l
a.
'"
n
0>
"0
III
3'
"0
(3
<
III
3
III
::l
....
Y?
w
........
N
~a
III 3
~, Ql
-::l
~ ~
o n
< 0>
-. "0
~Ill
C ~
"0 n
a.::r
Q) ;:;:
ctr ~
....
0"
....
::r
III
...,
....
::r
III
::l
~
Vi"
o
::l
s:
iD
.:::!.
""""
Q
Q
""0
::l
"0
(3
n
III
'"
'"
.....
o
o
N
........
o
N
........
.....
.....
n
o
::l
'"
III
:2
0>
....
5'
::l
)>
...,
III
0>
m
x
o
....
C=;'
<
III
(lQ
III
....
0>
....
5'
::l
^
r-
::l
"0
(3
n
III
'"
'"
\.0
o
N
........
o
N
........
.....
.....
<
III
...,
~
;lJ
III
n
III
'6'
....
o
""""
)>
'"
'"
III
'"
3
III
::l
....
."
C
::l
a.
'"
s:
s:
N
........
N
tp
o
0>
...,
a.
a.
n;
n
....
III
a.
'"
....
0>
~
....
o
<
III
...,
~
:E
;:;:
::r
n
ro
...,
^
",-
."
5'
0>
::l
n
III
"0
0>
-<
3
III
::l
....
'"
:E
III
...,
III
n
o
3
"0
ro
....
III
00
o
N
........
o
N
........
.....
.....
;lJ
o
0>
a.
;lJ
III
'"
C
ii}
n
5'
(lQ
""0
...,
o
'rii'
n
....
'"
~Vi
0> ....
3 ~
~ Q
....
5' ""0
::l ~
n III
..., '"
o ....
'" ...,
Vl Qj'
:E ::l
QJ V')=
^
z
o
N
........
N
tp
o
0>
a.
a.
::;.
III
n
....
III
a.
'"
....
0>
~
....
o
o
0-
....
~ S'
n
o
c
::l
....
-<
Z N 3
0'N"0
g.tp~
-tal 0
@ a. 5'
3 a. (lQ
-, ...,
~ (D ~
,-+ ~ 0
g' ~ ~
n '" N
a nr 0
'" ~ 0
Vl .-+ C?
:E 0 N
0> .... 0
^ 0> 0
-;,,:, fti _\.0
........::l0>
N III ::l
^ n a.
~C'DOJ
ro ~ ::J
:E 0> C
_, -< 0>
-0>-<
~~I'V
~ 5' S
o.:~o
III 0 3
.g (D 3'
a. 3 c
~ 0 rti
III ~ '"
Vi
....
o
"0
""""
o
...,
""0
III
a.
III
'"
....
...,
Qj'
::l
"'=
'"
liQ'
::l
'"
5'
a
0>
a.
:E
0>
-<
0>
....
I
0>
3
3
o
n
^
o
0>
^
o
...,
<'
-~
w
........
N
Z
~,
"0
...,
o
<
0.:
III
C
"0
a.
0>
....
III
...,
o
0>
a.
:E
0>
-<
'"
c
:2
III
-<
'"
........
n
o
::l
a.
;:;:
5'
::l
n;
"0
o
;:+
'"
""""
Q
""0
~
C=;'
0>
::l
tp
0>
-<
tp
o
c
iD
<
0>
...,
_a.
::l
"0
(3
n
III
'"
'"
.....
o
N
........
o
N
........
.....
.....
'"
liQ'
::l
'"
::l
...,
o
0>
a.
:E
0>
-<
0>
....
Z
o
;:+
::r
z
o
........
^
r-
~(D
N.o
tp !::,
~ m
a.~
a. ::l
-, ....
o m ...II?
in' ~
.... III
~. 0-
.... r-
;lJ
::l
a.
III
"0
III
::l
a.
III
::l
....
3 ....
5' 0
~ 3
III 0>
'" ^
..... III
\.0"0
..... 0>
-'r":4
~ ~,
..... ::l
_\.0 ~
n III
Ql'"
3 ~
n
tp III
0> '"
-< ~.
:E 0-
0> ro
iti 0
..., ::l
.0 :E
c III
0> 0-
;:;: VI
-< ;::+
m ...~
"0 W
0........
;:+ N
'" C
....."0
\.Oa.
\.0 ~
\.0 III
N
0"0
o ~
...-....J (ti
na.
Ql""O
3 ~
tp C=;'
0> 0>
-< ::l
o-tp
5' ~
0"
(lQ
C=;'
0>
::l
"0
(3
n
III
'"
'"
0"1
o
N
........
o
N
........
.....
.....
:E
III
0-
'"
;:;:
III
r-
;lJ
0> .... tp
::l 0 0>
a.....-<
...,
3 0> ."
o ~ g
i1i nr 5-
"""" ..., 0>
o C' '-+0-'
i ::l
0> a._=!
..., '"
a.s~
:E ..., N
;:;: (I) OJ
::rno
""0 0 0>
::r ~ a..
QJ ;:::r
Xl III ~
o 0> ....
::l 8: ~~r
(D ;:::::t:
-g o' 8"
o ::l '"
(D' ~ C
n n "0
.... 0> "0
~ ..., 0
w -< ;:+
~cr:4
z ..., 0>
~, ~ ~
- ..., III
~~8
"0 ::l 3
..., a. 3
~a.1ll
C:~5.
III liQ' 0>
C ::l ....
"0 '" 5'
a. III ::l
~ :2 '"
III ~. ~
0> '" a.
5.d'~
..., ....
a Q 5
~ ~ ~.
:E ~ III
QJQJ~
^^a.
'" '" (lQ
liQ' 0> III
::l ::l ....
0> a. 0>
(lQ .... 3
Cl) OJ l1>
~::l
n' a.
'" 3
liQ' III
::l ~
'"
::l
"0
...,
o
n
III
'"
'"
Vl-l'>
..... .....
N N
........ ........
00
.....0"1
........ ........
..... .....
00
v> ""0 ""0
III ..., ::r
:2 ~ ~
C=;' 0 0
III '" (lQ
'" 0> ...,
- 0>
Q~
'"
n 0
..., """"
~ r-
Vl ::i:
~ Q
;;;:0>
;;""0
o Ql
::l ::l
'" ....
.... '"
...,
C ::l
g, ~
::l iti
j20""
otp
III 0
'" a.
liQ' iii'
::l '"
z;:o<;
o r-
........
^
r-
n ..... .....
o N N
::l ................
'" ..... 0"1
!:i
~g'~
r-T ~ co
o' a. ,......
::l 0> 0
~ ~ ~
a.i51ll
a...., "0
C'D N' ::r
'" III 0
liQ' a. ....
::l :4 J6
'" 0> ...,
III ~ ~
:2 .... ::r
(:;' 0 VI
III 0 0
'" 0- """"
o ....
"""'tol QJ ;:::;.'
q :;' S
o III ...,
'" ::l 0>
~ 0],"0
::l Ql
0> III ::l
^ III ....
Vl .., :r
Q ~. ern
0> .0 0>
o' 5 5-
g iti 3
'" 0>
"0 0> ^
a :J m
'rii' a. "0
~ ~ ~
0- ::l III
III (lQ ::l
~ 0> liT
m "C ~.
III ..., 0
::l ~ ::l
g.~.t::
III III Vl
v>a.
III n
:2 0
C=;' ~
III ...,
'" ~
0....
<' 0-
Vi' ~
5' ^
::l """"
0> Q
::l
a.
""0
~
C=;'
0>
::l
::l ~
~ 3
o "0
n ro
III ....
~ III
G'l"""";lJ
C c ill
0.: tp 0
~ 0 3
5' ~ 3
III a. III
'" )> ::l
a. a.
o ~
;:l. 5'
tp ::l
III ~
~ 0
s: 3
0> r-
::l 0>
0> ::l
(lQ a.
III '"
3 :;)
III "0
::l III
.... n
""0 0
OJ 3
a 3
@ ::t
'" III
III
tp....
s:~
~....
s:.....
o>~
::l 0"1
0> -t
(lQ ::r
III III
3 r-
III 0>
::l ::l
.... a.
""0 '"
..., n
0> 0>
~"O
C=;' III
III n
'" 0
0i3
s: ~,
~~
0'1ll
..., ....
""0 0
a (i)
.....0
III C
~ III
5' ~
::l 0>
o """"
"""" c
;lJ
III
'"
o
C
...,
n
III
'"
0-
-<
....
::r
III
G'l
...,
III
III
::l
::l
a.
c
'"
....
...,
iii'
'"
(lQ
c
c:
~
5'
III
'"
0>
::l
a.
w
1611
.....
N
........
o
0"1
........
.....
o
z
o
tp
o
0>
...,
a.
<
o
....
III
o
::l
.....
........
Vl
0"1 N 0> 0> III
3S5~~
o ..... .... a. c
!:!tp15<o>
g ~ .., g;' Cti
~~~~~
,...... ....... -< 0 ~
~~~~j
~.:t"'gQJ
ron~;:+5-
a. 0 '" _::r
.... 3 tp ...,
[ 3 g m
Vi' .., 0
-'f.I)Q.<
~ 5' 0> III
3;~:g8
3"""'1 .., .., :::Ii
tf).. S? ::::!:!
~ro~~'
::r O'Q r-+ VI
III C ::r 5'
rl- Q) Vi'
[ ~ m ~
a:~~~
g5.~a..
~ ?J 0' ::J
CJ'" r- ::J Q)
o 0> - ::l
C VI ;:::+ n
::J ~ VI ~
a.::C::::r~
~g.g[~
~. CD a: ~ ~
otpo-O>o>
~ g CD ~ VI
n..,'U~Q)
wo.w~::J
3 :E n '" 0>
OJ=~g.3
~ 5' g :; 5'
~E-Q)o:a'
'U1o.::J~Ql
............ CD c:: a. r-t-
::: s: -g ",- <'
;:;: ;'" 0 c' III
III Q ~, a. g-
30>::la.~
~~_~g.~o
5:0~::l"O
.., Q),......"C
~~:<o~
::l 0 III
g- a.
..., ....
o
)>
(lQ
III
::l
a.
0>
,
....
o
0>
a.
o
"0
....
....
::r
III
tp
III
'"
....
n
o
3
"0
ro
....
III
~~R~
:E"O~a.
;:::+ CD n
::r3[
CD ;:;' CD
'" 0> 0>
"0 ::l ::l
ill a. a.
.... ::l '"
.... 0> C
0<'"
0> liQ' ~
C 0> ::l
g. ~. a.
~ 0 0 ~
Q) ~, ::J c::
3;~3g.
3 ~ ~ ~
,...... CD ~ Q)
::r .., .., n
~ ~ ~. g:
~ 3 ~ ~
::r tp III ~
Qo>v>o
;:;. -< CD n
-<3nQj'
o 0> 0 ....
"""" ::l III
,...... ::J ...0. a.
::r <ir :E
Vi'::J~;:::+~:;-
OJ Q) ..c ::r v: Q..
o ::J c:: ...r-t- c::
Q)~~g...,o.
...0.. Q) ...... CD CD CD
;:!g.Q-gn
~ 0> -. III 0
~ ::::~. ~ 3
~ 15 ~ g. ~,
~ co n ~ VlO-'
'n Qj",......
g ~ 3 ~::l
.!"nitptp~
0> 0> 0> 0
::l ~-< 0>
::; ~' ~ a.
~ 0 S Q,
..., ..., n
gn;~o
-t 0> 5' 3
QJ a. ::J ,......
a. j20 -<
3 ~ n
0>~~3
~ g. ::l 3
~ Vi' ~ Vi'
~ OJ CD ~.
-t030
::rQ)(1)::J
0.. ::J ([)
...0.. tn'" ,...... v:
.....
N
........
.....
tp
.... 0
o 0>
(ii a.
.... a.
g n;
..... n
............
-~ ~
v>z
~ ~
n ....
~o
:;) "0
-n;
::C::"O
.... 0>
::r ...,
III III
..., 0>
III ...,
'" III
Q..'"
c Q..
.... c
0'- ......
::l 5'
~~
o
8 2/~
.....
.....
N
........
o
.....
........
.....
o
.....0
..... III
........ ..
o lD
w
........
.....
o
;lJ
III
'"
Q..
c
....
5'
::l
....
o
tp
o
0>
a.
o
""""
n
o
c
::l
....
-<
n
o
3
3
Vi'
'"
5'
::l
III
...,
'"
."
a
.;.
II
::l
<
III
::l
....
o
...,
-<
o
""""
r-
0>
::l
a.
'"
n
0>
"0
5'
(lQ
)>
0"
::l
(lQ
c
Y>
-l'>
.....
z
o
Pi
::J
lD
a.
'1:1
!!.
;:;-
III
:;,
g:,
III
<
o
:;,
OQ
o
5'
OQ
'1:1
...
,2,
l1)
~
fIl
VI
....
III
....
C
fIl
:;g
l1)
"C
o
...
....
~
ro
...,
",'
'"
c
(lQ
(lQ
III
'"
....
5'
::l
'"
""""
Q
....
::r
Vi'
o::r.,,"O
.., 0 0 ..,
liQ' ceo
5' VI ::J n
0> _Ill g. ::g
<:E....a.
0>;:;:5':E
::J ::r ::J ;:::+
g, 5 ~ ~
-0' Q) c:: VI
~a.C:QT
(D a. .., ,......
a. ;:::+ (D. 5' ~
[ ~' ~ ; :
0' 3' Vl -0..... ~
C"OIll ~
::lo>-v>gS
g.~::::E-<
O!:!Sboo
0;:+""""
::lg.o::r3
"'c-' v>1ll 0'..., 0 Vi'
~ ~,
~~35~
g: (i' ~ oQ "C
OQ~~Q)iiI
"'o~g~
8<:E"Oo>
-t Vi' ;:;: Ql 0"
VI- 0' ::r ::J ::J
~~if~~
<;; ~ V> !!!, V>
C=;' C III ::l .
1lla.:2(lQ-l'>
'" ~ -, ::r .....
Q ~ ~ Vi' g-
'" a. ...,
~~~~'-~
Vi' ~ Vi' ~ I--'
QT ~ 0' ,...... I\.J
~'U::J~r~
III (3 5' 0> tp
'rii' n '" 0
n c:: ,...... Q)
....3~~0"
5' -< 0>
O(lQ"Oc
.., n (D ,......
III 0 ::r
8~s'Q
3 S, ~ ~'
"0 Ql::l a.
roC-erA
x _Q . -<
g. -tiD
~ 5' ~ 8"
.....0
.....lD
\:;Jill
..
~j
.;:::: 0'
~::J
ro
~
n
o
3
"0
iD
....
III
ncn
o a
-5 c
iD'"
....
III
1611
B 24
),,,,,-<,
......',
TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
"
MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B . Naples, Florida 34104-3732. (239) 643-0166. Fax (239) 643-6632
MEMORANDUM
To:
Pelican Bay Services Division
From:
Tim Hall
Date:
February 28,2011
Subject:
Update on mangrove status
As most of you probably know, there has been a lot of concern recently regarding some observed
mangrove deaths in the southern portion of the Clam Bay system. After meeting with some
concerned residents, representatives from the Foundation, and representatives from the PBSD, I
went into the system and observed that the dead trees showed evidence of cold damage as well as
attack by boring beetles. Boring beetles are insects which often attack stressed or damaged trees.
They lay their eggs on the tree's bark and when the young hatch, they burrow under the bark and
begin feeding on the cambium layer immediately underneath the bark. Over time, this feeding can
entirely girdle a tree and kill it. Chemical control of these pests is very difficult because the way
that they feed under the bark protects them from topical types of pesticides.
The trees affected in the system are predominately white mangroves, which are the same mangrove
species most susceptible to the cold weather. It appears as though the cold weather in December
2009 and January 2010 coupled with more cold weather in December 2010 has stressed several
white mangrove trees to the point that they were more easily attacked by the boring beetles and
subsequently killed. This is a natural phenomenon and there is evidence that new mangrove growth
has already started in areas underneath the dead mangroves. However, we want to make sure that
this is not an epidemic where the beetles start attacking all of the trees and cause progressively
worse damage.
To that end, we are continuing to monitor the area for spread of the infestation and for evidence that
other tree species may be affected. Weare also coordinating with IF AS and others to try and
positively identify the pest(s). This is important because we want to make sure that this is not a new
or exotic species that may be trying to become established. Identifying the larval forms of these
bugs has not been possible to date. All ofthe experts we have spoken to have requested adult forms
of the pests. Weare currently incubating several sections of infected trunks in an attempt to hatch
out the adults and get the formal identification. This will allow us to determine if it is a natural
occurrence, a side effect of the cold damage suffered over the past couple of years, or ifit is an
unnatural infestation by some exotic pest that we need to be more concerned about.
Currently, there is not much more that we can do except to continue monitoring the outbreak and
trying to capture some adults for a positive ID.
1611824
From: Marcia Cravens [mailto:sleeplezz@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:51 AM
To: McCaughtryMary
Cc: ResnickL
Subject: email from FWC with flu to CZM of what FWC suggested-Fwd: Follow-up email per phone
conversation.
Mary or Lisa,
Sorry to not have provided this email from FWC that clarifies what Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) Staffwere told and provides accurate account ofFWC suggestions to CZM staff. Please
send this email with all attachments to the PBSD Board and also print copies for all PBSD Board
members as background information included for today's meeting.
My comments to PBSD as regards the following forward of email from FWC to CZM (date of
email to CZM is 2/15/11):
1) FWC recommended first option was simply to amend the existing canoe trail to move it
closer to the side of the waterway so that paddlers don't mix with any powerboat users.
2) FWC NEVER suggested numbering or location changes to modify the existing Clam Bay
canoe trail so as to mark the drainage channel (that was dredged as restoration of a mangroves
ecosystem) from the southern-most creek to the Gulf to provide any indication that the drainage
channel was a navigation channel. In fact FWC clearly has informed CZM that canoe trail
markers are NOT used to be used to mark any sort of channel.
3) FWC recommendation to CZM to amend the existing canoe trail so as to be located more to
the side of the waterway. is consistent with FWC information that a canoe trail marker can
NOT mark a channel or route for powerboats.
4) The only reference to Clam Pass, in FWC recommendations is to place "Local Knowledge
Required-Keep Lookout for Boaters and Swimmers" Information markers at the mouth of Clam
Pass.
5) The plan to mark a route that follows a non-existent powerboat channel from Seagate to the
Gulf through inappropriate placement of canoe trail markers is a political ploy that is completely
contrary to what FWC recommends.
CONCLUSION:
The recommendations by CZM that Mr. Feldhaus appears to want agreement on by all Pelican
Bay organizations is not at all consistent with what FWC recommends and is in fact contrary to
what FWC may approve.
One rationale for this plan to modify the existing canoe trail by CZM is another strategy for
control by CZM to take away the canoe trail permit which benefits all Pelican Bay members and
also benefits all Collier County residents. The Pelican Bay MSTBU members have not given
1611 B 24
consensus to this inappropriate plan to modify the Clam Bay canoe trail - PBSD should not give
their approval for this plan.
Marcia Cravens
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Moreau, Ryan" <rvan,moreau@MvFWC.com>
Date: February 17, 2011 8:36:20 AM EST
To: Marcia Cravens <sleeplezz@mac,com>, "mrlc@mac.com" <mrlc@mac.com>
Subject: FW: Follow-up email per phone conversation.
Marcia,
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner on this. I've been out of the office for the better
part of two weeks doing work out in the field.
I am forwarding you this email that was sent to Collier County. It outlines my suggestions for
signage in Clam Pass/Bay. Under the current circumstances this would be the only signage that
Collier County would be able to pursue. Also the County may resubmit their county ordinance
for manatee protection to our Imperiled Species office to review it if they want a legal manatee
protection zone in Clam Pass.
I had planned on calling in to the meeting that is taking place tonight, however, Collier County
stated that they would rather me not. So I will not be able to listen in. However, this forwarded
email serves to clearly state my stance on the signs in Clam Pass/Bay. Also as a part of my
forwarded message are acceptable sign graphics for what I have suggested.
If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me. Currently it is easier to get a hold
of me via email.
Thank you,
Ryan Moreau, Planner
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission
Division of Law Enforcement
Boating & Waterways Section
Waterway Management Unit
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
850.410-0656 ext. 17376 Voice
850.488-9284 Fax
Ryan.Moreau@myfwc.com
From: Moreau, Ryan
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:46 AM
1611
B 24
To: 'KeyesPamela'
Subject: Follow-up email per phone conversation.
Pamela,
I just wanted to send a follow up email about our phone conversation yesterday.
First, I wanted to outline the options I laid out to you and Gary pertaining to the permitting of
information markers for Clam Pass/Bay. One of your options is to amend the already existing
paddling trail markers and move them to the side of the waterway so that paddlers do not mix
with power boats. A paddling trail is a straight line of markers that are usually placed in mile
increments or more.' They are not placed laterally to one another creating a channel, so I
would double check your map of markers and make sure this is not the case. A paddling trail's
intent is for marking a safe trail for paddlers to follow. The option of moving the paddle trail
markers to the side would keep the paddlers separate from those people using power boats.
Your other options for markers are placing information markers at the mouth of Clam Pass/Bay
notify boaters that state "Local knowledge is required" "Keep lookout for boaters and
swimmers". This would be used only to notify boaters and does not serve to regulate the area.
Also, you may mark seagrass areas and shoals with information markers to notify boaters of
shallow areas and the resources in the area, but again these are not regulatory markers.
The intent of these markers is to enhance boater awareness and knowledge of Clam Pass/Bay.
Nothing in my conversations with Collier County should be construed as trying to create channel
outside the authority of the US Coast Guard. If you wish to create a channel for navigation you
must make application to the US Coast Guard.
At the end of our phone conversation I expressed my wish to listen in on a meeting on the 1 ih in
which the county will present the marking options that I have discussed with them. My request
was denied at that time.
The example sign graphics that you requested are attached to this email. These are just examples
and are not specific to your area.
Thank you,
Ryan Moreau, Planner
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission
Division of Law Enforcement
Boating & Waterways Section
Waterway Management Unit
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
850.410-0656 ext. 17376 Voice
850.488-9284 Fax
161 1
B 24
'_"GRI'f~
"REI'
168 11. ilh24
16 IEI,1,'.'r ~~ 2 2 h 4
\D)lI@muwlll ~,,"~na~
1m MAR 2 8 2011 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Oo~tta v
BY: n...n.........._-- Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
FRIDAY, MARCH 18,2011
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC
WORKSHOP MEETING ON FRIDAY, MARCH 18 AT 2:00 PM AT THE
COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK
OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34108.
AGENDA
1 . Roll Call
2. Approval of February 8, 2011 Meeting Minutes
3. Audience Participation
4. Review of Tentative FY 2012 Budget
5. Discussion of Low Water Demand Landscape and Irrigation
Improvements Project (J. Chandler)
6. Discussion Concerning the Impact of Reduced Taxable Values Upon
Proposed Street Lighting Reserve (J. Chandler)
7. Discussion of Community Improvement Plan (CIP) non-ad valorem
and ad valorem Cash Flow Spreadsheets (K. Dallas)
8. Audience Comments
9. Adjourn
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES
TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT
THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND
THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE 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. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL
ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR
PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT
(239) 597-1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING.
Mise. Corres:
DIfI:
3/14/2011 8:41:15 AM
Item I:
c-:,ies !o:
Collier County lAtlelon B8-~1/i
Pelican Bay Services Division
Fiscal Year 2012
Operating Budget
General Funds Capital Projects Funds
Water Community Street Clam Bay Capital Total
Revenue Management Beautification Lights System Pro' ects All Funds
Carryforward $185,237 $497,960 $84,644 $15,877 $410,900 $1,194,618
Rolled Capital Project/Program Carryforward $0 $0 $0 $55,180 $2,437,986 $2,493, \66
Interest Income $4,300 $11,200 $1,700 $900 $19,500 $37,600
Plan Review Fee Income $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500
Interfund Transfers (Fund 111) $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $35,000
Assessment or Advalorem Tax Levy $715,600 $1,975,000 $274,100 $125,700 $7,300 $3,097,700
Total Revenue $906,637 $2,484,160 $360 57 $2,875,686 $6,859,584
Appropriations Projections
Personal Services $178,500 $870,300 $106,000 $1,154,800
Administration:
Indirect Cost Reimbursements $108,200 $0 $6,300 $114,500
Other Contractual Services $26,900 $34,300 $26,900 $88, lOO
Storage Contractor $0 $800 $800 $1,600
Telephone - Service Contracts $400 $400 $400 $1,200
Telephone - Direct Line $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $10,500
Postage, Freight & Ups $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $8,000
Rent - Buildings $9,500 $9,800 $9,500 $28,800
Rent - Equipment $1,800 $1,900 $1,800 $5,500
Insurance - General $1,300 $500 $400 $2,200
Mntc, Site Ins, & Assessment Fees $14,600 $0 $0 $14,600
Information Tech Automation Allocation $4,900 $14,500 $0 $19,400
Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors $2,300 $2,600 $0 $4,900
Legal Advertising $2,000 $2,000 $0 $4,000
Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. $2,000 $2,000 $0 $4,000
Office Supplies - General $2,000 $2,500 $800 $5,300
Other Training & Educational Exp, $1,100 $1,500 $0 $2,600
Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000
Emergency Maintenance & Repairs $8,800 $7,400 $0 $16,200
Field Services: $0
Engineering $12,000 $0 $0 $111,500 $123,500
Plan Review Fees $1,500 $0 $0 $1,500
Electrical Contractors $0 $0 $7,300 $7,300
Other Contractual Services $1,000 $29,500 $800 $0 $302,000 $333,300
Landscape Incidentals $0 $2,500 $0 $2,500
Pest Control $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
Tree Trimming $30,000 $63,600 $0 $29,000 $]22,600
Temporary Labor $42,400 $190,100 $0 $232,500
Benn & Swale Maintenance $14,000 $0 $0 $85,000 $99,000
Water Use Charges $0 $83,800 $0 $83,800
Landscape Materials - $8,500 $53,100 $0 $61,600
Celluar Telephones/Radios $500 $3,200 $500 $4,200
Trash & Dumpster Fees $5,700 $17,000 $0 $22,700
Water Quality Testing $22,600 $0 $0 $22,600
Insurance - Vehicles $900 $9,900 $900 $11,700
Insurance - General $2,400 $9,000 $800 $12,200
Bldg, RepairslMntc. $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $5,100
Electricity $0 $3,400 $44,200 $47,600
Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chern $98,400 $62,000 $0 $160,400
Sprinkler System Maint $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000
Mulch $0 $46,000 $0 $46,000
Equipment Rental $0 $2,500 $0 $2,500
Licenses and Pennits $0 $800 $0 $800
Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel $16,000 $93,100 $5,700 $500 $115,300
Road and Bike Path Repairs $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000
Photo Processing (Aerial) $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500
Minor Operating Supplies $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $3,000
Employee Unifonns $1,100 $9,400 $0 $10,500
Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $9,000 $0 $0 $11,500
Light, Bulb and Ballast $0 $0 $12,400 $12,400
Personal Safety Equipment $500 $3,000 $500 $4,000
Paint supplies $0 $800 SO $800
Traffic Signs $0 $3,000 SO $50,000 $53,000
Emergency Maintenance & Repairs $0 $3,300 $9,600 $12,900
Capital Outlay $1,000 $103,000 $1,000 $105,000
Rolled Capital ProjectslPrograms & Reserves
Clam Bay $55,180 $55,180
Hardscape Imp, Project $2,415,211 $2,415,211
Lake Bank Imp, Project $22,775 $22,775
Reserves (2 /1/2 mo, for Operations) $152,512 $405,810 $57,144 $15,877 $631,343
Equipment Reserve $39,025 $55,750 $30,000 $]24,775
Other Charges/Fees
Tax Collector $3,900
Property Appraiser $2,600
Revenue Reserve $6 600
Total Appropriations 232,657
Equivalent Residential Unit's: 7618.29
Projected Rate: ERU or Millage $93.932 $259.245
Projected Total Rate: ERU or Millage $353.176 17.458 $370.63
ctual Rate (FY 2011) $350.08 $20.56 $370.64
Actual Dollar/Millage Change $3.10 ($3.10) (SO.OO)
0.88% -15.07% 0.00%
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
1611 824
Water Management Operating Department
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures
Revenue
Assessments
Interest Income
Developer Plan Reviews
Miscellaneous Income
Prior Year Expenditures
Carryforward
Total Revenue:
Appropriations:
Administration
Regular Salaries
ER 457 Contributions
Other Salaries and Wages
Termination Pay
Reserve For Salary Adj.
Social Security Matching
Retirement
Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Sub-total:
Indirect Cost Reimbursement
Other Contractual Services
Telephone - Service Contract
Telephone - Direct Line
Postage, Freight, UPS
Rent - Building
Information Tech Automation A
Insurance - General
Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment F
Rent Equipment
Printing (Outside)
Legal Advertising
Interdept. Payments
Clerk Recording Fees
Office Supplies
Other Educational
Sub-total:
Emergency Maintenance/Repair
Sub-total:
Total Administrative:
Received Anticipated Total Proposed
FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar.lSept. Received FY 2012
Budget Actual Budl!et Year-To-Date 2011 Expended Budget
$742,500 $715,933 $728,400 $661,065 $41,800 $702,865 $715,600
$12,150 $3,580 $3,500 $1,069 $2,431 $3,500 $4,300
$1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500
$0 $13,043 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$273,831 $346,940 $188,831 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,029,981 $1,079,496 $922,231 $662,134 $44,231 $706,365 $721,400
$27,983 $28,106 $28,000 $10,338 $17,662 $28,000 $28,000
$200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,141 $2,083 $2,200 $770 $1,430 $2,200 $2,200
$3,215 $2,842 $3,300 $1,113 $2,187 $3,300 $3,300
$10,554 $10,554 $7,500 $3,752 $3,748 $7,500 $8,400
$98 $98 $76 $38 $38 $76 $100
$300 $300 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100
$44,500 $43,983 $41,176 $16,061 $25,115 $41,176 $42,100
$117,600 $117,600 $108,200 $54,100 $54,100 $108,200 $108,200
$21,300 $16,375 $30,800 $11,926 $16,600 $28,526 $26,900
$600 $392 $600 $140 $196 $336 $400
$3,500 $2,405 $3,500 $930 $1,650 $2,580 $3,500
$3,000 $63 $3,000 $6 $2,000 $2,006 $3,000
$11,100 $11 ,527 $11,100 $5,366 $5,545 $10,911 $9,500
$4,100 $4,100 $8,200 $4,100 $4,100 $8,200 $4,900
$1,300 $1,300 $1,300 $650 $650 $1,300 $1,300
( $0 $0 $14,600 $0 $14,600 $0 $14,600
$2,300 $2,162 $2,500 $646 $1,500 $2,146 $1,800
$2,300 $828 $2,300 $0 $2,300 $2,300 $2,300
$2,000 $633 $2,000 $0 $1,200 $1,200 $2,000
$16,600 $16,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000
$4,263 $2,158 $2,500 $122 $1,200 $1,322 $2,000
$1, 100 $580 $1,100 $55 $500 $555 $1 , 100
$193,063 $176,723 $195,700 $78,041 $109,141 $187,182 $183,500
$18,300 $0 $8,800 $0 $0 $0 $8,800
$211,363 $176,723 $204,500 $78,041 $109,141 $187,182 $192,300
$255,863 $220,706 $245,676 $94,102 $134,256 $228,358 $234,400
2
1611 B 24
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Water Management Operating Department
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures
Field Services:
Regular Salaries
ER 457 Contributions
Reserve For Salary Adjustment
Overtime
Social Security Matching
Regular Retirement
Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Sub-total:
Engineering Fees
Plan Review Fees
Other Contractual Services
Tree Trimming
Temporary Labor
Swale Maintenance
Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay)
Telephones (Includes Cellular)
Trash & Garbage Disposal
Insurance - General
Insurance - Auto
Bldg. Repairs/Mntc.
Autos Trucks RM
Motor Pool
Labor - Fleet Maint. (ISF)
Fleet Maint. Parts
Fleet Non. Maint. ISF Parts
Boat R&M
Other Equip. R&M
Uniform Purchase & Rental
Fertilizer, Herbicides, Chern
Replanting Program
Fuel & Lubricants - Outside
Fuel & Lubricants - Inside
Other Operating Supplies
Personal Safety Equipment
Sub-total:
Received Anticipated Total Proposed
FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar./Sept. Received FY 2012
Budget Actual Budl!et Year-To-Date 2011 Expended Budget
$81,949 $79,643 $79,400 $29,298 $50,000 $79,298 $79,400
$665 $165 $700 $39 $150 $189 $700
$83 $0 $60 $0 $0 $0 $0
$15,400 $16,190 $15,500 $5,638 $7,900 $13,538 $15,500
$7,298 $6,930 $7,300 $2,523 $4,700 $7,223 $7,300
$10,963 $13,430 $11,300 $3,908 $7,300 $11,208 $11,200
$31,662 $31,662 $17,400 $8,698 $8,700 $17,398 $19,500
$280 $280 $200 $108 $100 $208 $300
$2,900 $2,900 $2,500 $1,250 $1,250 $2,500 $2,500
$151,200 $151,200 $134,360 $51,462 $80, I 00 $131,562 $136,400
$12,000 $6,686 $16,400 $1,536 $12,000 $13,536 $12,000
$1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500
$1,000 $0 $1,000 $246 $500 $746 $1,000
$27,600 $30,540 $30,000 $9,984 $19,500 $29,484 $30,000
$42,400 $39,900 $42,400 $17,803 $24,000 $41,803 $42,400
$14,000 $3,838 $14,000 $0 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000
$21,100 $13,384 $22,600 $8,284 $11,600 $19,884 $22,600
$500 $434 $500 $180 $300 $480 $500
$8,300 $7,492 $8,300 $1,759 $5,500 $7,259 $5,700
$2,600 $2,600 $2,400 $1,200 $1,200 $2,400 $2,400
$3,600 $3,600 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,700
$900 $0 $900 $0 $0 $0 $900
$0 $0 $200 $0 $0 $0 $200
$1,000 $990 $1,000 $332 $668 $1,000 $1,900
$600 $1,535 $600 $0 $600 $600 $1,600
$1,500 $489 $1,500 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $500
$500 $0 $500 $0 $200 $200 $500
$1,500 $1,364 $1,500 $34 $1,000 $1,034 $1,500
$1,900 $4,661 $1,100 $529 $500 $1,029 $1 , 100
$95,800 $82,834 $98,400 $29,380 $64,000 $93,380 $98,400
$8,500 $3,775 $8,500 $2,986 $8,500 $11,486 $8,500
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,000 $2,540 $3,200 $783 $1,500 $2,283 $8,900
$2,500 $4,269 $2,500 $1,214 $1,000 $2,214 $2,500
$500 $1,295 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500
$251,800 $212,226 $260,400 $76,700 $168,518 $245,218 $261,700
3
1611
t "1
~;f
24
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Water Management Operating Department
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30,2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures
Total Field Services:
Received Anticipated Total Proposed
FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar.lSept. Received FY 2012
Bud2et Actual Bud2et Y ear- To-Date 2011 Expended Budl!:et
$13,200 $6,862 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $13,200 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $0
$1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000
$14,200 $6,862 $14,200 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $1,000
$417,200 $370,288 $408,960 $128,162 $251,618 $379,780 $399,100
$24,750 $15,418 $24,750 $14,522 $10,228 $24,750 $22,100
$22,560 $12,327 $22,600 $13,050 $9,550 $22,600 $21,800
$42,000 $0 $42,100 $0 $0 $0 $37,700
$89,310 $27,745 $89,450 $27,572 $19,778 $47,350 $81,600
Capital Outlay
Building Improvements
Improvements General (Mnt. Fa
Other/Off. Mach. & Equip./TrUl
Sub-total:
Other Fees & Charges
Tax Collector
Property Appraiser
Revenue Reserve
Total Other Fees & Charges:
$249,836
$405,652
II
$655,48811 $715,100
Total Appropriations:
$762,373
II
$618,73911 $744,086
Net Income from Operations
Fund Balance October 1,2010 (Actual)
Current Year Transfer from Fund 133
Current Year Transfer to Fund 322
Fund Balance September 30,2011 (Projected)
Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012
Reserved for Operations
Opening Balance (10/01/11)
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from Fund 133 (Uninsured Assets)
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects)
$50,877
$340,860
$0
$85,000
$306,737
Sub-total Reserved for Operations:
$274,012
$0
$0
$121,500
$152,512
Reserved for Capital Outlay
Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/11)
Fiscal Year 2012 Additions
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward
Sub-total Reserved for Capital Outlay:
$32,725
$6,300
$0
$39,025
Total Equipment Replacement Cost
Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $191,537
4
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
1611
Community Beautification Operating Department
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures
Received Anticipated Total Proposed
FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar.!Sept. Received FY 2012
Budl!et Actual Budl!et Year-To-Dab 2011 Expended Budl!et
$1,922,500 $1,853,805 $1,938,600 $1,759,392 $111,700 $1,871,092 $1,975,000
$28,350 $8,371 $8,200 $2,494 $5,706 $8,200 $11,200
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$669,270 $803,698 $495,070 $0 $0 $0 $36,400
$2,620,120 $2,665,874 $2,441,870 $1,761,886 $117,406 $1,879,292 $2,022,600
$28,830 $28,959 $28,900 $10,652 $18,248 $28,900 $28,900
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$297 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,205 $2,146 $2,200 $793 $1,407 $2,200 $2,200
$3,3 13 $2,928 $3,400 $1,147 $2,253 $3,400 $3,400
$10,554 $10,554 $7,700 $3,866 $3,834 $7,700 $8,700
$101 $101 $78 $39 $39 $78 $100
$300 $300 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100
$45,600 $44,988 $42,378 $16,547 $25,831 $42,378 $43,400
1 $4,200 $4,200 $7,000 $3,500 $3,500 $7,000 $14,500
$28,000 $21,784 $37,500 $13,248 $24,252 $37,500 $34,300
$0 $0 $0 $290 $510 $800 $800
$400 $392 $400 $140 $196 $336 $400
$3,500 $2,266 $3,500 $987 $1,500 $2,487 $3,500
$3,000 $40 $3,000 $5 $2,000 $2,005 $3,000
$11,400 $11,877 $11,400 $5,525 $5,545 $11,070 $9,800
$2,400 $2,187 $2,600 $668 $1,500 $2,168 $1,900
$500 $500 $500 $250 $250 $500 $500
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,600 $1,219 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $2,600 $2,600
$2,000 $633 $2,000 $0 $1,200 $1,200 $2,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000
$4,774 $2,639 $3,000 $266 $1,800 $2,066 $2,500
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,500 $0 $1,500 $25 $800 $825 $1,500
$66,274 $47,737 $79,000 $24,904 $48,653 $73,557 $79,300
$16,900 $0 $7,400 $0 $0 $0 $7,400
$83,174 $47,737 $86,400 $24,904 $48,653 $73,557 $86,700
Revenue
Assessments
Interest Income
Miscellaneous
Reimburse PlY Expend.
Carryforward
Total Revenue:
Appropriations:
Administration:
Regular Salaries
ER 457 Contributions
Other Salaries & Wages
Termination Pay
Reserve For Salary Adjust.
Social Security
Retirement
Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Sub-total:
IT Automation Allocation & Capi
Other Contractual Serv.
Storage Contractor
Telephone-Service Contract
Telephone-Direct Line
Postage, Freight, UPS
Rent - Buildings
Rent - Equipment
Insurance - General
Data Proc. Eq. R&M
Printing & Binding
Legal Advertising
Reimb. For Prior Year
Clerk Recording Fees
Office Supplies
Copying Charges
Minor Office Eqpt.
Other Operating Supplies
Training & Education
Sub-total:
Emergency Mntc./Repair
Sub-total:
Total Administrative: $128,774
$92,72511 $128,778
$41,451
$74,484
$115,93511
B 24
$130,100
5
1611 B 24
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Community Beautification Operating Department
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual ~xpenditures
Received Anticipated Total Proposed
FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar./Sept. Received FY 2012
Budeet Actual Budeet Y ear- To-Dati 2011 Exoended Budeet
$444,149 $429,169 $442,400 $137,554 $289,196 $426,750 $430,900
$2,170 $1,170 $2,200 $440 $730 $1,170 $2,200
$102,600 $91,680 $103,000 $26,618 $66,269 $92,887 $99,600
$60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$41,993 $37,365 $41,900 $11,697 $28,040 $39,737 $41,900
$63,070 $52,622 $64,600 $17,849 $44,254 $62,103 $62,800
$116,094 $116,094 $133,500 $66,742 $66,742 $133,484 $149,600
$1,564 $1,564 $1,200 $600 $600 $1,200 $1,100
$35,000 $35,000 $38,800 $19,400 $19,400 $38,800 $38,800
$806,700 $764,664 $827,600 $280,900 $515,231 $796,131 $826,900
$83,800 $85,885 $83,800 $35,532 $47,500 $83,032 $83,800
$46,600 $44,867 $53,100 $17,292 $25,000 $42,292 $53,100
$29,500 $33,209 $29,500 $21,720 $12,000 $33,720 $29,500
$25,000 $31,095 $35,900 $51,315 $8,700 $60,015 $63,600
$6,500 $0 $5,000 $200 $2,800 $3,000 $5,000
$211,800 $191,929 $204,500 $79,570 $129,000 $208,570 $190,100
$800 $216 $700 $0 $300 $300 $700
$3,800 $3,047 $3,200 $1,156 $2,100 $3,256 $3,200
$3,400 $2,550 $3,400 $1,195 $1,900 $3,095 $3,400
$24,900 $16,774 $24,900 $2,927 $11 ,800 $14,727 $17,000
$8,500 $3,526 $5,500 $154 $2,400 $2,554 $2,500
$12,200 $12,200 $9,000 $4,500 $4,500 $9,000 $9,000
$9,300 $9,300 $9,900 $4,950 $4,950 $9,900 $9,900
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,700
$30,000 $18,065 $30,000 $12,255 $18,000 $30,255 $30,000
$60,200 $54,889 $60,200 $46,394 $14,000 $60,394 $46,000
$100 $1,496 $100 $534 $0 $534 $100
$8,900 $8,250 $8,500 $2,832 $5,668 $8,500 $10,600
$17,500 $9,950 $9,600 $3,175 $6,400 $9,575 $11,400
$900 $903 $1,000 $188 $812 $1,000 $1,000
$0 $1,033 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,000 $7,039 $2,000 $5,874 $0 $5,874 $2,000
$800 $340 $800 $0 $400 $400 $800
$12,000 $4,028 $9,400 $2,607 $7,100 $9,707 $9,400
$58,500 $62,886 $62,000 $30,980 $32,000 $62,980 $62,000
$100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $0 $100
$47,000 $38,070 $44,100 $13,016 $28,000 $41,016 $67,200
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000
$3,000 $4,658 $3,000 $1,352 $1,800 $3,152 $3,000
$11 ,500 $20,159 $11,500 $3,018 $7,500 $10,518 $9,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500
$3,000 $1,342 $3,000 $512 $2,000 $2,512 $3,000
$1,500 $0 $800 $0 $800 $800 $800
$3,000 $1,030 $3,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $3,000
$726,100 $668,736 $717,500 $343,248 $379,430 $722,678 $740,400
0 0 $3,300 $0 $0 $0 $3,300
$726,100 $668,736 $720,800 $343,248 $379,430 $722,678 $743,700
Field Services:
Regular Salaries
ER 457 Contributions
Overtime
Reserve For Salary Adjust.
Social Security
Retirement - Regular
Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Sub-total:
Water Use Charges
Landscape Materials
Other Contractual Services
Tree Trimming
Pest Control
Temporary Labor
Motor Pool Rental
Cellular Telephone
Electricity/Utilities
Trash & Garbage
Rent - Equipment
Insurance - General
Insurance - Vehicle
Bldg. Repairs/Mntc.
Sprinkler System Maint.
Landscaping Maint.
Auto & Truck R&M
Fleet Maint ISF Labor
Fleet Maint ISF Parts
Fleet Maint Non-ISF Parts
Hurricane Wilma Expenditures
Other Equip. R&M
Licenses & Permits
Uniform Purchases & Rental
Fert. Herbicides & Chern.
Fuel & Lubricants - Outside
Fuel & Lubricants - ISF
Road & Bike Path Repairs
Minor Operating Equip.
Other Operating Supplies
Landscape Incidentals
Personal Safety Equipment
Paint Supplies
Traffic Signs
Sub-total:
Emergency Mntc./Repair
Sub-total:
6 Total Field Services: $1,532,800 $1,433,400 II $1,548,400
$624,148
$894,661 $1,518,809 II
$1,570,600
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
161 1
Community Beautification Operating Department
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures
Capital Outlay:
Building Improvements
Improvements General
Autos & Trucks
Other Mach. & Equip.
Total Capital Outlay:
Other Fees & Charges
Property Appraiser
Tax Collector
Revenue Reserve
Total Other Fees & Charges:
Total Appropriations:
Received Anticipated Total Proposed
FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar.lSept. Received FY 2012
Bud~et Actual Budget Y ear- To-Dab 2011 EXDended Budget
$13,600 $8,481 $13,600 $0 $11,481 $11,481 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$26,000 $25,462 $28,000 $23,597 $0 $23,597 $102,000
$25,000 $18,217 $17,000 $0 $9,000 $9,000 $1,000
$64,600
$52,160 II
$58,600
$103,000
$52,640
$57,750
$98,000
$208,390
$1,934,564
$28,763
$35,975
$0
$64,738
$1,643,02311
$52,700
$57,750
$98,200
$208,650
$1,944,428
Net Income
Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual)
Current Year Transfer From Fund 133
Current Year Transfer to Fund 322
Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected)
Distribution of Projected Fund Balance
Reserved for Operations
Opening Balance (l0/01/11)
Transfer from Fund 133 (Uninsured Assets)
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects)
Sub-total Reserved for Operations:
Reserved for Capital Outlay
Equipment Replacement: (Opening Balance 10/01/11)
Fiscal Year 2012 Additions
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward
Sub-total Reserved for Capital Outlay
Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2012 (Projected)
$23,597
$30,450
$33,886
$0
$64,336
$753,532
$90,020
$795,340
$0
$174,200
$711,160
$619,010
$0
$0
$213,200
$405,810
$92,150
$56,600
$93,000
$55,750
$461,560
$20,481
$22,250
$23,864
$0
$46,114
$1,035,740
$44,078 II
$52,700
$57,750
$0
$110,450
$1,789,27211
824
$53,900
$61,100
$103,900
$218,900
$2,022,600
7
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
1611 B24
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Street Lighting Fund
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures
Revenue
Current Ad valorem Taxes
Interest Income
Miscellaneous Income
Carryforward
Total Revenue:
Appropriations
Administration:
Regular Salaries
ER 457 Contributions
Other Salaries & Wages
Termination Pay
Reserve For Salary Adjust.
Social Security Matching
PBSD Retirement
Worker's Compensation
Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Sub-total:
Indirect Cost Reimb.
Other Contractual Services
Storage Contractor
Telephone - Service Contracts
Telephone - Direct Line
Postage, Freight, UPS
Rent - Building
Rent - Equipment
Reimburse PN Expend.
