The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 06/28/2011 Item #16I161 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES .tune 28, 2011 1. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Airport Authority: Minutes ol'4 /11 /11 2) Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of 3/15/2011; 4/19/11 3) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of 2/16/11 Minutes of 2/16/11 4) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of 3/10/11: 4/14/11 5) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of 3/24/11 (special session); 3/24/11 (regular session) 6) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of 3/17/2011 Minutes of 3/17/2011 7) Collier County Special Magistrate: Agenda of 4/ 1 /11 Minutes of 4/1 /11 8) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of 4/20/11 9) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of 4/6/11 10) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of 3/2/11; 4/13/11 11) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 4/12/11 Minutes of 4/12/11 161 1 12) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Agenda of 3/28/11 Minutes of 3 /28/1 I 14) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of 10/28/10; 11/18/10; 1/27/11; 2/24/11 15) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency: Agenda of 4/20/11 Minutes of 3/1 6/11 16) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of 4/20/1 I Minutes of 3/16/11 17) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of 3/14/11 18) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 3/17/11; 4/21/11 Minutes of 2/17/11; 3/17/11 19) Library Advisory Board: Minutes of 2/16/11; 3/16/11 20) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 3 /14/11: 4/11/11 21) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of 3/16/11 22) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of 2/16/11 (Special workshop to discuss Clam Bay markers); 2/22/11 (Special workshop to discuss Clam Bay markers); 3/2/11; 3/18/11 (budget committee); 4/6/11; 4 /11 /1 ](budget committee); 4/12/11 (Clam Bay workshop) Minutes of 2/16/11 (Special workshop to discuss Clam Bay markers); 2/22/11 (Special workshop to discuss Clam Bay markers); 3/2/11; 3/18/11 (budget committee); 3/18/11 (MTSU budget subcommittee); 4/6/11: 4/11/11 (budget committee); 4/12/11 (Clam Bay workshop) 23) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 4/19/11; 5/17/11 161 1 Minutes of 3/15/11; 4/19/11 24) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory Committee: Agenda of 4/6/11; 5/4/11 Minutes of 4/6/11 Fiala T7`� Hiller �— Henning. A Collier County Airport Authority Coyle Advisory Board Meeting Coletta Everglades City Hall 102 Broadway Street E, Everglades City, Florida April 11, 2011 RECEIVED Meeting Minutes MAY 18 2011 1. Pledge of Allegiance. t cac 0 Count' commissioners 2. Call to Order. Chairman Lloyd Byerhof called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Advisory Board Members Present: Lloyd Byerhof, Michael Klein, lames Murray, Byron Meade, Richard Rice, Frank Secrest, and Floyd Crews. Advisory Board Members Absent /Excused: David Gardner. Staff: Chris Curry, Debbie Brueggeman, Thomas Vergo, Robert Tweedie, and Nathan Goff. Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached. 3. 4. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Introduction of Guests. All present introduced themselves to the Advisory Board. Adoption of the Agenda. The following items were added to the Agenda. Under Agenda Item 9, Director's Report: • Recommendation that the BCC approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the Airport Authority and Collier County Parks and Recreation Department to use approximately 305,000 square feet on the Immokalee Airport adjacent to an existing Collier County park for recreational purposes. Following Agenda Item 10, Finance Report: 10A. Advisory Board Issues • Airport Authority positions and responsibilities • Potential of shipping produce into and /or out of the Immokalee Airport • Sale of Everglades Airpark to the City of Everglades Action: Mr. Rice 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. Murray made a motion to approve the minutes for the March 14, 2011 meeting. Mr. Secrest seconded the motion, and ituj wfed'w unanimous vote. Date: 1-912g1 V 1 1 of 4 Item c \laS. \ 'A \ 161 1 6. Featured Employee. Nathan Goff was commended for his outstanding work in maintaining the Everglades Airpark to the highest standards, and presented with a certificate of appreciation. 7. Public Comments. None. 8. Acknowledgement of Airport Information. Items under this section of the agenda are for informational purposes. No Advisory Board action is requested. • FDEP Permit Modification for MKY Taxiway Construction The Florida Department of Environmental approved the Airport Authority's request to modify the permit to allow construction to continue during crocodile nesting season. • FAA Response to Cross Country Soaring Advisory Board members were provided a copy of the FAA's response to Mr. Don Ingraham's allegations regarding reasonable access and economic discrimination at the Immokalee Airport. The FAA concluded that it does not appear that the Airport Authority is in conflict with their Federal obligations. • Naples Daily News Articles Advisory Board members were provided a copy of three recent Naples News articles: two regarding the introduction of rental car services at Immokalee and Everglades City, and a commentary about the airports provided by the Authority's Executive Director. • Everglades Airpark update A brief update on the sheriffs dwelling, chickie hut, approach lighting, potential land acquisition, completion of the south taxiway, and proposed takeover of Everglades Airpark by the City of Everglades was provided. • Status of Leases at Immokalee Airport Mr. Curry provided a brief summary of the status of various lease negotiations at Immokalee. 9. Director's Report. Advisory Board action is requested on items under this section of the Agenda. • Recommendation to approve work order and budget amendment for Q. Grady Minor in the amount of $11,750 for SFWMD permit compliance at the Immokalee Airport. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion that the work order and budget amendment be approved. Mr. Meade seconded the motion. Discussion followed, and the Board requested that the Executive Director review contracts associated with these permits and report back to the Advisory Board. 2of4 161 1 • Tenant Lease Agreement Recommendation Action: Mr. Rice made a motion that Mr. Greg Shepard remain at his current location at the Immokalee Regional Airport to allow that potential tourist attraction to develop until a new mutually suitable location at the airport is found or for three months, which comes first. Mr. Meade seconded the motion. Discussion ensued, and Board members indicated that they were going to request that this item be moved from the BCC April 12 consent agenda to the regular agenda. • Recommendation that the BCC approve contract #10 -5600 for CEI Services for the Marco Airport taxiway project Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to recommend that the BCC approve contract tt10- 5600 for CEI services for the Marco Island Airport taxiway project. Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. • Recommendation that the BCC approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Airport Authority and Collier County Parks and Recreation Department for approximately 305,000 square feet at the Immokalee Regional Airport adjacent to an existing Collier park for recreational uses. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to recommend that the BCC approve the MOU between the Airpark Authority and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. 10. Finance Report — Month ended February 28 2011. There were not comments or questions regarding the February finance report. Mr. Meade made a motion that the February finance report be accepted as presented. Mr. Secrest seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. 10A. Advisory Board Issues Items under this Section were added to the Agenda at the request of Advisory Board members. • Airport Authority positions and responsibilities Members of the Advisory Board expressed concern regarding the number of employees and responsibilities at the Immokalee Airport. Mr. Curry informed the Board that Human Resources is currently studying roles and responsibilities at the airport. • Potential of Shipping Produce into /out of the Immokalee Airport The potential of shipping produce from a foreign country into or out of the Immokalee Airport was discussed. Mr. Curry is currently researching the requirements for shipping foreign parts into and out of the Immokalee Airport, and indicated that the shipping of agriculture products has significantly more extensive requirements. 3of4 • Sale of Everglades City to the City of Everglades The Executive Director met with Mayor Hamilton and provided him with the requirements the County and FAA will need in order to approve the transfer. The next step is for the City of Everglades to prepare and present the necessary documentation. 11. Public Comments. Mr. Courtright expressed concern with the proposed Memorandum for Understanding between the Airport Authority and the County, through its Parks and Recreation Department. 12. Next Meeting. The next Advisory Board meeting is scheduled for May 9 at the Marco Island Executive Airport. 13. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA --Q•�� Lloyd A. Byerhof, Chairman 4of4 Airport Advisory Board April 11, 2011 Public Sign -In Sheet ib I -� I Al — O'Ir CAhe -5, I-/C<, et -7 SA- e� c- {- I e 1c YN� : L' s �s Flele � LA 2 Hiller Henning 15, 2011 Coyle _ Colette _ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 15, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia (excused) VICE CHAIRMAN: Marcia Breithaupt Sergeant David Estes Dr. Ruth Eisele Tom Kepp, Jr. Dan Martin Jim Rich (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director, DAS Nan Gerhardt, Shelter Operations Mgr. Kathlene Drew, Volunteer Coordinator, DAS Ekna Guevara, Administrative Assistant, DAS Misc. Corres: pate; t-Q 12ai t J Item LW9-'% 1 1 March 15, 2011 I. Call to Order Vice Chairman Marcia Breithaupt called the meeting to order at 6:33 PM. II. Attendance- Establish a Quorum Attendance was taken and a quorum established. III. Approval of Agenda Dr. Ruth Eisele moved to approve Me agenda Second by Dan Martin. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes of February 15, 2011 Correction on Page 2, V. Old Business — Nan Gerhardt, 1" bulleted item - Change - adoption clinic to ... vaccination clinic ... Dan Martin moved to approve Ike minutes of February 15, 2011, as amended Second by Dr. Ruth Eisele Carried unanimously, 5-0. V. Old Business A. Directors Report Amanda Townsend reported: • DAS hosted Animal Cruelty Investigation School Level 1 Training • The two new Animal Control Officers went through the training. • Levels I, II and III (120 hours) required to be a Certified Animal Cruelty Investigative Officer. Training valuable when cases come to court. (2 or 3 a year) Most are hindered by lack of evidence - no confessions or witnesses. Aspects of the training were explained. • The SART conference the end of February attended by Amanda and Nan • The Vaccination Clinic on 3/12/11 - (76 vaccinations and several microchips) • Naples Dog Park now open • Many outreach events occurred (Botanical Park, Mercado and more) • An incidence of State resources available in medical emergencies to transport and care for animals, shared with the Board. Kathy Drew told about Pet School 101 event on April 9, l lam to 3pm, at the Golden Gate Community Center, - a workshop for rescue - minded citizens and regular pet owners. In -depth information from local experts will be available as well as a Vendor Expo. Nan Gerhardt announced the March 260' auction of 1 goat and 1 peacock. B. Department Trust Funds Priorities (handouts) Amanda Townsend provided the list of the 16 priorities, determined at 1611 A2 March 15, 2011 the last meeting, of where to spend Donation Trust Fund resources. Comments and discussion of several of the items followed. 1. HSUS Spay/Neuter Campaign An on- screen presentation of the Humane Society of the United States marketing outreach campaign of focus group results. Shown were sample brochures pamphlets, billboard, etc. of ads promoting adoption and citing euthanasia statistics due to pet overpopulation More information will be available on HSUS web -site. Amanda will bring to the next meeting, budgetary figures on the DTF in order to send out the questionnaire to the donors. VI. New Business A. New Member Selection • Amanda Townsend reported the BCC had approved Jim Rich's change from the At Large position to the Animal Advocate position. • proxy voting was not permitted. • Three candidates had applied for the at large position on the Board. All three spoke about their interest and qualifications to serve on the DASAB. • Voting was conducted by Paper Ballots. • Sergeant David Estes was the only candidate who applied for the Law Enforcement position. He was unanimously recommended. • The candidate recommended by the DASAB was Marjorie Bloom. Both names will be submitted to the BCC for approval. All candidates were thanked for their interest and encouraged to attend future meetings of DASAB. B. Placing a hold on animals w /an adoption pending Gisela Rowley spoke about the letter she sent to the DASAB and DAS recommending a change in policy to put a hold on an animal when a potential adoptive party comes in after hours, or on a Saturday, and does not have complete required documentation proof with them. To avoid their upset and disappointment in losing the pet and with DAS policy, her proposal was to require a non - refundable adoption fee on deposit for 48 hours to hold the pet. Amanda explained some pros and cons of the proposal: • Suggested a pre- approved application as one option • Change 48 hours to the end of next business day • Concerned about an angrier customer if they lose their deposit • Concerned adoptable dogs in the stray holding won't get moved up Discussion followed at which time a trial period was proposed. Tom Kepp moved to recommend a modification of the fee policy to allow for a Wday trial period of placing a hold of 48 hours/ next business day on the chosen pet of a potential adoptee with a non- refundable adoption fee; with an added clause that a refund will be given if the pet is ill or dies in the interim. Second by Dr. Ruth Eisele. Carried unanimously, 5-0. 161 ,1 A2 March 15, 2011 C. Focus Group Participants information (handouts) Amanda Townsend explained the County Manager's office was revising the overall strategic plan, with an aim to integrate parallel activities in work plans, evaluation processes, performance measures, etc. They will be reaching out to the community to help inform and reshape activities throughout the County through focus groups interested in participating. Voices for DAS were encouraged to participate and speak out in DAS' behalf Information and forms for registering to participate were distributed. VII. Public Comment A. Topic TBA (open discussion) -NONE B. Individual Comments - NONE VIII. Advisory Board Member Comments Tom Kepp, Jr. thanked everyone who applied to serve on the DASAB and encouraged public participation in the focus groups on DAS' benefit. Dan Martin stated he was behind the ACO training. He re- capped the processes discussed regarding the Donation Trust Fund and requested a time frame for sending the survey to the donors. He also thanked all prospective board members for coming in to speak. Amanda responded a new attorney may be assigned to DAS, determining how soon consultation on the Donation Trust Fund could be held She asked for a suggested turn - around time for donor response. One to two weeks was agreed upon. Dr. Ruth Eisele agreed ACO training was money well spent, stating there can never be too much education. The BCC approval of the Board recommendations may not happen before the next DASAB meeting. Amanda will try to push this forward so the complete Board will be seated by the April meeting. Next Advisory Board Meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2011 at the Domestic Animal Training Room, Davis Blvd., Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 7:50 PM. COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES -er- &g2�A Vice Chairman, Marcia Breithaupt These minutes approved by Board/Committee on as presented or as amended RECEIVE J61 1 A 2 MAY 19 2011 Bawd ei County Commissioners April 19, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 19, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Resource Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida with the following members present: VICE CHAIRMAN: Fiala �� Hiller Hennin Coyle Coletta Marcia Breithaupt Marjorie Bloom Dr. Ruth Eisele Sergeant David Estes Tom Kepp, Jr. Dan Martin Jim Rich ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director of DAS Dr. Karen Brown, Veterinarian -DAS Ekna Guevara, Administrative Assistant, DAS Misc. Corres: Date: La \'2R 1 �, Item kilj \ q � 1611A2 April 19, 2011 I. Call to Order: Vice Chairman Marcia Breithaupt called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. H. Attendance —Establish a Quorum: Roll call was taken and a quorum established III. Approval of Agenda: Jim Rich moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Sgt David Estes. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: March 15, 2011 Sgt David Estes moved to recommend approval of the minutes of March 15, 2011, as presented Second by Dan Martin. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. V. Election of Chair and Vice -Chair Nominations from the Board Members were entertained for Chairman: Jim Rich nominated Marcia Breithaupt. Marcia accepted the nomination. Dan Martin nominated Jim Rich. Jim accepted the nomination. Nominations were closed. By a show of hands Marcia Breithaupt was elected Chairman, 6 -0. (Marcia did not vote.) Dan Martin nominated Jim Rich for Vice Chairman. Jim accepted the nomination. There were no other nominations. Jim Rich is Vice Chairman. Marcia Breithaupt resumed the meeting as Chairman. VI. Old Business: A. Directors Report Amanda Townsend reported on the following: 1. New Programs with Humane Society of Naples (flyer) In a joint effort Amanda and Michael Simonik of Humane Society, Naples instituted a plan for kitten adoptions that would benefit both organizations. It would help to educate the public and alleviate the rash of kitten litters relinquished at DAS. What was proposed was to educate the customer at the front desk when kittens are brought in, providing information on DAS legal requirements and procedures. At the same time, offering them the opportunity of choice, to avail themselves of the Humane Society foster program with a guarantee of adoption. Protocol and procedures (space available) had been addressed by Michael and Amanda. Humane Society, Naples' goal was to foster and adopt 500 kittens this summer. A Humane Society flyer provided details. A second program being worked on was with dogs. To help with rescue adoptions, Humane Society, Naples offered the use of a dog run with an adoption guarantee, provided certain criteria are met. DAS will choose the appropriate dog to be transferred. Potential problems were being 1611A2 April 19, 2011 addressed and signage promotions will be available. 2. FY 2012 Budget Preparation Amanda Townsend reported an across the board 3% cut to the General Fund was in effect again. However, due to improvements with the licensure program, shifting of expenses, staff reductions and combing jobs, the picture was not as bleak as prior years. She noted: • A 20% total reduction since fiscal year 2007. • DAS' appreciation of the inmate labor program with thanks to Sheriff Rambosk. • Budgets will be due to the Budget Office at the end of the week; to the County Manager at the end of May and presented to the DASAB at the June meeting. • Modification to the fee policy to include a non - refund option on adoptions will move forward after all comprehensive changes to the budget have been made. • Streamlining applications for adoption policy by requesting applications be filled out prior to bringing in animals for adoption. 3. DAS Marketing and Public Relations Amanda Townsend announced the paper work had been filed for a Public Relations position who will handle Marketing and Public Relations for DAS. Ekna Guevara will assume the Administrative Assistant position as well as her regular position as Fiscal Technician. A full time "job bank" position (1 -year) was in the approval stage. The announcement was received by a vigorous round of applause. B. Trust Fund Usage (handouts) Amanda Townsend had consulted with Assistant County Attorney Colleen Green for her opinion on the Donation Trust Fund Priorities List, prepared by DASAB, to ascertain any conflict with Resolution 2006 -26, which created the Donation Trust Fund Account. Assistant County Attorney Colleen Greene determined, in her opinion, which items that did not either benefit the community at large or the DAS agency; thus, would not meet the criteria under the Resolution. • Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11 would need BCC approval to revise the Resolution. • Items 6 through 9, 12, 13 and 15 would meet the criteria. Discussion revolved around: Receiving input from the Donor Survey prior to Resolution change discussion Foster program — Possibility for Donation Trust Fund to pay for a "job Bank" staff employee to administer. Also, possibility for a private group to take over in the future. Dr. Karen Brown noted the Foster Program seemed to generate more vet visits for minor incidents, creating a "constant vet appointment" at the clinic. Jim Rich stated a better way was needed to handle foster /adoption programs. 1611A2 April 19, 2011 He stressed the Trust Fund use was not to create a position, but to create adoptions. Amanda Townsend will re -check with the County Attorneys to assure the suggestions put forth were financially sustainable. She noted: • DAS now works with about 60 different rescue groups and about 25% of adoptions are rescue adoptions. • Financial times were affecting adoptions everywhere. • DAS purchased a number of collars due to the fundraising effort of many volunteers. The ideal would be to send them home with the pet. Re -sale of collars was possible for the program to pay for itself. • The Letter to Donors Survey List will be edited and sent out, using the comments from the attorney to modify it. Results will be reported at the next meeting. Dr. Karen Brown will present a report on the success of the Bordetella program at the next meeting. VII. New Business: A. Volunteer Recognition Amanda Townsend noted April was Volunteer month. Appreciation of all who volunteer and have made such an impact at DAS was expressed. Special mention was given to Bob McKenzie, a passionate volunteer, who finds many adoptable cats a home. He is also the photographer for Pet ofthe Week photos. Also, to Lori LaRosa, who volunteered 40 hrs a week for 12 weeks in the clinic while studying to be a Vet Tech. She now works at Gulfshore Animal Hospital; and, volunteers at DAS on her days off. Dr. Brown will have a college student over the summer to intern at the DAS clinic. A lengthy applause followed. B. Second Quarter Statistical Report Charts were reviewed with several items discussed in detail. • Animal Control Officers were down by 3 - 2 on leave -1 resignation • Criteria for the position was given. • Noted: adoptions were up and euthanasia down, statistically. • More surrenders and less strays brought in. • Assilomar Accords training will occur over the stmuner with implement in the fall. The program assures all agencies that work with animals will use the same reporting statistics and standards. • Surgeries in house were on track with projected goals. • Volunteer's hours were over 2,500. Two "wish list" items for future consideration were: 1. A volunteer to work on matching lost and found. 2. A manned desk /animal hotline /surrender prevention person, perhaps leading to an inter- agency project correlation. Jim Rich added following up on adoptions to prevent returns. C. 2011 FL Legislative Session Update (handout -2) 161 IA2 April 19, 2011 Amanda Townsend announced she had been elected to the Board of Directors of the Florida Animal Control Association (FACA). In that capacity she will be providing DASAB with information updates on Florida Humane Legislation activities. Two of those updates were: • Florida Humane Legislation update provided by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) referencing Humane Lobby Day (April 5) along with the legislative activity of several bills going through the Florida House and Senate. • A Legislative Report on 7 House and Senate Bills for Week 5 of the regular session being tracked by FACA's legislative legal team. Dr. Ruth Eisele suggested the creation of a license plate to fund the Foster Program. Amanda explained the process and will check on its possibility. D. Health of Shelter Animals (Marcia Breithaupt) Chairman Marcia Breitbaupt had concerns regarding the public perception of the health of DAS animals in comparison to the Humane Society which does not take in strays and limits its numbers. Dr. Karen Brown stated DAS did a good job in relation to the numbers brought in and noted the fact that 70% to 80% of animals enter shelters with various diseases, mostly due to stress. Shelter protocol at DAS was strictly followed and sick animals were not put up for adoption. Shelter medicine, the animal's environment and lowering the numbers to a manageable amount were the only solutions to disease control, according to Dr. Brown. Dr. Ruth Eisele concurred. Amanda Townsend was in favor of hosting the leaders from animal welfare community groups and agencies for an interagency meeting to adopt a set of guidelines for working towards the same goal. VIII. Public Comments; A. Topic TBA (open discussion) Following an explanation of what DASAB does and the working relationship between DAS and the Board Members, an open discussion on taking ideas to the next level ensued. Topics covered were: • Collier Citizen Focus Group participation Marcia will report on this next month • What direction did the average citizen want the Board to take • Pet School 101 - more promotion by DASAB and DAS. • Public apathy • Coordinate with more agencies • Letters to the Editor on a regular basis • What issues the Public Relations/Marketing person could handle Tom Kepp brought attention to the fact that other agencies and animal groups are not accountable to the County's Taxpayers. And, as such, DAS was the only agency that can enforce enacted laws and ordinances. B. Individual Comments Michele Antonia commented on several items that had been discussed: 1611 A2 April 19, 2011 • License plates to fund the Foster Program - She stated if people supported the Spay and Neuter license plates, there would be no need for Foster Program license plates. • Regarding the sick animals issue — in her work with the Collier Cat Coalition, she routinely picks up 20 to 25 cats, which are left at DAS for 5 days. None got sick at DAS, even without vaccinations or medicines. • Pet School 101 - She commended the organizers for the getting the program together on short notice and making a start on an idea that can be promoted next time. • Donation Trust Fund — She said its existence is well advertised, especially each year at Howl,--a-Day Jubilee which thousands attend. She cited a recent example of the need for a Backyard Breeders License. Puppies were being sold on street comers for $20 - no spay & neuter, no shots, no license. The owner will continue to breed and sell. Her effort at education in these cases was useless. Her opinion was that only stronger measures (Breeder's Licensing and Mandatory Spay & Neuter policies) will halt the practice. IX. Advisory Board Members Comments: Jim Rich mentioned Lee County was in the process of adopting mandatory Spay & Neuter policies. Dan Martin read from a list he prepared of 15 ideas he would like to see implemented and solicited everyone's opinion. The list will be available from Dan for use in further discussion. Dr. Ruth Eisele congratulated Jim Rich on the nomination of For the Love of Cats for best rescue group - on a national level. Marcia Breithaupt inquired about medical evaluations on each animal at DAS if noticed by the volunteers. Dr. Brown noted she has the forms to request medical evaluations. The next meeting of the Domestic Animal Advisory Board is May 17, 2011. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 8:53 P.M Collier County Domestic Animal Services V I 4AO- (, Chairman Marcia Breithaupt. These minutes approved by the Board/Committee as presented or as amended Flats Hlllor Hanning 0®yylo ctrl�a4 Voting Members Present: Voting Members Absent: (Excused) Expert Consultants Present: County 161 1 Citizen Corp Committee February 16, 2011 A3 ll Bice....................... Russell Rainey, C.E.R.T. Peggy Lauzon, R.S.V.P. Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Jerry Sanford, CC Fire Chief s Assoc. Lt. Mike Jones, CC Sheriff's Office Walt Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary Christopher Nind, Salvation Army Jim vonRinteln, American Red Cross Reg Buxton, Chamber of Commerce Dr. Joseph Neiweem, MRC Jim Elson, Veterans Council Judy Scribner, CCEM Steve Smith, RSVP Greg Speers, East Naples Fire District Kathleen Marr, Department of Health Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. A change in minutes: Walt Jaskiewicz asked for November 2010 minutes to reflect that the "Coast Guard Auxiliary reports that they have a command post that contains supplies such as generators, etc." Correction made. Approval of Minutes. Motion to accept the revised minutes of the November 17, 2010 meeting was approved unanimously. Threat Update Per Lt. Jones, the threat level on flights in this country and international is Orange or High. New Business Wildfire Update - Per Dan Summers, we anticipate a busy wildfire season. 85 people attended the Wildfire Roundup on February 4`h. There are budget constraints with overtime being cut in the fire districts this year, and there was discussion of reducing mutual aid. Forestry resources are holding their own. SW Florida has air assets, but are down to 2 helicopters and 1 pilot. Pushing public awareness is hM* —CfM §e continue Date:-l& � Item i 16 1 1 A3 your wildfire talks in the area of 951 and out. 10,000 copies of the All Hazards Guides will be included in a Naples Daily News delivery in March. Victor Hill is doing a direct mailing for urban wildfires. We are working on mitigation in the F'states. There was no wildfire season last year; however with freezes this year, the top brush will easily burn. Red Cross and Salvation Army are responsible for meal support and the general public. There are three categories of requests: 1) Request for food service (chow, this is clear terminology); 2) Request for canteen (water, GatorAid, snacks); and 3) Request for rehab (medical needs for firefighters). Regarding Law Enforcement, there are three categories of request: 1) Evacuation; 2) Relocation; and 3) Bringing folks to a collection spot. For example, during the fire at Rock Road, 2 air - conditioned school buses were brought to a parking lot. We cannot send folks to a school parking lot, but can send them to a community center. Shelters are open only if homes are lost. We are looking to manage evacuation communication. If you find a hole, let us know to fix it. Russ Rainey said that Verona Walk and Fiddler's Creek are now Fire Wise communities. Dan suggested that stakeholders work with their insurance on this. Rick presented slides on wildfire and weather — less rain, 3 freezes, which makes the fuel ripe for burning. We can expect La Nina through the spring, which is a below normal rain pattern. Sheltering During Hurricanes -- Lee County made the news that they are losing 50% of their shelters because of storm surge areas. The same is true for Collier County. FEMA funded new storm surge evacuation study, using LiDar to measure elevations. Every community in the State made schools hurricane shelters. National Red Cross won't own or operate shelters in the storm areas. We have never had water problems in our school shelters. NOAA has 10 -20% increase in storm surge predictions. We still have buildings we can use 48 hours out. The State is lumping shelters together, and the problem is that the National Red Cross won't support these shelters. We need local resources, and are attempting to get finished floor elevations ourselves. We would never put anyone in harm's way. There will be Lots of work, and Dan said he may need the committee's help. Walt Jaskiewicz asked if this would raise the insurance rates for homeowners. Dan said this is a bruise left from Hurricane Katrina. Per Rick Zyvoloski, one mile in brings in one foot of elevation. He feels the Hurricane Center is doing abetter job with predictions. They need less time and can make updates more frequently. Definitely a better handle 48 hours out. Will send shelter folks to the high lands first, then backfill. People close to town don't want to shelter in Immokalee — that could make them less evacuation compliant. Lt. Jones asked when the Red Cross would make their decision —Dan hopes it will be before Junel5th. The County will sponsor a shelter management course if necessary. Other Federal man dates are coming down. We have Disaster Recovery Units, which help, but there is no money for improvements. We do have a good program for special needs. Money was easier to come by previously — now we need to do more jointly because of less dollars. Dan asks that your groups drill and practice. Inventory human resources that are available. Per Greg Speers, all government agencies are looking at layoffs, etc. We need to attack this differently. Dan said that the Governor is hitting everything, including Emergency Management — lot of unknowns (i.e., where are ice, water, tarps coming from?). Per Rick, predictions currently are for 16 named storms, 8 or 9 hurricanes and 4 or 5 major hurricanes. Dr. Gray's predictions will come out later. Volunteers — Volunteers are needed for April 27`h community -wide exercise, per Judy Scribner. Currently have some from North Naples Fire, Salvation Army and Lorenzo Walker. Also, shelter training is available for non -Red Cross volunteers. We have the job description and ARC will provide the training. Volunteers are covered under the County umbrella, and are needed for the general needs shelters. She will put 161 1 A 3 together the job description for posting on the County internet. We need managers to take charge. The helpers are the worker bees — they could be helping with registration, etc. Please talk it up to your organizations! Old Business Individual Reports — Walt shared info with the Coast Guard and Deepwater Horizon. $13 million was spent on security and safety. 15 interpreters were sent in for the language barriers, 1,000 organizers, 10,500 vessels of opportunity were sent, 25 comm operators were sent. 5,500 hours were worked in key positions. Responders were there, including 11 aircraft and 10 mobile command posts. The Coast Guard received national awards. Discussed the National Association of Safe Boating for Law Enforcement, SAR, etc. Safety training is needed for this. The cost is $30k for 30 students. The Auxiliary has 5 certified teachers, which has dropped the cost to $15k for 30 students. Steve Smith, Director of RSVP, was introduced. He is a licensed CNA and his wife is a nurse. He has volunteered all his life. He has 600 volunteers in the County and is looking at an appreciation banquet the end of March/beginning of April timeframe. Jerry Sanford said that the Freedom Memorial is moving along. They received 50 bricks from the engraver and will be putting them in shortly. The 10 -year anniversary for 9/11 is coming this year. Ideally, they want to dedicate the Freedom Memorial then — need $800k. Kathleen Marr reported that this has been a mild flu season. The Medical Reserve Corps is partnering with the American Red Cross on the April 27`h exercise. She passed out information on two trainings coming up at the South Regional Library. These are free of charge — please register with Kathleen. Russ Rainey will be recognized by the Collier County Commissioners at their next meeting on February 23, 2011. POD (Points of Distribution) Training Update — Judy Scribner reported that she received very positive feedback, very informative and enhanced the students' knowledge. Peggy Lauzon stated that prior to the instruction, she had no idea of what POD was and found it to be very interesting. Russ Rainey said Marco Island will put an alumni meeting together with their CERT folks to determine a location for the POD. In addition, the communities of Verona Walk and Fiddlers Creek will get National Recognition for making their communities "Fire Wise ". Next Meeting/Adiourn Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. at the EOC. Please get any agenda items to Judy Scribner before then. Meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jerry Sanford for approval. Z�Zg-// Approve by Russell Rainey, airman Date 1611A3 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda Feb. 16, 2011 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Opening Remarks Roll Call Sheriff s Office MRC Fire Chiefs CERT USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce CAP EMS EM Health Dept Medical Examiner City of Naples Everglades City Neighborhood Watch Physicians Regional NCI I City of Marco Island 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update CCSO 3:30 New Business Chairman April 27, 2011 Volunteers needed Wildfire Update EM Need for Shelter staffing Dan Summers 3:35 Old Business Chairman Individual Reports Members POD Training update EM 4:00 Next Meeting /Adjourn Chairman W The USF Center for Biological Defense Presents: Recognizing the Threat of Bioterrorism Training Friday, April 8, 2011 • Registration 10:30 am —11:00 am • Presentation 11:00 am —12:00 pm South Regional Library, Naples FL Cosponsored by: Collier County Medical Reserve Corps Topics and Objectives: Recognizing the Threat Terrorism comes in many different forms. Bioterrorism is the application of biologic agents or their toxins as a weapon against people, animals or crops. Individuals need to recognize the threat of bioterrorism, including the possible sources, agents and delivery method. This program provides an overview of bioterrorism, sources of bioterrorism, and delivery/response systems. Objectives: 1 . Define bioterrorism. 2. List countries with potential bioweapons. 3. Describe the delivery and response systems. 4. List two potential targets. Location: South Regional Library, 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples FL 34113 Pre - Registration is requiredt There is NO COST to attend this program. Continuing Education Credit will be available for Physicians /Nurses. Registration Information Company:____ Title: City: State: Zip: e -m To return this sheet or for further information, please contact: Kathleen Marr RN, CHN Consultant, MRC Coordinator Collier County Health Department, Disaster Preparedness PO Box 429, Naples, FL 34106 -0429 Office (239) -252 -6874 Fax (239) 252 -2585 kathleen marr @doh. state. fl. us ilavm�r d „e / o..d,Giv.: 1/ m.a /, d,("I'fi” t,�h�n1'/ m "fi, - A,e,dn,.i . J . q.b, . ...... ail ,,.mnn dlnaary -u"/n mint m„iu 10/-l"", ,,/rn. [',d ",.fry„ /C, mr /1o'd rv'abhk Y! tgemd " -- imrrrn r„ tt_aynu idrllxl n' lDta, rl urm .'id d, 1L..... . -ep,r/ p nun /d.... /or if ,`al U,Jrn. ntN f m,ary of S, All Atv.,n./,, mX1tmoaah'l ,rnf. ...... ..h +c..._ The USF Center for Biological Defense Presents: Selected Agents of Bioterrorism Training Friday; April 8th: 1:30p.m: - 3:00 p.m. South Regional Library, Naples FL Cosponsored by: Collier County Health Department Topics and Objectives: Selected Agents of Bioterrorism A description of the category A, B and C agents is provided, including a detailed overview of the symptoms, health effects and treatments for diseases resulting from exposure to these agents. This presentation is appropriate many different audiences and the materials will be altered to address the educational background of attendees. Objectives: 1 . List and describe the six Category A Agents designated by the Centers for Disease Control as potential biological threats. 2. Describe characteristics of Category A, B and C Agents. 3. Explain why each of the group of agents can be a threat to national security. Location: South Regional Library, 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway Naples FL 34113 Registration Information Company:_ State: Zip: To return this sheet or for further information, please contact: Kathleen Marr RN, CHN Consultant, MRC Coordinator Collier County Health Department, Disaster Preparedness PO Box 429, Naples, FL 34106 -0429 Office (239) - 252 -6874 Fax (239) 252 -2585 kathleen marr @doh. state. fl. us Aamamada m,,f r D' b F1' . 1! mdfy the Gamed Biolugiro/ Def,. n a J : q day, " 'd ma of Ibe ram r/n amonob4 oa.mr A/ J., , d' U bly .d d. E,,,,, r F 1 d f iQne1 If 11 aU,iuMly .f Sm ✓b Florida are a,aibbl, . itha l agard to ma, mGr, — mdorso! igY dl.rol i4ry, age .r I ' /rim nlrmn 1/11111 1 prodded by b. , ,,d,, a d nx .ilA Iba Uri,w W 0111 PI y mm! Al"'lY. The C,.wfor Hia[ogim! DJ,.,, at rha Urd"rl , ofS.Ih Fload. rverrrcl lbe rigbl m m.a! Iblr oAi,dy for mp 1-1 rvLntr.e, -.r N E U C a, C a c v U ^, v W � CL � a � o L a v � o C v Q O � v c O U v ca x b C E •E_ t m LAL � O O a ti _ a a Z 4Q �A �U1 3 161 1 A3 1 c O 9 L d E O O N IO U f0 Y Y C VI N L Y 7 O m ro u m c C 'C C - O Y C N p O u � C c m u w N Y O � tC Q a �0 �E�_ c o m m c O 'd 5 J ^ E w J c o E E v N L C N O 0 Z ti O Z m V r N n N V O = E w ccq _ T N J= G. 'Nl N N LLI N z E E N W E E J E C O N N C V i Q O z� wl �_ O O m u_ m �a O 10 C Q N LL C tV Z N N m Z 9 E E = C C U o U J v v .0 m¢ U " E E u = E E 0 o c c w E �_ o m N a `w q u= Q Z m iii c N- p f0 c = ry f m N C U n n v U N N � .� T o _ o o w E� m ;; .0 = O o m .� c o .0 - E E E o c a J E w E c O w u a o m c y V - N VI c c c u O o o m c E m p °= ° u m a c O o w T = O J C - N E'EEo�� u J E o = G O w u `o m w UOC N GNP C C N C= p c v- p ZO ti C 0 0 0 0 u U O o U o n N p n - v N V O - = O o w E . c o mv = o c J c = N o E m E E v O` Q N V O A - _ p O Z p O Z r=a ~ O n U O '^ V n - LA - n 1 c O 9 L d E O O N IO U f0 Y Y C VI N L Y 7 O m ro u m c C 'C C - O Y C N p O u � C c m u w N Y O � tC Q Q1 > U C O oc w a a X W Z a C i � Y a Y � O � C LL Vf J w w Y C `o � O u '^ vi '^ N = a C O N u J J E J O a N v C L E > L � v Y d _U f0 a > � s E u N o w o U > Y 0! d i � Y a Y � O � C LL Vf J w w N `o `v u '^ a = a N u C J E J O v C L E > Y i � Y a Y � O � C LL Vf J 1611A3 N N L Y � s N C m o v L a E Y u c o m — N O .N. m O 9 O O J O Y E LL S 2 a V 0 1611A3 161 1 A3 00 Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Contact: 239 - 252 -8848 3299 Tamiami "Frail East, Suite 102 www.colliergov.net Naples, FL 34112 -5746 www.twitter.com /CollierPIO www.facebook.com /CollierGov www.youtube.com/CollierGov February 9, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16rn 3:00 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, February 16'h , at 3:00 p.m. in the 3`d 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 certain assistance. Please contact the Collier COUnty Facilities Management Department, located at 3335'lamiami 'Frail Bast, Suite 101, Naples. FL 34112 -5IS6 (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the incetin }.t. Al si,;wd listening dcv -ices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Conuuissioncrs Ohice. For more information, call Judy Scribner at (239) 252 -3600 -End- Fiala l prA1 Hiller VI-1 Approvo C/14minutes 1 of 8 Henning Coyle Coletta .. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 10, 2011 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 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Jim Burke Murray Hendel Robert Raymond (Excused) Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack Randy Moity ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Vt,sc Corres: Date: U�- RECEIVED Item #:fi�' ~ - MAY 12 2011 ... " -�iP(Y :;ortnTtlsSlnneii 1 b I An 4 CAC pn 14, 011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2 of I. Call to Order Vice- Chairman Pires called the meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. 11. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Ill. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following additions: • VII.10 - Vanderbilt Beach Facilities update • X.3. -Public Notice for CAC Applications • X.4. - Applications for CAC Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 7 -0. Gary McAlpin noted Item VI1.9 may be heard early in the meeting, as Mr. Keehn of Coastal Planning and Engineering has a time constraint. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. January 13, 2011 Mr. Moreland moved to approve the minutes of'the January 13, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 7 -0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report— Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report — FY2010 — 2011 " updated through February 2011. Chairman Sorey arrived at 1:23 pm and assumed the Chair. 2. Project Cost Report— Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 201012011 TDC Category A: Beach Maintenance projects' updated through March I, 2011. 3. Clam Bay Marker Status Gary McAlpin provided a copy of his email to Collier County Staff members dated January 28, 2011 and an email from Ryan Moreau, Planner, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission dated 3/2/11 - "Subject: RE: Clam Bay Discussion Group Material," and included related backup documents outlining the composition, goals, and status of the Stakeholder Discussion Group. He noted there was a Stakeholder meeting on February 17, 2011 with a second meeting scheduled for March 15, 2011. w i w CAC April 14, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 3 of 16 1 IA 4 4. Wiggins Pass Dredging— Update Gary McAlpin noted Southwind Construction Corporation was approved to complete the scope of work at a price of $750,000 and the work is currently being undertaken. 9. Naples/Park Shore /Vanderbilt Conceptual Study and Renourishment - Update Stephen Keehn, Coastal Planning and Engineering presented the Slideshow "Collier County 3006 — 2010 Beach Pevformance & Hot Spat Identification," which outlined the status of the Beach Renourishment Study being currently undertaken by Staff and Consultants. Gary McAlpin noted: • Staff and consultants are in the process of preparing the Plan for the major beach renourishment to be performed on Collier County and City of Naples Public Beaches. • The previous plan for renourishment incorporated a "standardized" design for the areas to be renourished. • The Plan for the future beach renourishment will be more "site specific." • Staff intends to return the Plan within the next 90 days to the Coastal Advisory Committee, a Workshop may be held to aid in finalizing the Plan. • A similar study is underway for the Marco Island Beaches. The Committee determined to hear Item 07 next. Wiggins Pass Straightening Engineering Status Gary McAlpin noted: • The County has prepared a Plan to stabilize Wiggins Pass by -straightening' the Pass through "soft engineering. • An application was submitted to FDEP and the first Request for Additional Information (RAI) seeks the provision of 4 additional studies (Environmental Impact Statement, Inlet Management Plan, Modeling of the Ebb Tide Shoal and related geo technical surveys.) • The cost of the Scope of Work to address the studies sought in the RAI is $177,000, however the Board of County Commissioners requested Staff to contact FDEP to obtain a "commitment," if the studies were completed, that a permit would be issued. • The BCC also raised the issue whether "soft engineering' will be successful and if a "hard engineering' solution should be considered. • The cost to complete the work proposed to stabilize the Pass is approximately $3.5M — 4.OM. • Staff is in the process of determining how to proceed on the issue. • An update will be provided at a future CAC meeting. CAC April 14, 2011 4Vlo�ppyOValIf CAJ Minutes (('ri A 4, °' Mr. Moreland, Chairman of the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee expressed concern regarding the length of time of the permit process. As identified by the Boating Community, it is a navigational safety issue and delaying the process is not in the best interest of the County. Speaker Nicole (Ryan) Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted the goals of the Plan to stabilize the Pass are promoting safety, minimizing erosion on the south end of Barefoot Beach, lengthening the dredge cycle, and minimize environmental damage all in a cost effective manner. She was disappointed that the BCC was not convinced that "soft engineering" may meet the goals of the Plan, and noted the previous Wiggins Pass Subcommittee, comprised of Stakeholders, agreed this was the most optimal solution for meeting the goals for the stabilization of the Pass. She submitted a copy of the white paper "Western Carolina University Program for the .Study of Developed Shorelines" and "A Fiscal Analvsis of Shifting Inlets and Terminal Groins in North Carolina" prepared by Andrew S. Coburn, of Western Carolina University. These studies endorse "soft engineering' solutions and should be reviewed by any parties interested in this matter (CAC members, FDEP, BCC Members, etc.) She recommended a meeting of the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee be convened to discuss the matter. Gary McAlpin noted a meeting with FDEP has not yet been scheduled and all appropriate parties should be able to attend. He hopes to place the item on a BCC Agenda in approximately 60 days. 5. Naples Berm Renourishment - Update Gary McAlpin noted the work is underway south of Doctors Pass, with the completion slated for April 1, 2011. The potential long term solution to preventing the erosion from continually occurring in the area will be addressed in the Naples /Park Shore /Vanderbilt Conceptual Study for Beach Renourishment. 6. Doctors Pass Jetty — Update Gary McAlpin noted the project is 25% complete with a total of 3800 tons of rock to be placed. 8. Easement Status Gary McAlpin noted: • The BCC directed Staff to prepare a proposed Easement Agreement for execution between private property owners and the County to permit public beach access, for areas where public funds are expended for beach renourishment on private property. • The Tourist Development Council recommended the BCC not approve the proposed agreement (the CAC previously approved the agreement in concept with conditions.) • Staff will seek direction from the Board of County Commissioners. CAC April 14, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5 of 161 1A4 10. Vanderbilt Beach Restrooms Update Gary McAlpin noted: • The BCC had directed Staff to proceed with the design and permitting of an elevated restroom /concession facility at Vanderbilt Beach. • Residents in the area are not in favor of an elevated structure so the BCC requested Staff inquire with FEMA on the feasibility of building the structure "at grade." • FEMA indicated the "at grade' facility would jeopardize the status of Collier County property owners who have FEMA Flood Insurance. • Staff will seek direction from the BCC within 60 days. VIII. New Business 1. Clam Bay Site Specific Water Quality a. Proposal Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve a 577,148 Purchase Order to PBS &J to develop locally- relevant and site - specific alternative water quality criteria,for the Clam Bay estuary, and provide continued technical support for the next 6 months to the Clam Bay technical work team " dated March 10, 2011 and document "Additional Work Request Contract 9 09-5262-C7 dated March 7, 2011 for consideration. He noted the County is proposing to develop Site Specific Water Quality Criteria for Clam Bay, and the item is provided for information purposes; however the CAC may provide a recommendation. The Purchasing Department advised Staff that they are in compliance with County Purchasing policies. The Pelican Bay Foundation is partnering with the County in the proposal. Mr. Pires expressed concern the decision to award the Scope of Work when it was not completed in accordance with the Competitive Consultants Negotiation Act, and the proposed contract has not complied with required purchasing policies. Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples noted the Naples City Council may be undertaking similar proposals, as any approved water quality criteria may have an impact on Naples Bay and Moorings Bay. Moorings Bay is interconnected with Clam Bay, so any criteria established for Clam Bay will have an impact on Moorings Bay, and the water quality criteria preliminarily identified by the Department of Environmental Protection may be unattainable for Naples Bay. Speaker Marcia Cravens expressed concern on the proposed expenditures, as PBS &J is being paid to duplicate services to review data on the Clam Bay System. Their initial studies indicate the water quality in the system is "better than the mean" for all Florida Estuaries, while their subsequent studies indicate that there "was a problem" with the water quality in the system. Historic and CAC April 14, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 6 oft 6 1 1 A4 current data indicates the system meets Florida Department of Environmental Protections standards for water quality. Caitlin Weber, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern that the scope of work may be premature, as the revised numeric nutrient criteria to be established by the Environmental Protection Agency have not been officially released. Gary McAlpin noted although the required EPA numeric nutrient criteria have not yet been officially established, the County is attempting to initiate a "pre - emptive strategy." The Agencies have reacted favorably to the County's input on the matter. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve a $77,148 Purchase Order to PBS &J to develop locally - relevant and site - specific alternative water quality criteria,for the Clam Bay estuary and provide continued technical support for the nert 6 months to the Clam Bay technical work team" and the "Additional Work Request Contract # 09- 5262-C.Z. " Second by Mr. Moreland. Motion carried 8 `yes " -1 "no." Mr. Pires voted "no." Mr. Pires indicated his "no" vote was predicated on issues concerning the policies of the Collier County Purchasing Department and the input provided by Caitlin Weber. 2. Talking Points for Secretary Vinyard /Scott Gary McAlpin provided the document "Collier County Coastal Permitting Experiences, " which outlines Staff concerns on the process of obtaining environmental permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Chairman Sorey recommended Committee members email comments or suggestions to Staff to assist them in further developing the talking points. Speaker Nicole (Ryan) Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted the system always may be improved but expressed concern on the "tone" of the "talking points." Gary McAlpin noted he intends the document to be "positive" in nature and welcomes others input on experiences /issues, including that of the Conservancy. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements CAC April 14, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 7 of 161 ] 4 1. Public Notice for 2011 — 2012 Category "A" Grant Application Gary McAlpin provided a copy of the public notice "Coastal Advisory Committee Accepting Category "A" Grant Applications Collier County. Florida' dated February 16, 201 1 for information purposes. 2. Lessons from Gulf spill slipping away Gary McAlpin provided a copy of an email from Wayne Waldack dated February 14, 2011, Subject: "Gulf Oil leak - Lessons Learned"" for information purposes. 3. Public Notice for CAC Applications Gary McAlpin provided a copy of the Press Release issued by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), seeking applications for vacant seats on County Advisory Committees, including the Coastal Advisory Committee. 4. Applications for CAC Gary McAlpin Announcements provided a copy of a memo to him from Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager, Board of County Commissioners dated March 10, 2011 which identified Mr. James Burke, Mr. David Roellig and Mr. Theodore J. Raia as applicants to fill vacancies on the Coastal Advisory Committee. Speaker Marcia Cravens addressed the Committee and expressed concern no Committee member present has expertise in the area of Coastal Planning or Marine Biology. When a recommendation is made to the BCC for new members to be appointed to sit on the CAC, existing members strongly consider applicants who have this background. XL Committee Member Discussion Mr. Moreland recommended members of the Committee take a tour of Wiggins Pass. It was determined individual tours would be most practical, and any member who wishes to take a tour should contact staff. Chairman Sorey noted he and Dr. Bauer continue to work on the concept of "Habitat Islands" in Naples Bay and noted FDEP is willing to meet with the City of Naples on the issue. XII. Next Meeting Date /Location April 14, 2011 — Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor CAC April 14, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 8 of 161 1A4 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:42 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee /L n Sorey, III, QfiYman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on 14, as presented X or as amended __ CAC May 12, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC minutes 1 of 5 April 14, 2011 1611A4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 14, 2011 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 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", Td Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III Anthony Pires Jim Burke Murray I leudel IZobert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack Randy Moity ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Miss Cares: Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples ��ECEIVED MM MAY 12 2011 1 of County ComrnL%sKft 6 Fiala Hiller Hennlnt 7� } Coyle Coley CAC May 12, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC minutes 1 of 5 April 14, 2011 1611A4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 14, 2011 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 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", Td Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III Anthony Pires Jim Burke Murray I leudel IZobert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack Randy Moity ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Miss Cares: Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples ��ECEIVED MM MAY 12 2011 1 of County ComrnL%sKft 6 CAC May 12,2011 VI-1 Approval of CAC minutes 2 of 5 April 1 2 11 11 4 �. � i 1 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:02 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Pires moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 9—0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. March 10,2011 Mr. Waldack moved to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Fires. Carried unanimously 9—0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report—Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the"Tourist Tax Revenue Report—FY 2010—2011" updated through March 2011. Chairman Sorey requested Staff to place an item on the May meeting Agenda on how Department services may be affected should Tourist Tax revenue collection be less than projected. 2. Project Cost Report—Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 2010/2011 TDC Category A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through April 5, 2011. 3. Project Status Gary McAlpin provided an update on the following projects: * Wiggins Pass Dredging * Naples Beach Renourishment * Jetty at Doctors Pass 4. Outfall Pipes- Renourishment Permit Gary McAlpin provided an update on the issue. 2 CAC May 12,2011 VI-1 Approval of CAC minutes 3 of 5 April 14, 2011 161 1 A 4 - VIII. New Business 1. CAC Board Recommendations a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary"Review of CAC Applicants"dated April 14, 2011 and related backup material. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners appoint Maurice James Burke to the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 9—0. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners appoint Joseph A. Moreland to the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 9— 0. 2. Clam Bay Marker Plan a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary"Endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay markers work group for the marking of Clam Bay and recommend staff to proceed with the required permit applications including the FWC, USACE, and the USCG" dated April 14, 2011 and related backup material. Public Speakers Rick Dykman, Seagate Resident Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident Ernest Wu, Seagate Homeowners Association Kathy Worley,Conservancy of Southwest Florida Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident Mary Johnson,Mangrove Action Group Keith Dallas, Pelican Bay Resident Jim Pelton, Seagate Resident Steve Feldhaus, Pelican Bay Foundation Mr. Waldack moved to continue the item until an additional Stakeholder meeting is held in an attempt to revise the informational sign language for the purpose of gaining total Stakeholder consensus for a proposed Plan to install informational markers in the Clam Bay System. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 9—0. 3. Vanderbilt Beach Bathroom Alternate Studies a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary"Recommendation to approve $29,729 in design alternative studies for the Vanderbilt Beach park/restroom facility as directed at the March 8, 2011 BCC meeting and request authorization for associated budget amendments"dated April 14, 2011 and related backup material. 3 CAC May 12,2011 VI-1 Approval of CAC minutes 4 of 5 April 14, 2011 1611 4 Public Speaker Ted Raia,Pelican Bay Resident Mr. Hendel moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners not approve the request(approve$29,729 in design alternative studies for the Vanderbilt Beach park/restroom facility) and pursue the original concept. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 9—0. 4. Collier Creek Dredging a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Endorse a recommendation to approve the emergency dredging request for the Marco Island Collier Bay entrance channel" dated April 14, 2011 and related backup material. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed request(an out of cycle emergency dredging request for Marco Island's Collier Bay entrance channel). Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 9—0 5. Marco Island South Conceptual Design a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Marco Island Project" dated April 14, 2011 and related backup material. Dr. Michael Stephen, Coastal Engineering Consultants,Inc. presented the Slideshow"Marco Island South Beach Update—Coastal Advisory Committee April 14, 2011. " (for the Marco Island South Beach) 6. 195 10-Year Plan Gary McAlpin presented the document"TDC Category "A"195 Fund Projections"dated April 14, 2011. 7. Fiscal Year 11/12 Proposed Budget Gary McAlpin presented the document"FY11/12 - 195 Fund Budget and Analysis"dated April 14, 2011. Committee reached on consensus on: • Revising the document to reflect the major beach renourishment to occur in FY2013—2014. • Staff updating the Committee on the costs associated with Sea Turtle Monitoring. • Staff providing a subsidiary ledger containing an analysis of the carry forward funds for individual projects. • Projections for the interest on funds revenue identified in the document. 4 CAC May 12, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC minutes 5 of April 14, 2011 16 1 1 A4 8. Fiscal Year 11/12 Grant Applications a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Share TDC Category "A" Grant Applications . from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Leland and Collier County for FY -11112 dated April 14, 2011 and related backup material. FDEP Permitting Status Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "PUFF Pennitting,Stalus" dated April 14, 2011 and related backup material for information purposes. Chairman Sorey and Gary McAlpin are meeting with Florida Governor Rick Scott and Florida Department off,nvironnicinal Protection Secretary Herschel Vinyard. Speaker Nicole.Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Barry Williams, Director, Collier County Parks and Recreation Maura Kraus, Collier County Principal Environmental Specialist IX. Old Business None X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date /Location May 12, 2011 — Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor 'Phere being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 4:10 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee ohm Sorey, III, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended__ 4 A5 1 March 24, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida �' RECEIVED March 24, 2011 MAY 18 2011 Baard of County Commissioners 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 SPECIAL SESSION at in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre Pima Tony Marino HiOef Ron Doino (Excused) Hennin Coyle Larry Dean (Excused) ',oletta - -- Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) James Lavinski (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB Brenda Garretson, Special Magistrate Page 1 Misc. Corres: Date -L LI =% 1 1 Item #: lo=z \ iAs 161 24, 2 M11 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hello, good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board special meeting to order. This is a review meeting to go over our rules and regulations. We have a combined meeting today with the special magistrate. Good morning. MS. GARRETSON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Welcome. On our agenda real quick, if I could, we'll just get a roll call. And if you want to do that. 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. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Ms. Brenda Garretson? MS. GARRETSON: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Ron Doino, Mr. Jim Lavinski, Lionel L'Esperance, and Larry Dean all have excused absences today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. Also we have a real quick agenda. Can we get an approval for the agenda, please? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 2 161,1 A5 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. So the first item on our agenda is to review the rules and regulations for our board and for our special magistrate. Is there any questions or changes? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one under Article V, Section 2, if I can find it. I think it has to do with the location. And I was wondering, since we are meeting occasionally over on Horseshoe, if that needs to be added there, at Horseshoe Drive. Section 2, regular meetings, "The Code Enforcement Board shall be held on the fourth Thursday," et cetera, at the chambers. There's no mention of -- on those times when this facility is booked up. So we may want to add that in there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Instead of maybe adding it, maybe just change -- maybe appropriate location or something to that effect, because we've met at the library in previous times, too. So -- instead of just being specific. MS. BAKER: We could just put the statement where it says, "In the Collier County Commission chambers as available," and then that would give us the option to go somewhere else if we needed to. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or public venue as available, yep. MR. KAUFMAN: This way -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Location being deemed appropriate. MR. KAUFMAN: So that somebody isn't heard at a different location and then says you violated your rules. That was one I had. Shall we do them one at a time or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we need motions on each one? MS. BAKER: I don't -- I think just at the end. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does everyone agree with that? I Page 3 1611A5 March 24, 2011 do. Good? MS. GARRETSON: It sounds good. MR. MARINO: Good. MR. KAUFMAN: The next one I have is Article VIII, Section 1. I believe what we generally do there is a half hour, not an hour. And I must be right because Mr. Kelly also has a note on the same thing, so CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in agreeance there? Good. MR. KAUFMAN: How about if you take the time out and just write down "prior to ?" MS. BAKER: You can do that. MR. KAUFMAN: Less is better. Especially with my weight. MS. GARRETSON: Don't go there. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a lot of weight on this committee here. I had a note on Article IX. And since the magistrate is here as well, we hear sometimes similar cases, and sometimes we are -- for the same exact violation, we're sometimes miles apart as to what the motion is. So I was looking, if there was any way that -- naturally anything can be changed, but that you start at a particular point. For instance, if you have a green pool, a green pool is a green pool whether it's a $200 -a -day item or a $100 -a -day item; if there was some way that we could be more consistent on some of the cases that we hear. MS. BAKER: Well -- MR. KAUFMAN: Just thought I'd throw that out for discussion. MS. BAKER: Well, we leave it up to the board to decide what the time frames and the dollar amounts are; however, we do have in our office what's called a suggested fine guideline sheet, and I can provide that to you guys again, and you can use that as a reference for when you're doing those cases. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that would be very helpful. MS. RAWSON: Use it as a reference, but just be careful that z= 16I A5 rA March 24, 2011 you're not predetermining the order, you know, because every case, remember, is different. So you can have a reference but -- and you want to be as consistent as possible, but just don't predetermine what you're going to say. MS. GARRETSON: I didn't know we were very far apart, so I am interested in knowing that, because certainly I don't want it to appear that if you get one venue it's one way and if you get another one, it would be going in a different direction. Because one of my primary considerations when it comes to pools is whether it's a health, safety, and welfare issue because, you know, children, not having barriers around, the things that can grow in pools, as we know, that can be very damaging to even the environment. And those are the kind of things usually they'll tell you I'm asking about. And I'm very focused on, how quickly can we get it fixed. And so, you know, if you -- MR. KAUFMAN: I think it's more than just between what happens at the -- in front of the magistrate. And we are different in our own board, and it can be as much as -- depending upon who makes a motion -- from one case to the other on the same day, so -- MS. GARRETSON: Wow. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what I was referring to, not necessarily between the two. MS. GARRETSON: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: However, you do make a good point. You know, if we're charging $1,000 a day and you're at 250, that's quite a disparity. MS. GARRETSON: It absolutely is, and maybe it would be helpful for me to see the minutes from theirs, not so that we are the same, but just so that we are aware that there are different viewpoints that are being taken, because I'm always interested in -- I'm sure if I have the opportunity to read some of the discussions that you have, it's Page 5 161 1 A5 -4 March 24, 2011 going to enlighten me. Because, you know, old ladies get stuck in ruts, so it will be helpful to have all you young men here giving me some new ideas. MS. RAWSON: If you'd like, I can email you the orders. MS. GARRETSON: That would be great. MS. RAWSON: I'll be happy to do that. After Colleen and Jen grade my paper and we get them signed by Mr. Kelly, I'll email them to you. MS. GARRETSON: That would be great. MR. KAUFMAN: Maybe it should be both ways. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I agree. MR. KAUFMAN: Then our orders go to you and your orders go to this board. MS. GARRETSON: Jean, is there anything you can see that somebody would be critical about us doing that? I don't want it to appear, again, that we're, you know, trying to -- MS. RAWSON: Well, yeah. We do have to be careful about that, because we cannot predetermine, you know, if you do this, then this is what's going to happen to you, because we have to let the respondents tell us their particular problems and their particular case. But when we've got a foreclosed house with a green pool and nobody's living there, you know, they're probably all about the same. MR. KAUFMAN: Unless it's just a different shade of green. MS. GARRETSON: Well, it may be that we don't have to do it on a -- you know, for the next -year basis, but certainly to get a flavor for each, you know, have that kind of an exchange would be, I think -- MR. KAUFMAN: Well, both venues are public -- they're televised, so there are no secrets. MS. GARRETSON: You're absolutely right. MR. KAUFMAN: So I don't think there should be any -- any concern. You can watch it or get it as an email. MS. GARRETSON: And those emails are also public, aren't 161 1 A5 March 24, 2011 they? MS. RAWSON: Yes, they are. MS. GARRETSON: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'd like to also reiterate that we share the same concern that you do when it comes to public safety. MS. GARRETSON: I know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that certainly dictates our fines and time frames. Do you have anything else, Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Nope. I'm done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Mr. Kaufman's resting. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm all set. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. MARINO: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a couple. If we go back to Article VI under the rules, Article VI, order of business in our agenda, No. 4, under public hearings, all the way down to D and E. I believe those should be reversed in place. I believe that we either need to hear the motions first or at least while we're going through the cases rather than after we already rule. Is that okay with everybody? MR. KAUFMAN: That's good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The next one, if you just continue on, go down to No. 7, if that was the case, then No. 7 has a duplicate motion for imposition of fines under the consent agenda. That's certainly not the case. We hear all of those individually. Now, there was a push about four years ago to try to get them onto the consent, and I think we passed them in our rules, but it never actually took place. We just ended up keeping it in both areas. And we found that passing them on the consent and then later having to re -amend was a big issue. So can we have Letter A under consent agenda stricken since it's Page 7 161 1 A5 March 24, 2011 already under level -- okay, great. Any comments there; everything okay with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And then Article VII, under Section 3, about three quarters of the way down, there is a sentence stating, the secretary to the board shall provide notice to the Code Enforcement investigator and the alleged violator as in here -- as herein provided at least 10 days prior to the meeting at which the violator's case is to be presented to the board. Now that language -- just for clarification, that is just the communication between the respondent and the investigator. That doesn't have anything to do with the communications to us, correct? MS. BAKER: No, that's the communication. That's the notice of hearing that we provide and the backup documentation with that of the case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Because that point of clarification then moves to another point that I have later on, so that's why I wanted to get that clear. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Does that mean if you find a severe violation is found someplace, can that time frame be waived? MS. BAKER: If it's an emergency case, the notice requirements basically go away, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In Article VII, Section 5, it does state, in emergency situations, the timelines set forth in the paragraph can be abbreviated or set aside to address the alleged violations in order to avoid further damage to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Collier County. Perfect. And then if we go to Article VIII, Section 2, midway through the paragraph, it's talking about the board's attorney and the board's Elm 16 1 1 A 5 March 24, 2011 secretary and the opposing parry, their counsel, if applicable, at least five business days prior to the meeting. is that, again, notice to us as well? Is that for like motions and whatnot? Because if a person was to show up at our meeting and they did not file five days prior, we would still hear that motion. MS. BAKER: Right. We -- what we require is if they have -- say they have an extension of time request, they have a continuance request, in order for us to place that on the agenda in the different area, we have to have that five days prior. If we get it after the five days, we still proceed with that at the hearing at the chair's discretion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And so the last line in that paragraph would cover those situations even -- MS. BAKER: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- even though they may not be exceptional circumstances. MS. BAKER: Right, right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. On Article XI(a), in a non - contested case, the only evidence heard shall be the Statement of Violation and any stipulated agreement. I don't believe we follow that completely. There are times where we ask for additional details from the respondent or maybe from the investigator, and if the stipulation seems to be a little out of line as far as time frame goes, as a board we often go in and say, is it okay if we give you some more time, and the respondents are usually okay with that because it benefits them. But under this rule it strictly says that we can do nothing except for listen to the statement of violation and what was agreed upon. It really says that we have to either turn it up or down, not modify it. Although when the respondents are here and if county's okay, we get them to initial and change. MS. BAKER: We could change that "shall" to a "may." CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is that okay? .,_.. 16 1 1 Marc , 201 *14 MR. KAUFMAN: When I'm looking at that, it almost seems to me that we're talking about when there's nobody here. The only one that's here is an investigator. And when the only person that's here is an investigator, naturally, that's all you're going to hear. MS. BAKER: But you do still get pictures and other kind of evidence as well. MR. KAUFMAN: All from the investigator. MS. BAKER: Right, right, which is not stated. In here it says, "The only evidence shall be the statement of violation." So that wouldn't include the pictures. And for -- and I think those are very beneficial for you to make your decision on your case. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, absolutely. I agree. MS. BAKER: I think if we just change that "shall" to a "may," we would cover that. MS. RAWSON: I would agree with Jen, because lot of times you guys want them changed even when they're not here. So we need to make that a "may." CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Under same area, Letter E. Again, it's a "may" issue. I think it's a good one. "If the respondent /alleged violator is not present and is represented by a person other than an attorney, the respondent may submit a notarized letter to the chair of the board granting that individual permission to represent him or her at the hearing." I think that that's very light, if you will. I think that maybe we should add something at the end of that that says at some point the person representing needs to publicly admit to the record that they have been given permission if no letter exists. MS. GARRETSON: Under oath. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Under oath. So, you know, it's not somebody just arbitrarily standing up, that they can be purged if there was an issue. MR. MARINO: And we've done that. Page 10 161 1A5 4 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. MR. MARINO: We did that a couple meetings ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We've done that, but it's not part of our rules. I don't know how we would word that, but -- MR. KAUFMAN: It quite -- I think more than likely what happens -- and it's happened many, many times -- is somebody shows up and they don't have the notarized letter, and then the question from the board to that person is, do you represent them, yeah, it's my mother and she's sick and she can't be here or something to that effect. So any way that you can make that as the board's discretion on whether they're going to hear it or not, I think, will benefit the public. MS. BAKER: Well, we can put a statement in there that says the individual must also testify at the hearing under oath to represent the respondent. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. That sounds good. MS. GARRETSON: In their capacity. Sometimes it's an estate, their different corporation -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. MS. GARRETSON: -- whether they're a manager or not. MS. BAKER: We'll just -- I'll add, "and their relationship to the respondent." MS. GARRETSON: The capacity of the representation, maybe. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. GARRETSON: I always worry when they have to do the enforcement part of an order. That's the time when somebody's going to attack it when you haven't gone through that due diligence. So that's a really good point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: True. In Article X, Section 1, first paragraph, about midway through, in parentheses it says, "In the event that the violation cannot be abated by the respondent, the respondent shall include in the motion for reduction/abatement of fines a detailed description of the efforts Page l 1 161 1 A 5 fA March 24, 2011 undertaken for abatement and an explanation as to why the violation cannot be abated, and provide support/documentation to that effect," and then it says, F, "mitigating factors which the respondent believes warrants a reduction or abatement of fine," and then, G, "and other factors that may be considered by the board, a signature of the respondent, and all supporting documentation." I didn't really want to change any of that. I just thought that it was interesting that it was in our rules seeing as how it's not necessarily a policy of the board, more or less just a recurring trend that we don't abate fines or reduce fines unless -- I'm sorry. We don't eliminate fines or reduce them unless the violation has been abated. I just thought it was interesting that it was actually in our rules that we could. But the next sentence I thought it was the -- the important one. "The respondent should provide the secretary of the board 15 copies of the motion of a reduction or abatement of fines. Attach the supporting documentation." Now, is this specifically talking about any motion for reduction or abatement? Because we don't get those in writing. Often the respondent stands up and -- MS. BAKER: Right. And nine times out of ten, we don't get anything until the date of the hearing. We don't know that they're going to request this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And is the word "should" one of those open to where it's okay if they don't? MS. RAWSON: I think that's why we put "should" in there, because you can't say "shall" because they'd never do it. You could say "may." But I think we've put "should," as I recall the discussion, because we kind of wanted to encourage them, in case they read the rules, to do it. Sometimes you abate fines when there's no one here and the county says you don't have any problem with your doing it. MR. KAUFMAN: In addition, one of the questions that's asked Page 12 161 1 A5 March 24,2 11 quite often is, have you paid the court costs. So the two main questions that are asked -- and I think it's almost been universal -- is has the situation been abated and have you paid the costs? Because I remember checks going over to the county for that before the board would consider abating the fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: However, what's funny is, you know, when you look into these rules very closely you realize that they're well written, because just after the section we were talking about -- and I can find it if I need to -- it does explicitly say that if the -- if those fees were not paid within 30 days, the fine amount reverts back to the original before we abated or reduced it. So if they -- they do have that 30 -day window. Do you want me to bring it up? MR. KAUFMAN: I don't think that's -- I think that's a good idea to bring it up. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Basically what we've done in the past is if we wanted to reduce fines because they came into compliance and just took a little longer but they didn't get the chance to pay court costs, we would not reduce. Instead, county would usually withdraw to the next meeting, giving them the chance to pay, or the checks would go across. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, in here it does say that we -- if that was the case -- if a -- this is Section 5 under Article X. "If a reduction is granted, the reduced fine must be paid within 30 days unless otherwise specified in the order or unless staff, in its discretion, negotiates an installment plan. If payment is not made within the specified time, the fine shall revert to the original amount." So does that mean we can go ahead and give them the reduction even though op costs haven't been paid, and as long as they're paid within 30 days, everything would be fine? MS. RAWSON: I've never known you to give them a reduction Page 13 16.1 1 A5 March 24, 2011 if they didn't pay the costs. I recall a couple of instances when they're here when you say, go pay the costs right now, and we'll do it. But I don't believe we ever do that if they haven't paid the costs. I don't think I remember that you've ever done it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No. MR. KAUFMAN: It seems to me that that's part of the original order. MS. RAWSON: It is. MR. KAUFMAN: It is. So you need to fix the problem and pay the costs. And when you get to the imposition of fines, if one of those two things is not done, then the fines are imposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I think it's important also to let anyone in the public know that these costs we cannot reduce or abate. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They are, you know, county costs that -- the Board of County Commissioners are the only people who have the authority to waive those. And so we've actually tried to help the public rather than have liens and whatnot placed against them for a $30 bill. We've put things back in the agenda, given them the chance to run and get their checkbook and come back just trying to help out. So I just thought it was interesting that there is an option in our rules. For the sake of, I guess, clarity, we don't exercise it often. MS. GARRETSON: And the public should know as well that when the county does the abatement on behalf of the respondent, we make sure that that money gets back, too. In other words, we don't want the taxpayers to be on the hook for anything that has had to be put out, even in those situations where people are being helped out. And I think that's the same policy. MS. RAWSON: We've got a couple of those today that -- because the costs go right back to the respondent and become a lien on that property. Page 14 1611 A5 March 24, 2011 MS. GARRETSON: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's all I have. MS. BAKER: Before we end that discussion, it may be a good idea to take that Section 5 out because that's not something that we ever do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, be careful though, because although we're talking specifically about op costs, operational costs, I think that statement also applies to reductions. In other words. Let's say somebody went over their time frame that we allotted, and we decided for whatever reason to not completely reduce the fines to zero, instead to leave a $500 bill. This also says that if you don't pay that 500 within 30 days, then it will go back to the original amount, and I think that is important that it stays. MS. FLAGG: The challenge with that is, though, is that you have an order that's recorded, and the first order would either reduce or waive the fines. And the reason that I believe you -all haven't been using this section of your rules is because if then the order's going to change, it has to go back and we have to amend the order. And it becomes very confusing with the number of cases that we're dealing with and the orders in the court and the calls from the attorneys and the title companies about orders and releasing orders, that if you -- if you establish your rules to follow the pattern that you're using now, it's much more straightforward for all the parties involved when it comes to a piece of property. So if you add to your Section 1, perhaps, that it has to be in compliance and the operational costs have to be paid, then it keeps it clean for everybody. MR. KAUFMAN: I agree with that. And that's how we've been operating, so -- sometimes it's easier to write the rules for what you're doing rather than try to change them and then adhere to them. MS. FLAGG: Particularly when it works. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But where would you like to put that, Page 15 161 l ` :) March 24, 2011 Diane? MS. FLAGG: It's up to you -all, but you may want to just add it to the section where it talks about that it has to be in compliance and the operational costs have to be paid. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Section 10. Probably Section 10. MS. BAKER: If you look at Article X, Section 1, under motion of abat- -- motion -- reduction or abatement of fines, we could do it under -- it says, a motion for reduction/abatement of fines may be made after a violation has been abated and all costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Including operational costs? MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or should we just put all operational costs have been paid? MS. BAKER: And all operational costs have been paid. MS. GARRETSON: And abatement costs? MS. BAKER: Right. And abatement costs. That's why I said "costs," because there could be county abatement costs as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That's go. Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything else? Do you have anything? MR. MARINO: No, I don't have anything. Do you have anything? MS. GARRETSON: I don't have any changes in my rules. They have been operating very smoothly. You know, these folks take really good care of the process, and it makes my life much easier. And I just get to come in and hear the cases and give people their day in chambers. And I'm very happy with them. And my staff has not told me that there's something that we need to change. But if there is, this would be the opportunity, Mrs. Baker. Page 16 161 1 A5 March 24, 2011 MS. BAKER: (Shakes head.) MS. GARRETSON: Nothing. No, it's been going along as smoothly as I think it can, and I'm very happy that way. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good. MS. GARRETSON: But happy to be here and getting to participate. I always enjoy coming along, and I always learn something new, as I did today. So thank you for the invitation and getting to participate in the workshop with you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we're honored to have you. MS. GARRETSON: Well, you're very nice. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If there's no other miscellaneous items, any open discussion items from anyone? In that case -- oh, one more? MS. BAKER: I have one thing that was just brought on the special magistrate rules, because we kind of have changed our process a little bit in the past year or so. MS. GARRETSON: Okay. MS. BAKER: Article I1I, meeting requirements, regular meetings -- under Section 1, regular meetings of the special magistrate shall be held twice monthly on the first and third Friday. MS. GARRETSON: Very good point. MS. BAKER: We should probably amend that. We're not adhering here to the first and third Friday. We're doing it as we can schedule things, and we're also only doing it once a month. MS. GARRETSON: We don't have any provision in here for the dangerous dog ordinance either. MS. BAKER: No. MS. GARRETSON: So we need to conform to what we're actually doing. So we are having regular meetings once a month, and we are trying to be consistent with it being -- MS. BAKER: Right. I think we could say that the special magistrate -- regular meetings of the special magistrate shall be held at least once monthly, and we could take out the first and the third Page 17 1611g5 March 24, 2011 Friday. MS. GARRETSON: At least once monthly and at such additional times as the -- MS. BAKER: Right. MS. GARRETSON: -- volume of cases requires. MS. BAKER: Right. MS. GARRETSON: Volume or type of cases. Sometimes we have special settings for cases if we know we're going to have a lot of witnesses. You folks have a lot of witnesses all the time. We have them less often. More volume of cases and maybe fewer witnesses. That's a good point. Thank you, Colleen. Anything else? MS. BAKER: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. In that case, I'll -- do you have anything, Diane? MS. FLAGG: Just to let you know, what we'll do is make the revisions to the rules, and then we will take them to the Board of County Commissioners as what we do once a year to have them review the rules. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Shall we give you one vote saying that we approve -- MS. FLAGG: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- the items discussed? Somebody want to make that? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we approve the changes that we discussed today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. 161 1 A5 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Very good. MS. GARRETSON: And should I say on the record that I do make a motion and second myself that I would like my rules changed to accommodate this modification as well? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. And in that case, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. We'll see you back in about 30 minutes. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:31 a.m. Page 19 16 4,1 j March 24, 2011 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KENN X ELY, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC /COURT REPORTER. Page 20 161 1 A SMarch 24, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, March 24, 2011 ; RECEIVED -w� MAY 18 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County,CA0,410y Commissioners Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 10:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN Fiala Hiller —�- Henning Coyle Coletta Kenneth Kelly Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre Tony Marino Ron Doino (Excused) Larry Dean (Excused) Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) James Lavinski (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB Brenda Garretson, Special Magistrate Page 1 Misc. Corres: Dater �2__ 8I t Item #: \tyT \145 A5 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Thank you very much. Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board, Collier County, to order for March 24, 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 hearings 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 a roll call, please. MS. WALDRON: 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. Tony Marino. MR. MORINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Dean, James Lavinski, Lionel L'Esperance, and Ronald Doino all have excused absences for today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we are -- we do have a quorum with the members that are here. Moving on to the approval of agenda. Would you like to go through the changes, please. MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. Under No. 4, public hearings, motions, Page 2 161 1A 1Glarch 244, 2011 Letter A. motions, motion for extension of time, we have three additions. No. 2 will be Robert A. Flick, Case CESD20100008711. No. 3 will be Jeffrey C. and Tammy J. Taylor, Case CESD20090010167. No. 4 will be Bruce A. Blocker, Case CESD20100005205. Under Letter B, stipulations, we have three stipulations. The first will be Case CESD20100005061, Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. Second will be Case CESD20080000034, Mainscape Naples, LLC. Third will be Case CEV20100006752, Stan L. and Nancy Spence. Under Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Case CEROW20110000485, Eden Institute Foundation, Inc., has been withdrawn. No. 2, Case CEROW20090017262, Highland Properties of Lee & Collier, has been withdrawn. No. 3, Case CELUPM20110000047, Pee -Wee's Dumpster, Inc., and Victor Thomas George, has been withdrawn. No. 4, Case CEOCC20110001554, Pee -Wee's Dumpster, Inc., and Victor Thomas George, has been withdrawn. No. 5, Case CENA20110001553, Pee -Wee's Dumpster's, Inc., and Victor Thomas George, has been withdrawn. And we have an addition under hearings. We did have a No. 10, Stan and Nancy Spence, CEV2010006752, which was moved from imposition of fines, which is also a stipulation, so that would have been No. 10 on the agenda. And then we have an addition of an emergency case, which will be No. 11. It's Melissa K. and Joseph L. Barrs (phonetic), Case CEPM20110003398. And under No. 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines /liens, No. 9, Case CESD20090000978, Maria Ramirez, has been Page 3 161 1 A5 March 24, 2011 withdrawn; No. 10, Case CEROW20090000973, Maria Ramirez, has been withdrawn; No. 11, Case CESD20090000972, Maria Ramirez, has been withdrawn; No. 12, Case CESD20090000975, Maria Ramirez, has been withdrawn. And under No. 6, new business, we would like to add Letter A for elections. Due to the number of people that are here today, maybe we want to wait until next meeting to do that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's really going to be up to the board and you guys, whichever you'd like to do. What's the will of the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I think we could have it right now. No big deal. MS. BAKER: Okay. So we'll add Letter A, elections, under new business. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, great. In that case I'll accept a motion to accept the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. 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. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Moving on to the approval of the minutes from the February 24, 2011, hearing. Any changes? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. 1 V 1 1 Alch 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Now on to public hearings, motions. Letter A, motions. Motion for an extension of time. We have three cases. The first one is Enrique and Maria Ruiz. Are the respondent here? Notice, for any respondents who want to speak, you'll be sworn in by the court reporter, and also if there's anyone here who needs a translator, the translator will be sworn in separately. And of course, attorneys don't need to be sworn in since they're representing. (The staff member was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) (The interpreter was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English, and indicated in the affirmative.) (The speaker was duly sworn, through the interpreter, and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Usually in these cases where a motion is brought to us from the respondent, we like to hear a little bit about the situation that they're going through and the reason for the request for the extension. MS. RUIZ: I just need more time to move. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One second. Could I get you to pull the microphone closer. am 161 1 `:1 ' March 24, 2011 MS. RUIZ: I am in the process of getting the permit, but I just don't understand what you want. I don't get what you're really asking. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We did receive a letter from her, and in that letter it stated she requested 90 days for more time in order to get the permit. MS. RUIZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does she understand exactly what she needs to do in order to get the permit? MS. RUIZ: You mean to move it? I want that just to move. Because they're asking me to move it ten feet where I am. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Can -- let me ask the investigator a question. Good morning. MR. WALKER: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You want to state your name just for the record. MR. WALKER: Weldon Walker, code enforcement investigator. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Weldon. This is just a setback issue? MR. WALKER: Yes. To my knowledge it is. She's been working with the permitting people. Evidently there is some conflict in reference to where it is sitting in reference to the property line in the rear. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any objection to the 90 days? MR. WALKER: None whatsoever, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions for either party from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. This case was heard in November, I believe. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: My question is, what was done -- since the 161 1A5 March 24, 2011 first thing was to get a permit, what was done in November, December, January, February? Nothing's been done as far as I can see on the paperwork. THE INTERPRETER: I want to ask for permit, but the person in charge of giving permits, I don't understand what she wants. I fill -- I fill the documents for the permit -- requiring the permit, but I really don't understand -- I don't know what she wants. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it a language problem? THE INTERPRETER: Yes, language. MR. KAUFMAN: There is nobody that she spoke to at the permit department who speaks Spanish? THE INTERPRETER: She speaks Spanish, but she does not explain herself well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Weldon, is there anyone on maybe the code enforcement staff that can help navigate that permit process for the respondent? MR. WALKER: Yes. We can make that available to her. MR. KAUFMAN: My final question, has the $80.57 been paid? MR. WALKER: Yes, it has. MS. RUIZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just as a recommendation, maybe when she comes down to the permitting department, if someone from code enforcement can be there with her, and maybe between the three people -- someone that's Spanish speaking, could maybe get this done, get this expedited so she can -- if we do grant 90 days, that she doesn't have to come back for another extension. MR. WALKER: Yeah. Code enforcement will be willing to do whatever we can for her. MR. LEFEBVRE: So please have her coordinate with code enforcement when she comes down so they can be there and there's no misunderstanding at this point. Page 7 6 1 � ' 5 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I would like to add that communication is key with code enforcement. Okay. MS. RUIZ: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to extend 90 days from today. MR. MARINO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Just, if you will, reiterate that we did extend; however, it's very important to start immediately on that process working with code enforcement. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. MS. RUIZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next case under motions, extension of time, is Robert Flick, CESD200100008711. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Flick. Just like in the prior case, since you're requesting the motion, we would just like you to add for the record the reason and circumstances behind the request. MR. FLICK: All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So feel free to speak as you'd like. MR. FLAGG: I just got my permit January 11th from the Building Department. And that -- I guess that extends for six months, • 16 I 1 A 5 March 24 2011 so the time wasn't enough for me to do anything yet. So I need -- I'm doing all the work myself. I need more time to finish. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Flick, in your letter it says that you request 30 days. MR. FLICK: I can do it in 30 days, but I would like more time than that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, how much time would you like, sir? MR. FLAGG: Two months would be good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is there any objection from county on the extension? MS. SCAVONE: No, the county has no objection. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Has the $81.43 court costs been paid? MR. FLAGG: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: I'll make the motion we give him the 60 -days extension. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Kaufman. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Flick, you have 60 days. MR. FLICK: All right. Do I get something in writing, or how do 16 1 1 4 5Mar A 24, 2011 I -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You will. There will be an order very much like the first one that you had received. It will probably arrive in about two weeks; however, since you were here today, the time does start from today, and you're in person so that you aware of it, but you will receive something. MR. FLAGG: All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. MS. SCAVONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case, motions, No. 3, Taylor, Jeffrey and Tammy Taylor, CESD20090010167. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Taylor, could you move the microphone a little bit so the court reporter can hear you as well. Perfect. Thank you. MR. TAYLOR: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just like in the previous cases, since you're bringing the motion, if you'd like to just briefly describe the situation. MR. TAYLOR: The engineer just got done with the blueprints yesterday, so I took them down to the county. I know there's a five -day review on them until I get them. So I need a little time to get it all together. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I don't see a request in writing, so we're not sure -- unless I'm confused, and that happens. Is there a specific time frame that you're looking for? MR. TAYLOR: Ninety days, if that's possible, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objection from county? MR. BALDWIN: No objections. Any questions from -- THE COURT REPORTER: Can I get your name, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, sorry, yes. �, 1 1 A 5 March 24, 2011 MR. BALDWIN: Investigator Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. For some reason I have this listed under imposition of fines. MS. BAKER: And there is a request for extension of time in your packet under imposition of fines. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm a little confused then. If we're at the point where you're doing an imposition of fines and you extend this, you're really rehearing the whole case. MS. BAKER: Well, he's coming to ask you for more time before we do the imposition of fines. We won't do the imposition of fines if you grant the extension. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's a smart way of doing it. MR. MARINO: Have we established if the court costs have been paid? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good question. Have they been paid? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, they have, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you, Patrick. Any other discussion, questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you think 90 days will be sufficient time for you to get this all done? MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it permit by affidavit; is that what you're doing? MR. TAYLOR: Yes. And I've got all that here. And I've been paying -- everything that they give me, I've been going to the county and paying it. MR. KAUFMAN: This was a conversion of a garage -- MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: -- to living space. Page 11 "I 4 5 Mare 24, 2011 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: So you had a choice of either taking it down or getting the permits for the work that was done? MR. TAYLOR: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: And you've chosen to get the permit to -- MR. TAYLOR: Take care of the whole situation, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: By demo -ing it or by -- MR. TAYLOR: Oh, no, by fixing it back up, keeping it the way it is -- MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. TAYLOR: -- please. MR. KAUFMAN: Does the county have any problem with extending the 90 days? MR. BALDWIN: No, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we extend 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just for clarification, that's 90 days from today, correct, Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye MR. KAUFMAN: Aye, CHAIRMAN KELLY: MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ninety days from today. Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mr. Taylor, you have 90 days from today. If you run into any snags, please just let us know ahead of Page 12 16i1A5 4 March 24, 2011 time if you can. MR. TAYLOR: Don't worry. My wife's on top of that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good deal. All right. The last case under extension of time would be Bruce Blocker. That's Case CESD20100005205. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I can, just real quick, for the board, it's slightly unique in this situation where we haven't actually heard this case yet. It was in our regular packet to be heard as a hearing; however, there's a request for extension of time before the case is heard. MR. LEFEBVRE: So should it not -- maybe be withdrawn? CHAIRMAN KELLY: The -- it was a possibility; however, there's, I guess, extenuating circumstances that we're going to hear about, so if you'd like to go ahead. It's just a little odd in our procedures, but, please, go ahead. MR. FLOOD: Peter T. Flood, appearing on behalf of Mr. Blocker. I'll be appearing throughout this. This is -- it involves a piece of property that -- out in Immokalee, and I've met with code enforcement. We had a preliminary meeting which we had a good meeting in regards to this. We're working towards hopefully a resolution. It has to do with some removal in some structures out there that may or may not have been permitted, and they're from way back in the early's '70s and maybe even the late '60s. So I got involved in this, and we're doing some investigation into this to see what direction, so see if we can come up with an amicable resolution to move on to it. The reason for the 90 -day extension, I talked to Mr. Kitchen (sic). Unfortunately next month I'll be gone most of the month, and I'd asked for 90 days. I've been working with Maria, and we've been working hand in hand trying to get this resolved. In one of the buildings, we've got some engineering and some Page 13 161 1 Match 241011 construction to see what exactly was done, the extent, to get into some of the permitting. So we are working on it. We're not trying to be -- but based on -- it's a long property that -- it's been in existence a long time, and a question on whether permits were pulled and what was there and not there, whatever. I'm sure you've been down this road before. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to hear what the county has to say. MS. RODRIQUEZ: We have no objection. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have a comment. This case was initially open on the 28th of April last year. I just find it odd that we're 11 months into this and now they're looking for a 90 -day extension. I think that's -- the title work and all that should have been done a long time ago, not right now. I'm a little bit apprehensive of extending it another 90 days. MS. RODRIQUEZ: It took me about four months to research all of the permitting books and stuff that we normally go through, before we even gave them the notice. Then, of course, towards the end of his 45 days or 60 days, he hired Mr. Flood, who then met with me, and we've been working on trying to see what we're going to do with the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So that's still six months. It just seems that it's being dragged out quite a bit. MR. KAUFMAN: What do you foresee happening in the next 90 days? MR. FLOOD: Well, we've got some title work coming, we're doing some investigation. Maria gave us some photos of the property. This has to do with a property that was built -- some of it was built in 1968 and'69, and we don't know exactly, you know, based on the aerials, what was there. We're conducting some investigation into -- that property was subsequently split, you know, at some time down the road, want to get Page 14 161.1A5 March 24, 2011 the title work on that, check the county records and see what was split on all that, and see if, you know -- there has to do with -- there's really basically three issues. One was an extension of a structure. There's a mobile home on the property, a mobile home. And there's a -- I don't think the laundry's a major issue, and I think there's a duplex in the back, whether it was existing or not back at the time that the -- back in '68, '69, when was it exactly put in, when was -- was there permits pulled and so forth. I mean, I'm not trying to put this off and tell you we're not trying to work on it. We -- I've just been retained here, and I'm working on it, trying to get it to a point where we can resolve it. So I'd just ask for 90 days. Unfortunately, in May my son's graduating, and I'm going to be gone for a time, two weeks. MR. KAUFMAN: That's not unfortunate; that's fortunate. MR. FLAGG: Save me a lot of money. MR. KAUFMAN: I have no problem with the 90 days, if other board members -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Tony? MR. MARINO: I don't have problem. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to extend 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 15 161 1 A5 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it's extended 90 days officially. MR. FLOOD: Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: For the record, Mr. Chair, we will schedule that for the June 23rd CEB hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sounds good. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you want to make sure that they're noticed now? MS. BAKER: We'll send them notice. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That concludes all of our motions for an extension of time. Now we move on to public hearings, B, stipulations. The first case is Sanchez, CESD20100005061. Are the respondents here? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read the stipulation into the record, please. MR. WALKER: Yes, I will, sir. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondents shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate the violation by: Obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit request, required inspection to be performed and passed through a Certificate of Completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. 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. The respondent -- if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County sheriffs to enforce the provision of agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Page 16 161 A5 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: How much was the op costs again? MR. WALKER: $80.86. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay. Good morning. MR. SANCHEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MR. SANCHEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. What's the zoning there? Does it -- is it compatible with having three mobile homes on the property? MR. WALKER: No, it isn't. It's zoned Residential Multifamily 6. MR. KAUFMAN: So the mobile homes are going to be removed, I assume? MR. WALKER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Are the mobile homes occupied at the present time? MR. WALKER: Yes, they are. MR. KAUFMAN: And do you have sufficient time to have the people removed from the mobile homes? I'm seeing "no" over here, "yes" here. MR. SANCHEZ: We tried working with them peoples. I already tell them what the situation is right now, and we have to remove the motor (sic) homes. But in this case, they don't -- there's nowhere to go right now. The peoples, they don't got nowhere to go. So I'm just asking, give me time, you know, for them people, they can -- looking for someplace to go, and we can start to do -- you know, like removing them. MR. KAUFMAN: Do we foresee this as being a problem going down the line if the people won't move out? Page 17 16 I arch 24, 2011 MR. WALKER: I don't, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. They can get the assistance of the -- according to the stipulation -- MR. WALKER: Is that correct? MR. KAUFMAN: -- the Collier County sheriff -- MR. WALKER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: -- to help you. I don't want to put you in a box with this. Okay. The stipulation shows 80.86; those are the court costs. I have no problem. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions? Entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And it carries. A hundred and twenty days. If you run into any problems, please notify us before the time runs out. MR. SANCHEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you. MR. SANCHEZ: Thank you. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. Page 18 161 1 A5 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. Moving to the next stipulated agreement. It's going to be Mainscapes Naples, LLC. And that's CESD20080000034. That's five zeros. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you want to state your name and read it in, please. MR. BALDWIN: Investigator Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $82.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Two, abate all violations by: Obtain a Collier County building permit for improvements made within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the permit is issued. Upon receipt of permit, request inspections and obtain Certificate of Completion within 90 days of the day the permit was issued, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the Certificate of Completion is obtained. Three, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request that the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate all violations and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. For the record, could you state your name and your relationship to the corporation. MR. CLIFFORD: My name's James Clifford, and I represent the construction company they've hired to handle their situation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And ma'am? MS. PARTINGTON: Kristin Partington, an employee of Mainscape. Page 19 161 1 A 5arch`24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Are either one of you registered agents for the LLC? MS. PARTINGTON: No. MR. CLIFFORD: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Have you been given authority to represent that corporation here today? MS. PARTINGTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it okay that I get both -- one or both, whoever's going to actually be accepting this agreement, to just state on the record that you've been given the authority to speak on the corporation's behalf. MS. PARTINGTON: Yes, myself, I've been given the authority. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. We just went through our rules, so we're fresh on these and trying to do the right thing. Do you understand everything that was read and agreed to in the agreement? MS. PARTINGTON: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is there any questions from anyone on the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. This started in 2008. It's almost three years old. Is there some reason that we should know about to help on -- MR. CLIFFORD: Yes, sir, there is. After the SDP was actually approved and signed off, the violations for the structure, they were actually violations under a residential structure, the modifications. So after I met with Mr. Noonan at the county, it's brought to my attention we have to go in for a change of occupancy, which is ADA compliant, due to the new usage of the building. So that's what I'm going in for permit for, and that will rectify his violations on that structure. MR. BALDWIN: They could not apply for a permit back in Page 20 1 6 1 1 A5 + Mar 24, 2011 2008 because they were going through a Site Development Plan. And once the Site Development Plan was approved, they could apply for the permits for the modifications that they made to the structure and to the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a 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. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Thanks very much, and let us know if you run into any issues where you'll need additional time before you run out of time. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. MR. CLIFFORD: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Last case under stipulations is going to be Stan and Nancy Spence, CEV20100006752. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MS. SPENCE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are you Mrs. Spence? MS. SPENCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you understand -- I apologize. Page 21 161 1A 4 arch 24, 2011 Let's -- getting ahead of myself. Investigator, you want to state your name and read it in. MR. BALDWIN: Patrick Baldwin, Investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it's agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two, abate all violations by: Moving recreational vehicles to the rear of the property, storing in a completely enclosed building or removing recreational vehicles from the mobile home zoned property and remove connected utilities, as vehicles are not to be used for the living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes, within 10 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Four, 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: Okay. Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Since the respondent's here and agreed to the stipulated agreement, are there any issues with the short time frame? MS. RAWSON: That is a very short time frame. I think we probably need to ask her if she can accomplish it by then. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ms. Spence? MS. SPENCE: I am pressured, because first of all, I just found out about this last week when I got this in the mail. Just recently Page 22 161 1 �5 March 24, 2011 moved back into this residence. My husband is in a nursing home. He went a little coocoo. I guess he knew about it, and nothing was said to me. And I've done everything. I've had AAA out there, I've had my brother, all trying to start it. That's the only problem now. I've moved one travel trailer. I've sold it. And the motor home is what I'm hoping. I plan to move it to the other side of the yard, but I can't get it started. So maybe it would be nice to have a little more time than 10 days just to be sure, because I need help to get a new battery. I think I need a new battery. It's, you know -- and it's just a matter of starting it and moving it. I mean, I don't have a problem with abiding by the rules of the code enforcement at all. And I must say, Mr. Baldwin's been very, very kind and considerate and helpful. I just was not aware of the whole situation till I moved back -- I just got back into this residence in end of December. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And there's nobody going to be living in the mobile home? MS. SPENCE: Oh, nobody ever lived in it. It's just my recreational vehicle. I use it once a year, if I'm lucky, so -- haven't used it in over a year now because I've been out of the home with my teenage daughter, and I had to go to an apartment to avoid the situation with my estranged husband. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Baldwin, any objection to changing the stipulated agreement for more time? MR. BALDWIN: No objections, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just, Mrs. Spence, do you have a time frame that you'd like? It's your stipulated agreement. As long as the county agrees, you can -- MS. SPENCE: Just 30 days, I think, would be fair. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Acceptable for the county? MR. BALDWIN: That's acceptable. She has been trying really hard since becoming aware. Page 23 ..r. { i y A 5ar24, 2011 MS. SPENCE: I have all week. I've got a friend in the hospital that's been in ICU for almost two weeks now. I've been running back and forth doing that, and trying to take care of this effortlessly (sic), but -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to extend it to 30 days from today. MS. SPENCE: Okay. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: 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. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any so you do have 30 days. And let us know if you run into additional problems prior to the 30 days. MS. SPENCE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And speaking on behalf of the board, we're really sorry about everything that you're going through. MS. SPENCE: Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. MS. SPENCE: Where do I pay the 86? CHAIRMAN KELLY: The investigator will help you with that, and unfortunately we have no control over it. That's something that's imposed by the county. MS. SPENCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That clears all of our motions and stipulation. Page 24 161 3 A&A, 2011 Now we're moving on to C, hearing. Moves us all the way to Case No. 7, B Q Concrete, LLC, CELU20100021891. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 1.04.01(A) and Section 2.02.03. Description of violation: Accessory structure on the property without a principal structure on the same lot. Location/address where violation exists: 4790 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida, 34119, Folio 37925940001. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: B Q Concrete, LLC, 6017 Pine Ridge Road, No. 329, Naples, Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: December 14, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 7, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 7, 2011. Date of reinspection: February 8, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. I'd like to now turn it over to Investigator Mucha. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Mucha, one second, real quick. Since we're dealing with a corporation, sir, can I have you state your name for the record and your relationship to the LLC. MR. QUARLES: Yes. I'm Buddy Quarles. I'm the president of the LLC. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. MR. QUARLES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is a little different than the ones you've seen prior. The county is going to go ahead and present the case, and then afterwards you'll have the chance to speak freely and also submit any testimony or evidence that you'd like. Page 25 161 1 A5 4 March 24, 2011 MR. QUARLES: Thank you. MR. MUCHA: All right. Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Property- Maintenance Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20100021891 dealing with violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 1.04.01(A) and 2.02.03, described as an accessory structure on the property without a principal structure on the same lot. Violation location is 4790 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, 34119. Folio number is 37925940001. Personal service was given on January 7, 2011. I have a couple numbers I'd like to submit into evidence. And I've shared these with Mr. Quarles this morning. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, go ahead. MR. MUCHA: The first is just an aerial taken off the property appraiser's, just to give you an idea of the property. And there's the garage that's on there. And this next document is actually clarification from staff in regards to accessory structures, and it basically states that an accessory structure, by definition, requires a principal structure on the same lot to which it is an accessory use. And it goes on to -- which is kind of -- match what's going on here. Page 26 A 1 b ! 1 March 24, 2011 Actually, if I could just -- okay. In all zoning districts, therefore, an accessory structure may be constructed on a lot adjacent to the lot on which the principal structure is located when the lots are under common ownership. And this is what happened at the time when this garage was built. This requires the submittal of a signed affidavit stating that the accessory structure will be removed if the lots are ever separated and /or sold individually. This affidavit must be recorded in the public records, and a copy of the affidavit must be submitted along with the application for the building permit for the accessory structure, and I do have that such affidavit. And this was filed back in 1996, and it basically states that I shall not sell Lot 1 without the simultaneous issuance of the building permit for the structure to be built on Lot 1. So fast - forward to October 2010, Mr. Quarles purchased the lot, and none of this information was made available to him. He was under the impression that he had, according to him, two years to build a primary structure on the lot. And that's basically where we're at. I mean, I've had a lot of talks with him, and he just needs time, and it's something that I couldn't grant him. And I figured we'd come to the Code Enforcement Board. You guys have the authority to grant him the time that he needs, and that's where it's at basically. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions for county from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mr. Quarles, feel free to speak plainly and let us know what you think. MR. QUARLES: Yeah. About the house, I mean, about the property about -- when he said it. I want to build a house on it. I'm having a little bit of issues. I'm getting divorced. Kind of held me Page 27 161 1 A barcl4, 2011 back a little bit. I'm going to build a house on it. I need about six months to do it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you gotten any of the preliminary, getting a contractor, building permit? MR. QUARLES: I'm a builder. I'm a GC myself. I'm going to do it myself. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. QUARLES: I have some plans I'm looking for and different things, engineering. It takes -- you know, it takes a little bit of time to get all that. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you think six months is a realistic time frame? MR. QUARLES: It'd be real close. MR. MARINO: That's what I was going to ask. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. MARINO: I was going to ask the same question. Does he think the six months is going to be enough time? MR. QUARLES: I mean, I would like more time. MR. MORINO: Are you looking for six months till completion of the whole project, the building of the home? MR. QUARLES: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, the first thing we need to do is determine whether or not a violation exists. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion a violation does exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. OEM 161iA5 o4 March 24, 2011 MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. QUARLES: This affidavit, when I bought the property, I never seen this until today. He just gave this to me. Never, never seen it. And he's been real good, working with me real good, he has, Joe has, calling me back. But I just wanted to let you know, I didn't know anything about this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm not a legal expert, but it sounds like you may have some recourse. MR. QUARLES: Yeah, sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry that you're stuck with this. Believe me, you're not alone. We've seen -- almost on a monthly basis we see people in your same position, and unfortunately in this county, all of those violations go with the property, whoever owns them at that time. MR. QUARLES: Right. So -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think you've already sensed some compassion amongst the board. We'll try to carve out an agreement to where -- that will give you the time that you need to come into compliance without any additional headaches. MR. QUARLES: Great. I appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Joe, do you have a recommendation from the county? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required permits, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy to build a principal structure on a property or demolish the accessory structure on the property within blank days or a fine of blank for each day the Page 29 161 1 A5 ' March 24, 2011 violation continues. 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 have a question or two or three. Number one, is that -- is it a garage that's on the back of the property? MR. QUARLES: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: And it is being used as a garage at this time? MR. QUARLES: Nobody's using it. MR. KAUFMAN: Nobody's using it. MR. QUARLES: No. MR. KAUFMAN: It says, no traffic going back and forth. MR. QUARLES: No. Once in a while I go on a Sunday with my child, you know -- I have a little boy -- and I ride the four - wheeler on the property. That's it. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I don't know if I should ask this, but how did this come about? Is this an anonymous complaint? MR. MUCHA: This was actually an anonymous complaint. And I think what happened was, that he was out at the property cleaning it up a little bit from -- because the previous owner, I guess, had left a lot of stuff, and he was over there cleaning. And I think he had some guys from his company there helping him, and they called in and said, well, this guy's working out of this garage and is not supposed to be doing this, and that's kind of how it came onto our radar. MR. KAUFMAN: I have no concern in extending the necessary time to apply for a building permit. And my only concern would be that probably a neighbor someplace is the one that was concerned Page 30 A5 1 j ' arch 24, 2011 about what was going on there -- MR. QUARLES: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: -- since it was an unpermitted occasion. Six months in Collier County seems like an awful short term to get everything done. But as long as it's in the works, I don't know -- how long do you think that would take you to approve your plans and start the ball rolling? MR. QUARLES: I'm thinking about two months. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. Does the structure, primary structure, have to be CO'ed for this structure to be allowed, or does it just -- is it necessary just to have a permit pulled for a primary structure? MR. QUARLES: Yes. Just a permit for the primary structure. I went to planning and talked to them about that. That building was CO'ed and everything. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, no, no. What I'm trying to ask is, that structure right now is not allowed. When does it become allowed; at the time that you apply for a permit for the primary structure, which would be your house, or upon CO of that structure? That's my question. MR. QUARLES: I don't know that. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. The house would have to be CO'ed for him to be able to -- for that garage to be legal. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. The wording of this recommendation is -- the first -- No. 1, obtain all required permits, inspections, certificates of completion/occupancy to build. To build. I mean, if you have a CO, it's not to build. It's -- the "build" part is probably not correct. It probably should read something that -- must obtain a certificate of occupancy or completion for primary structure on the property. Because it's not -- getting a permit or inspections won't make it legal this -- Page 31 16 Match 2,'1011 MR. MUCHA: I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: So I think rewording of that. I'm in the feeling that we should give him -- considering that, you know, he's going to build it himself, that 360 days would be appropriate, with -- with the -- knowing that you can't use that structure for -- it has to remain vacant. MR. QUARLES: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: You know, you own a business. I'm not sure where you're running that business out of, and we don't want to see the business being running -- run out of this garage. But I would want to reword that where it would say, "must obtain certificate of completion/occupancy of a primary structure on the property or demolish the accessory structure on the property within 360 days, or a fine of $150 for each day the violation continues." CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, did you get that? MS. RAWSON: I think I did. MR. LEFEBVRE: Jean, does that make -- is it a little clearer that way? Do you see -- MR. KAUFMAN: Could I modify? Along with what Mr. Lefebvre's saying, I'd like to have two time frames in there. You said that you thought you could get the ball rolling within 60 days. So I'd like to add 90 days -- instead of 60 -- 90 days to get the balling rolling, and then the 360 days to complete the effort. MR. QUARLES: Yes, sir. And that's -- just getting CO, 360 days to have the CO finaled? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. And I think what Mr. Kaufman is trying to say is, you must receive the permit within 90 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Ninety days. MR. QUARLES: Okay. That's perfect. I'll take that. MR. LEFEBVRE: But you have to receive the permit, but everything has to be CO'ed within 360 days. So it wouldn't be 90 days and then another 360 days beyond that. Do you follow what I'm Page 32 161 1 A5 March 24, 2011 saying? MR. QUARLES: Yeah, perfect. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: However, we've got to be careful with the double jeopardy thing. How would he want to word that as far as the time frames for fines and whatnot? MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, I think -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's say a year and a half goes by and nothing was done, does he get fined on both the permit and not having the structure CO'ed? MR. KAUFMAN: It's how you slice the baby. If it's $150 a day after one year, how much is it after 90 days? In other words, starting today you have 90 days. Everything is -- there are no fines. After 90 days, let's say you get the permit 95 days, what would the jeopardy be in those five days that you went over? And in all likelihood, as long as good faith is going on, I'm sure that you could come back to the board to have that taken care of, the extension of time there. I think going with the 150 that you had for 360 days would work, and maybe they could -- this could be brought back to us in 90 days to see what's going on. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what you're asking for is 90 days for the permit to be pulled or $150 fine? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then 360 days from today to complete, or another $150. MR. QUARLES: Yes, sir. That's fair. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that what you're -- Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'd like to address both issues. One, Gerald, was yours. You were talking about making sure that a certificate of occupancy was definitely part of it. In other words, you can't just go pull a permit, not do anything, just keep extending the permit, and comply. But in the first line of county's recommendation, Page 33 161 1 A5 A March 24, 2011 it does say, "and certificates of completion/occupancy." So I think it's not just the permits to build. They also have to have the CO in order to comply with this order. And I think that -- I think it covers what your concern is. We can maybe ask Jean just to make sure, but -- MS. RAMSEY: When do you want the CO? Not 90 days, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: Within 360 days. MS. RAWSON: Three hundred sixty days. So it's 90 days to build -- to pull the permits to build, or 150. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. RAWSON: And then 360 days to get the CO, or 150. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. RAMSEY: Is there ever any time -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Or demolish. MS. RAWSON: I was going to ask you about that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or demolish the building. MS. RAWSON: Does he demolish within 90 or 360? MR. LEFEBVRE: Within 360. MR. QUARLES: I'll build. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think I've complicated this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think my point is, I think the county's recommendation is -- actually gives everyone perfect clarity, and the reason why I also say is because the respondent is obviously very willing to work with us in any way. He's eager to get this done. I think by requiring the permit in 90 days when he knows that he could get a permit, build a home, and get it CO'ed in six months, I think that might be putting just a little bit too much pressure on the front end. I suggest, let's just give him 360 days to do everything and, you know, keep it simple. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay with me. MR. LEFEBVRE: I haven't made a motion, formal motion, I guess. Page 34 161 1 Ma M4, 261 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: But I guess we'll scrap everything we talked about and make -- 360 days to get a CO, and if you do not have a CO, you will have to demolish the accessory structure and you will be -- there will be a fine of $150 per day. MR. QUARLES: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. MR. QUARLES: That's good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? That's a motion, I MR. LEFEBVRE: That's a motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second. MR. MARINO: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. You've got almost a year to get it taken care of, whether you're going to demo or build a new structure. MR. QUARLES: I'll build definitely. I'll just let you know, Joe's been a very good help. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Terrific. MR. QUARLES: He's a great guy to work with. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. QUARLES: Thank you. Page 35 1611 A5 ii March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks for your help. Okay. Next? I believe we go all the way down to what is the emergency case, No. 11, is that correct, on the agenda? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we don't have any paperwork, so I'll leave it to you to read it in. MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CEPM20110003398, Melissa K. and Joseph L. Barrs, violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 26 -231, Subsection 2. Description of violation: Occupied structure that had water disconnected by City of Naples Utilities due to nonpayment of bill. Location/address where violation exists: 3815 Estey Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio 26580720004. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Melissa K. and Joseph L. Barrs, 3815 Estey Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: March 21, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 23, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: Immediately. Date of reinspection: March 23, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. I would like to now turn the case over to Investigator Mucha. MR. MUCHA: Good morning, again. For the record, Joe Mucha, Property- Maintenance Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20110003398 dealing with violation Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -231, Subsection 2, described as an occupied property with the water disconnected by City of Naples Utilities. Violation/location is 3815 Estey Avenue, Naples, 34104. Folio Page 36 �o 1 1 A5 March 24, 2011 No. is 26580720004. Service was given by posting of the property and the courthouse on March 23, 2011. This case initiated back on March 16th. We had received a complaint from another department of the county that was at the property making a repair to the sewer cleanout that the water was shut off and that the structure was occupied. That date I made a site visit to the property and met with the occupant, Shannon. And she confirmed that the water is currently shut off. And she stated that they were going down to pay the bill that day. Before I left work for that day, I contacted City of Naples Utilities, and as of 3:30 no one had been down to pay the bill. And I'd actually went on vacation, so my supervisor the following day contacted the occupant, and she stated that the water was turned back on. And he followed up with City of Naples Utilities, and they advised that they had no record of the bill being paid and that the meter should be locked. So when I came back on March 21 st, I had contacted City of Naples Utilities, and they had sent somebody out to disconnect the water, and that they were actually going to remove the meter. I guess the occupants of the home had been reconnecting the water themselves in some fashion. And I spoke to the occupant, and she stated that her boyfriend's parents own the house. And researched and found out that the house is in foreclosure, so I think they're basically kind of squatting there. The water bill is over $1,000 and has not been paid since May of 2010. So I made another site visit on March 22nd. I met with the residents again. They couldn't give me any contact information for the owners, saying they don't have a phone. One lives out of state and one lives in Golden Gate somewhere. They couldn't give me no information on that. Page 37 161 .0 5. 24"2011 She said that she was going to go down and try to have the water put in her name. And I told her that, you know, you're still going to be responsible for this bill before you, you know, are able to switch it over to your name. And at that point I just told them I was going to be taking it to court, so -- and they have not made any efforts, and the water meter has actually been removed by the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have a suggestion? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wait. Let's get a violation first. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that there's a violation. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Now do you have a suggestion on this? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. 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 to abate all violations by: Restoring the water to the property with an active and valid account with City of Naples Utilities or vacating the premises until such time that the water is restored to the property with an active and valid account with the City of Naples Utilities within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank for each day the violation conditions. 161 1 A5 -4 March 24, 2011 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 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: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you had any -- you haven't had any contact with the owners of this property, correct? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. I've only spoken to the -- a guy that identified himself as the son of the owner, and he's basically stated that he doesn't have a contact number for his father. So I don't know. I'm just taking his word for it, but -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You don't even know who these people are? MR. MUCHA: Technically not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jen, can you move that up a little bit so I can see the bottom part of it. Okay. There's nothing more than two. Okay, thanks. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, what kind of assistance can the Sheriffs Department offer? MR. MUCHA: They might be able to help us get them removed. I mean, I've had situations before where there's been utilities shut off and people were kind of squatting. And sometimes -- I don't know if they can -- legally can, but sometimes they show up and, you know -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The people just disappear? MR. MUCHA: Sometimes they'll decide, you know, it's best not to get -- you know, get the county out here and the sheriffs. You know, they don't want to draw attention to themselves sometimes, so -- I don't know if they can legally have them removed, but I mean -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Because the only address you have right now for them is Estey? Page 39 161 1Q5 k March 24, 2011 MR. MUCHA: The same -- the same address, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you done any research to see -- to check that name to see if they own any other property in the county? MR. MUCHA: No, they don't own any other property in the county. The only thing I can find is that the property is in foreclosure, Bank of New York, and I've spoken to the foreclosure investigator. But basically he told me that if it's occupied, the bank's not going to be able to do anything about it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would they release any information on addresses or anything to you? MR. MUCHA: I could check with them. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm just saying, you know, if you can find out if these people even belong there. MR. MUCHA: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, I know it's not our case really, but -- let me get back to this then, to the violation and recommendation. I mean, it's going to be hard to notice the owners because we don't have a good address. MR. MUCHA: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So, I mean, the shorter time period, it doesn't really matter. Jean, I have a question for you. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Kind of a quandary here, giving extra time so he can maybe find a good address versus people living there. You know, I want to give ample notice to these people. With all the -- with the circumstances of it being in foreclosure and so forth, they probably know the situation. Is there anything, liability, for giving like 15 days and giving the investigator time to find a good address for proper notice? MS. RAWSON: Well, that's up to you, and you're giving the squatters 15 more days. 1611 A5 March 24, 2011 MR. MUCHA: Right. MS. RAMSEY: But they have no water, right? MR. MUCHA: Yes, ma'am. MS. RAWSON: Okay. MS. BAKER: And just as a reminder, we are only bound by what's on the tax collector's page. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, right. MS. BAKER: That's what we're bound by state statute. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So in other words, you are able to get good service even though -- MS. BAKER: Right, right. MS. RAWSON: Sure. He's the owner of record. They are the owner of record of this property. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. With that being said, I'm going to go with seven days of this hearing or a fine of -- what's the maximum we can -- MR. KAUFMAN: A thousand a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: A thousand? I would go with $500 a day. MR. KAUFMAN: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. And it carries. Seven days, $500 per day. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Investigator. Page 41 161 1 A5 March 24, 2011 All right. Moving on to old business, A, motion for imposition of fine and liens. Number 1, Sara Barrera, CESD20080005775. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Supervisor, would you like to read it in? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. This concerns Board of County Commissioners versus Sara Barrera. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Kitchell, sorry. Could you give your name for the record. MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry. Kitchell Snow. K- I- T- C- H- E -L -L, S- N -O -W. The location is 202 Washington Avenue, Immokalee, Florida, converted the open carport into a master bedroom. Past orders on February 26, 2009. The Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and 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, OR4434, Page 1368, for more information. An extension of time was granted on June 25, 2009. See the attached order of the board, OR4470, Page 2691, for more information. Additional -- an additional extension of time was granted from February 25, 2010. See the attached order of the board, OR4546, Page 1048, for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB order as of March 3, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 3, 1 and 3, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period of February 26, 2011, and March 3, 2011, 6 days, for a total of $1,200. Item No. 7, operational costs of $86.71 have been paid. Total amount to date is $1,200. And for the record, this was Maria Rodriguez's case, and I'm very Page 42 lb l,1 t March .2011 familiar with it. This was the case where they had to go before the Board of County Commissioners to get an extension of time to grant them what they wanted to do. They ran up to the date to call -- the last day to call their inspections in. The gentleman who was supposed to come inspect was on vacation because it was exotic. So they got it done as soon as they could. I believe they worked very diligently. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you. Any comments from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. 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. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. What the board just did was basically thank you for your working so hard in everything that you had to go through. There are no fines at all. MR. BARRERA: Thank you. MS. BARRERA: Thank you. MR. BARRERA: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Have a good day. Next case, CESD20100017221, Carlos Brett Macias and Marisol Macias. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are the respondents here? MR. PAUL: No, they're not. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 43 161 1 A5 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: You want to just state your name for the record and then read in the order. MR. PAUL: Absolutely. For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This is CEB Case No. CESD20100017221 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 6290 Westport Lane, Naples, Florida, Folio 38220760008. Description: Unpermitted pool and pool cage. Past orders: On November 18, 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, OR4629, Page 288, for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of March 24, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between February 17, 2011, and March 24, 2011, 36 days, for the total of $7,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs in the amount of $81.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $7,281.15, and they're still in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. 1611A5 - March 24, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Investigator Paul. Next case, Case CESD200100009316, Malcolm Gianella. I apologize if I said that wrong. MR. PAUL: I think you got it. MR. ZORKA: I'm just representing. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Investigator, would you like to state your name and read it in again. MR. PAUL: Yes. Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This is Board of County Commissioners versus Malcolm Gianella, violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 5097 20th Court Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio 36239440007. Description: Garage was converted to storage space with no permits. Past orders on October 28, 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 orders of the board, OR4623, Page 1810, for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of March 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Page 45 161 1 A5 , March 24, 2011 Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between February 26, 2011, and March 22, 2011, 25 days, for the total of $5,000. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $81.43 have been paid. Total amount to date is $5,000. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Hello, sir. Good morning. MR. ZORKA: Hi. Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your name for the record. MR. ZORKA: Philip Zorka (phonetic). CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And if you have any comments about the case, we'd love to hear them. MR. ZORKA: Yeah. We're just going to ask that the fines be abated. Malcolm wasn't able to be here today because he's at work. He got a little bit of a slow start because he was having financial problems. He is employed fully now. Pulled his permits in January. Hired somebody to help him. She did her part, he did his part and, unfortunately, there was a huge miscommunication at the end. I got involved on Monday, called everybody. And it turns out that everything was finished, but they didn't communicate with each other. Got the CO the next day, and now we're here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: County, you've been involved in this case. Is there any -- MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- anything else we should know? MR. PAUL: No. As soon as I spoke with the gentleman on Monday, I did advise him of what was going on, and I told him that they just had to have the inspections done and obtain the CO, and he had it done immediately, the day after actually. So he did work diligently, and we have no objection. