Loading...
Backup Documents 09/13-14/2011 Item #16I161'1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE September 13, 2011 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Miscellaneous Correspondence: 1) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District: Proposed Budget FY 2011/2012 2) Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council: Annual Budget for FY 2011/2012 AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT c/o Special District Services, Inc. 2501 Burns Road, Suite A Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 26 PM 2:53 (561) 630 -4922 CLEi2K f3f COURTS Fax: (561) 630 -4923 May 20, 2011 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Fia!a Hider 1-t ; ;fining �� Coyle X---Z Coletta Clerk of Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building "L ", 6`h Floor Naples, FL 34112 Re: Ave Maria Stewardship Community District To Whom It May Concern: 161'1 ai M, a. Z r o, N ct �O P 1.` IN l�I BY:....................... Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please find a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Stewardship Community District: 1.) Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2011/2012 (Oct. 1, 2011- Sept. 30, 2012) Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. Laura J. Arche Enclosure Misc. Corres: Date: °'1 � 3\ ti y, item #:%%-a'= X _ 1611 Al " Ave Maria Stewardship Community District Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012 I II III IV V VI VII 161 1 ' A 1 CONTENTS PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET ASSESSMENT BREAKDOWN DETAILED PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET PROPOSED BAB PRINCIPAL DEBT SERVICE BUDGET PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUDGET AMS Budget Contents 2011 -2012 5/1112011 3:59 PM 161 1 PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 ANNUAL BUDGET 0 & M ASSESSMENTS 365,588 DEBT ASSESSMENTS 760,863 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR 0 & M 1,294,786 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR DEBT 2,263,968 OTHER REVENUES 0 TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,685,205 EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES SUPERVISORS FEES 8,000 ENGINEERING 20,000 MANAGEMENT 70,216 SECRETARIAL 4,500 LEGAL 20,000 ASSESSMENT ROLL 15,000 AUDIT FEES 8,600 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 2,500 TRAVEL & LODGING 2,000 INSURANCE 7,500 LEGAL ADVERTISING 3,000 MISCELLANEOUS 2,000 POSTAGE 1,750 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,000 DUES, LICENSE, & SUBSCRIPTIONS 500 MISCELLANEOUS FILINGS, NOTICES, ETC. 2,000 WEBSITE HOSTING FEES 1,000 TRUSTEE FEES 12,000 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 5,000 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES $ 187,566 MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES MAINTENANCE 1,445,389 MAINTENANCE/INSPECTIONS /ADMIN 0 TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES $ 1,445,389 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,632,955 EXCESS OR SHORTFALL $ 3,052,250 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE 2, BALANCE $ 84,484 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 39,426) DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 45,058 NET EXCESSISHORTFALL S 0 Ave Male SEevwnitMp AMS Budgete AMS Budgets 2011 -2012 AMS Pmpmd Budgel 2011 -2012 v2 AMS Operedng Fund Budget 2011 -2012 5/112011 3:50 PM 1611'A1 PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND FISCAL YEAR 201012011 October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 i ANNUAL BUDGET NAV Collection 703,798 Developer Contribution 2,2631968 Total Revenues $ 2,967,766 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments Bond 440,000 Interest Payments Bond 1,269,206 Interest Payments (BAB) 1,258,560 Total Expenditures $ 2,967,766 Excess /Shortfall $ Capitalized Interest Carryover Bond 0 Capitalized Interest Carryover (BAB ) 0 Net Excess /Shortfall $ Aw M- AMB Budgeb AMS Budgets 2011 -2017 AMB P'posed Budget 2011 -2012 V2 AM S DeW Ber ve Budget 2011 -2012 5/11/2011 7:58 PM Ave Made Stewardship District Assessment Breakdown 2011 -2012 Operation a MainMnancs Assessmant Number of tNhie Passed for Real Year 2010 -2011 Per ToW Debt Assessment Prepayments .37 5 38 523.14 Townhome /Condos 122 Und CarrietelAlsecledl Visa 94 Una Detached Vlla 40'/52' 486 Una Whole Fans 52'/55' 43 Una Si lo Family 60705' 103 Qnk Single Fa 70775' 62 Una Whole Family 90' 0 Una S 30 690.80 0.24 6 12 366.98 ClIfter 111 98 777.00 Per Low de HDusino 320 Una ALF Apartments 0 Una t «..o Professional Move 120,520 sq. R. 51.621) So. FL Hotel 0 Roan Medical Facilities 10 . R. 1 -AM Un-Wtv 700 Private -12 School 100 %Wed Total Ave Made Stewardship District Assessment Breakdown 2011 -2012 Operation a MainMnancs Assessmant Total Operation 81 Maintenance Assssement Number of Mond Pte M ToW Debt Assessment Prepayments .37 5 38 523.14 299.37 5 211 140.78 S 299.37 S 145,499.62 299.37 111 12 BT2.91 .37 3 30 835.11 299.37 15,507.24 299.37 6 S 46.900.00 S 959.00 11 408,074.00 74.55 21335.90 17.77 959.00 0.29 S 30 690.80 0.24 6 12 366.98 311.19 111 98 777.00 0.73 7,959.92 15.52 3 10,934.W 1.17 3867.20 - 6 49 800.00 959.00 365,587.78 Amounts per unit sham era grossed up for 3.5% County Fees Ind 4% for sae payment discount . 161'1' Al Debt Assessment per Unit Total Debt Assessment Number of Mond Pte M ToW Debt Assessment Prepayments Total Debt Assessment Was Pmmyfvm-" 499.00 a 00 878.00 It S 801178.00 499.00 S 40 908.00 6 S 46.900.00 S 959.00 11 408,074.00 3 $ (2,877.00) i 463,197.00 959.00 S 41237.00 5 5 41 37.00 959.00 111 98 777.00 S I 98 777.00 59.00 9 49 - 6 49 800.00 959.00 i $ 783,740.00 9 S (2.877.001 1 L760.L$63.00 -Note: 67 units induded in Detached West 46452' em cloalied Just 83 *engle Famly- h Lb" Park. The actual unit types we be detemeletl as a Whim dale, but they will be skVb Melly so they vAl haw the whe assessment as the other skhgle Mmly prope"s. •..www wit amx sxsem,.w rsmmn 16 I '1' A 1 "� PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 201112012 October 1, 2011 -September 30, 2012 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2006/2010 ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS O & M ASSESSMENTS 366 ,780 366,187 365,588 See Detail on P 3 DEBT ASSESSMENTS 762,781 762 781 760,863 See Detail on Page 3 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR 0 & M 1,D76,527 1,294,232 1,294,786 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR DEBT 2,227,954 2,227,81 2,263 968 OTHER REVENUES 3,932 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,439,974 4 651 016 S 4 686 205 EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES SUPERVISORS FEES 3,800 8,000 8,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget ENGINEERING 30,119 20,000 20.000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget MANAGEMENT 55,000 70,216 70,216 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget SECRETARIAL 2000 4,500 4,500 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget LEGAL 14,066 20,000 20,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget ASSESSMENT ROLL 15000 15,000 15,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget AUDIT FEES 8,600 8,600 8,600 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 1,575 2,500 2,500 No Change From 2010.2011 Budget TRAVEL & LODGING 782 2,000 2,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget INSURANCE 8,605 7,500 7500 No Change From 2010.2011 Budget LEGAL ADVERTISING 844 3 000 3,000 No Change From 2010.2011 Budget MISCELLANEOUS 960 2,001) 2,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget POSTAGE 904 1,750 1,750 No Change From 2010.2011 Budget OFFICE SUPPLIES 1296 2000 2,000 No Change From 2010.2011 Budgert DUES, LICENSE, a SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 500 500 No Chance From 2010 -2011 Budget MISCELLANEOUS FILINGS, NOTICES, ETC. 500 2,000 2,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget WESSITE HOSTING FEES 150 1,000 1000 No Chance From 2010 -2011 Budget TRUSTEE FEES 11.314 12,000 12,000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 5.000 5,000 5000 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget TOTAL ADMMIISTRATVE EXPENDITURES 160 689 187,566 187,566 MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES MAINTENANCE 1,186 474 1,445,389 1.445,389 Total Maintenance - See Detail On Page 6 MAINT_NANCEANSPECTIONSlADMIN 0 0 0 No Change From 2010 -2011 Budget TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES $ 1,156,474 1 416 366 1,445,389 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,347,164 1,632,955 S 1,632,955 EXCESS OR SHORTFALL 3,092,810 3,013,948 S 3,052,250 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (2,965,816 $ (2,929,276) $ (2,967,766) 2012 Prinripal & Interest Payments BALANCE 1126,1114114 $ 84,673 $ 84,484 COUNTY APPRAISER & TM COLLECTOR MONNMTRA" E COM ARO COLLECTx1M (29,255) (39,514) 39,426 Thus And On. HIVE Percent Of Total Tex Rol (2% Prop Appmmrl .5 %Tex CoEe ta) DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 22,176 (45,159) 45 058 Four Percent Of Total Tax Roll NET EXCESWSHORTFALL $ 75,5631$ 0.00 0 Ave Mena Slawar `6NP AMS Budge" AMS Budgets 2011.2012 oe AMS Pmpsd Budget 2011 -2012 V! AMS Opemeng Fund Budget 2011 -2012 IV ISM/2011 3'.58 PM 161 1 Al " PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 201112012 ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income Bond 40,000 0 Interest Income (BAB) 0 0 NAV Collection 705,572 703,798 Devetoper Contribution 2,227,819 2,283,968 Total Revenues $ 2,973,391 $ 2,967 766 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments Bond 420,000 440,000 Interest Payments Bond 1,294,831 11269,206 Interest Payments (BAB) 1,258,560 1,258,560 Total Expenditures S 2,97 391 S 2,967 766 Excess/Shortfall S i AM a,VM ,umnoot augN,mn-zotz .o vt,mtt asw •ra a.0 a.,wa meo+zm, -zmz 16I f"fA1 "1 PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BAB PRINCIPAL DEBT SERVICE FUND FISCAL YEAR 201112012 October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012 REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Developer Finan ng 26,220,000 Total Revenues $ 26 220,000 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments (BAB) 26,220,000 Principal Payment Due In 2012 Total Expenditures $ 26,220,000 Excess/Shortfall $ - AW MM AMMi B09ft DAMS MgM 2011.2012 AWS Pmwwd BudW 2011 -2012 a MM8 BAB Pmcp1 DOS B*mm BOW 2011 -2012 h &11!7011 35B PM 1 16 I' 1 Al. " PROPOSED BUDGET AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT MAINTENANCE FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 October 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011 P y MaM BwA,d "p AM$ Buapah AMS 8uap.b 2000.2010 AMB Pmp.W B,tlpM 2011 -2012 Q AMB Mam wm Bu0pe12000.2010 VO &11=1 3'.Sp PM FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 ANNUAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 ANNUAL BUDGET MAINTENANCE NDITURES ELECTRIC STREETLIGHTS, LANDSCAPE 97,801 95,000 95,000 STREET SWEEPING 0 5,000 5,000 STRIPING & TRAFFIC MARKINGS 517 2,000 2,000 STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE 24,816 30,000 30,000 SIDEWALK / CURB REPAIRS 3,576 3,000 3,000 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ROADWAY ENTRIES): MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS 491,D95 530,000 530,000 TREE TRIMMING 8,271 15,000 15,000 STORM CLEANUP 0 75,000 70,000 PLANT REPLACEMENT 22,449 40,000 40,000 MULCH & MISCELLANEOUS 45,227 75,000 73,000 MISC. UTILITIES 0 5,000 5,000 ELECTRICITY 0 0 0 IRRIGATION WATER 77,868 100,000 100,000 IRRIGATION REPAIR 14 444 12,000 12,000 ENTRY FEATURE WATER 0 0 0'. FOUNTAIN MAINTENANCE 30,315 15,000 15.000 RODENT / PEST CONTROL 1,982 1,000 6,000 EQUIPMENT REPAIR 463 1,000 1,000 SIGNAGE REPAIR 3,142 5,000 5,000 WATER MANAGEMENT & DRAINAGE 20,948 1,000 3,000 STORM DRAIN CLEANING 0 10,000 10,000 DRAINAGE / LAKE MAINTENANCE/ LITTORALS 57,402 50,000 50,000 AERATORS 6,027 6,500 6,500 AQUATIC REPLACEMENTS 0 5,000 5,000 PRESERVE MAINTENANCE 45,469 40,000 40,000 TAXES & LICENSES 0 0 0 INSURANCE 0 0 0 SMALL TOOLS 922 1,000 1,000 MISCELLANEOUS MAINT. 0 0 0 MISC. REPAIRS 429 5,000 5 000 VEHICLE LEASE / FUEL / REPAIRS MAINT TECH 4,803 5,000 5,000 MOSQUITO CONTROL 47,321 80,000 80,000 F)SH STOCK)NO 0 5,000 5,000 TEMP FIRE FACILITY OPERATING COSTS 41,851 36 000 36,000 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLIES 0 500 500 OFFICE LEASE 0 0 0 OFFICE UTILITIES 17 0 0 MAINTENANCE TECHNICIANS 81,769 60,000 60,000 BASE MANAGEMENT FEE 16,496 16,667 16,667 ADMIN PAYROLL 40.437 79722 79.722 TO AL MAINTENA14CE EXPENDITURES $ 111651866 $ 1,410,389 $ 1,410,389 RESERVE FUND 20,620 20,000 20,000 CONTINGENCY FUND 0 15,000 15,000 TOTAL 1,186,474-1$ 1,445,389 $ 1,445,36 P y MaM BwA,d "p AM$ Buapah AMS 8uap.b 2000.2010 AMB Pmp.W B,tlpM 2011 -2012 Q AMB Mam wm Bu0pe12000.2010 VO &11=1 3'.Sp PM WF -1 pwaat %gol w 161 1' AZ Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1926 Victoria Ave, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 -3414 (239) 338 -2550 RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2011 i- OZ rd ()'.County Commissioners July 21, 2011 Mr. Dwight Brock County Clerk Collier County 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 RE: Annual Budget for FY 2011/2012 Dear Mr. Brock: FAX (239) 338 -2560 www.swfrpc.org an cn C'3 to CA V, C3�' Fiala Fib f? : ^,!n 'tt" Coyly: Enclosed is a copy of our adopted Annual Budget for FY 2011/2012. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Janice Yell, Finance Administrative Manager, at (239) 338 -2550, Ext. 237. Sincerely, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL Deborah Kooi Senior Administrative Assistant V419 Enclosure sc. Corres: Date: =t1k3\ N \ Item #: 161'1' Al2 " STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEE On this 21st day of July, 2011, 1 attest that the attached document is a true, exact, complete and unaltered copy made by me, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, Records Management Liaison Officer, of the "Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 -2012 Budget ", as adopted by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council on July 21, 2011. This document is a public record, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council is its official source. � l Nichole Gwinnett Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Records Management Liaison Officer ANNUAL BUDGET CONTENTS Sources of Revenue 1611 Ap Pages 1 Proposed Budget for the upcoming fiscal year only 2 Comparsion of fiscal years - for RPC, MPO, NEP Combined: 3-6 Proposed Budget and Five Year Plan 7 Adopted current budget, proposed budget as part of a five year plan Graphs: s Pie Chart to reflect distribution /percentage of the 3 main entities Pie Chart to reflect distribution of revenue Chart reflecting expenses in the comparsion of Actual/YTD /Budgeted Comparison of Current Year Budget to Proposed Budget s Comparison of Budget to prior two years - Change in RPC only 10 Facts to be noted for this Annual Budget includes: 11 Pertinent notes, Reserved FB status, and a comparsion of fringe and indirect rates for the purposed, current, and past 3 years. Capital Assets Policy 12 Capital Asset Disposal - Computer Disposal Policy 13 Reserve Policy 14 Calculation of the Indirect/Fringe Rates Policy 15 16 I '1' A2 GENERALREVENUES SPECIAL REVENUES INTEREST /MISC 15,000 FED /STATE 2,330,868 ASSESSMENTS 459,517 OTHER 761,896 474,517 3,092,764 TOTAL REVENUES 3,567,281 Prior Year Fund Balance 680,090 Total Budget 4,247,371 Assessments based upon official Bureau of Business and Economic Research population estimates. Assessments are estimated at 30 cents /capita as provided for in the Council's Interlocal Agreement, adopted November 8, 1973. 1 . , x kF, ,. Charlotte 159,978 47,993.40 Collier 321,520 96,456.00 Glades 12,884 3,865.20 Hendry 39,140 11,742.00 Lee 618,754 185,626.20 Sarasota 379,448 113,834.40 n INTEREST AND MISC. 15,000.00 pq Assessments based upon official Bureau of Business and Economic Research population estimates. Assessments are estimated at 30 cents /capita as provided for in the Council's Interlocal Agreement, adopted November 8, 1973. 1 1612i AZ " SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL PROPOSED BUDGET OCTOBER 1, 2011 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 Revenues Assessments 459,517 RPC 459,517 459,517 Federal /State /Local Funds GENERAL Special Total MPO NEP 2,839,764 DRIB 195,000 Revenues 253,000 0 0 BUDGET Revenues Assessments 459,517 459,517 459,517 Federal /State /Local Funds 411,692 649,715 649,715 1,210,749 979,300 2,839,764 DRIB 195,000 253,000 0 0 253,000 Interest/Misc 15,000 15,000 15,000 Carry Over Fund Balance* 680,090 680,090 680,090 1,154,607 649,7151 2,057,3221 1,210,7491 979,3001 4,247,371 Total Income Consultant Fees 1,500 38,500 40,000 Expenditures Direct: Salaries 411,692 326,783 738,475 280,000 296,000 1,314,475 FICA/Unemployment/WC 195,000 195,000 195,000 Retirement 98,000 98,000 98,000 Health Insurance 150,000 150,000 150,000 854,692 326,783 1,181,475 280,000 296,000 1,757,475 Total Personnel Services Consultant Fees 1,500 38,500 40,000 40,000 NEP Contractual 0 117,600 117,600 MPO Contractual 0 546,711 546,711 Audit Fees 46,000 0 46,000 46,000 Travel 4,120 15,130 19,250 6,000 21,000 46,250 Telephone 5,000 0 5,000 1,000 650 6,650 Postage 1,860 1,240 3,100 5,000 20,000 28,100 Equipment Rental 35,000 0 35,000 200 35,200 Insurance 33,000 0 33,000 33,000 Repair /Maint. (Grounds /Bldg /Equip) 25,000 0 25,000 26,000 Printing /Reproduction 1,400 1,500 2,900 6,500 85,000 94,400 Utilities (Elec, water, garb) 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 Advertising 1,050 1,950 3,000 12,000 550 15,550 Other Miscelleanous 1,500 1,000 2,500 500 1,500 4,500 Office Supplies 12,050 3,000 15,050 2,000 1,500 18,550 Computer Related Expenses 29,200 1,500 ' 30,700 6,000 5,000 41,700 Publications 1,500 500 2,000 1,500 500 4,000 Professional Development 23,700 3,200 26,900 2,000 7,000 35,900 Meetings /Events 1,450 12,550 14,000 2,000 43,800 59,800 Capital Outlay-Operations 22,000 0 22,000 3,000 4,000 29,000 Capital Outlay-Building 9,000 9,000 9,000 Long Term Debt 128,000 128,000 128,000 Allocation of Fringe /Indirect ** - 1,236,538 525,000 - 711,538 336,538 375,000 0 Amount to be reserved for ED /PR 400,000 400,000 400,000 Amount to be reserved for A/C 14,895 14,895 14,895 Reserve for Operations Expense* 680,090 680,090 1 680,090 988,469 1,068,853 2,057,322 1,210,749 979,300 4,24-7,371 Total Cash Outlays Non -Cash Exoense: Depreciation 70,000 70,000 70,000 Total Expenses 1,058,469 1,068,853 2,127,322 1,210,749 979,300 4,317,371 *See note #2 - As per the Auditors, the Fund Balance must be shown as 'carry over fund balance' in the revenue portion and as 'reserve for operations' in the expense portion of the budget. * *See note #4 - The Indirect rate prorates the overhead expenses incurred by the RPC over each active projectlagency. This is accomplished by a reallocation of the expenses from General to Special Revenue. These expenses include, but are not limited to, facility costs, office supplies, and support staff. The rate is adjusted to actual at year end. 161'1 A2 SWFRPC- MPO -CHNEP COMBINED OCT. 1, 2011 - Sept. 30, 2012 BUDGET Revenues Assessments Year End ................ ............................... . Current Amended Proposed 466,669 Actual Actual Actual YTD Budget Budget 1 2,872,576 Y/E Y/E Y/E ACTUAL Y/E Y/E 271,982 9/30/08 9/30/09 9/30/10 at 6/30/11 9/30111 9130112 Revenues Assessments 450,432 464,696 470,552 362,295 466,669 459,517 Federal /State /Local Funds 2,679,934 2,848,094 2,872,576 1,951,490 2,878,931 2,839,764 DRIB 271,982 271,982 280,626 161,134 200,000 253,000 Interest/Misc 37,625 15,104 10,101 0 30,000 15,000 Carry Over Fund Balance 565,8431 637,9881 655,7161 0 680,0901 680,090 F 4,005,816 4,237,864 4,289,571 2,474,919 4,255,690 4,247,371 Total Income Expenditures Direct: Salaries - Total 1,620,636 1,715,442 1,720,848 1,235,589 1,706,000 1,314,475 FICANVorkers Comp /Unemploymt 128,548 136,112 140,348 81,817 140,000 195,000 Retirement 165,357 181,381 179,617 124,884 181,300 98,000 Health Insurance 171,950 177,977 165,874 149,307 180,000 150,000 2,086,491 2,210,913 2,206,688 1,591,597 2,207,300 1,757,475 Total Personnel Services Consultant Fees 59,109 125,707 33,118 48,273 40,000 40,000 NEP Contractual 380,741 442,497 368,034 156,895 174,000 117,600 MPO Contractual 144,238 173,192 415,706 186,701 452,000 546,711 Audit Fees 49,039 45,686 43,116 42,220 47,000 46,000 Travel 45,866 46,859 45,700 26,099 75,000 46,250 Telephone 9,855 8,192 11,953 9,361 8,750 6,650 Postage 26,175 37,477 27,940 16,589 28,000 28,100 Storage Unit Rental 2,266 2,912 224 Equipment Rental 31,602 21,585 33,341 29,266 32,200 35,200 Insurance 31,056 29,480 25,492 18,298 33,200 33,000 Repair /Maint. (Grounds /Bldg /Equip) 24,925 24,631 18,530 13,641 25,000 25,000 Printing /Reproduction 93,275 61,147 52,205 76,728 93,500 94,400 Utilities (Elec, water, garb) 23,053 26,089 22,955 17,500 28,000 30,000 Advertising 13,893 13,350 20,322 12,730 13,050 15,550 Other Miscelleanous 1,735 3,403 2,382 1,728 4,500 4,500 Office Supplies 27,367 19,654 18,374 14,494 18,500 18,550 Computer Related Expenses 52,880 61,809 44,788 47,492 39,000 41,700 Publications Professional Development 2,302 45,665 1,625 36,137 1,656 36,504 2,024 34,130 3,800 34,000 4,000 35,900 Meetings /Events 39,242 44,679 22,298 52,574 55,800 59,800 Capital 0 utlay-Ope rations 41,853 12,175 21,995 8,037 25,000 29,000 Capital Outlay-Building 7,450 5,200 8,409 0 10,000 91000 Long Term Debt (Building Loan) 127,751 127,751 127,751 95,813 128,000 128,000 Allocation of Fringe /Indirect 0 0 0 Amount to be reserved for ED /PR 0 0 400,000 Amount to be reserved for A/C 0 0 14,895 Reserve for Operations Expense 565,843 637,988 655,716 01 680,090 680,090 3,933,671 4,220,136 4,265,1961 2,504,190 4,255,690 4,247,371 Total Cash Outlays 72,146 17,727 24,374 - 29,271 0 .0 Net Income /(Loss) Non -Cash Expenses: Depreciation 61,653 61,653 63,348 1 60,000 70,000 3,995,324 4,281,789 4,328,544 2,504,190 4,315,690 4,317,371 Total Expenses 1d� Il' iC A 2 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL OCT. 1, 2011 -Sept. 30, 2012 BUDGET Revenues Assessments Year End ............................ ............................... . Current Amended Proposed 466,669 RPC Actual RPC Actual RPC Actual YTD RPC Budget RPC Budget 884,593 Y/E Y/E Y/E ACTUAL Y/E Y/E 271,982 9/30/08 9/30/09 9/30/10 at 6/30/11 9/30111 9130112 Revenues Assessments 450,432 464,696 470,552 362,295 466,669 459,517 Federal /State /Local Funds 849,966 848,172 884,593 684,797 728,193 649,715 DRIs 271,982 271,982 280,626 161,134 200,000 253,000 Interest/Misc 37,625 15,104 10,101 0 30,000 15,000 Carry Over Fund Balance 565,8431 637,9881 637,9881 149,307 680,0901 680,090 17;,175,8481 2,237,942 2,283,860 1,208,226 2,104,952 2,057,322 Total Income Expenditures Direct: Salaries - Total 1,135,505 1,184,309 1,254,218 896,396 1,130,000 738,475 FICA/Workers Comp /Unemploymt 128,548 136,112 140,348 81,817 140,000 195,000 Retirement 165,357 181,381 179,617 124,884 181,300 98,000 Health Insurance 171,950 177,977 165,874 149,307 180,000 150,000 1,252,404 1,631,300 1,181,475 Total Personnel Services Consultant Fees 59,109 125,707 33,118 48,273 40,000 40,000 NEP Contractual 0 0 0 0 0 MPO Contractual 0 0 0 0 0 Audit Fees 49,039 45,686 43,116 42,220 47,000 46,000 Travel 27,075 26,173 28,292 14,478 48,000 19,250 Telephone 8,455 7,068 10,780 7,871 7,100 51000 Postage 1,453 -711 2,549 6,375 3,000 3,100 Storage Unit Rental 1,376 1,573 121 Equipment Rental 31,602 21,455 33,341 29,141 32,000 35,000 Insurance 31,056 29,480 24,941 18,298 33,200 33,000 Repair /Maint. (Grounds /Bldg /Equip) 24,925 24,631 18,530 13,641 25,000 25,000 Printing /Reproduction 8,080 -626 863 8,590 2,000 2,900 Utilities (Elec, water, garb) 23,053 26,089 22,955 17,500 28,000 30,000 Advertising 1,603 4,588 2,978 2,457 2,500 3,000 Other Miscelleanous 1,285 3,325 2,336 623 2,500 2,500 Office Supplies 20,861 14,349 14,821 12,191 15,000 15,050 Computer Related Expenses 50,649 57,994 42,352 42,319 30,000 30,700 Publications 1,877 1,562 1,631 2,024 1,800 2,000 Professional Development 38,465 29,779 28,511 26,750 25,000 26,900 Meetings /Events 10,612 19,202 7,849 12,840 10,000 14,000 Capital Outlay-Ope rations 41,853 10,897 19,742 6,274 15,000 22,000 Capital Outlay-Building 7,450 5,200 8,409 0 10,000 9,000 Long Term Debt (Building Loan) 127,751 127,751 127,751 95,813 128,000 128,000 Allocation of Fringe /Indirect - 631,128 - 678,723 - 593,546 - 422,586 - 711,538 - 711,538 Amount to be reserved for ED /PR 400,000 Amount to be reserved for A/C 14,895 Reserve for Operations Expense 565,843 637,9881 637,9881 0 680,090 680,090 2,103,703 2,220,214 2,259,486 1,237,497 2,104,952 2,057,322 Total Cash Outlays 72,146 17,728 24,374 - 29,271 0 0 Net Income /(Loss) Non -Cash Expenses Depreciation 68,769 71,028 63,348 60,000 70,000 2,172,472 2,291,242 2,322,834 1,237,497 2,164,952 2,127,322 Total Expenses 16 1' f A 2 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OCT. 1, 2011 -Sept. 30, 2012 BUDGET Federal /State /Local Funds 734,313 737,699 981,107 582,754 1,114,038 1,210,749 DRIs Interest/Misc Carry Over Fund Balance Total Income 708,808 734,313 981,107 582,754 1,114,038 1,210,749 Fxnanrlifii iras Direct: ... ............................... . - Year.End ...... .................. Current Amended Proposed MPO MPO MPO YTD MPO MPO 234,320 Actual Y/E Actual Y/E Actual Y/E ACTUAL Budget Y/E Budget Y/E 9/30/08 9/30/09 9/30/10 at 6130111 9/30/11 9/30112 Federal /State /Local Funds 734,313 737,699 981,107 582,754 1,114,038 1,210,749 DRIs Interest/Misc Carry Over Fund Balance Total Income 708,808 734,313 981,107 582,754 1,114,038 1,210,749 Fxnanrlifii iras Direct: Salaries - Total 240,924 237,956 234,320 166,039 280,000 280,000 FICA/Workers Comp /Unemploymt Retirement Health Insurance Total Personnel Services Consultant Fees 0 0 0 0 0 NEP Contractual 0 0 0 0 0 MPO Contractual 144,238 173,192 415,706 186,701 452,000 546,711 Audit Fees 0 0 0 0 0 Travel 3,394 4,143 3,011 2,961 6,000 6,000 Telephone 856 752 751 987 1,000 11000 Postage 4,814 4,913 3,694 2,183 5,000 51000 Storage Unit Rental 0 0 0 Equipment Rental 0 0 0 125 0 Insurance 0 0 0 0 0 Repair /Maint. (Grounds /Bldg /Equip) 0 0 0 0 0 Printing /Reproduction 3,783 1,336 974 723 6,500 6,500 Utilities (Elec, water, garb) 0 0 0 0 0 Advertising 11,768 8,696 17,292 10,273 10,000 12,000 Other Miscelleanous 447 28 46 360 500 500 Office Supplies 2,367 563 837 1,289 2,000 2,000 Computer Related Expenses 516 788 2,405 462 3,000 6,000 Publications 0 0 0 0 1,500 1,500 Professional Development 1,012 523 1,093 1,670 2,000 2,000 Meetings /Events 443 730 676 1,831 2,000 2,000 Capital Outlay-Operations 0 0 2,253 0 6,000 3,000 Capital Outlay-Building 0 0 0 0 0 Long Term Debt (Building Loan) 0 0 0 0 0 Allocation of Fringe /Indirect 319,750 304,078 298,051 207,150 336,538 336,538 Amount to be reserved for ED /PR Amount to be reserved for A/C Reserve for Operations Expense 734,313 737,699 981,107 582,754 1,114,038 1,210,749 Total Cash Outlays Net Income /(Loss) Non -Cash Expenses: Depreciation 734,313 737,699 981,107 582,754 1,114,038 1,210,749 Total Expenses 5 161 7A2 CHARLOTTE HARBOR NEP OCT. 1, 2011 - Sept. 30, 2012 BUDGET Revenues Assessments Year End ............... ............................... . Current Amended Proposed CHNEP- CHNEP- CHNEP- YTD CHNEP- CHNEP - 1,006,876 Actual Actual Actual ACTUAL Budget Budget Y/E 9/30/08 Y/E 9/30/09 Y/E 9/30/10 at 6/30/11 Y/E 9130/11 Y/E 9130112 Revenues Assessments Federal /State /Local Funds 1,095,655 1,262,223 1,006,876 683,939 1,036,700 979,300 DRIs Interest/Misc Carry Over Fund Balance 1,300,8731 1,095,655 1,006,8761 683,939 1,036,7001 979,300 Total Income Expenditures Direct: Salaries - Total 244,207 293,178 232,311 173,154 296,000 296,000 FICANVorkers Comp /Unemploymt Retirement Health Insurance Total Personnel Services Consultant Fees 0 0 0 0 0 NEP Contractual 380,741 442,497 368,034 158,895 174,000 117,600 MPO Contractual 0 0 0 0 0 0 Audit Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 Travel 15,397 16,543 14,397 8,661 21,000 21,000 Telephone 544 372 422 503 650 650 Postage 19,908 33,275 21,696 8,030 20,000 20,000 Storage Unit Rental 890 1,339 103 Equipment Rental 0 130 0 0 200 200 Insurance 0 0 551 0 0 0 Repair /Maint. (Grounds /Bldg /Equip) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Printing /Reproduction 81,412 60,436 50,368 67,415 85,000 85,000 Utilities (Elec, water, garb) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Advertising 521 66 53 0 550 550 Other Miscelleanous 3 50 0 745 1,500 1,500 Office Supplies 4,139 4,742 2,716 1,013 1,500 1,500 Computer Related Expenses 1,714 3,028 30 4,710 6,000 5,000 Publications 425 63 25 0 500 500 Professional Development 6,188 5,835 6,901 5,710 7,000 7,000 Meetings /Events 28,187 24,747 13,774 37,903 43,800 43,800 Capital Outlay-Operations 0 1,278 0 1,163 4,000 4,000 Capital Outlay-Building 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Term Debt (Building Loan) 0 0 0 0 0 Allocation of Fringe /Indirect 311,378 374,645 295,495 215,436 375,000 375,000 Amount to be reserved for ED /PR Amount to be reserved for A/C Reserve for Operations Expense 1,095,655 1,262,223 1,006,8761 683,939 1,036,700 979,300 Total Cash Outlays Net Income /(Loss) Non -Cash Expenses: Depreciation 1,095,655 1,262,223 1,006,876 683,939 1,036,700 979,300 Total Expenses 161 f A2 SWFRPC- MPO -CHNEP COMBINED PROPOSED BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR PLAN OCTOBER 1, 2011 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 Revenues Assessments Adopted 5 Year Plan 460,000 Budget Budget Budget Plan Budget Plan Budget Plan Budget Plan 2,840,000 WE Y!E WE WE Y/E WE 250,000 9/30/11 9130112 9/30/13 9/30/14 9/30/15 9/30/16 Revenues Assessments 466,669 459,517 460,000 460,000 462,000 465,000 Federal /State /Local Grants 2,878,931 2,839,764 2,840,000 2,840,000 2,845,000 2,850,000 Dri /Monitoring Fees 200,000 253,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Interest/Misc 30,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 Carry Over -Fund Balance 680,090 680,090 600,000 600,0001 600,000 600,000 4,255,690 4,247,371 4,165,000 4,165,000 4,177,000 4,185,000 Total Income Travel 75,000 46,250 45,000 45,000 46,000 Expenditures Direct: Total Personnel Services 2,207,300 1,757,475 2,203,060 2,197,194 2,139,266 2,141,577 Consultant Fees 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 NEP Contractual 174,000 117,600 116,600 117,766 118,944 120,133 MPO Contractual 452,000 546,711 450,000 450,000 500,000 500,000 Audit Fees 47,000 46,000 48,000 48,000 49,000 49,000 Travel 75,000 46,250 45,000 45,000 46,000 46,000 Telephone 8,750 6,650 7,000 8,000 8,000 9,000 Postage 28,000 28,100 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 Equipment Rental 32,200 35,200 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 Insurance 33,200 33,000 33,200 33,200 35,200 35,200 Repair /Maint. (Grounds /Bldg /Equip) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,500 26,000 26,500 Printing /Reproduction 93,500 94,400 94,500 94,500 94,500 94,500 Utilities (Elec, water, garb) 28,000 30,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 Advertising 13,050 15,550 16,000 16,000 17,000 17,000 Other Miscelleanous 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 Office Supplies 18,500 18,550 18,550 18,550 19,000 19,000 Computer Related Expenses 39,000 41,700 37,500 37,700 41,000 41,000 Publications 3,800 4,000 4,000 4,000 5,500 5,500 Professional Development 34,000 35,900 35,000 35,000 36,000 36,000 Meetings /Events 55,800 '59,800 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 Capital Outlay-Operations 25,000 29,000 25,000 25,000 29,000 29,000 Capital Outlay-Building 10,000 9,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Long Term Debt (Building Loan) 128,000 128,000 128,000 128,000 128,000 128,000 Allocation of Fringe /Indirect Amount to be reserved 414,895 Reserve for Operations Expense 680,090 680,090 680,090 680,090 680,090 680,090 4,255,690 4,247,371 4,165,000 4,165,000 4,177,000 4,185,000 Total Cash Outlays 0 0 Net Income /(Loss) Non -Cash Expenses: Depreciation 60,000 70,000 70,000 71,000 71,000 72,000 4,315,690 4,317,371 4,235,000 4,236,000 4,248,000 4,257,000 Total Expenses 161'1`-A2 2011 -12 Budget Distribution by Agency Distribution of Revenue f:? Oil 161 1 p2 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL CURRENT AND PROPOSED BUDGETS Increase: Professional Development was under - estimated last year & more requests this year Utilities increased due to transfer of internet from Computer Related line Capital Outlay and Computer Related - replacement of PCs and laptops, MPO Upgrades Amended Proposed 2010 -11 2011 -12 Change BUDGET BUDGET Revenues Assessments 466,669 459,517 -7,152 Federal /State 2,239,455 2,330,868 91,413 Local Funds 639,476 508,896 - 130,580 DRIs 200,000 253,000 53,000 Interest/Misc 30,000 15,000 - 15,000 3,575,600 3,567,281 -8,319 Total Income Expenditures Direct: Total Personnel Services 2,207,300 1,757,475 - 449,825 Consultant Fees 40,000 40,000 0 NEP Contractual 174,000 117,600 - 56,400 MPO Contractual 452,000 546,711 94,711 Audit Fees 47,000 46,000 -1,000 Travel 75,000 46,250 - 28,750 Telephone 8,750 6,650 -2,100 Postage 28,000 28,100 100 Equipment Rental 32,200 35,200 3,000 Insurance 33,200 33,000 -200 Repair /Maint. (Grounds /Bldg /Equip) 25,000 25,000 0 Printing /Reproduction 93,500 94,400 900 Utilities (Elec, water, garb) 28,000 30,000 2,000 Advertising 13,050 15,550 2,500 Other Miscelleanous 4,500 4,500 0 Office Supplies 18,500 18,550 50 Computer Related Expenses 39,000 41,700 2,700 Publications 3,800 4,000 200 Professional Development 34,000 35,900 1,900 Meetings /Events 55,800 59,800 4,000 Capital Outlay-Ope rations 25,000 29,000 4,000 Capital Outlay-Building 10,000 9,000 -1,000 Long Term Debt 128,000 128,000 0 Amount to be reserved for A/C 414,895 414,895 3,575,600 3,567,281 -8,319 Total Cash Outlays Increase: Professional Development was under - estimated last year & more requests this year Utilities increased due to transfer of internet from Computer Related line Capital Outlay and Computer Related - replacement of PCs and laptops, MPO Upgrades 1611p2 y SWFRPC - RPC only (excludes MPO and NEP) Comparison of RPC'10 Actual to Budgets of 2011 and 2012 A B C A vs.B A vs.0 B vs_C Expenditures RPC Actual Y/E 9/30/10 Amended RPC Budget Y/E 9/30/11 Proposed RPC Budget Y/E 9/30/12 Percentage change '10 Act to '11 Bud Percentage change '10 Act to '12 Bud Percentage change '11 Bud to '12 Bud Revenues Assessments 470,552 466,669 459,517 FederaUState /Local Grants 884,593 728,193 649,715 - 6.84 %0 - 8.95% Dri /Monitoring Fees 280,626 200,000 253,000 I nterest/Misc 10,101 30,000 15, 000 Carry Over Fund Balance 637,988 680,090 680,090 Total Income 2,283,860 2,104,9521 2,057,3221 -7.83% -9.92% - 2.26 % Expenditures Total Personnel Services 1,740,057 1,631,300 1,181,475 Total Operating Expenses 519,428 473,652 875,847 Total Cash Outlays I 2,259,486 2,104,952 2,057,322 - 6.84 %0 - 8.95% Net Income/ Loss 24,374 0 . 0 10 16.11-A2 Facts to be noted for this Annual Budget Included in Personal Services are salaries, sick, vacation, and holiday pay as well as benefits (ie: Retirement, Health, FICA) As always, transfers between Expense Lines will require a Budget Amendment. As per the Auditors, the Fund Balance must be shown in the Budget as 'carry over fund balance' in the revenue portion and as 'reserve for operations' in the expense portion of the Budget. 3 It has been recommended by the auditors that the Council designate a portion of the fund balance for emergencies. In that regard, $644,000 was been appropriated thus far and the reserved fund balance will be increased each year if possible until our goal of a six month reserve is met. 4 Fringe and Indirect reimbursed by MPO and NEP grants are shown as reallocation from Council since their budgets are separated from the RPC budget. A copy of the Calculation of the Indirect/Fringe Rates policy approved by the Council is attached. The Indirect rate prorates the overhead incurred by the RPC over each active project/agency. These expenses include, but are not limited to, facility costs, office supplies, and support staff. Fringe /Indirect Rates for 5 years: 2011 -12 Fringe Provisional Rate 44% 2011 -12 Indirect Provisional Rate 77% 2010 -11 Fringe Provisional Rate 44% 2010 -11 Indirect Provisional Rate 83% 2009 -10 Fringe Actual Rate 44% 2009 -10 Indirect Actual Rate 83% 2008 -09 Fringe Actual Rate 45% 2008 -09 Indirect Actual Rate 82% 2007 -08 Fringe Actual Rate 45% 2007 -08 Indirect Actual Rate 83% The SWFRPC has a "No Written Investment Policy ". Any investments made by the SWFRPC inust follow Florida Statute #218 -415 which states: Those units of local government electing not to adopt a written investment policy may invest or reinvest any surplus public funds in their control or possession in: (a) The Local Government Surplus funds Trust Fund (Fl. Prime SBA) (b) Securities and Exchange Commission registered money market funds. (c) Interest - bearing time deposits or savings accounts in qualified public depositories (d) Direct Obligations of the U.S. Treasury 11 161 1"A2 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL CAPITAL ASSETS POLICY Conforming to the requirements of GASB 34, we are formally setting the following guidelines for fixed assets capitalization and depreciation: Assets will be capitalized at $1,000 and above according to Florida Statue, Chapter 274. These assets will be inventoried using the Peachtree Fixed Assets Program. The depreciation method will be straight -line, full month. Useful life ranges are as follows: Buildings — 45 years Improvements other than buildings — 15 years Computer Equipment — 3 years Furniture and Fixtures — 7 years Vehicles and Equipment — 5 years This policy is effective as of October 1, 2004. Any assets previously inventoried under $1,000 shall be removed from the inventory list and that list submitted along with this policy. 12 161'1' A2 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL COMPUTER DISPOSAL POLICY Effective Date: December 14, 2007 Policy Statement:. All Council -owned electronic equipment, including but not limited to, computers, monitors, faxes, copy machines, cell phones, and personal digital appliances (PDAs) with a printed circuit board that the Network Administrator has deemed to be surplus or non - usable shall be disposed of in a manner that is consistent with Federal, state and local statutes and regulations, with recycling being the preferred method. All equipment identified as surplus shall be recycled by the Council's selected and approved vendor list. In addition, all surplus computers or servers that contain hard drives shall be wiped clean or shall be destroyed by magnetic degaussing. If equipment is recycle /disposed through the Lee County Government Solid Waste Division there is a fee which is subject to change. Responsibility: The administration of the recycling program shall be under the Network Administrator and the Executive Director. The Network Administrator identifies equipment as surplus to the needs for the Council, the Executive Director, reviews, and approves these declarations and brings the matter before the Council for final approval. Action: The initial action is the Network Administrator presents the Executive Director a list of surplus equipment. This list depicts: purchase date, current capital value, and reason for designation as surplus and recommended method of disposal. Once a list is approved by the Executive Director, it is placed on the Council's Agenda in the Administrative Items section for final approval. Possible methods of disposal include: in -house auction of equipment, donation to other agencies, recycling, disposal or any other method deemed to be consistent with the purpose and mission of the Council. 13 161'1`-A2 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Reserve Policy This policy is designed to guide the Council in financial policies to maintain a strong financial position. A strong financial position is important in the maintenance of services to the various counties and cities as well as to the citizens of the area served by the Council. The reserve policy is designed to allow the Council to maintain a committed and /or assigned fund balance level between four (4) and six (6) months of prior year operating expenditures as recommended. The reserves are a component of the Council's fund balance which is reviewed by auditors as an indicator of financial health. Assigned (intended for a specific purpose) and /or committed (constraint imposed by Council) fund balance reserves are designed to provide the Council with funds in the event of revenue interruption, shortfalls or other unforeseen occurrence. Should the Council be required to hold reserves by third party agreement or law; these amounts will be classified as Restricted. Specifically committed and /or assigned fund balance reserves will be maintained at a level of at least four (4) months of the prior year total operating expenditures and will be increased annually, if possible, to reach a goal of six (6) months. This assigned fund balance reserve as well as the Council's operating reserve and capital asset reserve will be maintained to meet the Council's needs in case of an emergency such as a natural disaster. In the event funds are utilized from the fund balance reserves, every effort will be made to restore the initial reserve amount in the ensuring years. Changes to the fund balance reserves will be reported annually as part of the financial statements and at the annual Budget presentation. Remaining classifications of fund balance are non - spendable and unassigned. The non - spendable fund balance is that fund balance associated with fixed assets. This balance is adjusted each year by the addition or disposal of fixed assets. These adjustments are presented annually for Council approval. The unassigned fund balance is the residual classification for the Council's general fund and includes all spendable amounts not contained in the restricted, committed, assigned and non - spendable classifications. Note: As of October 1, 2010, our assigned fund balance reserves total six hundred forty - four thousand dollars ($644,000). Revised — 04/11 Calculation of Fringe and Indirect Rates Source: 1611 A2 " CCAS Indirect Cost Rate (http: / /www.ccas.com /cgovcon.htm) CCAS produces and supports financial and government project accounting software Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Indirect Costs from The Division of Financial Advisory Services (http://ocm.od.nih.gov/dfas/faqindirectcosts.htm) What is the difference between a direct cost and an indirect cost? A direct cost is any cost that can be easily identified with a specific project (grant/contract): e.g., Salaries and Wages, Materials & Supplies, Subcontracts, Consultants. An indirect cost is any cost that cannot be easily identified (or it would not be cost effective to identify) to a specific project, but identified with two or more final cost objectives. There are three types of indirect costs: Fringe Benefits: services or benefits provided to employees, e.g., Health Insurance, Payroll Taxes, Pension Contribution, Paid Absences, etc Overhead: indirect costs associated with the performance of a project, e.g., Facility Costs (rent, heat, electricity, etc.), General Laboratory Supplies, office supplies, etc. G&A: indirect costs associated with the overall management of an organization, e.g., President's Office, Human Resources Office, Accounting Office, etc. Determining an Indirect -Cost Rate An indirect -cost rate is simply the ratio of indirect costs to some base or activity (that is, direct labor costs, labor hours, number of employees, space footage or total direct costs). We will use the ratio of indirect costs (excluding fringe) to direct labor costs to determine the actual indirect rate. (Overhead and G &A) The ratio of total fringe benefits to total salaries will be used to determine the actual fringe rate. (Fringe Benefits) Sept.2005 15 i z BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES September 13, 2011 2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of 6/21 /11 2) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of 10/6/10; 12/8/10; 1/12/11; 3/9/11; 4/6/11; 5/4/11 3) Board of Building_ Adjustments and Appeals: Minutes of 5/6/11 4) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of 4/20/11 Minutes of 4/20/11 5) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of 8/5/10; 1/13/11; 5/12/11 6) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of 513111 (Special Magistrate); 6/3/11 (Special Magistrate) 7) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of 4/7/11; 4121A 1 5 / 5 /11 Minutes of 4/7/11; 4/21/11'; 515111; 5/19/11; 6/2/11 8) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of 5/18/11 9) County Government Productivity Committee: Agenda of 3/16/11; 4/20/11; 5/18/11 Minutes of 3/16/11; 3/24/11 (Solid Waste Disposal Contract Subcommittee); 4/20/11; 5 /18/11 (Capital Imprvement Project Review Subcommittee); 5/18/11; 5/26/11 (Capital Improvement Plan Review Subcommittee) 10) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of 5/4/11; 6/1/11 .r 11) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council: Minutes of 3/25/11; 4/15/11; 6/10/11 12) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of 5/4/11; 6/1/11; 7/6/11 13) Floodplain Management Planning Committee: Minutes of 4/4/11 r.• 14) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee: } Agenda of 4/13/11; 5/11/11; 6/8/11; 7/13/11 Minutes of 3/14/11; 4/13/11; 4/19/11; 5111/11; 6/8/11 y 15) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 5110/11 Minutes of 5110/11; 6/14/11 16) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda of 6/6/11 Minutes of 4/4/11; 5/2/11; 6/6/11 17) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board: Minutes of 5/19/10; 7/21/10; 1/19/11; 3/23/11; 5/11/11 18) Horizon Study Oversight Committee: Minutes of 1/29/10; 4/30/10; 10/29/10; 2/4/11 19) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 3/23/11; 4/27/11; 5/25/11; 6/29/11; 7/27/11 Minutes of 1/26/11; 3/23/11; 4/27/11; 5125111; 6/29/11 20) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Develooment Aeencv: Agenda of 6/15/11; 7/20/11 Minutes of 6115111 21) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of 5/18/11; 6115111; 7/20/11 Minutes of 4/20/11; 5/18/11; 6/15/11 22) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 4/18/11 161 2 " 23) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 5/19/11; 6/16/11; 6/29/11; 7/21/11 Minutes of 2/17/11; 4/21/11; 5/19/11; 6/16/11; 6/29/11 24) Library Advisory Board: Minutes of 4/20/11 25) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 5/9/11; 6/13/11 26) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of 10/20/10; 12/15/10; 4/20/11 27) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of 5/4/11; 6/13/11 Minutes of 5/4/11 28) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 3/15/11 Minutes of 2/15/11; 3/15/11 29) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory Committee: Agenda of 4/6/10; 5/4/10; 8/11/10; 6/1/11 Minutes of 4/6/10; 5/4/10; 8/11/10; 6/1/11 30) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of 3/3/11; 4/7/11; 515111 Minutes of 2/3/11; 3/3/11; 4/7/11 31) Water and Wastewater Authority: Minutes of 3/28/11 r ,. June 21, 2011 16 V'2k-1 �i ♦iiii iiiiia............ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 21, 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: Marcia Breithaupt VICE CHAIRMAN: Jim Rich Marjorie Bloom Dr. Ruth Eisele (excused) a �✓ Sergeant David Estes Tom Kepp, Jr. (excused) ': nning Dan Martin e tta ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director DAS Ekna Guevara, Administrative Assistant Kathlene Drew, Volunteer Coordinator ,,. c:-.t\%3\ \\ Item #: \L&7r 2 W 1 W L Call to Order ( a.irman Marcia Breithaupt called the meeting to order at 6:32 PM. U. Attendance Attendance was taken and a quorum established. III, Approval of Agenda Jim Rich moved to approve the agenda. Second by Sgt David Estes Carried unanimously, 5-0. Jul �2Ja All n IV. Approval of Minutes of May 17, 2011 Correction: Page 3 under Nan Gerhardt's commen4 the last bulleted item: Change Snav & Neuter Clinic to Vaccination Clinic. Dan Martin moved to approve the minutes of May 17, 2011, as amended Second by Sgt David Estes. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. V. Old Business A. Director's Report - Amanda Townsend reported: • Spring time was litter season; however the amounts were less due to a decrease of four Animal Control Officers (ACO) on the road. • Two ACO resignations, one injury and one open advertised position. • The open position generated close to 130 applications, of which 24 were selected to participate in mandatory written assignments covering how they would handle an ACO situation. Of those, about a dozen completed the accompanying homework assignment and were invited to an open house and tour regarding what to expect and what was expected of them. The final selection panel was in progress to be followed by regulation hiring procedures (finger - printing, background checks, physicals, etc.) • The Public Information Specialist position will be posted on June 24, 2011 • The 2012 Budget presentation to the County Manager and preparation for BCC review and finalization • May attendance at a 2 -day Hurricane Event on Emergency issues consisting of several hands -on exercises in simulated hurricane events and actual disaster scenarios. • June 1 opens hurricane season and the start of pre - registration for pet - friendly shelters. • Kathy Drew will handle pet - friendly shelter issues and Nan Gerhardt will handle DAS shelter issues • Kathy Drew announced DART team members were being notified. • Aug. 27, 2011 from loam to Ipm at North Collier Regional Park a free Pet First Aid class for DART members and other pet owners on pre and post storm care. 2 E j June 21, 2O11 1. Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws Amanda Townsend stated she did not have the opportunity to do the research of other counties/cities that may have Spay & Neuter Laws. She offered to pursue the topic at the Board's request. Jim Rich moved to table the Mandatory Spay & Neuter Laws research of other counties to the next meeting's Agenda. Second by Dan Martin. Carried unanimously, 5-0. 2. Summer Meeting Schedule Following a brief discussion, the consensus of the Board was to forego the August meeting and meet again in September. Sgt. David Estes moved to skip the August, 2011 meeting of the DASAB and to resume meetings in September, 201L Second by Jim Rich. Carried unanimously, 5-0 3. DTF Survey Responses (handout) Ekna Guevara provided a screen projection of the results of the Donation Trust Fund survey sent out to donors. Results were: • 400surveys sent out to those donating over the past 3 years • 55 responses — 28 returned as undeliverable. • Listed under the "Other" category were nine items for the Donation Trust Fund's use which the Board discussed. • Noted was the survey's usefulness when deciding donor preferences for the allocation of the DTF. • Additional discussion ensued regarding funding of public appeals. It was determined the item would be one best handled by the soon- to -be- appointed Public Information Specialist. Discussion on, and pursuing the priorities to act upon in the survey responses, will be added to the July meeting's Agenda. Ekna noted the survey itself triggered additional donations. VL New Business A. Budget presentation — FY 2012 Amanda Townsend supervised a power point presentation providing an overview of the 2012 `Budget, its processes and various funds involved in its creation, which was presented at the Public Services workshop. She explained: Projections and trends and how they were arrived at • Salaries, Medicine and drugs were the largest expenditures • The breakdown per animal • Where the money comes from (General, DTF, Spay & Neuter Funds) • Capital improvement concerns (4vehicles need replacing; 1 approved) • No further staff cuts anticipated (already down to 32 from 41) • Importance of the inmate labor program M 161 t: t June 21, 2011 • Performance measures, - enforcement, animal & veterinary care, community outreach The millage rate will be set in July. On Oct. 1, the Budget will become effective. VII. Public Comment (VIII. Topic IBA was taken up before VII.) The topic selected by random drawing was. Small Repairs that are needed for immediate attention - the southeast area awning. Kathlene Drew explained the 10 x 20 tent used for shade protection of the animals and volunteers when exercising the animals needed stronger anchoring of the frame due to high winds. With approaching hurricane season, using a tarp on it would not be prudent. The smaller frame was cemented in a semi- permanent way for use in the pasture and 2 agricultural pens exercise area. Amanda Townsend noted the fencing will be repaired Suggestion was made to add "Training Program" to the survey list. Mentioned was to: • Seek SW Florida Dog Trainer Alliance for contacts • Post on line • Get the word out to retirees and rescue coordinators Amanda Townsend stated DAS was always Cooking for trainers of volunteers for post adoption training. The subject was one the new Public Information employee could look into. She noted any group or member of the public could post information on line. County public disclosure restrictions govern what their departments post on the internet. VIII. Topic TBA (open discussion) (VII Public Comment was taken up next) (handout) Gisela Rowley spoke about a program at the University of Florida called Maddie's Shelter Medicine Program, which helps Florida animal shelters improve animal health and adoption rates at their shelters. The program was funded and of no cost to the shelters. She noted the University veterinary staff provides an evaluation of shelter practices and works with shelter management to recommend any improvements. She had also contacted a user of the program and the University itself to ensure the availability of the program; both with favorable results. She urged the DASAB to work with Amanda Townsend to take advantage of the program. Amanda Townsend responded she was familiar with the program and would like to invite them to Collier County once the Procedures and Protocol Manual was in place, probably by the end of the year. Discussions with them could begin now to set up a later date. The DASAB would have to vote to recommend it XI. Individual Comments Lisa Hoppensteadt offered the following suggestions: 1. Use of ultra violet lights that kill bacteria in the air in the shelter. 2. Take advantage of free or discounted pet food company offers June 21, 2611 Amanda responded DAS participates in the Hills Science Diet program in which purchase of 501b bags provided free 51b bags given to adoptees. 3. Microchip — Put shelter as first contact and owner address as second contact. 4. More exposure of the DAS shelter, rescue groups and adoptable dogs; take dogs to dog parks for exposure Amanda responded 106 featured animals at 77 different locations had been part of the outreach program over the past year, with volunteer assistance. 5. Train select dogs for service or therapy dogs. Talk to assisted living & nursing -homes to provide adoptable pets i A ands responded Shan iff W 4*mrs do choose appropriate shelter dogs for that purpose and have also trrained some horses. 6. Advertise rescued dogs on fast food or local restaurant cups X. Advisory Board Comments Dan Martin asked about informational brochures on the FWC and the Cats in the House programs. He will send the link to Amanda for her to follow up. Sgt. David Estes stated he supervises the Mounted Horse Patrol. One Officer adopted a horse with the goal of it becoming a certified Patrol Horse. He noted all horses are not trainable for that activity. Also there were already too many horses at the sanctuaries, which were now full, due to the poor economy. Marjorie Bloom showed an interesting flyer put out by Peta 2, promoting an "adopt don't buy" theme. She also asked for directional, "what to do" signs in the shelter. She expressed the need for communications blasts out to volunteers for summer help in the kennels. Kathy Drew will come up with a volunteer "to do" list. She currently a -mails a quarterly newsletter to about 400 volunteers; many were returned as undeliverable. She will try another approach. Jim Rich inquired if a County Attorney could be invited to a meeting to give direction to the DASAB on how much "push" in solicitations could be used by DASAB under City, State and County laws. Amanda Townsenal ri'spond9ed Assistant County Attorney Colleen Greene was assigned to DAS and asked the Board to collate their questions to present to Attorney Greene. Arrangements will then be made for her to attend a Board meeting. Chairman Marcia Breithaupt suggested having a monthly newsletter, which she agreed to help set up. She also noted Friday was "Take a Dog to Work Day." She thanked the attending public for their interest and for continuing to come to DAS meetings. June 21, 2011 161211,1 Next Advisory Board Meeting is scheduled for July 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 8 :26 PM. COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES /t4n&L-4✓ tA4&�g Chairman Marcia Breithaupt These minutes approved by Board/Committee on as presented or as amended 6 ala e _ �tannin �cy(e iefta 1611p A-2 RECEIVED JUN 10 2011 Board of County Commissioner,, BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 6, 2010 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Maurice Gutierrez at 5 :00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Maurice Gutierrez, Dwight Oakley, Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Carolyn Cochrane, and Gerry Buck. Victoria Nicklos arrived at 5:05 p.m. MSTU Staff Present: Sue Trone, David Buchheit Project Managers, and Davi Jackson, Executive Director. I'll 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved 6 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the September 8, 2010 regular meeting minutes. Mr. Buck asked that his name be spelled correctly in future minutes. Motion to approve: Mr. Buck. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 6 -0. 4. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area along with some repairs to equipment where needed. Mulch is being installed on Bayshore Drive. A motion was made to approve paymices. Motion: Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved 6 -0. Date: bl 5. Proiects Report: item OQMW X -Z V=k-2,,, i ,_. a. David Buchheit informed the committee `thAtJean Jourdan is working with FPL to have a shield added to a neighborhood street light. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that the he has worked with the vendor to get the cost of the crosswalk improvements decreased. He asked that the committee hold off on this project until the Master Plan is completed. 6. Old Business: a. David Buchheit reminded the committee that they received a set of landscaping plans, and a set of lighting plans at last month's meeting. Mr. Oakley asked for clarification about the turn lane being removed, and the shoulder leading to the October 6, 2010 Minutes 161'2A2 Naples Botanical Garden. Staff informed the committee that turn lane was removed, and that the shoulder will remain up to the second Naples Botanical Garden driveway. Mr. Messmer asked that future projects provide 8 % X 11 sheets for committee member to review. Motion to approve the Landscape plan, the Lighting plan, and to submit the plans to the County: Mr. Buck. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 7 -0 b. David Buchheit informed the Advisory Committee that the he worked with the County transportation staff, and the vendor to reduce the price of the New Moon Court paving project from nearly $13,000 to $9,626.25. There was discussion about the cost and how it was attained. Staff explained why the quote was adjusted. Motion: Mr. Messmer. Second: Mr. Oakley 6 -0 Ms. Nicklos abstained. c. David Buchheit explained that staff had received quotes not to exceed $5,000 per the committee's request at the September 8, 2010 meeting. The committee had some discussion about the quotes. Mr. Buck asked for staff's input on the quotes. Staff provided input. Mr. Buck made a motion to approve Christmas on Bayshore and hire Whited Holiday D6cor. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved 7 -0. After the vote there was a discussion about the date that the lights will be turned on. The committee agreed that the lights should be turn on the week of the 15th of November. d. Sue Trone discussed the MSTU Master plan. She explained that after reviewing the goals of the committee the Master plan needs to be amended. She asked that the committee approve a $12,000 to JRL studios. This increase would cover the cost of added Streetscape Guidelines being added to the LDC, and it would also cover the cost of a five year capital improvement plan. Motion: Mr. Buck. Second: Mrs. Cochrane. Approved 6 -1 Mrs. Dugan was the dissenting vote. 7. New Business: ,: a. Walkable Community Study. Mr. Buchheit explained that the committee had received the Walkable Community Study at the September 8, 2010 meeting. He also explained that the CRA Advisory Committee has already approved submitting the Walkable Community Study to the BCC for approval and recommendation of approval to the MPO. Mr. Oakley made a motion to submit the study to the BCC for approval and recommendation of approval to the MPO. Second by Mr. Messmer. Approve 6 -1. Mrs. Dugan was the dissenting vote. b. MSTU Advisory Committee Goals. David Buchheit asked for a motion to approve the Goals and Mission Statement that was created at the Goals workshop. There was some discussion about the goals, and some wording October 6, 2010 Minutes 161 2A2 was changed. Mr. Buck made a motion to approve the mission statement as is, and to approve the goals as amended. Second. Mr. Messmer. Motion carried: 7 -0. The following are the amended goals: L Continue to evolve the goals for a better Bayshore community. ii. Market the Bayshore community. iii. Encourage responsive relationships within the community. iv. Create a plan to display public art in the Bayshoommunity. v. Address streetscape issues in the right -of -way. vi. Create a strategy to beautify the Bayshore community. vii. Recognize sustainability when contemplating projects. viii. Support economic development that is consistent with a broad vision for the Bayshore community. ix. Pursue projects in accordance with a Capital Improvement Plan. 8. Public Comments: None 9. Advisory Committee General Communications: a. Committee Member Nomination: Davi Jackson asked the committee to recommend a member to be awarded the Outstanding Advisory Committee member award from the County. Mr. Oakley made a motion to nominate Maurice Gutierrez. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Motion carried: 6 -0. Mr. Gutierrez abstained from voting. The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on October 30 at 9:30 AM, and there will not be a regular meeting in November. The meeti djourned at 5:50. pproved and forwarded by Ma ce Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. October 6, 2010 Minutes w Fiala V, Hiller Henning 'r Coyle ;;oletta 16 1 2 Rie PECEI V ED JUN 10 7011 ,,,, of County commissioners BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 8, 2010 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Maurice Gutierrez at 5 :00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Maurice Gutierrez, Dwight Oakley, Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Carolyn Cochrane, Gerry Buck, and Victoria Nicklos. MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit, Project Manager, and David Jackson, Executive Director. 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved 7 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the October 6, 2010 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Oakley. Approved 7 -0. 4. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area. a. He also provided two quotes to the committee for replacement trees. One was $1,547.50 for the replacement of a dead royal palm tree. The second was $7,033.00 for the removal and transplantation of 12 alexanders, and the installation of seven foxtail palms at the last median on Bayshore Drive near the Misc. Corres: intersection of Thomasson Drive. Mr. Messmer asked if the royal could be q�\31 �, replaced with a shade tree. The committee wanted to wait on changing Date: !and cape (i.e. from royal palm to oak) until the master plan was completed. item The committee decided it would be best to wait on removal and replacement of the 2 alexanders until March of 2011. A motion was made to approve payment of normal monthly invoices, and to approve the payment of the $1,547.50 to replace the dead royal palm tree. Motion: Mr. Buck. Second: Mrs, Cochrane. Approved 7 -0. 5. Projects Report: a. David Buchheit informed the committee that ABB has submitted the 90% plans to SFVVMD and to Collier County. He explained that ABB and staff are working December 8, 2010 Minutes on the comments received from the submittal, and that the committee would be updated when the project progresses. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that JRL is working on updating the Master Plan per the results of the data that they received from the November workshop. He also informed them that there will be a workshop held on January 8th, 2011 at 9:30 AM at the East Naples Park community center. c. David Buchheit then asked the committee if they had any questions about the budget report. Mr. Buck asked if he could see a detailed breakdown of the budget. David Jackson said yes, and he provided the detailed breakdown to all committee members at the end of the meeting. 6. Old Business: a. David Buchheit informed the committee that Maurice Gutierrez was selected as the November 2010 Committee Volunteer for all of Collier County. b. David Buchheit informed the Advisory Committee that Whited Holiday Decor had submitted an invoice for $5,000.00 for Christmas on Bayshore. He requested that the committee make a motion to pay the invoice. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mrs. Dugan 7 -0. 7. New Business: a. Select 2011 Officers. Mr. Buck made a motion that we maintain the same officers for 2011 that we had in 2010. A second was made by Mrs. Dugan. Approved 7 -0. Southern Signal Repairs. David Buchheit asked for a motion to approve the repair work that was provided by Southern Signal after the fact. Mr. Buck made a motion to approve the payment. Second. Mrs. Cochrane. Motion carried: 7- 0. 8. Public Comments: A member of the public commented that they were glad that we would be distributing post cards for our January 8th, 2011 public stakeholders meeting. 9. Advisory Committee General Communications: a. Banners: Ms. Nicklos expressed concerns about the banners that are currently displayed on Bayshore Drive. The committee did not make any recommendation, or vote on changing the existing banners. They did ask that the Holiday banners be displayed. b. Marketing: Mr. Buck requested an update on interaction with the Marketing Committee. Mr. Jackson provided an update to the committee. c. CAPA Event: Mr. Oakley provided the committee with an update to the CAPA Event, and requested volunteers. December 8, 2010 Minutes 161e A2 �� S Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on January 8 at 9:30 AM, and on January 12 at 5:00 PM. The meetijourned at 6:45. Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. December 8, 2010 Minutes 16I2�A� RECEIVED JUN 10 2011 Board of County Commissioners Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Vice - Chairman Carolyn Cochrane at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Dwight Oakley, Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Carolyn Cochrane, Gerry Buck, and Victoria Nicklos. Maurice Gutierrez was absent. MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit, Project Manager, Sue Trone, Project Manager, and David Jackson, Executive Director. 2. Approval of Agenda: Mrs. Cochrane asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Mr. Buck. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved 6 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mrs. Cochrane asked for a motion to approve the December 8, 2010 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Mr. Messmer. Second: Mrs. Dugan Approved 6 -0. 4. Projects Report: a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area. He also explained that his crew had replaced the dead royal palm tree. A motion was made to approve payment of normal monthly invoices. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Oakley. Approved 6 -0. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that ABB has submitted the 90% plans to SFWMD and to Collier County. He explained that ABB and staff are working on the comments received from the submittal, and that the committee would be updated when the project progresses. c. David Buchheit informed the committee that JRL is working on updating the Master Plan per the results of the data that they received from the November workshop. 5. Old Business: Misc. Comes: a. David Buchheit informed the committee that the FPL St�eeet lir, tl Veld has been installed. January 12, 2011 Minutes Item #: t U-Z "L %`� 2 Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ..oletta 16I2�A� RECEIVED JUN 10 2011 Board of County Commissioners Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Vice - Chairman Carolyn Cochrane at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Dwight Oakley, Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Carolyn Cochrane, Gerry Buck, and Victoria Nicklos. Maurice Gutierrez was absent. MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit, Project Manager, Sue Trone, Project Manager, and David Jackson, Executive Director. 2. Approval of Agenda: Mrs. Cochrane asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Mr. Buck. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved 6 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mrs. Cochrane asked for a motion to approve the December 8, 2010 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Mr. Messmer. Second: Mrs. Dugan Approved 6 -0. 4. Projects Report: a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area. He also explained that his crew had replaced the dead royal palm tree. A motion was made to approve payment of normal monthly invoices. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Oakley. Approved 6 -0. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that ABB has submitted the 90% plans to SFWMD and to Collier County. He explained that ABB and staff are working on the comments received from the submittal, and that the committee would be updated when the project progresses. c. David Buchheit informed the committee that JRL is working on updating the Master Plan per the results of the data that they received from the November workshop. 5. Old Business: Misc. Comes: a. David Buchheit informed the committee that the FPL St�eeet lir, tl Veld has been installed. January 12, 2011 Minutes Item #: t U-Z "L %`� 2 x 5 . 16 2 4 AQ� Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 b. David Buchheit informed the Advisory Committee that the paving on New Moon Court was completed. c. David Buchheit explained the invoices from Southern Signal. Ms. Nicklos made a motion to pay all Southern Signal invoices. Second by Mr. Buck. Approved 6 -0. 6. New Business: 7. Public Comments: 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: a. Mrs. Dugan let the committee know that light 14 was not working. b. Mrs. Cochrane asked if we could have the crown of thorns on Lakeview Drive looked at by Ground Zero. c. Ms. Nicklos suggested that staff set up meet and greets with real estate firms in Collier County. d. Sue Trone spoke to the group about getting volunteers for the Bayshore CAPA festival. e. Ms. Nicklos express concerns with the amount of paper that was used to create the agenda packet for this month's meeting. Mr. Oakley agreed and reminded the group of going green. There was discussion about going green. The committee decided to only have memos printed in the future. They asked that staff provide an electronic copy of the backup materials. Mrs.. Cochrane expressed a desire to see the backup material. The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on February 2 at 5:00 PM. The me in adjourned at 5:45. 4 pproved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. January 12, 201 T'Minutes „Ila ✓Y ning _ le-- Ila 16 I @' a= 2 RECEIVED JUN 10 2011 Board of County CornrnLu4oners BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE March 09, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Dwight Oakley, Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Carolyn Cochrane, Gerry Buck, Victoria Nicklos, and Maurice Gutierrez. MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit, Project Manager, and David Jackson, Executive Director. 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Mr. Messmer. Second: Mrs. Cochrane. Approved 7 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the February 2, 2011 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Mr. Buck. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 7 -0. 4. Projects Report: a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area. He also explained that his crew had fixed a broken sprinkler main line. A motion was made to approve payment of monthly invoices. Motion: Mr. Messmer. Second: Mrs. Cochrane. Approved 7 -0. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that ABB has submitted the 90% plans to Collier County for a right of way permit. c. David Buchheit informed the committee that JRL is working on finalizing the master plan, and will present it to the committee at the next meeting. d. David Buchheit informed the committee that Q. Grady Minor staff had proceeded with the initial phase of the stormwater improvement plan. 5. Old Business: a. David Buchheit informed the Advisory Committee Aft lanting on New Moon Court was completed. Da*: -':4 I �,b1 t Item #: %L.9 ='2 yP `L 4 161 *212 S"O'k, —Ira �Y Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 b. David Buchheit explained to the committee that a neighborhood meeting was held, and that a vote was taken. He went over the results of the vote. Mr. Buck made a motion to proceed with getting a quote to do sidewalks on both sides, valley gutters, trees where possible, and pedestrian lighting. Mrs. Cochrane was the second. There was discussion about limiting the sidewalk to one side of the street. The Chairman called the question, and the vote passed 6 -1 with Victoria Nicklos dissenting 6. New Business: a. David Buchheit explained the quote that was received to paint the bicycle lane on Bayshore Drive. He explained that this would be one of the first installments of this type of product in the Southern United States. Mr. Buck expressed his desire to see the area move forward, and made a motion to approve the installation. Mrs. Dugan was the second. There was discussion about the cost, and the idea of sole source. The motion passed 6 -1 with Dwight Oakley dissenting. b. David Buchheit requested that a formal motion be made to place Thomasson Drive at the top of the priority list. Motion to approve: Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Buck. 7 -0 c. Gary Wingo from PBSU presented information about the past proiects of his firm. David Buchheit provided information about this project. There was discussion about the proiect. Motion to approve: Mrs. Dugan. Second: Mr. Messmer. 7 -0 d. David Buchheit provided information about the 2012 possible budget. There was discussion immediately about the committees desire to continue to comalete proiects. A motion was made by Mr. Buck to qo Tax Neutral for FY2012. Second: Mr. Oakley. 7 -0 7. Public Comments: 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: a. Mr. Oakley apologized for missing the workshop, and asked to go on record to express his displeasure with the images that were in the JRL master plan recommendations section. The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on April 6 at 5:00 PM. The meeti purned at 7:10. Approved and fortivarded' by IUlaurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. =iala ?filler '.znning T 161, ZE"EM JUN 10 2011 Roard of County Commissioners BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE April 06, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Dwight Oakley, Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Carolyn Cochrane, Victoria Nicklos, and Maurice Gutierrez. Gerry Buck was absent. MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit, Project Manager, Sue Trone, Project Manager, and David Jackson, Executive Director. 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 6 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the March 9, 2011 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 6 -0. 4. Projects Report: a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area. He also explained that his crew had worked on sprinkler lines. A motion was made to approve payment of monthly invoices. Motion: Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Oakley. Approved 6 -0. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that the right of way permit has been received, and that the project will be moving forward to construction. c. David Buchheit asked the committee to for a motion to approve the final draft of the master plan. Motion to approve: Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved 6 -0 d. David Buchheit informed the committee that Q. Grady Minor staff held a public meeting, and that they are proceeding with the initial phase of the stormwater improvement plan. e. David Buchheit informed the committee that staff is A*&AffrWth Federal Highway, and Collier County to complete the bicycle lane pting. \x\ Item #: alp= 'Z, 2 M� r 16 1.2 A s f. David Buchheit informed the committee that a notice to proceed was issued to PBS &J, and that future updates will be brought to the committee. g. David Buchheit informed the committee that preliminary staff work has begun on Thomasson Drive. h. Members of the volunteer marketing task force requested that the MSTU committee members attend a joint workshop to discuss an overall brand for the area. Motion to approve: Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 6- 0 5. Old Business: a. David Buchheit explained to the committee that Chris Wright from RWA was in attendance to answer any questions that the committee had regarding the quotes provided for Bayview Drive. Mr. Wright explained the approach that his firm was using in evaluating the cost for this project. Mrs. Cochrane made a motion to approve alternative 2 per the decision of the neighborhood. Mrs. Dugan seconded the motion. The chairman called the question and the motion failed 3 to 3. Mrs. Cochrane, Mrs. Dugan, Mr. Gutierrez were yes votes. Mr. Oakley, Ms. Nicklos, and Mr. Messmer were no votes. There was more discussion about the possibility of adding a flat curb, or concrete apron to the road. A motion was made by Mrs. Dugan to move forward with alternative 2 with the addition of a flat curb. Mrs. Cochrane was the second. The chairman called the question and the motion failed 3 to 3. Mrs. Cochrane, Mrs, Dugan, Mr. Gutierrez were yes votes. Mr. Oakley, Ms. Nicklos, and Mr. Messmer were no votes. At this point Mrs. Cochrane suggested to the committee member who were voting no that they make a motion. A motion was made by Ms. Nicklos to approve alternative 1 with the option of a flat curb and the sidewalk could be on either side per the engineers' opinion. Mr. Messmer seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 — 1 Mrs. Dugan was the dissenting vote. 6. New Business: a. David Buchheit explained that he had held a neighborhood information meeting to determine if there was a desire to have sidewalks, Fighting, landscaping, and /or traffic calming installed in the Lunar Drive neighborhood. He asked the committee if they would like him to bring back a quote at the next meeting for this project. The committee agrees to receive a quote, and asked that he not engage the neighborhood again until the quote is received. b. David Buchheit provided information and a preview of the new website that the CRA will launch in June. 7. Public Comments: a. A member of the public suggested that the streets should be limited in what they can install to increase uniformity throughout the area. 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: a. The committee had some discussion regarding the possible bridge to Sugden Park. b. The committee had discussion about the possibility of installing fire hydrants. The CRA Executive Director advised that the CRA is pursuing a grant for this purpose. The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on May 4 at 5 :00 PM. The meeti journed at 7:45. Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. , 16 12 RE 1VED JUN 10 2011 3oarc of Caunty Commissioners BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE May 04, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Dwight Oakley, Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Carolyn Cochrane, Victoria Nicklos, Gerry Buck, and Maurice Gutierrez. . MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit, Project Manager, and David Jackson, Executive Director. 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 7 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the April 6, 2011 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Mrs. Dugan. Second: Mr. Oakley. Approved 7 -0. 4. Proiects Report: a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area. A motion was made to approve payment of monthly invoices.. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 7 -0. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that the project will be moving forward to construction, and that the bid for construction should be received on May 31 st c. David Buchheit updated the committee on the master plan. There was discussion about the plan, with Mr. Oakley expressing concerns about some of the content of the plan. d. David Buchheit informed the committee that Q. Grady Minor staff is proceeding with the stormwater improvement plan. e. David Buchheit informed the committee that staff has received approval from Federal Highway, and is waiting for approval from di%&'ftunty to complete the bicycle lane painting. Date: May 04, 2011 Item #: am \.11� 1612 f. David Buchheit informed the committee that a public workshop will be held on May 17 at the East Naples Community Park. g. David Buchheit informed the committee that preliminary staff work has begun on Thomasson Drive. 5. Old Business: a. David Buchheit explained that at the committee's recommendation he has provided a quote to design both streets utilizing RWA as the design firm. A motion was made by Mr. Buck to approve using RWA to complete the design of both streets, and that Bayview Drive includes a sidewalk on both sides. Second: Mrs. Cochrane. Approved 7 -0 6. New Business: a. John Hater and Mike Sherman of the volunteer marketing task force requested that the MSTU work with them upon their return from their winter homes, with a possible October meeting. 7. Public Comments: 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on June 1 at 5:00 PM. The meeti djourned at 6:25. Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. May 04, 2011 MINUTES OF THE 16 12, IA3,011 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & PEALS HEARING Naples, Florida, May 6, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Board of Adjustment and Appeals, having conducted business herein, met on this datelat 1:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller Henning Cc% ie C; tta ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth R. Rech, P.E., Florida Department of Health John Melton Integral Building Cofporation Fire Marshall Bill Silvester Golden Gate Fire District Randy Anderson (Absent) Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Judy Puig, Operations Analyst -- Staff Liaison, GMD Michael Ossorio, Contractors' Licensing Supervisor Ed Riley, Fire Code Official (Absent) Gary Harrison, Building Code Official Tatiana Gust, Building Review Manager Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Misc. Owes'. Date: q � \�� Item #: 1 � C MINUTES OF THE 16 12, IA3,011 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & PEALS HEARING Naples, Florida, May 6, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Board of Adjustment and Appeals, having conducted business herein, met on this datelat 1:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller Henning Cc% ie C; tta ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth R. Rech, P.E., Florida Department of Health John Melton Integral Building Cofporation Fire Marshall Bill Silvester Golden Gate Fire District Randy Anderson (Absent) Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Judy Puig, Operations Analyst -- Staff Liaison, GMD Michael Ossorio, Contractors' Licensing Supervisor Ed Riley, Fire Code Official (Absent) Gary Harrison, Building Code Official Tatiana Gust, Building Review Manager Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Misc. Owes'. Date: q � \�� Item #: j p 16 1 12 A 3 May 6, 2011 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon: which the Appeal is to be based. I. Call to Order - Chairman: Chairman Rech called the meeting to order at 1:04 PM and read the procedures to be followed during the Hearing. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda: John Melton moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Bill Silvester. Carried unanimously, 3 -- 0. III. Public Speaker: Jim Kibler, DME Shoppe Ft. Myers, Inc. IV. Agenda Item: A. Waiver of Requirement for a Building Permit for Incline Stairway Chairlift — Leon Jilek, Homeowner and Carol Method, President, DME Shoppe Ft. Myers It was noted: • James Kibler is the spouse Carol L. Method, the Respondent • Leon Jilek, the homeowner, was not present James Kibler distributed a three page document to the Members. The following is a brief overview of the information: provided concerning DME: • Carol L. Method is the President of the employee - owned/operated company which has been in business for 24 years • Received HQAA accreditation (Healthcare Quality Association) • Stairway lifts are installed only in private residences — not in commercial buildings • The company has not previously been required to obtain a Building Permit to perform work in any of the following: o Counties: Lee, Collier, Charlotte, Sarasota, Hardee, Glades, or Manatee o Cities: Marco Island, Naples, Ft. Myers, Englewood, Venice, Sarasota, Arcadia, Boca Grande, Wauchula, Sanibel, Placidia, Bonita Springs, Matlacha, or Cape Coral ■ Was awarded a special designation as a Residential Elevator and Accessibility Contractor by the City of Sanibel's Contractor Licensing Board — the classification was created under the Handyman umbrella o The Residential Elevator License remains current and in good standing • On December 28, 2010, met with Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, and Tatiana Gust, Collier County Building Review Manager 2 r a 161 a'!,d13 • Two Citations were issued: o #5943: Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise self or business organization as available to engage in the business, or act in the capacity ofa contractor without being duly registered or certified. o #5944: 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. • A Hearing was held before the Contractors' Licensing Board on March 16, 2011 James Kibler presented the Respondent's case: • Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Chapter 30 — Elevators and Conveying Systems, o "C" defines an inclined stairway lift as "... a device used to transport physically handicapped persons over architectural barriers" • Under Chapter 30, an inclined stairway chairlift installed in a private residences was cited as an exception to the regulation: o "Private Residence" was defined as a separate dwelling. or a separate apartment in a multiple - dwelling building, which is occupied by members of the same family. " o The Jilek home complies with the definition of a private residence • ASME ( "American Society of Mechanical Engineers ") 117 — Code for residential installations • ASME 118 — Code for commercial applications Mr. Kibler stated if Collier County insists on compliance with ASME 118, all owners of accessibility products will be required to pay an annual inspection fee of $150 to $500 per year. He claimed this would become a tax, applicable only to the disabled. John Melton disputed the statement that the condominium unit qualified as a "single - family residence" because it was located within a multi - family building. James Kibler reiterated the definition under Section "C" of Chapter 30 of the Florida Building Code. He noted the staircase served only one residence and could be used by only one family because a key is necessary for the unit to Rinction. Mr. Melton deferred to Gary Harrison. Gary Harrison, Collier County Building Code Official, stated the Florida Building Code outlines the requirements for when a Permit is necessary under Chapter 1- "Administration," Section 105 - "Permits." "Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, 3 K 161' 2 A 3 May 6, 2011 enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or stiucture, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any required impact - resistant coverings, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this Code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required Permit." He cited Chapter Ten - "Means of Egress" under Section 1009 — "Stairways" as follows: "Exception 4 - Where an incline platform lift or stairway chairlift is installed on stairways serving occupancies in Group R -3, or within dwelling units in occupancies in Group R -2, a clear passage width not less than 20 inches (508 mm) shall be provided. If the seat and platform can be folded when not in use, the distance shall be measured from the folded position." Mr. Harrison continued "Group R -3" designates single family and "Group R -2" designates multiple family. The residence under discussion is a Condominium and is zoned R -2. He stated the key word in the Exception was "within " — because it is multi- family and is zoned "R -2" it is considered to be Commercial. He further cited Chapter 30 — "Elevators and Conveying Systems," Section 3001.6 — "Elevator" as follows: "ELEVATOR. One of the following mechanical devices: (� An inclined or vertical wheelchair lift, which is a device used to transport wheelchair Handicapped persons over architectural barriers" He stated the exception refers to lifts which are located in -- not outside —a private residence. Mr. Harrison cited ASME A -118.1 which applies to platform lifts and stairway chair lifts and Section 7 — "Private Residences /Inclined Stairway Chair Lifts," noting the Chapter sets forth the requirements and various guidelines for installation He continued if there is no opportunity to review the plans, there will be no way to assess how the electrical is hooked up, or determine if there is a 20 -inch passageway, or review how the unit is fastened to the stairs. He concluded this is why a Permit is required. Gary Harrison fluther stated since a chairlift is not an elevator, a yearly inspection will not be required. He further stated if the installation is due to an emergency, there would not be a problem as long as a Permit is obtained by the next business day. 1 2� b . 4 3 May 6, 2011 John Melton asked if the lift was considered to be an "appliance" because it was plugged into a wall. James Kibler clarified the lift was completely battery - operated. He stated the photograph referenced by Mr. Melton depicted the charging units. He noted other Counties in Florida considered the lift to be an appliance. Gary Harrison stated while the Respondent's credentials may be impeccable, the decision to require a Permit is to protect the public from unscrupulous companies that may not take as much case installing lifts as DME. James Kibler stated if Collier County chooses to adhere to ASME 118, a yearly inspection will be required. Mr. Harrison reiterated the inclined lift is not an elevator if it is installed inside a residence. When it is installed outside in an open stairway, he has concerns. Mr. Kibler noted the Code mandates a yearly inspection of the equipment. He stated Collier County will be forcing the disabled to pay for the inspection. Mr. Harrison stated he makes decisions based on his interpretation of the Code and, when it comes to public safety, there is no secondary way. Fire Marshall Silvester, Golden Gate Fire District, asked if the product was UL listed for outside use and the response was "yes." He also asked if the staircase served one unit or one family. Mr. Kibler confirmed the staircase was connected to only one unit. John Melton asked how the Permit would be handled, especially in an emergency situation when the patient (resident) was about to be released from the hospital. Gary Harrison responded he would require a "walk through." He continued if the unit did not require electric service, the walk through would be accomplished by a Building inspector. He further stated in an emergency situation, the lift could be installed first as long as the Permit was obtained by the end of the next business day. John Melton noted the unit folds up and meets egress requirements but because it is "commercial," Fire is also impacted and a clear path of travel is necessary. He asked about the review process and what the County would require to obtain a Permit for this specific type of installation. He continued in the future, the goal is to allow a company such as DME to obtain the Permit, pay the fee, obtain inspections, and do so in a timely manner to allow the installation to happen quickly without requiring the hiring of a P.E. He noted because it is commercial, the process could become very complicated very quickly. He suggested the Building Department examine the case and determine how to expedite a quick Permit process, making the required documents relatively simple. Gary Harrison stated Fire will be required to inspect but Building can "walk it back." He estimated the Permit could be obtained in one day because the {: too �- 1612 A.5. May 6, 2011 Building Department will not delay it. Fire and the Building Department will be present to ensure that the installation has been done properly and does not create a safety hazard. John Melton stated if the process is too difficult, other vendors may not even attempt to obtain a Permit. Gary Harrison stated the Building Department will require the manufacturer's specifications and fastening details as documentation. Michael Ossorio, Contractors' Licensing Supervisor, stated on February 16t ", the Contractor's Licensing Board Hearing reviewed the two Citations issued, one for the lack of a license and the other was for the lack of a Building Permit. The Board referred the case to BOAA for review to determine if a Building Permit was required for the installation. Once a determination is made, the case will be returned to the Contractors' Licensing Board to decide if a license is required. He stated Collier County does not have jurisdiction over residential elevators but noted Sanibel created a special license, Residential Elevator and Accessibility Contractor, but it will be up to the Licensing Board to make the determination. James Kibler stated the company is not licensed to do work in a commercial building. The company installs only in private residences. Michael Ossorio outlined the permitting process when electrical is involved, i.e., an electrician would be hired to obtain an over - the - counter Permit, perform the work required, and obtain the necessary inspection. The Contractor selling the appliance would continue the installation of the unit. James Melton noted the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ruled on the cost of residential Permits at its last meeting. He stated the threshold amount for a Permit did not encompass the cost of the chairlift which exceeds the amount previously approved. Gary Harrison again reiterated the installation is considered "commercial," and not residential. Tatiana Gust, Building Review Manager, stated the classification of "residential occupancy" relates to a single- family, detached home. The exception does not apply when the residence is in a building with more than one unit. James Kibler stated DME has installed dozens of the units throughout the State of Florida. Chairman Rech stated the function of the Board differs from that of the Building Department. He reiterated the purpose of the Board's hearing of the issue, stating the Board has been charged with reviewing a specific question. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams concurred that the Board is to determine whether or not the exception as a "private residence" applies in this situation. He noted Gary Harrison explained the County's position that the residence is not considered to be a separate dwelling because it is located in a 6 z 16 12 ka3, 2011 , multi - family building. He continued the Applicant's position is that the exception applies because the staircase serves only the one unit. He concluded the Board's responsibility is to answer the question before it. Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, Growth Management Division, stated the County relies on the technical guidance of the Building Code Official and must follow his ruling. He agreed to Board of Adjustment and Appeals is to determine whether or not the decision made by the Building Code Official is correct. He noted there is a five -day turnaround on single -trade permits. If the deadline is not met, the Applicant is refunded 50% of the fee. He further stated no refunds have been issued during the past year. He continued there was never an intention on the part of the County to create a "money grab," and certainly not on the back of the handicapped. There has been no attempt to target a specific industry. Staff is mandated to ensure that every applicant for a permit is treated fairly and uniformly. He asked if a building permit is required, was it determined if the staircase was owned by the applicant or by the HOA. He also asked if the HOA had provided a letter considering that issue. Fire Marshall Silvester noted during a fire inspection, the staircase is considered to be a commercial staircase once it leaves the unit. Chairman Rech asked if the staircase were inside the unit, would a Permit still be required. Gary Harrison stated nothing in the Chapter stated a Permit would not be needed. He further stated the staircase is a structural entity — while it does not have bearing, it has a weight load. He noted the Building Code does not exempt Handicapped Accessible from being required to obtain a Permit. He stated he has not reviewed the residential building code dealing with single - family residences. Chairman Rech restated the question before the Board: "Is the installation of an inclined staifnvay chairlii t andlor inclined or vertical wheelchair lift located in a stairtivay within • multi family building, which stairway is not gated or behind • door, which accesses only one private residence exempt from permitting pursuant to the operation of the exemption contained in Chapter 30 of the Florida Building Code as adopted by Collier County ?" John Melton moved to approve that a peranit is required. Second by Fire Marshall Silvester. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. Chairman Rech noted the case is returned to the Contractors' Licensing Board 16 I 2� A 3"' r May 6, 2011 V. Committee Member Comments (None) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 1:51 PM. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL Kenneth R. Rech, P.E., Chairman The Minutes were a proved by the Board/Chairman on /.� , 2011, "as submitted" were "as amended," [_]. 09 Voting Members Present: Misc. Cones: Date: Item #: \t_o 2v=i ` 4 Voting Members Absent: Expert Consultants Present: 16'I '2 A 4 Collier County Citizen Corp Committee April 20, 2011 Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary Russell Rainey, C.E.R.T. Lt. Mike Jones, CC Sheriffs Office Jim von Rinteln, Amer Red Cross Chris Nind, Salvation Army Jerry Sanford, CC Fire Chiefs Assoc. Dr. Joseph Neiween, MRC Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Steven Smith, R.S.V.P. Jim Elson, Veterans Council Reg Buxton, Chamber of Commerce Judy Scribner, CCEM Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Approval of Minutes RECEIVED JUN 2 0 2011 Board of County Commissioners Fiala GN Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Motion to approve the minutes of the February 16, 2011 meeting. Approved unanimously. Threat Update Per Lt. Jones, the present threat level (5 -tier system) that has been in place since 2006 is being phased out on April 28th. A new elevated or threatened level will last for only 2 weeks and will be rescinded if necessary. There will be no further threat levels across the United States. They will be issued by region only and we don't know what region means. A new treat level will be in place for our next meeting. New Business Judy Scribner reported that the planned Naples Airport Exercise is coming together with all entities on board. Approx 75 to 80 volunteers from LWIT and CERT teams are going to be victims. Food will be supplied by the Red Cross. Mike Jones is having a sign placed on Airport - Pulling Road to direct the volunteers where they can park. HazMat decon operations will be conducted at two area hospitals with one wetting down the volunteers. Russ Rainey will be a safety officer, and Jerry Sanford and Greg Speers will handle the media for the exercise. Behavioral cards will be prepared for distribution to the families. Wildfire Update 1618 .44'1 Rick Zyvoloski reported that it remains very dry in our area, with sporadic rains and wildfires. Rain and lightning start more fires. Division of Forestry provide 75 -foot buffers using stimulus money. Collier and Broward Counties are experiencing the worst draught conditions. One million acres are on fire in Texas. A bad situation. Fiddler's Creek and Verona Walk have received their Fire Wise Communities Credentials. Congratulations to both Communities. Local Mitigation. A list was distributed to all parties on the status of current mitigation projects in the works. The following were reported: 1) Retrofit North Naples Station 43, National Grant not heard from yet. 2) Golden Gate Community Center, Wind Protection. Completed 3/16/11 3) Immokalee Sports Park, Retrofitted 4/5/11 4) Housing Grant pending. 5) Marco Island Water treatment Protection. Completed. Most of the funding comes from FEMA, andReg Buxton is our contact person. Hurricane Outlook. As per Rick, it promises to be a very active season. The LaNina effect is heading in the neutral direction and might not be as active. 16 to 17 named storms are predicted. Last year it was active on the East Coast. The new All Hazards Guides will be distributed in June or July. They plan on revising the guide in the future. RSVP. Steven Smith reported that they sustained cuts but are still alive. $12.6 million was cut from their budget with more to come. CAP. Doug Porter reports that they will participate in the airport drill with the family Assistance to be at the CAP hanger to pass out the lunch to the volunteers. MRC. Dr. Neiween will have volunteers for the airport exercise. Health Department. Flu season at a very mild level. Sheltering as per Jim von Rinteln. Some schools will not be used for sheltering. The Red Cross will continue to train people to manage the shelters and is still in desperate need for volunteers to staff the shelters. The National Red Cross will not be as flexible as before. Salvation Army. Chris Nind reported that they are providing help to the firefighters at the brush fires. Future Training. The last Saturday in June, the CERT managers will be hosting a three- part training program which will cover Alzheimer patients, Senior Services, and CERT and the media. 16-1 2 A4 Jerry Sanford reported on the progress of the Freedom Memorial. Coast Guard Aux. Walt Jaskiewicz reports that the Auxiliary must get permission from the St. Petersburg Commander to do anything to assist civilians. The legal department has sent down more guidelines for training. Lots of liability involved. Jim Elson. Vets Council reports that he is trying to recruit more returning vets to help in being shelter managers. Jim von Rinteln will mesh the volunteers into the Red Cross. After the storm, the Red Cross will take over the shelters. Jim also stated that John Skiles has resigned from the Veterans Council, and he is again taking over as President of the Veterans Council. He shared the following - May 30th is Memorial Day, the 20 year anniversary of the Gulf War, the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War. Jim sadly reported the death of Sgt. Linda Pierre, the 8th person to die from Collier County in the war. He also asked for help for the placing of 1,600 small flags upon the graves on Saturday, May 28th. CERT. Russ Rainey reports that Fiddlers Creek has formed a Storm Ready committee. The problems with recruiting people for CERT is that we have not had any hurricanes lately. Next Meeting/Adjourn Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. at the EOC. Meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jerry Sanford for approval. Approved by Russell Rafney, Chairman Date 1612 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda April 20, 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 NCH City of Marco Island 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update CCSO 3:3.0 New Business Chairman Exercise Information/April 27 Wildfire Update EM 3:35 Old Business Chairman Individual Reports Members 4:00 Next Meeting /Adj ourn Chairman http://www.citizencorps.gov/cc/CertRegWizard.do as f 1612'A 4 Tropic.al Cyclones A PREPAREDNESS GUIDE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service Revised March 2011 Hurricane Earl, September 1, 2oia NOAA SOP AR%UEW OF OOt� �P4� i EM Jj'� �i 1M �,., 1612 A4 What is a Tropical Cyclone? Tropical cyclones are among nature's most powerful and destructive phenomena. If you live in an area prone to tropical cyclones, you need to be prepared. Even areas well away from the coastline can be threatened by destructive winds, tornadoes and flooding from these storms. How great is the danger? For 1970 -2010, the average numbers per year were as follows: • Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico: 11 tropical storms„ 6 of which became hurricanes • East Pacific Ocean:. 15 tropical storms, 8 of which became hurricanes • Central Pacific Ocean:.4 tropical storms, 2 of which became hurricanes Over a typical 2 -year period, the U.S. coastline is struck by an average of 3 hurricanes, 1 of which is classified as a major hurricane. While hurricanes pose the greatest threat to life and property, tropical storms and depressions also can be devastating. Floods from heavy rains and severe weather, such as tornadoes, can cause extensive damage and loss of life. For example, Tropical Storm Allison produced over 40 inches of rain in the Houston area in 2001, causing about $5 billion in damage and taking the lives of 41 people. Tropical cyclones forming between 5 and 30 degrees North latitude typically move toward the west. Sometimes the winds in the middle and upper levels of the atmosphere change and steer the cyclone toward the north and northwest. When tropical cyclones reach latitudes near 30 degrees North, they often move northeast. Hurricane seasons and their peaks are as follows: Tropical cyclone formation regions with mean tracksANVSJetStrealn Online School 4 • Atlantic and Caribbean: June 1 to November 30 with peak season mid - August to late October. • Central Pacific (Hawaii): June 1 to November 30 with peak season from July to September. • East Pacific: May 15 to November 30 • Western North Pacific: Tropical cyclones can strike year round .y �. 6 1 _ 4' A Saffir- Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale The Saffir- Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale is a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane's sustained wind speed. This scale estimates potential property damage. Hurricanes reaching Category 3 and higher are considered major hurricanes because of their potential for significant loss of life and damage. Category 1 and 2 storms are still dangerous, however, and require preventative measures. In the western North Pacific, the term "super typhoon" is used for tropical cyclones with sustained winds exceeding 150 mph. Wind damage from Hurricane Charley, August 2004, Orlando, FVOrlando Sentinel, copyright 2004 For more information on the Saffir- Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, go to: www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshs.shtmi For more information on the Saffir- Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale as it affects Hawaii, go to: www.t)rh.noaa.gov/ct)hc/paaes/aboutsshs.pht) 3 Hurricane Hazards Storm Surge /Tide Storm surge and large waves produced by hurricanes pose the greatest threat to life and property along the coast. STORM SURGE is an abnormal rise of water generated by a storm's winds. Storm surge can reach heights well over 20 feet and can span hundreds of miles of coastline. In the northern hemisphere, the highest surge values typically occur in the right front quadrant of a hurricane coincident with onshore flow; in the southern hemisphere, the left front quadrant. More intense and larger hurricanes produce higher surge. In addition, shallower offshore waters contribute to higher storm surge inundation. Storm surge is by far the greatest threat to life and property along the immediate coast. STORM TIDE is the water level rise during a storm due to the combination of storm surge and the astronomical tide. For example, if a hurricane moves ashore at a high tide of 2 feet, a 15 foot surge would be added to the high tide, creating a storm tide of 17 feet. The combination of high winds and storm tide topped with battering waves can be deadly and cause tremendous property damage along an area of coastline hundreds of miles wide. The destructive power of storm surge and large battering waves can result in loss of life, buildings destroyed, beach and dune erosion and road and bridge damage along the coast. Storm surge can travel several miles inland. In estuaries and bayous, salt water intrusion endangers public health and the environment. 1612 A4 Before and after Hurricane Ike on the Bolivar Peninsula, TX, September 20081USGS Historical Storm Tide Events +r Tornadoes Hurricanes and tropical storms can also produce tornadoes. These tornadoes most often occur in thunderstorms embedded in rain bands well away from the center of the hurricane; however, they can also occur near the eyewall. Usually, tornadoes produced by tropical cyclones are relatively weak and short - lived, but they still pose a significant threat. &THTO-17 Hurricane -force winds, 74 mph or more, can destroy buildings and mobile homes. Debris, such as signs, roofing material, siding and small items left outside become flying missiles during hurricanes. Winds can stay above hurricane strength well inland. In 2004, Hurricane Charley made landfall at Punta Gorda on the southwest Florida coast and produced major damage well inland across central Florida with gusts of more than 100 mph. Hurricane Ivan flooding, Asheville, VC, September 2004 Leif Skoogfors. FEA11 f Rainfall Tropical cyclones often produce widespread, torrential rains in excess of 6 inches, which may result in deadly and destructive floods. In fact, flooding is the major threat from tropical cyclones for people living inland. Flash flooding, defined as a rapid rise in water levels, can occur quickly due to intense rainfall. Longer term flooding on rivers and streams can persist for several days after the storm. 161'2 A'4 Hurricane Fiances tornado damage. Sumter County, SC, September 2004/11arvin Mauman, FEAM Rainfall amounts are not directly related to the strength of tropical cyclones but rather to the speed and size of the storm, as well as the geography of the area. Slower moving and larger storms produce more rainfall. In addition, mountainous terrain enhances rainfall from a tropical cyclone. Rip Currents The strong winds of a tropical cyclone can cause dangerous waves that pose a significant hazard to mariners and coastal residents and visitors. When the waves break along the coast, they can produce deadly rip currents —even at large distances from the storm: Rip currents are channeled currents of water flowing away from shore, usually extending past the line of breaking waves, that can pull even the strongest swimmers away from shore. In 2008, despite the fact that Hurricane Bertha was more than a 1,000 miles offshore, the storm resulted in rip currents that killed three people along the New Jersey coast and required 1,500 lifeguard rescues in Ocean City, Maryland, over a 1 week period. In 2009, all six deaths in the United States directly attributable to tropical cyclones occurred as the result of drowning from large waves or strong rip currents. 2 16 2 A 4 Tropical Cyclone Graphical Products To convey analysis and forecast information on tropical cyclones, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC) produce graphics that provide important information for those who rely on tropical cyclone forecasts. Weather forecasting isn't an exact science. Many of these graphics have been designed to address the inherent uncertainties in tropical cyclone forecasts. Track Forecast Cone and Watches, PVarnings Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook 2 Track Forecast Cone and Watches/Warning This graphic shows coastal areas under a hurricane warning (red), hurricane watch (pink), tropical storm warning (blue), and a tropical storm watch (yellow). The orange circle denotes the current position of the tropical cyclone. The black dots indicate the forecast positions and cyclone classification over the next 5 days. Forecast errors and uncertainty of the future tropical cyclone center location are accounted for by the track forecast cone. The solid white area denotes the uncertainty for days 1 -3. The white stippled area shows the uncertainty for days 4 and 5. On average, the center of the tropical cyclone will remain inside the cone 60 % -70% of the time. It is important to remember that a tropical cyclone is not a point and that the associated hazards can extend well outside of the track forecast cone. Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook This graphic highlights areas of disturbed weather in the tropics and subtropics and assesses the potential for these systems to become tropical cyclones over the next 48 hours. Each disturbance is circled and numbered with an accompanying text description. You also can view the text description by moving your mouse over the circled area. The color of the circles reflect the probability that the system will become a tropical cyclone over the next 48 hours: • Yellow: low chance, <30% • Orange: medium chance, 30 % -50% • Red: high chance, >50% Active tropical cyclones are depicted on the graphic as an "L" for tropical depressions, a tropical storm symbol, or a hurricane symbol. Tropical Cyclone Surface Wind Speed Probabilities, This graphic indicates the chance of locations experiencing at least tropical storm (39 mph or greater) sustained winds over the following 5 days. The graphic is also available at thresholds of 58 mph and 74 mph (hurricane force) sustained winds. The product is unique in that it takes into account uncertainty in the track, peak winds and size of the storm. This graphic also highlights the fact that tropical cyclone winds can extend well away from the storm's center. It is important to realize that probabilities that seem relatively low may still be quite significant. For example, if a location has a 10% chance of experiencing hurricane force sustained winds, you should prepare for an extreme event. A 1 in 10 chance is too high to ignore. Tropical Cyclone Storm Surge Probabilities Like surface wind speed probability products, storm surge probability products show the percentage chance of storm surge exceeding various thresholds. The thresholds are available at 1 -foot intervals from a minimum of 2 feet to a maximum of 25 feet. The graphic shows the chance that locations along the Texas and Louisiana coasts would experience a storm surge of at least 8 feet from Hurricane Ike based on the forecast issued at 11 AM EDT on September 12, 2008. The graphic is created from many simulations of the NWS storm surge computer model, and accounts for uncertainty in track, intensity and size. 16i z A 4 Tropical Cyclone Surface Wind Speed Probabilities t:gUrau Probability Qitdairnst i—h ■ r/. - <I0% 0% - <5OY. ■ 80% -4900% g) 0% -,<20%.M 50°% - 00.4 ■ 90% - 100% Hisbffcaj COW NHC INS slafm 30% -,:<300/6. 60% - <7 HC aN storms: Tropical Cyclone Storm Surge Probabilities r 1612 A 4 � Ways to Stay Informed NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards The National Weather Service (NWS) continuously broadcasts warning, watches, forecasts and non - weather related hazard information on NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards (NWR). The average range of AHHaza. 1000+ NWR transmitters is 40 miles, depending on topography. For the best performing NWR receivers, NWS suggests you look at devices certified to Public AlertTm standards. Wi Sri These radios meet specific technical standards and come with many features Nn„sl KreZenarex such as Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME); a battery backup, both audio and visual alarms, selective programming for the types of hazards you want to be warned for, and the ability to activate external alarm devices for people with disabilities. Similar to a smoke detector, an NWR can wake you up in the middle of the night to alert you of a dangerous situation. 16 12 A A `, What To Listen For National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center Products PUBLIC ADVISORIES offer critical hurricane watch, warning and forecast information. FORECASTS /ADVISORIES provide detailed hurricane track and wind field information. PROBABILITIES OF HURRICANEITROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS offer locally specific chances of experiencing tropical storm, strong tropical storm and hurricane force winds out to 5 days to better know if one will be impacted and when these conditions may occur. Local NWS Office Products HURRICANE LOCAL STATEMENTS give greater detail on how the storm will impact your area. NON - PRECIPITATION WEATHER PRODUCTS provide High Wind Watches and Warnings for inland areas that could experience strong winds. 9 Are You Ready? 16 I° 2 A 4 A Before the Hurricane Season • Determine safe evacuation routes inland. • Learn locations of official shelters. ✓ Check emergency equipment, such as flashlights, generators and battery- powered equipment such as cell phones and your NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards receiver. ✓ Buy food that will keep and store drinking water. ✓ Buy plywood or other material to protect your home if you don't already have it. • Trim trees and shrubbery so branches don't fly into your home. • Clear clogged rain gutters and downspouts. ✓ Decide where to move your boat. • Review your insurance policy. • Find pet - friendly hotels on your evacuation route. During the Storm When in a Watch Area... ✓ Frequently listen to radio, TV or NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards for official bulletins of the storm's progress. ✓ Fuel and service family vehicles. ✓ Inspect and secure mobile home tie downs. ✓ Ensure you have extra cash on hand. ✓ Prepare to cover all windows and doors with shutters or other shielding materials. ✓ Check batteries and stock up on canned food, first aid supplies, drinking water and medications ✓ Bring in light- weight objects such as garbage cans, garden tools, toys and lawn furniture. Plan to Leave if You... • Live in a mobile home. They are unsafe in high winds no matter how well fastened to the ground. • Live on the coastline, an offshore island or near a river or a flood plain. ✓ Live in a high rise building. Hurricane winds are stronger at higher elevations. 10 FEMA When in a Warning Area... • Closely monitor radio, TV or NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards for official bulletins. • Close storm shutters. ✓ Follow instructions issued by local officials. Leave immediately if ordered! ✓ Stay with friends or relatives at a low -rise inland hotel or at a designated public shelter outside the flood zone. ✓ DO NOT stay in a mobile or manufactured home. ✓ Notify neighbors and a family member outside of the warned area of your evacuation plans. ✓ Take pets with you if possible, but remember, most public shelters do not allow pets other than those used by used by people with disabilities. Identify pet - friendly hotels along your evacuation route. If Staying in a Home... ✓ Turn refrigerator to maximum cold and keep it closed. ✓ Turn off utilities if told to do so by authorities. ✓ Turn off propane tanks. ✓ Unplug small appliances. ✓ Fill bathtub and large containers with water in case clean tap water is unavailable. Use water in bathtubs for cleaning and flushing only. Do NOT drink it. If Winds Become Strong... ✓ Stay away from windows and doors, even if they are covered. Take refuge in a small interior room, closet or hallway. ✓ Close all interior doors. Secure and brace external doors. ✓ If you are in a two -story house, go to an interior first floor room. ✓ If you are in a multi -story building and away from water, go to the 1st or 2nd floor and stay in the halls or other interior rooms away from windows. ✓ Lie on the floor under a table or other sturdy object. Be Alert For... ✓ Tornadoes -they are often spawned by hurricanes. ✓ The calm "eye" of the storm —it may seem like the storm is over, but after the eye passes, the winds will change direction and quickly return to hurricane force. American Red Cross ''15I 2 A4 After the Storm • Keep listening to radio, TV or NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards. • Wait until an area is declared safe before entering. ✓ Watch for closed roads. If you come upon a barricade or a flooded road, Turn Around Don't Drown !TM • Stay on firm, dry ground. Moving water only 6 inches deep can sweep you off your feet. Standing water may be electrically charged from power lines. • If using a generator, avoid carbon monoxide poisoning by following the manufacturer's instructions. ✓ Avoid weakened bridges and washed out roads. ✓ Once home, check gas, water and electrical and appliances for damage. • Use a flashlight to inspect damage. Never use candles and other open flames indoors. • Wear proper shoes to prevent cutting feet on sharp debris. • Do not drink or prepare food with tap water until officials say it is safe. • Avoid electrocution by not walking in areas with downed power lines. Steps to Take 16-1 2 ,A4 ftwao Gather information about hazards. Contact your local National Weather Service office, emergency management office and American Red Cross chapter. Find out what type of emergencies could occur and how you should respond. Learn your community's warning signals and evacuation plans. Assess your risks and identify ways to make your home and property more secure. I) Meet with your family to create an emergency plan. Pick two places to meet: a spot outside your home for an emergency, such as fire, and a place away from your neighborhood in case you can't return home. Choose an out of state friend as your family's point of contact for everyone to call if the family gets separated. Discuss what you would do if advised to evacuate. I' Implement your plan. 1. Post emergency telephone numbers by the phone. 2. Install safety features in your house, such as smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. 3. Inspect your home for items that can move, fall, break or catch fire and correct them. 4. Have your family learn basic safety measures, such as CPR and first aid, how to use a fire extinguisher, and how and when to turn off water, gas and electricity in your home. 5. Teach children how and when to call 911 or your local emergency number. 6. Keep enough supplies in your home for at least 3 days. Assemble an emergency supplies kit. Store these supplies in sturdy, easy -to -carry containers, such as backpacks or duffle bags. Keep important documents in a waterproof container. Keep a smaller emergency supplies kit in the trunk of your car. An Emergency Supplies Kit Should Include: At least a 3 -day supply of water (one gallon per person, per day) ✓ At least a 3 -day supply of non - perishable food ✓ At least, one change of clothing and shoes per person ✓ One blanket or sleeping bag per person ✓ First -aid kit ✓ Battery- powered NWR and a portable radio ✓ Emergency tools ✓ Flashlight, extra batteries ✓ Extra set of car keys ✓ Credit card and cash ✓ Special items for infant, elderly or disabled family members ✓ Prescription and non - prescription medicines IVPractice and maintain your plan. Ensure your family knows meeting places, phone numbers and safety rules. Conduct drills. Test your smoke detectors and NWR monthly and change the batteries at least once each year. Test and recharge your fire extinguisher(s) according to manufacturer's instructions. Replace stored water and food every 6 months. Safety and preparedness material is online at: Federal Emergency Management Agency: www.ready_gov American Red Cross: www.redcross.ora. NOAA National Weather Service: www.weather.gov /safely.nhl2 NOAA PA 201152 • 161 1 Ora& A 4 f SLRVING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FOLLOWING A DISASTER Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:00pm -9:00 pm This class provides important information on the proper way to assist those with disabilities when providing service during a disaster. Shelter workers, client caseworkers and Mass Care providers will benefit.. Pre - requisites: Disaster Services: lin Overview or Fulfilling Our Mission. DIS000095 DISASTER SERVICES: AN OVERVIEW See course description above. I DIS000084 SHELTER OPERATIONS See course description above I DIS000034 Instructor: Allie Randlett Thursday, May 1.9, 2011 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm Instructors: Shirley- and Ann Wednesday, May 25, 2011 6:00 pm — 9:00 pm Instructors: Pat and Ann ERV: READY, SET, ROLL A MORNING CLASS Thursday, June 9, 2011 9:00 am —12:30 pm. This class prepares volunteers to safely and effectively drive and use a Red Cross emergency response vehicle (ERV) and its equipment to meet feeding and other service needs of the people affected by disaster. Collier County health regulations regarding food preparation and mobile feeding procedures will be covered. In addition to the scheduled classroom session, the course also requires an individual driving test w ith the instructor. There are several pre- requisites that are required . 1. Valid regular driver's license 2. Current CPR and First Aid certification. Sign up for these classes at Red Cross 3. Completion of Disaster Services: An Overview or Mass Care Instructor: AI 1 DIS000084 SHELTER OPERATIONS See course description above DIS000095 DISASTER SERVICES: AN OVERVIEW See course description above I DIS000052 Monday, June 13, 2011 6:00 pm — 9:00 pm Instructors: Pat and Mark Wednesday, June 22, 2011 6:00 pm — 9:00 pm Instructors: Pat and Shirley LOGISTICS: AN OVERVIEW Thursday, June 30, 2011 , 6:00 pm — 9:00 pm The purpose of this course is to provide basic information to participants about the activities and processes of the Logistics — the Material Support Services group— in supporting a disaster relief operation. The I- ogistics function deals w ith facilities, transportation and supplies for every disaster function. Logistics provides the equipment and materials needed to accomplish the task of disaster relief, every other function is dependent on the efficiency of the ;sties workers. Prerequisite: Disaster Services: , to Overvicvr or F'rtUilling Ora• 1lission Instructors: Ann and Shirley DS 10000 17 tK CASTER ASSESSMENT BASICS Tuesday, July 12, 2911, 6:00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m. This workshop prepares volunteers to prov idc an orderly survey of damage to the community follow ing a flood, hurricane, or other emergency. The information gathered through this function allows Red Cross to make a clear estimate of damage and recovery needs. Voltmtcers actualb, count the numbers of horses destroyed and homes w ith major damage. Pre requisite: Disaster Services:. lrr Or( rv,'eli or h'ullilliug Ortr ,1Gssion. histrrrctors: Ann and klark T - . 1612 COLLIER COUNTY CHAPTER AMERICAN RED CROSS DISASTER CLASS SCHEDULE April- July 2011 A 4�� All classes are offered at the Col Iicr County American Red Cross office at 2610 Northbrooke Plaza Drive in North Naples, unless othcrw ise noted. There is no charge for disaster classes, but all participants are expected to register. You may sign up on -line via the Chapter web site ( ) or phone the office at 596 -6868 to register. Classes with insufficient enrollment will be cancelled. Participants will be notified if cancellations occur.. If you wish to take a class, it is important that you sign up ahead of time. 1 DIS000085 SHELTER SIMULATION Saturday, April 2, 2011 9:00 am - noon Shelter Simulation provides a table -top simulation of the sheltering experience. Participants are provided opportunities to practice setting up a shelter, problem sole ing in a sheltering situation and shelter closing responsibilities. This course provides a good review for volunteers who have taken Shelter Operations some years ago. Pre - requisite: Shelter Operations Instructors: Pat and Mark 1 DIS000084 SHELTER OPERATIONS Thursday, April 7, 2011 6:00 pm — 9:00 pm Shelter Operations trains volunteers to run efficient shelters, should our community be threatened. Notification of volunteers and client registration procedures are discussed, and workbooks are provided. Video segments, showing feeding and sheltering situations, provide the basis for group discussion. Shelter kits are examined. Experienced shelter workers w ill relate experiences from recent local hurricane shelter events.. Prerequisite: Disaster Services: An Overview. Instructors: Pat and Mark DIS000015 CLIENT CASEWORK: PROVIDING EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE Two sessions Tuesday, April 12, 6:00 pm — 9:30 pm and Thursday, April 14, 6:00 pm — 9:00 pm both nights Participants must attend both sessions of this course. The class enables Red Cross volunteers to meet the emergency disaster- caused needs of families on an individual basis following a fire, flood, or other disaster. The course is designed to develop interviewing skills and assure familiarity with Red Cross procedures and policies in providing food, clothing, and housing for disaster victims. You learn exactly what you can offer disaster victims to help in the recovery process. Role-playing, video, textbook, and discussion are components of the class. This course is required for all new members of the Disaster Action "Team. Prerequisite: Disaster Services: An overview. or (uUdling Ottr .fission Instruclors: Pat and Mark DIS000095 DISASTER SERVICES: AN OVERVIEW Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm This basic course introduces participants to the many tasks assigned to Red Cross volunteers in disaster situations. This should be the first class taken as new volunteers begin their Red Cross experience. Participants discuss both local and national responses to many kinds of (lisasters. The local fi)cus is on hurricanes, brush tires and single liunih fires Instructors: Pat and Ann DIS0000096 FORM 5266 "Training Thursday, May 5, 6:00 pm — 9:00 pm his is a basic Icvel course that introduces participants to the 1?islisk r° opernlions Conlrol term. known as the 5`66. The course c.\plains how the tornl is used as a nlana,,?,cmcnt tool for recording inforilmdon about services provided and financial coI11 III 1tlnents made (1111'In`g a relictoperation. in I disaster, those in leadership roles :1re required to prov ide headquarters sv ith Jail'. information :11)out their r inctions. All Function chairs are urt,cd to attend. lfr�"1it�clor,c: Ann send Mark Status of Current Mitigation Projects in the Works... 16 1 A A 4 i. E. Naples Community Center — in the works — Notice To Proceed (NTP) f r waterproofing was issued 4/5/11; NTP for shutter still pending ii. Retrofit NN Fire Station #43 — Grant application submitted & no answer from FEMA as to being awarded the grant. iii. North Collier Water Treatment Plant — Grant application submitted (haven't heard anything) iv. City of Naples Pre -Wire for Generators — Lift Stations — Working with FEMA to change to the scope of work - ongoing v. Immokalee HS Wind Protection - Unknown vi. Marco Island WWTP Wind Protection — COMPLETE. The Florida Department of Emergency Management provided their final inspection on 03/02/11. The City recently submitted their invoice and we are expecting funding within 6 -8 weeks. vii. PUD Operations Center Wind Protection - Project deferred, available for future funding viii. Landfill Scale House Wind Protection - COMPLETE ix. CAT Facility Wind Protection - COMPLETE x. GG Community Center Wind Protection — Completed 3/16/11 and Immokalee Sports Complex — Completed 4/5/11 xi. Install Leachate storage tank, etc. @ Landfill - unknown xii. Upgrade Leachate pipe @ Landfill - unknown xiii. Haldeman Creek Stormwater Improvements - The project is currently in the design stages and we have 60% design plans. The permitting process has just begun and we are waiting for agency comments. The project is scheduled for construction in the dry season of January 2012. The Right of way /easement acquisition process is also progressing. Let me know if you need more information. xiv. Retrofit SW Florida, funding — Received funding to retrofit nine houses - In the process of taking applications and then will begin construction on as many homes as possible the later part of this month (nine homes being the minimum goal). We will have everything completed by June 30tH xv. Elevation of House in Naples - No contract has been signed by the City of Naples or approved by the co- applicant but a Quarterly Report was filed on 03/30/11 per DEM's request. 161t'"A'4 Collier County Government k"Mo . .... . 0' Communication & Customer Relations Contact: 239 - 252 -8848 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102 www.colliergov.net Naples, FL 34112 -5746 www.twitter.com /CollierPIO www.facebook.com /CollierGov www.youtube.com/CollierGov April 12, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20TH 3:00 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, April 20th at 3:00 p.m. in the 3 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 'Famiami 'Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Judy Scribner at (239) 252 -3600. -End- 1 ' August 5, 20 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COAPSTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE — CLAM BAY Fiala ,/ SUBCOMMITTEE Hiller Henning Col le tta Naples, Florida, August 5, 2010 BY........................ LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Coastal Advisory Committee — Clam Bay Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. at Conference Room 609/610 of the Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Building 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: NI ►U: L Anthony Pires Jim Burke John Arceri ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Gail Hambright, Accountant Misc.�orres: Date: Item #: 1 Ne/ 16 1 A 5 i r J .1 August 5, 2010 I. Call to Order Chairman Pires called the meeting to order at 9:03 am 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. Arceri moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following additions: Item VII. — Staff Reports 2. Clam Pass Dredging Application Update 3. Status on the analyzing the impacts of delayed dredging of Clam Pass and Emergency Declaration to dredge during litigation (should it occur) 4. Navigational Markers Update 5. Biological Assessment Update Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 3 — 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of Minutes 1. June 17, 2010 Minutes Mr. Arceri moved to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2010 meeting subject to the following changes: Page 3, paragraph 1, line 3 — from "...James C. Riveria..." to "...James C. Riviere... " Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 3 - 0. VII. Staff Reports Gary McAlpin, Director of Coastal Zone Management provided the following updates: 1. Boardwalk E -mail from John Domenic Email to Tony Pires, dated July 21, 2010 from Mr. Domenie recognized the County's ample response to concerns raised by Mr. Domenie on the refuse in the area of the Clam Pass Boardwalk. Gary McAlpin noted the area is scheduled for maintenance on a semi - annual basis. 2. Clam Pass Dredging Application Update Staff continues to address comments provided in the FDEP and USACE Request for Additional Information. An email of the response to the RAI's will be sent out to Subcommittee members when it is submitted to the Agencies. 2 f *y Z r s e August 5, 2010 3. Status on analyzing the impacts of non - dredging Clam Pass and Emergency Declaration to dredge during litigation (should it occur) None 4. Navigational Markers Update Staff continues to address comments provided in the FDEP Request for Additional Information. An email of the responses will be sent out to Subcommittee members when it is submitted to the Agency. A definition for "shallow draft vessels" has been developed as requested by the Subcommittee and will be submitted to the members for their records. 5. Biological Assessment Update None The Subcommittee requested updates for items VII.2 — 4 be placed on future Agenda under "Old Business." VIII. New Business 1. Pelican Bay Foundation Technical Work Group discussion Gary McAlpin provided an email from Steve Feldhaus to the Pelican Bay Foundation dated July 1, 2010 outlining the results of a meeting between James Hoppensteadt, Steve Feldhaus, Marla Ramsey - Administrator of Collier County Public Services and Gary McAlpin for the purposes of determining whether the Foundation and Collier County can find a way to work together on the Clam Bay ten year permit and Management Plan. Gary McAlpin noted: • The meeting resulted in development of the concept for a proposed resolution (inter -local agreement) for joint management of Clam Bay including the permit for dredging the Pass for tidal flushing purposes and the ten year management plan. • The initial concept is for the inter -local agreement to be between Collier County and the Pelican Bay Foundation (PBF.) • The resolution would not address the lateral navigation issues or an acknowledgement by the County that the 1982 Declarations apply to the submerged lands of Clam Bay. • The City of Naples may need to be included in the resolution/agreement. • The email indicates the Foundation wants to ensure "Pelican Bay" speaks with "one voice." • The Foundation would be responsible for a "Peer Review" for the modeling study to be completed by PBS &J /Coastal Planning and Engineering. A follow up email was provided from Mr. Feldhaus to Gary McAlpin dated July 7, 2010 requesting the County authorize PBS &J and Coastal Planning and Engineering release their work to date on the modeling study to their consultants — Erik J. Olsen of Olsen and Assoc., Inc. and Douglas J. Durbin, Entrix, Inc. 3 A5 Committee discussion occurred on the following: 1612 A-5 August 5, 2010 • It would be favorable for the Pelican Bay community to speak with "one voice." • The inter -local agreement should outline the management/financial responsibilities for the various parties including the City of Naples and /or the Seagate Community. • The agreement would be an avenue for resolving technical /management issues, not legal issues. • Future updates on the concept should be a standing item on the Subcommittee's Agenda. 2. Peer Review Discussion /Approach Gary McAlpin provided the document "Clam Bay Sub - Committee Peer Review Discussion" dated July 21, 2010. He noted: • The document includes the directive from the 12/15/09 BCC meeting to Staff regarding management activities of the Clam Bay Estuary. • Fund 111, the budget for Management of the System is included. • Staff is attempting to reach a closing point on an agreement with the Pelican Bay Services Division for the Peer Review of the PBS &J Water Quality Study. • The PBSD is considering completing their own "Peer Review" of the PBS &J Water Quality Study. • Staff proposes to re- allocate funds within the approved budget in the amount of $4500 authorizing PBS &J to provide any information and consultations required in a request by the PBSD and /or their consultant for review of the Report. The Subcommittee noted the directive for Clam Bay activities provided by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to Staff at the 12115109 meeting may need to be amended to reflect the proposed concept of an inter -local agreement and the change in the concept for the Peer Review. Gary McAlpin requested approval on the concept of the County working with Pelican Bay Foundation on the Modeling Study and the working with the PBSD on the "Peer Review" of the PBS &J Water Quality Study. The Subcommittee determined to hear the speakers for both items VIII.2 and VIII.3 Speakers Keith Dallas, President, Pelican Bay Services Division addressed item VIII.3, "Revision 8 to PDSD/CZMPeer Review Proposal" prepared by Gary McAlpin and himself noting the Division did not approve the document by a vote of 5 "no" — 4 "yes. The specific concerns revolved around the concept that one of the 16-11 '2'A 5 August 5, 2010 experts could be from a National Estuary Program, and some of the language in the section "Activities to be performed during this Peer Review. " Mr. Arceri requested clarification if Mr. Dallas made the PBSD aware of the motion approved by the Subcommittee at their June 17, 2010 meeting on the timing of approving a "Peer Review" concept? Mr. Dallas stated he did inform the PBSD of the Subcommittee's directive and recommends the County delay developing any further Peer Review proposals. David Roellig, Pelican Bay Resident expressed concern the concept to be considered of PBSD completing their own "Peer Review is not a true "Peer Review," rather consultants providing separate expert opinions. The concept of the County and the PBSD agreeing on one consultant to provide a "Peer Review" on the PBS &J Report is not likely at this point. If the PBSD would like to complete their own "Peer Review," they should move forward and complete it. He questions whether Mr. Feldhaus, who is appointed, speaks for "Pelican Bay." Chairman Pires noted it is time for the Subcommittee to provide recommendations to the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) regarding the issues of the Peer Review and Modeling Study. The Committee determined to review the document for Item VIII.3 "Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work - July 29, 2010 — Rev. 8 " for the purposes of providing a recommendation to the CAC. Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted under item VIII.2, the concept for the PBF consultants to provide input on the modeling study should not be considered a "Peer Review." With respect to the document provided for item VIII.3, Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work - July 29, 2010 — Rev. 8, " the scope of work outlines constraints, and under a Peer Review, consultants work "without constraints." She recommended: • Section "Considerations," 2nd paragraph - strike entire paragraph which states "The water quality expertise... in these disciplines." • Section "Activities to be performed during this Peer Review ", item #1 line #2 - eliminate the words ...to include." Chairman Pires moved, in regard to items VIII 2 and VIIL3, to forward to the Coastal Advisory Committee, a recommendation of approval of the "Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work - July 29, 2010 — Rev. 8" subject to the following changes: 1. Title of document be revised to "Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work in Collaboration with PBSD. " 2. An introductory Executive Summary be provided with the document indicating the Peer Review w /PBSD is in relation to the PBS &J Water Quality Report of October 2009 prepared for the Clam Bay Estuary System 1612 August 5, 2010 and the parameters of the circulation and modeling study are to be coordinated with the Pelican Bay Foundation under separate consideration. 4. Section Consideration Page 2, paragraph 1, which states - "The water quality expertise that is required... of the review expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas." be deleted from the document. 5. Section Activities to be performed during this Peer Review Page 2, paragraph 2, Item #1 to read - "Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBS &J in recognition of the constraints in preparation of the Report. " Remainder of bullet points in this section to be deleted. 6. Section Evaluation of Proposals - Page 3, item 4 — to read — "The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the CZM /CAC, which with approval will not be unreasonably withheld. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. " Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried unanimously 3 -0. Chairman Pires noted he would provide a copy of the proposed language to Staff for preparation of the document for the August 12, 2010 CAC meeting. Mr. Arceri moved to recommend the Coastal Advisory Committee work in collaborative effort with the Pelican Bay Foundation (PBF) in development of the circulation model, with the costs of the PBF consultants to be borne by the PBF. In addition the BCC objectives outlined in their 12115109 directive to Staff regarding the objectives for the Management of the Clam Bay Estuary System be revised to reflect these activities. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 3 -0. Mr. Arceri moved to recommend the budget for Clam Bay Management Activities (Fund 111) re- allocate funds to provide an expenditure of $4,500 for the item "Peer Review of the PBS &JReport — PBSD" and $45,000 for the item "Peer Review of Modeling PBF." Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 3 -0. It was noted Staff may consider changing the title of the budgetary line items to "Expert Opinions " as opposed to "Peer Reviews " as necessary. 3. Revision 8 to PDSD /CZM Peer Review Proposal Gary McAlpin provided the document "Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work - July 29, 2010 — Rev. 8" See above discussion and actions. 4. Modeling Update Gary McAlpin noted the funding for the Circulation Modeling Study was approved by the Tourist Development Council at their June 26, 2010 meeting. A 5 "j 161 2 ''A 5 I August 5, 2010 IX. Old Business None X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion Speaker Marcia Cravens expressed concern a Staff presentation at the previous Subcommittee meeting indicated there may have been typos or inconsistencies between the plans approved, and the related "approval" letter issued by FDEP on December 15, 1998. The letter indicated an authorized maximum dredging cut of - 4.0' NGVD in the Pass and the plans indicate a different depth of cut. She contended there were not inconsistencies as the presentation did not include a letter dated December 7, 1998 from Humiston and Moore where drawings were presented to FDEP with the letter indicating a "permit modification may be required." This prompted the follow up letter in question from FDEP dated December 15, 1998 authorizing a maximum cut of -4.4' in the Pass. Chairman Pires requested Staff attempt to obtain a letter from the FDEP indicating their position on the historic approvals for the dredging depths of -5.5 feet and a distance of 237.5' as previously indicated by FDEP to Staff. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location September 17,2010; 2pm - Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Building, Conference Room 609 & 610, Naples There being no further business for the good of the County, it was moved and seconded to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by order of the chair at 10:53 A.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee — Clam Bay Subcommittee Tony Pires, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 16 1 2AC ry 2011 VI -1 Ap o al inutes 1 of 8 RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2011 Roars of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 13, 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: Fiala Hiller CHAIRMAN Hennin ICE CHAIRMAN: Coyle Coietta John Sorey, III Anthony Pires Randolph Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Scott Johnson, Collier County Purchasing Dept. S' Date: °% 1131 k_�_ rn:�LoS2WS 161 '?'W ebru 10, 1 VI -1 Appro I f MiAfites 2 of 8 I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following: • Item VIIIA to be heard after VIII.I Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 9 - 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. December 9, 2010 Mr. Hendel moved to approve the minutes of the December 9, 2010 meeting. Second by Mr. Rios. 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 December, 2010. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 201012011 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through January 5, 2011. VIII. New Business 1. Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging - Contract #11 -5633 Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve award of Contract #11 -5633 for Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging to Southwind Construction Corp., as outlined in their attached proposal submitted on 11512011 for a unit price not to exceed contract total of $ 750, 000 and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract after County Attorney approval" dated January 13, 2011 and related backup documents listed below: a. Southwind Construction Corporation Proposal b. Bid Tabulations c. Reference Check d. Letter of Recommendation e. Monitoring Conditions He noted: 161 �V, P ofMnuutt s 3 of 8 • 93 vendors purchased bid packages with 6 proposals received on January 5, 2011. • 2 vendors were deemed non responsive due to a lack of completing a questionnaire leaving 4 bids for evaluation. • After evaluation, Southwind Construction Corp. was chosen as the "most qualified and responsive bidder," however their bid ($836,092.10) was over the budgeted amount of $750,000. • Subsequent to the project being released for bidding, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection reduced the standards for the required Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU's). • Staff requested Southwind Construction Corp. to review their bid to see if they would adjust it to meet the amount budgeted by the County. • Southwind Construction Corp. adjusted the bid for the project to an amount of $750,000. • Staff is requesting the CAC recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the contract. Chairman Sorey asked if the awarding the bid to Southwind Construction Corp. is in accordance with county purchasing policies (with respect to specification changes for the allowable NTU's after the bids were received). Scott Johnson, Collier County Purchasing Department stated the decision to award the project to Southwind Construction Corp. was within purchasing policy requirements. The policy allows the County to re- negotiate the bid price with the "most qualified and responsive bidder." Mr. Pires noted a Southwind Construction Corp. letter dated January 7, 2011 stated they reduced their bid due to a change in specifications for the proposed work. He questioned if County purchasing policies allow the vendor to adjust the bid for the proposed work after a change in specifications, without other vendors having the opportunity to re -bid. Mr. Johnson noted County purchasing policies provide for this procedure. In addition, prior to the identifying the most qualified and responsive bidder, the bids were competitive as the bidders utilized the same set of specifications. Mr. Pires noted County policy does not specifically provide for this procedure. Mr. Johnson agreed, however it is "inherent" in the policy. Mr. Hendel noted County purchasing staff has stated awarding the contract to Southwind Construction Corp. is in accordance with County purchasing policies. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the contract for Southwind Construction Corp. for the proposed Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging at a unit price not to exceed contract total of $750,000. Second by Mr. Rios. Mr. Moreland noted the pass is unsafe for navigation at this time. This is having a negative impact on real estate values and business operations within the area. CAC February 10, 2011 VI -1 Approval of Minutes 4 of 8 1612 5 He expressed concern on delaying the work, unless the delay is based on a legal basis. Chairman Sorey reiterated County purchasing staff has stated awarding the bid is in accordance with County purchasing policy. Mr. Pires noted he recognizes the need for the dredging, but expressed concern with the legality of the purchasing process. Motion carried 8 "yes" — I "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no. " 4. Clam Bay Navigational Markers Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Update the Coastal Advisory Committee on regulatory findings and agency requirements and seek a recommendation on how to proceed with the permitting and installation of the proposed Clam Bay navigational markers " dated January 13, 2011. He noted: • On June 23, 2009, the BCC directed staff to proceed with permitting and installing navigational markers in Clam Bay. • The installation of the markers would bring the County into compliance with a previously issued 1998 US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) for work in Clam Bay • Installation of the markers requires permitting from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, US Coast Guard and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). • The FDEP permit has not been issued, and in September of 2010 the USCG permit issued for the markers expired and the USCG notified staff a new permit would be required. • The application for a new USCG permit will require completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment at a cost of approximately $40,000. • To develop the EIS, staff will need the BCC to direct staff to move forward and approve a budget for the scope of work. • If the County chooses not move forward, they will petition the USACE to "close the permit" as the County has acted in "good faith" to comply with the permit conditions. • Staff believes the USACE will accept the request to "close out the permit." • Staff suggests, if the BCC chooses not to move forward with the marking of the channel with navigational markers, all stakeholders involved (Pelican Bay Services Division, Pelican Bay Foundation, Collier County, Seagate Residents, City of Naples, etc.) determine the most appropriate means to mark the System to ensure safe navigation and prevent environmental damage. • Staff is seeking direction from the CAC on how to proceed. Speakers Marcia Cravens read an email into the record that she submitted to the members of the CAC. She recommended there be no further expenditures of public funds CAC February 10, 2011 VI -1 Approval of Minutes 5of8 ,61 2A;5 for the installation of the red and green "navigational markers." She supports the installation of "informational and regulatory markers" as the system has been marked in this manner previously, however the markers are in disrepair. She provided samples of "informational and regulatory markers" that may be utilized in the system. Doug Finlay noted the Seagate community was established in 1958 as a boating community with access to the Gulf of Mexico. The waters north and south of the "Pass" should be marked differently based on the various uses within these areas (swimmer, boater conflicts, vs. canoeists, etc.) He supports the concept of the stakeholders determining the appropriate marking of the system. Keith Dallas recommended the County not continue to pursue the marking of the channel with the red and green navigation markers. Ted Raia noted his conversations with the USACE indicate the informational markers are an acceptable form of marking the system to meet the permit requirements. He supports the concept of the stakeholders determining the appropriate means to mark the system. He submitted various documents for consideration by the committee. Sarah Wu, Seagate resident noted the original permit states the main channel of the system will be marked in accordance of the requirements of the USCG. She expressed concern that the County failed to mark the channel with USCG approved markers. It is important to mark the channel safely and questions how it can be marked for navigation without utilizing USCG approved "navigation markers." She supports the concept of marking the channel for safe navigation and preventing environmental damage. Steve Feldhaus, Secretary, Pelican Bay Foundation urges the committee endorse the concept of the stakeholders determining the appropriate means to mark the system. Mr. Rios moved to recommend staff not to move forward with permitting the "red and green navigational markers. "In addition, supports the staff recommendation of the stakeholders expeditiously determining the appropriate means to mark the Clam Bay System to ensure safe navigation and prevent environmental damage to the area. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. 2. Naples Berm Restoration - Contract #11 -5637 Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve award of Bid No. 11-563 7 for Naples Berm Restoration to Eastman Aggregate Enterprises, LLC as outlined in the attached proposal submitted on 1/12/2011 for a unit price, not to exceed total of $946,167.20 and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract after County Attorney approval " dated January 13, 2011 and related backup documents listed below: a. Eastman Aggregate Enterprises Proposal b. Bid Tabulations c. BCC Executive Summary 5/11/2010 d. BCC Executive Summary 7/27/2010 CAC February 10, 2011 VI -1 Approval of Minutes 6 of 8 161215 ' . He noted: • In May of 2010, the BCC authorized $1.5M to complete the scope of work including approving an "emergency resolution" in an effort to temporarily stabilize an area south of Doctors Pass. • In June /July of 2010, work was undertaken to temporarily stabilize the area south of Doctors Pass with the understanding the remaining work would be completed at a later date. • Under the current scope of work proposed, the first area slated for re- nourishment is south of Doctors Pass fronting Indies West, Gulf View, Le Chateau and Royal Palm condominiums. • Staff continues to work with Le Chateau condominiums to obtain an easement to renourish the area controlled by them. • If staff cannot reach an agreement, only the area seaward of the Erosion Control Line will be renourished in this area. • This will create a -4 foot grade change in the area and compromise the stability of the beach renourishment. • An "alternate bid package" is for the renourishment of an area just south of Seagate Drive in the area of the Meridian and Le Parc condominiums. • In addition, it has come to staff's attention, an area further south of these condominiums is severely eroded. • Staff is reevaluating how to deal with the area identified in the "alternate bid package" given the new information. • The options include delaying renourishment proposed in the "alternate bid package" until a solution is developed for the areas further south (in front of the Vistas and the Terraces); or to renourish the area as planned and allow the sand to migrate to the south to help "naturally" stabilize the beach in this area • He requested direction from the committee on how to proceed with the "alternate bid package" and seeks approval of the proposed contract. Mr. Hendel agreed the area south of Seagate Drive in front of the Terraces and Vistas is heavily eroded to the point no beach exists. He recommends adding the Vistas and the Terraces to the scope of work. Chairman Sorey expressed concern immediately adding these areas to the scope of work. It will be difficult given the status of the permits. He recommended moving forward with the proposed scope of work and modifying the existing permits (if possible.) Gary McAlpin noted no upland structures in this area are in danger of undermine. Given this fact, immediately modifying the existing permit will be very difficult. Mr. Pires noted the owners of La Chateau may be concerned with the concept of allowing public access when public funds are expended on private property for beach renourishment. He recommended staff investigate the concept of the CAC February 10, 2011 VI -1 Approval of Minutes 12 8 5 f condominium owners funding the renourishment in the area encompassed by private property in lieu of them granting public access easements. Mr. Hendel moved for staff to move forward with the original scope of work for the area south of Doctors Pass, the "alternate bid package" scope of work for the area south of Seagate Drive, and for staff to move expeditiously to modify the permit to add the beaches in the area of the Vistas and Terraces to the scope of work. Second by Mr. Pires. Speaker Jane Earle, Le Parc Resident noted the beach is in a severe state of erosion in this area and supports the motion. Doug Finlay, City of Naples noted the area just south of the Horizon Way beach access is also severely eroded. He expressed concern that the current 10 year renourishment cycle is inadequate and the County should consider utilizing an 8 year cycle with a focus on long term solutions to the "erosion hot spots." Mr. Pires requested clarification on the status of the easements currently in place. Gary McAlpin noted the current easements in place are to repair the damaged areas including staging construction equipment, not easements for public access. Staff continues to pursue the public access easements. Mr. Moreland noted the Barefoot Beach area is severely eroded as well and recommended the committee tour the area and consider it for renourishment. Carried unanimously 9 -0. Mr. Pires moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners declare and emergency situation for the beaches in the area of the Vistas and Terraces. Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 9 — 0. Gary McAlpin noted this area will require an engineering study. The BCC will need to find the Vistas and Terraces structures are in "imminent danger" and declare an emergency to waive purchasing policies, etc. He is concerned on the timing for completing the additional scope of work due to Turtle Nesting Season upcoming in May. 3. Doctors Pass North Jetty Rehabilitation - Contract 11 -5634 Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve award of Contract #11 -5634 for Doctors Pass North Jetty Rehabilitation Project to Kelly Brothers, Inc., as outlined in their attached proposal submitted on January 7, 2011 for a unit price not to exceed contract total of $653,200 and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract after County Attorney approval" dated January 13, 2011 and related backup documents listed below: CAC February 10, 2011 VI -1 Approval of Minutes 8of8 161 2#15 a. Kelly Brothers, Inc. Proposal b. Bid Tabulations Mr. Moreland moved to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve Contract #11 -5634 for Doctors Pass North Jetty Rehabilitation Project to Kelly Brothers, Inc. as outlined in their attached proposal submitted on January 7, 2011 for a unit price not to exceed contract total of $653,200. Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 9 – 0. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion Any members requiring a hard copy packet of meeting materials should contact staff. Mr. Moreland noted the State has initiated "no new rule making" for regulatory authorities. With this in mind, the committee should formulate recommended regulatory changes for consideration by any necessary parties. Chairman Sorey requested staff to place on the agenda for the May meeting. Mr. Pires recommended staff provide any PUD's documents applicable to developing recommendations (i.e. Barefoot Beaches). In addition, to ensure consistency, identify any positions developed by any other applicable parties. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location February 10, 2011– Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 2:55 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee In Sorey, III, Chairma These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on i i— I i a as presented X or as amended RECEIVED VIA -1 Approval June 9, of1CAC Minutes JUN n 9 2011 1of6 } Board of Counbj Commissioners 1612 1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 12, 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: Fiala V✓ Hiller Hennin Coyle Coletta CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Randy Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples' Corres: Date: a \k-=k ` k Item #��_ CAC June 9, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2 of 6 5 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:02 PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. April 14, 2011 Mr. Raymond moved to approve the minutes of the April 14, 2011 Meeting. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8- 0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Tourist Tax Revenue Report — FY 2010 — 2011 " updated through April 2011. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 201012011 TDC Category "A " Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through May 6, 2011. 3. Backup Tallahassee Report Gary McAlpin provided the following documents for information purposes: • Letter to Hershel T. Vinyard, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated April 5, 2011 — Re: "Collier County FDEP Permitting Discussion. " • Email string between himself and Jeff Littlejohn, Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated April 29, 2011 — Subject: "WJPJChannel Dimension Comparison. " • Letter to Mike Barnett, Bureau Chief, Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated March 18, 2011 — Re: "Wiggin's Pass long- term inlet plan and permit application. " CAC June 9, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 3of6 161 '2 A �5 • Letter to Mike Barnett, Bureau Chief, Florida Department of Environmental Protection dated April 13, 2011 — Re: " Wiggin's Pass Telephone Conference April 5, 2011 and Wiggin's Pass long -term inlet plan and permit application memo dated 311812011. " He reported on a meeting he and Chairman Sorey had with Mr. Vinyard and Governor Rick Scott. Sneakers Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida VIII. New Business 1. Conceptual Design Update CP &E Gary McAlpin provided the document "Draft - Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis " prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. Boca Raton, FL - May 2011 for information purposes. The Committee recommended the title of the study be renamed to identify the project area as "Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches" (or similar wording) as opposed to "Collier County. " It was noted the document will be reviewed in a future meeting. 2. 195 10 Year Plan Gary McAlpin provided the document "TDC Category "A " 195 Fund Projections " for consideration. The Committee requested staff review the "Interest Income" row under the Revenue Category to ensure it is accurately depicted in the document. Mr. Moreland moved to approve the "TDC Category "A" 195 Fund Projection" document subject to the Committee's above request. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 3. Fiscal Year 11/12 Proposed Budget Gary McAlpin provided the document "FYI 1112 —195 Fund Budget and Analysis — Rev.1 " dated May 12, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Rios moved to approve the "FYII /12 —195 Fund Budget and Analysis — Rev I " dated May 12, 2011 subject to the approvals in item VIII.4 (Grant Funding). Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 4. Fiscal Year 11/12 Grant Applications a. Backup Material CAC June 9, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4o 6 6ZA5 Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Share TDC Category "A: Grant Applications from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY- 11112 " dated May 12, 2011 and related backup material for consideration. Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation provided a copy of an email from himself to John Sorey dated May 02, 2011 — Subject: "Sea Turtle Monitoring" for information purposes. He provided an overview of the Sea Turtle Monitoring Program. Speaker ` David Addison The Committee approved the following grant requests from the Executive Summary as listed below: 1. Regulatory and Permit Compliance Mr. Moreland moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $163,000 for the "Sea Turtle Protection Program — Collier County. " Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7 "yes" — I "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no. " Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $17,500 for the "Beach Tilling — Collier County 081071. " Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $260,000 for the "Physical Beach & Pass Monitoring Collier County Beaches - 90536." Second by Mr. Moreland Carried unanimously 7 "yes " -1 "no." Mr. Hendel voted "no." The Committee requested staff, for budgetary planning purposes, prepare a report for Committee review on prioritization of Coastal Zone Management projects. Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $17,500 for the "Beach Tilling — Collier County 081071. " Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 2. Planned Proiects Mr. Moreland moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $50,000 for the "Wiggin's Pass Maintenance Program — Engineering - 90522. " Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $350,000 for the "Emergency Truck Haul — Vistas at Park Shore - 88030" subject to its' CAC June 9, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes ,5ol 16 5 being renamed "Truck Haul — Vistas at Park Shore — 88030. " Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Mr. Pires moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $600,000 for the "FY12 113 Beach Design and Permit with HS Solutions — 80096" subject to its' be renamed "FY11 /12 Beach Design and Permit with HS Solutions - 80096. " Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Mr. Moity moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $300,000 for the "MI Renourish Deign & Permit with BW Solutions - 80166. " Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Mr. Moity moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $20,000 for the "Laser Grading North Marco Beach (R133- 141)." Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Mr. Rios moved to approve a grant request in the amount of $25,000 for the "Tigertail Beach Refurbishment. " Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 3. Beach Maintenance Mr. Moreland moved to approve the following grant requests ($341,950 total): • Beach Maintenance — Collier County/Marco Island — 90533 - $135,100 • Beach Maintenance —City of Naples — 90527- $76,850 • Vegetation Repairs/Exotic Removal— County Wide — 90044 - $75,000 • Naples Pier Annualized Repair & Maintenance —City of Naples — 90096 - $55,000 Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 8 - 0. 4. Administration Fees Mr. Pires moved to approve the following grant requests ($727,500 total): • Fund 195 and 183 Administration — Collier County - 90020 - $510,500 • Indirect Administration Costs - $107,700 • Tax Collector Fees (2.5%) - $109,300 Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 8 - 0. 5. Other Expenses Mr. Rios moved to approve the following grant requests ($20,843,600): • Refoubishment and Emergency Reserves - $17,000,000 • Revenue Reserve (5Yo) - $218,600 • Category D Pier Reserve - $79,000 • Reserve for Contingency Totals - $146,000 • Reserve for FDEP Reimbursement - $3,400,000 Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. CAC June 9, 2011 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 6of6 1b 12 5 5. Summer Schedule Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Determine summer schedule for CAC Meetings" dated May 12, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Rios moved to cancel the regularly scheduled July meeting of the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 6. Chair and Vice -Chair Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Election of Chairman and Vice - Chairman" dated May 12, 2011 for consideration. Mr. Hendel moved to appoint John Sorey, III as Chairman and Tony Pires as Vice - Chairman of the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements The Clam Bay Stakeholders will meet on May 17, 2011. XI. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Moreland reported Commissioner Coletta will be touring Wiggin's Pass on June 6, 2011. Mr. Hendel reported he toured Wiggin's Pass. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location June 9, 2011 — Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 2:44 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee 0ohn Sorey, III, Chair n These minutes approved by the Board /Committee onI,t11� �C as presented or as amended `jC 1611t A 6 - Ivray 3, 2011 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECEIVED JUN 0 7 2011 Naples, Florida, May 3, 2011 s0r(j of county 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 Fiala Hiller Hennin Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. C -ryes: Date:_ °tk � 3i 11 Item #:%u= 2 161 'E A A 6 ' —:ay 3, 2011 Any persons that needs a verbatim record of this meeting, may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department, 3299 Tamiami Trail, Building F, I" Floor, Naples, Florida, or they can be viewed online. I. CALL TO ORDER – Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:00 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: 9:17 AM RECONVENED: 9:49 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes to the Agenda: Under Item IV.0 - Motions – Motion for Extension of Time - The following case was added: #1 - Grand Slam Realty CASE NO: CESD20100019403 Under Item V.A - Public Hearings - Stipulations – Addition of the following cases (listed below as Agenda items): #17 - CASE NO: CEPM20110001550 - PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS • #24 - CASE NO: CESD20100018415 - PEDRO ALVAREZ #34 - CASE NO: CESD20110001998 - ROBERTO PEREZ Under Item V.B – Public Hearings - Hearings - The following cases were withdrawn by the County, (listed below as Agenda items): #2 - CASE NO: S0157398- CEEX20110005205 - MARILYN S. MURRAY • #4 - CASE NO: S0173480- CEEX20110004013 - KEVIN E. BURKE • #5 - CASE NO: S0174293- CEEX20110004923 - DONNA MOORE #6 - CASE NO: 50166972- CEEX20110003181 - BLANCHE SEGO #7 - CASE NO: PR044644- CEEX20110001830 - KYLE OSBORNE • #8 - CASE NO: PR045801- CEEX20110004675 - ROBERT J. HARTWELL #9 - CASE NO: PR045488- CEEX20110004035 - JOAN A. WALSH #10 - CASE NO: PR044562- CEEX20110003840 - JAMES B. PILKENTON JR #12 - CASE NO: PR045618- CEEX20110004786 - IOANNIS BARDIS • #13 - CASE NO: DAS11919- CEEX20110003771 - DAWN KNIGHT • #14 - CASE NO: DAS11920- CEEX20110003773 - DAWN KNIGHT • #15 - CASE NO: CESD20090018616 - JOSEFINA URQUILLA • #16 - CASE NO: CEV20110002690 - RODGER PERRY • #23 - CASE NO: CESD20110001254 - JORGE DELGADO ALFONSO 1612 A6 May 3 2011 • #25 - CASE NO: CEV20110002103 - RICHARD LARICHE JR & VALERIE LARICHE • #26 - CASE NO: CEV20100020785 - KARL KRONK • #28 - CASE NO: CENA20110001629 - AN TRINH & MARIA NGUYEN • #29 - CASE NO: CEV20110001701- AN TRINH & MARIA NGUYEN • #32 - CASE NO: CENA20110001744 - THELMA NOVELO Under Item VI.A - New Business - Motion for Imposition of Fines - The following case was withdrawn by the County (listed below as Agenda item): • #3 - CASE NO: CEPM20100008282 - JUDITH HARBRECHT HILL TR & WILLIAM P. HILL TR, UTD 10/8/96 The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 1, 2011 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on April 1, 2011 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance None C. Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20100019403 Grand Slam Realty Laurie Vereen — Manager, Grand Slam Realty requested a 30 day extension of time in the case. The County had no objection to the request and recommended a 60 day extension. The Special Magistrate GRANTED a 60 day extension of the case. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 17. CASE NO: CEPM20110001550 OWNER: PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (12)(d), (12) (p), AND 22 -231 (19). EXTERIOR DOOR STICKS, NOT ALLOWING PROPER INGRESS /EGRESS, LEAKY PIPES, DAMAGED CEILING AND MOLD. FOLIO NO: 32425005564 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7082 VENICE WAY, NAPLES (IZ4791530358137714) The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. 161 -A -6 el} May 3, 20TT1 The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative John Nelson — Prime Home Builders, LTD. at Portifino Falls on May 3, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.56 incurred in the prosecution of this case by June 3, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by repairing all property maintenance violations and applying for and obtaining any required Collier County building permits if applicable to repair all property maintenance violations within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until violation has been abated. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.56 24. CASE NO: CESD20100018415 OWNER: PEDRO ALVAREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). WINDOWS THAT HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36614600006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4301 3RD AVENUE SW, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent, Pedro Alvarez on May 3, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.12 incurred in the prosecution of this case by June 3, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit for any construction additions or remodeling and obtain all inspections and certificate of completion within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until violation is abated. 4 161@' A6 �f May 3, 2011 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.12 34. CASE NO: CESD20110001998 OWNER: ROBERTO PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1. UNPERMITTED WOOD AND CHAIN LINK FENCE. FOLIO NO: 35645200007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4201 23RD AVENUE SW, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Joseph Mucha who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent, Roberto Perez on May 3, 2011. Gary Pedersen was present to assist Mr. Perez. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.12 incurred in the prosecution of this case by June 3, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by applying for and obtain all permits inspections and certificates of completions /occupancy required for fence or for the removal of the fence within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of 100 for each day the violation continues. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Due: $112.12 ibiz:ab , May 3, 2011 B. Hearings 1. CASE NO: S0166994- CEEX20110004968 OWNER: HELEN T. TANNER OFFICER: DEPUTY KLINKMANN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE, NO VISIBLE PERMIT. VIOLATION ADDRESS: PHYSICIANS REGIONAL, COLLIER BLVD, NAPLES Respondent Helen Tanner was present. Her son, Brian Tanner, was present and a witness. Deputy Klinkmann was present. Mr. Tanner noted he pulled up to the area of discharge (which was a fire lane) at the direction of hospital staff. He parked and entered the discharge unit approximately 200 feet away, came back out and the ticket was on the vehicle. The ticket is at the exact time of the discharge from the hospital. Deputy Klinkmann noted he observed the vehicle illegally parked, determined no one was attending the vehicle and issued the parking ticket. There were other legal spaces in the vicinity available for parking. The Special Magistrate noted the situation was a result of a misunderstanding of hospital Staff on the areas persons are allowed to park during discharge. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent NOT GUILTY of the violation. 3. CASE NO: S0166959- CEEX20110003312 OWNER: SHIRLEY ANN PARKS ENGSTROM OFFICER: DEPUTY KLINKMANN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE, NO VISIBLE PERMIT VIOLATION ADDRESS: FREEDOM SQUARE PUBLIX, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Delivered: 4/21/11 Respondent Shirely Ann Parks Engstrom was not present. Deputy Klinkmann was present. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent Guilty and assessesed a $250.00 ftne, $5.00 Adminstrative fee and $50.00 Investigative fee for a total fine of $305.00 (three hundred five dollars) to be paid by June 3, 2011. Total Amount Due: $305.00 6 161F2 qb + May 3, 2011 11. CASE NO: PR045619- CEEX20110004783 OWNER: IOANNIS BARDIS OFFICER: PARK RANGER KURT ARAQUISTAIN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA, NO PARKING ANY TIME VIOLATION ADDRESS: BAYVIEW PARK/DANFORD, NAPLES Respondent Ioannis Bardis was present. Park Ranger Araquistain was not present. Mr. Bardis requested the case be dismissed. The Special Magistrate DISMISSED the case. 18. CASE NO: CESD20110000950 OWNER: ROBERTO LINO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SHED IN REAR YARD ERECTED WITHOUT REQUIRED BUILDING PERMIT OR INSPECTIONS. FOLIO NO: 54670001702 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 421 LEAWOOD CIRCLE, NAPLES Respondent Roberto Lino was present. Investigator Heinz Box was present. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo Exhibit B — 1 photo Investigator Box testified as of May 2, 2011 the violation exists. Mr. Lino noted the shed was constructed without a permit, he subsequently applied for a permit, however it was denied due to a setback violation. He is in the process of trying to sell the structure. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.12 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days by June 3, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit demolition permit for the structure obtain all inspections and certificate of completion of said permit(s) by July 3, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until violation is abated. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 16►'2A6 f' May 3, 2011 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.12 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 8. CASE NO: CESD20100004761 OWNER: WILNER FRANCOIS & SANDY ST. FLEUR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). PVC FENCE AROUND POOL, NEVER CO -ED. FOLIO NO: 36560840004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2700 44TH STREET SW, NAPLES Respondent Wilner Francois was present and has authority to represent his wife. Investigator Carmelo Gomez presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 5/3/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: 3/4/11 - OR4671 - Page 2323 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 4/5/11 — 5/3/11 (29 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,900.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $3,012.47 Fines continue to accrue. Mr. Francois noted he has been attempting to remedy the situation, the fence is not acceptable as it is a plastic fence. He is in the process of applying for another permit and abating the violation. Robinson Dera, freind testified Mr. Francois purchased the property with the fence existing, however signed an affidavit that he knew the fence was in violation. A private contractor has applied for permits to abate the violation. Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Supervisor noted he has reviewed the case and there is not an permit application on file for replacing the fence with the County at this time. He recommended the case be continued so both parties may attempt to resolve the issue. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's request for Imposition of Fines and continued the case. 161� A6 m' May 3, 2011 Break 11:08am Reconvened: 11: 28am V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued B. Hearings 19. CASE NO: CEROW20090015230 OWNER: ESTATE OF ALAN D. MONTGOMERY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 110, ARTICLE II, SECTION 110 -31 (a). SEVERAL TREES THAT WERE PLANTED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY WITH NO PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 36239560000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5133 20TH CT SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 4/20/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/12/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Paul presented the case. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A - 1 photo 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 Right of Way permit and all necessary Certificates of Completion to permit the trees, or remove the trees on or before June 3, 2011. If violation is not abated by June 3, 2011 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 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 $112.29 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before June 3, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.29 20. CASE NO: CESD20100004913 OWNER: SERGIO G. & PATRICIA SALINAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04- 41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (11)(1)(a) AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(c)(i). POOL, NEVER CO -ED AND THREE UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES (2 SHEDS & 1 BBQ PIT). 9 161: A-- 6 May 3, 2011 FOLIO NO: 35993680007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2756 47TH ST SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 4/20/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/21/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Gomez presented the case. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A - 1 photo 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 or Occupancy to abate the violations on or before June 3, 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 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 $112.73 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before June 3, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.73 21. CASE NO: CEPM20100020075 OWNER: JEFFERSON F. & TAMMY J. ROBERTS, OR PROPERTY OWNER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (15). SWIMMING POOL THAT IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED. FOLIO NO: 51978006648 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 14462 INDIGO LAKES CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 4/20/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/21/11 The respondents were not present. Jennifer Baker noted the property is subject to a bankruptcy case. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case. 22. CASE NO: CEPM20110000638 OWNER: ELVIS CAMACHO 10 16I� A 6 0.1 May 3, 2011 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 234(3), METHOD FOR DESIGNATION AND ELIMINATION OF HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS 22 -236. DANGEROUS/HAZARDOUS BUILDING DESTROYED BY FIRE. FOLIO NO: 38100840006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2725 70TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 4/20/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/21/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Box presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 4 photos Exhibit b - Copy of "Dangerous Building" letter 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 Demolition Permit for demolition of the structure and dispose of all associated debris at an authorized location and obtain all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion as required on or before May 20, 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 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 $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before June 3, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.56 27. CASE NO: CEPM20110002763 OWNER: MORAD BAHRAMI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (12)(m) AND SECTION 22 -231 (12)(1). BLACK MOLD ON EXTERIOR OF HOME AND TORN SCREENS ON LANAI. FOLIO NO: 32484040007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 841 BLUEBIRD STREET, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 4/20/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/21/11 The respondents were not present. 11 161k2 A'6 May 3, 2011 Investigator Box presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 3 photos Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Remove all mold from the exterior walls at the above location and repair all screens on the rear lanai on or before May 10, 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 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 $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before June 3, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.56 30. CASE NO: CEPM20110000743 OWNER: HSBC BANK USA NA TR ACE SECURITIES CORPORATION OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (12)(b)(n), AND SECTION 22 -243. UNSECURED STRUCTURE, BROKENIMISSING SCREENS. FOLIO NO: 35980440001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4500 GOLDEN GATE PKWY, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 4/20/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/21/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Gomez presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 5 photos dated 1/19/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtaining all required Collier County permits and building inspections and Certificates of Completion and restore the windows and screens to a permitted condition on or before May 17, 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, 2. Obtain a Collier County Boarding Certificate and board the windows on or before May 17, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter and obtain all necessary permit, inspections and 12 161 #1 A 6 May 3, 2011 Certificates of Completion and restore the windows and screens to a permitted conditions on or before November 3, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter to 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 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 $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before June 3, 2011. Total Amount Due: $112.56 31. CASE NO: CESD20100003742 OWNER: SANDRA L. CASTRO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ORDINANCE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. FENCE AND STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT(S). FOLIO NO: 40060360106 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3950 31ST AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 4/20/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/21/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Asaro presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A -2 photos dated 3/22/10 Composite Exhibit B — 2 photos dated 6/15/10 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to 1. Obtain all valid Collier County Building or Demolition Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion or Occupancy to permit or remove the fence and structures before June 3, 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 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. 13 16 ii A 6 May 3, 2011 3. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before June 3, 2011. Total Amount Due $112.56 33. CASE NO: CEAU20110002303 OWNER: ALEXANDER O. & CRISTINA ULATE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02(A). FENCE IS DAMAGED. FOLIO NO: 36240840007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2001 51ST STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by certified mail: 4/20/11 Date of Heating Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/22/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Paul presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A -3 photos Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Make all repairs to the fence as necessary by replacing wood boards, repairing any holes in the fence and painting any worn surfaces or obtain all necessary approvals to remove the fence on or before May 10, 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 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 $112.47 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before June 3, 2011. Total Amount Due $112.47 C. Emergency Cases: None VII. NEW BUSINESS - Continued A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. CASE NO: CEPM20100017761 OWNER: HENRY J. TESNO & JILL J. WEAVER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS 14 161 A _b May 3, 2011 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(15). REPEAT VIOLATION OF SINGLE FAMILY SWIMMING POOL FILLED WITH GREEN ALGAE /STAGNANT WATER. FOLIO NO: 71800000527 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3117 ARECA AVENUE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/12/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Scavone presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 2/28/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: 1/14/11 - OR4647 - Page 3254 Fine Amount: $500.00 day Duration: 1/20/11 — 2/28/11 (40 days) Total Fine Amount: $20,000.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $683.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.64 Total to Date: $20,795.64 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $20,795.64 Said amount to become a lien on the property. 2. CASE NO: CEPM20100009984 OWNER: ALBERT HOUSTON SR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR KITCHELL SNOW VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (12)(b), (12)(d), (12)(p), (12)( c), (12)(i), (12)(1),(8), NUISANCES SPECIFIED, AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -243. VACANT /ABANDONED UNSECURED STRUCTURE USED FOR PROSTITUTION AND DRUG ACTIVITY WITH NUMEROUS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS TO INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LEAKS IN THE ROOF, EXPOSED ABOVE GROUND SEWER PIPES, BROKEN WINDOWS, INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WALLS IN A POOR CONDITION, ETC. FOLIO NO: 66930160009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 433 CARVER STREET, IMMOKALEE Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/18/11 The respondents were not present. The violation has been abated. Investigator Snow presented the case. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4597 - Page 1009 Fine Amount: Part B - $250.00 day; Part C $250.00 Duration: Part B: 8/9/10 — 2/4/11 (180 days); Part C: 8/21/10 — 2/4/11 (168 days) Total Fine Amount: Part B - $45,000.00; Part C - $42,000.00 15 16 12 . A 6 May 3, 2011 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $6,380.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.73 Total to Date: $93,413.53 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $93,413.53. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 4. CASE NO: CEPM20100003242 OWNER: ABEL D. & SARA ACCILIO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (12) (c). MAIN STRUCTURE WITH ROOF DAMAGE. FOLIO NO: 64701126902 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 907 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/12/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Perez presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 5/3/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4654 - Page 2443 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 2/19/11 — 5/3/11 (74 days) Total Fine Amount: $7,400.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $7,512.38 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $7,512.38 Said amount to become a lien on the property. Fines continue to accrue. 5. CASE NO: CEPM20100019812 OWNER: BETTY FREDERICK & KAREN L. DONNADIO 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). GREEN POOL. FOLIO NO: 36001560005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2975 45TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/12/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Gomez presented the case. 16 M • YJ The violation has been abated as of 2/28/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4647 - Page 3149 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 1/22/11 — 2/28/11 (37 days) Total Fine Amount: $9,250.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $897.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $10,259.29 A 6 May 3, 2011 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $10,259.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 6. CASE NO: CEPM20100020893 OWNER: REUBEN T. REINSTEIN EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (15). SWIMMING POOL THAT IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED. FOLIO NO: 36613600007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4460 3RD AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/12/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Mucha presented the case. The violation has been abated. Special Magistrate Order No.: 1/14/11 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 1/22/11 — 2/16/11 (26 days) Total Fine Amount: $6,500.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,041.50 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $7,654.06 - OR4647 - Page 3268 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $7,654.06. Said amount to become alien on the property. 7. CASE NO: CESD20100018348 OWNER: PALMIRA MUNOZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 35774720005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2051 44TH TERRACE SW, NAPLES 17 16 I A 6 May 3, 2011 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/12/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Mucha presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 4/18/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4671 - Page 2325 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 4/5/11 — 4/18/11 (14 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,500.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,612.29 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,612.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 9. CASE NO: CESD20100004916 OWNER: SERGIO G. & PATRICIA SALINAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. EXPIRED PERMIT #2001100506 -NEVER CO -ED. FOLIO NO: 35993680007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2756 47TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 4/21/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 4/18/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Gomez presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 5/3/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4671 - Page 2313 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 4/5/11 — 5/3/11 (29 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,900.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $3,012.38 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,012.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. Fines continue to accrue. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order 18 16112 A 6 ti May 3, 2011 None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 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 12:27 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING enda Garretson, pecial Magistrate The Minutes week approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented �/ , or as amended 19 June 3, 2011 00 A4 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE / is a Hiller E Naples, Florida, June 3, 2011 Henning Coyle ✓ Colette Soo"— LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Corres: RECEIVED JUL 0 5 2011 Item #:�� -Z-��° �'30ard of County COmm!SWners - -; . A0, 16 1 t une 3 20 1 1 presiding I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson 6 The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:01 A.M. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing rules and regulations Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. 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. 9:14 A.M. RECONVENED: 9:34 A.M. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor noted the following modifications to the Agenda (listed below as item number): Under Item VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines • 9 - CASE NO: CEPM20090015732 - CITIBANK to become Item IV.A.1— Motion for Abatement of Fines • 10. - CASE NO: CEPM20100019213 - CITIBANK - to become Item IV.A.2 — Motion for Abatement of Fines Under Item IV.0 — Motion for Extension of Time • 1 - Addition of CASE NO: CESD20100021808 - FOODLANDS SUPERMARKET, LLC. Under Item V.B — Hearings • 6 - CASE NO: CESD20100017536 - PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES MASTER ASSOCIATION INC. to become Item IV.B.1— Motion for Continuance • 7 - CASE NO: CEV20110006381 - ORALIA HINOJOSA to become Item V.A.1- Stipulations • 9 - CASE NO: CEPM20090007445 - ZACK MOEN AND GRETCHEN MOEN - to become Item V.A.2 — Stipulations Under Item V.B — Hearings The following cases were withdrawn (listed below as Agenda numbers) • 3 - CASE NO: S0158543- CEEX20110005560 - GEORGE L. KOPPEL • 5 - CASE NO: PR042413- CEEX20110004702 - KEVIN SULLIVAN • 8 - CASE NO: CENA20110004432 - MARIO P. DUENEZ Under Item V.B — Hearings The following cases were dismissed (listed below as Agenda numbers) • 1- CASE NO: S0157399- CEEX20110005841 - RICHARD J. MCAFEE • 2 - CASE NO: S0173480- CEEX20110004013 - KEVIN E. BURKE Under V.0 — Emergency Cases The following items were added to the Agenda: • 1- CASE NO: CEPM201000017179 - FERNANDO 1. AND JESSICA VALERO • 2 - CASE NO: CEPM20110001534 - FERNANDO 1. AND JESSICA VALERO 2 June 3, 2011 The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. 1612 A 6- III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 3, 2011 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on May 3, 2011 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines 1. CASE NO: CEPM20090015732 OWNER: CITIBANK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (19). VACANT STRUCTURE WITH BEE INFESTATION IN THE SOFFIT SECTION 22 -231, SUBSECTIONS 12c, 12i, 12p, AND 19. VACANT STRUCTURE WITH AND REAR EXTERIOR WALL. BOARDED UP WINDOWS AND ROOF DAMAGE. ROOF DAMAGE HAS CAUSED 62632680001 DAMAGE TO THE INTERIOR OF THE STUCTURE TO INCLUDE THE CEILING AND WALLS. FOLIO NO: 62632680001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 612 102ND AVENUE N, NAPLES Investigator Mucha represented the County and testified the fine proposed is $31,500.00 ($250.00 day for 126 days). Dennis Frechett, Collier County Realty Corporation represented the Respondent and testified the delays were due to the normal logistics of obtaining authorizations from the bank, obtaining permits from the County, contractor completion of the work, etc. The violations were abated as soon as feasibly possible by demolition of the structure. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's motion for Imposition of Fine and reduced the fine to $2,500.00. 2. CASE NO: CEPM20100019213 OWNER: CITIBANK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI SECTION 22 -231 (19). VACANT STRUCTURE WITH BEE INFESTATION IN THE SOFFIT AND REAR EXTERIOR WALL. FOLIO NO: 62632680001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 612 102ND AVENUE N, NAPLES Investigator Mucha represented the County and testified the fine proposed is $32,500.00 ($250.00 day for 129 days). Dennis Frechett, Collier County Realty Corporation represented the Respondent and testified the delays were due to the normal logistics of obtaining authorizations from the bank, obtaining permits from the County, contractor compleetion of the work, etc. The violations were abated as soon as feasibly possible by demolition of the structure. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's motion for Imposition of Fines and reduced the fine to $500.00. B. Motion for Continuance 1. CASE NO: CESD20100017536 June 3, 2011 OWNER: PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES MASTER ASSOCIATION INC. 6 112 n 6 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. A POOL GATE WITH ELECTRIC, MODIFIED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY FENCE PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 66262000028 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8610 PEBBLEBROOKE DRIVE, NAPLES Supervisor Letourneau presented the request and testified Mr. Lance Parmelee of Sunburst Management Corporation has requested a continuance on behalf of the property owner. Mr. Parmelee is out of town today and could not attend the hearing. The issue has been on -going over lenghy period of time (since August of 2010) including denied County permit applications. The Special Magistrate read the letter of request into the record which indicated the Respondent now understands what is required for compliance and intends to abate the violation prior to the July 1, 2011 Special Magistrate hearing. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's request and continued the item until July 1, 2011. She requested staff to contact the Board of Directors of the Homeowners /Condominium Association and notify them of the decision and request them to provide written authorization stating the management company may represent them in the case and the ramifications of the violation. C. Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO.: CESD20100021808 OWNER: FOODLANDS SUPERMARKET, LLC. FOLIO NO.: 35931160000 VIOLATION: VIOLATION OF COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A) ADDRESS: 11845 COLLIER BLVD. NAPLES FL The Respondent was not present. Investigator Mucha presented the request and testified the Respondent has requested a 45 day Extension of Time to abate the violation. The contractor involved had a major health issue and could not complete the work on time. The Special Magistrate GRANTED a 45 day Extension of Time to abate the violation. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 7. CASE NO: CEV20110006381 OWNER: ORALIA HINOJOSA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130- 97(4). COMMERCIAL BUS AND COMMERCIAL FIELD TRUCK PARKED ON RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 77080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 802 PINE COURT, IMMOKALEE 1612 A6 June 3, 2011 The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Maria Rodriguez who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Oralia Hinjosa (represented by Betsy Zarte) May 31, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by July 2, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by: Cease /stop parking commercial vehicles /commercial equipment on her property, which is zoned residential single family from today's hearing. If at anytime said violation is witnessed after today's hearing, the property owner will be deemed a repeat offender and a hearing will be scheduled to determine costs and impose the payment of reasonable enforcement fees upon the repeat violator. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 9. CASE NO: CEPM20090007445 OWNER: ZACK MOEN AND GRETCHEN MOEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE 2004 -58, SECTION 12. THE LEFT REAR CORNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS BURNED IN A HOUSE FIRE. FOLIO NO: 37923600000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4645 13TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Mucha who was present. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Zach Moen, June 3, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.82 incurred in the prosecution of this case by September 3, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections, and certificates of completion occupancy by June 3, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 161 `-2 A-6, June 3, 2011 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Due: $112.82 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. CASE NO: CESD20090012012 OWNER: ERNIE J. BLAIN AND DELAYNA BLAIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1 AND SECTION 111.1, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING ADDED TO BUILDING WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37880000109 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 175024 TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Investigator Asaro represented the County and stated the fines proposed are $2,200.00 Ernie Blain, the respondant was present and testified he abated the violation as soon as financially possible and stayed in constant contact with Code Enforcement regarding the issue. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's motion for Imposition of Fines. BREAK. 10:42AM RECONVENED: 11: 05AM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued B. Hearings 4. CASE NO: PR045932- CEEX20110005474 OWNER: GEORGE J. LAWLER OFFICER: PARK RANGER ROGER RIECK VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA VIOLATION ADDRESS: BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE, NAPLES Date of Certified Mail and Receipt: 5/19/11 and 5/25/11 The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 2 photos depicting the violation. Ranger Rieck presented the case and testified the violation occurred on April 18, 2011 in an area of the Preserve cordoned off by traffic cones. The area is not posted with signage but it is clear to the public the area is "no parking." There were numerous available parking spaces in close proximity to the area in question. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the violation and was ordered to pay a $30.00 fine, $50.00 Administrative fee and $5.00 Operation fee for a total of assessment $85.00 by July 2, 2011. Total Due: $85.00 16112J A 6 une �, 20i1 10. CASE NO: CESD20100002960 OWNER: LEOBARDO GUTIERREZ AND MARITZA GUTIERREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. CORRALS ERECTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT(S). FOLIO NO: 39655120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 181547 TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Certified Mail and Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/19/11 and 5/17/11. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 2 photos dated 2/15/10 depicting the violation. Investigator Asaro presented the case and testified the Respondent has obtained the necessary building permits but has not complied with the necessary inspections for a Certificate of Completion. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case by July 2, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections; and certificates of completion/occupancy to permit the structure by July 2, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Due: $112.38 C. Emergency Cases 1. CASE NO. CEPM201000017179 OWNER: FERNANDO 1. AND JESSICA VALERO OFFICER: CRISTINA PEREZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, FLORIDA BUILIDNG CODE 2007 EDITION, SECTION 424.2.14, SUBSECTION 424.2.14.1 (424.2.17.1 THROUGH 424.2.17.1.14) AND CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULAITONS , ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) FOLIO NO.: 38509720002 ADDRESS: 14231 IMMOKALEE RD., NAPLES, FL 34120 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Perez presented the case and testified Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 2 photos dated 6/1/11 depicting the violation. 1612 A6 June 3, 2011 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.29 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before July 2, 2011. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before June 10, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before June 10, 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. 4. Install a temporary barrier around the pool by June 6, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 a day will be imposed. 5. Obtain all Collier County Building permits and related inspections for installation of a permanent barrier around the pool on or before July 2, 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. 6. 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. Total Amount Due: $112.29 CASE NO. CEPM20110001534 OWNER: FERNANDO 1. AND JESSICA VALERO OFFICER: CRISTINA PEREZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -243) FOLIO NO.: 38509720002 ADDRESS: 14231 IMMOKALEE RD., NAPLES, FL 34120 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Perez presented the case and testified. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 7 photos dated 6/1/11 depicting the violation Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.20 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before July 2, 2011. 2. Obtain a valid Collier County Building Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to restore the doors and windows to a permitted condition on or before June 10, 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; 3. Obtain a Collier County "Boarding Certificate" and "board" the windows and doors on or before June 10, 2011 and subsequently restore the windows to a permitted condition (permit specifications per condition #1) on or before December 3, 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. 161 2 A 6- June 3, 2011 4. 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 Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Due: $112.20 VII. NEW BUSINESS -Continued B. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 2. CASE NO: CENA20100006172 OWNER: KATHERINE SHEFFIELD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54 -179 AND SECTION 54 -181. LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: METALS, WOOD, PLASTICS, HOUSEHOLD TRASH, RUSTED BROKEN BICYCLES, OLD CAR PARTS, AND TIRES THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 36814240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 660 29TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/23/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Perez presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 4/1/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4635 - Page 834 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 12/11/10 — 4/1/11 (112 days) Total Fine Amount: $11,200.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $4,247.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $15,559.20 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $15,559.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 3. CASE NO: CEPM20100008671 OWNER: KATHERINE SHEFFIELD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). GIS PROPERTY APPRAISER SATELLITE IMAGERY FROM THE YEARS 2005 TO 2010 SHOWS THE POOL ON THIS PROPERTY HAS BECOME STAGNANT, POLLUTED AND UNSIGHTLY. FOLIO NO: 36814240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 660 29TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/23/11 The respondents were not present. �16I 2.,.A6 Investigator Perez presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 4/1/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4621 - Page 2533 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 10/23/10 — 4/1/11 (161 days) Total Fine Amount: $40,250.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,531.40 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $41,893.78 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $41,893.78. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 4. 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: 61692 ND AVENUE N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/17/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Condomina presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 6/3/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4672 - Page 1890 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 4/9/11 — 6/3/11 (56 days) Total Fine Amount: $5,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.64 Total to Date: $5,712.64 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $5,712.64. Said amount to become a lien on the property. Fines continue to accrue. 5. CASE NO: CEPM20100014261 OWNER: NICHOLAS K. WILLIAMS AND LETITIA ANNE WILLIAMS 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). POOL HAS GREEN WATER AND POOL COVER DAMAGED. FOLIO NO: 51978000783 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 14872 INDIGO LAKES CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/16/11 The respondents were not present. 10 161 2 A - 6 June 3, 2011 Investigator Gomez presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 4/27/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4654 - Page 2473 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 2/12/11 — 4/27/11 (75 days) Total Fine Amount: $18,750.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $653.72 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $19,515.92 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $19,515.92. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 6. 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: 547227 TH PLACE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/16/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Paul presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 6/3/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4675 - Page 1466 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 5/2/11 — 6/3/11 (33 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,300.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $3,412.20 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,412.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property. Fines continue to accrue. 7. CASE NO: CEAU20110000019 OWNER: ADRIANA ARIZMENDI AND 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: 199148 TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/16/11 The respondents were not present. 11 161s� A6 une 3, 2011 Investigator Paul presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 6/3/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4672 - Page 1886 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 4/19/11 — 6/3/11 (46 days) Total Fine Amount: $4,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $4,712.38 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $4,712.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. Fines continue to accrue. 8. CASE NO: CESD20110000031 OWNER: BETTY FREDERICK AND KAREN L. DONNADIO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). TWO UNPERMITTED SHEDS. FOLIO NO: 36001560005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 297545 TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/17/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 6/3/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4675 - Page 1470 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 5/2/11 — 6/3/11 (33 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,300.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $3,412.38 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,412.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. Fines continue to accrue. 11. CASE NO: CEPM20100018618 OWNER: RENEE LYNN CRAVO 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), AND (12)(n). MISSING POOL CAGE SCREENS AND GREEN POOL. FOLIO NO: 54523006582 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8313 LAUREL LAKES WAY, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/16/11 The respondents were not present. 12 16 I Zme. A 6 Investigator Gomez presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 4/27/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4654 - Page 2475 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 2/12/11 — 4/27/11 (75 days) Total Fine Amount: $18,750.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,419.50 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $20,281.70 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $20,281.70. Said amount to become a lien on the property. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO: CEPM20080003635 OWNER: BRIAN CHRISTOPHER AND SYLVIA CHRISTOPHER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231, SUBSECTION 15. PRIVATE POOL MAINTENANCE VIOLATION, WATER IS IN ALGAED AND STAGNANT CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 68827502859 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 431 IBIS WAY, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/18/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Bosa presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 4/14/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4383 - Page 0124 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 7/26/08 — 4/14/11 (992 days) Total Fine Amount: $248,000.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $880.80 Unpaid Operational Costs: $117,34 Total to Date: $248,998.14 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion to Amend a Previously Issued Order and Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $248,998.14. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 2. CASE NO: CEPM20080008180 OWNER: GRACIELA N. SUSI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22- 26(103.11.2). NO PROTECTIVE BARRIER SURROUNDING SWIMMING POOL. FOLIO NO: 49660105665 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2130 MORNING SUN LANE, NAPLES 13 1612 96 June /-vi., Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 5/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 5/16/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. Part B: The violation has been abated as of 3/22/11. Part C: Has not been abated as of 6/3/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: Original - OR4502 - Page 789 Part B: Motion for Imposition of Fines (Denied) OR 4541 — Page 1563 Fine Amount: Part C: $200.00 /day Duration: 12/03/09 — 6/3/11 (547 days) Total Fine Amount: $109,400.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,414.40 (Part B) Unpaid Operational Costs: $117.70 Total to Date: $110,932.10 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion to Amend a Previously Issued Order and Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $110,932.10. Said amount to become alien on the property and fines continue to accrue. B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request. IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: July 1, 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 12:04 PM. 14 16 121 p 6 June 3, 2011 COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING da Garretson, cial Magistrate The Minutes werr approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented 7, , or as amended 15 AGENDA 16112 A 7 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 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. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS �cJ A. 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 16 i A 7 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] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 12292: Cope Reserve RPUD -- An ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, 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 the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Cope Reserve RPUD. The project proposes a total of 43 dwelling units comprised of single - family detached, single - family attached, multi - family and townhouse unit types, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.3± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Planning section staff requesting coordination for the availability of the Collier County Planning Commission for upcoming "Special" CCPC meetings for FY 2011/2012. [Coordinator: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager] 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 3/28/2011 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp AGENDA 161 97 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2011, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, TH[RD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTARUNG 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 —March 17, 2011 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1612 A 7 A. Petition: PUDZ- A- PL1891: Quail 11 PUD, an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05 -52, the Quail II Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow 300 continuing care retirement community units or 83 single- family or 152 multi - family dwelling units as Permitted Uses in the Residential (R -1) District by providing for: Section One, amendments to Cover Page; Section Two, amendments to the Table of Contents/Exhibits Page; Section Three, amendment to Statement of Compliance Section and removal of requirement to contribute to affordable housing trust fund for units developed in R-1 District; Section Four, amendments to Project Description section; Section Five, amendments to Permitted Uses and Development Standards Section including a revised legal description and addition of a deviation to the LDC to increase the floor area ratio; Section Six, amendments to General Development Commitments Section; Section Seven, amendments to remove all specific citations to the Land Development Code from the PUD document to leave only the general citation to the Land Development Code; Section Eight, amendments to Exhibit A, the PUD Master Plan; and Section Nine, Effective Date. The subject property is located north of Immokalee Road and east of Valewood Drive in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] B. PUDZ- PL2009 -2496: Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Estates (E) Zoning District to a Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for the project known as Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc. CFPUD, to allow 90,000 square feet of uses to include worship /church and related social services, a 300 - person child and adult day care facility, job training and vocational rehabilitation, a 450- person private school; or, in the alternative, development of single - family residential dwelling units, located on the South side of Oil Well Road, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 21.72 + /- acres subject to conditions; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Continued from the March 17, 2011 meeting. Watershed Management Plan Update Workshop to provide background information to the CCPC and input to staff. The presentation on a Summary of Existing Conditions is continued from the 3/17/11 meeting. The presentation includes a summary of Water Budgets, Water Quality Impairments, Native Habitat Evaluation, and Ground Water Storage. The Alternative Analysis includes discussions on recommended projects by Watershed, Low Impact Development Standards, and a TDR and Mitigation program for a portion of North Golden Gate Estates. And the comments and recommendations from the state agencies on suggested more stringent fertilizer ordinance provisions are summarized and a revised model fertilizer ordinance will be discussed. [Coordinator: Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialist] 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp i 2RiAl IVE AGENDA APR 2 9 2011 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSD*iVpfQA* 50T"' I" THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 7, 2011 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Fiala., Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta A. PUDZ - 2007 -AR- 12292: Cope Reserve RPUD -- An ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, 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 the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Cope Reserve RPUD. The project proposes a total of 43 dwelling units comprised of single - family detached, single - family attached, multi - family and townhouse unit types, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.3± acres; and bAwlaohag an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] Date: '-1 Item #: -L V. I it 1612 7 a B. PUDZ- PL2009 -2496: Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Estates (E) Zoning District to a Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for the project known as Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc. CFPUD, to allow 90,000 square feet of uses to include worship /church and related social services, a 300 - person child and adult day care facility, job training and vocational rehabilitation, a 450- person private school; or, in the alternative, development of single - family residential dwelling units, located on the South side of Oil Well Road, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 21.72 + /- acres subject to conditions; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CU- PL2010 -1949, Hitching Post Plaza, a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow a coin operated amusement arcade within a C -3 Zoning District pursuant to Subsection 2.03.03.C.I.c.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located in Section 33, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Continued from the March 17, 2011 meeting: Watershed Management Plan Update Workshop to provide background information to the CCPC. The presentation on a Summary of Existing Conditions is continued from the 3/17/11 meeting. The presentation includes a summary of Water Budgets, Water Quality Impairments, Native Habitat Evaluation, and Ground Water Storage. The Alternative Analysis includes discussions on recommended projects by Watershed, Low Impact Development Standards, and a TDR and Mitigation program for a portion of North Golden Gate Estates. [Coordinator: Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialist.] 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Overview of Proposed Administrative Code: Staff presentation of the framework and procedure involved in the Board - directed Administrative Code [Coordinator: Fred Reischl] 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 4/26/2011 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 7, 2011 161 2 A 7 April 7, 2011 DECEIVED MAY 13 2011 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: 01 WIC U79I. .1C "01 Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Fiala Donna Reed -Carol liller Diane Ebert Henning K �- Karen Homiak Coyle _ Barry Klein Coletta Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Kay Deselem, Principal Planner Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 of 24 Misc. Corres: Date: -M-A �\ Item #: -2— _r q� 1 6 112 A7 April 7, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. And if you're like me, you get into a bad habit. After 10 years of being on this panel I showed up this morning just before 8:30 because we always started at 8:30 until some member of our crowd decided to change the time to 9:00. But I'm glad she did. Thank you, Ms. Ebert. Little hard to get used to. Everybody want to rise for pledge of allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, even though the balance of the government may shut down, we're still in session. Ms. Homiak, would you take roll call, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? 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, addenda to the agenda. Kay, in place of Ray, is there -- MS. DESELEM: I don't have anything, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: * * *If not, Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is the 21st of this month. Anybody know if they're not going to be here on that day? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we'll have a quorum. By the way, that day will probably go a little longer than normal, because we're going to get into more detail on the Watershed Management Plan presentation that had to be postponed. And the part that was postponed will probably be the one that will be most interactive with the public. It's got the -- a bunch of issues I know that people were here last time to talk about. So we'll probably plan on being here a little longer that day. ** *Approval of the minutes. I don't believe there were any. There's none listed, so that would take care of that. ** *Any BCC report, Kay? MS. DESELEM: The last board agenda had no land use items on it, so there is nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I -- MS. DESELEM: Pardon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a transmittal of a shopping center that was controversial. MS. DESELEM: Ray and I looked yesterday and the only thing we saw was a board initiated or something -- it was a sign variance that had come off of the regular agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, no problem. Page 2 of 24 6;2A7 April 7, 2011 ** *Chairman's report. Just nice to see everybody so late here this morning. ** *And with that, we'll move into consent agenda items. First consent agenda item and the only one is PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674, the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, CFPUD. And after reading the consent agenda item, does anybody have any issues on that one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, Brad, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob beat you to it. Bob made a motion, seconded by Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, did you have a discussion? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: No, I was just going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. * * *We have one item on today's agenda, and that will be our next item, advertised public hearing for PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 12292, the Cope Reserve RPUD. That's an area of the Estates down off of -- by County Barn Road. That's right. Anybody wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Anybody? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I spoke with Rich. COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess for the first time in -- that I can remember, I did not speak to Rich. So that was a very welcome, refreshing -- but I did speak to Wayne, and everything we talked about will probably be discussed here today. So with that in mind, Wayne, proceed. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor and Associates. And with me today of course is Rich Yovanovich. I also have Mark Minor, who's the professional engineer on the project. The project's pretty straight forward. Kay has the location exhibit up here on the viewer. And we are south of Davis Boulevard on County Barn Road. We're just a little bit north of the County Barn facility, if you're familiar with that. And our immediate neighbor to the south is the Evelyn Institute which is -- Eden Institute School for Autism. The project, as you're aware, is a 14 -acre project. We're asking for 43 total dwelling units, a combination of single - family and multi - family type units are being requested. Page 3 of 24 1612 A / April 7, 2011 The master plan is in your packet. I've got a color version on an aerial that may help orient you. Our access will be off of Cope Lane, not County Barn Road. We've also been cooperating with the county for their future stormwater and roadway improvements on County Barn Road. And you can see that we have a reservation area for utilities and drainage improvements along our frontage on County Barn. And we also have our preservation area that's required by code on and adjacent to the County Barn Road facility. That location was changed somewhat over time, the project's been in the pipeline. But as we have gone through the Water Management District permitting process, local staff and the district staff agreed that that's the location, the best location for the preserve, so hence its location. We asked for two deviations from the code and both relate to the roadway. There's 1,000 foot requirement in your code for cul -de -sac. We're asking for the cul -de -sac be a little longer to accommodate the entire length of the property. Your fire department has two other conditions that they offered, to make sure that we have a proper turning radius at the end of that. And I forget the other standard that they quoted from the fire code, but we're fully agreement with those. We also ask for a reduction in the 60 -foot right -of -way width under the county's Land Development Code to allow a 50 -foot right -of -way. Staff is supporting both of those deviations. I'd be happy to answer specific questions. The master plan's pretty straight forward. We have a residential tract that's to the north and the south, and we have a buffer condition that was added as part of the discussion with staff. And it's written in your conditions, if you want to look at that. You may already have seen that. But it was specific to a different buffering standard if we decided to add multi - family units here. I would make one correction to the staff report. The table that's listed in there on Page 7 of 17 still shows a little bit difference on the building heights versus what was in my version of the PUD document, for whatever reason. So I just wanted to make sure that we're all in agreement with what we're seeing, as I did tell Kay we would agree to a zoned height of 35 feet, an actual height of 40 feet per multi - family, with a restriction to two stories. So hopefully the PUD document that Kay has reflects that. Mine did not. That's all I have. I'd be happy to answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: --one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't make it out and my plan doesn't show that easily for me, but just for edification: That's a detention area. That's dry detention? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir, dry detention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Ray, the fire code requirements, are they in addition to what would be done normally, or are they just reminding you? MR. ARNOLD: I think they're reminders. We had this discussion early on, and the cul -de -sac met the latest East Naples fire code standards. It's probably a redundant standard, but we're fine with putting it in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing is on the exhibit, Exhibit B, you put in there footnote four, which is essentially referencing accessory structures. I mean, I'm just not sure why you have footnote four, because it is kind of covered in the building separation for accessory. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's -- if anything, it's double. MR. ARNOLD: Well, if you look at for instance on the -- under the townhome standard, it allows the 12 feet for instance to go to 10 feet for their garages that are detached. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yet -- Page 4 of 24 16 1.12 A 7 11 April 7, 2011 MR. ARNOLD: So the principal structure, but we're just noting that, because sometimes you have an offset for those garages, as you know, so the garages can actually be 10 feet apart but the units would be five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But wouldn't the garage be an accessory structure? Have you considered that, or -- MR. ARNOLD: I think it would be, but -- I mean, I think the reason that we've written it that way and others, because I think staffs position has changed over the years between whether or not an attached accessory is really still part of the principal or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. " And then -- and I guess this is the same kind of question: The maximum height of an accessory structure is equal to the main building. I mean, what is that giving us? Like a big screen cathedral or -- and, you know, the height of the structure wouldn't actually be 35 feet, that could be probably the center of the roof anyway. I'm just wondering if that's too high. But -- MR. ARNOLD: I agree with you, I think -- all I can imagine would be a two -story screen enclosure, perhaps, you know, on a single - family home. Probably is not going to go to the top of the roof. It would be eave height at the most probably or midpoint of the roof. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let it go then. I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. The road. It seems like the Land Development Code says 60 feet wide. And it seems lately like everyone is coming in at 50. It bothers me a little bit, because I don't really see -- you're trying to get 43 homes within really just less than seven acres. Is there parking available here? Do you have any on- street parking? Do you allow for any of that? MR. ARNOLD: We haven't made any provisions for on- street parking. Just in the way of comment to your standard, the county's code has been 60 feet, and typically that's because you've got a public road network. But almost every PUD has provisions to do less than 60. And there are some out there that go down to 24 feet because you have sort of unique development patterns. But more common we have 50 feet that allows plenty of room to get all the infrastructure you need, the actual travel lanes, sidewalk, utilities, all within that right -of -way. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But if you have a spine road, that really should be wider. And there is only one road in and out here. I'm just thinking of our community. You cannot get a moving van, he cannot go around in a circle. And to have to back in from Cope Lane, I don't know if he could make that turn. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think they can. It's going to be designed so that a large fire apparatus can also get in and out of that project. I think the other thing -- one of the things that's become more common too is trying to find ways to reduce how much pavement we have to put down and how much our right -of -way is, and that's part of what we're trying to do. It's really a matter of a standard that we think is appropriate. I wish the county staff would take another look at their code, honestly, because I don't think 60 feet is a necessity in all cases. You go to Bonita Springs in Lee County, they have private road standards that allow you to go down to as low as 35 feet, because you can still fit all the necessary infrastructure in that amount of space. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You can't get practically two cars to pass on our streets that are 50 -foot width. I mean, mailboxes are being taken down all the time. MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure what your travel lanes are designed for in your community, but there are minimum standards of 10 feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Um -hum, that's what I was looking at. Can you make this a little wider? Could you take the 10 -foot before the sidewalks, can you take a little bit, like two feet off from that and make the road just a little bit bigger? MR. ARNOLD: Well, one of the things that we have, there's a certain -- and I think one of the planning commissioners may have had that question, but we have sidewalks on both sides of the cul -de -sac. We didn't ask for Page 5 of 24 161 e AA7r1l 7, 201 a deviation not to put sidewalks on both sides. Commonly we would have, but it fit within our right -of -way cross - section to do so. But doing this with a small valley gutter system, you have a certain separation from the travel lane to the sidewalk for recovery of vehicles. You don't put the pedestrian that close to the travel lane if you don't have a non - mountable curb. It's designed with a pretty typical cross - section that we've used I think successfully in many, many communities. I can't speak to yours, I'm not familiar, I haven't done any engineering work in your community. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, I just have a concern about the width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and Wayne, I think this is the reward you get for not drawing your cross - section to scale. Because I think you would see that the 10 foot between the sidewalk and the travel lane does make it look a lot wider. MR. ARNOLD: I think that distance is probably close to six feet. It's a six -foot separation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But 10 plus five plus 10 equals 25. Anyway, Carroll (sic), I think if you're looking at the cross - section, it's actually wider than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I just have one question. Has a marketing plan been developed where anticipated asking prices for the homes are determined? MR. ARNOLD: No, they have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, a couple of things. We are looking at 500 feet from detention area to detention area on the east -west portion of the project, and 300 feet from the detention area to Cope Lane up against Estates lots. And you want to put 40 -foot buildings at -- multi - family buildings, which could stretch that entire section. I had a discussion with Mr. Yovanovich about this yesterday. I'm sure that he spoke to you about it. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we did. And as I understood it, your concern was having -- it was building massing, really, making sure that we didn't have single buildings, or I don't know if you had a number of buildings. We don't have a specific plan in mind. I don't know if you have a number in mind. But even a typical four -plex type building can approach 100 feet in length, just so you know. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. That's a problem for me. MR. ARNOLD: Keep in mind too we have an additional setback of 40 feet, and we also have at least a 20 -foot wide type C buffer there. And we're a two -story maximum. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then you have your setbacks, though, for your accessory structures. You want to go even closer. You want to have the same height as your principal structure, but you want to go closer when you're talking about a perimeter setback. Why wouldn't you make those the same? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think -- I probably don't envision accessory structures that would be behind the building to be as tall as the other -- some of the accessory structures could be something like a pool. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand, Wayne, that you don't envision. But we're not in the visioning process here right now, because this whole project isn't actually for development, this is being done so somebody can sell it and with additional rights on it than they have today. So we have to protect the people that are here already. And you're up against Estates zoning and with people living in homes. MR. ARNOLD: I appreciate that. I understand that. They -- and I've had that discussion with others. Keep in mind too that they have the same right to come back and change their zoning too. They're in the density band around an activity center. Whether or not they choose to or not, I don't know. But I do know that maybe the approach is to look at unroofed accessory structures. So I'm trying to envision what would approach that height. And I really don't know what that would be on a multi - family. But if I've got a pool deck and some other minor lesser structures, maybe that's not the same issue as building another building. I don't know if that starts to approach your concern. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I guess we can discuss it here as a board. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Caron, we did discuss length of the building, and we were just waiting Page 6 of 24 a ti� I 427, 2011 for our client, he just got here. If you could accept 120 -foot length of a building, it won't get -- we'll break them up into 120 -foot increments, would be basically four -plex buildings, 30 -foot wide units, or -- you know, we would break it down to that. And then I think also from a -- it's a 30 -foot minimum from the perimeter for an accessory use under the table. So it's not all the way down to 20 feet so -- with the additional buffer. So hopefully breaking up the mass of the building to where it's not the 300 -foot building we had -- theoretically could do. And also the 500 -foot building on the other end. And hopefully that will address some of your concerns. COMMISSIONER CARON: So -- well, I mean, so then that leaves you with, for example, up against -- from the detention area to Cope Lane you could get two buildings in there with a 20 -foot separation. That's what you're going to try to -- that's the potential there, right? MR. ARNOLD: That's about right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, two buildings is the max, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it would be a wall with a 20 -foot separation. Okay. We'll have to talk about that as a board, I guess. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. And I'm going to have a lot of questions of staff when we get to that point with staff, so I'm going to defer the questions on the staff report to staff. And I'll start with just the PUD document, Page 1 of 9. MR. ARNOLD: Which page? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 1 of 9 in the PUD document. Item residential A, principal uses. Do you have any problems striking and eliminating numbers two, three and four? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I haven't seen where there's a compatibility analysis indicating why anything but single - family is compatible to a very low density Estates zoning. Estates is one unit per two and a half acres. You want to increase it. You have the right to ask for it, but I don't see how it's proven to be compatible, based on what you've supplied against the Estates zoning. So that's why I'm asking you to eliminate the uses that are certainly not in my opinion compatible to what the Estates people that are living there have right now. MR. ARNOLD: Can I respond? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think if you look just down Cope Lane on the north side adjacent to Falling Waters, those are also Estates zoned lots, I believe, single - family homes which lie adjacent to the multi - family units -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, mistakes of the past -- MR. ARNOLD: -- in Falling Waters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- don't have to be repeated in the future. MR. ARNOLD: I'm just saying that's a real live example that's there. But also keep in mind we've exceeded the Land Development Code buffer standard that's used between multi - family and single - family units. And we're restricted to height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Estates -- and you know I'm familiar with the Estates -- we have a buffer for dissimilar uses of 75 feet. I don't see 75 feet in the buffers you're offering here. And your multi - family is certainly a dissimilar use to the Estates low density. MR. ARNOLD: The only other response I would have to that, Mr. Strain, is the portion of the Estates you live in is governed by the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan. This area was -- even while it was zoned Estates, the Collier County Growth Management Plan designated this as a potential high density residential area with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Zoned Estates with existing P -- I'm just concerned about the property rights of the people that currently live there. They do have rights, they have what appear to be fairly nice homes. And to be backed up to a 40 -foot tall multi - family building, a cram-and-jam project just doesn't seem to be appropriate for the Estates zoning. So I'm real concerned about that. I think that the R zoning on the north side of that road where it goes north- south, it would be on the east side, Page 7 of 24 A-'7 �6' 2 April 7 2011 could all be limited to single - family. South of the road it's a little bit -- you've got plenty of buffer between the Estates homes. But at least on the north side of that road you ought to limit your uses to single - family. And obviously you don't have to agree, but that's a position that I'm concerned about. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because I'm directionally challenged, I want to make sure I got the right two areas you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two smaller R sections. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here and here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Would it be okay to have single - family detached and single - family attached zero lot lines on those two tracks, and eliminate the multi - family and the town homes from that? Because single- family attached is essentially a duplex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. And what happens is the game that's played, they get skinnier and skinnier. And then they have these common walls and they're really not single family anymore, even though they're technically sold as fee simple. I'm more concerned about having a tight project like that up against a very sparse area called the Estates. It just isn't fair. And if you had come in after -- say these people do eventually sell their homes -- they got nice homes, they may never want to. But say they eventually convert and decide more, they'll equally be restricted by what goes on your property as you should be as long as they're in place. So I'm looking at a compromise from my perspective to the north side of that road. But we have to stick to single - family. On the south side it doesn't make sense -- I mean on the north side doesn't make sense. South side you can have your uses. But that's how I would look at it. And obviously it's up to you as we go on with this program today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the development standards table on Page 3,1 heard you say something about a two -story, and I believe that applies to the multi - family. But you have a 40 -foot townhome allowed where -- you were indicating that two stories is a maximum for any use you'd have for any building on the property, right? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 7 under the fire code, are these -- 2 -A and 2 -B. Are these new fire codes? Are they not in existence at this time? MR. ARNOLD: I did not speak with the fire reviewer. I know that they had communication directly with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we got probably someone better than they at knowing the fire code. Brad, is 2 -A or 2 -13 current codes? Are these new codes yet to be written that no one knows about and that's why they're in our document? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think they're just reminder. Essentially they're current. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unfortunately with the fire department having the influence they have over plan review, I don't think anybody ever needs a reminder from that group, and I certainly don't think we ought to be cluttering our PUDs with the obvious. We're here to put -- a PUD is supposed to be creative, and that means you put things in the PUD that are not customarily found in our codes. Our codes stand on their own. And if we're going to repeat one code, we need to repeat the entire 300 pages of the code in here. So I am strongly against inserting the fire references here. They're a given. And I pity the people that have to deal with them in the future anyway. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, my comment was I don't recall ever being required to do it. We're required to comply with whatever the code is when we construct the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's exactly why it shouldn't be in here today, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I agree with that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe they'll get a message, if that's possible. I'll make a note before we go on. Kay, my application says Page 8 of 9 and it stops. For the record, is there a Page 9 of 9? Remember, I had asked you about this and you were going to research it? Page 8 of 24 161 k, 17, 211 MS. DESELEM: For the record, no, there is not a Page 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'll go back and renumber the pages so that the record looks complete, meaning Pages 8 of 8 will be the end of it -- MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the rest will be renumbered seven of eight, et cetera? MS. DESELEM: It will be correctly numbered, whatever that turns out to be, based on what happens today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the questions I have of the applicant at this time. Anybody else have any others? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I do want to ask. The preserve area to the south -- actually, is that a preserve area? Is that a Falling Waters preserve area to the south of your project? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. It's part of the Falling Waters PUD. It's just on our common southeast corner or -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, right. And it's a preserve for them, right? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the Water Management District didn't want you to connect -- MR. ARNOLD: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the two preserves. Oh, now there's a good one. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I wasn't involved in all that. Passarella and Associates was involved with the district agencies talking about native vegetation, but I think it had more to do with the quality of the vegetation that's near County Barn Road and also the fact that the county's going to be doing some drainage conveyance through that area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, who's going to do our presentation on behalf of staff? MR. BOSI: And also, there are two speaker slips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, after staff presentation. Thank you. And Mike, just out of curiosity, did Nick sign up for perpetual classes on Thursdays to avoid this board, or is that -- MR. BOSI: I am unaware of Nick's schedule. Mr. French may be able to answer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, regardless of who knows what it is, I'm sure that every Thursday is booked away from here. Go ahead, Kay. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. Again for the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. The staff report has been submitted for the record. It is a 17 -page -- hopefully that's the right number of pages -- document. It explains what the applicant's proposing, as he has also done beginning on Page 1 with a requested action, the geographic location, the purpose and description of the project. Continuing on to Page 2 with the surrounding land use and zoning with an aerial depiction of the property and the surrounding area. Beginning at the bottom of Page 2 is the growth management discussion, talking about the density. And it continues on Page 4 with the evaluation from the transportation element and the coastal -- I'm sorry, Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Staff is recommending that the project be found consistent. Staff has provided an analysis of the project, again including environmental review, transportation review and the fire review that you've already discussed their conditions. And a zoning services staff review that begins on Page 6 and continues through to Page 8 with the deviation discussion beginning on Page 9. Followed by the PUD and rezone fmdings of fact. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them in relationship to the staff report or anything else I can assist with. Page 9 of 24 ' 1612A7 1 April 7,2(111 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions of staff from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you want to ask the compatibility issue of staff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Kay, what do you -- did you ever question the compatibility of the higher density uses against the Estates zoning? And if so, what were your questions and what were (sic) the result of those questions? MS. DESELEM: Yes, staff had an e -mail interchange with the applicant regarding the density and what we thought might be a good solution. And then we came to a compromise. Initially we were asking for an increased buffer above and beyond what is proposed here for both the single - family and multi - family, and we came to an agreement amongst staff and the applicant to what you see before you now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you in agreement that a different buffer was offered? I think you had suggested 75 feet, as I had suggested today originally. MS. DESELEM: Yes. That was what we had suggested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question of traffic. And, you know, Mike's sitting back there hoping no one calls him. But I figured he's here, he might as well be used and abused. MR. GREENE: Michael Greene, Transportation Planning. I'm here to take my lumps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're in place of Nick, so -- under the County Barn Road impacts in the staff report on Page 5, the last sentence says the following: This segment of County Barn Road currently has the remaining capacity of a negative two trips and is currently level of service F, as reflected in the 2010 AUIR. You're recommending approval. Can you explain that? It seems a little odd that we have a failed road with no trips remaining, but we're approving a project to put trips on it and make it more failed. MR. GREENE: Correct. The applicant has worked very well with us to mitigate what trips they are generating. At the time the AUIR was created -- or the data that was used to create the AUIR that went into this report, the data collection was done in years prior to Santa Barbara Boulevard extension opening. Santa Barbara is now open and we're seeing a shift of traffic from County Barn to Santa Barbara. So I would expect that as we do our next AUIR, the data collection will capture almost a full year's worth of reassignment of trips over to Santa Barbara and that you'll not see a County Barn failing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what does that mean, just out of curiosity, in the long -term improvements that were going to be at one time done to County Barn? MR. GREENE: The long -term improvements in the long -range transportation plan are being reassessed. Instead of capacity improvements, I think you're seeing enhancements. So it may stay a two -lane road but it may have dedicated turn lanes, improved sidewalks, bike lanes, water management. Our stormwater department is moving forward with the pieces of L.A. S.I.P. along County Barn, which are box culvert and swale enhancements over the next year or so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fair enough. COMMISSIONER CARON: Believe me, all of that is needed on County Bam. It's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I was asking -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- very dangerous road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was hoping you hadn't scrapped improvements altogether because of Santa Barbara. And that's good to hear. Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's basically all I have at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I do have something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Kay, one thing we're going to do, we have a buffer requirement along the Estates of these existing houses, right? Do we essentially remove all the natural vegetation to build this buffer? Is there a way we could, because the setbacks are so great, keep the natural vegetation that's there? Which it looks like it's dense from the -- not this aerial but other aerials I've seen. MS. DESELEM: If I understand your question correctly, you want to know if they can retain the existing native vegetation in their buffer? Page 10 of 24 ti •i 1 ._'t 16 A, i a 6 Apri17, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Because it seems a shame to go through and just -- you know, we're putting setbacks of 30 feet minimum on the perimeter. It just seems a shame to go through and clean it all out and then plant new stuff with this buffer. MS. DESELEM: I think part of that depends upon the dynamics of the property as far as what they might have to do to improve the property. For example, if they have to go in and put a lot of fill in to bring it to a certain level, many times those plants won't survive if they're backfilled. But as far as I know, it's the applicant's prerogative if they wish to retain native vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't they have to meet the opacity requirements, and that therein lies the problem with a lot of native vegetation, unless it's Brazilian pepper, which is real thick on the bottom, the pines are pretty high. And so without a wall and the hedges and the other inner plantings of the trees that we insist on, the opacity doesn't provide any -- isn't enough and there's virtually no protection. Because the native stuff, which I have around my home and a lot of people do, the understory is real short. And it doesn't -- actually it doesn't give them as much protection as a good buffer would. MS. DESELEM: Usually it's a matter of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless it's wide. MS. DESELEM: Many times it's a matter of augmenting the native species that remain. So many times you see a really dense area, but in reality when you take out the exotics there usually isn't too much left. And like Mark says -- or Commissioner Strain says, it's very often the high upper story area rather than the low story that you actually see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, could they not just put the shrubs in? That's what's going to give them that low level. I mean, it just seems -- I mean, it's scary looking at this, because that's going to be -- the brown is actually going to be dirt one day that we're removing that. But if that's covered, that's covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think a well planted irrigated buffer is probably going to survive better than the native, especially with the amount of fill. Out by me I was watching a house go in and the guy was very careful to fill his pad. And he didn't want to fill where the trees were. He got in and tried to clear it out but he ran all the runoff where the trees were. And when he went in and cleared, the heavy machinery broke the roots of the shallowed pines. The next thing you know, within a couple of years the pines were all dying out, and he's got nothing. So as bad as it is to destroy the native, in some cases where you've got tight projects, you get more out of a well - planted buffer than you do out of native, if you're not going to go to a wider width. So that may end up being the best thing for the neighbors. MS. DESELEM: That mirrors what I've seen as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of staff before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how many public speakers? MR. BOSI: Two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two. And I saw both of you when the request was made to rise to be sworn in by the court reporter, the lady wasn't here and sir, you didn't rise, so we've got to do that again. And if you'd mind standing up and raising your right hand for the court reporter to swear you in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. RIFFLE: And the lady can go first, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A gentleman. Good. MR. BOSI: And the first speaker, according to the preference, is Shirley Riley, followed by Skip Riffle. MS. RILEY: I'm Shirley Riley. I live on Cope Lane. One point I wanted to make was none of us on our street was notified of this until the sign went up there. And that's why Skip and I are there, because we were never notified about it. The other thing I wanted to talk about was the entrance and exit of Cope Lane, that's the only way we have in and out. When Cope Lane was built, that's built as a private road, not a public road, so it's not built to handle this kind of traffic. All the other condos up and down County Barn Road, they have their entrance and exit right off of County Barn Road to handle that type of traffic. Okay, Cope Lane is not built to handle that kind of traffic. So I just thought -- the proper thing would be to change the entrance and exit, if this project goes forward. Page 11 of 24 a 16 1 Z A)7, 2011 And I do have to agree, we are all homes on this street; we're not looking to have more apartments or condos or townhouses. So as far as a single- family home, that sounds a lot better to us. Now, the buffer. When you were talking about the buffer -- now Falling Waters wraps around my house. And yes, they put up a buffer, but they put ficus trees. I have roots going all through my yard up to my house, through my sewer system, all sizes. They have went all the way from the buffer up to my house. Now, I'm sure you all know the roots are ruining everything. So their type of buffer is not the best buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe ficus have been prohibited in using them in buffers now in Collier County. Kay, can you verify that? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are ficus still allowed to be used in buffers in Collier County? MS. DESELEM: Not to my knowledge, sir. I believe they're a prohibited species. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that your issue is extremely relevant. And a lot of the older projects have done just what you're talking about and there are still problems in many of them today over what's happening with the ficus roots. MS. RILEY: Yeah, they're -- I'm digging them out of yard constantly. And I know the last hurricane went through, these ficus trees fell right into my yard. They're still there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MS. RILEY: Anybody got any questions for me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but we're going to follow up with transportation at least I know after we get done with public speakers. MS. RILEY: Okay. The other thing, where do we get these pamphlets that you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That young lady right there, looking with a surprise on her face. MS. DESELEM: Me. MS. RILEY: Okay. Because Skip and I would like to have one of those to refer to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, is that -- can you -- MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I missed that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They would like to get a packet of the information on this PUD so they can have it before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. MS. DESELEM: Certainly. I'd be more than happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Make sure if you could, you get ahold of Kay with your address and everything at some point, either after the meeting or by e -mail separately. MS. RILEY: And any further action on this property, can Skip and I be notified? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's going to be a Board of County Commissioners hearing on it, which will be the next action. Do we know when that is, Mike or Kay? MS. DESELEM: If I may, on the back of the staff report is the Board date. And hang on, I'm getting through it. I was trying to verify whether or not they had been notified. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It doesn't have a Board date. MS. DESELEM: Oh, it doesn't. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It does not. MS. RILEY: You know, Cope Lane doesn't have any sidewalks, bike paths, streetlights. Neither does County Barn Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got a -- we're going to be talking here to transportation in a minute and ask them what the upgrade requirements are going to be. And hopefully that may address some of those issues. But we'll find out to what extent our codes require them to be addressed. If it isn't in the code, it's harder to get it done, but we'll find out. Did you find out about the date? MS. DESELEM: According to Wayne, he believes it is the 24th of May. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: And I can verify that either by phone or e-mail to the two interested parties. Page 12 of 24 f �q 1612 a4 77„1, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 24th of May, and it will be in these chambers. That meeting starts I believe at 9:00? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they'll be probably a time -- if this is on the consent, you'll have to request it to be pulled. So -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: June 14th. It's on the other page where they had signed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So which is it, May 24th or June 14th? MS. DESELEM: It should be June 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So ma'am, that's another correction. June 14th is the date in front of the board. Thank you. MS. RILEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. RIFFLE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Skip Riffle. I also am a resident of Cope Lane. I might bring up, and I haven't heard it anywhere here, but Cope Lane has never been accepted by the county. It has been entirely maintained by the residents. Before the blacktop was there we would have to hire a grader to come down and knock the potholes out so that we could get in. Falling Waters had agreed to bring the road up to county spec if the residents had granted them an access for the destruction of that section of Falling Waters that buts up against Cope Lane. And we did so under the conditions that they would bring the road up to county specs. They immediately came in, shoved down an inch cap of blacktop after just grading the existing road, which is by no means straight, and we said now, wait a minute, that isn't bringing it up to county specs. They said well, there's no sense doing it now when we're going to have construction vehicles coming in, big trucks filled with dirt and so forth and concrete mixers and all that. But as soon as that's done, then we'll redo it. Well, in the meantime they sold -- Hubschman sold the -- a property back to the owners association. And when they finished up, we had to demand that they put -- remove their gate entrance or chain link and put up a fence. And then we asked them about the road and they said, oh, listen, that was your agreement with Hubschman, it's not our agreement, we don't have to stand by it. And I still contend that it's in the public records that that was to be done and it never was. So with that being said, we are a bit suspicious of any project going in, and leery of it, as driving down Cope Lane you see your residential homes and then all of a sudden you see a chain link fence and the multi - family dwellings existing in the back of Falling Waters. They even refuse the fact that they own to the middle of the road, as the road was at one time deeded to the county. We as residents had to purchase the property from one of the residents there that didn't want to assign the right -of -way to make -- turn the road over to Collier County. So we had to buy him out. We did and turned over all of the deeds to Collier County. And to this day, they -- nobody knows where they're at. And we have searched for them and it is -- nobody has them, nor do we. So that brings up another issue. But Falling Waters technically, if you don't look at that, they own to the middle of Cope Lane. They refuse to clean their section of the road. The debris from the last hurricane is still laying on the road. The swale for the drainage runoff is still laying in the drainage, blocking it. We had a street cleanup, as their hedges were leaning so far into the road we were restricted to one lane. And we went through and cut all that and removed it so that we could pass. Cope Lane is -- has been a problem for a long time. The county has now come through and surveyed for swales to drain the water off along the north side of Cope Lane, down to Santa Barbara where they have put in the canal system. And I'm really not even opposed to that. But why all of a sudden it's been -- traditionally the drainage was to the south side of Cope Lane, and now that the county's come in -- actually since this project has started up and has changed the drainage off to the north side of it, which incidentally, the north side of Cope, right across from the two 'W's there, there is a lake and that's a groundwater retention pond owned by the county. So that's the first 640 -- 660 feet of Cope Lane that the county owns to the middle of the road. All right? So therein lies the problem that we are very concerned with the additional traffic coming in on the road for Page 13 of 24 1612 A7April 7, 20 1 this development where the road was never at all constructed for that amount of traffic. There's only, what is it, eight homes? MS. RILEY: Nine. MR. RIFFLE: Nine homes on Cope Lane right at the present time. And, you know, we're very, very concerned about this issue. And if it's brought up and to the point to be Cope Lane developed just to their entrance, I think the road needs to be looked at in its entirety, if any improvements are made for it. I realize you haven't discussed this with transportation yet, but please figure that in. The other thing is I had put my house up for sale here a while back, which that was a wasted effort. But I went and paid for the appraisal. And when they did the appraisal, they took in everything within a quarter of a mile of our home that's being sold, and that took in all of the multiple family homes in Falling Water and greatly reduced the value of our properties. This part concerns us also. Single - family, well, hey, you can't stop progress altogether but, you know, we'd like to slow it up. And the multiple family issue does go in and concerned us as far as our property values. Did I miss anything, Shirley? MS. RILEY: That's pretty good. MR. RIFFLE: Well, thank you very much. And I appreciate all your concerns and your questions. Mr. Strain, I like the fact that you doled into that packet and its depth and found a couple of questions that I had wanted to ask too. And thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Skip? Yeah, just a thought with regard to the effort to dedicate the road. Whether you transfer the deeds and they were not accepted and lost and whatever, you might think about going and having a search done of the records to find your deeds and have copies made. And if the county doesn't have ownership of that land, then you have ownership of that land. So you have some leverage there, I believe. That might help you with regard to some other factors. MR. RIFFLE: And, you know, we don't mind working with the folks, but so far we have had no notification, any of us, except for the sign that's gone up on the property. And, you know, I keep hearing that staff has researched this and that on it. Well, then the research is just in their office and not with the people that live there. And that kind of bothers me that they didn't contact anyone in the area. I mean, these folks have to understand that Estates means that if we want to put chickens and horses and pigs and stuff like that out there, that's part of Estates. Not that we do -- well, some of us have a couple of things. But, you know, this is a drastic change to our lifestyle and those of us who have lived there for in excess of 30 years. And I appreciate your looking out after us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And by the way, in lieu of a deed, you may find that there are easements for that road. One of them was somewhat in the packet that I was given, referenced -- at least I asked for it. I went to county records and pulled it. It's OR Book 877, Page 851. So if you were to pull that easement, you'll see that's part of a road easement. And there probably are others, but that one happened to be on the property in question today. MR. RIFFLE: It was interesting that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the mic, sir. MR. RIFFLE: It was interesting that when we went to the county and asked them to accept the County Bam Road for the maintenance and all that, that they instructed us that we would have to deed our property to them, because there was nothing at the time on that. And if they since had that, then again we don't know anything about it, all right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. We'll have transportation come up right now and try to explain Cope Lane, Cope Road or all the circumstances involving everything you've just heard. MR. RIFFLE: Thank you. MR. GREENE: Michael Greene, Transportation Planning. And everything in between. All the property owners are still the underlying property owners where Cope Lane sits. You are correct, there Page 14 of 24 j 2 kr7, 2011 is public right -of -way. That is an easement. Easement dedicated to public access doesn't mean that the county maintenance is going to take over the responsibility to maintain the road. If you go to our ordinance that's being proposed, seven of nine -- or seven of eight, item two, transportation, letter B. Under developer commitments, it's very clear that the developer will be improving Cope Lane, including sidewalks and bike lines. MS. RILEY: How far down? MR. GREENE: All the way to the property corner, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, you can't -- please, Mike, you've got to -- MR. GREENE: The question was how far or how much of Cope Lane they were going to be improving. They will be improving it along their entire property frontage, which extends beyond their driveway. The county will be reviewing these plans to make sure that that design and construction is up to current county standards, which includes the amenities that they've been asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the base and limerock thickness and the asphalt thickness? All that will be to a county standard of what cross - section? MR. GREENWOOD: That I'm not sure. We'll have to take a look at a projected annual daily traffic before we get into base and pavement design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the minimum? MR. GREENE: Usually you have eight inches of compacted lime. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the minimum design cross - section you were designed to? I mean, I think I know the answer, but I want to have you tell me. MR. GREENE: Pavement design or width of the roadway that's in the corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The county has a series of road designs in the applicable section of our -- I believe it's the LDC, or reference to the LDC, and they actually show the cross - sections. MR. GREENE: Because of the water management, this would likely be a section of urban corridors. So you'll have vertical curb and gutter. It will drain to the pond sites. A minimum of 12 -foot lanes, four foot on- street bike lanes. Because this is not considered an arterial, it would be allowed five -foot sidewalks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you just said they would take it to the end of their property, which I think is appropriate. But the document says they will take it to the driveway. MR. GREENE: There is an allowed transition area from a full county - approved section to taper it back down to the existing Cope Lane ribbon of asphalt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting, Mike. So we're finding new things out here. So when it says: The developers, its assessors or assigns, agrees to improve Cope Lane, including any turn lanes warranted by this project from County Barn to site driveway as part of the first SDP or plat. Now, some people may read that, an attorney -- I don't know if there's any attorney in the room or not. But an attorney may read that like it just stops and turns dirt after it hits that driveway. I want to know specifically for the record what these people can expect on that road and how far they can expect it. MR. GREENE: The applicant just committed to the improvements all the way to their property line. So the transition would start from their property line as you move to the east. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Transition to what? MR. GREENE: To what's there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's not an improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the improvements will be to the county minimum cross - section. Is that correct? MR. GREENE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the improvements will basically -- if the road doesn't have the thickness of the limerock that it needs, and the base, the right base, the right limerock, the right asphalt, the curbing, the sidewalks, all that's going to be put in -- all the way to the property line, to the easternmost property line, and from there you'll start your taper back to Cope Lane. MR. GREENE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's as fair as it can get. I mean, I don't think there's an obligation for the Page 15 of 24 1612 NApl, 2011 developer of this property to go beyond his property, but I certainly think it's up to the property line, so I think that's a good compromise. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Who's going to taper it? MR. GREENE: The developer will be responsible for the taper as part of their construction. And that can be completed inside the easements that exist for Cope Lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, are you going to rewrite the language that's in the list of developer commitments so it reads like we've just discussed prior -- MR. GREENE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the consent hearing so we have it at consent? MR. GREENE: We will clarify that in this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure it's as clear as it needs to be so we don't have any confusion at consent. I think that helps a lot with the Cope Lane clarification. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Mike. Normally we don't, but come on back up. We haven't got a full house today so we can fit you in. MS. RILEY: You know, to this day residents of Falling Waters to this day use Cope Lane for jogging, biking, walking. Everyday. You go down there, they may not live right on Cope Lane, but they use it. We don't say anything, we let them. Now, if this residence goes in and they're willing to put a sidewalk only on their property, everybody in there will also be using the entire Cope Lane for walking, jogging, biking. We have no problem with that. But they have to remember, all them residents will be using that entire road, not that little piece that they're talking about improving, the entire thing. When Falling Waters was being built, I had 18- wheelers in my yard, turning around in my yard, because they were trying to find the entrance of Falling Waters. I had flat beds of bricks. The trucker did not know where to turn in, he ended up in my yard. So the amount of traffic that turns around in Skip's driveway and my yard, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand your dilemma, but it is a -- from what Mike just said, it's a public right -of -way. May not be as improved as an improved public right -of -way, but be that as it may, they have a right to use the road. As far as how it can get improved by Falling Waters to the agreement that you guys already seem to have with them, that's something in the past. We don't have -- I don't know if we have a right to enforce. I don't know if it's a private agreement or public agreement. Maybe Mike can answer that for us. MS. RILEY: You know, Skip and I, we go up and down the road to pick up the trash, the litter, trimming the bushes. It goes on and on, the maintenance, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I appreciate it and we understand, we'll do the best we can. So thank you very much. MS. RILEY: And I've asked many times for County Barn Road to have bike paths or sidewalks, because right down from it under the power lines they've got what, eight foot. They just recently put in blacktop. Put it on a road where we all will benefit from it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the improvements are scheduled. That's what we acknowledged earlier. MS. RILEY: I just hope it works in my lifetime. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do too. I do too. Mike, can you verify whether the right -of -way on Cope Lane is public or private? MR. GREENE: The right -of -way on Cope Lane to my knowledge, and through research when we were doing Santa Barbara extension, has easements that have been dedicated for public right -of -way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The agreement that apparently or does or may exist between Falling Waters, is that between the county and Falling Waters or Falling Waters and private residences? MR. GREENE: I am not aware of any agreements that Falling Waters has in place for any improvements or use of Cope Lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you, as part of the consent item, find out if there are any? And if there are, Page 16 of 24 i} 16 1 Ar,77,2011 they need to be included as a developer commitment to be -- so that they're enforced. If they're not a public document -- if not a document between the developer and the county, then I don't think we have a concern over it. But if it's one that is already in existence, I don't know why it hasn't been, should I say, enforced. So could you get those answers for us by consent? MR. GREENE: I will try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GREENE: And if I feel like we're kind of walking a line between a possible code enforcement issue if there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I -- MR. GREENE: -- some agreements that are recorded that haven't been fulfilled -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to make a correct -- MR. GREENE: -- review side for a different project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to make a correction on my prior statement. It's not something we will add to this commitment, because this is a separate PUD. But it is something I think we need to know by consent. And it would be certainly interesting to have that information by the time it goes to the BCC. MR. GREENE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Mr. Greene. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Greene, is Cope Lane -- how far is it going to go, or is it going to dead end? MR. GREENE: Cope Lane right now goes all the way down to within about 60 feet of Santa Barbara extension. It's not actually connected. And with the improvements to Santa Barbara and the canal extension, it is actually possible to drive off the east end of Cope and connect to Santa Barbara. I mean, it's not officially set up as an interconnection, but as time progresses and as more development happens in this area, because of the easements in place and because of access management setting intersections at such intervals, Cope Lane will eventually connect between County Barn and Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, the Falling Waters project, if you get a chance, maybe you could help Mike and look at the PUD and see if the commitments in that PUD have any relationship to Cope Lane, and that might help him along in his review of any kind of commitments to the county. MS. DESELEM: It would be my pleasure to work with Mike to find out what we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of anybody at this point? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was just going to comment that you may have to look back at minutes, not just the PUD itself. A lot of things in the past didn't make it into PUD's that were supposed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as long as we have something enforceable, and if it isn't (sic) been done, we need to at least have that report available to the BCC so they know it when they review this project. MR. RIFFLE: One point that might be of help -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to limit it, sir, otherwise we'd be back and forth all day long. Okay, with that, any other questions of anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The park --or the street in there bothers me. If they could just provide parking. To me it's -- you've got 43 units and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a list of questions that I guess I was going to go over with Richard -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before we ask for a vote. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's start with that one. Page 17 of 24 1461 kA r 7, 2011 How do you want to address Diane Ebert's concern? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, my recollection is regardless of the width of the right -of -way, whether it's 60 feet or 50 feet, the pavement width is essentially going to be the same. It's not covered by that. And my understanding is that the county codes prohibit on- street parking within subdivision streets. So it's never addressed in the standard provision in the first place. All we're simply saying is instead of requiring us to go to 60 feet of width to put the same width of pavement in, let us go to 50 feet and we're going to address utilities. And it's not an engineering related issue. And frankly it really ought to be changed in the Land Development Code, because I don't know of a project really that is a -- a development that has gone through in the last I don't know how many years where we haven't asked for this deviation and gone through the same explanation that the width of the right -of -way doesn't change the width of the pavement. And we're not allowed to put on -street parking in the first place. So I can't -- that's my response, is I'm stuck with it what (sic) it is. Even if you left it at 60 feet I would have the same width of pavement and I would have no on -street parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You provoke a question. Reminiscent of a recent activity that we had, we have under Pages 1 of 9, Exhibit A, for Cope accessory uses, recreational facilities such as parks, playgrounds and pedestrian bikeways. And I'm not sure, given what I see for a projected development, that you have room for hardly any of that. But as that relates -- or does it relate? I see parking, and you're right, you're not going to be on the street. But there wouldn't be anything wrong with taking a slug of land, a parcel of land, a small amount, that could accommodate say six, 12 -- six, eight, 12 vehicles and put it into an area where visitors could park. Because I'm looking at this number two item, recreational facilities. I don't think you're going to have any, okay, so I think this should probably go out of there. Either that or be proofed. And if you want to be helpful in terms of accommodating visitors somewhere along there, perhaps you can do it within the dry detention area. You're only talking about a penetration of what, 20 feet for parking. So in other words you have a road and then you have a portion and then you have people can drive in those -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We will -- if we do have recreational facilities -- and it's an option, it's not a requirement, unlike the reference to a different project -- those recreational facilities will be required to meet the county's Land Development Codes regarding parking related to those recreational facilities. We will meet the county's parking requirements regarding whatever type of development we put in here. And we'll get to the issue multi - family versus single - family. But if it were 100 percent single - family development, the code requires I believe it is two parking spaces, or des -- you have your required parking related to the code. We will meet that requirement. We have not asked for any deviations from that. And there's not a community around town that on special events if you do have a party at your house wherever you live you're going to have the occasional parking related issue. But generally it's not an issue. You park your cars in the garage and your guests can park in your driveway. And we wouldn't -- we're not asking for anything different than the code already allows and already provides for in our community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm going to just respond once and say this: You have units that are 800 square feet in size. Anybody who's going to live there permanently is going to come -- need wall stretchers to function eventually, because people tend to store things. Where do they logically store it? In their garage. That puts their vehicle outside. Now, I wasn't concerned really with single - family homes, because those do accommodate generally. But my concern is for multiple family homes. And many times people come down here in the summer, if they rent or if they live there, they have two cars. And that puts a real strain on a community. My only advocation here is to try to help alleviate some of the problems associated with such a narrow and pretty tight type of development. Ordinarily I wouldn't have a great argument on it, but I think in fairness that it should be considered. And I know Commissioner Caron had indicated previously that maybe we should start considering these things. I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but I would say to you I would think that you might want to look at where you could accommodate, especially in the areas that I'm referring to, which is the multi - family units. That's Page 18 of 24 1 � x n i � 2011 6 April/, f 2 where your predominance of problems are. And, you know, I will tell you this: When there -- forget the party part of it. When it's season and when people have the typical situation, you're going to have vehicles in the road. MR. YOVANOVICH: And Wayne has pointed out to me that for multi - family there are code requirements regarding guest parking and loading. So that is -- that will be addressed and we will provide for with -- if a multi - family portion of the project is in fact developed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there are some other issues. One of them we have made a note on is unroofed accessory. I think there was a volunteer commitment that the setback I think along the Estates zoned areas where you have an accessory going closer than the principal structure, that accessory would be on the roof in that closer space. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're talking about screen enclosures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unroofed. Meaning unroofed, no hard roof, no tile roof, no roof to match the house. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In response to one of the other commissioners, you indicated where and if there is multi - family, it would not exceed 120 feet in width. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, let me ask this question now, now that we have -- and we have offered up and are prepared to offer up in response to your comments, Commissioner Strain, that on -- everything north of the road, it would be limited to single - family. Not attached single- family but single - family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. MR. YOVANOVICH: So is there a need at this point to really address the size of the multi - family building? Because I think that was in relation to those two particular parcels, because they were adjacent to existing Estates homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's bring that -- Ms. Caron brought that up. Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: I hate leaving things wide open so that you can have that entire stretch one big long building. I mean, I can't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: At some point you've got to let the market -- the market's not going to let me build a building that starts at the -- I guess at Cope Lane and wind its way all the way around the south lane of that road. It's just not going to happen. And I know your concern was there's going to be a wall right next to these other single- family homes -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, right, of parking. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and I think we've taken care of that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you have definitely taken care of that problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I would like some flexibility on what -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know why we need multi - family in there to begin with, but -- so I have an issue with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I mean, if you -- that's a good point. I mean, where is the need for multi - family at all? I mean, if you want multi - family, and Ms. Caron has a concern, you might want to address that with a limitation, or just take out the multi - family. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's your call. Do you want a minute to talk with your client? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Are we going to have other comments so maybe we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- can go on through and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go through them all, then we'll take a short break and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you can finish up. You had said that there'd be a two -story maximum. That would be for basically any use then? Page 19 of 24 1612 7 April 7, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, that was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to remove the fire code references. Mike Greene is going -- you're going to work with Mike Greene when you come back for consent. We're going to understand the -- more specifically where the Cope Lane road improvements -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll bring it all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- begin and end at and how they taper off. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the way to our east property line that fronts Cope Lane and then taper from there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- as the intent of the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be part of the list of requirements. We'll refine that one. In that process, though, I would like to make sure that staff includes the cross - section that they intend to use. We have a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just a reference so that nobody goes down the road not knowing what they're supposed to do. Then the only other thing that isn't really part of the PUD but that will be done by consent is the discussion that Mike -- or the research that Mike and Kay will do to determine where Cope Lane's commitments are versus requirements that were committed to the county. MR. YOVANOVICH: But that's unrelated to us, it's just an informational item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be information only, but the information is relevant to Cope Lane in regards to other projects that may not have met their commitments. And I think if the commissioners that this go to next are aware of commitments not met, it might help them understand what they've got to do to make sure Cope Lane is safe. So I think it all -- seeing as how it's the same developer, it all comes together. With that, I think that's the only notes I have. Paul? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not the same developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Not the same developer of Falling Waters? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Because Falling Waters is -- was sold to -- I forget, I think it was TransArnerica at the time. And then -- in'98 I think it was, in the Nineties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who got the PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: But the point is, is the development was -- it's binding on the successor developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but who negotiated the PUD for Falling Waters; do you know? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it wasn't you. I think it was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, I don't know. But my point is, is the beef is with the successor developer who didn't follow through with the commitment on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we ought to at least find out the status of those commitments. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my point -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I hear it. We're on the same page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what my point is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If the north side of the development is going to only go to single - family, how much of a reduction in the number of dwelling units from 43 would that lead to? MR. YOVANOVICH: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a density viewpoint, I mean, they're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's only three units an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure it matters if they pile the density on smaller units across the road, but as long as the Estates low density is protected, I think that's the argument I was going to make, Paul. If they can't use the 43 units, so what? Page 20 of 24 + Y f \ 16 i t A riA 2011 P , That's kind of -- other than that, anybody else have any comments, anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, do you want to -- it's 10:15, let's take a -- because we do have a follow -up item that might take a little bit of time, not too much. A very little bit of time? Okay, let's just take a 10- minute break, we'll come back at 10:25, okay? (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please take their seats, we'll get back in session. Okay, Richard, what was your discussion? Or what parts of it do you want to reveal on record? MR. YOVANOVICH: We've all agreed that we've lived here too long, and things have changed. I believe we would be addressing a huge majority of the issues by going to single - family for the project. There are still -- and I want to make it real clear that remember, the enhanced buffer we were talking about was related to if we did a multi - family project. So we would expect to put in the buffer that would be typically there for a single- family buffer, because I think we had -- the enhanced type C buffer, if you will, was related to a multi - family type project, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's what you're going to go by, then we need to see the differences between the buffers and where you're intending to apply those so that the record's clear and that we -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if it's an entirely single- family project, why would we not just agree to the typical -- and Wayne, remind me what letter it is. I think a Type A buffer is what's required single - family to single - family. And so we would provide the Type A single - family buffer, single - family to single - family. And I think what would really make the residents happy is if the county would accept maintenance of this public road. Obviously we're going to improve it to the east edge of our property that fronts Cope Lane and taper it down. But I think the residents are saying if this is really a public road, why is the county not maintaining this public road. But that's an issue that I don't think they really necessarily have with us, but that's an issue that still lingers out there, even after we agree on the going to single - family. So I just felt it's fair to put that on the record that that issue is unresolved but it's not something that I think they acknowledge I can't fix that, I can only control the single - family use on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, the idea of going to the A buffer versus a B, an A buffer is 15 feet, it has trees at 25 feet on center and it has number 10 shrubs, four -foot on center, 60 -inch height at planting. An A buffer is 10 feet, 30 -foot trees on center, that's it. Now, again we're back to the north side of that road. I'm very protective of those Estates lots. I can't see why a B buffer wouldn't work better for you from a marketing viewpoint. MR. YOVANOVICH: North of the road, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The two small "R" parcels. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then your A is the balance, because you're going up against a school and other uses to the south that are irrelevant for that regard. Okay, so if we do that, if we go with the B buffer on the north and the A on the south, and we go with all single - family, that's easy enough to correct. The unroofed accessory structure issue goes away. The length goes away. The two -story max, well, that's the same regardless of the use so you're not going to go beyond that. And the Cope Lane road improvements are the same. So I think that kind of certainly does make it a lot better project. A lot better project. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How many units per acre will you have then? MR. YOVANOVICH: Still three. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Still three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What they can build and what they ask for, it's kind of irrel -- going to single - family, you know, it automatically might force a lower density anyway, so -- Page 21 of 24 16 It A 7 April 7, 2011 Anybody have any concerns, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that kind of fixes a lot of our issues. Okay. Well, then, I think we'll be looking for a motion to approve this recommendation for approval on the basis of all single- family lots which would basically be the single - family only column from the development standards table. That would be the fast column. MS. DESELEM: Excuse me. If I can, would you clarify if it's single - family detached or attached? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first column on the development standards table is only for one use. MS. DESELEM: And what about the buffer to the east property line where the cul -de -sac is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the buffer to the east, where it -- south of the road it wouldn't matter. North of the road it would have to be the B buffer. South of the road would be the A buffer. And that's the most -- that would be the stipulations to the motion, single - family and correction to the A and B buffer and the issue on Cope Lane that we've already discussed. With that in mind, is there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion by anyone? Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the stipulations as recommended and with the recommendations -- well, staff doesn't have any. So it would just be our stipulations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray would second it. Other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion as discussed, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Well, that sure is a turnaround, Richard. I didn't think you'd be getting on sunmnary under any terms. But that's good. And I think that certainly does make it a lot better for the neighborhood, so we appreciate your cooperation today. It's a better project for everybody. MR. RIFFLE: And we want to cooperate with them too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Be careful, he's listening. Okay, thank you all. And with that, that's the end of our advertised public hearings. We have one item left of new business. * ** 1 I .A, it's the Comprehensive Planning Section staff requesting coordination for the availability of Collier County Planning Commission for upcoming special CCPC meetings. Okay, Michael. MR. BOSL• Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gentlemen, if you could take your conversation out in the hall. Mr. Riffle? You guys, we're hearing too much of your conversation. Could you do it out in the hall, if you don't mind? MR. RIFFLE: Thank you all very much. Page 22 of 24 e a � 161 t TA7,7011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager. Consistent with my section's long -range planning direction and focus, we are here asking you guys to look out into your calendars six to 12 to 18 months to just allocate space and time available for special projects that comprehensive planning staff is managing related to the AUWCIE for the 2011, but also the Growth Management Plan amendments associated with the EAR -based amendments. As designated on the spreadsheet that was provided with the attachment that was distributed to the Planning Commission, September 29th and 30th would be the two dates reserved for the AUIR/CIE. The 10th -- or October 14th and 18th of the 2011 would be reserved for the GMP amendment workshop that was requested by the Planning Commission during the hearing of the EAR -based amendments. So then that would be followed by January 26th and 27th of 2012, which would be the transmittal hearing for those GMP EAR -based amendments that we had discussed during the workshops. And then finally for the GMP -- or the EAR -based GMP amendment adoptions, it would be August 30th and 31 st of 2012. There's not a tremendous amount of leeway or discretion that I've provided to you in terms of optional dates, just because what -- the constraints of what I tried to do was try to schedule these special dates outside of the weeks where you would have your regularly scheduled Planning Commission dates, but also with those off weeks when this room was available. One of the changes that we've had for the past, I think that this board has shown an appreciation for, that we would not be having that 609 -610 in growth management as we have for the AUIR in the past. But because we're only going to hear it as a single body, the CCPC, that we could have the ALWCIE presentations in these chambers this year as well. Like I said, there's not a lot of options in dates. Really I'm just asking you for consent that these dates would be appropriate and you can, you know, hopefully adjust your schedules as needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm worried about the ones in 2012. I mean, that's not enough notice. Michael, if a schedule stays in place that long, more power to you. Because I can't imagine that. And also for reference, I think from the Planning Commission's perspective in regards to 609 -610, that's a great room to use for workshops, workshops that aren't necessarily needing court reporters or television cameras. And the reason I'm saying that is that room's most problem is that it's not set up. And every time we have to set it up for one of our regular hearings, it's a pretty big cost. And so I appreciate your effort to go through to schedule all these here. I think that works out well. And as a tentative schedule I think it's fine. Everybody satisfied? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know if they can make it to the one in 2012? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm definitely going to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, is there anything else? MR. BOSI: No, other than I appreciate the opportunity, you know. And like I said, they are long range in advance, but because of the demands and because of the unique nature of these projects, it requires this type of long -range planning, and it's something -- we appreciate the consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I just appreciate that they're all in the BCC chambers. That makes a big difference for this. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and that's the last item on today's agenda. Motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and seconded by Melissa. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 23 of 24 t 16 12 A 7 April 7, 2011 /COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. / COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you, guys. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:35 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 0 al�t Pi Kz MARF STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on �' �' t ( as presented �r as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 24 of 24 16 1 A 7APril 2 I't I 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 21, 2011 ,v BY. ............... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County or Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Mark Strain, Chairman ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, Collier County Page 1 of 72 Misc. Corres: Date: °k \\"►\ \ item Melissa Ahern Donna Reed -Caron Fiala Diane Ebert Hiller Karen Homiak Hennin Barry Klein Coyle Paul Midney Coletta Bob Murray Brad Schiffer ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, Collier County Page 1 of 72 Misc. Corres: Date: °k \\"►\ \ item 7 April fi�, 2011 16 12 A CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, April 21 st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron? 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: ** *Addenda to the agenda. One big announcement I'd like to make is that the first item up, which is the Quail Creek II PUD, it's Petition PUDZA- PL 1891, has been continued indefinitely. So if you're here for that petition today, we will not hear it. Save you all time of waiting through a long meeting today. Are there any other changes to the agenda anybody knows about? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred Reischl. Why are you here? When I see you, I think uh -oh, administrative code. Now, that will take longer to get through than the fertilizer ordinance will today. So that's not being added at the last minute to the agenda, okay, good. But it's good to see you, Fred. Even though you might mean some intense study down the road here. ** *Okay, with that we'll move on to Planning Commission absences. And our next meeting is our first meeting in May, May 5th. Does anybody know if they're going to miss that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Only at noon to go out for prayer day. On our break -- lunch break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. If you're assuming we're going to go to lunch that day. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Most days we finish up in the morning, so -- ** *Okay, approval of minutes from March 17th, 2011. They were sent to us in our e-mail. Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer moved. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. Page 2 of 72 '- 1612 A7APril 2112011 COMMISSIONER HOMLAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. By the way, about the approval of minutes, they do come to us at our county e -mail site. Those of you who may have noticed last night, if you tried to check in your e-mail, you're locked out. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they started a new security program that every three months you have to change your password. But from what I understand, to change your password you have to be on the county's intranet. In order to do that, you've got to come to the county to tie into one of the computers at the county. So every three months, all of us, from what I understand, have to come to the county. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I just called IT and they reset it for me. I didn't have to come in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. Because the e -mail they sent, it seemed to indicate you have to come in and use it -- change it on the intranet. So now you can call them up? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes, so call IT, and they can reset it for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and that works. Good information, because that's what we have to do then. So when you all try to check your e-mail, call up IT department, go over the password change with them. They'll -- I assume then they'll type in the new password and give you the new password. We'll all have to probably do that every three months, from what I read for the new security. It's a good idea, so it's -- I just wish it was simpler to put in place. But regardless, we'll get it done. ** *Chairman's report. I have one comment, and it's about the Quail Creek R project. Mr. Yovanovich, is he here? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, when you bring that back, would you mind bringing the ordinance back in a complete document with the strike - throughs in the complete document? Because what you provided now was only the sections of the old document that was struck through. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you want to see how the general information of the old document read, you have to flip back to another ordinance and flip back and see how the new stuff fits in. So before this stuff comes back to us, could you just put it all in one big document. It would be easier to do it that way. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, what we did is the strike -- the process we're following is the strike - through and underline process for amending the PUD. So that's why you got it in the format that you got it in. But we can go back and show it in context for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd still -- the strike - through is still the right process -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, we can put it in the whole -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but put it in the whole document. It's like a -- maybe it's a 13 or 20 -page document. And, you know, by just using the excerpts you wanted to, it limits a few pages, but it's harder to read. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be much handier to have it -- look at it that way. Okay, that takes care of -- there's no -- there's no consent items today from our last meeting, which brings us right to our first advertised -- COMMISSIONER CARON: BCC recap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: * * *Oh, yeah. Ray do you have a BCC recap? I'm sorry. Thank you, Donna. MR. BELLOWS: On April 12th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the Addie's Corner PUD rezone and the PUD amendment for the Naples Daily News. Both those items were approved on the summary agenda. Page 3 of 72 es 16 12 A 7. April 21, 2 11 The Board continued the Olde Cypress DRI and PUD amendment and the HDPUD amendment to April 26th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, now we'll move into our first and only advertised public hearing. It's and by the way we'll -- after this one we go into what's considered old business, and that's where the fertilizer and watershed management ordinance are. So we'll go to those next. The advertised public hearing that's up right now is for Petition PUDZ- PL2009 -2496. It's Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church. It's on the south side of Oil Well Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I spoke with Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER CARON: Also. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Me too. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Me too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you catch that show of hands? And I did as well. So short conversation, but nonetheless, it was a conversation. So with that, Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. With me representing the church are Tom Gemmer, who's been involved through the Comprehensive Plan amendment stage to today on behalf of the church; Bob Duane and George Hermanson with Hole- Montes, they're the planner and engineer for the project; and Ted Treesch is our transportation consultant for the project. You have recently, within the last year or so, seen the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the mission subdistrict. And we are now at the stage of adopting the PUD zoning to implement the Comp. Plan amendment for the mission subdistrict. So a lot of this will be hopefully familiar. And my presentation will be brief, since it's been heard recently by you all. The request is to rezone approximately 21 or 22 acres to the CFPUD for the Emmanuel Lutheran church project. The request is -- and you all have up on this -- on the board up there the aerial that shows the acreage for the property. And I'll put on the visualizer the master plan for the project, as soon as I find out where I put it. There it is. The request is to rezone the property for 90,000 square feet of uses, and that's cumulative uses. That will include a 300 - person child care and adult day care facility rooms for various outreach programs related to the church, a 450- student private school and then the church building itself. These were all uses that were specifically discussed as part of the mission subdistrict. And as your staff report analyzes, they are -- our PUD is consistent with those requests of the Comprehensive Plan. I wanted to just kind of highlight a few changes and discussions I had with members of the Planning Commission and how we would plan on implementing them in the documents that come back as part of the consent portion of this, assuming the Planning Commission agrees with the comments we received in our one -on -ones. As you can see in the green area, I put a line that's to the west and south of the playfields. As you could tell from the aerial, we actually have -- that's where our adjacent neighbors are. So a concern was raised, what would be the noise that would come from children playing on those fields and would it disturb those neighbors. So we propose to put a wall where I've labeled it green on the master plan to address concerns for the immediate neighbors. As you can see, the rest of the surrounding properties are basically -- are vacant. And with our setbacks that are in our PUD of a minimum of 75 feet, and as you can see from the master plan, the buildings are even further back than that, we think we've addressed any compatibility concerns by locating the wall in the areas that I'm mentioning on this -- or highlighting on the master plan. You'll see some green dots in the middle of the master plan. Those are actually -- I was asked what are those, because there's, you know -- there's boxes around the boxes that indicate the buildings. And I had thought that that was actually lawn area and green space area, and I was actually right. The narrow areas are actually the sidewalks, so we were showing kind of, you know, sidewalk circulation, and that's what created those boxes that led to the question about what exactly are those boxes. So that's kind of lawn Page 4 of 72 16L2 A7 Apriil 1, 2011 area and green space planting areas on the site. I was asked a question on Page 3 of 9, which is in Exhibit B. The question I was asked is the minimum distance between principal structures. It says half of the building height. And I was asked is that half of the actual building height or is that half of the zoned building height. And it's half of the zoned building height would be the distance between structures. And then if we go to the next page, which is Page 4 of 9, under accessory structures, under perimeter setback it says 25 feet, but it really should be 75 feet, because that's the requirement. So need to correct that as well. I would say, except for the area where we have the play fields, but as far as other uses go, and the water plant -- other uses, we would meet the 75 -foot requirement, as you can see, with the master plan. Now, the issue that I think -- the only issue in the staff report, because I think staffs recommending approval, really, the only issue related to the garden plots and whether they could be allowed to be utilized prior to the construction of the church facility itself. And Tom Gemmer can get into this in greater detail. But I'll try to explain to you what our thought is. Garden plots have become more and more popular for people who live in communities to have an area to go and grow flowers or have small vegetables gardens for people who don't have space in their back yard to do them themselves. In fact, I think there was a pretty big article in USA Today about the popularity of these types of garden plots. The church saw this as just a natural extension of their mission outreach to provide an opportunity for their members in the surrounding community to have garden plots. So we have requested the ability to have those garden plots within our PUD and have that use start before we actually put the church up. We thought it would be a natural outreach. It would give the community an opportunity to get to know the church and have them start attending church services. To me it just -- it seemed like a very innocuous use, didn't see it as a big deal. As a matter of fact, we have one in my backyard we do with our kids and it's -- but I had them -- then someone said to me, Rich, where are people going to park? Where are people going to go to the bathroom? I said, you know, I missed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use your house. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, they can all drive back to my house after they plant. That's fine. If that will get it approved, that will work. But that was a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will stipulate that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, you know, that was a very good question that frankly I hadn't thought about, you know. So we have since then come up with what we think would be appropriate development standards related to this. And I know you don't like things handed out last minute, but I kind of have to do that in order to address the concern that was raised -- that was kind of raised that, you know, frankly we all missed when we were thinking about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have copies for Kay there? (At which time, Mr. Midney entered the boardroom.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we've already given it to Kay. I don't know what she -- or we e- mailed it to Kay. I don't know if she had a chance to look at it or not or what she even thinks about these standards. But I'll wait to go over them until -- what we tried to do was adopt reasonable standards related to these garden plots so we're not having a big farm area of 21 acres. So the first item was to limit the garden plots to no more than 10 percent of the site, which would be about two acres of the site could be used for garden plots. The garden plots need to be centrally located on the property so they're not right on the street. And so they would be in the center of the property. We would limit the number of automobiles to 10 at any one time. And we would have a dust free gravel surface to address parking related to these garden plots. We would provide temporary sanitary facilities until we had a permanent building at that location. And really, the last one is our understanding of what the rules are in Collier County anyway, is that there would be no -- there's no SDP or Site Improvement Plan required as related to this. Because, frankly, if we had to do Page 5 of 72 16 12 A 7 4121,2011 all of that, it just becomes cost prohibitive so we may as well not do the garden plots. So what we had done is we added that because that was our understanding and wanted to make sure. So we tried to come up with reasonable development standards to address the garden plot issue and our desire to have that use. I guess it would be a principal use and not an accessory use. But it would be related to our church. And it would be a principal use because it could predate the actual construction of the church building itself. I think that is the only issue between staffs review -- I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Water. MR. YOVANOVICH: Water, what? COMMISSIONER EBERT: For the garden when they plant. Is there going to be water out there? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming we'll have a well or something to address watering the garden, yes. We'll have to provide some mechanism for irrigation, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the end of your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I mean, you've seen it before, so I didn't think I needed to go through everything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we saw before wasn't the detail that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It wasn't the detail that I'm going through today, but the Comp. Plan and the traffic analysis was all based upon what you have in front of you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I just wanted to make sure the public -- that this is more detail, so we certainly are going to have more questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Rich, I understand where you want to go with that, and that's fine. What will happen to those plots over time? Will they remain in the center of the property with buildings around them? Doesn't look like it, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we'll have to at that point relocate the garden plots to an appropriate location on the site. But I don't think there was ever an issue with the garden plots if it was accompanied with a church. The issue came about what if you just had garden plots. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the end of your presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, on Exhibit B, the perimeter setback, would you have a problem putting 75 feet on the north property? Also the -- I don't see any buildings up there, but let's keep Oil Well free of buildings right on the road. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're talking about a building perimeter setback of minimum of 75 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Under principal structures. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you see a problem? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. As long as we can still have some of the parking within the 75 feet, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine, yeah. And you already on the accessory would change that to 75, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the only other thing is kind of a scrivener thing. In Exhibit E, you're looking for relief from a fence on the -- I think the word southeast should be separated, meaning south, comma, east and west, don't you agree? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can you tell me what page you're on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's eight of nine. MR. YOVANOVICH: Eight of nine. Thanks, let me look real quick. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions at this time? Page 6 of 72 16112 A' 7APril 21, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: That whole section's going to change anyway, because you are going to have a wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have the -- yes, yes. That's a good catch on the south, comma, east, we need to do that. And then we need to identify where we will have a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 2 under accessory uses, on number one, B -1, it's your recreational facilities. I would suggest we change the wording. Recreational facilities, including outdoor play areas and athletic fields, administration offices and facilities. Then I'd like to suggest adding the word and youth recreation centers indoors to support the church and their outreach programs. Drop the words and similar uses. You have that ability already in B -3, so I don't think we need and similar uses in B -1. If would just add to the additional ambiguity of someone's interpretation of what similar uses are. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay, I think that that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I believe -- I strongly believe that we need to have hours of operation on the recreational area. You are alongside existing residential homes. You're going to put a wall up, but I don't see the need to go into long play hours. So what do you -- do you have any suggestions on what you would like, and we'll see if it's reasonable? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I want to ask Mr. Gemmer about it, if you don't mind, because I don't know if we're going to light it or not. Mr. Strain, my client can agree to a 9:00 -- cut -off at 9:00 p.m. at night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What time in the morning, 7:00? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, if we get them up that early. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No sooner than 7:00, no later than -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No later than 9:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you had any input from the neighbors about any of the issues you've -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We have had neighborhood information meetings, and we've not received any feedback negative to our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did any neighbors attend the NIM? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't remember anybody really showing up, to be honest with you. VA1' K / L41we s I 4 MR. YOVANOVICH: We had one or two show up, but we sent letters directly to our affected neighbors to highlight -- and I will tell you why I think there was an issue. In that letter we had worked with transportation staff to relocate the full turnaround median opening. And I'm going to walk over here real quick. This is why I know people would have shown up if they were upset. The Oil Well plans originally had a full median opening here to serve these six homes. And we said, you know, that really makes no sense, we're going to have a much more intensive use on this property, really ought to move the full median opening here. And they said, we think that makes sense, but we want the neighborhood to know that there's going to be that plan change. So we included that in our neighborhood information meeting. So if there would have ever been something that would have raised people's concern to come to a NIM, that letter would have done it. So I think if people were interested, they would have clearly been there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 4. At the end of B, there's a general note. It says: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth above shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines or between structures. Okay, why did you put that in? That's the first time I remember seeing that in an order -- why did you feel that clarification was needed for? Because the perimeter setback, for example, isn't in relationship to an individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures, it's to the perimeter boundary lines. MR. YOVANOVICH: My colleague tells me that he agrees with your comment, we don't need that general note, now that we've made that change to the perimeter setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under the garden plots, I appreciate your offer to use your bathroom at your Page 7 of 72 I - I 16 1'2 A pril 21, 2011 home. And if you could put signs up to direct people there, I think that would be a fine move on your part, very -- but not practical -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That would violate the sign ordinance, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your efforts for these gardens, are you going to come under the soon to be fertilizer ordinance, just out of curiosity? You want to get into that ball of wax now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we wait until the next item? Which I'll be happy to participate in those discussions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand the acreage, that's fine. And by the way, I mean, I've got a garden at my house, so I, like you, I mean, it's -- we use our own bathroom too. The idea, though, that you can have up to two acres without any permitting for the number of cars coming and the sanitary facilities you're going to provide, how would you -- you would just go out and do this with no permit required by the county, or is there any oversight by the county involved in the process? MR. YOVANOVICH: Bob? MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane. We were not contemplating putting any permitted improvements in. We were going to put a little gravel to get to the garden plot. And obviously we wanted to put a little gravel over a parking area to accommodate up to 10 spaces, and that is a maximum number. Mr. Gemmer tells me that, you know, there's more than likely going to be less than that. We thought the use was so passive with just merely a little gravel for access and a port-a -potty that it didn't rise to the level of going through a Site Development Plan approval or an improvement plan. I mean, that's what our thoughts were. MR. YOVANOVICH: George Hermanson just told me there's actually a construction plan approval process that's short of the Site Development Plan process that we can use for our access road and our gravel parking area. I don't know that you really need anything to show where the plots are going to be. I think the bigger concern is the access road on our property and the parking area. And there's a construction plan approval process that we can go through with the county to show. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is that consistent with your understanding? MR. BELLOWS: I think it can be done that way, but staff -- and this is the first I've looked at this language. And I would think a more appropriate process would be the Site Improvement Plan. It's not a full -blown SDP, but I think we can at least address a lot of the concerns about the location of the parking and these wellfield to provide water to the facility, the bathrooms, even if they're temporary in nature. You know, I have some concern that we are trying to create a permanent use out of what's (sic) they're saying is really an accessory use to the church without the church being in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going to go next. I would rather we call this an accessory use but we provide an exception to it as an accessory use in regards to its placement there after the church is in place. That would be different than anything we've done before. But a garden plot is something -- I've been here 10 years, I've not seen it come before the Board before, too. And it's not an intense use. I think it's a good idea. I don't have a problem with it. But I'm very concerned about having someone else interpret it differently down the road and have a free- for -all that we don't expect. So I think if we still tie it -- and you started your discussion on this with the fact it's going to be for church members. So I think we still should tie it as an accessory use to the principal uses, but with an exception -- and if you want to call it a deviation or whatever -- with an exception in this case we don't have to have the principal use buildings in place, just the ownership of the property should be significant for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it, like other ministries of the church, are for the church and the surrounding community. And we thought by keeping the size at the two acres it wasn't going to become a 20 -acre farm. So that's why we did that. But there will be -- we hope the surrounding community is going to say, you know, this is great, how about us too within this two -acre area. We don't have an objection to calling it an accessory use as long as we can do the accessory use prior to the buildings going up. And that's -- you know, that's -- call it whatever we need to to make everybody comfortable, but we hoped by offering these development standards it would never grow into something that would require an interpretation as to is this a farm within the mission subdistrict. Page 8 of 72 16112 A7 April 21, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would rather we kept it classified as an accessory with exceptions in how it can be used rather than create a principal use out of something that needs to really be an accessory because it's a church facility. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're fine with that, too, as long as the timing issue can be before we put the buildings up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between now and consent I think that staff ought to work out that language so that it works that way. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did say something, you kept saying only two acres. That's over 86,000 square feet. That's huge. I mean, my garden at home isn't that big. So I realize -- I'm not saying it's wrong to be that big, but two acres is a good size, Rich. That's a lot of acreage. I don't know how you're going to do it by hand. You're going to have to have equipment out there, you're going to have to till it, you're going to have to bring in tons of nitrogen and phosphorus for those. So Conservancy ought to be happy about that. But you're going to have -- it's not going to -- it's going to be intense. It's not -- I mean, two acres is a good size garden plot. And look at the irrigation. You going to use drip irrigation? Were you going to use rows? Are you going to use piping, you going to use ditches? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll be honest, this is the first -- I mean, this is such -- I really do think we're really making a lot out of something that's a good idea. I mean, what is wrong with having garden plots for the community to go and grow flowers or vegetables for their own use? I mean, it's -- what's wrong with it? In this area -- look at the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're missing the point. From a zoning perspective, if you had put this down as an accessory use, I guarantee you there probably wouldn't have been a single question. It's your insistence on making it a principal use that is changing the dynamics. And that's what this Board is here to look at. MR. YOVANOVICH: The only reason we called it a principal use is because the normal rules that apply is you can't have the accessory use before you have the principal use. If I could have called it an accessory use and had it as I could build it first, I would have left it as an accessory use. But you can't -- you normally don't do that. So we were not trying to make a big deal out of the use, it was just the way that zoning law works is usually the principal use is first, the accessory use follows. And you can check with Ray on that issue. And I think we had that discussion about what's the proper place for this to be. And for us to be able to go forward with the use timing -wise we had to put it as a principal use. But I agree with your suggestion, that's what made it seem like an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, you want to say something? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just say that's up to two acres. We don't know that the whole two acres is going to be used. It may only be just a small portion of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe we could have a temporary use? How long do you want to do this? Is this two year thing, or five years from now there's a big U- Pick -Em out there? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we clearly said you can't have a U- Pick -Em. It has to be for individual consumption. So it's not going to become a U- Pick -Em. And, you know, the PUD has a process, it has a life of basically five years with the ability to go one more extension to get to seven years. You know, so we're going to either move forward with the church within the timelines that are in the Land Development Code or we're not. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question, do you think you might need a small structure out there, a shed or something? A structure is defined by anything greater than 30 inches. If you're going to put a bunch of lock boxes on the ground -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- I don't think we anticipate having that. People will bring their -- we don't anticipate somebody having a two -acre plot. We anticipate them having a small area where they'll just bring their own tools to take care of their plot area. So it's not going to be a big intensive use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If they get hot from the sun, they go home. MR. YOVANOVICH: They go home. Page 9 of 72 i. 16 I 'r. A 7 A April 21, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, your parishioners must have a lot of money to be able to drive all the way out there with the price of gasoline to raise a handful of tomatoes, so -- but more power to them, that's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, and they may ultimately say thanks for getting it but we don't want to do it. But, I mean, it is a desire of the church community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think the idea of garden plots is good, I would encourage it everywhere. I just want to make sure the distinction between principal use and accessory use is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that line is still strong. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: I still have a few more questions. Is this going to be fenced off for security reasons? How are you going to protect it from vandalism? And are these going to be open to all the residents of the Estates or just church parishioners, or are they going to be members of some kind of rehab center the church is involved with? Who is going to be involved with the garden plots? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to be the church and the community around it that want to get involved in these church plots. Just like if we were to open up -- MR. BELLOWS: Won't be members of anybody who's involved with the rehab center? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me give you another example. A lot of churches on Sundays will have blood pressure check, blood drives, may give flu shots. We don't say to those from the local community you can't come. And we had this discussion during the Comp. Plan stage was, is it part of the church. And this is part of our mission and outreach. If there's somebody in the community that says we would like to get involved in doing a garden plot, we're going to see that as an opportunity for our mission work. So I can't tell you there's any limitations on who wants to get involved in that garden plot. We hope that the size of the plot or the two acres and make sure we have parking would address the concerns of this would become a farm. MR. BELLOWS: I just want the PUD to accurately reflect who's going to use it so in case there are questions in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's listed as an accessory use with the exception the principal use doesn't have to be in place for this to be utilized, then it has to be then connected to the church. Because it can only be an accessory use if it is. So I think that kind of fixes that. As far as security goes, I don't think vandalism is going to be your problem, I think the deer and the hogs and the rabbits are going to be your problem, because they are at my house. So you're going to want to put something up. But that's up to you. If you want to leave it so that it's a garden free - for -all for anybody that wants to drive by, have a bunch to eat and then go to your house and use the bathroom, I guess they should have the right to do that. And with that, I think that's the last comment I have before we go to staff. Okay, Kay? MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with zoning. And you do have the staff report that was submitted to you with the revision date of 3/28/11. Just to hit the high spots. As you already know, we do have the issue regarding the garden plots that we've already discussed. Staff is recommending approval but does want to see that clarified. And with the discussion that's gone on so far, I just had a few issues that I would hope that you would address if you do include any of that as conditions of approval. One would be whether or not the garden plot use would count towards sunsetting provisions of the PUD. And the fence or wall that they're going to put up, where it has to run, from where to where and how high it has to be and when it has to be installed. More importantly, how high and when. I think he's pretty well showing on this master plan where it's supposed to be. But I won't belabor the issues other than to say that staff has presented the staff report to you with our analysis, and we are recommending that it be found consistent. We do want to see the garden plot issue resolved, but we are recommending approval, understanding that the use is not objectionable, that's just how it's done. And then depending upon what you do with the proposed addendum, staff, you know, has some questions about how that's worded. But I think we can go through that with the petitioner as we get ready for consent. For example, the maximum area should be limited to. I mean, is to be. Does that mean that's a requirement that has to Page 10 of 72 � � a 1612 A 7pril2l,2011 be? I think, as Mr. Schiffer mentioned, it should perhaps be limited to a maximum of And I don't know that number two serves a purpose. I don't know what exactly centrally located means and how to measure that. And number three, again, maximum number of automobiles shall be limited to, instead of saying should be. And number four is just kind of awkwardly worded. I think that the wording can be improved upon. And we'd want to note that the temporary sanitary facilities would need to be provided and maintained by the owner. And as Ray mentioned, I think a Site Improvement Plan would be the best mechanism to use to get the garden plot use on -site. Other than that, I'm available for any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you, Kay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you say you saw on the master plan where you think this garden is going to be? MS. DESELEM: No, I'm sorry, the fence, the fence, where he's showing it on green. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. DESELEM: I don't know where garden plots were set, I don't know where centrally located, what that limits it to. But, yeah, I didn't know exactly -- with the fence issue, the main thing is how high it's going to be and when it has to be installed. COMMISSIONER CARON: For this ball field fence -- MS. DESELEM: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is what you're talking about there. MS. DESELEM: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, not the garden plot fencing. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. I mean, that's up to him as far as -- I would be concerned, but I think the same thing, it's like, it's the bugs and bunnies, not necessarily the people that might get into the gardens. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I think we're going to need -- Richard, we need you to respond to these items one at a time so we make sure we get it clear. Kay had suggested changes to the language on the first one, limited to a maximum of two acres. Do you have any problem with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second one, garden plots will be centrally located. I would suggest that you adhere to the 75 -foot perimeter setback, you'd be fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: We were going to offer up 100 feet, so 75. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think 75 works, gardens aren't too noisy. Number three, the maximum number of automobiles shall be limited to. Do you have any problem with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four. And Kay, you had nothing to add to that. Number five, maintenance, you guys would maintain the bathrooms, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or they're going to be at your house. MR. YOVANOVICH: And they're maintained there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope so. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's so there's not any confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the record, right. MS. DESELEM: If it's at Richard's house, we want the good towels out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number six, an SIP is required. I think that is as simple as it can get for permitting. Page 11 of 72 161 2 A7 April 21, 2011 Do you have a better idea? I think George is shaking his head. MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson. That's okay. The construction plan approval is a little simpler, because there's less paperwork and review fees. They get the same drawings, the same engineering. If you really want a Site Improvement Plan, okay. I just wanted to keep it a little -- the paperwork a little simpler. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, a construction plan, how does it differ in its use compared to an SIP? MR. BELLOWS: They don't go through planning and zoning. It's more of an engineering type of project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well -- MR. BELLOWS: And it's usually not something that's affiliated with like a site plan issue that we normally deal with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if someone comes in for a construction plan, no one checks to see if it's zoned properly? MR. BELLOWS: No, there is a review of building permits by zoning, and -- but construction plans don't typically deal with this, that I know o£ It can be handled, I would think, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not trying to change the process just for this. I'm trying to understand what (sic) a construction plan submittal differs from an SIP. And basically you said an SIP goes through a zoning check but a construction plan does not. MR. BELLOWS: I don't work with construction plans that often, so I'd have to check on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, have you ever reviewed any construction plans, or you do just SIPS and SDPs? MS. DESELEM: No, sir, I've not been involved in that process either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I do think a zoning check is something that should be done, simply just to acknowledge it came through for zoning. So an SIP seems to be the way to get there. George seems to accept that as a default, so let's leave it with an SIP. We've already talked about the setbacks. The sunsetting. This will not -- now, can an accessory use, Kay, qualify sunsetting? MS. DESELEM: Normally you don't have an accessory use before you have a principal use, so the issue doesn't normally come up. But that's why I said, we need to make it clear what the situation is, does it count or does it not count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, it's not construction per se, so I don't see how it could counts as a sunsetting issue. Do you have any problem with that, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. I never envisioned that this would vest us from a sunsetting perspective. So I have no problem saying it doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I just wanted to get to that issue. MR. YOVANOVICH: You want to talk about the wall. I think it's the only thing that was on the list. I think code allows a maximum of six foot, so we go up to six feet. And we would build it when we build the facilities for the play area, the fields. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before the fields are operational. MR. YOVANOVICH: Before they're used, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it will be six feet, not it will be up to six feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Six feet, six feet, six feet. Not six -foot one, six feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The fields will never be lighted, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I didn't say that. We don't know. We may have -- we may -- who knows? We may have lights. I mean, we're going to stay open till 9:00 is the latest we would -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you're pretty close to property lines -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But you're going to angle the lights away. I mean, the lights aren't going to go into the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they'll be bright. Page 12 of 72 n K I 61 `� A 7 4 April 21, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: And we have -- remember, I got these now. Hopefully on Page 5 of 9 where we talk about the lighting, it will address the concerns, the spillover into neighbors. And that would be F, small letter B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I don't think -- you know, if you left them on at midnight, that wouldn't be too much fun for the neighbors. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, how about we make sure that the lights go off at -- is 9:30 reasonable? I mean, 30 minutes after we stop. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR, YOVANOVICH: Give us time to get people out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the paragraph F(b), you'd add another sentence, the recreational lighting to be off by 9:30. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions of staff or the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one of transportation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Kay is pushing me out of the way. MS. DESELEM: Sorry. On their item number three for the garden plot, like I said, it's kind of awkwardly worded. I would suggest it be changed to say something to the effect of the owner shall provide dust -free gravel, access and parking areas, or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number four is what you're talking about, not number -- MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, yes, number four, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think if you clean up the wording they're going to object to it. We'll just see it on consent when it comes back. Thank you. John? Behind you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In reviewing the garden plots, the rest of it -- I think the report says it speaks for itself. Do you have any concerns over the garden plots' access to the site or use of an SIP to get there and all that stuff, for your purposes from transportation? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, sir, we don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions of anyone before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No, no one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any member of the public wish to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody wants to tell us to make sure we adhere to the future fertilizer ordinance, huh? Richard, do you have any closing comments? MR. YOVANOVICH: None that I should probably say, so --just kidding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we recommend for approval PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 with the stipulations mentioned. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, we went through a lot of stipulations, and there are too many just to itemize because they're little tiny changes here and there to verbiage. Are you comfortable with what mostly transpired here Page 13 of 72 16 12 A7 i,4, April 21, 2011 for your write -up? MS. DESELEM: I believe I do have them. And I'm sure I can work with the applicant and County Attorney's Office, and we should have it pretty close to what we've discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree. I think we got it on the table. Okay, any further discussion -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only discussion I have is I'm still thinking the SIP might be a cumbersome thing in terms of what they want to do out there. Ray, is there a lot of requirements they have to meet? MR. BELLOWS: It's pretty simple. Pve never heard anybody having too much trouble doing an SIP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And anything that's cumbersome would be used in the final version of the SIP when they bring the buildings anyway, so they're not wasting time, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ** *Okay, now that's the end of our advertised public hearings and we are going to go into old business. Absolutely the most important thing I think that most of you -- I shouldn't say the most important thing, but what most of you are concerned about seems to be the fertilizer section of this ordinance. I know that I've never seen so much literature being suggested as being read to understand an issue and so much difference in the literature as this particular item had in what I've looked at to date. In order to focus on what best reflects what the needs of the audience are, we have a watershed management ordinance discussion coming up that includes the fertilizer ordinance. We have a presentation on the watershed management part of it, as well as getting into the fertilizer part of it. But we can expedite things by focusing on the fertilizer part of it first, but I need to know how many people are here, and just raise your hands, if you're here for something other than the fertilizer ordinance. Okay. Oh, Nicole? MS. RYAN: Just the watershed plan in general. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nicole will sit here all day anyway. So Mac, I think if you focus your presentation on the fertilizer ordinance in the beginning, we can help the people here get through the process. And then of those that want to stay for the balance of your presentation on the watershed, we can move into that afterwards. So that will get us to the most needed point right away. MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher with Land Development Services. And we'll start with the fertilizer ordinance. There is a lot of literature. There's a lot of discussion. I think everybody has good intentions. And the end results should be an improvement over the existing conditions. The model fertilizer ordinance was what was originally presented to you all. It includes training and licensing for all commercial applicators. It has a prohibited fertilizer application period that includes any identified storm watches or when ground is saturated. Page 14 of 72 16 1 e' April 21, 2011 It has an application rate for fertilizers that is limited to the current label restrictions. It has a voluntary fertilizer free zone of 10 feet. It has low maintenance area buffers where -- is also at 10 feet, and vegetation is required to be removed from this area after trimming. It exempts agriculture. And it has some defined practices and standards which include no fertilizer on impervious surfaces or in water bodies. I presented this to you all late last fall. Your suggestions, as well as the EAC's instructions -- suggestions were to present to the state more stringent ordinances similar to what is adopted by the City of Naples and Lee County, which includes a blackout period of prohibition of fertilizer application from June 1 through September 30th, a reduction in the allowable nitrogen load to four pounds per thousand square feet per year, a requirement to use at least 50 percent slow release nitrogen, and a mandatory buffer of 10 feet. I drafted an ordinance based with these more stringent provisions and submitted it to the state agencies for their review. We got comments back from the FDEP watershed restoration bureau chief, who indicated that the rainy season prohibition, the blackout period, the science is incomplete on that topic. They recommended an irrigation program to maintain a slight irrigation deficit, indicating that reduction runoff was extremely important; decompaction of urban landscape soils to decrease runoff, ensure that citizens are aware of saturated soil conditions. And they pointed out that the four pound per year nitrogen restriction is less than the minimum recommendation for Bermuda grass in South Florida. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services just indicated that they recommended the model ordinance, and indicated that the proposed more stringent restrictions jeopardize turf health and filtration capabilities of turf. The University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences provided an extensive documentation of scientific studies that supported the model ordinance, indicated that the science supports fertilization during the growth period, and noted that June through September is part of that growth period, and noted that with appropriate application of fertilizers there's minimal nitrogen loss. They also recommended -- or the current recommendation from IFAS for slow release nitrogen is 30 percent, and they include the one pound per application as the rate. Soluble nitrogen at proper rates have low leaching potential. They also stress that proper irrigation was important, and keeping plant debris off of impervious areas and out of water bodies is important. So with the recommendation from the three agencies, the staff support is for the model ordinance. The ordinance that I provided you is an update of the model ordinance for Collier County. It includes a penalty section. We would also recommend a public education component. We would include the existing buffer requirements for native preserves that are already in the LDC code, and a future evaluation of local conditions. The education program would include web -based and TV education. The ordinance requirements would be posted at retail sales. We would like to have an irrigation and precipitation component to the education program and also a component to address reuse, which an awful lot of residents in Collier County have the ability to use. And with that, I'll ask for questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, one -- let me ask just a general question. On your first couple of slides or back a few, you talked about recommendations from the FDEP and the -- yeah, there it is, IFAS. MR. HATCHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many of those recommendations did you incorporate into your document that we have in front of us? MR. HATCHER: I would say all of them except for the 30 percent slow release nitrogen is not addressed in the rule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did you specifically not include that for a reason, or are you just -- MR. HATCHER: Just because it's not in the existing model ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even though they suggested it as probably something that should be done, it wasn't included because it wasn't in the model ordinance. MR. HATCHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we can improve upon the model ordinance, right? MR. HATCHER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I still got a lot of questions, but I'll let my colleagues go first. Page 15 of 72 1 6 I 2 A7 April 21, 2011 Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Considering the way that the current legislation is written and that all of the scientific data has to be considered, if we approve something more stringent that the data doesn't support, are we creating legal issues for the county? MR. HATCHER: According to the legislation, yes. Practically speaking, they have not gone after any of the municipalities or counties that -- you know, to date. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I was thinking more in terms of anyone from the public going after the county. MR. HATCHER: That's always a possibility. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Can we get County Attorney's opinion? MR. KLATZKOW: My recommendation is go with the state ordinance, period. It gets rid of all these issues. But, you know, depending upon what this board and the Board of County Commissioners want to do, we'll look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any -- it might be useful for all of the panel here if we hear from the speakers first. Then we can have more interaction. Is that okay with everybody? That's a little out of our normal standard, but let's approach it that way. Ray, we have -- by the way, everybody, we have registration cards for registered speakers, but when we're done with the registered speakers, I will still ask if there's anybody in the audience that wants to address us. We don't strictly limit you to five minutes, although we ask that you try to be as concise as possible and not necessarily be redundant to the person who may have already spoken. We hear it once, most of us have pretty good hearing, so we'll pick it up. Okay, Ray, first speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Amber Crooks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Amber, I know that you've spent a lot of time and provided a lot of detail to most of us. If you have specific issues and you could focus us on the pages and the language, that would be helpful to know how to review it as we go forward. And I ask that of everybody that comes up. If there's a change that you'd like, try to give us a specific section so we know what we're looking for in the code instead of trying to figure out where it needs to be changed. MS. CROOKS: Hi. I'm Amber Crooks from The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. We're here today on behalf of our over 6,000 members to support a more effective and more stringent fertilizer ordinance for the protection of our water resources. We are saddened to hear that the staff has moved away from its prior position and now is proposing an ordinance based on the state model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amber, you might want to slow a little bit down. This young lady's got to type as fast as you talk. MS. CROOKS: All right, I'll put it on the low gear here. The state statutes as they currently stand and the state model language itself allows for local municipalities to adopt more stringent measures to deal with the specific needs of their area. They specifically recognize that more stringent measures are most appropriate when a municipality has verified water impairments such as Collier County's. Thirty-two percent of the county's water bodies by area do not meet state water quality standards due to excess nutrients, and in many cases additional restoration or reduction in loading will be needed. In their February 2nd, 2011 memo requesting input from the state agencies, the county makes a strong and powerful case as to why additional protections are absolutely necessary in Collier County. The county acknowledges that to meet state administered TMDL or total maximum daily load restrictions, quote, the addition of any nitrogen from fertilizers is problematic, unquote. The memo also states that given this needed restoration, quote, there is support for the assumption that the recommended -- and I believe what staff is referring to is the state regulations -- recommended nitrogen applications will contribute to further pollution in local waters. The more stringent provisions adopted in the City of Naples and Lee County are intended to reduce the total quantity of nitrogen applied to landscapes, reduce the likelihood of leaching during the summer rainy season, and Page 16 of 72 16 112 A 7 April 21, 2011 reduce the likelihood of misapplication by requiring a full 10 -foot buffer, unquote. This memo, along with the other available documents, such as the scientific and technical information submitted by The Conservancy, the Sierra Club and others, can provide the support necessary to move forward with a more stringent ordinance. We are disappointed by the state agency's feedback to the county and find it to be in direct conflict with many of their own studies. Most of the sources we cited in our letter are in fact from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the University of Florida IFAS themselves. Their documents encourage 50 percent slow release nitrogen, phosphorus only where a deficiency is found, as well as, believe it or not, limiting fertilizer application during the summer. These are some of the more stringent elements that The Conservancy supports and what we're asking for your support on today. The county has the ability to move forward with a more stringent ordinance, regardless of the letters it has received from the state agencies, as the state only asks that the municipalities solicit and consider their input. The state agencies, at least as the current law stands, do not have approval authority. Ultimately municipalities are the ones that are on the hook for ensuring compliance with water quality standards. A stringent protective fertilizer ordinance is one of the most cost effective ways to improve our water quality. The city of Cape Coral, who recently passed their ordinance, found that their more stringent regulations would save their citizens nearly $5 million over 25 years by reducing the overall cost of their stormwater treatment areas. Due to the increased demand for slow release nitrogen and minimal phosphorus fertilizers, Florida companies that have already been producing these type of Florida - friendly products have benefited. So the county should be interested in these more stringent regulations, not just for their environmental reasons, but also for their positive economic effects. And of course, those are just the dollars we can quantify. The economic impact of poor water quality on our tourism and real estate sectors would be another consideration. Stringent effective fertilizer ordinances are one of the best tools in the tool box. Recognition of Cape Coral's impaired waters and the benefits of a protective fertilizer ordinance is one of the reasons why a local representative from FDEP testified in strong support at their council proceedings back in November. In light of Collier County's proposal, an FDEP representative from Tallahassee, 400 miles away, has recommended essentially the state model. This is not adequate for our local conditions. Instead these state agencies want us to fight our existing water quality impairments with one arm behind our back. From Tampa to Naples we have a solid block of municipalities that have similar ordinances that are effective. By adopting a similar ordinance, we'll actually be following more consistently the state model's recommendations by avoiding confusing jurisdictional differences. Sometimes a city boundary is one street over, and having consistent ordinances will be of benefit to applicators. Unfortunately the benefits of a stringent fertilizer ordinance have been dominated by debate over a summer blackout period. Those who oppose the more protective fertilizer ordinance say they have the science to show that unhealthy turf will result in more nutrient runoff. What they have not provided is that these proposed -- that The Conservancy has proposed protective elements will actually result in that unhealthy turf they warn of Municipalities throughout southwest Florida have had their more stringent measures in place for three and four years now. In fact, many fertilizer industry folks that I've spoken with say that they've been doing some of these things for years now, because it just makes sense for Southwest Florida. The municipalities that have already -- have their ordinances in place have reported back to us about the effectiveness of their ordinances. And I think one of the other speakers is going to touch on this. These municipalities have not experienced the unhealthy turf, they have not experienced an increase in nutrient loading. To the contrary, we are aware of Sarasota, Venice and Naples having experienced positive water quality. And they've seen that in their water quality sampling data, and it correlates to the date of adoption of their ordinances. Naples likes their restrictive ordinance so well that -- and is so concerned about their water quality that yesterday at their City Council meeting they passed a resolution urging the county to adopt a similar ordinance, not only for consistency considerations but for enhanced watershed management. And let's keep in mind that's why we're even here today is watershed management. Page 17 of 72 161 ,2 A7 k April 21, 2011 The CCPC certainly has a lot of information to consider as we try to figure out whether the more stringent measures are necessary. I don't envy you. You have a lot of information there. The EAC in their consideration relied upon the positive experiences of the Southwest Florida communities, noting that the opposition claims, if they were in fact being realized in these other communities, that those ordinances would have been repealed or challenged. And they have not to date. The legal liability that we have with implementing something more stringent is the same that we have with any of our -- any of the other counties' regulations. We want to again reiterate that neither the current ordinance nor The Conservancy's ordinance is intended to be applicable to golf courses. We encourage them to follow their BMPs, their Best Management Practices, as referenced in the ordinance language, as many of their BMPs are the same as what The Conservancy has been advocating for, such as utilizing a buffer to water bodies. The Golf Course Handbook suggests 25 feet, and we're looking for at least 10. Only fertilizing with phosphorus after performing a soil test, which is what we have been looking for, and utilizing no more than half pound of water soluble nitrogen per application. That's that 50 percent slow release. I have with me a copy of the ordinance that The Conservancy originally proposed back fall, and I'll have -- essentially we're looking for a few key things. We're looking for some restrictions on the content of fertilizer, that 50 percent slow release nitrogen, and for zero phosphorus, unless there of course is found to be a soil deficiency. We're looking for a maximum application rate of four pounds per thousand square feet per year. We're looking for a 10 -foot buffer zone, that's that fertilizer free zone. And finally, we're looking for the summer blackout period. That's that calendar based -- because you will get a lot of cumulative rains. They may not be a flood, hurricane or tropical storm, but you may have a series of light rainfalls that are less than two inches each but accumulate. And so doing the summer blackout period I think will be more implementable than what the opposition opposes. So we're looking for that summer blackout period, June through September. And those things are in our ordinance that we had originally proposed. And they're also for the most part in the ordinance that Mac had put together and sent to the agencies for their review. We encourage the CCPC to recommend the more stringent, more protective ordinance elements to the BCC. Given the threat of continued preemption at the state level, this may be our only chance to get it right and put in place an adequately protective ordinance for the sake of our sensitive waters and our quality of life. Thank you. Let me know if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The IFAS folks indicated that the science is incomplete with regard to the blackout period. What do you base your conclusion on then? What science are you relating to? MS. CROOKS: Sure. We have science from the municipalities themselves, at least for City of Naples. When they adopted it, they showed a spike in their nutrient runoff during the summer rainy season. And science is a consideration, of course. But so is the implementation of the practicability of implementing the ordinance. I think you have some benefit also to doing a summer calendar -based blackout, because, you know, this is not just for the regular industry folks, but this is for your Joe Schmo homeowners as well. So they have to -- if we do the state model, they would have to basically understand when they may get that two inches of rain or greater, which I'm not even sure the meteorologists can accurately predict. So doing something over the summer also makes practical sense. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The other documents that I have, in one of them, perhaps more, they indicate that that is the period when the nutrients are most required by the plants. So while you may have had some information from the ordinances associated with the city, do you have anything that refutes that? I mean, do we -- there's a deprivation potential for the turf, and that's a serious condition. Homeowners and others, Joe Schmo, as you say, would not be as enthusiastic to comply if they thought that they would lose their investment and the aesthetics that were associated with it. MS. CROOKS: There's an assumption there that that turfs not going to get any nutrients during that time. During the summer you would rely on getting some from also the atmospheric deposition, the rain. That's why our grass grows so much during the summer. So there isn't no fertili -- you know, no nutrients during that time. There Page 18 of 72 161 2 A 7 April 21, 2011 may not be fertilizer but there are nutrients. And also with the use of the slow release, we can also depend on that slow release lasting for part of that time within that summer blackout period. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate where your interest lies, but I'm looking for you to allow me to understand that you've taken into consideration in promoting your interests that the benefits that people who, Joe Schmo and others, are not going to be hurt in their effort to maintain the aesthetics and their pleasures. There has to be a balance struck. And I'm not hearing -- I hear what you're saying. I recognize that grass clippings have nitrogen and so forth. MS. CROOKS: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. But the runoff issues then promotes that problem. This is not an easy process, certainly. But I'm looking for hard science. And I've tried to read as much as I can of this, and this is a lot of stuff. And I have some pretty good stuff here to have read. And I don't -- I mean, that's a real serious issue, that blackout period. So I'm just -- so it's basically anecdotal that you have information based on, the results of other municipality. MS. CROOKS: Well, what the opposition, those who are supporting the blackout period, I don't think they have information to show that what we're proposing here will unequivocally result in the damage or dying of this turf. I mean, in the municipalities that have had it in place, they have -- we've contacted municipality after municipality, and they have not reported back to us that they've had this dying turf. They haven't had the resulting additional nutrient runoff problem. So I don't -- while their information may have some validity or some interest there, something that may be needed to be explored better in the future, based on what we've seen in southwest Florida, it's not come to bear. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if I understand you correctly, and this is not a criticism, but if I understand you correctly and the position of The Conservancy is that the water -- if we take 100 percent of an issue, the water protection may represent more than 70 percent of the interest of The Conservancy, as opposed to the interest of the community as they see it in aesthetics and so forth. Is that a fair statement or not a fair statement? MS. CROOKS: Well, I would also say that the community is also very much concerned with the total water quality of the area. I mean, obviously I see where you're coming from, that there does need to be a balance, and people are also concerned about the aesthetics of their lawn. But we've had the City of Naples ordinance in place for three years now and some very expensive homes and some beautiful lawns, and I haven't seen that. In fact, like they did yesterday, they're asking the county to do something similar because they know it's good for water quality. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me just say that I understand, and this is not because I have the science, but I understand by, if you will, cultural hearsay, that most people overfertilize. Our society does, you know, many things to excess. So I recognize too that you -- you know, your advocation, I appreciate that. From my part, I just want to have the best that we can start out with and not anything excessive either way. So that's where the probe of my questions lies. MS. CROOKS: And I would also, for your consideration, Mr. Murray, is that depending on how this legislative session falls out, what we do in this ordinance may be as strict as we can go. Because, if -- depending on how the language ends up, and that's a question mark right now, I don't have a crystal ball, but from some of the discussions we've seen, there's been a push to preempt local governments from doing anything more stringent than the state model. And so if we don't get something in place by their effective date of this new bill, that might be the most stringent that we can go. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If we had to put something in place are you suggesting that any new legislation would not subordinate any current ordinance that we would have? MS. CROOKS: There's been back and forth, so I don't know what the final language is. But in this recent discussion in the House, there was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I don't want you to speculate, but I just -- MS. CROOKS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- thank you. MS. CROOKS: It's a possibility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Appreciate it. Page 19 of 72 F,. 1612 A 7 April, 21, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions at this time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just see if you can help. How much -- what percent do you think is applied by a homeowner versus an application in Collier County? MS. CROOKS: You mean how many people do it themselves? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, if you just took a guess. If you can't guess, you can say I don't know. MS. CROOKS: I don't know. I have a feeling that -- think it's probably -- I mean, I don't want to speculate, but I have a feeling there's a lot of people that do do it themselves, but then there's also a good share that do utilize the professional. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is where does most of this fertilizer come from? Where is it bought? Is it a Home Depot, is it wholesalers to applicators or -- MS. CROOKS: Well, I under -- from people I've spoken with, it's your big box stores, but there's also some local places that maybe have been carrying this Florida - friendly products for a while now. So I think it's good to say that both. And that's why we want to have the notice of the fertilizer ordinance, I guess no matter what ordinance is passed, to have something that people can see when they go to buy the product, that they're aware an ordinance has been put into place, so that they can educate themselves on how they need to go about following the ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the last question is, is this something that's uniform across the county? I know you predict a third of the waters have a problem. But, I mean, does this apply to Immokalee the same as it applies to the coastal areas of Collier? MS. CROOKS: The way that either of the ordinances have been drafted is to apply to any applicator or fertilizer, regardless of their location. Of course agricultural areas would be exempt and also golf courses, as long as they follow their BMPs. And in terms of the 30 percent impairments, that's actually from FDEP in their determination of impaired waterways. Some of them are impaired specifically for excess nutrients and some of them are impaired for DO with a causative pollutant of excess nutrients. So that's already verified. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question is, is a third of it coastal and then the interior things are fine, or is it spread out all over, or is it -- MS. CROOKS: It's spread out all over. You can see -- I would imagine the contributions of the nutrients is watershed issue. Some of it could be from the agricultural, but also some could be from many different sources in the urban area. Some could be from the septic, some could be from the wastewater, some could be from fertilizer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: You've spoken about the diminished water quality based upon overfertilization. Could you give us some specifics as to how it effects the ecosystem, or some of the -- MS. CROOKS: Sure. MR. EASTMAN: What exactly happens? MS. CROOKS: Perhaps I should have started with that, because this is what my picture is depicting. If you do have excess nutrients that end up in the waterways, you can have this harmful algal blooms, such as what's in the picture here. If you do end up having too much of this algal growth in the waterways it can result in a lower dissolved oxygen, fishkills. There's an aesthetic component but there's also a health component in terms of damaging the aquatic environment but also a human health component, because some of these harmful algal blooms can be toxic to the shellfish that we eat or even cause some people respiratory issues. And I think some of the others in the audience who will speak will also highlight some of the negative human aspects. But it's not something that we want to have in our backyards and our canals and our beaches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just following up on Mr. Murray's response. In the OF report it's highlighted that the research demonstrates that the most important time to fertilize is during the warm season and that there's less runoff during the summer months. Page 20 of 72 16 1, A671, 2011 What is The Conservancy's response? MS. CROOKS: That's again related to the opposition's argument about we need to continue to fertilize during the summer, that way the turf remains healthy. Again I would say that it's an interesting idea. And like the Florida Department of Environmental Protection says, it's something that's inconclusive. I think to have more information on this would be something that we would like to see. But right now the preponderance of the information that we have in terms of these more stringent measures shows us that they've improved water quality in our area and that they haven't resulted in the damaged turf that these documents report. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? And by the way, for the benefit of the panel, when we finish with public speakers, we will be walking through the actual ordinance that was given to us, all 13 pages, one page at a time, for any comments or questions that we have. And Amber, before you step down, I've got just a couple quick questions. You mentioned that the state ordinance allows local municipalities to effect more stringent rules. Do you have that somewhere handy where we could see that on the overhead before -- MS. CROOKS: The state statute language? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the language that you just said. The one that says that -- MS. CROOKS: Both the state statute and the state model allow for that. And I can see if I can find that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd just like to see the language to make sure that we're on solid ground if we look at anything more stringent. Second of all, you mentioned that there were some municipalities who are already seeing a positive effect as a result of their ordinances somewhere else. How long does that positive effect take to show up? MS. CROOKS: Sarasota and Venice, they reported it -- I mean, I can go look. Right now I have some information for you, Mark, if you wanted me to come back with that. I do have some information that shows that the Venice -- City of Venice, their water quality sampling. And I can see when they did start to see those reductions in the loading. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we finish with the public speakers, I'll ask that you come back up and -- MS. CROOKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- give me these results. How often is the water sampling done to check these kind of things? MS. CROOKS: It varies by different municipality. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How often do we do it; do you know? MR. HATCHER: The routine water quality monitoring that's performed by the Pollution Control Department is monthly for surface water. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can hardly hear you. MR. HATCHER: Monthly for surface water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all the impaired waters in Collier County for their different elements, including the nitrogen and phosphorus, you test monthly? MR. HATCHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back and -- MR. HATCHER: The monitoring station program that currently exists samples monthly. They do not sample all of the water bodies in Collier County. But the routine stations are sampled monthly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I feel like I'm talking to Richard Yovanovich here with you, because it's got to be so precise. Okay, all of the waters that are impaired, how often do we test those waters for their impairments for nitrogen and phosphorus? MR. HATCHER: First off, most of the impaired waters, the impairment is for dissolved oxygen. It's assumed that the causative pollutant is nutrients, but that's only been determined for Gordon River extension and Lake Trafford. We don't have any sampling program currently in place to sample for all of the impaired waters. We have a monitoring program that has set stations, and they're sampled monthly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how do we get from the impaired waters being impaired to the causation being Page 21 of 72 A7 16 F2 April 21, 2011 t r Y nitrogen and phosphorus? MR. HATCHER: It's an assumption by DER CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if you have an impaired water because of dissolved oxygen, the assumption is that some of the dissolved oxygen problems occurred because we had too much nitrogen and too much phosphorus; is that -- MR. HATCHER: Correct. That's the current assumption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then I'm -- just so I'm clear, how often do we monitor those impaired water bodies for the dissolved oxygen? MR. HATCHER: Monthly. And we also sample for chlorophyll a, which is a measure of phytoplankton. And the chlorophyll a values do not reflect impairment by nutrient. The chlorophyll a values are below the state recommended or identified target levels for impairment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm having a hard time understanding everything. You guys have lived it more than I have. The amount of literature we received is so difficult because it talks in parables and ambiguous language. I couldn't follow it all. So I'm trying to get you to help me understand this better. So if we have -- if we restrict nitrogen and phosphorus in some manner, the resultant effect of that theoretically would be there would be a change in dissolved oxygen that we currently have modeled throughout the county, if that was the cause. MR. HATCHER: If that was the cause, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So six months, a year from now, if we go out — if we put an ordinance -- this is just -- say we eliminated all nitrogen and all phosphorus, I'm not saying we're going to do that, but let's say we did that, just for argument's sake, a year from now if that was effective we would see a change in the dissolved oxygens is what some scientists are suggesting? MR. HATCHER: Some scientists would certainly suggest that. A lot of the science would suggest that if we eliminated all of the nitrogen and phosphorus that we would have deterioration in the turf quality and landscape plants, that erosion and transport of sediments would outweigh any benefit that we got from the reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus from the fertilizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but that's a separate issue. I'm still trying to focus on a standard of measure. If we're going to do something and we want to do it either minimal or more stringent, I'd sure like to know that we're on the right track, and I'd like to know how long we would be able to determine that and what the determining measurement standard is. And basically it's a scientific debate on whether or not the oxygen in the water is reflective of phosphorus and nitrogen. MR. HATCHER: I'd agree with that statement at this point in time, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then my next question of Amber -- thank you, Mac. Next question of Amber is going to be, in your looking at my request previously about those adjoining municipalities that had a positive reaction, is there going to be some way that you're going to know if that reaction was attributed to the reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus in those communities? MS. CROOKS: Not 100 percent. I don't think that we're able to show that at this time. It's a correlation. So they're --just like nutrient impairment, it maybe many different causes. So addressing one issue like fertilizer may -- you may see a reduction overall. But there may be other factors also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm getting to an issue, but it's going to come up later today. The content issue that you brought up, 50 percent slow release nitrogen and zero phosphorus, what are we -- what's the current -- if I go down to Home Depot and I were to buy a bag of fertilizer, what would I be buying? Normally. Not concerning your issue, but just say what would I be expecting to find today? MS. CROOKS: You have a wide range of choices when you go to a place like that. But the urban turf rule, which is something that's related to the state model -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Scott's Bonus Plus S? MS. CROOKS: Well, Scott's right now is working to remove all of their phosphorus from their products. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just walked into Home Depot yesterday to get alight bulb, tried to buy one of those energy efficient ones and they didn't have the size. But I walked by a rack, and it made me think of today's meeting. There was Scott's on one side and some other brand on the other. One was $14 and the other was $16. Now, if I were to buy one of those bags, am I consistent with your percentages here or I am inconsistent with Page 22 of 72 16 12 A7 1, Apr011 those? MS. CROOKS: There are products out there that, because the City of Naples and many of these other municipalities already have their ordinance in place, they have the product now more widely available than say three, four years ago. I know that the urban turf rule, which is part of the state -- it's related to the state model, does ask for a 30 percent slow release. So they are asking for some component. But there is a big difference between 30 and the 50 that we're looking for. And there is also a big difference between the phosphorus content that they would allow up to and what we're looking for, which is that zero phosphorus content, unless you have a soil deficiency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry to get to my simple question. Right up the street just a little ways is a Home Depot. When you go in that -- that's where I went yesterday. You go into the landscape side of it, the left side is Scott's Bonus S. Do you have any idea what the slow release nitrogen is in that? MS. CROOKS: You would have to look at the label. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know I would have to if I was there. Do you have any idea -- I don't know what it is -- MS. CROOKS: I don't offhand without looking at the actual product, because the label will explain how much of the product is slow release -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amber, I know all that. I wish I brought the bag. I wish I'd spent the $16 and brought it here today. I am desperately trying to know what they sell versus what you're trying to say they should be allowed to sell. That's my issue. And if they're already selling stuff below what you're suggesting, it may not be a big deal to go along with what you're suggesting, just help prove your point, but I don't know because I don't have the data, and nobody has it at this point. MS. CROOKS: There are -- I don't know if this is helpful, Mark, but there are products that are out there on the shelves that would meet our recommendations. For many years a lot of the local businesses had to create their own mixture of fertilizers that would do some of these things, that are Florida - friendly. Now, because as a result of the ordinance that have been put into place in these other places, we do have these products readily available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, I'm not taking a position yet on the issue. I'm trying to find out how practical it is versus what we're doing today. I didn't even take the time to read all the labels, I just thought somebody would have done that as part of the presentation today, so maybe we will hear it, but I am -- or at lunchtime I could run over there. Anybody else have any questions of Amber before we go to the next public speaker? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact, before we go to the next public speaker we will take our first 15- minute break for the smiling young lady who is hoping I'd say that right now. So let's break till 10:45 and we'll resume at that point. Thank you. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody could resume their seats. We will be taking a break at about a little before 12:00 so that those of us that use that place downstairs can get in line early. We usually take an hour for lunch. One thing that you should know, today is called a workshop for this issue. We do not vote. You cannot vote at workshops. You only can provide direction to staff or suggestions to staff. So by the -- throughout the day and by the time we finish today, we will recommend or suggest to staff direction we'd like to see them go in. But it will not be voted on at this meeting. The voting will come after the final drafts are done and it goes through another process. So there will still be plenty of time to take a look at this. And with that, Ray, you want to call the next public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Herbert Schuchman. MR. SCHUCHMAN: Hi. My name is Herb Schuchman. I'm chair of the State of the Lakes Committee of Island Walk, a community consisting of 1,856 homes built around 30 stormwater retention ponds. In the press when we see about polluted waters, we notice they always talk about large bodies of waters like the Gulf, Rookery Bay, Lake Trafford, Lake Okeechobee. But little discussion seems to be about where this contaminated rich in nutrient water comes from. Page 23 of 72 µ 161`2 7 April 21, 2011 Anyone who has ever had a fish tank realizes that a smaller tank is much harder to maintain than a larger tank. The water goes bad very easily. In Island Walk we've had a problem and we are coming to you with a plea. For the past three years we've noticed a dramatic increase in the amount of algae blooms. We've had a severe decrease in our fish population. We've had occasional odor. As a result, we have an extremely proactive board. We were voted $25,000 just to do testing. We were determined to find out what the causes were and what we could do to correct it. We found that the nitrate and phosphate levels in our ponds had increased 100 percent over the year before. We consulted with the South Florida Water Management District, and their expert estimated that we would have two to three inches of muck. We sent down a diver and we found 12 to 30 inches of muck, all in ponds that average probably between six and eight feet deep, most of it. We have a very low oxygen saturation, particularly during the summer, which is below five parts per million, which is the minimum required for healthy water. We have an increase in pH. We have a loss of depth throughout our system. Now, think about that for a minute. We have a loss of depth. That means that because the material is forming on the bottom, there is less water in those ponds every single year that it exists. We found that the water entering our community tested 40 percent higher in nitrates than our water tested. As a result, we spent over 700 hours researching what the problems were and what to do about it. We contacted communities, cities and municipalities throughout Florida and as far away as California, Colorado and Texas. What we learned was frightening. Our problem isn't unique to Island Walk. It's found wherever these stormwater retention pond systems exist. Florida has the largest number of stormwater retention pond systems of any state in the country. The average life of these systems is 20 to 25 years before dredging is necessary, unless strong proactive measures are taken. These include aeration. Island Walk as a result has just installed a complete aeration system of all of our ponds at a cost of $320,000. Our board, as I said, is extremely proactive. The second thing you can do to help is control all fertilizers, insecticides, housecleaning chemicals, car wash chemicals, weedkillers, power washing chemicals, anything that has any chance of reaching our ponds or our stormwater sewers. At this time a new committee at Island Walk has been established that is reaching out to experts to start evaluating all different types of chemicals to try to find safe chemicals to be able to advise our residents and therefore also our contractors who come into Island Walk. We have learned that in spite of all of our efforts, we, as well as every other system similar to ours, is going to require dredging. Think about that. Think about the number of systems in Collier County that are built around stormwater retention systems. The preliminary estimate for our community is over $10 million. By buying time, we can budget for this. By putting in the aeration system, we've added 20 years, roughly, to the life expectancy before we have to dredge. As a result, we have at least 30 years before we have to do that. We can at least budget for it. But what about all of the other communities in Florida and in Collier? What about them? Most of them are totally unaware, or at least mildly unaware. They continue to throw chemicals at the problem, pouring more and more chemicals into the water, which contain copper as its basic control of the algae blooms. And copper settles to the bottom as copper carbonate, which is a known carcinogen, which is, needless to say, a major problem. With that in mind, Island Walk has started an outreach program to other communities. We've been contacted by several, we've given information to several and we are continuing to meet with other communities to make them aware of the problem so that they can also understand and prepare for the future. We have learned the fertilizers are a factor. Are they the only factor? Absolutely not. But every factor that we can control that's going to help protect our ponds is going to buy us time, number one, to prepare for the future, prepare for those astronomical numbers that await us all, and in addition is going to help clean the water that leaves our communities on the way to the Gulf. We have contacted many communities -- I shouldn't say communities, but cities and counties in Florida. I personally have spoken to 10, speaking to the people who are heavily involved. There has not been one negative Page 24 of 72 1 6 Z I� A7 April 21, 2011 comment that any one of them could make, not one of them reports having a negative comment from a resident that there was a decrease in the grass, color, or that there was any problem whatsoever with the grass when they had the restriction in place. When I say restrictions in place, I mean no fertilizing during the rainy system with nitrate or phosphate, no fertilizing within -- varying amounts in each community ran anywhere from six feet to 40 feet. And they are all very pro -- positive about that. See, you mentioned about science, Mr. Murray. Let me tell you the problem. In my previous life I was a dentist and I was a consultant to a pharmaceutical company involved in human testing with drugs, delivery of drugs. No one is going to put the money into research unless there's a monetary benefit at the end. No drug company is going to spend money to test a drug that they don't have a patent to, because there's no way they're going to get a benefit from it. Everybody gets that benefit. The benefit comes from people who have something to gain and are willing to put the money up. A university gets a good part of their money from grants. Grants come in by people who are interested in proving a point. And they come in with specific ideas in mind. Those are presented to a university. They pay for that. The university does studies. No university is putting all of their money on the line to start doing things unless somebody is funding it. Almost all of it is a result of grants. I'd like you to remember that even though there is a rainy season prohibition potentially to be considered, and there's four months where there is no nitrates and phosphates putting in, in late May we as a community and many of these other areas are now putting that, as I said, the fertilizer in late May. You will see that -- you have to bear in mind that 50 percent of that fertilizer is slow release. It's designed to be released over four months. So that you are getting fertilizer during the rainy season. Not as much as you would get if you fertilized right then and there, I grant you that, but you are getting some fertilizer. The Island Walk board took the position that Mr. Hatcher's original proposal had, and which was based on the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Commission, which involved restriction of fertilizing within 10 foot of ponds -- or I should say, of water, no fertilizing during the rainy season and so on. And this is what we have adapted. I'd like to remind you that no matter what you decide, this is reversible. If you find for some reason it doesn't work for our county, it can always be changed back, there is no risk. Just remember, please, that all over Florida where stormwater retention ponds exist, chemicals are continuously being poured into these ponds in an effort to control the increasing algae blooms that increase every year. Remember this, it also ends up in the Gulf. Because when it leaves our community, it goes into a ditch that takes it to the Gulf. Remember, Island Walk is going to be okay, because we became aware and took strong proactive measures. We put up a lot of money to do it. We've done a lot of testing. We continue to do testing. We're doing soil samples. We're going to be -- we're testing water samples continuously. We are going to be testing before, after and during fertilizing in different areas, including the non - fertilized zones, and we will hopefully have that available at some time in the future. But we're just starting, so we don't have data. I said before, what about the other communities? We're really concerned about that. Because first of all, being selfish, their water, everything north -- quite a bit of the communities east and north of us pour into us. They come over a weir into our ponds. And they are 40 percent higher in nitrates than our ponds are. The sheet flow comes across, also rich in nutrients. We have in our community 30 plus years to deal with the problem of raising the money for dredging. But all of these other communities that are totally unaware, we are worried about. And that's why we have started this outreach program. We strongly urge the commissioners to pass the stricter laws suggested by the proposals of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Commission. It's silly to assume that no fertilizer gets into water. We really can't wait for the science, because it's not going to come, not during my lifetime. We ask the County Commissioners to pass restrictive laws and help extend the time before the dredging becomes necessary. Give these other communities a chance to be educated and become aware of what the problems are and how they can help themselves prepare for the future. I just want to mention one other fact. In our outreach I had a very interesting conservation with a gentleman Page 25 of 72 1 6 2 1. A7 e:4 April 21, 2011 from Marin County, his name is name is Mr. Homlet (phonetic). And he said that in Marin County there is one contractor, which is the largest private landscape contractor in the county. They have 10,000 contracts in Marin County and the adjoining territories just outside their county. They have had the laws in effect for a couple of years. And he said that he had a conference with that contractor who told him that they have had not one negative problem, that the grass stays green. No, we don't have the science. There is not the data behind us. But we do have observations to make about all these 40 some odd plus communities and areas, cities, municipalities and counties that do have these in effect. And we should be learning. We really should be learning. I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. MR. SCHUCHMAN: Yes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your community is manicured or lawns cut and everything by a homeowners association? MR. SCHUCWV AN: Yes. We have it done by one landscaper, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your contract with your landscaper, do you have the provisions that limit them to the amount of slow release nitrogen, phosphorus, how many pounds per year, the buffers and the blackout period? I know some of those you already addressed but -- MR. SCHUCHMAN: It's interesting you should ask, because we just passed those rules. We met with our contractor less than two weeks ago, and the contract is being amended right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And who is your contractor, if you don't mind? MR. SCHUCHMAN: TruGreen. Understand, we are not attacking the contractors or the landscaping industry. They've done a very good job taking care of the lawns and making them look green. If we didn't have bodies of water to be concerned about and we didn't have to deal with that, we wouldn't be here. But we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. I'm not trying to attack anybody either, I'm trying to get to the points. So you are currently using -- or you're going to be instituting a rule of no greater than 50 percent -- or a minimum of 50 percent slow release nitrogen? MR. SCHUCHMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And zero phosphates -- MR. SCHUCHMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or phosphorus. MR. SCHUCHMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have no more than four pounds per thousand a year? MR. SCHUCHMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're going to have that 10 -foot buffer zone? MR. SCHUCHMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to have a summer blackout for four months? MR. SCHUCHMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you approa -- MR. SCHUCHMAN: In addition to that, we've also raised our grass to be cut at four inches instead of three, so we have an active barrier that's increased by 33 percent to block things from entering the ponds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you approached TruGreen, what kind of objection did you get from them? MR. SCHUCHMAN: We had meetings with TruGreen where we asked for input. We brought along our landscaping committee and our lake committee, and we asked them to attend, and their -- they kept going back to the fact that the science was behind them and that this is what they felt was best and they know it works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you said the science was behind them -- MR. SCHUCHMAN: Correct. Page 26 of 72 16 12 A7 April 21, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in regards to what you were asking them to do or in regards to what they wanted to do versus -- MR. SCHUCHMAN: What they want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you overrode them and you told them no -- MR. SCHUCHMAN: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, did they put any caveats in their contract for future problems that should arise as a result of following your standards? MR. SCHUCHMAN: No. Except that if we choose to add anything or make any changes, we would pay for that additionally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in the meantime, though, they accepted your rules. The standards for which they were originally contacted for, which means the maintenance of the lawns and everything else to whatever degree you wanted are still intact? MR. SCHUCHMAN: Right. Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You made a point of addressing me with regard to the matter. And I appreciate that. But are you suggesting that we should ignore the science that results from the universities and other institutions? MR. SCHUCHMAN: I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm saying that they should be scrutinized a little better, perhaps. I'm not going to comment, in that I've read a lot of them, since that was my field in as far as research was, I should say. But it wouldn't hold up to -- a lot of that would not hold up to the standards required in medicine or dentistry, or to get into a journal, because of the way the tests are run. But that's not the point. The point is that there is no opposing science because there's nobody that's put up the -- that's willing to put up that money. That's why we're starting to do our own testing, at least to protect ourselves. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, well, I respect that, certainly. But as you well made the point, there are a lot of small bodies of water with communities that probably would find it challenging at the least to put up that kind of money to do what you're talking about. So in the absence of -- I mean, I will tell you that I will try to find my way through whatever it is that purports to be science. And you make the point, and I think it's valid, certainly, I agree with you that whoever is offering the grant, they have an interest, a stake in what they want to see achieved. Well, that is true of every side when you have opposition. MR. SCHUCHMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so that's the problem for us, we have to find our way through it. I think what you have done is a wonderful thing. I'm sure it's quite expensive. I'm sure the people in the community thought oh, my. But, you know, it's a good start for you. MR. SCHUCHMAN: I have to say that the community was 100 percent behind it. We even had a Town Hall meeting. We did not have one negative person speak on investing the $320,000 for the aeration system or anything else. And you know why? It's because we took time to educate the people properly about what the problems were. It's really that simple. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is always the case, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Tim Hiers. MR. HIERS: Good morning. I think there's one thing we can agree on, everybody wants clean water. I guess you can see from the discussions here, we have different attitudes on how to get there. I want to just go through a little synopsis here. Can we put this on the overhead here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. HIERS: You can see a picture of where the root system is in the growing months, as opposed to the cooler months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, you need to state your name for the record. MR. HIERS: I'm sorry, Tim Hiers. Page 27 of 72 161 2 A7 April 21, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HIERS: If I start talking too fast, just wave me down, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're going to be pretty good. She's probably going to be relieved with you up there over me, so -- MR. HIERS: Okay. There had been a number of peer reviewed publications. And you really can't buy peer reviewed publication, that means that other scientists have looked at the data and said this is correct. For example, Dr. Petrovic at Cornell has done a peer reviewed study, and one of his quotes was, you don't fertilize grass as much when it's not actively growing, because if you do, that's when your potential for leaching and runoff is the greatest. This is not science, but it's a U.S. Today article written on sustainable farming. And what these sustainable farmers do, and I'll read you the quote, they have turned some crop production land into pasture grass to prevent erosion and protect nearby streams from fertilizer runoff. Now, they're putting grass in to protect the water bodies. If you fly across the Midwest in an airplane and you go across these big agricultural strips, you see large bodies of sod in between. The farmers put that grass in there to prevent erosion, to control flooding and to control pollution. They don't take that valuable land just to make themselves feel good. That's been done in the country here for 60 or 70 years now. Can we put this picture on here? There's a picture of a lawn where they don't fertilize that last eight or nine or 10 feet. I don't know how old the picture is. You can see it was taken in 2008. But you can see, number one, and this is what the number of peer reviewed studies show. And if you can use your imagination, I'm going to show you two sponges here. This sponge is going to hold more water than this sponge. This sponge is going to hold more nutrients. Now, I didn't say overwatered or overfertilized. Most homeowners do overwater. There's no question about that. We see that in the community I live in. But if you've got a healthier sponge, and if you look at right that, right there, you can see that water is -- that fertilizer is not moving down that slope. Now, if you can use your imagination, I don't know many things on this planet that lives that can't have food. What's going to happen to that slope if they don't fertilize that, it could be three years, it could be five years -- and let me tell you why the time could vary. Depending on how much organic you've built up in that soil, organic can release nitrogen, it's got microbes. So it might be three years, it might be five years, but what you're going to see on that slope right there is you're going to see erosion, you're going to see weeds. And, for those of you who know hydrology, turbidity is one of the ways you measure pollution of the lake. In you're carrying soil and you're carrying sediments, that's what carries pollution. If I don't say one thing today that you remember, this is my probably my opinion, and the science backs us, and we have at least 15 peer reviewed publications, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State, University of Florida, Cornell. Most of the pollution, if you're getting it from a homeowner's community is from the hard surfaces, it's from the driveway, it's from the sidewalk, it's from the curbs, and a lot of it is from grass clippings. If you think fertilizer moves in soil, I wouldn't want to hire this guy to do my lawn service. But you can see fertilizer put out with a drop spreader, you can see it's not moving. All the scientific studies demonstrate that. Now, let me give you a caveat here. If you've got a brand new turf grass that hasn't built up organics, then that fertilizer can -- the studies have shown the fertilizer can move through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That picture said that he wasn't using quite enough fertilizer. I bet you that was meant to be facetious. MR. HIERS: Well, it just also shows you that there's -- you don't use a drop spreader to fertilize a whole lawn. When you're looking at studies, and when a peer reviewed study is given, be careful of people who would cherry pick one sentence out of 1,000 words to try to change the rudder on the course of that study. One of the points that's been made about other municipalities, unscientific ordinances passed in other cities is not a reason to do it here for continuity. Better to be divided in truth than united in error. You want to stick to the science. Healthy grass is going to retain more water, more nutrients, not one that's overmanaged. The literatures and articles and opinions don't replace pure science. They're just -- they're not going to do that. That's not what you want to do if you want to make these water bodies healthier. One of the problems that they mention here is those lakes were six to eight feet deep. If you talk to some of Page 28 of 72 i 16 12 A i 21, 2011 the county people, you dig lakes 12 to 14 to 15 feet deep, you won't have near as much of a problem. I've grown up in Florida. I lived in Palatka from'60 to'66, went fishing with my dad a lot. We went to lakes that were shallow. There was no development within 30 miles and they would have algae in the summer because your soil temperature warms up, sunlight's hitting in the bottom, and the algae's going to grow. Now, everybody's concern is legitimate. But if they don't apply the science to this, then what's going to happen is eventually you're actually going to have more pollution. So what's the take -home message on this? I think the biggest message is this: You want to keep the turf healthy. Dr. Jim Beard has said the best control for weeds is a good, dense, vigorous turf. He didn't say overwatered, he didn't say overfertilized. Now, in our business, even if fertilizer was free, there's another problem if you overuse fertilizer, especially nitrogen. The plant's more susceptible to disease, it will take more water because the leaf is growing faster, and it's going to be more attractive to insects. So even if the fertilizer were free, which it isn't, anybody in the business has no incentive to use too much. It's just like us, you eat the right amount, you try to keep a balance. So if you keep that turf, you hit that turf healthy, not necessarily green, you want to have green turf because green turf is respiring properly. But if you keep it healthy, that's going to be your best filter for protecting the waterways. Keep the fertilizer off the hard surfaces and the grass clippings. It's just -- don't just keep the fertilizer off, make sure -- and I know the ordinance says this, if somebody mows a lawn, don't wait, blow that right back onto the grass surface. Because that's one of your biggest sources of pollution. By the way, your nutrient loading, no one's distinguished -- you know, we've seen some anecdotal evidence that some of these things have improved, but some of those cities have initiated in their BMPs street sweeping. They're sweeping the streets more often to get the leaves and animal debris and other stuff off the hard surfaces so it doesn't end up in the water body. Because there's nothing right now to show that the nutrient loading is nitrogen and phosphorus. Florida soils are replete with phosphorus. They mine it in the state. So am I advocating that we're not judicious with what we do? Absolutely, we should be. Because we all drink the same water, we all live in the same neighborhoods. We're going to have to use the science to probably solve this problem and use experience, not just opinions. Probably the biggest thing is use peer reviewed science and practical experience to make sound decisions on any new ordinance. Now, I ask this to the people who oppose the state model ordinance. Not your articles, not your references, not your phone calls, where is your peer reviewed science that shows that fertilizer is running off, releasing off turf? I haven't seen one study yet. Haven't seen one. No one's produced one. I've heard references, I've heard innuendos, but we haven't seen it yet. And here's probably the biggest thing I'll leave you with. Repeating something over and over again in error doesn't make it a fact, no matter how emotional and no matter how sincere you are. Sincerity is no substitute for the truth. So I just appeal to you, use the science. We would like to work with other organizations. We do have some ideas, but we don't have the authority to step out those ideas. We trust these organizations because we've seen the science. I know a lot of these professors, there's no amount of money -- I'll give you an example, University of Florida was accused of doctoring one of the studies. Less than two percent of the money in the study came from fertilizer companies. Most of the money came from state agencies. So I hope that makes sense. And if you've got any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, in the picture that you showed, I guess it was about five or six feet from the edge of the water body where they weren't fertilizing, how close to the water body do you recommend that you do fertilize? MR. HIERS: Well, it depends. That's a study I think we need to do. But I think if you use a deflector seal or a drop spreader -- and let me just -- I don't want to bore you, let me give you one example. If you use a slow release fertilizer, a quick release fertilizer, it still breaks down to nitrate in the end. Doesn't matter if it's organic, synthetic or fast release, it's still going to break down and that's still going to be a pollutant. If you use a slow release fertilizer or any fertilizer, almost the minute that fertilizer goes down you should water it in and get it into the turf canopy. Page 29 of 72 161 e�Api2,2011 Here's the danger, and this is a rare anomaly. Here's the danger in a slow release fertilizer. And I'm not advocating you don't use it, I think you should. You can put a slow release fertilizer down today and you get an eight -inch rain tomorrow and it can float. It won't float three of four days later, but that next day it could float. You put a quick release down, it goes immediately into solution. Now, I'm not advocating a quick release fertilizer. The problem is the science is here; the big issue I see is how do you implement scientific programs with homeowners who -- it's not a matter of intellect, okay. I've got doctors, attorneys, people who are very intelligent, very friendly, but they don't know the soil science. And homeowners typically, their attitude is if two is good, then four is better. I don't know if that answers your question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, it didn't. MR. HIERS: Okay, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My question was how close to the edge do you recommend that you fertilize? MR. HIERS: Well, if I were using a drop spreader I would go three feet, if I water it in. And here's why I say three feet. You're going to find out in three or four, five or six years, depending on the content of that soil, that grass is going to decline and thin out because you have to feed it, and the grass here you're fertilizing is not -- that fertilizer is not going to run onto that three feet. And you've got all kinds of pictures in the scientific literature to back it up. But that's not scientific. You're asking me an opinion. I would go three feet. Now I think what would happen in four or five years, you're going to say this doesn't work because if it's against water it's going to erode because the turf is going to thin out. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How far does fertilizer move laterally? MR. HIERS: It depends on the soil and depends on how much organic you have. If you've got a brand new grass and it's really sandy and you use the wrong fertilizer -- let's say, for example, if you've got a new turf -- let's just take a golf course, for example. If you've got a new turf and it's really sandy, you should either be using a slow release fertilizer or doing light frequent applications of a quick release, so if something does happen you don't get much movement. Because a quick release fertilizer in a sandy soil will move; the research does show that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Don't you think it also depends on the slope? Like the area that you said there it was a steep slope, if you applied fertilizer there, don't you think a lot of it would end up in the water? MR. HIERS: Well, actually, Dr. Watschke at Penn State did a peer reviewed study. He simulated a three- and -a -half, four -inch rain in one hour on a 13- and -a -half degree slope. He got no runoff, he got no leaching. And that was peer reviewed. But that was a healthy turf grass. In fact, Dr. Wassell at Wisconsin, Dr. Cisar and Snyder at University of Florida have done studies and shows that when this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow down a little bit. You are starting to get faster. She's kind of having a hard time here. MR. HIERS: When that sponge does thin out, then you're going to get more runoff. And Dr. Wassell did that study at the University of Wisconsin. And soil chemistry is soil chemistry, whether it's Wisconsin or Maine or University of Florida, the soils do different -- do vary. Obviously a heavier soil is going to hold more nutrients. Now, one thing that could be looked at as the grass gets older and you build up that organic content, again, I'm not speaking scientifically, I'm surmising, that as that grass gets older and you build up your organic, I think you probably could use less fertilizer, and that's where the soil test and what we call wet lab analysis comes in. You can do a soil test and that shows you what's in the soil. But you don't what the plant's actually taken up unless you do what they call a wet lab analysis. So if you do a wet lab analysis, this is not what your typical homeowner is going to do, but you could do it for study purposes. You could actually find out what the plant's taken up. So in my opinion, there's no science behind this, as grass ages and you build up the organic in the lawn, you could use less nitrogen. I don't have a lick of science to back that up. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you think that nutrients that are -- fertilizer that's put on grass doesn't get into surface waters? MR. HIERS: There may be exceptions, but if I look at the number of studies, and I know there's at least 15 peer reviewed studies from various universities that say that's not the case. That's why you see farmers putting in turf between their sustainable crops to prevent fertilizer runoff and erosion, that's why agricultural does it. Page 30 of 72 11.2 A �pril 21, 2011 6 If you talk to any soil conservation on any one of the continents on this planet, they will tell you the number one control for soil erosion is grass. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I recognize that, you know, when you have like a threadbare grass that you will get runoff and you will get stuff going into the water body, and that a thick spongy grass is good to prevent erosion. But it also seems very counterintuitive to think that if you're applying fertilizer three or four times a year that none of it is going to get into the water body. MR. HIERS: When you say none, if you're talking about a part per billion, I would say some. But there's something else to remember, and I don't want to get too technical. But your microbial population, which are microbes which have to be seen by a microscope, that's where the science is. If you've got a healthy soil, those microbes actually digest that fertilizer. And there's tons of peer reviewed science to back that up. That's why in a sandy soil that's new, you don't have a very good microbial population in addition to not having much matter thatched. That's why your newer grass is the grass that's most susceptible to having a problem. So there needs to be a different program for a new grass, versus established grass, versus the age of the grass, versus the amount of organic content in the soil. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, do you have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. If we did approve something like the City of Naples or The Conservancy, what's your downside prediction? Fast forward three years, five years, what's going on? MR. HIERS: It depends on the soil. And we've seen some of those. We've seen some counties where they've already had some issues where they've cut the fertilizer back. And I go back to -- I hope I'm answering your question -- everything that lives has to be fed. If you start cutting the food back, you're eventually going to have a problem. And when the turf loses its density, then it's more susceptible to nematodes, to insect damage, to disease damage. And once you open that canopy up a little bit -- and we experienced this in the golf world -- that sun directly heats that soil, which increases your evapotranspiration rate, which is significant. And it's like if you put an umbrella on your head, you're going to knock some of the sun off. When you take that umbrella off that soil, that soil heats up a lot quicker and your evaporation rates increase a lot quicker. So I think you're going to see a detriment in three to four to five years. I mean, the science that we've seen, the peer reviewed science shows this material isn't moving off. I still believe it's coming off your hard surfaces. And it's not just the fertilizer, it's the grass clippings. And you shouldn't dig lakes that are six to eight to nine feet deep, you should probably have your lakes at least 12 to 14 feet deep if you're going to have a lake. Because what their lakes are going through is a process called CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, you've really got to slow down. She's no way going to keep up with you, and if the record's not clear, it's going to hurt everybody. MR. HIERS: Gotcha. The problem with a shallow lake is it's going through the process called eutrophication right now. And the diffuser's a good thing. We use them on the golf course. What the diffusers do is they prevent what they call a thermal rise, is where you have that lack of dissolved oxygen on the bottom, and when you get a big wind, it will pull that lack of DO up to the top, and that's what actually kills the fish. So those diffusers, those aerators are very productive for lakes. They don't nearly work in lakes that aren't at least six feet deep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I've got a couple questions. You're with the golf course superintendents -- MR. BIERS: I'm with the Florida Turf Grass Association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now first of all, you're exempt from this ordinance. MR. HIERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These questions hopefully are simple answers. The summer blackout, do you use -- under your BMPs, do you have any blackout periods? MR. HIERS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- Paul already asked about the buffer zone. Under your maximum application of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet per year, how much? Page 31 of 72 16 12 Apri721,2011 4 MR. HIERS: Well, Mark, we're a little unusual. We're a golf course that uses seashore paspalum because our water source is brackish water. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you repeat that, please? MR. HIERS: Paspalum. I'll spell that for you. P- A- S- P- A- L -U -M. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a grass that's kind of miraculous, it doesn't need much of anything, and you can put saltwater on it and it still grows. MR. HIERS: We use on that grass about three pounds of total nitrogen a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your say Tid -dwarf or some of the typical golf courses that use some of the other kind of grasses, what would they normally use for nitrogen? MR. HIERS: I can't speak for them, but they might use five or six pounds. Well, on the fairways probably four to five pounds. And I don't know if I answered this question, but around our lakes, when we fertilize we use a drop spreader for two passes, then we use a rotary spreader for another pass, then we go to the big spreader so we've got a 25 -foot buffer, so there's no chance we'll throw any fertilizer into the body of the water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The content that you use in your fertilizers, do you use any phosphates? MR. HIERS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about slow release nitrogen, what's your minimum or maximum that you use there? MR. HIERS: Well, again, you've got the worst guy up here because the grass we use is different. We use a liquid fertilizer. We spoonfeed. We don't use any granular nitrogen except on our greens, and we only do that twice a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in your organization there are others that use other -- have other golf courses besides paspalum, so do you know what they would use? MR. HIERS: Well, most of them use slow release nitrogen, because it's expensive and they don't want to -- you know, I don't want to technical again, but in the summertime they use a slow release that breaks down by microbial activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What percentage? MR. HIERS: I don't know, but it's pretty heavy, because they don't want to be losing anything to the rainwater. In the wintertime they use a fertilizer that breaks down by hydrolysis, which means water, because your microbial activity goes down in the wintertime because the soil temperature drops. So in the summertime typical golf courses will use a slow release fertilizer that breaks down by microbes. In the wintertime they'll use a slow release fertilizer that breaks down by water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said pretty heavy. Do you have any percentage? MR. HIERS: What was the question again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that they use a pretty heavy percentage of slow release nitrogen. What do you mean by pretty heavy? MR. HIERS: A lot of the guys, or some of the guys will use 100 percent. Most of the guys, I'm going to guess, would use at least 50 percent. I could be wrong, they can shake their head if I'm wrong back there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they can come up and speak too. So maybe we'll hear from them before the day's over. Those were issues that were brought up as concerns over the ordinance to begin with. And I'm trying to match them up to reality. Which is kind of where I asked the questions about Scott's Bonus S, for whatever that's worth. Just trying to find out how practical some of these things are so -- thank you, Tim, you've been very helpful. Appreciate it. MR. HIERS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next public speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Bill Davidson. MR. DAVIDSON: Bill Davidson. Mr. Chairman, for the point of time expediency, I'm going to just make a couple quick points. Ninety-nine percent of what Tim said, we completely support. There's just one point that you mentioned with Page 32 of 72 161 ?A7 April 21, 2011 regard to the effect of golf communities and how the fertilizer ordinance would pertain to them. Not only do we have golf courses within the communities, but it's also the residential section that many of us are responsible for as well, which would fall under the new fertilizer ordinance rules. So therein is our concern. And long term when this fertilizer ordinance, if it comes to pass where there is a ban and all that sort of an issue and it doesn't play out as expected, we don't want the situation to arise and say well, it's got to be the golf courses, now we want the golf courses to be put into a summertime ban and all that sort of thing. So we're really standing as a green industry, not segregating ourselves golf versus homeowners and all that sort of thing. With respect to your question on slow release fertilizers and things of that nature, at my golf course we use 100 percent slow release granular fertilizer year round. But in addition to that, we also spray foliar fertilizers on the golf course. On the greens we do it weekly. On the tees and fairways we're doing it every two to three weeks. And the effect of foliar fertilizing is this would be the equivalent to you putting lotion on your skin where it gets directly absorbed into the plant, it doesn't go through the root system, and you can bypass the effect of any rain application or anything like that. That's all I'll have. I'll just say that we stand in support of everything that Mr. Hires just said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You use 100 percent slow release on the golf course. What do you use -- since you do the residential homes, what do you use on those? MR. DAVIDSON: We're using a product that is not 100 percent slow release, because we don't have the ability to go up there and spray on all those common ground areas. We're using a product that's a 50150. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's 50 percent slow release and 50 percent quick release? MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What kind of grass you're putting on your -- what's on your course? MR. DAVIDSON: My golf course is Bermuda grass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And your greens, same thing? MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Do you have any issues with your lakes? MR. DAVIDSON: No, ma'am. My golf course was built in 1966, and we have no issues with our lakes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you are consistent though with one of the recommendations we heard today about the content of the fertilizer, minimum 50 percent slow release and zero phosphates. MR. DAVIDSON: Personally I don't have an issue with the phosphorus. If a soil test says that you need phosphorus, we're okay with that. You know, with 50 percent, that's debatable. The problem that you get in when you have more slow release in a residential neighborhood, you don't get the initial effect. And there you get to the if two is good, we're going to put down four. That's where you're really going to run into an overapplication scenario. Because slow release is supposed to feed it very slowly over time, wherein if you have a little bit of quick release to give you that initial green up, and then you have the slow release to sustain it through the duration. And if you go to a large portion of slow release, they're not going to see it two to three days, and you're like, well, I must put down more. Pfffft, so that's the scenario that you're into there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How often do you fertilize in the rainy season? MR. DAVIDSON: My golf course? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. MR. DAVIDSON: We fertilized -- we just got done fertilizing our slow release granular, and that will take us through until September. But we are foliar feeding our golf course every two to three weeks. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What about the residential parts, how often do you fertilize those in the summer? MR. DAVIDSON: We typically do it June or July, and then we -- it'll get us two or three months, and then we'll do it again towards the end of the summer. So right at the beginning and right at the end of the blackout period is typically when we would do it. Page 33 of 72 161 2 A7 a e,�. t April 21, 2011 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you probably could do it the end of May and it would probably last you through the rainy season, wouldn't you say? MR. DAVIDSON: Depending on soil conditions and what you put out, there is a potential. I'm not going to speculate as to say it would or would not work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's not a golf course superintendent. MR. YOVANOVICH: He wants to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's an operator of a public restroom now, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's still morning. Good morning. Rich Yovanovich. I feel like I need to blow Tim's horn a little bit. Tim is probably one of the top two golf course superintendents worldwide, so he knows of which he speaks when he's talking about taking care of grass and what's necessary. And I think I need to point out that the golf courses are here, even though they're not regulated by this ordinance, because it's important to them that the right ordinance gets adopted for the taking care of grass. And Commissioner Strain knows that, you know, I'm not a golf course superintendent, so I don't purport to offer any expert testimony regarding what is appropriate or what is not appropriate. But I do want to point out, as your county attorney pointed out, is that the model ordinance says that if you want to become more stringent, it has to be based on science. And the science out there today, and that science is many, many years old, and there's many, many peer reviewed studies, clearly shows that the blackout period is the wrong thing to do scientifically. We're not opposed to the ordinance. There's several good things in this ordinance regarding the Best Management Practices and requiring commercial applicators to be trained in BMPs and certified in those BMPs. We support and endorse those requirements that are in the model ordinance, and I don't think anybody's going to object to that. And I guess fortunately or unfortunately, however you want to look at it, in Naples I would say that the vast majority of individual property owners and probably all of the communities that have common areas use professionals to apply these fertilizer materials. So that aspect of the ordinance will probably take care of the large majority of the, quote, runoff problem if there is even in fact a runoff problem, which the research shows there's not a runoff problem related to fertilizer and healthy grass. So I think the evidence and the scientific basis is there to follow what the model ordinance says and to follow what your staff is saying. I think what has been pointed out in the question is that there is no scientific basis for the approach The Conservancy wants to take. I think their heart's in the right place, I'm not questioning their motives, but there's no science behind a full -out ban during the four most important months for the grass to grow. I heard statements like she thinks this will work. She talked about anecdotal evidence. But there's no real scientific basis. And Tim said it much better than I can ever say: Just because other communities have adopted the wrong approach doesn't mean that Collier County needs to follow that. In this particular case, I think intuition is wrong. People intuitively believe that fertilizer is causing the problem and it's running off during the summer. And I just think that the science shows that the intuition is not correct. The model ordinance was adopted by the FDEP and it was reviewed by the University of Florida IFAS Center. It was reviewed by the Department of Agriculture, as Mac pointed out. They all looked at what The Conservancy is proposing and they've said that's not supported by the science. This is the same FDEP who says we have impaired waters. So they're saying we have impaired waters, they've looked at a more stringent version of the model of the ordinance and they said don't do it. So the science, it doesn't support going more stringent. We need to adopt the model ordinance as it's written. I think what you've heard is we could probably agree to the recommendation to go to the 30 percent slow release. I don't think anybody has said that that additional requirement from -- and I forget which entity that was, they Page 34 of 72 bAr721,2011 may have been the IFAS Center, I can't remember which one -- but said go to a 30 percent slow release. I think that could probably be supported and maybe implemented and you can go. The biggest fear that I've heard, and just from listening to people talk, is that if you go to the absolute ban, we believe it's going to have no effect. So just like the person who puts -- doesn't see the quick reaction from the fertilizer, they go and put more fertilizer on it. The fear is going to be you're going to have a blackout period, it's going to have no impact. And that no impact is going to force you to do something more restrictive. And maybe it's a blackout on everything, you know, you'll have a total blackout period. Because you don't know. So you need to rely on the science. I sent all of you a five- minute link, you know, to summarize the scientific evidence. I'm not sure whether it ever got through, because I know earlier in the morning you talked about whether you had the ability to get to your e-mail addresses for that. So, but there's a -- since this is just a workshop, you'll have an opportunity to log in and look at that five- minute blurb from the University of Minnesota where the scientist takes you through the totally unfertilized grass, takes you through the properly fertilized grass and it takes you through kind of a blackout period. And the scientific evidence shows you that not fertilizing is the worst thing you can do. And then it talks further on. But if you look at that five - minute blurb, I think you'll be able to see what Tim has already said and what the scientists have been saying all along, is that the runoff issue is not related to fertilizer running off. That's not what your problem is. And we would encourage you to follow staffs recommendation. Thank you. CHAHUY AN STRAIN: Thanks, Rich. Ray, how many more public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: About four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll continue with the public speakers. And as we wind it up, we'll see if we want to finish those up before we go to lunch. It might help in case some people have to leave and can't wait for the hour. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Mr. Yovanovich brought up the link that he had sent us, this little video, which I don't know whether people saw it or not. But I would suggest, since this will be coming back, that Mr. Yovanovich should send the actual study and not just the short little video clip. And that way people can make a real determination about what that actually shows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next speaker. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a copy of it, so you don't have to give it to me. MR. BELLOWS: Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good morning. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here on before of Collier County Audubon Society. I appreciate the opportunity to make a couple of comments about the fertilizer ordinance discussion you're having. It clearly is apparent that one of the biggest issues is the degradation of banks and what might cause that relative to fertilizing or not fertilizing on a setback. I think what we ought to be looking at is alternative ways to stabilize banks other than turf and fertilization. And that might include the use of littoral plantings in the lake, adjusting the slopes, as Mr. Midney was discussing about, alternative ground covers, perhaps the use of native ground covers. And even perhaps some structural adjustments to make banks more stable. We have sandy soils here, that's our typical soil in south Florida. And I think that that's going to be an issue. So looking at alternative ways to stabilize banks without fertilizing right next to water makes a lot of sense. I want to point out -- I'm sorry, I'm eating this microphone. I want to point out a parallel that Audubon of Florida scientists have been looking into in Lake Okeechobee. And this has to do with phosphorus, but nevertheless, it is fertilizer, a heavy fertilizer issue. And that is that there are limits set for Lake Okeechobee. It's got a huge muck core now, it's supposed to be a sandy bottom lake. That muck core is a big problem. When storms come up, the lake gets churned up, water levels rise and they inevitably, during rainy seasons like back in 2004, 2005 when we had a lot of hurricanes crisscross the state, huge releases of very fertilizer and nutrient laden water came down the Caloosahatchee, caused horrible algae blooms, killed sea grasses, oysters, et cetera, all the way out to Ding Darling. Page 35 of 72 16 12 A7 April 21, 2011 Well, that fertilizer problem has a solution. Limit the amount of fertilizer coming from the watershed, coming downstream. The problem is that if you limit it to the amount that the Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, IFAS, of the University of Florida says to limit it to for application for crops and turf, that's not enough. You still get heavy overages of those limits. And that's what's been observed in the water quality. Way more phosphorus and fertilizer going into Lake Okeechobee, even if you adhere to the IFAS recommendations. That's because IFAS studies on turf and crops have to do with agronomic rates of application; what do the plants need for healthy growth, not what the water quality result will be if you apply that amount of fertilizer for those plants. So maybe your question is maybe we have the wrong plants in this environment. Maybe we're not using the correct crop. Maybe this is not the right species of grass that we've got. So IFAS studies are biased. They're not the best use if your concern is water quality. So I have a heavy concern about that. I do want to point out, which I think you all have agreed with, that monitoring water quality is essential, no matter what we do. Whatever kind of ordinance we adopt, whether we adopt one or if we don't adopt one, we've got to monitor our water bodies for water quality. And we have to do sufficient public and professional outreach and education, I think everybody agrees with that, that's absolutely essential. I think in the end this public policy discussion boils down to whether Collier County and all of us want to err on the side of grass or on the side of water quality in deciding whether to adopt a stricter fertilizer ordinance. Collier County Audubon Society strongly urges you and all of us to base public policy on the science that supports stricter fertilizer ordinance, blackouts in the summertime, mandatory 10 -foot buffers from water bodies, especially those water bodies that lead into the Gulf of Mexico and estuaries, no phosphorus, 50 percent slow release nitrogen. This seems reasonable. And it seems if we need -- if we have dueling discussions or any doubt about science, and there's always some element of doubt, and I pointed out the bias that IFAS has, I think we ought to be looking at erring on the side of water quality in the public interest. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Tim Nance. MR. NANCE: Yes. Good morning. Tim Nance. I'm here because I'm an interested citizen and because I worked in the agribusiness industry for all of my adult life in a business that was located in Collier County. My remarks that I would make to you today are that the decision you're making at this point in my view is not so much about whether you're making a decision that where you have to choose aesthetics over the environment, but rather how the fertilizer ordinance is going to be developed over time in Collier County. I think everybody would agree that the science is incomplete at this time. So we can argue back and forth over different fertilizer aspects. I will tell you that I personally, in my position with the Gargiulo Company, formulated millions of pounds of fertilizers a year and directed their application, millions and millions of dollars and millions and millions of pounds. It's a very, very complicated science. The nutrients, different forms of nutrients, different fertilizer formulations and the way they are released, including what is typically in this discussion has been termed quick release or slow release should more often be discussed as controlled release. There are many, many high tech products that exist today. And I think as we move forward developing fertilizer ordinances over the next 10 years, I think that the ordinances you'll see 10 years from now will bear little resemblance to the one that you will begin with in the decision that is made today, simply because there are many, many high tech materials that are not within the purview of this discussion today but will be added into the quiver of things to control fertilizer release and the results that we want for water quality. I think today the most important decision that you make is how you're going to move forward with decision making and the resolution of this problem. I would recommend to you that you adopt an approach that utilizes the resources of the University of Florida as the lead agency and the institution that is most likely to take us through the science to add the additional studies and to come to the conclusion and the result that everybody is looking for. And I think this is going to take time, it's going to take money. I believe that that will happen because of the interest of the public and because of the interest in everybody that monitors water quality, that those things will indeed take place. Page 36 of 72 April 21, 2011 16 12 A7 So I personally support beginning with the state model ordinance, only because I think it's a good point of beginning, and that it supports the University of Florida and DEP as a combination of our finest educational institution and the lead agency that are going to be responsible for solving this problem. Furthermore, I think the University of Florida DEP model is very compelling for perhaps the most important part of our fertilizer ordinance, and something that hasn't been -- that has been little discussed today, and that is the practical application in the field. Regardless of the ordinance that's adopted, we have to have a methodology to get it into use and practical application from the homeowners. I think you'll have very little problem from the industry, because the industry is going to be very responsive to it. But from the homeowners' point of view, there's going to be a huge public education component that we're going to have to have to be successful. With the University of Florida, we have at our disposal the second largest extension system in the whole of the United States and perhaps the world, only to California, that will avail itself to helping with that public education. In addition, the University of Florida also has professional training and certification component that will come to Collier County if we support the University of Florida recommendations. If we go off and do things that Collier County has done many times and reinvent the wheel and come up with something that we have to administer ourselves, that we have to develop the information, the training, the outreach to the public, it's going to create a whole nother -- in my view it could create a whole nother agency in our local government, which I don't think anybody is going to want to do. It's neither going to be effective nor it's certainly not going to save us any money. So I believe that many advancements are going to take place. I hope we adopt an ordinance that moves forward with the studies, with the University of Florida so we can be on the cutting edge of peer reviewed science. And I would hope that you would take that into consideration. Is there any questions at all? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, as somebody who has worked with fertilizer before, do you agree with the statements that were made before that fertilizer does not move laterally into canals and water bodies? MR. NANCE: I will tell -- this is what I will tell you about my experience with fertilizers. I am certainly not a turf grass expert. All of the fertilizers I have used have been on high value fruit, vegetable, agronomic crops, although I have done quite a bit of work with container ornamentals. I will tell you this: The results that you get depend directly on the sorts of fertilizer materials that you utilize. And you have not gotten into that today. For example, there are sources of nitrogen that are released by microbial activity. There are fertilizer materials that are manufactured that release their nutrients based on the amount of water that they get. There are others that release their nutrients based on the temperature that they're exposed to. This is all very, very complicated. There are many forms of nitrogen and many fertilizer materials that the industry can produce that can give you all sorts of capabilities. None of this has been addressed nor should it be at this point in our conversation. This is going to take combination studies to take the technology that we have, the exact circumstances that we have, the environmental conditions that south Florida has that are unique, and it's going to take an agency like the University of Florida to study those things and come up with the very best result. I don't think any conclusion that we come to today is going to be a solution that we're going to have 10 years from now. I expect us, for example, to be using very highly controlled release forms of fertilizer that are polymer coated down the road that apply the fertilizer to the crops exactly during the time frame that we wish them to be applied, and we have all those capabilities. We're not there yet, but we will be. That's why I say that your decision today is more important about the agencies that you support and the approach that you select to move us forward through the process. I think it's much more important. But I do support the model ordinance as the place to begin, because I think it just makes the most sense to start there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. Appreciate it. We had previously discussed breaking around 11:45. We have two more public speakers registered, and then we'll have others, if they want to speak. But I think that we would try to finish up with the registered public speakers now, if that's okay with the panel. Page 37 of 72 161 2 A7 Aril 21 2011 Okay, so let's go finish up on our public speakers then we'll take a break. MR. BELLOWS: Alberto Overdo (sic). I don't think I got the last name. MR. QUEVEDO: Hi. Good morning. Alberto Quevedo, Q- U- E- V- E -D -O. That was close. I just want to waive my time in support of the state model ordinance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Brian Becknalls (sic). Oh -oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a name problem this morning, huh, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might have to spell your name. MR. BECKNER: It's Brian Beckner, B- E- C- K- N -E -R. I waive my right and time in support of the state model ordinance and Tim Hier's extensive time in conversation earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, we are going to take a break for lunch for one hour. If those speakers who are not registered want to come back when we come back from break and speak, you are going to be more than welcome to before we get into our further discussions on a page by page review of the ordinance. So we'll take a break until 10 minutes of 1:00 and come back at 12:50. (A luncheon recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from lunch, everyone. And before we resume, Mac, I'd like to run some ideas by you. It's close to 1:00 and we still have barely scratched the surface of the fertilizer issue. And I know that because of the number of questions per page that we're probably going to have and debate the issues that were brought forward by the public and maybe bring members of the public that are still here back up and staff to answer questions we may have. I'm not sure we're going to get past the fertilizer ordinance today. I want to ask you what you think of just saying let's just do that today so we know we can get that done, and do the watershed ordinance, resume it at our next regular meeting for whenever that is, and that way your consultants aren't sitting here wasting the rest of the afternoon. MR. HATCHER: My reluctance to accept your proposal is that I really feel like the rest of the presentation is the meat of the issue. I would prefer to table the fertilizer ordinance for a separate day and move on with the watershed plan discussion, but obviously, I'm sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're already far into the fertilizer ordinance, Mac, we need to finish it up. And that's what the public was here for today. I understand the watershed is probably a bigger -- in fact it is a bigger issue. But how -- we're here to respond to the public and the public's been here today, as you saw by the show of hands this morning, strictly for the fertilizer ordinance. And if we had gone into the watershed we may never have gotten to the fertilizer ordinance, or if we did, it would only be for a very small portion of it, based on the time frames that are now going swiftly fast. MR. HATCHER: I'm not disagreeing with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, I'm just trying to be practical, because your consultants here, and that gentleman's wife is going to be madder than the devil at him because it's their anniversary and he should be home taking care of his family, and I'm just trying to offer a solution. But, you know, we can continue -- we're going to continue on. But if we don't get past the fertilizer ordinance in the next two or three hours, I'm not sure how much time you're going to have left to do anything today, and therefore you've got these people sitting here almost the whole day for no reason. It's your call. And I don't -- if you feel you've got to get this done as much as you can today, and even if you have a half hour or an hour left for the watershed management part of it, maybe we can get there. I just don't know. And I know that we'd have better timing after our next meeting. But it's your call, it's your department. So you figure out how you want to move forward. We're trying just to work with you, so. MR. HATCHER: Okay, well, I guess we'll finish up with the fertilizer ordinance today and agree to meet again on the watershed plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the -- well, let's talk about the timing then. I know that I've got Page 38 of 72 s �� 16 12 VApril'21, 2011 small questions on most of the pages, and I have a lot of questions about the effective way this fertilizer ordinance can be controlled. Then we've got to get into the various elements that are in debate. They range from the mix of the content, the application rate, to the buffer zones, to the summer blackouts, the golf course BMPs, things like that. What does the rest of this board think as far as time goes? How many members of the public would still like to speak to us on the fertilizer ordinance today? One, two, let's say two, three people. Okay. So let's say we get to our part of it by 1:30. You guys, how long do you think it will take us to get through the 13 pages? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ten - and -a -half minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't really have a lot. I do have some questions, but not a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's just get going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we can just -- we'll just wing it for a while, just hang in there, we'll see what happens. If we get through our discussions fast, then we may be able to get to your people today, so -- I was trying to make sure we covered all bases. With that, Ray, we have several speakers. If they're registered, let's get those first, then we'll get anybody else that isn't. MR. BELLOWS: Todd Josko. MR. JOSKO: Hi, good afternoon. I'll be really, really brief. I just wanted to pick up on a point or two that some of the other speakers mentioned. My name is Todd Josko. I represent TruGreen. And I'm not going to get into the science, I think you've heard enough about that back and forth. COMMISSIONER CARON: Slow down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She means slow down. She's trying to type as fast as you talk. MR. JOSKO: Okay. Regarding the different ordinances, I think it's important to remember, some folks talked about the need for consistency, and that the City of Naples was doing this and Lee County did that. You know, those ordinances were all passed before there was a procedure that we're going through today. There was no -- those folks did not have the advantage that you have of looking at the comments of experts from DEP and IFAS and DACS. There was no model ordinance to codify the best practices. So those were really drawn out, out of, I don't want to say thin air, but there was no baseline when some of these early ordinances were put on the books. And it was because of those ordinances that folks at DEP and DACS and IFAS is said, you know, wait a minute, we have some concerns with these ordinances that are being passed on the local level, they don't reflect what is out there and representing the best science. In many cases, they go contrary to the principles of best science and bring up a lot of unintended consequences, such as the practices of the buffer zones or the 50 percent slow release requirements. So I think out of some of the ordinances in this area came the model ordinance. There was a group called the Florida Consumer Task Force that comprised DEP and Department of Ag. and League of Cities, and counties, environmental groups, industry groups, and they all got together and looked at all of the science and looked at best practices. And out of that became the model ordinance that DEP put forth and that your staff is recommending and that subsequently in Florida statutes the legislature said, you know, municipalities going forward, if they are looking at doing a fertilizer ordinance, they have to solicit those comments from DEP, just so that you're armed with what is the science, what are the best practices. So it's important to remember that -- I think some other speaker said it a little more eloquently, the important thing is getting it right. And I think, you know, had, I think, some of those other municipalities had the tools at their disposal that you all have, I'm not sure that they wouldn't have made those same decisions that they have going forward. That's all I wanted to address. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you work in the industry or what? MR. JOSKO: I represent TruGreen in government affairs capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you work in the City of Naples? MR. JOSKO: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does TruGreen as a company do any work in the City of Naples? MR. JOSKO: I'm pretty sure they do. I have -- there is quite a few people from TruGreen here that can talk Page 39 of 72 s A 7 "' 1. 12 Ap ril 21, 2011 specifically about what they do in the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I think if they're working in the City of Naples under an ordinance that's there and they're working in the county, as we've heard testimony in Island Walk, I'd sure like to understand how green the grass is in Naples compared to the county. We must have a lot greener grass that that poor town of Naples, because they're restricted and we're not. So I don't know if one of your people can address that, but if one of them wouldn't mind since you're TruGreen, and -- MR. JOSKO: Sure. Is the question how is the ordinance -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to understand how you're working in the City of Naples with that ordinance there that's been suggested for Collier County, what differences do you see in the way you're working there that are detrimental to the way you would work in Collier County if the same procedures were here. MR. JOSKO: Let me turn it over to one of our folks that actually works in the City to best answer that for you there. MS. SANTELLA: You might have someone next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay, come on up. MS. SANTELLA: My name is Santella, S- A- N- T- E- L -L -A. I've been in Florida since 1985.1 live in Lake County, a little bit north of here, in a small town called Sorrento. North of Naples both in Italy and Florida. And I started my career at a horticulturist on the south side of Chicago, growing sunflowers, forsythias. So the early morning topic was very interesting to me, because it's how I got my start. I do have a Bachelors and Master's Degree in Agronomy. I'm TruGreen's technical manager for all of our Florida branches. We have 18 locations throughout the state. I've been involved in the BMP model ordinance issue with DACS, DEP and IFAS since the inception over a decade ago. And we do support the state model ordinance. And I've been involved from Naples to St. John's County, to on the coast with the Broward Everglades Working Group. In Orlando. And they're all grappling with these issues of water quality and how do we meet the TMDL issues and protect our precious water quality. Most recently, as Todd alluded to, as counties and cities are getting some of the input, getting some of the science, Hendry County just last week, Brandon DePalma, our service manager, was there when they passed the model ordinance. St. Lucie County has passed the state model ordinance. The City of Port St. Lucie has passed the state model ordinance. So as people are understanding what is involved in that, that it really is not business as usual, either for professionals or for the homeowner, that this really does involve making changes. One of your questions was how do these places that have these blackouts and slow release requirements increased buffer zones, how do they look? We struggle in those markets. Sarasota is a very large market that we service. They've had a blackout period in force for, I think it's three years now. And someone talked earlier about plants need nutrients, they need to be fed. And just like us, they need certain nutrients. When you say in the summer you cannot have nitrogen and a plant needs nitrogen, and you try and use iron and potassium and manganese, magnesium, you're just masking a problem. So we do see those lawns struggling, whether it's in Sarasota, whether it's in Naples, whether it's in Pinellas County now. In fact, Brandon and I were planning on spending part of the afternoon discussing what we learned last year in Naples and what we're going to do differently this year. Because one thing these restrictive ordinances do is they take away from the professional our Best Management Practices. The golf folks have been very generous in their time and their efforts in saying hey, you're accepting our Best Management Practices for the golf courses, agriculture, you're accepting the sugar cane Best Management Practices. You're saying those are really good, they're supported by DEP, IFAS and DACS. These are the only Best Management Practices that any city or county has decided to tinker with. And so you're taking away from the professional, you have the pro and the Joe, as someone said earlier. You have the professionals. And by making restrictions such as this much slow release, this kind of buffer zone, you're not allowing us to write our agronomic program. We have other companies here in the room today, Massey and -- I know most of the folks that are with our competitors. We may compete outside this room for customers, but inside this room we're all for the same thing, which is water quality and science. Page 40 of 72 161 z A 7 April 21, 2011 And I would like to address a few things that some other folks had said earlier. I think there was a miscommunication, because I have worked where Herb, as have several of our people, with Island Walk. And he mentioned that Marion County has a blackout. And they don't. In fact, they're revising their ordinance. They're in the process of working through that because the City of Ocala did pass a model ordinance. And Marion County was one of those back in 2008 that didn't have to go through the process of talking to DACS, talking to DEP, talking to IFAS. So they made a decision that in their heart they felt was the best, but from a technical standpoint, probably, well, was not. You've heard people talk about the peer reviewed studies. That's very important. And those peer reviewed studies have never been challenged. And peer reviewed work can be challenged. But over 10, 15, 20 years, that research has only been built upon and built upon. Whether it's in the sands of Fort Lauderdale or clays soils in Minnesota, it says that turf and landscape plants capture nutrients. And I think we need to remember that the ordinance in Collier County also affects your royal palms, your hibiscus, your flowering plants. And those plants were developed for the urban landscape. And so it would not only be affecting turf grass if you have blackouts and some of those restrictions. But these agronomic programs that we develop company by company, area by area, our program is different in Naples than it is in Fort Lauderdale or Tallahassee, depends on the grass type. These BMPs are not a one size fits all. We make a lot of decisions every year based on this manual. If you're not familiar with the Best Management Practices, there's also a training process that goes along with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you at some point give enough of those manuals to Ray or the county staff so they could distribute them to the Planning Commission. We're not going to vote on this issue today, but when we do, it would be nice to have read that as a background, and that looks like something that's more readable than the massive small print documents that everybody else has been sending us. MS. SANTELLA: And my favorite picture in this manual is the first one. Well, okay, the first one is the Secretary of DEP. But the first really nice picture is let only rain go down the storm drain. And you heard people talk about don't get pellets on hard surfaces, don't get dog droppings on hard surfaces, don't get leaves on hard surfaces of any type. Dog droppings. I was astonished to learn that my wonderful rescue dogs, we at one time had six of them, contribute to non -point source pollution, through both their droppings and their other type of matter. In Tampa bay they estimate up to eight percent from their nitrogen from a loading standpoint comes from our pets. That's depressing, because I love my dogs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't mean you get rid of your dogs. MS. SANTELLA: Right. But the other part of this manual is there's a training for professionals, it's a six -hour class. We have at least three trainers in the room. I'm a senior instructor, Brandon just became an instructor, as did Brad Holler (phonetic). I know Massey has -- okay, we have four instructors in the room that can help the county do this six -hour training required of every professional by 2014. It's a six -hour class. And fertilizer is one section. And these ordinances always focus on fertilizer. And when you go through the BMP Manual, you'll see there's right plant, right place. Design. What plants to use. When to give up on turf, if there's too much shade or it just isn't appropriate. There's irrigation Best Practices. Pruning, mulching. Again, don't get leaf litter into storm drains. There's a lot of nice pictures in here. You saw the street ones where people applied fertilizer inappropriately. That one picture that Tim showed earlier was one of our accounts in Melbourne where you saw the very straight line on the water's edge. That's science -- it may not be scientific, but we see it on lawn after lawn. And it's a great marketing tool too. Because you see a straight line of delineation between our properties and one that's not treated. And to me that says this stuff doesn't move or you would not see this straight line of no weeds, weeds, green, not green, insects, no insects. And there is science to show these materials don't move. And there is just -- you know, you talked earlier about what makes sense from a common sense standpoint. And I understand when people think oh, it rains and fertilizer moves. It just sort of seems intuitive that when it rains things are going to move. But what we found out is, is that turf and that landscape as a living sponge that captures those nutrients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I had -- one of the questions I wanted to ask is the slow release nitrogen. Page 41 of 72 161 Q7 Ap ril 21 2011 How long of a period is slow release nitrogen released? MS. SANTELLA: And the reason I'm chuckling is that is a question that if you were to go to Gainesville and take a soils science class, you would probably spend several weeks discussing that because there are so many different formulations -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have quite that much time here today. MS. SANTELLA: I know. That's the scientist part of me wanting to come out. But there are so many different types of slow release that it can be -- something can be called a 50 percent slow release and it can release this afternoon, if that's -- people talked about coatings, I like to say it's like an M &M coating. If that coating breaks and is fragile, you don't have a 50 percent slow release. So Tim Nance talked about technology. Right now the technology isn't out there to have something that just sort of is like an IV in your arm to slowly feed you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, someone earlier today said that a slow release put down in late May would carry for four months. Do you concur with that? MS. SANTELLA: It's possible. However, as a both, if -- a do it yourselfer and the professional kind of has our hands tied in that we cannot use the rates of slow release that, say, a golf course or an agriculture can use. And so we have limits on how much of a slow release we can even apply. It's a pound of nitrogen. So if we were -- that's from a state level and that's from our Best Management Practice level. So we don't have access to some of those products. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SANTELLA: And we do use a lot of soluble or what they call fast release fertilizer at very, very low rates. I think someone referred earlier to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Quick release. MS. SANTELLA: -- foliar feeding, where during the summer you just give a small amount very frequently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, question. If you put a slow release fertilizer on, say, in late May and you anticipate that it's going to carry you through to September, is there a soil test that you can do or a turf test that you can do to, say, I'm sorry, it's just not working for us right now, we have problems? MS. SANTELLA: For nitrogen there is not. And there's not a soil test you can do or a practical tissue test. And we've had Dr. Jerry Sartain with the University of Florida discuss this. And he said the way you tell if a turf needs nitrogen is through visual symptoms. And that is an accepted practice. He has a visual rating scale that they use to say it's chlorotic, it's yellow, or it's sufficiently green. And so nitrogen does not, there's not a test that is practical in the field. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, I think Brad had wanted to talk first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. My question is, with the retail stores, if we come up with requirements, is that something that can be protected by what products are on sale, or is that a free for all in these stores? MS. SANTELLA: I don't do retail. Actually, that's our competition. We get some of our best customers from the average Joe that messes it up. But Pm familiar with the retail product line. And the majority of what's available now is a 30 percent slow release for the non - professional. Professional always has the zero percent slow release available. Even in the areas where they have these blackouts of 50 percent slow release for requirements, if you go to the local Home Depot, you will have difficulty finding a product that relates to what their ordinance says you need to put out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the ordinance would have a difficult time restricting what's being sold in the county? MS. SANTELLA: Well, I don't know -- you can mandate it. I mean, one county in particular has mandated a sales ban. Now, are those people just going to go to another county and buy fertilizer? Probably. So you can have that in a law. I don't think it would be against anything state statute. It just doesn't seem to have worked. Because again, if you go to Sarasota, if you go to Lee County and go in the Home Depots, the typical product you find is not a 50 percent as required by law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, then Paul. Page 42 of 72 6 12 A7 April 21, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, now before, I know, he asked you, Mark asked you about the City of Naples. And only if you know. Have you seen a degradation as a result of the ban that they have in place? MS. SANTELLA: I do cover the state, so I don't really see those particular properties. If you'd like Brandon or Brad or Matt Denny (phonetic) that are with our local branch can come and address that specifically. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good question. I don't know that we have to pursue it much further. But it would be interesting to have that answer, because there is some question as to the prohibition and the result. MS. SANTELLA: I can tell you I wouldn't expect it as an agronomist to be any different in Naples than what we're seeing in Sarasota. That's where I'm involved the most, because that is where this really started was in Sarasota County. So a lot of us in the industry with Valley Crest, with Scott's, with Massey, there's a very large family owned company, Arrow, in that area. We've done some work with some tissue sampling, which is very expensive, to show that those turfs are deficient in nitrogen. So we kind of focused our time and energy as an industry on this one area. But there would be no reason that I can see, in talking to Brandon and Brad and Matt to expect Naples would be any different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, did you have something you wanted to follow up on? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, yeah, that was just my question, were the lawns in Naples a lot browner than the ones in Golden Gate? MS. SANTELLA: I would defer to these folks here to give that answer. And I can tell you, as far as brownness, there are things that we can do to make the color better. So, while it is not -- while you're not putting nitrogen in the chloroplast, you can use things like iron and manganese to give kind of almost a, I want to say a fake green, but you're not giving the plant what it needs. So you're masking a problem. You may be keeping the turf green, but the density is starting to decrease. So these aren't quick problems to happen, they're not quick to return. But again, I can tell you in areas where we've monitored this closely, we are seeing the turf struggling, our employees are struggling, because they like to be able to provide our clients with a property they're proud of, and they can't. And our people are, they're outdoor people, so they understand the water issue. These guys swim, they hunt, they snorkel, they scuba, and so they work around sensitive waters during the day and in the free time, we do give them some, they like to be outside doing fun stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: We've heard several people make reference that we're choosing either grass or water quality or aesthetics. But it seems like some of the studies specifically address that when you're not feeding it and it starts to deteriorate is when you have more runoff? Are you seeing any of that in Sarasota? MS. SANTELLA: Well, we don't monitor water quality, but I would agree that this is what's happening, just from what we know on why these were developed. These Best Management Practices were not developed to grow grass. These Best Management Practices were developed for the protection of water resources in Florida. So whether it's a BMP for golf, whether it's one for sugar cane, citrus, cow cath operations -- by the way, in cow cath, they do recommend grass around their farm ponds to prevent manure from getting in there and the nutrients from that. So yes, these BMPs were developed not to grow grass, they were developed to protect water quality and conserve water. So it's not an if or an and, they're not mutually exclusive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one last question of you. Are you familiar with the golf course BMPs? MS. SANTELLA: Very much so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do they compare to the BMPs -- or to the program that this model ordinance is suggesting? MS. SANTELLA: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The golf course BMPs. Golf courses are exempt from this ordinance. My assumption is they're exempt because they're doing a job equal to or better than the ordinance. Or everybody is scared the devil out of their organization. But let's not pretend that's the reason. Nobody around here golfs anymore anyway. So let's believe that it's because they're doing the right job. So assuming their BMPs are correct, have you ever looked at this ordinance enough to know how it compares Page 43 of 72 { 8 1 6 I A7 $' � April 21, 2011 to their BMPs? MS. SANTELLA: Yes. And the golf course BMPs -- my biggest fear in any ordinance is that it dictates rates, sources and timings of fertilizer, which is what Sarasota does. The golf course BMPs does not do any of those. They allow Tim Hiers to develop his program for his seashore paspalum. They allow Bill to develop one for his Bermuda grass. So there's nothing in there that says 30 percent slow release, or you shall not. It says under these conditions if you have turf that needs to be fertilized for recovery, here's what you should do. So it's almost like a doctor's bedside reference to pharmaceuticals in that it allows you as a professional to do what is needed. So the golf course Best Management Practices, if you took and laid it against other ordinances, I don't think you can make that comparison, because it allows them to follow their Best Management Practices, which are going to vary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate you getting up and responding, even though you weren't planning to, so -- thank you. MS. SANTELLA: Feeding the audience here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, any other -- MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody who has not spoken -- sir, come on up. MR. TALBOT: Hi. For the record, I'm Fred Talbot. I live in Village Walk. And I've heard a lot of pros today, on a lot of people who make money on fertilizer. I'm a Joe, okay. And I'd like to -- I guess this mic. works -- share a few photographs with you first. It's so negative today and argumentative. Let me flip on the switch. So negative and argumentative, let's start with something happy, okay. And I hope we can see this. There we go. And I hope it's a good little picture. And that's happy Easter, okay. I want everyone to have a happy Easter. That was Easter last year. That's my granddaughter Sidney, she was six. And that's the first bass she ever caught. And she caught it in our pond, our very clear pond at Village Walk. It's a rain water -- stormwater retention pond. And she carefully pet it and counted to 20, because we always get them back in the water by 20, and then carefully released it unharmed. And hopefully the lesson stays with her. She was just plain fascinated with it. During my stay at Village Walk, I moved in November, 2009, I've been amazed by the water there. And that's really why we moved to Florida. I had a history in Florida, I graduated from college up in -- from high school Virginia. Went to Florida Southern, wanted to major in five sciences, including physics, biology. I was an active diver, surfer, whatever. Been a semi- professional bass fisherman since I was about 16. And instead I majored in journalism, so I could cover lots of sciences. And wound up working for the Orlando Sentinel and covered the very issues we're talking about today. Back in 1970, I covered the construction of Disney World, I covered NASA and the space program. But I also covered the water there, and the fact that back then the science was pretty certain that nutrients from fertilizer were beginning to impede the lakes, including the Kissimmee River chain, Lake Tohopekaliga, east Tohopekaliga, all the way down to Lake Okeechobee. And I did a huge series of stories on that. And I had lots of science back then and kind of stayed with it. Ended up getting a Master's Degree, coming back to Orlando, wrote some stories about real estate, about these same situations, and then wrote some stories about the law and how it impacted all of this. And did a pretty good job and wound up some of my series changed the law of Florida for real estate and development. And I was encouraged to get a law degree, so I did. And I focused on forensic investigations, and scientific investigations, constitutional law and land use planning. And got out, did some good work in law and then decided to go back into investigative journalism and went to Virginia. And there, ironically again, around 1977, '78,1 covered this issue. Because Back Bay, one of the top bass fisheries in America, was being destroyed by nutrient fertilizer runoff, phosphorus and nutrients. Proven science, okay. I've been surprised today to hear some of that science has been now kind of rejected, or I guess you'd call it watered down down here in Florida. I've heard that water doesn't run downhill, because if you really heard a couple of Page 44 of 72 rA `` r 161 E 2 7 p 21, 2011 the arguments today, that's sort of what they said, water doesn't run downhill. Put a particulate on a slope, let's say in my neighborhood 20 to 30 degrees, and then it rains really hard, that particulate will stay there. And that goes against all the physics I studied for so many years. I really am amazed. It's almost like a magic occurrence here in Collier County apparently. Water doesn't run downhill. I've heard that fertilizer, when placed on grass immediately sticks to the grass and is immediately accepted and brought into that process without ever possibly running downhill or running into our lake. Well, last June the 1st I caught 15 large mouth bass in two hours in our lake, and I thought I'd gone to heaven. And having been a journalist, I contacted a buddy at the New York Times and I proposed a story about the Paradise Coast. Because I'd read all the literature, but I'd also picked up shells down in Marco. I'd fallen in love with the place, the sunsets, everything about it. Everything about it. Amazing. And then in mid -June, excuse me, the algae hit. And this is a harmful algae bloom. That's what the scientists call it, because harmful is correct. They see it as a harmful algae bloom because of three impacts. One, environmental, the second, economic, and the third, and to me the most frightening, health. The health impacts of these types of blooms. That's the harmful algae bloom that erupted in our lake in Village Walk, one mile away, by the way, from Island Walk. And that erupted about June 15th and it lasted until mid - October. And that's when they dumped Radon, a really, really heavy copper source on it, and killed just about every living thing in that lake. Not the fish, but every living piece of vegetation. So for one -third of a year this is what the people in Village Walk looked at when they woke up in the morning and when they went to bed at night. This is one of the beautiful bridges in Village Walk. And all that you see under it is a harmful algae bloom. This photograph was taken around August. I even sent, I think, all of you a copy of this. And that day Sidney was visiting, she visited us for two weeks. And we had to protect her from the lake, and we also had to protect her from the fact that not only does Village Walk have this problem, but they continue to irrigate, to spray this water that not only has the harmful algae bloom on it but has really, really dangerous harmful bacteria under it. They spray that, they aerate it several times a week throughout the neighborhood, and it puddles. So we spent two weeks protecting a little child from getting near the lake she loved, near the fish she loved, and she couldn't even stomp on a puddle like kids do, because you could literally see the brown bacteria in it. One -third of a year that's what we had. Now, I did what you would do, I went to our committees. I went to the lake committee, went to the landscape committee. I gave them all kind of research, and I've done more than probably 700 hits in terms of research. We talk about not -- there's not -- I think the term was science is incomplete. There's a heck of a lot of science out there that pinpoints that this is a problem and that it comes from fertilizer. Nutrients, okay. A lot of science. I can give you a DVD full of it, if you want it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did. MR. TALBOT: I did. Well, I only gave you a sampling. I gave you about 10. 1 have about 800, okay, because I've been on this thing for 10 months now. When Sidney got there, by the way, in August, this is the view from our great room, okay. That's the view. So really, I came in here today to make a few requests. But after listening to so many comments and so many expert points, I thought I'd address a few of those with you, if you would. Because I want to know when I walk out of here today what to tell her. Because I was with her last week when her little brother was born, and she wanted to come back down, wanted to know if she could come back down to go fishing. And I don't know whether she can or not, because I don't know after what I found in my research whether it's safe for her to come back down here or not. If I seem a little distraught today, it's because the day before yesterday my favorite uncle died. He died of cancer. Twenty-six years ago prostate cancer hit. And to and behold, the science was incomplete. That's where we started today, wasn't it, the science is incomplete. So don't do anything. But fortunately he met medical doctors who, despite the fact that science was incomplete, tried things. They addressed the problems. They recognized symptoms and addressed the problems. And he got 23 years out of it. He lived another 23 years, despite the fact that the science even to this day is incomplete. Science on everything we're talking about is incomplete, and this is why. If you study science, if you study physics, if you study plate tectonics, whatever, science is never complete. But we started today on the foundation and Page 45 of 72 k 16 V 2 Q,121,2011 a recommendation from your staff that the science is incomplete. We also heard comment today, one of you mentioned legal causation. And I guess one of my curses in life or one of my gifts has been predictions. And I think we're going about to see an eruption of legal causation here. Because if something isn't done to end -- let me just put one of these up again -- to end this, we've got a problem in Village Walk, and probably several other communities that I've spoken with. Some of your finest neighborhoods, some of your richest neighborhoods. And that's this. If that erupts again this year, under the law of Florida we're going to probably have to put that in our real estate disclosure forms when we try to sell our homes. And that's going to really negatively impact the price of those homes, probably 10, 20, my friend Mr. Schuchman from Island Walk says 30 percent. And if that's the case, then we as homeowners have a legal cause of action against whoever caused that. And whereas in here we can argue, we can argue professional, Joe, whatever, about what's causing this, we get into court, we're going to prove what caused it, and we're going to sue everybody and everything impacted by it because it makes it happen. And that's right around the corner. We're talking maybe two months from now if it erupts again. So legal causation, that may clear all this up for everybody and for every county. I also want to ask you, if you would, to think about all that you've heard today and all that you've seen, and I want you to take a look at this and recognize that in lots of communities in Collier County we have this. In Village Walk we have hardly any input. Island Walk has input coming in, as he mentioned, from other parts of the county. We have none. We have two coming in from the road. And that would simply be the fertilizer in the median strip out there. But the only thing we have going in that lake is rainwater. Rainwater around that lake. That's all. So the only thing going in the lake would be what's on the lawn that's spread into the lake by rainwater. Now, last year when this happened, everybody is kind of oh, don't worry about it, it just happens in Florida. You know, there are rattlesnakes in Florida, that's dangerous too, but hey. I said, yeah, but I don't breed 10,000 of them and turn them loose in the neighborhood, you know. I took a look at this and I hired an outside environmental group to study our water quality. And they found almost three times more what they call the danger limit of phosphate, phosphorus. So I went to our HOA and told them that. And they said, yeah, but you've got to remember that's because the soil in Florida has so much phosphorus, okay. Well, last September during the rainy season, they fertilized with phosphorus. They did it again this past February, fertilizer with phosphorus in it. And I said, well, wait a minute now, if our soil has so much phosphorus in it, remember my study last summer, why on earth are you putting more down? They said, oh, we did a study, there's not enough phosphorus in the soil here. So I'm getting it going this way. So it's very, very confusing. But what's not confusing is this. Last but not least. They are applying what is being recommended to the county in my -- in Village Walk neighborhood now. Three feet from the water they spread fertilizer. They use the plate on the spreader, but three feet from the water. This is the result. This is the result. So when you vote, please think about the fact that you may be voting for this. Okay? You may be voting for this. And I don't know any pro in here who can undo this when it happens, when it erupts. But I do know this. Word's spreading now about this. About this problem. And this problem in Collier County and in Orange County, because they haven't done a whole lot up there either and they've got a tremendous problem with their lakes. Spreading about the fact that who wants to live next to this. As one young home buying couple who came in said, it looked like raw sewage. Who wants to live next to that? We've got a big sludge mat under this now of where this was now, the whole bottom of the lake is sludge, deep sludge, dark sludge. Lord knows what's in it. But last but not least, the health. On the DVD or CD I sent you, there was a link to a University of Miami study about something called cyanobacteria. And it's a neurotoxin. The Florida Department of Health, okay, environmental, the Centers for Disease Control, the postings that I sent you, the links I sent you point out that this stuff can cause tumors, liver problems, very toxic to the elderly and to children especially, and to pets. But that University of Miami study and some related studies point out something else that really, really is somewhat terrifying to me. And that's that blue green algae can create cyanobacteria that possibly has links to Alzheimer's, ALS and other neuro conditions. Now, I think about all that and I think about on my street, we've got about 40 homes on my street. And in the Page 46 of 72 'Ilk 16 12 ,p k7r,121, 2011 last 18 months we've had a death, liver cancer, next door neighbor, pancreatic cancer, death across the street, stroke, that's neuro. A death from Alzheimer's and a new case of Alzheimer's. And they may be totally unrelated to this. But someone much wiser than me earlier today said, when science is incomplete, we must err on the side of caution. That's a quote from one of my fine previous speakers. When science is incomplete, we must err on the side of caution. So my specialty is, quite honestly, media relations, press relations, websites. And I wish someone had warned me about this before I bought anything in Collier County. Especially the health. So what I believe we need to do is, please, if you would, strongly consider an effective fertilizer ordinance to prevent this. But also encourage your friends and colleagues in the county to really, really bring in some strong health research, and I don't just mean local health research, although that's a great start. And I don't just mean the University of Florida. But I mean the best and the brightest to determine whether there is a health danger being created or that has long existed from this. Because science is minimal on this right now. And I have done literally months of research on this side of it and they're just now scratching the surface. But increasingly neurotoxin, increasingly we're looking at Alzheimer's and we're looking at ALS. And I want to know if there is a problem here. I also want to know if we should go ahead and start warning the public, warning retirees in the northeast and in the midwest that this is a possibility. We're looking into this, but you should know about this. So forgive me for going on and on and on, but this has been 10 months of my life because I bought in Collier County and suddenly I'm presented with a harmful algae bloom. And everybody is turning their backs on me. I attend one session that your county holds and basically I'm the bad guy, simply because I want to protect my family. So anyway, any questions, please. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a question, I have a comment, sir. Thank you for your presentation. I just would like to add to the fact that Collier County, as I understand it, is number two in the country for health. So while all of those menaces are out there, we're still doing good. MR. TALBOT: Oh, it's a wonderful -- that's why we moved here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I don't want to, you know, add an additional set of commentaries but I recognize what you're using what your view of how to go about it. You're also rather punitive with a $10,000 whack at every instance. I thought that was kind of strong. But I respect the fact that you have that privilege to make that. MR. TALBOT: Well, in terms of that, everyone when they raise a point has to get your attention, okay. And recognize the fact there has to be teeth in a law. There has to be teeth. If it's only a smack on the finger, they're going to keep doing it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know how many friends you'll make out therewith $10,000 a pop. MR. TALBOT: I don't know. But I do know this. I think Churchill once said that courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities, for it has been said it is the quality that guarantees all others. And I think when you pass an ordinance like this, it takes some courage, but it also takes some courage to enforce it. Because as we can see, there's a lot of pressure to not have anything happen and to just keep doing what you're doing. That's what's been going on. That's the model ordinance right there. That's three feet from the water spread the fertilizer, and do it during the summer months. And that's exactly what the result has been in our neighborhood and lots of neighborhoods here. Any questions, any suggestions, any research you want from me, you want a DVD full of stuff, you tell me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question. MR. TALBOT: Please, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was just reminded before lunch that we don't have lakes. MR. TALBOT: No, we have ponds. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We all live on retention ponds put off as lakes. So we think of them as lakes and it's a filtering system for retention ponds going in. And I know the -- you cannot get me near the ocean with red tide. I mean, I would die. We have the same problem in our community. I think that the different communities should actually get together and go over this. It is, part of it's fertilizer, I understand. I was just told about from an irrigation person, even the golf course best management plans, a lot them put liquid fertilizer through it, and when it's sprayed, depending Page 47 of 72 1 6 ' 2 A7April 21, 2011 upon the heads, it sprays right into the lake, which is not good. So I have been looking into this. I came from a northern state that I was involved in this. My father was in the sod business, golf course business, so I understand more than people think I do of this. Different soils and everything. And it is different down here. But you're right, we always think of them as lakes. MR. TALBOT: No, they're ponds. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They are absolute ponds. And they are -- there are many things getting into them. And the sediment is growing terribly. I understand in Lee County when you now dig a lake for a development you must put bubblers in. MR. TALBOT: You have to have aerators. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You have to have aerators is one of their new ordinances, so, which is helping. MR. TALBOT: It's interesting, too, we talk about 10 feet here. I was at the airport day before yesterday and happened to meet a retired city manager from Vermont. And we just started talking and somehow we got into probably my favorite frightening topic, the harmful algae blooms -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're going awful fast, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's not. He's not -- do you have a problem with -- MR. TALBOT: She seems like she's doing okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, she's doing fine. MR. TALBOT: I'll slowdown. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seemed to me to be fast. MR. TALBOT: I'll yank in a drawl, here, how about -- we'll just kind of slow it all down. But I met this city -- a retired city manager from Vermont. Mentioned 10 feet here. We hope we get a 10 -foot buffer. And he looked at me. You know what he said. He said we're trying to save Lake Champlain, it's 125 feet. I can't believe you're just doing 10 feet. So I'm only asking for 10. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Melissa. MR. TALBOT: Didn't mean to keep speaking and speaking. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Why do you think the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is against this? MR. TALBOT: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is against it? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. MR. TALBOT: I don't know. I haven't asked them that question, but I'd be happy to call them today, seriously, and get back to you. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I guess my point is why do you think they would come out with a report that is contradictory to some of the references you made? MR. TALBOT: I don't know, because I read their website, and their web page basically tells about the dangers of this. So that really is a great surprise. But I will, seriously, I'll call them this afternoon and find out who to speak with about why they would be against protecting us from this. I mean, really, that's a great question. That's a big question. That's a question that should be -- the media should cover. I see the media's in full bloom back there, they're covering this. But the media should be covering this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are televised. Generally they sit at the desks and they review it. We lost the ability a long time ago to have field reporters. MR. TALBOT: Oh, man, that was a good time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Mr. Talbot. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much. Ray, do we have any -- you've read -- all the registered speakers have spoken. Anybody else in the public wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mac, what I'd like to do is take the ordinance page by page and roll on through it with any of our comments that we have now that we've had the benefit of a lot of input. Page 48 of 72 1612k?il 21, 2011 One global question I have before we start. Would there be any restriction based on what we come up with today in recommending a mandatory review after two years of implementation of this ordinance? MR. HATCHER: I can't imagine any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Okay, let's start on page -- well, actually, mine says three of 13, because you've got to go past the executive summary. So let's go through Pages 1, 2 and 3. The first page of the ordinance is actually Page 3. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have any issues with that page, those pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac, on that Page 3, under Section 1, Findings, there's an italicized reference in the last sentence, and it says afterwards may be required by this ordinance. But if you read the ordinance on Page 9, it is required by the ordinance and in some cases it is mandatory. So I'm wondering, wouldn't it be better to say it -- shall be required as stated within the ordinance? MR. HATCHER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At least it doesn't provide any confusion. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move to Page 4. Anybody got any questions on Page 4? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine are kind of 4 and 5. Mac, some of the players -- for example, we have applicator, commercial fertilizer applicator, specialized turf managers. What would the general public be? Are they -- they would be an applicator, they just wouldn't be a commercial applicator? MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And are we going to have regulations for them? MR. HATCHER: They are subject to the standards of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because they were applicators? MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the specialized turf manager, he's a subset of a commercial applicator? MR. HATCHER: Not necessarily. Because a specialized turf manager may be working for an institution like the county. They typically are the ones that are managing park ball fields. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then, you know, The Conservancy's version does have, I think, an institutionalized -- oh, we have it too. Have you looked at the thing that was handed out today where they have a couple of definitions that -- for example, they have noncommercial applicator, stuff like that? Would that muddle it up if we added those, or -- MR. HATCHER: I have looked at it, but it has been a while since I've looked at it. I'd have to go back and compare those definitions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on pages -- Pages 4 and 5? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just in addition to that. When you think about it, you have to have an applicator has to -- if they belong to an organization they have to go and get a certification. But if applicator also means a homeowner, that would infer that they should be going and getting certified. I don't know if that's what you intend. Is that what you intend? MR. HATCHER: No, we do not intend for the noncommercial, non - institutional applicators to have to be certified. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So probably you do need a modification of that little word there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 4 and 5. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would like to see a better definition of the term slow release, Page 49 of 72 April 21, 2011 controlled release, timed release. Because as we were getting in our testimony, they're pretty vague terms. Not for today, but at some point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does he get that? Do you know of any -- where did you get this? Is this a standard definition you got from a reliable periodical or something like that? Is there a better way to find it? MR. HATCHER: I'm not sure that there's a better way. That is from the state model ordinance. It covers a lot of ground, and there's reason for it to be kind of vague, because it does cover a lot of ground. The intention is to get away from soluble fraction which is I guess, more easily described. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that a description would be helpful. MR. HATCHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that there is a different definition in The Conservancy's version that was much more detailed. You might want to look at incorporating that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac, if you go to the Page 4, the sixth line down, there's a sentence that starts, says, collectively these water bodies. I would suggest that you drop the words collectively these and just use a capital W on the water bodies. I think all the water bodies are an asset critical to the environment, not collectively. Two lines down from that it talks about an overgrowth of algae and vegetation hinder the effectiveness of flood attenuation. I would suggest we want to say an excessive algae and vegetation growth. It says the same thing but a little differently, hinder the effectiveness of flood attenuation. Page 5, the fertilizer definition on top, would that include, or does it hopefully not include compost? MR. HATCHER: It includes commercial compost. It would not include, I guess, home grown compost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under your -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, how would a code officer know the -- I mean, he could know the difference by looking at it, but would he make a decision that there should be a difference? MR. HATCHER: I believe there's an allowance for compost somewhere in here. But the commercial would have a label and it would have the nitrogen and/or phosphorus content identified, and application of that material would be subject to the nitrogen and/or phosphorus restrictions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that, sir. What I'm thinking of is I recognize anybody who wants to use judgment can. But what I'm relating to you is that if the code officer were to come out and see -- let's say somebody bought a bag of, which did have all of the labeling, but had already begun composting and they wanted to accelerate the composting. You could take that bag, empty it out onto the new compost material and that would be there. So you'd have a combination of things. Now, I'm stretching reality on purpose so that you can appreciate I'm trying to eliminate any kind of unnecessary burden. If compost that somebody like Mark would be at home, if he sets up a compost, he shouldn't be penalized for that, and there's nothing to let the code officer know, I didn't see it anyway, you say it's in there, but I read this, I didn't see it. MR. HATCHER: I can certainly add a definition for compost. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's probably desirable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The low maintenance zone definition, Mac, it says it means an area minimum of 10 feet wide and it says adjacent to watercourses. What do you mean by the word adjacent in this particular case? By watercourses, do you mean at the water's edge, do you mean at the edge of the 20 -foot maintenance easement, do you mean at the sod line, do you mean at the erosion line? What are we talking about? MR. HATCHER: Immediately adjacent, next to, contiguous with, abutting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? MR. HATCHER: That would be the 10 -foot buffer, primarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if I were to want to measure the 10 feet wide adjacent to the watercourse, do I start at the water's edge, do I start at the water's edge during the water table's high season, which is the summertime, or do I start it now? When you act (sic) about a 10 to one slope, you're talking for two feet -- 20 feet. Four to one you're talking Page 50 of 72 01 16 12 A7 -1 April 21, 2011 eight feet. So we've got a wide expanse of where that 10 foot can be measured from. All I'm trying to find out is to make sure no one gets confused on where the starting point is. So help me. MR. HATCHER: I will come back with a definitive definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to take a look at the 20 -foot maintenance easement down or something like -- I don't know how to tell you where to go from. But I just -- if -- looking at that, I mean, if I was in the dry season I'd go out and see where the water is and make three steps up and say, okay, I can't do something in this area but I can everywhere else. And that's probably not what you intend. MR. HATCHER: Well, the way the ordinance is written, obviously that's what a code officer would have to go by is 10 feet from the water. So we'll evaluate it and see if we could tighten it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That same definition, means an area minimum of 10 feet wide adjacent to watercourses which is planted and managed in order to minimize the need for fertilization, water, mowing, et cetera. That's not why it's planted and managed. They do it for sod control because it's required by the engineering section of the county. But they don't do it for those purposes, it's just a -- you might want to look, since you're going to be working that ordinance anyway, maybe clean that up. The saturated soil definition, it said, soils shall be considered saturated if standing water is present. I don't know if this is the right term or not, but a lot of times after it hasn't rained for a while, when a water event occurs we have water standing on top of the soil because the soils are what I've heard sometimes called as parched. Would that have any kind of impact on whether a soil is saturated or not in regards to standing water, it doesn't percolate fast enough into the soil? MR. HATCHER: No, saturated condition is when the voids are full of water, which is different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 6 and 17 (sic), anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under section four, applicability, the last line where it says, or shall not impair -- I'm sorry, and shall not impair any existing contracts. Many of the contracts will renew again and again and again, year after year. At some point I would think that we'd want to trigger a change. MR. HATCHER: I will add a date. COMMISSIONER HURRAY: Sometime in the future. And I understand the intent, so as not to create chaos, but I do agree that there needs to be some kind of time frame. MR. HATCHER: Probably be a year out from the effective -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's reasonable. I don't know that too many people would have more than one -year contracts or if they have one -year contracts. But many of them just go on forever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on Pages 6 and 7? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. In applicability, don't you think we should put something in there about the sale of the fertilizer? I mean, if we come up with a county-wide requirement, I think we should go out of our way to make sure that the stores aren't selling a product that doesn't meet that. MR. HATCHER: I'll have to come back with you. I'm not sure that we have the authority to regulate the sale of fertilizer. I believe that that's restricted to the Department of Community -- I mean, to Agriculture and Consumer Services. But I'll have to look into that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So -- all right. I mean, we should somehow try to keep noncompliant product off the shelf or people will buy it and they won't know. MR. HATCHER: That's one of the problems with enforcing this ordinance, it's -- we can't control what fertilizers are produced. I don't believe we can control what fertilizers are sold. The only thing we control is what fertilizers are used and how they're used. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 51 of 72 16 12 A721,2011 And then on the next page my only comment was, you know, the maintenance -- this maintenance zone is just a recommended, a voluntary recommended dimension, right? MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that means a person doesn't have to follow it or -- MR. HATCHER: That would be my interpretation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's make it bigger then. If you don't have to follow it, let's make it a number to be proud of. Anyway, I mean, why is it there, though, just as a recommendation, just don't get any closer than 10 feet? MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, then, why don't we make it 15? MR. HATCHER: Well, we can do that. We can have educational programs. But I'm not sure that it's I guess a good idea to have an ordinance that has recommendations in it to begin with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, there's the key. But since we're going -- these are always going to be access easements, probably, around lakes? I mean, why don't we just make it the whole access easement you're not allowed to fertilize. MR. HATCHER: Well, as has been pointed out by a number of professionals today, turf is generally expected and will need fertilization from time to time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 7, under Section 7, low maintenance zones, the last sentence that begins with care should be taken to prevent. We like to use shall as opposed to may. Maybe care must. Do you think that would be helpful, care must be taken? MR. HATCHER: I think it would be an improvement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, back on Page 6, this is where we're talking about these fertilizer free zones. And is it this board's feeling that that should be three feet with the deflector shields? Because that's what this says. It says 10 feet but you can go within three feet if you have a deflector shield. Is that what everybody's comfortable with? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- myself, I haven't even gotten to that point yet, Donna. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, me either, so -- but we're doing language here, so if we're not changing the language for him now, do we get to change the language with him next time if we've all done more research and we decide that there should be a change? Maybe everybody here thinks it should be eight feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was doing language for the ordinance. But I had a list of policy issues that I thought we would want to talk about after we understood the detail of the ordinance. The policy issues would be the content, the application rate, the buffer zone and the blackout period as four of the biggest issues we heard today, and then the possibility of a mandatory two -year review. Those are the issues -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I just didn't want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I was going to bring them in after we've chewed through the ordinance to fix whatever -- COMMISSIONER CARON: However -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So if that's okay, we can still -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that works for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On 6 and 7, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac, Section 6, fertilizer free zones. The only fertilizer free zone you have on section six, as Donna pointed out, is just that three feet, right? MR. HATCHER: Well, it's three feet if you have a deflector shield, it's 10 feet if you don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or a drop spreader. Page 52 of 72 +, 16 12 A 7 01 April 21, 2011 MR. HATCHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you can come in with -- or you want to do a liquid applicator, which is a nozzle on the end of your hose. So you can have a garden house, you can have a drop spreader and you can have a rotary spreader with a deflector shield. But the free zone is really then three feet, 'cause if you're going to put something down you're almost going to have one of those anyway to put it down with. And I think that's what -- that's the synopsis I'm getting out of this. So if we're in that top seven feet, you have three ways of applying fertilizer. Then it says in that last sentence, newly planted -- this was an added sentence, newly planted turf and/or landscape plants may be fertilized in this zone only for a 60 -day period beginning 30 days after planting, if needed. The zone that you're talking about for the 60 days, is it the 10 -feet zone or the three -feet zone? MR. HATCHER: The 10 -foot zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you already can put fertilizer in the 10 -foot zone, you just can't put it in the three -foot zone. MR. HATCHER: Again, it all depends on how you're making your application. And not everybody has deflector shields. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then they couldn't use the fertilizer in that area, right? MR. HATCHER: Correct. But if they need to establish a new planting, this would allow them to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for 60 days, if they want to come in with a rotary spreader without a deflector shield and spray the water as well, that's okay? MR. HATCHER: No, it's not acceptable to spray it in the water, but it would be acceptable to spray it in that zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure why we need that added sentence, to be honest with you. I think if you've got the ability to put in these chemicals the way you have it here, I just don't see the need for it. I'm not suggesting drop it yet, but I'm trying to understand what the purpose might be. On Page 7, your strongly recommended language, I have to agree with Brad, it doesn't really mean a lot because I don't know who's going to pay much attention to it. Unless our codes are mandatory, it doesn't work. This would require a free zone of three to 10 feet, whatever the -- however you want to look at Section 6. But an additional 10 feet from there up to the -- which now would be the edge of the maintenance easement for the water body, in reality, because they're 20 -foot around most water bodies. Is that right? So it's a 20 -foot wide combination of two zones. MR. HATCHER: No, I believe it's 10 feet in both instances. So it's simply limited to 10 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's why I asked the question. So this isn't a 10 -foot suggested free zone and a 10 -foot maintenance zone past that, this is a 10 -foot zone that's going to be both a free zone and a low maintenance zone. MR. HATCHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that -- I'm trying to understand what that -- why even have number seven then? MR. HATCHER: Well, I guess it could be combined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I would suggest so. It's all in the same 10 -foot area. This leads you to believe there's two 10 -foot areas, one after another. I would suggest writing them both together. COMMISSIONER CARON: Except one is voluntary and the other one is supposedly not. I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the one that's voluntary is considering clippings and things like that, the cumulative organic matter. So what they're saying is you can fertilize it but you can't leave -- they're not recommending not to leave the organic matter there. I'm not sure if there's a -- well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this could be to Bill, I think he's -- Bill Lorenz. But since these always are access easements in most cases, the seawall may not be and everything, what do we have going on in there? Can we control that through that mechanism or -- we have to keep that clear, people can't, what, they can't have a fence that's not removable. Page 53 of 72 1612 A7 April 21, 2011 MR. LORENZ: Typically a structure in there that would prevent the utilization of the easement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And any landscaping can they put in there? Can I plant a tree? MR. LORENZ: I'm not exactly sure, to answer your question specifically, if it's low maintenance, there might be some permission to do it. But not a tree. You can't get around. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially we're forcing them to keep this as turf then. MR. LORENZ: Yes, typically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the ring that you normally stabilize right after you dig a lake. And usually you -- yeah, couple different grasses. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The way I interpreted this was, especially having read and seen the video that was sent to us, was that low maintenance, in order to preserve some grasses, in order to avoid the breaking down, the erosion and therefore an accelerated deposition of chemicals into the water that would in fact tend to gravitate toward the water, because it's on an angle. That was the way I interpreted it. Now, if that's not what you interpreted, then I think Mark is correct, that we have to figure out what you're really saying here. MR. HATCHER: Well, what I'm saying is this was the model ordinance, and you all are recommending changes to the model ordinance which most of which I agree with. In this case I believe it could be clearer. It not only applies to water bodies that have access agreements, but it also applies to natural water bodies that don't have any access agree -- you know, requirements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize, you're the bearer of some strange news, you're not the cause of it, all right. All right. MR. HATCHER: Well, to some extent I am the cause of it because I'm bringing it forward to you all for discussion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it looks to me like that does need to be somehow joined to be effective, because it does promote in somebody's mind that they should have two 10 -foot areas, and another person's -- and then there's a three -foot. And it gets wildly confusing, potentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to Pages 8 and 9. Any questions on Pages 8 and 9? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, quick question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does the state have any licensure program for applicators? MR. HATCHER: The state does. It doesn't come into full effect until 2014. But in 2014 all the commercial fertilizer applicators will have to have a license from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why wouldn't we just latch into that then? MR. HATCHER: We are in 2014. But up until that point we're requiring the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The prior to -- okay. MR. HATCHER: Yes. And incidentally, the training requirement at this point in time is the same for both licenses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And today we have no requirements whatsoever, right, everybody's at their own free will out there? MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except people follow a best practice by their organizations and things, right? You can't talk -- you have to go to the microphone if you're going to talk. MS. SANTELLA: Several counties requires this Best Management Practice training already. Lee County is one of them one of them. Sarasota. And Pinellas County actually requires the DACS certificate that Mac was referring to. So that training is available. Many companies have gone ahead and trained all of their employees in it, just to be proactive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your name for the record again? MS. SANTELLA: Erica Santella. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on Pages 8 and 9? (No response.) Page 54 of 72 S 1612A4pril?, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's go to 10 and 11. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are these requirements for the penalties from the model code? They're underlined and shaded here, is this -- MR. HATCHER: No, those are penalties that have been adopted from other county code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is us adding to the model code. MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We do like penalties in first try-outs, don't we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I know I brought this matter up again previously, and I'll bring it up again. Under C on Page 10 where we speak about certification, at least one employee has a Florida - friendly Best Management Practices for protection of water resources by green industries training certificate. You know, some organizations are large enough that they send out groups of people. And one person who has that certification could be at the home office, at one location. Why do we -- I know you've said at least one. And I guess it's premised on the idea of burden, cost burden, perhaps. But I cannot see it as a burden -- if the cost is reasonable for the training, I cannot see it as a burden, but instead I see it as a tremendous advantage to have a number of their people who are certified. MR. HATCHER: I see it as an advantage also. It's in here as one because practically I'm not -- we've got over 2,000 licensed lawn mowing operations in the county, and I do not believe that we can license all of the applicators before they are required to be licensed in 2014. So I thought as an initial shot it would be -- the best thing to do would be to require at least one licensee with each company. And as I pointed out, all applicators have to be licensed by 2014. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there's no direct correlation there, but perhaps -- where did you have that licensing statement? MR. HATCHER: Well, the requirement to be licensed by 2014 is in Florida Administrative Code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But the people who are going to read this, they're not going to see that. Wouldn't you think there might be an advantage to all applicators within your employ must be prior to 2014 certified? MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Pages 10 and 11? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac, your Section 14, enforcement was -- the way it was written in the standard state language, what did the state envision based on leaving Section 14 as they had as the enforcement procedure? MR. HATCHER: I don't know what they envisioned. There isn't any guidance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there another alternative to what you've written up here? MR. HATCHER: I believe that we have alternatives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you tell me what you think some of those might be? MR. HATCHER: I believe the money could go to the general fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean the money, I mean who enforces it? MR. HATCHER: Oh, I see what you're saying. It's left blank here. That needs to be corrected. It's going to be enforced by the code enforcement officers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any alternative to that? MR. HATCHER: Steve, have you got any suggestions? MR. WILLIAMS: It's going to be a county ordinance. I don't really don't foresee the Sheriff coming out to go after applicators, so our enforcement provisions -- I know earlier in the meeting you had mentioned creating a whole new division. I don't think that would be anyone -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not me. Page 55 of 72 A7 1612 1 * ' April 21, 2011 MR. WILLIAMS: I believe someone did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not me. MR. WILLIAMS: Not wanting, not that it would be a good idea, you said that you would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think I even spoke to you about it. About this issue? MR. WILLIAMS: When we were talking about the earlier on -- just on the fertilizer ordinance, not on the general -- someone at the meeting raised the issue of creating an entire new county division. That was an unwanted course of action. And I apologize if it was not you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's probably Brad, he likes -- MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe it was Brad. It's Brad's fault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't me. The last thing I want to see is more government. So, uh -uh, I say less. That's why I'm questioning this. MR. WILLIAMS: It was used in the negative, not that is was to be a good thing. But if we're to go forward, the most logical step for a county ordinance violation is code enforcement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We went through this on the flood, remember, you were afraid of somebody from Collier sitting next to a murderer when they ask each other what they're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm now looking at the guy in the cell saying, what are you in for? I robbed a bank. Well, I put too much fertilizer on my lawn. I don't want to see that happening. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You actually left clippings in the driveway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, well, that's kind of where I'm going. How severe do you want to be? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like I said, the first draft, we always spend a lot of time on the penalty. Can't code enforcement just handle this with their regular code enforcement penalties and liens and all the other goodies? I mean, why do we have to have special penalties for every new ordinance? We got rid of the flood. We mocked that one away. Let's try here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Mac, that might be the way to approach it. Why do we have to have a special set of penalties for every ordinance that we come out with? And I think -- I've got a whole pile of questions about the way this is laid out. And I don't know why we even have to go there to rewrite the whole penalty ordinance every time we adopt an ordinance in Collier County. If we've already got an ordinance that deals with penalties for code enforcement violations, why are we changing it here? COMMISSIONER CARON: It would be nice if we heard from code enforcement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It must be fun. MR. HATCHER: This recommendation came from code enforcement, so not to beg off, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Eventually we draw it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't mean we still don't have concerns. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Inasmuch as they made the suggestion, are they going to have certification requirement? MR. HATCHER: The code enforcement officers? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Are they going to be trained so that they can do their job efficiently and effectively for that particular thing? MR. HATCHER: They will be trained for this section of the ordinance, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And will they receive some -- no certification, no document, nothing saying that they're competent to do it. MR. HATCHER: Well, that hasn't been determined yet, but I don't see any reason why they couldn't go through the class too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think that would be desirable, because that would certainly -- they could educate as well as perform punitive activities when required. And I think the contact from the contact from the County should be educational as much as possible. Page 56 of 72 4 161 2 A7 April 21, 2011 And in their duties, if they have to perform what is construed as a punitive act, then that's fine, but they should also know to be able to explain what it is, not simply I see you've got a bag over here with the wrong numbers on it. So I would be a strong advocate for having them receive that training, especially inasmuch as this is a new activity. MR. HATCHER: Well, I would not object to having the environmental officers trained for the Best Management Practices, but I would want any of the officers to be able to enforce the ordinance. It's going to be difficult to have, you know, a couple of trained staff to address all of the complaints that might come in throughout the county. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was under the impression, obviously erroneously, that our standard, if we have such, standard code enforcement officer would be -- additional duties would be this. But I think you just inferred that there might only be a couple of officers who are going to be charged with that responsibility. Is that correct? MR. HATCHER: Well, we have a couple of officers who are trained to deal with environmental issues. We have a lot of code enforcement officers that cover the county and can still issue violations, you know, and interpret code to make citations. I'm not sure it's practical to train all of them for every area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, perhaps supervision alone. I don't know. But I do know, for instance, public utilities, they have code officers, don't they? MR. HATCHER: I don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think they do. And if they're out there, you'd want to think that -- I'd want to think that they're as concerned with that as our everyday variety code officer. I don't how else to put it because I don't know what segmentation we have. I think all code officers, if we're going to make this thing useful, should have an opportunity at least -- may not call it a deep training but it's certainly something to familiarize them so that they're sufficiently aware and can also, as I said, educate besides cite. MR. HATCHER: I don't disagree with that. I don't believe that certification is entirely appropriate. But education -- and most of the violations here are going to be fairly straightforward. Somebody has applied material inappropriately into a water body onto impervious surface. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is for the first seven months of the activity. After that people get shrewd. I'm teasing. All right, I understand you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Mac. Let's get back to Pages 10 and 11. About the parenthetical one on Page 11, four lines up from the bottom starts with a sentence or a line that says, the applicable civil penalty if a person elects not to contest a citation, and the applicable civil penalty if the person elects to contest a citation. So that means if someone exercises their right to defend themselves, they have to pay more than if they don't? MR. HATCHER: That's the way I would read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm certainly not in favor of that particular line. I don't know how it is even fair. You either have a fine or don't have a fine. And if it -- you have a right to appeal and you shouldn't be penalized because you want to speak before and defend yourself. I don't see how that's possible. Steve? MR. WILLIAMS: If you want to put it in a speeding ticket analysis, if you show up to contest the speeding ticket the judge assesses you the court costs and the extra -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, I understand that. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that's what Mac -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why don't we say that? Then it says also -- it says also, a conspicuous statement of the effect of failure to promptly pay the fine or appear before the enforcement board. What does the word -- which is what? What is that -- what is the failure if you don't appear? What is the end result? You going to put a guy in jail for putting lawn clippings on his driveway, or how far do we take it? MR. HATCHER: Well, I think that's up to the magistrate. Page 57 of 72 r f 161 2 A7 April 21, 2011 MR. WILLIAMS: He's not putting anyone in jail for grass clippings. Grass police is bad enough, grass jail is worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is just getting a little absurd. That's why I can't understand why we can't fall back on the regular code enforcement language that we have already. Every time we recreate new code enforcement language for an ordinance we recreate problems that we didn't anticipate. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with you at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Code enforcement's been doing fine with their existing ordinance language. Why don't we see how that compares and leave it like that and try to not amend every ordinance we have with new code enforcement findings. I don't know why that group itself wouldn't like that, just out of simplicity on how to proceed. Now, another alternative, I notice you've got a series of fines up to $500, and each day the violation continues it gets higher. Does that mean each day the slow release doesn't release? So how do you weigh these things, Mac? I mean, I'm just concerned that someone will take it to an absurd level. And I don't want to see us put ourselves in that position. So I do think this is written very -- in a wrong way. I think we need to focus on standardizing it to what the current code enforcement's abilities are and not try to tailor each code enforcement penalty to a particular ordinance but to its standards. It talks about separate offenses. I'd sure like to know what a separate offense is. Every granular of fertilizer or each day is it a separate offense? Penalties we'll get into, those are a whole nother issue. But if we've got a standard ordinance for penalties, I'd like to see that first. That's all I've got on 10 and 11. Twelve and 13? Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're just a continuation of a fun with penalties part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going. In the aggravated violations section, we don't even need to go there. If someone's not responding after the third or fourth citation, maybe they ought to have their license suspended for a period of time until they can come around or -- but why even go to this whole new section on aggravated violations? Drop it. Go straight to the source of the problem. And then I bet you that young lady there who speaks so thoroughly on the issues would -- her company would come around real quick if they had numerous violations and it threatened their license. MR. HATCHER: This not only applies to the licensed applicators but it applies to Joe Blow also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to see how you're going to prosecute Joe Blow on running his rotary. I mean, it just isn't going to happen. That's the issues. Anybody else have any on the language of the document before we get into specific policy discussions on the main issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, before we do that little jump, let's take a break for 15 minutes and we'll come back at 2:35 and resume. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, let's try to resume our exciting issue here today. And Mac is reconsidering our time frame here a little bit. So let's start out with that. From the -- this panel's perspective, I don't know how many of you intend to stay later or would like to stay later or you have an idea what time. Does anybody have a cut -off time that they prefer? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll sport for 3:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to leave at 4:00. I don't have a choice in that matter. So at 4:00 I've got to leave. But Donna can take over if you guys want to go later. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I can do that. But I see no reason for us to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why we would. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- be here after 4:00, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think by 4:00 we'll be as worn down as we could possibly get if we stay that long. Page 58 of 72 1612 April 21, 2011 So that means we're going to start debating the general policy issues that have been brought here. We're going to need Amber to come up and answer a few questions that I'd asked her she had before. And then we're going to get into discussing how to lay out some of these -- the four major issues. Mac, I can't tell you how long that will take. I'll leave it up to you to decide if you want to keep your experts and squeeze them in for 30 minutes or an hour in the last, or we'll just leave early and come back refreshed when they want to come back for the Watershed Management Plan. It's up to you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe you could put them first on the agenda next time around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we could do that so we have a time positive. Ray, does that work? MR. BELLOWS: What are you saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they come back, if they want to come back to another meeting, maybe we give them a time certain. That way we're not having them sit here all day. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I believe the May 5th meeting, there's one or two items. I can verify that, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'd like to do is you and I get the agenda and we'll talk about it, and then we'll set a time certain up for them so that they're not coming here and sitting here all day. If that's what Mac wants to do. If he doesn't, he can hang in here and -- MR. HATCHER: No, I think that would be preferable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that's what we'll do, we'll finish up the fertilizer ordinance today and that's the end of today. And sir, I'm sorry we took you away from your wife for all this fun adventure while you're going -- at least you're going to have a hopefully happy evening and happy anniversary to you. Thank you for at least coming here today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second one, isn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second time they've come and tried to -- the last time he told us today was his anniversary. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I misunderstood. I thought he had two wives. What do I know? MR. HATCHER: Not Utah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, earlier this morning, holy cow, it's been a long time, Amber, when she was up, there was a couple of questions from her presentation that I had asked her to follow up on. Amber, can you come up and let us know if you might need the overhead for that statute language and then the graph on the TDLs and the other issues that we asked you to address. MS. CROOKS: All right. Amber Crooks from The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Hopefully I have everything that you're looking for. One of your questions was some hard data from the City of Venice, who has a more stringent protective ordinance in place, to try and take a look at what results they've had. And this is something that I previously sent to the commission members, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amber, we've received so much stuff, I couldn't even carry it all in here today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember those lines. MS. CROOKS: There's a couple of things I want to show you from this report. And this was helped put together by Charlotte Harbor Natural Estuaries program in conjunction with the City of Venice. There should be a line that shows the date of adoption of their fertilizer ordinance, which again is more stringent than the 2009 state model. And it just shows a general declining trend, this case, in phosphorus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did they measure the phosphorus in this case, by actual -- by that element itself, or did they look at total dissolved solid, TDS or TDLs, or whatever they call it? MS. CROOKS: I think it's just in the total phosphorus in their water sampling. And then this one would be in the total nitrogen. Again, just to show a general decline trend. And actually, this report kind of goes over several of their bays, and they found very similar results. I don't know if you want me to show each -- they did it for Roberts Bay and also for their intercoastal waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any of that address total dissolved oxygen? MS. CROOKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before she does that, if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Page 59 of 72 i 16 12 A7P ri121, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In both of the sheets that you've shown, there are serious spikes. What are they attributable to? MS. CROOKS: I believe you still see some spikes. And I would probably refer to the Charlotte Harbor Natural Estuaries program to be sure, but I believe that's still some spikes from the summer rainy season. That's my reading. But I can get back with you guys for sure as to what those spikes are attributable to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looks it they could be if you start trying to line them up. MS. CROOKS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. CROOKS: Let's see here. I do have also the dissolved oxygen. And we did talk a little bit about this today. In this case you do see an increase in the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, which correlates to the date of their adopted ordinance. And you would perhaps see that increase in the availability of dissolved oxygen with the improved water quality. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last thing was the ordinance that we can apply more stringent rules as written into the standard language of the Florida statute? MS. CROOKS: Right. It is in the Florida statute. It's also in the state model language itself, which I brought with me. And it's kind of my version that I've been highlighting and making notes on. But if you care to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That looks like the same brochure that the lady from TruGreen had. MS. CROOKS: This is the language that you wanted to see about -- actually, if you could expand it a little bit -- where it talks about the conditions where it would be most appropriate for a local municipality to adopt more stringent regulations. Let me see here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to find the language. This isn't the exact -- this is an interpretation of the statute. Mac, do you agree with the statement that the state ordinance does allow more local stringent standards? MR. HATCHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HATCHER: There are caveats in the statutory language, but it certainly does allow for more stringent provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar enough with those caveats so that if we get into a discussion that violates one of those, you can tell us? MR. HATCHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was my concern. I wanted to see the language if it's -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark, I actually printed it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good. COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- if you want to put that on the overhead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got the -- well, then you can be the teller. No, she's going to dump that on me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Amber, I have a question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You going to put that on the overhead -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- could you go back to that dissolved oxygen thing? MS. CROOKS: Sure. Just one final thing on this I thought from our discussion previously you wanted to see. But the three bullet points in the top right, those are the conditions that the state model language shows that it could be appropriate to do the more stringent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, could you let her -- yeah, let's just finish. MS. CROOKS: And that's if you have verified impaired water bodies, which we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it all of these or just one of these? MS. CROOKS: Any of these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any of them. MS. CROOKS: And I think we would meet each of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first one for sure. MS. CROOKS: Human health, I know we had some testimony to that today. It's definitely a concern. Or Page 60 of 72 s � t 1612AAr72011" the aquatic health. And the other one would be to proactively work to try and limit any kind of adverse impacts in the future. And you had a question about dissolved oxygen? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I need to see that again, if you wouldn't mind, please. I may be misinterpreting that chart. Maybe that's why. Oh, no. Okay. If you pull that out, Ray? Dissolved oxygen is a good thing or a bad thing? MS. CROOKS: You would have higher levels available of dissolved oxygen the better your water quality is. So seeing an increasing trend here shows that the water quality has been improved in relation to a dissolved oxygen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That sometimes has confused me, because people have correlated dissolved oxygen with an anemic or a spoiled pond or whatever. And I was under the impression that dissolved oxygen was a negative. So you're saying that the more dissolved oxygen we have the better off we are in a pond? MS. CROOKS: If you have too low oxygen availability, that's when you start seeing the fishkills. It creates an imbalance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's insufficient oxygen for them to takeout of the water. So you're increasing the oxygenation. MS. CROOKS: Availability. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And there's a level where it becomes a poison as well, presumably, when you're up too high? MS. CROOKS: That's possible, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But it's not probable. MS. CROOKS: That I'm not as familiar with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm getting a nod, I think. MR. LORENZ: The -- you have a diurnal cycle, night and day, where if you have a lot of biological organisms, typically algae, that during the night they can respire, they will take out the oxygen, the oxygen levels will plummet. But during the day they also will put oxygen into the water and you'll see very high spikes. So if you see very low and very high, that's a possibility that you have that condition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But this is a one line showing -- MS. CROOKS: This is over time. This is over -- there are three years there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you suggesting that this is the combination of those two conditions or a statement of an average or something? MS. CROOKS: This would be their -- from their water quality sampling that they've conducted over the past three years. At the very minimum, it looks like they've collected information about the oxygen, the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but he just gave me a piece of education that I thought was pretty important. If you take -- MS. CROOKS: This would reflect highs or lows. This would be the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, one of us has to talk at the time because of the stenographer. If the sample is taken at a certain time of the day, you'll see a lower rate of dissolved oxygen, and another time of the day you'll see a higher rate. So what are we really looking at when we see this incline up? MS. CROOKS: Well, for the water sampling purposes it would of course depend on what time they took the sample. But this is depicting a trend over the last three years of the dissolved oxygen that they've tested for. So again, it would depend on how they conducted their sampling. But to me this is a positive in terms of they've seen improved water quality since the date of their ordinance. Now, there again are other factors that influence these things, but I think this is a very positive indication. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And this is a published document. This is published for the benefit of the public. MS. CROOKS: I don't think it's a published document. I think this is information, hard data that the city and the Charlotte Harbor Natural Estuaries program have collected and is available. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I'll accept it on that basis. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Amber. That first picture you put up this morning with the green bay. Which bay is that you dumped the coloring into? I mean -- Page 61 of 72 1612ApArii7,2011 MS. CROOKS: I wish it was that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which -- where was it? MS. CROOKS: I think that was St. Lucie -- or St. John's, rather. But we also saw that just the same in Lee County. We could have picked a picture from there also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just curious. It was real bright. It just stuck with me. Thank you. Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, the day was March 17th, if you noticed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's a good point. Okay. Well, Mac, we've come full circle with all of our questions. Now we're simply going to boil down to -- and I'll read off the notes that I have from most of the intense part of the conversation today on the issues. There seem to be four of them. The content, the maximum application rate, the width of the buffer zone and the blackout period. Why don't we start with the content. There were two issues that seem to be in dispute, and that is the nitrogen and the phosphorus. I didn't find anybody objecting to the zero phosphorus. That seem -- with the caveat that it could be used when soil tests show it was needed. Does anybody seem to be concerned over that kind of a statement? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So as far as phosphorus goes, from what I can tell from all the discussions we heard, everybody was kind of okay with the zero idea, but if a soil test proves it is needed, then it can be used at that point. Is that -- MR. HATCHER: I took that as well. There are IFAS recommendations for landscape plants that do include phosphorus, but a soil test can address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's try to weave that into some of our language. Then the other issue is the nitrogen. There were a couple variables with the nitrogen. Basically the idea of slow release nitrogen seems to be acceptable, but it's a percentage. And I've heard 30 percent and 50 percent is minimum, with the exception that for the first 60 days there could be a quick release for new planted areas. I don't know if that meets with everybody's intent here. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was just going to say, DEP recommends 50 percent, you know. Other ordinances surrounding us have 50 percent. I don't see what the big issue with 50 percent is. And you've given yourself 30 days or 60 days, whatever it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So two board members are at 50 percent slow release with the first 60 days of new planting with quick release would be acceptable. Now, how about the rest of us? You're okay? Everybody seem -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Makes sense. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is that something that's available for people to buy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to be my next question. Mac, when you come back to us with this revised language, could someone have by then gone and checked out the availability of that slow release nitrogen product? MR. HATCHER: Yes, that's possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if you use just Bonus S, you can look at the other brands too. I don't use any myself, so either way. But with that information, I think we then can feel comfortable that it's available and it's good. So that seems to be the consensus of the board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, could you go back one second. The phosphorus, are we going -- we're going to be zero or two percent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Zero. Page 62 of 72 r 161 A7 pril 21, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How come? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hadn't heard anybody object to it, with the exception that it can be applied when soil tests justify it, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That puts it back into the management techniques of the applicators, which they basically -- hopefully that meets with their ability. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. The only advantage to meet it too is that it's compatible with Naples and we can start making a point that we don't sell products in Collier County. Now we essentially have to leave that option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the City of Naples only does two percent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got a sheet from The Conservancy that says that, that they have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point, the consistency between municipalities. I just was going because no one seemed to care about it. Go ahead, Donna. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the consistency is that you need to have that soil test. And we're saying that you have to have that soil test. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with the soil test. It's just that it would be nice if the products were consistent totally within the county so that we could control it at the only place you can control it, and that's the store. MR. HATCHER: The State of Florida has adopted a new turf rule since the City of Naples adopted their -- the two percent phosphorus is no longer a recommended option. I don't believe it's available. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you feel Naples might drop to zero? MR. HATCHER: My guess is is they won't bother, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can't buy it. Okay, let's go to zero then. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we've resolved the first one. Second one is the maximum application rate. We've heard everything from two, three, four, up to I don't know how many pounds per thousand square feet. The golf course superintendents I think when they were up here suggested that some of the non- paspalum varieties use four to five percent. IFAS recommended -- I mean, four to five pounds. IFAS recommended five. I think The Conservancy recommended four. What's the feeling of this board? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Four. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody? Generally -- well, is anybody against four? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it looks like it will be four pounds. You know, the overall odd thing about this, who is ever going to be able to figure out if they put that much on their lawn per year? But, I mean, that's -- you guys wrote it, we'll try to live with it. The next item was a 10 -foot buffer zone. That's probably going to be one of the more concerning ones. There's been -- the language that we have here is really not -- has a three -foot free zone with the remaining seven feet being okay if you use a broadcast spreader or a deflector. The three -foot free zone has the exception of first time plantings can have 60 days worth of fertilizing still using a deflector or a broadcast spreader or an applicator. Is that a fair statement, Mac? Or is it not -- it's not restricted in the three -foot for the first 60 days? MR. HATCHER: No, it would still be restricted, I mean, with the deflector shields and so forth. But it would be allowed within that 10 -foot buffer for 60 days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what's the feeling of the board? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think three feet is too close to water -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, 10 feet. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- it's almost nothing. Page 63 of 72 16I2A7" April 21, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now are we talking three feet or 10 feet with -- are you saying no application of fertilizer at all in that 10 -foot area, is that what you're -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, in the three -foot area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That what it reads now. Oh, none at all, even for growing? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think applying fertilizer within three feet of a water body is just very close. You're going to get some runoff into the water body. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the other hand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- if I may, some of the information contained in this set of documents suggests that if you don't maintain the grass in the proper form and it starts to break down, you'll get erosion and that accelerates the materials you don't want, what chemistry you don't want to go into the water. So I think there's got to be a happy medium there. I don't know what it is exactly. I'm not trying to counter an argument as much as I think there's validity to that statement. You want to have as much turf as you can have. Given that it's going to be nutrient poor, but I don't know that you want to make it nutrient absent -- that's not a good phrase -- but nutrient whatever, absent any nutrient. MR. HATCHER: The model ordinance is calling for a minimum of a three -foot buffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But make it clear, in that three -foot area -- and we focused on new plantings. But after the new plantings have taken hold, what do we treat that three feet with? Do we never give it fertilizer? MR. HATCHER: That's what the ordinance is going to put in place. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And yet the science, or purported science says that you do not want to create a condition where the turf starts to break up and you get open patches, and that's when it will accelerate the negatives. MR. HATCHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't the three -foot in the model ordinance the base? The three -foot you put in this ordinance in front of us today, is that part of the model ordinance? MR. HATCHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not something that we can change to a lesser degree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean two feet? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We couldn't say two feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's got to be more restrictive. MR. HATCHER: Yeah, I don't believe that that would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, to get to Mr. Murray's point, it's three feet or greater is the issue, not three feet or less. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we make it 13 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Oh, I think Ms. Caron had her hand up first, then Brad. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm just reading some things. And somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm reading here that green industry Best Management Practices suggest buffer zones of 10 feet to protect water resources. So, you know, I'm thinking we should be going with 10, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mac, the three feet, that's a statewide number, correct? MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think most of our water bodies are going to be dug out of the ground, they're the ponds, they're the retention ponds. So they have a slope greater than 10 feet leading into them. MR. HATCHER: We have the full gamut of water bodies. We have wetlands, we have swales. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my point is that all of them, maybe some of the canals don't, maybe the seawalls don't, but all of them have a slope going into the water greater than 10 feet. MR. HATCHER: I would say the preponderance of situations, yeah. Page 64 of 72 1612 A r 72011"' COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what we're discussing is how far would the chemicals leach through the grass such that they don't hit the water? And I think coming from a slope down into a slope, I think 10 feet is a good number. It's not like it's not going to have any nutrients. The nutrients are going to be leached from the upper part of the property down through that area, correct? MR. HATCHER: That's not what the science indicates, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's going to be totally devoid of fertilizer in that area? It's not going to come from above? MR. HATCHER: It's not going to be totally devoid of nutrients, but it's going to be devoid of fertilizer - derived nutrients. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that no fertilizer will come from above into that 10 -foot zone. MR. HATCHER: Only -- the science indicates that only if the fertilizer is misapplied, too much, too close to a storm event, something like that, will you get leaching. Or runoff is the more appropriate term for that situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then there's no fear of runoff from the 10 -foot closest to the water then. They're both essentially in the same slope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's architectural logic. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you're saying, the upper part won't bleed into the lower part. Thus why are we worried about the lower part bleeding into the water? But anyway, I think it would get some stuff, so don't worry that. COMMISSIONER HURRAY: Aren't we worried -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul was next. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just had a thought as we were discussing it. You know, when there's a big rain event the water level in the ponds raises and you're likely to get a lot of it going so that the part within 10 feet of the water body is actually covered by water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that goes back to the definition of where we measure from. And that's what (sic) Mac's got to come back. Because if the water level changes, the measurement theoretically would change. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm just thinking that this business about the three foot is really an exception. And it's only applicable as I understand it to the event of new planting. Otherwise it's a non - issue. Am I correct, Mac? MR. HATCHER: Well, the three foot applies to applicators that have drop spreaders and deflector shields. They can apply that close to the water body. If you don't have those -- that type of equipment, you're just stuck with a rotary or something else, then the 10 -foot buffer applies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'd lost sight of that part of it. That does create an inequity between the homeowner, say, who doesn't have that kind of a device and somebody else. I don't know if we're splitting hairs or what we're doing. But what that tells me is that we're willing to go -- that 10 feet, we're willing to give nutrients to seven feet of that. MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then why are we establishing 10 feet? It seems contradictory, maybe only because of the way we're talking about it, but it seems contradictory to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Within the 10 feet, if you want to put any fertilizer down, you can do it within seven of those 10 feet, but only if you use a special piece of equipment. That's the difference why you have a 10 -foot zone. Outside that zone you don't have to have any special equipment at all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe I'm being affected by what Mr. Yovanovich sent me yesterday or the day before. I played that video. And they made the point that the grass on the slope, that 10 feet, it looks very different from the rest of it. And I think we saw a picture of that today. And my interpretation was we're trying to avoid getting 10 feet -- any closer than 10 feet with any fertilizer. But if I'm wrong in that, then I think that we have to at least help me understand it better. MR. HATCHER: I guess that -- I'm not sure I can help you understand it better. I believe that the agencies Page 65 of 72 1612 A7 " April 21, 2011 have proposed a minimum standard that's probably best judgment. The science is saying that the material doesn't move, but they're saying three feet anyway, you know, like on top. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I give up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Again, if professionals who are going to have the tools can go up to three feet, regulating the balance of it is going to be impossible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I still believe the 10 feet. Because it's pretty much 10 feet anywhere else with the -- you have a 20 -foot lake maintenance, and that they have to get around. And within 10 feet, I just think that's a nice safe amount for everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the excavation of lakes. And I have dug millions of yards of lakes, and I know that the first thing we do is stabilize the lake banks. And I can tell you, from the time you stabilize a lake bank until time a homeowner comes in and properly irrigates it and properly fertilizes it, that sod ring doesn't stay in place if it's not taken care of. As the sod ring comes apart, so does the soils underneath it. To fix it under that stage after a home is in place is huge. Because you don't just come in with a piece of sod at that point, you got to replace all the washouts. And the washouts go out into the lake, which means you need a long arm backhoe or some piece of equipment to bring the material back in. Then you've got to place the sod and some kind of stabilization on top of that, especially if you're on the leeward side of a lake. That's important not to lose that erosion control. That erosion control will do more damage to the lake than I think the fertilizers would if you left them three feet back. I'm strongly in favor of saying that we keep with the model ordinance for that one. We've done some really good things for the first two. We've looked at conservation issues that are really so much better than what was even proposed in the minimum model. To wait and require a two -year mandatory review of this will allow us to look and see what kind of effect we're having. And if we're having a negative effect on those lake banks, then we'll know it. So I'd rather not go in and try to change it too radically now and have those lake banks have to be fixed because we made a mistake, but rather look at it in two years and see if we need to do any more. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But once they are established, Mark, it changes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Once they were established are the ones that I lost. I can tell you, it cost a lot of money to fix them. I've hired a subcontractor with a machine to come in and fix them, and it was an established lawn with the houses built, and it was Bermuda grass that was put in. And they were -- I mean, it was fine except when the rain started hitting and that area close to the water started washing out. The fix was horrendous. And it's not anything that your community would want to experience, or any community would. So my suggestion is let's be a little cautious with that one right now. It's probably -- compared to some of the other things that we're fixing here, it may not be the worst one to have to be more cautious with than the others, so -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Makes sense what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question. Mac, is this dimension -- I mean, I m thinking this and I may be wrong, that it's kind of a tolerance for bleeding in. But you say it's a tolerance for application only? In other words, when I put the fertilizer, it stays where I put it? It's not going to, because it's on a slope, bleed down into the water? MR. HATCHER: If you irrigate appropriately, it will stay where you put it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this dimension we're talking about is purely an application tolerance. MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMIVIISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not an ability for something to bleed a little bit and not go into the lake. MR. HATCHER: Well, I guess that I would interpret the three -foot free zone as being insurance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Insurance from the applicator or insurance from -- MR. HATCHER: From the applicator. Page 66 of 72 A ri'121, 2011 1612, P COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- weather and water moving the material into the -- MR. HATCHER: From the applicator. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh. Well, hell, you could put tape down and get closer than that, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think the choice is we either stay with the model ordinance or we modify the model ordinance. So let's take a straw raise of hands on that. How many people wish to stay with the model ordinance as it's written with the three foot? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which is what you described -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I described, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the belief that it's for the tolerance of application, I will do it. COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.) One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Of those who wouldn't go along with that? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: For 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would be two. Okay, so the straw -- just our recommendation would be 7 -2 to go with the model language you have in here right now, temporarily, or at least until we talk about the mandatory review. The fourth item is the summer blackout. Heard all kinds of things on that today. The recommendation is June, July, August and September. Does anybody have any comments? Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I will just comment that when the golf course people were up here, they pretty much follow a blackout period, even though they're the ones opposing it. When Mr. Hier got up here, he said he pretty much does -- puts his fertilizer on in the end of May and it carries him through to September. The neighboring municipalities are -- you know, have a blackout period. Your Regional Planning Council asked for one. Again, if we're going to talk about a monitoring after the fact, you know, maybe we can monitor to see if there are any issues or problems with it for sure. You know, I'm not married to anything for life if there's an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Could we get clarification on that? Because the way I understood it was the application times for the golf course is different than for the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they use the liquid. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's right here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, that's fine, I'll handle it. Tim, would you mind briefly addressing the question. I say the word brief, because we can have some very long discussions with a lot of people in the room today, so -- MR. HIERS: Tim Hiers. We use liquid fertigation in the summer. I don't use a lot of granular on paspalum anyway unless it's calcium or the minor elements. So we do put nitrogen out in the summer, but it's a minute amount through the fertigation system. We do it 12 months a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know if the people who -- of the other forms of grass do the same thing? MR. HIERS: Pretty much the same thing. A lot of us almost always use fertigation, which we put it through the irrigation system. And we do keep our heads out of the lakes. We adjust those all the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 67 of 72 1612April 2 k,71 I Mr. Talbot, out of fairness, if you can keep it brief. No pictures. MR. TALBOT: One picture? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Well, okay, as long as -- something to the point, though, okay? MR. TALBOT: Just wanted to -- if you would revisit one point. This is three feet with a deflector shield. This is what you support, right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Do you know, does TruGreen do Island Walk? MS. SANTELLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could one of you who do Island Walk stand up here and talk to us. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm Village Walk. COMMISSIONER CARON: He's Village -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Village Walk. I'm sorry. Do you guys do -- you don't do Village Walk? COMMISSIONER CARON: Nobody would admit it if they did. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sony, I thought -- those communities are a lot alike, so I'm -- okay. Back to, I think -- Melissa, you asked the question of Tim. Did you have any more to follow up on that? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Well, again, based on what we've received from University of Florida and I believe FDEP, it says that the summer blackouts is more detrimental than -- I totally lost my train of thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. The summer blackouts, from what your perspective is, are more detrimental -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Creating more of an issue, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- than if you don't do it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you want to add to that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm just -- you know, what is the problem with doing it during those rainy periods? You've told me it's not because there's runoff and the material's going to move towards the lake. So why is there a blackout period? MR. HATCHER: We did not -- staff did not propose the blackout period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you agree that there will not be runoff in the heavy rain or in all the other stuff, or -- because it's going to rain in the summer. We're going to get downpours in the summer. MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concern has to be, isn't it, that we'll have the material flow into the water body? MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, the only problem on the state model is, is during floods, hurricanes and two inches of rain. We do not know when we get two -- I mean, it can pour and you get two inches of rain like that. So this -- they're taking a guess at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The one thing that I've heard is the four months. And we've heard that some of the slow release nitrogen can dissolve quickly or it can take longer, depending on what its coatings are. And I'm always trying to find a compromise. I do know that I've lived in this state for 33 years in the same location right here in Collier County, and for many of those years June is not a wet month, it's a dry month. In fact, we've had restrictions on July 4th because it's so dry we can't have fireworks. And that's occurring quite frequently, if not more frequently. I don't see the threat in June and July as great as August and September. And with the idea of coming back for a two -year mandatory review, if we look at just two months to do the restriction, the blackout period, as a trial period in which to see how it works, I think that would be a good start and may just be a compromise so that if you have the slow release nitrogen, someone said today it's good for four months. Well, you know what, if they're wrong, maybe even two months is more practical. Page 68 of 72 ft> 1612 Ail , 201 So I'm certainly suggesting we go that route and split the baby and say let's look at two months for a blackout period as a trial period. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the thing I would hate to see us cause is where people come out the months before and really juice the fertilizer up and hope it will flow and spread out through the rains. I mean, that would be the worst case. MR. HATCHER: Well, actually, I believe the worst case would be if they come and pile it on at the end of the season when the grass is not growing, and then I can pretty much guarantee the science says that it will end up in the water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wouldn't the smart thing to be doing is putting small amounts of a liquid or something during those months, something that a rain wouldn't move around as much? MR. HATCHER: I wouldn't disagree with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You would disagree? MR. HATCHER: No, I would not disagree with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In. other words, stay away from timed stuff, stuff that could be floated around and do something. I mean, I don't know the material enough. The applicators may do it. But if they're coming out at periodic times during those months, wouldn't it be smarter for them to be putting little amounts of something that's not going to flow? MR. HATCHER: I mean, you've had the professionals testify that that's what they do. I don't think you're going to get a better opinion from me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, is there a possibility you have a -- during that two months -- I know you're a golf course, but could you kind of let us know if there's a big problem giving it a trial for two months to see how it would work out? MR. HIERS: The better answer I think -- and I can't advocate this. The better answer would be the right type of slow release fertilizer, one that doesn't release quickly. And if I can just say one thing that will maybe make a little sense. If you've got an air conditioner filter at your house, that filter is meant to catch dirt. You have to clean it once in a while because it does catch dirt, but the air still gets through. You have to follow the water. The water is what's going to carry any pollutant. It's going to carry the fertilizer, it's going to carry the nutrients. If you've got a healthy turf grass properly maintained, it's like that filter, it's going to catch the nutrients. This is what I don't have the authority to say, because I don't know if the fertilizer companies can do it. In my opinion, and I don't represent anybody when I tell you this, if you went to the right slow release fertilizer in the summer and you put it down properly and you don't get it on a hard surface and you don't throw it in the water and you water it in as soon as you put down, you're going to get one percent. The studies do show you get one -half of one percent. I mean, it's minimum. You're not going to get 10 percent or five percent. But that's a tough nut to -- I don't think they make them right now. We can buy them. I don't think the homeowner can. Now, they could maybe change the formulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you again. Okay, we're back to the summer blackout. Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just think that that is one of the problems here. We're trying to balance. It's easier for Mr. Hiers to control his golf course and how he handles that than it is for us to try to balance an ordinance that takes care of individual homeowners plus associations and all that. So we have a different balancing act here, so COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Just briefly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're looking for input. We're not trying to stifle people from talking. So if anybody can help us, we're not -- we're struggling through this too. MR. YOVANOVICH: One of the things you're asking, and we obviously have access to the scientists. When do you think you'll be coming back for further discussion on this ordinance? Because between now and then Page 69 of 72 I �" 1612 A p A rill 2011 we can ask them what they think about what you're proposing is a two -month blackout. Give us June or -- allow us fertilizing in June and July, and we can ask the scientists what does that do, so you can have additional information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to my schedule, we have an opening in January of 2015. MR. YOVANOVICH: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that will work out good for anybody here, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, seriously -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I imagine -- Mac, when would you come back with a rewrite or reproposal of some of these things to this board? MR. HATCHER: I suppose it will be May the 5th, unless I need to advertise more than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- well, from today you were going to draft up a final document for us to then make a vote on? And you think you could do that by May 5th? Because you're not going to have -- we're not going to have the watershed part of it done. MR. HATCHER: Well, fortunately for me the consultants are doing most of the watershed work. My primary interest here is the fertilizer ordinance. I'm not positive that I can get back the first of May, that 5th, but that's the next opportunity we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we look at the last meeting in May instead of the first, and that way you can come back -- as far as your watershed people, they can come back on the first meeting in May. We can blow through that. But let's get their fertilizer ordinance back towards the end of May. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: That's the 19th. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? MR. YOVANOVICH: That should give us enough time to run it up with the scientists to talk about your proposed compromise. MR. TALBOT: Science from everyone, right? In other words we can provide -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, everybody, yeah. Whoever wants to -- our meetings are always open to the public. And then you always can provide us with information. And as you've learned today, we'll listen to everybody's position. So on the 19th of May, if you feel you have a counter position or you've brought -- you have data, you want to get it to us ahead of time, give it to Ray, he'll dispense it to us and come to the meeting on the 19th. So with that, have we exhausted the discussion on the blackout period, and we're looking at a what, does anybody have a preference on what they'd like to see? I've suggested a compromise. Does that -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I like your compromise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would be open to the compromise if the science supports it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's work towards the compromise, Mac, depending on how the science comes back with it. And then that's the four big issues. I think we've kind of gotten through them. The last issue is the idea of a two -year mandatory review, and that's something that I started discussing earlier today. The only reason I want that is I really don't want us to make a mistake on this. I've been trying to be very cautious in moving forward too fast. We've actually jumped further ahead than the model in many instances. So I think a two -year review to make sure we didn't go in a wrong direction will catch it as quickly as we can, based on the studies that Amber showed us of the reaction time of nitrogen, phosphate and total dissolved oxygens. If you notice on those charts, every one of them showed a reaction after two years. So I'd like to see us take a look at that. And Mac's already doing the chemical monitoring for at least total dissolved oxygen, so we can see if that has an impact. MR. HATCHER: They do total nitrogen and total phosphorus, too. And I'll add that the Charlotte Harbor program has also removed their point source discharges from their waters as well as implemented a fertilizer ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what's our watershed management attempting to do in that regard? MR. HATCHER: We don't have any point source discharges currently. We'll be looking at reducing runoff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Okay. Page 70 of 72 161ZApA7,2011 Is that okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, Amber showed those charts. Is there any community that did something similar to the State's proposal and we could look at what data they have? MR. HATCHER: The Charlotte Harbor data that she presented is the only thing I've seen that's been proposed or in any way alluded to as an effective fertilizer ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And does it go after -- does it have blackout periods? Does it have 10 feet? MR. HATCHER: Yes. And again, that surface water monitoring, that's not directed at fertilizer monitoring. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it also -- you know, the time frame is when essentially could be proving that oxygen is inversely proportional to the construction industry too. Because, you know, 2008 there's a lot of activity stopped. Maybe a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying all those contractors are the pollutants? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who knows? I mean, with a freakonomics mentality, that may be what it's proving, that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, did you have something? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mac, you said that was the only study that you were aware of that showed those results. Are there other studies that show differently, or that's the only one you're aware of that's being done? MR. HATCHER: It's the only one I'm aware o£ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac, is there any stone we left unturned for now? MR. HATCHER: Not that I can think o£ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I guess we'll wrap up on the fertilizer ordinance for today. I want to thank everybody in the audience that participated. It's been educational for us, and we certainly need the education. So I encourage you to come back on the 19th and try to make sure we finish it right, because we will try to. With that, let's see, I think that's the last thing on the agenda. Nothing new that I can see. Ray, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Seconded by Ms. Homiak. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We're done. Page 71 of 72 ± r 16-12 Apri12 , 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:22 pm. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman �1�f7- /�pnt14-.t.l ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ,5 I q 0?0 / / , as presented V or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 72 of 72 �"! 16 1 L May 5, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE RECEIVED COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JUN 0 8 2011 Naples, Florida, May 5, 2011 3oard of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: F.1=0100111:0 ONO CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Melissa Ahern Brad Schiffer Paul Midney (Absent for roll call) Donna Reed Caron Karen Homiak Bob Murray Diane Ebert Barry Klein Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager Steve Williams, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Member Page 1 of 43 Fiala Hiller Hennin Coyle Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: \ - -= I 16 12 A7 May 5, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the May 5th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can the secretary do the roll call, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? He's not here, oh. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? I thought I saw him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You see that window in the back, the first one? When those blinds are open, Paul's here. That's the sign. Okay. Addenda to the agenda. Before we get into that, I need to know -- there's got to be something of a surprise scheduled today, because Nick's here. Is anything changing on the agenda we don't know about? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just come because I miss you so much, and I want to spend some time with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a rare occasion. Thanks for showing up today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our next meeting is the 19th of the month, and that will be the meeting in which the fertilizer ordinance will come back to us. There's been a lot of discussion about how to, I guess, further decipher the fertilizer ordinance, and it's been suggested that some experts may want to attend our meeting that day. I need to get this board's opinion on if they want to hear from experts and possibly moving the fertilizer ordinance up to the beginning of the meeting, depending on what else is scheduled for that day. Nick, do you know, or Ray? I'm not sure who's in charge of our agenda for the 19th. Do you know what we have tentatively scheduled for the 19th? MR. BELLOWS: I'm pulling it up right now. On the 19th we have the Heritage Bay DRI extension, and we have a sign variance for Walmart and a boat -dock petition in Vanderbilt Beach area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The extension of a DRI is pretty routine, so -- that sounds like a big thing, but usually it's not. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe we could put the fertilizer ordinance in the beginning of the meeting and hear the experts. Apd anybody that wants to come in and attend -- and I think most of the public will be here for that event. Unless this board has a problem with that. Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, would you make sure that Judy knows to put that in the beginning. And the other thing is, Mac, do you have a moment where you could come up and answer a question or two? There is a gentleman with the state -- I forgot the acronym. We have so many acronyms. You know it better than I do. Page 2 of 43 #i 16 12 A7 ay 5, 2011 MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher, Land Development Services. I believe you're talking about Terril Nell. He works at University of Florida IFAS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, IFAS, that's it. I guess there's an opportunity for him to come here, depending on his time frames. And I don't know if he'll come more than once. I know that there was a concern on maybe having him for the BCC meeting. As far as the board goes, he's the gentleman that, I guess, wrote the letter in response to the ordinance as it was written; is that -- MR. HATCHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So apparently he's got quite a bit of background on it. He does represent, I believe, the position that many of the landscape companies and/or their representatives had taken at our last meeting. And so I asked the Conservancy if they had somebody that they would like as an expert just to be fair so we could present them both today for this board's consideration. At that point they didn't have one that they knew of, although there may be some out there. And so I kind of wanted to ask this board, do you want to hear from one side of the equation and then leave the door open for the second to come in at that date, or would you rather not hear from any and just continue with the presentation by the people we have on staff? Does anybody have any opinions on it? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would rather hear from professionals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But both sides. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to hear from as many people as have the skills to tell us something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mac, could you express to the gentleman that if he can come down on the 19th, we'd sure like to welcome his presence to tell us what he thinks, and at the same time, would you extend the opportunity to the Conservancy to provide, if they wanted to, for the same amount of time someone of the same knowledge level that could speak to us as well. MR. HATCHER: I'll make those arrangements as soon as I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Mac. Okay. Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on the 19th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of minutes. April 7, 2011, they're all emailed to us. Anybody have any changes or corrections? If not is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Klein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raises hand.) 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: And by the way, Paul raised his hand, so he approved, too, and he's here now. Page 3 of 43 16 12 A17may 5, 2011 Welcome, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners at their April 26th meeting heard the PUD amendment for the Olde Cypress PUD and DRI and the companion item for the HD Development. The BCC heard that -- or approved it 5 -0 subject to the CCPC conditions of approval. And on the HD Development, they provided some clarification on the construction- access issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know what that clarification to the construction access was? MR. BELLOWS: Kay Deselem's here, and she'll provide that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just curious of what we missed. MS. DESELEM: Excuse me. For the record, Kay Deselem. I missed your question, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray said the BCC approved the stipulations from the CCPC for the Olde Cypress, but they made an additional clarification on the construction access. Do you happen to know what that was? MS. DESELEM: Okay, yes, thank you. There was a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission level as to the fact that their ingress and egress for construction would be at different places, one would come through the maintenance facility existing access, and then the other one would go out of the main entrance into the HD Development. So they put that into a condition. And they also added an addressed -- and they also added a stipulation to that to address what was in the agreement between the developer and the parties involved, whereas, they said that that was only to be in place until the 100th -- I'm trying to figure out -- they called it by building pod or something like that -- was in place. Now, they can continue to do it after that, but they're only required to do that up to that time pursuant to the agreement that the parties entered into. And then they also addressed the fact that in their agreement they were saying that they would pay money toward their road improvements, put in a bond, security bond for the road improvements, and pay it to Collier County. And Collier County staff made it clear that it's not a county road, so we didn't want it paid to us. So just to make it clear that even though that was in their agreement, that we didn't want their bond. Basically the stipulation was to address ingress /egress and the 100th unit that was referenced in the agreement between the parties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to know to make sure that --if we can make it even cleaner next time we send something forward, we'll know the -- some of the points to look at. Thank you. Appreciate it. Chairman's report. There's nothing to report. Pretty quiet out there. ** *Consent agenda items. We have two of them today. The first one is PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 12292, Cope Reserve RPUD. This came to us at the last meeting. I would like some clarification from staff. I think we had asked for a status report on how Cope Lane was going to be finished off as it goes further eastward. I know that in the document they added details pursuant to our request about how the road was to be constructed. I just want to make sure that any issues that were on the table going eastward were at least looked at and staffs comfortable with them. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. To my knowledge, yes, they've been looked at, any issues to the east of this. It doesn't seem as though we have -- well, let me rephrase this -- anything from Falling Waters, is that what you're asking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The issue I believe was that Falling Waters was supposed to make some improvements, and apparently they didn't or the improvements they made weren't consistent with what the standards were that were needed for the road system. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Specifically what I've been told -- and the situation, as I understand it, is that by the Falling Waters ordinance, and the PUD monitoring that we've done on that, they are up to speed, they are complete on all of their PUD commitments to the county. Apparently there is an agreement between Falling Waters and the residents of Cope Lane, and it was a court ruling between the two parties, and it's something that county is not involved in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's specifically what we asked to look into, so that's fine. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah. My understanding is that we're just simply not involved in it, and it would Page 4 of 43 161 be kind of overreaching what I'm able to get involved in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you're right. Just -- that's what we wanted to make sure. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any clarifications, questions on that one? motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve, okay, made by Ms. Caron. Second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahern. 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. A7May'5,`2011 If not, is there a COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *Second consent item is PUDZ- PL2009 -2496, the Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church on the south side of Oil Well Road. Is there any discussion on that item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, 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: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *That takes us to our first advertised --first and only advertised public hearing. The item after this will be the old business under the Watershed Management Plan, and then after that we have an overview of the proposed Administrative Code. So first up is the first advertised public hearing, 9A, CU -PL- 2010 -1949, the Hitching Post Plaza. Page 5 of 43 1612A #? 11 May 5, 2011 All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I think it was Chris Shucart gave me a call. He asked me if I had any questions, and at the time I didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a similar discussion with Mr. Shucart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I met with Mr. Shucart on Tuesday at the shopping center, took a little tour and saw the game room and that type of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Play any games while you were there? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Nope. There were some people doing it, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just received an email from Mr. Shucart. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I had an email exchange with Mr. Shucart. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Also email exchange. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I spoke to Mr. Shucart on the phone, maybe an email, but I'm not sure. Bob, I don't think you and I spoke about it. MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We met on one of the other projects. MR. MUL14ERE: Actually, I've done quite a bit of work for Ms. Shucart over the last couple of years, and he actually contacted me and asked me to represent him on this matter just recently, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere. Good morning. The subject property is located at 11536 Tamiami Trail East. I'm very familiar with the site because I drive by it probably five or six times every day because I live down towards Marco on -- off of Collier Boulevard. And I have traveled past it for as long as I've lived here, 27 years. And I guess that brings me to the first point that I'd like to make is that my client has invested substantial -- and his partners -- have invested substantially in improving this site. The shopping center, I think, was built in 1985, so it's been around for a long time, and it's experienced significant improvements, several hundred thousand dollars worth of improvements over the last several years since my client has been the managing partner of it. The request here is a conditional use to allow a coin - operated amusement device -- that's SIC Code No. 7993 -- within the subject property, and it's located just almost in the center of the property. This is a little bit unique in terms of conditional uses because, really, it's not any more intensive use, it's not a big traffic generator or any of those kinds of things; however -- and it also is entirely enclosed within the existing building. The actual operator was located elsewhere, and I think the lease expired and he was unable to renew the lease, but he was in close proximity to this location and then moved in here. When he moved in here and after he began operating, it came to light that that was not a permitted use, that it required a conditional use. And so my client was cited and given six months to obtain the conditional use, and he immediately began that process. I think the staff report is self - explanatory. There really are no issues. I do have -- I have the aerial showing the location, and then we have some photographs that I think, you know, show the kinds of users of this facility. These are licensed by the state. You buy -- you play the games and you can win gift certificates and things like that. It's mainly a senior citizen crowd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They look pretty dangerous to me. MR. MULHERE: Here's a happy one. Upside -down. I'll get this one right, Ray. Okay. Page 6 of 43 16 12 VMay 5, 2011 I mean, it's not exactly my cup of tea, but there is a market out there, and it's mainly senior citizens, and they do seem to very much enjoy it. And, you know, my client will continue to invest in that property and improve that property. In fact, I think -- I don't know if you're aware, but there will be a light -- a traffic light installed, and that's directly across -- the access where the traffic light will be installed is directly across from the Eagle Lakes Park, community park, which is heavily used, and it will be a great safety improvement when that light is installed, and my client is a significant contributor to the cost of installing that light. I guess if you have any questions, Christopher Shucart is here, and if I can't answer them, perhaps he can, and really its a relatively minor issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Bob, the intent is if this passes that the conditional use would be applicable to the whole building or just this operation? MR. MULHERE: No, to the whole building. If they wanted to move or move within the building, the use would be permissible in another unit, you know. You never can tell; you've got to have that flexibility. But within -- within the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the whole building could be gaming. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I don't -- I doubt that that's likely, I mean, but, yes, it's like the whole building could be a retail -- any one of the allowable uses, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the parking for this is probably pretty intensive. I mean, it's an assembly use, probably has a high occupancy. So the limit as to how much could happen there would probably be the parking? MR. MULHERE: It would probably be driven by parking, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Could you put up that site plan again. MR. MUL14ERE: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, the senior mobile home park to the rear. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I know that there's an obvious alleyway behind here. Is there a wall against the mobile homes? MR. MULHERE: No. There's a land -- there's some landscaping on their side, there's an alley here that runs through, and then there's parking directly off the alley. It's kind of an old -- you know, an old design. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: The perspective from the front has been improved significantly, but that condition has existed, you know, since it was built. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I guess my only concern is the hours of operation, because one of the things we're charged at looking at are noise and glare, and you're operating seven days a week, 365 days a year until one o'clock in the morning. Is there any way to regulate who and what parking happens up against that senior housing to the rear? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's no parking in the rear. COMMISSIONER CARON: There is parking in the rear. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not for -- people don't go there. MR. MULHERE: I guess what -- generally speaking, the employees are also parking in the front because the use -- the heavier usage hours of this, you're correct, offset from the typical usage hours of the rest of the businesses. And I think probably from a perspective of it being better lit and safer, they park out front, especially the elder, you know, citizens who use this site. They don't park in the back. I guess if we have a problem, we would certainly be willing to address it, but I don't think one exists and I really don't think one will arise. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So they're not -- when this closes at one a.m., they're not hauling trash out the back door and -- MR. MULHERE: No. Everything is self - contained; there's none of that activity going on, and most of the Page 7 of 43 16120 May 5, 2011 activity is out front. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Really, at that point, all of the activity is out front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, then Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll more make a statement than anything else. I'm very familiar with this area in particular, and I would -- first I would like to say that I think the Shucarts have done a wonderful job of changing that landscape. Not only is it busy in the day, which one might expect, but very often as I pass it in the evening the lights are on, people are there. There's an ice cream store and the whole business. And I had occasion to go inside the place where they have these amusements, and the parking is effectively constrained by the number of units that they have available to play. There's not that many in there. But it also is a fact that senior citizens tend to go to bed early, and I know from people that I've talked with that they don't -- I don't know that they stay open till one o'clock even on a Saturday night, as it were. That they're allowed to is fine, that they choose, that's fine, but it's all inside. There's nothing to be seen. And I would just -- I'm not trying to testify here, but I will tell anybody about the parking in the back. That's not used very often for, I guess, some employees, but the predominance is outside (sic), and there's a great deal of parking. So when the amusement need comes up in the evening, most of the other stores are closed or closing, and parking becomes available. But once again, it's constrained. Now my only question -- now these are dollar -a -shot type of machines that are used? Give us an idea of the kind of money that people are playing so that any issue regarding gambling is dealt with right now. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not sure what, statutorily, is -- if there's limitation, but it's -- you know, there's no -- it's not considered to be, you know, gambling like a casino. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's amusement. MR. MULHERE: It's amusement, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that, but I want -- there are some people who might have had some thought that it's gambling. MR. MULHERE: I think it's relatively low by comparison to other real gambling outlets. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To my understanding, having looked at the machines, they're a penny a machine. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, yeah. I'm not sure. Whatever the statute allows. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're a penny machine. MR. MULHERE: I did -- I neglected to mention, and I think it's worth saying, that this shopping center, not too long ago, was barely occupied. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. MR. MULHERE: And presently it's occupied more than 80 percent, probably close to 90 percent. So I think that's testimony to the improvements that were being made, and there's a desire to continue to improve that location and other locations close by that my client is also in the ownership group with, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. On the website it advertises this as a Vegas -type atmosphere, casino -type atmosphere, and serving free food, beverages and adult beverages. MR. MULHERE: That I don't know. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And that is how many feet away from the public park? MR. MUL1 ERE: It's -- well, it's across a six -lane roadway. It's quite a bit. And the -- you know, I don't know. I'll look into that. I'm -- there is a restriction, but I think its only 500 feet. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's 500 feet. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think just the right -of -way alone probably -- because it's from the edge of the establishment. It's measured from the edge of the establishment. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. MR. MULHERE: So you've got another couple hundred feet. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you don't know. They serve alcohol, so -- so if it's free it's okay? MR. MULHERE: Well, no. I think it's okay because it -- I believe there's more than 500 feet from the Page 8 of 43 - . 1612 5, 2011 1 parking. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But you don't know. MR. MULHERE: No, I don't know for sure. I certainly could look into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, John Pod -- John's here. Maybe he knows the standard -- Tamiami Trail's right -of -way width. No. Never mind. Shaking his said no. Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planning with the Land Development Services Department, and I think I can answer some of the questions that have been posed this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. GUNDLACH: I did do a site visit, and I observed what was going on in this particular operation, and there is no alcohol served on premises. I did not see any alcohol there. And it is subject to the state statute, 849. That's how these operations are allowed to exist. And there is no cash coming in. You purchase -- you have the option of purchasing a gaming card, or you can insert a credit card into the game machines. The games -- the particular game that I observed being played was 25 cents, but the costs do vary. I've seen some for 35 cents. A player accrues points and they trade them in for gift cards to Out- -- like $25 gift cards to Outback Steakhouse, Bonefish Grill. I observed a gift card opportunity to American Express for $100, a gas card for $50. So I hope that helps answer some questions this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, thank you. MR. N UL14ERE: And I just scaled -- and this is rough. I mean, I certainly -- we can certainly look into it. But I just scaled this off, and it looks more than 500 feet. There's a canal over there on the other side, and so that's part of the right -of -way, and then you've got the parking area in the front and the aisleway in front. And there are several other establishments in there that do serve alcohol in there as well for on- premise consumption. So, of course, the shopping center was there before the park was there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But that's not how the story goes, though, is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think -- MR. MULHERE: No, I think the use -- I think it's the use, you're right. I mean, I think that when the use comes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's new. MR. MULHERE: -- it's within 500 feet. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's a new use, right. MR. MULHERE: -- for on- premises consumption. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Plus you're asking for a change in the zoning here. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, this is supposedly supposed to have been a shopping center for the neighborhoods to -- for services, and now you want entertainment and recreation. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because there's no other places in Collier County empty for commercial that this could go in. MR. MULHERE: I think in the area, probably there's not. I mean, if you're concerned about the alcohol consumption on site as it relates to this in the county requirement -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, what happens after this is is they move out. MR. MULHERE: Then we look for another tenant. Not necessarily the same tenant, but any tenant that's interested in marketing in that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the tenant that you'd have to put in there would have to then be a C3 unless they were of this use. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. If they were to serve alcohol here, they would need an alcohol and beverage license, wouldn't they? MR. MULHERE: They'd need some sort of state approval, yes. Page 9 of 43 1612 �l A7 P4 May 5, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's checked out through staff with an application? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're then somewhat assured that the distances are looked at because that's part of our code? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Not a question; a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I hate to admit how many years I am in the shopping business, so I'm not going to tell you, but it's been spanning over four decades. I was there for about 45 minutes Tuesday. I met with Chris. I walked back and forth twice the shopping center. I observed the tenant mix. I think that they do a very good job managing the property. I looked at the game arcade in question. I thought it was quite benign. There were probably no more than eight or nine people, you know, in there at the time. It was about 11 o'clock in the morning. They have two restaurants there. They have good tenant mixes. They have tenants that have been there for a long time. And my -- my take on it all is that I don't think they would be doing anything to jeopardize the -- their shopping center by putting this use in. And, you know, I don't see any problems with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Bob, could you put that aerial back on? MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you started your discussion -- and it wasn't an issue I read in the document. It's just something you said. MR. MUL1 ERE: Uh -oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The arcade's in kind of the center of the building you said, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said the traffic light is going to line up directly so that -- with the arcade. MR. MULHERE: No, no, with the park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I wanted to make sure. MR. MULHERE: With the park, yeah. I may have said that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the traffic light's going to go down to that intersection, which seems -- I wanted to make sure that that's where -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's where the traffic -- the traffic issue is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When they got the arcade there, did they come in for a business license? MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure what exactly transpired. I know that there was -- the tenant felt that they could open up the business and then apply for the conditional use at their own risk, but that's really not the way it works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't my question. A business license. When you come in and ask for a business license, they're supposed to check your zoning out. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that done at the time? And if so, and it was checked out, is this an after - the -fact MR. MULHERE: It's after the fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it's after the fact on the part of the owner, but he may not have known because he may have gotten his business license legitimately when he went in and was asked for one. MR. MULHERE: I don't know. I don't think that there was a business - license issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, do you know? MS. GUNDLACH: My understanding is is that there have been building permits issued, inspections are -- are currently going on. There is no Certificate of Occupancy, and there is no zoning certificate that has been issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But let's go back to my question. Did they come in for a business license, Nancy? Do you know if they have a business license for an arcade at that location? Page 10 of 43 f d x 1612 Py 5, 2011 MR. MULHERE: The occupational license. MS. GUNDLACH: Ray, could you answer that question? Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows, zoning manager. The occupational license would not be issued unless the zoning certificate was issued. Nancy just said the zoning certificate was not issued so, therefore, there was not an issuance of an occupational license. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when someone comes in for an occupational license, they have to -- and I've done this -- you have to take the application to the various departments to get it signed off. MR. BELLOWS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was an existing building already built, CO'ed, built since'85. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So someone then coming in for a business license for an arcade would have simply had to go to a planner in the backroom, get it signed off, take it back up, pay for the license, and receive the license. All I'm asking, did anybody check to see if that was done? Because if it was, the business owner's got a legitimate concern that he was more or less approved to be there and finding out after the fact that he now needs a conditional use may not be all his fault, and I'm just trying to verify that. That's all. MR. BELLOWS: I don't think he has one if the zoning certificate wasn't issued. We would not have issued an occupational license without the zoning certificate. MR. MULHERE: I agree with that. My understanding was that there was discussions, and somehow the business owner came away with the idea that he could begin to operate and apply for the conditional use and -- at his own risk and then, you know, if it wasn't approved, then he -- whatever he risked, he lost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: But that's not the way that it works. The way that it works is that you get your approval up front, and this is definitely after the fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know, Bob, if there had been any noise complaints about the facility? MR. MULHERE: I know that there have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The issue on the dead hedges. I don't know what that has to do with the conditional use for zoning, but I notice it's an issue here. Has there been any -- is that something, I'm assuming, everybody's in agreement with? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, yeah. We're working on landscaping -- improving the landscaping out there anyway, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only questions I have. Then we'll hear from staff. MS. GUNDLACH: Staff is recommending approval of this conditional -use petition, and it is subjected -- subject to two conditions of approval. The first one being the replacement of the dead hedge material and the second one being the hours of operation, and those hours are from nine a.m. in the morning until, past midnight, to one a.m. in the morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, do you have any concern -- since we're going to give this for the whole building, the whole building could essentially go to this use. And, you know, while we're showing pictures of old people, there are arcades that are not old people. But would the parking kind of limit as to how much -- what is the parking requirement for this; do you know? MS. GUNDLACH: The parking requirement for the shopping center is one parking space per 250 square feet of building area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: I think the other issue that's going to come into play here is how many people really want to come and play a casino game such as this. We've had some other locations throughout the county that have closed. So I think a lot of it has do with, you know, how much interest there is out there among the public to come and participate in an activity such as this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the approval we're giving them is not just for casino games. It's for coin - operated entertainment, which is a bigger spectrum than casino games. Page 11 of 43 1612 47, May 5, 2011 So, you know -- and one of the problems with getting old is you conflict with the younger version of you who used to have a game room. But anyway, so you don't have any concerns or -- in other words, this thing could become 100 percent video games, arcade, correct? And it may not be as compatible with the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just put a cap on the square footage. I'm sure -- MS. GUNDLACH: We could do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that the owner doesn't intend to make a 10,000 -- or 100,000- square -foot video -game place. So what square footage do you need, and let's just put a cap on it. MR. MULHERE: Ten thousand, I think, would be -- we're not excepting even that. So this is, I think, 4,600 square feet, but that gives us flexibility. The total shopping center's fourteen- -- so what I'm saying is to put a cap as 10,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Does that work, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's a nice -sized game room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think Nancy's point about -- I don't know anybody that goes to -- even though I'm probably in that age group somewhat, I don't know anybody that goes to those -- when Sony comes backup, I'm sure no one's going to want to go to an arcade. Right now they're just waiting for the Sony P1ayStation to come back online. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. And I think it's sort of like, if you have children, they work out of their home computers now. It's kind of like what happened to Blockbuster; nobody goes to the store anymore because everything comes into our homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, then why are we changing the zoning just to accommodate a code - enforcement violation for one person? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not. We're changing -- we're changing the conditional use on one location to accommodate an owner who wants to try it. And if he's got -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Code - enforcement issues. MR. MULHERE: There's a market out there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you get around it? How do you fix it if you don't change it? What are they supposed to do? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Move to a location that -- a C4 zoning so they can have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if this is not -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's a tenant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this is acceptable -- well, anyway. There's a different -- MR. MULHERE: There is a market out there, and the market is primarily senior citizens, and it is a social activity for them. They probably don't have a lot of social activities. They seems to enjoy this. There is a market. It doesn't hurt anybody. There's no noise generation. There's sufficient parking. I mean, there's really no reason. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But in the future it could be something else. I mean, they could move out next year if it's not that popular, and most places go out of business that do this type of thing, so -- MR. MULHERE: It could be anything else that's allowed in C3 or a coin - operated amusement still entirely located within the building and restricted as to the square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of staff or the applicant before we go to public speakers? Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Bob, wasn't there some information in here saying that this is generating more traffic for the other businesses? MR. MULHERE: Sure. I mean, obviously, the more foot traffic that you can get in the shopping center -- maybe they go down to the ice cream store or they go down to Nana Vetta's or whatever, you know, which is a restaurant in the shopping center. It's been there a long, long time. You know, having traffic in a shopping center is really important, particularly traffic that gets out of their car, you know, and doesn't just go through a drive - through but actually walks around the shopping center and not just traffic that goes to one point of purchase, like a shopping -- like a grocery store. So this is helpful. I mean -- and just having activity there -- having activity there reduces the likelihood of Page 12 of 43 16 12 A? May"MS, 2011 crime, vandalism, unnecessary loitering, all those kinds of things. I also failed to mention my client has a leasing office and he's there, you know, all the time. His office -- he physically put his office in that location. So I think -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just seems like it -- MR. MULHERE: He's a very responsible -- I think a very responsible owner. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. To be able to generate business, especially right now, is very important. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's tough -- it's tough out there. You know, you have a client that's willing to pay the rent, and there's really no downside to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Ray, do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have one speaker. Richard Eskridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, do you want to come up and use one of the microphones. MR. ESKRIDGE: Over here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. ESKRIDGE: Good morning. I'm Richard Eskridge, president of Hitching Post Mobile Home Park. I'm president of the Hitching Post Mobile Home Park, which is located directly, as you know -- as you've seen in your diagram here, behind the Hitching Post Shopping Center. We have 363 units there with 360 occupied. Since the Shucarts took over the shopping center, the quality of the center has greatly increased and is much better than it was with the previous owners. The shopping center is also safer and more welcoming to the area residents. The majority of the residents in the Hitching Post appreciate the renovations and the new tenants that are now in the shopping center, and we will continue to support the Shucarts and their tenants. That's all I have to say, and I thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Is there -- anybody else wish to speak on this matter? Bob, anything you want in fmal closing comment? MR. MULHERE: No. We accept the conditions that the staff -- and I guess the condition on the square- footage limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will close the public hearing, and entertain a motion from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to recommend approval of CU- PL2010 -1949, Hitching Post Plaza., based on the recommendations of the staff, move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Klein. Discussion? I will be supporting the motion. It's one of the most benign uses I could see at this location. With that, we'll call for the vote. 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. Thank you all very much for attending today. I appreciate it. ** *And we will move on to our next item, old business. It's kind of like that piece of Scotch tape that can't Page 13 of 43 1612 A7 May 5, 2011 get shook off your finger. Mac. Welcome back, Mac. We don't see enough of you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: How does that feel, Mac? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is old business, Watershed Management Plan update workshop. And I think we attempted to do this about a month ago. We realized it was going to be much lengthier and more intense than we had anticipated at that time. We continued it until late last month, and then we found out that we had a fertilizer piece of it that took up a whole day, and now we're coming back to the watershed plan before we go back to the fertilizer portion of it, which won't be till the end of this month. So, Mac, it's all yours. MR. HATCHER: Thank you, Mac Hatcher with Land Development Services. I'm here this morning with our consultants to resume the presentation that was, I guess, stopped on March the 17th. We would like to get input from you -all today and answer questions. We'll come back for recommendations. The consultants are going to present in a slightly different presentation than you -all were provided. It's been updated slightly since the 17th. And they've got eight sections to go through and would like to, you know, get questions and resolve each section before they move on to the next. And with that, I'll turn it over to Moris Cabezas with Atkins. MR. CABEZAS: Good morning. My name is Moris Cabezas. I'm with Atkins Global, former PBS &J. Last time we went through the description of the proposed capital projects and our ranking procedure. I don't think it's necessary to go through that now. And what I will do is start on our recommendations regarding the regulatory review. And I'm going to start by just indicating -- or showing something that I'm sure all of you are aware of, and that is the impacts of new development. I will not go into any detail on this, but as you well know, new development increases the volume of stormwater runoff, and in the case of Collier County, there is a big increase in base flow which is nothing but groundwater contributions to the surface water system because of the construction of the canals. You well know that the county is likely to grow significantly over the next years. There is a slowdown at this time, but things will get better, and there will be significant new development, significant construction of new infrastructure. And in our analysis of existing conditions, you know, we have found that -- or it's been related that pollutant loads are significant. Large portions of the county do not have any stormwater treatment facilities, and there are several water bodies in the county that are impaired for various parameters, particularly nutrients and dissolved oxygen. Also we have done an assessment of the canal capacity, and the -- there is limited conveyance capacity in the new canals. So it's unlikely that the system will be able to support any new additional either pollution loads or volume of stormwater runoff because of increased impervious areas. So what we are trying to recommend here or -- we are recommending, but our goal is to develop a countywide sustainable stormwater management program. And you see there some of the objectives of this program. Now, when I say countywide, I refer to an integrated system or an integrated program of stormwater management for the county as opposed to -- or maybe we should -- or considering that the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code stipulates that an individual Watershed Management Plan should be developed throughout the county, we have found -- and, you know, I think it's well known that the system is totally integrated. The division of watersheds is generally arbitrary. Land -- water goes from watershed to watershed. In the larger storms, water is pumped from watershed to watershed in order to mitigate the impacts of deficit or surplus of water. So what we need is an integrated plan that considers the entire county. So we have come up with eight initiatives that we call or -- as we call them, and I will go through each one of these, or at least those that we have not presented to you before, and I would appreciate your input on each one of these independently. So let's start with the first one, which is -- relates to water quality and low- impact development. The main issue with implementing any type of water - quality treatment beyond that stipulated by the state is how to provide water - quality credits for new development, which is not feasible in the current stormwater regulations. Page 14 of 43 :. 16 12 lay 5, 2111 It would be under the new proposed regulations, but as you well know, its unlikely that those new stormwater rules would be approved any time soon. So in order to protect or provide further protection for the water bodies in the county, there is in the Growth Management Plan the requirement to meet 150 percent of the state requirements of the environmental resource permit requirements which in Collier County mostly means making the detention ponds bigger. Now, as you can see in the graph there, there's a problem with making the ponds bigger because after a certain detention time, the curve flattens out. And it doesn't matter how big you make it; it doesn't make any ' difference. hi addition to that you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you -- and I don't mean -- I'm sorry to interrupt you. MR. CABEZAS: No, no, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm not sure how far to let you go before I get lost in what you're trying to say. MR. CABEZAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Pm lost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I'm going to -- MR. CABEZAS: Okay. Please interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll just have to step in periodically and suggest you clarify. Your chart makes a lot of sense to you, but I can't see on that chart where it says if it's a bigger water body it loses more water quality. So can you explain the connection between size of a water body over time, why it loses the ability to quali- -- to give you better water quality. MR. CABEZAS: I'm song. It doesn't -- it doesn't lose. The efficiency doesn't improve if you -- if you design a system by current standards, you may be removing 40 percent of the phosphorus. If you make it twice as large, you may be removing 45 percent of the phosphorus. So you may increase the size of the detention facility by 100 percent; you get only a 5 percent increase in the efficiency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the size of the pond then may not be a good element to remove phosphorus beyond the 40 or 45 percent that you can do no matter what you do? MR. CABEZAS: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we need to look for an alternative, then, for the removal of phosphorus -- MR. CABEZAS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but in the meantime a larger water body does give you the increase in volume that you can get at least 45 percent of the phosphorus out of, correct? MR. CABEZAS: It gives you a little bit more storage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Say you have a one -acre water body and you move to a two -acre water body, you can use more -- you can use that larger water body for more runoff storage, and that storage still, though, only -- MR. CABEZAS: I'm sorry. That's not the case -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm trying to understand. MR. CABEZAS: -- because -- yeah. The treatment in the detention ponds occurs primarily in what's called the permanent pool. So in the pennanent pool, you have the water there at the same elevation as the groundwater, so you don't have any additional storage. What you do is you simply increase the detention time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying if you put a road system in and some impervious areas in your property, house pads or whatever, and the calculation of those requires a water body of one acre, and then you turn around and you want to double the number of homes and roads you put in, the one -acre water body is all you still need? MR. CABEZAS: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I'm -- MR. CABEZAS: That's not what I mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's why we're not communicating. I think you still -- you still need a larger water body. MR. CABEZAS: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The storage capability's required by the code, but the larger water body, from what Page 15 of 43 ,6 k Y , 6 [ 2457011 ' you're saying, does not give you any more cleansing of the phosphorus. MR. CABEZAS: No. Let me -- let me follow up on your example. If you have a -- an area that requires a one -acre pond for treatment and it's designed per the RPs, you know, per the state requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CABEZAS: That's one acre. The county has this requirement that says, don't make it one acre. Make it an acre and a half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, 150 percent. MR. CABEZAS: A hundred and fifty percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. CABEZAS: What I am saying is, for that same storage needed for that area, you make it 150 percent larger, you're not getting any better treatment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I wanted. MR. CABEZAS: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the requirement to make it larger isn't dictated by the need for the treatment. It's dictated for the capacity needed to -- based on a calculation of the impervious area. MR. CABEZAS: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm trying to say. So even if we don't want to treat phosphorus, we've still got to have the water body go to whatever size our code requires. MR. CABEZAS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just aren't getting the bang for the buck for the phosphorus issue. MR. CABEZAS: For the phosphorus or for the nitrogen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CABEZAS: For nutrients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so that's why we have to address those through another set of rules that affect those better than the water body does. MR. CABEZAS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's it. Thank you. That helps. I hope that -- Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, just to expand on that a little bit. What are we trying to cleanse from the water besides phosphorus and nitrogen? MR. CABEZAS: Well, the main contributors to pollution are nitrogen and phosphorus. Now, other pollutants are heavy metals or even total suspended solids. You are making -- these ponds are very effective for removing total suspended solids. But, unfortunately, the impairments in water bodies in Florida are mostly related to nitrogen and phosphorus. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So most of this excess nitrogen and phosphorus just accumulates at the bottom of the ponds? MR. CABEZAS: Well, the nitrogen and phosphorus come from the runoff, from the fertilizers, from all of that, and, yeah, they are removed by several chemical processes in these ponds, but only up to 45 percent in terms of phosphorus or 60 percent in terms of nitrogen; whereas, state water policy requires that at least 80 percent removal be achieved for all water bodies. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Isn't there action, like, of the sun and the aeration and the bacteria to remove some of this stuff, too, when it's in an open pond? MR. CABEZAS: Well, there are numerous processes within these ponds that are present in order to remove the pollutants. It's sedimentation. It's chemical activity. It's biological activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CABEZAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hate to do this, but you started out and you went really fast, in my point of view. I've made a couple of notes. The first slide, please. There. Taking a look at -- from my perspective, on the right it says "base flow" and there's an arrow, and the arrow is perceived, by me, to be coming from the top, whereas on the left side the base flow is on the bottom. I don't think the Page 16 of 43 1 6 12 A% May 5, 2011 base flow is changed. Is the arrow in the wrong position? MR. CABEZAS: Yeah. You caught my massaging of this figure, which comes from a book. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wasn't trying to catch anything. I was trying to be sure I understood it. So that base flow -- and you made a comment that the surface runoff is going to be greater. That makes sense. MR. CABEZAS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. You also said the term "likely" -- you used the term "likely," and I question how -- you know, what is likely? Is that 2 percent more, 100 percent more, 200 percent more? MR. CABEZAS: Likely, excuse me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's the context -- see, the problem is, you're going very rapidly, and while I have no problem following it in general, it kills the opportunity to really get to the questions that we need to. MR. CABEZAS: Yeah, I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me pass on that one. You said there's an integrated -- you want to have an integrated plan for the canal system. MR. CABEZAS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For what period are you projecting, for what period in time? MR. CABEZAS: Well, it's -- it's an integrated approach to management of the stormwater, not only the canal system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. That's fine. For what period? For what year have you picked? MR. CABEZAS: It is from now on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 2712? MR. CABEZAS: You know, the point here is that we cannot keep on doing things the way that we've been doing so far in terms of managing of stormwater. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. MR. CABEZAS: So from here on we are recommending these initiatives that we think you should put in place. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This initiative -- I don't want to argue with you, but this initiative has a certain cash value, in other words, the cost to do it, and that cost has to be -- has to be substantiated by a product, the product being the system, and that system has to have a useful life. What is the estimated useful life you're planning for that system? MR. CABEZAS: These are -- these are regulatory recommendations, what we're going to go through. So you -- the useful life doesn't -- the useful -life concept, I don't think, applies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm trying to understand the integrated -- the integrated plan. I'm trying to understand where you're really going -- all right. That's fine. MR. CABEZAS: If you bear with me -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying -- water - quality credits; is that money? MR. CABEZAS: No. That is -- according to the current stormwater rules and in general, developers have to treat the one inch of runoff over the drainage area. Now, if somebody was to do something extra in the watershed like using -- and I'll go through this in more detail -- low impact development techniques, you know, pervious pavement, rain guard, whatever it may be. If people -- if developers want to implement that, they would expect to receive some credit so as to -- not to have to treat the one inch of runoff over the drainage area but perhaps a little bit less -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand. MR. CABEZAS: -- and have the ability to make their designs consistent with whatever -- whatever their goal is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this is a means -- MR. CABEZAS: That's not possible with the current regulations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is a means of motivation is what you're indicating? MR. CABEZAS: Right, exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Thank you very much. Those are my questions for the moment. MR. CABEZAS: Okay. I appreciate your input. Just interrupt me any time, because there's a lot -- Page 17 of 43 s 16 12 A7,, 5, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't want to do that. MR. CABEZAS: Okay. So let's discuss the first initiative, which is the management of water quality and the implementation of low- impact development -- of low- impact development program. We went through this. And you are probably familiar with low- impact development. It's a concept that's been around for quite some time now, but it hasn't caught on yet and, you know -- nationwide. But, you know, we are making substantial progress or municipalities are making substantial progress towards adopting these approaches. And here we have listed some of the benefits and basis of design for low- impact development techniques. And you're probably familiar with all of this. You know, there are some educational programs related to low- impact development, but it's based on applying these techniques on site such that you can reduce the volume of runoff that goes out to the water bodies, to the receiving water bodies, and also treats the runoff on site in order to reduce your pollutant loads. So, like I said before, you have this requirement of the 150 percent, which is not working for you. So the recommendation is to require treatment by LID of that 50 percent of the ERP requirement. So what we're saying is, we should provide the regulatory framework to allow retention of the pollutant load associated with that additional treated runoff volume. We understand that that means changing the way development is done in a way. So we think that can be done by -- that can be motivated by creating incentives of various types, particularly incentives by modifying the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave that -- MR. CABEZAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- slide, could you go back to it, because that's actually where I think you're looking for response to recommendations. And I think in the beginning you said as you go through each one of these you want our input on each one. MR. CABEZAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If these are your recommendations and you want our input, I think the first one -- I need to know on -- I need to understand what it means when you said it -- modify development. Does that mean -- because if you take the 50 percent of the 150 currently under the ERP -- MR. CABEZAS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you drop the -- drop it back to one, so we're doing on water bodies at 100 percent instead of 150 percent, and then for that 50 percent we're looking at an alternative to the removal of phosphorus and nitrogen, what are those alternatives proposed to be so we know what kind of costs we're looking at for the typical homeowner who has to live in this county and, likewise, what the county's costs would be for facilities that they would have to -- I mean, that's where this whole thing in today's world's going to boil down to. If you're producing a plan with recommendations that are going to increase our taxes and increase properties -- a property owner's costs without offsetting it by something, maybe incentives for impact fees or permit fees or whatever, we've got issues, because we don't have money anymore, and these things have got to be thought out. So before a recommendation, I would think, could come from any political body or board, we're going to want to know those answers. That's kind of where I'm going for this. So what is that 50 percent? How do you meet the 50 percent? MR. CABEZAS: Okay. This applies to new development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. CABEZAS: Okay. So it would not apply, at least in terms of this requirement, to existing developments. What we're saying is, from now on change your requirement for new development such that instead of treating that additional -- and I'm going back to the half an inch of runoff. Instead of making the pond 50 percent larger, apply those low- impact development techniques on site, you know, at the parking facilities constructing swales instead of -- for local roads instead of curb and gutter, install rain gardens to individual properties, minimize your directly connected impervious area, whatever you need to do in order to eliminate the pollutant load associated with that half an inch of runoff before it gets to the pond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CABEZAS: That's the idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Understand. So we produce a list of land development regulations that Page 18 of 43 A7 7 M, 2011 16 I /1 provide options for less impervious area basically? MR. CABEZAS: You would require that the developer, the designer, comes up with a design that will incorporate all these -- all these techniques -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CABEZAS: -- instead of the traditional -- instead of the traditional design. Now, if that is done, you will also provide them to some -- with some incentives, which I will go through that in a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: How long have we had the 150 percent requirement in place in this county? MR. CABEZAS: Since 2007,1 believe. COMMISSIONER CARON: In effect? MR. CABEZAS: It's in your -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Since 2007? MR. CABEZAS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see the -- MR. CABEZAS: I can give you the exact -- it's in your Growth Management Plan, the Coastal -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. CABEZAS: Yeah, Conservation Coastal Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But many of your projects, the 150 percent is almost irrelevant because you need the fill from the lake, and so the bigger lakes you dig, the more fill you get, the less your costs are. So your intentive is to dig a big lake. So the 150 percent really never hurt the development industry. And it did maybe in your real tight high - density communities with narrow lakes, but for most of us, we would go out and dig larger lakes just to get the fill to save the project overall development costs -- MR. CABEZAS: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, I mean, there wasn't a downside to the 150 percent when it was instituted. I think that's probably why it came into play so easy. MR. CABEZAS: Yeah, except that you were not meeting your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phosphorus and nitrogen. MR. CABEZAS: -- intent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. CABEZAS: -- of, you know, providing better treatment. Nobody opposed it. COMMISSIONER CARON: You are giving us -- you want to take the 50 percent that you say is not working. How do we know that the LID requirements are going to meet that? MR. CABEZAS: Because -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And how many do you have to do in any given project in order to make it work? MR. CABEZAS: You would have to do it enough to take care of the pollutant load associated with that half an inch of runoff. You know, you can -- you can calculate the pollutant load with, you know, any area by multiplying your volume, your expected additional volume, times what's called an event mean concentration. That's the concentration of pollutants in the runoff. I know it's confusing, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. CABEZAS: I can explain it better. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't find it's confusing, but I see an awful lot of make work. You said you were an advocate of getting rid of curbs and putting in swales. Did I hear you correctly? MR. CABEZAS: It is an option. It is an option open -- Page 19 of 43 A ". �A 16 12 "y 5, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it's one you offered. MR. CABEZAS: -- to developers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's one you offered? One you recommended? It says recommendation. That's what you're talking about. MR. CABEZAS: The recommendation is the goal to eliminate the pollutant load 150 percent -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And no matter how you achieve it. MR. CABEZAS: No matter -- I don't think we should tell the engineers and designers what to do. We can provide some guidance, but I don't think it -- I think it's up to them to achieve that goal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. Okay. I appreciate that. My ears perked up when I heard the swales, because that's been a problem, I'm sure, in every county where they -- people fill in the swales or there's a natural condition where they're filled in, and that's probably -- I'm just wondering why you would advocate that over the idea of curbing storm sewers and a collection point. Why -- because it's less -- there's pervious soil; is that right? MR. CABEZAS: It's pervious. We actually recently completed a study in Sarasota and measured the pollution load from areas with swales versus areas with curb and gutter, and the difference is very significant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I have a question then. If you -- let's just take --let me finish. MR. CABEZAS: Yeah, yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have a situation -- I'm going to give you a situation. You have curb and you have storm and you have this 100 percent or 150 percent lake, right, this whatever, and you have all that water that's being directed into the storm surge and out into that lake, so you have a nitrogen and phosphorus load in that lake. Now, let's take the opposite and say you had swales. Wouldn't you also have a nitrogen and phosphorus load in the swales? MR. CABEZAS: Actually, the swales capture some of that -- some of that load. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They have to capture some of it. They, perhaps, capture a great deal of it. MR. CABEZAS: They infiltrate the volume. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What Pm trying to understand is what happens to that nitrogen and phosphorus in the swales. Does it not remain in the swale? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's probably taken up by the grass. MR. CABEZAS: Well, it is incorporated to the bottom of that swale, and then it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's captured by this -- MR. CABEZAS: -- taken up -- yeah, it's taken up -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: By the soil. MR. CABEZAS: -- the vegetation and the soil. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. So now what -- you've captured that in there. Now, what do we do with that? Do we just not worry about that? MR. CABEZAS: You don't need to do anything. It's -- you know, it becomes part of the soil. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you're saying -- MR. CABEZAS: It's captured. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're saying it's all right -- so in a lake if it becomes part of the sediment it's all right? MR. CABEZAS: That's what those systems are designed for, to capture -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I think it's important -- I don't know that everybody on this board -- and certainly I don't know anybody in the public necessarily that understands the rudiments of this dynamic. This is a dynamic. MR. CABEZAS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it's a very significant dynamic, and I think it's important that we get a more clear picture of what it is before we ever try to make a judgment about its appropriateness. And I just -- for me, I don't want to appear argumentative, but I m frustrated by the fact that you're offering things that I can see have some offshoots that I'm not inclined to appreciate. So, okay, I'll listen and try to appreciate. MR. CABEZAS: Well, you know, those are just general approaches that could be taken. I know that swales have a downside, particularly where -- when they're not designed correctly, you know, when they become roadside Page 20 of 43 16 12 A7 May 5, 2011 ditches as opposed to shallow swales. So, yes, there's a problem with that, but it's an option. There are areas, you know, where your swales are shallow, the homeowner maintains them, and, you know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The problem is, the homeowners don't maintain them. MR. CABEZAS: Yes. There's a downside for those as well, but, you know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go on, I hate for another interruption, but we've got a huge amount of people in the audience who may want to speak out on this, so what Pd like to do is, as Nicole has a question or so, let her participate too, simply by raising her hand. And then, Nicole, if you've got something, come on up and say it, because your input is always welcome. Your sidekick back there's not going to say anything today? Notice she's sitting away from you. I don't know if that's because you changed your last name or what. MS. JOHNSON: That's right. She may jump up on another issue, but I will take this one. And I appreciate your accommodating our input as it comes up. For the record, Nicole Ryan -- Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. It's going to take some time with that. There are going to be two memos that I'm going to reference, the PBS &J memorandum on this topic and also a state Water Management District memo, the Brown memo. So I'm going to hand that out not for you to read as I'm commenting, but just so that you have assurance of what it is that I am referencing. So I'll go ahead and hand that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure our court reporter has one too, okay. Thank you. MS. JOHNSON: From the Conservancy's perspective, one of the really important statements in the PBS &J memo is the fact that the county wants to go above and beyond state water - quality standards and do a better job than the state, and that's something that the Conservancy has advocated for and we very much agree with, but I think if we're taking that perspective, we really have to understand from the beginning what the state water - quality standards are. In the PBS &J memo on Page 3 it discuss the fact that the district standard is 100 percent treatment except if you're discharging to an Outstanding Florida Waters, and in that case it's 150 percent. And that is based on what is called the Terry Bates memo. It's technical guidance from 2004 that the district used to acknowledge that 100 percent treatment doesn't really mean it treats 100 percent, so it was bumped up to 150 for OFWs. But the county's memo doesn't take into account subsequent state guidance, which is the Brown memo, which is what I just distributed to you. That was released in 2009. That is the most up -to -date state - guidance document, and it expands upon the Terry Bates memo. And I want to point out a few things from the Brown memo, because this is really what the state Water Management District, what the South Florida Water Management District uses when it's looking at development projects, ERP applications for our area. And in the Brown memo it says that applications -- or projects that will discharge either directly or connect downstream to water bodies that do not meet state water - quality standards are going to have a higher degree of water - quality treatment. This goes beyond OFWs. It includes impaired waters and other water bodies that do not meet state water - quality standards. And you've seen in presentations before about all of the watersheds in Collier County that are impaired for different causative pollutants. It's just about everything. We have a lot of OFWs in Collier County. So I would hazard a guess that a lot of projects in Collier County would fall under this Brown memo guidance. And what the Brown memo states on Page 3 is that historically the standard approach taken by applicants to provide such reasonable assurances for discharges to OFWs has been provided by an additional 50 percent water - quality treatment. In light of the anti - degradation requirements for OFWs and impaired waters, applicants are encouraged to incorporate additional source controls, best management practices, and other protective measures in order to assist in providing reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not contribute to an existing violation of water - quality standards. So what the district is saying is you do 150 percent, and then on top of that, you use best management practices, low- impact development standards such as what Moris has been discussing today. And then the memo goes on to state some of these BMPs and LIDS. Page 21 of 43 i 16 12 A7 May 5, 2011 ditches as opposed to shallow swales. So, yes, there's a problem with that, but it's an option. There are areas, you know, where your swales are shallow, the homeowner maintains them, and, you know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The problem is, the homeowners don't maintain them. MR. CABEZAS: Yes. There's a downside for those as well, but, you know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go on, I hate for another interruption, but we've got a huge amount of people in the audience who may want to speak out on this, so what Pd like to do is, as Nicole has a question or so, let her participate too, simply by raising her hand. And then, Nicole, if you've got something, come on up and say it, because your input is always welcome. Your sidekick back there's not going to say anything today? Notice she's sitting away from you. I don't know if that's because you changed your last name or what. MS. JOHNSON: That's right. She may jump up on another issue, but I will take this one. And I appreciate your accommodating our input as it comes up. For the record, Nicole Ryan -- Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. It's going to take some time with that. There are going to be two memos that I'm going to reference, the PBS &J memorandum on this topic and also a state Water Management District memo, the Brown memo. So I'm going to hand that out not for you to read as I'm commenting, but just so that you have assurance of what it is that I am referencing. So I'll go ahead and hand that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure our court reporter has one too, okay. Thank you. MS. JOHNSON: From the Conservancy's perspective, one of the really important statements in the PBS &J memo is the fact that the county wants to go above and beyond state water - quality standards and do a better job than the state, and that's something that the Conservancy has advocated for and we very much agree with, but I think if we're taking that perspective, we really have to understand from the beginning what the state water - quality standards are. In the PBS &J memo on Page 3 it discuss the fact that the district standard is 100 percent treatment except if you're discharging to an Outstanding Florida Waters, and in that case it's 150 percent. And that is based on what is called the Terry Bates memo. It's technical guidance from 2004 that the district used to acknowledge that 100 percent treatment doesn't really mean it treats 100 percent, so it was bumped up to 150 for OFWs. But the county's memo doesn't take into account subsequent state guidance, which is the Brown memo, which is what I just distributed to you. That was released in 2009. That is the most up -to -date state - guidance document, and it expands upon the Terry Bates memo. And I want to point out a few things from the Brown memo, because this is really what the state Water Management District, what the South Florida Water Management District uses when it's looking at development projects, ERP applications for our area. And in the Brown memo it says that applications -- or projects that will discharge either directly or connect downstream to water bodies that do not meet state water - quality standards are going to have a higher degree of water - quality treatment. This goes beyond OFWs. It includes impaired waters and other water bodies that do not meet state water - quality standards. And you've seen in presentations before about all of the watersheds in Collier County that are impaired for different causative pollutants. It's just about everything. We have a lot of OFWs in Collier County. So I would hazard a guess that a lot of projects in Collier County would fall under this Brown memo guidance. And what the Brown memo states on Page 3 is that historically the standard approach taken by applicants to provide such reasonable assurances for discharges to OFWs has been provided by an additional 50 percent water - quality treatment. In light of the anti - degradation requirements for OFWs and impaired waters, applicants are encouraged to incorporate additional source controls, best management practices, and other protective measures in order to assist in providing reasonable assurances that the proposed activity will not contribute to an existing violation of water - quality standards. So what the district is saying is you do 150 percent, and then on top of that, you use best management practices, low- impact development standards such as what Moris has been discussing today. And then the memo goes on to state some of these BMPs and LIDS. Page 21 of 43 7 9 612A 1 May 5, 2011 J So the state standard for all of these water bodies is 150 percent plus LIDs, and that is really where we need to start our conversation, and that's why the Conservancy is so concerned about the recommendation for the county to go back to 100 percent and assume that LIDs are going to get us an additional 50 percent of the water - quality treatment. That is what is being suggested in the PBS &J memo. And I think that in looking at this idea of 100 percent treatment, 150 percent treatment, I noticed in the graph that Moris showed that dealt with nitrogen. And, yes, you do plateau at a certain point. You don't get 100 percent treatment from that. But if you look on Page 4 of the memo, the top graph looks at total phosphorus, and where on that graph 100 percent, 150 percent, the one versus one - and -a -half inches of treatment falls I'm not sure, but it does show, you do get some additional benefit through that additional 50 percent, and that additional benefit is quantifiable, which is what is so important to the Water Management District. It's an additional treatment component that can be quantified. The concern with low - impact development -- and the Conservancy supports LIDs -- pervious pavement. We've been up here grousing about that many times. We like these ideas, but the problem is that oftentimes they're not quantified. We don't really know how much additional benefit you get from these LIDs, which is why in the Brown memo the district says that that is kind of the cherry on top of the ice cream sundae; it's the gravy. But it should not be part of the meat of it, because we just don't know how efficient and effective it's going to be. Both the Sarasota and the DEP draft stormwater regulations BMPs were recommended as being further investigated for Collier County's LIDs. And I think it's a great starting point. But in looking at what the DEP has for their BMPs, they acknowledge that a lot of these things really haven't been truly tested. One of the BMPs is underdrained filtration system design, and it says it's an interim BMP since no data currently is available on the nutrient- removal effectiveness of this BMP. So if the state, if the district hasn't figured out how you quantify this, I really don't believe that having an engineer come in with a menu of LIDs on a case -by -case project basis, the county is going to be able to truly quantify how effective that's going to be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yeah. MS. JOHNSON: So the Conservancy's recommendation is, we really need to start with what the state has, 150 percent plus LIDs for those impaired waters, water bodies that don't meet state water - quality standards, OFWs, and go from there. Right now in Collier County we do have the 150 percent requirement. And I agree with you, Commissioner Strain, I think that that got through because you don't have to make bigger ponds sizewise to get 150 percent treatment. You dig it deeper but you're going to dig it deeper because you need the fill, so you stage the weir a little bit higher, you get that inch - and -a -half treatment. We know that we still need more than that, so let's start looking at some LIDs, BMPs that we research, study, quantify, and at some point in the future, if we have been able to quantify those efficiencies, then we can take a look at rolling things back. But the Conservancy isn't comfortable with lowering that 150 percent. It hasn't been a problem in Collier County. And we see no need to roll that back. Let's put some incentives in there so we get those LIDs and we can start measuring them and testing them, but start off and keep the 150 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I have one question. The Brown memo, does it -- it addresses phosphorus and nitrogen loading? MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that was issued by -- MS. JOHNSON: And suspended solids. I mean, that's one of the things that really shakes out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's a memo with -- from South Florida Water Management District? MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why then are they not abiding by their memo when they issue surface -water permits? MS. JOHNSON: That one I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I mean -- MS. JOHNSON: I don't review their surface -water permits, so I don't know if they are or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we rely on them for review of all the surface -water permits. And if they've Page 22 of 43 16 12 A?May 5, 2011 already got a memo that requires what you're asking for, why are they still issuing permits? I mean, that doesn't make any sense. Otherwise, why do they waste their time writing a memo for? Well, I mean, it's government. MS. JOHNSON: Well, this is how they review applications when it comes in, so this is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're not reviewing them that way if they're not meeting the standards, from what you're telling us here. MS. JOHNSON: Well, they -- the projects are meeting the standards of what 100 or 150 percent is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the memo says the LIDS need to be in place as well and they're not reviewing for the LIDS -- MS. JOHNSON: They're encouraging the LIDS. They're not requiring. They're encouraging LIDS as additional gravy on top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if we rely on them to review surface -water permits and we put in our regulations "LIDs," but because we don't review the surface water and thus the calculations and how what is provided is going to have an impact, they're not doing it because it's only encouraged, not required. How do we know any of it's getting accomplished? No agen- -- we've got one agency requiring something that the other agency won't review. MS. JOHNSON: I don't believe that they won't review that. I think that that is a good question to look at when Collier County is trying to do more in additional things, how that is going to mesh with the district. But the district has, in many cases, taken a look and reviewed permits for these additional LIDS. I don't know if there have been any in Collier County. But certainly in our discussions with district staff, they have taken a look and given credits for certain LIDS to have those monitored to figure out what the efficiency rates are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: But that wasn't in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of credit did they issue, Nicole? MS. JOHNSON: I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, credit for what? They don't charge impact fees. MS. JOHNSON: No, I'm not sure. That was the term that the district staff used, that some credits would be issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if they submitted something that is -- meets the 150 percent but didn't have any LID applications in it, they could not turn it down. They'd -- MS. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- still have to be -- MS. JOHNSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: So what we're looking at is going above and beyond what the state standards are. That's what the county's memo says they want to do. So if that's what we want to do, then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: -- let's start doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. JOHNSON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir? We got off on a nice tangent, didn't we? MR. CABEZAS: What we are saying is simply your additional 50 percent on top of what state requirement is should be accomplished by LID. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the suggestion is, leave it at 150 percent for the volume calculation and sizes, but do the LIDS on top of that. And if the 150 percent is already going to be met anyway, we aren't really -- we may not be gaining anything by taking it away and then putting LIDS in that will give an equivalent to what we originally had. MR. CABEZAS: We're simply going -- our recommendations is simply to say, do 50 percent extra above whatever the state will require. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. State's not requiring anything in regards to LID, though. MR. CABEZAS: No, no. I mean, in -- above whatever the state requires the volume of runoff treatment should be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 23 of 43 161 z A7 t4 May 5, 2011 COMMISSIONER CARON: But we're already at -- going to be required to be at 150 percent, because most of our waterways are either OFW or already impaired. So they're requiring 150 percent to begin with, the state is. So why wouldn't we add, on top of that, the LID requirements and try to get even better? I mean, our goal is to be better than the state and better than average. MR. CABEZIS: That's exactly the goal. We're just saying, whatever the state requires you to do, put an extra 50 percent in LID. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So you're not saying, necessarily, get rid of 150 percent that were already in there? MR. CABEZAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, that's not where you started out this morning. MR. CABEZAS: If it's 100 percent, do whatever the state requires. Now, who knows where the impairment analysis is going to go? Some of them will stay and some of them may go away, you know. Some of the requirements may go back to 100 percent; some of them may not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there is no ERP requirements for LIDs, right? MR. CABEZAS: They won't give you any credit, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then where it says requirement and treatment by LID of 50 percent of ERP requirement, there isn't any in here. MR. CABEZAS: That's what you will do. That's what the county will require, treatment of that 50 percent by LID. That's what we're asking you to give us your input for, a recommendation to say 50 percent of that will be treated by LID. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we leave 150 percent in for the state standard and then do 50 percent on top of that, we're looking at 200 percent, 150 percent of which could be made up by volumetric issues involving lakes and the other 50 percent by LID procedures. Gotcha, thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I have a question. There's a lot of terminology that I'm not that familiar with, and I don't understand the regulations. There's one term "Outstanding Florida Waters," and then you have "impaired waterways." So you have the Outstanding Waters which are supposedly more or less pristine and pure, and then you have the impaired waterways that are polluted. Is there anything in the middle, and what are the different requirements for these three different categories? MR. CABEZAS: The Outstanding Florida Waters program was instituted in -- back in the'80s, and there's a list developed by the state of which waters have been declared an Outstanding Florida Waters. For those particular water bodies, two things apply. First, the anti - degradation rule which is, no further degradation is allowed from additional discharges, and also there is this requirement of whatever treatment -- ERP treatment requirements are, you multiply that times 1.5. Those are -- now the majority of the waters in the state, those which are not on the list, are, you know, your regular water bodies, not Outstanding Florida Waters. Those waters have been analyzed by the state as part of the TMDL program for compliance with the state water - quality standards, and many have failed. Those water bodies that failed the TMDL test have been put on a list that is called a 303(d) list, and they have been declared impaired. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you have three categories: Outstanding, impaired, and the ones that are not impaired. Are there any regulatory differences on those three different types of water bodies? MR. CABEZAS: Yes. In that -- I think I mentioned that in terms of the environmental resource permitting, the difference between OFWs and not OFWs, and it's this additional 50 percent. The state -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So it's stricter for the Outstanding Florida Waters than for any other category? MR. CABEZAS: Well, let me -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry. MR. CABEZAS: That's fine. It is a little complicated. The rule also indicates that water bodies -- and remember, this was created before the TMDL program. The rule also indicates that water bodies that do not meet standards should be subject to the anti - degradation rule. So the Page 24 of 43 161 2 AZ ay 5, 2011 state is taking that to say, okay, if they are subject to the anti - degradation rule, those water bodies, when talking about ERPs, should also meet the 150 percent. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So that includes most water bodies? MR. CABEZAS: Those water bodies that may be declared impaired, you know. In Collier County the program is going on. We still don't know, you know, for which -- which of these will be declared actually impaired and will have TMDLs developed for it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Coming into the county -- water coming into the county from, say, Lee County, some of it will be impaired, some of it will be dirty. And the areas that it first touches in Collier County, whatever development is there or whatever, is there any chance that whoever is responsible for those bodies of water, that they could ever keep up with or effectively treat that water coming in constantly? MR. CABEZAS: If that water body is impaired, Lee County will have the responsibility to solve the problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is a regional activity, then, that we're doing? MR. CABEZAS: It's a statewide activity. The various water bodies have been actually divided in segments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I understand that. MR. CABEZAS: And so if that segment doesn't meet water - quality standards, the segment in Lee County, Lee County would be responsible or the Lee County stakeholders would be responsible to solve the problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I want to be sure, though, reasonably sure, that whatever we ultimately decide is recommended, that those same recommendations or something near that will also be effective in Lee and other counties. MR. CABEZAS: Well, you cannot enforce your development standards in Lee County, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand; that's why I asked the question. MR. CABEZAS: So you can do just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted -- it seems to me that there's not -- maybe not overwhelming, but it seems to me that it's something we must consider in this thing. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, we've got to give the court reporter, that poor girl, a break. She's listening to all this. I don't know how she puts up with it. But Melissa, before we do, you were, at one point, in charge of governmental affairs for CBIA? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if they've reviewed any of this? I mean, its going to have an impact on the builders, and I just don't know if they've looked at it all. COMMISSIONER AHERN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they haven't, or you don't know? COMMISSIONER AHERN: No, they haven't, not to this point that I'm aware o£ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just take a break. We'll come back at 10:45. Yes, sir? MR. CABEZAS: Can I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About our break? MR. CABEZAS: No. I'm just two slides away from finishing this -- the description of this initiative. Maybe you would want to consider -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It could take an hour to get through those two slides. So let's come back at 10:45. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back. And you had two more slides, and we'll move into those right now, if that's okay with you. MR. CABEZAS: To finish the first initiative, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Well, I was -- I know I couldn't be that hopeful it would be for the whole day, but that's okay. Page 25 of 43 6 112 A7 May 5 , 2011 MR. CABEZAS: Anyway, I think our position is, regardless of what state requires of new development, the county should require 50 percent of the basic ERP be done by way of low- impact development. Now, in terms of costs, we believe that for the most part the costs of changing to an LID design are neutral. You know, you have additional costs due to construction of these LID facilities. On the other hand, you're -- the size of your stormwater conveyance system, because you're reducing the volume of runoff, is going to be smaller. So in general I think it's going to be neutral. We were talking with the chairman a little bit and, you know, there's a big cost associated with solids that are being deposited in the treatment facilities now. Eventually those would have to be dredged. That's a big cost. If you do LID, you reduce the amount of solids going into those facilities, you know, and those are significant savings. There is a cost of maintenance, of course, associated with LID, and that is more -- larger, obviously, than the traditional design. But whatever the situation, you know, I think the approach should be to create incentives for the development community to implement LID techniques, and those incentives could be done by modifying sections of the Land Development Code. Now, I'll go into that in a minute but, you know, obviously the easiest way to reduce that pollutant load is to increase the amount of -- or decrease the amount of directly conducted impervious areas, provide more opportunities for the water to sink into the ground. Now, here, these are just some examples that we think should be considered as incentives, you know. And you see they're allowing a narrower road section for strictly local roads, neighborhood roads where the average daily trip is -- number of daily trips is less or equal to 400. That's about 36 single - family homes. Like I was saying, you know, the design of swales could be considered. It's just one tool in the toolbox. There are a lot of opportunities to provide incentives in terms of parking, you know, reducing the aisles by -- the width of the aisles by two feet. I think it makes sense. It reduces the amount of parking area for the developers. I don't think it's a problem. You know, these standards, for the most part, were set many years ago when the cars were bigger and more difficult to maneuver. Now that's not the case. You know, allowing grass -swale dividers and count them as part of the vegetated area is something that I think should be considered, and there are several of those listed here. You know, I -- I'm not sure we need to go through each one of them independently, but there are, you know, a number of things that you -- that could be implemented to change the development code. The LID standards, those techniques, you know, I -- again, I feel like it should be left to the designer and the engineer to do those. Guidance is available for many of those in the draft proposed from stormwater rule. It is true that some of those techniques need more site - specific design criteria. We're not talking about adopting these right now. We understand that the -- it's going to take some time to just make these changes to the Land Development Code. In the process, the county could also be engaged in establishing those design standards for the LID techniques. Sarasota County has an LID manual. It could be used as a reference for something that could be done here in Collier County. So there's a program implementation, and I don't see -- oh, there's Bob. And, you know, I'd like for him to talk about this a little bit. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere. I'm working with the consultants as it relates to potential GMP and LDC amendments. And before -- when I was here before and we talked about potential TDR program, I provided a schedule as well, which was quite a bit longer than this one. Actually, at the Development Services Advisory Committee yesterday, they felt like I probably needed to double that time frame. So -- and based on today's hearing, that's probably good advice. But really -- I guess it doesn't really matter. The idea is to look at the code and to engage the development community to determine what incentives would be most attractive and then determine which ones are appropriate, and then to implement those incentives and thereby change the design. Now, I think there's two ways. There's new development and there's redevelopment. And if you think about it, there would probably be different incentives for both. And redevelopment probably provides a big opportunity for significant improvement, because these are the older developments that were maybe not designed as -- efficiently for stormwater treatment and stormwater management. Page 26 of 43 16 1 2 A7May 512011 So those are the things that we want to look through. We don't -- you know, that's going to -- you're going to see those as a whole separate process, assuming this moves forward and there's a recommendation to go forward and do that. One of the things that we hope to do is to quantify the time that would -- that it would take to accomplish these things and a cost factor associated with that for you the next time we come back to you. That will not be specifically, you know, how much does a rain barrel cost? That will be, how much time to look at the LDRs and the GMP amendments, and how much will that cost to accomplish, understanding that most of that will likely be done by existing staff. So we understand that that's the kind of information that you're going to want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Okay. MR. CABEZIS: So -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note here -- Bob, I note here you have DCA review, 70, and there's a move afoot to effectively eliminate DCA. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What does that do for us? MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, hopefully that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Takes 120 days off your -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Hopefully that shortens the process is what I was going to say. But there will still COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, that's a simplistic thought, but I don't know. What is reality? MR. MULHERE: Nobody really knows. There's still going to be some regulatory oversight. Just eliminating staff and reducing the size without changing the statutory requirements and the rule requirements means that there's fewer people to do the review; that means longer time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, here's what I remember, and I may be wrong. It could easily have changed. I thought I remember that the DCA effectively would be -- become the DEP. MR. MULHERE: Would be incorporated. Some of -- some of the roles currently undertaken by DCA would be shifted over to the DEP. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One would assume, clearly, that this would be one of them. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, this oversight. But there are -- there are statutory requirements and time frames in statute, and then there's rules, and those rules need to be changed or the statutes need to be changed, you know, before you can really effect, I think, greater efficiencies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are not our rules or statutes. MR. MULHERE: No, they're state. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are the state. MR. MULHERE: State, exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so -- well, that -- MR. MULHERE: So what I'm saying is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Throw a penny in the pond. I'm sorry; that's copper. No. MR. MULHERE: I'm just saying, we don't -- we really don't know what the impact is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Well, its something to take into consideration. You might want to MR. MULHERE: Yeah. But this is based on the current statutory requirements. That's where I came up with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where do we go from here? MR. CABEZAS: Anymore questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on the very first one of the eight or seven or whatever number there is. But before we leave water quality and low- impact development, you need our reaction to what you proposed now so we can get it done, or do you want to wait till the end and try to get us to remember? Nick? Nick's waving his hand. Page 27 of 43 a r` A 1 Ma Y 5, 2011 MR. CABEZAS: I think the purpose of this meeting is to get your input. So if you have any input regarding what we have discussed so far, I think that statute is the way to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, did you want to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. One comment. I think in talking to staff at the back and Nicole, we're going to look at keeping that 150 percent rule in place if it's not disruptive to the development community and focus our LIDS being cost neutral. Some of the things they're showing you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I think we probably were thinking of going, from what I can tell. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where we're headed. That takes care of No. 1. We've only got seven to go. MR. CABEZAS: Okay. Is this working? Okay. The second initiative or recommendation that we have is for the county to establish a stormwater retrofit program and dedicate funds to do retrofit projects identifying locations where retrofit's possible, for example, in public facilities, parking lots, government buildings, schools. You know, this is just an example of a school parking lot. Obviously a lot could be done to retrofit that parking lot for -- to include some LID techniques and LID approach to the design. It's necessary, of course, to come up with a list. Criteria's got to be -- you should go in first to those facilities that need repavement or, you know, things like that, whatever is easier, and identify the project that could be done. We're thinking that a -- a fund of, perhaps, $250,000 a year could be dedicated to retrofitting projects. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you go back to that slide, please. You jumped rather quickly. We have an awful lot of sidewalks, and they're all concrete. I know that they use a certain type of paver block that's pervious that allows -- you know, people can drive up on them. Churches have those a lot and so forth. Is it feasible, reasonably feasible, to consider future sidewalks being of another type other than the impervious concrete? MR. CABEZAS: Definitely. You know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. As an advocation. You're the scientist. I'm asking you if that's something -- MR. CABEZAS: Yeah. Definitely, I think, you know, pervious pavement has come a long way from where it was a few years ago. Maintenance right now, at least the manufacturers claim that it's much less. The FDEP is advocating the use of pervious, not only for sidewalks, but also for parking facilities. Another thing is how you design those facilities. You know, if they drain into pervious areas, then you're not providing much of a problem (sic). If you direct the drainage directly to the stormwater system, well, that's -- that is a problem. So I think a lot could be done by changing the design and also changing the materials. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I thank you. MR. CABEZAS: Sorry if I didn't address your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think you've offered me a menu, and I'll decide whether I'm going to have clams today. Thank you. MR. CABEZAS: Okay. There are other types of retrofits that the county should consider. You know, in the Golden Gate Estates many of those roadside swales and canals or many -- discharge in -- I mean, many of the swales discharge into the -- into the canals directly without any treatment. You know, in that area, sites -- the area that's shown here or also the area where we're recommending the TDR program, locations could be identified where small treatment facilities could be constructed prior to the -- or upstream of the discharge point. That's just --and byway of these localized treatment systems, address many of the problems of not having any runoff treatment prior to those stormwater discharges. There's also an issue of program implementation here. You know, the allocated funds, that obviously could be managed by the county's stormwater staff. Now, there are other ways to do retrofits, you know, that could be used to encourage LID predevelopment through -- of LID redevelopment through MSTUs. That's another way that the funds could be used. So that's the end of No. 2. It was a little shorter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, No. 2 basically talks about retrofitting, a lot of it government elements to Page 28 of 43 16 12 A?May 52011 retrofit, and I don't see government having 10 cents to spare, not even 50,000. And until our tax assessor tells us we have a significant increase in assessed values and we know our revenue comes in, I'd be certainly personally reluctant to recommend any changes to expenditures for this until that happens. We just don't have it. We've got necessities to deal with. MR. CABEZAS: I understand. I think we should take a long -term look at approaches, even for this. It may take some time. You have a stormwater utility with a certain revenue. Maybe you can take a portion of those revenues and dedicate it to this. You know, there are many ways to do it. Or you may want to wait until the economy improves and then create the fund. You know, we're trying to provide here recommendations that could be implemented, you know, over the next several years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I recall a few years ago when we had a lot of rain, and I recall -- I don't recall the person who first espoused it, but it was suggested that some of the vacant lots could be acquired by the county and be used as stormwater accumulation points and treatment, I guess. But my question then becomes, what would happen from -- that water -- there is no -- there's no effective means of moving that water. So are we talking about creating half -acre, acre, five -acre ponds? MR. CABEZAS: If you buy a five -acre lot, for example, or if you acquired that lot through the TDR, that lot could be converted partially, for example, into a retention pond, which would benefit recharge to the groundwater. Part of that lot, and depending on its location, could be converted into a created wetland, that then would -- would be tied to the natural wetland system, and that way you would have the benefits of treating the -- whatever runoff comes into that point by infiltrating it into the ground or by the filtration capability or what -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So LIDS would not be really effective? There may be some that might be appropriate, but effectively, that land is all pervious already essentially. So all you're really talking about is capturing stormwater, and whatever -- whatever particular pollutants are in there, you're going to treat it as a sedimentary pond? MR. CABEZAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that is effective? MR. CABEZAS: I believe it is, yeah, especially if it's a retention facility, you know, you're eliminating all that runoff from discharging into the canals. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Well, I appreciate that we don't have the money to do it, but, yeah, that might be something as a policy that sometime in the future could be initiated. Okay. Thank you. MR. CABEZAS: This brings us to the No. 3 initiative, and it is about stormwater utility. As you well know, you have a stormwater utility that expanded through ad valorem taxes. Now, the problem with what you have right now is that you are unable to provide incentives to the users because it's just a general tax. If instead of having that ad valorem tax you change that to a fee -based structure based on the amount of runoff that is discharged from each site, I think you can develop an incentive program. For example, those utility fees are certainly going to provide an incentive to retrofit private property, a big parking lot over there, you know, somewhere, and people are paying a significant amount of money on a monthly basis to the stormwater utility. I think they should consider rather changing or redesigning, redeveloping that site in order to reduce the fee contribution to the stormwater utility. The developers can also market areas, because if they develop a -- you know, the property with an LID concept, their volume of discharge is going to be less and, therefore, the assessment to the individual properties are going to be less, and that could -- certainly could be attractive for whoever's trying to acquire those properties. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. So what I understand you to say is that the .15 mills is insufficient to really take care of this program as you see it? MR. CABEZAS: I'm sorry. I'm not saying that. I'm saying instead of the .15 mills, change that to a fee -base structure of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But why? If the .15 mills were adequate, why would you need to change it to a fee? A fee is a tax unless it -- unless it covers the actual cost. And how does one measure the cost associated with that? MR. CABEZAS: Well, because when you have a tax structure, you are not considering the characteristics of each individual property. So if you charge -- instead of charging an ad valorem value of 15 (sic) mills based on the Page 29 of 43 1612 A3? May 5, 2011 value of the property, you charge based on the amount of runoff that's being discharged from that specific property. Some people would have to pay more; some people who discharge little would have to pay less. In the -- the amount would be the same. The amount collected would be the same regardless -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe. MR. CABEZAS: -- but the fee structure would change. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand the mechanics involved. What I'm driving at here is that once you get into charging fees, fees now -- in order to be effective in charging a fee, you have to verify, right? Somebody from county would have to verify. MR. CABEZAS: There is -- yeah, there is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's a cost. MR. CABEZAS: There's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the fee is supposed to be representative of the cost, not supposed to be representative of more than that. MR. CABEZAS: Well, there's a -- there's a cost of implementing the program. You know, somebody would have to conduct a financial analysis, establish how -- what the fees are going to be that, in the end, would match the ad valorem tax system. And -- but, yeah, there's going to be effort associated with doing that, and we will provide an estimated cost for that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well -- okay. But I will tell you that one of the major problems that we have here and has hurt the community and split it have been impact fees, which there is a great dissension as to who appreciates them as being realistic and so forth. And before we start putting fees in, I -- I understand the motivation that we should put before people to help them do their proper job, but I have to tell you, I'm concerned with the implementation of additional fees. MR. CABEZAS: It is -- it is a problem, and it's a problem that -- you know, that's been going on throughout Florida. Some municipalities just are reluctant to establish the stormwater fee -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here's my point. Here's my point. We do -- we do this. We tell people you have to do your due diligence, and what I'm concerned about is we're making this bag so heavy that for them to carry it, they won't be able to achieve their due diligence. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the intention of this fee structure to generate funds to implement some of the programs you're introducing to us today? MR. CABEZAS: Yes, or at least just collect the same amount of funds that you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To do what with those same amount of funds? MR. CABEZAS: Whatever you're doing to fund stormwater programs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the stormwater program that is handled by transportation basically is the program benefitting from this ad valorem existing tax? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's been reduced to. I mills, and with board authorization, it's going to pay other things right now. So we're funded through LASIP through 2014/2015, but after that there is no stormwater utility fee that's going to come back to us, or ad valorem assessment. And that's one of the things we're working with OMB to correct in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that ordinance that instituted the current program ends as a sunsetting? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not that it sunsets. It's been brought to the board and been redirected to pay -- to pay for outstanding debt at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the stormwater utilities fee doesn't pay for stormwater management? It pays for debt? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's still funded, so it's coming back in, but it's paying for the stormwater debt portion of the capital -- of general fund that's in there. So it is paying for it, but it's going to the debt side of the house right now, like everything else is in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is just another one of those bullets that is going to take a long time before it gets to see sunlight, I mean, basically. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think what he's proposing has merit. If you were going to replace an ad valorem debt and base it on a stormwater utility fee and it's assessed properly, then you have an incentive -based program, Page 30 of 43 1612 A7 y May 5, 2011 people who don't want to pay as much of the fee. But you have to be clear, as Commissioner Murray pointed out, not to say it's a new fee. It's a replacement of an existing payment you're making right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know why we wouldn't want to look at it further, but I certainly think we've got to see how it balances out before we buy into it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And there's not enough information here for us to do that. I just -- that's important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to know the -- Ray, well, what was that ordinance in a couple pages prior you had that implemented the current stormwater fee, 2008 -80? MR. CABEZAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be interesting to see if we're currently meeting the intent of that ordinance by the way we're spending the money. But then again, we'd then have to see if we're meeting the intent of the fee structure you're proposing on how we spend that money as well, how it's restricted; otherwise, it goes to things that maybe we didn't anticipate. So -- interesting. Okay. MR. CABEZAS: Absolutely. The next item, water quantity and flood protection. Actually we have three parts to this recommendation: Volume control, some assessment flood risk, and we've taken a look at the flood protection levels of service and are providing recommendations about that. In terms of volume control, the requirement currently is that to -- and it's here. The current regulations focus on control of a peak discharge for that 25- year /72 -hour storm event. So a new development comes in, runs internally a computer model, and then it verifies that the peak stage for the 25- year /72 -hour storm event doesn't exceed predevelopment conditions, and that is accepted by the state and the county. Now, the problem is that when you design exclusively for that, you're not accounting for the additional volume that is created when you have -- or at least partially for the additional volume that results for the additional impervious areas. So although you may be discharging a peak equal to predevelopment from a particular site, there may be an impact farther downstream. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure, there will be. MR. CABEZAS: So what we're saying is, at least to start, let's control the volume and work on -- we have gone below the 25- year /72 -hour. We're saying, okay, for now, the 25- year /24 -hour event -- and see, you know, I'm controlled for that amount. Now, that is going to have a cost implication in the sense that some additional land would have to be dedicated to controlling -- to storing that additional volume. At the same time, that also provides an incentive to reduce your direct - connected impervious areas through LID techniques. And here are some examples of, based on your directly connected impervious area, what would be the additional land area -- and this is considering just the built portion of a development -- that should be dedicated to this storage volume control. And what this means is, if you have a 15 percent DCIA, about 7 percent of your developed area is going to require -- is going to be required for storing the runoff. Now, if your built area is only 40 percent of your total development area, obviously in terms of the total impact of the development, it would be, you know, 40 percent of that number. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think we need some clarification. If you have a lot 150 by 50 feet and you've got setbacks of 10 feet on each side, 25 in the front and rear -- you had an example of a lot here a little while ago. MR. CABEZAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow, it's way back. Whoa, there we go. Okay. You have a lot like that. The 40 percent number you're referring to is which area on that page? MR. CABEZAS: Okay. Let's assume for now that this area has 50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you say "this area," what area; the whole lot or just the lot --just the footprint? MR. CABEZAS: Yeah, the lot. Page 31 of 43 16 May 5 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole lot? MR. CABEZAS: The whole lot has a 15- percent DCIA. Let's assume for now somehow -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to ask you this again -- okay, directly connected impervious area. Okay. MR. CABEZAS: Impervious area, yeah. Let's assume for now that, you know, that directly connected impervious area in that lot is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to ask you to back up one more time. To find the directly connected impervious area on that lot, show us what would qualify as a DCIA on that lot. MR. CABEZAS: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing, right? MR. CABEZAS: You know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're really in trouble. MR. CABEZAS: All the back of the lot -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the side setbacks? MR. CABEZAS: A portion -- a portion of the front yard would be DCIA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you're saying directly connected because they are basically sloped or either to swales that take the runoff to another body of water for quality? MR. CABEZAS: Right. If you exclude the backyard and a portion of the front yard, the rest is basically directly connected, or the part of the roof, the discharge to the backyard; that's not directly connected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not directly connected why? MR. CABEZAS: Because it goes to a land area where it has opportunities to infiltrate as opposed to directly to a swale and out to the conveyance system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but that's dependent on the storm event, because not all of it can percolate. It may reach a level where it overflows the Swale and then -- MR. CABEZAS: Yes, certainly, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under normal storm events, that's -- MR. CABEZAS: For normal storm events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. CABEZAS: Now, going back to this 15 percent, 6 percent, if the DCIA here is such that it's just 15 percent, let's assume for now, then 6 percent of this lot would have to be set apart for storing that additional volume. Now, think about this in an overall development. You know, you're going to have to dedicate somewhere an area equal to about 7 percent -- 7 percent of the lot area times the number of lots to dedicate for storage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then -- that's what we do now. That storage is the lakes. MR. CABEZAS: Well, now you would have to do more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we have to have a lake that feeds into another lake? MR. CABEZAS: You would have to have some kind of retention area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is it sort of dry retention? MR. CABEZAS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying that all these lots would have to then have a connection for their runoff to a dry retention area for water - quality treatment before it then runs off into a lake. MR. CABEZAS: For volume control. Remember you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, you're missing the mike. You're missing the mike, so you've got to stay close to the mike. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tap the mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. I just think he's moving back and forth. MR. CABEZAS: I don't think it's working. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. Ray, can you turn that one mike up; is that possible? MR. CABEZAS: Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. CABEZAS: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Bad connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this DCIA, the 6 percent that would -- or 7 percent that would be required Page 32 of 43 c i 44") a 16 12 A7 Of May 5, 2011 on the example in front of us, let's say, you could either put a dry retention in the front yard, or you could hold it for -- to whatever discharge point you're required to? MR. CABEZAS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it goes into a Swale or into a gutter and is taken to the standard lake within the property for water quality, and then that lake discharges into whatever water body it goes to? MR. CABEZAS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or you could take 20 of these lots, total volume area needed, move it into a dry retention on a lot dedicated for that, let's say, and then that particular area has overflow for discharge into a lake? MR. CABEZAS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're really creating -- now, does that have to be dry detention, or can it be wet detention? MR. CABEZAS: We're talking about retention. We're talking about not discharging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but if -- could the 6 percent be made -- is it a dry detention area or can it be dry or -- could it be another water body? Do you get the -- MR. CABEZAS: Unless you have a wet -- a pond that doesn't discharge, it could be wet, but then you would have -- how do you recover that volume? That's the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't know. Go ahead. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In using this example, the water you're capturing is an inch and a half per square foot, is that right, or an inch and a half of rainwater? MR. CABEZAS: Remember, we're talking about a totally different subject right now. We're talking about large storms, you know, like the 25- year /24 -hour. You have a difference -- for those large storms, you have a difference in total volume of water that is discharged out of any site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you know what that number would be then? How many inches? I mean, all the codes have inches in it. MR. CABEZAS: Oh, the 25- year /24 -hour storm, I believe, is 8 inches or something like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you calculate the area here, and the people have to hold that volume on their site; is that right? MR. CABEZAS: The difference between pre- and post - development. So if you calculate how much runoff you are discharging for predevelopment conditions and then you calculate how much runoff you're discharging for post- development conditions, that difference between the two is what should be held in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How do you calculate pre? I mean, if the site is sloping towards the road, all of it would go into the road, so a 100 percent of it would be pre, is that right, plus maybe absorbing? MR. CABEZAS: Well, plus whatever is lost, yeah, through infiltration, and that's what those hydrologic computer models -- hydrologic hydraulic computer models do for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is -- in a situation like this, is the volume so great that you would not be able to rain harvest it? Is it -- MR. CABEZAS: Well, like I say, the difference between the two is not that large, because the -- you know, imagine during the 25 -year storm event this soil is -- quickly become saturated. It's not that large, but if there's a difference, that difference could result in increasing flood stages down the stream. And we're saying, just hold that difference. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We can go back to the -- MR. CABEZAS: Now, one of the -- you know, what I was referring to -- okay, 7 percent, you know, you perfectly understand that. Now, if the built area is only 60 percent of your entire development site or 40 percent, whatever the number is depending on the zoning, you have to either leave 60 or 30 percent as an open area. So assuming that it's 60 percent, then we're talking about this built area being only 40 percent of the total development area. That's the point I was trying to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CABEZAS: Now, you know, there's the potential of an impact. If you keep this regulation of Page 33 of 43 2A m7 04 1 ' 5, 2011 controlling the runoff or the peak flow for the 25- year /72 -hour event, there's the potential that properties downstream would be impacted for larger storms, like the 100- year /72 -hour event, which then becomes the basis for your floodplain mapping. So a single development could affect the extent of the floodplain downstream. And we're not at this point advocating that additional runoff be stored in a development, but we're saying at least a regional computer model that -- the Manche model that was done as part of this project or the model that was used for floodplain mapping should be used to check that there are no impacts downstream. Lastly, on this point we are recommending changes in your levels of service. Right now the levels of service is based strictly on the 25 -year event. And you have these four categories from A to D from excellent to substandards -- to the substandard service. And -- now, what -- the analysis that was done for your levels of service indicates that all the -- what you're providing right now in terms of flood protection is substandard. It's really C or D, mostly D. And you've probably seen the portion of the Growth Management Plan where the levels of service are defined for each of the -- for each of the watersheds and basins in the county. Now, when you're failing everything, to me it's not an indication of -- it is an indication that the way to measure it is probably inappropriate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got to ask a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, you're now -- you're really throwing something into the pot here. I've always understood that the levels of service A through D or F were associated with the number of vehicles that could be on the road at a given time before it failed. You're now introducing flood into that and relating it to levels of service. Are there two different function? MR. CABEZAS: Those are -- those are two different things. One is transportation -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you're referring now only to flood? MR. CABEZAS: Only to flood. The levels of service is the allowable depth of flooding in a given storm. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see that from the graphic. I had no idea that we had two levels of service using the same alpha designation. MR. CABEZAS: One is the transportation levels of service; the other one is the flood protection levels of service. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I know that most of our -- perhaps all of our six -lane highways have been designed for a Level D because they're not going to build any more lanes. And you're saying that by virtue of this, they -- either by coincidence or by design, they also have -- you're telling me that we're basically -- we're failed already in these roads. That's what you're telling me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I think what you might be -- and I don't know if you know all of our Capital A/B elements in our Growth Management Plan. But we have levels of service for all our capital elements, and stormwater is one that we just initiated a level of service with not too long ago, and that's the level of service he's referring to here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That I got, but I didn't know that existed, actually, all right. I really didn't realize that. I thought it was levels of service for vehicles. But you said it's -- we're very close to failure, and that disturbs me because I would have thought that we would have built the roads with the potential to take care of flood a lot more. All right. That's just a total shock. MR. CABEZAS: Well, again, it may not be a problem with the design of the road. It may be a problem with the way you're measuring. So we are proposing to change the way you measure those levels of service. And if you allow me, I can go -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure, absolutely. MR. CABEZAS: -- ahead. Like I said, you know, right now you have your road depth analyzed in terms of a single event regardless of the type of road. And what we're saying is, instead of doing that, change your Growth Management Plan to reflect something that takes into account the type of road and the return event -- or the return period of a -- of a storm event. For example, you know, evacuation routes should not be even compared only to the 24 -- 25 -year event. You know, evacuation routes have to be possible even for the 100 -year event; whereas, for local roads, you know, if you Page 34 of 43 61 2 q Ma , 2011 have, once in a 100 year, 12 inches of depth in a local road, as long as your structures are safe and as long as the emergency vehicles can pass, well, that's okay, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. CABEZAS: So our recommendation is simply to change the way you are measuring acceptable levels of service. That way -- and this is an example of the analysis -- the results of the analysis we've done. We know that you have evacuation routes that do not pass even the 25 -year event. You know, you need to design a drainage system that would allow them to pass the 100 -year event. On the other hand, why put the effort on providing adequate levels of service according to the old system on a local road when allowing certain depth is acceptable? And from what you see here on your right, most of your local roads pass the 100 -year criteria. So let's don't worry about it. Let's design those local roads or the drainage for those local roads for a 10 -year event, not a 25 -year event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, stormwater management, is that a Capital A or Capital B element? Do you remember? MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill's shaking his head. Do you know, Bill? MR. LORENZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason I'm asking is, if I'm not mistaken, Capital A elements are mandatory in the sense that we have to have a -- have to meet the levels of service or we have to either impose moratoriums or do something so the level of service is always maintained. I think that's correct. But that's where I would be worried here. If we change the measurement technique and automatically produce some evacuation routes that are failed, what have we triggered in response to our obligations to meet the level of service standards that have to be met as a minimum? Are we going to cause any ripple effect from any other aspect that doesn't necessarily involve the issues you looked at? MR. CABEZAS: Well, anyway, those are the three items -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question then, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we go back to that slide just to make sure I understand it. I mean, you know, the -- this report is, like, 11 years late. So what you're telling us now is that our roads would flood even in a 10 -year storm? I mean, I know we're in the recommendation phase, but the discovery part of this is, oh my God. So that's not 75, is it, going across mid level horizontal failing in 10 years? MR. CABEZAS: No, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is that road? MR. deGOLIAN: I'm going to step back -- step -- Peter deGolian. I'm going to just jump up a couple of slides here. If you look at this slide here, this is your existing level of service map. If you look at the center figure here, what this is showing you -- I -75 is the blue line that goes across in the center in the bottom, and it passes in the 25 in the existing condition and under the 100 -year storm proposed conditions. Now, you do have some failures on Everglades Boulevard north of I -75 there. On Golden Gate Boulevard they're near 75, and then some of the roads that are coming out from the City of Naples connecting into U.S. 41, and there's some parts of U.S. 41 where Airport- Pulling Boulevard (sic), right here actually, would be failing under the existing condition. And it -- it holds in these same places with flood -- or failed in the proposed conditions also for the 10 -, 25 -, and 100 -year storm in the same locations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And 41 has a break in it so, in other words, you could not use that for evacuation? MR. deGOLIAN: That's just saying that there's water above the surface there. I didn't measure the -- I don't have the information in front of me of what that depth of the water is. You might be able to pass a vehicle through there, but it does have water above the surface of the road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And go back to the other slide. MR. deGOLIAN: Sure. And this is showing all roads in the county. So this is the evacuation arterial, collector roads, and neighborhood roads. So it's kind of a -- in our report we'll have each of the individual road Page 35 of 43 r L 161 2 A7 114 May 5, 2011 segments broken out separately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oddly, doesn't it appear that more roads pass in the 100 -year than the 25 -year? MR. deGOLIAN: Yes, and that's a direct result of -- if we go back and look at this, this allowable depth of water allowed on the road for different storm events. So roads that fail in the 25 -year event are -- meaning they have more than 9 inches of water in them for a neighborhood road, they have less than 12 inches of water in the 100 -year storm, so now they pass. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The tolerance increases? MR. deGOLIAN: Yeah, the tolerance increases of what's a failure and a pass. And it's kind of -- it's pretty useful in helping us prioritize the roads that need to be taken care of first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, even the speed of vehicle in 9 inches of water can't go too fast. MR. deGOLIAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: We checked with Jerry Kurtz, and stormwater is Category A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. That makes it a higher level of priority, that's all. Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In your graphic here and your statement, you're suggesting that -- and it seems reasonable your point of reference -- that we -- its okay, let the neighborhood road flood. Have you given any consideration to the numbers, perhaps vast numbers of homes and businesses that are impacted by such an event if we were to allow that? MR. CABEZAS: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to understand. These are all future roads you're suggesting, or are you talking about retrofitting or what? I'm -- MR. CABEZAS: No. We analyze the local roads. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. CABEZAS: You know, we -- all we did was compared the projected water elevations, peak water elevations during a given storm event with a ground elevation of -- the elevation of the surface of the road. Obviously, you know, we're taking a regional look at things. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, you are. MR. CABEZAS: You know, much more detail would have to go in in order to determine whether you have structures below or above the roads, you know, that would be impacted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what piqued my interests is that you made a statement that suggested, okay, let them flood, okay. And I appreciate from a point of handling water and that, okay, let them flood. But a concomitant responsibility, I would think, would also be to evaluate what that potential is to letting them flood. Was that taken into consideration? MR. CABEZAS: You know, it is something that needs to be done. It's a recommendation from our study that -- individual road segments would have to be analyzed, and much more detail is needed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To say this is a massive project is truly an understatement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, just to let you know, about 11:45 we normally break for lunch. So I know you last time had some questions as we broke, but we will break at 11:45, because you won't be able to finish up. MR. CABEZAS: I think -- I think we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Done? MR. CABEZAS: The TDR mitigation -- TDR recommendations for Golden Gate were presented to you before. We can give you a summary, if you would like, of that. The last time we were here we also talked about the recommendations about the water - control structures. I think we talked about that we're proposing a monitoring plan and expanded monitoring plan just to keep the better -- to better track water - quality conditions in the watersheds and the estuaries and in the groundwater. And I think we touched into, you know, some additional protection programs. Page 36 of 43 161 2 A7 ay 5, 2011 So, really, the other four items were discussed in the previous presentation to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now that -- the TDR, the mitigation area for Golden Gate Estates, best I can recall, you were suggesting putting together a form of TDR mitigation area, but you didn't at that point know where or how those TDRs would be used. But the creation of them was something that was being suggested. MR. CABEZAS: Bob, do you want to address that? MR. MULHERE: Sure. The idea is to utilize a TDR program but in conjunction, perhaps, with some other tools. For example, one tool might be just incentivizing aggregation of existing nonconforming parcels in the Estates, because as you know, there's thousands of acre -and -a- quarter parcels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: Many of them are far out east, undeveloped, and you might be able to incentivize the aggregation of those parcels and reduce impacts in that way. But the TDR program, the geography, the location is generally described. That could be expanded based on a discussion of whether or not to include other parcels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I recall the discussion. I just wanted to make sure that -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we didn't solidify where and how they would be used at this point. Because one thing I would ask that you don't do, do not listen to Nick Casalanguida when it comes to this issue. He's not here, I wish he was, but I want to put that on the record. He shouldn't be listened to when it comes to this issue, so let's just not move on. MR. MUL1 ERE: Well, I just would add, you know, the recommendation is to create an oversight committee and spend the time to try to do it right, because it's very, very complicated. We've learned that from other TDR programs that we've developed. And, you know, it has to be done right. You've got to spend the time to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Okay. So that takes us back to the summation on where you were. You're basically done with your presentation, the one that we had started a month ago; we finished up today. Mac, as far as direction goes on the various elements, are you -- where do you feel you're at with that from us? How much do you need? MR. HATCHER: We would like to answer any outstanding questions that you have. We would like some input on where you stand on what we've presented. We'll come back to you with an implementation strategy and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get closer to the mike. We can hardly hear you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That mike is bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Mac, I think -- we commented on some of these as we went along, but I think the overall position or concern is cost, and where some of these -- where you're exchanging a fee structure for an existing ad valorem basis, well, that doesn't seem to cost anymore. If that's what, I think, the indication was, maybe how that happens and the verbiage to get there were what -- something we'd like to see, but that may be one that would be more acceptable. When you get into a water quality -- or the flood risk on the roads, hey, we ought to be looking at better ways to protect our evacuation routes and things. But if you change that standard to a point where you affect a Category A element of the GMP and level of services go from -- go to failing, what does that mean for obligations then for the taxpayers to make that -- to bring that back up? And if you start doing something that triggers costly obligations, we may want to suggest you hold off on doing that until we are better well - funded in this county, which isn't going to happen right away. But I would think as -- from what the board's questions seemed to be as we went forward, a lot of the ideas are good. It's all going to be subject on how much cost its going to have. And if you can balance it to -- that it's equitable, both ways, it's almost even. And, you know, what the cost is is offset by savings at the same time frame, I think we're probably looking to say that's a good thing to do. But if we're looking at new costs right now, this county hasn't got any money for new costs right now, so -- MR. HATCHER: We recognize that situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I have a -- do we own this slide projection, this -- do we own this program? MR. HATCHER: Yes. Page 37 of 43 w 16 2 A7 a May 5, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. The last time I requested it be sent to me in electronic form. It was sent to me in paper form. I really would appreciate it be sent to me in electronic form. I can do a much more effective valuation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you send to all -- yeah. Make sure you send -- anything you send to one, send to all, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I think that if it can be revenue neutral, like we were saying, instead of, like, a tax that taxes everybody the same, that it can be directed to incentivize less pollution of our waterways, it's better. And you were also talking about the technology for impervious surfaces getting better, and, you know, the idea is good. We want to keep our waterways less polluted in the future than they are now, and any ways that we can do that, it sounds like a good idea. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir -- or ma'am. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER EBERT: When we were discussing before different things to -- the retention ponds holding stuff, mainly during the fertilization hearing, it came to mind to me -- and county staff is looking into this -- but Lee County requires bubblers in retention ponds so many feet deep. So at this point staff is looking into that if this will help. And to me, listening to the two developments that talked that day, one just spent 320,000 putting in bubblers in all their lakes or aeration, because dredging was going to cost, like, $3 million, is what they said. And of all the PUDs and all the monitoring, I can tell you that homeowners' associations are not prepared for that amount of money. So this is something that, if -- and staff is looking into this. So I just want to let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think it just resonates, we don't have a lot of money right now. And, Mac, as these -- with your eight or how many issues we have here, those that can be done under, I think Paul's term, revenue neutral, I would suggest we go further with them. If -- those that can't be, if your purpose is right now to mention them to get them on record for implementation in the future when money's available, I think that's fine, too, but recognizing that when this comes up to final vote, if you put language in here that is going to increase costs to the private sector or to the government sector that isn't balanced out somehow, personally I will be one voting against it, so -- MR. HATCHER: Well, the prioritization that you mentioned would be part of the -- and, yes, we recognize the cost issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one question, and it's an LID kind of question, and you can ask (sic). One thing I've always wondered is our retention lakes we have grass up to the edge, and we have a 20 -foot maintenance easement around it. And I'm starting to wonder whether the maintenance easement's there just to keep the maintenance easement clear. I mean, shouldn't that be an edge that we're discouraging? Why do we encourage the grass edge to the lake? First of all, it looks kind of sad. It makes every development look the same. Nothing in nature resembles that. So why is that there? Just out of curiosity. And maybe we should give the land back to the people and let the littoral zone become a natural littoral zone. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, why do we have a 20 -foot maintenance easement other than to keep the 20 -foot maintenance easement open? MR. HATCHER: The littoral -zone requirement is a minimum. You can put as much littoral zone -- I mean, you can go well above the minimum if you choose to do so. And in terms of grass, a natural vegetated buffer would be preferable from an environmental standpoint. Most developments prefer grass, but you want a vegetated buffer to prevent erosion into the stormwater pond. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But today's presentation started off with a picture of a lake, man -made lake, with grass up to the edge. I mean, why does everything have that? There must be a regulatory reason, because, I mean, people would love to have little docks and, you know, play with that edge a lot better. But is there a reason it's, Page 38 of 43 161 2 A7M ay 5, 2011 you know, grass to water everywhere? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's because of cost. The 20 -foot maintenance easement's required by South Florida. Developments are required to do littorals by Collier County, a certain percentage, I think it's 10 percent or something like that. The reason the 20 -foot maintenance easement is needed is too many of these water - management lakes become choked with cattails and other algaes or other items that have got to be cleared. And if the project doesn't take it on to do it itself through their HOA, South Florida wants to always have the right and the ability to come in and make sure they can treat the lake so that the water - management function still functions. That's the reason for the 20 foot. Now, as far as how the 20 foot's treated, it's primarily for erosion, and on a development on which you're putting landscaping around buildings to sell, very few people are going to put a lot of nice landscaping up against the lake when they can put 45 cents a square foot for sod or 35 cents a square foot for sod down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, why couldn't we access the lake -- obviously you have a boat access -- and let them do the maintenance from the water side? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: South Florida deal. I think they travel or they -- I think it's supposed to be -- that's why the slope's four -to -one, so they can drive around the perimeter of the lake and actually spray the cattails and other vegetation that's choking the lake. But, I mean, that's something that's more of their issue, unless Mac's got some input on it. MR. HATCHER: Nope. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're stuck with that. And then as we discuss fertilizer, we obviously -- that's not a good thing to have because people are spraying up to the water. But anyway. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If you had a more natural littoral zone with cattails, you'd be picking up a lot more of the nutrients and you'd be minimizing the runoff. So I'm kind of not in agreement with South Florida Water Management since that seems to be their policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think their policy is to make sure the water - management facility can take the volume that it's supposed to and manage it. And I'm not sure if you get it choked up with vegetation the water's going to be flowing rather than being backed up. In fact, on one particular development it was required that one of the natural areas be sprayed for cattails because they were blocking the sheet flow coming from the north. And as long as the cattails were there, it would slow the water sheet flow down. So -- but I'm not sure how cattails fit your example, but I mean, I know that for a fact because I had to do it, so anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, to me it just doesn't look good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I don't disagree with you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plus they -- generally if you get a leeward side of a lake with a lot of wind, you'll see some of that sod still having erosion, and then it has to go back in and be treated later, which is very costly. So -- anything else before we cut Mac loose? Mac, you satisfied enough today to go forward? MR. HATCHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate it, and thank you for your time, sir. You're very -- your detailing is really good, and we appreciate that. MR. CABEZAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***We have one other item on today's agenda, which if you -all don't mind, we can try to finish up with Fred here, and then we can adjourn for the day instead of having to come back after lunch. So -- and, Terri, we had a break about an hour ago. Are you still good to go? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred? MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with Growth Management Division. And I have a low -tech, hopefully quick presentation on the draft administrative code. The administrative code for Collier County was originally directed by the Board of County Commissioners, Page 39 of 43 a k' 16 ' 2MA72011 and the last direction was at the June 22, 2010, board meeting, and they directed county staff to continue with the process of the administrative code. Due to staffing issues, the process did not resume from that point until January of this year. So currently we are reviewing the draft administrative code which our consultant White & Smith wrote, and we're comparing their draft with the existing Land Development Code to ensure that nothing was left out, added, or any changes in substantive issues. Currently the -- as you read in the staff report, the LDC contains both processes and regulations which control development. The draft administrative code removes the processes and translates them into plain English and organizes them into a user's manual format. The remaining LDC will contain only the regulations governing land development, and the resulting administrative code will contain the instructions for an applicant, the public, and county staff to apply those regulations to various situations. The principal advantage of administrative code is ease of use. It will be written in plain English, and it will be organized by the steps leading to a permit, the goal. Users will not have to cross - reference LDC sections to find out how to get a permit. They won't have to look in the stormwater section, the Site Development Plan section, and the transportation section. It will be listed step by step. In addition, the administrative code will be adopted by resolution after advertisement and public hearing, and that's a shorter process than the ordinance that the LDC is today. And we're scheduling an overview presentation to the Board of County Commissioners next month. This, as I said, in my staff report, is a brief overview to let you know what you're going to be seeing. You will also see this in at least one workshop and then the public hearing for the actual vote to recommend or deny to the Board of County Commissioners. So I hope I gave you an overview. Feel free to ask any questions that you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the composition of the administrative code reduce the volume size of the Land Development Code? MR. REISCHL: That's a good question. Right now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or are we just going to have another thousand pages of another code? MR. REISCHL: I brought a prop. But this is single -sided with sidebars for comments, so it will be smaller than this. So we're hop- -- we haven't done that yet, but we're hoping that it will be a smaller volume than what we have here. Code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But back to my question, will it reduce the size of the Land Development MR. REISCHL: Of the code, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the current code. MR. REISCHL: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If all that -- all that great stuff -- and I almost said "garbage" -- but all that great stuff is in the Land Development Code and you're now pulling it out to put it in an admin. code and you're going to have a little more detail in there, does that mean we're going to reduce the volume of the Land Development Code? MR. REISCHL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's ayes. MR. BELLOWS: That's an easy answer, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Take a look at the county attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All you need is a little faith. MR. REISCHL: The administrative code is going to be adopted into the LDC, so it will be incorporated by reference into the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You going to put it on MUNI code? MR. REISCHL: And we plan to put it on MUNI code, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's good. Then we can search it properly there. MR. REISCHL: Yes. Page 40 of 43 x 16 12 A 7ay5,2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And before the workshop -- can you give it to us, say, a month in advance in hard copy? MR. REISCHL: We had discussed that, and yes, we plan to -- we see how long it is, and any of the comments in there. It's going to take -- it's taking us a long time to get through with multiple readers, so we understand it will take you a long time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you highlighting the changes -- you're going to pull excerpts from the current code into that book so that we have some current language, language that may not be as questionable if we know it's current. So are you going to differentiate between the types of language where you've pulled it and where you've added it, or is it all going to be jumbled together in one color? MR. REISCHL: We have what the consultant has called a concordance which references LDC sections and what section that is in the administrative code; however, we don't plan to change anything. We've come across some -- as our reviewers are looking at it we've come across some instances where we said, that's wrong, that shouldn't be that way. We're not going to change anything that's wrong because we want this to be a strict translation. We're going to -- any of the things that we're finding now that are wrong, we're going to put them in the LDC amendment cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I really don't think you're going to be able to move the administrative code out of the LDC into its own separate code without adding a substantial amount of language to clarify it. And all I'm just suggesting is, the language that you're using to clarify, will it be noted that it's new language so we focus on studying the new language more than the old? Because the old we've already accepted. It's been in the code for a long time. MR. REISCHL: It's all new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. REISCHL: I can just read a section of it to you. It's not written as the LDC is. And you'll see this before we have the workshop. For example, this is language from the administrative code. "This document tells you how to obtain permits to develop your property. It describes how to put an application together, how to file the application, and where to present your project for approval." That's the plain English, so it's going to be hard to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. REISCHL: -- take that out of the three paragraphs that say that in the current LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. I just was -- you know, I can just anticipate now for a lot of us, including myself -- and I do read the code a lot -- but there will be sections in that code that you'll come up with in this new administrative code that will seem new because they're not used that often. I just want to -- I didn't want to focus on those, but it looks like we'll just see those equally as everything else. MR. REISCHL: We are -- as we are continuing this review, we're finding that out right now, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: One thing I've done is I've read it, and as you read it, you kind of get a feel that it is an administrative code and you start to get comfortable with the fact that it's not -- it's procedural more than, you know, definitive in terms of code. So you get a comfort level after reading it. So I'd recommend maybe one time just going through the thick book and just reading it and then flagging anything where you say, wait a minute, this seems to give me discomfort. Because as you read it, you get comfortable reading it and start understanding it's really a procedural document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments? Fred, go ahead. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Under the list of the elements of the new admin. code, there are several here that are yes -no questions. But I'm assuming that -- for example, are fees required? Well, the answer to that is either yes or no, but if the answer is yes, then you're going to be listing the fees there or -- MR. REISCHL: No, that will still be in the fee schedule. COMMISSIONER CARON: That will still -- okay. MR. REISCHL: Right. And maybe I wasn't clear in how I wrote this, but this won't say, when is the procedure required and answer the question and things like that. Let me give you an example here. As the -- it will describe it in a more narrative format rather than the questions I have. The questions here I just got from reading through the code, and that's what is answered among other things, too. Page 41 of 43 1b12 A75,2011 But it will say -- for example, it will say, go into Horseshoe Drive located at, their website is this, their telephone number is this. I mean, it's a real user's manual. It's not just saying, the planning director is required to do this. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. REISCHL: It will tell you step by step what to do, and for most processes it will answer that question. If the process doesn't apply, it won't be in that section. For example, say, how to get a conditional -use permit, and it will go through that step by step. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And so if, for example, on the fee one, it will tell you, go to the fee structure book -- MR. REISCHL: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and look it up? Okay. MR. REISCHL: It will tell you where it's located online and things like that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Any of the changes that are going to be in this code are supposed to be procedural and non - substantive. MR. REISCHL: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: But if I'm in the middle of the process and the Board of County Commissioners decides to make a change to the admin. code, how do I find out about that, or do I have to have watched that particular meeting? How are you going to let people know if something changes? Because even while it's not substantive to the final product, it can be in the process of getting through to the final product. MR. REISCHL: For example, that -- the example I gave in the staff report about electronic submittals and what media you can use? And -- well, it's going to be advertised as a BCC item, so if you -- if you see Board of County Commissioners advertisements, you'll see that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. We use our county building blocks. We advertise it internally. We use our email lists. We do a good job, I think, of contacting people. And in times we haven't, we've given people extra time to accommodate a change. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought -- I thought you could also, on your website, recent changes to the administrative code. I mean, it's as simple as that. MR. REISCHL: Just like we do with the LDC now, right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that would be good. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything? Fred, thanks. MR. REISCHL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's good to have you back again. MR. REISCHL: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm sure you're enjoying all this; a lot of fun. MR. REISCHL: And we'll try to get that to you in plenty of time to at least get you started on the first part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remember what I said earlier, don't listen to Nick. Okay. With that, I think that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You noticed he came back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, after he was talked about. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Klein. All in favor? We're adjourned. Page 42 of 43 That wraps up our meeting for today. 16 12 A7may 5,2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:03 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK JTRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on P — t' 11 as presented V or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 43 of 43 1 b I - € May 19, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 19, 2011 IE JUG -" BY........................ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala Hiller e Henning 'I 1-1� Coyle ✓ �� Coletta ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Donna Reed Caron Melissa Ahern Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Karen Homiak Bob Murray Diane Ebert Barry Klein ABSENT: Mark P. Strain Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Page 1 of 79 Misc. Corres: DaN: 9 \t-A\. i Item #: \ LA Z 2%=4 C: pies to: TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 19, 2011 IE JUG -" BY........................ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala Hiller e Henning 'I 1-1� Coyle ✓ �� Coletta ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Donna Reed Caron Melissa Ahern Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Karen Homiak Bob Murray Diane Ebert Barry Klein ABSENT: Mark P. Strain Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Page 1 of 79 Misc. Corres: DaN: 9 \t-A\. i Item #: \ LA Z 2%=4 C: pies to: A 7 1612 --qvlay 19, 2011 CHAIRMAN CARON: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the May 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everyone will rise for the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Good morning. Our chairman is off today on family business, and so we will muddle through without. Karen, if you'll do the roll call, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Caron? CHAIRMAN CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mark is absent. Ms. Homiak is here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And, Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN CARON: I guess we should have given you a chance to catch your breath. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: Sorry. Addenda to the agenda; any changes or -- from anyone? The only thing that I'm aware of is that the Heritage Bay DRI has been continued. So if anybody is here for that besides Mr. Anderson, it's been continued to July 7th; is that what I read? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, all right. Anybody have anything else that -- Ray, anything else? MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN CARON: -- you're aware of? Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting will be June the 2nd; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna? CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to request -- I won't be able to make it. If I'm excused, that would be great. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Anybody else -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN CARON: -- know that they are not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Thank you. Approval_ of minute# Ibr April 21 st. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN- CAKft Motion to approve by Ms. Homiak. A second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. Page 2 of 79 16 12 AP19,2011 CHAIRMAN CARON: Second by Ms. Ebert. All in favor? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARON: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARON: I don't think anybody was opposed. BCC recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners met on May 10th, but there were no land -use items presented at that petition -- or that meeting. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Was there anything else of import to the Planning Commission, though, that might have been discussed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not that I'm aware o£ CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, great. Our chairman is absent, so there'll be no chairman's report. The consent agenda for CU- PL2010 -1949, Hitching Post Plaza. Do I have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. All in favor? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARON: I just had one question on that. It came to us in the form of a memo, which Ive never seen before, and then the actual exhibit was on the back. Any particular reason? MR. BELLOWS: I don't think it was any particular reason other than I believe Nancy just wanted to make it more clear what the changes were. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, good. Thank you. ** *All right. Now we are into our regular items. And, Mac, you get to be up first today. It's a continuation of the discussion on our fertilizer ordinance, so take it away. MR. HATCHER: Thank you. Mac Hatcher, Land Development Services. I have a very brief presentation to take you through what I provided in the staff report and a few additions that were left out of the staff report due to oversight and issues that have been brought up since then. On the 4/21 meeting you all requested to consider some alternate standards for the fertilizer ordinance and you wanted an annual limit of four pounds of nitrogen per thousand square feet, at least 50 percent slow - release nitrogen. And one of the issues that FDEP brought to my attention was, in addition to those two standards, one of the things that's currently required that should be included would be a one -time -- or an application limit of one pound of nitrogen so that you don't apply more than one pound of nitrogen at any one time during the year. You wanted the zero - percent phosphorus unless the soil test warrants addition, a minimum 10 -foot buffer with no fertilizer around water bodies except for new plantings, and a prohibited application period from July 1 st through September 30th. Page 3 of 79 {� 1612 A �y 19, 1 You wanted to combine the buffer sections, and that's been done in the version of the ordinance that was provided to you -all in the new Standard 6, and you wanted a standardized penalty section, and that's been provided in the revised ordinance that was included with the staff report. The revised penalty section brings out the fact that there are provisions in the standard code enforcement that allow for corrections to be made, and a lot of the application of the fertilizer ordinance wouldn't allow somebody to make a correction. If you deposit fertilizer into the water, there's no way you're going to have the -- have the applicator remove it. So there's provisions that that portion of the code - enforcement methodology wouldn't have to apply. And you asked for a review after two years. That's not adopted in the ordinance, but it would be something that we would do. I failed to make the text changes that we discussed at the meeting, but I have those text changes and can incorporate them into any revised ordinance. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mac, why wouldn't you incorporate the review after two years? MR. HATCHER: In the ordinance? CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. MR. HATCHER: It just doesn't need to be in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN CARON: You'll be here and you'll remember? MR. HATCHER: Right. And if I'm not, it's on the record and someone else will remember. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MR. HATCHER: You asked for additional information on some things, a slow - release definition, and I provided you -all with the text that's in the Florida Statutes that deals with slow releases for fertilizers and, in addition to that, provided you with a copy of an example label to illustrate how the different analyses of nitrogen is presented on a typical fertilizer label. And you'll notice that there's no direct linkage between slow release on the label and what you typically think of in terms of what the percentage of slow release is. The slow release is most commonly identified as water - insoluble nitrogen. It's on the label as the percent nutrient within the bag of fertilizer. To convert that into the percent of slow release, you have to do additional calculations. You asked about compost. And in the -- I provided, with the Florida Statutes, the definition of fertilizer, and it includes a little section that basically says that if you've got compost that's not being advertised as being -- or having nitrogen or phosphorus content in it, then it's not considered a fertilizer. So a homemade compost wouldn't be considered a fertilizer, wouldn't be specifically addressed. It could be used throughout the summer as, you know, you need to. You asked about a definition of a water and wetland buffer starting point. I didn't give you this diagram in the staff report, but what we're recommending would be what is considered to be the normal water level, which is basically, in a wet detention system, the water level at the bottom of the bleed -down. So this is usually the most common demarcation point on a wet detention stormwater system. It's usually fairly obvious, and it's also actually surveyed in and can be tied back to a water level, and then if the water level is above that normal water level, then that water level would be the starting point for the demarcation of the buffer. For natural water bodies, we're recommending that you use basically the edge of state waters, the definition that's in the Florida Administrative Code for natural water bodies. And, again, if the water is above that level, then use that -- that level to do the buffer demarcation. The composition of fertilizer -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Mac? MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you go back? CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Midney has a question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The seasonal high groundwater table minus six inches, would that be six inches vertically or six inches horizontally? MR. HATCHER: Vertically. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And how would you determine that? Page 4 of 79 A7 16 1L May 19, 2011 MR. HATCHER: It's determined by either wetland plant indicators or soil indicators. It's a technical process that is part of the environmental resource permit process to set the water table -- I mean, to set the elevations for the stormwater systems. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That being the case, we spoke about the code - enforcement officers having to do that job. Will they receive some kind of base training to allow them to understand these variables that are possible? MR. HATCHER: The environmental -code officers already have that training. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Thank you. MR. HATCHER: Okay. You asked for an example of the composition of fertilizers currently available. I surveyed a couple of large box stores and the hardware store and provided you -all with a table of the breakdown of nitrogen/phosphorus /potassium that is -- that was on the label, the percent insoluble nitrogen, and then I calculated the percent slow - release nitrogen. You asked for information about the regulation of sale of fertilizers. I indicated in the staff report that it was in House Bill 457 that the sale would be limited, or regulation of the sale would be limited to the Department of Agriculture. That's incorrect. It's in House Bill 7215. And the bill is passed but it's not been signed yet, but I don't believe there's a whole lot of reason to think that it won't be signed. And that will apply to any ordinances that are adopted after July the 1 st of this year. And, finally, you requested that we invite some experts on the model ordinance. Terril Nell from the University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences is here and would like to make a brief presentation, will be available for answers. And Thomas Frick and Michael Thomas from FDEP are on the phone and can answer any questions you -all have for them about the ordinance. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. And obviously there are lots of people here to speak on this issue. So what's the pleasure of the board? Shall we hear all the speakers first and then discuss, or -- and, obviously, if anybody has any questions along the way, rather than forget them and forget to ask them, I think we can --just know that we may be breaking into any one of the presentations. So, thanks. So that will be -- make your first speaker here, Mac? MR. HATCHER: Terril Nell with the University of Florida, IFAS. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. DR. NELL: Thank you very much, Mac, and board of planning. Appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk about this entire issue. The University of Florida has taken this entire issue very, very seriously. It is an issue that, as we look at water quality, we recognize the significance of it to the state, to the counties and the cities. We're fortunate at the University of Florida that our background in this actually goes back nearly 25 years, with the first work being done at our research center in Fort Lauderdale in the mid'80s. There was additional work done there in the '90s, looking at runoff and leaching from a standard lawn and a planted landscape, and then the serious work, if you want to call it that, began in the early 2000s when we started talking with the Department of Environmental Protection. It was clear that while we had a great deal of vegetable information, a great deal of citrus and fruit production information, we needed a lot more information, good science. That was the agreement we had with them, we want sound science that can be used in understanding what's really happening in the landscape. And in the early'90s, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection started funding the University of Florida to do research on turfgrass and -- very expensive project -- done at three locations, almost replicates, starting in Fort Lauderdale, Gainesville, and Milton. They had one common turfgrass in all those locations, and then they each had one that was separate just for their location. It was totally about leaching. I'll give you an example of that. But we have begun to publish that information, and it is with all due statistics, it is with the very demanding Page 5 of 79 y a 19, 2011 16 1 criteria that FDEP puts on it, which are EPA standards, that there are certain collection processes that must be taken for the leachate, there are certain procedures for analysis, and we have to even have the samples analyzed in a Florida Department of Environmental Protection qualified laboratory or the results are not valid. Now, I will admit, it came close to driving my faculty crazy. It may still almost drive them crazy, and I'm glad they're doing the work and not me. So I think there's been a great deal of progress. Many of you probably know -- there we go -- that the -- you may or may not know that the University of Florida, IFAS -- and it's within my department, environmental horticulture -- maintains a statewide program called Florida Friendly Landscaping Program that is now trademarked; it is established in Florida Statute as the landscape program for the State of Florida. We have multiple programs within Florida Friendly Landscaping, which is within the Center for Landscape Conservation and Ecology, which was also established in 2005 by the legislature to deal with issues like this. We have a homeowners' section, which is represented by the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods. We do have a homeowner association program, and we have the Green Industries Program dealing with water quality, and with that program -- we now have a training program, and these are all joint with FDEP -- a training program mandated by Florida law last year that every professional applying fertilizer in this state must go through the six -hour training that we provide by early 2014. They must be certified, or they may not apply. So we're -- we're doing that throughout the state through our joint county extension offices, within -- with IFAS and the counties, and we have also some professional trainers who are assisting us, and DEP has some training. So I've given you the handbooks that we have. I know you already had the BMP manual. There's a couple of things that I would like to point out. One is this is the most recent version. There are times when people want to go back and pull out something from our 1993 version or our 1996 version and say, they said that. You know, if we don't change with the research that comes out, all of you would say, why are you there? Why are you investigating research? Why are you doing research? So we have invested research time and now extension time in formulating the information that's in this, and we constantly change -- I'll give you an example of that -- sometimes because we write something, we find out maybe it's not understood as easily as it should be. So that's what these documents are, but it supersedes everything else. We also gave you two additional publications, one dealing with the fertilizer toolbox that deals with iron and nitrogen, and I'll talk about that, and also one that was just published in early 2011, urban water quality and fertilizer ordinances. It is probably the most comprehensive document available right now other than the two books that were published in 2008 on urban water quality and landscape management. There's over a hundred references. And much of what I will talk about will come from that. Everything that I will talk about comes from scientific references. The president of the University of Florida, my boss, the senior vice - president, we're all in agreement, we're going to talk science, okay. We're going to talk published science, peer review, which means we have collected the information, we've written the documents. It goes to a scientific journal. The scientific journal has what we call blind reviewers. We do not know who they are, which gives them the freedom to be, sometimes, bluntly honest. And they say, maybe you analyzed the data wrong. Why does that have a meaning? Because if we say something is different, it is statistically different based on the variation or lack of variation that exists, okay. So that's what I'm going to be talking about in this. This entire issue is very, very complicated. I think all of you know that. It's very confusing at times. Unfortunately, I think it's misunderstood and misinterpreted at times, because -- I think because the science is so relatively new in the last five to ten years. This is simply the nitrogen cycle. This is not even the phosphorus cycle. So you show phosphorus going in through various ways, whether it's fertilization or plant residue, which could be turfgrass clipping or compost out of a yard. We then see that going through. We have denitrification. We have volatilization, which means it goes into the air. It is converted from one form of nitrogen to another form of nitrogen, and we can talk about how much of that nitrogen is absorbed. We can have leaching through, depending upon the quality and health of the turfgrass or other ground Page 6 of 79 . A7 16 May 19, 2011 covers, and we can have runoff, okay. What is not shown here -- it mentions leaching to groundwater. This is all about the nitrogen cycle from plant material or fertilizers. We also can have the same nitrogen coming from septic tanks into the groundwater moving laterally into our water bodies. And there are examples where that does happen. So I don't -- I think this issue is more about what we can do than necessarily what it is. Immediately it always goes to the application of fertilizer. I think it goes to the management of a landscape and looking at the landscape as a community of landscape, not one yard at a time. When I talk about the quality, this is an example. On your left is poor - quality turfgrass. You can see the turf -- you can see the soil there. On the right would be a more healthy or dense turfgrass, and I'll explain why that's important. But it's important that you see at the outset why I think of it as a healthy turfgrass issue or a density of the turfgrass issue rather than a very sparse turfgrass, as you see on the left. Why is it important? It's well established. You can go to agriculture in the Midwest where they try to have ground crops so they don't get erosion. We have the same issue in our landscapes. If we have a healthy turfgrass, we reduce erosion, we reduce runoff, and we reduce leaching. Why do we reduce runoff? If we think about the flow of water, if we have a slick surface, a smooth surface, the water runs off rapidly and takes whatever is there with it. If we have a thick, dense, healthy turfgrass, there are scientific publications showing the reduction in flow that that turfgrass provides, and by reducing the flow, it allows for a greater penetration and less runoff. So that is reducing runoff. There's even research that shows that simply doubling the number of turfgrass shoots -- again, think about that picture of dense versus not dense. Doubling the number reduces runoff by 67 percent. That's very significant. As we look at any plant, what we see is the top. Plant growth, turfgrass growth -- we hate it when turfgrass grows too fast because we have to mow it, but that's the top growth. And what happens is that top growth is providing the energy through sunlight, photosynthesis, that is developing a root system below, and that root system is absorbing nutrients. So that's very important, because the greater the aboveground growth -- biomass. We hear a lot about biomass. The greater that biomass, the greater the root mass that, in turn, increases the nitrogen uptake by the plant or the turfgrass. So if we can get a healthy root system -- it's more than just fertilization -- then we get greater uptake; we get reduced runoff. In one study that I found, there was actually greater phosphorus runoff in the unfertilized lots than there was in the fertilized lots. Why? Where's it coming from? It's coming from a breakdown within the turfgrass as that turfgrass declines over time because of lack of the fertilizer to promote growth. And then the management practices that lead to a better root development also reduces fertilizer leaching. So we want deeper roots through fertilizer and watering, through plant selection or turfgrass selection, and more fibrous roots, if we can get them. And here's an example. Warm season turfgrass growth -- and this is out of a turfgrass book that was published in 2002, and this is just for warn- season turfgrasses. And what's interesting here is you look from the left to the right on the bottom axis. It's winter, spring, summer, fall. When do we have maximum growth? On a warm - season turfgrass, we have maximum growth from late spring to early fall. That's when we get our density, that's when we have photosynthesis, because they're a totally different photosynthetic system than northern grasses. So if we look at, very quickly, the FDEP study, which we're doing, here's how we did it in each of the three locations. The plastic container you see on the right is actually buried three feet deep in the plots where you see that arrow, the black arrow. It has gravel in the bottom. The water tube that you see right there is hooked aboveground to a suction pump, and we can pull samples out at any time. We collect that according to the EPA standards. We analyze it for nitrogen and phosphorus, okay. And we can tell them we know what we're applying. From that we can tell what is not being absorbed by the turfgrass. And you can see from this turfgrass it is dense; it's healthy. And I'll show you the treatments. This is some of the data. Now, this is 2006. The statistics are not on here, but I can tell you this work has now been accepted for publication due to the statistics. The green line, these plots were fertilized at the black Page 7 of 79 1612 Al; t May 19, 2011 markers. The green was 1.75 pounds of nitrogen in every application; the yellow line was one pound of fertilizer at every application. So from April 4th of 2006 to October 15th of 2006 that turfgrass received four pounds of nitrogen, if you look at the yellow line, or it received 1.75 pounds of nitrogen for the green line. Now, even this is in total violation of the Florida Department of Agriculture fertilizer rule, because what's important here, you're talking about slow - release fertilizer. We recommend slow - release fertilizer. This study was done with 100 percent water - soluble fertilizer, okay, which you'd look at and say it's totally water soluble so it must be leaching. When you look, when do we -- when are we getting the leaching? Two times. We're getting it almost only -- we're getting some leaching with the low rate, but we're getting leaching with a higher rate, 1.75, but we're also getting it in the early spring and late fall or early fall. We are not seeing -- even with the red lines which are rain events. You can see those pointing down. And we see a couple blips when we're overfertilizing, so not proper application. But when we are overfertilizing, we can see leaching. I don't want to present it that we're not getting any leaching with the one pound. But under Florida Statute, Florida fertilizer rule, we would have to lower that soluble from one pound to .7 with then 30 percent slow release to get to the one pound. But I think it's significant here, in terms of talking about a restricted period, that you see that during the summer months, with proper application, the leaching is insignificant. We have fertilizer rates. These are University of Florida IFAS rates. These are in the FYN handbook, they're in the BMP manual, and you can see the ranges. You're suggesting four pounds, as Mac mentioned. I've talked to DEP about this as well. The way it is currently written, you're saying four pounds without any restriction on what can be applied at any given time. So somebody could go out and put on four pounds at one time, which would double what that green line was right there. So imagine if somebody went out and just applied four pounds. We would see probably quite some release rate. Now, I want to pass these around because -- CHAIRMAN CARON: I think Mac's corrected that for the record anyway, that it should be only one pound of nitrogen at a time. So that's been corrected for the record. DR. NELL: Well, sometimes I think it's easier with a graph just to demonstrate that. What I'm passing around -- I'm going to get to this -- is two types of fertilizers. One is 100 percent soluble and one is slow release, and you really can't tell the difference in them. But when we look at this, I think we have to start saying, what is the real issue. And one thing that has been said -- and I will tell you we had it in earlier documents, and this is one where we realized that what we thought we were saying is not what people were thinking they were reading, and so that's the reason you have the publication "Fertilizer Toolbox," because some people were reading that we were saying you don't need nitrogen in the summer, you can just apply it in iron. Well, for some of the water - quality issues that you're talking about, iron could be just as bad. We won't get into that. But the important thing is that iron will correct iron deficiency and nitrogen will correct nitrogen deficiency, but the application of iron will not correct nitrogen, okay. And the other important part of it is -- and it's in that document -- is the reason -- not to concentrate just on iron but the need for nitrogen -- is nitrogen provides the protein that builds the amino acids, builds the cell structure, and builds the root system that increases the absorption. Iron does not. So it has a very different metabolic activity than iron. And so this is our most recent statement that is in that document. It's going into the revision of the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Handbook, and we will make sure that it's better understood. CHAIRMAN CARON: But it is not in this most current one? DR. NELL: It is not in that most current one. CHAIRMAN CARON: That's right. DR. NELL: It is being revised, and that will be -- well, I mean, it's 2009 -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. DR. NELL: -- and, you know, it's great when we have discussions because, truly, we find out that Page 8 of 79 161 2 A7a Y 19, 2011 sometimes we don't write at the level we should, and I don't have a problem with that. But Mike Thomas at DEP has agreed, you know, the website's going to be changed. It's going to be changed in the handbook as well next time we print the handbook, but we can't just go print more handbooks. So what do the scientific research results show about restricted fertilizer periods? That basically any management practice that reduces the health of turfgrass leads to increased leaching, greater runoff, and more erosion. The primary factors can be any of these: Failure to fertilize, overfertilization, over- or underwatering. I have to mention there that overwatering can be as bad as anything else. Overwatering will create major deficiencies. It will cause diseases. It will make the turfgrass thinner, just as underwatering will. So unless we educate the consumer for proper fertilization practices and proper watering, we can run into problems either way. Mowing too short. Why is that an issue? We want as much green as we can, because that green builds our root system. That's where the photosynthesis happens. So the loss of turfgrass density increases leaching and runoff. You know, this is an extreme program, I recognize that, but over the time of years of withholding fertilizer, improperly watering, we can get something like this, and you can imagine, as you see here, leaching was three times greater in dead turfgrass compared to healthy turfgrass. And as I mentioned, that one study, the leaching of phosphorus was much greater in nonfertilized plots than the fertilizer plots. So the science is very strong on this issue. CHAIRMAN CARON: But in this picture, that's not something you had control over, right? You don't know what caused that die -off, whether it was overwatering or -- DR. NELL: I do not. CHAIRMAN CARON: -- cutting the grass too short, or whether it was fertilizer. DR. NELL: I think it was a disease issue. I got it from one of my faculty members. I'm not trying to portray it as fertilizer. I'm trying to portray it, that this is a management issue overall, and fertilizer's one component of it, a very important component. Fertilizer -free buffer zones. Mike and Tom are on the phone, and they're going to discuss that as well. But I do have a concern that I'll talk about where to the left is the house with the planted landscape, then a grass area, and then down near the lake is basically bare ground. And based on what you've already seen, bare ground or landscape plants that are not going to provide a flow restriction to the runoff may easily end up causing more erosion. So we have to look at that. And then one of the pictures that is in -- I think it's the BMP handbook is this one. The ring of responsibility where you can see here with a fertilizer spreader with a guard, fertilizer's been applied to within three feet of this water body, and it is not moving any further than that. So we're not seeing movement down. And you can see -- and this one also. And I'm glad that's not my yard, although I will admit as a kid I think my mother told me I did that one time. And I'm a Florida native, so I'm familiar with this. But you can see that where we apply it it's staying. My point in passing the fertilizer samples around is when we are applying slow release or quick release, it doesn't matter if we have this. It also doesn't matter if we have this. Look at the amount of fertilizer that's going down the storm drains just because of improper management of turfgrass clippings, an area 200 linear feet by five feet wide, a thousand square feet, is putting .15 pounds of nitrogen into the stormwater. Now, that is reading -- when anybody does water analysis, that is reading as lawn fertilizer. It's not the lawn fertilizer. It's the mismanagement. There's a study that was done in Boca Raton showing leaf litter. There's one in Wisconsin that was even worse. Leaf litter by the street allowed to stay there for more than two days is leaching untold amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus. Two days. It's pretty darn significant. Here's where the slow release and quick release probably doesn't matter at all. You see that this turfgrass strip was about two feet wide, and the company came in with a spreader. This was several years ago before all the training. But the application was onto both the turfgrass and the sidewalk. We don't need it on the impervious surfaces. We don't need concrete to grow. But when we have rain, it washes it off. And you can see the prills of fertilizer here. Page 9 of 79 161 2AP May 19, 2011 So, again, it's part of an education process. But if we're using slow release and we don't have an educational program to go with it, a public education program, and it goes onto the sidewalk, driveway, road, it washes down. It's still going to read as fertilizer, but it's not -- it's not our landscape. The other part of that, I mentioned, is irrigation. But as we have sloppy irrigation, improperly maintained irrigation, and if it has been dry right after we've applied for a period of time and we have this, guess where the fertilizer's going to go? And slow release will, in those cases -- none of those prills have glue on them, so it doesn't matter what we apply. With improper management, it's going to go down. If we're using slow release improperly handled we're going to have that slow release within our stormwater for a long, long time. So what does all this mean? Just to wrap it up, the research nationwide, it's very consistent. It plays an important role in reducing fertilizer runoff and leaching leading to improved water quality. Turfgrass must be properly managed, including fertilization, and that includes during the summer. Proper fertilization is key to minimizing (sic) the environmental benefit of turf. Potential for harm is greater during periods of reduced growth; in other words, during the period where we see reduced root activity, October to maybe March, depends on where we are. I will tell you, I'm always humored by some of the northern studies that they say don't apply fertilizer when the ground's frozen. To me I think that would be obvious, but it's in the scientific literature. And the potential for harm is greater during periods of low growth. I tried to jump the rope. Scientific research -- and I've chosen not to give you table after table after table, although I could -- does not support the reduction of fertilizer during active growing periods. And I think what Pve summarized and shown you pictures, you can see that. It shows that a blackout may, in fact, lead to increased runoff and leaching, and that is well documented. And the proper fertilizer and management is a year -round activity and can best be accomplished with science -based BMPs combined with strong education. And the communities and the states that have done that have been very successful. And with that, I'll be happy to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question. DR. NELL: -- entertain questions. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray, you can start. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to thank you. This was a -- very, very informative, very well done. And clearly the emphasis here is being made, in my mind anyway, to take it as an entire management practice. DR. NELL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's excellent. But given that not everybody will be given the opportunity or have the opportunity or care to have the opportunity for education, we are focusing on fertilizer as the issue. I don't know if you've had a chance to review the model fertilizer ordinance. Is there anything that you might contribute within that ordinance that would help to work toward better management practices educationally, or whatever form you might offer? DR. NELL: Well, obviously the change from just four pounds to one pound. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, clearly. DR. NELL: That's clear. The second is, I -- with the scientific background, I have trouble seeing how, over time, withholding fertilizer for four months every summer is going to be a benefit. Again, that's science, is not my observation. But if we want healthy growth, then let's limit the application amount. Let's look at slow release, which we support. Let's eliminate the phosphorus, which you're supporting. But let's have healthy turfgrass, because when we go outside of that range -- and people do that. I mean, we know that, not from scientific studies but, you know, it's there. And if we apply it too early, we're going to get more leaching. The data are solid. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The problem, as I see it -- and it's -- for purposes of -- I'm thinking of everyday Joe and Josephine, they won't know these things -- so that in our effort to try to help, is there a better combination of chemical fertilizers that can make it less error prone for Joe and Josephine? I don't think so, thinking thinking in the manner of which you related, but -- Page 10 of 79 16 2 A719,2011 ' DR. NELL: I can tell you that right now there are no scientific publications saying that 15 percent slow release is different from 30 is different from 50, okay. So I have trouble going there and jumping through something that right now is in my imagination. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. DR. NELL: I will tell you we've got it underway, okay. And I think we'll have much more information. I know we'll have much more information when that's done. And I hope at that point we're able to come back and say, okay, statewide let's do something different. And with the activity that we have now through the Florida Friendly Landscaping Program, again with DEP support, you know, I think through Collier County extension, Doug Caldwell and others, you know, we simply need to boost this up and say, hey, folks -- and let's get something on TVs locally. In Gainesville, our regional utility has some things on the air. Maybe combined county and IFAS, we could get the local TV shows to put something on the air. If we figure out how to do it, I'll produce it, okay. I've got the staff to produce it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I took away one thing from your presentation, my sense of it is that rather than what we might be including in our ordinance, which would be a prohibition or a marked reduction in fertilization during the growing period, you're an advocate for appropriate application? DR. NELL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I have a question. If we decide to pass or suggest no fertilization from July 1 st to September 30th, how long does the fertilizer persist in the soil? Would it last for three months? DR. NELL: Right now we're recommending almost what I showed you, four applications. I don't think anybody does four, but we're recommending four, and we're saying every two months. I do not have the data to say there's a fertilizer there that will go three months or four months. And I'll tell you why. I think they're there, and it will be increased slow release, so it's released over time. But we do not know what happens when you apply those slow - release fertilizers in terms of leaching and runoff. Now, the concept in most people's minds is that if you say you've got a three -month release, that that fertilizer, those prills are magically formulated to release one - ninetieth every day. They don't do that. I've actually seen some slow - release fertilizer release curves in real time on real turfgrass where at about 35 days out -- and I think it varies by formulation, because it's not just one formulation technique -- where there was a spike at 35 days greater than what you saw in those graphs. So 90 days, maybe not. Two months, maybe. I mean, that's what we're recommending now, and it can work. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, but according to the graph, April would not be a good time to do it because that's the dead dry season, so -- DR. NELL: My turfgrass specialist in Pensacola who's on the DEP project, his recommendation is one that I had never heard. Pay your taxes on April 15th first and then fertilize. You know, maybe people could read it that way, understand it that way. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's what he thinks. My other question is about Xeriscape. Would you say that where you have natural areas or xeriscape that you'd have more runoff than where you had turfgrass? DR. NELL: Totally depends on the plant material. It worries me when we say just have a plant buffer, because if we go back to the 1995 study done in Fort Lauderdale, what they did was go almost to xeriscape. I don't like Xeriscape because it's almost zero scape, and that's the reason the legislature put it in Florida Friendly Landscaping, get rid of -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, it depends. You know, natural Florida landscaping is very attractive, too, and it doesn't need fertilizer or water. DR. NELL: And we accept that within Florida Friendly Landscaping. You know, it's "right plant, right place." We don't have a problem with that. If you have a native grass that has a dense lower -- I guess I'd call it canopy -- that is going to reduce the water flow, you know, I think that's fine. If you have -- talking to the Sally, and we're talking about confederate jasmine or some ground covers. You know, I can see water trying to get through a thick canopy of confederate Page 11 of 79 .4 . 1 2 Al 4 r, + I May 19 2011 jasmine. It's going to have a tough time. But if you looked in that one photo I had with palm trees, that wasn't dense, you know. Those plants were planted that far apart. There were -- you know, the roots might be out that far. Water's just going straight under, and it's not being slowed down to be absorbed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I can see if you had fertilized turfgrass and then you had a sparse ground cover where you're putting fertilizer next to it, it can filter through, but if you just had a natural cover -- before, you know, human settlement, what was the nitrogen runoff before that? It was obviously a lot lower than it is now. DR. NELL: Right. I think -- I think a lot of that is simply impervious surfaces. There are data to show the greater the amount of impervious surfaces, the greater the runoff, probably the greater the contamination, including from automobiles and other sources. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Brad. I'm sorry. I think -- Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: You had mentioned at the conclusion of your presentation that certain communities that had followed your recommendations were successful. DR. NELL: Not -- I mean, it's out of state. It's not happened in Florida yet. MR. EASTMAN: So the components -- were they concerned with the runoff into their important waters, or how is that measured? What were the components of success? Even though it was out of state, are the components of that success transferable and applicable here? DR. NELL: Some of it -- yes. MR. EASTMAN: And what are the percentages? I mean, can you tell us, you know, if you do this then you can drop the level by that, and so on and so forth, and use the science that you mentioned to convince us? DR. NELL: I'd have to go look. I'm willing to do that. You know, the difficulty we've had as we have implemented more and more extension training and education about Florida Friendly Landscaping, we've also continued a massive population explosion. So you see more houses, more impervious surface. That's kind of ceased for right now. But this may be a time to take a deep breath and really recharge this whole idea. But I'd have to look. But the BMPs, not ordinances, BMPs with education seem to have really worked. And it's only two or three communities. It's really very small. MR. EASTMAN: Where are these communities? DR. NELL: I think one is in Wisconsin. MR. EASTMAN: Is that a coastal community along -- DR. NELL: It's a lake, a lake community. MR. EASTMAN: --a lake? DR. NELL: Not the big lake, not the Great Lakes. But as, you know -- MR. EASTMAN: So then some components of the measure of success could be transferable to here because you could measure how much is going into that water, but we don't have that data? DR. NELL: No, we do not have that data, no. We'd like to. MR. EASTMAN: How do you know it's successful then? DR. NELL: It's published in the scientific literature, and I'm accepting that they have gone through the scrutiny. MR. EASTMAN: They just say it's a success and they don't back it up? What are the -- what's the metric for success? DR. NELL: I don't remember the numbers is what I'm saying. MR. EASTMAN: So there was less runoff and less into the water, but you don't know the percentages? DR. NELL: I don't remember the numbers. CHAIRMAN CARON: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is, on dense grass, dense turf cover, going through a blackout period, what happens to that turf? Does it really thin out much or -- DR. NELL: With time it's going to thin out. We've got a study in Fort Lauderdale right now that I think we've just ended two years, and we'll have some of that information. But I do not have it. It hasn't been published Page 12 of 79 4 �y 4 16 It. 2 A7may,9,i 2011 yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN CARON: With time, even with fertilizer, things are going to thin out over time. Everything has a lifespan. I mean, I think that lifespan will be longer, but -- DR. NELL: You know, I think if we're overfertilizing and overwatering, yes, but I think our fertilizer rates and our irrigation recommendations are such that we're not promoting overgrowth. Now, I'll admit, if you go back 30 years -- because we've lowered our fertilizer recommendations significantly since the'70s and early's'80s. In those days I would totally agree with you. I remember as a child I did it. On centipede grass in Pensacola, I wanted it to look really good, so I fertilized the heck out of it. CHAIRMAN CARON: It's your fault. DR. NELL: It's my fault. Hey, my mother even used to say, it's about to rain. Go put the fertilizer out. I now know differently, you know. It's good news. But those grasses won't take that. No plant will take a continued overfertilization and a continued overwatering, because we're going to end up with root damage, whether it is from the water, from the fertilizer, or from disease. It is going to give reduced growth. But I really don't think with the recommended fertilizer levels, combined with recommended irrigation levels, we're going to see that. CHAIRMAN CARON: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So what you're really speaking about is management on the fertilizer, the irrigation, so it's not just applying it; it is the whole management of everything? DR. NELL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. DR. NELL: And the reason being is really simple. I think as we look at this, it's often, you know, misunderstood. We're trying to find that silver bullet. And I think unless we broaden the conversation that it's a more complete system than just one component -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. DR. NELL: -- then we're not going to win, okay. That's the only thing I'm trying to do. And coming up this morning, I was in the elevator and somebody said, well, we might be on opposite sides. I'm not on a side. I don't represent a side here. But I do see that it's a total conversation about the management, with fertilizer being one component. We take one component out and people keep watering the same way, what are we going to do? We're going to leach the heck out of what available fertilizer's there, with weaker roots, and we're going to have more leaching and more runoff. That's the system. It's a basic plant system. So -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. You said, Mac, that you have people on the phone. We probably shouldn't keep those people waiting any longer. If they have -- want to weigh in, let's let them do that, and we can ask our questions of them and let them go. MR. HATCHER: Thomas Frick and Mike Thomas, I believe, are on the phone. Do you have anything you'd like to add? MR. FRICK: Yes, Mac. This is Tom Frick of DEP, Bureau of Watershed Restoration. I've got Mike Thomas here as well who was the main author on the model ordinance. And we appreciate the opportunity this morning to speak with you -all. You know, from our perspective we are here to answer questions that the commission may have regarding the model ordinance itself. The legislature adopted the model ordinance in Florida Statute back in'09, and that model ordinance was written by DEP ourselves, but we weren't writing it in a vacuum. It was based on a model ordinance by legislative task force back in 2007 which included Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, IFAS, DEP, and then representatives from the industry, environmental interests, and also city and county -- counties as well. So that was Page 13 of 79 �. 1612 A 7 r , May 19, 2011 the model ordinance that was written back in 2009. We revived that this year back in 2010, this prior year, I should say, back in 2010. We held public workshops for that revision. And the model ordinance, we recognize, is an ordinance for statewide. We recognize in the ordinance itself and then also in Florida Statutes that there may be local conditions that would prescribe something different than the model ordinance. And what our purview is when we're reviewing these model ordinances is to make sure that ord- -- local ordinances are up to and meet all the minimum requirements that are in the model ordinance, and then to outline what is in excess of that model ordinance, and then basically it's up to the local county or local cities and such to make a decision if they feel comfortable going beyond the model ordinance based on whatever scientific information that they have. So sort of with that, we're here certainly available to answer any questions that the commission or anybody has on the model ordinance itself or our comments or recommendations on the Collier County ordinance. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. You may begin. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Mr. Frick. Can you hear me? MR. FRICK: Yes. Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There are not a whole lot of questions I can ask you that -- this is so complex really, but -- and I'm trying to get a sense of it for DEP when you consider the ordinance here. To the extent of education of applicators, to what extent have you contemplated giving them a great deal more of education regarding the total management of the process as opposed to simply having to hone their skills in application? Did you understand my question, sir? MR. FRICK: Yes, yes, I did, and I'm going to turn that to -- over to Mike Thomas who -- Dr. Nell had mentioned the Green Industry BMP program that cooperatively IFAS and DEP administers, and Dr. Thomas here, with DEP, is actually the -- sort of the project manager about that and is -- helps with the teaching and can talk at length of what holistic practices we look at and that we try and incorporate in that program. I will tell you it's a very comprehensive program, and so we do look at holistic management. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When the rubber meets the road and we start teaching, initially anyway, the commercial applicators, you're saying that's holistic and that will give them a sense of the comprehensiveness that they need to appreciate? DR. THOMAS: Yes. This is Mike Thomas. The Green Industry's Best Management Practices grew out of the original BMP manual back in 2002. Until roughly 2007, it was a totally voluntary program. At that time City of Naples began requiring the program for people doing fertilizer application in the City of Naples. And with that, several other communities began doing it also. And we stiffened the program up also based on the recommendations of the legislative task force. The program has an hour of what I would call overview. And I say an hour; it's actually 50 contact minutes. You can get up and stretch. But the first hour is an overview of what is a unimportant (sic) source of pollution, why are nutrients a problem, what are their effects on storm -- on water bodies, what are the economic effects and the recreational effects and the biological effects? We get into federal law, the Clean Water Act, and also state laws, and we get into stormwater management in general and the -- the economic benefits of using BMPs in a business. And we've recently had a water hold (sic) video produced by the Rookery Bay group that has one of your local business owners talking about how many hundreds of thousands of dollars she has saved since she began using that program back in the early 2000s. The second module is about an hour and a half. That runs into the cultural practices, including plant selection, turfgrass selection, oil types that are in favor, shape, tolerance, things like this, mowing heights, fertilizer and water needs of the individual plants, and it also gets into landscaping, proper pruning, the watering and fertilization of landscape plants as opposed to the turfgrass, use of mulch, we touch on mangrove issues, a number of things like that. Then the third hour is on irrigation systems. We teach a little bit about the mechanics, because many of the people do not normally maintain irrigation systems. They may not -- that may not be their function in the world. They may not be irrigation contractors, but we make sure they understand how the systems work and the Page 14 of 79 161 2 A74ay 192011 components, we make sure they understand the effects of irrigation on plant life, and both over- and underirrigation and how that can harm the plants, cause runoff, cause leaching, how too little water can, you know, cause the roots to die and then when the rains come they wash away and you get heavy erosion in the area. On the other hand, too much water can also kill the plants because they don't get enough oxygen, and the roots are pruned. It makes them very susceptible to disease and to fungus. So it's very important to keep those right. We talk about the importance of proper spacing and that type of thing, and getting into general irrigation scheduling and things like that. Then we have an hour on fertilizers themselves, the actual fertilizer product, in which we address slow release and quick release and extended slow - release issues. We talk about liquid and solid fertilizers. And it should be noted that liquid fertilizers can be slow release. Some liquid fertilizers are long -chain polymers containing nitrogen, which have to be slowly broken down by soil microbial action before the nitrogen is actually available. So there are liquid slow - release products. A lot of people don't realize that. The -- this goes into also the handling of the fertilizers, the calculating of the proper application rates. First -- that Section 2 talked about what individual types of plants needed. This gets into how you calculate the proper application rates, when you should use certain types of fertilizers, what their effects on pH and salinity of the soil is and things like that. And then we finish up with an hour on pesticide issues, the laws concerning pesticide application. Many people do not realize that they must have a license to apply Roundup or Weed- and -Feed products commercially. A homeowner can do that without a license, but anyone who applies it and is paid to do so must have a license from the Department of Agriculture, the appropriate license with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. And we get into pesticide labels, pesticide safety, environmental hazards, spray drift, leaching, runoff, spills, safe handling and proper disposal. We then do a wrap -up and a written examination, which they must pass with 75 percent. Any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. Doctor, thank you. That was very comprehensive. Is it the same course that Josephine and Joe Average would be asked to take? I'm talking about your homeowner. DR. THOMAS: Homeowners are not required to -- by the law, to take any courses. The model ordinance calls for, of course, commercial applicators, which are required by state law to take them -- take that course. And along with that, a photo ID and an application form, they can then get their certification -- certificate from the state Department of Agriculture for commercial fertilizer application. The model ordinance also calls for institutional applicators, which is basically anyone who is applying as an employee for someone else, whether it be a government employee or a, you know, parks and rec or a condo association's maintenance man or anything like that where you're working for your employer. It's not state law that those people be trained, but it is in the model ordinance that they be trained. MR. FRICK: But the training is open to homeowners. DR. THOMAS: The training is open to anyone who wants to take it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's really where I want to go with this, and my next question would have been, had you said no, are we not concerned with homeowners and their misapplication potential, their knowledge base? But now you're saying that's available. So the next logical question is, do we have an adequate budget and facility and educators available to the public to be able to really set this in motion? DR. THOMAS: We have set it in motion. And the last -- since 2006, we've trained over 15,000. We have -- we have, yeah, trained over 15,000 people. And our target is to train up to 100,000 by January 1, 2014, when state law mandates it for commercial applicators. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Those are my questions. I appreciate your responses. CHAIRMAN CARON: It sounds like it was actually a good thing the City of Naples put in a stricter ordinance, because it made you step up and get that program off the ground of making sure that people were getting the training that they need to have. Page 15 of 79 1b12 A? " May 19, 2011 I'm wondering, gentlemen, if you're done with the comments that you have to make and the board it -- has nothing else right now, if you can hang on the line during public comments. One of our board has asked if you guys could hang in. If you need to go, though, we will understand. MR. FRICK: We can -- we will hang around. We can hang until about 11 o'clock. CHAIRMAN CARON: Good, great. Thank you. We appreciate it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Today we are just dealing with the fertilization ordinance, and complete management is quite different than what we're doing today. We all know that in communities that we live in down here people will turn on their irrigation system when they shouldn't be because they think their lawn is a little different. There is many, many things that go into this ordinance, but today we are only dealing with one component of this whole thing, and that can be confusing to people. They -- they really should know the whole picture, but you will not -- you're not going to get that on this. What do you feel the City of Naples -- have they been happy with their stricter ordinance? Do you know? DR. THOMAS: I believe that they are, I would say, reasonably happy. I do know that their Project Greenscape that they're operating there has received tremendous local support, and that teaches both the Green Industries Program, and it also has many other outreach components, including the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program, which is really designed for homeowners. And it's largely -- the differences between the program are largely audience based, in that, Florida Yards and Neighborhoods is directed toward the average homeowner who does not have a lot of professional training, as opposed to the professional landscape person who should. Maybe doesn't, but should. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Then my other question is, I would like to see what we do approve be pretty much like the City of Naples, because then all of Collier County would be treated the same. The landscaping companies that work in both areas wouldn't have a problem with that. So what would -- I would prefer to see something that is complete for the whole county of Naples (sic). We had talked about reviewing this in two years, and Pm sure different scientific things might come up in two years too, but -- on the fertilizer ordinance. Also, the manufacturers of the fertilizers, can they put on their bags a more friendly, more understandable way of doing it without being a professional? Have you spoke with any of them? MR. FRICK: Well, just one thing I would like to point out, and I'll turn it over to Mike Thomas to talk about some of the specifics. The city's model ordinance or ordinance, I should say, was passed in 2007 prior to the legislation in'08, and so that ordinance does not meet the minimum requirements. And I'm not sure, Mike, what the deficiencies are as far as meeting the minimum for the model ordinance. Do you recall that offhand? DR. THOMAS: I don't recall all of them. I know one is that they do not require all their commercial applicators to be certified. They only require a small percentage of company employees to be certified. We -- the model ordinance requires all commercial and institutional applicators to be trained. And, of course, the commercial applicators to get a DACS license after 2014. The other ones, I think they have a requirement that the urban turf rule be met, but I am not sure, because they may have passed that before the urban turf rule was passed. My memory's a little hazy on that one. And that's something I meant to bring up earlier. We talked about the one pound total nitrogen limit per application. Under the urban turf rule, the water - soluble nitrogen is limited to .7 pounds, and that is under state rule and that is the -- required on all the -- the labeling on all fertilizer bags sold in the State of Florida are based on that number, and that's why we asked in the urban turf -- in the model ordinance, rather, that the urban turf rule be cited, because that basically means that you need to follow -- at a minimum you need to follow the instructions on the label. CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Actually, my question is for Dr. Nell, if you don't mind. Page 16 of 79 4 ` 1 16 12 A "7 °' °'" Part of our discussions at our last meeting in looking at the blackout period was looking at just doing a blackout period of August, September, going with two months as opposed to four. What are your thoughts and/or recommendations on that? DR. NELL: I actually talked to my turfgrass specialist about that yesterday, or one of them. And if you look at our recommendations right now, spreading the four applications out over the summer, one of them's in late July, mid to late July, and then two months later. And recognizing that, you know, we have been saying every two months, that probably would fit. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. DR. NELL: At first when I heard about it, I wasn't sure, so I went to the experts. COMMISSIONER AHERN: All right. Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you put that slide up that shows the application. DR. NELL: Which one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The one -- and I guess it showed the leaching in the rainfall. DR. NELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN CARON: The graph? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. DR. NELL: That one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That one there, yeah. When you say every two months, do you mean every three months? DR. NELL: No. April to June is two months. June to August is two months. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. DR. NELL: It's the black arrows. So this is April 10th, this is June 10th, this is August 10th, and that's October 10th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then over the winter nothing then. DR. NELL: Nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's -- so there's a big gap from -- DR. NELL: We're not actively growing. I mean, in South Florida maybe, and in South Florida we may say, another one in two months. That's the reason you look at the range. In South Florida it goes to six pounds. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So during the winter we're not growing; is fertilizer being applied? And wouldn't that be a time in which most of it would run off? DR. NELL: Inmost cases. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that seems like a dangerous period, too. DR. NELL: Yeah. That's the reason we're showing this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. DR. NELL: And if you look at northern states, what they've done is actually banned fertilizer in some states from December 1 to March 1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So while you're not against -- you are against the blackout in the summer, you are in favor of a blackout during the winter? DR. NELL: Well, I'm not -- let me get away from the blackout. Let me talk about science, okay, so I don't get in trouble here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Blackout's more fun, but go ahead. DR. NELL: I understand, but I know where the landmines are, too. The facts, if you look at the root growth on a warm - season turfgrass, the root growth is not in December, January. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. DR. NELL: Okay. It would be wrong to apply the fertilizer at that time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. DR. NELL: Now, I'm going to say that. I'm going to have to go back. I don't think my turfgrass specialist will slap me but, you know, everything that I've seen would go against that. Page 17 of 79 s 1612A7 May 19, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So shouldn't we be addressing that in the ordinance? It's silent on that. DR. NELL: Very possible. I mean, I'll tell you the reason I don't think we've addressed it. And, Mike or Tom, you may have a comment on this. I haven't looked at fertilizer sales -- I usually don't -- you know, to see what's happening. But I -- I don't know of anybody who's fertilizing in December and January anyway. Mike, do you have any information? DR. THOMAS: I'm not aware of -- maybe in the very -- in South Florida on very high -end lawns, there may be some people doing it, but I don't think that is a recommended practice. DR. NELL: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there is a -- DR. THOMAS: And because as he's saying, it's not going to be taken up in any great appreciable quantity, and you're going to lose far more of it probably than you will take up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- DR. THOMAS: So, again, I'm with you. I would surrender to Dr. Sizar (phonetic) or somebody that studies turfgrass down in Fort Lauderdale on that. Because, you know, my experience is northern, but -- DR. NELL: And I think -- I think we have those data. If you want it, I can find out what it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that seems dangerous to me. If somebody was applying it every two months, they would -- a lot of runoff would be occurring when the plants can't take it up. DR. NELL: Well, if you go with what's in these four arrows, you have met our fertilizer recommendation of four pounds. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we should state in the ordinance, starting in April, apply it every two months and stop it in, you know, October. DR. NELL: Well, you're going to have to go in a little bit in October if you're doing late July or something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. But November -- in other words, you are recommending kind of a winter ceasing of, not using the "blackout" word. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, gentlemen. You're going to hang in with us, correct? MR. FRICK: Yes, we will. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. And, Ray, I guess, now you can start calling the rest of the speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The first speaker is Amber Crooks, to be followed by Gina Downs. MS. CROOKS: Hi. I'm Amber Crooks from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. We're here today on behalf of our over 6,000 members to support a more effective and stringent fertilizer ordinance for the protection of our water resources. We -- with the addition of the cap of the one pound nitrogen per application and with the exception of the shortened blackout period, we're in support of the ordinance as proposed today. Since our last meeting, the legislative session has ended and legislature reaffirmed, by unanimous vote, that local municipalities can have local fertilizer ordinances more stringent than the state model to deal with their local conditions and impairments. The legislature retained the following language; you see on the visualizer, and PIl just quickly read it. "Local conditions, including variations in the types and quality of water bodies, site - specific soils and geology, and urban or rural densities and characteristics may necessitate the implementation of additional or more stringent fertilizer management practices at the local government level." The state model specifically recognizes that more stringent measures are most appropriate when a municipality has verified water impairments such as Collier County's. Thirty -two percent of the county's water bodies, by area, do not meet state water - quality standards due to excess nutrients, and in many cases additional restoration or reduction in loading will be needed. One such case is the Gordon River. This area has been identified as not meeting state water - quality standards for dissolved oxygen, and the cause was determined to be from excess nutrients. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has set a cap called a TMDL on the total nutrient loading for this water body which lies in a largely urban area. There is no wastewater component to the loading lying within this water body, so the 29- percent reduction in total nitrogen will need to be from stormwater Page 18 of 79 A 16 1 7 May 19, 2011 improvements. The urban areas in the Gordon River watershed are estimated to contribute over 21,000 pounds of nitrogen per year or about four pounds per acre per year. The county acknowledges that to meet state - administered TMDL reductions, the addition of any nitrogen from fertilizers is problematic. One of the most cost - effective ways to begin to tackle this FDEP target is with a strong protective local fertilizer ordinance. Ultimately it is the local municipalities who will be footing the bill for the cleanup of this area; however, FDEP's letter to the county on the proposed more stringent ordinance was lackluster when they should be supporting these efforts. Removal of nutrients from the environment can cost one hundred to a thousand dollars per pound. The smartest and cheapest thing for us as taxpayers and for those concerned about water quality is to limit the amount of nutrients entering the system from the source. The more stringent measures recently instituted by Cape Coral -- and that includes a summer blackout period -- are estimated to save that municipality about five million dollars over 25 years, prolonging the life of their stormwater treatment areas that they've built. Freedom Park, a stormwater treatment area here in the city of -- is it in the county? CHAIRMAN CARON: City. MS. CROOKS: County, in the county was -- a stormwater treatment area, costs about $30 million. With a fertilizer ordinance -- while a fertilizer ordinance may not get us all the way there to our target, without a strong fertilizer ordinance we're going to need to rely more readily on these expensive structural and engineering fixes to the pollution issue. FDEP, as "the" agency tasked with water - quality protection, should be encouraging protective fertilizer ordinances, not asking us to fight our existing water - quality impairments with essentially one arm behind our back. Now, one thing I will point out from the FDEP letter they submitted to the county is that they seem to be fully in support of the 10 -foot buffer, citing that it's consistent with the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Handbook; however, their letter fails to mention that the handbook also supports the other stringent measures and actually includes discouraging use of nitrogen during the summer, suggesting to apply instead in March and October. And as we pointed out time and time again, there are numerous IFAS and FDEP articles that provide support for the more stringent measures. And I'm just going to kind of go through a couple of them. This one is from IFAS. It's from 2007, so this is not from the '90s or the '80s. This is all very recent stuff, and this talks extensively about the phosphorus issue. It says, time and time again, don't add phosphorus when your soils have it. This talks about the 50 percent slow release. It says, in light of potential environmental concerns, it's now recommended that no more than one -half pound of the nitrogen in the application -- of application be in the soluble form. Again, reiterating, only apply phosphorus when needed. Use a 50 percent. This is a -- the Florida Friendly Best Management Practices for protection of water resource by Green Industries. As you can see on the back, this is an FDEP and IFAS document. This is from 2008. This, again, talks about no more than half pound of water - soluble nitrogen per thousand square feet. And, again, about phosphorus. Phosphorus application should be limited to soils that require additional phosphorus based on soil or tissue testing. Here's the University of Florida. This is something that was referenced in your staff memo. I enjoyed reading it because it talks about low or zero phosphorus unless you have a soil test. Overapplication or misapplication can result in runoff, leaching, but not afraid to use the term "runoff." It talks about use of fertilizers not recommended if heavy rain is forecast in the next 24 hours. And it talks about a 10 -foot buffer. If you're fertilizing near any water bodies, leave an unfertilized strip. We've got South Florida Water Management District, 10- to 30 -foot no fertilizer buffer. This is from Southwest Florida Water Management District, and IFAS has got their logo on the back. This, again, talks about no phosphorus unless a soil test. Leave a 10 -foot fertilizer -free zone. Florida Yards and Neighborhoods, this is from -- again, on the back, FDEP and IFAS. This is from 2009. Never fertilize within 10 feet of a water body. Southwest Florida Water Management District. I just got this in the mail a couple of days ago. Heavy rain can wash fertilizer into water bodies. And here's a quote from one of the district staff. Says, "Lawns usually Page 19 of 79 . 4 16 12 AO 1 : , .x z May 19, 2011 accumulate decayed plant material during the dry season, which is a natural source of nutrients." If you add fertilizer and a heavy rain to the mix, all those nutrients can wash into water bodies, basically creating a buffet line for the algae. So I wonder, with all this information, if there's no benefit to these recommendations, what are they doing in these documents? One other thing I wanted to bring to light. This is from the World of Academia. This is just from February of this year. This is a recent study from University of Central Florida. In this study the soils are compacted, which is maybe different than some of the studies that are referenced by those who oppose more stringent measures, and may be more similar to what we see in the real world, and they also utilize a 4 -1 slope, which is similar to what we have in some cases of developments here in Collier County adjacent to canals, or other water bodies. Now, certainly this study, it was done by FDOT. It was for their highways, and that's certainly different than lawns, but it was done with the University of Florida Intended Consequences article in mind, it was reviewed by University of Florida and approved by FDEP, who helped them come up with the means to do their study, and it provides us another piece to the puzzle. This study compared a slow - release zero - phosphorus product with a standard 10 /10 /10 product. This study showed that we do have to be concerned with runoff in some cases. It also showed that with the right product slow - release zero phosphorus, the amount of nitrogen lost to the environment can be reduced by 67 percent. Now, I could go on more and more with the scientific and technical documents, but I know my time's limited, but I think you get the idea. The more stringent recommendations are not just pulled from thin air. They have a scientific basis, and that meets the requirements of the state statute. To suggest that ordinances and other municipalities that are more stringent than the state model are unscientific is really a disservice to the work of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and to the staff members who worked on those ordinances and researched them. We have the scientific information to proceed with the more stringent ordinance, and we encourage the county to do so. Last time we heard a lot of testimony against the more protective measures. And I've always been a little confused as to why the golf courses keep coming. Not that I don't love to see you. And I've got to say, after the last time, we're still a little confused, more confused even. I originally thought through this process, do we need golf course standards for our residential lawns? But now maybe it's not such a bad idea after hearing their testimony. Some of the testimony stated that they use three to four pounds of nitrogen per year, a 25 -foot buffer, zero phosphorus, fertilizing twice a year with a high - percentage slow - release nitrogen product. That all sounds pretty good to me. We commend them for instituting these BMPs; however, I'm left with a question: If we're already doing a lot of these things, then what's the concern? Narrowing it down, it appears to be the summer rainy season is the only thing left. Now, my understanding from one testimony was that 100 percent slow - release product gets the golf course through six months from April to September. Would it be fair to assert that a 50- percent slow - release product in a residential area could satisfy the turf for at least three to four months? Now, I know that they use the foliar application, but since that doesn't affect the root system, that seems to be icing on the cake. At risk for being accused of cherrypicking, we should state that in our research we did see this unintended - consequences idea in recent documents; however, we have some unanswered questions about unintended consequences. The white paper discusses that turfgrass absorb the most fertilizer nutrients during the active growing months of summer and that nutrient losses are greatest during other times of the year; however, we question, do we have the same months of dormancy in Southwest Florida that were utilized in formulating unintended consequences? Would Southwest Florida grasses be actively growing earlier or later than, say, grasses in the Panhandle? Some of the FDEP and IFAS documents talk about the warmer -- and this is a quote, "Warmer parts of Page 20 of 79 i e 1612AZ 19, 2011 Florida have year -round growing seasons." So these questions are unanswered in the article, yet the state model attempts to institute one ordinance for all -- for all areas of our greatly diverse state. Furthermore, how do we know that nutrient inputs from the near daily rainstorms and grass clippings which can provide pounds of nitrogen to a lawn, with the addition of slow- release fertilizer, is insufficient to sustain a lawn through four months of a rainy season? Unintended consequences is being treated as though it's conclusive; however, there's no scientific information that shows that under our local conditions that turfgrasses will die with the more stringent fertilizer ordinance measures. Only a few more things. Our local conditions necessitate a rainy season ban. The majority of our rainfall events are less than two inches. Scientific studies tell us not to fertilize when rain is predicted within the next 24 hours. Our area historically has some of the driest dry periods and some of the wettest rainy seasons. And from this chart, the typical amount -- the typical amount of time between rainfall events is about a day and a half during the rainy season. So that provides very little opportunity. And one last bit of information -- and I thank you for giving me a lot of time here -- is I wanted to bring up one last thing that I got from Charlotte Harbor Natural Estuaries Program. This you've seen before. This is from last time where -- that they had provided us information from water - quality sampling that showed after the date of their protective ordinance in place, that they showed an improved trend in dissolved oxygen. And what they were able to provide me is some information from a neighboring community, Charlotte County. In this case they're not -- and let me just tell you that Charlotte County of our Southwest Florida communities has the weakest ordinance. It was sort of a mixed bag between the state model and the more stringent. It didn't have the summer rainy season and it didn't have a cap on the nitrogen and -- in terns of the total amount per year. And here we see no trend, no decreasing trend, but no improving trend. So is that due to their fertilizer ordinance? We have -- you don't have the information to parcel it out, but I think it's important to note that their ordinance -- with their ordinance in place, they have not seen the type of improvements 10 miles away in Sarasota County with the more stringent measures have seen. They don't have TN or TP available -- information available for Charlotte County. The dissolved oxygen is all the information I was able to get from Charlotte Harbor. But one thing I can tell you is that Charlotte County commissioners, upon seeing the success of their neighboring communities, have decided to improve their fertilizer ordinance, and they just recently decided that they'd like to now go back and add in a summer rainy season and add in the four - pounds cap. So, in closing, I just wanted to tell you that there's no harm in going stringent now. The ordinance can always be modified if needed. And so we encourage the CCPC to err on the side of caution, on the side of the environment, which is to adopt the more stringent, more protective measures, including a rainy season ban. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. MS. CROOKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I recognize your position and I understand. I just want to be absolutely clear in my mind. You are advocating a ban through the summer when it's the rainy season, and you're advocating fertilization during the nongrowing period on the presumption that perhaps here in Southwest Florida and Collier County there really is some kind of a growing season; am I correct in that assumption? MS. CROOKS: That's correct, but I want to note, too, that the discussion that just occurred about is there -- would there, you know, be any benefit to doing something in the winter, we've not explored that. So -- and I don't have any -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Who are "we "? MS. CROOKS: The Conservancy. And I don't know that there's information out there, as they were discussing, but I think -- certainly think that's an interesting thought. But given the information that we do have, we're going to go -- we're proposing the four -month summer rainy season ban. Page 21 of 79 161 2 Af May 19, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, that's fine. But the gentleman who spoke, Mr. Nell or Dr. Nell, whatever his title is, I think is representing science, and DEP is on the line in case there's any question. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray? MS. CROOKS: Well, then maybe you should -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we really need to give the court reporter a break. Can you hold your question until after -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN CARON: Let's give her -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can do that, certainly. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thanks. I was not watching the clock and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, and -- okay. Well, I would have said something at 10:20 -- 30, but I figured, well, we'd cover this. I just want to -- rm not going to make any --much further. I just will tell you that you mention it, and perhaps not intending to say it in this way, "to err on the side of." And I have a real concern for the fact that the economic impact and the aesthetic impact on peoples and their lawn and so forth based on "erring on the side of caution" is a question that I have, and I don't wish to engage any further. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: We'll probably call you back, Amber. I think there are other people who have questions, but we do need to give -- MS. CROOKS: You'll hear from others who will comment to that effect who have experience, so -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Let's give Terri a chance to take a break. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Fifteen, ten? Ten minutes. Is that good enough for you, Terri? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, Ray. Could I ask everybody to sit back down, and we'll get on with this meeting. Now, before we go to the next speaker, I think somebody had a question for Amber. So, Amber, if you could just come up to this podium. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I think the guys are still on the phone. We'll see if we can get a response before -- I'm looking at the time. MS. CROOKS: Did you want me? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Did we lose the guys on the phone? CHAIRMAN CARON: I don't know. Do we still have our -- MR. FRICK: DEP's still here, but we're going to need to get off the phone here relatively soon. So if there's -- last few questions, we'd like to take those now, if we could. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I just wanted to see, before you guys go, if you had any response to the previous statements regarding your literature. DR. THOMAS: Just that much of our literature is voluntary recommendations, particularly BMPs and such. And as you know, there is a difference between a recommendation and a law as far as recommendations on fine homebuilding versus minimum building code, and that it is true that many of our publications that we use as teaching devices of voluntary -- for voluntary use are more stringent than the model ordinance, but the ordinance is mandatory, and the others are not. CHAIRMAN CARON: And the ordinance is a minimum ordinance? MR. FRICK: That's correct. DR. THOMAS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CARON: Correct. Okay, good. Thanks, guys. We really appreciate you hanging on and being available to us. That's really, really terrific, and we really appreciate it. And thanks. I know it's very difficult to hang on to a phone conversation this long. So we do appreciate it. Page 22 of 79 ib 12 A 7ay M 19, 2011 MR. FRICK: Well, we appreciate the opportunity. And if any questions come up over the rest of the discussion, feel free to forward those on to us. We'd be happy to respond to those in writing or clarification if needed. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you so much. MR. FRICK: Thank you all. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Amber? CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Now we can go on to -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Couple of questions. Sorry. MS. CROOKS: That's okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: You showed some information as far as what is being dumped into the Gordon River. Where does the City of Naples wastewater go? MS. CROOKS: Well, the information I presented is from the Watershed Management Plan and from the TMDL document. I talked about the loading. It's -- the wastewater facilities in the area are not within that particular water body. So in terms of meeting that goal, it would be needed to be -- come from the stormwater reductions. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So do you know where the wastewater goes? MS. CROOKS: They're -- are they downstream of that WBIDs? Yes, they're downstream of that particular water body segment. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. And do you have any information that shows how you determine the amount that -- that the fertilizer is the only thing running off? I mean, how do you know that the runoff of fertilizer is causing -- MS. CROOKS: It would be -- well, we're saying that it's a component of that. There's no way to really parcel out exactly -- maybe through modeling can provide us that information, but we don't have that currently. The stormwater component could be from different things like, you know, pet waste, for example, leaf litter. But a component also would be fertilizers. So that's a -- that's part of the equation. COMMISSIONER AHERN: It's just a portion o£ MS. CROOKS: A portion. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And my -- MS. CROOKS: A portion of -- a portion of the impairment and also a portion of the solution would be the fertilizer aspect. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. And my last question, does the Conservancy offer any type of education for homeowners currently, or do they plan on? MS. CROOKS: We do have some information that we'd be happy to share with the county regardless of the ordinance that -- of course, if it's less stringent, we'll have to modify it. But we've prepared some brochures and things with the other municipalities. Lee County, also, we've been able to communicate with them in terms of using some of their market materials to try and get the word out about a fertilizer ordinance, and they've told us that they'd be happy to provide that to other municipalities. Of course, if the -- if your ordinance is different, it would have to be modified because theirs is more stringent. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. MS. CROOKS: And then also we do have a stormwater outreach component at the Conservancy where we're out there discussing these issues, not just fertilizer, but many different issues about stormwater with interested parties, including residential communities. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, great. Thanks. And, Donna -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: No. I was going to say, my last questions, I wanted to see if Dr. Nell could respond as well. CHAIRMAN CARON: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But while he's coming up, I have an -- Amber, you can do this one quick. Page 23 of 79 S 61 2 A71 May 19, 2011 Do you see any difference between water bodies? We're talking about 10 feet. But would it be different with a tidal body versus -- essentially a borrow pit or retention pond? MS. CROOKS: They did not make the distinction. They've -- in all of the literature it says water body, and then if you go to the definition, it can be, you know, a canal, it could be a wetland. So they just speak generally about water bodies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the effect of fertilizer getting into the water body, is it identical, or there's some bodies it does not matter? MS. CROOKS: I don't think that it's -- that that information is distinct -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. CROOKS: -- in what I've reviewed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thanks. Go ahead, Doctor. DR. NELL: So what is the question? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I wanted to see if you could respond to some of the statements, and I believe there was some references to some IFAS material previously provided. DR. NELL: And I think in most of those where there was a mention of a 10 -foot buffer, the references were our references, and that's what we're recommending and we stick by it. So I have no problems with that. I think any time you start pulling a combination of publications and saying, "This says this and this says this," its difficult to say whether it's real or not real. And so that's the reason I made the point with the 2009 FYN handbook. The BMP manual and this type of conversation is how we get the real understanding of the issues and the causes and the potential solutions. You know, I've been at this too long. One of the things I come to realize is that there are facts and there's emotion. And while I'm a scientist, I have a practical side to me that says what we should be doing is truly coming together and where the county and IFAS and the Conservancy and DEP and others could find the resources, let's team up and do the right thing here and simply make it happen. But to say, you know, something isn't there or it's misstated, show me the proper wording, show me another publication that demonstrates that this is real or not real. I was talking to a gentleman -- had a great conversation -- that you're going to hear from. And, you know, when the recession hit, we know what happened in this part of the state, but I will tell you what happened to research money. It evaporated very quickly. Had that not happened, much of the -- what we're talking about, we'd be well on our way to having the answers. And we're continuing with the DEP project. But I think we would have seen more funding coming from national sources. I think we would have seen more funding coming from Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. They withdrew all their money, all of it, for BMP training in 2007. So it puts a major stop on everything you're doing. Now, that's not an excuse; it's just fact. So, you know, it's easy to pick out a sentence here and a sentence there. I'm about the whole package. And we -- we're trying to update it through websites, electronic newsletters, because we realize the 2009 document, DEP's paying for that document. We're delivering the information. I can't change it every day. We printed 25,000 copies, maybe more -- no, we printed 34,000 copies. I can't just go throw away, you know, 15,000 copies because one segment on iron and nitrogen needs to be revised. We've agreed it will be changed. We have agreed to the wording. We've agreed we're going to go in and change it on the website. I think that's the best we can do. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I think you make a good point about, you know, fact versus emotion, and I think that's part of the issue is that, you know, we're charged with looking at the scientific evidence, and it doesn't necessarily reflect a lot of opinion. But to adopt something because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy, if it doesn't -- if we don't get the direct end result isn't going to help. So thank you. Page 24 of 79 A 161 2 AFay 19, 2011 DR. NELL: And we've got to make sure that the correct end result, that the sampling is correct. That concerns me a little bit, too. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Ebert. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you. On the state model that we kind of have in front of us, when they are talking -- where it talks about the nitrogen and you have only a 30 percent, is this an older thing that we're looking at? Because you said you agree with the 10 -foot buffer. That's not what it says according to the state model. DR. NELL: The state model has three feet, I think. Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Handbook has ten. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. DR. NELL: I'll explain to you why. You know, Mike says that the three foot was to accommodate the commercial applicators who could do it correctly. FYN is 10 feet with some recognition of the homeowner situation of maybe not having the right spreaders, okay. I can tell you I've found some publications that say even two feet is adequate. Would I rather have five? Probably. You know, we could say a hundred would be better, you know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. DR. NELL: So it's tough to say. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I was looking -- I just happened to have this. Are you looking more at the protective provision in this or the state model? Because there are differences. I believe that everyone, except the protective revision (sic), is certification down at the bottom, which is good for everyone. Which model are you kind of looking at? You're talking about phosphorus, and there is -- they don't have a problem with it, and I'm going -- and as I said before, this is only one component of the huge picture. DR. NELL: Phosphorus, if you look at the University of Florida recommendations and you look at the Florida Department of Agriculture fertilizer rule, urban fertilizer rule, they are consistent, that once the turfgrass is established, test -- and you've got that in your draft -- test before you apply more. We mine phosphate in the state. More than likely you do not need phosphate, and we've said that time and again. And many of the fertilizer companies are now removing phosphorus, and that's a positive thing. So I think by 2012 you'll see a major, major change in that. But I think mostly what we're talking about here is nitrogen from various sources. I could give you some -- two really good brochures from NOAA. And it's interesting is -- NOAA scientists from University of North Carolina and University of Maryland -- and they don't put numbers on it. The gentleman who's going to speak later is going to talk about a number from Chesapeake Bay -- but they talk about five major sources of the nitrogen. And it's interesting that one of them is atmospheric nitrogen that can go as high as 45 percent, a lightning strike. I mean, so if we could just eliminate lightning, maybe we'd be okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I wish you could, too. DR. NELL: Of course, if it doesn't rain, we don't have a problem. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Mark -- oh, do you want to finish? MS. DOWNS: I never started. CHAIRMAN CARON: That was quick. MS. DOWNS: Be brief, be brilliant, but come on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Best presentation so far. MS. DOWNS: Wow. Gina Downs, and I'm here to represent Environmental Advisory Committee. We addressed this issue at our last meeting. I have a dropping -off point based on what we just heard from Dr. Nell, I think it is. It's interesting he mentions, you can read one report, it says one thing. These pages lead you to believe one thing. Another report leads you to believe something else. That's exactly what we found out at the EAC when we were reviewing this. We went through volumes of material. We looked not only within the state. We looked at the Chesapeake Bay models. We looked at Wisconsin. Page 25 of 79 161 2 Wisconsin. We were looking at federal publications, state, you name it, ad nauseam. We didn't find a completely reliable source. It pains me to say -- you like to think that science is the last bastion of truth and accuracy in reporting, but as you just heard, they've lost their funding. You'd be naive to think that -- that what you hear from an expert doesn't get influenced by political preferences these days, doesn't get influenced by funding sources. I think that's readily apparent when you look at the national level at global warming. As many experts say yes as say no. That was troubling to us at the EAC. What were we left to look at? We looked at the boots on the ground. We looked at what was happening, what you could reach out, touch, feel, and somewhat measure, although it's relatively new. There are 40 cities and counties throughout Florida that have put in place some kind of ordinance to control runoff into their waters, and that's what we're really talking about, what's going to improve our water quality. It's not about how can we make our grass greener or, you know, keep it thicker for those three or four months in the summer. The overall picture is, how can we influence our water quality? Now, normally my jumping -off point would be, do we have a problem with water quality? That's the first place to go. Well, we know we do. We have impaired waters. That's been validated by many sources. So we turned to, like I say, the boots on the ground. We're not looking at the lab results. We're looking more at what's been happening around the state. I'll just tell you from one -- talking about all the experts. The lawn -care specialists in one report have said that not fertilizing during the summer shows that the summer growth can remain perfectly healthy without fertilizers, although maybe not as green as some would like. Another study said summer fertilization leads to more frequent mowing which stresses the grass and makes it more susceptible to damage from disease and insects. I'm an economist. I'm not a green person, although apparently I'm kind of green today. What struck me in all of our studies, there - -1, several times, ran across the cost of cleaning it up once the nitrogen is in the water, and that jumped out at me. The EPA in 1999 estimated that at $100 a pound to remove nitrogen from water. Tampa Bay Estuary Program, which has been in place for years, they estimated that removal of nitrogen somewhere between 20 and $100 per pound. So with that background, let me jump to this very colorful PowerPoint. We focused -- like I say, we looked all over the state, all over the nation, and then we focused getting the ordinances from these different counties just in South Florida. Sarasota passed an ordinance in '07, and you can read it, Charlotte and Lee in '08. City of Naples passed their ordinance in'06. Now, it could be the city council passed it. It didn't go into place in'07. I heard someone else say it was '07. South Florida Regional Planning, which encompasses all those counties plus Glades and Hendry, unanimously, by a vote of 22 -0 in 2007, recommended stricter fertilizer ordinances. I talked to Mike Bauer at City of Naples preparing for this and said, do you have any documents? Do you have any numbers that show improvement? He said not yet. They're going to have those numbers, he hopes, in June. So I said, well, what are you seeing without the numbers? And he says, the visual will tell you. He said, everything we look at and can touch and feel and smell says there is improvement. The earlier one in the county -wise is Sarasota. Same thing for them. They are finding it. They have a water - quality report from February 2001. They say, yes, they have documented results of improvement in their waterways. Roberts Bay is their big one, and their intracoastal waterway as well. The next county was Charlotte County. This goes back to Bob Murray's questions, how you implement this program. How do you train people if you do put it in place? They have utilized in Charlotte County their extension agency. That's who's done the training for them countywide. They do not have numbers to bring back to you yet. But I talked to people in ten different counties and municipalities, and they -- no one said, gee, this looks to be a failure. They said, it's too early to come out with the numbers, but everything we think, see, smell, hear seems to be that there is improvement. Lee County. Again, this goes to the education question. Lee County focused on -- I know when Mark Page 26 of 79 1 612 y 19, 2011 Strain was here last month he talked about, how do you get this out to the consumer? Well, Lee County put these kinds of posters up in their Home Depots and Lowe's and the point place where you would buy your fertilizer. So they've stressed education and cooperation, not so much how can we penalize people who don't follow it. Someone mentioned Naples. In Naples, the way they partnered was with Rookery Bay to do their education. The Rookery Bay people got involved in this Greenscape Program. And as I mentioned, Mike Bauer says, yes, we see improvement. He's the one who sent me these pictures when I asked him if he could give me something to put onto the slides that would show improvement. Some comparisons between all those counties and the particulars of what they've done with their fertilizer ordinance. Charlotte did not do the four -month blackout. They're the only ones who have not done that. The buffer zone of 10 feet, yes, everyone implemented that. You can see Sanibel went a step further and took that out to 25 feet. The four -pound nitrogen, which is the -- pretty much the onus of what we're talking about, the only one who did not go with the four pound was Charlotte County. It's not that they didn't implement some kind of restriction; they put it on the grass type, and they did do a four -pound limit on Bahia, Bahia, whatever that grass is called -- Bahia. They had a three -pound limit on centipede grass. And the slide you saw earlier was related to St. Augustine grass. And in St. Augustine grass, that is known to not have as much runoff. So in Charlotte County they allowed up to six pounds per year per thousand on the St. Augustine grass. The 50- percent slow release, again, Sanibel exceeded what the other counties had done by requiring a 70- percent slow release. And, yes, all of them train the professionals, the turf professionals, in some way, shape, or form. I would like to have been able to bring you numbers, because I love numbers, but I couldn't get a handle on how many applications there are on a commercial basis here. I think people wonder, well, how is Joe homeowner going to know what to do. I think, given the number of gated communities and HOAs we have here, I think it's fairly safe to say there's a high number of commercial applications that go on in this county. So getting a handle on that, I think, would show measurable difference from the get -go. So what we have is surrounding counties and a regional planning highly recommending, already implementing, stricter measures, most showing pleasure with what they're seeing in the way of results, and our own city passing stricter measures. Marco Island has discussed this. They're right on the cusp. They're waiting -- they'd like to pass something, and they probably will, regardless of what the county does. They're waiting to see what the county does. In lieu of the county passing it, I believe they're going to go ahead and go with the same ordinance that the City of Naples has implemented anyway. So like I say, we were left -- at the Environmental Advisory Group, we were left with looking at what we can consider the boots on the ground, what are the experiences statewide and nationwide with people who have put in some sort of ordinance, and we were comfortable saying nobody has repealed them. The ones who have had study -- follow -up studies that give you the numbers are seeing in -- reduced nitrogen content. Those who don't have the numbers yet are telling you everything they can see and smell shows improvement. They don't expect that the numbers when they come out are going to be contradictory to that position. So they asked me to come here and relay that to you today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to reconfirm it. I know you said it the first time you said it; the second just now. So the EAC directed you to come here with this presentation? MS. DOWNS: Yes, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Very interesting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions for Gina? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Actually, I have one. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: What are your thoughts on doing the two -month blackout? Page 27 of 79 Y 1 612 y 19, 2011 Strain was here last month he talked about, how do you get this out to the consumer? Well, Lee County put these kinds of posters up in their Home Depots and Lowe's and the point place where you would buy your fertilizer. So they've stressed education and cooperation, not so much how can we penalize people who don't follow it. Someone mentioned Naples. In Naples, the way they partnered was with Rookery Bay to do their education. The Rookery Bay people got involved in this Greenscape Program. And as I mentioned, Mike Bauer says, yes, we see improvement. He's the one who sent me these pictures when I asked him if he could give me something to put onto the slides that would show improvement. Some comparisons between all those counties and the particulars of what they've done with their fertilizer ordinance. Charlotte did not do the four -month blackout. They're the only ones who have not done that. The buffer zone of 10 feet, yes, everyone implemented that. You can see Sanibel went a step further and took that out to 25 feet. The four -pound nitrogen, which is the -- pretty much the onus of what we're talking about, the only one who did not go with the four pound was Charlotte County. It's not that they didn't implement some kind of restriction; they put it on the grass type, and they did do a four -pound limit on Bahia, Bahia, whatever that grass is called -- Bahia. They had a three -pound limit on centipede grass. And the slide you saw earlier was related to St. Augustine grass. And in St. Augustine grass, that is known to not have as much runoff. So in Charlotte County they allowed up to six pounds per year per thousand on the St. Augustine grass. The 50- percent slow release, again, Sanibel exceeded what the other counties had done by requiring a 70- percent slow release. And, yes, all of them train the professionals, the turf professionals, in some way, shape, or form. I would like to have been able to bring you numbers, because I love numbers, but I couldn't get a handle on how many applications there are on a commercial basis here. I think people wonder, well, how is Joe homeowner going to know what to do. I think, given the number of gated communities and HOAs we have here, I think it's fairly safe to say there's a high number of commercial applications that go on in this county. So getting a handle on that, I think, would show measurable difference from the get -go. So what we have is surrounding counties and a regional planning highly recommending, already implementing, stricter measures, most showing pleasure with what they're seeing in the way of results, and our own city passing stricter measures. Marco Island has discussed this. They're right on the cusp. They're waiting -- they'd like to pass something, and they probably will, regardless of what the county does. They're waiting to see what the county does. In lieu of the county passing it, I believe they're going to go ahead and go with the same ordinance that the City of Naples has implemented anyway. So like I say, we were left -- at the Environmental Advisory Group, we were left with looking at what we can consider the boots on the ground, what are the experiences statewide and nationwide with people who have put in some sort of ordinance, and we were comfortable saying nobody has repealed them. The ones who have had study -- follow -up studies that give you the numbers are seeing in -- reduced nitrogen content. Those who don't have the numbers yet are telling you everything they can see and smell shows improvement. They don't expect that the numbers when they come out are going to be contradictory to that position. So they asked me to come here and relay that to you today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to reconfirm it. I know you said it the first time you said it; the second just now. So the EAC directed you to come here with this presentation? MS. DOWNS: Yes, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Very interesting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions for Gina? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Actually, I have one. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: What are your thoughts on doing the two -month blackout? Page 27 of 79 1612A 14 May 19, 2011 MS. DOWNS: I m sorry. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Two -month blackout? MS. DOWNS: Well, we went with the four -month blackout, the -- or almost five -month blackout. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. MS. DOWNS: We were recommending that. The one study showed -- in fact, this was South Florida Water Management came out in'09, and they talked about the prudency of bracketing that blackout period. They were recommending in'09 to do the fertilization before the blackout period and after and that that should be sufficient. So we were comfortable with that -- with going along with that position also. Okay? Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Good. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Richard Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I just have a few comments and really some questions that I think need to be asked of people who spoke. As I remember the conversation when we left off the last time, the Planning Commission's recommendation was to go with a two -month blackout, and let's have a scientist come and address the two -month blackout; that was what was being discussed. I don't believe it was a July, August, and September blackout. It was an August and September blackout, because I believe those were the rainiest months of the year. So the discussion was, let's hear from the scientists about what the impact of that was. And you've heard, I think, from Dr. Nell, who clearly is an expert in this field and has dedicated many, many years to study this issue, and he said that that two -month blackout period fits within the proposed -- fits within their -- if I'll -- a feeding plan, if you will, for grass. So you've heard from the scientists that, yes, the two -- two -month blackout period is supported in the science. You also heard from Dr. Nell who said he's a scientist. This is an emotional issue, and all you've been presented is emotional information from people who are supporting this blackout. You do not have a scientist here supporting the blackout. You do not have a scientific publication that says you need a blackout. In fact, DEP commented you do not need the blackout, that you need a scientific reason to go more stringent than the model ordinance, and your Conservancy has even said that you need a scientific basis to go more restrictive, and they haven't provided you with the science. In fact, when asked the question, how do you know that there is runoff occurring from fertilized yards into the Gordon River? The response was, they don't know, that it's a lot of factors that could be bringing nitrogen into the Gordon River. They never said that fertilizer is the problem and that this proposed fix will, in fact, fix the problem. There are no numbers that have been presented from other communities, no scientific studies to determine if their ordinance had any positive impact, or was it just because there wasn't that much rain that year. Were there other factors? I'm clearly not a scientist, but the scientists would do the study to determine what the factors are, and there has been no scientific peer- review study to support anything that has been said by previous speakers supporting a blackout period. The FDOT study that was mentioned, I think you should ask some more questions about that FDOT study, because I believe that happened in roadways and it was a compacted -- I think it was compacted ground. It was turf that hadn't been established. You know, that whole -- that whole study really needs to be analyzed in a lot more detail, and I think Amber -- I don't think she was relying on that study, but she certainly did mention it as supporting her position. I think there's a whole lot more questions that need to be asked and answered before you support a ban on feeding the grass when it's hungry, you know, at the risk of, you know, kind of analogizing it to the human body. You know, there was a comment made, well, you know, everything has a lifespan. So why don't we just -- what's the harm in depriving that grass from having food? Well, if you deprive the body from having food, that lifespan will shorten. And the data from Mr -- Dr. Nell Nell says, is that, if you don't feed the grass, it will impact the lifespan of that grass and ultimately, you know, create problems. Page 28 of 79 C' s ` e 16 112 A 19, 2011 Again, you know, this is just a layman's -- trying to understand this. You know, anybody who -- when you go through -- you know, I could lose a few pounds. The way to lose the few pounds is not to starve my body because I ultimately end up eating a bunch at the end of the day because I can't make it. The fertilizing protocols that they're talking about is feed it every two months and it will stay healthy. If you deprive it from when you need to do it, one, it will not be properly absorbed -- and Dr. Nell is the expert, and you need to listen to the scientists on this issue, not listen to emotion. So we have sat back and listened to the scientists. The question that was supposed to be asked of the scientists, is the two -month period supported? The scientists have said the total blackout is not supported, but a two -month blackout can be supported and the grass can remain healthy, and the nutrients will get to the grass and it will not run off and it will not leach into the water system. I think you need to listen to the scientists in making your recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. And if you have any questions of me, I'll be happy to answer them, but I do think that we need to -- we need to ask the Conservancy where their scientists are and where their peer- review scientific studies are to support the blackout. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Did you have a question? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question of Mr. Yovanovich. Mr. Yovanovich, are you here representing the golf courses pretty much, the ones who are exempt from this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, I am. And you know what, the golf courses -- exactly. And why are the golf courses here? Because as I said at the last meeting, was because what you're proposing is the wrong thing to do to manage grass, and they know grass -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: They know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and they're providing their expertise to this board even though they are not impacted by this ordinance. They don't have any -- you know, they don't have any risk by this ordinance but, you know, they need to get you the right information, and they're providing you the right information. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I do understand that. But they are exempt from this as well as the agriculture. What we're trying to do here is Mr. and Mrs. Homeowner. And there is a difference. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're doing more than Mr. and Mrs. Homeowner. You're doing every community's common area. You are doing every community's common area that is not maintained by Joe and Josephine Average. It's a -- it's being maintained by the professionals, and the professionals are being regulated by this ordinance. And we have said there are good things in this ordinance. We haven't said it's a bad ordinance. We're saying that the blackout period is not justified based upon the science, and the -- what you should be really thinking is, since they don't have a dog in the fight, if you will, you should give their testimony more credibility because they're not negatively impacted by any of this testimony. They don't have anything to gain by providing this information to you. It's -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I would just rather see --what I would like to see is all of Collier County having the same ordinance, is really what I'd like to see. That's why I asked about the City of Naples from those gentlemen, and they said they cannot find anything wrong with what the city has been doing. It would just be nice for these companies that go, that do lawns in the city and also in the unincorporated area of Collier County, that they are all the same. That one -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think they were asked the question, did the city do anything wrong? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did. I did ask one -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, you asked them if they were happy. You didn't ask them if they did anything wrong. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I asked them what they thought of the City of Naples and how they were with that, and they said they were happy with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't remember it that way, but we can go -- I'm sure we can go back and look at that. But I thought you asked them the question, did the city tell them whether or not they were happy, and you know -- Page 29 of 79 61 2" May 19, 2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: They're not having any problems with the stricter ordinance, I guess, is what I'm saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't know yet. We don't know. We don't know the studies. We don't know if their stricter ordinance has done anything to improve water quality. We don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: -- Marcia Cravens. MS. CRAVENS: I'm Marcia Cravens, and I'm representing the Sierra Club. I'm the co- conservation -- the co -chair for conservation for Sierra - Calusa Group. We have over 1,500 members between here and Lee County. They were very supportive of Lee County passing a fertilizer ordinance and very much support Conservancy's efforts and very much urge Collier County to adopt a stricter ordinance than the model ordinance. There's a lot of talk here -- one of the things that struck me is all this emphasis on turfgrass. And, unfortunately, I think when you have all this emphasis on turfgrass, it limits the discussion on alternatives, alternative landscaping choices, and that's one of the big parts of Florida Yards and Neighborhoods is choosing different plants and not continuing landscaping culture and choices that we bring with us from up north where it's a completely different growing season and conditions there. So I would like to see an emphasis -- I'd like to see this board recommend the -- take the recommendations that Mac Hatcher has and that the Conservancy has and recommend that it be adopted as the first step. I mean, we really need this first step badly. We do have impaired water bodies. There's your science. I mean, those bodies were assessed for nutrients. They were assessed for other criteria, and they were found to be in very bad condition. There's your science. And other counties are not finding that all their turf that might have been affected by a stricter ordinance than the model ordinance has died. So you don't have negative impacts from the ordinances that have been passed. And, in fact, in at least one county that Amber showed, they did, in fact, see improvement. And I think if they were finding negative impacts from their ordinances, we would know about it by now. It would have been evident by now. They've been in effect for a good three, four years now. One of the other things that I wanted to mention -- and I've been involved. I interviewed Mike Bauer and Alberto Chavez. He's the trainer for Rookery Bay on their best - management practice on the Green Program, and actually my husband and I helped to get it used in Pelican Bay. We did a lot of outreach and education. That's one of the pieces that's missing here is after you get this ordinance passed, there needs to be massive education, and I hope Florida Yards and Neighborhood is going to be re- energized in a big piece of it. But I think there's another piece that's missing, too, that I m just beginning to research and try and -- and address it to our government here, and that's the use of reuse /reclaimed water for irrigation because it's nutrient rich. We know it's nutrient rich. Our Board of Collier County has indicated that it's nutrient rich, and we don't know how much that has in impact. And so even when you're not applying fertilizer, if your community has reuse reclaimed water or you're using non - potable water to water your lawns or gardens, you're actually getting nutrients in that water. I don't know to what degree. I don't think it's really been looked at, but I'd sure like to see that it be looked at. So, once again, for the Sierra Club in our area, I would urge that you make a recommendation for a stricter ordinance, go with the blackout. It is not -- there is no harm proven to having that done, and we do have a problem with water quality. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Jerry Greeley. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Greeley was one of the people who passed out a bunch of information this morning that none of us have had the opportunity to digest. MR. GREELEY: I tried to make it easy. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. MR. GREELEY: I have dots, some markings on a couple of pamphlets, just a couple of paragraphs, nothing Page 30 of 79 5, 16 11'2 A 2ay 19, 2011 nothing really that requires a lot of reading time. But my name is Jerry Greeley, and I'm from Island Walk. Island Walk is a community of about 1,856 homes. We're built around 30 interconnected retention ponds that are about 12 years old at this point in time. That's about 170 acres of water that we're dealing with. At the last meeting of this Planning Commission, one of our residents, Herb Schuchman, advised you of the research and the learning that we've been trying to do in Island Walk, some of which -- same things that you've heard about already from these other folks. We've found that the average life of stormwater ponds, which we're most focused on at the moment, is about 20 to 25 years before dredging becomes necessary. And there's a book that I handed you this morning, Stormwater Ponds Citizens Guide, that was put out by South Florida -- Southwest Florida Water Management District that states that the dredging will be necessary in as early as 10 years in some cases, but 10 to 25 years. It goes on to say that there are other things that we can do to extend the period between this expensive and extensive project of dredging our ponds, such as adding aeration, control of chemicals including insecticides, weed killers, carwash detergents, control of all chemical organic waste that goes into the ponds, prevention of grass clippings getting into the ponds and storm sewers. These are just a few of the elements that need to be addressed before we can maintain healthy, beautiful ponds. But we've also learned that, along with these factors, we have to control fertilizer runoff. We must control the methods that are used, we must control when it is done, how much is used, and where it is done. All of these controls are just as important as the previous items that I mentioned to try to make our ponds healthy. I've listened intently at previous meeting and this meeting, you know, people talking about the fact that fertilizer doesn't move even under the -- even under -- with rain under two inches. If you read the studies that they're relying on, for the most part, a lot of them were done on level ground with no slope, and it says that in the study. In other cases it doesn't even say if there's a slope involved where the tests were taking place. The slope behind most of our houses in our particular community -- which you can see on the map here is a very large community -- on the north side -- this is north. This is Immokalee Road. That's 951. This is Island Walk. Down here we have a number of communities that surround us that are on retention ponds that flow in to our community in two different locations, and we deal with whatever they send us out of their retention ponds, plus sheet flow that occurs through downpours and so forth. We have a golf course immediately behind our community. So, needless to say, we're very concerned about what's coming to us from these other places, which will impact us severely, we think. Like I said, 15 to 30 degrees is the slope that exists in the 10 -foot buffer zone behind almost every home in our community. Does anyone really believe that rain and irrigation water do not carry fertilization into ponds and groundwater, especially when there's a slope involved? And I seriously doubt that fertilizer defies the laws of gravity in Collier County. I mean, we know that it's going to flow down if you get enough rain with fertilizer. Southwest Florida Water Management District states in their handouts that I've given to that you that too much fertilizer applied to landscapes, it seeps past the root zone in the grass, the plants and the trees, and into the Florida aquifer or runs off into water bodies. The same publication from Southwest Florida Water Management recommends waterfront owners establish a 10- to 30 -foot buffer zone with no fertilizer, no pesticide along their shoreline. You know, most of us were told as children that experience is our best teacher. As we watch our lakes and ponds suffer from fish kills, which we've had in Island Walk, algae blooms, noxious odors, and the absence of bird population from a number of years ago that we used to have, common sense and experience tells us something has to be done. There are over 40 counties and municipalities we've found and cities in Florida that have already passed more restrictive fertilization laws, and some have been in effect for a number of years, as we heard earlier. Our committee made direct contact with ten of these communities; all agreed that they did not have even one negative affect from the more restrictive standards that they've put into place. Page 31 of 79 16 12 19, 2011 Additionally, two offered that they now need less water to keep their grass. Their positive experiences in the extensive research that we've done have prompted Island Walk to pass our own restrictions which were in line with the resolution of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. So you wonder what has happened to our God -given senses. Have any of us driven into the City of Naples -- and I'm sure you have, and you've not seen dead or brown grass. Residents would never tolerate it, for one thing. I know our residents wouldn't tolerate that. They've had restrictions in place there for over two years. As Gina mentioned, you know, there are a number of other municipalities and counties, Orange County, Marion County, Pinellas County, Sarasota County we found, Venice, City of Sanibel, City of Fort Myers, as well as the City of Naples that have already passed more restrictive. So is it no longer valid in Collier County that experience is our best teacher? I mean, we wonder. Pinellas County, which I think is one of the more progressive, advises their residents to fertilize like a Floridian. It's illegal to fertilize from June the 1 st to September the 30th. They realize that slow - release fertilizers spread before June 1 st will still be viable during the summer months. They also realize that irrigation systems using retention ponds or reclaimed water also return nutrients back to the turf as well as the grass clippings and so forth that fall there. They also realize that there are other alternatives to keep grass green if necessary. Communities must be educated on the many alternatives to fertilizing during the -- to alternatives to fertilizing in the summer months. No fertilization nitro- -- fertilization with nitrates or phosphates is particularly important during the rainy season because this is the time of year where the water has the least oxygen. A healthy pond must have oxygen saturations of 5 to 15 parts per million. When levels go lower, fish die, algae blooms increase, and odor may exist. As we've said before, the average life of the stormwater ponds is 20 to 25 years before dredging becomes necessary unless proactive measures are taken. No matter what we do, dredging will some day be necessary. And Island Walk has installed an aeration system just recently at the cost of $320,000 in an attempt to buy time before we have to dredge. hl addition to having passed our restrictive fertilizing regulations -- and we're doing other things like evaluating our irrigation process and system -- we've set up a reserve already to prepare for that multi - million - dollar expenditure that we're going to have to make, and we're restricting vendors' access to the community. If we catch them dumping into our lakes or into our storm sewers -- which we've caught a number of them doing -- carpet- cleaning companies, construction companies. You wouldn't believe what they dump down our storm drains, which go right into our lakes. We plan to advise our residents of all of the alternatives for cleaning materials and so forth in an attempt to get them to use more green material, as well as the vendors who come into Island Walk. We think that Island Walk is going to be fine by virtue of the steps that we are taking at this point in time. We have a very proactive board, a large number of volunteers that care enough to invest a lot of their time and experience. But what about the vast number of communities who are totally unaware? Most of whom are around us at this point in time, they just do not understand. All the water in Florida is interconnected in some way. These communities with water must learn why and how to maintain the water that they've been given stewardship over that eventually flows into the gulf. And time is needed to help raise this awareness so that we can all be prepared and maintain these healthy bodies of water. We think restricting fertilizer will help buy time for this education process to occur. Island Walk is trying to do its part. We're initiating an outreach program to try to help raise the awareness, starting with those communities right around us and hopefully help them prepare for the future, and we'd just like to see Collier County do the same thing. And I'd like to remind you again, fertilizer does not defy the laws of gravity. We know that it will flow down, and particularly when you're dealing with slopes, which most of these communities were built that design. And that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Mr. -- I think Mr. Schiffer has a question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And since you really have experience with this in your lakes, are you -- you're using your lakes now to irrigate? Because it would make sense, since the nutrients are flowing in, that you pump them back up onto the lawn. MR. GREELEY: We are. Page 32 of 79 r l 16 112 A71,aylOoll COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR, GREELEY: We irrigate from our lakes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is that -- I mean, so couldn't you theoretically achieve a balance there where the lakes aren't -- doesn't have a high level of nutrients or -- MR. GREELEY: Well, I guess I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. We are trying to control all the factors. Right now we know that the nutrient levels in our lakes are high, higher than they should be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GREELEY: We know that the inflow from these other communities is much higher than what we already have in our lakes. Yes, we're irrigating back onto our land. We put in a four -month blackout period as part of our restriction, and we believe that that will also keep our grass looking good through that blackout period because of the irrigation that's coming back out of those lakes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you use the nutrients out of the lake. Are you keeping data on what's happening to the lake? MR. GREELEY: We have started doing that. We're about a month and a half into that. We've only had our aeration system in a month. We just started our whole project in September of last year studying this whole problem that we've been faced with. And so we're new at it, but we are starting water testing. We've done some of that already. We're starting soil testing at various locations in our community as well as at various locations back from the waterline trying to evaluate exactly what's happening. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the algae blooms, are they seasonal, or once they start they just grow till they clog it and you've got to go in and wipe them out -- MR. GREELEY: Well, I mean, they're pretty much seasonal. But, yes, I mean, once they start, you're -- then you start pouring chemicals in to try to deal with that. And, again, another big point of certain for us, the amount of chemicals that we're throwing into the lakes on a continuous basis, which ultimately end up in the sediment in the bottom of the lakes, and sometime we're going to have to dredge, which potentially may be toxic waste. Some of the literature that we've read so far could be treated that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the season when it starts or gets worse? What's your experience? MR. GREELEY: Usually it's the summer months where we see the worst situation so, you know, June, July, August. Our ban starts in June. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GREELEY: Mid June. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Thanks for that info. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Question. Do you treat your lakes on a regular basis, have you over the years, on a regular basis during the year? MR. GREELEY: We've had to, yes, right, we have. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: From day one you've always had your lakes treated? MR. GREELEY: They've been treated in some manner, even when the developer started the community almost 12 years ago. He did some treating of the lakes, some mechanical and some chemical from the beginning. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. GREELEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Sally Kirk. MS. KIRK: Good morning. I'm Sally Kirk, and I live in Longshore Lake, which is a gated community in North Naples. We have an 88 -acre, 21 -year -old lake that serpentines behind more than 500 single - family homes. The lake is our backyard, and we also irrigate from it. And, yes, we do treat it. Our water permit mandates that we treat and care for our lake. Two years ago, when I was president of our homeowners' association, we experienced major algae problems in our lake. The algae was so widespread and thick that it clogged our intakes to our irrigation pumps. Such algae Page 33 of 79 161`2Q� " May 19, 2011 blooms drew complaints from several residents, one of which threatened to sue me, incidentally, regarding possible toxins and reports of respiratory problems. Sales in the community suffered when potential homebuyers saw the clumps of algae floating in the lake behind our homes. Longshore Lake was becoming Longshore Swamp. During my research to resolve the problem, I discovered that water runoff from fertilizers caused nitrogen and phosphorus to pollute lakes such as ours, particularly during the rainy season. During the rainy season the lake's temperature rises significantly. It's in the upper 80's, possibly 90 degrees, and that's the time when the algae blooms more. The algae loves the heat. Jerry's already talked to you, and as other people have already told you about the other municipalities and counties in Florida, everyone it seems, except Collier County, has stringent fertilization laws. You consider that Collier County is probably one of the wealthiest and one of the most educated counties in the whole State of Florida. It's very disappointing to me that we don't have the same ordinances that some of these counties -- these other counties have. Sarasota County, for example, passed an ordinance in 2007 and has had a ban on the summertime use of fertilizer for three full rainy seasons. According to Jack Merriam, Sarasota County's senior environmental manager, there have been no negative consequences from this ban. In addition, there have been neither massive algae blooms nor spikes of nitrogen before or after the restricted season. Prior to the restrictions, heavy rain would wash downstream into the state's waterways causing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution like one of a few summers ago that stretched 14 miles across Tampa Bay. Pinellas County has a summertime ban on sales as well as the use of fertilizer, and Tampa lies within Pinellas County. In an effort to resolve Longshore's problem, I initiated a fertilization ordinance which our board of directors approved for the community. The ordinance was based on both the City of Naples ordinance and that of Lee County. Our policy calls for no fertilization from June 1 st to October 1 st. Fertilizer is prohibited within 10 feet of the lake, can have no phosphorus, and must be a 50- percent slow - release nitrogen. In that two -year period, our algae problem has declined dramatically. Our lake is more than 20 years old, so we still have issues with settlement, but our algae is negligeable. In fact, if you were to drive out there today, you'd see we have absolutely no algae in our lake. We hand out fliers to our landscapers at the gate in the fall and the spring written in English and in Spanish advising them of our ordinance. Longshore has 90 different landscaping companies that service our homeowners, and they all sign a promise when they come through that gate to abide by our law. Failure to do so could prevent them from doing business in our community. We're serious about this ordinance. The values of our homes depend upon its success. Collier County needs a strict fertilizer ordinance that includes a ban on summer fertilization, as well as a possible ban on summer fertilizer sales, like that recently initiated in Pinellas County. The health of our stormwater ponds, canals, tributaries and ultimately our bay and the gulf depends upon it. Each one of our stormwater ponds ultimately drains down into the gulf and into the bay, so that's something to consider. I'm a master gardener who is trained by the University of Florida's Extension Service, and I care for my own yard, as you can tell by all of my skin cancers. I've also been the chair of our landscape committee for several years. In 18 years at Longshore, I've only fertilized twice a year and used slow - release fertilizer. My grass is thick and green, as are most of my neighbors. I support the more strict law recommended by the advisory council. I don't need scientific proof. Seeing is believing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, Ms. Kirk. Does anybody have any questions for her? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, thank you. Page 34 of 79 4 -i COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Sally, do you -- does your irrigation also come out of your ponds? MS. KIRK: Yep. 1 % A ay 15,1011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Most communities, most of the gated communities, is it -- it's pretty much from your retention ponds that -- MS. KIRK: Well, I know Quail Village, which is across the street from us, and -- Quail Village draws theirs from their lakes, as does Longshore, and I believe Quail Creek does as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So it's pretty much coming from the retention ponds and -- MS. KIRK: Yeah, right. We take our water from the retention pond. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Ray, how many more speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: Four more. CHAIRMAN CARON: Four more. Panel? It is now noon. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Whatever you want to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's do the four, then we'll -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Let's do the -- I think so, too. And those of you who are going to speak, if you have some really new information for us, that would be fabulous. Let us know whether you're for or against obviously, and we can probably move this along. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker is Frederick Talbott. MR. TALBOTT: Hi. Good to see everyone. I didn't bring any photographs because the photographs of the harmful algae blooms seemed to spook everyone last time. So -- I've got a couple of slides, though. And I'm also excited that Dr. Nell is here from the University of Florida -- we were just chatting -- because he led me on an adventure yesterday. He didn't know it until today, but he led me on a great adventure, and it was pretty exciting. Many of you have been following HB457 up in Tallahassee, and that was the attempt to limit what we could do on fertilizer. And on March 23rd there was a hearing the Florida House Committee -- rather Community and Military Affairs Subcommittee -- and could put this on there -- and Dr. Nell, of course, participated in the hearing, and he was asked about -- and you clarify, please, for me, okay. Come on up if you'd like. DR. NELL: No. MR. TALBOTT: He was asked about the impact of landscape fertilizer on water bodies, and he didn't really have direct studies, as we've heard today; there are not that many direct studies on this. But he did cite the Chesapeake Bay, and the Chesapeake Bay, at the time that he had his discussion, he mentioned that it had a 3- percent impact on the Chesapeake Bay. This surprised me a lot and it really hit home, because as you know from voice, I'm a Virginian, and I also lived on the shore of the Chesapeake Bay for many years, and I was also the lead investigative journalist for the Virginian Pilot covering the Chesapeake Bay for six - and -a -half years. And I covered this in the late'70s and early'80s, and many, many studies that came out, and it kind of surprised me the 3 percent, because I thought it was much higher. He -- we were just chatting, and he mentioned that this came from a -- and what was it, again, a model from roughly 1997, and that's now been clarified, and lots more studies have occurred. Now, you think this is the Chesapeake Bay, we're in Collier County, what has that got to do with anything? But it's got a lot to do with everything. And I've got some great news and it's wonderful news. And I'd like to pass this -- if you would pass it to everyone up there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're not going to be able to read it. MR. TALBOTT: And that's because we couldn't have better timing. Because today, about an hour ago, the governor of Maryland signed a remarkable law, and this law -- and I'll get everyone to pass it along -- and this law will manage commercial and residential use of lawn and turf fertilizer for the entire state of Maryland and the entire Chesapeake watershed impacted by the state of Maryland. And now what they've got for the entire state of Maryland, after the governor signed it this morning is, they have to have a 15 -foot fertilizer -free buffer along all waters in the state of Maryland. Not one county, the entire Page 35 of 79 1 612A? r4 May 19, 2011 state. If you use the shield, it's ten foot. If you take a look at the underlining in here, you'll see that this settles a few things. And I'm going to tell you about the research that went into this. They had the best research in the United States and in the world. This has been first contentious and then cooperative. And all of the communities -- as Dr. Nell mentioned today, all the communities did something very wise that I'd love to see us do here in Florida; they all came together, green industries, fertilizer industries, all the eco groups. And the very, very intelligent and very water - sensitive members of the Maryland community -- because Maryland's a water state, as you know. You've been to Maryland, you've been through there, you know you have the crab cakes, you've had all of that. In Maryland roughly 14 percent of the nitrogen and 8 percent of the phosphorus pollution to the Chesapeake Bay can be traced back to urban and suburban non -point sources, predominantly fertilizer runoff, fertilizer runoff. The goal of this bill is to prevent runoff. Take a look at underlining. Watershed -wide, acreage maintained in lawns now exceeds corn in the Maryland area and is fast approaching all row crops combined. Refusing runoff from lawns increasingly matters. They have the science. They have it by the bucketloads. Now, I called the governor's office of Maryland and Virginia yesterday. That's how I was led to this. I also called the key eco agencies in Maryland and Virginia. And I also called a young man named Tim Wheeler. Now, Tim is the lead investigative reporter covering the environment for the Baltimore Sun and one of the top environmental reporters in the United States. And he said, well, you also may want to take a look at some of these resources, including Chesapeake Bay.net, which is a consortium of all the state agencies and all the interest groups and what they found regarding the impact of fertilizer storm runoff. And if you would take a look at this chart, urban/suburban runoff, okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: You're going to need a hand mike. MR. TALBOTT: Okay, sorry. Great, thanks. Urban/suburban runoff. That's the yellow, okay. And then, of course, as we were just talking, wastewater. Got to work on that as well. All right. And then if you take a look at this -- and as we've talked about, the '97 model is outdated because the blue on this chart is stormwater runoff mainly due to fertilizer runoff, okay. And like I said, they've got literally a thousand -- a thousand sites, studies, whatever, from almost every state in the nation and many -- you know, many foreign nations to put together the research on this. Let me show you what can happen with all of these impact. This is the northern part of the Chesapeake Bay and the most populous area, Baltimore, Annapolis, okay. A lot of homes there, a lot of lawns, but also a lot of boats, because people up there are water people, and they want clean water, just like all of us do. But this is what happened and what prompted them to act. With all of this impacting the bay from here to here, 80 miles on most eco maps, is jet black, because what they have there is a dead zone. If you buy crab cakes in Baltimore today, you probably will not eat Chesapeake Bay crab, because nothing lives in the dead zone. There's no oxygen in the summer months, nothing, zero. We used to fish there as -- when I did as a young man. There's no fishing there now. They literally killed part of my Chesapeake Bay. So I brought this in just because the timing was incredible, and it led an entire state to ban fertilizer use within 15 feet of its water year round. I'd like to address two other things -- I'm out of here, I promise. One speaker today, Mr. -- is Yovanovich, right -- Yovanovich was here. I guess he's still here? He said something that surprised me. Because I like what Dr. Nell said. He said, we're going to talk science. We're going to talk science. Then Mr. Yovanovich said this, and I quote, pretty good at getting quotes, former reporter, attorney. Okay. I'm only representing me, no one else. Quote, "Fertilizer will not run off and will not leach." That's a direct quote, and you'll see it in your records today when you transcribe that thing. And I was hoping he'd still be here, because I wanted him to prove it, because rve seen it. I've seen the results of it. We had one -third of the year in 2010 -- and right behind my house -- a harmful algae bloom, Cyanobacteria. I've already given you handouts on what that could cause. Page 36 of 79 16 12 A7 - -4 May 9, 2011 And Pm the one with the grandfather who, for two weeks, had to just stare out of our great room, couldn't even approach the lake, couldn't go fishing, couldn't look for frogs, because we had what resembled human sewage on our lake for four months, all because our neighborhood didn't do what our neighbors at Island Walk did. Our neighborhood in Village Walk got all kinds of information from me and my wife and then decided to continue fertilizing with phosphate fertilizer within three feet of the shoreline even during the heavy rain months. And last but not least on the heavy rain months -- I also called the National Weather Service last -- yesterday. I covered that for the Virginia Pilot. Got a lot of friends and know a lot of the offices there. So I called three different groups with the National Weather Service, and I asked them a question about our June and July question, whether or not we should allow fertilizing then, because the last two June and Julys I've seen incredible gully washers, downpours, remarkable heavy rains hit our neighborhood. You couldn't go to the car, looked like a waterfall coming. Then I've seen fertilizing just before one of them, just before one of them, and then the rains hit. So I asked my friends at the National Weather Service this: Do you know of any meteorologist in the world who can predict, within 24 hours, whether or not that rain is going to fall on a particular point on the map? And in all three of the agencies, do you know what they responded? All three of them laughed at me. They said, that's the craziest question we've ever heard. But if we allow fertilizing during June and July when we get those gully washers, we're saying that landscapers can do that. They can. do what the best meteorologists in the world absolutely say they cannot do. And that's why I'm suggesting the four months, just in case, because we don't want another one of those. Last but not least, we're going to get some stories. When I first met you, I told you I wanted to write a story about Collier County because I caught 15 bass in an hour and a half, and I was amazed. We're finding shells everywhere. We love the skies, we love the people here, everything about it. I want to write a story. I wanted to pose a story to the New York Times, but something really cool happened when I talked to Tim Wheeler. He said that the Association for Environmental Reporters is going to have their annual meeting in Miami. It's all of them in the country. And he said this is a national story what we're doing here. So I invited all of them over here to Collier County. I'm going to be over there, probably going to be giving a talk, and I want them to see our county, I do. I want them to see our west coast, because I think we're making some inroads here, and I think it is a national story. And I'm going to have about a swarm of -- I hope about 200 reporters coming in next September, October to take a look at what we do, and -- because I think this is -- this is paradise. So thanks a bunch, appreciate it, and thanks for this wonderful mike. Helped a lot. Any questions at all? CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, Mr. Talbott. MR. TALBOTT: Thank you very much. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Dailey McPeal (sic). (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably went to lunch. MR. BELLOWS: Dean Bryant? MR. BRYANT: Hello. My name's Dean Bryant. I'm -- didn't plan on speaking today, but I feel compelled to, listening to the correspondence. I'm an industry professional, been in the industry for 22 years, licensed in all categories, including -- I am a state BMP instructor to be doing the BMP instructor training. And I just want to give you some food for thought. The conversation --the comments back and forth were said multiple times about -- and said there was no impact associated from the blackout. And I have the privilege of -- I cover the western side of the state all the way up to North Florida and Louisiana. My company has 73 offices in the state. And my -- I fulfill a quality- assurance technical position where I'm in the field looking at properties and training applicators almost on a daily basis. And one of the interesting things that's taken place is I have -- again, work in Sarasota as well as the -- Naples and been a part of implementing the ordinances as they came along, and our company has taken a high road and has been in compliance from the get -go. However, one of the interesting observations that our company has made and it continues to make is, for Page 37 of 79 ra 16 12 A7 - -4 May 9, 2011 And Pm the one with the grandfather who, for two weeks, had to just stare out of our great room, couldn't even approach the lake, couldn't go fishing, couldn't look for frogs, because we had what resembled human sewage on our lake for four months, all because our neighborhood didn't do what our neighbors at Island Walk did. Our neighborhood in Village Walk got all kinds of information from me and my wife and then decided to continue fertilizing with phosphate fertilizer within three feet of the shoreline even during the heavy rain months. And last but not least on the heavy rain months -- I also called the National Weather Service last -- yesterday. I covered that for the Virginia Pilot. Got a lot of friends and know a lot of the offices there. So I called three different groups with the National Weather Service, and I asked them a question about our June and July question, whether or not we should allow fertilizing then, because the last two June and Julys I've seen incredible gully washers, downpours, remarkable heavy rains hit our neighborhood. You couldn't go to the car, looked like a waterfall coming. Then I've seen fertilizing just before one of them, just before one of them, and then the rains hit. So I asked my friends at the National Weather Service this: Do you know of any meteorologist in the world who can predict, within 24 hours, whether or not that rain is going to fall on a particular point on the map? And in all three of the agencies, do you know what they responded? All three of them laughed at me. They said, that's the craziest question we've ever heard. But if we allow fertilizing during June and July when we get those gully washers, we're saying that landscapers can do that. They can. do what the best meteorologists in the world absolutely say they cannot do. And that's why I'm suggesting the four months, just in case, because we don't want another one of those. Last but not least, we're going to get some stories. When I first met you, I told you I wanted to write a story about Collier County because I caught 15 bass in an hour and a half, and I was amazed. We're finding shells everywhere. We love the skies, we love the people here, everything about it. I want to write a story. I wanted to pose a story to the New York Times, but something really cool happened when I talked to Tim Wheeler. He said that the Association for Environmental Reporters is going to have their annual meeting in Miami. It's all of them in the country. And he said this is a national story what we're doing here. So I invited all of them over here to Collier County. I'm going to be over there, probably going to be giving a talk, and I want them to see our county, I do. I want them to see our west coast, because I think we're making some inroads here, and I think it is a national story. And I'm going to have about a swarm of -- I hope about 200 reporters coming in next September, October to take a look at what we do, and -- because I think this is -- this is paradise. So thanks a bunch, appreciate it, and thanks for this wonderful mike. Helped a lot. Any questions at all? CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, Mr. Talbott. MR. TALBOTT: Thank you very much. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Dailey McPeal (sic). (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably went to lunch. MR. BELLOWS: Dean Bryant? MR. BRYANT: Hello. My name's Dean Bryant. I'm -- didn't plan on speaking today, but I feel compelled to, listening to the correspondence. I'm an industry professional, been in the industry for 22 years, licensed in all categories, including -- I am a state BMP instructor to be doing the BMP instructor training. And I just want to give you some food for thought. The conversation --the comments back and forth were said multiple times about -- and said there was no impact associated from the blackout. And I have the privilege of -- I cover the western side of the state all the way up to North Florida and Louisiana. My company has 73 offices in the state. And my -- I fulfill a quality- assurance technical position where I'm in the field looking at properties and training applicators almost on a daily basis. And one of the interesting things that's taken place is I have -- again, work in Sarasota as well as the -- Naples and been a part of implementing the ordinances as they came along, and our company has taken a high road and has been in compliance from the get -go. However, one of the interesting observations that our company has made and it continues to make is, for Page 37 of 79 16 12 Ma Y 19, 2011 example, if the ordinance starts in June and we stop applying fertilizer in June, our phone begins to ring by dissatisfied customers on or about the month of July and August, okay. And I m in the unfortunate situation in multiple situations where we're standing in front of a customer who is not pleased aesthetically with what's happening on the property itself, and in certain situations is considering terminating the service because of this. And because of the lack of awareness that is out there, they really don't know about the ordinance in a lot of situations, and really and truly in some situation you get the opinion from the homeowner, they truly don't care. They're in a situation where they want the lawn to be green. That's what we're faced with. And you can state the ordinances and lay out the facts for them any way that you can. So as a company, you know, we closely dictate -- we closely monitor the cancellations and those types of things. And in those counties, we have definitely found a connection to the blackout period leading to dissatisfaction, which causes us to lose -- you know, obviously lose those customers. The concerning part about it is, I don't want to speak ill of my fellow green- industry professionals, but there's some folks, independents, that are out here that aren't taking the high road and aren't in compliance with this, and because there's no enforcement of this, that, unfortunately, you're in a situation where the customer says, you're fired and I'm going to hire, let's just say, Chuck in the Truck, and he's going to go do it and he's going to satisfy the customer. And so enforcement is a very big key, and I just wanted to make the comment that there definitely is an impact, even to the point where our company has had to try to increase satisfaction from a customer. We've changed our agronomic program to support that. Well, what that's actually ended up doing is, it costs more money to deliver that program. So the net result is the customer who receives our service ends up paying more, which is a vicious circle. If you pay more and you don't get the performance, you know, you can look at it from a consumer point of view. So I just -- you know, I wanted to -- you know, we said over and over there's no impact. When you don't fertilize turf and then -- there was talk about the two -month increment, and that's pretty much a standard incremental service rate that most of the professionals are doing. You may be on the property more frequently than that in some programs, but most of the time you're fertilizer and your applications are done approximately every two months. That's why it starts to show up. If you're making an April application, maybe in June you're okay, but when you get to August, you've got a lot of issues going on with the turf, and in some cases this turf becomes thin and doesn't perform the way it's supposed to, which actually works to the negative, because it requires more inputs from us to be able to keep weeds under control and those type of things, because the best control for weed -- the best weed control there is is a thick, healthy turf. When we don't have it, it requires more inputs from us to be able to satisfy customers and to maintain that standard turf. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How often do you normally apply fertilizer? What would be a typical scheduling? MR. BRYANT: It's about -- it's every two months. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BRYANT: Every two months. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Year -round or -- MR. BRYANT: Year- round. It's different formulations and -- throughout the year. For example, in the nongrowing season itself, it wouldn't be a true -- when you say the word "fertilizer," it wouldn't be a true fertilizer. It would be mostly potassium and micro - nutrient base, because nitrogen, you're not feeding a plant to a -- you know, not feeding nitrogen to a plant that's not activity growing in those periods of times. There is a spring and a fall feeding that particularly takes place, bringing the turf out of transition and back into transition, and much lower rates of drip feeding throughout the whole summer long. But without that drip feed itself, the turf is going to suffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You typically visit a customer once a month? MR. BRYANT: Myself? Page 38 of 79 16 k,2 "19 =mr COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, your program. I mean, we call your company, I have a house. MR. BRYANT: We have bimonthly -- we have a bimonthly where we're there every two months, then we have one that we're -- where one month we service the lawn, one month we service the shrub. But in that situation, we're inspecting both, and more of an IPM, integrated pest management type of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you have application procedures. MR. BRYANT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some may be more intense than others? MR. BRYANT: Well, again, the program is going to be related to whatever ordinance that we have, but, yes, we have a standard program, and it's very stringent, yes -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BRYANT: -- as to the number of days in between services, the application rates, the whole nine yards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And could a blackout period cause you to really load up prior to the period? MR. BRYANT: Well, what it ends up having to do is -- you know, we use the term "slow release" a lot, and slow release, to a business owner, says money. And money the consumer ends up having to pay. So you try to fight that balance to where, yes, prior to the blackout you may apply some materials that are higher slow release, but it still has no -- there's just no possibility to be able to main (sic) the aesthetics and the turf quality that you want through a slow release that's not cost prohibitive. There is products out there that can last that long, but it's not something that you or I would want to pay for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: One of the concerns in one of the documents we received with the four -month blackout period is that, because the lawns are deteriorating, that people are overfeeding it when the blackout period ends. Have you seen that happening? MR. BRYANT: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And for the customers that you have that are calling with issues -- and obviously you're not going to apply during the blackout. Are you aware -- do you know if any of those customers are starting to try to fertilize themselves? MR. BRYANT: Most of my customer base is not interested in doing it themselves. Most of the customers we're dealing with are -- they've made the decision from the get -go, and I have very little of having to work with the homeowner as a competitor for myself in doing the service. Most of that would be the other competitors that are out there, the more single -type operators. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. What happens to the grass after you overfertilize on the back side? MR. BRYANT: Well, I mean, it's -- anytime that we overfertilize, we get -- it's like you or I having the equivalent of a very, very large meal, you know. I mean, it's just -- it's not a balanced diet by any means. It's just not good practices, and it's going to cause an increase on insects and disease. It increases the foliage that we actually cut off and that could potentially end up in the street, like we see in those pictures and those types of things. So it's just -- you know, it's bad practice all the way around. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Donna, I have a question. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You say you fertilize every two months? MR. BRYANT: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Year round? MR. BRYANT: Yes, ma'am. But that -- when you say "fertilize," we're not talking about the rates that we're talking about here. The rate would be indicative to the time of year, and the formulation would be indicative to the time of year. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I've just never heard of anyone fertilizing twice a month all year round. MR. BRYANT: Not twice a month, every two months. Page 39 of 79 16 11.2 May 1 '2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Every two months. I've just not -- that's fertilizing six times a year. MR. BRYANT: That's -- I don't want to speak for all of my colleagues, but that's pretty much industry standard. Now, that doesn't mean -- where we're talking about the rates here today, that doesn't mean we're talking about a full pound of "N" or half a pound of "N" or anything else. You could be talking about much less. It's a matter of getting the plant up to its par and then trying to keep it there through status quo for a period of time, and that's what we tried. That's -- it's the balance of being able to do that. And what -- that directly addresses the previous question with -- instead of having to overload at particular times of year, trying to keep the plant on status quo and maintain a turf quality that, you know, represents the balance between aesthetics and responsible environment. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And where are your clients getting most of their water from, city water or is it retention -pond water? MR. BRYANT: We have a pretty good mixture of both. I would tell you that, you know, both. There's definitely some pros to the reclaimed water, but there's also some cons to the reclaimed water as well. And there are concern -- you know, there's a lot of clogging that can take place in sprinkler systems with reclaimed water and everything else that can produce thin turf, which thin turf, as we know, is going to not be a good stand -up turf. It's going to increase the runoff. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Anybody else? MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker, Bill Davidson. MR. DAVIDSON: Pm Bill Davidson. I am representing myself as a homeowner as well as the Everglades Golf Course Superintendents' Association. A couple things that -- you know, we keep talking about fact. The fact of the matter is, grass is a living organism. If we do not feed that grass, it starts drawing on its reserves, just like the human body would. And over a period of time, even if you do feed the grass, it might be in such a decayed state of health, just like us, that we wouldn't be able to assimilate the food, hence the previous question, overfertilization, more runoffs, things of that nature. Again, if -- and then if you don't -- if the grass is at a certain point -- and even though you feed it, it won't assimilate it, it's still going to die. So as my colleague said, it's about maintaining a level nutritional input versus overapplication on one side, underapplication here and there, and as an industry, I can tell you, we just don't go out and put down fertilizer because it's time to feed, because on a financial basis, that's equivalent to money out of our pockets. So when he's saying he's going out and putting down a nutritional application, it's probably more of a potassium. It's other elements that the plant is requiring outside of a nitrogen or phosphorus source. So don't think of fertilizer application as, it's always nitrogen and it's always phosphorus. That's really not the case, by and large, on our side. For the homeowner which, for the majority of -- is not what -- representative of the fertility application in this county, the professionals are putting down what the plant needs based upon their industry experience and education. I think a couple things need to be really clarified that keep coming up. Everybody that I've talked to in the Golf Course Superintendents' Association, no phosphorus unless you have a soil test is fine. That's not in question, and I think that we can move past that point in the fertilizer ordinance. There's a -- you know, we looked at the Charlotte Harbor graph that our friends from the Conservancy showed, and if you really look at that graph, there is no statistical trend upward. Now, if that trend was actually going to be analyzed, that last tick up would be thrown out because it's not a repeatable trend. Although it looks great on that piece of paper, if you really scrutinize that graph, it is not a statistical trend upward, and it's a very short time window. It wasn't repeated. So where and how did that trend line get drawn? Because I could have done it out in the hallway and given it to you and amazed you with all this graph and this glory, but it really means nothing because it has no substance to back it up. So I would say be careful on how you look at that. Page 40 of 79 1 b 1 2 A79,2011 I attended every EAC meeting, and I can tell you that there was no boots -on- the - ground support of a stricter ordinance. There was not. We sat there and said, we want a scientifically -based ordinance. We would prefer that the EAC -- if you look at what they recommend, they want a 25 -feet (sic) setback from any impervious surface. They wanted these exorbitant restrictions that would really lead to massive degradation, okay. The boots on the ground are these guys over here and us. And he just told you he has seen the degradation. And we're okay with having a setback from the water. I think we need to come to consensus with saying, what is the setback? It's smart. Don't put the fertilizer in the water. I think if you go to Island Walk -- I live in the Vineyards. You go to a lot of these communities; it's green right down to the bottom of the water. Well, of course, if it's going to be green at the water's edge, some of that fertilizer's getting thrown in there. If you saw the pictures that Dr. Nell presented where you have the green line a couple feet up from the bank, the line is there for a reason, because the nutrients isn't coming down. No one's going to dispute physics. If you have a weakened turfgrass and an open canopy, water's going to carry the material with it. The head of IFAS stipulated the fact, and no one's going to disagree with you. But if -- just like everything else, if you put something in its way, the water is going to be slowed down, it's going to have a chance to go in. And the more stuff you can put in front of it, the more it's going to be restricted, the better chance it's going to have to go down, and the better chance that a healthy turfgrass with an actively - growing root system will have to absorb that material out of the water. A quick point -- I'm sorry. Is there a question? CHAIRMAN CARON: No, go ahead. Finish, please. MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. A couple quick points. A quick point about lake systems. When I was in -- when -- turf school, we learned about lake systems, and the lady even said to the fact that her lakes get up to 90 degrees. I live in a serpentine -lake community, too, in the Vineyards, and the lakes are no wider than from me to the other side of the hallway. They can't get deep. Now, I was a golf course superintendent at Naples Grande Golf Club, and that old borrow pit that was right there next to Golden Gate Parkway, it was 25 feet deep. I didn't put one pesticide application in that lake to control floating algae or anything in the three years that I was there, not one, because the water was able to keep cool; it was naturally deep. There were no problems. It's a known fact that if you build a shallow lake, it's going to get hot, and anybody has seen the algae growing on the sidewalks where it's moist and gets warm. When you have hot water, you're going to have algae problems. Now, in the Vineyard where I live, we've had aerators in there since day one. We've never had an algae bloom that I know o£ So it's a process of, how did you construct it and what are you doing about it due to your poor construction? It's not necessarily the fault of the nutrient application. There's no doubt that if you put nutrients in the water, you're going to have an issue. But if you are smart about having a setback, you do the certain things that you need to do because of the construction of the lake, you know, that you can help yourself and not blame an outside source. Again, it's about just doing it smart. A couple things about water. I hear how -- what's your irrigation source and how is that -- you know, are you sucking the nutrients out? I use reuse water, and I just had it tested, okay. It was 9 part per million nitrate, which is not bad, but also had 172 parts per million chloride, which is very bad. It also had 134 part per million sodium, which is bad. So you have to combat those sort of things, you know. So you have to be able to make your plant healthy enough to be able to use the good stuff as well as service the bad stuff in your water. And I don't think it's going to be an effective measure to say, well, we'll use the irrigation water out of the lake as a form of recycling the nutrients that are in it. It will, but you don't pump enough volume out of that lake in any given circumstances to take the nutrients out. So it's about making sure that you have proper etiquette to not put the nutrients in there in the first place, have your setbacks, but also have a healthy turfgrass to keep it from getting in there. And I hear -- the last thing, I'll wrap up real quick, is about golf and why is golf here. It's very simple. We Page 41 of 79 1 b 11 2-ma�-­T �. 4 011 are turfgrass managers first and foremost. The golf course industry wants to stand as a united front with our brothers brothers in the landscape and horticultural division. We don't want to be segregated. We also stand here as a method of trying to educate so that when and if this ordinance ever gets passed and it goes on the block of public scrutiny a couple years down the road, it is our thought process that this ordinance is going to say, why isn't it working? Because you've already heard from Dr. Nell that phosphorus is going to go with the soil, nitrogen is going to go with the soil, and all that's going to -- and that's going to happen because of an open and thin canopy. And that's going to lead to poor -- because of poor turf health. So it's going to come back and we'll say, well, we need to figure out what we didn't include in the ordinance the first time. And the first thing that's going to pop up is, those darn golf courses are doing it, okay. So we want to stand here on the forefront as a united front to say, turf industry supports the science -based application of the nutrients, and we would like to support the model ordinance as presented by the DER CHAIRMAN CARON: Any questions for Mr. Davidson? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. You brought out a lot -- the concept of doing it smart. Do you think that the companies that are out there -- is there a sloppiness maybe in the way they're applying fertilizer, which could be causing some of these lakes to overdo, or do you think -- in other words, are they out of balance? Are the companies working on the lawns in these developments, you know, maybe overfertilizing and stuff like that? MR. DAVIDSON: I don't think it's a function of overfertility. I think -- truly, I honestly think -- and you've heard it over and over again, the answer is to educate, you know. And as the Superintendents' Association, I can tell you, we're willing to step up to the plate and educate, and you've heard Dr. Nell say he's willing to help publish some sort of training video or something. It's about training your guys to do it correctly, the use of the deflector shields, the use of drop spreaders next to bodies of waters. You know, the requirement of, hey, we have a setback of five miles from any water body, or whatever it is. You have to train your guys to do it the correct way, because everybody knows, if you get too close, it's going to go in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're in the future tense with that. So currently today, could there be sloppiness out there, and could that sloppiness be causing some of these excessive problems? MR. DAVIDSON: I'm not going to try and speculate that there isn't. I don't -- I'm not so stupid to think that somebody's not doing the wrong thing. But I think over and large, no. I don't think it's a -- I don't think it's a fertilizer problem. I think it's a nutrient problem, nutrients from leaf litter, nutrients from septic tanks, nutrients from a lot of sources, not just fertilizer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And last time you were here you had a word for applying fertilizer through the sprinkler system. MR. DAVIDSON: That's called fertigation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Anybody else have a question for Mr. Davidson? I just want to make one comment on your boots -on- the - ground comment. MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN CARON: And that didn't have anything to do with you. It had to do with the communities who had already put an ordinance into effect. That's where the boots -on- the - ground comment was -- MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: -- according to the information we got. MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN CARON: So thank you. MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you. Just for clarification, during the EAC testimonies, we had representatives from the landscape care companies -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Oh, yes. MR. DAVIDSON: -- who were in the entire state, a very large company such as my colleague that spoke before me, and he testified to the same effect. They have seen the degradation of the landscaping due to the blackout Page 42 of 79 16 V2 ' ` 7Y a 19, -` 2011 blackout periods. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Again, this is a watershed ordinance that we're working on that the fertilizer ordinance is only a part of MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN CARON: So it is not just a turf issue. MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN CARON: You're welcome. Thank you. And we will now break and be back here at 1:30 -- 1:35. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, before we do, should we find out whether this is the end of it, or we go -- e CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, that's all of our speakers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm talking about Mac coming up and telling us what we're supposed to COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, he'll be back. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mac will be back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mac's not going anywhere. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mac can't go anywhere. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Welcome back, everyone. And we will -- Mac, come on up, and we will try to wrap up our fertilizer ordinance. Do you have any last - minute things you'd like to say? MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher, Land Development Services. The only thing I'll add to what was said this morning was that the City of Naples did adopt a resolution recommending that the county adopt an ordinance. I believe the term they use is "analogous" to their ordinance. And I provided the resolution and the -- a copy of their ordinance to you -all today. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. All right. Obviously, now -- do you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For Mac, yeah. CHAIRMAN CARON: For Mac. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Mac, looking at the redacted version -- I'm just kidding. But don't use that -- don't use that highlight again, okay, because, boy, it was hard to read. The only -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sort of purple. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Put a flashlight on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it did look like a redacted version. The only thing -- CHAIRMAN CARON: The blue gave us trouble. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we're going to change is on Page 5 of 8, up at A, which would be Section 7A. You want to change that to one pound. There was a suggestion today that that maybe should be .7 for water soluble? MR. HATCHER: It needs to -- the maximum is one pound of nitrogen per application. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, at a time. MR. HATCHER: If you move forward with your recommendation of a minimum of 50 percent slow - release nitrogen, then you can't reach the .7 maximum of soluble nitrogen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HATCHER: Do you follow me? If you have a 50- percent slow release, no more than 50 percent can be soluble nitrogen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. HATCHER: So if you've got a one -pound total maximum, you can't exceed what the other requirement is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I got it. Page 43 of 79 fir r; 16 V2 ' ` 7Y a 19, -` 2011 blackout periods. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Again, this is a watershed ordinance that we're working on that the fertilizer ordinance is only a part of MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN CARON: So it is not just a turf issue. MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN CARON: You're welcome. Thank you. And we will now break and be back here at 1:30 -- 1:35. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, before we do, should we find out whether this is the end of it, or we go -- e CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, that's all of our speakers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm talking about Mac coming up and telling us what we're supposed to COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, he'll be back. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mac will be back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mac's not going anywhere. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mac can't go anywhere. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Welcome back, everyone. And we will -- Mac, come on up, and we will try to wrap up our fertilizer ordinance. Do you have any last - minute things you'd like to say? MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher, Land Development Services. The only thing I'll add to what was said this morning was that the City of Naples did adopt a resolution recommending that the county adopt an ordinance. I believe the term they use is "analogous" to their ordinance. And I provided the resolution and the -- a copy of their ordinance to you -all today. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. All right. Obviously, now -- do you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For Mac, yeah. CHAIRMAN CARON: For Mac. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Mac, looking at the redacted version -- I'm just kidding. But don't use that -- don't use that highlight again, okay, because, boy, it was hard to read. The only -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sort of purple. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Put a flashlight on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it did look like a redacted version. The only thing -- CHAIRMAN CARON: The blue gave us trouble. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we're going to change is on Page 5 of 8, up at A, which would be Section 7A. You want to change that to one pound. There was a suggestion today that that maybe should be .7 for water soluble? MR. HATCHER: It needs to -- the maximum is one pound of nitrogen per application. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, at a time. MR. HATCHER: If you move forward with your recommendation of a minimum of 50 percent slow - release nitrogen, then you can't reach the .7 maximum of soluble nitrogen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HATCHER: Do you follow me? If you have a 50- percent slow release, no more than 50 percent can be soluble nitrogen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. HATCHER: So if you've got a one -pound total maximum, you can't exceed what the other requirement is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I got it. Page 43 of 79 1612 Za May 19, 2011 Okay. The other thing that came out today was the concept of, you know, maybe the wintertime is a concern. I mean, to me it almost seems upside -down, that when the plant material isn't needing fertilizer and people are putting fertilizer on it, that would offer more of a potential for runoff. Is that something that we should look at, or do you think just the way the industry handles it, that's not going to be a problem, or -- MR. HATCHER: The science supports that concept. They have not done -- I don't believe they've done very many studies recently about that, because I think the scientists realize that when the grass is not growing, when plants are not growing, they don't uptake. So there isn't any scientific studies to support that -- or to allow you to, I guess, estimate an application rate during that period of time, but it's not a recommended period for making applications. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But, unfortunately, a lot of our studies are coming from an area other than the tropics, which we live in, which does have a better growing season. MR. HATCHER: Well, that's true, but the Florida studies are requesting studies from the Fort Lauderdale Research Center, and that is very analogous to our situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And do you have a personal opinion on the concept of having blackouts and the length of time they should be? MR. HATCHER: No. I'm going to have to, I guess, stick with what's been stated and that there isn't a scientific support for a blackout. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I wouldn't be in favor of a winter ban because I think the lawn -care representatives said that it's not that they're putting a lot of fertilizer in the winter, but they're just seeing maybe trace things that the plants might need. And, you know, if you put a ban on doing stuff in the winter, you might interfere with stuff like that which could be legitimate. CHAIRMAN CARON: Anybody else first -- comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just kind of respond to Paul. You know, one of the concerns I have is that we may be loading these -- enriching these water bodies all year long, and it's only when they get warm that they have these blooms. So, I mean, we have no evidence of, you know, over, like, a monthly report on what water bodies, you know -- what their makeup is, do we, Mac? MR. HATCHER: The samples are taken monthly, or at least were up until fairly recently, but the analysis is done on an annual basis because you get enough variation month to month that you don't want to try and shorten the time frame and make a decision based on, you know, one month's worth of data. You want -- you want an annual period to do an evaluation of when something gets to be a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But from those month studies, can we tell when things are loading and when they're not or -- in other words, do we find it -- I mean, the illusion I might have here is that it may be loading in the winter and then not so much in the summer when the product is being consumed by the grass. And the reason the algae shows up is obviously the temperature of the water. MR. HATCHER: The most recent analysis from the Pollution Control Department does try to look at seasonal trends, and in most instances -- there's certainly not a clear pattern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Maybe if -- Amber, do you have -- could you come up and answer that, or do you not have an -- MS. CROOKS: About the winter? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, do we any -- and I'm going to use the word "science," not to be against you. But the -- do we have any data showing how these water bodies are being enriched on a monthly basis to kind of determine when they're being enriched? MS. CROOKS: Oh. Well, I think Mac is -- the best answer he provided is in terms of the water sampling that they do do, so I'm not sure we could get down to that -- specifics. Now, in terms of what you're suggesting in terms of the winter ban, I think it's an interesting idea, and maybe it should be something that, if they get their funding back, IFAS should explore with some studies. Page 44 of 79 w 161 2 A 7 190- 2011 From the Conservancy's perspective, because we don't have any information lending to that at this time, we recommend sticking to the summer blackout period because we do have information. But I can appreciate the -- where you're coming from. Maybe we need to look at the winter as a pollution - loading time and look at banning also in that time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Amber, are you also working -- like, for example, Village Walk who is now going to start acquiring data, it would be nice if we could start getting people like that together and start seeing what our local data is. MS. CROOKS: As a part of this process with this fertilizer ordinance, we definitely are communicating more, and they're actually -- in conjunction or in addition to what the county's doing on their water - quality sampling and what the city's doing on their water - quality sampling, they're doing water - quality sampling in some cases. I know Island Walk is. The others maybe follow suit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thanks. The -- when we left last time around -- you have a question for Mac? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Melissa; ask it first. COMMISSIONER AHERN: It seems like our biggest issue right now is determining the blackout period. I think we've all agreed to the other stipulations. What is your opinion of the two month, considering, you know, that -- I understand you support the no blackout. But after Dr. Nell's remarks on the two- month, what is your opinion? MR. HATCHER: I'm certainly not going to disagree with him. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. MR. HATCHER: I mean, every- -- nobody applies fertilizer, at least I don't think -- there certainly aren't any recommendations to apply fertilizer more frequently than that. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: More frequently than what, Mac? MR. HATCHER: Two months. COMMISSIONER EBERT: All yearlong? MR. HATCHER: No, seasonally. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Seasonally -- MR. HATCHER: Warm season. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, our winter months down here are warmer than they are up north. So there is fertilizer put down here because, being we're in the tropics, we do -- they do fertilize in the winter at some point. February is one of the -- one of them that -- because I've been asking some of the landscape people, and -- because it's warm down here during -- MR. HATCHER: It's not a recommended practice. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. As I started to say, when we left last time, and by all testimony that we've heard this time around, we pretty much have consensus on the annual limit of nitrogen with the corrections that Mac made to only one pound of nitrogen at a time, four total pounds for the year, at least 50 percent slow release, zero phosphorus unless you've got a soil test that warrants it, the minimum of a 10 -foot buffer. Both Dr. Nell and the Conservancy agree on that one. Combining the buffer sections, standard penalty section, you've made corrections to that, so -- as to not have people chasing things they shouldn't, and we all agreed on a review after two years. So as Melissa just said, we're down to talking about this prohibited period of time, and so let's focus in on that. Dr. Nell's chart would have you fertilize every two months in April, June, August, and October. We know here we had been talking about August and September. I'm told by Mac that actually July is a heavier rainy month than September. I would have guessed August and September were the heaviest. He says not. So it looks to me like we're arguing about the month of August, guys, and I think we need to start focusing Page 45 of 79 t 1 16 t2 � May 19, 2011 in. And let's all remember here that this is only part of what we're working on, and really what we should be focusing on are things that will bring us better water quality, not greener grass. So -- because this is part of an overall watershed - management issue, and we do have the task force. The gentlemen on the phone have said the state ordinance is a minimum ordinance, and they have given several things that would trigger, perhaps, a more strict ordinance, verified impaired waterways, which we have. And so what we're trying to do is then put in a fertilizer ordinance and watershed - management plans that will lead to improvement in the quality of our water bodies. So at any rate, in my opinion, we're down to arguing about August. So if you want to weigh -- I mean, everybody should weigh in on this because this is the final sticking point here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I think -- this is July. We're -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is July. CHAIRMAN CARON: We had -- right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is three months. CHAIRMAN CARON: But July's not a problem, because if we're looking back to Dr. Nell, he likes a ban in July and September, are fine by him. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, I thought he said August and September. That's what -- CHAIRMAN CARON: No. August was one of the months he thought it would be okay to water in -- I mean, to fertilize in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but Donna -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Melissa asked. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point he was making is he said every two months. CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. April -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, you can't take the middle month out. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. CHAIRMAN CARON: -- June, August and October. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which happened to be where his little two -month avows hit. So I don't think he was particularly pointing to a month. He was pointing to -- you know, he felt during the season every two months was appropriate to him. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And the question I asked was specific to August and September, because that's what we were discussing last time. I think -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Last time. COMMISSIONER Al ERN: -- you know, the end result was that he would support the two month as opposed to four because you only fertilize every two months. So you could time it out to where you fertilize right before and then right after, and it would be okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Now -- okay. So you're in favor of August, September? COMMISSIONER AHERN: And unless -- I mean, if we have data from Mac that shows July and August would be the preferred months. MR. HATCHER: No. COMMISSIONER AHERN: No, okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: No. It's not data. I just -- I had asked him -- I had made the comment to him that August and September were our rainiest months. And he said, actually no, it's July and August. So I said, fine. I stand corrected. I never would have guessed that in a million years, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Donna. CHAIRMAN CARON: Just a minute. Let's finish here, and we'll move on down the line. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So I would be in support of a two month, and then we can, I guess, you know, discuss which months. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My opinion, I mean, I -- rm sorry, but I just really can't see where the Page 46 of 79 VY19, i��2011 problem is doing it every two months. I definitely think you have to limit it. You can't do it every month. But the concern is that this is a balancing, and if those months are -- I mean, you can't let any get into the water body anyway, so it's just a matter of being sure you're loading your site. If it is running off, if it is steep, you've got to treat it differently. And I think maintaining an organism on a periodic basis is more important than trying to prevent it from eating at a point of time where it would lose the nutrients and they would go into the water. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I'm kind of with the doctor on this. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would be in favor of what's written here, the July 1 st through September 30th. I don't think it would be harmful to the plants. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I kind of -- I agree with Brad. I'm kind of -- I think it's kind a -- what I've heard today and seeing -- I know that when the grass is growing the most it's taking up the most nutrients, and that's in the warmer months when it's more rain, and in the drier months it's not, and that's probably where you're getting -- you're going to get more -- and it's been said here, I've read it -- that you get more runoff; the plants aren't taking the nutrients up. So it's not making any sense to me to take the food away when it's growing. CHAIRMAN CARON: But you do know they get it from the rain? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They do, and they get it from reclaimed water; they -- there's other sources, but I do see -- just when I went home from lunch today, I see -- the doctor also said that clippings have a lot of nitrogen in them, and I see all the time that those clippings are going right into the lake. They're whacking near the lake, and it's full. When anybody's done and it just -- it fills up the water sometimes. So is it really all the fertilizer and -- I mean, is this the right thing that we're doing here when there's really no -- I don't know. I could be agreeable to the two August and September, I think, but I really think we're -- it's almost backwards what we're doing. CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, again, if we do go to the two month that Melissa's talking about, it -- remember we have a review here in pretty short order, so if we found that there were issues, that could be changed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's a good thing. CHAIRMAN CARON: So I think that was smart of us to -- I mean, I think we're all concerned and that we thought we needed a review for sure. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I think it's going to make a difference if all the commercial and professionals, all of them, are trained. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's going to make a big difference as it is, because I've seen also someone, a lawn person -- the applicators that do just the fertilizer and the pest control seem to always do the correct thing anyway, that I've seen, but I've seen lawn people just fertilize along the lake, and it's going -- the fertilizer's going three feet into the lake, so -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Whoever issued blowers to these people should be tarred and feathers -- feathered. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I think the only problem is educating the homeowner after that, because they're not going to get it, you know. We have a hard time where I live. We have the reclaimed water, and people see a dry lawn, turn their sprinkler on when they're not supposed to, they overfertilize, and it's just a constant battle, so-- CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, I think that sometimes green grass is a good indicator of failure to pollute with nutrients. As the doctor had indicated, the healthier the lawn, the more nutrients it's going to pick up. I am not in favor of a blackout period. I'm in favor, if you will, of an application period as indicated by Dr. Nell. I think that takes care of it. To depart from what I understand is to be scientifically based information as opposed to -- although well intended, nevertheless I perceive to be conjecture. I am not in the view that we should Page 47 of 79 1612qMay 19, 2011 make a radical change that might actually create more problems. An unhealthy lawn fertilized will probably cause more runoff and more problem with leachate and so forth. A review of two years will be adequate for our purposes. This is -- business has been going on for hundreds of years of spoiled waters in many cases. When I first heard this fertilizer ordinance discussed, I was very strongly in favor of a more strict, structured document. As I have come to learn through the education received through here -- and there are many good opinions and some good facts -- I cannot support prohibition during a period when the grass clearly will be growing. And if we educate properly, people will minimize if not -- if not eliminate the application of fertilizer during the winter months. So I'm fine except for the prohibited period. I don't want any blackout. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I -- like Paul, I don't think three months is going to hurt Collier County. The city has a little bit larger one, but three month is -- golf course grass is completely different than what we even have on our lawns. There are different needs for different type grasses. And the way it's written here -- I agree with the way that you have written it, Mac. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Barry. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Is it all up to me now? CHAIRMAN CARON: It's all up -- no, I haven't weighed in yet. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll side with Dr. Nell's suggestion. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. So the two month -- I mean -- I'm sorry -- doing it four times every two months, excuse me; is that the one you want? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: No. I think -- what -- what did Brad say? CHAIRMAN CARON: The July? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: What did Brad say? COMMISSIONER AHERN: August, September blackout. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point -- I think -- and the important thing by -- what the doctor is saying, it was not "months," it was "period." He was saying, you know, two months during the season is okay, and I agree with that, and that's not exactly the way we're wording this. The danger is, if you can do it in July and you can do it in September, that means a guy can do it a month apart plus a day, so that we don't want either. So I do think we have to reword the way we're doing this if we want to do it that way and not necessarily use a blackout period but use a period that you can do it during the season. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which essentially is all year. So in other words, if we had an ordinance that said that you cannot fertilize a lawn within a two -month period, you know, or less than two months from the last time, that, to me, would be the proper -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, except that what you're talking about here is if we exclude, as Melissa was suggesting, August and September, then you are able to do it in July and October, which gets you to the every two months that Dr. Nell was talking about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be three months. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- but then there's the concern -- see, you know, I'm not sure the blackout period solves the problem. That's my problem. I think that a consistent fertilizing is healthy. Overfertilizing is bad no matter where -- what you're doing. So I think putting months on it is kind of missing the point. He did give an example of when the months in it made sense. But, you know, maybe some guy's lawn is better, you know, in July, not August, but September, and then the guy across the street, there's nothing wrong with him doing it in June and August to me. CHAIRMAN CARON: So what you're saying is you'd be in favor of no blackout period? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would be in favor of not using the blackout method but use the periodic method to limit the fertilizing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Where are you going to start that from? I mean, where -- Page 48 of 79 1 6 12 A7, 19, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't matter if you use the period. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How can you enforce it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're not going to enforce it anyway. COMMISSIONER AHERN: How can you enforce the rest of it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean -- so it's down to how to enforce it? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I mean, if you have a prohibition in (sic) two months, at least there's something that people can look at, and you still get -- you still allow the people to fertilize every two months. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then do it like a fire extinguisher. There's a tag on the water shut -off, and you punch the months you did it, you know, and you can't do it for two more months or something. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it should be noted that the prohibited application period from July through September was a compromise that Mark Strain offered, okay. That was his conclusion as to what it was, and I don't think that -- you know, nobody disagreed with it, per se, because we weren't finished yet. So I think -- well, my point is very simple. The -- a prohibited period in my mind is wrong. I think the science suggests that every two months would be adequate and would perform the function of helping the grass grow and reducing, if not eliminating, the excess going into leach or runoff. All of the other parts of it are mechanical in nature or educational in nature. So I'm very strong in regard to that. How we word it is another story. CHAIRMAN CARON: For myself, I'm in favor of the July- through- September prohibition. I think that we have cities and counties surrounding us that, for the most part -- all but one -- are using some sort of blackout period without issue. We've heard that -- specifically that they're not having any issues from Dr. Bauer in the city, and so I'm in favor of that. It seems that that's not the consensus on the board, so the rest of the board here now has got to fight out what they mean by every two months. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think it could be worded somehow where it's -- you know, we have to come up with the wording where you cannot fertilize less than two months from the last time you did it. I mean, how we say it -- Mac, is that something that we could put in there? MR. HATCHER: Well, you might be able to put it in there, but as Mr. Midney pointed out, enforcement of it would be -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not practical. MR. HATCHER: -- impractical at best. COMMISSIONER AHERN: If you did August and September, you could still fertilize July 31st and October 1 st, so you -- just trying to put a general timeline for, I would think, especially for the professionals, to -- for them to try to keep up with everybody's schedule would be a little onerous, as they're shaking their heads yes. CHAIRMAN CARON: Onerous, yeah. Yeah, I can see that. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So to just make --it clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- but, you know, we've even heard testimony from the industry that they don't do it -- they do it every two months. They don't do it every month anyway. So in other words, we're -- you know, these are professionals. You know, how can we be -- you know, be frozen by the fact that we can't enforce it? Let's come up with what the right thing is, and then we'll figure out how to protect it. It's the industry that's going to have to protect it, their records. And if you can't trust these professionals, you know, we've got to come up with a way to, you know, license -- you know, to -- I don't get the enforcement being the issue. If you want to, put a tag on the water shutoff the last time the place was fertilized, and punch the tag and do it like you do thousands of other things in society. And that's an option. COMMISSIONER AHERN: What about monitoring, though? If you have a certain time specific, it would be easier to look down the road and say, okay, well, during these times these were, you know, the times we weren't fertilizing and either, you know, the nutrients or the water pollution's gone up or down. It's easier to try to -- CHAIRMAN CARON: For monitoring purposes, I think you're right. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Determine that for monitoring. Page 49 of 79 16 [ 2 0 May 19, 2011 r COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, but the bottom line is, we don't have a -- we haven't heard monitoring from, you know, the other -- I don't know what side, but the side that's worried about -- that wants the blackout, we haven't heard monitoring that, look, in Sarasota when you blackout, I mean -- I don't know if we're getting the data anyway. I do think from this point forward and I do think, after we're through with this topic, we should discuss the review, because we do need data at that review, and we should discuss what that is. But in the meantime I think it should be just purely worded as -- that you can't do it any closer than two months anytime, and then it's -- we can figure out -- the industry could work with the stockholders to figure out how to do it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And what about the monitoring? How do you -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Can we take a comment from the audience? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. We're in deliberations. CHAIRMAN CARON: No, we're in -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, essentially what you're saying is that if we have a blackout, during that period of time we know no fertilizer's going to be dumped on a lawn via, you know, a company with a device. I mean, they're going to do it through their irrigation and stuff. But no fertilizer's going to be dumped on the lawn, and we could drive around and catch them doing it if -- real easy. The neighbors across the canal can turn you in and all the other kind of stuff. But is that the best way to provide, you know, healthy lawns and not pollute the lakes? CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, it's not going to -- well, it's not going to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you're saying that if -- well, I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Very, very easy to prohibit. I mean, after all, that's what we do with everything. We're going to prohibit foods, we're going to tell people what they can eat, et cetera, et cetera. I recognize the desirability of doing the right thing here to be sure, to be absolutely certain. But doing the right things means that we have to go slowly in the sense that we don't want to overkill one way or the other. If we have impaired waters, it's not solely resulting from fertilizer. I saw a pie chart before that was shown that said -- that looked like it was fairly large in term of its quadrant, and yet the statement was, it was 14 percent, and that was the 14- percent number that -- and I think it was Gina's document -- 14 percent, that leaves an awful lot of other percent for contributing factors. I really am concerned with us trying to get down to the absolutes. We need to crawl a little bit here first. My recommendation would be, as simplistic as this may seem, stipulate -- in the absence of any other methodology, stipulate, fertilization, April, two months later, two months later, and two months later. And within that context, if it has to be that later we have to amend that they have to keep records to do that, to show that, then fine. Because enforcement is going to be the biggest difficulty of all of this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I've got an easy enforcement. If it's an odd - number address, you fertilize on an odd month. If it's an even - number address, you fertilize in the even month. And guess what? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Brad, we have a problem. Most communities have landscape companies come in, and they're not going to skip every other property because of the numbers of the house. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He was kidding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What they're going to do is stay on one side of the street. But the point is that you would know somebody's out of line visually, and you could catch the guy across the canal, and everybody can self - police, or self - enforce in this case. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would hope that education was the primary -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- effort on this thing. You enact an ordinance for the purpose of modifying behavior, and you do that with -- CHAIRMAN CARON: We are. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- by making it painful. But, you know, this is something that we should start out with the emphasis on education. So I'm not going to say much more. CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, I believe that we have education in this policy. That's part of it; that's a big Page 50 of 79 16 1 A7 May 19, 2011 part of it. And thinking of ways that we can enhance that is obviously a good thing, Commissioner Murray, because I think you're absolutely right; if you don't educate people as to what they should be doing and what's the right thing to do, it's not going to happen. But we've tried in this ordinance to have that component in it. Now, it seems to me that from the majority of the board here, there is no -- the, July- through- September prohibition does not have enough support to get a majority of the votes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I bring up another discussion point? Diane -- it was something she said that made me think of it. CHAIRMAN CARON: Sure, Brad, because I wouldn't want you to forget it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, you wouldn't, and I'm prone to that. The -- you know, the point you made is that, you know, the companies didn't want to leapfrog them. They won't be leapfrogging. They'd be on the side. See, but one thing that isn't fair to these companies is to have a blackout where right before that blackout they are jammed and right after that blackout they are jammed. I mean, it would be much smarter if these companies could deal with, essentially, half the community one month and half the community the other month. I think we'd get a better blend of their service and a better -- they could better blend the fertilizer. Pm done. Nothing to forget. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We seem to be talking mostly -- we're focusing on turf, but this is for everything, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, it's for everything. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's for fruit trees, it's for your shrubs. So you're taking away the months they need to be and are supposed to be fertilized, and you're taking that away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Very good, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, if it's a blackout, it's a blackout. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's a good point, I mean, because we're worried about the lawn. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We have home- -- we're talking about -- where I live, it's homeowners doing most of this, so they're still going to fertilize their fruit tree, I can tell you that right now, whether you black it out or not. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Well, I mean, maybe we're getting caught up in the word "blackout," because we're all talking about a two -month -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It should be a sequence. COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- two -month period, so it's determining how we calculate. CHAIRMAN CARON: And both Dr. Nell -- I mean, Dr. Nell did -- that was his suggestion, every two months, and he would have supported August and September as -- just in terms of him backing up his two -month calendar here of trying to figure it out. He was supportive of August and September for Collier County to take those two months off. So you just figure it out beyond that. So you'll go back, and October will be a good month to fertilize as will, potentially, July and May and -- however you back it up here to get to the every two months. That's what he's saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We pluck every other month out and say that's a blackout month. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't remember it said that way. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I didn't think he meant that. I don't think he said that at all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't remember it said that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, he showed us a chart where -- in a sense what he was showing is the consumption of the lawn taking the nutrients, and it showed that he periodically did it every two months. I'm not sure the arrow pointed to the ideal month. I think it just showed when he fertilized. CHAIRMAN CARON: No, I don't think it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The period was the important part, not the arrowhead. CHAIRMAN CARON: I don't think it said that either, Brad. That's what Pm saying. But when he did tell Page 51 of 79 1612 AtJ A May 19, 2011 tell us and Melissa and everybody else that August and September would be okay months not to fertilize here, then all you have to do then is -- you can back up and do -- figure out the other months that you can. I mean, it's pretty simple. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It might not be the right time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. It may be simple but to me doesn't seem like the right answer. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. So his was not the right answer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: His two -month periodic fertilizing is the right answer. COMMISSIONER AHERN: You're hung up on the August, September specifically. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, what do we -- well -- CHAIRMAN CARON: So we're down to -- the last thing that I heard was this every two month, and I guess you're just going to let anybody decide. So I can do it whatever -- every two months I want, and Paul can, and then we'll all try to sort it out when we come to our review period in a couple years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like odd -even addressing, so that means that, you know, everybody knows where they're supposed to be on that month. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can we not compel -- I mean, as long as we're compelling, can we not compel lawn people -- now, this wouldn't get down necessarily initially to homeowners. But could we not compel the maintenance of a log? We do that with swimming pools; we require the testing daily and a notation about what that test revealed. Why can we not do the same thing here? If we are -- Pm definitely not in favor of a blackout, a prohibition in the context of just simply saying no, and I think we make it much more complicated by asserting that, you know, we'll be all over the park. Yes, we will because that's a reality with human beings. And in an effort to try to bring it to something we can work with, I would say maintenance of a log a requirement. At least we could then get data; we could correlate the information. Would it be a task? Absolutely. But if we're concerned with having to get that information, I see no other easy way to get that. This -- the only other way to deal with this, if we're going to go around and around and around, is to table it because we're not going to satisfy what we need. I'm definitely not in favor of a blackout. The more I think about it the more I realize -- and Karen's point was excellent. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Bob, I think that's kind of a good compromise, because that way you don't have a blackout of certain months, but you do have some sort of recordkeeping, and that way people will be more conscious of it, and I think that's a good compromise. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I believe code enforcement could then look at a log and determine whether or not they know something's happened. MR. KLATZKOW: Whose log? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whose -- that was you? MR. KLATZKOW: Whose log? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The log would be -- MR. KLATZKOW: I as a homeowner, do I now have to keep a log every time I fertilize? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's what it ultimately would get down to if we're going to use a log in the first instance. Well, I agree that this is a challenge beyond. I'm -- my effort was aimed at the people who do the planned unit developments, they go in and they take care of tracts of land, common property, and there's HOAs that they have one, maybe two companies doing it. That's where I was going. That was my effort. I fully realize this is a -- to some degree an absurdity as to try and enforce it. I recognize that, but that was my effort to try to make something happen. CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, I think -- I'm sorry. Who? Mac? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Nick. CHAIRMAN CARON: Or Nick. I'm song, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just to offer a little bit of input to this based on what you heard, to recap a couple Page 52 of 79 { ?r 6 1 May 19, 2011 couple things for you, Commissioners. Your industry professional told you that he typically visits a site once every two months, one to fertilize and one to, you know, check out the shrubbery one month and turf the other month. Your Dr. Nell said every two months was okay. You have a choice between state -model ordinance of zero, and your abutting neighbors have gone four months. And you're deliberating on whether to do a blackout period or to do some other alternative. I would try and stick to those two choices, because for us, if you're going to come back in two years and revisit this, either you go with the state -model ordinance or you go with your neighbors, or if you want to do in between to two months and wait two years, but trying these other alternatives where you're trying to do some mishmash of alternative months and addresses and how we can enforce this thing between homeowners and people is going to be very difficult for us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, absolutely. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thanks. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: What if we went with the no blackout period and just put that you could not fertilize more than once within a 60 -day period? MR. CASALANGUIDA: How do I enforce that between the homeowners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You can't, you can't. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's the problem. You know, personal homes is -- as, you know, county attorney pointed out, am I asking them for their log and when they put down and -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: How do you enforce otherwise, though? I mean, it's going to be just as difficult. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you had a set blackout period, then it's easy to enforce. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Like the September -- August, September. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, like you're talking August and September. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I think if you're going to be -- revisit this -- and, again, you've heard testimony from both sides, the science isn't quite there yet, but they're getting better. Lee County has four, City of Naples has four. We're wrestling between zero, two, and four. I think that's what you should focus your deliberation on. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because we've agreed with everything else on here; it's all been okay with the four pounds. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Everything else is perfect. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're right. I just kind of like what Mac put in there, July through September. Three months is not going to hurt. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what you think. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. So we're back to that discussion. Ms. Ebert has not changed her opinion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've not changed mine. CHAIRMAN CARON: And you've not changed yours. You want nothing? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm not going to change my mind. And one thing, Diane, is that means that they could, like, super load this thing, you know, through June, through May. I mean, the important part was to periodically feed your -- this organism so that it has a constant flow of nutrient, not like, you know, banquets and feasts and, you know, starvation and fast. I mean, what is that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, Brad. I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we can't design the system based upon the convenience of the enforcement. CHAIRMAN CARON: But then, Brad, you can accept August and September and just figure out the rest of the two months after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm also worried about June and May. I mean, that's -- you know, you're -- some reason August, September is special to you. It's not to me. It's -- Page 53 of 79 6 1 May 19, 2011 couple things for you, Commissioners. Your industry professional told you that he typically visits a site once every two months, one to fertilize and one to, you know, check out the shrubbery one month and turf the other month. Your Dr. Nell said every two months was okay. You have a choice between state -model ordinance of zero, and your abutting neighbors have gone four months. And you're deliberating on whether to do a blackout period or to do some other alternative. I would try and stick to those two choices, because for us, if you're going to come back in two years and revisit this, either you go with the state -model ordinance or you go with your neighbors, or if you want to do in between to two months and wait two years, but trying these other alternatives where you're trying to do some mishmash of alternative months and addresses and how we can enforce this thing between homeowners and people is going to be very difficult for us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, absolutely. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thanks. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: What if we went with the no blackout period and just put that you could not fertilize more than once within a 60 -day period? MR. CASALANGUIDA: How do I enforce that between the homeowners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You can't, you can't. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's the problem. You know, personal homes is -- as, you know, county attorney pointed out, am I asking them for their log and when they put down and -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: How do you enforce otherwise, though? I mean, it's going to be just as difficult. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you had a set blackout period, then it's easy to enforce. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Like the September -- August, September. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, like you're talking August and September. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I think if you're going to be -- revisit this -- and, again, you've heard testimony from both sides, the science isn't quite there yet, but they're getting better. Lee County has four, City of Naples has four. We're wrestling between zero, two, and four. I think that's what you should focus your deliberation on. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because we've agreed with everything else on here; it's all been okay with the four pounds. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Everything else is perfect. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're right. I just kind of like what Mac put in there, July through September. Three months is not going to hurt. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's what you think. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. So we're back to that discussion. Ms. Ebert has not changed her opinion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've not changed mine. CHAIRMAN CARON: And you've not changed yours. You want nothing? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm not going to change my mind. And one thing, Diane, is that means that they could, like, super load this thing, you know, through June, through May. I mean, the important part was to periodically feed your -- this organism so that it has a constant flow of nutrient, not like, you know, banquets and feasts and, you know, starvation and fast. I mean, what is that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, Brad. I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we can't design the system based upon the convenience of the enforcement. CHAIRMAN CARON: But then, Brad, you can accept August and September and just figure out the rest of the two months after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm also worried about June and May. I mean, that's -- you know, you're -- some reason August, September is special to you. It's not to me. It's -- Page 53 of 79 6I A7 May 19, 2011 :F CHAIRMAN CARON: No. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's what Mark suggested last time, just a compromise. CHAIRMAN CARON: Wait a minute. It was testimony. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Well, I think it was suggested because of the rainfall. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, it was testimony. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The testimony said the most important months to keep fertilizer away from an organism is through July 1 st to September 30 -- or August and September. That doesn't makes sense to me. And I don't know -- I guess I've been in the wrong hearings, because I don't remember that being -- I remember the -- anyway, you know what I remember, so -- I keep saying the same thing over and over. CHAIRMAN CARON: Right, you do, and this is not getting us anywhere. So I'll ask a question. How many people would be in favor of no blackout, of zero? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's not right either. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, don't we have to have a motion for that? CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Well, I'm asking you to weigh in here on these alternatives. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's narrow it down -- let's narrow it down to the blackout period or a periodic period meaning you can only do it within a certain period of time, the 60 -day in this case. In other words, you can -- we either black out for a little period or we have a regulation that doesn't allow people to do it, you know, in some sort of period that we determine, which appears to be 60 days. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think that's what Nick just told us what we were --we either blackout -- have two blackouts -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's Nick worried about enforcement. I mean -- and so we're -- how can we design an ordinance that's based upon the ease of enforcement? I mean, the -- we should be basing something that's based upon the science of -- you know, the nutrition and the prevention of enriching lakes. That's what we're doing here, not making -- and when -- think of the enforcement even in a blackout period. What are you going to do, patrol the street or neighbors are going to turn in, or a hotline, or what's going to happen there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's relatively easy for me to enforce if you've got a set date. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I agree with that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can visit the site. And periodic, I will tell you, my -- one neighbor will -- the anonymous code line will ring, and I'll go out there, and I'll look to see if there are fertilizer granules, and I'll ask the neighbor for a log, and the neighbor will look at me and smile. And so I don't -- I don't have a good enforcement on periodic, and that's why I think your state -model ordinance says zero, and other counties have adopted a blackout period, because that's at least enforceable one end to the other. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And the other thing was, our neighboring counties around us, there are 40 counties that are already doing this, and we're going to revisit it in two years. We had put down, it's only three months here, but it's close. We're close to the City of Naples, so everything in Collier County would be pretty even. It would be much easier to enforce. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think we're down to a choice between two things, either a two -month enforcement from August through September or no enforcement. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So why don't we just frame the question in that way. CHAIRMAN CARON: I thought I just did that. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Under the enforcement section of this, Mac, what is the opportunity to cure? What are you going to do, pick the granules out of the grass? MR. HATCHER: Well, as I indicated when we discussed about this initially, the cure is difficult in most instances. About the only thing that can be cured is where you've got fertilizer that's applied to an impervious surface. That can be removed; otherwise, there isn't a cure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: A fine. Page 54 of 79 1 6 12 A� 04 May 19, 2011 MR. HATCHER: Right, you go straight to fine. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just the fine. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. But I also think then, the cure that you've just created is for the future, because if somebody gets a fine, they're not going to do it again. And that's, you know, the bottom line on some of these things. It just has to be that. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Just for clarity, the thing I want, which is the two month, is buried in the zero, right? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my only menu choice that would get me the two -month regulation is either not to vote or vote for zero. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would support zero. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You could either vote for those two months or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- you could vote for zero. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And zero's the wrong answer, so thanks, guys, for making me vote for something that's not the right answer. So I think I won't vote. That will make it easier. CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm not sure that you can do that, but anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's a straw vote. It's not a motion, so I can do it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would support zero. CHAIRMAN CARON: So Melissa's still with August and September? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm still two months, so put me down for nothing. CHAIRMAN CARON: You're nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is a subset of zero if you need a count. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: August and September. CHAIRMAN CARON: You'll go with August and September. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, man. The state model is nothing. I'm going to go with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Zero. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I go with the ban. CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I go with the ban. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have to stipulate what ban you're talking about. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two months. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's different than what they're talking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Two month. CHAIRMAN CARON: Two month, yeah. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Two months. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. So the consensus is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a tie. CHAIRMAN CARON: No, it's not a tie. There are three people who want nothing, and the rest have indicated that they will accept the August and September. So there you go, 5 -3. MR. KLATZKOW: Four. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, Mark's not here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if I vote, it would be a tie? CHAIRMAN CARON: No, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So who are the three? Page 55 of 79 w 1 6 12 A7 May 19, 2011 CHAIRMAN CARON: You're in the "no" column. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You're in the "zero." CHAIRMAN CARON: You're in the "zero" column. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I see -- Bob, weren't you a "no," or were you -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. Zero -- yeah, Karen, you, and Bob. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's four. CHAIRMAN CARON: No, that's three. Karen, you, and Bob. COMMISSIONER SCI - FFER: Oh, I thought you were there. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I said I would support zero before I would support anything more stringent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's four, isn't it? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I thought you said the two -month ban. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. And then I said I would support -- CHAIRMAN CARON: She's still on her two months. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would support zero before going more than 60 days. CHAIRMAN CARON: So there's five people who are saying that the August, September ban is what we will put in the ordinance and recommend to the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It needs to be a motion, I would believe. CHAIRMAN CARON: No. They're all -- Bob, I don't know. Did we take a vote on all of the rest of the items? We just did consensus. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- is this a workshop? If it's a workshop -- CHAIRMAN CARON: We did a consensus the last time around on all the rest of the issues, I believe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it's an ordinance. Or is it a -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would make a motion -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, go ahead, make a motion. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- that we go with ban between August and September. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Do you have a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN CARON: All right. All in favor? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARON: And those opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN CARON: There you go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, everybody. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not about the topic, but one thing -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mac, you got the requirement for -- back to the redacted thing. And by the way, it's impossible to read in this lighting over here in the shadows. But I think you put it in the definition of prohibited application period, and I think that's really bad code writing where you put the requirement in a definition. So I think -- I would like to see if you could keep a definition but then go over to the timing of fertilizer Page 56 of 79 16! 2 A? P" May 19, 2011 application and put the requirement we just voted on in the -- that. In other words, definitions is not a place that you put the time frames and stuff. Do you -- are you okay with that? CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. It should just say a time period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, like two months. MR. HATCHER: I can do that. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Thank you, Mac. I appreciate it. Have you got everything you need, Mac? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, he's coming back. MR. HATCHER: No, that will do it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, he's not coming back. CHAIRMAN CARON: He is not coming back. MR. HATCHER: Two years. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, two years, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one thing before we leave this, because that two years is really important, and I really -- because of the stumbling on these issues, I really think we should -- and I think the department should or the Conservancy or stakeholder group should really figure out what we want to talk about in two years -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- or whoever's here, because, you know, we really need data, we really need to help with these communities that are having trouble with algae, we really need to really understand what it is. You know, maybe the best way to do it is to apply it to the irrigation, you know, take a test of what's coming out of the pond, put in what's missing, and that's how you get a perfectly balanced system. But -- so let's, you know, get really smart about this, not depend on these kind of requirements, and so how do we, in two years from now, sit with the right data? MR. HATCHER: Water - quality sampling, per se, what's typically done, addresses the whole issue of runoff. It does not separate out the effects of fertilizer. That's one of the reasons that this deliberation is so painful. It takes expensive focus studies like IFAS and other universities are doing on turf or other landscape plants, separated from general runoff, in order to determine the effects from fertilizer. So we'll be able to update you on current literature. If the model ordinance is changed in several areas, we can -- we can update you on the state of the science, but I certainly wouldn't anticipate that the water - quality results are going to be indicative of a need for change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what Pm thinking is, couldn't we put together, maybe the Conservancy, somebody take the lead, because these communities are isolated, fighting this on their own, and they're doing the best job. So how do we put together some sort of a team, a club, a stakeholders' group that actually shares what they're knowing and starts to really -- you're right, that's data, but it's more than just data. It's whether his grandchild can go to the edge of the pond certain months. So why don't we -- CHAIRMAN CARON: And it's education, which is obviously important to all of us. Mr. Murray brought that up earlier. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they can meet every two months. Just kidding. But anyway, I think that's an important thing. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm sorry. Maybe that's a better answer right there is that the communities take these things on themselves and police themselves and do their own with their association. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the testimony we heard, they're the ones that are worried about it the most, and it's their property values. They don't want scum in their ponds. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They have the ability. They're doing it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question, Mac, where in the watershed plan is the requirements for cleaning up algae once you do have it? Some of the testimony we've had, the most shocking part of this process is people describing the genocide that they've done to their lakes, you know, killing everything alive within six feet of it. Where are the requirements for how to clean up algae? Is that in the watershed? MR. HATCHER: It's not. The growth of algae is part of the normal function of a stormwater treatment Page 57 of 79 16 12 V May .19,2011 system, and currently it's up to the maintenance entity for the stormwater system as to how they maintain it. The thing that the county and the state and federal government are interested in is, what comes out of the end pipe of the stormwater system. And if they trap algae in the stormwater system, then that removes nutrients that would be coming out of it. So we're in favor of them managing their systems to eliminate algal problems, but the growth of algae in a stormwater system is really kind of a natural process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there is no regulations in the stormwater's plan on how to clean lakes or maintain lakes? MR. HATCHER: There are not. The proposals that we made for low- impact development standards will hopefully have a significant impact on the amount of nutrient runoff that goes into those stormwater lakes, much more so, I believe, than this fertilizer ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the answer is, there's no requirements? MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's fine. MR. HATCHER: We're not proposing a requirement for treatment of the lakes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Why don't we agree as staff to look into some of this stuff as part of the watershed management? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it should because -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we heard some testimony of guys that, like, wiped out everything within six feet of the lake to get rid of it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, obviously the sediment's increasing, and what was that, you know. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. I think we've learned a lot from what Island Walk is doing and some of the other testimony. I think we need to incorporate some of that, what we do in terms of outreach and as part of the development of the watershed LDR. So let's take that as guidance to move forward with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, Mac. MR. HATCHER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN CARON: Run quick, because we're apt to come up with another question. Thank you. ** *All right. Finally, these poor people who have been with us all day. Our next item is SV- PL2010 -1995. It's a Walmart sign variance. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Does anybody have disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, sir. The floor is all yours. Are you Mr. Pressman? MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Todd Pressman, P.O. Box 6015. They sent me down from Tampa this morning. I thought I had plenty of time to come down and visit with you -all, maybe go home, take a nap, because I woke up early, but I'm going to be in a rush to get back because I have a 6 p.m. hearing up there I got to get to. Madam Chairman and Board Members, we're here today for Walmart stores. This is a wall -sign variance. It is the site that is located on Collier Boulevard here. This is the store location here on Business Circle. And to orient you, the site is a very large site. It is comprised completely of 23.95 acres. The building itself is 221,903 square feet. Your staff describes the store itself as 5 acres, over 1,000 parking spaces, very large site, 1,200 feet lot frontage. The building frontage alone is 750 feet for building width. Just a closeup of the site. I'm sure most of you are familiar with it. The wall signs are proposed just for this front wall. I'll show you what they are specifically in just a minute. But to give you good orientation, the wall signs proposed are just for the front of the store. So when you look at the surrounding areas, the wall signs will be here. It will not impact into the residential Page 58 of 79 16 12 47,aylV%011 residential in the area -- or in the vicinity. And to give you a distance measurement, by Google measurement, this is just about 500 feet to Collier Boulevard. This is just a quick elevation of what the site may look like, but specifically, sign by sign, currently the Walmart -- and they call this the spark -- looks like a big asterisk. That is permitted. That is permitted. Sign 1 under the variance is outdoor living, which is the 50 square feet. That's at this far end of the store where those uses or those materials are kept. Home and pharmacy, which is located here, which is 64 square feet -- and, again, that's oriented to where it is in the store, and then market, which is the grocery element, which is -- a little bit hard to read, I'm song, without my glasses -- thank you -- 18.5 square feet on the front. So that is what is proposed. Now, just to give you -- this is just a second look to let you see what those signs are in their typical package. Now, the specific variances are really broken into two categories. One is to -- the code allows three of the wall signs. The request here is to allow a total of five. The second element is the square footage. Code allows 250 square feet. We're proposing to go 350 square feet. One of the primary reasons behind it and one of the reasons that comes forward with your staff recommendation and support -- we're thrilled to have your staff support; they've wholeheartedly supported it -- is that they are directional in nature. When you're approaching a store or size (sic) of this nature, when you're coming in the main entrance, you really need to know which way in the store you're going to be servicing. So, for example, if you're looking to go to the market and the market's on this side, you need to be parking on this side or you're going to be trudging in the store, get upset, I got to walk all the way to the other side of the store and go all the way to the other side of the store. Likewise, with the uses that are posted for this side of the building. So as I sort of intimated up front, the signage that you see, which is designed just in the front of the store, very small, I don't -- I think it's fair to say you would never see those wall signs to the street at a linear distance of 500 feet. It is primarily directional in nature so people know where in the store they're going and to then orient themselves as they approach the store and be able to know where their interests are. There is a very minor - effect variance. When you take into account the size of the location and the immensity of the store, if you were to take the signs that we're asking and calculate just the surface square footage down the front wall -- that's just the front wall -- they would account for 1.5 percent surface area. So one thing that -- and you have a good sign code, but one thing your code has a little bit of difficulty is, on very, very large sites, it does allow you some more additional wall signage. But on a site of this nature, I think it's important for you to know where the benchmark is. In this particular case, if you were to add up all the wall signage, including the allowed signs, the total service area would be 1.5 percent. And another perspective might be that if this were a typical shopping center which did have a separate -- separately -owned pharmacy and they had a separately -owned market and they had a separately owned home good stores, and all those different elements, this site would be, by right, allowed many, many times the amount of square footage that we're asking today. So in terms of how your code works, we think this is a very -- a credible request. It's not an overage. It's designed for on -site signage. And, again, with those elements, we're very glad to come forward with your staffs recommendation of support. Walmart is thrilled to be in this area. It's an important area for them. This is a very upgraded site. I travel the state doing a lot of the Walmart stuff, and this is a very upgraded site, a very nice site, and they appreciate being in the market and appreciate your consideration today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I just have some comments. They're good, so I better disclose I have no financial interest. I have no stock. I have not spoken to this gentleman. I've only been in the shopping center business, like I said a couple weeks ago -- but almost four decades. First of all, I think -- and I live near this Walmart. Walmart is supposedly classified as a department -- as a super center. They're really a shopping center. What they have here is almost 250,000 square feet, and the Page 59 of 79 1612 h7,. r. ,,q 19, 2011 Nordstrom store at Waterside is 77,000 square feet. You're talking about a mammoth store with -- that needs more sign. And I just wanted to tell you that they are --and they're a good citizen of our county, by the way. They have about a million square feet, if they count the four stores they have, plus the Sam's. So I think there's no doubt that they should get this variance. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray, were you next? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Sir, I was here when the original building was being processed for rezone and ultimately building. And although I didn't have time to go and investigate further, I do remember that signs were requested, very much the same type signs were requested at that time, and obviously you either didn't build them because we may have agreed to it or, as I recollect, we didn't agree to it at the time. And Pm just wondering if you have the file from any of that period. I'm going to ask the same question of staff, because that becomes an important factor as to what -- what it is we're doing here. I don't have a problem personally with more signage. I do say this, though. I do know that your argument about people need to be directed, I do know that part of marketing is to change things around so that you always keep people going to new places, they find new things. So while I appreciate what you're saying, I don't think that's a good enough argument. I had a question which I will save for the moment for the -- I do have a couple of others. Hold on, please. The other -- as I recall, we actually were talking the last time about having a barber shop sign as well. There was a barber shop in there. All right. I can't find what I'm looking for, and I'm not going to hold you up. MR. PRESSMAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But are these signs going to be changed out as they change the locations within the stores? MR. PRESSMAN: I've personally work with Walmart for over a decade, and I've never handled any kind of change -out for them, sir. I certainly can't attest to management situations at this site, sir. I have no knowledge and wouldn't have any in that regard if things were going to be changed. Obviously, for -- obviously, they're planning these (sic) signage now, and that's to correspond with what's in the store. I assume that that's the way things will stay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, this -- in looking over the detail again, it does represent -- a sign variance in this case does confer a special privilege on the applicant, and so we have to be mindful here what that represents when the next party comes before us. MR. PRESSMAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so I -- again, I have no personal problem on it. Are you -- you made a case that you wouldn't see the signs 500 feet in. One of our other responsibilities is to make certain that whatever is available to be seen does not become an attractant that will actually take somebody who's driving and cause them to have a problem. So there's a little bit of a question -- when you said what you said, you stimulated something in my mind about -- I don't know if that's a good thing. So what you're saying to us, I guess, is that as long as they see the Walmart sign, they'll drive in and they'll look for the other signs. MR. PRESSMAN: Well, there is a free - standing sign, which is to code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. PRESSMAN: And a large wall sign is clearly visible, 500 feet. These other signs are very small. I can't imagine that they would readable from the main thoroughfare, and they're certainly not -- they're certainly not designed to be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're depending upon it entirely being, once they're on the campus, so to speak, that they would then be using those signs. So they'll drive around? MR. PRESSMAN: For the signs that are under the variance, yes, sir, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. That was my set of questions. Again, I'll make my point, I don't don't -- I don't have, personally, a problem with it, but trying to subscribe to the Land Development Code and the Page 60 of 79 161 2 A7may 19, 2011 Growth Management Plan, this is definitely conferring upon Walmart a privilege. MR. PRESSMAN: I would just say, in short response, Madam Chair, if I may, not to elicit a huge debate. I would say to you that the circumstances clearly are, if this were a 7- Eleven right on Collier Boulevard, the purposes, the use, the visibility aspects of the signage we're proposing would not be appropriate. But taking into account the scale and the size and immensity of the site, I believe that it does, and your staff believes -- believed the same as well. I appreciate your opinion, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate your comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Bob, you might be recalling, we really beat the signs back on the Walmart on Immokalee Road. And, actually, I think we beat it back too far, because I feel pretty good, when you ride up on 75, you can't tell what that mass of buildings -- the architectural standards broke it up. It's a beautiful mass of buildings, but you have no idea what it is, and that might not even be safe for travelers who would benefit from the pharmacy or something. I mean, I think -- I'm going to support this thing, because the major point that he made, and Barry alluded to, is that if this was multiple tenants in a shopping center broken up, this would be full of signs. I mean, this is nothing compared to the percentage that you would get with multiple tenants. So I don't think, and the distances, that this in any way would be a lesser degree of an aesthetic. And we're lucky we don't have the multiple tenants. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Caron? CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Do you -all want to hear from staff, or do you have a question for Mr. Pressman? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I was going to mention that the Target is right across from them, and they have their separate grocery, pharmacy, so -- and we'll hear from staff. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of this sign variance. We do have a condition of approval, and that is the additional wall signs are limited to the building facades facing towards Collier Boulevard. And I also wanted to make reference to -- for Commissioner Murray, I wanted to share with you that there are no additional sign provisions in the PUD for this particular Walmart. And I was thinking maybe -- this Walmart is located just south of I -75, where you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I pass it very often. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, okay, because I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know exactly the one. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We were thinking that there's another Walmart further south down by the East Trail. There may be some provisions in that particular PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm familiar with that one -- I'm familiar with that one as well. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, quite frankly, I'm pretty clear in my mind -- and I could be wrong, and maybe Brad is correct -- but I'm pretty clear in my mind the issue I raised was associated directly with this store. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if I can ask a question. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't know if you were finished with your presentation. MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, I'm finished. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. Now, you have to resolve for me then this question under E on Page 6 of 8, it says, will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege, and you say yes. Well, how can we have it at both ends of it? MS. GUNDLACH: A variance, by its very nature, always conveys a privilege on the person requesting it. Page 61 of 79 } } f 1612 A7 May 19, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yes. I remember now. That's right. Brad has, on a couple of occasions, suggested we remove that because of that very same -- MS. GUNDLACH: We have the same answer every time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm -- I'm -- again, I don't really have a problem with this, per se. I just don't want to be getting out into the world -- now -- that didn't make sense to you, but it did to me. If it is true, I mean, the sign code says X, and it said X for Walmart, but for -- what was your -- Target? Target has Y and Z. And I guess that's always a question. And the only reason I'm talking even a little bit further is because I do have a very good recollection of this. I remember the issue of the barber shop being right in -- as you go in on the right -hand side and the whole routine. And it was clear to me that we -- for whatever reasons, we must have turned it down at the time, because it was requested, and you didn't investigate that file? MS. GUNDLACH: I did not investigate that hearing file, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I'll let it be on its own. I'm not going to be the hard nose here. CHAIRMAN CARON: Does anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN CARON: Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we forward Petition SV- PL2010 -1995 to the commission with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. PRESSMAN: Madam Chairman, I did want to say to you very quickly, doing this from out of town is very difficult. I just wanted to let you know Ms. Gundlach was a phenomenal help, very fair, kept my feet to the fire, but she was phenomenal help in dealing with me, and I'm sure the public, and I wanted to make sure you -all knew that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Would you like to actually have your vote taken? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's not in a hurry to get back, is he? CHAIRMAN CARON: I think you might want to wait a minute. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARON: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, thank you. You've got your vote. We do try to get ahead of ourselves here. ** *Okay. Our final hearing for today is a conditional -use boat -dock extension, BD- PL2010 -1685, Vanderbilt Beach boat -dock extension. Do we have -- have you talked to any -- do -- any disclosures from anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN CARON: Brad? Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we going to -- these people are all waiting. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, in a minute. Page 62 of 79 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. 1612 A 19 "Al l CHAIRMAN CARON: Just do your disclosures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just feel sorry for them. CHAIRMAN CARON: Then she can swear everybody in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're just so ready to be sworn. The -- I had a conversation with Bruce Burkhard. We discussed what he felt would be the appropriate length of this dock. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. I've had conversations with Tim Hall, with staff, with the County Attorney's Office, and with citizens. Okay. Now you may swear everybody in, Terri. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Hi, Tim, go ahead. The floor is all yours, finally. MR. HALL: Finally. Good afternoon. My name is Tim Hall with Turrell, Hall & Associates, here representing the petitioner on this boat -dock extension. And I think what I'll start with is something that Commissioner Caron had asked me to do when we -- when we talked, was to kind of run through our process to show how we got to the design where we're at. And what I've got is a series of exhibits that I can put up. And when we first started on this project prior to making any applications, the -- to the state or the federal agencies or the county, basically looking at what could possibly be done on the property, and the county setback from riparian lines or from property lines is 15 feet. So in maximizing that shoreline, we initially did 15 feet. And knowing that under the Manatee Protection Plan the site would be allowed up to ten slips, we kind of used those and ran through a couple of scenarios where the most we could fit was eight slips within those areas. But in looking at the adjacent facilities and needing to accommodate the navigation that had already been established with the boats that moored there and all, we realized that the 15 feet wouldn't be appropriate in this case. So we went to the state standard, which was a 25 -foot setback, and ran through several examples of those with five or six boat slips. The other thing that had occurred was during the conditional uses for the upland property, they had made a commitment that the site would only have six slips. So the eight went down to six, and the side setbacks went from 15 to 25 feet. I'll just run through these. These are a bunch of different alternatives that we looked at with those -- you know, with those parameters. And also knowing that we were going to be dealing with a boat -dock extension, there was no way to get these boats within 20 feet of the seawall. We also started looking at some of the other requirements that are entailed, the primary and secondary considerations. And going through those, the first one, whether or not the number of docks proposed is appropriate to the site, that had kind of been established in their conditional use that they would have six slips or that they would be allowed up to six slips. The water depths immediately against the seawall are shallow. They're less than half a foot deep at mean low water. So going out to accommodate that a little bit was also required. Whether the -- and I'm going to skip over No. 23 and address that last, because I think that's where the biggest concern would be based on the conversations that I've had so far. So No. 4, whether the dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent the width of the waterway. The waterway where this facility is located is approximately 450 feet; 25 percent of that's about 115 feet. So our furthermost extension that would be allowed under the boat -dock extensions would be 115 feet. As I said, we already had the restrictions of at least 25 feet on both sides, so our envelope basically became a 50 -foot by 100- or 112 -foot square. And then whether the location is such that the facility won't interfere with the use of neighboring docks. Number 3 and No. 5 kind of tie together. And in looking at the established uses for the docks to the north and south, south, there were larger boats. There to the north there's a 36 -foot boat. To the south there's about a 27- or 28 -foot Page 63 of 79 1612A7 May 19, 2011 •k m w vessel. And when we design for vessels of that size, kind of a standard backing distance that you want for the boat to be able to maneuver in and out of a slip is one - and -a -half times the overall length of the boat. So if the boat is 36 feet, then you're looking at somewhere between 52 and 55 feet that you want to give that boat to be able to maneuver in and out. The 28 -foot boat would, correspondingly, be about 42 feet, plus or minus. So that actually -- given the way that the facility to the north and south had been constructed, that meant that our 25 feet, especially on the north side, wasn't sufficient to give that vessel its length and a half. They had about 10 feet of clearway between the boat and their property line, and our 25 feet that we were providing was only 32 feet. So we had to look at reducing the design further, and we ended up with what is -- has been proposed and what's in front of you today. You can see that the 44 feet that we provide to the edge of the vessels with the 10 feet that they have on their side gives the 54 feet on the north, and the 29 and 14 or 15 feet on the south gives them the 42, 43 feet that they need for that vessel. The other thing that this design does, it's the minimum amount of decking that you can actually have for a facility like this with six vessels. I mean, it's basically just the walkways associated with those. Every other design that you saw me put up actually has more overwater structure and overwater decking, so that went towards meeting some of the secondary criteria in terms of minimizing that. I think the staff report was well done. The -- it shows that we do meet all of the primary and secondary criteria that are applicable to this, and that's pretty much the extent. You know, we think that we did what we were supposed to. The design is minimalized. It allows the property to make use of their riparian area while still giving the neighbors the uses that they've been accustomed to. So I'd be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have questions. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In looking through the file -- I'm going to ask a number of questions. I notice that there's a hurricane plan required. Has that been put into effect? MR. HALL: It hasn't been fully developed. There is a -- there's a draft, and for a facility like this, the hurricane plan usually has to do with any of the things that are on the dock, such as fire extinguishers and other things, making sure that they're either fastened down or removed, making sure that any vessels -- the one thing I forgot to mention is these vessels are -- they're not public. They're for members and the guests of the club, the Upland Club there, and it's -- it kind of falls in between the definition of permanent and transient mooring. Mooring's not allowed at these docks for more than 48 hours. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm aware. MR. HALL: So that's -- in terms of the hurricane plan, making sure that any vessels that are there, the hurricane plan for those, because they are transient, would be to relocate the vessel to a safer location. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question of excavation is clear in the permit, but dredging I couldn't find. Is dredging permitted under your permit? MR. HALL: It is, yes, sir. There's a -- I will -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You don't have to. I'll take your testimony. MR. HALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because that's something I just didn't find, and I looked it over and I didn't find it. MR. HALL: In the state and federal permits, there is a little bit of dredging that will occur immediately adjacent to the seawall where I said it was very shallow. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, right. Now, as a curiosity, do we have -- is there any current that runs through that area, current of significance? MR. HALL: It's -- most of the current there is generated by the tides. So as the tide goes up and down, it is is at the -- kind of the end of the system, so the currents are minimal. They're associated with tides, and you may have -- if the wind is blowing in the correct direction, you may have a little bit of circulation that's associated with the surface currents, the wind. Page 64 of 79 16 12 A4719,2011 1 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the basis for my question there is that you have six large vessels, and you have a five -foot dock line, and you have some pilings. And if you have a significant current, you have an awful lot of weight being pushed against the draft. And that was -- you understand my question -- MR. HALL: I do, and you run into that, like, on the -- a good example, the Snook Inn on the Marco River is a good example of that when you get a really strong current. There are no currents like that at this -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I needed to understand. I notice that you have it under Vanderbilt Beach, Limited Liability Company and yet it's Floridian Club Docks. That -- which is the right -- I mean, they're both valid, I guess, but what is it, a doing business as? MR. HALL: Correct. I'll defer that -- MS. BISHOP: Yes. MR. HALL: Karen says yes, it's a doing business as. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And then I think my last question is -- yes, that was the permit. The other one was -- yeah, I'm curious about one of the documents you have. It says existing seawall -- I'm sorry. Proposed spoil containment area. My question there is -- currently a parking lot from the visuals that you've shared, is this a temporary containment area while you're dredging? MR. HALL: Correct, yeah. It will be -- it will hold the spoil material, and then the material will be loaded into the other trucks and transported off of that, and it will return to its use as a parking lot once that's done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And, finally, I looked at the spacing between. It's awful tight for the kind of vessels that are going to go head in like that. I'm estimating roughly four -and -a -half to five feet between vessels. MR. HALL: Five feet is what we -- is what we designed for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope you don't have a single screw trying to get in under those circumstances. MR. HALL: Because of the -- it's mostly temporary and transient mooring, the most likely use would be that the boats would come in from the outside to the forward, and then as they move up, the other boats would move forward. We don't anticipate there being a lot of maneuvering needed to get in and out of them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really? I don't believe that, but okay. That's my questions. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, Donna. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Brad, you can go next. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you -- do you have a layout where you did the boats perpendicular to the dock? MR. HALL: Perpen- -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like, for example, the dock above has a main dock with finger docks for the boat perpendicular to it. MR. HALL: No, we didn't -- we didn't really look at layouts like that because the length and the amount of space that would have taken up would have not been -- wouldn't have been feasible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what would have gone wrong? I mean, you'd have, from the back the boat, about 17- and -a -half feet, and then the dimension of the other property. What couldn't happen there then? MR. HALL: Well, you'd have had -- if you had 17 behind the back of the boat and you only have 10 on the other side, that only leaves you 27 feet. And, like I said, the boat to the north needs 50 to be able to maneuver in and out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The boat to the north, what do you mean, the -- okay. So -- MR. HALL: The big boat to the north there -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HALL: -- is a 30- foot -plus vessel. And if we had -- I don't really have any -- if we had made those docks perpendicular -- I'm assuming that's what you mean, perpendicular like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. HALL: Then getting through the reduced area at the easternmost edge of those docks would have been been a little bit tighter, and then having the boats backing or forwarding into each other would have been, you know, unsafe and not a feasible alternative in our opinion. Page 65 of 79 e 161 2 A7 " May 19, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Do you have a picture showing this dock in relation to all the other docks on that side, not just these neighboring two? MS. BISHOP: If we get Internet access, we can go to the web. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the point. If you do look at Google maps or something, you'll see that this thing's going to stick out much further than anything up that shore, and -- MR. HALL: I've got it. I have it here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's kind of close. But even if you keep going all the way up, you're going to see that this thing would be the one that sticks out the furthest, and -- MR. HALL: Well, it's -- I mean, it's compatible with -- the dock to the north, again, was permitted out to 102 feet or 107 feet depending on which document you look at. So it is actually in line with what is allowed at the dock to the north. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean -- and that must have been to the back of the boats when they're positioned on the lifts. MR. HALL: Which is what the county measures to. It has to include the boat as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because I think it's -- I mean, I'm a little concerned the thing's sticking out, that it is an unsafe situation where these are the kind of docks that get nailed by some -- somebody usually a little -- was thirstier than he should have been that day. And I'm just afraid of something sticking out, sticking out in the water like this really looks like it is to me, is kind of a problem. But let me -- the questions I really have will be with Nancy, so thanks. CHAIRMAN CARON: Tim, you said that your conditional use -- MR. HALL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN CARON: Your conditional use, you said, granted you six slips, the potential for six slips? MR. HALL: Yes, ma'am, I believe that's correct. CHAIRMAN CARON: Can you show us where it says that in the conditional use? MR. HALL: Yeah. I think it's -- the configuration that's actually shown in the conditional use showed the six slips. I don't know that it's -- CHAIRMAN CARON: It showed a T dock which, from the looks of it, couldn't fit more than three or four vessels. MR. HALL: Okay. Well, I don't have that conditional use in -- CHAIRMAN CARON: I have the -- that exhibit that you gave us, or staff gave us; somebody gave it to us. And I was just trying to figure out how it was possible to get on that little T that you showed. Looks like maybe a boat on the inside of that T on either side and a boat on the outside. Maybe you could get two boats on the outside. I'm not sure. MR. HALL: Okay. I'm sorry. I still don't see that exhibit, so I don't know exactly what it looks like. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. This is -- MS. ASHTON: I have the resolution. MR. HALL: Here, let me get it. CHAIRMAN CARON: We all got this exhibit in our packet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just trying to be helpful there. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. MR. HALL: The -- this one actually shows the -- some mooring. I mean, if you see the way the pilings are laid out, it shows two -- kind of like Mr. Schiffer was saying, it shows perpendicular mooring, two against the seawall, two against the inside edge of the T, and two on the outside edge of the T. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Now I need my exhibit back so I can see that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would you --before you give it back, would you just stick it on the visualizer so we can see what you're talking about. All right. I don't remember that. MR. HALL: The way that the -- the way that the mooring piles, these little dots if they -- if they -- you may not be able to see them -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, we can see them. Page 66 of 79 16 12 A47 ay 19, 2011 MR. HALL: -- on there. But this one allowed for vessels on each side against the seawall, two more on the inside edge of this T, and then two on the outside edge of the T. CHAIRMAN CARON: Oh, two on the inside of the T as well? MR. HALL: Right. So there's actually one, two, three, four, five, six. CHAIRMAN CARON: Oh, okay. I got it. Okay, thank you. MR. HALL: But as I had said to Mr. Schiffer, that design wasn't feasible. It actually takes up more than the -- than the 50 feet that was allowable when we got to the state and federal permitting agencies. CHAIRMAN CARON: No, I understand that. I was just trying to understand the six, because I didn't have it anywhere else in anything I had. On your exhibit -- well, again, this comes from those exhibits that were attached. It shows that the dock to the north is 10 feet away on the outside -- the largest part of that -- the T part -- MR. HALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN CARON: -- but that the boat you're trying to accommodate actually sits back so it's 12 feet away, a little more than 12 feet away; is that correct? MR. HALL: Yeah, probably, the way that that vessel is sitting in there. There was a -- if you look back on older aerials, there was another vessel that used the slip adjacent to that, that's immediately next to the long - finger pier, and that one was very comparable in size. But given the -- where the dock was and all, we still went, you know, with the -- basically the biggest boat that they would be permitted to put in there, going out to their submerged land lease and all of that, would be, you know, out to the actual extent of the finger pier. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Because I'm just looking at multiple exhibits, and all of them have different numbers on them. That's not a good thing, okay, for future. MR. HALL: Well, I mean, it depends. A lot of them have different numbers on them, but the numbers are generally referencing different things. I mean, that's what we try to do. CHAIRMAN CARON: But this is referencing the boat to the north, and that's what I'm referencing. And so that's actually 12.21 or 12.35. I don't know why there would be a difference in the piling, but -- away from your riparian line. MR. HALL: Okay. When we do the -- and that's -- I guess that's accounting for the boat that is actually there right now. But when we design, we have to design for what's allowed there, and so what's allowed there is actually a boat that's larger than what may be there now. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. I don't think you could get a bigger boat in. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How do we know what's allowed there and what isn't allowed there? CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. MR. HALL: We looked at the submerged land leases that were issued by the state for those adjacent facilities, and a boat is not allowed to go -- can go up to but not past that land -lease boundary or they're noncompliant with their state permits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And did we check -- I mean, they must have got a boat -dock extension. MR. HALL: No. Actually, both -- the facility to the north was built in 1980, the one to the south was built in the early's '90s, and both of those were done prior to the boat -dock extension ordinance being in effect for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So are they legal docks then or -- MR. HALL: They're legal, but they're, I guess, nonconforming is the term you guys use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you're saying that a boat thus can solely go whatever dimension it is, as long as he stays above the lease area? MR. HALL: As long as he stays within the lease area. And I believe some of the exhibits that you guys have related to this one shows where the leased -- the leased boundary will be for this facility, and you'll see that it actually goes out to 108 feet for the lease. We're going to be limited by the BDE to 106, but DEP always likes to have a little bit of a cushion there in case there's an issue with construction or that kind of -- that kind of issue. We have to go to them first before we come to you guys, so it usually starts out as the larger number, and then when we do the BDE, it's actually a smaller number than what was approved for the lease. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the important thing, that's a number you provide? Page 67 of 79 1612 A7 May 19, 2011 MR. HALL: Well, it's a number -- yeah, I guess it's a number that we provide and then is verified by survey upon construction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in other words, the length is based -- from the state's standpoint, you said you want 106, they'll give you 108. They give you tolerance. MR. HALL: Well, we say we need 106, and they say you have to lease 108 to give us the assurance the you'll stay within your lease area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who determined the width of that lease area? MR. HALL: Again, that was based on looking at a nonnal -- we use a fleet mix that looks at the boats that have been constructed, like, within the last five years and what the normal width or beam of those boats are, and so you look at the 5 -foot dock, plus two of those beams again, plus a little bit of a cushion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. MR. HALL: -- for boats that might be slightly wider. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Donna. CHAIRMAN CARON: So what you're saying is if you have 35 feet, 36 feet to the north with 25 -foot setback and they're 11, the boat that exists there to the north cannot turn and get out? MR. HALL: I'm not saying -- CHAIRMAN CARON: I mean, I know they're used to wide turns because you're not there right now, so they take up all of your space to turn, but -- MR. HALL: It's very hard to turn any vehicle within its length. I mean -- any boat. I'm sorry. I guess there are cars and unicycles and stuff that you can turn pretty good, but a boat is very difficult to turn, especially if it doesn't have bow thrusters or multiple screws. It's very difficult to turn within its own body length. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, thanks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I have the floor again? CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I mean --and that's what we have to judge with the appropriateness of an extension. If you put these things up against the seawall, perpendicular to the seawall, that wouldn't be an issue. MR. HALL: If we put them perpendicular to the seawall, then you would be limiting the number of slips. We couldn't do six slips perpendicular to the seawall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the width of the slips that you would need? MR. HALL: The width of the slips, I believe, are 15 feet, so you've got 15 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why -- I mean -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, its showing here as 12. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, you know -- MR. HALL: Twelve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you've got a setback that we could be discussing, but you could theoretically put them all perpendicular and then always be out of that guy's way. MR. HALL: Well, even if it's -- if it's 12 feet, you're -- you would still be limiting -- you would still be limited to four vessels. We only have 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because you gave them that number, and that's what they gave you. MR. HALL: Because the state requires 25 -feet setbacks from the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. HALL: That's not a number that I gave them. That's a requirement from the state. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Got it. CHAIRMAN CARON: Anybody have any other questions? Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What gave you -- how many people are in this club? This only can just be transient dockage here, within 48 hours? MR. HALL: Membership -- membership of the club right now is limited to the -- to certain buildings within within the Dunes community that's further to the north. And I believe that there are also some honorary memberships or guest membership that were given to the neighbors to the north and south of the club so that they could -- they could utilize the facilities there as well. Page 68 of 79 k j_- .. a +ty'•. 5 lay 19, 11 1b12 20 CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, Tim. Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, for the record, principal planner with the Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of this boat -dock petition. I do -- there is one condition of approval, and it is a carryover from the previous condition of approval for this entire site. And it states that docks in connection with access via the Vanderbilt Lagoon may not be used for the berthing or mooring of boats in excess of 48 hours. The exact language in the previous conditional use just got carried over. And I also wanted to make a clarification in the staff report, and that is that all of the primary and secondary criteria have been met. And it would be my pleasure to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN CARON: Questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, my concern on this thing is that the dock itself is going to stick out, essentially what the neighboring dock plus boat would stick out, which means if no boats are on it, it's just a dock, which isn't very visible. To the north if boats are on it -- I mean, if no boats are on it, you know, there's equipment there and everything. So my concern is the safety of this thing sticking out into the waterway where people could not see it. I mean, I'm sure that they'll have reflectors and stuff, but people are slamming into those all the time. So do you -- the staff has no concern whatsoever about the safety of this thing jutting out into the waterway? And the reason it juts out further than the other one is because the other one is measured to boats. So if there's an object out there, it's visible because it's a boat. If this thing is out there, it's a 5 -foot dock that, at night, may not be that visible. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. The designer said that they normally put reflectors at the end of the dock. So I'm -- oh, also that there's 300 feet left over in the channel for the boats to navigate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what I'm concerned about is some guy coming along, zipping along, and, you know, following that side of the channel and not seeing it and hitting it, and that's the classic boat accident that really does maim a lot of people. But, anyway, if you're not concerned about it your answer is, I'm not concerned about it. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: Do you have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, other than I'm concerned about it, no. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. MR. HALL: If I might, Mr. Schiffer, the other that -- Vanderbilt Lagoon is also an idle -speed zone. So if they are -- they wouldn't be zipping unless they're -- you know, unless they're illegal. They would be moving at idle speed, or they should be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But every one of the accidents are based upon bad judgment, and till they experience hitting this, they're going to have bad judgment. But anyway, I understand your point, too. CHAIRMAN CARON: Tim, are you required to have lights on your dock on this marina facility? MR. HALL: We're not required to have lights. There will probably be lights, but they'll have to be measured against some of the -- they're close enough that they would still have to be measured against the turtle lighting standard. Everything would have to be down, not up. So it's possible that, depending on the lights and depending on what the conservation guys say when they go out and do their surveys and so forth -- the lights are planned, but it may be -- there will definitely be reflectors. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thanks. Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARON: You refer in your staff report to this marine facility as a residentially zoned property. It's not a residentially zoned property. It's a -- it's a conditional use for a club, right? Page 69 of 79 1612 A-7 4 May 19, 2011 MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. The zoning of this property is RT, which stands for residential. CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: Everybody knows that. MS. GUNDLACH: And in the code that is listed under residentially zoned properties. CHAIRMAN CARON: It's not listed under that. It is listed with criteria for residential properties. MS. GUNDLACH: I could show you. Do you want to put it up? CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, I mean, I've read the -- I've read the code. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think the commissioner's referring to there's a list of residential zoning districts. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN CARON: Right, and this as well. And RT as well. MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN CARON: Not that it is the same as residential. There is no water -depth issue because they have a dredge permit; is that correct? MS. GUNDLACH: They have a dredge permit, that is correct. CHAIRMAN CARON: So there's no water -depth issue with this. We've had it explained what the difference between the 108 and the 106 is. It won't make a difference in their calculations, but should -- in -- as far as protruding into the waterway, should we be measuring from the 106 or from the 108? MS. GUNDLACH: We measured as per the Land Development Code, and per the Land Development Code it would be 106. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. What are the -- the special conditions that you're talking about not involving water depth are strictly the constraints placed on this dock facility, on this marina facility, based on the north and the south? MS. GUNDLACH: Are you citing something from the staff report? CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. I'm just reading criteria. I'm just going through criteria. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Which one are you on? CHAIRMAN CARON: Number 1, secondary criteria. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARON: We pretty much had it memorized. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. That's what's stated. It's limited by -- the design of this is limited by the existing facilities to the north and south. CHAIRMAN CARON: There is no requirement for the specific length of boats that they're showing, is there? MS. GUNDLACH: No. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN CARON: And we have public speakers here, I believe. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have about five speakers. First one, John Bammel. (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Burkhard? MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard. I'm a resident of the Vanderbilt Beach area. And during the --just start out that during the go -go years of the 1990s and the early 2000s, development was rampant throughout the whole Vanderbilt Beach area. And, in fact, we felt that we -- our area was the target for developers because of the fairly rich returns that they were able to get on investments on the water. And as things developed, very large properties kept growing and growing, and we were, as residents, not part of the process. We were left out. So as a result we decided that we had to get our neighborhood organization more organized and come up with a way to start controlling the growth. Instead of being witnesses to what was going on in our neighborhood and Page 70 of 79 IJ 161 2A3MMayl, 2011 having no say or control over it, we felt that we had to get a handle on it. So we started getting proactive, getting educated. And what we ended up doing was, in response to a large development to the north of our area, we lobbied the County Commission and got in -- a moratorium put in place to stop construction and let's get a look at what's going on and let's try and control what's happening and let's have us have a say in what's happening. In the end what developed was the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay District. And in about 2004, I believe it was, that was finally passed, that overlay was passed and is controlling what happens in the Vanderbilt Beach area right now. It's sometimes hard to enforce it, and that's kind of where we're at right now. But the purpose of the district was to encourage development and also redevelopment in the Vanderbilt Beach area to be sensitive to the scale and sense of proportion that was existing when we all bought our homes in that area. We wanted to stop the "can you top this" construction that was going on. One of the areas that we addressed as a potential problem area during that overlay process was marinas, and essentially this is what we're talking about today. This dock system qualifies by LDC standards as marina. We made marinas part of a conditional -- part of the conditional -use process. And one of the problems we foresaw with docks was ever - increasing lengths, again, "can you top this ?" And here we are today. When Mr. Connors developed the Vanderbilt Beach area, he planned on the lagoon waterside area being residential, both single- and multifamily residential. Unfortunately, along the way in the bad old days, some commercial development did get permitted. LaPlaya's parking lot turned into a parking garage, hotel suites were built on the lagoon side, and a party facility was also built there. Like so many businesses, LaPlaya then tried to maximize their property on the lagoon to the detriment to the neighborhood, we felt. They proposed and almost got away with putting a 120 -foot precedent - setting marina in the area. Our association strenuously fought the overreach, and we did enforce the overlay, but it wasn't easy. We eventually reached an agreement that greatly scaled back the project, and it included, as part of the agreement, several other neighborhood- friendly restrictions. LaPlaya's docks now project out about 75 feet, so they have the standard 20 feet, plus a 55 -foot extension, not an 86 -foot extension. Right now we're faced with another creeping dock - length situation. If it's allowed to stand, it will set a new, longer standard and would serve as a precedent for future docks in the lagoon. We feel it's just simply too long. The requested extension is not compatible with what is a standard in our neighborhood. We feel the length of the boats used to justify the need for this extension -- and as you saw in the drawing there of 30 feet -- is a very arbitrary number. The majority of boats in our area are simply not that long. I live there, I have a boat, and I know what my neighbors have for boats, and 30 feet is not a standard boat. So 106 feet of projection into the lagoon in a heavily trafficked area due to the fact that there's a commercial marina at the south end of the lagoon which generates a lot of traffic, both inexperienced boaters using party barges that they rent by the day, as well as numerous fishing charters who, by the way, do not cruise at idle speed as they go in and out of their charters because time is money. So I think this dock, this proposed extension, flies in the face of what we've been consistently trying to enforce over the years since we put our overlay in place. And somebody wanted to see an idea of what the docks looked like along the canal, and I pieced together from the -- from one of the sites here a survey so that you can see -- get a feel for what we have. Now, you can see that most of the docks are consistent and much less than this 106 feet that's being bandied about. The docks -- that dock to the north that we've been talking about has three extensions -- thank you, Ray -- three extensions, three boatlifts that got added onto the T that bring it out farther. That's -- that dock is a real outlyer. Nobody else in the canal area has anything like that. So I think it's false to be using that as a comparison standard for this new proposed dock. Just because that dock is not in conformance with what our standards should be, I don't think that should be used as a basis of comparison. So this project needs to be scaled back so that it extends no further than other permitted conforming docks. Page 71 of 79 1612 A7 " May 19, 2011 We think an extension of 55 feet on the top of the already permitted 20 feet, just like LaPlaya, just like the docks down at the south end of the lagoon, would be fine. We wouldn't object to that. And, in fact, when Army Corps of Engineers was involved in the early permitting of this, I told them just that. I said that if their -- if this dock, their proposed dock at the time, went out no further than the prevailing other docks in the lagoon, we wouldn't have a problem with it. We really wouldn't object. But to go further out is really, in my estimation, just pigging it out. Please help us preserve the spirit of the overlay and put a stop to overly ambitious projects that, over time, change the character of our neighborhood. A couple of questions -- a few questions that I'd like to have answered is, one, what is the actual intended use of this dock? Are these strictly day boaters coming in, going to the restaurant, and leaving at night, or are these docks going to be used on a longer -term basis? I understand there's a stipulation, supposedly, for a 48 -hour limitation, but who's -- who's going to enforce that and who's to say that that's exactly what's going to happen? Who is going to enforce the stipulations? And what happens if the 48 hours is violated? Who's responsible for enforcing it? What's going to be done if it's not? It's already been brought up that they do have a dredging permit, so normally the reason for an extension -- an extension is really nothing more than a variation for a dock. Usually the reason is that there's shallow water in close, so you need to move your dock out farther than the standard 20 feet in order to accommodate the shallow water. Well, shallow water's not going to be a factor here since they have a dredging permit to bring their boats in closer. Also it's intimated or it's basically being said that this is the only configuration of docks that can work. They've looked at every possibility, and this is the only one that will work. Well, we've heard that before. There was a project on Vanderbilt Beach Drive a few years ago where we were -- where they were seeking a 60 -foot dock extension in a residential area, and we were told that the 60 -foot dock was the only possible solution. Well, fortunately the Planning Commission listened to us and they denied the dock extension. Well, don't you know, we were called by their lawyer, and we came in and had a session. And to and behold, there was a way that we could bring the docks in closer, and they did not need the 60 -foot extension. I think the same case is true here. I think, perhaps, more permitting might have to be done. It might be more work, it might be more costly to build a different configuration. But I think a dock system can be built inside of the 70 feet that's more or less the longest standard that exists along the west shore of the Vanderbilt Lagoon. And we'd ask you to please deny this, and let's see if we can get something that's more in character with our neighborhood. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Unfortunately, I have to leave. I wish we could deliberate, but I have to go. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker? CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, please. MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Robbins. MS. ROBBINS: I'm Kathleen Robbins. I'm secretary of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. I have many of the same points that Bruce has, but I'm not going to reiterate them necessarily. Our issue is with the length, and my personal issue is the fact that the length is being determined by a nonconforming comparison. I'm not happy with that at all. I think we need to pin down exactly what was permitted on that dock to the north. Right away on all the drawings you can see that the T extends to within the setback. Normally it's 15 feet, and they only have a 10 or 11 T. That's giving some navigation problems. Mr. Hall had to accommodate. The boat that's in there is a twin -screw boat. They shouldn't have any problem navigating out. And the dock protruding out into the bay further than other docks, I can tell you there's an example behind Bonita Beach, and it is a hazard to navigation. And anybody who says they're not worried about it has never navigated. When you have one dock that sticks out, you can be stone cold sober, you can just turn to talk to your friend, and there it is. You're right on it, going slow speed. It's a big issue. Page 72 of 79 1 2 A � a 1011 .. 6 y , 1 Also people tend to stay to that side of the bay because that's where Lighthouse Restaurant is. It's -- you don't want to drive down the middle of the bay because you miss all the sightseeing. So it's going to be an issue. I think before you approve this you need to pin down exactly what is legal on that dock to the north. Whatever they have that was legally permitted, I don't have a problem with allowing the Floridian Club to do the same thing, but I think they're going out further than that which was legally permit before, and I have a problem with that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we ask Nancy that question? CHAIRMAN CARON: Hold on. Brad, did you want to ask? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I was going to ask Nancy. Is that -- I mean, if they were a nonconforming dock, they couldn't add the lifts on the outside of a nonconforming dock, correct? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We have building permits for this dock that show it was legally permitted. While the code has changed and it requires a boat -dock extension, if they're still within their land -lease agreement, the boat lifts probably could have been added without the extension. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the boat lifts could be added without a -- MR. BELLOWS: As long as they were still within that land lease. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's how it would be worded, that the -- MR. BELLOWS: It really -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can build any kind of dock you want -- MR. BELLOWS: -- depends a lot on what the original building permits showed. We'd have to verify that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I wonder. CHAIRMAN CARON: What do you have in front of you as the length? MR. BELLOWS: This is the plan detail with the building permit for the dock when it was originally submitted. It has mooring pilings on the water -side edge of the T part of the deck. And in my opinion, if there is a land lease that covers a greater area than that, then at the time those boat lifts were added, they would have been found consistent with this plan. CHAIRMAN CARON: But what is the length of that? MS. GUNDLACH: Eighty -seven plus whatever the boat length will be. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Seventy -five plus 12 plus the length of the boat, which would bring it around 100 feet or so. CHAIRMAN CARON: Right around 100 feet. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Yeah. Ray, do we have other speakers? I wasn't sure. There are other people sitting out here. MR. BELLOWS: I was just going to mention that -- I didn't know if you wanted the permit number for that boat dock, but it was issued in'80, and it's Permit No. 1710, and it was issued on 4/11/1980. MS. ROBBINS: Could you repeat that. MS. GUNDLACH: The permit number is 80 -1710. MR. BELLOWS: And we can provide you a copy, too. MS. ROBBINS: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker, Dailey McPeale (sic). I think I called you earlier by mistake. MR. McPEAK: Oh, okay. Good afternoon. I'm Dailey McPeak, and I look at this from maybe a little different perspective than some of you. I'm in the Manatee Building, which is the third building north of the proposed dock area. And I have many pictures of waking up early in the morning, the sun comes up, and I see the sun glistening off the beautiful pristine water. It's a gorgeous area, as all of Naples is, and we have a manicured wonderful town we live in, and I think we have a moral and maybe an ethical obligation to try to preserve that as best we can. The other speakers that talk about the traffic moving up and down, the boat traffic does move right along our edge. I thought it was because it was deeper there. But for whatever reason, we seem to be the boat traffic flow, Page 73 of 79 16 12 A7May 19, 2011 flow, and this -- I do think that is a hazard sticking it out into the bay so far. In our building, the people I've talked to -- and I'm sure this date is not by accident, because our friends and neighbors, 80 to 90 percent of them are up north already. But the ones I've talked to are equally opposed to this proposal. One of the friends of ours in our building recently sold his 26 -foot boat because that's really a very shallow area, and if you get much longer than about a 22 -foot boat, you can only go out at high tide. It really becomes a -- I have a boat. I know that. And at any rate, he sold his house because it's just too much trouble trying to get a 26- footer in and out. It's doable high tide, but it's more effort. So major point is that our community would like to protect the wonderful aesthetic view that we have there. The lights reflecting on the water at night are beautiful, and this could eventually, if this precedent is set, could actually impact our property values. So I'm encouraging you folks to protect our community and the beauty of our community. You can tell -- this point was already well made -- that it's a high density area. We already have a lot of traffic. We have a lot of people. We have a lot of boats. And you can see by the way they're shoehorning, trying to shoehorn these boats around -- and the way I drive a boat, I like a lot of room to try to get the boat in and out. And there is wind and there is a little bit of current that, as he said, has to do with the tides, and sometimes it takes me two or three times to get my boat in because the wind's blowing this way, the current's this way, oh, yeah, so I've got to -- you know, and it takes a little while. So you get a big boat; that becomes a bigger issue. Bottom line is, I just encourage you to try to protect our beautiful area. We're so fortunate to have lived -- to live here. Let's protect it as best we can. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is David Galloway. MR. GALLOWAY: Thank you, Madam Chair and other commissioners. David Galloway, involved with the Vanderbilt Beach Residents' Association. My only concern is one issue. I think that there's a lot of attributes for having boats come in there and whatever, but I come from law enforcement. I've worked marine safety over the years, and the only thing I can see here that's really a detriment is the safety issue of this protruding out, even though it's only going out past -- or equal with the other boats there are there. But when those boats on that other dock are removed during the daytime -- if you look at it certain times of the year, they're not even there -- that dock will protrude past that other dock by quite a few feet. I've had the privilege of looking at a -- architectural drawings from, I think, 2008 a couple years ago, and I would have favored the wing -type design of that dock that -- probably one of the original designs of that dock area would have kept it back in a little bit, and it would have had been able to maneuver the boats in and out properly there. And as far as determining the size of one dock against the north and south dock owners, probably not considering all the other docks in the area and all the other citizens that use that waterway, so I don't know if that's a fair way to just design one dock based on one of the docks that are there now. As some people know that have been in boating for some time, that a 30- plus -foot vessel, some people can't maneuver it in 50 feet, let alone 100 feet. So it all determines how good of a navigation -- navigator of the waterways. But I encourage you at least to look at that. There are other designs out there that I think that the -- they've had in the past, and one was -- to me was very, very workable view -wise, sight -wise and whatever. And I know that, more than likely, living there year- round, you probably won't see the boats there on a daily basis, but we'll see that dock there protruding out past the other dock every single day, because that will become a permanent abutment out there. And I think the major thing I'm concerned with is the safety of the people that are boating on that waterway. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Any other -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Page 74 of 79 16 12 Alay 19;' 2011 CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim, did you say that this dock was for 30 -foot boats? MR. HALL: It's designed, yes, ma'am, for 30 -foot boats. And I should clarify, when we talk about 30 -foot boats, that's overall. The gentleman was talking about a 26 -foot boat. When they're sold, that's usually to the transom, and then if you add -- if it's an outboard motor, you add the two feet or whatever that's associated with the motor. If it has a windless or a bow pulpit on the front, then you add length there as well. So when we talk about 30 -foot boats, it's overall from the very tiptop front of the boat to the back of the motor, not just what is normally sold as a 25- or 26 -foot boat. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you feel you could do a little different design? MR. HALL: Well, I mean, I think we did about -- probably about 40 different designs when we were, you know, going through this. And in talking to -- I'm sad that Mr. Bammel wasn't here, because he was the representative for the dock to the north. He wasn't able to stay because this kind of went later than we had thought it would. But there are definitely different designs, I mean, that could be done. What we did was take all of the criteria -- you have to remember, when we do this, we look at the Collier County criteria, the State of Florida criteria, and the Army Corps of Engineers' criteria. And two of the big things with the state and the federal agencies is minimize. And they don't look so much at the length but the massiveness or the overall size of the facility. So to their minds, you look at the single finger going out. That's the least amount of dock or overwater structure that could be done. So you have the least amount of shading associated with that, you have the least amount of material that's out there in case of a storm or something that would blow it -- you know, that would do whatever with it. That's the least- damaging alternative in their eyes, as well as with the submerged land lease. We much preferred the Christmas -tree design as well. It allows for easier access to the boats, getting in and out. It was harder on the adjacent docks because it left them less room to maneuver, like I said before. It also resulted in more overwater decking and a larger area that would have to be leased from the state. So when they looked at the alternatives, this straight line going out was, to them, the smallest, because they don't necessarily look at just the length but the overall size of it. So that's how we ended up with what we were in trying to accommodate the three agencies that we have to go through, as well as the neighbors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna? CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Tim, you know, just fiddling here, there is one design that you didn't show, and that's keep the south the same, put two boats and push it up. I mean, you want 15 feet for the boats; is that right? MR. HALL: Well, the least -- the actual moor- -- from the -- between the mooring piles, I believe, is what Mrs. Caron said was -- Commissioner Caron, is 12 feet -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But this works with 15, so it definitely will work with 12. So you put -- the way you have it on the south side of the docks, the same, and then put four boats perpendicular on the north side, the math fits in within the 25 -foot setbacks, and you could cut off at least 20 feet, maybe -- that's only 70 feet if you put a dock between the two. MR. HALL: If you have -- if you have two boats moored, like a finger coming out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And put two boats parallel with the finger, and then put two perpendicular off between two boats each, you would fit within there, and it wouldn't have to be that long. MR. HALL: That is -- that would be 40 -- you'd have 30 feet plus 5 feet plus 12 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fifteen is -- MR. HALL: Plus 15. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is 50, and you said you only need -- MR. HALL: Is -- that's actually 60 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whoops. That's 60. No, 30 plus 20 is 50; 30, 5, 15. MR. HALL: Okay. That's— COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I hope it is anyway. Page 75 of 79 16 1,2, A7 May 19, 2011 MR. HALL: That's correct. Yeah, that's 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So -- and it would fit that way, and it wouldn't have to be that long out there. MR. HALL: Well -- but then the 50 feet wouldn't allow for the boat to the north to get in and out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he would have 13 feet less than what you have now. MR. HATCHER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and -- I mean, the way you draw the picture of them it looks like you could. I mean -- MR. HALL: We're trying to leave -- we were trying -- like -- we were trying to leave him 50 -- between 50 and 54 feet, or 50 and 55 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Measured from what? MR. HALL: Measured from the end of that T dock. CHAIRMAN CARON: I tell you what, while we're all, you know, making our own little drawings, why don't we give the court reporter here a break, and we'll be back in ten minutes. Okay. (A brief recess was had.) (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN CARON: Really? MS. BISHOP: Yeah. Listen, I can't lie. I'm one of those people who just can't lie. Okay. So that's just who I am, absolutely. Karen Bishop for the developer. I wanted to make some statements to not rebut, but just to comment on other things, and I think we may have come up with a design that might be palatable for the commission. I want to remind everyone, this original conditional use for this project was done in 1998. Those docks were approved in 1998. They weren't built in 1998, but they were approved, and their design at that time was that T dock, which is like how our neighbors have. Unfortunately, when we went back to try to do that T dock, we realized that wasn't going to work. And then when we submitted our application, the neighbors to the north objected, so we had to make accommodations because we were, in their eyes, blocking their waterways. So we literally have done 30 -plus plans to try to accommodate the number of slips as well as the needs of the neighbors on both sides. And as an exhibit shown earlier, if you look up and down, a lot of those docks were done when they didn't have to meet the same criteria that we do now. And we appreciate we're the last ones in the block, but we're not trying to do anything other than just get what we got in 1998. The -- let's see. I don't believe that this is going to be a precedent. I appreciate that there may be some safety issues. We have over 300 feet in that canal. We will be lighting. We will be, in fact, putting reflectors up; however, unfortunately they don't give licenses and do IQ tests at the same time, so I can't look forward to who's going to hit it or not hit it. We did do a count of boats, because there were other dock facilities that we're involved in. There's about a thousand boats in that area; over 60 percent of them are over 30 feet and above, the size of those boats. We are a private facility just for the Dunes, so it is not a public place where you're going to have a bunch of different people. It's going to be people who live in the neighborhood up the road are going to come over here, dock 48 hours, and then go home. That's as simple as it gets. We do have some dredging, but it's up against a seawall because that's where kind of the fill -- which I'm sure -- this is -- same thing goes around all the seawalls, the dirt kind of sits up on that, so that's the only place we're going to do any dredging. And just so you guys know, we've been permitting this for almost four years, so it's not like we just started and we didn't try to accommodate. Four years we've been trying to get this resolved with everyone being happy. Based on what we've discussed already, we've agreed that we can drop the size of the boats from 30 feet to 28 feet, which brings the totals down to 100 feet. That's what we can do to try to lessen our impact and to be aligned with our neighbors. If there's any other questions, I'll be happy to answer. Page 76 of 79 1612 , May 19, 2011 CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. And does anybody have any other questions? MR. HALL: I just want to clarify something Karen said real quick. The thousand boats in Vanderbilt Lagoon is correct. The 60 percent that she was talking about is not necessarily all the boats in Vanderbilt Lagoon. We did a traffic study of boats going out to Wiggins Pass through Water Turkey Bay and all. And on the days that we surveyed, 60 percent of the boats that we counted then were over -- were over 30 feet in length, but that was nowhere near the thousand boats that are in Vanderbilt Lagoon. That was just the boats that were traveling on the days that we did the survey. CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. And you also don't know that they actually moor in the Lagoon either, so -- MR. HALL: Well, yeah. It's just -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Whoever was traveling there. That's fine. MR. HALL: It was a -- it was a sunrise -to- sunset study, so if they weren't mooring in there, then they had been driving around at night, so -- CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what does that put us? We have -- we dropped six feet off the dock? CHAIRMAN CARON: We brought the dock in line -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: With the neighbor. CHAIRMAN CARON: -- with the dock to the north. It is out with its lifts to 100 feet, actually 99 feet when you do the math. So if we do that, then there is no protrusion beyond what's already there on the larger dock to the north, and they get their six slips, and I would think that everybody would be -- while not up and down happy, would at least be content that we're not setting any length precedent in here, which would be a terrible thing to do. It would definitely go against the Vanderbilt Overlay. They are trying very much to keep everything in scale and proportion, and we have to work with what we've got. The petitioner for his side of things has had to jump through numerous hoops in order to accommodate this permitted dock that got permitted back in 1980 with no setbacks, and even the dock to the south, while it's obviously much shorter, still only has 14 feet, and we definitely require 15 feet now, especially if you're going to have that configuration where you've got to try to get out. So, I don't know. I think it's a good solution. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll go with you on that. But, Rocky (sic), can you put two red lights on the end of that dock? And the reason, too, is when the one bulb burns out, hopefully you'll change it before the other one does. MR. HALL: Okay. Yeah, I'm a little bit younger than Rocky, but I understand we do look a little bit alike. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN CARON: Please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm sorry. MR. HALL: We don't have any objection to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But two. You have power out there? MR. HALL: Two. We could put one on each corner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Perfect. CHAIRMAN CARON: Makes sense. Thank you. Okay. So I guess we need to put this in the form of a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which I will do. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move -- and this doesn't have to be forwarded. CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is it. CHAIRMAN CARON: This is it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That we approve BD- PL2010 -1685, the Vanderbilt Beach boat -dock extension. Page 77 of 79 1.6 12A7 May 19, 2011 COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN CARON: With the revisions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the elimin- -- you know, with it chopped down to 100 feet and the addition of two red lights at the tip. CHAIRMAN CARON: And the staff stipulation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And all staff stipulations. CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN CARON: I think -- second, okay. Thank you. All in favor? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. No opposed? That was everybody, so no one was opposed. There you go. Thank you, everybody, for hanging in. I do, however, want to have staff hang in here for a minute, because I want to talk about this boat -dock situation in Vanderbilt. I want to make sure that when these come before us there has been consideration for the Vanderbilt Beach Overlay. This cannot be forgotten and ignored again. Secondly, it's even more important with situations like this, because this was a conditional use to begin with. Already you have compatibility issues that have to be addressed. And extending those, the boat docks, makes you revisit those same compatibility issues, which is what we did here today and tried to get that accomplished. But I just want to make sure that the Vanderbilt Beach Overlay is not ignored when functioning when we're doing things in Vanderbilt Beach. Let's pay attention to these overlays. People work very long and very hard and spend a lot of money getting them done, and we should pay attention. We don't want the people not paying attention in Commissioner Coyle's area for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle, we don't want them in Fiala's district not to pay attention to the Goodland Overlay, we don't want them in Henning's -- Commissioner Henning's area not to pay attention to Golden Gate's master plan, or Commissioner Coletta's district for the Immokalee Master Plan or the Golden Gate Estates plan. So let's not do it in District 2 either. We need to pay attention. And I appreciate it, so thank you. I appreciate the extra work that Nancy did finding ancient permits; not an easy thing. So thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN CARON: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for hanging in so long. Page 78 of 79 16 12 A? May", 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:17 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION �� vl MARK TRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on % p 1 j , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 79 of 79 161 2 A7June 2 2, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE v COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION J t3 Naples, Florida June 2, 2011 BY ........................ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Donna Reed -Caron Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer (Absent) Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Director of Real Property, Collier County School District Page 1 of 35 Misc. Corres: Date: Item Laz z \P-.--I c'-pies "0: k 161 2" June 2, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the June 2nd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everyone will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Looks like Mr. Eastman is absent, Mr. Schiffer is absent, Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak's 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. "Addenda to the agenda. Yesterday we all received an e-mail of the request of the county to continue item 10(A), which is the Watershed Management Plan. Personally after reading it I think that's a good move on the county's part. But I didn't know if there was any -- as long as the Board approves, was there a recommendation to accept the continuance request? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) C14AIlZMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Will it be to the July 7th meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't -- whenever they get done with it. They had a series of issues yesterday at the EAC, I understand, but I think in reading it they may want to carefully look at what they were presenting anyway, and in that process who knows how long it will going to take. It already is what, 12 years overdue? So to do a better job and take a little longer may not be a bad thing at all, so in the end I think it's probably a very good move. * *Planning Commission�absences. The next meeting is on July 7th. We do not have another meeting in June. Does anybody know if they are not going to be here on July 7th?' (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -%ay. Page 2 of 35 16 12 Pne2,1611 "Approval of minutes. We had a -- minutes electronically provided for the May 5th, 2011. Are there any changes, comments? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. * *Ray, do we have any BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on May 24th the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD rezone for the church -- the Grace Romanian Church, and that was approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. * *Chairman's report. Nothing specific to report, other than the fact that at 12:30 today I have to leave to attend to a family matter that I could not postpone any longer. So at whatever stage we're at at 12:30, I'll have to depart from these premises, and Ms. Caron will take over. COMMISSIONER CARON: We're glad to have you back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. It was 40 hours and 34 minutes of driving. I can't tell you how many gallons of gas. If you see a jump in the oil companies' profit margins, it's because I drove to Ohio and back. * *Consent agenda items. The only one up is the Vanderbilt Beach boat dock extension. Any corrections or changes to that item? (No response.) (At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda item BDPL- 2010 -1685? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Ahern, seconded by Mr. Klein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll abstain from the vote because I was not here for the hearing. Other than that, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Okay. I'll abstain, so it's seven approval, one abstention. That's where you're at. Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, let the record show Mr. Midney has shown up like he always does. Thank Page 3 of 35 E _ , f Ajne2,2011 61 you, Paul. And he opened the back window like he always does. COMMISSIONER AHERN: No, I did that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did that? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I did that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Paul's a creature of habit though. * *Okay, the first advertised public hearing is 9(A). It's RZPL- 2009 -25. It's the Gordon River Greenway Park. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Anybody? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I attended the NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I received a copy of the Corps permit from Anthony Pires. And I spoke to the applicant on the phone yesterday. Other than that, we'll move forward. And it's a presentation. MR. MARCHAND: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm J.P. Marchand, a professional engineer in the State of Florida with Kimley -Horn and Associates. And with me today on our team for the Gordon River Greenway Park project is Ray Lorraine from Cardno- ENTRIX, an environmental scientist, Alex Sulecki from the Conservation Collier group. They'll both be participating in the presentation. And from the Parks and Rec Department, Barry Williams and Tony Ruberto. I also just want to mention one of our major stakeholders is also in the audience from the zoo, David Tetzlaff. What we have -- you have here before you today are two actions that you're being requested to take. One is on a rezone and the other is on a special treatment permit application. The rezone is proposing to rezone the property in question from agriculture, conservation, commercial intermediate and residential multi - family six to public use for purposes of a public park. On the maps that we have, in order to get them as large as we could, we've oriented them, north is to your left. So it might be a little awkward, but we felt that having them bigger was more important so you could see a little bit better. The existing site is located south of Golden Gate Parkway and east of Goodlette -Frank Road. It's 123.6 acres. Currently vacant. The southern portion on your graphic there, the red line, the southern portion is Conservation Collier lands, those three parcels that are highlighted there. The owner is -- of the entire area is Collier County, and the major partners from the various departments working on this are Parks and Rec and Conservation Collier. The adjacent property has a variety of uses. You can see there's some vacant lands. There's also residential lands and some nonresidential lands as well adjacent to the site. The majority of the site runs north and south along the Gordon River. There is a portion of the site, that L- shaped piece to the bottom of the screen, that is also part of the project. What is proposed on the project is a proposed passive park. This is going to be part of an overall larger trail system. There are many stakeholders involved in this project, including the zoo, The Conservancy, the City of Naples, the airport, all of these groups brought together by the Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust to work on this overall trail system. The trail will actually extend south and north of this project as it continues to grow. In 2006 the voters approved taxes to purchase this land for purposes of the trail system. Again, we're proposing a passive park with trail system, two park nodes, and a stormwater treatment system. A little bit more detail about the concept plan. This is the same plan that is in your packets. There are two development nodes shown on here. One is the northeast node located in this area right here, and then the westerly zone or the zoo node located right here. In those two areas we'll be providing parking, restroom, pavilion. In the northeast node there will be a park maintenance building for storage of maintenance equipment. And there will be shared parking in this west node for the zoo, as well as the passive park. Also included in this west node is a kayak/canoe launch. And there are boardwalks, trails, bridges spread out throughout the project. As you can see, starting here at the north portion of the project running south is a trail going all the way to the southern end of the project here where it would continue on to the airport property and go south from there. There are also other trails located throughout the proposed project. Page 4 of 35 16 12 A7 June 2; 2011 Two bridges, one here connecting this west node across the river to the rest of the project, and one so we can continue the trail across the Gordon River in the southern portion here near the airport. All the trails through the wetlands areas are boardwalks, and in the upland areas they're proposed to be asphalt trails. There's also a proposed fishing access on the site, not actually in the water, but access to the water for fishing. We have about 3.5 miles of boardwalks, about 2.4 miles of asphalt trail, and lighting on a portion of that trail for -- so that the overall trail can be used even after dark, if necessary. The preservation area that's shown on here, I mentioned that this is the same plan that is in your packets. This preservation area is the shaded area highlighted here. It was originally planned to be at 22.2 acres. The requirement is 16.92 acres. What we're going to -- requesting from you today is consideration that we give the park a little bit more flexibility in the future and not exceed the required preservation area by quite as much. We're proposing instead a 17 -acre preservation area. And we'll talk more about that later. That would meet the criteria and give the Parks Department a little more flexibility in the future, should they desire that. With that, I'll ask Ray Lorraine to talk to you about the environmental aspects of the project. MR. LORRAINE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good morning. My name is Ray Lorraine, I'm a senior project scientist with the environmental consulting firm Cardno- ENTRIX. I want to just take a quick minute to sort of describe the overall environmental conditions of this project. A key goal of the project here obviously is environmental preservation, as Parks and Rec and Conservation Collier are our partners on it. The site supports existing wetlands along the river. There are proposed impacts PIl talk about briefly, and also we've done extensive work through our involvement on the project censuring for listed species and providing for their protection and planning. There are five wetlands on the site. They border the river. And again, we apologize for this orientation, but north is to the left. The sites are tidally influenced; they're mangrove systems for the most part. Many of them are in quite good condition, but there are also other areas that are heavily infested with nuisance and exotic species, Australian pine, Brazilian pepper, things like that. The proposed project will require some impacts. There are approximately 2.4 acres of fill impacts for construction of the northerly node and some other facilities in the property. As J.P. said, there's an extensive boardwalk system that will shade about 1.6 acres of wetlands on the property. And then there's a small area of dredging proposed for the kayak launch. All these proposed impacts obviously will need to go through your local permitting process as well as the state and federal processes. And Parks and Rec and Conservation Collier are prepared to do that as part of this project. From a listed species perspective, ecologists from my firm probably spent 400 man hours on the site through our involvement so far. We've worked extensively. Gopher tortoises do occur on the eastern part of the property in scrub habitats there. Because of that density, obviously that's the key priority for Parks and Rec in terms of designation of a preserve, and has been designated as such. It should be noted that while we're discussing a preserve to meet the county's code requirements of 7.2 or 22 acres, in essence more than 90 percent of this site will be preserve when it's developed. The park improvements for the most part are two previously disturbed areas on the western side of the river. Of the 124 acres there's approximately 113 acres of native habitats on the site right now, both uplands and wetlands. In a post development project more than 100 acres will be preserved, more than 90 percent, even though it's not specifically designated as such. Parks and Rec and Collier -- Conservation Collier is committed to the management and enhancement of their areas, just as they have been on your other conservation properties. MR. MARCHAND: Let me just back up just for a quick minute here to talk about the 17 acres. On this exhibit, the red line that you see here, okay, that's the 22.2 acres that I mentioned earlier, okay. The purple shaded area -- hang on a second, I'll find it. The purple shaded area that ends right here, that's the proposed 17 acres that we're requesting a change to. We've worked with staff on this. We've kept the 17 acres so that they meet the hierarchy of preservation in that first we're addressing the listed species, that's why I wanted to show it to you on this map. You can see that we've preserved the densest portion of the listed species areas where the gofer tortoises are. And then the scrub habitat also is included within that. Page 5 of 35 ,2 1612 � 7 June 2, 2011 So we've revised that again to provide a little more flexibility for Parks in the future, should they want to do something in that area that is between the 17 and 22 acres. But at the same time meeting all the criteria of the county for the preservation area. Okay, getting back then. The second part of what you're looking at today is an ST overlay, ST permit application. The graphic that you see here illustrates the portion, the highlighted shaded area is the portion of the project that is within the special treatment overlay district. The regulations for a special treatment overlay district are directed towards conservation, preservation and protection of ecological and recreational values for the citizens of the county. Staff and us believe that this project in fact does exactly that. The impacts within the ST area include this northeast node where we have the parking and the restrooms and pavilion facilities, and then the boardwalks and trails that run through the ST area. In summary, the ST district, the portion of the area that is within the ST district of the project is about 63.5 acres. The altered area where we have the northeast node and the boardwalks is 5.7 acres. The impervious area within the ST district is 1.8 acres. Again, that is almost all within that parking area in the northeast node. Ninety -one percent of the special treatment areas is unaltered except for exotic plants species removal. And the project does achieve the conservation goals of the ST district. Summarizing the proposed rezoning, it is consistent with the county's Growth Management Plan, including the elements of the plan that are listed on the graphic. The proposed rezoning meets the criteria of your Land Development Code 10.03.05.I that is used to judge these kind of projects at this Planning Commission meeting. The staff recommendation is a recommendation of approval with a limitation to parks, recreation facilities and parking on the site. I do want to point out one clarification. The staff report talked about the park being open in daylight hours. The actual plan is to have the park be able to be open until 10:00 p.m. The project, as Ray said, will also need to meet all applicable federal, state and local requirements and obtain all applicable permits. Our request is to you that you do provide a recommendation of approval for both the rezone and the ST permit, provide the flexibility that we're requesting by allowing us to use the 17 -acre preserve. It meets the requirements, it leaves more flexibility for the site. And again, the park will plan to be open until 10:00 p.m. I've also included a -- the same concept plan again that is in your packet, but in this case what we have changed is the preserve. Here again is the -- this shows it with the 17 -acre preserve, again encompassing the highest density gopher tortoise habitat, as well as the scrub habitat. And with that I'd like to just let -- Alex wants to say a few words and have her close the presentation. Thank you very much. MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Commissioners. A pleasure to be here with you. I don't often get to see you, so it's very nice. I would like to -- for the record, Alex Sulecki, Coordinator for the Conservation Collier Program. And on behalf of our staff and advisory committee, I would like to tell you how pleased and proud we are to be a part of this project. We think it adds a fantastic recreational, educational and functional amenity to our county and for the citizens and visitors. Kind of like a Central Park Collier. We have partnered with Parks and Recreation for permitting and planning efficiencies to save money. We believe the park design is conservation oriented, so it fits well, and our collaboration is a good one. There are some differences. Our portion, the uses are guided by our Conservation Collier ordinance. So functionally we're protected conservation lands. Further, it is our intent to offer the South Florida Water Management District a conservation easement over our portion. And one thing that I just want to mention that wasn't mentioned -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You might have to turn that on over there. No light. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it plugged in? Ali, there you go. MS. SULECKI: Okay, I just wanted to mention that -- that you looked at the portion that was the preserve, the 22 -acre preserve here. And our property line goes right through here. So approximately three acres of that land that they're asking to remove from the preserve is on Conservation Collier land, and it's totally protected anyway. So I Page 6 of 35 16 I2 A7 June 1, 2011 just wanted to make you aware of that. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Alex. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, what kind of flexibility are we trying to preserve by having the preserve just 17 percent of the area, even though we're planning to actually preserve 91 percent? MR. MARCHAND: The Parks Department has not come up with any firm plans on what they would do with that additional area. But the thought is is that it could be some additional walkways, it could be an observation area. Right now the trail system skirts the edge of the wetland in the upland area. There's really nothing that brings people into that different habitat, that more upland habitat. So it was thought, well, we might want to provide an opportunity for people to be able to do that. So -- and a place to rest, an observation area, a boardwalk or some kind of trail like that is the things that they have contemplated. But there's no strict plans for that at this point. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know if this is the time to address the Environmental Advisory Council recommendations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, it's time for everything, so go right into to whatever you want to ask, and we'll each take whatever questions we want. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, they had voted to deny the petition unless there are three conditions that are approved: Incorporate a filter marsh, include pervious pathways instead of 2.4 miles of asphalt, and provide a parking analysis to evaluate whether all the impacts are required in the zoo node parking lot. Could you comment on those? MR. MARCHAND: Sure. The -- at this stage in the rezone stage of a project we typically don't have a lot of details on the project design itself, these kind of details. But in this case fortunately we do, because the Parks Department and Conservation Collier wanted to try and move this forward quickly. So we're already doing design work at this point. Relative to the pervious pavements, the Parks folks are looking at, you know, what is the use of this facility, you know, we want to make a park for people to use and we want it to be a trail system that people will use and be able to use comfortably with various types of modes of transportation, bicycles, baby strollers, roller blades, whatever. And so from a user standpoint the Parks Department wants to use a smoother surface, especially on the trail system in this project. From an environmental or water quality standpoint, in terns of the trail, you know, we don't have traffic on it, we don't have pollutants being added to that. There's really no pollutants to treat with runoff coming off the Swale -- or off the trail. What we will do through in spite of that is the plan is to have a treatment swale along the edge of the asphalt trail so that water that does run off the trail gets captured in this treatment swale, is treated and held there and percolates into the ground before any discharge occurs. On the parking facility, again the Parks Department wants to maintain a low maintenance, a low cost surface, so they want -- for a good portion of the parking facility they want to use an asphalt pavement, regular asphalt. The difference -- you really have two options when you're trying to address water quality concerns. If you want to put in a porous pavement, what are you doing? Well, you're putting in a porous pavement that when it rains water seeps through the pavement and goes into the ground, and pollutants that would otherwise run off end up in the same place. It stays in the pavement, goes and seeps through the ground. As an alternative, and this is what we're doing here, is we're capturing that runoff that comes off of the pavement, and instead of it going through the pavement and seeping into the ground, we're taking it into a dry retention facility where essentially the same thing happens. It's retained, it's not discharged. The water's retained in the retention pond and then seeps into the ground. So you still don't have the discharge and you still don't have the pollutant loading. In a porous pavement in a big major stone event you're not going to keep all that water from running off. You're still going to have a little bit of stormwater runoff. In the system that we've designed for 100 percent pervious pavement on the parking lot in that zoo node, we've designed it so that 99 percent of the average storm events -- of the storm events in an average year have zero discharge. All of that water is held in the stormwater pond and has to percolate into the ground. Same thing that Page 7 of 35 161 V2,2011 would do if you had a porous pavement. But we still get to address the user concerns and the parks issues. On top of that of all that, even though that system's designed for 100 percent regular asphalt and can store that much water and has that little discharge, about half of the parking lot is going to be grass as well. So that gives us even more advantages. So in short, based on the usage and what the Park Department wants to do with this and their experience with this and limiting maintenance costs that you have associated with porous pavements, the Park has chosen instead of a porous pavement, we'll do the same type of retention and percolation in a dry retention pond instead of in a -- using the porous pavements. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the filter marsh and the parking analysis? MR. MARCHAND: And relative to the filter marsh, our system again retains the water. So there isn't a discharge under almost -- well, like I said, 99 percent of the average of the storm events in an average year. But when it does discharge it discharges first into the adjacent wetlands, and it's again very treated and relatively clean water at that point, and then filters through that before it ever gets to the river. So the natural system has sort of built that in for US. On the parking analysis we are providing a lot of parking in this area. But it is a shared parking with the zoo and even potentially with The Conservancy. Our access points -- let me see if I can go back to that. Yeah. Oh, okay. Alex can you help me? How do I change back to the other screen? Thank you. Okay, let me get this up. Right now we have no access proposed directly to Goodlette -Frank Road here. Access will be through The Conservancy. They've already built a drive access here. We'll access it there. And then also through the zoo they're currently designing an access right here lined up with Fleischman Boulevard and we'll access it through there. So it's very much a shared parking lot. There's on the order of 660 allotted spaces in this node. I say on the order of, because we're still in the process of going through this and that number could change a little bit. The passive park doesn't require very many spaces. I think we estimated on the order of 16, 17 spaces for a passive park. There's not a lot of data on passive parks for what they require. But if we just based it on the square footage of the buildings that are there, the little restrooms and pavilions and maintenance building, that's what we come up with. But the zoo has a considerable need for parking. And during the design of this, the goal has been we need to try and get as much parking available there as we can to provide that for the zoo. And again, about half of it is proposed as grass parking that wouldn't be used on a regular basis but would be used when there's bigger crowds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul, you finished? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nodding.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got several -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The zoo already uses grass parking in their lot currently; is that correct? ull� :emu /:Wt Q61r.UWWA[- (At which time, Mr. Eastman enters the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER CARON: And 50 percent of what you're proposing is for grass parking. Why couldn't you just do 100 percent of it as grass parking? MR. MARCHAND: The experience with grass parking has been when it's used on -- and in fact it's not just grass, it will be a reinforced geotechnical base under the grass to beef it up a little bit so it can take some abuse. But if you use the grass parking on an everyday regular basis, its not going to hold up and you're going to end up with no grass left. It's just going to be dirt, and when it rains it's going to be mud and you're going to end up with potholes and things like that in there. So that is why we don't want to use all grass parking. It's really only suitable for relatively less frequent use. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know, I'm a pretty frequent guest at the zoo and we use that grass parking all the time. That lot is full all the time. I've never run into any issues or problems with it. I think there's way too much asphalt in this plan. And what about all the trails, why all the asphalt on the trails? I mean, we're talking about passive recreation, we're talking about walking and jogging and -- Page 8 of 35 16 12 A7 June 2, 2011 MR. MARCHAND: Yes, and other uses as well that the park sees for this. Again, this is part of a bigger system. And part of the intent here is to provide off -road access and multi -modal transportation opportunities for people on bicycles, for rollerbladers, for other types of wheeled uses. And there was considerable -- COMMISSIONER CARON: What does that mean, other types of wheeled uses? MR. MARCHAND: Strollers and that sort of thing. But -- and we did have presentations by pervious pavement manufacturers and suppliers, and based on all that the decision was what we really need here for the uses that were intended is a smoother path and that can be provided with the porous pavement. And again, from a treatment standpoint we're providing the same sort of -- the same kind of treatment in that we are retaining and percolating all the water coming off of the parking lot. If you put in a pervious pavement, you would trade the cost of the pervious pavement for smaller stormwater ponds is typically what happens. COMMISSIONER CARON: How big is that parking node to the north? MR. MARCHAND: The -- Ray, what was that? MR. LORRAINE: Total area is about 1.9 acres, and that includes the facilities -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to say things on the record, if you're going to speak. She can't -- MR. MARCHAND: It was approximately 1.9 acres for the entire node, parking, buildings, the works. COMMISSIONER CARON: So the intent is to have buildings there as well. MR. MARCHAND: Yes. This intent is at that location we would have a restroom, a pavilion and a small maintenance storage building for storage of the Parks maintenance equipment. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's it for right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm going to keep going after that asphalt question. You indicated that the western portion of the parking lot, which would be the, as you called it, an L -shape earlier -- yeah, move it up toward the river -- you said there would be probably 16 spots for parking. You also indicated that there might be strollers and all kinds of things. And I'm assuming too that's where parking would be for the kayak launching. Would that be correct? MR. MARCHAND: Yes. And the 16 that I mentioned was just what we calculated as a requirement for the passive park. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then I don't understand. Are you saying there's 16 for the passive park and then another allocation for the kayakers and another allocation -- MR. MARCHAND: No, I'm sorry, no. That 16 was what we thought the entire passive park would be required to have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you probably are correct, I mean, in that regard. And that's what makes me concerned. I agree with Commissioner Caron. When I read this, I had -- the first thought I had is, oh, my God, look at all this oil -based asphalt, and we're trying to keep it as a preserve type of park. It seems odd. If you don't anticipate any more than the need for 16 spots, I don't see a traffic issue. And if I don't see a traffic issue, I can't appreciate an investment in asphalt paving and all of its maintenance over the years as being a requisite. It seems extraordinary. So something to my mind is out of line. You either have an insufficient number of parking spots for the purpose, or you have an extraordinary amount of improvement. I know the geo -- whatever it is you called that, the structure that you put underneath the grass is fairly strong and has a good life span, and so I'm struggling with the notion. I'm disinclined on all this asphalt, certainly. I think the project in itself is attractive and interesting, but the calculations that you're offering us for those who would use it against the improvement, cost consideration seems extraordinary. And I understand that you want to put asphalt then you want to put a swale, which means that you don't have a shoulder, and instead if somebody with a bicycle can go off and hurt themselves if they go off the path. So I don't see that as an advantage. Obviously you satisfy one thing but you create another condition. So I don't know that you can explain it any better than you have. But I will tell you that I'm disinclined on the basis so far. Thank you. MR. MARCHAND: If I could just -- Page 9 of 35 L A7J, e 2, 2011 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. MR. MARCHAND: -- let me point that in addition to the parking demand, based on the shared parking that the zoo would be using this as well, there's sufficient amount of anticipated usage that -- you know, we're also providing bus parking. So, you know, anticipation is that we'll have heavy buses driving through here as well. So there is an anticipation of a considerable amount of use of this parking lot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now you've confused me. Driving through where, sir? MR. MARCHAND: In the parking lot in this -- the node next to the zoo here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I can appreciate the view that an asphalt to support a large bus is reasonable, but I do know that again the zoo, I've passed it many times and been through it and I see buses and they're parked on the grass as well. I recognize you're trying to plan for all the potential, but then when you speak of the facts for the use, they don't jive with the information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, this is sort of a new wrinkle that we're planning for bus parking. I would think if we're planning for bus parking, because it's actually for the zoo, the zoo should handle their bus parking on their asphalt, which is already there, and patrons in their cars should be using the grass parking. And we shouldn't have to have asphalt for buses. I mean, I can't imagine the county busing people in to walk on the pathways or -- I don't know, unless they are suddenly deciding to bus in bicyclers for an event which, you know, again, it gets away from the whole passive aspect of this if we're busing people into this place for something. I'm not getting -- MR. WILLIAMS: Just if I may, Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. I do like the idea of busing bicyclists in, that kind of has a nice ring to it for a special event. But part of what the requirements are that we would be doing for the parking lot, the Board of County Commissioners has a lease agreement with the nonprofit Naples Zoo. That lease agreement, I think they pay $10 a year for use of the land that there've on now currently. But also part of that agreement, there is a stipulation for developing this parking area. And the zoo would pay for 50 percent of the improvements for this parking. So they've been heavily involved in what the needs are for their -- for this parking area. Because one of the things that you know, and especially on the free Saturdays I think is probably one of the most noticeable times, the free Saturdays, the parking is really a premium around the zoo. So it's -- and I think part of the consideration is it is on grass now, but we are trying to improve it to allow for some other uses. And J.P. mentioned a couple other things that aren't part of this process. There's a whole redesign that's occurring regarding the zoo's entrance. And so a lot of the parking that's associated with right across from Coastland Mall, if you will, that will go away at some point. So while this may seem like a lot of parking, what we're basically doing is reconfiguring the parking in and around the zoo to this one location. So we do have existing parking around the zoo, but once that road design comes through or is established, that will go away. I don't know if that helps, but I did want to throw that out there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it shouldn't be taking away, it should just be shifting. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So it's not taking away any parking. And I don't question the need for the amount of parking you're talking about placing on this, but I do question the fact that it has to be asphalt parking. I don't think that's necessary. I don't think it's necessary for the zoo. I don't think its --and it certainly isn't necessary for this park, this greenway. It just doesn't make any sense. And there is enough concrete -- or asphalt on the zoo's portion already that they can handle the buses. I mean, that's just a matter of logistics, figure out how to, you know, park them on the left side versus the right side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You done? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I've got a few. I don't know who from the county can check on this while we're discussing it. But we routinely do churches. Page 10 of 35 16 12 A7,une 2, 2011 Churches request a certain portion of their parking lots many times to be grass. And I thought there was a code provision about a required percentage of asphalt before they could do parking lots in grass. And the purpose for that was is you're going to have some heavier uses, no matter what level of activity you have on a site. So having asphalt there instead of mud, which a heavy used grass area will probably turn to is probably a good thing. And when you have an exceptional amount of traffic those occasional times you put them on grass. That's how we look at churches I think. And I'd certainly like to have someone check the code to see if there's a provision in there requiring a percentage of asphalt. That would maybe resolve some of the concerns here today. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. I started looking just as you mentioned it. And there is a requirement for a certain percentage of required parking to be paved and a certain percentage can be grass. And the churches I believe is 30 percent, but I'm trying to find out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I've got other questions while you're looking that one up. One of the things that I seem to feel has a lot more opportunity for mistakes is when we do things on the fly. I understand your concern to go from 22 acres to 17 acres to ensure more flexibility. But if you're over 90 percent with the whole thing of being generally preserve area anyway, I'm not sure the opportunity to change the 22 to 17 is best addressed on the fly at one of these meetings. I think it's something that if you had intended to do that, you should have gone through the process, including the EAC and others right from the get -go. So that part of your request I have problems with at this point. As far as the EAC goes, I notice the EAC recommended denial. It wasn't recommending denial subject to these things, because if they recommend denial, it doesn't matter what you do, it's still denial unless you go back to them again. So I'm a little surprised, because I think the EAC's recommendation could have been more productive for this board and the next board up had they made a recommendation of approval subject to these stipulations. Then each board could have had a better opportunity to understand their stipulations in more detail. But regardless, I don't necessarily disagree with the comments about the pervious versus impervious, but I don't know if there's a code provision that requires that on a standard subdivision zoning. Now, during a PUD process, people are asking for things that go above and beyond the minimum standards. And to get those, there's compromises. This is -- in fact, I wanted to ask you, from what I'm reading in the Page 1 of the staff report, it says that you are changing a C -3 area. What area of this project was C -3 that we're looking at right now? MR. MARCHAND: Let me put this on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I know it was in our packet, but I'd like to discuss it on the overhead in public. Could you flip that up so it's orientated the same as the others? MR. MARC14AND: That's what I'm trying to do here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That works. Right there is fine. MR. MARCHAND: In this case north is up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the C -3 is a portion along Goodlette Road? MR. MARCHAND: Right there, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In a C -3, the impervious area that's allowed I believe is substantially high. So if you had left that C -3, you would have been able to cover quite a bit of it with asphalt or whatever structures you wanted to. The multi - family district six, there's two types of that that you had. And what are those going to be now? MR. MARCHAND: That right now is proposed to stay vacant land and conservancy -- be in a conservation easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the impervious area you could have on RMF -6 land, which could have been 40 percent or 30, whatever the percentage is, is zero. In return for that, you're converting all this land to over 90 percent preservation. You're putting in 1.8 acres of impervious pathways or boardwalks and then a parking lot that's going to be -- and you said 50 percent. Is that a number we can hang you with or do you want to say up to 50 percent or up to Page 11 of 35 1612 /June 2, 2011 40 percent? MR. MARCHAND: Fifty percent is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're going to add treatment swales to all of the walking areas that have impervious surfaces. MR. MARCHAND: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's being offered in lieu of the C -3, the RMF -6 that's been on the plan that could be built today. MR. MARC14AND: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, trying to understand it. The next item I have is your -- and this has nothing to do with the code, it's just a question of Barry from Parks and Rec. So it's not an item we can base a vote on because it's not code related. But Barry, just out of curiosity, what budget process is this going into? What year are you going to develop this? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, funds are budgeted currently. We have funds in a 306 project for this project. So the funds would carry over into next fiscal year. The anticipation is that construction would begin sometime in FY 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are they grants, impact fees? What kind of funds are they? MR. WILLIAMS: Actually the funds came from a grant received from the Trust for Public Lands many years ago. And part of the purchase of the Fleischman property, if you will, a portion of those -- or the grant proceeds went to complete this project. The Trust for Public Lands and part of the stipulations that we are involved in with this project, it comes from the Trust for Public Lands in terms of certain requirements that we have, how we manage the property and those type of things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And Ray, did you finish looking up percentage of impervious? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I did. It's Section 4.05.02 of the Land Development Code. And it provides that all required parking shall be asphalt, bituminous, concrete or dustless material and maintained in smooth, well graded condition. Upon approval of the County Manager or designee, a suitable material, limerock excluded, with suitable stabilized subgrade may be substituted for the above materials. For grass parking pertaining to churches is up to 70 percent of the parking spaces for house of worship may be surfaced with grass or lawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there is a required portion that needs to be asphalt. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, 30 percent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and then the rest, there is -- yeah, okay. Just out of curiosity, I know this is different and your traffic patterns are going to be different than a church. Do you know how much of your parking is asphalt and how much is -- well up to 50 percent, so you're about 20 percent over. Okay. Thank you, that's -- MR. MARCHAND: And Mr. Chairman, if I could, just I was reminded of something by Alex. When you talked about the RMF area there, you have to remember that is -- currently at least it's owned by Conservation Collier. So while it is zoned for RMF and could have been developed prior to them purchasing it, now that they own it there's really -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but my comment though was to be -- before Conservation Collier bought this, before you came in with a plan to develop it with the Conservation Collier land, the amount of impervious that could have been on this property as a whole is far, far in excess of what you're producing today. MR. MARC14AND: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was trying to understand -- MR. MARCHAND: Right. I just wanted to clarify that, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron or Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question again about the filter marsh. When the EAC discussed it, you're saying that the swales behind the parking in the impervious surfaces, was that what their intent was when they wanted a filter marsh, to filter from the impervious surfaces so basically you're substituting swales for Page 12 of 35 16 12 A7 June 2, 2011 the filter marsh? Is that what -- MR. MARCHAND: We're basically substituting a dry retention area for the filter marsh. And we'll probably put some plants in that as well. It may not be the same kind of plants you would put in an area that's wet more frequently or longer, but we would be putting some plants in there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On that -- sir, on the map that's on the visualizer right now, in that section you called previously an L, I notice there's a CON in there, presumably for conservation. Am I correct with the subtle blue color that's conservation? MR. MARCHAND: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And yet you have it enclosed by your lines of ownership, I guess you call it. How is it possible to convert a conservation area into a parking area? MR. MARCHAND: Well, and that's what we're here to request is a rezoning, an overall rezoning. There's a little bit about that that is conservation area now. It was designated that -- I've got to remember it here. Originally that area was -- let me find it again, hold on. Where did it go? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you know, title rests with Collier County and Conservation? MR. MARCHAND: Title for the project area is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, the specific CON area that I'm referring to. MR. MARC14AND: The portion that is in the project area is owned by the county. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, both would be owned by the county, one would be Conservation Collier, would it not? MR. MARCHAND: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No? They're both the county, same people. MR. MARCHAND: The county owns the area inside the red line, okay. This area here is the southwest Conservancy outside the red line. Okay? Conservation Collier are these parcels, three parcels here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, fine. But I'm concerned with whatever portion of CON is located within the area. You've indicated now that somebody else owns or -- I'm trying to still understand. I wish I could point to it here and have you understand me, if you're not understanding me. I just need to understand if that's been designated, that entire, if you will, rectangle has been designated as conservation, and that small portion is now going to be changed into a parking lot. That small -- where your finger is, that small portion. And I wondered how that's accomplished here. How is that done? Is there a deed passed, or what? I mean, I don't know. MR. MARCHAND: Okay. Yes, this area is currently zoned conservation, that's correct. Part of that conservation area, about 3.6 acres of this blue, is inside the proposed project area, okay? And inside the area that's proposed for rezoning. And this rezoning action that you have before you today would change that zoning of this portion. This 3.6 acres of blue would change that to P for public use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I appreciate that. But the public use in this case would be away from conservation, and it would become parking. I just -- I'm surprised that we're doing that. But I can understand why, based on what your plan is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put an aerial on the overhead for that area and blow up the CON area on the aerial? Zoom in on that, if you could, Ray. Well, that's easy then. Keep bringing it up. Okay, the CON area is that -- see where the number 4111 is? That's part of it and to the right of it, that big open field. I'm not sure if nature provided that big open field that way. But I'm not -- you know, we're quibbling over a conservation area that may be not that much of a valuable conservation area any longer. It may have been at one time. So I'm just not sure that the idea of using it any further like they're proposing is a negative, since it doesn't appear to be functional that much to begin with. Pm not sure who cleared it since if it was conservation, how that may have been happened. I think you said The Conservancy owns it. So I'm sure they went through the right process to get done whatever had to be done. MR. MARCHAND: If I could, Mr. Chairman, a little bit of history about that specific conservation zoning -- and again, it's a conservation zoning, it's not a conservation area -- is that the -- that site was previously zoned RO, recreation open space. And in 1991 when the county created the current Land Development Code, it created new zoning districts and eliminated the RO zoning district. Page 13 of 35 16 12 A7 June 2, 2011 It was changed -- the RO zoning district was changed to CON. That was determined to be the closest thing to the RO district. And the old RO designation allowed for even more intensive uses than what is allowed under the currently requested P zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. MARCHAND: So if you go back in history, it was a little different. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Are you saying that the zoo parking is also -- they're involved in this so this will also be zoo parking? MR. MARCHAND: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it's really two different entities doing this, you're just kind of improving the zoo parking and adding the extra parking -- MR. MARCHAND: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- for -- okay. MR. MARC14AND: And if I'm not mistaken, it will be actually relocating the zoo parking here. And as Barry Williams said, the zoo will actually be paying for a good portion of this as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So this would -- most of this would have been done anyway, even without -- MR. MARC14AND: Yes, the zoo is looking for -- it's making some major changes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to the staff report, if we could. Thank you, sir. MR. MARCHAND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three, thank you. As soon as we finish with staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of this rezone with the proposed 17 -acre preserve area. And also we are recommending a separate approval of the companion ST permit PL2011 -677. And we would also -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's back up for a minute. The only permit -- the only approval we have listed on our agenda is RZPL2009 -25. Should the ST permit have been listed separately on the agenda or are we okay? MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because our motion would be subject to what's on the agenda, Nancy. And that's why -- if you want another motion, I'm not sure we could do it based on the way the agenda was presented. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. And I'd also like to attach the ST overlay affected area map to the rezone ordinance. And if you'd like -- it's part of your backup material. If you'd like, I can show it to you again on the visualizer. It basically just shows the ST permit area and the area that's affected by the development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do. MS. GUNDLACH: That's basically the master plan with the ST area shadowed in gray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I -- I'm a little concerned after -- I mean, when you said that ST permit you're looking for separate approval, it does say that in the staff report. It says in the last sentence of the first page, a companion request, which we don't have, for an ST permit in conjunction with this rezone request has also been made in order to impact areas within the ST overlay. Is an ST permit required to have a vote of this board separately from the rezoning? And honestly I don't know that answer. And until you said that I didn't perceive this as a potential issue. And Jeff, I hate to throw you things without giving you a heads up but -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have the answer to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we move through the rest of the meeting and the hearing with the witnesses. And while we're doing that, maybe you could -- someone could come to an answer on that and we can get some input. Because I'm real concerned if you need two approvals and we can only give you one because of the Page 14 of 35 161 2 June 2, 2011 advertising, that does provide a dilemma. So with that, we'll finish your report if you'd like. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. That was my -- those are my questions, those three requests. And it would be my pleasure to answer any questions you might have this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff before we go to public speakers? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Nancy, what's staffs opinion on decreasing the size of the preservation area? MS. GUNDLACH: The Parks Department and the agent have kept us apprised of the fact over the last couple of weeks that they were considering reducing the preserve area. So we're aware of it and we are supportive of it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why are you supportive of it? MS. GUNDLACH: Because -- actually, it would probably be best if I invite our environmental specialist to answer that question. And we have Summer Brown here -- Summer Brown Araque with us here this morning. MS. ARAQUE: Good morning. For the record, Summer Brown Araque. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name? MS. ARAQUE: A- R- A- Q -U -E. It's actually Summer Araque. This was -- there's been discussion over the last week or so, and I have met with staff, including several levels above me, and we looked at the code to make sure that what they are proposing is consistent with the Land Development Code. And so I can tell you that what you see before you today is consistent with the Land Development Code. We will do a formal review of that new line after this meeting. But what you have is consistent. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Not really, Summer. But part of it is that some of it falls within Conservation Collier land. So how is that affected by it? MS. ARAQUE: Well, like Alex said, the Conservation Collier portion has different protections over it. And she might be able to clarify that better than I could. But my understanding is that essentially where that little wetland is right in the middle -- I don't know if that's on. The property line goes right through that. And so anything south of that area would be in conservation. Like she said, they're planning to put a conservation easement over that. So really, you have a small portion, possibly one to two acres that would be left in an upland area. And the applicant said that, you know, they may want to use it for an observation area. All we can say is that there's nothing in the code that prevents us from saying yes, that's consistent. If they wanted to impact an area that was dense with gopher tortoise -- or not impact, but not preserve, that would be a whole different story. COMMISSIONER CARON: But essentially they want to make a hole in a conservation area, or a preservation area that is going to be part of a wetland and border on the gopher tortoise habitat. I mean, it just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. MR. WILLIAMS: Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. One correction, first of all, if I may. I had Trust for Public Lands on my mind. I apologize. Mark, you asked me, Commissioner, about the -- funding source is actually Florida Communities Trust. But just to kind of answer Ms. Caron's question, I think what we wanted was the flexibility. And, you know, we have a park, Eagle Lakes Park, which is a good example of where we've built observation platforms for the public to come and enjoy specific parts of that park. And in that case it's a collaboration that we have with our wastewater department where some of the ponds attract wildlife. And I don't know that that would necessarily be the case here, but the concept is the same, just to have the flexibility. The observation deck is probably the most compelling one that we would be interested in as far as developing in the future if we could. So the gopher tortoise habitat that is there, we were on the property a couple of weeks ago, I was with the project manager and we personally observed a black racer in a tree, which was -- that's more of a joke between me and the project manager. But the ability to view wildlife is more or less what we're looking for in having that flexibility. So I just wanted to add that, if I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't know if Summer was done with her presentation, or Nancy, Page 15 of 35 1612 A22,20 '' 11 you're done with yours, where we're at? You guys are doing a lot of conferring in the background. That must mean that question about the ST permit raised a lot of concern. MS. ARAQUE: I didn't have a specific presentation, but if you had any other environmental questions. I mean, keep in mind though that this area is not going -- they're not proposing a specific impact, it's all parks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's -- here's the problem I have with it. And you had basically alluded to it in part of your presentation. You said that this just came about recently, a week or two ago, and that you were going to provide an analysis of it after we got done today. That analysis should have been done before today; it should have been done before the EAC. It's those kind of things that happen that trip us up down the road somewhere because we didn't know the anticipated nature of what we were approving because it hadn't been vetted out thoroughly. So I'm still concerned about the on- the -fly changes and I'm going to stick with that position. But I appreciate your telling us how you're going to be looking at it. So thank you. MS. ARAQUE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you done with your discussion on the ST, since so many of you had to get up and get involved in it? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. We were thinking that the ST would be processed in conjunction with the rezone. The review of the LDC doesn't require advertising for the ST permit since we're not adding ST lands or removing ST lands. So I think there's where some confusion came in. And we're trying to process it together with the rezone and so there wouldn't necessarily have to be two separate votes. But we would, at the advice -- the recommendation of the County Attorney's Office, we're going to drop the ST permit from this discussion today -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, before we do that, do you have to advertise the permit or not? MR. BELLOWS: No, we don't. MR. KLATZKOW: If you don't have to advertise the permit, you can hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how can we vote on something that hasn't been advertised? I mean, our motions can -- we're supposed to notify on an agenda what we're going to vote on. How do we vote on something if it wasn't advertised? We haven't done that ever, that I know of. MR. KLATZKOW: Because it's ancillary to the rezoning you're doing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I think the rezoning can handle it if we vote on the rezoning. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, I don't want to get us into uncharted waters with voting on something that hasn't been properly advertised. MR. KLATZKOW: That's the point. The point is whether or not it has to be advertised, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it doesn't have to be advertised as a separate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I believe -- don't our motions, our intention to make a motion have to be advertised? If we intend to hear -- to vote on something, it may not need to be advertised for the process of the ST permit, but for us to vote on it I thought our votes have to be -- anything we're going to make a motion on we have to advertise. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, one more point. The title that was advertised for this rezone includes the ST process or impacts. So I think one vote on the rezone would take care of everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you guys are comfortable with that, that's -- MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I'm not entirely happy with this, to put it bluntly. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not either. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. But the choice is this, Ray, and I'll leave it to staff discretion here at this point in time. Do you want to just proceed with the rezoning and come back later with the permit or do you want the whole thing now? I don't know if you guys have any time crunches on this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They do. MR. KLATZKOW: Because you may have to go to the -- start from ground one if you're going to do it all Page 16 of 35 16 12 A7e 2, 2011 over again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have we ever done an STP permit before? MR. BELLOWS: Not in conjunction with a rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have we ever done an STP permit before? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't recall because there's been so many things. What was the process we followed on that? Did we advertise it? Did we put it on our agenda? Was it a motion made based on what was on the agenda? MR. KLATZKOW: I've never seen one, which is why I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm asking too. I don't recall, but -- MS. ARAQUE: Generally it's done with a PUD. And the ST area just goes away when you rezone to PUD. Because this is a straight rezone, it's a different process. And we do ST permits for single- family, but they don't fall within the threshold to come before you. So this is a pretty unique situation. So I don't know if that helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's another alternative. Jeff, if your office had more time to delve into this while we heard the next hearing up, and then came back to this afterwards, would that give you another couple of hours to come back with a better, more concise answer or -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know if the answer is going to change, but that's not a bad thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd like to get the public speakers then done. And as long as we don't have any overwhelming objection from this board, we'll go ahead and then move to the next hearing and then come back to this in the final -- after we can get more input from the County Attorney. Okay. With that, let's go to the public speakers. Ray, if you -- MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is David Tetzlaf£ COMMISSIONER AHERN: I had a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Just one moment, David, I'm sorry. Melissa, I didn't know you did. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Summer, if I could ask you a question. Also John. I read the EAC report and it didn't really address any of the issues that were discussed by the members. Does staff have an opinion of their recommendations or are you comfortable with the alternatives that the petitioner has proposed? MS. ARAQUE: We do not have an opinion simply on the parking and the pervious, because its not a requirement in the Land Development Code. I only do my review by what the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan require. So I don't have an opinion. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have a question of staff before we hear the first public speaker? John, you got a question of staff? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I also had a question for him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: The trip generation reports, it looks like you did two separate reports, one for the Golden Gate entrance and then another one for the kayak entrance. And you were around 50, I believe was about the average. For the Goodlette area, are you requiring any type of generation reports to accommodate the zoo or other uses? And where does that stand? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we are. With the zoo application that is in parallel with this, it's under a different process right now. We're working on intersection improvements at the Fleischman Park and Goodlette intersection; we're working those all out through the other application. This application we kind of view as ancillary to that, because it doesn't directly touch the intersection. It's the other application that's ongoing for the zoo that we're working on that. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So the parking that is shown here that looks really large, is that consistent with the calculations that are going to be presented for the zoo? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Actually, I'd have to refer you over to Planning and Zoning staff, because Transportation doesn't work with parking calculations. Page 17 of 35 1612 A7 June 2 2011 Mr. Bellows, can I defer to you on that parking question? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, could you repeat the question? COMMISSIONER AHERN: The question is, the parking area that's presented looks really large for the uses right now. I think just for that area we're just discussing a kayak launch. But it's been presented that the parking is also going to be shared with the zoo. So my question is, is the amount of parking being proposed consistent with the requirements for the zoo as well as the kayak area? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's consistent with the Land Development Code, based on what they're saying their need is. Whether you're saying -- you know, staff can't say that what they're requesting is greater than what their requirements are, you know. Basically the parking requirements are based on either the square footage of the unit, if it's a commercial type thing. But you can exceed those numbers and the code provides just if you go over a certain percentage, then you just provide additional landscaping. So, you know, it's hard to say whether the needs -- required parking exceeds the standards of the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you run off, boy, I'm getting these flashbacks to development times. There is a provision in the code that says if you want a percentage greater than a certain amount over what you should have, you've got to go through another process to get it. I thought it was 120 percent or 200 something percent, some number like that. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And you increase the landscaping as a result of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's more -- I think there's more to it than that. I think it might require a deviation. But regardless, John, how was the parking calculated -- well, you wouldn't know, because you're traffic. Parking isn't traffic, that's stationary. So maybe -- what was the basis for the quantity of parking generated by this property for that parking lot? Does staff want to answer that question that they didn't pay any attention to just now and they're still not? I'll just wait until they get done talking. Nancy, that question was directed to you, I'm sorry, since John can't answer it. Can you tell me how the parking quantity for this project was calculated and what it comes out to? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, what I can tell you is -- John, they're losing parking at the zoo because they're putting the frontage road in. I mean, that seemed obvious to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, you need to use the speaker when you answer her question. Tag team, here. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Apologies, Commissioner. Transportation has not reviewed the configuration of the parking lot at the zoo. We're just looking at the configuration of the driveway and whether or not the movements are safe at the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm really trying to resolve a simple question here. This particular project has a certain number of lineal feet of boardwalk, and an observation post or whatever they want to call it up on the north end. They have parking spaces on the north end and they're proposing a large amount of parking spaces on the west end. It's on the same property. How many parking spaces does that property's uses generate? That's all I'm asking. Now that had to be part of the staff analysis. So what is the answer? MS. GUNDLACH: I have not analyzed the quantity of parking. I just looked at it based on it's being used by The Conservancy, the zoo. I did have an opportunity to see the master plan and the parking configurations, and it looked appropriate for the amount of parking that's being lost to the frontage road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't really have a problem with them using the parking there for the zoo or for The Conservancy. I think that's great. They have a shared parking agreement, that's fine. The problem I have is I do know there is a code provision that once you reach a threshold of a percentage above a certain amount that's required for your property, you have to look at another level of scrutiny or another level of involvement to get approval for that percentage. I believe it's got to be pointed out and separately addressed. But I -- without spending a half an hour going through the code I can't tell you. Ray? Page 18 of 35 161 2 A?une 2, 2611 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, typically with conditional uses with their conceptual site plan there's a parking matrix. Doesn't appear to be one done. We also calculate the parking at the SDP stage. But in regards to this conditional use, we need to figure that out and provide you with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we don't know sitting here today whether or not they've broached that threshold of over - percentage on parking because the analysis was never done. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That does pose a dilemma. Okay, there are also requirements for shared parking arrangements. If the zoo required -- has required parking and they're taking it out, they intend to use this as a shared parking arrangement to make up for the deficiency they're taking out, just like we do for shared parking on off -site parking, or The Conservancy is using it for a need to meet their required parking, they have to have a shared parking arrangement in place. Has any of this been looked into? MR. BELLOWS: I don't know about the shared parking. I think Mr. Tetzlaff -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And honestly, I didn't have the question until I heard the presentation today, otherwise I would have given you a heads up before today's meeting because I know that you're on a time schedule. I think these things could be looked at while we move to the other hearing in a little while. MR. BELLOWS: I think the applicant may be able to explain a little bit more on the parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant is standing there. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just got the arrow pointed at you. MR. WILLIAMS: Not a problem. I can tell you what I know. That's always a good place to start. Mr. Strain -- and I don't know if this was the question. Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. But there is a draft of a shared parking agreement that has not been finalized, not been approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the Naples Zoo and The Conservancy. It's a draft that is being circulated that is very close to being brought forward, but it has not been yet finalized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Barry, here's -- and I spoke to you on the phone. I really didn't have a problem with your project. I think some tweaking that needs to be done to clean it up to move it forward would have got through today. What was -- couple of the questions we've had about the advertising for the STP permit and now this lack of analysis, let's say, on the parking is a concern because in my own experiences in the development field, I have had to utilize the shared parking arrangement, and I've had to utilize the percentage of parking over the required threshold. And I know those two things exist. I just don't remember the specific language today, and I didn't know based on -- until the presentation how this was coming together. So there's now a hole there, an analysis that probably didn't know it needed to be done but it looks like it may need to be done. And Ray, what I can offer is if we're going to have a -- if we take a -- if we move to this next hearing and come back to this before we close, maybe that's enough time to look into it, I don't know. MR. BELLOWS: Well, I just want to clarify that my previous statement, I was thinking of conditional use. This is a standard rezone, and parking isn't addressed at the time of rezone. That's always addressed at the time of SDP review. You're not approving a parking plan with this, you're approving the use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how are you going to provide at the STP review an arrangement that provides more than the percentage parking possibly required by the site? MR. BELLOWS: There's a separate petition process for off -site parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'll have to come back through the process again. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, for off -site parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what about the arrangement between The Conservancy and the zoo in order to use the parking on this property to meet the minimum requirements that they might need to function, would they have to come back in too? MR. BELLOWS: That would be part of the off -site parking between those parties. And their SDP's would have to reflect any off -site parking arrangements. Page 19 of 35 161 2 AST. t June 2, 2011 But this is a zoning action, not a conditional use, and that's where my misstatement was earlier. There is no conceptual site plan associated with a standard rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even though they provided one, yeah, it's not required. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the parking isn't addressed at the time of rezoning, it's always addressed at the time of SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move into the public speakers and we can chew on this a little bit afterwards. David, you want to come up and start out? Thank you. MR. TETZLAFF: Morning, Commissioners. David Tetzlaff, Naples Zoo. I'm going to attempt to decipher my scribblings from your comments so I can hopefully add some clarity to the conversation, the presentation. There is a shared use parking agreement in process, as Barry said. And Mr. McElwaine brought up a props copy of the agreement. What that basically says is that if the zoo is having a really heavy day, we can use 80 spaces on their current overflow and further special events, Magic under the Mangroves, et cetera, they can use the zoo /county parking. So that's been in the works for quite some time. Also, there was a question about our overflow parking in our grass from Ms. Caron that it seems suitable. What you have to realize is that we water that overflow parking every single day, with reuse water, mind you, to keep it firm, compacted and usable. So it is a huge effort just to make that so cars and currently buses can drive on that and not get stuck. If we didn't water that every day we would be dragging cars out there constantly, and buses. Plus when you've got all that grass and dirt, that's a huge fire ant program that we maintain trying to keep up with the -- keeping our guests from getting bit. The 50/50 on the asphalt and the grass makes the most sense, because currently most of our parking is on asphalt, and that gets the greater percentage of the use. The grass parking does not get used all the time. Free days, exceptional days in season, that's when that grass parking lot takes most of the pounding. Let's see what else. The road from Fleischman, I want to clear that up because that's a whole nother program that's going on concurrently with this one. And what that will do is basically drive straight across Fleischman Boulevard, across Goodlette -Frank Road. That will dump in where there's currently a pond, and then that road then curves south and will almost touch the northwest corner of our current giftshop. And then that road curves around again and then dumps into this new 600 -space parking lot. So just imagine the zoo frontage, the north gravel lot, the center asphalt lot, the south asphalt lot will be gone. So our only parking will be the new plan that Kimley -Horn and county staff have been working on. So just imagine current parking gone and a whole new setup going on. Question: Why are those many spaces needed? Last year we had a record 301,000 visitors. That's a lot of use. And when we have huge days in season and also our free days continue to be much more popular, we can have anywhere on a busy day from four to 5,000 guests in the zoo. Our current parking does not provide for that. So that's why we need 600 plus spaces. Because the issue is when we have our overflow completely full, people then park at Fleischman Park or they park at Coastland Mall. That is an issue for us. We do not want our guests having to cross six lanes of traffic in order to use the zoo. So that's why we need a parking lot of this size. It's just not a good safety issue. Just stepping away from Zoo Dave into the Citizen Dave, because I don't think there's that many citizen speakers here, about the -- let's go back to the vote on November 2nd of '04. The Trust for Public Land bought all that property. They temporarily owned 166 acres. They knew the public in that historic'04 vote wanted two things: They wanted to save the zoo and they wanted more green space. So, you know, I hope some resolution can be reached by all the parties who have an investment in this that the public wanted that land, the public should be able to use that land. And it was brought up at one time, why do you have to have asphalt, why can't you use grass or mulch or dirt? That is just not public usable. Public has to have some kind of firm surface that you can roller blade, push a wheelchair, a stroller, longboard skaters, all the cyclists. Because that brings up another point. You're questioning how many spaces you actually need. Well, bear in mind, not everybody's going to access the greenway park from these two parking lots. You're going to have people coming in from neighborhoods, from sidewalks and so forth. So I think once this gets built, word gets spread, this is going to be something this entire community can be proud of Page 20 of 35 161 2 A7 r A June 2, 2011 But if you have any further questions, otherwise I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one question. Once you get your plan revised so that you're entering right there off Fleischman, how many parking spaces will you have on your property? MR. TETZLAFF: None on the current line. It's all county land, but we kind of refer to it as our side, their side, so to speak. So all of it will be -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You're talking about the zoo -- MR. TETZLAFF: -- south, it will be south of our southern border. All of it will be. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're taking away all of the parking you currently have on your property right now. MR. TETZLAFF: That is absolutely correct. And that was part of the plan, the dealings that have been going on. Because all of our parking has to disappear to make room for the new access road. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but you also stated that the shared parking plan that now allows you to park on the greenway parking lot is 80 spaces. MR. TETZLAFF: No. No. COMMISSIONER CARON: You said 80 shared parking spaces in the agreement -- MR. TETZLAFF: That's the agreement with The Conservancy. The Conservancy can fit about 80 cars on their current overflow, not the zoo's. I'm sorry if I was not -- I'm not clear on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you were not. Okay. MR. TETZLAFF: And someone asked, you know, what studies have been done to see how many spaces the zoo actually needs. We've gone through master planning and we're going through a second round of strategic business planning. We're dealing with firms that work with zoos, aquariums and museums in North America, and they have seen that -- they have, both of those planners and master planners have said that this is the size parking lot the zoo needs to meet its growth. COMMISSIONER CARON: About 600 spaces, is that what you said? MR. TETZLAFF: Just over 600 spaces, yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And David, you're telling us that the 600 spaces that are being created with the presentation today, those all are going to be -- your facility is going to use as many of those as it needs. MR. TETZLAFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're not going to have any parking on your property. MR. TETZLAFF: Not with the new roadway. The new road provides no parking. It will all be eaten up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, can you tell me how you can have a principal use with no parking on your property when a shared use agreement can only have a certain percentage of the parking, it can't have 100 percent? How are they doing this? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it appears to be part of a taking for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's taking what? MR. BELLOWS: -- for road purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The roads' a voluntary situation. I mean, they want to -- are you taking that big tree out, by the way, by the pond? MR. TETZLAFF: No, I fought to keep that, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That's a good move. But back on the -- this whole thing is a package that I wish was better thought out with all the elements around it instead of just the one that you're trying to get the zoning on today. Because our questions could have been answered. I know the code addresses these items. I didn't bring it with me today because I didn't know of all the parameters I'm hearing now with the presentations. But you've got some big issues with the required parking, none of it being on -site. I don't know how you do that. MR. BELLOWS: Well, I guess it's all county -owned property. And what it boils down to is it's going to have to -- the SDP is going to have to reflect a unified site plan showing parking for the zoo and for the county park as Page 21 of 35 162 7 June 2, 2011 being one county project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, David, appreciate it. MR. TETZLAFF: This was all memorialized in the zoo - county lease on December 19th, '05. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just want to make sure that it's memorialized in the public process so you guys don't have a bullet hole in you as it goes down the road. And that's my only concern here today. I mean, I'm not against this at all. In fact, I just want to make sure it's as bulletproof as it can be when it goes forward. And I just -- I perceive some issues I'll have spend some time on after this meeting's over. MR. BELLOWS: The parking will be addressed at the SDP stage, and the zoo site is going to be incorporated into a larger county holding and under one ownership of the county. So I don't see it as a problem. But it will have to be addressed at the time of SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Next speaker, Ray? Oh, Cherie', are you doing okay, do you want a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you, I can wait for the speakers to finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, could we have the next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Andrew McElwaine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two of them. MR. McELWAINE: Thank you very much. For the record, Mr. Chairman. Andrew McElwaine, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today, Commissioners. I wasn't planning to speak but threw my card in with the most recent discussion. I do want to address this shared parking agreement, which actually reduces the amount of parking needed by the zoo, does not increase the amount. What we are looking at, as you may have seen if you travel Goodlette, we have put in a new entrance, and we intend, and it's part actually of our SDP I understand, is to then connect to the south parking lot there, the zoo, the grass parking lot from ours. What we will do, and this has been worked on for quite a while, and I want to compliment David Tetzlaff in particular for his good work on this, on their busy days, like their overflow days, we'll open that up and send some of their folks down our road and onto our campus for our grass parking, which is located behind the dormitory. And that can hold approximately 80 cars. So that will pull 80 cars off of this parking lot, put them on ours. And we're going to put a little foot path through the zoo. And I will say that's not entirely a philanthropic act on our part because we're hoping people have a great time at the zoo, come all jazzed for conservation and decide to come to our place and enjoy our place as well. And in fact that really is -- those of you who knew my predecessor, Kathy Prosser, who actually chaired the planning for -- one of the advisory committees for this back in the day, they really envisioned this as Naples Central Park, where you'd have a zoo, a nature center and all these other amenities in one location. And we're 25 acres, the zoo is 50 acres. I'm thinking 80 -some acres for the greenway park. Put it all together, it's quite something. So in fact the shared parking agreement does not increase the pressure on this lot, it decreases it. So I did want to make that point very, very clear. So I don't think it needs to go through the formal process that we were discussing earlier, since it's a positive impact on this problem. Now, on certain days we would also, with the zoo's permission, be able to put some of our overflow on that lot. But its fairly rare. We can probably handle all of our stuff on -site. We do have some evening events where we need to park cars off -site. And again, that's off -peak, so to speak, in terms of the greenway. Once in a while we had something that was Say Good -bye to the Turtle Day, which is when our sea turtle was being sent out to sea after being raised and rehabilitated by us, and we had about 3,000 people come through in one day, which stunned us. But so if we're going to have -- we only release a sea turtle every five years, so hopefully that won't be a regular occurrence here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question, Andrew. Your dormitory, where on your property is it located? MR. McELWAINE: The dormitory, if you're coming into the property and you make a right turn to go down to the wildlife hospital, you're passing the dorm there on your left. Immediately behind that over where now is our filter marsh is a big open grass field. You can't see it right now because our construction equipment is parked there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put the aerial -- it's on there, Ray. Could you just point out on the aerial Page 22 of 35 1612 JunA, 2011 where your dormitory is? MR. McELWAINE: Where's our spot, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show him where The Conservancy is on that plan. MR. McELWAINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the area you're planning to put the parking in? MR. McELWAINE: Sir, there's been parking there since 1977. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's the conservation area that we talked about earlier. That's why I was won -- boy, this is -- every time a presentation comes up we have another question. MR. McELWAINE: Mr. Chairman, that is our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I know. It's zoned conservation, according to the map that was shown by the park, which Pm -- okay. MR. McELWAINE: Again, it's not permanent parking, it's in grass, it's an open field. It does get used for overflow parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but if you're going to designate it as parking, you're designating a parking area, even though it's grass in a conservation zoned area, I'm sure this is all going to be approved properly, but it's just amazing, this kind of flexibility is different maybe than what we're used to seeing. MR. McELWAINE: This may be a nonconforming use, Mr. Chairman, because that's been overflow parking since the 1960's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but it's zoned conservation. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And as the staff report notes, it was originally zoned RO, which allow for those uses, so that's where the nonconforming status comes in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Interesting. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Andrew Dickman. MR. DICKMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Andrew Dickman, private citizen. I want to emphasize that, because I also am a member of the EAC, but I'm here as a private citizen. As I've served two years on the EAC, nothing has given me more excitement than this project. I think everyone recognizes the fact that if you have The Conservancy, this greenway, the zoo and then also Freedom Park, you have an amazing opportunity and an amazing destination to demonstrate Collier County and Naples' dedication to environmental emphasize, environmental education, et cetera. And I wholeheartedly think that the shared parking and the description that Mr. McElwain explained between the synergy between the zoo and The Conservancy, that is all well and good. Here are my issues, and I think some of them have been drawn out today. Number one -- and these are things that I personally had questions about at the EAC, and they weren't clearly answered. And there was a lot of unanswered questions similar to this, which is sort of why you're asking questions about the EAC decision. Number one had to do with the parking. And when you look at the north parking lot and the south -- and the more southern parking lot, your total spaces, from what I could gather, because there wasn't a parking analysis, was 715 spaces. So that would be 55 at the top, Fleischman, and then on Goodlette and then 660. From what I calculated today, it sounded as though the park itself, the passive park needed 17 spaces, the -- it sounded to me as though there were 80 spaces needed by The Conservancy. And that leaves 563. And of course I'm just jotting these down because we never had that calculation done. And if you'll see, I'll give you the minutes for the record. The other issue that we had, or I had, had to do with the 12- foot -wide asphalt walkway going through this greenway. And then I had some questions and concerns about the land cover and where all of this impervious pavement would go in conjunction to what the type of land cover was there. The stormwater management is a big issue for us. If you listen to Mr. McElwaine's explanation, they have committed themselves to a filter marsh, which is a fantastic thing. It is one of the more progressive, innovative ways that you can deal with stonnwater management. And we brought that up at the EAC and there were really very little explanation for why they weren't going that route. And then finally after a lot of these questions, and it was dragging on and on, we finally asked Mr. Williams Page 23 of 35 V tl 16 ' June 2, 2011 whether or not they would take a continuance so that we can get some of the answers back to us in 30 days. This was in May, so it would have come before us yesterday, and we could have vetted all of this out and handed over to you some of our specific issues and they may have conceded to redo some of these things. And the reason I'm here today, because I very rarely do this. I mean, I firmly believe that our role is to, you know, make environmental comments, pass them on to you. That's the process. But this is so important to me and made such an impact on me that I'm here today. And the reason is, is on that very same agenda was the Watershed Management Plans, which you mentioned. The very next agenda item. And when Mr. Williams said, no, we don't want to come back, just take an up or down vote and we'll move on, a lot of us including me were stunned that, unlike a lot of private developers who are more than willing to come back and get it right because they want the approval, the county, the public agency here said, no, we want to go forward. No real strong explanation why they wanted to do this, for something so important that would be a showcase for good water management. And the reason we were talking about parking and things like that, which some may say well, that's a planning issue. Well, it's not necessarily, because it has to do with pervious and impervious pavement, stormwater management, et cetera. There really wasn't any explanation about this shared parking, and we were trying to fish it out and there was no discussion about the shared parking agreement, that never came up, we never got any information about, you know, The Conservancy's role, and of course all of you know that they acquired a very nice piece of property that is exceptionally beautiful and they're going to be really good stewards of that. So collectively all that's important. But when the Watershed Management Plan came up right after this, I asked one of the consultants who in large part is giving us a lot of recommendation on low impact development, i.e., how to deal with stormwater management and how to do things progressively that would help with stormwater management, that at the end of the day will help keep Naples Bay and Rookery Bay and Wiggins Park, all these estuaries clean and healthy, not just for the environment but for the business sector in Collier County who come here for the clean beaches and the fishing and the boating et cetera. I asked yesterday what that portion of the consultant's grant was from the county. It was $1.8 million. And that was just the part of the consultants to tell us what is good stormwater management in part. And then at the same time, I asked the consultant right after the parks came up, and I asked him, do you think there are opportunities here to do low impact developments, and the answer was yes, simply. And that's why I'm here today. Because as a private citizen, $1.8 million to build a very good report that will help us as decision makers to help the community to educate themselves and decision makers to make good decisions, to go beyond what the Land Development Code says. It doesn't say you can't go beyond to be more progressive, it just says here's the minimum that you have to do. And at the same time have this other part of the government saying no, we're doing this just because the code says it and we did it this way in Freedom Park and blah, blah, blah. I just didn't find it good enough. And there were so many questions that I voted no and I made it clear on the record I voted no, not because I think this project isn't worthy, because I've followed this since my short tenure with The Conservancy which I immensely enjoyed and also as the EAC. Because I do think this is probably one of the most exceptional opportunities for Collier County and Naples to show not only the community how it ought to be done, but when developers come to us we can say, go look at that, go look at that whole area, the filter marsh on The Conservancy. Go look at the filter marsh, go see how this is being done and bring back plans. And again, most developers that come before us are willing to take a continuance and come back to us. But it stunned me, honestly, when Mr. Williams said no, give us an up or down vote, we'll move on. I found that very disheartening, to say the least. So with that, I would recommend honestly that you table this and even if you can, send it back to the EAC so that we can fmish our conversation with them and give you that information. Because I really think that something this important, there isn't -- in my opinion, no one's given a good reason why this has to be a fast track, which seems like it's going to be. I've been in government a long time as a planner and now as a private land use attorney, and I kind of sense what's going on. I don't need to say it, but I sense what's going on. And I think that if the government is going to do something on the one hand to protect the environment and spend a lot of money and then also on the other side of the government do something that isn't as good as it should be Page 24 of 35 i June 2, 2011 161 P. A7 or could be, I think there's a problem there. There's something that's owed to the citizens of this county in that regard. So thank you for allowing me to speak. I do have the minutes. I don't know if you have them. But I want to put them in as an Exhibit A. This is the minutes from our meeting in May, which -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have copies for the court reporter -- MR. DICKMAN: Yes, I'll give her -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the rest of us, they are public record anyway, so -- I mean, if you say the minutes to the EAC and provide the date, I'm sure that we -- MR. DICKMAN: Minutes of the EAC for May 4th, 2011. It sort of speaks for itself. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Dickman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You indicated, I think, that you were perhaps unhappy with the trails being 12- foot -wide and composed of macadam or whatever. Is it because of the use of the material or is it because of the underlay, the disturbance to the land, the building up of it? What is your actual concern there? MR. DICKMAN: Let me reemphasize that I'm speaking as a private citizen. Because yesterday we actually authorized one of our members to speak to you officially as our -- but the concern was the material, the impervious material, the width of it, because we have looked at projects from developers where they have smaller paths but with pull -off areas. So we felt that it wasn't -- or at least I felt that it wasn't needed to be roadside, because they described it as, you know, if -- as if all of these rollerbladers, bikers, walkers and everybody came together at one time. And I just felt like it was too large. And I didn't have enough information about what land cover it was going to be going through. And gopher tortoises and relocation, all of that. But the size of it and the material being used and the reasoning for using that just didn't square with what I felt was adequate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you very much. I too agree with you, it's a wonderful project. MR. DICKMAN: It's fantastic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just had a question. I don't want to put you on the spot too much, but do you feel that what they describe as their dry detention area is roughly equivalent or roughly as good as a filter marsh? MR. DICKMAN: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Andrew -- brief, please. MR. McELWAINE: The Conservancy is not going to be using 80 spaces on the county property, rather, we've offered the zoo access to up to 80 spaces on our property. So I just want to correct the record on that statement that was made, The Conservancy is going to be using 80 spaces on the public property. We will not be using that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, I think we're going to take a break and come back at five after 11:00 and then we'll resume the public speakers at that time. So see you all at five after 11:00. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the break. We're one minute late, but we're still together. So we left off on public speakers for the greenway park. And let's resume. I think we had a total of four, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And the last speaker is Bill Barton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's only three, so we had a total of three. MR. BELLOWS: There was four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, was there? Okay. MR. BARTON: Chairman Strain, members of the Planning Commission, for the record, my name is Bill Barton. I'm speaking to you today on behalf of the Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust, of which I'm a member of the board. My intent today was simply to come and tell you how strongly our board promotes and embraces this project. But some of the discussions this morning causes me to spend a few minutes and put on a different hat, if I may. I'm a professional engineer in Florida, have been for many years. And during the course of my career, I designed hundreds of parking lots, many with combined asphalt and grassed areas. And I wanted to spend a few minutes talking to you about some of the technicalities of that design. Page 25 of 35 1 6 12 ATune 2, 2011 There was a lot of talk today about pervious and impervious areas. And I want to make mention that asphalt is not an impervious material. The runoff coefficient from an asphalt parking lot is typically considered to be .9. That is to say that for each amount of rain that falls on that parking lot, .9 of it will run off into the stormwater management system serving it. From a typical grassed area, a lawn, if you will, that is well drained, and most of them are, the runoff coefficient is generally considered to be .3. So for every amount of rainfall that falls on that grassy area, typically .3 will run off and .7 will be absorbed in the ground. Parking areas are sort of halfway between. You don't just go out in a grassed parking area and throw some geotechnical material on top of a sandy surface and expect it to serve as a good parking facility grassed. Instead what is necessary is for the subgrade in that parking area to be stabilized. In Florida, the typical south Florida, the typical way to do that is a mixture of the sandy soils that are prevalent on the site with a percentage of crushed limerock. And the two of those together will create what was referred to as a stabilized subgrade. The runoff coefficient from a well drained stabilized subgrade grassed area is generally about .5. So keep in mind when we move from asphalt to a grass parking lot, we're not moving from 100 percent runoff to 0 percent runoff. Instead we're really moving from .9 to about .5. Striking difference in that analysis when you think of it in those terms. The other thing that was mentioned was the maintenance factor. Maintenance of grassed parking areas is considerably higher than the maintenance of asphalt areas. And a grassed parking area, as Mr. Tetzlaff pointed out, number one, you've got to irrigate it. Number two, you've got to mow it. How many times depends on the time of year. You have to add fertilizer to it, you have to add pesticide to it. So the cost for maintaining a grassed area, typically if it's a grassed area that has got bumper blocks in it because now you probably also introduced the need for hand mowing around those bumper blocks, typically with a weed eater or some type device. So maintaining a grass parking area is considerably more expensive. Even though on a 10, eight to 10 -year basis you have to resurface a parking area, the cost is still higher to maintain a grassed had area. So I wanted to make a couple of points on those. But I'll follow that up by saying, the appropriate amount of grassed areas, in my opinion, is absolutely good. I'll give you a good example. One of the parking lots I designed about 10 years ago was First Presbyterian church in Naples. And our goal was to put in as many grassed parking spaces as we could, and we did. But we still kept, obviously, all of the handicapped spaces were paved. All of the travelways in the parking lot are paved. And we paved enough of the spaces immediately adjacent to the building that we thought would take the everyday traffic. We underestimated. And I probably should have put an additional 10 spaces of pavement in, because those 10 spaces are used so extensively that they're constantly a problem, constantly a problem. When cars park on them all day long, day after day, they get no sunshine, grass can't grow and it just turns into a problem. So just some thoughts for you mull over as you're thinking through this whole project. In conclusion, though, I want to tell you that in all my years in Collier County, I'm not sure I've ever been as excited about the prospects of a single project. This project is going to create for the urban area of Collier County, in my humble opinion, something that is going to be remarkable for generations to come. And I urge you to support it. I urge you to think in terms of there's no such thing as a perfect project, and I suspect that each one of you at the end of the day will have a few little things with this project that you think could be better. I would urge you to ask the question, do my concerns rise to the level of a fatal flaw. I would hope they don't and at the end of the day that you would support this and send a recommendation of approval to the County Commission. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, I don't have a question, just kind of a comment. And I've been on this board a while and I've sure been in the county long enough to have worked with you on many projects. And we've always scrutinized projects pretty carefully. And projects you guys have brought forward, I can surely tell you between Al Reynolds and yourself and others, we have asked you an awful lot of questions and we've gotten an awful lot of detail out of you, and y'all do a good job and we get really good answers. But that level of -- that standard of efficiency, that standard of professionalism that we get from the private sector isn't limited to just the private sector. And when the government sector comes forward with something, they too should expect the same kind of scrutiny. And that's the only issue I have with this. Like you have expressed, I certainly agree, this is an absolutely great project. I would love to see this. I personally would use this. Everything Page 26 of 35 161 Tune 2, 2011 '4 about it is just great for Collier County. I don't have as many of the problems and concerns that the EAC did with the types of asphalt and all that. I think the suggestions made by the applicant are going to work. I'm very concerned about the change to the process that we would have to kind of bypass to go forward that we wouldn't have bypassed if it was in the private sector. That's the only piece that bothers me, because it's not as fair then to the private sector who would have to go through the hoops and answer the questions about the shared parking, the percentages, why do you need 660 spaces for a boardwalk. Well, you don't. But the analysis was never done to show how many, therefore we don't even know the percentage over the amount to know how the code applies in some cases. Those are questions that we would have expected to be answered. And that's the only bother I have with it, Bill. I hope maybe through some discussion we can resolve that. I just don't know yet. But I just wanted to let you know where I was coming from on it. I'm just making sure everybody's treated equally, so thank you. MR. BARTON: Fortunately Chairman, that wasn't in the form of a question so I don't have to answer it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just was trying to express. I know a lot of people would like this, I would too. And I'm just trying to figure out a way to get there. MR. BARTON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, is that the last speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does Parks and Rec or staff, anybody want to make any closing comments? Staff? I see Nancy pop on up and -- MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome to go first. MR. MARCHAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. J.P. Marchand again for the applicant. Just a couple of things. One, again, what we're here today for is to consider a rezoning of this project -- or this land from the current uses, include the agriculture, the RMF, the conservation and the commercial to the public use P use district. That's what we're here for. Staff has pointed out that in this particular case where we're doing a straight rezoning that the parking details are handled at the site and development plan process. But there has been a lot of discussion about the details of the parking and the design, and in this case we have gone forward and do have some answers to some of those. And I just want to comment a little bit about there was discussion about low impact development, LID, opportunities. And there are opportunities here. There's no doubt about it. And they are being employed in the proposed design here. For instance, the big parking lot that we've talked about. There is a treatment train of stormwater treatment facilities proposed for that parking lot. It starts out with the grass parking over a considerable portion of it. We've said at least 50 percent. Mr. Barton talked about the .5 versus the .9. It goes on to some of the medians within the parking lot are depressed medians that will serve as a bioswale is the LID term. The water will go into there and be stored or treated in there prior to moving on to the rest of the system. From there it goes into the dry retention system. And retention of stormwater, keeping it from discharging at all, that's the goal of all LID techniques, whether it be a pervious pavement that allows the water to go through the pavement and into the ground. The idea is retaining it, not discharging it. Or even stormwater reuse, the idea is you prevent that water from being discharged into the ultimate receiving water, you are using it for irrigation. So retention is essentially the ultimate goal of LID. But we're still not done. From there, instead of a direct discharge into the receiving water at the Gordon River, it goes through some of the wetlands on the site. And we're preserving a lot of wetland on this project. So, you know, we are addressing the stormwater. In addition to that, the project includes a stormwater treatment facility that's going to take currently untreated runoff from off -site from Golden Gate Parkway and treat that water in a treatment system, which is above and beyond what we would do on our site. And then finally, getting back to the parking lot again, we've designed that retention area as if the entire parking area was pavement, was at that .9 that Mr. Barton talked about. So we're overtreating that water again as well there. The end result is, as I said earlier, that for 99 percent of the storms in an average year, there's no discharge at all off the site. Page 27 of 35 t A7ne 't 16 2 2, 2011 . ._ And with that, I'll let Nancy go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had gotten up before when I asked if there was any final comments and offered you the opportunity to provide any. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you so much, Commissioner. We do have final comments. Ray, is it appropriate for me to ask you if you would like to speak? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to put him on the spot. Ray, what's the appropriate comment? MR. BELLOWS: Nancy and I were talking with Summer and we feel that the -- and with the County Attorney's Office. The best course of action is to drop the ST permit application as a companion item with this rezone action and just go with the rezone action. And we'll deal with the ST permit later and bring it back to the appropriate channels at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you during any of this time frame take a look at the parking issues that have been brought up? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The parking issues, and I did mention that previously, because it's a standard rezone, there's no parking calculations associated with a standard rezone. And those will be addressed at the subsequent development order stage, which is typically the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree that a standard rezone doesn't require it, but when the applicant puts the plan on record, it poses a problem. We're not then in a position to approve a plan without knowing the answers to those questions. MR. BELLOWS: I think the plan isn't an attachment to the rezone ordinance, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which plan will be attached to the rezone ordinance? MR. BELLOWS: There is no plan, technically, unless you want one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right in front of us right now there's a proposed concept plan. Why do you intend to attach the rezone ordinance? MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, to the ordinance there is no master plan, no site plan. There will be nothing attached because we removed the request to attach the ST permit plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and collectively how are you as staff going to handle the zoo's being a principal use with no parking on -site? I mean, we've been -- we have testimony that it says the parking is going to go on this site. This site is -- and then how do you do that? How do you accomplish that, do you know? MR. BELLOWS: My understanding is there will be an SDP that -- there are several ways to accomplish it. One is an SDP for county -owned property that incorporates the park use and the zoo use, and they'd have a shared parking as part of that unified SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got The Conservancy's piece in here too. MR. BELLOWS: That could either be done through an off -site parking agreement, which is another process that's brought before this planning commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how is the process that provides for the percentage above standard parking requirement? Once you hit a certain threshold you have a higher level of scrutiny. I don't recall -- and it's not just landscaping, it's a process. Did you look that up to see? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we did one about a year and a half ago in regards to the site up on the East Trail, the flea market. They had an off -site parking plus parking in excess of the 120 percent. And that was like a parking variance, and the petition was brought to the Planning Commission. And so that could be the same situation, if they are in fact exceeding that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they only need 17 spaces and they're providing 660 on the property, which they're certainly above 120 percent. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, depends if we're pulling in these other uses and the like. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What other uses on the property do you have besides what's shown on the plan in front of us? MR. BELLOWS: My understanding is that the zoo could be part of the -- we're looking at one that's the P zoning district. But if you have an SDP, you can cross into the zoo holding. And also -- well, that's also part of this Page 28 of 35 16 12 A June ?,2011 zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and Ray, each property gets weighed on its own parameters. This property has a boundary to it. The boundary shown on the concept plan in front of us, the uses on that property are what we'd be voting on basically today. You say you're going to go with a park use. We're looking at 17 spaces needed for a boardwalk. How are you going to justify the 600 spaces that are being put in? Has anybody even contemplated that? MR. BELLOWS: Staff hasn't contemplated that as part of this rezoning action because parking is addressed at the time of SDP stage. If somebody is proposed greater than that parking allowed, then they have to do the off -site parking or come in for the percent above 120. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can assure you after this meeting I'll check on it too. But thank you for your input, I realize we're at a stopping point for those questions. So, anything else, Nancy, you wanted to add? MS. GUNDLACH: Just that we're only asking for approval of the rezone today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing. Thank you. And discussion on the Planning Commission? Planning Commissioners, anybody have any comment they'd like to make? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think this is an excellent project. And I don't really -- now that I understand the parking that is intended for the zoo, I don't really have a problem with the idea of providing asphalt parking for them in the main. And I think that that can be worked out. I do continue to have a problem with the asphalt running through the passive park. I think a better material could be chosen. And if a motion is made to approve it, I would probably do so reluctantly. And finally, I would remind the Chairman that any question from a Commissioner does not constitute a quibble. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what that meant, but that's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What you did is you stated that we were -- that I was quibbling over the conservation question that I raised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were making a mountain out of a mole hill. Go ahead, Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I think for everything involved, this is all Collier County land, it would be nice to see a master plan so we can do all the parking, where it's going to be, the paths, everything. It would be nice to see a complete master plan for this whole area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think I'm -- I think I'll make a recommendation. And again, I think everybody on this board agrees that conceptually this is a great project and we all want to see it go forward. Seems to me, though, that on several different levels it's not ready for prime time yet. I think I'll make a motion and see what happens, that we do send it back to the EAC. They had some serious questions that never did get answered. I think some of them may have gotten answered today. But they deserve that discussion time. They are the board that should be discussing a lot of these issues. And it sort of got tossed to them as vote it up or down because we don't want to deal with it anymore, we don't want to deal with you anymore. And I think that's inappropriate. We would not put up with that from anybody in the private sector. In the meantime, that also gives staff time to address the parking issue. And from this standpoint, how much of it should be paved and how much should be grass, how much -- how can we have a primary use on the zoo and have zero parking associated with that. I think there are a series of questions that staff really does need to answer before this should come back to us. So I'm going to make a motion that we send it back to the EAC, and it will give time for both staff and the other planning board to work out some of the details. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll support that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Murray made a second to the motion. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On my part I will not support the motion. I don't feel it needs to go back to the EAC. I do think with some stipulations, we could move it forward today. I do have concerns about the parking, but Page 29 of 35 a 16 12 A7 June 2, 2011 they're outside the boundaries of this property, which means they're not part of the review of this board today. So I don't have any LDC cites that I could say for turning this down at this time. So even though I think it could have been done a heck of a lot better, I would not be able to support the motion to send it back or to deny it. So with that in mind, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of supporting the motion to send it back to the EAC, signify by raising your hand and acknowledging aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAHZMAN STRAIN: One, two, three. Three support the motion. Those against, same sign. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) One, two, three, four, five against. So the motion to go back to the EAC has been defeated. Is there another motion on the table? Anybody would like to make a motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion that we approve this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion been made to approve. Is there a second so we can get to discussion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Are there any stipulations with your motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get to discussion on that. Did you want to make a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak will make the second. Okay, I would suggest if the motion maker an and the second would so agree that we consider three stipulations. One is that treatment swales be added for all the impervious areas around the walking trail, as they agreed they would do or presented they would do. Second, that 50 percent or greater of the parking lot be put in in grass. It doesn't matter what parking lot it ends up being, but through the SDP process, any parking lot will have that process. And then that the preserve area which analyzed and brought to us today at 22 acres remain and that the 17 not be granted at this time. aye. Does the motion maker agree with those? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any discussion with board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion by hand and acknowledgment signify by saying COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. One, two, three, four, five, six. It looks like seven in favor. All those against? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One. Okay, motion carries 7 -1. Congratulations, Parks and Recs. It was a tough battle but we got through it today. So thank you all for attending and your comments. Page 30 of 35 1 ;• i! 5 -' 7 une 2 2011 "Next item up is an item we heard before. We heard it in the fall of last year. It's a dual application. We'll hear both items at the same time. And we'll have separate votes for discussion. The first item is -- I'll read both of them, first of all. It's SRAA -PL- 2011 -0657. It's the Ave Maria SRA north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp Keais Road. And then DOA -PL- 2011 -0653. It's again Ave Maria. This is for development order modification to the master plan. This is a -- I believe from what I was told in staff and what I've compared an identical process or application that was placed before us in the fall. It went before the BCC but before it got there it was withdrawn. Because it was withdrawn, the only way to reactivate it come back through the process again. So I believe that's why we're hearing this today. Disclosures -- go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Before we proceed into the next item, I just would like a clarification for the executive summary why Commissioner Karen had recommended denial. Was it to go back to the EAC? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. It was to go back to the EAC and to go back to staff so that we could get answers to the parking questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First of all, all those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with Mr. Passidomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Mr. Passidomo also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yo tambien. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope she got that recorded. Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ditto. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, Mr. Passidomo drew the short straw and had to talk to me as well. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And me as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I also spoke to the applicant and the applicant's attorneys. And during break I think I spoke to him again. So we're off and running. John, come on up, it's all yours. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth Avenue South in the City of Naples. Our firm represents Ave Maria development as applicant in the companion petitions in front of you as agenda items 9(B) and 9(C) this morning. Our land use and transportation consultants are Wilson - Miller Stantec. Margaret Perry, Al Reynolds and Jeff Perry from the firm are available to respond to any technical questions you may have at the closing of my remarks or at any time during the public hearing. Our petitions propose to amend the master plan for the town of Ave Maria stewardship receiving area to do three things. If I can use this overhead, and maybe Ray can help me with it for the for the benefit of the viewing public. And you'll recognize these as excerpts from your staff reports. The first thing proposed to be done with this map change is to divide existing Town Center 2 on Camp Keais Road into Town Center 2 -A and 2 -B. The second proposal is to relocate newly created 50 -acre Town Center 2 -13 from the town entrance on Camp Keais Road to the town entrance on Oil Well Road. And finally, the petitions before you propose to relocate the previously approved Oil Well Road access point east to accommodate the entrance to Town Center 2 -B. The proposed map change does not change the overall proposed uses, entitlements, intensities, densities or perimeter boundaries of the previously approved Ave Maria SRA. It simply changes the location of permitted uses so that the major entrances to the town of Ave Maria each are anchored with a town center. The Department of Community Affairs has determined that the map change does not create the likelihood of Page 31 of 35 1612 7 - June 2, 2011 any additional regional impact, and it therefore does not constitute a substantial DRI deviation. The Regional Planning Council has determined that no formal by the RPC is required. And the County Attorney has opined that the following criteria excerpted from pages five and six of the staff report govern CCP deliberations when considering a proposed SRA amendment. Based on that criteria, staff has recommended approval. And we respectfully request your recommendation of approval today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think since we heard this exact application before, it might be rather simple to get through it today, so -- MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there a staff report? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. I'm filling in for Kay Deselem. The staff report makes note that this has been previously heard and it's now come back. Staff is recommending approval. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any are there questions of staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, out of fairness to Commissioner Schiffer, he did provide a request to have something read into the record. I think both Ray and the County Attorney has it. One of you please read it into the record. What's the top part that you cut off? Would you mind reading that -- well, I'll read it into the record since he's asking me to do it. Fellow Planning Commissioners, since I'm not able to be at the meeting, I wanted to express my concerns with this application. The application is the same as the one we viewed last year with the exception of the site being adjusted to provide more exposure to Oil Well Road. This is the clue to a concern which is placing intense commercial zoning on this rural road. While the County Attorney's first criteria for approval is compatibility with adjacent land uses, this application provides no discussion or proof that this is an appropriate use at this location. Nor is there any review on how this isolated zoning will affect the future development along Oil Well Road. At the last hearing staff responded to questions that there's nothing in the SRA that could prevent a big box commercial development. However, my major concern is the application is silent on how this will alter the economic balance within Ave Maria. This location will become the convenient entrance to Ave Maria for eastbound evening commuter traffic, and with the new commercial uses, it could short- circuit the need to visit the interior town centers. It was a suburban shopping center that destroyed the old downtowns, why would we allow this to destroy the new downtown. Brad Schiffer, AIA. Thank you, Ray. Any other questions or comments of county staff or the applicant before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one speaker. Michael Mastandrea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you come up, sir, you may want to spell your name for the court reporter. MR. MASTANDREA: Well, Commissioners, Michael Mastandrea, M- A- S- T- A- N- D- R -E -A. I am a resident, a homeowner in Del Webb Ave Maria, and I'm also a merchant in the existing town center. And I'm just here today to say that I fully support the developer in the change that they're seeking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any concern that commercial on Oil Well Road would any way take away the impact to your business on the interior Ave Maria? MR. MASTANDREA: Not at all. Actually, the way I look at it, the existing site that's on Camp Keais is actually closer to the town center, and I'd rather see it out on Oil Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. That's the last public speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. Page 32 of 35 16 12 A72,2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, do you have any extended rebuttal you'd like? MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we're all set. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion from any member of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to forward with approval items SRAA -PL- 2011 -0657, known as the Town of Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area, companion to Petition No. DOA -PL- 2011 -0653. Move these for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we have to take them one at a time. So your motion for approval is on Item 9(B), the SRAA? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion for the SRAA? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klein had his hand up before you spoke. So Mr. Klein will be second. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries -- oh, is there -- you're opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I'm opposed to the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sorry. The motion still carries 7 -1. Ray? You state your reason for -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I'm more than happy to state my reasons. I voted against these two motions the last time around, and my reasoning hasn't changed. We know that these 50 acres, when it was originally proposed to be the Jackson Labs, was going to be a game changer, not only for the county but regionally. And I don't believe that we've considered any of the regional impacts. I think that the statement that it does not create the likelihood of any additional regional impacts is not a statement of fact. I think when we're talking about -- we were talking about 200 jobs the last time around, we're now talking about 150 jobs. And that was supposed to change our entire county. I think this is a project of incrementalism. I think we make the project just small enough so that we can get by the state and the Regional Planning Council so that they don't consider it substantial. And then the next thing will come and the next thing will come. And down the road somebody eventually is going to have to look and say was this the right move or was it not the right move. I would rather analyze that up front, should this become the commercial corridor that we are creating here or not. So I was the -- one of the only people that didn't support it last time and I'm sure I will be this time. But the reasons haven't changed. I think the analysis should be done up front and not after the fact. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item for a motion is item 9(C). Mr. Murray, did you still have the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I certainly did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to Mr. Murray's motion to approve? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klein. Is there discussion? (No response.) Page 33 of 35 #�. C, I � � 161 2 Ae7,201 I CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. So the motion carries 7 -1. But Ray is going to ask you for your reasons for denial, and so would you please tell him what your reasons are. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you can just restate what I've said to you already, and you can look back at the minutes of the last hearing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, is there anything you wanted to add? MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, we respectfully request that the need to come back for consent agenda consideration be waived. There are no conditions that are being imposed and we have a sense of priority to get this in front of the Board of County Commissioners in July. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't see a problem with that. We've heard this before so it's nothing new. Anybody on the Board have a concern? If so, is there a motion to waive the consent requirement for both? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I make the motion -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Klein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And Ray, I think that gets us through everything, because old business has been continued until sometime in the future. There's no other business noted. With that, is there -- COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Klein. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Just one comment. I like Brad Schiffer, he's a great guy, he's been great to me since I've been on this panel. And I do disagree with him. It was not the suburban shopping centers that destroyed downtowns, it wasn't like a Kevin Costner movie Field of Dreams. The people had to be out in the suburbs already before they built the shopping centers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Klein, thank you. Any other comments? (No response.) Page 34 of 35 16 12 A72, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, motion to adjourn? Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We are out of here. Thank you. * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:45 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK . STRAIN, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on � 7 �b // as presented ✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY C14ERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 35 of 35 AELgVEDAay 18, 2011 JUL 2 0 2011 Board Of County CommiS5ion., MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING Fiala Hiller Naples, Florida, May 18, 2011 Henning Coyle 1.000 _ Coletta ' ✓ LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: Kyle Lantz Vice Chair: Lee Horn Michael Boyd (Excused) Terry Jerulle Richard Joslin Thomas Lykos Robert Meister Jon Walker Patrick White ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Michael Ossorio, Contractors' Licensing Supervisor Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer Patrick Neale, Esq., Attorney for the Contractors' Licen�n�goard is . es: Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Date: c'A k-A \ \ Item #Ak-d= Z W % 16 12 M „A8 i , 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 9:00 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Correction: • Item X, "Next Meeting Date ” — o The June meeting has been cancelled. The next meeting date is July 19, 2011. . III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Terry Jerulle Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 20,2011: Lee Horn moved to approve the Minutes of the April 20 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. (Patrick White arrived at 9: 04 AM.) V. DISCUSSION: (None) 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) Nelly A. Nava — Review of Credit Report Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Ms. Nava is applying for a Contractor's License for Cabinets • If issued, the license will be restricted to "Countertops only" due to a lack of millwork experience • The Applicant took and passed the Business Procedures Test • Her credit report indicates problems Thomas Lykos clarified with the Applicant that she understood the restriction to her license and the penalties for working outside the scope of her license. 1612 1 A98, 2011 Mr. Ossorio noted the Applicant could gain experience in millwork/cabinet and, if it is verified, she can apply to have the restriction removed from her license. If she works outside the scope of her license, she can be fined between $300 to $500 and must appear before the Board. Chairman Lantz asked the Applicant to explain the credit problems. Ms. Nava explained she had been trying to pay off her medical debts but her salary was too low. She stated she contacted some of her creditors to make payment arrangements but only one responded. Michael Ossorio stated when the Applicant was cited for working without a license, she immediately came to the office and paid the fine. • She was not aware that she was required to have a license to install countertops. • She drove to Ocala to take the test and then returned to complete her application. • The County recommends granting r restricted license to her with a one year probationary period due to her credit issues. Richard Joslin suggested the Applicant should return to the Board in six months with a copy of her updated credit report and then again at the end of the probationary year. Attorney Neale suggested that she obtain credit counseling from a not -for- profit organization. Thomas Lykos asked the Applicant to explain why she applied for an exemption from Worker' Compensation insurance coverage requirement. Ms. Nava stated the company, "J. H. Countertop Innovations, Inc.," consists of her husband and herself. Currently, they are not fabricating and may hire a helper on an as- needed basis. She applied for an exemption for herself only and will obtain the insurance to cover her husband and his helper. Richard Joslin moved to approve the application for a Contractor's License for Cabinets, restricted to Countertops Only, for "J. H. Countertop Innovations, Inc. " asfollows: • A one-year probationary period will be imposed, • The Applicant will return in six months and produce an updated credit report, • The Applicant will provide proof of credit counseling by a not-for- profit agency, • The Applicant will return at the end of the probationary period and produce an updated credit report. Second by Terry Jerulle. 16l2 A. May 18, 2011 Thomas Lykos suggested amending the Motion to include that the Applicant is required to produce proof of Workers Compensation Insurance coverage for all employees, and produce a list of current employees when she returns before the Board.. Mr. Joslin amended his Motion to include the requirements to produce proof of Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage for the employees of "J. H. Countertop Innovations, Inc. "and a list of current company employees. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. (B) James McKnight — Contesting Citation Citation: #6238 Date: April 8, 2011 Fine: $300.00 Description of Violations: 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. James McKnight stated he was helping a friend paint his house when he was approached by Rob Ganguli who asked if he had a license to paint the house. Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, stated: • Received a complaint on April 8, 2011 and conducted a site inspection • He observed Mr. McKnight painting the exterior of the home • Mr. McKnight stated he was being compensated by the homeowner for painting the house, as well as for other tasks. The homeowner was not available to confirm Mr. McKnight's statement • Mr. McKnight stated he possessed a "handyman's license" • A Citation was issued and the fine imposed is $300 There was a question concerning why the Hearing was being held because the payment option was checked on the Citation indicating the Respondent intended to pay the $300 penalty. Attorney Neale cited Florida Statutes, under Chapter 489, Section 127: "2 (d). The act for which the Citation is issued shall be ceased upon receipt of the Citation; and the person charged with the violation shall elect either to correct the violation and pay the civil penalty in the manner indicated on the Citation within 10 days of receipt of the Citation, exclusive of weekends and legal holidays, or request an administrative hearing before the Enforcement /Licensing Board to appeal the issuance of the Citation by the Code Enforcement Officer. " 4 1612 A 2011 Richard Joslin noted Mr. McKnight's written statement claimed he was not compensated for the work. James McKnight stated he often used his friend's skidoo or boat instead of being paid. Mr. Joslin stated that, under the circumstances, the Respondent was being compensated for his work — just not in cash. Mr. McKnight claimed they were friends who "helped each other out." Thomas Lykos noted the Respondent's written statement was date - stamped as "received on April 14, 2011" which was within the ten -day timeframe. Kenneth R. McKee, the homeowner, appeared as a witness for the Respondent and stated James McKnight was helping him to paint the house. Mr. McKee further stated he left briefly to return an overdue book to the library. He noted some neighbors have complained when Mr. McKnight visits because he drives a truck and parks it on the street. He stated he "absolutely" did not pay James McKnight in cash. When questioned about his "handyman" activities, James McKnight stated he cleans pools and provides lawn service. He confirmed he has a "handyman license" but did not bring it with him. He stated he took the course offered by Rookery Bay to be eligible to cut lawns. He further stated he paid $35.00 for his license at the County's Horseshoe Drive office. Michael Ossorio stated Rob Ganguli testified he checked the Business Tax receipts but did not find any indication of payment by Mr. McKnight for a license. He clarified the correct terminology is "Maintenance" License, not a "Handyman's" License. He further stated a competency card is required to clean pools and a "Handyman" cannot clean pools. James McKnight stated his brother owns a pool company and he works for him and his brother also has a license for lawn maintenance. Chairman Lantz stated since the homeowner verified no compensation was paid, it was legitimately a situation where a friend was helping a friend. Lee Horn asked Mr. McKnight what happens when he cleans pools — is his brother with him. James McKnight stated his brother may be with him or may drop him off at one location while he [the brother] cleaned a pool at a location down the street. He verified he was paid by his brother for the work and that the homeowner paid his brother for the cleaning. When asked if he could pay the $300 fine, Mr. McKnight stated it would be a financial hardship for him. Questions were asked concerning what Mr. Ganguli stated Mr. McKnight told him during the site inspection, and what Mr. McKnight stated he actually said. 1612 A8 I May 18, 2011 Attorney Neale noted Mr. Ganguli's testimony is hearsay, but the testimony from Mr. McKnight and Mr. McKee was considered "direct" testimony. He cautioned the Board that direct testimony has the greater weight, and hearsay should not be the sole basis when making a decision. Jon Walker moved to dismiss Citation #6238. Second by Thomas Lykos. It was suggested to Mr. McKnight that he bring his documentation to the Contractor's Licensing Department for either the City of Naples or the County to verify exactly what he was issued and what else may be required. Motion carried, 6 — "Yes " /2 — "No." Mr. Horn and Mr. Joslin were opposed. (C) Joseph Donnelly — Waiver of Examination(s) Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Mr. Donnelly is a Residential Contractor but his Collier County Certificate was cancelled • Mr. Donnelly's State Registration is current • Mr. Donnelly has continued taking educational courses • Recommendation: Mr. Donnelly has kept his credit hours current, and he should be allowed to renew his Certificate when his fees are paid in full. Mr. Donnelly stated his State License had been delinquent because he forgot to pay his fees, but the situation was corrected and the license is current. Richard Joslin moved to approve granting the application to renew the Certificate and waive taking an examination, but required the Applicant to pay all fees before the Certificate will be issued. Second by Robert Meister. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. (D) Robert L. McCray — Waiver of Examinations(s) Michael Ossorio noted a Scrivener's Error: the correct date for the exam was January 14, 1989. (See Page 5 of ) Mr. Ossorio provided background information: • Mr. McCray had been licensed for many years in Collier County but he elected to let it lapse while maintaining licenses in Lee County and the City of Cape Coral • Because his license has been lapsed for a period of three years, he is required to take an exam • He has applied to have his license reinstated without taking an exam • There are no continuing education requirements for Specialty Licenses, i.e., Concrete Placing and Finishing 1612 A4 18, 2011 Mr. McCray stated his Lee County license has remained current and he has worked continually for the past 23 years. Richard Joslin moved to approve granting the application to renew the Certificate and waive taking an examination, but required the Applicant to pay all fees before the Certificate will be issued. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. (E) Daniel D. Tucker — Approval of Company Name Michael Ossorio provided the following information: • It is a new application • Mr. Tucker took and passed both the Business & Law exam and the Carpentry Contractor exam in May, 2008 • There are no credit issues • There is a problem with the name of his business, "Diversified Remodeling, LLC," because Mr. Tucker is licensed to perform only Carpentry work o The implication is the Scope of Work has been expanded • Mr. Tucker is licensed in Lee and Broward Counties, and with the City of Cape Coral Daniel Tucker stated: • He has been licensed since 2006: Lee County, Broward County, Hendry County, City of Cape Coral, and Sanibel • Under those licenses, he is allowed to work/install any wood product throughout a home, install impact windows up to 50% of a building, trim work, structural trusses • If a remodeling job calls for electrical or plumbing work, he does not perform the work, and requires the homeowner to hire whomever is necessary in Collier County to complete the job Mr. Tucker confirmed he understood the difference between what he is allowed to do in Collier County versus what is permitted in other Counties. Mr. Ossorio verified that Mr. Tucker understands the Scope of Work permitted under Collier County's "Certificate of Competency" does not include the installation of windows. Thomas Lykos expressed concern that the company's name, "Diversified Remodeling, LLC," implies the company is able to perform an entire kitchen or home or bathroom remodel which is not the case and could mislead the public. He further stated the Applicant is not a General Contractor. Attorney Neale outlined the Scope of the County's Responsibilities under Section 22- 163: "(b) The County shall be responsible for issuing licenses in accordance with this Article to authorize Contractors to work within the geographic boundaries of the County and the City." A:8 I ' May 18 2011 He also cited Florida Statutes, under Chapter 489 — "Contracting," Section 127 — "Prohibitions; penalties," "(1) No person shall: (a) falsely hold himself or herself or a business organization out as a licensee, Certificate holder, or registrant ..." Attorney Neale stated the question to the Board is whether or not a company calling itself a "remodeling" company, but working only under a Carpentry license, constitutes "falsely holding oneself out as a Certificate holder." Michael Ossorio gave an example: If there was a Specialty Structural Contractor certified by Tallahassee whose name was remodeling and he was working within his scope, a Citation would not be issued. The question was whether or not using the term, "remodeling," in a company's name crosses the line into "falsely holding" but Staff determined it does not. Thomas Lykos reiterated his concern that if a homeowner contacts the Applicant with a project encompassing work beyond the scope of his license, how is that communicated to the homeowner. He gave an example: a homeowner cannot pull a permit for work to be done in a condominium because it is considered to be a "commercial" property. He continued unless the company name is changed, the consumer will be misled. He stated he could not approve the name of the company. Richard Joslin pointed out it is up to the homeowner to investigate the Contractor and ask what licenses the person possesses before hiring him/her for a project. Discussion continued. It was mentioned there is a distinction between what could possibly be misleading and deliberate false advertising. Attorney Neale stated the County did not produce evidence that the Applicant had advertised his business as able to perform whole house remodeling, including plumbing and electrical work. He noted the Applicant's testimony was that he clearly understands the scope of his work. Richard Joslin asked Michael Ossorio to explain what is noted on the Competency Card issued by the County. He stated the Lee County card cites "Licensed for Carpentry Contractor," the Broward County card notes "Finished Carpentry," and the City of Caper Coral Certificate highlights "Specialty Carpentry." Mr. Ossorio confirmed the license issued by Collier County will state "carpentry." Robert Meister moved to approve the company name. Second by Jon Walker. Motion carried, 7 — "Yes, 71 — "No. " Thomas Lykos was opposed. 161A? M ay 1 2011 VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Richard Joslin moved to approve the signing of the Orders of the Board by the Chairman. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Patrick White stated there were some minor typos which he detected in the April meeting minutes and would advise the transcriber of same. BREAK: 10:08 AM RECONVENED: 10:20 AM VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Case #2011 -08: John Dennis Below d/b /a "Allstate Aluminum of SW FL, LLC." Chairman Lantz outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be conducted: • Hearings will be conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Title XXXII, "Regulation of Professions and Occupations, " Chapter 489. • Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature. • Formal "Rules of Evidence" shall not apply. • Fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and govern the proceedings. • Irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence shall be excluded. • All other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the Courts of the State of Florida. • Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any evidence but shall not be deemed sufficient by itself to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The "Rules of Privilege" shall be effective to the same extent that such Rules are now, or hereafter may be, recognized in civil actions. • Any member of the Contractors' Licensing Board may question any witness before the Board. • Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce Exhibits, to cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • The Chairperson or, in his/her absence, the Vice Chair, shall have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the Hearing in a full, fair, and impartial manner, and to preserve order and decorum. M 161 2A8 May 18, 2011 • The general process of the Hearing is for the County to present an Opening Statement to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how the County intends to prove the charges. • The Respondent will present his/her Opening Statement setting forth, in general terms, defenses to the charges. • The County will present its Case in Chief by calling witnesses and presenting evidence. • The Respondent may cross - examine the witnesses. • After the County has closed its Case in Chief, the Respondent may present his/her defense as described previously, i.e., to call and examine witnesses, to introduce Exhibits, to cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • After the Respondent has presented his/her case, the County will present a rebuttal to the Respondent's presentation. • When the Rebuttal is concluded, each party is permitted to present a Closing Statement. • The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's Closing Statement. • The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations. • Prior to beginning deliberations, the Board's Attorney will give a "charge" to the Board, similar to the charge given to a jury, setting forth the parameters on which the decision will be based. • During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and clarification from the parties. • The Board will decide two different issues: o Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter. o If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. • The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions and the factors to be considered. • The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote. • After the matters are decided, the ChairNice Chair will read a Summary of the Order to be issued by the Board. The Summary is a basic outline of the Order and may not reflect the same language contained in the Final Order. • The Final Order will include complete details as required under State laws and procedures. Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, requested to enter Case No. 2011- 08 into evidence. Lee Horn moved to approve entering Case No. 2011 -08 into evidence. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. 10 161 � A8 ay 18, 2011 Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's case: • April 7, 2011 — received a call from the Building Department for the City of Marco Island concerning a jobsite with two permits which were outstanding for the construction of a residential swimming pool • The pool construction needed a final inspection and C/O • He called the pool company to begin the process • Investigation revealed the second permit was in reference to the aluminum screen enclosure — a permit had been applied for but had not been issued to the subcontractor, Allstate Aluminum of SW FL LLC. • The work on the enclosure had been completed without a Permit • Allstate Aluminum has been contacted the Contractors' Licensing Office for working without required permits and Cease & Desist Agreements were issued on three previous occasions • April 13, 2011 — a meeting was held with John Dennis Below, the qualifier for Allstate Aluminum, and a 4`h Cease & Desist Agreement was signed. • April 13, 2011 — John Dennis Below received the Notice of Hearing to appear before the Contractor's Licensing Board for violation of Ordinance 2006 -46, Section 4.1.18, i.e., proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits or inspections from the City Building and Zoning Division or the County Building Review and Permitting Department. • April 25, 2o011 —met with Mr. Below who agreed to sign a Stipulation concerning the charges against him (see Exhibit E -10). Mr. Ganguli read the terms of the Stipulation into the record, as follows: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Collier County, Florida, Petitioner, Case No. 2011 -08 VS. John Dennis Below, License — C.C. #33911 d/b /a Allstate Aluminum of SW FL, LLC, Respondent(s). COMES NOW, the undersigned, John Dennis Below, on behalf of himself or as representative for the Respondent, and enter into this Stipulation and Agreement with Collier County as to the resolution of the Administrative Complaint referenced in Case Number 2011 -08. In consideration of the disposition and resolution of the matters outlined in said 11 161 r A 8 May 18, 2011 Administrative Complaint, to promote efficiency in the Administrative Complaint process, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1) The violations noted in the referenced Administrative Complaint are accurate and I stipulate to their existence. Collier County Ordinance 2006 -46, Section 4.1.18: Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits or inspections from the City Building and Zoning Division, or the County Building Review and Permitting Department. THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties that the Respondent shall: (There was no recommendation from the Contractors' Licensing Office.) /s/ John Dennis Below — 04/26/11 /s/ Rob Janguli — 04/26/11 Respondent — Date Supervisor or Designee — Date Board Chair — Date Chairman Lantz asked if the Contractors' Licensing Office had no recommendation to make for punitive action, or recommended "no action "? Michael Ossorio asked the Respondent if the County promised him anything to sign the Stipulated Agreement, or if he signed it of his own free will. Mr. Below indicated he signed the document freely. Mr. Ossorio stated the County had no recommendation, other than the Respondent was found to be in violation. He recommended the Chairman sign the Stipulation as an Order of the Board. Attorney Neale stated the Board should review and adopt the Stipulation if they determine it is appropriate. After that, sanctions should be reviewed and imposed. John Dennis Below, the Respondent, presented his case: • He bought the company in November, 2007 • The company has grown from 4 employees to 19 • In 2010, the company built 288 pool cages • The four incidents referred to were isolated incidents • He understands his responsibility as the qualifier for the company and takes /accepts full blame Mr. Below stated his office manager at the time was in charge of obtaining required permits. The Marco Island incident apparently "slipped through the cracks" because the application had been submitted and approved, it was ready for pick -up, the cage 12 1612A& May 18, 2011 was built, but the Permit had not been picked up. He stated none of the incidents referred to were done maliciously. He continued when he realized there was a problem, he rectified the situation by hiring a Permit Courier Service to ensure that the Permits were picked up prior to construction of the cages beginning. John Below stated based on the volume of business over the past two years, the number of incidents cited where there "hiccups and they tripped and stumbled" was a very small percentage of the work that was performed Richard Joslin asked when the permits were actually issued or applied for. Attorney Neale suggested the Board vote on the Stipulation as the first step. If the Board determines it is appropriate, then review the sanctions. The Agreement is stipulating to the violation. Patrick White questioned the process and asked what was being agreed to between the parties, other than the Respondent stipulating to being in violation, since a recommendation was not included. Attorney Neale outlined the process: • The Stipulation acknowledges the violation as charged does exist, • There is testimony on the record that the document was signed voluntarily by the Respondent, • The Board then votes on whether or not to authorize the Board Chair to sign the Stipulation and accept that the Respondent has admitted to the violations as charged, and finally • The Board determines the appropriate sanctions to be imposed. Patrick White compared the process to a "plea bargain" arrangement in a criminal case, except that the "Defendant" did not know in advance what sentence would be imposed. He stated the Stipulation Agreement does not state what the "sentence" will be. Patrick White moved, based upon the signed Stipulation, to find that the cited provision (4.1.18) was violated and to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Stipulation. Richard Joslin noted the Stipulation states the Respondent has been found in violation, not that he is guilty. Patrick White stated the Respondent stipulated to the violation which is an admission of guilt. Mr. Below clarified when he signed the document he meant that he was guilty. He stated in a couple of instances we were "dead wrong" because the Permits had not been applied for and in the other two, the Permits just didn't get picked up. Second by Robert Meister. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. 13 May 18, 2011 Chairman Lantz stated the next phase is the penalty phase. Attorney Neale stated the Board has adoption the Stipulation Agreement. The sanctions are set out in Section 22- 203(b)(1) of the County's Ordinance, as follows: (1) Revocation of a Collier County Certificate of Competency; (2) Suspension of a Collier County Certificate of Competency; (3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County Certificate of Competency; (4) Imposition of a period of probation of reasonable length, not to exceed two years, during which the Contractor's contracting activities shall be under the supervision of the Contractor's Licensing Board, and/or participating in a duly- accredited program of continuing education directly related to the Contractor's contracting activity. Any period of probation or continuing education program ordered by the CLB may be revoked for cause by said Board at a Hearing noted to consider said purpose. (5) Restitution; (6) A fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.); (7) A public reprimand; (8) Re- examination requirement; (9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County (or City) Building permits or requiring the issuance of permits with specific conditions; (10) Reasonable legal and investigative costs for the prosecution of the violation. Attorney Neale continued in determining the sanctions, the Board shall consider the following: (1) The gravity of the violation; (2) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare; (3) Any actions taken by the Respondent to correct the violation; (4) Any previous violations committed by the Respondent, and (5) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction which appropriate for the case given the nature of the violation. A question was asked concerning when the application for the Marco Island permit had been applied for and the Board was directed to Exhibit E -6, i.e., July 6, 2010. Terry Jerulle asked if anyone was residing in the property and stated an un - inspected pool cage presents a life /safety issue. Mr. Below stated it appeared as if people were living in the house, and confirmed the final inspection of the pool cage would take place next week. Patrick White asked if Staff could estimate the costs to prosecute the case. Michael Ossorio stated the investigative costs were approximately $500. 14 1612 A8 May 18, 2011 Mr. White asked Mr. Below what actions he had taken to prevent the situation from occurring in the future. Mr. Below replied he hired a Permit Courier Service. He stated permitting was the most time - consuming portion of his day. By hiring a Permit Courier Service, it freed up time during his day to focus on other areas of the company. He explained as soon as an application for a Pool Permit is made, the Courier Service assumes all of the permitting responsibilities. He stated he also changed his in -house procedures, i.e., a cage does not leave his shop unless the crew has the permit in hand. Richard Joslin asked who called in to the County to schedule a final inspection. Mr. Below replied he does now. Richard Joslin asked why did he not call for a final inspection on the Marco Island pool. Mr. Below responded the calls were made previously by the office manager. Thomas Lykos stated as a business grows, an owner usually delegates responsibility based on a cost/benefit analysis. He stated his company utilizes the services of a Permit Courier and found that it was a good solution. Patrick White asked what will be done that is different to prevent the situation from occurring again. John Below stated Mr. Ossorio was willing to allow him a six -month period to "tighten up" the open permits. By hiring the permit courier service, he has more time to focus on all aspects of his company. Patrick White stated the Board is to consider is what actions have been taken by the Respondent to preclude the situation from occurring again because there is concern about a life /safety issue relative to the pool's final inspection. He asked what event or activity will remind the Respondent to call for a final inspection. He cautioned one failure could lead to a loss of life. John Below stated there were four Cease & Desist Orders out of 288 — he further stated it was his responsibility to call for a final inspection and he would do so. Discussion continued concerning management oversight issues and the need for a system of checks and balances. Chairman Lantz stated the Board's responsibility is to determine a punishment. He continued it appeared the Respondent has good operating procedure in place to prevent a job starting without a permit being issued and in hand but he does not have procedures in place to deal with calling for a final inspection. Sanction were suggested by Board members that included probation and "hefty" fines. It was noted the cost to obtain an after - the -fact Permit was usually two or three times the initial cost for a Permit. Additional sanctions: Mr. Below re -take the Business and Law exam within six months, A fine of $500 will be imposed to cover the County's administrative costs, 15 1612A8 " May 18, 2011 • Mr. Below will call in all jobs on a weekly basis to the Contractors' Licensing Office, • All "open" permits will be closed within six months, • Mr. Below is placed on probation for a period of one year and will appear before the Board in six months, and • Imposition of a $2,500 fine. Discussed ensued concerning a payment plan for the fines. Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Below will have thirty days to pay the administrative costs of $500 and ninety days to pay the $2,500 fine. John Below stated he would accept his responsibility as a business owner. Patrick White moved to approve imposing the following sanctions: • Imposition of a one-year probationary period, • Payment of administrative costs of $500 within thirty days, • Payment of a fine of $2,500 within ninety days, • Completion and passing of the Business Law Exam within six months, • All "open" permits will be closed within six months, • Weekly notification to the Contractors' Licensing Office to identify all open jobs, and • Mr. Below will appear before the Board in six months to provide a status report. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Chairman Lantz stated: This cause came on before the Contractors' Licensing Board on May 18th for consideration of the Administrative Complaint filed against John Dennis Below is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate Number 33911 Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended. The Board, at this Hearing, having hear testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, therefore issues its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findings of Fact: • John Dennis Below is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate Number 33911 • The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter. • The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent. • The Respondent, John Dennis Below, was present at the Public Hearing held on May 18, 2011. • The Respondent, John Dennis Below, was not represented by Counsel. 16 16 12 A8 May 18, 2011 • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinance and is the one who committed the act • The allegations set forth in Administrative Complaint as Count I, under Section 4.1.18, "Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits or inspections from the City Building and Zoning Division, or the County Building Review and Permitting Department, " have been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing Conclusions of Law: • The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as Count I have been approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: o The Respondent violated Section 4.1.18, "Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits or inspections from the City Building and Zoning Division, or the County Building Review and Permitting Department, " of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity. Orders of the Board: • Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of 8 in favor and zero in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. • Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of 8 in favor, a unanimous vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary actions and related Orders are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 33911. • Sanctions: • Imposition of a one -year probationary period, • Payment of administrative costs of $500 within thirty days, • Payment of a fine of $2,500 within ninety days, • Completion and passing of the Business Law Exam within six months, • All "open" permits will be closed within six months, • Weekly notification to the Contractors' Licensing Office to identify all open jobs, and • Mr. Below will appear before the Board in six months to provide a status report. Thomas Lykos moved to close the Public Hearing. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. 17 I 9� A8 May 18, 2011 Chairman Lantz stated the case was closed. IX. REPORTS: (None) X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, July 19, 2011 Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor (Government Complex), 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 11:27 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Kyle Lantz, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , 2011, "as submitted" [_J OR "as amended" ". 18 1612 Collier County Government Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda BY: ........................ County Manager's Conference Room March 16, 2011 2:00 P.M. I. Introduction A. Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman B. Approval of today's meeting agenda C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 2/16/11 II. Old Business A. Briefing on the Economic Recovery Task Force and the Blight Prevention Program -Diane Flagg, Director, Collier County Code Enforcement Fiala' B. Update on the Work Plan for 2011 Hiller Henning Coyle Coietta- III. New Business A. Solid waste mandatory collections agreement - Joseph Bellone, Manager, Utility Billing & Customer Service; Collier County Public Utilities B. Discussion regarding cost saving opportunities through outsourcing and in- sourcing IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments V. Public Comment VI. Adjourn -The next meeting is scheduled for April 20,m- 9 At 2pm in the County Manager's Conference Room Date: Item #: \ %-S 1 %A °1, 1612 TCARYi3i COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE BY: •••••••••••••••........ Minutes — March 16, 2011 2 p.m. Members Present: Gina Downs, Rich Federman, Jim Gibson, Steve Harrison, Cheryl Pavlick, Vlad Ryziw, Janet Vasey and Joe Wall. Members Excused: Doug Fee, Leslie Prizant, and Joe Swaja were absent. BCC Liaison: Commissioner Jim Coletta was in attendance. Staff Present: Derek Johnssen, Clerk's Office; Jean Myers, Sheriff's Office; Norman Feder, Growth Management Administrator; Tom Wides, Director PUD Operations Support; Diane Flagg, Director of Code Enforcement; Jen Baker, Superintendent of Code Enforcement; Joe Bellone, Manager Utility Billing & Customer Service; Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget. Others Present: Commissioner Georgia Hiller INTRODUCTION: Call to Order: Steve Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. Approval of the Agenda for March 16, 2011: Steve asked to add III C — Transportation Head Count to the agenda. Gina Downs motioned to approve the agenda with this addition, Rich Federman seconded and the group unanimously approved. Approval of the February 16, 2011 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes: This was tabled until the meeting of April 20, 2011 to have parts of the discussion revised. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Economic Recovery Task Force and the Blight Prevention Program: Diane Flagg addressed the group and reviewed the three prong action plan — resolving life safety issues, preventing blight and stabilizing property values. She said significant improvement has been made by having banks abate code violations. She also reviewed statistics from Code Enforcement for one week's worth of activity within the department. Diane told the group that her department prepares regular project status reports. The group asked that each member be added to her distribution list. Rich Federman asked if the county keeps track of companies that leave the county and new companies coming in. Diane said the EDC 16 12 A9 typically keeps track of that type of information. The group told Diane they thought she was doing a great job. Update of the Work Plan for 2011: The County Manager asked the group to review the Water Management Contract. School Impact Fees: Janet Vasey, Vlad Ryziw, Steve Harrison and Joe Swaja will attend a meeting on Friday, April 8t' at 9:00 a.m. with a school board representative and give the group an update at the meeting in April. Transportation Positions: Janet told the group that Transportation has taken the advice of the committee from last year and has eliminated 35 positions. Norman Feder told the group that although there are no new projects, there are many bridges that need significant repair or replacement because of their age and the LASIP project must be finished by 2015. NEW BUSINESS: Update from Purchasing: The group asked Mike to ask Steve Carnell to attend the next meeting to give a purchasing department update. Adjournment: Jim Gibson motioned to adjourn the meeting, Rich Federman seconded and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 4:14 p.m. 2 161 2 F49 Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wed. April 20, 2011. This meeting will be held in the County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2nd floor at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202. Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve Harrison 1 } a 16 2 A9 PRODUCTIVITY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES BY' " " """""'.......• SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL CONTRACT - WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. MARCH 24, 2011 Members in Attendance: James Gibson, Vlad Ryziw, and Gina Downs Staff Present: Tom Wides, Operations Support Director; Dan Rodriguez, Solid Waste Director; Joe Bellone, Manager — Utility Billing & Customer Service; Sheree Mediavilla, Administrative Assistant Purpose of the Meeting The County Manager requested the Productivity Committee to review the Solid Waste Disposal Contract (Franchise Agreements between Collier County and Waste Management, Inc. of Florida for District I and Choice Environmental Services for District II). The Productivity Committee asked the Productivity Subcommittee for their review and recommendation. Pre - meeting with Gina Downs Tom Wides told the group that Dan Rodriguez, Joe Bellone, and Tom Wides met with Gina Downs on Monday, March 21, 2011 to answer her questions regarding the Franchise Agreement between Collier County and Waste Management Inc. of Florida and to discuss several communities Gina Downs has researched for benchmarking. James Gibson called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. Topics for Discussion • Franchise Agreement Fiala Hiller • Power Point presentation to the Productivity Committee Hennin • Purchasing Department involvement Coyle _ • Single stream recycling Coletta �- • Benchmarking • Level of Service • Local Vendor Preference • WMI - Permit violations, environmental issues, equal opportunity employer, lawsuits. Opening Comments Tom asked the committee if they wanted to walk through the Power Point presentation that was prepared for the Productivity Committee or revert to the questions the Subcommittee provided to staff. It was agreed that the Power Point was self - explanatory. Misc. Corres: Date: " \\'!P\ % \ Item #A" -y—, 1 S Local Preference 1612 =A9 " Joe Bellone asked the Purchasing Department to conduct an independent search of other counties and municipalities why they decided to do an RFP or ITB, and what changes they anticipated to get out of RFP or ITB, such as to improve level of service, achieve automation, or to move to single stream recycling. The results of those phone conversations were distributed to the sub - committee members. Single Stream Recycling Joe Bellone discussed the processes of automated garbage collection and single stream recycling in detail. He explained the labor costs saved by the contractor, as one driver is needed and therefore a reduction in labor and Workers' Compensation costs. Discussion on this topic: Question: Jim Gibson asked if recycling in Collier County is higher because of single stream. Answer: Dan Rodriguez told the committee that Collier County's residential recycling is one of the highest in the state and certainly in the top ten in the nation. We recycle approximately 80% of residential materials that would have been disposed in our landfill. Tom Wides referred to the AUIR for verification of this data. Question: Vlad Ryziw asked if our services were automated. Joe Bellone explained that the county is automated. He also explained that there were areas, such as areas in Bay Colony, that had brick pavers for driveways. In these cases, Waste Management used smaller non - automated trucks to service these areas. Discussion — Hammerheads Tom Wides: Some areas in the Estates have problems with turn - arounds and we are working on this through our Capital Improvement Program either through reinforced driveways to allow trucks a safe place to turn around, or through hammerheads at the end of long street runs in the estates. Gina Downs: Do you have a liability for those driveways? Joe Bellone: With the help of the Real Property Department, we have tried to gain rights of entry. Staff also contacts the homeowner and asks for permission to use their driveway for the trucks to turn around. The county spends between $5,000 to $7,000 to improve a driveway. If Waste Management causes damage to the driveway, we have the liability. Staff has identified 217 streets in the Estates to build hammerheads. Gina noted that she saw $500,000 in the capital program for this cost. Firetrucks, other emergency vehicles, and school busses can use this also and they are a benefit to the county. Gina commented that the School District should help fund this program. There is a contract portion, the cost for disposal, an infrastructure element of the assessment that pays for the hammerheads. The solid waste assessment has been on our tax bill since 1998. Florida Statutes allows that and most counties do also. Level of Service — Twice a Week Pickup Jim Gibson (Exhibit 1) noted that We County has once a week pickup compared to Collier County having two, and one per week single stream recycling. a 161LA9 Question: Looking at the level of service and comparing date from the past, current, and forecasts, is the volume in weight increasing? To what extent would you re- evaluate a twice per week pickup? I would think the volume of trash would decrease because of recycle increase. Answer: Dan stated that based on the level of service and the population for Collier County, twice per week pick up is the right mix for Collier County and is also needed for the influx of seasonal residents. In the mid 90s, there was a lot of illegal dumping in Collier County. The Board of County Commissioners decided to maintain this level of service to keep Collier County clean and beautiful. A comparison to other counties was discussed. Dan Rodriguez stated Waste Management trucks are able to get off the roads more quickly and do not compete with school and workers on the roadways. By 3:30 p.m., we are covering the landfill and preparing for the daily closing. Comparison of Collier County by Subcommittee to Other Counties Gina Downs created a spreadsheet that selected counties with populations similar to Collier County for comparison. Tom Wides stated we benchmark every year and these results are submitted with the budget process and discussions with the Board of County Commissioners every fiscal year. Staff: The City of Naples has their own contract, staff and trucks to provide collection services. Collier County has Interlocal Agreements with Everglades City and the City of Marco Island to provide solid waste collection services. Vlad Ryziw reviewed the contract from a performance perspective. He stated he looked at many areas and very impressed that this is a winner contract. He commented that they did not miss anything and he understood what he was reading. It is well done and not confusing. He fully understands it. Staff noted that it was John Yonkosky and attorney David Dees in 2005 who knocked heads with Waste Management and their attorneys in the development of the agreement that exists today. Discussion: Debris recovery. Collier County wrote language in the contract regarding FEMA reimbursement and Waste Management agreed to the terms. We took the changes to FEMA and met with Waste Management and they wanted to be a part of the solution. We were able to negotiate FEMA terms and the transition back to normal everyday service via Amendment 1 to the contract. Staff agreed that it is a well written contract. The County's approach is to bring in consultants — experts such as attorney David Dees who has 35 years experience in Southwest Florida and consulted with the County during amendments to the Waste Management contract. Gina Downs agreed. Questions from Subcommittee to Staff Vlad Ryziw: Contingency plan was fantastic and necessary. Emergency response is a big picture. Question: Anything noteworthy. 3 1612 A9 Answer: Dan Rodriguez stated the largest emergency response efforts were during hurricane Wilma and Tropical Storm Fay. Waste Management was responsive to the county and the community by providing a clean transition between our large debris hauler and our regular collection service. More importantly, this contract helped the county to gain full reimbursement from FEMA for the debris recovery effort. . When staff notified them of customer issues, they responded. Committee Question: Who owns the carts? Answer: Joe Bellone stated the contractor owns the carts. If they are damaged, Utility Billing Customer Service staff communicates with the customers and informs Waste Management of the issue. It is well coordinated. Gina Downs commented that she has seen other counties charge customers to buy the replacements. Transition to a a new contractor Committee Question: If you change contractors, when do we collect old carts and deliver new. If we get new contractor - how do we work out all those elements. This is a continuous operation... how do we do this? Staff Answer: A detailed transition plan must be developed and agreed between the current and future service providers. The County writes the RFP with specific criteria. In this, the methodology of performance, which we already have from Waste Management, is asked. There are definite elements of the contract that are requested that would lead to liquidated damages if not performed. In the contract, all residential customer complaints or service questions are directed to Utility Billing and Customer Service, not to Waste Management. The County has a web based work order system for each call. We measure Waste Management's performance and it is broken down into categories. Gina Downs Question: What is a new bid compared to an RFP? Staff Answer: Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director, suggested an invitation to bid that would have the exact same specifications as the Waste Management contract. If the competing company did not have these, they would be categorized as non - responsive. Gina stated that if we did not get what we have with Waste Management that would be a challenge. Staff: The vendors will tell you what you want to hear. That is what happened in Cape Coral. The discussion continued with a comparison of several counties and costs were assessed for "additional services" such as white goods, yard waste, pound limitation, and bulky items. Additional questions Vlad Ryziw: How is yard waste handled? Answer: Joe Bellone stated that Waste Management picks up yard waste in containers, paper bags, or bundles no longer than four (4) feet. Waste Management does not charge us any additional cost for this service, unlike other counties. He used a cost chart for stating these costs. 4 1612 A9 Question: Gina Downs: Other counties have fuel cost adjustments, how do we handle this? Staff response: Clause 26 of the contract states that if extraordinary costs in operation occur, Waste Management must present this to the Board of County Commissioners and ask for a rate increase. If Waste Management requests this, and the county by contract has the right to audit their books. If the Board of County Commissioners denies their request —there is no appeal. The burden of extraordinary costs is on the contractor, not Collier County. Vlad Ryziw: Fuel costs, I imagine they do bulk purchases. Answer: Dan Rodriguez. This has been discussed at quarterly meetings with Waste Management and they took an interest in these 5 years ago and started to make their fleet more efficient. In the last five (5) years, because of our contract with Waste Management, they inspect over 36 components of their hauling truck before it is certified to be on the road and fulltime employees inspect the fleet. Joe Bellone stated that his compliance group attends those meetings and WMI does this on their own. Under the contract, the County has the right to pull a Waste Management vehicle off the roadway if they do not comply. Question: Gina Downs: Further explain. Answer: Joe Bellone —Jim DeLony stated the county is not in the fuel business. Waste Management dropped their request for an extraordinary rate adjustment. Questions Drafted by Vlad Rvziw What does the recycling revenue stream produce? Joe Bellone: Hard to gauge, transportation, processing cost, market demand for the commodity. County decided in 2005 we didn't want the liability. More important the more we recycle, the less trash is buried in our landfill. Joe Bellone stated the disposal costs are going down and that has allowed us to invest in the Hammer Head program. The Solid Waste Program is successful. Dan Rodriguez: Based on our current budget instructions, we do not plan to raise rates at the landfill. Gina Downs: Discussion on Waste Management's $50,000 education program for Collier County. Joe Bellone: Utility Billing sends Waste Management a bill for this amount on October 1n each year. Waste Management spends $110,000 to $120,000 in education. They support Keep Collier Beautiful, the Red Cross, United Way, public outreach, local events, and neighborhood cleanup by providing trucks and drivers. Gina Downs: Are they making other donations that they write off as charitable? Can someone throw that on you? Dan Rodriguez: No, that is a corporate decision that benefits their industry. They, on their own have decided to invest in their community. It is their way of being a good corporate citizen. 5 1612 A9 Vlad Ryziw: It is such a winner here —we have a double winner. The components include collection and disposal and that is what the rate payer sees. Joe Bellone: Assessment — we fully allocate the cost of the administration. Jim Gibson: The administration fees have a 2 to 3% variable. What is that based on? Joe Bellone: Any revenues derived from residential customers, if it is a recyclable pick up, Waste Management gets the revenue. Question: Is the 2 to 3% an attempt to recover the recycle revenue? Joe further explained how Waste Management is at risk for the hauling and disposal of recyclable materials, and therefore retains the revenues. Gina Downs: Administration fees go up as high as 20% in other counties. Can we use this as a bargaining chip? Why don't we increase the administrative fees? Joe Bellone: We use franchise fees to reduce the assessment. We offset our administrative fees. Vlad Ryziw: How do you handle an annual audit? Response: Waste Management is not required to provide us an annual audit unless they are asking for a rate adjustment. Contract Agreement The County Attorney's Office drafted an agreement to the existing terms of the Waste Management and Choice contracts for the next seven (7) years and both vendors have corporate approval and have signed the document. Staff response: Dan Rodriguez stated that Waste Management signed the contract because of our long- term relationship with them. In our quarterly meetings with Waste Management, we get the most value for our customers. Discussion leads to the original contract of 8 years with 2 options to renew with 7 years each. Jim Gibson: It is fantastic Vlad Ryziw: Incredible Gina Downs: Fantastic Joe Bellone: Outlined the Executive Summary pulls all the information together, gives options, staff recommendation, pricing, levels of service, vendor performance, local preference, and customer satisfaction. We expect public comments from contractors promising the Board that they can do much better. We expect contractors to be at the Board meeting. Vlad Ryziw: There are a lot of benefits in the Waste Management contract; the unit rate stays the same based on the CPI. On cost side there is a lot of comforts. I would suggest Subcommittee or the Productivity Committee making a presentation with the focus on performance. The criterion when this subcommittee was formed was to focus on performance. How are they performing in specific areas? Cost is only one component — complaints are another for example. 6 r'S :e4 F 1612 A9 Joe Bellone will email a copy of the Executive Summary to the Subcommittee members (via Mike Sheffield). Additional cost benefits and the recycling program • White goods are free for us. • Electronic waste is huge. TV, computers, our contract are required to be picked up and many communities do not process them. • Our recyclebles go to a transfer site on Shirley Street and are transported to Pembrook Pines for recycling. Gina Downs surveyed Santa Barbara, Monroe, Washington, and Vermont. Detailed, priced beyond compare. Look around the world (quoted a 2002 report) and see the prices. The United States was already in good shape. In Collier County, we are in excellent shape. Vlad Ryziw: The metrics in the Executive Summary are the performance we want to mention. Gina Downs: Keep up the good work. Any mediation processes? Dan stated there were none on the collections side. He stated quarterly meeting with Waste Management's corporate folks helps our partnership. Safety is non - negotiable and WMI celebrated one year without any injuries and they have 133 employees. Vlad Ryziw: What is Intent to Negotiate? Tom Wides defined that an Invitation to Bid is allowed by State Statute. Cost proposals are submitted, the county does short list, and there are proposals and presentations. Specs in the bids will occur in our normal RFP process. Joe Bellone: If we are going to take this to the BCC, we need to do it no later than June; preferably May. If a new contractor is selected, the transition period would be two years. Gina Downs: How do you want the Subcommittee to weigh in on this? Do you want our participation in this? You have a presentation. Do you want us as the committee to be there and show what we studied? Jim Gibson: The County Manager brought this to the Productivity Committee who then formed the Subcommittee. In accordance with this request, we have reviewed the contract and find it is very —very responsive and good for the tax payers. Closing Statement by Jim Gibson: The Subcommittee will draft a letter to the Productivity Committee with their findings. This letter will contain the statistics reviewed during this meeting, and performance and compliance issues. Gina will draft the letter and circulate to us through Mike Sheffield and provide the letter to the Productivity Committee. • Local Vendor Preference: WMI has 15 years in Collier County and employs 130 people • Existing contract — excellent and extremely responsive compared to the contracts we have examined in this process 7 I i 6 i t 1612 Q9 • No permit violations • No environmental Issues • Equal opportunity employer • Leader in the business • Not aware of any lawsuits • Discussions lead to the original contract of 8 years with 2 options to renew with 7 years each. • Gina Downs -fantastic • Vlad Ryziw - Incredible • Committee will use the Executive Summary to pull all information together, give options, staff recommendations, pricing, and level of service. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m. Submitted by Sheree Mediavilla, Administrative Assistant to Operations Support Department. 8 r, (I 16 12 XV����d� Collier County Government Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda County Manager's Conference Room April 20, 2011 2:00 P.M. I. Introduction A. Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman B. Approval of today's meeting agenda C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 2/16/11 (continued) D. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 3/16/11 E. Acceptance of the Solid Waste Mandatory Collections Agreement Subcommittee meeting minute from 3/24/11 II. Old Business A. Update from the Solid Waste Mandatory Collections Agreement Subcommittee - Jim Gibson, Gina Dows, Vlad Ryziw B. Update from the School Impact Fee Review Subcommittee - Janet Vasey, Steve Harrison, Joe Swaja, Vlad Ryziw C. Update on the Work Plan D. Discussion regarding cost saving opportunities through outsourcing and in- sourcing III. New Business Fiala Hiller A. Report Regarding County Purchases -Steve Carnell Henning Coyle Coletta IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments V. Public Comment VI. Adiourn -The next meeting is scheduled for May 18, 2011 at 2pm in the County Manager's Conference Room Misc. Cones: Date: qk\-!mX \% item #'u-x -'2--ft °1 .n-s °): 16 12 A9 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE April 20, 2011 2 p.m. BY: ....................... Members Present: Gina Downs, Doug Fee, Jim Gibson, Steve Harrison, Vlad Ryziw, Joe Swaja, Janet Vasey and Joe Wall. Members Excused: Cheryl Pavlick, Rich Federman and Leslie Prizant were excused. BCC Liaison: Commissioner Jim Coletta was in attendance. Staff Present: Crystal Kinzel and Derek Johnssen, Clerk's Office; Andrea Marsh, Sheriffs Office; Dan Rodriguez, Director, Solid Waste; Tom Wides, Director PUD Operations Support; Joe Bellone, Manager Utility Billing & Customer Service; Steve Carnell, Director Purchasing; Joanne Markiewicz, Manager Purchasing Acquisition; Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services; Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget. Others Present: Joyce Fletcher, Harold Hall INTRODUCTION: Call to Order: Steve Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Mike Sheffield announced the establishment of a quorum. Approval of the Agenda for April 20, 2011: Joe Swaja motioned to approve the agenda, Vlad Ryziw seconded and the group unanimously approved. Approval of the February 16, 2011 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes: Joe Swaja motioned to approve the minutes, Gina Downs seconded and the group unanimously approved. Approval of the March 16, 2011 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes: The group suggested some changes, then Janet Vasey motioned to approve the minutes as corrected, Joe Swaja seconded and the group unanimously approved. Acceptance of the March 24, 2011 Solid Waste Productivity Committee Subcommittee Minutes: Gina motioned to approve the minutes, Joe Swaja seconded. The vote was 7 -1 with Doug Fee opposing. 1612 49 OLD BUSINESS: Update on Work Plan: Commissioner Coletta went over the letter that the committee sent to the Board. The Board approved reviews of the Solid Waste Mandatory Collections Agreement, the FY12 budget with an emphasis on capital improvement plan reserves, impact fee reviews, and outsourcing /insourcing. Mike passed out an updated work plan and reviewed it with the group. The following subcommittees were formed: Capital Improvement Reserves Plans /Expeditures Review Subcommittee: Vlad Ryziw, Jim Gibson, Janet Vasey and Doug Fee. Mark Isackson said that he will work with Susan Usher to get some information together and he will contact Steve Harrison to set -up an orientation meeting regarding capital projects. Outsourcing /Insourcing Review Subcommittee: Gina Downs, Rich Federman, Joe Wall. Len Price and Mike Sheffield suggested that the subcommittee work with Skip Camp. School Impact Fee Review Subcommittee: The next meeting of the subcommittee will be held on May 11 at 10:00 a.m. in the County Manager's Front Conference Room. Janet Vasey gave the group a review on the first meeting the subcommittee had with the school board. She reviewed cost per student station including ancillary fees and the credits that come from the State of Florida, bond costs and ad valorem. The members of the committee are Janet, Steve, Vlad and Joe. 2 i 161 A9 NEW BUSINESS: Report Regarding County Purchases: Steve Carnell gave the committee a presentation on the operations of the purchasing department for the past few years in regards to dollar amounts and numbers of solicitations being started. He passed out a spreadsheet called "Purchasing Bid Status Log" and gave a quick overview of the document. Vlad Ryziw asked Steve if the county ever issued invitations to negotiate? He said this process opens up transparencies. Steve said that his department has used ITNs in the past and is currently looking at other alternatives and adjusting methods on some projects. He stated he has lost a third of his staff so he is open for any suggestions on how he can work smarter. Comments: Commissioner Coletta informed the group that Arthrex is expanding into Eastern Collier County, with construction starting this year on a 150,000 sq. ft. plant. Vlad Ryziw asked Mike about advertising the meetings. He said he would like to see more public attendance at the meetings. Mike explained the public meeting requirement notices and their posting on the County's website. Vlad asked that the meetings be indicated on the County's main site calendar of events. Mike Sheffield said that he will arrange a demonstration on SAP ProTools for the entire committee at the next meeting. Harold Hall said that he started hearing about the Productivity Committee 3 years ago and has been attending on and off ever since. He wanted to compliment the group on their participation in county government and the great job that they are doing taking on sometimes controversial topics. Adjournment: Joe Swaja motioned to adjourn the meeting, Vlad Ryziw and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wed. May 18, 2011. This meeting will be held in the County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2nd floor at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202. Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve Harrison 3 f A 16 vr Fiala C IvED Hiller lC1N 1 0 Henning 2011 Coyle apmpm 'RI d of County CommissioRer Coiett Prod uctivity Committee's I enroject Review Subcommittee Meeting May 18, 2011 10:00am Minutes Subcommittee members trgAen Gibson, Vlad Ryziw, and Doug Fee : Steve Harrison, Janet Vasey, Jim Staff Present: Susan Usher, Mark Isackson, Mike Sheffield Steve Harrison called the meeting to order at 10:05am. Steve Harrison suggested that Vlad preside over the meeting, and the other members unanimously concurred. Vlad reviewed the charge of the subcommittee and asked Mike to provide more information regarding the Board's direction. Mike read from the minutes of the April 12/13 Board meeting, stating that the Board asked the Productivity Committee to take a look at capital improvement programs to see if they (the Prod Cmt) can make some recommendations concerning the costs and timing of those projects; to objectively look at those capital replacement expenditures, with a special emphasis on capital improvement expenditures. Susan informed the group of the importance of growing our reserves. She ial mentioned Hurricane Wilma clean -up as an example; how essent the reserves were during the urgent clean -up process before we received state /federal money. Reserves are critical, if there should be another catastrophic event. Jim Gibson had previously looked at the list of reserves. Jim stated that there are two types of reserves; appropriated reserves, which are contingency reserves, and un- appropriated reserves which are funds not designated for any purpose. As part of the County's financial structure, the County has many funds, with each fund possibly having reserves. Susan stated that there are about 150 funds. Jim discussed the components of this study. He stated that first the subcommittee should look at reserves ... then look at the requested appropriations for 2012 capital projects; what funding is.already in place...and any funding for new 2012 projects, capital projects for Y1R§Q* no existing Dane: Item #: La -:t-- .0: 2 A__9 appropriation and capital projects with existing appropriations. Also, to look at what might be available /left over in existing projects, yet to be closed -out. Vlad discussed expenditures in this era of limited funds. How do we establish funding for future capital projects? How is an expenditure justified? Is the project a priority? Janet agreed, stating that we are looking are projects from a budget point of view. Vlad further discussed the justification of projects. Is the capital project mandated by law (EPA, etc.)? Is it an infrastructure project that will serve the entire community, or just a specific citizenry? Janet suggested that the subcommittee should also look at the necessity of growing reserves. Mark explained his view on the importance of growing reserves. Susan distributed and reviewed a hand -out entitled, List of Capita/ Project Funds (attached). The list is current, for FY 2011. Mark informed the group that he and the County Manager are currently meeting with division administrators and scrubbing division budgets. Mark stated that he /Susan will forward information /budgets from those reviews to the subcommittee, via Mike. Mark suggested that the subcommittee meet weekly, if the goal is the make a recommendation to the Board before the budget workshops on June 16 and June 17. Mark further stated that the subcommittee's study might not just be for FY 2012, but ongoing. Capital project planning and budgeting is multi -year. Doug asked about the workplan of the Prod Cmt, in terms of a full study of the 2012 budget, and clarification as to whether the Prod Cmt "may" or "shall" review the proposed county budget, when it's prepared. Jim read from the governing ordinance indicating that the committee "may conduct budget reviews ". The Prod Cmt has no plans for a full budget review at this time. Jim and Janet discussed Public Utilities, specifically Commissioner Henning's interest in water and waste water reserves and projects. These projects are paid for by user fees, so therefore, these project reviews are not urgent, and can be put off until after the 2012 budget process. Steve suggested that the subcommittee may want to conduct reviews in Phases, such as: Phase 1 Expense Side; Phase 2 Funding. Vlad asked staff how.,t+he relent legislative nullification of Florida Growth Management /Concurrency,l aws affect Collier County's planned CIP projects. 2 f 1612 A9 4 Vlad recapped the focus of the study. ..Proposed fund reserves, Proposed appropriations for active /on -going projects and new /proposed projects, Procedures, processes, practices attendant to closing out completed or cancelled projects, CIP proposals for additional financing and Planned CIP expenditures The subcommittee will meet again on Thursday, May 26 at 9am, to review the budget book pages that have been reviewed to -date by the County Manager and Mark. (Susan /Mike will forward by email). In consideration of the time restraints involved in getting recommendations to the Board before the June 16 and June 17 budget review dates, the subcommittee will ask the Prd Cmt about holdin g a one topic full meeting on June 8th 3 1612 A9 ' .., I Tom Chmelik showed the group the ProTools product for his projects and explained how the system works. He also showed the group how information can be found in the system and how reports can be produced. The information then integrates into SAP so data does not have to be entered twice. The system is also being used for grants. Effective December 1, 2009 all new grants have been entered into the system at the time of application, then is fed into SAP at the time of award. Approximately 90 grants worth $65M are being managed in the new system. Comments: Gina Downs reminded the group that Tom Wides had asked the members of the subcommittee and as many other members as possible to attend the Board meeting on May 24th to show support of the Waste Management item. Mike Sheffield passed out copies of the letter that was sent to the BCC regarding their recommendation. Gina Downs will also be giving her "Talking Trash" presentation. Public Comments: Harold Hall told the group that he comes to the meetings of the Productivity meetings to learn about county government and to be around a blue ribbon committee that is able to get the best possible information from staff. Adjournment: Joe Swaja motioned to adjourn the meeting, Rich Federman seconded and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wed. June 8, 2011 unless otherwise noticed. This meeting will be held in the County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2nd floor at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202. Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve Harrison 4 16 12 A19 r May CEIVEd JUN 10 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 26, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Productivity Capital Improvement Plan Review Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, in the County Manager's Conference Room, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala j Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Chairman: Vlad Ryziw Steve Harrison (absent) Janet Vasey (excused) James Gibson Doug Fee Rick Federman ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, Operations Manager, CMO Mark Isackson, Director of Corporate Finance, OMB Susan Usher, Sr. Budget Analyst, OMB Misc. Cares: 1 Item t ice= � dies to: t 161 2 A9 t, May 26, 2011 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department. 1. Call to Order Chairman Ryziw called the meeting to order at 9:02 A.M. Norm Feder, Growth Management Division Administrator, Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division; Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management; Marla Ramsey, Public Service Administrator and Tom Wides, Public Utilities Finance Operations Director were also present. 2. Approve meeting minutes from 5/18/11 Mr. Gibson moved to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2011 Meeting. Second by Mr. Federman. Carried unanimously 3 — 0. 3. Continue the Review of Capital Improvement Project Reserves/Expenditures The following documents were submitted for review: • List of Capital Project Funds • Collier County Productivity Committee FY12 CIP Subcommittee Workplan dated May 25, 2011. Chairman Ryziw provided an overview of the 12 assignment goals for the subcommittee as identified in the workplan and listed below: Goal 1: Review budgets to ensure that departments and divisions appropriately focus on achieving strategic and operational objectives. Goal 2: Review necessity of CIP fund reserves. Goal 3: Review proposed overall appropriations for active /on -going projects and new /proposed projects. Goal 4: Review procedures, processes and practices for closing out completed or cancelled projects. Goal 5: Review CIP proposals for additional financing. Goal 6: Review proposed CIP expenditures. Goal 7: Review who (i.e., specific staff member or project manager) is responsible for managing and executing each project. Goal 8: Consider conducting reviews in several phases, such as: Phase 1, expense side; Phase 2, funding, etc. Goal 9: Consider continuance of CIP reviews for multiple years on an extended calendar time line. Goal 10: Consider how the recent legislative nullification of Florida's Growth Management/Concurrency Laws affect Collier County's planned CIP projects. Goal 11: Review how projects are justified/warranted and how projects are prioritized with limited funds. Goal 12: Request and review clarifications on CIP contingencies versus CIP reserves. The Subcommittge determined to focus on Goal Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12. - 1 . A 1612 ON May 26, 2011 The Subcommittee identified the following Collier County CIP (expenditure) Organizations listed below and assigned a member to review the organization's requirements: A. Administrative Services Capital — Mr. Federman • Facilities Management B. Elected Official's Capital — Doug Fee Airport Authority Sheriff's Office • Supervisor of Elections C. Office of the County Manager's Capital — Steve Harrison • Emergency Medical Services • Isle of Capri Fire • Ochopee Fire Control • Office of Management & Budget D. Courts, Growth Management (CDES), Public Utilities Capital — Janet Vasey • Growth Management (Land Development Services) • Public Utilities Debt Service • Court Related Capital E. Growth Management (Transportation) Capital — Vlad Ryziw • Transportation F. Public Services Capital — Jim Gibson • Libraries • Museums • Parks & Recreation • Tourist Development Council —Beaches (195) • Tourist Development Council —Park Beaches (183) • Public Services Division Capital See re- assignment of categories under Item 4. Said review will include meeting with individual department heads as necessary. Subcommittee members and staff discussed the concept and status of reserves and contingency funds as related to Goal No. 12. Mr. Fee arrived at 10: 00 A.M. Subcommittee members and staff discussed Goal Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 which are the most important goals they will be working on. 4. Next Steps in the Process The Subcommittee determined meeting June 2, 2011 and June 8, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. There is a regular meeting of the Productivity Committee scheduled for June 8, 2011 at 2:00 P.M. 16 12 A9 , May 26, 2011 The Subcommittee reassigned the CIP Organizations as follows: A. Administrative Services Capital — Mr. Federman • Facilities Management • Court Related Capital B. Elected Officials Capital — Doug Fee • Airport Authority • Sheriff Office • Supervisor of Elections C. Office of the County Manager Capital — Steve Harrison • Emergency Medical Services • Isle of Capri Fire • Ochopee Fire Control • Office of Management & Budget D. Public Utilities Capital — Janet Vasey • Public Utilities Debt Service E. Growth Management (Transportation) Capital — Vlad Ryziw • Transportation • Growth Management (Land Development Services) F. Public Services Capital — Jim Gibson • Libraries • Museum • Parks & Recreation • Tourist Development Council — Beaches (195) • Tourist Development Council — Park Beaches (183) • Public Services Division Capital 5. Public Comment None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 11:02 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Vlad Ryziw, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended 4 Fiala _�J Hiller Henning T..�i� Coyle Coletta I. Introduction Collier County Government Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda County Manager's Conference Room May 18, 2011 2:00 P.M. A. Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman B. Approval of today's meeting agenda RECEIVED JUN 10 2011 Board of County Commissioners C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 4/20/11 D. Acceptance of the School Impact Fee Review Subcommittee meeting minutes from 4/13/11. E. Acceptance of the School Impact Fee Review Subcommittee meeting minutes from 5/11/11. II. Old Business A. Report from the School Impact Fee Review Subcommittee - Janet Vasey, Steve Harrison, Joe Swaja, Vlad Ryziw B. Quarterly Report on Impact Fee Collections -Amy Patterson C. Update from the Outsourcing/Insourcing Subcommittee D. Update from the Capital Improvement Plan Review Subcommittee III. New Business A. SAP ProTools Demonstration- Description of SAP ProTools. The County Manager directed that there be clearly established responsibilities, budgets, and schedules for key capital projects. ProTools provides a dashboard for easily reviewing project status and identifying areas (budget ortchedule) that require attention. ProTools allows project managers to monitor budget`s and manage projects in a system integrated with SAP (Systems, Applications, and Products). This reduces the need to enter data in more than one system reducing errors and providing real -time information. IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments V. Public Comment VI. Adiourn -The next meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2011 at 2piW%9 e ounty Manager's Conference Room Date: Item #: �_ '2. W c 1 2, 4 Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta 4 1612 "RECEIVED COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Minutes — May 18, 2011 2 p.m. JUN 10 2011 Doard if Ciwdy COImtissiar.M Members Present: Gina Downs, Rich Federman, Doug Fee, Jim Gibson, Steve Harrison, Cheryl Pavlick , Leslie Prizant , Vlad Ryziw, Joe Swaja, Janet Vasey and Joe Wall. Members Excused: All members were present. BCC Liaison: Commissioner Jim Coletta was unavailable to attend. Staff Present: Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Office; Amy Patterson, Manager Impact Fees; Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services; Barry Axelrod, Director of Information Technology; Marlene Foord, Grant Development and Management Coordinator; Kim Grant, Manager Corporate Planning; Tom Chmelik, Director Public Utilities Engineering; Norman Feder, Administrator Growth Management; Margaret Bishop, Senior Project Manager; Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget. Others Present: Harold Hall, Nilgun Camp and Steve Tindale INTRODUCTION: Call to Order: Steve Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Mike Sheffield announced the establishment of a quorum. Approval of the Agenda for May 18, 2011: Joe Wall motioned to approve the agenda, Janet Vasey seconded and the group unanimously approved. Approval of the April 20, 2011 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes: Vlad Ryziw motioned to approve the minutes with the correction of the spelling of Arthrex, Janet Vasey seconded and the group unanimously approved. Acceptance of the April 13, 2011 Productivity Subcommittee Meeting both sets of minutes, Vlad Ryziw approved. OLD BUSINESS: and May 11, 2011 School Impact Fee Minutes: Joe Swaja motioned to accept seconded and the group unanimously Misc. Correa: Date: "1�3A Item ,:X9,aZ 2 Y=k C- 'Pies to: 16 1 2'A9 Report from the School Impact Fee Review Subcommittee: Steve Harrison started the discussion with some facts about how the school impact fees are much more complicated and the methodology is more sophisticated than most. Steve Tindale gave a presentation on the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Update reviewing the purpose, findings of the study, along with the net cost per student station. The Productivity Committee weighed in and asked some questions. Janet told the group that the subcommittee had 2 meetings, all questions had been satisfactorily answered and the change methodology was accepted. She went over the net impact fees and said that the subcommittee had written their recommendations. First, Joe Wall motioned to approve the study as recommended by the subcommittee. Gina seconded and the group unanimously approved. Second, Gina Downs motioned that the recommendation of the subcommittee is to not change the fees as proposed because of the standing agreement. Joe Wall seconded and the group vote was 10 in support and 1 against (Doug Fee). Third, Joe Swaja motioned that a decision be made in October of 2012 as listed in the options below listed. Mad Ryziw seconded and the group unanimously approved. The options are: 1) Do nothing. Leave the school impact fees unchanged, at the 50% reduction level. 2) Adjust the current (50 %) fees to account for 2011 and 2012 indexing. 3) Adjust the fees in the 2011 school impact fee study to account for 2011 and 2012 indexing. 4) Accelerate the next school impact fee study (required every 3 years). 5) Consider other options, as appropriate. Quarterly Report on Impact Fee Collections: Amy Patterson passed out information on the impact fee revenue through April and reviewed years 2005 through current year with the group. Doug Fee asked Amy if she has a comparison between the numbers of permits issued by month. Amy said she will bring the report to show roads as an example. Studies have been done on the correlation of fees and growth. Norman Feder said that there is no direct correlation between growth and impact fees. Steve 2 x ,^ 1612A9 Harrison said that impact fee reduction news should be sent to the press. Amy will forward the information to john Torre. Update for the Outsourcing /Insourcing Subcommittee: Gina Downs said that the group had one meeting with Skip Camp and that she wants to sit with each division head. The next meeting of the committee will be June 29, 2011 at noon. Steve Harrison asked Len Price about cloud computing. Len said that they are testing now and she will keep the group updated as things progress. Update from the Capital Improvement Plan Review Subcommittee: Vlad Ryziw told the group that the subcommittee met today. He said that the group determined 5 components to this project: 1. How reserves contribute 2. Appropriations for on -going & future projects 3. Close -out of projects 4. Additional financing & debt service 5. Expenditures The next meeting will be May 26th at 9:00 a.m. Mike Sheffield will send out information from staff within the next few days. Each division has prepared proposed project budgets for next year and have already sat with Mark Isackson and the County Manager. The subcommittee will go through each divisions projects and ask themselves if the project is delayable, can the scope of the project be trimmed or can the project be postponed? Rich Federman volunteered to join the sub - committee. Mike Sheffield will invite Mark Isackson, Susan Usher and all division heads to the next meeting of the subcommittee to be held on May 26th at 9:00 a.m. In consideration of the strict timeline to get recomendations to the Board before the June 16/17 budget workshops, there will be a meeting of the entire Productivity Committee on June 8"' at 2:OOpm. NEW BUSINESS: SAP ProTools Demonstration: Barry Axelrod gave the group an overview on the system, how it's creating a standardization of project language and that it is currently being used by the Clerk, the Supervisor of Elections and the BCC. All three offices are currently sharing data and templates. The financial, purchasing, human resources, payroll and fixed assets portions of SAP are now being used. There are plans in place to implement the accounts payable, E- payables and enterprise asset management applications as well. 3 16 1 2 A9 Tom Chmelik showed the group the ProTools product for his projects and explained how the system works. He also showed the group how information can be found in the system and how reports can be produced. The information then integrates into SAP so data does not have to be entered twice. The system is also being used for grants. Effective December 1, 2009 all new grants have been entered into the system at the time of application, then is fed into SAP at the time of award. Approximately 90 grants worth $65M are being managed in the new system. Comments: Gina Downs reminded the group that Tom Wides had asked the members of the subcommittee and as many other members as possible to attend the Board meeting on May 24th to show support of the Waste Management item. Mike Sheffield passed out copies of the letter that was sent to the BCC regarding their recommendation. Gina Downs will also be giving her "Talking Trash" presentation. Public Comments: Harold Hall told the group that he comes to the meetings of the Productivity meetings to learn about county government and to be around a blue ribbon committee that is able to get the best possible information from staff. Adjournment: Joe Swaja motioned to adjourn the meeting, Rich Federman seconded and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wed. June 8, 2011 unless otherwise noticed. This meeting will be held in the County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2nd floor at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202. Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve Harrison 4 16 121 A 10 May 4, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING May 4, 2011 �q CE- W'E1) Naples, Florida ,UN 0 8 201' Aonr 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: CHAIRMAN: Vice Chair: aia fler :Inning '.e :tta William Varian David Dunnavant Ray Allain (Excused) James Boughton (Excused) Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney Excused) Marco Espinar Blair Foley Reagan Henry George Hermanson (Excused) David Hurst (Excused) Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle (Excused) 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 (Absent) Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire C Wfk- e Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilitiesc:t\ Date: Item: 1 6 12" M I. Call to Order: Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. Il. Approval of Agenda: Changes: • Under Item V, "Staff Announcements /Updates" — D. Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Update will be heard first. Blair Foley moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. III. Approval of Minutes — April 6, 2011 Meeting: Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Minutes for the April 6, 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. IV. Public Speaker: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. V. Growth Management Division — Staff Announcements/Updates: D. Planning and Regulation: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator — GMD • Mr. Casalanguida introduced Attorney Richard Yovanovich of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Topic: A letter sent to County Manager Leo Ochs by Mr. Yovanovich and copied to the Board of County Commissioners concerning an alternative method of collecting and tracking Impact Fees Richard Yovanovich: • Regarding the payment schedule for Impact Fees — originally 50% was due at the time a Plat or SDP was submitted and the remaining 50% was due three years later. • The format was revised and the second payout period was extended due to the economy from three to five years. • The BCC offered a different option: the first year payment would be 20% with a 20% Letter of Credit, and additional payments of 20% to be made over the following four years. • He noted if the second year payment of 20% was not made, Staff could attach the Letter of Credit and his clients could lose their vesting. • Proposal: first payment of 33% to be due at application and the balance paid when the building permit was pulled Nick Casalanguida: "'Staff supports the proposal • __ He asked MAC for their recommendation (David Hurst arrived at 3:09 PM) 16 12' A JOA Reed Jarvi moved to approve the proposal and forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Blair Foley. Nick Casalanguida clarified the entire project would be vested when the first payment of 33% was made and vesting would not be lost. The Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy ( "COA ") would run with the land. The payment schedule will be reviewed and revised if economic conditions improve. Motion carried, 10 - 0. A. Public Utilities Division: Nathan Beals, Project Manager - Public Utilities No updates to announce There were no questions B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official - Fire Code Office • Monthly Activity Report for March was submitted. • Reviews conducted: 808 In response to a question, Mr. Riley noted the application for the Certificate of Occupancy has been made for the new Fire Office building. Move -in would occur in three to four weeks after the C/O is issued. C. Transportation Planning Division: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director - Transportation Engineering (Absent) • No report D. Planning and Regulation: Jamie French, Director - Operations & Regulatory Management • An increase noted in the number of Building Permits issued during April • Primarily remodeling permits (re -roof, installation of shutters, installation of A/C units) • An increase in new home starts within established communities (GL Homes, Stock Development, Lennar) • There has been an increase in the number of inspections requested in both residential and commercial o Inspections were usually conducted within 24 hours after call -in Q. How is staff time paid for the Flood Plain Management Committee? Which fund is used? A. No one from Fund 113 participates on the Committee. He was not sure of the Cost Center - it could be from either Fund 101 or 111. Chairman Varian stated he applied for a building permit for a clubhouse renovation which consisted of remodeling two bathrooms. He was told to supply a copy of the SDP because it was noted on the checklist. He questioned why an SDP cover sheet q Al 1612 May 4, 2011 was necessary since the work to be performed consisted of painting, changing toilets, sinks, and tiles. He stated he was charged a $125.00 Zoning Fee which he did not understand. Jamie French stated he would investigate and asked for the Permit number. Mr. French noted Claudine Auclair's Kaizen committee has been examining the permitting process to determine where redundancy exists and will implement new policy within the next month. Digital submission options will reduce the required number of copies and plans. He stated if a project's plan is scheduled for three or four reviews, at least five copies will be needed. Re• • • "CityView" • The "go live" date has been changed to May 15'h • New taxes and fees necessitated recalculation and revisions to system C -D Plus will work in tandem with CityView for the next six months New Topic: RPZ Motion (See: April 6, 2011 Minutes) David Dunnavant directed the Committee's attention to Page 7 of the Minutes. [ "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 KPZs 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.'1 He suggested changing the word "year" to "years." Chairman Varian asked the Committee to review a draft of the letter to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners containing DSAC's recommendation. He suggested the letter should be jointly signed by David Dunnavant as Chairman of the Subcommittee as well as himself. Nathan Beals noted he will supply the correct number to Judy Puig to identify the Resolution to the Ordinance. >, iµ VI. 4 16 i z „pto� David Dunnavant stated he inadvertently omitted referencing the pressure loss caused by the installation of RPZs. It is an additional issue that supports DSAC's recommendation to the Board to repeal the Resolution. He proposed adding the following language at the end of the third sentence of the first paragraph: "Additionally, implementation of RPZs would create an increased friction loss to the system, in comparison to the Double Detector Check Assembly Valve, which would alter fire sprinkler design in future buildings that would require this new back flow device. " Reed Jarvi suggested placing the sentence at the conclusion of the second sentence in the paragraph. Robert Mulhere suggested the issue is the "significant cost versus the nominal benefit" since it is a cost/benefit analysis. David Dunnavant suggested that he confer with Chairman Dunnavant to review and revise the recommendation letter. Suggestion: • David Dunnavant and Chairman Varian will independently review the letter and email their changes to Judy Puig to incorporate into a final version. • At the June DSAC meeting, Mr. Dunnavant will withdraw the Motion made during the April 6th meeting and substitute the new language as his motion. • The recommendation letter will be presented to the Committee at the June meeting for approval. Consensus: An item entitled "Reconsideration of Previous Motion (April 6, 2011)" will be added to the June Agenda. Old Business: A. Watershed Management Plan Projects and Alternatives — Mac Hatcher • Robert Mulhere stated he is a consultant on the project and he recused himself from voting on the issue to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. • He further stated he may participate in the presentation as appropriate. A Power Point presentation was given by Moris Cabezas and Peter DeGolian of Adkins /DHI. (A copy of the presentation was emailed to the Committee.) Topics included: • Current Stormwater Management Approach • County Growth Projections • Water Quality and Pollution Load Issues • Current Canal Capacity (limited) 161 `2 Al 0, May 4, 2011 • Objective: o Implement a sustainable Stormwater Management Program through the implementation of Low Impact Development ( "LID ") techniques • Promote effective site planning • Promote preservations of the natural system • Reduce development costs • Reduce costs of future drainage system improvements Issue: How to provide water quality credits for new developments? It is not feasible under the current State regulations. Collier County requires that new development or redevelopment projects meet 150% of the State's water qualify requirements. Problem: By making ponds 50% larger, there is no gain in efficiency to treat pollutants. Recommendations: • Modify the Land Development Code to require treatment by LID and create incentives for implementation of LID techniques • Allow 18 -foot width on local roads using cluster development standards • Allow design of swales on local roads • Allow in- ground percolation type retention systems • Changes to Parking Design Standards o Reduce length of aisles • Changes to Landscaping Requirements for vehicular use areas and Rights -of- Way It was noted Sarasota County developed a Stormwater Manual of LID techniques which could be utilized as a reference to create standards for Collier County. • Change focus of Stormwater Utility from dependence on Ad Valorem taxes to a fee structure, based on discharged run -off volume • Encourage developers to market areas with lower assessments With reference to Golden Gate Estates, Robert Mulhere summarized: • Certain lands with high ecological value have been identified while other lands have relatively low development activity o Identified lands ( "Horse Pen Strand ") have significant hydrologic potential for re- charge and an ecological value, i.e., habitat • Proposal: Create an Oversight Committee to evaluate and analyze the TDR ( "Transfer of Development Rights ") Program o Process is estimated to take one -year Q. Why would a new TDR Program work any better than the current program which doesn't work? 16MV A10 ay 4, 2011 A. (Robert Mulhere) It has to be designed to work. There was some significant activity in the eastern portion of the Estates, but it stopped due to the economic downturn. There were purchases — arms' length transactions — but there were no actual developments. There were two or three potential developments that were beginning to work through the system. He suggested part of the focus should be to minimize the additional extractions that might occur if someone wanted to use TDRs in a project, which was one of the reasons why some of the projects stopped. He continued the value of the TDR in an urban area should be explored, especially in a re- development or in -fill opportunity. Mr. Mulhere agreed the existing Rural Fringe Mixed -Use ( "RFMU ") District has not worked as intended. The proposed TDR Oversight Committee could consider why it hasn't worked and what changes could be made to the RFMU District. Other reasons why RFMU has not worked: • A minimum purchase price was established which was not fair to the market place • The land was too highly valued in the early part of the Program — five acre tracts (or less) were selling at approximately $80,000 to $100,000 per acre which exceeded the value of the TDRs • The number of TDRs that could be generated from the land was changed but then the economic downturn occurred It was noted the Low Impact Development Program would be County -wide, but only certain areas would be included in the TDR Programs. The TDRs could be transferred into one or more of the identified Receiving Areas to incentivize — a compact, rural village could be developed. Robert Mulhere mentioned there are multiple TDR Prorgrams in the Code which are rarely used. The new TDR Program may or may not have a connection to the RFMU District. Moris Cabezas stated another goal was to provide mitigation opportunities within each of the functional watersheds that have been identified. He stated technical memos were available outlining how the watersheds would be set up. Additional protection areas were recommended based on analysis of the vegetation and habitat versus what is currently protected. Robert Mulhere added some examples of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Land Development Code Amendments have been provided. The details for the incentive based regulations have not been developed yet. Discussion continued concerning costs. It was noted the 150% requirement (extra volume) has accomplished very little — "diminishing return of benefit." Blair Foley noted there are deficiencies and a plan is needed. Opportunities to incorporate LID techniques are possible in the redevelopment projects. t 1612* All 0 May 4, 2011 Robert Mulhere said the point was to look at what could be done and incentivize the options. It would be too costly to try to retrofit existing facilities. Marco Espinar noted a comprehensive look at the entire Development Code, including Landscaping and the Architectural Standards, is necessary. David Dunnavant questioned the motivation — is there an existing problem to be worked through or to deal with future problems? Moris Cabezas stated the way things are being done must be changed and alternative, long -term solutions developed. For example, the canals are failing and flooding will become a serious problem. There was further discussion concerning the 150% rule and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Robert Mulhere stated the Comprehensive Stormwater Rule that was promoted by the DEP ( "Department of Environmental Protection ") is not moving forward due to the involvement of other Federal agencies. Moris Cabezas clarified the new Stormwater rule would give credit to developers for LID applications. That was the main change. It was supposed to be approved in July but probably will not happen. Clay Brooker noted one statement from the memo, "Land not used for construction of treatment facilities, i.e., the additional 50% retention pond area, can be turned into home sites." He was not sure the statement was true especially when considering the other factors that determine the number of homes that can be placed on a certain amount of property, i.e., open space requirements, density limitations, preserve requirements, etc. He continued the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan allows for density bonuses. Robert Mulhere stated the controlling factor is what the market will bear at the time. David Hurst noted there is a difference between how the Code reads and how the professional community solves the problem, i.e., a retention pond is not increased by 50% in circumference -- it is dug 2 to 3 inches deeper. He stated Staff needs to be made aware. Discussion continued concerning whether holding the water longer on the land would increase its quality and the effect of green space on it. Q. What is needed from DSAC? Mac Hatcher stated the purpose of the presentation was to obtain support from DSAC for the concept of moving forward with investigation of whether or not the LID concepts can be developed, together with incentives, to create a functional plan to improve water quality, increase water retention, and is economically feasible for developers to implement. Q. What is a realistic time frame to accomplish these goals? Bob Mulhere stated it would be at least a year before LDC Amendments were drafted. Q. Would the TDR program be mandatory or voluntary? Bob Mulhere confirmed the Plan is designed and intended to be voluntary. { �3 16 V2 -A IO May 4, 2011 David Dunnavant suggested breaking the fiscal impact into components, i.e., public sector and private section in order of magnitude. Bob Mulhere stated a more detailed analysis of each phase is needed. He further stated DSAC could recommend accepting the concepts with the condition that the LDRs and Comprehensive Planning Amendments will be brought before it prior to submission to the Board of County Commissioners. David Dunnavant questioned how much should DSAC recommend is to be spent on time and effort for a voluntary program. Bob Mulhere noted someone would have to monitor it and the RLSA is a voluntary program. The geographic area encompassed approximately 100,000 acres. He stated the BCC would make the final decision. Peter DeGolian estimated the land was approximately 30 square miles. David Dunnavant stated he could not support the concepts without a better understanding. Reed Jarvi stated the Subcommittee understood the concepts but did not have any figures on costs. He was involved with LED on a project in the past and questioned the viability of the costs then. He noted the project was not completed. He recommended obtaining more information on the actual costs of each phase and how the incentive program would work, i.e., one rain garden in a shopping center will not work but 50 might. He continued the number was large because each item was relatively small in scope. Therefore a number was needed on a scale larger than a demonstration project, and the estimated true time line is closer to four years before actual implementation. Bob Mulhere reiterated the BCC directed the creation and establishment of the Watershed Management plan. There are a number of stakeholders who except to see the plan developed. Chairman Varian asked if a regulatory agency involved, such as the EPA, was involved and threatening to impose sanctions. Moris Cabezas stated there is indirect involvement currently, but it is a regulatory program and something has to be done or penalties will be assessed. Chairman Varian noted it was aimed at new development but would not affect older, established developments. Reed Jarvi stated a retrofit of existing canal system was possible. He continued some filter marshes were proposed to address the current issues. The easier answer as far as cost is concerned is to fix it at the source now rather than waiting. Mac Hatcher noted eventually restrictions would be placed on NPDES ( "National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ") Permits. He continued negotiations are just beginning on the Gordon River Extension and there is a huge project at Lake Trafford but the amount of credits is not known for what the State has dredged out of the Lake. He stated the State is asking, "What is the County going to do ?" regarding various projects. The next assessment cycle is 2012 and most of the bodies of water currently designated as impaired will be set up for DEP ( "Design for the Environment Program ") audits. 6 1 At 0 May 4, 2011 Marco Espinar questioned whether the EPA was forcing new quality standards for nutrient criteria and would this program meet the criteria. Mac Hatcher stated standards for South Florida have not been disclosed by the EPA, but the TND ( "Traditional Neighborhood Design ") Element that has been determined for the Gordon River Extension will probably become the benchmark against which other projects will be judged. He further stated it will be a while before the Nutrient Criteria is resolved. He noted numerous court cases have been filed against the EPA for criteria set for the Panhandle and for Peninsula, Florida. The Department of Environmental Protection has petitioned the EPA to have the program returned. It will be several years before the issues are resolved. Laura Spurgeon DeJohn requested clarification of exactly what DSAC was being asked to endorse -- the Memo itself or the summarized points. Mac Hatcher replied the summarized points. DSAC was being asked to endorse the concepts contained -- a physical plan document is in development. Clay Brooker stated while the goals are laudable, some middle steps were missing, i.e. how will this be funded, before Staff can be asked to draft LDRs. David Dunnavant asked: • How much time will it take in manpower and cost? How long will it take? • What are the end - result benefits that the County will achieve? Robert Mulhere stated it seemed as if a specific implementation strategy with steps and funding was being requested. The BCC may also want to see a more detailed strategy for implementation. He suggested a recommendation could state that DSAC was generally supportive of the concepts but had concerns regarding specifics /details, and expected to review a final implementation plan in the future. Chairman Varian summarized it appeared the concept was acceptable but there were too many issues to be resolved before a formal vote could be taken. Clay Brooker moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that DSAC is generally in support of the ideas and concepts of improving water quality and quantity but before a directive to Staff to draft LDRs or Comprehensive Plan Amendments was given, DSAC would prefer to review a detailed implementation strategy including, but not limited to, the issues of timing and funding. Second by David Hurst. David Dunnavant asked Mr. Brooker if his motion could be amended to include proposed benefits. Clay Brooker agreed to add `proposed benefits" to the Motion as follows: .... recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that DSAC is generally in support of the ideas and concepts of improving water quality and quantity but before a directive to Staff to draft LDRs or Comprehensive Plan Amendments was given, DSAC would prefer to review a detailed implementation strategy including, but not limited to, the issues of timing, funding, and proposed benefits. 10 1G,1,911 A10 Motion carried, 9— "Yes " /1— "Abstention" by Robert Mulhere. VII. New Business: (None) VIII. Committee Member Comments: • Chairman Varian was wished a "Happy Birthday." Next Meeting Dates: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless noted below.) June 1, 2011 July 6, 2011 August 3, 2011 September 7, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:40 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ( I qr�-- �,r NWhem Varian, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Co ittee on Co , 2011, "as submitted" " OR "as amended" _ 1612 p ;p' WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative' includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) 1611z a • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, I �✓�' r � (�w � k-t.rt_ ,hereby disclose that on /(/` �- , _ � ( , 20 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, t,�inured to the special gain or loss of M" s, whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: which S 815 -,IV )I Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 161'2 „AeLO RE-iCEIVED MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY JUL 12 201PEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ;on,missione,s MEETING June 1, 2011 —Naples, Florida 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: lFiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta �% ✓ ALSO PRESENT: Misc. �;orres: Date: q \\.2, \'% \ Item #: kLo= 'J-V:4 \U CHAIRMAN: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant Ray Allain James Boughton (Excused) Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney Marco Espinar Blair Foley Reagan Henry (Absent) George Hermanson David Hurst Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle 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 Kenneth Rech, P.E., Director — Environmental Health/Engineering Claudine Auclair, Manager — Business Center Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager -1.61 I. Call to Order: Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. IL Approval of Agenda: Change: • Blair Foley requested to revise the order of the Agenda to hear Item VII — A., "New Business," first. Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 12 — 0. (Clay Brooker arrived at 3:04 PM.) III. Approval of Minutes — May 4, 2011 Meeting: Correction: • David Hurst was inadvertently marked as "excused." He did attend the meeting. Reed Jarvi moved to approve the Minutes for the May 4, 2011 meeting as amended. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 13 — 0. IV. Public Speaker: (Melissa Ahern, CBIA — will be heard when Item is discussed.) VII. New Business: A. Report: State Audit of the Heath Department — Kenneth R. Rech, P.E., Director — Environmental Health and Engineering Blair Foley: • Subject: Septic system designs, inspections, and permitting procedures in Collier County • Report/evaluation is approximately 47 pages in length • Will ask for the topic to be included on next month's Agenda to enable Committee members to review the document with additional input from Staff Background information: • DEP Report was dated May 12, 2011 • May 26, 2011 — Correspondence was sent to Septic Contractors and Site Evaluators concerning revisions to the checklist regarding how permits will be reviewed and inspections conducted. o The revisions were effective immediately. Mr. Foley suggested reviewing the changes in the same manner as changes to the Land Development Code, i.e., vet through the Utilities Subcommittee with input from Industry and Staff. +w a. 1 June 1 11 Al re Blair Foley noted new LDC Amendments are specific concerning the effective date. He expressed concern for permits in the "queue" and clients who are trying to update their septic systems but could not make adjustments because they did not receive proper notification. Kenneth Rech: • Collier County's Health Department is part of the Florida Department of Health • The audit of the County's programs was conducted in November, 2010 • Some changes have been put into place • Copies of the Memorandum dated May 26th outlining a number of changes and the checklist entitled "Onsite Sewage Treatment Disposal System Repair — Residential" were distributed to the Committee. Chairman Varian noted the Contractors were caught "off guard" by the audit and the required changes. Mr. Foley stated the Report noted a follow -up report is to be submitted in six months (from the date of issuance) detailing the Health Department's progress. He asked if this indicated that the Industry had time to phase in the changes. Dalas Disney requested an overview of the revisions and why the changes were required. Mr. Rech stated the primary cause was a change in interpretation by the auditor for the State's Department of Health. He noted audits of the County's programs are conducted every three years and the November audit was conducted by a different auditor. He further stated there were marked changes in interpretation on a number of items. Reference was made to the Memorandum, i.e., Site evaluations must utilize specific scientific language to properly document the indicator that identifies the Seasonal High Water Table ( "SHWT "). Twenty -four specific points were outlined in the Memorandum. Discussion ensued concerning the FAC 64E -6 requirements and how to satisfy them. It was noted physical permits going back to the early `80s are available. Additional documentation is available in various log books. Time line: • April 18: County received a draft of the initial audit • May 19: County submitted a Corrective Action Plan based on the draft • May 20: County received the final version of the draft which had been revised by the State on May 12th but not forwarded to the County • May 24: State sent an email accepting the County's Corrective Action Plan Mr. Rech has requested a meeting with representatives from the State's Program Office to discuss the Audit to determine the best methods to achieve compliance. George Hermanson cautioned there is very little flexibility or room for negotiation when dealing with the State, and further stated there is limited opportunity for input. .y. S 16 1 ZJ u n A, 211 0 `� It was noted the last audit took place in 2007 and only four corrections ( "findings ") were necessary. It is possible to apply to the State for a variance. A question was asked if there was an appeal process with the State since it appeared the problem was Auditor's interpretation. • Example: the Auditor was in the field with Staff and stated he did not agree with the "Wet Season Water Table" on a particular job, but he did not provide documentation. Comment: "Is there a standard for interpretation or is it just a `moving target'? It seems to be arbitrary and capricious." Melissa Ahern, CBIA, stated a concern of the Industry was in regard to the requirements being enforced that were not codified. She requested the FAC or other Code for each requirement being implemented. Mr. Rech replied some of the policies were twenty years old, but they were not put into a Code. It was noted the Health Department is not permitted to interpret the Code but can only follow the interpretations provided by the Program Office. The Permitting Process was explained, including the option to apply for a variance. There was a discussion concerning enforcement of the Code by the Health Department, including Permits by Affidavit. The Health Department has Citation authority, with fines up to $500 per day. Chairman Varian asked to be notified if a meeting is scheduled with the State, and if the State Representative could appear before DSAC. V. Growth Management Division - Staff Announcements/Updates: A. Public Utilities Division: Nathan Beals, Project Manager - Public Utilities • Jim Delony, the Administrator for Public Utilities, resigned on May 27, 2011 and an Interim Administrator, Dr. George Yilmaz, has been appointed. • Joe Thomas resigned in December; a new Water Distribution Manager will start work in July. • The Discussion Group met on May 17th and the "Approved Product List" was revised to add more options for meters B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official - Fire Code Office • Monthly Activity Report for April was submitted. o Reviews conducted: 686 (less than in March) The move to the new building has been delayed for approximately two weeks due to IT problems. C. Transportation Planning Division: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director - Transportation Engineering • The Oil Well Road project is approximately 55% complete. o A multi -use asphalt pathway has been installed. 1612 . �& -A ! �,Akpq June 1 0 � I lu • Bids for the Davis /Collier Project were opened; there is a protest due to underbidding of some segments. The Purchasing Department is investigating. A question was asked concerning the speed limit on Vanderbilt Drive, south of Wiggins Pass Road. Mr. Ahmad stated the limit is 35. (Blair Foley left at 4:00 PM.) D. Planning and Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management • "CityView" — more issues were discovered and it is still not online • The IVR ( "Interactive Voice Recognition ") was not functioning properly and is currently undergoing testing • Check validation had stopped working • A search engine has been created to allow access to flood elevation certificates for properties • Re: refund of Land Development Fees for Inspections and Plan Reviews: o After review of data, it as determined that one percent has been held back for Staff time, i.e., $250 for administrative fees of $25,000 Chairman Varian requested that Michael Ossorio and Jim Turner attend the next DSAC meeting to explain Licensing's time line to obtain a permit after a "Cease and Desist" has been issued. VI. Old Business: A. Reconsideration of Previous RPZ Motion (April 6, 2011) — David Dunnavant B. Review and Approval of Letter to BCC regarding DSAC Recommendation David Dunnavant, as the motion maker, moved to withdraw the motion made and passed during the April 6, 2011 meeting. Second by David Hurst. David Dunnavant provided a brief review: • The Subcommittee reviewed the RPZ requirement on fire systems. • Resolution #2009 -224 was passed in 2009 on a Consent Agenda without Industry input. • The Subcommittee determined that it did not understand the necessity for implementation of RPZs on fire systems since the incremental safety benefit does not match the cost to the Industry. • The existing Double Detector Check Valve assembly system has worked for years without an inherent risk to the safety, health and welfare of the citizens of Collier County. • Recommendation: Request that the BCC remove the stay currently in place on that portion of the Resolution to enforce the Ordinance, which eliminates the Double Detector Check Valve assembly, and to reinstate the DDCs as a suitable backflow device on fire systems. w 161 2 Ai 0 June 1, 2011 He noted the text of the Motion was included on Page 4 of the May 4th Minutes. George Hermanson stated he would abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. Motion carried, 11— "Yes " /I — "Abstention" (by George Hermanson). Chairman Varian noted a copy of the formal letter to the Board of County Commissioners had been distributed to the Members. David Dunnavant stated the letter contained the entire recommendation, as follows: "After extensive review of the issue and materials, DSAC has determined that the current Double Detector Check assembly system is not inherently dangerous to County's public water system users. It is the backflow protection device standard for fire systems nationwide of the American Water Works Association (AWWA). Although the safety of the water system would be enhanced by the installation of RPZs, the significant costs versus the nominal benefit of such enhancement does not warrant implementation and the additional expense to our County's citizens. Additionally, implementation of RPZs would create an increased friction loss to the system in comparison to the Double Detector Check assembly and will alter fire sprinkler design in the future for buildings that require this new backflow device, adding fire pumps at many locations. Further, implementation of RPZs to future projects provides no additional safety to the system as it is currently built out and to its current users. The possibility of the Utilities Division seeking RPZ assemblies in the future on existing buildings, with its higher friction loss, would render many existing fire protection systems inadequate, forcing significant expense on the citizens who own these buildings and also adding numerous mechanical fire pumps that our Fire Departments would have to rely on in fighting fires. Last, the requirement in the Utilities Standards Manual that classifies a hydrant or FDC as a downstream connection that would require an RPZ assembly, instead of a Double Detector Check, is an unnecessary cost increase to our County. The Double Detector backflow device provides greater protection than the typical hydrant installation on our County water system. DSAC's final recommendation is that the Board of County Commissioners repeal the portion of Resolution #2009 -224 which implements RPZs as the only accepted backflow prevention device on fire systems, and return to the original Double Detector Check Assembly Valve system that has effectively been in place for years. And also requests that the Public Utilities Division modify the Utilities Standard Manual in Ordinance 2004 -31 to allow the use of Double Detector Check Valve assemblies on fire systems when the only downstream connection is afire hydrant or afire department connection. The Motion was carried by unanimous vote with (1) Abstention of the Development Service Advisory Committee." (Note: The changes made on Page 7 have been incorporated above.) 16 0 Jun, Al 2011 David Dunnavant moved to approve DSAC's final recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that the Board repeal the portion of Resolution #2009 -224 which implements RPZs as the only accepted backflow prevention device on fire systems, and return to the original Double Detector Check Assembly Valve system that has effectively been in place for years. And also, request that the Public Utilities Division modify the Utilities Standard Manual in Ordinance 2004 -31 to allow the use of Double Detector Check Valve Assemblies on fire systems when the only downstream connection is afire hydrant or afire department connection. Second by Dalas Disney. Judy Puig will send the Conflict of Interest form to George Hermanson for signature. Discussion: David Hurst questioned Nathan Beals concerning the prior requirement for down- stream connections. Nathan Beals replied since 1997, the Standards have stated if there is a dedicated fire line with connections downstream, an RPZ is required. He defined "connections downstream" as hydrants, etc. David Hurst stated he thought the motion was to return the Ordinance to what was in place in 2008. David Dunnavant noted there are hydrants throughout the County that do not have any backflow prevention devices on them. He stated if Double Detector Checks are installed on hydrants, that provide more protection than is currently in place. He continued that part of the Subcommittee's discussion was that there was no logic to installing RPZs if it involved only a Fire Department connection or a hydrant downstream. Motion carried, 11— "Yes " /I — "Abstention" (by George Hermanson). The letter was reviewed and the following changes were made: • First Paragraph: Change "added costs" to "significant costs" • Second Paragraph: remove apostrophe from RPZs • Second Paragraph: (last line) add "to" between "and" — "its" • Second Page (continuation of previous paragraph); add "the Utilities Division" prior to "seeking" and change "a" to "an" • Third Paragraph: change Resolution 2009 -22 to 2009 -224 • Third Paragraph: (last line) add "or a Fire Department connection." to the end of the sentence. • Fourth Paragraph: add "with one abstention" to the end of the sentence. • Signature Line: Remove slash (/) between RPZ and Utilities under title for David Dunnavant David Hurst moved to approve the letter as revised. Second by Mario Valle. Motion carried, II — "Yes "/ 1— "Abstention" (by George Hermanson). r 1 1 J 1,2k.1 it C. Update: School Board Impact Fee Subcommittee — Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager • A copy of the Executive Summary dated October 12, 2010 was distributed to the Committee. The Executive Summary recommended reducing Impact Fees by 50% with a retroactive effective date of October 8, 2010. • The Subcommittee met on April 8h • A copy of the draft of the School Impact Fee Update Study prepared by Tindale- Oliver, dated March 31, 2011, was distributed to the DSAC members. • There were changes to credit calculations, land values (declined), and construction costs from the 2006 Study. Reed Jarvi asked what will happen to the reduced rates at the end of the recommended two -year period. Amy Patterson replied that the Board has several options: To keep the 50% rates in effect, or • To bring to the Study Rates into effect. She noted by October, 2012, it will be time to conduct a re- study. It was noted the School Board does not have any reserves in its Impact Fee fund. There was a discussion of land values for future school sites and how the figures were determined. Reed Jarvi considered the explanation by Tindale- Oliver to be inadequate and too high. Mario Valle referred to Table B -3 and noted land values for parcels owned by the School District in the eastern portions of the County have decreased according to the Assessed values in the Property Appraiser's Office. He stated land values in the Estates have dropped by approximately 90 %. Mario Valle moved to approve accepting the School Impact Fee Impact Study and to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Robert Mulhere. Motion carried, 11— "Yes "/ 1— "absent." (Note: George Hermanson briefly left the conference room during the discussion and did not return until after the vote was taken.) D. Project Request Application Questionnaire — Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, GMD Planning & Regulation, and Claudine Auclair, Manager — Business Center • A copy of the draft of the Project Screening Questionnaire was distributed to the members. • The Questionnaire has been reduced by several pages. • An Insubstantial Change can be submitted at the same time as a Building Permit application. • Two separate fees will still be charged. • Claudine Auclair asked for volunteers to serve on a Subcommittee to review potential changes to the Land Development Code (by Amendment) and the Administrative Code. 1612 A10 June 1, 2011 • Reed Jarvi, Robert Mulhere, David Hurst, and Marco Espinar volunteered to serve on the Subcommittee. VIII. Committee Member Comments: • David Hurst noted his comments on Page 8 of the May 4h minutes were not what he intended to state. He requested to change the word "circumference" to "area," and to remove "it is dug 2 to 3 inches deeper" and insert "but it may be allowed to stage at approximately two to three inches higher." Next Meeting Dates: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless noted below.) July 6, 2011 August 3, 2011 September 7, 2011 October 5, 2011 November 2, 2011 December 7, 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 c William Varian, Chairman The Minutes weZaroved by the Board/Committee on U �p 2011, "as submitted" "as amended" [_]. ' A 1612 ?1 T) FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Hermanson, George Harvey DSAC MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ❑ CITY XX3COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: NAPLES COUNTY N/A DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: JUNE 1 , 2 011 ❑ ELECTIVE XX2[ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non- advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1 George H. Hermanson , hereby disclose that on June 1 20 11 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, X inured to the special gain or loss of Collier county Public Utilities Division by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. which (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: 1. Repeal of Resolution No. 2009 -224 which implements RPZs as the only accepted backflow prevention devices on fire systems and return to original double detector check valve assembly system. 2. Request that Public Utilities Division modify the utilities standard manual in Ordinance No. 2004 -31 to allow the use of double detector check valve assembly system on fire systems when the only downstream connection is a fire hydrant or a fire department connection. June 8, 2011 Date Filed re NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 1612 A I I " March 25, 2011 ME'4=S OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COtArY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES . " " "" ......• POLICY ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, March 25, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: James Talano, M.D. Vice Chair: Chief Walter Kopka Rosemary LeBailly, RN Chief Robert Metzger Hiller Fiala v"" Jerry Pinto Henning -� Coyle Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: "1V3 \\ \ Item #: \La'= 2 V':k ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director Jennifer Florin, EMS Administrative Assistant Jeff Page, Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services — Staff Liaison Wayne Watson, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Dan Bowman, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief Medical Services /Community Relations 1612 At March 25, 2011 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chairman Talano called the meeting to order at 3:40 PM and a quorum was established. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Agenda and Minutes: A. Approval of Today's Agenda Jerry Pinto moved to approve the Agenda as submitted Second by Rosemary LeBailly. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. B. Approval of Minutes — January 21, 2011 Meeting: Jerry Pinto moved to approve the mutes as submitted Second by Rosemary LeBailly. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. 3. Old Business: (None) 4. New Business: A. Review of COPCN ( "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ") Ordinance and Recommendations to Board of County Commissioners ( "BCC ") Dr. Robert Tober asked what the specific questions were in reference to the COPCN. Chief Jeff Page stated the County Attorney and the North Naples Attorney have corresponded and provided a draft copy of the Ordinance. Chief Page stated there were two issues that were "sticking" points. • One requirement : COPCN providers are to contract with the County's Medical Director but North Naples has its own Medical Director/ • King County was cited as an example. Kings County has a Chief Medical Director, as well as subsequent Medical Directors for individual Districts or providers, but the Medical Directors report to the Chief Medical Director as his liaisons. Language is to be incorporated into the Ordinance to allow it to be utilized by future providers — it should not be tailored to one specific provider. • For example, if North Naples chooses to hire its own Medical Director to oversee training, and another District wants to be a provider but does not want the extra expense of hiring a Medical Director, adding a specific provision in the Agreement would permit the Office of the Medical Director to be compensated for the work involved in developing new protocols and additional in- services. • The language should allow a COPCN provider to contract their own Medical Director, if they choose, while recognizing the primary Medical Director who will make overall decisions to ensure that one protocol is followed Countywide. (Chief Robert Metzger arrived at 3:45 PM) Chief Page noted the second issue was "ride time." 2 1612 Al 1" March 25, 2011 • The County Manager tasked EMS to "clean up" the COPCN language to allow North Naples to re- qualify when necessary. There is nothing in the document concerning riding -in on ALS calls. • Goal: draft a document for future COPCN providers including how they could achieve their ride times. • North Naples did not want to abide by the 10 -shift requirements currently in the Ordinance, or possibly could not, considering the number of people they have. • North Naples told the Board of County Commissions that on ALS calls, they would continue the care and ride -in on the calls. There was discussion concerning whether the intent was all ALS calls or the ALS calls where treatment had begun. Chief Page met with the District Chiefs on March 24th, and explained when drafting the language with the County Attorney's Office, the goal was to keep it very clean to avoid (as Commissioner Coyle stated) "bickering in the streets" concerning what is ALS' jurisdiction and what is not. • The Protocol is color - coded. BLS is in yellow, so anything in colors other than yellow is an ALS function. • He stated the requirement was changed to "all" ALS — it was very clean and would not cause confusion. The "sticky" component was the clinical time in the back of the unit. Public Sneaker. Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera: • The document is not the final draft of the Ordinance. • Parts of the Ordinance conflict with Florida Statutes — clarification is needed. • He does not want to move forward with a document that is open to legal challenges. He suggested tabling further discussion of the issue until the County Attorney's Office and the District's attorney are able to finalize the document • The conflict affects other areas of the document, such as the determination of ride time. • The BCC's minutes clearly describe North Naples' intention concerning ride time. • With more time, a revised document could be drafted that will be free of conflict with the Statutes and all parties can agree to support. Chairman Talano asked for the specific reference that is in conflict with Florida Statutes. Deputy Chief Aguilera cited page 12 of the draft, under Item "3," Florida Statutes, §401.265. He stated a licensed provider is required to either contract with or employ its own Medical Director and an Ordinance cannot force a licensed provider in one direction or another.. He suggested if the document were worded differently, it would meet North Naples' stated intention, which is to adhere to the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee. 3 1612 A11 ' March 25, 2011 Vice Chairman Kopka asked if "ride time" referred to after ALS had begun [treating the patient] or to maintaining certification. Deputy Chief Aguilera replied the District's position is if a District paramedic arrives on the scene first and begins ALS care, there will be a movement with the patient to the hospital. Chief Page referenced a letter from Chief Stokes and cited, "The District recommendation is that anytime a District paramedic provides ALS services, or if the nature of the patient's condition warrants, the District paramedic will participate in the transfer of the patient to the hospital. " Dr. Tober added if the EMS paramedic stated an extra pair of hands were needed, the District paramedic should ride in. Chief Metzger cited the language of the Ordinance (See page 15, paragraph "G," under "Certification "): "At minimum, the paramedic must work in that capacity not less than one full month's work shift annually, or in the case of non- transport ALSproviders, must accompany an attended patients on a minimum of all ALS transports from scene to hospital. " He continued the statement eliminated the ALS capability of both the responding engine company and the area's medic transport unit. It is reasonable that, if the Fire Department paramedic initiates ALS care, the FD medic should ride in. He stated the Ordinance would affect any other Fire Department organization that may apply for COPCN in the future. Chief Metzger reiterated that if the Fire Department paramedic initiates ALS care, he should ride in. If an FD paramedic arrived after- the -fact, and care had been initiated by an EMS paramedic, to compel the FD paramedic to ride -in would not be a good use of resources. Dr. Tober agreed. He suggested amending the sentence to read: " ... must accompany an attended patient on a minimum of all ALS transports from scene to hospital if initiated by the ALS engine paramedic. " It was noted: • North Naples intention was to augment the service — not replace it. • The target goal was to ensure that the paramedics have a reasonable level of competency in providing pre - hospital care — in all facets of care. • The idea is to improve delivery with an opportunity to respond to concurrent calls. Dr. Tober added a second sentence, "In times of dire medical need, the transport medic may request the presence of the ALS medic as an extra pair of hands. " Chairman Talano suggested adding Dr. Tober's suggestions to the document as clarifying and appropriate. Deputy Chief Aguilera noted: • The COPCN Ordinance is in the process of being revised/rewritten, and • The Public Safety Authority Ordinance is also being drafted. o The PSA Ordinance mentions " ... the responsibilities and functions of this potential Authority which include review and involvement in the issuing and review of a COPCN Ordinance. " 4 1612 1,1114 March 25, 2011 He concluded while the County's Attorney and the District's attorney are working through the language issues, there might also be some movement in the PSA Ordinance which could further impact the COPCN Ordinance. He stated that at some point the COPCN Ordinance must reference the PSA — if the Public Safety Authority becomes reality. The two documents dovetail together. Chief Page cited North Naples' statement from the BCC Minutes: "We are committed that if we start ALS services prior to EMS, or if the patient's condition meets the additional expertise, we will go to the hospital with the patient. " Deputy Chief Aguilera confirmed the statement encompassed North Naples' commitment. Dr. Tober: The Protocol states the starting of a prophylactic IV is in the green Protocol. The group could decide to move starting an IV to the yellow Protocol because some EMTs could theoretically start an IV. To avoid any type of contest in the field between an arriving medic and the medic who was first on the scene as to whether this is or is not ALS, it must be black - and- white. Deputy Chief Aguilera reiterated the intent was to be smart about delivering care and to never take shortcuts. Chief Robert Metzger stated several of points made by Jorge Aguilera had also been discussed during the Fire Chiefs' Association Meeting held on March 24th. • The Association represents all of the responders who make pre - hospital responses to patients in Collier County. • The goal is to ensure the changes made result in a non - contentious document. He explained he was late due to a call from the County Manager. The urgency is due to a deadline imposed on the County Manager by the Board of County Commissioners to produce this work - product. He continued the County Manager understands that if the EMS Board, in reviewing the COPCN Ordinance, determines there are a number issues creating concern within the First Responders or within medical direction, more direction is necessary before the EMS Board can recommend adoption of the document to the BCC. Chief Metzger moved to recommend tabling review and discussion of the COPCN Ordinance until there has been an opportunity for further legal consultation to remove those areas that are currently in dispute. (No second was made in support, and the Motion failed) Chief Metzger noted Chairman Talano has the authority to call for an additional EMS Board meeting to be scheduled prior the June l Ot' meeting. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated if the PSA Ordinance were available, both documents could be reviewed concurrently. 1612 Art f " March 25, 2011 It was noted a draft of the PSA Ordinance is available and is being reviewed by different groups. Chief Page offered the following revised language for inclusion in the COPCN Ordinance: `At a minimum, the paramedic must work in that capacity not less than one full month's work shift annually, or in the case of non - transport ALS providers, if ALS services are provided prior to EVE transport arrival, or if the patient's condition meets that additional level of expertise, the ALS non - transport provider will accompany the patient on the ALS transport from scene to hospital. " Deputy Chief Aguilera requested an opportunity to review the language. Chief Metzger stated transport was not the sole issue. The Fire Chiefs inquired as to who as paying for the various equipment, as well as the rates being charged by the County for the use of the Medical Director. Additionally, what rights, if any, were retained by the organizations contracting for medical services and what are their expectations concerning the services to be provided. He concluded the issues raised were not answered and the Fire Chiefs' opinion was the document was not ready to be finalized. He suggested executing a Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") between the parties while the larger issues were under consideration. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated neither the County's Attorney nor the District's attorney have signed off on the Ordinance as the final draft. Discussion ensued as to whether or not there as an effort to delay modifying the COPCN Ordinance until after the Public Safety Authority was established. Dr. Tober stated there was agreement on the ride times for ALS- initiated calls and suggested voting on the issue alone. Deputy Chief Aguilera agreed that setting forth a position between the parties should be the first step and the agreement could be incorporated into the COPCN before it was finalized. He offered to draft a statement by the end of next week for review by the Medical Directors. Discussion ensued as to what was to be included, Protocol and the color -coded chart, modification of the Protocol, existing exceptions to the Protocol via MOU with ALS providers with reference to distribution of certain drugs in the field. Chief Metzger asked, "At what point do we all agree that the Fire Department Paramedic rides in with the patient ?" Dr. Tober confirmed the color -coded chart in the Protocol categorized procedures, and there was no ambiguity currently. He continued an IV is started on a patient because there are significant reasons to do so, and meets the criteria for ALS. 0 1612Ai1 March 25, 2011 Dr. Tober stated he would be comfortable agreeing on two issues: • That if they go into the green protocol, they are taking the patient to the hospital and • We will always be open to modification of how we allocate the colors in the Protocol. There was further discussion between Dr. Tober and Deputy Chief Aguilera concerning the use of non - medicated IVs. Chief Metzger inserted the incidents discussed incurred infrequently, if at all, and recalled only one dispute that was resolved after -the -fact. He suggested fairly simple language could be utilized to address the concern, and the suggestions could be sent to the attorneys who are revising the more contentious issues. Dr. Tober stated the first, and cleanest option is to keep the color -coded Protocol at yellow, blue and green — knowing if you move into green, the patient goes to the hospital. Chief Metzger concurred. He noted as the system evolves and recognized the need to modify a process, it could be revised as warranted in the future. Chief Page suggested including the following language: " ... or in the case of non - transport ALS providers, i.e., Fire Department medics, if ALS services are provided prior to EMS or if the patient's condition meets that initial level of expertise, they must accompany the patient from scene to hospital. " The Chief noted the following statement was made by Deputy Chief Aguilera during the BCC meeting: "We are committed that if we start ALS services prior to EMS, or if the patient's condition meets that additional level of expertise, we will for continuum of care go to the hospital with the patient. " Chief Metzger amended his initial motion and moved to approve tabling discussion and revision of the COPCN document for the time being. Second by Vice Chairman Kopka. Carried unanimously, S — 0. Chief Metzger moved to recommend that the EMS Board approve recommending to the Board of County Commissioners to approve amending Paragraph "G" entitled "Certification" on Page 12 in the COPCN Ordinance to adopt the language suggested by Chief Page as stated above. Second by Vice Chairman Kopka. Carried unanimously, S — 0. B. CCSO Release of AED Information Vice Chairman Kopka provided background information: • Both private and public AEDs ( "Automated External Defibrillator ") were registered with the local EMS provider • The information (name, address, and phone number) was entered into the EMS Dispatch computer system 7 1612 At ION March 25, 2011 • In 2010, the Collier County Sheriffs Office stated releasing this information violated Florida Statutes, § 365.171 (12) • He cited a memo from Commander Bill Rule, dated February 18, 2010 He requested the EMS Board to recognize that AEDs are critical piece of emergency equipment and endorse legislature to amend Florida Statutes, § 365.171 (12) Dr. Tober explained the current 911 system was to be augmented by the proposed "ATRUS Program," a fully automated system capable of informing a caller of the location of an AED unit. The attorneys for the CCSO objected, claiming the law would be broken. Vice Chairman Kopka moved to approve endorsement by the EMS Policy Advisory Board to support the repeal of Florida Statutes, § 365.171 (12) which prohibits the release of an address of a person requesting emergency service or reporting an emergency by accessing an emergency communications "911" system for purposes of accessing an AED. Second by Jerry Pinto. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. 5. Staff Reports: • Chief Page • He and Chief Metzger will meet to explore starting an ALS Engine Program at Golden Gate, including moving a unit into Station #73. • There are vacancies and he will ask the County Manager if some positions may be filled. • Fuel costs are projected to be as high as $500,000 next year. • IT expenses are also rising. 6. Public Comment: (see above — Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera) 7. Board Member Comments: (None) 8. Next Meeting Date: June 10, 2011 at 3.30 PM (Note. An additional meeting may be scheduled) There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by order of the Chair at 5:00 PM. 8 1612 411"1 March 25, 2011 COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD James T 1 no, AD., Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board! mmittee Chair on iQ) �y ,2011, as presented r — or as amended [V M 1612 A-114 April 15, 2011 �C�III� t MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD .............. MEETING April 15, 2011 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 4:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: James Talano, M.D. Vice Chair: Chief Walter Kopka VX Rosemary LeBailly, RN (Excused) Fiala Chief Robert Metzger Hiller Hennin Jerry Pinto Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director Jeff Page, Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services — Staff Liaison Jennifer Florin, EMS Administrative Assistant Maria Hernandez, EMS Administrative Assistant Wayne Watson, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Dan Bowman, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief, Medical Services /Community Relations Misc. Corres: Orly Stolts, Chief, North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District r Date: cM\-j6\ \ \ Item #: La=2W �_ , 1 1612 Al, I April 15, 2011 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Vice Chairman Kopka called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM and a quorum was established. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Agenda and Minutes: A. Approval of Today's Agenda Chief Robert Metzger asked what had transpired since the last regularly scheduled meeting that necessitated calling today's special meeting. It was his understanding the topic on the Agenda was tabled until the legal issues were resolved. Chief Jeff Page responded while there may never be agreement between the parties, it was determined the issue would be taken to the Board of County Commissioners for a decision. Each party will have an opportunity to present their case before the Board. Chief Metzger asked what information was received that resulted in the meeting being called. He stated he was not aware of any new information. Vice Chairman Kopka stated changes were made to the original Ordinance and the meeting was convened to address /discuss the changes and to make recommendations to the Board, as discussed during the previous meeting. Chief Metzger noted questions were raised during the previous meeting concerning whether or not some portions of the Ordinance were consistent with Florida Statutes. He asked if the questions were resolved and if Chief Page had received information from EMS' attorney. Chief Page stated he spoke with the County Attorney and was informed by County Manager Leo Ochs that the issue would be placed on the Agenda for BCC's 2nd meeting in May. He further stated he agreed to accept the proposed language concerning the Statute issue, and would read the language into the record. The other changes in the document were agreed to during the previous Policy Advisory Board meeting (March 25, 2011), and he would read those changes into the record. He noted the County Attorney's office stated no additional changes would be made and the document was to be brought before the Board of County Commissioners. Vice Chairman Kopka called for a Motion on the Agenda. Chief Metzger moved to approve the Agenda as submitted Second by Jerry Pinto. Carried unanimously, 3 - 0. 3. Old Business: A. Review of COPCN ( "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ") Ordinance and Recommendations to Board of County Commissioners ( "BCC ") (A copy of the Ordinance in draft format was distributed to the Members.) Chief Jeff Page referred to Page 2, Paragraph "A," stating he had been in contact with Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera. Suggested changes: • Remove the phrase: "applicable Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code, Section 64 -E," • Insert the phrase: "the Collier County Medical Director's protocol." OA 1612 7111^ April 15, 2011 Chief Metzger noted the references to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code were deleted and asked why it was done. He stated his preference was to keep the statutory citations as well incorporate the suggested language. (Chairman James Talano arrived at 4:09 PM Vice Chairman Kopka stated the reference was to Advanced Life Support for local protocols. Chief Metzger stated local protocol must comply with Florida Statutes which sets the minimum. Chief Page noted variances can be requested from the State. Chief Metzger stated retaining the references could avoid a potential issue if a local protocol was contrary to, or less than, Florida Statutes. Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera agreed with Chief Metzger and stated because it is a legal document, the definition of "ALS" should stay consistent with the statutory language that already defines it. The statutory reference should be retained because the Statutes always trump local language. He expressed concern that the draft did not contain the most recent recommendations discussed by the attorneys (JeffKlatzkow, Jennifer White, and Laura Donaldson). Chief Page confirmed the language was removed to address the Collier County Medical Director's Protocol because, in the document, the Protocol means ALS. He stated the ^ document could be drafted to include any definition. Dr. Robert Tober suggested the document could be rephrased to state "as defined first by the Collier County Medical Director's protocol and, secondarily, by Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. " Chief Metzger noted the document cited State Statutes in other places. He suggested the Statute's definition could be expanded as follows: "applicable Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code, Section 64 -E, and the Collier County Medical Director's protocol. " Dr. Tober stated he would not object as long as there was nothing in the Statutes and the Code to contradict the definitions of the protocol. Vice Chairman Kopka turned the meeting over to Chairman Talano. Deputy Chief A.guilera noted the correct Section of the Florida Administrative Code is 64 - "J ". He stated the Section could also change from year to year. Suggested changes: "Advanced Life Support (ALS) shall mean procedures conducted as defined in applicable Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code, and the Collier County Medical Director's protocol." Consensus: The changes to Paragraph "A" on Page 2 were accepted. Chief Metzger suggested amending the definition of "Rescue Service" on Page 2 under Paragraph "J." 3 1612 Al!" April 15, 2011 Dr. Tober proposed adding (non ALS) to follow "Rescue Service." Suggested changed.- "Rescue Service" will be changed to "Rescue Service (non -ALS)" on Page 2, Paragraph "J," and on Page 3, under Section Four, Paragraph "A" of the draft. Consensus. The changes were accepted. Chief Metzger referred to Section Twelve on Page 6. He suggested Section "A" should state that a Class 1 transport may or may not elect to transport patients. The Section does not discuss whether there must be the capacity to transport. If the intent of the Section is to state that transport capacity is mandatory for Class 1, it should be described. Dr. Tober stated the determining factor is whether or not the patient needs transport. Chief Page noted a service would not be in Class 1 without transport capability. He questioned how could a service elect to transport if it did not have transport capability. Deputy Chief Wayne Watson maintained the intent of the Section was patient - specific because a transport agency is not mandated to take every patient who calls for service to hospital. It is the reason for the separate Classes and an agency that will not transport would be segregated to Class 3. Chief Page stated ALS Engines that apply for a COPCN do not want to meet the same ride requirements as in Class 1. The reason for the separation of Classes is to make it easier to maintain compliance. Dr. Tober suggested adding: " mayor may not elect to transport patients based on medical severity. " Chief Metzger stated the wording does not compel the need to create Class 3. Suggested changes: • The title shall read: "Class 1: ALS Transport with Transport Capabilities" • "An EMS Operator with the capability of rendering on- the -scene pre - hospital ALS services with transport capability. They may or may not elect to transport patients based on medical necessity." Consensus. The changes to Paragraph "A" were accepted. Chief Page read the language proposed by the North Naples' attorney under paragraph 3 on Page 10: "3. Class 3 certificate holders shall contract with the County for $ (to be negotiated) per year for administrative services offered by the Office of the Medical Director, including the creation and update of medical protocol and other general support. The amount paid per year shall automatically increase by the Consumer Price Index, but any increase shall not exceed five percent (5 %) per year." He noted Paragraph 4 was added: "4. The Medical Director for the Class -3 certificate holder shall work cooperatively with the County's Office of the Medical Director to ensure 4 1612 Al I April 15, 2011 continuity of care. The Medical Director for the Class -3 certificate holder shall not delegate or relinquish any responsibilities identified in Section 401.265, Florida Statutes, and associated Florida Administrative Code rules." Chief Page stated the language is similar to King's County and ensures the Medical Director for a COPCN Applicant will abide by Dr. Tober's protocol. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated the intent is to ensure the language meets the statutory requirements and is enforceable. He cautioned the attorneys may not have finalized the language. Consensus: (to be determined by the attorneys for the County and the parties) Chief Metzger referred to the last sentence of Paragraph `B," under Section 8, on Page 10. He suggested the operator must be licensed to transport but the transporter is not the only one able to assess and treat patient. Dr. Tober suggested keeping the first sentence as is, Le, "Every call for service shall be answered promptly." Suggested changes: • "ALS Engines shall appropriately assess, treat, and package the patient(s)." • "The patient(s) shall then be loaded and transported by an operator that is licensed to transport without being subject to unreasonable delays." • The remainder of Paragraph B remains the same. Consensus. The changes were approved. Deputy Chief Aguilera referred to Paragraph "A" on Page 10 concerning "Twenty -Four Hour Service" and cited the double - permit requirements, i.e., a vehicle permit issued by the State and a permit issued by the Board, as duplicative. He noted the County's permitting process does not allow for updating in the event a vehicle is changed or removed from service and questioned the need for the duplication. Florida Statutes does not identify a County - issued vehicle permit as necessary. Chief Page stated when a COPCN application is submitted to the County, the apparatus must be listed and identified. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated he was referring to the permitting process, not the COPCN application process. He reiterated there was no statutory support for the double - permit requirement. The purpose of the reviewing/revising the draft is to simplify it and eliminate redundancies. Chief Page referred to Paragraph G on Page 12 and noted the language had been revised at the last Policy Board meeting as follows: "At minimum, the paramedic must work in that capacity not less than ^ one full month's work shift annually, or in the case of non- transportALS providers, if ALS services are provided prior to EMS transport arrival, 1612 A41" April 15, 2011 or if the patient's condition requires that additional level of expertise, the ALS non - transport provider will accompany the patient on the ALS transport from scene to hospital" Chief Metzger questioned the intent of the language. He stated his understanding was if an ALS First Responder arrives on the scene and initiates ALS patient care, they shall accompany that patient with the ambulance to the hospital — which is appropriate. He continued if ALS care is not initiated by the First Responder and is subsequently started by the EMS Responders who arrive in the transport unit, there is no obligation on the part of the ALS First Responder paramedic to ride to the hospital unless it is medically necessary. Dr. Tober stated unless the EMS paramedic asks for an additional pair of hands. Chief Metzger agreed that the EMS' request must be respected. Chief Page stated two issues were being discussed: (1) continuity of care, and (2) the revised language is to replace the ride time component of ten shifts. Chief Metzger noted it was discussed at the previous Policy Board meeting, but the language read by Chief Page was not discussed. Chief Page referred to the second sentence in Paragraph G ( "Certification ") which states, "Each paramedic must work with a Collier County EMS ambulance for a sufficient length of time for the ambulance service medical director ^ to properly judge his capability." He stated North Naples does not want to do the ten shifts and they agreed to the terms in the revised sentence as noted in the Minutes for the March 25th Policy Board meeting, and it was almost a word - for -word quote from Laura Donaldson. He asked if North Naples doesn't agree, will it be required to observe any ride time requirements. Chief Metzger stated he is a stickler for gm mnar and sentence structure; he could not infer what Chief Page stated from what was written. He suggested restructuring the sentence. Additionally, he is opposed to the language because he believes it would unnecessarily remove ALS capability from the field. Chief Metzger clarified if an ALS First Responder paramedic begins patient care, he must follow through and ride to the hospital. If he hasn't and if the actual ALS care was rendered by the EMS paramedic, and if the medical situation does not require an additional pair of hands, the First Responder should remain in the field with his apparatus. It was noted the patient's condition must require the additional level of expertise. Chief Page stated the goal was to provide a "very clean" document to eliminate confusion in the field. The EMS paramedic is to have the ability to ask for assistance or ride in, if necessary, from the ALS paramedic. He further stated if the option to ride in is only when it is "critical," who determines when a situation is critical. Chief Metzger reiterated the transporting medic should determine if he needs assistance; he confirmed he could not support requiring the First Responder to ride in on every call. The First Responder should ride in only if another set of ALS - skilled hands is medically necessary. Con 1612 M114 April 15, 2011 Vice Chairman Kopka quoted from the minutes of the January 25, 2011 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners concerning the COPCN request: Richard Yovanovich, Esq: "The risk management question, either I didn't make it clear, but from a risk management standpoint, our paramedic — if they started ALS service — was always going to follow through with the patient from the initial contact all the way through to the hospital. They were going to ride in the ambulance in the back with the patient." Deputy ChiefAguilera: "As Richard said, one of the things in this "Continuity of Care" issue — what we intend to do — have offered multiple times — is that any time one of our paramedics is on the scene first and starts Advanced Life Support and/or if the patient's condition, illness, or injury requires an additional set of expert hands, we will pull our paramedic and transport to the hospital with Collier County EMS." Deputy ChiefAguilera: "We are committed that if we start ALS services prior to EMS or if the patient's condition meets the additional expertise, we will for "Continuity of Care" go to the hospital with the patient." Commissioner Henning. "Will there be any negative effects to the existing hospital? And, Jorge, you said you would provide paramedics to ride on the ambulance to the hospital ?" Deputy ChiefAguilera: "Correct. We currently, when we do it, will either make arrangements for one of the Battalion Chiefs or one of our engines to go pick up the paramedic." Chief Metzger stated the one point of contention is what defines — or how to address — the "medically necessary" requirement for the paramedic from the ALS First Responder to ride in with the ambulance. Dr. Tober replied the ambulance paramedic requests another set of hands. Vice Chairman Kopka said there has never been an issue in the past. The difference currently is if they start ALS they will also provide the medic to transport to the hospital. Chief Metzger concurred. He outlined a possible scenario: ALS care is not started by the ALS First Responder (i.e., the Fire Department); he institutes BLS. EMS arrives and institutes ALS care. If the patient's condition is so critical that it requires another pair of ALS - skilled hands, and the medic asks for help, the Fire Department paramedic has to ride in. 7 1612 'Ali" April 15, 2011 He continued that Chief Page has stated if ALS care or if procedures that are considered to be ALS are started, the Fire Department medic should be required to ride in. Dr. Tober asked if a Fire Department medic is on scene first and begins BLS care, and EMS arrives — would EMS still take that Fire Department paramedic to the hospital if extra hands were not needed. (The general response was "no.') Chief Page stated two different issues were being addressed and asked how the ride time component should be addressed. Chief Metzger objected, stating the ride time component was being wrapped into the issue. His goal, as an Operating Chief, is to keep ALS resources in the field unless a patient's condition requires the ALS provider ride in to the hospital. Dr. Tober stated the ride time is unknown because the system is new and has never been operated before. He noted it can be tracked. He further stated everyone else who carries drugs does have mandatory ride time, so North Naples is operating as an exception to the rule. He reiterated if ALS is started, the Fire Department medic will go in the back of the ambulance. If BLS is started by the Fire Department, the medic will not be required to accompany the patient unless requested to do so by the EMS medic. Chief Metzger concurred. ^ Vice Chairman Kopka presented a scenario for purposes of clarification: ABC Fire Department arrives on the scene; the patient has chest pains; an IV is started and nitro is given — this is ALS care and the Fire Department medic will accompany the patient to the hospital. ( "Agreed. ' In the second scenario, the medic needs help to intubate a patient and requested a second set of hands — the Fire Department will provide its medic to assist. ("Agreed') Deputy Chief Aguilera stated Marco Island will establish a similar program, "Utilization of District Personnel during Patient Transport." "Procedures: Specific to the individual call types or situations listed below, a Firefighter/Paramedic will be assigned to assist in the back of the Medic Unit while enroute or responding to the hospital: a. Cardiac /traumatic arrest b. Trauma Alert to include paramedic judgment c. Code - Save -a -Heart / Audicor d. Code - Save -a -Brain e. Code - Save -a- Breath (CHF) / Audicor f. Any Alert LOC with the potential for Respiratory or Hemo - Dynamic collapse g. Behavior emergencies which pose a potential risk to emergency personnel h. Any patient type with the potential for respiratory, hemo- dynamic collapse and/or life threatening dysrhythmias 1612 'Ail" April 15, 2011 i. Serious poisoning and. /or overdoses j. Any acutely ill pediatric patient with the potential for compromise k. Any time a District credential paramedic begins ALS care, as defined in the Common Medical Protocol, prior to the arrival of a Collier County EMS Paramedic 1. CC EMS Company Officer judgment It is important to note that the Collier County EMS paramedic has the ultimate responsibility on deciding the number and type resources necessary for the appropriate and safe transport to the hospital." Deputy Chief Aguilera continued "the street" usually decides when an extra pair of hands is needed — no one has been afraid or too intimidated to act — and it has worked well. We need to go a better job tracking it and providing the information. He stated Chief Stolts is ready to sign the policy statement. Chief Stolts noted the key is to keep two Advanced Life Support units from being gone on one call. Vice Chairman Aopka moved to accept the changes to the draft as outlined above. Second by Jerry Pinto. Chief Metzger asked if a draft copy of the proposed changes to the Ordinance would be available before the document was presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. 4. New Business: Chief Page asked Deputy Chief Aguilera and Chief Stolts to lead the discussion of other issues and provided the following background: • City of Naples responds to all calls Alpha with lights on and sirens • North Naples responds to some Alpha calls but not all and, typically, not to nursing homes if it is anything less than a Delta call • There is no uniformity of response within the County • Goal: To develop a basic response protocol to be followed on a County -wide basis Dr. Tober noted one of the issues is that Emergency Medical Dispatch uses a menu of pre- programmed questions. The goal of the questions is to categorize the type of call and the results are sporadic -- sometimes it works well and other times, it doesn't. He suggested the safest thing is to dispatch Fire and EMS simultaneously. "Roll them out the door and have them moving hot." He stated it can take as long as three minutes before an ambulance is dispatched. The type of call can be revised after Dispatch has the questions answered, and the information routed to the units. He further stated another problem is the hand -off between the City's and the County's dispatch systems, especially if the phones are not answered promptly. He concluded the dispatchers are beginning to send units out together. 9 1612 4ii April 15, 2011 Vice Chairman Kopka asked when a 911 medical call is dispatched, is there a reason why ALS would not be dispatched. He cited an example, Engine 40 and Squad 40 are both in the station, but the Engine (which is BLS) took the call for abdominal pain and not the Squad. He noted historically, the ALS unit has been dispatched first. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated it may have been a special situation. He further stated as they expand and put ALS on the vehicles, more Alpha type calls will be answered. Choief Stolts contended to send ALS units to a sprained ankle call would not be the best use of resources when a BLS unit would probably be sufficient. He noted the time of two minutes or more to dispatch a unit is an issue that must be improved. • In North Naples, there are 17 assisted living facilities and nursing homes which have been assessed • North Naples knows which facilities have nursing staff on 24 -hour duty • Each District should be allowed to decide if they will send an ALS unit to an Alpha - level call Chief Page noted the COPCN states that North Naples will respond to all calls and he wondered how it was able to choose which calls to answer. Chief Stolts stated information provided by the State requires that if they are notified of call, they must respond. He further stated he informed the Sheriff's Office that North Naples will not respond to Alpha calls and the CAD has been programmed to not dispatch those calls. Dr. Tober stated his office was criticized because no one is showing up to Alpha calls. Chief Stolts agreed it was not a good situation and stated they have decided to respond to some Alpha calls. There was further discussion on the types of calls and units coming out of zone. It was agreed the procedures needs to be "straightened out." A system that minimizes responses is not safe. Dr. Tober stated his vehicles all contain radios. Chief Metzger noted that several studies have indicated there is no appreciable response time running with lights /sires and running without. He suggested one solution might be to dispatch Fire and EMS units "cold" (simultaneously) but then up /down grade as necessary. The data has shown that an alternative approach is safe and effective. Dr. Tober stated the goal is a universal buy -in to the procedure. Chief Stolts concurred all Districts might "do the same thing" if given an opportunity to discuss the procedure. 5. Staff Reports: (None) 6. Public Comment: (see above — Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera and Chief Orly Stolts) 7. Board Member Comments: (None) 10 1612Ai1' April 15, 2011 8. Next Meeting Date: June 10, 2011 at 3:30 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by order of the Chair at 5:20 PM. COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD "'14 4t, James T la o, M.D., Chairman The Minutes were 9pproved by the Board/Committee Chair on j L, l`' ! �/ , 2011, "as submitted" [,,/I, OR "as amended" L] 11 1612A1i' June 10, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING June 10, 2011 II Naples, Florida il i✓ BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala 1 Chair: James Talano, M.D. Hiller Vice Chair: Chief Walter Kopka Henning -� Rosemary LeBaill RN (Excused) Coyle .% Y Y� Caletta V101, Chief Robert Metzger Jerry Pinto ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director Jeff Page, Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services — Staff Liaison Maria Hernandez, EMS Administrative Assistant Wayne Watson, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Dan Bowman, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Misc. Corres: Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief, Medical Services /Community Date: a\\'b\\ Relations Orly Stolts, Chief, North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District Item: \-4T 2 �A �'- ?S V 1 r , 1612 A11' June 10, 2011 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chairman Talano called the meeting to order at 3:37 PM and a quorum was established. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Agenda and Minutes: A. Approval of Today's Agenda Vice Chairman Kopka moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Chief Metzger. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. B. Approval of Minutes: March 25, 2011 Change: • On Page 7, (Chief Metzger's motion — 3rd line), the correct page referenced in the motion was Page 12 Vice Chairman Kopka moved to approve the Minutes of the March 25, 2001 meeting as amended. Second by Chief Metzger. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. C. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2011 Vice Chairman Kopka moved to approve the Minutes of the April I5, 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by Chief Metzger. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. 3. Old Business: A. COPCN ( "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ") Ordinance Review and Recommendations to Board of County Commissioners ( "BCC ") (A copy of the 15-page Ordinance in draft format was distributed to the Members.) Chief Jeff Page noted the copy of the Ordinance contained the revisions that had been agreed to during the April 15th meeting. He met with Chief Stolts and Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera and noted the attorney for North Naples may have additional language to incorporate. (A two page document containing a draft of Sections 7 and 8 of the Ordinance was distributed by Deputy ChiefAguilera to the Members.) Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera stated the two -page document contained the changes requested by the North Naples attorney. He noted one change on Page 2 of the document was the removal of language from Paragraph "G" (Certification) which became Paragraph "I" (Continuum of Care). The reason for the change was to clarify the language. Chief Page consulted with the County Attorney's Office regarding the changes and the creation of Paragraph "I." He stated while the language was similar, the County Attorney's Office preferred to retain the language contained in Paragraph "I" under Paragraph "G" because it referred to the issue of ride time. A 1612 All June 10, 2011 Deputy Chief Aguilera stated the North Naples paramedics would not be riding for certification purposes. The paramedics ride when it is appropriate for patient care — to provide the appropriate level of service for critical patients. He stated North Naples is not being certified by Collier County Medical Director. He further stated North Naples is committed to provide continuity of patient care, not for certification. He continued creating Paragraph "I" had no impact on the intent of the document. Chairman Talano agreed that Continuum of Care was not a certification issue. Deputy Chief Aguilera concluded North Naples wanted to make clear that its commitment has remained the same. Chief Page stated his impression was the County Attorney's Office would not change its position. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated the premise behind the Certification paragraph was to be certified by the County Medical Director. North Naples' position is it is not their intent — their paramedics ride to provide continuity of patient care. Chief Page suggested changing the title of Paragraph "G" from Certification to Continuum of Care. Deputy Chief Aguilera cautioned if the title change were made, it would necessitate changing the remainder of the Ordinance. He stated the intent was there are Class -1 and Class -2 providers that have specific ride time requirements. For a Class -3 provider, there is a specific Continuum of Care provision made with the Board. He stated the class of providers has always been segregated. For a Class -3 provider, the issue is Continuum of Care and not certification. Chief Page suggested an alternative: Change Paragraph to "Certification /Continuum of Care." Chief Metzger stated the two -page document constitutes the proposal of the attorney for North Naples. He agreed the issue of Continuum of Care is specific to Class -3 providers only. Deputy Chief Aguilera noted Paragraph "G" clearly pertains to Class -1 and Class -2 providers. Creating Paragraph "I" was a "cleaner" option than just changing the title and keeping the language "jumbled in" together. Chief Page stated the County Attorney's Office has a reservation concerning the change due to the removal of language from the ride time element. It is opposed to the removal. He further stated changing the title of Paragraph "G" from Certification to Certification /Continuum of Care satisfies both parties' issues. Dr. Robert Tober provided background information: When he was the only Medical Director over the paramedics, part of his certification criteria included ride time. There are now two Medical Directors and the North Naples Medical Director does not require that. The only issue at stake is whether, and when, the paramedics will ride on to the hospital with EMS. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated North Naples does have an internal credentialing process which requires riding in to the hospital. The changes are from an Ordinance perspective. Inside the department is different from the Ordinance. From an Ordinance perspective, the commitment of North Naples to the Board was to assure the continuity of patient care. North Naples has specifications concerning riding to the hospital. f 612Al t June 10, 2011 He concluded the North Naples' requirements are not linked to the Ordinance. Chief Page again suggested if the Continuum of Care is important, simply change the title of Paragraph "G." Deputy Chief Aguilera suggested writing the Continuum of Care as the Standard and keep the requirements for credentialing and certification as an internal document. Since the requirements for credentialing /certification could change with each new medical director, it became an internal document which would make it easier to revise. The Ordinance clarifies the intent of what will be done. The certification piece would become an internal, department- related policy. He continued, for example, if Golden Gate wanted to become a Class -3 provider and contract with Dr. Tober for credentialing, his internal credentialing procedure requires ride time — as does the North Naples Medical Director. Chief Page countered if a Medical Director is hired who does not require ride time, it will not be a requirement. Deputy Chief Aguilera restated that continuity of care would still be required, as specified in the Paragraph. He continued ride time is still required under continuity of care, but what is alleviated are specifics concerning the number of hours or shifts per month, etc. Chief Metzger asked if ride time was a component required by Florida Statutes. Chief Page stated a paramedic cannot just ride on an engine and become certified. Chief Metzger asked how much latitude would an individual Medical Director have relating to the amount of ride time a State - certified paramedic must invest in any given year. It was noted "zero to unlimited — there is a lot of latitude." Chief Metzger suggested since it is the responsibility of the Medical Director, why not let individual Medical Directors determine the amount. If it is not required by the State, he questioned whether the language was necessary in the Ordinance. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated North Naples' position is the continuity of care is important. If a medic starts ALS, it is important that he /she accompany the patient to the hospital. Chief Metzger stated he agreed with the concept of Continuum of Care. He noted there are systems that will pass patient care from one paramedic to another. He further stated Medical Directors have complete latitude via State Statutes and questioned why it should be made more restrictive on a local level. Chief Page noted the Board of County Commissioner — through the Ordinance — would control whether or not ride time will be required. If the parties agree that ride time is not necessary or appropriate, the requirement can be removed. Chief Metzger stated the Board could decide to allow the Medical Director to determine how much ride time, if any, was appropriate and the Ordinance would permit subsequent medical directors to make their own decision. Chief Page noted if the flexibility were available, a Fire Chief could "doctor shop" to hire a Medical Director who would do whatever the Chief wanted. (Jerry Pinto arrived at 3:50 PM.) Chief Metzger acknowledged the possibility, but stated the Medical Director should be 4 �a 1612 June 10, 2011 the "go -to guy" for a Fire Chief and consulted concerning how to provide the best care for residents in the area. Dr. Tober remarked that not all Fire Chiefs share his opinion. Chief Metzger stated while keeping a restrictive provision in the Ordinance may not be problematic for the County's Medical Director, it would be better to remove the restriction from the Ordinance and compel the medical directors to assume that responsibility. Chief Page noted without the requirement, there would be no safeguard for the public that there would ever be any ride time — it is a "safety net" to ensure there is a component for ride time. He suggested an option is to modify the amount of time specified. Chief Metzger asked what the basis was for the specific requirement in the Ordinance. Chief Page cited the example of the City of Memphis, which requires twelve hours on an engine and twelve hours in an ambulance for every paramedic fire fighter. The Ordinance requires a paramedic to ride less than one shift per month. Dr. Tober stated the requirement resulted from the EMS's experience with EMTs who had ridden for six months to one year before they continued onto paramedic training. He cited an example of a physician who is required to complete another 2 to 3 years of clinical rotation after graduating from medical school and completing one year of internship — the purpose was to obtain constant exposure to a variety of patients. He further stated EMS ride time was cut to the bare minimum to maintain the integrity of the system. He noted the focus of ride time for North Naples is the issue of Continuum of Care because the North Naples Medical Director has a different opinion of what is necessary for the paramedics under him. He concluded in North Naples, bare minimum ride time is not a predicate for certification as it is for EMS. Deputy Chief Aguilera reiterated North Naples paramedics have a requirement. Dr. Tober noted the North Naples requirement is distinct from the EMS requirement. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated the EMS requirement is predicated on time on a truck while North Naples is predicated on the number of times the paramedic touches the patient while in the truck. He clarified the requirement for ride time in North Naples was "internal" and was a commitment made to the Board of County Commissioners. North Naples' focus is to ride to provide continuity of care for the patient. Chief Page reiterated his suggestion to re -insert the language that was previously stricken: "... or the individual Medical Director of the licensed agency" in Paragraph «G » Vice Chairman Kopka supported the ride rime component and stated having different medical directors could result in fragmented service with different levels of care The purpose of the Ordinance is to establish a standard and ensure the same level of care regardless of where a person resides in the County. Chairman Talano noted when physicians are trained in their specific specialties the training is based on their experience and physician - patient contact. There are standard protocols — as minimum requirements — that every resident must fulfill. If not, the physician will not be able to carry out the duties of the particular residency or specialty. Chief Metzger stated a paramedic doing ride time receives no value from it unless he /she All p t 16:12 Al I June 10, 2011 is treating patients, and the needed patient contact time is accomplished through the Continuum of Care. Dr. Tober agreed if there was Continuum of Care. He cautioned if the nature of the initial contact was to "tag and release" to the EMS paramedic in a situation where ALS was not initiated, there would be very little ongoing patient care. (Chief Orly Stolts arrived at 4:05 PM.) Chief Metzger referred to the last sentence in Paragraph "G ", asked if it was new language and requested clarification because it was open to interpretation. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated he would obtain clarification. Chief Page noted "Class -I" did not necessarily refer only to Collier County EMS — another provider could come into the area. Chief Metzger agreed the sentence was confusing as to whether it applied to the entire paragraph or just the previous sentence. He again stated he would obtain clarification. Vice Chairman Kopka referred the Members to Page 1 of the document. Discussion ensued. Chief Page referred to Page 10 of the Ordinance draft ( #3 and #4). Regarding the subject of equipment, it was stated the purpose of the language was to coordinate the type of equipment utilized. It was mentioned Florida Statutes allows each Medical Director of each agency to develop his/her own equipment list. Chief Stolts noted North Naples upgraded its monitors recently even though it may be a year before Collier EMS decides to also upgrade. He agreed the same equipment should be used by each service. Chief Page stated that to leave options open will not lead to agreement. Deputy Chief Aguilera agreed that, in the future, opinions would come from the Office of the Medical Director. He stated the North Naples attorney expressed concern about what would happen if there were disagreements and that was the reason why the language was not more specific. Chief Page suggested it would be very helpful if North Naples' attorney attended the next Policy Advisory Board meeting. Chief Stolts stated he brought the agreed changes to their attorney for review and the document represented her concerns. He did not think the intent was changed. Chairman Talano stated that the Board members, having reviewed the handout, had objections to her clarifications. He asked Chief Stolts had the authority to make changes. It was noted the document provided to Board of County Commissioners was different from what was provided to the Members. It was agreed that the members would only work from the document provided by Chief Page which contained the changes approved by the Policy Advisory Board at the April meeting. The following revisions to Section 7, Paragraph "3" were suggested: • Third Line: Remove the semi -colon following the word "protocol" 161 . 2 June 10, 2011 • Add the revised last sentence, i.e., "The Office of the Medical Director shall not be presumed to be the medical director for a Class -3 Operator for purposes of this Ordinance or Florida Statutes. " Chief Page will meet with Deputy Chief Aguilera and Chief Stolts to review the revised Ordinance and incorporate suggested changes prior to the next Policy Advisory Board Meeting. It was again suggested that the attorney for North Naples attend the meeting. Under Section 8, Paragraph "F, " thefollowing revisions were suggested: • Retain the previously removed language and re -insert it at the end of the first sentence: "or the individual Medical Director of the licensed agency. " New Tonic: (Local) Definition of ALS Dr. Tober stated he spoke with Deputy Chief Aguilera and as well as to Deputy Chief Wayne Watson and Deputy Chief Dan Bowman concerning moving two skills to an Intermediate Paramedic category, i.e., starting a TKO IN, or a 3 -lead cardiac monitor. He continued starting either one of those skills would not automatically bind a North Naples paramedic to ride to the hospital. He cautioned the only exception would be if a patient's condition were so severe that the EMS paramedic requested assistance from the Fire Department paramedic to ride in. He continued the change might cut into ride time and patient contact. Chief Page suggested not implementing changes until completion of a trial period to establish the extent of North Naples' current ride time. Vice Chairman Kopka expressed concern about the change in policy and supported keeping the old policy in place stating "... if they start an IV — they ride; if they give medication — they ride ... let's not change that." Chief Page stated his preference was for each paramedic to work ten shifts. He continued the issue of ride time should not be separated from the Continuum of Care paragraph. Chief Stolts reiterated if a paramedic hooked up three -leads to a monitor, and saw nothing that appeared to be a problem, the two ALS units in that zone would still be taken out of service. Dr. Tober noted it could be argued that if a three -lead monitor was hooked up and nothing was determined, why carry it any further. The other side of the argument was if starting an IV or the three -lead alone did not require a paramedic to ride to the hospital, how many times in a 3 -month period would North Naples paramedics ride in with a patient. He stated there is very little actual, ongoing Continuum of Care patient contact. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated the EMS issue was different from the Continuum of Care issue. North Naples position is that if the patient needs and ALS care is started, the paramedic will accompany the patient to the hospital. "That is Continuum of Care — that is for the patient's benefit." He countered starting a three -lead monitor was simply an assessment tool and an administering an UV could be nothing more than prophylactic — they were just good patient care opportunities. "This has nothing to do with augmenting the level of care -- it is simply about ride time." He said the Board of County Commissioners ruled on the proposal to augment the level of care and North Naples committed to it. 7 All r 1612 N11'' June 10, 2011 Dr. Tober noted two issues were vying for the paramedic's attention, and one was to take a common sense approach — to not tie up more units than necessary to take what appears to be a patient to the hospital. Deputy Chief Aguilera suggested the definitions contained in the Ordinance should be examined and clarified. He specifically asked to review the definitions and language. Chief Metzger noted the COPCN license is renewed annually. Data will be generated by North Naples ability to provide service and if there is a concern of either the North Naples Medical Director or the County's Medical Director, then the shortcomings in patient care will be addressed. There will be time to investigate. Chief Metzger made the following motion: "For North Naples to take the original Ordinance draft provided by Chief Page and insert any changes to that language which they propose to be considered and return it to the Policy Advisory Board for consideration as soon as possible. " Second by Vice Chairman Kopka. Chief Stolts suggested meeting with Chief Page to discuss the changes and he would contact the North Naples attorney. Chief Page suggested emailing the Board to review the changes prior to the next meeting. It was noted to avoid any conflict with the Sunshine Law, suggested changes will be emailed to Maria Hernandez to distribute to the Board and all interested parties. Motion carried, 4 — 0. 4. New Business: (None) 5. Staff Reports: (None) 6. Public Comment: (see above — Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera and Chief Orly Stolts) 7. Board Member Comments: (None) 8. Next Meeting Date: August 19, 2011 at 3:30 PM Note: There may be another meeting scheduled prior to August depending upon when the changes to the Ordinance draft are completed. 1612 Ml!" June 10, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by order of the Chair at 4:50 PM. COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD James Talano, M.D., Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee Chair on , 2011, "as submitted" [l, OR "as amended" [_] M 1612 Ma Y I I T" n MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, May 4, 2011' LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County EnvironrrU Sal ..................... Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala t,i" CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon Hiner E CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman Henning Michael Sorrell Coyle r� ►ett� David Bishof Gina Downs ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist Jack McKenna, County Engineer Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Tony Ruberto, Project Manager, Parks and Recreation Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator -J. Date: 3��� Item?-'? �2 r ? # 1612 42" May 4, 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. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Dickman moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. IV. Approval of the October April 13, 2011 meeting minutes Mr. Dickman moved to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Sorrell Carried unanimously 4 — 0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney replaced Jeff Wright at 9:18am VI. Land Use Petitions A. Gordon River Greenway Park Rezone (RZ -PL 2009 -25) and companion item Special Treatment Permit (ST — PL 2011 -677) Section 27 & 34, Township 39, Range 25 East J.P. Marchand, Kimley -Horn and Assoc. and Ray Loraine, Entrix, Inc. provided an overview of the project noting: • The project is located is approximately 124 acres in size, located south of Golden Gate Parkway and East of Goodlette Frank Road. • It is a joint project between Collier County Parks and Recreation Department and Conservation Collier with partnerships from the Naples Zoo and Conservancy of Southwest Florida. • The site is mainly undeveloped except for some areas utilized for overflow parking by the Naples Zoo. • The applicant seeks to develop a public greenway incorporating passive recreational uses such as a multi use pathway, walking trails, Gopher Tortoise Preserve, fishing platform, kayak access, etc. • The trails will consist of boardwalks and a 12 foot wide asphalt walkway. • Parking is proposed in two areas, in the northerly section, off Golden Gate Parkway (55 +/- spaces) and in an area between the Naples Zoo and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida (660 spaces). • The parking area in the vicinity of the Zoo will be a combination of asphalt and grass parking areas (approximately 50 percent of the overall parking area is proposed to be grass). • The project is subject to permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, - � South Florida Water Management District and other Agencies. 2 n 1612 Aa 129 The following issues were raised during Council discussions: • The feasibility of constructing a filter marsh at the easterly end of the parking lot in the area of Naples Zoo. • The feasibility of utilizing pervious pavement for the construction of the parking areas and the 12 foot wide pathway associated with the project. • Concern on the size of the parking area proposed (660 spaces) for Greenway users and the overflow users for the Conservancy and Zoo The Council questioned if a parking analysis has been completed for the project to determine the size of areas required for Greenway users. Mr. Bishof arrived at 9:39 am Ray Loraine and J.P. Marchand noted the parking area in question is designed with depressed medians to assist in stormwater retention. The proposed retention area may be planted with appropriate vegetation to improve treatment of stormwater. The stormwater system is designed to retain any water generated by a storm precipitating 2.8 inches of rainfall or less. Any stormwater which is discharged from the stormwater treatment system during a larger storm event will be treated by the wetland before discharging into the river. Tony Ruberto, Project Manager noted Staff considered use of pervious materials, however are concerned with long term durability and maintenance issues associated with the products (the areas require "vacuuming" on a regular basis to maintain their previous characteristics). The project will meet the requirements of the South Florida Water Management District for stormwater treatment. Barry Williams, Director Parks and Recreation noted there has not been a parking analysis completed for the project. The County continues to consider pervious surfaces, however has ruled them out at this point due to concerns on the long term stability of a pervious material given the amount of traffic which may utilize the area. Other concerns included pervious surfaces may not optimal conditions for all intended users of the pathway (i.e. roller bladers, etc.) The Council expressed concern the project proponents may not have thoroughly considered the feasibility of utilizing pervious materials in construction of the infrastructure within the project. The project should be a showcase for "green" development and given the draft recommendations contained in the proposed Watershed Management Plan, the concept of utilizing green materials should be thoroughly exhausted. 3 612All May 4, 2011 Summer Brown Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist stated County Staff has reviewed the applications and recommends the project be approved with no stipulations. Speaker Gary McNally expressed concern asphalt, given its composition has a tendency to leach oil into the soil and consideration should be given to its impacts on area wetlands. Jack McKenna, County Engineer noted he is not aware of any studies identifying the potential for asphalt to leach oil. Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator noted the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Committee considered utilizing pervious materials in the construction of the pathways, however given the challenges as outlined herein by the project proponents, opted for impervious asphalt. Ms. Downs moved for the applicant return the item to the Environmental Advisory Council after completing the design of a filter marsh (at the east end of the parking lot proposed between the Naples Zoo and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida) and a more serious consideration of utilizing pervious surfaces for the parking lot and 12 wide pathway. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Ms. Downs amended the motion for the applicant return the item to the Environmental Advisory Council after completing the design of a filter marsh and a more serious consideration of utilizing pervious surfaces for the parking lot and 12 wide pathway. The applicant provides a parking analysis for the project. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney stated the applicants are seeking a recommendation from the Council and are not compelled to return the application for review. The Council questioned if Staff would be willing to continue the item. Barry Williams requested a recommendation to deny or approve the application so it may move forward through the permit process. Any comments generated by the Council will be forwarded to any necessary parties, �� ►cJ�.�,,,J�.C,�� /Y►�� .� �� l� � Vic. `T r" `� C �tl� c,, lti C.e'vt,a. Ms. Downs withdrew the motion. ,( Y4t; G VU-Wy-h Mr. Sorrell moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners deny the application due to: 1. Lack of use of pervious materials for the proposed parking lot and 12 foot wide pathway. 2. The lack of a proposed filter marsh on the east end of the proposed parking lot between the Naples Zoo and Conservancy of Southwest Florida. 3. Lack of a parking analysis for the proposed project nc�e., ar�� 6� d� . n 1612 Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously S — 0. Break: 10: 50am Re- convened: 11: 01 am VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. Watershed Management Plan Update Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist provided a memo to the Environmental Advisory Council dated April 25, 2011 — Subject "Staff Summary — May 4, 2011 Watershed Management Plan Workshop Update " for review. Moris Cabezas and Peter deGolian of Atkins provided a Slideshow overview of the Watershed Management Plan. Robert Mulhere, Mulhere and Associates provided an overview on the schedule for adoption and implementation of the Plan. Sneaker Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida provided a Memorandum from the Environmental Resource Regulation Permit Review Staff from Robert Brown, Director of Environmental Resource Regulation Dept. dated November 12, 2009 — "Subject Environmental Resource Permit Water Quality Evaluations for Discharges to Water Bodies that to Do Not Meet State Water Quality Standards. " She noted the memo contains information on how District Staff should treat applications which propose stormwater discharges into impaired waters (water bodies that do not meet State Water Quality Standards). The majority of the projects in Collier County will be subject to the parameters outlined in the memo. When considering future County requirements for projects requiring stormwater treatment, the Conservancy recommends the County retain the current Land Development Code requirements for treating stormwater, in addition to any proposed requirements. B. Update members on projects None IX. Subcommittee Reports None X. Council Member Comments Staff was requested to notify EAC members when the Proposed Fertilizer Ordinance is considered by the Board of County Commissioners. XI. Staff Comments A. Update members on projects 5 012- 1612 May 4, 2011 None XII. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:08 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL rman, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on I .�A // as presented , or as amended ✓ 0 1 I gi Al2 une 1, 1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY _ ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL - i V E D JUL u8 2011 Naples, Florida, June 1, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted �i +C-conty Ccmmissioners business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: 9"/ Fiala Hiller EP Henning -1� Coyle Coletta CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman Michael Sorrell David Bishof Gina Downs ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Chris D'Arco, Principal Environmental Specialist 'vfisc. Corres: Date:- . \ Item #: kk.Az 2vA\2, 1 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. 1�jl,? ll Al2 III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following addition: • Item VII.B.a. - Update on the Gordon River Greenway project. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. IV. Approval of the May 4, 2011 meeting minutes Mr. Dickman moved to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2011 meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 4, addition of paragraph 9 after "Ms. Downs withdrew the motion" Paragraph 9 to read: Andrew Dickman stated that the application is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. Dr. Hushon added that this project includes a Special Treatment Area and should be "green" design to minimize its adverse impacts on the Gordon River Water Quality. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously S — 0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None VI. Land Use Petitions The presenters were sworn in A. Hacienda Lakes Growth Management Plan Amendment CP 2006 -11 Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact DRI- 2006 -AR -10147 Hacienda Lakes Planned Unit Development Rezone PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10146 Sections 11 through 14, 23 through 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 & 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Dwight Nadeau, Planning Manager, RWA, Inc. provided an overview on the project highlighting: • The applications involve 3 separate requests for approval as listed above. • The project is located east of Collier Blvd. between Lord's Way and Sabal -- - Palm Road and is 2,262 acres in size. 2 a 1 6 C?Al 2 June 1, 2011 %-� • The Growth Management Plan Amendment application is a request for the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) to provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the Amendment. • For the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147 and PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10146 applications, the applicant is seeking a recommendation from the EAC the Board of County Commissioners approve the projects. • The Growth Management Plan Amendment is to reconfigure the boundary and increase the size of the Southeast Quadrant of Mixed Use Activity Center No. 7 and increase the maximum allowable density that may be achieved in the Urban Residential Fringe Sub district through the County's Transfer of Development Rights Program. • The Amendment also proposes revisions to the native vegetation requirements, and accesses for the Business Park. • The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) had no objection to the proposal. • The PUD application proposes 1760 residential development units, retail and office space, a proposed school site, preserve areas, etc. • The Florida Sports Park and Collier County Jr. Deputy Program is currently on site and will remain. • The project incorporates a corridor for the Benfield Road project. Ken Passarella, Passarella and Associates, Inc. noted: • The project will require development of lower quality wetlands on the westerly portion of the site in exchange for preserving higher quality wetlands located on the easterly side of the site. • The applicant is in contact with the State of Florida regarding conveyance of some of the preserve lands to the State (Picayune State Forest). • The conveyance is intended to be subject to a management endowment. • The applicant is working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on minimizing impacts on the Florida Panther and other listed species. • An Environmental Resource Permit will be required from the South Florida Water Management District. Emilio Robau, RWA, Inc. noted: • Stormwater runoff will be treated by interconnected lakes with 6 outfalls, 1 into the canal and 5 into the wetlands. • The outfall into the canal will comprised of mainly residential use stormwater. • The overall water flow of the existing site is to the east/south into Henderson Creek (east of the FPL easement) and west into the canal (eRa of the FPL easement). • To help mitigate the urbanization of the basin, the proposed discharge into the canal will be less than now currently exists. Jun 11,40112 • Sabal Palm Road currently acts as a dam to southerly water flow and the project proposes to install additional culverts under the road to assist in re- establishing the hydrology and southerly sheetflow previously associated with the area. • The stormwater system is designed for "retention" until the established control level is reached. Per Council request, Mr. Robau stated he will analyze the composition of the lakes to determine if aeration is required. Brian Barnes of Cardno Entrix provided a brief overview on the construction of the proposed lakes noting the lakes are to be constructed to a depth of 12 feet to 20 feet (to the confining Bonita Springs Marl layer). Chris D'Arco, Principal Environmental Specialist reported the Staff Report "Environmental Advisory Council Meeting of June 1", 2011 " for petitions DRI- AR -10147 and PUDZ-AR- 10 146 recommends approval of the Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact DRI-2006-AR- 10 147 and Hacienda Lakes Planned Unit Development Rezone PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10146 subject to the following recommendations: 1. An updated listed species survey shall be submitted prior to the next Development Order. 2. Installation of the Sabal Palm culvert crossings will occur prior to the first preliminary acceptance. Break. 10: 20am Reconvened.- 10:35am Speakers Brad Cornell, Audubon of Collier County noted he has met with the applicant many times and provided input on the proposal and the applicants have worked with the organization in "good faith." He expressed concern the project disturbs too large an area of wetlands (approximately 440 acres) in lieu of the proposed compensation. He recommended reducing the development footprint and increasing densities. There is an over reliance on mitigation and wetland enhancement (850 wetlands preserve, 440 acres destroyed and 360 acres "enhanced ") as opposed to preservation. He encouraged more restoration for both upland and wetlands as opposed to enhancement. He supports the installation of culverts under Sabal Palm Road and recommends spreader swales be added on the outflows and the applicant coordinate the installations with the County and South Florida Water Management District. Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted the organization has provided input on the proposal and supports increasing density towards the western portion of the property. The Conservancy is still commenting to State and Federal Agencies on the wetland disturbances on site and is concerned with 4 w r 1612Al2 June 1, 2011 the amount of disturbance. The Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan regarding wetlands may need to be re- evaluated (i.e. Policy 6.2.7) as it currently directs jurisdiction of urban wetlands to the South Florida Water Management District and US Army Corps of Engineers. It was noted the project site is identified as an "Environmentally Sensitive Area' in the proposed Watershed Management Plan (Figure 140). Discussion occurred on the concept of increasing densities on the western portion of the site to allow more preservation on the eastern portion of the site. This would need to be addressed by the Collier County Planning Commission. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt Hacienda Lakes Growth Management Plan Amendment CP 2006 -11 subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant discuss with the Collier County Planning Commission, the concept of allowing a greater density than the proposed 2.8 dwelling units per acre for the purpose of protecting more of the Sending Lands located in the eastern portion of the project. Without a second, the motion was not considered. Mr. Dickman moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt n Hacienda Lakes Growth Management Plan Amendment CP 2006 -I1. Second by Mr. Sorrel. Carried unanimously S — 0. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve Hacienda Lakes Hacienda Lakes Development of Regional Impact DRI -2006 AR -10147 subject to the following conditions: 1. An updated listed species survey shall be submitted prior to the next Development Order. 2. The applicant coordinate installation of the Sabal Palm culvert crossings and associated spreader swales with Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District and to occur prior to the first preliminary acceptance. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously S — 0. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve Hacienda Lakes Planned Unit Development Rezone application PUDZ- 2006 AR -10146 subject to the following conditions: 1. An updated listed species survey shall be submitted prior to the next Development Order. 2 The applicant coordinate installation of the Sabal Palm culvert crossings and associated spreader swales with Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District and to occur prior to the first preliminary acceptance. 161 12'". June 1, 2011 Second by Mr. Sorrell Carried unanimously S — 0. VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business A. Presentation of Collier County Draft Watershed Management Plan Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist submitted a draft of the Watershed Management Plan/Executive Summary and provided an overview of the Plan. Staff is looking for final recommendations from the EAC. Peter deGolian and Moris Cabezas of Atkins provided a Slideshow on the Plan which outlined the various stages involved in developing the Plan as well as a list of recommended capital projects. The Council /Staff reviewed the document "Responses to EAC Comments" which was a response to a memo submitted by Chairman Hushon to Peter deGolian, Moris Cabezas, Atkins - Mac Hatcher, Watershed Management Plan Manager, Collier County Government Members of the Environmental Advisory Committee and Members of the Collier County Planning Commission dated May 30, 2011 — Subject: "Other Regulatory Water Management Changes to Improve County Water Quality. " Robert Mulhere, Mulhere and Assoc. provided an update on the adoption and implementation schedule (not including capital projects) and costs associated with the Plan which is approximately 640 days ($147,600) without appointment of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDC) Oversight Committee and 1000 days ($234,000) with the TDR Oversight Committee. The costs associated include "in- house" Staff costs. The Council expressed concern there is not a final draft of the Plan available at this point in time (some section are not yet completed). Based on this, providing final recommendations may be premature. Mr. Hatcher requested any final comments be submitted to him for review. The Plan will not move forward through the adoption process until recommendations have been formulated by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). Chairman Hushon moved to continue the item until next months EAC meeting. Second by Ms. Downs. Speakers Brad Cornell, Audubon of Southwest Florida noted the plan has many positive features but expressed concern the Plan does not provide enough emphasis on wetlands preservation. He recommended the County take more regulatory control of wetlands (especially in the urban area) as opposed to deferring authority to 0 6i2Al2 June , 2011 n other Agencies (South Florida Water Management District, US Army Corps of Engineers, etc.). He will provide final comments to Staff for consideration. Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern the implementation aspects of the plan are concept oriented as opposed to specifics. It will be critical to ensure the BCC understands the importance of providing funding to implement the Plan. The Conservancy has provided comments on the Plan to Staff and Council via a CD. The Conservancy wants to ensure any claims, statements, etc. are a based on scientific facts. Motion to continue the item carried unanimously S — 0. B. Update members on projects Summer Araque Brown, Sr. Environmental Specialist reported the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the Immokalee Area Master Plan on May 24, 2011. The item was continued. a. Gordon River Greenway project — Update The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) will be reviewing the Gordon River Greenway application on June 2, 2011. Ms. Downs moved to authorize Chairman Hushon to address the CCPC on behalf of the Environmental Advisory Council on the Gordon River Greenway application. Second by Mr. Bishof. Motion carried 4 `des — I "no." Mr. Sorrell voted "no." Mr. Sorrell voted "no" as it is unclear on the exact content of the comments. Mr. Dickman noted he may attend the meeting to provide personal comments. IX. Subcommittee Reports None X. Council Member Comments XI. Staff Comments Mac Hatcher reported it his understanding local jurisdictions will not be permitted to regulate the sale of fertilizers after July 1, 2011. The Statewide Model Fertilizer Ordinance was not revised under the most recent Legislative Session. A. Discussion of Digital packets Summer Brown Araque reported Staff is investigating the feasibility of providing meeting packets in a digital format with the basic application documents being provided in paper form as well. 7 161, 2 z ` June 1, 2011 XII. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 1:07 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL h rman, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on °2e as presented , or as amended ✓ �' n 8 ^3 t 16 1 Z Al 2� July 6, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, July 6, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon `'`' VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman Michael Sorrell BY. David Bishof (Excused) Gina Downs Fi;. I 7 Gary McNally (Alternate) Hiiier Henning Coyle ✓ Colette ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Director, Growth Management Division Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist Ray Smith, Pollution Control Department David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Misc. Comes: Date: c*%3A •\ 1 C to: I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. 161 2AT204 July 6, 2011 III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously S — 0. IV. Approval of the June 1, 2011 meeting minutes Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the minutes of the June 1, 2011 meeting subject to the following change: • Page 3, paragraph 3, bullet point 3, line 2 - 3from "...and west into the canal (east of the FPL easement)." to "...and west into the canal (west of the FPL easement.)" Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Chairman Hushon reported she will not be present for the September meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions None VII. New Business Ms. Downs reported she has spoken with representatives from the State of Florida who would be interested in addressing the Council on the ramifications of utilizing pervious pavements in infrastructure improvements. The Council requested Staff to place the item on a future agenda. VIII. Old Business A. Growth Management Plan Amendment CPSP- 2010 -2, Amendment to the Future Land Use Map Series, Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map — David Weeks David Weeks, Director, Comprehensive Planning provided the report "Collier County Growth Management Plan 2010 Cycle Adoption Amendments — Petition CPSP - 2010 -2, Wellhead Protection & Proposed Wellfields & ASRs Map — EAC July 6, 2011" for consideration. He noted: • The Environmental Advisory Council previously recommend the Board of County Commissioners transmit the map to the Department of Community Affairs as depicted on page 6 of 33 of the document "Growth Management Plan Amendment — 2010 Future Land Use Element Map of Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas, Proposed Wellfields, and Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells — November 2010" contained in the Report. • After a recommendation from the Collier County Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners approved transmittal of the map depicted as "Exhibit A" of the Report. • "Exhibit A" depicts an additional protection area for the City of Marco Island Marco Lakes /Henderson, Creek water supply. .t 2 July s.pb tP A 12" • Florida Statutes requires the map identify "Wellfield Protection Areas," not water supplies recharged by surface waters. • After review of the issue, Staff is recommending the map originally recommended by the EAC be adopted as the Marco Lakes site is primarily recharged by surface waters (Henderson Creek), not ground water. During Council discussions, the following concerns were highlighted: • Concern that potential drawdown of groundwater levels by the 9 planned wells in the Orangetree Wellfield may create a negative environmental impact on the ecosystem of the region. • Concern area businesses have the potential to negatively impact the water supplies related to the protection areas for the Immokalee Wellfields. • The map does not identify which surficial aquifer wellfields are modeled. Ray Smith, Pollution Control Department noted in order to protect the Immokalee area wellfields, business are inspected and certified as necessary on an annual basis. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt "Map I - Proposed Future Land Use Map in the Growth Management Plan — Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas, Proposed Wellfields, and ASRs" (page 6 of 33 of the above referenced document — see attached "Addendum A ") subject to the following: 1. The map be revised to identify the aquifers associated with the protections zones. 2. Staff relay the Environmental Advisory Council's concern the planned wells for the Orangetree Wellfield may have negative environmental impacts due to possibly lowering the ground water in the Corkscrew area and CREW lands. Second by Mr. Sorrell Mr. McNally expressed concern the potential groundwater drawdown from the planned wells for Orangetree, Collier County Golden Gate and City of Naples Coastal Ridge Wellfields may have a negative impact on existing water supplies in the Golden Gate Estates region. Ray Smith noted the purpose of the proposed Amendment is to protect identified wellfields from potential land use impacts. The South Florida Water Management District issues permits for proposed water supplies. Chairman Hushon amended the motion to include the original motion and additional condition: 3. Staff relay the Environmental Advisory Council's concern the planned wells for the Collier County Utilities Golden Gate, Orangetree and City of Naples Coastal Ridge wellfields may have negative impacts on the existing water supplies in the region. Second by Mr. Sorrell, Bruce Weinstein, Marco Island Utilities addressed the Council and provided an overview of the City of Marco Island Marco Lakes/Henderson Creek water supply. Motion carried unanimously 5 — 0. Break: 10: 06am Reconvened: 10:18am bl2 July 6, 011 "- z* B. Presentation of Collier County Draft Watershed Management Plan Mac Hatcher presented the following documents for review: • "Collier County Watershed Model Update and Plan Development — Volume 1— Executive Summary Assessment of Existing Conditions and Performance Measures " dated June 2011. • Collier County Watershed Model Update and Plan Development — Volume 2 — Analysis of Alternatives And Structural Recommendations " dated June 2011. • Collier County Watershed Model Update and Plan Development — Volume 3 — "Recommended Non - Structural Alternatives" dated June 2011. • Memorandum to the Environmental Advisory Council Subject — "Staff Summary — July 6, 2011 Watershed Management Plan Workshop" dated June 23, 2011. • Memo from Judith Hushon, Chair EAC to Peter DeGolian, Moris Cabezos, Atkins and Mac Hatcher, Collier County — Subject "Markup to Volume I "Collier County Watershed Model Update and Plan Development" Main document" dated 7/1/11. • Memo from Judith Hushon, Chair EAC to Peter DeGolian, Moris Cabezos, Atkins and Mac Hatcher, Collier County — Subject "Markup to Volume 3 "Collier County Watershed Model Update and Plan Development" Main document" dated 7/1/11. • Memo from Judith Hushon, Chair EAC to Peter DeGolian, Moris Cabezos, Atkins and Mac Hatcher, Collier County — Subject "Markup to Volume 1 Executive Summary "Collier County Watershed Model Update and Plan Development" Main document" dated 6/30/11. • "EA Cs possible Stipulation to WMP's as they stand on 516111 " Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Director, Growth Management Division addressed the Council and noted the Plan still needs more development before it is completed. He requested the Council focus their attention on the document "Memorandum to the Environmental Advisory Council Subject — "Staff Summary — July 6, 2011 Watershed Management Plan Workshop " dated June 23, 2011 and the recommendations provided therein. It was noted the recommendations should be cost neutral and incentive based. The Council reviewed the recommendations with comments outlined in bold. 1. Implementation of the ranked projects in Table 1 as funding can be obtained using existing Stormwater budget funds, grants, and by partnering with other entities. 2. Develop a LID program with existing staff by creating LDC incentives to encourage and offset any additional startup or operational costs. Focus will be on techniques that maximize water quality and recharge benefits. Retain the County's "150 percent standard." " 11 July 6 2016 1'2 -A 12' 3. Start a Stormwater Treatment System Retrofit program to upgrade public systems with LID and other techniques to maximize water quality and recharge benefits as grants and stormwater budget funds are available. Program to upgrade Private Systems as well. 4. Consider switching to a Fee -Based Stormwater Utility that could create incentives for improved water quality treatment and recharge. Structure of the fees would not increase the total revenues but would reward users with effective treatment systems. This initiative would require an initial fee rate study that would be funded by grant or from existing stormwater funds. 5. Utilizing existing staff develops flood protection LDC requirements for stormwater treatment system standards proposed in Initiatives 4, 5, and 6 from Table 2 to prevent increased flooding risk to downstream properties. 6. Consider changing the Flood Protection LOS standard by utilizing existing staff to analyze the proposed system to insure it has the intended benefit of expanding the range of grading and identifying critical areas for improvement. IF analysis is positive develop an implementation plan to amend the standards in the Growth Management Plan. Include recovery times in the ranking criteria. 7. Develop a North Golden Gate Estates (NGGE) Transfer of Development Rights program within the North Golden Gates Flowway Restoration Area to encourage restoration of ecologically valuable lands, and improve recharge of surficial aquifers. This will be accomplished utilizing existing staff and an oversight committee to determine if there is support for the program. Final acceptance of the program will be through EAC, and Collier County Planning Commission reviews and BCC approval. 8. Develop a NGGE mitigation program to ensure stormwater treatment, and floodplain storage capacity within the basin is not lost. This will be a pilot program that can be utilized in other basins if it is effective. Existing staff will work alternatives through the review process during the nest Golden Gate Master Plan revision. 9. To maximize ground water recharge, improve water quality, and reduce ground water discharge to the canal network staff will work with South Florida Water Management and Big Cypress Basin staff to improve the operation and or design of the Water Control Structures in future planned basin and structure evaluations. 10. Refinement of the existing Water Quality Monitoring program to add additional stations and include focused stormwater runoff sampling will be accomplished through contract negotiation with partners, reevaluation of the existing monitoring program, and or grant opportunities. Review the existing program to determine costs involved including adding or relocating monitoring stations. 5 July 6, 2116 12 N12" 11. Existing staff will work with state and federal partners to develop the Additional Watershed Protection Program as stormwater funds and or grants are available. This program includes efforts to encourage storage and treatment of stormwater in fallow agriculture areas and undeveloped estates lots to improve water quality, recharge and delivery of fresh water to the estuaries. The other component of the program is to reevaluate the preservation standards in rural fringe neutral areas with identified ecologically valuable lands. Provide disincentives for developing ecologically valuable lands. 12. A Stormwater treatment system certification program will be developed by existing staff utilizing guidance in the draft State Stormwater Quality Applicant's Handbook and Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 2.2.5 in the next LDC or as an alternative staff could be directed to modify CCME Policy 2.2.5 through the EAR Based amendments to eliminate this requirement. Consultants develop a certification checklist. 13. Develop a Florida - Friendly Fertilizer Use on Urban Landscapes ordinance and complimentary public education program utilizing existing staff. Insert language into the Plan identifying the current locally adopted ordinance. The Council reviewed the document "EAC's Possible Stipulations to WMP's as they stand on 516111 " prepared by Chairman Hushon and provided additional comments: 2. The Plan be subject to re- evaluation 5 years after the date of initial adoption and every seven years thereafter. 3. Coordinate with local, regional and national measures on addressing the ramifications of a 1 inch rise in sea level. It was noted other items on the list were "cleanup" type items for the Plan, to be addressed by Staff and Consultants. Nick Casalanguida noted the concept will be for Staff to return a final version of the Watershed Management Plan to the Council with the recommendations developed today incorporated. The EAC will be requested adopt the recommendations so the County may move forward. Each recommendation will be followed by a technical analysis for future consideration by the County. Speaker Caitlan Weber, Conservancy of Southwest Florida submitted the document "Major issues with Watershed Plan — Conservancy of Southwest Florida. " She outlined the issues identified in the document. Any members may request a copy of the Plan with comments attached as developed by the Conservancy. C. Update members on projects Summer Brown Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist reported: • The Gordon River Greenway project will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners at the July 28, 2011 meeting. She will forward the Executive Summary prepared for the Board of County Commissioners to the Council members when it becomes available. 0 July 6, 211612 A 12" The Council reached consensus for Gina Downs to represent the Environmental Advisory Council at the Board of County Commissioners meeting where the Gordon River Greenway application will be heard IX. Subcommittee Reports None X. Council Member Comments None XI. Staff Comments A. Discussion of Digital packets Summer Brown Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist reported any members wishing to obtain meeting packets digitally may contact her. N XII. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:06 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 9-� C it an, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on 3 as presented ✓ , or as amended 7 1612 Al2- MAP I. PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN QTY OF NAPLES CD&STAL Allm KELLF`IELA COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS, PROPOSED WELL.FIELDS AND ASRs UY NOSTUk ROAD ASR (KRICA7KIN O AuTr) CR � M1 QTY OF 14AF -LES ASR (4 %ELL PUMTS) SCALE E► Slq AMOi0E0 - S�1d9ON s0. 21703 Ott tic 2007 -44 AMLEM3ED - JAMA" 3S MW Ord. ft 2007 -18 AIMOM, - DECME* 4, ]MY ( Ns. 4007 -42 TILIIE COLWM U TLLITIES OCLOEN CAM MELLFIELD 311111111111L= ' FLORIDA OOVF18VWENTAL LEGEND UIILIIY AUTHCRLTY GOLDEN PLANNED WATER GATE QTY AELLFIEI.D SL"Lr wsLLS SOUTH HAWIHORH NELLPIELD EXTENSION ASR - AOUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY SIZE MARCO ISLAJID MTI L FUTI M UnuTlES ASR 11ELLFELD AREA (9 WELL PmdT5) WELLnmD AREA MANATEE ROAD ASR C / t*Aiv 91mo nLv Z R8 q L Q PREVIPCIV * 97r IMMOKALEE WELLFIELD IR 846 AVE MARIA MELLAELD (fit ti 58 p016NTIAL F1ITW E COWER COUNTY MELLRELD AREA at CITY Of NAPLES at P I EAST GOLDEN CATE U MELLFIELD 1 -75 W POR1 OF THE ISLANDS *ELLFIELD EVERGLADES CITY WE LFIELD GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfreld Protection Report T'S 11- 15- 10.docx Page 6 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper M LEGEND 0 PLANNED WATER SL"Lr wsLLS ' ASR - AOUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY SIZE ®PO MTI L FUTI M 11ELLFELD AREA WELLnmD AREA EVERGLADES CITY WE LFIELD GMPpaper 2010 - Wellfreld Protection Report T'S 11- 15- 10.docx Page 6 of 33 Growth Management Plan Paper M 1612 1191 Floodplain Management Planning Committee BY: ....................... Ray Smith, Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander John Torre, Vice - Chairman Jack McKenna Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Clarence Tears Jim Turner Carolina Valera Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) Meeting Minutes for 4- 4- 111tegular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m. End: 10:37 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Carolina Valera, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Jack McKenna, Travis Gossard, Ananta Nath (alternate for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Lew Schmidt, Chuck Mohlke and Robert Wiley. Absent: John Torre, Brooke Hollander (Excused), Christine Sutherland (Excused), Pierre Bruno (Excused), Bob Devlin, and Christa Carrera. Fiala �_op There were three (3) members of the public or additional staff in attendance. Hiller Hennin Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. Coyle Coletta OLD BUSINESS: Approval of minutes for the 1 -10 -11 Regular Meeting — Ray Smith asked if there were any needed changes to the minutes and if not, then a motion for approval. Duke Vasey motioned for approval and the motion passed unanimously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy /replacement (Bill Lorenz) — Bill Lorenz reminded everyone that at the last FMPC meeting he had discussed the reorganization of the CDES and Transportation divisions into the Growth Management Division and the concepts being put together for a new composition of the Floodplain Management Planning Committee (FMPC). He had provided a draft executive summary that staff proposed to take to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) because the BCC had adopted Resolution 2006 -200 that constituted and enabled the FMPC. The proposal is to reduce staff membership participation from the current 10 members to 4 members. The 3 municipal members would remain, and to balance the committee, the public member participation would be reduced from the current 10 to 7. That would reconstitute the FMPC to a total of 14 members. The FMPC meetings would continue to be quarterly. The FMPC's scope of responsibility, as outlined in Resolution 06 -200 to develop and at least annually evaluate the Collier County Floodplain Management Plan, would remain. Nick Casalanguiga may have additional responsibilities he wishes to discuss with the Committee later in the meeting, but he is in t�e&yjeeting at the moment. Date: 4k\ 3k Item* Page 1 of 13 _. 1612 Al I3� Phil Brougham asked if this is going to go forward to the BCC as currently drafted, or would there be additional changes. Bill Lorenz responded that Nick wanted to attend the meeting, but has a scheduling conflict with a budget meeting right now. Phil suggested that the item be tabled until Nick could attend and make his presentation later in the meeting. Ray Smith agreed to that request. Bill Lorenz also informed the FMPC that he had a 10:00 meeting commitment and would have to leave at that time. Phil Brougham stated that the issue had to be resolved today since the FMPC would not be meeting for another 3 months. Ray Smith agreed and temporarily halted discussion on this item. Upon completion of New Business Item 3, the Committee returned to this item for further discussion. Nick Casalanguida had still not arrived, so Bill Lorenz asked if the Committee would like to discuss the draft document that you have seen and discuss recommendations for purpose of membership. Also, if there is discussion regarding scope, perhaps staff could bring it back. Ray Smith motioned for approval of the draft. Duke Vasey commented on the fiscal impact on page 3, and he had the impression that the investment of staff hours was onerous and costing a lot of money. He wouldn't want this to be hampered by someone saying the Committee only meets quarterly and they meet for 2 hours. There is a lot more than that. It talks to the research staff must do, correlation with the budget process, getting approval from supervisors, it is a lot of money to approve this. He didn't know if it was customary to list a cost estimate, but it couldn't be that the first sentence reads right that we are reducing the size of the Committee because of the cost of copies. We're reducing the size of the Committee because it costs a fortune to have those staff hours invested, including benefits. Perhaps someone will want to know just what that value is. Ray Smith asked if this would be necessary to place in the executive summary. He asked if the Board had to adopt a resolution to make the change to the Committee. Robert Wiley confirmed that this will require the adoption of a resolution by the Board. Ray then agreed that the fiscal impact of the executive summary would need to address the issue, but not in the body of the resolution. Duke agreed with the fiscal information not being in the resolution, but as a manager he would want to know why he should cut back on the Committee and lose 8 CRS points if it is just for copies. Phil Brougham asked if that would be a modification to the executive summary. Duke Vasey motioned that the fiscal impact be the actual fiscal impact and not the cost of copies. Lew Schmidt asked Duke for a clarification, which he provided. Phil commented that even if it is an estimated cost amount for staff time, there must be something to justify a change like this, not just the cost for copies. Ray Smith then read from the Fiscal Impact section on page 3 of the draft executive summary, "Reducing the total number of committee members will proportionally reduce costs of providing hard copies of documents to the committee members." Duke's explanation is there are additional costs involved, and we should identify those and provide these to the Board in the executive summary. It is not just the cost in providing hard copies. The major cost is manpower costs. Lew asked if we are saying that somebody has to come up with additional words to clarify the fact that we don't know how many man-hours we need. Ray responded that we discussed the savings associated with this, how much will the County tax payer save regarding dollars. Ray thought that was where Duke was leading this. This begins with how many employees are involved and the hours they spend on Committee work during and outside of Committee meetings. Lew then commented that we are not prepared to go the Board with this item. Phil Brougham asked when this item is proposed to go to the Board. Robert Wiley responded that he didn't know since this was being totally handled by Bill Lorenz and Nick Casalanguida. Page 2 of 13 1612 q13 Phil Brougham commented that they would be back next month on 5 -2 -11. Ray Smith brought back the motion on the table as the item for discussion. Rick Zyvoloski discussed considering the generic cost figure used by FEMA for every hourly employee. He suggested that since we know we would be losing, go to their rate, develop generalized hours, and develop a cost estimate. Phil Brougham withdrew his second of the motion, and Ray Smith withdrew his motion. Ray Smith then submitted a new motion for the Committee to recommend that language be placed in the executive summary to show the actual costs and cost savings associated with this proposal. Travis Gossard asked if there were other areas in the executive summary needing change, should they be discussed now. The decision was to deal with the particular motion and then address the other areas. Ray Smith called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously. Travis then discussed on the second page regarding members of the public, we aren't reducing the number of public members because of staff, these positions haven't been able to be filled. Robert Wiley responded that the current public membership is 8 and is proposed to go to 7. There are two vacancies, and one application has been submitted and on hold for review since August 2010 for one position. We have not advertised for the second vacancy since the passing of Mr. Luntz. It appears that if the Board approves this resolution we will be notifying the one applicant that we will not be filling the position. Phil Brougham then commented that if staff is reduced to 4, then we must reduce the public to 7 or 5 to keep an odd number of members on the Committee. Robert commented that there are 3 members from the cities, so 7 members of the public would produce an even - numbered committee. Ray Smith asked what would be needed for a quorum. Robert responded that for a 14 member committee, the quorum number would be 7 to have 50 %. Phil suggested reducing the public members to 5, Robert suggested leaving it at the current 8 which would create an odd number of Committee members. Chuck Mohlke commented that the quorum would be 8. Ray Smith commented that the 4 staff members would be mandated to attend, and if there are difficulties filling vacant positions now and any current public members leave the Committee, would we be able to fill those slots to achieve a quorum. Under this proposal, a quorum may be difficult to obtain as we move on. Robert Wiley commented that if the Committee wants to provide statements to staff regarding this issue, they need to do so today. Chuck Mohlke commented that whatever is the length of term of service, it could be extended by an additional year. Phil Brougham commented there are not lengths of term for the members of the public. There are currently 8 public members, 3 municipality members, and proposed 4 staff members. Leaving the public members at 8 precludes someone having to decide who to remove to reduce down to 7, and gives a better chance of making quorum. He felt the key motivator for this resolution is to reduce the number of County staff, let them become more productive behind the scenes by allowing them to communicate with each other and the members of the Committee. Ray Smith agreed with leaving the public members at 8. Phil commented that on 5 -2 -11 the Committee can review the modifications to this resolution, including the estimated dollar savings to staff time, the revised language to leave the current public members at 8, and we can approve it on 5 -2 -11. Perhaps, on 5 -2 -11 both Bill and Nick can be here in person. Phil Brougham made that into a motion. Chuck Mohlke informed the Committee that the correct motion would be to continue the item. Phil agreed to continue the item. Ray Smith called for the vote and it passed unanimously. The item is to be discussed at the 5 -2 -11 meeting. Page 3 of 13 z A131 1612 3. Status Report on New Floodplain Mapping (Preliminary DFIRM) — Robert Wiley provided a brief update on the project. The County did file an appeal of the Preliminary DFIRM. FEMA and their consultant, Michael Baker Jr., Inc. (Baker) participated in a conference call with the County and issued a letter requesting additional information dealing with the background details of the changes made in the modeling. They want to see the impacts to calibration of only changing the LiDAR without making other adjustments to bring the calibration into an acceptable range. They also need to know everything that Tomasello changed to recalibrate. Changes come about to recalibrate the models with the new LiDAR and include factors such as land surface roughness factors. Tomasello also changed some of the weir configurations since two new weirs (Golden Gate #2 and Golden Gate #3) have been constructed during this time of the study. Baker also sent an external hard drive to the County so the new LiDAR could be loaded onto it for their evaluation. Baker is seriously looking at the appeal. So far there have not been any questions asked about any of the protests submitted by various land owners demonstrating changed ground elevations. Staff assumes the review of the protests is going forward at the same time as the review of the County's appeal. The County's appeal demonstrated a rise in some base flood elevations which is opposite of the typical appeal application that tries to show a lowering of base flood elevations. Staff still expects to finalize this DFIRM by August. NEW BUSINESS Annual Report on Beach, Dune, and Coastal Pass Maintenance — Gary McAlpin did not attend the meeting and give his scheduled presentation. Upon completion of discussion on New Business Item 4 (FMPC Action Item 6(e) Sub - Committee Deliverables) Ray Smith asked about this item. Robert Wiley reported that he had placed a telephone call to Gary and was told that Gary would not be attending the meeting to give the presentation. Phil Brougham commented that Mr. McAlpin should be informed that since he did not present, the Committee rejects his report. Robert also reported that Gary said he would not be able to attend and present the program at the May meeting, but he would prepare a report for distribution to the Committee. 2. Annual Report on Best Management Practices Outreach Program — Steve Preston distributed 2 handouts to Committee members but he only had 10 copies, so not everyone received one. [Note: The 4 staff members who did not receive the handouts were subsequently provided with copies by Robert Wiley.] The County has an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit for operating and maintaining the public storm sewer system under an NPDES MS4 permit. There is an education component that we have to do both internal education and public education, with it more geared toward water quality rather than flooding. We do have an overlap in the education outreach to the public that deals with flooding, mainly centered on the Greenscape Alliance. This is several local government and municipal entities and a couple of interest groups that have joined the Greenscape Alliance. It has to do with certifying and training landscape architects and maintenance contractors to improve water quality by watching what they do in the landscape. The first handout is a tally of the training classes given to landscapers, with breakdowns on type of class and hours. During the classes, the landscapers are educated about their impact to the local homeowner association stormwater systems, which are basically small scale watersheds. Basically, no one takes care of the stormwater system but them. The training is also open to Homeowner Associations, but very few attend. The Greenscape Alliance does a series of articles in the Page 4 of 13 1612 A1311 Naples Daily News. The second handout is one article to help homeowners to understand their stormwater system, their yard, their neighborhood, what their and its roles are in reducing flooding at the most local level (their yards and streets), and how it fits into the bigger system. We do other education outreach, but most of the rest of it is strictly toward water pollution prevention. 3. Presentation and Review of the 2010 Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report — Robert Wiley stated that every year this report must be prepared to identify what was accomplished in the previous calendar year. This reflects accomplished during calendar year 2010. The report is taken to the BCC for their review and approval and ultimately it gets submitted to ISO in the annual recertification process. The purpose of the report is to work towards the recertification to show we are still addressing floodplain issues, and we are still conducting programs as we planned. A lot of the report is the standard language used every year with updates on dates and certain items. We do address some of the major issues, and then there is a grading of the action plan from last year from our action items within the Floodplain Management Plan. Last year we had a group of category A items that we must accomplish each year to meet our mandatory commitments. Category B was our top five that we wanted to get accomplished in 2010. Category C items were there to accomplish if we could, but they were not in our top five. In reviewing the listing, it can be seen that we accomplished the category A items. We also accomplished the category B items, but for some of them it was decided to not proceed with them after review of the issues. In particular, the one item was installation of cross drains in Golden Gate Estates. Stan Chrzanowski had discussed the issue regarding timing and issues of not going forward. Robert asked the Committee to look at the report and provide comments and discussion on things needing adjustment before going forward to the Board. That is one of the major purposes of the Committee. Also, there is a proposed Action Plan for 2011 at the back of the report using the same action items. Those items which have been completed from the top five are now going to be listed as category D. Within the 5 -year time frame we have before updating the Floodplain Management Plan, we should be taking all of the category C items and work them up through the category B and ultimately to completed category D. This year we now have 4 category D items. The one category B item, dealing with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, did get approved, but it is still shown as category B because we have to take the ordinance back to the Board for amendment to adopt the new DFIRMs since the Board removed the automatic adoption provision. Ray Smith asked if there were any comments pertaining to the portion of the report that discusses what we have accomplished to date for 2010. Duke Vasey asked if that included the Action Plan portion of the Progress Report. Ray Smith confirmed that. Duke then asked for an explanation on the meaning of the category A, B and C. Robert Wiley explained that category A items are the ones we have to do each year, they will always be category A. Category B was the top five items to complete in 2010. Category C was for all of the other actions items to get accomplished that were not in the top five. Duke requested that a note be added to the Action Plan spreadsheet to explain the terms. Robert agreed to put that into the footer. Ray Smith asked a question regarding the Proposed 2011 Action Plan, although it was also stated in the 2010 Action Plan. On page 2, the last sentence of the second paragraph says, "Staff anticipates reactivating efforts to amend the Floodplain Management Plan and Page 5 of 13 1612 0431- bringing it to the Board for approval and adoption in late 2011." Ray asked if there was going to be enough time to do all of that. There are major changes that need to be made based upon the last Committee discussion, and to do all that and bring it before the Board for adoption in 2011 will be very tight. Robert stated he anticipated bringing it to the Committee in October, if not even in July. This is the work that Mike DeRuntz did, and the Committee voted to proceed, but we continued to have a lot of comments about the large size. Robert anticipates taking Mike's work and concise it down so the document isn't hundreds and hundreds of pages thick. He intends to put a lot of the information in appendices which will make it easier to update in the future, similar to what Rick Zyvoloski did with the Local Mitigation Strategy. This is not really changing what Mike did, but moving it around and reducing the size. Ray recommended extending the time frame to mid -2012, and if it happens in 2011, that is good. Duke Vasey commented that at one time there was a discussion about an Administrative Code where most of the generalities could be placed. Is there any effort to do something like that? Robert stated that the County is in the process of coming up with an Administrative Code, but he didn't know what was going into it. Fred Reischl is the planner working on the Administrative Code. Duke stated an advantage of an Administrative Code is that each task basically has a separate page and the page can be updated and simply show the revision date on that page. Bill Lorenz informed the Committee that the Administrative Code referenced by Robert is specific only to the Land Development Code. Phil Brougham commented that the Committee is falling into the same traps that we always do, and unless Robert can supply specific tasks with estimated work hours to perform this update, then he thought it erroneous to throw out a date and say you are going to try to do something. How many hours will it take, what is going to be done, and are the hours allocated in the work scheduled signed off on by your manager? Then we can lock in on a good solid date. But to say we are going to try to do this in 2011, or even 2012, he felt goes against the direction of this Committee in the past on work tasks. He advised to not commit to any date until staff can estimate how many hours it is going to take to do the work, and have the boss sign off on it. Phil asked if that work appears in the tasks for 2011, to which Robert responded that they were in his work plan. Ray Smith then moved discussion to the second portion of the document that states what is proposed for accomplishment in 2011. Phil Brougham asked if there would be a change in the document on Page 2 to show a mid -2012 completion time, to which Ray responded that was his recommendation. Ray Smith then motioned to change the Floodplain Management Plan (FMP) revision completion date to mid -2012. Duke Vasey asked how long ago was the current FMP approved. Robert Wiley responded that the current FMP was approved in 2008. Ananta Nath asked if the County hoped to get all of the FEMA issues resolved before that. Robert responded that the County hopes to get the FEMA DFIRM finalized by approximately August of this year (2011). The motion passed unanimously. Ray Smith asked for any discussion of the proposed Action Plan for 2011, starting on page 7. Ray questioned if the proposed dates were achievable. He asked Robert Wiley which items must be completed in 2011. Robert responded that all of the category A items must be done each year. Robert then selected five items to be the category B "top 5" items, starting with the proposed revision to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to adopt the finalized DFIRM. That item is easy to get before the Board, but there is no certainty on getting Board approval. The ordinance revision must occur within 6 months of the DFIRM being finalized Page 6 of 13 161'2 0,13 by FEMA. Whether that occurs within calendar year 2011 depends upon when the DFIRM is finalized and how soon the Board will want to adopt the new map. If the DFIRM is finalized by August 2011, that gives 4 months to have the Board adopt it before the end of the year. Robert thinks it will be late 2011 before the Board updates the ordinance as a summary agenda item. Ray expressed concern, similar to Phil, about Robert's use of the term "hope" when addressing completion of tasks. It is difficult to establish a plan when you are not sure if you can achieve the plan. The proposed achievement dates may be admirable, but he didn't feel comfortable approving dates if we aren't sure we can accomplishment them. Ray asked if there is a problem with pushing things out to 2012 but achieving them earlier. Robert said he doesn't have a problem with it, but he wants to get things done as quickly as possible, and as soon as FEMA finalizes the DFIRM he wants to go to the BOARD. However, he doesn't know what position they will take, whether they will want to quickly adopt or wait the full 6 months. Ray Smith then asked that since we have identified what he must do, can we then identify what we can achieve regarding these items, the quick achievement, low- hanging fruit items. Phil Brougham discussed that in 2010 the Committee developed the 2010 Action Plan Ranking document which was a 2 -page spreadsheet that assigned points and evaluation scoring which led to a ranking to what we should be doing (the category A, B and C ranking). He though the Committee should go through that same exercise with the additional input that we should take notice of any of these activities that result in increased points for the CRS scoring. He didn't know if there were any left or not, but thought it almost a necessary planning exercise that staff should go through before the Committee can endorse the 2011 work plan. Going along with previous discussions, and Nick Casalanguida's commitment 3 months ago, then once we identify what needs to be done, we also need to identify what staff hours are going to be necessary to achieve it and get the appropriate sign - off from Nick or the appropriate department management before we commit to do it. In his opinion was there was still a lot of homework to be done on the 2011 work plan, and if we have to meet again in a month to review that in more detail, then he would submit that we do that. Duke Vasey stated that it looks like we have some sensitivity issues, some concurrent, and some that are contingent. A lot of these items in this document are contingent upon something else happening, which suggests that possibly we need to do a sensitivity analysis on what we are committing ourselves to do. We need to list all of the tasks that need to be accomplished, but Phil is correct in needing to be realistic in what staff emphasis you can put on this and what you can really do without relying on somebody else. Phil Brougham noted that the last 3 months of 2011 are a new fiscal year with perhaps new staffing. Ray Smith envisioned the Committee sitting here a year from now looking at what we have accomplished and the report that is going before the Board and FEMA. He wants it to be a successful report and show that we made some achievements. He doesn't want to show that we made some achievements, but failed a lot. He wants to make sure the plan is realistic. Duke commented we need to address what things we are doing that we can take credit for, and are there things that we received credits previously that we won't be able to get credit for now due to the reorganization. Carolina Valera suggested adding statements for items that are contingent upon Board approval, to show the progress that has been done. Robert said those type of contingent clarification statements can be added. Ray Smith directed the Committee's attention to action plan item I(d)(ii) which is described as "Prepare proposed revisions to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance for adoption by the Board." Perhaps Page 7 of 13 1612 A13 that could be changed to say "for presentation to the Board ". By modifying the language, if the Board decides not to adopt, we still have accomplished the task of presenting it to them. Robert Wiley advised that he was trying to not change the description of the action plan items from the previous year, but could make the change if that was the Committee's direction. The description is not necessarily verbatim with the adopted action items in the FMP by the Board, but is a short representation, so minor changes are not a problem. Duke Vasey felt that Phil Brougham's position was that if the Board has authorized the County Manager to spend employee hours on this, they don't want a "maybe ". There shouldn't be any reason why the Board wouldn't approve the items. Phil Brougham stated that perhaps there is a distinction that can be made here between the proposed Action Plan document that will go before the Board and the subordinate work plan for staff which is the real detail. He didn't think we needed to present the detail to the Board, and if we want to break down one deliverable here into two or three tasks on a work-plan, that is completely appropriate. That doesn't need to go into the document going to the Board for approval. The work plan is the substance to getting things accomplished, and that should break down into an individual task to an individual person, and the number of hours and a delivery date. The Board wouldn't want to see that, but the Committee would want to see it and the department's supervisor would want to see it. Ray Smith asked for a motion on the item. Phil Brougham motioned to table the adoption or approval of the Progress Report until one month from today or the next meeting, which he hopes is in May, where the Committee could review a detailed work plan with sign -off by supervision. During discussion on the motion, Lew Schmidt stated the Committee hasn't even talked about the items, so why would we want to stop. Is there any reason why we can't review what has been presented? Chuck Mohlke agreed with the question and indicated that discussion could occur before acting on the motion. Technically a motion to table is not discussable, but for information purposes, the discussion could be held. Phil Brougham commented that his intent is not to cut off discussion, but looking at the list of items does not give him enough information as to why those items even appear on the list. Do these move us toward additional CRS points, for example? We can talk about the items on the list, or about other items that perhaps should be on the list but aren't on the list. We don't have sufficient information here today to have a substantive discussion on it. Duke Vasey commented that possibly one of the missing components of the worksheet is the set of CRS guidelines. They have the task description. We should just reference it. Ray Smith didn't think that was the discussion of the Committee. He felt the Committee's discussion was about making a decision we all feel comfortable with so next year when we are putting together the performance appraisal on what we've done based upon what we said we could accomplish, and he wants it to be very positive and show progress. Travis Gossard commented that what he is hearing is very confusing, because by the end of April he is done with his budget, along with all other staff. That information will be in the hearings with the Board. He questioned how he was to budget for things in 2011 at this time frame. If he is given a task to do, it is not going to get done unless he is given special funding or is directed to do it. He read item 1(f)(i) "Complete the annual budget and maintenance schedule for stormwater maintenance programs." He will have that done, and the next Committee meeting is 3 months from now. He wasn't sure how that will correlate since basically he is already done with the budget. Phil Brougham commented that is exactly part of the problem. There is a disconnect between the activities of this Committee in Page 8 of 13 a 1612 approving or not approving an action plan and the annual budgeting process of the staff departments that are responsible for executing the action plan. If this Committee and this plan is going to be effective, we need to get into a work flow process, that we developed two years ago, where things are sequenced and result in budgets, and everything flows as it should be because you know what you're going to be asked to do from all different directions, you decide in conjunction with management what the priority of that work is versus the hours it takes and the staff available, decisions are made, and that should flow into the action plan. It should almost be a "no- brainer" for this Committee to say, "We've got sign off, we know the impact on the FMP, we know how it will benefit the CRS rating, and with full confidence we can move it forward to the Board." We are being asked to approve something that is going to be presented to the Board out of this Committee, and we have no idea whether there will be staff time available or not. What Travis is saying is he has already determined his budget, and Phil felt that Travis not alone. Ray Smith then brought back the motion on the table, and asked Phil to repeat it. Phil motioned for the Committee take no action on approving the 2011 work plan as presented here, until we get more definitive action plan task plans, manpower assignments and supervisory sign -offs at the next meeting which I would submit should be a month from now. Ray Smith asked if that would be an achievable time line. Chuck Mohlke indicated that was the motion that he had seconded. Robert Wiley checked on the date of the May meeting and Phil commented that it doesn't have to literally be 30 days from now, but in early May. Chuck commented that he was hopeful that everyone would benefit the process by submitting their comments in writing or by e -mail, because at some point in time oral communications are going to be burdensome to those who have to make revisions in these schedules. He knows from prior experience, despite everyone's best intentions, they will rely on oral reporting and assume that its beneficial to all concerned, and somehow or other, their oral comments will be translated into a readable document that everybody can use for purposes of future discussion. Ray Smith commented that oral discussion does go into the meeting minutes, but if he is referring to telephone conversations, he agreed that those should be documented. Robert confirmed the room has a standing reservation for the Committee on 5 -2 -11. Ray directed Robert to schedule the room for 5 -2 -11. Phil Brougham asked Robert to redistribute the flow chart for development of the FMP to all members of the Committee. It shows the overall process for the FMP, and specifically in the center, it shows how the process should work, so tasks and priorities are assigned prior to budget, go to the departments to get prioritized and approved, flow back and enter into the report going to the Board. All we have to do is either amend the flow chart or endorse it and follow it, and then we have a process. Ray Smith called for the vote on the motion. The motion passed 13 -1. Ray Smith then directed the Committee back to a completion of Old Business Item 2. 4. Presentation of FMPC Action Item 6(e) Sub - Committee Deliverables for Action Item 6(e) — Ray Smith started the discussion by identifying the sub - committee members (Ray Smith, Stan Chrzanowski, Christine Sutherland, Mac Hatcher, and Travis Gossard). The action item, as stated on the Project Management Plan (handout) was to "Provide a single point of contact at the CDES division for all floodplain management assistance, as well as the development of a web page for that contact point. That point of contact will follow protocols for distribution of inquiries, a log of all inquiries, as well as actions taken." Page 9 of 13 A13' 1612 Ray Smith discussed how this task was broken out into 6 objectives. Discussion will move forward for each of the objectives which had handouts. Objective 1 — Establish a single point of contact that will address all floodplain management questions. Looking at the handout for this Objective 1 identifies there will be a single point of contact through the Road Maintenance Department, with telephone number 252 -2984, where all residents can in to the centralized location and if they have any questions, inquiries or complaints pertaining to flooding and drainage. There is a database kept at that location that tracts the calls and at that point either a Road Maintenance team will receive a task to address the complaint or inquiry, or they have a listing of other departments within the County that also handle issues that would report back to Road Maintenance and that information would be placed in the data base. The example Ray gave would be for a complaint concerning pollution, where Road Maintenance would contact Ray, he would address the issue, and forward back to them what Ray had achieved and they would enter that into the data base. Travis Gossard clarified Ray's discussion by explaining that Road Maintenance wouldn't necessarily enter a pollution complaint into the floodplain data base unless it also included a flooding issue. Depending upon what is called in, Road Maintenance may actually investigate it, but they receive lots of complaints throughout the year not related to flooding, so only the flood - related issues would go into the floodplain data base. Phil Brougham asked for an explanation of the difference between protocol 1 and 2. Both items seem to be the same with the exception of the first word or two. Travis Gossard clarified that the job was to identify a central point of contact. This tells the public which contact number to call. Robert Wiley further clarified that even though the public may be informed about the central number to call, other departments can still expect to receive drainage telephone calls as they have in the past. When these other departments receive the calls, they are to take down the information and forward it to Road Maintenance so it gets entered into the data base and then Road Maintenance takes the information and directs it in the correct sequence for resolution. That is the difference between points 1 and 2. Phil commented that if this handout is just a reporting back to the Committee, the important thing is that all staff have been advised of the procedure to follow. As long as the staff understands what is to happen is the important thing. Robert suggested that perhaps this can be clarified in the document and revise the wording. Ray agreed with that. Phil asked if this procedure has been put into place with County staff. Rick Zyvoloski asked about including a contact number for the Immokalee area. Travis responded that all calls to Road Maintenance, including Immokalee, now come to the one central number. There is a satellite office in Immokalee, but the telephone number was discontinued there, and all calls come to the one centralized number. Objective 2 — To provide site - specific flood and flood related data, such as floor elevations, data on historical flooding in the neighborhood or similar information so inquiries can relate the flood threat to their property. Ray Smith asked everyone to look at the High Water Mark team document. It goes through the process of identifying and developing a team, considering safety measures to perform the job safely, and has detail in identifying the importance of the effort without overstepping the responsibilities for hurricane responses. It contains data reporting along with the necessary form and safety protocols. Rick Zyvoloski felt this was an excellent document, but he didn't consider this type of work as non- essential. Page 10 of 13 1 -61 2 He felt it was an essential type of work to be performed and complements Emergency Management, it just needs to be looked at from another perspective. This is another reporting agency providing information on the status of infrastructure (roadways) to help prioritize where resources need to be committed. He would like to recommend that this team be considered as essential and go ahead and take them out of the hurricane mix for other jobs. He recommended considering a pre- disaster component such as knowing where road flooding is likely to occur and installing appropriate roadway markers before the sheetflow covers the road. Ray Smith asked if it would be appropriate for Dan Summers to identify the team members as essential after an event. Rick responded that by having a pre- disaster component, this could help with financial reimbursement if we are declared (a federal disaster area). Robert Wiley discussed that the use of the term "essential" was heavily discussed by the sub- committee and the term comes from the County's procedures and policies during emergency declaration times. The "essential" personnel drop their normal work load and report to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) during declared emergency status. It isn't saying that the work of the High Water Mark team is not essential, but the sub - committee decided to keep the term in the meaning of the County Manager's policies. The available staffing for the High Water Mark teams would be chosen from staffing not listed on the "essential personnel" roster. Rick suggested calling this work an essential function so it could be completed from the uncommitted pool of available staffing. Ray Smith recommended the language remain as proposed. Carolina Valera commented that staff was recently required to take certain FEMA training (National Incident Management System training) so we all know that if we get called from the EOC we have to respond. Duke Vasey asked Travis Gossard if he would be evaluating Cartegraph software, or evaluating this component of the work plan before January 2012. Robert Wiley explained that the work plan evaluation is intended to be an annual report on how well the effort worked when implemented, if it was implemented over the previous year. This is a similar effort to Steve Preston's annual report on the Best Management Practices or Gary McAlpin's annual report on the beach and dune restoration work. (Note that Robert provided comment that he had just stepped out to call Gary to determine if he was going to make it to the meeting for his presentation, and Gary said no.) Objective 3 — Provide material on how to select a qualified contractor and on what recourse people have if they are dissatisfied with a contractor's performance. Ray Smith mentioned that this is already covered by a brochure available at Contractor Licensing. Robert Wiley agreed with Ray and described how it was Travis Gossard who picked up the information from Contractor Licensing for the sub - committee's review. We can now document this on the CRS reporting form. Objective 4 — Make site visits to review flooding and drainage, and provide one -on -one advice to the property owner. Ray Smith commented this is done through Road Maintenance. Robert Wiley commented there was no separate document prepared for this objective since it is being done as the drainage complaint is handed by Road Maintenance, Engineering and Stormwater Management. Depending upon the situation, as to whether it is in a private development or a County right -of -way, different departments respond to go and look at the situation. Page 11 of 13 A13, 1612 X1131 Objective 5 — Provide advice and assistance on retrofitting techniques discussed in Activity 530 (Flood Protection). Jim Turner prepared a document, "Meeting FEMA Regulations to Retrofit Buildings ", to describe what is being done by the Building Department as calls come in. Jim Turner discussed his recent attendance at the Florida Floodplain Management Association annual meeting. There are some proposed changes coming to the CRS program and the Florida Building Code. The 2010 Florida Building Code, which is supposed to go into effect in January 2010, will incorporate all of the NFIP requirements, so that will change things a bit. The CRS reporting requirement is currently on a 5 -year cycle, and that will be changing to a 3 -year cycle. He also reported we will receive less credits for the information that we put in the Libraries and there will be more credits for web site information. The number of elevation certificates included with the annual CRS recertification will change from the current 5 to 10 and they must be 90% correct in order to receive the credit points. Hopefully the NFIP changes in the Florida Building Code will make things easier for everyone. That would not include all the FEMA requirements, but it will be all of the NFIP requirements. Objective 6 — The person providing advice on retrofitting techniques has graduated from the Emergency Management Institute course on retrofitting. Jim Turner commented that the County needs to send someone to the upcoming course in Emmitsburg, MD in either September or October of this year. Rick Zyvoloski commented that the training at Emmitsburg is mostly of no cost to the attendees, except for the meal ticket. Room is provided on campus, and travel costs are reimbursed. Ray Smith then thanked Robert Wiley for his assistance and Stan Chrzanowski, Christine Sutherland, Mac Hatcher, and Travis Gossard for their work. He also thanked Jack McKenna for stepping in as Stan's replacement and helping with the process when Stan retired. 5. Public Comments — None. Chuck Mohlke asked Chairman Ray Smith if he was open to a suggestion on something to add to the May agenda, if we have time. He would like to discuss some of the legislative consequences of some of what is being proposed and the impact it will have on the municipalities and other jurisdictions represented on this Committee. The Water Management Districts, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts will all be impacted in some way. If we could hear the impressions of those represented here as to what to anticipate, assuming the actions of the Legislature will be signed by the Governor and put into effect. Some will affect us directly at the beginning of the state's fiscal year. Ray Smith asked the Committee members for their thoughts, and felt that the next meeting would already be pretty busy. Chuck reminded the Chairman that this was just a suggestion. Phil Brougham commented that he felt it was critical for Nick Casalanguida and Bill Lorenz to attend the May 2, 2011, meeting, or reschedule it to when they can attend. The substance of the meeting will be the executive summary and the work plan. Robert Wiley asked the Committee if they had a preference for scheduling the July 2011 meeting to Tuesday, 7 -5 -11 or Wednesday 7 -6 -11. There was no opposition to the Tuesday, 7 -5 -11 meeting date. Next Meeting: Monday, May 2, 2011, starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD -P &R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. Page 12 of 13 161 2 A13' Motion to adjou uke Vasey passed unanimously at 10:37 a.m. Ray mith, irrPan s-- Robert Wiley, Staf oordinator Page 13 of 13 161 2 A14' FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 March 14, 2011 Special Meeting Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 9:58 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Harold Bergdoll, George Fogg, Robert Jones, Dick Barry County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Pam Lulich - Manager Landscape Operations, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Other: Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie, Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Michael Ward - RWA, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add. Vlll. A. Sign Post for Emerald Greens George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Transportation Services A. RWA Survey Proposal Darryl Richard reviewed the following information: Exhibit for Easements (Required for the Sidewalk Projects (See attached) • RWA will provide Easement descriptions for (13) required Easements • Easement No. 13 - Forest Lakes Condo Association was quoted as a separate Project (See attached) • RWA and Property Acquisitions Department are working collectively to determine the legal Owners of land parcels for the proposed Easements RWA Proposals o RWA, Inc. File No. 070190.06.00 (See attached) - Total estimate for Services $7,300.00 - Includes Proposed Easements areas No. 1 -12 (Exhibit of Easements) 161e A14 o RWA, Inc. File No. 070190.07.00 (See attached) - Includes Proposed Easement for Forest Lakes Condo Association area No. 13 (Exhibit of Easements) - Total estimate for Services $2,100.00 George Fogg moved that RWA be retained to provide the necessary documentation for Right of Ways (Easement Acquisition) for the Construction Project at the maximum amount of $9,400.00. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. B. Windham Studio Proposal Scott Windham reviewed PO 4500113538 Change Order Request No. 3 and Fee Matrix to include the following: (See attached) o Total estimate $27,789.00 o Proposal resulted from a Civil Plan Review meeting that was held with Malcolm Pirnie - It was requested during the Plan Review meeting to increase the Site Supervision (by ABB and Windham Studio) during the Construction Phase - The Project will be divided into sections to be completed as Funds are available o ABB Services for Supplemental information on MUTCD guidelines (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) for replacement of Signage o Investigation time on the Quail Run sidewalk access to Forest Lakes Condominiums o Concrete square footage to complete the entire Project (to be utilized as needed) George Fogg noted the walkway connection that was requested by a Resident is in an area that presently a sidewalk system does not exist. Darryl Richard replied the requested walkway connection is under review. Discussion ensued on (2) potential corridors to install walkway connections for pedestrian safety: • Forest Lakes Dr. • Quail Forest Blvd. George Fogg suggested preserving Funds from the Windham Studio Proposal to Study the (2) walkway connections. Darryl Richard noted the revised Proposal amount (Windham Studio) is $30,421.00 which includes the Study of Forest Lakes Dr. and Quail Forest Blvd. for the proposed walkway connections. 2 1612 A14 George Fogg moved to approve the addition to Windham Studio Contract of $30,421.00 as per the Scope Breakdown and Fee Matrix of March 8, 2011. Second by Dick Barry. Discussion ensued on the equipment locates required for the Survey (south side of Forest Lakes Blvd.) Scott Windham clarified that the path of the Power Trunk Line was needed. Robert Jones recommended installing the sidewalk on the North side of the road as he perceived it would save cost due to the following: o Power Lines are not installed on the North side o Removal of a substantial amount of Vegetation and Landscaping on the South side is required Discussion developed on installing the sidewalk on the North side. The following was noted by Staff and Scott Windham: 0 6 ft Berm(s) on the North side will require cutback and installation of a retaining wall o Residents are adamantly opposed to cutting into the North side slope The Committee requested to conduct a MSTU Field Meeting in Forest Lakes to review the (2) proposed locations for walkway connections. Darryl Richard presented a Quote by RWA in the amount of $1,200.00 to locate the Main Power Line. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. George Fogg moved to proceed with the Project to install the sidewalk on the south side of Turtle Lakes (Roadway.) Without a second the motion will not be considered. George Fogg moved that the Main Power Line be located by RWA ASAP and not to exceed $1,200.00 Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VI. Old Business - None 161 2 X14 ' VII. New Business A. Sign Post for Emerald Greens George Fogg presented a request by Emerald Greens Board to provide Sign Posts at Emerald Greens and Condominiums (along the walkway) when the globe lights are removed. George Fogg moved to provide Sign Posts for Emerald Greens and Condos along the walkway when Globe Lights are removed. Scott Windham noted Public complaints were received in the past on spending MSTU monies for Condominium Property Projects. After discussion George Fogg withdrew the motion. George Fogg requested Windham Studio provide the Sign Post Specifications to the Associations. Staff will coordinate a Forest Lakes MSTU Field Meeting with the Committee. Additionally the meeting will be advertized. VIII. Public Comments — None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 11:14 P.M. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Jones, Chalrinan These minutes approved by the Committee on Q- as presented �K_or amended Next meeting is April 13, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 FOREST LAKES L Call to Order 11. Attendance 1612 A14 ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. III. Approval of Agenda ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 April 13, 2011 Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — March 14, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Review & Approval FY2012 MSTU Budget B. Gordon River Extension Maintenance C. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard D. Malcolm Pirnie V1. Landscape Architect Report- Windham Studio VII. Old Business VIII. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment BY: ...................... Fiala f l✓ Hiller Henning Coyle .� Coletta Next meeting is May 11, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 anach item Z,VA %--I 1 i�: 1612Ap4 FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 April 13, 2011 Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: Robert Jones, George Fogg, Dick Barry, Kevin McKyton, Kenneth Bloom, Harold Bergdoll (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Mark Isackson- Finance Director Other: Thomas Roadman - Malcolm Pirnie, Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty- Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add.- V. A. Discussion on Sidewalk Adjustment Subsequent V. agenda Items were renumbered W.B. March 25, 2011 George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes A. March 14, 2011 George Fogg moved to approve the minutes of March 14, 2011 as submitted. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. B. March 25, 2011 Change: IV. A., page 1, first paragraph, third bullet, line 2, should read. Comer in the vicinity of Residence(s) "1091 -1092" IV. A., page 2, second paragraph, first bullet should read: "Forest Lakes" Club House IV. B. first paragraph should read., "Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis, Fairways Forest Garden Villas, and" Turtle Lakes "Golf Colony" 161'2' All 4 George Fogg moved to approve the minutes of March 25, 2011 as amended. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. Transportation Services A. Discussion on Sidewalk Adjustment Public attendees John Krynock, Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis (Building 1) Lee Dixon, Turtle Lakes Golf Colony Robert Yrocey, Forest Lakes (Building 1) Jim Dougherty, President, Fairways Forest Garden Villas Condo Jim Lynn, President, Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis (Building 2) Kathryn Lynn, Forest Lakes (Building 2) Bob Gracey, Manger, Fairways Forest Garden Villas and Building 2 Eileen Lucey, President, Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis (Building 1) Andrew Barto, Forest Lakes Blvd. Connie Lucey Eileen Lucey stated that Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis Residents are opposed to installing the sidewalk on the North side of Forest Lakes Blvd. for the following reasons: • Privacy at the Community Pool would be affected as trees will be removed and the walkway will be very close to the Pool • Numerous Banks exists along the roadway (North side) • A Large Electrical Box is located in front of the Pool area Darryl Richard reported: • A 60 ft. dedicated easement (Utility easement) is available • The 60 ft. easement is not affiliated with Turtle Lakes Golf Colony as it is owned by the Property Owners to the North George Fogg noted that the final decision for the sidewalk location is pending additional research and approval by the Condo Associations, Jim Dougherty stated that the Recreation Area (Pool) is shared by (3) Condo Associations (Villas and both Golf and Tennis.) Jim Lynn questioned the Committee on what the most practical and economical location is to install the sidewalk (North or South.) He perceived the South side as the most cost effective. Scott Windham stated: o Consideration to install the sidewalk on the North side of Forest Lakes Blvd. was based on a final review to determine the appropriate side of the roadway 2 ibiiz Ail 4 o Noted the following factors reviewed by the Committee and Staff at the March 25th Field meeting - Utilities - Egress - North side Grade issues - it was determined a retaining wall is not required - Economically - Easement Acquisition Findings from the March 25th Field meeting: • The North side will incur the least amount of impact • A significant quantity of mature Shade Trees will be incorporated into the Street Tree System along the walkway - Resulting in the need for fewer new Trees • Minimal Impact to existing the Trees - Remove Old Bottlebrush Tree (in very ill health) - Cutback Pigmy Date Palm (on the east end) Darryl Richard noted the following: • The Turtle Lakes Board is predominantly in favor of the Project • An Easement is required from the North side Property Owners George Fogg emphasized the need to act quickly on the Sidewalk installation (to provide a safe pathway for Residents.) Discussion took place on potential conflicts with installing the sidewalk on the South side and the existing underground Electrical Line: Scott Windham identified potential issues: • Future access by FPL may be a conflict with sidewalks that are in the vicinity • Placement of Street Trees in relation to the Utility Line • Currently data is not available and the exact route of the underground Electrical Line is unknown Kevin McKyton recognized that the MSTU will be responsible for sidewalk repairs if damaged by FPL while performing Maintenance on the Electrical Line. Discussion resumed on the North side installation. Scott Windham stated: • Construction is easier The installation is just a basic offset from the roadway Less concrete is required • Fewer Trees are required K 16112 M14 George Fogg moved to hold a public meeting within the next month for Residents in the (proposed) area of the development. Without a second the motion was withdrawn. Darryl Richard perceived the Bidding may be delayed on the Sidewalk Project as coordination is needed with the Property Owners. Jim Dougherty suggested Staff coordinate a field meeting with Staff, Scott Windham, (3) HOA Presidents, and Condo Manager to the resolve the sidewalk issue. Staff noted the Field meeting (next week) will be publically advertized to include a notation that MSTU Board Members may be present. B. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera Mark Isackson perceived sufficient monies will be available to maintain completed Projects and referenced Line Items from the FY12 Budget: (See attached) Bond Proceeds • Approximately $2,300,000.00 of unexpended Bond Proceeds are remaining • Suggested transferring $500,000.00 Bond Proceeds (FY11) to Debt Service Fund to lower the Debt Service Levy - Frees up monies on the Operating side • Perceived the Taxable Value will recover and the Operating Level will rise • Arbitrage Fees are not a factor as interest rates are currently low • 9/30/10 Cash on hand $5,205,700.00 (includes Bond Proceeds) - Amount of available Bond Proceeds $3,393,000.00 - Unrestricted cash amount remaining $1,800, 000.00 • Bond Proceeds may be prepaid at the call date of 2017 if monies are available • Amount of collected Ad Valorem Tax is generally 96% of the Levied amount C. Review & Approval FY2012 MSTU Budget Darryl Richard perceived the Forecast 11 Improvements General Line Item is sufficient ($1,331,400.00) to close out the Fiscal Year o Suggested increasing the $1,500,000.00 Requested Current FY12 Improvements General Line Item to $1,800,000.00. Kenneth Bloom moved to approve the "FY- 2012" Budget with one adjustment to Line Item Requested FY -12 (Improvements General) up to $1,800,000.00. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 4 161 P2r M14 Staff will distribute a copy of the Bond Proceed Documents to the Committee. D. Gordon River Extension Maintenance — Darryl Richard read a Letter from the BCC in response to the Committees Letter dated March 2 "d. The letter indicates that the BCC intends to perform the necessary Maintenance work to clear the blockage in the Gordon River Extension Drainage System. (See attached) George Fogg moved to direct Staff on the behalf of the MSTU Committee to draft a thank you letter to the BCC for their action. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. E. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard Darryl Richard reviewed the following: • The Updated Bond Project Cost Report by Malcolm Pirnie (Tracking method for Consulting Fees.) (See attached) • Presented Windham Studio Change Order 4 ($11,236.00) - Revisions to Move the Sidewalk to North Side of Forest Lakes Blvd. Scott Windham noted the Change Order includes: • Task 50 - Provision for existing Service to extend meeting attendance (18 months) $4,608.00 • Site time • Drawing revision • Task 900 - Sidewalk Relocation $3,728.00 does not include a cost comparison for the North side versus the South side Kenneth Bloom moved to approve Windham Studio Proposal with a not to exceed amount of $14,000.00. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. After discussion Staff speculated that Construction on the Sidewalk Project may commence in the Fall 2011. Darryl Richard reviewed a Proposal by CLM ($135.00) to maintain the East side of Woodshire Lane. The Committee was in agreement that CLM will maintain the area. F. Malcolm Pirnie —None VI. Landscape Architect's Report — Windham Studio VII. Old Business - None 161 b14 VII. New Business - None VIII. Public Comments - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 12:15 P.M. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee - QJO-� Robert Jones, Cha an These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended Next meeting is May 11 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 C1 Jr2lq o !6|24!4 E \ §| /� / 600 m \ § \ || \Q / )I)q/ !6|24!4 E \ §| /� / )I)q/ E \ §| /� / FOREST LAKES Fiala ✓ Hiller Henning Coyle t`:�fGtta 16 A14 ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 April 19, 2011 Field Meetine Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Darryl Richard. No quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: George Fogg County: Daryl Richard — Project Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Other: Scott Windham — Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty— Juristaff Public Jim Dougherty— President Fairways Forest Garden Villas Condo Bob Gracey- Manger Fairways Forest Garden Villas and Building 2 Jim Lynn— President Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis (Building 2) Eileen Lucey- President Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis (Building 1) Lee Dixon —Turtle Lakes Golf Colony III. Sidewalk Review Scott Windham reviewed the proposed North side Design Plans prior to the walk through. Walk through began at the corner of Quail Forest Blvd. and Forest Lakes Blvd. Review and discussion • A root barrier will be installed to prevent sidewalk damage • The proposed Sidewalk (north side) will follow the street path • The walkway is setback 2 ft from the roadway in key areas • Sod will be installed between the sidewalk and roadway as a visual indicator to pedestrians and motorist • Existing Boulders will be utilized at entrance Directory Sign(s) as part of the Landscaping Lee Dixon requested the existing Boulders in the Turtle Lakes Colony remain in the area. Misc Carres: Date: c'kk kc%\ \ \ item #: 2 *n,,\` % 161E AN • Lighting will be installed behind the walkway - Pole spacing will be 75 ft. • Sidewalk width is 5 ft. • Overhanging Trees will be pruned up to the required 10 ft. height for clearance • If necessary the Forest Lakes Blvd Sign will be repositioned • Irrigation modifications will be made to redirect water away from the sidewalk (as needed) • Buttonwood Hedge will be removed (Light Post at 499 Forest Lakes Blvd.) for improved visibility • Remove (1) trunk from a Pigmy Date Palm (between 499 Forest Lakes Blvd. and the Recreation area) that is a conflict with the proposed walkway Recreation Area o Plant Trees to replace the small Bottlebrush Jim Lynn perceived installing a walkway near the Pool and Bridge area will prompt curiosity and be a privacy issue. Discussion ensued and the following suggestions were made by Scott Windham, Darryl Richard, and George Fogg to address the privacy issue at the Pool area: • Remove the section of walkway leading directly from the roadway • Remove the concrete bicycle pad • Install a Landscape buffer in front of the Pool area to avert pedestrian traffic • Perceived the suggested changes can be incorporated into the MSTU Sidewalk Project The underground Power Lines (South side) were discussed and the following concerns were noted: o In some areas the Power Line may run underneath the sidewalk - Installing a walkway along the Power Line presents a major problem in the future if FPL repairs are required - The Committee is concerned with potential future repair cost • The Power Line runs the length of the roadway (South side) • The Power Line (South side) is the main feeder for the entire Condo area • (Maintenance) Offsets from Utilities is required Staff stated the RWA Survey will be complete in 30 days. PJ I 1 161 2 IN Darryl Richard stated the Attendees will receive a copy of Conceptual Plans by Windham Studio. Michelle Arnold noted the Plans will be available on the County Website. George Fogg stressed the need to move forward expeditiously on the Project and hoped the Attendees would render a decision quickly. Scott Windham strongly recommended installing the Sidewalk on the North side as he perceived the South side is problematic. VI. Old Business - None VII. New Business - None Vlll. Public Comments — None IX. Adjournment - 12:19 p.m. Next meeting is May 11 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 3 FOREST LAKES I. Call to Order 11. Attendance 1 1 161'2 A14 ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. Ill. Approval of Agenda ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 May 11, 2011 Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — April 13, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard C. Malcolm Pirnie VI. Landscape Architect Report- Windham Studio VI1. Old Business A. Sidewalk Adjustment VIII. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment WIT BY........................ Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Next meeting is June 8, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Corres: Date: !_i 1 t31 k k e. Item #: 1 1612 1114 FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 May 11, 2011 Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: Robert Jones, George Fogg, Dick Barry, Kevin McKyton, Kenneth Bloom County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich - Manger Landscape Operations Other: Thomas Roadman - Malcolm Pimie, Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff Ill. Approval of Agenda George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Dick Barry: Motion canted unanimously 5-0 . IV. Approval of Minutes - April 13, 2011 George Fogg moved to approve the minutes of April 13, 2011 as submitted. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. George Fogg noted the April 19, 2011 Field Meeting Minutes reflect the items that were discussed during the meeting. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information: o Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax $2,364.78 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard Darryl Richard reported Project (F -58) is the final Project on the Bond Project lit and noted: (See attached) o the Bond Issue Projects will be closed upon completion of Project (F-58) 1612 A14 ' o Easement negotiations are required with Property Owners affected by the sidewalk George Fogg reported a Fairways Resident fell on the sidewalk at the driveway of the Golf Course Maintenance Building and posed the following questions: • Is the MSTU liable • Does the Service area access meet ADA requirements - Suggested marking the sidewalk to indicate a change in elevation Staff recommended the following actions: • Request the County Attorney's opinion on the legal issue • Inspect the Service access to determine if the area is ADA compliant (by ABB) • Install a warning strip on the sidewalk. Darryl Richard reported that Aquagenix will be advised of a timing issue with the Fountain Lights. C. Malcolm Pirnie -None V1. Landscape Architect's Report - Windham Studio Scott Windham reviewed the Status Report: (See attached) o P.O. for Change Order No. 3 is pending - Sidewalk relocation is on hold until the Change order is approved Staff responded: • Change Order No. 3 is under review with Purchasing • Approval for RWA Proposal(s) was delayed as several modifications were required - Requested by Staff (to ensure the Scope of Services are properly written) • Staff perceives the signed Easement Documents (by Property Owners) will be acquired in October George Fogg moved to split the Project and go out to bid as soon as possible with the exception of Forest Lakes Blvd. Discussion ensued on starting the (Sidewalk) Project on Woodshire and concluding at the front entrance (by the Clubhouse.) Darryl Richard noted an Easement is required from the (Quail Run) Clubhouse as they hold the Title to the front entrance. Darryl Richard recommended initiating (2) separate Scope of Services: • Single Family Residence • (Quail Run) Club House Ea 16Ir2 ,gyp Second by Kenneth Bloom. Dick Barry suggested adding a description of Forest Lakes Blvd. in the motion. It was concluded the sidewalk section from Quail Forest to Woodshire Lane would be removed from the Project Scope. Motion was amended to include the following statement after "Forest Lakes Blvd.':- (the sidewalk section from Quail Forest to Woodshire Lane) Discussion continued on obtaining an Easement from the (Quail Run) Clubhouse. Staff will confirm if the Clubhouse Chairman is authorized to sign the Easement Document. Motion was amended to add. and to include the Club House as an Alternate. Staff requested the motion be restated for clarification. George Fogg moved to proceed to bid on the Sidewalk and all of it's encumbrances from Woodshire through the Single Family (homes) to the (Quail Run) Clubhouse and to go out to bid immediately. To include the alternate bid on the Quail Run Clubhouse Landscaping, entrance, medians, and sidewalks. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VII. Old Business A. Sidewalk Adjustment Public attendees John Krynock, Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis (Building 1) John H. Peterson, Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis Chuck Stemples Karen Stemples Scott Windham reviewed the following items: Proposed Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis Club Pool Buffer Exhibit (See attached) • Install a 4 ft. Clusia Hedge to conceal the existing walkway • Remove the walk area and concrete bicycle pad • Retrofit the Existing Irrigation System Budget Comparison North side versus South side (See attached) o Cost was similar George Fogg noted the Committees concern is long term maintenance if FPL Power Line repairs are needed. 1612 A14 Chuck Stemples questioned if lighting will be installed on Quail Forest Blvd. George Fogg responded that lighting on Quail Forest Blvd. will be considered at a later time. Darryl Richard requested Scott Windham provide a cost evaluation on Services for a possible Change Order Proposal. VII. New Business - None VIII. Public Comments — None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 11:22 P.M. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Jones, Ch 7 a These minutes approved by the Committee on 6-v- i i , as presented z or amended Next meeting is June 8 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 F- (n N m ¢w t2 N J z U m U LL W CY O LL O 00000 a R C(00 O n V V O 0000 . O 0 N (O D) 10 0 0 O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O N O O O N M O o o N V c0 o O O o 0 n N N ap O CO N M p M N M O) O M O M O 0D 0 (O D No M O M O n N N N IQ O O V V O O n M N 0 IT v n W O CO N f D n D N M N 0 N N N O N N V> 69 W. H H 63 69 69 f9 69 69 V> 6% V> 619 V> V> V> V> 619 f9 V> 64 V> V> V> V> V> fpA 69 69 V> V> O O (00 MON (m0 NO O N OOar - cN o r o r na0(p r r � r r r C M n ( r 0 O M O O N V (0p M O R V O m R O O r 0 N N M V d � V> 64 V> (9 V> V> E% 69 69 V> E9 V> V> 64 V> V> V> 69 69 w V> V> 69 V> E9 V> V> 69 69 (9 V> V> 69 Z (O O rn n rn M LL LL N R D c 0 LL o OD I t5 R 0 N N m a (D N 2 N y a N LL LL LL LL U p N N O d� N m° >8 pp3�mO ninv�)iinu� ='om� °c a'3 Q R N m y C C U L L L L L 7 (? C) y C E rn O) d` C R O L �O)OIm mU C -m, 'O C R y p J 7 y d p 7` U �, O Cl m (D '` '` '` '` '` > C N O O N y m C U W¢ C� ~ a V Y N U O o R O) >> 0 (D> p Q (r N C E J (r N N R U '- c m `m c= d d d R O O O O O - R y iA w_ 3 cL w �MUp' �F=C4) cL ci �(° o m o22ZM� > � o«. o°ti (D �v .ca a(naaaaaaU JC/a }(nLLOLL 0u) 2 M co a) (O N V 00 n U O L)C1 L)UU (> C) 00 N n V V m m � n IO M N 0 01 N M O) N N � n co O N V (p W (`M7 IM M N (� In N M M U� 0M N M� N N N O O R M N (O �.) O� Ln l00 1f N co N N N N W N N N N N N O N N N 0 CD O O O 0 0 O p N N n N N a) 04 r- 04 O O O o 000000E;0 � 0 p O 0 0 O Q O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O p p O 10 N tnN to In N N OOOOO S8ON (001000 OO N V V V V V V V V N V V N N N N W V V to V V N V V LO (0 V V V V V V V V V V V m m C .O .O 'C O R C O O N O y U -ia E O N 0 0 0 0 0 U C Z J J J yj .2 � 2 a C U V d jD N C) C) N N Z !� l6 U o o D 'O 'O m : 3rn EAU pcLL EEEEEE�,e- .2 Z! > m c 'u uZ � 3a° � d 55 �66adaaaa'm c 'a o o N(°rnin in ' (=D E E E O d) j V V Y N R Y tl) U U U U U U O ¢ ) (CO 'm CT O O O �' R rn O O O V LL� _ ¢ UO a22222H Zd Oj x >y (LCn) uC)) u)3 C 3C : C C 3 eo n (prom oo)o o)w 0000 o�ln000 Do oom (N n V 00)M O V O V CD 0000 O �N 00000 O o.-O N V N N n (C O O A O O O r O N V O l 0 0 0 0 r 10 O O V( O O M n a0 O o W n V o o O N n v N n 0 0 0 co ci V M n M W O W O W W O O N O M r V O O IO V n M N No N�� N 04 ....M M In N M vv O _ V p� f. : V> V> V> V> V >1403469 V> V> V> W co n IIn r 01 (O In N f� n r r r r m m o N � N 69 69 V> V> IMF V> 69 V> (A V> V> V> f9 V> V> V> V> V> 69 V> 69 V> V> E9 V> V> V> f9 O O O M O N O M o O OO V N O O O N N (O O W r r r 0 — o O O O O V N O N N N M o N O V (A 0 N N M M N 7 N l0 N 69 V> V> 69 V> 69 f9 V> V> 69 V> 49 V> V> V> V> V> 69 V O 0 n o 0) 0) r O CD CO O O 10 M O � M oO (D O V O) O N M N R ~ ~ 69 6% V> V> 69 V> V> 69 V> V> 69 40 V3 » 69 V> E9 0 O O o W 00) W O O o0 N 00000 O O OO V O r O O ci V O V 0 0 O O N O O O O O 0 o O N N O O r o r 0 O 00 r 00 r 0 r 00000 r 00 r r pep Cl) O O O 0 0 0 M W O O 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 00 O N O C O 0 O CD W O) O O O O N M O0 M IO O IO V O M O N N N OnD N w W lo N L0 n N M M M N O N a N N M ((O �ZZ, N v N V> V> t9 V3 N 6% Vi 6% Vi V3 N N V> V> 69 V3 EA V3 V> 19 V> V> 69 V> V> V> V> 19 69 V> 69 V> W V9 J a J 2 X O 0 of z_ a ¢� mWWaXUXZw m m¢J ¢ 0 = 0 a 2 Z W0?aFC70 Z WW W (1) xW z0z O LLI U' 2w g of 0 z a W zwzO7 OOm�wv w w(n0a9Uo- ZF- W zN mz Z W (9 -} z Q 02 -X� a'2¢¢a'atf 2 W W Q(jZ W W >C7 zz~ 2~ QX F L) = N OJ p0Z � LL LL W OLLZ� W Z(7� W UZ¢m W UU�m W W Z Wn Q ¢ �¢ W F w aaOOwx W (nz� - a0 W- Ua���>WM W O W w� �N a O Fp�W� W WLL LL W W M W �Q2UVUa�z��C�C�Q�Woa Q?w C]00w ¢ x¢(n�Z NN } }�,rn J LL W W UfYLL F�Z�t- FJ22WW XQ>O LLQ my W W >zW �ZQQW QZia- zzw)MW W pz,W W ��W0Z<2�Z0 2W a ¢d z Z Z K O ZU)<W - OJzaw(7� W 0 W -O F-d g �Q W� U ISO - -W rF -.OUZO r- W (n¢w_ Oa W _(na�aJOLL CO 00- r- m r N M V N b A N 6f 0 :2 Q 1612 pap N 0 N m N CD m T O � O N N U r g oo '2 o ro d m am�(0p oe0 Aao v N N A14 0 0 N 1l C) 0 F M ak 7 O N (O Ca O N N O o C7) n er (O M r' O R ~ ~ A M xRx N N d C LL O N O ii iia`oa u UM) r O O R N CND } } } } p y LL LL LL LL Q 1612 pap N 0 N m N CD m T O � O N N U r g oo '2 o ro d m am�(0p oe0 Aao v N N A14 a } N � LL O M (D ) O N � � C N C R : � m > c 16 0 C C J D Q ( C d E _ d dZ0 CO W DU 4O Cl) n O O N V O 1Q o o 0) m 0) E CD m M N J O ON) N x co LO H r 6 O IL 5 Oxi d > C y 0 N Q d (Y R 4) c J r d � R ~ v > o d aci a m Oc o Z E c R m Q 0' J .,.0 � �d mo I}i2aci¢ °a-C 7 N V m Y R J N O LL n N N N O LL O N R d U 0 O U) a CD $ 0 M ON CV N N O o C7) n er (O M r' O to o A M - (VO M o r LL O 0 M N R E N N a } N � LL O M (D ) O N � � C N C R : � m > c 16 0 C C J D Q ( C d E _ d dZ0 CO W DU 4O Cl) n O O N V O 1Q o o 0) m 0) E CD m M N J O ON) N x co LO H r 6 O IL 5 Oxi d > C y 0 N Q d (Y R 4) c J r d � R ~ v > o d aci a m Oc o Z E c R m Q 0' J .,.0 � �d mo I}i2aci¢ °a-C 7 N V m Y R J N O LL n N N N O LL O N R d U 0 O U) 16 2A14 \ D > ¥ > < 2 -N -�\ ƒ » o CA) M � x ° 7 / § * °okk / 2 0 E f� 2 wCD «- 8 e ° s q \ § / 0 / \ CD CD 0 \ D 2 f ƒ � o / � $ / E k 0 CD � 0 2 \ ƒ ® 0 0 / /® r _ § \ 0 :3 g g � 7 Q� -N -�\ cy » o CA) M � q 2 \ 7 0 * °okk /.0) E � ;Z W wCD «- \\ E § \§ �� 5 \ ) 0 <£m� 2 //« o / � $ / o k 0 E m x ■ \ƒE � ¥ 0 /' E Z3 0 � ] ® m m CD (D D @ 3// \// % E CD 9 7 a) 0 d' § < m E Mf 0 R 0 ° e o / � \ w cn / d / 2 2 K) \c 4 7\ &2 0 (D Q -. \ . a) P _$S k A 2 o o o w o g ■ _ q o $ w \ § k k k § CD � 0 2 \ ƒ ® 0 0 / /® r _ § \ 0 :3 g g � 7 Q� -N -�\ cy » o CA) M q 2 \ 7 0 * °okk /.0) E � ;Z W wCD «- Q� -< -< -<-< cy x/22 Cl) 2 -n ; /.0) E � ;Z W 2 E § / X \ / 5 \ ) 0 <£m� 2 //« o 9 s < E k 0 E m m ■ � ¥ 0 q E 0 FOREST LAKES 1612* A14 ReCEIVED JuN 15 2011 Rc�nM of County Womnssioners ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE Ml§aj.U. Hiller _ ADVISORY COMMITTEE Hennin_ 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH Coyle NAPLES, FL 34104 Coletta June 8, 2011 Agenda I. Call to Order II. Attendance 111. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - May 11, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard C. Malcolm Pirnie V1. Landscape Architect Report- Windham Studio VII. Old Business Vill. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Next meeting is July 13, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 II ± ,.orr e s. . s. Cate: ath'A Item # \t--6= A- 2 —►�- -1 1 1612 FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 June 8, 2011 Minutes 1. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:07 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: Robert Jones, George Fogg, Dick Barry, Kevin McKyton, Kenneth Bloom County: Daryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Manger Landscape Operations, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Other: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Lee Dixon - Public, John Krynock - Public, Darlene Lafferty- Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - May 11, 2011 George Fogg moved to approve the minutes of May 11, 2011 as submitted. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information: • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $36,104.01 • Total available Funds $3,942,463.13 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard Darryl Richard reviewed BQ Concrete Proposals to address ADA Compliance issues with the sidewalk (on Woodshire Ln.): Section: C - In front of entrance to Maintenance Shed entrance o Estimate $2,500.00 A14 1612 A14 Discussion took place on the section of sidewalk at the driveway of the Maintenance Shed Entrance (where the resident fell.) After discussion it was determined: • An asphalt adjustment was not identified in the Contractor Scope of work • The Project Engineer (and Golf Course) perceived that the area would be repaved therefore the sidewalk was not tapered down to the pavement • The sidewalk repair is critical Kenneth Bloom moved to approve the Proposal from BQ Concrete for the repair of Section: C - in front of entrance to the Maintenance shed entrance in the amount of $2,500.00. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Section: B - In front of Pool Area and Section: A - In front Parking Lot • Parking lots were pitched to drain away from the roadway - Resulting in puddles • Parking lots were privately built and are privately owned (HOA) • Contractor Proposal(s) will correct the pitch in the parking lot - Total estimate Section B - $11,200. 00 - Total estimate Section A - $11,600.00 - Both Total Estimates include sidewalk repair for ADA compliance ($4,500. 00 per estimate) Discussion ensued on the HOA parking lots and the repair cost. It was suggested to share the parking lot repair cost (50/50) with the HOA. George Fogg moved to have the (2) parking lots fixed not to exceed $25,000.00 and for staff to negotiate with Woodshire Condominium to confirm that they will share the cost on the parking lot renovation. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Scott Windham stated Windham Studio Scope of Services for the Woodshire section basically pertained to alignment and layout of the Project. Additionally he noted: • Civil type services (ABB) were removed from Windham Studio Scope of Services - Malcolm Pimie handled the interface and connections • BQ Concrete Proposals are based on an evaluation and the recommendations by ABB Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 1612 414 George Fogg inquired if the parking lot (closest to Pine Ridge Rd.) can be restricted to compact cars as pedestrians are forced to walk in the roadway due to the small lot size. Darryl Richard will request the HOA post a sign to designate the parking lot is for compact cars only. On behalf of the Turtle Lakes Community and the President Lee Dixon expressed appreciation for the work by the MSTU. He reported that residents of the rental complex are using a bulkhead as a shortcut and questioned if a hedge line could be installed to deter the pedestrian traffic. After discussion it was conceived that installing a hedge wall would not discourage the pedestrian traffic. George Fogg moved to have the Consultant (Windham Studio) conduct a study to determine if there is a solution to the problem (pedestrians using the bulkhead.) Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. C. Malcolm Pirnie -None VI. Landscape Architect's Report - Windham Studio Scott Windham reviewed the Status Report: (See attached) Forest Lakes Sidewalk (F -58) Phase / and Phase /A Budget (See attached) • P.O. was issued • Plans will be submitted for Staff review (by next Friday) • Total Cost Phase I and Phase IA $952,676.00 to include - Street Lighting - Cul de sacs Discussion ensued on the Golf Course Easement Acquisition and the anticipated time frame when the Project may go out to Bid. Pam Lulich stated the following timeline: • Bid Advertisement - 21 days is required • Pre -bid meetings will be held • BCC approval is required VII. Old Business - None VIII. New Business - None IX. Public Comments - None 3 1612 Ado There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 11:13 a.m. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MS U Advisory Committee S"Ir° Robert Jones, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on )- j3 I 1 , as presented___e�S_or amended Next meeting is July 13 2011 at 10:00 Growth Management Division — Construction & 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 a.m. Maintenance I lbi� A14 Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project Cost Report Project No. Description Estimated Schedule Stadia EngineenC� urvey Construction Costs Total Project Cost Notes 1 Overla Woodshire Lane and Forest Lakes Blvd ESTIMATED BOND ISSUE $223,462 a d bin ed ctrl project nos. 14 FUNDS AT COMPLETION Overlay Forest Lakes Blvd. from Tennis Courts on Woodshire to Project funded by MSTU 1, Gardenia Lane and from service entrance on Woodshire Lane to Completed $145,000 $145,000 funds, not bond revenue. Pine Ridge Road (approx. 6500 I.f. Project Completed. 1b F-41 - Restore drainage in cul-de -sacs, regrade side yards throughout single family area Mar- Jul 2008 Completed $25,000 $149,022 $174,022 Project Completed. tc F- 47- Overlay cul-de-sacs and Forest Lakes Blvd. from Gardenia Lane to Main Entrance Feb -Jul 2008 Completed P $45,000 $314,731 $359,731 P riect Completed. p 2 F-42 - Overlay Quail Forest Blvd. from Main Entrance to southern end and restore drainage Jan -May 2008 Completed $20,000 $88,586 $108,586 Project Completed. P 3 Quail Run Swale Restoration and Lake Improvements Combined old project nos 4- 13 3a F-43 - Regrade Swale Nos. 7 -11 and install culverts. Total re grade length approximately 5,974 L.F. Feb 2008 - May 2009 Completed $23,750 $165,715 $189,465 Project Completed. 3b F-45 - Regrade Swale Nos. 1-6 and install culverts. Total Apr - Aug 2009 Completed with $0 $0 $0 Project regrade length approximately 8,415 L.F. 3c Completed. F45 - Regrede Swale Nos. 12 -17. Total regrede length approximately 11,289 L.F. Apr -Aug 2009 Final change order $48,750 $160,374 $209,124 Project Completed. processing 3d F-38- Construct engineered partitions in Lakes 8 and 10 2009 008 - Oct Deleted $0 $0 Project Completed. 4 F-47- Overlay Forest Lakes Drive and side streets from Forest Lakes Blvd. to south and Feb 2008 - Jan 2009 Completed $40,000 $314,731 $354,731 Project Completed. 5 F-50 - Woodshire Lane Improvements (Phase 1) Mar 2008 -Aug 2009 Completed with 3c $0 $0 $0 Project Completed. 6 F -63 - Quail Run Lake Shoreline Restoration and Stabilization May 2008 -Sep 2010 Completed $257,390.00 $1,153,254.51 $1,410,645 Project Completed. 7 F -64 - Replace culvert crossing Fairway No. 5 Jun - Oct 2008 Completed $52,200 $66,328 $118,528 Project Completed. 8 F-55 - Forest Lakes Blvd Improvements from Quail Forest Blvd. to Woodshire Lane May -Sep 2009 Completed $25,520 $68,667 $94,187 Project Completed. 9 F -66 - South Woodshire Ditch Improvements Jul 2009 - Sep 2010 Completed $82,920 $404,612 $487,532 Project Completed. 10 F37 - Drainage System Mapping and Adjustments 2009 - Feb 2010 Final Adjustments $48,700 $0 $48,700 Project Completed. Underway F-58 - Sidewalks, Lighting Improvements, and Roadway Tree June 2011 -Oct. Design Cost estimate based on 100% 11 Plantings 2011 Underway $128,892 $0 $128,892 design estimate from Windham Studios/ABB 12 F -59 - Lighting Improvements Jan -May 2010 Combined with $0 $0 $0 combined with FS8 13 F-60 - Cut de sac improvements Jun 2009 -May 2010 F-58 tad with F -58 $48,982 $0 $48,982 combined with FS8 14 F-61- Drainage system mapping Jul - Dec 2009 Co5m7bined with $0 $0 $0 combined with F57 15 F-62 - Maintenance Dredging of Lake 8 Jan - April 2010 Completed $37,219 $143,845 $181,064 Completed 3/26/10 16 F-63 - Property Line Wall along Woodshire Lane Oct 2009 - May Combined with $29,382 $0 $29,382 Project Cancelled 2010 FS8 17 F-64 - Roadway Tree Plantings TBD Combined with $0 $0 $0 combined with F-58 ORIGINAL BOND DEPOSIT TO $6,098,986 PROJECT FUND BOND - FUNDED PROJECT EXPENSES $913,705 $3,029,865 1 $3,943,570 GC SERVICES/SURVEY $350,000 ovoeraeee BOND ISSUE FUNDS REMAINING $1,805,416 CTED REMAINING BOND $36,589 $1,992,288 $2,028,877 Estimated F-58 Costs PROJECT EXPENSES ESTIMATED BOND ISSUE $223,462 FUNDS AT COMPLETION S 161e A14 Proposal # 303 CONCRETE 48 Wicklitifa Drive - Naples, Florida 34110 Mate of Florida General Contractor License No. RG 291103760 Office (239) 262 -7320 . Fax (239)594-5351 becOncrate0earthlink ,stet Billing Information Job Location: Naples Name: Growth Management Address: Woodshire Ln. Address: 2885 Horse Shoe Drive S City: Naples State: Florida City: Naples State: Florida Reference /Contact: Richard Darryl Phone: 239 - 252 -5775 Fax: 239 - 252 -6627 Authorization /PO #: Under Bid No.: Section: A — In front Parking Lot Remove and dispose of concrete sidewalk that is too high and not to ADA standards and replace with 3000 psi. Concrete with fiber mesh, also remove asphalt and replace with concrete sidewalk and feather asphalt back into parking lot All labor and materials included Total cost for this project: $ 4,500.00 Additional Proposal for removing all Asphalt Parking area, and Curbing, adding fill and re setting Curbing and repaving parking area to allow the proper sloapage to the road way so water does not puddle. Total for entire Project with this area included as well: $11,600.00 Not responsible for any unforeseen items or objects that may increase the price All Material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications provided for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner. Payment structure to be as follows; Final Payment shall be due upon completion of work Work Requested by: Richard Darryl Respectfully Submitted: Billy Summers II, Construction Mgr., BQ Concrete LLC, BQ Construction LLC BQ Concrete LLC Date: 06/07/2011 161 A14 Proposal # 302 Got or -BETE 48 Wickliffe Drive Naples, Florida 34,flO State of Florida General Contractor License N*. RG 291103768 Office (239) 262 -7320 Fax (239)5944359 beconcr+etwoearlhl nk net Billing Information Job Location: Naples Name: Growth Management Address: Woodshire Ln. Address: 2885 Horse Shoe Drive S City: Naples State: Florida City: Naples State: Florida Reference /Contact: Richard Darryl Phone: 239 - 252 -5775 Fax: 239 - 252 -6627 Authorization /PO #: Under Bid No.: Section: B — In front of Pool Area Remove and dispose of concrete sidewalk that is too high and not to ADA standards and replace with 3000 psi. Concrete with fiber mesh, also remove asphalt and replace with concrete sidewalk and feather asphalt back into parking lot All labor and materials included Total cost for this project: $ 4,500.00 Additional Proposal for removing all Asphalt Parking area, and Brick paver sidewalk, adding fill and re setting pavers and repaving parking area to allow the proper sloapage to the road way so water does not puddle. Total for entire Project with this area included as well: $11,200.00 Not responsible for any unforeseen items or objects that may increase the price All Material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications provided for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner. Payment structure to be as follows; Final Payment shall be due upon completion of work Work Requested by: Richard Darryl Respectfully Submitted: Billy Summers 11, Construction Mgr., BQ Concrete LLC, BQ Construction LLC BQ Concrete LLC Date: 06/07/2011 '1 1612 IA14 Proposal # 301 CONCRETE 48 Wickliffe Drive - Maples, Florida 341lO State of Florida General Contractor License No. RG 299903768 Office (239) 262 -7320 Fax (239)594 -8351 beconcreteaearfhf nk.net Billing Information Job Location: Naples Name: Growth Management Address: Woodshire Ln. Address: 2885 Horse Shoe Drive S City: Naples State: Florida City: Naples State: Florida Reference /Contact: Richard Darryl Phone: 239 - 252 -5775 Fax: 239 - 252 -6627 Authorization /PO #: Under Bid No.: Section: C — In front of entrance to Maint. Shed Entrance Remove and dispose of i section of concrete sidewalk that is broken and replace with 3000 psi. Concrete with fiber mesh and take out and replace all asphalt in general area to eliminate elevation difference All labor and materials included Total cost for this project: $ 2,500.00 Not responsible for any unforeseen items or objects that may increase the price All Material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications provided for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner. Payment structure to be as follows; Final Payment shall be due upon completion of work Work Requested by: Richard Darryl Respectfully Submitted: Billy Summers II, Construction Mgr., BQ Concrete LLC, BQ Construction LLC BQ Concrete LLC Date: 06/07/2011 161 2'."'A14 STATUS REPORT To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc. Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: June 8, 2011 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Report 8 Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree project and Culdesac Improvement project: FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F -58 and F -60 CULDESAC PROJECT: ■ The PO has been issued for Change Order 3 and subsequent revisions and related design services have been underway. • WSI and subconsultants have been revising the construction drawings and bid documents to be phased as requested by the MSTU committee and staff at the May meeting. The bid set will be for Phase I and will include Forest Lakes Blvd from the south end of Woodshire Lane to the Forest Lakes Drive intersection including all culdesacs. The bid packets will also include Phase IA which will include the ROW area around the Quail Run Golf Club from Forest Lakes Drive to Quail Forest Blvd including the directory sign, and the entry medians. These areas are being separated due to the need for an easement agreement with the Quail Run Golf Club so that they can be removed from the bid award in the event the things get held up as not to delay the construction of the Phase I sidewalk. • WSI anticipates submitting the Phase I and Phase IA 100% plans for staff review and bid preparation by Fri, June 17. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com rp it! it 16 I 2 A-44 Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project Cost Report updated March 9. 2011 Project No. Description Estimated Schedule Status Engineering /LA/Survey Costs Construction Costs Total Project Cost Notes $3,029,865 $3,943,570 EXPENSES GC SERVICES /SURVEY Combined rid project nos. 14 1 Overlay Woodshire Lane and Forest Lakes Blvd EXPENSES BOND ISSUE FUNDS and 16 $1,805,416 Overlay Forest Lakes Blvd. from Tennis Courts on Woodshire to °,, k.•; PROJECTED REMAINING BOND $36,589 $1,992,288 Project funded by MSTU 1 a Gardenia Lane and from service entrance on Woodshire Lane to Completed ESTIMATED BOND ISSUE $145,000 $145,000 funds, not bond revenue. Pine Ridge Road (approx. 6500 I.f. Project Completed. 1b F41 - Restore drainage in cul-de -sacs, regrade side yards Mar- Jul 2008 Completed $25,000 $149,022 $174,022 Project Completed. throw hoot single family area 1 c F47 -Overlay cul -de -sacs and Forest Lakes Blvd. from Gardenia Feb - Jul 2008 Completed $45,000 $314,731 $359,731 Project Completed. Lane to Main Entrance 2 IF-42. Overlay Quail Forest Blvd. from Main Entrance to Jan - May 2008 Completed $20,000 $88,586 $108,586 Project Completed. southern end and restore drainage C3ombined rid project nos 4- 3 Quail Run Swale Restoration and Lake Improvements 3a F-43 - Regrade Swale Nos. 7 -11 and install culverts. Total Feb 2008 - May Completed $23,750 $165,715 $189,465 Project Completed. regrade length approximately 5,974 L.F. 2009 3b F-45 - Regrade Swale Nos. 1-6 and install culverts. Total Apr - Aug 2009 Completed with - $0 $0 $0 Project Completed. regrade length approximately 8,415 L.F. 3c Final change 3c F45 - Regrade Swale Nos. 12 -17. Total regrade length Apr- Aug 2009 order $48,750 $160,374 $209,124 Project Completed. approximately 11,289 L.F. processing 3d F -38- Construct engineered partitions in Lakes 8 and 10 - Oct 2 Deleted $D $0 Project Completed. 008 4 F-47- Overlay Forest Lakes Drive and side streets from Feb 2008 - Jan Completed $40,000 $314,731 $354,731 Project Completed. Forest Lakes Blvd. to south end 2009 F Woodshire Lane Improvements (Phase 1) Mar 2008 - Aug Completed with $0 $0 $0 Project Completed. 5 -50 - 2009 3c 6 F -63 - Quail Run Lake Shoreline Restoration and Stabilization May 2008 - Sep 2010 Completed $257,390.00 $1,153,254.51 $1,410,645 Project Completed. 7 F -64 - Replace culvert crossing Fairway No. 5 Jun - Oct 2008 Completed $52,200 $66.328 $118,528 Project Completed. 8 F -65 - Forest Lakes Blvd Improvements from Quail Forest May -Sep 2009 Completed $25,520 $68,667 $94,187 Project Completed. Blvd. to Woodshire Lane 9 F-66. South Woodshire Ditch Improvements Jul 2009 - Sep Completed $82,920 $404,612 $487,532 Project Completed. 2010 10 F -57 - Drainage System Mapping and Adjustments Jul Jul 2 009 -Feb 2 Final Adjustments $48,700 $0 $48,700 Project Completed. Underwa Cost estimate based on 100% F -68 - Sidewalks, Lighting Improvements, and Roadway Tree June 2011 -Oct. Design $128,892 $0 $128,892 design estimate from 11 Plantings' 2011 Underway WndhamStudios /ABB 12 F -59 - Lighting Improvements Jan -May 2010 Combined with $0 $0 $0 combined with F -58 Cut de improvements Jun 2009 - May Combined with $48,982 $0 $48,982 combined with F -58 13 F-60 - sac 2010 F -58 14 F-61 - Drainage system mapping Jul - Dec 2009 Combined with F -57 $0 $0 $0 combined with F -57 15 F-62 - Maintenance Dredflina of Lake 6 Jan - April 2010 Completed $37,219 $143,845 $181,064 Completed 326/10 Property Line Wall along Woodshire Lane Oc12009 - May Combined with $29,382 $0 $29,382 Project Cancelled 16 F-63 - 2010 F -58 17 F -64 - Roadway Tree Plantings TBD F Combined with $0 $0 $0 combined with F -58 ORIGINAL BOND DEPOSIT TO $6,098,986 PROJECT FUND _ BOND - FUNDED PROJECT $913,705 $3,029,865 $3,943,570 EXPENSES GC SERVICES /SURVEY $350,000 3 EXPENSES BOND ISSUE FUNDS $1,805,416 REMAININGa °,, k.•; PROJECTED REMAINING BOND $36,589 $1,992,288 $2,028,877 PROJECT EXPENSES ESTIMATED BOND ISSUE - $223,462 FUNDS AT COMPLETION Estimated F -58 Costs 10 16IL'�414 STATUS REPORT To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc. Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: May 11, 2011 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Report 8 Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree project and Culdesac Improvement project: FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F -58 and F -60 CULDESAC PROJECT: • WSI, ABB and Abney are waiting for the PO to be issued for Change Order 3 which has been approved by the committee and includes the following scope increases: • Increased services during construction (WSI and ABB) • MUTCD Signage supplemental specs (ABB) • Quail Run sidewalk to Forest Lakes Condo (WSI) • Revisions to divide up bid package per numerous alternates (WSI) • Revisions to move sidewalk to north side of Forest Lakes Blvd if approved by condo boards • WSI and staff held a site meeting with the condo board presidents along the north side of Forest Lakes Blvd on 4/19/11 to review the proposed north sidewalk alignment and discuss strategies. The primary area of concern and discussion was the Forest Lakes Golf and Tennis pool area and its close proximity to Forest Lakes Blvd. It was agreed that the MSTU as part of the sidewalk loop project would remove the existing concrete walk connection to Forest Lakes Blvd and the existing concrete bike pad and provide a buffer hedge along the interior walk to visually buffer it from Forest Lakes Blvd to deter pedestrian access. (See attached concept) The project is on hold until we get approval from the condo boards to move the sidewalk to the north side of the road. Additionally, as requested, WSI prepared the attached cost analysis / comparison between the original south sidewalk and proposed north sidewalk layouts for committee and condo board review. Windhatn Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1.239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.com wwW.windhatnstudio.com Please email or call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 161 2 A14 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1.239, Bojuta Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scottCsa windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 170 I r m v_ t U N n I in r in O� c m E Y w Vs w w w w w w w w 7 LL m w w w w w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n N V N m E °n .N J p U 110 d W `o Y_ o a Z U. H m W v O NI U Y O m a n m U O W J U rl MI @ z W in D E m a p Q o m N a V' o z a t0 [rD z z N Of to m J W :) 7 W a U y — U) O LL U U ¢ J O - W W Yn O N O Z N J J m ? c� E w a 21 W, U U O i+s w E m r- 0 t U 0,I I ( I I I I CJ O� OI Q� N� co N� O� N� �1 N N O Q o °' w Vs w w w w w w w w w w w w w w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n E m r- 0 N O M V1 N e N V/ @ N 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 _ 2 O) 01 2 O) C C_ _C z c G C_ N C 2 2 2 0 _� 2 2 2 2 .2 O o O O O O C c O Z Z Z Z Z Z '—�-j Z 10 @ @ N m m @ U V @ 7 7 7 7 7 7 O p 7 O O O a O O O '6 O T a a O m@ m M m m A @ m m m N (V m N N M M fV fV (V ry m m m n a a n a n a 0 n o 0 0 N 41 Iq N N N N O O m � 2 r V '7 (O fD ;T (O (0 0 0 0 C G O O O 11 X X X X X X X X O U N O O O O O O O M M O Im 0 0 R O cl) � O O U U U LL O O V O 4 LL m V N m m g d m m i. !� o E E Y d m n g w °@ m a ° 3 2 0, m m a U ? o o m °� t Y 'd c m H m "o a _a U c N m a C 01 U m J m° ° O C d U. LL LL =m r o o C o >> > cD LL O of 0 a rn m @ N O @ mO V U C y N C O c 'c o y E d 10 N m .� Iq m E u C t �+ o- a .o @ 1 y E '° m m m R 11 E y O 9 U U U U U 0 .� V U U V U -� N tM `7 Im O r Ib CD O t U 7 O 2 7 O Q o °' CD d U N OI � > � 2 a N n T CL m E °n .N OI 110 d W ' � w o a NI �I �I NI NI N) �) �I O 0 U O) �) rl MI @ w w w w w w to to w w � K K a U m rn N m m m m m m m@ m m W W W W W W W W W W m W m m m m W W W m c2 O N N M M (D N r f0 r M N M t0 [rD N O M V1 N e N V/ @ N 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 _ 2 O) 01 2 O) C C_ _C z c G C_ N C 2 2 2 0 _� 2 2 2 2 .2 O o O O O O C c O Z Z Z Z Z Z '—�-j Z 10 @ @ N m m @ U V @ 7 7 7 7 7 7 O p 7 O O O a O O O '6 O T a a O m@ m M m m A @ m m m N (V m N N M M fV fV (V ry m m m n a a n a n a 0 n o 0 0 N 41 Iq N N N N O O m � 2 r V '7 (O fD ;T (O (0 0 0 0 C G O O O 11 X X X X X X X X O U N O O O O O O O M M O Im 0 0 R O cl) � O O U U U LL O O V O 4 LL m V N m m g d m m i. !� o E E Y d m n g w °@ m a ° 3 2 0, m m a U ? o o m °� t Y 'd c m H m "o a _a U c N m a C 01 U m J m° ° O C d U. LL LL =m r o o C o >> > cD LL O of 0 a rn m @ N O @ mO V U C y N C O c 'c o y E d 10 N m .� Iq m E u C t �+ o- a .o @ 1 y E '° m m m R 11 E y O 9 U U U U U 0 .� V U U V U -� N tM `7 Im O r Ib CD O x O F W W C F rn 0 0 O o O O O O OOi T w w IN E m 0 o m o h O _ O @ m ° w 7 rn ' w 1CC", h @ a F a_ N L rn J N D- a J 1 61 2 A14 W 0 o M O O C516 irD O O � M r w w w m E m m c 0 - •v c m o w J m H OU) tlN w a rn Y to m cn U) E s Y @ Q Z 3 ?� E m v F W w E Y U z m 0 V 13 t U 7 O 2 7 O Q o °' CD d U N � > � 2 a N n T CL m E °n .N U m > r W d W ' � w o a E E c u° C" -� m m a m m m 2 0 O 0 U d RO' � m C � K K 0 � U c Iu m F LL c2 W V a r z to m J W D m U y U) x O F W W C F rn 0 0 O o O O O O OOi T w w IN E m 0 o m o h O _ O @ m ° w 7 rn ' w 1CC", h @ a F a_ N L rn J N D- a J 1 61 2 A14 W 0 o M O O C516 irD O O � M r w w w m E m m c 0 - •v c m o w J m H OU) tlN w a rn Y to m cn U) E s Y @ Q Z 3 ?� E m v F W w E Y U z m 0 V 13 m n v W C n m x + 11 O 'm V J �r D 7 m cn (D 3 O cn n O 0 CD CD < ai CD o0) D D CL ni 16 1:2 All 4 m x ni W :0 F m v G) -�O� m N � n O O Z O . n 090 m zz cz �cn r C co GOLF AND TENNIS F I FOREST LAKES MSTU_ - I� 11 O 'm V J �r D 7 m cn (D 3 O cn n O 0 CD CD < ai CD o0) D D CL ni 16 1:2 All 4 m x ni W :0 F m v G) -�O� m N � n O O Z O . n 090 m zz cz �cn r C co GOLF AND TENNIS F FOREST LAKES MSTU_ - i' I Imo. 11 O 'm V J �r D 7 m cn (D 3 O cn n O 0 CD CD < ai CD o0) D D CL ni 16 1:2 All 4 m x ni W :0 F m v G) -�O� m N � n O O Z O . n 090 m zz cz �cn r C co GOLF AND TENNIS F FOREST LAKES MSTU_ - I O O O O O O m g M o o o o o r� ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M (0 0 O n a V O O Cl V . O N N M (- 00 O O (O N 0 0 0 0 0 (O (O M N O M O 0 LO 0. 0 Cl) O v 00 O Cl) 010 r� O v v 000006 ' r- ' ' V ' O O O M O d ((7 O N N 0 M M 00 O N M (O v (O M M 0 M O M O O M O (O 0 M M l0 (0 V M r N M - N N N N O C V v 0 M_ r M (O (- V N M M h Cl) N (D V v (, 0 O - 0 r v Cl) N M N N N M (0 N N a rl O O O (O O Cl) 00 00 O M 0 (D O O O I, M M u7 O O O N 0 0 I- V _ (0 )� ' 00 ' 1 ' ' ' ((j ' ' ' ' ' ' aa>j O ' O 0) N O 0 0 V Q C P') N C h O N (0 v N V M (- V V 0 o 'E - M ao V> V, V, V, Vi V> V, V, V, V> V, 64 V, V, v, V, V, V, v, V, V, V, V, V> V, V, V, V> V, V, V, V> V, V> w c '? U? �?� °) d m N LL LL LL ca O (D Y 3 O U) C _ m O M 0 .m LL l6 N 0 O C N (0 N (0 O U U > O p_ LL N a) ra lam a) 0 O D d y LLLLLL LLLLUp N (n uJ d E N aE ❑ > x mUo�� 0 � _ N mO ' "C Nc J - m LL W ai Naa) U � �m N a . 3� cU aom 3 ) 1 U C - N c m m n n(O n(n= o 0) C L n L r L L L G a) N °)m a a) c N C E ° . m J'°.TC > a) O °J �� ° E v o Q ° U w °> > > >> W c m d a a -U) m c o - o 5(1) 0 0) 'O Dw °a -0OOOOOis w p oOLL w CO021 wU) L) E U) ALLLLLLLLa.a0 0 LL¢TnLL F- cn� (n 0) o W N M (D 0) (D N V 0 n U 0 U U U U U uD 0 (1 U U U Y O N r V v 1� M r r M N v LO 1� O N 0 l0 0 0) N M 0) N N V N M n 0 M V 0 0 ¢❑ p N M M (O M n 0 0 0 O M M M N (0 M M V M U) J Z M M (0 M 2 0 t0 N M M U U 0 N M U N N (0 O V M (0 0 r- U O N N F p C O N N N N N W N N N N N 0 N N N 0 0 0 0 O N N n N N 0 Dvj N N^ r N LL O do 0000 000opp oo'p oo oopo oo o W O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O o 000 p 0 w (O N N N (O m (O (O (O O (0 (O O O O O O (O 0 O (O (O LO O (O l0 U v v v v V V V V V s v v N m (O (O V) V v (O V V v (O V V (°0 N V LL V V V v V V v V V V N N N (� O IL a) 2 U g N O O E a) N M N N N 0 U ° E c ccU 0 x�)c � s o mUUUUU 3 y -° 0 0«� c o 0 0 Z J J J N O 20 0 .fl C U U '6 a) a1 a) a) m LD o .0 co U a) U C m O E E E E E Z d U L L as 3 >> '00 O) ) C.D U U U LL >• N W O !n (n (7 �.c .L.�.� ° °'t a) c c-a d:d:Ea'aa R o o n(n ja) a) 4) LL -c. v m °EEEEEEpW Do�cc�am mm EEE�> �aaY���cv �n.N�uu(_°)��(_°)a ¢¢mac)ac '0 cc 0 0 0 0._ mo `o `o o w a) m o m m m m m m o w L L o -- CL W M 0 M V w O W O Q) a� O O O O 6--00— 01-00 N O O O N V N O M I- O CD 00 O V O er 0000 O N 0 0 0 (D O 0 0 0) (N w I- LO 0)NN M O O O V' M O O D O 04 'It OO OD 00 ' ' 6 O v N O M N O M O O V O O o N N n O O O M O 0 M V O N O O (O ' h V m y 0 m N v N v M (O N M ! M M M v N M Nr It It r M Q V> V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, 60> t9 K V> V, V, V, V> to V, V, V, V> 69 V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V> V, V, 0 O W M v N In v O O o M (0 V O M (O O M N N W O co I-- O (o O O O O 00 0 N N O M 0 0 O N O (O O M n a M a ' ' ' ' o' o 0 o V Vi ' ' ' v v o N Oi m' 0 N d' N N O O N M (O M N M N M N (0 N M M N .- Cl! M M N N Cl O ID N M (o N N M N V N m N V, V, V, 69 V, 49 V, V, V, 69 V, di N V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, 69, V> V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, (D O (O (D O M 0) O 0 M O N il O M M (o (- o m O (O i (0 ' .4 (o ' V � O 001 n V N (00 a V co N ` N (N - V, V). V> V, 01 V> w V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, (A V, V, V, 0 O O O O m O O O) O O co N 00000 O O O N V O O O O V O V 0 0 O O N O O O O O 0 0 O N N 'a o O C O o 0 o o o 00 o 0 0 0 0' o 0 o co M' d y 0 O O O M O O O 00 00 N O O O O O O 0 O N (0 � OD O r C 0 M a C C C O N M (O M (0 O N V O Cl) C (O ) O 0 O OD 0 O N N t} (O O (n r N Cl) M Ln N O LO 00 E m N N V M M N - N N r M (0 v 16 N V, V, V) 69 V, V, 60 V, 69 69 H W V, 69 V, V, V> 69 69 V, V, V, V> V, V, V, V> V, V, V, V, V, V, V, V, (n O J U V) W Z_ LL x U W m O Z w m ¢ - U ❑ O Q W W WL mm X w LL 0' LLmF¢ J2 Z O W LL w0�- O0 Zy �wo�LL(n LULU zOz C7 C�z W� LU W Z w z U o 0O Q Q w 0 j CO w z c- ¢❑ w U) r o F w Z � a u w O KOZFy KK000w C�LL ZU W Z0F W W?g[O >U)mwm LU W W z a- ❑ F>p2 W7 LL LLJ LU LL LL LL �ILL� LLJ < UOLLLLZLULLOOQof W O0- OH WU ¢ x ¢U)LLZ NNT T �y J LL W 0- W ULL'LL H� Z 0- H H"�LL'x 0-U 0- 0LL W W W Z Z 0- 0- Z Q >~ x LIJ x❑ W~ U p p 2 Z¢ W H O Y W X LL Z) LL W Z Z W K Q Cc w Q W x O Z p m 2 Z Q H O J U 0- W O 0- W H W Of Z O H LL 0- Q2' U LL ❑ - -0' F - ) -UUZF H W(n¢ W -JOLL W ZU 2�JLLJO(.L�C) OO �F 1612 A14 M M M C V 161 P A14 FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK, F -58 PHASE 1 AND PHASE IA, 100% OPINION OF PROBABLE COST SUMMARY Prepared by: Windham Studio, Inc. 6/8/11 WSI AND ABNEY: LANDSCAPE / IRRIGATION CONRTRI If TinN Budget Item Estimate Phase I Planting, Site Prep, MOT & Bond (Includes 10% Contingency) $73,625.00 Phase IA Planting, Site Prep, MOT & Bond (Includes 10% Contingency) $62,575.00 Phase IA Irrigation (Includes 100/0 Contingency) $38,310.00 Phase IA Landscape Lighting (Medians and Signs) $20,500.00 SUB TOTAL: $195,010.00 ABB: SIDEWALK / STRIPING / DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION TR TRANSPORTATION_ LIGHTING MNSTRI irTInN Budget Item Estimate Lighting Supply and Install (HE§ li ht, 20' pole, upgrade owdercoat $409,840.00 15% Contingency $61,476.00 SUB TOTAL: $471,316.00 IGRAND TOTAL: 1 $952,676.00 (GRAND TOTAL (LESS CONTINGENCIES): 1 $843,592.00 1 *Denotes new budget item 1612 A14 FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.0 Next meeting is August 10, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 Gwsl bell lasnx. vy?wal Capwb LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES,FL .MIN July 13, 2011 lIYA11 llllll Agenda BY: ..... ................. I. Call to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - June 8, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Repent - Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VL Landscape Architect Report- Windham Studio Fiala 7� —T— Hiller VII. Old Business HenNlg Coyle ✓ Colors VIII. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Next meeting is August 10, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 Gwsl bell lasnx. vy?wal Capwb "aa= aRaaa�saaa:Raaaaaa . as Ra :a _ a 8 1 6 1 2 A 14 SR cx smas� & &xo &sR &� s a. is���s .. » » » » » » ». » „ » » » ».... ........ „ » » » »... ».... ... »....... » »...... » »....... " »» » 6 wax a & a g Fz 4 ssa aaaa is ° €aB EE- . R,.3? „. � €d €isb }eoa >w..o.sH 34p ee E zie�F E yYY r.,s 2`aass� `a1F yg€ €o sia^i�E!?sa - -E_g Ea-ej? - WHIll a=s8 soeaasaa ^sus EPA. 7 . s »s as9 000P « »» ».mom ced a c e n- ,• e s - amR as a Em° »8a e a 8 "Se &i &a a R & & & &a sa ... .a.aVWZ »g .... m..........6.„ 4 €£g= 'oa: 3, w..as e ww :G.0 0Eoa.E�E8m80.F� `00 0£ =w „ "; Boas: " °w "$ =��a ��3 =ags=aa a 00 .w ol 00 161 2 All i STATUS REPORT TO Forest Lakes MSTU Committee on Darryl Richard Collier County ATM Jim Can, ABS _ _ Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc. _ _ Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. .Scott Windham Date: June 13, 2011 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F38 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Report 8 Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree project and Culdesac Improvement project FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F58 and F -6 0 CULDESAC PROJECT: • Forest Lakes Phase I was put out to bid on Wed, 7129 and a pre-bid meeting is scheduled for 10:00 AM today to answer contractor questions. As requested by the MSTU Advisory Committee, the bid went out divided into three sections including the sidewalk construction (Base Bid), sidewalk lighting (Alternate) and planting / Ir igation l landscape lighting (Alternate). These primary sections were further subdivided into subaltemalfis to allow flexibility if needed due to any potential easement acquisition problems with the Quail Run Goff Club • Staff received an ol8cial letter from the north side condominium board presidents dated 6127approving the easement only if built on the south side of the road The underground utilities location survey revealed that the conflicts on the south side were significantly less than originally anticipated and actually greater on the north side. If approved and authorized by the committee to proceed WEI will review the utilities in relation to the south side sidewalk and tree layout for potential conflicts and complete any necessary revisions for final submittal for staff review. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASJ A Landscape Architect 000 -1516 Wf,d]=Smdiq Inc„ Lund aopc A,,hilxmm, LC 26000365 P.O. Bac 1239, Bwtiw Spa g,, Flonda 34133 Ph.. (259) 3901936 Fs. (239) 3901937 6ma& mm cow unndM1nmsmdomm Turtle Lake Golf Colony 180 Forest Lakes Blvd Niles, FL 36105 239 263 3587 239263 -6647 Fax deougl£i�enl9azH ai�nl. June 22. 2011 1612 X14 ' Darryl Richard RLA BIRTH Project Manager Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Re'. Planted Hedge Line between Buildings 6 & 5 Dear Mr. Richard This is written confirmation that Turtle Lakes Golf Colony will pay for maintenance in perpetuity of the hedge line Installed on Its properly between buildings 5 & 6. Fudher, upon completion of the installation Forest Lakes MSTU is neither obligated nor responsible for either plant material or replacement warranty of the installation. Turtle Lake Golf Colony thanks the MSTU Board for considering Its request. Forthhe Board Lee Dixon Manager 16 I 1 A14 Fairway Forest Garden Villas, Inc. Forest Lakes Golf & Tennis, Bldg. #1, Inc. Forest Lakes Golf &Tennis, Bldg. #2, Inc. June 19,3011 Darryl T. Richard RI.A Collier County Growth Management Division MSTU Project Manager Dear Darryl, Thank you very much for taking the time on June Job to brief John Krynack and Jim Dougherty of our associations on the sidewalk plan should it be located on the North side of Forest Lakes Blvd As we noted during our walking survey on April.. 19th, we are concerned that a sidewalk on the North side will come very close to some of our facilities. We moved to postpone taking any formal gained until completion of the utility survey. The plan you presented does show some ameliorative landscaping covert at our recreation area which we greatly appreciate. Banner, contrary to prior concerns, the utility survey appears to show more underground electrical and water lines on the North side rather then the South side of the street Given the above, it is the collective position of our three condominium associations that we recommend you consider constructing the sidewalk on the South aide of Forest Lakes Blvd. As we were advised at an April MSTU meeting, our agreement is needed regar -0 lees of whether Me sidewalk is local" on the North or South aide of the street Thin letter may be cited as our agreement to have the sidewalk constructed on land planed to us on the South side of Forest Lakes Blvd. Again, thank you very much for your assistance. We hope the Board will accept our recommendation. Sincerely, ughe t ten R. Lueey damn J. Lyn_ President, Pmident, President, Board of Directors Board of Directors Board of Directors Fairway Forest Forest Lakes Golf Forest lakes Golf Garden Villas & Teams Bldg 1 & Tennis Bldg.2 161 2 A14 N 0 m co m W 03 o iv � NII O 12 c O O C m m x W W -C � A � O ill 3 0 c W C CD a O. U Q c CD '' CD N n o �0. a N c n O N t O O Gf R CL u -n °1 c O C N a b co 0 tl O W W n W N c O tN0 0 A A C O W 4 V V i i Q O O w` A A 6 co COO V Ob CD O COl1 V EA EA 6 tlt V1 O O Cfl P d O OOD i 4. A C 0o i u O co C fA EA b C. N N i O cA7f C' 0 0 1611 A14 i� o00 Q :U N a tf1 EA rfi <A 000 0 0 � o. m m x co CDC N M m O o CD o� 0 CD O r_ s r_ CD 3 SAD C 7 i CD to i m n 3w 1 CD M O o I mmOm -i X;osp ; moon -CD -00 -0 '06 ° < < 7 < < O N to 7 N 7 7 7 N 7 7 o `o >_ I Ll Q O. Q N CD CD N CD N a") ffDD C C y C N N .fD 7 W ;u O (D --lo p. �• N CD SD 6.3 N CD CD 1-► Q SU N O O 0' C 11'1 (D 3. CCI k-n o OA to N CO CL) 7 ff C (D D) 0 m N :z CD CD 3 Ro T 2 {= c 0. a N O N CD � O cc 'O T N 7 C CD 6 Q O1 N C y 90 7 :+ N n c 3 CL N ,69 (fl ifl c�r1 Eft p - i .0 0> N OO'� .Op O' O 7 CL O -co A CD fD N i D1 O U1 m N Co N co N _O O ffl - to W 4A w [fl w 1A (n O cch 01 69-09- N V r CD O j ? i OO,A i V m CT N O V O O fA ffl 6H i 6R, ? N co O Q ? O -W p (0 O � w � O 0. O �T A m a 69 69 WccooW ift N 40 w 60 w o. N N Pb EA 0 Cn -0. O O N i In P 00 O c O N ,n Q co A C)) 00 N I O c0 O O O N O O T O I w 0 (0 Go 6969 po O W N C. O N W Cn W O v O A 00 N O O O 70c v N O CD N 69'.9'69 i to <A 3 co W Nvcon O i 69 -,g 69 w 4m V p W i O O N .Op N O O O W CT N O 00 s O N N W I � W Cl) O A m <A 61 w w W - V O A T 69 GnOO OON w O ;o 1 O O O OD - O 90i i� o00 Q :U N a tf1 EA rfi <A 000 0 0 � o. m m 1612 `415 ' I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes —April 12, 2011 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado IX. Old Business X. New Business XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for June 14, 2011 at 4;00 p., At Golden Gate Community Center, - Naples, FL 1 1612 A15' COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 y 2 0 a MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Michael McElroy (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, Damon Himmel - Hannula, Richard Tindell — JRL Design, Sue Flynn — Juristaff was the Advisory Committee and other atteins with an overhead projection screen to help provide a paperless environment v a MSTU's request. III. Approval of Agenda Richard Sims moved to approve the May 10, 2011 Agenda as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — April 12, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the April 12, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report 1 1612 1151 Darryl Richard distributed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated May 10, 2011. (See attached) • Ad Valorem Tax Collected - $246,848.13 • Operating Expense Available - $83,682.23 • Improvement General Available - $431,156.73 • Purchase Orders Paid - $144,585.25 B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard reported Bonness and Hannula Landscape are progressing at a fast pace. Hannula has proceeded with preparation for installation of the irrigation on Coronado. He reviewed a proposal from Ag- Tronix in the amount of $18,379.30 for material only on the irrigation control system for Hunter and Coronado Project. Discussion was made on the materials on proposal not being included in the original bid and extra future charges the Committee is not aware of. Staff indicated it is standard on projects that the bidder is directed not to include materials. The County will deal directly with Ag- Tronic's curtailing the materials being marked up. If future change orders are required additional charges may be incurred. r Richard Sims moved to approve Ag- Tronic proposal to get the project moving. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4 -0. Darryl Richard presented an estimate from Itran Partners to mount a 6" sleeve over the south bridge. Road and Bridge gave their approval to mount 6" sleeve over the bridge. Riprap will be used under the bridge. Barbara Segura moved to approve the design modification to install conduit over the south bridge and to add riprap per Staff recommendation not to exceed $4,500. Second by Richard Sims. Motion carried 4 -0. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula Damon Himmel reported as follows: • Flows have been place on all zones in the Golden Gate City. He will provide a report within the next 7 -10 days. • The sprinkler heads have been adjusted. • Work described on recent approved proposals is schedule to begin next week. Peggy Harris asked if Hannula would make an adjustment for work not performed at Hunter and Coronado. Damon Himmel responded adjustments will be considered. VII. Landscape Architects Report — JRL Richard Tindell reported as follows: 2 1612 "A15' • Noted seeing an improvement • Work Orders are scheduled to begin next week. • Removal of some crown of thorns on median tips is complete. • Pathway requested the GGMSTU revised the Grant application to include upgrading bridge at Coronado to meet State and Federal ADA requirements. VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Mike McGee reported as follows: • Bonness will complete curbing project on Coronado will be completed in a couple of weeks. • Pavers will be installed next. • Irrigation work has begun. • Hunter Boulevard will begin after Coronado. Darryl Richard recommended the Committee review the Master Plan prior to submission to BCC for approval. Staff will send link to them to review Copies of the strike - through Master Plan and the revised Master Plan to prepare for the next meeting. IX. Old Business — None. X. New Business — None. XI. Public Comments — None. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee Richard Sims, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on as presented X or amended '/-/ Z_ // The next meeting is scheduled for June 14, 2011 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL 3 U "'OLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 May 10, 201 SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS III. Approval of Agenda Richard Sims moved to approve the May 10, 2011 Agenda as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — April 12, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the April 12, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report B. Project Manager Report He reviewed a proposal from Ag- Tronix in the amount of $18,379.30 for material only on the irrigation control system for Hunter and Coronado project. Richard Sims moved to approve Ag- Tronic proposal to get the project moving. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4 -0. Darryl Richard presented an estimate from Itran Partners to mount a 6" sleeve over the south bridge. ROW gave their approval to mount 6" sleeve over the bridge. Barbara Segura moved to approve the design modification to install conduit over the south bridge and to add riprap per landscaper recommendation not to exceed $4,500. Second by Richard Sims. Motion carried 4 -0. 1 -1. A t A W W W W W W N N O W 00 V O) Cn A O m m c c x D —icncn DOO DD mA ra-xx U))mm CC) y0 wC<m<M- � -im r- m< oCl'm��xoim Z 1 n zNCZn c D� OCl) --jD Z-< z �C)-0 Z G) j C) Z z z O O G) r Z77 m EA EA (A EA Vi, N N COO I J W O W 00 I O Cn 00 O W I O O O O A O O O O W I CD EA EflIEA EAIfA 1 MEMER DD NII fA EAIEAIEAllmil N N (n N O) O) N A 00 00 W f O) O O O O co -11 O O N r W N O O O( O O O O O EA EA EA EA EA E W A co I I m � N O T o °o °u 0 D a 0 m � W W!2 W N N N N N N N N j N » ;� W N O W W V O) N A W N O CO W V 01 N 00 m 0 Dc O D?� .z m mmizGC n� m � z 7 z D�m�)�m m Zm�m7�� <mG)G7Dm m0 m0�Q N GImC3 -u — Dm �rTr�G)zmn O mX ramTJ;Up – � �G) =� -0 v m m O Z D z D n m mZ�cnD� i�mm mm -a0 z O m o m W y� �� cf) mm m m m CO O z z D D D Z W C p C) m cn m e D Cn D c m fA 169 EA EA Elf fA EA EA EA EA EA EA fA EA EA EA EA EA EA (b N N (n O O N N C O (n CO Cn 7 0 O Cn O O O O cn N O V� m O N J O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O A 0 0 N J O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N D O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O J O 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0— 0 CD O 0 EA EA fA EA EA fA EA EA to fA EA EA EA in EA fA EA A N W W W (b A N N ' ` Cl (n 5. J V (D N A B W CD W Cn Q1 co O O) A V N O W O) W O J N N O Cn A co W Cn A O) N O O) W J (D U O 9 EA EA to EA fA EA EA EA fA EA EA fA EA EA (A EA EA Q7 J Cr W O (D m N W (n D) Cn J Cn J O O O N O J O co O (D J W Cn W O Cn J O O O) O O O O O N 8 O O A W O W O 6) O N O) A CO C--40 O A O O W O Cn O (n 9 EA EA EA EA fA EA fA EA EA EA fA EA fA fA EA fA EA J'2 A W N -+ O O 00 V Q) N W m1�zc)c) �� �— 0 z O§ m D D A� m? l- C m --j L�DZG)��zz mmm= rA Z r.-; -<0�Zz zmcn Dy rmrmmm„ mmm m��= << zmm�mmA� zp DmD- 0 z R� ;. O -� O 71 c O m >> 0 0 cc-)Z2 m m m y z< 0 0 0 O m Z �K nm�fv Xmcmnm °J mz0� mmcom Z Cl) EA EA EA Elf EA EA EA EA Elf fA EA EA EA EA 00 Cn (T N N W Cr 0) j Cn O J m O J A O W Cn 00 , 7 CL O O O O O O O O O m O (x� 0 W O O O O O a O O) O d1 O' O' O O ' O fA fA Efl EA EA EA to EA fA EA ffl EA fA a W Cn cn � j � N O d W N O Cn W O m Cn N N Cn N m N O A N Cn O co A Q A O O O O A O O O W O A O) N 0 0 0 C) CO (D N Cn > m O O O O N O O W O O D Cn O Cn 00 00 O W O CO CO A Cn A > 0 0 0 0 C) (b O O N 0 0 0 Of O J O O O O O co O O O) N W 0 0 0 0 0 v O O J 0,S? 0 N CD v W O O d) O J W N O Cn J c) m w~-D Z Z K K W j 2 2 TI T T m co o o m m m 0 0 0 0 y Q m m v O o 0 0 G) G) G) G) n r r c r (p n y mmmm y' a y m m m m R p p n c c v v m < mmm m cn Cn 0 to Cn n Cn 17 DDD D� > > G)� m Q a C O (� O (fl a `G N N N N CD m C p W m m W O Z O O O O C p Z Q) m 7 W CD N N CD m CD m 1V T co 0 N C� N N O P V _ o 0 % m m CD m m N y N _ _ _ m o ~ N c .y .. m w n m 3 a ° 3 C p II 0, o o < o v m o CD A A A A A A A A EAJ) A A. -N A A A A N A A A A N W Cn O Cn Cn (n Cn Cn Cn O Cn Cn Cn (n Cn (n Ul O Cn Cn Cn Cn O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_ _O _ O O O O O O O O O O Z Z W EA fA EA EA EA Efl EA fA EA EA fA fA EA EA 1mOrU�mm�cnrrrm ? Cn�r- ()r(7 mmmm O m (p c m m m c (a 7 7 0 w m O W N O m 0 (D O — .3i 7 .nw C) Q n 7 7 C c C i m Q Q N N N— 7 O m y Cn O W Cl I CD °–'mCD �moo�� ammmd' CD 2. �l3o – < m m D D o cn Z G Z x m O o m D ti 7= m C') n 7 N m. S N CD Q N N y' C) CI x p c 7 7 Z N 7 N 7 C 3 m m % (D .M 1 f7 O m 3 (7j C/) "O n n O N n d CCD CD 0 0 m W N G O N CD 0 Ch CD a EA EA fA fA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fH fA fA EA fA EA fA fA EA EA EA w v rn a= 00 W (D Cn A W C a 00 O O O co (D N A O A Cn A W Cp C CD C) O) I) N W W W N) CD v W EA fA fA fA EA EA EA EA W fA EA 60 EA EA a W Cn cn � j � N O d W N O Cn W O m Cn N N Cn N m N O A N Cn O co A Q A O O O O A O O O W O A O) N 0 0 0 C) CO (D N Cn > m O O O O N O O W O O D Cn O Cn 00 00 O W O CO CO A Cn A > 0 0 0 0 C) (b O O N 0 0 0 Of O J O O O O O co O O O) N W 0 0 0 0 0 v O O J 0,S? 0 N CD v W O O d) O J W N O Cn J c) m w~-D Z Z K K W j 2 2 TI T T m co o o m m m 0 0 0 0 y Q m m v O o 0 0 G) G) G) G) n r r c r (p n y mmmm y' a y m m m m R p p n c c v v m < mmm m cn Cn 0 to Cn n Cn 17 DDD D� > > G)� m Q a C O (� O (fl a `G N N N N CD m C p W m m W O Z O O O O C p Z Q) m 7 W CD N N CD m CD m 1V T co 0 N C� N N O P V _ o 0 % m m CD m m N y N _ _ _ m o ~ N c .y .. m w n m 3 a ° 3 C p II 0, o o < o v m o CD A A A A A A A A EAJ) A A. -N A A A A N A A A A N W Cn O Cn Cn (n Cn Cn Cn O Cn Cn Cn (n Cn (n Ul O Cn Cn Cn Cn O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_ _O _ O O O O O O O O O O Z Z _O O N N ) N ) N N N CD N O N N N— D D N _ _ _ _ cn N O O O) O) N O) O N N N N V n (A V 00 N N Cn W N N J W N (3) N N J O A O) O) N 0) O Co A W CD 00 Q) Cn W A N A W CD (fl Na W N m co m co N A 00 O 0 0 n 1mOrU�mm�cnrrrm ? Cn�r- ()r(7 mmmm O m (p c m m m c (a 7 7 0 w m O W N O m 0 (D O — .3i 7 .nw C) Q n 7 7 C c C i m Q Q N N N— 7 O m -. N O m W= D O N N to d N N C H ty `< n a N O m y Cn O W Cl I CD °–'mCD �moo�� ammmd' CD 2. �l3o – < m m D D o cn Z G Z x m O o m D ti 7= m C') n 7 N m. S N CD Q N N y' C) CI p c 7 7 Z N 7 N 7 C 3 m m % (D .M 1 f7 O m 3 (7j C/) "O n n O N n d CCD CD 0 0 m W N G O N = S w W n C W O y CD a EA EA fA fA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fH fA fA EA fA EA fA fA EA EA EA m � co W N W N -+ A _3 a ) 00 W O) O N O 00 m Cn O CD 7 3 N (D A N_ -11 N A N J (D Cn O c0 m W > O) , , O J T , O N A A N (D W N O O) Cn > J CD CD N O J W O J W O E Cn O A O O O N Cl Cn O Cn A CD J O A W (A EA fA EA Efl EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA W W EA W fA fA fA W EA fA a n _ _ C _ Cn W N Cn � A J � O (O d) W � O Cn � — J O) W M (n O W Cn OO V N M O W Cn O O) Co J N Cn O Cn J N Co (D Cn N O O Cn 00 J O Cn N W W (n J O W O Cl CA N, O CO Cn , O O O CO Cl m J J 0 G m 0) O O O O J O 0 0- N) O O A O 0) A O W A N O O O O O 00 O O O O U) O O Cn O w A 0) O ak5� 0 O r v m Z D �Tm �c C W M °vc N � � W T D O Z fn C 1612 A15 I ADVISORY GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 June 14,2011 JUL 2 6 2011 MINUTES By I. Call to order A quorum was not established. II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris (Excused), Barbara Segura (Excused), Michael McElroy (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich — Landscape Operations Manager Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, Manny Gonzalez and Nicki Charette - Hannula, Richard Tindell — JRL Design, Sue Flynn — Juristaff Without a quorum the scheduled meeting was not called to order. Misc. Corres: Date: ,\ to: Fiala '-'� L/ Hiller Henning -- Coyle Coletta �`- ----- The next meeting is scheduled for July 12, 2011- 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL 1 1612 A ` L e COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBLIC SEI�VI'C�V Parks and Recreation Department 15000 Livingston Road -- Naples, Florida 34109 — Phone (239) 252 -4000 — Fax (239) 514 -8657 Website: colliergov.net GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA April 4, 2011 Call to Order II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — March 7, 2011 V. Public Comments VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights —Vickie Wilson B. 6' Fence from Tax Collector to Lucerne VII. New Business A. Monthly Budget — Annie Alvarez B. Review & Approval FY2012 MSTU Budget VIII. Member Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting will be on May 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida ' � i 1612 6 April 4, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD RECEIVED Naples, Florida, April 4, 2011 JUN 10 2011 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00,PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "C" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Jim Klug Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III Vickie Wilson, Community CenteYi�cj isor Date: c--t\\31\. item #:x -L eto 1 Copies to: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. 1612 1, April 4, 2011 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:03 PM by Chairman, James Klug III. Attendance — Establish a Quorum A quorum was established. Approval of Agenda Darrin Brooks moved to approve the April 4, 2010 Agenda as submitted. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Approval of March 7, 2011 Minutes Darrin Brooks moved to approve the March 7, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Public Comments — None. Old Business —Addressed after VII. New Business A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez distributed and reviewed the Monthly 130 Fund Report. (See attached) She reported the Community Center's budget is on target, revenues are coming in as forecasted and expenses are staying within the revenue. B. Review & Approval FY2012 MSTU Budget Annie Alvarez reported working on the draft MSTU Budget FY2012 to submit to the Director for his review next week. She will provide a draft budget for the Advisory Board's review and approval at the May meeting. Kaydee Tuff arrived at 6:07 pm. Discussion was made on drafting the budget for FY 2011 -12. Staff will include the budget items previously requested by the Advisory Board. It was noted requested items may not all be included in the 2011 -12 Budget. Annie Alvarez stated historical data will be utilized to draft next year's budget Staff gave an update on the vacant program leader positions hiring status and stated the positions were included in the budget. Staff is working with the Budget Office to get Greg's old position filled. Jim Klug suggested the Advisory Board and Staff consider adding a driveway up to the double gate near the bandstand for easier access for deliveries and 2 A16 16 12 A461, April 4, 2011 trucks usage when holding events. Staff will research feasibility with Road & Bridge and /or Stormwater. Annie Alvarez volunteered to contact Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager on what it will cost to for fill and to stabilize the field to hold events on the field. Discussion was ensued on the installation of new flooring for the Center and it was suggested tile be installed instead of rug. VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson reported: • Frontier Days held on March 12 -14 was a success. • Summer Camp registrations are slow. • VPK Program registrations have filled up fast. There is a waiting list and next year the Staff will consider holding 2 sessions each day; a morning class from 9 am -1 pm and an afternoon session from 1:30 pm -5:30 pm. • Harry Chapin Food Bank is tentatively scheduled to distribute food at the GGCC in May. • Farmers Market added more vendors. • Tropical Fest proceeds of $2,500 will be used for the Summer Scholarships Program. It was noted Rafaela Zapata, a Customer Service Representative started working for the Center 2 weeks ago. The Advisory Board inquired what the policies were when requesting e -mail addresses to provide users information on current programs through an e- newsletter and if the GGCC is allowed to have their own website and /or on Facebook. Staff stated the Parks and Recreation Department has a website within the County website with access to park information. The Advisory Board expressed their preference was to have their own website. Staff will research the request with John Torre, Director of Communications. B. 6' Fence from Tax Collector to Lucerne — None. VIII. Member Comments Peggy Harris asked for an accounting on revenue made from the Tropical Fest Event and expressed concern that Frontier Days and Tropical Fest dates are currently being held 6 weeks apart. She stated the timing takes ambiance away from both events. Staff agreed the dates are to close together and suggested Tropical Fest Event be held in early fall in 2012. Darrin Brooks left at 6:35 pm 3 161 :'1 April , 2011 6 Vickie Wilson reported Tropical Fest revenue as follows: • Revenue - $9,554 (Carnival - $8,754 and Vendors - $800) • Expenses - $6,579 • Net Profit - $2975 Public Speaker Duane Billington, Golden Gate Civic Association asked if the Indoor Farmers Market will include food vendors. Staff stated GGCC only rents space to the Farmers Market and suggested Mr. Billington contact Darcy Belding for more information. Duane Billington inquired on the revenue and operational costs of the Center. Jim Klug explained the revenue is split 60/40 between the County and the MSTU. He stated "for every $6 the MSTU pays, the MSTU receives $10 in benefits." Staff stated another benefit to the MSTU is; at the end of the fiscal year unused funds remain with the MSTU and do not go back to the County. Discussion was made on the MSTU boundaries and if the MSTU encompasses the entire 34116 zip code. It was determined the 34116 zip code is larger than the MSTU District. The fee structure for MSTU residents and non -MSTU residents in the 34116 zip code are currently both receiving MSTU fee benefits. Staff will request the MSTU Tax Receipt address list from Tax Collector to identify GGCC MSTU residents. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:55 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on as presented k or as amended in OfOlv'd'O l6lG'C'NOC' . --I<f' NONCOM O�OO 0000 bl O.- -IOON .-10 C; 1t MM1100 r-I l0N6lLn c'cn lfl1 Lf)d'M1 a' MM LnOLn Ln l0 LoODOO1-1 I ICY M H W �1�`6 i 2 U dp 15l 6161CD aO1d'00Lo 10 N O Ln 1 M N Ln06100 N O OC'a'10M in O N cM d' O OOO r-i 001 (3100. - 1 157 0 61 10 10 O m00110010 zv 10o 1 N N OM 00 M r- I00Ln ( -610Lh Ln Ln-i MOI-u' Lna C Uc10000Ln mOO U700 Lnr-m U. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61611010 O N w w Ln M M O d' O 00 N c O 10 C'M00d' Ln 0014 NM N ri 1 Ln O Ln( �4 ri 0010 100061 N O Ln M Ln W C,)ww 10,,-- u-)NNo,)M0)- r-I Ml -r- 1,0MN (ID Mmm I-MMNCO MLC)M000LC) Lt700 Cl M O Ln OD H MM1010 to mLo oc)mw.iM MtC1 NOM r-i N M10Nd Lo 10 vmM,v MLo 1-6110 r-1 10 Ln U7.-i Ln-,;r V C C�7 MMOOr O�10 l0riri ON 14(,10 NM N IflMNLn N d'N (Y Ln ri r 1 1 M M 10 .--a ri N O 0) 00 M r-I N Z3' d' M M c-1 r-1 Ln N r-I r-I W I Q r� o 0 00 C7 N Ln <t00 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I OV'O NNOO Cl ICO O Ln 100 O Ln 1100 Ln Cl N N m 00 -,v 1010 M Ln 0010 d'000000 OMOO1 ri C' md'm -c OOMMN1 'r CDN[- [- OMOD10mOOMNOOLnLnq'. -ICBM N�t'Ln0000Ln61 Ov'0010 Ln a) LnNOI ' 1 M C) r-I Ma;( 1k . i Ln 101001100(DD 99 O19 Ln M 1 4 Ln_:10NM IO Ln Ln OO Ln MOON 019 Ln IOM 4-1 - 100 611- d"l -[-r-I OOI -r-I N 0 N O m N LC) MM N r-IMmm [- NNm061 LnM Vv O-4I'0001 NO Ln r-I Ln I. 001010[ rir- I r- i r-I M00 M 00 -d' N10Ml -tom MmN -qP Ln Ln00 Md161(n L) Ln 1001 -100 r- Nr- a) a) a) Ei 11 -rl Z MM1161 NON001 Ln 10d' 061H N1 N OCNLn. -i N 1 C'd'(D O) .--1 (d r{ H U In Ln CO 00 Ln r 1 -1 110 -1:v .-i H N ri ri 4' v ri M N AHU H (y) IN Ln N-1 N x O U W M m 61 61 N 10 N N N N N O z W 11 1 [: a' o (] 1010 l0 10 l0 N a 0 0 O O w 10 0 U 1 0) m 61 61 N N 4-) r1 m CD 00 m N O v 414.) a a � w H O O W I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 'e7 UA 00000 0000000 00 00000 0 000 0000 000000000O00 00 r♦ '� d-I N N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rl OHE- ba r -HCDCDCD 0000000 00 O r-i O( -O O NmM 0000 1000000000000 00 4 V Z H (1) 'a MMOOD 0000000 00 0('")000 O 1010 100610 r-i 00000000000 00 NA VUz 9 MLnmmm Ln[- O. -iaoo NO Lnm[ -610 Ln NN 61011 -.-1 M61NN1- 10r- 1LnLn100� r- CO O U) •ri X x a) In Ln 00 00 r-I N V' 6161 d' N a' 1 1 1 M 00 r-i r-i r-I 1 co O r-i Ln r-i N .--i 1 C' O 10 (14 L) H U 'd X X 04 'U r1 r-I --I -I N r-♦ ri r-i ri N 00 M r-161 10 N M m 00 ri M d+ W04 000 X a) 1010LnLnM HLnN �+ 'TI O r W W tJ d•) Gl to d H H r. � � HUC ro o (o V (1) U a (aZZ I I I I I I I I I I I I I '14 1:4 W G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mUVCa0a) 00000 0000000 00 00000 0 000 OOOO o00000000000 00 •r1 00 a) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 1 0 O N M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O r-I r-1 Cl) UCD aS 00000 0000000 00 00000 O 1010 100610 000000000000 00 -I (d m00Mm(n Ln1Or -1000 NO Ln x-11610 Ln NN 61611 r-I 'V'61NN 110 r-I Lo Ln 100 V' 100 U� toLn0000r-i Nd'0161V'N,V 11 1'V'00 r-i .- -I .-1 100 0 -1 Ln LnN r-i 1C'Ol0 N Ln �a I M M r1 r1 N .--i ri r-i r-i N 00 Ln.- -I 6l l0 N M Ol 1 ri 61'cl' LoLnLnLnM oLnN V' o a ri v O b 4 a a) V E1 �:5 41%04HU1 WHH m Mw a UnH w Uwx H� OHUw A U W w mooHWO0UZW Zzzz zO �M,H z Ix�a A 1 aw aU�x(n�U�a ` za>1 WWWW X' U00 O OHW HWU) M U (D '>-I azwjw 004P40HH WWN O O PI-4mw Oa �4HOUPWIXgWO1.4 H ri Z < <a1 OWHzU H H m z HCDWPgZQ(�ZZ Url H pz zxHP4P:OW �7 H>>0 UH 0 �HDHHH ON M m �GHHW W410 4HHOHz N20 z >{ r1 E+ U HE' HWHHU r-1 w4a xWU� 4(Y, H zcnUn �7UUHOw !�O 0 O O(Y 0 r �] E-I U)F4HH".) (oUr�104 Hza+�F-]N �x�xHPi I za�aWar� �UC�a x x . -1001 HUIjfZQF4i'iH'�+W[��jJ H U) t -�r1Qi JJH11 --�ILn P4H (�i/YW�WWW[s]a�CQUHM WX W Haaa r-1 1 \WEif1,pp;1- �OH1241JUH HHE-i HP>'aCWA.��aFgWC4 HUWHHH� W Oa+AUHWEiW`,�HWwjOWr1W M i< H W�,�UUA>C04< U) RCHWWH... Qm p4wUp00H >tLUwp4�xx�1��UHHOHHO�4n4x xHUH a f00 woow0000mmmrio - 0040000000000000r�000�ZivroHomLow000000 H 4J WD00VM1610000r -1'061 Wz00000000000otnLOWOOPOOr -IHr-MWWOOr-IOOo U W O O ZZH04'dTNNNd'0)0)01616161 Cf�Oti- 110100 .- i.- IriNri.- I.- 1m.-- IriririN NNNN61616161NMt7'Mt�01 �I J-) (6 U HOZW.--Iri.- 11111111111 zU]NNNNMd'mm6lriNNMMMV'l� ��PCPcf'cP'd'0101000.- i� -i.-i H LI 1W >r-Irldd�CGdddddd WfZr1rl. �rlririririrlNNNNNNNNWMMMMMMMMddddcI�I O :1 N b) \.. 'Lj1 >WMMMMMMMMMMMMM Pa W40In LC) lnLOLOLOLOInLnLf)InInInMIna )(14W W W W W W1 D10101010WWW H M al +) O o r- >C 04 o N (IS Lna W m w �`-i �I roo Oa�v to "r1 o b I a'o i U V)p00 rd c: pq •ria)p 0 N0 i< x N ri 1O 1;C; C;-; N CO O N N x'00 H a)01[ -N Oto In MM rv0Ln VU')vV M NIV �o ri M cNN MN NOLn m� �� 16 I 2 A 16 10 0 O [ 0010 10 OC' 1 I I I 1�CDM MCD 0CD CDM -IO M O O O O O O M O O O O O OO N O O M O O O O O O O O V' O N N O M 01000000000 to OLOCOOOOV'I�061000000000000000 O O N O O O O O tO 001n 001[ -O N 100000100000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In 00001000 L- N 01000000 Ln ri N O O O O O O M In O MOOOOONOLo V�OlO[� 000 [00C', 140 OIn 00 100LO L- 01 N O O LO d' O 000 O 000 d1 LO 000000V NO1- 00000f -i O N000 -;*,Ol O to OO CD (D 0 w N 0[-- 00 ,- i[- r -i 010-V 00 (3)M C' O r-4 O O to O O N N (D LO NNONM d'N-i 10[- 01[n 00') Ln N 10(D 010 to 0 Ln l-C-) O LO 0100(D -q N c) N N .--I .-i .-1 N O O r A .--I '--I 10 t9 I MO Ntn to 3, C) ONM 00 OL -O 10 0 O [ 0010 10 OC' 00 r-A NO 00 00 O cT L- OMLOLOOOtON M Ln CD Or•-10 N -i O [-OLOO . . . . M . 00) . . ON . . L -[-M . . . 010 . . ON . . N . . . . . . . . . . . . C tO N 44 OOON9 r- . . NO . . . tO 00 . ri . 10 . LO 104Lt (N 4 �lfl MN MN a' MO Into N M r-I LO M N m O CD 'l, to d' O r-i O d' Ln Ln N N 0 M r-I m t tO Ln O 0 (:T) Ln 110 01 N r-I r-I d'L -(N to 0100)wU) 100 01C -i L- 0[ -1-IN N 1-1 LO (N 0) 01-0 M-V N0 0 M M d> M N N ri - r-1 N r•-I r--I N r-I N dl M Lr) 10 O O V' Or-iN d' N 00r-i O to O O -41 r-1 r-I t1') O N O O CT 10 C CO Ol 0 1049 M 0 09C- O 0010 L -0 01 LO O a' r-i k00 Ol N Ln 0[- M CO Ln C'tOM LO 0 O OMC N L- ONL- MN[� N M IN NNN M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N 00 Ln r- C) V'1000001- 00000Nr- -i O tO 0106110NLO LO Ln I.c)r -i0 d'N 10 to lONN Ln -i lfl r-i N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O N O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N C. . . . . . . C. C. . . . . . C. C. . . . . . . . C. . . . . L. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOlO000000C 1L0C;. 000000000000000000.- 1 OOO000 Or-A O r-1 MN Oa' N 10 to O Lo In -zi, O O N O Ln 00 Vw Ln Lo O,,v 100114000 .-i M01LnM .- -I.--I LnNMd'r-j lflOMNNr 1 .-- IN(nOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. . . . C. C. . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOD to t� Od' 100000 I- OOOOONr- AOLn 00N0 M N O,�T N w Ln O o tOd' O O N c) Ln O O to tO to O a' W M M 00 010d>lflNtnlnlnlnr- IO�TNIfltOLnNN Inr-i 1400 r-i MrnLnM r-I. -I InNMci'r- -IlOOd'NNr --I r-INOO l0 r1 N .--1 r-i ri l0 LD 4 :Z�ZQOHW WP OPH04HOMZH04 PL HG4 H0 HWzW W] gHa4H.70a+�Ty z W 0f4 Wu] ?+ xz Z WaaLin 9C w as WW ZGaHx Z.,aIH PMUa+ H Ana 'H cn�a40ZMOUH H�HH� 0HUiai� W� Wa+�UU�WrCHU�HLL�WrC pu�� z HO H P4 Hi H Uri Zz O.7WH to Ua+ HH ,n a cn a�jcn H z H HQW a' W WHHz HOUQ 0 H M) )UGl44 �q tnWHpq< r� U HDM- cC9WUa H04 O WOOC7z �nzUHCn GuGuC7C7aWfx a, a10007� 9 �0 H OW HZZ�j H(TaC7 fYirC ZzO��77 QWZHHW�j X C7OOZZrCa+W 1� O OHHZP4 zH Z (Ya W PYHHxH z HU 04 W04 HP W1 E-1 WZ HHZOx rC � P4IXH $O �H HxP4 W WQQZWHHx MPPPC9HU CY,H WZWHP4UHP4P4xx0 WUPSx04E- 1E1EItn HP4, UWWHtn aiaaHaZUUH44D4WO4 WWWDixHgWZ WWU' AW H�OOHHU1AHaUnH0UWUUZ"4UnHW<2:'z W HZrCZOHHP4xHZ4WWWr�UCsIHxH U xWNZZ00%00z �QZP4xWWHO Hx, -1040 a�r�WWWZP4��DNP W aaala fP<PC4 rCH (YHWOHHaaWOW O H Haa9OaQPF --XH WH3aaHa+WP W4nr 4+ 00004 �a�UOOUXZUUWCraCr4H X OWW04PQQE10,?Ha OOOOOOOOOr- m t. oh00100oMN000OOOOOLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo HNMOOOOraOH O O O O N O O r--I 0� r-i r-I r--I r-I H r-i N M d' d' i!) r-i r--I .--I r r-i L� O r--I M M dl r--I r•-I r-i M r--1 M d' r-1 r•-I Ol r-1 N r--I d' dl d> 0101 r-i rl r--1 l0 Q, O O r --IMd' 1010r- iNr-- Ir-- IMMMMMMMd' C' d' d' Lt �L�O) 0) r- iri0000 )01r- iN010)r�r-Ir-iNMd�tf'Il O)010101010)r- INMME- ir-iln MMMd' d' Inl!' 1101OtplOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIO101010[ X00010101010) rir -ir--Ir--iNNNNNNNNNNNNNNd ' d'd"d'1 i(''1M T �:v ziLnin LnLnLnm Lc) LnLninmLomLnLolnl nlnmMLn4(1-4W o 1010101010101010101D 101010 101014 141014 lD 1plfl lO CO lD l0 l0lfl10<0lt7lfl l0 l0 l0101!]<Dl0lfl l0 l0 l010101410101010101010�L�L� U 16 I 'A16 N1Vta 2 2011 Y MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD RECEIVED JUN 10 2011 Naples, Florida, May 2, 2011 Board of County Commissior►ers k LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "A" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala '/ Hiller CHAIRMAN: Jim Klug (Excused) Hennin VICE CHAIR: Kaydee Tuff Coyle Bill Arthur Coletta Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris (Absent) Misc. Corres: Date: \ \ Item #:\ Ln= 2 \ %,. Ccpies to: ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor 1 16 I 16 m? 20 1 , ' I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM by Vice Chair, Kaydee Tuff. II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Darrin Brooks moved to approve the May 2, 2010 Agenda as submitted. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of April 4, 2011 Minutes Darrin Brooks moved to approve the April 4, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Public Comments Duane Billington requested a plaque presented to his late mother "In Memory of Geraldine Truskowski, a Dedicated Community Leader" from the Women's Club be displayed on the wall next to her friend, Eleanor Williams. Staff noted this will require approval from the Director. Kaydee Tuff moved to approve placing the plaque to honor Geraldine Truskowski on the wall at the Community Center in Preschool Room because it would be appropriate, next to her friend, Eleanor Williams. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried 3 -0. VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson reported the Advisory Board is allowed to have a Facebook site. This can be accomplished two different ways: • The Board can do it without involvement from the Staff and the Advisory Board would not have to follow the same guidelines as the Staff. • John Torre's office will create a Facebook site; the Staff would have control of it and follow all County guidelines. County would assign someone to manage the Community Center site. Staff stated Rafaela Zapata was available to update Facebook for the Community Center Advisory Board with approval from the Director. Staff reported the MSTU Property Appraiser address list should be available at the next meeting. Another awareness suggestion was made to add a section in the Golden Gate Civic Association to highlight the Golden Gate Community Center activities. 2 16 12 A'16 May 2, 2011 Darrin Brooks volunteered to be an administrator for the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board on Facebook. Kaydee Tuff will set up Facebook administrators to include Darrin Brooks and Rafaela Zapata. Vickie Wilson distributed and review the April /May 2011 - Golden Gate Community Center Report reported the following upcoming events. (See attached) • May 5 - National Prayer Day will be held at the amphitheatre. • May 12 - Harry Chapin Food Bank in the parking lot. • May 27 — Sheriff's Department will be holding an awareness program on taking your neighbor back with a variety of agencies on display in the parking lot. Program will include a 5k bike /walk/run through the tougher streets in Golden Gate with additional patrol. Staff researched with ROW on the feasibility of adding a driveway up to the double gate near the bandstand for easy access and deliveries. It would require a $200 application fee and to have parties involved to verify the project can be done. It would also require permitting, materials and installation costs. Staff reported receiving a quote for a simple shade structure 20' x 33' for set up in front of the amphitheatre in the amount of $29,000. Kaydee Tuff moved the Board approve to create a Facebook Fan Page to create more awareness of Golden Gate Community Center. Second byBill Arthur. Motion carried 3 -0. Kaydee Tuff will brainstorm a fun name for the Facebook Fan Page. She will submit it to Shari Ferguson for her approval. VII. New Business A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez distributed and reviewed the Monthly 130 Fund Report. (See attached) She reported the Community Center's budget is on target, revenues are coming in as forecasted and expenses are staying within the revenue. B. Review & Approval FY2012 MSTU Budget Staff reported the Budget FY 2011 -12 will be addressed at the June 6cn meeting. VIII. Member Comments Discussion was ensued on temporary fencing to be use for Frontier Days with the possibility of installing permanent sleeves with caps to hold poles to support fence. 3 May 2, 2011 Discussion was made on the Collier County Summer Camp Scholarship Fund and the costs and scholarships available. Financial Aid applications are required. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:35 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Ka dee T ff, Vice Chair These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on'�� as presented bl&— or as amended 11 1612 4161 GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER April 2011 Registration opened for Summer Camp April 2 "d, registrations are slow coming in. So far 15 families have applied for scholarships. Registration opened April 2nd for Fall VPK, currently have 8 registered. We plan to fill the 9a.m. -1 p.m. class and then open an afternoon class from 1:30p.m.- 5:30p.m... VPK held their Easter Celebration with a visit from Peter Cotton tail. Spent the weekend April 30th & May 1St, interviewing 30 adults for summer camp counselors positions. Upcoming May Events May 5th 7 -9p.m. National Day of Prayer held at the Amphitheatre estimated attendance of 2000 May 12th 1 -4p.m. Harry Chapin Food Bank in Parking Lot estimation of 150 families helped. May 27th 7pm -11 pm Sheriffs Department will be holding an awareness program with a variety of agencies on display in the parking lot, . hamburger and Hotdogs will be served and a 5K bike /walk/run will go through the tougher streets in Golden Gate. O O N N N Ln O Ln O \ •• O O ri 4-i C" a) a) a) 4) f� -r1 (d - H ri AHU f-1 0 RL a) a 3 v H r-I •Lf f`I •r1 A to r01 U N P(1 .0 � N 0 •r1 ON Oro U P 0 a) U .rl H H r-I (d 0;$ U 4) 0 9 O v 0 H 0� H �I GI C' 0. H z U 0 U W 0 z w 0 a 0 0 H z U O U W H C7 z w Q a O (7 O 00 4.) 4.) 43 U) r1 Lx ro W 1-) HO z U ii 7i M O E-A E-H 4.)ZH a) (dUz in 0 D C '0 04 000 k HUUW ri W W 'O 0 fc4 < N r10 (7 4) a) inzz ::I �rIWWG �GaCa � (daa 4-)00(1) rn00P5 M r-1 0 O '. R rl l� ri00L- ' O MLOD N 1-1 1-1 in -k is 1-i (d H LI ro aa)i -P o >A ii a) a a) " ri d U 11 N `0 mSi00�rt0 rla)000N0 N04fsiftiU0N il ON lO N mLn �� 100 N 10 LO r- 00000 ri WM Ml-. -10101 O L rL rl -1 1-1 rl � 111 "1 I I I I I I I I I I I I IO ID w oo- [�0O[�0Ln m r- (D -1I-m TLn 00,,z3,mrlOOl- LOLONNNlOMri' (D r- LO N O N M MLr) 00 h OD 1O N O O LO 000lLO4 6100 C� 0l OOlO N(N 00 00T) Mr- 00NOCLOrIMriOr- NI- L- rI�'1000LO NN Ol 61M or) Ln CO - �vIO. - -I I- d'M NOIN MOOm Ifl rI HH61M m-:41lO LO rl rl OON L- _q 00 NN M ��OI OIC r-I d•�M M (n d` N 1-1 Ii 1 I I I I ,r CD Or`MOM NFL- 061000000 M Ln 0 Ir 0000 L-OO rLCO(D Lnr- - iU -)O Lfc -;�^O OOCDIV 061000(D cOO UI 1O O Ln L-� ri Ln O O CO rn O O C)*r Olo 0000 NOOlO LOOu)G'N L9OLn L- M N (D L() LO 61000000 ,;4, Ln LO NM a' G v rl r` r16100 G' � �,o M rl O ri 00 LOO LD rl r-i ri l0 rl rl L- M M 1-1 co I N rl M rl ri rIN NM r-NM CD U-) HMO riI -r-10 U)OO ML -Q0 OM001- r- r- M OO M M r` Ln M LC) M O O N LO O 00 6161 lO M Ln O (N 'lz3' H O N CO lO V' O O r` ID M O Oar 00 H rL ri Ln Na'ct, zv a' m LL') lO O O Ln Ln M Ln CD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. C. . . . v Ln LO Ln N(3 lk L rIc; (30 00NOOriL-O LOO OMOOM LnM LnNM�I r( Ln c; rl NO O.O rl ri 31 M r- r1 r- M LO 'zT M M rL M NN1`NLn LO OV+O C) 110 w v Ln Ln rl M d' M OU N Ln O Ln Vv O 'IT (D kl kw mM0-) LO ri H',OM OD I-- r- (N 0)Ol M 1- 100L -10 r1 ODW NM 61N NLn rlN rl lOO WCD r- 00 MIO NON0000 Ln 00� Ln O ri ci•C O d• N 00 � O1 M rL � 00 rl rl rIN Oti 01 r1 rI L- r1 H rl r- rl L` 1- H 61 M M rl rF rl IV d+ N W N N CRM M M Ln M l0 M Ln t` O L- I- L-- Ln M LO M "r T M 'l' Ln 0101 M M l0 l0 Lnrldlr- N 61 Ln l0 W W l0 M O rl r1 M Lf) co Ln co t0 l0 l0 l0 O N OO N r` N N I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o 0 0 0 o O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 04N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �--1 -1000 0000000 00 O x101000000000000 0C 0C 0C 000000000000 Li) m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O M O ri0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln Ln M(MM LnL- 0x1000 NO Ln 00 LA M OlNN1 -l0 riLO LO W(D� I -NNMLO L -O�WW 000001 -0000 Ln LO OJ O rI NV'0161C N �' r- r- L- M00H N-4 L -SOW N LO OOCOO1lONLn Ln Ln LOri00d'NwLn ri ri rl H N rl rl r1 H N CO M ri 00 -1 Ol <r l0 rL N w Ln U-) (Y) HLO d' ri I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 00000 0000000 0o O o000000000000O 000000000000000000 O0000 0000000 OO O o000000000000O 000000000000000000 00000 0000000 0 0 0 00000000000000 000000000000000000 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o CD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LD.00M(MM LOL- Or10oo NO LO Hl— wmNNr- wHLnLnwcDav I- ONOLOI- O wW000L-0000 Lo Ln co 00 r1 NV'010') N r- r- L- IV 00 Ln N ri[ -d'Ow N Ln OO lO m w N LO Lo LO Ln r10O N w Ln LS MM rl riN Hrl Hrl NOD LO H L- ri dlC l0 H N a) Ln Ln Ln Ln M O Ln 'r 1-) ri z HWOUZ� UM L1U�pI!W4W� q Q(xZaSiH owl W�Ml� iWxz z W O P; W Zf�W Z O UOO O OHN HWWA 1:>i W P4 0Z��CAOUH H U ?i�WZ�u) OP4fZ0E -iO'' aHi7UHwlyl Oa H OP NH H Urlr aPi OWHZ0 H H' H �Z ZxH tY,OWW wf�HH HAW 0; W O UH O ?iSiHH� WU�FC1 -1HOHZ WOZ Z U �OU>-I0C9WUa H rl U HHaa HWE- IHUr)W irxlWWr� aUUHOW WO OPiH OW HZZai�HCOt7 fy O ro q E-1 r� U)aHH H, roUZP P+WaLLssjj XU014 x�x64� W r4HHYH Z H L¢'„'�t',HWWf�H U) UZZO 4 P4" +JH4'1-igUHP 044) r� W4Ni DPi HxP4 W WAAZWHHX UU0 O aPWUH HWH O >a+AUHMHW,Y,HW�OWaWHUWWPM PiaaH14ZUUW \WH aP4 MUWP4x MPZ:. pox W qxUtAa Haaa�Wr� HZ��OHHaxHZaW UH W WH W WW;HHfsiHZHOWH(YiOWWr.10F4 4 PI zP:DL )PiH W a rZ�.� I Aa��n�HwwHHU# ��nOHHOHHOaaHHUHaWH�waHaovavcn�wH LOi_4U' 0W000OMMM -10000 �gHV r- oHommwoo00000000000000H Low r- mm 4-1 W OT M r- M 0 0 0 0 Hz:P M N 0 WZE 000 H Hr-01 101000- 1000 LC) 0000N00ri00Hr- Irlrlrirl d � N�f'NNN�7'010101016161MQ1 U]OF�NNNN01616101Nmd�Ml O101rim�PtOIOrlNrlrimmmmmM FIPZ Hrir- r- r - r`r- r- r`r- r r`HW Zw �i'�t'd'd�d'd'cs Gl000rl rl rl rim mmV"CrM M'9 L9 lO CO IO IO IO IO --4WD r- I"IIZT -;rvtdtd IV ;T v v-q W W, W0YW:MMMMMmMMd'-zrci'dLv * r *P vP v�l rl�Pv'PCrvL T qv •�r-W ,. MMMMMmmmmmMM(n -:.. papaOwt.0WI L.0(.0 OIOtOIOIOIOtOtOIOCOIOIOIOIOtOInIOIOIOIOWWW N.Lnn o� W c� ,K :k 061L-00 O N LnOt -61 61 Ml0 ON 0000 m r1 l0 MLn O Lnd+l0-Izv M McrWr -I M N u-) (N MOLn 6100 LC) O -A r-i ":v � I I I OONOOOOOOON OOM00000000L- OI -NCDM 0000000000 OOM000000000 0 0000 O O O O Ln O O M CD M I- CD M 000006100000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ONNNOOOOOOM Ln O-• 00000 N O Ln to O L� L� 061 r- i000MOOLn 00 O O CO Ln O 00000 �L' NONOOOOOr- ION[ -O C6610N `- 100016 M 0[-00 OriW c) Ln NNON61 aN6110 I- 61 Ln 061 Ln N l0 O Ln O Ln r-i r1 Ln M OLn 61000 M r-i Ln r-i M 00 l-� r-I Ln r-I N r-i M N r-i M r-I r-I N N r-I ri r1 N O O O N O I- 00 O I` O r-i 00 OD O Ln M 00 r-i lO -1 O O O O O O O l0 O L- r1 O r-I O Ln OO N O lO O N l0 0000 Ln 61 O O N N OD IC CO 19 10 Ln 00 C Ln N N n . . N N N r4 4 9 M O . Ln Ln Ln 61 r- q;zv L- Ln N L` OO 00 r-i r-i r- r-i O Ln O O M Q0 61 N r l r-I C) OD r1 I- OI`L`N M r-i lO w I`MO r1 61-Izv NN m M O M O01N N CO Odl 61 O O O N O dT r-i N 61 O r-i M Ln O O M lO Ln N W W 61 N O O N r-i r-I OD L- CO Ln 6l 61 110 M O Or- ,-r N lfl OON M r1r1 CNN 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000000 0000 000000000000000000L90000000LnOLn 000000 0000 000000000000000000 r-IO OOOOOOr -i O r-I ONr-rl O Ln 00 ONCD MNOC(N wu-) O Ln Ln 41 00 N O Ln O c) -v Ln Ln O -�T lfl m M OD Om l0 N N Ln .-i M CO N r-i M 61 Ln M .-i r-i Ln N M V' r-I l0 O 61 N N r1 r1 N L''10 M M 110 1- r1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O CD NI- ri O Ln NONO Lf) N N Ln - M DD DD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M N O,,;p N IO Ln O Ln Ln mot' O O N O Ln O O Ln Ln Ln O d' 1061 M 00 r-I MO1LnM r-Iri LnNMcTr- I100d'NNr -i r-INOO r-i ri r-I lO l0 HaH00ZHpY a HWtaHC7 Hwzw W) gH04H�D 7 M WLaaU) >C W as WW 7i HCL ZaH HU)Ua� H U) F7 E-iEi OHU)a W Wa UU CC���4jHU Ha W ,D U] 'Z.. HO Zi Zi OQWH r U)ajUa HH (Ya U)��pq�q�q`.7 �U)�U] qq rHH� ZN M HWPiWzHpwzpxw(DoozzFCNwp 0HOHHz� zE z P4 Wa HEi U) H Wz HF -izOx wC C40xH O H HHHULHU P4 E-1 Rl zWHP;UHPf4XX0 WU(Z 04HHHU) HPY 0H WWWyixF44Wz OQWH ?i00HHU)gHLa�HOUWUUz'�WHWr pox WWW UGaHxH U XNa4ZZOOP4OP4 �gzP4XWWHO Hx, C aaa CraFCHP4 i HwoHHaaWOW O H Haa4O 7HEI H wWrM4Ci a UUOOUXXUUawwHac x OWWNWQQHODHa OOM N000000OOMO0000000000000000r -INO10000F -�Or-I MdpGrLfl�IHHJHEt 0 H MMOI.-Iri'-iMHM -zTH H 01.- iNHV'MM(3)0)H r-i r-i W ]r O0 d' 'IT cM-Pvmr-0101HH0000)mHN01m -A -1HNM 'IT mr- m 01010101mHNMM[l. -4m w w wl D ww ww r- w m m m m M rA HHT- INNNNNNNNNNNNNN'Tzll�v-I HMM .ZT zvd'�P d, W":rdrV.V dL Ln M Ln M Ln Ln Ln M Ln 0 In Ln m Ln m Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln m m cl� w 1010 <D l0 lO l0 lO 1p lO w w kD<D l0 l0 to w tD w l0 LD l0lfl l0 l0 lO lO lO w w tD l0 l01D 101010 rS; r- - C) 1612 X116 COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBLIC SERVICES Parks and Recreation Department 15000 Livingston Road — Naples, Florida 34109 -- Phone (239) 252 -4000 — Fax (239) 514 -8657 Website: coiliergov.net GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA June 6, 2011 I. Call to Order II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — May 2, 2011 V. Public Comments VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights —Vickie Wilson B. Media Update VII. New Business A. Monthly Budget — Annie Alvarez B. Review & Approval FY2012 MSTU Budget (2" 1S4vhrneV ec s S VIII. Member Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting TBD July 2011 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida C r 161'z a16 June 6, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER � � � � II d E� D ADVISORY BOARD JUN 2 8 20111 Naples, Florida, June 6, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "C" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ...iinb ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: Jim Klug Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III Vickie Wilson, Community CentFcS-0&visor Date: g\'%3► \. \ Item 1 Copies to: 1612 16 ' June 6, 2011 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:05 PM by Chairman, James Klug III. II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum Roll Call was taken and a quorum was determined. III. Approval of Agenda Add: VII. C. Summer Recess Bill Arthur moved to approve the June 6, 2011 Agenda as amended. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of May 2, 2011 Minutes Bill Arthur moved to approve the May 2, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried 4 -0. James Klug abstained. V. Public Comments None a VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson distributed and review the May /June 2011 - Golden Gate Community Center Report reported the following events. (See attached) • May 5 — National Day of Prayer had 250 plus in attendance. • May 26 — VPK Graduation class of 18. • May 27 - 1St Annual 5k Sheriff Run, Walk, Bike event had over 300 in attendance. 150 plus participated in the 5k. • June 10 — BMX Jubilee 75 riders will participate. • June 12 — BMX Pro Demonstration will be hosted by 2 BMX Pros. • Summer Camp is scheduled to begin June 13. Discussion was made on Summer Camp progress and scholarship awards. Staff reported Summer Camp registration has picked up. The scholarships awarded are distributed throughout the County covers 60% of the fee. STAR Project has held fund raisers and sponsors the Scholarship Program. Annie Alvarez stated Immokalee business owners raised over $20,000 to offset the cost for parents of Immokalee children only, a possible future option for other Community locations. It was noted the quote for the shade structure (20' x 33') for set up in front of the amphitheatre can be dismantled, when required. Budget may not allow purchase at this time. 2 1bI2 A,l 6 04 June 6, 2011 Staff researched the feasibility of adding a driveway up to the double gate near the bandstand. A $200 engineer permit fee is required to find out if it can be done. It would also require materials and installation costs. Bill Arthur moved to approve $200 for the engineering permit. Second by Peggy Harris. Darrin Brooks suggested the Advisory Board table the motion until after the new budget was approved. A consensus was formed to table the motion. B. Media Update None VII. New Business A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez distributed and reviewed the Monthly 130 Fund Report. (See attached) B. Review & Approval FY 2012 MSTU Budget Annie Alvarez distributed the following Golden Gate Community Center Budget FY 2012 reports: • JL Code Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Center • JL Code Revenue Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit • Collier County Government FY 2012 Preliminary Budget — Ad Valorem Needed • Fund 130 Program Summary and Program Performance Measures Staff reported the Budget FY 2011 -12 will require a 25% cut if the millage rate remains neutral due to the 10% decrease in property value. The decrease in Ad Valorem funds were estimated at $147,070.55. To offset the cut, Staff suggested a rollover of $30,000 from the Capital Outlay account to 2012 Budget. Discussion was made on budget cuts and if the suggested roll over of Capital Outlay funds were only MSTU funds and the current millage rate. Staff will research if the Capital Outlay funds are all MSTU funds. Annie Alvarez recommended the Advisory Board hold another meeting and request Cheryl Pryor from the Budget Office for further clarification. Darrin Brooks moved (the Advisory Board) meet on June 15'h at 6:00 pm and invite Cheryl Pryor to attend. necessary.) Second by Bill Arthur. 3 (Advisory Board will reschedule if Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 1612 X16 June 6, 2011 C. Summer Recess To be addressed at the next meeting. VIII. Member Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:05 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD a Klug I I, Chair a These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on ! , as presented :!>4— or as amended M 16 12 ""-A 17 May 19, 2010 0 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE JUN 42011 COLLIER COUNTY BY: ....................... HISTORIC /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, May 19, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Historic /Archaeological Preservation Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Center, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Dempsey (Excused) Fiala Vice Chair: Sharon Kenny Hiller Pam Brown (Absent) Henning Coyle Patricia Huff Coletta Elizabeth Perdichicci (Absent) Richard Taylor Craig Woodward ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Zoning Services Glenda Smith, Operations Analyst Ashley Caserta, Senior Planner -- Staff Liai n Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney isc. Cwes. Date: I-O ` bl , \ item #l: \ ` - -Vz \-1 Copies to: 16 12 A117 May 19, 2010 I. Call to Order Vice Chairman Sharon Kenny called the meeting to order at 9:17 AM. II. Roll Call The Roll was called and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Changes: • Ray Bellows asked to remove Item B under "VI. Old Business." Craig Woodward moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Richard Taylor. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — April 21, 2010 Changes: • The attendance status for Sharon Kenny was changed from "Absent" to "Excused." Craig Woodward moved to approve the Minutes of the April 21, 2010 meeting as amended. Second by Patricia Huff. Carried unanimously, 4 -0. V. Growth Management Division Report A. Merger and New Division Name — Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Svcs. • The former Community Development Environmental Services Division has merged with the Transportation Division and is now known as the Growth Management Division and consists of two components: • Planning & Regulation • Construction & Maintenance • Norm Feder was appointed as the Administrator and Nick Casalanguida is the Deputy Administrator • Bill Lorenz is the Director of Land Development Services • Jamie French is the Director of Operations & Regulatory Management • Planning & Regulation encompasses Comprehensive Planning, Zoning, Engineering/Water Management, and Environmental Services • Certain repetitive functions were combined • There may be further layoffs and an across - the -board pay reduction has been mentioned Mr. Bellows estimated the reduction in Staff at approximately 70 %. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams mentioned there have been several lay -offs within the County Attorney's Office (approximately 15 attorneys). VI. Old Business A. Historic Brochure — Status Report: Patricia Huff The Brochure was revised as follows: 0 61 � 417 1 May 19, 2010 Page Number Revision (s) Cover Change Brochure title to "Guide to Historic Sites of Collier County" Page 2 Under "Naples," change the order as follows: • #1 —Naples Pier • #2 — Palm Cottage • #3 — Mercantile Building • #4 — Naples City Dock • #5 — Keeywaydin Club • #6 — Tin City • #7 — Naples Depot • #8 — Collier County Museum • #9 — Nehrling Gardens (Caribbean Gardens) • #10 — Rosemary Cemetery Under "Marco Island /Goodland," (note title change), change the order as follows: • #11 — Old Marco Inn • #12 — Caption Collier House • #13 — Church of God & Pioneer Cemetery • #14 — Marco Island Historical Museum • # 15 — Otter Mound • #16 — Captain John Horr House • #17 — Marco Lodge • #18 — Mar -Good Park Under "Everglades City," change the order as follows: • #19 — Old Railroad Depot • 420 — Old Collier County Courthouse • #21— Everglades Community Church • #22 — Old Laundry Building • #23 — Bank of Everglades • #24 — Rod & Gun Club • #25— First Baptist Church • #26 — Ivey House • #27 — Sunset Lodge and Brown Cemetery • #28 — Fakahatchee Island Cemeteries Page 3 Under "Chokoloskee," change the order as follows: • #29 - Chokoloskee Church of God • #30 - JT's Island Store • #31 - Ted Smallwood's Store • #32 - Chokoloskee Cemeteries 11 0 16 12 M17 May 19, 2010 (Pamela Brown arrived at 9:55 AMA Pare Number Revisions) Page 3 Under "Copeland," change number to #33 Under "Immokalee /Sunniland" (note title change), change the order as follows: • #34 — Episcopalian Cemetery • #35 — Roberts Ranch/Immokalee Pioneer Museum • #36 — Immokalee First Baptist Church • 437 — Brown Cemetery • #38 — Pepper Ranch • #39 — Black Cemetery • #40 — Sunniland Oil Field • #41 — Deep Lake • Remove Fort (blank) Under (first) "Tamiami Trail Way Stations," change the order as follows (note number change): • #42 — Royal Palm Hammock Gas Station, Monroe Station, and Weaver's Station Under (second) "Tamiami Trail Way Stations," change title to "Along the Trail" and change numbers #43 — #46 Page 4 Under "Keewaydin Club," change last sentence as follows: "The former Keewaydin Club, located on Keewaydin Island, is accessible only by boat." • Add: "National Register of Historic Places" Under "Palm Cottage," • In the last sentence, insert "Norris Gardens" between the words "and" - -- "is" • Chan e designation to "Designated historic site" Page 5 Under "Naples Depot," • Richard Taylor will revise narrative • Change designation to "Designated historic site" Under "Collier County Museum," Patricia Huff will revise narrative. Page 6 Under "Nehrling Caribbean Gardens:" • Add "(Caribbean Gardens)" to title • Sharon Kenny will revise narrative • Remove bullets 0 0 1612 •A17 May 19, 2010 Page 6 Revision(s) Under "Naples Pier:" • Add "for the Naples Hotel" to the end of the first sentence • Richard Taylor will research a photograph Page 7 • Move "Rosemary Cemetery" to far -left side of page • Change title from Goodland/Marco Island to "Marco Island /Goodland" Under "Margood Park," add period to end of last sentence Page 8 • Change title from Goodland/Marco Island to "Marco Island /Goodland" Under "Marco Lodge:" • Change from "on January 4, 1965" to "in January, 1965" Under "The Old Marco Inn:" • Insert "wooden" between the words "The" and "structure" in the second sentence • Remove "wood" between the words "century" and "hotels" in the second sentence • Remove the word "wood" in the third sentence, add the phrase "and became a hotel." • Add 4`h sentence: "In 1927, it was remodeled to a style that closely resembles the current structure." • Remove "City designated historic site" Page 9 Move "Marco Island Historical Museum" to far left side of page • Photograph will be supplied after landscaping is completed • Still under construction Move "Captain John Horr House" to far left side of page. • First sentence: insert phrase "as a residence for his family and himself when they visited their pineapple plantation on the Island" after 1877. • Remove capitalization from tabby and remove quotes • In the third sentence, remove the word "being," add a comma after census taker, and add an "s" to the word "customs." i 1612 PA17 May 19, 2010 Page Number Revision (s) Page 10 Move "Church of God & Pioneer Cemetery" to the far left side of the page, and: • Second sentence: Change the phrase "build this building" to "construct the church." • Third sentence: "This Cemetery is the burial place of many pioneers significant to Marco Island history." • Fourth sentence: Insert period after the word "stones" and remove the words "and borders" Move "Otter Mound" to the far left side of the page. • Craig Woodward will revise narrative and provide a photograph Move "Captain Collier House" to the far left side of the page • Elizabeth Perdichicci will provide information and a photograph • Will reference Merritt's Restaurant in text Page 11 Change "Original" to "Old" and move "Collier County Courthouse" to the far left side of the page • Patricia Huff to revise narrative Move "Everglades Community Church" to the far left side of the page, and • First sentence: remove specific dates -- use only 1940 • Second sentence: "The Presbyterian congregation was officially established in 1926." • Third sentence. "The first visiting pastor was Reverend George W. Gatewood." • Last sentence: "The Everglades Community Church was initially a Presbyterian Church, but is currently a non - denominational congregation.' Page 12 Under "Bank of Everglades," • Second sentence: "It was the only bank in Collier County for 36 years, and the Hubble Oil Company offices were located on the second floor for over 20 years." • Fourth sentence: Remove "Ironically" • Fifth sentence: "After Hurricane Donna in 1960 changed the City's fate, the Bank closed and its assets were moved to the Bank of Immokalee." Move "Old Laundry Building" to the far left side of the page • Fourth sentence: add commas around "The Use a " 0 0 16 12 x'17 May 19, 2010 Page Number Revision (s) Page 13 Move "Rod & Gun Club" to the far left side of the page, and • Second sentence: Insert "store and traded with the Native Americans" after the word "a" — eliminate remainder of sentence. • Third sentence: "The Stoners eventually owned all the land now known as Everglades City and sold it to Barron Collier in 1923." • Fourth sentence: "He enlarged this property and opened the Rod & Gun Club which became..." • Fifth sentence: remove apostrophe (1960s) Move "Old Railroad Depot" to the far left side of the page • Fourth sentence: "... along the strip of land along the current Collier Avenue." Fifth sentence: remove apostrophe (1950s) Page 18 Under "Deep Lake," correctspelling of Lake DuPont Back Cover Remove the word "and" — Historic /Archaeological Preservation Board Additional Revisions: • Change item numbering within Brochure to match Pages 2 and 3 • If a street address is available, place under title in parenthesis and eliminate sentence from text, i.e., "It is located at ..." Ms. Huff requested the members to review the remainder of the document and forward their suggested correction to Ashley Casserta prior to the end of June. Ms. Casserta will send a reminder email to the Members prior to the deadline. Pamela Brown suggested adding Lake Trafford to the Immokalee /Sunniland category. C. Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore Update (Postponed to next meeting) VI. New Business (None) VII. Public Comments (None) VIII. Board Member Comments /Announcements: (None) 7 C 0 1612 117 May 19, 2010 Next Meeting Date: July 21, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Vice Chairman at 10:50 AM. Historic /A Board Sharon e, Vice The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on as presented , or as amended g Preservation 1612 A17 July 21, 2010 01 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE JUN 1 4 201 1 COLLIER COUNTY HISTORIC /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION B(§RRD.................. Naples, Florida, July 21, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Historic /Archaeological Preservation Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation Building, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller Hennin -yam Coyle CHAIRMAN: William Dempsey Coletta Vice Chair: Sharon Kenny Pam Brown (Excused) Patricia Huff Elizabeth Perdichizzi Richard Taylor Craig Woodward ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Zoning Services Glenda Smith, Operations Analyst i Steve Williams, Assistant County Atton( &4nt) Date: Item #: \t-o ='Z *N \—\ Copies to: I1. 1612 p17" Call to Order Chairman William Dempsey called the meeting to order at 9:17 AM. Roll Call The Roll was called and a quorum was established. July 21, 2010 III. Approval of Agenda Changes: • Ray Bellows requested to add the topic of "Future Presentations" as "B" under "VI. - New Business. " Sharon Kenny moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Patricia Huff. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — April 21, 2010 and May 19, 2010 Changes —April 21, 2010: • Spelling corrected: Elizabeth Perdichizzi (throughout document) Changes — May 19, 2010: • Spelling corrected - Elizabeth Perdichizzi (throughout document) • Spelling corrected — Sharon Kenny (at signature block on Page 8) Sharon Kenny moved to approve the Minutes of the April 21" and May 19th meetings as amended Second by Craig Woodward. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. V. Land Development Services Report - Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Svcs. A. Resignation of Staff Liaison, Ashley Casserta • Ms. Casserta transferred to the Bayshore CRA. A replacement will be hired within the next two months, and Ray Bellows will fill -in temporarily. VI. Old Business A. Update: The Arlington of Naples at Lely Resort — Ray Bellows (Copies of the Archaeological Investigation Report, dated .Tune 2008, were distributed to the Members.) Ray Bellows stated the Applicant's agents, David Hurst and Richard Yovanovich, Esq, were present to address the Members. He cited from the Report's conclusions on Page 57: "This assessment and subsequent monitoring during any subsurface disturbances associated with the development of 8CR747 and 8CR750 should act as mitigation for the loss of the site from pending development. " • Craig Woodward stated his office represents the Seminole Nation and, due to a potential conflict of interest, he will not vote on this issue. 16 12 A.1 1 July 21, 2010 David Hurst, Wilson - Miller, gave a brief overview of the project. • "The Arlington" is a Continuing Care Retirement Community ( "CCRC ") which will consist of 43 single - family villas and a five -story residential facility for independent and assisted living. The facility will include a memory care unit and a skilled nursing unit. The amenities will include a pool, a fitness center, a club house, and restaurants. • The recommendations of the Report to retain the services of an on -site archaeologist will be followed, as well as applicable State and local regulations. Marie Carlson, Senior Vice President - Corporate Strategic Development, Lutheran Life Communities, stated there are 5 retirement communities established in Illinois and Indiana. • Received phone calls from Lutheran Churches in Naples and Marco Island • A 39 -acre parcel was located within The Lely Resort • Met with Chris Lombardo, a representative of the Seminole Tribe • Committed to honoring "the agreement in place" Ray Bellows stated the Site Development Plan for the project is in review and the H- APB's comments will be taken under advisement by Staff. When questioned concerning an "agreement" with the Seminole Tribe, Ms. Carlson stated there was no formal, written agreement. She met with Mr. Lombardo on behalf of the Seminole Tribe, who indicated he supports the Project, is willing to work with the Lutheran Life Communities, and requested to be included in the dialogue with the archaeologist hired by the LLC. David Hurst explained the location of the development, referencing the Site Development Map. He stated the zone where items of potential archaeological significance were found is located on the eastern edge of the development. Robert Carr, Director — Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc., stated: • State Statutes require an archaeologist to be on -site when there are ground disturbing activities which might uncover significant archaeological remains, including human burials • If the event that human remains are discovered, work will stop at that location only • The State and the Miccosukee Tribe are to be notified within 72 hours of such discovery, as required by Statute 872.05, "Unmarked Human Graves Act" • He recommended monitoring the site during pre - development excavation • A final report will be issued concerning what was found and the work that was done He noted Site 752 is a "hammock island" within the Wetlands Preserve and is the location for re- internment of human remains. The Tribe is consulted by the State concerning their wishes. (The location of the site is not publically identified.) 1 ry r 1612 �if�17 July 21, 2010 [Background Note: The Seminoles were an alliance of Northern Florida and Southern Georgia natives who banded together in the 1700's to fight European invaders, and included people from the Creek, Miccosukee, Hitchiti, and Oconee tribes. Today, the Seminoles are a united sovereign nation whose people speak two languages and have different cultural backgrounds. The Seminole Nation has five different Florida reservations, all governed by the same tribe.] Any discovered artifacts will be washed, catalogued, and photographed. The final disposition of artifacts will be at the discretion of the property owner(s). The Conservancy encourages donations of such items to local museums. There was discussion concerning the excavation of the site and the possible use of limited blasting. Chairman Dempsey called for a vote to support the Report. Motion carried, 5- "Yes " /1— "Abstention." Craig Woodward abstained. (Staff will forward the Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.) B. Update: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (A document was distributed to the Members.) Chairman Dempsey stated the documentation was not very helpful, i.e., dark photograph. Ray Bellows explained the County is the Applicant. An application was submitted for a Waiver for the project due to the low potential for historic /archaeological sites since the property had been significantly excavated and disturbed. The opinion of the CRA's Staff is the bulk of the property is outside the probability area. Tracts "F" and "G" were identified as Preserve tracts. It was noted if the Preserve is sitting on top of the impacted area, there should be no problem to grant the Waiver. Chairman Dempsey stated the CRA's proposition is there are no probability areas within the boundaries of the property but the materials provided contradicted the position. He noted it seemed as if the eastern -most portion of the property (30 to 40 feet) spilled into the probability area. He asked if that portion of the property would be preserved. (Comments were made off - microphone.) Mr. Bellows cited the official description of the project: "The Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore is a mixed -use project within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay comprising a maximum of 40 residential dwelling units and 48,575 square feet for commercial uses including retail, offices, and medical offices." 1612 A17 July 21, 2010 . He noted the Cultural Arts facility, which is the County's project, is included in the total square footage. Question: Will the portion of the site that falls within the probability area be preserved? Chairman Dempsey stated if the probability area portion of the site is preserved (no excavation, digging, or grubbing), a Waiver would be appropriate. The question needs to be resolved first. Mr. Bellows noted Glenda Smith left to pull the large map. (Further discussion was tabled until Ms. Smith returned.) VI. New Business B. Future Presentations — Tamika Seaton, Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization ( "MPO ") (Copies of newsletter and "Save the Date " cards were distributed to the Members.) The Members were invited to attend the Long -Range Transportation Planning Workshop to be held on July 28th from 5:00 to 7:00 PM at St. Elizabeth Seton Parish Center in Naples. • Subject: Regional Long Range Transportation Plans ( "LRTPs ") to 2035 • Collier and Lee MPOs are developing respective Plans for each County • The Plan is a "blue print for the future" of the County's transportation systems • All modes of transportation are considered (roadway, bus, rail, bicycle, air, and pedestrian) • Goal: to efficiently manage and operate the systems • Coordinating with various transportation environmental agencies is ongoing along with outreach to the community • The proposed new town of Big Cypress (new town) and development in the areas East of 951 are included Ms. Seaton will return to give an updated presentation to the Members in the near future. VI. Old Business (Continued) B. Update: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore Mr. Bellows referenced the large Site Development Plan map. He stated T-r-aeks Tracts "F" and "G" are located at the eastern edge of the property line. He pointed out the areas reserved for easements, including drainage easements, and stated no structures will be allowed in the areas. The tracts are designated for open space, conservation, preservation, and passive recreation (i.e., walking trails). Tract "E" is for boardwalks and public recreational use. Craig Woodward moved to approve the PUD subject to the impacted area in Traeks Tracts "F" and "G" remain as a Preserve. Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. (Staff will forward the Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.) p A171 . 1612 July 21, 2010 (Chairman Dempsey left at 10:16 AM) (Mice Chairman Kenny continued the Meeting.) C. Historic Brochure: Status Report — Patricia Huff (Copies of the Brochure were distributed to the Members.) Patricia Huff stated she incorporated the changes recommended at the last meeting as referenced in the May 19`x' Minutes. She noted there are a few more revisions to be made to Everglades City along with narrative and photographs to be provided by the Members. • The Collier House (page 9) is under construction. No pre - construction picture was taken, and a search will be made for an historic photograph. • Brochure Cover • Title was changed to "Guide to Historic Sites of Collier County" • Logo will be revised to change from the ampersand to a diagonal line between "Historic" and "Archaeological" • Pages Two and Three — the number was changed • Re: Immokalee Cemeteries - There is limited space for the narratives • The narrative for the Otter Mounds (page 10) will be revised. • Indian Hill will be added • A photograph of Pepper Ranch is important Ms. Huff asked the Members to review the pages and provide narratives, better addresses, and/or photographs for each location (such as Naples City Dock). She noted the Legend (last two pages) should be updated to reflect the changes and asked Mr. Bellows to follow -up with the County. Suggestion: Omit "Background on the Organization" from the bulleted points on the Brochure cover. Suggestion: Reverse positions of the Logo and the photographs giving prominence to the photographs and add more pictures. Suggestion: Include references to books that people can read for additional, in -depth information (space permitting). New deadline: August 10, 2010 Ms Huff requested members provide comments and information via email to Glenda Smith and Ray Bellows who will forward the information her. Discussion ensued regarding possibly expanding the Brochure. The criteria is to include historic sites clearly visible from roadways without including areas in private developments. VII. New Business A. Amendment — Annual Ethics Memo and Pamphlet Mr. Bellows noted there were no substantive changes to the Code of Ethics. rfr� cA 1 July 21, 2010 • VII. Public Comments (None) VIII. Board Member Comments /Announcements: • The Museum on Marco Island is open on Wednesday and Saturday afternoons. o The Florida Cowboys exhibit photography is impressive • Everglades City: • Children's Art Exhibit took place • In September, the Boy Scout Exhibit will take place • New lights have been installed but are not yet operational • Some of the older lights are being repaired Next Meeting Date: (To be determined) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Vice Chairman at 10:40 AM. i Historic /Archaeological Preservation Board . Shar en , V4ee- Chairman tc�.. The Minutes were approved by the Board /C ittee on T( ( as presented , or as amended t 17 1612 January JUN 1 4 1011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNW ..................... HISTORICAUARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, January 1.9, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier Counter Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation Building, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala 7)✓ Hiller Vy Henning Coyle Coletta LZ CHAIRMAN: William Dempsey VICE CHAIRMAN: Sharon Kenny Pam Brown (Excused) Patricia Huff (conference call) Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor Craig Woodward ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager Zoning Services Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst Misc. Correa: Date: °%\\L► %. \ Item #: %1--Z21A\'1 1 Copies to: 1612 A17'1 January 19, 2011 I. Roll Call/Attendance Chairman William Dempsey called the meeting to order at 9:21 A.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Addenda to the Agenda Add: Under Item VII. New Business 1. Bula Mission re: new information re demolition 2. Pam Brown re: e-mail on attendance status 3. Inter -local agreements III. Approval of the Agenda Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to approve the Agenda with the addition of the three Addenda items Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of the Minutes: November 17, 2010 (No meeting in December) Sharon Kenny moved to recommend approval of the Minutes of November 17, 2010, as presented. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. Old Business A. Approval of Historic Brochure (handout- Guide) Copies of the Brochure -Guide to Historic Sites in Collier County was distributed and reviewed. Discussed were: • Approve Brochure Guide; add any Amendments later • Putting the Guide on the HAPB website with links from other sites • Funding Sources for paper copies — Everglades Historical Society, Friends of the Everglades, possibly Marco Island Historical Society and other interested groups • Remove #4 Keywaydin Club due to inaccessibility • Replace #4 with Tin City - (Sharon will provide photos and commentary) • Further research by Sharon Kenny into possible inclusion of Hart Cottage (- discussion in recent magazine article on group seeking funds to save it). • Consideration of publishers — mentioned were books about Naples by Ron Jamro & Lynn Howard Frazier through Arcadia Publishing. • Cross - referencing with Google maps Craig Woodward, joined by Elizabeth Perdichizzi requested the minutes reflect their commending of Patti Huff's persistence and untiring efforts in bringing about the Brochure. The entire HAPB were also commended for their contributions and perseverance in the production of a Guide the County could be proud of. 9:39 - Patty Huff's. attendance by telephone conference call. She and was briefed on the foregoing information. F] 16 12 x'17 January 19, 2011 Sharon Kenny moved to recommend approval of the current version of the Historic Guide, replacing #4 Keywaydin Club with #4 Tin City; and, having it placed on the HAPB web site allowing for adding items in the future Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. (There was no item VI) VII. New Business - Addenda Item 1. was taken up prior to items A and B Addenda to the Agenda item 1. Bula Mission Ray Bellows introduced new information regarding the structural damage to the Bula Mission, a historically designated site. • Structure was deemed unsalvageable and would need to be demolished. • Owners agreed. The process begins with their signing the application. • HAPB agreed to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. • The placement of a marker to commemorate the site will be done with assisted funding by the Everglades Historical Society. A. Election of Officers Sharon Kenny nominated Craig Woodward as Chairman. There were no other nominations. All were in favor. Craig Woodward is Chairman. Will Dempsey nominated Rich Taylor as Vice Chairman. Mr. Taylor declined. Elizabeth Perdiehizzi nominated Will Dempsey as Vice Chairman. There were no other nominations. All were in favor. Will Dempsey is Vice- Chairman. Craig Woodward assumed the Chair. Addenda to the Agenda item 2. Pam Brown e -mail Ray Bellows read an e -mail from Pam Brown explaining her job situation, which has prevented her from attending several meetings. She requested to stay on the Board as her changed hours would now free her up for future Board Meetings. It was discussed and agreed upon for an extension of one more month. B. Attendance of HAPB Meetings Ray Bellows reiterated the attendance requirements for Advisory Boards as determined by the LDC. Discussion followed on moving meetings around to various locations several times a year using sites portrayed in the Historic Guide. The purpose being to: • accommodate the interested public • provide an opportunity for speakers from outlying areas to give presentations • afford HAPB members a hands on observation of the various sites • lessen travel time to meetings for members attending from outlying communities. Sites selected for the coming year were: Naples Depot, Marco Island Museum, Roberts Ranch and City Council Chambers in Everglades City. A portable recording system will be required. 1612 'A17 January 19, 7011 Addenda to the Agenda item 3. Inter -local agreements Craig Woodward noted the fact that inter -local agreements were part of the vision for being able to control archaeological and historic declaration issues in all of Collier County. Will Dempsey cited Grey Oaks and Hamilton Harbor as examples of communities partially in the City and partially in the County which have a form of inter -local agreements. He suggested creating a prototype suitable to the criteria of the Historical, Archaeological Advisory Board using those agreements as a reference. A lengthy discussion followed on: • City Planner and Assistant County Attorney discussing course of action with Ray Bellows. • Benefits to other municipalities — utilizing already functioning HAPB • No need to duplicate functions of the Historical Board in each municipality • Other locality staff making presentations to HAPB • Allow decisions of HAPB to have weight • Part of the agreement to include a checklist stating what presentations should consist of -- background, site plan, pictures, what makes it historical, etc. - state criteria on application Ray Bellows noted two concerns: funding of staff time and jurisdictional issues. He stated a staff vacancy may be filled soon who could serve as liaison to HAPB. Questions he had for the Board members to consider were: who provides the research, forms, applications and staff- the municipalities or the County? The Board expressed interest to investigate going forward with inter -local agreements between all local municipalities and Collier County. Further discussion was requested to be put on the next month's Agenda. Also, that Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams be invited to attend to review the language of the current agreements with Grey Oaks and Hamilton Harbor, with the aim of creating one suitable to HAPB. Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to recommend moving forward with drafting an inter -local agreement that could be used with other municipalities Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously 6 -0 VIII. Public Comments- None IX. Board Member Announcements Patty Huff: Coming weekend — Airport will be having pancake breakfast with Starting at l O:OOAM antique airplanes on display; also Art in the Glades February 4, 5 and 6 Everglades Seafood', Festival February 22 -25 Marjorie Stoneham' Douglas Days Craig Woodward: Jan. 20, 6:00pm- Ted Morris Exhibit "Florida's Lost Tribes" Marco Island Museum Free Lecture and wine and cheese party Gift Shop also will be opened. Two other temporary exhibits opened will be the "Plumage Exhibit and the "Calusa" exhibit. 16 12 A17 January 19, 2011 Elizabeth Perdichizzi: Jan 23, 3:00 pm - "Land Barons Historical Re- enactment" Rose History Auditorium at the Marco Island Museum She wrote and narrates the play. Sharon Kenny requested staff to provide copies of the rough drafted inter -local agreement once distributed by Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams, prior to the next meeting. Sharon Kenny moved to approve holding the next meeting at Marco Island Museum. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. The next meeting is February 16, 2011 at 9:15 AM. The meeting will be held at the Marco Island Museum, 180 South Heathwood Drive, Marco Island, Florida. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 10:22 A.M. Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board �t Chaff an Craig Woodward These minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on as presented v` , or as amended 5 5 % t. 16 2 "A I / 11 1 March 23,201 RECEIVED JUN 15 2011 Board Of County CommisWanars MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Fiala Naples, Florida, March 23, 2011 Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division - Planning and Regulation, Conference Room 610, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive , Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Craig Woodward Pam Brown (excused) William Dempsey (excused) Patricia Huff Sharon-Kenny Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Zoning Services Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst Kris Van Lengen, City Planner, City of Marco Island Corey Cabral, re: Bula Mission John Ban, re: Corkscrew Settlement Misc. Corres: 1 Date: °+\v ux \ � Item #: xsa -3-- 2 va \'� GcrpIAs to: 1612'�!� March 23, 2011 I. Roll Call/Attendance: Chairman Craig Woodward called the meeting to order at 9:15 AM. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Addenda to the Agenda: (1) Brochure (Old Business) (2) Videos (New Business) (3) Nick Penniman (New Business) III. Approval of the Agenda: Sharon Kenny moved to approve the Agenda, including the three addenda items. Second by Rich Taylor. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: February 16, 2011 Change: Page 2- Article V- Old Business A. —The 5th bulleted item is to read: Marco Island Planning Board (not City Council) Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to approve the minutes of February 16, 2011, as amended. Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously, 5-0. V. Old Business: A. Bula Mission Chairman Craig Woodward commented on his trip tacheek out and photograph the Bula Mission property. His findings were: The property was in very bad shape; but, some of the pecky cypress boards could be salvaged to sell or given to a contractor in return for doing the demolition. Patty Huff displayed some Paul Arsenault art prints of the Mission which could be used to replicate the structure if it could be saved. He had contacted Corey Cabral regarding its preservation. She also spoke about the Frances Hodge Community Center group and the Kids of Copeland group who would like to restore and use the building for a gathering place, if it were at all possible to save it. Patty has initiated contacts with a Foundation for funding options. She introduced Corey Cabral, a state certified contractor and realtor, who provided an in -depth report of the property's condition and its possibilities. • In his opinion, the Mission building could be repaired for historical use as a living museum, much like the Ted Smallwood property. • It could be moved to an established site, such as the Botanical Gardens or the Marco Island Museum as an example of the construction of that era. • He offered several suggestions among which were stripping the inside to the walls exposing the cypress, leveling the floors and installing a tin roof. 2 1612p,17 March 23, 2011 • He was interested in salvaging the pecky cypress and southern yellow pine and offered to work on a cost basis to manage and supervise the stripping, should the decision be to demolish, repair or move the structure. Discussion followed on estimated costs ($30,000 to $40,000), advertising and funding through grants and restoration groups. Chairman Craig Woodward noted the choices the Board needed to consider: • First idea - leave the structure in Copeland — restore it historically • Keep its integrity and move it to a public setting — Botanical Garden or a Museum • Demolish and use its components — exhibit as historic structure material & & I ^ x.,• He will e -mail the photos of the property's current condition to Ray Bellows. State Grants for restoration and promoting the issue through local advertisements and historic preservation groups will be pursued for further discussion and final determination. B. Interlocal Agreement Discussion Kris Van Lengen, City Planner for the City of Marco Island discussed sever:. i points for clarification in the preparation process of the Inter -local Agreement in progress. Background: • Ray Bellows had provided Kris Van Lengen documentations from the County Ordinance and various forms used in the processes relating to historic and archeological determinations. • Kris Van Lengen was in the process of interfacing them with the City of Marco Comprehensive Plan to create a template for their Ordinance. • HAPB will create an inter -local agreement prepared by Craig Woodward and Will Dempsey. • The City of Marco will have its own ordinance and staff to prepare presentations to the HAPB for its recommendations, which will be sent to the Marco Island City Council for approval. Questions arose on Sec I & II —A through K of the County Ordinance dealing with mandatory requirements the City Council would prefer to be voluntary. Ray Bellows explained the Archeological Probability Maps and Historic Structures on the Master Site File, which are utilized when platting or submitting the Site Development Plan (SDP). The County's known sites, structures and probability areas require archeological surveys and /or assessments or a waiver application approved by HAPB. He further explained a re -zone would require compliance verification with the findings noted on the Plat/SDP. Kris Van Lengen noted the City would be open to a voluntary, property owner generated, aspect in dealing with probable historic places rather than mandatory, as indicated in the County Ordinance. 161 ( A'17 March 23, 2011 Sharon Kenny cautioned the City to leave open, an option for other than a property owner to seek historic /archaeological determinations. Craig Woodward suggested a City Board be vested with the power to determine what would initiate historic and /or archeological designation presentations to HAPB for their recommendation; given the fact that all of Marco Island had already been designated an area of probability. He stated HAPB just recommends; the City of Marco would make final decisions. The Inter -local agreement will be finalized within the next few months. C. Brochure Ray Bellows distributed copies of the latest Brochure /Guide, printed with funding with the help of John Torre of the Communications and Customer Relations department, an office of the County Manager. They will be distributed to the libraries and tourist offices and have a web link with various newspapers and other County and City offices. Elizabeth Perdichizzi requested New Business Item B. Videos be discussed next since it related to the Brochure /Guide distribution opportunities. VII. B. Videos Elizabeth Perdichizzi informed the Board about Bill Hughes of Bill Hughes Video Productions, who produces videos of historic buildings and sites. She and Patty Huff were working with him in producing a tour of Everglades City, Old Marco Inn, the Smallwood Store and the 5 Museums in Collier County. The tour was currently available on Marco Island Community TV.com. She suggested HAPB work with him to video major sites in the Brochure, with commentary and links to other County sites, providing both hard copy and internet website. The board agreed and she was encouraged to approach Bill Hughes on the Brochure /video idea. VI. No Item VI on the Agenda VII. New Business: A. Corkscrew Settlement John Ban provided an insightful presentation of historical information, buildings and artifacts found on his residence, which was once the original school in the Corkscrew Settlement. He had researched the history of the area in records at the Collier County Museum, the Immokalee Museum, the Estero Historical Preservation Society and the Koreshan Society. He stated the Corkscrew Settlement was in existence in 1923 and was settled by the Whidden, Taylor, Starnes and other families. Its location is at the headwaters of the Imperial River in the Northwest Corner of Collier County, a forgotten area with an untold history tied in with the ecosystems of the County. He and his neighbors wanted to bring to light the fact that a settlement of historic significance existed and its story should be told. They were interested in historic site designation. Patty Huff left at 10:31 am. 1612 A117 March 23, 2011 Elizabeth Perdichizzi offered to check with The Archeological Society and the Craighead Lab for further information on the Whidden Mound. Ray Bellows will provide the forms for historic designation to Mr. Ban. Mr. Ban provided contact information to the staff and to HAPB. C. Nick Penniman Rich Taylor sought the HAPB's interest in a power point presentation by Nick Penniman, a retired publisher and researcher of the Calusa Indians, who serves on the Board of the Conservancy of SW Florida. Rich was asked to invite Mr. Penniman to speak at the April meeting. He will request Mr. Penniman to contact Ray Bellows with audio- visual requirements. VIII. Public Comment: NONE IX. Board Member Announcements Sharon Kenny announced the City of Naples responded favorably to a special request to allow the use of office space in Old Naples homes. She also mentioned a recent web article regarding an FGCU investigation of 2,000 year old bones found in the Keys at Marathon, Florida. She will forward the article to the Members, who were not aware of that study. Chairman Craig Woodward gave an update on the City of Marco Island Museum, showing a design layout of the Calusa Room layout depicting the village plan and the Gallery area. He announced Dr. Robin Brown, who has written about the Calusa Indians, will give a speech to the Marco Historical Society on April 5th at 7pm at Rose History Auditorium. He will meet with the Museum Exhibit Committee with ideas on how to best display the Calusa exhibit. The next meeting will be held on April 20, 2011 at 9:15 AM. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 10:45 AM. Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board ie Woodward 0 These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on % I Iq /I/ as presented IV or as amended P }: 1612 A f7 May 11, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, May 11, 2011 MAY 3 1 2011 BY:....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical/ Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Community Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation, Conference Room #610, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Craig Woodward (excused) William Dempsey Pam Brown (absent) Patricia Huff Sharon Kenny (excused) Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Fred Reischl, Zoning Services Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres: Item #A L 7= 2 Wr �""1 cc-nies to: 1612 q A17 May 11, 2011 I. Roll Call /Attendance: Vice - Chairman William Dempsey called the meeting to order at 9:40 A.M. Roll Call was taken. A quorum was not present. The items on the Agenda were taken up for discussion for informational purposes only. No actions were taken. Summary Notes on the discussions were requested. II. Addenda to the Agenda: ADD: Under Old Business - Archaeologist to go to Mamie street ADD: Under New Business - Summer schedule ADD: Under New Business - Rock Creek III. Approval of the Agenda No Action Taken IV. Approval of Minutes: March 23, 2011 No Action Taken V. Old Business: A. Bula Mission Patty Huff reported on her efforts to find funding sources for the Bula Mission project. Her list included Mayor Hamilton, who had indicated some assistance in an earlier letter; Paul Arsenault, the artist who had portrayed various scenes of the Mission in his paintings; the Triumph Church and New Hope Ministries, who had an interest in the preservation. Through them, she discovered Immokalee's Edgerrin James had a Foundation which had given 250K to the University of Miami. He also had friends of friends of Miss Frances. She was in the process of locating the Foundation's address to contact them for interest in some funding. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams noted the family was still in the area (children, a cousin on Marco Island and a brother, active in football). Patty will follow up on the information and provide an update to HAPB. B. Interlocal Agreement Draft Document Waiting to hear from Craig Woodward on this item C. Corkscrew Settlement Update Ray Bellows reported John Ban had contacted him and indicated he was not interested in pursuing Historic Designation for the Corkscrew Settlement. However, recognition of the Settlement and its historic significance was of great interest to him. It was suggested adding the Corkscrew Settlement to the Brochure /Guide and the placement of some type of historical marker on the property would be appropriate. Should HAPB decide to pursue the designation of individual properties they would need to work with each owner. Discussion on this item will continue on the next meeting's Agenda. } 1612 9 7 May 11, 2011 VI. New Business Addenda to the Agenda item #1— Archeologist to go to Mamie Street Patty Huff updated the HAPB on the activity going on in Chokoloskee around the Smallwood Store and Mamie Street. She brought pictures and samples of particles and pieces of materials that appeared to be from a shell mound, obtained from the excavation site around the area of concern. A lengthy discussion followed with background information provided by Ray Bellows, Will Dempsey and Assistant County Attorney, Steve Williams. The actions of the courts will be followed by the legal process already in the works. Patty requested an independent Certified Archaeologist go to the site and conduct a proper survey and assessment. Ray Bellows commented the property owner must give permission to enter the property. He stated a State Certified Archeologist, hired by the owner, will be doing a full analysis of the excavated site. That report will come to the HAPB. Concern was voiced by the HAPB that impartiality would be questionable and reports would be favorable to the owner, who hired him /her. Constraints of State Laws and County Codes on disturbing burial grounds were discussed. State statutes, from which County Codes were derived, pertained to burial grounds not shell mounds. Noted was the ambivalence in the County Codes hampering the HAPB from doing what it was supposed to do — protect and preserve the historic and archeological sites of Collier County. Will Dempsey cited the problem was in the Land Development Code (LDC), if an historical source could be excavated in an area of probability just by pulling a permit. The situation on Chokoloskee could be avoided in other areas by an amendment to the LDC to adjust the triggering mechanism that would require involvement of the HAPB. Assistant County Attorney Steve Williams responded he saw little difficulty in drafting language to accomplish HAPB's goal without any undue burden on the permitting process. A vote by the HAPB to recommend the change, and the BCC's approval would be necessary. This topic will be put on next month's Agenda Addenda to the Agenda item #2 Summer Break Ray Bellows requested the Board decide summer meeting schedules. He will e -mail everyone to respond with summer schedule so meeting dates can be set. Addenda to the Agenda item #3 Rock Creek Will Dempsey spoke about the discovery of hundreds of pieces of pottery chunks while kayaking along Rock Creek at low tide. After checking several of them out with Collier County Museum personnel, he was told they were over 1,000 yrs old. The mangroved property is City of Naples Conservation Lands. He will contact Bob Carr's office on the findings and report at the next meeting. VII. Public Comments: None 16 12 p 7 Ma 11 2 1 Y VIII. Board Member Announcements Betsy Perdichizzi requested the excavation pictures provided by Patty Huff be carried over to next meeting to enter into the records. The next scheduled meeting will be held on Wednesday June 8, 2011 in Room #610 Collier County Development Services Division, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive. NOTE: This will be the 2 "d Wednesday of the month, not the 3"d Wednesday. The meeting ended at 10:38 A.M. HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Vice Chairman, William Dempsey These meeting notes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 4 1612 A17' k� tg X70 , Cor County May 27, 2011 Michael Zimny Certified Local Government (CLG) Coordinator Bureau of Historic Preservation R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0250 RE: Collier County Preservation Board Meeting Dear Mr. Zimny: Please be advised that a public meeting for the Collier County Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board has been scheduled for Wednesday, June 8, 2011 and will begin at 9:15 a.m. at the County Growth Management Division — Planning & Regulation, Conference Room 610, located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida I have attached the agenda and the minutes from the March 23, 2011 meeting for your reference. There was no official meeting held in April and May due to a lack of a quorum. If you have any questions concerning this meeting, please do not hesitate to call me. My phone number is 239 - 252 -2463 or you can e-mail me at: Raybellows @colliergov.net. Sincerely, lea Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager (Historic Preservation Board Liaison) Zoning Services Section Department of Land Development Services cc: Preservation Board Members (7) Ron Jamro Bill Lorenz Steve Williams Ian Mitchell Fred Reischl Glenda Smith Ian, 161&1 1_ -8 1 JUN 0 3 2011 Board of County Commissioners The Horizon Study Oversight Committee was created by Resolution 09 -38 by the BCC. The Committee met three times in 2010 and have meet twice in 2011. All of the minutes from 2010 have been included, as well as the first meeting from 2011. After the neat meeting of the Committee, I will forward you the signed meeting minutes for the April, 2011 meeting. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Mike 1 -29 -10 - included 4- 3 0.10 - included 10 -29 -10 - included 2 -04 -11 - included 4 -08 -11 — available after next quarterly meeting Fiala t/ Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: -4k'-bk\ \ Item #: x\­ -r— 2w\ S?, Cl-pies to: 161E A18 Horizon Study Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes January 29, 2010 9:05 A. M. Meeting Called to order by Chairman McDaniel 9:07 Roll Call, Teaters, Watson McDaniel present 9:12 Approval of Agenda 9:13 Approval of November 20, 2009 Oversight Committee minutes 9:15 Motion of Committee to move to Public Comment on agenda, vote - unanimously 9:18 David Farmer, member of the public, provided comments regarding the CIGM and distributed memo with specific questions of the CIGM Mr. Farmer stated he was a supporter of the CIGM, but would like areas of memo addressed to better understand the model, its capabilities and limitations 9:25 Chairman McDaniel stated County needed a point person to be CIGM spokesperson, but recognized staffers come and go. Stated felt staff misrepresented the capabilities of the CIGM during the January 19, 2010 BCC transmittal hearings for the Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendments. Emphasized the need to reiterate with staff what model is and limitations. Felt that too much weight was placed on the CIGM by staff. Stressed key point that CIGM does not take into account economic viability of existing supply. 9:35 General discussion of populations and vacancy rate and their effect upon the CIGM. 9:40 The Chairman puts on the record that he believes staff inappropriately utilized the CIGM in their review of the Growth Management Plan Amendments, currently under review. Believes too much weight was placed upon the utilization of the CIGM by staff. Recognized the CIGM has benefited the GMP -A review process, but staff should have been stronger in their articulation of limits of the CIGM 9:45 Jim Flannigan, member of the public, stated that Transportation issues need to be addressed outside of the CIGM And felt staff manipulated the data set and staff did not focus upon the locational discussion in the decision making process. 9:50 David Farmer suggested the CIGM could be bifurcated and separate the population component from the other components. 1612 A18 9:53 Pointed out that the CIGM is already built that way, but stronger emphasis is needed on that point. 9:55 Chairman McDaniel pointed out that CIGM has no opinions, simply states what is and decisions need to be made by the Community. 10:00 Committee Member Watson stated, that based upon the discussion that transpired at the meeting, that she had serious concern that staff was manipulating the agenda. 10:03 David Farmer pointed out that only staff can use the model and that the public could only request output. 10:05 Committee Member Testers stated he believed that staff was not following a specific agenda. 10:08 Michael Ramsey, member of public, stated CIGM should not be utilized on Estates petitions unless recognized by the Golden Gate Area Master Plan ( GGAMP). There was an issue with applying urban standards to estates for CIGM analysis. Felt the CIGM needed to be vetted in the GGAMP restudy and transportation needed to be included within the GGAMP restudy. 10:15 Chairman stated Rural Fringe Mixed -Use District needs to be included in the GGAMP restudy. 10:20 The Committee voted unanimously on a motion to have staff address David Farmer's questions of the CIGM by next meeting date. 10:23, Committee motioned to close public discussion, passed unanimously. 10:25 Dr. Van Buskirk provided an updated presentation on the CIGM and the update to the model based upon the CO activity from April 2007 to April 2009. The presentation provided specifics in the change in baseline data and its slight effect upon timing and build -out. 10:49 Presentation on CIGM concluded 10: 50 Committee member Watson questioned if it wouldn't be better to meet on a more frequent basis so the issues can be addressed in a better manner, quarterly nature of meeting provides too much time in- between meetings. 10:54 Discussion amongst members about frequency of meetings. 10:57 Watson also asked to have update on Priority Points and indicate which ones were being addressed by various departments. 11:05 Direction given to staff to work with the Chair on Draft presentation to BCC for May 2010, and all committee members to have opportunity to review at the April quarterly meeting 11:12 Jack Flanagan asked to be included in the distribution list 11:18 Motion to adjourn was passed unanimously. nittee 1612 A--j 87 t0 Date 1612 A18 Horizon Study Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes April 30, 2010 9:05 A.M. Meeting Called to order by Chairman McDaniel 9:07 Roll Call, Teaters, Watson, McDaniel present 9:12 Approval of Agenda 9:13 Approval of January 29, 2010 Oversight Committee minutes 9:15 Chairman McDaniel stressed that comments contained in the 1 -29 -10 meeting minutes concerning staff utilization of the CIGM was not a big deal and felt that the minutes portrayed those comments as potentially too negative. 9:18 Committee began review of the draft BCC PowerPoint presentation. Slide Four - suggested to change the past tense references in the slide to present tense to emphasize the model and its results are in a constant evolution. Slide Five — link the CIGM as a tool to evaluate GMP- Amendments to the graphic. Slide Six — Change the picture from a traffic scene to a land use plan and remove capitalization from the word Provides. 9:26 Committee decided to pause in the review of the PowerPoint and review response to David Farmer's, member of the public, distributed memo with specific questions of the CIGM. The Committee reviewed the three statements and six questions contained in Mr. Farmer's memo and the response provided by Dr. Van Buskirk to those questions (Copy on file). The responses to the questions satisfied the questions, which are on file the minutes will reflect the side points and comments established during the discussion: • Staff responsibility when reporting on the output of the CIGM that there are differences within the sub - districts of the Future Land Use Element that have to be understood to understand the comparisons arrived upon by the model • The limitations of the CIGM need to be stated more articulately by staff when reporting on CIGM analysis. • Range of square footage concept related to size of commercial centers needs to be better clarified to account for differences in per acre yields of various sub - districts. • During GMP- amendments staff did not articulate the difference between office and retail subsectors of commercial square footage and this lead to misleading conclusions. In the future this has to be better accounted for by staff. 1612 • Potential idea for next Oversight meeting was to focus discussion on Commercial Sub - model of the CIGM and explore the details of the models output and analysis • Question was raised whether the Committee should discuss the Wilson/Golden Gate Blvd. GMP- amendment with the BCC and how the amendment was inconsistent with GGAMP. • Point raised that that was not the purview of the Committee and discussion of specific amendments should be avoided. • Suggested that staff should appoint a single point person or two point persons to utilize the CIGM to ensure the proper use of the CIGM as an analytical tool. • Suggested that the Committee dedicate one future meeting to a presentation from the Development Community and how they interface with the CIGM. 10:24 The Committee concluded the discussion of the memo and resumed the review of the PowerPoint presentation. Slide 10 through 20 recognized that the bar graphs were not effective in portraying the information and the raised map was better, but decided to leave the bar graphs in. The PowerPoint then transitioned to the Position Points and the ranking of the Position Points. Staff directed to bring position point five in line with position point eight, which both deal with the character of roads that will be developed in the Study area. On Position Point six remove the fire hydrant from the slide. Position Point nine staff to change regional to County- wide. Bring Position Point thirteen to Position Point 15, both deals with water availability. 10:49 Discussion on the PowerPoint concluded 10:50 The Committee then began discussion on the expansion of the model for the whole County. There was a question if the Committee could do so because they were thought to be relegated to only the Eastern portion of the County, but staff response was they are tied to the CIGM, if the CIGM expands its area covered, then so would the Committee. 10:55 Discussion with Dr. Van Buskirk about comparing BEBR population projections to the CIGM's and the dangers of straight line extrapolation, due to the significance of where a place is in relationship to the economic cycle and how that influences the results. 11:02 Discussion of the next meeting date late August/Early September. 11:18 Watson - Motion to adjourn was passed unanimously. Bill #4cDaniel, Chairman, Hori4on Oversight Committee O 2+ leo . Date 16 12 A.18 Horizon Study Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes October 29, 2010 9:02 A.M. Meeting Called to order by Chairman McDaniel 9:05 Roll Call, Teaters, Humphries, McDaniel present 9:12 Approval of Agenda 9:13 Approval of April 30, 2010 Oversight Committee minutes 9:15 Comprehensive Planning staff began giving an overview of the Horizon Study from Phase one to Phase Three 9:20 Teaters and Humphries requested copies of the Phase One report 9:22 Chairman McDaniel cautioned against the outdate cost and information contained in the Phase One Report. 9:35 Horizon Study Overview completed 9:37 Discussion on the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) regulations and how development can move forward regarding that Overlay and the need for an accurate population forecasting methodology to assist with the development that is projected to come. 9:45 Doctor Van Buskirk began a PowerPoint on the Industrial Design model 9:47 Dr. VB clarifies that amount of Industrial is the choice of a location, not directly tied to need like provision of commercial space. 9:50 Chair points out that the US is still and Industrial Society 9:55 Dr. VB points out that as places mature the need for a diversification of economy is needed to replace the eventual decreasing presence of construction and development activity. 10:05 Dr. VB went through Research Methodology: Demographics, Employment Profile, Fiscal Impact, Multiplier Effects and Strategies to Overcome Industrial Deficiencies. 10:25 Chair requested to look at past decennial census to see trends within the demographic tracked. 1612 A18 10:27 Dr. VB discussed the labor force demographic breakdown and transition that is typical of that population as an area matures. 10:30 Break 10:45 Dr. VB discussed Industrial Composition expected at build -out and the concept of land budgeting to ensure appropriate allocations are provided for within an area. 10: 55 The Oversight Committee voted to have a demographic presentation from Dr. VB for their next quarterly meeting 11:00 Pat Humphries requested a copy of Dr. Van Buskirk's Presentation 11:05 Discussion focused on need to make every effort to get the CIGM as the official population projection source for the County, which is in the purview of the Oversight Committee's charge. 11:10 Committee discussed potential timing of next meeting for later part of January and staff indicated that they would get back to the membership on dates available. 11:12 Motion to adjourn was passed unanimously. nittee Date 1612 A18 Horizon Study Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes February 4, 2011 9:05 A.M. Meeting Called to order by Chairman McDaniel 9:07 Roll Call, Teaters, Humphries, McDaniel present, Eckhardt excused, late notification 9:09 Approval of Agenda 9:12 Approval of October 29, 2010 Oversight Committee minutes 9:15 Brief discussion economic cycles and rescission since the 1970's with Dr. Van Buskirk and Committee and public 9:18 Chair McDaniel recommended that the Committee establish a policy of an open format in where the public can join in on Committee discussions at anytime. The proposal was agreed upon by the other members. 9:25 Discussion of the Florida Department of Transportation FDOT and their current attempt to link land use modeling and transportation planning in a better manner. Dr. Van Buskirk described the program and the FDOT interest in the CIGM potentially being a pilot model. 9:35 Discussed briefly the FDOT study to date and the Committee requested a copy to be forwarded to each member. 9:37 Dr. Van Buskirk began his demographic trend analysis presentation which focused on the shift in Collier's demographic composition from 1970 to 2009 based upon the US Census. Presentation is available for review at Growth Management /Comprehensive Planning Section. 9:50 David Farmer asked a question regarding the decrease in the percentage make up of agricultural activity to total economic activity. Question was "Did drop in overall percentage in overall mix represent a decrease in Ag activity or increase or expansion in other non Ag related economic activity. It was recognized that it was a bit of both effect by Dr. Van Buskirk. 9:59 Chair McDaniel questioned numbers from the 1990 Census related to median age and requested if he could see the numbers on the graph with the percentages, if going to use in a presentation to the BCC 1612 A18 ' 10:10 Committee commented on the growth of schools and government within the decade of the 1990's as one of the largest growth sectors. 10:25 Break 10: 35 Dr. Van Buskirk discussed strategies recommended to maintain an appropriate land use budget for the County with the encouragement of 50 acre minimum set asides in the towns and villages of the RLSA and RFMUD Overlays. Each member provided their own perspective on the strategy but felt like the recommendation was appropriate. 10:45 Tim Nancy of the Public felt the County needed to be more competitive with adjacent counties related to the utilization of technology in the Ag sector. 10:50 Chair McDaniel stated there was a need for a commitment to the CIGM and Teaters pointed out that were limitations to using the standards of the Commercial Centers in the CIGM due to those being based on Urban density, not the low density areas such as the Estates. 10:55 Discussion then moved to topics for annual presentation to the BCC in May. 11:00 Presentation needs to focus on benefits of developing the CIGM for the entire County 11:05 The Committee direct staff and Dr. Van Buskirk to: • list the benefits of the CIGM, but also to highlight the cost savings associated with the model, • to include the last page of the demographic presentation related to changes over the 40 year period, • then show the population projections over the next 30 years and describe the changes in the demographic and economic mix to attain desired diversification, • point out that DCA has already accepted the Growth Model as a professionally accepted source for population projections, • note the FDOT land use /transportation modeling effort and the potential for the CIGM. 11:30 Motion to adjourn was provided by Teaters, seconded by Humphries and was passed unanimously. Bil %Daniel, Chairma or o Oversight Committee - �yzto�C T. 'V1 ✓lath . Cf /7f(( <� r Date 1612 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE I. Call Meeting to Order March 23, 2011 AGENDA II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes – January 26, 2011 V. Code Enforcement Report – Weldon Walker VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report B. Project Manager Report – Darryl Richard C. Review & Approval of FY -2012 MSTU Budget VII. Transportation Maintenance Report – CLM VIII. Landscape Architect Report – JRL Design IX. Community Redevelopment Agency X. Old Business A. Master Plan Discussion XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment a19 f o T (PI, TIR RW3 JUN 09 2011 BY: ....................... Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle _ Coletta — The next meeting is April 27, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. South Florida Works Misc. Cares: 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Oa%. Item#: 1 1 °) Copies to: 1612 A19' WMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 26, 2011 Minutes The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:31 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo (Absent), Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman, Carrie Williams (Absent) County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Richard Tindell -JRL, Fred Thomas -CRA, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: Xl. A. Master Plan discussion Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes A. October 27, 2010 Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the October 27, 2010 minutes as submitted. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. B. November 17, 2010 Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the November 17, 2010 minutes as submitted. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Code Enforcement - Weldon Walker -None VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Darryl Richard gave the following information: (See attached) • Available Operating Expense $43,110.27 • P.O. was opened for the Cemetery Refurbishment $3,500.00 1612 A19' B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard reviewed the following: (3) Cemetery Fence Quotes (See attached) • Fa Remodeling and Repairs Inc. - $3,950.00 - Permit Fee is included in the Estimate • Carter Fence Company - $3,690.00 - Estimate does not include the Permit Fee • Gateswork - $3,416.42 - Estimate does not include the Permit Fee Staff will request the removal of the Permit Fee from Quote by Fa Remodeling and Repairs Inc. so that Bids are based on an equivalent Scope of Work. o CLM was issued a NTP for Landscaping Richard Tindell recommended delaying Plant installation until after March 15tH Andrea Halman moved that if Gateswork does not remove the conditional clause (Staff) will go with the next lowest Bidder. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. (IMM -18) Hwy 29 Hri_gation /Landscape Refurbishment Proiect o Directional bore is required to extend the water line for Irrigation Darryl Richard reported on the following: • Trash pickup was increased to (3) times per week (Hwy 29) - Staff requested the Property Owners police the area • Electrician is removing additional Palm Trees on Main Street as it effects the Electrical System VII. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM - None VIII. Landscape Architect Report-JRL Design Richard Tindell reviewed the Landscape Architect's Field Report. (See attached) Cherryle Thomas complemented JRL on the Christmas Garland and Lights that were displayed during the Holiday Season. Richard Tindell reviewed the following: Banner Project o Installation of the new Banners is complete Submitted Pathways Projects (2) o Project 1 - Walkways for Immokalee Drive (from Carson Road to the High School) - Concrete Walkways will be installed in lieu of Asphalt F] 16 I c A'1 g ' o Project 2- Carson Road (section from Lake Trafford heading North) - Southern portion of Carson Road was removed from the Project List as it is not a County Road (privately owned) Fred Thomas requested a letter from the Committee stating that the Pathways Project is a high priority as the Citizen Advisory Committee is reviewing the Pathways Project next week. Lucy Ortiz moved that the Pathways Project is high priority (number one) and to provide a letter to the CAC (to include the same content) (the letter will include the description from Carson Rd. to Immokalee Dr.) Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. 1st Street • Removal of 80% of the Trees is required - Subsequently sidewalk repair will be needed • Contractor quotes were requested • Suggested installing benches at (2) Bus stops - Government Center - Near the Seminole Casino Cherryle Thomas stated that (2) Bus Stop benches are currently in storage with the Water and Sewer Department. Darryl Richard noted coordination with CAT Department is needed on the proposed benches. He stated Richard Tindell and Staff will meet with the CAT Department to discuss options for the (2) Bus Stops. Stn Street and Main Street (north east comer) o (1) Light Fixture is missing (pedestrian level) Darryl Richard stated that the Electrician removed the damaged Light Fixture and parts are on order to repair the Light. Main Street • South side of Main Street - Housing is damaged on (1) Street lamp (high level) • North side of Main Street (at the RCMA Bldg.) - Bollard repair is incomplete (was reported in May) • Sight Line Study - Meeting with FDOT is required Darryl Richard responded a meeting will be held with FDOT prior to the next MSTU meeting. Lucy Ortiz questioned if replacements are planned for the Trees scheduled for removal (on 1St Street.) 3 1612 Al 9 Discussion ensued and it was concluded: • Space is limited to install Tree replacements • A donated easement from a Property owner would be needed • Selection of Plant Material is restrictive Cherryle Thomas conveyed Public comment on the missing ADA mats. Darryl Richard replied the ADA mat issue will be discussed during the meeting with FDOT. IX. Community Redevelopment Agency - None X. Old Business -None XI. New Business A. Master Plan Discussion Darryl Richard stated the purpose of a Master Plan is to identify the Project Goals and items that require Maintenance. He noted the Project Manager Report will be modified to list the following: • Active Projects • Completed Projects • Identify Maintenance components XII. Public Comment -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee ", Lit-, btwq -5, Cherryle Thohias, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented K, -or amended The next meeting is January 26, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5t" Street Immokalee, FL 34142 4 M 1612 4 A19 o A039737 JIJN 0 7 20c � NIMOKA LEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY . ............... .w ..... , January 2t, 2011 Fiala Hiller Minutes Henning Coyle — Coletta The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:37 p.m. A quorum was established. Il. Attendance Members :: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo (Absent), Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Hallman, Carrie Williams (Absent) County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Richard Tindaell -JRL, Fred Thomas -CRA, Marlene Lafferty - Juristaff I'll. Approval of Agenda Add. Xl. A. Master Plan discussion Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Andrea Heiman. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes A. October 27, 2010 Lucy Ortiz moved to .approve the October 27, 2010 minutes as submitted Second by Andrea Heiman. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. B. November 17, 2010 Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the November 17, 2010 minutes as submitted Second by Andrea Halmman. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. V. Code Enforcement - Weldon Walker-None VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Darryl Richard gave the following information: (See attached) o Available Operating Expense $43,110.27 * P.O. was opened for the Cemetery Refurbishment $3,500.00 Misc. Corres: Date: mil► 14 k 1 t Item* 1612 B. Project Manager Report- Darryl Richard reviewed the fallowing: (3) Cemetery Fence Quotes (See attached) o Fa Remodeling and Repairs Inc. - $3,950.00 - Permit Fee is included in the Estimate o Carter Fence Company - $3,694.00 - Estimate does not include the Permit Fee o Gateswork - $3,416.42 - Estimate dares not include the Permit Fee Staff will request the removal of the Permit Fee from Quote by Fa Remodeling and Repairs Inc. so that Birk are based on an equivalent Scope of Work. o CLM was issued a NTP for Landscaping Richard Tindall recommended delaying Plant installation until after March 15'h. Andres Hatman moved that if Gateswork does not reprove the conditional clause (Staff) will go with the next lowest Bidder. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.. (lMMI -18) Un 29 1y g tian4_am7scape Refurbishment Proiect o Directional bore is required to extend the water line for Irrigation Darryl Richard reported on the following: • Trash pickup was increased to (3) times per week (Hwy 29) - Staff requested the Property Owners police the area • Electrician is removing additional Palm Trees on Main Street as it effects the Electrical System Vll. Transportation Maintenance Report -CLM - None Vill. Landscape Architect Report -JRL Design Richard Tindall reviewed the Landscape Architect's Field Report. (See attached) Cherryle Thomas complemented JRL on the Christmas Garland and Lights that were displayed during the Holiday Season. Richard Tindell reviewed the following: Banner Proiect o Installation of the new Banners is complete Submitted Pathways Proiects (2) o Project 1 - Walkways for Immokalee Drive (from Carson Road to "_High School) Concrete Walkways will be installed in lieu of Asphalt 2 *19 144 6 A 19 o Project 2- Carson Road (section from Lake Trafford heading North) - Southern portion of Carson Road was removed from the Project List as it is not a County Road (privately owned) Fred Thomas requested a letter from the Committee stating that the Pathways Project is a high priority as the Citizen Advisory Committee is reviewing the Pathways Project next week. Lucy Ortfz moved that the Pathways Project Is high priority (number one) and to provide a letter to the CAC (to Include the same content) (the letter will include the description from Carson Rd. to Immokatee Dr.) Second by Andrea Heiman. Motion carded unanimously 3-0. is, skeet o Removal of 80% of the Trees is required - Subsequently sidewalk repair will be needed o Contractor quotes were requested o Suggested installing benches at (2) Bus stops - Government Center - Near the Seminole Casino Cherryle Thomas stated that (2) Bus Stop benches are currently in storage with the Water and Sewer Department. Darryl Richard noted coordination with CAT Department is needed on the proposed benches. He stated Richard Tindell and Staff will meet with the CAT Department to discuss options for the (2) Bus Stops. 9'h Street and Main Street (north east comer) o (1) Light Fixture is missing (pedestrian level) Darryl Richard stated that the Electrician removed the damaged Light Fixture and parts are on order to repair the Light. Main Stfeet * South side of Main Street - Housing is damaged on (1) Street lamp (high level) * North side of Main Street (at the RCMA Bldg.) - Bollard repair is incomplete (was reported in May) * Sight Line Study - Meeting with FDOT is required Darryl Richard responded a meeting will be held with FDOT prior to the next MSTU meeting. Lucy Ortiz questioned if replacements are planned for the Trees scheduled for removal (on 1t Street.) 16 I P R� 19 '� , Discussion ensued and it was concluded: • Space is limited to install Tree replacements • A donated easement from a Property owner would be needed • Selection of Plant Material is restrictive Cherryle Thomas conveyed Public comment on the missing ADA mats. Darryl Richard replied the ADA mat issue will be discussed during the meeting with FDOT. IX. Community Redevelopment Agency - None XI. Now Business A. Master Plan Discussion Darryl Richard stated the purpose of a Master Plan is to identify the Project Goals and items that require Maintenance. He noted the Project Manager Report will be modified to list the following: • Active Projects • Completed Projects • Identify Maintenance components XII. Public Comment-None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 PM. Immokatee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Cherryle Tho as, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented K or amended The next meeting is January 26, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 4 16 1;2 A'19 Revised Proposal # 300 CONCRETE 49 Wickliffe Drive -- Naples. Florida 341,10 State of Florida General Contractor License No. RG 291'1113768 Office (239) 262 -7320 Fax (239)594- ,5351 bqcancrateaearthlink.net Billing Information Job Location: Immokalee Name: Growth Management Address: V. street Address: 2885 Horse Shoe Drive S City: Naples State: Florida City: Naples State: Florida Reference /Contact: Richard Darryl Phone: 239 - 252 -5775 Fax: 239 - 252 -6627 Authorization /PO #: Under Bid No.: Remove and dispose of 42 — 7 ft. by 5 ft. sections of concrete and one tree next to each section. Install 42 — 7 ft. by 5 ft. sections of 3000 psi concrete with fiber mesh re- enforcement and fill holes where trees were. MOT included if needed All labor and materials included Total cost for this project: $18,900.00 Not responsible for any unforeseen items or objects that may increase the price All Material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications provided for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner. Payment structure to be as follows; Final Payment shall be due upon completion of work Work Requested by: Richard Darryl Respectfully Submitted: Billy Summers II, Construction Mgr., BQ Concrete LLC, BQ Construction LLC BQ Concrete LLC Date: 02/18/2011 1612 A-19 Report Date: March 23, 2011 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Immokalee MSTU Project Status (IMM -24) — 50% complete — Cemetery Project 3- 23 -11: Landscaping is installed; fence installation is pending issue of PO to Gateworks. Gateworks company had changed ownership ,which required re- submittal of insurance papers. (IMM-23) — COMPLETED - Christmas Lighting Project 3- 23 -11: Lighting project was received with positive comments /calls into county office. Next year additional garland may be added to the lights. (IMM -23) — COMPLETED- Banner Project 3- 23 -11: Project completed. (IMM -22) — ACTIVE- Cross -Walks & Sightline Study 3- 23 -11: Meeting on (IMM -20) — COMPLETED - First Street & Hwy 29 Survey 3- 23 -11: Survey is 100% completed. (IMM -19) — COMPLETED - 15t Street Irrigation/Landscape Refurbishment Project 3- 23 -11: Project is 100% completed. (IMM -18) — ACTIVE- Hwy 29 Irrigation/Landscape Refurbishment Project 3- 23 -11: Staff is anticipating new RFP award for Ag- Tronix so that required Motorola control systems can be purchased. (IMM -15) — ACTIVE- ONGOING —LA Maintenance Consulting Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services 3- 23 -11: Ongoing Services from JRL Design (IMM -11) — ACTIVE- ONGOING— Roadway Maintenance: BID #09 -5264 3- 23 -11: Contract #09 -5264, " Immokalee Road MSTU/MSTD Landscape Maintenance" C� L W W QJ Y 0 � N T- 0 N z L L i Ri 161 A19 [O m (.0 O (A V O N O N CO O O O O o O O O (- (A O O O O) O c0 (O O (D (O O o N to CO M N M m O CO O co N O O O O o o O O m c0 O O o O) (- r M M W 1* CD O O r a) O CF) M 00 (, O (A O M n O O O O o o O O V V O O o m O O N N O N O O CO 00 M (n V co O tO O w m O O O V o N m O If) N O O O CA V N N V O of O O t� o N M M LQ M M 1t) W O O 0) N (O M C O CO _ N N r M co 00 00 M CO r N N f� N h V In O) W tO O O N 00 M O O n (0 CD CO LO O O m r co W O N V M N N (V co N Q r lO (O n O � F Q U) Uj Ui to U) di U3 Ui Cfi CA ER U) Ut Uf 0) U3 U) to U3 10 t9 U) U) U) U! - - - - UT w U) di Ui 40 U> U) 40 to of Ui N m (O O m CO W O w O CO O M N V V o w N N O O V (O m CD V o M N M O O O N O r M O r t. (0 to n M M o O 7 N M V O O O M W N N O N o M N N to 0) N N O O m M n t` M N V CD m O Ln t` M V h CO O N y O M (0 f� N M N `� (O O CD O m oo O M M N V W V r M CO (0 O r to V m h (O f� Lo (fl M (O M N N (O l0 (O N U) jp V CO to CO N W CO CO M N w N N N Q N x x W U) U3 CO U) Ui U) U! UJ UT U! U) U) 6% Ui to Uf U) Ui Ui eR U9 *0 vi Us - U) V V O O O (0 O N O m m 10 V N CA t` O o N O M N (O i D) O V O o O O O t- to O O n y N (0 O O ` O m O) O m co (O C 00 N V O ri M co N (O LO i _ h n n n n V E E E 0 U U, U> to UJ 63 Ul (» U! U3 U3 U) N Uf UD to tR Ui U3 t9 Ui U! U3 1 U! CN U: I UJ b% U) I UD Uj - U0 Ui U) I ! U) 1 U) U) U) UT Ui O O N O N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O o O o O N O O O O O O W W O O O Un 0 0 0 0 O O o O O O (O r r O O O O O O O (O O O O O m O m m O O O V O O O O o O V (O N O O O o O O O m O o O O (n O w 0 O O O M O O O O O O o O o O M N N O O o 0 0 0 (O O O O o M M w CO O O M V O (l- to O O O M O N O n (I M (O (O (0 r ("i N N (O V (O N a) W CO r O N M M N co O (O V l0 V V M M N m r O O r y (D CD M W O r V co c0 M w w M M ti V C O M M (1'I CO m N to (O m W � E m' a U) Uf U> U} U) to A U) U) Ui U) U) U> U! UT to to f0, U) U> U! Uf U) U3 VJ U) U> Uf Ui M to tFI M U) to fR ff7 to U) Vi W p O U U p Q W O m Z w z pW w U F z U z m Q O > F Q Q � w F C7 w O z U O C) J p� W co W z LL Q 2 w M ,U J w w F F U w p F- m D U _Z Q F (L w w Q J (� w w w w z F O 2 Q Q U p z V) O m m OU Z Uj J a Q F O w z w z cn U) w p w w Q z m 2 O z z U c7 z z w z a a z F O U p p> O w w U O z F w a z a O z Q U) O w w Z U w w U� w LL LL Q Q fA F O 0 W (A Q U U Z U �... Z 0 0 0 Q¢ W F.. co W } Z p F _w J LL, Q J � O O XX K 0 0 (1S Z (� (� U C:1 w W d Q W Z r z Z O w p Z F U) LL LL w w F M> Z Z Z Q W ¢ Q W U S m w U W j (A w w p W LL O U� Ft w O O U > m U LL O O F F U > >_ F W O LL LL w w w W U Z w J Z U p co i� O _z w w w w p p F 2 U LL LL LL m W w U 0 Q Y Z W Q� W Z= W F J F U. F F LL >> m p F w Z U fA )- >° (n J w LL' = 2 co J w 0! Q (n W w U K J ww �x r- w� z 0� ¢cwnai� >¢¢�w�Q� ��iQp�wxz p m W uU—n� w r a a Q D� w LL > F w� w Q Q w m O z z F o_ p C9 U W F LL O of w m w w 0 U p ti z z w F F- U U Z F F- W W Z O F? 0 � a J J 0 0 0 LL O O U F F m m F � m F- N M V to CD I- W m r r r N N N N N M M M M M M co M N (D r 0 Z .7 r p � N � N W J O 1612 A19 II M t N � M ® N tm(D I-- j ~ R N O X fC O F F 0 .Q R N R C C C LL LL LL F c000� OL L M N Co tD CO O N LO W tD L� N (O Q' "I t') - tD L� N h (D M a) on M M 0 D y R0 E c O 0 o .- m „ � a m � c U R X W Q O (h n r 00 (? �) O N LL � �; O Q 0 n N tD LO r � O � m 7 LL C M � C 0 R m W O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Ln O V N r- Ln 00 N p n t` O O N Ot,- N O N O O M O O O t` M v M O O O r 'd' (O v() O LO 6 r ti O 00 L- O (D LO d' O O CO M O 00 O O 00 Cl) N O Ln (O CO M d' (14 r (O 00 LO 0) (o U') co R .a V Ln O N N ti t- V' r Ln LLB 00 0) M 00 (0 - N Ln 0) (0 ti Cl) -0 7 N Lr V Ln ('M r- t- N Cl) LO d) N r V N N LO r M (h 00 O Ln (9 U a Ui (li (fl U�, Ui U3 Ui 61311 69 I to 63 U l U! U3 1 U) Ui I 63 U) I 69 69 fo Ui Efl U) 10 Efl a U3 U) "1 U) U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U) Cl O O O d' O O O m� M O O O O O O tf) O to O r O O O N O O N O N O O O O to tD n O O O O O N O N O r O O O h 0 E C O h eT w V O O N to to It m N O N •7 O co O O r O O O N O) Lo N O O r (A N r O r 00 W It r 00 try r r N t` O M O O 00 r t`•M tf) N 't M N N W N to w rp LO m m N w O w V M O O N r to n It N to d' d' n N r M M L6 Lr N r O tD r N tf1 r r co r N d 69 64, U3, 69 69 6% to to U) to fA fA 69 to to U) U) to to to tH 6,3 U) U4 to co 1-1-1-1- 69 U? 64 1-1-1 w 69 co U U U U U U U o .0 E U daa) m Q cn in cn cn to <� m c a`) O y M >, N 'n N N ❑ y (Q N lII (0 l0 N N N N N N T m °� N a E N E E c O N N U E C o 'V ' O r- r cn r U) N (0 •U Z U d U w U d U w U 0 U w U to N N a) O � O N L) (0 J ate+ O- O .n C L0) .m N N t .0 L L L L .N+ 2 'U O U p) L7) ca N r Q N N Z; .0 l0 w .0 = Q. s2. U 2 2 2 2 •N ) C .0 = .N. .0 to R lT 7 N 3 N rn N �' N p 7� Q Q Q Q Q Q Q (n t L 'C m CL Z N C U- - N Y U c t6 fn N= N N ?i (n N U U N M N N t2 N t2 N t1 N ❑_ N d N CL a) f2 .� N > -O O m.0)-a J J 7 M _0 CO (Ni N O ) N d m a) N (6 (n C N d U C m m R m (0 (6 N (6 N C T N O (n .� T a7 (n C E to R - U 'O 'O 'O _0 'O U U (6 E U Cn U aS C N N y (n .0 R N Co Q y .� N O N O (n N N N 3 0 N jn LT N O (n d 2 m F C �- ❑.. U O_ LL F U a) J m J w J m J a) J R -) N J (n J d U) S X r J O CO = LL F V' V V' Ln m V O Ir Ln N �"� M V V U V M M (O N M O ti (0 a0 , M O O (D (o O N N i` N Lo N V c0 V' O 'r M O� M N 0 O (D N N Ln N N M N (0 O O w h r to LO N (0 V Cl) N M M 0) M N N Lo N N �t LO (0 Ln to to M M M In O CO v LO M A M N M V IT V In N N V N N N V U f L- (0 O CO � N M U O) Cl) co M (N M M V LO (.0 0 N'T N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (= f O r r (0 Co N N (0 N N N N N N N N N O. 0 r0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r 0 0- CD r C O 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 0 0 0 0 0000000 O O LO O Ln Ln m Ln L n Ln In Lo Ln O m In Ln In Ln Ln Ln m Ln O O In Ln O Ln m m Ln Ln Ln Ln LO M <t to IT 'r v V V v V "T v n v' v v v' v V' d' v v' v v v 't LO V v v v' v' v IT v' v' N N N a) N O O O N En 0 o U U U No U U 0) 0) rn Q) U C C C C C Z U U Z- m 1T C C 2i 2 2 2 (a m J J _I J •Q E C C C C C U O •E (0 '? 4j' dS t,� otS >' N N N U J C J J J J J C n Qf C Z C '� �! O J to •0 O ❑ N � C C t31 C m C CA C ([J p j T U U Qc > l6 t4 ([f 'o l0 ([) '` t0 '` a5 '` C °) N N 0U rnrnrnrnrnrnrnc' E cn�iAtn E= o X C X C F Lu N ` N N ` N N N N O E C` N (0 V N U (n fA fA fA (n N N ❑ N d C E E E E o 7 (n -O R O O N E E E E E E E. E t4 ,a in Y U C N ❑❑ N N N ❑❑❑❑ N N N m N a- - N N N N (n Y N N (n Q .0 -0 Y o N t s s r () E m m N L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O O Q-' f0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q U U U U U U U U U LL LL LL LL. E - C -- C -� Q' -) 0-' -) Q' 1 7 -5 Z d' Of U) (A U M F F II M t N � M ® N tm(D I-- j ~ R N O X fC O F F 0 .Q R N R C C C LL LL LL F c000� OL L M N Co tD CO O N LO W tD L� N (O Q' "I t') - tD L� N h (D M a) on M M 0 D y R0 E c O 0 o .- m „ � a m � c U R X W Q O (h n r 00 (? �) O N LL � �; O Q 0 n N tD LO r � O � m 7 LL C M � C 0 R m W JRL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 51h AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 -261 -4007 16 f 2 A 19 March 18, 2011 U&Jn d'(�3@61p(@ &U3@ r & @,ft gr3(,U( l U3(@P@N COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500116856 REPORT NUMBER: 29 CONTRACTOR: CLM JRL COMM No: 9003 Date: 2/4, 2/18, 2/28 Weather: Clear Estimate % Complete: N/A & 3/11/2011 Time: Varies Temp Range: 76 to 82 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: Feb 18: Darryl and Pam from Collier County & Richard Tindell Feb 4 & Feb 28: Richard Tindell, solo observation Jan 12, 2011: Richard Tindell, solo March 11: Darryl and Pam from Collier County & Richard Tindell WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor crew not present OBSERVATIONS: Site is looking good, Little trash observed. Routine maintenance work has been performed. New median planting installed just prior to freeze and responded well. Irrigation control system upgrade on first -rate is substantially complete. The cemetery renovation has been installed but not accepted. Palm tree removal along the sides of it right away on first has not started. REVIEWS: REPORT: County and FDOT Standards. Maintenance agreement, previous suggestions and work orders Reviewed last report, over all conditions and status of work orders and direction from County with Pam, Darryl and CLM. Conflict with Road and Bridge caused by lifting of sidewalk at tree cutout on First Street will require the removal of several Foxtail Palms - suggest that the MSTU schedule the removal of all Foxtail palms on First and bring the entire sidewalk up to standards - Not started. Condition and use observation of 2 bus stops along First suggest improvements are needed - pending Routine maintenance work has been performed and trash removed. The no overfull trash containers this period. With the flush of spring growth, the MSTU areas of responsibility are continuing to look better. 1612 A19 All planting areas continue to need to be trimmed to meet County and FDOT standards, especially within site triangles. Bougainvilla sprouts 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. Renovation planting plans for the medians on Main and First have been install other than a short section on Main that is awaiting irrigation Some weeds continue to be a problem through out. The monument sign the North end of Main Street has a new operating of algae on the brick and the wood sign - treatment needed and suggest the white background of the welcome to sign be repainted. The crown of thorns has not responded as well here as in other locations in the city from the recent cold suggest a color man be replanted with a mix of white and lavender Lantana. The Avenue plantings along Main Street are responding well to spring a few plants need replacing and trimming. The new median plantings are doing well however attention still needs to give to the Foxtail's along the sides of the road. Foxtail palms continue to decline. Many have low hanging seed pods which should be removed. Several along Main have been marked. One median on Main has not been planted - waiting for connection to irrigation system - a planting of Lantana might be a good suggestion as a temporary solution. The broken bollard on Main near 5th has not been repaired or replaced. This was reported last May. It appears that several crown of thorns have been damaged and /or "liberated" on First Street several of the plants along first Street median continue to show nutrient deficiencies - consider an application of nitrogen with minor elements. Completion of Cemetery renovations are held up awaiting fence work order. The planting is disappointing and not as design - but it will grow in. Suggest a mix of purple and white Lantana be planted between the fence and the sidewalk after the fence is installed. Substantial completion of a control system for first Avenue is completed, the contractor and staff are ironing out a few books that were identified - photos attached Site line study on Main is in progress - waiting for meeting w FDOT which was held up by holiday scheduling. 161 2 A19 I have received no comments or information from the Water -Wise group. Irrigation study has been holding for hookup of control system on First. ACTION REQUIRED: Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Suggest irrigation water use study, check easements along First for future plantings Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 1612 {L� Immokalee MSTU Report - March 2011 page 1 1�1'? Ail 9 3 Immokalee MSTUReport - March 2011 page 2 1612' A19 Immokalee MSTU Report - March 2011 page 3 44 1617 A19' rkEar -'3!M �iRJ.W_Rt®IR"�S.Y'4L� K "�" �c Immokalee Cemetary March 2011 1612 w~ ' � Ll / ~ �` 4 16112 A f9 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda April 27, 2011 AGENDA 0 13 0 3 9 IE JUN 09 2011 IV. Approval of Minutes — March 23, 2011 V. Code Enforcement Report — Weldon Walker VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard C. Review & Approval of FY -2012 MSTU Budget VII. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM VIII. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design IX. Community Redevelopment Agency X. Old Business A. Master Plan Discussion XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment BY: ....................... Fiala P/ Hiller "k-' Hennin _. Coyle 44E-�E Coletta The next meeting is May 25, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. South Florida Works 750 South 5th Street Disc. Correa: Immokalee, FL 34142 Date; "�t 1121 L ( Item #: %UX2 —W'l9 Copies to: 161)2 419 VIMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 23, 2011 Minutes The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:50 p.m. A quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo, Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman (Excused), Carrie Williams (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — Project Manger Others: Richard Tindell -JRL, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Brad Muckel -CRA, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — January 26, 2011 Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the January 26, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Code Enforcement - Weldon Walker -None VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $246,310.42 o Trash Can liners are on order • AG TRONIX P.O. for the Irrigation Control System upgrade was paid (1St Street Project) • The FY -2012 MSTU Budget will be presented at the April Meeting for Committee review and approval • Noted a increase of 27.14% in Taxable Value due to District Expanded Boundaries Cherryle Thomas questioned the paid P.O. $6,650.00 to Trimmers Holiday Decor as she perceived the original amount was approximately $4,000.00. 1'6 12 A19 Darryl Richard replied the quantity of Poles was increased as the intersections (North of 9th Street to New Market) were not included in the original Project Scope. B. Project Manager Report—Darryl Richard reviewed the following: (See attached) (IMM -24) Cemetery Project • Landscape Installation is complete • Fence installation is incomplete due to re- submittal of paperwork by Gateworks (IMM - -22) Cross Walks & S40htline Study o A future FDOT funded Project is planned to replace the white bollards (IMM -18) Hwy 29 IT]gption/LandscaAe Refurbishment • Motorola equipment must be purchased through a (County) authorized Vendor • AG TRONIX will be awarded the Contract • Immokalee Water and Sewer is working on the final Plans to convert to Reuse Water Darryl Richard presented a Quote by BQ Concrete ($18,900.00) to address the following issues: o Buckling Sidewalks due to the Palm Trees on 1St Street o Palm Tree heights are close to the Power Lines o Removal of Palm Trees is required for ADA compliance 0 42 Trees will be removed Richard Tindell stated Road and Bridge will perform additional work that is not related to the required repairs by the MSTU (to address Palm Tree Public safety issues.) Staff noted the MSTU is responsible for the areas affected by the Palm Tree encroachment. William Deyo moved to approve the bid by BQ Concrete to remove the Palm Trees on 1st Street and to restore the sidewalks back to where they need to be. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried 2 -1, Cherryle Thomas voted no. C. Review & Approval of FY -2012 MSTU Budget — Previously discussed under Vl. B. VII. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM • Routine Maintenance is underway • Trimming and cutback of Plant Material is ongoing • Estimate was submitted to Staff for missing Plant Material • Fertilization will be conducted next week 2 161p a19 Darryl Richard requested CLM apply a top dressing of Mulch if needed after Fertilization is complete. VIII. Landscape Architect Report-JRL Design Richard Tindell reviewed pictures from the Landscape Architect's Field Report. (See attached) (Photos page 1) o Immokalee Sign (Hwy 29) - Recommended - Removal of Algae growth on the bricks - Repaint the white portion of the Sign - Replace the Crown of Thom with Lantana Darryl Richard requested CLM steam clean the Sign to remove the algae. (Photos on page 2) o Median Planting - Status is pending installation of the Irrigation on Main Street Staff reported FDOT Permitting is required and requested a drawing (for the Irrigation) from JRL Design. (Photos on Dame 3) o Crown of Thorn shows signs of nutrient deficiencies (along 1St Street) (Photos on page 4) • Cemetery was not Planted as Designed • Recommended installing Lantana at the front perimeter (18 inches from the sidewalk) after the fence is installed (Photos on page 5) • Irrigation System is installed and fully operational • The System is monitored daily Robert Kindelan stated CLM does not receive the alarm notification on a consistent basis. Staff will review the comment (CLM) with Pam Lulich and Roger Dick. IX. Community Redevelopment Agency Brad Muckel reviewed the following: Immokalee Area Master Plan • Master Plan Document has been in progress for over 6 years • Is scheduled to be presented to the BCC for adoption April 12th 3 16 12 A'19 I LDR (Land Development Code) o Will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and approval (May — June) Immokalee Storm Water Master Plan • Anticipates receiving a Construction permit within 60 days • Project Completion date - July 2012 Cherryle Thomas announced the Texas Roadhouse is holding a ribbon Cutting ceremony during the weekend of April 16th and all proceeds will go to the Chamber of Commerce. X. Old Business A. Master Plan Discussion Darryl Richard perceived that an official document by the MSTU is not needed as it was deemed that collaborative efforts by the CRA and Immokalee MSTU is documented in the original draft of the CRA Master Plan. Discussion ensued on the CRA Master Plan draft. It was concluded that Staff will verify if an alliance between the Immokalee MSTU and CRA is denoted in the CRA Master Plan Document. XI. New Business -None XII. Public Comment -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee �J Cherryle Th6inas, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented 4-:!� or amended The next meeting is April 27, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 4 16 I I2��q�a�� JUN 0 7 2011 March Fiala 23,2011 Hiller Hennin Minutes Coyle Colefta I. The meeting was ealled to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:60 p.m. A quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo, Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman (Excused), Carrie Williams (Excused) County: Darryl Richard—Project Manger Others; Richard Tindell-JRL, Robert Kindelan-CLM, Brad Muckel-CRA, Darlene Lafferty-Juristaff Ill. Approval of Agenda Lucy OrVz moved to approve Me agenda as submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carded unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — January 26, 2011 Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the January 26, 2011 minutes as submitted Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. V. Code Enforcement-Weldon Walker-None VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) • Collected Ad VaJorem Tax $246,310.42 • Trash Can liners are on order • AG TRONIX P.O. for the Irrigation Control System upgrade was paid (It Street Project) • The FY-2012 MSTU Budget will be presented at the April Meeting for Committee review and approval • Noted a increase of 27.14% in Taxable Value due to District Expanded Boundaries Cherryle Thomas questioned the paid P.O. $6,650.00 to Trimmers Holiday D&cor as she perceived the original amount was approximately $4,000.00. Misc. Comes: Date-. qh� I I Item #: k 4-Z 2- Prig 3 to: 1612 P19 Darryl Richard replied the quantity of Poles was increased as the intersections (North of 9tfi Street to New Market) were not included in the original Project Scope. B. Project Manager Report—Darryl Richard reviewed the following: (See attached) (lMM -24) Cemetery Proeec • Landscape Installation is complete • Fence installation is incomplete due to re- submittal of paperwork by Gateworks (IMM -L2) Cross Walks & g htlrne Slcrd�r o A future FDOT funded Project is planned to replace the white bollards f tMIV 18) Hwy 29 trriaatron&andscane Refurbishment o Motorola equipment must be purchased through a (County) authorized Vendor o AG TRONIX will be awarded the Contract o lmmokalee Water and Sewer is working on the final Plans to convert to Reuse Water Darryl Richard presented a Quote by BQ Concrete ($18,900.00) to address the fallowing issues. o Buckling Sidewalks due to the Palm Trees on 1" Street o Palm Tree heights are dose to the Power Lines o Removal of Palm Trees is required for ADA compliance o 42 Trees will be removed Richard Tindell stated Road and Bridge will perform additional work that is not related to the required repairs by the MSTU (to address Palm Tree Public safety issues.) Staff noted the MSTU is responsible for the areas affected by the Palm Tree encroachment. William Deyo moved to approve the bid by BQ Concrete to remove the Palm Tress on 1"' Street and to restore the sidewalks back to where they need to be. Second by Lucy Ortfz. Motion carried 2 -1, Cherryle Thomas voted no. C. Review & Approval of FY -2012 MSTU Budget — Previously discussed under V1. B. VII. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM o Routine Maintenance is underway o Trimming and outback of Plant Material is ongoing o Estimate was submitted to Staff for missing Plant Material o Fertilization will be conducted next week. 4 161r Aj9 Darryl Richard requested CLM apply a top dressing of Mulch if needed after Fertilization is complete. Vill. Landscape Architect Report-JRL Design Richard Tindell reviewed pictures from the Landscape Architect's Field Report. (See attached) (Photos pace 1) o Immokalee Sign (Hwy 29) - Recommended - Removal of Algae growth on the bricks - Repaint the white portion of the Sign - Replace the Crown of Thom with Lantana Darryl Richard requested CLM steam clean the Sign to remove the algae. (Photos on nacre 2) o Median Planting - Status is pending installation of the Inigation on Main Street Staff reported FDOT Permitting is required and requested a drawing (for the Irrigation) from JRL Design. (Photos on page 3) o Crown of Thom shows signs of nutrient deficiencies (along 16t Street) (Photos on page 41 • Cemetery was not Planted as Designed • Recommended installing Lantana at the front perimeter (18 inches from the sidewalk) after the fence is installed fPhotos on 2yge 5) o Irrigation System is installed and fully operational o The System is monitored daily Robert Kindelan stated CLM does not receive the alarm notification on a consistent basis. Staff will review the comment (CLM) with Pam Lulich and Roger Dick. IX Community Redevelopment Agency Brad Muckel reviewed the following: ftmoka/ee Area Master Plan • Master Plan Document has been in progress for over 6 years • Is scheduled to be presented to the BCC for adoption April 12th 0 ib i e p19" LQR (Land Develooment Code) o Will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and approval (May — June) Immokafee Stonn Water Master Plan • Anticipates receiving a Construction permit within 60 days • Project Completion date - July 2012 Cherryle Thomas announced the Texas Roadhouse is holding a ribbon Cuffing ceremony during the weekend of April 16 th and all proceeds will go to the Chamber of Commerce. X Old Business A. Master Plan Discussion Darryl Richard perceived that an official document by the MSTU is not needed as it was deemed that collaborative efforts by the CRA and Immokalee MSTU is documented in the original draft of the CRA Master Plan. Discussion ensued on the CRA Master Plan draft. It was concluded that Staff will verify if an alliance between the Immokalee MSTU and CRA is denoted in the CRA Master Plan Document. X1. Now Business-None X11. Public Comment-None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:66 PM. Immokallee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee tl 44 i5herryle Thcifnas, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on -,)-:2 - as presented or amended The next meeting is April 27, 2011 at 4:30 pm. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5�h Street Immokalee, FL 34142 4 1612 A194 Report Date: April 27, 2011 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Immokalee MSTU Project Status (1MM -25) —IQ Water Supply Project 04- 27 -11: Staff is coordinating with Immokalee Water & Sewer in obtaining Re -Use Water (IQ water) for landscaping in medians and ROW. Project Plans are under review to coordinate on locating existing irrigation lines and wire. (IMM -24A) — COMPLETED: Cemetery Project— Planting Project 04- 27 -11: Landscaping is installed; some additional plants will be installed after completion of the fence installation. (IMM -2413) — UNDER PERMIT REVIEW: Cemetery Project — Fence Project 04- 27 -11: Review and approval of permit is pending. Gatework has confirmed all material has been shippend and is ready for installation. (IMM -23) — COMPLETED - Christmas Lighting Project 04- 27 -11: Lighting project was received with positive comments /calls into county office. Next year additional garland may be added to the lights. (IMM -23) — COMPLETED- Banner Project 04- 27 -11: Project completed. (IMM -22) — Cross -Walks & Sightline Study 04- 27 -11: Review and Coordination with FDOT is on- going. FDOT will install new cross -walks at no cost to the MSTU /County. Some additional modifications to `bulb -outs' is under review at this time. Sight - line issues identified are to be addressed for public safety. (IMM -20) — COMPLETED - First Street & Hwy 29 Survey 04- 27 -11: Survey is 100% completed. (IMM -19) — COMPLETED - IS` Street Irrigation/Landscape Refurbishment Project 04- 27 -11: Project is 100% completed. As built plans are being updated by JRL Design. (IMM -18) — ACTIVE- Hwy 29 Irrigation /Landscape Refurbishment Project 04- 27 -11: Staff held coordination meeting with Contractor E.B. Simmonds to review project scope and obtain pricing from E.B. Simmonds on annual county contract. Material supply from Ag- Tronix for Motorola equipment was reviewed and quote is pending from Ag- Tronix. (IMM -15) — ACTIVE- ONGOING —LA Maintenance Consulting Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services 04- 27 -11: Ongoing Services from JRL Design (IMM -11) — ACTIVE- ONGOING— Roadway Maintenance: BID #09 -5264 04- 27 -11: Contract #09 -5264, " Immokalee Road MSTU/MSTD Landscape Maintenance" riv Ar U E S I G N IL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5m AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 1612 A19 April 24, 2011 gOC�OI�J U3(@ry p� COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500116856 REPORT NUMBER: 30 CONTRACTOR: CLM JRL COMM No: 9003 Date: 2/23, 4/6 & Weather: Clear Estimate % Complete: N/A 4/20/2011 Time: Varies Temp Range: 76 to 82 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: March 23: Darryl from Collier County & Richard Tindell Apr 6 Richard Tindell, solo observation Apr 20: Darryl from Collier County, CLM rep & Richard Tindell WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor crew not present OBSERVATIONS: Site is looking good, Little trash observed basically no change from last months report. Routine maintenance work has been performed. Palm tree removal along the sides of it right away is scheduled Apr /May, Misc. sidewalks have been installed and repaired. FDOT pathway questions responded to. Main Street Irrigation coordination meeting held. Site line / white stick removal project scheduled to begin. REVIEWS: County and FDOT Standards. Maintenance agreement, previous suggestions and work orders REPORT: Reviewed last report, over all conditions and status of work orders and direction from County with Pam, Darryl and CLM. Conflict with Road and Bridge caused by lifting of sidewalk at tree cutout on First Street will require the removal of several Foxtail Palms - suggest that the MSTU schedule the removal of all Foxtail palms on First and bring the entire sidewalk up to standards - scheduled for this month. Condition and use observation of 2 bus stops along First suggest improvements are needed - pending Routine maintenance work has been performed and trash removed. The no overfull trash containers this period. With the flush of spring growth, the MSTU areas of responsibility are continuing to look better. 1612 A19- All planting areas continue to need to be trimmed to meet County and FDOT standards, especially within site triangles. Bougainvilla sprouts 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. Some weeds continue to be a problem through out. The monument sign the North end of Main Street has a new operating of algae on the brick and the wood sign - treatment needed and suggest the white background of the welcome to sign be repainted. The crown of thorns has not responded as well here as in other locations in the city from the recent cold suggest a color man be replanted with a mix of white and lavender Lantana - pending. One median on Main has not been planted - waiting for connection to irrigation system - a planting of Lantana might be a good suggestion as a temporary solution. The broken bollard on Main near 5'" has not been repaired or replaced. This was reported last May -will be removed with FDOT project It appears that several crown of thorns have been damaged and /or "liberated" on First Street - pending several of the plants along first Street median continue to show nutrient deficiencies - consider an application of nitrogen with minor elements. Completion of Cemetery renovations are held up awaiting fence work order. The planting is disappointing and not as design - but it will grow in. Suggest a mix of purple and white Lantana be planted between the fence and the sidewalk after the fence is installed. ACTION REQUIRED: Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Suggest irrigation water use study, check easements along First for future plantings Reported by: Richard Tndell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 16 12 A'19' T O N z r �vm m N Cl) C W W W W W W W W !2 W N N N N N N N N t! N W W V O N A W N t0 0o V T N A W N O W O V W c!) A W N O t0 lb V Q1 U) A W N O O of i —+ n� O O m 0 0 0 r r m r cn z O z m m Z Z O m m X c c X X D m m-1 m O T m n G7 c m c� p Z Z O X m D D m< T m c -1 cn cn D p p D D v 0 m =� m m= O m z= r c D= 0 0� D 0 x x D D< m m� r x D m m Z O O z z� O M m c) m D Z _i c) z �J cn m z z D z cn X X Z Z m cn = D D r X� Cl) -n m m�� D D X_ Z m ; r cn Z = D _ m m m r o < cn W z m p W<< m -� T m -� r< m 0 m 0 cn K D m z O O r- z sp n m m m m m m m m m m ? < << c m m i 0 OC z m p mw m OZ m D D p T Z7 m Gi m W 2 n m D D X m D n z z < ;u ;u cn -DDi Z p m O z z � Z m D= D� m x 0 p D ZJ m L7 G7 z sk �7 �'1 z cn cn c D v� r —i Z c) ,n z D -i m„ c n 17 m >> 0 0 c X Z O; Z m m n O --i D z{ w m z m m m cn D m O X m m D O m O p p >� n O C-) z O 0 m m m m fml fml M m m m Cf) O m CO D c cn cn � z m O D� c r A Z C-) X n z m cn O Z z D D O c z m X m X m m m z O D O m c c -i p n D r C W m C) z n m n�� O r� m � cn m � = c m D m m m m v D � Z z m X m c O cn C7 m z C7 m Z � C/) w p n m D p C7 C7 O p m 49 to to EA 169 to 6n to fA IER 60 to EA to to to to to to to to to to to to fn to 69 60 fA to 169 EA 69 En to (A 69 to 69 69 cm D c 3 o a� tD W W N c0 01 cC V» W W W b W O W A V O W 0W 1 m N G 0 0 (O N W A A [T A i a tl1 N N V W T W W W V O N O W O O O (n J co A W O O N N W Cl) m O O O G) c0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O N N N p W A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W A O O O O O O en c0 N co O O (J1 (O O O O O O O O O (7) O O O O O O O N O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 O T T O G O O O O N O O O O O O O N N C. 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O N O O O O EA W: EA EA to to 69 to 69 to 64 6n to to to to to to to EA to to 69 to (A EA to U> 69 69 EA to to to 69 VA to to to t-n to n O 3 3 W A A CO O) 3 N N N c0 U) cn A O (D O_ t0 (O O CI) N W W J A (O N V V A_ (O (0 O W O J W Ul N V N N v W O O O (T A W CO A w w m N W O N O O -I co N N W W t0 O m O O) O O O A A 6A fA 1.1 to ffl to fn 69 fA 60 EA fA to EA to to to to EA EA EA to to to 69 69 69 (A EA 69 t-n 69 69 to to 6A !A 69 6R 69 to m x D N N N N 3 n Q C V W W c0 t0 W W T O W D A V (T _ W W V O N _ — A O m m O O O w� O N O (P W W -CO V V J N W v (D 00 w N O A w -I O O O O A W A W W N N O O co C n O W CJ) V W (T O (7) O O O N N OO Co W O O Co W (A (71 W N O N O O W W V (n (A v O W O N O t0 w W N (O O W O (O O O W m V) O A A N W O m O (A O -4 V CO lb O N (b EA fA to fA to to fA to to !A to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to EA to to to to to to to fA to to to D � m ? A O O W N ON1 N (7) A OO f0 O C _ O _ J (T O A M W N ID 0) N O K) O O O O A O 00 W N N O N (T O O (n O A O O O W v w N W O O V (T N N co (fl O O A O O 91 V O O W co O O OO J w (O V O O W O O O O O O O T O) O O W N O O W w O O O O W W D W v O O O O O N O (O W O N N T O N z r �vm m N Cl) C m� = (Q (WO W 0) N (D 4NJ O W 8 A = W V cD W M N J W w (7 CD CY) Ol OND N W O f/1 O O m x a v 0) A = 0) a n a II W O O C _ v N C. N O r (D to W 0) t W W 16 12 A'19 -'I T -n T O O � O W O wow -i -n -n -1 N 5' _. 5. N N S5 0 N x x O T D O Q Q A (D (D ; < N 2 ;v N O � , x 4 6 (D - A o � ; N a (D W ° T N O W O 0 J p W O f/1 O O m x a v 0) A = 0) a n a II W O O C _ v N C. N O r (D to W 0) t W W 16 12 A'19 O D r � m �. m N V � N C O � '11 C Z m -I wow wwxx Z - - ``> > T mT mnnnnnC)(�nn W DD S O O O O wo C 70 X- X- X- .O .0 .(1 N Q 3 3 0) ° O O W 03 O O O O O S 0) O O o3 _m. N c 3 s j c c> D ° r r r r r r r c °° �^p �p x° N_ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3° °° n m' 3 m (D S�� (D (D (D m N v O O v N N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0) o 0 Q N �. (D (D (D (D (D (D (D = .n-. ,Z j 3 (D (D (D (D (D (D (D n 7 ' (n N C O == 3== ° (D 0) N (o N (a N (o N (O, N 0'(5'0 N N (7 N (D O �. O (?. n, n, n_ n• (?. (?. m 7 'OO (D X __ X O 2 3 cn fn cn cn 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �° .Zl m co = v v v v v v m < n n < CD E °— m N �. y 0 - °° (D M (n' ° � o r m r n) r m r y r o) r w r m= 0 m m G. m m m a = _ _ _ _ _ _ = 3 a n N Sp S7o Sp Sp (4 N 3' N N D_ O- a Q O_ Q O_ (D � r r- r r 6 v N= Z (P 0 (D (D (O N N N LD N N O) N !v O 3 S 3 S = 7 7 7 = 7 7 (n _n _n n N (D O O O (D (ND N N Q 0_ Q A A A A A A A A A (A71 A A (AP (XI A A A A A A A A A A (AP A A A A A A A A A A (AP A Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul U1 U7 Ul O Ul (.)1 O O U1 Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 Ul Ul Ul Ul O Ul Ul ( 1 m Ul m Ul Ul Ul Ul O Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ - - O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ � O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ � O_ N N N N N N N N N W� N N W( -- O- j N N N N N A N N N N N N N N N N A N O W A Ul 00 A O co co N V1 W W W W W (D W W N (r A O 00 Ul W d1 4) Ul V A N N N U1 D) 00 N N N N A W N (D N A (P A W A W A N W W N A W W A N O) W W (Il Ut Ut V O W W N N W W- N W O A A A N N N N (D W O W 00 V O (D N W (D (D (D A J 00 (D N N CP N O 0 V O 0 0 O 00 W ul J N A 0) O 0 00 N Ut A (D A O Ul A (D n a -n 2 (n O r A 2 W M r (D O (D -�.. (O (D O C (D (D (D 0) N 01 0) 0) 0) 0) N O S11 (D C (D M ,N„ 0) (D N .N+ N N N 0) (D N 0) 3 N (� C (°D .5. Cn -O M 3 0) () O_ O_ Q _ O_ _ CL _ OL = CL C C _ N 3 a- (O �1 .N.. (D ('D 3 ._.. Cn ,_,. O S = 3 O = N � N 3. N N N 0) N. N O(O X (D L (n (D _ (n Q < 0) 'a 0a -° 01 N N 0) N (OD = (D w D 3 - a 0° O N C 6 - 0 (D (D (D N SN (!] Cn (D - (D (D (D (D (D (D (D z r -n o N (5' tC j C O ° ? _ 2 _. m N� D D D D D D D - o a— a. (D m m m m m _ (n n (7 (D N (D = = O Z (� S (7 S (7 3 (7 S C) S n S n S N N Cf) (� �=_ _� = C C O C N O N (Q CD = w (D n. (D (D N (D 6' _ _6 O S?o (D (n =7 O (D r w _ CD (n (D (D (D (D (D N (D (D N N N '� N 2 c) E = 3 n O N (D 0) O N .n. .n+ .n. O ° ° n' O S S 3 (D C S° 3 Q- n ° = Q) N Cn N (D C C C C C C C (D = CN) N N01 0) N 0) 0) 0) N N W N _ fn CD - cn cn cn cn (n cn to .. N S .-. m CD m 3 (D zzzzzzz (D (D (D (D (D (D a CD 0' O N N N N N N N !D (D = N N N N N N N N Vi V> to to to to to fo to 69 in V/ VI V: V/ Vi Vi Vi Eo 69 to Vi 69 fA EA V/ V) Vi V) V) V) V) V1 Vi V) VI 69 Vi 69 69 CD 3 _ N V t0 N V w W A T O m N w w N A A M W W W N N W A Ut T A O O O W t0 N 00 O O O V N V -� O O V O N (b (O A N N W O -+ N A t0 O m A w- U7 O� A O N O w- A O) O A O V 00 O 90 P 1 3 fQ O �l O O O O N O N O Cl. O O O A V O) CO O O O O V O (A 0 N 0 O N O O O O O O in O O co O N O W A (P O O O A O O O O O (n to VI to fo fo to to to to to to to to EA to to Q) ffl to to to Eo to to to EA to (n to (A to fo to to to to fo Efl Vi W Ul O CO A W A U1 N N W A O CD W V W U1 A O W N V m (0- (P N- W co m W W W Ul U1 W N J N N O (P A (D O (fl Q W J (P O 00 O (O (D N Ut Ul V co J N w J (P N (D A W W A M 0) A A J Ul 0 O 0 N 0 W (P A W W m w (D 00 W O W W (D W O O O (D N aV O N J O N O O V O W (D 6:- V O N O O 6 0 0 0 W W (O O O O N O O (P O U1 O O 00 (D O Ul O -� J N A O Ut O O 0 0 0 0' O O d) (P O O O d7 O O O O O U1 O O D r � m �. m N V � N C O � '11 C Z m O N N 3 O N 16 I ri Al 0, 3 O m N � W N � N n N O J y Zn Zn C O m�+0 W WW WWWN OS TN W I� O �� W W WNWWWW �IWW�! Ol WWW W W� �p�p 0 0 S S (p �Ipp t0 N N N NNN O O.O V V V V V V N V 0tW0 0 � f00 t0 O t0'� O N V N V N V NNNN V V V V NN V V V V fJ V NNN V V V N V N V N N N N N N O OO W W W W W W WOaa W � A A N W O O N N O O N W N N N W N w W W NpA W N W N W N .W N WN N (a W S � pA� O / / pA � DA � pW � QjWN � pWA � 0 W j � Q Q acoo 88 § S 8 0000 000 VA ZTT� t7On o m DOd Omc �1 �- �'" 18 O ,pj WS —___ Z 1mW �Znn gcc ggmDyy S S a. o.,' m' 1� o m �m� CC ��� 1A m W Mm mm NN n1; o g w SA �O x - TOOOr m ApT-i r'Oxr m n- �c 3.inZC ;Nm� 'nCm m Z -im�O mmn�m rp-i z mm- ZZ A i_ �' m A �m �� �mm pQ�« �x mrOJ CrTI -imGj �A O A� v zzA Oc m Ao m, -O O 1 GjZZ mm 3)0 zz >'� mm zM 000 or _x O� m 11 x-�mr zm m�Z mZ ��- zxx m� CT9 AGE m m zz mm Stn 'd m',i -�� 3•C m�.� �Om T'm m., to Om� cz 1m�m. xmi c, 2 o. r m '1- -i mmm m0 m� mm rit rti rii 1O -0 momm A c-Om Dmp�0 C r C'pe m0r=i D22 '.. ZO_m.O n c� mm 0 �A Z,' s to -q�A :m�..O m D D A Mtn 0 A m 3 o M Z D '1 x_ J r ADD ^ n �. gmm �.1 C m T T 0 0. _ �' m m 0 p-0 n< D O��i _ Z S3 A T m O m Z n Z Z 00 -W ZZ ' T� AQ�Z7 .o m�Om ODD AZ tn20 -10D O a zz TT o00 1Cm q C A AA vC) O ��� �Y m T- .m�m� G) 5 �- O .NOG7m� T -Im AX mD ()>, o O -M m.m nmm ;C m0.0 mZ, n0> <r Om m nmm O�tn> m AO ga12 Cmtn m mZ x A mm N.y N, m v o{ n m A m U 7 - T C M m m ' MI�'OO 0 -j m m 3 m c 3 O 2 D p W m D 3 00 C .� y1 �' 3..m c to ,'IO1 zz mO C)C x �� Ma • - z-1 33 'fl A IIl ROI Z mO tZn A OZ ~� W N m C q =._ m cn mm oXp m�A Owm >y N O W r y A mm A r� S. D n m ssOr .� 7U 1 XT mfD A O mm �M:m r�..I Cm Z Cm -�N m 0 mm mm �0D Z> < Ci s1D p W y m mm 3 0 m y _ m_ O .: 0 J fml tDl O am W W W w j j f0 V ro fuy0 rio V W a V 6O w O 00 O m !m. O N W S O 00 Woo �O O W OOOOW 000 O OOt�OJ O O OOH %D 6 W v YWW V V N _A � q OW a pN �j N NN NN �qWp g tpW� NSA C N O IO WNO tVJi 000 O W ^ y �j py� �Np O m O •S N N m V N ii W d OD�000 000 OSOOW O 00 M N 7 m W N^ m V (WO WWp 00 V A dD tT .-. V Wt� O A Oa W N N W p N !J V WO N V $ W V N W w A A N .� (((0,��,1� + A tpOp�I S oWoW W N Al C O p rONDv O S A O�W OVi O- �N j S S O V OI T F4 tWt��o O tOI�� A (000 W 0tOm 00000 W py O 8.0 IO I c CL + 250 000 r V 00 p� W W W tT A 8 2So 000 oog N 7S eo + +m gg� N W W 000 W W + O So � + O 025 W N pp W ++ 8758 N O OI g 0250252525002525258000025 + A .552� 0 t�t� S52� 5Q2 552� kk 552� A+ NO+ S52� 25� a ao D pip M 5A5��t�t�++ fS5,T�� p� 5O5�� SO5LD� N 994� m O{l; w oo a 000 0 000 go 000 00 °0 0oo S8 880 8o oS owtNi a 080252525002525HSoo25oo?"i § r I� + , m a A, V N W A W C A ,lmtwo ±Y.0 00000tVJ�(f�V.0000D 00 C.oOO OOC G 0001 I@ O 00 .. �OIO Nm �9oOS 0�0 O 00, w0 ' "0 +3m +A p p V Va4 IJWD �y ttO�� 1 W W 0 N! m N ' . 000 0000 . 00 w 000 OW O V O O O O O O O O A WW + O fAt�T W W Cl NOO OOtVl�000tTW2�j0000,0 (T `6 OiO O a w ONOEI O0 NN + WO W W IT tpTW 0 p 8 O 8 0 O 00 0 O o w 0 V S O o o 8 8 O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O+ C, A NNs ID � N of N W W r 8 t0 10 N + W OWN W W W + O O � + OD W O 0 (T 0 O W W O N 0 N 6 OO A+ $$og 0 N O go O O O O O go 'o g 0 0 0 O O O O O O S O O W O Q O 25 0 000 0000 000 o o Goo Og 000 Oo Oo 0000000008000000 00 x a TTI- d m 6 O O O OO O O O O O O O coo O O O N O O O coo O O O O O 0 0 O cc O .1. O O ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O N W A W W t0 b tD N IJ N A W m O p� ppp88 W W W N. W W W m W .... + .-. ' W Co OD + qpS 88 + 8 -- ( (�t O 88(pp��8W so), Opppp N 0 . 8 S N O:O O O pp 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o O O 0 0 8 8 8 0 p O O p 0? S S 8 O O O 0 0 8 0 0 LAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O OJ 0 0 0. S Q �O mmo °m m d m �D° C1 e m a 3 S'- 4 c m,r-g m m3.m W A 3 3 _m mo 3.c �- - 3 r om w cad 03, o C •� d N 3 (mi D o m Ol 3 » 3 _ 5° 0 s w m m I!I m o m n 3� r h c �m a ion a 3 m -,3 -' 3 a3 n v O rs CD x J '.O > m 9 m � w a � -' + �+ � �_O �5� O5� W5� o coo u;w oo'oo' w �o GOO o0 0_ °000 N N O O W O O QQ S eo S8o coo N °oo 8 aaoB o 8 252587500002525 r� 5,� 0oo25od25 $8. O. o 8 W S V O W W O S D A V S �DZDD Z J `D i. O O C ° D L e D X KX a it D3° D2°o`Q DDI DO Dp � DDO21 e e2 3Q A A�yr N A A -0o + tSN5i��� oo oo'o So' 000 00 000 S Od 88d eoo Sd 25 S� o So 258SZS0000025g000025- 25 w K O + W O A A AEI ION O 00 O' O W A W b10 S �I00 OU A S bl V N Oz' o D zzZ A1VZV DDD a Oz zz Zz0 o Do d°D DD DDo A o 'z2 D..D 'd�°343° O sq5 X D eaZ 2tD OJ �° LA i�3Q Z D a Se 3T ZLO� D3ED���DD�3Y +00��04 OWZZOZ�V 242QDDo`e 64 A 3E W 3 O m N � W N � N n N O J y Zn Zn C 0 N N M N 1618��i� 3 0 0 D_ m N N 0 Ap, Jy 3 C ,I a I 0 D A S ii Q 7 p A � p p ' C p I J x D Ili � d 6 OVl V W O � OND 'N 10 C N V x D N N la Cq 7 _ 6 O 0 OV p m k n V � C O W W W f0 V O W N N W C pp p n O K D N O M V C O. GAG fppAJpl 01 OD Ol pO� 4 � t00 C 6 lip a o _ v » m a 0 0 N Q 5 Ic W D c g a � m »J a CL uma N x n 1D as apo I d c A N j 0 10 w n D N O 0 O3 m jA +3. - e: V V O N � p p N m 1 n p tl1 y d N M o a�a�XOa' . z oOv3 � m 2:0 a. x .. xF�r^ 5�� mL o� d c .. S. = .Z1 3 d a m m w"y� W J n V Oo jv V' c I � c J + N ry V V 0 O T N O Y c oo ,roo �m m pp v o n N N 10 N f0 t0 N C O O � o n A K O O O a m - x � w o Q O O O^ N O C g ZN 0 i 6 c N m � x Q 9 a � I rdi d � G UJ 7 3 c° N 4 l d p I J j I I O 6 m 7 ?:am A T N O p V O W W WW 01 � C V 0 C O O C A� d y M a $ D N < a O N O W x 0 e� 0 o 0 3 0 0 D_ m N N 0 Ap, Jy 3 C 0 r-L m 0 3 0 > 3 (a 3 CDC m :3 0 m IQ 4 0-3 NO > m o n � �n -v o o o � Pa A c 7 16iz���� i Sis ZTS Vol, -AMOZ I U 0 z fc. LLj wm- IS, IL t � I 1A ,w u < -IS:HI& .V, '74 M 4-J 0 (\ 0 z V 4-1 V) O E E N M V4) C: w V) +j LL 1w 0 4J 4 V) 4.J :3 0 V) 0 4J cid 4-1 o". C-4 00 _0 u N C>,d- —a co 0 cd O0 Cid 0 (1) 0 Cld 4-J u 4-J 0 16iz���� i Sis ZTS Vol, -AMOZ I U 0 z fc. LLj wm- IS, IL t � I 1A < -IS:HI& N 'o • 71c, CL O O — ..- (D (D O (D w v' �•, r cn' CD o O 3 � C> � .. r+ 0•q to c�_n w (D cn , e* t!! CD (D 3 (D o o ' p pi 0 o P S O —' �' n (D w o w O L) 0 O w a fp N O (D • �.., (D r A (Dn cn � (D ° 0 � O rr o �. � _ 'rC O _. 6- (D (D c-r can O �, 7 :1 O �, _ nV rr w :3 Xo • 0) �! w rr �. r+ w rP S OO N' (D (A O' (D O ^� :3 N a N � ro �. w M Pi n v M - (D 3. CA N (D ZZ Ml O I� O cr r� 1 r-r PJ fD 3 r+ [D N O U v U O m N cd v O 16 12 p'19 N N •� L bA C: U > c�''n c� N C 4-J b.0 -0 (nn N •� U O U cd 3 U O cNn 0 �>, c 'U U U n :3 u cd ct c,d 4-) Cd 9 L C) s � a) 4-1 sb.0 0) 0 O ct _ �-' _ � 4 4 En O vi o.. N O cn 4 ._ O 4 0 w `n 0 Ct ct Ct Q M u N 0 � S U 4-J .� M cd V) 3 Ct Q 4--1 cd O 0 N U tI C: r N ct •cd .C) N rci OO 4-J > L -v > L n- cd s r 19 'A s s. C r n n f w z > V) 0 U N L N C V cd N s V Ln co 1. F • I uu Y f0 C 3 l6 N 4� O N U N � d i v C W c 0 u U U1 N v C L C) N Q 41 cu � ■ f0 ■ L ■ Y U � ■ N > ■ Q ■ ■ ■ Q ■ In Q ■ F- o o Z z . N N 0 ■ U .> ■ C ■ O ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1612 X19" L O s 4-) v s 4 •- o N —W o > 0 aD c ^� W (�n V+y Y/V TN1 • u N •� � W •� cd L °L 4-J ` N ,V -v_ s a� ° o •c � Cd o N J U LF 4- N L � :3 -v �.► s �� o > u '° O -� E -v V) ct > �+— N cd cn ?` O -v > s > -v c N o o s s � c ao c u u -J « i ' cn O d ct Q C: U 'M ct 0 Cd a F- 0 N . � I-, p A1Q w N r) � � (D �• fD N -v � D v, -1 END (D V) O —i, O 0 cn O (D s X' �• IQ o 3.� p o < C4 rt a. 3 p nM �`.. cn p•q r+ N • nv r O 0 C W E r ( rn-r O v) < rt p r M p 3 3 rat =3 O C* �• fD . N m 161-2 A19 Io 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 ON N O� M Ln 6F� H4 09- kni v� V) c� ti i L - Ln V) c i fd4 R b-0 N LE c� N � N O a� L V) L LL s V) As H H 69 cad N E N a� eo CL i7i a� a� L ►7 s a� O 4-) U U Q) - a Io- 1612 A19 V) n 0 E V 0 n rt D V) w m 3 _° -v o N �- : n L C o- n po a -gyp 0' n r rr o (D • r+ w N m w NN O o 3 rP (D O D rr- N O N O - cn rr N N - - w n s O N N O - N Z 0 N a _-I N O - 0 p N - - D 0�Q r O - m rr V) n 0 E u cd N s u cn M f� 3 0 L U IN 1612 A 19' W [3 _ 350 feat 10 3m feet 0? 2 �# 250 feel T - V ou —� t3 Lo �i — - -- W E Z _ _ Igl � w '4 J a W [3 _ 3C 141 Igl J Iel LEI v ICI I }I x 4 x of I I € k a ° x v m LL _� � I I ••+ I I � � � T LU r- ai. oloI4 0la l4 W U.4 I I Ibl , ab4 m � LL 0. --i CD r (F Cl)� �CL CD Cf) 3 .0 1 0 CO) N C- m CD CD _. U) O as 1612 A C W D Z A19 ' WE 7 a m X w 0 h s rD -n w V) S n 0 U L O N c t I N W I, 1612 d19' L C) 4-J E 0 N U ct U M E N I E o s • +-1 N N � a) N V; U ,> •L a V N LL a) -p a) cd m a) a) 4-J s L > m m a) Ln N CO o +J u L a) a) a) -0 V) yl Cld F V R c o L. U L O N c t I N W I, 1612 d19' I O m� N l0 CO C) m d' tl m lD m m M Ln N CO Il N .T Ln L v 3 v L= Ln 0 U Ln E !!�--�{{� O O CO Il Ln CO M N Q) "' �P� U) O N 0) O ;1- V' O Q- Il N O O It O -i *-i ,1 �-f N � U C C � L a � L � L � L � L L O N " O O O N O W O N O O O O " O W 4- 4�- � 44- � � w 4-- � y_ w 4-- t--- 4- � o m a m a m a m a m a m a m a m a m J� z Z Z Z C L ru Ln N a-- U ru n N L L ?j 2 N L O ro ro 4� U d O J C N U L Z 0 .7�-' 1 ' ~.^ ter C<� 0 i.Q 4, N0 n Q D m — N V N OO - n � � O O cn O � cn — 16 12 Q19 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance May 25, 2011 AGENDA III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — April 27, 2011 V. Code Enforcement Report — Weldon Walker VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VII. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM Vlll. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design IX. Community Redevelopment Agency X. Old Business XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment JUN p 9 2011 Fiala L Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta The next meeting is June 25, 2011 at 4;30 p.m. South Florida Works 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Misc. Comes: Date: 911'31 (I Item #: I LaT7-- #2r19j w ")yes to: 0 lfe 12' A 19 MMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 27, 2011 Minutes The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:45 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo (Absent), Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman, Carrie Williams County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger Others: Richard Tindell -JRL, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Penny Phillippe -CRA, Christie Betancourt-CRA, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff Lucy Ortiz arrived 4:46 p.m. III. Approval of Agenda Add: VI. D. Consultant As- Builts Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes - March 23, 2011 Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the March 23, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Code Enforcement - Weldon Walker reported: o A Community cleanup is tentatively planned VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $261,765.38 • Available Operating Expense $6,810.16 - Recommendation was made to transfer $50, 000.00 from Improvements General into Operating for the Hwy 29 Refurbishment Project (Irrigation modifications on Main Street) It 42 A19 Discuss took place on the Irrigation modifications. Darryl Richard reviewed the basis for the recommendation to relocate the Irrigation main line: • The current location of the south side Irrigation main line will conflict with future construction • The main line will be installed in the center of the roadway (medians) • Is an opportunity to tie into the Immokalee Water and Sewer Project (to supply reuse to the medians) • The transfer of monies is needed since the Irrigation Refurbishment is underway Carrie Williams arrived 5:01 p.m. Andrea Halman moved approve the transfer of monies not to exceed $50,000.00 from Improvements General to Operating Expense. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Carrie Williams requested the Budget Report include a description for P.O.s in addition to the original Contract. Darryl Richard will advise the Budget Analyst to include a P.O. description on the Budget Report (pg 2 P.O. list.) Richard Tindell provided P.O. descriptions as follows: 0 4500111227 -1St Street Irrigation 0 4500111225 - Main Street Irrigation 0 4500107443 - General Refurbishment Project to include - Pathways - CRA Master Plan Coordination 0 4500116548 -1St Street Planting Project 0 4500116640 - Main Street Plant Refurbishment 0 4500116856C - Original Contract 0 4500118491C - Sight Line conflicts and Bollards (Main Street) B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard - Discussed under Vl. C. C. Review & Approval of FY -2012 MSTU Budget (See attached) Darryl Richard reviewed the following draft Budget items: • Requested FY12 Lighting Maintenance increased to $60,000.00 ($50, 000.00 in Forecast FYI 1) - Additional monies were planned for Light Pole Maintenance - Reimbursement for Light Poles damaged by automobiles is pursued by Risk Management Department - Staff will request a status report from Risk Management on accidents involving Pole damage • Electricity, Water and Sewer is paid by General Fund 111 N 1612 A19, I Carrie Williams requested status on the Fund 111 Budget Report. Staff will email the current Fund 111 Budget Report to the Committee. o Recommended allocating funds (approximately $5,000.00) in FY11 and FY12 Trash and Garbage Line Item (listed as zero on the draft Budget) - For additional trash pick up services Discussion took place on the cleaning process for the stained Benches (Fund 111) Lucy Ortiz left 5:33 p.m. Robert Kindelan stated the following: • Benches are pressure cleaned bi- monthly (6 times per year) • Bleach is not effective on the plastic Benches • A different solvent will be tested on the Benches during the next scheduled cleaning (May) Lucy Ortiz returned 5:35 p.m. o CLM will provide before and after photographs to the Committee if the solvent effectively cleans the Benches Darryl Richard summarized the recommended changes to the draft Budget: • Forecast FY11 Total Operating Expense $217,000.00 - Adjusted to $272,000.00 - Allocated $5, 000.00 Trash and Garbage Line Item - Budget Amendment $50,000.00 from Improvements General • Forecast FY11 Total Improvements General $250,000.00 - Adjusted to $195,000.00 - $5,000.00 transfer to Operating - $50,000.00 Budget Amendment to Operating Darryl Richard reviewed Taxable Values and noted: • FYI increased approximately $30,000.00 - $40,000.00 due to the Boundary Expansion • FY12 a 3% decrease in Property Values is projected (County wide) Carrie Williams moved to approve the Draft FY -2012 Budget as amended. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 16 12 A'19 Project Manner Report Darryl Richard reviewed the Project Status Report: (See attached) (IMM -25) lQ Water Supply Project o Immokalee Water and Sewer anticipates - Receiving Bids in (1) week - Under Construction in (2) weeks (IMM -24) Cemetery Project • Staff is assisting the Contractor with a Permitting issue (pertaining to the property Folio number) - Additionally Gateworks subcontracted out the Permit process • Plant Materials are installed - With the exception of additional Plantings in front • Fence installation will be complete within 30 days - Subsequently the additional Plantings will be installed (IMM -22) Cross Walks & Sightline Study o FDOT Plans were emailed to the Committee D. Consultant As- Builts Darryl Richard stated: • JRL is providing As -Built Drawings for Hwy 29 • Funding was not allocated to JRL to update the drawings for after Construction (use) • The $2,500.00 for As- Builts is covered under Engineering Fees and other Cherryle Thomas expressed dissatisfaction with the expenditure. Darryl Richard proposed the following solution: • Request EB Simmonds manually redline the Plans in lieu of JRL updating the Drawings • The redline Plans will be used for As- Builts (County record) Carrie Williams moved to use red ink (manual changes to Hwy 29 As Built Drawings.) Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried 3 -1, Cherryle Thomas voted no. VII. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM • Fertilization is complete • Pressure cleaning was conducted ( Immokalee) Brick Sign (at New Market) - Sign at the Casino • Palm Tree was removed (by the Casino) 4 16 12 A +19 VIII. Landscape Architect Report-JRL Design Richard Tindell reviewed Landscape Architect's Field Report: (See attached) o Trash issue is under control to include the Family Dollar Store (corner of Main and 1 StStreet) Christie Betancourt stated she is cleaning up 3-4 bags of trash daily at the Family Dollar Store. Discussion took place regarding filing a complaint on the Family Dollar Store. Carrie Williams moved to direct Staff to file a formal complaint (with Code Enforcement) regarding the trash at the Family Dollar Store. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Richard Tindell reviewed work (by the County) on the Pathways Project: • Sidewalks and Railing was added by the Casino • Work was performed near Lake Trafford • Sidewalk work and ADA repair was performed at 6th Street Circle • Responses were submitted to address questions by the State • Bollards will be replaced with a Bumper System • FDOT Plans were reviewed (See attached) - A small Bulbout with Planters (curb high) on either side will be built to create ramps - A precast gutter system with iron grates will be installed to allow water to flow down to the edge of the road - The Project is State funded - The Sightline Study established the existing raised Planters, Benches, and seating areas at the comers (4th Street and 5"' Street) are in violation of Federal Law (Planters will be removed in the future) • JRL will present Renderings of Drawings at the May meeting IX. Community Redevelopment Agency Penny Phillippe reported the CRA submitted a Grant Application for Crosswalks. An Immokalee Crosswalk Enhancement Proposal (4127111) was distributed and reviewed: (See attached) • The Scope included - To conduct a Pedestrian Traffic Study to determine optimal crosswalk locations • Flashing Crosswalks are permitted on County Roads • Total cost $190,000.00 Darryl Richard noted Flashing Crosswalks require approval by Traffic Operations. 1612 A19 Richard Tindell stated a drawing will be provided to the CRA delineating the sidewalk locations projected by the State. Cherryle Thomas opened the floor for discussion concerning the following options that were tabled at the March meeting: • Continue MSTU Services with the County • Transfer MSTU Services to the CRA • MSTU and CRA collaborative efforts Carrie Williams questioned if the Services were performed by collaborative efforts with the CRA would there be a cost savings. Cherryle Thomas requested Penny Phillippe prepare a Budget Proposal for the MSTU to work with the CRA. Darryl Richard questioned if the CRA was prepared to provide the following minimum requirements to effectively manage the Project on a daily basis: • Level of Horticultural proficiency • Landscape Architectural Project Management Experience • Landscape Maintenance Experience - to interface with Contractors on - Irrigation maintenance - Fertilization requirements - Knowledge of general maintenance requirements for Plant Materials Discussion ensued and the Committee perceived the following: o Tasks would be completed in a suitable time frame if MSTU Services were handled locally and on a full time basis Darryl Richard disagreed and perceived the majority of delays are due to governmental requirements. He gave the recent example of Gateworks: • Gateworks was purchased by another Company • P.O. could not be opened until all required paperwork and insurance requirements were fulfilled • Gateworks was low quote for the Project - Rebidding would delay the Project further • Permitting is Gateworks present issue (will be resolved by Staff) Staff noted recent accomplishments by the County within the current month: • Vast amount of Maintenance was completed • Upgraded 1St Street Irrigation System • FDOT Coordination on 1612 A191 Christie Betancourt stated that the approval process is simpler with the CRA based on the following: • She is the acting Purchasing agent for Immokalee - She cuts the P.O. - Penny Phillippe issues the check - One additional person reviews the P.O. • In Immokalee a 6 week Project can be turned in 2 days Darryl Richard questioned if Collier County Purchasing Department was required to approve Immokalee P.O.s in addition to her approval. The response by Christie Betancourt was uncertain. The Committee perceived that Immokalee is treated as a low priority. Darryl Richard replied that Staff meets with Contractors and Consultants in Immokalee frequently. Additionally CLM is on call for emergencies. Robert Kindelan disagreed with the Committee and noted CLM has performed Maintenance in Immokalee for the past 12 years. After much discussion it was concluded Penny Phillippe will provide a Budget and Job Description to the MSTU in 60 days. Richard Tindell suggested the Committee consider the following facts: • When dealing with governmental agencies you are at their mercy • Certain vendors are non responsive such as Lumec • Similar situation are also occurring in Naples • Some of the problems that the Committee expressed will not change Immokalee Master Plan o The Master Plan was presented to the BCC on April 12th o Commissioner Hiller was concerned about trampling on the Blocker's rights o Policy 6.17 (Mobile Home Parks) was removed from the Master Plan o The Master Plan will be resubmitted to the BCC for approval on May 24th X. Old Business A. Master Plan Discussion - Previously discussed under IX. XI. New Business -None XII. Public Comment -None VA 1612 p19 There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:53 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee 1,4414 Cherryle T as, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on 1 , as presented t or amended >C The next meeting is May 25, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 8 1612 �483IIWIFT, JUN 0 7 2011 NIMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M-S-T. y:... .... ................ ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 27, 2011 Fiala Hiller Henning— Minutes Coyle Coletta 1. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:45 p.m. A quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo (Absent), Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman, Carrie Williams County: Darryl Richard-Project Manger Others: Richard TindelWRL, Robert Kindelan-CLAM, Penny Phillippe-CRA, Christie Betancourt-CRA, Darlene Lafferty-Juristaff Lucy Offiz arrived 4:46 p.m. Ill. Approval of Agenda Add-, V1. D. Consultant As-Buifis Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Andrea Kalman. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - March 23, 2011 Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the March 23, 2011 minutes as submitted Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3-0, V. Code Enforcement-Weldon Walker reported: o A Community cleanup is tentatively planned V1. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $261,765.38 o Available Operating Expense $6,810.16 - Recommendation was made to transfer $50,000,00 from Improvements General into Operating for the Hwy 29 Refurbishment Project (Irrigation modifications on Main street) Misc. Corres: Date: '21111111 Item* Discuss took place on the Irrigation modifications. Darryl Richard reviewed the basis for the recommendation to relocate the Irrigation main line: o The current location of the south side Irrigation main line will conflict with future construction o The main line will be installed in the center of the roadway (medians) o Is an opportunity to tie into the Immokalee Water and Sewer Project (to supply reuse to the medians) o The transfer of monies is needed since the Irrigation Refurbishment is underway Carrie Williams arrived 5:01 p.m. Andrea Halman moved approve the transfer of monies not to exceed $50,000.00 from improvwmwts General to Operating Expense. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Carrie Williams requested the Budget Report include a description for P.O.s in addition to the original Contract. Darryl Richard will advise the Budget Analyst to include a P.O. description on the Budget Report (pg 2 P.O. list.) Richard Tindell provided P.O. descriptions as follows: o 45001112-27 -1${ Street Irrigation o 4500111225 - Main Street Irrigation o 4500107443 - General Refurbishment Project to include - Pathways - CRA Master Plan Coordination o 4500116548 -1" Street Planting Project o 4500116640 - Main Street Plant Refurbishment o 4500116856C - Original Contract o 45001184910 - Sight Line conflicts and Bollards (Main Street) B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard - Discussed under Vt. C. C. Review & Approval of FY-2012 MSTU Budget (See attached) Darryl Richard reviewed the following draft Budget items: • Requested FY12 Lighting Maintenance increased to $60,000.00 ($50, 000.00 in Forecast FYI 1) - Additional monies were planned for Light Pole Maintenance - Reimbursement for Light Poles damaged by automobiles is pursued by Risk Management Department - Staff will request a status report from Risk Management on accidents involving Pole damage • Electricity, Water and Sewer is paid by General Fund 111 2 1612 X119 I Carrie Williaffts requested status on the Fund 111 Budget Report. Staff will email the current Fund 111 Budget Report to the Committee. o Recommended allocating funds (approximately $5,000.00) in FYI 1 and FY12 Trash and Garbage Line Item (listed as zero on the draft Budget) - For additional brash pick up services Discussion took place on the cleaning process for the stained Benches (Fund 111) Lucy Ortiz left 5.-33 p.m. Robert Kindelan stated the following: • Benches are pressure cleaned bi-monthly (6 times per year) • Bleach is not effective on the plastic Benches • A dfferent solvent will be tested on the Benches during the next scheduled cleaning (May) Lucy Ortiz returned 5.-35 p.m. CLM will provide before and after photographs to the Commiftee if the solvent effectively cleans the Benches Darryl Richard summarized the recommended changes to the draft Budget: o Forecast FYI I Total Operating Expense $217,000.00 Adjusted to $272,000.00 Allocated $5, 000.00 Trash and Garbage Line Item Budget Amendment $50,000.00 from Improvements General o Forecast FY11 Total Improvements General $250,000.00 - Adjusted lo$195,000,00 - $5,000.00 transfer to Operating - $50,000.00 Budget Amendment to Operating Darryl Richard reviewed Taxable Values and noted* • FYI I increased approximately $30,000.00 - $40,000.00 due to the Boundary Expansion • FYI 2 a 3% decrease in Property Values is projected (County wide) Carrie Williams moved to approve the Draft FY-2012 Budget as amended Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0 9 162 1 4 Project Manner Report Darryl Richard reviewed the Project Status Report: (See attached) (IMM-25) /Q Water Supply Project Immokalee Water and Sewer anticipates - Receiving Bids in (1) week - Under Construction in (2) weeks (IMM-24) Cemetery Project * Staff is assisting the Contractor with a Permitting issue (pertaining to the property Folio number) - Additionally Gateworks subcontracted out the Permit process * Plant Materials are installed - With the exception of additional Plantings in front * Fence installation will be complete within 30 days - Subsequently the additional Plantings will be installed OMM-22) Cross Walks & Sightfine Studer o FDOT Plans were emailed to the Committee D. Consultant As-Builts Darryl Richard stated, o JRL is providing As-Built Drawings for Hwy 29 o Funding was not allocated to JRL to update the drawings for after Construction (use) o The $2,500.00 for As-Builts is covered under Engineering Fees and other Cherryle Thomas expressed dissatisfaction with the expenditure. Darryl Richard proposed the following solution: o Request EB Simmonds manually redline the Plans in lieu of JRL updating the Drawings o The redline Plans will be used for As-Builts (County record) Carrie Williams moved to use red ink (manual changes to Hwy 29 As Built Drawings) Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried 3-1, Cherr)4e Thomas voted no. VII. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM * Fertilization is complete * Pressure cleaning was conducted - (Immokalee) Brick Sign (at New Market) - Sign at the Casino * Palm Tree was removed (by the Casino) .9. A19'o 1612 A119 Vill. Landscape Architect Report-JRL Design Richard Tindell reviewed Landscape Architect's Field Report: (See attached) o Trash issue is under control to include the Family Dollar Store (comer of Main and 16tStreet) Christie Betancourt stated she is cleaning up 3A bags of trash daily at the Family Dollar Store. Discussion took place regarding filing a complaint on the Family Dollar Store. Carrie Williams moved to direct Staff to His a formal complaint (with Code EnforcemenQ regarding the trash at the Family Dollar Store. Second by Lucy OtWz Motion carded unanimously 4-0. Richard Tindell reviewed work (by the County) on the Pathways Project: o Sidewalks and Railing was added by the Casino o Work was performed near Lake Trafford o Sidewalk work and ADA repair was performed at 6t" Street Circle o Responses were submitted to address questions by the State o Bollards will be replaced with a Bumper System o FDOT Plans were reviewed (See attached) - A small Bulbout with Planters (curb high) on either side will be built to create ramps - A precast gutter system with iron grates will be installed to allow water to flow down to the edge of the road - The Project is State funded - The Sightline Study established the existing raised Planters, Benches, and seating areas at the comers (4th Street and 5th Street) are in violation of Federal Law (Planters will be removed in the future) o JRL will present Renderings of Drawings at the May meeting IX Community Redevelopment Agency Penny Phillippe reported the CRA submitted a Grant Application for Crosswalks. An Immokalee Crosswalk Enhancement Proposal (4127111) was distributed and reviewed: (See attached) * The Scope included - To conduct a Pedestrian Traffic Study to determine optimal crosswalk locations * Flashing Crosswalks are permitted on County Roads o Total cost $190,000.00 Darryl Richard noted Flashing Crosswalks require approval by Traffic Operations. R 16f2 A # Richard Tindell stated a drawing will be provided to the CRA delineating the sidewalk locations projected by the State. Cherryle Thomas opened the floor for discussion concerning the following options that were tabled at the March meeting: • Continue MSTU Services with the County • Transfer MSTU Services to the CRA • MSTU and CRA collaborative efforts Carrie Williams questioned if the Services were performed by collaborative efforts with the CRA would there be a cost savings. Cherryle Thomas requested Penny Phillippe prepare a Budget Proposal for the MSTU to work with the CRA. Darryl Richard questioned if the CRA was prepared to provide the following minimum requirements to effectively manage the Project on a daily basis: o Level of Horticultural proficiency o Landscape Architectural Project Management Experience o Landscape Maintenance Experience - to interface with Contractors on - Irrigation maintenance - Fertilization requirements - Knowledge of general maintenance requirements for Plant Materials Discussion ensued and the Committee perceived the following: o Tasks would be completed in a suitable time frame if MSTU Services were handled locally and on a full time basis Darryl Richard disagreed and perceived the majority of delays are due to governmental requirements. He gave the recent example of Gateworks: o Gateworks was purchased by another Company o P.O. could not be opened until all required paperwork and insurance requirements were fulfilled o Gateworks was low quote for the Project - Rebidding would delay the Project further o Permitting is Gateworks present issue (will be resolved by Staff) Staff noted recent accomplishments by the County within the current month: • Vast amount of Maintenance was completed • Upgraded TO Street Irrigation System • FDOT Coordination 111 1612A19 Christie Betancourt stated that the approval process is simpler with the CRA based on the following: o She is the acting Purchasing agent for Immokalee - She cuts the P.O. - Penny Phillippe issues the check - One addifional person reviews the P.O. o In Immokalee a 6 week Project can be turned in 2 days Darryl Richard questioned if Collier County Purchasing Department was required to approve lmmcykaL-e P.O.s in addition to her approval. The response by Christie Betancourt was uncertain. The Committee perceived that Immokalee is treated as a low priority. Darryl Richard replied that Staff meets with Contractors and Consultants in Immokalee frequently. Additionally CLM is on call for emergencies. Robert Kindelan disagreed with the Committee and noted CLM has performed Maintenance in Immokalee for the past 12 years. After much discussion it was concluded Penny Phillippe will provide a Budget and Job Description to the MSTU in 60 days. Richard Tindell suggested the Committee consider the following facts: • When dealing with governmental agencies you are at their mercy • Certain vendors are non responsive such as Lumec • Similar situation are also occurring in Naples • Some of the problems that the Committee expressed will not change Immokalee Master Plan • The Master Plan was presented to the BCC on April 12th • Commissioner Hiller was concerned about trampling on the Blocker's rights • Policy 6.17 (Mobile Home Parks) was removed from the Master Plan • The Master Plan will be resubmitted to the BCC for approval on May 24th X. Old Business A. Master Plan Discussion - Previously discussed under IX X1. New Business-None XIL Public Comment-None 6 1612 X19' There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:63 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Cherryle T "Is, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended >� The next meeting is May 25, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South St" Street Immokalee, FL 34142 -;I 1612 A19 lw " n CC3 D W N tA G -4 _ W W W W W A - C, N W 01 W C N N V O — N W W M W W A W A W .- V (n O A O O O O W O n W Oo Cn O O O N QW N W O W U1 C n A O •00 + O. C" t0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O N N N C W O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O C t0 t t0 O O ( O O O O P O O m O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O m O O O m m O W O O O O ' N 00 O O O O O N N O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O N O O O O EA fA EA fA 69 fA FA 69 fA EA fA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA fA 69 69 69 69 69 fA EA 6a Ep 69 EA 69 69 EA t-A 49 EA EA E9 L9 fA n O 3 3 � A A V CT 3 O W W N L" W N J CD A t0 to N A Cn (D W O A C0 J O O O Cn CO N J O N W N W y O t0 lD (b W W A O J A J W O N W J CD O O -,A Ou N W W W O O CT W W O O O N 40 fA 69 fA H9 fA (A 69 49 to !A 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 69 69 EA 69 EA EA H9 69 69 'EA fR Vi 69 EA 69 69 69 fA 69 EA 69 69 69 k D W O W W O O N W co N O N 00 N J 7 n = C C DJ N V (n _ W W 00 O N (ll N W J Lr, W W N W W V Ou 00 01 O O co W W Ou V -, W O N OV 00 00 O O J W N (P W W N A A W ((T (O fl O O N N N W W O oo Cn N Cn O N N (b W T V A N O O W W W Cn W N O O W O N O V V W W W W J O O 0) W A O A A A O O W O 00 w c0 (n [D N W to 69 69 69 fA 69 iA fA V) 69 [!9 69 W 69 H9 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA 69 ffl 69 69 69 Q- 69 6A (A 69 69 69 D 0 L O a) to A A T T Cn y D) N— O N N N O O W W N N O) O W V C11 O w M W CD Cn W N N J 00 N N t0 N_ J_ W W A (fl O O W CJ O CD J O A O O N O (n O N W O (I O CD co O O O O O D O V W p Co J CD O O O CD O O O O O W O W W W W O O O J O O S CO CT CD N J E C Ro Nv> o a, m � N X (D 9) N ((DD O 7 (64) O T A t0 < o � J 0 a w ° -n N O < w ° J p O w � N O O X a v 0 � m (D a a co O o � 3 a _ N N N N W W co W V N V ) La W A W V O (O T N V (A N O 0 cn 00 N W -) -1 T T 0 0 �o(D0D iT-n_n X 7 > DO m w v (DD N N < o w y fU (0 Q Q C fD (D @ < c<i \ (D C C N N N O N CT [D d C N O D r (D N N W O t t0 to T O W to N M O A O 1612 Al 9'� G cn cn cn cn v) 70 x z� E 3 O -n -D � m 0 n n 0 0 0 0 00 W D D 0 S v o 0 0 o p (v 7 ;7 T x T x; N n 3 )° o o W 0 03 0 0 0 0= v 0'.0 (o (n N c c c c D< C-1 N r r r r r r° 3� cD N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3° °^ o CD 3 S 7 7 S (D v [ICD 0 v'D O N c 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 () ° o o Cn CL O C N 7 7 7 N N N N N N N O N p 7 =7 3 (D (D lD (D N (D CD —{ n X. 7 7. N in N O 7 7 O N (fl (L] (S (Q CO (O N C) (D �_ ° (7 () (� C1 n n O, f07I 7 X X 7 0 2 3 in U) Cn Cn 3 ' 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 y (D O O 7 N 01 C11 N tl7 N N G (7 (7 O 0 C O N (O (O O O r_: N O 7 N v d — O O O 0- 7 N N 6l N 7 z 7 .� N O C O N CU N N 0) O) N N 7 n 7 N (n O O N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 O (D CL (D Cl Q, Q. 4. SN P. N N 3 N N C1 (1 O_ d C1 (1 n N (D O r r r r Q N — N .7.. Z (L) (Q (3 (n N N N N N N N N p7 ^ 7 7 7 7 7 N n 21 (D N 4 N N N N (D O O O (2 Q A A A A A A A A A ('i A A (An (An A A A A A A CA71 A A A (An A A A A A A A A A A cn cn A Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn O Cn Cn O O Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn (r O (n (A CT O Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn (n Cn Cn Cn Cn O O Cn O O_ O O O_ O O_ O O_ O O_ O O_ O O C:) O -.-. O O_ O O_ O O O O_ O O_ O O_ O O_ O O O_ O O O_ O O O_ O — O O_ O O_ O O_ O O_ O O O_ O O_ O O_ O O O_ O --� O O O_ N _O N N N N N N _O N N M N N Co CP O _O N N _O N N A N N N N _O N N N N _O N N J A N O Q) A Cn M A C) W W N Cn M � W w W m to W W N Oi A CO co (n (T W (T cn J A N N N 01 m N N N N N A W N Cp N A Cn -+ A (.o A W A N W W N A W m A N m m Cn A W cn In Cn J (D W W N N W CD N W a) A A A N N N A CD w O Qu 1 W J O (D N O) O (0 W co A J 00 (D N N Cn N O— 0 J O 0 0 O m W 01 J N n 1 m O n W N Cn A(D A (D CT A CO O O A m = cn O r x 2 cn -u r cn a> UT n i C) m �� C) 7 co x o CD O (D � O (D O C (D ((D (D (p N N N N .N. N O N (D C CD N (D N ,N., N N N (D N W (nD .S., cn N CD 3 N 7 7 N 7 .N-. 7 � N a; .N. N 3 N .7.. ^ S N N ;1 N `G ,�' U) (� (D 'G `�. N D N �' 7 Cl) n Sv 7 `G N N O CD cn N 40 N N W h y N OJ O (D in C (D r 7 (1 N N �D .O-. 0 ID (n n � 7 .0.. CD � (D Ny (D 0 9L CD CD CD ?_ T ° N 2 (D' �' _ .� (D N Cn O C (D r 7 go (�' O� C O 7 "O "d — O lD d (D (D (D C "O w -O (n' (Oj N N 7 (° 7 (O ? 7 O_ •G 0 01 7 a N N 01 N Cn 0 CD _ � 7 10 C C O 7 C (D T. N cn 0 N 3 � N (0 M m CD () CD CO Ol N O N — p' 7 (D (D N l0 O' O' O Sio CD 2 O 7 (D 7 r n (NO O N N C n° ° Z S (D S O (7 (p. 3 CD O7 3 c 3 0- 0 (°D O — v l N N C11 �' lU' O 7 O O 0' N "6 j (D 7 (D 7 (D Cn N (7"/ (D O 7 N (D in (D .-. N 7 (D S O CD CD (D 3 n N C�' O p (D' C1 CD (D 7 (D N n C) to to to to to to M to to to to to to 40 to to to to to to to to vi vi to to V1 to to to to tf1 to to to w to ts+ to to to 3 N O O) (A W W W -+ _ A A Cn N N w -+ N N O 0o w W O O O A A V tD A N W t0 cn A A m 00 w j N N W 0 N 00 A CO O 7 N O Fn V ' O A W A aD Cn N N t0 T T A 00 N N V O N O w A O) O A O V A O CiD O N V O V Cl O W V 0 V Cl Cl 0 0 A V 01( O O O O V N (A CD N O W N O 1 O) 1 O O CD N O O 1 O O O CD 1 1 N O W CA O O O A to 0 0 0 0 0 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to Eo to to t-A to to to to to to to Efl to f!3 to t-A to to fo to vi to to m Cn N O N A W O po CO Cn U1 W A O N W J W (n Cn cn N J M N W CD J W CD A CD w O W O A M Cn -co co Cn Cn N D) O J N N W cn A -co O CO Q= W O O J Cn O A O J W O CD W Cn J Co J N CD N c0 Co Cn N J J p W (D O A Cn " J N In O O N O W Cn A J N m co (o O 0o O O (A W Co O) O O O CD N N O N J O O N O O N J O co CD Cn -� O N O N O CD (n O O O W W (D O O O N J O Cn O Cn m O CD Oo O O A Cn C) -+ J N A Cn CD Cn O O O O O O O m (D Cn O O O 0) J O O O O (T O O D r m m N N c C C Z v (7) riJ » xy O >C Pd m ro ro ;w: tlj C til trJ :M, C tzJ ti] z yul:pzG HtsJia [t] H :lz7 z (n w L-j� 0� DC F3 :(n 'd H roo:::::i:LIJo w rt { : �a ct z w w tzJ 'rd: H �z x- (7] Fl P) G R� H O rt n O H ski- 9 P, P• P- 0 cn m rtr- 0w I P, m rr n P• H m Fl (D O t7 Fl � Ct ((D I H H HF -�I-� H Ul cc) 00 mo p. .ANUIPAOU700 Q'O I� P) rt N O O O O O N NNE ". 00000000 O'0 y 00000000 O`O CQ? ';-I.. - XD:, 00000000 -o rr; 00000000 0-0 00 o rt w O �C H Ul 00 00 :()D_ 00 A N Ul A Ul U7 Ul Ul Ul' Ul N O 0000 NN tj7 00000000 0`o P 00000000 0;o c4' 00000000 0-o tr 0 0 O0 0o00 00 D N W W W. W NHAWNN dv':N N l0 H N N W W :W'W N W H Ul A M of G1` O Ul W O O l0 l0 lD'l0 �] Ol H O O �P N Ul H Ul Ul :U1 Ul -,d.: wk.ow < <HH F H J to O w Ul �] < Z.-3 --j N N610 Ul<< � 0 ;4, 61 0 0 0 0 0 C) W �A l0 O O 61 61 ;o=61 W W W : W' W �P N Ul -1 -] :J:' J sH N W wUlO 61 dl 0'01 O O N W O Ul Ul lJl- Lrf O O Ul O O Ul Ln Ul'Ul STD. 0 0 0 0 0 cc :0: O 00000 00 00 O l0 Ul -1 0 w0 %W:0 "i O UI UI ON O ski- 9 P, P• P- 0 cn m rtr- 0w I P, m rr n P• H m Fl (D G t7 Fl � Ct ((D I rt L n Fi 0 I� P) rt B (D y ci 61 H O wHC)H 00 o rt w O �C H w Ld G P� O rt rt O rt n n G 0 p H ,dHxw H C yw n(D (D O 0 rt O n CD FWrt PI O rIJ z H- Fl G � M Nw H - p ad� Om � CTJ H � D cn a n � (D [ r- W 0 U] 'fJ�� t7 N• (D m O P -0 Cn n H G xl • • H t, 0 P H t7 £ O G rt N H (D rt rt rt 0 U1 rd 00 O ti rt x W H U CiJ z C7 U] t7 CzJ z rsJ d () H t) mrom G rt H O w W U 7 O •• \ O O N N U1 �A N H O H H D 16 12 A'19 Report Date: May 25, 2011 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Immokalee MSTU Project Status (I MM -25) —IQ Water Supply Project 04- 27 -11: Staff is coordinating with Immokalee Water & Sewer in obtaining Re -Use Water (IQ water) for landscaping in medians and ROW. Project Plans are under review to coordinate on locating existing irrigation lines and wire. 05- 25 -11: Immokalee Water & Sewer indicated project bid was rejected. (I MM -24A) — Cemetery Project — Planting Project 04- 27 -11: Landscaping is installed; some additional plants will be installed after completion of the fence installation. 05- 16 -11: Permit Issued. 05- 25 -11: Project will be completed by end of day on 5- 25 -11. (IMM -23) — COMPLETED - Christmas Lighting Project 04- 27 -11: Lighting project was received with positive comments /calls into county office. Next year additional garland may be added to the lights. (I MM -23) — COMPLETED- Banner Project 04- 27 -11: Project completed. (IlvIIM -22) — Cross -Walks & Sightline Study 04- 27 -11: Review and Coordination with FDOT is on- going. FDOT will install new cross -walks at no cost to the MSTU /County. Some additional modifications to `bulb -outs' is under review at this time. Sight - line issues identified are to be addressed for public safety. 05- 25 -11: FDOT work will begin on June 16, 2011. (I MM -20) — COMPLETED - First Street & Hwy 29 Survey 04- 27 -11: Survey is 100% completed. (IM M -19) — COMPLETED - 1" Street Irrigation/Landscape Refurbishment Project 04- 27 -11: Project is 100% completed. As built plans are being updated by JRL Design. (IMM -18) — ACTIVE- Hwy 29 Irrigation/Landscape Refurbishment Project 04- 27 -11: Staff held coordination meeting with Contractor E.B. Simmonds to review project scope and obtain pricing from E.B. Simmonds on annual county contract. Material supply from Ag- Tronix for Motorola equipment was reviewed and quote is pending from Ag- Tronix. 05- 25 -11: Ag- Tronix provided quote for material purchase for refurbishment. (I MM -15) — ACTIVE- ONGOING —LA Maintenance Consulting Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services 05- 25 -11: Ongoing Services from JRL Design MvIM -11) — ACTIVE - ONGOING— Roadway Maintenance: BID #09 -5264 05- 25 -11: Contract #09 -5264, " Immokalee Road MSTU/MSTD Landscape Maintenance" 10 1612 A19 RichardDarryl From: Ferrante, Gary [Gary. Ferrante @aecom.com] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:16 PM To: RichardDarryl; HallDaniel Cc: Eva Deyo Subject: IWSD Re -Use project put on hold Darryl and Daniel, At yesterday's Board meeting, the IWSD Board voted to reject all bids received and to seek funding from another source. Therefore, the re -use main work along Boston Avenue will come after the sidewalk project and the storm water project. Please forward this message to Brad Muckel with the CRA to keep him apprised of the situation. Gary C. Ferrante, P.E. Project Manager C 239.229.5085 ctary.ferrante(cDaecom. com AECOM 4415 Metro Parkway, Suite 404, Fort Myers, FL 33916 T 239.278.7996 F 239.278.0913 www.aecom.com APlease consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Collier County Board of County Commissioners Purchasing Department 3327 Tamiami Trl E Naples FL 341124901 Tax Exempt: 85- 801262183OC -2 Vendor# 110004 AG TRONIX INC 1304 15TH ST N IMMOKALEE FL 34142 Please deliver to: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION C&M LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 2885 S HORSESHOE DR NAPLES FL 34104 Terms of Payment Net 30 Days 12 A111-9 Send all Invoices to: • Collier County Board of County Commissioners Attn: Accounts Payable K 3299 Tamiami Trl E Ste 700 • Naples FL 34112 -5749 i Purchase Order number must appear on all related correspondence, shipping papers and invoices: Purchase order PO Number 4500127543 o-1- 0511612011 I contact Person Trans ATM I Delivery Date: 09/30/2011 Currency USD - - -- . — — — — Order Qty Unit Pnce Per Unit Net Value Item Material Description 00010 Immokale PH 2 HWY 29 Project 11,062 3 each 1 G0 11.062.3 Release order against contract 4600002828 Item 00010 162- 162524- 763100 -0 Irrigation system Proposal 1926 — Total net value excl. tax USD 11,062.30 VENDOR Terms and Conditions The VENDOR agrees to comply with all Purchase Order Terms and Conditions as outlined on the Collier County Purchasing Internet site: i http: /lwww colliergov net/Index.aspx ?page =762 (revision date 01/22/2008), including delivery and payment terms Further the VENDOR agrees to: 1 Provide goods and services outlined in this Purchase Order with the prices, terms, delivery method and specifications listed above 2 Notify department Immediately if order fulfillment cannot occur as specified 3 Send all invoices to: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Attn: Accounts Payable 3299 Tamiami Trl E Ste 700 Naples FL 34112-5749 The Purchase Order is authorized under direction of Collier County Board of County Commissioners by: n„ Stephen Y Carnell, General Services I Purchasing Director Printed Tue May 11 2011 09.08 22 G:'viT -040C 162 - 162524763100 1Z. 612 Al Ship to: Collier County 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Tel. 239 - 213 -5886 Fax: 239- 213 -5899 REQUEST TO PURCHASE Requested by: Tessie Sillery & Darryl Richard Date: Friday, May.13, 2011 Vendor Name: Ap ronis Vendor Tel Number: Agtronix Requisition Number: Purchase Order Number: Cust.# Collier County ATM Dept. - Transportation Division 2885 5 Horesshoe Dr. RE: Immokalee Phase 2 hwy 29 project Item Description Qty (unit) F4614AN118AG PICCOLO -XR 4/4 7 932.00 AG- SPH0920CIB... Pedestal Housing 9 "W x 20 "H Diameter "No Pad Lock" 7 121.00 621 -1283 6v 12ah Powersonic battery 7 35.00 BSP -2 -7 2.5 W 7v Solar Panel w/ Blocking Diode 7 46.00 SP -2 2'ftx1 "x1/4" Aluminum Flat Bar (Bracket for BSP -2 -7) 7 10.00 493711 Cable/ antenna kit 17ft RG58 phantom MHz 450 -470 7 90.00 86216 SMA male connector 7 6.00 69642 SMA Female Bulkhead Crimp 7 10.50 54647 Grounding Disc 6" 3/8" hole use with antenna/ kit #493711 7 15.00 24612 L Bracket for a 3/8" Hole 7 7.00 85135 Antenna Cable (per ft.) RG58 (Belden#8240) 7 0.90 ANT -5 5ttx1 "x1/4" aluminum flat bar Piccolo XR antennabracket 7 15.50 FL1 Field Labor 21 85.00 FL1 Field Labor 3 85.00 Amount 6,524.00 847.00 245.00 322.00 70.00 630.00 4200 73.50 105.00 49.00 630 108.50 1,785.00 255.00 WORK WITH ROGER TO BRING PICCOLO UNITSONLINE IN ICC NOTE: ROGER NEEDS TO SET AN APPOINTMENT WITH AG- TRONIX TO SET UP PICCOLOS IN ICC AND BRING THEM Total Amount Requested $11,062.30 Available Funds: $ This is a capital improvement project : FUND: 162 Cost Center 162524 Object Code Approved'•' _ 'rt . -s--�• ..-. Michelle Edwards Arnold Alternative Transportation Modes 13 AIIIIIIIIIIIIII • SPEC LMKG IN MOTOROLA IRRIGATION CONTROL STS W 1304 N. 15th STREET IMMOKALEE, FL. 34142 239 - 657 -5519 CUSTOMER NAME Collier County DOATM /Transportation FINANCE DEPARTMENT 3301 Tamiami Tr E, Bldg F 7th Flr. Naples, FL 34112 1612 A i9 QUOTATION /PROPOSAL DATE QUOTE NO. 5/6/2011 1926 TERMS I REP t:1 I Field Labor WORK WITH ROGER TO BRING PICCOLO UNITS ONLINE IN ICC NOTE: ROGER NEEDS TO SET AN APPOINTMENT WITH AG- TRONIX TO SET UP PICCOLOS IN ICC AND BRING THEM ONLINE IN COLLIER COUNTY tiYl)I NA Thank you for your business. QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. SHIP VIA PROJECT QTY PRICE TOTAL Sam r),ag- tronix.com WWW.AG-TRONIX.COM 7 Vc130 SI.( DESCRIPTION ITEM 7 IMMOKA.LF,E PHASE 2 14WY 29 PROJECT N614A/VI I8AG PICCOLO -XR 4/4 Housing 9 "W x 20 "H Diameter "No Pad bock" AG- SPH0920CIB... Pedestal 621 -1283 6v 12ah Powersonic battery BSP -2 -7 2.5 W 7v Solar Panel w/ Blocking Diode SP -2 2'ftxI "xl /4" Aluminum Flat Bar (Bracket for BSP -2 -7) 493711 Cable/ antenna kit 17ft RG58 phantom MHz 450 -470 86216 SMA male connector 69642 SMA Female Bulkhead Crimp 54647 Grounding Disc 6" 3/8" hole use with antenna/ kit 73.50 #493711 24612 I, Bracket for a 3/8" Hole 85135 Antenna Cable (per ft.) RG58 (Belden #8240) ANT -5 5ftxl "xl /4" aluminum flat bar Piccolo XR antenna 0.90 bracket Fl.l Field Labor t:1 I Field Labor WORK WITH ROGER TO BRING PICCOLO UNITS ONLINE IN ICC NOTE: ROGER NEEDS TO SET AN APPOINTMENT WITH AG- TRONIX TO SET UP PICCOLOS IN ICC AND BRING THEM ONLINE IN COLLIER COUNTY tiYl)I NA Thank you for your business. QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. SHIP VIA PROJECT QTY PRICE TOTAL Sam r),ag- tronix.com WWW.AG-TRONIX.COM 7 932.00 6,524.00 7 121.00 847.00 7 35.00 245.00 7 46.00 322.00 7 10.00 70.00 7 90.00 630.00 7 6.00 42.00 7 10.50 73.50 7 15.00 105.00 7.00 49.00 0.90 6.30 1; ;(I 108.50 211 sS.Or) 1 1,785.00 255.00 TOTAL $11.062.30 713 JDRL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5'^ AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4D07 3���9� r�c�po 1612A19 May 12, 2011 COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee. PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500116856 REPORT NUMBER: 31 Ref: FDOT Immokalee Cross -Walk Project JRL COMM No: 9003 Date: May 10, 2011 Location Fort Myers Operation Center Time: 9:30 to 12:30 2981 Pine Island Rd., Cape Coral MEETING NOTES: A Pre - Construction meeting was held to review the FDOT improvements for the Immokalee Cross -Walk. FDOT, Itran Partners (the contractor), Comcast, Centurylink, Immokalee MSTU ( Tindell), etc were present - notably absent was Immokalee Water and Sewer. Meeting minutes have not been receiver. Revised plans were obtained. The project is scheduled to begin work on June 16 and be complete in 60 days. Work is scheduled Monday through Friday, 9 am to 4 pm. No weekend or night is anticipated. FDOT requested the MSTU suspend maintenance (mowing) until the contractor completed his work and was un -aware that the area in question was mostly shrubs. Questions concerning the temporary curbs (white sticks), irrigation, sleeves and requested modification of maintenance were raised and we were assured a response asap. ACTION: Reported meeting results to Darryl Richard. On Tuesday, May 11, 1 met with Penny Phillippi and Brad Muckel from the CRA and up -dated them on the project and reviewed concept for Proposed Bulbout and Crossing for SR 29. Reviewed temp curb (white post) locations and sent to Ms Pierce, FDOT Project Manager. Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 15 J.RL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5,h AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 -261 -4007 16 12 A19 May 14, 2011 IaNITONcM.1file �rcliitect's field re��ort COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500116856 REPORT NUMBER: 32 CONTRACTOR: BQ Concrete JRL COMM No: 9003 Date: 4/11, 4/12 & Weather: Clear Estimate % Complete: 40% 4/13/2011 Time: Varies Temp Range: 89 to 94 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: May 11: Richard Tindell, solo observation May 12: Darryl from Collier County, Reps from BQ Concrete, Southern Signal, Collier Traffic Ops, Don Taylor, John Miller, Trudi Ramirez & Richard Tindell May 13: Richard Tindell, Bill from BQ and crew WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor crew was present on all occasions OBSERVATIONS: Work is progressing well after a rocky start. There have been no further damage to conduit since the two incidents reported May 11. 16 foxtail palms have been removed (40 scheduled). 14 sections of sidewalk have been re- poured (16 less the 2 damaged sections) as well as the open tree pits along the north side of main street. Flashing barricades were delivered 4:50 pm Friday evening. Pictures attached. REVIEWS: County and FDOT Standards. BQ County Work Order REPORT: On May 11 during a scheduled maintenance observation visit I noted that 3 foxtail palm had been removed from the east side of First Street on the south end near the casino. Another 3 or 4 tree removals were in progress and about a third the affected sidewalk sections on the east side of the street were removed. A closer look showed that in two occasions the street light conduit had been damaged. Darryl Richard was notified and pictures taken and later emailed to Darryl. I was later contacted by Darryl and Pam Lulich requesting we provide modified on site construction observation and a site meeting was scheduled for the next morning. On May 12 a site meeting was held, issues discussed, a plan adopted. Southern Signal will provide site observation (minimum 4 hours every 1612 A19 other day and phone contact those days not on site) and electrical repairs as required. JRL will also provide site observation for the MSTU (minimum 4 hours every other day and phone contact those days not on site). A damaged street pole was examined. Darryl Richard sent John Miller an email after the meeting that contained the following: 1) The MSTU Electrical contractor ( Southern Signal ) will make repairs to any items considered incidental to the project that are maintenance related - to be paid through MSTU Fund 162. [includes adjustments to conduit as relates to BQ concretes work scope and minor parts, equipment repairs] 2) BQ Concrete will pay for any obvious 'damaged' conduit. 3) MSTU Consultant JRL Design will be onsite performing inspections and will be in communication with BQ concrete on 'daily basis' and perform onsite inspections no less than 'every other day'. 4) Southern Signal as MSTU electrical maintenance contractor (currently under contract for maintenance) will monitor the project on a 'daily basis' and be in communication with BQ concrete and be physically present to inspect cut -outs after tree removal to determine if any repairs or adjustments to the electrical conduit need to be made. 5) After the entire project is finished Traffic Ops will perform an inspection to confirm proper operation of the lights /electrical related to the silver poles. 6) After project completion Southern Signal will confirm proper operation of the blue poles for the MSTU portion of the electrical system. 7) Trees will be pulled out carefully and roots are to be cut away from the conduit while tree is being pulled to minimize 'pulling of conduit' where the tree roots are wrapped around the conduit. 8) Barricades with lights are to be installed at existing cut outs remaining open during the night. *[just to confirm per today's inspection the light pole that was hit appears to be a traffic accident which is unrelated to BQ Concretes project activity. Note the parts of vehicle headlights that were found onsite confirming that a vehicle must have hit the pole at a high rate of speed.] - -- end - -- On May 13 my first observation was that several more trees were ready for removal and that other than the two damaged conduit sections the sidewalk had been replaced. No lighted barricades were observed. The contractor was questioned and barricades were ordered. Tree remove continued thru the day, holes were hand dug and no damage was observed. 16 12 A19' Concrete was delivered and the electricians repair pits in the sidewalk on the north side of Main Street were filled. The south side of the street is scheduled for Monday so as not to constrict pedestrian traffic on both sides of the street at the same time. The concrete operation moved on to First Street. Barricades arrived. No work is scheduled for the weekend. Photos attached. ACTION REQUIRED: Report and continue site observations Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 161 2 'A19' IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE I. Call Meeting to Order June 29, 2011 RECEIVED AGENDA JUL 2 0 2011 board of County Commissioners II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — May 25, 2011 ; A ✓ V. Code Enforcement Report — Weldon Walker raining VI. Transportation Services Report `t2 - -�' A. Budget Report B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VII. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM VIII. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design A. Presentation - Main Street Conceptual Plans with Sightline Discussion B. JRL Work Order Extension IX. Community Redevelopment Agency X. Old Business XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment +sc. G ".- _;ate: „am �V =Zi114 The next meeting is July 27, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. South Florida Works 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 161 2 119" MMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 25, 2011 Minutes The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:55 p.m. A quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo, Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman (Excused), Carrie Williams (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — Project Manger, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Richard Tindell -JRL, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — April 27, 2011 William Deyo moved to approve the April 27, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Code Enforcement - Weldon Walker - None VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report (See attached) Darryl Richard reviewed the following information: • Hwy 29 Refurbishment Project P.O. was opened for AG TRONIX (See attached) • P.O. descriptions were added to the report as requested by the Committee • Fund 111 Report is included in the Meeting packet as requested (See attached, pg. 9) B. Project Manager Report— Darryl Richard Darryl Richard reviewed the Project Status Report: (See attached) (IMM -25) IQ Water Supply Project o Immokalee Water and Sewer is required to rebid the Project 161 � $19 Discussion took place on a Storm Water Project at the corner of Boston and South 1St Street. Darryl Richard perceived the Storm Water Project is a County Improvements Project (unrelated to the CRA Storm Water Project). He reported: • A Irrigation line on Eustis Ave. was struck by the Contractor - Review is underway to determine if the Contractor is responsible for the repairs • An Interim fix was performed on the Irrigation line (IMM -24 ) Cemetery Project o Fence installation is complete (IMM -18) Hwy 29 Igigation/Landscape Refurbishment Project • Meetings were held with the Contractors • A Construction cost Quote will be submitted at the June meeting VII. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM Robert Kindelan reported the following: o Palm Trees were removed on Immokalee Road and SR 836 Discussion ensued on the disposal of the Palm Trees. Cherryle Thomas directed Staff to publish information in the Immokalee Bulletin on the Palm Tree removal as she is receiving numerous phone calls on the subject. Robert Kindelan continued: o Debris was removed in the vacant lot behind the Welcome to Immokalee Sign o (5) Chemical Solvents were tested on the stained benches - (2) Solvents were successful in removing the stains - The process is performed by hand and is labor intense Darryl Richard requested CLM provide a Quote to clean the benches. VII1. Landscape Architect Report-JRL Design Richard Tindell reviewed the following Reports: Field Report No. 31- FDOT Cross -Walk Project (See attached) • Pre- Construction meeting was held with FDOT and Contractors • Project is scheduled to begin June 16th • A Project update was given to the CRA Field Report No. 32 - 1St Street Sidewalk Repair and Palm Tree Removal o (2) Lighting Conduits were damaged (by the Contractor) - JRL met with County Staff and Road and Bridge to review the Conduit damage N 161 2 ' A191 • Due to the conduit damage it was deemed that supervision is needed on the Project - Subsequently Staff authorized JRL to monitor the Project • An adequate root barrier was not installed when the Palm Trees were originally planted - Consequently damage was sustained due to massive roots Field Report No. 34 - Maintenance (See attached) • Cemetery Renovations - Lantana will be installed along the front of the Cemetery - Alignment of trampled plants (during fence installation) is required - Vines will be installed during the rain season • Noted the pressure cleaning process has reduced the amount of chewing gum on the sidewalks • A bench was added by the Sheriff station that is encroaching onto the sidewalk and is not level IX. Community Redevelopment Agency -None X. Old Business - None XI. New Business -None XI1. Public Comment -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee `J Cherryle Thomas, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented X or amended The next meeting is June 29, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 3 r N � N r Cl m z N W U _ i 161 2 X19, M <t U) n N (O U) M O 6) tp h O O N CD O O N O n M O O O O L() N 0 O 0 O 0 V' 0 O (`') O co N O O O O M M O M O O tr N M m W M LO M U) N O Ln O O O U) O O M U) O c0 00 O O V Cl) 0 O 10 r` O) 0) O O U') 00 O 1- O O O O O O O Co O O Q) O (� m d' M v N () Cl) t0 m t� ch O M r O O O O r Lf) d O) � co N W U) Cl) M N O O N c0 0) O M U7 _ v N r M lc " M V M CO _� M N 0 N 0 N O of It W N N O r u) co m O W tD O O co Cl) U1 N Cl) M p ... Uj M N O N O M M O O 16 l4 a O a 69 U9, 69 69 tH to 64 69 6Fi 69 V3. 1 tfi 69 tf) to 64 6" W to tli 69 W 19 vi 69 69 efi V} w tH 69 69 69 to 6a. 69 to w 69 tnA to iC is N 0 CO U) LA O O N O O O M N O '0- -,t O co co O O (D Ln f- O M m N N O O N O O Cl) O r (� N (D LO rr h O O N O M O) Cl) (D T O N O n U) O U) O O) co N M y _h W u7 O N v� V of d' O V N O M O N O r O O O O to 0) O M v N r r n O N Lf) to Ln N d' r O O w N L' M lc U) m et m N (`') � M (D V' 0) Cl) O U) n LA Ln Cl) M N U) co U) +�+ 3 0 N N N O N N r N co M 1` M ; C a d a x W to t» . t» 6s to to to 60 t» t» to to 64 (fl to to to 60 to 69 w is tH t» I t» t!9 tf! w to 69 (fl (» 60. 69 t» to t» to to O O O O O O 40 O CO e` r W O V n O O Cl) � M N r n N O N V i" co O O 6 Cl) O N M 0) W U) (0 N w N t0 N C — V V N V a r a V N N N N U) O co (D N t0 N (D .£ E O U 69 to 69 to EA 611, 10 EA 69 69 69 61), fR Cfs V9 69 (ii 69 tf} to 69 64 (A Ul 64 bI 64 M ER 6e Uf - . ;- to to to 69 b9 6R 69 tq 69 O O O O O O O O N (D O O N tD N tD O O 0 O 0 O 0 U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln N N O O O O O O O N O O O O m O O m O O O v 0 6 6 6 O 0 6 6 O O Kt U) w O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m O O O O O O O u) LO M O M L() N N LA O O O O O c0 M 'li 0 CO 0 h 0 u) 0 O O O 0 O 0 M 0 O O O M N N O O O O O 00 to .d d 'O V' U) LD w Ln co O co CD W O n O V U) Cl) O Cl) N c0 O O V) N O U1 fl- co M d- co M M to M M to M M M N r m h r r N O r N O r Ln P C O d � Cl) M v to (n N (D CD O am 69 69 69 vi EA to E9 E9 tti to EA to tR 64 69 69 fA 69 64 64 E9 ff3 Eff EA EA EJ> 69 69 64 69 to EA to EA fA 69 69 d9 69 6R EA W 0 O U U 0 ¢ W O m Z W Z W U ~ Z 2 U Z CA Q O } F- 0 w J JO J Q d O W> W Z W 2' U cn o V( LLJ Z) ? _ w w Z m a ¢ a (wn J w w (j W Q �Q z U w O m¢ J g Z Z O D W w O O z CL < Z W _j O?¢ F- z CO W W F=- W W W Z m Z z w Z w Z U Z W W Z F- U U W W> W W LL U Q z Fw- O d z z d} Z ¢ E- O z p p ¢¢ W ¢ m W } z 0 f= J _W � W =¢ F ~ ¢ 0 w z U F- O p F- xx Q F- �' b 2 U' U' (n p ♦- U' U) ¢ O Z W J a ¢ U� W z J P .- Z Z U of W J Z i- fn Li u ry Q' F Cn W > Z Z U Z¢ < w Z ¢¢> W U - S W c� W D r r ¢¢ w( U O UL o ¢ Q� W F- w m p O U) w w O U w cn o (n U °° a z O p Cn F- w D > >= g cn w w w W w w w w � W w U U z J O O W Q m O W O F- w J F- w F- ♦- W ww > > m ¢ F- f- W Z U) fn >} o U J W W W W S Q `d S Z Z U J Ix W Z = w¢ > ¢ U) LL to W w Lt_ In K J S Z 2 7 W 1~i. > w> Q Q C7 ¢ F- C7 U 2 F- Q J C7 W U ti d S W d a¢¢ U¢ U (n H U O IL ? z w¢¢ � F- F- U U w z F- O F- z w z w Z- O ? d cn 11 _, w F O w O O w F- O a O ¢ >> w w O F- a. J U W o F- m m F- a, � E- N M LO tD n O W r r � r N M M r a: N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M V s L � N 7 04 � N u c u � J 7 t 'l 161 2 A 191 r M Cl) M tR V V C14 m (A M M t N M d C J Q d m a) N H O � 3 N mm}p` > > V Q) N CO Cc X O J F M N a) a X C C C LL LL LL H O O Or >- } }r LL LL LL LL Cl) N 00 tD 00 n N ID O .0 A V M (00 M r Cl) Cl) M M N y C E 0 o O m I I a) n 'O m m U 0. -a x N_ O 00 r LL M 0 } O N O Q 0 V N (D � r O } O1 V LL p M O m d W O (O 0 0 C 0 0 r M 0 0 0 (O 0 0 0 N O 00 O O O LO 00 (0 0 N f`- O (O V O O M O O O O tO O t0 0 r N 0 0 0 m W M M V 0 0 0 O O N O O N t` �� m M O t- N O O N O O N O N t.- O O O w O V t0 O O O� N U) O N m h V m m n n M m M O O t- m O O O tD m O 00 O W m 0 M N O N CD �• m M V V 00 co N N 00 t0 o m n V IO 00 M � OS CO to V N (1') N t` 00 M M V m 00 IO •- tt O M t` .- M M V m O n N M N O fl - a (N W L (O u) M V m M V O V Cl) M t() tt) (O M - � 00 N Cl) V 00 O V� (D U (a a N N (O N - N .- (fi fA 69 Vi Ffl fA 69 tH U> fA (a (A fA to 6a.. 6o 60) va 6,3- K) 69 69 69 69 091 fH vi to Ki uqi 691v> 1 69 1 (si vi 1 to 69 fA 69 V! 6-T 69 O M 0 N 0 O 0 to M N V h O 0 O 0 O 0 N 0 O 0 M (D O f` O O O N O n 0 0 CO to O N c O 1- N V O O O to V O V M (t1 O C C (0 tn O O N to O N V O N 00 (D ti 00 O r co N N C N N m N N f` m (D V •� �' N N N r V CO N M �• N N E CD /fi Hi d4 E9 (3T (fi (fi 64 G'? lif W fA FI3 64 (A [F} ca M !A (» ER c 69 1-1- 69 U3 E914171 (A tO 1 69 (R 64 KT 64 Ki f? to 64 64 (R V N N y C lU tU p L U E A a z E Il N (D m L y C Im n C O qy y ' C m tD O (D C C 43 y m �_ tT m 0) m N >' U) O) C O N U y a E w (U E E C O N U C .Q (1 U LL '.C- -. O y N .0.. m m y C -t C `= - U O L y Q' L y (0 y C- i V tU m y y y (D y (D E a N C m m !- m E y 0 IV a O m .O w C °- L d m c t 'n N .Q O (/3 y v m O N a C m 'eo O U �,' o C 'y U 2 c m .S C :? N ,U U m � m a) m n d c m J o N (n m = m n Q) y c = c m 3 (° ti m _ a� m J a> c°i n °' m O (n y d m m d N� Z �6 3 (n m m U c O N Z an (3 d (n >, C N �' In a y �' (n o y m C m a y _° �• m U N C fn Tin •-• m N aa)) �' OC _ N N C (n C E U - U L y y C N _ C c C L V p) Z a (n m C 'm .� rz (U C m N y w .@ w m N m .2 y N. Of � (D 7 E a) O O y h 'N y m m N 0, N N O ,� o N N E= d O a) (� CL m H ,- a U a in w u U l- () 5 .- E <n (n a (n = _, O (n x t- V U V O) V (f) m V O) V (O N 0D V V O O V N r t0 Cl) 00 O co (.) L) O r V O N tO N N m 00 t` V O) M m m O N m O� a0 00 t` O 00 m V N N N V V V (n O Cl) N O (D N N M (D m t` t0 U) W) M V tfi N (D N V (D M V N co M N V Cl) V co V (O V N m N O t- M V N N N N N 00 M N U U N N '- V t` t() O O O r t` m 00 m V (O N Cl) M m co M W M CD t0 N M M O V M (O V M O N V N r N N N_ N_ N_ _N N_ N_ N_ N_ N V N N_ N_ N N_ M N _N �_ �_ O �_ _� N_ fD -- 00 N - Q. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O to o O 0 O C) tt) 0 (O 0 t0 0 2 0 (O 0 U) 0 (O 0 LO C) M 0 (O 0 O C) (O 0 tO 0 (O 0 (O O 0 m 0 LO 0 (O 0 to 0 (O 0 (O 0 LO 0 O O 0 0 (O (O Cl C) tO C) (O 0 (O 0 (f') 0 t0 0 (O 0 (O 0 N 0 LO V to t0 V V V V V V V V V V to V V V V m V V V V V V V IO V u) V V V (O V V V V V V V V V V V V V V a) a) y O W O y O y O N V) 0 y 0 U U U p U U cm cm c c U E C C C C C C C O L L L L O m Z C �'m'm'm'm'm'� C TG (� m O M N L mm J J J m J Q C: d' c. d E C c C a C -o C -o C C U O U n E N m c 41 tD tD w y 3 N m xs ca 66 at$ (p H C e C y y O J J J cu J J J J y tD C .0 U y Q' d C O _: O O Z C C C C C C j U U > m ti E m m m -Fu c c m m C o C9 c c c c c -' 'E n i4 to v E o c x 'c x X �' O W i i° E E- U •°- .�: .v_ rn rn m (� c c c d E 0 cA m u c c N u a) a to u d O d E c '- c a) y N w a) ayi m y Il a y Y m E E E E E E E m Y N =_ d 7 O J J 0 J J J .a 0, Q. Q .. - 2, 7 .0 7 _ y •l0 E E O co C J J � J 0 Q Q Q U U U U U 010, U U W li LL 1, - : Z Q' 2 i fA w (n FE H S i r M Cl) M tR V V C14 m (A M M t N M d C J Q d m a) N H O � 3 N mm}p` > > V Q) N CO Cc X O J F M N a) a X C C C LL LL LL H O O Or >- } }r LL LL LL LL Cl) N 00 tD 00 n N ID O .0 A V M (00 M r Cl) Cl) M M N y C E 0 o O m I I a) n 'O m m U 0. -a x N_ O 00 r LL M 0 } O N O Q 0 V N (D � r O } O1 V LL p M O m d W 1612 A19° Report Date: 29, 2011 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Immokalee MSTU Project Status (IMM -25) —IQ Water Supply Project 04- 27 -11: Staff is coordinating with Immokalee Water & Sewer in obtaining Re -Use Water (IQ water) for landscaping in medians and ROW. Project Plans are under review to coordinate on locating existing irrigation lines and wire. 05- 25 -11: Immokalee Water & Sewer indicated project bid was rejected. 06- 29 -11: Bid award is pending through Immokalee Water & Sewer (RVIM-24A) — COMPLETED - Cemetery Project — Planting Project 04- 27 -11: Landscaping is installed; some additional plants will be installed after completion of the fence installation. 05- 16 -11: Permit Issued. 05- 25 -11: Project will be completed by end of day on 5- 25 -11. 05- 26 -11: Project confirmed complete. (note: additional plantings of vines by CLM to be done). (IMM -23) — COMPLETED - Christmas Lighting Project 04- 27 -11: Lighting project was received with positive comments /calls into county office. Next year additional garland may be added to the lights. (WIM-23) — COMPLETED- Banner Project 04- 27 -11: Project completed. (RAM-22) — Cross -Walks & Sightline Study 04- 27 -11: Review and Coordination with FDOT is on- going. FDOT will install new cross -walks at no cost to the MSTU /County. Some additional modifications to `bulb -outs' is under review at this time. Sight - line issues identified are to be addressed for public safety. 05- 25 -11: FDOT work will begin on June 16, 2011. 06- 29 -11: JRL Design to present project plans (30 -60% completion) (I1vM -20) — COMPLETED - First Street & Hwy 29 Survey 04- 27 -11: Survey is 100% completed. (IMM -19) — COMPLETED - Vt Street Irrigation/Landscape Refurbishment Project 04- 27 -11: Project is 100% completed. As built plans are being updated by JRL Design. (BIM -18) — ACTIVE- Hwy 29 Irrigation/Landscape Refurbishment Project 04- 27 -11: Staff held coordination meeting with Contractor E.B. Simmonds to review project scope and obtain pricing from E.B. Simmonds on annual county contract. Material supply from Ag- Tronix for Motorola equipment was reviewed and quote is pending from Ag- Tronix. 05- 25 -11: Ag- Tronix provided quote for material purchase for refurbishment. 06- 29 -11: E.B. Simmonds provided quote for installation of new sleeves for irrigation water supply. (IMM -15) — ACTIVE- ONGOING —LA Maintenance Consulting Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services 05- 25 -11: Ongoing Services from JRL Design (IMM -11) — ACTIVE- ONGOING — Roadway Maintenance: BID #09 -5264 05- 25 -11: Contract #09 -5264, " Immokalee Road MSTU/MSTD Landscape Maintenance" 4 D E S I G JRL N STUDIOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING DESIGN June 17, 2011 Ms. Pamela Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager Immokalee Beautification, M.S.T.U. Collier County Traffic Operations & Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 South Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 161 z John P. Ribes, FASLA Florida Department of Transportation Work Program RFP # 08 -5060 Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Re: Carson Road Sidewalk West side from Lake Trafford Rd. to Westclox Rd. A191 As per your request JRL Design Studios submits the following proposal of services for the above described project along with the attached requested documents as feasible within the limited time frame requirement. Scope of services Prepare a sidewalk design layout plan for the west side of Carson Road from Lake Trafford Road to Westclox Road. The proposed sidewalk will be designed in compliance with Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT) and ADA standards and shall include paving modifications to one transit stop to comply with current County standard requirements. The plans shall be based on accurate base data & survey provided by Collier County. Also incorporated is a civil engineering review and certification with Florida Department of Transportation requirements. The services and deliverables are outlined by the following tasks and shall be on a time and materials agreement in accordance with the current schedule of fees for Landscape Architecture — Schedule B and Engineering /Survey — Schedule B attached. Task I : Proaram and Design Criteria Development A coordination meeting with County staff to outline desired criteria and design direction for the sidewalk location, alignment and details, and the transit stop modifications criteria. Task II : Base Preparation Collection and review of existing conditions based on accurate data/survey provided by Collier County. If sufficient or accurate plans are not available the preparation of the required survey and data plans shall be an additional service prepared by Q. Grady Minor & Associates, PA. A written proposal will be submitted for authorization prior to commencement of work. Task III : 60% Construction Documents Plans Sidewalk design plans at 60% completion submitted to County and FDOT for review, input, comments and authorization to continue progress. 60 days review turn around is anticipated. Deliverables will include a preliminary opinion of probable construction costs. Task IV: Civil Engineering Plan Review & Report A review of the sidewalk plans by a Professional Engineer to certify compliance with FDOT standards as may be required by FDOT. The deliverable will be a marked up copy of the 60% Construction documents and an engineering report outlining required modification to satisfy FDOT standard compliance. Task IV will be prepared by Q. Grady Minor and Associastes, PA. 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 email: studio(a)irl- design.com website: www.irl- design.com Page 1 JRL DES 1 G N STUDIOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING DESIGN Task V : 100% Construction Documents Plan 1612 A19'1 John P. Ribes, FASLA !00% Construction Documents of sidewalk and transit stop plans submitted for County and FDOT review, input, comments, and authorization to progress to final documents. Deliverable will include an update of preliminary opinion of probable construction costs. Task VI : Final Plans Submittal of final construction documents incorporating required input based on the County and FDOT review process. Task VII : Reimbursable expenses Job Consultants: Civil Engineering review will be performed by Q. Grady Minor, Inc. Should survey, structural, and /or electrical engineering participation be required under the additional services outlined the following firms on the County approved list will be retained: Survey — Q. Grady Minor & Associates, PA. Road Work Civil — Q. Grady Minor, Inc. Schedule Work will be performed on the following schedule: Task 1 — Program Development Task 2 — Base Preparation Task 3 — 60% Construction Documents Task 4 —Civil Engineering Review Task 5 —100% Construction Documents Task 6 — Final Plans Submittal Final Plans Acceptance July 15, 2011 (30 days from N.T.P.) September 1, 2011 October 1, 2011 December 1, 2011 March 1, 2012 May 1, 2012 June 1, 2012 Above schedule is subject to notice to proceed no later than July 15, 2011; availability of accurate base survey data and timely County & FDOT review turn around. Additional Services An Engineering survey and reconnaissance of existing conditions if required to proved adequate, accurate data to prepare the sidewalk design plan shall be prepared by Q. Grady Minor and Associates, PA. Based on an estimate received from Q. Grady Minor and Associates, PA the cost of the survey shall be in the range of $8,700.00 to $ 10,900.00. A written proposal will be submitted for a work order and notice to proceed prior to the initiation of scope of work and services. Exclusions This proposal only includes those items specifically identified and does not include any other additional services. If the scope of services changes or is modified JRL Design Studios, LLC will notify you of the change and any related cost or time schedule requirements. The following specific services are excluded: 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 email: studio(a)irl- design.com website: www. *rl- design.com Page 2 JRL DESIGN STUDIOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING DESIGN 1612 John P. Ribes, FASLA A191 1. Plans and specifications for new or replacement driveway aprons. 2. Plans and specifications for drainage structures. 3. Submittal of plans for review to FDOT, Lee County Electric Coop, Immokalee Water and Sewer District, other appropriate jurisdictional governmental agencies and telephone and cable TV providers. 4. Permit submittal and related signed and sealed engineering plans. It is anticipated that a FDEP Stormwater construction general permit and a Collier County R.O.W. permit may be required. Collier county Development services and environmental permits are not expected to be required. 5. Bidding Assistance. 6. Construction Contract administrative assistance. All of these services can be provided and upon request a written proposal will be submitted for the issuance of a work order and notice to proceed. Compensation Task I - Program Development Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 4 $128.00 $ 512.00 (Time & Materials) Landscape Architect 2 $120.00 $ 240.00 (Time & Materials) Technical Staff 6 $ 62.00 $ 372.00 (Time & Materials) Administrative 2 $ 55.00 $ 110.00 (Time & Materials) Total $1,234.00 (T &M) Task II - Base Preparation Task III -60% Construction_ Documents Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 2 $128.00 $ 256.00 (Time & Materials) Landscape Architect 2 $120.00 $ 240.00 (Time & Materials) Technical Staff 16 $ 62.00 $ 992.00 (Time & Materials) Total 24 $ 62.00 $1,488.00 (T &M) (Time & Materials) Task III -60% Construction_ Documents Task IV - Civil Engineering Plan Review & Report Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 4 $128.00 $ 512.00 (Time & Materials) Landscape Architect 8 $120.00 $ 960.00 (Time & Materials) Design Associate 8 $ 75.00 $ 600.00 (Time & Materials) Technical Staff 24 $ 62.00 $1,488.00 (Time & Materials) Administrative 4 $ 55.00 $ 220.00 (Time & Materials) Total 4 $ 60.00 $3,780.00 (T &M) (Time & Materials) Task IV - Civil Engineering Plan Review & Report 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 email: stud io(a)irl- design.com website: www.brl- design.com Page 3 Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 2 $128.00 $ 256.00 (Time & Materials) Principal (Q. Grady Minor) 3 $195.00 $ 585.00 (Time & Materials) Project Manager 6 $165.00 $ 990.00 (Time & Materials) Senior Engineer 8 $155.00 $1,240.00 (Time & Materials) Engineer 24 $119.00 $2,856.00 (Time & Materials) Clerical 4 $ 60.00 $ 240.00 (Time & Materials) Administrative Assistant 4 $ 55.00 $ 220.00 (Time & Materials) Total $6,387.00 (T &M) 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 email: stud io(a)irl- design.com website: www.brl- design.com Page 3 D E S I G JRL N STUDIOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING DESIGN Task V —!00% Construction Documents Est. Hrs Current Rate Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 4 $128.00 Landscape Architect 8 $120.00 Technical Staff 24 $ 62.00 Administrative 2 $ 55.00 Total Task VI — Final Plans Acceptance Est. Hrs Current Rate Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 2 $128.00 Landscape Architect 2 $120.00 Technical Staff 8 $ 62.00 Administrative 4 $ 55.00 Total Task VII — Reimbursable Expenses Total Task I thru VII 19 1612 John P. Ribes, FASLA Est. Cost $ 512.00 (Time & Materials) $ 960.00 (Time & Materials) $1,488.00 (Time & Materials) Est. Cost $ 256.00 (Time & Materials) $ 240.00 (Time & Materials) $ 496.00 (Time & Materials) $ 220.00 (Time & Material $ 1,212.00 (T &M) $ 850.00 $18,021.00 JRL Design Studios, LLC submits this proposal for your review, submittal to Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Board approval, execution of a work order and authorization to proceed as required to meet the desired schedule. Respectfully submitted, John P. Ribes, FLASLA President of JRL Design Studios, LLC 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378 email: studio(cDirl- design.com website: www.orl- design.com Page 4 8 161 2 A19'4 Name of Applying Agency: Collier County Government; Growth Management Division, Alternative Transportation Modes Department, Immokalee MSTU Contact Person (Name & Title): Darryl Richard, Project Manager Email: DarrylRichard @Colliergov.net Phone: (239)252 -5775 Mailing Address:2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Your signature indicates that the information included with this application is accurate. Signature: Date: Check below which of the required agencies is anticipated to be the Maintaining Agency: ❑ City® County Name of Maintaining Agency: Collier County Government; Growth Management Division, Alternative Transportation Modes Department, Immokalee MSTU Contact Person (Name & Title): Michelle Arnold, ATM Director Email: MichelleArnold @Colliergov.net Phone: (239)252 -5841 Mailing Address: 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Your signature indicates your concurrence with the information provided within this application and your agency's willingness to allow this improvement within your right -of -way and enter into the appropriate Local Agency Program (LAP) or maintenance agreement as applicable. Signature: Date: If the City or County is located within an M/TPO area, a M/TPO representative must fill in the required information below: Name of M/TPO: Lorraine M. Lantz Contact Person (Name & Title): Lorraine M. Lantz,Principal Planner Email: LorraineLantz @colliergov.net Phone: (239) 252 -8192 Mailing Address: 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Your signature indicates the WO has reviewed the application for consistency with all applicable adopted plans as well as program requirements and supports the proposed project. Signature: For FDOT Use Only: Application Complete ❑ Yes ❑ No Implementation Feasible ❑ Yes ❑ No Liaison LAP Coordinator Date: Project Eligible ❑ Yes ❑ No Recommend Programming ❑ Yes ❑ No 161 �. A191 Production Staff SWAO Director (if applicable) Director of Production Project Information: Project Category: Choose an item. If other, please indicate funding source being sought. Pathways Project Name (Street Name): The west side of Carson Road Project Limits (From & To) (if not at an intersection, use logical termini): from Westclox Road to Lake Trafford Detailed project description: (lane width; design — rural or curb & gutter; shoulder width, paved or grass; signals; median width, painted, grass or raised, etc.) a. Existing Conditions (provide labeled & dated pictures): Attached b. Proposed Improvements: add new concrete sidewalk - ADA compliant - 2250 LF Cost Estimate by Phase: Date project was endorsed by local jurisdictional board/council. Provide certified meeting minutes: The project was endorsed by the MSTU to prepare the initial study and recommendations. Formalize approval of each project will be obtained and formal motions made to satisfy this document through the ATM Department. 10 Planning PD &E Design (PE) ROW Construction Study Cost Estimate $18,021.00 $211,200.00 (Present Day Cost) Fiscal Year Funding Available Phase Status Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started Not Started ❑ 30% ❑ 30% E130% ❑ 30% ❑ 30% ❑ 60% ❑ 60% E160% ❑ 60% ❑ 60% ❑ 90% ❑ 90% ❑ 90% ❑ 90% ❑ 90% ❑ Complete ❑ Complete ❑ Complete ❑ Complete ❑ Complete ® N/A ®N /A ❑ N/A ® N/A ❑ N/A Funding Type ❑ Federal ❑ Federal ❑ Federal ❑ Federal ❑ Federal (Local, State or ❑ State ❑ State ❑ State ❑ State ❑ State Federal) ❑ Local ❑ Local ❑ Local ❑ Local ❑ Local Date project was endorsed by local jurisdictional board/council. Provide certified meeting minutes: The project was endorsed by the MSTU to prepare the initial study and recommendations. Formalize approval of each project will be obtained and formal motions made to satisfy this document through the ATM Department. 10 161 z a19' Is the Project in the Metropolitan/Transportation Planning Organization's (M/TPO) Financially Feasible Long Range Transportation Plan: Yes ® No ❑ N/A ❑ If yes, provide page #: If no, the project cannot be considered at this time. Is the Project in the local jurisdictions Capital Improvement Plan: Yes ® No ❑ If yes, provide an adopted copy. Is the applicant LAP certified? Yes ® No ❑ Constructability Review: For items 2 — 7 provide labeled & dated photos. 1. Are there any other projects programmed (local, state or federal) within the project limits? Yes ❑ No ® If yes, please provide details, including but not limited to, project scope and schedule. 2. Does the applicant have an adopted ADA transition plan? Yes ❑ No ® Identify areas within the project limits that will require ADA retrofit. 3. Bus Stops/Shelters/Benches: (Number, type, etc.) 1 - Covered 4. Drainage Structures: (Number of Culverts or Pipes currently in place; type, replace, extend, etc.) 10 Does the project fall within an area covered by a stormwater master plan? Yes ❑ No ® If yes, please provide a copy of the plan. 5. Any excavation greater than one foot below land surface? Yes ❑ No ® If yes, give locations: 6. Utilities: Yes ® No ❑ If yes, please list specific utilities within project limits and any issues. COLLIER COUNTY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES, COMCAST, EMBARQ, LCEC, US TELECOM LLC, Immokalee Water & Sewer, TECO Gas 7. Bridges within project limits: Yes ❑ No ® Can existing bridges accommodate proposed improvements? Yes ❑ No 8. Right -of -way (Existing Width) See letter E under "Required Documentation ": 9. Additional Right- of- way/Easement Required: Yes ❑ No ® If yes, project is not eligible at this time. If Right -of -Way was previously acquired, please provide documentation supporting process consistent with 49 CFR Part 24 was followed. 10. Is there a railroad within the project limits: Yes ❑ No ® If yes, project cannot be considered. For items 11 — 17 if the answer is yes please provide additional details, including the credentials for the person responding and by what method was the information obtained kthe answer is no please note how this conclusion was drawn. 11. Are there any permits required ?: Yes ® No ❑ Right of way permit for cosntruction within right of way. 12. Are there any wetlands within the project limits: Yes ❑ No 13. Is there any critical habitat within the project limits: Yes ❑ No 14. Are there any endangered species within the project limits: Yes ❑ No 161 2 'A19 15. Is a historic survey required: Yes ❑ No 16. Is Recreational or 4(f) property within the project limits: Yes ❑ No 17. Are there any contamination areas within the project limits: Yes ❑ No 18. Additional Information: None IE Professional SCHEDULE B RATE SCHEDULE Credentials n 1612 Hourly Fee Principal/Senior Landscape Architect RLA $128.00 *Senior level Florida registered professional with 15+ years of experience Landscape Architect $120.00 *Degreed landscape professional from accredited University, pre - registered or recently registered Design Associate $75.00 AutoCAD Technician $62.00 Administrative Assistant, Secretary, $55.00 This list is not intended to be all inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support, and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and the firm on a project -by- project basis as needed. END OF SCHEDULE B X19" w' I 3 161 2 ki 9 This list is not intended to be all - inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and fine on a project by project basis as needed. Schedule B Contract No: 09 -5262 "County Wide Engineering Services" Standard Hourly Rate Schedule for all disciplines Personnel Cate-go ry Standard Hourly Rate Principal $195 Senior Project Manager $165 Project Manager $148 Senior Engineer $155 Engineer $119 Senior Inspector $85 Inspector $65 Senior Planner $140 Planner $110 Senior Designer $115 Designer $100 Environmental Specialist $115 Senior GIS Specialist $145 GIS Specialist $100 Clerical $60 Surveyor and Mapper $130 CADD Technician $85 Surrey Crew - 2 man $130 Surrey Crew - 3 man $160 Survey Crew - 4 man $180 This list is not intended to be all - inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and fine on a project by project basis as needed. 161 2 x'19'' JR DES 1 LGN STUDIOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN June 17, 2011 Ms. Pamela Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager Immokalee Beautification, M.S.T.U. Collier County Traffic Operations & Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 South Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Landscape Architecture & Landscape Maintenance Annual Services Proposal Services Contract RFP # 08 -5060, for Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Dear Ms. Lulich, As requested, the following is presented for your review and approval. The landscape architectural consulting services will be provided on a monthly basis generally coordinated with M.S.T.U. Advisory committee monthly meetings. Limited design and /or maintenance recommendation services will be quoted on a per project basis due to the unknown requirements of the work to be performed. The proposed services agreement period will be from July 15, 2011 to July 15, 2012 JRL Design Studios, LLC agrees to provide the following services. Landscape Architecture Consulting Services "Scope of Services" Task I : Monthly Services (Estimated) • Perform limited on -site observations of M.S.T.U. areas with the maintenance Contractor, Contract Manager and /or M.S.T.U. Committee representative for the purpose of quality assurance. • Review and comment on the "General Maintenance Report Sheets" which is required to be submitted by the Contractor with pay request submittals. • Provide written and /or oral comments and recommendations based upon on -site observations of the M.S.T.U. areas addressing: improvements, landscape plant and irrigations maintenance problems or deficiencies. • Comment on the performance of the maintenance or installation (if appropriate) Contractor in regards to the required contracted specifications. • Submit monthly written report to M.S.T.U. & Collier Conty Alternative Transportation staff 3 days prior to M.S.T.U. meetings. 405 a Ave South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 Page 1 of 3 T239.261.4007 F239.261.5378 email: studio(a) jrl- design.com website: www.jrl- design.com 161,2 A19 ' Task 11 : Upon Request Limited Refurbishment Design Services (Estimated) • Provide limited (minor) refurbishment design services and observation of installation on an as requested basis, i.e. deliverables /functions might be as follows: 1. Diagrammatic area sketch planting plans with a recommended plan list. 2. Plant field locations by staking, flagging or paint marking. 3. Minor recommended design directive reports. 4. Estimated cost opinions of minor design installation. Upon request JRL Design Studios, LLC will submit an estimated time input for deliverables requested and advise staff if time exceeds current work order. Task III : Upon Request Miscellaneous Services (Estimated) • Provide assistance in developing the contract maintenance specifications. • Meet with Contract Manager to review and provide comments for annual maintenance specifications updating for contract and /or bidding purposes. • Attend maintenance pre -bid meetings and assist in preparing any necessary addendum. • Interact periodically with the Contract Manager. • Provide review and comment on: 1. Bids and Committee agenda items 2. New products when requested by the Contractor and/ or Contract Manager. 3. Maintenance Contractor's ornamental spray program. Compensation Task I: Monthlv Consultation Based upon the general scope of services and past experience regarding landscape maintenance consulting services, JRL Design Studios, LLC will provide monthly landscape maintenance consulting services for an annual fee on an hourly basis as follows: Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 68 $128.00 $8,704.00 (Time & Materials) Landscape Architect 40 $120.00 $4,800.00 (Time & Materials) Design Associate 24 $ 75.00 $1,800.00 (Time & Materials) Technical Staff 20 $ 62.00 $1,240.00 (Time & Materials) Administrative 40 $ 55.00 $2.200.00 (Time & Materials) Total $18,744.00 Task II: Upon Request Limited Design Services (Limited to Minor Design Direction Recommendations) The Limited Refurbishment Design Services fees will be billed as time and materials only upon written request for services. Due to the unknown requirements of the work to be performed, we would estimate the annual services to be as follows. Written authorization by County Project Manager is required prior to commencement of services outlined. Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 24 $128.00 $3,072.00 (Time & Materials) Landscape Architect 28 $120.00 $3,360.00 (Time & Materials) Design Associate 20 $ 75.00 $1,500.00 (Time & Materials) Technical Staff 32 $ 62.00 $1,984.00 (Time & Materials) Administrative 16 $ 55.00 $ 880.00 (Time & Materials) Total $10,796.00 405 5"' Ave South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 Page 2 of 3 T239.261.4007 F239.261.5378 email: studioeirl -desi n7 com website: www.jrl- design.com I� 1612 A19� Task 111: Upon Request Miscellaneous Services (Estimated) The miscellaneous services will be performed on an hourly basis and is estimated as follows. Prior written authorization County Project Manager is required prior to commencement of services outlined. Principal /Senior Landscape Architect Landscape Architect Design Associate Technical Staff Administrative Total Reimbursable Expenses Total Task I, 11, & III Est. Hrs Current Rate 24 $128.00 16 $120.00 12 $ 75.00 8 $ 62.00 411 t. cc An Est. Cost $3,072.00 $1,920.00 $ 900.00 $ 496.00 $ 660.00 $ 7,048.00 $ 1,000.00 $37,588.00 (Time & Materials) (Time & Materials) (Time & Materials) (Time & Materials) Please submit this proposal for the execution of an official work order. We are looking forward to working with you department in improving, maintaining and enhancing the M.S.T.U. areas. Respectfully Submitted, John P. Ribes President JRL Design Studios, LLC 405 5"' Ave South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 Page 3 of 3 T 239.261.4007 F 239.261.5378 email: studiogirl- desien.com website: www.jrl- design.com J.RL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5th AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 161 2 A'19 ' June 27, 2011 D&n(f Q3 &P(@ p@)Ut COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® MSTU Committee PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500116856 REPORT NUMBER: 35 CONTRACTOR: CLM JRL COMM No: 9003 Date: 5/25 & 6/13 Weather: Cloudy w Estimate % Complete: N/A 6/20/2011 showers Time: Varies Temp Range: 93 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: May 25: Darryl from Collier County & Richard Tindell June 13 & June 20: Richard Tindell, solo observation WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor crew not present OBSERVATIONS: Little trash observed basically no change from last months report. Routine maintenance work has been performed. FDOT signal and crosswalk project has not started. Oak tree down at New Market & Main - reported. Many corrections / improvements have not progressed in the field. REVIEWS: REPORT: County and FDOT Standards. Maintenance agreement, previous suggestions and work orders Reviewed last report, over all conditions and status of work orders and direction from County with Pam, Darryl and CLM. Condition and use observation of 2 bus stops along First suggest improvements are needed - a new bench on First near Sheriff's office observed, needs leveling. A brick planter has been hit and several crown -of- thorns damage - replacement needed. An oak tree is down from a wind event at New Market and Main Street and a banner has torn lose - incident report called in and maintenance notified. A dead tree was identified on First Street near the Casino. Also the connection bolts and wire at the recently removed light pole present a hazard - incident reported. 161 2 A'191 Routine maintenance work has been performed and trash removed. The no overfull trash containers this period. With the flush of spring growth, the MSTU areas of responsibility are continuing to look better. All planting areas continue to need to be trimmed to meet County and FDOT standards, especially within site triangles. One median on Main has not been planted - waiting for connection to irrigation system - a planting of Lantana might be a good suggestion as a temporary solution. The broken bollard on Main near 5t" has not been repaired or replaced. This was reported last May. Several of the plants along first Street median show nutrient deficiencies although improved from last report - consider an application of nitrogen with minor elements. Completion of Cemetery renovations are awaiting completion of street side planting and vines along fencing. Suggest a mix of purple and white Lantana be planted between the fence and confederate jasmine be used in place of the white alamanda specified (contractor cannot locate) No news on Reclaimed water project and re -bid. Coordination with FDOT crossing renovation impacts the Main Street Irrigation Project. A technical review of the Main Street Site line and pedestrian areas (bulb -out, benches, planting areas, etc) is completed and Schematic Concept Plan issued for MSTU and Staff approval ACTION REQUIRED: Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Suggest irrigation water use study, check easements along First for future plantings Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 R p � c 1 HO z LZL sg �N O� Op Ol �2 O a�M �I g og� <s 0 �M �oz I� p i i �I n� n� � did Y .90 0 �y n ~ �NM O r�� - a '^ s 4� � aTmn nNF L >€ �t 0 m o � D 0P-4 mo r N �n o° 0 gmrn 8 C �o OzI.- Z V) E-• r � IMMOKALE Main Street Ren< 11 1 Immokalee, Florii :E MSTU Ovation Project do a" ° c D E= n � Ar- 0 N �M �oz I� p i i �I n� n� � did Y .90 0 �y n ~ �NM O r�� - a '^ s 4� � aTmn nNF L >€ �t 0 m o � D 0P-4 mo r N �n o° 0 gmrn 8 C �o OzI.- Z V) E-• r � IMMOKALE Main Street Ren< 11 1 Immokalee, Florii :E MSTU Ovation Project do a" ° c D E= H I i I •' I �cl 1Q f::l I Ij I 0 z m y CO H m m a 3 � N � m Q; o � O y 2 � � o � g H m �o CL o� 2 A 3 � €s 0 o r 5; = Z w M ND� Gi ° z n � Ar- g'm N 'N, sC T$ i �' -'_• H n� ga ms �o, Z y 14.5' _...�. _. , (Ytn.l *I ~ R/W Ltne - it w I Y i i t o n VI 3 H I i I •' I �cl 1Q f::l I Ij I 0 z m y CO H m m a 3 � N � m Q; o � O y 2 � � o � g H m �o CL o� 2 A 3 � €s 0 o r 5; = Z w M ND� Gi ° z 1612 %19 go EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves the transfer of administrative and management duties for the Immokalee Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit from Growth Management staff to Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) staff; direct the Budget Office to discontinue the annual transfer of funds from the Immokalee Beautification MSTU (Fund 162) to the MSTD General Fund (Fund 111) as of FY11 -12. OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board approval to transfer administrative and management duties for the Immokalee Beatification MSTU from Growth Management Division staff to Immokalee CRA staff and discontinue the transfer of funds from the Immokalee Beautification MSTU (Fund 162) to the MSTD General Fund (Fund 111) with an effective date of October 1, 2011. CONSIDERATIONS: On the County Manager received a letter from the Immokalee CRA Executive Director requesting that the administration and management of the Immokalee Beautification MSTU be transferred from the Growth Management Division to Immokalee CRA staff. The County Manager and Growth Management Division Administrator agree with that request. FISCAL IMPACT: The budgeted transfer from the Immokalee Beautification MSTU to the MSTD General Fund, in the amount of $33,600, for administrative and management duties will be discontinued. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney Office. It is not quasi-judicial and requires no ex parte disclosure. A majority vote is necessary for Board action. _ GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the transfer of administrative and management duties for the Immokalee Beatification MSTU from Growth Management Division staff to Immokalee CRA staff and discontinue and redirect the transfer of funds from the Immokalee Beautification MSTU (Fund 162) to the MSTD General Fund (Fund 111) with an effective date of October 1, 2010. Prepared By: Penny Phillippi, Executive Director, Collier County CRA - Immokalee 161 2x'19 Class Code: 13875 Pay Grade: 22 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION CLASSIFICATION TITLE: PROJECT MANAGER PURPOSE OF CLASSIFICATION The purpose of this classification is to manage and coordinate activities of construction projects for an assigned department. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS The following duties are normal for this position. The omission of specific statements of the duties does not exclude them from the classification if the work is similar, related, or a logical assignment for this classification. Other duties may be required and assigned. Provides direction, guidance and assistance to contractors and work crews; coordinates daily work activities; organizes, prioritizes, and assigns work; monitors status of work in progress and inspects completed work; confers with contractors and work crews, assists with complex/problem situations, and provides technical expertise. Ensures compliance with all applicable codes, laws, rules, regulations, standards, policies and procedures; ensures adherence to established safety procedures; monitors work environment and use of safety equipment to ensure safety of employees and other individuals; interprets construction plans and specifications; researches code books as needed; initiates any actions necessary to correct deviations or violations. Consults with department management or other officials to review status of department projects, review /resolve problems, receive advice /direction, and provide recommendations. Reviews construction plans, designs, and specifications pertaining to projects; develops designs, drawings, or maps associated with proposed or approved projects; makes recommendations concerning improvements, modifications, design strategies, structural systems, or other aspects of project development. Prepares and administers project budgets; submits justifications for budget requests; monitors expenditures to ensure compliance with approved budget. Prepares project schedules; monitors progress of project in meeting established schedule. Coordinates process for bidding and contracting of services; prepares Requests For Proposal (RFPs) for engineering services, design services, construction services, inspection services, maintenance services, or other services; prepares bid packages; conducts pre -bid and pre - construction meetings; issues addendums to clarify questionable issues; participates in negotiations of scope of services and fees for professional services agreements; makes recommendations to Boards regarding selection of vendors and awarding of contracts; compiles language for contracts and specifications packages. Coordinates acquisition and/or maintenance of required permitting; researches federal, state, and local code requirements; coordinates efforts between multiple departments, co- applicants, and consultants to prepare application documents; develops programs and reports as required by permit. 161'2 Ni9 Collier, County, Florida • Project Manager 13875 Oversees, administers, and coordinates work performed by consultants, contractors, or other service providers; administers annual maintenance contracts; monitors work to ensure compliance with terms of contract; reviews invoices and payment requests submitted by consultants/contractors. Manages projects during design and construction phases; attends regular project progress meetings; prepares, reviews, and processes change orders for changes to contracted scope of work; processes purchase order requisitions, work orders, and invoices; reviews project progress reports submitted by contractors; monitors adherence to project schedules. Conducts inspections, monitors work, and maintains records to ensure quality control; inspects quality of construction work and materials; coordinates final inspections with contractors and engineers; coordinates project acceptance with other County departments or government agencies. Prepares executive summaries for presentation to Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commission, or other officials. Provides technical advice, information, and assistance concerning engineering issues, project management issues, design/construction activities, and other issues to contractors, consultants, County staff, public agencies, or others; responds to questions or complaints; assists in resolving engineering problems, project development issues, or conflicts involving project participants; recommends solutions to problems. Coordinates projects and work activities with other departments, consultants, contractors, sub - contractors, utility companies, state agencies, outside agencies, or others as needed; coordinates with utility engineering staff to identify location of existing utilities and conduct other utility work. Coordinates public education activities relating to department projects, services, and activities; coordinates neighborhood programs involving participation of residents, such as resident traffic teams; speaks to property owners and community organizations and provides information regarding projects and activities; develops press releases and public information materials for distribution. Participates in legal activities relating to projects; attends hearings during court proceedings and provides depositions; meets with County Attorneys to discuss cases. Prepares /submits requests for review /changes to ordinances or resolutions. Prepares or completes various forms, reports, correspondence, executive summaries, requests for proposals, requests for qualifications, schedules, flow charts, progress /status reports, budget documents, cost estimates, purchase order requisitions, notices to proceed, work orders, change orders, punch lists, agendas, action plans, permit applications, permit reports, grant proposals, drawings, designs, maps, or other documents. Receives various forms, reports, correspondence, statistical reports, schedules, bid proposals, drawings, construction plans, design plans, flow charts, permit applications, contracts, change orders, progress reports, budget reports, invoices, payment requests, insurance certificates, inspection reports, technical study reports, laboratory reports, photographs, master plans, specifications, standards, product literature, codes, policies, procedures, trade publications, maps, manuals, reference materials, or other documentation; reviews, completes, processes, forwards or retains as appropriate. Maintains files/records of project documentation, contracts, construction drawings, and other departmental records. Operates a motor vehicle, personal computer, drafting tools, survey instruments, camera, general office equipment, or other equipment as necessary to complete essential functions, to include the use of word processing, spreadsheet, database, graphics, computer -aided design (CAD), e -mail, Internet, or other computer programs. Monitors inventory of department equipment and supplies; ensures availability of adequate materials to conduct projects and work activities; initiates orders for new /replacement materials. 161 2 4A19 Collier, County, Florida • Project Manager 13875 Communicates with supervisor, County officials, employees, other departments, attorneys, engineers, designers, consultants, contractors, developers, vendors/suppliers, utility companies, state /federal agencies, the public, community organizations, outside agencies, and other individuals as needed to coordinate work activities, review status of work, exchange information, or resolve problems. Attends various meetings and hearings, serves on committees, and makes presentations as needed. Maintains a comprehensive, current knowledge of applicable laws /regulations; maintains an awareness of new construction methods, materials, trends, and advances in the profession; reads professional literature; maintains professional affiliations; attends workshops and training sessions as appropriate. ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS Performs general/clerical tasks, which may include answering telephone calls, making copies, sending/receiving faxes, filing documentation, or picking up /delivering project documents. Provides assistance to other employees or departments as needed. Performs other related duties as required. In the event of a declared state of emergency, employees in this classification may be called to work during days or hours other than those for which they are regularly scheduled. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering, Construction Management, Landscape Architecture, Environmental Engineering, Architecture, or a related field; supplemented by six (6) years previous experience and/or training that includes project management, construction supervision, budget administration, contract administration, and experience in specific area of assignment, which may include utilities engineering, transportation engineering, traffic engineering, landscape design/management, environmental program administration, stormwater management, facilities management, solid waste engineering project management (solid waste processing, disposal, transfer, and recycling facilities) or other area of assignment; or any equivalent combination of education, training, and experience which provides the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities for this job. Must possess and maintain a valid Florida driver's license. Fingerprinting required. PERFORMANCE APTITUDES Data Utilization: Requires the ability to evaluate, audit, deduce, and/or assess data using established criteria. Includes exercising discretion in determining actual or probable consequences and in referencing such evaluation to identify and select alternatives. Human Interaction: Requires the ability to apply principles of persuasion and/or influence over others in coordinating activities of a project, program, or designated area of responsibility. Equipment, Machinery, Tools, and Materials Utilization: Requires the ability to operate, maneuver and /or control the actions of equipment, machinery, tools, and/or materials used in performing essential functions. 161 2 n,, 9 Collier, County, Florida • Project Manager 13875 Verbal Aptitude: Requires the ability to utilize a wide variety of reference, descriptive, advisory and/or design data and information. Mathematical Aptitude: Requires the ability to perform addition, subtraction, multiplication and division; ability to calculate decimals and percentages; may include ability to perform mathematical operations with fractions; may include ability to compute discount, interest, and ratios; may include ability to calculate surface areas, volumes, weights, and measures. Functional Reasoning: Requires the ability to apply principles of influence systems, such as motivation, incentive, and leadership, and to exercise independent judgment to apply facts and principles for developing approaches and techniques to resolve problems. Situational Reasoning: Requires the ability to exercise judgment, decisiveness and creativity in situations involving the evaluation of information against sensory, judgmental, or subjective criteria, as opposed to that which is clearly measurable or verifiable. Leadership: Customer Service: Financial Accountability: ADA COMPLIANCE Physical Ability: Tasks require the ability to exert light physical effort in sedentary to light work, but which may involve some lifting, carrying, pushing and/or pulling of objects and materials of light weight (5 -10 pounds). Tasks may involve extended periods of time at a keyboard or workstation. Sensory Requirements: Some tasks require the ability to perceive and discriminate colors or shades of colors, depth, texture, and visual cues or signals. Some tasks require the ability to communicate orally. Environmental Factors: Performance of essential functions may require exposure to adverse environmental conditions, such as dirt, dust, pollen, odors, wetness, humidity, rain, temperature and noise extremes, fumes, traffic hazards, or bright/dim light. Collier County is an Equal Opportunity Employer. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the County will provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities and encourages both prospective and current employees to discuss potential accommodations with the employer. 161 2 'A19 0 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE I. Call Meeting to Order July 27, 2011 AGENDA II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — June 29, 2011 V. Code Enforcement Report — Weldon Walker VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VII. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM VIII. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design IX. Community Redevelopment Agency X. Old Business XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment AUG 0 1 2011 13y: ....................... Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ _ .,. Coletta The next meeting is August 24, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. South Florida Works 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Misc. Corres: Date: Item s: =Zkc�_ ��? to: 161 2X19" VIMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 29, 2011 Minutes 1. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:32 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo (Excused), Lucy Ortiz (Excused), Andrea Halman, Carrie Williams County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Weldon Walker -Code Enforcement Others: Richard Tindell -JRL, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Fred Thomas -CRA, Penny Phillippe -CRA, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff Ill. Approval of Agenda Add. Vlll. A. Carson Street Grant Andrea Halman moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Carrie Williams. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes - May 25, 2011 Andrea Halman moved to approve the May 25, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by Carrie Williams. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Code Enforcement - Weldon Walker reported: o A Neighborhood Cleanup may take place at the end of the year - Location to be determined at a later date o Any questions or comments may be submitted via email to weldonwaIker(aD-colliergov.net VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report (See attached) Darryl Richard reviewed the following information: • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $279,017.57 • Available Improvements General $482,343.63 • Noted the numerous closed P.O.s will be removed from the P.O. list at the fiscal year end (FY11) 1612 A19 o Staff will confer with the Budget Office to verify the Immokalee Taxable Property Value amount to include the new Boundary Expansion - The information will be provided to the Committee at the July 27th meeting (Staff Action Item) B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard Darryl Richard reviewed the Project Status Report: (See attached) (1MM - -24) Cemetery Proiect • Fence installation is complete • CLM installed the additional Plantings around the Fence • Lantana will be installed in front of the Cemetery (street side) Cherryle Thomas inquired on the status of the Banner arms as (3) loose Banners were reported by the Sheriffs Department. Staff replied that Pole and Pole arms are on order with Lumec and historically will take approximately (6) months to receive them. (IMM -19) Hwy 291rrigation/Landscape Refurbishment Proiect 0 100% Design Plans were provided to Staff o Project Quote from EB Simmonds is in progress o Meetings were held with Contractors to review the Project Scope and obtain Quotes o The Project Cost is under review by Staff Cherryle Thomas questioned if the State (FDOT) will be attending a MSTU meeting to discuss the white Bollards as the Committee requested. Darryl Richard responded that JRL attended a pre - Construction meeting with FDOT and announced: o The State confirmed the white Bollards at the Crosswalks will be removed Staff will convey the request for a State Representative (FDOT) to attend a MSTU meeting to discuss the Bollards with the Committee (Staff Action Item) VIII. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM Robert Kindelan gave the following information: o Palm Trees, light Poles, and Brick Planters were damaged due to (3) accidents Cherryle Thomas relayed a request (by the Casino) to install the Casino Banner in front of the Seminole Casino. Robert Kindelan responded that the Banner will be relocated after the new Poles ( Lumec) are installed. 0) .A 161` A'19 VIII. Landscape Architect Report -JRL Design A. Presentation - Main Street Conceptual Plans with Sightline Discussion Richard Tindell distributed and reviewed Field Report (No. 35): (See attached)) o The Toppled Oak Tree at New Market is upright Discussion took place on the Benches by the Sheriffs station which are considered a Safety Hazard. The following findings were reported by Staff and Richard Tindell: o The Benches are noncompliant with ADA Standards - They were installed several years ago by the County (prior to enactment of ADA Standards at Bus Stops) The Committee deemed it is the County's responsibility to make the necessary corrections to the (Bus Stop) area. Staff and Richard Tindell replied: o CAT Funds are limited therefore the viable option is to remove the Benches if the Committee concedes - Note if the area is modified under present Law a Design Consultant will be required to design plans (for the Bus Stop) to meet current ADA Standards Main Street Conceptual Plans (See attached) Richard Tindell reviewed the following information: o Corner of 9th Street and Main Street - Diagrams were based on information from the current FDOT Manual - Since the Roadway is used by large trucks and commercial traffic the sightlines and angles change based on the type traffic speed and Median width (Plan is based on 35 MPH) - The Proposed Plan is an Interim Plan that will augment the CRA Master Plan and future MSTU plans for lmmokalee - At each comer Planters and curbing will be installed and the white Bollards will be removed - ADA Compliant Gutter System (cast iron grate) will be installed - Plan resolves a current problem with (1 -3) Planters that are a sightline issue - Recommends replacing Benches with backs as they present a sightline issue - A Bench, Bike Rack, and Trash Receptacle will be placed at each comer - Suggested installing some form of Lighting at each comer to brighten downtown lmmokalee and provide safety (in the future) 161 2 X119"' Michelle Arnold inquired if FDOT was considering using New Market as a loop Road. Penny Phillippe stated a Traffic Study (safety audit) was incorporated into the $190,000.00 FDOT Grant. Fred Thomas requested the MSTU Committee draft a letter to the CAC to hasten the process of designating Main Street as a Business Route in lieu of a State thoroughfare. Carrie Williams suggested with using New Market as a temporary truck route. Richard Tindell clarified the Conceptual Plan was developed to correct Sightline violations (unsafe conditions.) Additionally he proposed adding future Bus Stops on Main Street if New Market is designated as a truck route. Discussion ensued on the subsequent timeline for the Conceptual Plan: • Prepare Cost Estimate • Create an Elevation picture • Develop the furniture in coordination with the CRA • Prepare Working Drawings Andrea Haman moved to proceed with the steps necessary to carry this out (Concept Plans.) Second by Carry Williams. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Carrie Williams moved for the Chairman to have a letter written up to support the loop Road, meanwhile use New Market temporarily as a truck route. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. B. JRL Work Order Extension - Discussed under Vlll. C. C. Carson Street Grant Darryl Richard announced the FDOT advanced the Funding to FYI for the MSTU Sidewalk Improvement Project: (See attached) o Subsequently the timeline was advanced - Noted strict adherence to the schedule is mandatory 0 60% (Design) Construction documents are due October 1st Pam Lulich reviewed the following information on the Grant Application: (See attached) • Grant Application is scheduled for BCC approval on July 26th • Reimbursable Grant amount - $122,000.00 - Funding source will be identified in the Executive Summary (MSTU or BCC) • An extension may be requested if schedule deadlines are not met 4 1612 0A19' o Committee approval is required to secure the Grant monies Carrie Williams moved to proceed with the Grant (Application.) Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. JRL Work Order Extension Richard Tindell reviewed a Proposal to renew JRL Annual Services based on current contract rates. (See attached) Carrie Williams moved to continue with JRL Services. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IX. Community Redevelopment Agency Penny Phillippe reported: • The CRA is moving to a new location in July • Storm Water Project is ready for Bid Solicitation - DRI (Development of Regional Impact) awarded $2,500, 000.00 to study an additional segment - $4,000,000.00 DEP Grant Application was submitted • Farmers Market - $100,000.00 Grant Application was submitted for the Immokalee Produce Label Program (CRA trademark) - Additionally to create a Site Development Plan for a Retail Farmers Market on a Street • Presented a job description for Collier County Project Manager position and an Executive Summary to transfer Administrative and Management Duties from Growth Management Division to the CRA (See attached) - Provided (2) reference letters to the Committee from Bayshore MSTU Chairman and Bayshore Advisory Board Chairman - Budget for proposed Services remains the same as the Growth Management Division - $33,600.00 The Committee perceived the transfer of Services was beneficial for the Community as the CRA Staff is located in Immokalee. Discussion ensued on Fund 111 and use of monies by the Immokalee MSTU. Michelle Arnold clarified that Fund 111 monies are dedicated for Maintenance on Main Street and 1St Street and noted: o Historically Fund 111 is providing Services to Immokalee that the remaining MSTU's are not receiving: - Air blowing Service - Banner installations - Street sweeping - Bulbout Cleaning 5 1612' 1119 o Provided a MSTU Budget Comparison for Fund 111 - FYI I Immokalee received $92,600. 00 - FYI I Remaining MSTU's received $30,000.00 - $50,000.00 Carrie Williams moved to transfer to CRA (Immokalee Lighting and Beautiffcation MSTU will be staffed by the CRA.) Second by Andrea Halman. The transfer of Services will be effective October 1, 2011. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. X. Old Business Cherryle Thomas restated a previous requested to install (2) Lights on 11th Street and Main (Roberts Ave. and 11th Street Extension.) She stated the roadway is very dark and (2) ladies were accosted last night Darryl Richard verified that the Committee was requesting to expand the Lighting Program to 11th Street. Staff will request a quote from the Electrical Contractor to install (2) Lights. (Staff Action Item) XI. New Business -None X11. Public Comment -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:08 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee gU erryle YTho s, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented \)4- or amended The next meeting is July 27, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 on � � ; m ,> O O E W A t LL N O F G c N LL 0 0 O C N a c} U E ID f c = LL LL 06 X C C)) O' O f mp c� a 2 ,2 m o m E c O ° O F K m co$ o Q C C C C > > S > > O Um IOL K�o2i a) Q) h U O ' d `m U w m la ! � C i to v 4) N N C n u u ULL K m c I y i C 0 W 0 00 V3 V3 E9 w w w 0 m V f0 p N O 61 r a N N M M f» w w w M O ID Or 0 N V inww w w w om� uc) Ofo o° O f0 t0 fD h O o p N N N N A N N v> w w w N V OV -O f M (1) M 1N OND OOD f en»w w w w O O bc �2 0 M M f nn N r ti J r H w w O o O O) O I O N V n w fn H O � ` 64 64 D Ln 0 0 N O oo N o N M It N N' M M W (0 co O O w o w W H W a au� N N u) M 6 LL ca n U a Y6 w O o '$0 co rn y o C i M m(0 U rn U CO "O" X (D N a 1 =o a =o W ;3 1 (6 w 5) j E f)) 1 o. cL �( d) �( �5 o. W O W W F w LL m i a a O O U cl 0 c O oC o u a W W W u u 0 0 o f o 0 0 N N N C N N lT N � M Oi 9 co 000 J O 9 � w ) i m w 0 � O i w f0 t Of K V t 0 fA O LL E LL I ' i 161 2 X119" N lQ 0 w O w E E9 F FA FA 61> ca (0 cu cu O O O N N C w 6% w O w w C Vi m O N O O D D � D D N N N N O O O R R A i 0w m m w w N L; Y ifA, O O O O N N N C CO O O '.P N N V V 9 Vi f O C C9 LL w O 0 N N 0 00 O O i a N N 1 O W W � � f f9 f a m 0 to U M O O 0) ; N i i1 0 000 V V V O O (D m 1 1T f � f fA O O O f f T N. I IOG c co " "t r N NP') ( J ,r. r a N N w (D t w C Cfi J J O O N o i i f I y i C 0 W 0 00 V3 V3 E9 w w w 0 m V f0 p N O 61 r a N N M M f» w w w M O ID Or 0 N V inww w w w om� uc) Ofo o° O f0 t0 fD h O o p N N N N A N N v> w w w N V OV -O f M (1) M 1N OND OOD f en»w w w w O O bc �2 0 M M f nn N r ti J r H w w O o O O) O I O N V n w fn H O � ` 64 64 D Ln 0 0 N O oo N o N M It N N' M M W (0 co O O w o w W H W a au� N N u) M 6 LL ca n U a Y6 w O o '$0 co rn y o C i M m(0 U rn U CO "O" X (D N a 1 =o a =o W ;3 1 (6 w 5) j E f)) 1 o. cL �( d) �( �5 o. W O W W F w LL m i a a O O U cl 0 c O oC o u a W W W u u 0 0 o f o 0 0 N N N C N N lT N � M Oi 9 co 000 J O 9 � w ) i m w 0 � O i w f0 t Of K V t 0 fA O LL E LL I ' i 161 2 X119" T � O � O N O L Q E c, U) O O p z U cz cri •L L � (D n N 3 L U) Z cn O CZ U co C 0) LO c � � •0 N c- CD O a O O E.0 Z O0— 161 I— 0000000000000000000 oL�o Ln Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U') O LO =) O O O I- Lo O Lo C) 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I- LO O N O O O L() (U 00 O N O O U) Cl) O N't O L() LO O L(') Cl) (0 K? O 00 Ln 00 ()) Cfl (D Ea -,:I- 63 co m 00 O C') Lo I-- O d' O 00 n LP) O O Lo co CO O N) M CU O fa 6a (O 6a r N d O (O r- Q r K} Efi K? r Ef} 0 6} r N E{} EFJ Ga r T N (f} (A 6a H} Cf? Ef? H? w O O O O O O O O O O Lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O LO LO O O O O O U') LC) 0 0 0 0 0 Lf) L() 0 0 00 N ('') r I- O 6 U-) T (h co O O O O r co 0 6 f1� T 69-60- r CO O (D N 'ba It EA 69 6H} 64 O 07 N LO It fl LL) K} 6S EA O 00 L() r 6a O 6'9- E=, N Ef} Z 63 I— U- U- U- c..cL L L U- LL CLLLLLL�L Z J J J U m U cz U m U m U co J J U w U cz U m U cz U m J J U cz U w D 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0) 0) N 0 N W O O O 1� U) r r� O O O O r r 0 0 0 r LO O O O r r It 0 0 0 N O O m i—rNr r N r N N NrN r N LO co co Z Q O a) c czU O E c 0) O O O m 0 = p OL CL c 75 .0 O O E p U c0 T U c Y 7 O > p 2! 