Insurance - General
Info Technology Automation Alia
Office Supplies
Copying Charges
Minor Office Equipment
Other Operating Supplies
Sub-total:
Additional-Public Relation
Sub-total:
Total Administrative:
Received Anticipated Total Proposed
FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar./Sept. Received 2012
Budget Actual Budl!et Y ear- To-Date 2011 Expended Budget
$285,700 $275,688 $273,200 $245,382 $17,000 $262,382 $274,100
$4,600 $1,623 $1,200 $493 $700 $1,193 $1,700
$0 $281 $0 $39 $0 $39 $0
$0 $0 $169,800 $0 $0 $0 ($2,500)
$290,300 $277,592 $444,200 $245,914 $17,700 $263,614 $273,300
$27,983 $28, 107 $28,000 $11,400 $16,600 $28,000 $28,000
$200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$63 $0 $75 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,141 $2,082 $2,140 $850 $1,290 $2,140 $2,200
$3,215 $2,842 $3,300 $1,230 $2,070 $3,300 $3,300
$200 $200 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100
$0 $0 $7,500 $3,750 $3,750 $7,500 $8,400
$98 $98 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100
$33,900 $33,329 $41,215 $17,330 $23,810 $41,140 $42, I 00
$6,700 $6,700 $6,300 $3,150 $3,150 $6,300 $6,300
$20,800 $16,725 $20,800 $11,925 $8,875 $20,800 $26,900
$0 $0 $0 $290 $510 $800 $800
$600 $336 $600 $120 $200 $320 $400
$3,500 $1,598 $3,500 $700 $1,000 $1,700 $3,500
$2,000 $15 $2,000 $5 $1,500 $1,505- $2,000
$11,100 $11,527 $11,100 $5,250 $5,500 $10,750 $9,500
$2,300 $2,002 $2,500 $650 $1,450 $2,100 $1,800
$0 $41 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$400 $400 $400 $200 $200 $400 $400
$4, 100 $4, 100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,262 $1,762 $800 $0 $400 $400 $800
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $500 $500 $1,000
$54,762 $45,206 $49,000 $22,290 $23,285 $45,575 $53,400
$19,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$74,562 $45,206 $49,000 $22,290 $23,285 $45,575 $53,400
$108,462 $78,535 $90,215 $39,620 $47,095 $86,715 $95,500
8
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
1611
24
b
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Street Lighting Fund
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures
Field Services:
Regular Salaries
ER 457 Contributions
Overtime
Reserve for Salary Adj.
Social Security Matching
Retirement Regular
Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Vehicle Allowance
Sub-total:
Engineering Fees
Other Contractual Services
Cellular Phones
Electricity
Auto Insurance
Insurance
Bldg. Repairs/Mntc.
Fleet Maintenance
Electrical Contractor
Light Bulbs Ballast
Other Supplies Equipment Repair
Personnel Safety Equipment
Sub-total:
Additional-Electric1 Repair Servic
Sub-total:
Total Field Services:
Capital Outlay:
Building Improvements
Improvements - General
Other Machinery & Equipment
Sub-total:
Total Capital Outlay:
Other Fees & Charges:
Tax Collector
Property Appraiser
Revenue Reserve
Sub-total:
Total Other Fees & Charges
Received Anticipated Total Proposed
FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar.lSept. Received 2012
Budl!et Actual Budl!et Y ear- To-Date 2011 EXDended Budl!et
$40,523 $40,584 $40,400 $16,500 $23,100 $39,600 $40,500
$165 $165 $165 $50 $115 $165 $200
$4,000 $4,138 $4,000 $1,440 $2,000 $3,440 $4,000
-$111 $0 $100 $0 $0 $0 $0
$3,412 $3,223 $3,400 $1,300 $2,100 $3,400 $3,400
$4,664 $4,542 $5,300 $2,100 $3,200 $5,300 $5,300
$0 $0 $8,300 $4,150 $4,150 $8,300 $9,300
$142 $142 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100
$1,300 $1,300 $1,100 $550 $550 $1,IQO $1,100
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$54,095 $54,094 $62,865 $26,140 $35,265 $61,405 $63,900
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,500 $0 $800 $0 $0 $0 $800
$800 $271 $500 $200 $250 $450 $500
$44,200 $34,358 $44,200 $17,500 $26,700 $44,200 $44,200
$1,100 $1,100 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900
$800 $800 $800 $400 $400 $800 $800
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,700
$2,200 $3,511 $1,500 $350 $1,150 $1,500 $5,700
$7,300 $2,484 $7,300 $6,700 $600 $7,300 $7,300
$12,400 $10,389 $12,400 $4,500 $7,900 $12,400 $12,400
$200 $0 $200 $0 $200 $200 $0
$500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500
$71,000 $52,913 . $69,100 $30,100 $38,150 $68,250 $74,800
$14,405 $0 $9,600 $0 $0 $0 $9,600
$85,405 $52,913 $78,700 $30,100 $38,150 $68,250 $84,400
$139,500 $107,007 $141,565 $56,240 $73,415 $129,655 $148,300
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$13,200 $6,432 $13,200 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,000 $443 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000
$14,200 $6,875 $14,200 $0 $0 $0 $1,000
$14,200 $6,875 $14,200 $0 $0 $0 $1,000
$8,800 $5,529 $8,400 $4,900 $3,500 $8,400 $8,500
$5,800 $1,140 $5,500 $0 $1,200 $1,200 $5,600
$15,000 $0 $14,400 $0 $0 $0 $14,400
$29,600 $6,669 $28,300 $4,900 $4,700 $9,600 $28,500
$29,600 $6,669 $28,300 $4,900 $4,700 $9,600 $28,500
1\
Total Appropriations: $291,762 $199,08611 $274,280
$100,760
II
$225,970 II $273,300
$125,210
9
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
1611
Street Lighting Fund
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012
Net Income from Operations
Fund Balance October 1,2010 (Actual)
Current Year Transfers To Fund 322
Fund Balance September 30,2011 (Projected)
Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012
Reserved for Operations
Opening Balance (10/01/10)
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from Fund 110
Fiscal Year 2012Transfer to Carryforward
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects)
Sub-total Reserved for Operations:
Reserved for Capital Outlay
Equip. Replacement: (Opening Balance 10-01-11)
Fiscal Year 2012 Additions
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward
Sub-total Reserved for Capital Outlay
Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2012 (Projected)
$37,644
$200,400
$83,600
$154,444
$126,944
$0
$0
$69,800
$57,144
$27,500
$2,500
$0
$30,000
$87,144
B 24
10
1611 B 24
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Clam Bay Fund
Clam Bay Restoration Program
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012
Revenue:
Carryforward
Assessment Levy
Transfer from Fund 322
Interest Income
TOC Funding
Interfund Transfers (Fund 111)
Carryforward of Encumbrances
Total Revenue
Appropriations:
Operations (183800)
Engineering
Other Contractual
Photo Processing
Water Quality
Tree Trimming
Repairs & Maintenance
Minor Operating Eqpt.
Computer Software
Other Operating Supplies
Total Operations
Ecosystem Enhancements (183805)
Engineering
Other Contractual (Amended Budget for S Berm)
Other Contractual
Total Capital Projects
Other Fees & Charges
Tax Collector
Property Appraiser
, Revenue Reserve
Total Other Fees and Charges
Total Appropriations
Adopted Adopted Received Anticipated Total Proposed
FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar./Sept. Received FY 2012
Budget Budget Year-To-Date 2011 Expended Budget
$462,900.00 $301,300 $0
$102,400 $35,000 $31,700 $1,500 $33,200 $125,700
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $1,300 $1,300 $1,377 $2,677 $900
$11,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
$35,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$148,400 I $372,600 $33,000 $37,877 $70,877 $161,600
$83,100 $102,900 $2,000 $110,000 $112,000 $111,500
$83,500 $137,400 $7,820 $68,200 $76,020 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,500
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,000
$500 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500
$2,400 $4,800 $0 $2,400 $2,400 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$500 $1,000 $0 $500 $500 $0
$170,000 $246,600 $9,820 $181,600 $191,420 I $148,500
$42,500 $11,300 $4,000 $7,300 $11,300 $0
$118,000 $118,000 $118,000
$25.000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0
$67,500 $154,300 $4,000 $150,300 $154,300 $0
$3,200 $1,100 $635 $465 $1,100 $3,900
$2,100 $700 $0 $700 $700 $2,600
$5,400 $1,800 $0 $0 $0 $6,600
$10,700 II $3,600
II
$248,200 II $404,500
$635
$1,165
$1,800 II
II
$347,520 II
$14,455
$333,065
$13,100
$161,600
11
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Clam Bay Fund
Clam Bay Restoration Program
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,2012
Net Income
Fund Balance October 1,2010 (Actual)
Current Year Transfer to Fund 322
Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected)
Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012
Opening Balance (10101/11)
Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward
Transfer to Fund 322
Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward
Sub-total Reserved for Operations:
Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2012 (Projected)
($276,643)
$412,700
$65,000
71,057
$71,057
$55,180
$0
$0
$15,877
$15,877
161 1 B 24
12
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Clam Bay Fund
Clam Bay Restoration Program
Appropriation Analysis:
Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance
Engineering (320-183800-631400-511001)
Funding
Requirement~
I $111,500
Projected
Funds
Available
$0
Management Report
These funds are for the preparation of an annual report for
detailing the results of the monitoring activities and the
enviromental impacts of the maintenance performed within the
system. This report would be presented annually to the PBSD
Board.
Biological Monitoring
This funding is being requested to continue performing
the biological monitoring which assess's the biological
health of the mangroves. This includes tracking growth,
re-vegetation, seedling recruitment and other biological
parameters through the annual monitoring of the established
transects and plots throughout the system tracking long
term trends, improvements and identifying declining areas.
Mangrove Water Level Loggers
Water level monitoring devices within the mangrove areas to provide
additional data related to the flushing and water exchange within the
mangrove forest.
Hydrographic Monitoring
These engineering fees are being budgeted to continue
the coordination, analysis and reporting of the tide gauge data
collected with the Clam Bay system. This data is important
as it indicates the performance ofthe tidal flushing within the
system.
Water Quality
This funding being requested to prepare a standard operating procedure
manual for the Cam Bay Ssytem.
Hydrographic Surveying
Survey cross sections shall be performed in the dredged channels to
determine if any silting of the channels has occurred and if
maintenance dredging is required.
Hydrographic Survey
These fund are budgeted to perform survey activities within the Clam Bay
creeks.
$14,800
$27,000
$10,000
$28,800
$5,500
161 1
B 24
Net Funds
Required
$111,500
$0
$0
13
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Clam Bay Fund
Clam Bay Restoration Program
Appropriation Analysis:
Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance
Engineering (320-183800-631400-511001) (Cont.)
General Mangrove Maintenance Consultation
These fees are for general mangrove investigation/observation,
meeting attendance, permit services and channel maintenance
identification.
Other Contractual Services
(320-183800-634999-511001 )
Funding
Re uirement~
$45,000
Projected
Funds
Available
$45,000
Contract Labor
It is proposed to use in-house staff to perform the
monitoring and data collection for the Clam Bay
Monitoring Programs. To supplement the staff time
estimated for the monitoring program, funds are being
budgeted for temporary labor equal to the cost of staff
hours. Below is the estimated staff cost for the
monitoring programs.
Program
Creek Maintenance
Hydrographic monitoring
Staff Cost
$2,000
$10,500
$12,500
Total
Berm Transition Area Maintenance
These funds are budgeted for the maintenance
of the area west of the berm including the removal of
cattails and other nusiance materials.
Aerial Photography
The annual cost for aerial photographs of the Clam Bay
System used to assess vegetation conditions as part of
the Biological Monitoring Program.
$25,400
$12,500
1611
$0
$0
lJ
24
14
Appropriation Analysis:
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Clam Bay Fund
Clam Bay Restoration Program
Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance
Other Contractual Services (320-183800-634999-511001) (Cont.)
Interior Channel Maintenance
These funds are for a maintenance program
for the cleaning of the Clam Bay Interior
Channels. There are approximately 40,000 L.F. of
channels of which it is estimated 50% will require
maintenance as field identified.
Funding
Re uirement~
Photo Processing (320-183800-647210) $7,500
The annual cost for aerial photographs of the Clam Bay
System used to assess vegetation conditions as part of
the Biological Monitoring Program.
Water Quality Testing Program
(320- 183800-634255-511001)
Funding
Requirement~
I $0
Projected
Funds
Available
$0
Projected
Funds
Available
$0
A water quality program will be performed to monitor various parameters
determining the nutrient loading of the Clam Bay System. This program
includes the testing from eight locations, four along the Pelican Bay Berm
and four within the Clam Bay System. Currently seven of these sample
points are tested as part of the water quality testing for the Water Manage-
ment System. The costs presented here are for the additional samples not
presently collected in Upper Clam Bay.
Parameter
Temperature
pH
Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen
Salinity
Ammonia
Nitrites
Ortho-phosphate
TDS
Total Phosphorus
Silica
TKN
Nitrates
TOC
Chlorophyll-a
Pheophyton
Yearly
Quantity
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Unit Price
In-house
In-house
In-house
In-house
In-house
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$7.00
$10.00
$6,00
$15.00
$14.00
$12.00
$14.00
$15.00
TOTAL
Total Cost
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,500
1611 B 24
Net Funds
Required
$0
15
Appropriation Analysis:
Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance
1611
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2012
Clam Bay Fund
Clam Bay Restoration Program
Tree Trimming (320-183800-646319-511001)
These funds are for the maintenance activities
for control of exotic vegetation.
Funding
Re uirements
$29,000
Repairs & Maintenance
(320-183800-646970-511001)
Funding
Requirements
I $500
Tide Gauges, Water Level Loggers $500
Sub-Total: $500
Minor Operating Equipment
(320-183800-652910-511001)
Other Operating Supplies
(320-183800-652990-511001)
Miscellaneous Supplies
Funding
Re uirements
$2,400
Funding
Requirements
I $500
Projected
Funds
Available
$0
Projected
Funds
Available
$0
Net Funds
Required
$500
Projected
Funds
Available
$2,400
Projected
Funds
Available
$500
Net Funds
Required
$0
$500
82'4
16
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Proposed FY 2012
1611 B 24
Capital Projects Fund
Irrigation System & Community Landscape (Including Hardscape) Improvements
Revenue Summary
Carryforward
Interest Income
Assessment Levy
Total Available Funds:
Appropriation Projection
Capital Projects
Irrigation System & Community Landscape (Including Hardscape) Improvements
Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (500661)
Engineering
Other Contractual Services
Landscape Materials
Mulch Requirements
Other Operating Supplies
Lake Bank Enhancements (510261)
Engineering
Berm and Swale
Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (xxxxx)
Traffic Signs
Tax Collector
Property Appraiser
Revenue Reserve
Equivalent Residential Units
Projected ERU Rate:
Total Improvements
Total Improvements
Total Improvements
Total Other Fees & Charges:
Total Appropriations:
7618.29
$0.96
$410,900
$19,500
$7,300
$437,700
$0
$302,000
$0
$0
$0
$302,000
$0
$85,000
$85,000
$50,000
$50,000
$200
$100
$400
$700
$437,700
17
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
1611 B 24
Operating Budget
Proposed FY 2012
Capital Projects Fund
Irrigation System & Community Landscape (Including Hardscape) Improvements
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,2012
Received Anticipated Total Variance
Budget Amended Expended Mar./Sept. Received Over
FY 2011 Budget Year-To-Date 2011 Expended (Under)
Revenue:
Assessment Levy $121,600 $121,600 $110,360 $5,300 $115,660 $5,940
Interest Income $7,700 $7,700 $6,700 $1,000 $7,700 $0
Miscellaneous Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Developer Contribution $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Carryforward of Rolled Prl $0 $2,080,626 $0 $0 $0 $0
Carryforward $284,400 $284,400 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenue $413,700 $2,494,326 $117,060 $6,300 $123,360 $5,940
Appropriations:
Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (500661)
Engineering Fees $0 $113,128 $0 $0 $0 $113,128
Other Contractual Service~ $401,000 $2,332,383 $0 $26,800 $26,800 $2,305,583
Landscape Materials $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Maintenance Landscaping $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 $3,500 $3,500 ($3,500)
$401,000 $2,445,511 $0 $30,300 $30,300 $2,415,211
Lake Bank Enhancement (510261)
Engineering Fees $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 $500
Other Contractual Service~ $0 $22,275 $0 $0 $0 $22,275
Sprinkler System Maintem $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Maintenance Landscaping $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Landscape Materials $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $22,775 $0 $0 $0 $22,775
Total Operating Expenses $401,000 $2,468,286 $0 $30,300 $30,300 $2,437,986
18
16 J 1 B 24
Collier County
Pelican Bay Services Division
Operating Budget
Proposed FY 2012
Capital Projects Fund
Irrigation System & Community Landscape (Including Hardscape) Improvements
Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012
Budget
FY 2011
Received Anticipated Total
Expended Mar.lSept. Received
Year-To-DatE 2010 Expended
Variance
Over
(Under)
Other Fees & Charges
Tax Collector
Property Appraiser
Revenue Reserve
Total Other Fees & Chgs.
$3,800
$2,500
$6,400
$12,700
$2,200 $1,600 $3,800 $0
$0 $2,200 $2,200 $300
$0 $0 $0 $6,400
$2,200 $3,800 $6,000 $6,700
$2,200 $34,100 $36,300 $2,444,686
$87,060
$1,949,500
$407,800
$2,444,360
Total Appropriations
$413,700
Net Income
Fund Balance October 1,2010 (Actual)
Current Year Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320
Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected)
Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012
Reserved for Capital Outlay
Irr. & Landscaping Analysis (Opening Balance 10/01/11)
Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers from Funds 109,320,778
Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward
Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Projects/ProgramsTransfer to Carryforward
$2,444,360
$404,500
$2,437,986
$410,874
Sub-total Reserved for Capital Outlay:
$0
Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2012 (Projected)
$0
19
-l
Ql
0-
m
~
Z
tl>
....
-
=
...
"'l
tl>
~
'"
tl>
o
tl>
...
"'l
tl>
~
'"
tl>
,-...
~
....
....
UI
N
=
=
'-'
,-...
~
N
~
~
~
=
=
'-'
,-...
~
(,H
Q\
~
Qo
=
=
'-'
,-...
~
Q\
-I
c...
=
=
'-'
~
=
,-...
~
UI
UI
.....
QO
=
'-'
~
=
,-...
""
N
.....
~
~
c...
Q\
=
'-'
,-...
~
N
~
(,H
....
~
~
-3
0-3
o
....
e:.
""i
c
=
0..
t;C
~
;-
=
...
tl>
V1
tl>
"0
r+-
(,H
P
N
=
....
N
,-...
""d
"'l
o
....
tl>
n
....
tl>
0..
'-'
~
....
~
....
111
(,H
-I
~
~
Q\
....
111
Q\
=
~
Q\
UI
(,H
b
~
-I
~
QO
-I
.....
~
~
~
=
~
....
UI
Qo
-I
-I
~
=
~
=
~
-I
UI
Q\
.....
....
QO
~
tr:I'"
..c tl>
'"Ij ~ '"Ij s. ~
- _, _. "0 tl>
~. ~ ~ :3 0..
e:..",e:..(1) 0'
(t> ><: = "'l
:::. (1) ~ l:l
o~.g~
g~~s:
(b ........ (tI -
... N:3 0
'"Ij;J>(1)c
~o..=""
::so..C-+-
~ a: ~
o
=
'"
><:
(1)
~
N
o
-
N
::;l
~
'"
tti'
...
'"
....
o
o
Pl
~~
0'0'
~ ~
~ ~
e:.o..
~ ~
(,H ~w
~ 0\ N
b w-:":'
N~~ON
U1000Ul
~~
UI \[)
UI W
~o
UI 0
= 0
"" ""
Ul \[)
O\N
0\';..-
"" 0 Ul
000
~""
~ \[)
~w
~'O
-10
U10
""
"" -
0\ N
N-I'>-
~Qo
"" 0 -I
o 0 Ul
~ ""
(,H "" N
= N-I
b v, v,
="""" 0 0
=0000
~""""""""
coooo
~""""""""
coooo
~""""""""
coooo
"" "" "" "" ""
coooo
~
.... ""
N \[)
~ w
~o
-10
UI 0
""
"" ..-
0\ Ul
Ul N
~w
"" 0 -I
00 Ul
V1
C
0'
~
o
....
e:.
~
....
UI
N
U.
.... ""
NO
~
~
C
UI
Qo
.... ""
CO
~
UI
UI
QO
c...
N ""
NO
~
UI
-I
.....
-I'>- ""
~O
~""
Co
""i
c
:;l:l=
tl> 0..
O~>-l >-l'" t;C
~~Pl Pl~~
::j (1) = = -<: ;-
(1) ~ '" '" tl>
g. (t> (t> 0.. ;;
~:O'~
.... 0 "'l i!::;
'2. 000-
@~la
O 0' ~ o'
.... ~ o'1;l
~ ~ ~ I
'"Ij 0.. ~
~ '"
= n
0.. e:.
'"
><:0'
(1) ...
~ >-0
...
f,:~
g:to
o. t:
= 0..
"'~
....
(1)
0..
>-0
a
(Jq
...
Pl
~
...
.2.
(1)
~
'"
"" ""
..- N
N -I
- -I'>-
V, '0
o ""_
o 0 N
"" ""
N 0\
- -
w \[)
'N a
o ""-
000
"" ""
w 00
vO \D
-I'>- W
-:..:. a
o "" N
o 0 N
""
"" ..-
0\ N
\D 0\
00 ~
o "" ~
o 0 ~
"" "" ""
000
~ "" ""
~ Vl j
00 ~ a
-1""00"" ""Ul
-1000 0-1
~""
Co
""
jV""
-1'>--1'>-
W 0
-I~
~v,
~ "" 00 0
COO\O
~
Q\
(,H
....
c...
~ "" 0\ ""
(,HO 0\ 0
"" "" ""
000
""
""jV
-1'>--1'>-
--I'>-
0-1'>-
'Oow
-...J 0\
~ 0
""
N
'-1'>-
\[)
W
-
""
"".w
~Ul
_ W
o Ul
'Oow
-...J 00
-I'>- W
-<
tl>
~
"'l
N
C
....
N
""i
c
=
0..
t;C
~
;-
=
n
tl>
V1
tl>
"0
....
tl>
3
0'
tl>
"'l
(,H
P
N
C
....
....
,-...
""d
"'l
o
....
tl>
n
....
tl>
0..
'-'
'"Ij>-lZ
~ ... (1)
= ~ ....
0..",5'
totti'o
Pl ... 0
~=t>:3
00(1)
(1) :3 =t>
0;::'-0
00:3
800
0' ~ "0
(1) (1) (1)
... ... ...
'"'"""'~a
N ~ o'
0= =
........~VJ
o
>
o
....
~
b
~ ""
(,H w "" ""
C -I'>-ooUl
Q\ OUlO
~ 00'000
(,H O\O-...J
-I 0 O-...J
~
-I
....
....
....
Q\
C
"" ""
-...J..- ""
\D -...J \[)
Ul~O
w'N'o
~ON
000
~
....
b
....
-I
Qo
~
-I
""
-""""
- N-
WUl-l'>-
~~~
OO\[)
00-....1
~
....
UI
~
.....
~
~
""
N """"
000 W
o .Y' .-....1
~O\O\
00-1'>-
00-1'>-
~ """"""
cooo
,-...
"" ""
~ ~"" N
-I -0\-....1
.... NUlO\
b -:..:. 0 0.-
UI oo~
-I OOW
'-'
~ """"""
cooo
"" ""
N :-' ""
..... \D -I'>- ""
~ -I'>- 0 00
~ \D -...J -...J
c... U, 00 a
Q\ 000\
cooo
~
(,H
~
QO
-I
~
UI
QO
""
W
~ ~
\D -
00 _
00 a
0"" -I'>-
OO~
1611 824
~
~
....
tl>
"'l
3:
IJCI
r+-
l:l
o
!3 ~
t;C=
tl> 0..
~ ....
C C
r+-~
V1
C
0'
~
o
....
e:.
o
"0
tl>
"'l
~
....
:i'
IJCI
"'I
c
=
c..
'"
V1
:t""i
tl> c
tl> =
....0..
-I
-I
QO
t'"
!ill'
=-
....
'"
V1""i
tl> C
n =
C 0..
"'l
~:::
C
l:l""i
;-c
3 [
t;C(,H
~ N
'< C
c:::
=
:j' "'I
'" c
c = ""d
~ c.. ::l
0.. ........
~~a
'" '"
tl>
~
l:l
~
'E.
....
e:.
"'I
c
=
""lc..
o c '"
.... =
=-c..
~ (,H
'" N
N
~i!::;
"0 ..-
~ ""l 0-3
~ c ~
~[e:.
= '"
f;tR:>
V1
c
3
3
~
"'l
'< ~
o '"
.......
:;ee:.
~ -<
tl> tl>
:;;! :;
~ N
'S
6;N
""i
c
=
0..
'"
"'d
~
-
...
~
~
=
C:l
~
'<
r:n
~
~
...
~
~
r.fJ
~
<'
...
r.fJ
...
o
=
~
o
-
-
....
('l)
..,
~
o
=
=
q
1611 B 24
Budget Notes 3/18/2011:
Increase - Personnel Services increased by $5,100 due to a $1,400 increase in H.1. per employee but was
offset by new hires in 2 positions that are at entry level.
Increase - Gas cost per county budget is a 50% increase over 2011.
Increase - IT charges increased by $4,200.00 allocated slightly different with more in ROW than in WM.
Increase - Bike Path cost of $6,000 for Oakmont Lake Bank.
Increase - Clam Bay reflects consultant services required for our current permit as reflected in the new
RFP (Turrell Hall contract).
Decrease - Bldg. Repairs and Maintenance, which is $1,700 per cost center reduced from the total of
$40,000, which used to be budgeted in capital for site repairs.
Decrease - Mulch Requirements cost decreased by $14,000 for use of alternative materials on US 41
Berm.
Offsetting - Tree Trimming Increase of $27,700 for contracting out sable palms and off set in temp.
labor ($14,400), equip rental ($3,000) and garbage hauling ($10,500 including cost in WM).
Changes and/or additions of account codes are: Landscape Incidentals code added which was offset
with funds from Other Operating Supplies. Landscape Materials code was added formerly Flood Control
Replanting Program. Road and Bike Path Repairs and Maintenance code was added. Bldg. Maintenance
and Repairs code was added. Mulch Requirement was added and this expense was previously budgeted
in Landscape Materials. White Goods description changed to Emergency Maintenance and Repairs.
Photo Processing added and the funding came from Other Contractual Services in Clam Bay.
Transferred funds from Funds 109 and 778 to Fund 322 (Capital) to adjust the Reserves for Operations in
Funds 109 and 778 to 2 Y2 months as directed by the Budget Committee in previous years' budgets.
In Fund 322 we added the previously discussed Traffic Sign age and Lake Bank Restoration funding and
adjusted the Hardscape funding to keep the overall assessment rate the same.
We are still waiting for Indirect Cost figures and Maintenance Site Insurance and Fees from the county.
..-I
..-I
o
N
'-
I"-
..-I
'-
CV')
~
o
.-t
r.::
......
C
<Ll
'-
'-
:J
U
.....
o
~
o
an
\0
VlN
lo1ft-
<Ll
>-
Lt'l /tl
L.. ~
<Ll a.
> /tl
o U
VI 0
3: ......
o '-
u::: t:
o
~ U('I')
(jllg~
E-oo
/tl '.....
:J~O('l')
6 g- ~ 1ft-
rtiU-b'}-1I
-6 0 .~ cu
<(......lfl'la
c.t;co~
o c VI ....
Z 0 <Ll c
o...uEcu
UI-4 - ~ t:
"oVl...
"1:lVl'"
<(<(U
~~~
000
\0 0 0
o CV') CV')
,.......
......
VI VI
VI..c <Ll
-5~::!:!
E "1:l&.a.~
..-I <Ll >- Lt'l
2 '50...-,-,
..... ~ "1:l <.9 'E :g
e. ~ 1! OJ ~ .!!!
uo...uo...<Ll"1:l
Ul......_<Ll
1D ~ E
e::: .- co
Ulco
0...
ii:
~~~~~~cf.~cF-"ift.cf.cf.
,-00000000000
t:ooooooooooo
OCV')CV')CV')CV')CV')CV')CV')CV')CV')CV')CV')
U
6::!:!::!:!::!:!::!:!::!:!::!:!
:z:;OOOOOO
~gggggg
CCV')CV')CV')CV')CV')CV')
.....
cf.~
00
00
CV') CV')
cf!.cf!.cf.
000
000
CV') CV') CV')
1611824
VI
<Ll
U
..c
<Ll
>
......
C
<Ll
E
<Ll
U
/tl
a.
<Ll
e:::
o
o
o
N
o
..-I
-b'}-
+
,.......
~
>-
CV')
......
X
<Ll
C
'-
<Ll
>
o
'-'
VI
C
o
:0:;
/tl
>
o
C
<Ll
e:::
c
.21
Ul
o
o
o
0'
Lt'l
..-I
-b'}-
+
VI
~
C
/tl
co
<Ll
~
/tl
...J
o
o
o
Lt'l'
CC
-b'}-
II
N
..-I
o
N
"1:l
..!!!
:J
"1:l
<Ll
..c
u
Ul
...... c ii:
VI 0 C
<Ll ..... '-1..-1 N CV') V Lt'l \0 I"- CC Ol 0 ..-I
'- :0:; '- /tl..-l ..-I ..-I ..-I ..-I ..-I ..-I ..-I ..-I N N
<Ll /tl ...... <Llo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
......;:;:: c >-N N N N N N N N N N N 0
C C 0
..... ..... U ....
::.::
......
~cf!.cf!.cf!.cf!.cf!.cf!.cf!.cf!.cf!.cf!.cf!.
'-00000000000
2\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0
cooooooooooo
.....
<LlOCC\OCCOlCCONNNr'.
uLt'l\OOlOONOlLt'lCCLt'lV
CLt'lV CV')CC OOl\OLt'l 1"-\0 V
.!!! N' ..0 CV')' \0' 0' ..-I' N' N' ..-I' 0' Ol'
~~~~~~~~~g;~[ri
>- ..-1'..-1'..-1'..-1' -b'}- -b'}- ..-I' ..-I' ..-I' N' N'
O-b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}- -b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}-
W
........-IVO\OLt'l\ON..-II"-Ol..-l
VlLt'lCV')..-IOl\oOlNOCV')NCC
<LlCV')OLt'lLt'lLt'l\OI"-CCOl..-lCV')
Qj C"'\J'" 0'\.... a:3" r"-..... u1 v.... \D'" 00'" 0'" M.... lJ1'"
t:..-I-b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}-..-I..-I..-I
.....-b'}- -b'}--b'}--b'}-
,-OLt'l..-lOlLt'lCV')O..-lCV')..-IV
......-b'}-CCvI"-ONv\oOlv..-l
C CCOl..-l\ONOONI"-V
o """""
U ..-Il"-vOI"-V..-lCCLt'lCV')
00..-1 N NCV')v V Lt'l\O
NNNNNNNNNN
-b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}-
=-
"1:l
"1:l
<(
'-
t:ooooooooooo
oggggggggggg
U 00'00'00'00000
.~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VI..-I..-I..-I..-I..-I..-I..-I..-I..-I..-I..-I
~-b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}-
,..-IOCV')VCCOOOOOO
XOON\O\O-b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}-
W ~0,~CV'l..~
-OlI"-OlCCN
/tlNCV')\OI"-Lt'l
~VNLt'lCV')Ol
..-I' -b'}- -b'}- -b'}- -b'}-
(j-b'}-
<Ll
~g~~~~Qlcc~~~~
/tl o,~ v,CV'l..cc,g ~ \O,~I"-,\O,
rtiON\OCV')\O "NN..-IO
COOlI"-VOlCV')O:;tCX)CV')Ol\o
>- ~ CV'l.. v, ..-I, ..-I, U; CC ..-I, ~ ~ N...
ON..-I..-I..-I..-I1ft--b'}-..-I..-I..-IN
co-b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}- -b'}--b'}--b'}--b'}-
.......
.......
o
N
......
f'.
.......
......
(V')
~
o
In
In
......
C
Q)
l....
l....
:J
U
......
C_
Q) CO
U~
l.... a.
Q) CO
CLU
o
......
t"\I l....
Q\......
t"\I C
Ulo8
ffi 0 0
~ z
Ul
Lll Q)
....... U
l.... :J
Q) "'Cl
> e
o II CL
~.......Q)
o 2 ~
u:co=
.c ~ E
Ul 01.......
CO CO (V')
U=Lll
EEC!
:J.............
.2yg~
~ .6. t:
"'Cl co :J
<(uu
CL.8~
o l.... E
...... :J
C Ul
o Ul
U<(
(f.~'#.
000
\000
o (V') (V')
......Ci:i=
Ul 0 C
QJ .- .......
l.... ...... l....
Q)CO......
......i:i=C
C C 0
>-<>-<u
E
Q)
......
>-<
Ul
Q)
l....
:J
......
><
u::
......
.c
01
::J
Ul
"'Cl
>
co
Ul
Q)
o
CL
~
Ul
Q)
o
CL
Ul
"'Cl
>
co
CL
o
......
.c
01
::J
co
......
C
Q)
"'Cl
.Vi
Q)
cr:
-.::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
l....000000000000000000000
~C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!
o (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V')
U
6~~
._ 0 0
......00
.!!!oo
..... . .
C(V')(V')
>-<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~####
0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V') (V')
......
~~
l....0
Q)\O
...... .
Co
>-<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
00000000000000000
\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
00000000000000000
"##cJ2
000
\0\0\0
000
Q)o.......mN(V').......NLllm.......OOOVNf'.LllooNmNf'.
U~.......Lll.......v(V')\Oo.......(V')mm.......\Of'.(V')mLllLllmN
C OvLll(V').......O(V')ooO(V')(V')f'.Lll.......\OvoomOLll
.!!! ~~~~~~OO~OOMM~~OO~~O~O
~ Lllo\O(V').......mmOOOO..............Nv\Om(V')oovooo
~ .......(V')v\OoomNv\O~Nv\OooLllooO(V')\Ooo
~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
o ~~~~
UJ
......O.......ONooOoovvf'.\oNO(V')(V')f'.N..............Lllv
Ul~Llloov(V')f'.(V')..............\OLllf'.N.......Lll(V')\O(V')LllNLll
~ f'.\O\O\O\Of'.Nf'.oovo(V')\Omoof'.Nf'.(V')m
Q) ~~NM~~~NMN~NM~~~~~~O
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......
>-< ~
l....oooo.......(V')m(V')OO.......LllLllf'.LllLllNNO(V')f'.ooN
~~\O\O.......m.......m.......ovLll(V')m(V')\OoooNLllOoo
o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U ovmvmvmvo\O.......f'.vOf'.v.......ooLll(V')
LllLllLll\O\Of'.f'.oommOO.......NN(V')vvLll\o
......................................................................NNNNNNNNNN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=-
"'Cl
"'Cl
<(
l....
......
C
o
Uooooooooooooooooooooo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ul
co
r:a
OOOOOOOOOO(V')OOOO.......OOOOO
i~~~~~~~m~~Lll~~~~\O~~~~~
w ~ ~ ~
- \0 00 0
co f'. \0 0
~ 00 00 Lll
~ ~ ~
co
U
Q)oo.......mN(V').......NLllm.......OOOVNf'.LllooNmN
u~~.......Lll.......v(V')\OO.......(V')Q\m.......\Of'.(V')mLllLllm
C OVLll(V').......O(V')OOOM(V')f'.Lll.......\Ovoomo
.!!! ~~~~~~OO~OOMM~~OO~~O~
co Lllo\O(V').......mmOOOO~.......Nv\Om(V')oovo
r:a .......(V')V\OoomNv\O~Nv\OooLllooO(V')\O
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o ~~~
r:a
l....1.......N(V')vLll\Of'.oomO.......N(V')vLll\Of'.oomo.......
CO...............................................................NNNNNNNNNN(V')(V')
~000000000000000000000
~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
o
...,
~
1611 8 24
..-I
..-I
o
N
........
I'
..-I
........
('f)
~
o
In
M
'1"'4
.....
C
<1J
'-
'-
::J
U
.....
o
cf.
o
o
UlO
'-In
~*
>-
If)
III
~
'- a.
<1J III
~ U
Ul .8
3: '-
o .....
u:: :5
.r=. UM
Ul 0\0
III O'
U 00
E III ~....
~OM
::J 0.0 *
'-Ill..-l
.2U-\:IT1I
~ 0 .~ QI
'O.....Ul...
<(,-Illlll
C.....COCl::
oCUl...
Z 0 <1J C
U E QI
0-- ...
.....u::J...
u'O~::a
<(<(u
(f.?f2.(f.
000
1.000
o('f) ('f)
-I-Icii::
lD .Q .5
:utCb
.....lj::c
C C 0
..........U
,......
.....
Ul Ul lD
.r=..r=.
.....-:o~
CO 0
E '0 0- a. 0
..-I <1J >- If)
<1J "30--........
~ ~ '0 19 'E ~
e. ~ ~ [0 ~ .!!!
UO-uO-<1J'O
1Il....._<1J
lD ~ E
IX .- CO
lIlco
0-
lj::
5~
,-0
.....0
C .
O('f)
U
cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.
0000000000
0000000000
. . . . . . . . . .
('f)('f)('f)('f)('f)('f) ('f)('f)('f)('f)
:5~~~~~~~~~~~
._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~OOOOOOOOOOO
ci::C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!C!
C('f)('f)('f)('f)('f)('f)('f)('f)('f)('f)('f)
.....
.....
lDcf.
'-0
<1J1.O
..... .
Co
.....
cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.cf.
0000000000
1.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.0
. . . . . . . . . .
0000000000
<1JO('f)'<tlf)Nlf)I''<tlf)'<t..-l
Ulf)(J)N..-IOOI.OO(J)N..-I(J)
Clf)('f)I'N('f)('f)lf)NNOOlf)
~ N~ v.) (J)~ I.O~ (J)~ OO~ ('f)~ If)~ '<t~ 0 If)~
~I'Nlf)(J)I.OOI.O('f)N('f)lf)
LU('f)I.Olf)I.ONOO('f)(J)lf)..-I1'
>- ..-I~ ..-I~ ..-I~ ..-I~ ..-I~ ..-I~ N~ N~ M '<t~ '<t~
O-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT
UJ
.......-1 (J)..-I '<t 0000lf) '<t 000
lDlf)N..-I'<tOI.Olf)lf)lf)lf)1'
,-('f)(J)lf)I'(J)Nlf)(J)'<tOI'
2 N~ (J)~ 0 o~ a\ o~ ('f)~ v.) o~ '<t~ I'~
c..-I-\:IT..-I..-I-\:IT..-I..-I..-INNN
.....-\:IT -\:IT-\:IT -\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT
bOlf)NNI.O('f)'<tNI'..-I1'
c-\:IT..-I'<t..-l('f)NOO('f)I'('f)O
o (J)('f)..-INI'lf)OO'<tlf)O
U o~ N~ '<t~ I.O~ oo~ ..-I~ '<t~ oo~ N~ I'~
:- OO(J)O..-lN'<tlf)I.000(J)
'0 ('f)('f)'<t'<t'<t'<t'<t'<t'<t'<t
'0 -\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT
<(
'-
1::ggggggggggg
8 C!. o~ o~ C!. o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ C!. o~
.~ g g g g g g g g g g g
Ul..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l
~-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT
~..-I0('f)'<t00000000
XOONI.OI.O-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT
UJOOOlf)('f)(J)
iU a\ I'~ (J)~ oo~ N~
.....N('f)I.OI'lf)
.- '<t N If) ('f) (J)
III ..-I~ -\:IT -\:IT -\:IT -\:IT
U-\:IT
~ 0 0 ('f) '<t If) Mea If) I' '<t If) '<t
cOlf)(J)N..-I I.OO(J)N..-I
1ll0lf)('f)I'NM('f)lf)NNOO
- .... .... ... .... ... .... ... ... ... .... ...
III 0 N 1.O(J)1.00\00('f)lf) '<to
CO(J)I'Nlf)(J)\Ool.O('f)N('f)
>- I.O~ CV'l... I.O~ Ln... I.O~ M OO~ CV'l... ~ Ln... ..-I~
ON..-I..-I..-I..-I..i'..-INN('f)'<t
co-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT*-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT-\:IT
'-1..-1 N ('f) '<t If) 1.0 I' 00 (J) 0 ..-I
1ll..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l..-l..-lNN
>-<1J00000000000
NNNNNNNNNNN
1611 B 24
Ul
<1J
U
.r=.
<1J
>
.....
C
<1J
E
<1J
U
III
a.
<1J
IX
o
o
o
N~
o
..-I
-\:IT
+
,......
Ul
'-
>-
('f)
'-
<1J
>
o
........
Ul
C
o
:i:i
III
>
o
C
<1J
IX
c
01
1Il
o
o
o
00
If).....
;1~
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Col8lt~
1611 8 24
v
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on
Wednesday, January 5, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,
Naples. The following members were present:
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman
John P. Chandler
Tom Cravens
Johan Domenie
Geoffrey S. Gibson
John Iaizzo
Michael Levy
Theodore Raia, Jr.
John Baron
Hunter H. Hansen excused absence
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill
Kyle Lukasz
Mary McCaughtry
Lisa Resnick
Also Present:
Jim Burke, Member, Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association
Marcia Cravens, Vice-President, Mangrove Action Group
Stephen Feldhaus, Secretary, Pelican Bay Foundation & Co-Chair, Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee
Douglas Finlay, Member, Naples City Council, City of Naples
Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates
Georgia A. Hiller, Esq., Collier County Commissioner, District 2
James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation
Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group
Kathy Worley, Co-Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
REVISED AGENDA
Roll Call
Agenda Approval
Audience Comments Regarding Resolution to Affirm Operating and Reporting Authority for Clam Bay
Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update
Remarks by Commissioner Georgia A. Hiller
Approval of Meeting Minutes
a. December 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
b. December 6,2010 Landscape Subcommittee
Audience Participation
Administrator's Report
a. Monthly Financial Report
b. Status of Permit for Clam Bay Maintenance
c. Status ofRFP for Environmental Services
d. U.S. 41 and Pelican Bay Boulevard North Crosswalk Update (K. Lukasz)
Chairman's Report
a. Update on Community Improvement Plan
b. Status of Canoe Trail Markers (J. Domenie)
c. Announcements
10. Community Issues
11. Committee Reports and/or Requests
a. Budget Committee
b. Landscape Committee
12. Old Business
13. New Business
14. Miscellaneous Correspondence
a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet
15. Audience Comments
16. Adjournment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
MISC. Corres:
Date:
Item#:
8421
C -:11'35 to:
1611824
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
ROLL CALL
All members were present with the exception of Mr. Hansen, excused.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS REGARDING ITEM 5D - DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM
OPERATING & REPORTING AUTHORITY FOR CLAM BAY
Chairman Dallas allowed audience comments regarding item 5d, "Discussion of Resolution to Affirm
Operating and Reporting Authority for Clam Bay."
Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) submitted a statement. "At the present time, the
PBSD's authority includes the maintenance of the conservation and preserve areas in Pelican Bay and the PBSD
remains actively involved in a variety of activities to that end. The Mangrove Action Group Board supports and
endorses this involvement. However, we have concluded that the time is not right to revisit the PBSD's authority in
the wide-ranging manner implied by the proposed resolution. We feel it could have unintended consequences. We
respectfully request that the PBSD Board withdraw this resolution from further consideration."
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to withdraw item 5d from the agenda.
Mr. Gibson agreed that the timing is not right and asked if withdrawing meant they could never reconsider.
Mr. Cravens said they could always reconsider.
Dr. Raia did not think the timing was wrong, but that they should amend the language then reconsider.
Ms. Marcia Cravens, resident of Pelican Bay, said the resolution went beyond the scope of the discussion
held at the December I meeting. She respectfully requested that the Board completely withdraw the item.
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to withdraw item 5d, "Discussion of Resolution
to Affirm Operating and Reporting Authority for Clam Bay," from the agenda. The Board voted
unanimously in favor of the motion and item 5d withdrawn.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Chairman Dallas moved item 6b, "Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update" and a presentation
made by Stephen Feldhaus, Secretary of the Pelican Bay Foundation and Co-Chair of the Foundation's Ad Hoc
Clam Bay Committee to be the first item heard. He added, "Remarks by Commissioner Georgia A. Hiller" to follow
immediately thereafter.
FOUNDATION AD HOC CLAM BAY COMMITTEE UPDATE
Mr. Stephen Feldhaus reported as Co-Chair of the Pelican Bay Foundation's Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee
and Foundation Secretary that the Foundation and Collier County are in the process of negotiating an agreement to
manage Clam Bay mutually. The Pelican Bay Services Division historically managed Clam Bay. It was not until a
dispute between the Services Division and the County over several issues, including red and green navigational
markers, resulting in the County taking away Clam Bay responsibility from ,the Services Division, that the
Foundation became involved. June 30, 2010, Mr. Feldhaus, and Mr. Hoppensteadt met with Collier County Coastal
Zone Management Director, Mr. Gary McAlpin, and Public Services Administrator, Ms. Marla Ramsey to see if
they could work out an agreement in principle on how to manage Clam Bay going forward that would be consistent
with the Foundation's protective covenants and restrictions governing documents. The meeting took place at the
urging of many people from the County and City of Naples. They reached a preliminary agreement that the County
8422
1611
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
and the Foundation would each have an equal say on how they would manage Clam Bay and in the event of a
dispute, that dispute would be resolved by arbitration.
Since June, Mr. Feldhaus, and Mr. Hoppensteadt have met regularly with County staff and technical
experts hired by both sides. The Foundation hired its own non-local environmental consultants and coastal
engineers, Larry R. Olsen, Douglas J. Durbin, and Daniel P. Hamm. The Foundation did not hire local experts
because the County told local experts that there was a conflict of interest if they worked for both the County and the
Foundation.
The Foundation and County have had an open and favorable working relationship, however to date, no
binding decisions made. Mr. Feldhaus stressed the importance of community feedback and for the larger
community to be onboard. He informed Ms. Johnson and Ms. Worley that they have until the end of January to
provide their feedback, then the Foundation can respond based on their input.
Mr. Feldhaus composed a "first draft negotiating discussion document" and submitted it to the County,
however, he expressed that he did not want to share it with the community before receiving the County's reaction to
ensure they are "in the same ballpark." He believes the document will provide a mechanism that he described as
"baseball arbitration" to resolve the problems that have developed with respect to Clam Bay, i.e., if the County and
Foundation do not agree on the dredging cut, then they would employ "baseball arbitration" to resolve. This type of
arbitration encourages the parties to come to reasonable conditions. Each party would submit a resolution and the
arbitrator picks the more reasonable one.
Mr. Feldhaus said that Mr. McAlpin was going to bring an issue to the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAe)
on January 13 regarding the red and green markers and the cost of a required study to move forward. He believes
that the County "will see us in court" before the red and green markers are ever installed. He said that the red and
green markers issue is not a part ofthe current proposal, but is cautiously optimistic that by the end of February they
could have the red and green markers issue "behind us" and agreement on the table that the community can evaluate.
Nothing is final now, nor will it be final until there is community input, County input and a mutual agreement made
on how to deal with the issues. He acknowledged Commissioner Hiller, Commissioner Fred Coyle, and Mr. Leo
Ochs, and thanked them for their assistance. He offered to answer questions.
Dr. Raia said his main concern is the red and green markers and asked if the County is applying to install
red and green markers "on their own," or if the County is stating that the permit is requiring the red and green
markers.
Mr. Feldhaus responded that with respect to the red and green markers issue that they allow it to play itself
out as an internal County process. He offered to discuss privately. He added that Mr. McAlpin has stated in the past
that the 1998 Clam Bay Management Plan required installing red and green markers. He suggested that Dr. Raia
attend the CAC meeting on January 13 to hear how Mr. McAlpin presents the issue.
Dr. Raia responded that this is the fundamental reason for mistrust. The County stated first that the Army
Corp. of Engineers (ACOE) required the red and green markers. Dr. Raia however, has a letter from the ACOE that
they do not require red and green markers. He believes that by not addressing the issue it is misrepresenting.
Mr. Feldhaus disagreed that the issue is suspended. He said that he has made it very clear to the County
that the Foundation would not proceed with a written agreement until the red and green marker issue is resolved. He
stated that with the help of Commissioner Hiller and things already underway at the County that they will be able to
8423
B
?"'l\ ~
r~4
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5,2011
161 1
824
convince "Mr. Burke and others" that the solution of not installing red and green markers is in the best interest of the
County and the Pelican Bay community.