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. EM 1IA5 arch 2 , 2011 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. MORINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. Thanks. MR. PAUL: Thank you very much. MR. ZORKA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Represented well. MR. ZORKA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case, Case CESD20090010785, Guillermo and Susana Mora. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) THE INTERPRETER: I will be translating for them. (The interpreter was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English, and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hi, Patty. Do you want to just state your name and read it in, please. MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli, Supervisor of Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a Board of County Commissioners versus -- and I'm sorry I'm going to ruin your name -- Guillermo Gorostieta and Susana L. Mora, the respondents. The violation is a Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1, Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), Collier Page 47 161 1 A 5 March 24, 2011 County Code of Laws, Chapter 22. The location is Folio No. 00769320005. The description of the violation are several structures on the property to include a wooden shed, metal addition to the wooden shed, a stand-alone shed in the rear of the property, and an addition made to the east side of the mobile home. The past order on June 24, 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, OR4583, Page 2853, for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders. And I'd like to make a correction here. It's not February 28th. They were in compliance with the CO by February the 14th. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period between December 22, 2010, and February 14, 2011, and that comes to 55 days, for a total of$8,250. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$81.43 has been paid. And the totals amount -- I don't have that since we changed the amount -- let me see. CHAIRMAN KELLY: 8331.43. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. MS. BAKER: 8,250. MS. PETRULLI: $8,250 plus operational costs. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Have been paid? MS. PETRULLI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any comments or questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? Page 48 161 ' 1 A 5 March 24, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. No more fines. Thank you very much for working so hard. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case, CEPM20100018257, Robert and Serita Brown. Respondents are not here, I don't believe. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your name and read the order for the record. MR. MUSSE: Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20100018257, Board of County Commissioners versus Robert E. Serita -- Robert E. and Serita D. Brown. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, building and building regulations, Article VI, Sections 22-231, Subsection 15. Location of violation is 8622 Pebblebrooke Drive, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 66262006349. Description of violation: A pool not being maintained in a sanitary condition. Past orders: On November 18, 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 Page 49 16 I 1 A 5 March 24, 2011 ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the board, OR4629, Page 269, for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of February 11, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 2 and 4, fines at the rate of$150 per day for a period between December 19, 2010, through February 11, 2011, 55 days, for a total of$8,250. Order Item No. 5, operational costs in the amount of$80.29 have not been paid. Order Item No. 6, abatement costs of$827.50 have not been paid. Total amount to do -- to date, $9,157.79. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, I do. Go ahead, Mr. Kaufman. MR. KAUFMAN: This thing was abated by the county then? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other question I have, under Order No. -- Order Item No. 2 and 4, it says, "between a period of December 19, 2010, and February 8th," not February 11th. And is 55 days through February 8th or through February 11? MR. MUSSE: That's a good question. I need to get my calculator. Right here it has the February 11th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. I see, you know, up above it says February 11. But I just want to make sure the 55 days is accurate. MR. MUSSE: I would have to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: We have a Jen nod. MS. BAKER: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just -- Page 50 A 1iSI arch 2 , 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So is it the 11th or the 8th? MR. KAUFMAN: Our papers say the 8th. That's why he's asking the question, December 19th through February 8th. MS. BAKER: Oh. You have an updated copy in your packet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. MS. BAKER: I think that's what the misunderstanding is. It's February 11th, 55 days. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Okay. Mr. Musse, we've got one more for you, I think. Case CEPM2010007862, Joseph and Maria Ranghelli. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUSSE: This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20100007867, Board of County Commissioners versus Joseph and Maria Ranghelli. Original violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, building and building regulations, Article VI, property maintenance code, Sections 22-231, Subsection 15. Location of violation is 11169 Longshore Way West, Naples, Florida. Folio number is 56101040007. Description of violation: Dirty, green pool. Past orders: September 23, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board Page 51 161 '1 A 5 March 24, 2011 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, OR4610, Page 2374, for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of February 8, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 2 and 4, fines at the rate of$100 per day for a period of between October 24, 2010, and February 8, 2011, 108 days, for the total of$10,800. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$80.86 have not been paid. Order Item No. 6, abatement costs of$742 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $11,622.86. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. On No. 6, that 742, is that to seal the top of the pool; is that why they -- the fines don't continue to accrue? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I make a motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. MR. MUSSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Investigator. Page 52 161 1 A 5 March 24, 2011 And last case of the day, CESD2090010558 (sic). Silvano Delgado and Jorge Chavez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to state your name and read the order into the record, please. MR. ASARO: Sure. Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090010558, Board of County Commissioners versus Silvano Delgado and Jorge Chavez, respondents, violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(b), 104.5.1.4.4. Location of the property is 2556 Randall Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. is 40233560005. Description of violation is a partially built structure on the property with canceled and voided permits. Past orders: On November 18, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding -- findings of facts, 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, OR4629, Page 290, for more information. The respondents have not complied with the CEB orders as of March 24, 2011. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$150 per day for the period between February 17, 2011, through March 24, 2011, 36 days, for the total of$5,400 fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of$81.72 have not been paid, for a total amount of$5,481.72. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Thank you. Good morning. May I have you state your names for the record, please. MR. DELGADO: Oh, yes. Page 53 161 'ii A" 5 March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Are you interpreting for Silvano? MR. DELGADO: Yeah, I no listen too good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you want to --just in case, we'll swear him in anyways. (The interpreter was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English, and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you would like to make a statement and describe what's going on, we can -- THE INTERPRETER: Let me tell you something. Him speak English. The problem, him no hear too much. That why I need to be here for him, for him to speak English. MR. DELGADO: All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If I can, let me explain the situation from our standpoint. It's kind of a rule that we don't stop the fines once they're presented to us if the violation still exists. So if he's going to offer testimony, we will -- we'll hear it, but we don't necessarily want to rehear the entire case. If you'd like to -- MR. DELGADO: Yeah. You know my problem. This property -- I lost all my property in two oh seven, okay. I'm going to pay here -- they lost the property in 2008 at the courthouse. I lost the property. After two years, having a problem for the code enforcement, the Bank of America come back the property. No, no, no. This is your problem. I don't want a problem for Collier County. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hang on one second. You okay? MR. DELGADO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sony. MR. DELGADO: All right. They said -- the bank, I call all the time. No, no, no, no. I don't want a problem. You know a lawyer? You no talk to me. This is your problem. I come back to property. I don't have any money for pay. When you do have any money, you pay. No is my problem. I clean my hand. I tell them, I having a problem for Collier County. Page 54 161 1 A 5 March 24, 2011 But, you know, they would come buy the property, be for free, after checking the paper. No, you need pay $111,000. I don't have any money. I am in foreclosure. All my property, I lost everything. I lost my business. I lost all. No more talk for you. Only for lawyer or Collier County. No you. That's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. DELGADO: And before going here, maybe 90 days, I call the bank. After -- no more questions for you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I remember this case. MR. DELGADO: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: That you partially built a house and you ran out of money or whatever, and the bank was foreclosing on the house. MR. DELGADO: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: They stopped and said they didn't want the house. They wanted to give it back to you; is that correct? MR. DELGADO: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: So they were giving you the house with, what I understand -- and, Jean, correct me, because I remember I asked you this question -- with no debt. They were just giving it back to you. MS. RAWSON: I don't think it was with no debt. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It was an assumption on our part. But what they did it they stopped foreclosure proceedings without actually completing the foreclosure so that the property remains in his name. MR. KAUFMAN: Because I remember asking the question, if they're giving you the house back and they're stopping their foreclosure, does that mean that the property is now yours and you have no mortgage on it? MR. DELGADO: Yeah, having any -- no, I no pay nothing. MR. KAUFMAN: So they still want you to pay the mortgage; is that what I'm understanding? Page 55 161 1 A 5 March 24, 2011 THE INTERPRETER: Yes. The bank say him -- when him have any money, just call and start making payments. You know, it's not staying in foreclosure or the bank say, that one is not the problem for the bank. When -- you take time, you take all the time you need. When you have money, you just call me and start making payments for the house. But that one is not my problem. You need to resolve the problem with Collier County. It's all they say, the bank. MR. KAUFMAN: So it sounds like they were doing a loan modification. THE INTERPRETER: No, it's not giving nothing, any paper, no say nothing. Just say, you take the time, when you have the money, for him have any social security benefits, for him having 70 -- 67 years old, and him talk to -- about that one. It's not too much money, you know, for -- everything, for him lost the whole business. And the bank says, this is not my problem. This is your house. You take your house. I don't need it. I don't want it. MS. BAKER: I have some information that might be helpful to you. I have the notice of voluntary dismissal from the bank, if you want to see it. Usually the notice of dismissal just dismisses the foreclosure. It goes back to the same status that it was prior to them starting the foreclosure process. MR. KAUFMAN: And if we impose the fine, the fine is -- since the bank is not taking this over, the bank (sic) would go against the owner of record. MS. BAKER: The lien would go against the owner of record, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So that the amount of money that you would owe on the property would be whatever mortgage you had plus whatever this lien is. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: It doesn't sound like this is going to be paid off either way. Page 56 161 1 A 5 March 24, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Does our motion say that we -- that the county can go in and abate this? That would be an option, correct? Okay. If it's in there, then -- MS. BAKER: Yeah, we can. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- maybe that's an option the county should take, and then place the lien against the property. And a lien that the county places against the property supersedes the mortgage, correct? So that would be the option. I make a motion to impose the fines. MR. KAUFMAN: I second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. What we've done is we've imposed the fines. That moves this along in the process. There's really not much we can do until they're abated as far as reducing or stopping any fines. So we'll now leave it up to the county to decide what to do. MR. DELGADO: Okay. Other question. I am in foreclosure now. I'm bankrupt. Maybe finished two, three months. Okay? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That's fine. You continue with your proceedings as necessary, and the county will, I'm sure, take that into consideration. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you so much. MR. DELGADO: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Page 57 161 1 A F March 24, 2011 That concludes all of our imposition of fines. Now moving on to No. 6, new business. Item 1, elections. It's a yearly event for us. We pick a chairman and a vice-chairman. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a nomination. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: To nominate Ken Kelly as chair again. MR. MARINO: Second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Motion and a second. All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to nominate Mr. Kaufman as vice-chair. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And things will remain status quo. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, they will. Page 58 161 ' 1 q E March 24, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Congratulations, Mr. Kaufman. MR. KAUFMAN: Congratulations, Mr. President (sic). CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was nothing on our consent agenda, so how about reports? MS. FLAGG: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MS. FLAGG: As of March 20th the banks have expended $2,058,000 in Collier County to abate code violations, and they've abated 1,657 violations. It continues to average that the banks are spending about $18,000 per week in Collier County to abate code violations. As of the week of March 7th -- and we monitor performance statistics for the department every week. In the week ending March 7th, there were 239 new code cases open that -- just that week. There were 654 property inspections completed in that week. There were 138 cases closed with voluntary compliance. There were 142 payoff requests. A payoff request is when somebody is purchasing a property and/or paying off-- they make a request to the department. There were 122 lien search requests. And, again, that's that program that we worked in coordination with Naples Area Board of Realtors to encourage folks to get code property inspections and lien searches on the property. You had a case today where there was something that was not known by the buyer and, therefore, he bought the problem. Just in this week, this -- there were 11 lien searches completed that actually had code cases on it. So had they not done the lien search, they would have bought -- there would have been 11 properties that would have bought code issues on them. There were 81 garage sale/rec vehicle permits issued in the week. And the investigators this week are carrying 48 cases -- an average of 48 cases per investigator. Page 59 161 lA 5 March 24, 2011 Just a reminder that on the code enforcement website, which is WWW.Colliergov.net/code will take you right to the front page of the website. We have our brochure on the website that's titled "Thinking of buying a home or foreclosed property," and if you click on that, folks can bring up that full brochure and explain why it's so important to do a lien search and a property inspection before they buy a home, because in the State of Florida, the statutes require that if you buy a home with code issues on it, you also buy the code issues. So we encourage people to do their research before they buy the home so that they know exactly what they're getting into. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. I'd also like to comment that today we heard two respondents specifically mention how wonderful the investigators were to work with. And I've been on the board now for about five years -- Gerald longer than I have -- and I don't remember ever hearing that before today. So, congratulations. That really goes to show just what a terrific job you're doing in turning things around in the community as far as the Code Enforcement Department. MS. RAWSON: I would like to reiterate that, because I've been around either on the board or sitting in this chair for 15 years, and I don't believe anybody's ever said anything nice about the code enforcement. I loved it. Good for you, Diane. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. It's a great team. It really is. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That is incredible. And with your work with the community Neighborhood Task Force and, you know, getting involved in really helping to prevent blight, there should be far more compliments than what you're receiving, because you're really helping the community maintain its prestige. MS. FLAGG: Well, on behalf of the department, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Page 60 161 1 A 5 March 24, 2011 Are there any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Our next meeting date is April 28, 2011. And with that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. MORINO: I'll make a motion we adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We'll see you next month. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:38 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KE ET , Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on or as corrected Page 61 as presented �nA 6 Fiala � h 17, 2011 dS V Hiller Henning + TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF T"YIe �- COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMIS!QeWa BY .............. Naples, Florida, March 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 Govemment Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Melissa Ahem Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, 'Zoning Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Member Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Karen Homiak Bob Murray Diane Ebert Barry Klein Mist. Corres: Page 1 of 80 I@arn *A &R% la'i' 1 16 1 1 A 'March 1 A 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning everyone. Happy St. Patrick's Day. To the left is the Irish on the board; to the right is obviously the not. And I had to remain kind of neutral because I'm the chairman, so my pants are green. And the other thing today that's unique is we started at 9 o'clock. I've been here since a little after 8:00 because I thought we started at 8:30. It's going to be a hectic day. With that, if you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak could you do the roll call, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's here. MR. EASTMAN: Oh, here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You're here. Ms. Ahem? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. 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: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The addenda to the agenda, we had a revised agenda sent out approximately the same day the other one came, and it was to put the Naples Daily News item first, and I'm -- that was continued from a prior meeting. Then we'll be into -- that won't hopefully take too long, then we'll move into Olde Cypress, the three issues in Olde Cypress after that, and we'll round out the day with the Grace Romanian Baptist Church, and then the old business will be the Watershed Management Plan update. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is our -- Ray, what is -- what's our schedule like for the first meeting in April? 1 know you sent an email out in which a bunch of meetings didn't have anything scheduled. Do we have a -- how's our first April meeting look? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We have items scheduled for both meetings in April. CI AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's the date of that April meeting? MR. BELLOWS: Seventh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody know if they can't make it on April 7th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks good. Approval of the minutes. We have two sets of minutes. We have February 3rd. We'll take that first. If there's no changes, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Ebert. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 2 of 80 161 1A6 March 17, 2011 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. The second set of minutes is February 17, 2011. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I have a correction. I'll make a motion to approve, but I do have a correction. It's on Page 18 of 90. And the text says, "freed elms," and it's -- the word should be "freedoms," not "freed elms." So thank you. And I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to that correction, seconded by Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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, Ms. Caron. BCC reports. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On March 8th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the variance for the Schneller, that was the variance from the riparian line for a boat dock. 'That was approved by the board 5 -0 subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report, well, just that I forgot what day it was today, obviously, so we will -- and Mr. Casalanguida, with that -- such a last Irish name, I notice all the green you're wearing too. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Like you, Commissioner, I have my green below. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. ** *Okay. Consent agenda items. First up, first item on the consent agenda is PUDZ- 2009 -AR- 14425. This is the Addie's Corners MPUD. Does anybody have any problems with the language in the -- what was sent to us as far as the corrections go and stipulations for that item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve on the consent agenda? Page 3 of 80 16 I 1 A6 March 17. 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion, Mark. COMMISSIONER IJOMIAK: Approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Ms. Homiak. 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 STRAW: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *Second item up is CP2008 -5. It's the amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map. Any items there that need to be corrected, amended, or changed? If not, is there a motion to approve the consent item? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 1 so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Midney. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 STRAW: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *Which takes us into our regular agenda items. First one up is the advertised public hearing, and it's for PUDA- PL2010 -854, Naples Daily News BPPUD on 1100 Immokalee Road. Those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be swom in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? I guess I'll be the only one. When this came to us a couple years ago -- I don't remember when it first did -- I abstained from voting at that time and participating because of a perceived conflict of interest, because I do write for a subsidiary of the newspaper. I will take the same position today out of a perception of a conflict of interest and will not be participating or voting on this item. I will continue to chair the meeting. I've already turned in my disclosure statement to the court reporter for the record. Page 4 of SO 161 1 4 A f March 17, 2011 And with that, we'll proceed. Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Good morning. My name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Roetzel & Andress, and I'm here today on behalf of the Naples Daily News. This is a request to amend their PUD which was approved in 2006. When the PUD was first approved, detailed negotiations were conducted with the neighboring owners, one of which was the Bay Colony neighborhood, and one of the details ironed out was the specifics, very specifics, of the landscape buffer that was to exist between the PUD and the Bay Colony neighborhood in Pelican Marsh. I want to show you where the landscape buffer is to the extent we can see it on this photograph. The amendment, as I said, is to change the type of plant material specified to be planted. This is being done at the request of the Bay Colony Golf Club by the Naples Daily News to be a good neighbor. And with that, I'll answer any questions or tun) it over to Nancy, who is a landscape architect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of the applicant at this time from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not -- okay, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner, and I'm also a landscape architect for the Department of Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's short and sweet. Any questions of Nancy or the applicant on this item? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It seems like we killed a lot of trees for something that probably could have been a one -pager and this exhibit that we're seeing right now. Maybe we want to rethink on some of these things that are requests by -- as long as there's no issue with staff, that maybe we don't have to go through an entire process like this. It seems a little excessive. Anyway, I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to make sure --just one moment. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public here wishing to address this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll close the public meeting. And Ms. Caron made a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. 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: (No response.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Opposed? And I'll note that I'm abstaining. Okay, thank you. And, Bruce, when I responded to you and I said to you, this shouldn't even have come up, what I was suggesting is staff should have handled this if they could have found a way, and if they haven't found a Page 5 of 80 161 1 A6 March 17, 2011 way, recommendations for the future ought to be made so that staff can found (sic) a way not to waste money and time coming before a public process for something as minor as this when all parties are in agreement, that meaning staff, your neighbors, and yourselves. It just seemed --it just is a complete waste of time, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, 1 couldn't agree with you more, and we're looking at things like that. That's the things as far as the administrative code, administrative variance process. Any way we can look at things like this and make them simpler, we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But this board had asked two years ago -- and before your time, so it's not your fault -- that minor issues, that we get a list of them brought to us so that we can look at a way to expedite things and maybe staff could have some more -- a little more latitude. This would have been perfect. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Great example. CI AIRMAN STRAIN: So anyway. With that being said, thank you, Bruce, appreciate it. And we'll move on to the next item up. ** *This one is not going to go as quickly, but I certainly will try to figure out how we can approach it. There are three items involving the same pieces of property. And so what I'd like to do is, like we did last time, we'll discuss all three concurrently and then vote on them separately. I'll read off the three of them so you know which ones we are talking about, and then we'll go into the discussions that we picked up from last time. And we had spent five hours or so on this at the last meeting, and today's, I believe, is going to be more of a clean -up meeting as to those outstanding issues we had from last time. The items we'll be discussing are: PUDA- PL2010 -388, the Olde Cypress Development, LTD. This is for a PUD amendment. Item DOA- PL2010 -1052, the Olde Cypress Development, LTD, and Vita Pima, LLC; this is for a DRI NOPC. And the third item is PUD( PL2010- 1054, the Vita Pima, LLC; this is for a PUT) within the DRI, all in the same vicinity, all involving the same, more or less, DRI. So we'll discuss them concurrently. And, Mr. Yovanovich, before we start, are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. 1 had a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, and we've received entails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 1 spoke with Mr. Yovanovich also, and entails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Many emails. No contact otherwise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Many entails. I did talk to a couple neighbors and a few staff- - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other -- COMMISSIONE.R EBERT: -- but 1 would Tike one more thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- in today. Commissioner Strain, I was approved to have -- to be able to work on this item, participate in today's hearings; however, because of a possible perception of a conflict of interest, 1 will abstain from voting today. I will participate in the discussion, but I will abstain from voting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Ms. Aliern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Entails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Entails. Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 had a conversation — a meeting with Mr. Yovanovich, and I've received numerous emails, all of which I have passed on to staff to have distributed as they would normally distribute them in issues like this. So the next item, anybody wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Yovanovich, it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the various petitions. Page 6 of 80 1611A6 March 17, 2011 With me also today to answer questions are Brian Stock and Keith Gelder with Stock Development, and Chris Mitchell with Waldrop. Mr. Chairman, we made a list of roughly 14 or so items that needed to be addressed based on the last meeting, and what I thought I would do is kind of go through that list and show you where we addressed them in the documents you received, which I hope will be an orderly way to go through this. And what I -- what I would like to start with, really, is the HD Development PUD, since that had the most changes to it. And I know that's probably the last item in your book. But we would start with the HD Development PUD documents, and then -- and go from there if that's acceptable to the County Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Item 9C. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you want to turn in our books, you'll find an Item 9C. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I missed anything, let me know in my list. But I hope we covered it all, because we looked at the -- we looked at the tape of the meeting when we prepared this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do to keep it as simple as possible, and orderly, is that after you get done with your presentation on just that PUD, we'll ask questions of that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- new material -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then move into the next one after that if that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Great. The first item we had on our list was to update the list of permitted uses to make it clear that multifamily is only allowed on Tract A, and we addressed that on Page 1 of 11 of the PUD documents. You can see under A2, it references limited to Tract A for multifamily. The next item I had on my list was to modify the development standards table to change the side setback from 5 feet to 6 feet, and you can see that on Page -- Page 5 -- I'm song, Page 3 of 1 I that we made that change to -- the side -yard setbacks for single - family is now 6 feet versus the 5 feet we originally had. And then there was an — also there needed to be a rewording of Footnote No. 2 in the development standards table to address the side yard -- side - loaded garage setback to make it clear that you could park two cars within 23 feet. And what we did is we basically took the LDC language and incorporated that into Footnote No. 2, and that's on Page 4 of I I in your -- in your materials. The next item was in Exhibit E, which was we had a deviation request for the lakes, and we have withdrawn that requested deviation, so you will no longer see that in Exhibit E. On the master plan -- I'll put it on the visualizer for the viewing public. You have this in your packet. Again, we were asked to define the multifamily tract as Tract A, and we have clone so in the lower right -hand comer. And I've identified that as Tract A to address that comment. And then we were asked to look at construction access for the project and see if we can come up with something different than what was originally proposed with both ingress and egress off Treeline. As you can see in the lower left -hand comer of the master plan, we will get our construction access through the Olde Cypress driving range. That will be our ingress point. And then our ingress -- I'm sorry -- our egress point will be up at the project entrance. So loaded trucks will come through the driving range. Empty trucks will only use Treeline. So we've addressed the construction access issues that way. To kind of add a little wrinkle to previous discussions, we had committed to the residents that we were going to make improvements to the fitness center and we were going to make improvements to the landscaping in Logan and that we were going to -- those were -- those were the primary commitments we made. And in your package is a draft agreement we submitted to the master property owners' association with those commitments in there, together with the commitment that the R tracts, which I'll get to later, around the aqua range would remain green open space, and then also the construction access. We've addressed construction access on the master plan. There was a meeting on Monday, I believe it was, with the master property owners' association, and they have requested that instead of a separate agreement with them, they wanted those commitments to be placed in the PUD documents. And since the improvements to the fitness center and the improvements to the landscaping we believe fit Page 7 of 80 1 a 6 A 161 March 17, 2011 better in the HD Development project as far as project commitments, we would like to move those commitments exactly as you have seen them in the agreement into the development commitments of the HD Development PUD. Now, you don't have that in front of you, but I do have copies for everybody to hand out to show you how we've done that, together with the exhibits you've previously seen, as part of the agreements in your backup. So you've seen all of this information. It's where you'll find it that we're proposing to change in response to a request from the association. So if I can -- I'll have Alexis hand those out, and I'll kind of walk you through that, and then I think that would conclude the changes we would propose making to the HD Development PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, while you're paused for a moment. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking about taking the parts and pieces of the agreement and adding them to the commitment page within the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICIL Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the past we have taken agreements -- and the one that sticks out is the one at Lely Barefoot Beach with the Conservancy -- and we've attached those as exhibits to the back of the PUD. Is there a preference either way, or does it -- does staff -- and I guess I'll ask this -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, some of the provisions really are not PUD worthy, if you will, and the association would prefer not to have an agreement between itself and us. They'd rather it just be in the PUD so it's in agreement with the entire community. So I don't know that the agreement would -- it would -- it would make sense to attach it to the PUD because it would only be signed, really, by us. So we thought it would be better to go ahead and put it in the PUD. And if you'll go to Page 9 of 26 of what we just handed out, if you'll look at Item No. 4, we labeled these changes "General Commitments," and we've added Items A, B, and C. And you can see that Item A is the fitness center expansion, and then there's the exhibit that goes with the fitness center expansion that shows you exactly what we've agreed to do, and that would become Exhibit I to the PUD. Then we have the entry landscaping upgrades, and, again, that's the same paragraph we had in the agreement. And, again, we attached as Exhibit .I the entry -- the proposed changes to the landscaping. And then, finally, something came up, that wasn't in the agreement, was the concern of if we did damage to Treeline Drive as part of our construction activities, we agreed to make sure that when we -- when we go forward and bond our subdivision improvements, we provide adequate subdivision security for cost related to potential damage to Treeline Drive related to construction traffic. So that's where Item C came from. It's not something that was in the agreement but came up as further discussions occurred with the community. So we added that as Development Commitment No. C, or Letter C, to address that concern. So with that, I think that addressed all the comments related to the petition for the HD Development PUD amendment, and we're able to answer any questions you might have regarding how we addressed the comments from our last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we ask questions, 1 just want to make sure, the paper you just passed out, the only changes on that paper are the ones on Page 9 to add four general -- the No. 4, general commitment to that; is that the only additions to the PUD document'? MR. YOVANOVICH: Together with the exhibits, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, 1 understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's been no other verbal changes? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission on the HD Development portion on this at this time? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead, Ms. Eben. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You know, this is so intertwined that it's kind of difficult. Is this the HD where they are going to add this property in and these are the commitments for them? Because I -- to be honest with you, I Page 8 of 80 161 1p 6 �4arch 17.2011 was going to start out by doing a little bit of history, because we had a month to go through this -- and a little of the history on how this DRI originally was started. And it was very interesting, because it was SFWMD that I had the hardest thing getting information from. And when this was approved 28 years ago -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now you asked a question to begin with, but you didn't give me a chance to answer it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is not the DRI portion of the hearing. This is the -- purely the PUD portion for HD, which is the small project that you know as Vita something or other. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Toscana. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Vita Toscana on the south side of the site. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And these were going to be the 50 -foot lots? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what this one's about. You want to -- I mean, you could — COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do need to go into something then different right now, but it's important. think you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's quite all right. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, last time injust going through the notes -- this is difficult because it's my community. In going through the notes, it was noted that Da Vinci should have -- might have been brought into the DRI. And Rich was saying, well, there was no common ownership, there was nothing. Well, I have a friend that lives in Da Vinci, and 1 have a book here that was done in the year 2000, and it says da Vinci Estates Homeowners' Association and the Olde Cypress Master Property Owners' Association. They made --and I'll just go right to the amendments, because it's important. They made that agreement in 2000. It was marketed with Olde Cypress. And in just reading, I did not realize that before, because I was also wondering, why weren't they, you know, really put in here? And this should have been put into the DRI in 2000. So I called the regional planning. They said, "We have nothing." They did not add it in there. And so then al of a sudden -- and I started going through our other amendments. And I'm going, what is going on here? Let me just read some of these amendments for you. There were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Diane, could you pull that mike a little closer to you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Terri can hear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm worried about the public listening on television and stuff like that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The last DRI change was in 5/23 of 2000, until this change now, okay. So there was nothing. And then Mr. Trescott said no one let him know or the DCA know. These -- this is an amendment that was signed September of 2000, and this is where they put Da Vinci Estates onto our master. So they were incorporated right away into our master. And I could not find this, and it wasn't in my -- our documents that I could first find. I found it in this book. The people in Da Vinci have this. We did not have it in with ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you -- I mean, it would be nice to know -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put it on the overhead, someone, just so we can see what document it is that Ms. Ebert's talking about. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: First page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with the first page. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's the Da Vinci Estates, and I --I just always --I always just knew they Page 9 of 80 16 1 � 6 Mare 17, 2011 were really kind of part of us, but I never gave it much thought until I went and said, "Do you have documents?" It happens to be the Olde Cypress master documents that is in that book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what you are saying and -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That this should have been put into the DRI in 2000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Before you jump there, I want to understand the relevance of this document. This document is a document referring to the covenants, restrictions of Olde Cypress. Now, those are private deed restrictions. Is this also covering Da Vinci Estates; is that what you're trying to tell us? COMMISSIONER EBERT: They are in -- Da Vinci Estates belongs to our club. They pay the master. Everything is the same as the rest of us in there that is in the DRI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what I'm trying to understand is what -- how does this document link to Da Vinci Estates" That's what I'm trying to understand. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How does it link to it'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. What does Da Vinci Estates have to do with this document? Because this is a document for the Olde Cypress development, which would -- I -- unless it says Da Vinci Estates, does it -- are you telling us this includes Da Vinci Estates as well? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, this is something that was signed -- I mean, this is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Diane, I just want to make sure the record's clear. If this is a document that involves Da Vinci Estates and you're offering it as evidence that it ties Da Vinci Estates to Olde Cypress, I want to see how it does that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Then let me go on -- let me just -- because, would you believe a lot of these things are kind of tied together, and it's important. These are all our documents now. These are amendments to our Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Easements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. And I've written these myself for projects I've been involved with. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know that in writing them you have to have those applied by recorded document against the properties to which the developer wishes them to apply to. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. And I did find the easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm asking you, have these been applied/recorded against the Da Vinci Estates properties? That's the key question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where does it show in the document? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I help, at the -- I can help Ms. Ebert if she would Tike me to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're more than welcome to speak if you're going to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: To answer your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- help up get to a -- MR. YOVANOVICIL -- question, Mc Strain— COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: The PUD was adopted in, I believe it was. March of 2000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: The Da Vinci Estates PUD was adopted in March of 2000 with a separate developer. There was -- since it was the hole in the doughnut, there was an agreement reached between the developer of Olde Cypress and the developer of Da Vinci Estates to incorporate Da Vinci Estates into the master association, and I believe that's what Ms. Ebert is referring to. Since there was a hole in the doughnut, they were using the access roads of Olde Cypress. It made sense to both to share in the costs of maintaining the infrastructure and allow the residents of Da Vinci Estates to become members of the community and the golf course. That's the document she's referring to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, But I dunk we showed that last meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm trying to understand is, did you spread their covenants over Da Vinci Estates, the same covenants that were spread over Olde Cypress? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, subsequent to the adoption of the PUD, subsequent -- of the Da Vinci Estates PUD. Okay. There was a -- there's a timing lag in there. At the time the PUD was adopted, this -- these covenants Page 10 of 80 16 1 1 A 6 Mai 17, 2011 did not exist. Later on, there's no question that, yes, those covenants apply to Da Vinci Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that means the individual owners of Da Vinci Estates have these recorded against their individual -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- condominiums, lots, and parcels? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, single. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. They're single- family homes in there, yes; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed. That's what I was trying to get to. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So is that okay? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't matter whether it's okay or not. You can do that. But I think it goes to your point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But it goes to the aggregation rules you were kind of talking about, and he said he was going to wait because he didn't — Richard said he didn't think that was a big deal, and he'll just put that in later. It should have been done in 2000 is really when it should have been done, when this was signed, because it really was brought into Olde Cypress to be part of Olde Cypress. But I'm just going to go on with these amendments because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- I feel they're very important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Diane, what I was trying to get at is, I want to make sure that this board and any members of the public who are watching understand the link between the documents you're presenting, and that's what I was trying to get to with this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right, yeah. And there also was common marketing. There was common marketing among them also. Then our first amendment came up in -- March 9th of 2001, and it said -- it was the amendment to the single - family community which Olde Cypress is. And it just says that they're adding all of Unit 3 to the Olde Cypress documents, which is fine. But then there's the second amendment, and the second amendment says, gee, there was a scrivener's error. And I'm going, so they're writing this to correct a scrivener's error. And I'm thinking, boy, that sounds familiar. And so the second amendment says that they're going to modify things to correct it, and it says that -- and I'm going to use --and I'm only going to use --it has nothing against Stock. He was in this from the beginning, so I'm just going to use that name so we can continue with the discussion -- that he shall add the Exhibit A, because before it was not done, it was less A, which was the doughnut hole, and now he's saying in there that was a scrivener's error, and he wants to add it back into there, and he said the first amendment to the covenants. Well, this — and it was Page 2729, which is the one that I just gave Ray, and that was -- that was never in our document things. So something isn't -- and then what they did was they also removed the golf course property from there, which is perfectly fine, but then they added Da Vinci back in there. And we never had anything recorded for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let me understand it. You said there was -- the original approval of whatever that document is did not include Da Vinci Estates, and then they said there was a scrivener's error by omitting Da Vinci Estates, and then added it to a scrivener's error process? COMMISSIONER EBERT: And then bringing it here. But they're saying it was the first amendment. The first -- that was not the first amendment. The first amendment was Unit 3 of Olde Cypress being brought in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, which document is it you're looking at? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm looking at the second amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. To the covenants? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, and restrictions where they can add property, and that was -- and it made sense they take out the golf course, but then they put Da Vinci back in there. They said it was a scrivener's error. Now, this is the one that I went, wow. This is the third amendment. And the reason I said -- say that is because there were revisions to the DRI to annex this property, which was 28.69 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This property referring to -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: This property is what we call Amberton today, and it was annexed in. It says Page 11 of 80 1611 A March 17, 2011 right here that they sought revisions to the approved DRI, and -- but not to decorate (sic) -- that they want an annex of Bay West Property, and it was approved by the Board of Commissioners. But here is the -- it says, "Whereas, the development order is up to 1100 residential units." And upon the project Bay West Property -- Bay West property -- it was the intention of the parties at the time they entered into their agreement to incorporate lands, that upon approval of the revised DRI. Stock would convey its right to construct 400 residential units to the Bay West Property, leaving the balance of 700 residents to Olde Cypress. And in here, it says, "Now, therefore, Stock does hereby amend the declaration so that the project shall be restricted to 700 units, residential units for Olde Cypress." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, that document -- again, that's an amendment to the covenants, right? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, COMMISSIONER EBERT: But we're adding units and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but there's a -- one thing that we have to -- and that's why I keep asking what the documents are. If the documents were to have run through the county and it's a public issue, that's different than a private deed restriction. And I want to make sure we understand where the changes are happening. They're not happening in the PUD. The PUD didn't change those numbers. Those numbers are being changed by a developer's commitment and the private covenants he has with the community. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I want to understand. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, because had that document been something that the county staff had received as part of a process for either a PUD and SDP or one of the other normal processes they have to go through, then it would have been in conflict with the approved document, and they would have had to come back through through an approval process to get those densities locked in in the manner in which they're doing it by the covenants. But the covenants are not a public document in regards to the county's review. The covenants are a private document done within the community itself. So there's a big difference there, and that's why I'm trying to understand each document you bring forward to understand its -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- understand its -- how much weight it will have on the issue you're trying to describe. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I think it did, because in looking at this, they said Olde Cypress will never have more than 700 units, according to their information, that we are restricted to that. Amberton is a private community which is a condo convmunity. They are a gated community. The one next to them also is the preserve, which was -- started out as an apartment building. And it was in the good times. It got filled up quite quickly, and someone from the East Coast came and bought it and turned it into condos, which is also a gated community, which -- those two cormnunities, even though they're in the PUD, they do not belong to our master; they do not belong to the club. They have really -- other than having property there, they have nothing to do with us. They're really separate. The fourth amendment had to do with the turnover. Then, the fifth amendment that is in --which would be Vita Toscana now, this is where the property -- and it was -- the fifth amendment was done where they accepted property, and this was when Custer and HD had it. And in this, on the legal description it says, "Less and except the 1.5 acres," which is the multifamily units. And Stock does not own that. And this never included that in there. This said it was never in there. So I'm thinking, well, how can they put -- keep the number 33 there and not own the property -- and they know they don't -- but how do you use that number 33? 1 mean, that to me is -- and when you start adding up the numbers -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That document you just pulled of yours is the -- did you say is the fifth amendment? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's an amendment to the covenants? COMMISSIONER EBERT: They're all amendments to the covenants. So, in other words, they mean nothing? Page 12 of 80 161 1 A 6 MarA 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think you got two levels of approach. They -- first of all, they can't -- they can't weigh in on a zoning matter because it's a civil issue, but they could be offered as evidence that there's unified control for an aggregation point, meaning it helps to support the fact these properties should have been aggregated in the past. So I understand where you're -- I understand that part of it, and I just want to make sure we keep the documents straight, because this board is a zoning board subject to the LDC and the GMP, and we've got to keep those issues somewhat straight in how we get to our findings. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well -- and then when he's doing the PUD on the multifamily units on the 1.42 acres, Exhibit A, they said that that's where the 33 units that he wants to keep in there is going to be and that they could put up a clubhouse, a reception area -- you know, clubhouse, recreation uses, and they really -- they would not belong to Olde Cypress, per se, as we know it, but it could include swimming pools, tennis courts, fishing docks, walking -- on one - and -a- quarter acres? I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if there was a way to fit it and they wanted to, they could, but, I mean, that's strictly an option that they have by the way it's written. Arid I don't think in a practical world they're going to be able to do something -- do all those necessarily, but if the community wanted a community pool and they could fit one in, they could do it. It wouldn't hurt anything. COMMISSIONER EBERT: With the 33 units and parking? Okay. And then the seventh amendment, they just put in Tract N, which is a little bit of a conservation easement over towards the clubhouse, and that -- they did that two days before turning that over. And I thought, when you add all these up, there are 1,100 units that were okayed through the DRI, and if you take away the 400 that they promised the other people, and you minus the 366 from Olde Cypress -- because that is the Olde Cypress single - family residence -- then you -- you're going to have to put in — Da Vinci in this because -- I'm going, wait a minute. If they -- had they done this in 2000, that traffic report, it might have changed some things then. And you're supposed to let (sic) -- the people at DCA and regional when you change stuff like this, is what I was told. So anyway, that comes up to -- when you add Da Vinci, that comes up to 274, then you put in the preserve estates, that's 264, that leaves 10 lots according to their thing that you can build on in Vita Toscana, and it just didn't add up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the additions you're using are from the covenants, which are different than what the PUD's saying they're going to split their lots up to, and they can do that, but one is the civil matter and the other is something that the -- can be done through the public process and challenged through appeals publicly. I think that's where your discrepancy in the units come. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're speaking of what they're allocated from a civil matter, which is your covenants, not necessarily what's been allocated by the PUD as a whole. They didn't break it up in the PUD like they have in the covenants from what you've described. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I was going by the count of 1,100 for the whole -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- DRI is really where I was going from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's good information, especially in regards to aggregation, which we'll have that discussion when we get to the DRI portion of the -- of today's meeting, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all you've got for now, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, for right now, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have anything involving the HD PUD portion? Heidi? MS. ASHTON: There are some legal issues here. And as I've previously stated to the board, we don't like to put private commitments in the PUD for the very reason of the landscape issue that we had on the Naples Daily News PUD. With that said, if we go forward, there are a few things that would have to occur if we were to keep the language in. One would be that both Mr. Yovanovich and the BOA president would have to verbally state that these provisions are provided at the request of both entities, the BOA as well as the owner. Some of the provisions would Page 13 of 80 1611 6 March 17, 2011 need to be changed, for example, because these are -- most of these are conditions that are off site of the PUD. So under, for example, 4A, I would change it to "renovation to fitness center at Olde Cypress," and then say, "owner of project excluding Tract A shall permit," because Tract A is not a party. That's the multifamily parcel. And then any time they refer to developer, I would change it to "owner of project excluding Tract A," and under Item B, where it references Olde Cypress, that needs to be changed to "the owner." "Chat's on Section B, the second to last -- well, the third -to- the -last line. Then under C. Treeline Drive, 1 believe that -- I don't believe that the county would want to amend the construction maintenance agreement to provide the security. I don't know whether the county's been consulted. Perhaps one of the staff could -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We frequently bond off -site improvements as part of the subdivision approval process. That's not unusual for us to bond off -site improvements that are approved as part of the plat. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Well, I guess that would be Nick's call, because we have had to call on security and actually construct, so I guess Nick would have to chime in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have a couple concerns. And, you know, when is the clubhouse going to be constructed? I'm going to verify costs of the landscape improvements; staffs going to be doing that? I mean, these are — you know, you get into private agreements, and asking the staff to verify the total cost of landscaping improvements. It's a PUD commitment. That concerns me a little bit. MS. ASHTON: I mean, my preference would be the performance security goes to the HOA. And then the last sentence of 4C would be removed so the county's out of that picture. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In Section B it talks about total verified costs of landscape irrigation improvements invoiced by the landscape contractor. MS. ASHTON: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can tell you this is posing more questions than answers, and today was supposed to be a day of answers, not questions. I don't know what fell apart between the last month, but this -- these are the kind of items that I would have expected to be resolved before we got to today's meeting. What have you got -- Richard, it doesn't -- we're not going in the right direction here so far, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, right now we've made the commitments. The association has requested that the commitments go into the PUD, so it's it PUD -level commitment and enforceable by the county. We're happy -- we are committed either way. We're -- we will sign an agreement with the association including all of these terms, or we'll include it in the PUD document. We want to do what makes the residents happy to make sure they get the improvements we committed to. Obviously, we had anticipated an agreement; that's why we gave you a copy of the agreement. However, their preference is that it become part of the PUD. We'll do -- we'll do whatever is the right thing to make sure that these commitments are codified, even if it means we just state them on the record and they don't become part of the PUD, and we'll just have to do them. I mean, we'll do -- I mean, Brian is a reputable contractor -- or developer. He's made these commitments. He's willing to put them in writing and state them on the record. I don't think enforcement's going to be an issue. Whatever the format is we're at -- is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's the mechanics of the issue that we're going to have to resolve. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as an example, if it becomes too cumbersome to put these in the PUD because of reasons that Nick and Heidi both stated -- Heidi, is there a -- is it reasonable that if we accepted the HD Development, we wanted to stipulate that prior to the board hearing that they would have an agreement signed by the association addressing the concerns -- or stipulations that the association has, is that a -- is that one way to approach it if we so desire? MS. ASHTON: Well, there are some outstanding issues, I believe, that this board has raised in the previous hearing, so my answer would be yes, that it could be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not c\ en there yet. We're -- MS. ASHTON: I know, but I'm just saying that based on the fact that there were some outstanding issues that would be addressed in the — an agreement between the parties, that you could condition it upon the board's, you know, receipt of a copy of an executed agreement between the parties for the — Page 14 of 80 161 1 A6 Marlh 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just trying to figure out how we get the mechanics here done today. We still haven't got into the substance of all the issues. I have questions that 1 haven't got to yet, but I always defer to the board members first to make sure they've gotten theirs on the table. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just -- I'm going to give this to -- if you'd put this on the overhead. This was the very first thing I was given. I was just elected to the Board of the Planning Commission, and this draft was given out. I would like you to just kind of look at this, because it upset me tremendously. I immediately called the Collier County attorney, and he said it's fine. It is public record now. But it was this Landscape Beautification Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's this document from, Diane, so we know? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, this document was something that was given to me from the master association, and they wanted my opinion on it. And I said, "You know, I do belong to the Planning Commission now," and they said, that's all right. You" -- your -- have you been involved. You know what's going on, you know, so we just want your opinion. This is probably the worst letter I have seen, and it was my very first piece of paper I ever received as a Planning Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This landscape beautification -- I'mjust going to go right down here where it says, "The master BOA will pemvt the landscape and within 30 days Stock will give them $100,000," but what that really says is down below -- can you push it up just a little bit, Ray, please, where it's all yellowed out -- support of applications. The HOA will not oppose the Olde Cypress PUD amendment. The Olde Cypress DRI amendment and the Vita Tuscan rezone PUD, collectively, the land -use petitions, and will not support any individuals or groups in opposing the land -use approvals. The HOA will send a representative to all the county meetings including, but not limited to, the Collier County Planning Commission hearings, the Board of -- BCC, and speak in favor of the land -use petitions. In addition, the HOA will send an attached letter hereto incorporated to Collier County. The next page it does say that the terms of this agreement are to be maintained in strict confidence by the parties, which would have meant the master and Olde Cypress, and they wanted them to sign that agreement. That did not sit well, Mark, on -- 1 felt just terrible that they would try and do a backroom deal. To me that's what it was. Do you have the next one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane -- before we go -- you -- MR. YOVANOVIC14: Can I make a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- too far, I'd like to know where this agreement came from. You said you got it as COMMISSIONER EBERT: I got it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- after you were appointed to the Planning Commission. Did you get it from staff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I got it from the master association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where did they get it from? COMMISSIONER EBERT: They -- MR. YOVANOVICII: It's in your packet. It's in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, fine, Rich. 1 haven't got -- I can't recall -- I've got -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the agreement I referred to earlier on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got 300 pages in my packet. I don't remember every page. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you have to understand they found out that I called the county attorney, and they knew they couldn't keep it secret MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not true. Now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, you both can't be talking at once. Diane, you've got the floor. Continue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. Along with that -- it was just stuff did -- was not kosher going forward. And the community became very divided. That is very upsetting to me, because 1 am one of Stock's biggest supporters. But on August 30th, from the master association there was a letter to the people of Olde Cypress, and it's Page 15 of 80 1 6 1 J A March 17, 2011 because -- I had found out about the other agreements, so they decided they better talk about it. And at the meeting they said they had pictorial views of the potential landscape beautification along the front boulevard and leading up to the guardhouse and agreeing to spend $100,000 to enhance and beautify the mentioned area. Stock was hoping to discontinue a neighborhood talk about a park and walking trail. And I'm going, why -- why would you do this? And then, he -- MS. ASHTON: Excuse me, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON: May I recommend that we focus a little bit more on the criteria in the staff report'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought they just acknowledged this was in the staff report. MS. ASHTON: Yeah, the agreement's in the staff report. Yeah, 1 guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well --so I'm kind of stuck -- if you've included it as a document that this board is to review, then we certainly have -- it's open for discussion. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have an objection to discussing an agreement we proposed. 1 do have objections as to how it was characterized that this became public in the first place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you'll have time to cross -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want to cross. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not cross. You'll have time to counter. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, I understand. I'm just not used to this level of testimony from a Planning Commission member as part of a hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, 1 think under Robert's Rules, when a member of the board has the floor, she has the floor. There's not much that can be done about it until she exhausts her position, and then we'll move on. She doesn't have to be recognized again, but then at the same time, this board have gone above and beyond in courtesy to everybody that wants to speak. So I'm not one to cut anybody off. Diane, you can continue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, 1 only have a couple more things, and it was -- it's stuff -- and I can give it to the county because it is public records because it was sent to everyone in Olde Cypress from the master board where it said that Brian Stock was going to have a town hall meeting. And I asked staff, 1 said, is this -- "Is this normal that you have a town hall meeting before a NIM meeting ?" And they said, "No, it's not normal, but we can't stop them." So September, they had -- September 22nd they did have the town hall meeting, and they just kind of wanted to find out where people were on the park issue, and it -- the park and the walking trail issue, and they said Brian will -- he intends to specifically address the issues surrounding the park and walking trail. And it's become a very big thing with them on this. And at that meeting there were more people at the town hall meeting than were at the NIM meeting, which was a little disappointing. I never said a word because I knew I was on the Planning Commission, and I would -- was not going to tip my hat one way or the other, because I was looking at this whole thing from the legality standpoint. What did the DRI require? How is this being put together? And then we got -- then there was something where they wanted to take the count of how many people wanted a park, and they misrepresented it at first because they said the CCPC wanted it. We didn't. It was something that Horseshoe county staff wanted. I think they were surprised there was 207 people responding to the poll; 105 wanted a park. And this came out February 10th, and -- which surprised them that so many people wanted a park. On the next day -- and you do have this letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you're getting into issues, by the way, we haven't got into for discussion yet here today. Just -- we're working still on the original HD PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. This was --this was the last one, which we do have, and I just --it's sad to see a community divided, because now they're saying if we need to put a park in here, we'll put it on this portion of the golf course. They're doing the same thing they did back in 2008 by dividing the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it was getting to a point where I was going to ask my -- okay, Mr. Casalanguida. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just for the record, the HOA president -- I asked to speak to him sidebar -- he's Page 16 of 80 16 [ 1 A6 March 17, 2011 agreed to put these things outside the PUD, and he can put that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was hoping that would be a direction we would be going if we got that far. Okay, thank you. Ray, under Page 4 of the Exhibit B in the staff report for HD, it talks about, B, lakes; No. 2, lake slopes shall be 4 -1 from control. And it -- I'm told they removed the deviation request for lake banks. If they did that, then what is B2 trying to tell us? MR. BELLOWS: I think it may have started off as addressing a deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they're not asking for a deviation for lake banks, then there should be no reference to lake banks or lake slopes in the PUD, because they're going to fall back on the LDC. If they're not going to fall back on the LDC, they have to come back in and ask for a deviation again. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Strain, that's a good catch. That should have come out when we deleted the deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on Page 4, Item -- Exhibit B, Item B, lakes, will be removed. It's called B2. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we'll just have an Al there. The B will go altogether. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I asked last meeting to show a graphic of what you're trying to say in regards to the language in No. 2, the footnote. Did you bring a graphic? Now, I received an email from you -all, a 36 -by -40 sheet with a series of graphics on it. I would like one to show us what your intentions are in No. 2. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know I have one that was emailed to me, and I think I forwarded it to you, but I can't remember if 1 brought a copy with me or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe you forwarded it to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: There were two -- there was a -- there were two examples. One was a front -in garage with your standard 19 feet before you got to the 4 feet -- before you got to the sidewalk, and then there was the typical side - loaded garage that showed where we would fit the car -- how the cars would fit. I will need to get that printed out and put on the visualizer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- because I don't think I brought that, Mr. Strain, with me. I did try to get rid of all of the examples that we had sent you, just distill it down to two, but I don't know that I brought that exhibit with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's -- the reason I -- I'd just like -- I know I've seen it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand it, but I'd like to show it on the record because it was asked last time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a follow -up this time. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want a point of qualification. Nineteen -- you said our standard 19 feet, and I'm -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It was 19. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The standard, I thought, was 23. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it is. We asked for 19 feet, but there was 4 feet between our property line and when you get to the sidewalk. And the standard is you have to have 23 feet before you get to the sidewalk. So the standard 23 feet is addressed, but in -- obviously not -- in a different way, but, yes, the standard of 23 feet is maintained. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you get to the sidewalk but not encroach onto the sidewalk? MR. YOVANOVICH: Onto the sidewalk, correct. We have to have 23 feet before we get to the sidewalk. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we do -- we do have that, but I don't have that exhibit with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any way we just couldn't simplify it and say 23 feet from the back of sidewalk? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't that be easier? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. For the front - loaded? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Page 17 of 80 161 lk arc i h 17, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: The front- loaded's not a problem to say 23 feet from back of sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we just do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would make it real simple. MR. YOVANOVICH: Front - loaded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 1 -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a quick question on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Will this --because this is the PUD, Rich, will it have the 10 -foot utility easement First before the property line starts? You're saying no' We have no utility easements there? MR. MITCHELL: No. Chris Mitchell, for the record, Waldrop Engineering. Typical is -- the UE is the first 10 feet outside of the right -of -way. That's how it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MITCHELL: All development. So the right -of -way to right -of -way line then on that person's property is the 10 -foot UE. That's typical in development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct, yes, it's on the property, but your property line really start -- ours starts right behind the utility easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what you've got is you've got your road -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which is your right -of -way. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That right -of -way -- and the sidewalk is within the right-of-way- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the first thing on the outside of the right -of -way is a 10 -foot UE, utility easement, but that 10 -foot utility easement is your property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just an easement. There's been never a restriction on having a driveway or a car parked over that easement. That's an underground easement for private utilities like FP &L, telephone, cable, things like that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not a problem, not a problem with that at all, except that I was just --wanted to make sure that there was utility easements there. MR. MITCHELL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And we're not starting from the street. Okay. MR. MITCHELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My only remaining questions were in the new Section 4 after I read it. Most of mine were along the same thoughts that Nick and Heidi expressed, but since that's going away, I'm not going to waste any more time getting into that one. It's not going to happen, so -- With that in mind, is there -- we'll have a staff report on the HD Development PUD, questions of that, and then we'll go into the next one. MS. DF,SELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner in zoning. I've already presented the staff report at the previous meeting. The only thing that I notice in this particular document, in Exhibit P, Page 8, on Item No. 2, they were supposed to change the name of Exhibit G to reference what it's called on Exlubit G, which is "Schematic Buffer Design." Other than that and other than what's already been stated that staffs position is that -- the private agreement rather than in the PUD, I don't have anything to add. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff at this time? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you say F? MS. DE.SELEM: Exhibit F on Page -- I've got the pages on the -- 8 of 26, and it's 2A, the very last words. It Page 18 of 80 16 1 A6 March 17, 2011 says Exhibit G, Olde Cypress South Buffer. That's the previous name, Olde Cypress South Buffer. On the actual exhibit, it's called "Schematic Buffer Design," just so -- for future reference you know when you find it that that's what you were looking for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of statl? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay and Richard both, it was my -- from our last meeting we delayed -- continued this to today, and today is about two weeks later than our normal time we would have met in the first week in March, and at that point we agreed we'd try to accomplish consent as well today, which means we'll be coming back after the last item today to make sure the language changes are done to whatever extent this board instructs them to be. Are you familiar or comfortable with what we've done so Par to know where the language changes are supposed to occur between you and Richard? MS. DESELEM: Yes, I believe so. All it amounts to is the changes to remove 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: And the one that I just mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And change the footnote for the 23 feet. MS. DESELEM: The footnote, and then item -- I think it's B on Page 4, the reference to the bank slopes that needs to be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. MS. DESELEM: And I'm assuming that the applicant's team is going to make these changes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We are typing as you speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure that as we go along -- because if this has got to flow correctly, we need to have this acknowledged as we go along so we don't have any further problems in the back end. Nick, did you have something you want to throw in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just think the applicant should put on the record that he's going to provide an agreement signed before it goes to the board, a promise to the BOA president. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think -- first of all, if this board makes a stipulation, I'm sure that would be part of it. Okay. With that, let's move into the -- Richard, it was your presentation that started this. I read off all three as going currently, so I don't care what order you want to make the next one in, but it's up to you. MR. YOVANOVICH: The next one was the changes to the DRI master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So would that be B or A? I think it would be B. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that would be B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think so, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: And those were changes to the DRI development order. I had down that we needed to correct the master plan to show the actual access, real -world access to Da Vinci, which we have done. And if I can get back to my exhibits to put it on the visualizer, l will. Is it already on? Somebody put it on for me? Oh, thank you. You can see we have made that change on the master plan. We also, on the master plan, had committed to the two R tracts that are adjacent to the former Aqua driving range, that they would remain green open space, and we've designated that as part of the golf course on the DRI master plan to -- even though it's still labeled R, it can't be used for anything but the golf course. So those are the changes we made to the DRI Map H that I believe were directed. And I guess this would probably be a good time to talk about the aggregation rule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think this would be the appropriate time to talk about it. We obviously are aggregating in HD Development. And the intent of the aggregation rule was to address up front potential issues, regional -type issues. And as Ms. Ebert, you know, has pointed out, it's supposed to be done up front. Unfortunately, we're now in the year 2011, and we -- instead of having to look at potential, we can look at actual. And we do know that had Da Vinci Estates been included today or back in 2000 -- we know it functions properly. Today it functions without a Page 19 of 80 161 1 Aar&17,2011 hitch. What we have done is we've looked at — and I had a traffic analysis prepared to assume the same data that existed in the year 2000 when both of these projects were going through, because keep in mind there was an Olde Cypress PUD amendment that was tracking separately from the Da Vinci Estates PUD amendment because they were separate developers. We had a traffic analysis done to add the 61 single- family units to the traffic counts, you know, assutning they were together, and the traffic analysis comes back that the 61 units did not create any problems. So what I would submit is the purpose of the aggregation rule is to look at these things up front. I can't look at it up front anymore. I'm 11 years down the road, no pull intended_ But I can -- we all know how it turned out at the end of the story. By adding in the 61 units, it's not a problem from a regional perspective on any issue, especially transportation issues. I also submit to you that DCA is in a little bit of a state of a flux right now. If we were to have to go back and do a retroactive application for the aggregation rule, I think that that would probably result in a substantial delay in these projects moving forward. I don't think that it adds any real value since we already have a project that's existing on the road and built out. So I'm not sure we're going to learn anything new other than we may fix some paperwork. But at this point we've got projects that are -- the HD Development project specifically that wants to move forward, and we don't think that going back and looking at the aggregation of Da Vinci Estates adds much value. Plus, the RPC has not said that it's a requirement that we do so. So I would -- I would submit that we had that discussion about going to DCA, but I think at this point it's really an expensive and unnecessary exercise since we know -- we do know the impact of those 61 units today. So I don't think we're obligated to do it under the rules, but it was something that was brought up by the Planning Commission. It has functioned well. Everything that Ms. Ebert said is true. They are part of the master association. They are members of the golf club. It has worked seamlessly, and I don't think there are any regional- related issues related to incorporating the hole into the doughnut back in -- if we had done the analysis in 2000, I don't think it would have changed from what we have today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that the end of your presentation for the DRI report? MR. YOVANOVICH: On the DRI. I think that -- I think that addressed all the comments related to the DRI that came up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you believe that --in any way that the lack of aggregation or the separateness, if you will, or perceived separateness of Da Vinci versus Olde Cypress in any way leads to or engenders a problem of community split? MR. YOVANOVICH: I would submit to you, if you were to drive into that community, you would not know that Da Vinci Estates is not part of Olde Cypress, and 1 think that's why the two developers kind of got together and said, it's kind of silly to treat these things separately. It makes sense to treat it as one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on the DRI port ion of this hearing. Does anybody have any issues that they want to ask? Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, would this be the time to ask you about --is this where you're trying to take out -- the parks out of the scratch? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, and that was in the -- that was what was addressed previously but was not a further comment to address. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I -- to be honest with you, I talked to Mr. Tresco t, and he said to me, he said, would you please remind Mr. Yovanovich that those parks are in the DRI, we feel they owe that to you, and if you want it in the -- you also have a monitoring report here. He's sorry he couldn't be here today, but he wanted me to remind you that in the 1986 development order, if you would read Page 3 and Page 21, the parks were included in that, and they should also be -- and with everything we do, they feel that these parks are owed to the people. Page 20 of 80 16,' 1 A 6 March 17. 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: I had a conversation with Mr. Trescott as well, and what he said to me is, "The paperwork shows that there are still parks. You need to address the paperwork." COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which we have done. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, that's not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what he told me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Diane, you have to let him finish, and then you can pick up after he's finished. MR. YOVANOVICH: The paperwork shows there's a reference to parks. The PUD -- that's why we're going through these three petitions today. The PUD document for Olde Cypress still refers to 3.9 acres of parks. The answer to Question 27A, I think it was, in the original, you know, application for development approval referenced the 3.9 acres of parks. We have -- we're going through the process of amending the development order to delete the reference to the 3.9 acres of parks to make the paperwork consistent with our request. That's what we're trying to do, and that's simply what's in front of you. Whether you agree with taking it out or not is certainly your issue, but we're going through the right process to eliminate that requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 1 do have a problem with that, because county staff -- just because you're trying to say in 19- -- in'96 when they changed everything that those parks were removed from that end -- and you use Question 27A. You just didn't go a little bit further where they asked Question 27C. It says, will this -- "Will parks and open space be dedicated to the city or the county? And if not, who will maintain the facilities ?" The answer was no. The open space recreational facilities will remain private, available only to the members of the Woodlands Club, and the areas will be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. And if the park is within our gated area and the master -- it says they will be owned by the master or by the associations. And what bothered me last time when we were here, you were talking about, well, if we're going to do a park, we're going to put it on part of the golf course. That's what divided our community back in 2008. It was horrible. And you're saying, if we need to put a park in, we're going to use that little area behind the aqua range. I got to tell you, that's upsetting, because if I were an insurance company and you put a park there, I mean, it's -- it's what's owed the people, and it can be put into Vita Tuscana very nicely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's back up a minute. First of all, Vita Tuscana wasn't a pan of this DR] at the time the park was envisioned, okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's my understanding the map on the board shows where the park was originally going to go -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it's in the upper right -hand comer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That had to get changed because of a road that was going to go through, but I don't see the road on the new plan. The road's no longer going to go there? Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is not a road there, and there were other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know there's not a road there now, but the whole purpose of saying the park disappeared was because there was a road that had to go there, and the park got annihilated by the road. Is that a fair statement as to why it went away the first time? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The reason it went away is we went through the environmental pernutting process, and not only did the park go away, development went away. We lost, I believe it was, 360 units as part of this. The whole community changed when we went through the environmental perniitting process, and that's why we believe that when the community changed the obligation to provide the parks also changed, and that was not addressed in the paperwork. But you have to read in context the answers to those questions. And, Ms. Ebert, the answers to those questions were in reliance upon this master plan on the visualizer, okay. Page 21 of 80 1611 A6 March 17, 2011 So that's what we committed to in 1986 in responding to those questions. There were changes. It's our opinion and our belief that the 3.9 -acre park requirement should have also gone away because we lost density and the community changed. Now, I will tell you one thing that is not an option. It is not an option to take the 3.9 acres and make it part of the HD Development PUD. That is not on the table, so that is not an option that we are going to propose to the community of Olde Cypress to provide the 3.9 acres in parks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me read a response that Stock wrote to the county in the questioning of the 3.9 -acre park, and maybe you can explain to me how the road worked in. Because I guess it may be irrelevant in the end, but I just want clarification. Based on review of the PUD master plan from the original '85 Woodlands ADA, the 3.9 -acre park was planned to be located along the north/south roadway on the eastern boundary of the PUD; however, that road alignment was subsequently eliminated and the park area was not identified on the master plan once the PUD was amended. So it was eliminated because the road was removed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Okay. The location of the park on this plan is the upper right -hand comer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put the plan that was on here just prior to this. 'that same location in the upper right -hand comer, what is there now? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's a preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, does a park require any different treatment in regards to its usability than this preserve would have? MR CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure I understand your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If a park has no requirements, meaning basically a park as far as we've defined it in the code is simply green space. A preserve is green space. Is the preserve area, having left that as untouched, providing almost the same as a park would, just not additional opportunities that a park could have versus what a preserve could be used for? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's much more passive. But, yes, your answer's yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the developer could have left that area untouched, just like they have today, and said, this is your park. I'm just trying to put that on the record, because we've got to look at this thing in a practical application. What is it we could have gained versus what we've got now'? In some ways what is there now may be equivalent to what could have been there had it been a park. That's the only thing I'm trying to point out, Diane, is that I'm not sure by saying that area up there needs to be a 3.9 -acre park you've changed anything. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In the ADA -- and going further, they said, for one thing, the parks were not in the proper space. They should be put throughout the community scattered. And this is wetlands. This is not your normal preserve area. So it would have to be raised. Everything -- if you go in this one you needed -- you need a raised boardwalk to go through like they have over here at the Gordon River. Completely different. And back in 2008 when the community -- when Stock was going to just get -- try and close out the PUD and leave Olde Cypress, there was a huge meeting, and someone asked Blain Spivey -- because Mr. Stock was not there -- they -- and they said, well, where is this park going to be? And he said, well, if we could buy the property -- he said, if we had the property, we would give you your park. We don't. Were just trying to closeout the PUD, and they put it on the driving range, and that's what divided our community, which was you divided the golfers with the nongolfers. And, Mark, this has created a huge divide in our community, and it should not have to be. It should not be golfers against nongolfers. I myself don't golf, but, I mean, you don't put a park on a driving range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But let's try to talk out a solution. If you don't -- and I understand your argument about not having a park on the driving range or not having a park in the aqua location where it was before. That's fine. If the community doesn't want it there, I don't see why it should go there. I'm not an advocate of that at all. It was the suggestion last time to accomplish the open -space criteria that a park provides. Now, if a park doesn't go there -- and you really can't Zook at HD Development first, because that wasn't a part of your DRI. If the argument is the DRI, as it was done originally, should have provided a park, as it did Page 22 of 80 161 1A6 March 17, 2011 originally, in substitute for the one it lost, where now in this built -out community would you propose to put a park? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it's -- they didn't follow the DRI when they bought it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Diane, that's 10 years ago. It's done. Now where would you put the park? If they were -- if you -- if they were forced to put a park in this community, give us some idea on where you think is a -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is nowhere -- this community -- they just didn't follow through with the DRI. You would have thought they would have had to use due diligence and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what else they didn't follow through with? They don't have bike paths -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the extent that you would have today. You don't have walking trails. There's a whole pile of things missing here, but that's been missing for 10 years. Now, where do we -- how do we fix it today? I'm more focused on, okay, you've got an issue, you believe the community -- some people believe the community deserves a park, fine. Where do we put it to make the community happy? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't think you can put that anywhere today within -- within Olde Cypress, as it turns out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But they just never followed the DRI, and that, to me, is upsetting, because a DRI is a development of regional impact. If you're just going to take that and ignore that, that, to me -- I mean, I'm new at this, but a DRI is still a DRI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not saying ignore it. I'm trying to find a solution. There's a difference between finding a solution and just saying it wasn't done right. We've got to fig- -- if it wasn't done right, we want to fix it, what is being offered up as a solution. The developer is offering an agreement with the HOA. The HOA has been met with numerous times. There's a whole pile of issues on the table. If that isn't enough, what is? How do we get to a solution of the problem? That's what I -- that's what we should be doing as a board is finding a solution, if there is a problem, consistent with our codes. And that's where I think we ought to be focusing. And if someone in the discussion today with the citizens out there, when you come up, if you've got a fix, tell us the fix. Don't tell us the complaint. We already know the complaint. I think it's been pounded home for five hours last time and two or three hours today already. Tell us what you think a solution is. Let us get to something of substance we can work out with the developer and be done with it. If the developer's already offered enough and people feel that the things in the agreement, the changes to the ree area, the tennis courts that weren't required to be where they are, are parts and pieces that make up, fine. It would be nice to know that so we can get on with this. That's all I was trying to get to. I'm looking for a solution. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, well, as it turned out, Mr. Stock didn't even realize that there's a portion in the back that was supposed to be a road going to the next community. And they have taken that and made a small park out of that. That was 60 -foot right -of -way and 10 -foot easement on each side. So that's about 150 deep by probably 80 feet wide, and there will be a wall behind there, because that will be GL Homes, so that is a start of open space for the kids to play. We have more than 50 children in Olde Cypress, and now they're teenagers and different things are starting to happen. They need someplace to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to comment in terms of solution. I thought that the commitments that the developer made to the HOA were sufficient in my estimation. In addition, on this Olde Cypress DRI and PUD, tracts -- two tracts that had been labeled "R" are now labeled "green open space." So you've got additional guarantees for some additional green open space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And my point for the solution was that apparently what has been put on the table may not be a solution to everybody. All I'm saying is for those that it is not a solution, tell us what you further think needs to be a solution, because that's what we're here to do is listen to it and figure it out. And I don't know. I'm hearing what one side has put on the table. I'm hearing a complaint about what wasn't done in the past, but I haven't seen a solution to what we can do going forward, and that's the key to getting this completed. With that, let's -- does anybody else have any questions on the DRI portion of this action? That's the second Page 23 of 80 161 1 N6 March 17, 2011 item, Item B. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to Item A, the last one, Richard. We're going to take a break here -- you know what, we need an hour -- at 10:30. Before we even go into A, let's just take a break for 15 minutes. We'll come back at -- let's come back at 10:45 and resume, and that will give us some time to cool down a little bit. So 10:45 we'll resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats. Just so everyone knows, the next break will be just before noontime. We try to leave a little before noon so we can -- those of us that eat downstairs can get in line before the rush from 12 o'clock gets there. With that in mind, we'll proceed. Richard, we left off on Item 9A. And you were going to do your presentation on that one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And 1 believe there were very minor changes that we needed to make, and the PUD is not very long. And I think you got a revised draft of the document from the County Attorney's Office with a revision dated 3/15/11 on the lower left-hand comer. And basically the changes we needed to make were to try to catch all the places where there was a reference to bicycle and jogging trails for the park. And you will see on Page 2 of 4 under section — at the very beginning. It's Section 2 of the ordinance, but it references Section 3.02 of the original PUD. We struck the words "bicycle andjogging trails" there. Then we go down to Section 4 of the ordinance, also on Page 2, but Section 4.05 of the existing PUD, and struck "bicycle paths" from No. 3, struck "nature trails" from No. 4, and struck number -- we struck "parks" from No. 6, which carried us over to Page 3 of 4, and all the other changes were related to the reduction in density. And I hope we caught all of the -- apparently not because I see Ms. Caron shaking her head. But that was -- those were the text - related changes we were supposed to make addressing that. What did we miss`? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron'? COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 3 of 4 under Section 5, land -use schedule. It says -- if you look down under acreage it says, "Lake preserve area, wetland preserve park." MR. YOVANOVICH: Good catch. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was that the end of your presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no, one other thing. Just -- and I don't think this is in your packet, but we caught this the other day. The PUD master plan itself -- we caught it on the DRI master plan where we had crosshatched the two R tracts to show that they would be golf course open space. We had not -- in your agenda package though, the same crosshatching didn't make their way to PUD master plan, so we need to make that same crosshatching on the PUD master plan. So we've made those changes, and that will become, you know, part of the PUD for Olde Cypress as well. I think that's everything that dealt directly with the PUD documents themselves. There were some other, you know, I'll call them tangential questions that we needed to look at. One was the conservation easement, and was there any area within the conservation easement document itself that really was not depicted. There's platted conservation easements, and then there's the st and -alone conveyance conservation easement document. There was an exhibit attached to the stand -alone conservation easement that appeared to exclude some of the platted conservation area. The reality is, the legal description in the document that created the conservation area referenced the platted conservation areas. So that exhibit that looks like part of it is not encumbered was incorrect. So the entire conservation area on the plat is also within the conservation easement document. So we went back and looked at that, and that was one of the issues we needed to clarify. COMMISSIONER CARON: Do we need to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. That was just a -- we just need to look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happened is the language -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the language on the conservation easement says pursuant to plat, Page 32, Pages 1 to 11. On that plat, Page 3 doesn't show that area encompassed as Tract A. Page 24 of 80 16 i 1 A6 -I March 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But when you go to the blowup on Page 8 and 9 of the plat, it does, and it says, all of Tract A and B. So Tract A is covered by the plat as being conservation; it just didn't -- it looks like the same assumption I had made the first time I read it, was made by the people who did the crosshatching on the map that was attached to it. But the plat is clear. The Tract A does cover up that area, so it is -- COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So you don't have to change the language? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We don't have to change anything in the document. There was the question of, you know, was something inadvertently excluded, and the answer's no. Everything's fine there. We went back and looked at the fence in Logan Boulevard, and it was properly constructed, properly permitted, and properly surveyed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There is an issue with the cart path that needs to get relocated, but the fence itself is on our property and not in the county's property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody from county staff is here, are they? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Well, Richard, are you done with your presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me see if there's anything else. No, sir. I think that got all of the issues that came UP -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, while -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- at our last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're into other discussions, should you email Mike Green? He brought the issue up to me that that fence was located in their right -of -way, and he was pretty annoyed by it because he couldn't get it to be corrected. So I made it a point to discuss it here at this meeting, and I'd appreciate it if he would tell us if it still is or not based on the information we've now been provided. MR. BELLOWS: I will do, and I think Kay went out in the hallway to get John Podczerwinsky to see if he is aware of that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane, go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The only thing, when I was down at Collier County looking through some of the previous things, I have the -- they put this fence in, they -- and took out the application in 2007. In 2008 they put it in. It says thejob value. And it was issued on April of 2008. In going through this, reading it, it wasn't making sense, so someone came in and said to me, well, the fence is there, but it has never been inspected or completed. They are missing all of the landscape and irrigation requirements So he says, they've been out of compliance for -- since 2008. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll certainly find out about that. John, can you shed some light on the fence? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podezerwinsky, transportation. Yes, I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It looks like it's upside down. Yep. Sony. Okay. What we have on the exhibit screen here is a basic survey or a spot survey of that fence and the encroachment. And if I'm not mistaken, I think -- the maximum encroachment that you'll see is 2.18 feet into the Olde Cypress -- MR. MITCHELL: John, that's the cart path. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's the cart path. But it also shows the fence there. MR. MITCHELL: There's no fence in that area. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. I stand corrected. There is no fence in that area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, there is no fence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. John, what happened, Mike Green had told me that he was -- he seemed a little annoyed that this fence had been in the right -of -way, that they attempted to get it relocated and they weren't successful in getting that done. So I tried to bring it up as an issue to get accomplished in these proceedings. Do you know anything about that fence being in the right-of-way? Page 25 of 80 161 1 Nd March 17. 2011 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, I do. Here's the notes that I have, and I quote, "The fence is not in the county Logan right -of -way but the pathway is." And it varies from 1.35 to 2.18 feet. And we have three options to fix it that should be run through the County Attorney's Office. If you'd like, I can cover those, but I think this can be handled at a staff level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. [just think what we'll probably do is any stipulations that are included in this hearing, we would stipulate that that be resolved. So whatever's -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point I don't have any stipulations regarding the fence because it is outside the right -of -way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is outside the tight -of -way, okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're fine. Thank you. Okay. We're on to questions on Item 9A. Does anybody have any questions on 9A? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard -- and this may be one that 1 should have asked in HD Development, but I have it at one of the notes. There was the talk of extending the fence along the southern property line along 846. MR. YOVANOVICH: The wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The wall, I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, and that has been. And 1 saw that as my Item No. 12, and l should have -- that was addressed as pan of the master plan for HD Development. So when you approved it, you also approved the location of that wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the golf cart path, that's the only other item 1 had left over from that meeting on this one. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we --I think wejust addressed that, that we do need to move it, so we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on 9A? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff presentations on 9A, B, C, take your pick. Whatever ones you haven't addressed -- I think C is the only one I had asked you about. So anything on A or B? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. My staff report for 9A, which is the Olde Cypress PUD amendment, is rather short. Staff is recommending approval. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on the staff-report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will entertain -- we'll start going through our public -- members of the public who wish to speak. Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any registered speakers before we go to open speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered on this item, or any item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public wish to address any items that we've talked about on Items 9A, B, or C involving Olde Cypress or HD Development? Sir, come up and use the mike. And then, for those -- the gentleman that is president of the HOA, I believe he was here. MR. MITCHELL: Hejust stepped out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 1'd like to hear from him before we end today. Were you swom in in the beginning, sir? Okay. Maybe Terri could do that. (The speaker was duly swom and indicated in the affinnative.) MR. CRESS: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Jim Cress, a resident of Olde Cypress. The singular question I have is I'm asking from the Planning Commission and the developers some clarification regarding a wall, specifically sound abatement along Immokalee, because right now it's incredible. And with my experience of having built construction protection around the Pentagon after it was hit, I can tell you the landscaping Page 26 of 80 161 1 A6 March 17, 2011 in no way abates sound. Sound will go through it or over it. And unless there's a legitimate wall of strffiyient size acrd structure built along Immokalee, it is going to be a nightmare, I think, for those of us residents in the community to hear that incredible road noise that will be going through that entire area, not only during construction, but even after it. So I'd just like to know what the developer intends to do to address that issue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll find out. And first of all, the location of the wall that can be proposed -- we can't go across the preserve line, I believe, with a wall, but we can go up the preserve, is that the way -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This would be an item under C probably, HD Development, because that's the PUD we'd be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. This is the PUD master plan, and the wall would extend from the edge of the preserve back towards the property line, and that would be -- it would be a 2 -foot berm and 6 -foot wall, so the combination is 8 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of wall are we talking about? What is it made of? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a solid wall. It's not a fence. It would be, you know, the typical, precast. would be a precast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's like Longshore Lake says, that's called a cedarcrete. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then equal to that in price or pretty comparable is block. But either one is a pretty solid wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to be looking at some kind of cementitious material for that wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. Mr. Murray? That's preserve, that area next to it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. How dense is that preserve in terms of acting as a sound barrier? Because I'm looking at, from the very edge, some of those people who are right next to that might be impacted by that noise as well. Is that -- do we have any sense of how dense that -- or how far or even the distance from -- take a point where -- it seems to be some kind of ajut there. Let's see -- maybe that's better. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's basically what we have from an aerial perspective. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's pretty dense from the look of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. And that's -- you know, it's there today. And an issue we're addressing in the best form we can, obviously, is to put a wall outside of the preserve, but the noise issues are there without us, and we are addressing the best we can what we can address with the wall outside of the preserve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, where I was leading to — and I don't want to cause unnecessary expense, but I was leading toward the possibility of extending the wall, perhaps, another 10 feet beyond just to help deflect some of that noise that might come in through the side. I'm assuming the distance is fairly close. If you'll tell me it's 20 or 30 feet and it's dense, I'll withdraw my interest. MR. MITCHELL: Chris Mitchell, for the record. I can't tell you the distance. I can tell you that right there where the preserve begins, the development ends, there starts a concrete weir that is the passthrough. So any extension over would really be building into the conservation area. It would be a secondary impact at a minimum to the conservation area. You'd have to amend the conservation area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear you. I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what 1 -- I think even in the last meeting we acknowledged getting a wall into the preserve area from South Florida's -- or Big Cypress's viewpoint on that weir, as well as just getting into the conservation area and building a wall, is going to be problematic, if even at all possible. And a wall ending at the edge of the development was what we had talked about. Now, where in your document does it show that the wall will be a 2 -foot berm with a cementitious structure material being used to support it? Page 27 of 80 16 46 6 '. March 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see it either. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's in the -- it's in the cross - section for the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on Page 8 of 11 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Hang on a second. I've got to get back there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit P of the HD PUD, it says, "A combination 6 -foot masonry wall and 2 -foot berm shall be required along the portion of the southern property line as depicted on the exhibit." MR. YOVANOVICH: See. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's different -- well, but you didn't -- you said precast. Masonry is not precast. "There's a stark difference. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll -- that's a good catch, and we need to change it to "precast or masonry." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm suggesting that is a precast wall would be similar to what they've got at Longshore Lakes. It's a good - looking wall. It would save continuity. A masonry wall, for the HOA to have to maintain it is going to be a lot more than a precast wall. So I think that would be a good option to add into the Page 8, Exhibit F. of the HD Development. Okay. Any other speakers? The gentleman who's president of the HOA, would you mind coming to the podium, identifying yourself? I have a question. MR. THOMAS: Certainly. Damian Thomas, Ibr the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any -- are you at a point where you feel you can have an agreement executed with the developer by the time of the Board of County Commissioners' meeting to the extent of the issues that we've discussed in regards to -- MR. THOMAS: I have no reason to believe differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR, THOMAS: We have in the past been able to have those kind of discussions, and they've been relatively amiable. So there's no reason for me to believe differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Casalanguida earlier said that on a -- through -- he's a third party of course -- that he had discussed with you that that is a viable option for us to consider for a stipulation? MR. "THOMAS: Keep it outside of the PUD. The reason why we requested it inside the PUD is to make sure it got done. But if we have an agreement outside of the PUD that everybody's aware of, then I'm comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I sure needed to know. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS: You re welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions -- are there any other members of the public that would like to speak'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other questions, then, from the Planting Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to say also, you have it on the record here today the commitments that have been made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we actually got it in writing passed out, although that's not the version we'll use, but we do have it as part of the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Does anybody know the distance across that lake to that -- you remember we discussed putting a gazebo? There's a concern that that would be getting hit with driving ball. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have had discussions, and we have elected or believe that the gazebo is really not wanted by the community. So we're just going to leave it as green open -- green open space, pan of the golf course, so there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions, comments in any of the three issues? We've heard all the public speakers. Do you have any rebuttal you want to make. Richard, before we close the public hearing'? Page 28 of 80 16 1 � 6 s March 17, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: No. And I just -- I just -- we've worked with the community, and we are obviously doing enhancements within Olde Cypress to try to make up for the perceived loss of that park, and 1 think that we are being responsible and giving back to the community and not just taking from the community. We've worked with the community for quite a while to come up with these enhancements and have gone above and beyond in doing community outreach to make sure everybody knew what was going on, and we hope that the Planning Commission could follow staffs recommendation of approval for all three -- three amendments that we're -- or three petitions that we're proposing, and we can answer any more questions if you have them regarding any of the three applications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not to belabor anything, but the gazebo thing, it's fascinating. I don't -- we didn't stipulate that. I think that that was something that was offered somewhere along the line. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there was discussion about, you know, would it be a nice thing to do, and then, you know, we thought about it, and Ms. Ebert's correct, you know, why — what do you really get for that, will it be well used, and is there risk for people walking to that gazebo? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think the answer is, yes, there's risk, so why do it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate all of that. I just --you made the one statement, sounded like to me, was that, you know, you got some sense from the community that they didn't really need it. And I was just wondering, was that official sense orjust a chatter along the way or what? MR. YOVANOVICH: It was in discussing with leadership of the community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, in other words, the president of the HOA would have had that discussion with you? MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't have any person- -- is that who we talked to about it? A lot of different people, Mr. Murray, that we talked to about that. And, in reality, putting a gazebo in that place probably wouldn't get well used, and there was the risk. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't have a problem with its absence or its presence, but I did have a problem with the question of, with all whom did you speak and the assertion that, you know, you talked to a bunch of folks. And I just wanted to know, because there seems to be that issue that keeps on rising up about community being split, and I would hope this is not another one of those things. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would hope it wouldn't split either, and I don't think it's as divided as has been represented. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This will not be used as park area; is that true? MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be -- remain as pan of the golf course area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So, in other words, it is not going to be -- children are not allowed to go up there? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's fine. 'the other question is, on the landscaping agreement, if I remember right, at one of the meetings, the landscaping was going to cost around 118,000, and Stock was going to give 100,000, and the master was going to have to put in the other 18,000. I feel Stock should pay for the whole 118,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that is going to be something that you and your association are going to be negotiating directly with Stock. That's taken off the table for the Plaiuung Commission. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that works out actually -- that is not a -- really a public issue. It's one that's more -- done civilly, so I think you guys are going to work that out in your negotiations with the applicant. If you don't get a negotiated agreement by the time of the BCC meeting, based on what would potentially be a stipulation from this board, I think that would be detrimental. So I certainly think the incentive's there to get it worked out. So anybody else have any questions? Page 29 of 80 16 1 1 1 A brch 17, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing, and we'll entertain discussion first. Does anybody have anything they want to say before we go into the motions on these three items? And we'll motion those separately. And we're going to have a rewrite of any stipulations or any changes at the end of today's hearing to review before we do consent today as well. The -- I'm going to certainly have a small discussion, and that is there are issues here that 1 don't believe can be resolved today, and I'm not sure there's any mileage in trying to resolve some of them, although it's very telling that they should have been addressed as time had progressed in the past. I don't see that as something to do today that we can accomplish a solution to the problems with, and that being the aggregation. I am very fanuliar with DRIs, the aggregation process, and all of it. I brought it up last meeting. And it's something that should have been done in 2000. There have been massive changes in Tallahassee. The governor's budget that was proposed showed 356 employees in DCA, and he was eliminating 318 of those. Basically what that means is DCA's not going to be there anymore. And for this project to be forced into an NOPC that will eventually come back and say there's no regional impact; therefore, it has -- no significant impact, therefore, it's not going to have any hearing to say no, they'll say yes. The only thing it will do is delay the project and will probably cost the community some of the benefits they were going to receive from the developer. An NOPC is going to costa hundred thousand dollars any way you look at it. It's not a cheap process. So if they're forced into that, nobody gains. Right now I think the developer has done a lot to offset the park. I think it was a nustake on the part of Collier County not to enforce it from the beginning, but that isn't the responsibility of the people in this room today, at least in the side of the county's side. So with all that said, I think the best thing we can do is find solutions and take as much as we can that the developer's offered and put it into as solid an agreement as we possibly can in our stipulations and see this it's enforced and done. And in that regard, I'm in favor of seeing all three of these pass with a vote of approval and a recommendation to approve with the stipulations and changes we've made that will be subject to a consent this afternoon, and that we stipulate two things, that we add that the agreement between the developer of the third item, 9C -- and 1 don't know what they call it anymore. It was HD Development. Now I'm not sure what -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's still that. It's -- Vita Perna is the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay -- and the HOA of Big -- of Olde Cypress, reach an agreement that is executed by both parties prior to the BCC hearing. And if that's done, 1 think we're covered in everything. The only other item being that the pathway at Logan Boulevard be brought into compliance through any manner between the County Attorney's Office and staff that deems -- is deemed appropriate. Other than that, I'm out of stipulations. 1 think we've -- we're going to see all that come back as corrections in this afternoon's consent hearing. So anybody else have any discussion? If not, we need a motion, and we'll have to start with the first one. That's PUDA- 131,2010 -388. This is the Olde Cypress PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll move to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to approve and seconded. And I'm assuming it's subject to the stipulations that I read. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just as you said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the corrections that will be forthcoming from staff for consent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Andjust as you said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONERAHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNFY: Aye. Page 30 of 80 161 1 A 6 March 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: (No response.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0 with one abstention. Item DOA- PL2010 -1052. This is the Olde Cypress Development, Limited, Vita Perna, LLC, as the DRt. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I move to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion to approve, Ms. Homiak. Conditions the same as the prior approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Acknowledge. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor -- 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: (No response.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0 with one abstention. Last item is PUDZ- PL2010 -1054, the Vita Perna, LLC. It's a PUD within the Olde Cypress -- which will now be the Olde Cypress DRI. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak. Same stipulations apply? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both affirmative. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 31 of 80 16 I 1 A arch 1 Z 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: (No response.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. Cl AIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0 with one abstention. Richard, we're going to hear the other applicant, which is coming up next. We may take a break for lunch. I hope not. 1'd like to see us get through the church issue and then go right to consent. So probably within 30 or 45 minutes we should be ready for consent, if you guys can keep that pace. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I think we're ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I'll -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll lughlight the changes for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to print it, you need to lughlight them, you need to get us copies, and you need to have it prepared to walk through the changes on the overhead, and that way we can wrap up consent this afternoon. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. With that we'll move on to the next item on our agenda. It's PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674. It's the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, the CFPUD. It's on Learning Lane and Livingston Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the courter reporter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I had a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahem? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Eastman' EASTMAN: I've met with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- and Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: A conversation by phone with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, And I met with Mr. Yovanovich as well over this one, and I think -- yeah, I think that's the only conversation I had on it. So with that, Richard, it's your presentation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant. I have Wayne Arnold with me froth Grady Minor & Associates and Adrian from the church -- where is he? There you are -- to answer any other questions you may have regarding our request. The request is to adopt a PUD for the Grace Romanian Baptist Church that would allow up to 500 seats and a preschool of up to 150 students, together with one residence to serve the church. The property is about 12 acres in size. It's located at the intersection of Livingston Road and Learning Lane. Learning Lane is the road that leads to North Naples Middle School, so it's on Livingston Road north of [mmokalee Road. It's a fairly straightforward requested use. The staff is recommending approval of our requested uses. The only real issue we have with the staff recommendations pertain to the -- and it's really a little tweaking that needs to be done. The way it's currently -- the way the stipulation is currently written, we would be required to have traffic- safety people present at all church services. The church currently is a small church. It's operating out of a Page 32 of 80 16 1 1 n 6 March'l7, 2011 portable, and -- at the -- at First Baptist. They might have 100 people at a service right now, and that's on the best day. So we don't think it's appropriate to require at every church service that we have traffic personnel. We have on other -- like the Covenant Presbyterian Church, which was the Heavenly PUD -- we have had requirements that when traffic - -1'm sorry -- when transportation staff deems it necessary that we have traffic- safety people there. We will have them. But I don't think at this -- a blanket requirement is necessary, so we would ask that that recommendation be revised appropriately. And other than that, we're okay with the other recommendations requiring access to Livingston Road. And with that, if you have any questions regarding our PUD, we'll be happy to answer any questions. You know, a proposed master plan is up on the visualizer for you that answers the -- which will show you the intended development, and essentially, the first phase of the development will be in this area right here with the preschool being a future phase, as well as potential future phase down off of Learning Lane. But initially we'll probably start with a multipurpose building to house the church services and other uses and then eventually build a sanctuary to some day hopefully get to the 500 seats, but initially we will not be building a church to serve the 500 seats at the beginning. With that, that's an overview of our requested petition. I think staffs recommending approval, and we ask that you follow those recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay_ Questions, comments from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, the northern access drive, is that going to be a right - in/right -out or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. It will be — our access off Livingston Road will be right - in/right -out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then the lower one, is there signals down there or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- at Learning Lane there is a signal that operates for the school. It's not a fully signalized intersection. It only operates during school hours, flashes at other times. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when they're recommending having police for traffic control, where would you put the policemen? MR. YOVANOVICH: They would be, Fin asswning, at the right - in/right -out -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- entrance. And 1 don't even know that that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Useful. MR. YOVANOVICH: --useful, but, you know, if they say in the future that it's necessary, we'll do it. But we don't think that a -- our intended uses are going to create many problems on Livingston. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I had asked you a couple of questions, and I don't know if you got answers from Mr. Arnold. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. The questions were basically with the Exhibit B, the table. And let me go through those real quickly. We talked about the setback for accessory -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't go beyond A. Did you make the change on accessory uses? MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- yes. There's one that it appears to be repetitive. Item No. 1 refers to both indoor and outdoor recreational uses, and then we also refer to it again in Item No. 4. So I think we need to — we'll combine those two with No. I and make sure we include play fields also as listed so we don't inadvertently just leave them out as the description of types of uses. Then the next one was, I believe, on Exhibit B, and I will tell you, we went back and looked at -- your question was what accessory uses would extend to potentially 25 feet of Livingston Road or any front road. And Porte Cochere was one that we thought would happen, and we also had an early draft of a master plan that included playground equipment that might be in that front area of the church, so that's the types of uses we were thinking about when we were talking about accessory structures that could get as close as 25 feet for the front. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can they be defined somehow so in general terms we know what we're talking about? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because -- let me just give you an example. Up on 41 in North Naples, the -- I think it's a congregational church that is right across from Bentley Village sort of. Page 33 of 80 161 146 A March 17, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: 'There's a congregational church, I think, and a Lutheran church, and Szabo's was in between them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that congregational church has attached to it an accessory structure that's the same height as the church because it's a gymnasium. It's behind, so nobody in the world would ever know it was there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Not an issue. But if somehow that were pushed to the front or the side to the front, then I think that that might be an issue for people. So I'm looking for a definition of the types of things that could come within 25 feet versus -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, may 1 address? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. ARNOLD: I'm Wayne Arnold. And to address Ms. Caron's connment, maybe what we could do under the accessory- structure portion of the table where it says front, maybe we can specify both a 25- and a 50 -foot setback, and under the 25 we can either footnote it or put an asterisk or something and identify the types of structures, whether it's play equipment, sunshade, chickee, just some minor structures of that type is what we had envisioned. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. I think that -- I mean, that works for me. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Good. COMMISSIONER CARON: I didn't have any -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 don't see where it hurts. COMMISSIONER CARON: The next thing was the distance between structures and the zoned height. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. This is where it got a little complicated when I was -- when it's an actual building, we were thinking along the lines of if it wasn't physically attached, which would be the zero, one -half the building height, but then you get into playground equipment, do 1 really need to be -- if I'm a 50 -foot building, do I really need to be 25 feet away for the playground equipment? So we -- that's where we kind of struggled, Commissioner Caron, on how to describe the minimum separation, and then it gets -- it gets a little confusing as to whether even that playground equipment would be considered an accessory structure. So we were trying to err on the safe side. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, exactly. And I understand that it's difficult, but somehow we have to have a way. Because, again, I'll use the example of building a gymnasium, 1 mean -- so suddenly you've got a wall of building that could front this area. Again. I don't think this is what you're intending. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: But 1 can't -- I have to pay attention to what's happening now. I don't know what's going to happen 30 years from now when Phase 111 of the Romanian Baptist Church gets done. MR. YOVANOVICH: And would it be possible for -- if you did a gymnasium that was 50 feet tall, have a 25 -foot separation, would not be a bad -- it would not be a bad thing. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. It would be a good thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: So is there a way -- is there a way to state it that says for buildings there -- it would be half the building heights and for nonbuilding accessory structures, you know -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Such as -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- such as -- COMMISSIONER CARON: --playground equipment. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- playground equipment, it could be -- it can go to zero if you want it. I mean — COMMISSIONER CARON: That may solve it. And I'll ask staff if it -- if it works for them. And I guess, Ray, you're the one paying attention, so -- MR. BELLOWS: It works. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, all right. Because -- MR. BELLOWS: We could use that or habitable structure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, okay. Then that works for me. Page 34 of 80 161 6 Mar4h 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure habitable structure gets us there, because gymnasiums aren't habitable. They're used. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. Then the way you phrased it still works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff will come back with a solution that addresses the issue, is what you're saying? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was wanting to say, habitable mean a place where you sleep. Occupiable is --habitable is a subset of that. So maybe just use building and then structure. The code defines structure as anything greater than 30 inches above ground, so that's taken care of. And maybe building is something that's occupied. So that would take care of that, then in the future we wouldn't have these problems. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is -- this is an example of what - -just so you know --what we're thinking -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- you know, and I think it's consistent with what you thought we were thinking. We would have our temporary building, which would be a fellowship hall in the future, which is really an accessory use -- would be actually built first. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And there would be a separation of that building from the sanctuary, as you can see. That's what we're contemplating when we have those standards. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And obviously that makes total sense, and it solves another issue, because now we know what the little dotted lines are on the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was the next thing I was going to tell you. That was, in fact, parking as we -- as I thought it was, and I did confirm it was parking on our master plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think that's everything that you asked about. At least those were my tabs. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think so. Anybody else can ask a question. I'll look through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff report, please. MS. DESELEM: Good morning, again. Kay Deselem, for the record, principal planner in zoning. You do have the staff report. It's been submitted to you. It's dated revised 3/2/11. It goes into the information that the applicant has already told you about about what's being proposed for the project. It also provides information regarding the surrounding land uses to the north, east, south, and west. It addresses the Growth Management Plan, GMP, consistency, going into detail about the FLUE designation and the Community Character Plan for Collier County for Smart Growth. One item that's at the bottom of Page 4 that's part of the crucial element of the PUD as far as consistency is that the planning staff says that they need to construct the connection during the initial development phase of the project, that's Learning Lane, if approval granted, or if approval is not granted, to provide evidence to the county of good -faith efforts to obtain that approval and -- of the school district's denial. And Nick was here, but he had to leave due to other commitments, and he wanted to stress the importance of that particular issue that they provide something to the county to show that they have truly exhausted all their other remedies with access to Learning Lane. And John Podcz is available to speak with that as well as. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's not your presentation. It's Kay's. Okay. He's back behind you holding up little ears behind your head and stuff, and I don't think that was -- I don't think that was fair, Kay. MS. DESELEM: I'll get even. There'll be more times. I'll get even. Going on, there is the transportation - element discussion on Page 5 -- and, again, John Podcz will be going through this in more detail -- there was an analysis for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, and the GMP conclusion on Page 5 that talks about it needs to have the mitigation proposed by transportation for this project Page 35 of 80 161 �. March r17, 2011 to be deemed consistent. Staff goes into the analysis beginning on Page 6 that includes the environmental review, the transportation review, talks about the TIS and access management, and gives you their position, No. 1, that connection to Livingston is legally allowed but not recommended; and, again, John Podcz is going to go into more detail on the issues for transportation in the particular staff report. They have offered stipulations, and staff has provided to you findings of fact both for the PUD and the rezone petition portions in support of our recommendation, and the recommendation is on Page 15 and includes the stipulations that are being requested by transportation staff. And if you'd like, I can either answer questions now or we can go on to John, and perhaps he might be able to address questions that would come up to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go on to John -- and, Mr. Murray, is your question about the transportation issue? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a second question, but I have a question on Page 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we get into the transportation issue, I'd like to get an opinion from the County Attorney's Office. So, Mr. Murray, if your non - transportation question could be asked, that would be great. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Very simply, under No. 2 on Page 15 where you speak to monitor and direct traffic, what do you mean by monitor? MS. DESELEM: Again, I'll defer that one to transportation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that there was their phrasing. MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I didn't realize that. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi'? Staff has presented several in which they say -- in which they've used as a basis for claiming there's an inconsistency with the FLUE for this particular project -- the policy as they present it all use the word "shall encourage," "the county shall encourage," the county -- "development shall be encouraged," "the county shall encourage." In the history of this board, we have been told there are certain things that are mandatory and certain things that are not. "Shall" is mandatory; "may" is not. But now this is "shall encourage." Is "shall encourage" a mandatory issue? MS. ASHTON: TON: 1 understand your dilemma. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. ASHTON: 1 think that it's -- I think it's mandatory to the extent it can be provided. So if it's possible, it can. Now, are you referring to the access point on Livingston Road'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's look at the words you just said. Anything is possible. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with $10 million, 1'd bet the school board would jump at letting them have access to Leaming Lane. So it's possible. Now, let's get practical. "Shall encourage" -- because staff has now put criteria on the word "encourage." They've said that until they believe it's encouraged by some letter acknowledging that they tried. Okay. What does it mean try? I call up and say, Tom Eastman, can you let us go there for free? Tom says no. They were encouraged and they tried. So where do we draw the line when we have language like this in our policies that now staff is trying to impose on a property owner in regards to access? And I need your thoughts on that because we — MS. ASHTON: Well, I think what -- I think what staff can impose is the movement of the access point to the -- is it east? MR. YOVANOVICH: North. MS. ASHTON: North, from the north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that isn't the issue. That's the Livingston Road issue. MS. ASHTON: Can they force them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This "encourage" all involves (sic) around demanded access to Leaning Lane. Learning Lane is a private roadway controlled by the school board. The school board sets certain criteria in which they would allow that access to be granted. That criteria apparently is unacceptable, or whether it is or not doesn't really matter. Page 36 of 80 161 1 A March 17, 2011 The word "encourage," is it mandatory and we have to -- we can tell them no? You're -- encourage in Collier County means you shall do it at any cost? That's where I'm trying to get to because that's really the bone of contention in this hearing is how we -- is to what force we can demand they connect to Leaning Lane and to what reasonableness the school board is obligated to provide. MS. ASHTON: Well, I think the four conditions that they have on Page 15 of 16 of the staff report -- I don't see in there that they're requiring -- that -- I'm skimming through again_ But, yeah, I don't see in there that they're requiring them to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4 of 16, it says, "Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element." This board is not allowed to approve things that are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element. If staff is right, this board has a problem. I'm wondering how staff came to that conclusion and that got through legal review with them saying something that was based on the word "encourage" when it really should have been -- if it's not mandatory. MS. ASHTON: Well, I can't speak to how the language got in the Growth Management Plan with the "shall include." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, how they took the word "encourage" and became a -- could be -- something could be inconsistent based on the word "encouraged." And if you could clarify that, it would help us make a decision on how strong the staffs position that is inconsistent with the FLUE is, because that's what we're supposed to weigh this board's decisions on is how our codes are applied and if they're inconsistent or not with our codes. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Well, I don't think it's inconsistent with -- let me rephrase that. I think that staff cannot impose the elimination of the access on Livingston Road through this provision, and I don't agree with the interpretation of staff, frankly, that their proposal is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON: I don't know if you want staff to clarify. I think that from staffs perspective, in speaking with them, that the location of an access point on Livingston Road is more expensive, more dangerous, being on a curve, and so they were hoping that the developer would see that as well and that they would follow through with the Leaning Lane access point. But I don't agree with their conclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I would -- MS. ASHTON: The consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would love to have seen the Learning Lane route used, too, but what I am taking exception to is government's position that the word "encourage" is mandatory, and I didn't see it that way, and to have written a report that is based on that philosophy is a little concerning because it's a push in the wrong direction, and that's why I wanted your clarification as we got into the further discussion. So with that, Mr. Murray, you had more questions of transportation. We might as well get into it then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you covered some of it, certainly. Might as well ask the one about monitor. What do we mean by monitoring when you say "monitor and direct traffic ?" I would think direct traffic would be sufficient. So what do you mean? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. We could remove the word "monitor," because -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we do that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- it's actually staff that monitors for complaints that are received. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The other question having to do with the development within the project shall be limited to 100 and -- got to put the glasses on — 132 unadjusted. Does that consider the potential for 500? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's clear that we're not confining them? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And then, of course, not to beat a dead horse, but I think Mark brought up a very valid question, which I was going to bring up. To me, if you want to state that you want to encourage them to do it, that's fine. To me it doesn't make sense to say "shall encourage," because it's meaningless. You either make them do it or you don't make them do it, and if you can't make them do it because it's not legal, you Page 37 of 80 16111 Ab March 17, 2011 don't do that MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I would say to you, from my point of view anyway, I have no problem with encouraging them, but, you know, the county has run into this same situation. It almost seems like we have somebody as a battering ram, and I hope we wouldn't do that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I can certainly understand your concerns, Commissioner. 1 want to also point you to another portion of the Growth Management Plan which does present it bit of a conflict to staff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe it's Policy 9.2, if I'm not mistaken, of the transportation element, okay. And in that section it directs staff to require, where feasible -- wherever feasible, I'm sorry, interconnection to the local roadway network, okay. And that's -- and that is what transportation staff uses as its review criteria. We -- you know, we are certainly aware of the other policy in the Growth Management Plan. We do feel that's a discrepancy within the plan itself. It's something that we are addressing in this current EAR process. I wanted to let you know about that, that we are discussing that in the EAR process. But at this point we are — transportation staff follows with the recommendations, or recommendation, I should say, of the transportation element. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: John, 1 don't think 1 remember seeing you cite 9.2. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Not in this report, 1 did not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So nobody would have been in a position to -- unless they were really brilliant and they knew this thing by memory -- from my point of view, I could understand the desirability, but we understand also the reluctance of the school district to do certain things we all think are reasonable. So I don't know if you were to cite 9.2 and if you can -- if it properly reflects what it is that the county can do to require. I'm not sure 9.2, as you've said it, though, in fact, does anything more than encourages. I mean, it requires you -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Require where feasible, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. So now it becomes a question of feasibility. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, as a follow -up to what you just said -- so if a project comes in and has the ability and it's very feasible and they actually do connect, interconnect to another off -site location, then down the road they decide to remove that interconnection, how do you justify that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: 1 guess -- could you rephrase the question so you could help me understand better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. There's a project in the East Naples area. It's on the intersection of U.S. 41 and Airport Road. It's called the Collier County Government DRI. They had an interconnection created with traffic flowing to Haldeman Street, or whatever the road is out to the east. They took the lane, and they bulldozed it up and removed it, made it right -in only. You can't even go right -out. You can't go left -out. You can't do anything. That was an interconnection, just like this is. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how did Collier County have an interconnection and then remove it? And now you're telling us that we're supposed to -- where feasible, they're supposed to remain. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That connection actually required modification, and this is, I know, off the subject of the hearing at hand, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not, because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. The -- my understanding of that situation is that there were complaints from the neighborhood, there were safety complaints from the neighborhood, Palm Drive, those residences that are along Palm Drive, and that was a request to limit p.m. peak -hour exit movement, egress movements from the Collier County Government Center. In that case what we did was we allowed an entry from Palm Drive into the government center which still meets the interconnection requirements, but we eliminated the outbound movement from government center onto Palm Drive at that location, again to satisfy the local neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a complaint from a local neighborhood, unvalidated by a survey or by any kind of horrified criteria, is a feasible reason to eliminate an interconnect? Page 38 of 80 161 lA 6 Maih 17, 2011 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Actually, sir, there were multiple complaints from the neighborhood. And if I recall correctly -- it's been a few years, but if I recall correctly, staff did go and monitor the situation. It did concur with the request from the residents along Palm Drive, the Glades Country Club. MR. BELLOWS: 1 have an email from Mike Green indicating that the closure of one lane connection on the campus was required as a condition of the DRI at a particular level of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the DRI and the review of that was all subject to 9.2. 1 was here when all that happened. I know why it happened. I'm not saying it was wrong to happen. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. But I hate to see us trying to apply a standard differently to a private party and then the government have a different standard apply to them. 9.2 wasn't brought up in our discussions to the DRI. In fact, everybody said, oh, let's just take this away; the neighborhood doesn't want it. And I remember one of our board members being -- living in that neighborhood, and we all agreed with him. Sure, you shouldn't have to have that imposition in your neighborhood. At the same time, I don't think 9.2 should be used against a private property owner. So that was my point. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And be that as it may, I'm still -- I'm still not satisfied with your interpretation of encourage. You referenced a Policy 9.2 where feasible. I think that's the same as it was in the case with the government center. Melissa, I'm sorry to have gone ahead of you. I think you had your hand up, or was it Brad? COMMISSIONER AHERN: No, it was Brad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'mjust -- what is the status of the connection with the Learning Lane? I mean, what's the history behind that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me tell you -- first of all, we did — at the encouragement of your transportation staff, we met with school board staff, and we had a very good meeting. The school board rightfully has a policy for their roads that when they build a road, if you want to connect to their road, you have to pay your fair share of what it cost them to build that road. So at that point, that's what they told us the requirements were, and they showed us the policy. So we went back and looked at what are our options at this point. And we did a very -- we did an analysis of what's it going to cost us to come off Livingston Road versus what is it going to cost us to come off of Learning Lane. And without even factoring in any money to the school board, it looked to us as if it was going to cost us more money to go off Learning Lane. So we said, "At the PUD stage it's premature. We don't want to give up our rights to use Livingston Road. We want to snake that decision when we have good, hard data as to what's best for the church." And the church is allowed to have access off Livingston Road. It is a public road. I don't think the school board's road is part of the local roadway network anymore than somebody else's private road is part of the local roadway network. So I'm not even sure that the policy applies because it's not a local road. But anyway, we have the right to use Livingston Road in a right- in/right -out condition. And we have left open the option in the future to meet with the school board staff if it's something that we want to pursue to find out what it would cost us to connect to Learning Lane. We have the option. That option's there for us in the future. But right now we want to have -- the decision needs to be our decision as to whether to go to Learning Lane, because Livingston Road is our only legal access that exists today. School board has been great. They met with us a couple of times. They're applying their policy. So we have gone and in good faith talked to school board staff, and in good faith they've talked to us. So I mean, I think we've met the requirement that's already from your Comprehensive Planning staff. We've already met it. And right now we have the option to go to Learning Lane. We haven't said no to Learning Lane. We could do that in the future. It could be a second, third phase, or maybe never, but we do have that option. You know, Learning Lane makes certain sense. It is a full median opening, but we need to make that decision -- the church needs to make that decision what's in the best interest for the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Eastman, then Mr. Murray. MR. EASTMAN: I agree with what Rich has said with regard to the policy and the meetings. I'd just like to make a point that this policy has been implemented and played a role on several different sites, Poinciana, our Page 39 of 80 161 1 A6 March 17. 2011 administrative campus with Community School, as well as Pine Ridge Middle School. So it's a well -worn path. And I also had given the applicants several of the agreements where we've been able to reach a solution and provide access onto a school - district roadway. So it's been done, and it is workable and feasible, just under certain parameters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just out of curiosity, does the school district, in your preliminary and secondary conversations with them, maybe tertiary, did they -- did they talk to you about paying for your fair share for the entire road or that portion leading up to the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- in fairness to Tom, we never got down to the actual apportionment numbers, because when we looked at it, our initial reaction was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, my God. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- even a dollar puts us over what we can afford right now. So we haven't gone and said, hey, do we pay X percentage of the first until we get to our entrance -- I'm hoping that's the answer, that we don't have to pay for anything beyond our entrance. But we -- in fairness to Tom, we didn't get to that level of detailed discussion yet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I would just ask John then. I saw you shake your head no, that you aren't satisfied. What was envisioned by county staff as being adequatejust- -- adequate proof or evidence of their good -faith effort? What did you expect them to bring back to you? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Per my adminis- -- or my deputy administrator, Mr. Casalanguida, he has directed me that he expects a good -faith effort to be brought forth before the school board, and to -- at this point nothing has been brought before the school board. It's only been brought, as you stated, the tertiary discussion to Mr. Eastman. And that's all that we're aware of at this point. Nothing has been presented for approval to the school board yet that the applicant has found is acceptable to them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that your standard format that you would require of anybody, that they go before the school board with regard to this matter? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Suppose the school board doesn't choose to hear the matter? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If the school board chooses not to hear the matter, then we would assume that that would be their fair and reasonable effort on behalf of the applicant, and we would have to side with the applicant in that case. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seems somewhat open- ended, but I understand you, John. MR. PODCZ.ERWINSKY: It does. And typically these are things that we try to have worked out prior to hearing. We like to have these sort of issues ironed out before we get to this point in the hearing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Ms. Ahern. COMMISSIONER MIDNFY: Yeah. It would seem -- 1 don't really know what the figures would be, but a church only operates very limited hours. The fair share would probably be very small, and the church would also have to think about the inconvenience of having to go 2,000 feet up the road and everybody have to do a U -turn if they're coining from, you know, where most of them are coming, which is Naples. And I would expect that at least you would get some estimate of what your fair share would be and just -- instead ofjust saying even one dollar more is -- you know, we don't want to go there. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have -- you know, with all due respect to my esteemed colleague to my right, this issue was resolved. We, from the very beginning, have questioned the legality of forcing us to go have these discussions; nonetheless, we had the discussions with the school board in good faith and came back and said, "Here's our analysis." We can want the option to go to Learning Lane. We're not telling the county no. We want that option. We just don't want to make that commitment today at the PUD -level hearing. And staff came back -- and I could -- I didn't bring the email with me, but I could, that says, Rich, you're right. We can't legally require you to do that. Now, that may even be in the staff report that they can't legally require me to do that. You know, you keep those "Rich, you're right" memos every once in a while because it doesn't happen very often, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Few and tar between. Page 40 of 80 lb A 6 1 March 17, 2011 MR. YOVANOV ICH: But, you know -- so we did something, and we are -- and we are looking at that option, because, Mr. Midney, you're absolutely correct, there is a certain convenience with going to Learn ng Lane. I will also point out that every time I go to staff and 1 say to them, you know, I really would like a directional left into my project so we don't have to drive 2,000 feet to make a U -tum to get to our development, I get no sympathy from county transportation staff when I'm asking for it, because going 2,000 feet is -- it's an okay inconvenience for us. It's one of those, again, you know, let's -- you know, let's be consistent in the application of those rules. So we know there's a certain amount of inconvenience for our people to go to Veterans Memorial and make the U -tum, but, you know, we have to look at what can the church reasonably do at this time, and they're factoring all of that in when they do their ultimate Site Development Plan. That will all be factored in. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would still like to see some estimate instead of just saying, you know, anything would be impractical. MR. YOVANOVICH: Our estimate -- the cost of -- Wayne, what was our numbers, ballpark? MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold. We did some cost analysis of looking at both access points. And if you just look at the pure numbers of designing an access point on Livingston Road versus designing one for Learning Lane, the numbers definitely favor Learning Lane. When you factor in whatever the number the school board would demand from this applicant to pay toward the cost of connection and possibly maintenance, that's another cost on top of it. It brings it closer to the Livingston Road number. Still not there. The other factor that I'm not sure Rich mentioned, but to connect at our southern boundary requires us to impact some very poor - quality wetlands, but, nonetheless, our environmental consultant has told us, you will be required to mitigate for those. Your minimal cost for that will be at least another $65,000. Okay. When you start looking at those costs for the church to start in their first phase, to make them go and negotiate an agreement and to pay mitigation costs when, if they put the church building where they've proposed and the access where they've proposed on Livingston Road that has no wetland impacts, it's a big cost factor and a big difference. I think it's been said, I think we all agree, connection to Learning Lane would probably be the preferred access point. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm looking at the map, and 1 just see, like, that little jog going through the green area. That doesn't seem like $65,000 worth of mitigation damage. MR. ARNOLD: Well, it wouldn't if it was just for the 24 feet of pavement that crosses it, but the fact is, the consultant has told us that everything from the entrance point back east to Livingston Road will be considered an impact to the wetland because you've now created two roadway separations, one at Livingston, one at our access point, and we'll be required to mitigate for that impact, which is about an acre. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And if you only have access on Learning Lane? MR. ARNOLD: If I only had access on Learning Lane, I'm bearing the cost of whatever the school agreement is plus my wetland impact plus construction of the access point. That's why, from a zoning standpoint, we think it makes sense to show both locations. Let us then deal with, you know, the county if we can't fairly negotiate with the school district. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You think that the school district would be a lot less than the 65,000? The big portion would be the wetland mitigation? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we don't know exactly what the school district's number will be. As Rich said, we haven't gotten that far because we don't know exactly what the ultimate methodology will be that they will require us to use for the calculation. Tom has provided us previously with the total road construction cost numbers to the school district, and they had a separate agreement already with Royal Palm Academy for paying back about 50 percent of that road. And it would be us and potentially one more road connection on Learning Lane. So we don't really know how to apportion those costs. But we don't want to -- we don't want to close the door on that opportunity to make that connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Ultimately, it would have to be the school board that would make this decision. As a member of staff, we merely present the issue to the school board for consideration. And what we'd be concerned with Page 41 of 80 1 6 1 1 A March 17, 2011 is looking at the TIS to make sure that the traffic would not obstruct school - district operations, and then we would, as we have in the past -- and I said this is a well -worn path and we have this agreement with many other parties and many other situations. We would come to a reasonable cost estimate of what the fair share would be and present that to the school board. Ultimately the school board would have authority. They're the only ones with the authority to grant an easement. In this case, that's what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Actually a question for Rich. How many members are currently in the church? MR. YOVANOVICH: Seventy members? We have 70 members. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. The reason I'm asking, or I guess the point I'm looking from is obviously you're designing this as more of a future project. So to have 70 people entering through Livingston Road for the time being seems very minimal. And as you expand in the future, maybe Learning Lane then becomes more of an option to access the other areas. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. My kids go to Veterans Memorial, so I'm familiar with the operation of Livingston, you know, in the mornings. It is -- it functions quite well during the week. It's hard to drive slow enough to meet the speed limit on that road. It really is hard to go only 45 miles an hour on that road. Ijust have trouble believing that a church that in -- on Sundays and maybe Wednesdays in the evening with a right- in/right -out access is going to hurt the operation of Livingston Road. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I think people going to church are the only ones on that road on Sunday. MR. YOVANOV ICH: Yeah, I would think so. But I don't think that we're going to --and we haven't said no to Learning Lane. We've just said, we may not be able to do it right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, actually, Mr. Arnold brought up something that I was going to bring up, which was the wetland impacts, because I had had that discussion with Mr. Yovanovich. I would just hope that for the sake of the church we find them the least expensive way to access their property and not just assume it's off Livingston. Spending a little extra time finding out what the actual mitigation costs would be and the actual school costs would be due diligence on the part of your counsel and your representatives and your church members, because it may end up being actually less expensive. So 1 think theyjust want the option here, and they've moved it to as far north as they can move it. And I certainly don't think it's going to cause Livingston Road to fail either, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You look like you're going to respond, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, if 1 might respond to Commissioner Caron's concern. Some of the items that are not included in this cost estimate that was discussed earlier in the comparison between connection to Learning Lane and the connection to Livingston Road would be the two turn lanes that would accotwnodate U -turns for the church traffic on Sunday morning. The Learning Lane U -turn, the one that's southbound making a U -tum, that currently is inadequate to handle what they would be zoned for. Also, we would have to take a second look at the Veterans Memorial U -turn, the northbound U -turn there, to make sure that both of those turn lanes would accommodate the U -turns that this church would create by creating the Livingston Road access. Not to mention -- and I think this is mentioned in my staff report -- House Bill 697 requiring the reduction of vehicle miles traveled. This -- we don't feel it's consistent with that. The Livingston Road access would cause additional trips to go all the way up to the U -tum at Livingston and Veterans Memorial. That's one of our bigger concerns with this. Also I wanted to get on the record while I'm here, I wanted to show you this exhibit that I have up. The access that's been present in a lot of the master plans that you've seen is south of this little triangular area that belongs to the Livingston Road right -of -way -- or that's attached to the Livingston Road right -of -way, I should say. On this exhibit there's been a lot of discussion about where that driveway would be located. The driveway that's shown on the applicant's plans is not consistent with the county's Access Management Policy. It is too close to Livingston Lane (sic). The access was requested to be moved to the northeast corner of the property. And for clarification, staff asked us -- I should say Ms. Deselem asked us to clarify where exactly we meant when we said the northeast comer Page 42 of 80 161 t 1 A6 March 17, 2011 of the property where it fronts Livingston Road. And you'll see the notes here. One says "not here." It's an arrow pointing to the very northeasterly comer of the parcel. The other one says "here," and that is where our preferred access location is. That is the closest we could come to compliance with the Access Management Policy. I COMMISSIONER CARON: I think they got that, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah. Well, I also wanted to address that the access management on Livingston Road -- this is one very special -case road in Collier County, as reflected by my administrator. He says that this is the jewel of our -- this is ourjewel road, and that's reflected in our Access Management Policy when they declared that an Access Management Class II roadway. That is one step below 1 -75, which is Access Management Class I. Okay. The spacing on this roadway and the care that we take to maintain the capacity on this roadway is at the top level of what we can achieve here as directed by our board in our Access Management Policy. So I just wanted to make sure that I'm adamant about how much we're doing in this. They're trying to protect the capacity, both during p.m. peak hours and off -peak hours, of this roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've convinced me that if these people don't agree to go to Learning Lane, you will make living hell for them from now until they get all their approvals. Mr. Schiffer, did you have something next? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: My teeth hurt. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But since you segued into this, let me just ask you. What is the distance separation that they're not meeting? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The distance should be 1,320 feet, quarter mile, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're at what? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: They're within 10 percent of that at the "here" -- quote - unquote "here" location marked by the red arrow. They're within 10 percent, which is an allowable deviation. I want to say they're at 1,200 and something feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So even that's not perfect. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's not perfect, but it's the closest we can get. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I'll agree with Mark on that then. Number 2, in the peak traffic events, would you be okay if we took away everything in parentheses where you start to define them, and then that way couldn't you go back to them if there was some traffic issues and make them start providing that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If you'll give me a moment I'd like to look up No. 2. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What -- and your intent there is -- well, what would happen? Let's say this phrase -- this wasn't in and somebody -- some church did start to cause traffic problems. Is there leverage you could use to make them start to control that to get the traffic through? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You've got a very pertinent question, and I'm not sure that there is, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. And I do not have an objection to removing what is in parentheses, those words being "such as church services, weddings, or any other large event," because it is ill defined. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So I think if we just leave peak traffic, if you have a problem, that might be the hook you need. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I'm looking at the map of the subject property, and there's sort of like a triangular cutout that you say has something to do with right -of -way for Livingston Road. Why is that triangle there? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That triangle, to my knowledge, is a result of when the right -of -way for Livingston Road was purchased for the widening and extension of Livingston Road. When the county purchased that parcel, you'll notice on the parcel map, that parcel also covers on the westerly side -- or I'm sorry -- the easterly side of Livingston Road. It seems as though we purchased the entire parcel rather than do a taking through the center of a parcel and split it into two halves. Page 43 of 80 161 1 "° March 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we -- I want to ask the commission as a whole -- we normally -- we're getting into 12 o'clock. We've got to finish this, we have to do the consent, and we have a short presentation on the Watershed Management Plan. Do you -all want to work through lunch and just continue, or do you want to break for lunch and then come back? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll stay here. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Whatever you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any -- anybody have a need to break for lunch? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. We may need a cracker break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll break. We'll do a 15- minute break when Mr. Murray's question is finished, but I wanted to make sure that you can get by without a lunch break and we can finish up here. Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just out of curiosity here, where that purported triangle exists there, that part of Livingston Road right -of -way Zoned A agricultural, is that now being used as dry detention? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't believe it is, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's just sitting there and it's fallow. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe you're correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So there's no -- there's nothing -- if they were to move that entrance to that location, they would not have a further encumbrance or a penalty as a result of that'? Are they reluctant to move it to that location? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: To the triangle location? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To where it is "here." MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't believe they're reluctant to. I just wanted to be sure that it was on the record, because the maps that have been presented to you today all show access south of that triangle piece. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. So maybe 1 should ask Mr. Yovanovich if he's unhappy or he can live with the location "here." MR. YOVANOVICI1: fhe "here" location, not our first choice. We prefer where we have it. But if staff says it's absolutely got to move further to the north to be closer to compliance with their policy, I guess we'll move it, but I don't know that that really -- again, you know, I'm not a traffic consultant, but I find it hard to believe that that few hundred feet makes a whole lot of difference in the operation of Livingston Road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I have another question for you, John, relative to the fact that you spoke of vehicle miles traveled and new fad of making sure we reduce all of those. Wouldn't it seem logical then to provide them access directly so that they can access their church rather than making them go 2,000 feet up and make a U -tum? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Do you mean as -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're talking about cost and vehicle miles traveled. If we did a calculation, we might find out it's a lot cheaper for the county to do that than all the amount of extra carbon we put in the air. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And--okay. Direct access, do you mean just direct access to Livingston with a right- in/right -out? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, 1 mean whatever is necessary to make it safe for them to make an access in -- from Livingston into that without having -- in other words, you'd have to cut across a median. I presume there's a median there. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, I understand. Okay. To clarify, perhaps, you're seeking -- you're seeking an answer about the potential for a median opening at this location. The median opening spacing that's allowable by our Access Management Policy is, I believe, 2,600 feet, 2,700 feet. I'd have to take a second look, but it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're the expert, not me. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, but it's half -mile spacing for the median openings at this location, if 1 recall correctly, for a Class 11 roadway. So staff would not be allowed to approve such an opening at -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's going to become a -- MR. PODCZERWTNSKY: -- a quarter mile. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- conflict as we go on with the vehicle- miles- traveled issue. But, okay. Page 44 of 80 161 1 A6 4 March 17. 2011 Thank you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, we're going to take a break. During the break, I think you can get a flavor of the hell you're going to be in for as time goes on with this project. In that regard, would you take a look at Items 1 through 4 under staff recommendations to make sure that the minimal amount of arbitrary interpretation could come out of those so that at least your project can get to a point where every property owner should get someday when they own a piece of property. And with that, let's take a 15- minute break, and we'll come back at 12:20. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody please take their seats. Everybody from the Planning Commission is here. We have another issue to discuss before we go back into our meeting. Earlier I had said that we really have a couple of things to wrap up and we could probably get it done if we work through lunch. During the break I was informed that one of the issues that is coming up, which is the update on the Watershed Management Plan, is, in fact, a more formal presentation than we have gotten in the past from Mr. Hatcher. It's 100 slides, t was told. It will take some time. As you know, there was no backup in our packet regarding this item other than a memorandwn, one page, that said, "Objective: To provide a brief update on the progress and summarize the existing conditions as part of the Watershed Management Plans." Mimics what's on our agenda. In the past when Mr. Hatcher has done that, it basically is 10 or 15 minutes, he describes what's going on, we concur with what he's doing or we tell him to please go out, seek the stakeholders and do other things, and we wait until the plan's done. Today's a little different. Now, seeing that there's a 100 -slide item out there, it would have been nice to have had some paperwork that we could have reviewed to anticipate what's on those 100 slides, but we don't, that I know of. At least I don't see any in my packet. I don't think anybody else got any. So we need to either decide to break for lunch and come back and fmish up whatever we don't from the time we decide to break for lunch, or we need to reschedule the Water Management Plan update to the extent that it's being requested to another date and time. And I will leave it up to this board to decide -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Go to lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what to do. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I feel we have a lot of people here for what Mack's going to talk about. Ijust think we should go to lunch and come back, because they've all spent their time coming down here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of all those people, do they have the advantage of that advance knowledge either? I know that -- I'm canvassing them per se, but I would hope that they wouldn't have any more advantage of that information than 1. Although I don't really believe what I just said, and I would hope for that advantage. But I'm really saying that I would have liked to have had that information, because I consider this matter so serious that I -- 100 slides to go whip, whip, whip, whip doesn't provide me, at least, with the information that I needed for this matter. So I'll go with whatever the board says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm looking. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, are all these people on the right -hand side here for that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If -- anybody here for the Watershed Management Plan, just please raise your hand. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, boy. Most everybody's here for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We got to go to lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think so. So we will have to -- what I'd like to do is finish the Grace Church and then go to lunch. So those of you that had those delicious - looking crackers that you got out of the vending Page 45 of 80 161 1 M0, 20111 4 machine, you may have to go and get something nutritious for lunch to keep your mind in gear. Well, the consent will have to come back. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was hoping. COMMISSIONER AHERN: You'll be going to lunch with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, lookit. Let's put it this way. Either one o'clock we cut off and go to lunch till two, and if we can fit both of these things in between now and one, I'm okay with that. How's that sound to everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what's going to happen. So at one o'clock we will take an hour break for lunch. We will not do the Watershed Management Plan before two o'clock. Well -- yeah, before two o'clock. Let's leave it that way. So you guys, if you -all want to go out and have a nice bite to eat and forget all this heavy stuff for an hour and a half, go for it. Okay. We left off on the discussion involving the Grace Romanian Church. Does anybody have any other questions of Richard or transportation staff at this time? COMMISSIONER AHERN: 1 just have a quick question for John. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: You made the comment about preserving the capacity on Livingston. How does that change whether they enter off of Livingston or Learning Lane? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The capacity doesn't change. It's the -- again, the vehicle rules traveled. You're putting those trips on the road for twice the distance that they need to be on this segment. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So if there was no Learning Lane, what would their option be? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Their option would be to travel north — let's say, for example, northbound traffic that's trying to enter the site would have to go all the way up to Veterans Memorial, make a U -turn, come all the way back down to the site to make a right -in. Exiting traffic that would like to go northbound would have to turn right out of the site, make a U -tum at Learning Lane at the signal, which is, again, as has been mentioned before, only signalized during school hours when the buses use it. And it would have to travel -- make the U -tum there and head back north. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I think my issue with this is. through various government regulation, it's preventing the property owner from using his access. So, you know, to say because we're forcing them to go 2,000 more feet, now they don't meet vehicle miles traveled is Catch 22. You're not really giving them a lot of options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I think one thing we haven't touched on yet is the pre - school. That's going to be more than just the church, and that's every day. That's quite a bit of re- routed traffic if most of these people are coming from Naples and they're all going to have to go the 2,000 miles (sic) and do the U -turn. To me it seems logical that they do try to find some accommodation with the school board for Learning Lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just as a counter to that, what you just said is probably a good reason why the school board may not let them use Learning Lane, And Tom's nodding affirmative. Hejust got done saying they have to assess the impact from the traffic on that church on Learning Lane and how it will affect the school buses and children going to school. And if I were them I'd look at this -- okay, if it's a church on Sundays, it doesn't really affect the school much, but if they open a daycare and they're operating during the school week when the school's trying to have buses coming in and out, they may have a second position on whether or not they even want them on Leaming Lane. Tom, is that a fair statement? MR. EASTMAN: That's a very fair statement. We would have to do an analysis of how this traffic would affect school district operations and the -- it's ideal in the sense that if it were just a church on the weekends, because obviously there is no school traffic on the weekends, but it's a potential conflict for the issues you just mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that gets back to the property - rights issue. You stood up here in the beginning and you said the administrator, which is Nick, wanted you to make it very clear to us where his position was on this. And basically, he has some arbitrary interpretation of the word "encourage." And in his mind, Richard's client has to keep trying until it meets his determination of what encourages means. He has tried enough. Where in our codes is the standard written for how much that applicant and that property owner has to try to Page 46 of 80 16 March 17, 2011 `4 satisfy any individual within county staff who interprets it in such a way? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't have a reference that I could cite for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your Policy 9.2, all this stuff slaps in the face of property rights. There is no landlocked properties that I know of They have property rights for access. And then to turn around and say, okay, if you insist on an access, basically, what I heard here today, it sounds like, you're going to make life as difficult as possible for them. As far as U -tums, you guys closed off a business entrance on Davis Boulevard to Gemmy's Restaurant that had a left -in to his facility. When that happened, that owner said to me, "Look what they're doing to my business. People have got to go down the street to turn around." You know what, you didn't increase that left -tum lane for a stacking lane to accommodate the new U -turns that had to be made to get into that business on Davis Boulevard. The guy went out of business. I'm sure he didn't claim it was because of that median cut. But I notice it's very selective on how we apply these rules when we want to apply them, and that is really unfair, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I would actually like to disagree with you on that, Mr. Chairman. We apply what's given to us, what's directed to us by the Board of County Commissioners and the Access Management Policy as it's written. And as I said before, this is a very special -case roadway. This is our -- one of our only two segments of roadway in this county that are Access Class II. And as I said before, that is one step below I -75 that allows no access. This is a limited- access roadway as defined by the board, and we follow their direction as such. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the speed limit's 45, and 1 -75's 70. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's quite a bit of difference in the road styles. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't disagree with you that there is a difference between Access Class I and Class II. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other questions of county staff on this issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. My question is that if we did say that they can, you know, have their exclusive entrance on Livingston, we're still insisting on that it be right- in/right -out only? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's not a matter of us saying it. I think they have a right to it. So it's just a matter of convincing staff that there are property rights in that regard. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Mr. Strain is correct, they do have property rights, and we're not denying those property rights. We're just asking for a fair --a fair try at --that they take a fair try at going to the school board with this. And to our knowledge, they have not attempted to do that yet. They've gone only to Mr. Eastman, and they've taken it that far and decided it wasn't cost effective. Everything in our analysis so far that we've seen looks like it will actually be cheaper to connect to Leaming Lane than it would be to Livingston, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, have you heard any time today where they refused to connect to Learning Lane? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What they've said is, give us what we're entitled to as property owners, which every property owner in this county has a right to. If it works out we can connect to Learning Lane in the future, we'll consider it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we have not got an arbitrary right by government to demand it that I can see. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I understand that, sir. And if I may add, they have, through the review process, declined the -- declined to connect to Learning Lane up until, I think, the very last review; is that not correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see were they still have -- I don't think they have to make that decision. They can demand the access on Livingston and leave it for their discretion in the future. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Apparently I'm incorrect. As I hear the groans in the background, I'm incorrect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Murray. Page 47 of 80 161 1 AC March 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER MIDNF,Y: So the right- iivright -out, that's by right; anybody has a right for that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But does that also imply that since there's going to be a lot of people that are coming from, you know, the left -hand side, would the church have to pay if there's any modifications that have to be made to the road to allow that U -tum? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's between them and the staff on the analysis of their SDP application, I would assume. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. The staff response is that any requirements that -- any operational deficiencies that are created by the applicant's traffic would be required to be handled at the tune of SDP. We would have to take a look at them. And if there's a turn lane that requires to be extended -- and we do anticipate at least one would be -- then that would have to be looked at at the time of SDP based on their peak operational traffic. Usually for a church, Sunday mornings. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So then the applicant would be taking a risk if they decided to --were going to try for the main thing, Livingston Road, not knowing how much that turn lane would cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's -- yeah. They can do what they -- they can do what they want to do. MR. YOVANOV ICH: This is how it's going to play out. You know, 1 could -- let's go to the end of the story. I'm going to come in with an SDP, and staff is going to tell me, you've got to extend the turn lane up at VME, Veterans Memorial Boulevard. And I'm going to go, logically, how can that be? I've got a 900- student elementary school that school district boundaries, the only thing north of it is Mediten a and Tuscany Reserve. I know Tuscany Reserve doesn't have very many children living in it, doesn't have that many people right now. And I know Mediterra doesn't have a lot of school -aged students. What I do know, since I drive in the morning north to that turn Zane, I would assume since most of us are coming from the south to the north, that that turn lane has already been properly sized for a 900 - student elementary school that travels it every day. I would assume, since there's 900 students going to that school, that if I'm going to do a 500 -seat church at ultimate build -out, there's less people going to church on Sunday than are going to school every day, and I will lose that logical argument. 1 will lose that logical argument because the goal here is to make it expensive so that I am strongly encouraged to go to Learning Lane for my access. That's how it will play out, and 1 will be sitting there with a logical argument that I will probably lose, and we'll figure it out at SDP. But let us do it at SDP and not give up our rights today, and let's hopefully look at this where it makes some common sense. And, you know, don't apply a 500 -seat church to me on day one when I come in for a fellowship hall multi -use building that's not going to house 500 people. But this is how it's going to play out, as you know. They're going to make it -- it's going to be hard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you know that -- when you get an email that says you were right and you stick it in a file somewhere, well, keep the minutes from this meeting, because you know what, I heartedly agree with you. You are right, that's just what's going to happen, and it shouldn't. But you ought to put that aside, and your client ought to put it aside so that you can adequately challenge this if you want to take it to that ultimate challenge in the future. MR. YOVANOV ICH: You had asked me, Mr. Chairman, to go through the four recotmnendations to eliminate ambiguity at the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOV ICH: I honestly believe that recommendation No. 2 in its entirety should come out, and let me give you the reason for that. We are asking for a right-in/right-out access onto Livingston Road for a church use and ultimately a daycare. I don't know why we would ever need a police officer or someone like a police officer out there to monitor traffic for fight-iii/right-out. And I'll give you an example of another -- First Baptist Church, I believe, has a right- in/right -out on Livingston Road, and I don't think they're required on Sundays to provide traffic-control officers, deputies, whatever. So I don't think we should be required to do it either. Because 1 don't care what I write, there's going to be ambiguity. Because if I leave it at the discretion of transportation, I'm never going to come up with a measurable goal, so that's Page 48 of 80 1611A6 March 17, 2011 why I think No. 2 needs to come out. If I had a full median opening, I would say, let's leave it " open. But I don't imagine a situation with a right - in/right -out, that you would really need a police officer to -- on this type of road to monitor traffic during church services. So that's why -- that's my rationale for taking No. 2 out altogether. I think it would be different if I had more than a right- inhight -out access. Let's leave some of that ambiguity in for safety reasons, but I don't think you need it in this case. Other than that, since the staff comp. plan finding was really in the text, I think we have satisfied the requirements to be -- we shall -- the "shall encourage" criteria I think we've met -- in hope that we can move forward with the document as written. Again, we understand that we have the option to use Learning Lane, and we'll be strongly -- or shall be encouraged to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I -- John, this is maybe very relevant to that. You've indicated that your organization is not happy with their progress, that they haven't done enough, whatever. Have you folks offered yourselves to be in company with them when they meet with the school district? MR. PODCZERWFNSKY: Yes, sir. In fact, we're the ones that initiated communication to the school district to try and obtain the first access to Livingston Road or to Learning -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have you accompanied them at their meetings? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We have not accompanied them to their meetings. It's between two private -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You asked for that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- parties. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have you asked for that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're the encouraging party. You're -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You keep talking over his answer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize. What I want to say to you is that you're the encouraging party. You effectively become a party to the issue. You ought to be in attendance, especially because you're asserting that they're not compliant with your wishes. And I don't know what else they're supposed to bring back, a note from the teacher or what. It just doesn't make sense to me to put that on them. Now, irrespective of whether we get rid of 2 or not, it's a good thing to go after Learning Lane. But if you want that, you ought to be willing to attend to it. And I'm going to openly invite them, if they want to pursue it in the future, that I would think that they would invite you along. Would you have any problem attending such a meeting? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, I would not. And, in fact, Mr. Casalanguida offered to attend just -- when we were on our first break today, he offered to attend those meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I think that anyone attending -- we're kind of having the meeting right now, and we're all here. And it's the church's position that a dollar more in terms of contem- -- you know, contributions towards the road or reimbursement of the road or future maintenance obligation for the road, which we have in every other instance of a shared access, is a dollar too much. So there we are. I mean, we're having the meeting now. MR. YOVANOVICH: We are -- and let me soften a little bit. We understand some of the additional costs that may be coming our way to where the math numbers change a little bit. The school board has been very receptive to meeting with us. They've had meetings with us. Having the staff there is not going to change their policy. It just comes down to what's the appropriate ratio and whether or not we can structure our pre - school, should we go forward Page 49 of 80 1 61 I Nb A March 17. 2011 with the pre - school, to where it doesn't interfere with their middle school hours. I think we can work around that, because middle school right now starts around nine clock. So I think those are issues we can work through. The school board's been very receptive to meeting with us. If John wants to come and watch that we talk nice to each other and that we'll come up with an appropriate ratio, that's fine. He's welcome to come to that meeting. We just need to have that meeting once we have a better handle on our costs and our numbers. We're not saying we don't want to have that meeting. Wejust need a better handle on the costs. So we're just asking to go forward as written. MS. ASHTON: And I think they've already complied with what staff has requested. They just don't have a written response. 1 mean, essentially, they're denied access because they're not willing to spend any money, and we can't force them to spend money, so we're done. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: the only thing I would disagree with on that statement is that we're not denying access. We're just encouraging, strongly encouraging. MS. ASHTON: No, no. 1 meant the school board. It's essentially a denial because the property owner doesn't want to pay any money, and we can't force them to so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 1 think the statement you just said, "We can't force them to" is the key. I mean, it's great. We had a great discussion about Learning Lane. It's all irrelevant to the zoning application of this property. They have a right to Livingston Road, and we should be standing up for that right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know I will when we get to that point. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. And one thing's good. I guess we're coining out of recession because we're back to tightening the screws. But anyway. The access road that's -- the access road here, how important is that to you? And maybe I should talk to Wayne Arnold about site design, what it does. I mean, sketching it, to me, seems like a logical place, you'd come in, see the building from the comer, which is a nice vista. Wayne, does it mess up internal -- I mean, is that really a deal breaker for you, or is there something I'm missing here? Because it seems to he an okay way to come on the site to me. MS. ARNOLD: For the record. Wayne Arnold. We've not prepared any other preliminary sketches based on the relocated access point. I think Rich alluded to it. We can Iive with it. It's not our preferred or ideal situation, but we can live with moving this 120 feet to the north. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Thanks. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we've got to do -- MS. ASHTON: We have a speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron has a question. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a few other things. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Sorry. Trying to move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I know that Mr. Yovanovich would just like to take 2 out completely, but I can't think of another church that hasn't had some sort of requirement that if transportation staff deems it necessary, that they get a traffic monitor. And I would hope that we could get on the record here that transportation staff isn't using this as a cudgel over these people's heads, that it would be only if and when there are real issues. And certainly, the 70 people who are coming to church on Sundays now aren't going to create that. The 200 people a year from now aren't going to do that. I'm not even sure when they get to 500 they'll need -- they can fill up their church with 500 people, that they'll need that. But every other church PUD everywhere in this county has had that, a traffic- monitoring statement in it, and t don't think it should come out completely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Would you like me to respond, Commissioner? Page 50 of 80 161 1 q 6 March 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Then Mr. Schiffer after you respond. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. Commissioner Caron, we do agree. And the only thing that we would recommend is perhaps changing the language to be a little more clear in No. 2 so that it reads, "When deemed necessary by county staff or Collier County Sheriffs Office." And I'll put on record now that what deems that necessary for us are complaints from the public, accident reports, those sort of things. When we see evidence of dangerous conditions, that's when we start looking at using this sort of a measure to control traffic. So it's not -- and it's certainly not something that we would hold over the applicant's head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, John, the scary thing I have about keeping it, I mean, how would a person control that traffic? That's pretty dangerous. Rich is right about Livingston. You're discussing that this is a drop below 75. So somewhere we're going to put a human being out there to wave down the traffic so -- to let the church people out? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I understand your concern, sir. I've seen similar situations in Lee County. I haven't seen any exactly similar situations here in Collier where we've required a staff mem- -- you know, a Sheriffs Office deputy or, perhaps, a traffic- control personnel that's been trained by the Sheriffs Office, somebody who's qualified to do something of that nature. I have not seen any examples of that yet in Collier County, not to say that there aren't any. Wejust haven't exercised that to my knowledge. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank God it's not across the street on the other part of the curve. Then we'll really get them. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. If there's -- if there's a problematic movement, then it's a possibility that we can control traffic movements, especially for Sunday - morning traffic during off -peak hours with that -- with those personnel. That's what it's intended for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray'? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I make a recommendation that we put signage up, that it be church entrance, drive, you know, with caution. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Church crossing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did we have staff report, Ray'? It's been going on longer than I thought. I wasn't sure we had staff. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's just go into public speakers registered. MR. BELLOWS: I think Kay might have something on the record. MS. DESELEM: No. I did, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have one speaker. Henry Pitt. MR. PITT: Could you put up that first thing that you had? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pitt, you'll have to identify yourself for the record. Were you sworn? MR. PITT: Sure. My name is Frank Pitt. First of all, representing two groups. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you swom in? MR. PITT: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PITT: Thank you. First of all, I was representing my brother who has a piece up above here and, second of all, I'm representing for Southeast, which has parcels to the west of this. And one of the things you said, they're not landlocked. Well, that piece is, but we've talked about that separately at another item. When you look at this overall picture -- I was talking to John about this in January because the -- he specifically told me that the school board was working with Wayne Arnold and with the applicants and also that the county was not recommending there be any access onto Livingston Road. So now, when you look at Livingston Road and you see the access point above there where the county has already approved and has built the access road to my brother's piece in here -- Page 51 of 80 166 March 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, yeah. You'll have to hold the discussion till you get back to the mike, but thank you. MR. PITT: That's what I'm doing, okay. I wanted to show you. The question becomes, in your ordinances right now -- and you were talking about this earlier, this -- the amount of footage from the light to where the entrance is, okay, that you're addressing by moving it up to the northern end. The only problem there is you're moving it closer to my existing entrance. And in that case John told me he would give me something in writing saying that if it's approved going in there, that that would not affect that access point, which is already ranted and in existence and built and sitting there. The second part then goes to what Wayne was saying. You know, for five years the county's been talking with the prior applicant, which was Virginia Devisse, where there's supposed to be -- and they were talking with the school board, apparently, for a joint access on the western part of that property and the property to the west, and I'll show -- here -- a joint access point there, to cover the land in the back which could be landlocked because --just show you another point. There's a right -of -way that was put in that was in all the existing things when George Archibald was looking at the building of this road in the first place that had an access so everybody could get into their properties. Now, when the school board took that property, condemned it, they built over an existing easement going down to the property in the back there. So we've got a few issues on all those items there. Another issue, now my brother got some notification about a week ago. He called me a couple days ago, and I heard there was a hearing. The corporation that had the property to the west, individuals never received a notification, at least as of right now. Maybe it was sent in the mail, and the mail didn't get forwarded. So those are a couple of questions I had about the process now. And, you know, I talked to John yesterday, we tried to resolve some of these things so that, you know, if there is an access on Livingston, how that would be handled, and then the other question is with the school board, where the access should be for the parcel to the west. There's a question. I guess, about buffer also -- when you look at my brother's property to the north and the other property to the west, how that all will affect -- depending what the uses are. Now they're talking about a church, and they're talking about, say, one, two, three, more or less, the church in one spot, the school in another spot, and then whatever potential uses there are to the bottom west part of the property. So I'm not sure how all that plays out. I have not read any of these things -- I have not received a copy yet -- to try to decipher that to know if 1 would have any other objections. But basically, you know, I think it's great we have the school and we have, you know, another use for a church, but just to make sure it all plays together and works out in the best way possible. So those, I think, are a couple of key points. You know, notification, transportation, Phase 3, I call it, which is whatever uses are there, and buffers. 1 guess those are my points f wanted to bring up. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 'Thank you, sir. MR. PITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, from what this gentleman was just talking about, does he have any concern, or does he need to be concerned about his access being in jeopardy because of the access from this property? MR. PODCZERW W SKY: For the record, no, he does not have anything to worry about with the existing permitted access that he has. We've measured that from the proposed access that we discussed earlier, the quote - unquote "here" access. And as you'll see, those two X's that are along Livingston Road there, along the curve, we have roughly -- I think we measured around 670 feet distance between the two driveways. And since that's not intersection spacing, it's driveway spacing, that does qualify for that shorter distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And does someone from staff -- can they testify and tell us that the notifications were, in fact, checked to be -- have been mailed to all the adjoining property owners that they should have been mailed to within the notification area? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. 1 have the property appraiser's -- the printout data from Graphics, and according to this, the name was First Southeast Investment Corp., in care of Frank Pitt. It was sent to P.O. Box 147, Metuchen, I'm guessing -- New Jersey. MR. PITT: But I never received it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But every registered property owner within the notification district, from Page 52 of 80 161 1 A6 March 17, 2011 your records, was sent a notification; is that correct? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the address that is on the property records? MS. DESELEM: Yes, according to the list, which is supposed to be from the tax records of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know Mr. Pitt brought up a series of questions, some of which though aren't issues of matters today. The road that the school board may or may not have utilized a section of and all that, if those properties come in down the road for analysis for zoning, we'll have to address that issue. But as far as focusing on this subject property, the two issues I believe 1 just asked about were -- and then the buffers. Does this project's buffers meet the requirements of the Land Development Code? MS. DESELEM: As far as I know, and they did not seek any deviations, thus they would need to comply with the LDC, in effect, when they come in for permitting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Which is at the SDP level, not at this level. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: The north boundary is their preserve as well, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick thing. John, it does look better spaced. You know, his -- where it's shown on the plan, not the "here," is about midway there. But what you're concerned about is the distance to an intersection versus a driveway'? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, that's correct, sir. The intersection spacing is different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now, there has been testimony that this is a bus stop or a bus driver's intersection only. I mean, is that true? Is it — because there's people across the way. So are they getting green light /red light all day long? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Actually, I'm unfamiliar with the exact hours of operation and whether it's just to accommodate the buses or just to accommodate the schools or some off -peak use as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And would you treat -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: 1 would have to check with our operations department, and that's something we typically do at SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would you treat the intersection the same if it was just for school buses in and out? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For the distance separation. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Ray, were there any other public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other members of the public here wishing to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think you need a rebuttal. You've been kind of talking as we've gone along. Okay. With that, we'll -- if there's no other questions, we'll close the public hearing. Melissa, are you ready? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 with the changes Commissioner Caron had to add the play fields, and I think that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you remember the recommendations? We have four of them. The applicant had a concern about 2. Staff offered a correction to 2. What did you see in your motion in regards to that? COMMISSIONER AHERN: To kill the parentheses in Item No. 2. Page 53 of 80 1b i 10 March 17. 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the word "to monitor," as Mr. Murray pointed out earlier, I would assume. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then staff had suggested instead of -- in started out, "When deemed necessary by county staff or the Sheriffs Office," in the beginning of 2. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I will add that in my motion as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Second Mr. Murray. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And you did add the changes that I wanted to the accessory structure -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- table? Okay. And I know that they'll work on that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll bring it back. COMMISSIONER CARON: It will bring back on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, is there discussion on the motion'? Motion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One tiny thing. I think you want to keep the word "to." It's just "monitor and" you want to eliminate CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To direct traffic, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So "monitor and" comes out, but we understand the point. Okay. Anybody else have any questions or concern about the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 9 -0. We'll see you back on consent. * * *We have a few minutes before the one o'clock hour. If we can get done with -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Olde Cypress, we'll move on. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOV ICH: Let's do the easy one first, which is the ordinance, which is the four -page ordinance for Olde Cypress. And I know you're just getting it, so I'll hold on one second. Everybody got one? Okay. The ordinance that starts Ordinance No. 1 I , and then it's four pages, the only change we needed to make was on Page 3 of 4 under the table where we struck the word "park," so now it reads "wetland preserve and wildlife sanctuary is 176.2" -- so that's the change. Do I need to put this on the visualizer for -- I don't think there's anybody here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 don't think so. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. Put it on the visualizer. Steve -- yes. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't have a copy. MR. YOVANOVICH: You did it. MR. WILLIAMS: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put it on visualizer so if somebody's watching they can see it. Page 54 of 80 161 1 A6 Mach 17, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. We okay on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. The next one was the changes to the HD Development PUD. There were no changes on Page 1 of 11, no changes on 2 of 11, no changes on 3 of 11. When we get to 4 of 11, I think it's highlighted in gray for you. We made some changes in Paragraph 2 to address the distance between the front of the garage and the sidewalk. And I think we tried to run that by the chairman since it was his suggestion, so I hope we got it right on that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's simpler. That was the goal. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. The next change was to eliminate BI altogether on Page 4 of 11. That was related to the deviation that we no longer needed. We then went to Paragraph -- I'm sorry -- Exhibit F starting on Page 8 of 8. We made two changes, one to Paragraph 2A to insert the correct name of Exhibit G to "schematic buffer design," and then in B we added precast or masonry as far as the type of wall, and I think we showed you the strikethrough of Section 4. Although that wasn't in the document you got, it was in the document we showed you this morning. So we struck those provisions, and those will go into a separate agreement with the association that was one of your stipulations. Those were all the -- those were all of the changes that resulted from the hearing this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We still have two stipulations. MR. YOVANOVICH: The two stipulations go forward, one that we have an agreement before the BCC. MS. ASHTON: My notes were to strike out "masonry" and replace it with "concrete." COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Replace it with precast. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was an "or." It was "precast or masonry." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it was. Honestly, you would want the option for masonry. Masonry is a solid — it actually is a -- more of a solid wall than precast. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you want to strike that. But masonry wall has to be finished. It's not going to be an unfmished wall. But I thought that's what we had -- I thought we went with "precast." MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought we did an "or." That's what we thought was an "or." COMMISSIONER AHERN: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And I think you'd be better off for the community that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it costs more, so it will be the other that will happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I think what may have happened was, I think without realizing it, you did infer very strongly that it be that. But I do agree at either /or. It's moot. I mean, that's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: What was the other -- Commissioner Caron, what was the other stipulation? COMMISSIONER CARON: The earl path. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have to address the cart path. That was a stipulation that we get into compliance, I think, was a paraphrase of that stipulation, but those aren't part of the documents themselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we've got the changes. I want to ask staff if they agree those are the changes that were to the extent discussed in the meeting. I believe they are. Do you have anything you want to add to it? And is it clear for you guys because you're going to have to deal with it at the next level up. MS. DESELEM: It is clear to us that those were the changes. We're happy with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you understand our additional stipulations we had made at the time, one involving the agreement with the HOA and the other involving the compliance with the cart path? MS. DESELEM: Well, the only questions I have with the can path is that's on Olde Cypress PUD, not on HD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm talking about all three together. MS. DESELEM: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's one that applies, yes. It's just those are the two stipulations. I'm sure you'll put it with the correct one. Page 55 of 80 161 1 A6 March 17. 2011 MS. DESELEM: Okay. I understand what you're saying, okay, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The cart path was on HD. Is that where the cart path is -- no, the cart path is on Olde Cypress. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the Olde Cypress PUD where a pan of the cart path encroaches into the right -of -way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions from the Planning Connnission level? Then I'm going to have to take them one at a time to acknowledge consent, then we'll be done with it. First one is PUDA- PI2010 -388, Olde Cypress PUD itself. Is there a motion to approve on consent? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Klein. 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: (No response.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0, one abstention. ** *Next one is DOA-PI-2010-2052, the Olde Cypress Development, Limited. This is for the DRI portion of it. Is there a consent motion to approve? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klein made the motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. 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: (No response.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0 with one abstention. ** *The third and final is PUDZ- PI2010 -1054, the Vita Perna, LLC, HD Development, RPUD. Is there a motion on consent to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raised hand.) Page 56 of SO 161 1 A6 March 17, 2071 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Klein. 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: (No response.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0 with one abstention. Terri -- I mean -- yeah. If Cherie was here, she'd be killing me by now, so we're doing good. Let's break. We'll come back in one hour at two o'clock and deal with the Watershed Management Plans. See you all at two. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, everybody. Welcome back from the lunch break. And we are now at the hour for Mae Hatcher to entertain us. MR. HATCHER: Good afternoon. Mac Hatcher with stormwater and environmental planning section of Land Development Services. We're here to workshop an update on the Watershed Master Plan. So we're not asking for any recommendations today, but we would like to get comments if you have them. Again, we're developing Watershed Management Plans as a Growth Management Plan policy requirement, and the intention is to try and get as close as we can to restoring historical water quantity and estuarine discharges and improve water quality within the watersheds and estuaries and address Flood issues and water - supply issues. The Watershed Management Plan started with an update of the Big Cypress Basin hydrologic hydraulic model, an evaluation of the watershed and estuarine existing conditions. We evaluated water quantity issues, water quality, and natural resources. The consultants have defined performance measures to measure the impacts of proposed projects and changes and then evaluate alternatives and identify recommended improvement projects and -- with the preparation of the plans as the final task. And before I go any further in the -- I'm going to try and jump ahead. One of the team members -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It should be a right -hand click. MR. MULHERE: You want to click on this. Oh, sorry. I'm pointing to it. It's this thing right here. And then we can -- MR. HATCHER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I'm so technologically advanced. MR. HATCHER: And Bob Mulhere is going to take you all through a discussion on a proposed TDR program for Golden Gate Estates. MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. Bob Mulhere. And thank you for -- to my fellow team members and to you for accommodating my schedule. I have to be at a meeting in North Naples at 3:30, and I know with traffic I've got to rush a little bit. I was asked to take a look at the proposed comprehensive Watershed Management Plan from the context -- in part from the context of looking at areas that were significant -- that had significant habitat, environmental value, as well as recharged value, wellhead protection value, and consider what a TDR program might look like or whether one could be structured to remove all or some of the development rights in that area. And what I put together -- see I told you I was technologically -- here. Just use the arrows. Page 57 of 80 1611 k 6 areh 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It should work. MR. MULHERE: "There we go. What I put together is very, very preliminary. And I think, you know, all of you are just as familiar with the challenges that we've had relative to TDR programs, and I think they're not just challenges in Collier County. They're challenges that people experience anywhere where you develop a TDR program. Most of them, the vast majority of them, do not work very well. And the principal reason why they don't work very well is that there has to be a relationship between the people who would be interested in buying -- there has to be a market attraction between the buyers and sellers. And, of course, we're in a very unique economic condition and have been for some time now where it's hard to judge whether this has -- you know, is the soul reason why a program might not be working or there are other structural issues. But those would be the things that would be considered in the recommendations that 1 made, which would -- the idea with this -- this would be a distinct program. I did suggest that you might -- that the program might consider all of the potential receiving areas, including the existing receiving areas or one or two of the existing receiving areas in the rural fringe mixed -use district, because those areas are pretty large, and they've already been designed and determined to be appropriate from an environmental perspective for additional density. But the urban area may also be an appropriate location, and there may be other locations. So the goal is to provide, like I said, a sufficient market attraction. Without that, the program will not work. The possibility of using existing receiving lands makes the most sense, whether it's the existing urban area, whether it's the rural fringe mixed -use district, or some other area. Whoops, whoops. I did it again. So -- there we go. One of the options would to be allow for transfers into the urban area through urban infill. This makes sense from an economy -of -scale perspective. There are going to have to be limitations. You know, as you -all have discussed with me, you talked about increasing density by right. You know, what are the impacts on adjacent properties and so and so forth. Right now in Collier County you can increase your density if you qualify for urban infill by up to three units per acre, but you have to go through a process to do that. So there might be a balance there where we could have some level of buy -right increase in density under certain circumstances. That would be very attractive to an owner of that property, but also there have to be limitations because of the potential impacts on the existing developments around here. We would want to use incentives. Also, instead of maybe an outright TDR program, we could consider using incentives to encourage aggregation of parcels in this area. So if you aggregate the development and you're impacting a smaller area, you maintain a higher level of ecological value but also recharge, and that makes a lot of sense as an option. And you'd have to probably incentivize that, too. One incentive is that, look, if you can cluster the development, you spend less money on infrastructure. And this can be used for mitigation within the North Golden Gate Estates. keep wanting to advance it with using the -- I don't know why -- it doesn't want to -- I'm trying to find a place to click on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hit escape. MR. MULHERE: There we go. Thank you. So the next steps would be to -- what 1 recommended anyway -- certainly this is not written in stone either, but it seemed you'd want to take your tune and do this right and that the county would want to take its time and do it right, establish a committee, an oversight committee. That would be the process during which the specifics of the program could be developed. Where would it apply to'? What land? What -- you know, what level of TDR would be appropriate? What level of clustering would be appropriate? Where would you send the units? What incentives would you put in place? All of these kind of things would occur during that process. And I think you start right -- the county could start out right now by quantifying the number of nonconforming and conforming parcels, because there's an awful lot of nonconforming parcels also out there. So you can quantify what level of density you have within the target area by doing that. And 1 did provide a conceptual timeline. Assume any commencement date, and I think -- to go all the way Page 58 of 80 161 1A6 M?a*17,2011 through the process of developing the plan and getting through the Comprehensive Plan amendments and then doing the LDC amendments, it's a significant period of time. Yeah, you're talking about well in excess of two years to accomplish it. Again, this is all preliminary. I did want to be able to get -- make this preliminary presentation, and if there -- and it's certainly up to you, but if -- I didn't know if there were anybody — anybody in the public or any of you that wanted to ask any questions or speak on this issue, I wanted to make myself available if that was the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public want to speak'? Well, first of all, Planning Commission members. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I just have a question. Given what's going to happen to the DCA up there with -- you've mentioned an ORC Report. What's your best guess about what that would turn out to be? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's a very strange situation, I mean, in terms of looking at process, because -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, but important. MR. MULHERE: I think it's -- my best guess is that things are going to change significantly in terms of the statutory oversight. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. MULHERE: But to do that, you actually have to change the statutes. That might happen. I've heard that there will be a growth management bill in this session, but I mean, I — that's just what I've heard, and that part of that would be to change some of the statutes that would limit the oversight. And some of the staff will go to DER There'll still be some oversight. This is what I've heard, you know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I didn't -- MR. MULHERE: And other staff -- other staff, there'll be a significant reduction. So there would not be as much state oversight in the development process, and in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, as I understand it. It may be more limited only to, say, areas that are of critical state concern. Whether this would fall under that area or not, I don't know. I think we just have to plan to keep going under the existing process until it changes. If anything, it would be shorter, not longer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I would agree, and I would suggest strongly that this body at least, and certainly BCC, will have to even embrace more detailed questions. Not that I think we like to do that, but -- MR. MULHERE: You mean without the state oversight? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, because they provide -- in their ORC report they do provide some views that we hadn't anticipated. Okay. Just a curiosity. MR. MULHERE: That's fair comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, on the map, if you can go back one. MR. MUDD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know that's -- I shouldn't do that to you. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's funny. How's that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if this is going to be in the presentation, I can accept that. But what is the logic for the boundary for the new proposed area? MR. MULHERE: I would defer to one of my colleagues. I believe it has to do with really ecological value, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- and if that will show up in the presentation, I can wait till then. MR. deGOLIAN: My name's Peter deGolian with PBS &J. Actually, this -- the boundary closely conforms with what was defined for the Northern Golden Gate Estates flowway restoration project boundaries and was extended further to the south to include some of these ecological areas and the groundwater recharge in that area, so that's kind of the -- and it does match up with the existing lot lines, you know, between the two, Fakaunion and Golden Gate canals there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank vou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the water -- what you refer to, is that the ROMA that we used to -- that was under consideration out there? MR. deGOL1AN: It's a flow -- it's been referred to as the Horsepen Strand Restoration, and we are also Page 59 of 80 16 1 1 A- March 17, 2011 recommending a mitigation pro- -- you know, bank ROMA be established in this area. It's kind of a process of funding the thing. And I think Moris wanted to talk about that a little bit also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else from the Planning Commission at this time? We'll probably get snippets throughout the whole thing. Are any members of the public wishing to -- MR. BELLOWS: We have two registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. For this item'? MR. BELLOWS: Timothy Nance and Nicole Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. NANCE: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chairman Strain. Thank you. What a pleasure to talk before this body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not going to yell at us now or anything, are you, Tini? MR. NANCE: No, sir. It's just nice to have this environment. It's a little bit different than I'm used to on many occasions, as you know. I'm here representing Golden Gate Area Civic Association who has worked with Mac Hatcher and with the consultants to discuss this sort of an issue in particular. Our concern is dealing with Golden Gate Estates, and the reason that we have been interested in this is our goal was to be able to work towards a -- an area where we could mitigate surface waters and flooding issues, and that was our concern. The TDR program, as is presented, we support wholeheartedly in concept. We have only had a chance to look at the technical documents for a very short time. And in that period of time, I have received many emails which have particular items that they feel are — some appropriate, some inappropriate details that need to be worked out, but we certainly are encouraged by the concept. The concept also includes -- I think, in this area, includes some wellhead protection issues and some environmental properties that are -- that have been added as to, you know, valuable ecologically. We weren't really concerned with addressing those. We were more concerned with having water mitigation within the Golden Gate Estates watershed, which we currently do not have and we desperately need. In specific, without getting into it -- because I don't think it's going to be addressed today, but we would have three particular goals that we would want out of such a program and have it included, and that, most importantly, I think, is to have this restoration area, as it is defined in the end, be mitigation eligible. We want it to have -- so it can serve as a mitigation bank. Not strictly a Transfer of Development Rights area, but to be able to receive -- to be used for mitigation for public -works programs within our drainage basin to help us catch up and get some properties conserved through that, meaning mitigation for roads and so on and so forth that currently get transferred out into Lee County and other professional mitigation banks. The second concern that I would have and something that I would suggest we'd discuss further is, any -- I think any linkage to the rural fringe mixed -use district is going to be very tenuous at this time. And the reason I say that is because I have met personally with some of the people that are -- now have properties regulated under that plan, and I think they're going to have a lot of input as to adding a different number of sending credits and so on into that system which is ineffective at this time. I believe, rather than tie ourselves to that in any way, that we're really going to have to restudy that one at some point as well. Finally, density increase within Golden Gate Estates, I think, is very controversial. I would certainly think that that would have to be reviewed. The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association wholeheartedly endorses incentives to have people combine lots; in other words, to take some of these acre - and -a- quarter lots, instead of having them stand as a singular additional homesite, to have them incorporated into existing homesite or allow people to aggregate and have a larger piece of property and hopefully reduce the density in Golden Gate Estates at buildout as a goal; in other words, maybe we can have only 50,000 people living there at buildout instead of 80,000 and maybe we can reduce the need for infrastructure, safeguard the wellfields by having those residents out there actually taking care of the county's wellfield at no cost to the public just by proper management of their homes which they value as the sites that they are. But I hope we go forward. I hope we have an opportunity to work together. I think we have some -- I think Page 60 of 80 1611 A6 March 17, 2011 the Conservancy in particular's done a lot of work on it. We agree with a lot of the things they support. And I hope we have an opportunity to go forward and spend a real good amount of time to get this right and get all the input. There are many community members, people that work with Collier Soil and Water Conservation District, for example, that have been there, have worked on some of these ROMAs and things. They've got a lot of input that can add and help it get off to a good start, and I hope we get a chance to do that. I will say, I'm very complimentary to Mr. Hatcher and the consultants. They've been, I think, extraordinarily open to suggestion and easy to work with. I will compliment them on that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks. Tim, I got one question. Your first point about being available for mitigation. MR. NANCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be a -- mitigation means that you could actually sell the property like for a mitigation bank and use that to mitigate some inland property, say, in some other sensitive area? MR. NANCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's a revenue generator from that mitigation availability? MR. NANCE: Well, what it would do is it would let us spend county money for mitigation within this area and maybe jumpstart the program, you know. And it wouldn't be --it wouldn't be a land - acquisition program for the county. I don't think anybody's saying that. But what I'm saying is, Mr. Casalanguida's obligated to spend $200 million on the Panther Island mitigation bank. If we had this program eligible to receive those funds, he might be able to acquire some of this property for a -- mitigation purposes cheaper than maybe he can from South Florida Water Management District. And I know that's controversial for them because they've got an investment that they're pushing us towards out there. And many people are more knowledgeable about this than 1. I would recommend that we bring those people in to talk about those possibilities. But what I'd like to see is, I'd like to see the most possibility for those landowners to get their money out of their property and do good at the same time without obligating the county to a big, grand land - reclamation program that nobody wants to see. Is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. You went a little bit -- way farther than I needed to. But I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree with it. What I was trying to find out is, if this was a mitigation bank, would there still be a TDR generator from the same piece of property? MR. NANCE: Well, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you looking for both or -- MR. NANCE: Why not? You know, if we can tag team it. You know, can that be done? I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it just raises the level of value -- MR. NANCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to a piece of property, but is that the right thing to do or the wrong thing? MR. MULHERE: I don't think we know the answer to that question, but it's a very good question. My initial reaction is the same as Tim's was. Maybe, yes, there could be some real value in furthering the objectives by having the option of looking at both. I don't want it to be a wind- -- necessarily a windfall for anybody, and I understand that. But if we're able to get mitigation value which would further our capital construction dollars, you know, in that area -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MR. MULHERE: -- and at the same time be able to get something for transferring the development rights into a more appropriate area which creates a viable program, that might be a good thing. I don't know the answer yet. I think it takes the analysis and the study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just concerned that if we create -- I mean, I know the current program of TDRs has a value created per TDR, which I think is a mistake and is what's caused the program to fail, but if this was -- if there were values for TDRs and they were thought to be said they were fair, then the added value of the mitigation brings it to a different level. And is there some way to balance it out so someone who doesn't have the ability to be as fully mitigated as someone else can still benefit and doesn't get kind of cheated out of the system. MR. MULHERE: And that's a very good point. And the other point that's directly related to that is once Page 61 of 80 161 1 A6 ' March 17, 2011 you've taken the development rights off, the mitigation value is not as high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. MR. MULHERE: So, you know, there's a balance there. You have to work through that. But to me the asset that the county has that's of value is that transferable development right, you know, and where it goes. And the asset -- I guess the other asset is that if there's a true mitigation value, we could maybe get a double -- a double bang for the buck. But it's going to require a lot of work. MR. NANCE: The concern that I heard, Mr. Chairman, that several people mentioned is some of the people that have a little experience say that what happens is, if you create a pure TDR program and you identify some of these properties, that the federal agencies that can grant you some transfer of values, at that instant that occurs, they consider those properties already protected. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. NANCE: So they won't let you sever different beneficial things like panther habitat units or whatever. Mr. Mulhere's much more competent than certainly 1 am. And people wrote me and they said, whoa, we've got to be careful that we don't do that, because we're cutting down on some of the value that we can get out of this property. So we need to be very innovative and make sure we don't label this probably so that U.S. Fish and Wildlife says, oh, don't worry about it. It's already protected now we don't -- you know, we don't need to worry about this any further. There's no value there for the homeowner or anybody to capture. So I don't know if there's an innovative way to accomplish all those goals. You have to go to a much more skilled person than 1. But all I'm saying is, I hope we get a chance to go through this with some detail and that we have a chance to develop it. I know these gentlemen want to get this plan passed, and they're working towards a deadline and so forth, but I hope there's some mechanism to allow us to spend some time on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. MR. NANCE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. CABEZAS: If I could just interject. My name is Moris Cabezas. I'm with PBS &J. And actually, referring to the same topic, our recommendation is to look into a mitigation bank for this area. One of those ROMAs, that -- and I guess I'm doing a little better than Bob on the computer. But anyway, you know, one of the issues that we have identified in contacting to the stakeholders here is that there is no really (sic) way to mitigate within one of our defined functional watersheds. The Water Management District has these large drainage areas than -- and you're supposed to mitigate with -- within those; however, you know, we need to shorten or make it feasible to mitigate within each one of our watersheds, including efforts within the Golden Gate watershed. So we are proposing a -- the creation of an original off -site mitigation area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far with the presentation, we still had another public speaker. I thought you were trying to respond to Tim's question. MR. CABEZAS: I'm -- I thought the -- I am sorry for interrupting, but I thought this topic of the mitigation was relevant to what the speaker was talking about, but I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. As long as you're on that topic. I just want to make sure -- I know you've got 100 slides. We still have 91 and a half to go, and I don't want to have the speaker wait till the 91 st. MR. CABEZAS: I'll be pretty brief. So we're proposing that a mitigation area be set in two phases. One permitted by DEP, and that will be guided more -- mostly towards the homeowners, and a second phase that will be permitted by SFWMD. That's a little bit more complicated where the mitigation could be funded by internal sale of credits for Collier County Public Works and that kind of a thing. So that's my last slide on the top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Until the next time you come up before us, but that's fine. Nicole -- Nicole, by the way, doesn't know what to be called by her last name. Her phone is answered by Nicole Ryan, or it used to be. Now it's Nicole Johnson. 1 think sometimes it's Ryan Johnson, but congratulations on your marriage. MS. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we all appreciate the invitation we had. We're sorry none of us could attend, Page 62 of 80 1611Ab March 17. 2011 but it was wrong on the date, so we didn't make it there. MS. JOHNSON: And I will answer to Nicole Ryan, Nicole Johnson. If you call me Mrs. Johnson, I'll probably look around for Wayne's mother, but it's a slow transition, so bear with me. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the issue of the Golden Gate Estates TDR program. And I know that you have not had a chance to fully read and digest the technical memo, and I have not had opportunity to really take my comments back to the consultants and to staff, so I apologize that this is the first time Mac is hearing this, but I did want to get some of these issues on the record, because I think we have a very short time frame in order to address some of these items, and I think the concept is very good, and there's a lot of merit in this. So I offer these as positive critiques and want to work with staff to get through them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One point you need to know, we did not -- we didn't read the technical memo. MS. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we didn't get the technical memo. MS. JOHNSON: If it would be okay, since I'm not able to attend the meeting tonight where this is going to be discussed, though, if I could just talk briefly about some of the subject areas that I believe need further exploration before this memo is really finalized and ready to go to the BCC, and I will be brief on those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MS. JOHNSON: The first issue is that while I think a TDR program needs to be explored for Golden Gate Estates, there's still a big question of whether we will actually get such a program in place. So we can't put all of our eggs in that basket. We need to be looking very comprehensively and proactively at other recommendations and other policy decisions that will improve water quality in the Estates and countywide. And some of those suggestions that I've heard kicked about would be retrofitting existing subdivisions so that water that is coming down the canals currently can be diverted through, having some sort of hydrologic easement, perhaps, at the back of the lots in the Estates so that you have areas set aside where water can be stored and cleansed and filtered through. So I believe that those are going to be the types of recommendations that will come out at some point in the future_ But as the timeline is getting short, I just wanted to reiterate the fact that we need to have a whole pallet of options. As far as the TDR program goes and the memo, I think the very first concern is the viability of a TDR program. We have several TDR programs in Collier County, and they have different degrees of success. And before we put in place another TDR program, we really have to understand what's working and what isn't working in the other programs that we have. The idea of combination with mitigation banking, I think, is interesting, and so we need to wrap that into the discussion. But I think there's going to be hesitation on the part of the Board of County Commissioners if we're just saying "another TDR program" and we haven't explained why this one really is going to be viable and work. The second issue is the issue of density increase and the fact that this memo has suggested that this TDR program should allow for density increases in other areas of the county, but the memo also acknowledges that the current TDR programs that allow density increases -- really, nobody is building at maximum density, so I think we have to take a look at, if we add even more density possibilities, is anyone going to use it. Gets, again, to the viability of the program. In looking at how this program is put together, the rural -fringe program, which it looks like maybe we're going to be combining this with, is both a voluntary but also a regulatory program. Property rights are taken away, and you are given TDRs in exchange for what rights have been removed from your property. This North Golden Gate Estates program is going to be purely voluntary. So how does that intersect with a voluntary/regulatory program'? Also the issue of the baseline pricing for TDRs. hi the rural fringe, you have that $25,000 minimum. If these North Golden Gate Estates TDRs don't have that baseline price to them, then are you somehow undercutting -- and you would be, I think -- your sending lands in the rural fringe TDRs because people will be buying cheaper TDRs from North Golden Gate Estates. How does all of that fit in together? And I think that really needs to be further explored. And then I do have a couple issues and questions on the map that I think Mons had put up, and if I could use the visualizer. Page 63 of 80 161 1 A6 1 March 17, 2011 And what I've put up here is the consultant's map of the North Golden Gate Estates mitigation TDR area. And one of the questions that I had on this -- this map indicates that the light brown are the protected conservation areas, but there are a lot of lands in this potential protected conservation area that actually aren't protected and certainly aren't conservation lands. I think Ave Maria might be right in this area. But you have all of the North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade sending lands assumed to be protected conservation. They are not. Hacienda Lakes is being proposed for part of that. So that needs to be revisited in a future iteration of this memo. And the other -- the other concern goes to how we determine that these lands and these areas within North Golden Gate Estates, the I lorsepen Strand, have environmental and ecological value. In the memo -- and I know you haven't read this, but I'm just going to read a brief paragraph -- it states it is recommended that Collier County establish a North Golden Gate Estates flowway restoration program and the corresponding North Golden Gate Estates flowway restoration area to preserve and thus protect from further degradation the ecological value and recharge function in the identified areas primarily within the North Estates portion of the Golden Gate Estates subdivision. The location of the NGGEFRA is shown in Figure 1. In addition to this area being used for the Floodway Restoration Plan, it includes significant portions of non - agricultural areas that have been identified in this study as ecologically valuable lands as well as areas identified for wellhead protection. And the ecologically valuable lands, I believe, goes back to the functional assessment technical memo of several months ago where ecologically valuable and ecologically supportive lands were identified, but on that memo this area doesn't come out as ecologically valuable or ecologically supportive. So we believe that these areas are ecologically valuable. We have, all along, had concerns about the ranking system and the data and information that have gone into creating this ecologically valuable and ecologically supportive memo. So we bring that up because we think that that functional assessment really does need to be revisited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't that have an impact on the mitigation value? MS. JOHNSON: You know, this -- this memo really is, I think, more for planning purposes, but we are concerned that it is not labeling an area as ecologically valuable that we believe is ecologically valuable. So we just see an inconsistency, and we would like to see this memo redone. It also -- when we -- the Conservancy thinks of ecologically valuable, we certainly see listed species habitat as an important component in that, but none of the datasets that were used for this looked at listed species habitat, primary panther habitat, black bear habitat, red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that opens up a whole can of worms, you know. MS. JOHNSON: Well, it does. Our initial recommendation was that this map be relabeled to clarify that listed species and listed species habitat were not part of the data inputs. Since that hasn't happened, we think you either need to clarify the map or add all of those data factors in so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a question, too. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: But do you think that area was lefi out just because it's platted estates and that's why they left it oft? MS. RYAN: fm not sure. I'm not sure why that wasn't captured in what would be considered ecologically important. It -- the number -- it was a scoring system that was used. And if it was an eight or above, it was considered ecologically valuable. If it was, 1 think, six to eight, it was ecologically supportive. And there have been some modifications made based on Conservancy comments, and we appreciated that, but we thought it needed to go further. And I just used this as an example that maybe it really does need to be revisited, because an area that one memo is saying is ecologically important in a map, in another memo it doesn't show up as that. So that just needs to be fixed, because as this moves forward, that could very well be a question by the Board of County Commissioners; wait a minute, it's not shown as important in one memo, so why are you trying to set it aside as a sending land designation in another? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: And we have -- and if the consultants and the county are interested, we have put together a series of maps that would be very easy to put in the datasets of all of the listed species habitat and data points. This Page 64 of 80 161 1 A6 ,. l March 17, 2011 map is a little busy, but it goes to show primary and secondary panther habitat, panther telemetry points, we have the black bear range, we have red - cockaded woodpecker locations, wading -bird habitat. So we're more than happy to share the information, do what needs to be done. We offer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nicole. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We can -- Mac, we can resume the presentation to wherever you -- was that the last speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Last one registered for the TDR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anvbodv want to sneak on the TDR process who hasn't been up here alreadv? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mac, it's your to go. MR. HATCHER: I'll start off with the last -- the two slides that Nicole was showing that were obviously mistake were that, obviously a mistake. The wrong GIS dataset was used in the second figure, and we'll correct that. The issue that she raises about not using all of the listed species information, that we have not, so we'll consider that in moving forward. Okay. Starting, the watersheds that we're doing the analysis and breakdowns by are the basin boundaries that the -- is used in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection water quality assessments, and what we have done is we've combined the different water basins into watersheds. The three urban basins, the Cocohatchee /Corkscrew in the north, Golden Gate/Naples Bay in the riddle, and Rookery Bay in the south are the three primary areas of analysis that we have lumped the three large rural basins into one assessment area, and that includes the Fakaunion basin, Fakahatchee, and Okaloacoochee. What we intended to do in order today was to discuss the existing conditions, go over some of the projects and retrofit opportunities that have been proposed, talk a little bit about change in structure operations, regulatory and policy recommendations, which includes the TDR, and a brief summary. And at this point I'll turn it back over to Peter deGolian. MR. deGOLIAN: Thank you. Peter deGolian, PBS &J. So I guess what I'll be talking about is reviewing very briefly the results of the existing conditions, evaluation that we've done, and looking at some of the water - quality impairments, touching on the functional assessment, talking about some of the groundwater issues, and then our conclusions coming out of that information -- because that -- this lays the groundwork of what we need to do to identify ways and means to correct some of the issues and, you know, solve some of the problems that the county faces moving into the future. So when we -- our first thing was to develop or update the Mike She model that had been previously developed for the Big Cypress Basin office for Collier County. It's an integrated surface water /groundwater model that I think encompasses the entire hydrologic cycle of inland areas. And we used the simulation period from 2002 through 2007. And this model really differs from the older model because we have new topographic data and new land -use data so -- to bring it up to more current conditions. So one of the key -- and then we did water budgets from all these results, looking at all these years. And what this is is the average water year water budget. So this is from the period from November 1 through June 30th, and this is the average over the simulation period. And the key issues here that we look at are -- is that runoff makes up, across the entire county or across the entire model area, about 15 percent of rainfall, and base flow makes up about -- about 30 percent of the total runoff or the total flow to the river. So you've got -- base flow and runoff are the total contributions to the canal network. So across the entire study area, we're seeing base flows fairly low. And something else that's interesting is -- in here is actually the irrigation is kind of a cycling of the pumping, because the pumping includes water pumped for irrigation. So a lot of the water that's put down as an inflow as irrigation is water that's actually pumped from the surficial aquifers and put in there, and there is some augmentation with ground -- with reuse water also. Now, the interesting thing is when we get -- look at some of the watershed specifically related to base flow -- and Golden Gate is really important because of the density of the canals -- we actually see the base flow in both the wet season and the dry season is the dominant contributor to flow in the canal network and ultimately what gets out Page 65 of 80 161 A415o 17, A 1 into the estuaries. And we see that during the dry season base flow makes up 70 percent of the flow that goes to the estuary and about 55 percent during the -- during the wet season. So that's really important to understand. We don't see that in the Cocohatchee watershed. We do not see that in the Okaloacoochee, the Rookery Bay, the Fakahatchce watersheds. We do see this pattern in the Fakaunion watershed, but we think that's going to be corrected through the implementation of the Picayune Strand restoration project. So kind of from our perspective, we've got to manage a base flow in the Golden Gate watershed to reduce the flows in the Naples Bay. And this is kind of a map that shows where base flow occurs in the Golden Gate watershed during the dry season. And if you look at this, this is really interesting. In some of these areas where it's yellow, we're actually getting water moving out of the canal system in the groundwater and recharging the surficial aquifer, and this corresponds with well -- the location of the wellfields. So that's really interesting that during dry season we're seeing groundwater recharge from the canals. And over here, there's a -- and actually a pump that backflow -- that back pumps water out of Golden Gate Canal into the 951 canal, and we're seeing that actually the water's being pumped up into the 951, and then it's cycling back through groundwater right back into Golden Gate Canal. So there's a little bit of an issue there that we probably need to work with the Water Management District. But it's also interesting to see that immediately downstream of the structures is where most recharged -- or the most base flow is occurring, and that's a result of the way they stair -- stair -step the structure elevations and the water elevations in the canals. So the next thing we looked at -- so that kind of finishes the topic of water budgets. The next thing we looked at was understanding the flow going into the estuary systems, and we looked at this in two different ways. We did this, one, by comparing the results of our model against a natural systems model that was developed for the Big Cypress Basin for the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study and looked at the difference in the flows from there, and we also, to kind of'verify that methodology, we did an evaluation based on salinity -flow relationships. And what we see, that during the wet season -- again, we match up very well in three of the four watersheds. We do see a difference in the Rookery Bay, and I think part of that is because the salinity -based analysis is looking only at flow out of Henderson Creek into that -- into the canal that is -- that comes out of Henderson Creek into the estuary. And it doesn't really look at flows coming out of the Lely area or out of the agricultural lands to the south. So we think that in the model we're getting a complete picture of the flow, whereas the salinity -based analysis is really just looking at a small piece of the Rookery Bay watershed. And we -- and we see a similar type of thing, in dry season the flows in Golden Gate are very, very comparable, which, again, is linked directly to the -- that all the flow comes out of the Golden Gate main canal. And the other watersheds, we do have a lot of smaller tributaries that put out flow during the wet -- during the dry season that are not as obvious during the wet season. So the next thing we looked at were water - quality impairments, and we looked at these at a WBID level, so that -- kind of a sub -- sub- watershed basis within each one of these things. So I'll just kind of quickly summarize this. In the watersheds themselves, the inland parts of Collier County, you know, the most impairments we saw were in Lake Trafford in one -- in one WBID where we had four different impairments. Of course, all the water - quality data for that was collected prior to the dredging project, and some of the data we're seeing now seems to suggest that these impairments are going to be much less or not exist anymore. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hope so. MR. deGOL1AN: We all hope so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We spent a lot of money. MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, sir. And the other thing we see is a lot of these WBIDs are impaired for dissolved oxygen. And some of these WBIDs are very natural wetland areas, and we think wetland function is actually driving the low DO levels in there where others, such as the Northern Golden Gate Estates, you know, that -- we're seeing low DO there, but we think Page 66 of 80 16 1 1 A 6 March 17, 2011 that's coming in from groundwater because of the contribution of groundwater in there which has almost no dissolved oxygen in it. Now, that's not a natural condition because of the result -- because of the existence of the canals. And certainly we don't discount the possibility that nutrient loading is contributing to these low DO values that are measured in these canal areas. In the estuaries we see that in Cocohatchee we've got, you know -- of course, well, I guess in all the watersheds with the exception of Ten Thousand Islands, we see impairments for dissolved oxygen which, again, may be a function of the runoff from the canals that are -- that's very low, but also may be a function of nutrient loading in there. I think there needs to be more study on that to fully understand where that impairment comes from. So having kind of done this big picture looking at the known impairments as identified by FDEP, we started doing some analyses of where's the loading coming from within the watershed. So we looked at surface -water loading, we did some calculations of that, and essentially we used our model, and we were able to come up with a runoff volume per year per model cell. And then looking at the anthropogenic load within urban area and agricultural areas, apply an event, meaning concentration, that's consistent with what was done for the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study, and come up with a pollutant load per cell into the -- and into the canal network on a -- on a watershed basis. And we did actually assign a score to each cell based on the level of treatment that goes on there. So if we -- as kind of a standard, we said, okay, if it -- and we used medium- density residential with no treatment as kind of our base case, if you will, and said, if we remove 90 percent of that, we're going to score a 10 on our ranking, our evaluation -- if we're equal to that or worse, we get a zero. Just to kind of give us a scale. So we're measuring the level of treatment relative to this base load, if you will, or baseline load. And then we did a similar process in groundwater where we looked at all the available groundwater data from monitoring wells, and we did an interpolation to estimate concentrations across the entire study area of groundwater concentrations for nitrogen and phosphorus and iron and all these different types of things, multiplied that by the base flow into the canals to come up with a loading rate. So I'll show you a couple of maps that we generated from out of this thing. First are some pollutant loading scores. And, again, this is on the zero -to -10 range, where 10's being -- we get a really high level of treatment, or it's an area that's natural. And we see that in, you know, the Golden Gate Estates area. There is some level of treatment going on throughout there. A lot of agricultural lands appear to have little treatment for nitrogen and phosphorus, so they are scoring poorly right now. And if we look at groundwater -- again, we did this -- what they call a Kriging analysis to interpolate the concentrations in all these locations. And this -- we used every well, every bit of data we could find in from, you know, 1980s up till now. And -- but this is interesting because it does show -- like if we look at this total nitrogen, there's some real gaps in the data, you know, down here in Rookery Bay. We've got this whole -- there's no data at all from these agricultural areas. So our interpolation is being driven by the results of one well and makes all this area look like it's got a high concentration. And it may not. It may not in reality, but we need to get some more wells in there to understand that better. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a huge -- MR. deGOLIAN: Yes. And that's -- and it's because of the lack of that missing data gap in there that we don't actually, you know, understand that well. And like I say, when we get into a monitoring plan, we want to put some wells in there to better understand what is the distribution of the nutrients and the metals in the -- across Collier County. So if we look at a nutrient -load comparison from surface water to groundwater into the canal network, you know, we see that in general the surface -water load is higher, but it's -- but we certainly can't discount the contribution from groundwater. You know, in the Golden Gate Estates, you know, we know that the base -load contribution is almost 60 percent of the surface -water contribution, and that's a pretty significant inflow when you think about the volume of base flow that's coming in. So if we do a better job of controlling base flow, we reduce that nutrient load from groundwater significantly in that area. Functional assessment. I'm -- as Nicole — oh, good. Nicole's still here. Just kind of review what we'd talked Page 67 of 80 16 I 1 A6 I March 17. 2011 about this. Really what we did is we looked at the existing land use and vegetation cover and compared that against the predevelopment vegetation maps that we had, and we looked at vegetation in teens of habitat based on the differences of vegetation from the predevelopment to now. We looked at the differences in hydrology in terms of looking at our model results for hydroperiod and depth of water inundation and compared that against values that were provided by Mike Denver at the Water Management District, you know, for specific land uses in the predevelopment model. And then we also did a Landscape Suitability Index which looks at the intensity of activity on that -- on each property -- or on each cell, and it calculates a score based on everything that's surrounding you. So if I have a wetland in the middle of a highway, I'm going to get a very poor score in the Landscape Suitability Index because of what's around me, even though I've got a neat little wetland, but no wildlife can get to it because of the -- because of the surrounding land uses. So we have three different maps that look at this thing, and these things were combined to come up with a single score from a functional- assessment perspective. But what's interesting here -- and, you know, we've got the vegetation scores, we've got the -- all the agricultural lands are scoring in about a four range based on the habitat availability of that. But, you know, from my perspective as a hydrologist, the hydrology score is the thing most interesting to me where we can see the loss of the hydrologic habitat in, you know, the Fakahatchee and the Fakaumon watersheds and the Rookery Bay and parts of Okaloacoochee Slough and up in the Cocohatchee. And, you know, I think if we can restore some of those things, then we start bringing back the habitat, we start treating water quality, we start getting more groundwater recharge, and we start solving some of the problems with flow into the estuaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The higher the scale -- MR. deGOLIAN: Yeah. The higher the scale, the closer it is to historical hydrological conditions. So if it's a 10, it matches what was there in the predevelopment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the coloration. MR. deGOLIAN: Right. So the coloration is blue, which is high. If it gets to the reds to the oranges and the browns, it's poor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Interesting, the area that you're looking at in Golden Gate Estates for the TDRs is in a very poor location for vegetation and functional assessment, and it doesn't stand out as being extraordinary in the others either, which is unusual that that still is picked. I'm not saying it shouldn't be. But I'm wondering how you're going to justify it as we go down the road for mitigation, but that is something to consider, I guess. MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, sir. Yes, I agree. We do need to make sure that that's -- that we clearly state that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How old are these data? MR. deGOLIAN: The land use that we use for -- well, these are maps that we generated using the 2007 land -use vegetation and the results from our model, and we compared this against what they call a predevelopment vegetation, which is kind of from like 1950s. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to understand in the South Belle Meade area why that is so high in terms of, you know, the coloration there. It's not into the blue by any stretch. MR. deGOLIAN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that because of the way it was done, it was cut off, so to speak, and they're now taking the roads out, et cetera, et cetera, but 1 would have thought that we have had -- I would have thought we would have been in better shape than what it appears to be right there, and that's why I asked about the data. Your comparators are from 1950s, and then you used what? MR. deGOLIAN: Well, the issue -- and if you're looking at the hydrology score -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'm looking at the hydrology. That's the one that's -- MR. deGOLIAN: Yeah. Well, the issue there is this is considering the preconstruction of the Belle Meade -- of the restoration project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was trying to track, yeah. MR. deGOLIAN: Yeah. So this is using 2007 conditions. And now that's under construction, but all those Page 68 of 80 161 1 W lrch 17, 2011 canals are still there and the structures are still operational, or at least they're starting construction on them now. So this actually -- I mean, we expect that what's -- what we see in the Fakaunion here is going to go away, and that's going to go to blue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It had better; otherwise the whole process has -- MR. deGOLIAN: Oh, yeah. And we actually have to do a simulation that kind of establishes a new baseline, if you will, that includes that Picayune Strand restoration project. But that project was not included in the existing condition model. So it likely predates that, and that's why we're seeing that poor hydrology score there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. deGOLIAN: So any other questions on that? Okay. So our map of ecological, valuable lands. And this does disagree with what's in the report, Nicole, and we have to update that and correct that, and I apologize, because it's my inistake because I made the map. So I will fix that. I appreciate your comment and catching that for me. But we do see that there are ecologically valuable lands in there. But the other important thing is we've got the wellhead - protection area that sits in the middle of that -- of the ROMA area that we're proposing as our whole series of shallow, you know, wells that draw from the surficial and the lower Tami (sic) aquifer right there. Next thing we did is we did a look of aquifer drawdown and trying to understand what are the impacts of pumping in the aquifer system. So to kind of get a worst -case scenario. we looked at the dryest of the dry seasons, which is November of 2006 until June 2007, and we calculated a score for that, if you will, and I'll explain how the scoring works. And thenjust for the fun of it, to kind of get an idea of what the effects are going to be in the future as the county grows and the demand for water increases, we did an additional model run where we just increased the -- all the potable water supply pumping by 10 percent and did a comparison of the maps there. So to kind of score our aquifer drawdown, we just -- we went to the natural systems model, we got the water - surface elevation for the particular aquifer, and we really just measured the difference from our model versus that model to look at the result and came up to that. So if it matched -- or excuse me. If it was at the top of the average water - surface elevation, it scored a 10. If it was at the bottom of the aquifer, it would score a zero in the water table aquifer. And then wherever fell in between, it got a score based on the percentage of where it was. So if we look at our maps, this kind of shows where the areas of most drawdown occur as predicted in our model. And you can see that in this -- in this wellfield here where we're talking about our restoration area, we do have drawdown associated with the wellfield. We think this drawdown in the surficial aquifer here is mostly related to the base flow that's occurring into the canal network there in the Southern Golden Gate Estates. And this area up here in the Okaloacoochee we think is associated with irrigation for agricultural use. So that kind of follows for both of those -- both of those watersheds. And then we did a map that looks at the 10 percent additional, and you can -- this shows the difference between the two. So the more blue it is, the greater the difference in drawdown between the -- our current existing condition model and this future scenario where it would have additional water being drawn out. And you can see there is a -- some pretty significant differences, especially in the City of Naples area in that wellfield, and we are seeing up to a foot of difference in other areas in the Golden Gate Estates. So, again, recharge is going to be really important in the Golden Gate Estates and near these wellfields to make sure we can maintain the aquifers. So to kind of summarize our existing conditions, you know, the issue in the Cocohatchee /Corkscrew is really about the timing of the flows out to the estuary with too much in the dry season, too little in the -- or excuse me -- too little in the wet -- in the dry season, too much in the wet. So if we can store more in the wet season and let it bleed out over time, we think it will solve that. And the folks at CREW and the Audubon Society are doing a number of projects up in there right now. So we did recommend a project in there, but we think the projects they're doing may solve it without us having to do a whole lot. In the Golden Gate watershed, obviously management of base flow is going to be really important in terms of providing estuarine protection. You know, a majority of pollutant loading is associated with stonnwater runoff from surface runoff from Page 69 of 80 16 I jA b March 17, 2011 urban areas and some of the agricultural areas, but we do need to look at the base -flow contributions and understand how we can manage those. And then, of course, increasing recharge across the study area, especially in the areas of the wellfields is going to be really important for meeting long -term and future needs of the county. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you have a storm, several -day rain -- MR. deGOLIAN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- intermittent, but some strong, et cetera, pollutant load I could understand. But let's say three or four days later you have another storm. Is the pollutant load just as high as a result of that storm? MR. deGOLIAN: Not typically, because you typically -- you know, you have to have an accumulation period. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a flushing effect, isn't it? MR. deGOLIAN: Yeah. It does fluctuate over time, because you normally would have a — if you've had a long dry period, you'd have a period of accumulation, some out- atmosphere deposition, some from fertilizer use or whatever. And then when -- that first large rainfall event that generates runoff would typically carry most of that with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As a flushing effect? MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so how -- what kind of calculation do you go to make -- to come to your conclusions there about the true load'? MR. CABEZAS: Well -- I'm Mons Cabezas. You know, you're exactly correct in that there's a lot of variation between the storms. It depends on the type of stone, it depends on the accumulation period and all of that, and that's the reason why pollutant -load calculations are done on an annual- average basis. So what you see there are results of the annual - average pollutant load. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wouldn't see that to be as accurate, as reality, but that's the means that you MR. CABEZAS: That -- right. And there is some justification to doing that, because, you know, the water- quality impacts as opposed to the water - quantity impacts are not immediate. You know, it takes some time for the processes to take place. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 understand. MR. CABEZAS: So that's justified. MR. deGOLIAN: Thanks, Mons. Okay, next. So the next thing I'm going to talk about are some of the recommended projects. You know, we went through whole -- 1 think the last time we were here I ran through like 40- something projects that we were considering as potential ideas, and we've whittled that down to 18 that we think are viable for implementation, and I wanted to kind of walk through those very quickly and let you kind of get an idea of that and then talk a little bit what we can do for structure operations to manage base flow in the Golden Gate watershed. So first thing we did is identified this world of potential projects out there, and we looked at a lot of things that have been done previously. And some ofthe projects that were identified in the feasibility study and some of these other things really weren't very well defined, so we tried to spend some time defining specific things that could occur within some of these other projects that have been identified. But our goals always are, better match the estuarine freshwater surplus. You know, reduce that surplus flow or deficit into the estuaries, you know, look at water - quality pro- -- reduction opportunities. We want to know who owns the property. If it's publicly owned property, we have much more opportunity to do something there as opposed to going out and buying private property, one that will work within conservation easements if they exist. And then if we can work within sending lands, that's a good place to do also, assuming we can get the rights of those lands to work on them so we don't have to spend a lot of money. And, again, we looked at some of these other projects that have been done previously, the Picayune Strand Page 70 of 80 1611A6 .4 March 17. 2011 restoration project obviously, which is underway, the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study, the Belle Meade area, Stormwater Master Plan, Lely area, Immokalee Stormwater Plan, and then this Regional Irrigation Distribution System Plan which looked at aquifer storage and recovery systems. So after looking at the 40- something projects, we've gone through a -- kind of an analysis and initial screening and weeded a lot of them out and got down to these 18 that I'm going to show you right now, and then I'll show you how we rank these projects or how we think they're going to be ranked in terms of priority. So the first one we looked at is in Cocohatchee/Corkscrew watershed. And as I mentioned, the folks at CREW and the Audubon Society are doing a number of projects in there, but this is an area that's just north of the Twin Eagles area, and there are a number of ditches and drainage swales in there that we think you can do some ditch blocks in there pretty inexpensively that will slow down the rate of flow going out there and increase some storage in the watershed and contribute to that reduction of flow during the wet season and increase in flow during the dry seasons. But we do need to look at, you know, some of the potential impacts on some of these subdivisions right there and make sure we're not flooding out a golf course or something like that. But it is a pretty inexpensive project to do -- to do these ditch blocking types of things. One of the bigger projects that we've looked at -- and this is one that's being championed by the South Florida Water Management District -- is what they call the Henderson Creek diversion pump station where just upstream of the new GG3 structure, the idea is to put in a 100 CFS pump and divert the water south through the existing culverts underneath 1 -75 and into the Henderson Creek Canal. And doing this would reduce, on an annual basis, the flows out to Naples Bay by about 10 percent and would not have a significant change in the flows at Rookery Bay because of losses during the movement process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question, sir? In the Henderson Creek, that's a location where we get a surge or we get a lot of water. We flood, obviously, going out, but we can also get a lot of surge going up. What would that -- what'd you call that before? You put something in there to hold the water. MR. deGOLIAN: Ditch blocks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ditch blocks. Sorry. I couldn't remember. But how will that impa- -- how far up is that? MR. deGOLIAN: Well, the -- there is a structure on Henderson Creek at U.S. 41. That's a salinity - control structure, and it's also -- so it stages water up in the Henderson Creek and controls when flows comes out. So getting some additional flow down there actually makes more water available for the Marco Island water intake, which is -- I know they're going to be wanting more water as we move forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, my question really wasn't about going down but rather what happens going back up again in the event of tidal bore and what have you. MR. deGOLIAN: Well, into Henderson Creek, the tides -- the tide can't get past that structure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was -- MR. deGOL1AN: Yeah. It will come up to U.S. 41, and it stops there, and there is no tidal influence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then we just have to be concerned with flooding on 41 in that area. MR. deGOLIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That has historically been a case; that's why I bring that up. MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, right, right. That -- yeah, that is -- there is certainly -- has been some inundation in that area that we do have to be aware of and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Thank you. MR. deGOL1AN: Yes, sir. And so -- but in -- but that -- and just to add an additional comment on that, you know, obviously we wouldn't be operating this structure during high flood events. You know, this would -- this would -- we'd have to -- you know, the -- when we operate the structure is going to have to be dependent upon stage in the Golden Gate Canal and also what's going on down there at Henderson Creek. So we can -- so the Water Management District has the ability to use these SCADA systems to read what's going on at different locations and operate structures accordingly. So that is certainly an issue that has to be recognized in terms of the pumping schedule for this thing, because we can't pump it all the time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. Page 71 of 80 161 1" March 17, 2011 MR. deGOLIAN: You know, we're -- we would anticipate that during rainy season maybe you can pump it 40 to 50 percent of the time, and during dry season maybe 20 to 25 percent of the time, just because there's not enough -- not always enough water upstream of the Golden Gate 3. And we don't want to pump it all out of there, because we still need to have the groundwater protected up there for recharge. So -- but that's a very good -- very good question. Thank you. Next one we looked at is the tlowway restoration project that we're talking about doing the TDR and the mitigation area. So essentially -- and this is -- really what we've laid out here is the plans as they were originally drawn in the Phase I of Horsepen Strand study where they put -- are proposing to put a number of culverts wider the roads and increase connectivity of the wetlands. We think it's going to require a little more work to make it work more efficiently with some ditch blocks and some additional connectivity and allow it to move further to the south as opposed to just having it go through these wetlands and fall right back out into the canals again. Next thing we looked at — and this is up near the GG5 and 6 structures in here, which is next to the agricultural extension service office out here, the fairground. And there's a canal here that right now doesn't have any control on it, and we think we could build a structure on there which would allow us to create more storage in that canal and also reduce some of the groundwater recharge into that canal up there. And the costs are very comparable with what the district would be paying to rebuild the GG6 and 7 structures, which is on their to -do list. Next thing we looked at — and this was off of Wolfe Road which comes in right here. This is actually some existing -- I guess they're dredge spoil ponds or something. I don't know exactly what they are, but there's five existing little ponds down there. And right now the water comes down this canal here and goes through a drop structure into the Indian Walk — Indian Lakes subdivision, and they are responsible for managing the water that comes through that structure. Now, we think we could divert some of that water and bring it down and put it through this series of existing ponds and use it as a stormwater treatment area to get some water- quality treatment and to capture some of the flow and prevent it from going out there. And we're utilizing existing features, so it's not incredibly expensive to do that, and we would have to put it right back into the Indian Walk Lake when it's coming through, but it would be less volume of water that's going into their system that they would have to manage. Another one we looked at is -- let's see. This is another one where we're putting a structure in a canal, right here on this Orangetree Canal. We're talking about adding a structure into this canal, again, just to stage up the water in there, reduce some of the base flow, and increase some storage in that canal system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir`? MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of the -- of a canal versus a pond, which has the greater -- or the higher rate of evaporation? MR. deGOLIAN: It really depends on the surface area. I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That I can understand. MR. deGOLIAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you were reflecting on some ponds that you saw were down. MR. deGOLIAN: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just wondering about whether that --whether we --you know, we could do some cleaning, etcetera, but I'm wondering if we don't just --I'm assuming those dots are fairly representative. MR. deGOLIAN: Yeah. What we --yeah, what we would --well, those dots are where we would recommend putting culverts to connect those ponds together to allow a tlowway through the system. But you do have I don't know if you can see there -- and I apologize. I don't know the total acreage of those ponds right there. And I COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'mjust wondering. A pond is generally open to the atmosphere as opposed to a canal, which is often shaded. MR. deGOLIAN: Well, these are -- there's -- the edges of these canals are wooded. And I've been out there, and there is a lot of canopy overhang over the first 4 or 5 feet of the pond on either side, but the center of the ponds is Page 72 of 80 161 1A6 March 17, 2011 very open. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. MR. deGOLIAN: Then we get out of Golden Gate and we get into Rookery Bay, and actually this is a project that's drawing water out of the Golden Gate Canal into the northern part of the Rookery Bay watershed north of 1 -75 and adjacent to where these proposed mines are supposed to be going in there and to the east of the Wilson Boulevard extension that's going to occur. And the idea is to pull water out of the Golden Gate Canal when it's available and put it into a spreader system and let it flow via overland flow down south into the canal system on the north side of I -75 where it would then either go under the canals at I -75, or potentially it could go off to the east into the Miller Canal and then be pumped down into Fakaunion. So we think this project has a lot of potential and could be implemented as part of the construction project with the Wilson Boulevard extension, or another possibility is there's -- I think the mines are talking about doing mitigation in that area. It may become maybe that this is their mitigation plan is to implement something like this as part of their implementation process, but that would have to be negotiated with those mining companies. Next thing we looked at in Rookery Bay -- and this kind of plays off the one we just looked at. This is another spreader swale. It's located south of 1 -75 in the Picayune Strand State Forest area right there. And, again, it's just to pick up the water that's coming underneath the I -75 canals that's resulting from the other system and putting it above the ground surface and helping us rehydrate the wetlands and increase the hydroperiod in this Picayune Strand area and letting this water then migrate through these wetlands and restore the hydrology in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But, sir, isn't that part of the big project? MR. deGOLIAN: This is actually west of that big project and is not part of that. It's not -- this would not be affected by the restoration project in the Miller, Fakaunion, and Fakahatchee Canals. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good to know. Thank you. MR. deGOLIAN: Or Merit Canals, excuse me. Another thing we looked at — there's this existing mine over here off of Henderson Creek and Collier Boulevard, and we think that sometime in the future when its finished mining, we ought to grab this thing and use it for a storage to grab water during the wet season, store it, and be able to pull it -- let it -- gravity flow out during the dry season. And we think this one's more viable. We looked at this opportunity at some of the other mines up in the Golden Gate watershed, and those actually were so close to the canals that we thought there was going to be so much interaction between the mine and the canal from just seepage that we didn't think those were very practical. But this one is far enough away from the canal, and the general direction of gravity flow is to the south where we don't think there would be as much interaction with the canal system in here. And, again, that would allow us to capture excess flow during the dry season and put it all in the wet season or to use it as water supply for the folks in Marco Island. Last one in Rookery Bay is down here on U.S. 41 just to the east of where Henderson Creek comes out. And we're talking about building on publicly owned land a small stormwater treatment area where wejust pump water up into this -- into this wetland system and let it, kind of, pond up and get water - quality treatment before gravity flows back out and works its way south through the existing canal system out into Rookery Bay. Then we go into the Fakahatchee and Okaloacoochee watersheds. And the things we've recommended in here are more directed solely to restoration with a lot of ditch blocks and things of that nature. What we're looking at here are some isolated wetlands where historically somebody went in there and dug some ditches to drain the wetlands, whether for agriculture or logging or whatever. So we would suggest we go back in there and just put some small ditch blocks to capture the water and keep in these wetland areas and improve the hydrology and the habitat of these areas. So we see this same type of thing. Now, this one here is actually in the main slough of the Okaloacoochee. And we have to be a little bit more careful here. If we start doing ditch blocks here, we can have -- we're going to have -- potentially increase inundation over a very large area, so we have to be very careful about the size of these ditch blocks. But we think the improvement that we can get from these things could be very, very large from an ecological perspective, hydrological perspective, and also from a water - quality perspective. And we have three different projects like this along the -- along the Okaloacoochee Slough flowway. So there's a second one that's a little bit farther south and then one down here at Highway 858, just north of that. Page 73 of 80 161 1 AO 41 March 17, 2011 So this would probably -- potentially take some of the stress off that bridge under the main road there by pending some of the water up father. Of course, we do have to look at potential ramifications to the agricultural and pasture lands around there. Then we had a couple other of these small, isolated wetland -type projects in the Okaloacoochee Slough. Same type of deal, just put in some ditch blocks and do a very isolated restoration. Very inexpensive little projects to do. So anyway, we have this whole list of projects that we looked at. And so the question is, how do we prioritize them? If we're going to implement these things, we've got to have a way to prioritize them. So we have a couple of different weighting factors that we considered, and the first one is related to the overall restoration purposes. And from everything we've heard from everybody we've talked to is getting the flow right with the estuaries is by far the most important thing we've got to do. So we gave that a weight of 2, and everything else got a weight of 1. And the other thing we looked at is, again, trying to balance things across the watersheds, because all the watersheds are very unique characteristics. So we wanted to start looking at things relative to the improvement, relative to the drainage area and see what we could do. So we looked at the watershed drainage area, the size of the estuary relative to that drainage area, and the different types of land uses. And I'll talk about this. So for water quantity where we're talking about the flow to the estuary, we took the estuary area, divided it by the drainage area. So the smaller the estuary relative to the drainage area, the higher the score. And for water quality we looked at the amount of urban or agricultural lands, because we're only interested in anthropogenic load, and looked at that relative to the volume of drainage area. And in that case, the higher the percentage, the higher the score, because we want to reduce that pollutant load from these areas. And the last one related to the hydrology. And, again, we looked at inland wetland area relative to the drainage area. And in this case, as we said, if it has a very small amount of wetlands relative to the drainage area, it got a high score because it's -- if it doesn't have wetlands now, it's important to restore the wetlands that are there and protect them for future. So these are the weighting factors that we ended up coming with -- up with for each of the -- of the watersheds that we applied to the projects after we evaluated the individual benefits. And just to kind of show you a scoring matrix, you know, we have a score for water quantity related to the flow to the estuary, a water - quality score, a hydrologic - benefit score. And you can see on some of these projects, you know, some of them -- like the diversion projects have a water - quantity benefit but has no benefit in terms of water quality or hydrologic benefit. You know, it's really not doing anything to restore wetlands, and it's really not doing a whole lot to restore -- to fix water quality. But it scores very high because of the reduction, that 10 percent reduction in flow to the Naples Bay Estuary during the course of the average year. Sothis is kind of the ranking of the things based on just the quality benefits. And then we said, well, let's do a calculation based on cost and get a benefit- pet -cost ratio. And it kind of juggles the things up. And we actually see that that while the Henderson Creek diversion is still our top project -- and kudos to the Water Management District for identifying that -- but we see that firs middle Okaloacoochee Slough wetland restoration project, which really doesn't have much flow benefit to the estuary, scores very high on a dollar - per - benefit cost because it provides a really nice hydrologic jump, and it provides a nice water - quality benefit and is very -- and is relatively inexpensive to implement relative to some of these other projects. And we do see that some of these other projects that score very, very low down here, that's the scale of the project. You know, if you're looking at an isolated wetland project, it's not going to -- you really don't see the benefit at a watershed scale, so it looks like the benefits are very, very small, even though it might have a nice very -- a very nice benefit at a very local scale. So to kind of wrap up my part of the presentation, you know, the projects that divert water between the watersheds are probably going to provide the most benefit and protect the estuaries. We do see that relatively inexpensive wetland- restoration projects can have significant hydrologic- restoration benefits on a regional scale, but even though a lot of them we only see it at the local scale. But coming out of this, nonstructural and policy issues are going to be the most important thing, because even Page 74 of 80 161 1 A6 March 17, 2011 looking at these big diversion projects, we were only looking at, you know, reducing flow to Naples Bay by, like, 20 percent, which is not very much. So we really need to start looking at some of these -- some of these nonstructural and policy - related issues and make sure that they're going to be applied for the future. And, you know, one of those big things is structure operations. We've talked about this a number -- you know, throughout my presentation. So the primary issues, we've got to reduce base -load contributions, and we've got to use structure operations where we can to divert water to the other watersheds. And as I mentioned earlier, the base flow is the primary contributor of flow to the Golden Gate Canal network. And I'll just skip through this. But I guess just the key point on this slide is, you know, the dry season water - surface elevation is held about a foot higher than wet season. So the gradient from groundwater is actually higher during the wet season, because groundwater is higher, but the water level in the canal is lower, so you get more base flow. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to what you just said about the bang- for -the -buck type thing. MR. deGOLIAN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to think about that $5.07 million for Henderson Creek, and I'm trying to figure -- trying to relate it to what youjust said, and it doesn't -- I'm not clear on it. Can you tell me why that would -- why would we want to go out heavy -duty with that one relative to the others? And it's going to do quantity, not quality. MR. deGOLIAN: It is going to do quantity, and because -- and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you back up two slides, we might be able to focus more effectively on -- MR. deGOL1AN: On this slide here, or this slide here? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. No, the one you just -- yeah, there you go. MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, when you look at that, you see a pump station. You called it you made it sound very inexpensive earlier with your statement about putting a plug in there. MR. deGOLIAN: Well, this is not putting a plug in Henderson -- in the Henderson Creek -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what fm trying to rationalize now. I'm trying to understand, because before we were talking about something that I thought was something simple, and now I'm seeing 5.708 million. MR. deGOLIAN: Well -- okay. If you'll bear with me for a minute, I'll jump back up to that slide, because this one is -- this is the structure that -- where they're rebuilding the Golden Gate 3 Canal or Golden Gate 3 structure, and they're putting in a pump station immediately upstream of that structure to send water directly to Henderson Creek. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But is that part ofwatershed protection? MR. deGOLIAN: Well, from a protection of Naples Bay Estuary, it's very important, because it does reduce that volume of flow going out there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that I could appreciate. So in other words, that's part of this. MR. deGOLIAN: That is certainly part of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I can relate and understand the -- there are several objectives in this whole program. MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And do we stack the objectives? Apparently we do. Apparently that's a No. 1 on the objective. MR. deGOLIAN: Well, they -- well, when -- and, you know, we did talk about when -- in this weighting factor that -- and, you know, we're -- this is an initial weighting, so were -- we're still in -- I guess we can still talk about this. I mean, this is not at a final thing, but, you know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm trying to understand. MR. deGOLIAN: Yeah. Based on everything we have heard throughout the course of this project, the thing we have been told that is most important by everybody we've talked to is get the flow right to the estuaries. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 75 of 80 le 1 Ab t March 17, 2011 MR. deGOLIAN: And if we get -- so we doubled the weight on that to get that as our highest priority. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And maybe it's -- maybe it's something that I have a prejudice based on prior awareness of things, but it seemed to me up on hnmokalee Road, up in that area by Twin Eagles and so forth -- MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- there's areas up there that we're watching the watershed just, you know, eventually being chopped apart. And I'm wondering, where does that stack up relative to this? You know, if you've got No. 1, Henderson Creek, where does that -- where does that stack up? Is that No. 17 or what`? MR. deGOLIAN: In terms of restoration in -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In terms of improvement, whatever it may be. MR. deGOLIAN: Well, I think what we're going to find in -- and we'll talk about this in a second -- in the Cocohatchee watershed, you know, our flow -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. That's the one l think I'm talking about. MR. deGOLIAN: Yeah. The flows into the Wiggins Pass estuary right now are actually pretty good. I mean, they're pretty close to historical. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And you and I now are talking about the same thing, and that's good for me. MR. &GOLIAN: Sure, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But the fact is is there's tremendous -- there was, and there will be again, tremendous pressure for development in that very area. MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's what I'm looking to find out. If we spend our bucks doing certain things, we don't have money for that, and then we're behind ourselves again. MR. deGOLIAN: Well -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to understand where that stacks up. MR. deGOLIAN: Well, that actually falls into the policy recommendations that we're making that would govern that new development and how that occurs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you doing that here and I missed it? MR. deGOLIAN: We are doing that here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did I miss it? MR. deGOLIAN: No, we haven't done that yet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. MR. deGOLIAN: It's coming. What I'm talking about right now is actually physical projects in -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got you. I'm trying to follow. There's a lot of data here. MR. deGOLIAN: And then -- oh, there is a ton of information, and I'm sorry we're dumping it all on you at one time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all right. We're used to it. MR. deGOLIAN: So --but we will be talking about that in just a second. So structure operations, of course, the difference there is the groundwater elevations versus the canal elevation that's driving that base flow in there. And this kind of -- this is the -- we saw a map of this for dry season. This is the base flow during wet season into the Golden Gate, and, you know, we don't see those losses to the groundwater network here, which makes sense because the additional infiltration in the area ends. But this kind of let's us know where the most base flow is occurring. So this is going to be useful for us in terms of talking to the district about how to manage the structures. So from a structural- operation perspective, we want to work with the Water Management District to operate those structure operations so that the canal stage more closely matches the groundwater elevation. And that will reduce base flow. Of course, we do have limitations because the structures themselves have physical tops that we can -- that -- you know, there's just so high you can go without building a new structure, and we have to think about the septic tanks and where those -- where those leach fields are, because we cannot affect those things. Now, we saw in the Golden Gate watershed that managing this may be more important in the dry season because the percentage of base flow is about 70 percent of total flow, and it's easier to manage it in dry season, Page 76 of 80 161 1 A6 March 17, 2011 assuming that the structures are physically capable to let us raise that water - surface elevation a little higher. And the other things we want to look at are operating, like, the Miller 3 structure when it get replaced, is make sure it has the flexibility in there to allow us to let water shunt off into the Miller Canal and down into the Fakaunion watershed as opposed to sending it out Naples to Naples Bay. And we want also want to look at how the C 1 connector canal is set up right now, because right now the culvert's in their control flow. And conceivably you could do some more work in that canal and put a new structure in there that, again, would allow flow to migrate to the east. And with that, I'm going to finish, and I'm going to turn the presentation over to Mons to talk about development issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you do. MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When Ray Bellows put this on the agenda, unfortunately he never gave a hint that this was going to be any more than a ten- ininute presentation -- MR. deGOLL.N: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as you well know by the discussion we had before lunch. And I'm sure Mr. Bellows will never do this again. But at the same time, there are a lot of things that still need to be done for some of us today. Based on the fact our agenda did not expect to go this long, there are other commitments that have got to be made, or committed to. I need to know how much longer you're going to take, because I have to make some phone calls, and I did not expect this to take so long today. MR. CABEZAS: I'm Moris Cabezas. We still have some ways to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CABEZAS: So you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll -- we're going to -- MR. CABEZAS: You know, we would be very glad to come back at another time if you so desire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you'll have to because I'm -- MR. CABEZAS: Whatever you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the rest of this panel? What time -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. In Mac's memo he calls this a brief update. What is the full one going to be like? MR. CABEZAS: I know. It takes a week. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do we bring cots to that one or what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust need to know what this board's desire is before we go further, because this could take many, many more hours at the rate we're going. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think we ought to listen to the public speakers, and then from this forward we postpone for the next, whatever piece is coming in. COMMISSIONER AHERN: flow much time -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem I have, I based it on the -- I never thought we'd be this far. I've got to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I have to leave at no later than four. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm in kind of trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to leave at four, you've got at -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Look at how many slides -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just wait a minute, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll be leaving in 15 minutes. I can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I need to leave no later than four. I had two other appointments this aftemoon which have already more or less canceled. What's another date we could finish this up on, Ray? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think it would be nice if you sent it to us, and then we start where we just left off. Page 77 of 80 16 1 1 Ab March 17, 2011 MR. CABEZAS: You may want to consider -- you know, and I'll go real quickly on these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not only worried about you. MR. CABEZAS: Maybe in fifteen minutes -- in fifteen trunutes I can give you an introduction of what we're thinking about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have -- MR. CABEZAS: -- and that may be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not trying to short sell the issue. We have public involved in this. The problem is, this was not presented to us in a manner that we -- even any of us here, I think, anticipated three or four hours on this subject today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask another qu- -- how come -- how did the public know this was going to be a lengthy presentation? Because I don't think they came down for a brief update. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. Ray, what's the next available date? MR. BELLOWS: It would be April 7th. April 7th is the next Planning Commission meeting, and there's one land -use item on there, the Cope Reserve PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he's shaking his head no for the 7th. MR. CABEZAS: I'm sorry. 1 won't be here April 7th. MR. BELLOWS: Well, then the next meeting after that is the 21 st of April, and that one shows also one item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the 21 st of April'? MR. CABEZAS: It's my wedding anniversary, but that's okay. My wife will understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was the appointment I had this afternoon with mine, so I'm in as much trouble as you are, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: And it's two days after mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, honestly, what should have happened is this should have been workshopped for a morning meeting where we could have met at ODES in 609 and just sat down and discussed this issue. And had this even been suggested at being the length and the detail it is, we would have gotten paperwork ahead of time, been prepared to have better questions and gotten into it a little bit more. This is not turning out as effective as it could have been, obviously. We're going to lose some of our people here quickly. So with that in mind, what's this panel's wish? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 wonder if the public can't have the opportunity between now and the time that, say, 15, 20 minutes, to express their views and then continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to get to that. What's the panel's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm expressing my view. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, it's something of interest. I'd like to hear it, but I mean, we got kind of ambushed here, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think the consensus is we're going to cut this a little short for today, and we're going to reschedule for the 21 st. In that regard, for what has been presented so far, does anybody from the public wish to discuss, or you want to hold off until the 21 st? It's your option. MR. CABEZAS: Twenty -first of April? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty -first of April, yes, sir. MS. CROOKS: My comments are going to be about fertilizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't even talked about fertilizer yet. MS. CROOKS: You have heard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use the nuke it you want to address us, please. You have to state your name for the record. MS. CROOKS: Hi. Amber Crooks from the Conservancy. I was going to speak about the fertilizer ordinance. It's something that you have heard -- been briefed on previously. I can hold my comments. I know there's others here from the public also about the Fertilizer - ordinance component. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's a matter of we haven't -- I don't think they've discussed fertilizer yet. Ilave you guys gotten into the fertilizer issue yet? I mean, 1 didn't see that so far. Page 78 of 80 161 1 A 6 March1I7, 2011 MR. CABEZAS: No, not yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim, did you have something you want to -- MR. NANCE: Well, I wish to speak again -- and thank you for your continued courtesy to me. But I would just like to advise the commission members that I would like to speak on the fertilizer ordinance at your April 21 st meeting and advise you that it is a much greater topic than perhaps you realize at the time, and that I hope they will supply you with a great deal of material on it because it has blown into something that's beyond reasonability, shall I say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thanks, Tim. And just so -- I don't think we have ever refused anybody speaking to this board. MR. NANCE: Oh, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you will always have the time to speak. MR. NANCE: Absolutely not, and I do appreciate it. I do appreciate your courtesy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I think we're looking at today is, is let's focus on what has been presented so far. And if there's no continents from the public on what's presented so far, we'd like to defer the rest of it until the 21 st when we can be better prepared. However, prior to the 21 st, it would be nice if you guys gave us whatever backup material that we should have to understand better what maybe the public's going to talk about in regards to the fertilizer ordinance. I certainly would expect that you provide us with the -- your PowerPoint in hard copy prior to that time so we can review it. This is a little kind of awkward today. We were caught off guard in the intensity of this, and I think you would have had a -- it would have been more effective to have a little preamble before we got here today with some backup information in our packet. So does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's working perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, we are going to continue this item till the 21 st of April. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just going to say, if you want to send it to me electronically, I'll be happy to get it electronically rather than paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd like mine in hard copy, but you can go ahead and do it black and white just to save money in color, if you'd like to. And the reason for the hard copy, I can circle my questions and bring it with me, rather than have to print out 100 pages on my color copy -- color printer. MR. CABEZAS: Would it be okay we provide three slides per sheet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter. "Chat's fine. That's fine. Just so we have something ahead of time to give us an idea of what's going on so we can do a preread. Okay. That work for everybody? Mac, we're going to cut you off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing -- Mark, let me just add to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It wouldn't be a bad idea to have it electronically also in case we wanted to go look at a map or something that wouldn't work on the three -per- sheet. So if you could do it both ways. MR. HATCHER: The staff summary that I provide you all has good links to all of these documents on the web. So I will include links and hard copy of the presentations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd just be happy to get the balance of the presentation electronically, and then I can see what I can see and do what I can do. That's what I'd appreciate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mac, thank you. Now, as far as anything else on the agenda, I don't believe we have any new business. That was the only item of old business. Any members of the public have any comments to make at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Then is there a motion to adjourn? Melissa? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. Page 79 of 80 161 1A6 March 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Melissa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Melissa. 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: Ave. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:36 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION \,/ I Al&� MARK TRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on 4 — Z l- I I , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBIC. Page 80 of 80 RFCCIVED- Commissioner Donna Fiala t„ Bow" u1'�my COMASSIon" f COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL, BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. SO INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR Q GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE fir RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE s APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL, A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 3, 2011, February 17, 2011 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PUD7-2009 -AR -14425 An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to allow for development of up to 135,000 square feet of commercial development and/or a retirement community /group housing at a FAR of .60 and /or a hotel /motel of an intensity of 26 units per acre for a 23.33 + /- acre parcel to be known as the Addie's Corner MPUD located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 1 161 1 A6 1 B. CP- 2008 -5, Petition requesting amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, to make revisions to the entire Master Plan to include: increases to commercial acreage, industrial acreage, and allowable residential density; elimination of some existing designations; creation of a new designation for the Immokalee Regional Airport site; and, redesignation of approximately 103 acres to Immokalee Urban Area from Agricultural /Rural within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map. Additionally, the petition requests an amendment to Policy 6.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to treat that portion of the Lake Trafford Camp Keais Strand System which is within the Immokalee Urban Area as Neutral Lands for vegetation retention, and to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Future Land Use Element to show the redesignation of the 103 acres to the Immokalee Urban Area. [Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item has been continued from the February 17'h meeting: PUDA- PL2010 -388, Olde Cypress Development, LTD, represented by Chris Mitchell of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a PUD Amendment for the Olde Cypress PUD. The PUD Amendment request is to reduce the project density from 1100 dwelling units to 942 dwelling units and remove the requirements of trails and a park (3.9 acres minimum) within the Olde Cypress PUD /DRI. The subject property is located in the Olde Cypress subdivision, Sections 21 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to DOA- PL2010 -1052 and PUDZ.- PL2010 -1054) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP] B. This item has been continued from the February 17 h meeting: DOA- PL2010 -1052, Olde Cypress Development, LTD and Vita Pima, LLC, represented by Chris Mitchell of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a change to the previously approved Olde Cypress Development of Regional Impact DRI, in accordance with Florida Statutes, Subsection 380.06(19). The proposed modifications will remove the 3.9 -acre park requirement, add 63.9 acres into the DRI boundary, and amend Map H to incorporate this change. The subject property consisting of 602t acres is located in Sections 21 and 22, Range 48 South, Township 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PUDA- PL2010 -388 and PUDZ- PL2010 -1054) [Kay Deselem, AICP, Coordinator] C. This item has been continued from the February 17'x' meeting: PUDZ- PL2010 -1054: Vita Pima, LLC, represented by Christopher R. Mitchell, P.E. of Waldrop Engineering, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a Rezone from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district with a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay for a project that is known as the HD Development RPUD, and the Agricultural (A) zoning district, to the RPUD zoning district to allow for development of a maximum of 125 single - family residential units and 33 multi - family units, and associated accessory uses. The 65.29± acre subject property is located along the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846) approximately 330 feet east of Olde Cypress Boulevard in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PUDA- P12010 -388 and DOA-PI-2010-1052) [Kay Deselem, AICP, Coordinator] 2 161 1 A6 D. PUDZ-2005 -AR -8674: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district with a portion of the real property in a ST overlay (Special Treatment) to a Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) zoning district with removal of the ST overlay for a project known as Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD. The project will allow development of a 500 seat church, a single family residence and preschool of up to 150 students along with other permitted and accessory uses commonly associated with a church and preschool use. The property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 12 +/- acres and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] E. PUDA- PL2010 -854: Naples Daily News BPPUD. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 06 -49, the Naples Daily News Business Park Planned Unit Development (BPPUD), located at 1100 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida, by amending Section 2.9 of 06 -49 to allow a change in the plant materials in the landscape buffer; and providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Watershed Management Plan Update Workshop — Summary of Existing Conditions [Coordinator: Mac Hatcher] 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA low". 03101030 1 3/8/2011 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp 3 il!er April 1, 2011 �; �; ✓Icy MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATEEC {1/E[ Naples, Florida, April 1, 2011 MAY - 9 2011 g0,er(1 of C:oimry Commissioners 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: Colleen Davidson, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Corres: Item# :r X A °s , ). 161 1 A7 April 1, 2011 t. 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 and 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. RECESS: 9:15 AM RECONVENED: 9:31 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Colleen Davidson, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary, noted the following changes to the Agenda: (a) Under Item V.A - Public Hearings - Stipulations - The following cases (listed below as Agenda items): • #7 — Case No. CESD20100021808 - FOOD LAND SUPERMARKETS LLC • #15 - Case No. CEV20100022124 - DAVID N. MAFFEL • #11 -Case No. CEV20100022129 - MANUEL J. SANCHEZ (b) Under Item V.B — Public Hearings - Hearings - The following cases were withdrawn by the County, (listed below as Agenda items): • # 6 - Case No. CEV20100020647 - IRIS RODRIGUEZ • #16 - Case No. CEPM20100009969 - XIMENA B. & JOHN J. LOPEZ • 917 - Case No. CEV20110000762 - RENEE PRENTICE (c) Under Item V.C. — Public Hearings - Emergency Cases — The following case was added, (listed below as Agenda item) • #1— Case No. CEPM20110003003 — ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ (d) Under Item VI.A - New Business - Motion for Imposition of Fines - The following cases were withdrawn by the County, (listed below as Agenda items): • 911— Case No. CEPM20100003242 - ABEL D. & SARA ACCILIO The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 4, 2011 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on March 4, 2011 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Extension of Time None B. Motion for Continuance None C. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None 2 161 1 Ai April 1, 2011 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hearings 2. CASE NO: PR045644- CEEX20110002096 OWNER: GREGORY ROBERTS OFFICER: PARK RANGER KURT ARAQUISTAIN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 - LEAVING VEHICLE PARKED IN PARK AFTER CLOSING VIOLATION ADDRESS: SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK The Respondent's representative Nico Vitale was present. The Investigative Of — Kurt Araquistain was not present. Mr. Vitale moved to dismiss the case. The Special Magistrate GRANTED Mr. Vitale's Request to dismiss case No. PR045644- CEEX20110002096 — Gregory Roberts. B. Stipulations 7. CASE NO: CESD20100021808 OWNER: FOOD LAND SUPERMARKETS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)I)(a). THE NORTH SIDE ENTRANCE OF THE STORE WAS ENCLOSED ON THE INTERIOR WITHOUT PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 35931160000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1 1845 COLLIER BLVD, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Joseph Mucha who was present. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative, JD. Verderamo March 31, 2011. Investigator Mucho outlined the terms of the Stipulation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain all applicable permits, inspections, and Certificates of Completion/Occupancy for described improvements made, or for the removal of the described improvements and restore to a permitted state on or before June 1, 2011, or a fine of $200.00 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. 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. 3. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.03 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.03 15. CASE NO: CEV20100022124 OWNER: DAVID N. MAFFEL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL 161 1 A7 April 1, 2011 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130 -95 AND 130 -96. VEHICLES ON SITE WITH EXPIRED PLATES AND A WAVERUNNER ON THE SIDEYARD. FOLIO NO: 36130440009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5015 17'" AVE SW, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Renauld Paul who was present. The Respondent, David N. Maffei was present. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's David N. Maffei on April 1, 2011. Investigator Paul outlined the terms of the Stipulation Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain and affix a valid license plate to each vehicle, or store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or remove the offending vehicles from a residentially zoned property by April 8, 2011. If the violation is not abated by April 8, 2011 a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains there after unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 2. Remove recreational vehicle from the property, or store in the backyard of the property, or in a garage (in an enclosed structure) by April 4, 2011 or a ftne of $50.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains there after unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 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. 4. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.47 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.47 11. CASE NO: CEV20100022129 OWNER: MANUEL J. SANCHEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130 -96 AND 130 -97. WHITE TRAILER PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY AND A BOAT IN THE DRIVEWAY. FOLIO NO: 36120720001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4920 2157 PL SW, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Renauld Paul who was present. The Respondent was represented by Manuel J. Sanchez. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Manuel J Sanchez on April 1, 2011. Investigator Paul outlined the terms of the Stipulation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Remove, store in backyard (concealed from view), or garage (in an enclosed strucutre) any and all commercial vehicles at the property by April 4, 2011 or a ftne of $100.00 per day 161 1 A/ April 1, 2011 will be imposed for each day the violation remains there after unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 2. Remove, store in backyard, or garage (in an enclosed structure) any and all recreational vehicles at the property by April 4, 2011 or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains there after unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 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. 4. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.29 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.29 C. Emergency Cases 1. Case No. CEPM20110003003 OWNER: ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR KITCHELL SNOW VIOLATIONS: VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE(S): COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (2), (I 1), (12), (19), (20), (I2)(b) (I 2(h), (I 2)(i) FOLIO NO: 66221120004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 701 E. DELAWARE AVE, IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 The Respondent was not present. Investigator Snow presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — Composite Exhibit B — (Carlisle Mclain) Composite Exhibit C - 8 Photos dated 3/7/11 (Interior of Structure) Criminal Record of Individual residing on premise Photos dated 3/7 /11 (Exterior of Structure) Collier County Sheriff Corporal Mike Taylor testified the mobile home is in delapidated condition with no running water or electricity. In addition, the structure is the site of criminal activity. Mr. Snow testified the mobile home has numerous property violations on the interior and exterior of the structure/building causing a health and safety issue to the community. The structure is currently unsecured and in severe condition of disrepair. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain a valid Collier County Building permit to complete all necessary repairs required to bring the structure into compliance with codes and complete all inspections required for issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Restore water and electrical to the property for the duration of any habitation, maintain the structure in a sanitary condition and eliminate the blighting condition of the interior and exterior of the property as currently exists on or before April 6, 2011, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate, or; 161 1 A7 1'4 April 1, 2011 2. Obtain a valid Collier County Demolition permit to demolish the structure and complete the related inspections for issuance of a Certificate of Completion and remove all associated refuse associated with said demolition to a site suitable for disposal of the refuse on or before April 6, 2011 or a fine $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notes 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 for demolition of the structure and removal of said debris to an acceptable site and may assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. 4. Pay the Operational Costs of $I12.64 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.64 A. Hearings (Continued) 12. CASE NO: CEPM20100009970 OWNER: MOISE & EMMELINE THEGENUS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(19). VACANT CONDOMINIUM UNIT HAS EXCESSIVE MOLD THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR. FOLIO NO: 74029001841 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2013 ROOKERY BAY DRIVE APT 1204, NAPLES The respondents were present. Investigator Mcgonagle presented the case.- . Original date of service — 8/13/10 Esmond Lewis, Attorney represented the Respondents. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 4 photos dated 7/27/10 Composite Exhibit B — 4 photos dated 3/22/11 Investigator Mcgonagle testified the interior of the residence is severly compromised by mold. She did not determine the cause of the mold damage. Mr. Lewis testified the unit was in the foreclosure process when the mortgage holder dismissed the foreclosure case returning the title to the Respondents. The damage occurred during the foreclosure proceedings, possibly caused by a leaking water pipe from the unit above. The Respondents unit was vacant at the time of the leak. There are ongoing disucssions on which party is responsible to complete the necessary repairs (the condominium association, private insurance claims, etc.). He requested a continuance in the case to determine the party responsible to abate the violation. Investigator Mcgonagle requested the County move forward with the hearing today and recommends the Respondents: 1. Obtain a valid Collier County Building permit and complete all required inspections for a Certificate of Occupancy and Certificate of Completion to make the unit habitable on or before May 1, 2011, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation 161 1 A7 4 Apri 11,2011 remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 2. Notes 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 Offrce to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. 3. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Mr. Lewis requested the Special Magistrate order the mold remediated, however not require the unit be made "habitable" until the issue of responsibility is resolved. The time frame for completion be May 21, 2011 with the fine for non compliance in the amount of $100.00 day for each day thereafter the Order is not complied with. Investigator Mcgonagle did not object to the request, however recommended the remediation be completed by a Licensed Contractor. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GDILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain a valid Collier County Demolition Permit and engage a Licensed Contractor to complete all necessary actions to remediate the mold and obtain the necessary inspections to ensure compliance with the Order. Following remediation, the unit to be maintained in a sanitary condition (as opposed to "habitable'). Said actions to be completed on or before April 18, 2011, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 2. Notify 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 may assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary, assistance maybe requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. 3. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before June 1, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.56 18. CASE NO: CEEX20110003641 OWNER: DANIEL CHERVONY OFFICER: OFFICER PAUL MORRIS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 14 -35. DANGEROUS DOG. VIOLATION ADDRESS: KINGS LAKE, BUCKINGHAM LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/16/11 The respondents were present — Daniel Chervony /Carolina Farinachi Investigator Officer Morris presented the case. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A — Photo dated 2/25/11 depicting injuries sustained by Mary Maycheck (the victim) 161 1 A/ A April 1, 2011 Exhibit B — Photo dated 2/24/11 taken by Officer Morris depicting injuries sustained by the (victim). Exhibit C — Photo of the dog named Bullseye (the perpetrator) Investigator Morris noted: • The incident occurred on February 23, 2011 when the victim was attacked by the dog Bullseye (the perpetrator.) • She was walking down the street when the dog crossed the street and attacked her. • Witness John Vogrin submitted an affadavit on the incident. • Following the investigation, the County determined Bullseye should be deemed a "Dangerous Dog." Mary Maycheck, the vicitim testified: • She was walking down the street when the dog crossed the street and attacked her causing substantial injuries to here arm. • She did not provoke the dog. • Passerbys had to intervene and physically remove the dog to stop the attack. Daniel Chervony /Carolina Farinachi owners of the dog testified: • The dog is a puppy, 13 - 14 weeks old, weighing approximately 18 pounds. • On the day of the incident, he escaped his confines. • He is a playful dog and they speculate he did not know he was intentionally causing injuries to the victim. • The dog resides with children and an elderly women has not displayed signs of agression. • They are in possession of a letter from their veterinarian indicating he did not display signs of agressions during a visit (admitted as Respondents Exhibit A). • They are in the process of arranging professional training for the dog. • Due to the circumstances surrounding the incident, they are appealing the determination by the County the dog should be deemed a "Dangerous Dog," and questioned if the appeal is denied, could be reviewed after 1 year. The Special Magistrate noted the Ordinance does not contain standards for placing a dog on "probation." The Special Magistrate found, given the parameters of the incident, the dog meets the criteria in the Ordinance of a Dangerous Dog. The appeal was denied. RECESS: 11:20 AM RECONVENED: 11:39 AM 1. CASE NO: 50173937- CEEX20110003309 OWNER: JAMIE A. KHAWAJA OFFICER: DEPUTY SIEGEL VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA VIOLATION ADDRESS: ACROSS VANDERBILT GARAGE; Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 3/17/11 The respondent was not present. Deputy Siegel presented the case. 16! 1 A7 Onril 1, 2011 Evidence Entered: Exhibit A — Photo dated 2/25/11 depicting the parking violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a Fine of $30.00, Operational Costs of $50.00 and Investigative Fee of $5.00 by May], 2011. Total Due: $85.00 3. CASE NO: CESD20100021849 OWNER: JEREMY J. & CARRIE E. OLMSTEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 11, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22 -26(b) (104.5.1.4.4). ABANDONED OR SUSPENDED PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 56570003468 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 495 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 3/17/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/16/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Box presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 3 photos dated 12/14/10 Exhibit B — Copy of previously issued building permit on 9/19/05 expiring 3/19/06 As of 4/1/11 the violation remains with failed inspections uncorrected for electrical and plumbing. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain a valid Collier County Building, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion for permit 2005 — 073209 on or before August 1, 2011, or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate, or; 2. Obtain all necessary demolition permits and inspections required to remove the permitted improvement and restore the structure to its original condition on or before August 1, 2011 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate, 3. Notes 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. 4. Pay the Operational Costs of $II2.20 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.20 4. CASE NO: CEPM20110000018 OWNER: ADRIANA & JOSE ARIZMENDI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL 1. b 1 lA 7 April 1, 2011 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -243. LANAI DOOR UNSECURED, FOLIO NO: 36125880001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 199148 TH ST SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 3/17/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/14/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Paul presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 3 photos As of 4/1/11 the violation remains. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Take all necessary steps to secure the property as required under Collier County Ordinances on or before April 8, 2011, or a fine of $200.00 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. 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. 3. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.29 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.29 5. CASE NO: CEAU20110000019 OWNER: ADRIANA & JOSE ARIZMENDI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02(A). PARTS OF THE FENCE MISSING, NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. FOLIO NO: 36125880001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1991 48'" ST SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 3/17/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/14/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Paul presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A— 2 photos As of4 /1 /11 the violation remains. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Repair the fence to meet the requirements of Collier County Codes on or before April 18, 2011. If the repairs are not made by April 18, 2011, a fine of $100.00 per day will be mi 161 1 A7 - April 1, 2011 imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 2. 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 maybe requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. 3. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Due: $112.38 8. CASE NO: CEPM20100007780 OWNER: LOWELL JOHNSON SR & VIRGINIA JOHNSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (15) & (12)(i). SCREEN ENCLOSURE AND POOL COVER BADLY DAMAGED. FOLIO NO: 35987600006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3060 47'" TER SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 3/17/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/14/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Gomez presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 3 photos dated 6/3/10 Composite Exhibit B —Photos dated 3/31/1) As of4 /1 /11 the violation remains. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before April 8, 2011 or a fine 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 April 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Obtain all Collier County Building permits and related inspections for repair of the pool cage structure on or before May 1, 2011 or a fine 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. 4. Notes 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. 5. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. 11 + 6 1 1 l 1 1 April 1, 2011 Total Amount Due: $112.38 9. CASE NO: CESD20100018577 OWNER: WYNETA THELICE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1. UNPERMITTED FENCE. FOLIO NO: 36320280008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5472 27 T11 PL SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 3/17/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/14/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Paul presented the case. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A — 1 photos dated 12/3/10 As of4 /1 /11 the violation remains. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain a Collier County Building permits and related inspections and Certificates of Completion to permit the fence on or before May 1, 2011 or obtain all necessary Collier County Demolition permits to remove the fence on or before May 1, 2011 or a fine 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. 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. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.20 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Due: $112.20 10. CASE NO: CESD20110000031 OWNER: BETTY FREDERICK & KAREN L. DONNADIO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (13)(1)(a). TWO UNPERMITTED SHEDS. FOLIO NO: 36001560005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2975 45TH ST SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 3/17/11 Date of Heating Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 3/14/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Gomez presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A— Photos dated 1/4/11 Composite Exhibit B — Photos dated 3/31/11 12 161 1A7 to As of 4/1/11 the violation remains. April I, 2011 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain a valid Collier County Building or Demolition Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to permit, or remove the structures on or before May 1, 2011, or a fine 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. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 /tours 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 maybe requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. 3. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Amount Due: $1 12.38 13. CASE NO: CEAU20100009395 OWNER: SILVIA DERRICK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02(A). FENCE IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 62704240007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 616 92ND AVE N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 3/17/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/16/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Condomina presented the case. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A - Photo dated 7/12/10 Exhibit B - Photo dated 2/11/11 As of4 /1 /11 the violation remains. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Repair the fence to meet the requirements of Collier County Codes on or before April 8, 2011 or obtain a Collier County Demolition permit to remove the fence and dispose of in a proper manner on or before April 8, 2011 or a fine 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. 3. 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. 4. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.64 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Due: $112.64 13 1 6 1 1 A7 Ap 4 ril 1, 2011 14. CASE NO: CEPM20100009396 OWNER: SILVIA DERRICK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(12)(i). TWO WINDOWS IN NEED OF REPAIR. ONE WINDOW CRACKED AND HELD TOGETHER BY TAPE. THE OTHER WINDOW BROKEN, COVERED IN DARK PLASTIC MATERIAL FOLIO NO: 62704240007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 616 92ND AVE N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 3/17/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/16/11 The respondent was not present. Investigator Condomina presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 4 Photos dated 3/4/11 As of 4/1/11 the violation remains. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain a valid Collier County Building Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to restore the windows to a permitted condition on or before April 15, 2011, or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate or, 2. Obtain a Collier County "Boarding Certificate" and "board" the windows on or before April 15, 2011 and subsequently restore the windows to a permitted condition (as specified in condition #1) on or before August 1, 2011, or a fine of $250.00 and per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notes 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 Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. 4. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before May 1, 2011. Total Due: $112.56 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: I. CASE NO: CEPM20100002536 OWNER: CHAD A. & CRYSTAL M. SHANNON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI SECTION 22 -231 (15). POOL IN BACK YARD WITH GREEN STAGNATE WATER. FOLIO NO: 25117600268 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6654 CASTLELAWN PLACE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/16/11 14 161 1 A7 The respondents were not present. Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 1/7/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4597 - Page 1001 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 8/10/10— 1/7/11 (151 days) Total Fine Amount: $37,750.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $646.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $38,508.20 April 1, 2011 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $38,508.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: CEPM20100003672 CHARLES & GERALDINE BULICZ INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231, SUBSECTION 15. UNMAINTAINED PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL WITH CONDITIONS CONDUCIVE TO ALGAE GROWTH AND INSECT INFESTATION. FOLIO NO: 72650004662 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2183 CANARY ISLAND COVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3118111 Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 3/11/11 The respondents were not present. Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Supervisor presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 1/19/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR 4621 - Page 2539 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 10/23/10— 1/19/11 ( 89 days) Total Fine Amount: $22,250.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,035.50 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $23,397.88 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $23,397.88. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 3. CASE NO: CESD20100009592 OWNER: BAC HOMELOANS SERVICING LP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SHED ON PROPERTY WITH NO PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36312520006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2267 51ST TERR SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 3/14/11 The respondents were not present. 15 161 1 A7 Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 4/1 /11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR 4635- Page 822 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 3/4/11 — 4/1/11 (29 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,900.00 Paid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $2,900.00 Fines continue to accrue. April 1, 2011 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $2,900.00 with fines continuing to accrue. 4. CASE NO: CEPM20100021110 OWNER: BAC HOMELOANS 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. FOLIO NO: 68642520003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 13101 BALD CYPRESS LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/11/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 3/30/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4654 - Page 2453 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 3/5/11 — 3/30/11 (26 days) Total Fine Amount: $6,500.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $6,612.29 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $6,612.29 Said amount to become a lien on the property. 5. CASE NO: CESD20100019166 OWNER: TERESO BAUTISTA & EMILIANA LOPEZ VASQUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 4.06.01(D)(1). PLANTED VEGETATION ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY IS OBSTRUCTING SIGHT LINES FOR ONCOMING TRAFFIC AT THE INTERSECTION OF 40T" TER SW AND 20.'. PL SW. FOLIO NO: 35776360007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4007 20TH PL SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3111/11 The respondents were not present. 16 Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 2/16/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4647 - Page 3472 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 1/22/11 — 2/16/11 (26 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $2,712.29 161 1 A ] Api, 2011 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $2,712.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 6. CASE NO: CEPM20100007875 OWNER: DENNIS & ROBERTA WOLFE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (15). GREEN POOL. FOLIO NO: 36380720003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2500 55`" STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/14/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau resented the case. The violation has been abated as of 2/10/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR 4635- Page 814 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 12/11/10 — 2/10/11 (62 days) Total Fine Amount: $15,500.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $641.60 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $16,254.16. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $16,254.16. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 7. 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 DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/11/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 2/16/11. 17 161 1 A 7Apri1 , 2011 Special Magistrate Order No.: OR 4654- Page 2471 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 2/12/11 — 2/16/11 (5 days) Total Fine Amount: $500.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $612.20 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $612.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property. S. CASE NO: CEV20100019105 OWNER: TODD R. & CYNTHIA MOWRY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MU SSE 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 DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/11/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 2/16/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4654 - Page 2457 Fine Amount: $50.00 day Duration: 2/8/11 — 2/16/11 (9 days) Total Fine Amount: $450.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.12 Total to Date: $562.12 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $562.12. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 9. CASE NO: CEPM20100007797 OWNER: ROSARION & 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 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/14/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 411111. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR 4654- Page2455 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 2/12/11 — 4/1/11 (49 days) Total Fine Amount: $12,250.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 lu Total to Date: $12,362.38 Fines continue to accrue. 16 1 1 A7 ApA 1, 201 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $12,362.38 with fines continuing to accrue. 10. CASE NO: CEPM20100013252 OWNER: TROY M. & MICHELLE R. MADDUX OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). WATER GREEN WITH ALGAE. FOLIO NO: 23946008703 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 674 LAMBTON LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 3/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 3/14/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 12/30/10. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4621 - Page 2542 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 10/23/10 — 12/30/10 (69 days) Total Fine Amount: $17,250.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: 868.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $18,230.20 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $18,230.20. Said amount to become alien on the property. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None VIII. B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: Colleen Davidson submitted a Motion to Rescind the following case: I. CASE NO: CEAU20100021493 OWNER: NAPLES HOMES RENTAL LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER UNPERMITTED FENCE. FOLIO NO: 36121800001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4961 21sT PL, SW, NAPLES The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request. CONSENT AGENDA 1, SECTION 105.1. A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 19 None 161 1A/ April 1, 2011 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 X. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 3, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 12:47 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING Br a arretso cial Magistrate The Minutes we approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented , or as amended K11 161 1 A8 April 20, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING RECEIVED MAY 18 2011 Naples, Florida, April 20, 2011 -ei, ^`County Gommis5loners LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala Hiller Henniri Coyle .3 Coletta. — Date: t- 28\ \ 1 Item #:-\U-= \ 1A 1:2, -' '0. CHAIRMAN: Kyle Lantz Vice Chair: Lee Horn Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Richard Joslin Thomas Lykos (Excused) Robert Meister Jon Walker Patrick White ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Michael Ossorio, Contractors' Licensing Supervisor Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer Patrick Neale, Esq., Attorney for the Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney (Absent) 16 11"' 8 April 24, 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: be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Changes: 02 AM and read the procedures to • Item VIII, "Public Hearings " - o under (A): Case 42011 -04 — James B. Schuck was closed III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Patrick White moved to approve the Agenda as amended Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —March 16,2011: Patrick White moved to approve the Minutes of the March 16, 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. V. DISCUSSION: (None) (Jon Walker arrived at 9:05 AM.) VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: In each of the cases heard under this Section and Section VIII, as follows, the individuals to testify were sworn in) (A) Gustavo DeLeon — Application for Waiver of Examination Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Mr. DeLeon was the Qualifier for "G. F. Concrete Corp." In 2009, he failed to renew his Specialty License (concrete forming and placing) and it is currently null /void He is applying to reinstate his license and is requesting a Waiver of Examination • The Code requires retesting or proof of experience Mr. DeLeon requested to renew his License without taking the test. 1611A8 April 20, 2011 Attorney Neal cited Chapter 22 -184 (c), "Standards for the Issuance or Denial of a Certificate of Competency," of the County's Ordinance as follows: "(c) When an application is referred to the Contractors' Licensing Board the Board shall take testimony from the applicant and shall consider other relevant evidence regarding whether the application meets the requirements of this Division. Upon the evidence presented by the applicant and the Contractor Licensing Supervisor, the Contractors' Licensing Board shall determine whether the applicant is qualified or unqualified for the trade in which application has been made. The Board may consider the applicant's relevant recent experience in the specific trade and, based upon such experience, may waive testing requirements if convinced that the applicant is qualified by experience whereby such competency testing would be superfluous." Michael Ossorio noted: • Mr. DeLeon has not been working in his specific construction trade for the past two years • Mr. DeLeon is not licensed in other Counties Mr. Ossorio stated he did not have a recommendation for the Board. Chairman Lantz asked if the Applicant's credit score was to be considered. Mr. Neale stated the Applicant is before the Board for a Waiver. If Staff determines the credit report is inadequate, the Applicant will return. Mr. Ossorio clarified the Applicant submitted a full applicant to the Board and any information contained in it could be considered. Attorney Neal concurred. Mr. DeLeon stated: • The down -turn in the economy affected his business • He has been working for another Contractor doing concrete work (pouring slabs, flatwork — driveways /sidewalks.) • He was initially tested for his License in 1988. • He has not taken any Continuing Education courses. Mr. Joslin asked if there was a requirement to take CE courses in Collier County and Mr. Ossorio responded, "no." Mr. Neale outlined the permitted activities under the Specialty License for concrete forming and placing: • Qualified to form, place and finish concrete flatwork When asked if any complaints had been registered against the Applicant while his license was active, Mr. Ossorio responded, "no." 1b�1A8 April 20, 2011 Mr. DeLeon stated he has job offers and wants his license back in order to work as a Subcontractor. Richard Joslin stated while he did not have an objection to approving the application for a Waiver, he suggested placing the Applicant on probation for a six -month period to give him time to improve his credit. At the end of six months, the Applicant will be required to return and present an updated credit report to the Board. He stated the foregoing constitutes his Motion. Mr. Meister offered a second in support. Chairman Lantz outlined the Motion: • Approve the application for a Waiver of Testing and approve issuance of a license • Institute a six -month probationary period while Applicant is allowed to work • Mr. DeLeon is to return at the end of the probationary period with an updated business credit report Motion carried, 6 — "Yes "12 — "No." Terry Jerulle and Patrick White were opposed (B) Mark Lee Neff — Application to Place License into Dormancy Michael Ossorio noted: • Mr. Neff owns "United Pool Service, Inc." and has been in the pool business since 1984 • His license was cancelled in 2008 • Currently registered with the State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation as a Swimming Pool /Spa Servicing Contractor • Continuing Education Credits are current • Applying to place his license into dormancy • Submitted only a partial application Mr. Ossorio recommended issuing the Certificate for Dormancy. He stated when the dormancy period has ended, the Applicant will submit a full application and review at that time. Mr. Neff stated he has been in the pool business since 1984 and one of the reasons for the application is because United Pool Service owns property in an industrial park. He is currently working for another company, his license was in dormancy but he missed paying the renewal fee. Chairman Lantz questioned if Mr. Neff s State registration would also become dormant and the reply was "no." 161 1 A 8April20,12011 Richard Joslin stated he is a pool contractor and has worked with Mr. Neff s company in the past without a problem. Jon Walker moved to approve Mark Lee Neffs application to place his Collier County license into dormancy. Second by Michael Boyd. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. (C) Robert J. Waring — Contesting Citation(s) Citations: 46117 and #6118 Date: March 18, 2011 Fine: $300.00 each Description of Violations: ( #6117) Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise self or business organization as available to engage in the business of or act in the capacity of a contractor, without being duly registered or certified. ( #6118) Commence or perform work for which a Building Permit is required pursuant to an adopted State Minimum Building Code, without such Permit being in effect. Robert J. Waring presented his case: • He received a Citation for working beyond the scope of his license • He does not believe he was outside the scope of his license • He stated he is allowed to do concrete work as necessary as long as it is not structural in nature • He is a Certified Aluminum Specialty Contactor • He did not think a Permit was necessary because the work consisted only of repair Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's case: (A copy of the County's information packet was provided to Mr. Waring.) • A complaint was received from the City of Naples Building Department at the Colonnade at Park Shore • He conducted a site inspection and observed work being done to a column by Mr. Waring's employees (see E -5; E -10 through E -13) • He contacted Mr. Waring via telephone and discussed the Permitting requirement • He contacted a Structural Inspector for the City of Naples and requested that he inspect the site and make an official determination of whether or not the City required a Permit for the work being done • The Structural Inspector agreed a Permit was necessary • Mr. Waring was contacted again and advised of the Permitting requirement, as well as the licensing issue • He met with Mr. Warning after researching the issue and informed him the work being done could not be performed by a Certified Aluminum Specialty Contractor and two Citations were issued to Mr. Waring 161 1A8 , April 20, 2011 Mr. Waring clarified the term used by the State is "Certified Specialty Structure Contractor" and the Statutes allow him to do concrete work. He reiterated the work done at The Colonnade was not structural. He stated: • he has pulled Permits when necessary, but did not think a Permit was required for "a little repair like that. " • he did pull an after -the -fact Permit for the job for which he paid $350. When asked if he performed an aluminum work, he responded he fabricated an aluminum plate for the bottom of the column. He confirmed he was contesting the Citation for scope of work and questioned whether he should be required to pay an additional fine because he had paid a triple fee for the Permit. Mr. Ossorio stated if the Board found that Mr. Waring was not in violation of the Citation for working outside the scope of his license, the County would withdraw the Citation for unpermitted work. When questioned about the amount of fines involved, Mr. Ossorio clarified the amount paid for the Building Permit was not related to the Citation. He reminded the Board the first issue to be determined was whether or not Robert Waring worked outside the scope of his license. Jamie French stated the City of Naples sets its fees while Collier County has a different fee structure. Terry Jerulle noted his question was whether Mr. Waring should pay a fine in addition to the fine paid for the Permit. Michael Ossorio replied affirmatively. He continued if the Board found Mr. Waring was guilty of working outside the scope of his license, he is subject to a fine of $300. Mr. Waring again stated he didn't think he needed a Permit in the first place. Mr. White asked Mr. Neale for direction concerning whether the Board had some latitude if a violation was abated prior to a Hearing. Attorney Neale noted the Board has the option to dismiss the Citation and cited Florida Statutes, Chapter 489, Section 127, entitled "Prohibitions; penalties:" "If the person issued the Citation, or his 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." 161 148 1 April 20, 2011 Mr. Neale continued the Board could determine that the violation has been corrected and waive the Citation. He noted there were two separate Citations; one for a Permit violation and one for a license violation. Patrick White noted if wood framing and concrete were done as incidental to aluminum work, then Mr. Waring was within the scope of his license. He stated it depended on how the job was viewed. Mr. Neale concurred if the work done was primarily aluminum, then Mr. Waring was within the scope of his license. If the job consisted primarily of concrete work, then he was in violation. Chairman Lantz asked the Respondent if he was issued a Permit by the City of Naples under his license and credentials. Robert Waring responded affirmatively. Chairman Lantz stated if Mr. Waring was issued a Building Permit, it indicated the City of Naples Building Department determined he was not working beyond the scope of his license. He concluded the fine was not warranted. Patrick White supported the Chairman's conclusion. Joseph Burko testified as follows: • He is the Deputy Building Official for the City of Naples and works with the Director of the Building Department • His State License Number is BU -1601 When asked if the City of Naples considered the column to be a structural component to the building as a whole, Mr. Burko replied "yes." He stated it is common in remodeling work for a Contractor to not know the depth of the work involved until after the job had begun. His concern with a column was to first determine if any load was being transferred. He continued after examining the photographs, he was unable to conclude the column did not bear any weight. He stated if he had reviewed the Permit, his conclusion would have been that the aluminum work was clearly incidental to the scope of work. He further stated the aluminum appeared to be "an elaborate flashing detail" and was not a structural component. After reviewing the pictures, Mr. Burko stated the column was encased in stucco and appeared to come down to a type of foundation. The column was cut shy of the foundation because someone sawed it. He further stated to cut through a column without knowing the ramifications of that action without first consulting a design professional, i.e., an architect or engineer, was not a good decision. He stated the City's policy is to be accessible to Specialty Contractors to answer questions. He concluded the work did require a Permit, but was unsure why a Permit was issued to the Mr. Waring under a Specialty License. Ian Jackson asked Mr. Burko if, in his opinion, Mr. Waring altered the structural integrity of the building by altering the foundation of the column. 161 1 A8 April 20, 2011 Mr. Burko agreed the column had definitively been altered but stated he would not be able to determine the level of integrity that may have been compromised without a report from a Structural Engineer. Mr. Jackson again asked if the work depicted in the photographs required a Permit from the City of Naples. Joseph Burko replied "absolutely yes — a multi family edition alteration Permit." Richard Joslin asked when the Permit was in the process of being issued, if review by an engineer would have been required. Mr. Burko responded if a Plans Examiner received the plan and had structural questions concerning the column, he would have requested confirmation that it was only a decorative column. Patrick White asked if the information packet for the Permit contained either an architect's certification or an opinion from a professional engineer regarding whether or not the column was load - bearing. Mr. Burko stated there were only a few unidentified handwritten notes. Mr. White asked what materials would have been acceptable. Joseph Burko replied if the column had been determined to be a non - structural component, there were a number of ways to repair it. He cited using lumber or pressure - treated wood as an example in addition steel studs or plywood with wire lathe. He stated the key element was that the work was begun without a Permit and without knowing what was inside the column. Chairman Lantz stated the objection from Mr. Waring was not the violation for the Permit, but the scope of work. He accepted that it was required and he obtained one. Mr. Waring stated the Clubhouse contained a set of plans which he examined prior to beginning the work. He claimed if a saw had been used to cut the column, the nails would also have been cut. The photographs showed nails were visible. He maintained the column had rotted and was not sawed. It had been propped up by a 2 x 6 because it was only decorative. He stated the job was completed after the Permit was issued. When questioned as to why he completed the work after he had been issued a Citation because he was not licensed to do the work, Robert Waring stated he reviewed the Statutes and determined he was allowed to perform concrete work. Mr. Burko disputed Mr. Waring's conclusion and cited from the Statutes: "Certification of Specialty Structure Contractors: 2. Definition: (c) The scope of such work shall include masonry concrete work and be limited to foundations, slabs and block knee walls incidental to the aluminum and allied construction materials construction work. 161 1 A8 1 April 20, 2011 The Specialty Structure Contractor, whose services are limited, shall not perform any work that alters the structural integrity of the building including, but not limited to, roof trusses, lintels, load - bearing walls, and foundations." Attorney Neale stated it is the responsibility of the Contractors' Licensing Board to interpret the Florida Statutes. He suggested the Board read Paragraph (b) under "Definition" on E -3 which outlined the Scope of Work and indicated it is primarily a fabric and metal license with concrete work as incidental. He continued the next step would be for the Board to determine if the concrete work was incidental to the aluminum. Robert Meister asked why the owners of the building would engage an Aluminum Contractor instead of a General Contractor when it was unknown if there could be any structural problems. Mr. Waring replied the plans indicated it was not a structural column. "It was just a simple little repair." Richard Joslin moved to approve upholding Citation #6117. Second by Terry Jerulle. Attorney Neale reminded the Board there were two Citations to be reviewed and suggested the Motion should be limited to working outside the scope. Patrick White stated he was not willing to give Mr. Waring the benefit of doubt concerning the scope of work, but he was willing to waive the penalty for Citation #6118 because Mr. Waring did obtain an after- the -fact Permit from the City of Naples. The Motion and the second concerning Citation #6117 were withdrawn. Patrick White moved to approve waiving the penalty for Citation #6118 by finding that the Respondent abated the violation by timely obtaining the necessary Permit from the City of Naples and it was unnecessary to impose the fine. (Note: No second was offered in support of the Motion) A question was raised as to whether proof of the issued Permit, i.e. physical evidence, had been submitted by Mr. Waring. Mr. White stated there had been testimony under oath from the Deputy Building Official that an after - the -fact Permit had been obtained and the cost to obtain it was approximately $350. He continued Mr. Waring conducted a reasonable investigation to determine whether or not the column was structural by reviewing the building plans contained in the Clubhouse. He further stated it was a grey area because even the City of Naples was not sure, but it issued the Permit allowing Mr. Waring to 161 1 A8 April 20, 2011 do the work under his license. The question of whether the aluminum was incidental to the concrete or vice versa was "close." Chairman Lantz stated Mr. Waring paid a triple cost for the Permit and he should not be fined twice. Mr. White stated he would feel differently if no investigation had been done at all. Terry Jerulle noted the Respondent was not licensed or certified to perform the investigative work and stated there was no evidence as to what was paid, the original cost of a Permit, the double factor Mr. Waring stated the exact amount of the Permit was $331.50. He was unsure if the amount was double or triple the normal fee. Joseph Burko clarified the fee imposed for the after- the -fact Permit by the City of Naples was double the original Permit fee. He noted the Respondent was originally fined for working outside the scope of his license. The double Permit fee applied by the City of Naples was because work was begun without first obtaining a Permit. . He continued the two fines were independent of each other, were not linked in anyway, and that he could not reduce a fee imposed by Collier County. Robert Waring stated he sent the same information presented to the Board to the State of Florida and spoke with a representative who informed the Respondent he was within the scope of his license. He further stated he is waiting for a letter from the State. Patrick White asked why Mr. Waring did not share this information with the Board at the beginning of the Hearing. Mr. Waring replied he was completely overwhelmed by the Hearing process. Patrick White withdrew his previous Motion. Mr. White stated he was interested in learning the opinion of the State's licensing professionals concerning the case at hand and requested to review the State's Opinion Letter before making a final determination in the matter. Chairman Lantz asked Mr. Waring if he made a request for a Declaratory Statement and he answered affirmatively. Robert Waring confirmed he was informed he would not receive a letter from the State for approximately four to six weeks. Michael Ossorio noted the Contractor Licensing Board is considered to be the State's local regulatory board with the jurisdiction to consider and interpret the evidence as presented. The State's Licensing Board is not going to dictate policy for the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board. He continued the Building Official has determined there as a violation. He stated he was comfortable going forward with upholding the Citation. 10 161 1 A8 April 20, 2011 He further stated he consulted his counterpart at the State's Board who reviewed the photographs and informed Mr. Ossorio it was to the local Licensing Board to determine what was incidental. Patrick White stated he did not dispute the Board's juri sdiction but asked if the Board had the appropriate weight of evidence. Attorney Neale suggested the Board could continue the matter until such time as the Respondent has received feedback from the State, which would be one other piece of evidence to be considered in the matter. Terry Jerulle reiterated as a construction professional, he would not hire an aluminum subcontractor to do the type of work required. He stated from his perspective, the matter was "cut and dry." Robert Meister stated the Citations were intermingled. He further stated he was "on the fence" about both of them. He was willing to waive the Permit Citation. He continued Mr. Waring was "lucky" he was able to install the aluminum caps and pour the concrete — which was incidental to the other could be argued both ways. He concluded the job could have turned out to be something completely over his head and Mr. Waring should not have become involved. Mr. Waring stated he has a CBC ( "Certified Building Contractor ") working for him who was at the job site that day. Ian Fleming objected, stating the CBC was working as subcontractor for Mr. Waring and did not pull permits or do anything other than as instructed by the Respondent. Jon Walker agreed to waive the Citation for the Building Permit but stated he supported upholding the Citation for working outside the scope. Patrick White moved to approve upholding Citation #6117 issued for working outside the scope. Second by Richard Joslin. Motion carried, 7— "Yes " /1- "No." Chairman Lantz was opposed. Attorney Neale stated there was a penalty portion. He noted the minimum amount was the amount of the Citation, i.e., $300, and a maximum penalty of up to $1,000 per day. He cited Florida Statutes, Chapter 489, Section 127 "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 or designated Special Magistrate shall consider the following factors: 1. The gravity of the violation. 11 161 1 A8 April 20, 2011 2. Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation. 3. Any previous violations committed by the violator." Patrick White moved to approve imposing the fine as stated on Citation #6771 in the amount of $300. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0 Patrick White moved to approve waiving the $300 fee for Citation #6118 due to timely abatement. Second by Jon Walker. Motion carried, 5 — "Yes " 13 — "No" Lee Horn, Terry Jerulle, and Richard Joslin were opposed Joseph Burko offered to meet with Mr. Waring to explain the work permitted under his license. Michael Ossorio stated he would send a Finding of Fact to Mr. Waring in the near future. Mr. Joslin strongly suggested Mr. Waring should meet with Mr. Ossorio instead of Mr. Burko in order to obtain instruction concerning what work he is and is not allowed to perform under his license. (D) Paul Martin Gembecki — Waiver of Examinations(s) Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Mr. Gembecki is a masonry contractor whose license was cancelled in 1997 • He is currently licensed in Lee County, Cape Coral, Sanibel and Charlotte County • He has worked in the masonry field for many years • He did not renew his Certificate in Collier County but is asking to reinstate his license without being required to take an examination Mr. Ossorio recommended approving the application and waiving the testing requirement. Paul Gembecki stated: • He has been continually licensed in Lee County since 1989 • He did not renew his license in Collier County because he did not have sufficient work • He now has opportunities to return to Collier County • His insurance has been kept up to date Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Gembecki will be required to pay all fees for the past three years before the license will be renewed. He noted Mr. Gembecki's 12 1 8April 20, 2011 application fell under the category of "Renewal" because he did have a Collier County license and has been working in other jurisdictions. He continued if the Application was to obtain a license, Mr. Gembecki would be required to take the tests and provide proof of his experience in the field. Richard Joslin moved to approve the reinstatement of Mr. Gembecki's license and waive the requirement for testing. Second by Richard White. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. (E) Marisol Santos — Review of Credit Report Michael Ossorio provided the following information: Ms. Santos has appeared before the Board in the past for credit issues • She has been in business for over two years • She is currently on probation • Her business credit is impeccable • No complaints have been made against the business • Her personal credit still has some issues Mr. Ossorio recommended removing Ms. Santos from probation. Marisol Santos stated: • She had experienced some medical issues for the past year that resulted in surgery in December and January • She fell behind on some payments, but business has picked up and she is in the process of catching up Richard White moved to approve adopting the recommendation of the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor to remove Ms. Santos from probation. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Patrick White moved to approve the signing of the Orders of the Board by the Chairman. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Withdrawn per amendment to the Agenda.) IX. REPORTS: (None) X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor (Courthouse Complex), 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 13 1611 A8 April 20, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 10:41 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Kyle Lantz, ChairnArn The Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on 2011, "as submitted" ,as amended" [_]. 14 1 b 1 1 A 9 April �, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING April 6, 2011 Naples, Florida MAY 13 2011 3oard of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller — Henning CHAIRMAN: William Varian Coyle Vice Chair: David Dunnavant Coletta Ray Allain �- James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney Marco Espinar Blair Foley (Excused) Reagan Henry George Hermansort4E Mttwd) David Hurst Date: Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Item #:ICp7 119 �? Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, GMD Planning & Regulation Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Nathan Beals, Project Manager— Public Utilities Claudine Auclair, Manager— Business Center Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager 16.1 1A9 April 6, 2011 I. Call to Order: Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. I1. Approval of Agenda: Changes. • Under Item VI, "Old Business" —add topic A. Approval of Utilities /RPZ Subcommittee Minutes from January 7, 2011 B. RPZ Discussion — David Dunnavant, Subcommittee Chair Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. III. Approval of Minutes — February 2, 2011 Meeting: Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Minutes fir the February 2, 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. IV. Public Speakers: (Will be heard when Item is discussed.) V. Growth Management Division — Staff Announcements /Updates: A. Public Utilities Division: Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities • No updates to announce • There were no questions (David Dunnavant, Laura Spurgeon De John, and Dalas Disnev arrived at 3:08 PM.) B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office • Monthly Activity Reports for January and February were submitted. • Reviews conducted: January — 633 and February — 560 Concerning the pending move, Mr. Riley explained the Fire Code Office will make two trips per day to pick up /drop off Plans until the system becomes digital. • Regarding computer system: will use "C -D Plus" until "City View" is ready • Will also use a program entitled "Mobilize" to email review comments • Anticipated move -in: early May • Fire Code Office will have a new telephone system and new numbers Public Speaker: Kathy Curatolo, CBIA, asked if there will be a decrease in review fees. Ed Riley replied an analysis for the planning side is in process and the overall fee structure will be reviewed. An analysis for the building side has not yet begun. He noted the Fee Schedule has not changed since 2003. 161 1 A9 (Reed Jarvi arrived at 3:15 PM.) April 6, 2011 C. Transportation Planning Division: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director - Transportation Engineering • The Davis /Collier Project received three (3) bids from Industry • Bids were opened on March 30`h o Winning bid — $28.2M o Approximately 19.7% below the County's estimate There is a Joint Participation Agreement ( "JPA ") with the FDOT ( "Florida Department of Transportation ") in the amount of $20M o Collier County will be reimbursed — 10 quarterly payments —commencing in July 2012 Q. Is the low bidder the same contractor used for Vanderbilt Beach Road who was so difficult? A. No, and this Contractor has completed three other projects for the County. Mr. Ahmad noted the County is in litigation with the former Contractor of the Vanderbilt Beach Road project. D. Planning and Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management • With reference to the County's interface with the Fire Code Office computer system, "City View" will incorporate "Terminal Services" to control the flow of information on the network and prevent contamination by viruses • The Fire Code Office will be required to pay for the licensing to access "City View" as a temporary solution ($511 per month) • Goal: to avoid redundancy of work between the two systems, and to automate them • "City View" went through the validation/testing period and found 100+ issues which are being reviewed /corrected • Will not "go live" until May 15`h • Will run both systems ( "C -D Plus" and "City View ") in parallel • Will not add staff— may contract "outside" help, as needed Chairman Varian mentioned problems using the AIRS system /inspection call -in. The system has been down frequently. Mr. French noted it was converted from "Windows 95" to "Windows 98 /XP" and will be converted to "Windows 7" in the near future. He was not aware anyone had been experiencing problems connecting to it and stated when "City View" goes live, AIRS will no longer function. Jamie French stated he will appear before the Board of County Commissioners regarding a change to the Fee Schedule concerning payments and refunds. • Proposed change: collect 50% of fees at application and the balance at the Pre - Construction Meeting (Land Development services) • There is a provision in the Land Development Code, under Section RR of the Fee Schedule, that allows the County to issue up to a 50% refund for those 161 1 A9 4 April 6, 2011 Land Development services (inspections /reviews for SDP and SDPI) that were not completed as long as an application for refund was made within thirty days of withdrawal of the project The County Attorney's Office suggested removing the 30 -day time limit from the Fee Schedule Mr. French requested direction from DSAC. Dallas Disney concurred, stating if the work has not been done, the Contractor /Builder (i.e., Applicant) should receive a refund, and suggested the following language: "Incomplete work will be refunded to the extent that fitnds are available. " Mr. French stated he was more comfortable tying any refund to the cost of services provided. He continued the Fee Schedule will continue to be reviewed. The subject of whether or not another Fee Schedule Study is necessary can be discussed at the next DSAC meeting. A question was asked concerning the number of refund applications received. Mr. French stated approximately $130,000 had been budgeted to cover the requests which were 131 -based Fees. Objective: To draft language that will outline a pattern of practice to allow the Growth Management Division to handle refund requests administratively, rather than submit each one to the BCC via an Executive Summary. It was suggested to compare Collier County's Fee Schedule with other Counties at the next Fee Schedule review. Vl. Old Business: A. Approval of Utilities /RPZ Subcommittee Minutes of January 7, 2011 (Note: David Dunnavant, Melissa Ahern, Joev Hatfield, David Hurst, and Chris Mitchell attended the Subcommittee meeting. Thev were present at the DSAC meeting and eligible to approve the Minutes.) Subcommittee Chairman David Dunnavant moved to approve the minutes of the Utilities /RPZ Subcommittee meeting held on January 7, 2011 as submitted. Second by David Hurst. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. B. RPZ Discussion — David Dunnavant, Subcommittee Chairman Three primary issues were discussed during the Subcommittee meetings. • The issue of a Fire -line Service charge vs. a Fire -line meter is "on hold" David Dunnavant stated the BCC asked the Subcommittee to examine the issue of RPZ ( "reduced pressure zone ") back -flow device put in place by Utilities over the objections of DSAC. 161 1 pg April 6, 2011 He outlined the following: • The RPZ has been presented as the safest back -flow device and its use would place Collier County in an elite realm among municipalities. • There is a significant cost to Industry to install RPZs. • The American Water Works Association recommends that, unless there is a known contaminate in a water supply system, there is no real need for RPZs. • Collier County's water supply has been adequately protected for the past 30 to 40 years by the Double Detector Check Valve system. • The Subcommittee has not been convinced that the improvement to the existing system warrants the substantial, additional cost. • There is no current problem — no inherent danger has been substantiated. • The Subcommittee reviewed the documentation presented by Utilities and did not reach the conclusion that RPZs are necessary. David Hurst confirmed, as an engineer who has been dealing with the issue for the past twelve years, an RPZ would be an improvement to any system. He stated the main questions were: (l) "Does the "benefit" outweigh the cost ?" and (2) "Is there truly an imminent danger to the County's water system ?" He continued that, based on his observations, the benefit was not measurable while the cost to the Industry could be substantial (meter cost, increased pipe size due to pressure drop, and changes to design parameters). His conclusion was installation of RPZs as not warranted. He volunteered to assist in compiling a formal presentation. David Dunnavant stated the claim of inherent danger to the County's existing system was not substantiated and the Subcommittee did not understand why it was necessary to pursue additional costs. He further stated the issue of pressure was under review and tabled until the results from a one -year test (jointly conducted by Fire and Utilities) were available for review. He noted there were no statistics presented concerning problems created under the current system. Chairman Varian asked if there was a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. Clay Brooker asked about the direction from the Board of County Commissioners. David Dunnavant explained DSAC was directed to return with a report on whether DSAC recommended the implementation or retaining the RPZs that Utilities put into place as a required standard. David Hurst noted the RPZ requirement is currently "on-hold." David Dunnavant stated that based on the discussions of the Subcommittee and on the minutes, he asked if DSAC could make a recommendation to the Board that the currently "on- hold" ( "stayed ") adopted RPZ requirement is not supported by Industry and we ask that it be removed from the requirement and the previous, long- standing system of Double Detector Check Assembly Valves remain. Chairman Varian asked Mr. Dunnavant if the previous statement constituted his Motion and he agreed. Second by David Hurst. 161 1 A9 4 April 6, 2011 David Dunnavant reiterated if the RPZ requirement was adopted, it would place Collier County in the top 1 to 2% of jurisdictions in the entire country. David Hurst confirmed it (RPZs) was not the norm for the application. Dalas Disney stated the issue was presented at one time as a Health/Safety and Welfare issue by Utilities. Because the claim was not supported, he suggested informing the BCC that "alter exhaustive investigation, it has not been presented or supported in the manner that was previously approved. - David Dunnavant amended his Motion to include that the Health /Safety and Welfare issue was raised by Utilities but no instances were presented where a Double Detector Check Assembly Value created a health problem or danger to the citizens of the community. DSAC does not understand why it is logical and is part of the basis for recommending the repeal of the adoption [o/ the RPZ requirement/. David Hurst stated the back -flow preventer is an enhancement to the system and the key component to be mentioned is that the lack of an RPZ does not significantly minimize health of the Collier County community. He concluded he agreed with the concept of Mr. Dunnavant's amended motion. Mario Valle noted Utilities stated to the Subcommittee there was an immediate and imminent threat to public safety yet the Subcommittee did not receive any information or evidence to support the claim. Dalas Disney concurred there was a transcript provided of the BCC meeting where it was asked and answered specifically, "Yes, there is a Health/Safety problem in Collier County." Excerpt from Page 222 of Minutes for BCC's July 27 "' Meeting: "Chairman Coyle: Okay. Now, our Water Department's concern is that backllow prevcnters are a safety measure? Chairman Halos: Health, safety. Chairman Coyle: And its sort of critical that we made some decisions with respect to that And if we improperly extend that decision and something happens and somebody gets .rick as a result o / unintended — or backflow, then we could be liable. So, noia, what 1 don't understand is, why does it take 90 duvs for you to develop a position on backflow prevemers? " [Excerpt from Minutes of the August 27, 2010 Utilities /RPZ Subcommittee Meeting: "David Hurst:... l was at the Board's meeting. The Board was under the impression that it was an imminent Health /Safety /Welfare issue. Where they got that information, I am not sure. But 1 am positive that was the impression they were under." 16l LA9 April 6, 2011 Dalas Disney suggested bringing to the Commissioners' attention that the issue was examined and investigated — the DDCA Valve is in place and has been doing its job. Installing the RPZs would enhance the system — and spend more money to do it — when it is apparently not necessary. David Hurst agreed the Board should be advised the current Health and Safety of the system is not at risk and would not be substantially improved by the use of RPZs. Clay Brooker asked Mr. Hurst if the Motion stated no existing threat versus enhancing, would he second it and he agreed. David Dunnavant withdrew his Motion and Amended Motion David Dunnavant moved as follows: "The Board of County Commissioners asked DSAC to review the RPZ adoption by Utilities as a back flow prevention standard for Collier County. After exhaustive study and review, DSAC has determined that there is not an inherent danger in the current Double Detector Check Assembly Valve system. Although an enhancement would be provided by the installation of RPZs, the cost and nominal benefit of the enhancement does not warrant implementation and the additional expense to the County's citizens. The final recommendation is that the Board of County Commissioners repeal the currently adopted Utilities Ordinance which implements RPZs as the only accepted back -flow device and return to the original Double Detector Check Assembly Valve ("DDCA ")system that has been in place for year. " Second by Chairman Varian. Carried unanimously, 13 — 0. VII. New Business: A. Request for Volunteers for Subcommittee to meet/review School Impact Fee Update Study — Amy Patterson, Impact Fee /Economic Development Manager • The School Impact Fees, based on a recommendation by the School Board, were reduced in October 2010. • The Impact Fee Study is required to be updated and adopted. • The 50% reduction in fees will be in place for two years. Robert Where, Mario Valle and Reed Jarvi volunteered to serve on the Subcommittee. B. Review of SDPI / SIPI Process — Claudine Auclair, Manager — Business Center (A draft copy of the document entitled "Project Request: Application and Submittal Instructions " was distributed to DSAC.) 161 1 N9 .,, April 6, 2011 Determine who will be the reviewer participating in the project Goal is to decrease review time - make process faster Will need some "tweaking" Suggested.lormat changes. • Under Step One, "Signature of Agent" and "Date" should immediately follow signature line (it drifted over one page) • Under Step Two, insert boxes for choices "Yes" and "No" [ • Under Step Four -A, remove the question. It is not clear. • Under Step Five, specify the applicable Section of the LDC (Land Development Code) • Under Engineering, the first sentence is confusing. It should be re- worded. • Under Transportation, the entire section is difficult to follow and very confusing. • The last sentence ( "Verify this site ... ") — remove "current" and substitute °A DA Gutdelincs that ia,cre valid during construction " • Additionally, if the engineer did not design it, it cannot be verified • Under Step Six, the final paragraph should read as follows: "If NO to any question, then an SDPA or SDPI pre - application meeting is required You will be contacted by Staff to arrange the date and time. Please note that, at the meeting, Staff will determine if the improvements proposed may be submitted as an SDPA or if an SDPI is required. " Members were asked to email their comments /suggestions as soon as possible. Ms. Auclair will present a revised draft at the May 4th DSAC meeting. C. Vehicle Replacement — Jamie French for Nick Casalanguida • Maintenance is required for vehicles in service • There are two vehicles for which repairs exceeded the value • Intent: (on 113 Fund side) To replace the entire fleet, on an "as needed" basis, within the next five years • 2000, 2002, and 2004 vehicles are subject to replacement • The vehicles must be safe for the operators -- there is no money in this year's budget — replacement will be only when absolutely necessary • There will be capital replacement expenditures in Fiscal Year 2012 VIII. Committee Member Comments: • David Hurst asked if the website could be updated to include Bond forms in the same place as the Application forms Next Meetine Dates: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless noted below.) May 4, 2011 June 1, 2011 July 6, 2011 August 3, 2011 161 lA9 April 6, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 5:00 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes wer proved by the Board /C nittee on 12011, "as submitted" , OR "as amended" (aT� 1611gg mo March 2, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, March 2, 2011 RECEIVED MAY 18 2011 _..m of county Commissioners 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," 3`d Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman (Excused) Michael V. Sorrell (Excused) David Bishof Gina Downs -may ��Ilicf ✓ nnino _ ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist c. Comes: Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist Date: L-0\7-— Item #: \u5_ \\A \ 0- 1 -1;n7 ". 1611N� mo March 2, 2011 I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:02AM. IL Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda It was noted item VLA — Lost Grove Mine Conditional Use had been postponed. Ms. Downs moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of the February 2, 2011 meeting minutes Ms. Downs moved to approve the minutes of the February 2, 2011 meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 3, line 3 —from "...collection of Memorandums..." to "collection of Memoranda...' • Page 4, paragraph 2, line 13 from "...Fertilizer Ordinance is "science based." to ...Fertilizer Ordinance be "science based." Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None SummerAraque, Sr. Environmental Specialist reported the April Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) meeting will be held at 9:00am on April 13, 2011 at the Growth Management Division building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive. Vl. Land Use Petitions A. Lost Grove Mine Conditional Use CU-- PL2009 -1412 Lost Grove Mine Excavation Permit EXP- PL2010 -1526 Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 18, Township 46 South, Range 28 East Postponed VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. Watershed Management Plan update Moris Cabezas and Peter deGolian of PBS &J, consultants for the Plan provided a Slideshow ( "Presentation at the 3 -2 -2011 EAC Meeting ") on the Water Budget, Surface and Groundwater Pollution Levels and Water Quality aspects of the proposed plan, etc. 16I1A9 1 March 2, 2011 Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist provided an update on the proposed Fertilizer Ordinance noting he has provided a copy of the Ordinance to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and other applicable agencies for review and comment. The proposed Ordinance is "more stringent" than required by the State of Florida. The more stringent standards include requiring blackout periods for applying fertilizers, requiring the use of time release fertilizers, requiring buffer zones from waterways for fertilizer applications, etc. When comments are received he intends to schedule a public hearing on the Ordinance. Speakers Tim Hiers, Florida Turf Grass Association expressed concern over the "black out" period and 10 foot buffer for fertilizer applications. He is assembling numerous independent peer review studies which address the issue. He noted the proposed black out period of June through September is the time when turf is growing and requires nutrients to maintain a healthy turf. Healthy turf prevents the runoff of nutrients into waterways. In addition, if the grass on the banks of waterways is not fertilized properly the turf has a tendency to weaken and die off. Amber Crooks, Conservancy of Southwest Florida notes the organization supports the more stringent measures proposed by Staff and propose additional measures including limiting the Phosphorous content of fertilizers and other minor changes which she will submit to Staff for consideration. They will be submitting studies supporting the implementation of more stringent requirements. She requested the EAC support the more stringent regulations proposed by Staff. Chairman Hushon recommended: • The consultants contact area well drillers or designers of private water treatment systems for data they may have on any applicable water quality tests (especially in the Golden Gate Area.) • If possible, the proposed Watershed Management Plan be submitted to the EAC 3 weeks in advance of a hearing where they will be required to provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. • Consideration be given to incorporating more stringent language requiring wetland mitigation proposed for projects be implemented within the same watershed the project is proposed. • The Plan discourage development within areas which negatively impact the health of the watershed Ms. Downs requested: • The Consultants provide a map(s) depicting the depths of the "confining layers." • The Consultants provide the FEMA vs. MIKE SHE flood maps be "standardized" and depict the County boundary. B. Update members on project — Board recaps 16 i lA 9 4 March 2, 2011 None 1X. Subcommittee Reports None X. Council Member Comments None XI. Staff Comments Reminder - The April meeting for the EAC will be held at 9:00am on April 13, 2011 at the Growth Management Division building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive. XIL 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 11:10 AM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL hairman, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented ,/ , or as amended _ April 13, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 13, 2011 RECEIVED MAY 18 2011 �tl oT c 3untj Cav,mil:aonam 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 Gina Downs David Bishof � jala , Coyie e Ccletta _ ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist Misc, Correc: Fiala Hiller DaWLt Z� 1 Henning Coyle t 1laT �1 Colette 161 1 A10 April 13, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 13, 2011 RECEIVED MAY 18 2011 �tl oT c 3untj Cav,mil:aonam 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 Gina Downs David Bishof � jala , Coyie e Ccletta _ ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist Misc, Correc: Fiala Hiller DaWLt Z� 1 Henning Coyle t 1laT �1 Colette 16 1 A 10 April 13, 2011 I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Gary McNally was introduced as an Alternate Member of the Environmental Advisory Council III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously 3 — 0. IV. Approval of the March 2, 2011 meeting minutes Ms. Downs moved to approve the minutes of the March 2, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 3 — 0. Mr. Bishqf arrived at 9.02ain V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None VI. Land Use Petitions None VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. Watershed Management Plan Update — Mac Hatcher (Land Development Services) Mac Hatcher provided a copy of a memo he prepared for the Council dated April 1, 2011 - ,Subject: "Sta�fSummary -April 13, 2011 Watershed Management Plan Workshop Update. " Peter deGolian and Moris Cabezas of Atkins presented the Slideshow "Watershed Management Plan April 13. 2011 " which was an overview on the Recommended Projects, Policy and Regulatory Recommendations the Plan. Mr. Dickman arrived at 10.10am Break. 10.30am Reconvened:1040am Due to Mr. Cornell 's time constraints the Council determined to hear his comments on the Watershed Management Plan and continue the presentation after discussion of the proposed Collier County Fertilizer Ordinance. I 161 1 AxP 13,2011 Speaker Brad Cornell, Collier Audubon /Audubon of Florida noted the 175 canal is over draining lands in the area Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and wants to ensure the phenomenon has been analyzed in the Study. He questions whether landowners will embrace the concept of ditch blocks and suggested the County consider mitigation credits for allowing the practice. Also, consider the concept of allowing water to remain on fallow fields longer to improve the wading bird habitat and general hydro geologic conditions in the area. Collier County Fertilizer Ordinance Discussion Mac Hatcher submitted the final copy of a "Proposed Fertilizer Ordinance" (Proposed Ordinance) for consideration. He noted: • Jurisdictions with impaired water bodies (i.e. Collier County) are required to adopt at a minimum, the Florida State Model Fertilizer Ordinance " (Model Ordinance). • The jurisdiction may impose stricter requirements than the Model Ordinance. • A "Draft Fertilizer Ordinance " (Draft Ordinance) based on the Model Ordinance with additional requirements incorporated as a result of comments from Stakeholders, State Agencies and County Advisory Boards was prepared by Staff. • The Draft Ordinance proposed a more stringent Prohibition Application Period for fertilizers (June through September) and included exemptions for golf courses, newly planted turf and /or landscape plants. • As required, the Draft Ordinance was submitted to the Federal Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences for comment (on or about 2/2/2011). • The Agencies indicated there is not sufficient scientific evidence to substantiate the benefits of imposing a more stringent "Prohibition Application Period." • Based on Agency Comments, the Proposed Ordinance includes a "Prohibition Application Period" in accordance with the Model Ordinance. Speakers Herb Schuchman, Island Walk of Naples reported the community established a "State of the Lakes Committee" to determine the causes of the deteriorating water conditions found within their lakes. Among other findings, the studies indicate the water entering the lakes is 40% higher in nitrogen than the water found within the community. The studies also determined fertilizers are a contributing factor (not the major factor) to the demise of the water quality. The community recognizes turf management practices are required however, recommended the more stringent fertilization requirements of the "Draft Ordinance ° be adopted. He contacted approximately 8 jurisdictions who enacted the more stringent requirements, with none of them reporting a negative impact on turf quality. 4rl JO A Their community study is ongoing and they will report back to the EAC on the findings. It was noted the Florida Department of Transportation has completed studies on the impacts of utilizing reduced fertilizer application rates. The study found there were not negative impacts on turf quality. Amber Crooks, Conservancy of Southwest Florida stated they support the more stringent requirements proposed in the "Drafi Ordinance.' Communities may adopt more stringent standards and the Agencies who commented are not required to approve the Ordinance. Their comments tend to reflect concerns on turf quality as opposed to water quality. Other jurisdictions adopting more stringent standards have reported improved water quality. She requested the EAC recommend the BCC adopt an Ordinance incorporating the following requirements: Use of fertilizers containing 0% phosphorous and at least 50% slow release nitrogen: 4 lb total nitrogen application a year per 1000 sq. ft of turf: a 10 foot non fertilizer application zone from any water body and seawall and the "blackout period" of June — September. A copy of a Fertilizer Ordinance proposed by the Conservancy was submitted to the Council for consideration. It was noted there is a bill currently being proposed in the Florida Legislature (House 457 /Senate 606) which may restrict jurisdictions from adopting more stringent standards (excepting those jurisdictions with a duly adopted ordinance prior to July 1, 2011). Mike Barrow, Greenscapes of Southwest Florida noted there is not sufficient scientific data to prove the "Prohibition Application Period" is successful in improving water quality. He noted turf density and ultimate filtration will impacted by a 10 foot non application of fertilizers zone from a water body. A major contributing factor to decreasing water quality is decomposition of organic material, not fertilization. It was noted the studies conducted in Sarasota County have indicated the Nitrogen levels in water have decreased since the implementation of stricter standards; and the Department of Transportation study cited above was not applicable to urban turf conditions. Matt Taylor, Everglades Golf Course Superintendants Association noted the study for Sarasota Bay was not subject to Peer Review. Any requirements for an Ordinance should be based on the best available science. Many other Counties have vetted the issue and adopted the "Model Ordinance. " He expressed concern on the Prohibition Application Period as turf roots are growing during this period and limiting Nitrogen to the turf is detrimental. William Davidson, Florida Golf Course Superintendants Association supports the Proposed Ordinance and recommended any requirements proposed be based on the best available science. 4 161 1 q 1.0 Apri 13, 2011 Brad Cornell, Collier Audubon /Audubon of Florida supports an Ordinance with more stringent requirements than the "Model Ordinance. " The Agencies providing comments are more concerned with turf growth than water quality. He recommended consideration be given to an alternate means of stabilizing the banks of lakes such as littoral plantings, etc. This would eliminate the use of turf grasses (which may require fertilization). Mr. Bishof moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners not adopt the "Proposed Ordinance" unless revised to include the following: 1. A prohibition of fertilizer applications within 25 feet of a water body. 2. A prohibition offertilizer applications with 10 feet of an impervious area directly connected to a Stormwater drainage system. 3. A prohibition of fertilizer applications June I through September 30. 4. Numerical values for fertilizers as previously proposed in the Draft Ordinance. 5. Any fertilizer containing nitrogen should contain at least 50 percent slow release nitrogen. Without a second, the motion was not considered. Council questions arose on how proposed House Bill 457 and Senate Bill 606 could affect the County Ordinance, if adopted. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney noted the legislation has not been adopted, so it is difficult to speculate on the impact it could have on any Ordinance the County may adopt. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the original Fertilizer Ordinance as reviewed by the Planning Commission with the incorporation of the Section 15 — Penalties as outlined in the "Proposed Ordinance. " Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. See corrected motion below. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners incorporate an exemption for golf courses in any adopted Fertilizer Ordinance. Second by Mr. Dickman. Motion carried 4 `des" — I "no." Mr. Bishof voted "no. " Mr. Bishof expressed concern on exempting golf courses as the facilities may be the site of inappropriate applications of chemicals and /or poor management practices. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners incorporate an exemption for newly planted turf andlor landscape plants in any 161 1 A10. April 13, Y011/ adopted Fertilizer Ordinance. Second by Mr. Dickman. Motion carried unanimously 5 — 0. Discussion occurred noting there could be cot?/usion on the action as, over time, there have been dr fferent versions o_f the Ordinance circulated for review. To ensure clarity, a new action was taken. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the "Draft Ordinance" (as proposed to the Agencies for comment by Staff on or about February 2, 2011). Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. Chairman Hushon noted the Environmental Advisory Council recommendations for the exemptions of golf courses, newly planted turf and/or landscape plants and the addition of a Penalty Section are still valid Break. 12: 40pm Reconvened 12.50pm Peter deGolian and Moris Cabezas of Atkins completed the presentation of the Slideshow "Watershed Management Plan — April l3. 2011. " The Council recommended: The Consultants review the parameters for the "Watershed Characteristics Weighting Factor" (including the formula and consideration of normalizing the data) utilized in developing the "Initial Project Banking." The final documents be comprised of a 5 — 8 page Executive Summary on the Plan for the general public, a user friendly version of the Watershed Management Plan for regulators, policy makers, etc. and a separate package containing lire backup material, detailed reports and scientific information for any interested parties. Speaker Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida supports the proposal for encouraging Low Impact Development, but recommended more specific details be developed for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. She will forward any relative data to the Consultants for consideration. B. Update Members on Projects — Board Recaps None IX. Council Member Comments None X. Staff Comments None 161 11.10 April 13, 2011 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 1:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Qkf�- Cly, irman, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board /Chairman on y /rdtj as presented ✓ , or as amended GOLDEN 3 COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES 1611 All BY: ....................... Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. 1I. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura (Excused), Michael McElroy (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, Damon Himmel - Hannula, Richard Tindell — JRL Design, Sue Flynn — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Change V. to: A. Project Manager Report B. Review & Approval of FY 2012 MSTU Budget C. Monthly Budget Report Richard Sins moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — March 8, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the March 8, 2011 Minutes as submitted Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried 3 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report A. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard provided the Golden Gate MSTU Project StatMsA: and reviewed the following: (See attached) Date: L4 I J'-W t I Item #:IU= I A l y -nip- C) 1611All (G37) — Tropicana Irrigation System Review Naples Electric Motor Works (NEMW) indicated two issues with the existing motor as revealed from performance testing of the pump system and recommended replacing the 10 -year old pump. (See attached) NEMW is working on a more detail report that will be completed and provided at the next GG MSTU meeting. Darryl Richard distributed proposals from NEMW: - Materials and labor to replace existing 3" hydro -valve - $3,100 - Install V.F.D. Pump system - $15,200 - Replace Pump - $4,155 - Install Spin Filter - $1,150 Staff recommended not proceeding with the option to fix the existing value ($3,100.) Richard Sims indicated the Advisory Committee did not want to vote on the pump during this meeting and recommended the motor be a budget consideration for a future date. The Advisory Committee requested the same specific pump system be put out to bid. Staff recommended not proceeding with the option to install 2 -PRS Valves and not to replace line across bridge at this time. (G -36) — Landscape Refurbishment Project Proposals received from Hannula Landscape were distributed and reviewed for approval by the Advisory Committee: (See attached) -11 -00798 Sunshine Parkway $2,164.80 - 11 -00799 Green Boulevard $1,193.20 - 11 -00800 Tropicana Boulevard $865.00 -11-00801 Collier Boulevard $3,706.00 - 11 -00802 Golden Gate Parkway $900.00 - 11 -00803 Entrance Sign/Golden Gate Parkway $5,487.50 Richard Sims moved the Advisory Committee approve landscape refurbishment proposals ( Hannula Landscape) for 798 (Sunshine Parkway), 799 (Green Boulevard) and 800 (Tropicana Boulevard) in the amount of $4,223. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried 3 -0. • (G -35) - CR 951 Future Roadway Construction SFWMD Permit is in process. Construction is scheduled FY 2013/ 2014. • (G -34) — FDOT Grant Application for Safe Route to Schools Project FDOT Application has been submitted to Collier County Pathways. 2 1611A11 o (G-31) — Hunter & Coronado Design; Curbing Landscape and Irrigation Curbing and Landscape /Irrigation are both under construction and scheduled for completion in August, 2011. It was noted some FPL poles on Coronado have been straightened. Pat Spencer recommended Staff have FPL install light at Lucerne. o (G -25) — Golden Gate Master Plan Revision Staff requested the `struck- through" version of "Proposed version to Master Plan from McGee & Associates. B. Review & Approval of FY 2012 MSTU Budget — Addressed after VIII. C. Monthly Budget Report - None. Darryl Richard distributed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated April 12, 2011. (See attached) VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula Damon Himmel reported: • 100% slow release fertilization for MSTIJ has been completed. • Results from low nitrogen fertilizer will be apparent in 3 weeks. • Mulching has been scheduled for Golden Gate Parkway, Tropicana and Sunshine medians. • They will start with hard trimming over a 2 -week period • Tree trimming is scheduled to begin after mulching has been completed. Discussion was made on the importance of knowing the number of sprinkler heads in the different zones for irrigation and pressure purposes. Staff directed Hannula to provide a sprinkler head count and zone report. VII. Landscape Architects Report —.IRL Richard Tindell distributed and reviewed the JRI. Landscape Architect's Field Report dated April 12, 2011. He reported doing a drive -by with the following observations: • Dry spots due to broken irrigation heads. • Site lines on over hanging branches are being addressed. • Pine tree on Golden Gate just east of Sunshine is in severe decline. • Cold damage on crown -of -thorns on Collier Boulevard. • Pump has been replaced on Sunshine Boulevard. VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Mike McGee reported as follows: 16I1All • Bonness will complete curbing project in July. • Hannula is working on irrigation and landscaping as quickly as Bonness completes an area. • FPL working on location of underground wiring. B. CVS Shopping Center ROW Update it was noted CVS plans have been approved by Community Development with no affect on the MSTU. V. Transportation Operations Report B. Review & Approval of FY 2012 MSTU Budget Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed every line item on the Golden Gate MSTU Fund 153 draft Budget FY 2012. (See attached) Discussion was made to include the funds for replacement of the irrigation pump motor. Richard Sims moved to increase the Sprinkler System Maintenance Budget Account and to decrease the Improvement General Account by $15,000. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. Richard Sims moved to approve the draft (MSTU) Budget (FY 2012) as amended. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. IX. Old Business A. Update on Naples Electric Motor Works Pump Performance Testing - Discussed previously. X. New Business None. XI. Public Comments - None. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee 1 Richard Sims, Chairm6n__ 4 These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on as presented___.�( —or amended The next meeting is scheduled for May 10, 2011 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL 1b 1 1 A 11 161 1 A 11 � WED1. BY: ....................... GOLDEN .S.T . ADVISORY 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS III. Approval of Agenda Change V. to: A. Project Manager Report B. Review & Approval of FY 2012 MSTU Budget C. Monthly Budget Report Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda as amended Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — March 8, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the March 8, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried 3 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report A. Project Manager Report Proposals received from Hannula Landscape were distributed and reviewed for approval by the Advisory Committee. Richard Sims moved the Advisory Committee approve landscape refurbishment proposals ( Hannula Landscape) for 798 (Sunshine Parkway), 799 (Green Boulevard) and 800 (Tropicana Boulevard) in the amount of $4,223. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried 3 -0. B. Review & Approval of FY 2012 MSTU Budget Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed every line item on the Golden Gate MSTU Fund 153 draft Budget FY 2012. 1611 All Richard Sims moved to increase the Sprinkler System Maintenance Budget Account and to decrease the Improvement General Account by $15,000. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. Richard Sims moved to approve the draft (MSTU) Budget (FY2012) as amended Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. Ap T I, FA 9, IF' 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl- 34104 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order IL Attendance Ill. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — March 8, 2011 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget B. Review & Approval of FY 2012 MSTU Budget C. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard V1. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado IX. Old Business A. Update on Naples Electric Motor Works Pump Performance Testing X. New Business XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment jt 161 1A11 Golden Gate MSTU Project Status (G -37): TROPICANA IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVIEW: (11� 04- 12 -11: Report on status of pump system received from NEMW indicating that existing pump is drawing high amperage reading which means the pump may not last very much longer. NEMW recommends replacement of pump in revised cost estimate: (16) PROPOSAL: 110102 Install VFD: $15,200.00 Replace Pump: $4,155.00 Install Spin Filter: $1,150.00 Total Estimate NEMW: $20,505.00 (IS)[Proposal: 111204 -2 included for information only — staff does not recommend proceeding with the $3,100.00 option to fix existing valve] (G -36): LANDSCAPE REFURBISHMENT PROJECT: 04- 12 -11: Proposals received from Hannula Landscape: (5)11 - 00798: Sunshine for $2,164.80 q�11- 00799: Green for $1,193.20 011- 00800: Tropicana for $865.00 cl)11- 00801 CR 951 for $3,706.00 X11- 00802: GG Pkwy for $900.00 �\11- 00803: GG Pkwy for $5,487.50 i3 ?otal Estimate Hannula: $14,316.50 g)[Proposal: 11 -00762 included for information only — staff does not recommend proceeding with the $880.00 option to install x 2 PRS Valves and replace line across bridge at this time; further review required] (G -35): CR 951 - FUTURE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION [TECM ENGINEERS]: 04- 12 -11: SFWMD Permit pending; Design /Build Project scheduled for FY -13/14 construction. (G -34): FDOT Grant Application (Safe Route to Schools Project) 04- 12 -11: FDOT Application has been submitted to Collier County Pathways /LAP Coordinator Allison Bradford. (G -31): Hunter & Coronado; Curbing, Landscape, and Irrigation 04- 12 -11: Part A: Curbing Schedule: Project Start: 3/14/11; Project Finish: August 21, 2011 Part B: Landscape /Irrigation: Project Start: 3/14/11; Project Finish: August 1, 2011 (note: due to logistics of Part B time extension is anticipated for Part B — as staff issued an early notice to proceed for coordinated project effort) (G -25) ACTIVE — Golden Gate Master Plan — revision 04- 12 -11: Staff has requested 'struck- through' version of proposed revision to Master Plan: pending from McGee & Associates 7 Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 Phone: (239) 992-2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darrylrichard@colliergov.net - fleer_rietinn` 161 1 A 11 1 Proposal _�Dat� �,d+ xProposal# 4/4/11 11 -00798 Project 9 -1669I Golden Gate MSTU In... Qty U%M , ? Cost Total Golden Gate MSTU: Sunshine Pkwy pricing from contract 09 -5153 Fund 153 Replace (13) 3 gallon Bougainvillea'Helen Johnson Bougainvillea,'Helen Johnson Dwarf, 3g 13 8.80 114.40 -Half Circle: Relocate (34) reds (Corolla) and replace with (50) yellow ( Dinni) •Half Circle: Relocate (24) Dinni- Yellow to the yellow bed; replace with (50) Corolla -red. -Half Circle: Relocate (16) Dinni- yellow and replace with (50) Corolla — red -Half Circle: Relocate (25) Corolla -red; replace (50) Dinni- yellow Laborer/Helper (per man hour): (Relocating plant material) 14 45.00 630.00 Crown of Thorns, 3g ' Dinni' (yellow) 100 7.00 7.00 700.00 700.00 Crown of Thorns, 3g 'Corolla' (red) 100 -Replace (3) Juniper at the median tip where the light pole is located. 3 6.80 20.40 Parsonii Juniper, 3g Total $2,164.80 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Title Date Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 Phone: (239) 992-2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darrylrichard@colliergov.net 161 1 All Proposal Pate, proposal.? 4/4/11 11 -00799 Prolect4. F 9 1669I Golden Gate MSTU In_. nocrrintinn Qty ' Ulm Cost : Total Golden Gate MSTU: Green Blvd. pricing from contract 09 -5153 Fund 153 Replace (24) 3 gallon Juniper 24 6.80 163.20 Parsonii Juniper, 3g Remove Allamanda and replace with silver saw palmetto Laborer/Helper (per man hour): (removing allamanda and determining placement of 6 45.00 270.00 silver saw palmetto) 40 19.00 760.00 Silver Saw Palmetto, 3g Total 7 $1,193.20 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Title 0 Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darrylrichard@colliergov.net 1611 All 1 Proposal ::Date, d; Proposal' #. 4/4/11 11 -00800 9 -1669I Golden Gate MSTU In... Ulm 6- Golden Gate MSTU: Tropicana Blvd. pricing from contract 09 -5153 Fund 153 Add (85) 3 gallon Crown of Thoms'Dinni (yellow) Add (30) 3 gallon Crown of Thorns 'Corolla! (red) Add (10) 1 gallon Dwarf Fakahatchee Grass ( Muhly grass) Add (5) 3 gallon Plumbago 85 7.00 595.00 Crown of Thorns, 3g'Dinni' (yellow) 30 7.00 210.00 Crown of Thorns, 3g'Corolla (red) 10 3.00 30.00 Muhly Grass, lg 5 6.00 30.00 Plumbago 3g Total $865.00 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terns, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Title 10 Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darry[richard@colliergov.net nn.�rni4inn.- 161 1 A 11 1 Proposal Date Prop01e -7 4/4/11 11 -00801 Pcnject 9 -16691 Golden Gate MSTU In... QfY . UIM Cost ; Total', Golden Gate MSTU: Collier Blvd. pricing from contract 09 -5153 Fund 153 - Add (15) Juniper Add (20) Bouganvillea `Helen Johnson' Add (25) Saw Palmetto to be planted in the beds on 951. 3 Gallon Container: Parsonii Juniper 15 20 6.80 8.50 102.00 170.00 3 Gallon Container: Bougainvillea,'Helen Johnson Dwarf 25 19.00 475.00 3 Gallon Container: Silver Saw Palmetto At the median tips -Pull yellow out and put (60) Purple Lantana Laborer/Helper (per man hour):(clean out median tip and dispose of plant material) 6 45.00 7.20 270.00 432.00 3 Gallon Container: Dwarf Firebush (Lantana Purple', 3g) 60 At the double median tip that looks the worse: Take the good Dinni — yellow and replant on Tropicana or at the entrance to the community (95 1) at bridge/boundary. Laborer/Helper (per man hour):(Relocate Dinni from Collier Blvd. to Tropicana 16 45.00 720.00 Blvd.) Add (80) Silhouettes, (30) Purple Lantana on North bound median tip. Add (50) Silhouettes, (30) Purple Lantana on South bound median tip. 3 Gallon Container: Bougainvillea'Silhouette' 130 60 8.50 7.20 1,105.00 432.00 3 Gallon Container: Dwarf Firebush (Lantana'Purple', 3g) Total $3,706.00 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Title it Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darrylrichard@coliiergov.net 1611 All Proposal Rate Prpposal # 4/5/11 11 -00802 project w 9 -1669I Golden Gate MSTU In... nomeHn len Qty u/M Cost Total, Golden Gate MSTU: Golden Gate Pkwy. pricing from contract 09 -5153 Fund 153 One median north of Sunshine, add (100) Blueberry Flax 3 gallon container: Xanadu (Blueberry Flax Lily) 100 9.00 900.00 Total $90 0. 00 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Title 11 Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darrylrichardCa)colliergov. net 161 1 A 11 Proposal Dafe Proiiosal #�;; 4/5/11 11 00803 9 -1669I Golden Gate MSTU In... nosrriotion:- J, M CRSf Total Golden Gate MSTU: Golden Gate Pkwy . pricing from contract 09 -5153 Fund 153 Entrance Sign on Golden Gate Parkway Add (100) Silver Saw Palmetto Add (5) Sabal Palms Use Soaker hose. Add (250) bags Collier Blend Mulch Add (50) Big Rose or accent (By Committee) 3 gallon container: Silver Saw o 100 5 19.00 110.00 1,900.00 550.00 Sabal palm/ 10' -18' OA (16-] 18 8'') ) 250 0.93 232.50 Landscape Labor (mulching) 50 7.00 350.00 3 gallon container: Crown of Thoms'Big Rose' Laborer/Helper (per man hour): (remove sod and dispose) 24 45.00 1,080.00 Irrigation Supervisor (install soaker hose) 25 55.00 1,375.00 Total $5,487.50 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Title IOb 161 1A11 From: Ray Leonard [mailto:ray @nemwinc.coml Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 201112:23 PM To: RichardDarryl Cc: DickRoger; mcgeeassoc @aol.com; officemanager @mcgeeassoc.com; 'Rick Simms Real Email'; LulichPamela; 'GREENWORIC; tindell @jr]- design.com; dhannula @hannulalandscaping.com; 'Damon Himmel'; 'Carlos Herrera'; 'Manuel Gonzalez'; Tina'; 'Scott Douglas' Subject: RE: Quick Field Meeting: Tropicana Blvd. tomorrow at 11 am - onsite at pump station Hello Darryl Testing of the motor today shows two things that indicate a problem with the existing motor. 1 There is a reading of 1.8 Mega Ohms to ground this is on the edge of a short to ground. 2 with the system running at 95 GPM the amperage that the motor is running at is L1 -22.1A L2 -23.2A L3 -23.2A the full load amp rating of a 7.5 HP motor is 21.8A so this indicates the motor is running in an over amp condition. Taking this into consideration we recommend replacing the pump if you decide to upgrade to VFD controls. I will get a proposal to you for replacing the existing 3" hydrovalve later today. http7//`www.irrigationpumpstations.com/ Ray Leonard Naples Electric Motor Works, Inc. 2088 J & C Blvd. Naples, FL. 34109 Ray @nemwinc.com TEL. 239 -591 -1313 FAX. 239-591-3015 14- 161 1A 11.E Napl ,o,s el�oetrie Motor Worko, Inc. 2088 J & C Blvd., Naples, FL 34109 (239) 591 -1313 Vendor #111253 PROPOSAL 111204 -2 04/12/11 Attention: Department of Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 South Horseshoe Drive RE: Tropicana Blvd. Pump Station Testing Naples Electric Motor Works, Inc. will provided materials and labor to replace the existing 3" hydro - valve. • Remove 3" Bermad hydro - valve. • Install new Netafim hydro- valve. • Adjust pressure regulation fro 65 PSI on the system side of the valve. Price $3,100.00 Thank You Naples Electric Motor Works, Inc. Ray Leonard Accept Date IS 1611 All FIB Outdoor, Ine. 5565 Shirley St., Naples, FL 34109 Tel (239) 594 -0904 Fax (239) 594 -1262 Proposal 110102 02/01/11 Company: Collier County Attention: Roger Dick RE: Collier County / Tropicana Blvd. Variable Frequency Drive Controls Naples Electric Motor Works, Inc. will furnish one UL Listed Packaged V.F.D. pump system model VFD -LP- SUB -7.5- 230 -3 -C pressure demand flow maintained irrigation pump system controls with the following features: Fiberglass flip top cover color dark green. Welded aluminum frame. • UL Listed Industrial Control Panel • NEMA type 3R fiberglass enclosure for VFD and controls. • Fused disconnect switch with type -R current limiting fuses. • Yaskawa Variable Frequency Drive providing soft start, accurate pressure control via PID 4 -20ma. transducer feedback, under /over voltage protection, low pressure shut o$ 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. • Netafim 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 Replace existing pump with new pump, motor, submersible wire, well seal, and check valve Add $4,155.00 Alternate Spin Clean filter mounted external to pump station Add $1,150.00 NOTE: Price good for 6 months. Thank You Naples Electric Motor Works, Inc. Ray Leonard v j f Hannula Landscaping, Inc. �� 28131 Quails Nest Lane H A N N U LA Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 L^"°SCAPM & IRRGl410rt. irta j Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darrylrichard@colliergov.net 1611 All Proposal Date, Proposal# - 3/14/11 11-00762 Pro'ect 9 -1669I Golden Gate MSTU In... Description Qty Ulm Cost Totar Golden Gate MSTU: Tropicana Blvd. pricing from 09 -5153 contract Fund 153- 162521 PO # 4500122599 * Replace (1) gate valve on clock #3402 zone #7 and (1) gate valve on clock #3402 zone #2 • Repair main line by the bridge (leaking) • Install a spring loaded pressure relief valve at both ends of medians, on the last valve. Irrigation Supervisor 8 55.00 440.00 Irrigation Technician 8 55.00 440.00 Materials to be supplied by Collier County: PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Title Total Page 1 17 Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darrylrichard@colliergov.net 1611 All Proposal Date Proposal# F3/14/11 11 -00762 ,Project 9 -16691 Golden Gate MS TU In Ilncrrinkinn Qty' -! U/M Cost, Total 140 of sch 40 purple pipe 1- 2" couplers 2- 2" 45 2 -3" T's 2 -3 "x 21/2" reducers 2- 21/2" 90 2- Jumbo valve boxes with green lids 2- 21/2" male adapters 2- 21/2" model # AA -6 Pressure Relief Valves 2- 1" Brass Gate valves 1- I" Brass valve 2- 1" Male adapters - 2 -1" couplers 1- 1" Male pipe thread x 6" long x 1" Male pipe thread (Nipple) 1- 1" Male pipe thread x 4" long x l' Male pipe thread. (Nipple) Total $880.00 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Title Page 2 J.RL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5° AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 1611 All i April 12, 2011 I�ndsc�'�e ��chitect's fi�lcl re'�ort� COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® -MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Golden Gate MSTU - PO# 4500126569 REPORT NUMBER: 13 CONTRACTOR: Hannula Landscaping - Damon Himmel JRL COMM No: 11003 Date: 3/31, 4/5 & Weather: P Cloudy 4/12/2011 Time: 12:30 - 1:30 Temp Range: 84 Estimate % Complete: N/A Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: Mar 31: Pam Lulich, Darryl Richard, Damon Himmel & Richard Tindell April 5: Richard Tindell, landscape architect April 12: Darryl Richard, Roger Dick, Damon Himmel, Ray Leonard & Richard Tindell WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor crew not present OBSERVATIONS: Site looks good, Some trash observed on Collier Blvd, Sunshine, Tropicana (near the school) and Golden Gate. Several dry patches in turf noted along Golden Gate suggesting a lack of pressure. Routine maintenance work has been performed. Site lines on over hanging branches are being addressed. Yellow crown -of- thorns, juniper and beach sun flower needed Hannula has provided quotes for refurbishment which have been reviewed. 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. Pump has been replaced on Sunshine and Pump station / Mainline reviewed on Tropicana. REVIEWS: County and FDOT Standards. Maintenance agreement, previous suggestions, designs and work orders. REPORT: Reviewed last reports, over all conditions and status of work orders and direction from County with Damon, A detailed observation with Staff and Contractor was performed.. In recent months there has continued to be steady improvement, however (Repeating from last 8 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 1611 A11 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. Dead palmetto, ilex and juniper are still observed on Collier and should be replaced. Proposals await committee approval. Recent cold weather will add to the distress especially to the crown of thorns and bougainvillea much of the bougainvillea has re- sprouted and trim back of dead wood has been scheduled. 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. Continued meetings with the Project Manager and Hannula is needed to address these issues. New calibration of irrigation volume metering has been requested. Several areas show signs of distress from a lack of water. Roger reports that the number of times the irrigation comes on has been reduced from 4 to 2 times a week the amount of water has stayed the same. Hannula to inspect the sprinkler heads for mechanical damage and the number of heads (gallons used) and report back. The irrigation mainline canal crossing on Tropicana was reviewed and Contractor to clarify if the reported leak is in the sleeve or at the coupling just north of the crossing. The condition of the pump station on Tropicana was performed. It is reported the pump is working at full capacity and its causing water hammering due to the many leaks in the main. The addition of a pressure relief valve at each end of the main has been suggested as a workaround. The control valves at the pump station appeared to need major renovation or possible replacement. Luminary report (attached) indicates problems with the pump itself. If the pump control system were changed over to the VFD controls the two proposed 2 pressure relief valves would not be necessary. 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, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 gc °n vin �g3 S' W W W W N .......... WAN— O N M V M N A W N O w � Vm N D O O O D O A L) A m O O O A p D mzx r_c� �Omrn3pm L��D m z(1 mpDo N 'mm�mG)mmZDm N m =ZmC) O �TI� 2r�rr �ZIOZ 3 1 m - Xzo x m Z3ND2q mm� � Z ° n��1 A 2L) ZZNmz� M m NC°mm m U O p Z Z D D m C C O O r r m N m N D m r° fA Efl E9 M fA E9 fA bi f9 N (A E9 N fA M fA fA M N N O O U O O O O O U O O N N+ M U (O U O O O U W O U OI O� N O O O O O O O A O O N O O O O O O O N O O N O O O O O O O W O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ O O O (/) (A fA Efl M N M fA fA V1 fA M f9 (A E9 E/I fH Q) N 01 N A W O A A W W (T N 10 O 10 N W A U U O A U M fA f9 f9 M ER E9 fA F9 bi di M fA E9 fA M U q (O rp A N + (O W °p vmi�= Z G 1 W+ U O J O U N O 01 O W TWO J N M U W f0 O O J t0 M J CO W N O N A U O J u 3 3 J N .No O a o 0 0 0 M O O O O O O O O O it S T T T O 8 8 N +O IOM V D G) .Z1 ;0 D D 0 e�A�� ;o pp.m mm mm m A . -Di AKK z 00 A 0m v m z n m z O O 9 di fA fA f9 �fA�fA fA Efl fA fA N O A OI O U N W W N O q mmmm rp c °p vmi�= Z G 1 O �omz U IO ID O J N C r m T y1y m o , A X m m 9 di fA fA f9 �fA�fA fA Efl fA fA N O A OI O U N W W N O m W U U U U U U U U O D U U U U U U O D U U U O W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o z z o 0 0 o a J W N M N N J+ O A W T N M O (O A W 10 M 01 U W A N A W �D f0 N N W N W t0 O> IO N A M f0 � p r(nm m(nrrr� r (p�rgOrn mTTO c m �' <vo NaNNOD� to a m m A Q m m m$ 0 = m m p z m a• m l o° 3 a a m N.D D q.0 2 D m n 3 a z n n N N N J d N N J O E9 (A 41 fF (II f9 M f9 M M ER E9 W N W Vi W E/1 EVI N dl M fA q N W N W W W— U Ql U L O tD A U IJ _ A A� A A W tD N J O O J O N U IO ID O J N O A +> A M � o u, �ocn Am JQ) A(D m A O N O O W O O O W O U W O O N O O O N O J # 31} MOM O O O O O N W W M O O (n M d y N N N N N N N d_ .n� .. N N 3 ] N m >N >? > m O W W m O l A Amow y � _ G)o N C b � o 0 0 0 p o n n n � O O 0 N A � m W U U U U U U U U O D U U U U U U O D U U U O W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o z z o 0 0 o a J W N M N N J+ O A W T N M O (O A W 10 M 01 U W A N A W �D f0 N N W N W t0 O> IO N A M f0 � p r(nm m(nrrr� r (p�rgOrn mTTO c m �' <vo NaNNOD� to a m m A Q m m m$ 0 = m m p z m a• m l o° 3 a a m N.D D q.0 2 D m n 3 a z n n N N N J d N N J O E9 (A 41 fF (II f9 M f9 M M ER E9 W N W Vi W E/1 EVI N dl M fA _ � A J O W U U W U A U N A S A 10 W P M (r m W O N O O W O> U U U N U J , O W O M N O N W O .. J O O Cr W N O O N O N W (O N [O O O O M O O O tD U O O U O W A N A w v+ N a m N W U v u n D V m m -.c ,z m N O C N N i J (� 1 M, 3 N C N W N W W W— U Ql U L O tD A U IJ _ A A� A A W tD N N Co W A U AID Ln f0 U A ID U Co O O J O N O a J A� U IO ID O J N 0 0 ooN � o u, �ocn Am JQ) A(D m _ � A J O W U U W U A U N A S A 10 W P M (r m W O N O O W O> U U U N U J , O W O M N O N W O .. J O O Cr W N O O N O N W (O N [O O O O M O O O tD U O O U O W A N A w v+ N a m N W U v u n D V m m -.c ,z m N O C N N i J (� 1 M, 3 N C Ww ww wwWW M w W Ww. w.w�wuwww w w wwwuwu W W < 'a M m m - - - - - n N'NVNVNN°imm C e"' m0 ' �� N'm 'mm'm'm "'m m'mmmmm �'Wl 'm 'mm N Nam W 'Wm n ee 8 8m W WWmm�N m 8� 88 g ggo ��NN��N ANN �NNN�� BNNN AO6 ' 1 oo g _ O °o - 00 00$`0'008 °08 88 00 8 88$ 8 0 0 000 $oomN= m -$$o oiu oa8w 80 88818 m88 8s 88 os A -- - - - - - - -- - - - =Aypy 2yI zz omZZ3D�OmO pmc o �cc TJyJ �yJ aim mmm oy NQy� 0y0 m 0 m_pN r �v �5 m Ov0 mOZ -i Dn dD dmlyll E TTmr 9CrA E d00 DD '0 MM W ..69 ES p 2 GI�Z Z CA d2 ftl d _,p q d Z T m A A toll N N~ m d Z 2 a A m m C -00 p O m r y y n 2 y y y m Z OrT Om Oym Ocmmr p Dm m �m Szz <pxx2 d0 Om OA m 2f y Dx Omm qT q31/+ py(/N 00 CCZ q yy R -mm f11 x<ilT� 09 rt1 n0 Pam D Z 2 �0 .l_1 On � m rvA.Z ]J +my myyT Smy = Nyy 3AA 3TTTi !n 3 +x mlloN Od 47 O m A +p d2i am mTyx11mZD .nAx Cyy mC009 n cm .d.m STn C� 'T m TZ pT2 M, A3 �yW 3yy Om 0yry0 '^ DDD 2y y y Z SOm x90 N Ay m0 0 0 O y D m Z% 2 pC (mil O y py N fZ/i . -00 T N Ann O x O C m m x (n m y y ; O x d 9 b T �j y D d[ y m' ydxA13 m D mD 6111 X33 �O xm AynmWDp�y< 0" a0c m>Cx Z mcs Zym T m 20 m c y 0 m- W c p O m^ O C A m x w N txii :� p 0 O? yT T m W e b 0 O N 2 2 ; W D O b m F by mVn� &CZy w A^i f-y _ly ul my Wr om Z Z ux y y w 0 � (/ my d O xy �y -- yx Z yOmx O N 2 m 'y m 'T O'9d (gOT3D O p m AC2m W Po W y W N M� Ll Mx 2ny% O_n.11 x Cyn< T n m O m < IT 'T 0 3 x D Dy y Om D n5mm m 2 y Z p yD y C A~ yX yAy yCm2 m m D m 0,T n y .O Nm M C O fCll ' lnjl ° n N T MT D 0C x oN �0> p P m n w 6 m m W 4 K v b O p T N Z x °m 1Til a � o m m y A C A m -MD JR n m o$ i" o omD 09 A q L ➢.� .� W' J O t0 -i'l 1NJ 41 N W - b N b m N 'W m'o °mo N O m fN.r OWi N + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO V N w W O O O O N O O u O 4Wi O O O O O O A m$ O O - O N O p °u m D q nb J JN b NNfJ NN N ViN - N _'NWA _ -+mD a � n _ a v aau m ��pp tJ N yy �p W + _p +� W _N �N O_0 m0 o $ WVJ $ O $ N �N8 A O tD04°i tn0 O m D nob _ ma o°°oW 8 ° °$m o° Ms's s 8 -8 0 888 s 8 °° °o e88 s °WO °O ° °O s m e88 e 888 k N WmD 9 C d _ N ° 0000°00 o $$m nn Q w Q T W �3c - �3n O JAN _OI OOio4N O _ m -t0 3 O O O N O la P N O .W _ O O O O O O vn O DO m m qN N N d N b O N m N-b• $ O AW Om X0VV0 ff W b' .,. ._ .� "' qq 'i ✓emu c7 0 -i 08 00000°00 °o ° °$100 8 000 0058 0o8 888 8000 °8 8 8 °° oe 8$08 c ° 0A 5 as R q 8M. qN _ONi pm Qm 8. Q O tp ON ' (qN�' O O O O O O O O O O O O S O O$ 8 O O o 8 8 0$ $ 0 0 0 0 Sy $ O O $ D O 8$ O m A z am p na O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 00 O O O o o O° 0 0 0 0 OM ° O O O O O O o O N y O y T p q OmW N O� 82. 80° °o ° °OW08 8 888 S °8 E. °8° Oo 'a. 88 888 8WW °°8 88808 8 °8 88 8 A - gad 9� O ++ O q A C m A W O N W N N c o°o 00 088 °o°°°000 o$° °o a °00 °°° °oo A. 00 °0 °08 88 _°og8 08°°°° °00008 ° 88 ° o W y .l o X M zzz zz w,z 6ZZZZ22 Zol�i o Awo Z. Z Z$02 22 mmip mo m2w o$o22ZO 0002J o oi.+ 'o o < 'n n 'n 'n n X a° n X nn a% n n X an 'n X ae X X X X a X X X n n n X X X X a X X X X X X W x(nu ° aoo0. z m a � y gg u - _ 0. 0m - q _QQ w cn reoo 00 °o °o °° °0000000 000 °o °o$W °00 S0 0§0 0o S °e8 $8 ou8 °8oao8 $0008 0 825 °o m 7 a 'n 'n $a• X � � W ai° 8 X ms n �zzz zz boz eZzzzzz zz> z zz - SN 8 °X a e D a n X X* X n X a X c X To: From Date 161 Memorandum Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners Jason Bires Property Acquisition Specialist May 24, 2011 ri;:!a Hi.�r ilenning Coyle Gulella 1Al2 X�`' V T99V� 0 !4� MA r 2 )�i I i BY........................ 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 agenda. The following minutes were signed by Chairman Jeff Curl. Thank you. Attachments as stated March 28. 2011 Real Property Management Department Misc. Corres: Data: t_.o 2%rl 1 1 Item 161 1 A 12 N'/ is Na W"& ,. i i amma&w i Monday, March 28, 2011 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10 13250 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 Jason Bires — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: None L Call to Order - This meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairman Jeff Curl at 6:30 p.m. A motion to approve the agenda as presented was made by Pat Humphries and a second to the motion was made by Karen Acquard. With no further discussion, the agenda was approved unanimously, 3 -0. II. Approval of Minutes - January 24, 2011 - The next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the January 24, 2011 meeting. All members have had an opportunity to review the minutes as presented. Chairman Jeff Curl called for a motion to approve the minutes as presented. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Karen Acquard and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the minutes were approved unanimously, 3 -0. III. Approval of Treasurer's Report - The next item on the agenda is the approval of the Treasurer's Report. Staff advised that there is no Treasurer's Report this evening as Staff did not receive the report from the Finance Department. There was a brief discussion regarding an inquiry that was made by the committee at the last meeting. Staff advised that they had met with 1611Al2 Derek Johnssen from Finance and discussed the questions that were brought up at the last Land Trust meeting. Staff advised that it would be hard to get into details without the report however Staff advised that the market adjustment section of the report which was called into question at the last meeting has no effect on the bottom line. Staff advised that when we have the Treasurer's Report at the next meeting we can get into detail to answer the Committee's questions. IV. Max Hasse Park Expansion (Update) - The next item on the agenda is an update on the status of the Max Hasse Community Park Community Center Expansion. Staff advised that at this time we do not have any definitive updates from Parks and Rec however Staff is keeping in contact with the Parks and Rec Department and will relay updates to the Committee as they become available. After a brief discussion, the committee requested that Staff inquire about getting an update memo from the Parks and Rec Department to advise the committee of the progress on the project. As discussed, the one year deadline is approaching in November and if Parks and Rec is going to need an extension, they will have to come before the Land Trust Committee in September. Staff advised that they would be in contact with the Parks and Rec Department to request an update and upon receipt of the report from Parks and Rec, Staff will relay the update on to the Land Trust Committee members. V. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Funding Request (Update) - The next item is an update on the funding request made by the Big Corkscrew Fire Control and Rescue District at the January 24, 2011 meeting. Staff advised that this item was taken before the Board of County Commissioners at their March 22, 2011 meeting and that it was approved unanimously as part of the Consent Agenda. Staff advised that a copy of the fully executed agreement was forwarded to Chief Greenberg. VI. Public Comment /Other Discussion - The next agenda item is public comment/other discussion. With no public comment the Committee briefly had a discussion regarding the public records request made by Michael Ramsey in which he requested the Committee member's names as well as ordinance and amendment information regarding the Land Trust. Staff advised that they have not heard anything from Mr. Ramsey since his request. However, Staff advised that they would let the committee know if anything arose from the request. VII. Next Meeting Date -Monday, May 23, 2011 -The next meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee is scheduled for Monday, May 23, 2011. This date was agreeable to the committee. VIII. Adjournment - With no further business to conduct, a motion to adjourn was made by Karen Acquard and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. The motion to adjourn was approved unanimously, 3 -0. This meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. � �s� �� `�`. N Monday, March 28, 2011 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 Committee Members Chairman: Jeff Curl Vice - Chairperson: Karen Acquard Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries Member: Vacant AGENDA I. Call to Order - Approval of Agenda - H. Approval of Minutes — January 24, 2011 - III. Approval of Treasurer's Report - 1V. Max Hasse Park Expansion (Update) - V. Big Corkscrew Fire Control and Rescue District Funding Request (Update) VI. Public Comments /Other Discussion VII. Next Meeting Date — Monday, May 23, 2011 VIII. Adjournment- 16 A1; Under #16I Miscellaneous Correspondences #16I1A13 was not issued 161 1 A 14 RECEIVED Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board APR 2 8 2011 October 28, 2010 boat of County Commissioners 6:00 p.m. Members Present: Chairman Manuel Gonzalez; Vice - Chairman, Mario Ortiz; David Correa; Alejandro Balan; F. Williams Forbes, Renato Fernandez Fiala Hiller Henning J Members Absent - Excused: lleana Ramos, Valarie Maxwell. Unexcused: Zetty Rivera Coyle Coletta Others Present: Mike Sheffield, County Manager's Office; Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget Call to Order: Chairman Manuel Gonzalez called the meeting to order at 6:00, noting that a quorum was established. Approve the Meeting Agenda: Renato Fernandez motioned to approve the agenda, Mario Ortiz seconded. The motion was carried 6 -0. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of September 30, 2010: Renato Fernandez motioned to approve the minutes, David Correa seconded. The motion carried 6-0. New Business: Presentation by Jim Wall: As the Business Development Director of Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board, Jim Wall gave a PowerPoint presentation about the "best kept secret in Southwest Florida ". The organization has 24 regions and have established career and service centers throughout Southwest Florida. Jim's region includes Collier, Charlotte, Lee, Hendry & Glades counties. They are more than an employment office. They provide training for financially disadvantaged citizens with a priority on veterans. The centers also match skills to open positions, teach CPR to children through the summit youth program and pay for on- the -job training for participants. In addition, they sponsor a poster contest for 5`h grade students where the top 12 pictures become part of a calendar published by the center. William Forbes will get in contact with the Immokalee Foundation to contact Jim's organization for possible collaboration. Old Business: Law Enforcement Report: Manny Gonzalez stated that there was no meeting scheduled for this month and the next meeting will be held on November 4, 2010. The topic of this meeting will be gang awareness, juvenile crime, gang recruitment, interpreting graffiti and the drug market. He asked that ,,sc. Gorres'. Item 161 1 q 14 this issue be given the majority of the meeting time at the next meeting in order to be able to fully discuss these issues. Advisory Board Attendance Policy: Mike Sheffield passed out the ordinance governing attendance to the group for their review. Regarding members with excessive absences, Mike Sheffield said that the way this is usually handled is that the liaison will call the person with the attendance problem to find out if they still want to be on the committee or if they would like to resign. Mike will ask Tatiana to call Zetty Rivera and find out if she still has interest in being on the committee. Selection of Chair and Vice - Chair: Manuel Gonzalez told the group that he had come up with a new method of selecting the chair and the vice -chair for the group. He doesn't think the current method of the Vice -Chair automatically becoming the Chair for the next year is necessarily the best method. He explained that each member would get two votes for each seat, the liaison would tally the votes and the new chair and vice -chair would be decided. He also passed out sample ballots. The group talked about this and decided to table this item until the next meeting. HAAB Meetings: Manuel Gonzalez said that he felt the committee had too much time off and would like to change the meeting dates in order to fit a meeting in November. The group decided that they would meet November 18th at the Golden Gate Community Center on the Parkway instead of on the main campus. Renato Fernandez suggested that the group meet in Golden Gate at least twice a year so that the citizens may have the opportunity to attend the meetings. He said the Board needs to find a way to involve community leaders into bringing problems to the group so that they will know what to suggest to the Board of County Commissioners. Mike Sheffield will contact Commissioner Henning and other community leaders (such as Victor Valdez and Chuck Moelke) and invite them to this meeting to talk about problems. He will also contact Judge Ramiro Manalich. Member Comment: Mario Ortiz said he is frustrated because every meeting they hear wonderful reports, have a very educational experience, but nothing goes back to the community. Alejandro Balan said that with only nine members, how many topics can they address? He also said they need to find a way to find out what the people are interested in. Manuel Gonzalez said that the BCC is aware of every topic they discuss. Where is the onus of the Board, the Advisory Board or the individuals? Adjourn: Renato Fernandez motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. and David Correa seconded. The motioned carried by a group vote of 6 -0. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the HAAB will be held on November 18, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at the Golden Gate Community Center on the Parkway. Chairman, MaoeerGonzalez Date 161 1 =A 14 1 DECEIVED Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board APR 2 8 2011 November 18, 2010 Bosra of county Commissimars 6:00 p.m. Fiala Golden Gate Community Center Hiller Auditorium Henning Coyle Coletta_ Members Present: Chairman Manuel Gonzalez; Vice - Chairman,; David Correa; Alejandro Balan; F. Williams Forbes, Renato Fernandez; Zetty Rivera; Mario Ortiz. Members Absent - Excused: Valarie Maxwell; Ileana Ramos. Others Present: Tatiana Gust, HAAB staff liaison. Call to Order: Chairman Manuel Gonzalez called the meeting to order at 6:00, noting that a quorum was established. Approve the Meeting Agenda: Mario Ortiz motioned to approve the agenda, Alejandro Balan seconded. The motion was carried 7 -0. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of October 30, 2010: Manuel Gonzalez motioned to approve the minutes, David Correa seconded. The motion carried 7 -0. Discussion: William Forbes, would like that commissioners participate and stay in touch with the board. David Correa will contact Jennifer Edwards to obtain statistics about population and maybe census information. Old Business Volunteerism Report Manny Gonzalez reinforced that the HAAB is here to listen the concerns of the Hispanic population. Manny also indicate that the Hispanic population returns to work quickly because the jobs that these persons are taking are entry level, which demonstrates the lack of education. Manny shared news extracts related to the Hispanic community. Census information will be shared by April. Bill Forbes would like to have someone to share the census information and the district distribution based in the census. Misc Corres. Date: Le 1281 I t Item #: �4Z%to 161 1 A 14 Members encourage volunteering. Take food to and collect toys, and deliver them to others. Work with young children. It feels really good to volunteer. There are multiple needs for volunteerism for juvenile justice. New Business: Election of Chair and Vice - Chair: Manuel Gonzalez brought a voting method to select chair and the vice -chair for the group. This voting method consists of a ballot vote. Question was raised by David in regards why it has to be done in this way. Manny doesn't think the current method of the Vice -Chair automatically becoming the Chair for the next year is necessarily the best method. Manny explained that each member would get two votes, one for each seat, and the liaison would tally the votes. A person could vote for themselves, and any of the persons that is nominated could decline. Per ballots the selected chairman is Mario Ortiz. Mario accepted to be the chair. Per ballots the selected vice -chair is Bill Forbes. Bill accepted to be the vice - chair. HAAB next meetings: This will be held in the boardroom in the main complex. Member Comments: Discussion: Manny remind that if the board has an action item, you can submit it to the BCC. A question was raised in regards to ask the BCC board if there is anything that the HAAB can focus on. Members discussed that the Hispanic community is mainly interested in immigration issues and the BCC does not get involved with it. This is a Federal subject, if someone commits a crime, they will be deported. Renato remind everyone that the sherifYs department does not stop anyone for how they look; they stop people for violations to the law. Bill Forbes informed the board that the newspaper Vista Semanal was shut down. Manny indicated that there is a community liaison for each area in the county. You can call them directly; this is a great area to learn about your community and ways to volunteer. Mario Ortiz, and in name of the entire board, presented Manny his appreciation for all the work done this year. 1611A14 Manny reminded the board that if they understand what the board's responsibility is, they will be fine. When they step out of the line is when they get in trouble. In the past a letter to each member was sent, to place them back in line. Mario invited the members to reach out to the community to help in an non activist way and to find out specific topic that are of interest for the Hispanic community. Mario's personal goal is that at the end of his terms, the HAAB board has sent at least one recommendation to the BCC. Members had a discussion in regards of differences within the Hispanic community. The Hispanic community includes everyone that speaks Spanish; it should not be a difference by what country each one comes from. Manny presented the situation of Hispanic population as follows: Lack of education 4 no good jobs 4 no good income 4 no good house Adjourn: Manny Gonzalez motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 p.m. and Renato Fernandez seconded. The motioned carried by a group vote of 7 -0. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the HAAB will be held on January 27, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at the Board Room. r !, % �_,� L UIl Chairman, Mario Ortiz Date 161 ,A 14 RECEIVED Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board APR 2 8 2011 Roard of County Commasiwrers January 27, 2011 Fiala 6:00 p.m. Hiller Henning 1--- Collier County Boardroom - Building F Coyle Colette Members Present: Chairman Mario Ortiz; Manuel Gonzalez; David Correa; Alejandro Balan; Ileana Ramos; Valaree Maxwell; Zetty Rivera. Members Absent - Excused: William Forbes; Renato Fernandez. Others Present: Tatiana Gust, HAAB staff liaison. Call to Order: Chairman Mario Ortiz called the meeting to order at 6:09, noting that a quorum was established. Approve the Meeting Agenda: David Correa motioned to approve the agenda, seconded by Valaree Maxwell. The motion was carried 7 -0. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of January 27th, 2011: David Correa motioned to approve the minutes, Alejandro Balan seconded. The motion carried 7 -0. Old Business Law enforcement report by Manny Gonzalez OPR (Office of Professional Regulation) also known as internal affairs allow the civilian population to oversee the sheriff's actions. It is important that the civilian population is involved in this type of program; the idea is to earn the trust of the public. Manny had an interview at the Sheriff office for a report, he had to write on leadership as part of a PhD assignment. Many presented the different styles of leadership and provide sample of well known individuals and relate their type of leadership to the group. Manny was interviewed at the sheriff f office to discuss about the Sherriff's office transition and what they want to do as an organization. Collier County is one of the safest counties in the states. The Sheriff is doing it with a cut in budget of 26Million dollars and with reduced staff. The sheriff office, in addition to the law enforcement officers also have approximate 800 civilians and other 60 volunteer and 40 auxiliary officers. Auxiliary officers are retired personnel. M.sc. vofres Date: Item #. t 161 1 A14 With this staff the sheriff's office has reduced crime to 5% per year. He has done a great job; he has done more with less. He is a good manager. The Sheriff is also the director of fusion center. Fusion center is an organization funded by the Federals, with the purpose of detecting criminal activity and taking positive actions. It helps reduce crimes and reduces the mistrust. He does what he said he is going to do. We have spies in these community, they are retired CIA. They are always looking for people. New Business Mario would like to use the topic of law enforcement to get into the goals for the year. How do you relate the issues of crimes to the Spanish population? The report involves all crimes. They are not differentiated by ethnic groups. Some of them are not preventable, they are emotional. The issues with the Hispanic community relates to lack of education. Always goes back to the parents. What are the values that they teach to their kids? What are the issues that are affecting the Hispanic community? The issues are affecting not only the Hispanic, but everyone. The unemployment rates are still high. Zetty, has a recommendation for the BCC in regards to invite the community for a twice a year conference for the community to participate. The HAAB board shall ensure proper communication, although the setting does not favor conversation. He would like to explore the idea of what they can have in place for future meetings. There was discussion in how to get the interest of the Hispanic community to bring items up. Hispanic are not motivated. The Haitian people do a great effort trying to learn or do something different. Valaree presented a motivating history about a young man trying to change his life. He sought help from the community, and he received the help from the community because of his personal effort. Hispanic population has gotten used to be helped and sometimes they don't look for better things. How can they refine the purpose of the guidelines? People in welfare become dependent of the welfare. There are some people that want to learn English but they don't know where to go. There are free classes at high school but people are afraid of their immigration situation. Assignment for Zetty is to refine the proposal for the workshop and the ideas associated to it. Please bring it back to the HAAB board. 16 ! 1 A 14 The group has to define the topic; the issues are in the following areas: 1. Education 2. Housing 3. Health 4. Employment 5. Inability to vote and take any responsibility in governance that affects them Suggestion was made in regards to that some of the tasks can be given to another group, such as the Hispanic chamber of commerce of Naples. In this way they can participate as individuals and there is no violation of the sunshine law. The question for the group is, do we want the HAAB performing the workshop or we give it to another entity so they are not so restricted? Many of the questions brought up at this board are questions that cannot be handle at this board level. The difficult task is to get the Hispanic population to participate in the activities that the board is proposing. The group would like to take action items to the BCC at least once or twice a year. If they as a board can do this, this will be a measure of success. Members and Staff Comments The Hispanic population may get in trouble due to the language barrier. Many times they don't understand the regulations of the code enforcement. On the other hand, people do not respond to the violations on time and then they feel prosecuted. The information that code enforcement provides is in Spanish language as well. There are other areas or departments that also provide information in other languages. For the next meeting a member of the code enforcement will be invited, to share information of what they do and how is conveyed to the Hispanic population. Some discussion was around the table with regards to the majority of republicans in the parliament. Use resources to promote our agenda, what can we promote ?. Valaree indicated that as board they can listen, talk and discuss, but they can't promote. The HAAB is an advisory board to the BCC. Board analyze the times that the board have been involved in some action item taken to the board in the last twelve years • Payment of an examination at the schools • Issue of limiting Hispanic Community to speak Spanish at the hospital • Issue of paying the farmers an extra penny for the tomatoes 161 1A14 Zetty presented some statistics in regards to education among the Hispanics. They are very low rates of Hispanic people with education. The big reason for Hispanics to drop out is because they have a hard time in passing the FCATS, they give up. There is a language barrier. The other problem is that many bright kids that have 4.0 scores can't assist to higher education because they are undocumented. Florida does not allow enrollment of undocumented people into college. This is a very important issue because they are the future and they won't have the opportunity of higher education. One of the members concern is the lack of communication. It is very difficult to make people participate. A good idea maybe is to bring some refreshments to get them interested. Another member concern is the lack of education. Many kids don't have the will in themselves to keep going to school. Mario Ortiz, chair wants to be able to do a fair job. His goal is to work as a team and he would like contribution from everyone. He would also like to have some measures of success. Adjourn: Motion to adjourn made by David Correa to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 p.m, second by Ileana Ramos. The motioned carried by a group vote of 7 -0. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the HAAB will be held on February 24`h, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at the Board Room. Chairman, Mario Ortiz a- ZY -�Zo1, Date 161 1 Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board February 24th, 2011 6:00 p.m. Collier County Boardroom — Building F A14 i RECEIVED APR 2 8 2011 Hosrd or County Corrmssloners Fiala Hiller I- leaning Coyle Coletta _ Members Present: Chairman Mario Ortiz; William Forbes; Manuel Gonzalez; Ileana Ramos; Valaree Maxwell; Renato Fernandez. Members Absent- Excused: Alejandro Balan, David Correa and Zetty Rivera. Others Present: Tatiana Gust, HAAB staff liaison; Cristina Perez, Code enforcement representative. Call to Order: Chairman Mario Ortiz called the meeting to order at 6:03, noting that a quorum was established. Approve the Meeting Agenda: Renato Fernandez motioned to approve the agenda, seconded by Bill Forbes. The motion was carried 6 -0. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of January 27`h, 2011: Bill Forbes motioned to approve the minutes, Ileana Ramos seconded. The motion carried 6 -0. Guest Speaker Cristina Perez — Code Enforcement Representative Cristina is a Code Enforcement Supervisor for the Golden Gate Estates District. She has been with the county for 8 years of which 7 %z have been with code enforcement. Cristina provided an overview of the programs that Misc. Corres: 5 districts for Collier County Date: L.vizsll I _ The weed and litter ordinance is applicable at the Golden Gate Estates Item #: Renato: Do you have the same program around other areas? Because Mario: Do you have a description of the Blaine program Cristina: Has a power point presentation and she can come to our next meeting and show it to you. There are other program. They go two weeks before the even t and provide (layers and do a meet & greet and door to door letting customers know of what is available to dump for free. 161 1 A 14 This is a county wide program. Mario How do you educate the Hispanic community about these topics? Cristina: they distribute "common Violation" flayers in Spanish and they also have personnel that speaks Spanish, if someone need assistance in Spanish the investigator reach to someone within the code enforcement to translate. The first tag that they leave at the houses are in English and Spanish Ileana: How often the investigators go and check violations, are there banks that are more difficult than others? They go every day but the investigators have to investigate and contact and if there is an owner. There are sometimes when there are no calls at all and some other communities call constantly. Manny: Is there a pattern that has developed to certain code? Have you done statistical data about it? No they don't have statistics about it. Manny: Stay ong within the Hispanic community that they ignore or they don't respond promptly? Or they respond promptly? From her experience more than the 50% og the Hispanic wants to get in compliance. They want to comply but sometimes they have the constraints of money. Sometimes they buy a property with unpermitted structures that they were not aware of it. Manny: They are many people that have not been naturalized and yet they live in precarious conditions. Where does morality comes into place versus code enformcenet because you know that is not safe for them? They have to enforce the code, they talk to the owner and the tenants to let them know what the situation is. They also advise the property owner what they need to do to come into compliance. Manny: Years ago he conducted an investigation in Manatee. He did not know how they were getting water or electricity. If you stay out for few minutes the moskitos will eat you away. The kids were bitten up and down. He got a sheriff and got to code enforcement, and a week later was in the news. What do you do? Property Maintenance inspectors that regulate the housing situation. They have emergency meeting in the special magistrate. There is many times the owner is willing to correct the issues. Now if the entire structure is unpermitted then is another issue. Manny: So the code does not apply to the environment like moskitos? Not outside, but yes it has to be done inside like roaches, rodents, etc. 161 1 A 14 They can work with the mosquito control. Manny: Is there responsibility of the county then not the property owner? More or less Renato: What is the definition of a bedroom? Explanation. Manny: transfer houses, the smugglers use this spaces as bedrooms for people that they get into the county. This buildings are not designed as housing. Renato: in New York a bedroom has to have a window or a door We get a lot of these converted where they installed a dummy wall and converted into living space. Manny: His family has a portion of the garage converted in the garage Cristina: there is a limit in the number of occupants for residents. Basically 250 for the first person and then 200 sf per each additional person. Grow house after the sheriff has cleared it, and come into compliance for all the changes made without a permit. Mario: The Hispanic community and code enforcement? Are you working in any program to brake the language barrier? Cristina: She wanted to reach the Hispanic community, so many of the information that provide is in both English and hispanish. Mario: Tell us about of the reciclying of the tires. In a meeting today will be a titring round up sponsored by the State from Friday to In march 14 In eagle park and Max. 52" tire, no more than 25 per household and dumped in the special areas for free. There is information in radio Spanish program, and in Univision and gator country. They are really trying to reach to the Hispanic community. She wiil be back next month with the power point presentation and the bake program. She offer help to distribute information. FDLE , you can contact the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Or call to the number and they can help you directly. 161 1 A 14 New Business Law enforcement report by Manny Gonzalez Office of professional regulation, they have a civilian team to oversee that they conduct their business as indicated by the state law. Florida is very concern on the rights of the citizens and the desempeno of the sheriffs. One of the reasons we are involved as representatives is that we monitor how the sheriffs reacts to Hispanics deteneed and how Hispanics detenees deals with the sheriffs office. At the last meeting the liteanen Righard Givens brough up some issues: -who is prb and what they do 'when should I file a complain What happen when I file a complaint Will be repercussions from the deputy There is a public perception of the code enforcement personnel of confrontism. Asaults to deputies increased by 40% in 2010, so deputies have to hope for the best when they stop someone. Any complaint will be investigated in accordance with the Florida Statutes. All investigations will be investigated. The civilian team to make sure is that the disposition of these cases are in compliance with the law. Manny provides an example of what the deputies do when they received a complaint. And how the customer reacts to the investigation. Lieutenant can make calls if to keep investigating or not. If someone makes a complaint against the deputy there is an investigation by the sheriff's office and they make a decision in accordance to the normal procedures. After a decision was made the OPR does an investigation and make sure that the decision was appropriate. There is another level that if the deputy is found gilty they case are sent to talahassee for review and they may preclude them to get another job in the states in law enforcement. Most of the complaints are when the deputies are off duty. They have to be professional 24/7 365 days a year. Their conduct have to moral and in compliance with their job at all the times. During an investigation all the deputies are obligated to produce a statement. They cannot be in violation of the code or state code. FS 119 allows you to view any disposition of deputy misconduct throughout the state. Ileana: The public can access the information about a particular sheriff that you want to look up their records? For information about Collier County you can call 793 -9309 161 1 A 14 Members and Staff Comments Meassure of success will be to bring an action item to the BCC. There were several ideas in last meeting but before than they move forward, he saw things within the minutes that they should be careful about things that they say in the meeting. Some of these statements are incorrect, all of the members are Hispanic and this does not apply to all of the Hispanics. They should be more careful in how things are expressed. Renato: Everyone would like to hear what the feeling is, you want to hear the truth and the way that people sees and express things. Mario: There are ways that can be expressed differently. Discussion in regards to Hispanic descendants and what they go through. The Hispanic has the largest minority community still behind in education. Statistics shows that statement made during the last meeting is true. Members shall be able to express what they feel. This is a fact in this community. Haitians try to learn English. How do we bring the horse to the water. How to we make the parents understand that if they don't get education who is going to run this country. Valaree gave us additional information about the young member Jesus that wants to finish high school and she has helped him. Bill was struck by the need of language and education. Friends of the library. He is in charge of the group called round table that consist of the Hispanic that is already working in the public libraries. There are good programs being offered, but there is not continuity. As friends of the library they want to bring more awareness and having more material in Spanish. They are building trust within the library within the community. What are the primary types of books seek when they come to the library. They give him 4 areas: ✓ Foreign language — English ✓ Langauge acquisition ✓ Citizenship ✓ Medical Issues ✓ Computers With this information Bill request funds to buy additional material related to these subjects and he was authorized $10,000 to replenish these topics. 161 1 A 14 The library is a good secular part of the community is trying to respond to the needs of the community. What is the target area? What is the purpose? People in the Hispanic community to help them to progress. The friends of the library will not ask about citizenship. This still perpetuing the problem. As taxpayer they will like to know that they are legal or not. These books are in Spanish? Most of them are in Spanish and some in English The general Hispanic community does not know what the library offers. Attempt to educate. In order to get a card you have to show your ID. Mario has the Idea of presenting different topics to the community. If we want to do a presentation we need to present it to the commissioners to get their blessings. The idea has to be developed before present it. They may be able to get the Naples Chamber of Commerce to help with the initiative. Additional people needs to get involved, they can get fundraisers for education or any other items that the community may need. Better web presence was requested by the Ileana and we already have some. Additional she will try to reach other media for information. Valaree will see turn the web on to get people involved and she will let the board members know. Tatiana comments: Sunshine law Offered conference room at Growth Management division. Adjourn: Motion to adjourn made by David Correa to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 p.m, second by Ileana Ramos. The motioned carried by a group vote of 7 -0. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the HAAB will be held on February 24`", 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at the Board Room. i, Chairman, Mario Ortiz 3 2 �( - zo�D Date CRA Roard Commissioner James N. Coletta Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Georgia Hiller State Enterprise Zone Development Aeenev Board (EZDA) Michael F'acundo Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Robert Halman Ex- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Ployd 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 Muekel CRA Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancoun CRA Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 Marie Capita IBDC Manager 239.269.9629 Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant 239.269.9628 16 I Co+ller Courtly Community Redevelopment Agenci ° �0�IIb3 IMMOKAIEE CRA j 0 i The Piece to Call Home 1 BY: ............... EZONE MOETING AGENDA State Enterprise Zone Development Agency Fiala_ Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta April 20, 2011 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Southwest Florida Works (Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee) 750 South 5d' Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum C. Adoption of Agenda. D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. EZDA Meeting —March 16, 2011 (Enclosure]) b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report - March, 2011 (Enclosure 2) F. Old Business. a. Pending Changes to the EZDA Programs, Legislative Report (Enclosure 3) G. New Business. H. Citizen Comments. 1. Next Meeting. April 16, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. iv,isa. Corres: Date: �O 118 1 Item #: Imo= l ►415 CO, er County Community Per ewel0onterrf Ayen<y 16 1, 1 A 15 IMMOKALEE CRA Enclosure I i The Ploce to Cafi Tome I MINUTES State Enterprise Zone Development Agency March 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 Committee /EZDA Members Present: Mike Facundo, Ski Olesky, Jeffrey Randall, Julio Estremera, Kitchell Snow, Floyd Crews, James Wall, Eva Deyo, Daniel Rosario, Melissa Martinez, and Lt. Drew Lee. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Absent/Excused: Carrie Williams, Ana Salazar, and Robert Halman. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Fred Reischl and Dottie Cook. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Marie Capita, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt. C. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Ms. Deyo seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes - EZDA Meeting — February 16, 2011 b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report - Feb, 2011 Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Wall seconded the motion and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. F. Old Business. G. New Business. a. Pending Changes to the EZDA Programs, Effective July 1, 2011: FIB 1275 & SB1820. This item was discussed under the CRA Advisory Board Meeting Item H.h. H. Citizen Comments. 1. Next Meeting. April 20, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 A.M. 161 1 A 15 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency In"AMOKALEE CRA i The Place to Coll Home 1 Certification of Minutes Approval Form Prepared by: Approved by: r Penny Plualippi,^Executive Wirector Michael "Mike" �acundo, Chairman Immokalce Community Redevelopment Agency These Minutes for the March lb, 2011, CRA Advisory Board /EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board /EZDA on April 20, 2011 as presented. *The next joint Advisory Board/EZDAAMPVC meeting will be held May 18, 2011 at 830A.M. at the Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5t" Street in Immokalce. ** 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 5i1' Street in hnmokalee 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 Immokatee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancow•t, Adn» nistrative Assistant, at 239 -252 -2313 for additional information. in accordance with the American Nvith Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancoart, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 haws before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the lnunokalee Master Plan and Visioning Connnittee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: FZDA, Immokalce Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalce 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 tune to time. CRA Board Commissioner James N. Criteria Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Georgia Hiller CRA Advisory Board Michael Facundo Chairman Edward "Ski Olesky Jeffrey Randall Robert Halman Ex- oLecio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar .lames Wall Pva Deyo Carrie Williams Melissa Martinez Daniel Rosario Lt Drew Lee CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239 252.2310 Bradley Muckel CRA Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt CRA Administrative Assistant 239 252.2313 Marie Capita IBDC Manager 239269.9629 Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant 239 269 9628 Comer Count' Co rmu ity Redeveloprienl Agen 6 1 1 (ALEE CRA Ruler �—��- Henning EZI i The Place to Call Horne! Coyle ✓ V& muaity.Redexelol)ment Agency Advisory Committee Agenda Coletta April 20, 2011 - 8:30 A.M. A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Introductions. D. Announcements. E. Adoption of Agenda. F. Communications. a. Public Notices G. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board March 16, 2011 (Enclosure 1) b. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices i. RWA, Inc. 1. March Monthly Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 2) ii. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) 1. March 2011 Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 3) c. CRA Project Manager Report (Enclosure 4) d. IBDC Manager Report (Enclosure 5) H. Old Business. a. Immokalee Area Master Plan. -Public Workshop. b. Review outstanding issues per BCC instruction. i. Synopsis of Environmental issues discussed at the March Meeting (Enclosure 6) ii. Draft Immokalee Area Master Plan Policy 6.1.7 (Enclosure 7) I. New Business. J. Citizen Comments. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adjournment * The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held May 18, 2011, at 8:30 A.M. at Southwest Florida Works, 750 South 5" 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 and the Immokalee Fire Commission. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Misc. Corres: Date: LQ 12-'%1 1% Item t %k'aw \ Y-! 1 le Co i.e: Ccuny Coremcuty ReceveloPment uyency IMMOKALEE CRA i The Ploce to Cat. dome! MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency March16, 20t 1 16I1A16 Enclosure 1 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 Committee /EZDA Members Present: Mike Facundo, Ski Olesky, Jeffrey Randall, Julio Estremera, Kitchell Snow, Floyd Crews, James Wall, Eva Deyo, Daniel Rosario, Melissa Martinez, and Lt. Drew Lee. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Absent/Excused: Carrie Williams, Ana Salazar, and Robert Halman. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Dottie Cook, Fred Reischl, Steve Hart, Bob Mulhere, and Chris Scott. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Marie Capita, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. Chairman Facundo introduced and welcomed the IBDC Manager, Marie Capita. Ms. Capita has a degree in Business Administration and a graduate degree in Law. Introductions were made by all. D. Announcements. a. Mr. Facundo announced that Julio Estremera had received a 5 -Years of Service Award, Feb 22, 2011 from the BCC and offered thanks and congratulations to Mr. Estremera. b. Ms. Phillippi informed the Committee that the CCPC will hear the LAMP on their Consent Agenda, March 17, 2011. Mr. Muckel will attend the meeting. She also informed the group that the IAMP will be heard by the BCC in an Adoption Hearing on April 12, 2011. Mr. Facundo encouraged all Committee members to attend. Mr. Bob Mulhere briefly discussed outstanding LAMP issues. C. Ms. Phillippi announced that all seven CRA Advisory Committee members were reappointed to the CRA Advisory Committee and the EZDA Board by the BCC. E. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall made a motion to approve the Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. F. Communications. a. The Communications Folder was reviewed briefly and passed around the room for review. G. Consent Agenda. Ms. Phillippi asked that the RWA, Inc. Monthly Report and Invoice be pulled from the Consent Agenda as staff had not yet received the February Invoice. Action: Ms. Eva Deyo made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda without the RWA February Monthly report and Invoice. The motion was seconded by Mr. Randall and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. a. Approval of Minutes. a. CRA Advisory Board February 16, 2011 (Enclosure 1) b. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices a. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) February 2011 Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 3) Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to approve payment to RWA up to $6,250 for the month of February when an invoice and report for February is submitted by RWA. Ms. Deyo seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. 161 1 A 16 H. Old Business. a. Immokalee Land Development Regulations — RWA Consulting, Mulhere & Associates. Mr. Scott provided a brief PowerPoint presentation on the LDRs as proposed for Immokalee. Mr. Mulhere addressed the list of concerns provided as a result of the community workshop held last Friday. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the Future Land Use Map and it was agreed to hold a meeting next week to review all concerns. a. Ms. Phillippi called the Committee's attention to Enclosure 4, the final copy of the Immokalee CRA 2010 Annual Report. She informed the Committee that the Report will be sent to the printer then sent by mail to each business within the Urban Area. b. Project Manager Report i. Mr. Muckel provided an overview of the Fagade Grant Program Monthly Activity Report for February 2011; a detailed review of the status of the Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan and the DRI Grant. He stated the project is on schedule and slated to begin in July 2011. ii. Mr. Muckel reiterated the hearing schedule for the Immokalee Area Master Plan (TAMP) and the Density Blending and environmental issues were discussed. iii. Mr. Muckel provided an update on the transportation issues, i.e., the CRA application for crosswalks and sidewalks. C. Ms. Phillippi called the Committee attention to the draft Immokalee Airport Letter requested by the Advisory Committee during the February meeting. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to approve the letter and send it forward to the BCC, Mr. Rosario seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. d. Ms. Phillippi reported to the Committee that the Housing Condition Grant in partnership with the Housing Consortium in Immokalee is moving forward. Meetings were held to develop the survey tools, temporary employees have been interviewed and a training session is scheduled for the 30'h of March. C. Ms. Phillippi reported that Mr. Bob Soter had resigned as Manager of the Immokalee Business Development Center (IBDC) and Ms. Capita has been hired. She also reported that the first Entrepreneur School will begin the first week in April. f Kitchell Snow reported that due to the recent influenza outbreak, believed to be caused by mosquitoes, there will be a tire pick -up on the 14 °i through the 19'h of March. He further stated that the last clean up on the South Side yielded 13 tons of rubbish. g. Mr. Steve Hart provided an update on marketing and legislative activities. He cited grave concern for a House Bill that would eliminate the EZone program statewide by July 1, 2011. The CRA Legislative trip is planned for the end of March. 1. New Business. a. CRA lease for space in the Barron Collier Building. The CRA Director informed the Committee that the cost for the Barron Collier Building is $3,000 per month plus Comp. The CRA offered $2,000 per month and is waiting to hear back from the Barron Collier Company. J. Citizen Comments. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting April 20, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adiournment. The meeting adjourned at 11:16 A.M. 161 1 A 16 Collier Counly Cornmuoily Redeveloprnent Agency I KA EE CRA i The Place to Call Home! Certification of Minutes Approval Form Prepared by: Approved by: Penny PhIj lippi, Exceuhve l erector Michael "Mike" Facundo, Chah-man Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency These Minutes for the March 16, 2011, CRA Advisory Board /EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board /EZDA or April 20, 2011 as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board /GZDA/lMPVC meeting will be held May 18, 2011 at 8:30A.M. at the Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5 "' 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 5a' Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be pnblicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the Counly Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie Betancourt, Athninistiative Assistant, at 239 -252 -2313 for additional information. ht 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 hones 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 Con inittees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Inmtokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, inatters corning before the IMPVC and the Advisory Beard may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Coninuttees from time to time. r { (+ , 4 rc 4, 201 1 BY: ....................... MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fiala Naples, Florida, March 14, 2011 Hiller ' ✓ Hennin Coyle Colette LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition 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 "P, 3`a Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHAIRMAN: Annisa Karim Tony Pires (Excused) Jeffrey Curl Jeremy Sterk Thomas Sobczak Clarence `Pears (Excused) Lauren Gibson (Vacancy) Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec.,Program Man. Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Tony Ruberto, Parks and Recreation Project Manager Mark Isackson, Director of Corporate Finance Therese Stanley, Sr. Budget Analyst Derrick Johnson, Clerk of Courts Finance Dept. Misc. Corres: Len GOlden- Price, Administrative Services Date: �-yI 1 item* 1 Y-A 1-7 1 - ^ies °o: March 14, 2011 J.Y. Marchand, Kimley -Boni and Assoc. Inc. 1. Roll Call Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Both Clarence Tears and Tony Pires are absent with excused absences. IL Approval of Agenda Mr. Curl moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following change: • Item VII.B. Jeremy Sterk, Chairman Second by Mr. Sterk. Carried unanimously 6 -- 0. fit. Approval of February 14, 2011 minutes Mr. Curl moved to approve the minutes of the February Id, 2011 meeting subject to the following change: • Page 6, paragraph 4, line 1 -2 - from "Mr. Pires moved to rescind the motion. Second by Mr. Curl." Carried unanimously 8 -- 0." to "Mr. Pires withdrew the motion. " Second by d1s. Karim. Carried unanimously h - 0. IV, Old Business A. Real Property Management Update Cindy Erb, Real Property Management reported: Winchester Head -There are 2 closing scheduled; 1 for 3/28/11 and 1 for 4/11/11. Unit 53 - There are 3 parcels scheduled for closings on 4/1 IA L 1. CREW Donation Cindy Erb presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve a Donation Agreement with Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Land and Water "Trust, incorporated (CREW) for 9.17 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed 41000" dated March 14, 2011. Staff is working with both the CREW and County attorney to resolve issues related to the standard indemnification language within the drafted contract. CREW has concerns that if there are hazardous substances found later on the property, that CREW would be held responsible. Conservation Collier staff advised that in an effort to resolve the concerns, they have provided to the CREW attorney two Phase I Environmental Site Assessments done in 2007, one done for 3 nearby properties and another done on the approx. 100 -acre previously farmed area just east of the CREW properties with no significant environmental issues uncovered. Additionally, Conservation Collier staff made a site inspection to the two CREW parcels last week and found no significant solid waste issues. The Committee was asked to approve the contract in concept pending resolution of the concern. Ms. Karin: moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Donation Agreement with Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Land and Water Trust, Incorporated (CREW) for 9.17 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to arceed $1000 subject to the County March 14, 2011 Attorney's Office approval of the agreement. Second by Vr. Curl. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. B. Gordon River Greenway Project— Update Alex Solecki provided the drawing "Gordon River Greenway, Park" prepared by Kimley Hom Assoc. and provided an update noting: • The application for the rezoning permit is in process. • The application for the US Army Corps of Engineers permit is in process. • She provided the document "Gordon River Greenway Park Neighborhood In%armation Meeting Synopsis" which outlined the talking points of the meeting. • The bridge connecting the Conservation Collier property with other areas of the Greenway is proposed to be constructed 11.0 feet above the mean high water line • Staff was asked at the Neighborhood Information meeting to include areas for bat habitat under the bridge. • The Gopher Tortoise is the only listed species on site targeted for mitigation. • Of the 600 spaces available for parking, 52 are located in the "north node," 14 spaces at the kayak launch and 13 spaces in the shared parking area with an additional 12 available if necessary. • Risk Management requested the proposed bridge be "posted" for "no fishing except in designated areas " and "no jumping from the bridge. " • Options for providing fishing opportunities include platforms constructed in areas adjacent to the bridge or along trails in designated areas. • There will be a site visit on April 1, 2011 and the Committee acknowledged Mr. Curl has been invited to attend. • The proposed hours of operation and artificial lighting of the areas are still under consideration. Discussion occurred on the reason for proposing the bridge at 11.0 feet above the mean high water line as the bridge over the Gordon River at US41 is only 10.0 feet above the mean high water line. J.P. Marchand, Kimley -Horn & Associates noted the height requirement for the bridge is &0 feet above the mean high water line. The bridge is proposed 1 1.0 feet above the mean high water line in an attempt to expedite issuance of permits. The cost difference for constructing the bridge at this height versus a 10.0 foot high bridge is approximately $5000. He reported an ideal location to allow public fishing would be an upland area, immediately adjacent to the river southerly of the proposed bridge. S esker Ellie Krier, Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust noted she has been communicating with the Naples Airport Authority regarding future parking options on property controlled by the Authority. JoUNWA March 14, 201 L Bridge options — Kimley -Horn & Associates Staff provided the documents "Bridge Cost Comparison," and "Gordon River Greenwt ty Park° which compared of 3 types of bridges (Timber, Concrete or Steel) which could be constructed to connect the Conservation Collier property with other property within the Greenway. Alex Solecki noted the proposed budget for the bridge is $384,000. Staff is requesting a recommendation from the Committee on which type of bridge should be constructed. J.P. Marchand reviewed the documents which and outlined the advantages and disadvantages of each style of bridge. At the NIM, a rowers club, for safety purposes, had requested the span of the piers be a width of 100 feet. Mr. Sobczak moved to recommend the bridge be an IPE /Umber bridge with concrete abutments at spans of 100 feet. Second by Ms. Karim. Discussion occurred on the cost/benefit of constructing the bridge with spans of 100 feet versus 66 foot spans. The cost to construct 100 foot spans is $30,000 greater than spans 66 feet in length. It was noted no one was present from the rowers club to provide testimony and concern was expressed on the concept of expending additional funds for one particular group of users. In addition, should the Committee provide a recommendation on the proposed height of bridge? Mr. Sobezak amended the motion to recommend the bridge be an !PE wood/timber bridge with concrete abutments at spans of 66 feet and be proposed at a height of 11.0,%eet above the mean high water line. Second by Ms. Karim. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. Speaker Ellie Krier, Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust reported there will be an Economic Development Council "Project Innovation" event our March 16, 2011 from 4pm — 6pm at the Naples Zoo showcasing the Gordon River Greenway. The proposed lighting for the Greenway is intended to incorporate "International Dark - Slry Association" recommendations. The Stakeholder meeting scheduled for March 18, 2011 should be re- scheduled due to a conflict with meetings in Lee County to be held on this day. C. Preserve Ordinance — Update Alex Solecki noted the Board of County Commissioners has directed Staff to prepare a separate preserve Ordinance within the Parks and Recreation Department Ordinance. Staff is developing the Ordinance for review at the May meeting (if feasible). Any Preserves closed to public use may be posted for "no trespassing" and enforced as necessary. D. Budget Workshop 1. Bond Early Pay -off 4 March 14, 2011 Staff provided the document "Conservation Collier Carry Forward Analysis Fund 172 FYI — FYI,? with 2008 Debt Series Paid in FYI I" dated 3/14/11 for information purposes. Mark Isackson, Director of Corporate Finance noted the proposal to pay off the bond by May 1, 2011 would save the Program $55,000. Financial projections through 2025 indicate the early pay off would not have a major financial impact on the Program. However, the proposal may have a negative impact on the County's ability to acquire lands under the Program for approximately 6 — 8 months. Ms. Karim moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners `pay off" the Conservation Collier 2008 Bond "early. " Second by Mr. Sterk. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. 2. Categorization of Preserves Melissa Hennig provided the document "Proposed Conservation Collier Preserve Categories "dated 3114/11 and outlined the parameters for the Preserves to be categorized. Ms. Karim proved to categorize the Preserves as follows: Category 1 — Primary Use Preserves: Pepper Ranch, Gordon River Green way, Freedom Park, Otter Mound Category 1 — Intermediate Use Preserve: Rivers Road, Railhead, Nancy Payton, Cocohatchee Creek Category 3 — Neiehborhand (Limited Use) Preserve: Caracara Prairie, Limpkin Marsh, Logan Woods Category 4 — Seasonal Use Preserve Panther Walk, Alligator Flag Category S — Resource Protection /Restoration Use Preserve: Wet Woods, Mcllvane Marsh, Red Maple Swamp, Winchester Head, Shell Island, Camp Keais Strand Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. 3. Prioritization of Preserve Amenities Melissa Hennig provided the document "Conservation Collier Preserve Public Amenity Matrix" dated 3/14/11, "2001 Parkes Invemorv" dated 2114/11 and "Conservation Collier Preserves and Collier County Parks," for consideration. She requested the Committee prioritize the Preserves to facilitate the sequence of amenities to be provided at individual Preserves. Ms. Karim moved to prioritize the Preserves as follows: 1. Gordon River Greenway 2. Pepper Ranch (parking and restrooms) 161 1A17 March 14, 2011 I Caracara Prairie 4. ,Vancy Payton Preserve 5. Mcllvane Marsh, Red Maple Swamp, Winchester Head (signage) S. Rivers Road 9. Pepper Ranch (boardwalk) 10. Wet Woods 11. Railhead Scrub 12. Gordon River Green way Bridge —City of Vaples Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. E. Caracara Prairie Gopher Tortoise Relocation Site Policy Melissa Hennig provided the "Caracara Prairie Preserve Gopher Tortoise Recipient Site Policy " — February 2011" dated 3114111 for approval. S taker Caitlin Weber, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern the site will be a "temporary site" without a conservation easement. They are opposed to the policy as it proposes to accept privately donated tortoises at a site being developed utilizing public funding. NIr. Curl moved to approve the "Caracara Prairie Preserve Gopher Tortoise Recipient Site Policy" — February 2011 " subject to the following changes: 1. The document provides a reference the site is a temporary relocation site. 2. Incorporate the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission fee schedule as necessary into the document. 3. Item #3, provide language indicating the Policy will be reviewed annually. 4. Item #7, provide reference that the authorized Collier County Agent has the right to inspect Gopher Tortoises in an attempt to determine the status of their health before accepting the subject Gopher Tortoise. Second by Ms. Karim. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. F. Next Meeting Alex Solecki reported unless Committee business warrants, the meeting for April will be postponed with the next regular meeting to be held in May. V. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program Alex Solecki noted Committee Member Tony Pires has been recognized as an " Outstanding Advisory Committee Member." V'1. Coordinator Communications Alex Solecki noted: Staff completed a comprehensive review of the Lost Mines Excavation Permit application to determine if there are any impacts on Caracara Prairie Preserve. The application should not have any direct negative impacts on the Preserve. One outcome of the review is Conservation Collier Staff will be alerted by County Staff when land development applications are proposed in the vicinity of the Programs' Preserve. 6 March 14, 2011 There are changes effective March 15, 2011 in the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) possibly impacting trails in Collier County Preserves. Staff will forward the information to Committee members for their review. Collier County is seeking public individuals to participate in Focus Groups on how service quality should he measured and reported. There will be an EDC "Prajectlnnovation — Pillars of the Community" event showcasing the Gordon River Greenway on March 16, 2011 at the Naples Zoo from 4pm -- 6pm. The event has been noticed for more than one Member attending but members are advised not to speak with each other at the event. The Committee determined the appropriate Subcommittees should review the new ADA standards in regard to Preserve trails to determine what action, if tiny, should be undertaken by the County. VII. Sub - Committee Meeting Reports A. Outreach — 'Pony Pires, Chair None B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Jeremy Sterk, Chair A meeting was held on 3/4/11 where bike and horse trails for Pepper Ranch were discussed. Jeremy Sterk was elected Chainnan and Lauren Gibson was elected Vice - chair of the subcommittee. C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures — Annisa Karim, Chair None VIII. Chair Committee Member Comments Ms. Karim noted the Board of County Commissioners has suspended the Program's acquisitions "unless it is a good deal" and questioned how Staff may proceed on identifying properties for acquisition given the decision. Staff noted the decision by the BCC does not preclude Staff from continuing to identify potential landowners who wish to sell or donate properties to the Program. In addition, applicants are not precluded from offering properties at prices below appraisal levels. IX. Public General Comments None X. Staff Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 12:07P.M. March 141f� 1 Conservation Collier (land Acquisition Advisory Committee i Bill Poteet, ChairmaW i These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on y as presented or as amended 1A17 1611 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 April 21, 2011 AGENDA I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Call Meeting to Order Attendance Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes: March 17, 2011 Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Reuse Mixing Chamber — Warren Street C. Doral Bridge Project VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review & Approval FY -2012 MSTU Budget C. Review of the To Do List IX. Committee Reports X. Old Business XI. New Business XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment A18 1 v 2 BY: ....................... Fiala y - Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta The next meeting is May 19, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South %11sc. Gorres: Naples, FL 34104 Date: Item #:1�.7�_1 *4k I �1 161 JA A I Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU D 13(u )3IId3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South KA `' 2 :i tGl Naples, A 34104 March 17, 2011 AGENDA Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda Fiala Hiller IV. Approval of Minutes: February 17, 2011 Hennin Coyle V. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera Colette 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 IX. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review & Approval FY -2012 MSTU Budget C. Review of the To Do List X. Committee Reports XI. Old Business A. Pinehurst Estates Signage B. Christmas Decorations XII. New Business A. Master Plan Discussion XIII. Public Comments XIV. Adjournment Misc. Cones: The next meeting is April 21, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Date:.�412a 1 \ Growth Management Division - Construction & MaintenancP� # �l ► Y \ 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Napes. FL 34104 1bk1A18 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 March 17, 2011 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M. IL Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert (Excused), David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manger, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Darlene Lafferty— Juristaff Ill. Approval of Agenda Remove: IX. B. Review & Approval FY -2012 MSTU Budget David Larson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: February 17, 2011 Jennifer Tanner moved to approve the February 17, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Darryl Richard reviewed the following Budget items: • Operating Expense Open P.O.s $66,448.57 • Reserves for Contingency $3,300.00 (placeholder for the General Budget process) Robert Slebodnik questioned if the total monies needed for the Pumping Station Project are included in the budget. Darryl Richard responded affirmatively, monies are allocated for the entire Pumping Station Project. Discussion ensued on the delayed status of the Warren Street Meter installation. 161 1 A 18 Darryl Richard reported: o The order to install the Meter was submitted to FPL Robert Slebodnik inquired on the amount of the previous Water Bill. Staff responded: o Warren Street Water Bill was $558.46 for January 21St to February 23rd Pam Lulich noted Water Bills are trending downward due to the collaborative efforts by CLM, Mike McGee, and Staff to correct Irrigation issues: • November Water Bill - $2,771.64 • January Water Bill - $791.95 • February Water Bill - $558.46 Darryl Richard stated an email to Kate Donofrio will be sent today for the following: • To advise Warren Street is using Potable Water • Request FPL install the Meter posthaste VI. Irrigation System Evaluation Mike McGee reviewed the Recommended Operating Schedule and Water Use Report: (See attached) o A table was added to account for Manual Operation by the Contractor (10 minutes per week) 0 1 day will be added to the Watering Schedule if wilting occurs during the dry season VII. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Robert Kindelan reported the following: • Routine Maintenance is being conducted • March Fertilization is complete • Pest treatments are ongoing to control Chili Thrips on the Plumbago VIII. Landscape Architect's Report— McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report (See attached) Mike McGee reviewed the following Maintenance items: • CLM Replanting Estimate - Approval is pending • Gamma Derma on the Palm Trees are showing heavy signs of deterioration • Requested CLM hand prune the Crown of Thorn 1611'A18 Plant height recommendations for Sight Line View Areas: • Must be maintained in accordance with FDOT Standards • Is only applicable to Intersecting Roadways • Pebble Beach Maintain Baltusrol (intersection) at 18 -24 inches - Entire Median must be considered (not just median tips) • Possible Bougainvillea nutritional deficiency on Forest Hills and St. Andrews (median 10) - Recommended a change in the Fertilization Program - Maintaining the Plant at the existing height is acceptable if the new Fertilization Program produces colorful blooms • Plant Materials on Pebble Beach (north of Baltusrol) are in the weakest condition • Perceived raising the Plant height (in select areas) will create a complicated Pruning process and suggested - To maintain the Plant Material at the current height - Give the new Fertilization Program sufficient time to perform before making changes to the Plant height B. Reuse Mixing Chamber - Warren Street - Previously discussed under V. C. Doral Bridge Project Darryl Richard reported: • The Project is out to Bid • Bids are due by March 31St D. Lighting Study - Pebble Beach Robert Slebodnik reported on the Lely Civic Association meeting: o Survey results - 64.82% of the Community are in favor of the Project - 13% were opposed - Comments indicated the majority of opposing Residents live on Pebble Beach Circle - 6 were undecided - Total of 54 ballots were returned IX. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following Reports: A. Project Managers Report (See attached) (L -47) Installation of Mixing Chamber o Electrical Inspection was approved by the County B. Review of the To Do List (See attached) Item 4 - Sign Refurbishment: Doral Circle and Augusta at Forest Hills o Refurbishment is underway by Sign Craft 1611A18 Tony Branco reported the Contractor advised an analysis is needed to determine the cause of deterioration on the finish (prior to sanding.) David Larson noted the Signs have been restored numerous times and perceived using Marble for the Signage would save cost (based on current prices.) Discussion took place on using Marble for the Signs. After discussion it was concluded that the Contractor is in the initial stage of the Refurbishment process and changes to the Sign are possible. Darryl Richard will request a Quote from Sign Craft to install a Marble Sign on Doral Circle. Item 5 Planting Sunshine Mimosa at Valley Stream o Staff submitted a CLM Quote $1,040.00 to relocate the DC Controller on Warren Street to Valley Stream Median (See attached) Jennifer Tanner moved to approve $1,040.00 to CLM to relocate the DC Controller from Warren Street to Valley Stream. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard reviewed a Change Order by Hannula ($138.00) to install an additional Bollard (for safety purposes.) Robert Slebodnik moved to approve $138.00 to Hannula Landscaping to purchase another Bollard and install it at the Warren Street Pumping Station. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard presented a Quote by McGee and Associates ($12,752.00) for Final Design and Contract Administration Professional Services on the Pebble Beach Lighting Project. Robert Slebodnik suggested tabling the Project for the present time. The Committee concurred to table the Lighting Project. X. Committee Reports -None XI. Old Business A. Pinehurst Estates Signage — Previously discussed under IX. B. B. Christmas Decorations Staff will confer with Kathleen Dammert prior to the April meeting. 1614 A 18 XII. New Business A. Master Plan Discussion Darryl Richard explained the goal of a Master Plan is: • To acknowledge publically the Committee's goals • Identify new Construction Projects • Establish a suitable time to enter into a Maintenance mode XIII. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:15 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Slebodnik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended X The next meeting is April 21, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 I 16 -1 1 iA 18 Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: March 17, 2011 Lely MSTU Project Status (L -50) ACTIVE - Relocation of DC Controller on Warren St. to Valley Stream 03- 17 -11: Staff has requested quote for relocation from Commercial Land Maintenance. Quote is pending. (L -49) ACTIVE - Lighting Study (Pebble Beach pilot study for lighting options) 03- 17 -11: Concept has been presented at the following meetings: 1) December 16, 2010 MSTU Meeting. 2) Saturday, January 8, 2011 Lely Civic Association (9 am) 3) February 22, 2011 - Lely Civic Association "Annual Meeting" (6 pm - 7 pm) 03- 17 -11: Per our survey sheets which were distributed during the February 22, 2011 Lely Golf Estates Civic Association annual meeting. We had the following tabulation results: Number of counted votes Percentage of total votes 35 votes in favor of the lighting project 64.82% 13 votes against the lighting project 24.07% 6 votes 'undecided' regarding the lighting project 11.11% Total of 54 ballots returned 100% (L -48) ACTIVE - Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge (Committee Request for `lighting on bridge') 03- 17 -11: Project Bid Documents are advertised through Purchasing Dept. - Bids are due Mar. 31" (L-47) ACTIVE -- Installation of Mixing Chamber 03- 17 -11: On 3 -15 -11 Richard Long, Chief Building Inspector, Collier County confirmed that the FPL meter has been ordered for installation for Warren Street Mixing Chamber. Meter installation is pending from FPL. Staff request confirmation of proper grounding prior to equipment being energized (note: does not affect meter installation). Reading of no greater than 10 ohms is required for proper grounding of Motorola equipment. (L -34) - ACTIN - On Going - Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 niches"; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service (ref: notification originally sent on 6 -30 -09 to CLM via email) 03- 17 -11: Ongoing Maintenance is by Commercial Land Maintenance (L -45) ACTIVE - On Going - McGee Annual LA Services - Landscape Architectural Services 03- 17 -11: McGee & Associates under ongoing contract. 101 161 1 A 18 March 17, 2011 Lely MSTU "To Do List" Subrogation Recovery: a. Accident 859;Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: cost of repairs $515.00; pending accident report/recovery. b. Accident # 947; Found on 0145 -10 on Forest Hills Blvd. Status: cost of repairs $607.00 ; pending accident report/recovery. c. Accident # 1055; Found on 10 -26 -10 at median tip -St. Andrews at US 41 Status: cost of repairs $540.00; pending accident report/recovery. 2. PENDING: Sidewalks on US 41 at St. Andrews — ADA Compliance: Status: Project has been brought to attention of FDOT for funding to address ADA deficiencies noted. 3. PENDING: Painting Pinehurst Estates Signs Status: Completed 4. PENDING: Sign Refurbishment: (1) Doral Circle, and (2) Augusta @ Forest Hill Status: Refurbishment is in process. 5. PENDING: Planting Sunshine Mimosa at Valley Stream Status: CLM to provide quote. Quote has been reviewed and approved — recommendation is to hold off on plantings until new irrigation controller is installed. New Irrigation control system (DC controller from Warren St.) is to be installed by CLM prior to installation of new plants. Also, recommendation is for planting after last frost (Mar. 15th). 6. Lighting Presentations by McGee & Associates Status: Completed: Mike McGee made presentation on dates listed: 1) December 16, 2010 MSTU Meeting. 2) Saturday, January 8, 2011 Lely Civic Association (9 am) 3) February 22, 2011 - Lely Civic Association "Annual Meeting" (6 pm— 7 pm) 0 1611A1g i RichardDar I From: Dale Hannula [ DHannula @hannulalandscaping.comj Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:35 AM To: RichardDarryl Subject: Lely Mixing Chamber Darryl: The cost of the material and labor for the additional guard post is $ 138.00. Our contract unit price was $ 428.00 for each post. As I had an extra post available, I am able to discount the cost and not have to pay for shipping and materials. Please add to your time line extension change order if you can. Thank you, Dale Hannula 3 -8 -11 v,tivx�vc c i:rrrr<4axt ey; Dale Hannula 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239 - 992 -2210 Office 239 - 498 -6818 Fax dhannula(@hannulaiandscaping.com 1 Commercial Land Maintenance Full Service Landscape Management 3980 Exchange Avenue • Naples, FL 34104 Office: (239) 643 -6205 • Fax: (239) 643 -5012 E -mall: info@commiandmaint.net BILL TO: trother County Dept of T €anspor taiaoka 330 East Tantiams TraO Naples, t=t 3-4112 LEI_V N1 S'4 2/21!2011 LEL Y IOSTU, 4500122710 161 1 ! A 18 ES Vii: A?W. CUSTOMER NO. g I irrivation Technician &rpenvrsor Labor to r rrlo r eXi tint€ I Scorpio a rtenna. ants base. from Warren Street and it staff, add r Ottnti rt tIS : f €rC {t cation (eri Vatie , � lam T est s, 0 I udgation Technican Labor to assist. PARS PROVIDED EY COUNTY Please Note- Tile PFsfirnated work how-5 MaY be higher or depending on actual hours expended_ actual hours iNilf be- 162541 - 634999 55.00 520.00 55.00 520.00 TOTAL THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT TERMS ON REVERSE SIDE 1.5% WILL BE ADDED MONTHLY TO ALL INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS UNTIL PAID S i - 0 40.()0 EQ 16 11 1A 18 RichardDar I ' From: RichardDarryl Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 2:14 PM To: Darlene; jenntann13 @aol.com; Katy Dammert (katdammert@aol.com); Robert Slebodnick Chairman President (Rslebodnik @aol.com); Tony Branco (tjbvista @earthlink.net) Cc: LulichPamela; ArnoldMichelle; SilleryTessie; JacobsSusan; 'McgeeAssoc @aol.com'; Office Manager; Norm Trebilcock (ntrebilcock @trebilcock.biz) Subject: Results of Lighting Survey per February 22, 2011 Lely Golf Estates Civic Association - Lely MSTU Presentation Importance: High Lely MSTU advisory committee, Per our survey sheets which were distributed during the February 22, 2011 Lely Golf Estates Civic Association annual meeting. We had the following tabulation results: Number of counted votes Percentage of total votes 35 votes in favor of the lighting project 64.82% 13 votes against the lighting project 24.07% 6 votes 'undecided' regarding the lighting project 11.11% Total of 54 ballots returned 100% See attached for copy of ballots returned (note: some individuals wrote in comments) C C 35 IN FAVOR.pdf 13 AGAINST.pdf 6 UNDECIDED.pdf Thank you, Darryl Richard, RLA MSTU Project Manager Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 telephone: 239 - 252 -5775 Fax: 239-252-6627 Cell: 239 -253 -9083 Tracking: ►o X,� &,4"O 161 1A18 Landscape Architecture February 16, 2011 Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager Lely Golf Estates Beautification, M.S.T.U. Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Proposal of Final Design and Contract Administration Professional Services for Lely Golf Estates MSTU Beautification District Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Improvements. PO#4500115729 (2011 -003P MOD -02) Project Name: Pebble Beach Blvd. Accent Street Lighting Project Dear Mr. Richard: McGee & Associates is presenting the following proposal of services for your review and approval. McGee & Associates (M & A) agrees to provide the following "Scope of Services" related to the final design and contract administration services for the above listed project. The project area will generally be described as the road right -of -way and easement areas of Pebble Beach Blvd. from St. Andrews Blvd. to Big Springs Dr. North. See attached 'Project Task and Fee Schedule" Sheet for design service hours and costs. Scope of Services 1.1 Planning Research and review applicable Collier County and F.D.O.T. ordinances, codes, standards, indexes and or regulations related to subdivision street lighting within roadway right -of -way areas. Design will generally comply with the latest edition of Collier County Construction in Public Right - of -way Ordinance 93 -64 Construction Standards Handbook. 1.1.1 Coordinate with Collier County Departments and Staff to establish compliance appropriate design parameters. Coordinate and respond to staff review comments at this phase to resolve issues, as applicable. 2.1 Final Design Construction documents to be prepared per F.D.O.T. "Design Standards" indexes and the "Plans Preparation Manual' Volume I & II criteria and processes and in general compliance to the Collier County Right -of -Way Ordinance 93 -64 current edition. Attend necessary public, staff, and /or project on -site meetings for the project design development and provide required written correspondence, verbal communications, or presentations for the project development. 2.1.1 Prepare final construction drawings, details, and specifications for the bidding and installation of median and right -of -way accent street lighting along Pebble Beach Blvd. Final design to be based upon the Lely Golf Estates MSTU Advisory Committee recommendations and the "Accent Street Lighting Evaluation" 1212010 final report. Final lighting design to minimally include items as follows: a. Subdivision Code Compliant Accent Street Lighting Plan b. Lighting & Landscape Material Schedules and Tabulation of Quantities C. Installation details and reference to applicable County lighting standards and FDOT Design Standard Indexes Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 LC 098 ` FL 1023A Page 2, 2/16/2011 16 1 1 A 18 Darryl Richard, Project Mgr. Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Improvements 2011 -003P, MOD -02 d. Provide plans and /or specifications for renovation and replacement of existing landscape and irrigation disturbed during the proposed lighting installation. 2.1.2 Prepare County approved bidding and installation written specifications for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Document. 2.1.3 Develop opinion of cost related to the approved final construction drawings to determine if project is within proposed budget. 2.1.4 Coordinate and respond to Staff review comments at this phase to resolve issues, as applicable. 3.1 Permitting 3.1.1 Supply and submit required permit drawings to Collier County for approvals. 3.1.2 Provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or presentations for the project permitting. 3.1.3 Coordinate and respond to Staff review comments at this phase to resolve issues, as applicable. 4.1 Contract Administration 4.1.1 Assist Collier County in developing contract documents for bidding and installation purposes. 4.1.2 Assist in bidding process and provide review and recommendation for award of contract. 4.1.3 Provide on -site observations for services during construction to determine compliance with plans and specifications, as well as review and approve pay request applications. 5.1 Sub Consultants 5.1.1 Provide professional electrical Engineering services for design, permitting, and services during construction services. 6.1 Reimbursable Per Design services "Professional Landscape Architectural Services" Contract #08 -5060. 7.1 Estimated Design Services Schedule 7.1.1 M & A shall render its services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care. During the course of the Project, anticipated and unanticipated events may impact any Project schedule. Days listed are working days, excluding weekends, and official holidays. Task Description 1.1 through 2.1 Design Start: 60% Plans Submittal 90% Plans Submittal Final Plan Submittal: Task Description 4.1 Services During Construction: _/ / 21 days from Notice to Proceed 7 days from review comments 7 days from review comments 90 days Page 3, 2/16/2011 161 1 'A 18 Darryl Richard, Project Mgr. Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Improvements 2011 -003P, MOD -02 7.1.2 Proposed project budget is $ 108,000 ( + / -). County agrees to promptly notify M & A, if schedule or budget changes. County acknowledges that significant changes to the Project schedule, budget, or the Project's scope may require Additional Services of M & A. Any Additional Services beyond the "Scope of Services" will require an additional fee, to be mutually agreed on in writing by both parties. Excluded Services The professional services to be provided by are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded, including, but not limited to the following items: • Environmental Services • Geotechnical Engineering Services • Hydro geological Services • Land Surveying Services • Public Hearing Attendance • Full Time Construction Observation Services vCCIt d 1g 70 Michael A. McGee, r.l.a. President, McGee & Associates. LC 098 n-it 161'A18 N c m U ge osoo aoA� gooQoQ mN a�m,'r Rimy °mom gi iVe N OQQ �` p Og O OqQ OO O O O- �Q N J gyp c E m�W W WH NNNy� NpN N Ntt� d J y N m N GN O H N' NNE MN NN O b n f N j 0 W N a a U O w %! W # r CIO, aG3� E w i .cif °o °O °o JQU - m K K M all N H M w M d N 01 Z_ i 61 pq W �d WNM ^NfNON mM1y�`y+ MH�NN N v < H M M N N ~ ig UY. � O C • U i. p n ,.. .8 .6 �mm 00 W f top'f, G J W O'j 7 O Q�°.Wy�N HNN pN... NNnjN NN m U ZQ Z Kr N Ny W y a< ai LLO QN H K W < W H J m LL W M )F} W m v Q F 0 LL ZOO V m E ZO ° Z O �<OK �� N Q O ZrV = a C> OuV 6 x O 1 W Z ° �m (r W z U Z LL i O 0 aZ rc O 0 K H C. OW ; aZ a JOQ O Q N c m U MMM� �Zocz �M>>�Xmw,<Mmc UMW cc) �M OMO-ZO G)XX ><CMM-��x MMMZC)G)ZZ:4mo�m--�F)M,>Z��c-)Z-M*xm,m X< Z,Mmzzmxx(,=>> MOMMM 0 >;O Ml 0 <<<M��M�OF,W�>M �wz> 00 M_ MMCZWKT< C-) z < �Ox wm�zo�� M,O �>K ma�zm w< _0�0 Ott M W�7 M 000��W—_C�MOT G) 0 U) OMMMM ;0 M M MMOZZ Q>M�p mz> w ow��2(0,M� Q.M**X'X'50��000 M MM >c)�Mm OM>>00 M 00 Z> M w M�O�UOMMWO>< M M�O x 7�n M MMMMM��Mwook2tmc-owoo MM 2, 2 C) ZW (f) c: cn -0 � — w 0 M mm� mo� , z KK�Mo� K Ow-> K-<0 ZODW �Mm M M - 00 9 w �0-0 ZC)F) Zz z M z �>Em M2�, CZ Z M :� 2 M;O c M IE OG) , , �;O � 0 zu) M G) w z > > >zm �M M _-� c) M >z OM 0 MM 0 z K �>c F, MZ0, zc)w,x > M M M C 00 > ZM 0 > 0� M (Z) M) F c. t > 0 W 2 M 2 M OM M M M 0 00 w M > M M M K � M;c 0 > K z M x 1 0 > M > z M 0 p a - � � CD a ��3 Wnw -c; w b o _� w -W =no w �C)n000 00000m�o C, omo pop W 0-00non �n000000 0 Ono �W� on w nsn�s?so 0�0 wm� Nw G) G) Q G) G) Q G) G), 7Rbmb�xz M N N M M ww� M—Mw- ..... R-O ........ 0 Q z 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 OX E).�q MM m,c5x _W_4p� - - c 0 a 0 a now ow�o M 0000on o 0 0 Ono In O�w .... 'M�WOOM"N w _�Mwowm M� 0 (0 > r_ c M c- F_ c: � w 5 0 M M7 7 X:E � xx � p a - � � CD a ��3 Wnw -c; w b o _� w -W =no w �C)n000 00000m�o C, omo pop W 0-00non �n000000 0 Ono �W� on w nsn�s?so 0�0 wm� Nw G) G) Q G) G) Q G) G), 7Rbmb�xz 0 0 O&C , C Q I >>>>>> > > 00 0 ww� M—Mw- ..... R-O ........ 0 Q z 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 OX E).�q MM m,c5x c 0 a 0 a now ow�o M "M In O�w .... 'M�WOOM"N w _�Mwowm M� 0 (0 > r_ c M c- F_ c: � w 5 0 M M7 7 X:E � xx � no n 0 Mon om_�Wo M M , I �F 0 M 1 0 . n OW C I@=_4qMg>-=C> >>Z EEC a@a'w ww" x -Dww On HIM 0 on 4 *11 M��Er�. -am . . . . W, CO p a - � � CD a ��3 Wnw -c; w b o _� w -W =no w �C)n000 00000m�o C, omo pop W 0-00non �n000000 0 Ono �W� on w nsn�s?so 0�0 wm� Nw G) G) Q G) G) Q G) G), 7Rbmb�xz 0 0 O&C , C Q I >>>>>> > > 00 0 0 ..... R-O ........ 0 Q z 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 OX E).�q MM m,c5x c 0 a 0 M M�MMM�M M� In O�w .... 'M�WOOM"N w _�Mwowm M� 0 (0 > r_ c M c- F_ c: � w 5 0 M M7 7 X:E � xx � M M , I �F 0 M 1 0 . n OW C I@=_4qMg>-=C> >>Z EEC a@a'w Mg. WWCno��R'w Om x -Dww On HIM 0 on 4 *11 M��Er�. -am . . . . W, CO x -a In Houg��,MMT w :E 0 m w 0 z w Cr . m5zg. M 0 En. a 0 + 6.0 In M M :y On 'c oom�, nm. C) C' c n o 6 c, On r, �,Dw,vm"M 6 Onno o on - cl-I 0 3 MMO E E wam 0. MMO �MO�o 41 wwm�o �L tt im U > r- -11 M C z ic c 16 11 'A 18 Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: April 21, 2011 Lely MSTU Project Status (L -50) COMPLETED— Relocation of DC Controller on Warren St. to Valley Stream 04- 21 -11: Project completed; Commercial Land Maintenance relocated controller to Valley Stream. (L -49) ON HOLD - Lighting Study (Pebble Beach pilot study for lighting options) 04- 21 -11: Concept approved by community through public meetings. Project on hold at this time — as current projects (Mixing Chamber & Doral Bridge) are the focus of the advisory committee. (L-48) ACTIVE — Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge 04- 21 -11: Bid results not acceptable. Rejection of the one bid received is recommended. At this time staff is reviewing option of using annual contractors. (L-47) COMPLETED — Installation of Mixing Chamber 04- 21 -11: Mixing Chamber is 100% operational. Staff is coordinating with contractor, consultant, and irrigation project manager to optimize performance of the mixing chamber. (L -34) - ACTIVE - On Going — Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches'; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service (ref: notification originally sent on 6 -30 -09 to CLM via email) 04- 21 -11: Ongoing Maintenance is by Commercial Land Maintenance (L -45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 04- 21 -11: McGee & Associates under ongoing contract. 6 0 V d =3 d 3, N LI m= m n A H 6 v o O 0 W T x n K c N N N :d a A 6w bT 0 O m 3. a A 0 a N ° w m 0 3 m d 5 d LO D Q O 161,E O m o A 0 0; r M o� D K N � C ° C 0 N O �m �p o° o 0 a 33 3 0 m 3 — O j C N y N -I T Q O N m O N - (n O 3 Q a y q D X O 0 � { N N d N .Z1 m 2 O a0 8 nO °o p��TTTo S O N ,� ��iTTDD111111 'm w O p { C O N 3 O I T °_� Di D o =r m °A mid n�a o 0 N C o l v m m m C 1D M m o i y O 0 -0 °O m y am m no m N O O Ss > am 3 m 0 Z Z K N �� O m y A x o N O N m N o ° a m T c N m' Z T. 3 m m > > > o a X m m m v o D m m _. 5 D z m m K a ,a o 'm m ° 0 (p N s 0 r a �y h0 r' Rct rD ID 1 • 3 eases 0 3 o 3 a 3 o 3 0 3 a 0 3 as 0 9 o 3 a e 3 a > 3 a > a 6 y P c w +D 0 r Cz C O D m 3 222 mm- 1- 1 AM$° 11 mIOm81 o m c 3. u � Um am m 19 3 � °c m° o m o m m �.s ° , m m m ' o q a m ° N. �°�0 3� 3 m m' °$ n N °-o o g am oaDS m -ugmv 35n33 g s�m.mvmm 3,=x.3 m 2 .'»3 w °m 3'3 of ; a g n 3g 0 0 g- v o- g n. m 3 a O W 0 1 . @.a :.V m(2 m 5' S. � m�a C o s ms_�° �fo , I�qsr� a vial g 31 m'�05 w_Tda o2�a m Tma O z a d 8 93 S °< � g ' x � °< 20 o iK $ m 3 �°t 2$ 3 m a °� m in9 O o ,D< m daQm 'o o �m 3° myS °��a '� 3 ° oNm min 3 'o °o n v macs z O 3u �3m �3W a H < m -po V a. i0 9L D m m d c p0p� mo N m Y M P. �0 a a m v O z M M 0 n O 3 M z 161,E O m o A 0 0; r M o� D K N � C ° C 0 N O �m �p o° o 0 a 33 3 0 m 3 — O j C N y N -I T Q O N m O N - (n O 3 Q a y q D X O 0 � { N N d N .Z1 m 2 O a0 8 nO °o p��TTTo S O N ,� ��iTTDD111111 'm w O p { C O N 3 O I T °_� Di D o =r m °A mid n�a o 0 N C o l v m m m C 1D M m o i y O 0 -0 °O m y am m no m N O O Ss > am 3 m 0 Z Z K N �� O m y A x o N O N m N o ° a m T c N m' Z T. 3 m m > > > o a X m m m v o D m m _. 5 D z m m K a ,a o 'm m ° 0 (p N s 0 r a �y h0 r' Rct rD ID 1 • V m v 3 o w � 3 N GI .N. m m $ V � � b � s V O O V 0 N T D K o u N N O m m V w O i a m c.1 0 m N O W v m N Q M n 0 0 01 d m N >c ■l d 7 3 c O w 16.1 IA 18 yy r' N n G H m 3� fJ LaSmj n a a; m �qf c 66 6 n ^+ 0 2 A •s 2 0 n 3 Si p 3 6 W 3 &' V 33 FU W N 3 &' A m < w 3 3 $ o m 0 'o w m 33'1 Fu N o o. O O Z O a PC D m < O T M D m Q1 D � n D -j o z 3 C A w =s.td = &n -u 2.8 -a1 D 0 m :O m T m .Z "m .Z I N n N Ng -a I 'm V 2 •A • 8s c fi ' � ° - =m gy m m0 a �1 3S = = sm�2' A ca 3 c @.2 apa mmm�a 2 2 2 3 gg 3 3�mm am�$acgr= n�oci obi.q 2 ^g'qq m a o 0 0 < m m m m3 m3a�cgWi�mmm�m m�g m mp� ��c�a P. W w Q. a 33m nwmm g£<m =w vo vo N 3=�}mm om ° cccmmm- �a'�yIf m ° <�d3 9 oc�mg$. a'am C.ao a 3 3•w m SS o 3 m `� w f rrl 2' Fd w =.m 3 m m o,m c S'< $4 < $ °.l m u m° r m n c c c c m . m m m m = m a p c am c a3 c c aoi m $ 9, m n t� ®" 0 �. m =- v$ m c E Z o d m $sFti a m 2 g � go, V. X = m .�� m m a 3 w a m 3� d d d d� .� S.w a �33� $off ca S �o m o o. m � m = 3 ° m to to la _ o0 $ a = �{' o. ct m mw o_ Q 3 n x a n m� mc�wgD w - o.c< 3d v v Wi=g° g Cn'mm�1.2 p 3 $ m 3 N 3 v 2 v 2 2 2 ca m m m a3 a a 8 N O O a O.-IIN M p 0 Ism m m 9, m 5 33 wo o v p p o o g a m 3 .< 3 A T IA 'O O z H T O A O 3 3 m z -a yy r' N n G H m 0 |\ \\� \\ § { ) ( 16 1 1 A 18 � m r / � �> �§S :zM 0 °■4 {� >\ \ § \ � � =!%gym »|( % »£ ' _ _[ %c cc \ i2;2 /f 2 - (( §( ( ©( ( /�{ / / � { � k o f � -- , m - - > ■ m E } ( � / % ( > E a { { \ { z` { ( 4 # f ■ , { k k) X \ ƒ 3 \ ] g & 2 ; ± z / 0 . z - \ � - § 2 CA ) ■ K « � m r / � 161 11 A 18 + O t0 W J W N A W N + O N W V N N A O w 0 A v d A 3 C 0 a n ti � W m Q m o0Q w S 3 a m A N WOW--- D D � m I I I m J mz z m� < C A v m zv D$� v� CC ~ mA _ v p~A D �D _ mc; O D o o _ ZO y n N m 30o O< 0� �5a mm +� T-1 ;m�mmu n 0p fnO ms r�rm T Zm -1O 00 -1 2 OOOOD ti -yI ? r 1 O = m 3= p gOn O< _T Om 2 �m A D OD .T-J x p m A< Om 0 y Z ill p W 9 O a D D� D ppp D O A - O p F� � 0. O y 9 m m s at D O V o Z m (n n O Z Ci o 0 m _y Q 2 1) Q N 9 Q 'V Z O= Zp m C C) T= N n n m O A Z 1 0 3 y Z Q r O m < y v y p 1 0 A= D 0 O (n I ^� m O m F O CO w o x r s Cp 0 Z L) A v y m A D m p? O O m N "^ m m m v Q L7 D z Z y m m= m 1 O, D Z A < m p Z a v O y A m atm D xs ,O o wrNn p m O T mm A mo m F9 D Z 4�p 00 m S a N Z O m my � z fn ?L ! D O o m;a mw y K C m -'- A () =� D N -< N A m 0 S m 0 A m m 0 a 0 N r D n m y z 5 yy m D m 7J m Z m W W �I r O z m o D r r_N rr �o m °C r- m O (� S O Z 0m O r m m x -i tiD x z 0 'L m o O m N o m o x C m S m o O S m p OA x m A Q C_ O m a1 0 y C c A F N r ti O O O Z D o O o m_ p .�. v 0 —-� � r Z< 1 Q O Z X m Z m Vt ° m m� T A A m m0 Am TO 1 W? o ° m n O p M m 0 Orm-'m vroi G1L 'yC m A < $� O p N vr -m m A -a{_ O D A y 's mT A _ AO m= 00 0 w O r m D z S m n 3 1 ! m al m v at m �� c 0a Od Om , O O r m 0 Z �O O z z m zm -1 z[ -' Z 0 �1 0 m Z m m D 1,11 r °a 0 O =I at o Z m W o Z -I 0 Z Z C m N mj 'n tDil X p l T a� D 00 Z L �0< A T D N A O N m D -I Z -y-i !e O Z al v Dp n. C O y0r z T m 0 C << 5 N N m y ZZ m° Om O Z x 0 m al P 1 N D < r N S -i -1 N O 0 0 0 -i C (� o 0 00 m m O Z O p A A O � z A l5A t-' D� y? p 0 m m n. r m m p g -- Z 0 m Q 'Si a c m- D m> r 0 O -_ O m Q o' m Z ._ Q o m rzn V' (�/1 r Jm.1 -1 w al m D O ro N ti O D z 0 O N m a x r, N 0- m m T ! pox m T =BIZ N Z o N m 0Q m �mcr0Q N o m m c n o m D x R$� m N m o o O m m o m O m w (mp Z -I Z A tlt (/t = 0 rmm T O N 1 N n O El O Z D z O N O m [n m D m zO m m rm 0 0 m A no o o O r m Q K o Z D m z y D- r Z $$D m O m T m m m= A 0 0 Or m 5 O= A r x Kr -Gjm O Z T al Z= <2 m 0 0 C 1 C m I O S m Z y SI til W 0 -L Z 3 A w X DO 0 0 OS m W W mm >yy aN Ti m 0 ZOOO z 1 1'I 11 O r o m O m m or w Z w 2 O z -�jI a Q m< z n v A p m m s ti m N O D T m a s N Z D O T y x( z "I m w x 1 a? '� m W N N 5 Z O N TA - Q C O H Q d � Z. O m a O m m W r r m m r r r m r 0 m r M r r M r r 0 T T T N W m T N T T ro T G T T< .00 3, R o 131 W � 8 8 8 :. S O N 2 H H yiy H H H H H.H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H � m'm D O !Z �! ofa a!`nn°'' m C ;r vl m'm linl W + m I i i C gym' N N N N W N N I AIN N W W O _W W N N (O N V OI N + N W psi y �iWii ID' n CIA OI (� OI N m N V WIO NIO O O N O O O N UL N J O + N O A W A O O J m A O O W+ J A W A (O W J N N O O 13 m O N O O W O W N O O N O O 11'1' - Iz I 'z 'O H D M y N N M N N M N H N N M M N M M N N N N Iy r p °° II 8 5 $8 8 $ 8m $$8 8 8$8 &$ 8$$ I i. i ii i I i H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H N m lei ' p I V N(niLO � INI N N N tp N N N N N W N N LO A m tp A + W ID p W (O P A W W OI A+ O N O W W W O m W O W N O O O W ro N ONV L _iN Y O i__° O NN J 00 O O OA A tp pOO O 00000 00 ) m N 1 V Cf W O W iN LD V A 'm ? W m W b W V V W A l0 Ln W w A 'm Y Ip VD] T°p y+ p 'p] S'8'A O',p 10 'N ,N W m m Y z z XIS J m W J rm W J O Itn O O O m :o o m ie :Zo O w 0 A v d A 3 C 0 a n ti � W m Q m o0Q w S 3 a m A N A 0 NN,,. NN, INN i N N i N N N N ". N N NN.,N NINN N' SIN N iN j O fNN Ala Oi Oi AO AO 10O �..i A A a AA Af AAAA AAA A �A A A_ $. w °._ oN „m8�8lomo'''m 1' o88o IO°prn ° S A o O' N+ rO (O t0 f0 m m .A A m AAA AAA A w W p J m 0 m AP 3 O O °w 3 �1,. ii 0 O O 0 d Z 6r fO '^ i ,TI ^�- Z - -_ �_. ti -NIT ^ p ^9ZI�I< -.. -MIm -OIO D T y O N O _ ti T �-�-a 'Wm n1 <N -110 mm�T O O�CC O A O Omrt 100-p p OOT r02rr�N T m r0 Nmti AI - OO '2.1 I.mp - -.m 2(m].l1Tm D'mmPO Op m n Glm Z c mT �m mN .gym mu T. 9 Si p_r0 Z 002 T. A. �T ,��11 22 O.A N -mA NA N 2 D ti p �Z MI n �D b'yD .gym. T� ? E T. a 0 O D� ANN D.mm0 Z. T: Ir O .T O TA qp IOOpm N DIL1 W O T M, + nOO yO AN OOi.N Z ?.m 1, SITTZAZITm m'D N , T < 4.ti (p�NZ CI INI 'T y. n2-i OA 00 Olf</i lU�i ro''� mn. mrrOy O1��2i .,Z < m A yrn O Z.. TI T. pmt I^�` T 210 AT; pl Tlmr;y N Gl pim ND -1 IT p mml m I"O oz i -u 1 ryyyF�{i ]J N m tpi��l 0,O!� O' m li �'� m $y o ON m m OIL'~ D pD w P'� mm y UI m m Z m m m 9 m m OC Z h m r n C yy A ti O m �. � A '^ T N N O N T N m D T I N I m X OI m Z.m D r ,0 P N Z D I Z N I IT Ryyl gym Olm x1 ryn N N. In A O '.N m I< RI �I�f� O.A 0 N m m< D 'O ttCl ffl�iii m m m �1 'm m ',m o DI n ml m rVDOtO O 0 O m w J I.A A m Ay SN N 0 o o S m JY� N l _ �o IA i8 A w MIN '_N N w N N O O N W w _ miN Ti A S W N A.P W tO AS pppA NIP w NJ. O O O O AP O P m O O N O O O O0 O N 1 m pi qpQ CQs W N O tU IO 0 0 O.,m OmA 'V �A m 0'Ii, V m.. m O INC N IW (Nir A m NWm. a0 __N NfOyr Im O 000 O O O NJ 00 pr +i 4fNir III OJiU p N III Nm P w N � W A N O m P N _l IJ T W O IW N_ m tOfp.A- A O N N AA p (J O A 1011 Pw m O OO Nw FOO JI Ja O .. + O (p] +J ppJ a 88888 8 88 J8m S8N J O OO .00 O S,O —O OO O'. O IO.. 0 0oI o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0l OIO 0 0 w J 81. SA O S P N Y W O � OS O W i I I O O I N V W O tV0 y noo ,000 IIN P m N N W W O P JP O P+ N 88 (pJ� qp P tp OO 10 O O O O v', +j0 � SIN O OOIiO t0 OOOOO OHO OO OSV 0 'J.O OOm o N pprr Y�i q V P N N N P P P+�r Nq NQ w N V�1 ay1 P pQl P+ o. °o !, °0$25 000 ' °o�O o o f'o oo s X025 00068S oo�oo0�825 0 25 6 0� P I'N8N O 100 0 I 1 AmpA _ +pW 80 '00. - G Op0 pp q p.Q 8�pf8P8 SWS 8N8 8O8 ppA0p11 _8y 8A 001 8N SmN -i0 OI ''O+ _ 0 0 0 000 8 �ZJ OOOO00000000000 O O O �� 00 'ol ' olo'. olo '0 0 0l o _ to oo o '. o o Io 0 o°' oo ol�oo oiao.o o'oo I _ N III I VN_ SPY NP I_O mi .Ni iqN Q gQ� �N r r 0 o N °0 °o l000 i °o yporoal 8 �i�1o.y 1358018 �C OiB�I, T P lS P SO 0010 OSOOS S O W � W SSORSaS O� I.. 8 O O O L 1 ' � 0 fit fit"� To m ,o. o O .0 O o O Io 0 o IIO - o °0 °o� ° o��b °O'o o o�o'8 I8 25 g _ oil 8 OIy 0 S o� A A rO O O w W P -.SOJ Om000J PI DD O \ Sa°IN 3° 8a 1\0.8 \ W D o Z °y m 0 Z Z Z Do m m o P. _z zZZ O z - \ Pm �I - -NI 1 n p �.+ Q Q °I° 12518 $ 0�0 00 oYU 25S8o E�o�Olo 085 0 �0 N P A w J1 J v F. 0 Z z (w111 P a P O' g Z Z ib1 Z P' P ao o O,O Of P 8 O O.Of IV 8 m o 0 0 W (Ni1 . DDID __._ d°'° D DD3=Dm �I➢ � DD.D ��°... „\° �� ° � � � �o 1 J O m m� r'ryn N p68 O N C I _I I I 1 t T �,N 014, OI it II I n m II D moo o xD Amo m ml ' IZ z' A,o m mm9b o <r A m,Dp M z'.OI 1 G N O J n m 9 6 N m m o� H > N @ T � N C m 7 r oH C it I I 1 t I I A N pq A d W 10 Or OI I W OOO W W Or =p 'O ' +O P II rOW OJO O - 100 �y 1p0 m o O 6 0 ^ <pr O I W Or N N 0 _yO J O O Ni W O) N W pp P J J W "' v O O'p Vyp L N ' r W J 0 LL O co Or'0 p _� ffi o a 8$ I I J °i o 0 0 0l o of Im 1 I I I b N l 1 VIII i � Amy �br �' p%� 0 O 1N Y�P9� ;�Ga Vrb WW Mqp x N 2 pOr ",p" 3,! e Iq �S� U N r SOP I yW 'OOO O 00 N I I p1m o�p �° O c All ffiW o o 000 to N W o n _ 1 I« _ rr Ip o_o oo of qq @ �1 G 'P A T U 1 � I I O r 111 O oi__�Q o 25101 - —� e 13 I I I I r L I _ 0 O O pN (py y J � O Jp OIO �N O i. 'i 110 x I 6 N D D DIID �D�D a.ID 6 p 10 OHIO p O p x mI 'olo I= ' IA x �' xo D =lz z DID D.. z ID D'. i g,3 °i G N O J n m 9 6 N m m o� H > N @ T � N C m 7 r oH C e 0 n m m u D F c Z m i 161,1 A18 [j 0 O 0 O o O O 00 o O m P O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 h o O o O O O d O m 0 0 F C 8 O N N lr'1 O O O y IA th O O �ppO �D O O O C N <_ O O N N O_ O N O M O N< N 1� N N N fD Cl! O r w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w O O ! O O O (O O O O O O In o N O O O N w O p J B O O O O O O N O O O IA O N O O O O N O O r C] d In O O (V N Q 7 Q w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w r w O Q OJ d N C m m Y LL LL Y LL ry W LL LL ww W LL LL LL (p W ry W LL J IA (p W LL J � J J N J J 41 J m J J J J to W N z � W 0 O O 0 1 U C w m z U z O r ° ° O r U r m �bs 3 Z w U 0 w L n O 0 O O o. O wJR i ° Q Z l/1 yf JLL U O y U W �zw ❑ w w z 30m m Z Z W O 0 O ❑ OU N m 0 y35 m o z x y�w � W U O ❑ t Z j Uw U w z 6 a 3 w i f a ❑ 0 5 , t . Orw � gU m 0 wm m Z z w0W U z W O (7 w xW W 5 LL m o p O U a l p z y z ❑ -m W y w r =U z w y`"rm 0 0 2 elf Z N� O x �_ 5�'w 5 w °m 3 o wm im z UO ti dmp Zzr o w U w g � ° m g o W a S 0 W Qir 0 Jwm o O m 0 W O O UUZ' so ❑ w 0 aZ l b t U ° „ ra 0 Y a u w W U m z P N U w Op O z m mmQ = w r a N !_ K W O >❑ m z e A 0 m - O U t Y z a Uan W c c O 0 W m w W ❑ O U W z 7 U i w ° m E x- z z O z J 0 K Y¢ ¢QQ o x w w H U W x N p p t p i a o d O r O Y m i Ka ° °m d m LL Zw O W Kz 3 d Il ° w O W Y JJ Z Z r t ° °w Ea r o z O w U f o aR J m o C Z W W X °❑ O w N a W w W ❑ Z 0 3-.w 0 ° X Z ro w z” m w ❑ F w ¢ N m 0 yU U o O' U ee U g U io m w p w 0. x U m�i `� 'W > W amzm U ] m W c mmc`o F, o U w LLw w5wzwmmm ra d m OO wr W r w aw w� Or 8" U¢'u wm w ww m U' m w W m LL rZ w u� r r @❑ U w r m Z y a N rm m m U JO W x h U W r n m U❑ Z m W> m a z a 0 S- W Z S° Uw 5 m =- ❑ O; m w m �- w w❑ Z O Ow m m a W t m❑ a and (7 Z O w 5 w 4 3 U'-w Z j z w- C m z r w U w O ¢ U V w mz z� O a Nm a z w o 0 z o r O >m Z w Q d F LL� O U w a M r Z W Or Wy Xw W O N O �ymyy W p w� uo�o�2 3°z3 wcx>U O cxi 'u5 �i m,°— cao8 r_ °o> gwOO U m z'm r�rr4 ROOD x r o6� yrrj wxLL <t <gw0Nw mzzN z❑LL¢aU =tt>j,w °3 azw h awLL? Wwaw�w x3x wrr .- ras rwa w 3a °am w K a f j W a N O t7 P N `D - - t [j m C O 1611 X18 1 i o e o o °o e° o o a• °0 0 o e r a , n M MM M M K O O O O O O O O Oe O O N N m O O O e O e .J C n � ssFFF 1 �C i 161 1 A i April 21, 2011 Lely MSTU "To Do List" Subrogation Recovery: a. Accident 859;Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: cost of repairs $515.00; pending accident report/recovery. b. Accident # 947; Found on 01 -15 -10 on Forest Hills Blvd. Status: cost of repairs $607.00 ; pending accident report/recovery. c. Accident # 1055; Found on 10 -26 -10 at median tip -St. Andrews at US 41 Status: cost of repairs $540.00; pending accident reporUrecovery. 2. PENDING: Sidewalks on US 41 at St. Andrews — ADA Compliance: Status: Project has been brought to attention of FDOT for funding to address ADA deficiencies noted. 3. COMPLETED: Painting Pinehurst Estates Signs 4. PENDING: Sign Refurbishment: (1) Dora] Circle, and (2) Augusta @ Forest Hill Status: Refurbishment is in process. Review of Marble option for Doral Circle Sign in process. 5. COMPLETED: Moving DC Controller to Valley Stream. Status: DC Controller relocation completed. 6. PENDING: Planting Sunshine Mimosa at Valley Stream Status: Mimosa planting pending confirmation that water can be `recorded' by using the bermad valve. (coordinate with Roger Dick on having Bermad installed) 7. COMPLETED: Lighting Presentations by McGee & Associates 007 Change Order Number Three Lely MSTU Irrigation Reuse Water Source Renovation Project # 4500123327 ITB 10 -5482R Date: April 21, 2011 Item # Oty S m. Description x,61 1h lU Spec Unit Cost Total 9 -701 18 Gua a 6 -Plex PVC Jacketed L.Ft. $ 0.90 $ 63.00 Direct Burial 24V Valve Control Wire In $ 1" Conduit From Flush Valve To Ex. $ DC Controller $ 10 -751 18 Gua e 6 -Plex PVC Jacketed And L.Ft. $ 1.99 $ 149.25 & Shielded Communication Cable In $ 1" Conduit From Pump Station Flow $ Control Valve To Ex. DC Controller $ 11 -50 1" SCh 40 Gray Valve Wiring Conduit L. Ft. $ 0.87 $ 43.50 Sweeps, And Junction Boxes From $ Filter & Flush Valves And Pump $ Station To Ex. DC Controller $ 23 -50 2" PVC 1120 -1220 Class 200 Solvent L.Ft. $ 1.06 $ 53.00 Weld Irrigation Potable Main Line With $ Sch. 40 PVC Fittings 27 1 Add Bollard Ea. $ 428.00 2 Pressure Gua es From C/O # 2 Ea. $ 12.00 2 Add Low Volume Pressure Gua es Ea. $ 28.00 W42800 1 Pick U Controller From Mf . L.S. $ 220.00 Warehouse 1 Remove Controller Interior Parts To Install Electric Components And Reinstall Controller Interior Parts Inside Controller Cabinet. L.S. $ 490.00 $ 490.00 1 Deliver Controller To Job Site L.S. $ 220.00 $ 220.00 1 1 Grade Swale For Drainage L.S. $ 360.00 $ 360.00 1,800 ISod Bahia S.Ft. $ 0.30 $ 540.00 1 Extend ROW Permit To 5/31/11 Ea. NIC NIC By County 1 Extend Time Line to 5/31/11 Ea. N/C N/C By County Total Additions $ 2,314.00 Total Deletions $ 332.75 Net Change $ 1,981.25 By: Hannula Landscaping And Irrigation, Inc. 161 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 February 17, 2011 Minutes Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:01 P.M. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: IX. C. Status of Sod repair due to Mastek Construction Jennifer Tanner moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: January 20, 2011 Change: W., pg 2, fourth bullet should read: Zones will "run" at 10 minute intervals Kathleen Dammert arrived 4:03 p.m. Tony Branco moved to approve the January 20, 2011 minutes as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carved unanimously 5-0. V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the Budget Report: • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $171,346.90 • Available Improvements General $9,178.40 • Reserves Insurance Claim $400,000.00 Robert Slebodnik stated the Annual Fixed Operating Cost is approximately $159,000.00 and noted $200,000.00 will be utilized from Reserves ($400,000.00) for the Pebble Beach Lighting and Doral Bridge Projects. i 161 1 A 18 VI. Irrigation System Evaluation Mike McGee reviewed the recommended Watering Schedules: (See attached) • Zone Irrigation Run times are scheduled in minutes • CLM is conducting intermediate Irrigation Zone checks • The Report denotes the total gallons per Run for each Zone o Based on Contractor recommendations Controllers 1, 4, and 5 will run 2 cycles daily for 15 minutes - Excluding Valves 1 and 3 - Will run 30 minute intervals Irrinet Controller No. 1 - St. Andrews Blvd & US 41 o (13) Zones consists of - Medians 1, 2, and 3 - East and West Signs Scorpio Controller No. 4 - Lely (Dora) Circle) o (2) Zones consists of - Median 1 - Side of the road o Utilizes Potable Water Smart Valve Controller No. 5 - Lely (Dotal Circle) o (1) Zone consists of - Median 1 Scorpio Controller No. 2 - Lely (Pebble Beach Circle & St. Andrews Blvd o (23) Zones consists of - Valves (1 -7) Pebble Beach Circle - Valves (8 -19) St. Andrews Blvd. - Valves (20 -23) Forest Hills Blvd. o The Zones will run 1 cycle per day for 15 minutes - Excluding Valve 8 and 9 - Will run 2 cycles daily (due to Median 3 Sod areas) Rainbird Controller No. 3 - Lely (Valley Stream Circle) o (2) Zones o Utilizes Potable Water Annual Estimated Water Usage • Controller No. 2 - 384,800 Gallons • Controller No. 3 - 64,380 Gallons Tony Branco perceived the estimated Annual Water Usage was astounding and suggested replacing the Sod areas as they are the biggest consumer of the water supply. Mike McGee anticipated the conversion from (temporary) Potable Water to Reuse Water will be completed by next week. 2 161 1 A 18 VII. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Robert Kindelan reported the following: o The color of the Bougainvillea and Plumbago is affected by maintaining the Plants at an 18 inch height on Pebble Beach, Forest Lakes and St. Andrews (to meet Sight Line Standards) Mike McGee perceived the FDOT Safety Guidelines are only applicable on St. Andrews Blvd. as the speed limit is 30 mph. Robert Slebodnik suggested maintaining Median Tips (Pebble Beach) at the FDOT required height and the remaining areas at a higher level. After discussion it was concluded that Staff, Mike McGee, and CLM will evaluate the distressed Plants and offer a recommendation at the March meeting. VIII. Landscape Architect's Report— McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report (See attached) Mike McGee made the following recommendations: Forest Hills Cart Crossing o Excavate the group of infected Cabbage Palms o Backfill the removal site with Mulch o Requested a quote from CLM for the excavation B. Reuse Mixing Chamber — Warren Street Mike McGee reviewed the following: • Upon completion of the electrical work an Inspection is required • Subsequently the FPL meter will be installed C. Doral Bridge Project Darryl Richard reported: • Project Cost Estimate - $83,453.00 • Bid Documents were submitted to Purchasing • Budget Amendment is needed to Fund the Project D. Lighting Study — Pebble Beach Darryl Richard presented a Proposal ($13,000.00) by McGee and Associates for Design Services on the Lighting Study. Noted the estimated Construction Cost for the Project is $108,000.00. IX. Transportation Operations Report — Darryl Richard reviewed the following Reports: A. Project Managers Report (See attached) B. Review of the To Do List (See attached) Item 3 — Painting Pinehurst Estates Sign o Additional documentation is required from the Contractor 161.,1 A18 Item 6 - Lighting Presentation o Lely Civic Association Annual meeting is scheduled at 6:00 p.m. on February 22nd at the Royal Palm Country Club on Forest Hills C. Status of Sod repair due to Mastek Construction Robert Slebodnik perceived Mastek is notorious for inflicting property damage during construction. He noted Mastek damaged the Medians on Pebble Beach during the underground work. Darryl Richard responded: o A meeting will be held with Staff, ROW Permitting, and the Contractor to address deficiencies - Invited Robert Slebodnik to attend the field meeting X. Committee Reports -None XI. Old Business A. Pinehurst Estates Signage Tony Branco presented color choices for the Sign Lettering. After discussion the Committee agreed on Green lettering for the Sign. B. Christmas Decorations Jennifer Tanner reported the cost for Lely Country Club Monument Decorations was $2,200.00. Kathleen Dammert perceived the $2,200.00 cost was high and recommended the following companies for Christmas Decorations: • Trimmers Holiday Decor • Russ Whited Christmas Trees Darryl Richard will coordinate with Kathleen Dammert and Jennifer Tanner to obtain estimates for Christmas Decoration. After discussion the Committee agreed that Christmas Decorations will be purchased by the MSTU for Beautification during the Holiday season. C. Preparation for Lely Golf Estates Annual Meeting on Feb 22nd Robert Slebodnik reviewed a timeline for the meeting: • Robert Slebodnik will introduce the Board Members and identify previous accomplishments by Lely MSTU (Projects over the past year) • Lighting Presentation by Mike McGee • Darryl Richard will introduce the topic of the Bridge Project and David Larson - Mike McGee will provide Bridge graphics • Review of the Bridge Project by David Larson 0 16 It 1 A i b o Ballots will be provided for Public comment XII. New Business A. Master Plan Discussion -None XIII. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:10 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee These minutes approved by the Committee on J - I 1- as presented 6�h or amended The next meeting is March 17, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 16 LLGSS: L' '�5aY8.`..- e'Se�'duY�dYoem3'e.N L�v�o mm.m« AA➢ mmyy CJT�Jy •_r V'- iN2��TJr2N 1 21:n �- P222' -�G C; yp TTT (/A C ➢�y`; ym n ➢�C aC Ny� -.DpC TLim DD ➢PmN�,��ITC 4 NN yDD yCO�D 9A �2➢ S'�T22rA_3Cyn GF<��C�vK PZ ZI�IC TmZyF sTTT Z�p �yT pTSZy�n2 PTy9NTT.n T �TTIA ➢N ➢ fp AAA U1yTNN yO DpA �yT Ayr J) 2 T.�DyA'0 C)n <T d° CDN�Si''G Tt��IT myA yT�J rOT�9pC�ONNLI i(Z1Z= DU ~ZwA(nCJP ➢Tn � ;FDD NT A AU�C� m VN<PD� ➢ Tpy2 T'�Glp tnr ➢ ➢nnNm -2Crr ppOOD➢ Zm x TA ➢Z� �^ .7 W�'i_ONrti i°A ��AZVO .,�0 A➢ 22 7-�XPi m�r.�mOi r�i, ^' AZT+ n. DDCO�O i- Z^iNN CAN F� ➢T �IA➢O -1 Z� yn➢N9 C <JO ; ;�AJTj�3 �y nF �Z41 nNmZ ;m2 np Lmm 2 J7 ➢z- TrmT�- ➢_ np .Zi zm � OC�'zi ; � �:m z "i� in�'➢��` aZ Oy O T' c oo y nc s m s p mLm] �� P n I N nm Z ➢ n��T Np ., c� «« « ww »,Nw » « «P o«m» 8 8 8$8888888U888 Y O D Y �rN NomN' P �P sag pppQQ�� nit °e u o� 3gg i i V y i bd gi l$ «« D ZJ "ss Asa °s$ig o �g s 08088$8888888 =8s8 _° m' s<mNm2::33= 3i"�xS- _j10O�)n :•G I pt7 O Po« PPo A (' ➢ Z DD n➢ 31 �3 y 8°°8_88 °0�888� B fBNN° N An nr�.i v NrN.�n�i u� nc 0'Lr➢ ^rr m3NOn P�rF �. ''� �.vG "avv NN gym- _ m - Po� p 'b wwwwww v.»v.wNwwwwwrwwwwwwww wig � �i0 a��x'gWw o�m� iu0 70 O�c ., c.°°ucavu�» I1 m T r n C r � 2 < N N C .q l8 n« NaM Mw Nwwwww «wwwwww » »wN D Y �rN NomN' P �P sag pppQQ�� nit °e u o� 3gg i i V y i bd gi l$ «« D ZJ "ss Asa °s$ig o �g s 08088$8888888 =8s8 _° m' s<mNm2::33= 3i"�xS- _j10O�)n :•G I pt7 O Po« PPo A (' ➢ Z DD n➢ 31 �3 y 8°°8_88 °0�888� B fBNN° N An nr�.i v NrN.�n�i u� nc 0'Lr➢ ^rr m3NOn P�rF �. ''� �.vG "avv NN gym- _ m - Po� p 'b wwwwww v.»v.wNwwwwwrwwwwwwww wig � �i0 a��x'gWw o�m� iu0 70 O�c ., c.°°ucavu�» I1 m T r n C r � 2 < N N C .q l8 O z z z N 9 a D z a a Z a D> O O 0 9 Z O y D z y p s y z p m N O O O y C1 0 a A N C a O T H H H -Ni Q m m N m m y s u l O N n n n O N 3 = m Y 9 E O N = < C C C C F N z m m m 9 x 9 2 N N N T< m Q ti ti ti 3 D C m n a a z v 9 a m m m D n y O O O r y D a c O O C m m m r 2 Z m a a g D A N y C C C y y a N D T T T Z b D Y N a O A m O 2 S Y n Gl o N O 2 O z y 2 a m ° O N 0 61 G) = z D D D + p W W W T p V V V a + m m m m C m m m 2 y V1 N V1 T a 3 N y O C 3 0 3 y D Q m < W p W O T G V Y lli O W z l O O 01 A V y 0 C) c m D D D D N 3 m C F 0 0 r N 3 0 z o R n Z Z Z Z N v+ N N < a m S S 31 A a 2 N D D D D O y 3 O O z D 3 2 D O D m m 9 a z 9 m a 2 D O N Y ''0 O o r A m (1 n 0 0 m m @ r rp Q 0 O g o v • � � 0 O 3 S O r ^ z z p m C a i O IA -a D 2 O T Z N r G o N Y Z 2 N m i a O s 9 O a C CC m a s Z G 7 < � m '^ T � m m Z C O Np c a 3 A ? 3 m '4 C IA m 2 9 m m o ^' a m0 G c m y 0 M 9 5 p r M N T Z 9 m 9 I loo Y Y .z a � N z2m C m N y 3 m m r y p oY y N 3 a Z a r N N 3 m 2 2 o �_ N 3 m N a a C 2 D r0 Vz r N 0 m a m m N N Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I+ I+ H N N I+ m S z a O a p O Z 2 O Y+ O m D H yCj N a N 'J•' Z C a m N V O > y O 3 Y Y O a 3 pN Y m 'A O 3 O N Y ''0 O o r A m (1 n 0 0 m m @ r rp Q 0 O g o v • � � 0 O 3 S O r ^ z z p m C a i O IA -a D 2 O T Z N r G o N Y Z 2 N m i a O s 9 O a C CC m a s Z G 7 < � m '^ T � m m Z C O Np c a 3 A ? 3 m '4 C IA m 2 9 m m o ^' a m0 G c m y 0 M 9 5 p r M N T Z 9 m 9 I loo Y Y .z a � 161 1 , A 18 F+ 1+ N Y+ Y+ H Y+ Y Y 2 D Y+ z m z m m N N Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I+ I+ H N N I+ m S z O r 8 C y O Y+ O O a Y O D N Y O D a y Q y Z C W N V O N 3 V m N A 3 3 Y m 'A O 3 O S 3 z a C z s? pppp 3 a S S pppp S ,p,ppp A m 2 g r OE m p y N D N O N N W OD D m O Q a ~ mm 0 V m O O O 9 S V V O a a z O 2 N Y -4 O m Z< C a S D m m N ° Wm � z p 0 Z O D y0 i Y Y N V N V W CP Z y r m u<i C 0 O 0 O 2 Z 3 m m m •� 0 �oaoQa p Y N Y N c m � m 3 Z r D m P O m a z G Z m d Q 9 K S DN S m m 0 O a z C D e a m N p 0 Z U D D D Y Y F D a D o:E O Z O m > 6 > 6 N > 6 n O N y > 6 > 6 > 6 161 1 , A 18 F+ 1+ Y Y+ Y+ H Y+ Y N 1+ F+ Y+ z m z m m y 3 a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I+ I+ H N N I+ m S z O Y O O O O O Y+ O O a Y O D S O D D Y O D 14 ff Q y Z C W N V O 1p tl1 V m N A W N Y m 'A O 3 O S S S s? pppp S S S pppp S ,p,ppp A m 2 g r OE m o O O 0 O O 0 Y? Y Y I+ Z< C S D � z p 0 Z 2 Z m u<i C m _ S S S S S d Q 9 S DN S m m 0 A C D D D D D D D D D D D a D o:E O Z 3 > 6 > 6 > 6 > 6 > 6 > 6 > 6 > 6 > 6 > 6 > 6 > 6 > 6 r R m a O N ID F R E T F R N R N N N F R F N R D y .A m z E F£ N£ . E N£ . o z rn D A 3 3 z 2 a C3 C 6 6 S 1A /Z� D D F CAL G< C T T C G T T T T T N C A GI O m G m �^ f1 O 2 1 = Z cy z rm e n W N M O O W V C1 N A W N Y 2 y C C Z O z N m m 1 70 s a O T a 9,y 9 O�y 9 � 9�pp S 'O aE y 9y 9 Q y 9 Q Q Z a r m A O D D D D D D D D A< A m mrm i0 < < < < K < < < K K Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 9 C 0 3 m V N A a 9 i m m v " c O r m Z r{ r 9 9 y E E p 9 9 0 y Q 9 NffFfA fA F�'s 3 rn A 2 < T T m O T T O S rY ' a Q a 2 .O C Gw 3 y O0 � W n W W N N N N Y Y Y Y N N N Q A r m Qu C D D D D D D D D D a n D D N 3 m N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m m 3 am z c Z I D m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 o p N N Q m D� W W Wp N N N Np M Y1NN Y Y N N= Z D O> p O N O N p O N 1 O N N N D m G a a a a a a n a a a a YI 'a" m � o y �8 OOSoS a O ? 25 SSS SSoNO 2'^ p N m m p A p Z m m m N O i O N Y N88$$ Y M Y Y Y N Nnp r z Q y r O Y �•'� O O S S S S S S S O O F+ 1+ Y Y+ Y+ H Y+ Y N 1+ F+ Y+ z m z m m y 3 a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I+ I+ H N N I+ m S z O Y O O O O O Y+ O O a Y O D S O D D Y O D Y O D O C a Q y Z C y 3333333333333in3 a o n r S S S pp� yppy z pppp S S S pppp S ,p,ppp A m 2 g r OE r O V m O O O O 0 < � D � z p 0 Z 2 m u<i C S S S S S d Q 9 S S S S g 25 D `z^ y0 y D m O 0 b m m K z O < N H m W W Z = a y< y< m r w » O D K m w 0 O 3 3 o z n n z H N .1Z H 2 0 0Iv O O O o z 9 A m m N N m \ 9 2 � O A m S O O m � O� Jo 3 IA N Z G o m n C in - 3 " 2 2 O o 0 A 3 o N m O t ti m D S o 0 0 c 3 9 L1 m m � a O C z 2 y, m a m� Gf � O K 2 n N 9 " c z z 0 o m r y m O O H f + m 0 N N S z D o p 0 0 G y n A r 3 3 H m m 61 m A � A O C 2 O O z N m S D m K m w m D � O ~ N a Z C a r 0 IV m F O Z C a 0 m 0 V m 2 O LA n m m v C r m a Z v a m C H m A a a O Z m 0 z O r r m a Z O G N .Nr m 3 3 y O m a m H m 0 9 2 ti 0 m 3 m D 2 A O O i O N N 161 1A18 O O x m 0 n 9 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ar 0 F .9~ z 'O H 0 N 0 V 0 `+ O O n 2 3 m La1 G o a 0 n 0 a 0 n Z Z y D 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 n 0 a 0 n 0 n 0 a o a S n o D 0 a 0 a o D a n o D 0 D O O � � C S •T N N N I+ F+ I+ N F+ F+ m m N O m y N w a m in m m CM N m l O a m m N A p.pp 0 m 0= o 0 2 a d C a 0 0 0 m= m N 3 n m m o o 3 m z 9 D T D m x m 2 D z < m 2 z 3' = Y H a a C m " mm V Q1 O1 C r 9 W w m m V N 1+ 0 o N y 3 o c 3 3 m T 3 i y r 9 y m�a b m y y m N A Z< 5 9 O p A O D r c 6) m ti m m m m s m n a r O H c c ti m m N D m m 0 G zK a y n 0 of < m m n T T T T n w w H n w r w n H w n V 9 9 9 9 9 9 A A 9 D D n V N\ 2 0 D O O O N= P K P P P P P rC A O 0 » I n A O H > > D D r D D D D X X m m n O O m O m N m N m m Z O R N R 3 R G N N o A 3 x N m m a m 0 3 m g y m rn 0 O c V N D C.) a 3 01 � m w m m m m 0 2 T n m m 0 0 0 w N m m zl m N m N m N m N m m m N m n P a r a a r g m n s o 0 2 r r r x 3 T Z z Z z z Z c< N 3 N Vf Vf L m m m m m m m 2 Z 3 a a a a a a n a a D D D A z H n s a a c a - D a H 3 0 b m m K z O < N H m W W Z = a y< y< m r w » O D K m w 0 O 3 3 o z n n z H N .1Z H 2 0 0Iv O O O o z 9 A m m N N m \ 9 2 � O A m S O O m � O� Jo 3 IA N Z G o m n C in - 3 " 2 2 O o 0 A 3 o N m O t ti m D S o 0 0 c 3 9 L1 m m � a O C z 2 y, m a m� Gf � O K 2 n N 9 " c z z 0 o m r y m O O H f + m 0 N N S z D o p 0 0 G y n A r 3 3 H m m 61 m A � A O C 2 O O z N m S D m K m w m D � O ~ N a Z C a r 0 IV m F O Z C a 0 m 0 V m 2 O LA n m m v C r m a Z v a m C H m A a a O Z m 0 z O r r m a Z O G N .Nr m 3 3 y O m a m H m 0 9 2 ti 0 m 3 m D 2 A O O i O N N 161 1A18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 W. 0 N 0 V 0 `+ 0 H o I+ n 2 3 m 3 G o a 0 n 0 a 0 n 0 a o a S a o a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 n 0 a 0 n 0 n 0 a o a S n o D 0 a 0 a o D a n o D 0 D z m z D Z O N N N N I+ F+ I+ N F+ F+ 1+ I+ H F+ F+ C O O o 0 o a o N N A p.pp g c o 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 m A Z > O N imAp D m a z y r 3 3' Y H N F+ Y b m mm V Q1 O1 r W w r 1+ V N 1+ F+ N N m 2 U� m�a b m Z N m N A Z< 5 O D r 0O y 6) m C Z m a y n 0 of < m m n T T T T n w w H n w r w n H w n V 9 9 9 9 9 9 A A 9 D D n D D .we P P P P P P P rC 0 » I N D D D n D D D D m n R N R N R N N N N A N R N m m m m m m m g y m rn 0 m m m m 2 T m <<<< m m m m g N m N m m m N m N m N m N m m m N m n P n s n s n s A P n s py P 0 2 T a .� Z Z c< Z. << c< m m m m m m m 2 Z 3 a a a a a a n a a a a a a a a n a a n c 1 D i m = 0 m w1 m v f1 ~ a W N N O b OND W V O~i V~i A W N H O b 9 V a w A W N H y m 0 m 2 O N r Z v z r^ m -� DN N VI VI VI N 1I1 VI VI N VI N 1/1 IA N IA N N UI VI N IA Uf VI N C' Z O K <! K K C< i K m 0 '< K< K K K m? C G A N 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ o 0 o g$ °0 w 0 w 0 0 w w N N < y --1 m O 0 0 3 .'O N m O C n Z Nf 2 rn m = r m m yy yy VI V1 {/i N N V1 U1 N VI VI (/1 V1 1/1 y1 N VI N N VI VI 1/1 N N r W W N N 1~+ 1~+ O O b V T b m V 01 N IA w A W N N F+ H G1 A D 3�m m y 1•+ n N_ S pp O N N Y+ O N W if IJ w N N I+ N pp N N O N N 0 N O Y A IiJ H C A W H S C~ i a a a a n a a 0 a > a w a n w a O N° 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m y C m A 3 3 2 2 y d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y =� m m S m c N N N N N N O N N N N N N N N O O N Ui N N N N N m N N A OM A N F+ M p N N 1+ N A N I+ N A N O A A W I.+ p N N Ny z ma Q D w O N O YI O V1 U1 O N O Y1 O N O VI V1 N N O VI O A w �" O O r G a a a y a n a a D a a n a a a a n y a a a y a a a m > S bpp m 0 S N W W W O A A Of W W N O� 01 m A Opjf N W A w A A W W C O S S S O O O S S S O S S S O G S O S O S O O S S z w m m D 9 O m� O D � H pp O O O O N VAi p� pp�� pp�� pp�� VAi O N O VAi O YAi N O O z D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 W. 0 N 0 V 0 `+ 0 H o I+ z m 2 3 m m G o a 0 n 0 a 0 n 0 a o a S a o a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 n 0 a 0 n 0 n 0 a o a S n o D 0 a 0 a o D a n o D 0 D x A~ m z D Z O r 0 P N o 0 o a o N N A p.pp g c o 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 m A Z > O N imAp D y r m a D O Z z m�a C O D r 0O y 6) m 0 0 m w tD V N o • v � O V o " N T W D X N m r V O W m w m 0 A V N tc m _ O _ 3 N 7 W 3 d _ d 0 A _ F m _ 7 7 D C O 4i er 1A 18 o: o ; o o m a T n K oEr N fD LO o @ E � ID c m N o � � o 0 g w p 0 0 O CO m 0�° d Z�'3 m� Cj 3 g ID -0 p° o 0 0. C N N d( T r N a m oo53 Os s.N oin x n 0 5r°y m -O m d Lm. -- o m n m D CD=@vd v� v <c d _ N N I T CD D C1 O S (p d N d O aka O z @ d C O. N — y. d -I @ @ C 5. CD < X a E m = O CL @. 3 tZii 0 a CD _ y�0 ?0 o O C {N O ° m O N N m ^ m Z N N m N O @ @ N @ @ ° O O @ N C @ @ d @ 3 @ @ r J > > j d d � M N @ 0 a ((D = a N d D @ N J G) J d N O fD � @ w n w CD a mtn N H ca a < a W c N O �i O z O x a a D vAA1-17J o @@ -@ 7Jd @ alD a n O m DXo a m m= x o @ @@ o-o'O MOA m o m Oa m Xo X m o m ^.N w m ' m c m _.v v 3 3 m< J 'p, 3 J 3 o m c m _^ C = C =0 C O N Jm n O @ UJCJC a 3. a 3 C @ @ S T, O O @ y _io a m m o m 0 S m N n m a 0 n O a= RJ L o S = @ C 6 0 y O m o = o m a m 3 3 o m o ^ y am J 0 N o = = o 0 0 N 25 a d O N m n N a m 3 O O A» 0 g N33. o 0 0 . S0 3 D N J N am m y J S ti. "' 3 3' o 3 3 O O 3 a 3 @ N O < N 3.0 m 27 w v -- o o N J o N o nJ D W @ a m oRW . 'A7 M 5 O x N 0 m 3 D 33o y �d � D c S <m�3w ❑ O o a o Z °f.mJ a O z @ N C ? m _ O m m R m O m o - J O, a x. ? ' N N < N Ro T w' 2 6 C N 2 n a 0 -0 f m m m m o f 3� oy . O 0 m F N = J J o N O �' 0 m 3 N o @ O � ma 3 m =Rm N v o. F O �o Fan c'PC z 0 O Fo:�TS -0 tn3= D 60 <, 3 J J.�ao a @ 3fO OY O O S N O F@ Q 6 S .S M _a J F µ m C oo= S F my0m' m O m J' Apo m (o = »n o nam o�N Imo mmJ j cy .0 °o`D s O N m o O .. m V 00 m < a 3 N@ N Od m a N O m O @ (<p OR n n C F 0 O _ 6 m T Vf O z H T O A O mm z 4 1A 18 o: o ; o o m a T n K oEr N fD LO o @ E � ID c m N o � � o 0 g w p 0 0 O CO m 0�° d Z�'3 m� Cj 3 g ID -0 p° o 0 0. C N N d( T r N a m oo53 Os s.N oin x n 0 5r°y m -O m d Lm. -- o m n m D CD=@vd v� v <c d _ N N I T CD D C1 O S (p d N d O aka O z @ d C O. N — y. d -I @ @ C 5. CD < X a E m = O CL @. 3 tZii 0 a CD _ y�0 ?0 o O C {N O ° m O N N m ^ m Z N N m N O @ @ N @ @ ° O O @ N C @ @ d @ 3 @ @ r J > > j d d � M N @ 0 a ((D = a N d D @ N J G) J d N O fD � @ w n w CD a 9 O J m w m er'f A v m b « V 0 � V Y w � D % N W m V O V v m w m A A G m w 7 m 7 G O 3 3 m 3 d 3 m 7 m m m 7 3 3 w D Q O w r 1A 18 mGw 0 �� 0 fir; n C Ow-4 -�. a y y 0 c ;3 c a m A 6)33333 o a d J 0 m" >; 0 m 0 >;> m m m m 39 m m ;m *h m Q W W < a < °_' m 0 3 m T $ 33T33333 maq ddwddai a aaanq oim 3 m of 3 a m r O z �c m T D r -f m 00 1 D :d o z � (n :-j c m O .1 m N < �,m = v' c m v<u+»(� 0 5� d C vmmm�c2 0 m m2 c F$ < a << a a <'c s" 2 J S 5° 9 3 m F S �p � 0 m C O m< N a_ J m m O < F W r mmmmm m m(pJ� $carom= fD C.a 00 m mooO O Jm3dmm L O y m O n m 2fO 2fO 2O 2O a 3y �mm no v 265 om . VC= O D U 0 M J 0 G O m Q n J V O O ^ i 3 ° 0 J U . O O 0O 0 N y J 3 3 3— m 0 0 0 0" 0 N T F- m m S m m 0 D O Q X y g y -- i d o ° y 3 m cr m m m 0 3 3 3 3 3 a O N 0 0 0 0 0 < d to o 0 0 <<<< mm m o N w 0 0 0 Q. Q° Q. P. m 3 v °° m om o n 000 v 0 0 o Qe m O X m J m J m J m J ym 5 m 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 ��i S < ti = a n m m m nl° mo `< vcmmmmy y�' 30 o 0n mm oaa n.mZ.. n a. c c c c °' 'm3FFiFQ ° mJm m °mma O H m =' O< 0 m 91 m y N J °' ° m f0 » O = ;a O m m d d n i o 3 n y m m S m 3 J m O y< n C n J 3 y ii ` J 0] f0 ? N a m m d y O m (O y a Gl a J .. m D 0 O a� Cymi Qu ��wm �a� ° O O O 0 1 O 7 < m 00 00 c y a F 3 Z o'y.0 0, z�1v nOm °vt3m 3 n� 2_ m m ICA O J O O 3 O l N J 3 y 71 Z m < C (D d < 3 0 m ° C_ m 5O5 U 3 m N< 0l d O� y m A N O N J F 7 R O t a o 3n= »0 0 m � p m S m 3 N y Q 0 m_ IE m rn m T 'O O Z Ln m 0 O 3 M 2 1 IS E I } CD � \ aw ( 161 } A18 }` I J § � ) ( \ ( \ B -n § m ) z m / ; e � J ! E >`° (0o ® c3 i2 E03 E&) &&i ) $gym g : �(o§F : {! \,o ([EG \ ( _} ) §( B }) (\ k E; z !0 LA /j $ \� \ } � 7 2 LA 0 . 0 K z } A18 }` n • r 0 n v v w A A O_ A 9 S O J N N ID A V 0 V O x x N A V V O m v U). 7 m 1 O ID A CD3 d 3 d 7 d 3 rt P. d 7 7 (O i Q O H rt i A18 p mr � N m FL Re w "o � <° w D m N 0 O O Z 7C m D r m < 0 O m m D � m CO) m -n O Z Cn � 9 O d rt Xu7w Xu Xi - X A m 0 v m a m � m d a 2 a m a N n C `G C= C C N N fU fD N N J < J < N W J J °< J 91 d N < < < > > > > > > O D D D D D D m O N y ?� m o o W D m z cn m ° m m 0 0 O O O Q O M O D O D c m m ? QD w m 3 0 = ? ° m Z4 3 3 0 °< < `m m N 0 V Z N O N d X D X 3 ° J v N 3 m m a c o < ° c O Z O J N H N N W 'v m X .UJ. O O W d m m ET d v_ — m J N � N m H 'O O Z In T O O m m Z 1 N i A18 16111 A Naples, Florida, February 16, 2011 C��IIM� O MAY�t) BY:........ 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: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis VICE - CHAIR: Loretta Murray Fiala Carla Grieve Hiller Rochelle Lieb Henning Connie Bettinger - Hennink Coyle COletta ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator Judith Krayeik, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for additions or corrections to the minutes of January 19, 2010. Two minor corrections were noted. Mrs. Lich moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger- Hennink and the motion was carried unanimously that the minutes be approved as corrected. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT Mrs. Reiss reported that the Conversation Classes at South Regional Library are standing room only. The early class is comprised of mainly seasonal residents who will be leaving around the end of March. Mrs. Reiss stated she will recruit for more participants at that time but if she cannot fill that class, the program may return to only one class. She also stated that a photo was taken of the class for Snapshot Day. Mrs. Reiss reported that she conducted the first People and Stories program at Edison State College for the Remedial English Class. This was considered a trial to see if it is a program the College may wish to continue to utilize in the future. Mrs. Reiss- stated it was very successful in that it motivated and encouraged students to engage in reading a story out loud and participate in conversation about the story and other activities related to the story. She continued that her intention for conducting the program was to familiarize the students and faculty with the Library and the programs and products that are available to the public. The professor of the Remedial English Class also expressed interest in setting up a tour of the library for students. Mrs. Grieve asked about the College Library. Mrs. Reiss stated it is very small and does not provide much space to study and it is closed on week -ends. Mrs. Murray expressed concern that if the students were not residents of Collier County, they may not be able to obtain a library card. Mrs. Matthes stated that if a student has an Edison College id card, they are able to obtain a Collier County Library card. Mrs. Reiss stated that Christiana O'Hem has asked her to conduct another tutor training for School on Wheels. The program has been recruiting tutors from Ave Maria which seems to be successful. The only drawback is that the students are only there for a limited amount of time which means that more frequent training sessions are required. Mrs. Reiss stated she will be spending February 23 with Ms. O'Hern and the new recruits teaching them how to tutor. Ase Cones: Date: L-A Items: %l c2' \ W \ q _.les ..o. 1611 A 19 REPORT OF OFFICERS — None COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Grieve stated that Downing -Frye had an insert in the Naples Daily News recently entitled Getting Settled which included a section on libraries. In reviewing the information she discovered a number of inaccuracies and omissions. She notified a friend who is affiliated with Downing -Frye who will forward the information she provided to the appropriate area responsible for publishing this information. Mrs. Lewis stated she was asked about downloading books to a Nook. She asked where that information could be found. Mrs. Matthes stated there is a link on the Library website that provides information and help for this procedure. Mrs. Grieve asked if possibly a regular column could be provided to the Naples Daily News that would provide information and answer questions about the Library. The responsibilities for the column could be shared by Library staff and the Friends of the Library. Mrs. Matthes stated that Jerry King, who is president of the MAC users group, has been doing a column for the Naples Daily News that provides information on various devices and software. Recently the column addressed the downloading of books to a Nook and it mentioned the Library. Mrs. Grieve volunteered to look into this endeavor as a shared project between the Library and the Friends of the Library. Mrs. Matthes reported that she received a call from Jeff Lytle regarding the photographs that are presently being displayed in the Library. The photographs were donated to the Library by Commissioner Hallas. Mr. Lytle has expressed interest in writing an article about the photos and the photographer. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Employee of the Month — February Mrs. Grieve asked if a non -staff member is permitted to nominate an employee for Employee of the Month. Mrs. Matthes responded that there is no problem with that. There was a subsequent discussion on how this could be done. Mrs. Lewis nominated Blane Halliday for Employee of the Month for February. Mrs. Grieve seconded the motion and all in favor. Senior Resource Center Mrs. Matthes reported that the center is officially named the Brookdale Center. There is a stipulation from the primary donor that a building permit is obtained by June in order to maintain the commitment for the $1,000,000 donation. An architect is working on the design of the project. However, the project is lacking the working capital that is needed to get started. She reported that the size of the facility has been reduced n tb from 11,000- 12,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Initially the facility was to include a health clinic r and that is no longer part of the plan. Mrs. Bettinger- Hennink asked if the project does not go forward, what will happen. Mrs. Matthes responded that much of the planning money would be lost and the ground O� ? lease with the County would also be dissolved. Mrs. Matthes added that the land is still there for future G� building for the library. The original project plan included a health clinic and the 211service. The /iN a Community Foundation is working on the 211 service and is almost ready to go live with the contract with !//� 2 1611 A19 Miami -Dade to answer the phone. Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink asked about Lighthouse. Mrs. Matthes stated that Lighthouse could take over the entire 7,000 square feet. Mrs. Matthes also stated that if the project moves forward, the lease will need to be re- written with Collier County because there is verbiage in the lease regarding the health clinic that will need to be changed. The Board is going forward with fund raising for the project. The Board of County Commission is expecting 7,000 square feet of library space but it could be shared space. Currently they are saying that they don't think they can raise enough money to build more than 9,000- 10,000 square feet. Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink stated that because there have been so many changes to this project, the organizations that have supported the project and made donations should be notified of the changes. Courtyard Fountain Renovation Mrs. Grieve inquired as to the status of this project. Mrs. Matthes stated that the Facilities Department was going to solicit for new quotes but she has not been notified that this has been done. Repair oflmmokalee Carpet A question was raised regarding the bleach spot at the lmmokalee Library. Mrs. Matthes reported One Source, the janitorial service, is required to replace the carpet. The entire carpeted area will not be replaced, only the damaged area. NEW BUSINESS Long Range Planning Mrs. Matthes provided copies of Public Library Service Responses to the Board members. She explained that this is the suggested method of long range planning for libraries. This is provided by the Public Library Association which is affiliated with the American Library Association. Each item listed has a related worksheet that assists in the preparation of a long range plan to provide that particular service. Mrs. Matthes stated that she is required to provide a long range plan for the library this year. Her deadline for completing this is August. Typically a long range plan is for five years and then there are annual updates to ensure that the plan is on schedule in order to receive state aid. She asked the Board to review the elements and at next month's meeting provide her with feedback regarding which items they would rate as most important. She added that they could vary their ratings by library citing one library for one item and another library for a different item. Mrs. Matthes stated that the previous five year plan focused on Library structure and comparisons to other Libraries. She stated she sees the new plan as being more of a functional document. Currently there are staff issues due to the loss of supervisors and the fact that branch managers are handling multiple branches. In addition, currently some of the small branches are missing second levels of management. She stated that she has given this same document to the branch managers and asked them to select the top three items that should be emphasized at their branch. Mrs. Hettinger - Hennink asked what is the perception of the future for libraries in light of the latest technology. Mrs. Matthes responded that libraries have evolved to try to incorporate the latest advances in technology into their collections. Educating staff to learn how to use these latest devices in order to answer questions and assist patrons is a challenge. She asked the Board members to discuss with other groups they may belong to and other people that they interact with what they think the direction of the libraries should be. Basically she is looking for what the public expects from the Library. Mrs. Lieb asked whether something should be published in the newspaper requesting input. Mrs. Matthes said she may consider that. Mrs. Lewis suggested they could put a suggestion box at the check -out counter. Mrs. Matthes said she may also contact the Friends of the Library for input. Mrs. Lich suggested the request should be defined to only include certain types of information. Mrs. Matthes concluded that she would like the Board to make recommendations as to which should be the primary areas of concentration. 161 1 lA 19 Literacy Buddies Mrs. Matthes reported that she checked with Lee County Library and they have had no issues with providing this link on their website. Mrs. Grieve asked if Lee County Library has other outside links on their website. Mrs. Matthes responded that they do. Mrs. Lieb stated that she checked out the Giving Readers website and she has concerns that this may not be financially successful. She added that even with the 20 percent discount, the books are still quite expensive. Mrs. Lieb made a motion to add a link for literacy buddies to the Library webpage. Mrs. Murray seconded the motion and all in favor. Mrs. Grieve asked if there is going to be information provided to users regarding what Literary Buddies actually does. Mrs. Matthes stated there would an explanation. It was agreed that this is a trial for six months. Friends of the Library/Book Fund partnership Mrs. Matthes reported that the proposed Library/Book Fund partnership will not be going forward with the Friends of the Library. Mr. Culligan's proposed plan was not accepted by the Board of the Friends of the Library due to the restrictions placed on the donors. Mrs. Murray asked whether donations are required to go to the County. Mrs. Matthes responded that the Library has a trust fund and donations can be accepted into that trust fund. However, the amount of money in the trust fund could affect the Library budget. Donations to Friends of the Library would not affect the Library budget. Currently the budgeted funds for books is running low. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS -None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mrs. Matthes reported that February 22 is Library Appreciation Day at the Marco Island Library and an open house will be held from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Rose Hall sponsored by the Friends of the Library of Marco. Mrs. Matthes reminded the Board that the May 18`" meeting has been scheduled at the Marco Library at 10:00 a.m. Mrs. Matthes reported that there had been a parking problem at the Library during the Greek Festival. She e- mailed the Greek Church regarding this issue. Marilyn said she may ask the church next year to have a volunteer direct people away from the Library lot during the hours that the Library is open. Mrs. Matthes stated that a new reference librarian has been hired for the Naples Regional Library and he is working out quite well. She also reported that approval has been granted to replace Catherine Cowser who previously held the position as a reference librarian at Headquarters Library and has been promoted to branch manager at Marco Island Library. Mrs. Matthes reported that she received a complaint from a veteran that the Library does not offer discounts to veterans. He is a seasonal resident who was upset because in the past there was no charge to use the computers and this year there is a charge. She also reported that a man had suffered an injury from a fall from the stage in the courtyard when he used the stage as a short cut. Risk is handling this incident. She added that she is looking into possibly using a removable barrier to prevent patrons from using the stage as a short cut. 161 1 A 19 Mrs. Matthes stated that the Library is going forward with floating the non - fiction collection beginning April I". REPORT OF THE FRIENDS Mrs. Grieve reported that Mrs. Matthes submitted a request to the Friends to replace the circulation desk at the Vanderbilt Beach Library which is estimated to cost approximately $5,000. The request was approved with the stipulation that funds that have been collected by the Friends exclusively for the Vanderbilt Beach Library would need to be used and the Friends will cover the remaining balance from their regular budget. She continued that she has sent a note to the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association who was instrumental in raising the existing funds and they will post a notice to their members. Mrs. Matthes stated that she and Blane Halliday, who manages the Vanderbilt Beach Library, have talked to the furniture salesman but they have not yet received a quote. She added that the Library has recently been painted and there may be a few other renovations considered. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Grieve moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink and carried unanimously the meeting was adjourned at 11:37 a.m. Approved by: Doris J. Lewis Chair, Library Advisory Board Q 161 1 A 19 ,�RnTREW3D MA`' 2 u 2m Naples, Florida, March 16, 2011 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: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis VICE- CHAIR: Loretta Murray Carla Grieve Fiala Rochelle Lieb Hiller Connie Bettinger- Hennink Henning Coyle ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Culotta Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator Judith Kraycik, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for additions or corrections to the minutes of February 16, 2010. Two minor corrections were noted. Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and the motion was carried unanimously that the minutes be approved as corrected. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT Mrs. Reiss discussed the following issues: Conversation Class Many seasonal participants will be leaving Attendees who are here all year have requested the class be expanded to two hours Classes will break for the summer but will resume in September School on Wheels Program • Roberta will be training additional tutors Mrs. Reiss stated she has been invited to the Florida Literacy Coalition Conference in May which will be held near Orlando. She has agreed to be a presenter at the Conference and as a result the Coalition will pay her expenses. In addition, the time she spends at the Conference will count toward maintaining her professional trainer certification. REPORT OF OFFICERS — None COMMUNICATIONS It was discussed that recently there were three `letters to the editor' in the Naples Daily News concerning the Library. One letter stated that the Library was responsible for Blockbuster going out of business. Another letter stated that the Library's inventory contained many DVD's that Blockbuster would not carry. The third letter stated that as Borders is going out of business, people would be dusting off their library cards. The Board speculated on the effec t e internet and the new e- readers have had on these businesses as well as on the library# t waftso Date:_ k-L-%I t x Item #:XLja= I flk \ck s :) 161 1 A 19-4 noted that an article appeared in the New York Times stating that publishers may invoke limitations on the number of times an e -book may be downloaded from a library. Mrs. Grieve stated she has compiled a list of possible items to discuss in a column in the Naples Daily News. She said she would send each member of the Board the list for their review and comments. Mrs. Grieve reported that she noted in the Pelican Bay Post that Vanderbilt Beach Library would be getting a new desk which will be paid for with donations. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Employee of the Month — March Mrs. Lich nominated Shidan Hemmat as employee of the month for March. Mrs. Bettinger- Hennink seconded that motion and all in favor. Senior Resource Center Mrs. Matthes stated that both she and Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink went to the most recent meeting of the Golden Gate Civic Association which had inquired as to the status of this project. Mrs. Matthes stated that there is a great deal of dedication by those involved to make this project happen. She stated that the major donor has been contacted regarding the deadline of summer for obtaining building permits and starting construction. It appears he may be flexible with this time frame. Without his donation, the project does not have sufficient funds with which to proceed. Mrs. Matthes stated that at their executive meeting they would like to appoint a member of the Association to the Senior Resource Center Board. Mrs. Matthes stated that the square footage as shown in the original plan, with the exception of an office and volunteer space, would work as library space. She added that the project will have to be brought before the Board of County Commissioners to ask for a change in the ground lease but it is better to wait until the plans are completely finalized. NEW BUSINESS Long Range Planning A question regarding the issue of second levels of management for the branches was raised. It was stated at the previous meeting that some of the small branches are missing second levels of management. A member asked for clarification regarding this statement using the Vanderbilt Beach Library as an example. Mrs. Matthes responded that a better example would be Marco Island Library. She continued to explain that what is missing at some libraries is a `second in charge' employee who would act as the manager in the manager's absence. Basically it would be the `go to' person for staff in the absence of the manager but would have no official managerial duties. At the last meeting, Mrs. Matthes had requested the Board make recommendations as to what should be the primary areas of concentration in the long range plan for the Library. After discussing several of the items from a list provided to them, the following recommendations were made: Developing Literacy Information Fluency Community information provider 2 1611 X19 Mrs. Matthes provided the Board with a compilation of staff recommendations for the long range plan. She stated that the responses are primarily based on daily operation of the Library and the questions that are most frequently asked by the public. She has requested that staff recruit volunteers for next year to assist patrons with electronic devices, computer programs and other library related issues and possibly advertise these services to the public. In addition, classes are currently being held on various electronic programs. She stated there seems to be an overwhelming need for this type of education. Mrs. Matthes provided copies of the current Mission Statement for the Collier County Library. She stated that this is part of the long range plan of the Library. She asked that the Board review the Mission Statement for the next meeting and make suggestions if they think the Statement should be changed and if so, what changes should be made. Literacy Buddies Mrs. Matthes stated she has been having difficulty contacting the person who will provide the link for the Library webpage. As soon as she is able to obtain the link, it will be added to the webpage. Meeting room Policy Revision Mrs. Matthes stated that the revised policy states that the disclaimer must be equal in size to the print listing the Library as the location for the program and must be located directly below the Library address. She continued that she has had the revision reviewed by the County Attorney's Office for legal sufficiency. A few minor changes were made by members of the Board. Mrs. Grieve made a motion to accept the Meeting Room Policy revision with changes as noted. Mrs. Bettinger- IIennink seconded the motion and all in favor. The question was raised what the consequences are to noncompliance. Mrs. Matthes stated the organization would not be allowed to use the meeting room. Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink made a motion to add the verbiage `usage will be denied for noncompliance' to the Policy. Mrs. Murray seconded the motion and all in favor. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Mrs. Grieve reported that Downing -Frye has not made the changes to the Naples Daily News insert entitled Getting Settled. She had notified a friend who is affiliated with the company last month but has noticed the changes were not made in the most recent printing. As a result, she has now e- mailed the corporate office. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mrs. Matthes reported on the following issues: • Circulation figures are continuing to decrease. A discussion took place regarding the reasons why this may be occurring. Mrs. Matthes stated she is trying to obtain the school population in order to make a comparison to previous years. It was also discussed that the Florida census figures are not yet available. Another possibility is the use of overdrive to download books. In addition, both Fast Naples and Vanderbilt Beach Libraries are only open Monday through Thursday. • She is trying to contract with SWFLN to provide a copy cataloger for our Library. Currently the process for cataloging new books is difficult and as a result is slowing the ordering of new books and when books are bought, it is taking a long time to get them on the shelves. Some technical knowledge is required for the job and SWFLN may already have someone available. ioiIA19 • The seasonal job bank employees will depart as of April 15. The process for recruitment ofjob bank employees for the summer season has begun. These employees will work at Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gate. • She is currently preparing the budget for 2012. Her intentions are to request job bank employees for the winter season and also for the temporary cataloging position. • Mrs. Bettinger- Hennink asked if there is any information regarding the State Aid for Libraries and Federal Aid for Libraries. Mrs. Matthes provided copies of information regarding these issues. She stated that the governor's proposed budget specifies $8,000,000 for libraries. In order to qualify for Federal Aid, the state must provide $21,200,000. In the near future, she will be asking the Board to make contact with elected representatives and ask them to increase this amount. • She has been asked to complete a term for a member of Florida Library Association Executive Board. As a member of this Board, she will be participating in the executive board meetings via conference calls and she will need to attend the Florida Library Association meeting in May and she has asked the Friends of the Library to pay her expenses. • Harper- Collins, one of the world's largest publishers, will impose a limit on the number of downloads on e- books. This new policy will not affect audio books. Until this situation is reviewed, Collier County Library will not be purchasing e -books from this company. At this point, it is unknown whether other publishers will follow suit. • She has received questions from the public regarding why certain groups are allowed to meet at the Library. She responds that they have rented the meeting facilities here. • A question was asked regarding the status of the implementation of floating collections. Mrs. Matthes responded that staff has requested to postpone the next phase until May 1. She is considering granting this request. Currently the collections are being weeded which is why the postponement was requested. • The carpet was ordered to replace the damaged carpet in Immokalee. However, the wrong carpet was ordered so it needed to be re- ordered which has caused a delay in the repair. • There is now a nice sign at East Naples but we still do not have a sign in Immokalee. The question was raised whether Edison State College has been contacted regarding a new larger sign for both facilities. Mrs. Matthes responded she has not yet been in contact with the college. • She is waiting to hear from the architect regarding the fountain renovation. • There had been an injury at Headquarters. A man fell when he attempted to cross the stage at a special event. She stated she intends to take preventative measures to avoid future incidents of this nature. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS Mrs. Grieve reported on the following items: 161 1 A 19 The Bagels and Books event is taking place today for the local book clubs. The intent is to bring the clubs together to share information and also to possibly increase membership for the Friends of the Library. • There are two lectures remaining for the lecture series. • 'There will be a book sale at South Regional on March 24'". • One of the Friends projects is to connect to the Hispanic community. As a result, there is Spanish link on the Friends' webpage. Also, Bill Forbes has been speaking to various Hispanic groups to find out the needs of the community. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Grieve moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger - Hennink and carried unanimously the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m. Approved by: Doris J. Lewis Chair, Library Advisory Board J 5 q o�t�!