Dr. Raia asked if the agreement would address the purpose of dredging.
Mr. Feldhaus said the agreement's intention is to indicate that the purpose of dredging is for the health of
the mangroves solely. There would be no other purpose. The right to dredge would be triggered, but the decision to
dredge would require the joint approval of the Foundation and the County at that point and would hinge upon
whether dredging is required for the health of the mangroves.
Dr. Raia referred to past meeting minutes where a Seagate resident referred to the Services Division
damaging the environment and Seagate's property values and denied them from being involved in a process that
affected their community. He asked what entity is responsible for the small body of water south of the County line
in the City of Naples.
Mr. Feldhaus said that because part of Clam Bay is in the City of Naples, that the City and Seagate
community need to be involved in the process.
Dr. Raia said that there must be a solution other than dredging that can keep the water moving and flushing
the system.
Mr. Feldhaus said dredging to increase the flow may not be the solution, but the good news about the
agreement they are developing is that whatever the scientific solution is will be incorporated into the agreement and
the issues will not be debated from a political perspective.
Dr. Raia referred to an email between Mr. Feldhaus and Ms. Susan Boland, President of the Pelican Bay
Property Owners Association regarding the Property Owners Association's support for Mr. Feldhaus' action and Mr.
Feldhaus' response that they have the continued support of Commissioner Hiller. With the Commissioner's support,
Dr. Raia said he was satisfied. With that announcement came applause.
Mr. Iaizzo asked if the County had approval to install red and green markers and Mr. Feldhaus said no.
Mr. Chandler asked when a draft agreement would be available for review.
Mr. Feldhaus said he intends to have an agreement available for review as early as February.
Mr. Levy said that the Foundation is in a position where they could block installation of red and green
markers. Ifthere were disagreements after an agreement is in place, an arbitrator would be making that decision.
Mr. Feldhaus said generally, yes, but as a matter of law, the regulatory agencies still have their jurisdiction.
Mr. Domenie referred to a meeting one year ago between the County and other Clam Bay stakeholders.
The Foundation guaranteed water depth toward Seagate and asked if they addressed this in the agreement.
Mr. Feldhaus said he would recommend that the Foundation support Seagate's legitimate right to guarantee
the depth of water to prevent shoaling.
Dr. Raia argued granting a depth of water guarantee would permit dredging for navigation.
Mr. Feldhaus disagreed and said Seagate has historic ingress and egress rights. In such a scenario, Seagate
would obtain their own dredging permit and pay for it; the Foundation would use their deed restriction powers to
support it. There are no plans to dredge the ebb shoal.
Dr. Raia described a scenario where the ebb shoal is obstructing navigation to Seagate. He pointed out that
historically, Clam Pass has closed and then opened up again, but it is not their responsibility to maintain a navigation
channel. He supports Seagate's historical rights, but objects to increasing them at the expense of other users' rights.
8424
161 1
824
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5,2011
Mr. Feldhaus said there would be an appropriate forum before the Foundation Board, which is the only
body that has the authority to enter into such an agreement and raise such questions.
Ms. Martha Dykman, Seagate resident, said their main concern is dredging for the health of the system. The
last permit maintained a four-foot deep, forty-foot wide channel that allowed for flushing of the system. It is not
about boating. They want a safe and healthy estuary for swimmers and boaters and urged the community to work
together to resolve.
Mr. Iaizzo asked Ms. Dykman if she wanted red and green markers installed.
Ms. Dykman responded that the problem is that the Services Division publicized that the system is not
navigable even though Seagate boaters have been using the Pass since 1957 and have the historical right to useit.
"You have created a problem for us, and it is a safety problem."
Mr. Feldhaus agreed and said Seagate boaters have the right to enter the pass without endangering or being
endangered by swimmers. He clarified that what they have agreed on are that clear signs are needed on both sides of
the Pass, identifying swimmers and boaters of the presence of each other.
Ms. Womble said most swimmers in the Pass are tourists and most likely not residents of Pelican Bay.
Ms. Dykman said Seagate is not the enemy and hopes that Pelican Bay stops seeing them in that light.
Chairman Dallas asked ifthe condition of the Canoe Trail markers is part of the discussion.
Mr. Feldhaus said ifthey are able to get the red and green markers issue behind them, they should be able
to deal with the Canoe Trail markers and is cautiously optimistic that there will be a positive outcome.
Dr. Raia said the County is in violation of the permit due to deterioration of the Canoe Trail markers.
Mr. Feldhaus asked Dr. Raia again to let the process of the red and green markers play out.
REMARKS BY COMMISSIONER GEORGIA A. HILLER
Commissioner Hiller said she represents not only residents of District 2, but all County residents' interests.
She said she found out about the Foundation's agreement yesterday from Mr. Feldhaus and needs to study the
information before she can form an opinion on it. She spoke with County staff regarding their involvement and the
response was that they are working well with the Foundation on addressing the technical issues. The negotiations are
just beginning, not concluding. Everyone is invited to come to the table. She urged Mr. Burke, Mr. Doug Finlay,
Ms. Dykman, and Services Division Board members to meet with her for further discussion of individual concerns.
She introduced her aide, Ms. Jennifer Rainey and said to contact Ms. Rainey to schedule appointments at the Orange
Blossom Government Center by phone at 239-252-8602 or by email atjenniferrainey@colliergov.net.
Commissioner Hiller reported that she held discussions with County staff whether the purpose of dredging
being proposed was for navigation and the answer she received was no. She asked County staff if the red and green
markers were required for navigational purposes and the answer she received was no. She believes that they need
informational markers that clearly define where swimmers and boaters should be and seeks such a solution.
Regarding the water quality issue, she said that Moorings and Clam Bay are two separate ecosystems. There is no
pollution problem in either water body. Seagate has flushing problems. It is an older community and designed in a
manner where adequate flushing was not provided. The flushing problems were not caused by development on
either side of the community. They want to ensure that any dredging of the Clam Bay system done is to protect
water quality and adequately flush the system, allowing the mangroves to survive. They want to preserve the beauty
of the Natural Resource Protection Act (NRPA) area as it exists today, preserve the quality ofthe water, and dredge
8425
1611 B 24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
to the extent necessary to promote flushing, not for navigational purposes. Whether or not the County agreed or did
not agree to do something in the past is irrelevant. She is concerned about coming to a resolution ofthis matter that
brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people, now and into the future.
Ms. Marcia Cravens agreed and said the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the conceptual
framework for conservation. The primary designated use is for conservation of habitat and preservation of
waterways in their natural condition. The secondary use is for compatible passive recreation. Incidental use is for
powerboat use.
Mr. Rick Dykman, Seagate resident suggested that they include the Seagate community in future
stakeholder discussions about Clam Bay.
Commissioner Hiller agreed and said that all stakeholders should be represented with the intent of coming
to a consensus. This means that they do not have to agree for the same intentions, but that they agree upon the
conclusion that serves the common good. She is going to do what she can to promote that.
Chairman Dallas agreed and thanked Commissioner Hiller, Mr. Feldhaus and other speakers. He added
that he hopes they can keep up the good attitude.
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 1. 2010 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Chandler amended page 8414 to read, ".. .$500 million..."
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to approve the December 1, 2010 Pelican Bay
Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously
in favor of the motion.
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 6. 2010 LANDSCAPE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to approve the December 6, 2010 Landscape
Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board meeting minutes as presented. The Board
voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Mr. Joe Doyle, Laurel Oaks resident, recalled that he attended a Services Division Board meeting in
October to discuss the non-ad valorem assessment. This Board administers both non-ad valorem and ad valorem
funds, so there is precedence for an ad valorem tax.
Mr. Dorrill clarified Mr. Doyle's statement. The question was how they might convert from a uniform rate
of assessment for all services to an ad valorem tax rate for services. Currently street lighting services are on a
millage based ad valorem rate tax. All other services are a non-ad valorem flat rate assessment.
Mr. Doyle suggested that the Budget Committee consider both types of ad valorem taxes and non-ad
valorem assessment for projects and make recommendations to the full Board. He added that he would have some
project priorities for the Budget Committee on January 12.
Mr. Dorrill said this Board's current authorized approach is to use cash that has accumulated over time for
capital improvements, but they have decisions to make regarding the unfunded portion. Mr. Doyle's suggestion is
appropriate for the Budget Committee as they take early action on the Fiscal Year 2012 budget.
8426
16 j 1
~4
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
Ms. Kathy Worley expressed concern regarding closed-door meetings between the Foundation and the
County because it has excluded many stakeholders. She met with Mr. Feldhaus once, but he is not a scientist and
cannot answer her scientific questions. Without seeing data, she does not know how the scientists arrived at their
conclusions. She hopes they can have a more open discussion in the future. Dr. Raia suggested that the Foundation
avail the services of Ms. Worley for her extensive knowledge of Clam Bay.
Ms. Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) submitted a statement that MAG "does not
support an expansion of the scope of work for the PBSD's environmental monitoring contract, which was originally
intended as a simple continuation ofthe biological monitoring required to maintain the mangrove ecosystem."
Mr. Dorrill said that the stated purpose of the RFP process would result in one environmental consultant
having two separate annual contracts for two different intended purposes. One contract will deal with the biological
and environmental issues specifically for the Services Division in Clam Bay. The other separate contract will deal
with environmental issues on other unrelated land, i.e., Pepper Ranch. The County "takes a broad brush approach to
procurement." Rather than having many departments developing their own specifications, the County avails itselfto
a single provider to serve as many end users as possible.
Ms. Marcia Cravens said that she discussed the RFP with Clerk of Courts, Dwight Brock and Ms. Crystal
Kinzel, the Clerk's Finance Director. This RFP process is for a continuing contract for services. Because the
Services Division has very specific needs, they could request a fixed term contract.
Regarding the dredging permit application that Mr. Feldhaus is preparing, Ms. Cravens said that the dredge
cut is for 80 feet wide and 5.1 feet deep at low tide with a cross-section of 400 feet. The parameters are double what
the 1998 permit authorized and alleged that regulatory agencies could find this problematic.
Ms. Cravens alleged that contrary to her earlier statements, Ms. Dykman is on record at Naples City
Council meetings stating the Pelican Bay Services Division would not dredge Clam Bay for Seagate navigation.
She alleged that Ms. Dykman also made comments that motor boating in the Clam Bay system has not caused
problems to natural resources, however, Collier County records indicate that motor boating in Outer Clam Bay is the
cause of extensive prop dredge scarring.
ADMINISTRA TOR'S REPORT
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Mr. Dorrill reported that there was a transposition error and the monthly financial report would be revised
and reissued to reflect the complete month. The first page of the income statement should show a negative variance
because revenues were less than what were budgeted. $5.64 million is available in cash. The primary operating
account is approximately $120,000 under budget through the first quarter.
Mr. Chandler said regarding the income statement for Capital Projects Fund 322, the special assessment
year to date budget does not show the year-to-date actual.
Mr. Dorrill said that column would show funds that the Clerk receives from the Tax Collector and is likely
a quarterly posting, much like the way the County applies overhead charges. He would inquire with the Clerk's
Finance Director.
Mr. Chandler said that revenue was most likely received, just not posted and Mr. Dorrill said yes.
Mr. Levy made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens to accept the monthly financial report. The Board
voted unanimouslv in favor of the motion.
8427
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
STATUS OF PERMIT FOR CLAM BAY MAINTENANCE
16 J 1
tj 24
Mr. Dorrill reported the Services Division received notice from the Army Corp. of Engineers (ACOE)
stating their intent to authorize the permit to perform Clam Bay channel maintenance.
Mr. Levy asked ifthe work that needs to be done is budgeted for Fiscal Year 2011 and Mr. Dorrill said yes.
Mr. Dorrill said the standard conditions of the permit do not conflict with any historical work done. f,t
Mr. Hall said the only change involves water quality testing. Historically, they have done a simple spot
reading when they do the collection sampling. The new permit requires a quarterly diel study, which means they
must take one reading every four hours over a 24-hour period at least once every three months.
Mr. Cravens said specific conditions of the permit on page 5, number 9, address exotic and invasive
vegetation and reported a serious problem with Brazilian Pepper in the area located next to the Clam Pass Park
boardwalk and said that no efforts have been made to remove.
Mr. Lukasz reported they removed some Brazilian Pepper, but because Season was starting, not all of it.
Mr. Cravens said he did not notice removal of any Brazilian Pepper, and reported that there are at least
twenty Australian Pines on the beach from Clam Pass Park as you go north to the Ritz Carlton.
Mr. Hall said that some Brazilian Pepper removal is included in the permit conditions and project
description area, but Australian Pines removal is not because the Pines are located on the beach. To his knowledge,
the Coastal Zone Management department has applied for a grant to fund exotic removal along the beach.
Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division could address the Brazilian Pepper along the Clam Pass Park
boardwalk by spraying it in place, rather than removing it.
Mr. Hall said spraying in place is a better way because removal can cause more damage.
Mr. Cravens said one problem is the Conservancy leads nature walks along the Clam Pass Park boardwalk
and identifies exotic invasive vegetation in "our pristine mangrove forest and does not bode well for this
community."
Mr. Domenie asked who is responsible for exotic removal at Clam Pass Park.
Mr. Hall said that the County's Parks and Recreation department is responsible for the land that Clam Pass
Park is on, "but in some instances when things do get bad" the Services Division has cleaned up the area.
Mr. Dorrill directed Mr. Hall to get clarification from the FDEP regarding the Services Division's
responsibility for exotic removal and the precise location. Taken to an extreme, this particular condition could read
that the Services Division is responsible for exotic removal in the mangrove restoration area as they have been
historically, as well as the beach, which would be very costly.
Mr. Cravens asked Mr. Hall ifhe knew whether Coastal Zone Management's grant application requested
funding to remove exotics countywide or for a specific location and Mr. Hall would inquire and report back.
Mr. Hall clarified that page 7 of the permit refers to information regarding groundwater. Water quality
testing will include water in the water table, which may contain reclaimed water. They are not measuring quantity.
STATUS OF RFP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Mr. Dorrill said shortly after he became Administrator, Turrell, Hall & Associates' environmental
consulting contract expired. Last year, the Services Division was able to continue to use Turrell Hall's services
through a Humiston and Moore subcontract, however that contract is expired. The Services Division is now
working under an "emergency administrative authorization" or extension granted by the Purchasing Director until
8428
16' 1
8 24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
they complete the current RFP process. It is conceivable that this process offers two separate contracts to two
separate firms for different types of environmental services, i.e., Section A, one contract for a coastal environmental
consultant for Services Division work in Clam Bay; and Section B, one contract for another environmental firm for
other work, but the outcome is dependent upon completing the process. The County Manager designated a selection
committee of five individuals, three of which are Mr. Dorrill, Mr. Cravens, and Mr. Lukasz, to carry out the process
and they will report individual rankings to short list firms at their next meeting on January 21.
Mr. Cravens expressed that he is not happy with this RFP process. The County Manager appointed two
County staffers to the selection committee who are not involved with Pelican Bay making decisions affecting
Pelican Bay. When the Services Division Board hired Mr. Dorrill, they had a selection committee of three Services
Division Board members and the process worked. He made a motion to direct the administrator not to proceed with
the current RFP for a continuing contract for the Services Division, and subsequently, develop a separate RFP with a
selection committee comprised of only individuals with involvement in Pelican Bay.
Mr. Dorrill said Commissioner Hiller, on behalf ofthe Services Division made an inquiry to the County
Manager regarding the RFP and "for reasons that were not elaborated on, Mr. Ochs prefers to keep it the way it is
and for the moment, Commissioner Hiller is satisfied with that."
Mr. Cravens clarified a motion to direct the administrator not to proceed with the RFP process as it exists
for a continuing contract with the Services Division. Dr. Raia seconded the motion.
Mr. Dorrill said Mr. Cravens' motion puts him in a difficult situation because he and Mr. Lukasz work for
the County Manager and the County Manager appointed both to the selection committee. The other dilemma is
whether Turrell, Hall & Associates can continue to work without a contract. He suggested a more appropriate
motion would be to request to the County Manager that he make a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners to reject all the current RFP responses and start anew, establish the Services Division's specific
parameters by narrowing the scope targeted to coastal environmental consulting firms only for only Section A.
The Board acknowledged that the selection committee vote is by simple majority.
Mr. Cravens withdrew his motion, and Dr. Raia who had seconded the motion, accepted.
Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens that the Board request that the County Manager
support an action to reject all current RFP responses and start anew with a specific, standalone RFP targeted to
coastal environmental consulting firms only.
Ms. Cravens said the reason this is a "big boondoggle" is that this is proceeding under a countywide
continuing contract policy, which is meant for generic needs. The new permit defines specific needs and the
Services Division could proceed with a RFP for a fixed-term contract.
Mr. Dorrill said did not fully agree with Ms. Cravens. Mr. Hall does perform general consulting services
for this Board, including attending Services Division's meetings to answer questions and that is one advantage of a
continuing services contract.
Mr. Hoppensteadt agreed and although he understands this Board's frustration with the process, he
suggested that they reconsider forestalling it.
Mr. Dorrill said if this Board is not satisfied with the short list, they would have an opportunity to
reconsider Mr. Chandler's motion at the February 2 meeting.
Mr. Chandler withdrew his motion and Mr. Cravens, who had seconded the motion, accepted.
8429
1611
B24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
A short recess was taken and the meeting reconvened.
u.s. 41 AND PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD NORTH CROSSWALK UPDATE (K. LUKASZ)
The State is preparing to make some improvements to U.S. 41 and Pelican Bay Boulevard, which include a
new pedestrian crosswalk at that intersection across Pelican Bay Boulevard. The state is willing to do the work, but
not willing to pay to upgrade the materials. Staffis developing ajoint participation agreement with the Foundation
that authorizes payment for material upgrades, Le., brick pavers, so that this crosswalk will match all others to be
built within the community as part of the Community Improvement Plan. When available, he will bring the
agreement with cost back to the Board for approval.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
UPDATE ON COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Mr. DorriII reported that staff selected a local civil engineering firm, Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage (ASB) to
develop a preliminary proposal for design plans and specifications for construction of pedestrian crosswalks and
median improvements proposed in the Community Improvement Plan. For uniformity, the proposal would also be
used for Foundation projects and the cost prorated accordingly. They did not choose Wilson Miller (WM) to
develop a proposal because WM's project hour estimate was approximately 20% higher than ABB's.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said the Foundation has done extensive work with ABB and estimates were reliable.
Chairman Dallas is hopeful that this Board can discuss crosswalk project parameters at the February 2
Services Division meeting and Mr. Dorrill said he would provide an update under February 2 Miscellaneous
Correspondence.
STATUS OF CANOE TRAIL MARKERS
Mr. Domenie reported that he planned to present the Canoe Trail markers material he submitted for this
meeting to the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAe) on January 13 however, Mr. Feldhaus requested that he abstain
pending the outcome of the CAC's discussion of red and green navigational markers. Mr. Domenie agreed to
comply with Mr. Feldhaus' request.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Dallas announced the deadline to apply to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board is January
II. The Budget Subcommittee plans discussion of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) on January 12 at 3 p.m.
The Coastal Advisory Committee meets January 13 at I p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners' Chambers.
On January 18, a presentation will be made regarding landscaping best management practices at the Men's Coffee at
9 a.m. and a CIP Town Hall at I p.m. A CIP presentation will be made at the Men's Coffee on January 25. The
Foundation Board meets January 28 at 8:30 a.m. The next Services Division Board meeting is February 2 at I p.m.
Ms. Cravens announced a Watershed Management Informational Workshop on January 20 at 2 p.m. at the
Community Center.
COMMUNITY ISSUES
Mr. Cravens said recently there were reports of some burglaries in Pelican Bay, however it was only rumor.
COMMITIEE REPORTS AND/OR REOUESTS
BUDGET COMMITTEE
Mr. Levy said the Budget Committee is holding a Fiscal Year 2012 "kick-off' meeting January 12 at 3 p.m.
8430
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
161182~
Chairman Dallas said he is not attending and provided Mr. Dorrill with some ideas to present on how to
approach the budget process.
Mr. Dorrill referred to Mr. Doyle's comments made today suggesting that higher valued commercial and
residential property assessed a disproportionately higher share for the services they receive. This is a policy decision
that has enormous implications.
Mr. Levy said street lighting services are based on millage, but all other services are based on non-ad
valorem assessment.
Mr. Dorrill said he is proceeding based on the historical revenue raising mechanism unless directed
otherwise, emphasizing that it is through the non-ad valorem assessment the Services Division receives funding
from non-profit and government entities that are millage or ad valorem tax exempt.
LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
Mr. Lukasz made a presentation, displaying photographs of recent littoral, or plants that absorb nutrients,
planted in Pelican Bay lakes.
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy that the Board formally adopt Best Management Practices
(BMP) in its own landscaping and encourage employees and residents of Pelican Bay to do likewise.
Ms. Womble said she liked the idea, but wanted to know what the budgetary implications were.
Mr. Cravens said adopting BMP should reduce expenses for fertilizer and watering requirements.
Mr. Dorrill said staff supports Mr. Cravens' motion. The overall intent of implementing BMP is focused
on promoting water quality and conserving water resources. In the course of daily activity, where appropriate, the
Services Division can begin applying BMP and encourage the community to follow suit by setting an example.
Mr. Chandler asked if staff follows BMP, does that mean costs would not increase.
Mr. Dorrill said not necessarily. There are ongoing costs for training and accountability and better quality
fertilizer costs more. For this fiscal year, there should not be any significant budgetary implications.
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy that the Boardformally adopt Best Management
Practices (BMP) in its own landscaping and encourage the employees and residents of Pelican Bay to
do likewise. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
OLD BUSINESS
Regarding the call for applications to the Services Division Board, Mr. Levy and Mr. Iaizzo said they
reapplied for two of the three vacancies. Dr. Raia's term is set to expire, but he was not present at that time to
comment. Mr. Chandler requested that staff notify the Board when applicant information is available following the
January II application deadline.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Cravens said in the past, it was tradition for this Board to send out newsletters to inform the community
about what the Services Division is doing. This activity was budgeted under "education." The newsletters evolved
into two videos about Pelican Bay and the Board should consider doing this again. He suggested contacting Doug
Caldwell, an urban horticulturalist of the Collier County University of Florida Extension Service to produce a video
about landscaping best management practices. Chairman Dallas suggested Mr. Cravens contact Mr. Caldwell and
the Board could discuss this as an agenda item at a future meeting.
8431
161 1
B 24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
January 5, 2011
Mr. Iaizzo is concerned about the condition of Pelican Bay Boulevard. The Boulevard needs resurfacing.
Through the Community Improvement Plan, they are planning to install new crosswalks. They must ensure that they
do not damage the crosswalks when the roads are resurfaced and suggested they ask the County for funds to do it.
Mr. Dorrill estimates that it would cost $3 million to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard. Staff inquired with the
County's Road Maintenance department last fall about this and due to lack of funds, the County does not have plans
to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard anytime soon.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
No discussion
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
No discussion
Mr. Cravens "",de II motion, second by Mr. Iaiao to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor
of the motion tllld tbe m<<ti was tulJourned at 4:31lJ.m.
Minutes by Lisa Resnick \1/14/2011 2:58:41 PM
8432
UlO Z~:60 9O'Zo-~~OZ
Fiala ._1l~
Hiller ../
Henning..--~r
Coyle /
Coietta v'
BUDGET COMMIITEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MI~UT... ES
JANUARY 12,2011 ,_
1611 azl
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Committee ofthe Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on
Wednesday, January 12,2011 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,
Naples, with the following members present:
Budget Committee Members
Michael Levy, Chairman
John Chandler
Keith J. Dallas
Geoffrey S. Gibson
John laizzo
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill
Kyle Lukasz
Mary McCaughtry
Lisa Resnick
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
2. Audience Participation
3. Summary Update ofFY 2010 Actual vs. Estimated Actuals Contained in FY 2011 Budget and
Impact (if any) on Available Capital Funds
4. Status ofFY 2012 County Guidelines regarding Salaries, Benefits, and Tax Rates
5. Initial Discussion of New Capital Funds for FY 2012 Budget and Beyond
6. Review of Last Year's Format for Budget Preparation
7. Schedule for Preparation ofFY 2012 Budget
8. Review of Current Format for the Monthly Financial Report
9. Audience Comments
10. Adjournment
ROLL CALL
All Budget Committee members were present and quorum established.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Mr. Joe Doyle said that some of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects should be ad-valorem
tax based and others based on non ad-valorem assessment.
Mr. Dorrill explained that the Services Division is adverse to debt and not interested in increasing
assessments. For Fiscal Year 2011, there is approximately $2.3 million available for capital improvements. Based
on the Board's stated priorities this would allow funding for pedestrian crosswalks with brick pavers configuration
and some associated median landscape renovations. Funding methods for future projects have not been determined.
Mr. Doyle said because the available cash was collected by a non ad-valorem assessment that it should be
used to fund non ad-valorem based projects. Street lighting and widening pathways from the Commons to the North
Tram station should be ad-valorem based projects.
Mr. laizzo said street lighting is an ad-valorem based tax.
Mr. Doyle said the Board should consider funding crosswalks, landscaping, and irrigation improvements
using an ad-valorem tax method. Based on the laws of principles and equity, if improvements will increase property
values, then property owners who have more expensive property should pay more through anMii<Y.~~ax. The
Board should use a non ad-valorem assessment to fund improvements that everyone enjoys eq,ually, i.e., pathways.
uate:
1105
ltem#:
C -"'lies to:
1611 B 24
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2011
Mr. Dorrill said there is an ad-valorem portion to pay for street lighting, but "it does not jump off the page
on the tax bill."
Chairman Levy said in the past, the Services Division used an ad-valorem based tax to fund extra security
services from the Collier County Sheriff, but currently, the ad-valorem portion is only for street lighting.
Mr. Dorrill said since the 1970's, the County has created special taxing districts, employing an ad-valorem
millage-based tax to fund street lighting in new developments.
Mr. Doyle suggested the Services Division inform the County to reformat the tax bill to reflect there is an
ad-valorem portion.
SUMMARY UPDATE OF FY 2010 ACTUAL VS ESTIMATED ACTUALS CONTAINED IN FY 2011
BUDGET AND IMPACT (IF ANY) ON AVAILABLE CAPITAL FUNDS
Chairman Levy reported that in FY10, the Services Division was under budget overall, by a net of
$370,000. All line items were under budget with the exception of Capital projects, which was over budget by
$7,770 for extra service fees incurred by Wilson Miller for the Community Improvement Plan (CIP). $134,000
from the FY10 Clam Bay fund, rolled over to FY11 for the Clam Bay mangrove channel maintenance permit project
because the work was not complete. In theory, they can use these funds to install the Canoe Trail markers. The
remaining $232,000 could be placed in the FY 11 Capital Projects fund for a total of$2,691,000 to fund high
priority CIP projects.
FYll ASSESSMENT
Chairman Levy referred to the "Pelican Bay Services District FY 2011 Assessment" document in the
agenda backup material. The Committee discussed how a commercial property's assessment is calculated. From
the document, staff estimated that an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is the equivalent of one acre, i.e., the
Services Division's 12-acre facility on the golf course calculated assessment is equivalent to 12 ERU's or 12 times
the assessment, portioned into maintenance component of$4,200.84 and capital component of$246.67 for a total of
$4,447.51.
Mr. Dorrill said the County uses multiple ratios to determine ERUs most likely based on three categories of
residential, institutional and commercial use. He is certain that an official methodology was adopted. Bond issuers
want to know how they will be repaid and who will be paying them based on perceived benefit.
Chairman Levy pointed out that by assessing properties on an ERU basis, they are collecting from entities
they would not receive anything from on an ad-valorem basis.
Mr. Dorrill agreed and said that staffwill research the methodology and report back.
STATUS OF FY 2012 COUNTY GUIDELINES REGARDING SALARIES. BENEFITS. & TAX RATES
Chairman Levy added the County's Fund III contribution to this list of County guidelines.
Mr. Dorrill said the County has not determined their FY 2012 budget guidelines regarding salaries, benefits
and tax rates, but they expect to have that information by the end of February or early March.
Chairman Levy said over the past several years, they have aligned the Services Division's assessment
based on the County's tax rate or millage guidelines however, they do not necessarily have to follow them.
Mr. Dorrill agreed that if they wanted to raise the assessment to fund future CIP projects, the Board of
County Commissioners would probably react favorably. During last year's budget approval process, the
1106
161 1 B 24
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
January 12,2011
Commissioners did acknowledge that the Services Division was involved in a community redevelopment project
and that the Services Division might be coming back to them with funding mechanisms outside of their prescribed
millage-based parameters.
INITIAL DISCUSSION OF NEW CAPTIAL FUNDS FOR FY 2012 BUDGET AND BEYOND
Chairman Levy said in FYll, they have approximately $2.7 million in Capital funds available. During the
FY 2012 budget process, they can determine how much additional Capital funds would be available, ifany by
initially holding the assessment and millage rates the same. He distributed a worksheet that explains how they could
increase income by increasing the non ad-valorem assessment and ad-valorem millage rate.
If the Board decides they want to raise an additional $100,000 in Capital funds, in FY 2012, they could
increase the non ad-valorem assessment by $13.13 or 3.54% per ERU. To raise an additional $100,000 they could
increase the millage rate of 0.0531 by 36.6% or 0.01944 to 0.07254 resulting in a tax increase of $9.72 on a
$500,000 property.
Mr. Dallas said it would cost approximately $9 million to do all of the CIP projects, but completing all of
the projects and spending the last $2-3 million is debatable.
Mr. Chandler summarized Mr. Dallas' Pelican Bay Post article regarding the Services Division's CIP
projects. He explained that the Services Division has $2.5 million available and "key" projects total $5.6 million. If
the Board decided to do "key" projects only, they would only have to increase the Services Division assessment
spread out over several years by approximately $410 per unit.
Mr. Dallas said he based his calculation on employing a non ad-valorem assessment, but indicated that in
practice, they would need to raise $2 million in ad-valorem taxes for street lighting projects.
Chairman Levy reviewed the assessments levied over the past five years. In 2007, it was $422.98; 2008,
$382.30; 2009, $370.46; 2010, $370.64; and in 2011 it is $370.63.
Mr. Chandler suggested that if they decide to increase the assessment to save for the CIP, then they should
show it as a line item.
Chairman Levy explained that the Services Division sends the first notice of proposed assessment that
identifies it as one part maintenance and the other part capital. The County's property tax bill does not describe or
separate the assessment.
Mr. Dallas said that to avoid over or under committing, they should come up with a plan to save that they
can reevaluate after several years. Further, some proposed projects are many years away.
Mr. Iaizzo said he is concerned how much the County might try to encumber.
Mr. Gibson said they should move forward on the priority CIP projects as soon as possible.
Mr. Dorrill said staff hired a civil engineer to have design specifications ready to go when the Board is.
Mr. Dallas distributed his "Ideas for Developing Budget" document that suggests staff analyze the budget
to consider areas where they can divert resources from regular maintenance practices, "particularly in landscaping"
to implement CIP projects.
Mr. Dorrill said it could be a useful exercise, but targeting a reduction in operating expenses, rather than an
"across the board" cut would be a better approach.
1107
16;1 ~1
a24
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Min utes
January 12,2011
Mr. Levy said they are talking about using existing funds to get some of the CIP work done and Mr. Dallas
agreed that was what he was suggesting.
Mr. Chandler said it is a useful exercise but not something to do every year.
Mr. Dorrill said they renegotiated the office lease for three years in one-year increment; with a 20%
reduction in rent. In the event they were to leave, they can continue to rent the radio tower space on the top of the
building for communication with irrigation transmitters for a nominal fee.
SCHEDULE FOR PREPARATION OF FY 2012 BUDGET
The Committee discussed their schedule to prepare the FY 2012 budget. At the February Budget
Committee meeting, they could start discussing how they should spend and save for CIP project,. At the March
Budget Committee meeting, staff can present a tentative budget to the Committee. At this meeting, the Committee
should detennine whether to increase the assessment and by how much to save for future CIP projects, as well as
give staff final input. At the Committee's April meeting they Committee should approve the proposed FY 2012
budget to recommend to the full Board at the May 4 Services Division Board meeting. This wLl enable submission
to the County by the June 1 deadline. Ifnecessary, the Committee would schedule more than one meeting per
month. The Committee requested that staff provide this budget preparation schedule to members.
REVIEW OF LAST YEARS' FORMAT FOR BUDGET PREPARATION
Chairman Levy referred to backup material showing the format the Committee used la~.t year to prepare the
budget. By line item, the first two columns show the prior years' budget and actual; the next four columns show the
current year's budget, year-to-date expenditures, estimated balance remaining, and estimated current year
expenditures; and the last column shows the proposed budget for the next fiscal year. The Committee's consensus
was to use this format to prepare the FY 2012 budget.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mr. Doyle said thank you for letting him voice his concerns. He suggested they revisit the methodology
used to calculate ERU's for commercial and institutional properties. In his opinion, religious imtitutions should be
exempt from the assessment.
AFTERTHOUGHTS
The Committee discussed CIP projects to install several crosswalks with brick pavers (.n Pelican Bay
Boulevard and protecting this investment. The Boulevard needs resurfacing and the County is responsible for this
project however, it is not on their 5-year plan. It would cost roughly $3 million to resurface the Boulevard and ifthe
community wants it done, they would most likely have to pay for it. Mr. Dallas said he has asked Mr. Dorrill to find
out how much it would cost to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard and report at the February meeting.
Mr. Gibson said the irrigation system is spraying traffic signage in the community, tuming them dark
brown. He suggested they start replacing the signs and prior to installation, they have the signage coated with
"automotive grade" quality paint.
Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division is responsible for the traffic signs, i.e., stop signs, speed limit signs,
etc., located in the public right-of-way (ROW) within the Pelican Bay community. The current signs are ten years
old, but replacing them is not part ofthe CIP or this year's capital budget. Refurbishing all existing traffic signage in
the public ROW within the Pelican Bay community is estimated to cost $150,000 vs. $275,000 to purchase and
1108
161 1
b 24
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2011
install new replacement signage. Mr. Lukasz said he identified some high priority lake bank restoration projects, but
they are not budgeted and estimated to cost $75,000. Last year, the Services Division budgeted $375,000 to repair
the south berm. Hole Montes evaluated and identified areas along the south berm that had eroded and estimated it
would cost $25,000 to repair. The Foundation had Wilson Miller evaluate the south berm because as part of the
CIP, they want to install rest areas along the berm. Wilson Miller estimated they could re-slope and resurface areas
along the berm for $125,000. The Foundation is responsible for the resurfacing, but the Services Division is
responsible for the water management portion. There may be rollover funds available from that project.
The Committee also discussed pathways and bicycle lanes in the roadway. Generally, they agreed that
pathways are in poor condition communitywide and that the County would not contribute funds for improvements.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. lalu.o made a motion second by Mr. Gibson to adjourn. Members vDled to adjourn unanimously
and the meetlllR tulJourned at 4:36 D.nI.
~
Michael Levy, Chairman
Minutes bv ltSJ Resnlck\1!21!2011 2:02:51 PM
1109
1611 B 24
V'
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD & PELICAN BAY FOUNDA nON STRATEGIC
PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN TOWN HALL MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18,2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation
Strategic Planning Committee held a Community Improvement Plan Town Hall on Tuesday, January 18,
2011 at 1 :00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive.
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman
John P. Chandler
Tom Cravens
Johan Domenie
Geoffrey S. Gibson
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill
Mary McCaughtry
Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee
Bob Vek, Chairman Rose Mary Everett
Ronnie Bellone, Co-Vice Chairwoman Gerald A. Moffatt
Merlin Lickhaiter, Co-Vice Chairman Noreen Murray
Carson Beadle Mary Anne Womble
John Iaizzo
Michael Levy
Theodore Raia, Jr.
John Baron absent
Hunter H. Hansen absent
/
Fiala~ 1)/
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
Lisa Resnick
Pelican Bay Foundation Staff
James Hoppensteadt, President
Suzanne Minadeo
Frank Laney
Jeff Shafer
'"
Wilson Miller Stantec
Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PRESENT A nON
Mr. Bob Uek gave a brief introduction. Mr. Hoppensteadt made a Strategic Master Plan presentation to
approximately thirty-five attendees showing the plan improvement areas, proposed conditions for crosswalks,
pathways, the Commons, community berm, street lighting, and public art, and probable budgets.
Mr. Dallas explained that the Services Division is responsible for street lighting and long-term irrigation
improvements and the Board plans to determine how start saving for these projects during the coming budget cycle.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mr. Bob Sanchez, Oakmont resident said that a barrier along U.S. 41, affects safety, quality of life, and
property values.
Mr. Hoppensteadt responded that the Foundation is working on studying the V.S 41 berm to understand
what type of barrier they need to construct. For the solution to be effective, science will determine their decision.
Mr. Bill McCormick said they should consider widening pathways along the entire west side of Pelican
Bay Boulevard. Regarding street lighting, the Services Division should do necessary tree trimming maintenance
along Pelican Bay Boulevard to improve obscured lighting, then reevaluate.
Mr. Dallas responded that the Services Division has done some trimming, but "no butchering" yet.
Misc. Corres:
112
Date:
Item#:
c";~s to:
16 J 1
b 24
Community Improvement Plan Town Hall Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2011
Mr. McCormick said there are many trees that the Services Division could trim. Based on Collier County
Sheriff reports, there is no crime problem in Pelican Bay. The Foundation should hold off on spending money for a
wall to address security issues until they investigate further. Noise is a separate issue.
Mr. Hoppensteadt agreed that the U.S. 41 berm is a complex issue and this group needs to understand the
issues before they can communicate them to the community.
A Claridge resident said that where he comes from, no one rides bicycle on pathways, but in the street.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said the pathways are multiuse and bicycle paths are not required on roadways. The
pathways in the community are in poor condition, so they have decided to improve areas along the west side of
Pelican Bay Boulevard, but there is still much to consider.
Mr. Vito Suziedelis said that he is not happy with the Wilson Miller report, but praised the Board and
Committee for the presentation that combines both entities' projects. There appears to be a preoccupation with using
expensive pavers at existing & future crosswalks and questioned whether several of the proposed crosswalks,
specifically 4, 5, and 9, are needed. It is desirable to widen the pathways along the west side of Pelican Bay
Boulevard but the amount budgeted is probably underestimated.
Mr. David Roellig asked if the County is contributing to roadways and pathways improvements because it
is the County's responsibility to maintain the public roadways and pathways.
Mr. Dallas said the County has no money and no plans to improve the roadways or pathways in Pelican
Bay. If the community wants improvements, they would probably have to pay for it.
Mr. Roellig said they should pursue county funding with the help of Commissioner Hiller. Regarding
widening the pathways, he is concerned about tree removal and tree trimming should be a maintenance activity.
Mr. Dallas said one of the reasons they chose the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard is because there are
minimal trees.
Ms. Rose Jones, St. Lucia resident, said that owners in St. Lucia are concerned about their views of the
Tram Station and noise generated by it.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said they would not do anything that will negatively affect property values and would
communicate a proposal to the community prior to making a decision.
A resident said they should limit the number of trees they remove. He cannot imagine that "older" residents
would want to ride bicycles in the roadway. This is the third street lighting improvement being contemplated by the
community and hopes they are not trying to fix something that does not need fixing. The pedestrian automated
crosswalk on Myra Janco Daniels Parkway works great.
Mr. Dallas said they are sensitive to issue of tree removal. The Myra Janco Daniels automated crosswalk is
expensive. They will be installing conduits upon initial construction of each crosswalk should they later decide to
add lights.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said a raised tactile surface provides a traffic calming solution and slows traffic. They
plan to leave more trees than remove trees. Tree removal depends upon what damage the tree is causing.
Mr. Sanchez said there is a need for additional office space in the community, which could impact the
Commons.
113
161 1
B 24
Community Improvement Plan Town Hall Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2011
Mr. Hoppensteadt said due to its central location, the Commons is the nucleus for the Foundation's Food
and Beverage Operations, so the issue of traffic conflicts would still exist.
Ms. Sanchez asked if when they resurface the roads, would it affect pavers and concrete at the crosswalks.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said no.
Mr. laizzo said the crosswalk like the one at Myra Janco Daniels Parkway is expensive, but effective,
giving a positive indication for the motorist to stop. The roadways need resurfacing and he urged the community to
provide feedback.
Mr. Domenie said they could install yellow warning signs for drivers to expect bicycles in the roadway,
like in the City of Naples. He said that the new crosswalks require too many warning signs.
Mr. Steve Seidel referred to warning signs for drivers to expect pedestrians that are in the road at the
Naples Beach Club.
Mr. Gibson said he had showed the group photos of the signs in front of Naples Beach Club during past
discussions. Too many lights would make it look like the Las Vegas strip.
A resident said pedestrian activated lights are effective.
Another resident said Pelican Bay is a beautiful community, but crosswalks should be aesthetically pleasing
and agreed that the pavers are a good approach.
Ms. Murray said the group concluded that improvements should be made for safety and security, but in
keeping with the idea of Pelican Bay as a first-class community and aesthetics in mind, a consensus was made
unanimously to choose pavers. "Piano stripes just didn't cut it."
There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
Minutes by Lisa Resnick/1/24/2011 2:51:04 PM
114
~oo ~Z:O~ 9o-Zo-~ ~OZ
Fiala ~
RECEIVED ~~.I.I~. ~1r\gE... 1 6 I 1
MAR 2 , 2011 cayle .
Coh~'tU\ .. ,
Board of county ~ers
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2011
B Z4
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on
Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive,
Naples. The following members were present:
Pelican Bay Services Division Board
Keith J. Dallas, Chairman
Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman
John P. Chandler
Tom Cravens
Johan Domenie
Geoffrey S. Gibson excused absence
John Iaizzo
Michael Levy
Theodore Raia, J r.
John Baron
Hunter H. Hansen
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill
Kyle Lukasz
Mary McCaughtry
Lisa Resnick
Also Present:
Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association
Marcia Cravens, Vice-President, Mangrove Action Group
Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates
James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation
Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee
Kathy Worley, Co-Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida
REVISED AGENDA
I. Roll Call
2. Agenda Approval
3. Approval of Meeting Minutes
a. January 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session
b. January 12,2011 Budget Committee
c. January 18,2011 Community Improvement Plan Town Hall
4. Audience Participation
5. Administrator's Report
a. Update on Community Improvement Plan
i. CIP Issues (J. Chandler)
ii. Discussion of Next PBSD Steps
iii. Recommendation to Proceed with Phase One Community Improvement Plan Projects
(Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage Proposal)
iv. Other Capital Projects Discussion (M. Levy)
b. Monthly Financial Report
c. Status of Permit for Clam Bay Maintenance
d. Status ofRFP for Environmental Services
e. Discussion of Health of Mangroves (T. Raia)
f. Status of Conservation Area Exotic Vegetation
6. Chairman's Report
a. Update on PBSD Election Process
b. Foundation Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee Update
c. Landscaping issues on U.S. 41
d. Announcements
7. Community Issues
8. Committee Reports and/or Requests
a. Budget Committee
b. Landscape Committee
9. Old Business
10. New Business Mise. Canes:
8433
Date:
ltem#:
Ccpies to:
1611
.~ 24
u
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
a. Discussion of Need to Repave Oakmont Path (K. Lukasz)
b. Signs at Clam Pass Park (T. Raia)
c. Making Minutes Accessible on Web site (T. Raia)
11. Miscellaneous Correspondence
a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet
12. Audience Comments
13. Adjournment
ROLL CALL
All Board members were present with the exception of Mr. Gibson, excused.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Dr. Raia added "Making Minutes Accessible on Website" to New Business.
Mr. Levy added "Other Capital Projects Discussion" to Update on Community Improvement Plan.
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the agenda as amended. The Board
voted unanimouslv in favor of the motion.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 5.2011 REGULAR SESSION
Dr. Raia amended the minutes to reflect that Mr. Feldhaus is Co-Chair of the Foundations Ad Hoc Clam
Bay Committee. Ms. Womble amended page 8423 to read, "... more reasonable one."
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the January 5, 2011 Pelican Bay
Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor
of the motion.
JANUARY 12.2011 BUDGET COMMITTEE
Mr. Levy amended page 1106 to read, "... Clam Bay mangrove channel maintenance..." page 1108 to
read, ".. . estimated total current year expenditures;" and page 1109 to read, ".. . lake bank restoration projects."
Mr. Levy made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to approve the January 12, 2011 Budget Committee
minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimouslv in- favor of the motion.
JANUARY 18.2011 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN TOWN HALL
Ms. Womble amended page 113 to read, "... many trees the Services Division could trim." Page 113 also
amended to read, ". ..additional office space..."
Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the January 18, 2011 Community
Improvement Plan Town Hall meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor oj
the motion.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Ms. Noreen Murray, Foundation Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) member said she and the SPC
support the Community Improvement Plan projects on today's agenda.
Ms. Marcia Cravens said there are three existing options to mark the Clam Bay waterway for safety of all
users, including replacing the Canoe Trail markers, regulatory markers, i.e., idle speed and no wake, and information
8434
16118~24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
markers, i.e., caution seagrasses present. The Board should consider the knowledge of Dr. Raia, Mr. Domenie and
Mr. Cravens on this issue when representing the Services Division at the February 17 Stakeholders Clam Bay
Markers meeting.
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
UPDATE ON COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN - ISSUES
Mr. Dorrill acknowledged Mr. Chandler's previously stated concerns regarding Community Improvement
Plan projects. Mr. Chandler's first concern is regarding trees at the median cut adjacent to the North Tram station,
which is a Foundation project. It appears there are two oak trees that could be affected by the median cut adjacent to
the North Tram station project, and seven to nine Sabal palms as part of the southbound u-turn lane to go north,
however Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage are still working on the design.
A second concern Mr. Chandler has is whether there is a need to construct so many midblock crosswalks
on Pelican Bay Boulevard. According the Collier County Sheriffs report, there were 24 incidents along Pelican
Bay Boulevard between January 2008 - February 2010, and two of the incidents involved pedestrians. The report
does not show where along Pelican Bay Boulevard that the pedestrian incidents occurred, but staff could inquire
with Corp. Carmine Marceno.
Mr. Dallas added that there was one pedestrian incident recently at the North Tram Station.
Mr. Levy said the midblock crosswalk at the North Tram station is the only crosswalk that currently exists
for residents that live in communities along the east side of Pelican Bay Boulevard to cross Pelican Bay Boulevard
without jaywalking. The incident reports might be of interest but are not completely relevant.
Mr. Dorrill said the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the standard for all traffic
signs. He would research the signage requirements and report at the next meeting.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said the midblock crosswalks are the Foundation's responsibility.
Mr. Chandler said Pelican Bay residents are paying for the crosswalks regardless of whether the
Foundation or the County is responsible and he wants assurance that the additional crosswalks are required because
"signs that are really not needed are an eyesore."
Mr. Dallas said he is concerned that, "they are going in circles" and is getting pressure from the community
to make a decision. Ifthey do not make a decision soon, they will not accomplish anything this summer.
Mr. Chandler said he would be voting for the resolution to approve budget amendment to move forward
with the projects, but said more debate is needed and Mr. Domenie agreed. Other members pointed out that these
issues were discussed prior to Messrs. Chandler and Domenie's appointments to the Board.
Mr. laizzo said if they are concerned about pedestrians then they should give them positive security, day
and night, and install midblock crosswalks with lights, like the one on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard.
Mr. Dallas said they are installing conduits during initial installation at all of the crosswalks should they
later decide to add lights.
Mr. Dorrill said Mr. Chandler's third concern is regarding the general appearance of the "micro-surfacing
experiment" on Pelican Bay Boulevard. According to the County's Road Maintenance Director, Travis Gossard, the
road "does look bad," but did provide structural benefits. The micro-surfacing warranty was for one year and passed
inspection. Mr. Dorrill requested last year's County road survey for Pelican Bay Boulevard and Hammock Oak
8435
16' 1 '8 2. 4
.
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
Drive, specifically the north end. Milling and funding and resurfacing of these roads are not in the County's five-
year plan, however once they review the survey, they can compare it to roads in the County's current plan. Roads
can be resurfaced following construction of crosswalks with pavers without causing damage or problems.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said based on independent district research, roadway resurfacing would become the
Foundation's responsibility and they are awaiting a response on the cost of maintenance from Better Roads.
Dr. Raia said there are no incidents at Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard because there are stop
signs in all directions. The intersection of Ridgewood and Pelican Bay Boulevard is dangerous and that intersection
should have four-way stop signs.
Mr. Cravens said they should remove the sIgns in the middle of the road at the North Tram station
midblock crosswalk because they cause confusion and give pedestrians a false sense of security. He made a motion
to remove the "Stop for Pedestrians" signs in the roadway at North Tram station midblock crosswalk immediately.
Mr. Dorrill said staff would check whether a right-of-way permit was required to install the signs and take
the necessary steps to remove them. "We will rely on the experts."
RECOMMENDA nON TO PROCEED WITH PHASE I COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECTS (AGNOLI. BARBER. & BRUNDAGE PROPOSAL)
Mr. Dorrill referred to the memorandum in the backup material. He said it appears that there is wide
support for the Phase I projects listed for a total of$I,429,801 million. There is an error on the memo. $2.96 million
is available for Phase 1 projects, not $2,557,159. Preliminary design plans and specifications from Agnoli, Barber
and Brundage with costs are in process and should be ready in March. He will notify ABB to include crosswalk
traffic signs in the proposal.
Mr. Levy said the pathways project on Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard is for a five-foot wide concrete
pathway, not asphalt.
Regarding the possibility that St. Williams might be willing to assist with funding for the Myra Janco
Daniels Boulevard pathways, the Board never discussed it with St. Williams. Mr. Baron said St. Williams entered a
contract with Waterside to use two hundred parking spaces.
The Board discussed possibly widening pathways to eight feet along the entire west side of Pelican Bay
Boulevard, but consensus was to proceed as planned and reassess later.
Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. Womble that the Board support staff's recommendations
and authorize a budget amendment to transfer funds to recognize the additional carry forward and
design services and authorize the Phase I projects to proceed. The Board voted unanimously in favor oj
the motion.
Mr. Chandler said he would like to get closure on adding four additional crosswalks on Pelican Bay
Boulevard. Based on one pedestrian incident yearly, he does not see the need. Additional crosswalks will require
additional signs.
Chairman Dallas said members of this Board and the Strategic Planning Committee came to a consensus
that there was a need for midblock crosswalks along Pelican Bay Boulevard because they would slow traffic and
allow places for pedestrians to cross, which currently are few and far-between.
8436
1611
824
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
Mr. Levy said all of the suggested midblock crosswalks are to tram stations and the berm, or "destination
points" and the reason why the Foundation is paying for the majority ofthem.
The Board discussed whether they are installing the midblock crosswalks for safety or for aesthetics and
consensus was for safety, but in deciding how to implement, aesthetics.
Mr. Chandler called for a yes or no vote of the Board of whether to install four additional crosswalks.
Chairman Dallas said it would be a non-binding vote because they are Foundation projects.
Ms. Murray said pavers versus lights is not an either or. When the crosswalks are constructed, they are
installing conduits, so they may consider lights going forward.
The Board discussed the cost of solar powered lights, motion activation, and pavers. No votes were taken
and no further discussion.
MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Mr. Dorrill presented the January financial report. There is approximately $2.5 million available, $27,000
in payables, and they have received 89% of assessment payments. Year-to-date revenue is $16,000 over historical
performance. Expenditures are $100,000 under budget and major purchases for pine straw, tree trimming, and other
seasonal expenses were made.
Mr. Chandler said the annual budget under operating fund 109 for landscape maintenance is $60,000. They
have spent $46,000 and he asked if the amount was for pine straw.
Mr. Dorrill said yes. Staff must use line item descriptions from a state chart of accounts for uniformity.
Staff can research whether there is a more descriptive line item that they can use to better identify expenditures.
Mr. Chandler said under fund 109 non-operating revenues it appears that the tax collector paid the Services
Division and Mr. Dorrill said the $47,258 should be in brackets and the variance column should be $2,241.
Mr. Hansen pointed out the they have spent less than budgeted on trash and garbage and Mr. Lukasz
explained that line item is for horticultural debris, however they contract out for some of the Sabal palms tree
trimming and that is reflected under the line item for tree trimming.
Mr. Chandler said under Capital projects income under special assessments, the year-to-date budget is
$107,000, but only $4,000 received. Mr. Dorrill explained that the amount should be offset in the general fund, as a
"due to" however, it was not. He directed Ms. McCaughtry to verify with the Clerk's Finance Director, Ms. Kinzel.
Mr. Hansen said there is a line item for "other contractual services" in the Clam Bay Fund 320 that should
be better described. Mr. Dorrill said that line item is for Mr. Hall's Clam Bay channel maintenance services and
agreed that staff should look to the state chart of accounts to describe vague line items better.
r. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens to accept the January Financial Report into the
ecord as resented. The Board voted unanimousl in avor 0 the motion.
STATUS OF RFP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Mr. Dorrill reported that the Selection Committee ranked Turrell, Hall & Associates as the number one
firm to award the environmental services contract. The County is in the process of preparing the one-year contract
with three one-year extensions.
8437
161 1
824
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
STATUS OF PERMIT FOR CLAM BAY MAINTENANCE
Mr. Dorrill said the Services Division has received the Army Corp. of Engineers permit to perform Clam
Bay channel maintenance.
Mr. Hall said the first thing to do would be to spend some considerable time in the system to get a feel of
where it is, but at the same time, marking the channels that are most in need of maintenance and prioritize them.
Based on the funds that are in the budget, they will do what they can afford. The identification should be done by
late March or early April, and the work done in late April or early May before the rainy season.
Mr. Cravens asked how the "muck" is collected and disposed of. Mr. Hall said they do not collect and
dispose of the "muck" because it can cause damage and is prohibitively expensive. The pennit allows them to
continue to broadcast the "muck" out to the sides. The topography of the area is very flat, so they do not have the
problem of material falling back into the channel. The material is held in place by the vegetation that is there. The
method has been very successful. It has been about six years since work was done in many areas. Maintenance is
necessary following a storm, i.e., fallen branches blocking a channel, or every three years in some sections.
In response to Mr. Levy's question regarding the geographic area, Mr. Hall explained that the area of
responsibility is within the mangrove system only. It starts Vizcaya and goes south to Seagate. There is one
channel east of Clam Pass Park that they maintain as part of the permit.
In response to Mr. Levy's question regarding whether there are conflicts between the Services Division's
penn it and the pending Foundation and County Clam Bay agreement, the presumption is that the Services Division
will continue to maintain the mangrove channels as the Foundation moves forward with its Clam Bay agreement
with the County. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) pennit allows the Services Division
to perfonn maintenance in an operational phase, which means they can continue maintenance activities without
having to renew the permit as long as they can show they are not adversely affecting water quality. The Anny Corp.
of Engineers (USACE) permit is good for ten years. Mr. Dorrill has signed it, and Mr. Hall has conveyed it to the
USACE and the Services Division should be receiving a fully executed pennit soon.
DISCUSSION OF HEALTH OF MANGROVES
Mr. Hall made a presentation about the health of the white mangroves. When the temperature gets below
forty degrees, mangroves can suffer stress. About a year ago, Ms. Kay Potter contacted him after observing some
mangrove leaf loss that he had attributed to the cold weather of January 2010. Recently, however, from the roof of
the Grosvenor, he and several others observed the mangroves and it was apparent that there were some stressed and
dying larger trees. He and Mr. Cravens went out in the field and noticed boring beetle activity and a band ofreddish
foliage in a band to the north. Taller, white mangroves appear to be the type of mangrove affected, but the canopy
trees underneath, closer to the ground appear to be protected. They are still trying to identify the "long-homed"
boring beetles. The beetles are eating the bark and entering into the cambium layer. If they eat around the entire
cambium layer then the tree can no longer get nutrients and everything above that point will die. It appears that the
trees that were damaged by the cold last January are weaker, and the ones being infested by the beetles. A healthy
tree will produce sap that will suffocate the beetle before it can do too much harm. He is working with bug experts,
including Doug Caldwell of the Extension Service to identify the beetles and options for treatment.
8438
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes ~
February 2, 2011
STATUS OF CONSERVATION AREA EXOTIC VEGETATION
1611 a24
Mr. Hall said within the mangroves, the main exotics they are responsible for is Brazilian Pepper and they
will mark those areas as they are out in the field over the next few months. On the beach, there are Australian Pines
and Inkberry. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) applied for a state grant to remove exotics on the beach from the
Ritz to Naples Cay. Mr. Dorrill directed Mr. Hall to address areas of concern and the status of the CZM grant.
Mr. Cravens said there is Brazilian Pepper thirty feet high on Clam Pass Park boardwalk and Mr. Hall said
he and Mr. Lukasz are trying to address it without disruption, as well as maintaining cattails and vines along the
berm.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
UPDATE ON PBSD ELECTION PROCESS
Chairman Dallas reported that there were two applicants for three Board vacancies. The Board of County
Commissioners' (BCe) intend to appoint Messrs. Iaizzo and Levy. On the second Tuesday in February, the BCC
will re-advertise for the third vacancy. Based on the application(s) received, the Services Division Board will make
a recommendation to the BCC.
A short recess was taken.
FOUNDATION AD HOC CLAM BAY COMMITTEE UPDATE
Chairman Dallas reported that the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAe) made a recommendation to the
BCC that the stakeholders in the community would meet on February 17 and if necessary, February 23 to decide
what kind of markers should go in Clam Bay. The meeting is at the County Complex in the Risk Management
building, which is across from the snack bar.
Mr. Cravens pointed out that the original recommendation was modified unexpectedly and consensus was
that many were not happy with the new language, however it was approved by the BCC.
Chairman Dallas said he and other stakeholders have been invited to speak as representatives of their
respective entities. This is a public meeting that is has been advertised so that Board members can participate. He
suggested the Board hold a special workshop to discuss the Services Division's position on Clam Bay markers on
February 16 at 9 a.m., and if necessary February 22 at 1 p.m.
Mr. Cravens said that historically, CZM sets the agenda for meetings, chairs the meetings, and following
the meeting prepares an executive summary that does not accurately reflect what happened at the meeting, but
reflect the goals ofCZM. He suggested they bring their own tape recorders. He asked Ms. Resnick to get a copy of
the exact wording of the resolution that was passed by the BCC.
Dr. Raia said he likes the idea of a workshop because at the CZM meeting, they will only have three
minutes to make comments. His main concern is the interpretation of the permit by CZM and Seagate community
that red and green markers are required to close the permit. The permit does not require red and green markers. He
prepared a summary of the history of Clam Bay markers with list of documents that forms the basis for his opinion.
He did not distribute it because it was 138 pages, but is posted on the Foundation's website.
Ms. Murray said the Foundation's attorney, Mr. Yovanovich is on record at a BCC meeting stating that red
and green markers were not required to close the permit, and it would be helpful to have a copy of the transcript.
8439
161 1
a24
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
Mr. Cravens asked Ms. Resnick to contact Jeff Shafer at the Foundation to get the information out to the
community via email blast.
Mr. Dorrill said it appears the meeting that Ms. Murray is referring to was on June 23, 2009. At this
meeting, the BCC directed staff to proceed with the red and green marker permit.
Chairman DalIas said they might not have any information about the stakeholders meeting prior to the
meeting. He read and distributed a document he prepared with a brief statement regarding the Services Division's
position regarding markers in Clam Bay. Consensus was they would discuss it at the February 16 workshop.
LANDSCAPING ISSUES ON US 41
Chairman Dallas reported that landscaping on U.S. 41 is more complex and significant than originally
anticipated and the Foundation is exploring the possibility of getting the Florida Department of Transportation to
assist in resolving.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman DalIas announced upcoming meetings. The Strategic Planning Committee meets February 3 at 1
p.m. The Budget Committee meets February 8 at I p.m. The Foundation is having a "Meet the Candidates"
presentation on February 8 at 4 p.m. The CAC meets February 10. The Foundation Board meets February 25. The
next Services Division Board meeting is March 2.
COMMUNITY ISSUES
Mr. Dorrill said they would discuss erosion of the south berm at the March 2 meeting.
COMMITTEE REPORTS AND OR REQUESTS
BUDGET COMMITTEE
No discussion
LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
Mr. Cravens wrote an article for the Pelican Bay Post about best management practices, which included
Mr. Dorrill's suggestion for homeowner's associations to amend their contracts with their landscaping contractors to
follow best management practices. Mr. Doug Caldwell's presentation about landscaping best management practices
at the Men's Coffee was videotaped by Blue Sky Media and he would find out when it will be available.
OLD BUSINESS
No discussion
NEW BUSINESS
DISCUSSION OF NEED TO REPAVE OAKMONT PATH (K. LUKASZ)
Deferred to next meeting
SIGNS AT CLAM PASS PARK (T. RAIA)
Deferred to next meeting
MAKING MINUTES ACCESSIBLE ON WEBSITE (T. RAIA)
The Board directed Ms. Resnick to work on making old minutes accessible on the website.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
No discussion
8440
16 J 1
B 24 ~
~
...
i
~
~
~
Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes
February 2, 2011
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No discussion
ADJOURNMENT
M,. CNwns IIUIIIk .1fItJtIo'" .tcO,,4 by M,. CIt_tIIer to IIdjollnt. TIle BtHIt'tl WltetllI".,,1mtnI$1y ""iJVOr oldie
".".,. ".,fII, IMf MefltIIJ:S1 III.
Kci&;/fJ1JL
Kei J. lias,
8441
Minutes by Lisa Resnlck\2/14/20113:S2:47 PM
161 1
82 AI'
BUDGET COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on
Wednesday, February 8, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples,
with the following members present:
Budget Committee Members
Michael Levy, Chairman
John Chandler
Keith J. Dallas
Geoffrey S. Gibson (excused absence)
John laizzo
Pelican Bay Services Division Staff
W. Neil Dorrill
Kyle Lukasz
Mary McCaughtry
Lisa Resnick
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
2. Audience Participation
3. Schedule and Goals for Preparation ofFY 2012 Budget
4. Review of line item savings (5%, 10%, and 20%) to allocate additional funds for CIP
5. Discussion of Capital Projects outside the CIP
6. Update on Methodology
7. Audience Comments
8. Adjourn
ROLL CALL
All Committee members were present with the exception of Mr. Gibson, excused.
AUDIENCE PARTICPATION
Mr. Joe Doyle suggested certain projects be paid for by ad-valorem and others by non ad-valorem assessment.
Traffic sign replacement and renovation, and Phase I projects for crosswalks, and roadway landscaping and irrigation
improvements and future street lighting projects should be funded by ad-valorem taxes.
Mr. Dorrill explained that the Phase 1 projects going forward are already funded with cash.
Mr. Doyle replied said that any future projects not funded that he described should be funded by ad-valorem taxes.
SCHEDULE AND GOALS FOR PREPARATION OF FY 2012 BUDGET
Chairman Levy said they might have to reschedule the March 9 Budget Committee meeting to the third week in
March because the County might not have provided the guidelines for wages, salaries, benefits, millage, and Fund 111
contribution that staff needs to prepare the FY 2012 budget.
Mr. Chandler is not attending the March 9 meeting.
Mr. Dorrill said he would try to get the guidelines from the County Manager by March 9 and if unavailable, staff
will schedule a tentative meeting for the third week, prior to March 19.
The Committee directed staff to prepare a tentative FY 2012 budget using more descriptive cost center line items
and note what the new line item was budgeted under previously.
Regarding the schedule, Chairman Levy said staff would present the tentative FY 2012 budget at the March Budget
Committee meeting. The Budget Committee would approve the proposed FY 2012 budget at the April Committee meeting,
1110
.
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
February 8, 2011
16j
I
B 24
bring to the full Board for approval at the May Services Division meeting, and provide the Services Division proposed FY
2012 budget to the County by June 1.
Mr. Dorrill said it appears that they could petition Commissioner Hiller for County funds to mill and resurface
Hammock Oak Drive because of its current condition and they could do the pathways at the same time. He met with Mr.
Travis Gossard, Road Maintenance Director who said that the pavement rating is 67% and could be eligible for County-paid
resurfacing. The estimated cost is $200,000 and the goal would be to get the work done prior to next Thanksgiving. Mr.
Gossard said the County did not have funds to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard, but they could add it to the list of projects to
discuss with Commissioner Hiller. They are competing with everyone, including the City of Naples for Fund 111 money. \
Mr. Chandler asked Mr. Dorrill how much it would cost to reseal or repave Pelican Bay Boulevard and whether
resealing would solve the "grit" problem and Mr. Dorrill replied that Pelican Bay Boulevard should be milled down and
resurfaced; they would not be happy with resealing that would last about six months.
DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF CIP
Chairman Levy said it is necessary that they identify Capital projects outside of the CIP because the funds are
coming from the same pot of $2,690,000 million.
"PRIORITY -ONE" LAKE BANK ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
Mr. Lukasz said they should set aside $85,000 for already identified high priority lake bank enhancement projects to
repair and prevent future erosion primarily at the Georgetown lakes. This project would conclude "priority-one" geo-textile
tubing projects.
SOUTH BERM
Mr. Dorrill said the Services Division's south berm projects differ in scope from that of the Foundation. The
Services Division hired Hole-Montes to evaluate the south berm last year. They found that the cross-culverts are structurally
sound and do not need replacing and made a recommendation to reshape the toe of the berm to reestablish what was
originally there in terms of a cross-section that is estimated to cost $25,000.
The Foundation hired Wilson Miller to do an engineering analysis because they want to widen the path at the top of
the berm to the maximum extent possible to establish a "shoulder" with a more level slope, which will help reshape the
eroded area. Wilson Miller estimated the project to cost $150,000.
The Foundation owns the parcel ofland that the berm sits on and they own and operate the asphalt path on top of the
berm, but the Services Division owns the berm itself as a function of the master drainage plan because the berm is an element
of the water management system.
Mr. Dorrill recommended they utilize an inter-local agreement with the Foundation for south berm projects that
would explain who is responsible for what, that the Services Division provide a financial contribution of no more than
$25,000, and that the Foundation is responsible for any permitting requirements ofthe existing water management permit.
Chairman Levy said the CIP shows amenities on the north berm. He confirmed with Mr. Lukasz that the Services
Division is currently only addressing the south berm and maximum financial obligation of$25,000.
TRAFFIC SIGNS
At the last meeting, Mr. Gibson referred to traffic signs in the right of way within the community being sprayed by
the irrigation system and turning brown.
1111
16' 1
824
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
February 8, 2011
Mr. Lukasz said they could purchase a dozen new signs and install them, then remove ten signs, sandblast them to
remove corrosion, apply automotive grade paint, install and repeat until all the signs are done. The Services Division is
responsible for traffic signs in the public right of way, not signs on private property. estimated it would cost $150,000 to
refurbish the signs and they could do a section at a time, starting on Pelican Bay Boulevard, then Gulf Park Drive. The
Committee supported phasing in the project.
Mr. Dorrill said they would be restoring cast aluminum posts and mounts, not the signs themselves. Staff would do
the project in three phases, budgeting $50,000 per year for three years.
OAKMONT LAKE P A TOW A YS
Mr. Lukasz said they repaired the worst spots along the east side of the Oakmont lake pathway that runs from Isle
Verde to Green Tree and Oakmont Parkway. There is still another phase to do in repairs. Many roots are going to create a
safety issue within the next year. The Oakmont lake pathway is on Foundation property and the Services Division has a
water management system easement. Several years ago, the Services Division Board voted to restrict bicycles from that
pathway because there are areas where there is not enough room for pedestrians to step off the path near the water. The
Services Division has typically maintained landscaping, pathways, and lighting along the Foundation's Oakmont extension
pathway that goes to the Marketplace. The Services Division overlaid the pathway six years ago, but it is having root
problems from all the vegetation. He obtained a proposal from Bonness that it would cost $200,000 to remove the asphalt
and redo the pathway in concrete with a fiberglass reinforcement. It would cost $75,000 to do an asphalt overlay. They
could continue to make repairs yearly for $7,500 that would be similar to the repairs made on Myra Janco Daniels pathways.
Consensus was to budget $7,500 to make repairs. Mr. Dorrill will discuss the possibility of obtaining funds from the
Foundation for repairs with Mr. Hoppensteadt.
MAJOR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
Mr. Dorrill said they will be including in the tentative budget the cost of major capital equipment because the
County's Fleet Maintenance department is recommending that the Services Division replace two-nine year old crew cab
trucks, and one-seven year old three-quarter ton pick-up truck. The Services Division will receive 25% of the replacement
value of$]02,000.
SUMMARY
Chairman Levy reviewed the amounts to budget for capital projects outside of the CIP: lake bank enhancements,
$85,000; and signs, $50,000 for a total of$135,000. The funds will come from the $2,690,000 available in the capital budget
for CIP projects. $25,000 for the south berm project would come from the Clam Bay fund, not capital. $7,500 for pathway
repairs would come from operations, not capital.
REVIEW OF LINE ITEM SAVINGS (5%.10%. 20%) TO ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CIP
Mr. Lukasz presented his FY I ]/12 Budget Reduction Options and Service Level Impacts report. He analyzed 15
services and provided operational alternatives and service level reductions for the Community Beautification/ROW Field
operating budget. (I) For the past ten years, they have budgeted $40,000 for Maintenance Facility Improvements across three
cost centers. Most of the work is complete and he recommended a line item reduction of $] ],900 or 0.77% of the total
Community Beautification/ROW Field operating budget. (2) They use pine straw in all areas of Pelican Bay. He suggested
they use an alternative type of mulching material in the remote areas along the U.S. 4] berm, i.e., grinded horticultural debris,
but not along the main Boulevard.
1112
16' 1
824
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
February 8, 2011
Mr. Dorrill said they should be careful not to make mulch from exotic vegetation. There is an increased cost in labor
to place the mulch because it is not bagged, but overall a recommended savings of $20,000.
Mr. Lukasz said the third recommendation is to (3) plant annuals only in areas of high visibility listed in the CIP and
use low ground covering plants at other areas at an overall savings of$5,800.
Mr. Dorrill directed Mr. Lukasz to get the cost to landscape the median cuts at the crosswalks and said the
recommendation to replace planting annuals with low ground covering is recommended for now.
Mr. Chandler was concerned that planting ground covering would affect the variety of colors and Mr. Dorrill and
Mr. Lukasz said they would use Crown of Thorns or Bougainvilleas that cover a range of red colors and bloom year-round.
Mr. Lukasz does not recommend the remaining operational alternatives or service level reductions: (4) reducing the
frequency of pruning ornamentals in the right of way to once yearly; (5) reducing the frequency of sweeping (vacuuming) the
main boulevards from weekly to monthly, and eliminating maintenance of the single family roadways, as this would have an
adverse aesthetic impact and contribute to sediment loading in the storm water management system; (6) reducing the
frequency of pruning Bougainvilleas would result in overgrowth; (7) eliminating mowing operations along the tram berm
could be unsightly and wildlife in the higher grass could cause concern; (8) reducing the pest control budget would require
another entity, i.e., Foundation to pay for the removal of nuisance raccoons; (9) eliminating holiday decorations; (10) pruning
Sabal palms only at the entrances and leaving the remaining natural would'result in an accumulation of dead palm fronds and
debris; (11) leaving dodder vine natural; (12) eliminating pruning of trees adjacent to single family lots on Oakmont lake;
(13) reducing fertilizer application from four times to twice yearly; (14) reducing the mowing frequency because it would
have an adverse aesthetic impact; and (15) reducing overtime and temporary labor funds would leave no flexibility for
unexpected events or requested services.
Chairman Levy said if they implemented the three recommendations, they would save $50,000 - $60,000 and staff
would work those savings into the budget.
METHODOLOGY
Mr. Dorrill said the methodology used to calculate how services were paid was approved initially in the 1970's and
was updated in 1993 and does not see a need to change it.
Chairman Levy said the Services Division would be paying for pathway and crosswalk projects, or "over and
above" services that were previously County-funded projects. To pay for them, he acknowledged that they were using
accumulated, mostly non ad-valorem funds, and approximately $250,000 ad-valorem, street lighting funds. The Services
Division used to fund the Sheriffs "extra security" services on an ad-valorem basis.
Mr. Dorrill said the issue is this community predated the statutory alternative, Community Development District
(CDD) that is flat-rate assessment based. Street lighting in Collier County has always been on an ad-valorem basis. It is
conceivable to go to an ad-valorem basis, but there would likely be strong opposition from the commercial properties to pay
for mostly residential services and amenities. In addition, the Services Division would no longer receive funds from the
County and churches because government and non-profit organizations do not pay ad-valorem taxes.
Prior to 1993, the assessment was calculated based on the gross acreage of property owned, and the amount varied
greatly. To distribute the cost more equitably, the Services Division took all of the parcels, whether there were units on them
or not, and came up with a theoretical number of parcels or Equivalent Residential Units (ERU). Commercial properties, the
1113
1611 B 2
Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes
February 8t 2011
golf course, and County parks, pay on an ERU basis, not an acreage basis. A public hearing would be required to change the
method of assessment.
Mr. Dallas distributed a spreadsheet that explained possibilities for raising the assessment on an annual basis to save
funds for future Phase Two projects. He suggested keeping $500,000 in capital reserve. He distributed a second spreadsheet
that explained possibilities to raise the millage or ad-valorem tax on an annual basis to fund future street lighting projects.
Mr. Dorrill agreed they should keep at least $500,000 in capital reserves and suggested they keep another $500,000
in the operating fund.
AFTERTHOUGHTS
The Committee discussed various community improvement plan projects.
Mr. Chandler referred to Mr. Dallas' spreadsheet for non ad valorem assessments and questioned whether the
biggest expenditure for low water demand irrigation improvements is a good investment.
Mr. Lukasz said they made improvements to the irrigation system last year that should last twenty years. He will
open up a purchase order to obtain a proposal from a landscape architect other than Wilson Miller for bullnose projects.
ADJOURN
Chairman Levy made a 1Mtlon, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn. The Committee voted unanimously in favor of the
motion. The meeting adioumed tit 3: 11 D.m.
Minutes by Lisa Resnlck\3!1!2011 4:29:11 PM
1114
4~
N
o
>-'
>-'
>-'
>-'
;..:,
.....
)>
s:
o
o
>-'
~)~@)Jll\VIt~ I 1
m\ FEB 2 3 2Cll1 .Jr
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U.
B25
Advisory Committee
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples FL 34104
BY: ... ....................
February 15, 2011
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
-p(
,/
~tJ/
v/
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: February 1, 2011
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report- Gloria Herrera
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report
A. Hannula
B. Windham Studio
VII. Landscape Architect Report - Windham Studio
A. Devonshire Refurbishment
VIII. Old Business
A. Devonshire Water Usage
IX. New Business
A. Master Plan Discussion
X. Committee Member Comments
XI. Public Comments
XII. Adjournment
The next meeting is March 15, 20113:30 p.m.
Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
Item t:
(...- .'5\):
161 1
~5
Radio Road Beautification M.S. T. U.
Advisory Committee
z885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples FL 34104
February 1, 2011
Special Meetina Minutes
I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:30 PM.
II. ATTENDANCE
Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Helen Carella, John Weber
County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Michelle Arnold-Director A TM, Pam
Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager
Others: Scott Windham-Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty-Juristaff
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Dale
Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 18, 2011
Change: VI B., page 2, fifth paragraph should read: Dale Lewis requested
Windham Studio provide a recommendation at the February meeting on
"sparsely" planted areas that were installed during previous Project
Phases (by "Circle K" and Windjammer.)
Page 3, seventh paragraph, motion was amended to read: Dale Lewis
moved to remove the sod and install ''Asian Jasmine between the road
and" sidewalk.
VI C. first bullet should read: MSTU dollars were allocated for Signs
that cannot be installed.
Helen Carella moved to approve the January 18,2011 minutes as amended.
Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT -Windham Studio
A. Devonshire Refurbishment (See attached)
Scott Windham presented the Conceptual Design for Median Plantings on
Devonshire Blvd.:
o Objectives:
- Stay true to the present Plant Palette on Radio Road
- Create interest as you travel along the roadway
- Plant Materials were selected to scale with the Median(s) as
some segments are very narrow
1
1611825
o Plant Palette consists of the following Materials:
- Dwarf Firebush
- Silhouette Bougainvillea
- Southern Magnolia
- Hex Shillings
- Denny Crown of Thorn (at median tips for color accent)
- Jatropha Trees
- Silver Saw Palmetto
- Cabbage and Montgomery Palms
- Little Red Crown of Thorn (low and mounding)
- Green Island Ficus
- Muhly Grass (native grass with a wispy pink plume)
- Ligustrum Trees (provides deep evergreen color and broad
canopy)
- Muskogee Crape Myrtle (Lavender colored deciduous plant)
Plant sequence from Santa Barbara Blvd. to Belville Blvd. :
o Yellow Denny Crown of Thorn
o Series of (3) Montgomery Palms
o Pink Silhouette Bougainvillea (in the center)
o Juniper (dusty silver green ground cover with a soft texture)
o Ficus
o Jatropha Trees
o Median tips (narrow areas)
- Hex Shillings
- Yellow Denny Crown of Thorn
o Plant spacing will be the similar to Phase III
Plant sequence continued down Devonshire Blvd.
o Yellow Denny Crown of Thorn (at the Median tip)
o Montgomery Palms
o Pink Bougainvillea (in the center)
o Juniper
o Ficus
o Street Lights are positioned in the Native Grass
o Little Red Crown of Thorn
o Dwarf Firebush
o Magnolia Tree (in the center)
o Evergreen Tree
o Muskogee Crape Myrtle Tree (at each end)
o Montgomery Palms (smaller group)
o At the intersections and Devonshire Entrance( s) Montgomery Palms,
Crown of Thorn, and Bougainvillea are positioned together for effect
2
1611
B
2 ~5
Plant sequence from Avplebv Dr. to Radio Road
o Cabbage Palm
o Denny Crown of Thorn
o Ficus and Jatropha Trees
o Hex Shillings wrap around the Silver Saw Palmetto
o Ligustrum Tree
o Denny Crown of Thorn (center facing)
o Magnolia Tree, Crape Myrtle, and Dwarf Firebush
o Street Lights are positioned in the Muhly Grass
o Cabbage Palm and Ligustrum Tree
o (3) Montgomery Palms
o Yellow Crown of Thorn (at the median tip)
Plant sequence at Radio Road
o Montgomery Palm
o Denny Crown of Thorn
o Bougainvillea (in the center)
Discussion ensued on the Median Design Concept.
Betty Schudel perceived the position of the Trees is not aesthetically pleasing as
they are in a strict formation (equal distance.) She requested the spacing of the
Trees be slightly modified.
Pam Lulich recommended Scott Windham review the road curvature as Plant
Materials may obstruct view.
Dale Lewis moved to accept the (Windham Studio) Conceptual Design
(Devonshire Median Planting) and to submit (the Design) to the County for
Sight line approvaL Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously
4-0.
Dale Lewis noted that the Devonshire Project(s) benefit all residents contributing
to the MSTU as Devonshire Blvd. is a main thoroughfare.
Scott Windham stated monies spent on Devonshire Blvd. ensure the following:
o Correct Safety issues created by the mature Mahogany Trees
o Historically maintain the area
VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None
IX. NEW BUSINESS - None
X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS -None
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None
3
1611 8 25
,
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:16 P.M.
Radio Road Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee
5Jc;ld~
Dale Lewis, Chairman
. '\
These minutes approved by the Committee. on d-- I) - \ ,
as presented 6" or amended .
The next meeting is February 15, 2011 3:30 p.m.
Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
4
1611 825
~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~m~m~~WN~
;;U;;U
mm
en en
mm
~~
mm
en"Tl
o
;;0
(')
o
Z
:::!
Z
G)
m
Z
(')
-<
i~~i~~~~~~~8~~~~~*~
zggzz~;;oo~2:::!ffi~~on~z$~
enmmenoo~ )>oo,;;o'ooOO~m~~~
~-I-I~-Ir~:::!~N3:~m~ Z'Zoo
~-l-l;;UOO3:Z~m- oo~ ~m(')m
O~~en~emG)~;;o~~~m z;;om~
OZZ =-IZm0~m;;oZ3: (')OOG)~
zoooo e>-IX m'-IO~ m~m
en Z-<OO~ ~r~~-I r~Z
-l~ G)m ~>-mm >mm
-Ig~ Z mZ~ Q~~~~ ~3:~
;;0 (') m 00 :!:~ 003:,
~~ 0 ~ me -I~ (')~
'00 ::g ~ (')00 00 ~_
mm 0, ~ J;!z
(');;0 m z-I
-I ~ 3: G)~
o ~ ~
;;0 m Z
o Q
m~orzmm
hi~:i!~!2~~
(')-mo;;o!!!!!!
-I "Tl;;ooomZZ
;;0 ii1, (') (') (') m m
alC ~-Imm
~~o~(')~~
-<c~mozz
~;;ozooG)G)
OO~(')-I"Tl"Tl
(')6;;omm
-Immmm
c z3i: 0000
~--l 0
,~tll-l
oo,c~
m ;;Om
;;0 00;;0
~ ~
(') m
m Z
00 -I
-IZ(')(')-l-l
?Z~~~~~
Z01;;o;;oZZ
~~-<-<~~
mm"Tl"Tlmm
;;UooOO;;o;;o
en-l;;O;;O"Tl"Tl
1lO;;o~~;;o;;o
om;;o;;oOO
0~003:3:
ZZOG)~~
ilc"Tlmx~
iiim~~(')~
(')~~~
c,'m
3: m;;o
tll (')
~ -I
3: 0
. ;;0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0) 01 ~
~ NN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 01 Ne..>
N O~ N mOl 0)01 ~ ~ ~~ (X)......mo 00 N 0l~0001
~ r.,~ u, mm 0'0 ~ u, u,u, cu,cc C~ 0lU, ~ N '0(")<0'0
0 00 0 00 ~ ~ N 0 00 00 0 000 00 0 "-I 00 01 0
0 000 00 0) 01 ~ , 9 0000000000 0 l.11 OONO
0 000 00 NN OIl 0 0000000000 0 00 0000
0 000 00 ~01 0 0 00000 0 00 00 0 0 0000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
"-I ~
N N m 01 ~ 0
:..~ u,e..> '0 - '0 r.,
01
~ ID ~O 0 "-I 0 0 "-I
~ ID mo 0 ~ , 0 , 0 , ./>0
, ~:". :""'0 0 :". 0 0 0,
~ID ~O 0 ./>0 0 0 01
e..>
Ne..> oe..>
u,<o 'N~
010 "J:l.......
r\,)o ......(X)
000 000
00 000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
~ ~
0) 01 N
mOl ~ ~ ID W ID N _e..> _./>0
U, -N r., 00 ~ -:". 00 ~ 00 ./>0:"'" 01 ~
~ 00 e..> 00 0) N 0 "-I e..> e..> 001 ~ e..>
ID"-I ~ We..> m , 90 0 , 01 , l.11 01 9 0 ~ e..>
, ow ~ ~:". 0 01 , 0 0 e..> 0 0 0 0 ~
00 01 N 0) 01 W 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
t./>o
NN ./>o~
Ne..>N~OlOl ./>oW
./>om./>or.,mmCoOo~e..>
o(X)......moo.........oo
OONOOOOWe..>~o
Oeoo,NOOWWOO
ON./>oOOOOOOOO
~ ~
" '"
.. ..
cr
"
~ e :::1
i ! ~
~
i;:
*-
)>
$:
0
'" 0 :::1 ;;
1il " ::
~ ~ -
0
~
;;;
'"
ID
0
..
...
"
...
0
0
0
i
...
s:
..
....
'"
~
::
....
E
2:
..
:;
E'
..
@
~
o
-"
Ol./>o./>oOl~OlOOl
U,U,U,r.,U,CCOo01
OOOOOOOON
0000000001
000000000
000000000
J\) ~~1\)01""'"
cnVJ......~'"......J:..a.~~
OIDO~0010./>o
OOONOOOOO
00000000
00090000
~~~i~~~~~.....
a.a.a.-f>miD~1ll
::T::T::Tm m01ll::l
1ll1ll1ll0~~m_~0
333 ~iD3"m
000000 000G)
CCC cn~' (1)
a. a. a. gc'i' i!
o' 0' o' ..
!!l
./>0
01./>0./>0./>0./>0
001010101
~oooo
o~~~~
.......I\J......I\.)I\)
t~~~~
./>o~Oe..>ID
(')01./>oON
::l~~~"Tl"Tl
a. III III III ~ 0
ai" 5 5 5 r- m
oC:C:C: ,::;
C;iii"iii"iii" '<
~:;:;:; ~
..... ::::J =':::J (I)
;;oa.a.a. 0
m l!: l!: l!: c:
3' ~ ~ ~ ~
!=T 5' 5' 5' 0
lQlClQ
(') (')
0" 0"
o 0
m m
./>0 ./>0
g:~g:~~
00000
C5C5~~~O~
(')(')~~~N~
~~~~~
(')N(')e..>N
3"(')~"m3:
001ll~~iDc:
C:C::4a.a.ao
m 3. OJ en en ~. :::r
:::J'<rfJ~g
2~~alal'<
< It III
o' 0 ::l
m III a.
0~
m
~
./>0./>0./>0
010101
000
~~~
ONN
./>o./>oN
"-lID 01
e..>"-IN
ID~ID
,
III
::l
a.
o
-10
O~
i!m
,~
O,O~,NOO
~~~c~G)l!:
glt~'31t~iD
00oo(')OO~
~~ c: g~ ~iii_'
<DCI):g!e.CD..,
oo~= ~lll
~:fm o~
CD US' ~ ..,
-0) (DCD
--f~ n-i
m g ~ ~
00 !!!."
~lll 00
3: u:i' m
m ::l :<
a.
iii'
::l
o
.....
.....
ciS'
~
0'
::l
.....
.....
ciS'
~
0'
::l
~
(3
CD'
a
? 3.
_. lc
::::I ~
m -,
III 0
::l
~o
+ III
~ ciS'
_::l
~~~~~~~
;;U--"Tl0(')
mzz-mc
<rri~::!l,;;o
m;;ooo~~~
::m-l-loo
....oo3:~<
m-lm-><
en-tz;;O,>
-1>-1005
;;Ux-o;;o;;o
~(')~z~m
-lOm- 3:
e';;oZ-I-t
~~gJ~s<s<
-I-Im
o 00
;;0 -I
~
~
r.,
o
o
, 0
9
c:;;
U,
o
o
'0
9
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Tl"Tl0
0" O"~.
~5:Sl
~ ~ m <
3.~ CD
lQ m ::::I
III ::l a.
=: en CD
Om'"
::l Z
III
3
m
./>0./>0
0101
00 ~
~~z
NN- 0
Ne..>~ ""
NOll
00"-1
"-lID
.,,::;r-
(1) :::!. Q)
:4lC ::l
= III m
N' ~ (')
mO_
..... ::l 0
000
c: c:
~iD
-g,~ "Tl
-<
llllll il ~
~
3 ~
0
III
~~~~~~~~~~~
m ~ ~
ONe..>o
:...........'".....Ji\.)wOOI\J
~ID~./>oOID"-I
mIDOO~ON01
N:"'OoOOOOo
O)IDOOOOOO
e..>
./>0
'N
00
01
'0
o
~
001~
'Ocr.,
"-1000
./>0000
'0,000
01000
U,
"-I
~
:".
./>0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~
N"-I./>oe..>
:.o:...a.o,
.......~w......
...01W......
:"0:""'6
~"-INO
~
01
NOlOO1
N~ ......-......-....0:.....
I'\,)I'\,)......01......~O)W
1~!>>010~01......01
00100NO:"'W
OOlOOIDOOO1
;;0
m
3
III
5'
5'
)>
o
-
c:
!!!.
Oo~
o III
,~c:
o
N
01
_00
"-I
N
./>0
, ~
~
N
01
~ "-I
"J:a.-=:_o
IDOlNe..>
IDOl e..> 01
'ou.o,u.
-=S~~
u;
N
-:".
"-I
, l.11
N
~
N
c~
om
001
l<oc..n
~Ol
w
c:;;
o
_"-I
"-I
o
o
'0
9
m):o
c 3
Q,~
CQ :::II
~ Q,
..:g,
(')
o
3
3
g
~
:::II
lit
m
><
"i ):0
:::II C'l
Q,2'
~!!!.
iil
1/1
"11 ~
~ C
2"110
D)C:;:o
-< ~ 0
~...Io~
w (JIC
NC03:
o en
:: -I
c:
u;
o
m
NOl
e..>e..>
0,:".
e..>..:=
):0
c;t ~.
~~
iil
1611825
February 15,2011
Prepared by:
Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Radio Road MSTU Proiect Report
(R-22) - ACTIVE: DEVONSIDRE shrub REFURBISHMENT; Funding Source Fund 158
02-15-11: Staff review of project plans underway. Windham to provide updated plans per
comments received.
(R-18) - COMPLETED: 100% COMPLETED - RADIO ROAD PHASE ill PROJECT
(Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windham Studios (PO 4500105824) ; Funding Source
Fund 158
02-15-11: Project substantially completed. Staff to review Type M Controller Issues with design
consultant, contractor, and manufacturer.
(R-15) - COMPLETED: RADIO ROAD PHASE ll-B & Phase I-A (II-B is from Kings
WayIBriarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I-A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) ; Funding
Source Fund 158
02-15-11: Project is Completed.
(R-19) - ON GOING: MAINTENANCE CONSULTING CONTRACT; Funding Source
Fund 158
01-18-11:: Windham Studios is under contract for maintenance consulting
(R-14) - ON GOING: MAINTENCE CONTRACT - BID# 09-5111R - "Radio Road
Beautification MSTD/MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" ; Funding Source Fund
111 '
02-15-11: Hannula Landscape under contract for on-going maintenance.
1
1611 8 25 "
STATUS REPORT
To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee
Company: Darryl Richard, Collier County A TM
From: Scott Windham
Date: February 14, 2011
RE: Radio Road MSTU Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment Status Report
MSTU Committee and Staff:
The following is a report on the status of the Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment
project:
. We have completed a combined preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost for the
west hedge, street trees and Asian Jasmine ROW plantings and the medians.
(Please see attached spread sheet)
. We are still waiting for review comments from Pam and traffic of the conceptual
design. However, in the interest of time and the schedule, we have proceeded
with developing the planting and irrigation plans in anticipation of only minor
adjustments.
. I met on site with James Abney, Darryl and Roger Dick to discuss a method of
calculating a separate Devonshire percentage of use for the effluent supply. We
determined that there are existing Bermad Hydrometers (for measuring gallons of
water) on the effluent line which feeds the mixing chamber, the Devonshire
mainline feed from the mixing chamber and the well mainline feed to the mixing
chamber. Because the hydrometer tabulates how much effluent water enters the
chamber and the only landscape area the chamber supplies is the Devonshire
irrigation system, then we determined that this hydrometer reading is how much
effluent water Devonshire is consuming which should be the responsibility of the
MSTU. We also determined that the power used by the well pump, mixing
chamber pump and related controller is for the Devonshire system almost
exclusively and should be the responsibility of the MSTU. We recommend
installing digital meters at these locations in place of the hydrometers in order to
have the most accurate readings possible as the hydrometers cannot be
calibrated.
. Once we receive review comments from Pam and staff, we will revise the plans
accordingly and submit the plans, specifications, Opinion of Cost and Bid Tabular
for final review and subsequent bidding.
Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365
8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390-1936
Fax: (239) 390-1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.com
www.windhamstudio.com
1611 825
Please email or call me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Scott Windham, ASLA
Landscape Architect, LA 000-1516
\
Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365
8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390-1936
Fax: (239) 390-1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.com
www.windhamstudio.com
@
'"
g
rc
III
s-
~
iD
~
:T
g
CD
~
~
'"
g
rc
III
s-
~
iii
III
W
rc
!!!.
o
"
;;j
3:
)(
ell
l
...
'"
'"
o
...
-...
'"
'"
is
N
Cl
:a
o
e:
z
o
8 ::
iii
:a
l/:l
o to (X)
s::
'" l!-
en iD
"
(') ~ J: ~
r-am~>m
c:a:a J:S:: "
~
(') en s:: J:
2" Q) C IJI
.. Cil::r 3
m ::] ii" 9!.
co i:::l i>>.
~ Cil! 5
CD "C - 0-
m ~ ~ ~
~~
f ~
."
~.
!!!
:T
g
CD
!if
~
III
""
(')
i':
..
iD
en s:: 0
~ ~ ~
~ '< ""
r ~ ~
"Il lJl g
.. '"
3' ::r
CD
'"
o
'"
rc
!!!.
o
?
W W W
rc rc rc
~ !!. et
g~~
~
c; ~ ~
)(
3:
"'ij
iD
a
...
"'l
o
.2.
ell
.:
'"
'"
-...
...
t:; 8: l8
m
..
m
III
m m m
.. .. III
8
is
...... ...
-... ... '"
~ g g
...
'"
...,
~
o
is
...... ...
W '" co
~ ~ ~
'" is is
o
l/:l
J:
:a
c
1II
l/:l
..., '"
< en ~
~ "tJ m
"
~ fe
g: [
~~
g ~
E a:
~
III
~
"
..
s:: fi
g '"
E i
o rc
~ CD
-< ~
~ 3'
3"
'" W
o~ c;;
P' ;;-
~ Ol
g:Ui
s-P:
rc g
!?
$.
II
::r
CD
..
"-
~ ::
~ ~
... ...
8 g:
(:) 0
o 0
... ...
'"
8 ~
o (:)
00
'V
~
~
l/:l
c.n ~ W N
~
CD ~ ~
l%l :a Gl
o
l%l ::E s:: r-
R ~ t
m g, c
C" iii" 3
2 rc i':
2 ~ 2.
.. "- "-
3; c:
~ 3
F !::
r- <-
J!l III
CD a
il 'C
i ~
2. i-
III rc
;f ~
~ ~
~ gi
CD. 3
'C
~
en
::r
III
"-
'<
j;
.5t
d
o
l%l
iD
g.
III
a.
en
::r
III
"-
'<
r-
~
'<
l%l
iD
!l-
Q
~
en .... s:: en
~ : ~ ~
III .8 <-
3 ~ lB ~
~c(')-g.
rg~-!ID
2- 11- CD "Il
ilC:::3:~
3 1 ~
CD Cil
CD
to;!
3:
)(
"'l
l
l%l
l>>
'"
~
"Il
Gl
Q
m
-"
c:
III
""
~OOl~
o it 0 r
1>> )( ,pi 3:
~023:5.
~ c: ==
~P-'i"~
:a 3 ;l; -
"Il a ~ '1l
~~~~
~~~.z
et 3.;
a -
'"
1il
!'
:a
"Il
Gl
Q
.2l
c:
!!!.
t
CD 0 co (.0)
m
III
~ ~ ~ ~
...
8
'"
o
iII't '6'1 ~ Q
... .... N ...
~l!l~~
oOOb
is is 8 0
...
'6"t iIl't iII't_
W '"
OJ en N N
~ 8 ~ ~
o 000
is is is 0
-...
8
'"
o
-I i
~ 3
III ~
s::
= l!-
iir
"
"'ij
en iD
a
c:
"
..
l%l'C
~ S'
" ..
[ 6'
z ~
~ i
'C
iD
"
..,
rc
'"
g,
3
x
'"
III
~
1
b'j
3 !l;
3 g
g ..,
z g
...!!!.
3
III
en
~
g
g
..
m
!!?
o
c
"
..
c
j?
b'
!!?
....
~
(')
~
<:
"lig~
CD ::I !!
~~ ~
f ~ ::E
o g
~ 2!
.. !
Q po
8 "Il
c: a
" m
~s
:g~
a c
~~
CD 2-
-" 0
~~
s::
c:
~
'"
III
l/:l'lil
c:
...
0'"
&r W
f~
~
o
"
"i
:I
-
~
......