��ad'D 16 1 A A 0 tr; 20 BY: ....................... THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON MARCH 14, 2.011 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Caleb Morris, Captain Ron Gilbert, Chairman, Port of the Islands Tod Johnson, Vice Chairman, Everglades City James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member Mitchell Roberts, Retired Advisory Board Member, Copeland John Pennell, Retired Advisory Board Member, Plantation Island The meeting came to order at 6:10PM. V Fiala Hiller Hennin Coyle Coletta The minutes for 11 -8 -10, 12 -20 -10 and 1 -10 -11 were signed by the Chairman Ron Gilbert. The plaques were given to Mitchell Roberts and John Pennell for their service on the Advisory Board. OLD BUSINESS: Chief McLaughlin — The second brush truck has been finished and it is currently at the shop. They are finishing the preventative maintenance on the vehicle and it should be ready to put in service by this week so we will have both brush trucks up and running. Ron Gilbert — He asked about the brush trucks. Chief McLauglin — Explained that the brush trucks he was referring to were the two 6x6 military trucks obtain from Forestry and they would be used for brush fires. If we were to go out and purchase these brush trucks new spec one they would cost anywhere from $140,000 to $190,000 each instead we have two vehicle on loan that we put into service with an investment of approximately $13,000 which he felt was a tremendous savings to the tax payer. The Department did most of the work themselves to save money and he feels the vehicles will service for a long time. The Seafood Festival went well. Captain Morris —There were no problems everything ran smoothly. There were minor medical calls and some vehicle accidents on US 41. Page 1 Misc. Cares: Date: l.0 2,7%k k Item /: k"= N W 20 nies to: 1611 A20 Chief McLaughlin —We didn't have any fatalities or critical injuries this year. We had only one gentleman that was cut by his prop but it was not a critical injury he would just require stitches. Ron Gilbert — He asked if the Department had responded to the fires two week ago in Broward Country along 1 -75. Chief McLaughlin — No that was in Broward County. The Site Development Plan for the Port of the Islands Station at the Marina is complete all the review have been done. Once we find some funding we will be ready to obtain a permit for the Station out there. He met with the project manager of Collier County's Facilities Maintenance Department in regards to the Port of the Islands Station so as soon as we find the funding we will go to permitting and then bid on it. Ron Gilbert — He asked if there was any more news on the ten story building that would possibly finance that? Chief McLaughlin — It won't even touch it. The impact fees will only be $50,000 and it is a $350,000 project to renovate that building. Because we have to sprinkler the whole building and that is approximately $70,000 right there then there is internal construction. The last estimate with current prices was $320,000 to $350,000 to complete the project. We are currently waiting to see what's coming up this budget year. The hydrants are still being done in Everglades City then Chokoloskee, Copeland and Plantation Island will be next. Ron Gilbert — He asked if Ochopee Fire Control District painted the fire hydrants at Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — No, the fire hydrants at Port of the Islands are owned by the CID and the water plant they paint them. Ron Gilbert— Why are they a different color at Orchid Cove? They are purple. Chief McLaughlin — It may be because the hydrants at Orchid Cove are coming off a different domestic line he would have to ask the water plant people they have a separate line over there. It is more than likely that they put the hydrants on the domestic line they did not run two separate supply lines for Orchid Cove when it was developed they don't have a reuse line. So the hydrants should be yellow at Orchid Cove and purple everywhere else because the rest of the Port they have a reuse line. Ron Gilbert — He knows they are not purple. Captain Morris — In Orchid Cove they are yellow you are probably on the drinking water Page 2 161 1A 20 Chief McLaughlin — When he looked at the sight development plan they have a six inch feeder going through there coming from the plant they had to run their own line down there and they did not run a reusable water line. Ron Gilbert —So even the sprinkler system is potable water. Chief McLaughlin — I would have to ask the water plant personnel. I didn't look at their water line other than the feeder lines. Ron Gilbert — Potable water cost twice as much as recycled water Chief McLaughlin — Yes, absolutely some of the new code allows for recyclable water in certain situations and it depends on land development. As far as he knows the hydrants in Orchid Cove are potable water and just those hydrants. James Simmons —Who actually paints the fire hydrants? Chief McLaughlin — We paint them and annually flow them, however, the maintenance is done by the owners. The City of Everglades owns their hydrants. So if we find any defects or something needs to be done to the hydrants we make the City of Everglades aware of what repairs are necessary. They are responsible for repairing and replacing the hydrants. The same thing with the CID we would go through the hydrants to flow them check the caps to make sure they are lubricated and all the parts are working on them. But CID would be responsible for any repairs or replacements because they own them. Port of the Islands owns them. We paint them. Orchid Cove may own their hydrants they might not be owned by the CID because they are within the development. Ron Gilbert— He thinks that Orchid Cove is about to turn the responsibility over to CID. Chief McLaughlin — It is state code that if it is not reusable they have to be painted purple. Ron Gilbert — There is probably nothing we can do about it now but it would have been a lot less expensive if they had run another line for reusable. Page 3 161 1A 20 NEW BUSINESS: Chief McLaughlin — There was an ordinance change approved at the last Board of County Commissioners Meeting. The ordinance change was the wording within the Ochopee Fire Control District's original language which was there would be an individual from each of the five areas on the Board and now that language was change to anybody who lives or resides within the District can sit on the Board. One of those positions has always been given to the City of Everglades to appoint someone the other four can come from anywhere in the District. We only have three members right now we have two vacancies. We have added some volunteers. Captain Morris — We have a total of six volunteers. Chief McLaughlin — We are in the process of training them. We have received some preliminary instructions regarding the new budget from the Managers Office. He has a meeting on March the 301h at 10AM with Captain Morris, Linda Swisher, myself down at the Budget Office to work on a preliminary budget construction with our Budget Director then 30 days later Friday May the 61h I meet with the County Manager for our preliminary finalization of our budget. From the time we meet to the County Manager's meeting we have 30 days to work things out. We don't even know what those projections are. Ron Gilbert —You are going to have all that you need to budget for the next fiscal year. Chief McLaughlin — Linda and I have already been working on it. We've been told there is already a three percent loss. I can do three percent right now just by eliminating our Capital Outlay and a couple other projects I can get to $40,000 but there is the $450,000 that we will be short for payroll I don't know where that is going to come from. I guess we will be discussing that on the 30th. Ron Gilbert — But if you are successful with that you won't be looking at laying anybody off next fiscal year and that runs from.... Chief McLaughlin — That's correct. It runs from October 1 to October 1 is our fiscal year. We have some time lines within our County budget June 1 it goes to the Board for a preliminary hearing then another one in August then the finalization in September for final budget approval by the BCC. We are just going to have to wait and see what the exact numbers are. Ron Gilbert — The approval process for the budget what you come out with is that guaranteed funding for that budget. Chief McLaughlin — It is our best projection Page 4 16i1A20 Ron Gilbert — The County Commissioners approved it. Chief McLaughlin — Yes unless something catastrophic happens that is the available funding. His last meeting with Mark Isackson who is the budget Director said that the County was going to make sure that our budget is solid. Chief McLaughlin received a phone call from Ms. Kungle regarding Pilt Funds she has spoken to one of the Commissioners and the County Manager. She was told they would investigate it. He doesn't know what is happening regarding this issue but he does know that she is still perusing it. She has been working on this for several years since Chief McLaughlin took over here she has been asking about Pilt and 1 -75. He was concerned about running short on money this year and being able to operate the Port Station to the end of the year. We are half way through our budget year and actually doing very well. We are a little high on our job banker line item but we have funds in overtime we will just slide that money around. Earlier in the budget year he made the prediction that we would have to go into reserves for about $20,000 during the budget year that is probably going to happen. If we don't have a busy hurricane season or brush fire season where we don't have to go into deploy people on overtime then the nice thing about those events we usually get reimbursed if they are declared events. Hopefully in April he will be able to give them a budget to let them know where we are going next year. I can say in the last three years we have replaced most of our equipment everything is in really good shape as far as our operational means. We won't have any more capital expenditures we were going to redo the kitchen but we are going to wait another year for that. The last major project we have in Capital is putting hose bed covers on the trucks. He doesn't see any hose or equipment expenditures outside of repair and maintenance for next year. Our vehicle expenditures seam to jump up when we have a malfunction we landed up spending $8,000 on our water tender of course it is over 20 years old now. We had some problems with the engine that was unforeseen. We had another issue with one of the radiators on one of the engines and that cost about $2500 which was unexpected. The bulk of our unforeseen costs when you look at our equipment budget are over run is not due to our estimated yearly expense it's all been emergency repairs. Ron Gilbert — Who repairs these trucks? Chief McLaughlin — We do two things the County's Fleet Department does a portion of the repairs they bill us and we pay them. Some of the repairs are done by Wallace International depending on the type of work needed and some repairs are done by Elite depending on where it is on the vehicle. So it really depends what the issue is who does the repairs. About 90% of the repairs are done by Fleet Maintenance. It's only a few of the odd things with pumps or chassis or frame or some of the engine work that we have to go to Wallace International. Ron Gilbert — There probably are not enough people out there that repair fire trucks that you could shop around. Page 5 161 1 A 20 Chief McLaughlin — The County won't let us shop around we've tried that before. They have looked around they are all about the same price. The issue for us is really time because they get short on people some time the trucks are down for a while but they take care of all the ambulances for EMS plus Isles of Capri's vehicles and they are short on mechanics. They have farmed some of the vehicles out to Lee Fire and some other places when they are short of help. Ron Gilbert — So if they can't do it they farm them out. Chief McLaughlin —Yes, the other company just bills Fleet and we pay Fleet back Ron Gilbert — Other than the scheduling problems that is probably the most economical way to get it done is through the County workshop. Chief McLaughlin — Chief Rodriguez and Chief McLaughlin researched other shops and we found out there were no dollar savings to go elsewhere. We have better control by being with the County. If we have an issue we can take care of it without going to an outside agency. James Simmons —You said you have six new volunteers how many do you have total Captain Morris — We have six total they are all pretty new Chief McLaughlin — We had two leave then we got two more that made six. We have two that have been here six months. James Simmons — He had a medical incident and he was very happy about the help he received from the Fire Department and EMS. Chief McLaughlin — We try to keep the ALS Engine at the Port because they are advance life support. But if the ambulance is not at Everglades Medic 23 at 951 across from the Super Wal -Mart will respond either they will come to the Port or to Everglades City depending on how far the call is or Medic 21 located at the East Naples Station in Lely will come out. So we always have someone close by. Captain Morris — When we get station 61 up and running he would like for Medic 23 to stop at the Port. Chief McLaughlin — Which is what, will happen because if fuel costs continue to rise we are going to stop the move up. We did a fuel projection as to how many miles due to move ups with engine 61 coming up here it cost approximately $4,000 in fuel for a year. Page 6 161 1A20 James Simmons —Just from the Port to here. Chief McLaughlin —Yes, just from the Port. Two hundred and fifty move ups at 30 miles and the engine get 4 miles to the gallon. That's money we could save so if we don't have to do the move ups. It is cheaper to call personnel in to man the Station in Everglades and pay them an hour overtime than paying the fuel costs to move engine 61 from the Port. Ron Gilbert — When you determine your strategic location for the truck is that based on a square mile area or population density bases? Chief McLaughlin — We do it on both and we also throw in call volume. Port of the Islands compromises less than 2% of our call volume. So you are also looking at statistics of call volume versus the number of calls and where we go. That's why we were moving up 96 percent of the time the calls will be in this area, 1 -75 or east of here. Ron Gilbert — In that call count is EMS services and Fire Related incidents. Chief McLaughlin —Yes, both. Ron Gilbert— I don't remember having a fire call in ten years at Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — Other than some car fires that didn't pertain to Port residence there hasn't been one since I've been here. We had a couple of brush fires they were in the back areas and they weren't even Port residence. Ron Gilbert — He called 911 one time he was going down New Port Drive and lightening struck a power pole and caught the grass on fire but he put it out with palm fronds. Chief McLaughlin — The national statistics are that every home will have a fire once every ten years and that could be of any magnitude that could be someone knocking something over or to someone leaving something on the stove to the building not burning down. We are way ahead of the curve. Even are EMS calls at the Port are 2% of our calls. We will probably have to go into reserves sometime in June or July just to offset some of our shortages which is about $20,000 to make payroll. Everything else is looking good we've been tight with our spending. The fire personnel have done maintenance on the boat and the vehicles which has saved the Department a lot of money. We are down to our last article in the union contract and they expect to get that resolved it should be signed soon. The delay has been due to a legal issue. Page 7 16I1A2 0; James Simmons — Does every Fire Department in Collier County have a union? Chief McLaughlin — Right now all but one. James Simmons — Which one does not have a union? Chief McLaughlin — Isles of Capri Fire District. The last Department to go union was Immokalee Fire District. James Simmons — Does Isles of Capri have a lot of volunteers Chief McLaughlin — Not any more they only have about six just like us. More than six is too costly because of the gear involved. It also costs $400 just to get them through the drug screening, fingerprinting, back ground checks and ID. If it doesn't work out you can only do that so many times a year and you're done with them. They have to meet all the background, medical, and physical criteria as the full time firefighters. The initial cost per volunteer is approximately $600 before they step on the truck. James Simmons — Do they keep the equipment with them? Chief McLaughlin — No we don't allow it anymore. They no longer respond from where they live we put a 50 mile limit on the requirement. We don't allow anyone who lives more than 50 miles from the station he feels they will never show up if they live too far away. We need someone who is going to put their time in. We require 24 hours a month. Their shirts they keep with them but all their gear stays here they have to come here to put their ride time in. Captain Morris — We have a six month probationary period for these guys. We've had some people go through the whole program give them a tee shirt and never see them again. Chief McLaughlin — He will go as far as North Naples or even south Bonita depending whether they get through the interview process but outside of that we are not going to do it. They are not going to drive from Miami to put in 8 hours. James Simmons — Even 50 miles is a long ways away. Chief McLaughlin —That is a good haul as well. Captain Morris — As of right now if we limited it to this area we wouldn't have any volunteers. Chief McLaughlin — So well get into Naples, North Naples, Corkscrew and up to Immokalee. Immokalee is 40 miles we are not going outside the County we might go into Bonita a little bit. N 1611A201 Chief McLaughlin — One of them is in Ft. Myers he comes in and does his 24 hours all in one shot but he was recommended by some of the guys that went to fire school with him that's the only reason we let him be a volunteer. Captain Morris — He spends quite a few shifts out here. Chief McLaughlin — We have a couple of new one around. There are only two Departments on the east coast that have volunteers Ft. Lauderdale by the Sea and Plantation. They are full it is hard to get in. Ron Gilbert — How do we go about getting Advisory Board Members? Chief McLaughlin — We have advertised in the paper I don't particularly know of anyone who has come forward. He asked a couple of the people in the community but they were not interested. Do you know of someone? Captain Morris — Did we try the Mullet Wrapper? Do you have a paper that circulates out there? Chief McLaughlin — There is a public notice that goes out from the County. Ron Gilbert — We have a brochure that goes out quarterly. Captain Morris — Put it in there and the Mullet Wrapper and see what happens. Chief McLaughlin — That comes out from the County they distribute that it has to go through the Clerk of Courts. Ron Gilbert — He has a couple of people he would like to ask about it but he doesn't want to overwhelm the Advisory Board with Port of the Islands people in fairness to the rest of the District. Chief McLaughlin — We did have one person that was east of here it might have been one of the Indians but we never heard back. Ron Gilbert — He would like to see a blanket representation if possible but there are a couple of people at Port of the Islands that maybe interested. Chief McLaughlin — He asked Mitchell Roberts if he knew anyone in Copeland but no one out there was interested. We haven't had any interest in Chokoloskee either. Ron Gilbert — He will ask around. Page 9 161 1 A 20 � Ron Gilbert— He will make sure it get in the brochure that is circulated at Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — Will make sure John Torre will get that information or at least gets a copy, A motion was made to adjourn the meeting it was seconded and the meeting ended. zt--� Z40 Ronald Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 10 1611 A20 THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON APRIL 11, 2011 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Caleb Morris, Captain Ron Gilbert, Chairman, Port of the Islands Tod Johnson, Vice Chairman, Everglades City James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member The meeting came to order at 6PM. Chief McLaughlin went over the monthly report. He mentioned that we have received a preliminary Site Development Plan for the ten, nine & six story buildings at Port of the Islands by Sun Stream. Some modifications will be necessary regarding turning and lane requirements. Two of the buildings are going to require fire pumps due to the water system out therewith an option of putting a separate fire pump building. You can run three buildings off one pump house which would be the smartest thing to do. His recommended that Instead of putting a system in each building of $50,000 to put one in and supply all three buildings. Ron Gilbert —That will help us with revenue. Chief McLaughlin —Yes. Ron Gilbert— They must see some changes in the economy that I don't see. OLD BUSINESS BUDGET: Chief McLaughlin —They are selling them all as time shares. Then he continued to go over the monthly report which is attached. We leased a new copier at a cheaper rate then the last one. The class we were scheduled to hold at Part of the Islands was cancelled due to brush fires. We have another budget review coming up on May 13`h that will be the final review with the County Manager. Over our entire budget is looking pretty good we probably will have to go into Reserves this year due to payroll issues and it looks like we are only $2,000 off on our projections. We feel pretty good about that we made that projection in October. He also handed out a budget report for 2012 which is attached. He then went over the information. The information in the budget hand out is still in progress it is not finished. They projected us at an 11% loss last year and we didn't have that actual drop as the monies came in. So we ended up with a $438,000 more than we expected in our budget which is huge. Page 1 161 1 p 20 A Chief McLaughlin —They over projected our loss last year so that gave us the carry forward we needed this year and a little money. We are not going to have an issued like we talked about with the payroll, losing the people and shutting an engine down that all went away. He cut $86,000 out of the operating budget then Fleet Management added $86,000 back in fees for vehicle costs, labor costs, and fuel costs. Then the IT Department's fees increase $3,000 for next year. So he went to battle with fleet over the increases he projected that the fuel costs would be less. They tripled our fuel costs based on $5 a gallon. He implemented some changes such as stopping the move up which is a savings of approximately $4,000. He feels Fleet is shooting a little high on fuel costs. There is nothing he can do about the labor costs they project that he cannot change that. Parts are only charged to us as they are used and the Water Tender is the most costly regarding replacement parts the costs are usually around $5,000 to $6,000 when it goes in. We went from $19,000 to $44,000 in parts he feels the increase is not justified unless we had some sort of catastrophic failure but that is Fleet Management's projection. So everything he gained out of cutting the operating expenses went flat again. The manager wanted wants us to drop another 3% there is enough money in carry forward to cover payroll and 3 %. That also gave us enough money to put some things back into capital. He did cut $19,000 out of our operating budget for protective clothing because we have already purchased it this year and won't need to replace the equipment for another 4 to 5 years. We moved another $16,000 out of other contractual services because that was for the architectural and engineer fees for last year which have been completed. We cut another $20,000 out of building and maintenance it is down to $10,000. We are pretty much done as to what has to be done to these buildings other than painting them and replacing the cabinets at Station 60. So we save some large sums the other cuts were small. With the extra monies we were able to add back to the operating budget for instance the boat budget was originally cut down to $500 if the boat had to be repaired we were going to pull it out of the water so we were able to put $3,000 back into the line item. So we were able to balance our budget with what we had. We don't have our final budget to review until it goes before the County Manager then it goes before the Board of County Commissioners in June then the final budget approval is in September. James Simmons — So you don't anticipate any real problems. Chief McLaughlin -- Not right now. OLD BUSINESS 1 -75: Chief McLaughlin — Three senators have rewritten the State Bill in creation of the toll for 1 -75. The original bill had road services and law enforcement. The Bill has been rewritten to include Fire and Rescue Services. It looks like it has a lot of support and should pass because three State Senators are pushing it. He had to give them a budget. When this becomes more solid he will give them more information. He gave them a yearly operating cost; start up costs, and an overall on shot onetime cost. Page 2 1611A20 Chief McLaughlin — We went back and asked for 3.2 million dollars to build the facilities, buy the trucks out right and one year operating costs. It will take 1.2 million every year after that to operate. We also gave them other options like lease purchasing a building over a 10 or 20 years period they could add that to their operating costs that would bring it up to 1.357 million. We gave them some options on how we could do this. They are not going to raise the toll apparently there is a lot of money sitting over in Water Management that come out of there like ten million dollars and they get a huge chuck of 1 -75 dollars each year and they are not using all of it and they are going to take a portion of it out and fund it over. Actually Broward it going to get a little and we are going to get the rest of the chunk we cover the largest area out there that will fund the dedicated facility. He asked for eleven people based on our formulas for man power and how we will work that out and that will actually benefit us and our payroll because once we do that two shifts will be full with five in town here so if someone is off I don't have to pay over time or a job banker. James Simmons — Is funding Federal or State. Chief McLaughlin —State. Ron Gilbert —So if the passage looks good when will it come to pass. Chief McLaughlin — He is still waiting to hear from Debbie Wight (Legislative Affairs Coordinator) it is coming up it will be this year. So we are expecting to hear something back in the future within the next couple of months. It could get passed and they set a date on it. Or it could get passed and they forward the money to the County and we start immediately. Or they could say put a trailer out there for the first year hire the people and then the next year we will build the facility for you. We don't know what they are going to bring back yet. It looks like it is going to become a reality. The Senators understood the importance of keeping our personnel in the populated areas and that 1 -75 has to fund itself we can't be using tax dollars to cover it taking away the services from the tax payers. OLD BUSINESS PORT OF THE ISLANDS STATION: Ron Gilbert — That sounds pretty good he is real glad that there won't be any personnel cuts. How does it look for money to re -do the marina for the Fire Station at Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — He was told that the County would loan us the money to complete that project next year and we would not have to pay it off until things got better. At this point he doesn't care where the money comes from they understand he has to finish this project. He will wait and see if the money is moved over into the budget under special projects. Ron Gilbert —You are talking next Fiscal Year. Page 2 16 111 A 20 Chief McLauglin — October one is our Fiscal Year. He went back and asked if you are going to loan the money can you do it now so that I can have this done in three months. He was told it would not work that way. He went to the architect and we have non - construction prints that have been handed over to one of the construction companies to give us a fair and accurate price with the architects input. We did get all the plans back and they have been approved all we need is money so we can pull the permits and get started. He has been told it can be done in three months. NEW BUSINESS WATER TENDER: Chief McLaughlin — Our Water Tender carries 3, 000 gallons of water for our rural community is 21 years old. We have now spent almost as much as it was purchased. Fleet has wanted to take this unit out of service for several years. It's had multiple problems every time it goes in it costs from $5,000 to $8,000. The pump housing has been welded in spots. It really has not business of being in service. The vehicle is only used for an emergency response. It only responds if someone really has to have it there is no guarantee it will get there. We had two incidents this winter where it wouldn't start because it was below 45 or 50 degrees. After the incident in East Naples the other day he started to think about the liability of using the current Water Tender. He started researching some things and found out that he can go to the Board of County Commissioners and asked for an emergency purchase to replace this vehicle. He can purchase it off the Sheriff's Big List which means I don't have to go to bid on it. I just need to find one out there that fits our parameters. The leasing companies will go up to ten years and one year in the rear which means we don't have to pay on the vehicle the first year. What that means is if I take delivery after October 1, 2011 which we would we don't have to pay for it until the 2013 budget. So by then things will be better and it looks like it will cost from $25,000 to $26,000 a year for a ten year lease he is still trying to get that number down. We have two years left on our current lease purchase for our two engines and that is $44,000 a year. We make our last payment in 2014 so we will have two years of double payments then after that our lease purchase payment will drop 40% the $44,000 will go back into the budget because the engines will be paid for. James Simmons — Will this be a new unit? Chief McLaughlin —Yes it will be a new unit. James Simmons — It looks like you could find a pretty good bargain used Page 3 161 1 A 20 Chief McLaughlin — Actually historically used fire apparatus don't do well they have to comply with NFPA. So if you purchase a used apparatus if anything were to happen you would be opening yourself up to a huge liability plus you are taking on someone else's problems. These fire trucks are 15 to 20 year trucks they are not a five year purchase. Engines usually get 10 to 15 years on them. Ladder trucks and Water Tenders life span is 15 to 20 years that is the national standard recommended by NFPA. Also per NFPA once the vehicle has reached 20 years it is time to take it out of service. The new vehicle would serve the District well into 2021 or 2022. If we purchase the right vehicle now and with the maintenance schedules we have it will service the District for many years. It is worth in the big picture. Most used fire trucks go to South America or overseas. Ron Gilbert —There is no salvage value on the water tender. Chief McLaughlin — We will get a trade in value for it maybe $5,000 or $10,000. Are two engines we traded in we got $10,000 for them. Ron Gilbert— What do you expect the new water tender to costs? Chief McLaughlin — He has quotes from $200,000 to $230,000 and he is working right now to find something that will applicable. We have now a 3,000 gallon water tender and he is looking to drop that down to 2,000 or 2500 there is a couple of reasons for that. Duel axel versus single axel which has to do with wear and tear, maintenance, costs and weight due to some of the bridges it will have to cross. He feels the 2,000 or 2500 gallon tanker would serve us well. Powering a 3,000 gallon tanker the weight versus powering a 2,000 gallon tanker there is a $10,000 difference in engines. We are looking at a vacuum tanker versus an elliptical and a stander straight side tanker they all vary in price. One company made a pretty good offer on a vacuum tanker in retrospect it would be an outstanding truck for Alligator Alley because you can refill that 2000 gallon tank in 20 seconds. If the difference is $35,000 to $40,000 for a standard straight side instead of an elliptical or vacuum or 2500 gallon or 3,000 we will probably go that route because that is going to take our payment from $29,000 or $30,000 down to $25,000. It would serve the purpose as much as we would use the vehicle it is not for any every day response. Ron Gilbert — That would be used for an isolated fire where there are no fire hydrants or not a canal close by. Chief McLaughlin — Which is half of our District we only have fire hydrants in Port of the Islands and Everglades City. The other area all of Lee Cypress, Jerome all of US 41 and SR 29 don't have hydrants. Only a few in Copeland have hydrants. Everything we currently run on the road that has to do with a truck incident the tanker has to go one because we don't have enough water. We still have a lot of area that does not have fire hydrants. Page 4 161 1 A20 Ron Gilbert — Will 2,000 gallons put out a fire? Chief McLaughlin —We are carrying 1,000 on the engines so that would be 3,000. At some point depending how far it is and what we are trying to do. A water tender is designed to be set up as a water shuttle. You drop the fold a tank you go draft from a canal come back and dump it and the engine drafts right out of the tank it becomes a reservoir. If the fire is small enough it can just pump into the engine but if it looks like it is going to be a bigger fire you set up the fold a tank and use the tanker as a shuttle. We use the water tender a lot on road side fires as well. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:35PM. Ronald Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 5 1611,A201 OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2011 TRAINING: 622.75 hours for March 2011, See Attached FIRE PREVENTION; None Reported New Construction Infections 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 o� to 0 y N 5. o O Cl 7 7 a m 7' n b O b N O M N c I x ny W ? a " � `o w o ❑ y. ? a y O� 0 rn 03C G W w y n p p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hd ? d d f A o b a N R Vi 'Jy y M y w � 7 � � G w� 7 H S M r w w A A N ^• N 0 0 0 0 0 G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y U r+ N N J rn ti w m A A N A N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y `a. h N N Y ti O. C1 A OYO O~0 A O 'JYO N -'1 N O� J A , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O G O 0 0 0< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 161 1 A 20 e n w " w c � O w � • o °0 3 � w 9 0 � Y N a O w w 0 z �0 rn o 'H N w o O w w as x K P. b PQ N N O M N 0 c n c C 0 161 w a �y S R 04 N a° G C M 9_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 � p Oi �o � C �a I v, tJ V� N Q� N �, J N N •-- O � N N N� P N U O T N N D\ J OO O o0 o N N N N TNj N N C� a N to O O. N N O� C N n Vii O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N VI O O O O O O O O O O C O A20 1 1611 ALu ADMIN ISTRATION Budget Report: Current Advalorem - $1,346,300- /Reserves - $77,006.62 Actual Operating Expenses - $218,699.40 /Available - $144,535.45 (This is a combination of Operating Expenses Balance $138,515.45 and Capital Outlay $6020.00) Significant Purchases: None Goals Progress Report: The DOF Grant Award is going before the BCC for their approval on 442 -11. The recommendation for the new Advisory Board Member will also go before the BCC on 4-12-11 . The 2012 budget for Ochopee Fire Control District has been completed and loaded into the Gov Max system. The Department will have a budget meeting with the County Manager on 5- 13 -11. The Department has a new copier the old lease expired and we have entered into a new one at a lower monthly payment. The Chief is obtaining information regarding the purchase of a new Water Tender Fleet has Condemned our old vehicle. We are going to place information in the 2012 budget stating that the vehicle will be replaced in 2012 with a payment not due until the 2013 budget year. The existing lease purchase on the two engines will end with the last payment in 2014 after which we will only have to pay on the new water tender at a savings of approximately $13,000 a month. Number of Meetings Attended: 03/01/11 Meeting with Dan Summers and Chief Rodriguez 8:30AM to 10:30AM, 1 PM to 2:30PM Incident Management "I'ask Force /03/08/11 ICS -400 8AM to 5PM/03/10/11 Meeting with Cardinal Management (POI)9AM to IPM/03 /I1 /l 1 ICS -400 8AM to 5PM/03/15/11 Meeting with Sunbrella 8:30AM to9AM/03 /17/1 1 Staff Meeting 9AM to I lAlvl/03 /24/11 Chief's Meeting 1:30PM to 3:30PM/03/30/11 Budget Review Meeting with Mark and Randy I OAM to Noon/03 /31/11 Fire Marshal Meeting 9AM to 9:30AM. FACILITIES MAINTENANCE & REPAIR: None Reported Everglades City Station Report Ochopee Station Report Costs by Project With Total 1611 AeU OPERATIONS REPORT FOR MARCH 2011 Structure Fires 0 Vehicle Fires I Brush Fires 6 Auto Accidents 15 EMS Calls Excluding Vehicle Accidents 30 Miscellaneous Fire Calls (Trash, Etc...) 4 Special Services Calls 0 I -75 Calls for March 2011: Brush Fire 2 EMS 6 Auto Accidents 10 Auto Fire I Total 19 Out of a total of 56 calls for the month of March 2011 nineteen were on 1 -75 making that 34% of the call load. 16I 1 A20 O C) 0 0 m m T_ m m C) O z O r 0 ,Z7 n O z S m S_ n r m D z m Z D z n m D z 0 m "D D_ m v O A T 0 T7 D n S N O F� N W W D x p m A Z N. p D< O � O W T O W� O Ol O m m O UI m CO pl - O Z m A Z A Z m O➢ p � W rtl N A 1.1 Z m •+� n n� n AWi ~ A N O O C V C m m m W T O p o p O Z O= Z O z O Z �m m O aoi nT. Z O cz X tl R f1 Z D D O z Chi O m m m m n s � -< A � N m Z D Z D Z D Z D m 0 Z D m p Z D m 0 Z D m 0 Z D m 0 Z D m 0 z D 'o Z D m 0 'a D_ m m p m p m p m p m p m p m p O m p O m p Om m p Om m p Om m Om m m Om Z m p T p m O T T O T m p m. p p p C p C O p C O C p C C p C C C C m O p p p to O to O cn O cn O in p v+ O v. p v� Z D D ,� to D cn D v� y D > D D D D D D z rn D D D D D m D D D L D D D m z n n n n n 2 n 2 n 2 n S n T n 2 n S - m S m 2 m 2 m = m m n m n m n m n m n m n m n Z y D m n n n n i m m G m m v D D D O A i a a n m m D D I � w m < I i � o O o cl o c O c O n p = D 0 o O O o f- p to < m 2 ' n r m C � m s � m O D A i � N O C) 0 0 m m T_ m m C) O z O r 0 ,Z7 n O z S m S_ n r m D z m Z D z n m D z 0 m "D D_ m v O A T 0 T7 D n S N O F� N Equipment Total Costs 460 16 1, 1A ZG 1 of 2 1 I Jo� Details for Work Order Number 0000088514 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 02/11/2011 Date Out: 03/03/2011 Total Cost: $242.84 Mileage: 14353 Maintenance Notes: 02/111201101:57 NO START AT PORT OF THE ISLES SLOW TO CRANK 253/INSPECT UNIT, FIRST BATT DRAINED COMPLETELY NEEDS TO BE RECHARGED AND MAY BE FUALTY. DOWN TO 6 VOLTS. CHECKED SECOND BATT HAS FULL 12 VOLTS. CHARGED BATT WITH J[.1MPER CABLES TO START TRUCK. STARTED TRUCK CHECKED CHARGE SYS. AT 27.45 VOLTS (24 VOLT SYS.) CHECKED FIRST BATT AT HIGH IDLE AT 11.0 VOLTS. DEPT HAS 35 AMP CHARGER, ADVISED DRIVER TO CHARGE BATT ON CHARGER FOR AT LEAST 3 -4 HOURS THEN SEE IF IT WILL START. IF NOT DEPT SAID THEY WOULD SWAP OUT BATT FROM OTHER BRUSH TRUCK TO KEEP IN SERVICE. TWO BATTS WERE ORDERED NEED TO CALL DEPT TO SEE IF NEEDED PER 217. DRAW FROM FLASHLIGHT WHICH WAS WIRED HOT BY DEPT TO CONSTANT 12 VOLTS WITHOUT SHUT -OFF SEEMS TO BE CURSE. 02/14/2011 @ 09:35:54 BATTERIES TAKEN OFF WORK ORDER AND ISSUED TO WO #88514 TRK. #tOF006 —TWM httir / /cww2/ Fleet /WOSiimmary.clin ?OVOID= 168843 &year = 1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 1w ey ClopinlY oib` Was ■r ,r* T rar .s. -i'f -i.,[ PM SCREDiILE -t{jA FCFL I-iOl #E ELEETfiTAFF Eiir�;j__ L.CC3Y10037f�C1FC73�lOtt i-. LC< l S 10'dS Paeeen "3iv ±133.¢C.'liclfi: Hours FORMS }'o3'3C�LR FL E2: LL TE;RE ;_Csio1V_lp SLKVEY CARD GAILL -FR, Fueling Site Link Details for Work Order Number 0000088514 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 02/11/2011 Date Out: 03/03/2011 Total Cost: $242.84 Mileage: 14353 Maintenance Notes: 02/111201101:57 NO START AT PORT OF THE ISLES SLOW TO CRANK 253/INSPECT UNIT, FIRST BATT DRAINED COMPLETELY NEEDS TO BE RECHARGED AND MAY BE FUALTY. DOWN TO 6 VOLTS. CHECKED SECOND BATT HAS FULL 12 VOLTS. CHARGED BATT WITH J[.1MPER CABLES TO START TRUCK. STARTED TRUCK CHECKED CHARGE SYS. AT 27.45 VOLTS (24 VOLT SYS.) CHECKED FIRST BATT AT HIGH IDLE AT 11.0 VOLTS. DEPT HAS 35 AMP CHARGER, ADVISED DRIVER TO CHARGE BATT ON CHARGER FOR AT LEAST 3 -4 HOURS THEN SEE IF IT WILL START. IF NOT DEPT SAID THEY WOULD SWAP OUT BATT FROM OTHER BRUSH TRUCK TO KEEP IN SERVICE. TWO BATTS WERE ORDERED NEED TO CALL DEPT TO SEE IF NEEDED PER 217. DRAW FROM FLASHLIGHT WHICH WAS WIRED HOT BY DEPT TO CONSTANT 12 VOLTS WITHOUT SHUT -OFF SEEMS TO BE CURSE. 02/14/2011 @ 09:35:54 BATTERIES TAKEN OFF WORK ORDER AND ISSUED TO WO #88514 TRK. #tOF006 —TWM httir / /cww2/ Fleet /WOSiimmary.clin ?OVOID= 168843 &year = 1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 161 1 A 2 Equipment Total Costs /df �O ��° S Page 2 of 2 03/01/2011 @ 08:39:50 03/03/2011 @ 17:28:13 reviewed by 222 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 2.74388 Total Amount: $242.84 REPAIR CODE DATE IN OUT HOURS COST 50326J0001BN 02/11/2011 02/11/2011 0.23194 $20.53 8032BOCCOIBN 02/11/2011 02/11/2011 2.51194 $222.31 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $1,020.84 REPAIRCODE DATEIN DESCRIPTION EACH OTY COST BATTERY- 6032B0010013N 0211112011 WISTUD- $119.40 2 $238.80 1125CCA11260CA 8032699103BN 02/14!2011 BATTERY12 $205.80 2 $411.61 VOLT MILITARY 8032B00100BN 02/14/2011 BATTERY 12 VOLT MILITARY $18522 2 $370.43 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 80320000016N 8 Road Call I Cranking System ( System Diagnosis I Billable I NOT SCHEDULED http:// cww2/ Fleet /WOSuininary.cfm ?WOID} 168843 &year -1978 &make =... 4/11 /2011 161 1 Equipment Total Costs U t Page I of 6 Details for Work Order Number 0000088790 on 1975 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 03/01/2011 Date Out: /0/0 Total Cost: $9,128.22 Mileage: 14000 '�ii_K t)It �t.e: Jt,iC C'txai. It�r' (ri; ttlilti Maintenance Notes: 03/01/201106:45 PMB .....Fabricate stall to hold radio light controler, check batterys. 253 1PERFORMING SERVICE, NEED TO INSTALL BATTS TO GET INSIDE.@ 07:11:54 253/ UPON INSPECTING UNIT ON SERVICE NOTICED TRUCK NEEDS AS FOLLOWS: WATER PUMP, COOLANT FLUSH, RADIATOR CAP, AIR STEERING ASSIST VALVE, DRIVERS WINDSHIELD, ADJUSTMENT ON REAR CAB OR FRONT CAB WALL TO ALLOW CLEARENCE FOR WINDOW WHILE OPENING AND CLOSING DOOR. ORDERING PARTS WAITNG FOR E.T.A. TO POST. 03/01/2011 @ 10:02:34 253/ WATER PUMP HAS ARRIVED, WILL INSTALL SERVICE WILL BE DONE ALSO. WINDSHIELD IS IN MEMPHIS, TN WILL BE A COUPLE DAYS. REMOVED STEERING VALVE WILL DISSASEMBLE AND TRY TO FIX IN HOUSE NO REBUILD KIT OR VALVE READILY AVAILABLE.@ 08:55:04 253/ INSPECTING BRAKES TOOK MORE TIME TO REMOVE DRUMS. STEER http:l/cwwv2/ Fleet /WOSummary.efm ?WOID= 169146 &year =1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 C Fleet colber d 114 ��► Management a- w n _. Fi LF t' StiOp WL, PM SCHEDULE HC9�if t j 1.CTSIA1 F EMAIL US, Locations and Operation � , ._ C t7C _iltC,,.S Prcie-nd% '�fnwlenanee Hours F roar=. GLOBAL -FLEET 7M:WER tt_E1.: CAR!} P1C Z,RL CI Si { }"'1I:R? T-RVEY C.1t 1 %12'5. Fueling Site Link Details for Work Order Number 0000088790 on 1975 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 03/01/2011 Date Out: /0/0 Total Cost: $9,128.22 Mileage: 14000 '�ii_K t)It �t.e: Jt,iC C'txai. It�r' (ri; ttlilti Maintenance Notes: 03/01/201106:45 PMB .....Fabricate stall to hold radio light controler, check batterys. 253 1PERFORMING SERVICE, NEED TO INSTALL BATTS TO GET INSIDE.@ 07:11:54 253/ UPON INSPECTING UNIT ON SERVICE NOTICED TRUCK NEEDS AS FOLLOWS: WATER PUMP, COOLANT FLUSH, RADIATOR CAP, AIR STEERING ASSIST VALVE, DRIVERS WINDSHIELD, ADJUSTMENT ON REAR CAB OR FRONT CAB WALL TO ALLOW CLEARENCE FOR WINDOW WHILE OPENING AND CLOSING DOOR. ORDERING PARTS WAITNG FOR E.T.A. TO POST. 03/01/2011 @ 10:02:34 253/ WATER PUMP HAS ARRIVED, WILL INSTALL SERVICE WILL BE DONE ALSO. WINDSHIELD IS IN MEMPHIS, TN WILL BE A COUPLE DAYS. REMOVED STEERING VALVE WILL DISSASEMBLE AND TRY TO FIX IN HOUSE NO REBUILD KIT OR VALVE READILY AVAILABLE.@ 08:55:04 253/ INSPECTING BRAKES TOOK MORE TIME TO REMOVE DRUMS. STEER http:l/cwwv2/ Fleet /WOSummary.efm ?WOID= 169146 &year =1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs 1611 Pof 6 �3 1 10 CYL., TOOK TIME TO DISSASEMBLE NOT ABLE TO SERVICE. NEW VALVE FOUND, APROVED AND ORDERED SHOULD BE IN BY TUESDAY ALONG WITH WINDSHIELD. REMOVING WATER PUMP. @ 07:17:48--- VALVE AND WINDSHIELD ARE IN AND ISSUED- TWM 03/10/2011 @ 14:27:09 253/ REPLACED WATER PUMP, PRESSURE TESTED UNIT FOUND FOUND ANOTHER LEAK AT BY -PASS HOSE REMOVED GEN FOR ACCESS. TIGHTEND CLAMPS NO LEAKS, ANOTHER TWO LEAKS REPLACED HOSE UNDER TANK, REMOVED UPPER HOSE CLEANED RUSTED HOSE NECKS INSTALLED NO MORE COOOLANT LEAKS PRESSURE TESTED 16 PSI 1 HOUR. 253/ INSTALLED STEERING VALVE. AIR PRESSURE NOW REACHES SLAVE CYLINDER HOWEVER SLAVE CYL IS LEAKING AIR THROUGH INTERNAL SEAL REMOVED PISTON TRING TO FIND SEAL KITTO REPAIR. 253 / UNIT ALSO DOES NOT HAVE MASTER DISCONNECT FOR POWER SOURCE NEED TO INSTALL CUT -OFF. 03/11/2011 @ 09:41:46 253/ WAITING FOR PARTS. 03/11/2011 @ 10:30:06StepEMSIFIRE PM Service TasksOKAdjustRepairReplaceCab, Body, Engine Compartment.lRoad test,ek b►•akes,retarder,steering, etc. 2Check gauges, warning Iights,buzzers.X3Cheek high idle at 1500 rpm (diesels)X4Check door warning lights N/A SCheck parking brake & operation.X 7Check A/C, vents & heater performance.N /A SClean or replace A/C filtersN /A 9Check extinguisher, flare & triangle kit 101nspect interior seats,seat belt,handles. X 1llnspect storage doors,covers,locks,strutsX 12Check horns for proper operation 131nspect glass,mirror for cracks X 141nspect wiper blades /washer jets15Chcck exterior lights,light bars,strobes etc.X 16Note physical damage.X17Check tire condition & wear, air to spees.Xl8Replace tires > 4 /32XI9Inspect & tube door latches and handles X20Inspect battery box and hardware.X21Test batteries and test charging system X 22Inspect battery shutoff switch and cables. N /A23Inspect 02 bottle holders.N /A24Inspect fuel tanks,check vents and capsX25Inspect air filter replace if nec.X26Inspect coolant system and hoses X27Inspect drive belts XUnder CarriageOkAdjustRepairReplace28lnspect exhaust system X29Inspect steering column /components.X30Lube chassis as needed.X3IInspect fire pump,lines & mounts if equipped321nspect steering linkage for looseness X331nspect king pins and front end for wear X34Change engine oil and filters.X35Inspect engine for oil leaks X36Inspect starter, cables, mounts.X371nspect trans bellhousing loose bolts X38Inspect oil line for leak and cracks X39Inspect parking brake asm.X401nspect brake actuator X 41Check brakes,drums for wear and rotors RearAxle 190 %42Note brake pad /shoe condition ( %)FRSO %Rear290 %43Check slack adjuster operation /adjustment.N /A 44Adjust brakes if nec.X45Inspect frame ,mounts,accessoriesX461nspect undercarriage for damage or loss X471nspect all attachments, proper operation X48Inspect springs for http: / /cww2 /Fleet/WOSum nary.cfm ?WOID= 169146 &year = 1978 &make —... 4/11/2011 1b 1 1 Equipment Total Costs Aage4 oQ6 cracks,worn bushing X49Cbeck axle U bolts, re- torque to specs.X50Cheek U -joint and lube X 51Drain air tanks & check auto bleed Sys. X52Inspect air riding height /air bags N/A 53Inspect air system for leaks X54Test /inspect air dump system.X 55Report items,wires,accessories that do notXbelong or look suspicious56Test shore line auto eject and chargingN /A 57Sign off that PM is completed PMB & PMC SERVICE ITEMSOkAdjustRepair ReplacelClean engine & frame of dirt,oil if nee X 2Test starter draw, test alt output and noteSt.A1t.3Test coolant with PH strip or refractometerX4Pressure test coolant system X511eplace coolant filters if equipped.N /A6Drain & flush cooling sys if necX7Change differential fluids if nee. XSChange transmission filters & fluids if nee. Xsee Alison manuals for fluid type if unsure9Replace fuel filters XIOCheek/test emission System components.N /AllCheck/service air dryer operation.X 12Road test to verify repairs.12Cheek UV lamp if eq uipped.N/A 13Sign off that PM is completed FIRE PUMPSOkAdjustRepairReplacelCheck pump interlocks2Run primer pump and check vacuum3Prime pump and check operationACheck pump panel lamps and gauges5Adjust pump packing if n ecessa ry.6 Check ladder racks & interlocks7Check generator and I tOv lights if equipped254: DROPED OFF CYL @ B & B HYDRUALIC. 254: INSTALLED STEERING CYL. 254: REPLACED PITMAN ARM. 254; ASSIT, WITH DOOR 04/06/2011 ai 15:20:07 253/INSTALLED SHUT OFF SOLENOIDS & SWITCH ON DASH WITH INDICATOR LIGHT. REPLACED DUMP HOSE FROM STEERING CYL. TO AIR CLEANER. MOVING CAB PANELING BACK TO ALLOW DOOR TO SHUT PROPERLY. 04/06/2011 g 13:11:03 253/ REPLACED DRIVERS SIDE MIRROR AND ADDED CONVEX MIRROR. ADJUSTED DOOR AND BODY TO ALOW DOOR OPEN AND CLOSE. ROAD TESTED RUNS GOOD. PUT SPARE TIRE FROM OTHER BRUSH TRUCK IN BACK OF BED AND TIED UP. UNIT DONE PARKED BEHIND NORTH WING. @. 17:02:23 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 72.14029 Total Amount: 54,256.29 REPAIR CODE DATE IN OUT HOURS COST 00328001( ,3BS 03/01/2011 03/01/2011 0.12667 $7.47 PMB as 03/01/2011 03/0112011 1.60083 594.45 PMB as 03/0212011 03/02/2011 1.00917 $59.54 1315CU0170SN 03/0312011 03/03/2011 4.28250 5252.67 2503iv?NOfi00SN 03103/2011 03/0812011 3.40833 $201.09 CIOMiH0600B3 03/0312011 03/03/2011 2.31639 5136.67 P%ls BS 03/03/2011 03/03/2011 0.65667 $38.74 Pi11i3 RIS 03/03/2011 03/03/2011 6.43533 S37 9.56 http: / /c -N�v2 /Fleet /W OSummary. efin ?WOID= 169146 &year= 1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs PMIBI8S 03/03/2011 03/03/2011 0,19222 51134 2042MHO6 OBN 03/04/2011 03104/2011 1,50778 $8896 2042MF1061OBN 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 0.00111 50.07 2042PS0100BN 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 2.28472 $134 80 2G42PSOi00BN 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 0.68194 540.23 20 42PS0100BN 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 2.41417 $14244 PfAB SS 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 0.84222 549.69 <042PS01008N 03/07/2011 03/07/2011 0.58778 $34.68 CZ93itgH0300BS 03/07/2011 03/07/2011 0.13778 58.13 2007VAN'010013N 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 0.86528 S51 05 2042PS010p8N 03/0812011 03/08/2011 2.04222 5120.49 2042PS01008N 03/08/2011 03108/2011 0.00389 $0.23 210310H360OBN 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 0.92778 $5474 C056MH0155B5 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 0.61028 S36.01 C0 0MH015.5BS 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 0.76389 545.07 C103MH0155BS 03108/2011 03/08/2011 5.45361 5321.76 C103'V1H06Q0BS 03/08/2011 03108/2011 0.06361 53.75 2042PS016E6N 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 0.37194 521.04 PMB BS 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 0.45333 S2675 2015CU010OBN 03/10/2011 03110/2011 1.97000 $116.23 2042H5010OBN 03110/2011 03/10/2011 1.28778 575,98 2042H50100BN 03/10/2011 03/10/2011 1.54778 µ9'1 22 2042PS01858N 03/10/2011 03/10/2011 0.30444 $17.96 2015CUOIOCBN 03/11/2011 03/11/2011 1.40833 583.09 2015CU010OBN 03/11/2011 03/11/2011 4.01167 $236.69 2015CUOIOOBN 03/24/2011 03/24/2011 0.79167 $46.71 1015CU01708N 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 0.00472 $0.28 1290MH06003!V 03/28/2011 03128/2011 2,50611 $147.86 1290MH0155BN 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 1.38806 S51 90 1290LAH0155BN 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 1.36556 $80.57 129044H0600BN 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 0.00139 S0.03 2015C iOOBN 04/05/2011 04105/2011 0.73417 $4332 2015CU0100BPJ 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 0.33528 $19.78 2052Lfl,HQ 55BN 04/05/2011 04105/2011 0.67750 S39.9% 2052MH0155BN 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 3.66944 5216.50 1002MH05656N 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 1.09500 564.61 2052MH0155HN 04/062011 04/06/2011 3.21056 $189.42 2052MH0155EN 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 1.89722 $111.94 2052MHO155BN 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 3.88917 $229.46 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $8,129.31 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION 1032BOD1006N 03/01120/1 BATTERY 12 VOLT MILITARY _I032FAH0100,BN 03/01/2011 MISC. /HARDWARE & PARTS 16 1 1 A 20 Page 4 of 6 X61 EACH QTY COST $18522 2 $370.43 $6.36 2 $12.73 littp:// cww2 /Fleet/WOSummary.c,fin ?WOID -- 169146 &vear= 197Unigl e� 411 1 / ?n1 i http://c-vvw2/Fleet/WOSuii-imary.cfiii?WOID=I69146&year�I978&inake�... 4/11/2011 U ` _~ �� ° ° � ^ �� LO�li�}Ul�0t1`Oi3/(�U�S Page 50F6 � ' �>m {2�GU]�8!OD��O8/O1/2011 � DECAL8T0CK'[4"VV]'CHGDY $131 J 3574 FT, V3/O1/2V11 FUEL TANK/G88,ALV*i.13-38L. *24140 1 S241 4a 03/03/2011CAP/R8D|T0R16# $347 1 $3-1.47 }O42FJ00�{6�i ANT|FRF�ZE/P�A�'G�LL0N 03/03/2011 $1428 4 S5710 CONT. 03/03/2011 PLUG DRAIN 59CUMMINS $5120 1 Q5326 03/U3/2O11 LUBRICANT VVD40 $6,60 1 $660 ,061 M GLOVES LARGE PER&T�X �� 03/DS/%O11 %11 1 S1165 ====�====� N|TR|L[ .65 p&NB RS 01/03/2011F/F|LTER83 |NTL4000 *4.70 1 $4.70 p?e88-8S O3/V5/2011 FILTER/OIL MACK TRUCK ¢13.39 1 S1399 F%8B 1B'S 03/03/ZO11 TRANS F|LT82GrWCT0PK|CK $2.96 1 5296 l{��5NH0�OO8M LUBENT|'RUST WATER 03/04/2011 VV�� $1.59 1 $158 PUMP � 03/07/2011V'DELT *14.77 1 *1477 O3/V7/2811BELT/SERP.7-R|8MICRO $39.95 1 $39,95 1D07�d%&V0l0ODN03/08/2U11 WINDSHIELD N0FFD\&1E %20345 1 S203.45 104282110r%BN 03108/2011 V-BELT $14.42 1 S14.42 Y0�1&KH}�iS8Ng3/V8/2011 M|TE��PDLACKO|L|C0NE $059 1 $659 GASKET � O3/08/2011W1}8C/HkRDVK8RE&PARTS $8.36 4 G25.44 10 bLT|l0(OM O3/10/2011 DRAG LINK AS3YVV6AS8|8T $2,47850 132478,50 C0KE/PRAGL)NK 08/10/2O11 ASSY.VY�G0|JT $50880 � 1 S50000 l[L15LT11{OBNV5/1O/2O11 DRAG LINK 8nGY.VVhA3S|ST $2.60920 1 $2,508.28 AMT|FREEIE/PEAK'GALL0N 03/1O/2O1{ *1428 1 G1420 CONT. 03/1112011 SOLENOID CONTINUOUS DUTY $47.04 1 S4784 SOLENOID 24VCONTINUOUS 8J/11/2O11 $7635 1 $7635 DUTY� O314/011 WATER PUMP $259,60 1 S25960 0J/14/2011 WATER PUMP 820820 1 320020 01/1412011 CORE WATER PUMP S179,95 1 3178�95 03/18/2011 PVC JUNCTION BOX $3650 1 $36.50 1887BJ0i00fKN 03/21/2011 GL8DE}VV|PER14'-m1|L|TARY $2305 2 $40.10 101 !AH L1, 1, 08-314, 03/21/2011 PITMAN ARM MILITARY TRK. $8364 1 $83,64 015 M HO 10 IBNI O3/28/2011 BOOT/UNIVERSAL RACK/P|N. $18.81 1 S18.81 10 It 5cuol 65BN CYL|NDFFVHYD�[P8�R/R�DU(Ln 04/01/2011 � $30163 1 S38183 NVSEALS � 04/05/2O11 LAMP/GREEN INDICATOR 8289 1 $208 04/05/2011 SWITCH BEST TOGGLE 12V3OA $725 1 5725 04/05/2011 TOGGLE SWITCH BOOT *10.62 1 510-62 l O4/00Z011 MIRROR D/12 OFFSET SPOT $1402 1 31402 1 007MlE02!OCEN 0410612011 i0X6 MIRROR HEAD $22.59 1 S22-59 04/86/2011 LIGHT LED YIELD INDICATOR $5.17 1 S517 {%528m-!0)1 552}304/U6D011 SOLENOID CONTINUOUS DUTY $55.07 1 $6507 http://c-vvw2/Fleet/WOSuii-imary.cfiii?WOID=I69146&year�I978&inake�... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs PIIC 8S 04/06/2011 LUBRICANTiMERCON V ATF — BULK vutSource /Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00 Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 Credits: Total Amount: ($679.95) REPAIR CODE DATE DESCRIPTION CREDIT POSTED 1015LT11COBN 03/21/2011 CORE #83504 -C ($500.00) DRAGLINK 1042PS010OBN 03/23/2011 CORE #OR1013 -C $179.95) WATER PUMP 16// 1 1 hw $3.36 7 $23.54 .,2® 4 Page 6 of 6 /0/=V0 � Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR CODE DESCRIPTION 129OMHO155BN 1 Repaired From PM Service I Steer Off H /way I Misc Parts I Install I Billable 129OMHO60OBN 1 Repaired From PM Service I Steer Off H/way I Misc Parts I Fabricate I Billabl 2015CU01006N 2 General Repair I Steering System I Cylinder Assist ( Replace I Billable 1 NOT 2015CU010OBN 2 General Repair I Steering System Cylinder Assist ( Replace I Billable I NOT 2042H50100BN 2 General Repair I Cooling Engine I Hose Bypass I Replace I Billable I NOT SCHE 2042MHO6108N 2 General Repair I Cooling Engine I Misc Parts I Drill/Tap I Billable I NOT SCH 2042PS010OBN 2 General Repair I Cooling Engine ( Pump Engine Wat I Replace I Billable I NOT 2042PS0165BN 2 General Repair I Cooling Engine I Pump Engine Wat ( Repair I Billable I NOT S 2052MH0155BN 2 General Repair I Electrical Acc I Misc Parts Install I Billable I NOT SCHED 2103MHO60OBN 2 General Repair I Accessory Emer I Misc Parts I Fabricate ( Billable I NOT SCH C056MHO155BS C Capitalization Repair I CommunicationEq Misc Parts I Install ( Billable 15 C103MH060OBS C Capitalization Repair ( Accessory Emer Misc Parts ( Fabricate I Billable PMB BS P PM Service I B Service List I Billable SCHEDULED littp:Hc",vv2 /Fleet /WOSLimniarv.cf`m ?WOID= 169146 &year= 1978&make =... 4/11/2011 Details .for Work Order Number 0000081465 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 03/02/2010 Date Out: 04/21/2010 Total Cost: $6,616.05 Mileage: 1.4000 .'[ic'" on .Rcnaif- (''06- 'ar (:7et/ 1 Maintenance Notes: 03/02/2010 05:15 Order 6 tire from Collier Tire tire side 365/80R20 LEE CALLED IN 239 -825 -5079 WAS BRINGING IN NEW BRUSH TRUCK. REAR TIRE BLEW UP. TRUCK HAS GOOD SPARE. COLLIER TIRE WILL RUN CALL. NEED TO INTAKE FUEL KEY. 254; Disable airing system from wheels. Take truck to Collier Tire to mount new tires. 217 Truck completed . Dept took truck over to a paint shop. review by 217 04/21/2010 a 07:19:41 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 1.89778 Total Amount: $125.25 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DATE HOURS COST http:l/eww2/ Fleet /WOSummarv.cfi-n?WOID =160776 &veer -1978A rnA-P= e;I tl ,)ni I L F1 E 5HOrl Pivt SCUL1 L�E HOME FI [ rT s i ku, E —0, Locations and e aton tla ; trc' lai ;[ enac'Ce flours Co Proxm:n WX GLOIIAL•FLES_T' P[('.Tt ,2r CARD GALLERY CC 1ULI:—fl URA "E3' Fuelin; Site Link Details .for Work Order Number 0000081465 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 03/02/2010 Date Out: 04/21/2010 Total Cost: $6,616.05 Mileage: 1.4000 .'[ic'" on .Rcnaif- (''06- 'ar (:7et/ 1 Maintenance Notes: 03/02/2010 05:15 Order 6 tire from Collier Tire tire side 365/80R20 LEE CALLED IN 239 -825 -5079 WAS BRINGING IN NEW BRUSH TRUCK. REAR TIRE BLEW UP. TRUCK HAS GOOD SPARE. COLLIER TIRE WILL RUN CALL. NEED TO INTAKE FUEL KEY. 254; Disable airing system from wheels. Take truck to Collier Tire to mount new tires. 217 Truck completed . Dept took truck over to a paint shop. review by 217 04/21/2010 a 07:19:41 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 1.89778 Total Amount: $125.25 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DATE HOURS COST http:l/eww2/ Fleet /WOSummarv.cfi-n?WOID =160776 &veer -1978A rnA-P= e;I tl ,)ni I 161 1 Equipment Total Costs 2051b1HO130EN 03/31/2010 03/31/2010 1.89778 $12525 661 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $8,410.80 (/,:, '(0 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION TIRE /DUNLOP- 0017TS111P` SS 03/17/2010 SPT 9 MILITARY TRK. TIRE /DUNLOP- CrT17TLI'i10,0 ,3S 03/17/2010 SPT 9 MILITARY TRK. TIRE/DUNLOP- 00a7 PAII -OES 03/24/2010 SPT 9MILITARY TRK. TIRE /DUNLOP- 00177,411,006S 03/29/2010 SPT 9 MILITARY TRK. 8G17V101008N 04/13/2010 VALVE/STEM/TIRE EACH QTY COST $1,03200 2 $2,064.0; $1,032.00 2 52-i6.' 0,, $1,032.00 2 $2,G6=CO $1,032.00 2 $2,464.00 $25.80 6 5154.80 OutSource /Sublet: Total Amount: $144.00 REPAIR CODE DATE DATE VENDOR COST OUT BACK COLLIER 8017TMIICOEN 04/1212010 04/21/2010 TIRE $144.00 COMMERCIAL CENTER Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 Credits: Total Amount: $0.00 ABU Page 2 of 2 Repair Code Description: Match .Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR CODE DESCRIPTION 2051 MHO16OBN 2 General Repair I Air Supply I Misc Parts Remove I Billable I NOT' SCHEDULED http: / /ew-kv2 /Fleet /W OS umni ary.c fm?WOII)- 160776 &year = 197& &make =... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs 161 1 A20 cg:� v Page I of 1 Gorier Cwmtv lee �, .� 3ry � 1� : PI r L 437 <)p PSr?;CI6 I)i 16 rIt`it I'IF5 sf,%lI1- L—I:e Locators a,,<' Operation �` Irici k E f1C l (!O'C5 Hoe:rs Details for Work Order Number 0000089133 on 2008 FORD EXPEDITION EL Date In: 03/04/2011 Date Out: 03/04/2011 Total Cost: $46.75 Mileage: 66856 cx,-' lot. L ) t1i1 Maintenance Notes: 03/16/201110:44 SWIFT OIL CIIANGE..PMA Labor Costs: Total Hours: Total Amount: $0.00 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 OutSource /Sublet: Total Amount: $46.75 REPAIR DATE DATE VENDOR COST CODE OUT BACK PA BS 03!0412011 03/0412D11 N A SUNTRUSTBANKCARD, $48.75 Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 Credits: Total Amount: $0.00 Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR DESCRIPTION CODE PMA BS P PM Service I A Service List I Billable I SCHEDULED httl): / /cww2 /Fleet /WOSunimai-y.cfinz ?WOID= 169535 &year= 2008 &make =F... 4/11/2011 !(15174 V_QYAGti SLPi,,'LL. k'IF =$ , , tE=RVF1' C_! S.<s IM CARD CARD GALLERY I= ueline Sire Lini: Details for Work Order Number 0000089133 on 2008 FORD EXPEDITION EL Date In: 03/04/2011 Date Out: 03/04/2011 Total Cost: $46.75 Mileage: 66856 cx,-' lot. L ) t1i1 Maintenance Notes: 03/16/201110:44 SWIFT OIL CIIANGE..PMA Labor Costs: Total Hours: Total Amount: $0.00 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 OutSource /Sublet: Total Amount: $46.75 REPAIR DATE DATE VENDOR COST CODE OUT BACK PA BS 03!0412011 03/0412D11 N A SUNTRUSTBANKCARD, $48.75 Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 Credits: Total Amount: $0.00 Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR DESCRIPTION CODE PMA BS P PM Service I A Service List I Billable I SCHEDULED httl): / /cww2 /Fleet /WOSunimai-y.cfinz ?WOID= 169535 &year= 2008 &make =F... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs [107 colm-ky } C4/c,v s . � 11 '1 1611AZO Page 1 of 2 Details for Work Order Number 0000088883 on 2008 FORD EXPEDITION EL Date In: 03/04/2011 Date Out: 03/04/2011 Total Cost: $208.93 Mileage: 66856 click 071 - u if .'t' , f. 1 eioik Maintenance Notes: 03/04/201107:57 RIGHT REAR TIRE LOOSING AIR 253/ FOUND AIR LEAKING FROM NAIL PUNCTURE. REPLACED TIRE AND INSTALLED ON VEHICLE.@ 0$:47:06I3y 217 03/04/2011 @ 09:19:45 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 0.76083 REPAIR CODE DATE IN OUTT HOURS COST 2'Q1 'Ff130013 "d 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 0.76083 $44.89 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $164.04 Total Amount: $44.89 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION EACH QTY COST TIRE /P2657DR 17- 2017TMi100oiV 03/0412011 SPD.RATED $148.92 1 5148 -92 FORTERA 2317 M,11i0SIN 03/04/2011 MISC. /HARDWARE $6.36 1 Se 36 http : / /cww2 /Flect/WOSuminaiy.efrn? W OID= 169251 &year= 2008 &make =F... 4/11/2011 I -I LLT Skiiii' PM SCHEDULE 1'.O \ih f'{ FE7 ST, -;FF EigAlL 1:.5 Locations anG Clpera[}on FUEL --- LOCATICINS i'reve tit c� 'Vlaintunance Hours Prosrzm I'OR115 `t t3Y.4C;F. td Fl -?'.i_ PiC'-I11;iL L: IJSfoMER SURVEY t_:�3tU GALLERY Fueling S e Li-1 Details for Work Order Number 0000088883 on 2008 FORD EXPEDITION EL Date In: 03/04/2011 Date Out: 03/04/2011 Total Cost: $208.93 Mileage: 66856 click 071 - u if .'t' , f. 1 eioik Maintenance Notes: 03/04/201107:57 RIGHT REAR TIRE LOOSING AIR 253/ FOUND AIR LEAKING FROM NAIL PUNCTURE. REPLACED TIRE AND INSTALLED ON VEHICLE.@ 0$:47:06I3y 217 03/04/2011 @ 09:19:45 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 0.76083 REPAIR CODE DATE IN OUTT HOURS COST 2'Q1 'Ff130013 "d 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 0.76083 $44.89 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $164.04 Total Amount: $44.89 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION EACH QTY COST TIRE /P2657DR 17- 2017TMi100oiV 03/0412011 SPD.RATED $148.92 1 5148 -92 FORTERA 2317 M,11i0SIN 03/04/2011 MISC. /HARDWARE $6.36 1 Se 36 http : / /cww2 /Flect/WOSuminaiy.efrn? W OID= 169251 &year= 2008 &make =F... 4/11/2011 161 1 Equipment Total Costs rb & PARTS 2017TNI11006N 0310412011 WDWWASHER $1.14 1 $1.14 SOLVENT 2017TF431006N 03104/2011 SHOP SUPPLIES $2.54 3 57.62 OutSource /Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00 Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 Credits: Total Amount: $0.00 A20 Page 2 of 2 Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR CODE DESCRIPTION 20341360100BS 2 General Repair I Light System I Bulb Headlight I Replace I Billable I SCHEDULE http : / /c��v2 /Fleet/WOSumulary.afin? WOI0= 169251 &yeas =2008& make =F... 4/11/2011 1611 Fund Expenditure Budget Comparisons grouped by Business Center, Business Unit Collier County Government Aeea, nt 2Jtt 20,1 1.1 1.2pi Ai d Code Aar t C =s :rip GOO hdnp nit "'r, " ll 1 1 S Cg -, CFq 0714 01115,000 Fire Control District 146 Coheres, Fire Control District 144380-146 Ochopee Fire District 512100 Regular Salaries 512600 Er 457 Deferred COlitp 512700 Cell Phone Allowance 513100 O'.hel Salaries And Wages 514100 Overtime _ 519'100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment 521100 Social SecurlNy, Matching 522100 Retirement Regular 522200 Retirement High Hazard 523150 Health insurance 523151 Health Insurance - Vsip 523160 Life insurance Short- Long Tenn 524100 Workers Compereaton Regular 527200 Allowance For Cell Phone 63199U Other Professional Fees 63420717 Capital Allocation 634210 Info Tech Automation Allocation 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 634999 Other Contraduai Sarviees 640300 Out Of County Travel Prof Level 640410 Motor Pool Rental Charge 641700 Cellular Telephone 641900 Telephone SS's Support Allocation 641950 Postage Freight And Ups 643100 Electricity 643300 Trash And Garbage Disoosai 644100 Rent Buildings 644650 Lease Purchase Equipment 6451001nsurenoe General 645200 Property Insurance 845260 Auto insurance 646110 Building R And M Outside Vendors 646410 Autos/Trucks Rom Outside Vendors 646430 Fleet Metal of Labor And Overhead 646440 Fleet Maint ISF Parts and Sublet 646445 Fleet Non Moral ISF Paris and Sublet 646510 Machine Tools Rm Outside Vendors 646610 Comm Equip Ran Outsde Vendors 646? 10 Office Equipment R And M 646810 Boat R And M 646970 Other Equip Repair Maintenance 648160 Other Ads 649000 Snips Tax Expense 649010 Licenses And Permits 851110 Office Supplies General 651950 Minor Data Processing Equipment 652110 ClothLSg And Uniform Purchases 652120 Uniform Accescories 652140 Personal Safety Equipment C52310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals 552490 Fuel and Lubricants ISF Billings 652510 Hous t cold & Irs6tutional Supplies 652720 Medical Supplies 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 652930 Minor Medical Equipment 652990 Other Operating Supplies 654110 Books Puhl & Subscriptions 6`42'10 Dues And Memberships 654310 Tuition 654360 Other Training Ed Exp 763100 Improvements General 764990 Other Machinery And Equipment G>cvU',a V£ 07 Office 018110 County PASIlasger A20 Fiscal Year 2012 FY ''.2 vdpt kmd 754,375 754,375 250,993 -66.73 -68.73 754,375 0,00 0.00 2,000 2,000 390 -80.50 -80. be 2,000 0,00 0.00 0 0 69 0.00 0 0O 0 0.00 0.00 13,800 13,800 11,427 -1720 -17.20 31,500 12826 128.26 90,000 90,000 42,324 -52.57 -52.97 102,204 13.56 13.5E 68 Be 0 10000 10000 94 6.82 682 68,575 E8,515 22,430 -67 29 -67.29 67,588 -144 -1.44 5,548 5,548 1,657 -70.13 -73,13 5,228 -517 -5,77 214,721 214,721 67,058 -58 -77 -68.77 206,237 -3.95 -3 -95 170,550 170,550 42,638 -75.00 -]S.00 191,190 12.10 12.10 5,500 5,500 0 100.00 100.90 0 100.00 100.00 2,043 2,043 511 -75.00 -75.00 2,03E -024 -0.24 14,900 14,900 3,725 -75.00 -75.00 15,300 2,68 2.68 0 0 -59 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0,00 0 0 0 0 no 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1,000 1,000 500 -50.00 -50.00 1,200 2000 2000 . 21,500 21,500 10,750 -50.00 -5000 24,600 14A2 14.42 51,400 51,400 25,700 -50.00 50.00 51,100 -0.58 -6,58 50,000 58,127 35,900 -28,20 -0730 25,000 - 50.00 -63.30 3,000 3,000 0 100.00 100.00 3,000 0.00 000 200 200 174 .13,15 -13.15 200 0.00 0.00 3,000 O'Dea 1,070 -64.32 64.32 3,000 000 0.00 5,000 S,O30 5,614 12.28 12.28 5,000 0.00 Goo 300 300 375 2487 24.87 350 1667 18.67 5,O'Co 5,000 1,205 -7590 -7590 5,000 000 D.DO 500 500 173 -65.30 -55 30 500 0.00 0.00 18,006 15,000 15 &00 -250 -2.50 18,000 moo 0.00 46,000 46,000 45,880 -4.61 -4.61 46,000 0.00 000 3,800 9,800 2.450 -75.00 -75.00 e400 -4.08 -4A8 7,500 7 500 0 -100.00 100.00 6,900 -8 GO -8 -00 5,100 6,100 1,525 -75.00 -75.00 7,600 24.59 24 -59 16,000 16,00D 2,079 -97.01 -87.01 12.000 -25.00 -25.00 4,000 4,000 188 _S530 -95.30 4,000 000 000 19,900 19,900 4,974 -7501 -75.01 44,100 12111 12161 14,400 14,400 15,529 7.78 7.76 46,500 22292 222.92 800 600 251 -68.68 -68.69 1900 137-50 137,50 700 700 0 100,00 100.00 600 14.29 14.29 6,000 6,000 10794 70,90 7890 6,000 0.00 000 1,000 1,000 0 10100 100.00 1,000 0.00 0.00 3,500 3,500 0 100.00 160.00 2,000 -4286 4286 ,500 1,500 1,442 -3.85 -3.85 1AGO 20-00 20.00 'too Ice 0 10000 100.00 100 000 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0 00 0 0 no 0.00 400 400 650 52so 62.50 400 0,00 aao 3,000 3,000 2,000 -33.33 -33,33 3,p0O 0.00 coo 806 800 1 100.00 100.00 600 Goo 0.01 6,500 8,500 5,823 -10.42 -10.42 4,500 -$0.77 -30.77 300 300 487 62.35 62.35 300 000 0.00 19,000 '.9,000 16,832 .11,41 -1141 3,000 -84.21 -84.21 1,000 10DO 0 100.00 100.00 1,000 0.00 GAO 15,400 15,400 5,687 -61.77 -61.77 35,100 127.92 127.92 3,000 3,000 1,800 -40.00 -40,00 3,000 000 0.00 1,300 1,800 0 100.00 100,00 1,400 -22.22 -22.22 15,000 15,000 5,031 -66A6 -66 -46 14,000 -5.67 -6.67 2,000 2,DOO 0 100.00 10000 2,000 000 000 9000 9,000 7,649 -15.01 -1501 10,000 1111 11 -11 1,500 1.500 193 -87,14 -87.14 1,500 0.00 0.00 700 700 95 -86.43 -86.43 700 0.00 0.00 3,000 3,000 0 100.00 100.00 2,500 -16-67 -16.27 4,0110 4,000 505 -87.36 -67.38 2,500 -37,50 -37.50 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0,00 0.00 22,000 22,000 15,980 -27.36 -27.36 11,000 -50.00 -5000 1 »f >t201A 16 1 1 A 20 Fund Expenditure Budget Comparisons grouped by Business Center, Business Unit F iscal Year 2012 Collier County Government Aw, Fy Vi2 "O Am! Ar d 'l Cc...._ 07 Offloa of the County Manager 07:U �Oho esl �Fire Fire Control 146 ochopies Fire Control District 919010-146 Reserves 991000 Reserve For Contingencies 90,700 91,707 0 100,00 10000 0 100'00 100,00 992100 Reserve For Attrition -Salary Savings - 45,900 45,900 0 10000 100.00 0 100,00 IMOO 993000 Reserve For Capital OOZY 32200 32,200 0 100,00 Mae 0 10000 100.00 929010-146 Transfer 917140 Transfer To 714 Co Mgr Match 0 0 C ea. 000 0 0.00 000 959010-146 Transfers - Elected Officers 930600 Budget Transfers Prop" Appraiser 13,600 13,600 6,774 -50,19 -53,19 100 00 10000 930700 Bedgei Transfers Tax Collect¢r 31,800 31,800 21,773 -31,53 -31,53 (1 100SO - 100100 14s Oclopee Fife Control District 1,867.100 1,885,233 714,795 -61.72 6108 1,799,SC4 -3S2 -4,55 0714 Ochopee Fire Control District 1,867,100 1 886,233 714,795 -61.72 -62.03 1,799,504 -3.62 C-, ofnce&inc Counly Manager 1,867,100 1 sss'= -61.72 -z' 04 1,-,99 504 .162 9 55 7o Gifre of t�1 County Mane r Ca;l`a1_, Ei]0K—.00hVPZTmra —-P-ai 372 OchoPeo Fi 1144389-372 Ochopce Fire Impactt Fee Capital 0 1,603 390 000 -/Goe 0 0,00 IMOO 649980 Reimb Prior Year Revenues a 000 000 0 0,00 0,00 652140 Personal Safety Eqdpment 0 0 000 100,00 0 0,00 100,00 ,ealoo Improvements General 1 0 486 919010-372 Reserves 994500 Resv For Future Construction And 4 100 4,100 0 100.00 110.00 0 100,00 improve 6�—h.pa. File Cannot �P-O 4,100 6,279 390 .90 4yi .93,79 0 10000 100.00 C-Pit.-I 4,100 6,279 390 -50,49 -93.79 100.00 1 00.00 0 jo� of the C..nt,,Ma.,ager Cap it.! OR ice '%loo 4,279 -S3-79 100.00 'DOX0 Test 1,671 20 715,195 C1,7- 62 19 1 99,504 ;S5 io I 1 t"j0 Fund Revenue Budget Comparisons grouped by Business Center, Business Unit Collier County Govemment Fiscal Year 2012 07 Oatic� of th-� Coutt.y�t9a u�br .__i 0794 Ochopee Fire Control District �j 146 OchODee Fire Control District 144380 -146 Ochopee Fire District 311100 Current Ad Valorem Taxes 1,348,300 1,346,300 988,185 26,60 -28.60 1,252,090 311200 Delinquent Ad Vatorem Taxes 2,000 2,000 757 -62.17 62.17 0 -7.00 -7,00 342500 Protective Inspection Fees 8,000 8,000 958 iocco 100.00 2,000 0,00 0.00 361170 interest Sba 0 3,200 0 -88.02 -88.02 1 200 -MOO -g5 00 361180 Investment Interest 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 200 0.00 0.00 361320 interest Tax Collector 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 10,000 0.00 0.00 360120 Ins Go Refunds 0 0 11 0.90 000 0 0.00 0.00 $69300 Reimbursement For Prior Yea, Exp 0 D 0 0 0.00 0.09 0 0,00 0.00 369620 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0,00 090 919010 -146 Reserves 150 cm 990 0 000 0.00 489200 Garryfomard 471,400 471,400 0 '00.00 100,00 0 100,00 1CO.00 489291 Carry Fonaard Of Encumb Amt 0 18,127 0 0.00 100,00 6 100,00 100.00 459900 Negative 5% Estimated Ravenues - 98,300 - 68,300 -P7.63 _8 as 0 0.00 100.00 9 29 01 0 -1 4 6 Transfer 0 100.00 100.00 0 iso 00 100,00 481118 Transfer From 118 Miss Giants 0 7 481146 Transfer From 148 Collier County Fire 87,600 87,600 0 65,202 0.00 10000 0 000 100,00 969010 -146 Transfers - Elected Officers -25.57 -25.57 98 700 10.39 10.39 486600 Transfer From Property Appraiser 900 1300 0 100,00 100.00 486700 Transfer From Tax Colleotcr 9,000 9,000 0 900 0.00 9.00 589010 -148 Interest 100.00 100.00 9,000 0.00 0 00 361170 Interest Sba 200 200 167 -16.31 -16.31 0 361180 investment interest 10.000 10,000 1,558 -04.42 -84.42 100.00 100.00 146 Ochopee Fire Control District 887,100 1,865233 1,950977 4139 0 - - - -- 100.00 - -- 100.DO 0714 Ochopee Fire Contrel District p 1,867,100 1,885,233 1,056,977 -43.39 -43,93 1,372,999 46.52 -27.22 -43.03 1,372,000 -26.52 - 27.22 0? O q t( �r 1 r iC 555 t. s5 77 43.39 4 92 1 7 2,,' 3? G2 -26 22 13 Ciftice of the Coteratar Manager Canifai 1505 Ochopee Fire Capital � 372 Cichooee Fire Control Imoact 144389 -372 Ochopee Fire Impact Fee Capital 324101 Impact Fee Single Family - Residential 0 0 363854 Fire Impact Fees 1,000 1,000 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 000 0.06 919010.372 Reserves iocco 100.00 0 10000 100.00 489200 Canytorward 3,200 3,200 0 10000 100.00 0 489201 Carry Forward Cf Emumb Amt 0 2,179 0 100,00 100.00 489900 Negative 5% Estimated Revenues -100 0 00 100.00 0 0,00 1010[ 989010.372 Interest -100 0 100.00 100.00 0 100.;10 10Occ 361170 Interest Sire 0 9 3611301nva5tmenl interest 0 0 6 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 CAC 312 bchupee Fire Control Impact 79 OAO 0.00 0 0.00 e00 __..�. 4 100 6,279 a „5 _ 97.89 99.63 0 100,.00 100.00 1508 Ochopee Fire Capital 4,100 6,279 96 -57.89 -98.63 6 100,00 100.00 1 13x1 =ci � -a _.w 4 =; a -P7.63 _8 as 0 9000 1G0.;0 Fire rt Totel I'S-1 3.91 -t-0a2 C.,r "ax Vc i c=2J1 i 161/�� "IA ` 1 0 2011 D THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT BY ........................ ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON APRIL 11, 2011 In attendance were the following: {�✓ Fiala V Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief He He nnnn ing Caleb Morris, Captain Coyle Ron Gilbert, Chairman, Port of the Islands Coletta Tod Johnson, Vice Chairman, Everglades City James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member The meeting came to order at 6PM. Chief McLaughlin went over the monthly report. He mentioned that we have received a preliminary Site Development Plan for the ten, nine & six story buildings at Port of the Islands by Sun Stream. Some modifications will be necessary regarding turning and lane requirements. Two of the buildings are going to require fire pumps due to the water system out there with an option of putting a separate fire pump building. You can run three buildings off one pump house which would be the smartest thing to do. His recommended that Instead of putting a system in each building of $50,000 to put one in and supply all three buildings. Ron Gilbert —That will help us with revenue. Chief McLaughlin —Yes. Ron Gilbert — They must see some changes in the economy that I don't see. OLD BUSINESS BUDGET: Chief McLaughlin —They are selling them all as time shares. Then he continued to go over the monthly report which is attached. We leased a new copier at a cheaper rate then the last one. The class we were scheduled to hold at Port of the Islands was cancelled due to brush fires. We have another budget review coming up on May 13th that will be the final review with the County Manager. Over our entire budget is looking pretty good we probably will have to go into Reserves this year due to payroll issues and it looks like we are only $2,000 off on our projections. We feel pretty good about that we made that projection in October. He also handed out a budget report for 2012 which is attached. He then went over the information. The information in the budget handout is still in progress it is not finished. They projected us at an 11% loss last year and we didn't have that actual drop as the monies came in. So we ended up with a $438,000 more than we expected in our budget which is huge. Page 1 Misc. Corres: Date: In I-i s,l t t Item #: \Lo= \ �A 2p :;pies to: 161 1 .AZO Chief McLaughlin —They over projected our loss last year so that gave us the carry forward we needed this year and a little money. We are not going to have an issued like we talked about with the payroll, losing the people and shutting an engine down that all went away. He cut $86,000 out of the operating budget then Fleet Management added $86,000 back in fees for vehicle costs, labor costs, and fuel costs. Then the IT Department's fees increase $3,000 for next year. So he went to battle with fleet over the increases he projected that the fuel costs would be less. They tripled our fuel costs based on $5 a gallon. He implemented some changes such as stopping the move up which is a savings of approximately $4,000. He feels Fleet is shooting a little high on fuel costs. There is nothing he can do about the labor costs they project that he cannot change that. Parts are only charged to us as they are used and the Water Tender is the most costly regarding replacement parts the costs are usually around $5,000 to $6,000 when it goes in. We went from $19,000 to $44,000 in parts he feels the increase is not justified unless we had some sort of catastrophic failure but that is Fleet Management's projection. So everything he gained out of cutting the operating expenses went flat again. The manager wanted wants us to drop another 3% there is enough money in carry forward to cover payroll and 3 %. That also gave us enough money to put some things back into capital. He did cut $19,000 out of our operating budget for protective clothing because we have already purchased it this year and won't need to replace the equipment for another 4 to 5 years. We moved another $16,000 out of other contractual services because that was for the architectural and engineer fees for last year which have been completed. We cut another $20,000 out of building and maintenance it is down to $10,000. We are pretty much done as to what has to be done to these buildings other than painting them and replacing the cabinets at Station 60. So we save some large sums the other cuts were small. With the extra monies we were able to add back to the operating budget for instance the boat budget was originally cut down to $500 if the boat had to be repaired we were going to pull it out of the water so we were able to put $3,000 back into the line item. So we were able to balance our budget with what we had. We don't have our final budget to review until it goes before the County Manager then it goes before the Board of County Commissioners in June then the final budget approval is in September. James Simmons — So you don't anticipate any real problems. Chief McLaughlin — Not right now. OLD BUSINESS 1 -75: Chief McLaughlin — Three senators have rewritten the State Bill in creation of the toll for 1 -75. The original bill had road services and law enforcement. The Bill has been rewritten to include Fire and Rescue Services. It looks like it has a lot of support and should pass because three State Senators are pushing it. He had to give them a budget. When this becomes more solid he will give them more information. He gave them a yearly operating cost; start up costs, and an overall on shot onetime cost. Page 2 161 1 Aa O Chief McLaughlin — We went back and asked for 3.2 million dollars to build the facilities, buy the trucks out right and one year operating costs. It will take 1.2 million every year after that to operate. We also gave them other options like lease purchasing a building over a 10 or 20 years period they could add that to their operating costs that would bring it up to 1.357 million. We gave them some options on how we could do this. They are not going to raise the toll apparently there is a lot of money sitting over in Water Management that come out of there like ten million dollars and they get a huge chuck of 1 -75 dollars each year and they are not using all of it and they are going to take a portion of it out and fund it over. Actually Broward it going to get a little and we are going to get the rest of the chunk we cover the largest area out there that will fund the dedicated facility. He asked for eleven people based on our formulas for man power and how we will work that out and that will actually benefit us and our payroll because once we do that two shifts will be full with five in town here so if someone is off I don't have to pay over time or a job banker. James Simmons — Is funding Federal or State. Chief McLaughlin — State. Ron Gilbert — So if the passage looks good when will it come to pass. Chief McLaughlin — He is still waiting to hear from Debbie Wight (Legislative Affairs Coordinator) it is coming up it will be this year. So we are expecting to hear something back in the future within the next couple of months. It could get passed and they set a date on it. Or it could get passed and they forward the money to the County and we start immediately. Or they could say put a trailer out there for the first year hire the people and then the next year we will build the facility for you. We don't know what they are going to bring back yet. It looks like it is going to become a reality. The Senators understood the importance of keeping our personnel in the populated areas and that 1 -75 has to fund itself we can't be using tax dollars to cover it taking away the services from the tax payers. OLD BUSINESS PORT OF THE ISLANDS STATION: Ron Gilbert — That sounds pretty good he is real glad that there won't be any personnel cuts. How does it look for money to re -do the marina for the Fire Station at Port of the Islands. Chief McLaughlin — He was told that the County would loan us the money to complete that project next year and we would not have to pay it off until things got better. At this point he doesn't care where the money comes from they understand he has to finish this project. He will wait and see if the money is moved over into the budget under special projects. Ron Gilbert — You are talking next Fiscal Year Page 2 161 1 A 20 Chief McLauglin — October one is our Fiscal Year. He went back and asked if you are going to loan the money can you do it now so that I can have this done in three months. He was told it would not work that way. He went to the architect and we have non - construction prints that have been handed over to one of the construction companies to give us a fair and accurate price with the architects input. We did get all the plans back and they have been approved all we need is money so we can pull the permits and get started. He has been told it can be done in three months. NEW BUSINESS WATER TENDER: Chief McLaughlin — Our Water Tender carries 3, 000 gallons of water for our rural community is 21 years old. We have now spent almost as much as it was purchased. Fleet has wanted to take this unit out of service for several years. It's had multiple problems every time it goes in it costs from $5,000 to $8,000. The pump housing has been welded in spots. It really has not business of being in service. The vehicle is only used for an emergency response. It only responds if someone really has to have it there is no guarantee it will get there. We had two incidents this winter where it wouldn't start because it was below 45 or 50 degrees. After the incident in East Naples the other day he started to think about the liability of using the current Water Tender. He started researching some things and found out that he can go to the Board of County Commissioners and asked for an emergency purchase to replace this vehicle. He can purchase it off the Sheriffs Big List which means I don't have to go to bid on it. I just need to find one out there that fits our parameters. The leasing companies will go up to ten years and one year in the rear which means we don't have to pay on the vehicle the first year. What that means is if I take delivery after October 1, 2011 which we would we don't have to pay for it until the 2013 budget. So by then things will be better and it looks like it will cost from $25,000 to $26,000 a year for a ten year lease he is still trying to get that number down. We have two years left on our current lease purchase for our two engines and that is $44,000 a year. We make our last payment in 2014 so we will have two years of double payments then after that our lease purchase payment will drop 40% the $44,000 will go back into the budget because the engines will be paid for. James Simmons — Will this be a new unit? Chief McLaughlin —Yes it will be a new unit. James Simmons — It looks like you could find a pretty good bargain used. Page 3 161 1 A 20 Chief McLaughlin — Actually historically used fire apparatus don't do well they have to comply with NFPA. so if you purchase a used apparatus if anything were to happen you would be opening yourself up to a huge liability plus you are taking on someone else's problems. These fire trucks are 15 to 20 year trucks they are not a five year purchase. Engines usually get 10 to 15 years on them. Ladder trucks and Water Tenders life span is 15 to 20 years that is the national standard recommended by NFPA. Also per NFPA once the vehicle has reached 20 years it is time to take it out of service. The new vehicle would serve the District well into 2021 or 2022. If we purchase the right vehicle now and with the maintenance schedules we have it will service the District for many years. It is worth in the big picture. Most used fire trucks go to South America or overseas. Ron Gilbert —There is no salvage value on the water tender. Chief McLaughlin — We will get a trade in value for it maybe $5,000 or $10,000. Are two engines we traded in we got $10,000 for them. Ron Gilbert — What do you expect the new water tender to costs? Chief McLaughlin — He has quotes from $200,000 to $230,000 and he is working right now to find something that will applicable. We have now a 3,000 gallon water tender and he is looking to drop that down to 2,000 or 2500 there is a couple of reasons for that. Duel axel versus single axe[ which has to do with wear and tear, maintenance, costs and weight due to some of the bridges it will have to cross. He feels the 2,000 or 2500 gallon tanker would serve us well. Powering a 3,000 gallon tanker the weight versus powering a 2,000 gallon tanker there is a $10,000 difference in engines. We are looking at a vacuum tanker versus an elliptical and a stander straight side tanker they all vary in price. One company made a pretty good offer on a vacuum tanker in retrospect it would be an outstanding truck for Alligator Alley because you can refill that 2000 gallon tank in 20 seconds. If the difference is $35,000 to $40,000 for a standard straight side instead of an elliptical or vacuum or 2500 gallon or 3,000 we will probably go that route because that is going to take our payment from $29,000 or $30,000 down to $25,000. It would serve the purpose as much as we would use the vehicle it is not for any every day response. Ron Gilbert —That would be used for an isolated fire where there are no fire hydrants or not a canal close by. Chief McLaughlin — Which is half of our District we only have fire hydrants in Port of the Islands and Everglades City. The other area all of Lee Cypress, Jerome all of US 41 and SR 29 don't have hydrants. Only a few in Copeland have hydrants. Everything we currently run on the road that has to do with a truck incident the tanker has to go one because we don't have enough water. We still have a lot of area that does not have fire hydrants. Page 4 1611A20 Ron Gilbert — Will 2,000 gallons put out a fire? Chief McLaughlin —We are carrying 1,000 on the engines so that would be 3,000. At some point depending how far it is and what we are trying to do. A water tender is designed to be set up as a water shuttle. You drop the fold a tank you go draft from a canal come back and dump it and the engine drafts right out of the tank it becomes a reservoir. If the fire is small enough it can just pump into the engine but if it looks like it is going to be a bigger fire you set up the fold a tank and use the tanker as a shuttle. We use the water tender a lot on road side fires as well. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:35PM. Ronald Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 5 161 1 A20 d OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2011 TRAINING: 622.75 hours for March 2011. See Attached FIRE PREVENTION: None Reported 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 z �0 a ry N w o o 00 0 G. 7 a m 0. 7 n 0 `J N O N y C w N O J CIX yycn P T N W W W J N g W m 0o a w n o w y 7 w 7 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N o a �T I IH Ir to to 0 o N o o.. fx4 N o0 5 y N N ON a m N w 7 ry G O F o y 9 ;o w w_ 0 H y ei a 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J to rn T A Oo GO Q O x N � N ai J oo Co A A N A N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F+ r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p� T p 0~0 W A O 00 N J N a � 00 09 A A N A N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C O O O O O O o 0 0 161 1 A20 e Vi G n „y .. G G � O n � 0 °0 9 ao 0 W w N O r r+ / { \ )' / \ 16 ! 1 .;A / U ®21 §&2§}{ «)aGnn& =I\} : \)E`wz!`m ® °ra ^ °�?) ^ \ ƒ22S)]aJ(! }$E§ e e er \\ \\ (� \�( {i } })(((()(( {( (�\ 161 1 A 20 ADMINISTRATION Budget Report: Current Advalorem - $1,346,300- /Reserves - $77,006.62 Actual Operating Expenses - $218,699.40 /Available - $144,535.45 (This is a combination of Operating Expenses Balance $138,515.45 and Capital Outlay $6020.00) Significant Purchases: None Goals Progress Report: The DOF Grant Award is going before the BCC for their approval on 4- 12 -11. The recommendation for the new Advisory Board Member will also go before the BCC on 4-12-11. The 2012 budget for Ochopee Fire Control District has been completed and loaded into the Gov Max system. The Department will have a budget meeting with the County Manager on 5-13-11. The Department has a new copier the old lease expired and we have entered into a new one at a lower monthly payment. The Chief is obtaining information regarding the purchase of a new Water Tender Fleet has Condemned our old vehicle. We are going to place information in the 2012 budget stating that the vehicle will be replaced in 2012 with a payment not due until the 2013 budget year. The existing lease purchase on the two engines will end with the last payment in 2014 after which we will only have to pay on the new water tender at a savings of approximately $13,000 a month. Number of Meetings Attended: 03/01/11 Meeting with Dan Summers and Chief Rodriguez 8:30AM to 10:30AM, IPM to 2:30PM Incident Management "Cask Force /03/08/11 ICS -400 8AM to 5PM/03 /10 /11 Meeting with Cardinal Management (POI)9AM to 1PM/03 /I1 /11 ICS -400 8AM to 5PM/03/15/11 Meeting with Sunbrella 8:30AM t09AN1/03 /17/11 Staff Meeting 9AM to 1 IAM/03 /24/11 Chief's Meeting 1:30PM to 3:30PM/03/30/11 Budget Review Meeting with Mark and Randy LOAM to Noon/03 /31/11 Fire Marshal Meeting 9AM to 9:30AM. FACILITIES MAINTENANCE & REPAIR: None Reported Everglades City Station Report Ochopee Station Report Costs by Project With Total 161 1 A 20 OPERATIONS REPORT FOR MARCH 2011 Structure Fires 0 Vehicle Fires I Brush Fires 6 Auto Accidents 15 EMS Calls Excluding Vehicle Accidents 30 Miscellaneous Fire Calls (Trash, Etc...) 4 Special Services Calls 0 1 -75 Calls for March 2011: Brush Fire 2 EMS 6 Auto Accidents 10 Auto Fire 1 Total 19 Out of a total of 56 calls for the month of March 2011 nineteen were on 1 -75 making that 34% of the call load. 1611 A20 noc no= 00 0� om �n ioc a:oz W �'x N D m Zz 1 ° C� m N O T N O O V V O l0 O O� O v U o 2 0 � O o D D = O N O N O N 1 Om O O 2 O 2 Z t Z N l0 m O O vNi v m mw c m� C w 0 Z >mc y 2 n 2 n R O Z O C�1 O M m rn m D ➢ m n m O -{ D Z m = m A m 9 DO m { m o o y v D a m D � N � z D Z D Z D Z D Z D Z D z D z D z D z D z D m m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m Q m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m p m 0 3] D m p m p m p m p m p m 0 m p m p m 0 m p m p m 0, 0, O m O .n 0, 0, O m O, O m C T 0, Z< m r. m m m m m m m r m m m e m r M r 'm r m m O C D C O C O C O C C C O C 0 C C C O C O C m z O O O O 0 O o 0 o Z < n m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0> o D D A D D D D D D D D z m D < < < < < < < < n m Z < D n n n n n n n n n n n ^' Z 2 2 S = 2 Z 2 m 2 2 2 m m m m m m m m m m m m m Z> q D m < n MM m m m m m D O o m m ! v D D � m m { Z G1 G1 G1 G1 G7 G) G) Gl Gl G) Gl f'1 p O O O O O O O O O O O 2 D O O O O O O O O O O O m r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n{ vi c Z C) m m C r m m � O O m O n 2 O 0 m m T_ m m C) O z 77 O r Ln 70 n O z --I S m 2 n r m D_ Z "I m z D z m m D z O m D D PO Ln x m v O 77 T O PO D C) 2 N N N Equipment Total Costs & 0 1611,0 A 2 ®age 1 of 2 . Fleet neiar� wrt� Management Aif'' 3-t # L I 5H(31? R PM SCFLBDULE HQ L x LEET STAFF EMAIL 1_5 Ucations asd Operation Lt?C vTii)> S ie5er t +tir litri�stenance Hours prk'�ram Details for Work Order Number 0000088514 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 02/11/2011 Date Out: 03/03/201.1 'Total Cost: $242.84 Mileage: 14353 C:liilk on Rc,pair Cod,- for i'daI " Maintenance Notes: 02/11/201101:57 NO START AT PORT OF THE ISLES SLOW TO CRANK 253 /INSPECT UNIT, FIRST BATT DRAINED COMPLETELY NEEDS TO BE RECHARGED AND MAY BE FUALTY. DOWN TO 6 VOLTS. CHECKED SECOND BATT HAS FULL 12 VOLTS. CHARGED BATT WITH JUMPER CABLES TO START TRUCK. STARTED TRUCK CHECKED CHARGE SYS. AT 27.45 VOLTS (24 VOLT SYS.) CHECKED FIRST BATT AT HIGH IDLE AT 11.0 VOLTS. DEPT HAS 35 AMP CHARGER, ADVISED DRIVER TO CHARGE BATT ON CHARGER FOR AT LEAST 3 -4 HOURS THEN SEE IF IT WILL START. IF NOT DEPT SAID THEY WOULD SWAP OUT BATT FROM OTHER BRUSH TRUCK TO KEEP IN SERVICE. TWO BATTS WERE ORDERED NEED TO CALL DEPT TO SEE IF NEEDED PER 217. DRAW FROM FLASHLIGHT WHICH WAS WIRED HOT BY DEPT TO CONSTANT 12 VOLTS WITHOUT SHUT -OFF SEEMS TO BE CUASE. 02/14/2011 @ 09:35:54 BATTERIES TAKEN OFF WORK ORDER AND ISSUED TO WO #88514 TRKJtI0F006 —TWM htt-o:// cww2 /F'leet/WOSumn7ary,cfiri ?WOID= 168843 &year =1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 CA B_NI� FLEET 7 YAGE'R EUTI. }<)R 14 PCCTT<RE. C1 S ION FR St R, E_V C Fueling Site Link Details for Work Order Number 0000088514 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 02/11/2011 Date Out: 03/03/201.1 'Total Cost: $242.84 Mileage: 14353 C:liilk on Rc,pair Cod,- for i'daI " Maintenance Notes: 02/11/201101:57 NO START AT PORT OF THE ISLES SLOW TO CRANK 253 /INSPECT UNIT, FIRST BATT DRAINED COMPLETELY NEEDS TO BE RECHARGED AND MAY BE FUALTY. DOWN TO 6 VOLTS. CHECKED SECOND BATT HAS FULL 12 VOLTS. CHARGED BATT WITH JUMPER CABLES TO START TRUCK. STARTED TRUCK CHECKED CHARGE SYS. AT 27.45 VOLTS (24 VOLT SYS.) CHECKED FIRST BATT AT HIGH IDLE AT 11.0 VOLTS. DEPT HAS 35 AMP CHARGER, ADVISED DRIVER TO CHARGE BATT ON CHARGER FOR AT LEAST 3 -4 HOURS THEN SEE IF IT WILL START. IF NOT DEPT SAID THEY WOULD SWAP OUT BATT FROM OTHER BRUSH TRUCK TO KEEP IN SERVICE. TWO BATTS WERE ORDERED NEED TO CALL DEPT TO SEE IF NEEDED PER 217. DRAW FROM FLASHLIGHT WHICH WAS WIRED HOT BY DEPT TO CONSTANT 12 VOLTS WITHOUT SHUT -OFF SEEMS TO BE CUASE. 02/14/2011 @ 09:35:54 BATTERIES TAKEN OFF WORK ORDER AND ISSUED TO WO #88514 TRKJtI0F006 —TWM htt-o:// cww2 /F'leet/WOSumn7ary,cfiri ?WOID= 168843 &year =1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs 03/01/2011 @ 08:39:50 03/03/2011 @ 17:28:13 reviewed by 222 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 2.74388 '660 /0 Js6 1 1 AL® Page 2 oft Total Amount: $242.84 REPAIR CODE DATE IN OUT HOURS COST 8032000001BN 02/11/2011 02111/2011 0.23194 52053 803280000181'1 02/11/2011 02/11/2011 2.51194 $222 -31 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $1,020.84 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION EACH QTY COST BATTERY - 80328901COBN 02/11/2011 W /STUD- $119.40 2 5238.80 11250CA11260CA 803280u100BN 02/14/2D11 BATTERY 12 $205.80 2 $411.51 VOLT MILITARY 8032BO0100BN 02/14/2011 BATTERY 12 VOLT MILITARY $18522 2 5370.43 OutSource /Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00 Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 Credits: Total Amount: 50.00 Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR CODE DESCRIPTION 80320000016N 8 Road Call I Cranking System I System Diagnosis ( Billable I NOT SCHEDULED http: / /cww2 /Fleet /WOSummary. cfnl? WOID= 168843 &year =1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs 46 &; / Zou (- 1f -ter cim 6• ` `► L v 1 b 1 1 Page I of 6 00 1M 0600 an�►u�s a FLEET SI TUP H EL Locations and Operation i OCA 110 "S Hours CI;S i ONff R SI RVEY PM SCHEDULE Prel�nt ic 3Santcnen�e Pnza1 -1 Details for Work Order Number 0000088790 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 03/0112011 Date Out: /0/0 Total Cost: $9,128.22 Mileage: 14000 iilc.;i on t4:j) <iit' Ci)C74 for Ti't2311.+ Maintenance Notes: 03/01/201106:45 PMB .....Fabricate stall to hold radio light controler, check batterys. 253 1PERFORMING SERVICE, NEED TO INSTALL BATTS TO GET INSIDE.g7 07:11:54 253/ UPON INSPECTING UNIT ON SERVICE NOTICED TRUCK NEEDS AS FOLLOWS: WATER PUMP, COOLANT FLUSH, RADIATOR CAP, AIR STEERING ASSIST VALVE, DRIVERS WINDSHIELD, ADJUSTMENT ON REAR CAB OR FRONT CAB WALL TO ALLOW CLEARENCE FOR WINDOW WHILE OPENING AND CLOSING DOOR. ORDERING PARTS WAITNG FOR E.T.A. TO POST. 03/01/2011 @ 10:02:34 253/ WATER PUMP HAS ARRIVED, WILL INSTALL SERVICE WILL BE DONE ALSO. WINDSHIELD IS IN MEMPHIS, TN WILL BE A COUPLE DAYS. REMOVED STEERING VALVE WILL DISSASEMBLE AND TRY TO FIX IN HOUSE NO REBUILD KNIT OR VALVE READILY AVAILABLE.@ 08:55:04 253/ INSPECTING BRAKES TOOK MORE TIME TO REMOVE DRUMS. STEER littp:// eww2l FleetAVO Summary.cfm ?WOID= 169146&.year =1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 VOYAGER F F3 PI- t?- 1-QaR "7S CARCJ G_1 LERY Fueling Site Link ` `► L v 1 b 1 1 Page I of 6 00 1M 0600 an�►u�s a FLEET SI TUP H EL Locations and Operation i OCA 110 "S Hours CI;S i ONff R SI RVEY PM SCHEDULE Prel�nt ic 3Santcnen�e Pnza1 -1 Details for Work Order Number 0000088790 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 03/0112011 Date Out: /0/0 Total Cost: $9,128.22 Mileage: 14000 iilc.;i on t4:j) <iit' Ci)C74 for Ti't2311.+ Maintenance Notes: 03/01/201106:45 PMB .....Fabricate stall to hold radio light controler, check batterys. 253 1PERFORMING SERVICE, NEED TO INSTALL BATTS TO GET INSIDE.g7 07:11:54 253/ UPON INSPECTING UNIT ON SERVICE NOTICED TRUCK NEEDS AS FOLLOWS: WATER PUMP, COOLANT FLUSH, RADIATOR CAP, AIR STEERING ASSIST VALVE, DRIVERS WINDSHIELD, ADJUSTMENT ON REAR CAB OR FRONT CAB WALL TO ALLOW CLEARENCE FOR WINDOW WHILE OPENING AND CLOSING DOOR. ORDERING PARTS WAITNG FOR E.T.A. TO POST. 03/01/2011 @ 10:02:34 253/ WATER PUMP HAS ARRIVED, WILL INSTALL SERVICE WILL BE DONE ALSO. WINDSHIELD IS IN MEMPHIS, TN WILL BE A COUPLE DAYS. REMOVED STEERING VALVE WILL DISSASEMBLE AND TRY TO FIX IN HOUSE NO REBUILD KNIT OR VALVE READILY AVAILABLE.@ 08:55:04 253/ INSPECTING BRAKES TOOK MORE TIME TO REMOVE DRUMS. STEER littp:// eww2l FleetAVO Summary.cfm ?WOID= 169146&.year =1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 161 1 . � L.Q Equipment Total Costs 1 ! o /'�Zv('o Page 2 of 6 CYL., TOOK TIME TO DISSASEMBLE NOT ABLE TO SERVICE. NEW VALVE FOUND, APROVED AND ORDERED SHOULD BE IN BY TUESDAY ALONG WITH WINDSHIELD. REMOVING WATER PUMP. @ 07:17:48--- VALVE AND WINDSHIELD ARE IN AND ISSUED- TWM 03/10/2011 @ 14:27:09 253 / REPLACED WATER PUMP, PRESSURE TESTED UNIT FOUND FOUND ANOTHER LEAK AT BY -PASS HOSE REMOVED GEN FOR ACCESS. TIGHTEND CLAMPS NO LEAKS, ANOTHER TWO LEAKS REPLACED HOSE UNDER TANK, REMOVED UPPER HOSE CLEANED RUSTED HOSE NECKS INSTALLED NO MORE COOOLANT LEAKS PRESSURE TESTED 16 PSI 1 HOUR. 253/ INSTALLED STEERING VALVE AIR PRESSURE NOW REACHES SLAVE CYLINDER HOWEVER SLAVE CYL IS LEAKING AIR THROUGH INTERNAL SEAL REMOVED PISTON TRING TO FIND SEAL KITTO REPAIR. 253 / UNIT ALSO DOES NOT HAVE MASTER DISCONNECT FOR POWER SOURCE NEED TO INSTALL CUT -OFF. 03/11/2011 @ 09:41:46 253/ WAITING FOR PARTS. 03/11/2011 @ 10:30:06StepEMS/FIRE PM Service TasksOKAdjustRepairReplaceCab, Body, Engine Compartment.lRoad test,ck brakes, retarder,steering, etc. 2Check gauges, warning lights,buzzers.X3Cheek high idle at 1500 rpm (diesels)X4Cheek door warning lights N/A SCheck parking brake & operation.X 7Check A /C, vents & heater performance.N /A 8Clean or replace A/C filtersN /A 9Cheek extinguisher, flare & triangle kit IOInspect interior seats,seat belt,handles. X I lInspect storage doors,covers,locks,strutsX 12Check horns for proper operation 131nspect glass,mirror for cracks X 14Inspect wiper blades /washer jets15Check exterior lights,light bars,strobes etc.X 16Note physical damage.Xl7Cheek tire condition & wear, air to specs.Xl8Replace tires > 4 /32X19Inspect & lube door latches and handles X20Inspect battery box and hardware.X21Test batteries and test charging system X 221nspect battery shutoff switch and cables. N /A23lnspect 02 bottle holders.N /A24Inspect fuel tanks,check vents and capsX251nspect air filter replace if nec.X261nspect coolant system and hoses X27lnspect drive belts XUnder CarriageOkAdjustRepairReplace281nspect exhaust system X291nspeet steering column /components.X30Lube chassis as needed.X311nspect fire pump,lines & mounts if equipped32Inspect steering linkage for looseness X331nspect king pins and front end for wear X34Change engine oil and filters.X351nspect engine for oil leaks X36Inspect starter, cables, mounts.X37luspect trans bellhousing loose bolts X38Inspect oil line for leak and cracks X39Inspect parking brake asm.X40Inspect brake actuator X 41Check brakes,drums for wear and rotors RearAxle 1 90 %42Note brake pad /shoe condition ( %)FR80 %Rear290 %43Check slack adjuster operation /adjustment.N /A 44Adjust brakes if nec.X45lnspect frame ,mounts,accessoriesX46Inspect undercarriage for damage or loss X47Inspect all attachments, proper operation X48Inspect springs for http: / /cww2 /Fleet /WOSummary.cfm ?WO1D= 169146 &year =1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs 1611p 2Qge3of6 cracks,worn bushing X49Check axle U bolts, re- torque to specs.X50Check U -joint and tube X 51Drain air tanks & check auto bleed sys. X52Inspect air riding height /air bags NIA 531nspect air system for leaks X54Test /inspect air dump system.X 55Report items,wires,accessories that do notXbelong or look suspicious56Test shore line auto eject and chargingN /A 57Sign off that PM is completed PMB & PMC SERVICE ITEMSOkAdjustRepair Replacel Clean engine & frame of dirt,oil if nec X 2Test starter draw, test all output and noteSt.A1t.3Test coolant with PH strip or refractometerX4Pressure test coolant system X511eplace coolant filters if equip ped.N /A6Drain & flush cooling sys if necX7Change differential fluids if nec. XSChange transmission filters & fluids if nec. Xsee Alison manuals for fluid type if unsure9Replace fuel filters X10Cheek/test emission system components.N /Al lCheck/service air dryer operation.X 1211oad test to verify repairs.12Cheek UV lamp if equipped.N /Al3Sign off that PM is completed FIRE PUMPSOkAdjustRepairReplacelCheck pump interlocks2Run primer pump and check vacuum3Prime pump and check operationACheck pump panel lamps and gauges5Adjust pump packing if necessary.6Cheek ladder racks & interlocks7Check generator and 110v lights if equipped254: DROPED OFF CYL @ B & B HYDRUALIC. 254: INSTALLED STEERING CYL. 254: REPLACED PITMAN ARM. 254; ASSIT, WITH DOOR 04/06/2011 @ 15:20:07 253/INSTALLED SHUTOFF SOLENOIDS & SWITCH ON DASH WITH INDICATOR LIGHT. REPLACED DUMP HOSE FROM STEERING CYL. TO AIR CLEANER. MOVING CAB PANELING BACK TO ALLOW DOOR TO SHUT PROPERLY. 04/06/20119 13:11:03 253/ REPLACED DRIVERS SIDE MIRROR AND ADDED CONVEX MIRROR. ADJUSTED DOOR AND BODY TO ALOW DOOR OPEN AND CLOSE. ROAD TESTED RUNS GOOD. PUT SPARE TIRE FROM OTHER BRUSH TRUCK IN BACK OF BED AND TIED UP. UNIT DONE PARKED BEHIND NORTH WING. t� 17:02:23 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 72.14029 Total Amount: 54,256.29 REPAIR CODE DATE IN OUT HOURS COST Q032k( )0100155 03/01/2011 03/01/2011 0.12667 57.47 FMB BS 03/01/2011 03/01/2011 1.60083 594.45 Pris ES 03/02/2011 03/02/2011 1.00917 859.54 015CU017C6 =4 03/0312011 03/03/2011 4.28250 u252 -67 2;03MH0600SN 03103/2011 03/03/2011 3.40833 $201.09 C 1031M 06C06S 03/03/2011 03/03/2011 2.31639 5126.67 RMB BS 03103;2011 03/03/2011 0.65667 438.74 Pi�AB °S 03/03/2011 03/03/2011 6.43833 5379.66 http: / /cww2 /Flect/W OSummary.efin? W OID =169 l46 &year -197$ &make =... 41111/2011 1611LAZU Equipment Total Costs Page 4 of 6 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $8,129.31 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION EACH CITY COST 1032B00't00BN 03/01/2011 BATTERY 12 VOLT MILITARY $185.22 2 5370.43 1032M1j010G3N 03/01/2011 MISC. /HARDWARE & PARTS $6.36 2 512.73 http: / /cww2 /Fleet /WOSummai-y.efi-n ?WOfD= 169146 &.near= 1978&jwike= 4/1 11 ?N11 �6 l PNIB BS 03/03/2011 03103/2011 0.19222 $11.34 2042MHO61 OBN 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 1.50778 $88 96 2042M,11061OBN 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 0.00111 50.07 2042PS010OBN 03/04/2011 03104/2011 2.28472 5134 80 2042PS010OBN 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 0.68194 $4023 2042PSO100611 0310412011 03/04/2011 2.41417 $14244 PfABBS 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 0.84222 54969 2C42PS01DOBN 03/07/2011 03/07/2011 0.58778 $3468 C103MHO60OBS 03/07/2011 03/07/2011 0.13778 $8 13 2007WN010UBN 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 0.86528 $51 05 20 <b2PS0106BN 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 2.04222 5120.49 2042PSOICOBN 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 0.00389 $0.23 2103MH0600BN 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 0.92778 554.74 C056MH0155BS 03/08/2011 03/0812011 0.61028 S36 01 C056NIHO155BS 03/08/2011 03108/2011 0.76389 545.07 C103MHO1556S 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 5.45361 532176 C103MHO600BS 03/08/2011 03/08/2011 0.06361 5375 2042PS„0165BNI 03/09/2011 03/09/2011 0.37194 $21.94 P10B BS 03/09/2011 03109/2011 0.45333 526.75 2015CU0100BN 03/10/2011 03/10/2011 1.97000 $116.23 20421-1501006N 03/1012011 03/10/2011 1.28778 $75.98 2042H5010OBN 03/10/2011 03/10/2011 1.54778 $91.32 2042PS0165BN 03/10/2011 03/10/2011 0.30444 $17.96 2015CU010OBN 03/11/2011 03/11/2011 1.40833 $83 -09 2015CU0100BN 03/11/2011 03/11/2011 4.01167 $236.69 2015CU0IOOBN 03124/2011 03/24/2011 0.79167 546.71 1015CU01706N 03/2812011 03128/2011 0.00472 50.28 1290MHO600BN 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 2.50611 $147.56 1290MH01556N 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 1.38806 581.90 129OMHO155BN 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 136556 580 57 129OMH0600BN 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 0.00139 $0.08 2015CU0i0CBN 04/0512011 04105/2011 033417 543.32 2015CUO106BN 04/05/2011 04/05/2011 0.33528 $19.78 2052MHOI55DN 04/05/2011 04105/2011 0.67750 $3597 2052MHO15513N 04/0512011 04/05/2011 3.66944 5216.50 1002<U1H01 UBN 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 1.09500 S64.61 2052MH0155BN 04/06/2011 04/0612011 3.21056 5189.42 2052MHO1555N 04/06/2011 04106/2011 1.89722 5111.94 2052MHO1558N 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 3.88917 $229.46 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $8,129.31 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION EACH CITY COST 1032B00't00BN 03/01/2011 BATTERY 12 VOLT MILITARY $185.22 2 5370.43 1032M1j010G3N 03/01/2011 MISC. /HARDWARE & PARTS $6.36 2 512.73 http: / /cww2 /Fleet /WOSummai-y.efi-n ?WOfD= 169146 &.near= 1978&jwike= 4/1 11 ?N11 httn: l (}SUOlDl8ry.CfDYW{\Ol=|64l46&veur=]V78&oiok*=,� 4/1)/201} 16 1 1A 20 Equipment 7oml�Ug3 Page 50f6 --- 03/D1nO11 DECAL %TOCK'N"Vy]'CM8.DY , 191 J 5574 FT. 03/O1/2011 FUEL TANK/GAJ+\LUy0.13-G&L $241A0 1 $241 AV 63/0312011C&P/FU\D|T0R18# $147 1 $147 1042f5001OCN 03103/2011 ANTI FR[EZE/PE8K'GALLON $14.28 4 S5710 CONT. VJ/03/201| PLUG DRAIN 5.9CUMMINS $5826 1 S5325 0J/03/2011 LUBRICANT VVD4O $0�00 1 3850 K� $LOVESLuRG�PER&T�X 0S/0�/2011 �11 � V5 1 $11 65 -��1zN�� NlTR|L� 9Ml RS 03V03/2011F/F|LTER93|mTL4600 $4.70 1 S-4J0 9MD±i%S 03/08/2011 FILTER/OIL MACK TRUCK $13.89 1 81399 pMB B3 03/D3/2011 TRANS F|LT92GYNCT0PK{CK $2.30 1 $290 l84Z8JKnY�88MO�/04/2011pU��p LUBEYWANT|'RUSTVX8TFR �1�59 l �/�9 03/0712011V'BELT $14.77 1 S1477 03/07/2O115ELT/GERP.7-R|8MICRO $39.95 1 S39.95 1QD7V0NOl{KDlGV3/V8/2011 WINDSHIELD YV/FFD\yWE $203.45 1 S283.45 1042B211886N03108/2811V'BELT $14,42 1 $14,42 M|TEK0P BLACK SILICONE 03/80/2011 $659 1 $5.58 GASKET VJ/O8/2011M|OC./MARDVVARE&PARTS $6.26 4 $25.44 2{>1D]2100BN03/1V/2V11 DRAG LINK /\SSY,YV/ASS|ST $2,476,50 1I2A76,50 10151Jli<M03/10/2011A3Sy,yV0\ C0RE/DRK(� LINK *500.00 1 $50000 5S|ST 03/10/2011 DRAG LINK ASSYNX8SJ|0T $2.509.28 1 $2,609.28 ANTI FREEZE/PEAK-GALLON V3/10/2V11 $1428 1 %1420 CONT. 0J/11/2011 SOLENOID CONTINUOUS DUTY $47.04 1 S47,04 SOLENOID 24VC0NONUOU8 0�/11/2V11 � $7035 1 $76.35 DUTY 03/14/2011 WATER PUMP $259,80 1 $25960 03V14/2V11 WATER PUMP *268.20 1 $26828 08/14/2011 CORE WATER PUMP $179.95 1 $179.95 {%X22,It01556SO3/1&/2011 PVC JUNCTION BOX $3O50 1 V36.5$ O3(21/2O11 BLADE/WIPER 14"'[W|L|TARY $2305 2 S46.10 03/21/2011 PITMAN ARM MILITARY TRK. %8384 1 S8304 2015&AH&lO[XB./08/2V/ZO11 BOOT/UNIVERSAL RAMP|N. $18.01 1 $18.01 CYL|NDER/MYDREP8|R/REBU|LD V4/O1/�011 $30163 1 $30183 NVSEALS 04/U5/2011 LAMP/GREEN INDICATOR $289 1 $289 04/05/2011 SWITCH 8PST TOGGLE 12V308 $725 1 S7,25 04/05/2011 TOGGLE SWITCH BOOT $10.62 1 $1802 2 04/06/2011[N|RR0R0/12 OFFSET SPOT $1402 1 $1402 10082@EIM{&D5NV4/06/2O111OXG MIRROR HEAD $22.59 1 $22.59 0400/2011 LIGHT LED YIELD INDICATOR $5.17 1 $5.17 CO524GHyL55BS04/05/2011 SOLENOID CONTINUOUS DUTY $55�07 1 S,5507 httn: l (}SUOlDl8ry.CfDYW{\Ol=|64l46&veur=]V78&oiok*=,� 4/1)/201} Equipment Total Costs PMC BS 04106/2011 LUBRICANTIMERCON V ATF -- — BULK OutSource /Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00 Other Costs: Total Amount: 50.00 Credits: Total Amount: ($679.95) REPAIR CODE DATE DESCRIPTION CREDIT POSTED 1015LI11COBN 0312l/2011 CORE #83504 -C ($500.00) DRAGLINK 1042PS0100BN 0 312 3/2 01 1 CORE #OR1013 -C ($179.95) -- WATER PUMP lb i 1 Page > of $3.36 7 $23 54 1 O rUJ to Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR CODE DESCRIPTION 1290MH0165BN 1 Repaired From PM Service I Steer Off H /way I Misc Parts I Install ( Billable 1290MH0600BN 1 Repaired From PM Service I Steer Off H /way I Misc Parts I Fabricate ( Billabl 2015CU0100BN 2 General Repair I Steering System Cylinder Assist I Replace I Billable 1 NOT 2015CU01006N 2 General Repair I Steering System I Cylinder Assist I Replace ( Billable I NOT 2042H50100BN 2 General Repair I Cooling Engine I Hose Bypass I Replace I Billable I NOT SCHE 2042MH061 OBN 2 General Repair I Cooling Engine I Misc Parts I Dnll/Tap I Billable I NOT SCH 2042PS0100BN 2 General Repair I Cooling Engine ( Pump Engine Wat I Replace ( Billable ( NOT 2042PS0165BN 2 General Repair I Cooling Engine I Pump Engine Wat ( Repair I Billable I NOT S 2052MHO1558N 2 General Repair I Electrical Acc I Misc Parts Install I Billable I NOT SCHED 2103MH0600BN 2 General Repair I Accessory Emer I Misc Parts ( Fabricate ( Billable I NOT SCH C056MHO1556S C Capitalization Repair I CommunicationEq Misc Parts I Install I Billable I S C103MH060OBS C Capitalization Repair I Accessory Emer Misc Parts I Fabricate I Billable PMB BS P PM Service I B Service List Billable I SCHEDULED http: / /ev,,\v2 /Fleet /WOSLimmary.cfm? W OID= 169146 &year = 1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 Details for Work Order Number 0000081465 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 03/02/2010 Date Out: 04/21/2010 Total Cost: $6,616.05 Mileage: 14000 Cficl, on Repair Cocle f0r DC—mils Maintenance Motes: 03/02/2010 05:15 Order 6 tire from Collier Tire tire side 365/80R20 LEE CALLED IN 239 -825 -5079 WAS BRINGING IN NEW BRUSH TRUCK. REAR TIRE BLEW UP. TRUCK HAS GOOD SPARE. COLLIER TIRE WILL RUN CALL. NEED TO MAKE FUEL KEY. 254; Disable airing system from wheels. Take truck to Collier Tire to mount new tires. 217 Truck completed . Dept took truck over to a paint shop. review by 217 04/21/2010 @ 07:19:41 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 1.89778 Total Amount: $125.25 REPAIR CODE DATE IN BUT HOURS COST http: / /eww2 /Fleet /WOSummai- v.cfm ?WOT17= 160776 &ve2l•= 1978ArmA -t— A/] I /MI I LO [-I TET sHoi' _go i't 2 PtvI SCHFDtiLE HON F FIE= >STST -IFF €:R1All, GS Locations and Operation a '" LL`C:111O;5 PrenenuGC 11aSa;e�iar:cvs Hours P:�7 <__ >ram SY GLOBAL- FLEE "i VOY.AGFR FUEL tt)R.13S YICTI-RE 'i R13 G;ILLERI" C(. { {)1iF It_SL�Rt'l:l' Fueling vita Link Details for Work Order Number 0000081465 on 1978 AM GENERAL M35A3 Date In: 03/02/2010 Date Out: 04/21/2010 Total Cost: $6,616.05 Mileage: 14000 Cficl, on Repair Cocle f0r DC—mils Maintenance Motes: 03/02/2010 05:15 Order 6 tire from Collier Tire tire side 365/80R20 LEE CALLED IN 239 -825 -5079 WAS BRINGING IN NEW BRUSH TRUCK. REAR TIRE BLEW UP. TRUCK HAS GOOD SPARE. COLLIER TIRE WILL RUN CALL. NEED TO MAKE FUEL KEY. 254; Disable airing system from wheels. Take truck to Collier Tire to mount new tires. 217 Truck completed . Dept took truck over to a paint shop. review by 217 04/21/2010 @ 07:19:41 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 1.89778 Total Amount: $125.25 REPAIR CODE DATE IN BUT HOURS COST http: / /eww2 /Fleet /WOSummai- v.cfm ?WOT17= 160776 &ve2l•= 1978ArmA -t— A/] I /MI I 161 1 Equipment Total Costs 2W1 03/3112010 03/31/2010 1.89778 $12525 1661 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $8,410.80 /v REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION EACH CITY COST TIRE /DUNLOP- 0017TAi1.1XSS 03117/2010 SPT9 MILITARY $1,03200 2 52.064.00 TRK. TIRE /DUNLOP- 00= i3i,i11C;S 03/17/2010 SPT 9 MILITARY $1,03200 2 $2.064.Li0 TRK. TIRE /DUNLOP- 0017TM110013S 03/2412010 SPT 9 MILITARY $1,032.00 2 $2,064.00 TRK. TIRE /DUNLOP- 0047TM11v085 03/2912010 SET 9 MILITARY $1,032.00 2 52,064.00 TRK. 801(V10100B1N 04/1312010 VALVE /STEMITIRE $25.80 6 5154.80 OutSource /Sublet: Total Amount: $144.00 REPAIR CODE DATE DATE VENDOR COST OUT BACK COLLIER 8017TM11008N 04/1212010 04/2112010 TIRE $144.00 COMMERCIAL CENTER Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 Credits: Total Amount: $0.00 Az0 Page 2 of 2 Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR CODE DESCRIPTION 2051 MHO16OBN 2 General Repair I Air Supply I Misc Parts Remove I Billable I NOT SCHEDULED http: / /cww2/ Fleet /WOSumniary.cfm ?WOID =160776 &year 1978 &make =... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs 161;1 AZU Page 1 of 1 Details for Work Order Number 0000089133 on 2008 FORD EXPEDITION EL Date In: 03/04/2011 Date Out: 03/04/2011 'Total Cost: $46.75 Mileage: 66856 C! Adi (111 Cod( alk Maintenance Notes: 03/1612011 10:44 SWIFT OIL CIIANGE..PMA Labor Costs: Total hours: Total Amount: $0.00 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 OutSouree /Sublet: Total Amount: $46.75 REPAIR DATE DATE VENDOR COST CODE OUT BACK SUNTRUST RANKCARD, 46.75 PF�1R BS' 03(0412011 03/04/2011 N.A. Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 Credits: Total Amount: $0.00 Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR DESCRIPTION CODE PMA BS P PM Service I A Service List I Billable I SCHEDULED http: / /cww2/ Fleet /WOSummary. efirn? W OID= 169535 &year = 2008 &make =F... 4/11/2011 Fleet )UP1011k sago -Amwas 00 Management oo am � 3 L sL (K7-i{�s" tSO.if rt Pl''i ST1.Fa I MAID Locations and operation 6t)( ,t-i �� Fr�.ie =_its V4 at.en_-ecz -�cz P o r. -.m F{oc:xs jj I�� :i y VQYACiER I'UEL: 1 OR'�RS ('AtZ ;TCTUE k f -RSL RVLP GALI,FRY Fueling Si[e Link Details for Work Order Number 0000089133 on 2008 FORD EXPEDITION EL Date In: 03/04/2011 Date Out: 03/04/2011 'Total Cost: $46.75 Mileage: 66856 C! Adi (111 Cod( alk Maintenance Notes: 03/1612011 10:44 SWIFT OIL CIIANGE..PMA Labor Costs: Total hours: Total Amount: $0.00 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 OutSouree /Sublet: Total Amount: $46.75 REPAIR DATE DATE VENDOR COST CODE OUT BACK SUNTRUST RANKCARD, 46.75 PF�1R BS' 03(0412011 03/04/2011 N.A. Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 Credits: Total Amount: $0.00 Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR DESCRIPTION CODE PMA BS P PM Service I A Service List I Billable I SCHEDULED http: / /cww2/ Fleet /WOSummary. efirn? W OID= 169535 &year = 2008 &make =F... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs r olfikr .11l>1b1 C40 "I' jj HOME ri F,F__FS fAfF Locations and Ofemlion LO :�TIONS Hours 161 1 A 2U Pagel of 2 vor lglvk n 00 PM SCHMULF I'revanntc tLi ?intenznce Yruara_m Details for Work Order Number 0000088883 on 2008 FORD EXPEDITION EL Date In: 03/04/2011 Date Out: 03/04/2011 Total Cost: $208.93 Mileage: 66856 on itepair i. odc for Detaii Maintenance Notes: 03/04/201107:57 RIGHT REAR TIRE LOOSING AIR 253/ FOUND AIR LEAKING FROM NAIL PUNCTURE. REPLACED TIRE AND INSTALLED ON VEHICLE.@ 08:47:06By 217 03/04/2011 @ 09:19:45 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 0.76083 Total Amount: $44.89 REPAIR CODE DATE IN OUT HOURS COST 201TfP,4300JJBN 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 0.76083 $44.89 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $164.04 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION EACH CITY COST TIRE /P26570R17- 20 1rr i00Bh' 03/04/2011 SPD.RATED $148.92 1 S148.92 FORTERA 201- ilk"1100BN 0 310412 01 1 MISC. /HARDWARE $6.36 1 58.36 htti): / /cww2 /Fleet /WOStinimai y.cfm? WOID= 169251 &year =2008 &make =F... 4/11/2011 i S' JRRS CARD IC 1ttiEIOA P CUSTOMBRSURVEY Fuslirg Site Link 161 1 A 2U Pagel of 2 vor lglvk n 00 PM SCHMULF I'revanntc tLi ?intenznce Yruara_m Details for Work Order Number 0000088883 on 2008 FORD EXPEDITION EL Date In: 03/04/2011 Date Out: 03/04/2011 Total Cost: $208.93 Mileage: 66856 on itepair i. odc for Detaii Maintenance Notes: 03/04/201107:57 RIGHT REAR TIRE LOOSING AIR 253/ FOUND AIR LEAKING FROM NAIL PUNCTURE. REPLACED TIRE AND INSTALLED ON VEHICLE.@ 08:47:06By 217 03/04/2011 @ 09:19:45 Labor Costs: Total Hours: 0.76083 Total Amount: $44.89 REPAIR CODE DATE IN OUT HOURS COST 201TfP,4300JJBN 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 0.76083 $44.89 Parts Costs: Total Amount: $164.04 REPAIR CODE DATE IN DESCRIPTION EACH CITY COST TIRE /P26570R17- 20 1rr i00Bh' 03/04/2011 SPD.RATED $148.92 1 S148.92 FORTERA 201- ilk"1100BN 0 310412 01 1 MISC. /HARDWARE $6.36 1 58.36 htti): / /cww2 /Fleet /WOStinimai y.cfm? WOID= 169251 &year =2008 &make =F... 4/11/2011 Equipment Total Costs & PARTS 2017 i ort110JBN 03/04/2011 WDW WASHER $1.14 SOLVENT 2017Tjj,1l3100BN 03/04/2011 SHOP SUPPLIES $2.54 OutSource /Sublet: Total Amount: $0.00 Other Costs: Total Amount: $0.00 Credits: Total Amount: $0.00 1 $1.14 3 Sr.62 161 I A 2 Fage 2 of 2 Repair Code Description: Match Repair Codes Above to their Description here REPAIR CODE DESCRIPTION 2034B60100BS 2 General Repair I Light System I Bulb Headlight I Replace I Billable I SCHEDULE it ttp:/ /cww2 /Fleet/WOSummary.eftn ?WO[D- 169251 &year= 2008 &make =F... 4/11/2011 - *. It : It I - A20 Fund Expenditure Budget Comparisons grouped by Business Center, Business Unit Fiscal Year 2012 Collier County Government A j F 2 2 Adpt Anld Aroo!=d An-c " cl.q Bv,.J't ell, -fig Cod, 0,11. Troll .J Ce of the colanty mw aipir::l 10714 Ochopee Fire Control Oistrict fl 146 Oh,,,, File Control District 144380-146 Ochcpee Fire District 512100 Regular Salaries 754,375 754,375 250,993 -66,73 -66.73 754,375 090 0.00 512600 ET 457 Deterred COTTIP 2,000 2,000 390 -80,50 -8050 2,000 0,00 oeo 10 0 69 0.00 0.00 0 0,00 000 512700 Cell Phone Artattance 11,427 31,500 12826 128.26 513100 Other Salaries And Wages 13'800 13,800 -17.20 -17,20 102,204 13.50' 13.5E 514100 Overtime 90,000 00,000 42,324 -52,97 -52,07 6,82 519100 Reserve For Salary Adjustment 88 89 0 10000 10000 94 6.82 521100 Social Security Matching 68,575 38,575 22,430 -67,29 -67,29 67,588 -1.44 -1,44 522100 Retirement Regular S,W 5,548 1.657 -7e13 -70.13 5,228 -577 -5.77 522200 Retirement High Hazard 214,721 214,721 57Xe -58.77 68W 206,227 -3.95 -3,95 523150 Health insurance 170,55() 17Q550 42,638 -7500 -15,00 191,190 12,10 12.10 520151 Health Insurance - VsIP 5.500 5,500 0 10000 100.00 C 10000 b23160 Life insmacca Short -Long Term 2,043 2,043 511 -7500 -7500 2,035 -0,24 -0,24 524100 Workers Compensation Regular 14,900 14,900 3,725 -7500 -75,00 15,300 2,68 2.68 090 527200 All..ancis, For Cell Phone 0 0 A9 CDO OeO 0 0,00 631990 Other Professional Fees 0 0 0 coo 0.00 0 0,00 0.00 20,00 634207 IT Capital Allocation 1,000 1,000 500 -50.00 -50.00 1.2DO 2000 14.42 634210 Info Tiolin Automation Allocation 21500 21'500 10,750 -5000 -5000 24,600 1442 134970 Indirect Cast Reimbursement 51,400 51,400 25,700 -50,00 -50.00 51,100 -0,58 -0.58 534990 Other Contractual Services 50,000 68 12-1 35,000 -2820 -47,30 25,000 -50.00 -03,30 540300 Out OfCounty Travel ProfDavel 3,000 3,OCO 0 100.00 100.00 3,000 (ON 000 640410 Motor Pool Beni Charge 200 200 174 -13'15 -1315 200 0,00 000 0.00 641700 Cellular Telephone 3,000 3'000 1070 -64,32 -14.32 3,000 Ono 0.00 641900 Telephone Sys Support Allocated EGOO 5,000 5.614 12,28 12,28 5,000 0,00 641950 Package Freight And Ups 300 300 375 24,87 2487 350 16,67 O'Do 643100 Electricity 50110 5,000 1,205 -75,90 -75-90 ECOO 0,00 643300 Trash And Garbage Disposal 500 Soo 173 -55,30 -65 30 500 0.00 0,00 644100 Rent Buildings 16.000 16,000 1500 -210 -2,50 ls'COO 000 0.00 644850 Lease. Purchase Equipment 46,000 46,000 43880 -4,61 -4,61 46,000 cerl 0.00 4.08 645100 Insurance General 9800 9,800 2.450 -7E00 -7500 4400 -4.08 645200 Property Insurance 7,500 7.500 0 -10000 100.00 5,900 -8 (l -8L00 3,100 6,100 1,525 -7500 -75.00 7,600 24.59 24.59 645260 Alt. insurance 16,000 16,000 2T79 -57.01 -5701 12,000 -25,00 -2500 646110 Building R And M outside Vendors ISO -95,30 4,000 O'ea 000 646410 Autos/Trucks Rai Outside Vendors 4,000 4000 4,974 -f5s0 -75 of -7501 44,100 12101 12161 646430 Fiset Malm of Labor And Overhead 19,900 19'900 45,500 222,92 222.92 646440 Fleet Mont iSF Parts and Sublet 14,400 14,400 1EE20 7.76 7.78 58,69 1,900 137.50 137.50 646445 Fleet Nor, Milan ISE Parts and Sublet 800 Boo 251 -6869 14.29 1429 646510 Machine Tools Rm Canada Vendors 700 700 0 10000 10000 800 6468 10 Comm Equip Rm Outside Vendors 5,000 6,000 10,79; 79,W 1990 6,000 000 0,00 646710 Office ECI-Preat R And M 1,000 1000 0 100 O0 100.00 1,000 000 4286 546810 Boat 9 And Ja 3.560 3,500 0 1000.0 1000.0 2,000 -42.86 2000 20.00 646070 Other Equip Repair Maintenance 1500 1'500 1,442 -3.35 -5.85 1,800 0,00 648160 Other Ads 100 1 On 0 100 .00 100n0 100 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 000 000 0 090 649000 Sales Tax Expense 400 650 52.50 6250 pun 000 0,00 649010 Line.... And Permits 400 3,000 3,000 2,000 -23"33 -33.33 3,000 TOO 0.00 6511 10 office Supplies General Soo 0 10000 100.00 800 000 C"cc 651950 Minor Data Processing Equipment 600 4,500 -30.77 -5017 652110 Clothing And Uniform Furchases, 6,500 5,500 5,623 -10,42 -10,42 0.00 652120 Uniform Accessories 300 300 487 6235 6235 41,41 300 3,000 0.00 -84.21 -84"21 652140 Personal Safety Equipment 19,000 19,000 16,832 -1141 0.00 652310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals 1000 1,000 0 10000 100,00 1,000 unlit 127.02 652490 Fuel and Lubricants ISF Billings 15,400 15,400 55,887 -6177 -61.77 35,100 127.92 0,00 652510 Household & 11-firtuaCral Supplies tir"OO 3000 1,800 -40.00 40.03 3.000 0.00 652120 Medical Supplies 1 800 1,800 0 10000 100.00 1,400 -22,22 -22.22 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 15,000 15,000 5,031 -56,45 -66,46 14.000 6.67 -6,67 000 052930 Minor Medical Equipment 2X00 2000 0 101100 10000 2,000 0,00 11 11 11 652990 Other Operating Supil 9,0010 9,000 7.349 -15.01 -1sel 10 000 -11 0,00 654110 Boolls, Publ & Subscriptions 1500 1.500 103 -87.14 -87.14 1,500 0.00 0.00 654210 Class And Memberships 700 700 95 -66,43 -86A3 700 0.00 3,000 3,000 0 100.00 10000 2,500 -16,67 -16,57 654310 Tution 4,000 4,000 505 -57.38 -67.38 2,500 -37,50 -37,50 654360 Other Training Ed Exp 0 Goo 0,00 0 0.00 0 cc 763100 limprovernews General 0 0 -27.36 11,000 -50.00 50,00 764990 Other Machinery And Equipment 22,000 22,000 15,980 .2736 ........ ... G.,Mi -VS 161 1 A U Fund Expenditure Budget Comparisons grouped by Business Center, Business Unit Fiscal Year 2012 Collier County Government "y -" rl t AM.t 4. A$CC d -. a ,`_ -v..r ,h.: £ 9 i g g 07 Oa ice of ah.. County M2nager 0714 Ochopee Fire Control District 146 Ochopee Fire control District 919010 -146 Reserves 0 700.00 100.00 0 100.00 100.00 991000 Reserve For Contingencies 90,700 one 90,707 x5,900 0 looeo 100.00 0 100.00 100el) 992100 Reserve For Attrition - Salary Savings 45. - a 100.00 100.00 0 10000 100.00 993000 Reserve For Capital Outlay 32,200 32,200 929010 -146 Transfer 6 0,00 0.00 0 0.00 coo 917140 Transfer To 714 Co Mgr Match 0 0 959010 -146 Transfers - Elected Officers -3059 -50.10 0 100.00 100.00 930600 Budget Transfers Pro a raiser P rtYAPP 13,600 13,000 81,ft00 1,774 27,773 -3163 -31.53 0 100 00 100.00 030700 Budget Transfers Tax .COilector � 3'1800 ,- " "- ""7,100 �- .----- ^-- �-- --"-"" 714,795 -61. -6208 �'-- '""""� 1,799,504 -3 -62 -4.55 196 0chopza Fire Control District 1,A67,100 1885,233 1 _ ,_�.._._.._�. -.._ 07144chopee Fire Control District 1,867,100 1,885,233 - 61,72.___._..__ 714,795 -6192 -62.08 1, ]99,504 .3.62 .4.55 07 Off'..' Of the ccur.rj P =AanaOar 1,867,100 1385, 33 714 6 6,.72 :.Oe SOd 15 Office of the Goun'ly lgl[anager GSPital 1603 DCP10✓12e Fir2 Capital 372 Ochol2ee Fire Control Impact 144389 -372 Ochopee Fire Impact Fee Capital a 0.00 100.00 649580 Reimb Prcr Year Revenues 0 1603 390 0.00 0 0 OC -f6.96 000 0 0.00 0.00 652140 Perscnal Safety Equipment 0 0 486 C 0.00 100.00 0 0'00 100,00 7631001mpravements General 0 919WO -372 Reserves 0 100.00 ',00.00 0 L00.00 100A0 994500 Resv For Future Constructfon And 4 ,700 4,100 -- _ 72 OchoP °ee Fire Control Impzct 4 100 4 6,2]9 330 -9049 -93.79 0 19o.00 t00.oa __ - - --- 1505 Ochopee Fire Capital '^ a 100 6 279 _..._ 390 90.49 -- 93.79 0 100.00 t00.W i50ffiee o`ihe Countyvfanag ?r Cap tol 4100 C29 30 90 t9 9279 0 _ _ 100 00 100 00 Report Total 18'1X6 ,84 512 715185 Ei 2 82t� 9 1249,505 3H -09^ 4t6r2011 161 1 ,; ,l LU Fund Revenue Budget Comparisons grouped by Business Center, Business Unit Collier County Government _ Fiscal Year 2012 372 Ochooee Fire Control Impact apt . *d - Ft >. 9 f< - ^rd 'fl s rse C� 3 (}% UT'FICe O'f iii£' COCI ❑Sy It9at] t}9� 0 0 0.00 0714 Ochopee Fire Control District 0 0.00 0.00 363854 Fire Impact Fees 1,000 1,000 0 10000 146 Ochonee Fire Control District 0 100.00 "00.00 919010 -372 Reserves 144 38 0-14 6 Ochopee Fire District 459200 Carryforward 3,200 3,260 0 100.06 311100 Current Ad Valorem Taxes 1,346,300 1,346,300 088,185 -28.60 -26.60 1,252,000 -Z00 -7.00 311200 Delinquent Ad Valorem Taxes 2,000 2,000 757 -62.17 02.17 2,000 0,00 0.00 342500 Protective Inspection Fees 8,000 8,000 956 -88.02 -Ra C2 1,200 .85.00 -95.00 361170 Interest Sba 0 0 0 0.00 0,00 200 0,00 0.00 361180 Investment Interest 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 10,000 0,00 0.00 361320 Interest Tae Collector 0 0 1 0-00 0.00 0 100 000 360130 Ins CO Refunds 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0,00 0.00 369300 Reimbursement For Prior Year Exp 0 0 0 0.00 100 0 0.00 0.00 369620 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 150 000 0.00 0 000 0.00 919010-146 Reserves - :o.fi3 -27.37 4892DO Cantonvard 471,400 471,400 0 100.00 100.00 0 100.00 100.00 489201 Carry Famard Of Encumb Amt 0 18,127 0 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 to0A0 439900 Negative 5% Estimated Revenues - 68,300 - 58,300 0 100.00 10000 0 100.00 10000 929010 -146 Transfer 481118 Transfer From 118 Misc Grants 0 7 0 009 100,00 0 0.00 100.00 481142 Transfer From 148 Collier County Fire 87,600 87,600 65,202 -26.57 -2557 96,700 10.39 10.39 959010 -146 Transfers - Elected Officers 486.600 Transfer From Property Appraiser 900 900 0 1000o 100.00 900 0.00 O.Oo 485700 Transfer From Tax Collector 9,000 9,000 0 100.00 100.00 9,000 0.00 0.00 589010.146 Interest 361170 Interact Sim 200 200 167 .16.31 -1631 0 100.00 100.00 361180 Investment Interest 10,000 10,000 1,558 -94.42 -84.42 0 100.00 100.00 1460chopee Fire Control District ......__..,.4O_ _....ict 1,867,'00 000-9.. ..._...,..._.____.. 1,685233 1,056,977 .. 4339 �_. X3.93 1,372,000 -26.52 -27.22 _ 0714 Ochopee Fire Control District 1,867,100 1,885,233 1356,977 - 43,39 -43.93 1,372,000 - -26.52 - '__._____ _...__,� - 27.22 .. 27 a i _ C -9-9-9-9__ .. ._ "' 03 ............_ !,u,5 2 _. ....__........�W 171 56,vr7 -03.39 33,49 1 72,80 2G 52 -27.22 00-90. __.....__.._.__.__....�. 35 Of of tha Co lnty Mating ar Capital 1505 Ochopes Fire Capital 372 Ochooee Fire Control Impact 144389 -372 Ochopee Fire Impact Fee Capital 324101 Impact Fee Single Family- Residential 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 363854 Fire Impact Fees 1,000 1,000 0 10000 100.00 0 100.00 "00.00 919010 -372 Reserves 459200 Carryforward 3,200 3,260 0 100.06 10000 0 100.D0 100.00 489201 Carry Forrvard Of Encumb Amt 0 2,179 0 0,00 100.00 0 0.00 100.00 489900 Negative 5% Estimated Revenues -100 -100 0 100.00 10000 0 100,00 1011,00 989010.372 Interest 361170 Interest Sba 0 0 8 0,C 100 0 Goo 0.00 361180 Invastment Interest 0 0 79 0.00 0.00 D Oo0 0.00 372 Ochopee Fire Control Impact 4,900 1.-. �_�......_.._ 6,279 .. ------------ % .---- ._..___.__ -97.89 99.6a ., 0 100.00 100.00 1505 Ochopee Fire Capital 4,100 6,279 Be 97,89 99.63 0 100.0 ^u 100,00 �•__._... 1o0N'ec �,y -.,a arC :.ai _ 4,L.. 00-9-9_ .. ? -� %� _9889 9883 . -9-9-9-9 °-9-900 0 108.00 Inca R p rtTatal 51 -;4.12 G ^O :o.fi3 -27.37 i 4'5291 T 1611A21 March 16, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, March 16, 2011 2 0 3 9 d E D MAY 2 3 201 BY: ....................... 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: V/ VICE Fiala �L`ICE CHAIR: Hiller �� ✓✓ Henning Coyle Colette John P. Ribes Edward "Ski" Olesky (Excused) Barbara Buehler Phil Brougham Gary Davis David Saletko Murdo Smith ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinator Nancy Olson, Regional Manager I Shari Ferguson, Regional Manager Meryl Rorer, Parks and Recreation Michael Toolan, Parks and Recreation Jake Sullivan, Park Ranger Gina Sancho, VPK Instructor Meryl Rorer, Volunteer Coordinator for Collier ul County ,6 l A Zi March 16, 2011 1. Call to Order Phil Brougham called the meeting to order at 2:00 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 Barbara Buehler moved to approve the March 16, 2011 Agenda as submitted. Second by David Saletko. Motion carried 6 -0. Add: V. b. Employee of the Month fir January and February (after IV.) Move: X11. Public Comments after V. b. John Ribes arrived at 2:05 pm. Gary Davis moved to approve the March 16, 2011 Agenda as amended. Second by David Saletko. Motion carried 6 -0. IV. Approval of February 16, 2010 Minutes IV - 2nd sentence should read "He polled" Phil Brougham moved to approve the February 16, 2011 Minutes as amended Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 6 -0. V. New Business a. Boat Launch Permit Parking Sticker — Addressed after X11. b. Employee of the Month for January and February Sidney Kittila announced the Employee of the Month for January and February 2011. John Ribes commended and presented the following outstanding individuals with the "Employee of the Month" award. ➢ January — Gina Sancho, VPK Instructor ➢ February — Meryl Rorer, Volunteer Coordinator for Collier County Meryl Rorer distributed invitations to the Advisory Board to a Volunteer Recognition Hawaiian Luau on April 161h. XIL Public Comments/ Board Comments Public Speaker Alyce Saunders, a Naples resident since 1976; urged the Advisory Board to consider making a recommendation to change the Ordinance to allow dogs on leashes in the County parks with restrictions; dogs not on a leash, owners not picking up after their dog and vicious dogs in parks will be fined. She reasoned dogs are allowed in the City parks; 70% of households have a dog and dogs are good for owner's health, owners get out and walk plus it saves money on medical expenses. u VI. L1 March 16, 2011 She distributed "Pet Friendly" advertisements for mobile parks, restaurants and apartments. (See attached) Discussion was made on when Ordinance was made and rational on why it was past, parks that currently allow dogs on leash and planned future dog parks. It was noted the Ordinance was over 30 years old. Phil Brougham moved to direct Staff to research policies of the City of Naples and neighboring counties. Second by Gary Davis. Further discussion was made on possible issues, regulations, maintenance and cost elements i.e. signage and doggy bags. Motion carried 6 -0. Staff will research and provide information to the Advisory Board in May. Public Speaker Margaret Winn, President of The Friends of Barefoot Beach Preserve was opposed to allowing dogs in preserves. New Business a. Boat Launch Permit Parking Sticker Staff requested issue be addressed at April meeting. Discussion was made commercial and non - commercial sticker placement and fee policy. Staff stated the Department will be reviewing the fee policy and process for changes. Staff will make recommendations at the April meeting. Old Business a. Update on the Parks Master Plan Barry Williams reported the Parks Master Plan was submitted to the BCC. The BCC had concerns if the process was fully publicly vetted and recommended setting up public meetings to get input from Community. He announced the 2- public meetings will be held on: • April 6th from 6 -8 PM at South Regional Library • April 7`h from 6 -8 PM at the Extension Office by the Fair Grounds Staff will notify the Advisory Board when press release is scheduled to print in newspaper. Phil Brougham will monitor and make sure it is publicized. Commissioner Jim Coletta will facilitate both meetings; Tindale Oliver Consultants will make the same presentation given to the Advisory Board and will pass -out and collect surveys. The Commissioners plan to attend meetings. Tindale Oliver Consultants will create a report from surveys received at both meetings and add it to the Parks Master Plan and resubmit to the BCC in June. Staff will provide the Consultants' report to the Advisory Board. ` 1611�� March 16, 2011 b. Update on City of Naples & BCC Joint Meetings Barry Williams reported meeting with the County and City of Naples on two occasions to review programs offered to the public to identify any recreational program redundancies and create an analysis report for the County and City Managers by May 9'h There are not a lot of redundancies in programs. The City has withdrawn request for additional funds. The City Council voted to discontinue some after school and summer camp programs, swamp buggy races, etc. VII. Marketing Highlights Meryl Rorer reported as follows: • Sun -N -Fun Lagoon will be open for Spring Break from March 19 -28. • Camp Expo is scheduled on April 2" from 10 am - 2pm for public to check out different camps around Collier County • Easter Events at Collier County Parks - 5'h Annual Spring Festival at East Naples Community Park April 91h from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm - Bunny Workshop at Veterans Community Park April 16`h from 10:30 am - 12:00 pm - Easter Egg Hunt at Immokalee Sports Complex April 23`d from 11:00 am -2:00 pm - Easter Eggstravaganza at Max Hasse Community Park April 23`d from 10:00 am - 1:00 pm VIII. Recreation Highlights Michael Toolan gave a slide presentation on the Festival of the Arts Event held at Sugden Regional Park on January 29 and 30 as follows: ➢ Parks & Recreation co- sponsored with Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency. Event was successful with over 4,000 visitors over both days. Y There were 30 visual artists, 226 musicians and 8 local restaurants with a beer garden. ➢ A trolley was used to transport visitors to and from the County parking lot ➢ Plans are to hold event again next year. IX. Adopt A Park David Saletko reported on Clam Pass Park as follows: • Free Guided Nature Walk information was posted in a lockbox at the gazebo. • Overall Appearance is beautiful. • Parking free is $8.00 or free to visitors with beach parking stickers. • Popular beach access. • 6 trams to carry visitors to and from the beach. • Boardwalk has an issue with recycled plastic planks with metal screws and as the planks wear down the screw heads become exposed causing flat tires on the trams and cut feet for patrons not wearing shoes. A L l 161 1 March 16, 2011 • Naples Grand Hotel offers amenities at the boardwalks end; restrooms, grill and beach rental equipment. • /2 price beach rental equipment is offered to Collier County residents. • Beach hours are 8 am to sundown. • Gazebo smells moldy and the roof is in need of repair. Barry Williams responded there are plans to replace the gazebo. Staff is working through the permitting process. He will take feedback to Department. He will also contact Coastal Zone Management for an update. The Advisory Committee urged Staff to expedite replacement of public hazard. X. Director's Highlights Barry Williams stated Staff is working on a Community Development Block Grant Application for an Eagle Lakes Community Center for $1,500,000 to be submitted to BCC for approval on April 8`h. Deadline to submit Grant Application to grantor is April 15`h. He will be attending a technical meeting and will find out more information. Barry Williams reported the ongoing Cal Ripken Baseball issue and they want to be established at the North end of town. Staff is looking for another park and plan to meet with Commissioner Hiller. The dilemma is whether there is a spot for them within the existing facilities and if the Parks & Recreation can handle 2 leagues at one time. He noted Little League has boundaries and Cal Ripken has no boundaries. He stated it is a matter of competing sports and activities occurring in the same locations. Phil Brougham left at 3:25 pm. He announced the Advisory Boards recommendation to amend Ordinance No. 89 -11 removing "Key Island" from the attached list of barrier islands was moved to County Manager's agenda and postponed for a future date. The BCC directed the Staff to make sure the "Key Island" property owners were in agreement with the amended Ordinance No. 89 -11 and bring recommendation back to BCC in April. Phil Brougham returned at 3:30 pm. Staff announced a 3% budget reduction in Operating Expenses FY 2012. XI. Informational Items — Read only. XII. Public Comments /Board Member Comments Public Speaker Margaret Winn asked for clarification on where, when and time for the Park Master Plan public meetings. Staff reiterated meeting information. Margaret Winn informed Advisory Board she planned to attend a meeting tomorrow at 9:00 am regarding the ramp issue at Barefoot Beach Park 1611A21 March 16, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:35 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD n F. Ribes These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on �� " as presented or as amended x. on 16 1 1N 2 2 RF- CEIVED MAY - 9 2011 Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS CLAM BAY MARKERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a Special Workshop to discuss Clam Bay Markers on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 9:00 a.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 absent Tom Cravens Johan Domenic absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill absent Kyle Lukasz Geoffrey S. Gibson John laizzo absent Michael Levy Theodore Raia, Jr. John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry Lisa Resnick Fiala__ Hiller Hennin Coyle Coletta Also Present: Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Marcia Cravens, Vice - President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) Stephen Feldhaus, Secretary, Pelican Bay Foundation & Co- Chair, Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee "Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Mary Johnson, President, MAG Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Kathy Worley, Co- Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Approximately 40 attendees AGENDA I . Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Clam Bay Markers Discussion 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjournment ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Chandler, Domenic, laizzo, Baron, and Hansen, all Board members present. Chairman Dallas said the purpose of the workshop is to discuss the Services Division's position for appropriate markers in Clain Bay and that he would convey that position on behalf of the Board at the County's Clam Bay Markers Discussion meeting February 17. PRESENTATION With red and green markers `off the table," Mr. Stephen Feldhaus, Secretary, Pelican Bay Foundation & Co-Chair, Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee made a presentation regarding alternative markers that are being proposed for Clam Bay by the County's Coastal Zone Management (CZM) department, supported by the Pelican Bay Foundation, and that Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) deems appropriate. The proposed markers provide the Seagate community with a route into and out of the Gulf, well marked for safety, with twelve canoe /kayak trail post signs; two "Caution Clam Bay" buoys at the mouth of the fMff3oCdfi"ulf, and one at 8442 Date LQ,l2.-% !tern #: I lDT j ►921 1611A22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 16, 2011 the exit to the Seagate community; three "Caution Shoal" buoys; and one "Caution Seagrass" buoy. All stakeholders would negotiate at tomorrow's County meeting. Dr. Raia asked if dredging is part of the agenda and Mr. Feldhaus answered that the meeting is solely to discuss the markers. Mr. Levy asked if they are marking the channel as it exists, or would there be an indication for dredging. Mr. Feldhaus said in his opinion, the powers that the Foundation has would approve limited dredging to restore the system as it is today. The most likely location is near the drawbridge where proposed markers 3, h, and Caution Shoal are. He added that Seagate or the City of Naples should consider being responsible for limited dredging around that shoal. Mr. Cravens referred to PVC pipes sticking out all over Clain Bay that are unsightly and Mr. Hall said they are survey markers and serve as reference points where surveyors are able to get repeatability of their surveys. Ms. Marcia Cravens said the shoaling that occurs south of boardwalk is not a flood shoal, but is an intertidal flap. Dredging in any form, for the purposes of improving navigational access is navigational dredging and not consistent with history, covenants, or deed restrictions. There were at least 2,500 petition signatures indicating they do not want channel markers or alterations made to the existing natural conditions of the system. There is an existing canoe trail permit in good standing with replacement markers. No markers needed at the Pass. The shoal and seagrass markers being on buoys could move and cause damage. Mr. Ryan Moreau of FFWCC has said the best way to improve safety for everyone is to add informational markers, such as "Local Knowledge Required." She believes Mr. Moreau would not allow two sets of canoe trail markers. Mr. Feldhaus said the existing markers would be permitted north of the Pass and the proposed markers south of the Pass. Again, this is an attempt to reach out to Seagate and delineate a route from the boat launch in Seagate to the Gulf. Ms. Noreen Murray asked if they would define what the same level of access to Seagate is. Mr. Feldhaus said the Foundation drafted a specific agreement with charts and depths of existing areas map that Seagate turned down, and they have not presented anything since. Mr. Len Rothman, St. Lucia at Pelican Bay resident said existing conditions should dictate the type of markers and the existing canoe trail markers are sufficient. A Pelican Bay resident said in the interest of faimess, Seagate should not be denied their boating rights. Mr. Levy asked what the difference is between these markers and canoe trail markers Mr. Feldhaus said the proposed markers are numbered for a clear path from Seagate to the Gulf. Mr. Hall said the proposed markers plan adds two markers at the Pass to the thirty -two canoe trail markers. Dr. Raia made a presentation about the history of navigation markers in Clam Bay and preservation of the status quo. The existing canoe trail markers satisfy the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan permit. Contrary to the County's insistence, red and green markers were not required. He recommended replacing the existing canoe trail markers that are in poor condition because these markers are suitable for everyone, including boaters. ;ii 161 1A2L Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 16, 2011 Mr. Feldhaus advised that this Board not approach these negotiations from Dr. Raia's standpoint that red and green markers were not required to satisfy the 1998 permit. This approach will empower the parties who agree with the prior interpretation to attempt to rely on it in litigation and only prolong this dispute, not help resolve it. Ms. Murray asked Mr. Feldhaus to explain what the difference is between the existing markers and the markers that are being proposed. Mr. Feldhaus said the situation has changed. FFWCC and CZM decided to address what kind of markers are appropriate today, rather than what may have been appropriate in the past, like "idle speed no wake" markers. Mr. Bob Naegele said the Services Division purchased replacement markers for the existing canoe trail. The signs are in inventory. The proposed plan seems very similar to the existing one. He questioned why they should spend money to shift liability from the County to the Foundation Mr. Feldhaus said regarding liability, a concern with red and green markers is that they denote safe passage, so there would be an obligation to ensure safe passage. Ms. Cravens referred to a document that she distributed regarding established designated uses and recommended proceeding with markers appropriate for primary designated uses, i.e., conservation and preservation, not for incidental use, i.e., motor boats. Mr. Tim Mall said the County could convert the existing canoe trail permit to cover the twelve markers in the proposed plan only effectively voiding the existing canoe trail permit. Alternatively, the County could convert the existing canoe trail permit to include existing markers # 13 - #32 to the north and allow the County to create a new permit for the proposed twelve markers to the south. The marker numbering system could cause confusion. They could renumber proposed marker #12 to #11 and proposed marker #1 I to #12, so that 411 is at the Pass and # 12 would notify the user that it loops back. They could also modify proposed marker #11 to show # I I/# 13 on one sign, which indicates two permits and notify the user that it loops back. Whoever pursues the permit is liable. The Board discussed who would be responsible for the permit and liability. They purchased one set of signs and to purchase another set would cost $1,200. Ms. Murray said the issue is authority, not the signs or dredging. The point is that when the County did not like what the Services Division was doing, they stripped the Services Division of its authority successfully. The Foundation concluded that in spite of all of the good work that the Services Division has done, the Services Division is the County and cannot effectively fight with the County, but the Foundation can. Ms. Mary Johnson said she supports Mr. Hall's suggestion for an integrated canoe trail system that utilizes the existing canoe trail permit and accommodate interests in marking to the Gulf, providing that the Services Division have authority and continues to operate it. Mr. Rothman agreed that the Services Division should be the permitting authority. Board consensus was if the Foundation was paying for the permit that the County would maintain, then the Services Division should retain authority as stewards of the Pelican Bay community. Mr. Hall clarified that he is providing alternatives, but not making suggestions. They have a canoe trail permit already in place that covers all of the proposed signs except for the two that lead to the Gulf. The proposed plan eliminates one marker to the south, so it only adds one sign to the existing thirty -two markers. They could 161'1 AL? Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 16,2011 modify the location of the southern markers and adding one sign to the north. They could leave marker # 12 where it is, and put markers # 11 and #13 on the same sign, and the existing # 13 at the bridge would become #14. They would use the existing markers, and only have to purchase two new ones. The seagrass markers and caution shoal markers could be placed on the same type of post as the numbered markers rather than as buoys. Regarding other signage on the beach that is not located in the waterway, he did suggest that they get FFWCC to approve the language for any informational signs so that the signs are enforceable. "Idle speed no wake" signs are enforceable. "Caution shallow water and natural resources present. Tilt motor up to prevent prop dredge damage to natural resources subject to fines..." are not enforceable. "Local knowledge required" is adequate as is. Dr. Raia said he would go along any signage as long as it is an amendment of the existing canoe trail permit. Chairman Dallas said he would convey today's discussion at tomorrow's Clam Bay Marker discussion meeting, emphasizing the Services Division's preference to retain permitting authority. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. — 4til —: —— Kei h t Dallas, Vairman iii Minutes by Lisa Resnick \3/24/2011 8:50:12 AM 161 1 H c L_ RECEIVE® MAY - 9 2011 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 8GMrdifCounty Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit t:ammisslonerg NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES Fiala AGENDA Hiller The agenda includes, but is not limited: Henning 1. Roll Call Coyle 2. Agenda Approval Colette 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 16, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session b. February 22, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session c. March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4. Presentation of Proposed Clam Bay Markers Update (G. McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management) 5. Audience Participation 6. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman 7. Administrators Report a. Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Update i. Presentation Proposal for Intersection Bull Nose Landscape Design Work (E. Goetz, Goetz +Stropes) ii. Presentation of Crosswalk Construction Drawings (1. Carr, Agnoli, Barber, Brundage) iii. Review & Approval of Crosswalk Construction Drawings & Timing iv. Update on Possibility of Four -Way Stop at Ridgewood Drive & Pelican Bay Boulevard V. Development of Rating System for All Pelican Bay Pathways (K. Dallas) vi. Discussion of Timing of Pathway Redevelopment (K. Dallas) b. Monthly Financial Report c. Update on Health of Mangroves (T. Hall) d. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach (K. Lukasz, T. Hall) e. South Berm Renovation i. Discussion & Approval of Proposal ii. Discussion of Logistics iii. Discussion of Required Permits (K. Lukasz) 8. Chairman's Report a. Renewal of Dorrill Management Agreement L Review & Discussion of Anticipated Hours b. Announcements 9. Community Issues a. Lease of parking space to the Pelican Bay Foundation (J. Chandler) b. Discussion of Possible Caution Signage for Bicycles (J. Domenie) 10, Committee Reports a. Budget Committee b. Strategic Planning Committee Update 11. Old Business MisC. (;offeS: 12. New Business 13. Audience Comments date:_"_,`- - 14. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet Item #. 15. 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 15 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 PRIORTO THE MEETING AT (239) 597 -1749. 3/31/2011 12:31:45 PM 161 1A �L MINUTES OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS CLAM BAY MARKERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a Special Workshop to discuss Clam Bay Markers on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 9:00 a.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 absent Tom Cravens Johan Domenic absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill absent Kyle Lukasz Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo absent Michael Levy Theodore Raia, Jr. John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry Lisa Resnick Also Present: Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Marcia Cravens, Vice- President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) Stephen Feldhaus, Secretary, Pelican Bay Foundation & Co- Chair, Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Mary Johnson, President, MAG Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Kathy Worley, Co- Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Approximately 40 attendees AGENDA L Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Clam Bay Markers Discussion 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjournment Clam Bay Markers Discussion meeting February 17. ,Z 1611AL, A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 16, 2011 the exit to the Seagate community; three "Caution Shoal" buoys; and one `Caution Seagrass" buoy. All stakeholders would negotiate at tomorrow's County meeting. Dr. Raia asked i f dredging is part ofthc agenda and Mr. Feldhaus answered that the meeting is solely to discuss the markers. Mr. Levy asked ifthey are marking the channel as it exists, or would there bean indication for dredging. Mr. Feldhaus said in his opinion, the powers that the Foundation has would approve limited dredging to restore the system as it is today. The most likely location is near the drawbridge where proposed markers 3, 4, and Caution Shoal are. I le added that Seagate or the City ol'Naples should consider being responsible for limited dredging around that shoal. Mr. Cravens referred to PVC pipes sticking out all over Clam Bay that are unsightly and Mr. Hall said they are survey markers and serve as reference points where surveyors are able to get repeatability of their surveys. Ms. Marcia Cravens said the shoalin' that occurs south of boardwalk is not a flood shoal, but is an intertidal flap. Dredging in any form, for the purposes of improving navigational access is navigational dredging and not consistent with history, covenants, or deed restrictions. There were at least 2,500 petition signatures indicating they do not want channel markers or alterations made to the existing natural conditions of the system. There is an existing canoe trail permit in good standing with replacement markers. No markers needed at the Pass. The shoal and scagrass markers being on buoys could move and cause damage. Mr. Ryan Moreau of FFWCC has said the best way to improve safety for everyone is to add informational markers, such as "Local Knowledge Required." She believes Mr. Moreau would not allow two sets of canoe trail markers. Mr. Feldhaus said the existing markers would be permitted north of the Pass and the proposed markers south of the Pass. Again, this is an attempt to reach out to Seagate and delineate a route from the boat launch in Seagate to the Gulf. Ms. Noreen Murray asked if they would define what the same level of access to Seagate is. Mr. Feldhaus said the Foundation drafted a specific agreement with charts and depths of existing areas map that Seagate turned down. and they have not presented anything since. Mr. Len Rothman, St. Lucia at Pelican Bay resident said existing conditions should dictate the type of markers and the existing canoe trail markers are sufficient. A Pelican Bay resident said in the interest of fairness, Seagate should not be denied their boating Mr. Levy asked what the difference is between these markers and canoe trail markers Mr. Feldhaus said the proposed markers arc numbered for a clear path from Seagate to the Mr. Hall said the proposed markers plan adds two markers at the Pass to the thirty -two canoeftl Dr. Raia made a presentation about the history of navigation markers in Clam status quo. The existing canoe trail markers satisfy the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Contrary to the County's insistence, red and green markers were not required He mend `cingthe existing canoe trail markers that are in poor condition because these markers al,At 1 for eve` ne, including Y boaters. 8443 16111 ALL Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 16, 2011 Mr. Feldhaus advised that this Board not approach these negotiations from Dr. Raia's standpoint that red and green markers were not required to satisfy the 1998 permit. This approach will empower the parties who agree with the prior interpretation to attempt to rely on it in litigation and only prolong this dispute, not help resolve it. Ms. Murray asked Mr. Feldhaus to explain what the difference is between the existing markers and the markers that are being proposed. Mr. Feldhaus said the situation has changed. FFWCC and CZ,M decided to address what kind of markers are appropriate today, rather than what may have been appropriate in the past, like "idle speed no wake" markers. Mr. Bob Naegele said the Services Division purchased replacement markers for the existing canoe trail. The signs are in inventory. The proposed plan seems very similar to the existing one. He questioned why they should spend money to shift liability from the County to the Foundation Mr. Feldhaus said regarding liability, a concern with red and green markers is that they denote safe passage, so there would be an obligation to ensure safe passage. Ms. Cravens referred to a document that she distributed regarding established designated uses and recommended proceeding with markers appropriate for primary designated uses, i.e., conservation and preservation, not for incidental use, i.e., motor boats. Mr. Tim Hall said the County could convert the existing canoe trail permit to cover the twelve markers in the proposed plan only effectively voiding the existing canoe trail permit. Alternatively, the County could convert the existing canoe trail permit to include existing markers # 13 - #32 to the north and allow the County to create a new permit for the proposed twelve markers to the south. The marker numbering system could cause confusion. They could renumber proposed marker #12 to #11 and proposed marker 411 to 912, so that #11 is at the Pass and #12 would notify the user that it loops back. They could also modify proposed marker #I I to show #11 /4 13 on one sign, which indicates two permits and notify the user that it loops back. Whoever pursues the permit is liable. The Board discussed who would be responsible for the permit and liability. They purchased one set of signs and to purchase another set would cost $1,200. the existing canoe trail permit and accommodate interests in marking to the Gulf, providing that Division have authority and continues to operate it. Mr. Rothman agreed that the Services Division should be the permitting authority, Board consensus was if the Foundation was paying for the permit that the County Services Division should retain authority as stewards of the Pelican Bay communiity; g,�,,, Mr. Hall clarified that he is providing alternatives, but not making sq °� ,T permit already in place that covers all of the proposed signs except for the plan eliminates one marker to the south, so it only adds one sign to th & *§i wo ;m f, 16111 A22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 16, 2011 modify the location of the southern markers and adding one sign to the north. They could leave marker #12 where it is, and put markers #11 and #13 on the same sign, and the existing # 13 at the bridge would become #14. They would use the existing markers, and only have to purchase two new ones. The seagrass markers and caution shoal markers could be placed on the same type of post as the numbered markers rather than as buoys. Regarding other signage on the beach that is not located in the waterway, he did suggest that they get FFWCC' to approve the language for any informational signs so that the stars are enforceable. "Idle speed no wake" signs are enforceable. "Caution shallow water and natural resources present. Tilt motor up to prevent prop dredge damage to natural resources subject to fines..." are not enforceable. "Local knowledge required" is adequate as is. permit. Dr. Raia said he would go along any signage as long as it is an amendment of the existing canoe trail Chairman Dallas said he would convey today's discussion at tomorrow's Clam Bay Marker discussion meeting, emphasizing the Services Division's preference to retain permitting authority. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 1 130 a.m. Keith J. Dallas. MIE1161 Minutes by Lisa Resnick \3/24/2011 8:50:12 AM , �t %i V 161 1 A22 MINUTES OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS CLAM BAY MARKERS 'TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a Special Workshop to discuss Clam Bay Markers on Tuesday, February 22, 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 absent Tom Cravens Johan Domenic absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Kyle Lukasz Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John laizzo absent Michael Levy Theodore Rain, Jr. John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry Lisa Resnick Also Present: Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association ( PBPOA) Lee Canning, Member, PBPOA Arthur Chase, Candidate, Pelican Bay Foundation (PBF) Board Marcia Cravens, Vice - President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates James Hoppensteadt, President, PBF Mary Johnson, President, MAG Noreen Murray, PBF Strategic Planning Committee and Candidate, PBF Board Bob Naegele, Member, PBF Board David Roellig, Pelican Bay Resident Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident AGENDA I. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Clam Bay Markers Discussion 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjournment ROLL CALL Board members attending the workshop were Chairman Dallas, Vice Chairwoman Womble, Mr. Cr r. rs Levy, and Dr. Rain.I�� AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION x Ms. Marcia Cravens stated a main use of the Clam Bay waterway is canoeing. To mark th `� - d establish a navigation channel from Seagate to the Gulf to accommodate Seagate boaters' interest would direc r"to the Gulf and could jeopardize their safety. She recommended they use the existing canoe trail Mr. Arthur Chase said with the exception of Ms. Kathy Worley who said most important issue to consider, the consensus at the County's Clam Bay Mark markers for safety. Installing the replacement canoe trail markers purchas more safety. He was surprised to hear Dr. Wu of Seagate comment that markers in the Clam Bay. Pelican Bay should not give up its n (i se agreeing to binding arbitration. ;. i ° ent was the stall the appropriate sion would provide would not be canoe to determine what is right by 16 1 1 A22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 22, 2011 Mr. David Roellig suggested for safety purposes that they drop the proposed markers directing canoes to the Gulf. The term safety is misleading because there is no way to mark any channel to ensure safety. Safety depends on the operator of the vessel. Ms. Cravens added that she agreed with Ms. Worley's assessment that installing markers in Clain Bay should not pose a risk to its environment and cited historical documentation from regulator) agencies supporting the same point of view. Ms. Mary Johnson said Mr. Gary McAlpin, Director of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) made it clear that CZM would be responsible for the new marker permit and she supports the Services Division continuing as permit holder. CLAM BAY MARKERS DISCUSSION Chairman Dallas reported what happened at the February 17 County Clain Bay Marker Discussion meeting "the same materials that Mr. Feldhaus presented at the February 16 Services Division meeting were presented. He presented the Services Division's position that the proposed marker numbering system should correspond to the current canoe trail markers; use fixed posts, rather than buoys that Could scour the sea bottom; suggested installing "caution manatees" and "idle speed no wake" signs; and that the Services Division continue as the steward. The County responded that they would look into the first three points, but made it clear they did not want the Services Division to be Tile permit holder. Dr. Wu of Seagate was "trying to find ways to make a canoe marker look like a navigational marker" and the County said they would look into it, but no one was optimistic. He distributed a document that stated possible comments to make at the County's February 23 Clam Bay Marker Discussion meeting. the first point was, "We are pleased that the County has recognized that the 1998 permit does not require red/green markers..." 'the second point addressed the permitting process and that the County consider having the Services Division continue as steward. Ms. Cravens suggested the Services Division make a formal statement to the County that the Services Division should retain the existing canoe trail and permit. replace the discrepant and missing markers, and add additional informational markers, i.e., "local knowledge required." Ms. Linda Roth asked if CZM is the permit holder and maintains the markers, would they be able to modify the permit later and the consensus was yes.;- Mr. Cravens said the proposed marker plan does not address the extensive existing canoe trail marker,to the north, so there is a possibility that the existing canoe trail markers permit could be eliminated. The Seri. i • *a purchased replacement markers that have yet to be installed. "Where does that leave us ?" Chairman Dallas said the details need to be worked out and resolution something that doesfidge haos." Dr. Raia said the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan USACE /FDEP Joint Co mit did not require red and green navigation markers, but other elements in the permit are equally is tdncludi ntaining the status quo and nothing be done to increase navigation. They should focus on what this fi'S' is and make a recommendation, not argue with the County or Seagate about differing opinions.. `.We hav0 *"pWn signs that should t/r have been put up two years ago." The existing Services Division canoe trail mafkei• nit is lid and we can put those new signs up at any time... without doing anything else." Mr. Dorrill asked who authorized Mr. McAlpin to apply for anew matkCt4'permit that CZM would oversee. 161 1 A 22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 22,2011 Mr. Cravens said this Board directed Mr. Hall some time ago to install the replacement canoe trail markers purchased by the Services Division and Mr. McAlpin directed Mr. Hall not to proceed. In addition, the County would not fund the installation. Mr. Hoppensteadt said prior Services Division meeting minutes state that John Petty, the former Services Division Administrator reported to County Manager Jim Mudd and Mr. Mudd directed Mr. Petty to "stand down" Dr. Raia said red and green markers are out, but he is concerned about the County's dredging permit application because it "describes a navigable canal" and does not agree with marking a channel from Seagate to the Gulf There should be a marker to show that the Gulf is in one direction and the canoe trail continues in a different direction. Ms. Mary Johnson said they should find out what the status of the canoe trail markers to the north is. Mr. Dorrill said Mr. McAlpin does not have the authority to direct the Pelican Bay Services Division and until the Board of County Commissioners takes action, they should not concede. Acknowledging that the Services Division is the custodian of the existing canoe trail markers and permit, he suggested the Board convey to the stakeholders at the February 23 meeting an interim solution "in the name of safety" and ask if they mind if the Services Division install the replacement canoe trail markers that they purchased two years ago. Board members present concurred with Mr. Dorrill. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick \3/24/2011 8:45:18 AM 161 1 A Z� PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, March 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 Domenic Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Kyle Lukasz Geoffrey S. Gibson John laizzo Michael Levy 'Theodore Rain, Jr. John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent 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, Torre][, Hall & Associates James Iloppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Gerald Moffatt, Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee & Pelican Bay Foundation Board Candidate Robert Naegele, Jr., Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board Bob Uek, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board and Chairman, Strategic Planning Committee Kathy Worley, Co- Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. AGENDA Roll Call Agenda Approval Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Audience Participation Administrator's Report a. Community Improvement Plan Update i. Sign Requirements for Crosswalks ii. County Rating of Condition of Pelican Bay Boulevard (J. 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) Chairman's Report a. Update on PBSD Election Process b. Foundation Ad Hoc Clain Bay Committee Update i. Results of Meetings on Clam Bay Markers (J. Domenic) ii. Update on Dredging and Settlement Agreement (J. Dome c. Dorrill Management Group Contract Renewal d. Announcements Community Issues Committee Reports and /or Requests ;;,.N` a. Budget Committee b. Landscape Committee Old Business `' '` New Business a. Discussion of Need to Repave Oakmont b. Signs at Clam Pass Park (T. Raia) 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence Chandler) Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 6 March 2, 2011 i a. Executive Summary re: Brick Pavers at U.S. 41 & Pelican Bay Boulevard Crosswalk b. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 12. Audience Comments 13. Adjournment ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Baron and Mr. Hansen, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas amended the agenda to hear items Sai and Saiii first. Vice Chairwoman Womble added item 8c, Strategic Planning Committee under Committee Reports and /or Requests. Mr. Cravens made a motion, .second hp Mr. Cihcon to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voter( unanimously in avor o the numon. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT' COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill distributed color crosswalk design plans to the Board. Mr. James Carr, engineer from Agnoli Barber, and Brundage presented general design plans and sign requirements for crosswalks along Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive, Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, and Crayton Road. The mid -block crosswalk at Ridgewood requires six signs on each side of Pelican Bay Boulevard: two at the approach, two at the stop bar and two at the crosswalk. The three -way stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard requires one sign in each direction on the cast side ofthe intersection at Pelican Bay Boulevard, indicating where the crosswalk is. From the west side, no additional signs are required because the stop sign covers that condition. The midblock crosswalk at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Crayton Road requires six signs on each side of Pelican Bay Boulevard: two at the approach, two at the stop bar, and two at the crosswalk. Minimum sign requirements in Collier County and City of Naples vary depending upon the design, but follow the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) standards. A stop bar is a standard requirement at it midblock crosswalk when it crosses a boulevard divided by a median with multiple lanes. A midblock crosswalk requires six signs in each direction. A full stop sign does not require signs at the approac Regarding whether a four-way stop could he implemented on Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood D t!C. Mr. Dorrill said first, staff would have a pre application meeting with the County, then utilize Agnolt Barber, a" o perform a warrants analysis, a standardized. administrative process used to determine if an intersection I$S'eligible for'B, , rs signs. The County's 'Transportation department would make the final decision. Mr. Carr said the crosswalks design review process should be complete in approximately Dr. Raia made a motion, second b'v Mr. Cravens that .staff explore installing a intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard, similar to the im APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Mr. bevy amended page 8437 to read, "...midblock crosFe�trani g'$�tions and the berm... ", Page 8438 to s read, "...at Vizcaya .. ", and ..conflicts between the Services DN t"l's I 8450 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Min1e6 1, 1 • • 2 2 March 2, 2011 IIMr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to approve the February 2, 2011 Pelican Bay NJ Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None SIGNS AT NORTH TRAM STATION MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK Chairman Dallas said at the February 2 meeting, although there was no formal motion, someone suggested removing the signs in the middle of road at the North Train station midblock crosswalk. Mr. Dorrill said following verification that the signs were not required, the signs were removed on his authority based on what he thought was the Board's consensus. The Board discussed the intent was that the signs were temporary until improvements made there and whether they should leave them out or reinstall. Later in the meeting, Vice Chairwoman Womble received an email from Mr. Bill McMillan, President of Carlton Place Association, which is situated on the east side of Pelican Bay Boulevard, expressing "sudden removal of the signs is a safety risk" and the Board should reconsider. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to reinstall the signs in the roadway at the North Tram station crosswalk until improvements made and new median cut through is in place. The Board voted unanimous[ in favor, passing the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COUNTY RATING OF CONDITION OF PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Mr. Dorrill said at a recent meeting, Mr. Chandler requested further rationale or analysis behind the County's pavement rating system. He referred to the spreadsheet in the backup of asphalt ratings of roads in Pelican Bay. Roads are classified as residential, major or minor collectors, and arterials. Pelican Bay Boulevard is considered a major collector because it also serves as an arterial or highway because it "gets you from A to B." With a rating of 61 %, Pelican Bay Boulevard may be eligible for County- funded milling and resurfacing next year, although the estimated cost appears low and the cost to mill and resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard is probably closer to $1.5 million. As the Fiscal Year 2012 budget process is beginning, he suggested they meet with Commissioner Hiller soon to lobby for this project. Mr. Chandler appointed to participate with Mr. Dorrill in lobbying Commissioner Hiller., MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that they have received 90% of assessment payments. 10% will be de month. They are over budget for heavy tree trimming and pruning having spent about $51 K while t Mr. Levy said right -of -way beautification payroll expenses are significantly under r. Lukasz explained it is due to two vacancies and payroll expenses are offset by contracting out some SabaI pa ing services, equipment rental, and trash removal. Street sweeping appears "out of whack" beta of i "Christmas decorations, however they have since corrected it.''�_� 'I Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept th fin report into the'I record. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. M r Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 161 1A March 2, 2011 UPDATE ON HEALTH OF MANGROVES Regarding the health of the white mangrove "die -oft" Mr. Dorrill reported that there does not appear to be an acceptable systemic pesticide that could be applied there, however they should continue to monitor them closely. Mr. Hall reported that they are still trying to identify the boring beetles species, however the problem appears to be isolated, only affecting white mangroves that have been stressed and damaged by past weather events. They plan to monitor closely now that their contract is in place and maintenance activities authorized. STATUS OF REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK Mr. Hall reported that he and Mr. Lukas/ met with the ('entity to discuss County versus Services Division exotic removal activities. He presented a map that illustrated areas of concern and who is responsible for removing exotics in those areas. The Services Division is responsible for removing Brazilian Pepper in the area marked yellow that is within the mangrove system and Clam Pass Park boardwalk to the beach facility. STATUS OF REMOVING EXOTICS ALONG BEACH Mr. Hall reported that Coastal 'Lone Management (CZM) is getting cost estimates to kill exotics around the County's beach facility marked purple: Brazilian Pepper. Australian Pines, and Inkberry. The County applied for a State grant for funds to remove exotics along the beach up to the Ritz Carlton marked green: Australian Pines, Inkberry, and scattered Brazilian Pepper. The grant is currently in its second round of review and if CZM receives it, they plan to do the work. If not, the Services Division will need to decide whether they want to monitor and maintain this area. He estimates it would cost as low as $200 /acre to kill exotics in place, and as high as 56,000 /acre to remove. A rough estimate of total acreage is 12 acres and he recommended they budget $1,500 /acre. For Brazilian Pepper within the mangrove system, he recommended "killing in place" because it can do more damage to remove it. Australian Pines can be girdled and chemicals applied. He prefers to pull out Inkberry as he finds it. Dr. Rain said on the east side of the berm there are wetlands that the Pelican Bay Independent District had deeded access and asked who is responsible for exotic removal there. Mr. Dorrill said the Services Division is responsible for "the works" of the water management system to include the berm. He presumed that they have easements to do maintenance even if they do not have a deed to the underlying parcel. Within the easement, the Services Division is the entity to perform maintenance of any element of the water management system. Mr. Hall said in the past, if exotics were found outside of the easement, they have notified the propert r that there is an issue and asked them to take care of it. Dr. Raia asked if the easements granted to the Pelican Bay Independent District are the sallnc'as Pelican Bap»'' Services Division easements. Mr. Dorrill said yes. y. Ms. Marcia Cravens asked i f the area along the edge of the mangroves between dune scrubs" is part of the Natural Resources Protection Act area (NRPA). I he new channel maintenance it ,NRPA area and the Board should consider controlling exotics there. ' Mr. Hall said the new permit is within the NRPA, but does not c.- r dti,' land maintenance is for the wetland areas only. 'They do monitor the surrounding area to control ex' roves. The state grant that CZM applied for would address the upland areas. - 8452 Y= >. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 16 1 1 Ll % L March 2, 2011 ��I"ltt L. Mr. Dorrill said if CZM does not receive the state grant to address the Australian Pines along the beach they are planning not to do anything. If that happens, the Services Division might consider spending some of its Clam Bay funds to control exotics there. PROPOSED PROJECT TO REPAIR EROSION ALONG SOUTH BERM Mr. Dorrill said the Budget Committee asked staff to identify major capital improvements that are not part of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Capital projects are considered to cost $50,000 or more or expected life of seven years or more. Staff estimated the Services Division's project to repair erosion along the south berm is estimated to cost $25,000. The Foundation's south berm project to replace the asphalt pathway is estimated to cost an additional $150,000. He asked for Board direction on how to proceed because the Foundation owns the land on which the berm sits and asphalt top, but is also an asset of the Services Division as one of "the works" of the water management system. Mr. Hoppensteadt said the Foundation would like to replace the cart path on top of the berm, but in order to do this, the Services Division as "keeper of the water management system" of the berm, the Services Division needs to reestablish the slope and integrity of that structure first. The project would require shutting down sections of the berm and done over the summer. The work done would restore what is there that has eroded. Gaining a two -foot shoulder on each side is incidental to fixing the problem. Mr. Dorrill said no one is questioning the need for maintenance, but to what extent does maintenance stop and enhancement begin requiring a modification of the existing water management permit. He would need to verify and compare the original construction permit with the recommended options. In his opinion, improvements are part of a private platted parcel that at one time cleared to include mangroves, but they do not need a permit to trim mangroves in an existing right -of -way or airspace above that right -of -way line. He aims to have the project done during the rainy season and complete by September. Vice Chairwoman Womble asked if staff could look into getting a Federal grant for berm work. Mr. Dorrill said they could ask the engineer about grants for demonstration -type funding, but in his opinion, it is unlikely. He asked the Board for a recommendation and authorization for a budget amendment for more funds. He would check with purchasing whether they could utilize the fill and grade subcontractor working on Oil Well Road. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens that staff take necessary action to move for with Wilson Miller's Option I to restore the south berm to the original permitted cross - section authorized a budget amendment to transfer funds to complete the project The Board i unanimously in favor, passing the motion. X.. Foundation would send an email blast Chairman Dallas reported that the next County of Mr. McAlpin's discussion with Mr. Ryan Moreau, 8453 15. He reviewed the summary and Wildlife Conservation Commission Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 6 1 1 A LL March 2, 2011 (FFWCC). Mr. Moreau would evaluate the complete plan and consensus of the community when FFWCC receives the permit application. March I, Chairman Dallas met with Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Ball to discuss coordinating the proposed markers with the existing canoe trail markers and agreement on the location of installation. They discussed who should hold the permits) and possible agreement that allows for legal recourse if changes made to the permit, or signs not maintained. Mr. McAlpin prefers that the County hold the permit. Dr. Raia prefers that the Services Division hold the permit because they have demonstrated that they are good custodians. The County has demonstrated otherwise. He recommended they retain the current existing canoe trail permit. Any additional signage should not extend wider than the marker sign and should have round edges. The upper Clam Bay markers should start with #1 . Mr. Hoppensteadt said the Foundation is holding a special meeting on March I I to discuss the subject of the Ad Hoc Clain Bay Committee. Mr. Domenic said it is his understanding that they are discussing a matter that the Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee has not considered and the original permit had "till motor" requirements on the signs. Shoals should not be marked with buoys. Chairman Dallas and Mr. Hall agreed they could likely get posts approved to use instead of buoys. Ms. Cravens said, "In the past, there has always been a courtesy given to people who raise their hands and may want to speak on an agenda item. This PBSD /MSTBU meeting has always been somewhat informal compared to other advisory boards. If this is going to be a situation where if the public of Pelican Bay or outside people who are attending want to speak on an agenda item and you are not going to recognize a hand being raised, I respectfully request that there be speaker slips available to the public who want to address agenda items that you may be taking action on because I don't feel that this follows the spirit of public meetings when you don't allow the public to make comments oil agenda items that you are going to take action on Ms. Cravens referred to the email she distributed to the Board regarding Mr. Moreau's recommendations and alleged that Mr. McAlpin is "misrepresenting" recommendations made by FFWCC. Mr. Bob Naegele said he prefers the Services Division hold the marker permit. He does not believe that the t� Foundation wants the responsibility or liability. Regarding the subject of adding a member to the Ad Hoc CI,, ay Committee, he intends to offer the motion on March 1 I. x � r Chairman Dallas asked the Board whether they wanted to hold a special meeting to discuss the Sert�ee's Dtrtn's position on markers before the March 19 County marker meeting. Dr. Rain said a workshop is a waste of time because they cannot vote on motions and now o shine. The Ad Hoc Committee has not met and if they get someone appointed to this committee , it may not have an e the outcome. Referring to the summary discussion bchvicen Mr. Moreau and Mr. MctUpin Mr. dues *Whether the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) defines the waterway as navigable and Dr. Raia said the docu 's "!cThe Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) defines it as navigable. Dr. Raia said he would like to formulate what the Services DivisiQ#*F5ftr6h.is for itixt Bay markers and they should discuss developments from the February 17 County meeting includtp t«signage is needed for safety. "Does removing the designation `non - navigable` from the NOA -• rt promote safety? Will dredging the maximum promote safety? Does ignoring the permit requirem hey` § quo and not increase navigability promote safety? Does having the County control permitting signs pl, dote safety? Will this Board recognize its 8454 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes + 6 ■ March 2, 2011 responsibility and politely remind our County Commissioner that the 1998 permit did not allow any type of lateral navigation sign, it required maintaining the recreation status quo, permitted no increase in navigability, already permitted signage being sought now, and even permitted clearing of mangroves that obstructed the canoe trail, but does not allow improving navigability for motor craft." He made a motion that this Board recognize these elements in the permit and inform Commissioner Hiller. Mr. laizzo seconded Dr. Raia's motion. Vice Chairwoman Womble referred to Mr. Dorrill's comment made at the Services Division's February 22 workshop regarding whose authority is Mr. McAlpin going forward to stop the Services Division from installing the markers. "Thal is our hole in the bucket. Is there a way to utilize that on March 157 Mr. Dorrill said he believes so. lie offered to provide the history to Commissioner Hiller and discuss further with County Manager Ochs whether the Services Division could replace the existing Canoe Trail markers to include missing poles then he would need Board direction. The last time he made that inquiry he was told to "stand down" Dr. Raia said he is not insisting that they do away with the recommended signage. What he wants to establish is that "what is lurking around the corner is dredging." It appears this is going to be a concession to Seagate to increase their navigability, rather than dredging the minimum amount needed to protect the mangroves. He repeated his motion. The permit required the status quo for recreation and no increase in navigability. That should drive whatever dredging is done, otherwise it is a violation of that permit. Several Board members said the current discussion is not about dredging. Dr. Raia said he is clarifying why he wants the 1998 permit observed. Dredging did come up at the meeting on February 17. If they do not recognize the limitations placed on this permit, they will find themselves agreeing to "excess dredging." The 1998 permit made it clear about the status quo for recreation and no increase in navigability. Vice Chairwoman Womble said Dr. Raia was referring to a comment made by Mr. John Sorey on February 17 regarding dredging. Mr. Sorey said common sense should be involved in any kind of a NRPA and dredging was never offered to be undertaken by Seagate. The County has to be responsible for the maintenance and he wants to craft a solution with all parties. That was the discussion about dredging. Dr. Raia said he isjust trying to establish parameters of how much dredging one does and the permit spelled it out. Mr. Chandler said he thought the intent of this discussion was to provide the Chairman with a clear Adirect'to what the Board supports in the way of signs in Clam Bay, which is the sole subject under discussion on Marcd that Dr. Raia's motion is "broad and not on the mark." Dr. Raia said that since it was his last meeting, he thought he would give one last try to set t S give some guidance to the Chairman. If they sit idly by, they let the other side assume their pc t tone. He Chairman Dallas said the motion does not provide him guidance Dr. Raia said the Canoe Trail markers permit issued in 2000 ' dBW permit on signage and "clearly states that this authorization clarifies the navigation question." F -ES&7 x.611 n�G Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minute_ March 2, 2011 ur. Kma mane a motion, secona ny mr. tmzzo, mat me veucan Kay Nervices utvision Koara inform Commissioner Georgia Hiller who represents Pelican Bap, that the Pelican Bap Services Division Board .supports lite "1998 Clam Ba }' Restoration and Management Plat U.S. Arcot' Corp. of Engineers (USACE) /Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) joint coastal permit' because it, 1. did not allow atrf lvpe of lateral navigation .signs; 2. required the recreation .status quo be maintained; 3. did not permit an increase in navigability 4. permitted the signage that is currently being sought, 5. permitted clearing of mangroves that obstructed the canoe trail; and 6. did not permit improving navigability for motor craft. The Board voted 8 -1 in favor, passing the motion. Dr. Rain made a motion that the markers not of proposed marker dt10 start with frl. Mr. Chandler clarified that the markers should start with ;t I when reaching the bend in the Pass. Dr. Raia said, "Yes because there are two different signs and otherwise you are going from #10 to #13 to 412 and that could be more confusing and I'd rather start again with different signs. so that people know they are really different." Mr. Chandler seconded Dr. Raia's motion. The Board's consensus was that Dr. Raia's suggestion would require obtaining a new permit. They discussed whether they should support the Services Division retaining the existing canoe trail markers permit, and possibilities if they were no longer the permit holder, and it the Foundation held the permit. Ms. Cravens suggested the Board not take action on recommendations not supported by FFWCC. Or. Raia made a motion, second ht' Mc Chandler, that then renumber the markers north ojproposed marker #10 to .start with #1. The Board voted 4 in favor (Messrs. Chandler, Gibson, laizzo, and Dr. Raia) to 5 opposed (Messrs. Dallas, Cravens, Domenie, Levy, and Ms. Womble opposed) and the motion a iled. Chairman Dallas said he still was trying to get advice as to what to say their position is on March 15. He said what is being proposed seem reasonable if they could have some guarantees that if implemented, are maintained and not changed "while they weren't looking." Mr. Levy said he agreed and whatever decision made should not change. Chairman Dallas asked the Board what their opinion of the proposed additional "caution — local knowledge required" signs is. Dr. Raia suggested that the proposed additional "caution - local knowledge required" signs not exten her than the marker and have rounded edges. In his opinion, it is not necessary to put these signs on every mar Mr. Cravens said he does not like the location of proposed marker 412 because it leads peoph o the Gulf. proposed plan marks a channel from Seagate to the Gulf of Mexico, but that is not what the existi it does. The existing Canoe frail marks the path from Clam Pass Park canoe launch site through Clain Bay. It does k a path to the Calf. ._t' sue,... _. Mr. Levy asked what they propose they do with markers # 1 1 and 4112. They will h vi`: ','A e - C. Vice Chairwoman Womble said they discussed additional signs that would not re q _ mit, placed at the edge of the waterway that point, i.e., arrows that indicate where the Gulf is. Dr. Raia made a motion that they accept the County's proposed$ll"OAP4t$Pesented with changes. The additional "caution - local knowledge required" informational signs,� i1S}}#1d be r than the marker and have rounded edges, and place these signs on the firs4 last, and perhaps every t No one seconded Dr. Raia's motion. 8456 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes,, 6 I 1 A 2 2 March 2, 2011 Mr. Chandler said according to Mr. Moreau's February 15 email to Ms. Pamela Keyes of CZM, he recommends placing the -caution — local knowledge required" informational signs at the mouth of the pass, not advocating they be placed on the numbered markers. Ms. Cravens said Mr. Moreau's email is clear as to what FFWC'C guidelines are, however if there is strong enough consensus from all those involved to overcome those guidelines then they might achieve it. The Services Division is helping those people who want to establish a navigation channel look like there is consensus from all stakeholders to do so. Vice Chairwoman Womble agreed and said in her opinion and based on comments made February 17, `9t appears we are simply assuaging the feelings of Dr. Wu and the Dykeman's. More than anything, we are allowing them a chance to speak, to try to find signs that might fit the situation and be okay, but it is not going to happen ..." because the authorizing authorities "will not allow the signs they want, so this is a waste of time." Dr. Raia referred to a comment Dr. Wu made regarding canoeists believe that motor boats are not allowed in Clam Bay. The reason for that is there is a sign at the canoe launch stating motor craft is prohibited. They should replace the sign with one that states "caution - ordinance 96 -16 permits motor craft, but cannot be launched there." Chairman Dallas said they seem to be going in circles. Mr. Chandler made a motion that it is the Services Division position that cautionary signs should not be placed on markers in Clam Bay with the exception of the start and end. Mr. Cravens seconded Mr. Chandler's motion. Chairman Dallas said they should recognize that what they are doing is subverting what the Foundation is trying to do. In his opinion, if informational signs are not placed on all markers, then Seagate and the City would not go for it. Dr. Raia said someone made a comment that the Services Division is not going along with the Foundation. He does not recall the Foundation ever discussing or voting on this subject. Chairman Dallas said whatever the outcome he hopes that the Foundation supports it. Dr. Raia said the Services Division should be consistent in their position. What the Board of County Commissioners votes on is what they will get. Ms. Cravens said the County's proposed marker plan has not been presented to the Pelican Bay community or been vetted by the Foundation. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens that the Services Division does not 1 "caution — local knowledge required" informational signs placed on numbered markers in Clam with the exception of the start and end The Board voted 8 -1 in favor, passing the motion. Chair, Ms. Cravens suggested speaker slips. Chairman Dallas said he would like to avoid speaker slips. is Mr. Cravens said they should retain the existing Ca at as ith the Services Division as permit holder for all of Clam Bay. "` A 8457 e IA C Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes March 2, 2011 Dr. Raia made a motion that the Services Division remains the permit holder of the existing Canoe Trail markers and other signage in Clam Bay. Mr. McAlpin will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and the Commissioners will make the decision. Commissioner Hiller can argue from the point that the Services Division has been good custodians and have been trying to replace the signs for two years. Mr. Cravens seconded Dr. Raia's motion. Vice Chairwoman Womble said the Services Division has discussed this subject many limes and Commissioner Hiller can point out how many times this Board has reiterated its responsibilities, and the fact that the Commissioners themselves for years have told this Board how wonderful it has been as 'monitors and maintainers of the mangroves, canoe trail, and Clam Ray, period." Dr. Raia made a motion, .second br Mr. Cravens that the Services Division remains the permit holder o the existing Canoe Trail marker permit and other signage in Clam Bay. The Board voted 8 -1 in favor, ass9 the motion. Chairman Dallas opposed. UPDATE ON DREDGING AND SELI LEMEN I AGREEMENT Chairman Dallas said there is nothing to report. DORRILL MANAGEMENT GROUP CONTRACT RENEWAL The Board discussed whether to renew Mr. Donill's, Dorrill Management Group (DMG) contract. They acknowledged that he received an increase in compensation last year because he was attending additional Community Improvement Plan and Independent District meetings and they discussed whether the situation is the same. Staff said they have to notify purchasing whether the Board plans to renew now, and verify the current terms ofthe contract and the Board decided to discuss teens at the next meeting. Mr. Cravens made a motion, .second by Mr. Domenie to renew Dorrill Management's Croup contract, but discuss enact terms the April 6 meeting. The Board voted unanimously in favor, as.vg the motion. ADJOURNMENT 'I Chairman Dallas made a motion, .second by Mr. Cravens to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor. bussing the motion and the meetine adiourned at 4:34 n.m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick \3/24/2011 $146:32 AM lift � sr. Mil ar 8458 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session VV1 � � � � \ ( L 7ai - Administrator's Report - Community Improvement Plan Update Presentation of Proposal for Intersection Bull Nose Landscape Design ( Go tz, tz +Stropes) GOETZ +STROPES ELLIN GOETZ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. FELLOW, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS March 23, 201 1 Mr. Kyle Lukasz Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, Florida 34108 V 239.597.2265 C 239.438.5239 F 239.597.4500 EMAIL KYLE LUKASZ @COLLIERGOV.NET RE: PELICAN BAY ROADWAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Dear Kyle: We are pleased to submit this proposal for Landscape Architectural Services for Roadway Intersection Improvements within Pelican Bay, Naples, Florida. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SCOPE OF SERVICES: SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS Based on The Pelican Bay Improvement Plan Phase III of May 2010 provided to us, we will develop five typical alternatives for median nosings and intersections within the Pelican Bay streetscope, along Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. These selected median nosing/ intersections will be chosen in consultation with you so as to ensure typical plans are representative and can be applied to real situations. Elements to be considered will include: • Current landscape design standards for Collier County /FDOT sight visibility • Consideration of selective removal of palms and trees within first 100' of median at key intersections based on conditions of surroundings and material • Replacement of sod with low growing drought tolerant groundcovers to ensure sight line visibility and introduction of color alternatives to annuals • Introduction of accent trees if possible while maintaining sight visibility • Review of Pelican Bay Recommended Landscape Palette with our additional plant materials alternatives We will conduct one initial meeting with you on site to review existing conditions and select the five typical intersections / nosings. You will provide us with plans for all roadways in PDF format sufficient for our use in drawing the areas in AutoCAD plans. Existing trees, palms and plant material will not be surveyed or included in our bases unless provided by you. We will include a review of images of proposed plant material to better communicate the design concept as it develops. We will also meet with you and a committee once at Pelican Bay to present these schematic plans for review and approval of alternative designs. ROADWAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PLANS After review of the Schematic Roadway Intersection Plans with you and your committee, we will identify the approved alternatives to be incorporated into the Roadway Intersection Improvement Plans. These plans will show selected plant varieties and locations in the five typical intersection /nosing conditions. The plans will be rendered in color in PDF format for presentation to your board for review and approval. Page 1 of 2 04/01/2011 11 :24 AM r 1 1 ACS April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7ai - Administrator's Report - Community Improvement Plan Update Presentation of Proposal for Intersection Bull Nose Landscape Design Work (E. Goetz, Goetz +Stropes) PAGE 2 PELICAN BAY March 23, 2011 We will also provide photographic images typical of the selected plant materials and attend one meeting with your board to present the plan. We will also develop a preliminary plant material installation budget for the improvements for your review. CONSTRUCTION PLANS Based on the approved Roadway Improvement Plans, we will provide on request PLANTING PLANS, with specifications, giving the location, type, size and quantity of all plant material and installation details for use in bidding, permitting and installation. All plans will be coordinated with you and any other consultants on the team. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION We will coordinate the implementation of the plans during the course of bidding and construction of your project. We will also conduct site inspections and flag the locations of major plant material as needed, and attend project meetings on your behalf at your request. COMPENSATION Schematic Roadway Intersection Plans $ 7,800 Roadway Intersection Improvement Plans $ 4,400 Construction Plans and Project Administration Office hourly rates Fees for these phases are dependent on the scope of the work and the level of our involvement, which we are not able to determine until the Improvement Plans have been finalized. Project expenses for printing, presentation materials, copies, delivery service and travel will be invoiced at direct cost. Statements will be prepared monthly and are due upon receipt. Past due payments are subject to finance charges of 1' /2% per month or 18% annually after 30 days. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Other services not listed above, such as additional meetings to present to board and committee members, will be provided upon request at our office hourly rates: Principal: Meetings, site inspections, project administration $ 200 Office: Drafting, revisions 120 Proposed fees are valid for one year after acceptance, and we reserve the right to adjust fees to reflect increased costs of living after that time. REVISIONS Revisions to completed plans will be invoiced at the hourly rate of $120 and will be approved in writing by both parties to this agreement. ACCEPTANCE Please forward an authorized copy of this proposal to me to initiate this contract. This proposal is valid for 60 days. Sincerely, A�J�t Ellin Goetz, FASLA 185 1 OTH STREET SOUTH I.,.r itrc FLORIDA r? I (;; T 239.643.0077 'r 279 .,E , I h, 1 , 'TGn T7( C- -?StJr FIF , l ')'0'27a WW.GSNAPLES.COM Page 2 of 2 04101/2011 11 '.24 AM April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (for distribution at meeting) Su - Summary Crosswalk Report - Community Improvement Plan Update I Summary of Crosswalk Consensus ResnickLisa Subject: Summary of Crosswalk Consensus Date: April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Subject: Summary of Crosswalk Consensus 3/12/10 minutes pace 90 "The group discussed preferences for crosswalk construction materials and pros and cons of fire colored brick pavers versus concrete pavers. Fire colored brick pavers would increase cost but have a higher visibility. Concrete pavers cannot be stained because the resulting color would be inconsistent. Concrete pavers can be sealed and must be done every few years. Both have the same durability or lifeline. Consensus was to construct crosswalks with brick pavers or brick pavers with cobblestones. One vote was for thermoplastic striping." 3131110 minutes pane 93 CROSSWALKS CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL Mr. Mangan and members discussed crosswalk construction material. Both concrete and clay brick material would hold up to compression strengths vehicle standard. Wilson Miller did not recommend dyeing concrete because the color would fade inconsistently over time. A straw vote consensus found all fifteen members preferred clay brick pavers with the chamfer edge. No one preferred concrete. MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK CONSTRUCTION Mr. Mangan and members discussed adding three -foot wide cobble paver strips to both sides at midblock crosswalks. The strips would provide additional safety and traffic calming by changing the sound and feel of the road with a tactile surface. A straw vote consensus found eleven members preferred paver bands and four members did not. 6/17/10 revised Wilson Miller report paces 40 -41 Dl -D: Install consistently finished, signed and marked existing and proposed crosswalks in the community - 9 intersections; reference Intersection Crosswalk Layout plans; refer to Dl -E for mid -block crosswalks (which do reference cobble bands) 01 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Ridgewood Drive 02 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Myra J. Daniels Drive 03 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Crayton Road 06 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Gulf Park Drive 07 - Gulf Park Drive @ Ridgewood Drive 08 - Gulf Park Drive @ Green Tree Drive 12 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ North Pointe Drive 13 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Hammock Oak Drive 14 - Pelican Bay Blvd. @ Oakmont Parkway Proposed Improvement: Install monolithic concrete base and 12" header curb each side of cross walk to receive mud set clay brick crosswalks in a herringbone field pattern and a soldier course border between header curbs and valley gutters including all associated signing and ADA compatible connections. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 817,000 ResnickLisa 3/31/20114:41 PM Page 1 of 3 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (for distribution at meeting) 7a - Administrator's Report - Community Improvement Plan Update 7/7/10 minutes Summary of Crosswalk Consensus 161 1 A , y L f� G CHAIRMAN'S REPORT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PRIORITIES Chairman Dallas scheduled a special meeting on September 2 at I p.m. to discuss Community Improvement Plan priorities responses. Based on member responses, there seems to be general agreement as to what Community Improvement Plan projects should be high priority and lose priority. To communicate ideas to the community, they plan to publish an expanded executive summary in the Pelican Bay Post in October or November. 9/2/10 minutes Board consensus to use previous CIP priority responses of 8/4/10 1113110 Keith Dallas' paragraph that was published in late October Pelican Bay Post "Cross Walks —Develop consistently finished, signed and marked pedestrian crosswalks at major intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard (PBB) and GUIf Park Drive (GPD). The use of mud set clay brick pavers was preferred. Such crosswalks were recommended along PBB at Ridgewood Dr., Myra Daniels Blvd., Gulf Park Dr., North Pointe Dr., Hammock Oak Dr.- and Oakmont Dr., and along GPD at Ridgewood Dr. and Greentree Dr. Members debated the need for such a crosswalk at PBB and Crayton Rd. Installation would be coordinated with the five midblock Pelican Bay Boulevard crosswalks and the reorientation of the North 'Train median being funded by the Foundation. (PBSD responsibility- $817,000)" 11/16- 17/2010 CIP Town Hall Meetings Presentation showed same recommendations as above 12/9/10 Kevin Mangan's email re: FDOT design plans for US 41 and PBB North Crosswalk "We have also directly provided reference and location to the brick used in the Bay Colony private streets as a built example of the community goals..." "Currently, the FDOT drawings have evolved from Thermoplastic paint lines when we first reviewed and commented on to be more in line with our requests of herringbone pattern (a CIP recommendation) and a concrete paver product if ilh it red coloring like the brick tit Baf Colonn, (et product that was not the first choice of the committee nor our first recommendation in fire Cll' plans). While this is migrating in a direction that is in alignment with the CIP, we are preparing another set of comments in an effort to further align the special paving materials of the cross walk to be brick in the FDOT project at Pelican Bay North and US 41. In doing so, we are providing this information along with empirical characteristic data of the brick in an effort to offset any contention of FDOT standards, etc. The FDOT will be the final say of qualified material products that they use in their roadways and intersections however as we collect this data over the next clay or two. we intend to first review this with Jim as well as Kyle to garner consensus support of the brick in lien of the concrete paver in the cross walk across Pelican Bay Boulevard and forward the same back to FDOI' as part 01'01.11- review." 1/12/11 minutes page 1105 "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..." page 1108 "The Committee discussed CIP projects to install several crosswalks with brick pavers on Pelican Bay Boulevard and protecting this investment." ResnickLisa 3/31/2011 4:41 PM Page 2 of 3 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (for disY+butipn at�eetit 7a - Administrator's Report - Community Improvement Plan Update 1 LV A /1 ry Summary of Crosswalk Consensus H L L 1/18/11 minutes page 114 "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. ", 2/2/11 minutes 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 of the motion. Phase 1 projects in Neils memo outline the 9 crosswalks for local of $81 J.7K Lisa Resnick Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 Iresnickw collicrLr,_v.nct hap: /p_licanbaNsser\icediivisi rn.net http:'i��ww �olba' <�o>v net /index u��' ?� c 2762 ResnickLisa 3/31/2011 4:41 PM Page 3 of 3 161,1 A22 y y° aa1 m Fyo�a �°O£ �$�'_ �7 Ly L [Si n�A er", ➢mAaSAO �m02 Y � � � i 'i i iii ol, z �:,�n•_n 4 �� °:a °2m. i � ooA \ 1 dd �>�0 zy r O y O O o G' � � O �CD'a F--I 00 uj RIOrm 11� ,� .. ,may � � �A r d r z CD UM l 6 L o ao t'" o t+ to fa tw � pp Vl abI C�CIC b C b OU IF d �I i I o ®��o�000000000 9 9 9 7 9 9 41 m 9 m 9 V 9 9 r m m f m C C r r m r r r r C C C T T C fl n 0 A Il 0 [t 0 0 0 n tl a D D a D s v z D tz a s a I z z z z z °D a z z z z- 0 m m 0 E c c c m m c c � c c oc < < < < < < A p < < < m < < D D m D D A A p A A p m m m m P A p z Z 2 xx m m 0 0< O m� m D p O z m O O mn m < m s i m 9° o V 0 <$ F O O v y 9 << D m 0 O z o x 4$ m m m p f z O 9 0? O l5 F p N D z < N n o m P 3 i m m m m E6v €�€ � d IR as $ 4�Ia dR as $Rs Ili Rp R' i1 9ta�4 a�a� q's3�9 den % "jm SE 3°y a3 � '!:y a '�> >z as Ap a. Q a€ a F a aA h agt Xt °Fa tt1 I k1 IF -qs 6 p g „R� B �� RwpS p�; ae s� a sy „ � w� i� :�13 �� F � •�'a� iiQySg'�a az d 4 55 � EEyy 8 _ pp _ p_ 'i!R A9R„g gr €� �Ijj gojC -x '44 ISM€ 3g € 1 # qh usi� gEdR,a �N€ $PNS' RzgyGs9�ppCpkCp qyt£ '�0� RpR� � � S 4 `Y4 A� aE �. gl N. � � [ ±gRg$LL KR S= S a P R aR 'ggsa �a 4 R¢y�€ @pEyq£R[; iF �� a d F hi �a ga11E 11�131 Fa EtAAe w as k 21 es€ Pi gas a= RFz " tl c egg d; F4 RX tla n� q I�€ �,td �x q liB s3'a 'v8p g8 R n R �eER $.$ R,1H 2 pp R gg $aa Ro4� e E � € ' �R �p "Jj g A R yy ,1.3 111 :a acBs �= tl t a4�a lad . 5 = R gR R3 P$� RppP TN 6 e S 9 [£ s RA d R RE "4 �as 3r „ k a �il1€ RfQQ s€ s R a aC S $yy R oe 9a i 9 S9� P18,1 P �psa cs €l £ �� a ' 3F a� igRg 14 1py �` s d p s aE# as ay "s� c�R aStA 'M` 9 d4 e`a s k' g� a ^C$F I aea'x R s S £ 161,1 A22 _ i o v wvr mexuu.. P s O w 3 �PELICAN BAY CROSSWALK PELICAN BAY IMPROVEMENTS SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 m k _ — — MASTER SITE / AERIAL PLAN NAPLES, FL 34108 p - -- -- -- _ _ & GENERAL NOTES I = 1611A22 ,, IN \ \\ m \ \ `\ � �, �y \`\ '�.u� SARA ®�,•�, _ - -- v`V A`v �� °�wZm ��bm❑ ' \, O J\ IN I \ IN Z "mac pi C ay'sW_ e_-1 NS °ym F o° HI E N, .POHN'�Id'uM <>Ltm r� ��E u "�� doo 4 Yx4 .fI , r n F - $M d`\\ •� \ `\ \\\ baeave ,\ v Vv v\ Vvv `v\ v`, `, 'V Vv z �® z i C1 ' �pl Oro m \\ \\" 1J z IN s �Y✓ -m� o r a ado M.- 'i '� Z a urn- o e i f y m o y m O i e s. ;776 m� v m _ a a' Ni INS rn � t Im v ( Q� N x, Pz �V' °� %9 vvA 7 1. m mrJ `\ A `vAV 0� I `\\ O \`\ \\\ \\ \\ na• E PELICAN BAY CROSSWALK t f!f ! 5 PELICAN BAY IMPROVEMENTS SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 w fl SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, op �, NAPLES, FL 34108 p �''� GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (1) 0 x N Z v Ct $ w ? K € C M�Iktl�h7 j/ 4Y�,,,?o'y FAN / x N Z v Ct $ w 1 ) j �I ? K cg M�Iktl�h7 j/ 4Y�,,,?o'y FAN / 1 ) j �I O s bEb A0 161 1 A22 ? K O s bEb A0 161 1 A22 \ of / / / \ �Ne�Ri� 'ePy� PELICAN BAY CROSSWALK PELICAN BAY IMPROVEMENTS I SERVICES DNISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 D,z 4 a� ° z x _ r boon +a, SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (2) z w Op � NC P Z � Z � i O P F e M�Iktl�h7 j/ 4Y�,,,?o'y / \ of / / / \ �Ne�Ri� 'ePy� PELICAN BAY CROSSWALK PELICAN BAY IMPROVEMENTS I SERVICES DNISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 D,z 4 a� ° z x _ r boon +a, SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (2) z w Op � NC P Z � Z � i O P F e 161 11 AL q 0 0 zz — „` _ _ = _ - ------------ - r 13 d e DAIS Atl9 00$ °o 0 DI i F A i 1L t" I A Y g o® n y m n x m M o i m 6 ° m - El A io o El E N H oo FM q �� o� s - El - - -- - --- - — - m- -- — — — - r t y y' cal El El 2 El El Fob Rg ='a,> F�%% qq iN "ate W 8o k� y 05g° C g 8= Sg =g c -_- "' P�� WMASPn T Q ,. - _-- _--- - - - - -- 5 m m tl�9 OA�9 2 6 O_A _ _9 _N_tl _- --- _-_-_- - - newnsaro T So M ^® m - -- -_ - _-- - - - - -- i i D v e a - I — Q 2 -------------------- - t o- � � ° . � � � liXv a ❑Q �z Snp 6°m ^�� $g Sim g �'°M I PELICAN BAY CROSSWALK PELICAN BAY IMPROVEMENTS SERVICES DIVISION Eli j{ 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 i 7 o s SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 9h ° p GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (3) 5 161 1 , , Z CI a Gc4 I `` Y cm . i w x m + 'N i \F x 1 P6 RN - E�8 v °m 9 � � o `-'oc ❑°I ayl.t,d 1 �r�y� � p3gy1N _ °9 c�3 Py❑ z $ �0 �o - z 1 e x O P�PC ANY P ®�Y 1 f 111 I� 111 ® X1111 55��g�m� � pTs �if �� II f II III 0.AbY6M1 111 �g_ n � 7 MIS >n �� 111 pl ;1 11 m ly !"p 1 111 11 ,11 Q II ° / V ,u 11 11 11 nxcw Q Ili ' � � �• 11 �I Ili �.1 11 PELICAN BAY CROSSWALK PELICAN BAY �}�{w o` IMPROVEMENTS SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 1 a" c a SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 i Ii a GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (4) ° y � m � o a h s El El El CE] br N - r ��L �] a 1 D g a e" ° y � m � o a r "= �� /� // Ae �7��a /!tae✓ 0s' ' _w_L7 aAle Ab8 Nb3113d �9 a IV x0 T ]1 n m &g� _ � k 161 1 A 22 L -1 O ®0 N¢ s NFs� o 5 o m P ZI ��m� & of sNC p O q ' _ n Naen +O ` anr)) X'< t> " �,0 UAIBAVB Nb�ll3d cy� 8 �m m� El El El El El CE] br N - r ��L �] a 1 D g a SERVICES DIVISION 1 ! �{ IF- r "= �� /� // Ae �7��a /!tae✓ 0s' ' _w_L7 aAle Ab8 Nb3113d �9 a IV x0 T ]1 n m &g� _ � k 161 1 A 22 L -1 O ®0 N¢ s NFs� o 5 o m P ZI ��m� & of sNC p O q ' _ n Naen +O ` anr)) X'< t> " �,0 UAIBAVB Nb�ll3d cy� 8 �m m� � 'z y br N - r ��L �] a 1 D g a SERVICES DIVISION 1 ! �{ IF- 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 fr " r "= �� /� // Ae �7��a /!tae✓ 0s' ' _w_L7 aAle Ab8 Nb3113d �9 a IV x0 T ]1 n m &g� _ � k 161 1 A 22 L -1 O ®0 N¢ s NFs� o 5 o m P ZI ��m� & of sNC p O q ' _ n Naen +O ` anr)) X'< t> " �,0 UAIBAVB Nb�ll3d cy� 8 �m m� PELICAN BAY CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENTS PELICAN BAY �] a 1 SERVICES DIVISION 1 ! �{ 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 fr " SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 e J GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (5) N o E E E E S M r o gg K oy g r a MI m a! o �� 9 sN SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (6) c NP ,f t A 2 17 N o E E E E S M r o gg K oy g r a MI m t, im j I` �� 9 sN SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (6) c NP 2 17 rE o E E E E S M r o s oy a ! MI $� t, im j I` �� 9 sN SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (6) O M v °_ --------- -� ------------------ Y 0 a y m AA m2 3m � O P 1�G ?8 i 00 161 1 A 2C 8 ®® ❑ l) - a ®® P su� OA-18 Atl8 NV31'13d �0 �• e4 - -___= - ---------------------------- ss�m�8m�ff � —000 "z �o OZ. 0 qmG \\ A o \\ xN P14 Av a "s= \ F 4 \ O° b o s oy a ! MI $� t, im j I` �� 9 sN SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (6) c NP 2 17 rJ �I x I i O M v °_ --------- -� ------------------ Y 0 a y m AA m2 3m � O P 1�G ?8 i 00 161 1 A 2C 8 ®® ❑ l) - a ®® P su� OA-18 Atl8 NV31'13d �0 �• e4 - -___= - ---------------------------- ss�m�8m�ff � —000 "z �o OZ. 0 qmG \\ A o \\ xN P14 Av a "s= \ F 4 \ s � z o , _ m ^� � aaeara O�Pa tlo Pao �\ \ �A fG Ay nxero� 'V 1 \� A P. x pN N�mv4� 3 & O� z • m 0 ' g o bd9tld a O° b o s oy a PELICAN BAY CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENTS PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 $� t, im j I` �� 9 sN SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (6) c NP s � z o , _ m ^� � aaeara O�Pa tlo Pao �\ \ �A fG Ay nxero� 'V 1 \� A P. x pN N�mv4� 3 & O� z • m 0 ' g o bd9tld a O° b o s n a PELICAN BAY CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENTS PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 a J [( e t, im j I` SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (6) 1611 AL �o r S o 111 vrxxr Qi �A�` ill TD !ir fn w n° 1 it li it L� li o \v r © u o 2 o G - -� ill uE °� r'm cl �•V', '"�� S�w6 i/ -� - � 'y / o �_ i ct% -dux i, �` � // .0 n /�.'a� �e /� �C e ��iQ �_ m` �� a QFe��'mm yiyo go'pu / R /� g r e x rl Ir r I y I� i 11 r r m z rI Ii iI li a a � a 1�pp {{nn �� 2 � M I k I II A I a $D6 ❑ a,° ye ti li it o li.• / g myyy�yyy c :2o c , 8mf @� h fN :s mp Y s G �i - pi 5s- '�ggq0.�� F21 m ® 5 nPS Y n iv J+< 4L ... 2 ®Sag 0 o s C O AKMONTPARKW9Y Q N� zj _ _ k F 4 °�9• OAKMONT PAR e _ G F -- � d m C.. �/ b X t � I��J°i� I� y P�o g�'o� `�� Ira .n.f a`9�e�E r� as �❑ Wg� u„ S m 2 y p to II II R w -4 c it I� it I ^� anenra rmn wog w PELICAN BAY CROSSWALK PELICAN BAY ^n �, IMPROVEMENTS . SERVICES DIVISION I j 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 Y 9 o ° 8 SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 E p GRADING &DRAINAGE PLAN (7) D 1611 A 22 n n I> a h m eT, a m III ° ee j p y ui � IIII I. Fq n n d O a Ma I I lid ° a m � Q A m Elk a R I o 9 d f.l 2ND3 �C m 4m I ti I L b" i 4 � i. m �� [� „ Jae � �,�- • I x .W. CAN BAY CROSSWALK PELICAN BAY IMPROVEMENTS SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 F + ^ k CONSTRUCTION DETAILS O O a 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 - March 31, 2011 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets 2,254,15 1.64 $ 2,254,151.64 $ 2,254,151.64 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (5,165.80) (35,467.38) (1,173,770.02) (1,039,748.44) $ (40,633.18) (2,213,518.46) $ (2,254,151.64) Page 1 of 1 16 11 1 q 22 Pelican Bay Services 161 x`'22 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - March 31, 2011 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Total Water Management Admin Operating 245,700.00 171,500.00 155,820.10 15,679.90 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense Annual YTD YTD 2,712.79 Engineering Fees 16,381.25 Budget Budget Actual Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. Variance Operating Revenues: - 3,500.00 Flood Control Replanting Program _ 4,248.00 Carryforward $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 11,300.00 - Special Assessment- Water Management Admin 728,400.00 677,412.00 680,572.43 - 3,160.43 Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 1,938,600.00 1,802,898.00 1,811,309.33 500.00 8,411.33 Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - Telephone - Surplus Property Sales 216.24 - Trash and Garbage 8,300.00 - Interest 11,700.00 5,850.00 4,99331 _ (856.69) Total Operating Revenues 3,623,300.00 3,429,260.00 3,439,975.07 1,200.00 10,715.07 Operating Expenditures: 900.00 450.00 450.00 - Fleet Maintenance and Parts Water Management Administration 2,300.00 415.00 1,885.00 Fuel and Lubricants 3,200.00 Payroll Expense $ 41,200.00 $ 20,600.00 $ 19,880.03 $ 719.97 White Goods 8,800.00 - - $ 609.65 IT Direct Client Support (Capital) 200.00 200.00 100.00 $ 100.00 IT Office Automation 8,000.00 8,000.00 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 108,200.00 108,200.00 108,200.00 $ - Interdepartmental Payment 14,600.00 7,300.00 - $ 7,300.00 Other Contractural Services 30,800.00 15,400.00 13,998.60 $ 1,401.40 Telephone 4,100.00 2,100.00 1,274.12 $ 825.88 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 300.00 251.14 $ 48.86 Rent Buildings and Equipment 13,600.00 6,800.00 6,964.61 $ (164.61) 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 1,300.00 446.60 $ 853.40 Training and Education 1,100.00 600.00 55.00 $ 545.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating 245,700.00 171,500.00 155,820.10 15,679.90 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense 134,300.00 67,200.00 64,487.21 2,712.79 Engineering Fees 16,381.25 8,200.00 1,536.11 6,663.89 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 3,500.00 - 3,500.00 Flood Control Replanting Program 8,500.00 4,248.00 2,986.00 1,262.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 11,300.00 10,310.50 989.50 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - OtherContracturalServices 1,000.00 500.00 - 500.00 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 21,200.00 22,310.00 (1,110.00) Telephone 500.00 300.00 216.24 83.76 Trash and Garbage 8,300.00 4,900.00 2,117.74 2,782.26 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 2,300.00 415.00 1,885.00 Fuel and Lubricants 3,200.00 1,600.00 978.19 621.81 Tree Triming 30,000.00 15,000.00 12,480.00 2,520.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 600.00 609.65 (9.65) Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 38,000.00 31,299.65 6,700.35 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 800.00 214.30 585.70 Page 1 of 3 161 1p 22 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 1,300.00 2,178.39 (878.39) Total Water Management Field Operating 394,681.25 182,998.00 153,788.98 29,209.02 Right of Way Beautification - Operating Payroll Expense 42,400.00 21,200.00 20,481.20 718.80 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 18,800.00 15,382.80 3,417.20 Telephone 3,900.00 2,000.00 1,274.12 725.88 Postage 3,000.00 300.00 5.11 294.89 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 14,000.00 7,000.00 7,522.82 (522.82) 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 1,500.00 343.39 1,156.61 Training and Education 1,500.00 800.00 25.00 775.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 128,800.00 55,350.00 48,784.44 6,565.56 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense 827,700.00 413,900.00 338,954.76 74,945.24 White Goods 3,300.00 - - - Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) 136,900.00 59,500.00 59,742.03 (242.03) Pest Control 5,000.00 2,500.00 1,550.00 950.00 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 14,800.00 23,128.41 (8,328.41) Temporary Labor 204,500.00 102,300.00 94,439.41 7,860.59 Telephone 3,200.00 1,600.00 1,379.93 220.07 Electricity 3,400.00 1,700.00 1,365.76 334.24 Trash and Garbage 24,900.00 14,700.00 3,797.29 10,902.71 Rent Equipment 5,500.00 4,300.00 237.58 4,062.42 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 10,600.00 15,297.25 (4,697.25) Fuel and Lubricants 44,200.00 22,100.00 15,830.72 6,269.28 Licenses and Permits 800.00 400.00 - 400.00 Tree Triming 35,900.00 35,900.00 40,742.50 (4,842.50) Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 4,700.00 4,040.87 659.13 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,500.00 512.00 988.00 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 38,800.00 37,351.67 1,448.33 Landscape Maintenance 60,200.00 45,150.00 53,273.15 (8,123.15) Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 15,000.00 12,915.26 2,084.74 Painting Supplies 800.00 400.00 - 400.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 1,500.00 2,320.70 (820.70) Other Operating Supplies 11,500.00 5,800.00 3,780.70 2,019.30 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating 1,548,500.00 808,100.00 720,109.99 87,990.01 Total Operating Expenditures 2,317,681.25 1,217,948.00 1,078,503.51 139,444.49 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 Building Improvements Autos and Trucks Other Machinery and Equipmeny Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital Total Capital Expenditures Total Expenditures Operating Profit /(Loss) Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer to Fund 322 Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserves (2 112 months for Operations) Reserves for Equipment Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditures, net Net Profit /(Loss) 161 1A 22 13,600.00 5,700.00 - 5,700.00 28,000.00 24,000.00 23,597.00 403.00 17,000.00 - - - 58,600.00 29,700.00 23,597.00 6,103.00 72,800.00 35,600.00 23,597.00 12,003.00 2,390,481.25 1,253,548.00 1,102,100.51 151,447.49 1,232,818.75 2,175,712.00 2,337,874.56 162,162.56 (259,200.00) (259,200.00) (259,200.00) - (82,500.00) (57,750.00) (49,837.64) 7,912.36 (75,300.00) (52,710.00) (44,076.18) 8,633.82 (555,025.00) (555,025.00) (555,025.00) - (124,875.00) (124,875.00) (1240875.00) - (1,237,200.00) (1,049,560.00) (1,033,013.82) (4,381.25) 1,126,152.00 1,304,860.74 Page 3 of 3 16,546.18 178,708.74 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Assets 267,683.79 Liabilities and Fund Balance (2,194.16) 161 1 A?? $ 267,683.79 $ 267,683.79 $ (2,194.16) (208,670.25) (56,819.38) (265,489.63) Page 1 of 1 $ (267,683.79) Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - March 31, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Ca rryfo rwa rd Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense White Goods Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance- General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast Total Street Lighting Field Operating $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $ 273,200.00 254,076.00 254,097.94 $ 1,200.00 598.00 659.24 $ 444,200.00 424,474.00 424,557.18 $ 41,200.00 $ 20,600.00 $ 19,880.03 $ 6,300.00 9,600.00 $ 6,300.00 6,300.00 $ 20,800.00 $ 10,400.00 400.00 13,998.60 $ 4,100.00 400.00 $ 2,100.00 921.27 $ 2,000.00 $ 300.00 44,200.00 5.11 $ 13,600.00 17,468.64 $ 6,800.00 7,140.04 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 400.00 200.00 $ 800.00 900.00 $ 400.00 - $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 125.00 4.90 $ 90,200.00 400.00 47,800.00 48,449.95 161 1 A 22 Variance 21.94 61.24 83.18 719.97 (3,598.60) 1,178.73 294.89 (340.04) 200.00 IN U111411112 495.10 (649.95) 62,900.00 31,500.00 30,201.41 1,298.59 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 400.00 400.00 500.00 300.00 216.24 83.76 44,200.00 22,100.00 17,468.64 4,631.36 800.00 800.00 400.00 400.00 900.00 900.00 450.00 450.00 1,100.00 600.00 125.00 475.00 400.00 200.00 325.39 (125.39) 200.00 100.00 - 100.00 500.00 300.00 300.00 7,300.00 3,700.00 6,779.78 (3,079.78) 12,400.00 5,000.00 4,522.76 477.24 141,600.00 65,900.00 60,489.22 5,410.78 Page 1 of 2 Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment General Improvements Total Capital Expenditures Total All Expenditures Operating Profit /(Loss) 161 1A� Zz 231,800.00 113,700.00 108,939.17 4,760.83 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 13,200.00 6,600.00 6,600.00 14,200.00 7,100.00 7,100.00 246,000.00 120, 800.00 108, 939.17 11,860.83 198,200.00 303,674.00 315,618.01 11,944.01 Transfer to Fund 322 (83,600.00) (83,600.00) (83,600.00) - Tax Collector Fees (8,400.00) (5,880.00) (5,108.08) 771.92 Property Appraiser Fees (5,500.00) (3,850.00) 3,850.00 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 Expi (198,200.00) (179,630.00) (175,008.08) 4,621.92 Net Profit /(Loss) 124,044.00 140,609.93 16,565.93 Page 2 of 2 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 - March 31, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 412,927.94 412,927.94 $ 412,927.94 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (522.50) $ (3,018.50) (423,553.80) 14,166.86 Page 1 of 1 (3,541.00) (409,386.94) $ (412,927.94) 161 JJ 161 1 A22 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - March 31, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Fund 111 Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Other Equipment Repairs Minor Operating Other Operating Supplies Total Clam Bay Restoration Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total Clam Bay Ecosystem Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures Operating Profit /(Loss) Variance $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 2,018.75 $ 435,219.17 $ - 35,000.00 32,550.00 10,316.40 32,701.85 $ 151.85 35,000.00 - 506.00 - $ - 1,300.00 700.00 - 1,302.89 $ 602.89 506,519.17 468,469.17 - 469,223.91 754.74 $ 102,943.75 $ 5,500.00 $ 2,018.75 $ 3,481.25 137,390.00 14,200.00 10,316.40 $ 3,883.60 485.42 200.00 506.00 $ (306.00) 4,800.00 2,400.00 - $ 2,400.00 1,000.00 500.00 - $ 500.00 246,619.17 22,800.00 12,841.15 9,958.85 11,300.00 5,700.00 4,046.25 1,653.75 25,000.00 - - - 36,300.00 5,700.00 4,046.25 1,653.75 282,919.17 28,500.00 16,887.40 11,612.60 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): 223,600.00 439,969.17 452,336.51 12,367.34 Transfer to Fund 322 (65,000.00) (65,000.00) (65,000.00) - Tax Collector Fees (1,100.00) (715.00) (654.05) 60.95 Property Appraiser Fees (700.00) (350.00) 350.00 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) (221,065.00) (220,654.05) 410.95 Net Profit /(Loss) $ (0.00) $ 218,904.17 $ 231,682.46 $ 11,956.39 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 - March 31, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets $ 2,470,360.90 Liabilities and Fund Balance Page 1 of 1 (5,288.57) (1, 960, 586.75) (504,485.58) 161 1 X22 2,470,360.90 $ 2,470,360.90 (5,288.57) (2,465,072.33) $ (2,470,360.90) Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: 1611 A22 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - March 31, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 121,600.00 113,088.00 113,615.62 $ 527.62 7,700.00 3,900.00 6,775.32 $ 2,875.32 2,073,287.30 2,060,975.30 2,064,378.24 3,402.94 Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees $ 113,628.45 $ - $ 11,995.00 $ (11,995.00) Other Contractural Services 2,354,658.85 - 6,683.58 $ (6,683.58) Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures 2,468,287.30 - 18,678.58 (18,678.58) 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) (2,660.00) (2,272.32) $ 387.68 Property Appraiser Fees (2,500.00) (1,750.00) - $ 1,750.00 Reserve for Contingencies (100.00) (100.00) - $ 100.00 Revenue Reserve (6,400.00) - - $ - Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditure! 395,000.00 403,290.00 405,527.68 $ 2,237.68 Net Profit /(Loss) (0.00) 2,464,265.30 Page 1 of 1 2,451,227.34 (13,037.96) April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8a - Chairman's Report - Renewal of Dorrill Management Agreement 1611A22 Memorandum To: Pelican Bay Service District Boar From: W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Date: 3/18/2011 Re: Management Agreement Renewal Thank you for your recent vote and support to extend our management contract. Obviously, Pelican Bay is a top tier community and it is a privilege to serve as your Administrator. As part of your approval, you asked me to confirm the authorized and actual hours devoted to your agreement as follows: RFP 09 -5174 specified hours 6/wk 24 /mo Current contract hours BNvk 32/mo Actual hours Jan — March 1 01w 40 /mo Meetings January Date Purpose Hours 1/4 Chairman Agenda review 2 1/5 Regular Board Meeting 4 1/12 Budget / Financial CMTE 3 1/14 Onsite drive thru 1 1/18 CIP Town hall 3 1/21 RFP / Environmental Consult 2 1/28 Chairman Agenda review 2 Total 18 Page 1 of 2 03/29/2011 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 8a - Chairman's Report - Renewal of Dorrill Management Agreement 161 1 A 22 Meetings February 212 Regular Board Meeting 4 218 Budget / Financial 2 2/15 CZM Meeting 2 2/16 Clam Bay Workshop 2 2/18 Onsite drive thru 0.5 2/22 Clam Bay Workshop 2 2/24 Meeting Chairman /Agenda 2 2/25 Meeting With Chairman 1.5 2/25 Phone Conference ABB 0;5 Total 16.5 Meetings March 3/1 Phone Conference ABB 0.5 3.2 Regular Board Meeting 3.5 3/5 Onsite drive thru 0.5 3/10 Phone Conference ABB _ 3/16 Tentative Budget 2 3/18 Budget / Financial 3 Total 9.5 OFFICE / ADMINISTRATION TIME The above meeting hours do not include in-office work time spent on Pelican Bay issues. We currently receive or respond to 150 emails each month and multiple phone calls for various needs. I estimate 1 -1.5 hours per day for the above or 25 hours / month average administrative work time. Please let me know if you have additional questions and again thank you for your vote of support. Page 2 of 2 03/29/2011 a C L U c O a 'o LL T C N O (p N � N � NU � N m a v 5 � o a O Ip U O Q m N C O Oi N C � Y °a N U_ O N O � J N � m � C J U�/1 a N E � U n� m 7 8 a 7 '-'1 1611A22 L{]i 1 0 1J c N O) 0 N O 0 0 m m a 161IA22.i April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a - Community Issues - Lease of Parking Space to the Pelican Bay Foundation (J. Chandler) Commons Parking Lot Survey Date Day Time Empty Weather Comments Spaces 7 -Mar Monday 11:00AM 33 Clear &Warm 2:00 PM Zero Clear &Warm Strategic Planning Committee meeting at Commons 8 -Mar Tuesday 11:00 AM 60 Clear &Warm 1.00 PM 30 Clear &Warm 9 -Mar Wednesday 11:00 AM 51 Clear &Warm 2:00 PM 4 Clear & Warm 3 employee ( ?) vehicles on grass near St. Lucia gate 10 Mar Thursday 11:00AM no count Thunderstorms 2:00 PM no count Rain 11 Mar Friday 11 00A 73 Clear &Cool 2:00 PM 44 Clear & Cool 1. employee ( ?) vehicle on grass near St. Lucia 12 Mar Saturday 10:45 AM 112 Clear &Cool Noon 58 Clear &Warm 2.10 PM 43 Clear & Warm 3.00 PM 44 Clear & Warm 13 -Mar Sunday 11:00 AM no count Clear &Warm Counter busy with guests 12:30 PM 51 Clear & Warm 2:00 PM Zero Clear & Warm 2 empty spaces marked "No Parking" near St. Lucia gate 14 Mar Monday 11 00 AM 56 Clear &Warn) 12:30 PM 51 Clear & Warm 2:00 PM 1 Clear & Warm 3:00 PM 18 Clear & Warm 15 Mar Tuesday 11:00 AM no count Clear &Warm 11:30 AM 82 Clear &Warn) Noon 33 Clear & Warm 2.00 PM 3 Clear & Warm 3 employee ( ?) vehicles on grass near St. Lucia gate 3.30 PM 28 Clear & Warm 1 empty space marked "No Parking" near St. I-ucia gate 16 -Mar Wednesday 11:00 AM 60 Clear &Warm l vehicle on grass at east end of employee aisle 12.30 PM 23 Clear & Warm 2:00 PM 17 Clear & Wann 4 employee ( ?) vehicles on grass along St Lucia border 3:30 PM 31 Clear & Warm 17 Mar Thursday 9:00 AM 67 Clear & Warm 11:00 AM 59 Clear &Warm 2:00 PM Zero Clear & Warm 3 vehicles on grass 225 PM 5 Clear & Warm 3:00 PM 22 Clear & Warm 5:20 PM 80 Clear & Warm IS Mar Friday 11 00 AM 57 Clear &Warm l vehicle on grass at east end of employee aisle 2.00PM 4 Clear &Warm 19 Mar Saturday 11.00AM 45 Clear &Warm 200 PM 8 Clear & Warm 4 employee Q) vehicles on grass along St. Lucia border; S vehicles in aisle running from the bend in the entrance drive toward St Lucia 20 -Mar Sunday 11:00 AM 83 Clear & Warm Noon 81 Clear & Warm The observer checked beach lots on Gulf Shore 12 00 PM 53 Clear & Warm from the Moorings to the Pier between 11- 11:30AM 1:30PM 7 Clear &Wann There were NO available spots 230PM 18 Clear & Warm 3115 PM 28 Clear &W an" 21 Marl Monday 11:OOAM 49 __ Clear&Warr, Tennis courts full Noon 45 Clear &Warm 2,00 PM 24 Clear &Warm 4 cars onthe grass in the shade /2 empty spots in employee area Page 2 of 3 04/01/2011 9 .21 AM 161 1 q 22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a - Community Issues - Lease of Parking Space to the Pelican Bay Foundation (J. Chandler) Page I of I http : //inaps.collierappraiser.com/ output / Collier _2010_sdeO257646040223.jpg 3131/2011 Page 3 of 3 04/01/2011 9.21 AM 16 I 1 A 22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9b - Community Issues - Discussion of Possible Caution Signage for Bicycles ResnickLisa Subject: Signs to Protect Bicyclists on Road (J. Domenie) Attachments: caution _bicycles_share_road_signs.jpg - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Johan Domenic fmailto:hobodoryLi�comcast.netl Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 5:18 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: On Behalf of Mr. Chandler FW: Signs on Pelican Bay Blvd He confirms what I have stated. For eight or six years we have debated about a bicycle lane on PB Boulevard. An attempt was made to stripe the northbound side for a few hundred yards - but that did not meet with approval. Then the Foundation contracted with a company who came up with the idea of basically TWO laning all of PB Blvd - i.e. - one lane North and one lane South!!! We will now have 140+ signs along the boulevard to protect pedestrians, but none to protect the bike riders. The city has the following signs posted along West street and Crayton Road: I would like the opinion of others on this subject at our next meeting - and include that in a subject to be presented by me. Also please forward this suggestion to the other members. To place some of these signs at specific points along PB Blvd - say 4 in each direction. John - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: "ResnickLisa" <LResnick a,colliereov.net> To: <josiegeoff@aol.com >; <Hunter. Han sen(a�hllton.com >; <jim(cDdm fe l.com >; <hobodoryna,comcast.net >; <jbaronna,watersideshops.com >; <iaizzo(.&comcast.net >; <jpebac _ comcast.net>; <keithdallas@comcast.net >; "LukaszKyle" <KyleLukasz@colliergov.net >; <TeeduR1(u)aol.com >; "McCaughtryMary" <MaryMcCau hg>y(a)colliergov.net>; <mikelevy a,embargmail.com >; <neil(a)dmgfl.com >; "ResnickLisa" <LResnickna,collier og v.net >; <tedraiagyahoo.com >; <nfnl6799Anaples.net> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 8:07 AM Subject: On Behalf of Mr. Chandler FW: Signs on Pelican Bay Blvd On behalf of Mr. Chandler, this is a one -way communication. From: John Chandler 1mai Ito: I pcbacLdcOmcast.netI Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 4:33 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Signs on Pelican Bay Blvd Lisa, Please share the following with the PBSD Staff and Board of Directors. ResnickLisa 3/31/20114:31 PM Page 1 of 3 .x.61 or 1 ; April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9b - Community Issues - Discussion of Possible Caution Signage for Bicycles At yesterday's meeting, we were advised by the ABB engineer that, per County law, six signs would be required for each side of PBB where each new crosswalk will be placed. Foday, I was driving north on West Blvd and came upon a bricked cross walk about one quarter mile south of Seagate school. There was only one sign on each side of the street and it was right at the crosswalk. It was the rectangular "State Law, Stop for Pedestrians within Crosswalk" sign. There was no warning sign in advance of the crosswalk nor was there a warning sign at the crosswalk. This situation raises several questions. Was the ABB engineer incorrect in what he presented to as? Is the city of Naples exempt from the County's signage laws? Is the West Blvd crosswalk improperly marked? I will forward a copy of this email to Bob Uek and suggest that the PBh Strategic Planning Committee obtain a written opinion h•ofu the County before they decide whether or not to approve this project. John Chandler ResnlckLisa 3/31/20114:31 PM Page 2 of 3 161 1 A2 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session kl 0 L U m a v o E N � d O � 6 � E rn N j K E a E � o mU c � o a N N � o oa N � U _ L Z O W O N v T � N v m E U E O d U m o a N > � m m o r� C \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ L �+ O O o 0 o O o o 0 0 0 O O o o O O o O O O N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1611 A22 Y C v Q v a 66 u Y � w L 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 C a) 1010101010 1010101010101010101010 10101010 Q U J fp > > c m to N m N K o r� C \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ L �+ O O o 0 o O o o 0 0 0 O O o o O O o O O O N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1611 A22 Y C O o 0 o 0 0 0 O o 0 o O O O O O O o o O O 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 C a) 1010101010 1010101010101010101010 10101010 Q N U C 0 Q + U tPr O O 1l1 t0 N N M N m V m' p N C C C m O V In M .-i O N m O M M O Ifl .+ V1 M N m Ol V C C p at O .w N m N. . m m O O M M. N m N d' O l0 O O N U �0 m O 10 M ti O (71 . t m m ti N V O O M m V O W N O O m -+ M V l0 m O N V t0 t N IT t0 m m m 0 M 10 ' m 1p Z tR VI tR VT VT tPr iR tR tPr +Pr +R M iN tPr W .-� ti .-- � N w u w a) + N m 0 m 7 V NtDN OMN N N O O V M 0- U M V1 m V M N M .+ ti 10 V1 N N .y ll'1 M t0 M t!1 N I(1 a O C O O N 10 10 10 1p N N N m V O M t0 m N N N M O O O O C c m V}tR +Pr +Pr fPr tR tA+Pr VT MMiN N}iR kPr W W M 'YU' t0 G= 0+ O (Yp =� O O m H M m M m '+ IA Ill N In Ln N N O M N m N W LL C y} 1p 1D .-1 O .+ Ol .+ O V m M O M 10 m O N I O m CO v E O N N V ti V m M C Q M N t0 N M m V N O U m V O 10 .-� N V O N 7 'i m t0 M N Q p tp !a M — Vl V1 V1 l0 tD N N m O O O O ti N N M V V V1 t0 M tPr `"� E O -Q V! H} HT VT VT Vf H+ fPr +Pr Vf VT iR Vf to M tPr W Vt oyJ E a x rN oO ;g v o0000000000000000000o L l y}{q y}yq y}W {p {p y}tPrMM tR MfR H}+Pr tPrW HtW Y O UI L N O. X >UU o a ° L a� 0 U y E a a 0 Q m w w (7 C C7 O O O O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 m tPr iPr tR Vi Vfi EPr W O V! tPr N fR HV Vt tR M tR +Pr V} H} lfr m x a .� � co m m �, m w to m o aka N o 0 m m In a) m w p H Pr U U U 10 T N N U v v v a� O O ti Ot N M N 10 N U m O LA m tPr yT .-i Vl .-+ V M 10 m O ti N 10 N N M N m V m C Go O V Lf M .+ O N m 0 ry� M LO Vl M N m O 0 0 0 !a O M M ti N m N V O O m '� O 0 0 0 tp �+ N V' l0 O M m Q O co 0 t(1 O l0 M .-+ O m m ~ O O O 10 O O m .--i M V t0 m 0) N Q t0 N V 10 m m m O M t0 N N N O M M Y tPr W tft UT M tR Hi V} tR +Pr +Pr tR tPr M Hf .--i .+ .-i W kPr W m 4- O N or m O .-i N M 'V m 0 N m m O �+ N N N M M > N N N N N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c c o 0 Y m M N m m O x v a C 0 c_ + 0 O N n } O Vi O O C L N O d O N C w M .+ O � NCD 6 O C + J O + O F m o o n a T Q N n O O o L W � U p US p + O N m L + O N E a O N N V U L m E a C7 .a E m m 0 m Z v ¢ + m ma Z n m ° C 3 N 12 0 E o m o C M to O m 1 m 4\ u U m° 3 M T^ m V Y m 3 + Y D 0 L O J m m 60 N O O O O O O N + N 0 0 0 O p 0 0 0 L CD U ti p w w 06 o n n u Z G C C N m O O O a C Y Y Y m o m m m u s O O O O a u d C C C C 3 m N O N m N C C C o c m m rn v U J U1 V1 VI 0_' N O 0 0 O O O O N N N N N C) Y 16 11 p 2Z m 0 M I m d � L N O o o O ti V t0 O n n n O Y 0 ��O i0 O O mo_0 a o o E w v T Om M Hi HT tR M � to tft W to to N a w N p L O C7 E Ul E L C G a a U m m ) U u D u a u n u o E 11f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m fli L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 0 0 E U E m U a a 0 a 0 0 a a 0 a 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 > o oa _U L C N v¢ (U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r U N l0 l0 l0 l0 lD W m W lD W m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t � E 0 o 0 d U O l0 O m h 00 .i O M m 0) V V V 00 Q n .-i N O m m N p C O 00 h 00 N h N iD O M h 0 ri ri ., n ri M V I� N r 0) m m n m to m N N _ m M t0 m �0 0 .y iD 'D o trr ar yr to vt e»v+vr to ePr e» v U �oinoin off.- �NOn -+ > O N V N V m O m M 0i h Q m o +� vMm,;rmmininvvvv O O .. Ht U3 Hi M fR 1/i W M w UM L O Vl lfl Vl Ll) If) lfl lf) lfl Vl 111 O m O0 O mOO D\0000� 0� U i p m W1 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — m m m m m m m m m m O O u � f0 '� ✓� �+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m +' o 0 0 C C C 0 C C 0 C C 0 C U O C U O O O O O O O O O O O O — E Gi V .y r-i e4 e-1 rl rl r1 'r-1 N rl rl a ° u u Q Q U m O O M V m 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N i0 '0 ap M M M H3 V� x M O V1 M O1 W ti h m m N m � U C 0 c_ + 0 O N n } O Vi O O C L N O d O N C w M .+ O � NCD 6 O C + J O + O F m o o n a T Q N n O O o L W � U p US p + O N m L + O N E a O N N V U L m E a C7 .a E m m 0 m Z v ¢ + m ma Z n m ° C 3 N 12 0 E o m o C M to O m 1 m 4\ u U m° 3 M T^ m V Y m 3 + Y D 0 L O J m m 60 N O O O O O O N + N 0 0 0 O p 0 0 0 L CD U ti p w w 06 o n n u Z G C C N m O O O a C Y Y Y m o m m m u s O O O O a u d C C C C 3 m N O N m N C C C o c m m rn v U J U1 V1 VI 0_' N O 0 0 O O O O N N N N N C) Y 16 11 p 2Z m 0 M I m d C O O m I� m ry f� N t0 O M O o o O ti V t0 O n n n O O O O m m o V m 00 h N Vt m N I� r n i0 O O m i0 M �0 lfl l0 N l0 r+ tD .ti W Om M Hi HT tR M � to tft W to to w N p C G > N N N N N N N N N N N OC U C 0 c_ + 0 O N n } O Vi O O C L N O d O N C w M .+ O � NCD 6 O C + J O + O F m o o n a T Q N n O O o L W � U p US p + O N m L + O N E a O N N V U L m E a C7 .a E m m 0 m Z v ¢ + m ma Z n m ° C 3 N 12 0 E o m o C M to O m 1 m 4\ u U m° 3 M T^ m V Y m 3 + Y D 0 L O J m m 60 N O O O O O O N + N 0 0 0 O p 0 0 0 L CD U ti p w w 06 o n n u Z G C C N m O O O a C Y Y Y m o m m m u s O O O O a u d C C C C 3 m N O N m N C C C o c m m rn v U J U1 V1 VI 0_' N O 0 0 O O O O N N N N N C) Y 16 11 p 2Z m 0 M I m d n Y 161 1 A 22 m M i m D 11 m a Y u O L N Y � O E U a d L m w N a UUU O a v cE 0 E m c � a > v o o � v O 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 E O E C L O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ,C n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + o O p O o O o] U C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Ol C L L Nj O a m o� +' 0000000 o 000 p 00000000 0 q OjN C' ti O`=- M O ti t+1 t+1 rvl ri M t+1 rv1 t+l C1 to ri N p � C � Q <L � 0 o m Y C .+_. v O O C J p+ O Z 6 L N O O O O O O O O O O O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T U N l0 t0 l0 l0 t0 l0 l0 l0 t0 0 l0 N O in O p a j,Q ^ O m E o .C.00000000000 F W L N 2 E Lo d! �n v 'T in N a U WN N M N O 0 M 0 lD V > Vr � p+ 0 V Nr .+ V O t0 M h .--i 0 M M ,y 0 CO ID Y O OO 0) 00 to Nm h p �r + o a N in rl - C I- 10 .Z o E m N N A n Ln O M O ti M V t0 O .y m M 7 N m m .� 7 h 0 V p N O to N .-i � .y ri .ti N N N V U= d t0 M N Ur m E E w a w Y m a W w°Z'z o L N U Y�OMMMwM trnlolnln Am m m— H a+ m 0 `� V LD 1l1 .-y N Vt V M d' l0 T a >O O M O Ill l0 V1 lA V' M N '+ O Z m O C o O N Ol m I� m 7 0 m O N 7 0 go O IL (� M L O M M M M M M M M M M O> m L O C tRO p 0000000 o E N II p O Ill In Vl L Ill Ln Ill ✓1 Ifl Ln E N O. m E m M p 0 A U rn rn rn rn rn m rn m rn rn 0� w 0 U n — o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u° U rco 3 M O (A E'noy�. N N N N N N N N N N ^ m jA L m 0U .0 e�werar+awvrerww Q >.� 3 cy,0'm II — O.� 00000000000 +Y ED L O J OJ lA a > L fu M co OC 000000000000 0 IO CV I U o 0 0 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 o ti Q Q p Y C 0 C E V .a .-� .i .-i .+ .ti ti .-� .-� .i .-+ M+Pr +Pr NI (fr tR (A MtPr +Pr Vi o o O +N U + OU d 'O in L d'O N m p In lf1 If1 1l1 N 7 Q Q V U ooMVm000000 0 c c c v .,z o 0 o a 0 0 N t0 tp fPr M H! +A Vr +Pr M o Ill M Cl 07 . CO N N x W ti N o W N N V UI > >> — M M l0 I� Ifl Q OC o C C m V N Ill M Ol W tfr N N 0' CE of ulKr o c m c U m U JIn VI U1 a' v 0 0 N N m n O l0 0 W 0 V O V ti R 0%o M n. o M 0 0 0 C C 0 l0 .y O1 4m C Cl OJ LO N 0 0 0 O .� N .i O t0 ti O o .-i ~.-+M '� N M V m 000 l0 O O NOn V1OM d'l0m m l0 M 7 N .y N .y V N O .-a •-� •-i •� •-� O 0 0 0 0 O M O >- N '+ .ti ti Y Ln 00 O tPr tPr M4F tR Yt M +R tR m w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC O Y N U n Y 161 1 A 22 m M i m D 11 m a 1611A22 Severn Trent Services/ ST -Moyer 210 N. University Drive, Suite 702 Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Phone: (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 by Pelican 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 encompasses 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 provides capital programs including community wide landscape & irrigation system renovations, U.S. 41 berm improvements, Clam 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 wo sVeo Lo-za«oz 161 1 b and improvements directly benefit the land within the Division, costs of providing these S services and improvements are defrayed with non -ad valorem special assessments. 8 N d a H M O N LL O 7 C O b � p n 9 p p�p yG u it yy i � r U �_ u a° 0 O O J! W O f C O a Z r E r U N r c � V e E 3 I S N N N m C w 0 N N O w � W O � O w Ui w o' E ✓Ni � o CI; g m F ao LQ H N e S fV N f� OO Obi N a m � o vMi g � n m �o � � o m ry R _ Fes- F S — — — — — _ _ — E Y O C O m p O so I I r 8 ,y t0 w m n uNi w N � r o N m ^^ o W � O P N Ip P � eTi N O L s a 2 q N N h y Q vim-' h M N C p cO M � e h N O C o w NO GU �N I S N N N m C w 0 N N O w � W O � O w Ui w o' E ✓Ni � o CI; g m F ao LQ H N e S fV N f� OO Obi N a m � o vMi g � n m �o � � o m ry R _ Fes- F S E Y O C w m n n w N � O Ux8 € N � {{pp O 2 q N N h y Q vim-' W �i cO 0 o w U 0 rn o $ a n m w I S N N N m C w 0 N N O w � W O � O w Ui w o' E ✓Ni � o CI; g m F ao LQ H N e S fV N f� OO Obi N a m � o vMi g � n m �o � � o m ry R _ Fes- F C w m n w c � rE � S� 2 q h y Q F W H f I S N N N m C w 0 N N O w � W O � O w Ui w o' E ✓Ni � o CI; g m F ao LQ H N e S fV N f� OO Obi N a m � o vMi g � n m �o � � o m ry R _ Fes- F 16 1 IA Zip 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 (jointly 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 Breakenen 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 9G4o lo-ZO -I LOZ 1611��L, Table 3 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Average Unit Comparison Table 4 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Actual Unit Comparison Number of Unit Type Units Single Family Units Below Breakeven Value 184. Single Family Units Above Breakeven Value 507' Multi Fancily Units Below Breakeven Valac 4094 Multi Family Units Above Breakeven Value Current Modified 35- NomResidentlal Parcels With Increased Assessments 4 Assessment Assessment Number of Minimum Maximum Average for Average for Average Unit Type Units Taxable Value Taxable Value Taxable Value Unit Unit Difference Single Family Units 691 $0 $12400.978 $1,087043 $488.80 $883.22 (2394.42( Condominium Units 5579 $0 $5670250 $437,917 $37196 $355.81 $16.15 Breakeven Residential Value $463,447 $376.55 $376.55 $0.00 Table 4 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Actual Unit Comparison Number of Unit Type Units Single Family Units Below Breakeven Value 184. Single Family Units Above Breakeven Value 507' Multi Fancily Units Below Breakeven Valac 4094 Multi Family Units Above Breakeven Value 1485 Nory Residential Parcels With Decreased Assessments 35- NomResidentlal Parcels With Increased Assessments 4 100.00 °4.. 900)':. en 00 70Ixl:'. + 60.111 i 501411. 40,W) V 00 20.00 BI/kr 9.00 °, Figure l: Changes in Assessments by Group Type Single Tamil, Alulb family . \on- Rr.idcnlial ■ Unit. Lill, I lee reared Aw•s +menL. ■ Lpnb a ith hxloased Assessments Percent of Total 2663% 73 37 °l, 73 39% 2661% 50 4V,, 9 52°/, 4 Loo 91, 00 LO-ZO-I iDZ 161 1A22 11 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 ti Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Methodology Change Impact on Single Family Units Taxable Value for Number of Single Family Units Units Under Current Modified Assessment Assessment for AVers" for Average Unit Unit Deferents 6100,000 3 $311.13 $81.25 (11226.6111) 6200.000 0 $329.13 6162.50 (11RG83) $300,000 29 6347.13 $24375 (5103.38) 6400,000 95 6365.13 3325.00 (640.13) $463,447 5T $376.55 $376 "55 $0.00 65001000 29 6383.13 $406.25 623,12 6800,000 85 5401.13 $487.50 68637 6700,000 46 6419.13 $568 "75 $141.62 11800,000 42 : $437.13 $650.00 11212.67 6900,000 43 6455.13 3731.25 5276.12 $1,000,000 25 347313 681250 11331,37 31,500,000 108 $56313 61.218.75 $665.62 62,000,000 65 {, 6653.13 $1,625.00 11171.87 $2,500,000 18 $743.13 $2,031.25 61,289,12 35,000,000 34 $1,193.13 $4,062.50 62,80,37 $10.000,000 6 $2,093.13 $8,125.00 $6,031.67 $15,000,000 6 - $2,99313 312187.50 69,114.37 Table 6 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Methodology Change Impact on MuM Family Units Taxable Value for Multi Family Units Number of Units Under Current Aamoment ' for Avenge Unit Modelled Assessment for Average Unit Difference 8100,000 120 6311 13 681.25 (11229.88) 8200,000 1313 $32913 $162.50 (11166.63) 8300,000 1530 $34713 824375 (8103.38) $400,000 824 $36513 $325.00 (840,13) 8463,447 56 $376.55 8376.55 80.00 8500,000 350 8383.13 $406.25 823.12 8800,000 294 840113 8467.50 1166.37 $700,000 205 841913 $568.75 814942 8800,000 200 $437.13 8850.00 8212.87 $900,000 163 8455.13 8731.25 8276.12 $1,000,000 120 $47313 $812.50 $339.37 $1,500,000 234 256313 81,218.75 8655.62 82,000,000 104 865313 $1,62500 $971,87 $2,500.000 18 874313 $2,031.25 81,288.12 $5,000,000 43 $1,19313 84,06250 82,669.37 810,000,000 5 82.09313 $8,12500 86,031.67 j 900 61.110 LO -ZO-1, i0Z 161 1 A 2Z i 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 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 enjov 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 6140 LO-ZO-1. COZ Current Modified Class ERU Taxable Value Assessment Assessment Dalerence Club at Pelican Bay 273.38 $9.372.318 S81,823 $7,615 ($74,208) Government/Institutional 129.83 s0 $38.057 $0 ($38,057) Hotels 330 $195.951,374 5132.116 $159210 $27,095 All Other 772.38 $123.196,635 $248,583 $100,097 ($148,486) Total 1505.97 $328,520,327 $500,579 $266,923 ($233,658) 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 enjov 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 6140 LO-ZO-1. COZ l(K)% 90% 80% 70% (,0% 411% I Nil. 20% 10% 0% - Existing Methodology ■ Single Family 161 1 A 22 1 Figure 2: Tax Burden Changes by Group Type Modified Meth"dol"by ■ Multi Fanniv Non - Residential 7 OLO 6VtlO LO-?.O-L WZ N L O fn N � U) m V � U O1 v o a a m m o c M o c m O � NO � U N c UN a � o in a T � o tt] U C N N � U p N v a m w 0 N am Q� i wQ. W cc N m N IA /1 V •O a tw r_ .O bLO r_ O W^ L V a 161 1 n C n C a m a v v o a o v v o n n o a o 0 0 0 E E n n $ o $ n N u U U T v � V m w0 m m 7 Ol >� U ✓i L� O C O T 6 U v 3 u o c m m' m o m 43 m c� E E a> m c u c m m m ' o a s m o ? E C m a a m e N fO m 0 o 2 3> o m o c y ->, o 0 m° N a 0 L. m 4 a n° C u, `L' O m E u u O o a 3 E m° v E a T.6 a u E a a> o c 2i °a' o-o N o> j E ao E o o m v c �_ = v s m m o E 2'a o m m u � o v o'5' 3 u c `v' aP i 3 u -°-' E v u y C w v m m a °' v p E c v j M c E L T° '� 3 `m 3 n m y E'.. -a $ o =O p «0 c v b -p o v 'v .4 a a v `^ v a "o E a n v o ° N ° m m o o v 'T vm a m mry - ' m o mN ° ° g N v C 0 v m m N v o c o ry n ry w n c . N a 1> u I pCp � Y Y Y O v A E v O F � m 3 o m m z � a 0 c $ IZ5 v v c o > Q a E m u " v n Y v o V o o o o L 0 w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n C n C a m a 161 1 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A 22 Presented by Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department MEETING AGENDA CLAM BAY MARKER DISCUSSION GROUP TUESDAY, MARCH 15,2011— 2:00 P.M. TILL 4:00 P.M. HUMAN RESOURCE TRAINING ROOM 4208 3309 TAMIAMI TRAIL FAST, NAPLES Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance 111. Changes and Approval Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes 1. February 17, 2011 Minutes V. Update Marker Discussion through Stakeholder Representatives • Discussion of Funding • Stakeholder Discussion • FWC Participation VL Public Comments VII. Announcements with Follow -up VB1. Next Meeting Date /Location TBD IX. Adjournment Public speakers are requested to do the following for any items presented to the Board: Display on each document the presenter's name and title of document. Provide a total of 7 copies of each handout, to he distributed as follows: 3 Board Members; I Minute Taker, I County Attorney; 2 CZM Staff members. The following websites will provide information, agendas and dates for this subcommittee: htfp: / /www. eollierpov.neUlndex. usWinage =18 http: / /wwrv. collier- ov.netlln(lex.aspx ?page =2390 All interested partied are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board prior to the meeting if applicable. For more information, please contact Gail 1) Hamhright at (239) 252 -2966. 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 certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, It 34112, (239) 252 -8380_ Public comments will be limited to 3 nunme, unless the Chairman grants permission for additional time Collier County Ordinance No 99 -22 requires that ail lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including but not limited to, addressing the hoard of County Commissioners) be0.xe the Board of County, Commissioners and its advisory boards, register with the Cleric to the Board at the Hoard Minutes and Records Department Page 1 of 13 04108/2011 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Re siyyffn 11 (I /► (r /�� Presented by Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County C hone Mar�'dgemen D2p'dr(R2n1 February 17, 2011 MINUTES OF THE CLAM BAY DISCUSSION GROUP Risk Management Training Room 3311 Tamiami 'trail, East Naples Naples, FL, February 17, 201 1 I. Call to Order The Discussion began at 9:00 A.M. The following Stakeholders were represented: Honorable John Sorey, City of Naples; Mary Johnson, Mangrove Action Group,-Steve Feldhaus, Pelican Bay Foundation; Keith Dallas, Pelican Bay Services Division; Dr. Ernest Wu, Seagate Homeowner's Assoc.; Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club; Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The following Collier County staff members were present: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management; Gail Hambright, Accountant, Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist; Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public Services. Georgia Hiller, Collier County Commissioner, was also present. H. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Changes and Approval of Discussion Approach Including the Consideration of Additional Stakeholder Representatives. Representation as listed above. IV. Approval of Minutes None V. Marker Discussion through Stakeholder Representatives Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management circulated a document outlining a starting position for the discussion including a map for the proposed marking of the system from Clam Bay south of Seagate to the Gulf of Mexico. He noted: • The proposed marking of the channel will require approval by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and Staff has been in contact with FFWCC employee Ryan Moreau. Ms. Cravens objected to Mr. Moreau not having the ability to provide input to the meeting. • There are 12 proposed "canoe trail markers," 18" x 18" placed on 4" x 4" posts. • There are 3 proposed informational caution signs ( "Clam Pass— Caution- Local Knowledge Required -- Keep Lookoul for Boaters and Swimmers) on post - 2 on the beach in the area of the Pass and I on Marker #1. • There are 4 proposed (3 - `Caution Shoal" and 1 - "Sea grass Area ") informational buoy type markers. Page 2 of 13 04/08/2011 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Se' or e� Z 2 Presented by Gary McAlpin. Director, Collier County Coastal na m e m February 17, 2011 Discussions with representatives of the FFWCC indicate the proposed plan may be approved. The system is identified as a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA). The area in question is defined as a `'navigable waterway" by the US Coast Guard. Under stakeholder discussions, three (3) main reasons were identified for marking the system: 1. Safety for the users of the system. 2. Environmental protection of the natural resources in the system. 3. Maintaining the historic navigational rights of the Seagate Community. Under the discussion the following points /concerns were highlighted: • The proposed marking should be integrated with existing or proposed marking of other areas within the system. • The use of buoys should be restricted as they have a tendency to scour the sea bottom causing environmental damage. • Consideration should be given to incorporating signs warning of a "Manatee Zone, Slow SpeedlMinimum Wake. " • Consideration should be given to placing any signs as necessary on the banks, (as opposed to the waterway) this may alleviate some permitting requirements. Under stakeholder discussion, the following concerns were identified: Safety Dr. Wu noted the number and location of signs are adequate. He expressed concern proposed markers are "canoe trail marker signs," not "navigational signs /markers." These types of signs do not notify system users that motorized boats may be present. In the past, this concept has caused confrontations between canoeists, kayakers, swimmers and motorized boat users within the system. Discussion continued noting: • It is not the function of the FFWCC to permit "navigational marking" of systems. Navigational marking requires approval of the US Coast Guard, an avenue that the Board of County Commissioners has chosen not to pursue at this time. • Consideration should be given to placing the informational signs ( "Clam Pass — Caution — Local Knowledge Required —Keep Lookout,for Boaters and Swimmers') on other markers proposed for the system. • Consideration should be given to placing signs on the drawbridge. • Consideration should be given to revising the signage at the canoe /kayak boat launch located on the lands controlled by the Pelican Bay Foundation to notify users that they may encounter motorized boats or swimmers in the system. • The permitting and maintaining of the markers will be the responsibility of Collier County Government (Coastal Zone Management). 2 Page 3 of 13 04/08/2011 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular 16 I Presented by Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management art2en2 February 17, 2011 VI. Public Comments Speakers Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident noted, in his opinion, the canoe markers satisfy the conditions of the original permit (issued in] 998) to maintain the system. He supports revising the signage at the Pelican Bay Foundation area canoe launch to inform users that they may encounter motorized boats and swimmers. He expressed concern the US Coast Guard navigational charts were revised removing the "non navigable" designation for the area. Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Resident expressed concern the uses in the area are conflicting and it is difficult to utilize canoe markers to mark a "safe boating channel." She recommended the type of boats permitted to utilize the system be defined to assist in finding common ground for the type of markers required. Gary McAlpin noted the types of motorized boats are defined as "shallow draft type vessels." Bonnie Michaels notes she kayaks in the system and questions if the area is being "over protected." Responsibility to utilize the system safely lies with the users' common sense and /or local knowledge. David Roellig, Pelican Bay Resident noted not only signage is necessary in boating, but these types of systems in general require owner /operatorjudgment to ensure safety. Rick Dykman, Seagate Resident noted the main concern for the community is the proposal is a "canoe marker system." The community wants to ensure their historical boating rights are maintained and some members of the community grow concerned when these types of markers are proposed. He recommended directional arrows be added to the signage to notify users the side of the marker required to traverse the system safely. Susan Ritas noted some of the concerns revolve around harassment, as opposed to safety. The public needs to be put on notice that motorized boaters may utilize the system. Tim Hall recommended consideration be given to an additional "Sea Grass caution sign" just south of Seagate and relocating marker #1 further south. Ronnie Bellone, Pelican Bay Resident noted marking the system is important so all users may utilize the system in hannony. Jim Pelton, Seagate Resident noted it is important to mark the system properly to ensure safety and place the users on notice on the types of vessels which may be encountered in the system. Mary Bolin suggested a public education program (notifications in the Pelican Bay Post, Naples Daily News, Public Postings, etc.) be implemented to provide notification on the types of activities occurring in the system. Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident requested clarification on the types of markers allowed by FF WCC and questioned if the canoe type markers will satisfy the requirements of Collier County's Risk Management Division. Page 4 of 13 04108/2011 161 1 A� April 6, 2011 Pelican ay ery i ces Division Board Regular Session Presented by Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department February 17, 2011 Gary McAlpin noted the FFWCC permits specific types of signage and they are concerned about commingling "fish and wildlife signage" with `navigational signage." The Risk Management Division will review the proposal and provide comments to staff. Len Rothman, Canoeist confirmed "navigational marking" requires red and green US Coast Guard approved markers. VIL Announcements with follow up Gary McAlpin noted staff /stakeholders will investigate the issues identified today (and any others) and report at the next meeting. Commissioner Hiller noted she spoke to Ryan Moreau and he encouraged anyone with questions to contact him at 850 -410 -0656 ext. 17376 or email ryan.moreau @myfwc.com VIII. Next Meeting Date/Location Wednesday, February 23, 2011; Risk Management Training Room, 3311 Tamiami Trail East, Naples The Discussion ended at 11:00 A.M. Page 5 of 13 04/08/2011 16 1 1 A22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Presented by Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department Discussion with Ryan Moreau on 2/23/2011 based on questions from the clam Bay marker workshop held on 2/17/2011. Key points are as follows: 1. Marker M1 which is the most southern marker and closest to the Seagate neighborhood can be move further to the south to better align with the canoe/kayak launch location. Seagrass signage can either be added to this pole or separately marked to protect the sea grass beds in this area. 2. Installation of Local Knowledge signs on each of the 12 marker poles did not necessarily concern him and he is willing to allow more of these signs but wants to be able to look at the whole proposal in its totality rather than piecemeal. He is more concerned that too many markers and /or signs on marker poles would prevent safe navigation by cluttering this narrow path. 3. With respect to poles for shoal and seagrass markers instead of buoys, his position is that with a narrow route, buoys would be safer for users if hit and less clutter in the route. He will however evaluate these signs being on poles and make his decision when he evaluates the entire package. 4. He has no Issues with the signs on either side of the tram bridge. This does not come under his jurisdiction. 5. He wants us to submit our plan that Is the consensus of the entire community and he will review it holistically without all the telephone calls and the constant pressure from everyone in our community calling and lobbying him. 6. He understands that this is a multi use route. Kayakers, cancers, boaters and swimmers will use the same estuary. He has reviewed this with his legal department and this marking system would not prevent any of the user's access or use. 7. The County ordinance number cannot be placed on FWC signage. 8. The permit will be issued by FWC contingent on review and concurrence by USACE and the USCG. Both the USAGE and the USCG have concurrent jurisdiction for this waterway. FWC's is primarily responsible for signage in this instance and is taking the lead. A permit is not required from the USACE or the USCG. Their involvement will be limited to only review and concurrence and will be obtained by FWC. 9. A permit, review or concurrence from FOEP is not required. 10. Based on preliminary review, FWC is in conceptual concurrence with our proposed plans. FWC's will however not approve anything until a permit application is received and it can be reviewed In detail. 11. Tha attached route map and marker recommendations reflect our discussions from 2/17/2011 and guidance from FWCon the 2/23/2011 telephone call. Page 6 of 13 04/08/2011 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sion I Presented by Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department r- McAlo[nGa From: Moreau, Ryan [ryan.moreau@MyFWC.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 20118:26 AM To: McAlpinGary Subject: RE: Clam Bay Discussion Group material My schedule is currently wide open on the 15". 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@rr yfwc. co m From: MrAlpinGary [ mail to:GaryMcA[ptn @oolliergov.net] sent: Wednesday, March 02, 20118:21 AM To: Moreau, Ryan; KeyesPamela; HambrightGail Subject: RE: Clam Bay Discussion Group material Rya n, It has but, I have no issue of issuing another document that list edits from you God knows we have done that many times in the past and I have represented it as my notes from our conversation. Just let me know. What about the 15"? Gary From: Moreau, Ryan [mailto:ryan.moreau @MyFWC.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 20117:44 AM To: MuUpinGary; KeyesPamela; HambrlghtGall Subject: RE: Clam Bay Discussion Group material Gary, I've reviewed the material I have some edits. on 951 think there could be a better way to state this. I have an example below. S) He has stated that the options for signage should be an internal discussion within the entire community. His eventual review on a collier county application package for signage will be based upon statute and Florida Administrative Rule. As Page 7 of 13 04/08/2011 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessio6 1 1 • • 2 2 Presented by Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department swch<, A is not his place to offer personal opinions on the subject. His review of the application package must remain objective and to the letter of the law. On #8 it is a very good statement except for the last sentence. You will need to get a permit from USACE and USCG. I might have confused you with the letter of no objections comment. USCG will issue a letter of no objection basically stating that they see no hazards to navigation. USACE will actually issue a permit, however, for a small project such as this I don't think it will be that Involved. So just restate the last sentence and #8 is good to go. on #91 think it can be reworded a bit to not raise the ire of some. Let me research this one today and get back to you on how to state this. Have you sent this out to everyone already? I think that covers R. Let me get back to you today about this. Also please let me know if this has already gone out to the public, as I had some edits. Ryan 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.Moreaugmyf oncom From: McAlpinGary [mailto :GaryMcAlpin0colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 20115:07 PM To: Moreau, Ryan; KeyesPamela; HambrightGail Subject: FW: Clam Bay Discussion Group material Importance: High Ryan, Please see the attached write and meeting notice for our next marker discussion for Clam Bay. We would like to conference you in by phone to possibly answer any questions that some individuals might have. We can schedule you as a time certain with a specific duration so you won't need to be available for the entire meeting. Are you available on 3/15 and what time in the early afternoon works best for you? Also, my write -up is attached and I believe it accurately reflects our discussion. Do you have any comments on it? Gary McAlpin From: HambrightGall Sents Monday, February 28, 20115:08 PM Subject: Clam Bay Discussion Group material Page 8 of 13 04108/2011 161 1 A22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Presented by Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department Try Page 9 of 13 04/08/2011 "a • ;,, Marker #11 y . Marker #10 Marker* �A ,. I Marker 08 j "d L l _'. Marker#12 r d Markertq 3 ik "r' Marker A6 .- MarkerllK x` q Y Marker AN Marker *8 *' is t . R,P a. a � Marker;ll I y h? CaL.�Cajar •�1r ., :,, ;, Marker #1 Clam Bay Sign Caution- yyw +n °- .�.aaav✓ ...Yw:i.,wwwwwar�� "� "N Try Page 9 of 13 04/08/2011 16 1 1 A 22 C d E t m o: v, o- c v E m ! m c c y o c N U vN N q � N — N 7 O vU � D a c m o m U c v o = N � � U O o � U U_ d N (n C T d N 0] U C � U N a� T n o a N N � C W N 6 � ¢a Z O F Cr ul aZ0 �xga a a �7 W V J Y 'Y4 Y lz Q � Z O F Cr ul aZ0 �xga a a �7 W V J Y 16] 1A22 E r a 0 v E v m m c m c m c y Q NiN y _N 7 p p'U o p `m o o � U c w 0 0 �U N U Z � N - � C T 4 N ¢] V C a �a N d � a d W U ¢a C t1D N Ne Y J Z tn W O L W Q O C W V O g O Y O Q�zga LU U O Y v E r @ n v c v E w rn @ c @ c @ o c N O y N m � � N J O vU a c � J @ o o U m c v �U � o N V _U O N - m C T 6 @ m V C U Z a� n o a N N N y N Q d 1611A22 E z m a v D C N E v m m c m c v o c y O � N � m � N — m � o W U K � .o c m o O U m c ^� 0 0 �U � o � U N - ((J C_ T 4 m 6l U C � U m a� n oa N N co y O i as 1611A22 161 1 A 22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 'Stop for People Coalition' Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting STOP FOR PEOPLE PETITIONS THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE STATION EIGHT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROBLEM PELICAN BAY —April 6, 2011 - We are submitting our petition to the Pelican Bay Strategic Planning Committee for your consideration. We believe that the STOP FOR PEOPLE coalition of foundation members can make a positive contribution for improved pedestrian safety at the STATION EIGHT crosswalk in PELICAN BAY. We propose the following discussion points at a workshop to be held prior to the approval of the current Community Improvement Project: I THE CURRENT SITUATION: • The Station Eight crosswalk is equipped with in -road STOP FOR PEOPLE signs. is The pedestrians who use the Station eight crosswalk are extremely satisfied that the current in- road signs effectively motivate drivers to STOP FOR PEOPLE. • The Station Eight crosswalk is not adequately illuminated at night. • Current plans call for removal of the in -road STOP FOR PEOPLE signs. • There are no current plans to install new crosswalk lighting at the station 8 crosswalk. 2 THE 2011 SOLUTION LIST: • Keep the STOP FOR PEOPLE in- road sign in the station 8 crosswalk until it can be replaced with a motion activated signal sign (MASS). • Install a MASS device similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. • Install a street light illuminating the Station Eight crosswalk. 3 WHAT WE WANT TO HAPPEN: • Organize a STOP FOR PEOPLE workshop to exchange ideas with the residents of Carlton Place, Pebble Creek, Cocobay and the Crescent communities concerning the signs, signals and lighting at the Station Eight crosswalk. CONTACT: Brendan Culligan A resident of Pelican Day since 2002 STOP FOR PEOPLE coalition 239 - 579 -7957 Pebblepost@xmail . com Page 1 of 23 04/08/2011 April 6. 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division ward lej SessA 2 2 "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE q. , We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station p8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREETADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE /4-44., `'rune 11,b L '�ilb Ile kerJ NRK rt r - (,u L Qj(4,iv� Cr L j rc_tr& = „f n 1, y,4 ,. t STOP MR PEOPLE11031Ipe*R Page 2 of 23 04108/2011 'II I/► April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular �io[_ - "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at mee Ming — PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples FL 34100 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE t H 293 Z-01( We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #B until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican gay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS UNIT# le 7P L � 203 X" "eiay F.a"c1E 6D le l; e e,t /A.} cd /c STOP FOR PEOPLE110314peUtion t jL "D 1 Page 3 of 23 04/08/2011 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay ServiceesDi�on Board ReguarSe'�SIDn "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples PL 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples EL 34108 DATE_ U. t , l We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you For considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE i l � '' �a �) t ,1 .i / i, {i (�, �t ill � ( ll� ...� j ��.. -. ,t ♦" t ' ,;:: J STOP FOR PEOPLE I10314mmion .� 1V Page 4 of 23 04/08/2011 Aee April 6, 2011 Pelican Balbes livisilBoard Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting PETITION to Pelican [lay Services Division, Naples EL 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE ;q/7 4A . ,1�r X20 t 1 We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME /1Cl a ,..L. STREET ADDRESS UNIT# -703 ��bh C�,� Ct lo 1u14aAtL Et4g %L 7&q3 Eo/ --I( -a nvk t -3Ir bi,� ly -3OL4 SIGNAT f RE_ , j. h y �� ;�; ^i�'.� "�L fj /�7�,r,�.a5�0 /�G 1,� —L- =l �z�r" "�v `: t.� ✓, -r STOPEORPEOPIE11031 Ilium Page 5 of 23 04/08/2011 16 I i1 A22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting 1— PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples FL 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE2!nGt -', . -� -f 64)( 1 We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET A[ I u0 �74CEx 76q STOP FOR PEOPLE 110314pet¢bn 4 q UNIT# ,OasM 3DI �I 1 i i Page 6 of 23 E 04/08/2011 1611A22 { April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Slop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples FL 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE u. 3 - )' We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE In road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign he replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE tit �iJL= 76// "s Sew Eie In 14,cl,l � fI C V. " 763g P f2-- STOP POR PEOPLE110714peupon Page 7 of 23 r A � i/ 04/08/2011 161 1 Aei� April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting .1 t'I I I11(11 t•, I'`tli %is, ibi, `- ... iY,, I)iit i, t `° -a dj , i I riiitu COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE -> /JL-t- We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station M8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRES�/ F Z5f' UNITR SIGNATURE r' . r w- 7 +br �eeGCl2 STOP FOR PEOPLE110314petitlon `w Page 8 of 23 04/08/2011 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting PETITION to Pelican Ray Services Envision, Naples 11 341 !Et COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE .i m' We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until It can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE i , L i tu, E` rL/ l ( t l! . r' t' 7pT ', ! C Lt.. . Cr;cti a G y 2 T L t T STOP FOR PEOPLE110314pe itw Page 9 of 23 0410812011 161 1 A 22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting rI COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE 1 We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station M8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current In road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. 4 PRINT NAME ii :I STREET ADDRESS UNITM ' ' � I l • /A ,t c >t �1, 1 tv C IVY 2 >< Al c VA wR. S> v ,fir j,,r �( cvt''z�� 2� %bt� 5T V�p�9 VEOF 1 i4 /�-1: ii L ti .� 7T P p�m r �[ !r" Page 10 of 23 04/08/2011 161 1 A 22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting PIj 9 �r? .nx2 k 3 1,54 11 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until It can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, We further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE ��j'r�C- i? b�r-f- UArk�.� ?izs' i,ei.b1e C�aetcr�• lOro /�---�. LA AA, 7 7s �c�— . ,�/f1yNr=�`NA12r;SE _ Pil<u.-rt,A/ -Q. ��/ c STOP FOR PEOPLE130314paitior, ,iri - A14*j Page 11 of 23 04/08/2011 1611A22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting L/ r, -rITIe,A/ -9/ Vj) x- 4 f, /-/L, j, 0(1 -;L I Page 12 of 23 04/08/2011 16 I 1 A 22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting ect COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATED We the undersigned residents of PELICAN RAY respectfully: request that you remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Say Blvd crosswalk at tram station FY8 until it an be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET �ADDRESS UNITk SIGNATURE Iq ,ee, 770. rUervexdirle 3 / tE Y° I f I' t a p I,' Wt A a a 1 qi� 3 a� p � , STOP FOR PEOPEE110314pentmn ` t t Page 13 of 23 04/08/2011 161 1 { /q1� April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Reguie g�'I 2 "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting 13 PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples FL 3'41108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL q 34108 DATE 3 11 We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE ,�3?ui ,ty ctvW 77HYebkf tC eA Le..� 77 54 f bbecC. k 103 r c, co,rol�jo Sc(loonoveC T73t4 A"Ic CrkkCa1 103 1134 'Gz 30 J �`�I), f/ lu AAuA o 5 `�hlyd�u S�Ic�1 =eY STOP FOR PEOPLE 110314petitmn 1 73r/ lhbleL= lt.Lk -I-/3�Ieh /bIp/Cr C o Page 14 of 23 04/08/2011 1611 1 AA, April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Se55iQn; 2'- "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting �qs`o Pis EE1'C cfK %, C 4 � II T3��ff /4- PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples FL 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE —7-- -21 — 4 a 11 We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME c4T ( u!/yf4 STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE 7'I5-v Pike 1(2,�t—k 77SL% P /bl�- �=e30% :,2i��Aw Ci? =' 30 e ('reek 77sz) Ia.i61C 4E& C" uCVI 97soQ5666- &Suck, cliz ;2,:� C Cric 7 "?SD PLty)6, � STOP FOR PEOPLE110314petition Page 15 of 23 04/08/2011 16! 1 AZ2 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples FL 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE Li !i We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME Gal ,(ts,r STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE s 4 7luura��Ew„�et �6nk ee -W it �4ol l�lC&A�A..n i S I OF FOR PEOPLE 110314pMiD011 !i Page 16 of 23 C/ (f t 04/08/2011 1611A22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting /,ri\Jr PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples F4 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE 4 3 11 We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully; request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until It can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE L sr�+n b, l i e ) c r lC _ ----�? f$riaAC 7 o&— 704 Pe 6lv Cre.kGr 2p �-/ o a Gt :? �i ( 1t(30,(Crt �Mtes F 544At - 76 3 f Gu+r�((��Cir�� /�I tlo�LJCd Page 17 of 23 04/08/2011 1t)l'A22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples Fl, 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 341DB DATE q. 3 11 We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people In the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay- Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE r t9 K4(11j80 CDL 7d ) I rc BCCF GR &CF'tC_ C'440111 tL+d 71:7/ licA1le C� r Almhq Ctrz�2 7L_II t ee, _ I -) 1`iDGucvN /> t STOP �FOR PEEEOPP}L'E22032"t 1 }� 4 L t- Page 18 of 23 nnce -TWI i April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Servil 6iol Bo Regke{slar . "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by . Culligan at meeting PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples FL 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE 3 ZCi We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traff ic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SiGNA } of urr H /Vc (AyANu 7 �,�7�'�GY�r. -. FLOptj9 416L 76V 44a Cu-A 1 a0tt � .Zo Ir r r W t A�t rc r.u.� U) O I'� l In x % he i"Iq ✓Z (,...�f. i0 %J lA.�/ (�,�- 1_Ft -rw :�-'" "'."'� (l^' /� N, i /FVR n�.'t.'!f � /�' % /r65[ �• C/(- .+..�' 3oG %� — � i14, i �it..�z._ STOP FOR PEOP1E110314petltim Page 19 of 23 04/08/2011 1611 A22 April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples PL 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE Y. 3 1 I We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road si„ n be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE � MA2Y BAH: cu��Cnrl ?(cj7 PF,g r)�(' CiiftK .�GI «,�, ('1.cr,oiJ cutL�c�1N 1(��1 1/, , l l kA�gi�✓. /�i r e1 "'V \j( rtiy 16 -01 CI+s& t ( P Vim( V iG2 f��> L1duL4Js r_ 16 L._ STOP FOR PEOPLE 110314peut,w Page 20 of 23 04/08/2011 P y 16� � � kgZ Z April 6, 2011 Pelican 8a Services Division Boar i on 'Slop for People Coalition' Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples FL 34(108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 1 34108 DATE 1. 3 / f We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS S IOP 1011 PEOPLE 130314,wt'Mn V tr r. UNIT# -7u3 e 1- 63 .�1 Page 21 of 23 04/08/2011 GR�F /� � /R4tc S IOP 1011 PEOPLE 130314,wt'Mn V tr r. UNIT# -7u3 e 1- 63 .�1 Page 21 of 23 04/08/2011 161 1 A(J� April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board ReAl�r 22 "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting PETITION to Pelican Bay Services Division, Naples PL 34108 COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE 4 3 11 We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located in the Pelican Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing light sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. PRINT NAME STREET ADDRESS r k Zei�ma.n 7671 5f, s w 4) A ta it/ AtboA;1 Gt G%P. 773 y PP irM4 (w.rt f' 510P rOR PLOPLL 110314petdon UNIT# SIGNATURE Page 22 of 23 4 04/08/2011 frl i� April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session "Stop for People Coalition" Petition submitted by B. Culligan at meeting Mt1 C rt/ 0) COMMUNITY: Pebble Creek Condominium, Naples FL 34108 DATE_ __.. Li 3 0 We the undersigned residents of PELICAN BAY respectfully: request that you do not remove the STOP FOR PEOPLE in road sign currently located In the Pe #can Bay Blvd crosswalk at tram station #8 until it can be replaced with a permanent signal sign designed to stop traffic for people in the crossway and, we further request that the current in road sign be replaced with a pedestrian motion activated flashing Might sign similar to the unit installed at the crosswalk between the PHIL and the Bridgeway Condominium in Pelican Bay. Thank you for considering our request. �NTNAME STREETADDRESS UNIT# SIGNATURE /O if r11.,5 1�.1°,rµl�.�I�•�� ..0 Illt STOP FOR PEOPLE110314petnion Page 23 of 23 04/08/2011 16 1 1 AWEIVED . _ MAY - 9 2011 gosnf of County commissioners MINUTES OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOAKU SPECIAL WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS CLAM BAY MARKERS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22,2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a Special Workshop to discuss Clam Bay Markers on Tuesday, February 22, 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 absent Tom Cravens Johan Domenic absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Kyle Lukasz v Fiala _�- Geoffrey S. Gibson absent Hiller John Michael absent Coylllflg Michael Levy Coyle Theodore Raia, Jr. COletta -- John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry Lisa Resnick Also Present: Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association ( PBPOA) Lee Canning, Member, PBPOA Arthur Chase, Candidate, Pelican Bay Foundation (PBF) Board Marcia Cravens, Vice - President, Mangrove Action Group (MAG) Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates James Hoppensteadt, President, PBF Mary Johnson, President, MAG Noreen Murray, PBF Strategic Planning Committee and Candidate, PBF Board Bob Naegele, Member, PBF Board David Roellig, Pelican Bay Resident Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident AGENDA I. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Clam Bay Markers Discussion 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjournment ROLLCALL Board members attending the workshop were Chairman Dallas, Vice Chairwoman Womble, Mr. Cravens, Mr. Levy, and Dr. Raia. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Ms. Marcia Cravens stated a main use of the Clam Bay waterway is canoeing. To mark the waterway to establish a navigation channel from Seagate to the Gulf to accommodate Seagate boaters' interest would direct canoes to the Gulf and could jeopardize their safety. She recommended they use the existing canoe trail markers and existing trail. Mr. Arthur Chase said with the exception of Ms. Kathy Worley who said protecting the environment was the most important issue to consider, the consensus at the County's Clam Bay Marker meeting was to install the appropriate markers for safety. Installing the replacement canoe trail markers purchased by the Services Division would provide more safety. He was surprised to hear Dr. Wu of Seagate comment that they were promised there would not be canoe markers in the Clam Bay. Pelican Bay should not give up its rights to use th�,c-y}prt ,hpOetermine what is right by agreeing to binding arbitration. 8446 Date Item# L+-"Z W2'L 16 Il I A22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 22, 2011 Mr. David Roellig suggested for safety purposes that they drop the proposed markers directing canoes to the Gulf The term safety is misleading because there is no way to mark any channel to ensure safety. Safety depends on the operator of the vessel. Ms. Cravens added that she agreed with Ms. Worley's assessment that installing markers in Clam Bay should not pose a risk to its environment and cited historical documentation from regulatory agencies supporting the same point of view. Ms. Mary Johnson said Mr. Gary McAlpin, Director of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) made it clear that CZM would be responsible for the new marker permit and she supports the Services Division continuing as permit holder. CLAM BAY MARKERS DISCUSSION Chairman Dallas reported what happened at the February 17 County Clam Bay Marker Discussion meeting. The same materials that Mr. Feldhaus presented at the February 16 Services Division meeting were presented. He presented the Services Division's position that the proposed marker numbering system should correspond to the current canoe trail markers; use fixed posts, rather than buoys that could scour the sea bottom; suggested installing "caution manatees" and "idle speed no wake" signs; and that the Services Division continue as the steward. The County responded that they would look into the first three points, but made it clear they did not want the Services Division to be the permit holder. Dr. Wu of Seagate was "trying to find ways to make a canoe marker look like a navigational marker" and the County said they would look into it, but no one was optimistic. Chairman Dallas distributed a document that stated possible comments to make at the County's February 23 Clam Bay Marker Discussion meeting. The first point was, "We are pleased that the County has recognized that the 1998 permit does not require red /green markers..." The second point addressed the permitting process and that the County consider having the Services Division continue as steward. Ms. Cravens suggested the Services Division make a formal statement to the County that the Services Division should retain the existing canoe trail and permit, replace the discrepant and missing markers, and add additional informational markers, i.e., "local knowledge required." Ms. Linda Roth asked if CZM is the permit holder and maintains the markers, would they be able to modify the permit later and the consensus was yes. Mr. Cravens said the proposed marker plan does not address the extensive existing canoe trail marker system to the north, so there is a possibility that the existing canoe trail markers permit could be eliminated. The Services Division purchased replacement markers that have yet to be installed. "Where does that leave us ?" Chairman Dallas said the details need to be worked out and resolution something that does not "create chaos." Dr. Raia said the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan USACE /FDEP Joint Coastal Permit did not require red and green navigation markers, but other elements in the permit are equally important including maintaining the status quo and nothing be done to increase navigation. They should focus on what this Board's position is and make a recommendation, not argue with the County or Seagate about differing opinions. "We have our own signs that should have been put up two years ago." The existing Services Division canoe trail marker "permit is valid and we can put those new signs up at any time... without doing anything else." Mr. Dorrill asked who authorized Mr. McAlpin to apply for a new markers permit that CZM would oversee. ;m 161 1 A22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop to Discuss Clam Bay Markers February 22, 2011 Mr. Cravens said this Board directed Mr. Hall some time ago to install the replacement canoe trail markers purchased by the Services Division and Mr. McAlpin directed Mr. Hall not to proceed. In addition, the County would not fund the installation. Mr. Hoppensteadt said prior Services Division meeting minutes state that John Petty, the former Services Division Administrator reported to County Manager Jim Mudd and Mr. Mudd directed Mr. Petty to "stand down" Dr. Rain said red and green markers are out, but he is concerned about the County's dredging permit application because it "describes a navigable canal" and does not agree with marking a channel from Seagate to the Gulf There should be a marker to show that the Gulf is in one direction and the canoe trail continues in a different direction. Ms. Mary Johnson said they should find out what the status of the canoe trail markers to the north is. Mr. Dorrill said Mr. McAlpin does not have the authority to direct the Pelican Bay Services Division and until the Board of County Commissioners takes action, they should not concede. Acknowledging that the Services Division is the custodian of the existing canoe trail markers and permit, he suggested the Board convey to the stakeholders at the February 23 meeting an interim solution "in the name of safety" and ask if they mind if the Services Division install the replacement canoe trail markers that they purchased two years ago. Board members present concurred with Mr. Dorrill. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m. r 9 i 1 _ V ' Ilte J. DAR hair man Minutes by Lisa Resnick \3/24/2011 8:45:18 AM DM 16 II 1 A 224CEIVED MAY - 9 2011 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES fCounty Cnmmissionens WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2,2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, March 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 , Fiala Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Hiller Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John laizzo John P. Chandler Michael Levy o rllrlg Tom Cravens Theodore Raia, Jr. Coyle Johan Domenic John Baron absent Coletta Ilunter11. Hansen absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Marcia Cravens, Vice - President, Mangrove Action Group 'rim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Torre]], Hall & Associates James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Gerald Moffatt, Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee & Pelican Bay Foundation Board Candidate Robert Naegele, Jr., Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board Bob Uek, Member, Pelican Bay Foundation Board and Chairman, Strategic Planning Committee Kathy Worley, Co- Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida AGENDA I. 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. Domenic) ii. Update on Dredging and Settlement Agreement (J. Domenic) 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 Mobc Corres- Date .0 2_&\ tem # _ VZW Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes lb l l A 22 March 2, 2011 a. Executive Summary re: Brick Pavers at U.S. 41 & Pelican Bay Boulevard Crosswalk b. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 12. Audience Comments 13. Adjournment ROLLCALL With the exception of Mr. Baron and Mr. Hansen, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas amended the agenda to hear items 5ai and 5aiii first. Vice Chairwoman Womble added item 8c, Strategic Planning Committee under Committee Reports and /or Requests. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimously in avor of the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill distributed color crosswalk design plans to the Board. Mr. James Carr, engineer from Agnoli Barber, and Brundage presented general design plans and sign requirements for crosswalks along Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive, Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, and Crayton Road. The crosswalk at Ridgewood requires six signs on each side of Pelican Bay Boulevard: two at the approach, two at the stop bar and two at the crosswalk. The three -way stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard requires one sign in each direction on the east side of the intersection at Pelican Bay Boulevard, indicating where the crosswalk is. From the west side, no additional signs are required because the stop sign covers that condition. The midblock crosswalk at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Crayton Road requires six signs on each side of Pelican Bay Boulevard: two at the approach, two at the stop bar, and two at the crosswalk. Minimum sign requirements in Collier County and City of Naples vary depending upon the design, but follow the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Florida Department of 'Transportation (FDOT) standards. A stop bar is a standard requirement at a midblock crosswalk when it crosses a boulevard divided by a median with multiple lanes. A midblock crosswalk requires six signs in each direction. A full stop sign does not require signs at the approach. Regarding whether a four -way stop could be implemented on Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive, Mr. Dorrill said first, staff would have a pre - application meeting with the County, then utilize Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage to perform a warrants analysis, a standardized, administrative process used to determine if an intersection is eligible for stop signs. The County's Transportation department would make the final decision. Mr. Carr said the crosswalks design review process should be complete in approximately five weeks. Dr. Raia made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens that staff explore installing a jour -way stop sign at the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard, similar to the intersection of Oakmont Parkwa on Pelican Bay Boulevard The Board voted unanimous) in favor of the motion. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 2 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION Mr. Levy amended page 8437 to read, "...midblock crosswalks are to tram stations and the berm... ", page 8438 to read, "...at Vizcaya... ", and ...conflicts between the Services Division's permit..." 1.0.111 161 1: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes March 2, 2011 IMr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenic to approve the February 2, 2011 Pelican Baysl IServices Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None SIGNS AT NORTH TRAM STATION MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK Chairman Dallas said at the February 2 meeting, although there was no formal motion, someone suggested removing the signs in the middle of road at the North Trani station midblock crosswalk. Mr. Dorrill said following verification that the signs were not required, the signs were removed on his authority based on what he thought was the Board's consensus. The Board discussed the intent was that the signs were temporary until improvements made there and whether they should leave them out or reinstall. Later in the meeting, Vice Chairwoman Womble received an email from Mr. Bill McMillan, President of Carlton Place Association, which is situated on the east side of Pelican Bay Boulevard, expressing "sudden removal of the signs is a safety risk" and the Board should reconsider. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to reinstall the signs in the roadway at the North Tram station crosswalk until improvements made and new median cut through is in place. The Board voted unanimous! v in avor, Passaic the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COUNTY RATING OF CONDITION OF PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Mr. Dorrill said at a recent meeting, Mr. Chandler requested further rationale or analysis behind the County's pavement rating system. lie referred to the spreadsheet in the backup of asphalt ratings of roads in Pelican Bay. Roads are classified as residential, major or minor collectors, and arterials. Pelican Bay Boulevard is considered a major collector because it also serves as an arterial or highway because it "gets you from A to B." With a rating of 61 %, Pelican Bay Boulevard may be eligible for County- funded milling and resurfacing next year, although the estimated cost appears low and the cost to mill and resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard is probably closer to $1.5 million. As the Fiscal Year 2012 budget process is beginning, he suggested they meet with Commissioner Hiller soon to lobby for this project. Mr. Chandler appointed to participate with Mr. Dorrill in lobbying Commissioner Hiller. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that they have received 90% of assessment payments. 10% will be delinquent at the end of the month. They are over budget for heavy tree trimming and pruning having spent about $51 K while budgeting about $35K. Mr. Levy said right -of -way beautification payroll expenses are significantly under budget, and Mr. Lukasz explained it is due to two vacancies and payroll expenses are offset by contracting out some Sabal palm trimming services, equipment rental, and trash removal. Street sweeping appears "out of whack" because it did not include Christmas decorations, however they have since corrected it. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept the monthly financial report into the record The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. 8451 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1 6 I I A 22 March 2, 2011 UPDATE ON HEALTH OF MANGROVES Regarding the health of the white mangrove "die- off," Mr. Dorrill reported that there does not appear to be an acceptable systemic pesticide that could be applied there, however they should continue to monitor them closely. Mr. Hall reported that they are still trying to identify the boring beetles species, however the problem appears to be isolated, only affecting white mangroves that have been stressed and damaged by past weather events. They plan to monitor closely now that their contract is in place and maintenance activities authorized. STATUS OF REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK Mr. Hall reported that he and Mr. Lukasz met with the County to discuss County versus Services Division exotic removal activities. He presented a map that illustrated areas of concern and who is responsible for removing exotics in those areas. The Services Division is responsible for removing Brazilian Pepper in the area marked yellow that is within the mangrove system and Clam Pass Park boardwalk to the beach facility. STATUS OF REMOVING EXOTICS ALONG BEACH Mr. Hall reported that Coastal Zone Management (CZM) is getting cost estimates to kill exotics around the County's beach facility marked purple: Brazilian Pepper, Australian Pines, and Inkberry. The County applied for a State grant for funds to remove exotics along the beach up to the Ritz Carlton marked green: Australian Pines, Inkberry, and scattered Brazilian Pepper. The grant is currently in its second round of review and if CZM receives it, they plan to do the work. If not, the Services Division will need to decide whether they want to monitor and maintain this area. He estimates it would cost as low as $200 /acre to kill exotics in place, and as high as $6,000 /acre to remove. A rough estimate of total acreage is 12 acres and he recommended they budget $1,500 /acre. For Brazilian Pepper within the mangrove system, he recommended "killing in place" because it can do more damage to remove it. Australian Pines can be girdled and chemicals applied. Ile prefers to pull out inkberry as he finds it. Dr. Raia said on the east side of the berm there are wetlands that the Pelican Bay Independent District had deeded access and asked who is responsible for exotic removal there. Mr. Dorrill said the Services Division is responsible for "the works" of the water management system to include the berm. He presumed that they have easements to do maintenance even if they do not have a deed to the underlying parcel. Within the easement, the Services Division is the entity to perform maintenance of any element of the water management system. Mr. Hall said in the past, if exotics were found outside of the easement, they have notified the property owner that there is an issue and asked them to take care of it. Dr. Raia asked if the easements granted to the Pelican Bay Independent District are the same as Pelican Bay Services Division easements. Mr. Dorrill said yes. Ms. Marcia Cravens asked if the area along the edge of the mangroves between the "back dune and the scrubs" is part of the Natural Resources Protection Act area (NRPA). The new channel maintenance permit covers the NRPA area and the Board should consider controlling exotics there. Mr. Hall said the new permit is within the NRPA, but does not cover any upland areas; maintenance is for the wetland areas only. They do monitor the surrounding area to control exotics within the mangroves. The state grant that CZM applied for would address the upland areas. 8452 Pplivan Rnv Crrvirec 1>ivisinn Rnard Rpgular Sessinn Meeting Minuted i; i 1 A 2 2 March 2, 2011 Mr. Dorrill said if CZM does not receive the state grant to address the Australian Pines along the beach they are planning not to do anything. If that happens, the Services Division might consider spending some of its Clam Bay funds to control exotics there. PROPOSED PROJECT TO REPAIR EROSION ALONG SOUTH BERM Mr. Dorrill said the Budget Committee asked staff to identify major capital improvements that are not part of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Capital projects are considered to cost $50,000 or more or expected life of seven years or more. Staff estimated the Services Division's project to repair erosion along the south berm is estimated to cost $25,000. The Foundation's south berm project to replace the asphalt pathway is estimated to cost an additional $150,000. He asked for Board direction on how to proceed because the Foundation owns the land on which the berm sits and asphalt top, but is also an asset of the Services Division as one of "the works" of the water management system. Mr. Hoppensteadt said the Foundation would like to replace the cart path on top of the berm, but in order to do this, the Services Division as `keeper of the water management system" of the berm, the Services Division needs to reestablish the slope and integrity of that structure first. 'I he project would require shutting down sections of the berm and done over the summer. The work done would restore what is there that has eroded. Gaining a two -foot shoulder on each side is incidental to fixing the problem. Mr. Dorrill said no one is questioning the need for maintenance, but to what extent does maintenance stop and enhancement begin requiring a modification of the existing water management permit. He would need to verify and compare the original construction permit with the recommended options. In his opinion, improvements are part of a private platted parcel that at one time cleared to include mangroves, but they do not need a permit to trim mangroves in an existing right -of -way or airspace above that right -of -way line. I le aims to have the project done during the rainy season and complete by September. Vice Chairwoman Womble asked if staff could look into getting a Federal grant for berm work. Mr. Dorrill said they could ask the engineer about grants for demonstration -type funding, but in his opinion, it is unlikely. He asked the Board for a recommendation and authorization for a budget amendment for more funds. He would check with purchasing whether they could utilize the fill and grade subcontractor working on Oil Well Road. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens that staff take necessary action to move forward with Wilson Miller's Option 1 to restore the south berm to the original permitter) cross- section and authorized a budget amendment to transfer funds to complete the project. The Board voted unanimously in a vor, passing the motion. OTHER 2012 CAPITAL PROJECTS Chairman Dallas reviewed other 2012 capital projects including refurbishing street sign posts with automotive grade clear coat for $150,000 over three years at $50,000 per year, and lake bank enhancements for $85,000. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT UPDATE ON PBSD ELECTION PROCESS Chairman Dallas reported that two members were reappointed and there is one vacancy. The deadline to apply is March 8 and if they do not get any applicants, they would re- advertise the position for another 30 days. If time permits, the Foundation would send an email blast. FOUNDATION AD HOC CLAM BAY COMMITTEE UPDATE RESULTS OF MEETINGS ON CLAM BAY MARKERS Chairman Dallas reported that the next County Clam Bay Marker meeting is March 15. He reviewed the summary of Mr. McAlpin's discussion with Mr. Ryan Moreau, Planner for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 8453 161 �A2 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes March 2, 2011 (FFWCC). Mr. Moreau would evaluate the complete plan and consensus of the community when FFWCC receives the permit application. March I, Chairman Dallas met with Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Hall to discuss coordinating the proposed markers with the existing canoe trail markers and agreement on the location of installation. They discussed who should hold the permits) and possible agreement that allows for legal recourse if changes made to the permit, or signs not maintained. Mr. McAlpin prefers that the County hold the permit. Dr. Raia prefers that the Services Division hold the permit because they have demonstrated that they are good custodians. The County has demonstrated otherwise. He recommended they retain the current existing canoe trail permit. Any additional signage should not extend wider than the marker sign and should have round edges. The upper Clam Bay markers should start with #1. Mr. Hoppensteadt said the Foundation is holding a special meeting on March I I to discuss the subject of the Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee. Mr. Domenic said it is his understanding that they are discussing a matter that the Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee has not considered and the original permit had "tilt motor" requirements on the signs. Shoals should not be marked with buoys. Chairman Dallas and Mr. Hall agreed they could likely get posts approved to use instead of buoys. Ms. Cravens said, "in the past, there has always been a courtesy given to people who raise their hands and may want to speak on an agenda item. This PBSD /MSTBU meeting has always been somewhat informal compared to other advisory boards. If this is going to be a situation where if the public of Pelican Bay or outside people who are attending want to speak on an agenda item and you are not going to recognize a hand being raised, I respectfully request that there be speaker slips available to the public who want to address agenda items that you may be taking action on because 1 don't feel that this follows the spirit of public meetings when you don't allow the public to make comments on agenda items that you are going to take action on." Ms. Cravens referred to the email she distributed to the Board regarding Mr. Moreau's recommendations and alleged that Mr. McAlpin is "misrepresenting" recommendations made by FFWCC. Mr. Bob Naegele said he prefers the Services Division hold the marker permit. He does not believe that the Foundation wants the responsibility or liability. Regarding the subject of adding a member to the Ad Hoc Clam Bay Committee, he intends to offer the motion on March 11. Chairman Dallas asked the Board whether they wanted to hold a special meeting to discuss the Services Division's position on markers before the March 15 County marker meeting. Dr. Rain said a workshop is a waste of time because they cannot vote on motions and now is a good time. The Ad Hoc Committee has not met and if they get someone appointed to this committee , it may not have an effect on the outcome. Referring to the summary discussion between Mr. Moreau and Mr. McAlpin, Mr. Domenic questioned whether the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) defines the waterway as navigable and Dr. Raia said the document is misstated. The Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) defines it as navigable. Dr. Raia said he would like to formulate what the Services Division position is for Clam Bay markers and they should discuss developments from the February 17 County meeting including the position that signage is needed for safety. "Does removing the designation `non - navigable' from the NOAA chart #11430 promote safety? Will dredging the maximum promote safety? Does ignoring the permit requirement to retain the status quo and not increase navigability promote safety? Does having the County control permitting of signs promote safety? Will this Board recognize its ;m Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 16 1 1 A 22 March 2, 2011 responsibility and politely remind our County Commissioner that the 1998 permit did not allow any type of lateral navigation sign, it required maintaining the recreation status quo, permitted no increase in navigability, already permitted signage being sought now, and even permitted clearing of mangroves that obstructed the canoe trail, but does not allow improving navigability for motor craft." He made a motion that this Board recognize these elements in the permit and inform Commissioner Fuller. Mr. laizzo seconded Dr. Raia's motion. Vice Chairwoman Womble referred to Mr. Dorrill's comment made at the Services Division's February 22 workshop regarding whose authority is Mr. McAlpin going forward to stop the Services Division from installing the markers. "That is our hole in the bucket. Is there a way to utilize that on March 15 ?" Mr. Dorrill said he believes so. He offered to provide the history to Commissioner Hiller and discuss further with County Manager Ochs whether the Services Division could replace the existing Canoe Trail markers to include missing poles then he would need Board direction. The last time he made that inquiry he was told to "stand down." Dr. Raia said he is not insisting that they do away with the recommended signage. What he wants to establish is that "what is lurking around the corner is dredging." It appears this is going to be a concession to Seagate to increase their navigability, rather than dredging the minimum amount needed to protect the mangroves. tie repeated his motion. The permit required the status quo for recreation and no increase in navigability. That should drive whatever dredging is done, otherwise it is a violation of that permit. Several Board members said the current discussion is not about dredging. Dr. Raia said he is clarifying why he wants the 1998 permit observed. Dredging did come up at the meeting on February 17. If they do not recognize the limitations placed on this permit, they will find themselves agreeing to "excess dredging." The 1998 permit made it clear about the status quo for recreation and no increase in navigability. Vice Chairwoman Womble said Dr. Raia was referring to a comment made by Mr. John Sorey on February 17 regarding dredging. Mr. Sorey said common sense should be involved in any kind of a NRPA and dredging was never offered to be undertaken by Seagate. The County has to be responsible for the maintenance and he wants to craft a solution with all parties. That was the discussion about dredging. Dr. Rain said he is just trying to establish parameters of how much dredging one does and the permit spelled it out. Mr. Chandler said he thought the intent of this discussion was to provide the Chairman with a clear direction as to what the Board supports in the way of signs in Clam Bay, which is the sole subject under discussion on March 15. He added that Dr. Raia's motion is "broad and not on the mark." Dr. Raia said that since it was his last meeting, he thought he would give one last try to set the record straight and give some guidance to the Chairman. If they sit idly by, they let the other side assume their position is the right one. He said the motion is asking the Board to send a message to Commissioner Hiller that it is "our position that the permit and all those things that I just mentioned states that. We accept the wording in the permit. This was our permit issued by our forefathers and finally came to fruition while we were on watch and I think we dropped the ball, but having said that, let's let our Commissioner know that we support" the 1998 permit. Mr. Chandler said that is succinct and supported it. Chairman Dallas said the motion does not provide him guidance on the markers. Dr. Raia said the Canoe Trail markers permit issued in 2000 clarified the 1998 permit on signage and "clearly states that this authorization clarifies the navigation question" 8455 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minute 6 I 1 I , 22 March 2, 2011 Dr. Rain made a motion, .second by Mr. laizzo, that the Pelican Bat' Services Division Board inform Commissioner Georgia Hiller who represents Pelican Bar, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board supports the °1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan U.S. Armv Corp. of Engineers (USACE) /Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) joint coastal permit" because it, 1. did not allow any type of lateral navigation signs; 2. required the recreation status quo be maintained; 3. did not permit an increase in navigability; 4. permitted the signage that is currently being .sought; 5. permitted clearing of mangroves that obstructed the canoe trail; and 6. did not permit improving navigability for motor craft. The Board voted 8 -1 in favor, passing the motion. Dr. Raia made a motion that the markers north of proposed marker #10 start with #1. Mr. Chandler clarified that the markers should start with # 1 when reaching the bend in the Pass. Dr. Raia said, "Yes because there are two different signs and otherwise you are going from #10 to 913 to 412 and that could be more confusing and I'd rather start again with different signs, so that people know they are really different." Mr. Chandler seconded Dr. Raia's motion. The Board's consensus was that Dr. Raia's suggestion would require obtaining a new permit. They discussed whether they should support the Services Division retaining the existing canoe trail markers permit, and possibilities if they were no longer the permit holder, and if the Foundation held the permit. Ms. Cravens suggested the Board not take action on recommendations not supported by FFWCC. Dr. Raia made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler, that they renumber the markers north of proposed marker #10 to start with #1. The Board voted 4 in favor (Messrs. Chandler, Gibson, laizzo, and Dr. Raia) to 5 opposed (Messrs. Dallas, Cravens, Domenic, Levv, and Ms. Womble opposed) and the motion failed. Chairman Dallas said he still was trying to get advice as to what to say their position is on March 15. He said what is being proposed seem reasonable if they could have some guarantees that if implemented, are maintained and not changed "while they weren't looking." Mr. Levy said he agreed and whatever decision made should not change. Chairman Dallas asked the Board what their opinion of the proposed additional "caution — local knowledge required" signs is. Dr. Raia suggested that the proposed additional `caution - local knowledge required" signs not extend any further than the marker and have rounded edges. In his opinion, it is not necessary to put these signs on every marker. Mr. Cravens said he does not like the location of proposed marker # 12 because it leads people out to the Gulf. The proposed plan marks a channel from Seagate to the Gulf of Mexico, but that is not what the existing canoe trail does. The existing Canoe Trail marks the path from Clam Pass Park canoe launch site through Clam Bay. It does not mark a path to the Gulf. Mr. Levy asked what they propose they do with markers #11 and 412. They will have to compromise. Vice Chairwoman Womble said they discussed additional signs that would not require a permit, placed at the edge of the waterway that point, i.e., arrows that indicate where the Gulf is. Dr. Raia made a motion that they accept the County's proposed marker plan as presented with changes. The additional "caution - local knowledge required" informational signs should be no wider than the marker and have rounded edges, and place these signs on the first, last, and perhaps every third marker. No one seconded Dr. Raia's motion. :M Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611'22 March 2, 2011 Mr. Chandler said according to Mr. Moreau's February 15 email to Ms. Pamela Keyes of CZM, he recommends placing the "caution— local knowledge required" informational signs at the mouth of the pass, not advocating they be placed on the numbered markers. Ms. Cravens said Mr. Moreau's email is clear as to what FFWCC guidelines are, however if there is strong enough consensus from all those involved to overcome those guidelines then they might achieve it. The Services Division is helping those people who want to establish a navigation channel look like there is consensus from all stakeholders to do so. Vice Chairwoman Womble agreed and said in her opinion and based on comments made February 17, "It appears we are simply assuaging the feelings of Dr. Wu and the Dykeman's. More than anything, we are allowing them a chance to speak, to try to find signs that might fit the situation and be okay, but it is not going to happen ..." because the authorizing authorities "will not allow the signs they want, so this is a waste of time." Dr. Raia referred to a comment Dr. Wu made regarding canoeists believe that motor boats are not allowed in Clam Bay. The reason for that is there is a sign at the canoe launch stating motor craft is prohibited. They should replace the sign with one that states "caution - ordinance 96 -16 permits motor craft, but cannot be launched there." Chairman Dallas said they seem to be going in circles. Mr. Chandler made a motion that it is the Services Division position that cautionary signs should not be placed on markers in Clam Bay with the exception of the start and end. Mr. Cravens seconded Mr. Chandler's motion. Chairman Dallas said they should recognize that what they are doing is subverting what the Foundation is trying to do. In his opinion, if informational signs are not placed on all markers, then Seagate and the City would not go for it. Dr. Raia said someone made a comment that the Services Division is not going along with the Foundation. He does not recall the Foundation ever discussing or voting on this subject. Chairman Dallas said whatever the outcome he hopes that the Foundation supports it. Dr. Raia said the Services Division should be consistent in their position. What the Board of County Commissioners votes on is what they will get. Ms. Cravens said the County's proposed marker plan has not been presented to the Pelican Bay community or been vetted by the Foundation. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens that the Services Division does not want "caution — local knowledge required" informational signs placed on numbered markers in Clam Bay with the exception of the start and end The Board voted 8 -1 in fervor, passing the motion. Chairman Dallas opposed. Ms. Cravens said the Board did not give the Chairman Direction about the proposed twelve markers. They have only addressed the informational markers. Mr. Dorrill interrupted her, "Ms. Cravens, if you are going to continue to shout from the audience, over your opposition that you never get heard, 1 don't know if anything you've said is on the tape this afternoon, so if you want to wait and be recognized" and if the Chairman "doesn't' recognize you, to wait until the public comment at the end, otherwise I'm obligated to make sure you are on the tape. I don't know if) on are ever on the tape if you just sit there and talk" Ms. Cravens suggested speaker slips. Chairman Dallas said he would like to avoid speaker slips. Mr. Cravens said they should retain the existing Canoe Trail permit as is with the Services Division as permit holder for all of Clam Bay. 8457 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes March 2, 2011 161 1 1,k 22 Dr. Raia made a motion that the Services Division remains the permit holder of the existing Canoe Trail markers and other signage in Clain Bay. Mr. McAlpin will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and the Commissioners will make the decision. Commissioner Hiller can argue from the point that the Services Division has been good custodians and have been trying to replace the signs for two years. Mr. Cravens seconded Dr. Raia's motion. Vice Chairwoman Womble said the Services Division has discussed this subject many times and Commissioner Hiller can point out how many times this Board has reiterated its responsibilities, and the fact that the Commissioners themselves for years have told this Board how wonderful it has been as "monitors and maintainers of the mangroves, canoe trail, and Clam Bay, period." Dr. Raia made a motion, second ly Mr. Cravens that the Services Division remains the permit holder o the existing Canoe Trail marker permit and other signage in Clam Bay. The Board voted 8 -1 in favor, passing the motion. Chairman Dallas opposed. UPDATE ON DREDGING AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Chairman Dallas said there is nothing to report. DORRILL MANAGEMENT GROUP CONTRACT RENEWAL The Board discussed whether to renew Mr. Dorrill's, Dorrill Management Group (DMG) contract. They acknowledged that he received an increase in compensation last year because he was attending additional Community Improvement Plan and Independent District meetings and they discussed whether the situation is the same. Staff said they have to notify Purchasing whether the Board plans to renew now, and verify the current terms of the contract and the Board decided to discuss terms at the next meeting. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenic to renew Dorrill Management's Group contract, but discuss exact terms the April 6 meeting. The Board voted unanimously in favor, assia the motion. ADJOURNMENT IlChairman Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion and the meetinje adjourned at 4:34 .m. K tth . Da as, Tlairman J Minutes by Lisa Resnick \3/24/20118:46:32 AM :M 16 (11 A 2 2 RECEIVED MAY - 9 2011 Board of County Commission BUDGET COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES MARCH 18,2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Friday, March 18, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Budget Committee Members Michael Levy, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson (excused absencelllef �'-- John Chandler John laizzo Keith J. Dallas Henning Coyle Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Colette W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick AGENDA I. 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 ROLLCALL All Committee members were present with the exception of Mr. Gibson, excused. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 8, 2011 MEETING MINUTES �Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Dallas to approve the February 8, 2011 Budget Committee meeting minutes as presented. The Committee voted unanimously in favor, passing the, AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Joe Doyle referred to comments he made at the February 8 Budget Committee meeting regarding funding some Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects by utilizing an ad valorem method. He acknowledged that although funds have already been collected for Phase I CIP projects on a non -ad valorem basis, "there is no reason why those Phase I projects could not be funded on an ad valorem basis with this year's budgeting." Chairman Levy said the funds they have were collected using a combination of non -ad valorem and ad valorem methods. Mr. Doyle said they should delineate non -ad valorem from ad valorem collected funds and use ad valorem funds for Phase I crosswalks, roadway landscape and irrigation, and Myra Janco Daniels pathways. He suggested they not ask current residents to fund long -term CIP Phase 11 projects that they may not be around to enjoy, but to utilize other financing methods, such as bonds, or by raising millage. In his opinion, the current uniform assessment methodology Misc. ones. shifted the burden from the "richer households to the poorer households:' 1115 Item #: 'p7.4 _Va22 161 1 2 Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 18, 2011 Mr. Dorrill said historically, the only millage -based funding have been for street lighting, and until approximately six years ago, security. Chairman Levy said the Services Division undertaking pathway and crosswalk projects is unprecedented. Previously the County was responsible for these projects. Because they are new projects, he suggested the Committee discuss considering ad valorem and non -ad valorem funding methods. Mr. Dorrill said they are discussing how to fiord capital improvements, not maintenance. Historically, the County has not used ad valorem taxes for maintenance; they have used a combination of gas and sales tax. The tentative budget is predicated on no change in assessment method. The capital improvement budget for next year is primarily assessment - based with carry forward cash that is on -hand. To Mr. Levy's point, it would be appropriate to adopt a separate five -year capital improvement schedule as part of next year's budget and ask the full Board whether they want to use the assessment method or millage -based method to fund any shortfalls over the five -year theoretical capital improvement plan. There needs to be a "rational nexus" between the money that is paid and the benefit received. In theory, increasing millage and applying it to commercial interests, i.e., Waterside Shops, Naples Grande, and Ritz Carlton, to pay for benefits that are primarily residential, is `really pushing the envelope ". The current uniform assessment method, assigning Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) to commercial and institutional interests is a fair method. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Dallas to recommend to the Board to not expand the use of ad valorem taxes beyond their present use. The Committee voted 2 for (Messrs. Chandler and Dallas) — 2 against Chairman Levy and Mr. /aizzo) and no action was taken. Consensus was to discuss ad valorem and non -ad valorem funding methods at the April 6 Regular Session. REVIEW OF TENTATIVE FV 2012 BUDGET Staff presented the tentative FY 2012 budget. Due to an increase of $1,400 per person, or about 12% for health insurance, but offset by new hires in two - entry -level positions, net Personal Services costs increased by $5,100. The cost for fuel (gasoline) increased by about 50% or from $3.15 /gallon to $4.65 /gallon. For the fourth year in a row, salaries and wages will not increase. Keeping 2 &1/2 months operating reserve, $302,000 carry forwarded from funds 109 and 778 and transferred into the Capital Projects fund 322 for hardscape renovations or CIP projects, which increases the amount available for CIP projects from $2.4 million to $2.7 million. $85,000 was set aside for lake bank improvement projects. $50,000 was set aside for traffic sign renovations. $118,000 will carry forward from Clam Bay fund 320 reserves to total $154,300 for the South Berm project. Chairman Levy acknowledged there are no reserves in the Clam Bay fund 320. Assuming the Services Division matches the amount it receives from fund I 11, which last year was $35,000, they would not have sufficient funds for Clam Bay projects and would need an additional $126,000. Mr. Lukasz said last year they transferred $65,000 from Clam Bay reserves to Capital Projects, leaving $128,000 and for FY 2012 they are transferring $1 18,000 for the south berm project. Mr. Dorrill said as a tentative budget strategy, they could ask the County to match the Services Division "dollar for dollar" or $80,000 from fund I 11. The Budget Committee agreed with that course of action. Mr. Lukasz said staff has not yet received indirect costs from the County, so they assumed last year's numbers. Some indirect costs are service driven, so there may be a reduction. 1116 161 1 A22 Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 18, 2011 Mr. Dallas said the assessment remained the same and asked if that is because they are assuming valuation will remain the same. Mr. Lukasz said the County expects total valuation to decrease 3% countywide, although Pelican Bay is generally less, so they assumed the same valuation in millage for street lighting. They would obtain the certified tax roll from the Property Appraiser in May. The millage rate has dropped, but if needed, they could increase it. Mr. Dallas suggested increasing the millage rate to start saving for future street lighting projects reserves. In his opinion, the street lighting fund is not a capital improvement but a replacement reserve. Chairman Levy said in the past, excess street lighting funds have been transferred to capital. Mr. Dallas said if they are going to set up a reserve fund for street lighting, then they should set up a separate account and Mr. Lukasz said they could set up a separate account in capital fund 322 designated for future street lighting reserves. The Budget Committee agreed with that course of action. Mr. Lukasz said there was a $4,200 or about $25% increase in Information Technology (IT) charges and the total IT charges are $19,400. The IT department fees are based upon the number of workstations and services calls, similar to the County's indirect cost methodology. Mr. Dorrill said the only change in IT service he recalls is that they purchased a laptop that IT does not support, and asked what services they receive for almost $5,000 per workstation. software. Mr. Lukasz said IT provides the intranet network, and other County system software, i.e., SAP and Govmax Mr. Dorrill said he would research the IT cost increase and report. Mr. Lukasz said there is a new line item to repair the Oakmont lake bank bike path of $6,000. Due to the new permit, there was an increase in Clam Bay costs, which includes the new Turrell Hall &. Associates contract for engineering and consultant fees. Water testing falls under the water management budget. Maintenance facility renovations previously budgeted under capital are mostly complete, therefore only $5,100 was budgeted under operations, building repairs and maintenance vs. $40,000 that had been budgeted last year. Mulching requirement costs decreased by $14,000 by using alternative material on the U.S. 41 berm. Tree trimming costs increased by $27,700 for contracting out Sabal palms, but offset by reductions in temporary labor ($14,400) equipment rental ($3,000) and garbage hauling ($10,500). Staff made changes or additions to account codes to better clarify expenditures. Landscape incidentals code, i.e., tools and accessories added offsetting $2,500 of Other Operating Supplies. Flood Control Replanting Program was changed to Landscape Materials, i.e., "annuals" and other replacement plants. Road and Bike Path Repairs and Maintenance code added to track Oakmont Lake Bank pathways. Building Maintenance and Repair code added under operations. Mulch requirement added to track pine straw, which was previously budgeted under Landscape Materials. White Goods code, previously used for public relations was removed and renamed as Emergency Maintenance and Repairs, i.e., contingency. Photo processing code, previously Other Contractual Services in Clam Bay added to track aerial photography of Clam Bay. To keep the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) assessment rate the same as last year ($370.63) they budgeted $7,300 into capital projects. This amount will increase based upon how much is received from fund I 11. Ms. McCaughtry said she expects receipt of FY 2011 fund I 1 I money in the amount $35,000 to post to the system by March 21. 1117 161 1 A 22 , Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 18.2011 Mr. Dallas referred to page 4 of the Operating Budget and asked staff where the Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) of $340,860 is documented. Ms. McCaughtry said the actual number is received post -audit from the County's Budget department. Chairman Levy said the FY 2011 budget book contains projections because actuals are "after the fact" Mr. Dallas asked staff to resend the actuals for FY 2011. Mr. Lukasz said staff will set aside two -and -one -half months operating reserve of $152,512 and capital equipment replacement of $32,725 in FY 2012 budget in operating fund 109 under water management. Mr. Dallas asked staff to add the actuals column to page 11. Mr. Dallas referred to the negative net income of $276,643 in Clam Bay fund 320 on page 12. Mr. Lukasz explained that the $276,643 is carry forward from FY 2010 and is being used to fund the FY 2011 budget, including the $1 18,000 budget amendment to do the south berm project. Mr. Dallas referred to page 15, and there are no projected funds available. Mr. Lukasz explained that in capital projects, money not spent carries forward. He referred to page 14. Other Contractual Services Funding Requirements are $45,000 and $45,000 is available in the FY 2011 budget and will carry forward, so projected funds required are zero because no additional funds are required. Photo processing is a new line item in FY 2012 budget, so there are no net funds available to carry forward in the FY 2011 budget and net funds required are $7,500. Mr. Lukasz said staff kept the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) rate the same in FY 2012 as it was in FY 2011. Chairman Levy referred to page I at the top and said to keep the ERU rate the same in FY 2012 as it was in FY 2011, the total Assessment or Ad valorem Tax Levy needs to total $3,097,700 across all funds. Mr. Dallas confirmed with Mr. Lukasz that once the Commissioners approve the budget, they can spend funds in capital on CIP projects. Mr. Dorrill said about $100,000 is available for vehicle replacement budgeted under community beautification operating capital. Mr. Lukasz added that the vehicle replacement reserve is not quite at 25% of replacement value. DISCUSSION OF LOW WATER DEMAND LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Mr. Chandler referred to Mr. Dallas' cash flow spreadsheets where he noticed that the largest Phase 11 CIP expense was for low water demand landscape and irrigation improvement projects. He cited Wilson Miller project D4 -B at a cost of $1.6 million on Pelican Bay Boulevard and $382,000 on Gulf Park Drive. Mr. Lukasz recommended replacing the subsurface irrigation heads with low volume heads. Mr. Dallas said most of the cost is for the landscaping, not the irrigation improvements. Yes, there would be water savings over time, but his understanding of the intent of this project was for aesthetics and for safer line of sight, not as a cost- benefit situation. They could save funds over time and implement the project in phases. Mr. Chandler summarized that they could save a significant amount of money and the benefits would be that they would have better looking landscaping with some color. Mr. Dorrill said compared to the U.S. 41 medians, the shade canopy affects the medians in Pelican Bay and plants are fighting for sunlight. They are engaging the services of Ellin Goetz, a landscape architect to work on some design concepts with color for these projects. 1118 16 1 A 22 Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 18, 2011 Consensus was that it would become more desirable to make pathways improvements on both the east and west sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard, as well as Gulf Park Drive. Mr. Lukasz said in some cases, such as to meet ADA elevation standard, crosswalk installation could require pathway modifications. projects. Mr. Dorrill said staff would need Board direction to proceed with the selection of a civil engineer for pathways Chairman Levy said they should discuss the status of CIP projects at the April 6 meeting. Mr. Dorrill said he would have crosswalk construction plans to show the Board and prepare to advertise for sealed bids. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF REDUCED TAXABLE VALUES UPON PROPOSED STREET LIGHTING RESERVE Mr. Chandler said he understood that the assessed property valuation in Collier County would decline significantly countywide and if this affects Pelican Bay, they should bear in mind they could consider a higher ad valorem millage rate. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) NON -AD VALOREM AND AD VALOREM CASH FLOW SPREADSHEETS Mr. Dallas reviewed the CIP non -ad valorem cash flows over five years additional contribution to capital is $26.50 or 7.1% of the current rate of $370.63. The second sheet showed CIP non -ad valorem cash flows over five years additional contribution to capital is $50 or 13.5 9io of the current rate of $370.63. The third sheet shows CIP ad valorem cash flows over 15 years that proposes increasing the millage rate to 0.0292 or 55% of the current rate of 0.0531, which is about$41. Chairman Levy said that when they make a recommendation to the Board to approve the FY 2012 budget, they should include a recommendation to approve an additional non -ad valorem contribution to capital and a millage increase. Consensus was to recommend an additional non -ad valorem contribution of $26.50. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Dorrill said the Budget Committee's next meeting is scheduled for April 5, the day prior to the April 6 Regular Session. The Committee decided to cancel this meeting and reschedule for Monday, April 1 I at 2 p.m. Mr. laizzo made a motion, .second by Me Chandler to adjourn and the Committee voted unanimous! to adjourn at 4:11 p .m. Michael Levy, Chairman 1119 Minutes by Lisa Resnick \4/7/2011 3:24:05 PM 1 A ECEIVED MAY - 9 2011 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNAMT commi.=onaro Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive • Suite 605 • Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (239) 597 -4502 TO: Ian Mitchell, Executive Mana er to the BCC FROM: W. Neil Dorrill, Administr RE: Pelican Bay Services Divisi oard Meeting Agendas and Minutes DATE: May 6, 2011 Enclosed for BCC approval are the following Pelican Bay Services Division Board documents: 02/16/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop Minutes 02/22/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop Minutes 03/02/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 03/18/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Budget Committee Minutes 04/06/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda 04/06/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 04/11/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Budget Committee Agenda 04/11/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Budget Committee Minutes 04/12/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop Agenda 04/12/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop Minutes 05/04/11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Please confirm receipt by signing below and returning this memorandum to: W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 FAX: 239 -597 -4502 Thank you. The BCC office has received the Pelican Bay Services Division Board documents as listed above. Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to the BCC Date C- 161 1 A 22 RE MAY - CEIVED BnAre of County Commlasloners PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples. The following members were present: F' I � Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John P. Chandler Tom Cravens Johan Domenic Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager la a Hiller �- Geoffrey S. Gibson Hennin !G John laizzo Coyle Michael Levy Wen John Baron Hunter H.Ilansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association James Carr, , P.E., Civil Design Engineer, Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc Marcia Cravens, Vice - President, Mangrove Action Group Ellin Goetz, Fellow American Society of Landscape Architects, Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects, Inc. Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management Kathy Worley, Co- Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida AGENDA I. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 16, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session b. February 22, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session C. March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4. Presentation of Proposed Clam Bay Markers Update (G. iLlcAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal lone Management) 5. Audience Participation 6. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman 7. Administrator's Report a. Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Update i. Presentation Proposal for Intersection Bull Nose Landscape Design Work (E,. Goetz, Goetz -t Stropes) ii. Presentation of Crosswalk Construction Drawings (J Carr, Agnoli, Barber, Brundage) iii. Review & Approval of Crosswalk Construction Drawings & Timing iv. Update on Possibility of Four -Way Stop at Ridgewood Drive & Pelican Bay Boulevard V. Development of Rating System for All Pelican Bay Pathways (K. Dallas) vi. Discussion of Timing of Pathway Redevelopment (K. Dallas) b. Monthly Financial Report C. Update on I lealth of Mangroves IT Hall) d. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach (K. Lukasa, T Hall) e. South Berm Renovation i. Discussion & Approval of Proposal ii. Discussion of Logistics klibc. COrreS: iii. Discussion of Required Permits (K.. Lukasz) 8. Chairman's Report Date<__A % a. Renewal of Dorrill Management Agreement i. Review & Discussion of Anticipated Hours Item N W'L-3- 8459 161 1 A 22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 6, 2011 b. Announcements 9. Community Issues a. Lease of parking space to the Pelican Bay Foundation (J. Chandler) b. Discussion of Possible Caution Signage for Bicycles (J. Domenie) 10. Committee Reports a. Budget Committee b. Strategic Planning Committee Update 11. Old Business 12. New Business 13. Audience Comments 14. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 15. Adjournment ROLLCALL With the exception of Mr. Hansen, all Board members present. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the agenda. The Board voted unanimously in avor, assin the motion. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 16.2011 SPECIAL SESSION Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the February 16, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session meeting minutes. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. FEBRUARY 22.2011 SPECIAL SESSION Page 8447 was amended to read, "Chairman Dallas distributed..." Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie approve the February 22, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in avor, assin ===on. MARCH 2.2011 REGULAR SESSION Chairman Dallas informed the Board that prior to the meeting, Dr. Raia had made suggested corrections to the draft minutes however the suggestions were in contrast to what he actually said. Board consensus was to approve what Dr. Raia actually said as quoted in the minutes. Page 8450 was amended striking "mid- block" to read, "...crosswalk..." Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the March 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor, pass in the motion. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED CLAM BAY MARKERS BY GARY MCALPIN, DIRECTOR, COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL. ZONE MANAGEMENT Mr. Gary McAlpin, Director, Collier County Coastal Zone Management (CZM) gave an up -to -date presentation of the proposed Clam Bay markers plan. January 13, 2011, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners directed Mr. MIX 161 IA22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 6, 2011 McAlpin's staff to not move forward with navigational markers and get all stakeholders together to develop a "marking scheme" for Clam Bay that would meet everyone's needs. Stakeholders included representatives from the City of Naples, Seagate community, Pelican Bay Foundation, Pelican Bay Services Division, Mangrove Action Group, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Audubon Society, and CZM staff. Two stakeholder meetings were held on February 17, 2011 and March 15, 2011. The proposal is for informational markers to be installed in Clam Bay. Three permits would be issued. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) would be the lead permitting agency. The U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) would also review and issue separate permits. They will not need a permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). After review by the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) and'fourist Development Council (TDC) Mr. McAlpin plans to recommend the proposal presented today and moving forward with the permitting application process to the Board of County Commissioners tentatively in May. FFWCC has established that Clam Bay is a "multiuse channel" for kayakers, canoeists, power- boaters and swimmers and the marker proposal does not deny any type of user access. The twelve markers will route a canoe trail from Seagate to Clain Pass. "Installation of navigational markers is not on the table." A "local knowledge required" (LKR) sign will be associated with each canoe trail marker stating, `Clam Pass - Caution Local Knowledge Required - Keep Lookout for Boaters and Swimmers ". Two LKR signs will be placed on the beach on each side of the mouth of the Pass and two LKR signs placed on both sides of the Clam Pass Park tram bridge. Although shown as buoys in the current proposal, the intent is to apply for and install five markers identifying seagrass and shoals on fixed posts. CZM staff believes the proposed marker plan satisfies all stakeholders' needs. The Seagate community does not endorse the plan because they believe that canoe trail markers do not "assure, demonstrate, or protect the Seagate community's historical boating rights ". Seagate is also concerned that the LKR signs do not adequately protect boaters "from negative interaction with the local beach -going community" and "navigational signs would do a much betterjob relative to this." Mr. McAlpin will meet with Mr. Ochs, Mr. Dorrill, Chairman Dallas, and Collier County staff on April 7 to resolve who should hold the permit. It is his understanding that the Services Division supports the plan with the exception of installing LKR signs on all markers and wants to maintain control of the permit. Mr. McAlpin explained that the proposal only concerns the marker system that is south of the Pass, not the current canoe trail markers #13 - #32 that are north of the Pass. Mr. Domenic expressed concerns about the LKR signs in Outer Clain Bay including `look out for swimmers' because it could create a liability. Mr. McAlpin responded that the regulatory agencies control the wording in the signage and require uniformity. Mr. Domenic said in his opinion, the canoe trail permit for thirty -two markers currently in effect should remain and be modified to include the two markers proposed at the mouth of the Pass and hopes this alternative is brought forward at the meeting on April 7. Mr. McAlpin does not know what they will decide, but with Messrs. Dorrill and Dallas attending the April 7 meeting, the Services Division would have adequate representation. Ms. Marcia Cravens reported that she spoke with Mr. Ryan Moreau of FFWCC earlier today. Mr. Moreau agreed there could be two permits: one for a south canoe trail and another for a north canoe trail, but the current proposal would void the existing canoe trail markers permit. She supports modifying the existing canoe trail markers permit by renumbering the markers and placing #1 at the Clam Pass concession canoe launch and applying to the appropriate agency for a Florida "Blueway" designation to encourage ecotourism. :H• 1611 A22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 6, 2011 Mr. Chester Phillips, Heron resident said he recognizes Seagate's boating rights, but from his understanding, large wakes could damage mangroves and asked whether Clam Bay was designated an idle speed no -wake zone. Mr. Cravens said Clam Bay is designated an idle speed no -wake zone to protect manatees, not mangroves. Mr. McAlpin confirmed that Clam Bay is an idle speed no -wake zone by County ordinance. FFWCC does not allow local ordinances on State signs. The ordinance is posted on the Clam Pass Park bridge Mr. Phillips submitted photographs of boats causing large wakes in Clam Bay and asked whether the County could post additional signs indicating an idle speed no -wake zone. Mr. Cravens said the issue is enforcement. Mr. McAlpin said the Collier County Sheriff would enforce the local ordinance and CZM staff would coordinate with the Foundation to enforce the idle speed no -wake zone. Ms. Kathy Worley thanked Mr. McAlpin for organizing the stakeholders meetings and the Conservancy is pleased with the markers proposal, seagrass and shoal informational signs, and the attempt to do away with buoys. Chairman Dallas thanked Mr. McAlpin. Dr. Raia recalled that the Sheriff does not have a boat to access Clam Pass, and several months ago requested funds from the Services Division to purchase jet skis, the only vehicle that the Sheriff considers to enter the Pass "expeditiously ". Ms. Annice Gregerson, Heron resident said enforcement of the idle speed no -wake zone is an issue. She contacted the Sheriff and did not receive a response until five-ten days afterward. Mr. Domenic asked the Chairman what position he would state on April 7 regarding who should hold the permit. Mr. Cravens suggested the Board discuss and provide the Chairman with direction. Chairman Dallas said the Services Division should hold the permit or at a minimum, co-hold the permit. Ms. Cravens suggested the Board provide direction to Chairman Dallas to uphold the existing canoe trail permit. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler that the Pelican Bay Services Division should continue to remain the permit holder for the signage for the Canoe Trail in Clam Bay and seek to modify the existing permit to incorporate the changes that the Coastal Zone Manager has proposed here today. The Board votedunanimoustv in favor, passing the motion. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Tim Corcoran, Pebble Creek President asked if the audience could participate in the discussion of the next item regarding crosswalks and Chairman Dallas said yes. Ms. Cravens said Ms. Kathy Worley did not make a presentation at the Foundation's March 31 town hall about Clain Bay dredging and suggested the Services Division provide a forum for Ms. Worley to make a presentation about dredging triggers and schedule a public workshop. Ms. Worley said that there are many factors to consider when making a decision of whether to dredge and her presentation talks about the conditions and sequencing that would trigger dredging in Clain Bay. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenic that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board should hold a public workshop about the Clam Bay dredging permit. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. Mr. Chandler suggested inviting Olsen & Associates and Humiston and Moore to participate in the workshop. Mr. Cravens suggested April 12 at 2 p.m. and staff would confirm the date and time. 161 1 A 22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes ADril 6.2011 Dr. Raia said they must not lose sight that the reason for dredging is f'or the health of the mangroves. He cited the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan Section 2 that explains the Pelican Bay Services Division role and authority relating to Clam Bay and alleging that the County subverted it. He acknowledged that the Chairman informed Commissioner Hiller of this Board's 8 -1 vote in support of the 1998 permit by way of letter on April 4. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Ms. Susan O'Brien announced that she applied for the vacant Board position. The application deadline is April 11. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenic to defer electing officers until after an appointment to the Board is made. The Board voted unanimous! , in Lavor, passing the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) UPDATE PRESENTATION OF PROPOSAL FOR INTERSECTION BULL NOSE LANDSCAPE DESIGN WORK BV ELLIN GOETZ, FASLA, GOETZ +STROPES Mr. Dorrill introduced Ms. Ellin Goetz, Principal landscape architect at Goetz +Stropes. Staff recommends using Goetz +Stropes to perform intersection bull nose landscape design work because they have a County contract for landscape architecture in place; are well -known throughout town, most recently for their work on Naples Botanical Gardens; and the firm has an ongoing relationship with Jack Lieber, the now retired original landscape architect that conceived Pelican Bay. The proposal consists of a schematic design phase of conceptual designs with alternatives and a second phase of roadway intersection plans where designs would be made site - specific to types of areas, then construction plans. The Board would review and approve each phase prior to proceeding. He recommended the Board provide approval for staff to move forward with the presented Goetz +Stropes agreement. Ms. Ellin Goetz began practicing landscape architecture in Collier County in 1986 with Jack Lieber. She formed Goetz +Stropes in 2001. Most recently, Goetz +Stropes was the lead firm on the Naples Botanical Gardens. Mr. Hoppensteadt said that the Foundation is "pre- inclined" to use Ms. Goetz's landscape architecture services and prefers the Services Division take the lead and the Foundation follow. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to approve staffs recommendation to move forward with the Goetz +Stropes landscape architect services proposal as presented. The Board voter/ unanimously in favor, passing the motion. PRESENTATION OF CROSSWALK CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS BY JAMES CARR, P.E.. AGNOLI, BARBER. & BRUNDAGE (ABB) Mr. Dorrill referred to the proposed crosswalk construction drawings presented in the agenda packet to include signage and pavement markings and clarified that according to the Wilson Miller Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Final Report, cobblestones are for installation only at the mid -block crosswalk locations to serve the purpose as "rumble strips ". Chairman Dallas agreed that although the intent is for all crosswalks to look the same, the original design and cost estimates includes cobblestones only at the midblock crosswalks. lie pointed out that the ABB designs presented today do not show cobblestones. RE RV 161 IA 22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 6, 2011 Mr. James Carr, P.E., of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage (ABB) reported that at the last meeting, he presented crosswalk design concepts and since that time, he met with Collier County Traffic Operations and Transportation Planning to solidify crosswalk locations and the plans were modified accordingly. Mr. Chandler referred to page 22 of the Wilson Miller CIP report showing the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard. He noticed the crosswalks are `dressier" because the bricks have chamfer edging, which he prefers. Mr. Carr explained that at some of the intersections, the chamfer edging directs pedestrians into the intersection, away front the crossing area, so the County requested they modify the design at the adjoining areas, but where allowable, they would incorporate the chamfer edging. Mr. Dorrill clarified there are site - specific constraints that may prevent using pavers with the chamfer edging at one or two of the intersections. Mr. Carr said they would also have to address landscaping and the bull nose. Mr. Domenic asked why they did not cut back the bull nose that was sticking out and not landscaped. Mr. Carr said that rather than cutting back the bull nose, which would be more costly, a more simple approach would be to make a soft -cut through the bull nose and install pavers through the tip. Mr. Hoppensteadt agreed with Mr. Domenic that the bull nose could be a "maintenance nightmare" and they may be better off pulling it back. Most Board members agreed that leaving the bull nose intact was best because it would provide better protection to pedestrians. Ms. Cravens asked if the construction of crosswalks would be with pervious or impervious material. Mr. Carr confirmed that the crosswalk pavers are to be mud set in concrete cement and not porous. The Board discussed whether a three -way crosswalk would be effective and the number of signs required. REVIEW & APPROVAL OF CROSSWALK CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS & TIMING Mr. Carr said bids for construction should be complete by June and construction could begin in the summer and complete in 90 days. There would be one permit for all fourteen crosswalks. This right -of -way permit would still be good if they decided to move forward with installing less than fourteen. Mr. Hoppensteadt said he prefers the Services Division take the lead and the Foundation follow. Chairman Dallas said the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is installing crosswalks at U.S. 41 and Pelican Bay Boulevard using fire red brick pavers minus the cobblestone and could serve as a demonstration project. Mr. Dorrill said the staff recommendation would be to authorize staff to proceed to complete the crosswalks design and permitting phases to include any architectural review requirements and authorize the project to go to bid with an ad- alternate mechanism to allow this Board to be the final determinant of the contract award. So that work can begin in early summer and complete by September, and stay on schedule, the construction contract should be awarded, i.e., approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) prior to their summer recess. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to authorize staff to proceed to complete the design and permitting phase to include unv, architectural review requirements and to authorize the project to go to bid with an ad- alternate mechanism to allow the Board to be the final determinant of the contract award The Board voted unanimous! y in favor, passing the motion. A short recess was taken, then the Board reconvened. 0111 -V 161 1 A 22 � Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 6, 2011 CROSSWALK DISCUSSION CONTINUED Mr. Chandler referred to ABB`s Sheet 6 and the crosswalk design for the intersection of Gulf Park Drive and Ridgewood Drive. A crosswalk exists across Ridgewood. The design proposes installing a crosswalk across Gulf Park Drive that will require twelve signs. In his opinion, there is no need for this crosswalk, or at any proposed locations where installing crosswalks would require many signs. Alternatively, he said crosswalks would "dress up" intersections at proposed locations where stop signs exist and do not require additional signs. Mr. Carr and Mr. Lukasz confirmed that the designs presented were based on designs in the final Wilson Miller report and would be used for permitting purposes and provided to bidders. The Board discussed that they would decide later whether to install a particular crosswalk at a particular location. They discussed crosswalk construction materials and prior consensus to use brick pavers. Mr. Hoppensteadt suggested that before the Board makes decisions whether to install crosswalks at particular locations, they should talk with the individual homeowners or condominium associations that would be using it. On behalf of the "Stop for People Coalition" comprised of four Pelican Bay communities including Carlton Place, Pebble Creek, Cocobay, and Crescent, Mr. Brendan Culligan expressed concern about proposed changes to remove the "stop for pedestrians" signs in the roadway at the North Tram midblock crossing. The Coalition suggested the signs remain in the roadway until installation of a motion - activated flashing red light crossing and submitted a signed petition in support. Board members recognized that the Foundation is responsible for this midblock crossing and confirmed that the signs would remain in the roadway until construction begins. There are no immediate plans to install flashing lights at his midblock crossing, but preparing for possible future decisions, initial crosswalk construction includes installing a conduit. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens to add a crosswalk across Pelican Bay Boulevard at Oakmont Parkway to "square off' the intersection because the Wilson Miller plans only show three crossings. Mr. Lukasz said Wilson Miller's plans reflect that there is no sidewalk on the east side of Oakmont Parkway. Mr. Cravens withdrew his second and Mr. Chandler withdrew his motion. UPDATE ON THE POSSIBILITY OF FOUR -WAY STOP AT RIDGEWOOD & PELICAN BAY BLVD Regarding the intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive and the possibility of making it a four - way stop, Mr. Carr said his firm plans to do a traffic count sometime next week from 7 a.m. — 7 p.m. Following Dr. Raia's suggestion that the traffic count include the evening hours to reflect the Philharmonic traffic at 10 -11 p.m., Mr. Carr said they would incorporate the evening hours into their traffic count and would notify staff of date. DEVELOPMENT OF RATING SYSTEM FOR ALL PELICAN BAY PATHWAYS (K. DALLAS) Chairman Dallas suggested staff take an inventory of Pelican Bay's pathways and rate their condition. Mr. Cravens said in his opinion, there are isolated areas where pathways are in poor condition because of tree roots and that Mr. Lukasz addressed the issue by utilizing bio- barriers. Mr. Lukasz said bio- barriers have not been effective and Wilson Miller recommended some tree removal. Mr. Dorrill said at staff's request, the County would be assessing the pathways within thirty days. DISCUSSION OF TIMING OF PATHWAY REDEVELOPMENT (K. DALLAS) Chairman Dallas said widening pathways on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard between the Commons and North Tram is a future Community Improvement Plan project. He asked about whether they should wait until the crosswalk projects are complete to implement pathway projects. M 161 1 A22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 6, 2011 Mr. Dorrill said that it would be ideal to do crosswalks and pathways projects concurrently. Staff would discuss implementation possibilities and constraints with Mr. Carr and provide a report at the May meeting. REGARDING ROADWAY RESURFACING On April 7, Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Chandler will meet with Commissioner Hiller to lobby for milling and resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Hammock Oak Drive. MON'T'HLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that this month's financial report includes mid -year actual figures. Year -to -date revenue is 94% of anticipated revenue in assessment and ad- valorem taxes. The remaining 6% are delinquent and in his opinion, 1% would likely go to certificate sale or to auction fiom the Tax Collector in July. Staff confirmed receipt of $35,000 from the County's Fund 11 I. Ms. Cravens requested that Mr. Dorrill report the Clam Bay fund balances for carry forward, actual and anticipated expenditures, and the amount of reserves remaining. Mr. Dorrill responded that unaudited, the Clam Bay fund carry forward balance is $435,000; current actual balance is approximately $500,000; year -to -date expenditures total $16,000; they anticipate spending $280,000 for T'urrell, Hall & Associates' services; there is $155,000 in reserves; and the projected year -end balance is $225,000. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept the monthly financial report as presented. The Board voted unanimously in avor, passing the motion. UPDATE ON HEALTH OF MANGROVES Mr. Hall reported they are still trying to identify the type of boring beetle, whether the beetles are a natural pest taking advantage of environmental stresses, or an exotic, but he is not concerned that the system will not recover. He plans to set up photo stations from atop three condominiums including the Grosvenor and Montenero to take aerial photos from the same angle and location to track the boring beetle progression. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK & ALONG BEACH Mr. Hall reported that the County is in the process of obtaining cost estimates to remove exotics, i.e., Brazilian Pepper around the County Clam Pass park facility. The County is still in the running for the State grant to remove exotics in the area north of the Pass, however they must respond to an agency request for additional information. If the County does not receive the grant, Mr. Hall said he would make a recommendation as to how much funding or services the Services Division should contribute. SOUTH BERM RENOVATION DISCUSSION OF REQUIRED PERMITS Mr. Dorrill reported that the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers ( USACE) is taking the position that because the area is adjacent to a USACE jurisdictional wetland area, a permit is required even for maintenance, including Wilson Miller's Option I to restore the berm to what it once was prior to erosion. Staff rneets April 7 with South Florida Water Management District officials for clarification of what permits arc required. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT RENEWAL OF DORRILL MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF ANTICIPATED HOURS Regarding the time spent working for Pelican Bay Services Division, Mr. Dorrill reported that his original contract specified he work six hours weekly, increased to eight hours weekly, and currently, his time is approaching ten hours weekly. 8466 161 1 A 22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 6, 2011 He recalled that prior to his employment, the main issues as perceived by some of the Board members were that the current management was inaccessible and strained County relations and in his opinion, both issues have improved greatly. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to continue Mr. Dorrill's contract at the current rate of eight hours week/ and reevaluate at the end o the year. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced that the Services Division's Budget Committee meets April l I at 2 PM and the Board will tentatively hold a Clam Bay dredging workshop on April 12 at 2 PM. 'The Coastal Advisory Committee meets April 14 to discuss the proposal for Clam Bay markers. The Foundation is holding a water quality workshop April 21 and Mr. Hall will be on the panel. The Foundation Board meets April 29. BUDGET COMMITTEE Mr. Levy reported that the Budget Committee discussed whether to utilize a non -ad valorem assessment or ad valorem tax to fund future pathways projects because such projects are a new undertaking. They would discuss further on April 12 and bring a recommendation to the full Board at the May meeting. COMMUNITY ISSUES PUBLIC RELATIONS DISCUSSION Mr. Levy suggested the Board publish an article in the Pelican Bay Post regarding the Services Division receiving a new ten -year mangrove maintenance permit in the Pelican Bay Post. Mr. Cravens said in the past, the Services Division published a newsletter however, they discovered there was not much interest, and the idea morphed into two videos produced about Clam Bay. Ms. Cravens suggested the Services Division circulate a survey or poll about Clam Bay issues. LEASE OF PARKING SPACE'EO THE PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION (J. CHANDLER) Chairman Dallas said this issue is a "moot point" because he does not believe that the Foundation is going to build a parking lot at the Commons or anywhere else. They most likely will decide to expand the Community Center and transfer some operations from the Commons to Community Center and the issue will disappear. The real issue is whether the Foundation is going to commit the wetlands area to a use other than what it is now. "1 hope that you will encourage your members on the Foundation to deal with that sooner than later and say no." Mr. Chandler said that in the meantime there are two issues. The Pelican Bay Foundation Board purchased conceptual plans from Grady Minor, and there is a parking problem at the Commons as he demonstrated in his document, "Commons Parking Lot Survey ". He presented a map of the Services Division 12 -acre facility on Watergate Way and identified an area in the southwest corner that he said is the "same dimension length and width as the first two aisles south of St. Lucia where the [Foundation] employees now park ". He suggested that Foundation employees could park in the identified area during season and then take a shuttle to the Commons. Although the Foundation has not solicited the Services Division, Mr. Chandler suggested the Board offer the proposed parking area to the Foundation to solve their Commons parking problem, rather than the solution that the Foundation is contemplating to convert wetlands into buildable land. Staff could develop an agreement that includes responsibilities and liabilities. Mr. Lukasz said the County owns the 12 -acre facility on Watergate Way. The project would require their approval. :M 161 1 A22 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes April 6, 2011 The Board discussed the possibility of the County approving such a project and the process. Mr. Dorrill had to leave the meeting prior to the discussion and consensus was to get his opinion before moving forward. 1 h Board also agreed that although they were concerned, it was doubthd that the Foundation would ultimately decide to convert the 3 -acre wetlands area at the Commons into a parking lot. Instead, as Chairman Dallas stated earlier, to resolve the parking problem the Foundation was more likely to expand the use of the Community Center by transferring some operations from the Commons to the Community Center. Mr. Cravens said the more alternatives offered to solve the problem other than by converting wetlands, the better. Mr. Domenic said it was his understanding that Services Division was interested in acquiring the 12 -acre facility and that asking the County for permission defeats that purpose. Mr. Cravens said he plans to propose to his condominium association board that the condominium provide about twenty offsite parking spaces for Foundation employees. Chairman Dallas suggested that someone make a motion that the Board support encouraging the Foundation Board not to use the 3 -acre wetlands area for any other use than for wetlands. Mr. Chandler said even if the project moves forward, the proposed Commons site reconfiguration project is several years out and there are seasonal parking problems. Vice Chairwoman Womble said that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) has discussed bussing employees in from another site, away from the wetlands. She recalled that Mr. Dorrill discouraged the Services Division from pursuing the 12 -acre facility on Watergate Way. Ms. McCaughtry said Mr. Dorrill opined on the Services Division's pursuit of the 12 -acre facility during the independent district discussions several months ago. Mr. Levv said the Foundation "has the ball" on the independent district project that is currently "on hold ". Air. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to notljy the Pelican Bay Foundation that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board is opposed to any attempts to change the use of existing wetlands adjacent to the Mr. Cravens requested that Chairman Dallas notify the Pelican Bay Foundation Board, President, Secretary, and Treasurer by letter. ADJOURN Mr. Cravens made a motion second by Chairman Dallas to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion and the meeline adiourned at 4.40 a.m. R i . Da as, Jhirman 0 c ca M O ti y 0 oa 0 0 E.L[fl Minutes by Lisa Resnick 4/26/20111:51:58 PM 16 1 1 A 22RECEIVED MAY - 9 2011 � In vd of County CammISSIOners BUDGET COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2011 LET FP BE REMEMBERED that the Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, April 11, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Budget Committee Members Fiala lam' Michael Levy, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson (excused absencek'llller John Chandler John Iaizzo Henning Keith J. Dallas Coyle Pelican Bay Services Division Staff COletw W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick Also Present Gerald Moffatt, Pelican Bay Foundation Board Member AGENDA I. Roll Call 2. Approval of March 18, 2011 Meeting Minutes 3. Audience Participation 4. Review of Revised Tentative FY 2012 Budget 5. Discussion of Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Funding 6. Audience Comments 7. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Gibson, all Committee members were present. APPROVAL OF MARCH I8, 2011 MEETING MINUTES Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Dallas to approve the March 18, 2011 Budget Committee meeting minutes as presented. The Committee voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None REVIEW OF REVISED TENTATIVE FY 2012 BUDGET Mr. Lukasz reported that staff revised the tentative FY 2012 budget as directed by the Budget Committee at the last meeting. Clam Bay fund 320 modified to show an increase in the County's contribution from $35,000 to $78,000, and a subsequent decrease of the Services Division's assessment to a matching $78,000 for a total of $156,000. $71,000 retained in street lighting fiord 778 for future street lighting capital improvements. County indirect costs reduced and savings reflected in fund 322 other contractual services increasing the total to $301,300 for future Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects. FY 2010 actual revenue and expenditures column added to Clam Bay fund 320. Staff has not received the actual number for the Services Division's share of insurance and assessment fees for the maintenance facility site, which is in lieu of a payment for rent, so FY 2012 fees are estimated to be $14,600, the same as FY 2011. Mr. Dorrill reported that Mr. Ochs' broached the possibility of exploring a tri -party inter local agreement between the City of Naples, Board of County Commissioners and the Services Division t} v�.18R& new rationale" Dater 1281 t 1 1120 161 1 A22 Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes April 11, 2011 for funding all programs going forward in Clam Bay. He described his response to Mr. Ochs as being "cool to the idea" because all facilities and assets of Clam Bay are within the unincorporated area. He opted to put on hold asking the County to fund more of the existing Clam Bay operation through fund I I I because he felt the conversation was heading in the opposite direction. The current FY 2011 Clam Bay fund 320 budget allocates $150,000 to the south berm project. Mr. Lukasz reported that Wilson Miller would be placing stakes along the south berm to establish visually how far out from the edge of the pavement on the west side that they have to go. Mr. Dorrill said the Services Division asserts the position that the south berm project is a maintenance project within a defined and previously cleared and improved drainage easement. Mr. Tim Durham is the chief environmentalist at Wilson Miller and has a much better understanding of the scope of the project and after reviewing the staked areas, Mr. Durham will discuss with the Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FUNDING Mr. Dallas referred to his revised CIP non -ad valorem cash flows sheet and explained that if they raise the non -ad valorem assessment by $27.50 annually over a five -year period, the Services Division could fund identified CIP projects through 2015, ending with a fund balance of $502,000 in 2016. This would raise the FY 2012 assessment to $398.13 or 7.4% from FY 2011 assessment of $370.63. Referring to his revised CIP non -ad valorem $50 cash flows sheet, by comparison that if they raised the non -ad valorem assessment by $50 annually over a five - year period, the Services Division could fund the same CIP projects through 2015, ending with a fund balance of $1.2 million in 2016. The Budget Committee agreed that raising the assessment by $50 was not necessary at this time. Mr. Dallas referred to his revised ad valorem cash flows over 15 years sheet. His calculations assumed an inflation rate of 3% yearly. If they raise the millage by 0.0292 or by 55% from 0.0531 to 0.0823 by 2018, they would have enough funds to replace street lighting fixtures on Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive. By 2021, they would have enough funds to replace residential street lighting fixtures and poles. The Budget Committee agreed that periodically the Board should reevaluate the millage rate and adjust according to inflation and valuation rates, and project costs. Ms. McCaughtry explained that the Board of County Commissioners Budget hearing is in early September and Services Division would send assessment notices in early August, or at least fifteen days prior to the Budget Hearing, as required. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD ROADWAY RESURFACING (J. CHANDLER) Mr. Chandler reported that he and Mr. Dorrill met April 7 with Commissioner Hiller to lobby for County funds to mill and resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard. The Asphalt Rating Scores spreadsheet received from the County's Road and Bridge department estimates it would cost $1.2 million to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard. The County's current budget is $3.9 million for roadway resurfacing projects countywide and is "grossly inadequate ", but if the Services Division offered to pay for this project, it could jeopardize receiving future County roadway resurfacing funds. 1121 161.1 A22 Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes April 11, 2011 Mr. Dorrill said they did discuss a possible inter local agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Services Division where the Services Division would advance funds to the County and be repaid over the short -term or three years. lie agreed with Mr. Chandler that offering Services Division funding for roadway resurfacing could be precarious. He suggested they discuss with the full Board whether they would consider the inter -local agreement scenario as a policy decision. Mr. Dorrill reported that Commissioner Hiller requested he obtain a cost estimate from a private contractor for the milling and resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard and he plans to contact Joe Bonness, a paving contractor. Mr. Chandler reported that he, Mr. Dorrill, and Commissioner Hiller plan to meet with Mr. Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator of Collier County Growth Management Division to discuss the asphalt rating system process and where the Services Division might stand in the overall rankings, as well as lobby for milling and resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard. Mr. Dallas said if the Services Division loans the County $1.2 million, they would deplete their reserves and might consider recommending raising the assessment higher than $27.50. The Committee did not agree on making a recommendation to the full Board that they raise the FY 2012 assessment higher than $27.50. PATHWAYS Chairman Levy referred to his comment made at the March 18 Budget Committee meeting regarding the Services Division's new responsibility for pathways. Being a new undertaking, they should discuss whether they should fund pathways projects by non -ad valorem assessment, or similar to street lighting, by an ad valorem tax. In his opinion, the pathways are like other beautification items, an amenity enjoyed by everyone within Pelican Bay, commercial and gated communities equally, and therefore, everyone should pay the same rate. Contrary, should the Services Division become responsible for roadways they should consider funding roadway projects by an ad valorem based method. The Budget Committee agreed that no changes should be made to the current assessment methodology and street lighting should continue to be funded via an ad valorem method. Mr. Moffatt asked whether sufficient funds were available for lake bank enhancement projects. Mr. Lukasz responded that the FY 2012 allocates $105,000 for lake bank enhancement projects. Mr. Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to make recommendations to the full Board to: 1. Approve the FY 2012 tentative budget as presented; 2. Increase the FY 2011 non -ad valorem assessment of 5370.63 by $27.50 or 7.4% in FY 2012 to total $398.13; 3. Increase the current FY 2011 ad valorem millage rate of 0.0531 by 0.0292 or 55% in FY 2012 to 0.0823. The Budget Committee voted unanimously in hvor, passing the motion. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Dallas that no changes be made to the current assessment methodology and only street lighting be funded by an ad valorem method. The Budget Committee voted unanimously in Lavor, passing the motion. 1122 161 1 A 22 Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes April 11, 2011 Mr. Dorrill would be contacting Joe Bonness, a paving contractor to obtain a proposal for the milling and resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard and schedule a meeting to discuss roadway resurfacing projects in Pelican Bay with Commissioner Hiller, Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Nick Casalanguida, the County's Growth Management Division Deputy Administrator. ADJOURN Mr. Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn. The Committee voted unanimously in avor, passink the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m. Michael Levy, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick \4/29/2011 9:39:37 AM 1123 161 1 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit A 22 RECEIVED MAY - 9 2011 Board of County Commissloners NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2011 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC WORKSHOP MEETING ON MONDAY, APRIL 11 AT 2:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34108. Fiala Hiller —7` -- AGENDA Henning Coyle 1. Roll Call Coletta _ 2. Approval of March 18, 2011 Meeting Minutes 3. Audience Participation 4. Review of Revised Tentative FY 2012 Budget 5. Discussion of Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Funding 6. Audience Comments 7. 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. Misc. Comes: Date. L& 1'3.?SJ 1 1 Item 4/7/20113:08:31 PM 161 1 A22 Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 18. 2011 Mr. Dallas said the assessment remained the same and asked if that is because they are assuming valuation will remain the same. Mr. Lukasz said the County expects total valuation to decrease 3% countywide, although Pelican Bay is generally less, so they assumed the same valuation in millage for street lighting. They would obtain the certified tax roll from the Property Appraiser in May. The millage rate has dropped, but if needed, they could increase it. Mr. Dallas suggested increasing the millage rate to start saving for future street lighting projects reserves. In his opinion, the street lighting fund is not a capital improvement but a replacement reserve. Chairman Levy said in the past, excess street lighting funds have been transferred to capital. Mr. Dallas said if they are going to set up a reserve fund for street lighting, then they should set up a separate account and Mr. Lukasz said they could set up a separate account in capital fund 322 designated for future street lighting reserves. The Budget Committee agreed with that course of action. Mr. Lukasz said there was a $4,200 or about $25% increase in Information Technology (IT) charges and the total IT charges are $19,400. The IT department fees are based upon the number of workstations and services calls, similar to the County's indirect cost methodology. Mr. Dorrill said the only change in 11' service he recalls is that they purchased a laptop that IT does not support, and asked what services they receive for almost $5,000 per workstation. Mr. Lukasz said IT provides the intranet network, and other County system software, i.e., SAP and Govmax software. Mr. Dorrill said he would research the IT cost increase and report. Mr. Lukasz said there is a new line item to repair the Oakmont lake bank bike path of $6,000. Due to the new permit, there was an increase in Clam Bay costs, which includes the new Turrell Hall & Associates contract for engineering and consultant fees. Water testing falls under the water management budget. Maintenance facility renovations previously budgeted under capital are mostly complete, therefore only $5,100 was budgeted under operations, building repairs and maintenance vs. $40,000 that had been budgeted last year. Mulching requirement costs decreased by $14,000 by using alternative material on the U.S. 41 berm. Tree trimming costs increased by $27,700 for contracting out Sabal palms, but offset by reductions in temporary labor ($14,400) equipment rental ($3,000) and garbage hauling ($10,500). Staff made changes or additions to account codes to better clarity expenditures. Landscape incidentals code, i.e., tools and accessories added offsetting $2,500 of Other Operating Supplies. Flood Control Replanting Program was changed to Landscape Materials, i.e., "annuals" and other replacement plants. Road and Bike Path Repairs and Maintenance code added to track Oakmont Lake Bank pathways. Building Maintenance and Repair code added under operations. Mulch requirement added to track pine straw, which was previously budgeted under Landscape Materials. White Goods code, previously used for public relations was removed and renamed as Emergency Maintenance and Repairs, i.e., contingency. Photo processing code, previously Other Contractual Services in Clam Bay added to track aerial photography of Clam Bay. To keep the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) assessment rate the same as last year ($370.63) they budgeted $7,300 into capital projects. This amount will increase based upon how much is received from fund 111. Ms. McCaughtry said she expects receipt of FY 2011 fund 111 money in the amount $35,000 to post to the system by March 21. 1117 161 1 1 A 22 Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes March 18, 2011 Consensus was that it would become more desirable to make pathways improvements on both the east and west sides of Pelican Bay Boulevard, as well as Gulf Park Drive. Mr. Lukasz said in some cases, such as to meet ADA elevation standard, crosswalk installation could require pathway modifications. projects. Mr. Dorrill said staff would need Board direction to proceed with the selection of a civil engineer for pathways Chairman Levy said they should discuss the status of CIP projects at the April 6 meeting. Mr. Dorrill said he would have crosswalk construction plans to show the Board and prepare to advertise for sealed bids. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF REDUCED TAXABLE VALUES UPON PROPOSED STREET LIGHTING RESERVE Mr. Chandler said he understood that the assessed property valuation in Collier County would decline significantly countywide and if this affects Pelican Bay, they should bear in mind they could consider a higher ad valorem millage rate. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) NON -AD VALOREM AND AD VALOREM CASH FLOW SPREADSHEETS Mr. Dallas reviewed the CIP non -ad valorem cash flows over five years additional contribution to capital is $26.50 or 7.1 % of the current rate of $370.63. The second sheet showed CIP non -ad valorem cash flows over five years additional contribution to capital is $50 or 13.5 % of the current rate of $370.63. The third sheet shows CIP ad valorem cash flows over 15 years that proposes increasing the millage rate to 0.0292 or 55% of the current rate of 0.053 1, which is about$41. Chairman Levy said that when they make a recommendation to the Board to approve the FY 2012 budget, they should include a recommendation to approve an additional non -ad valorem contribution to capital and a millage increase. Consensus was to recommend an additional non -ad valorem contribution of $26.50. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Mr. Dorrill said the Budget Committee's next meeting is scheduled for April 5, the day prior to the April 6 Regular Session. The Committee decided to cancel this meeting and reschedule for Monday, April I I at 2 p.m. M made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn and the Committee voted to ud'ourn at 4:11 .m. Michael Levy, Chairman 1119 Minutes by Lisa Resnick \4/7/2011 3:24:05 PM Collier County 16 1 1 A4aeoi1 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 I III System Projects All Funds Carryforward 5185,237 :$496,760 $154,444 III 515,877 $341,700 $1,193,418 Rolled Capital Or eject 'risen mm Con, forward $0 SO $0 $55,180 $2,437,986 $2,493,166 Interest Income $4,200 511,200 $2,400 $700 $19,500 $38,000 Plan Review Fee Income $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Interfimd Transfers (Fund 11 0 SO $0 $0 $78,000 $0 578,000 Assessment or Advalorcm Tax Les, $689,000 $1,972,200 $273,300 lt. $78,000 $84,400 $3,096,900 J and Revenue $879937 $2480160 $430,144 1' $227,757 $2,882,986 $6900,984 Appropriations Projections Personal Services $178,000 $868,300 $105,900 $1,152,200 Administration:' Indirect Cost Reimbursements $84,500 $0 $5,300 S89,800 Other Contractual Services $26,900 $34,300 $26900 $88,100 Storage C.onemr $0 5800 $800 .$1,600 Telephone - Serviec Contracts $400 $400 $400 $1200 Telephone - DirmlLinc $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 �I $10500 Postage, Freight & Ups S3,000 $3,000 $'2,000 $8,000 Rent - Buildings 59500 $9,800 $9,500 $28,800 Rent - Equipment SI800 $1,900 $'1800 $5,500 Insurance - General 51,200 $500 $300 $2,000 Mute Site Ins_& Assessment Fees $14,600 50 $0 4 $14,600 husomtaurn I ach Automation Allocation 55,200 $14,500 5o $19,700 Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors $2,300 $2,600 $0 i $4,900 Legal Advertising $2,000 $2,000 SO $4,000 Clerks Recording Fees, Em. $2,000 $2,000 $0 V $4,000 Office Smppllea- General $2,000 $? 500 $800 [� $5,300 Other Training& Educational Exp. .$1,100 $1500 $o jt $2,600 Other Operating Supplies SO $0 $1000 $1000 Emergency Maintenance &Repairs $8,800 $7,400 $0 ` $16,2170 Field Services Engineering 512000 $0 $0 ' $111,600 $123,600 Plan Review Fees $1500 $0 $0 �I $1,500 Electrical Contractors $0 $0 $7,300 $7,300 Otber Conha.Nal Services $1,000 $29,500 $800 $0 $301,300 $332,600 Landscape Incidentals $0 $2500 $0 $2,500 Pest Control $0 $5,000 $0 $5000 lice Trimming $30,000 $63,600 $0 $29,000 $122600 Temporary Ishor $42,400 $190,100 $0 8232,500 Berm & Swale Maintenance $14,000 $0 $0 S85,000 $99,000 Water Use Charges $0 $83,800 $0 $83,800 Landscape Materials $8,500 $53,100 SO $61,600 Celluar Telephones/Radios $500 $3,200 $500 $4,200 Tmsh &Dumpster Fees $5,700 $17,000 So $22,700 Water Guahry lean., $22,600 $0 $0 $22,600 Insurance - Vehicles $900 510,000 $900 1 $11,800 Insurance - General $2,400 $8,800 $800 $12,000 Bldg Repairs /Mute, $1,700 $1700 $1700 $5,100 Electricov SO $3,400 $44,200 $47,600 Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chem S98,400 $62,000 $0 $160,400 Sprinkler System Malin $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000 Mulch So 546,000 $o $46,000 Equipment Rental $0 $2,500 $0 52500 Licenses and Permits SO $800 $0 $800 Repairs & Maintenance &Foal $16,000 $92,700 $5700 $500 $114900 Road end Bike Path Repairs $0 $6,000 $0 $6000 Photo Processing (Aerial) $0 $o $0 $7,500 $7,500 Minor Operating Supplies $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $3,000 Employee Uniforms SI,100 $9,400 $o SI0,500 Other Operating Supplies 52,500 $9,000 SO $0 $11,500 Light, Bulb and Ballast $0 SO 512,400 $12,400 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $3,000 $500 $4,000 Perot supplies $0 $800 SO $800 Traffic Signs $0 $3,000 SO $50,000 $53,000 Emergency Maintenance &Rejoins $0 $3300 $9600 $12,900 Capital Outlay $1,000 $103000 $1000 I, $105,000 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs & Reserves Clam Bay Projects $55,180 $55,180 11ru&,ape Imp Proleet �. $2,415,211 $2,415,211 Lake Bank Imp. Projcet $22,775 $22,775 Reserves (2 ills no for Operations) $152,512 $404610 $57044 SI5877 5630,,043 Reserve for Operating Fund Capital Intp. So $0 $71 000 Equipment Rcsnvc $39,025 $55750 $30,000 $124,775 Other Charges/Fees Tex Collecmr $21300 $61,000 $8,500 $2,400 $2,600 $95,800 Property Appraiser $21300 $53,800 $5,600 $1600 $1,700 $84,000 Revenue Roserve $36,300 $103800 $14,400 $'4100 $4,400 $163,000 Total Appropriadons $879937 $2,480,160 $430144 II $227,757 $2,882,986 $6,900,984 Equivalent Residential Pairs: 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 761819 7618.21 . Projected Rate ERU or village 590.440 $258.877 0.11531 $10.239 SI1.079 Projected Total Rate: ERU or village 5349.317 0.0531 21.317 $370.63 Actual Rate (FY 2011) $350.08 0.0531 $20.56 $370.64 Actual Bnllar /Millagc Chnugc (SO76) 0.0000 $0.76 (Somo Collier County 161 A22 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 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 e Insurance - General Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment F Rent Equipment Printing (Outside) Legal Advertising Intercept. Payments Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Other Educational Sub - total: Emergency Maintenance /Repai Sub - total: Total Administrative 2 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2011 Expended Budget $742,500 $715,933 $728,400 $661,065 $41,800 $702,865 $689,000 $12,150 $3,580 $3,500 $1,069 $2,431 $3,500 $4,200 $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 $o $0 $6,300) $1,029,981 $1,079,496 $922,231 $662,134 $44,231 $706,365 $688,400 $27,983 $28,106 $28,000 $10,338 $17,662 $28,000 $28,000 $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $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 $3,200 $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 $84,500 $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 1 $4,100 $4,100 $8,200 $4,100 $4,100 $8,200 $5,200 $1,300 $1,300 $1,300 $650 $650 $1,300 $1,200 $0 $2,300 $0 $2,162 $14,600 $2,500 $0 $646 $14,600 $1,500 $14,600 $2,146 $14,600 $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 $160,000 r $18,300 $0 $8,800 $0 $0 $0 $8,800 $211,363 $176,723 $204,500 $78,041 $109,141 $187,182 $168,800 $255,863 $220,706 $245,676 $94,102 $134,256 $228,358 $210,900 2 1611A22 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: FY 2010 Budget FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Budget Received Expended Year -To -Date Anticipated Mar. /Sept. 2011 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2012 Budget Plan Review Fees $1,500 Regular Salaries $81,949 $79,643 $79,400 $29,298 $50,000 $79,298 $79,400 ER 457 Contributions $665 $165 $700 $39 $150 $189 $700 Reserve For Salary Adjustment $83 $0 $60 $0 $0 $0 $0 Overtime $15,400 $16,190 $15,500 $5,638 $7,900 $13,538 $15,400 Social Security Matching $7,298 $6,930 $7,300 $2,523 $4,700 $7,223 $7,300 Regular Retirement $10,963 $13,430 $11,300 $3,908 $7,300 $11,208 $11,200 Health Insurance $31,662 $31,662 $17,400 $8,698 $8,700 $17,398 $19,500 Life Insurance $280 $280 $200 $108 $100 $208 $200 Worker's Compensation $2,900 $2,900 $2,500 $1,250 $1,250 $2,500 $2,200 $134,360 $51,462 $80,100 $131,562 $135,900 Sub- total: $151,200 $151,200 Engineering Fees $12,000 $6,686 $16,400 $1,536 $12,000 $13,536 $12,000 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Other Contractual Services $1,000 $0 $1,000 $246 $500 $746 $1,000 Tree Trimming $27,600 $30,540 $30,000 $9,984 $19,500 $29,484 $30,000 Temporary Labor $42,400 $39,900 $42,400 $17,803 $24,000 $41,803 $42,400 Swale Maintenance $14,000 $3,838 $14,000 $0 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay) $21,100 $13,384 $22,600 $8,284 $11,600 $19,884 $22,600 Telephones (Includes Cellular) $500 $434 $500 $180 $300 $480 $500 Trash & Garbage Disposal $8,300 $7,492 $8,300 $1,759 $5,500 $7,259 $5,700 Insurance- General $2,600 $2,600 $2,400 $1,200 $1,200 $2,400 $2,400 Insurance- Auto $3,600 $3,600 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 Bldg. Repairs/Mme. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,700 Autos Trucks RM $900 $0 $900 $0 $0 $0 $900 Motor Pool $0 $0 $200 $0 $0 $0 $200 Labor - Fleet Maim. (ISF) $1,000 $990 $1,000 $332 $668 $1,000 $1,900 Fleet Maint. Parts $600 $1,535 $600 $0 $600 $600 $1,600 Fleet Non. Maint. ISE Parts $1,500 $489 $1,500 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $500 Boat R &M $500 $0 $500 $0 $200 $200 $500 Other Equip. R&M $1,500 $1,364 $1,500 $34 $1,000 $1,034 $1,500 Unifonn Purchase & Rental $1,900 $4,661 $1,100 $529 $500 $1,029 $1,100 Fertilizer, Herbicides, Chem $95,800 $82,834 $98,400 $29,380 $64,000 $93,380 $98,400 Replanting Program $8,500 $3,775 $8,500 $2,986 $8,500 $11,486 $8,500 Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fuel & Lubricants - Inside $2,000 $2,540 $3,200 $783 $1,500 $2,283 $8,900 Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $4,269 $2,500 $1,214 $1,000 $2,214 $2,500 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $1,295 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $260,400 $76,700 $168,518 $245,218 $261,700 Sub - total: $251,800 $212,226 3 1611A22 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 Capital Outlay Building Improvements Improvements General (Mat. R Other /Off. Mach. & Equip. /Tru Sub - total: Total Field Services: Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: 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) Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance l0 /01 /11) Fiscal Year 2012 Additions Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward 'total Equipment Replacement Cost $50,877 $340,860 $0 $85,000 $306,737 $274,012 $0 $0 $121,500 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $152,512 $32,725 $6,300 $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $39,025 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $191,537 0 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2011 Expended Budget $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 $398,600 $24,750 $15,418 $24,750 $14,522 $10,228 $24,750 $21,300 $22,560 $12,327 $22,600 $13,050 $9,550 $22,600 $21,300 $42,000 $0 $42,100 $0 $0 $0 $36,300 $89,310 $27,745 $89,450 $27,572 $19,778 $47,350 $78,900 $762,373 $618,739 $744,086 $249,836 $405,652 $655,488 $688,400 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) Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance l0 /01 /11) Fiscal Year 2012 Additions Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward 'total Equipment Replacement Cost $50,877 $340,860 $0 $85,000 $306,737 $274,012 $0 $0 $121,500 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $152,512 $32,725 $6,300 $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $39,025 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $191,537 0 Collier County 161 1 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 Expenditures Revenue Assessments Interest Income Miscellaneous Reimburse P/Y 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: A 22:4 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2011 Expended Budget $1,922,500 $1,853,805 $1,938,600 $1,759,392 $111,700 $1,871,092 $1,972,200 $28,350 $8,371 $8,200 $2,494 $5,706 $8,200 $0 $11,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,400 $0 $669,270 $803,698 $495,070 $0 $0 $0 $78 $36,400 $2.620.120 $2,665.874 $2,441,870 $1,761,886 $117,406 $1,879,292 $1,500 $2,019,800 IT Automation Allocation & Capil 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 Mnte./Repair Sub - total: Total Administrative: $28,830 $0 $0 $0 $297 $2,205 $3,313 $10,554 $101 $300 $28,959 $28,900 $10,652 $18,248 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,146 $2,200 $793 $1,407 $2,928 $3,400 $1,147 $2,253 $10,554 $7,700 $3,866 $3,834 $101 $78 $39 $39 $45,600 $44,98811 $42,378 $28,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,200 $3,400 $7,700 $78 $100 $42,378 $28,900 $0 $0 $0 $100 $2,200 $3,300 $8,700 $100 $100 $43,40U $4,200 $4,200 $8,200 $4,100 $4,100 $8,200 $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 $80,200 $25,504 $49,253 $74,757 $79,300 $16,900 $0 $7,400 $0 $0 $0 $7,400 $83,174 $47,737 1 $87,600 $25,504 $49,253 $74,757 1 $86,700 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 1611A22 i 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 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 & Chem. 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 Mnte. /Repair Sub - total: 6 Total Field Services Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2011 Expended Budget $444,149 $429,169 $442,400 $137,554 $289,196 $426,750 $430,900 $2,170 $1,170 $2,200 $440 $730 $1,170 $1,700 $102,600 $91,680 $103,000 $26,618 $66,269 $92,887 $99,200 $60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $41,993 $37,365 $41,900 $11,697 $28,040 $39,737 $41,000 $63,070 $52,622 $64,600 $17,849 $44,254 $62,103 $62,600 $116,094 $116,094 $133,500 $66,742 $66,742 $133,484 $149,600 $1,564 $1,564 $1,200 $600 $600 $1,200 $1,200 $35,000 $35,000 $38,800 $19,400 $19,400 $38,800 $38,600 $806,700 $764,664 $827,600 $280,900 $515,231 $796,131 $824,900 $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 $1297000 $208,570 $190,100 $800 $216 $700 $0 $300 $300 $300 $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 $8,800 $9,300 $9,300 $9,900 $4,950 $4,950 $9,900 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $o $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 $739,900 0 0 $3,300 $o $0 $0 $3,300 $726,100 $668,736 $720,800 $343,248 $379,430 $722,678 $743,200 $1,532,800 $1,433,400]F $1,548,400 $624,148 $894,661 $1,518,809 F $1,568,100 Collier County 161 1 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 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: A22 Net Income $88,820 Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $795,340 Current Year Transfer From Fund 133 $0 Current Year Transfer to Fund 322 $174,200 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $709,960 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10 /01 /11) $617,810 Transfer from Fund 133 (Uninsured Assets) $0 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $213,200 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $404,610 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement: (Opening Balance 10/01/11) $92,150 Fiscal Year 2012 Additions $56,600 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward $93,000 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $55,750 Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2012 (Projected) $460,360 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2011 Expended 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 $58,600 $23,597 $20,481 $44,078 F $103,000 $52,640 $28,763 $52,700 $30,450 $22,250 $52,700 $53,800 $57,750 $35,975 $57,750 $33,886 $23,864 $57,750 $61,000 $98,000 $0 $98,200 $0 $0 $o $103,800 $208,390 $64,738 $208,650 $64,336 $46,114 $110,450 $218,600 $1,934,564 $1,643,023 $1,945,628 $754,132 $1,036,340 $1,790,472 $2,019,800 Net Income $88,820 Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $795,340 Current Year Transfer From Fund 133 $0 Current Year Transfer to Fund 322 $174,200 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $709,960 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10 /01 /11) $617,810 Transfer from Fund 133 (Uninsured Assets) $0 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $213,200 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $404,610 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement: (Opening Balance 10/01/11) $92,150 Fiscal Year 2012 Additions $56,600 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward $93,000 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $55,750 Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2012 (Projected) $460,360 Collier County L I Pelican Bay Services Division V 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 P/Y Expend. Insurance - General Info Technology Automation All( Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Other Operating Supplies Sub - total: Additional - Public Relation Sub- total: Total Administrative: A22 0 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received 2012 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2011 Expended Budget $285,700 $275,688 $273,200 $245,382 $17,000 $262,382 $273,300 $4,600 $1,623 $1,200 $493 $700 $1,193 $2,400 $0 $281 $0 $39 $0 $39 $0 $0 $0 $169,800 $0 $0 $0 ($3,600) $290,300 $277,592 $444,200 $245,914 $17,700 $263,614 $272,100 $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 $100 $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 $3,200 $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 $42,100 $6,700 $6,700 $6,300 $3,150 $3,150 $6,300 $5,300 $20,800 $16,725 $20,800 $11,925 $8,875 $20,800 $26,900 $0 $0 $o $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 $300 $4,100 $4,100 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $2,262 $1,762 $800 $0 $400 $400 $800 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $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 $52,300 $19,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,562 $45,206 $49,000 $22,290 $23,285 $45,575 $52,300 $108,462 $78,535 $90,215 $39,620 $47,095 $86,715 $94,400 0 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division 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/Mme. Fleet Maintenance Electrical Contractor Light Bulbs Ballast Other Supplies Equipment Repaii Personnel Safety Equipment Sub - total: Additional - Electric) Repair Servi� 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 Total Appropriations: 161 1A22 91 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received 2012 Budget Actual Budget Year- To-Date 2011 Expended Budget $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 $4,000 -$HI $0 $100 $0 $0 $0 $100 $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 $1,100 $900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,095 $54,094 $62,865 $26,140 $35,265 $61,405 $63,800 $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 $90() $450 $450 $900 $900 $800 $800 $80() $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 11 $141,565 $56,240 $73,415 $129,655 $148,200 $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 $o $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 $291,762 $199,086 $274,280 $100,760 $125,210 $225,970 $272,100 91 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Net Income from Operations $37,644 Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $200,400 Current Year Transfers To Fund 322 $83.600 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $154,444 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/10) $55,944 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from Fund 110 $0 Fiscal Year 20121 ransfer to Carryforward ($1,100) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $0 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $57,044 Reserve for Street Light Capital Improvements Capital Improvement (Opening Balance 10 -01 -2011) $71,000 Addition to Capital Reserve $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Improvements: $71,000 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equip. Replacement: (Opening Balance 10- 01 -I1) $27,500 Fiscal Year 2012 Additions $2,500 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $30,000 Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2012 (Projected) $158,044 1611A22 10 16 I 1 A 22 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 TDC Funding Interfund Transfers (Fund 111) Carryforward of Encumbrances Total Revenue Appropriations: Operations (183800) Engineering Other Contractual Photo Processing Water Quality "free Trimming Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Eqpt. Computer Software Other Operating Supplies Total Operations Ecosystem Enhancements (183805) Engineering Other Contractual (Amended Budget) Other Contractual Total Capital Projects Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees and Charges Total Appropriations 11 Adopted Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2011 Expended Budget $462,900.00 $412,700.00 $301,300 $0 $102,400 $98,543 $35,000 $31,700 $1,500 $33,200 $78,000 $o $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $3,24 $1,310 $1,300 $1,377 $2,677 $700 $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $78,000 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $148,400 $136,837 1 $372,600 $33,000 $37,877 $70,877 $156,700 $83,100 $42,256 $102,900 $2,000 $110,000 $112,000 $111,600 $83,500 $29,610 $137,400 $7,820 $68,200 $76,020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $0 $0 $0 $o $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $500 $515 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $2,400 $4,800 $0 VAN $2,400 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $1,000 $0 $500 $500 $0 $170,000 $72,381 $246,600 $9,820 $181,600 $191,420 $148,600 $42,500 [Ar$25 300 $4,000 $7,3 00 $11,300 $0 ,000 $118,000 $118,000 ,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $67,500 $31,200 $154,300 $4,000 $150,300 $154,300 $0 $3,200 $1,971 $1,100 $635 $465 $1,100 $2,400 $2,100 $1,535 $700 $0 $700 $700 $1,600 $5,400 $1,800 $0 $o $0 $4,100 $10,700 $3,506 $3,600 $635 $1,165 $1,800 $8,100 $248,200 $107,087 FPW,5N $14,455 $333,065 $347,520 $156,700 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 ($276,643) Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $412,700 Current Year Transfer to Fund 322 $65,000 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) 71,057 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Opening Balance (10/01/11) $71,057 Rolled Capital Projects /Programs - Transfer to Carryforward $55.180 Transfer to Fund 322 $0 Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward $0 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $15,877 Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2012 (Projected) $15,877 161 1 A2L 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) 161 1 Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Re uirements Available Required $111,600 $0 $111,600 Management Report $14,800 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 $27,000 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 $10,000 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 $28,800 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 of the tidal flushing within the system. Water Quality $5,500 This funding being requested to prepare a standard operating procedure manual for the Cam Bay Ssytem. Hydrographic Surveying $o 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. I- lydrographic Survey $0 These fund are budgeted to perform survey activities within the Clam Bay creeks. A22 13 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division (� 1 L 1 1 Q Operating Budget J • • 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 $25,500 These fees are for general mangrove investigation /observation, meeting attendance, permit services and channel maintenance identification. Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Other Contractual Services Re uirements Available Required (320 - 183800- 634999 - 511001) $45,000 $45,000 $0 Contract Labor $12,500 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 Staff Cost Creek Maintenance $2,000 Hydrographic monitoring $10,500 Total $12,500 Berm Transition Area Maintenance These funds are budgeted for the maintenance $0 of the area west of the berm including the removal of cattails and other nusiance materials. Aerial Photography $0 The annual cost for aerial photographs of the Clam Bay System used to assess vegetation conditions as part of the Biological Monitoring Program. 14 Collier County 16 1 1 A 22 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Appropriation Analysis: Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance Other Contractual Services (320- 183800- 634999 - 511001) (Cont.) Interior Channel Maintenance $32,500 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. Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Re uirement! Available Required Photo Processing (320 - 183800- 647210) $7,500 $0 $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. 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 Projected Unit Price Total Cost Funding Funds Net Funds Water Quality Testing Program Re uireme_" Available Required (320 - 183800- 634255 - 511001) $0 $0 $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 Yearly Quantity Unit Price Total Cost Temperature 0 In -house N/A PH 0 In -house N/A Conductivity 0 In -house N/A Dissolved Oxygen 0 In -house N/A Salinity 0 In -house N/A Ammonia 0 $8.00 $0 Nitrites 0 $7.00 s0 Ortho- phosphate 0 $6.00 $0 TDS 0 $7.00 $0 Total Phosphorus 0 $10.00 $0 Silica 0 $6.00 $0 TKN 0 $15.00 $0 Nitrates 0 $14.00 $0 TOC 0 $12.00 $0 Chlorophyll -a 0 $14.00 $0 Pheophyton 0 $15.00 $0 TOTAL $0 15 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Appropriation Analysis: Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance 161f1 (320 - 183800- 646970 - 511001) Tide Gauges, Water Level Loggers $500 Sub - Total: $500 Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Re uirements Available Re uired Minor Operating Equipment $2,400 $21400 $0 (320- 183800 - 652910 - 511001) Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Re uirements Available Required Other Operating Supplies $500 $500 $0 (320- 183800 - 652990 - 511001) Miscellaneous Supplies $500 A 22 16 Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Tree Trimming (320 - 183800 - 646319 - 511001) Requirements Available Re uired These funds are for the maintenance activities =1000 s0 $29,000 for control of exotic vegetation. Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Require ments Available Require Repairs & Maintenance $500 s0 $500 (320 - 183800- 646970 - 511001) Tide Gauges, Water Level Loggers $500 Sub - Total: $500 Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Re uirements Available Re uired Minor Operating Equipment $2,400 $21400 $0 (320- 183800 - 652910 - 511001) Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Re uirements Available Required Other Operating Supplies $500 $500 $0 (320- 183800 - 652990 - 511001) Miscellaneous Supplies $500 A 22 16 16/1 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2012 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Revenue Summary Carryforward $341,100 Interest Income $19,500 Assessment Levy $84,400 Total Available Funds: $445,000 Appropriation Projection Capital Projects Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (500661) Engineering $h Other Contractual Services $301,300 Landscape Materials $0 Mulch Requirements $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 Total Improvements $301,300 Lake Bank Enhancements (510261) Engineering $0 Berm and Swale $85,000 Total Improvements 85,000 Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (xxxxx) Traffic Signs $50,000 Total Improvements 50,000 Tax Collector $2,600 Property Appraiser $1,700 Revenue Reserve $4,400 Total Other Fees & Charges: $8,700 Total Appropriations: $445,000 Equivalent Residential Units 7618.29 Projected ERU Rate: $11.08 A 22 17 161 1 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 Received Anticipated Total Variance Budget Amended Expended Mar. /Sept. Received Over FY 2011 Budget Year -To -Date 2011 Expended (Under) Revenue: $o $500 $0 $0 $0 Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations 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 $o $0 $0 Developer Contribution $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Carryforward of Rolled Pr, $0 $2,080,626 $0 $0 $0 $0 Carryforward $284,400 $284,400 $0 $0 $0 $o Total Revenue $413,700 $2,494,326 $117,060 $6,300 $123,360 $5,940 Appropriations: $o $500 $0 $0 $0 Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (500661) $0 $22,275 $0 $0 Engineering Fees $0 $113,128 $0 $o $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 $o $500 $0 $0 $0 $500 Other Contractual Services $0 $22,275 $0 $0 $0 $22,275 Sprinkler System Maintem $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o 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 A22 18 161 1 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2012 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardseape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Received Anticipated Total Variance Budget Expended Mar. /Sept. Received Over FY 2011 Year -To -Date 2010 Expended (Under) Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector $3,800 $2,200 $1,600 $3,800 $0 Property Appraiser $2,500 $0 $2,200 $2,200 $300 Revenue Reserve $6,400 $0 $0 $0 $6,400 Total Other Fees & Chgs. $12,700 $2,200 $3,800 $6,000 $6,700 Total Appropriations $413,700 $2,200 $34,100 $36,300 $2,444,686 Net Income $87,060 Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $1,949,500 Current Year Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 $407,800 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $2,444,360 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Capital Outlay Irr. & Landscaping Analysis (Opening Balance 10 /01 /I1) $2,444,360 Fiscal Year 2012'transfers from Funds 109, 320,778 $334,700 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryforward $2,437,986 Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Projects/ProgramsTransfer to Carryforward _ $341.074 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $0 Total Fund Balance - September 30, 2012 (Projected) $0 A2 19 Rs C 3 0 L O U C 0 .y Q d v R co e 0 V Q a {i N Q N Y V Ka E E 161 1 tj N O O H OD M R O V' W M 8 'n O O OV Yl 00 O H y N F c O r�'1' O r OA r r1 �rJ M N N O t` C\ C ° ci N v g e W • �i .5n w� a y �+ �' Gi. k. p Y .` po O O o o h � eNrl m b N h Vii h C Vii V f�9 IA H H K f�Av n w r^Hl Vi U�U g Q y ,Yy H M N f/1 L H 6�h N �+ M N Vhf irAJ Vf O a H H H (y. r OQ OQ .n O P P AD O K r• V cV M T v T p r N H N O .. Vv�' M Fl. N H H VI 00 N O p� wyyQw o0 N M 00 CI ��jOj �D O h rpp� �O r T pPPp�� n r^ d h G h V 9 m o00 O ON. �O N ° e H H H H H VJ V9 v ro o r Noo N e vlgo N r ro Ooc r O H D h H IN M H O M � � R n ^1 1Nf1 rN�t � furl T ti qv 3 A 19 N a f� ozo wa os:so TTK -co -to F c v F .o ° asa rr v g e W • �i .5n w� a y �+ �' Gi. k. p A 19 N a f� ozo wa os:so TTK -co -to k= N U m a c m o E N � y O 0 � E rn � Ea E 0 0 m U c w O d y .N j N oa° N � U_ N i Z O d Q T � N d m � v E o d U N o O1 N � n i0 o o � C H \ O \ 0 \ o \ O O \ \ O \ O \ O \ \ \ o .0 O LA 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m m m ri ni ri ri ri ri rvi ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri U C O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 o O +-' 00 0 00000 0000 0 000 0 000 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w C M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 161 1 A22 G v �o u U v a O ai$ E X_ In 4 � L u v U a° 0 0 L J a o >U L y U +Pr . Ill . It M lD 00 O .-a M lD r N M N 00 7 Ill (D c N C N C m 01 O N U .-� n Ol n .+ .+ 00 Il) O O M M .-� I� 07 n 7 O ID O 10 N 00 O W 41 � .ti +' G Z m n v 41 W N o � C H \ O \ 0 \ o \ O O \ \ O \ O \ O \ \ \ o .0 O LA 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m m m ri ni ri ri ri ri rvi ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri U C O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 o O +-' 00 0 00000 0000 0 000 0 000 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w C M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 161 1 A22 G v u U X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 000000000000000000000 C W l0 tD tD to tD lD t0 tD t0 lD t0 l0 0 0 0 l0 lD lD 'D to lD y p C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � u v U C - 0 0 + 41 0. O1 N M. N ID .i N M to M I 01 N O .-I ID L y U +Pr . Ill . It M lD 00 O .-a M lD r N M N 00 7 Ill (D N C C O V Ill M. O N 00 0 M M lD ID . In M 00 0) V O 01 O N U .-� n Ol n .+ .+ 00 Il) O O M M .-� I� 07 n 7 O ID O 10 N 00 O W �D ry O Ill 0 tD M .+ T O W OJ .'-I .-� V lD O M V m .-� M V tD O0 O N V l0 tPr N 7 t0 O0 Vl O M �D .ti +' G Z } tPr tPr 4R tft W tPr +R kPr W tPr M tfr tR +Pr !Pr .,� .-� .-i .y n 41 W N V U Q + O O.--i O N 00 O W V V h N OMN N O M "M p -O `v N M m O7 V M n M" M N M M In N C In n N M d O C o N lD N o w I�IDiDlolOnNn�aoMlDrnmr�Nnr�rn o 0 p II 2 N "'� N M V Ill V N M N. -i N M V V V l0 Il 0 O Cl O j0 41 C tPr tPr Vfi tPr HT +Pr W 1R Vt D 0= LL L Vt lD Q .--i M O .+ O V Ill M M M ID 00 O N M O W v E O N N V V O M O O O N 0 N . M 00 V C n` t0 m M - lfl In Ill iD iD r r 00 O O O .ti N N M V V l!) O a V E o vrtna+ yr +»vrtr+ertenatHrvranwvr+ntnvra+ yr y ai N E Q N y X M �Vr OL ate+ N 0 0000 0 000 0 0000 0 000 000 W L y N Q L X '0UU Q O w N U L Y a U L E u m M0- C p m m — U¢ 0000 0000000m00000AA'A v ds 1A m ' M+Pr +Pr Vf H1 lH VlO MVl f� W WW M W W1R HI +Pr a x E m '� m W O 0 O d K a O O Go 00 m U U U i' +A V} tR '° U p Q Q w v N d' a' K 41 u Vf tH .ti In .-i V M Q W O ti Ln 'D N N M N W;r N 00 C O V In M '+ O N O O M M �� Lr- I(1 M h 00 Ol 0 0 o Co o !0 .y n Oi N . . M M O M M .-I N 00 l\ V O N co `� Q O 00 N Ill C o mM Ol O W W� .�-� N V ID m M 0 Nr 0 ~ O O O t0 0 0 m .a M C t0 W M N't tD N V 0 co Ill co O M 0 O to +»t» m O rCi L .-I N M V m 0 Il co Ol O M V Lll 0 N 00 Ol O 41 �+-' 410000 O 0000 O 000000 0000 O C C CO } N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U Y m M N m m `o N a y O t0 O 07 f� Qp .+ t0 M M O U O O 0 O� w o a o C O I� O N n N W O M 1000 m to M t0 V�1 w N t0 'Cl .-i lj mVf M tPr +Pr M � tPr W tPr tR fA Y C Man 0 U J m Y U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C O } N N N N N N N N N N N U C 0 Y c H n + O tR 00 O 0) C Lr N O 2 Pr O + C O 00 N ° c + ti J O 0 m o n o a > Q N ^ O co � U M d$ ° N W V U p M> V O N p + Y y O ° v 0 + aE It ian°y Pr _ (D 01 E 4Pr p m a0 m°�Z ti F d m — w + m m + z � a ° o w ° ^ c c Ill 3 U ° O O Y 2' O E o m O ° m m O U c o > n m N W 3 + Y a m o m n Co a o + + + c N O O O .° , 0 O m + N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 1n M Ln Ln .. 0 (U z c c c v 00 o 0 o a Z, ✓ m o O m m m O Y N O O O a c c c c Na, oe C J N c c c ° O c p p p � U J U1 (n N K !+ N M V LP 0 C) 0 O 0 0 O O O O N N N N N n Y 161 1 A22 N m 0 m FM m a Y � L Y O oE m aOi a T o U E L L� C U U a U d O N m U Ln N O� a v m In on a o E m to E Ln o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O O O O O O O O O O O M C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y c ~ O O 666 O O 666 O O 0 U ooc o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_ \\ \ 00 00\ m U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n +' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M M M M M M M o oa N N C N Z n o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 w y '- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T� U yl0 101010 LD 010 W W tD lO m y ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E U aci ato to tD N N 0 m m U m V .ti .ti LD .-i N OOH rn m ' m n N L rn co w ko m m LM _ M .-i .i .-I 10 — O In � 0 o t0 t0 'D o } W a O w to Vr yr w t» yr vl w w yr U > o �vNalnomMrn�lom o M m v to to to to v vav N ON 0000 al NLO co ti V O O .. M +Pr tPr HT tPr Oft W lH W UM O t0 �oLn in in Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln to Ln L 11 0 My 01 M- c0 01 O Ol Ol T m T 0 ^ 01 01 T U� O M U C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wwmmmmmwww M m M m M M M M M M M M VI 4Pr +Pr tR tPr N U II -O Vf M M tPr tfr Q m l o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > L m �m/ Y O O O O O O O o O O O -O Y LYl �i m cO N -r c O O O O O O O O O O O ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c U - V 00000000000 O _ � i L � +Pr +Pr kA Vf M fA tPr UI V} M +R uaav °o O O M V W 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O tD tR tPr H} H! H+ b3 x M O Ln M (7l W N m 00 N M M 0 l y V N Ifl M Ol m +� U y O t0 O 07 f� Qp .+ t0 M M O U O O 0 O� w o a o C O I� O N n N W O M 1000 m to M t0 V�1 w N t0 'Cl .-i lj mVf M tPr +Pr M � tPr W tPr tR fA Y C Man 0 U J m Y U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C O } N N N N N N N N N N N U C 0 Y c H n + O tR 00 O 0) C Lr N O 2 Pr O + C O 00 N ° c + ti J O 0 m o n o a > Q N ^ O co � U M d$ ° N W V U p M> V O N p + Y y O ° v 0 + aE It ian°y Pr _ (D 01 E 4Pr p m a0 m°�Z ti F d m — w + m m + z � a ° o w ° ^ c c Ill 3 U ° O O Y 2' O E o m O ° m m O U c o > n m N W 3 + Y a m o m n Co a o + + + c N O O O .° , 0 O m + N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 1n M Ln Ln .. 0 (U z c c c v 00 o 0 o a Z, ✓ m o O m m m O Y N O O O a c c c c Na, oe C J N c c c ° O c p p p � U J U1 (n N K !+ N M V LP 0 C) 0 O 0 0 O O O O N N N N N n Y 161 1 A22 N m 0 m FM m a n Y 16 i 1 m M N I a N L N i N ��ao o 0 ti L (D E C m uo � U C a U U N y E o v ��m w 0 E a w c 2 + In p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E N E a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d� C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + O a m 0 O L 0 o R1 U C o 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a O O: co N � O o_ �d o n +�000000000 0 !� 0000000 0 0000 M,Ny N`�- M M M M M M M t+1 M M 0"1 y� 0 N (7 C O d N O - y 0 C O O Z o n N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y- C J O v 0 O y 0 UJ O 0 �- 00000000000 pi +� >, m U ro O 1n O O d my c m E IR 0 f �00 L u E N> N o d U O t0 N h 1I7 n O 10 01 co lD V 0 O u V .-i 7 0 lD M N. to M M 0+ N ` 0 C O O .-i m MO moo to N 00 ^ C O+ Ho Ifl �.+NtiO. -i tD .aO01 .-i V uj0 NdL rom mm 'T ON .M-i Om 07 Mi CY OV ONN= .+ .-i .y ti # .-i .--i .-i N N N M f0 J Ol E i� E Q T U W 1R fR fPr (N lA VT M +Pr M p .� m a W lL0 CO Z 0 V m O U a� 10 M M 0) 00 M V O to to to to V t0 1I1 .-+ N Vl V' M V t0 O d, �- 0 m— O_ + O >O O ow M O 1I1 to Vl Vl V M N .ti O Z 0 O a C N (3 0] P Ifl V 10 00 O N 7 o O v 0 N 0 0 o ui 3 01— to lL UM O M M M M M M M M M M O >' W L 0 °ci C &i0000000000 in in to vi I I to E Oaf T �^m N II O � � Z c w0- o U O C 0 01 U 0 P � C' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U^ L M E ao yt =0 N N N N N N N N N N D v wwwr »a v n 00 m W > v Q � � oUa' II 3 +Kam ° V 'iA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L - m O J O] 1110. r > m A o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a oo + ++ c 0 0 0 0C) 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 W N 0 00 0 Cv C U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O U U + N O OO m O E GI U}+Pr tPrWtPr tR iPr fRM WtR c C — C N m O N t0f1 1011 .L 0 U Q QU 0 v1 ts1 to 0 n of o 0 0 0 O. O O N 10 t0 W tR 4Pr �fr M tPr M 0 If) M 01 p� M 0 N R u x h o 00 N VI > > > _ M M 10 N Ill ,C Q O O o y V N Ifl M O1 N (0 U/ N 01 tq U o Ot Ot 01 N UJ n ninK p1 O to N N m P O O m O 10 u 0 d' .-i R 0 %0 M h. 10 M 0 0 o C 121 O 10 - (31 4m "I Ol InN 0 0 0 m ON 10 0 0 to m m 1p M V N '+ 0 ,Ny .M-i .ai O M O O +Pr VT +Pr tR tPr +A fPr tPr W m 0= N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 00 T N N N N N N N ... N C U n Y 16 i 1 m M N I a 1611 p 2n Severn Trent Services/ST-Moyer 210 N. University Drive,Suite 702 Coral Springs,Florida 33071 Phone: (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 by Pelican 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 encompasses 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 provides capital programs including community wide landscape & irrigation system renovations, U.S. 41 berm improvements,Clam 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 boo a vvo LO-Z0-1 lOZ 1611 A aa b and improvements directly benefit the land within the Division, costs of providing these 2 services and improvements are defrayed with non-ad valorem special assessments. co 1 I g i § x 1 g n M M 0 o I - 0 2 N T • N m s r c a_ a o G p 2 p N W 8 $ s o N p (O N ' c E EE � °" • U N V ii A 1 o a V Z f A g N. i g I- � a� =,I � n p ' 2 V � § i i V ;C!.1 I § 4 1 ei I 0 N if 4. & t0 OI C r, o M i y i N H '' I r' w 4 § s w co. 3 ; c x 1 o w a I a 3 E. 1 > m x i _ '- w - 3 - F I 2 1611 A22 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 (jointly 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 Breakeven 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 91:40 LO-ZO-L l0Z 16x1 Aa2 Table 3 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Average Unit Comparison I Current Modified Assessment Assessment Number of Minimum Maximum Average F for Average for Average Unit Type Units Taxable Value Taxable Value Taxable Valuer Unit Unit Difference Single Family Units 891 $0 $12,400,978 $1,087,043 - $488.80 $883.22 ($384.42) Condominium Units 5579 $0 $5,670,250 $437,917 ? $371.96 $355.81 $16.15 Breakeven Residential Value • $463,447 $376.55 $376.55 $0.00 Table 4 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Actual Unit Comparison Number of " Percent of Unit Type Units Total Single Family Units Below Breakeven Value 184 26.63% Single Family Units Above Breakeven Value 507 73.37% Multi Family Units Below Breakeven Value 4094= 73.39% Multi Family Units Above Breakeven Value 1485: 26.61% Non-Residential Parcels With Decreased Assessments 38 90.48% Non-Residential Parcels With Increased Assessments 4 , 9.52% Figure 1:Changes in Assessments by Group Type 100.00% 90.00% _.�.._._ 80.00% —70.00% _ 60.00% j — 40.00%- — __- 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Single Family Multi Family Non-Residential ■Units with Decreased Assessments ■Units with Increased Assessments 4 100 9640 to-ao-«oZ . 1611 A22 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 Current Modified I Assessment Assessment Taxable Value for Number of i for Average for Average Single Family Units Units Under g Unit Unit Difference $100,000 3 $311.13 $81.25 ($229.811) $200,000 0 $329.13 $162.50 ($168.13) $300,000 29 $347.13 $243.75 ($103.38) $400,000 95 $365.13 $325.00 ($40.13) 9463,447 57 $376.55 $376.55 30.00 $500,000 29 c. $383.13 $406.25 $23.12 $600,000 85 $401.13 $487.50 $88.37 $700,000 46 $419.13 $568.75 $149.62 $800,000 42 $437.13 $650.00 $212.67 $900,000 43 $455.13 $731.25 $276.12 $1,000,000 25 i $473.13 $812.50 $339.37 $1,500,000 108 $563.13 $1,218.75 $681.62 $2,000,000 65 $653.13 $1,625.00 $171.87 $2,500,000 18 $743.13 $2,031.25 $1,288.12 $5,000,000 34 $1,193.13 $4,062.50 $2,11169.37 $10,000,000 6 $2,093.13 $6,125.00 $11,831.87 $15,000,000 6 $2,993.13 $12,187.50 $9,114.37 Table 6 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division . Methodology Change impact on Multi Family Units Current Modified Assessment Assessment Taxable Value for Number of r for Average for Average Multi Family Units Units Under Unit Unit Difference 5100,000 120 $311.13 $81.25 ($228.68) $200,000 1313 $329.13 $162.50 ($16.63) $300,000 1530 P $347.13 $243.75 ($103.311) 5400,000 824 $365.13 $325.00 ($40.13) $463,447 56 $376.55 $376.55 $0.00 $500,000 350 $383.13 $406.25 $23.12 5600,000 294 $401.13 $487.50 $86.37 $700,000 205 ' $419.13 $568.75 $16.12 $800,000 200 $437.13 $650.00 $212.87 $900,000 163 $455.13 5731.25 $276.12 $1,000,000 120 $473.13 $812.50 $339.37 51,500.000 234 $563.13 $1,218.75 $155.12 52,000,000 104 $653.13 $1,625.00 $971.87 52,500,000 18 I 5743.13 $2,031.25 $1,288.12 $5,000,000 43 $1,193.13 $4,062.50 52,86.37 $10,000,000 5 $2,093.13 $8,125.00 $6,031.87 5 900 61:40 LO-Z0-110Z A a 16t t 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 Class ERU Taxable Value Assessment Assessment Difference Club at Pelican Bay 273.38 $9,372,318 $81,823 $7,615 ($74,206) Government/Institutional 129.83 $0 $38,057 $0 ($36,057) Hotels 330 $195,951,374 $132.116 $159,210 $27,095 All Other 772.38 $123,196,635 $248,583 $100,097 (9140,406) Total 1505.97 9320,520,327 $500,579 $200,923 0233,056) 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 6140 L010-1 MX ., , 161 1 A22 Figure 2:Tax Burden Changes by Group Type 7. l00% z- 90% Box- 70% sox 40x 20% lox IVrZZz7 Ox 1 Existing Methodology Modified Methodology ■Single Family ■Multi Family r Non-Residential 7 MO 61.4O LO-Z0-1,1.0Z 161 ►1x22 RECEIVED MAY - 9 2011 Board of County CoMMWonam PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL HOLD A CLAM BAY WORKSHOP ON TUESDAY, APRIL 12 AT 2:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES Fiala _ ✓ AGENDA Hiller Henning, Coyle _ The agenda includes, but is not limited: Colette 1. Presentation by Ms. Kathy Worley, Co- Director, Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida 2. Question & Answer Session 3. Adjourn 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. Vj', Comes: tern# 1U �W2.2_ 161 1 A22 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD CLAM BAY WORKSHOP TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a Clam Bay Workshop to discuss dredging triggers, Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John P. Chandler Tom Cravens Johan Domenic Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager absent Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John laizzo Michael Levy John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick. Administrative Assistant Participating Professionals Kathy Worley, Co- Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers There were approximately 30 attendees including Ronnie Bellone, Director and Vice Chairwoman, Pelican Bay Foundation Board Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Marcia Cravens, Vice - President, Mangrove Action Group Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group Noreen Murray, Director, Pelican Bay Foundation Board Robert Naegele, Director, Pelican Bay Foundation Board Susan O'Brien, Candidate, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Theodore Raia, Former Pelican Bay Services Division Board Member David Trecker, Candidate, Pelican Bay Services Division Board PRESENTATION BY KATHY WORLEV, CO- DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & BIOLOGIST, CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Ms. Kathy Worley, Co- Director, Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida gave presentation describing the conditions that should trigger dredging in Clam Pass. In summary, they should take a holistic and comprehensive approach to the Clam Bay Estuary system because many factors influence whether dredging should occur. Following the presentation, Messrs. Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates and Kenneth Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers participated in a question and answer session. The meeting adjourned at 3:42 p.m. Kei h atlas, ChairRiad 1.11 "" 7 Minutes by Lisa Resnick \ 4/28/20113:32:35 PM April 12, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay WorIo6 I 1 • • 2 Presentation by Kathy Worley, Co- Director, Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1999 Ten -Year Permit vs New Proposed Permit 1999 10 -Yr Permit, Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan The primary objective was environmental restoration of the ecosystem in particular the restoration of approximately 20 hectares of mangroves that died off in the northern end of the system along the strand road and upper clam bay Today's Proposed Permit, Clam Pass Maintenance Dredging The primary objective is inlet maintenance to aid in Flushing and improve environmental resources. Coneeptnal Model of Will Mangrove Die -off Develop..¢..I Allston.. of - Eaereded Snrrare Ad1n¢mlte Foural water Retention M1lan rives Hvdrolo - Snrrare vice, Prolonged Levels Dietetic SlressoI last eved snbinerged Changehl Freshwater -Tidal Cirenlalionin roots Tidal Flow Rican the Mangroves aerial becomes stagnant Dlark Aheretl Ilydrop as, Maogrov Redmed SM1eeRlnx Sabsitlen<e Die -one Relnw CrOUnd C hange in Avian Species Ilse D— Decline in Avian Popustions Dedinr tin Fi,hrrivs _ Devine in Rennlic msmri nne Communily Page 1 of 4 1611g2K April 12, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop Presentation by Kathy Worley, Co- Director, Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida When to Dredge? Dredging should occur only when the hydrologic exchange between the Gulf and the Clam Bay estuary has been reduced to the point where the biological integrity of the entire system (water and forest resources) are at risk. Page 2 of 4 re....u.�I.II I w.r.,. r 1r rr .,., , w „.....,.,,�a.�.....,.,..r. IT T&I r t Dredging Clam Pass Inlet ALONE Is not answer to maintaining the health of the estuarine waterways and mangrove forest NEED A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO PROTECT THE ESTUARY WHICH CONSISTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES THAT ARE FOUND IN THE PASS, BAYS AND TRIBUTARIES AND THE LANDWARD HABITATS INCLUDING THE MANGROVE FORESTS, SCRUB AND DUNES Inlet Dynamics are influenced by a variety of factors such as: Inlet Current patterns driven by tides, waves, wind, severe weather, etc Constantly variable inlet hydrodynamics are influenced by tidal prism, channel and estuary morphology, slope, elevation, sediment lypets) and geological features, fresh water inflow, gros! geometric variation, flow velocity, tidal phase and amplitude and phase, shoaling and scouring, etc..... 161 1 A April 12, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop Presentation by Kathy Worley, Co- Director, Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Circumstances that could necessitate dredging 1)Pass completely closes due to a storm or other natural event 2)lnlet has lost hydraulic efficiency that is not recoverable through natural processes aid other Monitoring Plan Purpose: To evaluate inlet characteristics and tidal dynamics within the entire Clam Bay system on a comprehensive long -term basis. I w„m,r wiw.xW.a �.rai n.. W.�naxw I 5 -n euwA.� +.....�r�r.,p r.,.e:.a o..w•w a. M..vN.•.r.e.• +� •iu,n notixnna.'u:e�w�`W d �.R'xn �WVr Page 3 of 4 April 12, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop 1611A& Presentation by Kathy Worley, Co- Director, Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida wou noc rwsc uc ,vx ,me moo ao, zoax >m� mw ww not •ww[ ua 1 I Page 4 of 4 WHEN TO DREDGE? PROBLEMS • DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION HEALTH (NEEDS) OF THE MANGROVES • ISA SNAPSHOT —ONE EVENT — WHO DECIDES WHEN TO TAKE SNAPSHOT & BASED ON WHAT CRITERIA? — EFFECT OF LUNAR CYCLE — WIND DIRECTION & SPEED — VOLUME OF WATER FLOWING THROUGH THE THROAT — SEASONAL WEATHER PATTERNS 1 b 1 1 A 22 April 12, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop Presented by J. Domenic Page 1 of 2 RECOMMENDED WHEN THE "THROAT" OF THE PASS FALLS BELOW 200 SQUARE FEET IN CROSS- SECTION PROBLEMS (CONTINUED) • DAMAGES CAUSED BY DREDGING: - TO SEA - GRASSES -TO BENTHIC COMMUNITIES -TO EBB -SHOAL WHEN BRINGING IN THE DREDGE EQUIPMENT - DISTURBING EXISTING SEA -LIFE - BLOCKING ACCESS TO GULF FOR SEAGATE RESIDENTS, WHILE DREDGE ON LOCATION PROBLEMS (CONTINUED) RECOMMENDATION DOES NOT MEASURE THE EFFECT OF: - RAINFALL IN THE MANGROVES - WATER ENTERING FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES — FRESH WATER UP- WELLING THROUGH -OUT THE SYSTEM — THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT THESE CREATE IN THE FLUSHING OF THE "THROAT' — DOES NOT ADDRESS SEASONAL DIFFERENCES IN RAINFALUDROUGHT CONCLUSION • DREDGING SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HEALTH OF THE MANGROVES • USE TIDAL FLOW DATA TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE "THROAT ". 161 IA2� April 12, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop Presented by J. Domenie Page 2 of 2 SUGGESTION • WE NEED TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE "THROAT • THIS CAN EASILY BE ACCOMPLISHED • IT HAS BEEN DONE SINCE 1998 • MEASURE THE QUANTITY OF WATER ENTERING THE BAYS • MEASURE THE EFFECT FLOOD AND EBB TIDES HAVE ON THE BAYS • MEASURE HOW LONG WATER REMAINS • THIS CAN BE DONE ON A DAILY BASIS, NOT ON A "SNAPSHOT" BASIS 16 I 1 A 23 1 f' Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. • Advisory Committee z885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples Fl, 34104 April 19, 2011 AGENDA 1. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: March 15, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard C. Review & Approval FY -2012 MSTU Budget 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 X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Mr �oiU BY: ....................... The next meeting is May 17, 20113:30 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Misc. Corres: Naples, FL 34104 Date: �! (�-� 11 Item It: %%oT"A?3 - Jr Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee A z885 Horseshoe Drive South L Naples FL ;gtoq March 15, 2011 Minutes 16 l 1A 23 I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:34 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Helen Carella, John Weber County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Gloria Herrera- Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Damon Himmel - Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty- Juristaff III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Remove: V. C. Review & Approval FY -2012 MSTU Budget Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 15, 2011 Change: VIII. A., pg. 3, second paragraph should read: FPL Electrical Meter Consumption 3449 "Kilowatts" (since the initial install) Betty Schudel moved to approve the February 15, 2011 minutes as amended Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report —Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $266,324.71 o $182.41 in Capital Outlay monies will be available on the April Budget Report as Windham Studio P.O. was recently closed Dale Lewis questioned if necessary could the .50 Millage Cap be implemented for MSTU Projects (Rate as noted on the Budget Report.) Darryl Richard replied: o Radio Road MSTU Millage Rate is affected by the mandated Rollback Rate • The State Legislative body abolished increases to Ad Valorem Tax • The Millage Rate is adjusted to maintain the current Revenue Stream and cannot exceed the mandated Rollback Rate 161 i1 A 2 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) (R-24) Moving the Type MController o (2) Proposals were reviewed (paid by Fund 111) - Hannula $3,396.00 (See attached) - AG- TRONIX $600.00 (See attached) (R-23) Plant Material spacing on Phase HProject o Hannula Proposal $2,798.00 was submitted (See attached) Pam Lulich reviewed Plant Materials for the small Median by Circle K: - .Juniper along the median tip - Yellow Crown of Thorn - Big Rose Crown of Thorn Damon Himmel noted the Proposal (Plant Material Spacing) includes relocation of the existing healthy Plants. Dale Lewis moved to approve the Hannula quote in the amount of $2,798.00. Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Hannula Damon Himmel reported: • Fertilization is underway (will be complete within 2 weeks) • Yellow spikes are present in the Royal Palms - Cause is undetermined • Ant Hill(s) remnants are scheduled for removal Discussion ensued on applying Mulch in Phase I and Phase 11. Damon Himmel stated the following will be performed: • Apply Mulch (top dress) in Medians of Phase I and Phase 11 • Re -mulch (3) inches of the newly developed dirt areas - Existing Mulch will be utilized as a base layer B. Windham Studio Scott Windham requested Hannula perform the following Maintenance: • Remove the impaired Palm Fronds (Royal Palms) • Tighten up the Bougainvillea • Flushing the Green Island Ficus (Santa Barbara) Dale Lewis questioned when new leaves and buds would develop on the Ficus after flushing is conducted. Scott Windham replied 30 - 60 days for new growth to appear on the Ficus. 2 16 I 1 A 23 VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment Scott Windham reviewed the Status Report: (See attached) • Pink Tabebui was incorporated into the Design within the Medians • Recommend removing (1) Tabebui (at Radio Road) • Plans are 90% complete and includes the requested changes The Committee questioned if a cost overrun on the Project was foreseen (by Scott Windham) as Irrigation problems were experienced in the past on Devonshire. Scott Windham did not anticipate any cost overrun on the Project. Scott Windham reviewed Devonshire Blvd. Landscape and Irrigation Renovation Opinion of Probable Cost: • Noted Errors on Plant Unit Cost that was presented at February meeting (See attached) — February Cost Estimate $383,814. 00 — March Adjusted Cost Estimate $317,250.00 • Suggested installing a Root Barrier at the following locations — By the new Black Olive Trees — Along the Sidewalks • Root Barrier details — Cost $9,500. 00 for 1200 plus feet of Barrier — Chemical bead is installed at a 19 inch depth — Root Barrier cost can be added to the Base Contract or as an Alternate to the Bid The Committee was in agreement to add the Root Barrier as a Bid Alternate. o 10 gallon Clusia is a $11,000.00 cost savings (versus 15 gallon) Betty Schudel noted the larger Clusia was preferred if monies were available in the Budget. The Proposal was revised to include the Root Barrier ($325,000.00.) Dale Lewis moved to approve the Windham Studio Proposal if the Project can be completed at $325,000.00 to move forward with 100% approval and Permitting (ROW.) Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. Devonshire Water Usage Scott Windham reported the Meter(s) on the Well were incorporated into Plans as requested. 1611A23 IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Master Plan Discussion - None X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS -None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:24 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee �)"& C I tA- IA Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on Li 10, l as presented or amended Y The next meeting is April 19, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 0 LO Q N OQ' cr ' _ OLL � Q o a I O N N N OI O O Ol O O OJ O O N N r 61 O O> n d d O N O O n 0 O n r 0 O N N N m r N O O N O N N d N O N N N d N M h O N V N O� M N N O] m O r N M M N N n n O r M W N W � � N N N (p Ep N N U3 E9 EA f9 N fA E9 1A fA E9 M EH EH W N M N N N O N O N N O d �(J I� O N N C M EO EO N O Q) O W N h En f/1 fA EA E9 W N Fli Vi IA E9 EA E9 Efl E9 (n N EA N m m 0 0 U U m m O O d N O o 0 o c In 0 C N y N N N u) O CJ U vi I.J fn V) V) O U 0 c w m= E E E N w m m r > >> u c m w v m w m m m a o LL w� x x x— s A z n N 3 3 3 3 N N NNN C N N N N U O m C m C d N N d M N M O N O O O N N N } Cc n y e5 ry N O O N O .CI Y N O M a E'0 0 F- E ° OI M f- 'U ''�6 C Ira m _ N O� J LL LL Q a N U y tr m n S 'CO a Z a n n N a 0 0 0 c a U @ o r° U N v .- C _OIi' J W C C O N O U C J FE C N C d Q J t Il W J J d U C fn N J� O J U U O d N U V 01 r N N D7 01 N r OJ m M N N V N r M 'T M O d r O W N N N M d N N O] r J d n d N M N N N N d V V M N d d l0 d N N N M N n U U N N O N N a Z 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 CI 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N l0 O N o N N N i0 N N N O 10 a d V d N d N V y V V d V d N d v v d m m 0 0 U U m m O O d N O o 0 o c In 0 C N y N N N u) O CJ U vi I.J fn V) V) O U 0 c w m= E E E N w m m r > >> u c m w v m w m m m a o LL w� x x x— s A z n N 3 3 3 3 W E9 EA NNN N E9 N E9 N H W N N M N N W d (O N N A N N NNN N N N N N O N N d M N M O N O O O O O O O y aD N N n N N v @ o v Q Q m W E9 EA NNN N E9 N E9 N H W N N M N N W d (O N N A N N NNN N N N N N O O O O N O O O O O V Q m O O O N O O O O r O O O O O O O ao o o v o 0 0 o r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 d O O M O O) O EO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N d N N E9 E9 E9 EA d3 N N E9 fA M d3 EA N fA fA N N O O O 01 O N N O N N n n o 0 d O rn a O r r v ro o o w � of o N 16 o(D vi N M O N M d N N N O ? h r n M r N M o m o N N N N N N N N N N N NNN N N � N O O •- N N N of N N O O N M N N N r N - ON G ' O] ' M 11 O O N M N N (n m W � N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o o r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m M o N N N r o 0 o VJ o N N N iri coON Ni m o16.-�v n� g Q A 23 2 V P 9 f _ m � � R R f s N M N O C N O N d d N N N N 9N NNN N Y. Da N O N Da N O N o r v J O d N O N W N N V N 9 N NNN N ff CIO O O O O 0 0 N r N r NNNN N N I N NNN N N �Yii N N N N N N N N N W N NNNNNN N N I N N I N N I N N N I N N o m W U O ¢ Of U F d' w J J J 0_' W > W Z W K x U U 0 J 1'�a�J !n F = J O w W Z w O U w Z Qi x J w Z¢ w w N U < d' N J CD x w N w W d w W W a. o m 1 J ¢- xO p W W O � O Z F F'~KJ� ¢' -C7OZZ NN Wwn 920 ¢2ZZU zw z aU z WwZr0,�� >v.. �LL 5 zNg WaNg� Wacoi�gj wwz0 K Z 7 00<<W F m W Q H J w X I- m0- K K of .8 'O00Z a COY W W OK w m W zr _ ZZO 0 6 O K z N K K O K z OU d O t~ 03: U K z d Q> m a 2 O af F x OLL N 1 j= W w W W W w W W W h Q U OiU m z � Z ¢ W O N F- W J � W W W W w W= n N > >' fWq " W W w W d, N R ap Q Y W= W m Q K J to Q Q w N W W N K �" Q Q x N� W Z Q Z w N ZQ. z z �_ O W LL U= K Z Z U O z Q W Mw F F' Z Z C7 U 2Q W W W I~i 7 1- W K K Q Q W K z Z p Z O J 10 (n d Q z U W H W� a a¢ a O= Q W W Uo zzW F moo zf-. wwzgodw3zm gJJowoo c> t-mm Ew N M d N 10 n OJ 01 O" ------------ N N N N N t0`) M !'l CM9 Cd9 M CN9 P9 EN'f t'1 d d N O 'm m A v m A O O m m r Ira ° m m + + Q+Q c o S !m o J i + f Ie w to to o ° � V m + J C m to p c io o °o A m °o m m W O W m D 0 ; '0 P X ]J q A I� O O la ' m m m w A m ti N O p y z p _ N m z m m 3 T m m C Z Z O m A N > v m A O O m m r Ira ° m m + + Q+Q c o S !m o J i + f Ie w to to o ° � V m + J C m to p c io o °o A m °o m m m m m e m P N N O J p m Y O O IA A I Z _ _ O b m o IIU'p 0 m + o o 0 o m m m w o m 0 0 °o 0 N N S v m A O O m m r Ira ° m m + + Q+Q c o S !m o J i + f Ie w to to o ° � V m + J C m to p c io o °o A m °o m m N QOQ yy�� QA + QO sN 5O5�� A yNy�� QA N o o o O g S o o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 o b 2S 0 ow c a m � x yI N a 0 'I gO y+ 5A� pNp yNQ� QN W + 5WQ� yQ� 5VQ�1 �A+ N _QAR .._- m p N 0 0 _ S Ie al w�l o S IS � li 0 Js; 5Q� N o Ip to Io_IS 0 °p S S E to o 0 to to to S o °o °o z to J to o c in u b 0 0 0 o m io S w 'n - a a o 0 + O A W O O + S S N T9 0 0 0 0 1 a m A m S S I? N w N m SIp p W m N VI N � .. m m m e m P N N O J p Z m IN Y O O IO S I Z _ _ v m u 0 n o 0 0 °o 0 N QOQ yy�� QA + QO sN 5O5�� A yNy�� QA N o o o O g S o o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 o b 2S 0 ow c a m � x yI N a 0 'I gO y+ 5A� pNp yNQ� QN W + 5WQ� yQ� 5VQ�1 �A+ N _QAR .._- m p N 0 0 _ S Ie al w�l o S IS � li 0 Js; 5Q� N o Ip to Io_IS 0 °p S S E to o 0 to to to S o °o °o z to J to o c in u b 0 0 0 o m io S w 'n - a a o 0 + O A W O O + S S N T9 0 0 0 0 1 a m A m S S I? N w N m SIp p W m N VI N � .. m m m e m J p Z m IN Y Da N QOQ yy�� QA + QO sN 5O5�� A yNy�� QA N o o o O g S o o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 o b 2S 0 ow c a m � x yI N a 0 'I gO y+ 5A� pNp yNQ� QN W + 5WQ� yQ� 5VQ�1 �A+ N _QAR .._- m p N 0 0 _ S Ie al w�l o S IS � li 0 Js; 5Q� N o Ip to Io_IS 0 °p S S E to o 0 to to to S o °o °o z to J to o c in u b 0 0 0 o m io S w 'n - a a o 0 + O A W O O + S S N T9 0 0 0 0 1 a m A m S S I? N w N m SIp p W m N VI N � .. Z _ _ N QOQ yy�� QA + QO sN 5O5�� A yNy�� QA N o o o O g S o o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 o b 2S 0 ow c a m � x yI N a 0 'I gO y+ 5A� pNp yNQ� QN W + 5WQ� yQ� 5VQ�1 �A+ N _QAR .._- m p N 0 0 _ S Ie al w�l o S IS � li 0 Js; 5Q� N o Ip to Io_IS 0 °p S S E to o 0 to to to S o °o °o z to J to o c in u b 0 0 0 o m io S w 'n - a a o 0 + O A W O O + S S N T9 0 0 0 0 1 a m A m S S I? N w N m SIp p W m N VI N � .. 'I I N (p Nn N N 1K IT {yNn N K A N T A > a A A A T T �� o is m '.m m O �O it T -� m 'r 1� > i .� c �_ c _- _m m IZ m I� Im a -T_�� o ti Td m ._.... z m__.y z — E m y ',A n m 'j �,� 2 n O I�Z - O c m O -I m ° A L] m yyy I$ O T IIN Lp ID 2 �m 1�1 m m 0 W m m0 N A A. INfi Im �ln 'n -p1 e Z m m x O i3 m< m m 0-1 4 m I< r N p 13. N p D a. T T 9 n O lD�II, A O A m Tj T C - m frail m to a I,m 'I> In i y � O i m Ira N Ira m Iz y v N A N. m m IN Z '.m m M < m m O O ,11 z O N_ A x D q C p m W_ O- O III o m D IW I+ + m n W N r m N S to A m- J N A + O m N O A t0 W m IIS Ira t0 P l N J 0 0 0 � �m m 'o 0 0 0 0 to IIS o w w m m °mxn I I I I I I III ad IH UI r O i + p I O m._+ Iap IO <n (Ai1 A I J (Al ti Ip O OI_ O m m N S__.S W J I A O O m tD O_m O a x n III � to a W 'm IN o__I$ lmn�lo� Imp 5 Lo o A 0 S ''8m 8m IN pI �A im S IS n m $ S wS J8 0 0 _ 0 18 u m D u r n ]l a � m IIA P O '.O 10 OI O J O S O O O O O (Ui1 O O N O O O 'J N N QOQ yy�� QA + QO sN 5O5�� A yNy�� QA N o o o O g S o o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 o b 2S 0 ow c a m � x yI N a 0 'I gO y+ 5A� pNp yNQ� QN W + 5WQ� yQ� 5VQ�1 �A+ N _QAR .._- m p N 0 0 _ S Ie al w�l o S IS � li 0 Js; 5Q� N o Ip to Io_IS 0 °p S S E to o 0 to to to S o °o °o z to J to o c in u b 0 0 0 o m io S w 'n - a a o 0 + O A W O O + S S N T9 0 0 0 0 1 a m A m S S I? N w N m SIp p W m N VI N � .. N 0 NN N o N 'u T - A m �� - •O _ ry -o _ O 1 ._'m b O �m < m o � J I -O 1 II_NW mm J o O m . - �' m 0 a m O m + T I -o f � iN m l (Q p D J ...._�-m t�$0 0p ._.:I�'Nm f_$ N O A O _ - 0 fm N 0 A A 0 m 1°m N 0 OO (A A 0 J 0 m mA Z 9 A VJm Nm 0 J-D J 1 1 1N m N -A D 1 +I N m b o O N A m m — - i'W O A N m ' � o o is is p i0 p O D m im O C 10, ? OD y 1 m C O m im, - -.._. �j I A m 9 'mn 'mn r O p < < 0 A 0 1 n ' 1 -1 A A IA T to I�'o -� IIW IIm z q IN m e ID n Io Ia 'Z '..o 0 0 o 0 Ic p m p i p A O m T O O O H O Im m Im m O N O m O p m A A m y m y 0 IO a p A p p l !O l0 O 'O Z m y Im N ur ti Im m m l» rn m Om (D O 'D Z 'Z p yH a p j '2 Z Z m C ti IV 'Im m N Z 0 y 'm 0 pm N O D AO -1 m m m p ' m '.. D D D IO a l N p C p io yA D m 1- o yp Im D y m 7 m < m m m( z r m Iz O I� m 1. Iz I,DO o Ills i0 m IA a 'A Im O IO A m Im O D D p o m m m m m o x Pa m 00-M o � I � p ' T I p m --11 A O N a O O O m i0 W J m� QI O IO A m D m m 1°O L 41 O !Y A m O O O V °m K D �I l�Dl N ^ l"O ID1 I N I C 'y ^ N �Q L A 0 N A J W G N G N O P 1U0 Oml b W J - pl O V m m N O mJ N O N O W O J � I lD G i m .(p� G m O O p J (p� O pG S pA O O O O O 'O O 0 O O O p O O O O ° O O O O O �O O O O O O m3 xl N 0 m o W _ Lp J N p o o to o m l J n Gyl G p N — III N N J A A ° m ym 0 M OM 1. i?y nO 0 0 0 J 4 O I O III, ml N ,Im J I I I m C. G G _0 O O '..O C G O r 1 O A I C m H J 1p C r D o Io c H N C O O O O O O O M I iL l o lo 0 m N y p m A N J N AI m to o 0 0o o � o °o 0 0 0� o 0 0 ° 1 o °o o o t °o o °n _ —L_ ''.I —•— i � + III r } I _ —_ —_ ` —_— I _ � I Il l 1, o ,ryo°♦ �. %� ° I'IS �O O O 'O O 0 IO O O O O 'Q N I A P fffRlll N O p p p °' __ o° lID D �D D D \ '� D I� _lo ➢ D __l.. o _ e D_D D �o_ D 19, e z p ZF n o° o if V dm O O O W rO Zt °o 'z Iz Iz z I? ? Iw liW i� z _ o I,z z z z o let 1. �e 10 o S z o z �z m II? a i w C I p a I I � � N I I N i 5 I III III ' I I I I I I i i I ! Ja E � v IV C � y j VIII t I I W % lal C I I 6 C A O 4. VIII pm N N O ma I m9 I I I Aa I I m m 3 e �Q 3 a' —""— c m a r � 3 J I 0 Q N fJ pq py � u + v u m 'a 0 n I I I J9 m n m m m O r 0 x III �rt I�-I� --ill a m o 0 mm� I I I I l li 11 +� f Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 May 17, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: April 19, 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 X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment 1611A231 MONEYS MA 2 ej ?Ui? BY: Fiala I✓ ____ Hiller ✓ Henning Coyle Coletta The next meeting is June 21, 20113:30 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Misc. Corres: Naples, FL 34104 pater 12-1&11 1 item k: l LiM 1 K12 3 1611A23 r� of Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee T . z885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples Horseshoe April 19, 2011 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, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Others: Damon Himmel - Hannula Landscaping, Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA John Weber moved to approve the agenda as submitted Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 15, 2011 Change: 11. Scott Windham- Windham .Studio was present Betty Schudel moved to approve the March 15, 2011 minutes as amended Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report —Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) • The Final Carry Forward will be available in June • Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax $31,820.81 B. Project Manager Report- Darryl Richard- Reviewed under V. C C. Review & Approval FY -2012 MSTU Budget Staff reviewed the Budget Proposal: (See attached) o Requested Current 12 Line Item — Capital Improvements $420,000.00 Dale Lewis perceived the requested FYI Capital Improvements amount was high. Discussion ensued on the Capital Improvements Line Item. Scott Windham stated the Estimate given for FYI Budget Improvements was $317,000.00. 11��j 11 A 23 Staff clarified that Budget monies not placed itTt 10 0kraIg Budget may be put in Improvements Capital or Reserves and noted: o A transfer from Reserves Line Item would require a Budget Amendment and BCC approval Darryl Richard resumed with review of the Proposed FYI Budget: • Requested Current 12 Line Item — estimated Water and Sewer $3,000.00 — FYI l Water and Sewer was paid by County Funds as reimbursement for the Radio Road Streetscape Beautification Signs • A 3% reduction in Taxable Value is anticipated — FYI Millage Rate was adjusted up to. 30 to maintain the Revenue Stream (FYI 1 .2949 Millage Rate) John Weber moved to approve the FY12 Budget. Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Protect Manager Report- Darryl Richard (See attached) o (R -22) Devonshire Shrub Refurbishment — Plans will be available on the Radio Road MSTU County Website — Photographs of the MSTU Completed Projects will be available on the website (R -19) Maintenance Consulting Contract — Windham Studio Annual Contract Proposal $14,772.00 was submitted (See Attached) Dale Lewis moved to approve Windham Studio Annual Contract Proposal in the amount of $14,772.00. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Hannula Damon Himmel reported: • Mulching - Complete • Fertilization - Complete • Palm treatments - Complete B. Windham Studio Scott Windham reviewed the following: o Sections (medians) are dry due to a volume drop with the effluent water (at night) — Irrigation Zone run times were increased VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment (See attached) 2 161123 Discussion took place on the projected timeline for Bidding and Construction on the Devonshire Shrub Refurbishment Project. Staff anticipated the following timeline: • Bid response(s) within 21 days • Committee will review and approve the Bids at the May 17th meeting • Bids will go before the BCC in June for approval • NTP for Construction in August — 120 day contract • The BCC approved Lane Closure Fees for designated Collier County Roadways (major arterial) — Staff will verify if Lane Closure Fees are applicable on Devonshire Scott Windham requested Hannula perform a flush on the Magnolia Trees. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. Devonshire Water Usage Scott Windham stated Water meters will be installed during the Devonshire Shrub Refurbishment Project. IX. NEW BUSINESS Helen Carella announced she is not available for the May meeting. Discussion ensued on the summer meetings schedule. Dale Lewis moved to cancel the July and August meetings and reconvene in September per Staff direction on MSTU business requirements. Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Staff will notify the Committee if the approved summer schedule meets the MSTU business needs. Discussion took place on the MSTU Committee vacancy and attendance requirements. The Committee agreed that year round residency is a requirement for the MSTU vacancy. X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS -None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:11 P.M. 161 1 Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended The next meeting is May Growth Management Division — 2885 Horseshoe Naples, F 4 A 23 L17, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. Construction & Maintenance Drive South 34104 C� O � N O Z r OLL � 0 a } LL O N O O O O (oromeM m <v w IN oo p N W N e QJ M N OJ e R 0 a' ou)NN(0oomoo 0 oQU)(0r 1 A om rv, �n�oN oo u`)o oNr �o LS M N ' V O O N b W n 0 N M l0 N N 1p b O W ci d E n O O m d 0 c c c a y o 0 6 z O Q v N w w w w w w w w w E9 E9 w w w w w w M N N 0 0 o c w w of d .-E N N W Q O m (O N Q O 10 M N N Q O Q r N M O Q d 0 0 i E() m m N O N O EO 9 (O (O c c aC d O O O O n C w w wwww d Oi d d d X '` Q' J J J O d (n U W a i i M M Efl ti3 E� b3 fA (A 1f3 M :9 fA fA EA M (fl fA M :9 H) w — c d d d d a N N C Y N p N O O U d 0 2 mg m n C) L, 0 'y 2 2 fn N� O Yl O en a0i + O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O M m a w www wu c c y c d U~ C N o s d N Oi a7 f- o O) O O O N O O O O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N n A d d° d d m x5 it xy Q 6ry > Ip (O a w a N N 6 O. d NN d d 6 C j 6t d Q °o °ommm N M N d 'U U V J U U IXI D N 0 (O+ O O U O pj r' IO d— N N C N f a TI M' o w° C7 ° !� c J= LL W J J d U C M N J a O J O J W LL �O N (p m r N U N U m m N O Q N U e M N n Ep M W r OJ O O lA N U) N N M r t0 m N N e N r M m M O Q r [O N N O M Q N N m r O e r Q W N T M # M N N N N N Q V Q M O Q Q h a N N N N M N ti N N O N tp NM Q CD 5 rui fee N <0ov O O O 0 0 0 0 0 - w e h O N N ip ^M f w x 0 0 0 h O m Q O N n N co 6 6 M (O ' N N ' r' O' r N C) N M O e N N N O W a n (ll Q N Q) N M N ea w w w w w w w En w w En E» w w w E»Iw Q LLJ O O Q N M m. m w M N O O Q M Q N n e O r M m N N e (O n N m m Q N w i(J N Q m N Q N f9 M Ef) fA fA V) M M EA V3 EA EA fA M E O O O W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O N mmmmmmm O ci H N N N N N N NI fA w w w N wI� N N w w w E9 w w w w N N N N w N w N NI w NI N NI N N NI w NFIfN O Q )ti, Z W Z W w W J J 7 K W K W Z W K a. O U F x N J a U W N W ~ 6. = J O W W Z W Q O w Z m J 0 Z Q UJ U Q d VJ J W xx W,FUW CUXZ W Wm . V-:D J aU -I F D W W of �� Z Q H W 6a. Q W LL F U i Z D Q� Np - M U O❑ y Z U a U H ~r z�Jo ¢�c7O zZ. ww—W F x�z XW ZzU Z W z aU z WW?Z��oo��wv..W G< wag ¢aFg� aWnD wwzu KX O— X� ¢¢¢ K eE � U fq Z K d U A W �° x w w. W ~� z z o� O a N< W W W o o W W W W O Q OU U Z W Z Q N —`L N G= W OJ 0 W~ ~ W O W Q Q NK> QQ W'x U' U' U' �Z= m W NOE Z-� zw¢ S� 0W xa Q OOZ wcq W 50 W W Q QQ QQ D W l > 1 W K w Q Q W M1' z Z 0 F O J> N m Q U w F W !C m 4' Q K K 0 0 K W W wwE�NNwwwwww« N d N N O O `V✓ M l0 N N 1p U U d d E O O m d 0 c c c a y o 0 z m m m° E m U U U m v a 0 0 o c w w of d 0 d 0 0 C ` O v a a 9 c c c aC d O O O O C w w wwww d Oi d d d N O O= d Q O fn CO N O d X '` Q' J J J O d (n U W a i i d — c d d d d a N U a Y N C C C d y d d U= a a a tF O O E C) L, W 2 2 fn N� O Yl O N O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O M m a w www wu N 0 0 0 0 O O O N O O O O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N n A d d° d Q Ip (O a °o °o °ommm N M N (O+ a orn o o �O N (p N n Ep M W r OJ O O lA N U) N N M M T M tp NM rui fee N <0ov ^M x 0 0 0 h O m Q O N n N co 6 6 M (O ' N N ' r' O' r N C) N M O e N N N O W a n (ll Q N Q) N M N ea w w w w w w w En w w En E» w w w E»Iw Q LLJ O O Q N M m. m w M N O O Q M Q N n e O r M m N N e (O n N m m Q N w i(J N Q m N Q N f9 M Ef) fA fA V) M M EA V3 EA EA fA M E O O O W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O N mmmmmmm O ci H N N N N N N NI fA w w w N wI� N N w w w E9 w w w w N N N N w N w N NI w NI N NI N N NI w NFIfN O Q )ti, Z W Z W w W J J 7 K W K W Z W K a. O U F x N J a U W N W ~ 6. = J O W W Z W Q O w Z m J 0 Z Q UJ U Q d VJ J W xx W,FUW CUXZ W Wm . V-:D J aU -I F D W W of �� Z Q H W 6a. Q W LL F U i Z D Q� Np - M U O❑ y Z U a U H ~r z�Jo ¢�c7O zZ. ww—W F x�z XW ZzU Z W z aU z WW?Z��oo��wv..W G< wag ¢aFg� aWnD wwzu KX O— X� ¢¢¢ K eE � U fq Z K d U A W �° x w w. W ~� z z o� O a N< W W W o o W W W W O Q OU U Z W Z Q N —`L N G= W OJ 0 W~ ~ W O W Q Q NK> QQ W'x U' U' U' �Z= m W NOE Z-� zw¢ S� 0W xa Q OOZ wcq W 50 W W Q QQ QQ D W l > 1 W K w Q Q W M1' z Z 0 F O J> N m Q U w F W !C m 4' Q K K 0 0 K W W wwE�NNwwwwww« `V✓ M l0 N N 1p V C v a 0. x w w w wwww w wEnw wv y C i i i d E .9 E 0 U w wEn Enww w www wu O O O O O O C d d d d° d Ip (O a IOp N M N (O+ x 0 0 0 h O m Q O N n N co 6 6 M (O ' N N ' r' O' r N C) N M O e N N N O W a n (ll Q N Q) N M N ea w w w w w w w En w w En E» w w w E»Iw Q LLJ O O Q N M m. m w M N O O Q M Q N n e O r M m N N e (O n N m m Q N w i(J N Q m N Q N f9 M Ef) fA fA V) M M EA V3 EA EA fA M E O O O W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O N mmmmmmm O ci H N N N N N N NI fA w w w N wI� N N w w w E9 w w w w N N N N w N w N NI w NI N NI N N NI w NFIfN O Q )ti, Z W Z W w W J J 7 K W K W Z W K a. O U F x N J a U W N W ~ 6. = J O W W Z W Q O w Z m J 0 Z Q UJ U Q d VJ J W xx W,FUW CUXZ W Wm . V-:D J aU -I F D W W of �� Z Q H W 6a. Q W LL F U i Z D Q� Np - M U O❑ y Z U a U H ~r z�Jo ¢�c7O zZ. ww—W F x�z XW ZzU Z W z aU z WW?Z��oo��wv..W G< wag ¢aFg� aWnD wwzu KX O— X� ¢¢¢ K eE � U fq Z K d U A W �° x w w. W ~� z z o� O a N< W W W o o W W W W O Q OU U Z W Z Q N —`L N G= W OJ 0 W~ ~ W O W Q Q NK> QQ W'x U' U' U' �Z= m W NOE Z-� zw¢ S� 0W xa Q OOZ wcq W 50 W W Q QQ QQ D W l > 1 W K w Q Q W M1' z Z 0 F O J> N m Q U w F W !C m 4' Q K K 0 0 K W W ;1A2. May 17, 201 1 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Radio Road MSTU Project Report (R -22) - ACTIVE: DEVONSHIRE shrub REFURBISHMENT; Funding Source Fund 158 05- 17 -11: ROW Permit applied for and is pending Traffic Operations, Road Maintenance Review. (R -24) - COMPLETE]): MOVING THE TYPE M CONTROLLER 05-17-11: 'Type M controller has been relocated per coordination with Ag- Tronix. (R -23) - COMPLETED: Plant material spacing on Phase II Project; Re- planting with additional quantity of shrubs. 05- 17 -11: Project completed. (R -18) - COMPLETED: 100% COMPLETED - RADIO ROAD PHASE III PROJECT (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windham Studios (PO 4500105824) ; Funding Source Fund 158 05- 17 -11: Project completed. (R -15) - COMPLETED: RADIO ROAD PHASE 11 -B & Phase I -A (II -B is from Kings Way /Briarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I -A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) ; Funding Source Fund 158 05- 17 -11: Project Completed. (R -19) — ON GOING: MAINTENANCE CONSULTING CONTRACT; Funding Source Fund 158 05- 17 -11: Windham Studios is under contract for maintenance consulting. Proposal for renewal is to be submitted at 4-19-11 meeting for committee review /approval. (R -14) — ON GOING: MAINTENCE CONTRACT — BID# 09 -5111R -- "Radio Road Beautification MSTDIMSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" ; Funding Source Fund 111 05- 17- 11:liannula Landscape under contract for on -going maintenance. 161 1 A2D Mitchelllan rom: JDPARILLO@GMAIL.COM ant: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:06 PM o: Mitchelllan Subject: New On -line Advisory Board Application Submitted Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239)252 -8606 Application was received on: 4/26/20114:05:57 PM. Name: DERRY PARILL Home Phone: 39233813 Home Address: 42 TIVOLI COUR City: APLE Zip Code: 3410 Phone Numbers Fax: Business: 3 285772 1 1 •e -Mail Address: 1DPARILLO(@.GMAIL.COM Board 1 Committee Applied for: llI0 RD. BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMITTE Category: of indicate Work Place: TIRED How long have you lived in Collier County: l Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? ©o of Indicate Do you or your employer do business with the County? ®o Not Indicated NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they • enter into contracts with the County. Would you and/or any organizations with whom you are affiliated benefit from decisions or -: 1 A 23 recommendations made by this advisory board? Ed of Indicate '*Are you a registered voter in Collier County? ©e Do you currently hold public office? Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County Board or Committee? ®o of Indicated • 40 I. II. III. IV. V. R"d F04dir 4l." eaww"M 2995 S. 'Wou"40 Pit" ZcA(eo, 57Z 34101 Mdy 4, 2011 AGENDA Call Meeting to order Attendance Approval of Agenda 1611024 l BY: ....................... Commissioner Henning meeting with the Advisory Committee Approval of Minutes -April 6, 2011 Meeting VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VII. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design — Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio B. SFWMD Well Permit Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta v VIII. New Business IX. Old Business A. Finance Update B. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU C. Grant Update — Pam Lulich X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for June 1, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Misc. Corces: Naples, FL 34104 Date:-L-0 I25I I I 1 Item #: 1 LoT 1 W-11-4 RAAd R"04 Ettla M.S.T.U. A,tv,,o,,o eam.4" Xu 2885 S. H g44m D. t Ngtw, FL 34104 April 6, 2011 AGENDA 1. Call Meeting to order 11. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda 1611A24 4 IV. Approval of Minutes - February 23, 2011 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard C. Review & Approval of FY -2012 MSTU Budget VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report �Ak Landscape Design -- Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio B. Public Meeting Comments C. Well Drilling Timeline/ Purchase of Equipment VIL New Business A. Grant Update— Pam Lulich VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — RR MSTU IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for May 4, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 161 1A24 O KF-0 W W UZ W m D � -j o ¢ P W m a O O OW ?'� Z 00 w 00 ~Zwooh 2F ❑❑ z �Z c- 0 Z W OF Y WWZ�C) ryW >�ww�a cnau>> - z a�cnLL WwOZx� of0 >>LUasZ Z: -J � 0x tea' D zz0 � w O ❑ H a h LL LL � ? w w F- CJ .N 'c W z F- r ¢ ¢ C..) o C7 z CO w Of co > >ywc - W ww00 Ww W oQ� an��Z WO Ow ~�w ww� ❑ LL LL LL Q' m Ez H -� LL F H LL. > > m JT W W Of W Z Z Z Q W 0 W O) O� 0 �' Z Z U' U' Z W W Q D W LL > I- > a¢ O¢ H U N= W d 4- a¢❑❑ a w w F c>❑LL??� CC�UUz�OF W �OOOo Vic) ww mmw �O� O N V) V to w 00 m O N V) "t N O n O O O O O O O O co co O O co O N O O ' N O ' O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W 0) 0 0 O) O In V O f� 0 0 1P V O O o O IT O O) O O O M a) ring -m 00 m rno000rn o00 000 r m rn m 0M It V 000 Cl) Cl) M N Ni r- � c0 M r 7 W ("� r (6(d R y Co a' EH Ef, Ef) EJl Eil ER Kl 64 69i Efl EH 0) Eq Efl V9 EA Eil Efl U) H, EA 0% EA V3 Ef, EJl 6a Ef, Vf. LO M cn V M M O co O O O V V O 0 N o co f- h 0 O O) O O O O O H1 i Lo V o N ' N o r M O O O O 0 r V r O 0 0 00 W O o W O Go 7 — (D CD w I- N O) u> O r r- N R w O O O M r IZF E9 (O N N N N N N N a x w 64 EA EA 6% 69 69 EA 64 W, 6% 69 64 w EA Eil EA V) EA Q9. F» 6, EH EA EA EA EA ffl Efl N, C T o ¢T O O O O cf O T C i O c O N pj M N d o o r T T N r — O p r a Z 0 ' N N N = cc G O u 0 Q 'a f9 6s fA dY EA EA E9 EA vl A EA 69 N U, EA Eff VF V! 69 FR 69. H, UR EA EA EA cc v, Y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co o 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y 0 0 0 oM OM a co co CO _o V 0 in O N LO O O W w O M co r- r L6 r r o (fl (0 M ch O O o O N N LO LO It Q EA EA Efl Efl EPr EA 6% EA EA W EA EA fA Efl Ef, EA EA EA 69 P9 EA UA EA EA EA EA 64 ER O KF-0 W W UZ W m D � -j o ¢ P W m a O O OW ?'� Z 00 w 00 ~Zwooh 2F ❑❑ z �Z c- 0 Z W OF Y WWZ�C) ryW >�ww�a cnau>> - z a�cnLL WwOZx� of0 >>LUasZ Z: -J � 0x tea' D zz0 � w O ❑ H a h LL LL � ? w w F- CJ .N 'c W z F- r ¢ ¢ C..) o C7 z CO w Of co > >ywc - W ww00 Ww W oQ� an��Z WO Ow ~�w ww� ❑ LL LL LL Q' m Ez H -� LL F H LL. > > m JT W W Of W Z Z Z Q W 0 W O) O� 0 �' Z Z U' U' Z W W Q D W LL > I- > a¢ O¢ H U N= W d 4- a¢❑❑ a w w F c>❑LL??� CC�UUz�OF W �OOOo Vic) ww mmw �O� O N V) V to w 00 m O N V) "t N O n O r LL N O IL m w m N 161 1 A24 0 0 N II m U a rn m m � o o O O Y p o > ? X o LL O »�@I m m m m a m 0 Q X X N d 0 0 0 C oa � Iri tri O F- � } v vi m m LL LL LL LL � H N W a d m e M N c 0 N y O� C m � � w � a I-- cc ro o N IL 64 64 64 V O O >= N O O n •R � N O It 69 69 64 69 fA 64 64 69 64 69 E9 69 69 69 64 64 69 64 69 V) 64 � CO O # N M V IL 0 0 0 V V V V N � U N N N p N U N LL C U N w Cy C U O W w E m a) N Z tt: w C7 m m d c 0 a (6 r � � 9 > O U) Z) 161 1 A24 0 0 N II m U a rn m m � o o O O Y p o > ? X o LL O »�@I m m m m a m 0 Q X X N d 0 0 0 C oa � Iri tri O F- � } v vi m m LL LL LL LL � H N W a d m e M N c 0 N y O� C m � � w A N O N M a m m ° I� I 18 — m rn .. T a _ 10N IN N i! _ NN 0 Q N N N IN 'N�N N N IN N N N m jN N N N R. �— � �O W t0 A 0 II m to a0 I l0 0 0 0 o o a m to O to to �o x �1 -� --0- 1 MM Z A x to N � A � C e'Q ^:. D c N a m �I A G7 m A 'i;o E9 = r A o z � �F m O m IO I, � O IF �' C) i N IN I1 3 r a0 Im n 'm m D 'I � = Ix fr11 A 7�J u, ' R0 n :D m 0 n n. m "� M li ', m m 'II m m C> v� �J 3} "ri -�', 1 y z Z z �� I'I� �mA7 'D W = _ Z �m ',m 'r m m O < m rn c'� Ili 1, m C. GZi 2 ''..n_ In lz I� Ili o 3 m p Ilc m Z N IC 'p 'p O r N., 'o G^ i� W ,O �m N -0 y N N N li V V m N m m IC Z X10 m A 3. 'y 'Im m D !m N m. m n o m , 'I, m o m co N GO p A 'N _ o1py ° la o 0 I ----- .p .Q-0 —L O X11 Ila m 9 N 0 � n �. 0. a se M NapK w OU O N N j � I 'ANA AO A0 00 0 I I A L I C N I I h I 0 o s o g I I III II I ICI I I� I� I � rya '2 N O ' � 0 � O O � 0 O O O - O I O r � O O O I O U �_. O O O O ' O W O O O 10 O 10 O O 110 O O IO 'O '�O O Ip p �p p p O Is W a m o c o 2 m C r < jjiiII m N N N CO m C A N O A y m a W c 0 m m v n o' A 0 m n m d T N x SA I i' I OJ a0 0 -o £ Q i iO 0 Z m G< m 7 I- IO O o �n I c O 0 o 7 - J 1�� n O a Ca � I ' IT 8 a p A A A I= m o m 1 O O A p 3 m A m , 9 E T m A I Im m _ o O 10 'O O A o i0 D D '� 1 z z l�� c �O 1= Om p p '',o K !o m m '�^ Im Im O N O 'm Z� 'p il= m ''m O 10I ti IN p A �,O 0 1.0 IO d �m GM) 1 W m y m 1 Z CZ, z Z IZ i 'o"' ° o i� I!m m iW I,p z N 1 0 A r 10 .,0 A m III I� '� m 1 Im Ij '.M ''' III I� ID Iz !m Im o o A v lm a O O __- o IO ��_ - - -I -- o m D m m x n 04 0 I 1 I 1 a — t m o o I I m O x y I I I _- I OW o O oo �I Io oo too o to 0 o t r 90 J J UAI OI W W T (ONJI 1 Of S T O O --I O O O S X10 8 O O O C O O O O I O O ' O O O O O_ 1 OO O m ioe w '.b I � N 1 w w w -- — + - ms NR O w c I � n 'A N NI'q ONj 'N N 0 0 0 to m o o Flo o to '0 o I I F 1 wcia V 00 OD O P P O I NO O O O I O O O O O O ONE {Opel W W W OI W W 1 O O O O O ollo o o o._o o _ —_IQ o to _..� -o -1.c o o o to a 1I N 0 0 to to o o g to o 0 0 o o$ j,o Ilo i,o CIS j o o Ilo 0 4 A a n � o � A a °w a rn _ m N N m � N N �o C A N N O N V w A I r N I W W r < E E 10 O E D n m O I1 !O D O % a I� Z -i a II' IAAA �A m zm m 0 N o Im II A 'I ! Id Ip m n -0 lil m _ J 100 % n I I n I I I I I I I 0 to ',, 90 a I c0 a W I I �3 I, Y m Iw °w m I a m s N j i W w w w m w w W I I I N N it I II I IQ O O O N Z III j a O O O O O O O I _ w N N y N 4 W LO O IO O O -- O O I O O O N E C W W w W N � d ' ', li 'I � I'I III �• 6 V m w IT IM M L V V W N N r � D m G N d 0 T O C O 6 < n m _ jjTTII W N N � N 0 C 1611A24 A N Ut 'O O_ A n o c 70 n o T d r � n m jjii11 O N N N N 1m c T a 0. Q Q l A N K n N y 7 C � C i O 0O O y <si N d O i a m 0 m ca K � I a - --- W D c 3 a� �a - -- I--- - - - - -- m a N O qM `q C r O d c 'm N ----- - - - - -` 0 D N O O s 3 d 3 3 m 0 5T � c r a s � O obi p1 A B A N h N K Ipp d C n udi n '^ a O O N N A d W N W tp O OI t0 ti O N n o c 70 n o T d r � n m jjii11 O N N N N 1m c Le. 16 1;� R40124 s.7. *, eennaft 2895 S. I wP m Z)WW 1t A&t 9_4 34104 Minutes April 6, 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, Renato Fernandez, Paige Simpson (Excused) County: Michelle Edwards Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Pam Lulich — Landscape Operation Manager Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski — Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn — Juristaff Public: Jerry and Janice Bundy — Sanctuary /Blue Heron III. Approval of Agenda Reverse: VI. A. Landscape Design and B. Public Meeting Comments Sue Chapin moved to accept the Agenda for April 4, 2011 as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — February 23, 2011 Meeting Sue Chapin moved to approved February 23, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the Radio Road East MSTU Fund 166 Budget Report dated April 6, 2011. (See attached) He reported as follows: • Ad Valorem Tax Received $128,501.95 • Operating Expense - Available $8,994.00 • Total Actual Expenditures $24,993.96 • Reserves /Future Construction - Available $56,300.00 1 A 24 16 r 1 -A 24 B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard reported Staff was working with Urban Green Studios to finalize the application for a well permit to be submitted to SFWMD before the May meeting. It was noted the application process may take 2 -3 months. C. Review & Approval of FY -2012 MSTU Budget Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed each line item for the Draft Budget FY -2012. He also reported the following: • Total Fund 150 Expense - $84,700. • Investment Interest will be applied monthly. • Carry Forward - $62,700. • Negative 5% of Estimated Revenue is a budget consideration of estimated revenue. A consensus was formed not to change the millage rate. The new construction in the MSTU will create additional revenues. Tom Depouw moved to approve the MSTU Budget FY -2012 as presented. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Public Meeting Comments Darryl Richard reported the meeting being very positive. He stated the public liked the landscape concept but would like the project expedited. It was noted only one Comment Sheet was submitted after the presentation. Tom Depouw did an excellent job in explaining the project construction process, including permitting and well installation to the public. Sue Chapin commended the Staff for their efforts in making their presentation. E -mails received also stated they loved the concept layout but not the time frame of 2017. She suggested continuing their research of financial options and the maturity of trees and shrubs to be planted. Dayna Fendrick responded the cost difference of maturity would fall between $15,000 and $20,000. Dale Johnson stated changing the height of some trees may not be an option due to FDOT and County sightline requirements. Tom Depouw reported meeting with Staff and the Budget Office regarding financing options. The MSTU must get the support of the BCC before requesting any alternative funding. Staff will draft a letter to the BCC on behalf of the MSTU. Financing options as follows: 2 161 1 A24 • Internal Loan (Advance within the County) - 1% interest and requires BCC approval. • Bank Loan — 5 -6% interest and requires a ballot vote. • Municipal Bond — requires a ballot vote. The Committee will work towards getting Commissioner Henning on board and in agreement with alternate funding. Renato Fernandez moved to direct Staff draft a letter to the BCC on the alternate funding options. Second by Sue Chapin. Motion Carried 4 -0. It was suggested the Staff prioritize the 3- options in the letter to the BCC as follows; 1) an advance from the County, 2) a bank loan and 3) a municipal bond. It was decided to request the full amount and not to include any attachments with the letter. Darryl Richard stated a draft letter will be e- mailed to the Advisory Committee for their review. B. Landscape Design - Urban Green Studio (UGS) Dayna Fendrick asked for direction on going forward. Staff recommended Urban Green proceed with construction documents until the budget is complete and final plans are submitted. Discussion was made on future CAT plans to add a turn lane at Radio Road and Davis Boulevard. A consensus was formed for Staff to direct UGS to complete the construction documents. Staff will forward CAT plans to UGS. It was noted "if' the MSTU received an internal advance; the project could go out to bid in a year. A bond may take 2 -3 years. Staff stated the time to procure a bond may work out well with revenues. Both options must be placed on the 2012 Ballot for construction in 2013. C. Well Drilling Timeline /Purchase of Equipment — None. VII. New Business A. Grant Update Pam Lulich reported the Radio Road East MSTU is still close to the bottom of the Grant List and will continue to pursue Grant funds. It was suggested the finance letter to the BCC include the endeavor to apply for Grant Funds. VIII. Public Comments — None. Janice Bundy asked what the timeline for the construction of project to begin and what the quality of the landscaping would be. She also stated 3 1611A24 they were pursuing a traffic light at Davis and Madison. She expressed concern about plants interfering with site lines. Darryl Richard responded UGS took site lines into consideration. Sue Chapin stated the Committee agreed to use the best landscaping options from the start of the MSTU which is one of the reasons they chose UGS. (Low maintenance and native plants) Dayna Fendrick responded she uses historical information on what works and does not work. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 and reconvened at 11:30 with a quorum established. Dale Johnson called the meeting back to order. Dayna Fendrick stated the Scope called for a second public meeting and prior to going into Final Design Phase, asked if or when to schedule. The Advisory Committee formed a consensus not to hold a second public meeting at this time. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 AM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Johnson, C r man These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on as presented or amended X The next meeting is scheduled for May 4, 2011 at 10.00 am. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104