N-
.. -
:.....,
t~
CaN
"''''
'"
d'~~~
i :::I Co ~
~~ ~
:as- g
~ g
~ 2!
.. !
o P-
i! ijl
c:
" m
~ S
~~
< c:
l!-~
.2l ~
~ ~
s::
c:
~
'i
."
i':
if
"-
o
CD
g
N
'"
o
...,
...
en
."
@
co
en
."
l%l
..
rc
II
W
:...
W
'"
'i
."
i':
if
"-
i
'!?
Z
...,
1D
o
'"
en
."
@
co
en
."
'"
III
rc
II
'"
;.,
!;l
l%l
..
a:>
..
...
W
:."
'"
...
co
W'
'"
W
:,.
...
ii
3
z
P
co 0) ...., 0) 01
~~i'~3:~
335:m!-
OO(')~.8~
: : :;3 ~ ~ "-
a.25.aQ;::'~
~!~v~C.
~$~ &'~
&.g! .::;~
g :I 5'
I ~ ~
i ~ i
!l- : .s
9.. a i_,
g Cil
a- a ,ii'
6'!. ;
~ 3 m
~ 5. III
~~ !
!!l ~ i
~ ~ ~
.g 5'CD iil
ii
g re. CD
- "- g
~ ! ii"
~ ;if OJ
g !!l a
III "- ::E
a (') m.
"2. ~
~ Dr
~[
a:>
CD
III
"
"-
'C
Cil
'C
go
3:
a:>
a
0-
"
III
"
"-
'C
or
a
s-
'!"
m
..
..
o
~ ~ ~ 0'1 ~
c
~
fnfn~~~
c
~
i
l/:l
c:
.,.
o
[w
f~
liS
"
=
~
![
i
:I
..
.;
iltil'tiltilt
..... (.0) ~ co
~O'Io8
~~~is
..00
..
(')
~
...
..... <D co ~
8 ~ ~ 8
0000
o 0
16liil
3
z
P
...
... W
88
(:) ~
o 0
o
:a
o
::E
s-
2.
c:
"-
s-
'"
!!?
c:
3
'C
rc
:L
"
"-
s-
a:>
III
"
"-
..
g,
'C
Cil
'C
go
~
'"
iD
!l-
Q
~
....
i
!"
W N
:a "Il .... (')
~~iS.
~ en 0 i
~ :;:
.. "
.., "-
.s ~
&. 51
'2. CD
III 5'
a CD
~ ~
~ i
s-
'C a:>
.g ~
~ g
a:>
;
CD
..
III
"
"-
al
~
..
o
"
a:>
o
~
o
"
..
ii
l%l
o
c:
iii
<
..
a
s::
l!-
iir
"
s-
2.
c:
"-
s-
rc
..
E'
3
'C
a:>
:L
"
"-
s-
'"
III
"
"-
..
g,
3:
a:>
~
o
"
III
"
0.
'C
iD
a
"
a:>
~CDU;
fn~~
W'" '"
8 ~ ~
000
o
...... ...
w ~ ~
8 g 0
ggg
o
'C
Cil
'C
go
"
~
'C
iD
"
..,
"
'!"
Ol/:l
1il =i
!l.
m
!!?
o
c
~
c
j?
i
....
o
![
(')
~
=
'"
s:: "Il 0 Cl
~ ~ i !;g
CD CD g, m
i a 0- ~
i ~ :J !;;
Sl. 'i ~
; 6' ffi
~ 3 C'l
III ....
" =i
!il m
g ~
"
"-
,.
r- r- C
CoO en en ~
c:
'"
S'-El'tiot't
~ ~ ~ ~
U~ g; b'
g-802t
&r
3
..
-
~
...... ...
- 0)....
OOmS.
~~~~
<1100(')
giso~
3
z
>'
2050C'l
.:::!! !l! 0
N3: oE
~ ~ ~ m
- J::a
o - C'l
." :a 0
'V me:
:a l%l Z
o 0....
~ c 0(
m ~:ll
J;; ~ e
8 0 ~
~ ~..
g ~
~ 0
m ~
~ 0
o ~
;Ii l/:l
:a c!
is ~
~ ;!:
o ='i
Z m
:a Z
m ~
Z C'l
Om
~ 8
o Z
Z ~
~
o
Z
N
~
..
m
!!?
o
~
~
O(l)m
r- a
c "
~
n CD"
~ ~ 2
Ii' :J en
IQ [ 0"
" S'
Eli z Q.
i' m c
iil ~ g.
"
iii
"
ct
IQ
g,
3 :!!
x
c-
..
~
l .:
~~lg
'" 3 III
Q g ct
~ Z ~
m ~-
CD
CIJ
'"
'" CD
et Q.
$' Q
~ f
;;:
~
iii
3-
...
OJ
o
e
m
!!l.
'" 0
...
...
~ ~ [
~
~ .,.
i1B~
g'8n
... ~
i
'"
.
a
0-
"
S
.,. .,.
Cb ~ g
=i~
ill 8 ~
S'
3
z
!>
s
-4
o
~o
r-'$.
"'t'-
2 i ;
g ~ ..
;. 5 N
< '< ~
.,. .,.
w...
j:~
... ...
~=
:
w
m
"'..
"
!it
o
i'"
"'~
~ 0
o 0
"
<
.,. .,.
...
~~
'" 0
...0
c
J::l ~
i
"
iii
?
i
0"
"
iii
:J
Q'
o
co
...
'"
'"
m
..
m
..
.,.
'"
co
8
.,.
Ol
g:
.,.
..
o
'"
...
o
o
.,.
'"
<0
'"
...
u.
o
'"
o
cD 0;
"1J g ~H!!
~ ~~~
tIJ ~ q 5-
!.1:9g>
;JJ""3:m'
~ ~~~
.., 0( I CL
;:m:<<
m IP..(!.
~ i ~~
:x: 3 i :x:
52:m3
r( ~'i r(
~ ~iQ
6 ;o=r I
cp g:~~
~ ~! r;>
N :J s;"TI
~ :~~
CD iil 0 tp
l ~~i!i
~ li::
~ ill" n
~ ~J~
a i~f
~ ~~~
ill g n-
o. 0.;E!
~ i~~
~ 6- i!l ~
;;85-
3- ZJ ~ ~
~ CD,,!
5-'2. Sl.
~ -< m 0..
: ~ I ~
~ ! 2. ili
3 cr:a3 ~
S'~j"Tl
g !H
l' S' ;;,
l <R~
~ Ii
i < tT
:J t~
Q' ... )>
[ i~
CD 9' <-
~ !. ~
: g. 8
a ~~
~ ~~
~ It ~
~ ~:;
~ ~tg
im
~~
-as'
iiil2
~~
n
is:
'" <0
;:j ...
m m
.. ..
.,. .,.
'" co
'" 0
8 8
.,. .,.
Ol ...
co ...
8 2l
00,
o 0
:::;
~~~
a-m_
~g~
_ili2.
~:~
2:N~
~i!.!!!.
m 6' ~
am"
gCIJ-4
CD ~~
""",
~;;~
CD n '"
",::1''''
"'''-6
",..",
no<!' ,
~~~
g~fC
8~i-
15' ..
><-<~
CD ,
1: ~ ~
s.",C:
~ Ii iil
CD " ..
.. 0."
.. .. CD
l!!aiii
~ ~~
...,,"
~~~
~~~
~1iiS:
arGl<
...!let
:>0<
" " CD
~l~
0."0
ICcto
~~e,
!!. (Q !.
. -."C
;on;
rZ ~!
~o<!'~_~
~ 5.
![ !!1.
ii":b~
ct~..
g :J
~"tJ ~
!!:~~
~ji
.. i!i ..
ZJ 3 a
~ S' ~
...'" CD
~i&
".. '
.. ct
i"S'
ctlil2
0'" "
:J ~. 0-
, <-..
" ..
3 ;::
~~
"z
~~
><",
~:;;:
9'CIJ
CD
:J.
III
m
..
.,.
..
'"
'"
o
o
.,.
..
'"
'"
o
o
~ '"
m m
.. ..
.,. .,.
"';;;
g '"
(:) 0
00
.,. .,.
'" '"
'" '"
g ;;
o 0
o
o
m~
3:
IC
!!1.
6"
"
;::
et
"
C
:J
CD
"
iil
..
..
"
iil
n
!
"
o
~
:!:
o
o
"
~
E
"
is:
ill
i[
"
iil
ZJ
"
;
'"
"
..
'"
JI!
CIJ
!l-
~
0.
ill
o<!'
1:
..
"
<
..
j
CIJ
n
:x:
...
o
"
<
n
'"
Eli
"
'"
!!'
9
i3
"
"
0.
j;j
;;:
CD
~
i
0"
S'
..
![
iil
g
0.
~
:;;:
3: 3' ~
a i~
gu
~ "3
S' ~ ~
c -CD
; ~~
i ~ ~
g ~::
"Ii
~ ~3
.. "..
CJl se.:::::J
5- iil)>
~ g:"f:
61 :::::J ~
3
o
<
CD
CD
><
in
ct
:J
'"
..
S'
IC
CD
<
..
~
..
..
..
CD
3
c-
~
;
"
iii
III
~
~
g
"
CD
<
..
~
..
E
3
c-
o;<
;0
CD
!f
0"
0.
o
"
c-
CD
j;j
;;:
CD
..
..
..
CD
3
2:
'<
0.
CD
~
m
..
.,.
~
o
o
.,.
...
'"
o
o
o
w
'-'l
!1C
j;j
g
"
3
Ii
!!:
ili
;;:
!"
"
~
is:
!l!
<-
"
3
c-
o
<
..
;;:
CD
15
><
~
9'
3
~
"
"'
6"
"
!'!
"l
CIJ
n
:x:
co
o
"
<
n
;0
..
CD
"
:!!
~
iil'
c-
"-
"
..
:J
"-
IC
OJ
<
~
;0
CD
!f
0"
'"
m
..
.,.
...
'"
o
o
o
.,.
g:
o
o
o
;;;
~
0."
lliil
~~
0'''
~ ;
";0
ZJ CD
~i
2:<
'<..
=<
c~
!::
8'1i
? 3
!
~
~~~~
g:~~~
S!,:::J fD.:J
~;:~;:
_CD Ci .1>> ~
<.. <..
!!.z !!.z
< - ili -
g8i58
~~~~
~<p~<p
~~ ~~
;0 in ;0 in
!!l,O !!l,O
iIl~ill~
"'; o~ 6'~
"Q ~! i~
ii fi iii' S' Dr
! ~g ~g
iil g < g <
CD_~ ~i~i
~ ~ ~ ~
ai . ~ 0' g
~ ~;i'
" "':J
&~1
8 ~ 8
" _:J
i ~;
Sl .. !l
6" :a 0
:J ct"
.. 0 ..
, :J'
g g
6- 6-
.. ..
5" s-
IC IC
.. ..
CD CD
3 3
~ ~
9' 9'
"
~
is:
!l!
<-
"
3
g
,.
..
<
CD
~
~
~
3
CD
~
"
..
6"
"
.~
..
-c
"
..
;
"
F-
"l
CIJ
n
:x:
co
o
:g
n
:J,
..
_ill
:!!
~
iil'
c-
"-
"
III
a
IC
OJ
~
;0
CD
!f
0"
S'
!!l.
et
![
o'
:J
m
"
~
8
~
"
~
0.
!l!
CIJ
n
:x:
co
o
"
<
n
'"
..
"
IC
CD
!!'
9
8
2
IC
..
lD
0.
'"
'"
m
..
m
III
.,.
~
o
o
.,.
~
o
o
.,.
.,.
CD
o
o
o
o
'"
o
o
o
o
o
..
-c
"
..
;
:J
_5'0
m
"
~
8
~
"
~
is:
!l!
CIJ
n
:x:
co
o
"
<
n
'"
..
:J
'"
CD
!!'
9
8
2
'"
..
lD
0.
m
..
.,.
8
o
o
.,.
...
o
o
o
o
16 1 ~1
tDCD....,C1.lc:.n~
~~
~a
" 6"
.. "
f;:
CD <
i~
ili ~
~b:
IC~
~<p
~~
;0 in
tj
o~
5";;
~i
= ct
1l,0
g ~
i"i
~~
0'9'
~'"
.. ..
Ii
!~
=:J
" CD
u'
ct"
0..
:J'
"
o
7
"-
..
S'
'"
..
lD
3
!!i.
9'
1l
"
..
;
"
F-
m
]
8
..
lD
!'L
"
~
is:
!l!
CIJ
n
:x:
co
o
~
'"
..
:J
'"
CD
!!'
OO>>)>CDO"'""C
~~;::;::;::~'<i3
g !l G'l G'l ~ !$ g~
g g :;;: :;;: '" ~ 81!:
gr g' ~ i> ~ 0-43
~ ~ J5 cE c6 ~ i"cc
CD CD CD ]!!l
ci~g,g,g, ~g
mii"Q.c..a. IDc'
lJiZJ8~~ ~g
....._:g",o-c :!:a
gg!!lill!!l :[ii
~fg~i~ ~~
"~~;.i ~o
~~~~~ ~~
~~~~~ H
~ &l ~ ~ ~ i;l !e
....S'S'S' Q!!l
l~iii= ~~
~~~~~ if!:
i~~~~ ~~
ala>aaa ,~~
::~[[ =a
i m j!. j!. j!. So iij
~~~8.~ ~~
5"5"% i E.Ci
~e~ ~~
"'0 "'0 ;; a
m m CD U.
~~ U
~~ -<~
~ ~ ~ ~
(II CIl Q) ==
g-!i
-c 1:
~~
_0
:J CD
~;
~i
? ~
5"!e
~I
i-Ill
ICO
~~
c...
5"Q
'" ..
~i
~~
.. 0
~~
",Q
[~
.. ..
" "
8 CD
-~
o ..
ii
3 iil
~ =
iil'iil
~.g
iil ;
~ c
~ ~ ~ ;~ i ~[ ~
:a g ; ~~ 5' [g8 '8
g~ i~~~~ ~
.. 'Ol1il':Q ~ <;l!l ;;;
a CD' 'm [1. ~CD "
.. 3 ': III u] ;!;
~ S' ,::I' qif'g.
~:::J ;9 St'<3 lJ
~ III ,:i -4:1' ~
~~ :1 ~ =~ c
i: ~ :"2. lJ 53 "'0
. S' ,.. i! 2\1 .g>
~ j:::J ~~: ~
5. g ;~ i
~ fC-&6 !
3 :1.g..
2: = ~; -f
cS -8 30< 0
;:: OJ !::I' i3
8. '< "i ~
3i 6 ie- ~
~ i ~!!1. ;E
g f!J mi >.<
~ = ~ar ~
-g r!. ~~ In
CD [~g ~
i "0 c6':< 0
:::J ~ GUD N
CD '2. "'C:::J 1J
i ~ ~~ ~
m ~ as- ~
3 s.~m'
g ill ..a ~
~ 0" !!l'8 "l
m i- ~ii
=' =':J =r
i ~1~:8
~ [~l
i iiH
i. ca si'<
~ [ ;g I"
" 8 oCCD 0.
E < ~~ ~
! !ii[
8. i~ ~
~ ? i ~
g if! l
: ~ ~ ~
~ : ~ ~
~ ~! 5
:J !!l. - [
i ~ 111
::I ~ fIl
iii' C ;0
:J l!l CD
i~ ~
ZJ 51 0"
~1 I
~ ~ ~
":J :J
1r-:: [
3~ CD
.. ..
8 ~
9
~
'"
..
CD
0.
co ~ 0
01 bbb
(10)000
000
m r r r r r
m "T1 "T1 "T1 "T1 "T1
....'Ei't.......il't....
O)N(.o)OOO
8 ~ ~ t..J t..J t..J
08800'"
o
.,. .,.
Ol ..
o
b 8
o 0
o
M M M fII
.. co '"
.Jlo. O'J 0 01
l'!: g 8 8
0. 0. 0. 0
0000
..
m
..
.,.
8
o
o
o
.,.
...
o
o
o
o
o
'"
~ ~~.. ~ en
..... m_ Dr
c5 Ci1 0' ::J
(') . ::J m
o ~ a
~ ~;;
i go i
~ ~ ~
~' n
'" g
~ i
a- g
~ 6"
~ ~
i? ~
:J
'"
"!
;0
CD
<
~'
~
..
ct
"
IC
CIJ
8
-a
6"
~
[
~
'"
CD
<
I
a-
in
::I'
III
:J
[
CD
0.
r;
.,.
o
o
o
o
o
.,.
o
8
o
o
3:
'"
!!l,
o
"
3
III
S'
Q
"l
3:
~
g
..
"
...
3
..
?
o
~
:J
CD
a
..
"
0.
;
3
o
ili
l!l
in
ct
"
IQ
!j
"
CD
8
:J
[
<
..
J
S'
..
~
"
i3
'8
i
N
o
"
CD
8
~
<
..
~
;;;
m
..
.,.
'"
o
o
o
.,.
co
o
o
o
o
CIJ
CD
Q.
Q
ct
o
:J
..
m
!!l.
o
c
"
'"
c
3:
b'
!!l.
-4
o
![
n
1a
8 25
z
!>
<
c;;
~mtn.w
;;
-t!!,c....<G')mm
$!::o~z:;;~~
~
-4 <-
;) 5
!l- -0
CD ..
g ~
~ !l-
3 S'
" CD
3 iil
m c;i"
m- -u
2' ~
3 ;1,
~ ~
< ..
~ ~
o Q
;..g~~
Z~2.:(D
~ m ::0
.. Gi l!:,
~ m
=: ='
~- ~
"
q,
m m
" "
" "
::I' ::I'
o 0
a- a-
m m
n
o
3
3
o
"
z
..
3
CD
~
iii
"
<-
..
..
3
S'
..
~ ~ a
! n ~
j ~ ~
~ ~ ~
g' ::I' "
~ ~ ~
::I'
o
3
..
~ ~
~ CIJ
;- ~
<- :J
" '"
:J ..
~'
~
"
}?
~
(.o)WWO)W
(Q(CCC -cc
!!. !!. !!. dI ~
0" 0" 0" r 0
.=' =' .=' ~ ='
~q~i9
~ =:r ;:t
~ >< ~ ~ ><
.Il; fIi ~ !. ~
j~!. ~!
"Tl'
~ ~
.. CD
Sil g
CD :J
i ~
.:::; 3
..
Q
CD
-c
"
~
~
0.
Ol
...
~~f)~~
fl>m
" ..
...
S'
i.,.
fI>'"
a8
o
"
mmmmm
m Q) m Q) Q)
~MM4nM
.Jlo. <0 co 01
gggg~
<
ii
3
..
~
~
.!!!
.,..,.
~...
CD..
jII~
...'"
...co
1'0
co
co
.,. .,.
t ~ !
boO
o 0
.,. .,.
'" '"
Ol Ol
c: ~
o b
o 0
~ R~ EMt
M.S.T.U. A~ Co..~
zggs), H~ ~t
11 em m]I WI m \iW~' FL 34104
MAR n 1 2011 WJ
February 2,2011
BY: ...".. ..-.'to....,.,,,...............
lQ,J IT>~6
Hiller ~
Henning~==
Coyle _
Coletta
t,
~ ,
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes - December 1, 2010 Meeting
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera, Budget Analyst
B. Project Manager - Darryl Richard, Project Manager
VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report
A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio
B. Irrigation Water Source - James Abney, James C. Abney & Assoc.
VII. New Business
VIII. Old Business
A. Liaison Report - RR MSTU - Sue Chapin
IX. Public Comments
X. Adjournment
The next meeting is scheduled/or March 2, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
1
:m~
nemt. Llol1WJid-b
Copies to:
16'18260(
~R.~~
k.S.T.U. A~ ~;:ttt.t
zl?l?s ), H~ /}.M,t
N~, FL 34104
Minutes
February 2,2011
I. Call Meeting to Order
The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 10:00
AM.
II. Attendance
Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Dale Johnson, Paige Simpson
(Excused), Renato Fernandez (Excused)
County: Michelle Edwards Arnold - A TM Director, Darryl Richard -
Project Manager, Pam Lulich - Landscape Operation Manager, Gloria
Herrera - Management Budget Analyst
Others: Dayna Fendrick - Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski -
Urban Green Studio, James Abney - James C. Abney & Associates,
Sue Flynn - Juristaff
Public: Marshall Jenkins - Sherwood Resident
III. Approval of Agenda
Change: VI. A. Landscape Design to Irrigation Water Source
VI. B. Irrigation Water Source to Landscape Design
Sue Chapin moved to accept the Agenda for February 2, 2011 as
amended. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - December 1, 2010 Meeting
Sue Chapin moved to approved December 1, 2010 Minutes as
submitted. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 3-0.
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report
Gloria Herrera distributed and reviewed the Radio Road East MSTU
Fund 166 Report dated February 2, 2011. (See attached)
She reported as follows:
· Ad Valorem Tax Received $125,087.72
· Purchase Orders - Commitments $ 38,048.57
· Reserves Available $ 56,300.00
· Operating Expense $ 8,994.00
· Total Actual Expenditures $ 11,679.19
1611826
B. Project Manager ~ None.
VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report
A. Irrigation Water Source - James C. Abney & Assoc.
James Abney recommended the Committee apply for an Irrigation
Permit and request a consumption permit for the project gross acreage
of 4.15+ acres in lieu of the current proposed landscape dedicated
acreage of 2.07+/- acres. He stated his reasons were for practical
purposes related with potential maximum water consumption and the
current state of the economy. (See attached)
He reported the Application Water Windows as follows:
o Standard Phase I - 3 nights per week, 24 hours per week
o Normal Drought Phase II - 3 nights per week, 12 hours per
night
o Severe Drought Phase III - 2 nights per week, 4 hours per night
He reported the Water Source Sizes A vailable/ Operating Capacity
and Purchase Base Prices as follows:
o Phase 1- 6" well with 7.5 HP submersible - $37,000+/-
o Phase II - 8" well with 10 HP submersible - $41,600+/-
o Phase III - 8" well with 15 HP submersible - $45,600+/-
It was noted the permit could cost approximately $1,500.
He reported the Water Source Estimated Electrical Service Operating
Cost as follows:
o Phase I - $13.92 per week
o Phase II - $9.48 per week
o Phase III - $9.68 per week - all based on January 2011 rates
James Abney recommended the 8" well with the 15 HP pump and
reasoned it has the power to provide a flow demand capable of
meeting the Phase III restrictions and can run more zones as the
watering time is shortened.
It was suggested the Committee apply for a "Deep Well" Permit.
Tom Depouw moved to approve the 8" well with the 15 HP
submersible pump and with a larger capacity well for $45,600.
Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried 3-0.
Sue Chapin moved to transfer $56,300 from the Reserve Account to
the Capital Outlay Account. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion
carried 3-0.
Movement of MSTU Funds from Reserve Account to the Capital
Outlay Account will require BCC approval.
2
1611
James Abney recommended installing the well once the permitting
was in place. The well will be installed just west of Madison Park/
Sanctuary in the median. One bore will be required for electrical
service below the pavement. Staff noted the location had sufficient
right-of-way for installation.
James Abney noted sleeves will be used with installation.
Darryl Richard estimated the time frame for Permitting, Bidding, the
Budget Amendment and to have Contractor identified, would take 60-
90 days. Staff will advertise bids for the well after permitting is in
place. James Abney and Staff will review all well bids.
B. Landscape Design - Urban Green Studio (UGS)
Dayna Fendrick distributed an Allied Engineering & Testing, Inc.
Report dated January 17,2011. (See attached)
She reviewed the following testing along Radio Road's alignment as
follows: (See attached)
o PH level is normal for Naples soils.
o 17 auger borings, subsoil permeability tests, acidity and
organic content tests.
o Not much rock was found.
o Ground surface was packed and will need tilling to loosen
for preparation of planting.
Dayna Fendrick and Katie Binkowski gave the following
presentation on 3-Conceptual Design Options:
Desh~n Criteria and Plant Palette (See attached)
~ Goals and Objectives
Y Other Design Criteria
~ Challenges
~ Landscape Zone Diagram on Radio Road East MSTU
Inspirations (See attached)
They presented pictures of different conceptual designs from around
the country for discussion.
Concepts (See attached)
Typical Elevations, Typical Plans and Typical Section renderings
were provided.
~ Option A - Coastal Character
~ Option B - Palm Grove
~ Option C - Urban Canopy
Discussion was made on options and UGS answered many questions
from the Committee and Staff regarding plant selections and ground
3
26
j
161 1
B 2 6 ~.J
coverings used in each Concept. It was noted consideration was
given to the lower maintenance and native plants.
Dayna Fendrick (UGS) stated the cost to install plants costs 4-times
more per square foot than sod and is working with Staff to find
historical data on maintenance costs.
Staff volunteered to provide a typical analysis for a 10' x 10' area
that includes; labor, mowing, water and maintenance comparison for
the Committee.
Discussion was made on utilizing shells, pavers and mulch on
medians 40-45' wide, the pros and cons of each covering, nutrient
values, water retention and normal replacement of shells. Shells,
pavers and mulch, in general, have lower maintenance costs and
would reduce the area requiring irrigation.
Pam Lulich stated the Royal Palm trees should be planted 20' from
the roadway because of the possibility of fronds falling onto the
roadway and causing hazardous conditions. She also stated shells
may raise the PH level and are generally replaced every 2-years.
Staff stated utilization of shells would need to be approved by Staff
Engineers and the BCC before a plan can go forward.
Dale Johnson suggested I Design Concept be presented to the Public
for feedback from them. The "Public Meeting" will be held on March
29, 2011 to present the final design.
The Committee will hold a Special Meeting on February 23,2011 to
complete the selection of a Design.
Public Speaker
Marshall Jenkins agreed with presenting the I-Design Concept to
the Public and interjected his choice was Urban Canopy. He asked
about the time element and when the project will be completed. He
also asked what was the percentage of funds required to begin work
was.
Darryl Richard responded 100% of funds are required before
starting as the project is scheduled to be completed over 4-5 years.
Michelle Arnold stated property taxes are in-line to meet that time
frame.
Sue Chapin suggested the Staff prepare a Project Schedule for the
Public Meeting projecting tax years and estimated property tax
collections and include what funds are used and for what; i.e.
permitting, pump, well, etc.
The Grant was discussed briefly. Sue Chapin asked for a Grant
information update at their next meeting.
4
16 J 1 8 26
Sue Chapin moved to direct Landscape Design Consultant to
combine the Urban Canopy and Palm Grove design as discussed by
the Committee and provide that Design Concept to the Committee at
their Special Meeti1~g. (February 23, 2011) Second by Dale
Johnson. Motion carried 3-0.
Dale Johnson moved to change the March 2, 2011 meeting to
February 23, 2011 and hold a Public Meeting on March 29, 2011.
Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 3-0.
A place for the public meeting will be decided by staff.
VII.
New Business - None.
VIII.
Old Business
A. Liaison Report - RR MSTU - None.
IX.
Public Comments - None.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 12:25 PM.
Radio Road East Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee
These minutes ap'7"" by the Advisory Committee on o/~ /; /
as presented or amended . I
The next meeting is scheduledfor February 23,2011 at 10:00 a.m..
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
5
, I
NNNNN
CO....cncn".
:::O:::O-lCJCJ
mm:::Occ
(000)>00
mmzG)G)
:::O:::OOOmm
<<'T1-l-l
mmm-l-l
cn'T1:::O:::o:::o
0('))>)>
:::OOZZ
'T1zoooo
cOO-l)>
2'-l(')""O
CD (')""0
(') 0:::0
o r
:::::I
en
-
NNNN-------
WN-OCDCO....cncn".W
1\)1\)
.0> .0>
01 01
00
pp
00
00
-l-l(')~oooorm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :r! g' i:j
ZZ=i"":::o-,rom:::::l
oooo)>O)>ooo:::o8l;:H
'T1 -l r < -l'O c s: en m
~OO~Zm~cn?;OO
00 -" ~ m G) Q: (ii' (') a. 0
~rzmcEenm""O-l
)>-lX rro::r:
c~OO""OOO r3m
Z G)m.g ~;::;::::o
Z mtij"2. men
(') zm'< 0
o C
:::0 00
~~~~~~~~~
~~~
01
.0>
O~
00
pp
00
00
~
.""'-1 .-" ""'-I
-"010
000
ppo
000
000
0101
.0> 9> .0> .W .W
WWOOOOO
00000
ppppp
00000
00000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W
co I\)
b I\)
". 0""'-1
co OW
en ' 6 01
.... 0""'-1
W
01
0>
""'-I
01
I .
o
o
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1\)1\) co 00
""'-I ""'-I CD ""'-I N
1\)1\) cn I\) W
-" -" .... 0> -"
~ ~ ~ , :,:.. , 6
0> 0> W W 0
~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~
01 01 1\)1\)
0>0> .~ .-" .W .0> .0> 00 _.~ -" W .""'-1 .""'-1
W W 000 01 01 <0 ~ -" -" 01 0 ""'-I ""'-I
0 0 ""'-I ""'-I 0 00 <0 0 0 0 0<0 00
0 P ~~ 0 pp ~ 0 0 0 p~ 00
0 0 1\)1\) 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 66
0 0 ~ ~ 0 00 0 09 0 0 0 00
161 1
- --
N-OCDCO....cncn".WN-
-lZ(,)(,)-l-l:::O--'T10(,)
:::0 m )> )> :::0 :::0 m .Z Z m C
)>G):::o:::o)>)> <-l<21r:::o
Z01:::o:::ozzm~rn::r:)>)>
oo,*,-<-<oooozm-l-lOO
'T1m'T1'T1'T1'T1Ccns:::r:<
moooommm-lm-)><
:::O-l:::o:::o:::O:::OOO-lz:::Or)>
OO:::o::;E::;E'T1'T1-l)>-l005
~m)>)>:::O:::O:::OX-O:::o:::o
()<:::o:::oOOC(')~zmm
o ooS:S:~Om-S:s:
~ oG)~~c~:::O~-l-l
:::0 'T1mx""O:::omrnm~~
ijj mz('):::om(')-l:::O
Z 0)> -l m
(') rcn 00
C rm -l
~ .....-
~~~~~~
.""'-1 .""'-1
""'-1""'-1
00
pp
00
00
-
-"
01
.w
W
o
p
o
9
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-"
I\)
01
o
<0
~
00
""'-I
........
--
-" 01
, . ,
W ""'-I
<00>
................
~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
I\)
00
N
o
~ , ' 01
-" W""'-I
~ <00>
-
-"
01
.W
W
o
,P
o
9
o
o
3
3
';:;:
3
CD
:::::I
fit
m
><
'i)>
:::::I (')
-C:S'
-"2'!.
...
CD
tII
I\)
.01
o
00
,:--J
""'-I
~
N
.00
I\)
-"
I\)
I .
I\)
~
m)>
c 3
Q,CD
:::::I
CD Q,
_CD
Q,
~
a !!.
!.~
CD
B 26
1 ~
<Ii
."
CD
C"
..
C
S>>
~
N
N
o
...a,
...a,
~
S>>
C.
." o.
c~
zc.
em
...a,S>>
enUl
en-
s:
en
-I
c
Radio Road East
1611826
PO's FY 11
Vender Name Item PO# Remaining Paid
Juristaff Clerical Services 4500122526 $ 2,273.57 $ 726.43
Staoles Office Suoolies 4500123131 $ 100,00 $ -
Urban Green Ena Fees Rea $ 35,675.00 $ 8,231.00
,; $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
; $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
I; $ -
$ 38,048.57 $ 8,957.43
$348,324,543 FY 11 Taxable Value @ 7/1/10
#DN/O! Adj.10to11
FY 11 FY 10
Millage Cap = .5000
Millage 0.4400 0,0000
Extension 153,263 0
161 1 B
26
".
James C. Abney & Associates
Irrigation Consulting, .Site Observation, System Auditing &
Management
2984 44th Street SW - Naples, Florida 34116
Phone (239) 304 - 8451; Fax (239) 304 - 8452
E-Mail JAAIDC2@ao1.com
Irrigation System Potential Water Source Evaluation Study - Pumping
Equipment Options Memorandum
DATE: January 14,2011
TO: Ms. Dayna L. Fendrick, Landscape ArchitectlPlanner & Project Manager -
Urban Green Studio, Inc.
FROM: James C. Abney, JCA&A.
PROJECT: Radio Road R.O.W. Phase iv, Naples Florida
SUBJECT: Irrigation Water Source Pumping System Options.
The project is a continuation of streetscape improvements for the Radio Road Right of Way. The
subject section, which lies between the Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard is going to
be referred to as Phase N. The acreage (total),is estimated to be slightly larger than 4+/- acres
because the length of the section is approximately 1.3+/- miles, and the width of most medians is
greater than twenty-five feet. Due to the projects total acreage and current state of the economy
the landscape design is going to present a proposed landscape area approximately equal to 50%
of the project's total acreage. For pmctical purposes related with potential maximum water
consumption limit and also for potential irrigatable landscape area increase in the future the
calculations presented per this document are going to be targeted towards irrigating the project's
total acreage.
PROJECT'S ACREAGE
. Project's Gross Acreage, 4.15+/- Acres.
. Project's Proposed Landscape Dedicated Acreage, 2.07+/- Acres.
APPLICATION WATER WINDOWS
. 3 Nights per week, between 12:00 PM and 8:00 AM, 24 Hours per week, Phase 1-
Standard.
. 3 Nights per week, 4 hours per night, 12 Hours per week, Phase D - Normal Drought.
. 2 Nights per week, 4 hours per night, 8 Hours per week, Phase ill - Severe Drought.
1611
B 26
,;
APPLICATION FLOW DEMAND REQUIRED
. Phase I, 85+/- GPM Flow Demand Required.
. Phase IT, 170+/- GPM Flow Demand Required.
. Phase m, 225+/- GPM Flow Demand Required.
WATER SOURCE SIZES AVAILABLE - OPERATING CAPACITY & PURCHASE
BASE PRICE
. Phase I, 6" Well with 7.5 HP submersible, 100+/- GPM @ 60+/- PSI; $37,000.00+/-
. Phase II, 8" Well with 10 HP submersible, 150+/- GPM @60+/-PSI; $41,600.00+/- This
option does not meet the flow demand required for Phase IT Restrictions.
. Phase ill, 8" Well with 15 HP submersible, 150+/- GPM @ 60+/- PSI; $45,600.00+/-
WATER SOURCE ESTIMATED ELECTRIC SERVICE OPERATING COST
. Phase I, 7.5 HP Pump, $13.92 Per Week.
. Phase II, 10 lIP Pump, $9.48 Per Week.
. Phase m, 15 HP Pump, $9.68 Per Week.
The cost per week presented is based on the current (January 2011) rates. The cost does not
include service standard fees and applicable taxes.
Based on the research done and the results presented the irrigation water source recommended is
the 8" well with 15 HP pump. The 15 HP pump station is recommended over the 10 lIP pump
because the 15 HP pump it has the power to provide a flow demand capable of meeting the Phase
III restrictions. The 10 HP pump will struggle to come close to provide a flow demand minimally
suitable for the Phase IT restrictions.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely yours
JAMES C. ABNEY & ASSOCIATES
J a vv..es C. Ab~!1
James C. Abney, 1. A., Cl.T.
State of Texas Licensed Irrigator 005636
Irrigation Association Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor 018448
2
16'1826
Allied Engineering
& Testing, Inc.
Providing Geotechnical Engineering, ..
Materials Testing, Construction, Inspections
and Environmental Services
January 17, 2011
Ms. Dayna Fendrick, RLA, AICP
Urban Green Studio, PLCC
P.O. Box 111841
. Naples, Florida 34108
239-263-4029
RE: Geotechnical Engineering Services
Radio Road, Naples, Collier County, Rorida
Allied Project No. 40-6903
Dear Ms. Fendrick:
As requested, Allied Engineering & Testing, Inc. (Allied) has performed seventeen (17) auger
borings, subsoil permeability tests, and acidity (PH) and organic content tests along Radio Road's
alignment located in Collier County, Florida. Refer to Figure 1 for a Site Map.
The number, depth, type and location of the tests were designated by Urban Green Studio, PLCC
in consultation with Allied. The approximate location of the tests is provided on the attached
Figures 2 through 5 (Boring Location Map).
The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, acidity (PH), organic content and values of
permeability coefficients encountered atUle test boring locations are provided inthefollowing table.
The stratification lines between various changes in soil conditionsltypes are approximate. The
actual transition between strata may be gradual. Based on the soil resistance to drilling, some area
are encountered to be in dense state.
Soil Profiles Hydraulic Conductivity
Test Boring Boring Acidity organic (CFSJFTl-FT.....d)
Depth COrdent
Number Number (feet) Depth (pH) (%)
(feet) Description Vertical Horizontal
0-1 Brown SAND with gravel
1-3 Oafk browr1 SAND 1.5 x1()"6 2.3 x 1o.e
P-1 B-1 5 6.6 1.6
3-4 Brown SAND with shell (0.13 ftIday) (0.2 ftIday)
....5 Brown SAND, Rock at 5'
0-1 Brown SAND .with gravel
P-2 B-2 4.5 6.64 1.5 1.0 x 1()"6 1.5 x 1041
1-4.5 Dark brown SAND, Rock at (0.1 ftIday) (1.5 ftIday)
4.5'
1:\Geatccboi<:aI~ Project\2010 Rcpods\40.6903 Radio ~ Lettcr,wpd
5850 Corporation Circle .. Fort Myers. Florida 33905
(239) 334-6833 .. (239) 334-6614 fx .. www.Allied-Engineering.com
Page 1 of 4
Fort Myers .. Sunrise .. Punta Gorda
1611
B 26
4
Radio Road, Naples, CaUier County, Florida
Client: Urban Green Studio, PLCC
Allied No. 40:6903
. January 17, 2011
Soil Profiles HydriluIiC CORductivily
Test Boring Boring Acidity Organic (cFSJFr-FT .head)
Depth Conl8nt
~umber Number (feet) Depth . (pH) (%)
(feet) Description Vertical Horizontal
0-3.5 Brown SAND with gravel ,
P-3 8-3 4.5 6~63 1.6 1.0x 1o-t' 1.5 x 1o-t'
3.5-4.5 Brown SAND with gravet and (0.1 ftlday) (1.5 ftlday)
shell, Rock at 4.5'
0-1 Brown SAND with gravel
1-1.5 . Light grayish brown. limerock 6.83 1.8x1o-t' . 2.7 x 10-&
P-4 B-4 5 stabilized base 1.9 (0.15 ftlday) (0.2 ftlday)
1.5-5. Dark brown SAN[) with
gravel
0-0.5 Brown SAND with gravel
0.5-1 Light grayish brown, limerock
stabilized base 1.1 x 10-6 1.7 x 1r
P-5 8-5 5 7.22 1.6
1-3 Brown SAND (0.9 ftlday) (1.4 ftIday)
3-5 Dark brown SAND with
gravel
0-4 Daft brown SAND with
.P-6 B-6 5 graVel . 7.28 1.8 3.6 x 1r 5.4 x1r
4-5 Brown SAND (3.1 ftlday) (4.7 ftlday)
,
Q-4 Brown SAND with gravel 4.6 x 1o-t' 6.9 x 1o-e
P-7 8-7 5 7.13 3.8
4-5 Dark brown SAND with roots (0.4 ftlday) (0.6 ftlday)
Q-4 Brown SAND with gravel 6,0 x 1o-t' 9.0 x 10-<<'
P-8 8-8 5 7.16 2.0
4-5 Dart brown SAND (0.5 ftlday) (0.8 ftlday)
0-3 Light brown SAND with
P-9 8-9 5 gravel 6.89 2.2 3.7 x 1o-t' 5.6 x 1o-e
3-5 Light brown SAND (0.3 ftlday) (0.5 ftlday)
Q-4 Grayish brown SAND with
P-10 8-10 5 gravel 6.96 1.6 i.6x 1o-t' 2.4 x 1o-t'
4-5 Dark brown SAND (0.14 ftlday) (0.2 ftIday)
J:\GcotecbniGaI ~ Project\2010 RepcrIs\40-6903 Radio ~ Lett<<.wpd
Page 2 of 4
1611 B 26
Radio Road. Naples, CoHier County, Florida
Client: Urban Green studio. PLCC
Allied No. -to-6803
January 17. 2011
Soil Profiles Hydraulic ConducIivIty
Test Boring Boring ACidity Organic (CJ=SIFllI-FT .head)
Number N....... Depth (pH) COnI8ftt
(feel) Depth Description (%) Vertical HorizOntal
(feet)
0-3 GrayiSh brown SAND with 4.6 x 10& 6.9 x 10e
P-11 B-11 5 gravel 6.97 2.0
(0.4 ftIday) (0.6 ftlday)
3-5 Brown SAND
0-2.5 Dark brown SAND with
P-12 8-12 '5 gravel 7.09 3.0 3.9 x 10'" 5.9 x 10e
(0.34 ftIday) (0.5 ftIday)
2.5-5 Brown SAND
,
()..4 GrayiSh brown SAND with 5.7 x 1o-e 8.6 x 10e
P-13 &:13 5 gravel 6.99 1.9
(0.5 ftIday) . (0.8 ftIday)
4-5 Brown SAND
()..4 Brown SAND with 9raveI 7.9 x 10& 11.9 x 10&
P-14 8-14 5 7.10 1.1 (0.7 ftIday) (1 ~ 1 ftlday)
4-5 Light brown SAND
()..4 Brown SAND with gravel 6.7 x 10S 10.1 x 10S
P-15a 8-15a 5 7.19 1.6
4-5 Brown SAND (5.7 ftlday) (8.6 ftIday)
()..4 Brown SAND with gravel 7.5 x 106 11.3 x 1()'6
P-15b B-15b 5 - - (6.5 ftIday) (9.8 ftIday)
4-5 Brown SAND
.
0-1 Dark brown SAND
P-16 8-16 5 1-4 Light brown SAND with 7.16 1.9 4.3 x 1~ 6.5 x 1~
gravel (3.7 ftIday) (5.6 ftlday)
4-5 Liaht brown SAND
The ackftly and organic content tests were performed for each boring on soil samples collected in
the fietd. The tested samples were prepared by combining and mixing soil samples collected in
the field at depth from 0 feet to about 5 feel The soil samples c::oIIed8d from Iimerock stabilized
base stratufl,l,encountered in borings B-4 and 8-5, were not included in the soit mixture prepared
fort~. .
The penneabilily tests were performed in general accordance with the South Florida Water
Management District prOcedures. The 3.5-inch diameter test holes were cased ~ 2-inch
diameter slotted PVC pipe.
The tests were performed after allowing the soils to sab.R'aIe for 30 minutes. The tests were then
initiated by filling the pipe again. For each inch of the water drop. the elapsed time was recorded.
The coefficients of vertical penneabiIity are caJcuIated on the base of .fieId test results. .
J:\O{a(t to'o..J&,,;.-~PI<ljcd\2lll0~bIiO~Lelior.wp1 Page 3 of 4
16 11 B
26
Radio Road, Naples. Collier County, Florida
Client: Urban Green studio, PLCC
Allied No. 40-8903
January 17, 2011
The effective design of any project where flow of water through soils is a matter of concem requires
determination of a coeffiCient of soil penneability in both vertical and horizontal directions. The
coefficient of permeability in horiZontal direction almost always is larger than the vertical one.
If a soil deposit is stratified, the permeability for flow parallel to, the direction of stratification is
higher than that for flow perpendicular to the direction of stratification. For anisotropic soils the
ratio of horizontal flow to vertical flow may be 2 to 4 or more.
However, the coefficient of permeability of a homogeneous isotropic soil mass is more similar in
both directions and de'pends mostly on viscosity, void ration, size and shape of the soil grains and
degree of saturation. .
Based on our field test results, the tested subsoils consist of sands with scattered zones containing
a trace to some gravel to the depth of about 5 feet. We consider these subsoils as homogeneous,
isotropic mass. Therefore, the coefficients of horizontal permeability provided in the table are .
calculated on the base of the vertical values multiplied by factor of 1.5.
The above results are based on the soil conditions encountered at the specific test locations and
apply only to these specific sites.
We appreciate the opportunity to work With you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact
us if you have any questions. .
Copies Submitted:
(3) Addressee
(1) James c~ Abney & Associates
V'JrIIlOOlJf~~;~:,lt 'J:~'
Sincerely,
AWED ENGINEERING & TESTING, INC.
;11~
Christo~~:r~::'~y
Staff Engineer .
J:\GeotecImical ~Pmject\2010~ RadioR00d\40.6903~.wpcI
Page 4 of 4
5
(fl
Q)
~
c;;
M
r Blvd
a..
<(
::a:
~ 5
(fl
Q)
Z ~
- c;;
() M
> 5: 5:
(fl (fl
W 0:: Q)
.- ~
.s=
(f) c5 -0
C
{TJ N
{TJ
~ ~
W (fl
0:: 0::
::> c;; 5
M
C> c:-
St sw 0
U. ~
~
u
,J!
Barbara Blvd
1StSW
1StSW
. .... J? 6Wd
~
i4th St SIN
p~ sJjflS 81
~
~
~
,f2
Q.
~ -g
in
"""
u
Q)
1Il
'r'
~
(',
o
CD
(j)
::J
C
~
'0
r-
~
:f: Collier Blvd
~1:>
<l,;i
<t-Ib
White v
~
1,
~
!l}.
to
'-
<0
:2,
.2
LL
<:t
...
,:;:-;
J~
JO eUJlas
Santa Barbara
;:...f;Jt.
.!U
~
1!
o
>-
on
II>
\..0 .,&.~
r;:
~
3
ll'J ~
counbyS1de Or
Qefl Eagle Blvd
~ Glen Eagle Blvd
p~ SBJ04S J!el~ lS
c
:g PAl8 suea3Q
rr
<oJ>
i!J-F
'9
-r
llt
<C
::,.Q'%"
v(P
c;;
Q)
o
LL
~
lD
.e-
II
(
~
-ra.
(j
..
...
-cl
i
(/,)
'S;:
...
o
Ii:
8
g.
"
0 .,
Gl
Z ~ <')
c: ~ 0
., 0>
,; ~ <lj> Cl
.!! ~ ll.
'"' 0 s
C> OJ ..- .q-
Z ~
.- .; ~
(f) ;; z ~
'ii -"
W 0 -!l 0
.- ~~
0 ~CI)
~i
z
<( ~~
C> e
8).(
.c:ca
Z D....
a::
W ..,
W <>
'"
..,
Z .., m
OJ 0 :2 W
- :g '5 0 0.:
C> .e
II.: ::1 u::
(;) ..:
Z r! - B
~ c: -
W lIl'Oc CD
III m::> >
'l:: .... 00 ::s
0 .r C> a: () .s::
OJ' i ,Q.~ 0
W i:! -e -g '5 ~
t:l :;:) a: () CD
....J a ...,
....J ""
e
<( ~ j;
0 I
<> 11
'" ~
410
'" .!! ~
0 "-
"- <(
1<( w .-1
Ii:
o
II)
o
0::
o
~'"
:;;0
00
0::'"
ILII)
c'*
wO::
zl-
<(~
I-W
ml-
OW
o..:l!
<I-
:;;w
iIi
w
t-
o
Z
z
16 r-r--a--2
z
~
a.
z
o
~
t.)
o
....1
(!)
Z
C2
o
co
~
t5 ~
- C)
~ g
z 0 C)
Q ~ ::;:
!;( CfJ 0
o w a:
o ~ u.
-' ~ 0
C) - ~
1!;; iil ;;{
l5 ;;) Iii
m ::;: 0
li: a: Cl-
UJ ~ ~
~o
Iii
w
5
2
..
1-6-ldl
I
26
~
..
. {
o ~
~ 1 ::
. -
g 1 ~
(/)1- ~
ill ~ ~ !
I- !il:!
o ~~
Z 2~
<( ~~
C) ~..
z ~~
~
ill :g
ill ~
Z ~ ca
C) ~ ~ ~ ~
z - u; ": ~
ill i ~'!il!i il
J! l!! l5 0
o . Clo::O,c
w A B ~~ 0
:::i II :'5 ~~ ~
....J ~ -,
<( ! ~
~ ! II
z
:5
0..
Z
o
!;(
o
o
. ....J
C)
Z
~
o
en "
:I:
Ii:
~
z UJ
o -'
~ 8
o 0
z 0 C>
0-'::;;
~ Ii; 0
o w 0::
o ~ .....
-' ~ 0
~ ~ ~
ii: In ;:!:
o < en
In ~ 0
t: 0:: 11.
Ul ~ ~
~o
00
w
b
z
z.
1611 B 26
z
::s
a.. '"
z
o
5
o
.....J
C!)
Z
0::
o
CD
~
. t
~ I
- "
- :
~ i
~
en
w
~ :!:!:
o ~~
z :z:z
<( ~~
C!)h
z "'..
0::
W
W ~
z i 0
C!) ;l' ~
Z I!
W !
~
o "
w ~
::l 8
<( ! );
~ ~ ii I
~ "l. ~
~
11 ~ ~
o ~ 0
..
:g ui
.2 0.:
lL -
U) . ~
c -."
CD "C C CD
l!l'l5
~ ~~ 1=
.e =o~ g
::>/2.8.!:
:I:
Ii:
~
i5 ~
~ 8
u 0
z 0 C>
0-'::;;
~ Iii 0
g I!! ~
-' ~ fi1
C> ::; ;!!;
~ iii ~
o <( to
In ~ 0
li:: ffi !a:
lI.l ll.. ::;;
00
en
~
z
'.
1611 B 26
z
::5
a..
z
o
!;i:
u
o
, ...J
C>
Z
a::
o
co
~
'"
u {;
~
~ '"
z 0
! '" (!)
i:! '"
- ! 0 ~
C> . ... ..,.
z ~
.... ! J;
en ~ l! j
W
.... ~~
0
z ~~
<( tU~
.
C> l~
z
a::
w &
W
Z :! ..
~ .2 '<J ui
C> ~
-g u: n:
Z i lii - ~
W :115 i
0 ~ l; ~8 2
w f 1i.2} c
::i ~ ~~S ~
...J 1
<( l'
<> ~ ii I
!l '[ Jt
1.0
W
a::
::::>
C>
u:
:z:
~
<(:
w
Z w
0 -'
~ (!)
0
0
z 0 (!)
0 -' :E
~ In 0
w a::
l- LL
0 ~ 0
-' w
(!) ::; z
z iii ~
it: <(
0 w m
m :E 0
I- a:: ll.
ll. W <(
U) ll. :E
~o
if.)
W
I-
0
Z
.(t-
lOldl 113H5 335
-------"'- ------
3NI1H)J.\fW
en
u.;
9
-----1-M<
~M
tiJO
WM
(lie..
~-1
z
o
f:
f'!
z
:3
c.
z
::s
"-
z
0
f:C
<(
1.9
02
;2 ~
:3w
u~
"''''
!ze -~-
fl!i ~;~
B
~ >:;l
'" ~~
W
'" ~
:3 "
g ~ ~
~
'" :.:
z >
;2 @
'"
ii
~ ~ ~
<'i ~
e
'"
1i1
0
Ci
;2
(0
(",
'"
w
'"
:3
w
'"
;:
'"
'"
'" <11
w
al <11
';;: J
lfl
'"
0 0
J:
'" (0
w (>.1
J:
I-
l-
V)
<('"
UJe
C1C1
<(9
0"-
c::r::: ",'
w
oci
.......'"
C1Z
~
n
~n
fa ~i
~ ~*
fD ~Q
g: ~ ~
U
,
In
~,~
d m
E ::s
~ ~ ~o.
8 ~ ~~!
~ ~ ~ ~-~
~ ~ r~~
8 u
u :a
~ ~
Vl
W
'"
:5
w
'"
s:
Vl
'"
'"
W
co
~
iil
'"
o
J:
Vl
w
J:
f-
()
+\ EOldl'133HS33S
-4--------
I 3Nt;lHJJ.\IW
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
e--
N
0)
'P
if)
CO
<:"
o
C5
'"
o
o
;ii
I
I
3Nnl-O.L'IIW
-+-~----
9
Z
o
S
Z
~
1611 B
w~
i7iQ..
.......
z
::s
CL
z ~
o ~
~ ~
L?
C1
e;
~.~
"
"
b
~~
~
II 2
,. "'
m
~
~
;;
~ g
~ g ~
I-
Vl
uJC!i
0<:2
<(g
0"-
r:t:.ui'
w
00:'
......<
OZ
~
.g
n
-- oS;:
~ H ~~
~ n ~~
~ ~~ ::J~
~ 81
"<
~~
~
i:: ......
~ ~
15 l:>
i ~
~ ~
o u
8 ff)
~ ~
'"
w
'"
:5
w
'"
I
'"
'"
'"
w
OJ
~
to (0
a:: ~--
~ 0..1
'"
w
I
I-
tG
~
~~
-'"
ilia
'"
:Ii
t:ll
I
~O'[d] 133H5 335
- r- -1- --- --
I 3NIlH:)1'tW
I
I
I
I
I
_I
td
('"'J\
\
'16 1 1 B
..
t;:;
w
I
Vl
z
:5
c..
z ~
0 ~
<Xl f:::
f'. ~
N <(
L?
~
g;
~"
"
b
<0;
i<:
" :'I
'-< ~
~
ffi
~
ii
~ ~ g
~
a
<5
'"
o
S
;2
~
Z
o
~
I-
Z
~
w
(])
W
..J
U
'"
U
Z
o
S
Z
~
<Yo
fl-
~"
1
1
I
I
.4:3~HJ.:..1tW _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l?ldI1.331-fS:HS
f0-
Ul
LiS <3
oc<
<(9
0"-
c:r. ",-
w
o~
--<
OZ
~
!~
~8
Ci U -' ~
fi' ~. ~,~
CI 8,::' !i'';~
~ ~! ~~fl:
~ ~~ ~i~
N~h~~
81
,.
3'
8,
h ~
E 0
~ ~ ~s~
~ ~ ~~i
5 ~ i~i
g ., ~,~
o u
u if]
i; ~
III
W
'"
:5
w
'"
~
"-
iJi
iil
'"
:5
w
'"
~
'"
'"
W
al
~
III
W
'"
o
I
III
W
I
>-
zo SO~dl133HS33S
Q;J-i--
N ~NnHJ1'v'W
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
~
U
'"
tJ
-'
w
<2
al
<
CO
'"
<
~
o
o
;2
;:....1
if)
N
I
~el'
"
ol~ .
,
,
I
I
1
I
1
1
,
1
I
1
,
~,:
, 1
I
1
1
I
1
I
,
I
1
,
1
I
1
1
,
1
,
1
,
1
1
?1
0:'1
N,
1
,
1
,
1
,
1
,
1
I
,
I
,
I
-~-------
I (Otdt1.33HS33S
1611
'*'v
1;:;0
w,.....
~a..
-
B
z
:5
c..
z ~
0
~ ~
~
i:2
g;
w
'"
:5 ~.,
-' "
<
al
iJi
(ti
~ c
" C
0. "
~
~
ii
~ ~ ~
~
w
>
<2
'"
w
'"
:5
-'
;li
iJi
f-
V'l
li5<3
0<2
<(g
a"-
a:: lIl-
W
a~
......<
OZ
~
w
'"
:5
-'
<
al
<
III
~!
~8
~i
,1 :1
~~ :'!il'
~~ ~~
~! ~'
8j
~i
r ~
~ ~
15 ~
I=' ..
~ i
" '"
8 ~
;; ~
~..
m
1~2
~ ;ii
lOfl
""
'"
g:
z
5l
o
..
::;:
z
:5
"-
~ !
~ ~
<.:l
C2
g:;
!i
. ~g
oi 8.
~ i~ !~~
:i! ~~ i~:!.
~ ,g ,:;~
~ ~~ ~l~
8~
~i
d
" -
~ ~ p
~ ~ ~!!
i!S ~ ;:':::12
~ ~ in
8 u .
u Iii
;; ~
~-----
LOld(~HS33S\(']'
----~-...- -~--
3NIlHJlltW
,
i \
~~.- \
(7; \
l~\
<I-<
{j)
~
~'-"",
(3)
{'-J
~
""
:5
w
'"
J:
"'-
"'-
..
U1
(
l
~
(':{.,
N
05
~......J
'tr
,")")
('-,j
(I-<
,
: (0
l g;
~
----
I
3NOI-O.l'lr'1ol
_ _ -1__
501dl133l-lS133S
;:
~
f----
, I
I
2
Cl
..
o
'"
o
o
;:;
---
U;
-----t6t-t<
'.
""
'"
g:
Z
~
o
..
::;:
\.0
tiJO
wT"""l
Via..
I-l
z
:5
"-
z
o ~
~ ~
<.:l
C2
g:;
~.~
"
0.
b
<t~
~
"
~
~
"
~
;,;
w ~ g
~ CS ~
In
USes
0"
<(g
au.
cr: vi
w
aii
.....<
OZ
~
I!
~e
.. 8~
~ I!
~ g~
c.. !~
N ~ ~~
n
3;::
8~
i,~
i':I;~
~~~
~,~
~'!
~
~ ~
d ~f
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~i
o u
8 ff]
~ ~
, .
801<Hl.33HS33S
----~_.....-
3Nnl-0l1tw
<
\
1161 1
w
I
Vl
""
'"
g:
2
0
U1
If) (fJ 0
;..j,.i ..
., ~ ::;:
2
~ ;V
W W
I ...
w
'3 r.
OJ a:
i-
f;
t,)
~1;
Q
n
z
:5
"-
z ~
0 ~
1= ~
<(
<.:l
C2
g:;
~"
"
0.
b
b
<t~
~ 0
"
- ~
~
it
~
;,;
~ g g
~
!
,
i Cl
w '"
> ! ~
i:2 ":J
Cl =>
~ 0
.. Cl OJ
=> ~ V ""
t:; .... '"
..
2 0 "'-
;1i 0 2
;:; 5l
0
..
::;:
~
N
l-
V)
USes
Oi:2
<(g
au.
cr:ui
w
aii
.......
02
~
'I.""
C'
c',
2
~
w
I
w
'3
OJ
>-
..
~
..
=> 'i
t:;
2 g
.. s
U1 LL:
w u.J
I
>- ~~
~~ /h,
(":;) c;:
~~ <;;)
~~ r0 2~
..
~~ ()
..
~~
I-
I~
""
'"
;t:
2
o
U1
o
..
::;:
,~
n
i:i 8~ ~ ~
Ii'.~ i'~
fa ~i ~~~
~ ~~ ~~2
~ ~~ ~~~
c.. ~'" ,., 11:
n
81
.. ~
~ d
51 ~ -
~ ~ ,~f
I- <il ~:>
g ~ i~~
~ ~ ~1i
8 u
u Iii
~ i
l~
!.
:~
'"
",
i"
;~
>i".
I '
~---
e;.
---.:_.....;
w
z
:5
Cl
o
o
I
Z
m
~
501dI1.33HSHS
--~
r~l~
~l
~i"'.
'"
"I~ '
,
.. I
-.
"~
,
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
,
I
,
\
I
,
,
,
(",:)\
-,
('":'1
I
I
I
,
I
\
,
,
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
\
m
~~
f
.
I
\
,
\
\
<
..,dNnHJl.'v'~
--~--+-
lOldl133HS33S
Cl
<5
'"
o
o
;:;
-......---
----rorr<
w
I
Vl
z
:5
"-
z
o
~
<.:l
C2
g:;
~
~
~
~"~
"
0.
b
.
<t~
"
"
:... ~
it
~
;,;
g
~ ~ ~
""
'"
;t:
Z
o
U1
o
<<
::;:
In
USes
Oi:2
<(g
au.,
cr:fi]
aii
.....<
OZ
~
Ii
~8
u !~
~~! h~
c 8~ ;'\"'~
~ ~~ ~i~
N ~ ~~ ~ ~
Q. 8~
~~
8~
~
.. >-
I <
" tJ
;< 51 ~ "
15 ~ ,n
~ ~ t;;;io;
~ ~ i~~
~ ~ Pi
o u
8 [0
~ ~
161 1
w
I
Vl
z
:5
"-
z ~
~ 9
~ "
=> <.:l g
8 C2
y '" g:;
. !:!j
0
u
~"
"
'" 0.
<<
~
~ b
<t~
V
A
g
<D
C)
I
,
,
I
I
,
,
\
;P
,1'
*'
,
I
I
I
I
\
,
,
,
I
\
,
,
I
\
,
I
,
;;j,
'.J'
;!L
"1
1
I
I
~,.
~ f'"- ""
N ~
I'" .>-
:I~ .,
l-
V)
<(
UJes
Oi:2
<(g
ou.
cr: ",'
w
Oii
.....<
OZ
~
~i
~8
..H
~ il M
~ ~I m
N~~~~~~
8~
I!
8~
~
z
w
::;:
i:;;
;t:
<<
OJ
'3
u
!a
:!l
.. ~
E :l
~ ~ ~ -
8 ~ ~~l
< >- ~.ti
5 ~ ~~~
g ~ p~
u ~
~ ~
1
1
,I
i',
1 "
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
!
!
......
,
,
,
!
)
I
d
CD
..
cil
N
('f)
\
I
\
,
,
I
\
,
,
\
\
,
,
\
\
,
,
\
\
';:::~..~
+lij
:::.\
"\
M\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
--roM<
tiJ
w
I
Vl
z
:5
"-
z
o
~
<.:l
C2
g:;
~
~
~
~.~
"
;,
~~
~ S
II :::3
~ ~
~
'i1
Cl
C3
'"
o
o
~
~
to
~ ~ !!(
\7) C5 ~
1"'0
-, ",
~ ~ ,d
l-
V)
US..
o
Oi:2
<(g
ou.
cr:ui
w
Oii
.....<
OZ
~
,~
H
un
~p U
~ ~~ ~~~
if ~g :~s
, ~ ~~ ~,~
~!
Ei
-
d
" 0
;< 51
~ :Q ~=i
;:: oi!l ~,;;~
~ ~ ~~3
~ 5 iii
8 ill
" ~
I
I
I
\
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
----i---
ml\lA31nOO SI^\lO
00+c9Z
DOH DZ
----Q-------
J:
~,
W
01
+ .
"-
N
0) "
,
,
Cl
..
o
'"
o
o
;:;
c>
CJ
+.
'.0
r~
,~;
rorr--a-<
."T"""I
tiJT"""I
wT"""l
Vie..
I-l
z
:5
"-
z ~
0
1= ~
<(
<.:l
C2
g:;
~"
"
0.
.
.
~.
~
~
"
0. ~
~
it
~
~
w ~ g
~ ~
l-
V)
USes
Oi:2
<(g
o u..
cr:'"
w
Oii
.....<
OZ
~
.!
~.
'8
h
~.
8e
"'
~g
~o
,~
8~
I!
q
i: ~
" t3
" 51
~ ~ H
g ~ ~E
~ ~ ~J
~ g
~ ~
-1(rIt-<
:;;:
l >-
i, w
il 0
-' "
il z
I I< I
>- ~~
w 11 ()
0 i! z
Wz W
'"
~o " >-
~- I.
~ I- ~ " -'
I!;~ j! ..
. -'w ,I ()
l'~ " OZ
~ 1:1: ~ i~i >z " "-
ii >-
;~I! ~ !!~ ",0 >-
,I"~ N()
Ii
0,
j.
n
I,
!/
w
>
w
w...J ~
...J :;: ~
CI)>--
zw
00
;:"
<{Z
,,:;
;;:..
flOW
_CI)
~;I~'I II!I it. 1~11 ~l
,. " 'II. ~ '
t. E
o I "
! I I Ol! ~ I :
I~"II! II p~~. ~ i
I ..,!:J... " wi'" 0 ~
. I . ~ I ., ... ~
~~ 1'1 . II ~
>" I g I
~. ~'t:JI.. ~.IIII. !..".;:i'""" ~I
~' I e ,',f, ~
1 . I 'I" ~ ,.:., >
. p i\
i ~ ~ ~ .. - ~ .:; "
! ~ ~ .. ~ .. .n
, I ~ .. . .. .. ~ ~ it
,
i I ~ ~ " ~ ~ '"
,....., :!,1;-'i
I. ~ .. .. ~ ~ !l2'.t
-'
<{
=>
Z
<{
::> -'
J: ~"
>- >-
:j; g,:
W Z
~ 0
~ ~
5 ~
z W
~ ~
o w
~ ~
ii: ~
t; w
~ ~
W "
z
:5
"-
Vl
-'
~
0
Z
0
~
<.:l
C2
:;;: g:;
>-
W
0
Z
0
;::
<{
-' -'
<{ -'
() <{
- >-
"- W
>- ~
>-
~ 0
:0
~
~
it
~
Ui ~
~
'"
()
w
r
()
w
'"
=>
CI)
CI)
w -'
cr: :( ~ M
"- >-
W W
Z 0
:; z
o
z -
- >-
<{ <{
::> -'
-'
z ..
o >-
- W
~ ~
~ >-
'" z
'" =>
T"""I
tiJO
wLfl
Via..
I-l
In
USes
oi:2
<(g
au.
cr: vi
w
Oii
.....<
OZ
~
,~
~~
i~
,I ,~
~~ ~;
~~ l'
,i !
~!
"
8~
ill
>-
<{ ~i
"
-' I ~~
<{ -'.
::l :;c; ~~
z>- i '"
<{w ,I w
::>0 w ,j ::1
zz ::::: , II 0
!, '"
00 <{.. I" >-
'1 z
>->- >>- . I, 0
! ..<{ "W I h () -'
, -' -' ZO " " f' I' I" 0 ;;'.
p 0-' -z w >-
w" ~O! -'0 · , ' :ll! >- w
I' "-- 1',.- .II.! ,!,!;l, ,ill, z 0
B I -.... i i i Iii Ii =>
~ i wW Ii =>>- . i'il ill: 'i'I'L :1. I 0 z
i ZZ Iii 0<< !ji .!l,! !;l'! Ill!llu ,!,!,! Ii I. ii' ::> 0
u:: ~,'L I'I!' -' i=
~ ~ -'w ".,i 'Will: I'll,! P II ~ ;0 ~
z> hi "'<{ 1m; ii!l! """")'1" dill i II indl!l W
lp - -' , ()>- "'!!"'!" I. w ;0
:im -w !ailum I i ',I,ll" ,:111 11'11_!l 0
. , .... =>z w W
1'1 ::>> 0_ ,hillmail ,I,.. ~!: Iw I~ h "- ~
~n
.. ~=il!l
h ~~ S~:I!~ 3
i' /, I ill, "
f1 '1 ;;;:1 'I'
ii II! !;!1! j
~g
i~
~;
W
>
--'
<(
>
IJ..
W
--'
W
0::
--'~
W -~
0:: <C.
:::>1-
ooW
000
wz I'
a:: 0 ~ ~
!l 0.- !l
I- ".
,. '. w<( ;! ~ i
'i " z--' ~... ~l
! :q
!. " ---' il
,I l r --'<C ~l
;~ i ~ "! ZI- !~ "
I"
I' h \1 ::;:00 :1 i!
" I.
ii ~ ~ H ::2::: " g ~
Ii
I
"f6IT1J<
::2 --'~
~
~ ::
~ W
>wo
a::>z
_--'0
<(<C-
>1-
W <(
ZW--,
-00--,
--'<C<(
ZWI-
---'00
<Cwz
::20::_
a i ~
~ ~ i ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~: ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
!:~;
j;~ !'"
I,::
'5 ~!l
iH;
mi
.. , ,
'.'..: >. : :
!!r.1~'! ,
i! ~ L
!t 'I' 10'1
.' I ,. "I'
-I !'I "I' I
~~ H ~~ ~i: w
il II 11 ;!!i :,
!I -, ~I )" ~!
1. ;,11 JIll! II
H
!~
~ci
II
H
hI
~~~
I!!
~"
'I'
, !,Il
" Fir
It "i
Ii! !ll
~ '"!~i ~~~~
I 1,1; II!!
""N
tiJO
wLn
Vie..
I-l
Z
:5
"-
~
~
o
Z
o
~
<.:l
C2
g:;
/!' s
z :<:
~
~
w
~ ~
0<
>->-
UW
>0
a.z
zO
..>-
::;u
w
Zz
Oz
;::0
..u
Clw
0;"'-
",0
_I
In
USes
Oi:2
<(g
au.
cr:ui
w
Oii
.......
OZ
~
~~
~8
~~ " ,
.~ ~,~
~i 12~
00 ,~,
~~ ~.i
~~ ! .t
g"
,~
~i
IJ..
IJ..
o
~
0--,3
--'::;:
all-
zw
::;:0
::2z
o
z-
01-
-<(
1---'
<(--'
e><C
-I-
a:: 00
a::z
~
"
z
o
~
"
~
o
8
z
~!
i;
1611
_.$I
....... ..1
........ ..1
'"
u
ill
g
"5
(L
Q)
o
u
~
:ou
(jJ
"&
'- ID
~ b ID
.n c
'0.2
(jJ -~
iJ ~ ~
l?- 5 .~
-e;~ 0
c ::> (1 U) 0,
::; u 0 E ?< \i)
E 91:: '0 c .....,
'c ~.g, Q.J 0 c'
__ .2"ill (5 i5 ..Q
~~~~~~~
~3-5g8
(j) 0 ;:: 2;. lJ
73]1205
~ -g]
ill ~ 1:
~!-VlU
:c
0;
V)
~
] 0
~ S!
~ a;
~ ~
"3 g
ill
(jJ D.
8 ~
c E
5
o
~g
C\). ciS
>- ..Q oJ)
.3 ~~
2-'00
"5 311
~ ~ "D
'; ~~
2 (3 ~
0+=
o 0
'0:
ill ill
C 0)
~ '::f'T ~ 00
5 0..:::
"0 2],_
~
; 8 ~
E B ~
.: ~ ~
o
E2ug5-t
} .f; 15 :s
I ~~ a
~
"S
::?
'5
o
(jJ
'5
15
2
ill
>
o
u
]
6
0,
:?:
<(
oe:
(j
<(
o
w
Z
o
N
W
CL
<(
U
(/)
o
z
<(
-1
i
(~
(/)
w
>
t-
U
W
--,
co
o
o
z ~
-<'5
......... 2:
(./) ~
-1 8
<(2
o 0
(jS
ill
'0
,g ~
C3 ~
v~
~ E 15
5. .~ "'5 C
s a 0.. ~
b ~ ~ g
~~2o v
Q) 0 0 Q) ~
m ~ z g OJ
U >- 0 .~
2B]2-o~
ill Q.c: 8 ~
~~ij~~
~~~F]~
~Eo _'5
SVi~~~~
Q.l G.J
2 ]
~ u
~ b
z :;
'0
c
o
E
(jJ
u
(jJ
'5
~
"3
<(
oe:
W
t-
oe:
U
z
(j
(/)
w
o
oe:
w
I
t-
O
9!
Vi
~ [;
~~ i>
~
u
'"
~ 8;;
u V'I .
~ ]~
Q) ~2
~ c';::
~ ~]
1)
Q) 0 5
'5 u of
:~
U
"5
E ~
ill C
g.g
~~
e15
L: 0
~ .~
D1
c
"Vi
o
E
OJ
D1
.9
2
(/)
w
(j
Z
W
-1
-1
<(
II ~
u
17'
.su
@~
E'"
Q::r0
B ~~
.5....c:
o Q
o.E
QO
<(:?.
2
~ ~ ~
u::; ID UJ U
"" ::J C <:
Z 0 5 .~
~ ~ ~ ~
0.. 0 c: Vl
~ ~ ~ ~
o
z
:\
t)
D
o
o
~
'"
50
c
o
a;
J:
'"
~
in
~ .l1
S S
i" '0
.c
Q. .0
Q. S\
S\
:;;
:3
i"
~
~
'5
'"
~
~
26
\ .
..)>
/
/
~
'0
J:'
:;:
u
.0
~
o
.Q
~
2
c
51
u
o
:;:
c
.Q
. ~
f ~
Ii
I
!
~
s
o
'()
o
c
o
is
=
,r==
16' 1
B 26
t~~
~
u
c
o
i
o
~~
2 ~
j/:::.
.0 ~
H
n
2~
~]
"
c'
~
c '"
-5 0
5
[J
"'0
.~
0
~
.1i
"
~
'5
~
:;
2
<:
.ii
3
2
]
l
(1)
"
o
~
V
-g
~
:;
1611 B 26
~
~
~
"
.
;[
2
2
~
"
z
<{
-'
(L
>-
z
w
~
w
(9
""
<(
-'
z
w
-'''
<(~
~'-
a...~
~~
~
'l
~
o
"
<1J
>
o
.c
2
o
1'!
o
Qj
-5i
.,;
Q)
u
u
o
<1J
U
c
o
c
2
c
'0
E
6
1'!
o
<1J
.f
:2
.~
C:
o
c
,f
.f
is
.D
E
CJ
.2
<1J
OJ
1J
<1J
C
o
o
1J
c
o
<1J
5
"6
2 ~
o ..,.,
o +-
1J 0
<1J 1'!
'5 0
6
~ U
<1J co
S v
~ ill
'Vi ~
o
.D
E
:>
()
'Qj
ti
o
o
.c
\J
'iJji
:so
-:>
2~
u. 0
~5
Eo ].
._::)a;Qi
ct~65~
,f; c
~ U 8
~ 00 g
== OJ
+- '3 .~
~ ill 3
e ~ rE
OJ E ~
.!;: ::) VI
~ iJ E
a: ~ ~
"
~
<(
~
Ql~
@'"?
~C
~ 0
cz
~ ,~
En
00
~~
0'0
~8
@
g
~
o
Ji
g
"6 -a
0. 5
2:-
~
iD
'9
'5
ill
;>
g
1611 8 2
E
li
'"
g
!
.
t;
z
j
~
~
E
li
j
4=
<(
Z
0
;:::
<( 'f
> aJ
Ll.J Z
-'
Ll.J 0
-' Z ;:::
<(
(,2 <( U
-' W9
D- D- if>-
>- -' -'
f- <( <(.."
(,2 (,2::;
D- Q.....:1!
>- >-"
i- i-VS
z
<(
-'
D-
f-
Z
Ll.J
:2
Ll.J
o
C>:
.s
Z
Ll.J
-'
<(
(,2
D-
>-
f-
z
o
;:::
D-
C>:
U
if>
Ll.J
o
:v
u
u
o (3
ill ill
g 0
o (3 ill
~ illO~ ,f:
C ~
.ill "0 ~ ~
i ~ ~ ~
:;:-9 :~.s
'~~ ~ V
E 6--.:: ~ ~ ~
~ 0,0 ~ C
o "6'~ "3 ~
~(1)~OB~ U
o15'-'uo;f.o
Q:: U..., QJ :'. ~ ~
(j) 'E ~ c + >- ~
~ .~ ~ ~ ~ g- +=
~ g~ c 0 8 "3
>-o:!2!grnuE
5 > -..C C OJ ~
.~ ~ g -3 8 ~ ~
a:~._~a:~~
I-
D-
Ll.J
(,d
o
u
6
~
."
& .~
c1:
.'"
uv:;
u C
"0
O>z
.~ ,~
~il
02
~<55
00
E c
~ 0
~
o
:i1
E
~
1
<(
z
o
;=
<(
>
w
-'
W
---If;
<("
UC,
0::::.;:
2: ,~
r"---
I
I
~
o
u
~
o
i5
~
.'J
c
E
2
~
~
z
<(
-'
CL
-,0
~~'
~'-
0....2
~"~
~
c
.
U
U
"
1611 B
z
:5
CL
i-
Z
w
2
w
(')
""
<(
-'
z
w
~c
<(;;
~-
o....!k
~~
.
c
.'J
~
0
"
-75
<l)
..c jJ
0 OJ
<l) S
c C
OJ 0
1) Ci.
. ~ & c
" 0 6
""'23:: 01
,;; U <l)
C 0 0
0 1) v ~
Ci. c
~ 0 -5i
0 if) 15 :2
~ '~ OJ
~~ ID u J:: 'in
U J2 C
l' 0 " 0
.~ '" ,E c
. . >- U::..c
"'0> .-
~3 0. g .~~
0 "
g2 c 0
0 ~ z 0 2'0 a; 1) l'
u 0 U .f; Q) U 0
'5 J! o .f 0 OJ
. ;= "
;;: 0. EQjCi. ~~ ~ u
~ "= ,~ .2:f: ~ " :2 u
j "" ~" "- 0
u '" <lJ 00 01
iJj O):!::.D " :;:- 'in OJ
</) '5 -go:Q ,;;
w :;:- 0 ,;; OJ
ffi . 0 0 ~ fr 6 0 <l) E ~
en > 0> J: 0
ri:;E I- 0 U " "5 of!
CL 0 0
w C 01 OJ ~ 0. J1
u 0 OJ c OJ "6
.~ > c > > ~ ]
z c 0 >-
0::: 0 2~ 0 0
0 "'- "- 0:: '"
U
11
.'J
~
,g
"?
CD
Z
o
;=
U
W'T
</)-
-,"
<(~
u~
[L~
;::,~
1611 B 27
II.."."" s.ae~ M.s.' &
AtI",SOIY eo....ltt..
2705 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
RECEIVED
FEB 2 4 2011
February 3, 2011
Bo!Id of County COmmIIIlonera
AGENDA
I.
Call Meeting to Order
Fiala
Hiller
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
p~
-/r~
'V""
~
II.
Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: January 6, 2011
V. Budget Report
VI. landscape Maintenance Report - ClM
VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur
VIII. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
IX. Old Business
X. Update Report
A. Maintenance - Bruce Forman
B. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin
XI. New Business
XII. Public Comment
XIII. Adjournment
The next meeting is March 3, 2011 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625111TH Ave.
Naples, Fl
i/'~~ ~....",,;rre5:
7-
Item#:
Cc~ies to:
161 1
8 27
I
~
11I11III.,"', s.ac~ M.s.7 A
Atfl"SOIY eolftlftltt""
2705 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
January 6, 2011
MINUTES
I. Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:03 p.m.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bill Gonnering (Excused), Bruce
Forman, Bud Martin
County: Darryl Richard-MSTU Project Manager, Gloria Herrera-Budget
Analyst
Others: Chris Tilman-Malcolm Pirnie, Jim Fritchey-CLM, Darlene
Lafferty-Juristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
Dick Lydon moved to approve the agenda as presented. Second by
Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - December 2,2010
Change: VII, pg 2, third paragraph should read: Mr. Forbis "is reviewing"
the Easement Document.
Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of December 2, 2010 as
amended. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously
4-0.
V. Budget Report
Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information:
o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $768,825.25
o The following P.O.s are Project related and included in Capital
Outlay Expenditures
- Malcolm Pirnie
- RWA
o Clarified the $9,000.00 Reserves Line Item monies are available
with BCC approval
1
1611 8 27
The Water and Sewer Line Item ($18,000.00) was questioned as it
exceeded the Budgeted amount.
Darryl Richard responded water usage cost has increased and
suggested the Committee consider increasing the Water and Sewer
Budget amount in the next Fiscal Year.
Darryl Richard distributed the Adjusted Balance Sheet and stated the
purpose of the Report is to reflect the actual cash position. (See attached)
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM-Jim Fritchey
Jim Fritchey reported:
o Ongoing Maintenance is underway
o Irrigation System is fully operational
Darryl Richard stated new Chemical treatments will be applied to address
the Crabgrass issue.
VII. Utilities Report-Charles Arthur
Chris Tilman reviewed Phase I Easement Status Report: (See attached)
Location (4) Vanderbilt Bav Condominiums Phase 2
o Stuart Pearce again inquired if compensation for Easements
was requested by the other Properties involved in the Project
Charles Arthur stated an announcement was made at the Public meeting
that the MSTU was not purchasing Easements as the benefits far
outweigh the inconvenience by granting the Easement.
Location (9A) Robert Forbis
o Status is pending a return phone call from Mr. Forbis
Location (11) Mario Costantini
o Status is pending the outcome of acquiring an Easement from
Mr. Monaghan
- FPL perceives the Monaghan Property is a better
location for the Transformer
Location 13 Villas of Vanderbilt Beach & 13A Le Dauphin
o Le Dauphin Board President requested staking of the proposed
Easement location
Location 15 Manatee Resort
o Easement documents are under review by Board Members
Location 16 Vanderbilt Beach LLC
o Sketch was revised to shift the Equipment south as requested
by Jerry Griffin
2
1611827
Projected Phase I Completion Schedule was discussed. (See attached)
Utilities Relocation
Chris Tilman stated the Plans cannot be finalized until the following
technical question is answered by the Utilities Department:
o Is Steel Casing required for water line pipes - Status is pending
a response from the Utilities Department
o Conflicting information was noted on the requirement for Steel
Casing:
- Collier County Standards does not require Steel Casing
- Steel Casing is required by Utilities Inspector (allegedly)
Discussion ensued regarding the purpose of the Steel Casing.
After discussion it was concluded the Pipe is designed to withstand
passing vehicles and the Steel Casing should not be required.
Darryl Richard requested Malcolm Pirnie submit written data to the
Engineering Department to resolve the Steel Casing issue.
Staff will inform the Committee of the response by the Engineering
Department on the Steel Casing Requirement.
Chris Tilman noted the Steel Casing issue has setback the Project
Schedule by (1) month however it does not affect the overall schedule.
Darryl Richard reported the Utilities Department volunteered to oversee
the Asbestos disposal. A Meeting is scheduled with Utilities Department
on January 19th at 10:30 a.m. (at the Transportation Building.)
Charles Arthur volunteered to attend the meeting on January 19th.
Comcast
o Revised Agreement Document is being prepared by Jer~ Ferry
- The Agreement Document deadline is January 14 h
(issued by Staff)
o FPL mobilization will take place for the initial underground
installation (within 1 week of receiving Payment)
- Upon completion of FPL initial underground installation
the Comcast Relocation will commence
o FPL timeline for Final Design is 180 days after payment (per
Tariff)
o It was perceived FPL may begin the Design Phase when
Easement Acquisitions are complete
Pending items on the Utilities Project were summarized as follows:
o Resolve issues with Utility group
o Resolution for the Water Line Relocation
o Finalize Easement Acquisitions
o Secure signed agreements by FPL and Comcast
3
1611 8 27
Chris Tilman stated fees for Easement(s) Recording will be assessed by
Collier County Clerk of Courts (after approved by FPL.)
Bud Martin moved to approve up to $10,000.00 (to Malcolm Pimie) for
Easement recording fees. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried
unanimously 4-0.
VIII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard reported:
o Code Deficiencies have been addressed at 10021 Gulfshore Dr.
- Bentley Electrical will provide a quote for the meter
conversion based on annual contract rates
o Noted an FPL email was provided in meeting handouts for
Committee review (See attached)
IX. Old Business - None
X. Update Report
A. Maintenance-Bruce Forman-None
B. Tax Analysis-Bud Martin-None
XI. New Business - None
XII. Public Comment - None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting
was adjourned by the Chair at 3:12 p.m.
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Advisory Committee
/l/ ~ .
( L./.-tft _<~ .--
Charles Arthur, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board/com~ee on
as presented or amended
d,3,/1
The next meeting is February 3, 2011 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625111TH Ave.
Naples, FL.
4
." "T1 .." "'n ." .,.,
;:2 ~ ~ ;:2 ~ ;:2
n n n"'n \:J \:J
~~~[ro~
2 Cl3~
Q.~~Q?~';;
o'o'Q~<
~:)5:Ern
e: ~, OQ'
::l "0 ::l
"" 3 n
ID 0
;:; 3
.-'"-
ID ID
'" ~
c. o'
.., ::l
3' )>
ID "0
"0
o
<
'"
~ ~
~ ~
iii c
'" 5-
~ ID
i\j' oQ
~ a
~ ;
ID Cl.
3 ~
ID
3
." .,., n n n n
\:J ""0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
." "Tl Q) III Q) III
g~~;~~
o:J ~ 0 (l)
8 III ; 0"
)> ~ . g
"C ::0 c: ~
"C m Q. 0'
a < 0' :)
~ ~: :) -0
::l '"
~~3
~ ~_ ID
~ ~
;;1J C
ID ::l
< Cl.
roO rD
:E Oil
o
C
::l
Cl.
'"
"0-
ID
3
l.O\.Ol..rl~(J"l"""WlOW"""
aaCJ"l~al::roDD(J"ll::ro
m ;;1J
e: ID
ID 0
~ g
~ 5'
)> ::l
.8 ~ ~
C '"
~~.ct
g' ~ ~
~ Vi'
~ 5'
o .i2..
..." .-
~Jg
, '"
ID -
ID ;;1J
~ ~
~ ~'
, 1
ncccc::O'Tt:
o ..... ..... .-t ..... 0 ;!': ~
~~'~'~~~~q
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m 'S'
~ 0 0- 0 0 3 ~ g'
gg~gga~
~~rg'g'g'J6~
g'nn""O~-g~
OOQO=:Vl
~ ~ =.....;:t
~'a8:rn'5
~ 0 h1 ~ _::l
0' ~ ~. g'
::l s: :J
o ""
~
N'
~
o'
::l
c'
~
!!l,
W 1.0 ...... N ...... ~ 1O l,,(1 C'
a a l::ro ...... l::ro l::ro a CI =
Ci
Ol
-<
~.
~ ,
'tjl
l>
'!~
,.
,.
~:
"
~:
,.
,.
,=
:?
.~
.~
:!:-
c~
I~
~
27
;!i/
~ ~
~ ...
.. 0
o (D.
.. n
r; (t
~ Q.
-~
.t:.:J
... llJ
o III
III
J-\
(')
~ S
't:l ~
[c:
2i"
::s
VI
n
:J
III
Q.
C
iD
<
III
::::I
c..
(1)
...
~
;:;
C:l
(1)
III
n
::r
.=
"
,~
,~
Vl
ID
'9
...
...
o
~
...
...
z
o
'f
...
...
Cl
ID
r;>
~
...
'"
7
...
'"
~
ID
'r
~
'"
s:
~
...
'"
::;I
OJ
::J
~
o
3
~
I
~
z.
lll......-Cn
:g~a~
a .~ -g 0-
CiS 0 ~ Q
5 ~ ~ ~
~rn'~a.
(1) :: (1)
~g.~9
~~f,~
~~~::r
r-t ~ c: C'D
om-eVi'
g i, ~ ~
g' ~~. ~
:I;: a ~ ~
\D o::r
Vi' ::1 C'D
III m ...... ......
::J V1 N N
~~~Oo
~0-(1)~3
r+ OJ
5. * ;;. ~
93;.0-
~ I'D (') m
ro~:=;1.n
~=_' g. ~ 3
c; ~ 0.. ~
C'D 52 9';-
)( . OJ OJ
C'D c- -t'o n
gg.~@
~.;~c:g
::r "'"\ l"D r-t
3 .g ~. ~
;... a. ~
.... (1) (1)
~V1 :'"
o
N
lf1
)>
n
::r
OJ
it
(1)
o
::r~n
c: N ::r
R-~~
leJ~ro
0"lf1",
~<.On
o "oJ ::r
-a~QJ
. -..J ~
o '" (1)
~ lf1 (1)
N
"oJ
lf1
W
o
lf1
N
o
o
o
.J:>
....
o
w
00
....
Gl
c:
::;;
Ul
::r
o
ro
S?
<'
(1)
u:.
x
....
q
t
!.
t
lP.
.~
b'
3
1
~
~
III
o
~$'~(ti:g
n ~ 1:J < ~
Q < ii" n;" :;"
a.8'(i)~~
~ g ~ ~
C'D C I'D ro
3 ..'" 3 <'
a9a~
: R- ~. ~
3 :: (1) 1il
~ ~ ~. a.
::l00':-8
~ ::J ......"'2.
~~~rn
~~~a
~ ~ Q ~
3 ~ ffi= ~
QJ:Ja.c
~ g [
~. ~
=> (1)
~ R-
a. rD OJ IU
~~:g;
(1) ffi' ~ ~
3 0- (1) ::
~. '- a. -.
mg.~~
O-::J
g~:a~
~~-:~
;Brom5'
~ .. 0.. QJ
..., ~ < ;;
-'~gQJ
[ p; "'"\ ~
~ 3
o (1)
!3-a
0-
.... 0
~Q
"oJ
~.t:.
-, ....
(1) W
:: (1)
~ ~
N (1)
"U:;3
0(1)
~
ss~ g g~
U1 ()C) C r-t 5' ~
lD ... ro ::r -t'o
3?:~~~~
~.l'D~QJor-t
~~'g-a~~r
n~~~;~
:r... -. 3 QJ C'Dr+::J
~a]:~~~
;~a'Cr~'~
~m~~g.QJ
cnr~~.~~5..
S'~3[~:r
~a~g.~~
gO'~rore~
~3nB1'~3
g.~~C:3(D
l'D o'rD(DQ.
-< ~~~o
m~3:S
~ ~ rn ~
~~~ni
~ ~ ~ ~
o .... ....
...... ro N N
........ ..................
............,N......
OOCDmO'1
3-g30
rD (D QJ ~
~:4=ro
~. ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~
g S ~ ~
0- r+(1)
~~~~
g ~. ~ ffi-
..a. ~;:+"
::r
r+
o
....
.J:>
<
OJ
::J
0-
(1)
~Q:
OJ ;:+
~ ~
N<
n
o
::J
0-
o
""
~
c:!4 0-
~ ~ < ~
N1il~~N~
~~~a1~ror+=>
ln~~~U1N
::S1eJ.!"1eJ~;'
~5=?~~.g
w3m~.;::.
N~~~"oJ~
8 a ~
3
N
"oJ
lf1
W
....
....
N
o
o
o
lf1
....
o
.J:>
00
N
Gl
c:
::;;
Ul
::r
Q
(1)
S?
<'
(1)
::;I
OJ
::J
'"
0'
3
~
~
x
....
q
l>
'tl
~
Z.
'!:
c:
)> '"
'" r+
'" -0
g m
~~
0' ~
::J '"
(p(1)
0.0
OJ C
~ (1)
O-~
o
:;-
-0
o
""
iil
~
I>> :x
~'2~
~ 'a~
~
z
o
~~3~fD
OJ '" (1)3 ~ ~
~ K; ...,..
~~g-~~
~' ~ I'D rl-
;~~~,~
l'D-;::'wO-~
~ ~ ~ ~'~
s.~mc:.
~~,~~~
g~2~m
arI'D~ro~
~ ~_3, -u ~ ~'
3 (E' ~ 0-
(1) "'0 "(1) '" 0
~r+ .. ~~
3m::r~
~~;::tCDO
...-t- c: 0 3
~~ a.
m in
'0<
n ro'
~ ::
(1) (1)
(1) OJ
.0 '"
c: (1)
-0' 3
3 ~
(1) ,r+
~ ::r
5' ~
'" '"
oiti
~~
n."
9!-~
roo
0-0
0' c:
::ra:
::J
- '" (1)
~ [[~,
(1) 0
<:::Tm
m' S, Co
~ """\ 0"
~ ~ 5"
;::- Vi' 0-
NI'D~:::T
3 a.~:J
~ ~ ..., ~
:E S, ~ ~
;:;" "03 r+ ~
:T I'D OJ !'l:!
VI :] ~. ~
2..... ~
~ 0 ~ c:
rl- Q ~ ~
-ua;w~
~' 0 I'D ........
:il ~ ~ !::;
r+ _.
0;;[
-0
r-
OJ C ...... ......
:] "C ..............
a.a..NN
I'D D) .... ,J:a.
3 or 3 ~
5!:!, a.. ~ 0
[~=:::!!
c':::"ti"
::!! 0 III
iD::r3
_ ::0 ..
o r- =
~ III I\l
~::rQ.
rD ....., ....
S. ::r 0
I\l III ~
=: ~ g.
.c ::0
"S;O'
o '" ~
.. ~
n III I\l
OJ Q. <
= (DO
~ :e
16' 1 B 27
~ .g> =B ~ ~_'
t.n 0 r <
31ti0'I'DC'"
(1) :: ~ ~ ~
~........~ ~. (1)
~~ ~
li) ~ ~ ~
:TOJOO
..., ..-"'0 """\
g :: ~ ~
::: a.: ~ m'
...... => (1) ::
.!-"Otl~~
~Q3~
~' ~ ~ ~
,,"'0 r-t" ~
:: g :J' ni
0'
g:~t.n:J
;. ~ 3
tn' 8 ~
....
)>
w
<
OJ
::J
0-
(1)
~
;:+
Ul
::r
Q
(1)
'"
0-
OJ 0
< OJ
0.:<
1eJ1i
0-0
OJ ::J
< (1)
c.:ln
~,;,
g rn
~ a:
8 a
3
~ ~
5. ~
~-<
0" N'
_w."
r+<.O(1)
"'~O-
::rlf1(1)
Q ~ ~
(1) , -0
Ul .... ~
~ t;;.g
~.J:>~
8 ~
3 :'
"oJ
00
(l'I
"oJ
o
o
o
o
o
o
'"
.... ....
o 0
'" "oJ
<.0 0
.... ....
~~~
-Otl ::::;;
l>g2~~
"00)>0
~ma.m
~~~
~'~ ~'
~ -:c
a a
"P ~
::;I
OJ Ul
=> ::
VI ;:;:
O'g.
3 110
~
....
lf1
x-
.J:>
q
l>
'tl
'tl
~
~
(1) ~
III ..
'tl ~
'tl l!!.
i c: ~
or ::0
III r+
:l III &"
~ lG
3 III
:l I>>
I\l I\l c:
... :l ..
I\l .. 5"
~ 0 ell ::!,
I>> 2~
~ a.s
n
0
3
'tl
iD
r+
(1)
n'
0
3
'tl
ro
r+
(1)
-<
III
III
g.~
~ a:
. =>
-0""
m 0'
Ul ~
a:t.n
(1) c:
~. ~
Ul"<
=> 0
0!'8
C5 3
~ "0
S,ro-
(1) ni
~ re
3 Xl
~ ~
; ~
=>
0-
0-(1)
o OJ
o '"
'" (1)
Q~
'" ~
otj' ~
=> ~
~::r
!:; <
I'D n'
:: 10.
::r OJ ....
(1) => ....
:J a. 'OJ
~ 00
:2 ~ iil
~ ..5: ~,
iil :: ::
~;~
::: ~.
......
....
tv
-<
III
III
-(1)
o OJ
3 X)
-3
Q ~
(1) r+
X -
(1) (1)
g ~
o' ==
? ~
'" 0 r+
QQ' ~ :::T
::1 m ~
~a.rD
C < ~
~ 0' (l)
~..~ ~
~re:3.
00"'::r
o (1) OJ
OJ 3 '"
~. ~~. [
m (i' 0 m
a. 2r. "x
:a 0 ~ ~
~ma.nr
~ ~, ~ a.
(1) :: !l!. ....
~ g,~
;:; OQ ~
g~, S
c: (1) W
3 :: (1)
(1) . OJ
=> .... '"
!""'"~3
~~, ~
W ^
0(1)0-
~ 0- 0
m c: fh
@ "'0 m
~' ~ ~.
~ g m
3 nr a.
Q.I a. 8'
~I'D"T1
~ OJ ""'C
o '" r-
3 3 -
< (D g
~~5'
!l!.
nJ rD ......
o ........
g ::g ~
?- ~ ~
.t:a3
!::;g.:;
(1) !;l III
3..Q.
~,"CS ~
rn~
a.om.
~ < n
o I\l 0
5~e:
r- < ::0
~~:
..,r.......
~ n; ~
'" ..
g~
c: ....
!" 0
..
c:
'C
c..
III
..
tD
c..
....
III
~
t:
III
-<
N
!>>
N
o
1-0
o
<:
III
~
c..
tD
...
2:
::+
c:J
tD
III
n
::r
s:
VI
-I
c:
"'C
:r
III
III
tD
1-0
m
III
III
tD
3
tD
~
..
~
III
..
t:
III
::c
tD
'C
o
:::lo
16 I 1 B 27 ('
c "tI <
'tJ :T ~
a.. ~ ~
<n .... ~ III a..
w -I> W .... tD tD
tD .... ...
a.. m !2':
'- ~ ;:;'
~ III
~ tD ~
c 3 tD
~ ~
.... lO <n -< tD n
.... l> lO l> ~ :T
N .... s:
..CJJ V)
.... V)
N ~ -I
....
0 c c
:s: .... III
~ 0 ::0
6' -I
"T1 n :T tD
n 0 :T 0 'tJ
!a 0- w 3
~ 0
Vi' ro ""0 :::1.
w V>
~. ro 0
:J
2,
r;:;
w
b' ~
~ 0 '"
~~~r;:;~
5' ~ ~ ~ 5'
@o'83';:;;n
8b'::::::~~
3~l:j6@'
Q~~~;:;
~ r-I' .:::- 0'1 ~:
~ ~: ~
~ ~
o
o
tv
....
<n
w
o
....
tv
o
o
o
co
lO
lO
lO
o
G)
c
::;;
VI
:T
Q
ro
~
<'
ro
:;I
w
~
o
3
~
~
x
....
q
>
'a
'a
~
a.
~
~
a.
Z
.~I
~
'a'
....
,0
1
~o::J:
a"~'~
~'~'~
~
~
.c ro
c w
ro V>
~ ro
6,3
~ ~
::; ::;
ro w
(") V>
o w
<::""0
a:~
w 0
0..<
o..ro
~ 0..
~ Q
:::;;
,..,.
::T
~
ro
::;
~
ro
w
=>
<
g~~~~Q~~
~g~~~~~~
3st~ :i'OQ'~~
OJ -0 :::::t; ~ -0' ..:J: ::] ro
= a ~ 5' ..... g ~ a.
~-g ~..-..g:J o:E
s;~m:r/'D;:a~g:
w~.g~~g~o
~ ~. ~. ~ ; ~ 0 5
~b~~.@g~~
~~:a.~~~-
g.~~~-<soro
~oo~~~c:g
o.....nD)~a.c:::~.
X)-[~~.~cmg::J
~ig~~a~S
"'
3 n
~. ~
""0
~ :T ;:0
000
c-=>c-
ro ro ro
a~~
Qt:l0
~~cr
@"'o-
3 ~ Vi'
~ gg
(") 0
o 0
3
tv
....
<n
w
o
co
co
o
o
o
w
....
o
o
lO
o
G)
<::
::;;
VI
::T
o
iil
~
<'
ro
~
x
"!
~
'a
~
a.
~
'a
1
3'
~
o
Otl
iil
V>
V>
b'
3
"2-
!l
III
:2
o
~
~~~~g~Q[~~~3~~S
~ ili~~,I.t.l~~a.~~~'~
~~nrof\..)O'Q. =-02 NaoCUQ.
s~a~~~{q3~~~g:~~
C" g: ~. ;= ~ re ~ ~ ! ~ m [~:: [
~. m @ m @ ~ :E m ~ 3 ~ "w ~.~
:0 ~ g.~~ ~ g: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ;-
03? (D:T:J o~ ~ag ;;g.~.t:.;
?E~ z~.g~:E ~m!D g-~/'D to-g
rl~o...ro:Jffia.:"l-'n... ~ntD
g ro ~~~........ g ~~:~3 ~i
~ ro S:3~ 16s?~ ~~~ a.~
I'D g.mV'l~:o""QJWrDa.~'"
~ V;'&[Qt~i[~~~i3
!D Q""~ g~~.~
-I
OJ
~
0'
3
~
w (")
a.ro
'Qj' ~
(") ro
ro iil
~a.
""0 c-
o ~
""0 ::;
ro ro
~ ~
,..,. ,..,.
o ::T
g. Vi'
ro""O
o a
s."g
:T;:+
<
w
:J
a.
...
::T
ro
(j:r~"Co
~ ~,~ a ~
~ U1 ....""0 ,.
n>or+Oc.
rD:A"O~Q
~!~~:;\
- :::::r iii' w Q
:::J r-+ :E Vl a.
;~a.39
-0 m a,o ro w
a~~P;~
< 3 I--ol- VI .!t>
(Oro";:i'~~
:E~VlC:Vi'
w n"'C "'C
:J...0~3~
VlarorD:E
ro ~' ~ ~. ;::j:
~..., :::J:::::r
3g'~g~
~ ? ..~
(")
:T ~ n
<:: tv ::T
R-~~
@-ii)
c-<nv>
~ lO n
(") .... ::T
~8~
(") '" ro
~<nro
tv
....
<n
w
o
lO
tv
o
o
o
tv
....
o
....
<n
o
G)
<::
::;;
VI
::T
o
iil
~
<'
ro
~
x
"!
>
'a
""0
~
a.
>
""0
't:I
...
~
a.
Ii
3
'a
i'
to
b'
3
'a
i'
III
-<
to
lit
(")
;;'~~ro=B
n 0.. "0 ~, ~
00..-' ~ ~ ~ 5'
o <b ~
[~~~~~~g
ro~OOc:roroVl
~~~3~~[~
:::J~;~~~Vl~.
a.n><ron<nm
93g:a.:A"iii'~c..
~l'D()m:Ero~8"
ro~:;X)-'~a.~
i ~ [ ~:J ~. : ~, ~
~(")r1"tuN(OQ
~Q~-g5."j::J~~
~!!~I~[~
:::::r...,ror-+roa.s.m'
3 .g ~, ~ ~ 8" ~ :<
;"'a,=~~~ ~
~ro rol'Dn W
(:UVl =-'~'" 0
o !"
'iii'
;:troz ~
~~~ tu
~[-~~~
~"'O Z ~ ~
g b :J: lJ1 ~
tu :::J fi3 ~ t...J
s.UlOX~
o 0 0"\ 0
82..~
3
tv
....
<n
w
o
-I>
co
o
o
o
<n
....
o
w
'"
<n
G)
<::
::;;
VI
:T
o
ro
~
<'
ro
"!
x
"!
>
't:I
'tl
..,
~
a.
b'
3
'tl
1D
nl'
b'
3
't:I
1D
..
to
-<
to
lit
~
V>
(I) III e: .... ....
~ :g to 'i:; 'i:;
=0311100
~r5~3~
o~i.!.~.
5" -< . [~
h)":a.t:::ao...
:::::r.r N ...
~n;~~~:
i~~~~
~8"more
~lltl
~~g.gO'
.., ";:i' fh !!' 3
3 ~ ~ ~
~ <
m ~
U1 ~
ro <::
3 .!"
~~
ro 3
~ ro
=~
ro w
a.Otl
,..,. ro
o
~ ....
o tv
::T ......
:J lO
~ ro
ro x
::Tro
~ (")
...,,<::
Q nr
~ 0..
ro
<
0;'
:<
.... ;a I'D
Uine:
"TI ~ I'D
;2?-~
~.!:::.a
_. .... a.
to .... 0
::; to &l
5' 3 w
~ ~:g
.... to ...
~ ~ ~
(") 0 to
~::ra.a.
m ;: ~ :i"
~ tD "TI ~
~~~~
~ ~ '; ~
Q.~~S'
~ ~ !a
!" 0
....
tv
......
tv
""0
iil
""0
~
5'
Otl
ro
w
V>
ro
3
ro
~
a.
o
(")
V>
..."
Q
"T1
""0
~
CD
~
:J
"'~
@a.
oo;!
88 0
, 3
~~
~ ..g
VI
?"
:;I
u
~
)
3
~
;:a~!2~:r;8~Ci)
~.m.~~~3"Om.
~~9-:g.~~~~
:EOOQ"'O" (0-..
~=g.~-g~~Q
~~~~;~~~
tnl:To~rD3~ro'
i~~~],~~~
3"So.."m~";::i"~
rDo'~cr~Q..3(J)
g.~;+;~;::~~
(JQg<<;c..g'::(i;'
-.. -0 ::;' ~ I:U OJ ;;: ~
QQJ!'D.-+r:Da:::ro
~~:o~5'3mg
~~~.oW3 5 o'
~Q5'gQg!D::1
O'Q ~ S. ~
"
....
w
>
~
PI
"'~
ill <
n 0)
::T:J
C.
rn
2:
;:;
~ z
3 0)
~ ~ ~ m
Ci)PIN~5
S~~~m
rn"~oz
_~iD\/1=:x'
g'@~>?
~~~;a~
0._.;:... OJ
~8~~~
m 3 ~ ~
c: QJ.
rn ""
~ ~
N
"
.1>0
co
....
.1>0
co
o
o
o
N
<0
"
N
.1>0
Gl
c:
::;;
Vl
::T
o
ii3
~
:;:'
rn
\/1
x-
....
u:!
~
"0
~
a
lilt."
l~l
aii'
i.ma
~..~ i
~a~
y.! I 0
ii2~
<a ..
. a
~
I
5'
"U
o
""
ii3
t::
-<
~
Z
a
3 ~ a
~. ;a 3
ro c.n ""C
c."" 0)
o 3
~ ~ rn
Vi' ~ OJ
~ 0" ~
g-gffi
~ c)" ~
o' ::) 3'
::3 g ~
~~~
(i-....;::t:
:::r -0 O'
.... 0 :J
o ~ ~
~2:a.
3 ~ ~
rn 0)
DJ~~
00
'" -..
[Q
n ~
::T~
....... (D'
Q ?E
re-c:
~ w
~ 3
;:; ~.
. iD
I::;c.
...... "U
.... 0)
.1>0 3
~ ~
~. ~
rn
C.ii3
3 ~.
~~
rn ::T '"
~ ~ [
~:gg.
a. a 8"
< "U
mrnO)
3 c. 3
~. (0_<. rn
mVlor
~~.t::
~. 2 ~
~ s.-g
c." ><'"
'" 3 rn
[a~
g.o:::r"
egg:
~ o' ::I
3 => lil
rn 0) ::T
OJ ~..""'\
t'T) :::a ~:::a 0 ....
~(D""'\~iJ.;::;
rn23>-.,I>
~~'o~!.~
~~~B[;
....33 rn.. x
........n.I~3-:c:m
Vl=':Q.leu n
tDcr.......=....s
3~Q~";::-~
~.?'~rot.Om
c.~ 3 ~. ~. ~ rJ
ii3 ",rniij'3
< ::E Q.J a. .... I'D
~'-5.~~~
a. I'D r- '"
m~~m~~.
~sg~~;
~rn5'~=l'~
~ ?~3"C
'"
....
N
o
0)
"U
ii)
-<
0)
N
w' ~
:3 t...J
o Vl
c::w
@"'(;;
cr~(i1
~ ~ ~
g ~ ~
n w =>
Q.I.OO
~. ~ a:
n N
o iv
3 ~
o
N
"
.1>0
co
o
co
o
o
o
o
"
<0
co
<0
\/1
Gl
c:
::;;
Vl
::T
o
ii3
~
:;:.
rn
Vl
=:
;::;:
n
::T
u:!
X
N
q
t
a
~
"0
~
l!.
~
1
a
Ii
3
"0
ii>
;;r
-<
III
'"
~
'"
~3~Qrp3~~m~~
~~::3 .3aJ<........~~U"I
~ 3 ~ ~ ~, ~ ~. ~ 3 ~ ~
en :lmo;g~;a~m!:;"
~rnQJ:;3 u.....;:::rtO
QJ.g"""QJm.t::QJro <
cm~rn<:Jf'V~.33iir
0' ;:!, ~~. -;;:, ill 0'6 ~, rn !5.
:.~~~g~~[~~
~nr~~~~rn8"ro~
&~~~~;~g:~~
Q-tn=r(i;':ga.:J -
g. ~~?-o~~~~
n~3I'D <VI::rm.....
::r.Q.QJ VI ben.....,o ::5.~
rn f'V _ 0 .......... a. 0'--'- ,.
Q-f'V~3~~;'~?5
g~~~'-r-;B~ Q-
< ~~~ m'
~, "" [~ ?E
rn c. 0)
.. III ...
n> .. ......
n '" ....
~ to ~
?- ~ ~
__aU
~c.~
..., 0 ..
3 :: [
~:g Q
n> .. ..
c. 0 n>
~ C n
o n> 0
;~~
0-<"
tD "TI ~
~;E.t:
~ ~ ~
~ ~ .....
~~[
~ 0
1611827
~
0)
=>
c.
o
il >
::T <
~~~(;;
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~
~~gg-
gY55.-o
5. ~ ~, ::r
0) 0
.... =>
5'
=>
o
aa
"0' Crl8"oG)S:O'~m
0=:::Trn03<<
~g~~~~QJ5-~'
~ ..... ..... m :J OQ :J U .
<~~~':-~a.ro~
=+'00" m::SVlQJf'V
:lVlS"rn;:::r.....,mVl..........
~gC.o3Q5..~~
l'D ..... C" (') ro , ..... t'D ~
~::rm~~~o:Jm
~. ~~:l&ro'~:c..
"<:""::+~ro?E.3><'"Cl
6(1)o~~::r8-~
.....,::..s:~f'VrD::rC'D
~Qo~'t0:E~~
~~~""'QJ c..~
~ ~, ~ i i: i ~ ,g
~:~~c..o~mU1~
0) ~ ~. ~ 0 ..
:J.gs-m ~~
~ rD -
-< a
....
.1>0
....
....
>
s
o
=>
0)
""
::T
0)
:J
c.
"" '"
~ ~?it
o a r5
:J f'V :J G)
~~~~
~ ~ -, ~
o N ~ :J
~ N ~ ~
Q.~.g~
~. 0 ~ ~'
8 rn' ~
3
N
"
\/1
W
o
o
co
o
o
o
"
....
o
o
.1>0
"
Gl
c:
::;;
Vl
::T
o
ii3
~
:;:.
rn
::;I
0)
~
o
3
~
w.
x
....
Q
>
"0
"0
~
a
-g
o
"8 m
rDas
c. :;
rn rn
~ ~
3 ~
rn
a"
8" ffi
rn
~~
=>
~
:J
-0
o
~
:;:
V>
i!tlS
"" '" c::
~ ; cr
!!. .. -.
Z
a
~
g~~~3
~uum.~,
o'a~~m
:l "0 3' a.
~~OQ~rD
~~m't0~
g.re~~3
I'D VI 3 rD C'D
~ 3 rn 2 a
-'m?-C:'c..
C'D:J C'D 0
c..rT.......c..~
~m:~3S
g.3~~~
:lro~=t'ra
~~ ~ ~ ~
Q~5~~gs
No -..
......rn 0
00 ~ '
ro~~ro
~~~e;
m tv 4..0 C'D
3 n n 3
ro~~rD
;:;mm;:;
~~~g
~ ~ ~ ~
:J ...m m 0:
c.::r~:l
~~~[
g. :E 2 ia'
~ ~ ...VI ro
Ag-m~
~c.;::r"
~ ~ ~ ~
~ c.
~~S
-nO
"U
:
c.~...
o g: t=i
tl c. '"
.. 0 !;l
is. .:c -
~:r[
n g ~
a [..;i
.. ~ ::T
~ ~ tD
fi ~ ~
n> ~
~ Vi. !!
:- =: n>
~ 0 c..
! ;. n
~ 5. !..
~ O'Q ;:
o ClQ
:J ~
.. n>
;-:l:
...
t ~,4
c "'0 <
'a ::r Q)
Q. Q) :J
Q) III C.
.... tD tD
tD ... ~
c. m ~
'- Q) ~
Q) III
:J tD D'
c:: 3 tD
Q) Q)
-< tD n
:J ::r
N .... s:
!>> VI
.... VI
N Q) 0004
....
0 c:: C
... III
0 ::0
tD
'a
0
~
<z"O)>
~. ~.g ~
ro ~ C'D n
g ~ ~ ~
= Co .:..... 0'
3"''''=>
rn 3 5:';;
~ ffi. Q ~
~~. ~ rn
o :I; ~ iir
~S:~~
nc:a.m
~ ~ ~ ~
:J b == ~
~ "j::;"C m
~~g.3
~~~~
<"0
~
16 , 1 t.. 27 ~. t
c: "tI <
"C :r III
c.. III ::I
00 III In c..
r+ It) It)
It) .... ~
c.. m !!
.... III ;:;'
III In
::I It) c:l
c: 3 It)
III III
..... ..... -< It) n
-1:0 w ::I :r
co
N r+ ~
!'J ~
r+ ~
N III -l
r+
0 c: c:
.... In
n r- 0 ~
'"
'" '" It)
'" 0 "C
~ '"
c 0
'" "0 ~
=> :T
a. 3'
'"
a.
~. a.
~r::J '"
N < N ;u
Q w a. n'
"tl w C W
'" '" '" ~ """, :T
n ~ 3 "'~ ~
:T ..... 00
0 ..... => 111 a.
"tl N /'8)~
n' ':" ~ ..... 0
/'8) w a. 3 N c
'" 0'> ;:;: ..... '" -1:0 co
Q. ..... ..... n 0 0
n ..... ..... 0 '" V;'
0 3
3
N N
111 .....
..... -1:0
w 00
0 0
0'> 0'>
00 -1:0
0 0
0 0
0 0
111 111
'" '"
0'> 00
111 .....
W .....
Gl Gl
c c
::;; ::;;
'" Vl
:T :T
0 0
ro ro
~ ~
<' <'
'" '"
'"
:I;
;:;:
n
:T
N 111
q x-
x .....
N "!
q
~ )>
'C
~ "0
i ~
Ii !.
~
I
~ )>
"0
1 ~
!. !.
6' :;-
"tl
3 a
"2- ""
!a. ~
III
i ~
'"
-<
III
II'
t"D c......m cc.....-o ~ Z~..!::::.
3 g ~ ~ g ~ ~ _0 <
~.cn f\.JrD.., .....-o;.l'D3'" i'~
",1l13a.o"'!!!.II>:em
:::5.~ ~ ~re 5'tDx :!......~i(!
o a. 0 rT .g ~ Otl ........ - ...
:T:I; ~g-~3 m ~ 0'0\3
:~crnmm~S3~.a
oO':U33~311>. "'"a'
en , ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ 0
:::r QJ ""C CD =-0 ~ IDOl.....U1 o.c n
rn"tJ~;;rD"C.---.- VI
8~~cr~oo~Q)'1:I
S~:I;~c~~i~g~.
C-QJ :::r~< c.cY:J Q.ciQo;;r
-,,-o~~~...,::~S'Q.
g ~~ a. OJ nllO 3!.""
~gga:~5.~;23.. It)~
a.~~~-nQJro~:e~."
r-1"rtim 0 ;B~~.a -2....
f""I"a.::rti3 QJ~~~.[~
~:e~:- 5. .....,.;- ~
ffiC'Dg m %-6 !.
.. III .....
II> Ol .....
n '" N
o II> -1:0
~ 3 VI
II> 5-
S~~
..... 0 ~
II> ~ III
30lQ.
~:g ~
II> .. ..
a. 0 II>
~ < n
011>0
5~8:
....-< :l
I'D ." C!Q
:r;E..!::::.
!i! -; ~
~~~
... < !.
~ 8'
;u ~ '"
n' ro ~
~~. ~
a.~~
o '"
~ ~. ~
o :T '"
..v;' g. ~
ro CD ~
;ore-a.
3 g g
~ P- 3
Jg ..... m
!t>~;;
..... '"
111 :l
n a.
!!!.:T
;;)'"
a. ~,
~~
n 0
~-g
0.::+
n -<
'" -,
==>
~ro
g-~
R-t::J
'" .....
5.~
~ m
~~
~ !a:
'" ...
iir 3
a.",
'" l::
U1 '"
""""
~ ro
n
:T
~ '"
!D '"
< '"
Vi' m
3' 3
"" '"
~~
!!l,a.
n 0
:Tn
8" 8"
n ;U
I'D n'
~~
~ a.
~ Q
:l
~m
o <
3 ro'
~ :E
o .....
:lto
)>
"0
~
~
!.
~
~1~,~~rn~~~~
3<OVl.....Jg~~fD:r
~ ~ ? g. 'Vi ro 0' m 0 a:
..,.....OQ~U"I::T3tuQl
ml"D.........V'I n ro CJa."" ro.g nr
3~.~~'rt)~ ~::To.
~.rt)"O t-" ~'m 8'~ 5'~
~~~~~~~a~~
~~.~.S:3'" <rn<
m-c rTO'Q ~.~-6 ~DJ.....
t;"3::TrT-rTVl ~a
::Tm 0-0 ::;"o~ S~a.~3
w ~ ::T <.... 0 :::a
a ~ :l ~, 3 3 3 '" ~ ~
"n fO-<'~f8 f8 ~ a.)>
;!'g,~~ ~~'~'~~s
~(D3a.O'rna.CT~
5. ~ ..,;:p~~~
., 1--'0 '" rT
N
V> V>
III 0
;; :;:
III III
3 n
~~
o~
~~~
...... III
.g~
""' III
'" 3
U1 III
"0 :J
o "'"0
~Q.:o
sm-g
~a:J.
~< <:
Ol . 0
< ::: :;:
Vi' ~ ffi
, ~
V>
......
......
......
""'
...
_Ol
~ ri
... 0..
ffi":;:
OJ......
~
o
o
-:;:
Qj" :J
ffi. ~
Ol
~5.
:;:~
=r+
......
a
.....
O'l
<
Ol
:J
0..
III
2:
;::;
""
III
Ol
n
:r
r-
r-
n
...
:r ~
~ ~
Q OJ
c:~<
OJ' ~ _.
=' \O...V'1
~~g>
~t2ffi
5~~
3" ~ ~
~ ~
n Jg
~ ~
""'
-...J
.l>
00
a
OJ
O'l
a
a
a
a
lO
.l>
O'l
00
G\
c:
::;;
Ul
:r
o
;;;
S?
:C:'
III
~
<
III
~
x
......
~
~
't:l
I
3"
"
i3
o.!l
III
'"
V>
3"
"
i3
all
;;;
'"
V>
'CU, :E:
~'g Q.
'iF1i> Q.'
~?a."~
f
f
I
1611 B 27
9:
;;;
~N
Q w "'C
U1 lO Ol
3-::;3
Q. ""-J ."
@~g
Ol O'l ~
o ......
~.....
o
3
0..'"
~,.-
<" R
~ :r
III ...
0..0
III -n
Ol "
V> r-
III _
3 Q
~ rn
... <
a. CD'
8 ~
... .....
Oc;;-
o
'- 0'
Ol ,.-
~,<
V> 0..
Q'g
g.~~.!:::.g.rn 3 ~ fD~~~ Q~8'~
&lC;.."Nf'D<ro:;~nm"O ---o~
_. ~ "tJ 0 ~ ~. i ~ ~ (3 rn ~ QJ 9-
~~~~,3'm g;~~~S~~"~~~
~~[~~~~i~~~~~~~
~ a - ~o- S' ::J "'C -. -. ~ fD r O"l ~ n
co.... r+~ag. '::r ""iji'S
~ o' ~ i ~ g ~. 3 r+ g ..., ::: ~ ro o' Q
;: ~ ~. gO en ~ ~ g ~. a g ~ x;' ~ ~ ~
........:::Tn ~ ~ o'c..c-g.~~ m c..1ll 0 ~a.
.....oo:::sro.:::Jl:DC"..... "03 ~:Jm
';;}~g ~~ g:2< o~'a OJ ~ ~r(n e::
3 - a~a.~~31ll~[3 Cm
~";~.~. g:Eo ~ 3"q:J" ;;; ~ ~~ ~
[ii ~.~ r+t: 3 g.rt> ;.....< rl-r:-~ ~
~ :r i ~ ~ 0: f6 ~ ~ ........ S ~. g ~ ~_ ~
~.;,~.~:J"O...,.....3 ol-'a.~O c.R-
III 3!!!,. :r !! g ii ~o ..... I'D ::r 0' ~ \l)
a. -=r~ co~::J :J3 ~
lO
.....
'"
~
Ol
=>
Ol
Iii
III
;;0
III
V>
~
""'
-...J
.l>
00
......
OJ
""'
a
a
a
-...J
lO
'"
O'l
O'l
G\
c:
::;;
'"
:r
o
;;;
S?
<"
III
:;f
Ol
:J
~
o
3
~
......
q
x
......
q
>
't:l
't:l
~
8.
~
't:l
l
9
3
't:l
1D
...
t1)
9
3
't:l
1D
;;;
-<
t1)
V>
!=
rDfJr-Ta.
CJ OJ 0 0
VI () n n
m ..7'\ ::r VI
~g:~o
~ro"-o
" ~QJ
~ ~ 3
a. pi Q
ODJrorD
? :g ;:t:' ~
~ ~ ~ S
[~~ ~"
:::0 g:. OQ
~ III !" ::::;
)>(6V'1"'-
8'<~~
~[g~
~ [[
"
Ol
3
r-
Po
~ ;.
o:r n n 0
o ~ ~ ~
AJ ;- ~ O!:
c.a.a.:::5
3~~;-
t1) 3 3 ..
3, , t1)
rTtDl'Dn
tD Dol Dol C
~~~[~
...... 3 3 ... S!
:~a~~
3g-:E~.!:::.
~.ne:ft)~
[~~~"2.
::ga~a~
mv>~~cr~
~~3-6
~ ~. SS
~!l N
,
C 'tl <
~ :t' II)
C. II) ~
II) III C.
.. III III
III .... ...
C. m 2:
... II) ;::;'
II) III
~ III D:l
c 3 III
II) II)
... III n
< ~ ~
N .. s:
~t:1J II)
.. II)
N II) -I
..
0 C C
.... III
0 ~
III
~
0
...
..
'" ::r OJ
3 ~:g
~~~
;::::t. ~ OJ
t"'t 0 ;-
~g-~
3" ~ ~
U1 OJ '"
~ ~ "8
'" c. ^
n ~ '"
g 0Jl 8'
a:QJ~
cr5.~
i1 iil ::r
QJ.o~
, c ~
~~:T
.... '" 0
o a. ~
~~c:
....
'"
....
00
12O
....
<D
<
OJ
=>
C.
~~
[;
'"
OJ
n
::r
'0'
::r
=>
~ 0-
~ ::r
Q.",:]'N
;::.-"', ~ ~ ~ ~
....~::r-ro
;:;U1~t2
[91 ~~
~b~~Q
~ t;~. :E: (t)
~ '"
g ~
n
o
3
...,
<D
....
'"
o
o
.j:>
o
o
o
...,
<D
'"
'"
<.n
Gl
c
::;;
<.n
::r
o
ii1
S?
<"
'"
:;I
m OJ <.n
x :J
1'T1~' VI :E
3~o~
~~3~
~ ~ ::J
o~c.
- 5"
~
x
'"
C?
)>
'C
'C
~
a
~
~
a
i
b'
3
'5t
II
III
~
n
;:tJ ;:tJ 0 -n
~re~~;2
o a. - rD" .."
a.~~~:5"
o ro ~
a. """"" QJ ..... ..... "'C
g~5.SS~
c\O:JVI.....cu
3c.no"Cro::!.
'" "0 3 0 OJ :J
~~~@~~
" "'~~3OJ
0" 8" ::;' ~ ~ ~
5" l- O'Q ::r rl' 3
~=-, ~ ~. ~ ~ ~
VlC'D-'"'CrT
:;;ffi.g~ag-
o"'-'(O<n
~'mro..-,~~
~~~g-QJO
o.-......QJ::J...,
r-+(Dt"'I'a.a.=H
g.:;~ii"~~
oQJ~.n;n~
~~3<Sm'
~ ~ !1' ~"~:E
Q ~ 5'
CQ
3~S~;i;oi'Q~.t:.
!!!'3 -n",!!!.:e" iirciQ'D:
rom"'08m=~Q.:rn
~~~aK)S:;8~~
o~:S" 3n"'nClQc.
o ~ m ~ ro ~ 0 0 ~ ~
::r :E.....~~~3!~g.
;:~~ ~g.~... g",~ g.~
0>00" ~~ . "'::rf!!I!
~~J;:.w tD
O''''n n~~~ ~ 3~ ~ g.
..., ~~nAJ"'::3Q!.
.., S ~ 0 0 So ~.~ ..... ;
~.~[::r< O'o.l:!;;:
~ ~ O~;ClQ: g-;'::; 0
~n::r__~nDJO..&l
~3~~:a5.~~3::s
Nro n m r-.'~::!.~o
~~~~.t::g.~'nr~
~~~~.?!..p..<
~ ~-<
1611827
....
....
....
...,
-f
::r
'"
~
~
'"
3
~
^
n
o
=>
c.
o
OJ
'"
<
~ OJ
<N~
~~~
-0"::;<
3 ..., ;lJ
'" ..., 0
~ ~ a
%~m
U1 <.n C
n
o
3
'"
...,
.j:>
00
....
o
.j:>
o
o
o
'"
<D
UJ
00
o
Gl
c
::;;
<.n
::r
o
ii1
S?
<"
'"
~
-<
0>
~
x
....
"'!.
)>
'C
'C
~
0>
C.
... III -0
'C ~ ~
'C 0 _
~ S ft
!!.tOa
" ... ::r
0... lG ...
3 '"
ii: ~ S
2';"5"
~ 2' ~
~a.8'
)>
'C
~
a
li
3
'C
!P:
no
-<
no
III
-<
III
III
~~~s~~~~~~<~~~.~.m~s
<~N~cffi'~~'o~~~o~~~~w
{5 '~;lJ"'~'''' '~~~.E3:e1D
~5 o~ <~3~I'D~ ~I'D ~
a~~5.~~~@OJ~n' ~g-~~~
~3;~ii~~~~~E~~i~~
~.~ro~~~=~~-",~<.nn~~~~~a
Z VI- ::J"'" ~ ;:+' ~ ~ a. I'D a..
::J"'"o~oa.~Q~~~~~g-~~~a
~~~.~g",~~a.~~a~go~~m
~3~ c ~~~'~~~3~~_Q3
~~~~3~~~~I'D_.ro .~
~~~g'~~Sm~~[~~~~@:~
::J"'"_v'~~ . ~ .- ~~",~_c.
I'D ~ 9-O"Q ~ 6'g'X;~:J ~::<e:m<
~ 0 I'D 0 . ~ OJ 3 ~ 0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
frg-~.g~a.~UJ~OO~5 < I'D ~:a
n;- CD ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0 -",N' ~ m = ~ :; So r-
VI)>Q.1 N.. m a.I'D3 VI"'" < <: I'D 0-...
~ ~ g.~ ~ ~ g ~,~ m I'D 0 ;~ ~
~g~~roQ8'roffia.~ ~ ~
.;:!- I'D a. ;:; ~ ~
... ID
ID III
n '"
o ID
?-~
~;;
.... c.
..., 0
no n
3 :::
~~
c.o
.... <
o ID
;~e:
!;"~~
=;:E.t:.
~ ~ r;
~~~
... < !..
~ 8"
...
.'~
C ." <
-a :r ll)
c.. ll) ~
ll) III c..
r+ tl) tl)
tl) .... ...
c.. m ~
e- ll) ;::;'
ll) III
~ tl) l:l'
c 3 tl)
ll) ll)
... tl) n
< ~ :r-
N r+ s:
~oo VI
r+ VI
N ll) ~
r+
0 C C
.... III
0 ::0
tl)
-a
0
...
r+
1611 B 27
Report for: February 3, 2011 Meeting
Prepared by:
Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Proiect Status
(VA-35-B) - ACTIVE - Asbestos Abatement Project
02-03-11: Staff is coordinating with Public Utilities, Risk Management, and Pollution Control to
determine action plan for asbestos abatement.
(VA-35-A) - ACTIVE - Water Line Relocation Project - Project V-1
02-03-11: Final Bid Documents & Plans have been submitted to Public Utilities Division (PUD) for
review and approval. Approval is pending. After PUD approval staff anticipates issue of ROW
Permit. Project Bidding will follow ROW Permit Issue.
(VA-34) - ACTIVE - Survey for Phase II & III (PO 4500118493)
02-03-11: Survey Data is under review by Malcolm Pirnie Engineer.
(VA-32) - 10021 Gulfshore Drive Underground conversion of residential meter.
02-03-11: Bentley Electrical to provide quote under annual collier county electrical contract.
Quote is being provided in close coordination with Troy Todd (FPL) and Collier
County Chief Building Inspector, Richard Long.
(VA-30) - ACTIVE - Comcast "Phase One" Coordination
02-03-11: Staff has made some minor revisions to the Agreement and submitted to Comcast for
review/approval. Upon notification of Com cast approval the agreement will be
placed on BCC Agenda for formal approval of the agreement.
(VA-27) - ACTIVE - Phase One "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" (UFCA)
11-10-09 COMPLETED for Channel Drive (only); UFCA approved by BCC for 'Channel
Drive'
02-03-11 Overall Phase One UFCA is pending resolution of 'easements' required for
Phase One Project; As soon as easements are obtained FPL will proceed with
Final Engineering Cost Estimate and production of Final Design Plans for project.
(VA-26) - ACTIVE -Malcolm Pirnie; (EASEMENT AQUISITION) Review preliminary design
provided by FPL
02-03-11 Ongoing review of easements and negotiation with property owners in progress.
(VA-19) - ACTIVE-ONGOING - On Call Services - Malcolm Pirnie Engineering
On-going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground
power line installation.
02-03-11 Ongoing On-Call Engineering Services by Malcolm Pirnie Engineering
(VA-18) - ACTIVE-ONGOING- - Maintenance Contract - Award to Commercial Land
02-03-11 Ongoing Maintenance Services by Commercial Land Maintenance
1
@
1611 B 27
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
STAFF ASBESTOS ABATEMENT COORDINATION MEETING: Attendees: Ray Smith, Director
Pollution Control; Pam libby, Manager Water Operations; Michelle Edwards Arnold, Director
ATM Department; Darryl Richard, County Project Manager; Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations
Manager; Mark Sunyak, Principal Project Manager PUD; Michael Gates, Risk Management; Fred
Sexton, Senior Field Inspector; Diana Dueri, Project Manager PUD; and Committee Chairman
Charlie Arthur.
Public Utilities Division made offer to assist Growth Management Division (ATM Dept.) in
properly managing the asbestos abatement portion of the water line relocation project.
· Currently Plans are in final revision and 100% plans will be submitted by Malcolm Pirnie
next Monday, Jan. 24, 2011. (note: plans were confirmed delivered on 1/24/11)
· Once ROW Permit is issued project will be bid to Collier Count annual contractors.
· Also, after issue of ROW Permit staff will execute Phase One - Project Initialization.
· Upon receipt of bid results staff will coordinate with Ray Smith, Director Pollution
Control, to meet with DEP to review the project.
· Through the entire Asbestos Abatement Process the County MSTU liaison Project
Manager will report directly to Ray Smith, and copy Diana Dueri, Pamela Lulich, and
Michael Gates, for the purposes of project oversight and coordination.
. The next official coordination meeting will be the Phase One - Project Initialization
(time/date TBD). (pending staff review/approval of project plans - and subsequent ROW
Permit issue)
Friday, January 21, 2011
MEETING WITH JOHN LEHR (FPL) & ANDY VASPASIANO (COMCAST): Staff meeting with John
Lehr, FPL Project Manager; Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie; Darryl Richard, County Project
Manager; Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager; Andy Vaspasiano, Comcast; and
Committee Chairman Charlie Arthur indicates that 4 easements have been recorded, 6 are
pending final recording, and 5 are pending owner signature.
John Lehr indicated that an 8 foot by 10 foot "pit" would be required for all directional bore
crossings along Gulfshore Drive. And that the directional bores would require an additional
'right of entry' from all property owners who will be affected by directional bore operations (i.e.
installation of the 8ft. x 10 ft. pit and also area for setting up the directional bore equipment.
It was noted that the directional bore equipment is 'very heavy' and that there is concern with
the existing 'asbestos concrete' (AC) pipe. Staff had noted that Public Utilities Division has
informed Malcolm Pirnie that this pipe is 'very brittle' and has cracked in the past with just a
maintenance vehicle crossing over the top of one of the pipes.
John Lehr recommended that staff obtain official instructions from Utilities in regards to how
the asbestos concrete (AC) pipe should be protected during conversion of the power to
underground. The suggestion was made that Yz inch to 1 inch steel plates be used to cover the
existing AC pipe so that it is protected during construction.
@
1611827
It was also noted that the directional bores in close proximity to the existing AC pipe would
require very accurate placement of the directional bore - to avoid damaging the existing AC
pipe during boring operations.
John Lehr indicated that the cost of mitigation/protection of the existing AC pipe would not be
included in the 'engineering cost' or Contribution in aid of Construction (CIAC). John indicated
that the tariff requirements as relates to calculation of the ClAC would not include the project
activity related to 'protecting existing pipe' such as the asbestos concrete pipe. It was noted
that the specific requirements and calculation of the ClAC is contained within the PSC approved
tariffs which outline specific requirements for the underground conversion.
It was noted the FPL would not bid the project until 'payment is received for the CIAC. The ClAC
would be calculated after final plans are produced. Final plan production is pending the
obtaining of all easements required for the project.
It was noted that the 'moving of the water line' project could take place concurrently with the
bidding of the FPL underground conversion project and subsequent construction. Therefore,
the moving of the waterline is not anticipated to cause delay in the overall project schedule.
Staff informed John Lehr that Public Utilities Division will be working very closely with Growth
Management Division in the 'asbestos abatement' procedures related to the water line
relocation project.
John Lehr indicated that FPL bidding of this project would be for 56 days (or 3 months) and that
actual construction could be done in 1 to 2 months timeframe.
The discussion of 'how many bores' would be required for the entire project indicated that 35 to
45 bores are anticipated across Gulfshore Drive (final count is pending final plans).
John Lehr reminded staff that all restoration will have to be performed by the MSTU in relation
to directional bore operations (i.e. restoring any landscaping, pavers, of plantings).
Andy Vaspasiano, Project Manager, Comcast indicated that the project will require about the
same number of bores across Gulfshore Drive (35 to 45) and also has numerous crossings
anticipated across driveways and side streets/finger streets. The total number of Comcast
crossings will exceed 100 crossings. Final count of directional bores and crossings is pending final
project plans.
Andy Vaspasiano indicated that the Com cast Portion of the project would take 2 months for
construction. It was noted that Comcast would go 'last' and that they would wait until FPL had
all the lines underground (w/poles still up) prior to converting Comcast Cable to underground.
Once the Comcast lines were off the poles the poles would finally be removed - as the last part
of the project.
It was noted that Vanderbilt Bay requested relocation of 2 transformer switch cabinets and that
John Lehr would confirm if they can be moved. (Note: on 1/31/11 John Lehr reported: I received
the okay to relocate the PME-4's (two) to the new location 4 (design will install HH and the
longer cable runs).
6J
1611
B~2.7
It was also noted that the directional bores in close proximity to the existing AC pipe would
require very accurate placement of the directional bore - to avoid damaging the existing AC
pipe during boring operations.
John Lehr indicated that the cost of mitigation/protection of the existing AC pipe would not be
included in the 'engineering cost' or Contribution in aid of Construction (CIAC). John indicated
that the tariff requirements as relates to calculation of the ClAC would not include the project
activity related to 'protecting existing pipe' such as the asbestos concrete pipe. It was noted
that the specific requirements and calculation of the CIAC is contained within the PSC approved
tariff's which outline specific requirements for the underground conversion.
It was noted the FPL would not bid the project until 'payment is received for the CIAC. The CIAC
would be calculated after final plans are produced. Final plan production is pending the
obtaining of all easements required for the project.
It was noted that the 'moving of the water line' project could take place concurrently with the
bidding of the FPL underground conversion project and subsequent construction. Therefore,
the moving ofthe waterline is not anticipated to cause delay in the overall project schedule.
Staff informed John Lehr that Public Utilities Division will be working very closely with Growth
Management Division in the 'asbestos abatement' procedures related to the water line
relocation project.
John Lehr indicated that FPL bidding of this project would be for 56 days (or 3 months) and that
actual construction could be done in 1 to 2 months timeframe.
The discussion of 'how many bores' would be required for the entire project indicated that 35 to
45 bores are anticipated across Gulfshore Drive (final count is pending final plans).
John Lehr reminded staff that all restoration will have to be performed by the MSTU in relation
to directional bore operations (i.e. restoring any landscaping, pavers, of plantings).
Andy Vaspasiano, Project Manager, Comcast indicated that the project will require about the
same number of bores across Gulfshore Drive (35 to 45) and also has numerous crossings
anticipated across driveways and side streets/finger streets. The total number of Comcast
crossings will exceed 100 crossings. Final count of directional bores and crossings is pending final
project plans.
Andy Vaspasiano indicated that the Comcast Portion of the project would take 2 months for
construction. It was noted that Comcast would go 'last' and that they would wait until FPL had
all the lines underground (w/poles still up) prior to converting Comcast Cable to underground.
Once the Comcast lines were off the poles the poles would finally be removed - as the last part
of the project.
It was noted that Vanderbilt Bay requested relocation of 2 transformer switch cabinets and that
John Lehr would confirm if they can be moved. (Note: on 1/31/11 John Lehr reported: I received
the okay to relocate the PME-4's (two) to the new location 4 (design will install HH and the
longer cable runs).
@
of Naples. Floride, Inc,
INDLJSTRIAL
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS COMMERCIAL
Phone: (239) 643-5339 Fax: [239) 643-3685
PO, 80X 10572 · NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101
BENTLEY
------t -~
February 3, 2011
Collier County MSTU Projects
Attn: Darryl Richard, RLA
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: 10021 Gulfshore Drive
Per our jobsite visit on August 2, and based on the letter that you received from the
County Electrical Inspector we have based our bid on the following regarding the
revised updated quotation (due to increased copper prices) for the subject installation:
a) Install a new 400 amp service complete with (2) 200 amp meters and main
breakers that will be mounted on the south side outside wall.
b) Run (2) two inch PVC conduits from the new electrical service location and re-
feed the old existing original panels located in an outdoor "dose quartered"
equipment closet. Install new 2/0 thwn copper wiring for the (2) existing
panels,
c) Reroute the conduits in the outdoor closet to accommodate the revised pipe
work.
d) Re-cut the driveway and install additional 2" conduit. Reinstall new concrete
patch and directional bore has needed as noted;n item (b).
e) Install FPl conduit from the new meter to roadway.
This work will be done for the sum of $15,900.00,
If you have any questions concerning this proposal, feel free to contact me.
~
\ 1
1li a/2t?)/
Charles A. Bentley. Jr, U
@
16 , 1 , 2 7
L
Collier County, Florida
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Adjusted Balance Sheet (Unaudited)
As of respective date
Unaudited Fiscal 2011 - Unaudited
As of
9/30/2010 10/13/2010 11/4/2010 12/2/2010 1/6/2011 2/3/2011
Pooled cash and investments $ 5,080,344.09 $ 5,078,094,93 $ 5,079,155,37 $ 5,102,971,32 $ 5,751,571.24 $ 5,789,282.99
Market valuation of investments (done annually) 2,615.91 2,615.91 2,615,91 2,615,91 2,615,91 2,615.91
Due from Tax Collector 8,456,21 6,456.21
Due from Property Appraiser 1,037,70 1,037.70
Due from other funds
Interest receivable 7,293,01 7,293.01 7,293.01 7,293.01 7,293.D1 7,293,01
Total Assets $ 5,099,748.92 $ 5,097,499,76 $ 5,069,064.29 $ 5,112,660.24 $ 5,761,460.16 $ 5,799,191.91
Goods Receipt/Invoice Receipt $ 5,653.06 $ 36,646.23 $ 52,760.06 $ 32,922.10 $ 6,000.00 $ 2,763.22
Accounts Payable 875,00 19,760.00
4,652,625,42
Revenues:
Ad Valorem Collections 947,406,76 4,637.92 96,545,24 806,740,14 657,452.09
Interest Revenue 45,701.06 1,506,30 1,760,77 4,933,09
Miscellaneous
Expenditures:
Other Contractural Services (52,470,00) (11,665,15) (12,415,15) (16,025,15) (21,635,15) (25,565,15)
Legal Fees (1,473,95)
Engineering (44,320.00) (36,680,OO) (36,860.00) (37,660,00) (37,660.00)
Surveying Fees (14,982.05) (2,502.25)
Abstract Fees (875.00)
Indirect Cost Reimbursement (10,000.00) (4,000.00) (4,000.00) (4,000.00) (4,000,OO)
Water and sewer (48,610,77) (2,136.40) (4,490.23) (6,957,67) (9,15200)
Sprinkler maintenance (846,07) (486.00) (516.91) (633.53)
Landscaping (13,345.71) (394,51 ) (1,174.51) (1,369.51 ) (1,759.51)
Mulch (3,218.60) (3,364.90) (3,364.90)
Other miscellaneous (fertilizer, electricity, etc.) (8,523,52) (7.07) (717.19) (1,028.53) (1,805,94)
Improvements - General (Capital) (315,614.76) (19,780.00) (23,400.40) (43,400.4O) (49,400.40) (51,400.4O)
Transfer to PA (6,412.69) (924.16) (1,961,66) (1,961.86) (3,923.72) (3,923,72)
Transfer to TC (10,619.12) (139,14) (2,180.90) (16,384.60) (17,389,93)
Transfer to Fund 111 (Unic, MSTD) (23,000.00)
Total Liabilities and Equity $ 5,099,746.92 $ 5,097,499,76 $ 5,089,064.29 $ 5,112,880.24 $ 5,761,480.16 $ 5,799,191.91
Collier County, Florida
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Source of monies from inception - CUMULATIVE
Ad valorem taxes $ 6,687,191.75 $ 6,687,191,75 $ 6,691,629.67 $ 6,783,736,99 $ 7,493,931.89 $ 7,544,643.64
Miscellaneous income (refund) 503.65 503.65 503,65 503.65 503,65 503.65
Interest earnings 581,659.97 561,659.97 581,659.97 583,168.27 583,440,74 566,593.06
Insurance recoveries 13,085.17 13,085.17 13,085,17 13,065,17 13,085,17 13,085,17
Good and services (1,915,896,45) (1,918,145.61) (1 ,921 ,723.09} (1 ,991 ,322,76} (2,053,190.21 ) (2,069,342,73)
Transfers out to other County funds (286,200.00) (286,200,OO) (286,200.00) (286,200,OO) (286,200,OO) (286,200.00)
Cash balance as of respective date $ 5,080,344.09 $ 5,078,094.93 $ 5,079,155.37 $ 5,102,971.32 $ 5,751,571.24 $ 5,789,262.99
Q:\Derek\vandymeeting .xls
<f1
161 1
B 2.7
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
CONVERSION AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 20_, by and between
the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, Fl., a Florida municipal corporation
or county ("Board") and COMCAST OF THE SOUTH, INe. ("Comcast"), a Colorado corporation with an
address 0(-1 ?641 Corporate Lakes Dr, FOli Myers, Fl, 339] 3,1675 Broad'.vay, Suite 1200 Denver, Colo.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 200]-43, the Board created the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal
Service Taxing Unit ("MSTU") for the purpose of beautifying public areas within the boundaries of the MSTU.
WHEREAS, the MSTU seeks to beautify a portion of Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulfshore Drive and adioining
sidestreets by having cable and other utility lines including Florida Power & Light Utility poles moved from
aboveground to underground.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the MSTU's request, the Board now requests and has agreed to reimburse Comcast for
its costs to convert certain of its overhead cable distribution facilities attached to Florida Power & Light ("FPL")
utility poles located on Vanderbilt Drive between ~ B"Q"I, RuM! and Bluebill Avenue, as more
specifically described as Phase 1 as depicted in Exhibit ", attached hereto (the "Conversion" and collectively
the "Existing Overhead Facilities") to underground.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants and agreements set forth
herein, and other consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties intending to be
legally bound, hereby covenant and agree as follows:
I. Comcast has provided the Board an estimate for the Conversion in the amount of $331, 351.25.
2. The Board hereby agrees to pay Comcast its costs for the Conversion in the amount of $331 ,351.25 flf
up to 1] 0% of :;uch amount if acma! Conver::ion coets exceed:: the e::timated eo:.:tG, as provided in
paragraph 3 and 4 hereof ("the, Payment"),
3. The Board shall issue ninety (90) percent ($298.216.00) of the Payment to Comcast prior to Comcast's
commencement of the Conversion. After the Payment is received and FPL has converted its
aboveground facilities to underground, Comcast will remove the Existing Overhead Facilities from FPL
poles and convert them to underground, except for equipment or facilities necessary to maintain the
underground facilities, after FPL notifies Comcast in writing that it has converted its facilities to
underground. After the removal of Comcast's Existing: Overhead Facilities and conversion to
underground, the Board shall issue the remaining ten (0) percent ($33.153.00) of the Payment to
Comcasl.
4. In the event the actual cost of the Conversion exceeds the estimate. the Payment shall be increased to the
actual Conversiofl cost, up to a maximum of 110% of tHe estimated cost. Comcast shall notify the Board
in writing of the excess amount (if any) and the Board shall remit payment to Comcast of such excess
amount within 30 days of its receipt of said notice from Comcast pursuant to an addendum7
Conflict between Terms of Franchise Agreement. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement
and any permit or franchise agreement entered into by the County and Comcast, the terms of this Agreement shall
control.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and Comcast have executed this Agreement on the date first set
forth above.
BOARD OF COMMISSONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FL.
COMCAST OF THE SOUTH, INC.
@
I
Signed
Name
Signed
Name
Title
Title
Signed
Name
Title
Approved as to Terms and Conditions
Signed
Name
Title
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency
Signed
Name
Title
1611 B 2.7
@
1611 8 27
DATE
Dear
The Collier County Board of Commissioners (the "Board"), Florida Power & Light and Comcast
Cable are involved in an undergrounding project along Vanderbilt Avenue Gulfshore Drive and
adioining sidestreets in Naples, Fl. Comcast will use construction contractor Cable Wiring
Specialist, Inc., of Hollywood, Fl., to transfer its aerial facilities to underground. The purpose of
this letter is to outline Comcast Cable's selection process for construction contractors, as
requested by the Board.
Comcast periodically sends out a request for proposals stating the number of plant miles it
expects to build the following year. The proposal covers a specific geographic area, e.g., the
Naples, Fl., area. Cable network construction is highly technical and requires specialized skills.
So proposals are sent to contractors qualified to perform the work. The company awards bids on
a variety of factors including price and quality of previous work. Construction jobs are
authorized through a statement of work and work orders.
Contractors sign an agreement with financial penalties for a contractor's failure to meet
schedules set forth in the statement of work. The contractor will agree to furnish an adequate
supply of workers, equipment, tools and restoration materials (such as concrete and asphalt). The
work must be performed in a good, professional and workmanlike manner in strict accordance
with standard construction practices customary in the cable television, broadband distribution
and telephony industries.
The contractor is required to perform work in compliance with all applicable utility construction
requirements as well as regulations and requirements of the Federal Communications
Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation and Federal
Aviation Administration, the National Electric Code of the National Fire Protection Association,
the National Electric Safety Code, rules of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
and the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended.
The contractor represents and warrants that it complies with the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986. It specifically warrants that: (i) it has not hired since November 6, 1986,
and will not hire at any time in the future, "unauthorized aliens," as defined in 8 C.F.R. S
274a.l(a), to perform any portion of the Work; and (ii) it will comply with the verification
requirements of 8 C.F.R. S 274a.2. The contractor carries workers' Compensation and
Occupational Disease insurance, commercial general liability, and automobile liability insurance
as well as umbrella excess liability.
@
1611
8 27
Please contact me at (904) 256-1965 or bilI ferrv@cable.comcast.com if you have comments or
questions.
@
~~~~WWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN~~~~~~~~~~
WN~O~~~~~~WN~O~~~~~~WN~O~~~~~~WN~O~~~~~~WN~
-Iffioo-l-l;uzz"TlOO
~Gl~~~~~-I<2j~~
Z01;U;UZZm~mI)>
en'<fl.-<-<enenzm-l-lO(;
"Tlm"Tl"Tl"Tl"TlCens::I<
menOOmmm-lm-)><
;U-l;U;U;U;Uen-lZ;Ur)>
en;u<:2:"Tl"Tl-l)>-Io05
SlOm);)>;U;U;UX-O;U;U
0< ;UOOCoZZmm
'0 ~OS::S::~on1-s::s::
~ OGli!~~F~~i!i!
;U "Tlmx"U",menmxx
OJ mZo;umO-l;u
z 0)> -I m
Q rcn ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q~~S"Tloroos::s::enz:2:m"U"Uo~zenmr
~"UmuIm-l~r"Tlc)>"Uen)>~OO-lzoCZ~
U;u ;UIU/m"Tlrz;UC-I enenI -;UGlUI
~0~~-Im)>;U00-lz;um~-I-Imo;u<"Tl)>
F<~oI;U;~mIm^)>;u )>"Tl;uenmmmr
O~z-m~~~o;uen z~z)>~Gl;uo~~~m"Tl
~ roen<mc z)>;uomzQm~O"U zenrn
cmGl~ omo"U o~ GlZmOGloen
-Izm)>om;uO"U oenGlen I-I-g"Tl-l
~-IX~Ir-l;uC~ m~mz~ -I~R-Irnffi
-<en"U~~~cnom -I < O-;uen~
Glm ~ -_en zmmm -10m '"
mZOO ZZZ~;U m
Zenc moGlGl o~)>;U Cz~
m~ en~ )> ~
~ C ~ o~r ri!~
~ en m Z r;u
CJl -I (Il
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;U;U-lroOJ-I-I
mm;Ucc;u;u
enen~oo)>~
~~en~~tien
<<"Tl-l-l"Tl-l
mmm-l-lmo
en"Tl;u;u;u;u......
00)>)> en......
;UOZZ ......
Ozenen C
)>en-l)> z
"U-I0"U Z
=i 0"U 0
)> O;U 0
r r ;U
01 01
'"....J'"....J w
WI\.) wwoo~~
W01......I\.)I\.)OOW W01
o:""'i.ooo"iv"iv'"....J I\.)u,o 01
OOOOO~~IOOOOO
0000000..................0000
00000000,0,<00000
0000000WW010000
......
0101\.)......
oou,-:'"
0000
, 9999
0000
0000
W
W
u,~
001
00
00
00
......
00...... W~
1\.)0000......1\.)
Ou,owmu,
01000......000
0000......00
0000<000
00000100
::0: ::O:lD)>
0 01:3
~ ...... 8Q.~
00 01
i.o 0 i.oCDQ.
0 0 o_CD
, 0 , 0 , o Q.
0 0 0
S S S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~01 ~ ,l:. I\.) ,l:.
~Ol ~ WI\.) I\.) W 1\.)0
~~ i.o -....... :..., WOl W w -:". 0 0,0
~,l:. N I\.) ,l:. ow 01 ,l:.00 ...... 10 ~o
, ~...... ,l:. 1\.)1\.) , 001 , 01 00 00 ,l:. 0 01 0
:...~ W wa, o~ ~ o~ ()) ~ ...... 0
ww ~ 0 00 0 0 ...... 010 OlIO 0 0
o
o
3
3
g
CD
;:,
'lit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
m
>c
ex;
01
I\.)
W
~
,~
1\.)...... ~01 ~ I\.) W
............w ~...... ~ W ,10 01 -a."J::I..I\J........
wwi.o -:".-:". N 0 ...... W OlW ...... u, '"....Jou,m
......001\.) 00 ~ 01 10 01 W01 011\.) 00010000
WIOW , 00 ~ , ...... , I\.) , ,l:. , wo 1\.)...... , 011001\.)0
a,<o~ :,..~ ~ w ()) <0 0,0 ON :""'o,oNo
O1W I\.) 00 ~ I\.) 00 0 W 0 o~ 01 .......0010
00;:,1;
:.w ~ __~ e: 2"
~~~l82"!.
01 01 O1Oliil
......1 ~<oi\Jootll
~ ~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
I
CD
o
II
'a
"
Ir ~
~ .!l
OJ CD
0'
=>
~
..
! i ~
-= 0 ~
co
CD 0
~ :,. :::! -.
.:j...-.
~Q)o
t~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
............ W
m'"....Ji.o
00............
01001
wON
01......00
01 01
0,0,
W ............
I\.) 1\.)1\.)
o '"....J'"....J
o 00
o 00
0' 00
o 00
W 1\.)......
W......,l:.0101\.)
omooou,
010010000
0000000
0000000
0000000
~ )>
...... ::0: ~-I;i
01 -~~ ~
01 ......
~ 0 0 ,l:.1O-CT
10 I\.) 01 0 iD
,l:. W 01 O1W
, ()) , ()) <0 i\J~
~ E:! 01 OlE:!
......
W ......
10 1\.)0 S1>
inI\JW~01-:;:W000100
......0......00100000010,l:.
,l:.0......001\.) 00000 00
())0~00())0000000
1\.)0000SsooooSo
S!1S!1;U;U;U~~~~
~~~~~oo8-o
CD::r- - - 2.2._2.
III "'5"5"5"3333
!;pPPP:p.:p':p':p'
Q) - - .., ..,
:::J :::J :::J :::J :J
ar ij)' ij)" ij)'
00
00
III III
CD CD
0.0.
o
::r
5;
o
::r
c....--"Tl"Tl"Tl"Tl
5;ijla.oo"Uo
Ci)" C ::;" CD :::!. r :::!.
S'o;<D~; a.
~",s:l. '" ll)
",!ilo;u ~
OGl&lCD
~ ii l!l
CD CD 5;
iil 3' !il
- III
~
ci'
'"
~
~
...
g
.....
-:...
.....
CII
ill
...
CD
3
ij)'
III
Q5"b>s::;r~enQ:2:a?
CDIIl_!:.::!.CD.., Oll) 0
::::!. ~ == 0 == Sl :i" c: CD 0
fJ OJ ~ =r N" ::!. " :::J .., a
- '" 0 CD Q. iD a. go -.
W!ilo .., "'S::en~
< 5 ~~'~ii'
S' ~,...!!! lJl
III
~
r
~"~,l:.,l:.,l:.,l:.,l:.,l:.,l:.,l:. ,l:.
WOOlOlOlOlOlO1010101
,l:.ogggggggg~
+~~~~Oi\iOO~1\J
lsl~~2l~~:t:~~lsl~
"j\)IOOlIOOOI\.)OlWI\.)I\.)
10000lW,l:.0l0l0l0......
~
~
~
~
,l:.,l:.,l:.,l:.
01010101
0000
--0000
GlG)..........l..............
OO~~~~
1\.)1\.)0001
<O())I\.).......
WIO......Ol
,l:.,l:.
01 01
00
00
...... ......
1\.)1\.)
WI\.)
...... 00
I\.) 01
1\.)......
"tI
o
IIi
i
cr
iD
N ~
: fi
~@
~~
":-" ~
00
S'
~
~ ,l:.,l:.
,l:. I\.) 1O,l:. 001
CW,l:.o,"iv-......oi.o
.......oo.............wow
.....OOO1.......~OQ)
CnOO~:.....())OO
~000W0100
I\.)
w
,l:.
I\.)
a,
00
I\.),l:.
W 01\.)
01:"'" www
WI\.)OOOl......,l:.
011\.)0001000
I~W~~:c..O
0010......100
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
W ,l:. ...... W ......
~ 1\.)............ W ...... ,l:.W 01 10 !!!
N ,l:. u,'"....Jo, ~,Jla.m I\.) wow 01 ~~ ......
~ 000001 1\,)1000 01 01001 I\.)W ......01 10
~ , 0 I\.) 0 01 , ...... 10 0 ...... 00"'" , ...... W <D I\.) I\,)
:... 0 ~o~ NNO W 00<0 No, 0,0 ())
~ 001001 000 I\.) 000 ......w ......0 00
l.-Z
B
1 191
."
CD
C"
...
s::
I>>
~
~W
N
CI
....
....
~
z
.,,0
c:m
z::O
oS!!
....r-
"..-4
w3!l:
t/)
-4
c:
10) I1~mUIWmTh)
lU\ MAR 2 9 2011 IYJ
161 1
8" ?, Flaig ....jIV""
, ~'Hiller /
~~~r:~ ~'
Coletta _""~
/
v
B'T: ,,,,,,,."',,"'..
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER AND W ASTEW A TER AUTHORITY
Naples, Florida, October 29,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Water and Wastewater
Authority in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier
County Community Development Services Conference Room #609/610,
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN: Dr. Sherwin Ritter
VICE CHAIRMAN: Jerry Morgan
Jack Markel
Dr. Fay Biles
Lowell Lam
ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Operations Director, GMD, P&R
Ken Kovensky, Operations Manager, GMD, P&R
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
1
Item#.:
- ":'S '0:
I
16 I 1 B 2-8
October 29, 2010
I. Call to Order (Determination of Quorum) and Roll Call
Chairman Ritter called the meeting to order at 2:03 PM.
Roll call was taken and a quorum established.
II. Approval of Agenda - Meeting of October 29, 2010
Dr. Biles moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Morgan.
Carried unanimously 5-0.
III. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of August 3,2010.
Dr. Biles moved to approve the minutes o/the August 3,2010 meeting. Second by
Mr. Morgan. Carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. Items Requiring Action by Authority
A. North Marco Utility Company, Inc. Limited Proceeding.
Jamie French, Operations Director GMD, P&R presented Final Order 2010-03
"North Marco Utility Company (NMU) Limited Proceeding" dated October 29,
20 I O. The Proceeding is a request by the NMU Company, Inc. for a total of a
4.10% increase in their wastewater rates. The request is based on the 2010 Price
Index Factor of 0.56% adopted by Final Order 2010-01, an increase in amortized
pass through costs and the regulatory assessment fee derived from additional
Revenue.
Ken Kovensky, Operations Manager stated Staff recommends approval of the
Request.
Craig Woodward, North Marco Utility Co., Inc. noted:
· The Company was formed by several private entities to serve the
commercial/multi family establishments on the North portion of the Island.
· The Company installed the entire infrastructure including the service to the
City of Marco Island ,Sewer Plant.
· Water service to the Utilities customers is provided by the City of Marco
Island.
· The entire sewer system serving the Utilities customers was upgraded a
few years ago at no expense to the customers.
· Traditionally the Utilities rates have been lower than the City of Marco
Island rates.
· The NMU pays the City of Marco Island as a "bulk rate customer" and the
City of Marco Island has applied a 8.33% increase in rates effective
October 1,2010, however the NMU is only requesting an increase of
4.10%.
Mr. Lam moved to approve Final Order 2010-03. Second by Mr. MarkeL Carried
unanimously 5-0.
V. Staff Discussion
A. North Marco Utility Company, Inc. Discussion
2
1611 B-z-B
October 29, 2010
Craig Woodward provided an overview on current utility issues affecting the
NMU: The following was highlighted:
· Because of lost revenue, especially in the area of single family home
customers, the City of Marco Island is looking to increase revenue.
· The City of Marco Island is considering increasing the rates for
commercial users, bulk rate customers and master metered condominium
developments.
· NMU is considered a "bulk rate customer."
· An option proposed is an increase in the "base facility fees" charged to
NMU customers from $6,833 to $130,000.
· Another option proposed is an increase in the "base facility rates" which
would create an increase cost of $ 103,000 to NMU customers.
Mr. French noted the item is for information purposes and the issue under
investigation by Staff and the NMU is what rights the City of Marco Island has to
impose various charges to a "franchised area." The investigation may require the
County hiring a consultant to assist in addressing the issue.
Mr. Woodward provided an overview of recent "impact fee" issues where the
City of Marco Island has been imposing sewer impact fees and/or line extension
fees directly to NMU customers for change of uses, etc. He noted the NMU's
position is the City cannot directly charge a NMU customer a "sewer impact fee,"
only the NMU may impose the charge (which charges may be transferred to the
City).
Mr. French noted Staff is investigating this issue as well. One complication
affecting the issues is there is no contract for the provision of services between the
City of Marco Island and the NMU.
B. Ave Maria Developer Agreement
Jamie French provided a copy of the "Developer Agreement - Del Webb
Residents Club" dated July 13, 2010 for information purposes. The Agreement is
between Pulte Home Corporation and Ave Maria Utility Company, LLP for the
Utilities provision of water and wastewater services to Pulte Homes.
VI. Open to Public
None
VII. Authority Member Discussion
Under discussion, Mr. French noted he has not reviewed any land use documents in
regard to the Jackson Labs proposal but assumes the proposed development would be
within the service area of Ave Maria Utility Company, LLP.
3
161 1
8 28
October 29, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3: 15 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER
AJ~~/4
Chairman, Dr. Sher_ Ritter
These Minutes were approved by the BoardlChainnan on
as presented /" , or as amended .
3//}I/I/
, ,.
4
1611 C 1
Feb~~ 2011
RECEIVED MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE ~ii~~r v
MAR 1 0 2011 COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRA T-.bIanl"lng -f Jj?
. toys
BoardofCounty~ Naples, Flonda, CQlliitta ...-:"
February 4,2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that 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
ALSO PRESENT
Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Colleen Davidson, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary
:S!'ies to:
1611 C 1
February 4,2011
NOTE: 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 VERBA TIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDE&, 'filE
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 9:12
AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath.
A. Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules arid 'Regulations for the Hearing. The
Special Magistrate noted that, 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: 9:26 AM
RECONVENED: 9:47 AM
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes:
(a) Under Item V (A), "Public Hearings," Stipulations were reached in the following cases
(listed below as Agenda items):
· #9 - Case No. CESD20100019403 - GRAND SLAM REALTY LLC
· #25 - Case No. CESD20090012012 - ERNIE J. & DELA YNA BLAIN
(b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were withdrawn by the County, (listed
below as Agenda items):
· #1 - Case No: S0172893-CEEX20110000852 - HELEN HOOVER
· #2 - Case No: S0157388-CEEX20110000834 - HENRY TURGEON
· #3 - Case No: S0171609-CEEX20110000846 - ROBERT T. TORTOLA
· #4 - Case No: S0173101-CEEX20110000106 - AUSTIN O'MALLEY
· #5 - Case No: PR041529-CEEX20100021848 - STEPHEN M. BROTT
· #6 - Case No: PR044732-CEEX20110000109 - KEN A. ROBERTSON
· #8 - Case No: CEPM20100020075 - JEFFERSON AND TAMMY ROBERTS
· #21 - Case No: CEA20100016108 - JANET RIVERO AND RAMON SUAREZ
· #22 - Case No: CESD20100017375 - JANET RIVERO AND RAMON SUAREZ
· #24 - Case No: CEPM20100020076 - TH01\1AS AND CHERL YN EDWARDS
· #26 - Case No: CESD20100005160 - JOSE AND RAQUEL NUNEZ
· #27 - Case No: CEPM20100008271 - JARRED KAPLAN AND SCOTT M.
DIAMENT
2
161 1
C 1
February 4, 2011
Under Item VI.A "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following cases were withdrawn
by the County, (listed below as Agenda items):
· #6 - Case No. CEPM20090015732 - CITIBANK
· #7 - Case No. CEPM20100019213 - CITIBANK
· #8 - Case No. CESD20100003742 - SANDRA L. CASTRO
Under Item VII. - Addition of Item A. - "Motion to Rescind - Sandra L. Castro. _
Case No. CESD20100003742
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 14,2011
The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on January 14,2011 were reviewed by
the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted.
IV. MOTIONS
A. Motion for Extension of Time
None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stipulations
9. CASE NO: CESD20100019403
OWNER: GRAND SLAM REALTY LLC
OFFICER: INVESTIGA TOR TONY ASARO
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS
AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(l)(a). TIKI HUT, SHED, AND
FRONT WALL STRUCTURE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY
BUILDING PERMITS.
FOLIO NO: 40171920008
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3220 29TH AVE NE, NAPLES
The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Tony Asaro who was
present.
The Respondent was represented by Laurie Vereen.
A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative, Laurie Vereen
February 4, 2011.
Investigator Asaro outlined the terms of the Stipulation:
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to apply for and obtain a valid Collier
County Building or Demolition Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of
Completion on or before May 4,2011, or afine of $100.00 per day will be imposedfor
each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation
or Order of the Special Magistrate.
3
1 it
Cebruary 4: 201;
The Respondents are to notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
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 Respondents.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the terms of the Stipulation.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.56 on or before
May 4,2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.56
1611
25. CASE NO: CESD20090012012
OWNER: ERNIE J. & DELA YNA BLAIN
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO
VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1,
SECTION 105.1 AND SECTION 111.1, COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06
(B)(1)(e)(i). ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING ADDED TO BUILDING
WITHOUT PERMITS.
FOLIO NO: 37880000109
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1750 24TH AVE NE, NAPLES
The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Tony Asaro who was
present.
The Respondent, Ernie Blain was present.
A Stipulation was entered into by Ernie Blain on February 4, 2011.
Investigator Asaro outlined the terms of the Stipulation:
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to apply for and obtain a valid Collier
County Building or Demolition Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of
Completion on or before May 4,2011, or afine of $100. 00 per day will be imposedfor
each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation
or Order of the Special Magistrate.
The Respondents are to notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
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 Respondents.
Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the terms of the Stipulation.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.64 on or before
May 4,2011.
4
161 1
Cebru! 4,2011
Total Amount Due: $112.64
B. Hearings
7. CASE NO: PR044540-CEEX20100005227
OWNER: GREGORYL.MEYER
OFFICER: PARK RANGER MAURICIO ARAQUISTAIN
VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC 130-66
PARKING IN AN UNAUTHORIZED PARKING AREA
VIOLATION ADDRESS: BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE
Gregory Meyer stated he was the driver, not the owner of the vehicle and is present
today at the direction of the owner (Mary Meyer). He was issued a parking violation in
the area of Barefoot Beach and is appealing the ticket. He provided photographs as
evidence (entered as "Composite Exhibit A") taken approximately 10 days after issuance
the citation. The photos indicated the area where he parked is outside the Park, and not
posted with "no parking" signage. Therefore, he assumed he was legally parked.
Park Ranger Araquistain stated Mr. Meyer parked in a "turnaround area" before
entrance to the Park. The area needs to be kept free of parking to allow visitors to turn
around before entering the Park. On the date of the citation, the Park was busy with no
vehicles parked in the area and it was obvious it is a "no parking area." Mr. Meyer did
not ask the Park attendant if parking was permitted in this area.
Special Magistrate Garretson expressed concern on the lack of "no parking notices" in
the area where Mr. Meyer parked and questioned if there is an Ordinance governing
parking in the area in question?
Park Ranger Carol Buckler stated Mr. Meyer was cited under Ordinance 130-66 which
states no individual may Park within one mile of the Park, for the purposes of entering
the Park without paying an entrance fee. In addition, it identifies areas designated for
parking.
The case was recessed at 10: 11 am to allow Mr. Meyer to review the Ordinance.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
1. CASE NO: CENA20100009616
OWNER: JEAN CLAUDE MARTEL
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-181 AND 54-179.
REPEAT VIOLATION OF LITTER/DERELICT ITEMS
CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: CHEMICAL JUGS,
PAINT CANS, WOOD, BROKEN FURNITURE, PLASTICS,
METALS, CLOTH MATERIAL, AND OTHER MISC. ITEMS
SCA TTERED THROUGHOUT THE FRONT YARD.
5
161 1
C 1
~ ~}
February 4, 2011
FOLIO NO: 61839320000
VIOLA nON ADDRESS: 3190 KAREN DR, NAPLES
Investigator Michelle Scavone presented the case.
The violation has not been abated as of2/4/11
Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4637 - Page 672
Fine Amount: $200.00 day
Duration: 12/11/10 - 2/4/11 (56 days)
Total Fine Amount: $11,200.00
Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20
Total to Date: $11,312.20
Fines continue to accrue.
Mr. Martel was under the impression he has removed the necessary debris as identified
in the Order.
Investigator Scavone noted some items still remain.
Jen Baker stated the County will withdraw the case and an Investigator will meet with
Mr. Martel and identify the items required for removal, and if necessary return a case at
a later date.
Special Magistrate Garretson granted Staff's request to withdraw the case.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
B. Hearings
7. CASE NO: PR044540-CEEX20100005227
OWNER: GREGORY L. MEYER
Reconvened at lO:21am
Mr. Meyer stated he had reviewed the Section of the Ordinance in question (Section
130-66.1.b).
Park Ranger Araquistain cited the Section which states "Except when necessary to
avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the direction of a law
enforcement officer or official traffic control device, no person shall: (1) Stop, stand or
park a vehicle: On the roadway side of any vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb
of a street or highway;"
Mr. Meyer stated this appears to prevent double parking, which he was not.
The Special Magistratefound Mr. Meyer not guilty of the violation as the citation cites
'1Jarking in an unauthorized parking area." The area is not signed for "no parking"
and there is no provision in the Ordinance cited by Staff to prevent parking in this
area.
23. CASE NO: CELU20100021285
OWNER: DA VID AND KERRY DELANEY
6
1611
c
1
.'. ..-~
February 4,2011
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED,
SECTION 2.02.03. MORE THAN THREE DOGS, SIX MONTHS OR
OLDER, ARE BEING KEPT ON THE PREMISES THAT IS USED
FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THIS IS A PROHIBITED USE
FOR THIS ZONING DISTRICT.
FOLIO NO: 66262006284
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 168 SKIPPING STONE LN, NAPLES
Investigator Musse presented the case highlighting the following:
· Upon a site inspection conducted on 11/4/1 0 and discussions with the Delaneys, it
was determined more than 3 dogs, 6 months or older were residing on the property.
· He cited LDC Section 1.08.02, the definition for Kenneling - "An establishment
licensed to operate a facility housing dogs, cats, or other household pets or the
keeping of more than 3 dogs, 6 months or older, on premises used for residential
purposes, or the keeping of more than 2 dogs on property used for industrial or
commercial security purposes. "
· The Notice of Violation was delivered on 11/30/10.
Mr. Delaney noted:
· He currently has 6 dogs rescued from the Humane Society.
· He admitted the Land Develoment Code requirement exists, however stated Codes
and Ordinances which affect "every day living" should be readily available.
· He searched for any requirements on the number of dogs allowed on a property
before acquiring numerous dogs and could not find the limitations in the Land
Development Code or other Ordinances.
· There are no neighborhood complaints and the dogs are well cared for.
· In other jurisdictions, the requirements are more subjective when allowing the
number of dogs on a property.
Special Magistrate Garretson noted Mr. Delaney's concerns are not judicial issues,
rather legislative issues requiring a change in the Land Development Code and/or other
County Ordinances.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found
GUlL TYof the alleged violation and ordered to:
1. Reduce the number of dogs 6 months or older housed on the premises to 3 or less
within 365 days (February 4,2012) or afine of $10.00 per day will be imposedfor
each day the violation remains thereafter. The Respondent is to notify Code
Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the
Investigator peiform a site inspection to confirm compliance.
2. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is authorized
to abate the violation and assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary,
assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the
provisions of the Order.
7
1611 C 1
February 4,2011
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.12 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.12
VI. BUSINESS (Continued)
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
9. CASE NO: CEPM20090017492
OWNER: JUAN AND ARMANDINA FLORES
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 22-231(12)(b), 22-
231(12)(i), AND 22-243. A VACANT MOBILE HOME WITH
UNSECURE DOORS AND WINDOWS. THE EXTERIOR WALLS
ARE COVERED WITH MOLD.
FOLIO NO: 00768320006
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 17042 LOCKHART DR, NAPLES
Edgar Guzman appeared on behalf of the Flores, his Aunt and Cncle. He noted his
parents purchased the property from the Flores, however the deed has not been recorded.
His parents live in Texas and both the Flores and his parents are aware he is appearing
today on their behalf.
Investigator Mcgonagle presented the case.
The violation has not been abated as of 2/4/11.
Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4606 - Page 638
Part B of the order was abated as of9/16/10
Part C of the order was abated as of 2/2/11
Fine Amount: Part B $250.00 day
Part C - $250.00
Duration: Part B - 9/11110 - 9/16/10 (6 days)
Part C - 10/04/10 - 2/2/11 (122 days)
Total Fine Amount: Part B - $1,500.00
Part C - $30,500.00
Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 - Previously Paid
Total to Date: $32,000.00
Fines do not continue to accrue.
Edgar Guzman noted they abated the violations as fa:;t as possible given the financial
resources available to them.
Investigator Mcgonagle noted Mr. Guzman was in constant contact with her and abated
the most severe violations by 9/16/1 O.
8
1611 C 1
February 4, 2011
Special Magistrate Garretson determined to hear Case No. 10 before making a final
determination.
10. CASE NO: CESD20100008829
OWNER: JUAN AND ARMANDINA FLORES
OFFICER: INVESTIGA TOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE
VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1,
PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a). NO PERMITS FOR AN ADDITION TO A
MOBILE HOME.
FOLIO NO: 00768320006
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 17042 LOCKHART DR, NAPLES
Mr. Guzman represented the owners.
Investigator Mcgonagle presented the case.
The violation has been abated as of January 13,2011.
Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4606 - Page 641
Fine Amount: $200.00
Duration: 10/04/10 - 1/13/11 (102 days)
Total Fine Amount: $20,400.00
Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 - Previously Paid
Total to Date: $20,400.00
Fines do not continue to accrue.
Special Magistrate Garretson noted the violations had been abated.
The Special Magistrate denied the County's motion for Imposition of Fines for both
cases Agenda items (#9 and #10)
RECESSED: 11:25AM
RECONVENED: 11:57AM
v. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
B. Hearings
10. CASE NO: CEPM20100007797
OWNER: ROSARlON AND IMMACULA SIMEUS
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231 (12)(c). SOFFITS
NEED REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS.
FOLIO NO: 36373880002
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2797 53RD TERR SW, NAPLES
9
1611
C 1
k1
February 4,2011
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail and Receipt: 1/20/11 - 1/22/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/20/11
Original Service Delivered: 10/25/10
The respondents were not present.
Investigator Paul presented the case.
Evidence entered: Photos depicting the violation.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found
GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to:
1. Complete the necessary repairs to abate the violation on or before February 11,
2011. If the repairs are not made by February 11,2011 afine of $250. 00 per day
will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter. The Respondent is to
notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request
the Investigator peiform a site inspection to confirm compliance.
2. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is authorized
to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the property
owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's
Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.38 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.38
11. CASE NO: CEPM20100003242
OWNER: ABEL D. & SARA ACCILIO
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231 (12) (c). MAIN
STRUCTURE WITH ROOF DAMAGE.
FOLIO NO: 64701126902
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 907 SUMMERFIELD DR, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 1/20/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/20/11
The respondents were not present.
Investigator Asaro presented the case.
Evidence Entered: "Exhibit A" - Photos dated 1/24/11
"Exhibit B" - Photos dated 2/3/11
As of 2/3/11 the violation remains.
10
1611 C 1
February 4,2011
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found
GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to:
1. Obtain a Collier County Building permit (ifrequired) and the necessary inspections
to complete the necessary repairs to abate the violation on or before February 18,
2011. If the repairs are not made by February 18,2011, afine of $100. 00 per day
will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a
subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Jfagistrate.
2. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcemellt within 24 hours of abatement of the
violation and request the Investigator peiform a site inspection to confirm
compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is
authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the
property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County
Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.56 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.56
12. CASE NO: CEPM20100004034
OWNER: ABEL D. & SARA ACCILIO
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231 (15). POOL WITH
ALGAE GROWTH.
FOLIO NO: 64701126902
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 907 SUMMERFIELD DR, NAPLES
Investigator Asaro presented the case.
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/20/11
The respondents were not present.
Evidence Entered: "Exhibit A" - Photos March 29, 2010, February 3, 2011
"Exhibit B" - Photos February 3, 2011
As of 2/3/11 the violation remains.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found
GUlL TYof the alleged violation and ordered to either:
1. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi-weekly
11
161 1
c
1
February 4,2011
treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system, on or before
February 11,2011 or afine of $250. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the
violation remains thereafter or;
2. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of
rain water pursuant to HUD standards, on or before February 11,2011 or afine of
$250.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter,
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
3. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is
authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the
property owner If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.73 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.73
13. CASE NO: CEV2010001910S
OWNER: TODD R. & CYNTHIA MOWRY
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 130, ARTICLE III, SECTION 130-95. UNLICENSED
PASSENGER VAN PARKED ON THE PROPERTY.
FOLIO NO: 41828000005
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5120 CORAL WOOD DR, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/21/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/21/11
The respondents were not present.
Original service delivered: 12/31/1 O.
Investigator Musse presented the case.
Evidence Entered: "Composite Exhibit A" - 2 photos taken 1/7/11
As of 2/1/11 the violation remained.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found
GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to:
1. Obtain affIX a valid license plate to the vehicle and repair any defects to the vehicle
to make it operable or store the vehicle within the confines of an enclosed structure
12
1611
~
J
j~
/
February 4,2011
by February 7,2011. If the violation is not abated by February 7,2011 afine of
$50.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains there after,
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
2. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the
violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is
authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the
property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.12 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.12
14. CASE NO: CENA20100019164
OWNER: TODD R. & CYNTHIA MOWRY
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI WEEDS AND
LITTER AND EXOTICS, SECTION 54-181. LITTER CONSISTING
OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: TIRES, WOOD, METAL SCRAPS,
AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION RELATED DEBRIS.
FOLIO NO: 41828000005
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5120 CORAL WOOD DR, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: No testimony
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: No testimony
Date of Original Service: 12/6/10
The respondents were not present.
Officer Investigator Musse presented the case.
Evidence Entered: "Composite Exhibit A" - 8 photos taken 1/7/11
As of 2/2/11 the violation remained.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to:
1. Remove all unauthorized accumlation of litter on the property and dipose of it an
appropriate waste facility or store the desired items in an enclosed structure by
February 11,2011. If the violation is not abated by Februaryll, 2011 afine of
$100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter,
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
13
1611 C 1
February 4, 2011
2. The Respondent is to notifY Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the
violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is
authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the
property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.20 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.20
15. CASE NO: CEAU20100021493
OWNER: NAPLES HOMES RENTAL LLC
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL
VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1,
SECTION 105.1. UNPERMITTED FENCE.
FOLIO NO: 36121800001
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4961 21 ST PL SW, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail and Receipt: 1/20/11 - 1/24/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/20/11
Date of Original Service: 12/1/1 0
The respondents were not present.
Investigator Paul presented the case.
Evidence Entered: "Composite Exhibit A" - 2 photographs
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to:
1. Obtain a Collier County Building permit (if required) and the necessary inspections
to permit the fence, or obtain necessary demolition permits and remove the fence on
or before March 4, 2011. If the repairs are not made by March 4, 2011 afine of
$100.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter,
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
2. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the
violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is
authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the
property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County
SherifFs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.29 on or before
14
1611 C 1
February 4,2011
17. CASE NO: CESD20100009712
OWNER: DEUTSCHE BANK NA TL TRUST
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CAROL SYKORA
VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1
PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTION
10.02.06(B)(I)(a). A VERTICAL BLOCK CONSTRUCTED
STRUCTURE WITH WINDOWS AND SLIDE APPEARING TO BE
A PLAYHOUSE.
FOLIO NO: 45909160006
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1440 19TH ST SW, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/25/11
The respondents were not present.
Investigator Sykora presented the case.
Evidence Entered: "Exhibit A" - Photo taken 7/19/2010
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found
GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to:
1. Obtain a Collier County Building permit and the necessary inspections to permit
the structure or obtain the necessary demolition permit for removal of the structure
on or before March 4, 2011. If the repairs are not made by March 4, 2011 afine
of $1 00.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter,
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
2. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the
violation and request the Investigator peiform a site inspection to confirm
compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is
authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the
property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.20 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.20
18. CASE NO: CEPM20100018618
OWNER: RENEE LYNN CRA VO
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,
16
1611 C 1
February 4,2011
ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-
231(15), AND (12)(n). MISSING POOL CAGE SCREENS AND
GREEN POOL.
FOLIO NO: 54523006582
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8313 LAUREL LAKES WAY, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail and Receipt: 1/20/11 1/21/11
Date of Hearing Notice Courthouse Posting: 1/21/11
Date of Original Service: 10/27/1 0
The respondents were not present.
Investigator Musse presented the case.
Evidence Entered: "Composite Exhibit A" - 3 photos taken 1 0/20/1 0
Violation remained as of 2/2/11
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either:
1. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi-weekly
treatments to maintain clean pool water and proper operation of the filtration
system on or before February 11,2011 or afine of $250. 00 per day will be imposed
for each day the violation remains thereafter or;
2. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of
rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before February 11,2011 or afine of
$250.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter,
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
3. Repair or replace pool screening by February 11,2011 or afine of
$250.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
4. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is
authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the
property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County
Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution o/the case/or $112.20 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.20
17
161 1
C 1
February 4, 2011
19. CASE NO: CESD20100009239
OWNER: ARTURO AND MARIBEL I. RAMIREZ
OFFICER: INVESTIGA TOR RENALD PAUL
VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1,
SECTION 105.1. UNPERMITTED FENCE ON SITE.
FOLIO NO: 36112200005
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4901 23RD AVE SW, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/21/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/20/11
Date of Original Service: 11/17/10
The respondents were not present.
InvestigatorPaul presented the case.
Evidence Entered: "Exhibit A" - 1 Photograph
The violation still exists.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to:
1. Obtain a Collier County Building permit (ifrequired) and the necessary inspections
to permit the fence, or obtain necessary demolition permits and remove the fence on
or before March 4, 2011. If the repairs are not made by March 4, 2011 afine of
$100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter,
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
2. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the
violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is
authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the
property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County
Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
3. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.38 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.38
20. CASE NO: CEPM20100021110
OWNER: BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,
ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-
231(12)(n), (15), (19). RIPPED CLOTH AWNING, RIPPED VISQUEEN
POOL COVER, AND BEE INFESTATION.
18
1611
C 1
February 4,2011
FOLIO NO: 68642520003
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 13101 BALD CYPRESS LN, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/21/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/21/11
The respondents were not present.
Investigator Musse presented the case.
Evidence Entered: "Exhibit A" - 4 photos taken 11/18/1 0
"Exhibit B" - 1 photo taken 1/12/11
As of 1/12/11, the pool cover has been replaced however the bee infestation and ripped
awning remains. As of 2/2/11 the bee infestation ceased and the ripped awning remains.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either:
1. Obtain a Collier County Building permit (ifrequired) and the necessary inspections
required to repair or replace the awning by March 4, 2011 or afine 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.
2. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator petform a site inspection to confirm
compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is
authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the
property owner. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County
Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.29 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $112.29
28. CASE NO: CEPM20100009663
OWNER: NEAL AND MARY SWEENEY
OFFICER: INVESTIGA TOR REGGIE SMITH
VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE
VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(15).
UNMAINT AINED POOL WATER, DARK IN COLOR.
FOLIO NO: 24791001983
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1319 BARNSTABLE CT, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/6/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/19/11
The respondents were not present.
19
1611 C 1
February 4,2011
Investigator Kincaid presented the case for Investigator Smith presented the case.
Evidence Entered: "Exhibit A" - Photo taken 7/22/1 0
"Exhibit B" - Photo taken 11/8/10
"Exhibit C" - Photo taken 2/3/11
The violation still remains.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either:
1. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi-weekly
treatments to maintain clean pool water and proper operation of the filtration
system on or before February 11,2011 or afine of $250. 00 per day will be imposed
for each day the violation remains thereafter or;
2. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of
rain water pursuant to HUn standards on or before February 11,2011 or afine of
$250.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter,
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
3. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is
authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the
property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County
Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $120.08 on or before
March 4, 2011.
Total Amount Due: $120.08
A. Emergency Cases:
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS (Continued)
B. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
2. CASE NO: 2007100659
OWNER: LONNY MOORE TR, MORRISON LIVING TRUST
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE(S): 2005-44 SECTIONS 6,7,
AND 8. ACCUMULATION OF LITTER.
FOLIO NO: 37161440006
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 120 7TH ST SW, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/21/11
20
161 1 C 1
February 4,2011
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/21/11
The respondents were not present.
Investigator Ambach presented the case.
The violation has not been abated as of 2/4/11.
Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4635 - Page 828
Fine Amount: $100.00 day
Duration: 1/4/11 - 2/4/11 (32 days)
Total Fine Amount: $3,200.00
Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29
Total to Date: $3,312.29
Fines continue to accrue.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion/or Imposition 0/ Fines/or a
total amount due 0/ $3,312.29 with fines continuing to accrue.
3. CASE NO: CEPM20100018647
OWNER: TARPON IV LLC
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ED MORAD
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,
ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-
231(12)(i). STRUCTURES WITH EXTERIOR DOORS OPEN TO
UNITS AND NOT PRO PERL Y FITTED WITHIN ITS FRAME AND
NOT PROVIDED WITH LOCKABLE HARDWARE, AND NOT
WEATHER-TIGHT AND WEATHERPROOF, AND NOT
MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR. WINDOWPANES NOT
MAINTAINED WITHOUT CRACKS OR HOLES.
FOLIO NO: 65070800000
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 616 PALMETTO AVE, IMMOKALEE
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/21/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/20/11
The respondents were not present.
Investigator Morad presented the case.
The violation has not been abated as of 2/4/11.
Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4635 - Page 808
Fine Amount: $250.00 day
Duration: Part B of Order: 12/11/10 - 2/4/11 (56 days)
Part C of Order: 1/4/11 - 2/4/11 (32 days)
Total Fine Amount: $22,000.00
Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47
Total to Date: $22,112.47
Fines continue to accrue.
21
1611 C 1
February 4,2011
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion/or Imposition 0/ Fines/or a
total amount due 0/ $22,112.47 with fines continuing to accrue.
4. CASE NO: CESD20100001280
OWNER: EDILBRA Y C. PEREZ AND BELKIS MARTINEZ
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL
VIOLA TIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS
AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED
ON SITE.
FOLIO NO: 36234240008
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5563 17TH AVE SW, NAPLES
Date of Notice by Certified Mail: 1/21/11
Date of Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/20/11
The respondents were not present.
Investigator Paul presented the case.
The violation has not been abated as of 2/4/11.
Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4635 - Page 818
Fine Amount: $100.00 day
Duration: 1/4/11 - 2/4/11 (32 days)
Total Fine Amount: $3,200.00
Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47
Total to Date: $3,312.47
Fines continue to accrue.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion/or Imposition 0/ Fines/or a
total amount due 0/ $3,312.47 with fines continuing to accrue.
5. CASE NO: CESD20100001211
OWNER: JOHN POPO AND MARIA PEREZ
OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL
VIOLA TIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS
AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02(A). FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,
2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1. FENCE FAILING,
BROKEN AND LEANING. UNSIGHTLY. FENCE UNPERMITTED.
FOLIO NO: 36383840003
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5400 26TH PL SW, NAPLES
Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/21/11
Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 1/20/11
The respondents were not present.
Investigator Paul presented the case.
The violation has not been abated as of2/4/11.
Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4635 - Page 806
22
161 1 C 1
February 4,2011
Fine Amount: $100.00 day
Duration: 1/4/11 - 2/4/11 (32 days)
Total Fine Amount: $3,200.00
Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.64
Total to Date: $3,312.64
Fines continue to accrue.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion/or Imposition 0/ Fines/or a
total amount due 0/$3,312.64 withfines continuing to accrue.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Motion to Rescind - Sandra L. Castro - CESD20100003742
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request.
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted
Executive Summary.
The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and
GRANTED the County's Request.
B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases
Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary.
The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and
GRANTED the County's Request.
IX. REPORTS
None
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 4, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County
Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order
of the Special Magistrate at 1 :04 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
HEARING
The Minutes were appro~ by the Special Magistrate on
as presented v' , or as amended
~&K~ Y, ;}o\\
23
RECEI\IED 16 I ~ebru~ 7, All
MAR 1 0 201\ Fla'a ~ ~
"""""~ Hiller _^~ :
Bo8ldof MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE Harl;;\ng _..J....o -
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGIST~~$ '=~:',:-V
-
Naples, Florida, February 7, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that 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
ALSO PRESENT:
Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Colleen Davidson, Administrative Secretary
Misc. Corres:
Date:
Page 1
Item ...
C}:pies to:
16 I 1 FebGy 7, 111
NOTE: 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 9:06 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.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
IV. MOTIONS
None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stipulations
None
B. Hearings
1. CASE NO: CEEX20110001028
OWNER: TRISH AND TOM LECOMTE
OFFICER: OFFICER DARCY ANDRADE
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2008-51, AS AMENDED, AND/OR
SUBSECTION 767.11(1), FLORIDA STATUTES. DANGEROUS
DOG.
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1190 RESERVE WAY, NAPLES
Withdrawn
2. CASE NO: CEEX20110001029
OWNER: KATHLEEN LAWLER
OFFICER: OFFICER LARRY KENNER
Page 2
16 I lFeb~J~oll
VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2008-51, AS AMENDED, AND/OR
SUBSECTION 767.11(1), FLORIDA STATUTES. DANGEROUS
DOG.
VIOLATION ADDRESS: 15 SALINAS DR, NAPLES
The Special Magistrate noted Ms. Lawler is the owner of a dog that has been declared a
"Dangerous Dog" by Domestic Animal Services and is appearing today to appeal the
declaration.
Larry Kenner, Animal Control Officer and Dana Alger, Domestic Animal Services
outlined the case highlighting the following:
· On October 14, 2010, Domestic Animal Services received a complaint regarding an
attack on a dog (the victim) by another dog (the perpetrator).
· He responded to the above address and received 3 affidavits from individuals verifying
the incident and upon approval of Supervisor, the dog was declared a "Dangerous
Dog."
Kathleen Lawler, Owner noted the following:
· The victim was constantly offleash, on the property where she resides in an RV,
barking and scratching at the door.
· On the day of the incident, the alleged perpetrator escaped the confines of the residence
when a visitor opened the door.
· The perpetrator then attacked the victim.
· The perpetrator is a territorial dog and she constantly requested that the victim's owner
to supervise their dog, including keeping him on a leash.
· To avoid future problems, she now confines the perpetrator in the RV.
· Her husband travels for work and is employed in the construction of bridges.
· She is concerned if the dog is declared "Dangerous" they will not be able to reside in
other locations. She has been informed by Domestic Animal Services, if she leaves the
State of Florida, they will notify that jurisdiction on the dog's declaration.
Larry Kenner and Dana Alger reported subsequent to the incident, they received
information on January 20, 2011, that the perpetrator killed another dog in the neighborhood.
Mario Urrutia, 6 Salinas Dr., Naples, FL testified to the following:
· On January 15,2011 he was in his home when his children reported their dog
(Thomas) had been attacked by two dogs.
· When he secured Thomas, it was clear he was severly injured.
· He succumbed to the injuries later that night.
· Shortly after the indicent, Ms. Lawler came down to his property and acknowleged her
dog attacked their dog and apologized for the incident.
Tawnya Rams, 17 Salinas Dr., Naples, FL testified to the following:
· On October 14,2010 the perpetrator escaped the confines of the residence and attacked
her dog in her driveway.
· The dog sustained severe injuries due to the attack.
Page 3
1611
Rbm~7, 2011
· Her dog was on the property she resides on at the time of the incident.
· Her dog does go onto Ms. Lawler's property (barks and scratches at the door) as Ms.
Lawler's son feeds her dog without her permission.
· She is concerned for the neighborhood as there was another incident when the
perpetrator and other dogs entered the property where she resides, chasing small
children who barely made it back into the residence before the dogs crashed into the
door of the home.
Upon hearing all testimony the Special Magistrate determined there has not been sufficient
evidence to overturn Domestic Animal Services Staff's for declaring Ms. Lawler's dog a
"Dangerous Dog." The appeal is hereby denied.
A. Emergency Cases:
None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
None
VII. OLD BUSINESS
None
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA
None
IX. REPORTS
None
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 4, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government
Center, 3301 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 9:47 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
HEARING
~
Br Garretson, Special Magistrate
The Minutes were approved 9Y the Special Magistrate on JCl((~ ..if I ~ I \
as presented ~ ' or as amended
Page 4