3 U ° o o cz E CZ > m c1 O- cz U a) as c a) > a) o O 3 U co o p U co m 3 m LL- c m c — m Z U m ° cn U ° Q) c in CL y a c N d i U O cn V O O p 0 N U N T N p 06 O U N a: m = O �L V) c U N E (D •O LT3 N cl CZ O 06 f� z d L (n r U w= 0 O L� r O O�,• ryp� U O 9 p (") X� O m �}' to M 0) C C CO) �J i . c (.) N c 0 n 05 O� c w U LO (b O w 0O O~ O U O M UN -m U06 6 L� c U06 •`_ p U U o cn Cq O N c J C c N J c LU vpi r N CO 'It LO (O I-- Cb m O r N 07 I't I LLB Cfl f- 00 On w r T r T T T T r T T T 0 N O 161 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) c /o: Lorraine Lantz, Collier County MPO Growth Management Division 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 2 A19' During the Immokalee MSTU Advisory Committee meeting held on June 29, 2011 future plans for modifications to the medians and landscaping on Hwy 29 were reviewed. It is the desire of the Immokalee Community to realign Hwy 29 (between 9th street and 1st Street) so that it can become a pedestrian friendly zone. This concept has been identified in the Immokalee CRA /MSTU Master Plan but cannot be implemented until an alternate transportation route for truck traffic is provided. The Immokalee MSTU Committee is aware of the ongoing plans for the construction of a "Loop Road" somewhere around the Airport around the Immokalee Community. The Committee highly endorses that project and request it remain a high priority for PDOT and the Collier MPO. Although funding for this project may be in question, the Committee request that this project receive high consideration during funding appropriation so that the time -frame for actual construction of this project does not extend beyond 5 to 10 years period. Given the uncertainty of the construction of the Loop Road, the Immokalee MSTU Advisory Committee is recommending consideration of an alternate /interim loop road with the "re- routing" of truck traffic onto New Market Road. This alternate loop or bi -way provides the necessary connection to Hwy 29 and would alleviate the existing pedestrian vehicular conflict noted on Main Street (Hwy 29 between 1st Street and 9th Street). In addition to the re- routing of truck traffic to New Market Road, the Immokalee MSTU Advisory Committee concurs with the recommendation of the Immokalee CRA to reduce the `.avaxaxm' lod 2F : y horsest�e tksar NaOies fs6n �n 33 , sa • 23Q- 252 -8192 - FAk 239 - 252.5899 • mvv cosh roov ne, 161 2 X119 " number of traffic lanes on Main Street (Hwy 29 between 1St Street and 9th Street) from 4 to 2 and lowering the speed limit to further provide for a safer environment for pedestrians. - Immokalee is a walking community and the implementation of these proposed changes to Main Street will help to enhance the community character. We sincerely appreciate your consideration to this request and look forward to your response to provide an interim relief to pedestrians in the downtown Immokalee corridor. On behalf of the Immokalee MSTU advisory committee, Cherryle Thomas, airman, I oka MSTU Advisory Committee 1205 Orchid Ave. Immokalee Fl. 34142 Attachments: New Market Road - Alternate Route Map IMMOKALEE MSTU - PROPOSAL PER 06 -29 -11 MEETfNG~i � INTERIM ROUTING OF TRUCK TRAFFIC THROUGH NEW MARKET ROAD z a L. N = INTERIM ALTERNATE ROUTE c F� L_ .po STATE•HWYF29 (MAIN-ST.) HWY 29 ROUTE uj N H N T- N d' W E —co U S 161 2 "A 19 4 DIXTA INC. CONSULTING 1 L V Y1 1 • Planning • Visualization • Civil Engineering -Surveying & Mapping July 26, 2011 Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA MSTU Project Manager Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Immokalee MSTU 11th Street Lighting (SR 29 to Roberts Avenue) Consulting Professional Services Agreement Dear Mr. Richard: RWA, Inc. greatly appreciates the opportunity to submit the following proposal to the MSTU. Outlined below is our understanding of the project profile and the assumptions we have used to develop a project scope of services and associated fees in response to your request for proposal. PROJECT PROFILE & ASSUMPTIONS The following outlines our understanding of the project and identifies certain assumptions that were made in developing our scope of service options. • The subject property is generally located in Section 5, Township 47 South, Range 26 East, Collier, Florida. • The project limits are along and within the 11th Street Right of Way from SR 29 (Main Street) north to 300 feet beyond the intersection with Roberts Avenue West, or 1,300 linear feet, more or less and 100 feet to the east and west of the intersection. • This Project will develop lighting plans for 11th Street North Immokalee MSTU based on a similar design to the existing decorative lighting fixtures nearby on SR 29. • The project will be reviewed by the Collier County Transportation Engineering and Construction Management (TECM) and /or Right of Way (ROW) Permitting Departments. It has been assumed the project will require two reviews from TECM and /or ROW Departments to secure approval for this project. • We will use the conceptually approved fixture, which is the existing light fixture on SR 29 • The Client will make available all pertinent information, permits, and documents associated with the required Project, including, but not limited to, existing permits, existing surveys, title policies and engineering plans in Auto CADD electronic format if available. 161 2 119 Page 2 of 5 • Existing easements of record within the property boundaries will not need to be vacated and /or modified. These easements if applicable shall not create any issues during design, permitting or construction phases of this project. • This proposal includes performing all services described within on a one -time basis. • The Client desires to retain the services of RWA, Inc. (Consultant) and proceed with the Project as described within this proposal. SCOPE OF SERVICES: TASK 1.0 - Meetings and Coordination Client Input / Coordination / Review: RWA shall attend one (1) kick -off meeting on site and will participate in one (1) project status meetings with Client to discuss plan development and work progress as required throughout the project's duration. Additional coordination meetings will be held as approved by the Client, with the various agencies or areas in which coordination of proposed improvement may be beneficial. TASK 2.0 - Data Collection Data Collection and Existing Conditions: RWA shall provide the following services associated with this task. • Reproduce the recorded right -of -way and baseline information. Right -of -way shall include the intersecting roads within the project limits. The right -of -way information shall be labeled, including the dates, bearings and distances. In addition the following information shall be noted: a. Horizontal datum — tied into the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD 1983/1999 Adjustment. RWA will provide project control network sheets for the survey baseline control points instead of setting reference points. b. Vertical datum (benchmarks) — NAVD 88, set two permanent benchmarks in the project area for future use. c. Existing layout shall be tied to the existing right -of -way. d. Locate existing visible property markers (e.g. — iron pipe, concrete monuments or iron pins) • Property ownership shall be determined from Collier County records and incorporated into the plan drawings and files. Property lines do not need to be surveyed, but shall be verified utilizing any visible property markers, wherever possible. Consultant shall utilize the Collier County GIS website to obtain property ownership information. RWA shall illustrate Folio Numbers and recording information on the Survey, and shall be current as of the date of the Survey. • Provide a limited topographic survey of the proposed project limits as described herein. All work shall be certified by a professionally registered surveyor in the state of Florida. • The information shall include, but is not limited to, the following: a. Roadway pavement WA2010 \100042.01.P0 Immokalee MSTU 11th Street Lighting \00\2011 -07 -26 Immokalee MSTU 11th Street Proposal (1).docx 161 2 A+19 Page 3 of 5 b. Driveways and aprons. c. Curbing, edging, medians and barriers — note limits and type. d. Sidewalks, walkways and handicap ramps — note limits and type. e. Visible, above ground evidence of utilities, such as, but not limited too: Traffic /road signs- note direction in which signs face, material type (wood or aluminum) legend and wording, including those mounted on utility poles, signal posts and bridges. • The final products (topographic and control surveys) shall be delivered in AutoCAD (Version 2010). DWG Format, and in a hard -copy print. The survey control points will be provided in an ASCII file format and shall have a point number, elevation, and description. TASK 3.0 — Preliminary Design Identification of Existing Utilities: RWA shall collect water and sewer record drawing information and include this information into the base maps to be used for design purposes. In addition a letter notifying the other potential utilities in the area of the proposed improvements will be sent. Preliminary Lighting: This sub -task shall provide for the following services. • Provide engineering support to prepare a Preliminary Code Minimum Street Lighting Plan. • Coordinate with the Client on the selection of site lighting criteria for the project. • Preliminary coordination with other site improvements to avoid physical conflicts. • Preliminary coordination with FPL on electrical service points. • Coordinate with Collier County TECM and MSTU staff to establish compliance appropriate design parameters. • Coordinate and follow up on staff review comments at this phase to resolve issues, as applicable. As part of this task final direction will be requested by RWA of the client on the selection of all proposed improvements in order to proceed to Task 4.0 below. TASK 4.0 — Construction Documents Develop Construction Documents: RWA shall develop construction documents for the Lighting Plans and Details to be submitted at 100% for review and comment. In addition the following items will be covered by this sub -task. • Provide engineering support to prepare a Final Code Minimum Street Lighting Plan. • Final coordination with other site improvements to avoid physical conflicts. • Final coordination with FPL on the electrical service point(s) for the lighting system. • Development of Specifications • Opinion of Probable Cost Modify Construction Documents per Client's Review: RWA shall complete one (1) minor revisions to the aforementioned documents based on review comments from the 100% WA2010 \100042.01.P0 Immokalee MSTU 11th Street Lighting \00\2011 -07 -26 Immokalee MSTU 11th Street Proposal (1).docx 1612 A19' Page 4 of 5 submission. Minor revisions are defined as modifications, which do not impact design criteria established in Task 3.0. All major revisions are outside the scope of this proposal. RWA will prepare an additional service proposal for any major revisions requested by the Client. TASK 5.0 — Permitting Permitting: RWA shall develop permit drawings and will coordinate with Client for the submission of necessary permit applications to the agencies having jurisdiction over the project. At this time it is expected to apply for a permit from Collier County for a Right of Way Permit. Modifications based on Permit Drawings: RWA shall incorporate all comments from the permitting agencies and the Client into the final set of construction documents ready for bidding purposes. TASK 6.0 — Reimbursable Expenses Expenses for blueprints, reproduction services, overnight or express delivery services, and vehicle mileage, shall be reimbursable to RWA, Inc. Expenses for blueprints, reproduction and overnight services will be for submittals to clients and agencies only. No Time will be billed for Reimbursable Expenses. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEE SUMMARY Task Description Fee Basis 1.0 Meetings & Coordination 2.0 Data Collection 3.0 Preliminary Design $ 1,000 Fixed Fee $ 3,500 Fixed Fee $ 2,250 Fixed Fee 4.0 Construction Documents $ 3,000 Fixed Fee 5.0 Permitting $ 1,500 Fixed Fee 6.0 Reimbursable Expenses Total $ 11,250 $1,000 T /M /E WA2010 \100042.01.P0 Immokalee MSTU I Ith Street Lighting \00\2011 -07 -26 Immokalee MSTU I lth Street Proposal (1).docx 161 2 Page 5 of 5 EXCLUDED SERVICES The professional services to be provided by the Consultant are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded services that may be required or desired by the Client: • Environmental Assessments and Studies by Consultant • Descriptions and Sketches • Easement Vacations • FEMA Elevation Certificates • Special Purpose Surveys • Jurisdictional Location • Environmental Services • Geotechnical Engineering Services • Structural Engineering Services • Landscape Architectural Services • Land Surveying Services • Field Traffic Counts • Intersection Analysis • Irrigation Design Services • Bidding Phase Services • Survey Construction Stakeout • Resident Engineer Representative Services • Construction Phase Services • Final Acceptance and Certifications Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Pursuant to your review of this document with the MSTU committee, it would be our pleasure to meet with you once again to refine the proposed scope of services. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, please call me at (239) 597 -0575. We look forward to hearing back from you soon. Sincerely, RWA, Inc. Christopher O. Wright, P.E. CEO Enclosures: Attachment "A" — Collier County Annual Contract Rate Code Schedule WA2010 \100042.01 TO Immokalee MSTU 11th Street Lighting \00\2011 -07 -26 h=okalee MSTU 11th Street Proposal (1).docx P J d d t r r co L N Y O CE G 1612 nAi9 �Q C � no ° g oyog o o Sd $�gg$g ma s N C (V NIA d 6 Q E do yM N yy1+)NH 0 0 S 8888 8 888888 8 88 s 8 N V N N a �m m o S Sp o o S o S O Sp no S ° p°p CSp °H p N °H p 66 a N 3 i U N i G C N o 0 0 S o 6$ ° o Op S o ° U C a H N O H N N 1oOO p U = G C 818. IV O IV G Y 0 0 S O $ N O O O S 8C 8 8 0 ° O 0 0 S S uUC °NN �XIYI HNH $ �HNNN p°p h D . j. i o o O G o$ o O S o C S, G 0 S O G 8 N o 0 S o Sp $ $ S$ g $ Um HH CSp N °HH ° p$p NHN° p v°i °N NNHN ci w = co c , , ° ° ° ° Neu 6r aV n g .8 oN S c8i Ci NI Ci OI ° S 888 HHHN S ° 8 HN $$ °H G°p N S Soo 0 0 0 0 o N= O 66 C C O 66 d o 8 °o °o °oyff� °e d U W n N�yp. b O C 8 G ry�p N N y N N e e O 6 ci 6 ec o 'C a °°g$$ oc °o$$$ od 66 °o c $ li tt !R 8 m a `o F y e 5 F y 5 F y Y3 E F N N M p G U o m Y II C o O C LL O O CC E4a`oa`a s�c(g _= V1LUU�NO 6 K 2 H IV ° � �Q C � no Attachment "A" "DIXTA I.W. UO- NSUL'1 iAt; ZtV V 1 Contract No: 09 -5262 "County Wide Engineering Services" Personnel Category Principal Senior Project Manager Project Manager Senior Engineer Engineer Senior Inspector Inspector Senior Planner Planner Senior Designer Designer Environmental Specialist Senior GIS Specialist GIS Specialist Clerical Surveyor and Mapper CADD Technician Survey Crew — 2 man Survey Crew — 3 man Survey Crew -4 man 2011 Standard Hourly Rate Schedule for all disciplines. Standard Hourly Rate $195 $165 $148 $155 $119 $85 $65 $140 $110 $115 $100 $115 $145 $100 $60 $130 $85 $130 $160 $180 1612 "A19 Note: This list is not intended to be all- inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as needed. Quote No: RFQ # 072111.01 dgC Project: Tree Removal Location: Immokalee City - Main Street from 1 st to 9th County: Collier Bid Letting : N/A Estimator: David Rodrigues Date: Thursday, July 21, 2011 Procurement: Construction Days: Comments: TOTAL OF 6 COMMENTS BELOW Contract Item Description E NOTES: 1 oil 3 COMMENTS: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) 161 2 HERN 9 04 4 44 & LIGHTING ZAAM ROAMSAM a esrsercir P.O. Box 5142, Hudson, FL 34674 Ph : 727 - 819 -2061 Fx : 727 - 857 -4097 Unit Total UM Qty. Price Amount Removal of Palm Trees on corners where electrical Boxes are EA located Price includes all labor, equipment & materials to perform the following: Removal of trees Removal of old PVC Pull Boxes & replacement with new boxes Cap sprinkler pipes " Pour concrete around boxes Price does NOT include: * Replacement of any conductors should they be found damaged during this work. New conductors will be replaced at additional cost if needed 36.00 $ 1,975.00 $ 71,100.00 GRAND TOTAL: $ 71,100.00 ABOVE QUOTE AS PER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FPL IMPACT FEES, PERMIT FEES, PERMITTING AND SURVEYING NOT INCLUDED. IF AWARDED, SSL REQUEST TO ATTEND THE PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. ABOVE QUOTE IS VALID FOR 30 C /D. ANY BOND REQUIREMENTS WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRIME CONTRACTOR/ OWNER PLEASE CALL DAVID RODRIGUES AT 239 - 571 -5212 WITH ANY QUESTIONS. Naples Branch Phone: 239 - 331 -8438 3884 Prospect Ave., Naples, FL 34104 Fax: 239- 331 -8439 N t0 0 Z D LL. r D O ~ N r N W W J a Y O 161 2 A19 N N O tq a co co r a a LO M M t N N C C J H O N W m X F O m `- 7 m m X N 0) F- x x O _ _ a W m m _ X C C C LL LL LL 00 0) O O O } } } } LL LL LL LL M N co (D (D O) N r 06 r- N(D 0) W r M V I M � ((00 M r Dn1 M M Cl) M N (D U) N - E C 7 O O m I I CL a m c U @ x- p x W p U rn o - Cl) } O N LL - M O 0 V N � O N r O O LL 1 W LL O M C O N 0) W O O LO co C) O 0 (O 0 O 0 LO 0 O rl- f� co N 0 0 0 0 0 0 L(7 to O V O W co M O M N I' 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 LO O O O O LO N O O O O M LO CO LO N to r` O M O I-- LO r at N O O O O cc N O O O O r- O LO O N O O N O O O N f� W co O O 00 W W co N m O V In M co G N O O O O N W LO 't O O M N W CD m M O O) N o N r W LO O) O M r O (D O LO T r O) M LO N LO N f� LO W tT M V CO W r 7 O M N CO r O) (D p O M M (O r-- 7 N N LO r- LO M It o N co 00 N O (D M co Ln LO Ln CO N LO 00 N co t W O tT LO co (0 a N N ffi vi fR U3 fA Us Us Us -I- Us U) U) U) Ui 1 Us Us Us Us 1-1-1 Us Us Us Us 1-1-1 Us Ul U) 1-1 fR Us I Us 1 Us to U3 Us U, I Us I Us U3 Us O M O O O N O O O Ln M N It n 0 O 0 O 0 O In O 0 W M tD O r O O O Wi r, v N 0 v O O M W t` N n E N O r- W v o N n Lo v C (D O N �. tD r O Ln N N W 0 O N N N O A O O N Co tc Co 't M tD M N m O N M N h N N N r - O M M N r d LLE tR 61s Vs to tR tfs to I w to us to I to to to to 6,)16",l to Vs us to to us (a vs vs to UT Us to to I w us to 1 uY! w w t/s vs to to w 69 U N y U_ C N 0) U N L ° z U E a) n Q (n N w > C (n N C c E c ° ` w m m .� N y a) m- o L) a E E m m m a°i g m m E c y O N 0) N c --I N N O o a d y N Cn 0� O Y L C fl Q) O) t ` y O N U N (� y O (6 r IQ U y 'O C C m C O T U O) Z C LL °) m U G @ O) r E .O. d 5 j 0) 0) N w 0) .� @ r7- N _7 O c Q 0m O N a Q 0) 7 0) .0 02$ LL "O C m J U @ "O 7 m y cn r N c C L 2 C ,� Z y a L oe d > Co o q�j Y c c m 3 N N a c -` ?' °° 0) 0 3 cn N 7 to LL Y U Z a) (� U N a) c@ @ J a) o° m c m U) N@ o U t _p J m _ 'J m Q o c o U) a) to O > ` m _U LL L OJ - an d of m a) (n N (O U - C O N ._ L Y a) a T m (n LL .0 @ Q .T T m V N O) 7 (n rT. T m N 0) 2 C - C w .0 U C E y U U E y N C y Cn .0 .� C L U m E "O Q Cn U . m CL m 2 .` 0) m m C - (6 2 N - _@ B OJ U m LL (n N N W '� 0) W 7 d U F- O U- C y @ m N - m m t m _m U) d d [n J 0) LL 7 (n o M 0) Q' w - .2)0 J O N (n O 2 W N F- L) U o V LO rn t o V LO N W V't O (D V N r LO M 00 O 00 V V (.i O LO M 7 o co O N (O (D V N Cl) o N O M r Cl) W V W 01 r O) O (M 00 N O) N V N N W) N N N '7 V' It LO V (0 LO r (D LO Q) O r- M N LO M CD W O (fl W N N_ LO N LO N M N (D o 6) O W r� W r- W) > O LO N M N LO CD N V N M N N N M N V N V N 7 N LO N N N N N N N N N N N N N W N N N _N r n 0 (O r W r N W O 00 W N M N N o W M N M N (O N N N M N M N N LO N CD N a 0 o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 C) C) 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD - `- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O LO O O O LO O Ln O LO O LO O LO O LO O LO O LO O Lo O LO O O LO O LO O LO o U) 0 O 0 LO o LO O LO O LO o LO O WO O LO o O o O O o LO LO 0 O 0 LO o LO O LO O LO o LO O LO o W) 0 lO 0 LO V V 7 V R V' 7 V C V 7 V V R V V V V 7 LO O O O 0) 0 o U U U y 0 � U U m m o) m U E C_ C_ c c c c m Z N y _ m C_ m m C m C_ m m C m C m O y U L .2 ).LM L L O L C11 O U O C 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 O y N m a J J J J N E C 'c "O "O U N N N a2S 06 C N y p y p C - c O m J m J m J c m J c m J m J m J C p '- 7 C) U C Q y U)� N aci O U y O U y _O U _O U y O U O U Z an c 0) (n m --- m Co m O _p U T U U N > m m m m m m m C C m O) 0) N ° Ur C c C C C C C C U T E (, m co m o O (n <T m O 7 o N x ' x X d o c'U'U'`'U W Z .5 o E o E �' aa)) U a) rnrnm �p)rn� m�'m U) o2 c C 0 C 0 U 0 F °) N m N 0) N 0) N E - m C m r O 3 m -c L) c y o y m y p y a) N an y d y a) y a) 0 y m LL C m o a) a) F F 0 F U o .o E E E E E E E E E E E E E E _E °-- '-` an d ° 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N° Q w w w w Q .y E c o O) Q O) Q m Q 0 m @ U L U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U CO W CO W O LL O W ° LL (p U E E -- =p C y C - J J R� M J q� M J M J x J Q' J J .0 Q 7 m Z O� 7 O (n 7 O (n 7 O (n 7 O (n m (n m L' F> _C U i 2 A19 N N O tq a co co r a a LO M M t N N C C J H O N W m X F O m `- 7 m m X N 0) F- x x O _ _ a W m m _ X C C C LL LL LL 00 0) O O O } } } } LL LL LL LL M N co (D (D O) N r 06 r- N(D 0) W r M V I M � ((00 M r Dn1 M M Cl) M N (D U) N - E C 7 O O m I I CL a m c U @ x- p x W p U rn o - Cl) } O N LL - M O 0 V N � O N r O O LL 1 W LL O M C O N 0) W � r N C W N J N Z O C U. cG � G 161 2 fi19 O V m r M 7 O N O N t0 O O 7 O O O M CO O O O O O - - V 00 N O O r V O V (O 0) n O M O (D M O O N O V O O CO O O O W r M r r r O't 0 0't 00 W M r CO O O O O M O V O O) O LO O O O O W m O) <t M Cl) n O O LO O r� r N r O LO O w M 00 O co O 0) O 00 r- M O O dD V 00 O 00 O O Ln O M M M (0 0) Ln M M N N O O N M 01 O M LO N N M_ It M CO l0 N Cl l0 I� V N O Ln 0) 00 l0 l0 V LO N M V (O N V N N O O 0) R f6 (n a M LO W O O LA t0 M m 00 V 00 N N '@ O > F- Q 60 ff> 63 V3 EA u? V> EA ull 69 Ef3 E9 d) Vi to Vf Uf 60 6-3 VA w u) u) 6c3 vj U!l 10 (A EA 613 vi H9 u> Efl 6-1 ER Ef) uT vi u! 611 O I� (p l0 l0 O O 00 O O O M N 00 V O m l0 l0 O O 0 N 00 M M O O N N O O M O CO M h N (fl LO M O O O O N M LA O W M r O 00 00 N O O O O (0 a7 O Cl) O N co y O f,— r N N N O O N O O M Ln N M r O O n r O O w y c0 M (0 �"' O O N Co 0) I- LO LO W � � (0 co w O r r M LO LO �' O It c0 1 M LA O N M O V M M LO 0) N LO M M N O T n 7 a M M M N M M /b M V C Q Q x W (» (» w u> u) 40 6c3 u> u3 u> W. u> vi (» (» (» u3 to w u> u> (» to w u> va 69, u> (» u> u► u► u► (» u► u3 u> u► (» u9 vi O 1— O O O N M LO O O N N O O I� M O r M N O M M O 0) V Lc') O CO CO W c0 O 0) M O N M Cl) (O N O LO N m LO O M M C M r LO co er LO V N Cl Cl M n LO 0 E M N N Ln .£ O U (» (» (» u3 (» u► (» (» (» (» (» u> . . . w O O O O N O N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O (0 O l0 O O O O LO O O O O O O O O O O n O O O O O O O t0 O O O O 0) O T O) O O O V' O O O O O O O O O O le LO N O O O O O O O W O O O O LO O m w O O O M O O O O O O O O O O M N N O O O O O 00 LO a O O O LO M M M Ln O O M V M I- LO O O O M O N O r M M M l0 (0 r N N LA V h LO 0) W l0 O LO M CO N o0 O LO LO <f m M M N O r O O 0) CO l0 M N O r V M (0 OD M M M M r �a Q m u3 w to (» u> va u> u3 u> w u> u> va u3 u3 to u> to (» (» u> u> u3 u> va u3 u> u� u3 u> ur u� u► (» u> -1 - u► (» vi u► D JU E S 1 0 N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5m AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 -261 -4007 161 2 A19 July 27, 2011 I�riclsc���e �rcl�itect's field re��ort COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® -MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500116856 REPORT NUMBER: 36 CONTRACTOR: CLM JRL COMM No: 9003 Date: 6/29 & 7/8 Weather: Cloudy w Estimate % Complete: N/A 7/20/2011 showers Time: Varies Temp Range: 93 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: June 29: Darryl and Pam from Collier County & Richard Tindell July 8 & July 20: Richard Tindell, solo observation WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor crew not present OBSERVATIONS: Little trash observed basically no change from last months report. Routine maintenance work has been performed. FDOT signal and crosswalk project has not started. REVIEWS: REPORT: County and FDOT Standards. Maintenance agreement, previous suggestions and work orders Reviewed last report, over all conditions and status of work orders and direction from County with Pam, Darryl and CLM. Condition and use observation of 2 bus stops along First suggest improvements are needed - a new bench on First near Sheriff's office observed, needs leveling. Project Mgr to identify what steps can be employed short of removing the bench. Shrubs removed as part of the sidewalk repair project have not been replaced. A dead tree was identified on First Street near the Casino. Also the connection bolts and wire at the recently removed light pole present a hazard - incident reported. Crown of Thorn bed needs attention. Routine maintenance work has been performed and trash removed. The no overfull trash containers this period. All planting areas continue to need to be trimmed to meet County and FDOT standards, especially within site triangles. ibi 2 A19 One median on Main has not been planted - waiting for connection to irrigation system - a planting of Lantana might be a good suggestion as a temporary solution. The broken bollard on Main near 5th has not been repaired or replaced. This was reported last May. Several of the plants along first Street median show nutrient deficiencies although continue improvement is noted. Cemetery renovations are complete. This area has more trash than most and is in need of general clean up. Dying foxtail palm noted No news on Reclaimed water project and re -bid. Coordination with FDOT crossing renovation impacts the Main Street Irrigation Project. Working drawings for Main Street ROW and Curb improvement project has begun. ACTION REQUIRED: Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Suggest irrigation water use study, check easements along First for future plantings Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 � >; k a � � a � k� " i a � t #" { Y iQ' 'T 1�f kyr M: i (' ! d• °! 4°• J�' y y y� % y # t r too, SA nota, ' S _ [ METE! �' � i t r�' S 1��� j j ' '� " "t3 �kpE � $N'��,�� S w m J17 nY, a4h r# s w its 1 ' i Collier County Community Redevelopment Agen, . IMMOKALEE CR ` i The Place to Cali Home! MINUTES State Enterprise Zone Development Agency March 16, 2011 161 Er-2ostf-ei A 20 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo at 9:50 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Present: Mike Facundo, Ski Olesky, Jeffrey Randall, Kitchell Snow, Floyd Crews, James Wall, Eva Deyo, Melissa Martinez, Robert Halman, Carrie Williams and Lt. Drew Lee. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused: Julio Estremera, Daniel Rosario and Ana Salazar. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel, Marie Capita, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt. C. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Ms. Williams seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. EZDA Meeting — March 16, 2011 b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report - March, 2011 Action: Ms. Deyo made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Lt. Lee seconded the motion and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. F. Old Business. a. Pending changes to the EZDA, Legislative report. Ms. Phillippi announced that all pending Bills (HB 1275 & SB 1820) in the Florida Legislature pertaining to the EZone have died quietly. G. New Business. H. Citizen Comments. I. Next Meeting. April 20, 2011 at 9:55 A.M. J. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 A.M. CRA Board Commissioner James N. Coletta Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Georgia Hiller State Enterprise Zone Collier County Community Redevelopment Myt. _, 1612 A� 0 IMMOKALEE CRA, i The Place to Call Home! EZONE MEETING AGENDA State Enterprise Zone Development Agency May 18, 2011 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Southwest Florida Works (Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee) 750 South 5t'' Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 A. Call to Order. Development Aaeney Board (EZDA) B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Michael Facundo chairman C. Adoption of Agenda. Edward "Ski" Olesky D. Consent Agenda. Jeffrey Randall a. Approval of Minutes. Robert Halman i. EZDA Meetin g Ap ril 20 2011 (Enclosure 1) Ex- officio , Julio Estremera b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report - April, 2011 (Enclosure 2) Kitchell Snow c. Enterprise Zone Quarterly (FYI I /Q2) Activity Report (Enclosure 3) Floyd Crews E. Old Business. Ana Salazar F. New Business. James Wall G. Citizen Comments. Eva Deyo H. Next Meeting. June 15, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. Carry Williams I. Adjournment. 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 239.269.9629 Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant 239.269.9628 1 CRA Board Commissioner James N. Coletta Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Georgia Hiller State Enterprise Zone Collier County Community Redeveloprler&e[ 2 "A 2 O � I A LE E R [ i The Place to Call Home 1 RECEIVED JUN 2 1 2011 EZONE MEETING AGENDA hoard of County Commissioners State Enterprise Zone Development Agency June 15, 2011 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Southwest Florida Works (Career and Service Center of Collier County- Immokalee) 750 South 5`h Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 A. Call to Order. Development Agency Board (EZDA) B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Fiala Michael Facundo Hiller Chairman C. Adoption of Agenda. � ng --� Edward "Ski" olesky D. Consent Agenda. Coyle �✓ Coletta Jeffrey Randall a. Approval of Minutes. Robert Halman Ex- officio i. EZDA Meetin g —May Ma 18 2011 (Enclosure 1) Julio Estremera b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report - May, 2011 (Enclosure 2) Kitchell Snow E. Old Business. Floyd Crews F. New Business. Ana Salazar G. Citizen Comments. James Wall H. Next Meeting;. July 20, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. Eva Deyo 1. Adjournment. Carry Williams Melissa Martinez Daniel Rosario Lt. Drew Lee Corres: CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel CRA Project Manager 239.252.5549 MiSC. Corres: Christie Betancourt CRA Administrative Assistant Date: gk�iA l 239.252.2313 Item It Marie Capita IBDC Manager 239.269.9629 = '? W: Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant 239.269.9628 1 161 2 A20 Enclosure 1 MINUTES State Enterprise Zone Development Agency — June 15, 2011 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo at 10:20 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Present: Mike Facundo, Floyd Crews, Ana Salazar, Kitchell Snow, Julio Estremera, Jeffery Randall, Carrie Willimas, Edward "Ski" Olesky, Robert Halman, and Daniel Rosario. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused: James Wall, Melissa Martinez, Eva Deyo, and Lt. Drew Lee. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Pam Brown, Steve Hart, Chris Curry, Angel Madera, Jr., and Valarie Price. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, Christie Betancourt, and Rosemary Dillon. C. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Ski Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. EZDA Meeting —May 18, 2011 b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report - May, 2011 Action: Mr. Ski Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Jeffery Randall seconded the motion and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. E. Old Business. F. New Business. G. Citizen Comments. H. Next Meeting. July 20, 2011 I. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 A.M. CRA Board Commissioner James N. Coletta Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Georgia Hiller State Enterprise Zone Collier County Community Recle"lopment Agency L •i i MO ALES CR 6 .I 2 AT 0 i The Place to Call Home 1 EZONE MEETING AGENDA State Enterprise Zone Development Agency July 20, 2011 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Southwest Florida Works (Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee) 750 South 5t'' Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 A. Call to Order. Development A2encv Board (EZDA) B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Michael Facundo Chairman C. Adoption of Agenda. Edward "Ski" olesky D. Consent Agenda. Jeffrey Randall a. Approval of Minutes. Robert Ex-officio Ex- officio i. EZDA Meeting — June 15 , 2011 (Enclosure 1) Julio Estremera b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Report - June, 2011 (Enclosure 2) Kitchell snow E. Old Business. Floyd Crews F. New Business. Ana Salazar G. Citizen Comments. James Wall H. Next Meeting. August 17, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. Eva Deyo I. Adjournment. Carry 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 239.269.9629 Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant 239.269.9628 1 CRA Board Commissioner James N. Coletta 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- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar James Wall Eva Deyo Carrie Williams Melissa Martinez Daniel Rosario Lt. Drew Lee CRA Starr 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 239.269.9629 Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant 239.269.9628 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency 11111 AKA EE BRA i The Place to Call Home! Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee Agenda May 18, 2011 - 8:30 A.M. 1612 RECEIVED JUN 0 8 2011 R21 Board of County Commissioners A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Introductions. Fiala _ D. Announcements. Hiller _ E. Adoption of Agenda. He n n i na ?— y F. Communications. Coyle ✓- a. Public Notices Coietia _ G. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board April 20, 2011 (Enclosure 1) b. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices i. RWA, Inc. 1. April Monthly Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 2) ii. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) 1. April 2011 Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 3) H. Old Business. a. Commercial Fagade Improvement Grant Program (Enclosure 4) b. Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan - Update. i. Collier County Bid Process Timeline (Enclosure 5) ii. Project Budget Discussion (Enclosure 6) c. Immokalee Transportation Improvements - Update i. Lake Trafford Road and SR29 Intersection Improvements (Enclosure 7) ii. County Swale Maintenance Schedule (Enclosure 8) d. IBDC Manager Report (Enclosure 9) e. CRA Lease Agreement Package (Enclosure 10) f. Immokalee Area Master Plan. - Update. Misc. Corres: g. Immokalee MSTU Activity – Updates. h. Street Lights on Westclox Street. Date: 1'i:i 1 i. Marketing - Presentation: Steve Hart. j. Code Enforcement Highlights — Kitchell Snow Item #: -1 Lo =21912 -1. 1. New Business. J. Citizen Comments. Copies to: K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting June 15, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adjournment. * The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held June 15, 2011, at 8:30 A.M. at Southwest Florida Works, 750 South 5d' 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. Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMIA"OKALEE CRA i The Place to Call Home! Certification of Minutes Approval Form ncy 1612 Ae Approved by: Michael "Mike" Facundo, Chairman These Minutes for the April 20, 2011, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on May 18, 2011 as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held June 15, 2011 at 8:30A.M. at the Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call 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, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE CRA 161 ?n- 4 9 21 i The Place to Coll Nome! clos I MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency April 20, 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, Kitchell Snow, Floyd Crews, James Wall, Eva Deyo, Melissa Martinez, Robert Halman, Carrie Williams and Lt. Drew Lee. Advisory Committee/BZDA Members Absent/Excused Julio Estremera, Daniel Rosario and Ana Salazar. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel, Marie Capita, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt . C. Introductions. Chairman Facundo introduced and welcomed County Commissioners Jim Coletta and Tom Henning, the Collier County airport Authority Director, Chris Curry. Advisory Board members and all persons seated at the tables introduced themselves. D. Announcements. a. Mr. Facundo announced that questions should not be directed to Commissioners as advised by the County Attorney B. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Ms. Eva Deyo made a motion to approve the Agenda with the addition of an Item Ia, Resolutions for Grant Applications, Mr. Robert Halman seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. E. Communications. a. The Communications Folder containing the Public Notices was passed around the room for review. F. 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) b. CRA Project Manager Report (Enclosure 4) C. IBDC Manager Report (Enclosure 5) Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, the motion was seconded by Mr. Ski Olesky and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. a. Immokalee Area Master Plan. - Public Workshop. Bob Mulhere with Mulhere and Associates provided a brief history of the IAMP up to this point in time citing the three issues outstanding that required CRA Advisory Committee input. He stated that the CCPC unanimously recommended that the BCC Adopt the IAMP with all proposed revisions to address the issues that were raised in the DCA ORC, with the following two changes: 1612 '421 1. The CCPC did not support inclusion of the Density Blending provisions and there was a motion to specifically recommended removal of these provisions. These provisions were suggested by the owner of the majority of land in the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand System Overlay (LT /CKSSO). The EAC supported adoption of the Density Blending Provisions at both the Transmittal and Adoption Hearings. The CCPC did not support this policy at either Transmittal or Adoption. The BCC left the Density Blending provisions in the Transmittal version that was sent to DCA (and DCA did not object to the policy). The BCC asked that the consultant for the land owner provide additional data and analysis relating to any potential impacts on the RLSA program. The consultant provided that additional data and analysis to the CCPC, but the CPCC still did not support the policy. Staff supported the policy, but agreed after transmittal, that additional data and analysis was required. The Consultant also supported the policy once the additional data and analysis was provided. The EAC supported the policy both at Transmittal and Adoption. The BCC, at its Adoption hearing, will need to make a final determination on this matter as to whether or not to include the Density Blending provisions in the IAMP. This issue relates to item number 2 below, in that if the Density Blending is allowed, it gives the owner of the majority of the land in the Overlay, an option to move the development rights from the highly valuable urban wetland and flow way lands in the Overlay to adjacent but less sensitive lands in the RLSA area. 2. The second issue also deals with the LT /CKSO. The Overlay was adopted several years ago in the Coastal and Conservation Management Element of the GMP. Staff asked that while preparing the IAMP, we include the Overlay in that document as well. We did that, and several issues came up. The above discussed Density Blending being one issue, and the other centers on the amount of preservation of Native Vegetation that should be required in the LT /CKSSO. The CCME Policy directs one to the RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) preservation standards; however, there are several different standards that apply to the various RFMU designated lands, including Sending NRPA, Sending Non -NPA Neutral and Receiving. Since these lands contain very high value wetlands, it would seem readily apparent that the highest preservation requirement (Sending NRPA) makes sense. The additional concern that staff, the County Attorney's Office, and the County consultants have relates to the degree to which the Policy may be alleged to be a Take or partial Take, under federal and state laws. The Overlay covers land that differs significantly from the RFMU lands in that the LT /CKSSO land is Urban. It allows for up to 4 units per acre, and requiring 90 percent preservation would, in the opinion of staff, not allow for use of the property as is currently allowed, even under a clustered design at 4 units per acre. Therefore, staff recommended the 60 percent preservation requirement, not to exceed 45 percent of the site, as currently applies in Neutral lands. The CCPC recommended adoption (with no specified amount of preserve) and coming back in the 2012 GMP amendment cycle with a recommendation based upon further data collection and analysis. Staff and the consultants support adoption of the 60 percent Neutral requirement, even if that includes a requirement to further analyze the issue and if supported by the additional data and analysis, coming back in the next (2012) GMP amendment cycle with any greater or more specific preserve requirements. PJ 161 2 121 Action: Floyd Crews made a motion to follow Staff's recommendation to not require any preservation standards and recommend that the issue be further studied in the next Comp Plan Amendment Cycle. Carrie Williams seconded ht emotion and it passed by unanimous vote. The third issue was Policy 6.17 pertaining to existing mobile home parks. Mr. Mulhere reviewed the ramifications of the Policy and the sequential background of the review through the EAC, the CCPC and the BCC. He further recommended that Policy 6.17 be struck, in its entirety which will put everything back to where it was before we proposed to regulate mobile homes, mobile homes owners will deal with issues under conditions as they currently exist under the existing Plan. Public speakers were asked to speak and to limit their comments to 3 minutes each. The first speaker was Randy Johns who submitted the professional opinion of Bob Mulhere into the record. He further indicated that the removal of Policy 6.17 would not solve Jerry Blocker's or other mobile home owner's issues. He continued to discuss the Jerry Blocker mobile home park issue. He then distributed a package to enter into the record The second speaker was Jerry Blocker who further discussed the issue on his trailer park. He further indicated the removal of Policy 6.17 would infringe on property rights and offered support of tweaking the Policy in question. Jacqueline Hubbard then spoke to set the litigation record straight regarding the Blocker Trailer Park. She reviewed the entire history of the litigation between Jerry Blocker and the Collier County. Fred Thomas spoke about the history of redevelopment, blight and federal Relocation Act requirements. He further discussed the pros and cons of industrial vs. residential zoning land values and the lack of infrastructure in Immokalee. He recommend changes to the Policy 6.17 (b), ending the policy at "in all Subdistricts." Paul Midney stated that he felt the highest and best use of the land where the mobile home park in question is Industrial to facilitate ease in industrial development. Jerry Blocker was permitted to speak a second time, reviewing the items contained in the packet that was earlier distributed to the CRA Advisory Board by Mr. Randy Johns. He stated the County is trying to put him out of business. He suggested a line be added that will stop all litigation and proposed we sit down to discuss options. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to remove the Policy 6.1.7 and references to Policy 61.7 throughout the IAMP, Ms. Williams seconded the motion and it passed with a vote of 10 to 0 with Mr. Snow abstainingfrom the vote. Ms. Williams then made a motion to recommend the 1AMP to the BCC for approval with the recommended changes, Mr. Randall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. H. New Business. a. Resolutions for Grant Applications — Brad Muckel reviewed the two resolutions needed to recommend submittal of the CDBG and RBEG grants to the BCC for approval. 3 1612 A21 I. Citizen Comments. Verdier Clement stated that there is a need for more lighting at night in Immokalee as there are areas where he feels unsafe. Action: Ms. Williams made a motion to transmit a letter to the Immokalee MSTU Beautification Committee with the citizen concern and request for more lighting. Mr. Snow seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting May 18, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 A.M. 11 16l 2 ' A21 APRIL 20, 2011 Public Name E-mail /Affiliation Phone # 1 we &17 116 - A - Lf6 /-\,, - t P, s, tQ ov t/ / /V q aq -2 ? �2 7k>'1-2:5z� APRIL 20, 2011 Name 1")An ( , Public E-mail / Affiliation 612 A121 Phone # r- �:) - 7 �l Oo es� " kAe;,\ \1A 14 C(:�Z,c OA C- C.Al otkvk oiy\,t,s 21, APRIL 20, 2011 mam �A (X r. 1612 121" iA 161 A21 � o 7Y 3 MAY 3 1 Z01 D April 20, 2011 ... ..................... Ladies and Gentlemen of the CRA Board, As members of the Collier County Community, we have the right and expectation to be treated equally by all levels of our government, but it is my belief that Jerry Blocker's property rights have been violated. In 2002, Mr. Blocker entered into an agreement with Mr. & Mrs. Collins to purchase Shell's Trailer Park in Immokalee. At which time he did his due diligence and meant with Michelle Arnold, the head of code enforcement, to discuss the industrial zoning of this property. At which time, Mrs. Arnold explained that the property fit into the grandfather provision of the law but with the understanding that the mobile home park could remain as is but when any one of the mobile homes was destroyed beyond 50% by fire, hurricane, or accident it could not be replaced, nor could the park ever be expanded. Mr. Blacker accepted these terms and finalized the purchase of the property. Keep in mind that this mobile home park has been in the same location since the 1950's, before zoning classification was even initiated. In 2006, Mr. Blocker was issued a new citation for the same issue he discussed with Mrs. Arnold and lie was given only one option to correct: demolition of the trailers. At which time, Mr. Blocker was infonned of a 2001 citation for the same infraction concerning the industrial zoning of the park against the former property owners. They were given the option to correct the violation by obtaining a Site Improvement Plan and repairing, removing, and replacing units not meeting inspection requirements. As of this month the first citation is still active and therefore Mr. Blocker should have had the same option to correct the violation that was given to Mr. and Mrs. Collins in 2001. In addition, Mr. Blocker would have corrected the problem when he purchased the property if he had not been told by county staff that his property was grandfathered in and could remain as is without changes being made. Please review both citations. With denial of the SIP option on several occasions by county staff, Mr. Blocker has been forced to take legal action in an attempt to receive equal property rights. The courts have declared his property a non - conforming rental property, which by definition makes his property perfect for the SIP program. Please see the SIP Program for details. In addition, the current Land Development Code, as it is written today, allows existing mobile home parks to use the SIP to become compliant if you are classified as either an illegal or legal non - conforming mobile home park and the county once even offered a monetary grant to assist in compliance; therefore, Mr. Blocker should have had the right to participate in the SIP program all these years regardless of the master plan for Immokalee. In agreement with court documentation, Bob Mulhire has offered a professional opinion supporting the classification of this property as non - conforming with inherited land rights. 161 2 P-1 We are also concerned that having a code enforcement officer on the current CRA board contaminates this particular issue because he has personally recommended removal of certain wording in the master plan to prevent Mr. Blocker from becoming compliant. Therefore, we ask you to carefully examine the relevant issues at hand and keep section 6.1.7 in the master plan but remove the reference to "residential development' in paragraphs B and C. By doing so, you will give all mobile home parks the same property rights. Immokalee is a working class community and Mr. Blocker provides housing for many farm workers. This property has been certified by the State of Florida and Collier County as a Migrant Camp and has Inspections every 6 weeks to ensure that safety guidelines are meant. Demolition of the mobile homes will put dozens of individuals and families on the streets. So long as Mr. Blocker provides adequate accommodations for his tenants and follows all guidelines set forth by the state, he should be given the opportunity to make his property compliant through the SIP program. Certain county staff and planning commissioners support this change and it is our hope that you will as well. In closing, Mr. Blocker's citation was never given a county staff recommendation, but was moved directly to the code enforcement board where they started fining him $450.00 per day. The penalty now exceeds $300,000.00 and the county has started foreclosure proceedings. Regardless of how anyone feels about the Blocker family, it is important to keep a clear mind when examining the facts of this case. This is about a man who bought a property that was grandfathered in as a mobile home park in an industrial zone, but then was told years later that he was in violation of county codes and that his only option was the demolition of all buildings. Demolition is not a viable option because other mobile home parks /units and the previous property owners were given 3 options: obtain a Site Improvement plan and pass inspections, rezone the property, or use it for industrial purposes only. Since 2006, Mr. Blocker has tried to utilize the SIP option, but has been denied again and again. So we turn to you, an advisory council to the Board of County Commissioners, to right this wrong. If you have any questions regarding the truth of the facts presented, we have minutes of meetings and video of all declarations made today. So please recommend the change to 6.1.7 B and C, as opposed to the entire removal of section 6.1.7, so that we can see the master plan continue to move forward rather than be shelved and prove that this government agency is focused on protecting the rights of property owners and ensuring equality to all. Sincerely, —' Randy Johns i 1 � Q • tT S Uhrn t+- --d ` d Uj J On � rfg u7� 6 (X- \JkW►r�5 su1,,Mt ly-�kb PUVDtk , 1 61 A2 1 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - NOTICE OF ORDINANCE VIOLATION AND ORDER TO CORRECT TO: Larry L. & Wanda Collins Sr. 101 Highview Ave. Lehigh Acres, FL. 33936 LOCATION OF VIOLATION (LEGAL AND ADDRESS) WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY ZONING DIST. INDUSTRIAL SEC. 34 TWN. 46 RNG. 29 SURD. New Market BLK.# 48 LOT #. 8 PARCEL# OF COLLIER COUNTY COUNTY RECORD. PROPERTY ID# 63864720000 PUD# , TRACT# , UNIT# SDP #, O R 898 PAGE 414 OR PAGE A.K.A.(Address) 1123 Alachua St. Immokalee, FL _ Unincorporated Collier County NOTICE PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD (C.E.B.) ORD #92 -80 and 97 -35, AS AMENDED, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT A VIOLATIONS) OF THE FOLLOWING COLLIER COUNTY ORD.(S) AND /OR P.U.D. REGULATION(S) EXISTS AT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LOCATION. ORD(S) 91 -102 Sec. 1.5.6., 2.2.16.1., 2.2.16.27, 2.2.16.2.1. ORD(S) 89 -06 Sec, 5 ORD(S) 95 -19 Plumbing Code ORD(S) 98 -77 Electrical Code DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS CONSTITUTING THE VIOLATION(S). DID WITNESS ON FOLLOWING DATE: Oct.22, 2001 Site built structures are in need of repair as per attached C.C. Building Inspection Report. Mobile homes illegally situated on land designated for Industrial use. INQUIRIES AND COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATOR: Evelyn Claudio 106 S.1" St. ImmoWee, FL 34142 -3900 (941)657 -2525 FAX: (941) 657 -3837 Investigator's Signature VIOLATION STATUS:. INITIAL „_„RECURRING —REPEAT ORDER TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS). YOU ARE DIRECTED BY THIS NOTICE TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIVE ACTIONS) 1. Obtain a Site Improvement Plan as part of the IMP and repair, remove, or replace the units according to inspection reports (only as part of the IWISIP Program). All units below standards should be vacated. 2. OR Rezone property and repair, replace, or remove substandard units. 3. OR Use property according to present zoning which is Industrial. ON OR BEFORE: 11.62001 PENALTIES .MAY BE IMPOSED: Failure to correct t1e violations on or before the date specified above will result in, 1) the filing of an affidavit of violation with the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, "C.E.B. ", charging you with thb violation(s) as described on this form. You will/have receive(d) notification that a hearing will be held which you and/or a legal representative may attend. Failure to appear may result in the Board proceeding and making a determination in your absence. If the Code Enforcement Board finds dviolation exists, a maximum fine of $250.00 per day in the case of a first violation, a maximum fine of $500.00 per day for a repeat violation and a maximum fine of $5000.00 per violation in the event the "C.E.B." finds the violation to be of an irreparable or irreversible nature. Fines may be imposed on a per day basis for each day each violation exists. Costs of prosecution and/or repairs may also be assessed against you for any violation, or, 2) the issuance of a Notice to Appear before the Collier County Court where penalties of up to $500 + costs may be imposed, or, 3) the issuance of a citation which you may pay or contest in the Collier County Court where penalties of• up to $500 + costs may be imposed. SERVED BY:—POSTED --,/PERSONAL SERVICE _ CERT MAIL CERT. MAIL RECEIPT # I r ,I�REBY acknowledge I have received, read, and understand this notice of violation. Signature and Title of Recipient Print DATED THIS! DAY O �� ,2001 REF: CASE NO 2001100933 � -A oyoo 1 DSa'!;7 t ' COLLMR COUNT', FLORA NOTICE .OF VIOLATION ANJD DUDE TO COACT 3:0 JERRY B. BLACKER and KIMBERLEA. L. BLOCICER (OWNERS) 1830 1 ti°: STREETN E NAPLl±S, FLA. 34120 LOCATION OF VIOLATION (LEGAL AND ADDRESS) WMiIN COLLIER. COUNTY ZONING DIST. " I " SEC.34, TWN. 46, RNG.29, SUBD. NEW MARKET LOTS 9 and 10, BLOCK 48, ID# 63864760002 of Collier Co. record, OR 3170, PAGE 1547 A.K.A. 1101 ALACHUA ST. DAMOKALEE, FLA. Previously known as "Shells Trailer Park" NOTICE PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY CODS ENFORCERM T BOARD (C B B ) ORD # 05-55 and 97 -35, AS AMENUED,YOU ARE i4QTIFIED T13AT um FOLLOWING v10LATi0NS EXIST. W L 1970 Z oning kepdationatl umkalm area Article IV, SEC. 4.1 "UM', SEC. 4.2 'BUILDINGS ", SEC. 4.3 "FATS" and SEC. 4.4 "YARD SPACS" Artii'ccle VII, SEC. 7.1 'MT1ENr and SEC. 7.9 'TERMINATION REQUliiba+iENt�" Article Xl, SEC 10.11 -f-C-3 I commercial. -light. indusL Dist" pat; #2 ORD. 04-41, as amended 9M SDC.1.04.00 (APPLICABIL[TY) , SUB SEC'S 1.04.01 ' (GENERAL) , par's. A. B. -and C and 1.04.05 OWA'TIONSHiP TO GtO IH MGMT. PLAN) SEC. 1.05.00 (Lai wds, PURPOSE and i umM , SUB SEC. 1.05.01, par: F SEC 202.00 (ESTABUSHMENr OF ZONING DISTS.) , SUB SEC' S- 2.02.01, par. D, and 102 -03. (PROTOMP USE). =1 2.03.00, (ZONING DIST S.) SUB SEC'S. 103.03, par. A SEC. 2.04.00 (PIRt 43SIBLE USES) SUB SEC2- 04.03. pg. '7 DC2:119" - SEC. 2.05.00 (DANsrit s'rANDARDs) SUB sm ios.U1, par. A Sl3G 8.08.00 (CODE ENFORCHhWNT BOARD) . paet B and D SEC. 9.03.00 (N0N0DNFORMrf1ES) SUB SEC. 9.03.01(t4 NERAL) , par. D DESC,'RIMON OF CONDITIONS CONST[l`U NG THE VIOLATION (S). Unlawful and inappropriate Mobile Home improvements to Industrial zoned property in Collior County known as 1101 Alachua St. Immobdee, FIaJa.iz a..lots 9 and 10, block 48,Newmtuket Sabel., ID# 63864760002 of Collier Co. record.. All same industrial zoned property having had a previous '-G3" zoning designation, which also prohibited pleo:emottt of Mobile Homes for dwelling use. (REF IMMOKALBB AREA ZONING DIST. Rl1G'S. DATED CM . 1970) All same development and improvements having taken place in direct contrast to Collier Co. land de-velopment requirements and wdthout prior Collier Ca. Zoning and Plawft revkw and approval. INQUIRIES AW COIYIIV MITS SHOULD BE DMECIM TO CODE M00P.(HMENT INVESTIGATOR Dennis Mezcane 2800 No. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, AL 34104 (239) 40314447 FAX (239) 40 2343 Investigator's Signature ��b .r VIOLATION STATUS: A21 " ORDER TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS) YOU ARE DIRECTED BY THIS NOTICE TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) Mast obtain a complete and sufficient Collier County Demolition Permit for the removal of all mobile home dwellings/structures currently located on industrial zoned property in Collier Co. known as lots 9 and 10, block 48, ID 63864760002 of Collier Co. record, nn later than 90 days after receipt of this notice, Upon having obtained a demolition permit, must then execute same by removing all non - allowed, non- approved mobile homes, related improvements, use and resulting debris in a collaborated effort with all local atilitles, so as to comply with all Collier Co. codes, ordinances and land use regulations and requirements no later than 120 daps after having obtained a demolition permit. PENALTIES MAY BE IMPOSED: Failure to correct the violations on or before the data specified above will insult K 1) the filing of an affidavit of violation with the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, "C.B.B. ", or Special Master S.M: charging you with the violation(s) as described on this form. You willihave receive(d) no"Oution that a hearing will be held which you and/or a legal representative may attend. Failure to appear may result in the Boar&S. M. proceeding and making a determination in your absence. If the Code Enforcement Board or Special Master finds a violation exists, a maximum fine, of $1000.00 per day in the case of a first violation, a maximum fine of $5000.00 per day for a repeat violation and a maximum fine of $15,000.00 per violation in the event there Is a finding that the violation is of an irreparable or irreversible natom Fwes may be imposed on a per day basis for each day each violation exists. Costs of prosecution and/or repairs may also be as sed against you for any violation.. . SERVED BY.� - --CMT. PERSONAL CERT. MAIL RECEIPT NO# .1 -- .HMMY acknowledge I have twceived, read and understand this lice of violation. � 1 � `a' F � 'tom Signature an T1Ue of Recipient. S f &N Print DATED TMS23MY OF A4.2006 ICES: CASH NO 2001100976 1612 COLLIER COUNTY 140USING AND URBAN Xlvl.PROVEMENT UEPARTAdENT Site. Improvement Plan Assistance Program r :�4iTkrh: (.:older ( :6unty H6usirig wid Urban Improvement Department will grant up to $200 per unit to assist Irnrnokalee mobile home park operators in completing a Site Improvement Plan. This program will provide park owners and/or operators with a grant for approximately two thirds of the cost assessed by ongineorbig firms for preparing such plans. 'T'he Collier County plannir)g Department will require all existing mobile home parks in the County to file a Site Improvement Ilan, Question h How do I qualify for this grants Grants arc available to owners and/or operators of mobile home rental parks in the Immokalee area. Question 2: ,Moir rocs a mobile, home park qualify for this grant? Tbo subject mobile home park must bo an exisdng ille yal or legal non - conforming rental park. Question 3: Are ihere w y restrictions as to where the property may bo located? The only criteria is that the property must be located within Xmrnokalee Area. Question 4: ,flow inuch money can I get? Applicants will receive approximately two thirds of tho cost of the Sito Xrnprovernent Plan or $200 per unit (whichever is less). Payment will be, made directly to tho firm that completes the S.I.P. Question S. go YvhaVs the catch? The catch is that owners with densities in excess of what Is legally permitted may be granted increased density if they follow through with the Site Improvement Plan and begin the required changes within 6 months of acceptance. Question 6: Who do I call if I have more quesilons about thi's program? C011ier CotjjjCy CoMmunity Devolopnient Immokalee Office Housing and Urban Improveaient Departrnent 106 S. I" ,street Immokalee, FL 34142 Phone (941) 657 -2525 Fax (941) 657 -3837 161 2 A21 ' EXISTING COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 2.03.07 G g, Nonconforming Mobile Home Park Overlay Subdistrict. Establishment of special conditions for these properties which by virtue of actions preceding the adop' ion of Ordinance No. 91- 102, on October 30, 1991, were deemed to be nonconforming as a result of inconsistencies with the land development code, and are located within the Immokalee Urban Boundary as depicted on the Immokalee Area Master Plan. a. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these provisions is to recognize that there are nonconforming mobile home parks in the Immokalee Urban Area, to provide incentives to upgrade these parks while requiring the elimination of substandard units, and to allow park owners to take advantage of alternative development standards in order to cause some upgrading of conditions that would normally be required of conforming mobile home parks. Travel trailers, regardless of the square footage, are not permitted as a permanent habitable structure. b. Required site improvement plan application. The property owners of all nonconforming mobile home developments /parks that were in existence before November 13, 1991, i.e., that predate Ordinance No. 91 -102, the land development code, shall be required to submit a site improvement plan (SIP) meeting the standards set forth below by January 9, 2003 or thereafter within the time frame set forth in an order of the Code Enforcement Board finding a violation of this section, or by the date set forth in a Compliance or Settlement Agreement entered into between Collier County and a property owner acknowledging such a violation and also establishing the date by which such violation will be cured through the SIP submittal process set forth below. C. The site improvement plan (SIP) master plan shall illustrate the way existing buildings are laid out and the infrastructure (i.e. utilities, streets, drainage, landscaping, parking and the like) to serve those buildings. The number and location of buildings shall be reviewed for consistency with Code requirements (i.e. setbacks, space between buildings, density, and the like). Similarly, the SIP shall serve to provide a basis for obtaining approval of required infrastructure improvements such as those referenced herein. The approved SIP showing all of the above shall become the official record acknowledging the legal use of the property. Failure to initiate this process within the time frames set forth above, will result in a Code violation in which the property owner will be required to immediately remove all mobile homes which have not received a building permit and all mobile homes deemed to be unsafe and unfit for human habitation, and otherwise contrary to the county's housing code unless otherwise prohibited by state law. d. For the specific requirements concerning the SIP submission referenced in b. and c. above, see Section 10.02.05 F. of this Code. +6I2 'A21 August 21, 2007 Jim Coletta Chairman Collier County Board of Commissioners Naples, Florida Dear Chairman Coletta, RE: J. & K. Blocker Mobile Home Park in Immokalee On behalf of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee, I am forwarding to you by this letter the results of a recent consideration of the referenced matter. As background, you may be aware that the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee (IMPVC) is continuing in its efforts to finalize the Master Plan. As part of that process, finding fair ways to transition from existing uses to those proposed for long term development in a manner consistent with the proposed Master Plan is a key part of the Immokalee community's support for these efforts. A recent case brings this point into focus. That case involves Mr.& Mrs. Jerry Blocker's property on Alachua Street that has been used as a mobile home park since the early 1960's. As you may also be aware, we have been informed that the Blockers are simply seeking to implement a settlement/compliance agreement to resolve a pending lawsuit and code enforcement matter that would rely on the Immokalee Initiative's Site Improvement Plan (SIP) process to resolve those matters. With that as background, on August 15, 2007, after a brief presentation by their attorney, Mr. Patrick White, the IMPVC voted to find that there was no inconsistency between such a solution relying on the SIP process and the terms of the existing or presently proposed Immokalee Area Master Plan. According to staff, when we get to the code portion of our master plan we will be able develop a much better solution the grandfathering concerns. Please let me know if anything further may be required with respect to this matter. Thank you;:� K� R°Fred= .-Tho as, Jr.. Chairman, IMPVC 16'I 2 A21 ' DU [A INC. C'oNSUL'TINC .A � Y qA. -planning -Visualization *Civil Engineering - Surveying &Mapping PROFESSIONAL PLANNING OPINION Purpose: The purpose of this Professional Planning Opinion is to review the historic and ongoing uses of the subject property and to provide an expert planning opinion as to the consistency and compliance of those uses with the Collier County Growth Management. Plan (GMP), Land Development Code (LDC), and any other applicable County ordinances, both historically and at present. Prepared by: Robert J. Mulhere, AICP Vice President Planning RWA, Inc. Date: March 6, 2007 The subject property is located at 1101 Alachua Street, Immokalee Florida. The folio numbers for the subject property are 63864680001 (Lots 6 & 7), 63864720000 (Lot 8), and 63864760002 (Lots 9 & 10) and is more particularly described as Block 48, Newmarket Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Pages 104 and 105, Public Records of Collier County Florida. The subject property is a/k/a "Shell's Trailer Park." To the west, the site is bounded by a platted public right-of-way (ROW), an extension of Broward Street. Across'this public ROW to the west there is a Junk Yard and /or vehicle salvage operation. Aerial photos and actual site visits reveal that there are a number of junk/salvage vehicles and other items stored in this public ROW, presumably in conjunction with the junk yard/salvage business. This issue was raised at the Code Enforcement Board Hearing, in relation to the inappropriateness of the residential use adjacent to the junk yard /salvage operation. In reality, this yyould appear to be a code violation on the part of the adjacent business /land owner, and removal of thes6 vehicles from the public ROW, or vacation of this unused and unnecessary portion of Broward Street would create sufficient separation between the subject residential use and the adjacent commercial use. Moreover, this condition has in no way been crated by owners of the subject property, but rather by the business /land owner. Q: 12006 \060f o5.Do4'U0Mo ITei'Er peh'g'iiin�'tiy'1UUUPrAlert on �i�tat %itl'AOFESSIONADFL�N IING OPINION 03- 06- 07.doe www.constl - rwa.00m 1 Planning Blocker g 1612 March 6, 2007 Page 2 of 21 The subject site contains a variety of residential dwelling units, both mobile homes and conventional "stick- built' units. It is alleged that the present use of the property is in violation of various Sections of Ordnance 04 -41, the Collier County LDC as well as prior existing zoning regulations. These specifics of the alleged violations are discussed in detail throughout the balance of this report. In summary, the violations allege unlawful and inappropriate development and residential use of Industrial zoned property without prior Collier County zoning and Building Permit, and purportedly perpetuating a use that is inconsistent with the County's GMP. B. Historical 1 Factual Information from Property Appraiser's records and Aerial Photos • The Property Appraiser's records only date back to 1960. Hurricane Donna destroyed all records prior to that time. • The Property Appraiser's Property History Cards for the subject parcels state that the property has been considered and appraised/taxed at a residential rate by the Property Appraiser's Office as far back as the existing records indicate. (Available Property History Card Copies are attached hereto). • Two of the non - mobile home /trailer residential structures on Lot 8 are shown as built in 1946; aerial photographs cannot confirm that in 1953 the property was occupied due to tree cover. In 1963 the aerial photograph shows there were already a significant number of structures on Lots 6, 7 and 8 with lot 9 and 10 left undetermined due to tree cover. • Property History Cards indicate that improvements to Lots 6 and 7 began being assessed for ad valorem taxes in 1966; Lot 8 began being assessed for improvements in 1966; the History Card for Lots 9 & 10 is incomplete and does not list when improvements began being assessed. Additional information from the Property History Cards indicate the following designations, structure types, years built and various permits that were issued: Folio 63864680001 (Lots 6 & 7) R -3 (Residential) — Built 1940 +/- R-2 (Residential) — Built 1948 +/- A21 J,61 2 d21 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 3 of 21 ■ CG (Garage)— Built 1964 ■ R 1(Residential) —Built 1950 ■ CPC (car port) — Built 1968 Property History Card indicates the following permits issued for this parcel. 1963 Per. 4086 — 4/4/63 1963 Per. 4087 — 4/4/63 1965 Perm. #5045 1966 Per. #65 -177 +�+ 1968 Per. # 67 -759 500 3/4/68 •.+ 1985 Per 1 -85 -363? 8/7/85 Folio 63864720000 (Lot 8) ■ (Residential) Built 1946 ■ CG (Garage) 1961 ■ CG (Garage) 1961 (Removed from tax roll) ■ R -1 (Residential) Built 1946 ■ Trailer —Built 1956 ■ Trailer —Built 1952 ■ R -1+ (Residential) Built 1963 ■ ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) — Built 1985 ■ Trailer —Built 1950 ■ Trailer —Built 1948 ■ Trailer —Built 1956 ■ Trailer —Built 1955 Property History Card indicates the following permits issued for this parcel. 1965 Perm. # 5045 ' •2• 1985 Per - I -85 -362 8 -7 -85 Folio 63864760002 (Lots 9 & 10) ■ MH (Mobile Home) — Built in 1970 +/- ■ AW (Cabana) — Built 1970 +/- ■ ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) Built 1984 + /- ■ MH (Mobil Home) — Built 1975 + /- 0 Expansion (addition to mobile home) — Built 1975 + /- * ALPC (Aluminum Car Port) — Built 1970 +/- 1612 d21" Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 4 of 21 ■ *ALPC (Aluminum Car Port) — Built 1970 +/- N *MH (Mobil Home) — Built 1980 +/- ■ *ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) — Built 1987 +/- ■ *MH (Mobil Horne) — Built 1980 +/- ■ *ALSP (Aluminum Screen Porch) — Built 1987 +/- ■ 1984 —Per. 184 -0098 2/2/84 ■ 1991— Per. 90 -9126 (ADD) * Added to appraisal card in 1992 2 Clerk of Courts & Community Development & Environmental Services Historic Zoning Maps. The Cleric of Court's historic zoning maps for the subject property do not date back further than 2 -3 -70, and indicate that at that time the property was zoned I- IND (Industrial). This is corroborated by two historic zoning maps stored in the Community Development & Environmental Services Department (CDES), which also date back to 2 -3 -70 and 12 -4 -72 and indicate that the subject site's zoning was then I(Industrial) and I -C -3 (Commercial and Light Industrial) respectively. An additional zoning map was discovered in CDES records which indicates a date of 1952, and depicts C -3 (Commercial and Light Industrial) zoning on the subject parcels, but the official adoption of this map cannot be verified, and the date may reflect the date of last revision of the underlying map as no known zoning regulation was in effect in Collier County prior to 1959. 3 Historic Zoning Ordinances Copies of the Collier County Zoning Regulations booklets dated 1959, 1961, and 1965 are attached. Additionally the Immokalee Area Zoning District Zoning Regulations dated 1970 and relevant portions of the Immokalee Area Zoning District Zoning Regulations 1973 are attached. C. Analysis The subject property has contained residential structures (mobile homes and several traditional (stick -built or concrete block) dwellings) for more than forty years. The earliest zoning ordinance in County records dates to 1959. From 1959 through the present day, the residential uses where either expressly permitted, or permitted as legal non - conforming uses, including alterations and repairs, as well as replacement structures and new mobile homes. Most, if not all, of Collier County's records for the year's prior to 1960 were destroyed (during and after Hurricane Donna); however, aerial photographs, reconstructed records, and anecdotal evidence support the existence of residential structures on the property 1612 A21 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 5 of 21 as far back as 1946. A 1953 aerial appears to show the site was relatively undeveloped or vacant, but this is difficult to verify from the aerial to the tree canopy. The 1963 aerial shows many structures present on the site. Collier County's first comprehensive zoning ordinance was not adopted until 1959, . although one map that was found in CDES was dated 1952 and indicates the subject property was zoned C -3 (Commercial -Light industrial) may have been such at that time. Clearly, based upon aerial photographs, the use of the property for residential purposes was established prior to the adoption of that 1959 ordinance. The residential use was established lawfully prior to the zoning changes that prohibit that use (thus the structures are lawfully pre- existing). Moreover, since the use of this property for residential purposes, including mobile home units, was a legal conforming use for many years, said use and all lawfully pre - existing structures are, at present, legally nonconforming as defined in the Collier County LDC. As such, all existing structures may remain in place and in use (and may be repaired and maintained) subject to the provisions set forth in Section 9.03.02 of the LDC. This being the case, there is no legal basis for any of the alleged Code Enforcement violations. This position is further supported by the fact that, although the use has been ongoing since at least 1963 and there is evidence in the form of historic zoning maps that the property has been zoned Industrial or Light Industrial since at least 1970, no violation was alleged and no "Notice of Violation" issued (related to the use of the property) prior to 2001 (with no actual enforcement action taken) and again in 2006. How is it that permits for repairs, maintenance and replacement units were regularly approved by Collier County in the intervening decades? The only logical conclusion is that it was consistently determined that such permits could, in fact, be issued, based upon the undisputed fact that the residential use was originally lawfully pre - existing or legal nonconforming in that it predated the present Industrial zoning designation, and was in fact an expressly permitted use under that designation and previous zoning designations from at least 1959 through 1976. It is important to consider the historic zoning afid allowable uses on the subject property. It is also important to note that available historic zoning maps from the Collier County Clerk of Courts office date back only to 1970, although as previously stated, the residential use (both mobile homes and traditional stick built) have been verified as early as 1963, and before. I have reviewed the following historic zoning ordinances (which are attached): 1959 First Collier County Zoning Ordinances (Countywide, effective February 1959) 1961 Countywide Zoning Ordinance (effective April 1961) 1970 Immokalee Area Zoning Ordinance (effective October 1970) 1612 A2101 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 6 of 21 • 1973 Relevant pages Immokalee Area Zoning Ordinance (Amending 1970 Immokalee Area Zoning Ordinance effective May 1973) The fact is that there are no "official" pubic records that indicate what the subject property was zoned prior to 1970, and thus it cannot be factually ascertained what the zoning was on the subject parcels, and thus what regulations applied and what uses were permitted (or prohibited). Nevertheless, reviewing the historic zoning ordinances that applied to the subject property reveals that in each of the above, the more permissive zoning districts allowed, as permitted uses, all of the uses permitted in the less permissive districts. This is a then popular hierarchical structure, still in use throughout the United States, and known as Euclidean Zoning, in reference to 1926 Supreme Court case, City of Euclid v. Ambler Realty. In other words, if we assume that the subject property was zoned Industrial (1) at the time of the adoption of the County's first zoning ordinance in 1959, the I district expressly permitted any uses permitted in the C -3 commercial district, and the C -3 district expressly permitted any uses in the C -2 district, the C -2 district expressly permitted any uses permitted in the C -1 district, and the C -1 district expressly permitted any use permitted in the R -3 district. The R -3 district expressly permitted any use permitted in the R -2 district, and the R -2 district expressly permitted any use permitted in the R -1 district. Therefore, all uses permitted by right in R -1 through R -3 were also permitted by right in C -1, all uses permitted by right in R -1 through R -3 and C -1 were also permitted by right in C -2, all uses permitted by right in R -1 through R -3, C -1, and C -2 were also permitted by right in C -3, and so on. In this way the I district was the most permissive district allowing all expressly permitted uses in the I district as well as permitted uses in the R -1 through R -3 and C -1 through C -3 districts. The R -1 district, in the 1959 code, allowed single family dwellings as a permitted use and expressly prohibited the use of tents for living quarters. It should be noted that the R-2A district expressly prohibited both tents and "trailers" from being used as living quarters. If this prohibition'was also desired in the R -1, R -2 or R-3 districts, the code would have expressly stated that. Therefore, residential uses, including stick built single and multifamily, and mobile homes were permitted on the subject property, whether it was zoned residential (R -1 through R -3), commercial (C -1 through C -3), or Industrial (I). Thus, as to the subject lands the now existing uses were then lawfully permitted. The 1961 code, as amended in October of 1962, established an R -4 zoning district, which expressly allowed mobile home and/or "Trailer Homes" for residential use. In this code, the above noted procedure continues, allowing the permitted uses from less permissive districts to also be permitted in the more permissive districts, except that the allowance is not extend to the R -4 district. 1612 k,. _A 21 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 7 of 21 Nevertheless, in both the 1959 and 1961 (as amended in 1962) the codes expressly permit in the C -1 district, under permitted use Number 6, Trailer Camps or Courts. Therefore, regardless of any restriction expressly stated or implied (by the addition of the R -4 district) that the 1961 code (as amended in 1962) placed upon the use of mobile homes, the use was still allowed in the C -1 district and the I district allowed all permitted uses in R -1 through R -3 and C -1 through C -3. Thus, as to the subject lands the now existing uses were then permitted. Additionally, the C -1 district, under permitted use Number 2, listed a number of expressly prohibited uses in the 1959 and 1961 codes. In 1965 the list of prohibited uses is carried over but now includes a previously nonexistent prohibition on "the use of house cars or mobile homes for living quarters. " Generally however, the 1965 County -wide zoning ordinance follows a similar procedure as previous ordinances in that the I district allows all permitted uses in the C -3 district, and the C -3 district allows all permitted uses in the C -2 district, C -2 allows all permitted uses in C -1, C -1 allows all permitted uses in R -3, and so on. Even if it is assumed that the R -1 through R -3 districts did not allow mobile homes in the case of the 1965 code, and the C -1 district prohibited the mobile home use individually or generally (under permitted use Number 2), the use is still permitted in the form of a Trailer Camp (permitted use Number 6) pursuant to operation under regulations of the State Board of Health, which has been the case for the subject mobile homes since at least 1986. Finally, all of these zoning codes (1959, 1961 (as amended) and 1965 (as amended) under the I zoning district permitted use Number 2, "Any law ul use that is not obnoxious or offensive by reason of the emission of odors, fumes, dust, smoke, noise, vibration, radioactive waves, or substances, or possesses an abnormal explosion hazard." Thus, as to the subject lands, the now existing uses were then lawfully permitted before January 1970, when the Immokalee zoning ordinances and regulations became effective. As stated, in January of 1970, a zoning ordinance was adopted covering the Immokalee Area (with a separate ordinance hovering the coastal area). This ordinance, to some degree, followed the same hierarchical structure as the previous County -wide codes in that the most permissive districts allowed permitted uses from the less permissive districts, but only in the case of the I and C -1 through C -3 districts. That is, the I district allowed permitted uses from the C- 1 through C -3 districts. The C -3 district allowed permitted uses from the C -1 and C -2 districts, and so on. Reviewing the historic zoning maps, it is not until 1970 that we can first determine and verify how the subject property was actually zoned. It appears the subject property was zoned I under the then newly adopted regulation. In 1972, the County changed the zoning to I -C -3. Thus, it is not until 1612 A-121 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 8 of 21 the 1970 Immokalee Area zoning ordinance (and subsequent 1972 amended ordinance) that we first find that the already existing and permissible residential use of the subject property is not a permitted use. Likewise, this is the first point in time that the residential use became legally nonconforming. The currently effective LDC (Section 9.03.02), allows legal non - conforming uses to remain in place and use until they are voluntarily removed or destroyed by any cause, or the use is discontinued (as set forth under the applicable provision of Section 9.03.02.). Additionally, and at the discretion of the property owner, the LDC provides for a process to allow the nonconforming residential structures to be altered, expanded, or replaced. In similar fashion, previously applicable historic zoning ordinances also allowed legally noni - conforming uses. to remain in place and in use, or altered, expanded, or replaced, under the same or similar conditions. A detailed analysis of the non - conforming provisions of the current and historic zoning codes is provided in Section D of this report. Thus, it is clear that the LDC provides for a reasonable and legal remedy to address the alleged violation. This remedy is wholly different from the remedy that was set forth in the respective Orders of the Board, for CEB Case Numbers 2006 -16, 2006 -17 and 2006 -18. These Orders, in summary, provided two options, the first being to rezone the property to a current zoning district that allows the residential uses, or alternatively, to remove the violation(s). Since it is not possible under the current GMP provisions to rezone the property to make the residential use conforming, the CEB Order, in reality left only one option, to remove all of the residential structures. This is obviously an unreasonable requirement, with no basis in law since, as previously stated, due to its legal nonconforming status, the residential use of the subject property may continue subject to the limitations of Section 9.03.02. D. Nonconformities Applicable portions of the current LDC read as follows [double- underline and highlighting added for emphasis]: Section 9.03. 01 A. Intent. Within the zoning districts established by the LDC or amendments that may later be adopted, there may exist lots, cure uses of land, water and structures, and characteristics of use which were lawful before the LDC was adopted or amended, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the terms of LDC or future amendments. It is the intent of this section to permit these nonconformities to continue until th_ev are voluntarily renovated or removed as required by the LDC but not to encourage their survival It is 161 2' -A'21' Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 9 of 21 further the intent of the LDC that the nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded, intensified, or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. B. Declaration. Nonconforming uses are declared by this section to be incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved. A. nonconforming use of a structure, a nonconforming use of land or water, or a nonconforming use of structure, land or water in combination shall not be extended or enlarged after the effective date of the LDC or relevant amendment thereto by attachment on a structure or premises of additional signs intended to be seen from off the premises, or by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited generally in the district involved, except as provided for within section 9.03.03 B.4. C. Vested projects. To avoid undue hardship, nothing in the LDC shall be deemed to require a change in the plans, construction, or designated use of a building or property on which a building permit had been applied for prior to the effective date of adoption of relevant amendment of the LDC. In addition, nothing in the LDC shall be deemed to require a change in the plans, construction, or designated use of any property for which a development plan was lawfully required and approved prior to the effective date of adoption of relevant amendment of the LDC, provided that such plan shall expire two (2) years from the date of said approval, or one (1) year from the date of adoption of the LDC, whichever shall first occur, if no actual construction has been commenced; and thereafter, all development shall be in accordance with the zoning regulations then in effect. Any such approved plat or plan may be amended by approval of the BCC, provided the degree of nonconformity with the LDC shall not be increased. D. Casual, temporary, or illegal use. The casual, temporary, or illegal use of land or structures, or land and structures in combination, shall not be sufficient to establish the existence of a nonconforming use or to create rights in the continuance of such use. F. Change to conforming use requires future conformity with district regulations. Where a structure, or structure and premises in combination, in or on which a nonconforming use is replaced by a permitted use shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which the structure is located, and [sic] the nonconforming use shall not thereafter be resumed nor shall any other nonconforming use be permitted. G. Nonconformities not involving the use of a principal structure. Nonconformities not involving the use of a principal structure ; including, but not limited to, open storage, building supplies, vehicles, mobile homes, trailers, equipment and machinery storage, junkyard, commercial animal yards and the like, shall be discontinued within one Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 10 of 21 1612-, ��'�A21 (1) year of the effective date of the LDC or relevant amendment of the LDC. H. Safety of nonconformities. 1. If a nonconforming structure or portion of a structure, or any structure containing a nonconforming use becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs or maintenance, and is declared by the duly authorized official of Collier County to be unsafe or unlawful by reason of physical condition, it shall not thereafter be restored, repaired, or rebuilt except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. 2. If a nonconforming structure or portion of a structure, or any structure containing a nonconforming use, becomes physically unsafe or unlawful for reasons other this lack of repairs or maintenance, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of such building or part thereof declared to be unsafe by the authorized official of Collier County charged with the public safety; provided, however, that where such unsafeness or unlawfulness is the result of damage from destruction, the percentage of damage limitations set out in section 9.03.02 F.3., as the case may be, shall apply. Section 9 03 02 Requirements for Continuation of Nonconformities. Where, at the effective date of adoption or relevant amendment of the LDC, lawfu use of lands or waters exists which would not be permitted under the LDC, the use may be co tinue , so long as it remains otherwise lawful, provided: A. Enlargement, increase, intensification, alteration. No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged intensified, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of land, structure, or water than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or relevant amendment of the LDC, exce t single- family, duplex or mobile home use as provided for within section 9,.03.03 B.4, C. Change in tenancy or ownership. There may be a change in tenancy, ownership or management of a nonconforming use provided there is no change in the nature or character of such nonconforming use G. Repairs and maintenance. On any nonconforming structure or portion of a structure and on any structure containing a nonconforming use, work may be done in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of nonbearing walls, fixtures, wiring, or plumbing to an extent not exceeding twenty (20) percent of the current assessed valuation of the structure (or of the nonconforming portion of the structure if a nonconforming portion of a structure is involved), provided that the cubic content of the structure existing at the 161'2 A21 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 11 of 21 date it becomes nonconforming shall not be increased except subject further to the exception provided at section 9.03.03 B., herein. H. Subdivision or structural additions. No land in nonconforming use shall be subdivided, nor shall any structures be added on such land except for the purposes and in a manner conforming to the regulations for the district in which such land is located; provided, however, that subdivision may be made which does not increase the degree of nonconformity of the use. 9 03 03 T Wes of Nonconformities B. Nonconforming structures. Where a structure lawfully exists at the effective date of the adoption of this ordinance or relevant amendment that could not be built under the LDC by reason of restrictions on lot area, lot coverage , height, yards , location on the lot , or requirements other than use concerning the structure , such structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: 1. No such nonconforming stiucture maybe enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its nonconfo�rnity: provided, however, that the alteration, expansion, or replacement of nonconforming single - family dwellings, duplexes or mobile homes shall be permitted in accordance with section 9.03.03 B.4. 2. Should such nonconforming structure or nonconforming portion of a structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its actual replacement cost at time of destruction, as determined by a cost estimate submitted to the site development review director, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with provisions of the LDC. 3. Should such structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatever, other than as a result of governmental action, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located after it is moved. 4. Nonconforming residential structures, which for the purpose of this section shall mean detached single - family dwellings, duplexes or mobile homes in existence at the effective date of this zoning Code or its relevant amendment and in continuous residential use thereafter, may be altered, expanded, or replaced upon recommendation of the Collier County Planning Commission and approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals by resolution. 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions as to reconstruction, any residential structure or structures in any residential zone district may be rebuilt after destruction to the prior extent, height and density of units per acre regardless of the percentage of destruction, subject to compliance with the applicable building code requirements in effect at the time of 1612 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion A21 March 6, 2007 Page 12 of 21 redevelopment. In the event of such rebuilding, all setbacks and other applicable district requirements shall be met unless a variance therefore is obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals. For the purpose of this section, a hotel, motel, or boatel shall be considered to be a residential structure. Since the size and nature of the alteration, expansion or replacement of such nonconforming structures may vary widely, a site plan, and if applicable, preliminary building plans indicating the proposed alteration, expansion or replacement shall be presented with each petition. Prior to granting such alteration, expansion or replacement of a nonconforming single - family dwelling, duplex or mobile home, the Planning Commission and the BCC shall consider and base its approval on the following standards and criteria: a The alteration expansion or replacement will not increase the density of the parcel or lot on which the nonconforming single - family dwelling , duplex or . mobile home is located: b The alteration expansion or replacement will not exceed the building height requirements of the district most closely associated with the subject nonconforming use; c The alteration, expansion, or replacement will not further encroach upon any nonconforming setback: d The alteration expansion or replacement will not decrease or further decrease the existing parking areas for the s ct e• e The alteration, expansion, or replacement will not damage the character or quality of the neighborhood in which it is located or hinder the proper future development of the surrounding properties; and f Such alteration expansion or replacement will not present a threat to the health safety orwelfare of the community or its residents. C Requirements for improvements or additions to nonconforming mobile homes. 1. Improvements or additions to nonconforming mobile homes containing conforming uses, in the A agriculture district only, shall be permitted if the addition or improvement complies fully with the setback and other applicable regulations. 2. Issuance and reissuance of building permits when multiple mobile homes are located on a single parcel of land: Where specific zoning districts permit mobile home development and said lands have been substantially developed prior to the effective date of the LDC with multiple mobile homes under singular ownership without an approved site development plan, as required by 1612 A21 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 13 of 21 Chapter Ten of the LDC, no further building permits for the placement or replacement of mobile homes may be obtained except as defined below. 3. Prior to issuance of anv building hermit for replacement of a mobile home, the property, owner or authorized agent shall provide the County Manager or designee or his designee with three copies _ of a scaled drawing of the subiect parcel which indicates: a Proof of building permit issuance for structure bein re ace . b The location of the structure to be replaced and its relationship to ad iacent mobile homes and parcel boundaries 4. Prior to issuance of .a building permit for anv additional mobile home(sl the applicant or authorized agent shall obtam a site development plan consistent with Chapter 10 of the LDC. As part of the SDP application building permit numbers of all existing mobile homes shall be submitted. 5 In no case shall the issuance or reissuance of building permits cause the density of the subject parcel to exceed that provided in the density rating system of the GMP or the bnmokalee future land use map except as may be provided in section 9.03.03 B.4. of the LDC. Finally, as to the allegation that mobile homes were required to have been removed under the provisions of Section 1.8.3.5 of the LDC in effect prior to the current LDC provisions, note that Section then read as follows: 1.8.3.5 Nonconformities not involving the use of a principal structure. Nonconformities not involving the use of a principal structure, including, but not limited to, open storage, building supplies, vehicles, mobile homes, trailers, equipment and machinery storage, junkyard, commercial animals yards and the like, shall be discontinued within one year of the effective date of this code or relevant amendment of this code. This Section is simply not applicable in any way, shape or form to the case at hand. First, the Section existed under the nonconforming structures section of the LDC. It is the use that is alleged to be nonconforming in the subject case, not the structures. More importantly, however, the Section is intended to deal with the removal of nonconforming uses that do not involve principal structures. These residential units are principal structures. The list of examples provided assumes the listed nonconforming structures or uses are not involved in the use of a principal structure, and therefore, there is no justification for those nonconforming 1612,- A21 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 14 of 21 uses continuing beyond a reasonable period, which the code deems to be one year. This Section simply does not apply in this case where the alleged nonconforming use is part and parcel with the principal structure. Finally, construing this section so as to make it be applicable would have resulted in conflict with other nonconforming provisions of the then effective code which allows such nonconforming uses (and in this case the structures that house those uses) to remain in place subject to the then applicable limitations and conditions, including the following language which is in the present code and was contained in the then effective code: Nonconforming residential structures, which for the purpose of this section shall mean detached single family . dwellings, duplexes or mobile homes in existence at the effective date of this zoning Code or its relevant amendment and in continuous residential use thereafter, may be altered, expanded, or replaced upon recommendation of the Collier County Planning Commission, and approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals by resolution. E. Specific Analysis of Notice of Violation (NOV) code citations The Notice of Violation (NOV) and Order to Correct issued by Collier County and dated January 23, 2006 indicates the followings: Specifically the following violations are alleged: 1. Violation of various sections of the 1970 Zoning Regulations of the Immokalee Area Resuonse: As established herein, the residential use was in fact a lawfully pre- existing and permitted use for many years under the 1959, 1961, 1970 and 1973 zoning ordinance, which did in fact allow for the residential use, including the mobile home use. Although the use is not presently permitted in the "I" Industrial district, the existing use is legal non - conforming and such structures may remain in place and be replaced, altered, maintained and repaired, in accordance with the applicable provisions in the LDC governing non - conformities. Moreover, how can a use be in violation of a code that has been repealed and not in effect at the time of the issuance of the NOV. The Immokalee Area Zoning Ordinance was not amended, it was repealed. 2. Violation of Ordinance 04 -42, as amended (Collier County LDC in effect at time of issuance of NOV): 1612 A21 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 15 of 21 1.04.01 Generally A. The provisions of this LDC shall apply to all land, property and development in the total unincorporated area of Collier County except as expressly and specifically provided otherwise in this LDC. No development shall be undertaken without prior authorization pursuant to this LDC. Specifically, no building, structure, land or water shall hereafter be developed, or occupied, and no building, structure, or part thereof shall be erected, reconstructed, moved, located, or structurally altered except in conformity with the regulations set forth herein and for the zoning district in which it is located. B. The regulations established in this LDC and within each zoning district shall be minimum or maximum limitations, as the case may be, and shall apply uniformly to each class or - kind of structure, use, land or water, except where specific provision is made in this LDC. C. This LDC shall apply to all division of land and all subdivisions in the total unincorporated area of Collier County, except to the extent as expressly provided herein. It shall be unlawful for any person to create a subdivision of, or to subdivide, or to otherwise divide, any land in the total unincorporated area of Collier County, except in strict conformance with the provisions of this LDC and any applicable provisions of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Response: The above general provisions are just that, general in nature, and are only applicable where a violation of some other section of the LDC has been found to have occurred. It is our position that no violation of this specific section as alleged has occurred and that staff did not conduct the necessary evaluation and research to even determine whether a violation of the LDC had in fact occurred. 1.04.05 Relationship to Growth Management Plan The adoption of this LDC is consistent with, compatible with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives, land uses, and densities or intensities. contained and required in the GMP, and it implements and directly advances the goals, policies and objectives of the GMP. The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County hereby declares and affirmatively states that in the event that any land development regulation, this LDC, or any provision hereof or amendment hereto is not consistent with the adopted Collier County GMP, as amended, the provisions of the Collier County GMP, as amended, shall govern any action taken 1612 A21 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 16 of 21 with regard to an application for a development order or other activity. Furthermore, any land development regulation, this LDC, or any provision hereof or amendment hereto shall be interpreted, construed and implemented in such a manner which will make it most consistent with the Collier County GMP, as amended. Response: Again, this is a general provision that pertains to how the LDC must be consistent with the GMP. Any violation of the LDC can be found not to be consistent with, compatible with or not to further the goals, policies, objectives, or be consistent with the land uses, and densities or intensities contained and/or required in the GMP, and thus not to implement or and directly advance the goals, policies and objectives of the GMP, but such a violation of the GMP must be specifically stated. No such violation of the GMP has been cited or evidence provided. We do not agree that a violation of this section.or others has occurred, and thus, the use i& not in violation. If no violation has occurred, and the uses are consistent with the applicable LDC provisions dealing with non- conformities, then the use cannot be in violation of this section. 1.05.01 Purpose and Intent F. In order to ensure that all development in unincorporated Collier County is consistent with the Collier County GMP, it is necessary and proper to establish a series of zoning districts to ensure that each permitted, accessory and conditional use is compatible with surrounding land uses, served by adequate public facilities, and sensitive to natural and coastal resources. Each zoning district has its own purpose and establishes permitted uses, uses accessory to permitted uses, conditional uses,. dimensional standards and other land use, density and intensity regulations and references, sign regulations, off - street parking and loading regulations, landscaping regulations, and other regulations that control the use of land in each zoning district. All development within each zoning district shall be consistent with the purposes and regulations stated for that zoning district in Chapter 2. Response: Same general response as above, except to add this provision merely authorized creation of zoning districts, etc., and that they must be internally consistent. 2.02.01 Establishment of Official Zoning Atlas D. No changes of any nature shall be made in the Official Zoning Atlas or any matter shown thereon, or in the zoning districts or regulations Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion , 612- March 6, 2007 Page 17 of 21 contained herein, except in conformity with the procedures established in this LDC and consistent with the Collier County GMP. Any unauthorized change of whatever kind by any person shall be considered a violation of this LDC. Response: This section deals with the process of changes to the official Collier County Zoning Atlas. This did not occur, and thus, this section is not applicable and should not have been cited as a violation, as no violation of this section has. occurred. Please note, the requirement of the Order of the Board, (CEB) Item 2. requires a re- zoning without affording any opportunity to amend the GMP to allow such use. 2.03.03 Industrial Zoning Districts A. Industrial District "I ". The purpose and intent of the industrial district "I" is to provide lands for manufacturing, processing, storage and warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution. Service and commercial activities that are related to manufacturing, processing, storage and warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution activities, as well as commercial uses relating to automotive repair and heavy equipment sales and repair, are also permissible in the I district. The I district corresponds to and implements the industrial land use designation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP. 2.04.03 Table of Land Uses in Each Zoning District The following tables identify the uses that are permissible by right in each zoning district and the uses that are allowable as conditional or accessory uses. 2.05.01 Density Standards and Housing Types' A. Where residential uses are allowable, the following density standards and housing type criteria shall apply. Response: The above two sections identify permitted uses and allowable residential density. In the "I" district, residential use are not permitted (except for one caretakers' residence), and thus, no residential density allowance is identified. Again, this is accurate, but does not consider the application of the LDC provisions as they relate to nonconformities. A21 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion x.612 A21 March 6, 2007 Page 18 of 21 8.08.00 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD B. Violation. Whenever, by the provisions of this Code, the performance of any act is required, or the performance of any act is prohibited, or whenever any regulation or limitation is imposed on the use or development of any land or water, or on the erection of a structure, a failure to comply with such provisions shall constitute a violation of this Code. D. Liability. Any owner, tenant, or occupant of any land or structure, or part thereof, and any architect, engineer, builder, contractor, or any other agent, or other person, firm, or corporation, either individually or through its agents, employees, or independent contractor, who violates the provisions of this Code, or who participates in, assists, directs, creates, or maintains any situation that is contrary to the requirements of this Code, shall be held responsible for the violation and be subject to the penalties and remedies provided herein or as otherwise provided by statute or ordinance. Response: These sections are applicable if a violation occurs. The analysis contained herein refutes the alleged violation, and thus these sections would not be applicable. Regardless, they merely state that the violation of some other section of the LDC constitutes a violation, and thus, a violation of this section in itself is not possible. 9.03.01 Generally D. Casual, temporary, or illegal use. The casual, temporary, or illegal use of land or structures, or land and structures in combination, shall not be sufficient to establish the existence of a nonconforming use or to create rights in the continuance of such use. Response_: This section is not properly cited and does not apply. The uses in question, residential uses, are not casual or temporary in nature, and as we have demonstrated herein, these uses were lawfully pre- existing and permitted and as such, while no longer permitted in the current underlying I Industrial zoning on the subject property, they are subject to the LDC provisions related to non - conformities. They are not illegal uses as suggested by citation of this section without some other section of the LDC being found to exist demonstrating such illegality. 1612 AP1 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 19 of 21 3 Under Description of Condition Constituting the Violation the NOV reads: Unlawful and inappropriate Mobile Home improvements to Industrial zoned property in Collier County known as 1101 Alachua St. Immokalee, Fla. /a.k.a. lot 8, block 48, Newmarket Subd., ID# 63864720000 of Collier Col. Record. All same industrial zoned property having had a previous "I- C-3" zoning designation, which also prohibited placement of Mobile Homes for dwelling use. (REF: IMMOKALEE AREA ZONING DIST. KEG'S. DATED OCT. 1970.) All same development and improvements having taken place in direct contrast to Collier Co. land development requirements and without prior Collier Co. Zoning and Planning review and approval. Response: I have not been provided nor am I aware of any professionsl planning analysis conducted by Collier County related to these. allegations. Conversely, in preparation of this report, I have reviewed the following: aerial photographs, Collier County Property Appraiser, Collier County Clerk of Courts and Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division public records, including historic and present zoning ordinances and zoning maps as they then applied or are currently applicable to the subject property. Based upon this research and analysis, and, particularly based upon the facts and opinions set forth in this. report, the allegations of violations are unfounded and not supported by the evidence at hand. The residential use is not illegal, but rather lawfully pre- existing and "legal" non- conforming. As such, the use was subject to the previous non- conforming zoning provisions as applicable, and is now subject to the current non - conforming provisions of the LDC as applicable. In addition, in response to the last sentence in the paragraph above, given the fact that the county records prior to 1960 were destroyed, and that the County's building permit records prior to 1985 for residential uses are incomplete and spotty at best, and given the fact that the property appraiser's records indicate that numerous building permits were obtained for the mobile home units and the improvements thereto, there is no factual evidence that improvements to the site, including placement, replacement, maintenance and repair of the mobiles homes, were done without Collier County review and approval. F. Conclusion Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion 1612 A21 March 6, 2007 Page 20 of 21 in conclusion, it is clear that the residential use of the subject property was the lawfully pre - existing and is legally nonconforming and as such, the continued use is authorized by the LDC, with limitations on maintenance and repairs, and a prohibition on alteration, expansion or replacement, except through the procedure and conditions outlined in Sections 9.03.03.B.4 and 9.03.03.C.3. G. Summary of Robert J. Mulhere's Related Professional Experience Mr. Mulhere received his undergraduate degree in 1977 (BA in Political Science) from St. Michael's College in Winooski Park, Vermont. He received a master's degree in 2001 (Public Administration) from Florida Gulf Coast University. He has been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1994, and the American Planning Association since 1989. Mr. Mulhere offers over 18 years of professional planning experience and community services throughout Southwest Florida. Mr. Mulhere is the former Planning Director for Collier County Government, located in one of the fastest growing regions in the country. He is considered a leader in his field, with particular expertise in growth management, land planning, site development, urban design, neighborhood planning, zoning regulations and ordinance writing, conflict resolution, and public facilitation. During his tenure with Collier County he was responsible for implementation of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code, including the process of amendment and or interpreting these documents. One very significant task that fell under Mr. Mulhere purview was oversight and management of the County's efforts to address the requirements of a final "noncompliance" order from the Governor and Cabinet dealing with future development in Collier's vast eastern lands (broadly referred to as the Eastern Lands Study). In April of 2001 Mr. Mulhere left the employment of Collier County and began employment with the consulting firm of RWA, Inc. Collier County then hired Mr. Mulhere as its lead planning consultant charged with completion the Final Order requirements, including analysis, development of Growth Management Pan (GMP) Goals Objectives and Policies (GOPs), and development of implementing land development regulations (LDRs). That process was bifurcated into two distinct geographic areas, which were eventually identified as the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). During the GMP and LDR development period (between 2000 and 2004) Mr. Mulhere led numerous public meetings and meetings with County staff and other consultants, culminating in the adoption of innovative and award winning and incentive based strategies. 1612 A21 Blocker — Professional Planning Opinion March 6, 2007 Page 21 of 21 Presently, in his capacity as Vice President of Planning Services for RWA, Inc, Mr. Mulhere provides professional planning consultation services to a variety of public and private sector clients on a wide variety of projects. NAPLES /320196 v.01 CRA Board Commissioner James N. Coletta 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- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar James Wall Eva Deyo Came 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 239.269.9629 Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant 239.269.9628 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency I MOK LEE CRA 161E rn 1 iThe Place to Call Hoe! �U Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee Aizenda Board of county commissioners June 15, 2011 - 8:30 A.M. A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Introductions. D. Announcements. a. Community Appreciation Award — Roma in Havana b. CDBG Crosswalk Grant Award (Enclosure 1) E. Adoption of Agenda. Fiala F. Communications. Hiller a. Public Notices Henning Coyle b. News Articles Coietta G. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board May 18, 2011 (Enclosure 2) b. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices i. RWA, Inc. 1. May Monthly Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 3) c. Commercial Fagade Program Monthly Report (Enclosure 4) H. Old Business. a. CRA FY2012 Budget Workshop i. Immokalee CRA Budget (Enclosure 5a) ii. Immokalee Business Development Center Budget (Enclosure 5b) iii. 2012 CRA Redevelopment Preliminary Budget (Enclosure 5c) b. IBDC Manager Report (Enclosure 6) c. CRA Lease - Update d. Immokalee Area Master Plan - Update. MiSC e. Immokalee MSTU Activity - Update. com f. Code Enforcement Highlights — Kitchell Snow: q It t t 1. New Business. a. Permission to Apply for Grants: Item t 1_ L,Z 2� i. FDEP Water Quality Restoration Grant ii. RBOG Grant Copies to. iii. USDA Facilities Grant iv. DRI Round II Grant v. Jobs & Innovation Accelerator Challenge Grant b. FRA 2011 Conference (Enclosure 7) J. Citizen Comments. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting July 20, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adjournment. * The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held July 20, 2011, at 8:30 A.M. at Southwest Florida Works, 750 South 5t' 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. CoMer County Community Redevelopment Agency 161 AZJ IM MOKALEE CR1'*�! c 2 i The Noce to Coll Home! RECEIVED MINUTES JUN 2 1 201 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency May - 18, 2011 Board or county commissioners A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo at 8:35 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Present: Mike Facundo, Ski Olesky, Jeffrey Randall, Kitchell Snow, Floyd Crews, James Wall, Eva Deyo, Daniel Rosario, Melissa Martinez, Robert Halman, Carrie Williams and Lt. Drew Lee. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused: Julio Estremera, Melissa Martinez and Robert Halman. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Cee Cee Marinelli, Steve Hart, Jerry Blocker, Randy Johns, Dean Blocker, Tim Hancock, Chris Curry, and Rev. Jean Paul. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, and Rosemary Dillon. C. Introductions. All present introduced themselves to the Committee. D. Announcements. a. No announcements were made at this time. B. Adoption of A eg nda. Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall a motion to approve the Agenda, Ms. Eva Deyo seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. E. Communications. a. The Communications Folder containing the Public Notices, a flyer for the Immokalee Cup soccer tournament and the Airport Authority's June 1 groundbreaking was passed around the room for review. F. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. Fiala i. CRA Advisory Board April 20, 2011 Hiller b. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices Henning Coyle i. RWA, Inc. Coletta April Monthly Activity Report and Invoice ii. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) April 2011 Activity Report and Invoice Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, the motion was seconded by Ms. Eva Deyo and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. a. Commercial Fagade Improvement Grant Program. Brad Muckel provided a brief update on the Commercial Fagade Grants stating that that $19,954 was paid to Florida Specialties and that five other businesses are in various stages of the design and application process. One awarded grant has not yet begun construction. b. Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan - Update. i. Collier County Bid Process Timeline - Brad Muckel, CRA Project Manager, reviewed the Collier County Bid Process Timeline with the Advisory- Committee to ensure that they understood the bid process may cause the grant to go over the time limit by as much as four months. ii. Project Budget Discussion - Mr. Muckel then discussed the Project Budget and Misc. Corres: the cost of the stormwater project and that the cost currently exceeds the grant by almost Date: '*1151(\ $1 million. He has met with the Immokalee Water and Sewer Department who has agreed to pitch on the cost. The Collier County Stormwater Department has agreed to Item 0 UM-2-44 Copies to: 16I t` A21 fund one aspect of the project. However, depending upon how the bids come in (over or under) will determine how much of a shortfall remains. C. Immokalee Transportation Improvements. i. Lake Trafford Road and SR29 Intersection Improvements - Brad Muckel provided an update on the improvements at Lake Trafford Road and SR29 Intersection Improvements per the request of the Advisory Committee providing maps and visuals to describe the upcoming changes. ii. County Swale Maintenance Schedule — Mr. Muckel also reviewed the County Swale Maintenance Schedule with the Committee. d. Immokalee Business Development Center Report - IBDC Manager, Marie Capita, provided the April Report Advisory Committee, citing the success of the first IBDC Entrepreneur School, the USDA RBEG application, various site visits, trainings, the new web page, and the new enrollee in the IBDC program. e. CRA Lease Agreement Package - The CRA Executive Director, Penny Phillippi, presented a Power point presentation of the Barron Collier Building and the CRA Lease Agreement Package. Cee Cee Marinelli from Barron Collier Company attended the meeting to discuss the terms of the lease agreement and to negotiate the agreement with the Advisory Committee for recommendation to the CRA /BCC. Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall a motion to recommend the Lease Agreement to the CRA Board for approval, Ms. Carrie Williams seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. Action: Chairman Mike Facundo requested that Item F be heard at the end of the agenda. The Committee agreed by consensus. g. Immokalee MSTU Activity. Ms. Phillippi provided an update on the last MSTU meeting where in the MSTU Advisory Committee asked the CRA to return for the May meeting with an Executive Summary, list of reasons to transfer the MSTU administrative functions to the CRA and to provide a budget. Ms. Phillippi will provide the items next Wednesday to the MSTU Committee. h. Street Lights on Westclox Street. During the April meeting a citizen requested that the CRA check into the darkness or lack of street light at the north end of town near Westclox. While attending the MSTU meeting, the Executive Director was informed that the street lights were out in that area for a period of several weeks. She was informed that the street lights are now functioning properly and no further action will be necessary. Action: Drew Lee asked that the CRA send a formal request to FDOT for a signal light to be placed at the intersection of New Market Road, SR29 and Westclox. i. Marketing - Presentation: Steve Hart provided a presentation of the current CRA /IBDC marketing activities. j. Code Enforcement Highlights: Kitchell Snow provided an overview of Code Enforcement activities in Immokalee. He stated a clean -up day is scheduled for the South Side during the month of June. f. Immokalee Area Master Plan. Ms. Phillippi advised the Committee that the Immokalee Area Master Plan will be brought back before the BCC on May 24`h. She provided a short video of the discussion for last Tuesday's BCC meeting as an update for the group. Mr. Hancock made a brief presentation to the Committee on behalf of his client, Jerry Blocker reiterating the statements he had made to the BCC on the 10`h of May. H. New Business. I. Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting June 15, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 A.M. 2 CRA Board Commissioner James N. Coletta 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- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar James Wall Eva Deyo Carrie Williams Melissa Martinez Daniel Rosario Lt. Drew Lee CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel CRA Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt CRA Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 Marie Capita IBDC Manager 239.269.9629 Rosemary Dillon IBDC Administrative Assistant 239.269.9628 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE ciM 1 2 A 2 i The Plate to Gall Home 1 Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee Agenda July 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 A eg nda. F. Communications. a. Public Notices b. News Articles G. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board June 15, 2011 (Enclosure 1) b. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices i. None this month c. Commercial Fagade Program Monthly Report (Enclosure 2) H. Old Business. a. RWA Deliverables — Contract ends July 31, 2011 i. Immokalee Draft Land Development Regulations (Enclosure 3) ii. Immokalee CRA Draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)/Project List (Enclosure 4) b. Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan - Update c. IBDC Manager Report (Enclosure 5) d. CRA Office Move - Update e. Immokalee MSTU Activity - Update. f. Code Enforcement Highlights — Kitchell Snow g. Farmers Market Report - Christie h. Response from FDOT (Enclosure 6) 1. New Business. a. Collier County Purchasing Department Policies & Procedures — Joanne Markiewicz J. Citizen Comments. K. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting August 17, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. L. Adjournment. * The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held August 17, 2011, at 8:30 A.M. at Southwest Florida Works, 750 South 5h 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. Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency M AEE CRA i The Place to Call Home! Certification of Minutes Approval Form Approved by: A2 JUL 2 8 2011 BY: ....................... ,j Penny Phii1l'p i, Executive D' e or Mic ael ` " Facundo, Chairman hmnoka� Community Red e lopment Agency These Minutes for the June 15, 2011, CRA Advisory Board /EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on July 20, 2011 as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held August 17, 2011 at 8:30A.M. at the Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5h' Street in Immokalee. ** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at Southwest Florida Works located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call 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, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, lmmokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. Fiala ' J Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ ___. __ Coletta Ik Misc. Corres: Date: 'kkkak \. \ Item \Lc= -2" CO /,;-1 cz'Nes to: 1612 A21- Enclosure I MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency June 15, 2011 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Michael Facundo at 8:40 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Present: Mike Facundo, Floyd Crews, Ana Salazar, Kitchell Snow, Julio Estremera, Jeffery Randall, Carrie Willimas, Edward "Ski" Olesky, Robert Halman, and Daniel Rosario. Advisory Committee/EZDA Members Absent/Excused: James Wall, Melissa Martinez, Eva Deyo, and Lt. Drew Lee. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Pam Brown, Steve Hart, Chris Curry, Angel Madera, Jr., and Valarie Price. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Brad Muckel, Marie Capita, Christie Betancourt, and Rosemary Dillon. C. Introductions. All present introduced themselves to the Committee. D. Announcements. a. No announcements were made at this time. B. Adoption of A eg_nda. Changes to the Agenda: Add H.g., Marketing Presentation. Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall a motion to approve the Agenda with the addition, Mr. Ski Olesky seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. E. Communications. a. The Communications Folder containing the Public Notices, various news articles, a letter to FDOT, support letters from the Bayshore CRA and MSTU. F. Consent A eg nda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board May 18, 2011 b. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices i. RWA, Inc. May Monthly Activity Report and Invoice C. Commercial Fagade Grant Program Monthly Report Action: Ms. Ana Salazar made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, the motion was seconded by Mr. Ski Olesky and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. G. Old Business. a. CRA FY2012 Budget Workshop Ms. Phillippi presented the 2012 proposed budgets for the IBDC and the CRA, informing the Committee that the budget will be greatly reduced from the one being presented to the BCC on June 16, 2011 (2012 CRA Redevelopment Preliminary Budget). Action: Mr. Ski Olesky made a motion to recommend the revised budget to the BCC for approval, Mr. Julio Estremera seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. b. IBDC Manager Report Marie Capita, IBDC Manager updated the Committee on activities during the month of May. C. CRA Lease Ms. Phillippi informed the Committee that the Lease Agreement will be presented to the BCC for approval on June 28, 2011. d. Immokalee Area Master Plan Ms. Phillippi stated there is no update to report. e. Immokalee MSTU Activity Ms. Phillippi stated there is no update to report. H. New Business. a. Permission to Apply for Grants: a. FDEP Water Quality Restoration Grant C. USDA Facilities Grant d. DRI Round II Grant e. Jobs & Innovation Accelerator Challenge Grant Staff reviewed the various grants application and their purpose to the Committee and then requested Committee recommendation to the BCC for approval to apply for the grants. Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall a motion to recommend approval to the BCC to make application for the above listed grants, Mr. Ski Olesky seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. b. FRA 2011 Conference Ms. Phillippi informed the Committee that staff will not be attend the FRA meetings in Orlando this year however, should Committee members wish to attend staff will be happy to make arrangements. I. Citizen Comments. Ms. Pam Brown, acting as a Fire Commissioners informed the Committee that the Immokalee Fire District has experienced a decrease in revenue and that Mr. Fred Thomas was proposing a Referendum for a 3.7% tax increase to assist in covering the cost for fire protection. She further stated that the Fire District intends to request a portion of the Seminole Compact funds that are allocated to Collier County. J. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting June 15, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 A.M. 2 1612. A21 f. Code Enforcement Highlights Kitchell Snow provided a brief update on the activities of the Code Enforcement activities. g. Marketing Presentation Steve Hart provided a PowerPoint presentation of all current marketing activities as well as the results of those activities. H. New Business. a. Permission to Apply for Grants: a. FDEP Water Quality Restoration Grant C. USDA Facilities Grant d. DRI Round II Grant e. Jobs & Innovation Accelerator Challenge Grant Staff reviewed the various grants application and their purpose to the Committee and then requested Committee recommendation to the BCC for approval to apply for the grants. Action: Mr. Jeffery Randall a motion to recommend approval to the BCC to make application for the above listed grants, Mr. Ski Olesky seconded the motion and the Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. b. FRA 2011 Conference Ms. Phillippi informed the Committee that staff will not be attend the FRA meetings in Orlando this year however, should Committee members wish to attend staff will be happy to make arrangements. I. Citizen Comments. Ms. Pam Brown, acting as a Fire Commissioners informed the Committee that the Immokalee Fire District has experienced a decrease in revenue and that Mr. Fred Thomas was proposing a Referendum for a 3.7% tax increase to assist in covering the cost for fire protection. She further stated that the Fire District intends to request a portion of the Seminole Compact funds that are allocated to Collier County. J. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting June 15, 2011 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 A.M. 2 J < 161 2 4192 .,� RECEIVED Haflin� JUN 13 2011 coyifl colqiw Board of county Cmrnmio ws ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2011 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Joe Langkawel, Chairman Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member Kevin Walsh, Advisory Board Member Kirk Colvin, Advisory Board Member Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member, by speaker phone Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 6:34 p.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Chief's Report. B. March 2011 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve March 2011 Minutes by Ted Decker. a. Motion seconded by Kirk Colvin. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Langkawel. C. Automatic aid to Marco Island. 1. Responses to fire alarms on Marco were eliminated as of 02/15/11. 2. ICFD ran zero fire alarm calls to Marco since 02/15/11. 3. ICFD ran 115 fire alarm calls to Marco from 12/01/10 - 02/15/11. D Misc. Corres: ICFD Boat Dock. 1. Boat dock project meeting held at ICFD on 04/14/11. 2. Project is proceeding on schedule; no major problems encountered. 3. May 14 is the target completion date. mil, ` 1 4. Per EMS Chief Pilot, rails will be one foot high up until the sixth post. Date: Item #: � L-v:972- y4 161 2 'A22 III. NEW BUSINESS A. FY2012 Proposed Budget. 1. Chief Rodriguez has requested OMB to waive FY12 & FY13 indirect costs. a. Savings of more than $44,000 achieved each year. b. Fees waived for FY12 would increase our carry forward to FYI 3. c. OMB has waived these fees in the past (prior to 2006). d. Board to draft letter to the County, requesting indirect costs waiver. e. Decision on waiver will be learned prior to May 13. 2. Projected FYI budget shows a deficit of approx. $120,000 - $150,000. a. Meeting held on 04/06/11 at OMB to discuss the FYI deficit. 1. Attended by Chief Rodriguez, R. Greenwald, B. Shea. 2. Chief Rodriguez requested the indirect cost waiver. 3. Chief Rodriguez requested OMB guidance /advice. b. Current cost savings measures will increase our carry forward. 1. Firefighters voluntarily take comp time instead of OT pay. 2. Last year, job bank scheduled hours were reduced by 50 %. 3. Job bank hours will now be reduced an additional 25 %. 4. Other salary expenses are fixed and cannot be reduced. c. ICFD has two methods to substantially increase revenue. 1. Reduce head count. 2. Raise the district's millage rate. d. A vote by the residents is needed to raise the ICFD's millage rate. 1. A new millage rate cap would be required. 2. The initial rate would be lower than the cap. 3. Meetings with residents at the Civic Center would be needed. 4. A district -wide education program would be instituted. 5. The issue would be placed on a normal November ballot. 3. On May 13, the ICFD FY12 Budget will be presented to the County Mgr. 4. On June 1, actual ICFD property values will be available from OMB. 5. Motion to approve the draft FY12 budget as presented, by Ted Decker. a. Motion seconded by Kevin Walsh. b. Motion carried unanimously. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Ted Decker at 7:45 p.m. 1. Motion seconded by Kevin Walsh. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approved: Date: ��p�/ 1:] 1 6I AiA21 JUN 0 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITME 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 Fiala m February 17 2011 Hiller - Henning Coyle Minutes Colefta 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:01 P.M. 111. 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 Ill. 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 carried 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 $169,000.00 and noted $200,000.00 will be utilized from Reserves ($400,000.00) for the Pebble Beach Lighting and Doral Bridgo Projects. Misc. Corres: Date:. '11_S( L I Item #: 2-5 1612 '� A23' V1. Irrigation System Evaluation Mike McGee reviewed the recommended Watering Schedules: (See attached) o Zone Irrigation Run times are scheduled in minutes o CLIVI is conducting intermediate Irrigation Zone checks o 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 Iffinet Controller No. 1- St. Andrews Blvd & US 41 o (113) Zones consists of - Medians 1, 2, and 3 - East and West Signs Scorpio Controller No. 4 - Le/v (Doral Circle * (2) Zones consists of - Median I - Side of the mad * Utilizes Potable Water Smart Valve Controller No. 5 - LUI (Dora/ Circle) o (1) Zone consists of - Median 1 Scomid Controller No. 2 - Le1v (Pebble Beach Circle & St. Andrews Blvd. * (23) Zones consists of - Valves (1-7) Pebble Beach Circle - Valves (8-19) St Andrews Blvd. - Valves (20-23) Forest Hills Blvd. * The Zones will run 1 cycte 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) * (2) Zones © 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 1612 d27 Vil. 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. Vill. Landscape Architect's Report— McGee& Associates A. Maintenance Report (See attached) Mike McGee made the following recommendations: Forest Hills Cart Crvssinv o Excavate the group of infected Cabbage Palms rz) Backfill the removal site with Mulch o Requested a quote from CLMI 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) 13. Review of the To Do List (See attached) !teat 3 — Painting Pinehurst Estates Sion o Additional documentation is required from the Contractor 3 1612 `A23 Item 6 - Lighting Presentation o Lely Civic Association Annual meeting is scheduled at 6:00 p.m. on February 22"d 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 Robed Slebodnik to attend the field meeting X. Committee Reports-None X1. 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: o Trimmers Holiday D6cor o 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 Bndge graphics • Review of the Bridge Project by David Larson 4 1612 A 2 7" INUT IF 11 Rililliliplilli:11 11!111 Jill 11 X11, New Business A. Master Plan Discussion-None X111. 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 The next meeting is March 17, 2011 at 4-00 Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance CC Transportation Building 2886 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 2 I 161 2 IA23 February 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 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 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: Quote from Steve Constantineau approved by committee on 01 -20 -11 cannot be used to open a Purchase Order as painter has not provided the necessary documentation as required by Budget Office and Finance. 4. PENDING: Sign Refurbishment: (1) Doral Circle, and (2) Augusta @ Forest Hill Status: SignCraft has been issued PO and will begin refurbishment work during Feb. 21St through 25th. 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. 6. Lighting Presentations by McGee & Associates Status: Mike is going to present on the following days: 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) 161 2 X923 ' Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: February 17, 2011 Lely MSTU Project Status (L -49) ACTIVE — Lighting Study (Pebble Beach pilot study for lighting options) 02- 17 -11: Concept to be 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) (L -48) ACTIVE — Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge (Committee Request for `lighting on bridge') 02- 17 -11: ROW Permit has been issued; plans and documents provided to Purchasing for bidding. (L -47) ACTIVE — Installation of Mixing Chamber 02- 17 -11: All components are physically present and only electrical work remains to be completed. Staff will continue to coordinate with contractor. (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) 01- 20 -11: Ongoing Maintenance is by Commercial Land Maintenance (L-45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 02- 17 -11: McGee & Associates under ongoing contract. v 7X�Fee & 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 161 2 A23 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" 12/2010 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 G. 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 9 Page 2, 2/16/2011 161 2 A23 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 10 161 2 A23 Page 3, 2/16/2011 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 Michael A. McGee, r.l.a. President, McGee & Associates. LC 098 161 2 A23 CN cD S C, C! q C! q a 0 9 C, CD q R C! 0, 'i ki CD LO N N 'o M D V )-'t .0 N M LO m - s — 0 r. O 0 (.'� v� ci lu w co W� 7T fAN U. 0 CD co 0 00 0 CD 0 64 9, 0 0 0 CD CD co C. 0 0 C; C; 'ci 00 1 LO C, -0 O. CD *k E z C' C11 C,4 CL Z to w - E C z LU 0 z w (D U) ui ,u w Z w w W 9 0. -j ono, o o CD C� q 0006 0000 Lu cl; 1P.- !02 NK CO m t- OD L6 Ui d. It N C14 C� i;i m w m SO Cq 0 0 CD i M 6'a Cq N fill" w Na Z C) 5? N N "t 'o "r C,4 cl uj LU IL 0 68 2 0 03 0 0 0 C a CC. 0 D C0 0 C C C U� id U') ui Ln U� LO w V) In i:l L6 Ui N LO d d LO W) 0 A M N to LU W 4% 69 409, N > -j w W -j a 0 R E LU CL T uj i6 COR 8 8 a -p 010 0 q! IL L LU U 0 0 A Cl. 0 (D CD N Lu uj CND — G" 49 61� cm Iz- VIC, C4 C4 CD Z I` I -1 1-15i';, ULJ C, CD 0 Lu u L) 1 uj % q -0 w 'o C4 Z U, CO oco CD CD 'o w LO "4-"jm , x .0 C4 N C, ui z z -0 C� N 44 L" w - C4 cl w 40P W < LU = 9 L) �C4 Of 0 to �C7p Z I IC'4.—r -,j w in 0 m to z 0 W .11 11 9 a U-uj a) U. Z� w 0 Z z Z > > O o w f6E !2 ts z 0 w no W 0 ul LU 0 L, :,3 wo O lw 0 E g .. U) 2_ t Lu .0 Z, m 0 a 0 0 3 ->L< ID 20 3 C, 0 r: a V) -DO L<) Z Uj 0 0 00 , :3 z 0 16 z — LU 0 od 0 -0 mvm z - LU LU n 4 L) z - -: :2 0 0 CL L) m LL :2 z m (1) L) 0 W&2 CL C�5 z LU 0 U) ilu- 0 lu J Lu P c Ol cl jp CO z �7 w 0 W C4 C14, N, m m Q. D. -i IL 0 CN cD 16121 A 23 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTu ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 May 19, 2011 AGENDA p 130MVE JUN 1 5 2011 I. Call Meeting to Order BY: ....................... II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: April 21, 2011 V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera A. Hurricane Reserves VI. 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 of the To Do List V/ Fiala IX. Committee Reports Hiller Henning X. Old Business Coyle �--- Coletta ._.—.- XI. New Business XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment The next meeting is June 16, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Misc. Corres: Naples, FL 34104 Date: 3t t I Item t I L a7X: "Zip} 25 "zpies to: 1619 23 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 April 21, 2011 Minutes I. 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 (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Brenda Brilhart- Purchasing Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Maria Jost -CLM, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Change: V. Landscape Maintenance Vl. Budget Review Add. XI. A. Summer Meeting Schedule Vlll. D. Doral Median Lighting Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: March 17, 2011 Change: IX. B., page 4, second paragraph should read: David Larson noted the Signs "will be" restored using Marble for the Signage (would save cost based on current prices.) Vlll., page 2, second bullet should read. "Ganoderma" Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the March 17, 2011 minutes as amended. Second by Tony Branco. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Maria Jost reported: • Routine Maintenance is being conducted • Continuing to monitor the Plumbago due to Chili Thrips Mike McGee requested CLM perform the following maintenance: o Review all Irrigation Zones and heads - Concentrate on the Turf Zones (each week) 161 2 A ?-5 • Reported trouble shooting is underway to identify the source of multiple Irrigation leaks - Median quick couplings are leaking and will be capped • Noted the urgency to excavate (3) Sabal Palms and Ficus stump with Ganoderma (Augusta and Forest Hills) Darryl Richard noted Staff will coordinate with Roger Dick and CLM on the Valley Stream Dr. Bermad installation. VI. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera Darryl Richard reviewed the following Budget items: (See attached) • Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax $21,086.93 • Available Operating Expense $17,635.55 VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report (See attached) Mike McGee reviewed the following Maintenance items: • Holly Trees that are extending into the travel lane require pruning • Diseased Holly Tree will be replaced with a different type of Tree (Median 9) B. Reuse Mixing Chamber - Warren Street • Installation is 100% complete • Change Order No. 3 ($1,981.25) was submitted (See attached) • Attaining the normal level of tank water is a problem due to a crack in the tank and noted: - Reuse water flow into the chamber is limited - Water flow and pressure tests were performed - Adjustments are underway to balance the Mixing Chamber System to operate without activating potable water - Potable water usage is presently at zero - Run times were extended to enable the tank to fill - As Zones and Irrigation heads are rectified the run time minutes will be decreased - Reuse is under gravity flow pressure Tony Branco inquired if it would be cost effective to add another feeder or use a larger diameter in lieu of adding a pump (in the future.) Mike McGee replied the estimate to install a second Pump Station on the Mixing Chamber platform was $10,000.00 - $12,000.00. 4 1612- A23�' I Robert Slebodnik moved to approve $1,981.25 (Change Order No. 3) to take care of the repairs that are necessary for the Pumping Station. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. C. Doral Bridge Project Darryl Richard distributed the Doral Bridge Improvements Bid results. (See attached) Brenda Brilhart reviewed information on the Bid results: o The Bid was broadcast to 1200 Firms o (1) Company submitted a Bid for the Bridge Project - Spectrum's Bid is not accurate as the Altemate was deducted from the total Bid o The following (2) options were given - Reject the Bid by Spectrum and rebid the Project - Best option is to Utilize Annual General Contractors Discussion ensued and the following was concluded: • Utilizing Annual Contractors does not require BCC approval • The word "Bridge" will be removed from the Bid Project title • Place a limit on subcontracting in the Scope of Services • Bid Schedule will be reviewed prior to Bid Solicitation Robert Slebodnik moved to reject the Lely MSTU Doral Circle Bridge Improvements Bid No. 11 -5604 (by Spectrum.) Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following Reports: A. Project Managers Report (See attached) (L -50) Relocation of DC Controller on Warren St. to Vallev Stream o Project is complete B. Review & Approval FY -2012 MSTU Budget - Discussed under Vlll. C. C. Review of the To Do List (See attached) Item 4 - Sian Refurbishment., Doral Circle and Auausta at Forest Hills Tony Branco reported: • Sign Craft determined the failure of the painted surface was due to the clear coat (Dora) Circle) • Samples of Marble and Field Stone tiles were presented • Estimate to refurbishment the existing Doral Circle Sign - $1,966.00 3 1612 A 23, o Ballpark estimates for the tile samples - Field Stone - $4, 000.00 - Marble - $6, 000. 00 - Noted the radius comers on the sign will increase cost Discussion ensued on the preferred material and finish options for the Doral Sign. Some Committee Members preferred the dark green Marble with gold lettering for the Doral Sign. Discussion continued and the possibility of lights reflecting off of the polished Marble was posed. After much discussion Robert Slebodnik favored the painted finish and suggested tabling the discussion. Tony Branco suggested adjourning the meeting outdoors so that the Committee could look at the polished finish on the Growth Management Division Signage (in front of the building) to assess the reflection safety issue and maintenance of the material. Doral Median Lighting David Larson requested a status report on the lower wattage Lights. Staff replied that the Lumec Light shipment is pending. Robert Slebodnik moved to table the Doral Signage for further review either at a special meeting or the next monthly meeting. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 40. Review & Approval FY -2012 MSTU Budget Darryl Richard reviewed the proposed Budget: FYI o $150,000.00 Improvements Capital (to closeout the 2011 fiscal year) FY12 • $200,000.00 Hurricane Reserves • $121,800.00 Available for Projects • Anticipate a 3% drop in Property Values County wide • Incoming Revenue is $50,000.00 annually Tony Branco questioned if payment was made to Steve Constantineau for the Sign pressure cleaning as it is reflected as an open item in the monthly Budget Report. Darryl Richard will verify with the Budget Office if the P.O. has been paid. M 161Q X1231 The Hurricane Reserves Line Item was discussed and the following was questioned: • The Carry Forward amount of $200,000.00 is not reflected in FY12 Hurricane Reserves • The Hurricane Reserves Line Item should be $400,000.00 Darryl Richard will request the Budget Office conduct an analysis on the spreadsheet to verify if there is a discrepancy ($200,000.00.) Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the FY2012 Budget as presented with the caveat that the Budget Office check the spreadsheet and provide an explanation (to the Committee), additionally if any monies are found that they be put into Improvements General. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 40. D. Doral Median Lighting — Discussed under Vlll. C. X. Committee Reports -None XI. Old Business XII. New Business A. Summer Meeting Schedule Robert Slebodnik inquired if the summer meetings should be cancelled. After discussion the Committee concurred it was best to evaluate the summer meeting schedule on a month by month basis predicated on the MSTU business needs. Growth Management Division Signagee It was determined that the signage is a mirror and not polished marble. After discussion it was concluded Darryl Richard will request the Warranty information for a painted finish for the Doral Sign. XIII. Public Comments -None 1612 A 23 1 There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 6:10 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Slebodnik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on ,� - I Q 11 , as presented or amended The next meeting is May 19, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 AAA A A W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N++++ + 6 +(O OO V O7 Ol A W N+ 23 A W N O(OO)V 0)NAW N 0(000 V 0)NA W N+O(000 V . AWN+O . ,WW.0,00TOOrr�r.(nao— rnOr„,,z00,, m---Tp0 OmmmmcczimD�m-im, -Imnx_5cmcmDr-1DcczOmmDDmmmm�� mc ammmzGpjozzm,-.zm)mATmDzz=rz5mmnm0 <mazommzzmcmm=r> r x x x Cnmm(DW>O> Fmmrvzi--2zc yx-Im(nmmmrcn o (ncnzym-wi_1oD cmmmm�� mOrmZOmcn�om00 ��zD�c�D—ni�m�m° TTmmmzwKm<p owmmxmx(13 jOCmOmmm�msxDK 2gmp�z119000 Nc4mx�T(Dm- z0Dr Q XXOzz r?XDmmmLImoD -< 0,,,-<-1_0m.-1..„..."73>> oQ0X-0730 � o �cncn c �����mr� pm z� no�cmnmmnO�pp °^�Om?g� �O) ? mzoocn�- 73 -1 C)� 0 ZW - m°w-> ›X CzM --1 OQ1)-p�m7mH�� Dz O� O mm p 0 �zz g D DEW �_ Tmxm cmmm nm r- m m 0 Zm D r�C W zmo> 0- gym 0 0 0 73 r m m m c D O m �Z�) �I D O C) D co 0 m 0 C) -40,4A-004A --EA - - - - (A(n EA EA(A EA(A En 69 EA EA EA fA EA EA EA --(A(A(A EA -- --fA cn EA EA EA+A 0 O O N + 01 N c D m W O W Vt N - A_- NM J N N N A 00 A 001 01 0 0_ _••0 O)01 • - (00 O. 1D + WOW- NO�••W - -•00 O 01(T000N00OAO+O 01OW O -4m 7 010000 -00 •0 - • • 00• 0 000000000"000 ••000 0 ■ 0 0 CD G U p 0 0 -00 -0 - - O0 0 0000000004000 0(10 - O 0•'• a f0 o O O •-00 •-o•- ■ ••00 0 000000000(TO00 •0(o0 - 0 o •01 o o o -o o -o - - 0 0 0 00000000001000 001 0 - 0 0 N EA EA-m .-EA_- - _ - --EA(A EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fA EA EA EA-c EA EA EA --EA EA EA m-- --EA EA EA(A EA EA o O m _ 3 N _ Co 0 01 0 0(O 000 O)J W 0 • • •0+ MO N 4 4 01-4W.-4 01 O •O+ (00 (OJ W 00JJN 7 Ut A•- 40W WO 00(OJ ' AANOo O ■ - -0A JO 0100 W01-J co , ..... --.. -- - - .................. --EA EA EA EA - --EA+A EA EA EA(A m x V • 4+ 4 .. + W W 01 0)—-W 000) )7 n ''..N WA -M • • •° ONE O (.30)0) 40G)O)NJ - • NCO_+ Jam- C V 1 A -0 • • ••N+0 0)00 0 "400 01 A 0)W N O A +00 J A” DI 0 —w, —. N+00 W O 000) O-N01 J0 000)(0 00. A -+ -0 •• -• .0 W O W A O 000 0--.104W0� 1 0 W W . 0 V70rD A 1,,40 Eo(A EA - (A-- -. -- EA EA EA EA(H EA EA EA EA(A-W EA EA EA EA EA EA 69 --EA lA EA EA-- --EA EA EA V3 EA EA + 0 0 1 < 't0 W O W _ + 0) 0+N 0) 01_ ••00)N (10 = CI W O W -•<401 0)01 N 001 01 0t 0 0)N-�J+O O -olio-03 co-, IV m 00 0 N01 -JJ000000 000010040 0 ••0000 - D).-4 (0T- Q 01 O 0 O •0)N o0J00 WOO 00000 N0 0 0010 - 000)(0 (D 0 0 0 0 • -J co • 0-+00(000 V 0000000 O- •0(00 :b .)0) 4 j+ O 0 0 0(O 0000400 00000000 001 0010 (1(0(0 0 3Nm gaM00000000Cg>((1)0.0000 W0079(O(CD ° mm-°-(7�mmmmmmCDCDCD cmryxn3mamaS0• N n 7 m m 0' m rn m CD m m m m () m O c ,, m m 3 o j•�• = a- °-)•DDDDDDDD T 0 o•o mo z rn � O N •<V) (p (n N a N N o C) O,N.. N d-7 .Om- 7 0 3 E r j m Z. . . . . . . . �7 p G y 0) C r ril fD000C) n00C) 00) 0 . 0— m O ,- m y 0 C) C) C) m 3 m CI= 0 Z N N N N y c CD C n m CD g N CD 3 - O m mg A a/ C + + _ _ A 444444444444440 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 (D m 0 + A 0 01 000000000000000 0000000 0101 N (a A (O N 0 000000000000000 0000000 0 0 • o p) (OCO + O 00000000000000 -- 00000000 0- 0 N V (D W N o N N N N O N N N+-+ N N(N�)0 n N NN N N N N QN N O 01 0 j01N W000000001(TNW NNNNNNN 0014k A O A O 00 O 000N01AONNJNJN 00JJJJ00J 04 (O W 0 J NJ W 004 NONOON WOJ 0)000+00 001 •, 00W J (104 N(00)W A+-0(0000,0 -"-40)0)00)0) 001 T T T T -< -< -< -‹ TM-0OCnrDrrM1- 1-77 =i5OMTT173*rM7013 00 ?.O W O n3)(° 7 DEC DDDD=0--c cc m 0C(o'o m n 0m c -1777 O N c N g D N 0 7 m 0) 0 m 0) m('D .m-.-d,G -(R N•°:a 0) 7 O•�Z co Q„ a . momc3m �OmmND- WAD m m me 33 0) N 0) 0) ,. (p• W a-O N N N N U)C Z• y a .g a^.3 41• < ooxx 7v, � �-mc�i �fn�000 Zm C v, om � so Cn. p rn c - /^m mm 7 m oCDQ7CD -3Q 73W y (Do - �'.� O t.3 N T \G N d co C) a 0) m p m =-O Q z m g m 7 A � O+ � m C C C - N n �y (7)gip D m m m. 7 �7 .i a m Wa+ vm m DD .W �ypp o a3 �' (D nr � + a o - o o ?(np77 01C O m c m= N cn3 0 + x W G � (n7 � O 3m W N m aj CD C. ? (D O-W .Z7 0 R rD. _ 0 CD fD 7 N 09 N m y p• 0 (Q. D) N 7 cp <r v N (n ?(D W O A g 7 7 N + (7 C X-C CD W (11 CO o 03 D III T I EA EA Vi EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fA+H EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA...,,-,7 N (D { co W C< 0 _ !-CCAN N + J -+N 0 NNJN+ 3 p0 C+ O 0)(T 0 NO A +00J 0000)(ON00 0) 0) 0 WA C0 + ' 0,0 A 00 j 000 J401A001N N 3 D 0)0 0 0 0) 0(0+ J J+W NJ 0)(0 0 7 3 00 0 ON N 0 W A A(OW J00A00 0 • :". 00 0 000 + 0J0 01000)W01 0 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EAEA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA(9 EA(AEA&9 EA(H EA+AEA EA V + N++ A W N 0 +01 +0)0 W 0)y') 00NNN00(0+ +JA+W WJ W JO W 0 Wad U 4000 N W 0NJ(TJJ (.)NJ 010001J01 W AJ O A 7 00100 01 000+V 004 0400N0-,M,1-,00 0 0000 O A N O J O W 0 Q 1 N 0 0 V t A(T W 0 7+O M N400 00010N040 0)000 004OW JO7O 0 v w N 03 m d O 0 V w tD gib; 0 _ 4 - » 0 W d w c DW o mN m ? Z .m y b y '0 o°o ?� O O � CL f A o D c O 1612 zmg » � 0 M 0 3 07 a O N m� a D y P6 o r. 00 mo v 0 ' (A m � 7 G to 7 'On' .. � tD o c o so, m co D y < CL c �D � O O Z O �o m D ; D ov -1 o ;u m ;u m -0 2 as m " m N aDXo n 2 a a3 X:C1 m m m ^a�C)o �2 m m -0 2 a 2 ;N.��� (D co m m m 'u ;'u �-I� m o° °O3c3 X° X sv 0 v v a 0 m (n :1 a DI a _° c a° �. m �o n N cn -I m3 m s =3 Q= Q <.033mo O_ m O 3< >>3P3av-° m m O^ O T)• n n Q- < 11 a= Q D 3 m m 7 3 m f0 3 O '� N cu O c 7 C Dy (O N �' O N 6 d W y 03 N (<D 0 N O a O D) m O 3 m O N m N r. C 3' c j m(a N 3 3 3 O 3-. O O p rt 3 = y U] T. 0_ •'! U] d 3 m � (D m 0 m °- v O m m 1 v v N @ 3 N °- 3 m °' 3 _ : c �3 m(D 3 6 m 0 3 rn 3 m Ort -° O O O< N C rt y y 3� S m o <(D Dc U] O N(D w 2.0 3 O� d (1n m -1 (D y m = m m rt j °O 3 O O (° 1 m 1 (`1 a N .m+ m Q °- m fl. 0 m ,D30 S m y 41 n 0 rt `G a O 3 a S a G m m y 3 3 w o 3 a� rt (n 3(a (n n Q m m v rt 3= 3 p 3 m m O j O j N 3 (D m c m 6 °- O S m m N m .-0 0� S m m 01 3 (p 0 C_ 3 O. ID °_ N 3 y (O rt O 3 �< m D D O 3° o m o n w w a m w. m < m C 7 (mn °� a p U] m � N O v a N y a ° O -* v O m -1 w v' n m v m O w 3 3° m p W N N. 3 (n '� ' 6 `< 7 rt a U) 13.3 _� W �+ 3 m °c 3 a 3 C S m D� c O 6 O m 0 0_ 0_ U) co Q 3 m (Q ° C S m �S 3 s �. h m d p� O y 3 3 ^ N Q. 7 m S U) (Q C Q 7 3 3 `_' a .3. O Q v (mA .m+ m O N -+� mmF tn' N d° Zr N m0 c O- a O o d v no j 0 `< N a n '* ° m m v 3(n v art' m ? a 3 CD N (D rt 3 0 -�' m W .+ m y^ rt __ o N m °- m m N (D .m. X 3 Z rt 6 CL O� 3 CL N N m Err m < ) a U3 c o y � " o ut O y y m ` o m Q CL N N 7 N _ N O - G 3 n y ° m v m < n 3 �, 3 3,• m 7 n U) ° m (D m 3 d ac j 3 d 7 o v O y y v m a < n O m o v m v a. N 3 m ° o� 3 (D °y C c Z O N O N Err v m a 3co cr 0 ° cn3 D m :3„ O< 3 O. 3• U� m 3 N Ort 3 m X CD CD 0 m< c O O O N a rt 3 7 0 3 y S p O' m U) a ? U)' 3 m 3 3 U] O Z CD Ep y N 3 m U] < m c °: a v O D) rt N Q. 3 °- �p 0 U1 3 °O N 0 0 .3r _� .< O N. 3 N d o� d (D y� 3 $ m O 7 0 3 y c N OD "3* a3 40 w o 0 -y° 0) N 0 � a -n O o m C O_ O w m rt O a y O Ort 3 0 < 3 m (O (S 3 X U.] U] (D m N O Z N m O n O 3 m Z 4 N 1612 zmg » � 0 M 0 3 07 O N N o C a o r. 00 mo v 0 ' c m � 7 G to 7 'On' .. � tD o c o so, CL � o �o�m o ov �3 (D CrG a 3 moo_ 0 m -m �p0 n O 3 CD °c Sr �nr " m (n v -i-n ry nom X -43 a R p CD -0 _ Q m y 0- on 00 3 C', -- p03 �0 3 3 nom -� D CD p-D<C D 0 v0 v a 0 m (n :1 o� O F'p 1 -n CD D : -i o (D cn -I m y v 3 O °- CL Z Cf) m 7 C O: (n 3 m m C (D CD :=i; (D m v Co fD. 3 y (D m CL rn nn N Q 3 3 (D O- N C (n ,0.' N 0 rn z y a U) m 0 CD (D ;u Q (D (A -a o a m y C N N 3 m m m 3 3 3 O � m .. .. a 0 o CL = ID �( C- 3 D m � (D m y n 3 G) p N m m 1 (D 0 0 N (D O c. m O_ r P. u ron N n C p 23 N 0 V (o m �0 3 =ri m 3 w °1 a� n � K v b v �t V O r V *S � T K D X c N N •O. AZ) � (D 'd N 0 0 a m w 0 c, am m v m N m 0 Q w 3 tQ D cr 0 161 2 3 c a) Of 3 o tT $ 6) A - a Q a) a < u Lr � 9 g a m � w T (D S N n 0 o H � Q° m m ma m N a m •-` T m _ H W a m a m O 3 a m i6 9 a ai n m a Oo 9 a V 9 a 3 N 3 a N A O A -D•1 O O D m D cnc�� N m O D�� -p c m m -a � o jio O 7 s<no .� m O m c m O -O D° N d c (p K;p(D � w m m 0 (D -0 2 _0 2 ;uXM.;uMMX-0xK m m m (D (D (D (D m -0-Vxx �c 2 2 m m < m ro ° O -O N m m 6 3 Q ro N „Y w m 'C„ < . Q ? m (D O-0 O N Q O f0 3 -0 ° 3 ° -° N m Oy m m O 7 o fD O (D -° p -° p. 3 O •° p. O. �. T) . 7 (D T). 3: 7 (D m 7 m 'O �. -O N N< 7 m C m (D o 3 s w 7 N S O N O O ro 3 `< 3 m 3 ro .O-r c Q CD -0 pC N O 7 ro< N_ N N S O S O 5' O 3 3 c 0 CD m a o ° m p m rt < m Q _. s o ° v O o -„ < 3 O < 0> c O S > c 7 c 7 m o 2-M c o u� m 7 ° -1 a c3 5; R) o co<( D one°. 3.�nC o CT U) 33 6��<66aU� <0333 3m7 5- 0. 3m �N 70 7 ^ 7" m N 5'p 1 h 3 _� < °° m O 0 O m N . O S m� Q ff Q Q 7 m "* (� 7 m (O m (D (n N (D m m N� (�/� m ro (1P m in m U1 N(D m 0 N to 5. N C) O N N Q N m O oo0p * O o .°.(ov 3@ Q Q(DM m m o- O 9°m�cn - 'o m °��, -«03 0. Z. 0 0 00m0000 7 7 7 7 7 7 O Osn�°oO 7 ro -° O 7 Q mo �o 7 1 gy 0.0 < o� °m ���mNOdo° N O ,•* 7 (p (p �� N 3' 33fl°3333 0 33m�'(D 3 o Q 0 -� c o p .< m o n) o m(O o 'o 0 x =r 3 0 m 3 (° o o su m QQm m m QQQQm m m m o m QQ< C O m Q W < m ,, s co x N o 6m(° s m m m (O Q O m (D (D o 3 d o< X° os < m -iv m 0 O v" D v' 0� O v" o v" > m >> v" 0 v" O 0 d' m m s�+ o m ° m Qmx o m 33 OOOQ 0 (0, m � *mvSp O CD v° O (O m 3 Q °� (D 0) Q 7 o - Q S< 3 �> O v° m O m� Q O m 6 C O < O ? O s?o 3 S� m (o W 70 C 7 0 0 3 <• m Q (D Q9 "� m m w d m Q (D Q 7 ro x „Q O m Q �o O N" << m m m (� < m m Q ° O D = 6 m 3 ° 3 Q.. `< O 3 w O' 0 (D U) _QUi = o m m m v m < m CL v =O N O N ro 3 O O ° O 6-,< 7 3' v A) (O N < : (=D (D O O N n N S �_ Q Q 0 N .N-t N N O 01 O m N 01 $ .o. S N N N 5 O Z zr Q 7 m O0 O " 0) 7 N �• a N cr °' fD An 'OO NO ,.+ Z O 3 Q O° N fA fl1 j O -p O N N y. j =r Q N X .G S a-. ° m (/) x ° (n 7 O -I Oo�� o� r-r (D �3 � mo Qa N ,Ny. 9' 3 p 2 m m° "moo N.o�r >> Q�m3om 0f° w Q o 0 ° a (p S o N Q37 d ca 8" N-0 j ° <� (Do °= O ° 3 Xm mom co s� (D �vc(D N o °�� 0 Q o O ^ 0 0 o S O O m s� N. X N 7 N N (O m m -„ p° O 0 (O CL r o = 5`i o (D � S m Z O C C 3 N N O �. _ N 7 0. 3 -° o O O m v < �' (� N m a CL o m —° m O 5. m m ° m 3 m o O n� mom° aa� s m2.0-0 � CL (D D- 3���N?.3 Q2 0 0' h Z ° m° CD o o r r: O m m W C.Z o � m Vf 2 n Q (O ort o C a O O" N m a m :1 - (D CO m N 7 (D N 5i (D 0 ° _ --M.0) m QN o C Q O 3 �Q00 QD O Q m (D o rpm ^m O �(D O� 0 O �3�c 3 N O o c �' 0 m 7 O p-' S O ?� 7 m Z�.m m�m3 ro m m 0 < gQro amm (7 -" U' CD Q O. m =7 v 3 m m m N O Z to m 0 n O 3 Z - ---------- ------------- ----------------------------- -------------------- ---------------- ------ --- -- --------- ------- ------------ 0 0 o 0 0 741i r rn G) O r- n rn U D rn (n 00 rn D C -i n D --I O Z C r a n b m 0 r ct (M O 0 tD v �D O Ul O a N CD su 0 v rt CD 0 C\ OD co Q" O V (o w 3 w� m n O V 00 b� " o„,•JO r o *0 N -n X U> x c W N �Z s fD V (A 0 0 w ". Q w w 0 v v Oo rD w 0 A m 0 7 w 7F l0 D or O N !T 161 2 `A 23 T ((D C M 3 M CO) 7 03 (D O m Q 3 N W m 0 w ,0 o y 0 A) .�► y to (c 3 H (D � -s < (D �i C to N N W 01 n A 0 � (D y y N S 0 n N .� r ? = L N a O 0 w 0 o N N (D m 7 w m 7 Oo (D 3 V r A O Z O M A a m D y co O o 0< u~i d< Q< O (p' Er O 0 n n-a O N m N w (D O (D (D N N O � — � � =* S a t2 V1 s�oS�m�mo�m@Dm Ul co .O-f A g a S h 5' (am?.mm_� N `` N N n N N (�D N fD (D d Vc ��o o a °a (D aaaa�a v o v w -a o w c : w c 0 �' (D j 0 w 0 7 7 °F CD o (D =' co N m= o ° m -a om c c y c w 3 g o 0 0 co O w C m oD 01 y N 3 a-a- 3 (� 3— vXN N• m°W W. m- O m S 3 w m 0 w CD o ((D (MD S(D� (D w-3 (O o� o< o W m a= q CD w w U) 0 O N (D= CD w N<^ m w of S m gy (D m° 0 j Co j c+ v Q. m PO 0i 90 Vf 7 c a ca .0+ 3 o 7 0 w w o C o c C c° o C(D (D :3 O 5;. (D 0 �' N �< m39 oa'0a a6w�yDOXi o3 00 o D ca ° D< :3 w c m � -� =r m O �aa°? (D LO °—CD w m e CL m Q (Q a (o Z 0 .war O O (D (D (D a (D N� ca CD S3 �c CL a �m N 3 v fL -a a N w M w w (D a n� N a 0 a o 0 a a v a m m? 0 m w 3 a (o (Q (o On m m m � 3 3 (D a a N N N 3- S S CL 0 3 (D o 0 0 w m — a p (D � ID m m m Q � CL w a > > Z a 3 N' CL -u of a (D O (D O w O O c O c O (D uNi O 0 o 0 m v (D 0 (D 0 0 a o_ m m m m w. m CD 0 o o w (D O o o D? _0 0 0 0 O O m Vf V O Z N m 0 1 A O m Z Vf r m r m m D m m D C --I n D --I O z c CD O O v 0: fD 0 Cn X J V V) cD 0 v CD 0 Ul OD co (D iii i� ct (D K ' (D O O O m n M K a a o M u~i A r m r m m D m m D C --I n D --I O z c CD O O v 0: fD 0 Cn X J V V) cD 0 v CD 0 Ul OD co (D iii i� ct (D K ' (D CA -� =E ) R. co Ra/ 8�= @ q4 § - 7 a x CO �§ -� wf jk CL � \ a 0 a O $ Q » m 2 0 § � E � § 2 % � � � .� D � 0 k 161 2 m \ Q O % m C/) � m e w m > E g -n ? w_ 6 2 � « L-1 R O ■ CD 2 k I a CD \ E O g � f f 23 r � [ § § � 0 \ \ � § 7 a 2 [$ 27 » Q m % ■ CO) Im Im CL � � \ » � �xcx=x=xexEx =,,.om;mm.�m go) Iz, 0) :3 E9 c5 a- a «E a:yE �.c7c ^ƒ * ( ƒEI =£®£ 0 o o 0 � 0 0 ■ K ® ■ � a C \ { { / $ / > > \ > > > > a) § Dm 03 0) 03 7 7= 9 2 2» @ z a = m m o a 0 $ o[ k E p p a a \ 7 \ £ £ 7 2 0 o CD : r 0 § % > C: 7 7 $ - ® } m (D 2 } ® £ ( £ a e e ƒ 0 § 2 < < = & < f % � ƒ & § ƒ \ § x 0 § k 0 \ < m = < / & \ CD % \ ( S x \ k \ § M § $ CL 2 \ /_ § / § G m \ Q O % m C/) � m e w m > E g -n ? w_ 6 2 � « L-1 R O ■ CD 2 k I a CD \ E O g � f f 23 r � [ § § � 0 \ \ � § 161 2 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, A 34104 June 16, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: May 19, 2011 V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM BY... ...................0 , VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Doral Bridge Project VIII. Transportation Operations Report- Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Committee Reports X. Old Business XI. New Business XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment Fiala T✓ Hiller Henning Coyle ' Coietta A23 The next meeting is July 21, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Misc. Correa: Naples, FL 34104 Date: I item* ILA = ZIq 2`3 u: ,pi�$ to: T 16I , Vol GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 May 19, 2011 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 3:55 P.M. Il. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Maria Jost -CLM, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: Vlll. C. Doral Signage X. A. Summer Meetings Robert Slebodnik moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Tony Branco. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: April 21, 2011 Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the April 21, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera A. Hurricane Reserves Gloria Herrera reviewed information from the Budget Report: • Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax $15,651.46 • Reserves for Insurance Claims $400,000.00 • Total Available Reserves $403,300.00 - Transfer of funds is needed for Construction (available Improvements Capital $4,173.75) �:i�il 161 203 1 Discussion took place on questioned Line Items from the May Budget Report and FY12 Budget: • Reserves for Insurance Claims $400,000.00 (May Report) - Staff confirmed the division of the Reserves for Insurance Claims Line Item is included in the FY12 Budget - The FY12 Budgeted amount for Reserves for Insurance Claims is $200, 000.00 (Hurricane Reserves) • Roadway and Grounds Maintenance (FY12 Budget) - The expanded Forecast FYI amount is $150, 000.00 (Improvements General) - Requested FY12 Total Operating Expense is $146,800 - Requested FY12 Improvements General is $121,800.00 VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Maria Jost distributed photographs of faulty pipe repairs performed by a different Contractor (Warren Street and St Andrews Blvd.): (See attached) • Water was not able to flow due to the angled position of the pipe - Additionally the pipe was not sealed properly • The faulty pipe was the source of the major leaks Discussion ensued and it was perceived that the pipe may have been struck and shifted during the Culvert construction (Storm Water Project.) Mike McGee stated: • The (Irrigation) water was cycling every 7 minutes • Currently the (Irrigation) water is cycling 10 seconds every 30 minutes (after CLM repairs) Maria Jost continued: o Small leaks were capped off Robert Slebodnik deemed that the faulty pipe contributed to 50% of the MSTU Water Bill. Mike McGee reported: o An additional leak was found between St. Andrews and the Pump Station - Noted the County installed new Sewer Control Valves in the vicinity Maria Jost resumed with the Maintenance Report: • Ganoderma Trees were removed • Inquired if the Road striping is complete Robert Slebodnik passed on the following information that he received: o Sufficient time was needed for the pavement to cure - Subsequently rectangular tabs, walking paths and bicycle lane identifiers will be added 2 161 2 A23 Staff will confirm the status with Road and Bridge and notify the Committee via email of the response. Maria Jost provided a photograph of the Blueberry Flax Lily that was previously suggested as a replacement for the Xanadu. (See attached) VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report (See attached) Mike McGee reviewed the following Maintenance items: o Crushed Electrical Valve Box at US41 is a safety hazard Darryl Richard requested a quote from CLM to address the crushed Electrical Valve Box. • Requested CLM reinstall the Bermad Valve at Valley Stream • Concealed Median numbers require repainting along St. Andrews and Pebble Beach Blvd. Darryl Richard requested a quote from CLM to repaint the Median numbers. B. Reuse Mixing Chamber - Warren Street Mike McGee announced the Mixing Chamber is fully operational. C. Doral Bridge Project Darryl Richard reviewed an email from the ROW Acquisitions Division denying use of the (15 ft wide) Landscape Buffer Easement for installation of Electrical Conduit. (See attached) Mike McGee responded that the Alternate Directional Bore is required. Lely Sidewalk Improvement Project Preliminary Bid Tabulation o Bonness is low Bidder ($103,022.06) - Directional Bore estimate of $12.00 is a standard price in comparison of recent Bids Discussion ensued on the Bid Tabulation. Robert Slebodnik questioned the cost of the Project as the initial Estimate was $60,000.00 - $70,000.00. Darryl Richard responded: • The initial Concept was based on ballpark cost estimates • Adjustments were needed to meet Pathways requirements - The addition of Curbing for Pedestrian safety Mike McGee gave additional factors for the cost increase: • Sidewalk addition • The addition of Brick Pavers 3 161 8 ^1123 Discussion continued and the Committee expressed concerns on: • The Bid Tabulation • The amount of monies being spent on MSTU Projects David Larson recommended painting the (Dora) Circle) Sign based on his findings: • Marble Remnants are not available for the Sign dimensions • Most companies will not drill Marble as it can fracture - Numerous holes would be required to secure the lettering on the Marble David Larson moved to repaint the (Doral Circle) Sign as per the (Signcraft) quote $2,356.00. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Discussion resumed on the Sidewalk Improvement Bid Tabulation. Mike McGee noted McGee and Associates corrected Cost Estimate is $90,723.35. (Effective 4- 26 -11) Bid price inconsistencies on the Bid Tabulation were discussed: • Item 16 - Light Fixtures • Item 1 - MOT and Temporary Barriers • Item 2 - As Built Record Plans Jennifer Tanner moved to approve Bonness (Bid) $103,022.06. Second by David Larson. Mike McGee suggested reviewing the proposed Bid with the Contractors to confirm prices on the Line Items in question. Pam Lulich noted the Project must be value Engineered prior to the Bid award. Break 5:14 p.m. Reconvened at 5:21 p.m. Discussion continued on the Bid Tabulation. Robert Slebodnik polled the Committee preference on the motion to approve Bonness Bid: • David Larson and Jennifer Tanner voted yes 2 -3 • Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, and Robert Slebodnik agreed with the Project but were hesitant in casting a vote as they perceived Contractor negotiations were needed 2 161 3 p23 Darryl Richard noted: • Negotiations will be conducted with the low bidder Bonness - It is not guaranteed that Bonness will change their Bid during negotiations • The Bid Tabulation is the result of a Rebid on the Project and did not perceive that better quotes will be submitted After much discussion it was determined that sufficient funds are available in the FY11 Budget to complete the Sidewalk Improvement Project. The Committee reluctantly agreed to approve the motion with the stipulation that Staff will pursue negotiations with Bonness on the Bid Line Items that are a concern. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following Reports: A. Project Managers Report (See attached) David Larson requested the status on the median lights ( Doral Circle Darryl Richard responded: • Parts were delivered to Bentley Electric (5- 19 -11) to repair the Cosmopolis Fixture • Deadline for repairs is 30 days • Cost on (4) Fixtures - $1,100.00 B. Review of the To Do List (See attached) Item 3 - Sign Refurbishment: Donal Circle and Augusta at Forest Hills o Staff will direct Signcraft to paint the Doral Circle Sign Tony Branco requested an update from Signcraft on the Augusta at Forest Hills Sign. Mike McGee reported automobile damage to the Crown of Thorn in Median 14. Staff will advise CLM of the damage Crown of Thorn. C. Doral Signage David Larson inquired if the Sign on (St. Andrews at) US41 by the Golf Club can be relocated into the Median. After discussion Staff confirmed that Signs are not approved in the ROW Median. X. Committee Reports -None 5 16112 A123 4 XI. Old Business A. Summer Meetings Robert Slebodnik suggested canceling the August meeting. The Committee agreed to cancel the August 18 meeting. XII. New Business -None XII1. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:42 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Sleb nik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended k The next meeting is June 16, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 2 161 2 !i A231 Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: June 16, 2011 Lely MSTU Project Status (L -48) ACTIVE — Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge 05- 19 -11: Bid results are tabulated (see attached bid tabulation). Use of the L.B.E. Landscape Buffer Easement is not allowed for the electrical conduit to the bridge lighting. (See attached document related to L.B.E. Easement) 06- 16 -11: Bid has been adjusted to Base Award amount of $90,524.42 (to Bonness) and adding the Lumec order of product ( +$9,268.00) the "Total Project Cost" is $99,792.42 (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. 161 2 "A23' June 16, 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 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: Sign Refurbishment: (1) Doral Circle, and (2) Augusta @ Forest Hill Status: Kara with SignCraft to attend 6 -16 -11 meeting to update the committee and staff of project status. 4. PENDING: Planting Sunshine Mimosa at Valley Stream Status: Mimosa planting is under construction. 161 2 A23 ' From: rjsteedman [mailto:rlumenator @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:25 AM To: RichardDarryl Subject: Re: Pricing for Lumec Pole delivered cost - county vs. contractor Darryl, The following is what we quoted. This does NOT include any unloading, handling, nor installation (including fuses, surge arrestors, etc, as may have been included in the "installed" price): "Pricing for the (4) specified Lumec luminaires is $2317.00 each, includes frt and lamp. Bolts can be shipped in advance with no additional frt charges." The County can purchase directly, whereas the electrical contractor needs to go through a distributor, who adds markup and sales tax, so the cost to the ec is much higher than your cost, even before they do their own markups and add labor costs. There is a scheduled price increase in July, so this would need to be entered into the system, whether direct purchased, or through contractor, prior to that. Thank You, Ron Steedman R.J. Steedman, LLC 2268 SE 28th Street Cape Coral, Fl. 33904 P 239 - 573 -9427 F 239 - 573 -9477 161 2 'A23 �v 3 3 W Q' 0 3 (' d ao m v 42 z n l d CL N in 3 N C H O. fD O) 3 V fD M v 0 It fu C3 CL Q m 03 Q- O n N D rte+ Z F.L w u, N V 0 Z 3 � a 3 OD V 0) (n .01 W N 0000 -4 0) 0)A co N� -n cX O-vm;urG)CC -0 mr-nC/) - -I ivp� wT==c»- -� -DD a2v��vvpv(np -nw>mm 0 m> �OfJOm=L- 0OOMm�tnzmO�r-r Z<�r- -�� 'OMOOOz0 X c'un- Xm-� izT- r-n "mmzm= -r-om = m n_ OSOM vzzWmmcj) -i >� W--p - -1 O 0=��n��> cn— - iv��c��z D Ovm' ;0 0 n�m=cn0= -+= mDDwmXO m� 0 m �v 0mm0D�zy�z�mv p p o 0��T��o -n 2-n 0mmc(n�� cnXZrrcvz�OXv �nxn mU)C)� CO C)-o iv DC�DZ �pz� =m C n mcn�mm c�� 0�(�n(�zmO�v CL U_' D n- z� On aim W zO -0v=�-1v Z -0 nmD CA rD�CpDpO��p Dom° co � v G�CJ =m Dm� zc� ��� mDz v -im 0 = m �z; <mzv� -°�o -0 � v �r 00 mU) C� -�-j p� o m CD m (1) -n �O� m�G) �Z� mm�� *-izCA u`Di �. zm G)0 X ZmT m c� x -x Cn v�n mDmCj) r A m� Cn Cn -ice K DWF c -i� =n n D 0 O= OmD -0 X rn � 22 = 0 X- D- r = _ (� Zvr �xzT`�° m mp An XZ m x O v CA) °om _ ^_' M D -n m m vC � C 0 r O w v z� CD G) m mmr o o -0 m O --I = Ti _. A c m O 0) A CAO W O WCO prnw -' -� O A cn O O cn A 00 A A OD cn 0) 0) O 3 O0 X.9_ y N N A N cyl V9 ffl ffl �A ffl 69 69 ffl CO N A ffl N X69 ffl 69 0) NsA A 3�CO 0 O n :-1 -A �I O 0) Cn -4 W O V 0) -� s CO co cn O A 0) 0) W Cn O A --4 co -4 O co A co 0) 0) w ANO (D cn C) co W N) co .01 0) M-4 Cn 6w 69 f!9 69 ffl " 4.9 69 69 -69 O 0 N N N 69 {w W 69 VA W tJt W 69.p N p1 cD N <O 'V w O Cn 0) A O N W CO O w W O Cn 00 0) �I 00 t co O 00 OD CO i O 00 O OO y �1 O Oo W N �1 O A 00 O CO N N Co O 1 O 0) O O 0) 0 CA O O O O O) O Cr N Cn 00 f0 0) A -O O O CT o0 " 0o 0 O V 0) CA - _ n 3 n ffl .69 ffl ffl fig ffl 69 fA -69 fH 119 40 fA H9 ffl fig fA f 9 G. W o 3 of � N W O 2. 0 ;a 3 O O v W �NCWo OD W N N) -4 0) 00 0 S C N O -� O C1i Cn n !-n 0) 9 Cn N Cn 0) O cQ = O O -� O O O 101c) OCn Cn O O O O O 1010 000 Cl I 00 O IPIPIP O 000 O O O 00 O O V! cD 'Y -69 4A .69 .69 ffl 69 4A 60 69 69 f.9 69-69 f!9 to ffl to -W o aw 3mcn �m N OD N p O M C! -t W W CO W aL _C cD 3 -J O A N O O w -1 w W N N Co V co A Cfl W00) " Cn -1 co A N Co NNCO W A w 0) cn 00 ��� O O O CJi O O O NOp 00 000 O� o N 0 0 O o0 0 0 0 000 00 000 0o d O O O O O O O O O O O O O 000 O O .�f �v 3 3 W Q' 0 3 (' d ao m v 42 z n l d CL N in 3 N C H O. fD O) 3 V fD M v 0 It fu C3 CL Q m 03 Q- O n N D rte+ Z F.L w u, N V 0 m CO (D Q cr C- 0 CD CD m N X CD m Q cr 0 a C- 0 U) O rn 161 2 IIA23 NDWOOm CL 0) O -00 Om m c o mm p0 C ° N m p1 O 7 OW �. CQ' 0 � Cn c n Q C y Q v = (n CD' =3 CO a � a mQ 0-3 <3 0 w 0� Z 2 Q� m CD m n� X X (Q O 00 O _ v a: > w a o 0 N � n 0 a� O � -n 0 ,-: 3 X 0 (D y 0 3 o m :3 Cn -n z C c =' CD CD O N � N OOD _ N � b9 ffl N 00 O -1 CD w 0 m m m m m m m m CD m m CR N N V1 V) Ul Vl u! 0 U) V) Vl V1 V1 O A. CD N 00 V O) N CA M tO1f 0O1 co 01 --4 0 O m 001 O 69 Efl g g g g g g g g < m n m m m m m m m m m m m m N O V1 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 (A Cl) N CO) 0) N C7 CO X071 000 W �rn (D 0) OD v 40 O _ A N O 0 0 0 CD O 0 0 O O O O O O O N 161 2 IIA23 N o, 0 A � W f�D � � 3 7 H of � C W N Ct O. fD O' O) O 3 0 rD (D 3 .•r 0 0 0 0 � v o 0_ , Q m �? 9 CL o m a F un � A � M rt f? ((D 7 O_ W In N V O j 0) O (0 c o mm p0 C r0)rnm50 c0O fn N oo ? CCD .t7 Q-„0 <3 0 w 0� Z 2 Q� m m n� X X (Q O (D a N m �, �W � vm 0 N � n 0 ,-: 3 X 0 � o m :3 a z C c N � N OOD _ N � b9 ffl N 00 O -1 00 O O N N 401 CD O N O W N 00 V O) N CA M tO1f 0O1 co 01 --4 0 O m 001 O 69 Efl Efl Cn W O) 1 O O Cif p O O O EA %9 Efl .0% Vt 40 4 CO X071 000 W �rn OD v 40 01 A N O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O N o, 0 A � W f�D � � 3 7 H of � C W N Ct O. fD O' O) O 3 0 rD (D 3 .•r 0 0 0 0 � v o 0_ , Q m �? 9 CL o m a F un � A � M rt f? ((D 7 O_ W In N V O 161 2 A23 PLrzh.,9 an- 1990 Seward Avenue Naples. Florida 34109 (239) 597 -6221 • (239) 597 -7416 Fax www.bonnessinc.com Proposal 6/16/2011 Submitted To: Collier County Administrative Services Division Estimate Number: 91792011 Address: 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building W Bid Title: Lely MSTU Doral Circle Rd /SW REV 6.16.11 Naples, FL 34112 Project Location: Dora[ Circle Contact: Project City, State: Naples, FL Phone: (239) 774 -8380 Fax: (239) 732 -2718 Engineer /Architect: McGee & Associates Item # Item Descri Lion Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price BASE BID 1 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC & TEMPORARY 1.00 LS $11,184.57 $11,184.57 BARRIERS Per County & FDOT Policy 2 AS -BUILT /RECORD PLANS per Contract Documents 1.00 LS $1,800.76 $1,800.76 3 FDOT CLASS I CONCRETE 6" & 12" DEPTH 130.00 SY $95.46 $12,409.80 REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB /SIDEWALK/CURBING PER INDEX 310. TO INCLUDE BAHIA SOD REPLACEMENT 4 FOOT TYPE F CURBING PER INDEX 300 166.00 LF $19.23 $3,192.18 5 FDOT DROP CURB PER INDEX 300 46.00 LF $19.23 $884.58 6 ARCHITECTURAL PAVERS PER FOOT 95.00 SY $41.08 $3,902.60 SPECIFICATIONS 7 FDOT MODIFIED BARRIER HALF WALL PER INDEX 138.00 LF $111.95 $15,449.10 410, CLASS II REINFORCED CONCRETE WITH CLASS 3 FINISH 8 16" SQ. X 48" HT. REINFORCED CONCRETE 4.00 EACH $446.01 $1,784.04 PILASTER, FDOT CLASS II CONCRETE WITH CLASS 3 FINISH TO INCLUDE ELECTRIC CONDUIT AND SETTING OF LIGHTING ANCHOR BOLTS. (BOLTS SUPPLIED BY COUNTY /MSTU) 9 HALF WALL AND PILASTER WITH STONE VENEER 804.00 SF $17.24 $13,860.96 FINISH, TEIAS TEXTURED STONE "CHARDONNAY" LEDGER STONE WITH NO MORTAR JOINTS, INSTALL PER PLANS, MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS 10 HALF WALL COPING, TEIAS TEXTURED STONE 2" 138.00 LF $29.41 $4,058.58 PYRAMID WALL COPING, CREAM COLOR 11 PILASTER CAPSTONE, TEJAS TEXTURED STONE 4.00 EACH $83.63 $334.52 2.25" FLAT PILASTER CAP, 29" SQ., CREAM COLOR 13 1.25" SCH. 40 PVC ELECTRIC CONDUIT WITH 40.00 LF $5.94 $237.60 CONDUCTORS TROUGH EXISTING SLEEVES 6/16/20111:46:11 PM Page 1 of 2 Notes: • Light poles and fixtures supplied by Collier County. Items to be shipped to EB Simmonds office where they will be inventoried with the purchaser's representative on hand. EB Simmonds will then transport the items to the job site when needed and finish the Installation. Payment Terms: Payment due within 30 days of date of invoice, regardless of when payment is made by Owner ACCEPTED: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accepted. Buyer Signature: Date of Acceptance: CONFIRMED: Bonness Inc. Authorized Signature: Estimator: Craig Miles 6/16/20111:46:11 PM Page 2 of 2 161 2 23 esri3 Sa v -r-Oit Contractors 1990 Seward Avenue At€rsci:a Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 597 -6221 • (239) 597 -7416 Fax www.bonnessinc.com Total Price Item # Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price 14 TRENCHED & IN PILASTER 1" SCH. 40 PVC 60.00 LF $6.70 $902.00 ELECTRIC CONDUIT WITH SWEEPS AND FITTINGS PER FDOT SPECIFICATIONS & INDEXES 15 TRAFFIC RATED WIRING PULL BOXES PER FDOT 5.00 EACH $510.79 $2,553.95 SPECIFICATIONS & INDEXES 16 HANDLING, ASSEMBLY, WIRING, FUSING AND 4.00 EACH $1,498.60 $5,994.40 COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES, (FIXTURES: LUMEC DOS-60CW-SG3-QTA120-LR-DBB-IA-RA804F-12- BK-TX) - SEE NOTE 17 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTORS SIZED FOR PROPER 2,200.00 LF $1.35 $2,970.00 VOLTAGE AND DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, CONDUCTORS PER FDOT SPECIFICATIONS FOR STREET LIGHTING (3 CONDUCTORS MIN., between poles -min. AWG 6 insulated (TW Green) stranded copper bond ground wire connecting all poles, insulated (THW or THWN) stranded copper circuit conductors In conduits, in poles -AWG 10 conductors, Black or Red = Hot, Green = Ground) 18 UPGRADE EXISTING ELECTRICAL PANEL FOR 1.00 LS $2,247.66 $2,247.66 PROPOSED LIGHTING FIXTURES TO INCLUDE ALL PERMITS, DRAWINGS AND COMPONENTS FOR A 100% FULLY OPERATIONAL AND PERMITTED ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 19 REMOVE & STORE (12- sections) EXISTING 12.00 EACH $223.70 $2,684.40 TEMPORARY CONCRETE BARRIERS FOR PICK UP BY OWNER (HASKINS, INC) 20 1.25" SCH. 40 PVC ELECTRIC CONDUIT BY 188.00 LF $12.00 $2,256.00 DIRECTIONAL BORE 12a TRENCHED 1.25" SCH. 40 PVC ELECTRIC 294.00 LF $7.88 $2,316.72 CONDUIT WITH SWEEPS AND FITTINGS PER FDOT SPECIFICATIONS & INDEXES. TO INCLUDE BAHIA SOD REPLACEMENT Total Bid Price: $90,524.42 Notes: • Light poles and fixtures supplied by Collier County. Items to be shipped to EB Simmonds office where they will be inventoried with the purchaser's representative on hand. EB Simmonds will then transport the items to the job site when needed and finish the Installation. Payment Terms: Payment due within 30 days of date of invoice, regardless of when payment is made by Owner ACCEPTED: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accepted. Buyer Signature: Date of Acceptance: CONFIRMED: Bonness Inc. Authorized Signature: Estimator: Craig Miles 6/16/20111:46:11 PM Page 2 of 2 161 2 p23 0 0� Q 3 C v 0 v W d F+ CL f+ Ln < o N A O (b V O (7t 4h- - m � N� D Cn D rn re r I m -' ZJ m C) C Om `^ Cn m °O° mm o S nD --I X -1 �x - iv �� O� -a ID- m D z m OD m rO� T 0 D � T v T v T nv W3 3 N ? 9+ ro z cNr_+ O< � 0 -u ° m C7 O S p p Dn Z Z Z C"n -� T n� O = O O C O w C Z 3 0 0 ' O m? CO m Z vm -i Q-Q?'� tnf: z T O mn U) (n O O C) r m -1 � D� O D -I (J X K� m v 0 j { 00 m D -1 F -I m z o Q� sT H :v (D m v Ro z � 0 Can ° n D (7 ca v m C v v o2, p (z m o y m Z 30 M A o Cn -i ('C� Z X -DI �' o r O D 90 A O 0 D O D n O - ?t C T m Cn Y C) o 0 o � m 9 v' < 0 T� O W° ZO -i DU) 0 z < Cn >ul co a p0 Z� D C) C C) DC) r Cn 0 m m (D Q W n m 0- Z °' ' Cn z x° Tv N m oK m C) m O z Z �m v• - CA r ;J co C Cl) 0 Oz Z7 v O m 3 0 �* C) r Dm o ?. O C r co D m D(n Cl) C) Z m C) m X m D- W z 0 0 o 0 + rn N m ? m N -' r „m �(7 fl �� Z co m 0= cn Dz Z T < m m X Gi �Z7 m r D °' m e A C) om Qo �O v G7 m () -i A vo Z Cn� v0 rn m� Z z T v 3 °-. < C) o' u� mm CU C n m C y U) D m0 m-0 v Do v 0 ° 3 o° fD '" m 3 n C) � �+ T %11 C- C) CD o 0 M Cn D z r r Cn -0 C) Cn -I m r r* -I m v D m m X z C) = m Q0 (D Sp + S CD Q< 0 (r u m r 0` z m X r- D �r r m 0 0 �- DT Cn 0 O = 0 O Z m n r rnm m X X -I m m _� z 0 T v W O o C m mn? o 3 m ° 0 N n v C- OD m G7v rn� w e °ACn X m Ao v C m� � C c XCn n G7O OZ � O X Z _ �v 3 ^ - _ i �� -0 Z �„ °o O Tz Cn ZX X m 0-n �z r Cn w o o m ^gyp v �. ro C) — a• fD 0 co z 0 mm r n z� w CD 0 - m G7 v m < C) C) m p y z m r� m m o -I m v D y 0. ° R- C) i > T - — °c 'm W0 W D -� O Cn < = 0 ° z m 0� A m � m z O z �z �� z� m 3 co o a- °- ro v c m C) --u p zm D Q d 0m z BO x 0 O -� n p v C Z m m N Zm C G) m C) D Z T y ; D =i D r p D� n v< Cn 0 -{ ry iv T DTI D zm X A -i O O to (D O Z ZO CO �0r- r m n C (n C) z C) x p Z n D v m-j� m C) O m (n m U) Q, 3 fD w n _0 my �0D m T z x D �_ �O C) 0 o °< Cn Cn O 0 z Ur o;u Cnrn z D v (n U) v Mm WO O " O 0 _� - D Cn C mm (1) C- z o ° n� ° a- mm� -0 m = �� m�z �ZV r -� z -i m m D mC) (n 0 3 d m o m n) m 0 z U) O D r C) � Cl) m Z d a° D co Z m 0 Q° m= C D m n p Cn- m z 1 m 9. T CL ; rt z v w m0 mT m D �_ O z Cn z v 0 m �c Oro p cn s T T c) X CL z z v m X ? z m A� o M Ov �� °° o m i< rn m U. n 00 U)0 m �n o CD e ' 0 D Cl) m ° O° CA CD m Cl) Cn Z z N co C� m m v n 0. F n s m Cn O r i m 3. Oc z z COi� U)) Cn D 0 0 z rr m 0 °-' m m (nO -I p r m U m- O K Cl) m z O D r °1* 0 N Cnz m� Dm r2m T T � C) z= o? c0i ° uN, c m A m v _<m m c 3 (o = ^ 0 v 0 C KCo v o a) � z G7 v O D Cl) C) O m co -i D m > > Cn CL m m v M Q- Cl) -< � c C) Cl) -o -u O 0 z Z 2 a c S- m 0 r gd O ;i m m r -nZ �_W M A C7 T G f7T1 z N d v X T 0 T1 O D •� T Z n .Zm7 m v 0 m . C C v C) r Cn Cn O 3 n � m _� ZOS= w S 0/ ro m 0 m D Cn c G) cn 0 Cl) 0 p T X Q Z Cn v -mU) �, C0 r c m z m z fp Z D m m T sp _ ° ^ Cn Z a m 0 C) v C7 D Z v O z C v -� O Q z n G7 (n a p -i m m m m D D o_ C!� Z m Cn cn Cn 0 r r m r r m m r r r m r Cn m r (n r r cn r r C T T (n T N T T T Cu T T N T -< TI T -� Cn (n A N j O A U1 C) C) O A A A (n O O co O 000 co 0) EA fA 69 EA EA EA fA EA EA EA in fA to fA fA to fW EA EA 49 b9 C O D W O O J O O U D (0 Ct O N r 00 co O O V O A W w Ut m O J (0 J O co A 00 00 0) W A N A O CD U7 O co N w N w A a) J O Ut J .► v iA fA 69 <A fA EA fA CA 169 to FA CA 69 Ew G9 1fl EA to EA EA H9 EA (0 .�► O N N N N N Ut N A W _ Ut W W N _ _ d Ut N W -+ N CT a) O N A (D V (0 CD Cr Ut A O N w w W O Ut 00 m V 00 A A CD O Co co - (D A O CD O W A W (A A V O A w N V -Cl W O A (D N A N) (0 O A A N V N O CD A. O O O O O .A O (D Ut O O O O CT N U7 00 co W O A O (A O Ut 00 W 0o O J m Ut J 0 0� Q 3 C v 0 v W d F+ CL f+ Ln < o N A 161 2 A23 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 2303IIW311 June 29,2011 JUL 1 8 2011 cJ SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA BY: I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: June 16, 2011 Fiala V. Budget Amendment Hiller Henning Coyle VI. Old Business Coletta VII. New Business VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting is July 21, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division —Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc.Cones: ItemN 1612 A23 tt GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 June 16, 2011 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Gloria Herrera-Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich-Landscape Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold-Director ATM Others: Mike McGee-McGee &Associates, Kara Crooks-SignCraft, Darlene Lafferty—Juristaff Robert Slebodnik noted Robert Kindelan has been absent for the past three meetings and deemed it is a violation of the Maintenance Contract. Darryl Richard stated he will review the meeting attendance requirement with Robert Kindelan. Ill. Approval of Agenda Add: VII. C. Solar Panel X. A. Warren Street Pump Station Antenna X. B. Lane Markers Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: May 19, 2011 Change: VI., pg. 2, last paragraph, second bullet should read: rectangular "reflector"tabs VII. C., pg. 3, second paragraph should read: Lely "Doral" Sidewalk Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the May 19, 2011 minutes as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 1 161 2 A'23 V. Budget Report-Gloria Herrera Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information: o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $194,812.14 o Reserves for Insurance Claims $400,000.00 Robert Slebodnik questioned the Legal Advertisement Line Item. Gloria Herrera replied: o The monies are allocated for Naples Daily News - P.O. was opened for$500.00 - Monies spent to date are $83.94 Darryl Richard noted water usage was minimal based on the following Budget information: o Water and Sewer Expenditure - May actual$16,041.57 - June actual- $16,339.85 VI. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM -None VII. Landscape Architect's Report- McGee &Associates A. Maintenance Report (See attached) Mike McGee reported the following: o Mimosa planting on Valley Stream - Complete o Replacement of Flax Lily- Incomplete o Stressed the need for CLM to attend the monthly drive-through Robert Slebodnik requested Staff distribute the To Do List (within a week) following the MSTU meetings as he perceives the List is key information for the Contractor to complete Maintenance items in a timely manner. Mike McGee continued: o Xanadu replacements are required o US41 Entry (1) Tabebuia replacement- Incomplete o Median 12 Forest Hills replace (1) Tabebuia- Incomplete o Repair Valve installation at Valley Stream - Incomplete Staff stated a meeting will be held with CLM before June 23`d B. Doral Bridge Project Darryl Richard reviewed a revised Bid Proposal by Bonness on the Lely MSTU Doral Circle Sidewalk Project: (See attached) o Base price $90,524.42 - Original Bid price $103,022.06 (See attached) - The County will direct purchase (4) Lumec luminaires - The Lighting quote is $9.268.00. (See attached) 2 161 2 A23 Staff recommended the Committee approve $12,000.00 for the Lighting. Robert Slebodnik moved to approve the Bid from Bonness in the amount of$90,524.42. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Robert Slebodnik moved to approve a not to exceed amount of $12,000.00 to Lumec for the purchase of the Lighting. Second by Kathleen Dammed. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Darryl Richard noted the Bonness Bid approval is on the July 26th BCC Agenda. Kara Crooks announced that SignCraft merged with Signs &Things. She reviewed the Doral Sign Refurbishment status: o Doral Entrance sign was removed and sanded o Anticipates refurbishment will be completed within 4 weeks o SignCraft is using a new painting system - Matthews Paints - Matthews Paints offers a 1 year warranty on Clear Coat o Sign & Things offers a 1 year warranty on Clear Coat painting o A Clear Coat is needed to achieve a shiny Marble appearance David Larson deemed the Clear Coat paint is necessary. Tony Branco noted the variety of green paint color options. Discussion ensued on the possibility of matching the existing primary background color on the sign. Kara Crooks responded: o (5-7) colors will be used to create the Faux Marble finish o Each color is hand painted - Adequate dry time is required between paints to ensure that the finish will last o A formula can be created to match any color o She will prepare a base color swatch for Committee review After discussion it was established that the Committee will visit Signs & Things (3649 Progress Ave., Naples, FL) to review the color swatch. Darryl Richard suggested SignCraft remove and refurbish the sign located at the corner of Augusta and Forest Hills. Kara Crooks stated that the Augusta and Forest Hills sign will be removed and refurbished at Signs & Things. She confirmed that the Sign Refurbishment (at both locations) will be completed by the next meeting (July.) 3 1612 1231 C. Solar Panel Tony Branco inquired if the fronds can be trimmed on the (2) Royal Palms (on the sides of the Solar Panel) without damaging the Palms. Mike McGee responded affirmatively that Palm fronds may be trimmed by approximately 50%. VIII. Transportation Operations Report— Darryl Richard reviewed the following Reports: A. Project Managers Report— Previously discussed under II. and VII. B. (See attached) B. Review of the To Do List (See attached) Item 2— Sidewalks on US41 at St. Andrews—ADA Compliance o FDOT has not provided an update o Staff will consult with the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) on the status of the ADA Compliance issue IX. Committee Reports— None X. Old Business A. Warren Street Pump Station Antenna Tony Branco reported the Antenna mast is crooked and suggested adding a support system to the Antenna for reinforcement. Mike McGee responded that the item is under review by the County Irrigation Project Manager. Stated he will follow up on the status with Roger Dick. B. Lane Markers Robert Slebodnik recapped information discussed at the previous meeting regarding the timeline on the Lane Markers: o Sufficient time was needed for the asphalt and paint to cure o Subsequently reflector markers and pictorial signage to designate the pedestrian walkway and bike path would be installed Darryl Richard responded that 30 days was needed before overlaying the thermoplastic sealant. He will consult with Road and Bridge on the status. Tony Branco suggested installing Reflector Markers at each intersection on St. Andrews as a cautionary indicator to traffic as he perceived the newly installed reflector beads have calmed the traffic. Staff will confer with the County Engineers on installing Reflector Markers at the intersections. 4 1612 :IA 2 + i 3 Tony Branco requested an evaluation on the Irrigation System to determine the actual water usage as the Water and Sewer Expenditures for the following months are comparable: o March - $1,300.00 o May- $2,000.00 o June - $1,700.00 XI. New Business-None XII. Public Comments-None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 4:58 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Slebo nik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on (b-D9 - ti as presented or amended The next meeting is June 29, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 5 16 ! A23 4, W N -O(W0 CCOO V CO cm A W N-O CND CO N V 0N)N Na W AN)-O CO CO V(0)CA A WN-000 VO)(1A W N- O m m m �ccC �TD,,-0-in Hin 035cmWc,yr�J>pczO20mDDX;�)0�7mco?<TOmc D mmm ZOG) ZZ ��mm"15M>ZZi=n_Z5 Amnm0Z7<TDZZ0,70MZZmC;[7x(a=DA c° m m rCrrn 71-I ..1m O ONCn�Dm�� rAZ>110°°I•<m73mm�)-�nmmCZUm)�=�� m � � � OZ� �OOZm20S7m)010pD cn 0cn zm�T�z2071'.C70)7o�•nX__cO7,O H n ZCncn C .CD 0�20mr��0--I 0) Zm �n�mM 0M)07)OOoOC)-Zjzmm � O �H> Z -sOZzmcn>ZKxm m mm c�iomcnAmOZ�ooD�D�mOmZD ED � z Om 0 mm m 0 WZZ K � r-HW �_ �mX� �mmmXX Z (7 r-- C) C Zm z r-� W ZXO- W0 cn m Z n 7 p r 1 0 H cn C m 0 m�n - m m �r- 7J H O H n > co 0 0 X m D Z co 0 0 r n < EA EA E A EA EA - • E A Eft EA EA 69 EA E A Eft EA EA-69 69696969 EA- -- --EA Eft Eft EA-- --EA Eft Eft 69 69 69 0O) O O N N V-4 N -, 0) -A A." (A11 --� O c A (0 CO O W V01 N AA O WN 0) V Na NNA CO 4,cn(310)cn W - CO CD D)N O -4 (0a 0 -- W O W NNO co-OD O - COOO b In 01 OOO N000AO-.O(n V(n-co-Co A O A0 a CO O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O j •• CO 0 0)O O O O N N (A O O O 000 00 0 . (310 O O CD CD O O0 CD C>CD CD A 000 010(n O O O O••' OL io G O O 000 00 0 . (000 O 0000000006 O O OA • COOOO O O O N 0 0 0 00 O 00 O U)0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 001 0 0 0 0 N 0()1 O 0 0 0 EA EA EA EA EA-- -•EA .-69 EA Efl EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA-• - --Eft Eft EA EA-- Eft EA EA EA EA EA C7 3 M --'A Na (ON O) 3 :) `v 0,(n o)o) v V o)i.) io 3 W W 0-+ O N.-, 0) 0) co 0 O OO- -O C00) 0�V N O i•A ' AO W H0 ' CO C/1 Hr9 j(b A .. -0A 00 (n01 (n A V 0 CO ER 4:0)E A EA EA-- --E A --E A E A E A E A E A EA E A EA Eft EA Eft 6 9 EA EA E A E A E A EA E r) - - EA EA EA EA-• -•EA EA 69 Efl EA 69m X 0 D 0)A-,;P A((10)0 H. W W U7-4 0)-W C00) CO VV AQ C1 W WCOA COW-op •• A ONA O W W W A WCJ)O)N� -, - O_ ..(ON 0)-• c (0 A(O A C7 CD Na W N CD CO WO V CO V 01 co N)W CO O (n -4 NO a o A V 000 • -,N-+000 CO O O V CD CO CO cn V O Cn O CO CO N N, CD (A 01- 00N O OOIO(O(00 -1.V O ONOW-'O ' N ' ' ' ' ' (0 ' A0)(D ' •0 V N-A-A 000)Ui O O O)O OA O 0107 V O010)A W O cn - (11 C0 W Ay EA EA EA EA EA-- EA EA Eft EA EA EA EA Eft Eft EA Eft EA Eft EA EA EA 69 EA-• EA EA EA EA-•--69 EA CA 69 EA EA O W O CD A . 0)NJ OWNW 01- WO6)N W AO �_ O W O CJ COW 01 -+V V CO NNOU)(J)01 OON-,�V X01 001 ',Col(O W W (O N 0)C) O) (A 0 0 0 N O 01 V V N V V 0 0 CO O O O N O 01 O O)A O O N - O D 0 CO O OD -,CO 0 OD- Cr Cr) 0 0 0 CO 01 N CO 4,CO V 00 W 00 ->Na 0000 NO O W • (10010 W CO CO N -4 (p T O O O WA(b V V G)0--'00(000 V(0000000 ON - (00(00 O A O D CO V O O O C O CO ' N01A00 C70A(70 0 W 000000 001 • 010010 CO 01(DOD O) •(n�4 (5m0000000 - cca)(nnmo0000W0rocom 5o) < -0 m-0000000003 7 C -• r m. =,7+ =,�.,'.o (D C) CD m (D m CD (D m N m m y 7 CD cwn x 0-3 I G Q 2, (mn 3 cn m CD m CD (D m (D m 0 C 0 ,n-. 0 °7 m ,. 0.7. o o20 90 90 go 90 Qogo� () 8 0 0m0 x Z m N '< 000 Cnn 0 0 0 UD) 01 5") . 0(x4 (D 0) - c = C)3 N m N N (n cn cn cn N N N (D 53 ,Y Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m 7 '�J o'y'��•` _ 000000000 (D m 7 7 C 7J m N 0 () 0 C) 2 3 2 C)0-= 0 lD C c 5 5 5 5 o- co 0 _, Z 1- 0 0 CD CD CD C CD o, vK CD " 01 :44 N m � ,1, j C — -, ->' ...1 _ A AAAAAAAAAAAAAA(n AAAAAAA AA " O A 0) (n (n 01 cn()1()1 01(n(n cn cn cn(n()1 C)1 0 (A U)()1 cn 01()1(n 01(n 0 (p A CO N 4 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O (n 0 O lo 0 4 O_-O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -O_O_QD cn 0 CV.I V Ne,N N N N CD-A N N N-- ---.NNCO 0(0) N N N N N N N 0)V NO V7 0)co 01 N co(00)0)O)O 00101 N co no n) 0101# A O A O CO O 40)0)0)N_CnAO N N V N V N CO V V V SOD V 0)A (0 W (n -4 V N Co-�CO 4, N 0)N CD CD N Co CD-.4 W 000 0)O 0)01 -4 O 0) W V 0101 A N COO)W 4,-A-A O(00)01 -.VO CO ONCO 0)01 TI m m T T�-0O(nrD r� 7(n--C) mTT1-,q f H H H C CCCC 7 0.) c 0 0 =c N a)(0) ° D3c DDDDD-0 0 c c (m) m o (a m m- <<n3 -- OT m OT N' c @ -tU N CD 7 (D m (D m CD 6 r,-'.0) 7 7 .N-.N. 0-(D=. <O O o 5' > > -' CDccfl'am?(° �� ? ? ? 0 �.c6W.2 ' 3vQ0( m0n a w (1) u -0'< 7 3 cn Q N -I -I m a 7 � 0 a� cn cn cn c m 0)c 2 0*0• � 3 to m 0 x x 3 N ° N.N cn O O O m to °c N �O m 0 O N co 0- 0- (n D o d 7'N 2)-m ? Cn Q0 7 l j. �j 7 @ 77^m x m m cn7 m m Q c m 0 Q v °' CD '-.� O 0 0•COO C- co N W = m O CO CD 0 0 m N N 0 co 7 7 ` (n c c c - m co ca cn 2 CD 7 (o o .i D° 1- -1 -1 n (n W 7 n m O N C 7 O � 3 N N a N p m N z - m N W N co 10 O- N (D 7 < C ' m A 2 c K 7 N + x.(p CO 0 �'(n m o ()O -, > EA(A EA Eft-co EA to 69 69 EA 69 Eft Eft EA to EA EA EA EA Eft 69 Eft EA EA EA EA EA EA EA m co NJ N j N (, O-< 0 -' N _, cn -A N N CO -, N O O V V W 01 O N 0) A �(n �0)0) V V 0) W OW0 00 0 co (n cn CJ A cn A O -4(n OCn Na Na _,-•D A O O CO 0)0 (n O A 0-� -•0)-' � N O(O I O 3 A ' (0 00 ' O ' OA ' N ' O� (O6Co CO IA CO O ' • -, CO O O O O O 0 0 1 A 01 0) V 01 01 O EA 69 EA EA EA Eft EA EA EA Eft Eft 69 EA EA 69 Eft EA EA EA EA EA 69 Eft Eft EA EA EA EA EA Eft N 3 (A 01 co D Q) N s 4 (A CO CD 0) - 01 -'0)0) 0) 0)C) C n N N-'U1 N 0)O N N O)O)co-' AA A-' 01-co•-.1-c...)V-Ca ca 0 W p;y O) N A000 NW ON CD01V V 0000010 NpOV V(DCO V O A O V 00100 01 co O-.(0004, CO cn 0000-,-,V V COOO O ' N 0(000 ' OANO0)CD W O CO 01000 V(n0-'CO-' 0 (A U1 N 4,00 OOCn000A0 0000 001A V CO Cn01 O 01 1612 4 1 A23 rnrnrnrnrn CT) CT) CT) 0, rnrnrn VILnLnLnu uiu' .P � � � .A -P .P .P4N .P .P .N . 0 \ \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0, p p m \ \ \ \ \ \ \ u-i LJt Ln \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ y W N N N N N N N N F' Fi I-+ \ \ \ \ N N N N F' F' F' \ \ \ N N N N N N N N F-' N F-' 1-i I ' \ -1 OLD LD 00 V W N i-4001 Ln W LO V 011-4 01 Ln . W L0 00 o LD W NJ 00 V 01 V1 NJ f--' O O l0 00 U1 A N CO m \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ fD N N N NJ N) N N N N) N) NJ N N N NJ N N N N NJ N N N) NJ N NJ 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O FA FA FA F... I--' N I-� F, I-i I--i N N I--' I-+ F+ I-' 1-41-41-41-41-11-% 1-1. 1-11-11-i 1-11-11-i I--' 1-i1-4 FA F, FA I-1 F-' F-' IF-' I-i el.tn 1--' F-' F-' FA I- N F, F' F-' I-+ N I" I-A 1--' N I-' F-' I-' N F-' F. I■1 ■-' F-' F-' I-' I- F, I-' 1-' I-' I-' I•-' F, F-' F' F-' F+ 1-4 I-1 fD F, F, N F, F� N �' Co CO 00 00 O 00 00 LO N 00 CO 00 N N LO N I--' 1-103 N 00 CO CO LO CO 00 00 00 LO 00 V1 I-4 CO O 00 1-4 W LD CD m A W W W W O W W O W W W W O O O O N 1L W i;11).) W W Ln W W F, W O 1--' N A Fs O W W O W S O U1 O O O O O O O 0 O O O 00 o O In U1 O O O O O O O O Ln O O U1 .P U1 La O U1 U1 0 0 0 Iv D -o D D D D D D D -o D D D -o -o > -to D D D -o D D D D D D D D D D - -o D D D - -D D D -073 V) C 1.0 LO LO LO V 00 00 LO VV) C U1 CO to in to 00 U1 U1 L0 in to to L0 Co 00 3 in 01 00 in in 00 to to to to > LO L0 L0 10 01 CO CO 031.0 CO LO CO 00 CO CO m Z a 7 X K m c m -< I'= x O 0 0 O m D tD ,� co v N I.+ Fa o m e i M O -I -I - a NJ NJ N NJ N NJ N N N N N N O N NJ NJ NJ N NJ N O N N N N NJ N N NJ N N NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 D 01 -I 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cn Cn Ol 01 01 01 -1 Cl 01 01 01 01 01 01 -I 01 01 01 Ol 01 01 01 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 al> P •P •al al-.10101 U1 LO P W V CO U1 U1 r U1 W W W N N 1-' Fi F-' F-' r 1--' F-' F1 F-' F-' F-' F-' F-' F-' F-' F-' F-' CO 00 U1 W VI Co 00 Co P O 01 a1 U1 DD 01 F' N N W W .. W Ui U1 U1 N N 00 00 00 Co .. Co 00 00 00 :-.1 :-.1 V V V V V 01 N N Ui fa UI . l!1 U1 F' In l0 N N N F+ V C m P 0 U1 V N U11.0010 00 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 0 >C K m x m C 0 m m F-' F-' 1' 1-' F, 'Cu" F-' F' F.3 Fu" F•' F-' N F" F' h' F, 'Co" F-' F-' F-' 1� N F-' h' 1-' 1-' 1' F-' 1--' F-' 'L' F_, 1' N N IU' I I0 CC W W W 'Co' W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 'co' W W W W 'co' W W W G O1 rn pp') 01 Ol 01 01 01 01 V1 Ln _in U1 U1 U1 U1 Ln In p •p `p `P rP W W W W W D > .P .P ,P W N N F-' I-y O tO l0 V a) In r..) 1-, 1•• 1- to l0 O1 01 .p W N N N N 1--' 0 0 0 0 0 L0 lD 00 V U1 0 m V V V O N ,A .P 00 N U1 LO N W F-' LO (0 LO W .A N W 0 1-i CO -P A W LD O (0 CO U1 U1 -Pit) O LO W m N N N Lfl co Ln Ln LD N N .P 00 I 1-i CO W 00 V W LO N 01 V LO 01 0101 00 N N V O W 0 00 U1 N 00 Z V U1 N N N LO N O N U1 01 O in O in N O P In P 00 V F-' F-1 oo P O U1 LD 01 :AU, O W rn O l0 W GI Ln O O U1 U1 U1 U1 O O U1 O U1 O O O O O O U1 O U1 O O U1 O 00 O W U1 U1 O 00 N U1 F-' O O O U1 U1 N - D m D —I v, p m m to 01 F-' F- 1-. N F-' N I-' I-' - I-' N Z al 00 00 Ul 01 Ol U1 01 00 N i•-' N Ol 00 N 00 N 00 W .A I-•' W LD F' N I-' � � .P F-' Ln V1 C tn N N N 01 01 (0 V Q1 01 !, F F„: W �.1 O1 S71 ®.•,..V N O F-' Ul 01 O DO U I W to In W N V1 O W l0 O W V N lO UI lO In V7 01 � �• W W P P UI W N 00 F-' lfl P V V 01 O 01 m 0 O U1 0 0 0 U1 O U1 U7 Ln 5, 0 V7 N - CO V OD O U1 N m V ,A i-k O O Ul O 1111 01111 ''* vDi f�D Z p O rt C LA y N 3 I ro O -f, ro 00 ? O Q n) 13: n IIIIWHIIIIII N IIIDI O 7—p ro t 'luI ' rllILllhIIHIIIOIIIriI- '3 17rt1`NG r 1111115, 3 C i co II\ 15 111111111\ o _ a f1 FD 1111111 1-a Q, • !,D 111111111111111111111 N fD -1 < 01 5 -< < o 5.off_ o 0) CL C -a _7 rt N ,C-r rt 1111111111 11111111 C p 3 111111 I w CD IA Troy. n p 1111111114 161 2 A23 Updated: June 29,2011 Lely MSTU Project Status (L-48)ACTIVE—Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge 05-19-11: Bid results are tabulated(see attached bid tabulation).Use of the L.B.E. Landscape Buffer Easement is not allowed for the electrical conduit to the bridge lighting. (See attached document related to L.B.E.Easement) 06-16-11: Bid has been adjusted to Base Award amount of$90,524.42(to Bonness)and adding the Lumec order of product(+$9,268.00) the"Total Project Cost"is$99,792.42 06-20-11: staff required Budget Amendment motion from MSTU committee to have sufficient funds in improvements capital for this project. (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. 1 161 2 - 23 June 29,2011 Lely MSTU "To Do List" 1. Subrogation Recovery: THE FOLLOWING ACCIDENTS ARE BEING PROCESSED WITHOUT TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORTS—AS GENERAL INSURANCE CLAIM. 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 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. Email to J.Limbaugh with response from Trinity Scott. 3. PENDING: Sign Refurbishment: (1)Doral Circle, and(2)Augusta @ Forest Hill Status: Per Kara with SignCraft/Signs&Things project to be completed prior to July 21, 2011. 4. Completed: Planting Sunshine Mimosa at Valley Stream Status: Mimosa planting is completed. 5. PENDING: Confirm credits/cost adjustment for Lely Bridge Bid(Bonness) Executive Summary to Award$90,524.42 to Bonness on 6/26/2011 BCC a. Write Draft and Review Executive Summary&BA b.Need a special meeting to move money from reserves to operating for award 6. PENDING: Open Purchase order Lumec(Not to Exceed$12,000)(TS) 7. Completed: Light retrofit for Doral Circle is completed by Bentley Electrical 8. Completed: Follow up with Commercial Land regarding `meeting attendance' and schedule drive-through with contractor as the 6-16-11 drive-through did not include contractor. 9. PENDING: Water Use Report: analysis of water usage prior to the installation of the mixing chamber and then post installation of the mixing chamber. Report to include cost evaluation. 10. PENDING: Confirmation that all leaks have been repaired in irrigation system. Report on`how much water' is currently leaking and`what is the acceptable' volume of loss through leaks. 11. Completed: Confirmation of Signcraft-Signs&Things new location: 3649 Progress Avenue 1612 X23 ' Naples,FL 34104-3645 (239)643-4404 12. PENDING: FDOT Update on US 41 E(Letter of J.Limbaugh)(PL) 13. PENDING: Review McGee&Associates Contract for Completion Dates and Expiration(TS) 14. PENDING: Who called in the Flags along the East Trail(Contact ROW)(PL) 15. PENDING: Antenna Mast not straight 1 1/2 x 1 1/2/AL clamp (McGee/Roger)(PL) 16. PENDING: Update on Asphalt Work from Alex Blanco-Reflectors/Walk/Bike signage(PL). 17. PENDING: Can orange markers be used at intersections as a warning(G. Calvert).Eugene Calvert is reviewing the intersections at no cost to the committee for recommendations. 18.PENDING: Noted Maintenance items during 6/16/11 meeting: (see attached maintenance report from McGee&Associates) a.Remove 50%Fronds from Solar Panel b. Tab at US 41 Entrance c. 2 Juniper Needed(check all juniper beds for replacements) d. Valves need to be cleaned w/rock added in box(s)at Valley Stream. e. Median#14 accident repair. f.Median#5 Queen Crape Myrtle 1612 a 23 " _____..________ Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 Preliminary Budget Growth Management Division Improvement Districts and MSTU Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU (152) Mission Statement The MSTU was created for the purpose of beautifying and maintaining the median areas of boulevards and certain other public areas within the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit. An annual tax levy not to exceed 2.0 mills has been authorized for this purpose by Ordinance No.91-104. The major objective is to refurbish and maintain the completed landscape and irrigation improvements. FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Program Summary Total FTE Budget Revenues Net Cost Department Administration/Overhead 54,900 54,900 - Reserves/Transfers/Interest - 215,100 215,100 - Landscape maintenance and improvements - 238,400 238,400 - Current Level of Service Budget - 508,400 508,400 - FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Program Budgetary Cost Summary Actual Adopted Forecast Current Expanded Preliminary Change Operating Expense 132,846 140,800 138,300 136,200 - 136,200 (3.3%) Indirect Cost Reimburs 8,100 6,100 6,100 10,600 - 10,600 73.8% Capital Outlay 35,312 70,000 150,000 114,900 - 114,900 64.1% Net Operating Budget 176,258 216,900 294,400 261,700 - 261,700 20.7% Trans to Property Appraiser 1,867 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 2,000 0.0% Trans to Tax Collector 5,638 5,200 5,100 4,800 - 4,800 (7.7%) Trans to 111 Unincorp Gen Fd 23,700 24,800 24,800 24,800 - 24,800 0.0% Reserves For Contingencies - 3,300 - - - - (100.0%) Reserves for Insurance - 400,000 - 215,100 - 215,100 (46.2%) Total Budget 207,463 652,200 326,300 508,400 - 508,400 (22.0%) -- -- FY 2010-- FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Program Funding Sources - Actual Adopted Forecast Current. Expanded Preliminary Change. Ad Valorem Taxes 231,918 209,400 201,000 191,400 - 191,400 (8.6%) Miscellaneous Revenues 436 - - - - - na Interest/Misc 3,706 1,000 1,900 1,000 - 1,000 0.0% Trans frm Property Appraiser 260 - - - - - na Trans frm Tax Collector 2,496 - - - - - na Carry Forward 417,600 - 452,300 449,000 325,600 - 325,600 (28.0%) Negative 5%Revenue Reserve - ---- - - (10,500) - (9,600) - -- - - (9,600) - (8.6%) Total Funding 656,417 652,200 651,900 508,400 - 508,400 (22.0%) Forecast FY 2011- Operating expenses are projected below budget while the additional budget required under capital outlay was covered by a budget amendment. Current FY 2012-The landscape services contract for FY 12 totals$65,000.An additional landscape maintenance allocation has been budgeted totaling$10,000.The remaining operating budget is appropriated to maintain the landscape system.Capital expenses include $114,900 for general landscape improvements.The Lely MSTU Advisory Board continues to recommended a large hurricane reserve set-aside which totals$215,100. Fiscal Year 2012 84 Growth Management Division 2 A2 3 Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2012 Preliminary Budget Growth Management Division Improvement Districts and MSTU Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU (152) Revenue FY 2012—Preliminary June Taxable value for this district totals$95,716,205 representing a 8.25%decrease from FY 2011 (the 2010 tax year).Budget guidance specified that MSTU's without advisory board oversight would be limited to a millage neutral position unless staff presents a compelling reason for additional funds.MSTU's with advisory board oversight will be allowed to consider tax rates ranging from millage neutral to tax neutral depending upon program requirements upon advisory board recommendation. The rolled back rate for this district totals 2.1866 per$1,000 of taxable value.However,Ordinance 1996-51 places a cap on the millage rate at 2.0000 per$1,000 of taxable value.This budget is sized around the 2.0000 ordained millage cap which would raise$191,400 in property tax revenue. • Fiscal Year 2012 85 Growth Management Division 1 6 I 2 tA A23 ' signaturetreecare.com PROPOSAL SignatUre �` image Proposal 4340 �s v „t; .�). t i At.otitlit N.F. • N ! + :t,U- I 7( • .i.i : MMERayyr t� 171 an lb ) m t?}: li ll+t l%1U Itlllf aC+` Y ..f 'a fl C wt»altt51 IAN ORI_lltOFE l t ;r,.,<' -tf/)ii/Ytit t`i ,' it r r - Collier County Board of County Commissioners Proposal Date' 06127/2011 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Customer#' 1491 Naples, FL 34104 SalesRep: Ian Job Site: 4 County Route# Transportation Phone l Map Naples, FL 34104 Phone2 SubDiv Item# Quantity Description of Services Units UnitPrice Tax Item Amount 1 4 Mahogany each 325.00 No 1,300.00 - . Option One. A full prune encompasses multiple methods of pruning such as hazard reduction or removal. structural development, pruning for a centralized leader, reduction or elimination of codominant stems, thinning, crown reduction, raising, balancing, removal of dead or broken branches two inches or greater,clearance and crossing limbs throughout the entire canopy. Clearance of right of ways and signs achieved through directional pruning. Every tree is unique and requires various amounts of these methods to achieve a sound and aesthetic tree. For example,a tree with poor structure may require that structural pruning be a priority. Therefore. a larger percentage of structural pruning will be performed and a lower percentage on other pruning methods. The following pruning cycles may address a greater focus on the the secondary needs to complete the overall goal All methods accomplished through ANSI Z133.1 Safety Standards, ANSI A300 Standard Practices for Pruning. ISA standards and comply with Collier 1 Lee County codes 2 4 Mahogany each 250.00 No 1 000 00 Option Two. Removal of all broken, dead, dying and diseased branches 2 inches or greater only. This method of pruning does not include crown thinning reduction, elevation, or structural pruning. Location- Intersection of Augusta Blvd and Forest Hills Blvd. Pricing includes MOT charges for this jobsite. All methods accomplished thru ANSI Z133.1 Specs in compliance with Collier County code and industry standards. Not responsible for underground sprinkler lines, Estimate is Valid for 15 Days 16 ! 2 23 1001 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 July 21, 2011 AGENDA 2303IIW �rl I. Call Meeting to Order AUG 0 211 v II. Attendance BY' III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: Special Meeting June 29, 2011 V. Budget Report— Gloria Herrera VI. Landscape Maintenance Report— CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report— McGee &Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Doral Bridge Project VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report Fiala 1�v B. Review of the To Do List Hiller Henning IX. Committee Reports Co le .— a / X. Old Business Xl. New Business Misc.Comes: XII. Public Comments Oats: 9\131 XIII. Adjournment item t 1`C1_ -a442", Copies b: The next meeting is September 15, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division—Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1612 IA 23 lot t GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 June 29, 2011 Special Meeting Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 9:00 a.m. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Gloria Herrera-Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich-Landscape Operations Manager Others: Mike McGee-McGee &Associates, Robert Kindelan-CLM, Darlene Lafferty—Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: VI. A. Maintenance VI. B. Water Usage Report VI. C. Front Entrance Flags Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: June 16, 2011 Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the June 16, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. Budget Amendment Darryl Richard recommended transferring $102,000.00 plus contingency monies from Reserves to Improvements General for the following items: o Bonness Bid award - $90524.42 o Lighting Fixtures - $12,000.00 After discussion it was concluded $110,000.00 was a sufficient amount for the Bonness Bid Award and the Lighting Fixtures. Jennifer Tanner moved to transfer$110,000.00 from Reserves Line Item 44 to Improvements General Line Item 35. Second by Kathleen Dammed. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 1 16I223 Gloria Herrera reviewed Carry Forward information: (See attached) o Actual FY11 Carry Forward - $449,000.00 o Preliminary FY12 Carry Forward - $325,600.00 VI. Old Business A. Maintenance Darryl Richard reported the MSTU Meeting attendance requirement was reviewed with Robert Kindelan. He noted that CLM has served the Committee for numerous years and perceived that CLM is an asset to Collier County. Robert Kindelan gave a Maintenance report: o (2) major Irrigation leaks were repaired at the following locations - The empty lot by Warren Street(at the Canal) - Main Irrigation Line along Warren Street Staff inquired on the status of the Xanadu replacements (Blueberry Flax Lily.) Robert Kindelan responded that the approved Proposal was recently received from Staff. Pam Lulich stated pending Maintenance Items (To Do List No. 18) were addressed in the approved CLM Quote. Staff will email the CLM Quote to the Committee for review. (Staff Action Item) Robert Kindelan noted the Blueberry Flax Lily may require trimming to remove dried flowers and pods. Additionally if the service required it is not covered under the Maintenance Contract. Pam Lulich reported an Arborist Quote was obtained to prune (4) Mahogany Trees (Forest Hills.) (See attached) Mike McGee recommended option (1) on the Signature Tree Care Quote: o Option 1 - Full Prune $1,300.00 o Option 2 - Removal of broken, dead, diseased branches - $1,000.00 David Larson moved to approve$1,300.00 Signature Tree Care for pruning of(4) Mahogany Trees. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. B. Water Usage Report (See attached) Mike McGee reviewed the Reuse and Potable Water meter readings: 2 1 23 6i2 Reuse Water o April 21, 2011 - 482 gallons used - CLM initiated checks to troubleshoot the System for leaks o April 28, 2011 - After repairs were made 48 gallons were used Potable Water o April and May 2011 - Minimal Potable Water was used - Beginning of May tests were conducted on the System resulting in a 50% reduction in Potable Water flow o June 2011 - June 9th- 15th there was a spike in the Potable Water usage - Subsequently run-time delays were added to the Pump System to balance the Potable Water usage Discussion took place on scheduled zone run-times. Mike McGee reviewed the scheduled run-times: o St. Andrews, Pebble Beach, and Forest Hills - All zones are scheduled to operate on Monday evening o Turf Zones - Cycles run on Wednesday and Saturday Robert Slebodnik deemed that the zones on Pebble Beach are running frequently. Mike McGee responded: o Pebble Beach zones are set to run on Monday evening - However if the cycle did not complete on Monday subsequently it would finish on the following evening o Requested contact if the Committee observes zones operating on a different schedule than outlined Robert Kindelan commented on the amount of Potable Water being used as the previous System operated on 100% Reuse. Darryl Richard suggested utilizing Reuse Water for daytime watering. Robert Slebodnik inquired on the Monthly Water Bill cost based on the June 2011 Potable Water Usage (40,000 gallons.) Staff will provide the monthly Water Bill amount to the Committee at the July meeting. (Staff Action Item) C. Front Entrance Flags Tony Branco reported the Entrance Flags are worn. Darryl Richard responded the new Flags will be installed today. 3 1612 423 David Larson suggested discontinuing the mail distribution of the Minutes and Agenda. The Committee concurred to discontinue the mail distribution. VII. New Business-None VIII. Public Comments-None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 9:35 a.m. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Slebodnik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on ,_1 4..1 • l t as presented or amended The next meeting is July 21, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 17769,ee & 74,4ociated 161 2 A23 Landscape Architecture July 19,2011 Mr. Darryl Richard,RLA, Project Manager Lely Golf Estates Beautification,M.S.T.U. Collier County Transportation Services Division Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Annual Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for Lely M.S.T.U. 2011-015P Dear Mr. Richard, The following is presented for your review and approval. The maintenance consulting services will be provided on a monthly basis generally coordinated with the M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee monthly meetings. The limited refurbishment design services will be quoted on a per project basis due to the unknown requirements of the work to be performed. McGee&Associates agrees to provide the following services for a period of twelve(12)consecutive months beginning October 1,2011 through September 30,2012. Monthly Services Task I- Attendance at all Lely M.S.T.0 publicly advertised meetings. (Based upon one meeting per month 18 hours) Task I I- Attend no less than(12)monthly in the field meetings with staff and Contractor to review the project areas;attend no less than(2)additional meetings as requested. (Based upon 14 hours) Task Ill-Review and comment on the`General Maintenance Report Sheets"which is required to be submitted by the Contractor with pay request submittals.Review of estimates provided by Contractor with recommendations. (Base upon one review per month 3 hours) Task IV- Provide written and/or oral comments and recommendations based upon on-site observations of the M.S.T.U.areas addressing:improvements,landscape plant and irrigation maintenance problems or deficiencies.This includes evaluation of Contractor performance per contract specifications. Submit monthly written report to Collier County Alternative Transportation staff three(3)days prior M.S.T.U. meeting. (Base upon one report per month 24 hours) OPTIONAL SERVICES Task V-Upon Request Limited Refurbishment Design Services 1. Provide limited(minor)refurbishment design services and observation of installation on an as requested basis,i.e.deliverables/functions might be as follows: a. Diagrammatic area sketch planting plans with a recommended plant list. b. Plant field locations by staking,flagging or paint marking. Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East t P.O.Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417-0707* Fax (239) 417-0708 LC 098* FL 1023A 1612 A23 Page II Lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U. Annual Grounds Maintenance Consulting 2011-015P Task VI-Upon Request Miscellaneous Services(Estimated) 1. Provide assistance in developing the contract maintenance specification for purposes of bidding. 2. Attend pre-bid meetings and assist in preparing any necessary addendum related to maintenance contract bidding. Maintenance Consulting Services Fees Based upon the scope of services McGee&Associates will provide monthly Maintenance Consulting Services for a fee of$8,584.00. Maintenance Consulting Services Unit Rate Cost Principal/Senior L.A. 59 $128.00 $7,552.00 (Time&Materials) AutoCAD Technician 6 $ 62.00 $ 372.00 (Time&Materials) Administrative 12 $ 55.00 $ 660.00 (Time&Materials) $8,584.00 The limited refurbishment design services for Optional Services Task VI and VII will be billed per Schedule B hourly rates only upon written request for services. Limited refurbishment design services for Optional Services Task VI and VII allowance: $2,500.00 Reimbursable expenses allowance: $ 250.00 If you should have any questions or need further information please contact me any time.We look forward to working with your Department while improving and maintaining our roadways. Cordial) Michael A.McG-: ..a. President,McG e&Associates LC 098 1.t c 161 2 A' 23 Adociated Landscape Architecture July 18, 2011 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Transportation Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Proposal for Landscape Architectural Services for Lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U. Roadway Beautification Project PO 4500118216 CO-02 Time Extension. Project Name: Dora!Circle Canal Bridge Renovation Improvements(Conceptual and Final Design Services)2010-008P Dear Mr. Richard: McGee&Associates is providing a request for change order#02 for a Time Extension of 111 days from the current project completion date of September 30, 2011 and to have a new completion date of January 19, 2012 as requested per your 06/24/11 email. The time extension is requested due to the following project schedule projection by the County: ITEM DESCRIPTION/ACTIVITY DATE BCC Approval of Award(w/cost reduction) July 26, 2011 Purchasing(Legal/Risk review)—Issue Contract August 25, 2011 (standard time-frame between BCC approval and contract issue is 30 days) PO lssue/NTP To Bonness September 1,2011 Construction Completion (140 day contract) January 19, 2012(construction completed) McGee&Associates 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. Cordially, 'G i .`4 / Michael A. McG r.l.a., i.s.a. `7 President, Mc e&Associates. LC 098 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 1612 X23 Updated: July 21,2011 Lely MSTU Project Status (L-48)ACTIVE—Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge 05-19-11: Bid results are tabulated(see attached bid tabulation).Use of the L.B.E.Landscape Buffer Easement is not allowed for the electrical conduit to the bridge lighting. (See attached document related to L.B.E.Easement) 06-16-11: Bid has been adjusted to Base Award amount of$90,524.42(to Bonness)and adding the Lumec order of product(+$9,268.00) the"Total Project Cost"is$99,792.42 06-20-11: staff required Budget Amendment motion from MSTU committee to have sufficient funds in improvements capital for this project. 07-21-11: Bid Award is scheduled for July 26,2011 BCC Meeting (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. 1 1 N N N N N N N F' N N F. 0 O 'O W .401 N A W N N al N N O lO co Oo A a n Q or n n p c D •9 C x T1 V1 a V1 m d n d n n = n n o a n n Q m m n O 0 < r N d 7 3 S? <. n 7 . '* D m_ m n K.o 7 7 v !> v, W z 5 m 7 ' o of c` v 3 3 0 C ,--, fl. o m --I a<•o n .< ' _' o rD = = 3 w c n m �. ' _. s m 2. DI 3 o c, rD rD a a £ c O3 e 3 `� 3 3 n fD > p- m 31'4 -I o '^ v C < o d 7 m 0 m S $ 3 CD ' m '* Oa ° o o o s v, 7 7 c 3 an of w .°•. 3 0 . DI 0 •7< Op_ A A O ti 3 rD ,n .N'. 7 rD rD .`� 7 7 0 7 M M w W v v v (.° m !np < - . ' 3 a O�< r. m F' a` " °' a s7 Sm 7 CD DOW w no .0-. mmc = ..- - of " 3 2 H 3 O a m m 7c �* W O O M .- ,..., 0 7 m 7 C '� = 0 O o O d N n (D ,D m 0 0 .. v; w -a 3 0 0 7 0 0 N 0. .400 , -0 .-r ,�.' T N Vl W < S O d �, y .O-. 7 7 7 -�+. a ` ry ' 0 3 C 07 CD N n 7 Q 3 aT O O of 0 oN ° IA' n m •• 0 0 1 -, rD oD " �. O� .DI. O .O. < O Q ..fp a w fD 3 m C ft) -1.) 7• d m 4. 0 Ka. G m d 'CC" 0 W w c o a a OO F F ^ rD m rD .* C 0 0 N c ' O < i N S. 7 3 .. .. m 0, ,. CS a vl O y 3 I' W n rD 0 7' - " m r N W co n W ° C ° ry 3- 3 '6 Di W .t w D N 7 d rD F+ C r- S z 3 7 N 0 �, l0 .7•. C N "* 0 X X .7•r m O S N r`�. 7 0 0 rD 3 r<p 7 N DD 0 7 CO N 3L H 0) v ,.t N DC 00 C .t ,�i, ,0/� N 3 rD N O. 7 " fD n N\ W '� `O O C I11 OQ Q O ~ ° C a 0 \ W 0 0 O 7 7; 00' 7 m \ C O X p F+ 7 A< '' 3 0 cr. 3 0 D Mt - n- rn 01 .O3' an d 0 vim, rnD n n < 3 ,N. w D, 3 0, �! °_ a v one N 3 7 n Cu IA '4 3 3 .< o r00D 0 01 7 rD .D Imo' K .0•.. O O N 3 -°+. r'1 N N C D` c W f o 0 a 00 F. w w n m O .n_.• 0 y Cl 0 N F O 3 to .. 7 fD 7 < O 0 O DD v 3 m 7. O \C n In O N v DO N .7•. O 7 0 00 CID < n7 G m N COC . Ol C; '+fD m = a C DO d \ G 10n 0 N rD ti. 7 •G) x OO MW i O Q• . '� •< n W W 7 n fD N a 00 0 . Ill N S Co 0 N 0 '�, to v O! 7 03 R Do 1 C 7 Cu M 3 r- N N w 0 S 0- W W W W W N N N N N N N I- N N N NJ NJ N N N NJ N 0 0 0 0 O N N N A O1 A N A W A A F' pl 1.0 N W l0 ?1 �'' A 0 7 3 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 C C 7 7 3 C C 7 V C 3 7- 3 7 lia N F- 1�-' F� F.. F� 1-+ F� F'-. I". F.a F‘ Fa F+ Fa F'. Fa F' F' F-. 1--. 1-+ 1''DD N I•' N N N 1•' I- I- N F' I-' N N F' N N N N N N I- F' I' N N N N N W N N N N NJ N N N rJ N I N N N N N N N CO OD 00 OD 00 O N N N A N A N A W A Ol 1•' M T In M T O O A n 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 C C 7 7 7 C C 7 C 7 C C 7 n 4 1-. F-. F' I' N I' I-' N N I-, N N N N N N N !-' /-� F' N N N N N d N I- 1•' I. N N I-' I' N N N N N N I- N N N N N 1•' I 1•' N NJNJ NJ n (19 N N NJ O NJ O W W l0 Q1 F' A 0 CC C C C C C C C C C •0 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 F-� 1-' N N ' N N1-' N 1-' .•. N I. 1• I-+ N F' F. F. N N N N F. 0 a m o rn- K K K m a o- r 7 a 3 3 00 3 a rfD fD 3 3 d N w f0D N v m. T50 rD rD fD fD 7 rCD o0C r+ d rD 0 ? s 7 7 f, v v n Wa n m 7 N m < p 1n v, N ,n fD N O ,n fD a .� H 7 H H 0 0 O O X D y a H fD 7 .± r' K _r rr 7 .0 a it .+ r.. DD -I rr rr 0 .. r. 7 D 3 rD -1 .t 0 a F. N rD . rD co O • Zi C ,n S rD N 7 0 (D ±. ,-. n p_ N 3 3 3 3 a `0 7 a s o m C do). .DI•. .DI•. .DI•. fD al o < 00 S Q1 v O (f A ti 0 3 3 a a 3 S 'Cy 0 .7•. <• a •� v (D rD rD rD S. N is a: 4 < N 3 o D? I' 0 a- O O o O d O' o O - O 'D •OO V V £ � � s 'ET � m 7 0 � � � >3 mo n -giCM O a 3 0 0 0 070 O M pC n , O 7 -, W N N - M 0 p �• D d X C m y y F' 7 CD CD r<D CD F. S CDD n - I--• 0 O N O N N .t 0 rD 7 0 •9 fD y p D 3. S m m m m 0 OW d 0 u.- -0,,v F. \ -0 K 0 0 C P. •0 ,^-. N C v a n rD F,, F.. I+ I-. D) '7.. (D 7 -I 3 N Z 0 '7•. f7D £. O _<V O r0D 3 W W W W O Dai 7 V H 3 n V 0 W N 0 O Cr o > Da 0., < ,_. to < n0 7 O 0 n o r v W O C N N N N �. a N N .•. o/ D O n \ 0 O v 0 a 3 0- D ,7y W W W W c CO 0 0 0 c 3 W r No 00 3 = UNi a n o" 3 3 oo,CCCC c a33 � o m C ~ � a lit 3 3 3 3 p .o. 7 D a N ,- N 7 3 rD Im \ 7 Di F' W O/• N N en CO n o l0 " • 0. 0o d 0 ,_. DJ On . W r. < m c a 3 No 7 v0, O 0a O. O. O. c C rD = rD 0 N 0 ,< CO W 7 O\\\\ a r D O 7 - r D V 3 7 NJ n C 0 O C C C C Dl * C - S .•. I-. - a 1•' n N .v rD 7 N rD D) _ DJ .7. M .< 7- 7- SS\ a W y DD W H r7,1 C •O V a < d d d d n0 DC O N 0 0 fD 1- •�, roD roD r�D N .7•. •0 0 M DI m-. " 0 0 0 0 0 y v c 7 M y 7 O n z n O 7 O O c` Iv c CDD CDD N N K N H N N n rat < . a a 3 NJ ma' c(-7 O, m O ID a' n .n+ n 7 Q O 3 0 vUi 7 z i EE Z A23 s,, : ; ,C E a' a ala 3G 36 0) m Gz 5 m o+ m m o 6N (!3 „*",� RC 3 = $ 0 7 0 = ! � � - m � � m �A n Aa as El ,� 5 �o � `.‹ [[[Uii�j a •• 7 SE to e E E i 4 - ¢ s 1 _ E - e E tiP �- m 0 C o .w W r g n a o c7F p gr -I 3o - m00 D , - E - ! - i Y n = 1- . i 1 C2 <a a ia k pa,0 -1 m $0m 07 8 co n_cn Fo O >3 w 3z� Ni ��D U1 X 3h W 3A Q m O 1 • !3~O D O "- 0 la cn '° * 70 o ngm m m I 4. n D n' • o u i , o cr no a• ka v ? a i V Z1 >!0 >11 N• A i V lyY amp I NS =mm M D4 k •{C _ __ CD '* A tt N 37 7D 77 77 g 0 31 O 0 73 33 77 =i l x x o m m o -0 c $ c m (p' N 77 33 71 <• 7 Y i'�a $ g ; .$ -$ 7 = -$I2 c -$ -$ -$ • `� -$ m -0 Mr--3 9 $ a� m N m av m sy. m �'• m °-'. - s� - 7a p m pi �o wm 0 a p 1� :i.1 Ts � 777r' 37ccmlm - 3 m a--� - en c Q = C C C • C m x, C 37 N p 7_' ▪ m ,� 7,.C = _ 61) 3 Q 2 I °3 3333 0 $ g73CD . o003NvN0 o ' - SQ °-�' $ ate m-3N m m m `(÷') m 0 m 0 c ® C. 2 > > = `° (p,' • 3 -g‘ m `c 2�p= ` m = 3/! 3p 0 p. ci iQ N H 4! to .. N -�+. 0- N W-0 x yy a d. SD (DD 9� iii: i-P 0. co 3 0 w $ c m m m < 5.. i` ate: °st Z m m E 3 E., 3 -^ co m e8 33 0 k g Sr cmi 7 an p o Q W S 7 Sv m �- L m o."-5 a 7 C 0 7 0 O ? C00 `[to g el cr)_ o = >v� 3 7 am H 3 ' — aD.6 co N. Lii .•. _ o s m ' v c j ; *n • xi N m a 3 o 7 m 7 I c a s g p 1 7'0 C 0. m a- -I i Q K ? N fn N 0 A� a. (co m N W - Qtl e a 1 N a y E y 3 QF p • n {„7 ad N N G• n 3] N a D c c a n 7 3 tm 3- p - m A. $ • g m g® °w N. N o $ m ms m 3� CD N = 7 n a N N w (,) co a pi a i 1 E I I 73 rrl O Z Us m I I ' ft E E m i e HH cm I H I 3 a 3 3 a 3 a d a ] j N pA u 161 A 2 3 339 ' �!� img � s Wig` 0 3: CC Czr < '1 CC -nom $ r �a3 3. m = a 4 3 �. a a as a 4 ; � � ° �. � A r — A 5 S p_ C) m 5 6� m y00t 0� - 7 y7� #3� 7 1 g °-lam € s .a' t i3 1ry ,, _ 41ys32 i 3 w Cl) o 3 .. 0 ea ao .� w cn . _ N i w ° r 0 ; 05 ° w 3 " Z co m z _ a m C d m * r e oo a !r' m N n *, i O sn ii S a o Se A s0 m z ii 6 y x O z * m K m • n .0 3 3 jI` a . , , — a. k .... *M la •° I sue s sfU_ !_Hi_PJti1 aoIJU HUff ss�� � 'D p �wi3c = t- ° 10 m m m - - 0 r) 0u, mco • go ; 3 = s = =oEm' oEmc0m0oro m � a--'s 2mayo0 tL 3 33 @m m� '� cn� m� ocz 3X0 300w� 'Q w v v v v 3 v �_ m aD �^ ° 0.� O wasa c cm c c3ac 5a -8a) 0. a ° O A p o � � 0 a oAt say 3 .i - a m� o s� x . 3 0 c 3z o 0 o 0000 3a_<- _, m 8' 00 00 a kg O ' w 5 ' o ¢1• y , o c CD AX- 7 ® _' N m aj m $ O m m . E m _ _ _ 3 ®3 to m ? c > m A� Cr 0 N Vi 7 La O <' O a O O a c O 0 - O 2 C_ to 4. * 0noy _. w � � a oocao me cl m co � � m o ° �0 03 8-.80 , AS'' W O k y O Apj 0 a A A A p v, O W p 51. -00- =Q A 8 x a v t/i i a N > c c c m�"' W C p� 7 Al Al O Al C O g 0 = ` C 0 m O 0 O ° c a Fr X (a c0 O cn <c c (0 5' N O O 3 ® � � Dm ms mp m ® 33m 3x3w -l0 m 0 < o CO m . CO m Q # + 4c s po po 9„ co o 0) 13 o 0 c0D - N A —f�]• 7 0 m 0 c (3 .G. <p N tD O fD 3 o �' O O O = C 11 "!! O 11111 12 A HI Z 0 O.5 a a a ao a � m � o as o �' O._'_, a co m v7 CO y co > > s ai O Cl) C * 0 0 0 0 om �� 7 `°—. cc co n aps CT -O 2 = 2 S S x a 0 0 3 a a 3' —I 0 0 0 0 0 0 • E o 3 ° o 0 O p y 0 a .z 'Z •z v.o O Z o 3 o w y .. c 7 O m N W 9. < O 7 0 -w co= a a . m m °0 0. 0 3 cp 0 13 a mO n O ��Q - a. o O O ft O o O o C o N O I a y an O O O 0 c c .c-. c. <T, m , { . 73 m to O Z to m O A O E v 01 00 m N O N I III I l 111111 n 2 2 2 2 2 o 3 3 3 3 3 9 a > > > r re re rt y y 3 d 1• r r j j } r. . i il r v F A AA A A W W W W W 423 W W W W W N N N N 0 N N N N N 1 A W N -4O(D CO V Co N AWN-+OCDW V01014,W N-,O01W V01 01 A WN+O p p Co c n W N-+ -1X77777 -iWW -1-1C) 00M00rrTr-KWM- mOr-cnm1-1200-1-1702 2210() -1W Wmi� DCpCpDD �mm=Cm=0mzi�mQcDm2Z-M 0HD0XTJ>> <cmmH1M Dmmmz00zzH Mm-�nm>zHHOZ5xmOMOM<m >z0,AAZZmmxi�=DD r– MXMcnmm00) >� DXPmXrcnz-I coDT,HMWMi<ml—W-<-<0WZDm--1 0 W « < m_i� � r _- pcmm �m���m�m�mn< � � mp��m800mwH�ZO7��wmHDZp,D o I .ZOlAOZZ -A r- XD mr-FD Em C)Z � mm-<77 Z O m2 ZQo 7D< J )JCT8X X07753 - nzcncn CDCnmH7)mr-m0H 0) z >QHmmCCm7j 70Oo0C)-1 zmm cn0 ��D Z �0mzc o)>Y2�7)m - m< C)573cn77m0<OC�� C)-1 �g cZ nm z mzG)c) Zz- z m Xm Hmm O m m 0� z DA D?K o Dz A O n 0 m r-n W v D m z � O r n C) n Z D- � 0 m I Z m D zG ?m D n rDC aCn m z AD -mr z DD � DD- OmX � Cjm z riw- rnn;� D pm �y 0)p In m r m W C)O CO XDD X EA E A E EA - - - AA MCA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fA EA EA-• - -•EA EA EA EA f- --EA EA EA fA EA EA 01 A A _ _ _ A_ A N W 7 CD W O W_ 01 N - - -40 N NO) J Ni NNA a) 01010)01 W • AO0)N _ COOa CD - (.3 0 0) 010 00 O OO O (101000NOOO A O-so CT J01(O W - D A0 7 Co 0 0 0 -00 -0 -0 ••00 0 000000000-000„, - -0m0 - 0 00 O- 5A000 -00 -0 -09,00 0 0000000004,000— (10 0 0 O 0'- O C D O O O •0 0 -O •o •0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(n o 0 0 A • •O CO O ' ' O ' ' C) t 1 01 0 0 0 ■0 0 •O ■O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 O O O O O 01 O - 0 0 EA EA EA EA --EA EA --EA -- --EA EA EA EA EA fA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fA EA EA EA --EA EA EA EA FA -•EA EA EA EA EA EA C7 O co 3 A Ni 01 3 N 01 J01 0)4 N01O W W CO _ W0 NJ a) aC(0 0 3 A A A0 COO (0(O CAN O CD N W AO CON 0)AOW i . A IIIIII 1111111 = 0) • A Ni O 0101 0 W 0 J s N EA EA EA EA --fA ffl - - - --EA EA fA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA.- --EA EA EA EA fA EA EA EA EA EA m _x N N C D N • (1-> A (J101 A-,- A W 01- 0)-,NOd) CO _ N) 07 n - •O O ••W ••W to-O N N O W(1 01 A W J o 0)-, J N N OO C C CO - -4 N -O N V-A C-A W O J Ni CO 01 co 0-00 CO -,01-, 0)E N ACT(0 -O • 01 -Ni-+O 01 CO o O CO Ni 000(T J O A CO-CA)01 Co •01 A -O N 40(1001(00 -A C01 0401 W--C Ni ■ • AOJ CO O V • O0 -0001A00)O W 40 011(0 OONA W O O • • 01-W -4.. EA EA EA EA --69 69 --EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA G9 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA-- -•EA EA EA EA EA --EA EA EA EA EA EA A A A A A W 0 0 1 y N 0W y _W W O W - MN C) W T •.O 0)Ni N J W O-co -+ AW co NO(1(T 0, OAN ■AJ CO 01 O(T (1O CO • ▪ 000 CO J J •N J 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0)001 0 0)-0 O N •0000 -sal-, W- Cr U2 O O o 01 4 0 W -OD J 0 0 W 0 0 -J 0 0 0 0 CO O 0 CO • 001 0 • CD CO C 1 co F 0 0 0 O -(T(1 J 0 0 0(0 O O J 4 0 0 0 0 N 0 O N • •O CO o • A o J N O o 0 44 0 4 (1 O O O 0 4 0 0 O-0 0 0 0-0 001 • 0 010 A (1-A W CO <CnCI)WWZC)CCCCC)CC a 7 7 0055 0 0 C)DD< •Ul (D D)0(O O m O m O O O O O C i W N Q •O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO M 7 <-0 7 7-O 0G)0000003 y 7 C rm 3 = =...-.3 CD O C) W (D O (D (D (D (D O CD (D O 7 m W 7c O Cl. D, O QEL C)xm 0Sit9090gogogogo900-'" 0 c) z 7 m m nK C)x X'z a, mn 3c) om Z ' ET o �—•DDDDDDDD,°, p o G)N (D 015C (DC Om N 'G CO (A N N N N N O O -r`G .`< N (3� C m r 0) (D CD 0 0 (0 (A (0 0 0 0 CD m 6 m Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co O 777 ri ( m CD m0 C) C) C) v3 O a - 00G N Z C) m CD CT) CT) CTUU CD O CD O c N (n < M 3 ET m 0 N N m 3 3 01/40. ..-1 MK C 4 x = A A A A 4 A A 4 A A A A A A A 4(1 Cp N O (D A 0-1 01 Cn(TCn 01010 0Ol(n Ol 010(1(1(00 0101Ol(n Cn0101 CT(0 7 (O A CD N - 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N Cp Co C CO CcOo-> 0_-0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000C)0 O_0 m 3 0 N V Ni e,NN NN NOS N NN->->-A NN W 00 N NN N NN N n NNE C1 0 W 010001 W 000)0)01000101010) NNNN NNN 01011 4 0 4 0 W O-+0)W 0 0)N 014 o N N J NJ N W JJJ J CO-4 0)A (D W (A - J Ni Ca) 0100 A-A Ni 0)Ni CD CD Ni CO CJ-.4 0)000-0)0 0)(1 O CO CO J 01014001(001 CO A--O(O CO(10 ---4 0)0)00000 0101 m m m m -< -< -< -< m m00)mr>C r77 Cr I—r-r Cn=70 mmm=77*f- ;p 77m - ooaiwcim � ° jD?mDDDD3��cc (o1m ° m ° 3O_a� O (fl W - O O =m C Cn N Cn Cn Cn In m 7 N_ Q O "'. O-0 - m m m M C (n N.A D N m Cn m O m O m ,C0 0 7'< p 0 0 CQ 7' . m CCn am?. v2 , 2 ? 0 7 m w .-:'2 7 �Sp m n= ,,,,, 55- 5 CO m m n m n� toeoC<DOmc3mmmm (mi, v77mm� a) 1:1"c �7 23Cn cr -I -•I O 0. - . s.-0 co Cn Cn M (n - Cn --, (1)0 a 3 sii N O 0 x x 0 <p CO y'C, �� (n K O O O m (/) m c N C 0 NCO co N O N 7 v fl, N Z O< y QC C 0) _'7 Q Q 0 7 QT(D .-.Tmmm E 7 S O O (g"< = 2) W ( m -o N O 0 4) 0-0 (S N Z d N 7 _CAD ... CO ca °' m co C C 0 m m WN m C ACV 2 °-3. m m 7 m N c � C DO 7•CD Ov m -� m v Cn3 � O 21 -I 1 (n (n Cp 7 (n 0 o n) m (D7 " O O X O O - m < 0070 O 0 3a (n• v N 0 oFQ (Z—) mco W 77 Nm m _ O -,m m o < -, 0 cn m 7 r o CD 0 WA Z oo K, 3 C D Ni + m n -. Cwt N m CO 77 01 o3 a EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 69 EA EA EA EA GH EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA m N _ O -< N 3 C0 T Ni- A Ni (D_,...., C00 -<0 ' S) O W 8 _,E,- 01 J 0)0)(n J Ni 0) J (TAW ONO) C a) D W 01 01 0 0 Ni 01 01 W W J 01 00)N Ni 4 O O- A CO 71 0 0 CO O- A 00-, Ni(0(C) O 53 '. (0 000 0 OA A A N W co 0)co O CO C' CO 000 0 001 Ni CO(T 0) J O 01 0 EA EA fA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA fA EA EA EA EA EA N 3 _ _ 01 4, D = Ni� J -A A CO 0) -01 -0)0) W 0)y,O. l) A NN(1N CAW NNOWC0--N4A-+ JCnJWAW W O WQN 0) -I (1 00 441-IN0)0AO(1C1000W-IJ CO V 0 000 0 V 0400 04010010 W 00(10)00 (10010-A- O 0) NO)00 00010010400 W OOO NC1AJ W OC1 O C1 • 161 2 2 .,.0 m w C mac „N.) o W CD C , y C) 0 0 0 CD 0 N CD Z ° C) W m m. m o XI 0 p d W 07 X CL < 0 C S { m 3 al co ° 0) 7 ., . :v C a CD m i E 0 0 o.. Cl)3 o 73 < CO m 7 90 T m —i mmOm —I 73 73 73 07n n � 0 CO n -< CA• 0 Xo X 73 -° XX O, m m m m ° 00 N 7 � 3 °-' 7 7 7 °-' co 7 77 fD 0 y a II C) (D i N X a 0_ O. C2 .X) C C Cp C C y 7 2 Q0 7 c m ° ° a . cc ° c < CD CCCC co m m rn m ) 3 FD m °' C) 0. y o CD H O CO mac. °—'. w '{ O C 'i --I ' -0 co m 7 N O W M �%! i O O d 2 CD Cr (0 0) ` m .< O a H � O W o C 2 0_, Ck) m CD CO O O 0 m -n 7 = °- C) t0 N i N 3 Q0 -< 7 O. O. "T) 0) O N O cn 7 O t0 71 CA i i O O-C i O O 2 6 0. d O c 0 0 90 Q 7. ti co T1 C 7 0. EA EA N .`Q O O a .p W CO O) A CO O) N •60 to co 03 N CO_O A Ea Ea v ? Ch O ,p 01 ..Vii W 0) O 01 0) O Cn 0 0 07 V O a A -MC, Cl) N 0 003 C CO 0) A .Op a O N 0 O EA _ A A N Ea to(A EA Ea EA 01 CD CO Y 0 _� A Ea fa Ca i r T V O CON W r' 0 - y.. 0 0 A 0) CO `G 0 W W 01 0) V 00)) 0 L) 03 Ea Ea Ea i i N Ea Ea i Ea Ea a 03 Ea i V A V CO i CO CN m V CO co CO Ea EA 0 A co a) i o i i :..a - O tO co O v CO C co 0 0 V N 00 V 0, W co CM 0 0 0 O O 0) 0_ EA to EA EA Ea E; �. Ea EA O i A A V W 01 N CO 03 W : CON N co al N - N A Ea 0 00' CO O al o. A ? 0 s n) O 0 01 O bi p_ A O CI - C00 O co A co O 0 O co O N O 1 O in i in in in m CN CN i ffl_i ffl 0) fa Ea co O N N N N O A A C) i O O V 0 CO A 03 Ea Eft CO c W tom) o . ' al al CO m .IO N) 006.) N) C r CO ED CD 0 Co 01 CD 0 CO A v co N N 0 0 o 0 A 0 X m cn EA EA EA EA Ea lA(A " ka EA. 00 in A A o CA C) CO O in W O CO W N O) A N V CO -� Ea Ea- 0 co 3 tW71 O 00 i CO A N CJ i 0 O i N CN °T. O O CO 0 000 0 CO 0) 0 W 00 CD co to to Ef3 03 4/3 EA A 49 0 A N N A C'')EA 0 A EA Ea C)) co V x al O A T 00 - oON 0-03 O M 0 CN Cl C° .0) 0 00 0 O EA O. 0 M 0) _a to EA EA to Ea to to to to to to to to ° o O o 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 a m 0) 0 cn � A23 A A A A W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N A W N „OCO OV m m i +0(00 V T N A W N>0000 V OA1b1A n A W N + , xxx ,WO „ 0 OOT00r . W- p - nmHZQ(»„__mCQ ommmxccxx >D m m m zco zz D ml�mm0 „0„ xm �m07)<0:-I>CA7.JJZZ <cminH r x23CmmmCy,D„=m�r(ZnZZI D,� j nmmm;rCna<-<TTZ>mHHOC clmm ;�-1 �Op1zmmm7 >(mnOO 1-73z>-o>_, 0 mm �73 cn� cm0rn lj 9.3> 73 m0�zmn00<C/)�XX WMHDZ rD z> cn m mmOZZ � �mXDmmrm�m�z < mm<�zCDiniOmDDppopX�Oxm C0CH> z <0mzMW>2EAm m mm °omcn� mOz<mOD�DvmOmZD�D� Dz O, O mm00 0OCDzz K Dm DzW A mmXm cmmmXX ZO I-- M X C) cn 00 m D Dc CO zm0D CD-I 'M I mz mm O D I 0 m Cl) 0Dnw cn O m Can -� m m m crmm D < 0 z co 0 m m D > co 0 0 r n < 0 4.94A-en-en --En EA -”e» -- - --En EA EA En En En EA En En En En En En En EA En-- -- --EA EA EA En EA --EA EA EA EA En En O A 4 •• A A r.)03 3 moo N V N _ in - A- Cn O 0 O CO W O CO V Cn N . - - ■ NC) J N NNA CO A Cn in O)in W • ••O CD N ■ - 00. CD -• W O W N O ••(b ••00 O (n(n000NCA00 A O�O(n JCn(O W A O 4C0 C oo O O O -00 -0 - ••0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000-,00 0- ••OM O O ■ 0 O C D O CO 0 0 0 ■0 0 ■O ■ ■ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Cn O Cn O 0 CD” CS t 0 O O O -0 0 -O - •0 0 O O O O O O O O O O C n O 0 0 A •O(O O O O CO 0 C) 0 -0 0 -O - ∎ O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(n 0 0 0 0 cn CD cn C ■ 0 CD .91.6964-69 --Efl EA --EA . - - En CA CA En En En EA CA CA En EA EA EA CA EA EA En . - --EA En Efl EA EA --CAC EA CA EA En n O 3 al N N B A N ON CS) W V 0- -0 -MOD- m-W-, W 3 O -0_, -O COO) O-V N 0 co 4 i • • • A O W - O W of -,comm . A i O - OA 00 <n o, m4-,...-.4 N EA EA EA G9 --EA EA En - --En EA EA En EA EA G9 EA EA Efl fA En EA fn En EA En EA-- - --En En En En Efl --EA fn a Efl a s9 m _ x CO N . 0) • OCD > V • A- - A N - -, CO CO (n- 0)-+W CO0) W J A7 C) W - W A-••CV •• •• A O N A O 0)0)0) A W(n 0)N-+ -, - ■ O N MCI C (0 4(04 -0 N-0in i0 Jin (n W N W W O (n -,OOO co CO 4J -O N- 00())O 0- J 0 CO co Cn J O Cn . • co co N NO CO • • (n-a -O -Oi000(C0 -,JO 0000W-,0 N • • DC( O -,O V -A-A -0N •O in 0 C)A O Cn in J O in in A 0)O Cn Cn CO co 40 EA EA EA EA En En En - --En EA EA E-A EA Efl Efl En EA En En EA EA EA EA EA EA En-- ---n En En E/)En -EA En En EA EA EA _ < O W O CO A_• - 0)N O-N co Cn- A C)CD N _ A 0 d O W O W ••W o, V W W N O Cn(n in O 0)N-- C-•Cn O(n J 0)00 W (O N '65 D) CA 0 0 0 O(n J J O O W O O O N O C n O n A O O N • ••O C0 0 ■ -,030 n- Cr 0) O O O •(n N AM-400W00 -,N O O O O N O O • i 0 i 0 C O W N J C Cm O CD CD A W 0-A 0 0(0 O O J(0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N - •O(0 0 ■ 4030 O O •4000 ”00 40000400 O W 000000 00 OCnO • (n COW 0) 1w(Dv(m00000000 „-DC (7nnmoo000Wo(OC) CD 0 <TO 7 o QG)CQC)G)G)C3 o 7 C - rm M . 3 =3. _.'...'-.7 CD 7 N N y CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C) N C_7 2 .N-.D1 N 7 7 O n (1 p-o C)' �9°9°9°RD SAD Q°9°9 0 N n 7 i n O m O x x Z N (N '< N W VD) N CA N(/D) N C) O 0 N (ND M -7 0 7 C)3 200000000 CD 7 C 0 ) (D m 111 CD O O A O O O O O (D CD 7 7 0 .Z) al t- r m N 0 0 0 0 m m n0-= 0 Z C 6 N 0 CD C CD CD C CD °' ° CD 3 rm m 3 3 0 N -I C -' x S -„ A 444444444444440 4 4444444 AA CD 0 0 -,▪ A0 in 000000000000000 0 0n 0n(n Cn(n O (n(n = = AWN -, O 000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 co CD 1A-00-0--, O_ 00000000000000-, 0000000 -00m _ N '�N NN N O—N N N---Nr.J0, O N NN N N N N ON ND 7 0 -40m in 0)0) n N W Cb O)0)0)00(n On N Wnn N)NN N N N N°W Cn' A 04 0 Cb O-�iiiNiAONNJNJN iJJJJi-C W A C0 W (n - J N)W-+Cb 4-N 0)N 00 N W 0 J 0)000-WO mm - O 0) W J ii4,N(0i W A--,OCCbi0 -�Ji W Oin 00 -C -C-C -C mEmOCr>[r�7rrrrrC�5 nmmm��) TXX-ID -,- o 0 0 =C)) N C) v m C (n?C CnC/) (/)7-P D C C (=m ?.m nm 7- On 3 N CD = O r.N .0, . <O-O -1777 CD C Cn W.D N CD CO CD CD CD CD CD - O 7.c n N .-. 7-0 0 SO Q omv 0� 7nmomcmrnmmN °—xoO� cxD �� mm33C N -1 -1 (D — 3 ' 0 C1-O 0 Cn (n 0 Cn C Z N N G) °- 3 o (D CD o 0) (D O y'r CD ',7, 0 C < O CV g 7 Cn 7 N 1D -0-.0) 0 0 C N C 9' C `� v C.O (O 7 C -, '?�7 O 7 N (fl C5 6 Cn Q 7 O -7 m m-0 C) N 7 C ° 07 CD N (D (D �7 3 O CD 0-O CD -C C_ N Sll N N N N Q N x < < CA N 7 7 D „.3 7 O.CO -0 0 .•M (�•< (D sv W C7 -0 C CO 0M 7.-° O m m y C 7 m 0 CO C \ p0j C C C - CD 0000 N 00 cm (n d O .7 C.-7 7 W O _ CD N D CD W O 7 (D N _.. O -I 0) n Cn W CO Cn cp O N C -� C j N (n 3 0 OM O O 2 O- (D 3 CD - N 7 CD Cn Q d 0 CO) C' C) <m 07 v o CD C CD CD <0 < CD (D = C0 0) tv o.Q Cl 0 N A (D 7 r < v 'CD A z ° K,.-. Cl CD n 7 c. N + n •4 1 0) CD O O T 0. > EA EA EA EA EA EA EA En EA OD En A O1 A Efl E EA CA CA CA EA EA CA En EA EA EA EA EA EA OD .n W N T N _ _ N _ A (O C-< O N Cn -,N N W- Of O C V J W Cn O N0) A �Cn -CAW V JO) CO W C' O W (r CO O A Cn A J O -,-.01 CON N O D A 00 _, O (0 0)O Cn OA -, 0- -,M-, NOW O 53 A 0 00 0 0 A N 0-, Co CO 04 Oo-Sin O • 00 00 O 00 -, 00 A Cn CA -4M0 O EA EA EA EA EAEA EA EA En EA CA EA EA EA En En En EA EA EA En EA EA EA EA EA EA EA En En V 3 in w- D 71 0 N- Cn WCO 0) -0 -,0)0) W M0 * O N-,C0N 00NN0i COQ 444-, (1WJ W J WG) O 0) D Cn 4000 N W ON00iHJ iiiO NiJJC W J 0 4 7 V 0000 0m0- Oi 04 0000m-,-,-4-4000 0 0(000 0AN0i0 WO COn000J00-,W-' O in N N400 00000040 000m004-4m000 in 1 a t,-„„ A 2 3 . . rn . G D 0 ,,, , ._,, 0 (_,. .1r_6 ,- fQ , F � ,� ono cla5z= CO CO go ? a -o(5.�n o cni c n 90 o 9) c o c (D O o � 61 n) (nm D o- o 613 $ c-C -i 3 E -.3 90 X. Z 3 c w d a, N-IT I- (/) \ 6O N cD O N - o 6 Q CI-IT) �-� cn (0 73 (D fD Cu N N 0, .0-DI pm cvo o o. o ai -6- (n D Q� ng 3 a) 7J* m 0 3 O n7i (� co rn �� `� 3 D -o la) m •(nn FP' -n m = _ , v -1 D.6 ,_ 1... m r) y m = w (" 6' O 0b » aka in O z co ...4 -_. so ---:-...cn . 2- a) " 0 'Sp TV • >v cCa o' cn 'g c C I- d 11 -' m co 0) c^ av -1 QO o x o =o C N 2 m n y DW o 3 xpoo oc 3 73 2, 0 -0Dcp N X ,0 73n73 -073n0 -01373737370737 -10, Xo X -- X1 N wf��1 � cn o °'2c8 c ag. 2a� S $' -om255o22554 .4p .202w2m :4,-mm cr ^, > > F a m 0 a 0 R c m - 3: - c N co c c 3 d c � a � N c2, ? _ �-. O O p(D Q CJ ? O CD (D 5y O O a O O cc) (D o O E EI a yr iU a.-0 * CCD m O = 0 j m (P °-F-' O W E C O 0 - O c<o a - -0 "10 m m a m n 0 • ca C c0+ a � 3cD c = ° on 3 ° c ? ao Qm° ° � � ° ? o N d,0 m Q O g b O 13 d o v g a 3 d' o vF, © § m m 3 o a' 0 N f a c A m 3 0 go. ° a-.(D o.3 ai c2, o a n " Q c `< c c > > 0) 0 w m 0 d m o 7c 3 0 3 m N.c N 00 ?I >L m m 'V C (0g-) o c c m O m E' m Z c ° 77 N N m o o co (. co O a 5.N (�(� r o = Q a � a. N W N S.- E -- a 5 O .0 c0) O N o ^ 0 a) CD a 2. 0,, 0 = �C01 p v0, n > > o n CD ©= 3 °' cg c < ? 3 0 ( ° 0 a° 9 ° 9 O o 5 r) 3 00 a oc a N j 5r g c, w � c Qmm 1 ° Q � gE.-< cgNq 3ou, m ° maClam � . (03`< a 0d d * o m c 3 Q 0 2 2 . m m ° 1 n f a o c c c N � m m m o � c N m a s CD Q -n N _, c°o a -^ c- k --in. Q .a m Z N �_ m 3 0 O _CD CD m °- ° gm m Q Q ° m acu $ o O1 Cr d g = _ `� 2 0 g ? , C N, , .°°' ,0 7'o 0 0 0 Ox 's § m cm-p 2- m N 0 U-0 wO cm cc c, y c, 3tZguocmcauC) 3 ° o u0 '' ao' Q Qa. w c m < g � `° `� m � � o � � oam � oo m `" mma q� ` CD CD 0' o N 3 m CD (I' Qa < ° 3 aco � � g2°) � 55 A WQ, 2c `° m - a �mm �_ m e v 3 cD 9 O . � 0 aa) c a co 30 W a 0 a c m' °-' a-oi " '°' 0 3 O m �' <' m °, G 7' N O ow - ..(1), (D C Qj < 0 N co " 0 0 r< 0 Z 7 f2, lc(D C) © `< CD ( C -0 0 O'N j c 0 ���11 O > Cr) co .0-J Qa 0 pN R. N 7 0._� .� 5 Q d 0 n < 7 < d C x CD J 0' - C (I) O) O" 0-n CO o0m co o of2, aCDN m0 3 * c) 0 c p a m C mi c c Qu,�e v a ° 5. w co ,..7 m m m °'�' -' 3 < m y S 32, C Cll c 3 m v_ ? » o < m o ° m m = a c Cr m Q m g m m K ? `L 3 O st C OO 'O O .-,5 .0. 0 0 c C`< c 3 N n Iv [1 °Oj �`' N 0 t�D O _ p� a m N CD - m N 7 G) ° ac0 a Q O - n0 caa am 0 Q m5.* D o M 7 N f7, d N rL N O ? 0 C� l0 ° �_ p N cam, 07 a N oN -< CD 77 N II N ac c aco pc Q 3- om o c 77 R- d a) m o a o CD a .0 v F CD c g ° 3 a �' Q = CD 7 c ° m m p3 0 � mo 5 0 BCD _ � c a ° fD m ° a m & o 0 0 c- 8 0 o 0 0 0 o r 10 �n a Q c, a 7J m 'o 0 Z lil m 0 -, r1 0 3 g m Z -I IA o 3 3 3 3 Tii 3 3 V g - + W N •. r.� N..4, ? s K . .% . g. ' .41: ..4 I 'M ' 4' A : h! 3 cr,N o c 3 n -I 1° o D M u s O n Co w ari co Di D X O C Z —I 'n n 0 0O D cn on O D D Z m y m 13 3 = D 6-) o m <_ H• ' 3 �' C N N m rn = j N IN (q. 000 b 3 tD filt o * oo (D `V T x (1) n N 3 Dni cnp) on -D :0 _-1 17st� -Hc c 3AZ1 -0 -0 XX73X73777J Q"0 773 -0 7370X7] -I -177JJ W x 5 M 2i. = L') m- 2 o .'-2 am1 m lUll$ —2 -2 tIWIIHIWUIUIU P -E W N � c a� � g� � = E vD Z �' m C? 7 n - fD fi 'o m .R" .Z a c m 3 7 < m 8 `< 3 g g Q Q c c = c c c c ° 4 c m ( x c 3 m m 0 C o n p T 3 j 7 0) a= m 0 - lT' N a o (p ,p 0 C0 - 0 CD 0 C0D (0 0 N O c, a) a = 7 CD 0 ,, = ca CD CD - ^ N O , 0 C) 0) d 7 a 3 N N cf) pN (p N N U1 N , f/I i)-0 d N ? 0 O O a N y a°o ° =• °c o o � o8g 3mma7g (p � 3 Np6. 6 99 - 2299 3: 5ma' oaa)iS _aagg a m so 2 N R m o a m c CD a 17' c = = 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3' 3 Q Q °-' c.., >f c 3 3a O2 > 5 ‹ - no — `c,',' Inns mm cammm 4aa3„ oc > > m A < g g q N CD xm -., 0) d aa2 aaa d. a`.< ay. 3. o o as = ° fn O `° a) a1 0) 7 7 N g o 0) N N 2 O d F O 9 UI 9 c. CD m m co co N Er g < c a o o > > o ? > ? ? 3 ? m <m � ? _ � > > c 0 O v 4o Sk -0 R a 8 c x g x N a cD a Q a a > >' -* Qo N m z 5 = O o N O 5 CD 9 c 0 - = N aao c ` c _, m 3 = n 0J� c m m o - 3 CAD < � F° D? a CD CCDD ...I c a) 00 CD CD a O n 0 .-« c a 3a .om3m adm co 88 2 m d� = o 2 0 < � o � a� x � �' Cr-, 0 3 o a mCD � c Sam IC 'OV 2 N m p.Q c CND y 7 CD -' -' a 2 a 0 cA '3 Er Z o c o _. N 51o0) 7 N o a - N a x d m Q a N x a = p a °y °m c 5 ? N S20 O a a o 14 3 a N d 7 g c 7 a a CD 0 n 2 In cc c o a x o a-'"< C� a 1O n�i n�i a. a c Q m PO fn 2 oN m m aog8o � CD o=vas) 8 CD o n co 2 2 o n m ° vc m a 8 ° m ` j 0 o a 9 oNdmof � a °. � a 2 m ^� ) m xca a� a = Ca. a -. ma a Z O TO” 8 a c la-E. a � � 0 3 2 2 `7 D m N cn O 8.--R CD 7, 3 Q N 5 5- p p 0 v N CD & °< 'NC=O 3 o Cc Ic o m O CD 2 2 m a m a = N m m o Z 7 7 0 fc < m 0 c- 7 Cv N a x 0 0 7- 1 a o $c m a T CD co d d `-' 8 m m 0 �D c°D o -, m o 0 a m c o 8 °c . 2 3 8 c 'S 8 O N N' O O n '< 0 m 7 �$_. CD C7 a 3 CD m a c CA m < < CD CD = a p C� CQ 7 N co c o N 7 a 0 O m 70 m WI 'v 0 Z WI m 0 n O 3 3 m 2 a, -I m IV 0 A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 r. 3 3 3 3 3 .• fa Ir 2 y:, .. ,i i A s t • 1 ..t • m oo m 3- o li61 2 2 3 = ' O =„ 0. 0. m °1 A3 N = 0 = n ti u, -< c 7J n * C, C ? m .Z ik * 0 3 W N O .Nr n (O CO O V o T co > m n ? 0 �' C m m °= ? a. "c_ CD c CI • 0. y c y m h y m-, N m n 0 0) 7 n N O W co It o D ft7 —1 D N 0- C Z n 0 CD 0 al Ea' X O o 3 D Z (O * -1 rn E v3 m 0) D 0 01 < -I m � 0 C rJ N 2 N W m 3 !1 .Ai .�.. - n $ bU E ro roO 7 CD QO 0) v m C T CO n to x o CD .o 3 u=i -,D < CD 0 CD m m _0 m m a m m St. W fJ M .-.-0 N , a co N OS N — N N n 0 v- 0 n (D d * _, V) r 0. (D 7 = - tD < 0 <X p d 0 (D N (D C) (D `L m o a p ° a 0 a a a o v -o d 7 NI M 6i a N = v O 6 N a 2 O. C. T 2* co � . ° = .O = � Q m W 0 O 0 CD 0° 0. ni 20 'om 30 303 -, N' 0f0 0 (D C C ] N - o * .0 (D (D tai = (D CO (� (p Q 7 3 A SP, m (D (D in O N 7- 7 r-© 0 = o k a < O Gp N co N 0+ (D (D 0 = m = 3 a =_,,0 c47 '' `fig Qo rn i3 E;2 a 9 L d 0 3 - (0 (0 _a C ° 0 a m CO co 0 M c 7 b 3 N, 7- n a a (D o a Z m m e ° c m 90 O o a v o N 0 R m c a m o a a N co ; " ^ n (n (n rn Q 7 D O O n cp a O < E. o m S a a 0 O a m 3 CD 8 x 2 S rn f m El' v Z Z 0 (D N a 0 a CD = a c 2 (B D m 0. 0 a C) o s' N v v 0 rn n C a m m _. m R °— o rn a co 'a o C) 0 E3 ai m S Q co 0 c = m o 0 g CD C (n rn 0 z m 0 n 0 K rn v Z v on a N u., 0 A 1-41 2 ` ( le 2 k � � 3 i \ X = ® 2 0 en r- 03 m & -1 c > » ® e E q 1 g I / \ -1 a £ 2 v < 0 > @ 0 / » . > . -u § . § 6 > \ = E < g ) { § g 2 = ] N k � g [ '''''P I— 0) fy tn § 613 E k / § 9 § 7 Pt ( . 0 § X0 2 �tzx =»�x = xx § �_ § E § =cu --§ § � j �( [t [�\ƒ [ / f % \� ƒ�/ // \� f / 2 U - A 2 2 ° ° 2 2 2 k = -\ k k k 0 ID j m = / \ °/ 4 f / g CO > > \ f > > > § * ƒ / ` @ § ƒ ƒ 3 3 9 9 _ > 0 o . ••&g - § § \ a CD K = $ $ / \ 2 @ - ( / \ ¥ @ E / § § =0 0 2 ( f ® 2 / \ » § f « 0 [ % - - \\ a) -• \ f f ) 0 < ) f < < z 2 0 m 0 < 7 = ƒ % f co X \ * _ & U o N) g co X < j \ ) . / , % = C 2 = - e \ - - - ` + \ } . \ / \ ) * § / E o \ C - f I. { - / c - \ \ , » ? \7 f E \ � ■ _ III -0 0 2 m 0 0 E K m 2 \ in 0 a - . -2�� » . [ <\ g a \ \ k \ k \ { \ ( \ } > . . . K . ^»`C : . . d II! 2 , . /} \ ` p \ . : \\ ` \` \2 \ \\ � ! . z , > & < 1• a . // \ »y y » y/ E K.S \ \ 2 $ . m\«@ , ` '® « z\» - \. . y -. ' g � . -d� © : / ^22 ' �7 �?^ ^ ' ° > . : 1 \ . »� � ?\ /\\ . \ Naples, Florida, April 20, 2011 161 2 A25 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: VICE - CHAIR: Loretta Murray Carla Grieve 1J Rochelle Lieb JUL Q 5 201 i ABSENT: Doris Lewis Connie Bettinger- Hennink ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator Judith Kraycik, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Murray asked for additions or corrections to the minutes of March 16, 2010. Two minor corrections were noted. Mrs. Grieve 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 Fula Hiller Mrs. Reiss discussed the following issues: Henning If""`-` Coyle School on Wheels Program Colette • Five new tutors were trained • The director of the program has decided to once again recruit from the North Naples area Conversation Class • The seasonal participants have left many of whom expressed a desire to return to the class next season • Many seasonal residents purchased non - resident library cards • The program now consists of one ninety minute session rather than two one -hour sessions • Classes will break for the summer but will resume in September • Promoting tutor.com with the class Mrs. Matthes added that tutor.com is a service the library provides for its patrons which can be used to find help with resume writing, live tutoring with a chat option, homework help, as well as the availability of many other types of information. Currently it is not heavily used and is something that needs to be promoted through library staff and local user groups because it is a very useful tool. misc. Corres: Date: °���'�1► Item #: k Lo '=2. Nc� 2 y 161 2 `A25 � REPORT OF OFFICERS — None COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Murray stated there was a letter in the newspaper stating that the libraries need to be pressure washed. Mrs. Matthes stated she is aware of this. In the past, the buildings were pressure washed twice per year but because of the current budget cuts it will more than likely only be done once per year. She has been obtaining quotes for having this done. Mrs. Grieve reported that she has met with Denise McMahon, chair of the marketing committee, and Pat DeGroot regarding the publishing of a regular column in the Naples Daily News which would provide information regarding the libraries. She had previously compiled a list of possible subject matter which she shared with Mrs. McMahon and Mrs. DeGroot. They are very supportive of this endeavor and willing to assist in any way they can. Mrs. Grieve stated she does not personally know anyone at the newspaper and asked if Mrs. Matthes knows anyone there. Mrs. Matthes stated she does not but she is sure Linda Fasulo does and may be able to provide an introduction. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Employee of the Month — April Mrs. Matthes stated that she submitted two of the nominations on behalf of the Friends of the Library because they had been so helpful when the Friends computers went down. It was suggested that possibly the Friends could reward these employees for their help in a manner other than the Employee of the Month program. Mrs. Grieve asked for suggestions and Mrs. Matthes responded that possibly the same award that is given for employee of the month would be a good idea. Mrs. Grieve stated she will discuss the matter with Linda Fasulo. Mrs. Lieb nominated Susan Anderson as employee of the month for April. Mrs. Grieve seconded the motion and all in favor. Meeting room Policy Revision One revision has been requested by Marla Ramsey, Division Administrator, which is to eliminate the wording `or designee' from the approval process for advertising. The Board agreed to this change. Long Range Planning Mrs. Matthes provided additional examples of mission statements from other county libraries for the Board to review with some tips for writing mission statements. In addition, Mrs. Lieb shared a mission statement from the Georgia Aquarium that she found to be particularly impressive both in format and content. It is brief and encompasses all the goals and objectives. She also drafted a mission statement for the library which she shared with the Board. She stated that she tried to include all the points the Board had previously decided were the important components. Mrs. Lieb's work was well received by the members of the Board. Mrs. Matthes asked Mrs. Lich to provide her with a copy of the draft which she did. Mrs. Matthes stated she will e-mail this as well as the new examples to everyone for comments. 2 161 p A25 • Board Members were provided with a list of goals for the Long Range Plan based on their recommendations from the meeting of March 16. Mrs. Matthes stated that she would like to finalize the wording on the mission statement at the May meeting. • Mrs. Matthes stated she is working on the service responses section of the long range plan and her goal is to have everything completed by August so she can obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners and the Library Advisory Board. The document needs to be submitted to the state library in September. • Mrs. Matthes was asked if she has any information regarding the state budget. She said she has no new information. Currently there is no money in next year's proposed budget for libraries which means the state will lose $9,000,000 in federal funds. NEW BUSINESS Budget Mrs. Matthes discussed the following items regarding the 2012 budget: • Members were provided with a copy of a summary of the budget. • Under Capital Outlay there is money allotted for 2012 which is for books. In the 2011 budget there was no money allocated for books. She explained that in recent years no money has been allocated for Capital Outlay. The County's capital funds have been used to pay debt services for previous construction projects, including 3 libraries. She explained some of the details of budget preparation regarding capital funding. It is hoped that impact fees will increase in the future and the money will eventually be paid back to the general fund. • She also pointed out that the net cost to general fund is showing a negative 3% which was the budget guidance for preparation. She reported that she has cut approximately $200,000 from the budget in areas of equipment, replacement computers, supplies and a few other minor items. • Funding for temporary positions during season has been included. • It is hoped that the money allocated for books will last until this fall and then at that time she may need to use trust fund monies and past state aid money. She added that the Friends have offered to help buy books. In addition, donations have been received in the amount of $45,000 for Marco Island and another $40,000 in general donations which can be used to buy books. • During the reconciliation of the budget information for the current year it was discovered that the Library has a vacant position. She has decided to hire someone for Technical Services to perform the copy cataloging duties. We have been short two people to perform these duties and as a result the process has slowed considerably. With the addition of another employee, it should shorten the process and also allow for the purchase of more books at a faster rate. Floating Collections Mrs. Matthes stated that due to injuries we currently only have one driver. As a result, she has decided to begin floating the non - fiction collection effective immediately which has resulted in a reduction in deliveries. Mrs. Matthes reported that after the book sale, temporary workers were brought in to pack up boxes of left over books and Goodwill picked them up. It was asked if the book sale was successful. Mrs. Matthes responded that it was not as successful as it had been in the past. It brought in approximately $7,000. However, this figure was down from last year's book sale which brought in about $10,000. Mrs. Matthes 161 2 X25 stated that there have been discussions on how to handle future book sales and one of the options is to have just one book sale during the winter season in addition to having individual book sales at each of the libraries. A few of the libraries have tried this and it has been reasonably successful. Mrs. Matthes commented that she has received complaints from the general public that book dealers are permitted to buy books and re -sell them at a higher price. She said that the object of the sale is to get rid of the books. The Board discussed several suggestions on how to possibly better control the sale of books to dealers. It was pointed out that having unadvertised sales at the individual libraries would probably eliminate sales of books to dealers. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mrs. Matthes reported on the following issues: • Circulation figures are still dropping. Circulation is down 121,302. She is attributing this to fewer books, reduction in operating hours and not as many people. She is still looking at population figures. • A graph was distributed showing work distribution relative to number of positions and operating hours for each library location. • A question was asked whether this type of information is provided for the budget presentation. Mrs. Matthes stated it could be used as back -up information to justify the budget request. • The budget request for 2012 is the same as the 2011 budget regarding number of employees and hours of operation with no reductions in either. • This year it has been requested of each department to complete a new section on goals and objectives to be submitted with the budget. • A part-time employee at Headquarters Library has given her notice and will be leaving May 31. A request to replace her has been prepared and submitted for approval. • It was observed that the circulation of downloadable books has increased considerably. This is the area that publishers are looking at and possibly controlling with limiting the number of downloads per book. • There is also the possibility that there may be a new vendor for downloading books who would be in competition with Overdrive. • Net Library is a more academic version of Overdrive which is still being used. • InterLibrary Loan usage has increased to close to the capacity that we can handle with only one employee handling this service. • Mango is a language training program and has maintained its usage • A question was raised whether a calculation had ever been done to find out the true cost of each book. Mrs. Matthes responded that had been attempted by the Productivity Committee but was unsuccessful because it is too difficult to track the work time involved. She has been checking to find a model standard used for this purpose but has not yet found anything. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS Mrs. Grieve reported on the following items: There are fewer meetings during the summer season. The Red, White and Roulette will again be held in early November at the Naples Beach Club. Board members will be asked to devote more time to organizational projects rather than using staff. 4 161 2 A25 • She had nothing to report on the new desk for Vanderbilt Branch or the fountain renovation. • The Nick Linn lecture series is completed and was very successful. Planning for next year's series is being done. Mrs. Matthes stated that the Friends have voted to donate $5,000 plus $4,000 that was raised for the new desk at the Vanderbuilt Branch. The remainder of the cost will be taken from the State Aid to Libraries budget. Regarding the fountain renovation, Mrs. Matthes stated she is hoping to work directly with the landscaper and brick layer to make repairs in order to save money by not hiring a general contractor. After this work is completed, she will go forward with the moving of the existing fountain and installation of a new fountain in the courtyard. At this time, plans are not yet finalized as to what should be done about the fountain. iMAIilMISM -may There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Grieve moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and carried unanimously the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 a.m. i Approved by: C Doris J. Lewis Chair, Library Advisory Board i} A * f 161 ? A25 THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON MAY 9, 2011 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Caleb Morris, Captain Ron Gilbert, Chairman, Port of the Islands James Simmons, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member Tony Davis, Port of the Islands, Advisory Board Member The meeting began at 6:15PM by the Chairman Ron Gilbert. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 14, 2011 AND APRIL 11, 2011: The minutes were approved as written pending the change of the dates. Ron Gilbert -The minutes were right but the dates were wrong. SUMMER ADJOURNMENT: JUN 1 4 2011 BY: ....................... r=i 7 `✓ gyp_. Hiller '•./� Henning Coyle Coletta Chief McLaughlin — Usually the board adjourns during the summer or has in the past then reconvenes in October. It is strictly the board's decision some of the past boards they left for the summer. It is up to you as a board to adjourn or not for the summer. Ron Gilbert — The reason you normally do that is there is not much activity in the summer time. Chief McLaughlin — Our budget process starts to winding up that's about the activity we have. But the board usually adjourns because the members leave for the summer so we couldn't have a quorum. Ron Gilbert — Suggested they continue to meet through the summer because all the board members will be here they are not leaving. Page 1 Misc. Corres: Donne. Item #: �-_ '2—`A 2S 3 a; 1612 Ai l 5 OLD BUSINESS BUDGET 2012: Chief McLaughlin Our final budget meeting is Friday May 10th our budget has been adjusted approximately $432,000. These funds were added to our Budget by the County as an anticipated shortfall due to the decrease of property values in the Everglades City area are anticipated to be the highest in the County. Nobody really knows until June 1St but they are anticipating that they will be high enough that we will have a considerable loss. So the County has supplemented some of that money from other funding whether it is Pilt or District I he is not really sure where the funds are coming from. But they were able to find funding to supplement our budget. So our current budget stands at 1,788,000 which is our normal operating budget. We did reduce our operating costs about $80,000 from last year. Ron Gilbert — We are in a lot better shape than we thought previously. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, they managed to find the money to supplement us. Overall we have lost about $530,000 in depreciation within the last four years which is about one third of our budget at this point. We are now at a 32% loss now over four years. He is not sure what the property appraiser's intentions are now he keeps devaluing the properties they anticipate our area is going to be one of the hardest hit this year along with Corkscrew and Immokalee. Chief McLaughlin — There is now way to find out how they come to this conclusion it is decided by the State and local government. Whether it is a real number or not it is just some ones guess as to what the properties are worth based on current times it can change in a year either way. Ron Gilbert - It is supposedly driven by property sales. Is there money in this budget for the Port of the Islands Fire Station? Chief McLaughlin — Not currently. Ron Gilbert — So you are still trying to find money for it. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, it is not in the current budget but we are still trying to find a way to do that. We will know more after our meeting with the County Manager on Friday. OLD BUSINESS WATER TENDER: Chief McLaughlin — We had a 30 day time frame to get this Water Tender approved so that the trade in value would be locked in as quoted otherwise it could change to a reduced amount. The paperwork was processed arA t was placed on the BCC agenda for 5 -24 -11 as soon as it is approved and signed the Water Tender will be purchased. He expects delivery somewhere in November or December. It will 4%0 15 to 20 year truck. Page 2 , -; }_ '. 1642 A25 Ron Gilbert — In order to show the Advisory Board is concurrent with the purchase of the water tender then we need to get that letter to the Board of County Commissioners. The letter states that the Advisory Board supports this purchase. Chief McLaughlin — He sent a letter to Ron since he is the Chairman of the Board in regards to a special meeting if he felt it was necessary in regards to the letter lending support to the purchase of the Water Tender. If the Advisory Board is in approval he will attach their letter supporting the purchase of the Water Tender to the BCC Packet for approval on 5- 24 -11. Ron Gilbert — You have the approval of this board. James Simmons — What is the final cost of the vehicle? Chief McLaughlin —The final cost is $235,000. James Simmons — That's new. Chief McLaughlin — Yes financed over ten years we won't take delivery until October so that takes us to 2013 for our first payment. NEW BUSINESS: Chief McLaughlin — We received an estimate in regards to preconstruction costs to renovate Station 61 in the amount of $471,000. He felt that was high because the Golden Gate Station on Santa Barbara was built from the ground up for 1.2 million so he is currently sending it back to our project manager in Facilities and have them review it we have several other builders on contract with the County he feels the estimate is high. He feels it can be done cheaper but $471,000 is the number he submitted to the budget office. The last time it was brought up Commissioner Colletta suggested a MSTU be created to pay for the renovations. None of our Advalorem for our operating costs has to do with construction so to build a station would have to come from some funding mechanism. We do have some new construction coming in that District with the three high rises they are proposing. All the impact fees will probably come close to $80,000 or $90,000 will also go towards that. So you are looking at a funded MSTU cost of about $350,000 to $400,000 over a period of years until it is a completed project. The MSTU would be levied against all the taxable properties at Port of the Islands. Ron Gilbert — To establish an MSTU you need the vote of all the property owners. Chief McLaughlin — That depends on the MSTU not all MSTUs need the vote of the property owners some of them can be assigned by the Board of County Commissioners. They will probably tell the residence if they want a fire station they will have to pay for it. Page 3 161 2 A25 Tony Davis —The MSTU would be for the whole area. Chief McLaughlin — No it would be just for Port of the Islands. Tony Davis —They would have to get a vote on it. Chief McLaughlin — They probably would but if the money is not available in the near future their argument will be that the operating Advalorem does not include any new construction. We already took $800,000 out of Reserves to buy the building that affected the whole District. But to finish the project it has to be funded. Tony Davis — He spoke to Manager at Collier Seminole State Park and they are looking for land to store equipment he was interested in working out a deal if possible. He asked if the Chief had spoken to the State Park System in regards to funding for the 1 -75 Station. Chief McLaughlin — He has had conversations with the State Park System and the Feds it has been a very long and lengthy process. He has been doing it for 5 years when you get to the top they don't really want to do it. It is very difficult the land management of it and the other pieces of it is extremely difficult. It sounds like a great idea but to try and actually make it happen is impossible. If you wanted a water or sewage system you would have to create an MSTU unless someone else can come up with another plan this is probably the only way to fund the station. Ron Gilbert — Are you telling me that the MSTU could be created by this Board? Chief McLaughlin — No, it has to be created by the County Board of Commissioners and they would probably take it to a vote. They would base it on if you want it this is what you have to do and base it on the assessment it may be $100 or $200 a year for ten years per taxing unit and that would be every property out there it would not just be the home owners it would be everybody because there is a lot of land that is not developed. Ron Gilbert —That would be a hard sell because we already have a non- advalorem fee at Port of the Islands $1500 a year for houses, $1300 for Condominiums and $900 for Hotel Condominiums. Chief McLaughlin — He said one of the commissioners already told him that would be the only way it could happen in the near future was by an MSTU. Ron Gilbert — Because of those fees mentioned we have the highest millage rate there with the exception of Everglades City. It would be a hard sell to the residence there to establish an MSTU on top of that. Page 4 1612 A25 Chief McLaughlin — We are still looking at some rural funding and some grant funding we would qualify for grant funding but they look at the District as a whole because of Port of the Islands I can't qualify because the income of the Port of the Islands residence put me $8,000 over a year. If it wasn't for Port of the Islands we were well within range. Ron Gilbert — How is the income level established for the Port of the Islands residence most of the people there are retired? Chief McLaughlin — Yes, but the retirement the residence at Port of the Islands are receiving is more than what the other people in the District are earning. There are some FEMA Grants we are still trying to pursue for Station reconstruction but that could be a year down the road. Tony Davis — There is a flaw in that system if they are looking at total income. They should be looking at the Port is earned income. Chief McLaughlin — Remember what they look at is the whole District they don't look at things separately. Tony Davis — Most organizations take earned income retirement should not be included. If you are retired and receiving $200,000 that is coming in from someplace else you are not contributing to the area. Chief McLaughlin —The average income had to be at $28,000 and we were at $42,000. James Simmons —The Indians have income has that been counted in this survey. Chief McLaughlin — No it is not taxable income and it stays on the reservation. We are pursuing other means of funding the station at Port of the Islands. Hopefully things will get better and we will be able to find some funding for it. But as of right now he is not aware of any funding available to continue the project. We are going to keep looking for funding. We are waiting for the FEMA Grants for Stations we are going to look at that again. Tony Davis — Asked about the property on the north side the old hotel where the employing housing building is. Chief McLaughlin — It's going to be torn down it has been condemned. Tony Davis — Supposedly at one point the owner of that hotel was willing to donate that land building and all. Chief McLaughlin — No, we just did an inspection of his hotel. He has to comply and follow the law. Page 5 1612 inz5, Tony Davis — There isn't a way you could get that land knock it down and put up a station. Chief McLaughlin — Land is not a problem CID donated land by the water plant but we are back to how are we going to build it. It will cost 1.2 million to build a building so $450,000 is a lot cheaper than 1.2 million. The plans have been done, the STP is done, the environmental is done, and all the engineering is finished. Tony Davis — What about the problems with the Marina Store in regards to the parking and the Condo owners. Chief McLaughlin — It has all been through our legal department. Their legal documents do say they have a right to park there, however, the documents also say that the County has the right to appropriate and assign whatever parking spots they chose. The STP specifically states that 17 of those parking spots on that side of the building belong to the Fire Department. The parking is across the street and on the other side of that building. They may be right that doesn't mean they are going to park out their back door. Tony Davis — So that is not going to be an issue, with all that land that is across the street why not work a deal bail out of the marina building make a swap and build over there. Chief McLaughlin —That was all purchased for Marina parking. Tony Davis — There are three owners you might be able to make a deal with them. Chief McLaughlin —The marina parking belongs to Parks and Recreation and they need it for the marina. Tony Davis — But they are not going to use all that land. Chief McLaughlin — Yes it is projected that it will all be used it is in their plan. Tony Davis —There seems to be a lot of land there where you could squeeze a building in. Chief McLaughlin — You can't squeeze a building in a fire station requires so much square footage. if we put a new one in we need about an acre and a half. Tony Davis — What about that piece of land right on US 41 by Stella Maris. Page 6 1612 A2`' Chief McLaughlin — Yes that has already been looked at that is 2.5 acres. that property the one next door and the one in the back are the only available properties to put a station on to put a proper facility in. If someone came up with a couple million dollars I would have parks and recreation buy it back from us and go across the street buy the five acres. We could put the facility, boat slip, docks, boat and everything over there it would be good for 20 years. We could even put a space for the Sheriff's office they could rent it for a substation. We finished the Fire Hydrants. The only ones we have left are the purple ones at Orchid Cove and by station 60. Ron Gilbert — There are some purple hydrants at Orchid Cove. Chief McLaughlin —They are all supposed to be purple at Orchid Cove. Ron Gilbert —They are yellow. Chief McLaughlin — They are supposed to be purple we contacted Hole Montes. Tony Davis — He received a letter informing him that they were taking over their utilities and that Orchid Cove would be responsible for painting the fire hydrants. Chief McLaughlin — Usually in a development they are responsible for the fire hydrants unless a utility company comes in and takes over. If they take over the water lines and the irrigations lines the hydrants go with that they are not a separate issue. When they take over that underground line they are taking over everything that goes with it. Tony Davis — When the Developer built Orchid Cove he put in one line for irrigation and fire line it is not two separate lines. Chief McLaughlin — Yes, the hydrants are on the domestic feed. Tony Davis — The CID and Hole Montes said they should separate it. Because they can't separate the hydrant water from the irrigation water CID does not handle irrigation water. Chief McLaughlin —Then they are yellow if they are on domestic water. Tony Davis — It should be non - potable if it is irrigation water. Chief McLaughlin — But they are on the domestic line. Tony Davis — According to the CID the water is reused water for only irrigation and fire hydrants only not drinking water. Page 7 1612 !'A25 Chief McLaughlin — Your drinking water has to have a back flow coming in to. Tony Davis — According to them the irrigation and hydrant water is what comes to that big red pipe that's out there by the mail box. Since both irrigation and fire hydrant water comes in the one line there is no way to separate the two. Chief McLaughlin — If it is a reuse line where is your domestic water coming in? Tony Davis — It comes in from another source. Chief McLaughlin — I want to see the prints from Hole Montes before anyone does anything. I want to find out what the as builts were and where they were put in the ground. If that is a reuse line then it is not yours if it is a domestic line then it is yours. Tony Davis —The irrigation and Fire hydrant water comes through that one red pipe which one line is feeding both. That's why they didn't want to paint the fire hydrants because it is one line we can't separate the water usage from irrigation to fire hydrants so we have to leave that in your lap and you paint the fire hydrants. Chief McLaughlin — It makes no difference they didn't separate anywhere else at the Port in fact they took the separate line out and combined them then made a separate domestic line in. They have already done that at the rest of the Port on both sides so if it is a reuse line it is theirs. Tony Davis — The developer put them in they are trying to get the CID to take them over our utilities but they don't want to paint the fire hydrants because they can't separate that they don't cover the irrigation. Captain Morris — Are they charging you for irrigation water? Are they measuring it? Tony Davis — Yes. Chief McLaughlin — So that tells me the hydrants are on a domestic feed not on potable water. Tony Davis — If you come out and run the hydrants they will bill us for that water. Chief McLaughlin — If they are billing you for it they own it they own the system they own the hydrants they have to paint them. He is going to call Hole Montes to get the as built information regarding the water lines. Other than a fire the only time we would use them would be for a flow test or to flush them once a year. Page 8 � ! i 161 2 A25 Tony Davis — Anytime the hydrants are used we have to pay for the water that would include any fires because it is coming through one water line. Chief McLaughlin — How are you getting domestic water there must be another line. Ron Gilbert — There has got to be a separate line. Captain Morris —There must be a meter by the back flow preventer. Chief McLaughlin — There has to be two back flows out there should be a blue one and a red one. Tony Davis — He was told per County Code they did not need a back flow on the preventer they are talking about cutting it out of there. Ron Gilbert — He thinks all the hydrants on the south side of Port of the Islands are powered by reusable water that somebody pays for. Chief McLaughlin —All the hydrants now are on reuse. Ron Gilbert — Our irrigation is reuse water and our association pays a water bill each month to Port of the Islands. I think those fire hydrants are on the same layout. Chief McLaughlin —All of them are. Ron Gilbert — Any water you take out of those fire hydrants some one pays for it. Chief McLaughlin — We should be able to contact them to let them know when we are flowing hydrants so it doesn't go on their bill. Ron Gilbert — Five minutes is not a problem but a major fire could be a size able bill. He thinks the potable water is coming across Union road directly into the back of the building. Tony Davis — Wouldn't there be something above ground to show where the line is. Ron Gilbert — We'll go look. Chief McLaughlin — There usually is it could be green or blue. Tony Davis —There is nothing on the back side of Orchid Cove. Page 9 161 2 A25 Ron Gilbert — It would be logical to bring the potable water in on the north side along Union Road but the reuse water line was already coming down US 41. Chief McLaughlin — We'll have an answer for you the next meeting. The back flow preventer was put on that line because it is a fire line but if it is a reuse and a back flow then that is another issue. Because most fire line are on potable water. Tony Davis — They are talking about cutting and plugging the preventer but they may not be able to do that. Chief McLaughlin — It might be cheaper just for them to leave it alone because if they put a bypass pipe in it has to be the same size. We haven't heard anything new on 1 -75 yet. We know the bill went into the State Congress and was imbedded in another bill that was lengthy. It got through the House of Representatives and went to the senate. He believes by the next meeting he will have an answer. So it is a lot closer than it used to be. We asked for a 3.2 million start up with a 1.2 million annual to keep it running. If this gets approved it will take the impact of costs responding to 1 -75 out of the District budget it will be self funded. We created some new inspection forms other than that we have just been working on the budget. We still haven't signed the contract the County Attorney apologized he is still waiting to hear back how we are going to pay people per FLSA. He thinks they finally have it resolved they have been working on it since December. The meeting adjourned at 7PM. Ronald Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 10 161 A25 THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING HELD ON JUNE 13, 2011 In attendance were the following: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Caleb Morris, Captain Linda Swisher, Administrative Secretary Ron Gilbert, Chairman, Port of the Islands James Simmons, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member Tony Davis, Port of the Islands Advisory Board Member Q No] JUL:i 22011 BY:....................... Also at the meeting were Commissioner Coletta, Dan Summers, Bureau of Emergency Services and FF Lee Kidder Union Representative for Ochopee Fire Control District personnel. In addition there were interested citizens present as well. The meeting came to order at 6:04PM and roll call was taken. Commissioner Coletta submitted a CD with his power point presentation regarding the 1 -75 /Everglades Interchange to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board for their review. He was seeking support from the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board regarding this project. Note: The equipment necessary for Commissioner Coletta's power point presentation were not present at the meeting so the next day the CD was down loaded and e- mailed to all the board members for their review. 1 -75 STATION: Commissioner Coletta — For seven years he has been working on the 1 -75 Fire Station by meeting with State Senators. He wanted the toll money to go towards the Station on 1 -75 and even spoke to the Governor regarding this matter. There has been a lobbyist staying on top of this issue as well. The bill for the toll monies went through the senate and then the house. It took a lot of cooperation to get the bill passed and signed by the Governor. As of now the 1 -75 station will be at the 63 mile marker we are working in partner with DOT and the financial Office in Tallahassee. The toll fees will be deposited in a State Trust Fund to develop a Fire Station at the 63 Mile Marker on 1 -75 for Fire /Rescue /Emergency Services. Dan Summers — Drafted a letter to send to the Turnpike Administration and District I Secretary regarding the 1 -75 Station. Page 1 j% Fiala —✓ Hiller Henning Coyle f Coletta Misc. Cones: paW: g1►31� I Item f. 1 UX2%Q1"2..5 c zmjes to: 161 2 A'25 ' 0 Commissioner Coletta? — The Fire Department will not have to respond to 1 -75 from the District and it will be funded at a higher level of protection this will make up for the high millage. A portion of the "in lieu of tax" in the amount of $140,000 will be transferred from the General Fund. Properties have depreciated greatly in the area and the millage rate is already high. Chief McLaughlin — The depreciation was 29% last year and it is 6.8% this year. 1 -75 AND THE EVERGLADES INTERCHANGE: Commissioner Coletta — Everglades Blvd goes over 1 -75 there is park land in the area so environmentalist are worried about possible land development in the estates area if the interchange is put in. The interchange would allow for better Fire and EMS services for the residents of the area right now there is. not enough access especially in the event of a bad fire. He went before Golden Gate Fire District's Board in regards to the interchange and they endorsed it through a letter. He is seeking Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board's endorsement for the interchange through a letter. A letter of endorsement was in the presentation for the Chairman's signature should they choose to do so. We do not have the ability to counter the environmentalist with mitigation. The environmentalist say there is nothing left to mitigate. He is seeking support letters from all the Fire Department Boards and EMS' Board. Audience Question for Commissioner Coletta —What about next year's budget will it be whole? Commissioner Coletta — He wants to get the money from Pilt into the Ochopee Budget via a formula where it would come in each year. Audience Question for Commissioner Coletta — Will the Station at the 63 Mile Marker respond beyond SR 29. Commissioner Coletta — There are Interlocal agreements Ochopee Fire Control District personnel could work anywhere. Chief McLaughlin — Our District covers up to the 83 Mile Marker and Golden Gate Fire District covers to the 83 Mile Marker. Broward County covers the Eastern end of 1 -75 but Ochopee Fire Control District covers 71% of 1 -75. The station at the 63 Mile Marker will respond in both directions to the west side of the Golden Gate Fire District and to Broward on the east for large incidents we would call in other Departments for assistance. The station will be located at the 63 Mile Marker it will be fully funded it will also facilitate leaving Ochopee Fire Control District Personnel and apparatus in District. Page 2 1612 A25 Dan Summers — We have three goals one to provide proper relief to Ochopee Fire Control District, Everglades City and Port of the Islands. Second absolute trauma care and financial impact substituted by a fully burdened budget to cover the Station. He has a project write up and to relieve the burden more man power is to be requested immediately to soften the budget burden it will not be fast it is at the mercy of the toll authorities. Audience Question — The new people what Department will they be part of? Dan Summers — The will be Ochopee Fire Control District Employees and Chief Alan McLaughlin will be running the Station. FF Lee Kidder -- The engine will it be a victim relocate or will there be transport out at the Station. Chief McLaughlin — We have a rescue plan we have an EMS component and a water tender component. Dan Summers —This is still under evaluation and he would like to gel with the union on it. FF Lee Kidder — Will Ochopee take care of the medical? Dan Summers — It is in Ochopee Fire Control's District. We are reassessing EMS needs and SOP has to be developed. Chief McLaughlin — He has some concept vehicle ideas. Audience Question — The $143,000 in Pilt money that is going to come to Ochopee is that going to relate to the amount of money we have to spend? Commissioner Coletta — It comes right to general fund he wants to have it sent directly to the Ochopee Fire Control District Budget it won't cover all the expenses. Audience Question — Will the Port of the Island Station be finished? Can we learn from Broward County by what they are doing on the Alley? Dan Summers — Broward County's station was totally paid for through their funding. We are still working on the Port of the Islands Station. We have tried for three or four grants to renovate Station 61. We have paid for the site plans and engineering we are back to dollars. We will continue to look for funding regarding the Port of the Islands Station. Page 3 1612 W25 i Audience Question —The cost to build a new station instead of renovate. Chief McLaughlin — It will cost $471,000 to renovate and 1.4 to 1.8 million to put up a new building. Dan Summers — We are working with Federal lobbying as well in regards to the Port of the Islands station. Chief McLaughlin — Pilt Funding was transferred to the Ochopee budget up to 2005. In 2008 he asked the budget Department about the funds. Per the State of Florida the funds never had to be given to us but there was an agreement made that EMS receive the highway dollars and Ochopee would receive the Pilt funds. There are two letters in our files stating this information. FF Lee Kidder — We respond to 100% of the calls on the Alley. Commissioner Coletta — It is the Commissioners choice where it goes. He asked FF Kidder if he is interested in finding out how these funds work in other areas of Florida. Audience Question — What if 1 -75 goes to a private Company? Commissioner Coletta — That market fell apart but if they did we would have to contract with somebody for services. Audience Question — Mitigation trade some under passes for the Everglades Exchange. Commissioner Coletta — He hopes the Ochopee Advisory Board will commit to his drafted letter. Ron Gilbert --The Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board said they would. Commissioner Coletta's presentation ended and he left the meeting. APPROVAL OF MAY 9, 2011 MINUTES: The minutes were approved and signed. OLD BUSINESS: District I Proposal: Chief McLaughlin — Dan Summers, Emilio Rodriguez and I met with the County Manager regarding District I. He was given a presentation regarding District I and then discussed the options. Page 4 1612 Af-5 Dan Summers — District I is still under review. Ron Gilbert — He made a suggestion to Google Ochopee Fire District and information regarding the District will come up. Chief McLaughlin — Only 15% of District I is taxable. Orchid Cove Fire Hydrants: Chief McLaughlin —The hydrants are on refuse water they have been painted by Ochopee Fire Control District and now they are all in compliance. Update on Water Tender: Chief McLaughlin — The pre -build was done last Wednesday and Thursday the Chassis inspection should take place around September or October 2011 and we should take delivery of the vehicle late November early December 2011. Pleasure Island Stand Pipe: Chief McLaughlin — We have been working for several years with the City of Everglades to try and fix the Pleasure Island system. The Department bought the proper assembly and fire hydrant for their system so the problem was fixed at Pleasure Island. Ron Gilbert — He asked about the water line was there a temporary line at Orchid Cove. Chief McLaughlin —The other line is potable water. Tony Davis — Is the hydrant on Swan Drive by the vacant lot a violation its broken? The developer owns it they put it in but they are long gone. The hydrant is not close to any buildings. Chief McLaughlin — We'll have to take a look at it. FF Lee Kidder —It has been reported as damaged. Captain Morris — I will look at it after the meeting. Page 5 0 1612 A25 " NEW BUSINESS: Move Up Fuel Savings: Chief McLaughlin — He stopped the move ups from Station 61 to Station 60 that averaged out to $348 a month in fuel. FEMA AFG: Chief McLaughlin — The Grant should open late June there are several changes it is a very comprehensive package. You can apply for three or four different projects. We would pay out 5% our side of the grant to purchase equipment. The Chairman Ron Gilbert requested that the CD Commissioner Coletta left to be down loaded and e- mailed to all the board members for their review. The meeting adjourned at 7:05PM. r �t Ron Gilbert, Chairman Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Page 6 16 2 A26 October 20, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECEIVED Naples, Florida, October 20, 2010 RE E 10 2011 Board of County Commissioners 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: Fiala ✓ Hiller ' Henning HAIRMAN: Coyle VICE CHAIR: Coletta John P. Ribes Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Phil Brougham Kerry Geroy (Absent) David Saletko William Shafer (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Kerry Runyon, Regional Manager III Nancy Olson, Regional Manager I Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinator Tona Nelson, Administrative Assistant Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager II Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor Ray Coriano, Parks and Recreation Jack Wert, Tourism Development Director Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Mgmt. Director Meryl Rorer, Parks and Recreation Misc. Corns: Gary Stieg, Parks and Recreation Date: 11--t``,A� Item C.-Pies to: 161 2 A26 October 20, 2010 I. Call to Order Edward "Ski" Olesky called the meeting to order at 2:03 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 Agenda as submitted Second by Phil Brougham. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Approval of September 15, 2010 Minutes Phil Brougham moved to approve the September 15, 2010 Minutes as submitted. Second by David Saletko. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. New Business a. Employee of the Month for August and September Sidney Kittila announced the Employee of the Month for August and September 2010. Edward "Ski" Olesky commended and presented the following outstanding individuals with the "Employee of the Month" award. ➢ August — Peg Ruby — Marketing, Project Star and Fund Raising ➢ September — Ray Coriano — Specialty Field, BMX Races b. Recommendation and Approval for the International Festival to Sell Alcohol at Sugden Park Jim Gaitens, a representative for the International Festival, requested approval to sell alcohol at the 2 "d International Festival at Sugden Park sponsored by St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church on February 26 and 27. He stated last year the event attracted over 5,000 visitors and they did not have any problems with the selling of alcohol. A Sheriff Deputy was on site. He distributed an article written by Lance Shearer, Daily News Correspondent — International Festival in Naples Celebrates Cultural Diversity. (See attached) It was noted the sale of alcohol at the parks would be limited to beer. Barbara Buehler moved to recommend the sale of alcohol at the International Festival held at Sugden Park on February 26 and 27 subject to normal conditions and supervised by Parks and Recreation. Second by Phil Brougham. Motion carried 4 -0. It was further noted the Advisory Boards recommendation would be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval. c. Recommendation and Approval for Tigertail Concessionaire to Sell Alcohol at Tigertail Beach 2 161 2 A26 0 October 20, 2010 Tony Smith, Concessionaire for 23- years, requested approval to sell beer and wine with lunch and for sunsets. He stated the nearest hotel is approximately 1.5- miles away. Visitors often cancel orders because the beer sale is not an option. The Advisory Board asked many questions and expressed many concerns. Some concerns were: • Setting a president • Liabilities • Quality of the beach • Accidents • Disorderly conduct • Concessionaire training for serving alcohol. It was noted the County receives 12% of every dollar from concession sales. David Saletko suggested events be held on the beach (Volleyball Tournaments) to attract more visitors with possible additional income from concessions. He was not in favor of alcohol sales in the park. Phil Brougham moved to direct Staff to provide historical data on sales before and after the sale of beer and wine approval, a record of any complaints or disruptions at Clam Pass and input from the Purchasing Department regarding the sale alcohol. Second by David Saletko. Discussion was ensued regarding the sale of alcohol on park premises. The Advisory Board had different opinions and decided historical data would assist them in making a recommendation. Motion carried 4 -0. d. Standards for Background checks for Volunteers Meryl Rorer distributed and reviewed Volunteer Standards. The purpose is to provide guidelines for the application and screening process of volunteers. (See attached) She distributed Volunteer T- shirts to the Advisory Board who are a part of the volunteer base. Last year Parks and Recreation had 648 volunteers who worked 47,200 hours which equates to saving the County $760,000. It was noted the State of Florida passed a law as of July Is' requiring any one who volunteers to coach sports have criminal background checks. The cost for background checks are normally $70. The County has a contract with Southeast Security Criminal Investigation to provide a complete criminal background check for $18.50 each. Volunteers who have passed the criminal background check will wear identification badges. Meryl Rorer stated 135- Volunteers have been screened. 4- Volunteers were found guilty of an offense. 1 out of 135- Volunteers will not'be allowed to coach. Barry Williams recommended the Advisory Board endorse the recommendation for Volunteer Standards as presented by National Parks and Recreation 161 A26 October 20, 2010 Association (NPRA.) The Consultants recommended not altering the guidelines. He reviewed the Misdemeanors Recommended Criteria as follows: • All misdemeanor violence offenses within the past 7- years. • All misdemeanor drug & alcohol offenses within the past 5 -years or multiple offenses in the past 10- years. • Ay other misdemeanor within the past 5 -years that would be considered a potential danger to children or is directly related to the functions of that volunteer. Barry Williams noted if a Coach had 1 offense in the last 5- years, that person would not be allowed to coach until that Coach had "0" offenses in the last 5- years. Some communities have adopted multiple offenses in a 10 -year period versus 1 in a 5 -year period. Gary Stieg urged the Advisory Board to take in to consideration that a DUI is not dangerous to kids. He stated one of the Coaches, who coached for several years, is now being penalized due to the misdemeanor by not being allowed to continue coaching. Barry Williams stated the NPRA Volunteer Standards are very fair and high level of coaching in youth sports is desired. Staff reiterated the Staff recommendation is to adopt the Volunteer Standards as presented. Discussion was made on the number of DUIs recommended and reasons to modify or not to modify. John Ribes arrived at 2:52 pm Phil Brougham moved to recommend adoption of Volunteer Standards as presented. No second was made. Edward "Ski" Olesky moved to recommend adoption of the Volunteer Standards with an exception to 2 -DUIs in a S year period. Annie Alvarez stated Parks and Recreation have a commitment to parents too. Coaches have responsibilities to the kids especially when mentoring. Collier County Parks and Recreation is an Accredited Agency through NRA and required to meet recommended state guidelines. It was noted criminal background checks are required annually. Second by Phil Brougham. Motion not carried. 3 -2, Barbara Buehler and David Saletko opposed. e. Bluebill Road Beach Access Improvements — Discussed after VI. a. VI. Old Business M 1612A 26 October 20, 2010 a. Long Term Options for Tourism Development Council (TDC) Funding Jack Wert gave a slide presentation on The Need for Funding Year - Round. (See attached) The Board of County Commissioners requested Staff return to funding sources and reviewed: • The current Collier Tourist Tax Structure. • How Collier marketing compare to other destinations. • Possible reallocation of TDT uses to support year -round destination marketing. • How tourism benefits our Community. • July, August and September tourism was down due to oil spill. • Current tourist tax allocations. Reserve capped at $1.5 million. • Current Reserve is at $400,000 due to using funds on oil spill not yet replenished by Federal Funding. • Current funding per TDT Category based on $12 million - ➢ Cat. A — Beach & Beach Park Facilities $6,000,000 ➢ Cat. B — Marketing, Administration, Emergency Advertising Reserves $4,400,000 ➢ Cat. Cl- Museum Operations $1,300,000 ➢ Cat. C2- Non - County Museum Grants $ 300,000 Jack Wert reviewed Marketing Budget Comparisons at $2, $3, $4 and $5 million. He stated $5 million is what is needed to compete with other destinations. He reviewed and compared Tourist Tax Comparisons, Total Tourist Tax Collections, Marketing Budget per Lodging Unit, Advertising & Promotion Budgets and Beach Project Budgets with other Florida destinations. He asked the Advisory Board if they agreed Collier County needs to promote to visitors year - round. The Advisory Board formed a consensus there is a need for year -round destination marketing. Jack Wert reviewed possible solutions "What Options are Available ?" as follows: ➢ Category A Reduce percentage or allocations to Beach Renourishment, to Beach Park Facilities and replace with General Fund or Parking Revenues. ➢ Category B Little can be done to free up more funds for marketing. ➢ Category C 1 Reduce Operating Funds Allocation over 3 years and replace with General Funds and /or Admissions Fees. ➢ Category C2 Reduce Grant Funding and replace with co -op advertising. Phil Brougham suggested TDC find ways and means to raise money by holding large events. He also suggested TDC partnership with national organizations on Marco Island and charge admission costs. 16 i 26 October 20, 2010 Barry Williams expressed concern regarding "What Options are Available — Category A - Beach Park Facilities and replace with General Fund or Parking Revenues. He stated Parks and Recreation uses the (parking fee of $8 per day) revenues to offset Operating Expenses for a limited number of Staff. He stated non - residents are charged a parking fee. Residents are not charged a parking fee because it was considered to be a part of property taxes. He suggested considering charging residents and use as an alternate funding source. He urged the Advisory Board make the reaffirmation with the exception to not use Beach Park Facilities Operating Expenses for Capital Improvement. b. TDC Funding Options Gary McAlpin stated Funding Options are about reallocation of funds. Visitors come to Collier County for the "Beach Experience." He noted Collier County does not receive Federal Funding and are not working off a 50 -year Grant. In August 2010, the Advisory Board approved $1 million as a one -time occurrence. Jack Wert introduced Steve McIntyre, a representative of Alliance Hotels, to give a business community point -of -view. Steve McIntyre reported the hotels generate all the revenue. Revenues went up from 2009 to 2010 in the amount of $65,000. He stated 1 -penny in additional taxes will create a negative effect on all hotels and hotels hosting special events. He stated when groups call to book hotel facilities for special events, the groups look for the best deal. Hotels do not want the additional penny tax. Gary McAlpin asked the Advisory Board for reaffirmation of the motions made at the August meeting and to develop a Resolution to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners Workshop on November 1, 2010. Phil Brougham moved the Advisory Board reaffirm the 4 motions made at the August meeting with the exception the Advisory Board objects to the option under Category A in regards to reducing percentage or allocations to Beach Park Facilities and replacing with General Fund or Parking Revenues and to direct Parks and Recreation Staff to develop a Resolution that expresses the Advisory Boards concerns, to address the 4- motions and give the Chair authorization to sign the Resolution to be submitted on November P to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 5-0. V. Old Business e. Bluebill Road Beach Access Improvements Gary McAlpin distributed and reviewed the Moraya Bay Beach Tower- Blue Beach Access turnaround aerial photograph. He reported the following: • Partnered Project with Moraya Beach. • Expanded parking from 45 spaces to 95 spaces. • Includes a drop -off for beach access, 3- handicap ramps, restrooms and shuttle. D 161 �12 A26 October 20, 2010 ■ Elevated turnaround to be installed will address congestion problems, keep traffic moving and provide access to park. Phil Brougham left at 3: 58 pm • Project is in Conceptual Stages. • A public meeting will be held in November for public input. • Funding will come from Moraya Bay and TDC. • Permits will be in place by January 1, 2011. • Construction will begin in May, 2011. Phil Brougham returned at 4:02 pm Phil Brougham moved to approve the Conceptual Design. Second by David Saletko. Motion carried 5-0. VI. New Business c. Promotional Issues Utilizing Athletic Fields Barry Williams addressed a suggestion made by David Saletko on field rental promotions. (Example - rent field 10 times and get one free) He sited Resolution No. 2010 -201 establishes Outdoor Areas License and Fee Policy. This Policy supersedes and replaced the Policy as established in Resolution No. 2010 -25. Barry Williams stated the Resolution allows the Parks and Recreation Director to modify fees on a case by case basis. He distributed a chart reflecting the % of Hours Athletic Field Are in Use. (See attached) He stated Athletic Fields are currently at 84.3% Usage and could not justify modifying fees to add more usage on fields. VII. Marketing Highlights — Halloween Events Peg Ruby passed out Halloween Treats to the Advisory Board and reported the following: Y Halloween Events scheduled to be held from October 22 -30 at Collier Parks. (See attached) ➢ Fall Festival scheduled to be held at Eagle Lakes Community Park from October 28 -31 featuring carnival rides, interactive games and refreshments. Proceeds will benefit Project Star. ➢ 25th Annual Snow Fest scheduled to be held at Golden Gate Community Park on Santa Barbara on December 4 from 10 AM — 5 PM. VIII. Recreation Highlights — BMX Races Ray Coriano and Annie Alvarez gave a slide presentation on Bicycle Moto Cross (BMX) Program. Ray Coriano reported the following: • Golden Gate Community Center's (GGCC) Track is sanctioned by the National Bicycle League. • BMX Track adheres to all State of Florida governing rules. 7 6 1 Q 2 6 October 20, 2010 • Sunshine State BMX selects tracks for all State events. • GGCC track was selected to hold the Summer Series Event held on September 25 and 26. • The Summer Series Event attracted 250 riders from around the State of Florida. • Professional Mike Keppes volunteered to hold a BMX Rider Clinic. • Impact includes - a sense of pride to local riders, increase in Local and County revenues, increases GGCC BMX Track an opportunity for the State Season Series nomination. • State Season Series Event will attract 500 — 700 riders. Ray Coriano reported the track is well maintained and modifications are made to make the jumps bigger. Staff proudly announced the GGCC BMX Summer Series Event had not received any write -ups from the State. Annie Alvarez reported purchasing 2 -tents to provide a better staging area for BMX events. IX. Adopt A Park — None. X. Director's Highlights Barry Williams thanked the Advisory Board for attending the Master Plan Workshop. Staff stated recommendations on the Master Plan will be submitted to the Advisory Board in January. The Master Plan is due at the Board of County Commissioners in December. Staff anticipates submitting the Master Plan to the Board of County Commissioners in February 2011. He announced the Board of County Commissioners approved the increase of Boat Launch Fees to $8 effective November 1, 2010. He reported being approached by Diana Worrall, PHD at the Master Plan Workshop. She volunteered to serve on a Parks and Recreation Subcommittee to address ADA Standard issues and to report to the Advisory Board periodically. He distributed Diana Worrall's resume for the Board's review. (See attached) Barry Williams suggested using her expertise in ADA Compliance and to expand disabilities programs. He requested feedback or suggestions on the concept from the Board. Staff will contact the County Attorney's office on whether the subcommittee concept is practical. Barry Williams recognized a Staff member who quickly responded to an emergency and saved a man's life who was playing basketball. He was suffering a heart attack. When Staff revived him, he did not know where he was. The man telephoned Parks and Recreation to express his gratitude to the Staff. XI. Informational Items — None. 16 if2 A?6 October 20, 2010 XII. Public CommentsBoard Member Comments Public Bob Buchan expressed the desire to address the Advisory Board with a power point presentation at the next meeting. Phil Brougham expressed concern on some member attendance records and the possibility of not having a quorum. He requested William Shafer's attendance be addressed. Barry Williams stated attendance records are kept and there is a policy in place. John Ribes stated the Attendance Policy should be implemented. Barry Williams stated Kerry Geroy telephoned to express concerns on not being able to continue serving on the Board. David Saletko reported an exposed piece of aluminum on player's bench, located on the southeast field at the Santa Barbara Community Park and the North Collier Park scoreboards not working. Staff responded they will investigate the exposed piece of aluminum on player's bench and investigate why the remote devices are not working. Barbara Buehler commented on the Master Plan Workshop being great and very informative. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD v Chai an John Ribes These Minutes were approved by the Committee/Board on • �'i • O , as presented % or as amended 16 !t A26 Decembei -), w lU MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECEIVED Naples, Florida, December 15, 2010 JUN 10 2011 Board of County Commissioners 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: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta John P. Ribes Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Phil Brougham Kerry Geroy David Saletko ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Sidney Kittila, Operations CoordinatoMisc. Corres: Tona Nelson, Administrative Assistar� ate: `1113l► t Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager II Item #: ±c: 1 � 2 26 161 December 15, 2010 I. Call to Order Edward "Ski" Olesky 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 Phil Brougham moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. Approval of November 15, 2010 Minutes XII. — I" sentence should read "batting nets " Edward "Ski" Olesky moved to approve the November 15, 2010 Minutes as a amended. Second by Phil Brougham. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. New Business a. Employee of the Month Staff will make recommendations for the "Employee of the Month" for November and December 2010 at the January 19, 2011 meeting. b. Interview Applicants — Board Members The Advisory Board received applications and interviewed the following candidates for seats currently held by Edward "Ski" Olesky, Phil Brougham and seat recently vacated by William Shafer: (See attached) • Phil Brougham • Gary McNally — New Applicant • Lenice DeLuca — New Applicant John Ribes arrived at 2:15 pm Diane Worrall, PH. D. — New Applicant Gary Davis — New Applicant Edward "Ski" Olesky Each Applicant gave a brief summary on their education, experience, community activities and groups associated with. The Advisory Board Members asked the new applicants questions. Staff distributed paper ballots to Advisory Board Members. (See attached) John Ribes informed the applicants of the voting and recommendation procedures to the BCC. He directed the Board to vote. Tona Nelson collected the ballots and left the meeting. Ballots will be tallied and Advisory Board recommendations were announced after VIII. 2 16 h2' A26 December 15, �-u 10 VI. Old Business Barry Williams stated Jennifer Robertson, Florida Department of Health, Regional Coordinator sponsored a successful "Tobacco Free" event with volunteer high school students at the Golden Gate Community Center, where they picked up cigarette butts off the grounds. Jennifer took pictures to document event. He said he would forward the pictures to the Board. • Advisory Board open to limited smoking in certain areas. • Staff is reviewing Ordinances and will make recommendations for areas to be designated as Tobacco Free. • Staff recommended Jennifer Robertson work with the Advisory Board. • FDOH plan to hold a future "Tobacco Free" event at Veterans Park. Discussion was made on limiting smoking to designated areas, City of Naples struggling with banding smoking on beaches, Florida State Laws and enforcement of Ordinance. VII. Marketing Highlights Annie Alvarez distributed some Season Greetings bags to the Advisory Board and informational flyers on upcoming events. VIII. Recreation Highlights — Christmas Events Annie Alvarez reported as follows: • "Snowfest" had a good turnout with over 12,000 visitors. • "Christmas around the World" was held in Immokalee and the parade had 126 entries and Santa came in on a helicopter. The event included a Carnival with rides. • "Breakfast with Santa" held at Golden Gate Community Center attracted 450 children. Christmas Events scheduled at Eagle Lakes and Max Hasse and both had successful turnouts. V. New Business - Continued b. Interview Applicants John Ribes announced the ballot results. The Advisory Board recommended the following applicants be submitted to the BCC for approval: - Edward "Ski" Olesky - Phil Brougham - Lenice DeLuca Barbara Buehler moved to recommend Edward "Ski" Olesky, Phil Brougham and Lenice DeLuca applications be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Second by David Saletko. Motion carried unanimously 6 -0. He thanked the applicants for their time and interest. He urged them to reapply in the future. IX. Adopt A Park — None. 3 1 b I' A 26 December 15, 2010 X. Director's Highlights Barry Williams reported speaking with Bill Shafer. Bill Shafer said he had been hospitalized for a couple of months. Ian Mitchel recommended going forward with accepting his resignation due to attendance. Barry Williams noted P &R was going forward with the recommendation to sell beer and wine at the International Festival to be held at Sugden Park. The Ordinance in place authorizes the Director to make that type decisions. The Nancy Olson is working with County Attorney's office on crafting policies and resolutions to submit to the BCC in January. It will authorize the County Manager as designee to make those decisions. He suggested the Advisory Board help make decisions on future requests to sell alcohol in County Parks to responsible petitioner(s), the event is appropriate, security in place and liability. John Ribes suggested Staff screen petitioners to make sure they meet the criteria in the developed Resolution and Specific Guidelines. Staff responded the petitioner would have to demonstrate they meet requirements before being directed to the Advisory Board. Barry Williams reported an Executive Summary came down from the BCC on Preserve Ordinance and to incorporate Conservation Collier's use. It was noted Conservation Collier is part of Facilities Management. Conservation Collier has been purchasing land for several years and had acquired over 3500 acres. Facilities Management lacks the ability to manage lands. P &R may become the manager of the preserve lands in 2012. Many of the properties are near or adjoin with P &R properties. Conservation Collier needs to make properties accessible by public. P &R has marketing to let people know of the access, a class system, ranger programs and maintenance. It was noted there is Referendum funds for the maintenance of the conservation lands. John Ribes suggested P &R be given Conservation Collier's staff, have control of the properties and receive funds. He stated it was a good idea for P &R attain that position; for recognition and leverage when addressing the BCC as long is not a total drain on P &R. Barry Williams stated the City of Naples was holding a Workshop between the City and County to discuss funding for the City parks. According to the City, a large percentage of City park usage is by non -city residence. The County currently pays the City $lmil for receptacle parking per year. $500,000 is paid directly from P &R and $500,000 from a general fund budget item. City states $1 mil is not sufficient. County has an existing contract with the City that includes an index clause. The potential meeting date is January 26. It was noted there has been talk of making a Countywide Districts for Parks. 2 F A2-6 161 December 15, 2010 Edward "Ski" Olesky moved Collier County Parks and Recreation take over all the City's parks plus keep the current parks. Second by Phil Brougham. Discussion ensued on the unknown factors, i.e. staffing, number of parks, practicability, possibility and costs. Barry Williams suggested he confirm with senior management on the Advisory Boards desires and bring back recommendations to the Advisory Board before the Workshop in January. Kerry Geroy stated she could not support the motion due to unanswered concerns. Motion carried 3 -2. Barbara Buehler and Kerry Geroy opposed. John Ribes encouraged the Staff to provide additional information to help change the Advisory Boards stance. XI. Informational Items — Read only XII. Public Comments/Board Member Comments Barry Williams read a letter out loud from Susan Cone, business owner who was unable to attend this meeting. (See attached) He noted Nancy Olson has been in conversations with Susan Cone and is in the process of working the issue out. Edward "Ski" Olesky moved to direct Staff to bring a report on the issue to the Advisory Board. Second by David Saletko. Motion carried unanimously 6 -0. Barbara Buehler visited the Tiger Tail Beach over the weekend. She noticed there is nothing around the concession stand in either direction. She stated there is an area to contain the alcohol from the beach and park. She suggested consideration be made to allow the sale of wine and beer at that location. Barry Williams noted the Resolution covers special permitting of alcohol and allows sanctioning to concessionaires to sell alcohol. Phil Brougham asked when the Advisory Board will receive a copy of the Draft Master Plan. Staff is scheduled to meet with Marla Ramsey on Friday. It will then go to the County Manager for review and the Consultant will present the Draft Master Plan at the January meeting. Phil Brougham requested Staff provide a copy of the 136 page document after the Public Services Administrator and County Manager review to allow the Advisory Board some time to read. Barry Williams noted this was Kerry Geroy's last meeting serving on the Advisory Board, expressed appreciation for her service and insights. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:35 PM. 5 9 r i 1612 December COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on presented or as amended 2 I 1I 15, 2010 as rm • , � A26 1 � A P n120 2611 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY $ARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOAIWECEI�/ED Fiaia �/ Hiller Naples, Florida, April 20, 2011 JUN 1 0 2011 Henning Board of County Commissioners Coyle :::ietta iz 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: CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes (Excused) VICE CHAIR: Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Phil Brougham Gary Davis David Saletko Murdo Smith ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinatbrc. Corres: Nancy Olson, Regional Manager' Date: `i1 t 3h t Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager Shari Ferguson, Regional Manager Item #: = 2 *4 2 (, Rick Garby, Maintenance SupervisoEv pies to: Gary Kessler, Parks and Recreation Ed Torroni, Athletics Supervisor Tona Nelson, Sr. Administrative Assistant 1 16 12 ^P�A� 6 I. Call to Order Phil Brougham called the meeting to order at 2:02 PM. A quorum was established. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. III. Approval of Agenda Add. V. a. Employee of the Month for March XII. a. Naples Elks - Youth Activities XII. b. Recycling in the Parks Move: XII. Public Comments /Board Comments After V. Gary Davis moved to approve the April 20, 2011 Agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 5 -0. Edward "Ski " Olesky arrived at 2:05 PM. IV. Approval of March 16, 2010 Minutes Page 3, 2nd paragraph, 1" sentence should read "was passed" IX. 3rd bullet should read "Parking fee " VI. b. Staff meant to say "swamp buggy parade" IX 7th bullet correct spelling to "Naples Grande " Phil Brougham moved to approve the March 16, 2011 Minutes as amended. Second by Murdo Smith. Motion carried 6 -0. V. New Business a. Employee of the Month for March Sidney Kittila announced Gary Kessler as the Employee of the Month for March, 2011. He was recognized for going above and beyond in his responsibilities and was presented the "Employee of the Month" award. b. Coastal Zone Management Park Related Projects Gary McAlpin presented and reviewed the Executive Summary for 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. (See attached) He addressed many questions asked by the Advisory Board. He noted the Coastal Advisory Committee voted against the approval of $29,729 for design alternative studies. He asked the Advisory Board for their recommendation. Phil Brougham moved not to approve $29,729 to restudy something that has been studied to death. Second by Gary Davis. Motion carried 5 -1. Murdo Smith opposed. 2 April 20, 2011 Gary McAlpin presented and reviewed the 5 -10 Year TDC Category "A" 183 Fund for major new facilities. (See attached) � � � FY 2011112 I 2 ff6 • Barefoot Entrance Sign - $20,000 • Barefoot Toll Booth Replacement - $150,000 • Barefoot Toll Booth Chemical Toilet - $40,000 • Barefoot Engineering and Permit - $25,000 • Barefoot Tiki Roof Repair - $20,000 • Barefoot ADA Ramp Rework - $20,000 • Barefoot Beach Park Improvements - $150,000 • Conner Park Shelter and Bathroom - $50,000 • New Calm Bay Facility Turnaround and Parking Lot Rework - $500,000 Seagate Access Bathroom - $50,000 FY 2012113 • Cocohatchee Parking Improvements - $1,000,000 • Conner Park Shelter and Bathroom - $1,000,000 • Seagate Access Bathroom - $950,000 • Marco Beach Bathroom & Access Improvements - $900,000 • Tigertail Bird Observation Platform - $50,000 FY 2013114 • Barefoot Back Bay Pier - $750,000 • Bathroom Rebuilds - $500,000 • Tigertail Bird Observation Platform - $350,000 FY 2014115 • Gulfshore Beach Access - $1,500,000 FY 2015116 • Bathroom Rebuilds - $500,000 The source of funds for projects above is Category "A" Tourist Development Tax dollars. He addressed many questions asked by the Advisory Board and explained the process to nominate projects. It was noted funds would need to be appropriated and available prior to expediting the Clam Pass Shelter. Phil Brougham moved to recommend the approval of TDC Category "A" 183 Fund 5 -10 Year Budget. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 6 -0. Gary McAlpin reviewed the Executive Summary to recommend the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board approval of Category "A" Tourist Development Fund 3 A26 1 6 I Apri 20, 20 11 183 Grant Applications for Beach Park Facilities FY 2011/2012 in the amount of $1,025,000. (See attached) Phil Brougham moved to recommend approval of TDC Category "A" Grant Applications for Beach Park Facilities in the amount of $1,025,000. Second by David Saletko. Gary McAlpin addressed many questions asked by the Advisory Board. Motion carried 6 -0. c. Collier County Airport Authority Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Barry Williams provided the existing MOU between the BCC and the CC Airport Authority in regards to the airport viewing park in Immokalee for the Advisory Board to review. It was noted the existing MOU was made under the previous Airport Authority Director. The current Airport Authority Director expressed concerns on agreement was inconsistent with the guidance that he was getting from the FAA about use of airport property. The CRA and PAR, in a joint effort made capital improvements of $190,000 on the 7 acre park under a valid agreement with the Airport Authority for this land to be used for major community events. Collier County wants to be able to use this space. Discussion was ensued on concerns on Airport Authority and PAR responsibilities as addressed in the MOU on maintenance, closing park and gate fees. Staff will take concerns on indemnification to the BCC and look for a provision to keep grounds maintained to a certain standard. The MOU will be brought back to the Advisory Board for their approval prior to being submitted to the BCC. XII. Public Comments/ Board Comments Public Speakers a. Naples Elks Lodge — Youth Activities Jim Hoffman, a representative from the Naples Elk Lodge 2010 reported plans to hold a Hoop Shoot and Soccer Shoot Competition contest for boys and girls (ages 8 -16) from 90 schools. The 90 schools would determine 6 representatives for the event; the 540 children in different age groups would compete for the next level of competition and eventually a national competition. He stated the Naples Elk Lodge is looking for a large enough facility to hold both events. Dates for the events have not been set. Staff expressed interest in the program. It was determined it would be more a question of scheduling. It was noted Advisory Board approval was not required. Staff will provide contact information for Mr. Hoffinan. b. Recycling in the Parks in 1b12 A26 April 20, 2011 Todd Lappettito, a visitor and park user, voiced concern regarding the lack of recycling receptacles in the parks. He reported meeting with Barry Williams and Murdo Smith to suggest the development of a permanent economical recycle plan. He suggested doing a demographic study on the number of receptacles in each park, placing a recycle bin next to every trash receptacle, changing the lid on some unused or rarely used trash receptacles to a recycle lid; repositioning bins and using mesh baskets to encourage recycling. Barry Williams reported Staff has been working with the Director of Solid Waste on the current single stream dumpster system and disposable issues. A Regional Manager has also been working to improve recycling in the parks. Barry Williams stated additional efforts would be implemented to recycle and suggested when Todd Lappettito returns to Naples, he revisit the parks and report his findings at a future PARAB meeting. David Saletko reported and made the following comments: • He had a problem at Max Hasse Park when he parked in a designated handicapped parking spot. The Park Ranger was unaware of state handicap registration policy. He was not issued a citation. Staff responded the incident will be useda learning tool. N • At Max Hasse Park, he noticed some ball players on the east field, at 3`d base, using the fence to hit balls at. The fence is completely bowed out due to this type of abuse. He did ask the coach to have the players reframe without success. Staff thanked David Saletko for his actions to intervene the issue with the coach. Staff will notify the park manager regarding the property abuse and noted plans to replace the fence next year. He noted PAR is currently holding volunteer camp counselor classes on 5 consecutive Saturdays. He recommended holding camp counselor classes on Tuesdays or Thursday for children who are in sport programs so they may have an opportunity to participate. Staff responded they will consider holding classes on a different day next year. His team was scheduled to play ball at Veteran's Park. When he called ahead to asked a worker for the remote control he received an attitude and was told they would have to find it and send it out. No remote was ever provided. Staff responded thelwill locate the remote control. v VI. Old Business a. Dogs in the Park Update Sidney Kittila distributed and reviewed research on Lee County, Broward County and the City of Naples Ordinances allowing dogs in facilities. (See attached) 5 1bI b� pri12 0?1, S he summarized the report as follows: o All three departments allow dogs in their parks with stipulations. o Only Lee County limits access to a few locations and post signage to clean up. o All patrons are still required to abide by all Animal Laws and Animal Care Ordinances. Discussion was made on changing the Ordinance to allow dogs in the park and a suggestion was made to adopt the City of Naples dogs in the parks Ordinance and change items the Staff does not agree with. Edward "Ski" Olesky moved to direct Staff to bring back a draft Ordinance for Advisory Board consideration; patterned along the lines of the City of Naples to allow dogs in the Park Ordinance with noted exceptions that would be specific to Collier County Parks. Second by David Saletko. Motion carried 6 -0. b. Summer Transportation Agreement Shari Ferguson distributed and reviewed a Transportation Agreement with the District School Board of Collier County to obtain cost - effective and reliable transportation services for Summer Camp Program participants. She reported the following: o CC has entered into a transportation agreement with the School Board for the past 22 years. o Most campers go on one field trip each week. o 726 children registered in the full summer camp program last year. o 1562 children were enrolled as weekly registrants. • If agreement is executed, it will be effective from June 10 until August 19, 2011 • School Board will provide buses and drivers. o Rates will be calculated from the time the bus leaves the transportation barn to the time it is returned. o Revenue in the form of summer camp program participant fees is budgeted to recover the expense. o The dollar amount is the only difference in the agreement each year. Barry Williams asked for an endorsement from the Advisory Board. Phil Brougham moved to endorse the Transportation Agreement with the District School Board of Collier County. Second by Murdo Smith. Motion carried 6 -0. Phil Brougham left at 4:00 PM. VII. Turf/Irrigation Highlights Rick Garby gave a brief slide presentation on field conditions, landscape projects and general maintenance performed. Phil Brougham returned at 4:02 PM. 2 16 AAf 6 p ri 0 2011 VIII. Capital Project Highlights Tony Ruberto provided a Capital Projects Update Report dated April 5, 2011. (See attached) He reviewed the following projects: • Energy Efficiency (ARRA Funds) Projects • Gordon River Greenway Park • Pelican Bay Tennis • Port of the Isles Dry Storage • Vineyard's Park Improvements • Corkscrew Lake Road Access • Max Hasse Expansion • Margood Resort Land • Immokalee South Park Community Park • Golden Gate Community Park Bike/Path IX. Adopt A Park Barbara Buehler gave highlights on the Golden Gate Community Center Report as follows: (See attached) • 50 senior citizens participate in daily lunch programs. • The gym was recently refurbished with a new floor and new bleachers. • Playroom was repainted and converted into a meeting room. Light poles have been installed on the open field. • The back of the building has been landscaped with plans to landscape the - front of the building too. • The Center is getting ready for Summer Camp and reviewing applications for camp counselors. X. Director's Highlights Barry Williams reported the following updates: ■ Staff found another field for Cal Ripken Baseball to use for next spring season. Veterans Park field would be available Monday, Friday and Saturday. Staff has concerns on handling both leagues at the same time. ■ The Community Development Block Grant Application for an Eagle Lakes Community Center has been approved by the BCC and delivered to the Housing Development for review. A response is expected to be received in June or July. ■ Staff will approach the BCC on April 26, 2011 with a recommendation to shift funds to pay debt service for the next 5 years. ■ Over 100 people attended both Master Plan community meetings held on April 6th and April 7th to show support on Master Plan Concept. Consultants will review comments and make recommendations for review at the next meeting. ■ Staff will bring Master Plan funding recommendations to the May meeting. He announced Tona Nelson was named Collier County's Employee of the Month for the month of February 2011. 7 1612 A26 April 20, 2011 XII. Public Comments/Board Member Comments David Saletko reported the North Naples Little League is looking for sponsors and donations to help pay for needed field repairs, etc. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice Chair at 4:29 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on �' ` , as presented_ or as amended • "d 161 2 A27 RECEIVED JUN 2 0 2011 044wd vi Wwlty Go",iiaissiv+i6rs PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Flela Hiller Pelican Bay Services Division Board Henning, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson absent Coyle Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John Iaizzo Colette John P. Chandler Michael Levy Tom Cravens John Baron Johan Domenie Hunter H. Hansen absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager 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, Dorchester at Pelican Bay Resident Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation David Trecker, Candidate, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Brian Weinstein, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. REVISED AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Presentation to Recognize Dr. Raia's Service 4. Candidate Introductions 5. Audience Participation 6. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. April 12, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop c. Approval of April 11, 2011 Budget Committee Meeting Minutes 7. Budget Committee Report a. Review FY 2012 Tentative Budget b. Approval of FY 2012 Tentative Budget c. Roadway Resurfacing Update and Discussion of Loaning County $1.2 million for Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard 8. Administrator's Report a. Monthly Financial Report b. South Berm Permit Status c. Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Update i. Crosswalks ii. Possibility of Four -Way Stop at Ridgewood Drive & Pelican Bay Boulevard iii. Pathways iv. Discussion of Possible Caution Signage for Bicycles (J. Domenie) d. Update on Health of Mangroves e. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach 9. Chairman's Report a. Clam Bay Misc. COffeS: b. Announcements Date: 9"11 1 \ 8470 Item #: \ U= 2 A 271 Ccpies to 161 2 Aft 7 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 10. Community Issues 11. Committee Reports a. Strategic Planning Committee 12. Old Business 13. New Business 14. Audience Comments 15. Miscellaneous Correspondence 16. Adjournment ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Gibson and Hansen, both excused, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the agenda as amended The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. CANDIDATE INTRODUCTIONS Board candidate, Mr. David Trecker introduced himself. Chairman Dallas read candidate Ms. Susan O'Brien's prepared biography. Consensus was that there were two great candidates. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Mr. David Trecker be appointed to fall the existing Pelican Bay Services Division Board vacancy. The Board voted 6 -2 in favor, (Messrs. Dallas and Baron opposed) passing the motion. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE DR. RAIA'S SERVICE On behalf of the Board, Chairman Dallas presented an award to Dr. Raia and thanked him for his four years of service on the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Dr. Raia accepted it graciously. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Representing the "Stop for People Coalition" Mr. Brendan Culligan proposed that if each resident of the communities most affected were to contribute $8.57 monthly over eighteen months, they could save $50,000 to install a motion activated crosswalk at the North Tram station crossing to keep pedestrians safe. Ms. Noreen Murray, resident and former member of the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee suggested strongly that the Board approve the pathways proposal presented today. Ms. Marcia Cravens, Dorchester resident said that she supported Mr. Trecker to fill the Board vacancy. The Services Division has an established role in managing Clam Bay and suggested working with the Foundation on Clam Bay issues. The Board should allocate more than $78,000 to the Clam Bay Fund in the proposed budget and allocate funds to educational outreach. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APRIL 6, 2011 REGULAR SESSION Vice Chairwoman Womble amended the April 6 minutes. Page 8461 amended to read, "...concerns about the LKR signs in Outer Clam Bay including `look out for swimmers' because... ", 8463 motion to read "...to defer electing officers until after an appointment to the Board is made. ", and 8467 to read, "...the main issues as perceived by some of the Board members were that the current management was inaccessible..." 8471 161 P A27 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. APRIL 12, 2011 CLAM BAY WORKSHOP Mr. Cravens made a motion, second By Mr. Domenie to approve the April 12, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. APRIL 11, 2011 BUDGET COMMITTEE Mr. Levy made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the April 11, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Budget Committee meeting minutes as presented. The Budget Committee members present voted unanimously in fiavor, passing the motion. BUDGET COMMITTEE REVIEW FISCAL YEAR 2012 TENTATIVE BUDGET "WITH NO CIP INCREASES" Mr. Levy presented the FY 2012 Tentative Budget summary that staff developed "with no CIP increases" or without increasing the assessment. Last year's FY 2011 assessment was $370.64; the millage rate for street lighting was 0.0531 and has been flat for three years. Carryforward funds from Water Management and Community Beautification were transferred to the Capital Projects Fund for identified Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects. Carryforward from the Street Lighting Fund was transferred to a Street Lighting reserves account to keep funds collected by an ad valorem tax for Street Lighting separate from funds collected by non -ad valorem assessment. While holding the assessment the same, any revenue above that needed to fund Water Management, Community Beautification, and Clam Bay was added to capital projects for the CIP. Due to Staffs "cost control efforts in day -to -day operations ", in FY 2012, after allocating $50,000 to refurbish traffic signs, and $85,000 for lake bank enhancements, there is $2,854,000 available for CIP and capital projects and $74,000 for Street Lighting. Additional revenue required for Clam Bay in FY 2012 is $156,000. For the past two years, the County has only contributed $35,000 each year from Fund 111. The FY 2012 Tentative Budget assumes the County would contribute $78,000 from Fund 111, matching the Services Division's contribution of $78,000 from the assessment. With $55,000 carryforward from last year, there will be over $200,000 available in the Clam Bay Fund and that is enough to fund the new permit fully. If the County's contribution were deficient then the Services Division would transfer Capital Projects funds to the Clam Bay Fund. Mr. Dorrill said the County's matching contribution is consistent with what they have done in the past, but whether $78,000 is a realistic amount, they will have to wait and see. He might have an answer for the Board at the next meeting. COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel, San Marino resident asked if the budget was public record. Chairman Dallas said yes and he planned to write an article for the early August Pelican Bay Post regarding the FY 2012 budget and CIP projects that will correspond with residents receiving their assessment notice. 8472 16 2 A27 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 Mr. Hoppensteadt offered to send an email blast with a link to the budget on the Services Division's website. Ms. Marcia Cravens said it would be helpful to post the proposed budget on the website. She urged the Board to fund the Clam Bay Fund fully at $156,000. Mr. Levy said in the past, the County had contributed over $200,000 to the Clam Bay Fund. The Services Division built up a surplus and the County was aware of that and began to cut back on the funding. The surplus is essentially gone now and the Services Division needs $156,000 of new money. For the past few years, the County has matched Pelican Bay's contribution to the Clam Bay Fund, so Services Division plans to ask the County to match Pelican Bay's contribution again. Ms. Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group echoed Ms. Cravens' suggestion that the Board fully fund the Clam Bay Fund and only ask the County to match $35,000 because it could undercut the Services Division's position. Dr. Raia said Clam Bay is a County asset, so the County should be paying for Clam Bay services provided by the Services Division. Ms. Cravens said Pelican Bay has a long -term role in Clam Bay and Fund 111 was originally a natural resources fund that contributed funds to Clam Bay and evolved into something else. Mr. Dorrill supports the recommendation of the Budget Committee to ask the County to contribute $78,000 to Clam Bay in the FY 2012 budget. REVIEW FISCAL YEAR 2012 TENTATIVE BUDGET "WITH CIP INCREASES" Mr. Levy explained that the Budget Committee proposed that funds for future CIP projects be incorporated into the FY 2012 Budget and Chairman Dallas created several "CIP Cash Flow Spreadsheets" that outline a savings plan. One sheet covers the Budget Committee's recommendation to raise the ad valorem millage rate yearly from 0.0531 by 0.0326 or $16.30 per $500,000 property value to 0.0857 for fifteen years to fund replacement street lighting poles on Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive in 2018, and residential street lighting fixtures and poles in 2021. Another sheet covers the Budget Committee's recommendation to raise the non -ad valorem assessment yearly by $27.50 or 7.4% for five years to fund identified CIP projects through 2015. The Budget Committee recommended the total proposed assessment for FY 2012 be $398.13. COMMENTS Mr. Cravens suggested the FY 2012 Tentative Budget be paginated consecutively. Mr. Jerry Moffatt, L'Ambiance resident referred to the non -ad valorem cash flow spreadsheet and landscaping bull nose projects and asked if there was a plan to take down trees because many residents are opposed to removing trees. Chairman Dallas said the projects described are based on Wilson Miller's CIP recommendations for planning purposes and they would discuss tree removal when they review the design plans proposal for landscaping 8473 161 :12 427 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 the bull noses. In 2014, residential neighborhood pathways refer to remaining CIP pathways projects that are not along the main roadways. ROADWAY RESURFACING UPDATE & DISCUSSION OF LOANING COUNTY $1.2 MILLION FOR REPAVING PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Mr. Chandler reported that he and Mr. Dorrill met with Commissioner Hiller and Mr. Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Collier County Growth Management Division to discuss the asphalt rating system and where the Services Division might stand in the overall rankings for milling and resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard. According to Mr. Casalanguida, 100% is a freshly paved road, and under normal circumstances, a road rated at 70% would be repaved, however due to the County's dismal fiscal situation, they are only repaving roads with ratings lower than 40% and Pelican Bay Boulevard is rated 61 %. Mr. Casalanguida stated that the County did not presently have a five -year plan but that their staff would develop one by June I and provide it to the Services Division. Commissioner Hiller suggested that the Services Division draft an agreement to loan the County $1.2 million with a repayment schedule to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard earlier. Mr. Dorrill said the County's total available funding for similar work this year is $2.5 million. Loaning the County funds for this work would be considered a novel approach and represent a loan to the County secured in good faith requiring them to appropriate money in subsequent years for the work to be advanced. Since the assessment was done rating Pelican Bay Boulevard at 61 %, the road has probably deteriorated. Resurfacing would add value to the community and be "money well spent ". The other Commissioners may perceive this as Pelican Bay wanting to treat themselves separately from others who might not have the ability to do this, but that argument is countered by the fact that Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Units have been available countywide for forty years for every community to levy and collect additional revenue for special purposes that otherwise would go to the County's general fund. He would find out whether the County will support the Services Division advancing funds for repaving and report at the next meeting. The Board could decide then whether to amend the FY 2012 Tentative Budget by increasing the non -ad valorem assessment an additional amount for the purposes of loaning the County $1.2 million to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard. APPROVAL OF FY 2012 TENTATIVE BUDGET Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to approve the FY 2012 Tentative Budget as presented, increase the non -ad valorem assessment by $27.50; and increase the ad valorem mills a rate to 0.0857. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing- the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that the crosswalks construction drawings and specifications are complete. The advance meeting with County purchasing staff has taken place and the bid is based on unit prices of fourteen individual crosswalks so that this Board and the Foundation can pick- and - choose actual crosswalks to construct. The advertisement for bids is imminent and there is a thirty -day timeframe between the opening invitation to bid and the bid closing. He suggested the Board consider rescheduling the June meeting for no earlier than June 8 and no ;i A 161 2 427 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 later than June 13, so that the Board can review bids and make a recommendation to the County Commissioners prior to the Commissioners' summer recess. Staff's deadline is June 16. Mr. Levy said unit -based pricing is likely to cost more than a proposal to do all of the crosswalks. Mr. Dorrill said the proposal could be amended with an addendum that states what savings they could receive by doing all of the crosswalks at once. Mr. Hoppensteadt said the decision whether to do all crosswalks at once or not would require the Foundation's Audit and Budget Committee's review of the proposal and Board authorization. Presently, Foundation staff plans to recommend that they hold off on the crosswalk at Hyde Park until they determine the pathways project at that location. Mr. Domenic and Mr. Iaizzo were concerned about timing and protecting the pavers and suggested roadway resurfacing be done prior to constructing crosswalks. Mr. James Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage said in his professional opinion, crosswalks should be constructed prior to resurfacing the roadway. Mr. Chandler said prior to resurfacing the roadway, they need to decide whether to install bicycle lanes in the roadway and that decision should be made next season. Chairman Dallas agreed. Whether to install bicycle lanes in the roadway is a divisive issue and required community input. Mr. Steve Seidel, San Marino resident is opposed to designating bicycle lanes in the roadway. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to direct staff to issue an addendum to the bid specifications for an aggregate price for twelve or more crosswalks to be constructed at one time, as well as priced individually. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. FOUR -WAY STOP AT RIDGEWOOD DRIVE & PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Mr. Bryan Weinstein, P.E., Civil Engineer, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. reported that the warrants analysis for four -way stop at Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard failed to meet the minimum criteria set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for number of collisions and vehicular delay. The State of Florida changed reporting requirements in May 2010 and no longer accepts the "short" form collision reports, so the accuracy of the data is questionable and there could be more collisions than reported. In conclusion, the report results do not recommend a four -way stop at this intersection, but this does not preclude the Board from submitting an application to the County. Mr. Dorrill summarized that this is a busy intersection, but the current configuration is not technically deficient or create a safety hazard. He suggested discussing with the County prior to submitting a formal application. Mr. Chandler said the Services Division commissioned a study that reports this intersection failed all tests for installing a four -way stop and there is some rationale for this. He suggested forwarding the warrants analysis to the Philharmonic with a recommendation from the Board that the Philharmonic hires additional officers to direct traffic. 8475 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1612 92 7� May 4, 2011 Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie that staff discuss with the County prior to submitting a formal application for a four -way stop at the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard. The Board voted 7 -1 in favor, passing the motion. Mr. Chandler onnosed Chairman Dallas directed staff to provide the Tindale- Oliver warrant analysis to the Philharmonic. PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill referred to the May 3 Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage (ABB) proposal for engineering services for a pathways project along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from The Commons to the North Tram station. Wilson Miller had estimated this scope of work to cost closer to $25,000 and ABB's proposal is closer to $33,000. He suggested that the Board authorize the Administrator to enter into an agreement with ABB, revise the scope and renegotiate the price to $25,000 with a caveat that if there are additional meetings or presentations required, then those could be charged on a time and materials basis. Mr. Chandler pointed out that unless they raise the assessment beyond what they agreed earlier today, they would only have enough funds to do crosswalks and resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard. Mr. Levy said if they decide to loan the County money to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard, they would have to raise the assessment. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to authorize the Administrator to enter into an agreement with Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage (ABB) for engineering services for a pathways project along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from The Commons to the North Tram station, revising the scope, and renegotiating the price to $25,000, with a caveat that if additional meetings or presentations required, those would be charged on a time and materials basis. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. CROSSWALKS Chairman Dallas said the Board would need to make a decision at the June meeting whether to implement all, or some of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) crosswalks projects. The Board discussed Chairman Dallas' "Selecting Crosswalks for 2011 Implementation" document that showed prior member rankings for crosswalks, whether to do all nine, only some, the price tag, and associated signage, but nothing decided. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that year -to -date revenue is unchanged from last month. Revenue received is slightly over budget at 94 %, but most expenses are under budget with the exception of tree trimming and they expect to finish the year in accordance with the projected budget. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept the Monthly Financial Report into the record. The Board voted unanimously in favor, Dassing the motion. SOUTH BERM PROJECT Mr. Dorrill reported that staff, with the help of Mr. Tim Durham, Chief Environmentalist with Wilson Miller, plans to petition the Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) explain why although jurisdictional wetlands, the work proposed on the west side of the south berm is simple maintenance, as opposed to work that requires a USACE Ow A27 1612 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 permit. Work is proposed only for the area within the existing easement upon which the berm sits. The project design plans are available. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK & ALONG BEACH Mr. Hall reported that the State has requested a work plan from the County, which is a good indication that the County is still in the running to receive a grant to remove exotics north of the Pass. Mr. Dorrill said if the County were to receive the grant, it would be shortly after July 1, the start of the State's fiscal year. UPDATE ON HEALTH OF MANGROVES Mr. Hall reported that he is waiting for the boring beetles to hatch, so that he can identify the species and verify it is not a new exotic species. The incubation period is two to three years, so to speed up the process, they are searching for beetles in the mangroves that are about to hatch. In his opinion, the beetle is not a new exotic species because healthy mangroves can defend themselves from infestation, but stressed mangroves are more susceptible. In this case, only some scattered white mangroves stressed by the cold weather are affected. He is working with a lab at Florida Atlantic University, which may be able to identify the beetles using DNA. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CAUTION SIGNAGE FOR BICYCLES Mr. Domenie suggested the Services Division install caution signage for bicycles at specific points along Pelican Bay Boulevard. Chairman Dallas suggested they first address whether to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard and the whether to install bicycle lanes in the roadway prior the issue of caution signage for bicycles. Mr. Chandler suggested that if they decide to install caution signage for bicycles, they should be placed after each entryway. Mr. Levy made a motion to install the caution signage for bicycles. The Board discussed locations to install the signage and decided it was premature to take a vote. Mr. Levy withdrew his motion. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CLAM BAY Chairman Dallas reported that on April 7 he and Mr. Dorrill met with County staff regarding the Clam Bay markers. He advocated for amending the current canoe trail markers permit and that the Services Division remains in charge of the markers, but no decisions made as to which entity or co- entities should hold the permit. According to Ryan Moreau, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) the County could either apply for a new permit, or amend the existing. If the County chooses to amend the existing permit, no changes would be required for the markers north of the Pass. One solution for Seagate suggested is to add signage at the canoe launch that makes it clear motor boats are allowed in Clam Bay. Consensus was that a final decision regarding the markers would not be made at the third County Clam Bay stakeholders meeting on May 17. It was more likely that the Commissioners would decide the fate of the markers. 8477 r. 16 1 2 A'27 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 ANNOUNCEMENTS The Strategic Planning Committee meets May 6, Coastal Advisory Committee meets May 12, Clam Bay stakeholders meet May 17, and the Foundation Board meets May 20. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE (SPC) REPORT Vice Chairwoman Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) meets May 6 at 9 a.m. at the Community Center to discuss the history of The Commons reconfiguration and Community Center expansion, North Tram station crosswalk, Sandpiper Tram station, U.S. 41 berm noise abatement, safety, and security and more. The SPC lost two members elected to the Foundation Board, but gained three new members. The wetlands area will not become a parking lot, but the future use is uncertain. Mr. Cravens is concerned that the Foundation may have covert plans to use the wetlands area for a use other than its current use. MISCELLANEOUS The Board discussed artificial versus natural oyster beds in Clam Bay to propagate oysters and improve the health of the system. Chairman Dallas said that he would like to discuss at the next meeting whether to reinstitute the Clam Bay Committee. Ms. Cravens supported reinstituting the Clam Bay Committee. Vice Chairwoman Womble said BP is giving $100 million to each state involved in the Gulf oil spill last year. There was a Gulf Coast Leadership Summit to discuss the future recovery and restoration of the Gulf coast areas. Mr. Dorrill would find out if the County or this area was represented at the Summit and report back. Board consensus was to direct staff to reschedule the June 1 meeting for June 13. ADJOURN Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn. The Board voted una= In favor, Passinz the motion and the meeting adjourned at 4.21 pm. K ' J. Dallas, hairman 8478 Minutes by Lisa Resnick \ 6/13/20114:30:44 PM PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION A 27 p Munici al Service Taxing and Benefit Unit 16 12 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES RECEIVED The agenda includes, but is not limited: AGENDA lam, R G V E® 1. Roll Call MAY - 9 2011 2. Agenda Approval Board ofCou �r missioners 3. Presentation to Recognize Dr. Raia's Service Fiala 4. Candidate Introductions Hiller 5. Audience Participation Henning Coyle 6. Approval of Meeting Minutes Coletta a. April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. April 12, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop 7. Administrator's Report a. Monthly Financial Report b. South Berm Permit Status c. Roadway Resurfacing Update d. Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Update i. Crosswalks ii. Possibility of Four -Way Stop at Ridgewood Drive & Pelican Bay Boulevard iii. Pathways e. Update on Health of Mangroves f. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach 8. Chairman's Report a. Clam Bay b. Announcements 9. Community Issues a. Discussion of Possible Caution Signage for Bicycles (J. Domenie) 10. Committee Reports a. Budget Committee i. Approval of April 11, 2011 Budget Committee Meeting Minutes ii. Review and Approval of FY 2012 Tentative Budget b. Strategic Planning Committee misc. Corres: 11. Old Business Date: C ` 12. New Business 13. Audience Comments Item* 14. Miscellaneous Correspondence 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 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. 4/28/20113:16:50 PM f T May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session - 4 - Candidate Introductions 161 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 15, 2011 TO: Mary McCaughtry FROM: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners RE: Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board As you know, we currently have 1 vacancy on the above referenced advisory committee. A ress release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the application received for your review as follows: Ms. Susan O'Brian 6537 Marissa Loop, #3 Naples, Florida 34108 Mr. David J. Trecker 709 Turkey Oak Lane Naples, Florida 34108 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time - frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 252 -8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. IM Attachments 04/28/2011 at 1:43 PM May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4 - Candidate Introductions 1612 kA2 Mitcheillan From: Naplessusan @comcast.net � ent: Wednesday, March 30, 20114:50 PM n: Mitcheillan 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: 3/30/20114:50:28 PM. Name: JSusan O'Brie Home Phone: 239 -592 -5329 Home Address: 537 Marisa Loop #3 City: ales Zip Code: 34208 Phone Numbers Fax: 39 -592 -5329 Business: -Mail Address: Natalessusatl,c comcast.net Board / Committee Applied for: FL-,IicanBay Services Divisio Category: of indicate Work Place: retired How long have you lived in Collier County: 5 -10 Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? Rol of Indicate Do you or your employer do business with the County? ®o Kt Indicate 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 Page 2 of 6 04/28/2011 at 1:43 PM May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session �- 4 - Candidate Introductions 161 2 A27 I recomncondations made by this °acrvtso board? Do of Indicate are you 'a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold public office? Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County Board o`r Committee? Yes 'lam Bay Advisory Committc Please list your coMi nuni activities: resident, St. Vincents Condominium Association President, 2004 -2010 President, Crown Association, President. 2006 -201 L� lueatiou A. Marquette University, 1969 M.A. University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, 1975 M.Ed. L( iica =o, 1976 Ed.D. Loyola University-Chicago, 198 ,perience• pool Principal: 1978 -1980; 1981 -85; 1997 -2001 Assistant School Superintendent: 1985 -1 N Vil Uni Page 3 of 6 04/28/2011 at 1:43 PM May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4 - Candidate Introductions 161 22? Susan O'Brien Applicant for Pelican Bay Services Division Board I am interested in serving on the Pelican Bay Services Division Board that performs a vital role in the maintenance and preservation of Pelican Bay. My goal would be to complement the experiences and talents of current Board members. I would bring several strengths to the PBSD Board. First, I have decades of experience chairing and serving on committees that developed and implemented recommendations to improve the programs and services of the organizations for which I worked or volunteered. The skills I developed through committee work would enable me to contribute to the smooth functioning of monthly PBSD Board meetings as well as the Board's important work in areas such as the Community Improvement Plan. Second, I think my extensive knowledge of Pelican Bay that I have developed the last three years by attending numerous meetings and reading many documents would enable me to assist the PBSD Board in its work in other areas, such as markers, dredging, and water quality as well as the overall maintenance and health of Clam Bay and the possible formation of an independent district. I think the PBSD Board has a critical role to play in these areas going forward, and I would welcome the opportunity to assist the PBSD Board in its important work on behalf of the Pelican Bay community. Third, as a full -time resident, I would regularly be available to attend the Board's monthly and special meetings as well as other meetings in Pelican Bay or Collier County at which having a member of the PBSD Board may be advantageous. I was President of St. Vincents Condominium Association from 2004 -2010 and of Crown Colony Village Association from 2006 -2010. For 25 years I worked as a principal and assistant superintendent in public schools in Illinois and Wisconsin where I chaired dozens of committees and managed multi- million dollar budgets. I have a bachelor's degree in history from Marquette University; a master's degree in history from the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, and a master's and doctorate in educational administration from Loyola University— Chicago. I have owned property in Pelican Bay since 1992 and have been a full -time resident since 2002. Thank you very much for your consideration. t 1 /-2,a / I f Page 4 of 6 04/28/2011 at 1:43 PM i May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session n 4 - Candidate Introductions 161 2 A27 Mitchelllan rom: djtrecker @yahoo.com ent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 8:52 AM To: 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: 4/7/20118:52:25 AM. Name: Oavid J. Trecke Home Phone: 39- 597 -5675 Home Address: 09 Turkey Oak Lan City:. ale Zip Code:` 3410& Phone Numbers 44 44-Mail Business: -Mail Address: itreckm:( 7i yahoo.cort Board / Committee Applied fort Pelican Bay Services Division CaItegorys of indicate Work Place: etired How long have you lived in Collier County; 5-1 Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? Not Indicated Do you or your employer do business with the County? Not Indicate NOTE: All advisory board membexs 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 5 of 6 May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4 - Candidate Introductions 161fL AE7 recommendations made by this advisory board? Vol of Indicate Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold public office? ©o Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County -Board or Committee? of Indicated Please list your community activities: Past Chairman of Pelican Bay Foundation Past President of Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Dire d Past President of Greater Naples Better Government Council VP of Collier Council Presidents Council Director of Republican Men's Clutl Education: A.B. in chemistry - Ripon College 0 95 8) Ph.D. in organic chemistry - University of Chicago (I 962A Technology Manager at Union Carbide Senior Vice President at Pfizer, responsible for research su ortin Chemical Division. Member of Executive Committees in Central Research and Chemical and Food Scienc Divisions. Numerous scientific papers, patents and awards. Page 6 of 6 0 161 2 A27 'I Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - April 30, 2011 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments 2,109,541.77 Interest Receivable _ Due from Tax Collector _ Total Current Assets $ 2,109,541.77 Total Assets $ 2,109,541.77 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable $ (13,168.52) Accrued Wages Payable _ Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd (35,401.84) Total Liabilities $ (48,570.36) Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved (1,173,770.02) Excess Revenues (Expenditures) (887,201.39) Total Fund Balance (2,060,971.41) Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (2,109,541.77) Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - April 30, 2011 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Carryforward Special Assessment - Water Management Admin Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification Charges for Services Surplus Property Sales Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support (Capital) IT Office Automation Indirect Cost Reimbursement Interdepartmental Payment Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Fees Advertising Other Office and Operating Supplies Training and Education Total Water Management Admin Operating Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense Engineering Fees Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. Landscape Materials Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) Plan Review Fees Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Trash and Garbage Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Other Repairs and Maintenance 161 2 a27 Variance $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 - 728,400.00 677,412.00 680,664.22 3,252.22 1,938,600.00 1,802,898.00 1,811,553.62 8,655.62 1,500.00 - - _ 11,700.00 5,850.00 6,086.85 236.85 3,623,300.00 3,429,260.00 3,441,404.69 12,144.69 $ 41,200.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 23,072.73 $ 927.27 8,800.00 - _ $ _ 200.00 200.00 100.00 $ 100.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 108,200.00 108,200.00 108,200.00 $ - 14,600.00 7,300.00 - $ 7,300.00 30,800.00 18,000.00 16,088.60 $ 1,911.40 4,100.00 2,100.00 1,302.12 $ 797.88 3,000.00 300.00 253.19 $ 46.81 13,600.00 7,900.00 7,756.61 $ 143.39 1,300.00 1,000.00 975.00 $ 25.00 2,300.00 - - $ _ 4,000.00 $ 2,000.00 - - $ _ 2,500.00 1,300.00 458.60 $ 841.40 1,100.00 600.00 55.00 $ 545.00 245,700.00 178,900.00 162,261.85 16,638.15 134,300.00 78,300.00 73,856.50 4,443.50 16,381.25 9,600.00 1,536.11 8,063.89 14,000.00 4,083.33 - 4,083.33 8,500.00 4,956.33 2,986.00 1,970.33 22,600.00 13,200.00 10,310.50 2,889.50 1,500.00 - - - 1,000.00 600.00 - 600.00 42,400.00 24,700.00 24,809.00 (109.00) 500.00 300.00 252.28 47.72 8,300.00 5,700.00 2,330.74 3,369.26 200.00 100.00 - 100.00 2,400.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 - 900.00 675.00 675.00 - 4,500.00 2,600.00 498.00 21102.00 3,200.00 1,900.00 1,188.97 711.03 30,000.00 17,500.00 14,976.00 2,524.00 1,100.00 600.00 722.40 (122.40) 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 98,400.00 33,300.00 31,763.45 1,536.55 1,500.00 900.00 1,681.23 (781.23) Page 1 of 3 16I 12 A+27 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 1,300.00 2,822.23 (1,522.23) Total Water Management Field Operating 394,681.25 202,414.67 172,208.41 30,206.26 Right of Way Beautification - Operating 136,900.00 64,500.00 66,545.26 (2,045.26) Payroll Expense 42,400.00 24,700.00 23,769.88 930.12 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 21,900.00 17,962.80 31937.20 Telephone 3,900.00 2,300.00 1,302.12 997.88 Postage 3,000.00 300.00 7.24 292.76 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 14,000.00 8,200.00 8,415.37 (215.37) Insurance - General 500.00 375.00 375.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 - - _ Clerk's Recording 4,000.00 - 7,425.00 - Legal Advertising 2,000.00 - - _ Office Supplies General 3,000.00 1,800.00 368.59 1,431.41 Training and Education 1,500.00 900.00 25.00 875.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 128,800.00 63,975.00 55,726.00 8,249.00 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense 827,700.00 482,800.00 419,298.73 63,501.27 White Goods 3,300.00 - - _ Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) 136,900.00 64,500.00 66,545.26 (2,045.26) Pest Control 5,000.00 2,900.00 2,975.00 (75.00) Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 17,200.00 26,564.41 (9,364.41) Temporary Labor 204,500.00 119,300.00 104,438.17 14,861.83 Telephone 3,200.00 1,900.00 1,598.70 301.30 Electricity 3,400.00 2,000.00 1,550.17 449.83 Trash and Garbage 24,900.00 17,200.00 4,230.29 12,969.71 Rent Equipment 5,500.00 4,500.00 396.77 4,103.23 Motor Pool Rental Charge 700.00 - - _ Insurance - General 9,000.00 6,750.00 6,750.00 Insurance - Auto 9,900.00 7,425.00 7,425.00 - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 21,200.00 17,700.00 18,052.81 (352.81) Fuel and Lubricants 44,200.00 25,800.00 19,518.59 6,281.41 Licenses and Permits 800.00 500.00 - 500.00 Tree Triming 35,900.00 35,900.00 48,713.00 (12,813.00) Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 4,700.00 4,490.08 209.92 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,500.00 512.00 988.00 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 48,600.00 49,138.59 (538.59) Landscape Maintenance 60,200.00 52,200.00 53,273.15 (1,073.15) Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 17,500.00 16,317.36 1,182.64 Painting Supplies 800.00 500.00 - 500.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 1,800.00 170.00 1,630.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 1,800.00 3,351.82 (1,551.82) Other Operating Supplies 11,500.00 6,700.00 5,394.64 1,305.36 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating 1,548,500.00 941,675.00 860,704.54 80,970.46 Total Operating Expenditures 2,317,681.25 1,386,964.67 1,250,900.80 136,063.87 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 600.00 600.00 General Improvements 13,200.00 7,700.00 7,700.00 Total Water Management Field Operations Capital 14,200.00 8,300.00 - 8,300.00 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 1/2 months for Operations) Reserves for Equipment Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditures, net Net Profit /(Loss) (259,200.00) (259,200.00) 161 2 A'12 7 13,600.00 7,900.00 - 7,900.00 (555,025.00) 28,000.00 28,000.00 23,597.00 4,403.00 (124,875.00) 17,000.00 - - _ 58,600.00 35,900.00 23,597.00 12,303.00 72,800.00 44,200.00 23,597.00 20,603.00 2,390,481.25 1,431,164.67 1,274,497.80 156,666.87 1,232,818.75 1,998,095.33 2,166,906.89 168,811.56 (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) (124,875.00) (140,300.00) - (1,237,200.00) (1,049,560.00) (1,033,013.82) 16,546.18 (4,381.25) 948,535.33 1,133,893.07 185,357.74 Page 3 of 3 161 2 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - April 30, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 249,249.56 Interest Receivable - Due from Tax Collector _ Total Current Assets $ 249,249.56 Total Assets $ 249,249.56 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable $ (18.97) Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd (2,120.13) Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities $ (2,139.10) Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved (208,670.25) Excess Revenue (Expenditures) (38,440.21) Total Fund Balance (247,110.46) Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (249,249.56) Page 1 of 1 A27 j I . 16I 2 A27 I Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w /.Budget - April 30, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Ca rryforwa 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 $ 21.94 40.87 $ 40.87 1,200.00 598.00 817.65 $ 219.65 444,200.00 424,474.00 424,756.46 282.46 $ 41,200.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 24,348.28 $ (348.28) 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 6,300.00 $ - 20,800.00 $ 12,100.00 16,088.60 $ (3,988.60) 4,100.00 $ 2,400.00 964.24 $ 1,435.76 2,000.00 $ 300.00 7.24 $ 292.76 13,600.00 $ 7,900.00 8,008.59 $ (108.59) 400.00 $ 400.00 300.00 $ 100.00 800.00 $ 500.00 - $ 500.00 1,000.00 $ 600.00 4.90 $ 595.10 90,200.00 54,500.00 56,021.85 (1,521.85) 62,900.00 36,700.00 36,681.01 18.99 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 500.00 - 500.00 500.00 300.00 252.28 47.72 44,200.00 25,800.00 20,451.43 5,348.57 800.00 800.00 600.00 200.00 900.00 900.00 675.00 225.00 1,100.00 600.00 150.00 450.00 400.00 200.00 418.92 (218.92) 200.00 100.00 - 100.00 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 7,300.00 4,300.00 6,779.78 (2,479.78) 12,400.00 5,800.00 5,467.46 332.54 141,600.00 76,300.00 71,475.88 4,824.12 Page 1 of 2 Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment General Improvements Total Capital Expenditures 231,800.00 130,800.00 127,497.73 161 2 K7 4 3,302.27 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 Total All Expenditures 246,000.00 137,900.00 127,497.73 10,402.27 Operating Profit /(Loss) 198,200.00 286,574.00 297,258.73 10,684.73 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer to Fund 322 (83,600.00) (83,600.00) (83,600.00) - Tax Collector Fees (8,400.00) (5,880.00) (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) - 106,944.00 122,250.65 15,306.65 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 - April 30, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 410,670.32 161 2 .A27 410,670.32 $ 410,670.32 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (3,018.50) $ (3,460.00) (423,553.80) 19.361.98 Page 1 of 1 (6,478.50) (404,191.82) $ (410,670.32) Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - April 30, 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 435,219.17 $ 35,000.00 35,000.00 1,300.00 506,519.17 102,943.75 $ 137,390.00 485.42 4,800.00 1,000.00 161 2 A27 4 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $ 32,900.00 32,706.26 $ 35,000.00 35,000.00 $ 700.00 1,539.47 $ 503,819.17 504,464.90 6,400.00 $ 16,600.00 300.00 2,800.00 600.00 4,956.25 $ 12,812.40 $ 506.00 $ Variance (193.74) 839.47 645.73 1,443.75 3,787.60 (206.00) 2,800.00 600.00 246,619.17 26,700.00 18,274.65 8,425.35 11,300.00 6,600.00 4,046.25 2,553.75 25,000.00 - - _ 36,300.00 6,600.00 4,046.25 2,553.75 282,919.17 33,300.00 22,320.90 10,979.10 Operating Profit /(Loss) 223,600.00 470,519.17 482,144.00 11,624.83 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): 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) $ 249,454.17 $ 261,489.95 $ 11,213.88 Page 1 of 1 i Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - April 30, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,465,100.48 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 Liabilities and Fund Balance Page 1 of 1 452.36 (1,960,586.75) (504,966.09) 161 2 2,465,100.48 $ 2,465,100.48 452.36 (2,465,552.84) $ (2,465,100.48) A27 Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: 161 2 A27 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - April 30, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Licenses and Permits Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer from Fund 109 General Transfer from Fund 320 Clam Bay Transfer from Fund 778 Street Lighting Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Contingencies Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditure: Net Profit /(Loss) $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 121,600.00 115,520.00 113,630.94 $ 7,700.00 4,500.00 8,159.59 $ 2,073,287.30 2,064,007.30 2,065,777.83 $ 113,628.45 $ 2,354,658.85 0 - - $ 11,995.00 $ 6,683.58 $ 910.00 $ 2,468,287.30 - 18,678.58 $ 259,200.00 $ 259,200.00 $ 259,200.00 $ 65,000.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 $ 83,600.00 83,600.00 83,600.00 $ (3,800.00) (2,660.00) (2,272.32) $ (2,500.00) (1,750.00) - $ (100.00) (100.00) - $ (6,400.00) - - $ 395,000.00 403,290.00 405,527.68 $ (0.00) 2,467,297.30 2,452,626.93 Page 1 of 1 (1,889.06) 3,659.59 1,770.53 (11,995.00) (6,683.58) (910.00) (18,678.58) 387.68 1,750.00 100.00 2,237.68 (14,670.37) e May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7.d.i. - Community Improvement Plan Update - Crosswalks Selecting Crosswalks for 2011 Implementatiol 6 l 2 A2 " � We are fast approaching the point where the PBSD must decide which crosswalks will be implemented this year. The critical dates are: • The bidding specifications are about to be released to potential bidders. • Bids will need to be returned to PBSD by the end of May. • The PBSD will have to decide at the June 1St meeting what proposals for which crosswalks will be accepted for 2011. • Our selections (along with the Foundation selections for mid block crosswalks) must be submitted to the BCC by June 16th for action at their June 28 meeting. • Work would commence August 1, to be completed before Thanksgiving. • The BCC doesn't meet in early July, so our failure to make a decision June 1St would push BCC action until the end of July, and commencement of work to September 1St This gives us little time to make our decisions. Thus to start the thinking process, I am planning to have PBSD discuss our initial thoughts at our May 4th meeting. No final decisions will be made until June, but having conversations on two occasions give us time to listen to others and begin to develop our conclusions. Hopefully this will allow us to be more comfortable with our ultimate decisions. To refresh our memories, I have reviewed the priorities that we selected late summer 2010 (the dreaded spread sheet). Attached is a tabulation of each member's priorities, showing their priority as it relates to all possible work, and then ranking your selections in #1 to #9 order, so that all our priorities use the same numbering system. On the second page, I have summarized the average priority for the 8 members who responded. The weakness of this column is that two members ranked all the crosswalks the same priority, which we forced into individual priorities by ranking top to bottom. Thus the first column gives too much weight to the first items and too little to the later crosswalks. To offset that effect, the second columns only shows results for the 6 members who ranked each crosswalk individually. Conclusions are somewhat the same. Reviewing these 2 columns, some things are obvious: • Most felt Pelican Bay Blvd. /Gulf Park and Pelican Bay Blvd. /Ridgewood Drive highest priority. • Most felt the other two intersections on Gulf Park and Pelican Bay Blvd. /Crayton were lowest priority. • Pelican Bay Blvd. /Myra Daniels was a close third. • The other three crosswalks were in the middle between the highest and lowest groups. Please review these materials and be prepared to discuss your initial reactions at our May meeting. Page 1 of 3 04/29/2011 at 9:56 AM C � i cn N N � y f0 Y f6 rnN N y O -06 to O N m , C m 0 •y d •5 D 0 f0 Na U _ C N aL E OD � O ma c E U C E CD O N U V � T'- f0 "O 161 2 A27t� Q (0 0 N cn N O 7, a N 0 m co a Y M r� 00 It l0 Ln O ,F Y N co t0 rl 00 m Ln It N i J � 3 t Ln o m cq m m m m Y M C M N 0) -q 00 I, It l0 Ln O H 3 Ln m o m ko 00 N �o Y 41 .-= 'C N m N M co It Ln t0 OC O# ° 3 m m -t Ln Lo r, co R ce Y Y 3 CA R N 00 0) -4 I, t0 Ln M It cn W f0 O U f0 ° L- 3 Ln � ^-� Ln co Lo r, w t m OL O ro Y C c N M 00 (M l0 It Ln I, y M a v 3 Ln Lo rn r, co cD O Y L c ri d N m Ln t0 N co 01 � 'O C f0 �# �o I, 00 0) O N M Cf r4 r= N N N N N Y rl N M 't Ln t0 n co (n C O L R m 3 O r-I N m It Ln t0 n co m N N N N N N N N N ad 6 O C y i O 0 O U 4-j a o Lo in c o =`a ° c rn a a w -0 °o ar C E E G 0! U C9 z° = O 3 c m m m v a� (U m m m m J >1 >- >- ro m =o m ra m ro co � � ro ro ro c fv c =a c ra c m a a m m rco U U U U w w U U U a a a a O C7 7 C7 a a a 161 2 A27t� Q (0 0 N cn N O 7, a N 0 m co a 161 2 0 �N (6 Y fU rn 3 � m O f0 m° w; c � C) a D fl N a U f0 }� (n N a O L 000 w N M Ol ,--I n 00 Lf) lD C co � �t a 0o Y3 N U C. X m .i f6 'O m U) L 4) (U a s pO L Im M 0 N k.0 03 U) � U Q O w LA p1 C C (O U) m a � a O O c C O (6 C L ro 0 O C O CD O >, a E U L- > - r 7 O -E O E (0 -,,e (0 p z U C7 O O Z = O > > > > m > > > m m m m 'O m m CD O (D H CO CO CO m m m co N C C C C L (B L (6 C C C 4J O (6 M M (6 CL CL f0 f0 fD C U U U U w 4- U U U (L) Q a a a a (D C7 a a a 627 Q LO f0 0 N N a 0 co O M N CD f0 CL i 16 1 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr All -Way Stop Analysis Prepared for: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. Prepared by: Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. p27 Prepared under the supervision of William E. Oliver, P.E. 1��C1111 1 111 // j��� Registration1�,� • p, of i Signature: ,yam Date: /4111111111`��� April 21, 2011 Contents 161 2 Af7 Introduction...................................................................................................... ............................... 1 ExistingConditions .......................................................................................... ............................... 2 Criteria A — Traffic Control Signal .................................................................. ............................... 5 Criteria B — Collision Analysis ........................................................................ ............................... 5 Criteria C — Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ ............................... 6 Criteria C.1— Minimum Vehicular Volume on the Major Street .................. ............................... 7 Criteria C.2.a — Minimum Vehicular Volume on the Minor Street ............... ............................... 8 Criteria C.2.b — Vehicular Delay ..................................................................... ............................... 9 OtherCriteria .................................................................................................... ............................... 10 Summary........................................................................................................... ............................... 11 OtherAlternatives ............................................................................................ ............................... 11 Tables Table 1. - Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive — Hourly Intersection Volumes ............. 6 Table 2. - Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive — Summarized Hourly Volumes............ 7 Table 3. - Criteria C.1 Summary — Minimum Vehicular Volume on Major Street ...................... 8 Table 4. - Criteria C.2.a Summary — Minimum Vehicular Volume on Minor Street ................... 8 Table 5. - Criteria C.2.b Summary — Minor Street Vehicular Delay Summary ............................ 9 Table 6. - Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes ....................................................... ............................... 10 Figures Figure 1. - Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr — Intersection Location ........ ............................... 3 Figure 2. - Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr — Aerial Photograph (circa 2011) ....................... 4 Figure 3. - Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon and Crosswalk ................... ............................... 12 Figure 4. - Crosswalk with In- Pavement Lighting .......................................... ............................... 13 Appendices Appendix A. Crash Reports Appendix B. Traffic Counts Appendix C. Delay Study MULTI -WAY STOP STUDY Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr INTRODUCTION 161 2 X27 This report summarizes a multi -way stop warrant study prepared by Tindale - Oliver and Associates for the intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive, located in Collier County, Florida. This study was undertaken in pursuit of authorization to install multi -way stop signs at the above referenced intersection. Multi -way stop criteria were evaluated as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, Federal Highway Administration, 2009). Figure 1 illustrates the location of the study intersection. Figure 2 illustrates a recent aerial photograph of the study intersection. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive intersection is a four -leg intersection with Pelican Bay Boulevard operating under free flow conditions as the major street and Ridgewood Drive operating under stop conditions as the minor street. Pelican Bay Boulevard is currently a four -lane divided collector road with a 30 mph posted speed limit. Pelican Bay Boulevard has both eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes at its intersection with Ridgewood Drive. North of the Pelican Bay Boulevard intersection, Ridgewood Drive is a two -lane undivided collector road, with a raised median at the Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive intersection, and a 25 mph posted speed limit. South of the Pelican Bay Boulevard intersection, Ridgewood Drive is a four -lane divided collector road with a 25 mph posted speed limit. North of Pelican Bay Boulevard, Ridgewood Drive provides direct access to a residential area. South of Pelican Bay Boulevard, Ridgewood Drive provides a connection to the Philharmonic Center for the Arts as well as to the Waterside Shops. The northbound approach of Ridgewood Drive, at the Pelican Bay Boulevard intersection, has a left, through, and a shared through -right turn lane. The southbound approach is 27 -feet wide and, although unstriped, can simultaneously accommodate both a right and left turning vehicle. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page I Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study 161 The nearest traffic control devices in the vicinity of the study intersection are: • A traffic signal 950 feet to the east at the Pelican Bay Boulevard and Tamiami Trail intersection, • A 4 -way stop 580 feet to the west at the Pelican Bay Boulevard and West Boulevard intersection, and • A 3 -way stop 900 feet to the south at the Ridgewood Drive and Laurel Oak Drive intersection. I, 2 Ad Tq Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 2 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study •� a i 9 161 The nearest traffic control devices in the vicinity of the study intersection are: • A traffic signal 950 feet to the east at the Pelican Bay Boulevard and Tamiami Trail intersection, • A 4 -way stop 580 feet to the west at the Pelican Bay Boulevard and West Boulevard intersection, and • A 3 -way stop 900 feet to the south at the Ridgewood Drive and Laurel Oak Drive intersection. I, 2 Ad Tq Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 2 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study C I c) Figure 1. - Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr Intersection Location ibi'za17 _ _ _ _ _ s.. _ .2 m r 1 it im Go Park D Vedado VVa;r Park Aft x r 1sr,.r ±" _ aastland Cent�a- � STUDY o- a � LOCATION 41 Southeast Lan,:t e ^ Acquisition Off ' NapleS s x g �d� o�tio _ tAunicipa b �� i. Air port EA t river Pare sM Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 3 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study o I T S. _ 4.w Pelican Bay C'ammunity Park _ g _ -!4. 4a- _ "2 g ..w.. _ .. _,. V t e v _ H rtn STUDY LOCATION F. p R { - Cle%oeland a 31 _ _ _ _ _ s.. _ .2 m r 1 it im Go Park D Vedado VVa;r Park Aft x r 1sr,.r ±" _ aastland Cent�a- � STUDY o- a � LOCATION 41 Southeast Lan,:t e ^ Acquisition Off ' NapleS s x g �d� o�tio _ tAunicipa b �� i. Air port EA t river Pare sM Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 3 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study Figure 2. - Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr— Aerial Photograph (circa 2011) 161 2 A27' Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 4 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study 161 2 �'� A27 According to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, Federal Highway Administration, 2009): Multi -way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi -way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi -way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. The following analysis evaluates this criteria set forth in the MUTCD. CRITERIA A — TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL According to the MUTCD, where traffic control signals are justified, a multi -way stop sign installation can be installed as an interim measure. This criteria was deemed to not be applicable for this intersection because a traffic control signal is not currently justified nor has it been requested. CRITERIA B — COLLISION ANALYSIS The minimum requirements for this criteria are: Five or more reported crashes in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi -way stop installation. Such crashes include right -turn and left -turn collisions as well as right -angle collisions. Crash reports from January 2007 through May 2010 were analyzed for the Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive intersection. A total of 5 crashes, as shown in Appendix A, were reported for this 41 month period, which equates to approximately 1.5 crashes per year. All of the reported crashes were due to a failure to yield the right of way. This is less than the minimum number of crashes specified in the MUTCD (five) for a multi -way stop sign. Therefore, this criteria is not met. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 5 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study 161 2 However, the installation of an all -way stop would potentially alleviate the crashes occurring at the intersection and make those crashes that do occur be less severe. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration's Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, approximately 44% of the crashes occurring at a 2 -way stop intersection will be mitigated by installing a 4 -way stop,., CRITERIA C — TRAFFIC VOLUMES The requirements for Criteria C are that traffic volumes on the major street (Pelican Bay Boulevard) and traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclist volumes on the minor street (Ridgewood Drive) be collected for a minimum of eight -hours on a typically day and that a delay study be performed on the minor street approach during the peak hour. In order for Criteria C to be met, the minimum volumes and delays, as specified in Criteria C.1, C.2.a, and C.2.b, must all be met. Turning movement counts were collected at the study intersection on April 11, 2011 from 7:00 am to 10:30 pm. The traffic volume count data, provided in Appendix B, was summarized per hour, by approach, and movement to determine the hourly volumes against which the multi -way stop criteria was evaluated, as summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1. - Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive — Hourly Intersection Volumes Time Period Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Pods Left Thru Right Peds Lett Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right' 7:00 am - 8:00 am 4 16 4 3 102 35 - 22 16 4 68 14 6 19 84 18 8:00 am - 9:00 am 9 19 12 17 43 44 8 14 12 26 127 25 8 63 176 23 9:00 am - 10:00 am - 41 9 29 11 41 10 26 3 25 149 25 5 51 147 30 10:00 am - 11:00 am 3 27 14 32 18 44 20 22 8 31 176 38 8 34 144 26 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 8 39 18 52 101 401 20 16 3 51 218 57 4 53 164 29 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 1 57 14 74 1 44 16 25 6 44 221 33 2 42 167 24 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 3 52 1 201 65 1 31 14 21 3 41 213 42 2 35 146 35 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm - 42 20 69 3 36 12 26 4 44 233 34 3 30 144 30 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm - 41 21 90 5 35 12 12 2 45 208 32 - 331 149 21 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 1 57 25 66 3 33 6 18 1 48 173 30 23 115 21 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 2 47 20 120 2 24 15 15 2 28 172 31 - 33 92 17 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 3 43 10 55 2 16 9 12 2 29 110 33 6 33 124 16 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm - 53 15 28 1 1 11 1 7 13 1 101 100 81 - 101 200 14 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm. 231 21 1 37 5 4 3 1 - 15 54 10 2 4 47 7 9:00 m - 10:00 m 54 13 128 3 7 1 5 40 181 16 13 36 6 Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 6 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 A11 -Way Stop Study A27 i r 161 2 '' A27 ' Table 2. - Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive — Summarized Hourly Volumes Time Period MalorStreet MnorS_treet ''; Nilnor'Sfreet T tal Vehicles T 0 Total Vo ►iCle& Total � Vehicles i34 Peels; 7:00 am - 8:00 am 207 80 186 8:00 am - 9:00 am 440 114 166 9:00 am - 10:00 am 427 156 167 10:00 am - 11:00 am 449 159 180 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 572 185 203 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 531 230 232 1:00 prn - 2:00 pm 512 203 207 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 515 205 208 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm 488 211 216 4:00 pm -5:00 prn 410 205 209 5:00 prn - 6:00 pm 373 241 245 6:00 pm - 7:00 prn 345 145 150 7:00 prn - 8:00 prn 506 127 128 8:00 prn - 9:00 pm 137 89 94 9:00 Prn - 10:00 PM 292 1 203 206 The traffic and pedestrian /bicyclist volumes contained in Table 1 and Table 2 were compared against minimum vehicular volume requirements, as specified in the MUTCD and shown in the sections below. CRITERIA C.1— MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ON THE MAJOR STREET The minimum requirements for this warrant are: The vehicular volumes entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours Of an average day Below, Table 3 summarizes the total number of vehicles entering the intersection from Pelican Bay Boulevard (major street approach). Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 7 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study 161 2 Table 3. - Criteria C.1 Summary — Minimum Vehicular Volume on Major Street Time Period Major Street Total Vehicles Peds I Total Vehicles 8 -Dour Avg. Mm Warranting Volume Condition Met 7:00 am - 3:00 prn 3,653 457 300 Yes 8:00 am - 4:00 prn 3,934 492 300 Yes 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 3,904 488 300 Yes 10:00 am - 6:00 pm 3,850 481 300 Yes 11:00 am - 7:00 m 3,746 468 300 Yes q A27' As shown in Tables 3, the minimum vehicular volume criteria is satisfied for multiple 8 -hour periods throughout the day. CRITERIA C.2.a — MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ON THE MINOR STREET The minimum requirements for this warrant are: The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 vehicles per hour for the same 8 hours [as used in Criteria C.l ] Below, Table 4 summarizes the total number of vehicles and pedestrians entering the intersection from Ridgewood Drive (minor street approach). Table 4. - Criteria C.2.a Summary — Minimum Vehicular Volume on Minor Street Time Period Minor Street Total Vehicles Peds I 8 -Hour Avg. Min Warranting Volume Condition Met 7:00 am - 3:00 prn 1,549 194 200 No 8:00 am - 4:00 prn 1,579 197 200 No 9:00 am - 5:00 prn 1,622 203 200 1 Yes 10:00 am - 6:00 pm 1,700 213 200 Yes 11:00 am - 7:00 prn 1,6701 209 2001 Yes As shown in Tables 4, the minimum vehicular volume criteria is satisfied for the 8 -hour period beginning at 9:00 am. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 8 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study CRITERIA C.2.b - VEHICULAR DELAY The minimum requirements for this criteria are: 161 2 "A27' An average delay to the minor - street traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour. Vehicular delay was measured for the northbound and southbound approaches of Ridgewood Drive at Pelican Bay Boulevard, on April 11, 2011 from 7:00 am to 9:00 am and from 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm. The delay study was performed in accordance with the Manual of Traffic Engineering Studies (ITE, 4th edition, 1976). The results of the delay study are summarized in Table 5, with complete documentation provided in Appendix C. Table 5. - Criteria C.2.b Summary — Minor Street Vehicular Delay Summary s .. CRITERIA C.2.b - VEHICULAR DELAY The minimum requirements for this criteria are: 161 2 "A27' An average delay to the minor - street traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour. Vehicular delay was measured for the northbound and southbound approaches of Ridgewood Drive at Pelican Bay Boulevard, on April 11, 2011 from 7:00 am to 9:00 am and from 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm. The delay study was performed in accordance with the Manual of Traffic Engineering Studies (ITE, 4th edition, 1976). The results of the delay study are summarized in Table 5, with complete documentation provided in Appendix C. Table 5. - Criteria C.2.b Summary — Minor Street Vehicular Delay Summary As shown in Tables 5, the minimum vehicular delay on the minor street approach is not satisfied for any time period. It should be noted that during the study, there was a sold out concert, from 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm, occurring at the Philharmonic Center for the Arts, located on the southwest corner of the intersection. Even with this additional traffic, an average delay of 30 seconds was not achieved on Ridgewood Drive. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 9 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study Average Total glum ber Total Approach Delay per, Min Condlflon Period C3etay volume . Approach ° Yliarranting of Stopped Lsec] [wehit, I Ye ricle Delay Met :Vehicles [sepivOhl 7:00 am to 8:00 am 83 830 80 10.4 30 No 8:00 am to 9:00 am 146 1460 114 12.8 30 No 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm 159 1590 205 7.8 30 No 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm 105 1050 241 4.4 30 No 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm 78 780 145 5.4 30 No 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm 86 860 127 6.8 30 1 No 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm 28 280 89 3.1 30 No 9:00 Pm to 10:00 Pm 367 3670 203 18.1 30 No As shown in Tables 5, the minimum vehicular delay on the minor street approach is not satisfied for any time period. It should be noted that during the study, there was a sold out concert, from 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm, occurring at the Philharmonic Center for the Arts, located on the southwest corner of the intersection. Even with this additional traffic, an average delay of 30 seconds was not achieved on Ridgewood Drive. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 9 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study � a OTHER CRITERIA According to the MUTCD, other criteria that may be considered include: 161 2 A27'14 A. The need to control left -turn conflicts; Only one of the five crashes that occurred between January 2007 and May 2010 was due to a left -turn conflict. B. The need to control vehicle /pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; As shown below, in Table 6, at the intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive, there was significant bicycle and pedestrian traffic in the morning. However, after 12:00 pm there were 13 or fewer bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the intersection every hour. Table 6. - Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes. Time Period &cycle A Pedestrian Counts Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total 7:00 am - 8:00 am 4 102 16 6 128 8:00 am - 9:00 am 9 43 12 8 72 9:00 am -10:00 am - 11 3 5 19 10:00 am - 11:00 am 3 18 8 8 37 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 8 10 3 4 25 12:00 prn - 1:00 prn 1 1 6 2 10 1:00 pm - 2:00 prn 3 1 3 2 9 2:00 prn - 3:00 prn - 3 4 3 10 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm - 5 2 - 7 4:00 prn - 5:00 prn 1 3 1 - 5 5:00 prn - 6:00 prn 2 2 2 - 6 6:00 prn - 7:00 prn 3 2 2 6 13 7:00 pm - 8:00 prn - 1 1 - 2 8:00 Prn - 9:00 Prn - 5 - 2 7 9:00 Prn -10:00 PM - 3 5 - 8 Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 10 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study 'J :e ;.3 161 2 A27 C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; None of the five crashes that occurred between January 2007 and May 2010 appeared to be caused by a road user stopping, but unable to see conflicting traffic and unable to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting traffic was also required to stop. D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi -way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. Only the southbound approach of Ridgewood Drive is a neighborhood collector street. Pelican Bay Boulevard is not a residential neighborhood collector, operates at a faster speed, and has a greater volume of traffic than Ridgewood Drive. SUMMARY The analysis of the multi -way stop criteria at the Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive intersection concluded that Criteria CA (minimum vehicular volume on the major street) and C.2.a (minimum vehicular volume on minor street) are met. However, Criteria B (collision analysis) and C.2.b (minor street vehicular delay) are not met. Since Criteria C.2.b is not met, all of Criteria C is considered to not be met. Based on the analyses and findings documented herein, the installation of a multi -way stop at the Pelican Bay Boulevard at Ridgewood Drive intersection would not be considered appropriate. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Although the major and minor street traffic volume criteria are met, as described above, the crash analysis is not showing an unusually high number of crashes and the average delay experienced by the minor street is below 30 seconds per approaching vehicle, as specified in the MUTCD. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page I1 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study A]j �t11� 7 * r During the data collection and from a site visit, it was noted that some pedestrians had difficulty crossing the intersection due to aggressive driving and possibly speeding vehicles. Therefore alternative measures to address the difficulty these pedestrians have are considered below. As an alternative to an all -way stop, a rapid flashing pedestrian beacon and lighted crosswalks, as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, may be considered as a potential means of increasing crosswalk visibility and pedestrian safety when crossing the intersection, without causing undue vehicle delay. Figure 3. - Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon and Crosswalk. Motorists often fail to yield the right -of -way to pedestrians in crosswalks. Rapid flashing beacons, as shown in Figure 3, are pedestrian- activated beacons located at the roadside, below pedestrian crosswalk signs. The flashing beacon notifies oncoming motorists to yield the right - of -way to the pedestrians in the crosswalk. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 12 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study Figure 4. - Crosswalk with In- Pavement Lighting. 16Ir2 X27 Similar to rapid flashing beacons, crosswalks with in- pavement lighting, as shown in Figure 4, assist in increasing the visibility of pedestrians at crosswalks in the early morning and late evening hours. The lights also help remind motorists to slow down and yield the right -of -way to the pedestrians in the crosswalk. Note the lighting on the sign's border as well. Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Page 13 Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study 161 2 A'27' APPENDIX A CRASH REPORTS Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study S TRA 0 INFI C I I u v n 1r 1 d C m b m 0. DRIVER 1. Phantom YEAR 27 2 A 161 � _ USE VEH. LICENSE #STATE FLORIDA TRAFFIC CRASH REPORT 19. uno -rrc • LONG FORM DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE r , \y ORIGINAL MAIL TO DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SAFETY S MOTOR VEHICLES, TRAFFIC CRASH (A jj' RECORD PJEILKIRK MAN BUIDING TALLAHASSEE FL323-19 -0537 7 Overturn 2Q WlndsMakl 1 15 1$ 17 $ ri. Traver S TRAILER OR TOWED VEHICLE Z DATE OF CRASH TIME OF CRASH 19:43 TIME OFFICER NOTIFIED TIME OFFICER ARRIVED INVEST. AGENCY REPORT* HSMV CRASH REPORT # e INFORMATION a OS -10 -10 9:43 NAM C] Pm ®and ❑PM 9:50 [DAM ❑PM 10 -12843 60239030 Post N Q COUNTY(C[TY CODE FEET or MILE(S) N S E W CITY OR TOWN (check if to aty or town) COUNTY N E W ❑ ® PELICAN BAY BLVD S 30 uo 64/54 2. Functional 3. No Damage 1 ® ❑ ❑ (] NAPLES 0) COLLIER POLICY NUMBER -J AT NODE x or FEET or MILE(S) FROM NODE At NEXT NODE x *OF LANES I. DIVIDED ION STREET, ROAD OR HIGHWAY Z j 030 NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER (Same as Omer) ® CURRENT ADDRESS (Number and Street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE SAME AS DRIVER 4 a 2. UNDNiDED I PELICAN BAY BLVD 5 NAME OF OWNER (TradercirTOwedvahicle) CURRENT ADDRESS (Numteran aStreet) LU ZIP CODE ❑ C NAME OF MOTOR CARRIER (Commercial Vehicle CURRENT ADDRESS (NUmberarostreet) CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE fUS DOTOr ICC MC IDENT1FiCATION NUMBER! AT THE INTERSECTION OF (,tree[. road ar rughway) FEET MILE(S) N S E W AT THE INTERSECTION OF (street• road or Morfivay) ~ RIDGEWOOD DR I n n n n S TRA 0 INFI C I I u v n 1r 1 d C m b m 0. DRIVER 1. Phantom YEAR MAKE TYPE USE VEH. LICENSE #STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 2 3 4 S 6 19. uno -rrc ACTION 2. N/A Un a 96 3. N/A FORD 03 01 612LUU FL 1FTEF25YSTLA71741 7 Overturn 2Q WlndsMakl 1 15 1$ 17 $ ri. Traver S TRAILER OR TOWED VEHICLE RAILER TYPE � Show first point e INFORMATION 14 13 12 '11 10 9 or o t VEHICLE TRAVELING O A Est. M Post peed Est. Ve Damage 1. Disabllnp 1 Est. Traler Damage damage o ®(� N E W ❑ ® PELICAN BAY BLVD S 30 130 12000.00 2. Functional 3. No Damage damaged damaged aro(s) 0) MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIABILITY OR PIP) POLICY NUMBER VEHICLE REMOVED BY; 1. Tow Rotation List 3. Driver n t 3 BAKERS TOWING 2.TOwOwnersRequest 4. Other Z j 030 NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER (Same as Omer) ® CURRENT ADDRESS (Number and Street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE SAME AS DRIVER NAME OF OWNER (TradercirTOwedvahicle) CURRENT ADDRESS (Numteran aStreet) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE ❑ C NAME OF MOTOR CARRIER (Commercial Vehicle CURRENT ADDRESS (NUmberarostreet) CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE fUS DOTOr ICC MC IDENT1FiCATION NUMBER! b 0) a s " M QRIVER [Ir..ENSE NUMBER . OLTYPE REO. END. ALUDPUG TEST TYPE 5 RESULTS ALC/ORUG PHYS.DEF. RB, RACE SEX IW. S. BOUIP. r q iRz! g 3 FL 5 1 1. Blood 3. Unre 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2. wreath 4. Refused S. Nora HAZARDOUSMA IALS PLACARCED 11ry es• indicate rums or 4 digit number from diamond Cr bon WAS HAZARDOUS CM EN CRIVERRE-FXAM. CRIVER'S PPICMENO. BEING TRANSPORTED placard and 1 deft number from bottom of diamard MATERIAL SPILLED? F YES E <PLAIIL IN NARAATI`JE 1.Yes 2. co 2 !.Yes 2. ra 1.Yes 2..v 'Z 1.Yes 2. n0 2 VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLE USE TRAILER TYPE RESIDENCE Driver /Ped. PHYSICAL DEFECTS ALCOHOL/DRUG USE LOCATION 01 Autamotrle 1 Ornate Transportation 015ingle Semi Trailer 1 County 'If Crash 1 No Cerects Kndv.n 1 Not Onriang or Using Drugs IN VEHICLE 02 `ran 2 CemmercW PassergeR 2 Tandem Sami Trader 2 8sew" In State : Eyesight Cefect 2 Akoft - Under lrillusiMe C 03 Light Tnick/P.U. 2 or A feat ores 3 Commercial Cargo 3 Tank Trailer 3 Non- Resident Out of State 3 Fdtigue/Asleep 3 Drugs - Under Influence 1 Front Leg 04 Medium ruck - 4 rear Unit '4 Public Transportation 4 Saddle MduPL'Flatted 4 Foreign 5 Unknown a Hearing Cefect a Alcohol & Drugs • Urear Innuence 2 Front Center M 05 Heavy Truck . 2 or more Rat axles 5 PuNk: Sctcal Bus 5 Beat Trader DL TYPE RA 5Illness 5 Haw Been Drlrsmq 3 Front Plght E )6 Truck Tract"ICA- Bcbtarl) Private Scl-Ad Bus .6 Utrhty Trailer IA 28 3C IWPte 6 Seiture, ECHOMY, Blackout n Pending ALUCRUG Test Results 4Rear Lelt )7 MCCOf lbme(RV) 7AmtiAarca :Nwotse Trade[' 4 D/Cr'auteur 2 Black 70Ver Ph• s,cal Cerect 5Rear Center s a"idriver +seats am 0.15) BLaw Enforcement FGe Trader 5FJ Cperatcr 3Asvana: IN)URYSEVERITY SAFETY EOUIPMENT IN USE 6Rear Right CgBm (drrera seats Per aver l5) FlreiRescLe - 9Tawed VenCte dFJ CpC. -Rest. 4Ctrer Itkre Irot mine T in B'ily or TPJCN 10 Bicycle 10 Military IC Auto Tramoort 7Pio -- Passible 2::eat BelVShouider Harness 98,%Passergm (O I l Metcrcycie I l Otter Covernmblit 77 Ctrer REQUIRED EX 3P1cn- Lrcacwtating 3Chrld P.estraim 90tter tJ 12 Mr,[ -d 12 Dump END SEMEHTS 1 Mao: 4ImAcacitatlrg 4 Air Bag • Cerwyed 13 AllTwa,wmh,r,:e 131:arxRteMnw I' /es 2F ?md!e iFatal viv bin= )Cwys) 5A,r Bag • Net ceplay EJECTED I4 Trmn La Garta•Ie nr Rehrse 2 N o 6 Yar.- TrA,•llr. Fatality n Sa[ety Helrrtt 1 110 15 L.:w e[enl Ielt Ie L. Cargo Van 3110 FAAxsemwu T Eye Protectirn 2 Yes J , IGtter :74tratr P (Brno 3po"al H514V -90005 (Re 02) Page 1 of 4 1 I 161 2 %27 OR Z: M than ITAR MAKE TYPE USE VEH. LICENSE B STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 1;a 2 3 4 i 6 ACTION ❑ 7 14.Overturn 3. N/A :0.5rlydshield 1 15 16 '1T 8 21. Trmier 3 TRAILER OR TOWED VEHICLE TRAILER TYPE + INFORMATION Show nrst pert 14 13 12 11 '10 6 cr VEHICLE E TRAVELING ON AT Est. MPH Pasted Speed Est. Vehicle Damage 1. Disablina 2. Fun CNdnal Est. Trailer Damage damage ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ J. Na Damage md0rcie ramagedarea(s) a1 u MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIABILITY OR PIP) POLICY NUMBER IvEHICLE REMOVED BY: t. Tow Reta[WnList J. Driver L 2 T Owrwes Request 4. Cthe a > NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER (5ameasCrrver) ❑ CURRENT ADDRESS thurnbw and Street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE NAMEOFOWNER (TraxlerorTowed`lelacle) CURRENT ADDRESS thumte, and Street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE El 1e b NAME OF MOTOR CARRIER (Commercial Vehicle Only) CURRENT ADDRESS Viumber and Street) CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE DOTor ICC MC IDENTIFICATION NUMSEl5 N r d NAME OF DRIVER (Take From Criver Uceme) CURRENT ADDRESS (Number and Street) CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE DATE OF BIRTH 4V d o. DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER STATE OL TYPE REQ. END. ALC/ORUG TEST TYPE RESULTS ALC/DRUG PHYS.Cff. Res. RACE SIX IN). S. s3UZP. EJECT. I. Blood 7. Unne 2. Breath 4, Reksod S. Ncne HAZARDOUS MATED IA PLACARDED // yea, indicate name or 4049 fyiinber earl diamand or box WASNAZARDOUS RECOMMEND DRIVEL REEXAM, CRIYEt'S PHONE NO. BEING 7RANSPO0. on olacard and 1 dl4rt number from bottom o/diamoM MATERIAL Still IF YES EXPLAIN IN NARRA 1. Yes 2. ro 1.Yls 2- nor L Yet 2. ro LYes 2. no at PROPERTY DAMAGED - OTHER THAN VEHICLES EST. AMOUNT OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 1 $ PROPERTY DAMAGED -OTHER THAN VEHICLES EST. AMOUNT OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP Z $ CONTRIBUTING CAUSES - DRIVERIPEDESTRIAN VEHICLE DEFECT VEHICLE MOVEMENT VEHICLE SPECIAL FUNCTIONS 01 No Improper Orivinlj/ACtlon 0 O 01 Ho Defects © O 01 Straight Ahead 1❑ O I None a 02 Careless Driving (Explain in Narrative) 03 Failed To yield Right - of - Way 03 Q 1 ❑a❑ 02 Def. Brakes 113 WorNSmooth Tres O 1 O 1 ❑ ❑❑ 02 Sla+eq/stopped/StaRM 03 Making Left Turn 1 Q 1 2 Farm 3 Police Pursult = 1 04 improper Backing 04 improper Backing OS Improper Lane Change Turn 07 ❑�� Lights as Punctuiemlowout o❑❑ 05 ing Right Turn 06 Cnennity tines S Emergency Openba�a 5CondtnKtMNMalhtenanc! SOURC F A R INFO MATION Alcohol 07 Alcohol -Under Influence 06 Steeing Mech. l77 rY1lMngrlearinp Parking Space 08 Drugs . Under Influence 07 Windshield Wipers OB 0puPMAVVelkcN 08 properly Parked 1 Not Applicable a Q 09 Alcohol a Drugs - Under IMuence ��� 77 All Other (Explain In 09 Improperly Parked 2 Shipping Papers to Followed Too Closet' Defect Narrative) 10 Making U -Tim 11 Passing 12 Driverless a Runaway vehicle 3Vehicle Side a�� I F L I N it disregarded Traffic signal 12 Exceeded Safe Speed limit 19 Improper Load 77 All atherlExdaln in Narrative) 14 Driver Sather at On Poad a Fil D R A I LOCATION T99 C3OlsrepardeoStopSipn 20 Disregarded Other Traffic 02 Not On Road 01 Crossing Not at intersection 07 Working � � Q 02Cro6stnp at Mld -elOCk Crosswalk In Road I Primarily Busbiesss Control 14 Failed To Maintain I WANehicle 21 Driving Wrong Side/Way 15lmproper Passing 03 Media err � 1 Q 1 Q 04 Median 16 Ome Left aicemer 22 fleeing Police 05 Turn Lane 03 crossing at Intersection OB Starwurgf 2 Primarily WOE AR A 17 Exceeded Stated Speed LlmR 2J Vehicle Modified 04 Walkerq Alag Road With Traffic Playrq In Rgied Residential at None 18 Obstructing Traflk 24 Diver DLstraction(explain 05 Walking Alma Road Against Traffic 09 Standing In PeOntderislard 30pen Country In NmatWa) 02 Nearby 06 Working on ,—,a to Road TI All Oiother (Exp41n In Narntivuq 77AI1 Otherfe,pleinln 03 Entered Q1 Ol 88 Unknown Narrative) FIRST /SUBSEQUENT HARMFUL EVENT(S) ROAD SYSTEM IDENTIFIER LIGHTING CONDITIOli al Cdllstton with MV in tramport(Rair end) 15 Collision with animal a a Q 02collisionvith MV Irtramport(Headdn) 16 MV lit signt3ign past 29 MV ran into ditch/culve"t IInterstate 07 Forrest Road 02 U.S. 08 Private Roadway ID4 1owlit 02 tusk 01 dl Cdllslon with MY in transpvRlAnple) 17 MV Mt WUIIRY pde/Ilght pots 30 Ran oRroed into water 03 03 03 State 77 Alt 4thv O3 Dawn 04ColUsxpnwith MV Mtrarspott(LaR turn) 18 MV hit guardrail 310vnMarled 04Coralty (Explain In M Dark (Street Light) 05 Collision with MV In trarlepert(P10htturn) 19 MV ht fence 32 Occupant toll from vehicle 05 Local Nilrrative) 05 Dark (No street light) 06 Collision with MV In transport(Sideswips) 20 MV hit concrete boner wall J3 Tractor /traller jackknifto 06TI'rr'p'kelt011 2fUnkrown ROAD SURFACE CONDITION WEATHER ROAD SURFACE TYPE 07 Cdi1slon with MV in transportmeeked into) 21 MV hit bridgdpar /abutmerWrall 34 fire at" 01 clear 01 SISWCiravWStone 08 Colo: ion with parked car 22 MV hit traWshrubhery 3S&Pksinm C9CdllaionwithMVOnROadway 23 CdRalonwlthcatstnictionlArrfcadeslgp360dwMi1lrunaway Q� 10 Collision with Pedestrian 24 Collision with gate 37 Cargo lassesNR @Wet 0350ppery 01 02 Cloudy 03Raln �! OZ Blacktop 03 BncWBlack Q2 1l Cdllstlon with bicycle 2S Collision with crash attera,ators is Separation cifonts 04 Icy 04 Fop 04Concrete 12 Cellisionwith bicwhiMike lane) 26 Collision with fixed eblect aboce road 39 Median crossover 77AROther 77 All other 05 Dirt 13 Collision with moped 2/ MV hit other tried object 77 All Other(exiain In a� (bplainin Narrative) (F.Plain In 77 All Other (Explain In Co"I'LlifLu rarratve -th rnoveati, object on road Narrative) Narrathn) .111 ROAD CONDITIONS AT TIME OF CRASH VISION OBSTRUCTED TRAFFIC CONTROL SITE LOCATIO TRAFFiCWAY CHARACTER 01 No Defects 020bstnlctxon wth warns g 01 01 Vision not obscured 02 Inclement weather _ 01 N iCantrol o2 5pectal soe id zoo! G6 01 Plot at irten2ctforr/RR :l•irg/Grdge 02 At lntersectidn 0t straglte • l of 02 OJOtestruc[lenwithwamigq a 03Parked/stopcedvehicle 03 Speed control &%n 03IMudtcedledxntersectron OZ a ewegrad*/ o f racer 04 Road under repay /constnctian C4Trees/crcps /bushes C4 School zone G4 Driveway Access 03 Curve - level 05 Lcose surface materials 05 Load on sehicle 05 Tra01c Signal 11 Posted ro U -turn as Railroad 11 Private property C4 Curve - wgredU C6 Shoulders- sditr'lew /Mqh 365mldiMfived Oblect 065topsi9n 12 Na Passing zone C6 Bridge 12 Tall tooth downgrade TYPE H ULD R 07 ealn /nts/unfla7e paved edge 075gns/blltoards 07Yieldsign 77 AR Other (Explain In 07 Entrance ramp 13 Public Lis stool 01 Paved 02 Unpaved O3 ce Standing water C95Y4rNp01shed road surface ❑ 08 Fog 77 All cthv f5plain 095mrAe In PlarratroU ❑ 01I Flashing bglnt Nlerrathle) r9 Railroad signal oe bit ramp Zone Lt' Parr, Tot- nq public 77 All Other (6pain 77 All other (50aln in Narrative) 10 Gave SOOS7cer,•Suarrf/llagpersrm 10 Park7ry lot • pn•rate In Narroti'ro) J3 curb SECTiON# arAtF Cctrrr`h wino . FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE CITATION NUMBER 316.123(3) FAIL TO YIELD AT INTERSECTION 9648 RSU n SECTION* NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE CITATION NUMBER a SECTION* NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER 0`1ARGE CITATION NUMBER o_ > SECTION# NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE PLUMBER CHARGE CITATION NUMBER HSMV -90005 (REV. t /02) Page 2 M 4 g 1612 A 27 , z f F,'...OF!MA TRAFFIC CRASH REPORT pp NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE NARRATIVE /DIAGRAM MAIL 10 DEPT. dF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, TRAFFIC CRASH RECORDS NEIL KIRKMAN BUILDING rALLAHASSEE FL 32399 -0537 Time EMS Notified (Ftalities Only' Time EMS Arrived (Fatatitles Only) Date of Crash County /City Code Invest. Agency Report Number HSMV Crash Report Number i ❑ AM El Pm ❑ AM ❑FM 05 -10 -10 64/54 10 -12843 180289030 NARRATIVE Veh -1 was northbound on Ridgewood Drive from stop sign at the Intersection of Pelican Bay Blvd S. Veh -2 was westbound on Pelican Bay Blvd S and did not have a traffic control signal. Veh -1 failed to yield to Veh -2 and drove Into the path of Veh -2 and collided. Veh -2 passenger had possible injuries and was transported by EMS to North Collier Hospital. Driver of Veh -1 is at fault and was Issued traffic citation for Fail to Yield. EC t 2 PASS4 1 ER 'S NAME CURRENT ADDRESS CITY &STATE ZIP CODE day r a ✓e X w Date Of Both �Race� Sex �LOC } IN) ' S E i { Eject SEC t PASS* PASSENGER'S NAME CURRENT ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE Date of Birth Recl Sex I LOC I IN) I S. E ul . Eject. SEC a PASS PASSENGER'S NAME CURRENT ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE Date of Birth Race Sex LLOC IN] S. E ui Eject. [s If no, then why 7 IN) SEC * PASSs PASSENGER'S NAME CURRENT ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE Date of Birth Race Se t.'tes� p? 2. Na Wl S. Eauie. Taken 1. Yes 2. No Elect. L/ rrw,r rr�xrv�seK rvru�� LUKKCwI PA)UKt -'* LtTY & STATE ZIP CODE Dale Of Birth Rate Sex LOG I IN] 1. S. Egulp. Eject. q 3 �, ey Hame EMS ECM PASS* PASSENGER'S NAME CURRENT ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE Date of Birth Race Sex ILOC [s If no, then why 7 IN) S. E ui Eject. FF Investigation 1 Yesa Made at Scene? 2 Nd t.'tes� p? 2. Na 05 -10-10 Taken 1. Yes 2. No I. investigating Agency ❑ 2. Other Investigator - Rnnk & Signature I0/Badge (lumber Cepartment r ECTION*1 NAME OF VIOLATOR CPL. LORF r4URkAY JFL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE CITATION NUMBER U ` "m . , .urtent Address city & State Zip Code a; t � V I i q 3 �, ey Hame EMS . ,. Was If no, then where? [s If no, then why 7 Oate of Report Photos if yes, by whom? Investigation 1 Yesa Made at Scene? 2 Nd t.'tes� p? 2. Na 05 -10-10 Taken 1. Yes 2. No I. investigating Agency ❑ 2. Other Investigator - Rnnk & Signature I0/Badge (lumber Cepartment FHP SO PD OTHER CPL. LORF r4URkAY 2348 COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE ❑ ® ❑ Cl HSMV -90005 (Re . L /02) �. _. 11'\ page 3 of 4 y � t DIAGRAM i 1 ! L U .j c� 1612 I A INDICAT NORTH WI R W cc: -n . zo -L ,­�—Iop SIGN i AL f 145MV -90005 (Rev. 1/02) Page of 1612 '® LAW.ENFORCEMENT SHORT FORM REPORT DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE DRIVER REPORT OF TRAFFIC CRASH ORIGINA DRIVER EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION Z DATE OF CRASH TIME OF CRASH TIME OFFICER NOTIFIED TIME OFFICER ARRIVED JINVEST. AGENCY REPORT rr HSMV CRASH REPORT t O 2/17/10 11:12 [DAM ❑ PM 11:13 E] AM ® PM 11:20 ® AM 0 PM 10 -4496 11488099 COUNTY /CITY CODE FEET or MILES) N S E W CITY OR TOWN (check if in city or town) COUNTY 0 64/54 1000 ® ❑ ❑ [3 NAPLES COLLIER 0 Al NODE .4 or FEET or I MILE(S) FROM NODE a NEXT NODE x # OF LANES 1. DIVIDED ON STREET, ROAD OR HIGHWAY w 4 2. UNDIVIDEO PELICAN BAY BLVD AT THE INTERSECTION OF (street. road orh,ghway) FEET I MILE(S) I N S E W AT THE INTERSECTION OF (street, roaoorhigl»vay) ~ RIDGEWOOD DR 5 N e Check ArE c .0 of Vehicle t Damage i IMnTi�t?..1 C S T C2 a+ w dl CL e NUMBER OF R /Front L/Front R /Side USide Rear R /Rear URear Est, Vehicle Damage Vehicle Removed by 1. To. Rotation List 3. Dnver 3 X ¢1,500.00 DRIVER z. Tow Owner's Request 4.other NAME OF PASSENGERS CURRENT ADDRESS (Number and Street) CITY AND STATE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS NAME OF PASSENGERS CURRENT ADDRESS (Number and Street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE ❑ YEAR MAKE (chev, ford, etc.) I TYPE (car, truck, bicycle, etc.) VEH. LICENSE NUMBER I STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER S y e u Check Areas Front R/Front L/Front R /Side USide Rear R(Rear URear Est. Vehicle Damage Vehicle Removed by 1. Tow Rotation List 3. Driver a c L of Vehicle t v Damage I 1 12. Tow Owners Request 4. Other i > MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIABILITY OR PIPI POl 1('Y NI IMRFR OF VEHICLE OWNER (Same asoriver) ❑ CURRENT ADDRESS (Nrmoern,wStreet) OF DRIVER (Take From OriverLicense) CURRENTADDRESS (NwnharandStreet) R LICENSE NUMBER STATE DL TYPE Denier /Pedestrian Home Phone Driver /pedest ER OF PASSENGERS I NAME OF PASSENGERS CURRENT ADDRESS (Number and Street) ON; NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER ON,: NAME OF VIOLATOR I FL STATUTE NUMBER 3 STATE ZIPCODE CSD LINDQUIST^ J��! `� 1,3141 COLLIER ivurtnc" COLLIER'COUNTY SHERIFF H❑ ® ❑ DI ❑R I ISMv- Q0 Rev. 04/04) YOU MUST READ AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE BACK OF THIS FROM. �i ® NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED BY YOU, REPORT COMPLETED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY R 1612 A27, MSMV -90006 (Rev. 04/04) Page 2 01 2 DIAGRAM INDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW VS WAS CROSSING PELICAN BAY BLVD, HEADING SOUTH BOUND ON RIDGEWOOD DR. VI WAS PROCEEDING FROM A STOP SIGN. V2 WAS PROCEEDING EAST ON PELICAN BAY BLVD. V2 HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY. Vl DRIVER STATED THAT SHE THOUGHT THE INTERSECTION WAS A 4 WAY STOP AND BEGAN TO CROSS PELICAN BAY BLVD AS V2 APPROACHED FROM THE RIGHT. V2 DRIVER STATED THAT SHE WAS APPROACHING THE INTERSECTION WHEN Vl SUDDENLY PULLED IN FRONT OF V2. V2 DRIVER STATED THAT SHE TRIED, BUT WAS UNABLE TO AVOID V 1. THE FRONT OF V2 MADE CONTACT WITH THE RIGHT SIDE OF V1. NEGATIVE INJURIES REPORTED. V1 DRIVER AT FAULT. CONTRIBUTING CAUSES - DRIVER/PEDESTRIAN VEHICLE DEFECT VEHICLE MOVEMENT VEHICLE SPECIAL FUNCTIONS 01 NO Improper Driving/Action a a Ol NO Defects © 0 )❑ OI Straight Ahead ©a o t More a Q 0 Farm 02 Careless Driving (Explain in Narrative) 07 Failed To Yield Right - of - Way 03 Ql �TIo 02 Def. Brakes 03 WorNSmooth-nres Ql Di a 02 Slowrrtg/Stoppeq/Stalled 03 Making Left Torn Ol Ol ED 2 3 Police Ptrstat F-11-17 041m "Per Backing 04Oefective(llnprom 04 Backing 4 Recreationw OS Irnprpper Woe Charge 06 improper Turn �0Q tights /B Qaa 05 Making Pi Turn 9K 06 Changing Lanes S Em e1OerxY Operation nanpe 07 Alcohol - Under lMuence 06stxctlre ch. O65teerirg Meth. 07 EMeri:xylranng/Park:r(Space SOURtructbrvCARR SOURCE OF CARRIER INFORMATION I Not Applicable o O 08 Drugs - Under IMuence 07windshield Wipers 08 Properly Parked 09 Alcohol & Drugs - under lif ue,tte OBEgWpmerx /Vehicle 77 All OtW (Explain In 091nlproperly Parked 2 Shotiorvg Papers 10 Fdbwed Too Cbsaly �a� Deject Narrative) 10 Maki U -Turn IIPasslrg ( 12 Driverless or RmtawaY Vehicle 3vehwleSide onto INTO COLLISION 11 disregarded Traffic Signal 4 Driver Ol On Road Q o D 12 Exceeded Safe Speed Limit 19 improper Load 77AI1 Orher(.vlam In Narmtive) SOther PED TRIAN ACTION LOCATION TYPE .Disregarded Stop Sign 2o Disregarded Other Traffic 02NOt On Road 01 Cross: Not at Intersection 07 Workl a Q 1 Primarily Control 14 Failed TO Maintain Equlp/veltlrle 21 Driving vr n9' ofgSide/Way 035ftotrltl0 Ql Ql 151m proper Passing 22 Fleeing Police Drove Ceptei 04 Median 05 Ttrn Lane 02CrossntgatMid- bbCkCrosswalk In Road 03 Crossug at Intersection 095[andir(/ BlKhless$ Q 2Prtma,Oy 16 Left of L7 Exceeded Stated Speed Limit 23 Vehicle Modified 104 Walkup Along Road With Traffic playkg In Road Residar»ial W RK AREA Ol None Q a ❑j to Obstructing TrJtllt 24 Driver Distraction (Explain 05 Walking Along Road Against TraMc 09 Standing in Pedestrian Island 30pen Country In Narrative) 77 All other (EXpiain in 02 Nearby 03 Entered Ol Ol 06 Working or 4eltcle In Road 77 All Other (Explain In Narrative) 88 Unknown Narrative) FIRST /SUBSEOUENT HARMFUL EVENT(S) ROAD SYSTEM IDENTIFIER LIGHTING CONDITIO 01 Colhstion nwth MV lntrinsport(Rearend) 15 Collision with animal 02 collision with MV in trion5port (Read on) 16 my hit slgn/slgn post 29 MV ran hxa rfltcR culvert a a 01 Interstate 07 Forrest Road 02 U. S. oe Prvate Roadway � 010ayligtt 02 DtKk Ol 03 Collision rvltlt MV ua tran!;00n(Angle) V MV hit ultddy pole/ight pole 30 Ran Oaf Had i,xo water 03 03 Q O3 state 77 Al: Other 03 Dawn Oa Collis ion with MV iO transport Left turn) 18 MV hit guafdrell 31 overturned 04 Comity (&.plain in flarrative 04 Dark (Street L(M) Comsinn wino MV in trJ,K port (Right [urn) 19 My hit fence 32Ottnpant fell hint vehicle GS LOCaI WEATHER oS Dark if .o (o strsec Iglx) tY Collision w ich My in transport (Sideswipe) 20 MV hit concrete barrier wall 33 Tractor /trailerjaekknikd"�� 06Twnpike/trtl 88Unkntown ROAD SURFACE CONDITION ROAD SURFACE TYPE � o7 collision w tin MVmtransport( Backed into) 2tMV hit brd*3e /pierraputmentirad 34 Fire IJa 01 dry 01 Clear 01 Slavc;favel /Stone 08 Collision with parked car 22MV hit tree /shr-oupery 35&plosia. 09 Collisnonwith MV On Roadway 23C-olllsion with construction tarricade sign 36 Downhill runaway ❑��02 tO Collision,vdh 37 Cargo loss or shift pedestrian 24COlusion.vitnva8lcgate Wet 03 Slippery Ql � 02Cloody 03 Rato 01 02 Blacktop 03 B,tc"lczk 02 I 1 Co61StlOn with bicycle 25COihsiOn.vith crash atted,ators 38 Separation of units 041Cy 04 Fog t I 04CpYrete 12 Collision with dcycle(Bike lane) 26 Collision with fixed object d00te road +9 Median Crp550ve� 77 All Qtltar 77 All other OS Dirt 13 Collision with moped 27 MV h't other fired object 77 All outer (Explain in x (Explain In Narrative) (&%Diann In Narrative) 77 All Otlxr (Explain I„ a rlr : nwi t train 7 YG with m nafrdh Ve) "a,mt,ve) ROAD CONDITIONS AT TIME OF CRASH VISION OBSTRUCTED TRAFFIC CONTROL SITE LOCATION TRAFFICWAY CHARACTER 01 No Cef-Cts 02 ObstruC; ton vnth warning Ql Ol Vision not O'scured 02 Inclement weather Ol 01 .Vo Coftrol 02 Spacial speed rate 06 01 Not Jt uttersectlaVPR X -mg / bridge 02 At irtersection 02 01 Straight - level 02 Straight - upgrade/ Ol 03 OLestrctiMt with warning 03 Parke-9stopped vehicle 03 Speed caxrol sign 031nA t,eftcei!byrntersection dor.fx)rrle 04 Road under repair /cunstrucrico f)4 Tfees /crcp5hribhbs Ca Schdul zone 04 Onve,v3y Access 03 Curve - le-n :1 05 Lcose. surfac> materials 05 U /ad on vellocle OS Tralhe Signal 11 Posted rD U -tuh. 05 P.aih oaJ i l Private property 134C,i ve - upgrade/ 136Shouklers- soh /I.awrhion U6Bmkbrv)/fix,dobjett 06 Stop sign 11 NO Passing taw 06anege 12 roll tooth Co,vc9rM12 TYPE SHOULDER 07 Holesiruts!:atsafe proved edge 07 S(nK /b,Ol- .yards 07 Yield sign 77 All Other (E plain In 07 Entrance ramp 13 Poplic bus stop 0 Paved 03 02 Unpaved 08 Startling water 09 WOfNpobslied road surface 08 Fog 77 All other (Explain 095mnke to Ndrratvm) a 08 Flashing light Narrative) -..1 Railroad signal ❑09 n38 Exit ramp 2a:e Parking lot- public 77 All Other(Explgt., 77 Ah other Moolalo m hirrative) 10 01'1'e IO 011lcef /p, rJ /fiagpefsoO 10 Varkhrg for - private In Plarrat.rve) 03 Gib MSMV -90006 (Rev. 04/04) Page 2 01 2 C I i ( i a E 1] 1 1� 3 [LAW ENFU 16 Y 2 Ae 7 -'- FLL:tMt rq 1 t-mu i 11-VMM Ht:VVH 1 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE ❑ DRIVER REPORT OF TRAFFIC CRASH ORIGINAL ❑ DRIVER EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION DATE OF CRASH TIME OF CRASH TIME OFFICER NOTIFIED TIME OFFICER ARRIVED INVEST. AGENCY REPORT NUMBER HS�1V CRASH fjEPO�T t�1Mt3ER� 6 AM PM -T6% AM PM kc�/3 ❑ AM PN O ._O(aC1 1j. 14 8 (J] �J] 1 COUNTY /q7Y E FEET a MILES) W❑ CITY OR TOWN (Check if in City or Town) COUNTY(a ❑N ❑S ❑E AT NODE NO. of FEET or MILES) FROM NODE NO. NEXT NODE NO. NO.OF LANES ❑ 1. DIVIDED ON STREET, ROAD OR HIGHWAY 4) 2. UNDIVIDED AT THE INTERSECTION OF r FEET MILES) NSEW FROM INTERSECTION OF CIS § g f § i ,we } `,>,se,.,;sv,.a e` c, 3 3 n//F:; } #§ ,: ke.*} `;f sz i ° ,� .:' ?5"?Y"� %�r�zt" 4 '3' ' ^r ,q% i k §° a': &6'i^,g 4fw %Y"4 - $kt �k/ �. °M1" I< ❑ g..w . d'5. } }eF ,.;�(,)rg*�r ?� t 's% ' '' 'a'`' 1 oR U) ,,,%rP 13. #a:. `yr ra .f3; § }e g � 999 1 .....,.., .; sr , «. A/rl a 9 : x, s bt, :: ...4.. ;. '°`.`,,.r..' § YEAR MAKE (chev, fob, etc.) TYPE (ear, uudt, Gcyde, etc.) VEH. LICENSE NUMBER STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER D Check Areas Ot Vehicle Front R / front L / Front R / Side L! Slde Rear R / Rear L / Rear EST. VEHICLE DAMAGE VEHICLE REMOVED BY: oration Liss 3. Driver ❑ D9e 2. Tow Owner's Request 4.Other MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIABILITY OR PIP) POLICY NUMBER NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER (Check Box N Same As Driver) ❑ CURRENT ADDRESS (Number and Street) CITY AND STATE .. ZIP CODE El ' NAME OF DRIVER (Take From Odver License) / PEDESTRIAN CURRENT 0. and Street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CONE DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER TATE TY PE DRIVER I PEDESTRIAN HOME PHONE ORMER / PEDESTRIAN BUSINESS PHONE ( RACE SEX DATE OF BIRTH Area Coda Area Code a, NUMBER OF P NAME OF PASSENGER CURRENT ADDRESS (Nw Ws and Street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE 4I b¢ / F }. y O 7 S CTION a NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE CITATION NUMBER # PROPERTY DAMAGED • OTHER THAN VEHICLES EST. AMOUNT OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 5 . TNESS NAME (1) CURRENT ADDRESS qTY d STATE ZIP CODE WITNESS NAME (2) CURRENT AWRESS CITY 8 STATE ZIP CODE INVESTIGAT -RAN 51 RE IDiBADGE NUMBE DEPT TMENT ` F14P SO PO OTHER MV- 04/04 5k L-J YOU MUST READ AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM. 6Zi NO FURTHER ACTION REOUIRED BY YOU, REPORT COMPLETED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. INDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW 02 Carebsa Or vng (Explain In Narrative) 03 Failed to YM Righ -cf•Way, u o ®� ". "III W O 1 02 Del. Brakes Worn ISM" Tres 04 I VVW Backing, 04 Bari tB 0 t � dorsal Y 04 Defective I Improper n Change 05 ti Making AgM Turn 11 Pess ng S Emergerwy Operation U g Turn 32 Occupant Fell From Vahide 06 Cha"Lanes 12 Driverless or 6 ConsUUam / Ma'rdOnance 05 Puncture / Bbwout 07 Woohol - Under Influence 04 Cdlsion (Leh 05 Cogfsion With MV in Transport (Eliot rum) 07 Emering I Leaving J par! ing Space Runaway Vehicle i RRIER INF R A f 06 Steering Med. 06 Onugs - Under InfUnce f a 22—��� 3 77 All Max Packed' 09 Ine" In Narrative) 07 Windshield Wipers 08 Equipment J Vehicle 09 Akdwi d Drugs - Under kVktence 07 yield Son 1 M Narrative) (E 88 Unknown 10 Followed Too Closely 21 MV Hit Bridge/ Pier I Abu(mont I Rail 35 Explosion 68 Fog 09 Smoke 77 AN Other (Explain DOW 11 ftregardedTrak Signal 4 Driver c—I-� POIRT OF kOLLISIO 12 Exceeded Sale Speed Lima 19 Improper Load 01 On Hoad 13 Disregarded Step Sign 20 Disregarded 08ler Traae Control 02 hbt On Road 14 Fared 10 Maintain Equip- J VaNCe 21 Driving Wrong Side J Way, 03 Shoulder 15 Improper Passirg 22 Peeing Poke 04 Median 16 Drove Loa of Center 23 Vehicle MorWed 05 Turn Lane 17 Exceeded Stated Speed LirMt 24 Driver Distraction WOR AREA is Obstructing Tralic 25 AN Other (Explain In Narrative) 01 Nan 02 Nearby 04 Fog 77 AN Other 04 Cowek OS Olin 03 Entered 1 ©0 02 Slowing SIStopped /Staled 03 "Leo Turn a a ®[R 2� %a 2 a D z O 04 Bari tB 0 t � dorsal Y 17 MV he! Utility Pole I Light Pate 31 Overturned Making AgM Turn 11 Pess ng S Emergerwy Operation zzz05 18 MV Hit Guardia! 32 Occupant Fell From Vahide 06 Cha"Lanes 12 Driverless or 6 ConsUUam / Ma'rdOnance 11 Posted No VTum 04 Dark (Street LiliN 04 Cdlsion (Leh 05 Cogfsion With MV in Transport (Eliot rum) 07 Emering I Leaving J par! ing Space Runaway Vehicle i RRIER INF R A f 08 Pmpedy Parked 77 Al Outer (Explain f a 22—��� 3 77 All Max Packed' 09 Ine" In Narrative) 2 Shppng Papers 07 Sans I Billboards 07 yield Son 1 M Narrative) (E U- 10 Makeg U•TUm 88 Unknown 3 Vehicle Side 21 MV Hit Bridge/ Pier I Abu(mont I Rail 35 Explosion 68 Fog 09 Smoke 77 AN Other (Explain 09 Flashing Light 09 Railroad Signal ROAD SURFACE CONDITION 4 Driver c—I-� `i�-� 22 MV H0 Tree 1 Shrubbery .. e �r---�1 5 Other 01 Clear 01 Shag I Gravel I Stone 09 Collision With MV on Roadway 10 Collision With Pedestrian OZ C � at a4d -bock Crosswalk St Road p� Business 0.3 C at Intersection t)8 Standing / 2 Primary 04 Walking MN Road Wier Traffic In Read Resideru 05 Walking Along Road Against Tralliic 09 Standing In Pedesft Island 3 Open Country 06 Wruking on Vehicle In Road 77 Al Other (Explain In Narrative) all Unkrown 01 Catsion with MV in Transport (Rear End) 02 Collision Wih MV n Transport (Head On) 15 Collision With Animal 16 MV Hit Sign/ Sign Post 29 MV Ran Info Dikch / Culvert 30 Ran ON Road Ho Water o O Q I--� or Interstate 07 Forest Read 02 U.S. 08 Private Roadway I�,�1'} 01 Daysght 02 Dusk 03 Collision Wien MV in Transport (Angle) 17 MV he! Utility Pole I Light Pate 31 Overturned 04 School Zone 03 Slate 77 AN Oho tExpkain 03 Dawn With MV in Transport Tom) 18 MV Hit Guardia! 32 Occupant Fell From Vahide /�I 1t=/ 04 County In Narratire) 11 Posted No VTum 04 Dark (Street LiliN 04 Cdlsion (Leh 05 Cogfsion With MV in Transport (Eliot rum) 19 MV Hit fence 33 TiaM f Trailer Jackimiled f 05 Local 12 No Passutg Zane 05 Dark (No Street Ugh) 06 Collision With MV in Transport ( Sideswipe) 20 MV Hit Concrete Bander Wall 34 Fie 07 Sans I Billboards 07 yield Son 06 Turnpike I TCg 07 Entrance Ramp 13 Public Bus Stop Zone 88 Unknown 07 Collision With MV in Trarsi on (Backed Into) 21 MV Hit Bridge/ Pier I Abu(mont I Rail 35 Explosion 68 Fog 09 Smoke 77 AN Other (Explain 09 Flashing Light 09 Railroad Signal ROAD SURFACE CONDITION WEATHER ROAD SURFACE TYPE 06 Collision With Parked Cat 22 MV H0 Tree 1 Shrubbery 36 Downhill Runaway �r---�1 01 Dry 01 Clear 01 Shag I Gravel I Stone 09 Collision With MV on Roadway 10 Collision With Pedestrian 23 Collision With Canstrudicn Barricade Sign 24 Gkl2isrort With. Traffic Gate 37 Cargo Loss or Shia 38 Separation ol Urnts 02 WBI 03 Sr © VPery 02 Cloudy 03 Ran a 02 Bletstop 03 Brick / Block 11 Cortsial Wirth Bicycle 25 Cdgsbn With Crash Adenualors Mratlfan Crossover 77 All Other (Explain n 04 sty 77 AI" ONker 04 Fog 77 AN Other 04 Cowek OS Olin 12 Collision With BicyM (Bike Lana) 13 CWlsion With Moped 26 Collision With Fixed Objets Above Road 27 MV Hil Other Fred Object - - - Narrative) 1 �I IIL /JI I / I IIL /—JI ( Explain In Narrative) (Explain In ­­­_1 77 All Other (Explain In u-..-. 1 02 Obstruction With Warning 03 Obshuclon WITout Warning d a 02 IrtdemecN Weather 03 Parked,' Stopped Vehicle 02 Spec al Speed Zone 03 Speed Control Sign a 02 At Intersection 03 Ind Influenced By Inlersection 02 Straight - Upgrade! Downgrade OW 04 Road UnderRepairlCCnskuc0on 04 TreeslCkopslBushes 04 School Zone Od OttvewayACrsss 03 Curve level 05 Loose Surface Materials 05 Load on Vehcle OS Traffic Signal 11 Posted No VTum 05 Railroad I I Private Property 04 Curve - Upgrade 1 06 Shoulders - Son I Low I High 06 euld'ng I Fused Object 06 Slop Sign 12 No Passutg Zane 06 Bridge 12 Tog Booth Downgrade 07 Holes /Ruts I Uosale Paved Edge 07 Sans I Billboards 07 yield Son 77 All Other (Explain In 07 Entrance Ramp 13 Public Bus Stop Zone TYPE SHOULDER 01 Paved 08 Standing Water 09 Worn / Polished Road Mace 68 Fog 09 Smoke 77 AN Other (Explain 09 Flashing Light 09 Railroad Signal Narraare) 06 Exit Ramp 77 Al Other (Explain In 09 Parking Lot • Pubic Plarrative) 02 Unpaved n HSMV -90006 Rev. 04/04 Page 2 161 2- /,�f�l QQ,LA.W V14FORCEMENT SHORT FORM REPORT Q DRIVER REPORT OF TRAFFIC CRASH rOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE ❑ DRIVER EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ORIGINAL Z DATE OF CRASH TIME Of CRASH TIME OFFICER NOTIFIED TIME OFFICER ARRIVED INVEST. AGENCY REPORT * HSMV CRASH REPORT s, 7/27/09 14:30 ED AM ® ?M 4:31 ❑ AM Mom 4:40 Q AM ®PM 09- 00020406 6090675 4 COUNTYIC17Y CODE I FEET or MILES) I N 5 E W CITY OR TOWN (check if in City or town) COUNTY C 64/94 1 ® 0 ❑ 0 NAPLES COLLIER I AT NODE a or FEET or MILE(S) FROM NODE E NEXT NODE r f OF LANES 1. DMDED ON STREET, ROAD OR HIGHWAY w 4 D 2. utmrmED PELICAN SAY BLVD AT THE INTERSECTION OF IsaM, rweaagrway) FEET I MILE(S) I N S E W AT THE INTERSECTION OF tstraet, roaoe.eyrv,ar) I" RIDGEWOOD DRIVE 0000 s d e .y C r t > I 7►. C �o h N d V a � a e V C L t f � C A b N d a o. YEAR )MAKE (chev, ford, etc.) 1 TYPE (car, truck, bicycle, e t+ heck Are C s of Vehicie ( d maye 1 > MOTOR\ 4 C V b N d N i>. v N 3` SECTION* NAME OF VIOLATOR m 0 j SECTION* NAME Of VIOLATOR rnvc�r wnivn - —Vry a: D/S N. SHAFFER r+sMV- 9 #oDfi (aev. oe/oa) ,fill, Vehicle Damage )Vehicle Removed by NUMBER t. Tow itetetion cast 3. Driver L Tow Owner's lkagisrst 4.00W 2228 I COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 0 0 0 ❑ E] YOU MUST READ AND COMPLY WTM THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE SACK Of THIS FROM. 0 NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED by YOU, REPORT COMPLETLD #Y LAW ENlMRCEMENT AGENCY r r 161 2 A DIAGRAM INDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW VEHICLE X1 WAS STOPPED AT A POSTED STOP SIGN ON RIDGEWOOD DRIVE AT THE INTERSECTION OF PELICAN DAY BLVD. VEHICLE *1 PROCEEDED TO CROSS PELICAN SAY BLVD AND PULLED INTO THE PATH OF VEHICLE *X WHICH 010 NOT HAVE A STOP SIGN REQUIRING A STOP AT THE INTERSECTION. AS A RESULT A COLLISION BETWEEN VEHICLE Ott AND VEHICLE Ott ENSUED CAUSING SIGNIFICANT OA14AG41 TO BOTH VEHICLES. DRIVER OF VEHICLE 01 AT FAULT FOR FAILURE TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO DRIVER OF VEHICLE *X NO INJUIRIES WERE REPORTED AT THE.SCENE. BOTH VEHICLES WERE REMOVED BY AAA. CONTRIBUTING CAUSES • DRIVERIPEDESTRIAN VEHICLE DEFECT VEHICLE MOVEMENT VEHICLE SPECIAL FUNCTIONS 01 Ne InlpapK orivirtyACtwn a O Q 01 NO oafwm a O D Ol Straight Ahead 0 ❑2 a 1 None 2►arm a O a 02 taeaes 0riwnp (ordain In Nwracne) 041n*m ro RiyR -a -way Q Oi Q 02 Der. erakas 03 worNSteoetn areas O4DO*Cbi Wig"Orow 01 Di 11 02 swwnnprstoppwmow aT Makerq L..0 Tum Oi Oi / 049achsrq aQa 3 splice pmLat 1 1 / 4Wfat trW a�a oat 05Improper Lam 061mproplr Tun 051ingro0eri.NteChenpe QaQ Lights 09 lowOtR Q 05 Haft Rlple Tuns C� s EnerOu¢y OPeraten 6tOretruct M Rlerw¢O 07 Akahol • lMdet uatuertce 06 �. 6Staevr"Wq «MylwinyDarki� specs 2SADpng a O O 08 Drugs • e 07W it wipe 0 �PWW 09 Alcohol 8, Drugs - Under ireuevce Q�a V 77AUtter(Ex"riIn Narrative) 091 10 Map T it Pasup 3VdKis Side ioroddwed74Ceely 120"vefW$*P* 4Dnw aaa 11alfN 7rak Syol 1 'SpoLhnk tayVWCle 77 AN Other(bolan In NMaM) SOtler oad O O q .3 Disregarded Stop Slpe 200isnWdedOther7ralk Ufrke TO MertaM EWNYeN[le 21 Orlvx+p WroiSid"ar 02hatOnRead 03 SNoJtkr O: O1 01 Crosikq Itet at lRarseCtion W Wotktnp to 0.oad � 0 O 1►rlmaiey IS fintro r Passing 160rove Letatc" r Z2 FIQ"Fob" 04Pladen 05 Tim tent 02 CrefsigrtMibblack Craswa»t 03CrossbyetlnterseCten as sisrl*w �aa OuOrssss a 2PrimardY 176cee0e0 SCSI, Saws trait 23%f*kIOMGMW 04WMking Atone Road WtthTNdNC A&V091nRoed Rsidw*Al at F" 0 Q 0 1800aru tirsTralk 24 Driver Qftrecom(ExpMn OSWe" Along Road Against Tra01C 09S1NVIM1111 e!oeftnenlsUro 300"Country In NSrrstwe) 02 boaOn, ad via king on veMCN In Road 7f ANOthWiet$"InN&Mr.0) nA» other cExpN+rt m 031 rterw Ol Ol / as ur*mwn FIRST/SUBSEQUENT HARMFUL EVENTS ROAD SYSTEM IDENTIFIER 1 LIGHTING CONDITIO Ot CogYtion with MV M lrampert(aw and) 02 with MV In trereport(rteed WO 16 MV Mt S4 "99n 00St 29 MV ran uto d"C~ © O at Ile tats 07 Forrest Road Q2 u. 5. Op Private Roadway 04 1 Deyayit 02 pek OL coNsion 03 CdUSkw" MV M trenfoort(A"t) 17 HV Nt WIN" Dde/k9tR Ode 30 Ran otred NRo water a� flROAQ W state 77 A» other 03 mwn Oe ionwith PIVintransport(Letb") 10HVWgtwaall 31OveRvneO 320ccpai» MI e0rn velrclt 04CowitY (f lernln 05Lotd herrative) WEATHER 04Dark(Strutuytt) QS Dark (NO straot kgnt) OS Colksion w »h MV m traniport(R ye turr0 t9 MV M hrce 0 Collision with MV In trans pM(sidl 20 MV tR cOrntrde Gantt wag 33 T, -area er yK�❑ 34 097urptUtolt n F CONDITION SURF ETYP W iro 07 Colks+on WlthlNYin trerep> tit(gacka0 into)21 MVMbbpNper /apRrMrRJriN 01Ory OIHaar OIslayGraveVSterne OgCoks70nwnhoarkeOp/ 22 MV Attree/fhnAbfrY 35e -Onion 09Cogaanw4h Rif onROaOway 23COMIM with totetPAUDrnter riCa0e Sip 360owNMrueiway / / IOtet»senwilA pedestrian 24Cd iao.,tntrawCgate 37ear90tostorshkit ❑Q 02 Wet 03 Ship" 01 02ciol, 01 Rain Ol 0281sctddp 038neb9ftelt 11 CAstion with lacycle 25 comp" with train attenuK" 3I S"araten of untf 0a ICY 04 Fog W CovYrtt 12 Collision w.th bicycle(Mke Un) 26 Combo with gored at"" Aboce EON 39 Medan CrOSierar nA »otritr(Wilmn-n as / 77 AR Other tbploknle Narretne) 77 AN other (Explain In OS ONt 7fAg Other (Wan In l3fAdisen w411 27MV ht other aid ob)ect ra�thK) Narrahve) Narrative) ROAD O IT ON AT TIME OF V SION OBSTRUCrED ITRAFFICCONTROL T T QLAKACTeg 01 No DeNets 02 Obstruction w,thwan" Ol 01 Vrson rot owtred 02 lndernert weattw Ol 01 Ne Contrq 02sttecirtow Ran a 01 Not lR ;MersectfoNRR X- mIgibridge O At intersection 01 Straight • MV41 02 Straight - "grader 03Obeetruchm with war" 03 hrkedrstopred vehide 03 Sow caiety Sin O= a] ImAtre teed by intersection doerngrsa Ol 04 Rao under MOO- /constntction 04 Trtef /crops /bushes Os School zom 04 Onvewav Access 03 Cwt • tevet 05 LoosefurfPcemotenals 05 Lad on vehicle OSTracksignal It PostedAOUdurn O5Ra »rod itOrmu000mrty 04C�.wwxw OawnVaOa asShot/ders•swfow /high 068u10ioWlIxedOil 06 stop sign 12 Me Passinglohe 06Sudge 12T oil hooth -TYPE SOULMA 07 Holes /ruts/usele paved edge 073iyrWbnpoords 07 Flew sign 77A1101ter(Wain In 076ttrenceramp 13 h&K Did stop at Paved 03 02 un0evm to Standing water 09 WOrNpolished road surface a CAF 17 All over (axplern 09 fog In Nerratrve) Q OI Fteehing �r9rt %brrat:vt) 09 0-Pead signal � Of bit ramp lone 09Parkutg lot • public 71 All Other (Explain 77 Aft otw (E.olara in Narrative) 10 Gars to Oaken /cterora"ovian SO Itrkmp net -paste In Ns -ative) 03 Curb HSNV•90006 (Rev. 04/04) Page 2 tl/ 2 S e (C Q n 1 e c t I 0 n 2 S e C I 0 n LAW ENFORCEMENT SHORT FORM REPORT ❑ DRIVER REPORT OF TRAFFIC CRASH (❑ DRIVER EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ;'/� - sa -Fso 161 2 A27 I 0 DATE OF CRASH TIME OF CRASH �T TIME FFICER NOPFIED IA 1 TIME OFFICER ARRIVED :NVEST. AGENCY REPORT NUMBER HSMV CRASH REPORT N Pi3-R I_ •� r �. at �I AM PM m W fW'� 5p. ❑ AM I PM Cp -3a AM i FM tU�' ����� _C 09629-J65 ` U COUNTY CITY CODE FEET W 111LE(S) 1 N S E W CITY OR TOWN (Check d In City or Town) COUNTY ' S u, �JX1 � I L of �Q�C1> I h1�QLS 06 ----- - - - - -- -..._ AT NODE N0. or I FEET or] M!LF-(S) I FROM NODE N0, T NEXT NODE. NO N0. OF LANES I DIVIDED ON Sf FEET, ROAD OR HIGHWAY IM�N � I 2. UNDIVIDED C-AN 19h S�.v 0 Lif Qy E -L_ -- ���- -- _ AT THEpNTERSEOTtON OF +r ! FEET LE10. NN S f W FROM INTERSECTION OF 1- j [IF Rl ia�. SW �fl b? 1 I__ 0 _1 _ �! 3l r .7'i B'bF•k p p ;�S t a � - r F v ds `?f/ ^{, � t Y §. l p >a P 3� 8 y �, p sbF• r �bfl%a'F'i� E A � `a, pF }� 4 � £ N i ¢3'x<i' d,:q�">".w�" f V ,;�zt �/d 7- � hu✓"a� x . � � - .Y¢ 3 CL � k pg a, i p l a iv r'rc 8 &" 6 p� `.t` t s 'y��;) pyl�'�4 s4 �.f?Et�ld k "�d{ I{ a 't .s` § z '✓e § � a >rb � g x 1 .s ''' ?4 `R�C {s`1 °z# -•E�g, ¢5 }"" t� __, `"� i {"I6' t€1(".^r�F. -`¢�I tf rP', *L 4'°N''i : .ew § e AM � a k i§ "?a36 �p�r,�t�t��" ?�` k'ft. �` � n �. s 7 zn' � � "'7sT¢ "�,� f�vh¢r } L ¢ 44 •, IT a, *p�pp El t� F {.4 % {{gga4��,k ) YY`"eek2;'�a� �.. s �"l ,byL�a� nt'Yh�'k ±a d "" � �'. ¢P y .. -,a�"� kl �•t� � L'�� .. f 6 f l i f > „N��� { 5 l MUNN Jp h'Th "'ri••t 4 4ti:a�q�?`38t»t a Yj�`'.,& § w^" „r 4Y2Y %"+ d ggR , i d //ab6/ ✓x+2�j./F f' d1��z Ya i^b�, x4aa`5 1 'at'§' tat� Z+'r'3 ;§§ t �Z t^ l9tytfdx'dr.%i" hirt;p �a 4'ir'?sd,r °1... Yl'' ^' C @ .tLa`2f 4 F .t. Mine lldtC'V. 1]'V, an.., <. "fYC LEI, Lf'Jtr. LhL�(.lii CR:l .. -vCn �N.�fv�CaU•w[YLri ,n ,.1 ul��.� �. -ir.. �LH,•v ... ,...1:•' ^. ,.' -. � � „ °�. .�. El I Check Areas f0f Vehicle Front i Fl I Fmnt fir 5 de L: Stlr• Fear 1 9 i Rear 1 L: Rear I EST VEHICLE DAMAGE ' VEHICLE REMOVED BY: 1. Tcw Foxatien 'List 7.Or ver V i 1 i 2.TOw OwnarSReQuest4 U Damage — -Caber MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY fUABILiTV OR PIP) POLICY NUMBER i - -- - - - - -- -- — --- - ----- NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER 1Check Box If Sarre AS Omwp ❑ CURRENT ADDRESS iNumber q CITY AND S SATE ZIP CODE -� O, NAME OF DRIVER Make Fran Drn�r Ocensej : PEDESTRIAN CURRENT ADDRESS rVumber and Sheet) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE L N DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER STATE PE DRIVER,' PEDESTRIAN HOME PHONE DPoVEP.: PEDESTRIAN BUSNESS PtiGNE SEX GA ?E OF BIRTH N I 1 l Area: ode Area CWe (L r NUMBER OF PASSENGER NAM "c OF PASSENGER CURPENT ADDRESS (Nunter and Street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE i NAME OF VIOLATOR. ( FL $TATIjTE NUMBER CHARGE CITATION NUMBER (A ( 0 SECTION a NAME OF VIOLATO E FL STATLrE NUMBE9 CHARGE CITATION NUMBER Cb � SF.G7ICN A NAME OF ViCLATCR FL STATUTE %UMBER CHARGE CITATION NUMBER r PROPERTY DAMAGED - OTHER THAN 'VEHICLES ES'. AMCUNT OV44ERS NAME ADDRESS STATE ZIP r ''-- i L- - ^Ar— ---'-- ••-------- ---' ------ _ WITNESS NAME It! CURRENT ADDRESS CIT{ STATE LP CODE WIT NESS NAME 0 CUPRENTADURESS CITY 3 STATE ZIP CODE 1 r • ESTIGATOR - RANK 8 SIONATUR I ID,BADGE NUMBER DEPARTMENT FHP SO PD OTHER I9s _CsE .-------- - - - - -' 3�t°3 - i C c��.►.� co.�v^r� HSMV -90006 Rev. 04104 C .A r l f ;06 E WoapAI+ i._I YOU MUST READ AND COMPLY WITH THE iNSTRUC T ICe11iS ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM. �1 NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED BY YOU, REPORT COMPLETED BY LAVV ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. ^N G �ivA 1612 AZ7 DIAGRAM INDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW — - ------- - ----- - - ------ - ----- - - - - ------- - ----- A- was. Al — )q - t SA- �ron+ carNex bd6 S ac w?QfAs - k -Iro CL—EWHEMAC -f J Qf 10 N-S -- — ----- Ji(T VEHICLE DEFECT VEHI 01 No irnor-opar Droing Aci.:% 1 N.; Dil-.0ec 15 0 l Sl;.!qtd Ahead U--j I.-ILI E, 1 E I C31 E-11 E31 ,12 C8•e1 1 02 S-n rig - 11.01f,,1 S ',,-,,'eo a, M Dr:1.1i. g 'Explain in narr-,jti,oj )m B,a-es A'x.,q �,:J-r, Pf.-P -U, 1 04 17 ;:I! 'r RaccrYj 04 Banking F li3 F.-i,i d -a 1:r, d P g!" �!-Vhly C4 wp" L—J! Z, 05 i-ic'up"! Lar,� bcn's �1�5 M�,Ilng Rc.-; lum Paisriti 5 EM-7.nq/ Ope"'rion Jb T;,�n 5 PJrc!t. nnng 12 Drilc rnss of 6 Cv�stnuci!airi I Mnintenanc.e 7 Avb.6 uodcr ing .: P,ir-q Sp,,.e lip„ Iowa 0 Z1, y Z �)7 Er!e-q: Ira R -,,c.. SOURCE OF CARRIER iNFORMTION 08 ckjgs - up.der lrfll-rc� P (,Si P,irked All Olhor ilExpa,n 10 F11 0 9 Tit Eqj;pv�,M! Vchcic 77 Afl Dr;qs - Irrer fr!1,.onc-, SLIgat."') Fcli,,,.ea too CMsely F ,,,"anr. Ir 'ja-l!rv, 1 '1 11 -T,-:,. 3 VeNcle Son U L3 ----------- I Fvf�edw &de Sp-�(l Unli V.3 %p e, I ',,,2 Nnl Cr PEDESTRIAN ACTION 1 LOEXT—IONTY-FE -1 I-_fl ff r ary I P ;r Id I, zi� i.InCo 21 Nay i,-3 rot;!blef 07 Narxing Pi 6 — I - 5 __ _ .___l 1 15 A:nr 22 r!I-Ij P;;:,cZ 4,4 V110, C, -. rqw �Akl-,&.ck Pc�,j t[ P-il- 1 5 , , / 2 �nmary T!r it 1, 1, , cto lu "o Left at Crn:i:, ::3 "Incle -,!,, it 1 I:�,(,-d Unit -1 Crye; Di�,,:adww 90*,� !7 Fjqccrded E!, �_Wqq� AREA : �-2 M17 ,5 A'cn,,l Roar Ayirsl Trilili, ^,q -Iaridrq ir P,!&Vn:ir Wind 3 Open Cmotry -,8 Cost ,,..y., T,,,,!,c PS Ail Oil e, ;F,,0,, ir N,vral�,) Q'I -Y 'e 36 V;nrl,nq on .1er. ae In Flow Al!,Xer LExplaon Na,,61,vc 88 Urk. o- h FIRST i 7BS­ Q UfjTHLRMMi6(LQc --------- ---- AD SYSTEM HTMG ------- - - 1 •W.?j, NIV in Panscoc! Po.., Er,v, Is WAI, P 1w 01 Dav!i�t,; 2 s !6 1AV Hit S,3n: in P,;sA j* !,an C� Into 2 j c 02 :)us Go, cv, Vvil, nirlpad HL�,.d Oro DI IM E Z,I 1 n iccli�ic., W.1h mv,i 1' MV Hit LOA Pole .11 -,7 A, i>er E�o'air 03 Oawkr. '15 MV F-1 Gi,alli,fll 01 :ri 11,nw,,ei 14 parx, ,5 eel L,111;1 104 Co;hsx% 1.1mr, W in Varsfor ii.0 T.j. ) 1(15 C J,%jr. !,IV j Trai�s,oi-,Mqlh! Tumi 19 -'V !,:I Fence 5 Lc.,a! 105 Calk( No iwv 66 C,'!ision Viii!li !.I'f:n Tr.,rspo,l 54asr iDe) 20 kAv !ir -.nircr,,to Par-, "Id-I �4 F" c ,fj T,rnpoke I _,8 U,Ikrowc 07 Cc! on With 1.4V.n Tnarispcwi frhCKn(f;. 113; 21 MV iti V.r 1,e V o,, k6tr`w Piii E-piccr z ROAD SURFAff-061Wfiff6-14- WEATHER ­­,j_!jOAD SURFACE Y LL_ 08 C,,�;,Sion Vli.!,-. Pal kcd Car PJ WHit-Iree, Di (Y 01 Cre--r 101 ',JaqfGra,Pl "One 0 02 CI�jdv r- 102 61 M �as �g Ca jisl in 4*th MV Gn Ra,io,@y 22 Ccili�,on We i,.st,uc,;,,n Bar ram. 17 Cw,)u Los C, Shift zgn Fag 5 ;4 10 Canyon With pi!cte.'! tar 24 C i,sonW,tpT,ar!c^,,1e zzz 'r , I'll "'Ic r I oon "Y't Elvcp s a ati, Cr Cras� Atte%atos y I 2 cdiisloa "MR, B-cyc 0 ,Ak- Lre) 26 77 Ali Oher.1EYpialL in ;Ii o!h" 77 Ail Othii­r 05 oirl -ollis-crV1,111, F,�Ij Ct,ectrixtiorc Puad Explal ',IV 14.1 Olh,, F,% Narrative) )3 riI1ii:,n With Mop, . . C-4 Ct),.e, Z1, z Exoain in Nairninve) In 177 Ail 01tv fExp!an;n • 14 28 rx,!,s*q " th Vloealpte r0r;ecl Cr R•-,ad ck OBSTRUCTED VISION OBSUCTED TRAFFIC CONTROL SITE LOCATION TRAFFICWAY CHARACTER 01 NO cvfeds 01 Vision No. Ctscuted 01 No Con" 01 Not At Intersection AR X-ing i Bfidqe_ 101 St ,ant - Level 02 Citst?,,chonw;1h: 'Nammg r—i 012 , Dcl alit Alej 2 SpecAl Speed Zom 02 At [102 S!naighl -!;PQrade! 03 l,� 3 olbslrucli ,vJh0u!WA,njnq �13 Pafked I SIopf:1Z;eh,.Je 0 Speed Camrcii C,gr 03 :Muen,�, " rferrecton Downg•ace or i;4 Pcid Under I Gcnstrucacr, 04 Trees. Crops: Bushes 04 ScMod Zoe 04 Oriveliary A:coss I 1 103 Curve - Level 135 Loose S�-rface Materials 05 Loic on VE'-,cle 05 T.Whi: S91al 11 Pcstpd No U-Turn 06 Ra*aad it Private Poorly j 04 C.,rve - Upgrade 06 Shoulders - Soft.: 06 B0.3ing - Fixed Ob;ect 06 stop Sign 12 Na PaS51nq ZirTe 06 Bria7 12 ToM Exth 1 ccivn9rade 07 Hoies I Ruts; Unsafe P.vcd Fitige 07 Pitcords 07 Yield Sqi 77 All 01.1riet (Exp4ain'r 07, Entrarrx- Ramp 13 Piv,c Bus Stop Zore _TYPE SHOULDER 08 1�andm,3 IN,11cir 08 Fog 06 Fiastring Lot Narrairle) 08 Exist Ramp 71, NJ Other (Explain jr, 01 Paved 0 Viforn 1 Pohshedl Road Surf.ace 09 Stroke 77 ARO,,h plain 09 Railroad Sigina) N Pa,lkirg Lot - Pullic Narrative) 02 Urpaved I I 77 10 Glare in Norrat-le; Z- 11g COKer, 3,jard 10 Parkara Lol - Pr vate 03 Cult HSMV-90006 Rev. 0404 Page 2 161 2 A27 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC COUNTS Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study Intersection: Pelican Bay Q Ridgewood Dr b: DaApril 11, 2011 Source: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. 161 2 a27 ' APPENDIX C DELAY STUDY 161 2 X27 Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. Pelican Bay Blvd at Ridgewood Dr April 21, 2011 All -Way Stop Study Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 1612 A Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped in the Approach at Time: i Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 161 2 A27 starting sit) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: ��� �� 161 2 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: p27 Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: �■ i i ' ,� -- - -- - -- -- - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - - - - --------- -- - 161 2 1427 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator. 161 2 A27 I Time (minute starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: �Wl MM"MMM= ="WimraMMMM. Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 161 X27 Time starting at) Total i _ i i �■ 161 2 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: .� A27 � a 6 161 2 'A27 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting at) Total Stopped .� �� 161 P AZT Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: i 11 M Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 161 2 Time (minute starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: — 0 �U �_ �__ 161 2 A27' Intersectlon Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time (minute starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: A 161 ?_ A27:1 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time (minute starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: 11� �_ 161 2 A27 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 161 2 A27 ' Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: t ` 4 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 16 P. a27 "" Time (minute starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: �Ijl--Iq . A 21612 7 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting at Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: ME ME ME M ME M ME ME rolling stop 161 2 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: ■� �■ ,� i�„*'������������ 127 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 161 2 A27' Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: ���m�� 161 2 A27 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time i L starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: ■� ■� �' -- --------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 161 2 IA 27 Time starting a -- -------- Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: 161 2 A27' Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator. Time starting at)__ Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: MEN WE �1111 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator. 161 2 127 Time Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: 11111 ENT, 161 2 A Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: �U ' ■� ' m m�® _ F. ry ; F Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 161 2 A27' Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: ■� .�� 161 2 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: A27`1 Time (minute starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: �U 161 2 X27 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: WOTWIMM MEN Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 161 2 A27 Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: Intersection Delay Study Locatfon: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator. 161 2 427'1 Time Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: .. 161 2 y'i w Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: A27" Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: ■� �� 1�, Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: 16 1 2 A127 A Time starting at) 161 2 A27:' Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: 161 2 'p27 Intersection Delay Study Location: Pelican Bay & Ridgewood Date: April 11, 2011 Operator: Time starting at) Total Number of Vehicles Stopped In the Approach at Time: Million, r INC. May 3, 2011 Mr. Kyle Lukasz Operations Manager Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, Florida 34108 161 2 A27' Re: Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathway West Side from The Commons to North Tram Station, ABB PN 11 -0043 Dear Mr. Lukasz: At your request, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., is pleased to submit this proposal to render professional Engineering services on the above referenced project. Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc, hereinafter referred to as ABB, proposes to provide Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division, hereinafter referred to as Client, the professional services outlined in Exhibit "A" attached. Since the basis of the contract is time and materials and fixed fee, a copy of our current rate code sheet is also included. ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND EXTRA WORK Services not specifically included in Exhibit "A" Scope of Services will be performed as additional services on an hourly basis, plus reimbursable expenses in accordance with the Rate Schedule enclosed with this Agreement. Services and fees provided in this Agreement are based upon governmental rules, regulations and policies in effect at the time of execution of this Agreement. Should changes take effect during the period services are being performed and result in additional ABB work requirements, this Agreement will be modified by approval of the parties. In addition, ABB will perform additional services beyond the work described within this Agreement as requested and authorized by the Client. When such work can be identified in advance, ABB will provide a reasonable estimate for such work and written authorization obtained. TIME OF PERFORMANCE ABB will start services promptly upon receipt of the following: a retainer in the amount of $ N/A , and one executed copy of a signed proposal. Upon receipt of the above listed ABB will complete our work within a reasonable period of time. All funds provided as retainer shall be credited to the last project billing. K:\2011 \11 -0043 Pelian Bay Pathway West Side\ Correspondences \Proposal \05- 0442G.PRO.doc ".u-! a ,,c:3. 00, Napl—, i e iLL 34108 t?aIf} 59' .xil1 FA\ > 2391 ;66 2203 1612A271 1 3. OUTSIDE SERVICES Outside services not specifically included in this Agreement are as follows: A. Geotechnical Engineering B. Structural Engineering Services C. Transportation Planning/Engineering Services D. Materials Testings E. Hazardous Waste Assessments F. Legal Services G. Landscape Architecture(assessing tree condition/removals and root barriers) H. Street Lighting/Pathway Lighting 1. South Florida Water management District(SFWMD)Permitting J. Survey Construction Stake-Out K. Services not specifically described in Sec. 1 of this Agreement 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CLIENT ABB's performance under this Agreement is contingent upon the Client or others designated by the Client providing ABB with: A. All documents, information relating to special or extraordinary considerations, existing permits, maps, deeds, easements, abstracts, surveys,topography or other information in the client's possession relating to the project. B. In writing of all client's criteria, design, construction and other requirements for the project. C. Any existing surveys of the property. D. Guarantee of access to and make provisions for the Consultant and subcontractors to enter upon public and private lands as required to perform their work under this Agreement. E. Client shall pay all agency review fees. 5. FEES AND COMPENSATION Billing for services and reimbursable expenses will be submitted on a monthly basis.All invoices are due and payable upon receipt. Invoices not paid within thirty(30)days shall accrue interest at a rate of 1.5% per month from the due date until paid. If payment is not received within forty- five (45) days from date of invoice, work will stop until the total unpaid balance has been received. The project schedule and schedule of deliverables will be subject to the Client's timely payments of fees. In the event it is necessary for the Consultant to employ an attorney to collect sums due under this Agreement, Client shall be responsible for all costs incurred, including Consultant's reasonable attorney fees. Fee Disclaimer; Client agrees that Consultant has been selected to perform services on this project based on qualifications and expertise in the area of Civil Engineering, Land Surveying, and Land Planning. Client also agrees that the current permitting climate is unpredictable due to 2 K:\2011\11-0043 Pelian Bay Pathway West Side\Correspondences\Proposa1105-0442G.PRO.doc • c 161 2 A27 continually changing regulations and interpretations of same. Engineer has presented good faith budget estimates based on past performance of similar work but in no way can guarantee that these budgets will be sufficient for the successful completion of the permitting tasks represented herein,or that permits can be obtained for the Client's project. 6. PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS I. Acceptance Period. This proposal is effective for a period of sixty (60) days from the date shown. If not accepted in writing within this period, the Consultant reserves the right to modify any portion thereof or withdraw the proposal in its entirety. 2. Ownership of Documents. All documents, including original drawings, notes, data and report originals are and shall remain the property of the Consultant as an instrument of service. If so requested in writing,the Client will be provided reproducible drawings and other documents in consideration of which the Client agre4s to use them without alteration solely in connection with the project. 3. Proposed scope and fee is based on Client providing the Pelican Bay Boulevard and Gulf Park Drive drawings in CAD format for our use in preparing design plans. 7. TERMINATION AND LIABILITY This Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by either party upon seven (7) days written notice. In the event of termination, Client shall be bound to pay Consultant for all services rendered to the effective date of termination, all reimbursable expenses and collection and/or legal fees. Neither the Consultant or Consultant's subcontractors shall be jointly,severally or individually liable to the owner in excess of the compensation to be paid pursuant to this Agreement. We hope that this Agreement satisfactorily responds to your request. If the Agreement is acceptable,one original copy, signed by a duly authorized representative of the Client, should be returned and will serve as our authorization to proceed. By signing below, the undersigned hereby represents and warrants that they have full authority to contract on the Client's behalf for the services and fees proposed herein. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, AGNOLI BARBER&BRUNDAGE, INC. V41/1 ---esA.Carr ,P.E. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Authorized Signature and Title Date 3 K:\20I 1\t 1-0043 Pelian Bay Pathway West Side\Correspondences\Proposal\05-0442G.PRO.doc 1 6 1 2 A27 fl*.t.!1":11!:,,T* IY5 4,46, ill is 44.41.7 ; a,‘„‘t '',41e44°,ztit*■..t„. ; t'; 4.1 ;6, f p .7V-277j•'4" ..42,4,141r;."4 701,- ?k, ,„see,40.41.41vm,44,44441.44,04,„,„ L- 47;;1' 4.47, :164 Aitir4Alti*A"dt;irte*P-",17;'"*. ° Scope of Services Agnoli,Barber&Brundage, Inc.,(ABB)is pleased to submit this proposal to render professional engineering services. Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division(CCPBSD)is requesting a proposal from ABB for the engineering design and permitting for proposed pathway widening on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from The Commons to the North Tram Station consisting of*6,300 linear feet. The following is a description for the scope of services: Existing locations have been identified in the Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan as prepared by Wilson Miller, Inc. The Pathways(page 62 of the report Item D2-C)identifies widening the existing asphalt pathway on the west side Plans will be prepared to develop specific details showing geometric alignments, construction materials, striping, signage and other markings as necessary for permitting and construction. It is assumed that the existing asphalt path will be milled and resurfaced with a similar cross section and materials. The CCPBSD shall work directly with the Landscape Architect for any tree removals,pruning,root barriers or any assessment of existing vegetation. 1. As-Built Survey Data Collection. ABB will collect topographic survey elevation data $6,900 FF along the * 6,300 feet alignment from the west right-of-way line to the west edge of median including sidewalks,* 15 driveways,curbs, above ground improvements, signs and striping.The field survey information collected will provide the required information necessary to design the curb cuts and sidewalks in accordance with ADA and FDOT/County standards.Data will be in NGVD 1929 Datum. 2. Site Development Plans. Prepare site plans in AutoCAD for the project along the $14,500 FF proposed * 6,300 feet alignment.Provide geometric layout of existing and proposed sidewalks,curb cuts, ramps, pavers,striping and signage. Provide grading and drainage information for compliance with existing drainage patterns, American Disabilities Act (ADA) and Collier County and FDOT design standards.Design curb cuts, striping and signage at*15 driveways.Use the Community Improvement Plan as a basis for proposed materials and locations, and develop the conceptual plan into engineered construction drawings. Consider traffic calming methods and other FDOT and MUTCD standards to provide a uniform signing and marking design for pedestrians and drivers. Attend up to three CCPBSD meetings. 3. Collier County Insubstantial Change and Right-of-Way Permitting. Coordinate with $3,950 TM Collier County staff on submittal criteria and pre-application meeting if necessary. Prepare submittal data, opinion of costs, fee calculations and information required for application. Prepare cover letter outlining project scope and proposed improvements. Provide multiple copies of plans, letters, applications, etc. for submittal. Sign and seal documents as required. Collate and copy documents and attend submittal meeting with County.Track permit progress,coordinate with staff and respond to reviewer comments. Resubmit revised plans and documents per staff comments. 4 K:\2011\11-9043 Pelian Bay Pathway West SideTocrespondences\Proposah05-0442G.PRO.doc r, 16I 2 1 A2 � 4. Contract Documents, Specifications and Bidding. Prepare final construction plans $3,500 Fr• and technical specifications sufficient for bidding purposes. Prepare summary of bid quantities and final opinion of cost. Provide plan copies and construction documents for bid sets (costs of documents to be reimbursable). Coordinate and attend one pre -bid meeting with Client. Respond to bidders inquiries and prepare information for issuance by Client. Review contractors' unit price bid tabulations and make recommendation for award. 5. Construction Services. Review and comment on shop drawings and submittals by $4,470 TM contractors. Attend one pre - construction meeting. Provide assistance during construction to answer contractor questions and coordinate design. Provide construction observation services to the extent necessary to provide certifications to agencies. Provide record drawings of improvements based on field adjustments /additions (surveying not included). G. Sketch and Descriptions. Provide signed and sealed legal sketch and description if $450 FF easements are necessary on adjoining private lands. It is not known at this time if the (each) existing path or proposed widening will encroach onto any properties. If this occurs, we will provide one sketch and description on one property. Additional sketch and descriptions can be prepared at $450 each. Reimbursables Per Attached Rate Sheet Reimbursable expenses include expenses for b uepriatmg, copying services, data base $200 TM searches, color graphics, overnight express delivery service, long distance telephone calls, the cost of.public meeting signs, noticing the public meeting by mail and by newspaper advertisement, and mailing lists from collier County ;Property appraisers Office. Total $33,970 FF = Fixed Fee. Billings will be based on percent completion. TM = Time and Materials. Billing will be based on actual time and materials expended in accordance with our rate schedule. Budgets given will not be exceeded without prior authorization. 5 K:\2011 \11 -0043 Pelian Bay Pathway West Side\ Correspondences \Proposal \05- 0442G.PRO.doc 161 2 Schedule B Contract No: 09 -5262 "County Vitide Engineering Services" This list is not intended to be all - inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as needed. A27'° Standard Hourly Rate Schedule for all disciplines Personnel Cate-gory Standard Hourly Rate Principal $195 Senior Project Manager $165 Project Manager $148 Senior Engineer $155 Engineer $119 Senior Inspector $85 Inspector $65 Senior Planner $140 Planner $110 Senior Designer $915 Designer $100 Environmental Specialist $115 Senior GIS Specialist $145 GIS Specialist $100 Clerical $60 Surveyor and Mapper $130 CADD Technician $85 Survey Crew - 2 man $130 Survey Crew - 3 man $160 Survey Crew - 4 man $180 This list is not intended to be all - inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as needed. A27'° C UHF, nM vii a0� a z � r O 1+�1�1 �oeo p�a w n C a 161 ?_ A27 C. e o e Q! V (%!. N V! H li f h! FO M In ! ! O 00 Q In g ! M cc i CO too v 00 N � a, v 0 a is a E a u � � n ca V y m: ^fig E a 4°: L. A2 .. 161 2 7 May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Community Issues - Discussion of Possible Caution Signage for Bicycles (J. Domenie) From: Johan Domenie To: ResnickLisa Subject: BIKE SIGNS Date: Tuesday, April 12, 20115:40:29 PM Lisa: Please include the Bicycle sign again in your package for the next meeting, as it never came up for discussion. My proposed locations are: GOING NORTH ON PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD: After the intersection with Myra Daniels Janco Blvd After the intersection with Gulf Park Drive After the Bay Colony Drive GOING SOUTH ALONG PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD After the Oakmont Parkway Intersection After the Bay Colony Intersection After the Gulf Park Intersection Thanks, John (PS - you may want to send out this suggestion ahead of time so that the members can "mull over" my idea.) Page 1 of 4 04/28/2011 1.61 2� May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Community Issues - Discussion of Possible Caution Signage for Bicycles (J. Domenie) ResnickLisa Subject: Signs to Protect Bicyclists on Road (J. Domenie) Attachments: caution _bicycles_share_road_signs.ipg - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Johan Domenie [mailto:hobodorykcomcast.net] 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" <LResnickncollier ov.net> To: <josie eg. off2aol.com >; <Hunter.Hansen2hilton.com >; <jim(a,dmafl.com >; <hobodory2comcast.net >; <jbaron a,watersideshops.com >; <iaizzo ®,comcast.net >; <jpcbac 2comcast.net >; <keithdallas _comcast.net >; "LukaszKyle" <KyleLukasz(cb,colliergov .net >; <Teeduplp_aol.com >; "McCaughtryMary" <MaryMcCau hg trvkcollier ov.net >; <mikelevygembargmail.com >; <neil(a dmafl.com >; "ResnickLisa" <LResnick(a,collier ov.net >; <tedraia(&yahoo.com >; <nfnl6799@naples.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 jmailto:ipcbac(&comcast.netl Sent: Friday, March 04, 20114:331 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 2 of 4 04/28/2011 Ma 4 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular ession Y � Y Community Issues - Discussion of Possible Caution Signage for Bicycles (J. Domenie) 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. Today, 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 Wr was there a warning sign at the crosswalk. This situation raises several questions. Was the ABB engineer incorrect in what he presented to us? 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 PBF Strategic Planning Committee obtain a written opinion from the County before they decide whether or not to approve this project. John Chandler ResnickLisa 3/31/20114:31 PM Page 3 of 4 04/28/2011 1612 '�27 May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Community Issues - Discussion of Possible Caution Signage for Bicycles (J. Domenie) Page 4 of 4 04/28/2011 161 2 A27 BUDGET COMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2011 LET IT 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 Michael Levy, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson (excused absence) John Chandler John Iaizzo Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick Also Present Gerald Moffatt, Pelican Bay Foundation Board Member AGENDA 1. 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 18, 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 C the last meeting. Clam Bay fund 320 modified to show an increase in the County's contribution from $78,000, and a subsequent decrease of the Services Division's assessment to a matching $78,000 fA $156,000. $71,000 retained in street lighting fund 778 for future street lighting capital improu indirect costs reduced and savings reflected in fund 322 other contractual services increasing the I for future Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects. FY 2010 actual revenue and exp Clam Bay fund 320. Staff has not received the actual number for the Services Division assessment fees for the maintenance facility site, which is in lieu of a estimated to be $14,600, the same as FY 2011. Mr. Dorrill reported that Mr. Ochs' broached the possibility of e: between the City of Naples, Board of County Commissioners 1120 to otal of C my 1,300 to mce and fees are local agreement a "new rationale" 161 2 A27 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 111 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 (USACE). 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 Septe and Services Division would send assessment notices in early August, or at least fifteen days prior to th e Hearing, as required. resurfacing funds 1121 r . z 1612 A27' 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. He 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. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Dallas that no charent assessment methodology and only street lighting be funded by an ad valor ommittee voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. 1122 16I 2 A27 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 Mx Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn. The Committee voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m. Michael Levy, Chairman 1123 Minutes by Lisa Resnick \4/29/2011 9:39:37 AM 0 0 M ri 0 0 N t rn N I 0 0 Collier County BUDGET SUMMARY)/VITV N IP INCREASES Pelican Bay Services Division Fiscal Year 2012 101 Operating Budget A27 General Funds Capital Projects Funds Water Community Street Clam Bay Capital Total Revenue Management Beautification Lights System Projects All Funds Canyforward S187,527 5496,838 S157,684 "i $15,877 $442,900 $1,300,826 Rolled Capital Project/Program Carry-forward 50 s0 $0 $55,184 S2,437,986 $2,493,166 ., Interest Income $4,200 $11,104 $2,400 �,(s $700 519,500 $37,900 Plan Review Fee Income $1,500 so so # s0 so $ 1,500 Inter&nd Transfers (Fund I11) so s4 s0 ( $78,000 s0 $78,000 Assessment or Advalorem Tax Levy $677,400 S1,944.100 $273,400 $78,000 $124,150 53,097,050 Total Revenue IF $870,627 52,452,038 $433,484 $227,757 $3,024,536 37,008,442 Appropriations Projections R` h Personal Services $168,900 5843,000 $106,600 51,118,500 Administration: cox Indirect Cost Reimbursements 584,500 SO $5,300 I 589,800 Other Contractual Services 526,900 $34,300 $26,900 $88,100 Storage Contractor s0 5800 $800 51,600 Telephone - Service Contracts 5400 5400 5400 $1,200 Telephone - Direct Line $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 3 $10,500 Postage, Freight & Ups $3,000 53,000 $2,000 'e $8,000 Rent - Buildings $9,500 $9,800 $9,500 528,800 Rent - Equipment $1,800 $1,900 51,800 s 55,500 Insurance - General $1,200 5500 5300 yj $2,000 Mote. Site Ins. & Assessment Fees $13,500 SO SO $13,500 Information Tech Automation Allocation $5,200 514,500 $0 $19,700 Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors $2,300 $2,600 SO $4.900 Legal Advertising $2,000 52,000 s0 '. $4,000 'l Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. $2,000 $2,000 SO a 54,000 Office Supplies - General $2,000 $2,500 5800' ti 55,300 Other Training & Educational Exp. SI,100 SI,500 SO << S2,600 Other Operating Supplies SO SO S1,000 51,000 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs $8,800 57,400 SO j $16,200 Field Services: Engineering 512,000 $0 s0 5111,600 $75,000 $198,600 Plan Review Fees $1,500 SO s0 ( $1,500 Electrical Contractors SO SO $7,300 57,300 Other Contractual Services $1,000 529,500 $800 $0 5363,750 5395,050 Landscape Incidentals s0 $2,500 s0 $2,500 Pest Control $0 $5,000 W $5,000 Tree Trimming 530,000 563,600 s0 $29,000 $122,600 Temporary Labor 542,400 $190,100 SO 5232,500 Berm & Swale Maintenance 514,000 SO 50 $85,000 599,000 Water Use Charges $0 583,800 s0 S83,800 Landscape Materials 58,500 $53,100 s0 S61,600 Celluar Telephones/Radios $500 $3,200 $500 < 54,200 Trash & Dumpster Fees 55,700 $17,000 s0 S22,700 Water Quality Testing $22,600 $0 s0 $22,600 Insurance- Vehicles $900 510,000 S900 $11,800 Insurance - General $2,300 $8,800 $800 $11,900 Bldg. Repaim'Mntc. $1,700 $1,700 51,700 $5,100 Electricity s0 $3,400 544,200 $47,600 Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 $62,000 s0 5160,400 Sprinkler System Maint SO $30,000 $0 $30,000 Mulch SO 546,000 s0 546,000 Equipment Rental s0 $2,500 $0 fi $2,500 Licenses and Pemtits $0 5800 s0) S800 j :.a Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel $15,900 $92,700 55,700 a $500 5114,800 Road and Bike Path Repairs s0 $6,000 s0 'l $6,000 °! Photo Processing (Aerial) SO s0 SO ih 57,540 $7,500 Minor Operating Supplies SO $3,000 $0 s0 $3,000 Employee Uniforms $1,100 $9,400 s0 $10,500 Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $9,000 so 50 $11,500 Light, Bulb and Ballast SO SO $12,400 $12,400 Personal Safety Equipment 5500 53,000 $500 h1 54,000 Paint supplies $0 $800 s0 $800 Traffic Signs $0 $3,000 s0 Nip S50,000 $53,000 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs SO 53,300 S9,600 pijl $12,900 Capital Outlay $1,000 $103,000 $1,000 5' $105,000 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs & Reserves 7 Clam Bay Projects r;j,; $55,130 $55,180 ;: Hardscape Imp. Project ii:�' 52,415,211 $2,415,211 Lake Bank Imp. Project 5 $22,775 $22,775 Reserves (2 /1/2 mo. for Operations) $154,802 5404,688 $57,084 $15,877 5632,451 Reserve for Operating Fund Capital Imp. SO SO $73,600 k(jk $73,600 Equipment Reserve $39,025 $55,750 $30,000] $124,775 Other Char es/Fees i g js Tax Collector $21,000 $60,100 S8,500 „:, $2,400 $3,800 $95,800 fri1 Properly Appraiser 521,000 $53,300 $5,600 $1,600 $2,500 $84,000 Revenue Reserve 535,700 5102,300 $14,400,1 54,100 56,500 $163,000 Total Appropriations $870,627 $2,452,038 $433,484u;! 5227,757 $3,024,536 $7,008,442 :quivalent Residential Unit's: 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.2' 'rojected Rate: F.RU or Millage $88.918 $255.189 0.0531 $10.239 516.296 'rojected Total Rate: ERU or Millage S344.106 0.0531 26.535 $370.64 lctual Rate (FY 2011) $350.08 0.0531 S20.56 $370.64 kctual Dollar /Millage Change (55.97) 0.0000 $5.98 $0.01 -1.71% 100.00% 29,09% 0.00 *1/ 10.a.ii - Budget Committee Review & Approval of FY 12 Tentative Budget , E N M ri 0 C) N s N i 0 3quivalent Residential Unit's: 7618.29 7618.29 Collier County BUDGET SUMMARY WITH CIP INCREASES 7618.21 Pelican Bay Services Division Fiscal Year 2012 0.0857 161 I� A27 C 'rojected Total Rate: ERU or Millage 5344.106 Operating Budget 54.028 $398.13 \dual Rate(FY 2011) $350.08 0.0531 $20.56 General Funds \ctualDollarMillageChange (S ;.97) Capital Projects Funds $33.47 $27.50 Water Community Street ?' Clam Bay Capital Total Revenue Management Beautification lights System Projects All Funds Carryforward $187,527 $496,838 $157,684 lk' $15,877 5442,900 51300,826 Rolled Capital Project/Program Carryforward so 50 $0 i 555,180 $2,437,986 $2,493,166 Interest Income $4,200 511,100 54,500 1 "iu 4 $700 519,500 $40,000 Plan Review Fee Income $1,500 so $0 i! so so S1,500 Interfund Transfers (Fund I11) so s0 $0 r $78,000 so $78,000 Assessment or Advalorem Tax Levy $677,400 S1,944.100 $441,100;; S78,000 $333,600 $3,474,200 Total Revenue IF 5870,627 $2,452,038 $603,284` 5227,757 53,233,986 $77,87,692 Appropriations Projections'�. Personal Services $168,900 $843,000 $106.600 Il0 $1,118,500 Administration: w Indirect Cost Reimbursements $84,500 50 $5,300 589,800 Other Contractual Services $26,900 534300 $26,900¢ S88,100 Storage Contractor $0 5800 $800 $1,600 Telephone - Service Contracts 5400 5400 $400 S1,200 Telephone - Direct Line $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 `R $10,500 Postage, Freight & Ups $3,000 $3,000 S2,000 t $8,000 Rent - Buildings 59,500 $9,800 59,500 $28,800 Rent - Equipment $1,800 $1,900 51,800 !f �.* 55,500 Insurance - General SI,200 $500 5300 k; $2,000 Mute. Site Ins. & Assessment Fees $13,500 $0 SO S13,500 Information Tech Automation Allocation $5,200 $14,500 50 $ 19,700 Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors $2,300 $2,600 $0 54,900 Legal Advertising $2,000 $2,000 so 54,000 Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. $2,000 $2,000 so 54,000 Office Supplies - General $2,000 $2,500 5800 4 $5,300 Other Training & Educational Exp. $1,100 $1,500 $0 $2,600 Other Operating Supplies $o 50 $1,000_ $1,000 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs $8,800 $7,400 $0 $16,200 Field Services: Engineering $12,000 so $0 $111,600 575,000 $198,600 Plan Review Fees 51,500 50 $0 $1,500 Electrical Contractors so $0 57,300 57,300 Other Contractual Services $1,000 529,500 $800 so $551,300 5582,600 Landscape Incidentals s0 $2,500 so $2,500 Pest Control so $5,000 so t+ S5,000 Tree Trimming $30,000 $63,600 $0 529,000 $122,600 Temporary Labor $42,400 $190,100 $0 ## $232,500 Berm & Swale Maintenance $14,000 $0 $0 iA 585,000 599,000 Water Use Charges $0 S83,800 $0 1 $83,800 Landscape Materials 58,500 553,100 so $61,600 Celluar TelephonesiRar ios $500 53,200 5500 ► S4200 Trash & Dumpster Fees $5,700 $17,000 $0 $22,700 Water Quality Testing $22,600 $0 so $22,600 Insurance - Vehicles 5900 $10,000 $900 $11,800 Insurance - General $2,300 $8,800 $800 $11,900 Bldg. RepairsN2ntc. 51,700 SI,700 $1,700 $5,100 Electricity $0 $3,400 544,200 $47,600 Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 562,000 s0 r $160,400 530,000 Sprinkler System Maint $0 $30,000 $0 Mulch $0 S46,000 $0 546,000 Equipment Rental $0 $2,500 $0 (u $2,500 Licenses and Permits so $800 so $800 Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel Road and Bike Path Repairs $15,900 so $92,700 56,000 $5,700 $0 tl $500 $114,800 56,000 Photo Processing (Aerial) so so $0 fil $7,500 57,500 Minor Operating Supplies so 53,000 So $0 $3,000 Employee Uniforms 51,100 $9,400 50 p y� 510,500 Other Operating Supplies 52,500 $9,000 $0 i so 511,500 Light, Bulb and Ballast $0 So $12,400 3 512,400 Personal Safety Equipment 5500 $3,000 5500'p )1 54,000 Paint supplies 50 $800 $0 �;. $800 Traffic Signs so S3,000 $0 ;y 550,000 $53,000 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs so $3,300 $9,600 a $12,900 Capital Outlay $1,000 $103,000 $1,000 $105,000 Rolled Capital Projects/Programs & Reserves as 31;;1 Clam Bay Projectsii+ $55,180 $55,180 Hardscape Imp. Project 52,415,211 $2,415,211 Lake Bank Imp. Project e $22,775 $22,775 Reserves (2 /l/2 mo. for Operations) $154,802 $404,688 557,084 ff ai S15,877 $632,451 Reserve for Operating Fund Capital Imp. so $0 $226,100 $226,100 Equipment Reserve $39,025 555,750 $30,000 $124,775 Other Charges/Feesc p,1 Tax Collector 521,000 560,100 $13,600 52,400 $10,300 $107,400 Property Appraiser $21,000 553,300 59,000 g SI,600 $6,800 $91,700 Revenue Reserve $35,700 $102,300 $23,200 ?ill lr; $4,100 $17600 5182900 Total Appropriations S87Q 627 $2,452,038 i�� $227,757 S3,233,986 $7,387,692 3quivalent Residential Unit's: 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.29 7618.21 'rojected Rate: ERU or Millage S88.918 $255.189 0.0857 $10.239 $43,789 'rojected Total Rate: ERU or Millage 5344.106 0.0857 54.028 $398.13 \dual Rate(FY 2011) $350.08 0.0531 $20.56 5370.64 \ctualDollarMillageChange (S ;.97) 0.0326 $33.47 $27.50 -1.71% 100.00% 162.83% 7A2'/ 10.a.ii - Budget Committee Review & Approval of FY 12 Tentative Budget 1 16 i z a'27 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 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 7 Insurance- General Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment F Rent Equipment Printing (Outside) Legal Advertising Interdept. Payments Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Other Educational Sub - total: Emergency Maintenance/Repaii Sub - total: Total Administrative: 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 $677,400 $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 $0 $0 ($6,300) $1,029,981 $1,079,496 $922,231 $662,134 $44,231 $706,365 $676,800 $27,983 $28,106 $28,000 $10,338 $17,662 $28,000 $28,000 $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $2,141 $2,083 $2,200 $770 $1,430 $2,200 $2,100 $3,215 $2,842 $3,300 $1,113 $1,787 $2,900 $3,100 $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 $24,715 $40,776 $41,900 $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 $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 $0 $14,600 $0 $14,600 $14,600 $13,500 $2,300 $2,162 $2,500 $646 $1,500 $2,146 $1,800 $2,300 $828 $2,300 $0 $2,300 $2,300 $2,300 $2,000 $633 $2,000 $0 $1,200 $1,200 $2,000 $16,600 $16,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $4,263 $2,158 $2,500 $122 $1,200 $1,322 $2,000 $1,100 $580 $1,100 $55 $500 $555 $1,100 $193,063 $176,723 $195,700 $78,041 $109,141 $187,182 $158,900 $18,300 $0 $8,800 $0 $0 $0 $8,800 $211,363 $176,723 $204,500 $78,041 $109,141 $187,182 $167,700 $255,863 $220,706 $245,676 $94,102 $133,856 $227,958 $209,600 161 2 A127 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 $660 $699 $700 Reserve For Salary Adjustment $83 $0 $60 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reserve For Salary Attrition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($9,700) Overtime $15,400 $16,190 $15,500 $5,638 $9,800 $15,438 $15,400 Social Security Matching $7,298 $6,930 $7,300 $2,523 $4,600 $7,123 $7,300 Regular Retirement $10,963 $13,430 $11,300 $3,908 $6,000 $9,908 $12,000 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 $81,110 $132,572 $127,000 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 $2,300 Insurance - Auto $3,600 $3,600 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 Bldg. Repairs /Mntc. $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 $100 Labor - Fleet Maint. (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. ISF 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 Uniform Purchase & Rental $1,900 $4,661 $1,100 $529 $550 $1,079 $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 $168,568 $245,268 $261,500 Sub - total: $251,800 $212,226 3 161 z p27 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 (Mnt. F 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: ,4 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2011 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 to Carryforward Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/11) Fiscal Year 2012 Additions Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward Total Equipment Replacement Cost $67,867 $340,860 $85,000 $323,727 $291,002 $0 $136,200 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $154,802 $32,725 $6,300 $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $39,025 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $193,827 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 $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 $252,678 $380,840 $389,500 $24,750 $15,418 $24,750 $14,500 $1,700 $16,200 $21,000 $22,560 $12,327 $22,600 $13,050 $450 $13,500 $21,000 $42,000 $0 $42,100 $0 $0 $0 $35,700 $89,310 $27,745 $89,450 $27,550 $2,150 $29,700 $77,700 $762,373 777618,739 1 $744,086 $249,814 $388,684 $638,498 $676,800 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2011 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 to Carryforward Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/11) Fiscal Year 2012 Additions Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward Total Equipment Replacement Cost $67,867 $340,860 $85,000 $323,727 $291,002 $0 $136,200 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $154,802 $32,725 $6,300 $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $39,025 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $193,827 4 Collier County 161 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 z Af, 7 Proposed FY 2012 $1,944,100 $11,100 $0 $0 $36,400 $1,991,600 $28,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,200 $3,200 $8,700 $100 $100 $43,200 $14,500 $34,300 $800 $400 $3,500 $3,000 $9,800 $1,900 $500 $0 $2,600 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $79,300 $7,400 $86,700 Received Anticipated Total FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Datt 2011 Expended Revenue Assessments $1,922,500 $1,853,805 $1,938,600 $1,759,392 $111,700 $1,871,092 Interest Income $28,350 $8,371 $8,200 $2,494 $5,706 $8,200 Miscellaneous $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reimburse P/Y Expend. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Carryforward $669,270 $803,698 $495,070 $0 $0 $0 $2,441,870 $1,761,886 $117,406 $1,879,292 Total Revenue: $2,620,120 $2,665,874 Appropriations: Administration: Regular Salaries $28,830 $28,959 $28,900 $10,652 $18,248 $28,900 ER 457 Contributions $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Salaries & Wages $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Termination Pay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reserve For Salary Adjust. $297 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Social Security $2,205 $2,146 $2,200 $793 $1,407 $2,200 Retirement $3,313 $2,928 $3,400 $1,147 $1,853 $3,000 Health Insurance $10,554 $10,554 $7,700 $3,866 $3,834 $7,700 Life Insurance $101 $101 $78 $39 $39 $78 Worker's Compensation $300 $300 $100 $50 $50 $100 Sub - total: $45,600 $44,988 $42,378 $16,547 $25,431 $41,978 IT Automation Allocation & Capil $4,200 $4,200 $8,200 $4,100 $2,900 $7,000 Other Contractual Serv. $28,000 $21,784 $37,500 $13,248 $24,252 $37,500 Storage Contractor $0 $0 $0 $290 $510 $800 Telephone- Service Contract $400 $392 $400 $140 $196 $336 Telephone - Direct Line $3,500 $2,266 $3,500 $987 $1,500 $2,487 Postage, Freight, UPS $3,000 $40 $3,000 $5 $2,000 $2,005 Rent - Buildings $11,400 $11,877 $11,400 $5,525 $5,545 $11,070 Rent - Equipment $2,400 $2,187 $2,600 $668 $1,500 $2,168 Insurance - General $500 $500 $500 $250 $250 $500 Data Proc. Eq. R &M $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Printing & Binding $2,600 $1,219 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $2,600 Legal Advertising $2,000 $633 $2,000 $0 $1,200 $1,200 Reimb. For Prior Year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Clerk Recording Fees $2,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 Office Supplies $4,774 $2,639 $3,000 $266 $1,800 $2,066 Copying Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Minor Office Eqpt. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Training & Education $1,500 $0 $1,500 $25 $800 $825 Sub - total: $66,274 $47,737 $80,200 $25,504 $48,053 $73,557 Emergency Mntc./Repair $16,900 $0 $7,400 $0 $0 $0 Sub = total: $83,174 $47,737 $87,600 $25,504 $48,053 $73,557 Total Administrative: $128,774 $92,725 11 $129,978 $42,051 $73,484 $115,535 z Af, 7 Proposed FY 2012 $1,944,100 $11,100 $0 $0 $36,400 $1,991,600 $28,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,200 $3,200 $8,700 $100 $100 $43,200 $14,500 $34,300 $800 $400 $3,500 $3,000 $9,800 $1,900 $500 $0 $2,600 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $79,300 $7,400 $86,700 Collier County 161 2 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 Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve For Salary Adjust. Reserve For Salary Attrition 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 Electric ity/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 Mntc. /Repair Sub - total: Total Field Services: AT 7 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Datt 2011 Expended Budget $444,149 $429,169 $442,400 $137,554 $277,950 $415,504 $430,700 $2,170 $1,170 $2,200 $440 $1,760 $2,200 $1,700 $102,600 $91,680 $103,000 $26,618 $45,600 $72,218 $99,200 $60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($22,800) $41,993 $37,365 $41,900 $11,697 $24,700 $36,397 $40,700 $63,070 $52,622 $64,600 $17,849 $32,051 $49,900 $61,000 $116,094 $116,094 $133,500 $66,742 $66,742 $133,484 $149,600 $1,564 $1,564 $1,200 $600 $600 $1,200 $1,100 $35,000 $35,000 $38,800 $19,400 $19,400 $38,800 $38,600 $806,700 $764,664 $827,600 $280,900 $468,803 $749,703 $799,800 $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 $4,800 $5,000 $5,000 $211,800 $191,929 $204,500 $79,570 $129,000 $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 $0 $0 $0 $1,700 $30,000 $18,065 $30,000 $12,255 $18,000 $30,255 $30,000 $60,200 $54,889 $60,200 $46,394 $14,000 $60,394 $46,000 $100 $1,496 $100 $534 $0 $534 $100 $8,900 $8,250 $8,500 $2,832 $5,668 $8,500 $10,600 $17,500 $9,950 $9,600 $3,175 $6,400 $9,575 $11,400 $900 $903 $1,000 $188 $812 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,033 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $7,039 $2,000 $5,874 $0 $5,874 $2,000 $800 $340 $800 $0 $400 $400 $800 $12,000 $4,028 $9,400 $2,607 $7,100 $9,707 $9,400 $58,500 $62,886 $62,000 $30,980 $32,000 $62,980 $62,000 $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $0 $100 $47,000 $38,070 $44,100 $13,016 $28,000 $41,016 $67,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $3,000 $4,658 $3,000 $1,352 $1,800 $3,152 $3,000 $11,500 $20,159 $11,500 $3,018 $7,500 $10,518 $9,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $3,000 $1,342 $3,000 $512 $2,000 $2,512 $3,000 $1,500 $0 $800 $0 $800 $800 $800 $3,000 $1,030 $3,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $3,000 $726,100 $668,736 $717,500 $343,248 $381,430 $724,678 $739,900 0 0 $3,300 $0 $0 $0 $3,300 $726,100 $668,736 $720,800 $343,248 $381,430 $724,678 $743,200 $1,532,800 $1,433,400 $1,548,400 $624,148 $850,233 $1,474,381 1,543,000 Collier County 1612 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: p27 " Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations $175,998 Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $795,340 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 $174,200 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $797,138 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10 /01 /11) $704,988 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $300,300 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $404,688 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 - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $460,438 7 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 $103,000 $52,640 $28,763 $52,700 $30,450 $1,050 $31,500 $53,300 $57,750 $35,975 $57,750 $33,886 $3,914 $37,800 $60,100 $98,000 $0 $98,200 $0 $0 $0 $102,300 $208,390 $64,738 $208,650 $64,336 $4,964 $69,300 $215,700 $1,934,564 $1,643,023 11 $1,945,628 $754,132 $949,162 $1,703,294 $1,991,600 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations $175,998 Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $795,340 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 $174,200 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $797,138 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10 /01 /11) $704,988 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $300,300 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $404,688 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 - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $460,438 7 Collier County 161 2 Pelican Bay Services Division Total Proposed FY 2010 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 Allc Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Other Operating Supplies Sub - total: Additional - Public Relation Sub - total: Total Administrative: 4z7 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 $441,100 $4,600 $1,623 $1,200 $493 $700 $1,193 $4,500 $0 $281 $0 $39 $0 $39 $0 $0 $0 $169,800 $0 $0 $0 ($155,500) $290,300 $277,592 $444,200 $245,914 $17,700 $263,614 $290,100 $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 $0 $2,141 $2,082 $2,140 $850 $1,290 $2,140 $2,200 $3,215 $2,842 $3,300 $1,230 $1,770 $3,000 $3,100 $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 $23,510 $40,840 $41,900 $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 $0 $290 $510 $800 $800 $600 $336 $600 $120 $200 $320 $400 $3,500 $1,598 $3,500 $700 $1,000 $1,700 $3,500 $2,000 $15 $2,000 $5 $1,500 $1,505 $2,000 $11,100 $11,527 $11,100 $5,250 $5,500 $10,750 $9,500 $2,300 $2,002 $2,500 $650 $1,450 $2,100 $1,800 $0 $41 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400 $400 $400 $200 $200 $400 $300 $4,100 $4,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,262 $1,762 $800 $0 $400 $400 $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $500 $500 $1,000 $54,762 $45,206 $49,000 $22,290 $23,285 $45,575 $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 $46,795 $86,415 J $94,200 161 2 '127' 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/Mntc. Fleet Maintenance Electrical Contractor Light Bulbs Ballast Other Supplies Equipment Repair Personnel Safety Equipment Sub - total: Additional - Electricl Repair Servic Sub - total: Total Field Services: Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements - General Other Machinery & Equipment Sub - total: Total Capital Outlay: Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Sub - total: Total Other Fees & Charges Total Appropriations: 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 $23,900 $40,400 $40,500 $165 $165 $165 $50 $115 $165 $200 $4,000 $4,138 $4,000 $1,440 $2,160 $3,600 $4,000 -$111 $0 $100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,412 $3,223 $3,400 $1,300 $2,000 $3,300 $3,400 $4,664 $4,542 $5,300 $2,100 $2,600 $4,700 $6,300 $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 $35,525 $61,665 $64,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $800 $0 $0 $0 $800 $800 $271 $500 $200 $250 $450 $500 $44,200 $34,358 $44,200 $17,500 $26,700 $44,200 $44,200 $1,100 $1,100 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 $800 $800 $800 $400 $400 $800 $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,700 $2,200 $3,511 $1,500 $350 $1,150 $1,500 $5,700 $7,300 $2,484 $7,300 $6,700 $600 $7,300 $7,300 $12,400 $10,389 $12,400 $4,500 $7,900 $12,400 $12,400 $200 $0 $200 $0 $200 $200 $0 $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $71,000 $52,913 $69,100 $30,100 $38,150 $68,250 $74,800 $14,405 $0 $9,600 $0 $0 $0 $9,600 $85,405 $52,913 $78,700 $30,100 $38,150 $68,250 $84,400 $139,500 $107,007 $141,565 $56,240 $73,675 $129,915 $149,100 $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 $300 $5,200 $13,600 $5,800 $1,140 $5,500 $0 $1,200 $1,200 $9,000 $15,000 $0 $14,400 $0 $0 $0 $23,200 $29,600 $6,669 $28,300 $4,900 $1,500 $6,400 $45,800 $29,600 $6,669 $28,300 $4,900 $1,500 $6,400 $45,800 $291,762 $199,086 11 $274,280 $100,760 $121,970 $22:2730:]F_$290,100 161 2 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 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations $40,884 Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $200,400 Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 $83,600 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $157,684 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10 /01 /11) $57,084 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $0 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $57,084 Reserve for Street Light Capital Improvements Capital Improvement (Opening Balance 10 -01 -2011) $73,100 Addition to Capital Reserve $153,000 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Improvements: $226,100 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/11) $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 - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $313,184 A27 10 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 Tree 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 161 2 4'27%4 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 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,294 $1,300 $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 11 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $611,300 $549,537 $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 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $500 $515 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $2,400 $4,800 $0 $2,400 $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $1,000 $0 $500 $500 $0 $170,000 $72,381 $246,600 $9,820 $181,600 $191,42011 $148,600 $42,500 $31,200 $11,300 $4,000 $7,300 $11,300 $0 $0 $0 $118,000 $118,000 $118,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $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 $0 $0 $4,100 $10,700 $3,506 $3,600 $635 $1,165 $1,800 F $8,100 �0 $248,200 $107,087 J $404,500 $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 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations ($276,643) Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $412,700 Fiscal Year 2011 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 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $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 2 A27' 12 161 2 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Appropriation Analysis: Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Engineering (320 - 183800- 631400 - 511001) Requirements 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 $0 Survey cross sections shall be performed in the dredged channels to determine if any silting of the channels has occurred and if maintenance dredging is required. Hydrographic Survey $0 These fund are budgeted to perform survey activities within the Clam Bay creeks. h27 13 Collier County 161 Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Appropriation Analysis: Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance Engineering (320 - 183800- 631400 - 511001) (Cont.) General Mangrove Maintenance Consultation $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 RequirementE 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. a27 14 Collier County 161 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 Requirements Available Required Photo Processing (320-183800-647210) 1 $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. Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Water Quality Testing Program Requirements Available Required (320- 183800 - 634255- 511001) L $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. 15 Yearly Parameter 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 $0 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 Tree Trimming (320 - 183800- 646319 - 511001) These funds are for the maintenance activities for control of exotic vegetation. Repairs & Maintenance (320 - 183800- 646970 - 511001) Tide Gauges, Water Level Loggers Sub -Total Minor Operating Equipment (320- 183800 - 652910- 511001) Other Operating Supplies (320- 183800 - 652990 - 511001) Miscellaneous Supplies 161 2 Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Requirements Available Required $29,000 $0 $29,000 Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Requirements Available Required $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Requirements Available Required $2,400 $2,400 $0 Projected Funding Funds Net Funds Requirements Available Required $500 $500 $0 $500 a27 `D] Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2012 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Revenue Summary Carryforward Interest Income Assessment Levy 161 2 A27 $442,900 $19,500 $333,600 Total Available Funds: $796,000 Appropriation Projection Capital Projects Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (500661) Engineering $75,000 Other Contractual Services $551,300 Landscape Materials $0 Mulch Requirements $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 Total Improvements $626,300 Lake Bank Enhancements (510261) Engineering $0 Berm and Swale $85,000 Total Improvements $85,000 Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (xxxxx) Traffic Signs Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Equivalent Residential Units Projected ERU Rate: $50,000 Total Improvements $50,000 $10,300 $6,800 $17,600 Total Other Fees & Charges: $34,700 Total Appropriations: $796,000 7618.29 $43.79 17 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 Revenue: Assessment Levy Interest Income Miscellaneous Income Developer Contribution Carryforward of Rolled Pri Carryforward Total Revenue Appropriations: Pelican Bay Hardscape F Engineering Fees Other Contractual Service,, Landscape Materials Mulch Requirements Other Operating Supplies Lake Bank Enhancement Engineering Fees Other Contractual Service: Sprinkler System Mainten, Maintenance Landscaping Landscape Materials Other Operating Supplies Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Traffic Signs Total Operating Expense! 16 zaa7" IN Received Anticipated Total Proposed Budget Amended Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 FY 2011 Budget Year -To -Date 2011 Expended Budget $121,600 $121,600 $110,360 $5,300 $115,660 $333,600 $7,700 $7,700 $6,700 $1,000 $7,700 $19,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,080,626 $0 $0 $0 $0 $284,400 $284,400 $0 $0 $0 $442,900 $413,700 $2,494,326 $117,060 $6,300 $123,360 $796,000 renovations (500661) $0 $113,128 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $401,000 $2,332,383 $0 $26,800 $26,800 $551,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500 $3,500 $0 $401,000 $2,445,511 $0 $30,300 $30,300 $626,300 :(510261) $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,275 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,775 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 Renovation (xxxxx) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 [;$761;,300 $401,000 $2,468,286 $0 $30,300 $30,300 IN 161 2 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 Proposed Budget Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2012 FY 2011 Year -To -Date 2010 Expended Budget Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector $3,800 $2,200 $1,600 $3,800 Property Appraiser $2,500 $0 $2,200 $2,200 Revenue Reserve $6,400 $0 $0 $0 Total Other Fees & Chgs. $12,700 $2,200 $3,800 $6,000 Total Appropriations $413,700 $2,200 $34,100 $36,300 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations $87,060 Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) $1,949,500 Fiscal Year 2011 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 /11) $2,444,360 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers from Funds 109, 320,778 $436,500 Rolled Capital Projects /Programs - Transfer to Carryforward $2,437,986 Fiscal Year 2012 Capital Projects/ProgramsTransfer to Carryforward $442,874 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $0 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $0 $10,300 $6,800 $17,600 $34,700 A 27' 19 x.61 2 A27 A ID 0 0 Iz v o� �-+ c V) O O kn �a c \p 6s O Iz O\ r 69 Vr kn O r O O r N 00 O\ d� 00 rr � •-I M � O [ � M �O C3 'O V 00 M oo N m N �O N vl M et M O ++ C O1 � O\ U1 M N v) \O Q1 N 00 �--i O O 69 \O r 1- 69 N 110 69 N E/9 — G9 69 69 ti 69 CT 69 00 N QA 69 69 69 69 G O O O O O �t O I' �O r O 00 O Us O 69 O O O 69 69 69 O 69 O 69 ^ O ti N CA �O O M M 00 W) p1 M M r r p1 d' M M 69 'dam N � � N et o O 6q N 6s 69 N UW 69 69 v Q L a O O kn O O O kr') 64 69 CO O O O 69 69 64 O 69 r ^ 000 O Cy en T C3 CQ O r �O Vl N O �--i O ,-+ 00 1(j oo kn -t in c. b r �o - .1, 69 ,� 69 69 -0 69 � Ge C U w O U N 64 69 rroo er d oo e o C) C:) 'IT o °r° 00 0 0 00 00 69 6's 00 o O o 69 0 00 0 oo " �0 0 0 v7 0 It n r .O a O M O 00 O l� M r V'1 r kn �O N [� N N 69 O M M "q kn V1 69 b4 b9 69 eq 69 6R en ^a 69 6n kn O O O O O X 0 0 kn �n O O b �O O O O 011 69 O C� Yi r O O r \�O O C 07 N C'i 00 p� v' 7 DD � O[ � N llG \O O N M eF IV \lz M N Q1 M M \C C kn � ^' a � N O 6NS ^; rss 669 6M9 69 69 v w 69 69 - V N C U cc � L� (M 00 O O 00 00 O O 00 O O O O O 00 O a) p pl, O "t M 00 69 O 00 69 � O O kn M O Ord O O O pN1 � OM k i 1n � M C� rn O _kn � � 6 9 64 69 6 R rr O aI a 69 69 6r�4 64 •� f7r � � O U U U ' r 0 0 r N O O N O B O O kn r .D O y 7 �.O O 110 N O 69 O O 69 N O 69 N N O a Vl y 00 O 00 l � O N 00 r M O 00 Q� z l- kn O I'D 00 It M N �U 01 m �' N �O M 69 01 M M ON O\ N Q 69 69 M M N r" 69 69 N cz 3 69 69 69 6R H4 69 G6 O N w O ° o �' OU cn 'O d OO u o w d bh 0. C5 QN �"� O O N C O 4\. p y C3 U O O ti y 0 ti c3 .-. p P. �. N N p ¢ N cd ,�, .� � O u pO CD m rn 0 y th CA 6 Pa Cd CD , : CdOo V] VE-'c Nm Nm }' fl a� °�+' c o. , o o = ° v e� Z H rr O N Pr M m U 0 0 cd v �O `'" F1 C-4 t c In P 4 Q C4.�/C:) r24 �w w UU Cd -CJ ��/C4 Tr w w w w w H U) id)- iA ift iA? iA- i{1- ift- O jpr Jdlr N 'cF} {f} i lr iii M 4A idj- tPr -U� i-Pr It r-I O kO 00 O n O O 00 L Ln iPr 1 L tD O O c co L Ln O k.0 M r-i 0) 0) oo 00 ,--I N It O 0) M 00 ',d- O 0 x N a) LL (U a 1 I 4� � Q U CL Ln O "O a > m L. O rI u O U X co r O w +_� o a u a) U +-1 L O c ro +' U L +L+ L U c CL LO O L U O � o Z N � N M O u ro O O � O O Ln � a a) �CU tY LOO fa O > N O N Q1 > 0 ro • M LL ' O Ln O N W 4� c U ?+ > W m_0 o ' ? U Q U 0 O m > L E E _0 m m c a U Q Q U 0 a- 06 Q� c v .N O O a ca 161 2 � O O O O O O O O .12 O O O O O O O O O O O O L O O O O O O O o C O O C C O O 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 0 O M M M (h M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M U c o 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4'0000000C)0000000000000 M 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 r� M M M M M M M M M M M M M ry r� rh o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,R 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 L C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4W O lD lD to 0 to Lo to lD to to lD lD lD l0 0 0 to lD 0 O 6 0 6 6 0 0 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (5 0 0 6 O O -4 0) N M ri N lO -i N M N N Ln O n O N O ri 0 u iA- ri u) -i -t M o oo O , •i u) LO N N M N oo t Ln oo . -i O It Ln M ri O N 00 O M M 0 u) 1-4 Ln M n 00 0) It ri n 01 n- +--i rb Ln O O M M .-1 n oc r o Ln O m Ln O O M r•i O 0) 00 00 r-1 r-i N Cr 0 M M 00 qt O 00 +-I M d' 0 00 0) N It 1.0 if} N It 0 00 LO 00 O M I'D 00 O{�} {A} {f} {{} iii i i i ifs i V+ U4 1-1 1.4 .-i ri 0 iA Uy r ii4 4A .r_, O r-I O N 00 O 00 "T 't N O N O M N N N o o't M (n {f} Ln oo i M N M .-1 ri l0 Ln r, N .--I Ln M lO M Ln N Ln N 0 O O 0 N N N 00 It O M O O 00 N N N M O) a) if- . -i N M t u) q N M N i N M l0 n m O c i64 if+ U� V! ifi ifs -U+ if+ if- ifs iii iii ifr id)- id+ id'r iOr id'r ­1 ipr ifj- tD lD ri M ri O) r-I 0 It M M M M 0 00 (D N M O 00 U O 0) It O It (3) It O O, i N O N E r-I 00 Lo M Ln Ln Ln O t0 N N 00 0) 0) o O +-I N N M It It Ln l0 _0 r-I ri ri r1 r-I ri ri r-I ri +-q N N N N N N N N N N Q t� IVY- -b�t��4dr�4d!�-4dj- 4Fr4d)- 4d�-4d)-td5�t��4d5r 4dj-4d)- ti o o o 0 0 0 o O o o O o O O O o 0 o O O o c fii ifs ii4 if- ifs ift Ad)- ifs ifs ift ifs JA JJ � ifs -U � Vr ifs 'V� ifs if- if- o O O O O o (D O O C O C C O O .--I o 0 0 o o id)- iA ift iA? iA- i{1- ift- O jpr Jdlr N 'cF} {f} i lr iii M 4A idj- tPr -U� i-Pr It r-I N kO 00 O n O O 00 00 Ln iPr idi iPr n c O :p w c O O �. � O N 41 u' N + 0 � � a o o p� O c O M� +-' tO w X � W {{} + c of O O O LL ° 't 4� N X N M LL N id)- 4� 3 N -C- X N l71 •- O J 4 a -r- Y L L d J d =3 m (D c � (7 CO u, m m rli m a cl� a O N N U U U ro ro ra CL a a .- iM 't l0000)Nd'l0 N It l000Ln00oMO N N N O M M 0 i� iii i-Pr iir iA- iPr iP iPr iA- ifs i� ii4 ii4 i� i� rl -Z ri 0 iPr iA ifs 4- L_ N O H L T-4 N M [r Ln to r- M 01 O -4 N M �' M lD N M O O -1 4 L ro , I, I .-I r I r I -4 -4 -4 N N N N N N N N N N (n M a) >8.00N 00000000000000 0 0 FC O U A27 0 R Y a� rn a m :° Lcu N aoi r- L}L. E o E m U > C 0 a CMa aQ m ots ) cq > 0 a) af v 0 0 0 ri O N M r-I N l0 ri N M N N Ln 0) N O N O r-I C i if- i if- ri M ri It M O O D r-I LD N N M N O It M O 0 0 o r ro O O It Ln M r-I O N 00 O M M tD u) ri Ln M f� O 01 O OO lD 0 o O r r0 r r-I N 0) � ri ri 00 Ln O M M r-I N 00 N "d- O Ln r r-I N N tD O O c co L Ln O k.0 M r-i 0) 0) oo 00 ,--I N It O 0) M 00 ',d- O 0 000 4- L_ N O H L T-4 N M [r Ln to r- M 01 O -4 N M �' M lD N M O O -1 4 L ro , I, I .-I r I r I -4 -4 -4 N N N N N N N N N N (n M a) >8.00N 00000000000000 0 0 FC O U A27 0 R Y a� rn a m :° Lcu N aoi r- L}L. E o E m U > C 0 a CMa aQ m ots ) cq > 0 a) af m rn a S m m c H N N r _} E w 0 U > 0 CD- a� tm n a m' �s cq > o m Of 161 2 A27 4 �QO o o u a a m + U CL C U cn 0 E o i- N C N 0. CL Q �' - CO a + O p O- O O O 0 C L p c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O N ^ •- d � M ''� O_ N c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C:) :A Z C O 4� 000000000000 O In O ro C7 U N c + p c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ E ((U N J O + 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o +' 00000000000 (0 0 ~ cn X O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 c 0 Ln M M M M f _ O CL ^ OM N 4- '-' Q U c D to o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U O pi O L00000000000 % 161 2 A27 a rn 0 0 N co O 0 C: 4 fo N C1 0 CL a>i fn N L iL + a �_ Ln D Ln m o C� E c m° a a s 5 co m m CL w U d "06 C m Ln cn .� o �, a� U v) O E o +� m U U U 0 C (n m m w 06 tT) a Li L > N O C \ O O \ O O O O \ O \ O O O \ O n � L p - O O O O O O O L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � N 01 a 41 C 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ' Q 000000000006 + O _r n 0 U 00 N d C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o\\\\\\\\\\\ nj p �.._a T L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 4100000000000 MN-i O m4- c O U -200000000000 M M -' to �^ O m C U Op 0 �j o w + Ln aNi m Cn O > c U J m x O O \ o O O \ 0 O) �..i f0 L 6 O O O O O c 0 if)- 0 LO n � 0 m m U y lO lO lO IO IO IO I� IO IO lO lO O LY"O m � O 00000000000 � v0) m 0> V o O) °�� C CO 4AU tU� �N m 00 G (Lp N W O ,--� M I\ I\ 01 Ln Ln + 4 I\ + 41 Y O d �0 + NH Ou COMNOMN0001ON 0O N LLpL N p� O L r i N O n , i M .-I 10 E CL O 0 p to L O N L m N M Ln N N *4 ,4 N N E Ln m N N `� .M 41 w c L •� M Ln Ln V O N 00 O U L m Z } } o O ifr i�r Hr '�1' r a U` .� r i�r ift i!-r ifr _Ur N °� m o U) - � � � O O LU m CO L CO Z Ln C� m N T > CU f� L N . I ++ 10 M M Ln ri 01 rl Qi F- CL O Lb ip >+ 0 0 m L U n I\ l0 lfl t0 CO M O Z to CL a. n ()> N Li M 00 � i r, [h 0 I'D N m W o m 0 C� ai �Q Ln U o �N10qLn�Ln01N p m m > 0 >'-00 m - ces a 3 o L c C 4A ift Rr {fr -blr tfr -4 -4 --1 N " tft tft 4r fft �r Ln I- c m � Ln Co Ln 3 0 .. 3 —_ LL CL- O L O ,� rl , i ri ri ri ri rl ,� r i } 0 a E O C � � Cr O fo m U M C ifrnnnNr,r,N r, r, It It C.v TO Ln� Ln c�0_ (U N m 00%0 O 0 m oUa �� m01 �co rlU II > o '+BOO U .�,� �,�,�,�,�,1,�,� — 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 01 U c p m 3M 'o Wr +fr > N 4J L d 4-- O tft tft <ft tf} �ft tfr ift fift Q m 3+ N m CL m +�+ C m LL --A II �o o o�%na fu >> m V 00000000000 0 0 0 m 0 _3 ry O-O+-' o> W O w �+ L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4� 00000000000 d O o + + + CO V Q L< m O C 00000000000 pON+'000 C C +' Q Lb C 000000000000 U Imi + N C 000 Lp 0 0 0 O m O O Z N VL ++ O pp p C U i -4 ,-A ,-A 1.4 ,-4 , 4 . q ,--i U Mfr tfr tfr tfr Eft ffr tPr ifr Eft EFr fR OO 01 - 66-.- J CL C i 7 7 O � M M M ift ift if3' U L "O LNn 0 3 p N rn Ln QQQU .-iZ+ C C C N �r000a O Q M V 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 OM O N Efr ifft tft {ft fft i" C 4ft 0 +, a=- :ate m X M 01 Vl N a_ > > > u c -0 ,O lL +--I ^ 01 00 N CL 3 C C C C •am-� t M Ln M Ol 3 U U J ifr br Eft fu U�1 "a o C C C C 0 CnCnrna1i U c UJJ(nU1(no' o N O w O M n I\ m Ln Ln U 0 d'01Ol0N Noqt0 0 0 o COOMnOMN000�i 0 0 0 E O_ N 00 n r, r . -I 01 000 10 0 0 m0^MU)r, 1r-iNNIt m lO M 00 4 O O 000 OMO MMN .-OWN }N i {q- 4-4NNM N N N N N 0 Af4 ip4 fir ifr {ft A& _Ur In w O ►C-i L ,--� N M It Ln 10 n 00 01 O +--� L m .1 _q _q _q ­4 ,-L —4 —4 —4 N N 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 qm C C % N N N N N N N N N N N Q C O U Y a rn 0 0 N co O 0 c 0 .N a) m m a cz O m C 0 .h 0 � Uc 0 O C Cn d T rn m � m o c U U 3 N O a c m o N U N V T r L ii cc m V 1 N V O Ob a c .O bA c O Mm W m a 1417 R 2,7 1-1 N M Gi U) l0 it O W rn a Q H H 0 m W N N N N N N p 2 O O O O O o. o_ 0. o a o. n N C — C C C C C — C Y m 3 o a N c>o NB -° oa u �° C Z m C °2S N m L 0 a) C ON U f`0 a o v O c YO T m O O m c .-, a/ O u m m u N a) ? 'fo ;; E c io 41 a °- — w m a 3 c= N^ a s ° `° E a o? 3 '° -a — m o E° cmi 3 3 0° Y O .O ° c m U p m N oa u as m >, N L [i ° •N U 'N a) u •> c L V_ m C N p d T m L1 Im a m c .N N a) a) m Q O +� v° C �O > .� Y 3 U N C 0 0 `� oiS a N V O U a o a N c u c N m m o_ N a ;� o u =' T m 0 a V aj `- Y v ,v, L u a N a; v N to m- U U al hA u a) c +' N O a o f C aN-• 3 c m a) °- a) v+'i OOIi O m °- N c C X N N o .c (ao "� O Oi C Q N aJ c m N N E n 1-4 ° N N CL .N Z O a E a V N y am+ 3 N �O 'N N C N Y aH w L Y to a) a/ tml c N m m = Q Y N al N •� Y ��+ +�' E N m f6 L\f1 0 0 0 0 N c N 0 lD C °_ O Y C N c m m a d O- t' O Y a m E U U Y >, CL a E\ m ° O 0 a) to al Oa c a Q V O_ a 3 7 N o _ 2 N O. O S (7 a a) i L j v O c N a) U .N V O Y n a0 m0 a oif Y `^ N ,T :� v v (7 ,L > ° "° p C 3 30 0 c a ° m o 3 c c `° c ._ a m� v a u \, 3 v \— ° m '^ c c o a v 3 0- V Y v) 0 o u T, c a a a c y L u 3 o m u v -- 3 0 6 aYi c ° -� N a -> y0 O' � E ,o N= N L v m N - tO a/ Y m Ln w u m }N a u 0 3 c a ° N u M a) O °- N v c `° O c^ o O a) a) +' j y 3 o m N a+ u= T O. O L c m 2 E °- v m O a O m Y 'C O d O E ._ N a) m E O u O c a2i N m e N v m (p m N LL '� T Y u 3 °M C > `"i CT N 'O ^ .fl aL.+ N S C 2 E O N U L ° cu 3 N c m .3 N o o m 0 -p >N„ a! c N a H a) YO o c H a m o, aA a) a j Q za a m O O N u° Y +O+ v m N ° .E 2 O N > °- vui ° o N ✓°i � .� t `) 3 a o u m E t a v E C7 " = c c v v ° �e ° o vu DL ° CL CC )L m U > m O U a+ c 2 O -O j C N a) •'J O YO C O OC O c Q a) c M m m 3 y L 3 E a) u N v t £ E o ° p 3 c `o `m Y No N ,m w v m a a .3 v .� o ._ 3 0 Y v o n c m Y m m m N m L a 3 N C O L T N 3 '� w + Y E X U V 3 c a) N Ca N O N 2 C a LO m m e O V O In ^1 Q i N U a Q Y a) N = Y N N to a m N w l0 N o .O Cca vmi H Y u C CI O. 9 ��-I c O ZZ Q aL+ m E V- i o° E m ,aL,+ c c 3 m u E$ 3 m o m E .--1 O op N N c c 3 — p> ° aj o z° o= m ;'_ 3 F Y N oo O (� o- a U a) a) v o E N a m y .� m w v -o a c ° aL.+ O ar o v m O E C c 'm u _° c> U T a) _u N \ N c a) N ° J 7 0 O Y c> v �' a c — `) > y O .N N m co c 3 c V °o 0 °N° O_ 0 ±' Fu - v Y =_ n m V m 3 p Q u m° 3 m a) p w No o E a" o p v ° +' o v Ln m M o. o ac) m y o o n v ry N o m m a E L] o o Q :E m E wo coo a N„ a ° > c �_ > o o 3 N ; Y .� a) O N m > a a 'i+ m YO a a fo E O a a) m m s c a) .N YO a C m w\ L— L] m c> `� pVa m O c °- O 3 c w m c E c O N o c O a.a a o0 o aJ E 3 v E ar '� N m N m J Y, m' E y u a N a) C m 3 3 Y a y o c o N U y 0 N m u Q v u o m a a h1 a) Y c a N C a) a s ` c N v 3LO � N a •� O m a> N v E i a m O ` a m a N II m U U N Q a 3 0 a c Y m ° > a C 3 N N H YO a0 U a) Y p O U O E m N N O U a V U O U `— Z O c o2i m 7 m O o a i �) p O a a aj cm: m m CO m a) m> C in N c ° O ° ° O C O >, C .N O o 2 c2 a C E Q °m a O p >, /CO a OD CL O +-' O f0 u o2S a a a) E w E m O. y o a m y .� Y 3 a o 00 E w m u m ° v— v `o c v m v �e Z m o a m a c N E L m 'm v $ o a o f co a) a co 3 a v v •V m c a m e a) O m o a) `"'{ m m L O a0+ c Y m E U_ as ° m n-U > .. m O O> m O a) \ m N c O O N m m T .--1 in _U Y N S M O O N u 3 ` -� a E 4) N O a) E C o i t \ 0 Cil C71 \ m a) \ C m X U O N 2' \ E \- c \ to c e-1 U d m m a U m Y N- .O N N N S 'O LL (.� N > U a) m N M W M m m M a) p0 Y Y Y Q Z J Z Y Y Z Z IZ m N U_ u N a a) J m a 3 o > •N � m a) a m c o � 0 o - u m U u m aj U c u in to U 4! O a) c CL O o > Q Y u N U N u ° v m 3 O a` X W N a m `n Y c to v m v o u c Q N a) > � c E E c � p o 0 ° (u E 0 m a) v Fo v LL O a) O V N O + ) > _( 3 a) bo O O N O O O E -O o a � U a` v°i rL o � \ O 0 \ N O \ \ N O \ \ N O \ \ N O \ \ N O \ \ N O m p \ 11 O O O O O \ O 1-1 N M Gi U) l0 it O W rn a Q H H 0 m W 2 A27 61 May 4 2011 Pelican Bay yervices Division Board Regular Session Y � 9 submitted by J. Domenie at meeting . V Al , s e f r IN e; �W . IN i t t t t I r r a t ei,3a.il#ia,/iri�ll�� ht:_ Following the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, a rI study led by Danish ecologist Finn Danielsen reported that coastal areas flush Mangrove with mangrove trees were markedly less damaged than those without. The findings suggest that the trees shield the coastline by reducing the height and energy of ocean waves and offer hard evidence that deforestation could result in increased coastal damage from storms. Mangroves are expert carbon scrubbers. A global inventory by McGill University environmental scren- list Gall Chmura found ' ; ° 3 ISHI t; rlr �!, flOOTI that mangtoves pack The mangrove depends on its away carbon faster complex root system for stability, than terrestrial for- oxygen, and Sall filtration. In ests Every year they 2007 U.S, Geological Survey board same 42 million scientists analyzing mangrove tons, roughly equiva- roots and soil up to 13,000 years tent to the annual old found that during periods of carbon emissions of rising sea level, the roots grow 25 million cars. faster and bolster the soil, which helps hoist the tree upward, mangroves love sunshine. Unlike many tropical plants that close the pores on their leaves at midday to reduce sun exposure, mangroves rii"n active, absorbing heat to prevent evaporation of the shallow waters they depend on. They also curb their thirst; A 30 toot mangrove sips about six gallons per day, white a similar -size pine free guttles Mona than three times that amount, Mangroves are sutvo- vors, due to elatwraie root systems that sprawl above and below the waterline. These so-called walk- ing trees drolly shrug off extreme heat and mN defy tapsrxi in oxygen and filter the salty waters of southern Florida and tropical - Aheast Aso, where the rnalcJr- ity of thr: 73 Wn ,rrnf mrigrove sperm We, Mangroves also help other species survive, forming dense forests I" shelter mcinke/S, kangaroos, ar4d t,s as we-11 as shr,41f sh aind br htly coved corgis. Even humans berftt as impoveri J ed coastal Corrtni4trtitte`; exploit the tree for food, lurnber, and rred- one But mangrove Bests are dw ndling. Relentless defotesta- hon and powerful tropical storms have reduced their habitats by 35 pemertz stnce 1980, prop pwiig ecologists to step up their investv, tans into the urn ability of mangroves to st;r- wive and protect their coastal environments AMY Wile 19 ,� G4,2}yt1 v 16 2 AZZv E D I PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION .JUN 2 0 2011 40 Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit goWxf ofCounh' Commissioners NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 38108 piala ,� AGENDA biilor QV The agenda includes, but is not limited: HOMMIng 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval�`� 3. Audience Participation 4. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. May 4, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6. Administrator's Report a. Presentation by Ellin Goetz of Schematic Roadway Intersection Plans b. South Berm Permit Status c. Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion i. Selection of Intersections for Construction in 2011 ii. Selection of Contractor d. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing i. Timing ii. Funding iii. Assessment Adjustment iv. Bicycle Lane Survey e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathway Widening i. Review Proposal ii. Discussion of Excluded Costs f. Monthly Financial Report g. Update on Health of Mangroves h. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach 7. Chairman's Report a. Review & Submittal Process for Future Pelican Bay Post Articles Discussion b. Draft of Pelican Bay Post Article on PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget Discussion c. Obtaining Public Input During Meetings d. PBSD Committee Structure Discussion e. Clam Bay Update f. Announcements 8. Community Issues 9. Committee Reports a. Strategic Planning Committee Misc. Cones: 10. Old Business Date: 11. New Business a. Possible Regular Meeting Schedule Adjustment Discussion (J. laizzo) Item #: « T- 2ig2 -71 12. Audience Comments 13. Miscellaneous Correspondence Copies to: 14. Adjournment SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, THEY WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597 -1749. 6/8/20111:04:05 PM 161 2 127 JOHN DOMENIE 749 BENTWATER CIRCLE #201 NAPLES, FL 34108 -6762 239 - 566 -3179 Monday, June 13, 2011 Mr. Keith Dallas Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Keith: I hereby submit my resignation as a member of the Advisory Board to the Pelican Bay Services Division - a position to which I was elected by the residents of Pelican Bay and appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. The resignation to be effective this date. There already exists a qualified candidate to fill the vacancy. will be 82 in a fortnight and have decided to dedicate more time to my family: Maida, the three children and seven grandchildren, instead of worrying about red /green markers in Outer Clam Bay; relations with Seagate; garbage along the boardwalk leading out to Clam Pass Park; the cross - sectional dimension of Clam Pass; water quality in the Mangrove Preserve; pedestrian crosswalks; street lighting; repaving of Pelican Bay Boulevard; noise along US-41; etc, etc, etc. I believe you have done a great job as Chairman of the PBSD - but I also believe in giving others with equal skills an opportunity to lead the PBSD. Hence I am surprised and alarmed at the efforts of the Secretary of the Foundation of again trying to influence the path of the PBSD, by calling the members and advocating your re- election. This is the second time this year that the Secretary has tried to influence election results and I feel t�his� has worked against you. continue your good work. Johan Domenie 161 2 A27 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 1:00 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 Domenie Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager Geoffrey S. Gibson absent JohnIaizzo Michael Levy John Baron Hunter H. Hansen 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 Tim Hall, Senior Biologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation David Trecker, Candidate, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Brian Weinstein, P.E., Transportation Engineer, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. REVISED AGENDA -O 1 161 2 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 ' 10. Community Issues 11. Committee Reports a. Strategic Planning Committee 12. Old Business 13. New Business 14. Audience Comments 15. Miscellaneous Correspondence 16. Adjournment ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Gibson and Hansen, both excused, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the agenda as amended The Board voted unanimouslv in favor. nassinu the motion. CANDIDATE INTRODUCTIONS Board candidate, Mr. David Trecker introduced himself. Chairman Dallas read candidate Ms. Susan O'Brien's prepared biography. Consensus was that there were two great candidates. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Mr. David Trecker be appointed to fill the existing Pelican Bay Services Division Board vacancy. The Board voted 6 -2 in favor, (Messrs. Dallas and Baron opposed) assin the motion. PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE DR. RAIA'S SERVICE On behalf of the Board, Chairman Dallas presented an award to Dr. Raia and thanked him for his four years of service on the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Dr. Raia accepted it graciously. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Representing the "Stop for People Coalition" Mr. Brendan Culligan proposed that if each resident of the communities most affected were to contribute $8.57 monthly over eighteen months, they could save $50,000 to install a motion activated crosswalk at the North Tram station crossing to keep pedestrians safe. Ms. Noreen Murray, resident and former member of the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee suggested strongly that the Board approve the pathways proposal presented today. Ms. Marcia Cravens, Dorchester resident said that she supported Mr. Trecker to fill the Board v y. The Services Division has an established role in managing Clam Bay and suggested working with th da on Clam Bay issues. The Board should allocate more than $78,000 to the Clam Bay Fund in the propose nd allocate funds to educational outreach. 'a APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APRIL 6, 2011 REGULAR SESSION Vice Chairwoman Womble amended the April 6 minutes. Page 8461 the LKR signs in Outer Clam Bay including `look out for swimmers' becavA electing officers until after an appointment to the Board is made. ", and 8467 by some of the Board members were that the current about ..to defer issues as perceived 161 2 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the April 6, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. APRIL 12, 2011 CLAM BAY WORKSHOP Mr. Cravens made a motion, second By Mr. Domenie to approve the April 12, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Clam Bay Workshop minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. APRIL 11, 2011 BUDGET COMMITTEE Mr. Levy made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the April 11, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Budget Committee meeting minutes as presented The Budget Committee members present voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. A27 BUDGET COMMITTEE REVIEW FISCAL YEAR 2012 TENTATIVE BUDGET "WITH NO CIP INCREASES" Mr. Levy presented the FY 2012 Tentative Budget summary that staff developed "with no CIP increases" or without increasing the assessment. Last year's FY 2011 assessment was $370.64; the millage rate for street lighting was 0.0531 and has been flat for three years. Carryforward funds from Water Management and Community Beautification were transferred to the Capital Projects Fund for identified Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects. Carryforward from the Street Lighting Fund was transferred to a Street Lighting reserves account to keep funds collected by an ad valorem tax for Street Lighting separate from funds collected by non -ad valorem assessment. While holding the assessment the same, any revenue above that needed to fund Water Management, Community Beautification, and Clam Bay was added to capital projects for the CIP. Due to Staff s "cost control efforts in day -to -day operations ", in FY 2012, after allocating $50,000 to refurbish traffic signs, and $85,000 for lake bank enhancements, there is $2,854,000 available for CIP and capital projects and $74,000 for Street Lighting. Additional revenue required for Clam Bay in FY 2012 is $156,000. For the past two years, the County has only COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel, San Marino resident asked if the budget was public Chairman Dallas said yes and he planned to write an article for th ay Post regarding the FY 2012 budget and CIP projects that will correspond with residen cei ass ment notice. 8472 161 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 2tJ A27'4 Mr. Hoppensteadt offered to send an email blast with a link to the budget on the Services Division's website. Ms. Marcia Cravens said it would be helpful to post the proposed budget on the website. She urged the Board to fund the Clam Bay Fund fully at $156,000. Mr. Levy said in the past, the County had contributed over $200,000 to the Clam Bay Fund. The Services Division built up a surplus and the County was aware of that and began to cut back on the funding. The surplus is essentially gone now and the Services Division needs $156,000 of new money. For the past few years, the County has matched Pelican Bay's contribution to the Clam Bay Fund, so Services Division plans to ask the County to match Pelican Bay's contribution again. Ms. Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group echoed Ms. Cravens' suggestion that the Board fully fund the Clam Bay Fund and only ask the County to match $35,000 because it could undercut the Services Division's position. Dr. Raia said Clam Bay is a County asset, so the County should be paying for Clam Bay services provided by the Services Division. Ms. Cravens said Pelican Bay has a long -term role in Clam Bay and Fund 111 was originally a natural resources fund that contributed funds to Clam Bay and evolved into something else. Mr. Dorrill supports the recommendation of the Budget Committee to ask the County to contribute $78,000 to Clam Bay in the FY 2012 budget. REVIEW FISCAL YEAR 2012 TENTATIVE BUDGET "WITH CIP INCREASES" Mr. Levy explained that the Budget Committee proposed that funds for future CIP projects be incorporated into the FY 2012 Budget and Chairman Dallas created several "CIP Cash Flow Spreadsheets" that outline a savings landscaping bull nose projects and asked if there was a plan to take down trees because to removing trees. Chairman Dallas said the projects described are based on Wilson planning purposes and they would discuss tree removal when they review 8473 sed for for landscaping ,l 161 2 �� 127 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes �vlay 4, 2011 the bull noses. In 2014, residential neighborhood pathways refer to remaining CIP pathways projects that are not along the main roadways. ROADWAY RESURFACING UPDATE & DISCUSSION OF LOANING COUNTY $1.2 MILLION FOR REPAVING PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD Mr. Chandler reported that he and Mr. Dorrill met with Commissioner Hiller and Mr. Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Collier County Growth Management Division to discuss the asphalt rating system and where the Services Division might stand in the overall rankings for milling and resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard. According to Mr. Casalanguida, 100% is a freshly paved road, and under normal circumstances, a road rated at 70% would be repaved, however due to the County's dismal fiscal situation, they are only repaving roads with ratings lower than 40 %. Pelican Bay Boulevard is rated 61% and was not in the County's five -year repaving plan. Commissioner Hiller suggested that the Services Division draft an agreement to loan the County $1.2 million with a repayment schedule to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard earlier. Mr. Dorrill said the County's total available funding for similar work this year is $2.5 million. Loaning the County funds for this work would be considered a novel approach and represent a loan to the County secured in good faith requiring them to appropriate money in subsequent years for the work to be advanced. Since the assessment was done rating Pelican Bay Boulevard at 61 %, the road has probably deteriorated. Resurfacing would add value to the community and be "money well spent ". The other Commissioners may perceive this as Pelican Bay wanting to treat themselves separately from others who might not have the ability to do this, but that argument is countered by the fact that Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Units have been available countywide for forty years for every community to levy and collect additional revenue for special purposes that otherwise would go to the County's general fund. He would find out whether the County will support the Services Division advancing funds for repaving and report at the next meeting. The Board could decide then whether to amend the FY 2012 Tentative Budget by increasing the non -ad valorem assessment an additional amount for the purposes of loaning the County $1.2 million to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard. APPROVAL OF FY 2012 TENTATIVE BUDGET IIMn Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to approve the FY 2012 Tentative Budget as presented; increase the non -ad valorem assessment by $27.50; and increase the ad valorem millaze rate to 0.0857. The Board voted unanimously in favor. passing the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE CROSSWALKS MW 161 2 X27 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 r ~ later than June 13, so that the Board can review bids and make a recommendation to the County Commissioners prior to the Commissioners' summer recess. Staff's deadline is June 16. Mr. Levy said unit -based pricing is likely to cost more than a proposal to do all of the crosswalks. Mr. Dorrill said the proposal could be amended with an addendum that states what savings they could receive by doing all of the crosswalks at once. Mr. Hoppensteadt said the decision whether to do all crosswalks at once or not would require the Foundation's Audit and Budget Committee's review of the proposal and Board authorization. Presently, Foundation staff plans to recommend that they hold off on the crosswalk at Hyde Park until they determine the pathways project at that location. Mr. Domenie and Mr. Iaizzo were concerned about timing and protecting the pavers and suggested roadway resurfacing be done prior to constructing crosswalks. Mr. James Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage said in his professional opinion, crosswalks should be constructed prior to resurfacing the roadway. Mr. Chandler said prior to resurfacing the roadway, they need to decide whether to install bicycle lanes in the roadway and that decision should be made next season. Chairman Dallas agreed. Whether to install bicycle lanes in the roadway is a divisive issue and required community input. Mr. Steve Seidel, San Marino resident is opposed to designating bicycle lanes in the roadway. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to direct staff to issue an addendum to the bid specifications for an aggregate price for twelve or more crosswalks to be constructed at one time, as well as priced individually. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. FOUR -WAY STOP AT RIDGEWOOD DRIVE & PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD application. Mr. Chandler said the Services Division commissioned a study that for installing a four -way stop and there is some rationale for this. He the Philharmonic with a recommendation from the Board that the Phi traffic. 8475 ants analysis to officers to direct 161 2 427 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie that staff discuss with the County prior to submitting a formal application for a four -way stop at the intersection of Ridgewood Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard. The Board voted 7 -1 in favor, passing the motion. Mr. Chandler onnosed. Chairman Dallas directed staff to provide the Tindale - Oliver warrant analysis to the Philharmonic. PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill referred to the May 3 Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage (ABB) proposal for engineering services for a pathways project along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from The Commons to the North Tram station. Wilson Miller had estimated this scope of work to cost closer to $25,000 and ABB's proposal is closer to $33,000. He suggested that the Board authorize the Administrator to enter into an agreement with ABB, revise the scope and renegotiate the price to $25,000 with a caveat that if there are additional meetings or presentations required, then those could be charged on a time and materials basis. Mr. Chandler pointed out that unless they raise the assessment beyond what they agreed earlier today, they would only have enough funds to do crosswalks and resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard. Mr. Levy said if they decide to loan the County money to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard, they would have to raise the assessment. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to authorize the Administrator to enter into an agreement with Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage (ABB) for engineering services for a pathways project along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from The Commons to the North Tram station, revising the scope, and renegotiating the price to $25,000, with a caveat that if additional meetings or presentations required, those would be charged on a time and materials basis. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. CROSSWALKS Chairman Dallas said the Board would need to make a decision at the June meeting whether to implement all, or some of the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) crosswalks projects. over budget at 94 %, but most expenses are under budget with the exception of tree trimming and finish the year in accordance with the projected budget. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept the Monthly the record. The Board voted unanimouslv in favor, passing the motion. SOUTH BERM PROJECT Mr. Dorrill reported that staff, with the help of Mr. Tim Durham, with Wilson Miller, plans to repetition the Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) exp ' wh h jur ictional wetlands, the work proposed on the west side of the south berm is simple main os ork that requires a USACE 1612 A127 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 t x. permit. Work is proposed only for the area within the existing easement upon which the berm sits. The project design plans are available. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK & ALONG BEACH Mr. Hall reported that the State has requested a work plan from the County, which is a good indication that the County is still in the running to receive a grant to remove exotics north of the Pass. Mr. Dorrill said if the County were to receive the grant, it would be shortly after July 1, the start of the State's fiscal year. UPDATE ON HEALTH OF MANGROVES Mr. Hall reported that he is waiting for the boring beetles to hatch, so that he can identify the species and verify it is not a new exotic species. The incubation period is two to three years, so to speed up the process, they are searching for beetles in the mangroves that are about to hatch. In his opinion, the beetle is not a new exotic species because healthy mangroves can defend themselves from infestation, but stressed mangroves are more susceptible. In this case, only some scattered white mangroves stressed by the cold weather are affected. He is working with a lab at Florida Atlantic University, which may be able to identify the beetles using DNA. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CAUTION SIGNAGE FOR BICYCLES Mr. Domenie suggested the Services Division install caution signage for bicycles at specific points along Pelican Bay Boulevard. Chairman Dallas suggested they first address whether to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard and the whether to install bicycle lanes in the roadway prior the issue of caution signage for bicycles. Mr. Chandler suggested that if they decide to install caution signage for bicycles, they should be placed after each entryway. Mr. Levy made a motion to install the caution signage for bicycles. The Board discussed locations to install the signage and decided it was premature to take a vote. Mr. Levy withdrew his motion. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CLAM BAY 8477 161 2 A27 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 2011 ANNOUNCEMENTS The Strategic Planning Committee meets May 6, Coastal Advisory Committee meets May 12, Clam Bay stakeholders meet May 17, and the Foundation Board meets May 20. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE (SPC) REPORT Vice Chairwoman Womble reported that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) meets May 6 at 9 a.m. at the Community Center to discuss the history of The Commons reconfiguration and Community Center expansion, North Tram station crosswalk, Sandpiper Tram station, U.S. 41 berm noise abatement, safety, and security and more. The SPC lost two members elected to the Foundation Board, but gained three new members. The wetlands area will not become a parking lot, but the future use is uncertain. Mr. Cravens is concerned that the Foundation may have covert plans to use the wetlands area for a use other than its current use. MISCELLANEOUS The Board discussed artificial versus natural oyster beds in Clam Bay to propagate oysters and improve the health of the system. Chairman Dallas said that he would like to discuss at the next meeting whether to reinstitute the Clam Bay Committee. Ms. Cravens supported reinstituting the Clam Bay Committee. Vice Chairwoman Womble said BP is giving $100 million to each state involved in the Gulf oil spill last year. There was a Gulf Coast Leadership Summit to discuss the future recovery and restoration of the Gulf coast areas. Mr. Dorrill would find out if the County or this area was represented at the Summit and report back. Board consensus was to direct staff to reschedule the June 1 meeting for June 13. ADJOURN Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn. The Board voted unanimouslv in favor, passing the motion and the meeting adjourned at 4:21 p.m. Minutes by Lisa Resnick \ 5/12/201112:58:44 P Keith J. Dallas, Chairman -I . 161 2 A27 PBSD Roadway Improvement 6/3/2011 Plant Material List PALMS h W I n ' ,y1v n � s E n Nom : i 'L i r i�a Sabal palmetto Sabal Palm Native SMALL PALMS 4 14` L � 6 Mon t qk t Y �sri L� � n�' �. ��' �. ✓- .. -.:? � t^ Serenoa repens 'cinerea' Silver Saw Palmetto Native Thrinax radiata Florida Thatch Palm Native Thrinax morrissii Key Thatch Palm Native Coccothrinax miraguama Miraguama Palm Rhapidophyllum hystrix Needle Palm Native Sabal Minor Dwarf Palmetto Native SMALL TREES u {}EiirYR�I�ai �10.}N {rF.�Ltryw A %: i t4 Y� _4 YVI g(ai ,t) i Conocarpus erectus var.sericeus Silver Buttonwood Native Ligustrum lucidum Ligustrum Tree Myrcianthes fragrans Simpson Stopper Native Myrica cerifera Wax Myrtle Native COLOR AN Annuals Aechmea blanchetiana Bromeliad Yellow, Orange, Raspberry, Full, Sun -Grown Aechmea rubens Bromeliad Green /Red Bougainvillea Dwarf 'Helen Bougainvillea Dwarf 'Helen Fuscia Dwarf Johnson' Johnson' 'Silhouette' Bougainvillea sp. Bougainvillea sp. Lavendar Dwarf Silhouette Euphorbia milii 'Thai Hybrid' Crown of Thorns Pink, Yellow Hohenbergia sp. Bromeliad Lime Green /Red Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise Orange, Yellow Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects 161 2 A27 PBSD Roadway Improvement 6/3/2011 Plant Material List SHRUBS otica�9 { xz _ fi n h..- Carissa macrocarpa 'Boxwood Beauty' W6` omnnori Dwarf Natal Plum ., 3 Thornless Dwarf Chrysobalanus icaco'Horizontal' Horizontal Coco Plum Native Ficus microcarpa 'Green Island' Green Island Ficus Leucophyllum frutescens Texas Sage Pittosporum tobira Pittosporum Rhaphiolepis indica 'Dwarf Dwarf Indian Hawthorn GRASS TEXTURE 'ryry[[ ��ICaii�Ut e �� 7 ^ri f v _.mow erN -,i r' �YdF4 1� yi Ni Dianella tasmanica Blueberry Flax Lily Lomandra longifolia Breeze Grass Muhlenbergia capillaris Muhly Grass Native Spartina baked Sand Cord Grass Native Zamia floridana Coontie Native GROUNDCOVER �i �9i Fi i r" Microsorum scolopendrium ni 11 ' r d r Wart Fern �+� E a _ .��I�' nin — - rr ar RIO Trachelospermum asiaticum Asian Jasmine Goetz +Stropes Landscape Architects 2 rn D n D r 10 -n r- 0 D D --I 2 D n 2 D r rn Cn 'O t D r 3 rn O rn rn O rn D r r-! t� D D r Z O m 161 P A27 � Z °0 c D rn N � rn O V) -0 n N -n r- 0 D D --I 2 D n 2 D r rn Cn 'O t D r 3 rn O rn rn O rn D r r-! t� D D r Z O m 161 P A27 O D �D O rn rrn Z N CA D r r D r C!1 w O D �D O rn rrn Z N CA D r r D r C!1 5- C) 7 00 U) r) M > m r) r) oi V) -V m 0 V) m ;v ou C 0 z 0 0 0 a -0 U) 0 z 0 m ;v 1612 A27 rn O O rn rn rn rn Z Vj op n M m Nrn n � rn O C/) -V z m n N _� O 7° rn O Z �p r m D D r � Z nm r _r -mi D zD n rn D m O G� D Z r r rn D Z rn r rn Z O Z O z n O z O --I O Z • • C � �O rn CZn rn r_ D rn C1 rn D ou O D_ Z r rn D r O rn rn �1� a N Z O D O rn rn Z r� O r O r /1 Z VJ op D -I m N rn ;v C/1 rrn O N n Crn/� 0 m N O z D r O O r C ., m ?G D m T Z D Z O 70 z n D N D raE A27 ' m z +: D i z 0 K T Cts v� V OT V O N C 7 h ,3 a' � � a N 0 O D O O rn rn Z tr' C r Z op n M D —� m N rn r) O to -� z m n C/� 0 N vo r C m ou m r D x r r m m N m G) 7v N G) D C) 0 0 Z -I rn 1612 00 0 -v rn rn Z N G� N rn X C �v rn r: C z ) 0 M > m m m 40 7F m P (f) PP.N 09. -n m ;v OFA > ALI-' 1612 A27 -V ca C/) 0 O 0 m 3� m z q CA 0 c z 0 M Ej �,. _00 prnrnDyZ -I D (7) (J) 0 p D < rn > 0 U' — � zrz �0 G)�� �z� rnzp C C� ODD Orn� z0rn DC Oz z ��0 rnH-n rn rn n D O D y z rn --i O CP rn� " 0 \ wr _j 1-1 ca(j)rn n O rnO 0 �rn rn>rnz� rn D� D <O =D �c- rn C>N rn rn CAK_rnn 1-70 E zz� 0rnFD0 p=-IZO rn���C1� (J) yz Oz D rnOD� > Ffly D� O zN nC Ffl �D z n rnr D�DC �D rn rn D FM �a r C D 0 0= one z go0� o s r W's r I M 3 110, � Fi � � � o SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS 7 2 D\ �I � iI I I 1 Q � « « 0. O 16 12 • • -i1ZZ63 O D -1 0 �rn Jo O <� Fn °DzD rnz�CP Z�zD -Irn�O -< O rn DX/70 n�rn =—fin z D n -� �DN 0 (J) z y o0 Crnp �n 0 0 rnrn z rn�O r U�rn z Z rn Z DAD Drn r 70 DD rn �(j)O rn a A27 rn r rn rn rn O D r 0 D D D p D �z DC zD rnO F_ O Ill z Z N 0 z C 0 rrn O O 0 O /-Q rn O z 5 Qi s 1 a O O Seal B Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 Ellin Goeiz - FL #1152 E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com /bbromley@gsnapies.com d 20 m o 110, � Fi � � � o SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS 7 2 D\ �I � iI I I 1 Q � « « 0. O 16 12 • • -i1ZZ63 O D -1 0 �rn Jo O <� Fn °DzD rnz�CP Z�zD -Irn�O -< O rn DX/70 n�rn =—fin z D n -� �DN 0 (J) z y o0 Crnp �n 0 0 rnrn z rn�O r U�rn z Z rn Z DAD Drn r 70 DD rn �(j)O rn a A27 rn r rn rn rn O D r 0 D D D p D �z DC zD rnO F_ O Ill z Z N 0 z C 0 rrn O O 0 O /-Q rn O z 5 Qi s 1 a O O Seal B Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 Ellin Goeiz - FL #1152 E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com /bbromley@gsnapies.com rn • n DCa <G> 7070 �C1�p7Cz NC�P> 0z'-z� C� D7000 aU 0D �' �z , n -D Drn DO Z Z r Ci (J) U rn < C> 0 zz O 00 0 -� D � N �Oz rn -a 70 � n < > 0 n rn � rn 7orn� rn rnD rn 0rn Ct� zio C-rn-I z z� D= rn O Z r -U <� rn rn > 70 = rn 0- Z gNo o S /t z rzz >0a DDDzOrn < z «D�� rn rn z z 0 DG)0z�� � 77uD<G)�� Drn70D�� 0 0 rnDrn � Ooy03Oni onrrn -zi0 DOrnrn�z - zzcD oi�cPO �-� rn —►rn 1 rnrnDO::�� D nrnZD rn �rnzI ' ,1 z D CP ' rn Z O z rn ' n 1 ;I i I I � 5 Del * r I 161 2 A27 F_ • • �rnz z0 �D70 _ 70X-1 Fn �0 a=jc0 rn=�0 r- <z0 D70 rn-n >Cnnl r D- O0 z00� rnoj 0 G�c D D ��ZDXD DO — ID�C1� rZ FM Fn D OD FTDO (1�y orn ��rn �rn 0 03 D 7 DD < OC rn r rn D 700 < N 0� rn rn r y rn rn rnFn K O yz (P D Seal & Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES FLORIDA 34102 o Ellin Goetz - FL #1151 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 ' SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com / bbromley @gsnaples.com �% rn 0 rn Cn D � z Z < F r r_n 70 K O 0 C < r n D 0 0 rn rn O D -a z r Q y rn D (1) D - z z z —{ C rn D 70 z n O o z -,*a sit � b A z 9 p I 161 2 A27 F_ • • �rnz z0 �D70 _ 70X-1 Fn �0 a=jc0 rn=�0 r- <z0 D70 rn-n >Cnnl r D- O0 z00� rnoj 0 G�c D D ��ZDXD DO — ID�C1� rZ FM Fn D OD FTDO (1�y orn ��rn �rn 0 03 D 7 DD < OC rn r rn D 700 < N 0� rn rn r y rn rn rnFn K O yz (P D Seal & Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES FLORIDA 34102 o Ellin Goetz - FL #1151 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 ' SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com / bbromley @gsnaples.com �% rn 0 rn Cn D � z Z < F r r_n 70 K O 0 C < r n D 0 0 rn rn O D -a z r Q y rn D (1) D - z z z —{ C rn D 70 z n O o z z n rn w �� vo I 161 2 A27 F_ • • �rnz z0 �D70 _ 70X-1 Fn �0 a=jc0 rn=�0 r- <z0 D70 rn-n >Cnnl r D- O0 z00� rnoj 0 G�c D D ��ZDXD DO — ID�C1� rZ FM Fn D OD FTDO (1�y orn ��rn �rn 0 03 D 7 DD < OC rn r rn D 700 < N 0� rn rn r y rn rn rnFn K O yz (P D Seal & Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES FLORIDA 34102 o Ellin Goetz - FL #1151 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 ' SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com / bbromley @gsnaples.com �% rn 0 rn Cn D � z Z < F r r_n 70 K O 0 C < r n D 0 0 rn rn O D -a z r Q y rn D (1) D - z z z —{ C rn D 70 z n O o z C �Drn�0 o(Is>) oz z� �DrnD < O> u3 rn n Orn 1=D0 rn���� D= 0 Cn y CP n� -U70 FT r- z n rn C �D KD rn rnrn C D Z Z .0 0 S yin£ z goz �7 o c r ; �ZCA >0p <rn �<�D�C�P - nrn0zz� 0 0 70 < G�UDrn I- Drn� >O� <DrnOz� z Dnnrnrn a0 C D 0 O n-+ rn rn-n Orn 0OD z z z D O rn z z� 0O zz F_ �n rn rn • • • c =K - > - J IS rnrn-�� rn 0 7U FM rn O O (J) (J) D0> = rn (J) I- 0 l- 0 �z0 �U - _ —i � =� a(D nDrn �_ rnrnz =NG� r D Cn Crnz z �Cn� rn rn Crn 0 70 -I L F1 C) 0 n zrn� -� C 03 rn -I D -z1 0 rn �Xz �- O rn O D Z rZn r O DDS N rnDrn 03 D� D r D U 00 K > N G� z D C rn 0 rn x , G� D O O rn C� O Fn rn -I O z ; , � o ' SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS W 16 f2 A27 Seal & Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 Ellin Goea - FL #115 E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com / bbromley @gsnaples.com rVI rU)n0�zz� rn rn 70 17- ��rn = —: cu 0 0 0 =� pz> Pzc Gtr � 0 rn0� � -rn ern rn 120 0> >x= Zrn � n 4 C = - - -�1y yc -=I a<> �DCP rn 0 rn O (J) CJ�CPz rn nO y�0 won crna <c0 70 rn n rn Ffl rn 0�0 rn<o rnxZ 0 0 0 I— rn--�—' Dcrn n G) rn F_ 7u O rn n SDK NOO O DD rn 0rn70 (J)rn� D?z rnDD -0 rn O O K� D rn O n rn z n C Z C z O / I � T I , W wn � I I TJERRA A4 R u rn_�rnaZ000OU0 C1�DDuFn 70>> -I �z0 NDrnrno /Arn a� Z�yrnrn {0rnrn - zDrnzzrnrnc7o pzi DG)Z�Orno ��O�0�rnnc �,-zr, Q °O c1)�D0� I— z = -moo rn Z C) FIR 0:5 0 0 Z 0 Fn rn 70 FM C -I rn Z rn -Z-I rn0 ODN D � < 0 D� DC1�� D� CP Z� za O _u z z rn _< G) � z aoa� 8 r I I 1 I I i 1 I I I I 6D I / I; � o ' TYPICAL MEDIAN CUT THROUGH 161 2 pP7 70 rn z D CP D z n rn ImbA LIJW** 900 A A � o e m � Q a Seal & Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 - FL #1151 Ellin Goetz E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com / bbromley @gsnaples.com 01 z DN `v rn 11 L CPCl��� C 0 D0D �cU rn703 <Drn Dzrn Drn/70 n -T, cCT� rn z 0z z rn � n z D<0 > DDO � QJ�C1�rn(� 0�G�0c /- DZp7/7u/� yzX0 0rnr>0 rn <�C� Fn c� O ODzrn D= �G> ar 0 D / D y= �0 �� rn r� rn D Fn 0 zn rn� D rnD rn rn C z z� z 16! 2 A27 DDDz�O�rn rn<< rn-I arnrn Dyz -� �� �rnrn Ffl DG�U�zzn70 CC���rnlrn -njq n crn r0 a><Fn>0- ���rnrn� D zr O�U D➢ �� G) O -{ rnD z -Iz�(P DO OD Az�zrn Oz ozD 00 D Ij c � °7D 0-1 z 7c OO 0 ' -< 0 DO X rn 0O �rnrn 1=-�0 rnrnO U)D� Dxz yrnn z -� rnDOD D rn0 Z - D7 D O -0rnz �D n rn 70 rn� O 0 C_PC1�z rn �z En rn �z -d Drn� zD �c fm rn rn 0 Orn0 rn O rnxz 71 -n < z 0 yarn O 0 N >� (J) �' z -� <Drn �D� 0 rn 0 K z =� D CP >� rn < a�o4 000� C r g SCHEMATIC ROADWAY INTERSECTION PLANS Seal & Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 f. 239.261.6119 Ellin Goetz - FL #1152 E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com /bbromley@gsnapies.com 1612 1 A27 ResnickLisa From: John Chandler Dohnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 8:58 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Landscaping Plans Lisa, Please provide the below listed comments to my fellow Board Members when they assemble on Monday. i have reviewed all of the landscaping plans that Mary transmitted, today, Not having seen any cost figures, my comments are strictly based on the design work. I have to say that I think it's great! The proposed plantings address the two criticisms that I hear about our current landscaping: not enough color and not enough variety. John Chandler ResnickLisa 6/13/20118:08 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion 161 2 0 A27 2011 PBSD Crosswalks The purpose of this analysis is to summarize different options regarding crosswalks in advance of our June 13th PBSD meeting. At the meeting we will review contractor responses to our Request for Bids and decide on the contractor and the specific CIP crosswalks to be constructed by the PBSD during 2011. Rather than try to analyze the numerous combinations of PBSD intersections that we could decide to construct this year, I propose we initially discuss only three options. Then if we agree on one of the alternatives, we can fine tune that approach if needed. Reviewing recent Board members' comments and the PBPOA member survey, I suggest the following three alternatives for 2011: 1. Constructing crosswalks this year at 2 of our most visible intersections. 2. Constructing crosswalks this year at 4 of our most visible intersections. 3. Constructing PBSD intersections, except Crayton Road, recommended by Wilson Miller. The SPC is recommending that the Foundation build the following 3 crosswalks across Pelican Bay Blvd. this year, North Tram Station, St Raphael, and Glenview Place. Alternative 1- Two Intersections The reasoning here would be to show the community how the crosswalks will look by selecting 2 very visible locations (perhaps Pelican Bay Blvd. /Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Blvd. /Ridgewood Drive), installing the crosswalks, landscaping the noses, as well as adjusting lighting as necessary. Alternative 2- Four Intersections Besides Pelican Bay Blvd. /Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Blvd. /Ridgewood Drive, we could add Pelican Bay Blvd. /Oakmont Drive (because of traffic from the new Publix) and Pelican Bay Blvd. /Hammock Oak (because of traffic to the Community Center and Vanderbilt Beach Road). Alternative 3 - All intersections except Crayton Road All intersections except Crayton Road, associated landscaping and lighting modifications would be done at one time consistent with Wilson Miller's recommendations, allowing the PBSD to focus on other CIP areas in future years. I propose that each Board member think about which of these alternatives, with or without any variation, they would select assuming the contractor responses come in as expected. At the June 13th meeting we can then review the actual responses and come to agreement as to contractor and crosswalks to be completed this year. Page 1 of 12 06107/2011 at 2:55 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion 16[2- ' 7 ResnickLisa Subject: J. Chandler Comments RE: Crosswalks From: John Chandler f mailto :iohnchandler219agmail.coml Sent: Friday, May 27, 20114:36 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Crosswalks Lisa, Since I will not be attending the June 13 Board Meeting, please forward this email as a one way communication to all Board members. Regarding Keith Dallas' 5/26 crosswalk analysis, my preference is for Alternative 3 except that: -I would brick the crosswalk that goes across Crayton Road and remove the crosswalk that goes across PBB at Crayton -I would not put crosswalks across Gulf Park Drive John Chandler Page 2 of 12 06/07/2011 at 2:55 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion i ResnckLisa 16 A27 Subject: M. Levy Comments RE: 2011 PBSD Crosswalks - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Mike Levy fmailto :mikelevy(2embargmail.coml Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:37 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: 2011 PBSD Crosswalks Hi Lisa, Since I will not be at the June 13th meeting, I would like to offer a comment with regard to Option #3 of Keith's memo, Do All the PBSD Crosswalks Except Pelican Bay Blvd. at Crayton Road. The Crayton Road crosswalk is very, very near the entrance of the Pelican Bay Community, Lugano. If people from this community cross Pelican Bay Blvd to go to destinations either North or South, the crosswalk at Myra Daniels and the new, to be, crosswalk at Glenview should suffice. However, if Crayton Road itself is the destination, then, I believe, this crosswalk deserves further consideration. Remember, Crayton Road is a through street for pedestrians who would like to walk to such destinations as Naples Grande, the church or Seagate Drive. Before this crosswalk is excluded, I believe the matter should be discussed with the Lugano Association (if it has not already been). Thanks for your consideration. Mike Levy Page 3 of 12 06/07/2011 at 2:55 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion ResnickLisa Subject: 6/13/11 - 6c - Crosswalks Bids Review & Discussion 161 From: John Chandler [mailto:jpcbac@comcast.netl Sent: Thursday, May 12, 20119:32 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: PBPOA Crosswalk Survey Lisa, Please forward this email to all PBSD Board members as a one way communication. Susan Boland has advised me that the 135 replies to the Crosswalk Survey were based on an email blast that went out to over 1,300 members. Therefore, the response rate was 10 %. John Chandler From: Veronica Bellone [mailto:vbellnpls @yahoo.coml Sent: Thursday, May 12, 20118:37 AM To: John Chandler Cc: <JOHNSUSANBOLANDCa>aol.com >; Bill Carpenter; Bob Uek; Robert Pendergrass; Robert 0. Naegele, Jr.; Noreen Murray; <Qamoffatt0)msn.com >; James Hoppensteadt; ResnickLisa; Veronica Bellone; Carson Beadle; Merlin Lickhalter; Rose Mary Everett Subject: Re: Crosswalk Survey John, You have a very, very old email address for me, one that rarely read. The joint team of SPC and PBSD had been meeting and working with WM way before you joined PBSD. The crosswalk discussions had been vetted over the course of many multi -hour meetings conducted over several months, with many options and variety of options discussed, the results of the cumulative thousands of hours the team put in are contained in the CIP report issued by WM. You did not attend the meetings jointly held before you got on the PBSD Board and were not part of the discussions or vetting process we had for the crosswalks to hear the all the reasons for the results. While I respect your right to have your opinion, I would hope you would respect the work of the 19 dedicated members of the joint team. While not all recommendations received unanimous votes, we worked hard to get as close as possible to unanimity. In the case of crosswalks, we were close. Crosswalks were prioritized as high priority by each team independently. Ronnie --------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Chandler Lmailto:jpcbacocomcast.netl Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 20115:50 PM To: JOHNSUSANBOLANDCa)aol.com Cc: 'Bill Carpenter'; 'Bob Uek'; 'Ronnie Bellone'; 'Robert Pendergrass'; 'Robert 0. Naegele, Jr.'; 'Noreen Murray'; gamoffatt(d)msn.com; 'James Hoppensteadt'; ResnickLisa Subject: Crosswalk Survey Susan, I just read the PBPOA's crosswalk survey. I found the "comments" section particularly interesting. However, I have concerns about the validity of your overall findings. They are: Page 4 of 12 06107/2011 at 2:55 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c Administrator's ep, - C ssw Bids ie scussion �5 - crosswalks was their cost. o vel! the ormation provided on the Tate r�,tost,corYtmon reason given fd�r objecting to the crosswa s p survey_Oa I of the PBPOPr s website made no mention of the proposed crosswalks being brick pavers. It's clear from some of the comments that some residents felt that we were about to pay "over % of a million dollars for painted lines and stop signs ". Your survey page did inform readers to "Please review the article in the Early April Post" but I suspect not everyone did that. -The survey page did not inform the readers that crosswalks already exist at those locations numbered 5 through 14. I'm sure that many of the survey participants were aware of some of these crosswalks but I wonder how many were aware of all of them. I also wonder how many knew that the proposed work at locations 13 & 14 would include new crosswalks across Gulf Park Drive. -The survey page stated that "if there is no Stop sign, twelve signs will be added for each crosswalk. However, it did not enumerate the locations where stop signs are already in place. I also am curious as to how many residents were polled. I'd like to compare this to the number of replies (135) to learn what the response rate was. The fact that there were evidently many comments about "excessive signage" doesn't surprise me. If there ever was a CIP task force discussion about the number of signs required for a mid block crosswalk, it apparently was before I joined the group. Ever since the engineers (ABB) advised the PBSD that there will be 12 signs required for each mid block crosswalk, I have taken the position that the clutter of signs outweighs the beauty of brick pavers. I have never believed that adding crosswalks will significantly impact the frequency of accidents (which are extremely few). John Chandler Page 5 of 12 06/07/2011 at 2:55 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion 161 2 PELICAN BAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 600, • Naples, FL 34108 (239) 566 -9707 • FAX (239) 598 -9485 • E -Mail PBPOAnpbpropertyowners.or May 5, 2011 To: PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION DIRECTORS PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD Following release of the proposed crosswalk upgrades, the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association surveyed our membership to get a sense of the community's support for the project. We have thus far received responses from about 135 households, with the following results: 60% of those who responded were opposed to any of the proposed upgrades 25% were amenable to upgrades at some of the crosswalks as outlined below 15% supported all of the proposed upgrades The following crosswalks received the most support from those who supported select upgrades. They are listed in descending levels of support: • North Tram Station • Commons • Sandpiper parking lot • Ridgewood Drive & Pelican Bay Blvd. • Pelican Bay Blvd. & St. Rafael Beach Walk • Pelican Bay Blvd. & Gulf Park Drive The remaining locations received minimal support. The most common reason put forth in opposition to some or all of the crosswalk upgrades was the cost. Additional concerns included excessive signage as a detraction from our community aesthetics; spending funds and making changes at intersections where there have been few, if any, problems; multiple disruptions to what has been an orderly flow of vehicles, bicycles & pedestrians through Pelican Bay for many years. (attached for your information are some of the more comprehensive input documents received from our membership). The Board of the PB Property Owners Association would encourage the Foundation and the PB Services Division to give due consideration to the collective views of residents before embarking on the expensive, extensive crosswalk program that has been put forth. he PBPOA certainly acknowledges the tremendous effort and time put in by the SPC in order to provide a more safe and uniform look within our community and we will continue to evaluate the many proposed enhancements within the Community Improvement Plan for our members. Sam, 460 /af4resident cc: Jim Hoppensteadt Att: Sample of Received Responses Page 6 of 12 06/07/2011 at 2:55 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion 1612 A27 PBPOA CROSSWALK SURVEY RESPONSES MESSAGE: We have a few questions and concerns about the proposed crosswalks. Why are so many crosswalks needed, and why are they so expensive? Although the necessary funds are said to be available, we think these funds could be used in better ways. Many of the locations mentioned already have stop signs or crosswalk lines painted (e.g., North Tram Station, PB Blvd & Myra Janco Daniels Blvd, PB Blvd & Gulf Park Dr, PB Blvd & Oakmont Dr). Pedestrians who want to cross mid -block can walk a block or two to one of these locations to cross the street. If they choose to cross in the middle of a block, the current speed limit of 30 mph gives them the chance to cross safely and gives drivers the chance to slow down and stop if necessary. It seems unreasonable to add as many crosswalks as are being considered. If all 12 crosswalks are added, traffic will be slowed significantly. Drivers will have to slow down or stop almost every block or two. That is too much of an inconvenience. Your mailing states that "if there is no Stop Sign, twelve signs will be added for each crosswalk." Twelve signs for EACH crosswalk - isn't that overkill? Why so many" What is the construction of the crosswalks? Will there be pavers? Will the walks be inset blacktop with white painted lines? The estimated costs seem high. If the decision is made to go ahead with this project, we feel that the crosswalks should be able to be constructed at less expense to the PB Foundation and the PB Services. Message: I had no idea that so many thousands of dollars were going to be spent on crosswalks. I could not find the article which spelled out more details. Are we all a bit daft? What will all that money be doing? Some signs? Some stop and go lights? Human beings on patrol? What is going on with all of our money? If everyone on the board is so willing to spend so much money, I have a kitchen that I would love to remodel. What is the reason for all of the high costs. MESSAGE: The costs for these crosswalk changes are outrageous. Surely they can be made safer at far less cost. MESSAGE: I question the need for cross walks at #13 and #14. 1 have crossed those intersections many times with no problems. There is very light traffic on Gulf Park Drive and crossing is easy. This is a good place to save a few bucks. To: PBPOA 1. Aesthetics. PBB is the entrance to our wonderful property ❑ our shared driveway if you will rather than a city street - and so much effort has gone into making it such an upscale, genteel delight: Lush landscaping; camouflaged /hidden utilities; Minimal signage; Muted /understated signs where possible (non- traffic signs); the exact opposite of the local shopping center parking lots with glaring signage and crosswalks and stops signs every few feet. My primary objection therefore is an aesthetical one F1 preserve /protect the ambiance of PBB ❑ and the value PBB contributes to our property values. Page 7 of 12 06/07/2011 at 2:55 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion - �-A .2 7 161 2 2. Common sense. I regularly walk PBB and have noted that all users exhibit a wonderful sense of sharing the area. Walkers, joggers, runners, bike riders, scooter riders, roller bladers, and vehicles D all regularly extend the utmost courtesy to other users. Those wishing to cross PBB on foot seem to do so at will choosing a spot convenient for them (all generally with long sight lines) L and utilize the common sense solution they learned from their mothers �] ❑Look both ways before crossing.❑ In the more than a quarter century that this system has been in use, is there any evidence that it has not functioned safely? 3. Financial. The existing crosswalks are painted and seem to work fine. Use of bricks, pavers, and excess signage seems to be a utilization of funds that might better be used elsewhere. (Repair sidewalks damaged by root intrusion, for example.) The dollars envisioned for the proposed project seem to be unnecessary. I believe drivers understand that pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right -of -way and don't require a half dozen signs at each location to remind them (aesthetics again). Future paving of PBB will be more costly with brick /paver crosswalks to contend with vs. painted. 4.Ecological. A maritime tradition recognizes that it makes sense to have the more nimble vessel yield to the less nimble one. A pedestrian waiting for a vehicle to pass before crossing is more efficient than having numerous vehicles come to a stop and then reaccelerate D once a pedestrian has crossed. If we were experiencing the pedestrian traffic volume one would see at a major city crossing we would be talking about walk lights. That is not the case here. The proposed crosswalks seem to be a solution to a non - existent problem. (Does the pedestrian volume at the new crosswalk at Bridgeway support further expansion of this concept? - Doubtful.) 5. Safety. My observation at the prototype crosswalk at North Station is that there is confusion concerning when stopping is required (when pedestrians are in crosswalk). Numerous times I have observed vehicles come to a stop when no pedestrians are present no doubt responding to the Stop- sign on the center -road and road -side signs. It creates a situation where someone may be rear -ended by these unwarranted stops. I always shudder when a Good Samaritan stops unduly to beckon a pedestrian or another vehicle into the road F1 particularly a multilane road. I believe it safer to simply respect the right -of -way situation and follow the convention established for that situation. It is a communication issue really and we are all safer if we have a shared understanding of what is going on and follow the convention. 6. Process. This proposal joins others the purchase of a new office location, the expansion of the commons including the paving issue as recommendations from the PB Improvement Committee. It makes sense that a committee, once created, will feel a mandate to provide suggestions and that the PB Foundation Board may feel obliged to act on the suggestions of the committees it appointed. I am sure there are areas where PB could be improved but I hark back to the survey I cited above. We like it as is.PB has essentially been built out for over ten years now so why the continuing growth in Foundation staff with the concurrent need for more office space'__ -I and parking? Are we creating our own problems via our regulations (visitor passes ?) and the like? The crosswalk proposal seems to fit the category of a solution in search of a problem. Were I on the PB Foundation Board I would be concerned that the Board's credibility is being undermined by continually floating proposals that alienate the member owners and raises the question Are they listening ?-] Thanks for the opportunity to provide my perspective. MESSAGE: I am very concerned about the crossing between Pebble Creek and the North Parking lot on Pelican Bay Blvd. I have been almost hit by cars there. One car would stop nearest me, and a smaller car would zoom by in the middle or inside lane and not even stop. One driver had the audacity to wave when he finally saw me about 2 feet from his quickly moving sports car. and have seen children run away from parents fully loaded with beach gear nearly get hit. Page 8 of 12 06/07/2011 at 2:55 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion 161 2 q27 My husband was wheel chair bound and I could NOT safely push him across the street at the walk, but had to load him up in a van and drive across the street to get to the berm. If anything, the crosswalk need MORE warnings, lights, and enforcement. I think I wrote you before, but got another reminder so I am just making sure I get my say. Please help us ensure safety for both young, old, and those who need a little more time to get across the street. MESSAGE: RE; Proposed crosswalks, While I fell there is a need to slow traffic I am shocked by the price to do so. I would like to see a complete line item break down. I find it hard to believe a cross walk could cost $40,000.00. How much is the paint, how many hours to paint the lines, how much are the engineering costs? The economy is horrible and isn't likely to get any better in the near future. Is it really nessecary to spend this kind of money at this time? $794,000.00. Over 3/4 of a million dollars for painted lines and stop signs. A line item break down may already exist and I miss seeing it. If so, Please lead me to it. Until I see it; My answer is stop the project. MESSAGE I think the Crosswalk proposal is overkill. The additional crosswalks may have some value, but I think the expense is too high. MOST IMPORTANT, I think the proposal for 13 signs at each crosswalk is terrible. That is sign "pollution" and will negatively impact the low -key look of Pelican Bat Blvd. The Pelican Bay Blvd. with start to look like US -41 with all the signs. I am opposed to the proposal in it's current form. MESSAGE: I agree that the sidewalks /crosswalks should be put in place. MESSAGE: I wrote a previous note stating that I that I am opposed to the proposal in its current form. I think there are too many crosswalks in the proposal and too many signs per crosswalk. It ill be sign "pollution" and ruin the look of Pelican Bay Blvd. HOWEVER, if they are intent on proceeding with the crosswalks, I suggest that they start by installing only 2 -3 crosswalks in the first phase AND THEN put the project on temporary hold until they can get comments from all residents. Once residents see the full crosswalk set -up in reality they will be more aware & better prepared to comment on whether they support adding the rest of the crosswalks. That's my added input. Thank you. To PBPOA: I strongly disagree with this planned wasteful spending of substantial sums of capital and reserve funds to attempt to solve issues that are due solely to human error and misjudgment. All of the areas listed have adequate visibility both in daylight and at night. No number of signs, lines, and posted warnings can ever obviate the careless disregard of individuals who cross streets against oncoming traffic, nor can they correct the ridiculous driving habits of the many local and visiting drivers on our streets. Moreover, it appears as though the planners are attempting to legitimatize an illegal activity...'jaywalking'...which is well recognized to be against the law. Pedestrians have the right of way ... period!! Get over your intrusive and wasteful attempts to fix the unresolvable. A solution and a better use of some money (certainly much less, in order to eliminate the stripes on the road) would be to eliminate the mid - street crossings all together, and require individuals to cross at intersections like the rest of us citizens. Page 9 of 12 06/07/2011 at 2:55 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion 16I 027 Signs are ugly and look like visual garbage. The community of Pelican Bay has existed for many years without such an intrusion into both our pocketbooks, and our rights to quiet enjoyment. The waste of almost $800,000 represents an abuse of discretion and the complete lack of common sense. The ONLY intersection which poses hazard is not listed! At the Phil, on Ridgewood Drive, there is a dimly lighted crosswalk with 'on street' markers that is always abused. Prior and following concerts, the carelessness of crossing folks is expected and usually anticipated by passing drivers. But at issue, however, is that at dusk, and at night, there are 'blinding' halogen lamp posts that severely deter the vision of oncoming drivers that block out all view of crossing patrons. It is at this location only that some improved lighting is necessary for safety. I welcome your response prior to any decision to proceed. I will forward my note to others in our community who might share my opinion. I seem to recall residents of PB completed a survey a few years ago where the number one sentiment was LWe like it the way it is. Don" It change anything! In that vein I support continuing the vehicular right -of -way currently in effect on PBB and would be opposed to further crosswalks. Within the limits outlined below, I support the creation of, or enhancement of, crosswalks at those three locations that currently require traffic to stop via the existing i!Stop.J signs. My concerns with the others proposed are aesthetics, common sense; financial, ecological, safety and the process itself. MESSAGE: I agree that the sidewalks /crosswalks should be put in place. MESSAGE: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed new crosswalks in Pelican Bay and the associated expenditure of almost one million dollars of our money. With respect to those involved, I am opposed to the plan (being presented to both the Foundation and the PBSD) to spend close to a million dollars on new crosswalks in Pelican Bay. In this time of economic uncertainty I do not think such expenditures can be justified. The fact that both organizations have reserves to cover such expenditure is irrelevant. It is still our (the property owners) money (raised either through taxes or assessments) and we should retain it for future essential expenditure. It should not be spent on the advice of consultants who do not have to pay for it. I will not comment on the individual crosswalks proposed, I do not feel qualified to do so, but on the project, with its associated expenditure, as a whole. The following is my opinion. As far as I am aware, the rational put forward for such additional crosswalks has two aspects: Page 10 of 12 06/07/2011 at 2:55 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion 1612 -A 27 A. pedestrian safety and B. improved aesthetic appeal. Point A, safety. While safety in general is always difficult to argue against, (although there is always a dialog about cost and safety) I am not aware that there is such a large problem with pedestrian safety which would justify a million dollars of expenditure. We have been given no information on how many pedestrian accidents occur on an annual basis or how this million dollar investment can be expected to reduce any such number of accidents. Owners and guests have managed perfectly well for many years with the crossings which we already have. Additional crossings and stop signs (12 at each crosswalk— surely this is incorrect !) will dramatically impact traffic flow in our community and I doubt if they will add much in the way of safety or quality of life. Additionally, it is my observation that, in reality, pedestrians usually cross wherever and whenever they like and often ignore cross walks. I suspect that that will continue to happen despite this proposed expenditure (possibly more so with guests than with owners). I seriously doubt that this million dollars will be well spent. Point B, aesthetics. I would point out to those involved that many upscale locations, with much heavier pedestrian traffic than we have in Pelican Bay, the Philharmonic, the Waterside Shops, local shopping centers, etc., manage perfectly well with white painted lines for crosswalks and have not dug up the asphalt to add fancy pavers with no practical, only aesthetic, application. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I, for one, think that these multi- tiered crosswalks add nothing to the appearance of Pelican Bay. Certainly any potential added aesthetic value is not enough, in my opinion, to justify the proposed million dollar expenditures. In summary. I am not convinced that a significant case has been made by the Foundation, the PBSD, or their paid consultants, to justify this project and the costs which are involved, on either a safety or an aesthetics basis. A million dollars is a lot of money for crosswalks! Page 11 of 12 06/07/2011 at 2:55 PM � yf June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion L427 I would respectfully urge all involved to reconsider this project and reject it. In the event that a believable case should be made to the Foundation or the PBSD for a few of these new crosswalks, I urge consideration of painted crosswalks only (white striped as used at Waterside Shops, the Philharmonic, etc.) and I submit that they will be just as effective for pedestrian safety and will dramatically reduce the costs involved. Let us relent on aesthetics in the cause of cost (lets save the million dollars for the next hurricane). Once again, I thank the PBPOA board for giving me the opportunity to comment on this and for their diligence in protecting our interests. I am impressed by your new level of involvement. Page 12 of 12 06/07/2011 at 2:55 PM L3 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, June 13, 20118:36 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: 11 -5704 Pelican Bay Crosswalks Tab Sheet Lisa, See that the other Board members see this email. You should bring copies to the meeting. Thanks. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: LukaszKyle <KyleLukasz(a)colliergov.net> Date: June 13, 2011 7:16:36 AM EDT To: Keith Dallas <keithdallasCcbcomcast.net> Cc: McCaughtryMary < MaryMcCaughtry (cDcolllergov.net >, Neil Dorrill <neila_dmgfl.com> Subject: RE: 11 -5704 Pelican Bay Crosswalks Tab Sheet The bid asked the contractors — "Discount Percentage if a minimum of 12 crosswalks ordered at one time" the three bidders offered the following discount: Bateman Contracting 2% Brooks & Freund 1% Bonness 1.5% Also a correction from the earlier email. The contractor will apply for the ROW permitting but the County fees for the permit would be paid by PBSD and the Foundation. Kyle From: Keith Dallas [ mailto:keithdallas @ comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 11:38 AM To: LukaszKyle Cc: McCaughtryMary; Neil Dorrill; ResnickLisa Subject: Re: 11 -5704 Pelican Bay Crosswalks Tab Sheet Kyle, Thanks. It does answer my questions. BUT, I have one more. We talked about there being possible savings if all the crosswalks were done at one time. Was there a difference in cost bids if all crosswalks were done at one time versus only some of them being Page 1 of 3 ResnickLisa 6/13/20118:42 AM A. June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion done now? Which scenario does your spreadsheet reflect? Someone is going to ask if we can save mone y doirig`all crosswalks at one time, and if so, how much? 161 x 4 �.. 7 Keith On Jun 11, 2011, at 6:18 PM, LukaszKyle wrote: Regarding the first email — It's my understanding that the Foundation intends to talk to the awarded contractor for the crosswalks and get a proposal for the median modification work. They would work with ABB to evaluate pricing provided by the contractor and possibly consider another contractor for that work if necessary. The only costs not included in the bid price are for the pavers (cost provided by crosswalk on a separate sheet) and any relocation of the lighting. By purchasing the pavers separately and using our electrical contractor it should be more cost effective for both. All other costs including permitting and sidewalk modifications are included. In the event there is something unforeseen and not identified in the plans and specs it would be evaluated to see if a change order is required. Hope this answers your questions. Kyle From: Keith Dallas [ mai Ito: keithdaIlas(a)comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 1:05 PM To: LukaszKyle Cc: McCaughtryMary; Neil Dorrill; ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: 11 -5704 Pelican Bay Crosswalks Tab Sheet More questions: Are these costs all inclusive, such as signs, moving light poles etc? Or are they just for crosswalks? I assume they include work on ramps. What about pathways leading to crosswalks? I'm just trying to figure what is in versus out, so I can get idea on total cost. Are permits included in these costs, or do we pay for them separately? Wilson Miller#s had contingency. I assume these do not? Thanks, Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Keith Dallas <keithd a I lasCcDcom cast. net> Date: June 11, 2011 12:35:52 PM EDT To: LukaszKyle <KvleLukaszna.colliergov.net> Cc: Mary McCaughtry <MarvMcCaughtry(cDcolliergov .net >, Neil Dorrill <neil(a-)dmgfl.com >, Lisa Resnick <LResnickCa)colliergov.net> Subject: Fwd: 11 -5704 Pelican Bay Crosswalks Tab Sheet I would like some clarification on North Tram quote. It looks like this quote is just for the new crosswalk, not the reconfiguration of the median. Am I correct? If so, did we ask for a quote on the reconfiguration of the median? If so, what was the winning quote? If not, how do we envision that work will be bid and done? ResnickLisa 6/13/20118:42 AM Page 2 of 3 Keith Begin forwarded message: June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion 16 1 2 '127 From: McCaughtryMary <MarvMcCaughtrYQcolliergov.net> Date: June 10, 2011 4:21:45 PM EDT To: Keith Dallas <keithdaIIasCD- corn cast. net >, "Teedupl(cDaol.com" <Teedup1Cabaol.com >, "John P. Chandler' <ipcbac comcast.net >, John Baron <Ibaron(cD.watersideshops.com >, "nfn16799()naplgs.net" <nfn16799(a)naples.net >, - osiegeoff(aD-aol.com" <iosiegeoff(a)aol.com >, "hunter. hansen(o)hilton.com" <hunter.hansen a hilton.com >, Donna Cox <Donna.Cox(a)hilton.com >, "iaizzo(a)comcast.net' <iaizzo(cDcomcast.net >, Mike Levy <mikelevy(0embargmail.com >, "ditrecker(o)vahoo.com" <ditrecker(c)yahoo.com >, James Hoppensteadt <jimh(a)pelicanbay.org>, "flanev(o)pelicanbay.org' <flaney(a)pelicanbay.org> Cc: Neil Dorrill <Neil(c)dmgfl.com >, Jim Powers <Jim(a)dmgfl.com >, LukaszKyle <KvleLukasz(@colliergov.net >, ResnickLisa <LResnick cDcolliergov.net> Subject: FW: 11 -5704 Pelican Bay Crosswalks Tab Sheet Attached is the bid tab for the crosswalk bid and it appears that Bateman Contracting is the low bidder at$685,606. Jim Carr of AB &B will be checking to see if they are qualified and Purchasing will be verifying documents submitted. Initially it appears that all three bidders are qualified. In addition, attached is the estimated cost of the pavers and cobbles which were NOT part of the county bid request and is a separate cost. AtaW ✓ tceaughtW, U`pewtio -w ana&pt Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Dr., Ste. 605 Naples, FL 34108 239 - 597 -1749 - phone 239 - 597 -4502 - fax www .Pelicanbayservicesdivision.net www.colliergov.net Page 3 of 3 ResnickLisa 6/13/20118:42 AM C c ZC4 y ti N L) tUq fa � a°1i Co � 3 a C13 0 °1 m� c � Om J Y o� y 3 UN _ y Z o �U Co Co n N W � U N d � N C c_i E N Q c 3 U kD ri N C LD C v 00 L c � O +� 0 � � N p O cn 0 m N Y 3 Ln Ln C v O tA tA � m 3 L U m E 4t ca G 4n ? L cu Q. 0 � C m O C m V C3 CG G V N Lip Y C O O0 i L1 (9 CO LL U 01 a J (p � U o L11 tA tA � ]C d ri m N � � f0 CO Y ++ J (p � U 3 o ]C d Q L bn c ca G •o n E L cu Q. 0 w 161 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lD 00 d' LD N O N O m N 6 6 4 4 ill N N�t lD LD O Ln O M N 0 Ln N 00 O lD m O lD N LO m O ri 00 -t m I'D Ln L.O N L r ri M cl 00 01 O Z: Ln 00 N Ln N Lrl r- It m M M n t LD M M N�ltd- lD 00 .(n -Ln V'} tn• tn• Vn tn• yR tn• tn• ilk in• in• tn LD to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 00 N 4 4 N Ln O M 6 6 4 Ln M N r\ N '�T O 00 Ill r-I l0 00 M r\ r\ N -i al ` r-I N M -t rll� N 00 M O Ln Lrl N al � N r-I r-I N Ill r, 4.0 c-1 00 O O M M 00 00 lD lD lD 0) n 00 LD LD Ln n n 00 O tn Ln to (n to to to V'? to to in• tn• V). tn O ri r-I N r- O l0 N cf r- r- M d' 00 -1 �l lD -, 00 Ln O N al M 00 Ql M ri 00 N N LD Ln 00 Ln O O m .4 O al al Ln ri O Ln t.D r i r-I LD Ln Ln LO r-I r� ri r� al al Ln 00 n LD Ln al O r- m 00 't al 00 M Ln M r- M m O Ln n LO 00 al lD a) al O Ln N r, Ln LD -tl- -�d- m Ln LO Itt TT 't Ln LO 00 Ln tn- J J J J J J J J Ln J Ln J J J f6 i+ O r♦ r-I ri r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I ri r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I O rI N M Y_ c6 c0 l6 (6 (0 LO L6 f6 f0 L6 f6 l0 (6 f6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N in N N 0 w N Ln Ln Ln Ln (A N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L u u U u U U U U U U U U U U v rn O N •O- 3 C ° ° a s O VI L +1 Y p c 3 Y b N v E 'p v 3 o °J o f6 l7 3 ro a° O ai @ ,� > u o_ t s CiA L i• c �F Co 06 Co U L E Y S� fL6 41 ,Lc O m L6 i2 L U U' r C7 L L L cD Z 2 O m m m m m m `~ "-- m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0_ D_ O_ O_ O_ O_ C7 C7 C7 O_ O_ O_ a a A27 0 N M to 0 A R N rn m a June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c - Administrator's Report - Crosswalks Bids Review and Discussion 16 11 2 AV Boral Heartland Flashed Beveled Clav Paver Total $76,862.72 Grey Cobble w /Black Beauty Crosswalk Location Sq. Ft. Price /Sq. Ft. Cost /Crosswalk 1 PBB & Ridgewood 2574 $3.20 $8,236.80 2 PBB & Myra Janco Daniels 1559 $3.20 $4,987.84 3 PBB & Crayton 1860 $3.20 $5,952.32 4 PBB & Glenview 849 $3.20 $2,717.44 5 PBB & Commons 849 $3.20 $2,717.44 6 PBB & Gulf Park 3819 $3.20 $12,221.44 7 Gulf Park & Ridgewood 1799 $3.20 $5,755.20 8 Gulf Park & Greentree 1734 $3.20 $5,547.52 9 PBB & Sandpiper 851 $3.20 $2,724.48 10 PBB & Beachwalk Pathway 849 $3.20 $2,717.44 11 PBB & North Tram Station 850 $3.20 $2,720.96 12 PBB & North Pointe 1810 $3.20 $5,790.40 13 PBB & Hammock Oak 1796 $3.20 $5,748.16 14 PBB & Oakmont Pkwy 2820 $3.20 $9,025.28 Total $76,862.72 Grey Cobble w /Black Beauty Total $8,084.62 Page 2 of 2 06/13/2011 Crosswalk Location Sq. Ft Price /Sq. Ft. Cost /Crosswalk 4 PBB & Glenview 398 $3.85 $1,533.07 5 PBB & Commons 398 $3.85 $1,533.07 9 PBB & Sandpiper 322 $3.85 $1,240.86 10 PBB & Beachwalk Pathway 471 $3.85 $1,812.58 11 PBB & North Tram Station 510 $3.85 $1,965.04 Total $8,084.62 Page 2 of 2 06/13/2011 b O rn O N Q N N N O 161 2 A 27 N F� O lD W V W 01 W VI W A W N H O �O W V Ol Vt A W N F+ O 1p 00 V 01 VI A W N N O .. o D G7 .Zl 0 m n 1 S N v -1 T m r W r v A W N ; W m GI 1 < (n '}q m N O m a d Q 33 3 W m 3 o f a a f O o >> w a f O 3 o O a < v f o o m m m c `° F r. O °. O = m o m m av m o r a x A°- a0 r O`D x7 .1 A a'r m O 'm _� a W O.< o_ o a apC) O pcl O a (� m >• G1 o a o Tm Zv0 co .� Q w N m o w E m A A o p a SAW �O `° W O F;. �3 W (9 y� O dm a z a to o m p m O L o m o m m a o m f >r m i o_ m 'm o� 10 m i m F p o y W o a T >s >• y o =W W y p 1 °y rr o x v m a co m o o o o K a :...o 0 -1 0 �, 0 o c u, < co a c H< m p e o a W O a v+ D m m x p a'm W a `D a c a v = r a i a W n� ^'a O �a o x� o a r W 1 v W °�' p a o a vo W oFi ? a c o D < 3 p o a o m a r < m v m o o < a o v� m a ° v o O a �? co y a N Orr N m d a N < ' ? m o a a m o > j a O o 0 a n. s a a N .< - v m n T m v m v m m m v m v m v m v m -o v m m v m v v m m v m m d M ID v m d v m v m -a v m m 0 0 d d M tD <i y m - d n o T W m ' n a N d W d co a W v d co W d W d W d W C) W OI N W W Ot W d 91 W W d W W d W co d W fl✓ W W co d W W Cmi W m d N m d v d N d a d d d N d ID a d d d d d d d O En G o tD D N n O 'm A T H yi w T N N N rn e 0 J cN0 Om0 ' O N r0 VI A tJl W 001 N �! O W v N A N CA W b fD V N O N N j W N j v W N W � T OO 10 OI T N O W N N� W ut ty0 O) DD ut QI V t0 y 0 V O W W a7 Ut A W p A t0 O T O T O V N V W O O O O O O O 0 01 V O) N W A V N W O W A O O A O O O O W O � N N N N N W W O N W N m __ (n O N r. W O N 0 W W � N W N W Q O A D OD r N O 0 O A W M N V O A A A W W W A V V N N W N m W t0 ? N O A A A .w .001 t0 V DO N W 0 r N A N - ub� O N r ONO D7 O O W W H O V N O t0 O O Ot V' O O P r gO w w c o w w ro m w m °a °0 In o y y ➢ o o 0 -i 2 D D m m Om Z C — m m w M 0 w � m y 0 0 0 o y Z A O QJ Z O] 3 O 3 v N x I Z r O 3 O N Z Z Z Z O K N 3 _ D D -M N < [ N N y m DA T D D Z 4) O r r ^' m y m o A y O ti m0 y 2 On M. T` O Em 2 O 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y v Z m 0 0 0 0 O K N 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n A W p 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a m m p N o m V1 D N O N 0 o A D O A y D n A m D A � m m z V D o m p r O A �1 0 3 _ q c m 3 0 N C ,ll JJ A N m N O A c w 3 M N D X M v D D r It m A K O m m 1 [ o m ➢ m D p D K K a m n x m a 3 m r 1 , o O> N H a a m a a A 3 m r 9 a z ti p w !2 t W P o y 2 y 3 N N H N > N m D D 74 zn m m ^I D S r m H n CD v (D CD C v O v O v 3 CL L Q m D(D � W j N N O v � o m v a. I 0 W O c � (D N N =3 (n W 0 co O O. C =3 �p W vO m Q Q O (D N CO N 1 n. c) 7 (p N 0 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6d - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing 16 1 ResnickLisa A27 Subject: 6/13 - 6d- J. Chandler Comments re: Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing From: John Chandler rmai Ito: iohnchandler219 @Qmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:43 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: June 13 PBSD Agenda Pelican Bay Blvd Resurfacing Not surprisingly, the County has advised us that given their current funding, this project is several years away, per their schedule. The fact remains that the current surface of PBB has worn away in several areas and will conitinue to deteriorate. This gives a shoddy appearance to our community. The installation of brick crosswalks will accentuate this appearance problem. I believe that we should adjust our tax rate to make certain that we can fund a repaving loan to the County next summer. Before the repaving conteact is let, we should sign an inronclad agreement with the County that will assure their payback of our loan by no later than June 2015. I also think that our Chairman should send a letter to Commissioner Hiller pointing out the inadeqauacy of the County's overall road resurfacing budget and recommending that she work with her fellow commissioners to address this problem. If a budget increase is approved and the theoretical date of the County's repaving of PBB is advanced, our loan repayment should be advanced. I have previously commented upon the need to conduct a bike lane survey this year so that we can evaluate that input prior to the repaving and restriping.. By working with the PBPOA on this project we can avoid their critiquing the validity of the survey after it's conducted. John Chandler Page 2 of 4 06/07/2011 at 3:56 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6d - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing i 161 2 X27 &snickLisat Subject: Bike Path Survey From: John Chandler [mai Ito: ipcbac @comcast.net1 Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:26 PM To: 'Neil Dorrill' Subject: RE: Bike Path Survey Getting the Institute of Government at FGCU involved may be a good idea. Some student can probably earn credit for assisting in the survey development and in tabulating the results. From: Neil Dorrill [mailto:Neil(a)dmafl.com] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:44 AM To: John Chandler Subject: RE: Bike Path Survey John: During my stint as County Manager we conducted an annual telephone survey of registered voters that was developed by the League of Women Voters and the Institute of Government at FGCU. Their work was recognized as being unbiased and objective. As you well know the manner in which questions are posed and answers recorded can determine the outcomes. If the Board is interested we should consider this carefully. I'm meeting with Leo Ochs on a separate matter this afternoon and I'll ask him if they still are involved in this type of work. Neil From: John Chandler [mailto:jpcbac@)comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:29 AM To: 'ResnickLisa' Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Bike Path Survey Lisa, Please send this to all PBSD Board members as a one way communication. As we all know, whether or not to create a bike path on Pelican Bay Blvd (PBB) is a "hot button" issue in our community. We also know that Town Hall meetings are attended by only a minute fraction of our community and those who attend may not represent a true cross section of community opinion. Therefore, I think that we need to conduct a well crafted survey of all property owners before we make the bike path decision. The attached document provides my thinking as to the content of such a survey. suggest that we work cooperatively with the PBPOA to craft the survey so that they don't find flaws with it after it's distributed. They may also agree to email it to their members to minimize distribution cost and to make sure that it reaches the owners whether they're here in Naples or at their other residence. John Chandler Page 3 of 4 06/07/2011 at 3:56 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6d - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Pelican Bay Blvd Bike Path Survey By J. Chandler 5/5/11 Background 161:2 'x'27' Survey participants will need to be provided with facts as regards the: • The planned timeframe for resurfacing Pelican Bay Blvd • Government laws /recommendations re bicycle paths. Make clear as to whether they are laws or recommendations. • The current width of the traffic lanes on PBB • The proposed width of the traffic lanes with a four foot bicycle lane • Government recommended widths for traffic lanes based on various speed limits • Examples of nearby roads with ten foot wide traffic lanes Survey Questions • Do you ever ride a bike in Pelican Bay? • Do you primarily ride on the streets? • Do you primarily ride on the sidewalks? • Do you primarily ride on the berm? • Do you ever ride a bicycle on or along Pelican Bay Boulevard? • If you primarily ride on the sidewalks along the boulevard, would you ride in the street if there were a bike lane? • If you primarily ride on the boulevard, would you feel safer if there was a bike lane? • Do you feel that the addition of a bike lane would increase the "packs" of bikers that use Pelican Bay Blvd? • Do you favor revising the striping of Pelican Bay Blvd so that there will be two ten foot traffic lanes and one four foot bike path? Page 4 of 4 06/07/2011 at 3:56 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6d - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing 1612 A127 From: HillerGeoraia To: Keith Dallas Cc: Neil Dorrill; ResnickLisa Subject: Re: Repaving Pelican Bay Blvd. Date: Saturday, June 11, 20114:33:43 PM Anything to help - let me know what you would like to do. If you all decide this is how you want to proceed, we can meet with Leo, Neill and Nick. Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 On Jun 11, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Keith Dallas < keithdallas@comcast. net> wrote: • Commissioner, • Thanks for your help. • Keith • On Jun 11, 2011, at 2:30 PM, HillerGeorgia wrote: >> Thanks for the update Keith. >> If PBSD advances the funds, the county should repay the advance by >> no later then when the county would spend the dollars to repave - >> 2014/15. As such, there wouldn't be a basis for PBSD to tax the >> residents for the project given that the advance would be repaid by >> the county from ad valorem taxes. >> Feel free to meet with me to discuss this or any other matter >> whenever you see the need. >> Have a wonderful weekend! >> Georgia Hiller >> Commissioner, District 2 >> On Jun 10, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Keith Dallas < keithdallas@comcast. net> >> wrote: >>> Dear Commissioner Hiller, >>> It has been brought to my attention that there may be some concern in >>> the Pelican Bay community that the PBSD could somehow be double >>> taxing >>> its residents if we were to join into an agreement with the County to >>> loan PBSD funds on a temporary basis to pave Pelican Bay Blvd sooner >>> than normal County funding would allow. The purpose of this email is >>> to bring you up to date on the status of this potential project, and >>> to assure you that any actions we recommend will not involve double >>> taxation. >>> Background: You were recently approached by John Chandler and Neil >>> Dorrill representing the PBSD to voice our concern that Pelican Bay >>> Blvd. is deteriorating, but because of lack of County funding is not >>> scheduled for repaving for some time. The idea was raised if it might >>> be possible for the PBSD to enter some type of agreement whereby >>> accumulated PBSD funds could be temporarily loaned to the county so >>> that the repaving could occur before the road deteriorates to the >>> point it needs more major repair. It was agreed that PBSD would work >>> with Transportation to determine where Pelican Bay Blvd. is on their Page 1 of 2 06/13/2011 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6d - Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing �6 �. A27 12 >>> current repaving schedule and then explore with the County what is >>> feasible. Since that time we have heard from Nick Casalanguida that >>> the Blvd. is scheduled for repaving for fiscal 2014 -2015, assuming >>> funding levels do not change. >>> The PBSD has made no actions to fund this repaving project to date. >>> We >>> have submitted our recommended 2011 -2012 budget which reflects a >>> modest increase in tax rate to start to fund some Community >>> Improvement Plan (CIP) items (some crosswalks, widening pathways) and >>> begin to accumulate funds to replace lighting that is projected to >>> have only a 6 to 9 year remaining life expectancy. No additional >>> funds >>> were requested for any repaving item. >>> The public confusion is probably because of some budget "what if' >>> projections that we have discussed that showed how much the PBSD >>> would >>> need to increase tax rates to be able to loan $1.2 million to the >>> repaving project and still do a number of other improvement projects >>> that have been suggested by our consultant, Wilson Miller. However we >>> have taken no actions at this point to incorporate those projections >>> into our proposed budget. >>> Our next steps are first, at our June 13th meeting, to decide if we >>> will explore the feasibility of internally loaning the funds to >>> repave >>> the Blvd. If we decide to go ahead, it will probably take a period of >>> time to nail down the details, all the ramifications, decide to go >>> forward, and ultimately I assume receive BCC approval. That process >>> will not happen quickly. >>> At the same time, the PBSD will have to develop a tentative plan as >>> to >>> what other CIP projects to move forward, and see if proposed funding, >>> along with our existing assets in our Capital Fund, will allow those >>> projects and the repaving project to proceed concurrently based on >>> our >>> 2011 -2012 requested funding levels. If the funds projections do not >>> seem adequate, we will have to decide if we want to stretch out the >>> implementation of other projects. >>> The thing to remember is that each PBSD board will decide projects >>> based on its own priorities. Although various projects have been >>> suggested, future Boards may decide to rearrange the order and timing >>> of specific items, and in fact may eliminate some items and add >>> others >>> that weren't discussed in the original study. This entire process is >>> very fluid, so our various "what if " projections are merely a tool >>> for analyzing and shouldn't be considered anything official. >>> We will keep you informed assuming the repaving idea is explored. I >>> would also be happy to meet with you to discuss our budget and any >>> other PBSD matters. >>> Thank you for your interest and support. >>> Respectfully, >>> Keith J. Dallas, Chairman, >>> Pelican Bay Services Division Board Page 2 of 2 06/13/2011 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 Read Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 0 0 E a N O rl rl O N N O June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Admininstrator's Report - May Financial Report Page 1 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - May 27, 2011 Operating Fund 109 ( Unaudited) Assets 2,023,407.76 2,023,407.76 $ 2,023,407.76 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (497.46) (22,313.16) $ (22,810.62) (1,173,770.02) (826,827.12) Page i of 1 (2,000,597.14) (2,023,407.76) 161 2 A27 ' N 0 a N ri O �i O N i N O June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Admininstrator's Report - May Financial Report Page 2 of 11 • Pelican Bay Services J + Municipal Services Taxing Unit ` / Income Statement w/ Budget - May 27, 2011 (((,,222 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Total Water Management Admin Operating 245,700.00 187,200.00 168,250.61 18,949.39 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense Annual YTD YTD 6,941.03 Engineering Fees 16,381.25 Budget Budget Actual Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. Variance Operating Revenues: 4,666.67 Landscape Materials 8,500.00 5,664.67 Carryforward $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 $ 943,100.00 15,100.00 12,691.75 Special Assessment - Water Management Admin 728,400.00 699,264.00 693,712.34 (5,551.66) Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 1,938,600.00 1,861,056.00 1,846,280.53 700.00 (14,775.47) Charges for Services 1,500.00 - 548.00 Telephone 500.00 Surplus Property Sales 252.28 47.72 5,250.00 8,300.00 5,250.00 Interest 11,700.00 7,488.00 7,519.94 100.00 31.94 Total Operating Revenues 3,623,300.00 3,510,908.00 3,495,862.81 1,800.00 (15,045.19) Operating Expenditures: 900.00 675.00 675.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts Water Management Administration 3,000.00 910.47 2,089.53 Fuel and Lubricants 3,200.00 Payroll Expense $ 41,200.00 $ 27,500.00 $ 25,621.25 $ 1,878.75 White Goods 8,800.00 Clothing and Uniforms - $ 752.40 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 20,500.00 18,158.60 $ 2,341.40 Telephone 4,100.00 2,700.00 1,658.94 $ 1,041.06 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 300.00 253.19 $ 46.81 Rent Buildings and Equipment 13,600.00 9,100.00 8,639.61 $ 460.39 Insurance - General 1,300.00 1,000.00 975.00 $ 25.00 Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 - $ Clerk's Recording Fees 4,000.00 $ Advertising 2,000.00 - 44.55 $ (44.55) Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,500.00 1,700.00 544.47 $ 1,155.53 Training and Education 1,100.00 700.00 55.00 $ 645.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating 245,700.00 187,200.00 168,250.61 18,949.39 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense 134,300.00 89,500.00 82,558.97 6,941.03 Engineering Fees 16,381.25 10,900.00 1,536.11 9,363.89 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 4,666.67 4,666.67 Landscape Materials 8,500.00 5,664.67 2,986.00 2,678.67 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 15,100.00 12,691.75 2,408.25 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 700.00 700.00 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 28,300.00 27,752.00 548.00 Telephone 500.00 300.00 252.28 47.72 Trash and Garbage 8,300.00 6,500.00 2,703.56 3,796.44 Motor Pool Rental Charge 200.00 100.00 100.00 Insurance - General 2,400.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 Insurance - Auto 900.00 675.00 675.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,500.00 3,000.00 910.47 2,089.53 Fuel and Lubricants 3,200.00 2,100.00 1,410.08 689.92 Tree Triming 30,000.00 20,000.00 14,976.00 5,024.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 700.00 752.40 (52.40) Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 300.00 300.00 Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 50,700.00 44,034.11 6,665.89 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,000.00 2,307.73 (1,307.73) Page 1 of 3 0 0 w N O O N N O Other Operating Supplies and Equipment Total Water Management Field Operating Right of Way Beautification Operating Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support and Capital Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Legal Advertising Office Supplies General Training and Education Total Right of Way Beautification Operating Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense White Goods Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) Pest Control Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Electricity Trash and Garbage Rent Equipment Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Licenses, Permits, Training Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Mulch Sprinkler Maintenance Painting Supplies Traffic Signs Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 600.00 600.00 General Improvements 13,200.00 7,700.00 7,700.00 Total Water Management Field Operations Capital 14,200.00 8,300.00 8,300.00 Page 2 of 3 AV June 13, 2011 Pelican Se�Divi n Board A nin ato s Ret -May Financial Report Page 3 of 11 2,500.00 1,700.00 3,195.58 (1,495.58) 394,681.25 243,706.33 200,542.04 43,164.29 42,400.00 28,300.00 26,395.76 1,904.24 7,400.00 7,000.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 37,500.00 25,000.00 20,102.80 4,897.20 3,900.00 2,600.00 1,658.94 941.06 3,000.00 300.00 7.24 292.76 14,000.00 9,300.00 9,385.86 (85.86) 500.00 375.00 375.00 2,600.00 4,000.00 2,000.00 44.55 (44.55) 3,000.00 2,000.00 558.38 1,441.62 1,500.00 1,000.00 25.00 975.00 128,800.00 72,375.00 62,053.53 10,321.47 827,700.00 551,800.00 440,027.72 111,772.28 3,300.00 136,900.00 103,200.00 75,558.20 27,641.80 5,000.00 3,300.00 4,550.00 (1,250.00) 29,500.00 19,700.00 28,099.41 (8,399.41) 204,500.00 136,300.00 116,216.77 20,083.23 3,200.00 2,100.00 1,650.68 449.32 3,400.00 2,300.00 1,715.18 584.82 24,900.00 19,600.00 5,117.76 14,482.24 5,500.00 4,700.00 478.32 4,221.68 700.00 9,000.00 6,750.00 6,750.00 9,900.00 7,425.00 7,425.00 21,200.00 17,700.00 19,470.25 (1,770.25) 44,200.00 29,500.00 24,326.36 5,173.64 800.00 500.00 45.00 455.00 35,900.00 35,900.00 48,713.00 (12,813.00) 9,400.00 4,600.00 4,725.49 (125.49) 3,000.00 2,000.00 512.00 1,488.00 62,000.00 49,900.00 50,216.20 (316.20) 60,200.00 52,200.00 53,273.15 (1,073.15) 30,000.00 20,000.00 16,995.54 3,004.46 800.00 500.00 500.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 170.00 1,830.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 3,420.19 (1,420.19) 11,500.00 7,700.00 6,054.67 1,645.33 1,548,500.00 1,081,675.00 915,510.89 166,164.11 2,317,681.25 1,584,956.33 1,346,357.07 238,599.26 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 600.00 600.00 General Improvements 13,200.00 7,700.00 7,700.00 Total Water Management Field Operations Capital 14,200.00 8,300.00 8,300.00 Page 2 of 3 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Div- 'on Board g on At tra is rt M" a I R ort + P f11 Right of Way Beautification - Field Building Improvements 13,600.00 7,900.00 7,900.00 Autos and Trucks 28,000.00 28,000.00 23,597.00 4,403.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 17,000.00 - Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital 58,600.00 35,900.00 23,597.00 12,303.00 Total Capital Expenditures 72,800.00 44,200.00 23,597.00 20,603.00 Total Expenditures 2,390,481.25 1,629,156.33 1,369,954.07 259,202.26 Operating Profit /(Loss) 1,232,818.75 1,881,751.67 2,125,908.74 244,157.07 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer to Fund 322 (259,200.00) (259,200.00) (259,200.00) Tax Collector Fees (82,500.00) (66,000.00) (50,793.14) 15,206.86 Property Appraiser Fees (75,300.00) (60,240.00) (44,076.18) 16,163.82 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) (555,025.00) (555,025.00) (555,025.00) Reserves for Equipment (124,875.00) (124,875.00) (124,875.00) Revenue Reserve (140,300.00) Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditures, net (1,237,200.00) (1,065,340.00) (1,033,969.32) 31,370.68 Net Profit /(Loss) 0 0 a N O N rl O N N O (4,381.25) 816,411.67 1,091,939.42 275,527.75 Page 3 of 3 4 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 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Admininstrator's Report - May Financial Report Page 5 of 11 Pelican Bay Services 161 2 A:27 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - May 27, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 0 0 a4 w N O O N N O Assets 251,796.52 Liabilities and Fund Balance (58.35) (6,964.27) 251,796.52 251,796.52 (7,022.62) (208,670.25) (36,103.65) (244,773.90) Page 1 of 1 (251,796.52) Operating Revenues: Ca rryforwa rd Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Admininstrator's Report - May Financial Report Page 6 of 11 � A Pelican Bay Services 161 2 27 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - May 27, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $ 169,800.00 $ 25,621.21 273,200.00 262,272.00 259,912.59 $ (2,359.41) 6,300.00 6,300.00 40.87 $ 40.87 20,800.00 $ 6,578.00 $ 6,578.00 1,200.00 798.00 984.35 $ 186.35 444,200.00 432,870.00 437,315.81 Postage and Freight 4,445.81 Payroll Expense $ 41,200.00 $ 27,500.00 $ 25,621.21 $ 1,878.79 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 6,300.00 $ 6,300.00 6,300.00 $ 300.00 Other Contractural Services 20,800.00 $ 13,900.00 18,158.60 $ (4,258.60) Telephone 4,100.00 $ 2,700.00 1,200.27 $ 1,499.73 Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 300.00 7.24 $ 292.76 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 13,600.00 $ 9,100.00 8,949.94 $ 150.06 Insurance - General 400.00 $ 400.00 300.00 $ 100.00 Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 500.00 86,800.00 $ 500.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 700.00 4.90 $ 695.10 Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 90,200.00 61,400.00 60,542.16 857.84 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 Slight Bulb Ballast ETotal Street Lighting Field Operating N 'i O O N O N Ln O 62,900.00 41,900.00 38,726.82 3,173.18 9,600.00 - - 800.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 300.00 252.28 47.72 44,200.00 29,500.00 23,424.44 6,075.56 800.00 800.00 600.00 200.00 900.00 900.00 675.00 225.00 1,100.00 700.00 255.38 444.62 400.00 300.00 418.92 (118.92) 200.00 100.00 - 100.00 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 7,300.00 4,900.00 11,050.96 (6,150.96) 12,400.00 6,600.00 6,331.32 268.68 141,600.00 86,800.00 81,735.12 5,064.88 Page 1 of 2 Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Admininstrator's Report - May Financial Report 161 A27 ge7of11 231,800.00 148,200.00 142,277.28 5,922.72 Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery/Equipment 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 General Improvements 13,200.00 6,600.00 6,600.00 Total Capital Expenditures 14,200.00 7,100.00 - 7,100.00 Total All Expenditures 246,000.00 155,300.00 142,277.28 13,022.72 Operating Profit /(Loss) 198,200.00 277,570.00 295,038.53 17,468.53 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer to Fund 322 (83,600.00) (83,600.00) (83,600.00) - Tax Collector Fees (8,400.00) (6,720.00) (5,224.37) 1,495.63 Property Appraiser Fees (5,500.00) (4,400.00) 4,400.00 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) (181,020.00) (175,124.37) 5,895.63 Net Profit /(Loss) 96,550.00 119,914.16 23,364.16 0 0 a N N 0 0 N N I 0 Page 2of2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recy'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 0 It 0 a, N rl O r-1 ri O N O June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Admininstrator's Report - May Financial Report Page 8 of 11 Pelican Bay Services 161 2 a27 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - May 27, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 406,090.42 406,090.42 $ 406,090.42 Liabilities and Fund Balance (522.50) (522.50) (423,553.80) 18,508.38 Page 1of1 (1,045.00) (405,045.42) $ (406,090.42) V 0 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Admininstrator's Report - May Financial Report A9 A p.�ge 9 of 11 I A 1 2 Operating Profit /(Loss) 223,600.00 466,619.17 483,010.14 16,390.97 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer to Fund 322 Pelican Bay Services (65,000.00) (65,000.00) Tax Collector Fees Municipal Services Taxing Unit (715.00) (666.59) 48.41 Income Statement w/ Budget - May 27, 2011 (700.00) (350.00) 350.00 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2011 Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) (Unaudited) (155,000.00) (155,000.00) Total Non - Operating Revenues and ExpE (223,600.00) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 $ 435,219.17 Special Assessment 35,000.00 33,600.00 33,333.23 (266.77) Fund 111 35,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 Interest 1,300.00 900.00 1,778.64 878.64 Total Operating Revenues 506,519.17 504,719.17 505,331.04 611.87 Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 102,943.75 7,400.00 $ 4,956.25 $ 2,443.75 Other Contractural Services 137,390.00 19,000.00 12,812.40 $ 6,187.60 Other Equipment Repairs 485.42 300.00 506.00 $ (206.00) Minor Operating 4,800.00 3,200.00 - $ 3,200.00 Other Operating Supplies 1,000.00 700.00 - $ 700.00 Total Clam Bay Restoration 246,619.17 30,600.00 18,274.65 12,325.35 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees 11,300.00 7,500.00 4,046.25 3,453.75 Other Contractual Services 25,000.00 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem 36,300.00 7,500.00 4,046.25 3,453.75 Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures 282,919.17 38,100.00 22,320.90 15,779.10 Operating Profit /(Loss) 223,600.00 466,619.17 483,010.14 16,390.97 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Transfer to Fund 322 (65,000.00) (65,000.00) (65,000.00) Tax Collector Fees (1,100.00) (715.00) (666.59) 48.41 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) (220,666.59) 398.41 Net Profit /(Loss) (0.00) $ 245,554.17 $ 262,343.55 15,992.56 0 0 a N �i O 0 Page 1 of 1 N N O 0 0 a4 a N �i O N rl O N N O June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Admininstrator's Report - May Financial Report Page 10 of 11 ' Pelican Bay Services 161 2 2 7 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - May 27, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,468,755.52 Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets 2,468,755.52 Total Assets $ 2,468,755.52 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable $ (11,233.39) Goods Received Inv. Received 452.36 Total Liabilities (10,781.03) Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved (1,960,586.75) Excess Revenues (Expenditures) (497,387.74) Total Fund Balance (2,457,974.49) Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (2,468,755.52) Page 1 of 1 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session r Admininstrator's Report - May Financial Report Page 11 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - May 27, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD Budget Budget Operating Revenues: 161 2 A27 . YTD Actual Variance Carry Forward $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ 1,943,987.30 $ Special Assessment 121,600.00 116,736.00 115,793.89 $ (942.11) Interest 7,700.00 5,100.00 9,695.26 $ 4,595.26 Total Operating Revenues 2,073,287.30 2,065,823.30 2,069,476.45 3,653.15 Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees $ 113,628.45 $ $ 23,228.39 $ (23,228.39) Other Contractural Services 2,354,658.85 6,683.58 $ (6,683.58) Licenses and Permits 0 910.00 $ (910.00) Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures 2,468,287.30 - 29,911.97 (29,911.97) 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) (3,040.00) (2,315.90) $ 724.10 Property Appraiser Fees (2,500.00) (2,000.00) $ 2,000.00 Reserve for Contingencies (100.00) (100.00) - $ 100.00 Revenue Reserve (6,400.00) - $ Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditure! 395,000.00 402,660.00 405,484.10 $ 2,824.10 Net Profit /(Loss) (0.00) 2,468,483.30 2,445,048.58 (23,434.72) 0 a N O 0 N N I O Page 1 of 1 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a - Chairman's Report - Review & Submital Process for Future Pelican Bay Post Articles Discussion 161 2 A27 Vetting Pelican Bay Post Articles The PBSD periodically prepares articles on current items of interest for publication in the Pelican Bay Post. The question then becomes what procedures should be used to insure Board Members and staff have adequately vetted the wording? Background In the past, articles have been written for various reasons. At one point, John Domenie wrote regular articles describing our monthly Board meetings. Recently we wrote an article on CIP priorities and are currently working on an article describing our 2011 -2012 Proposed Budget and CIP ramifications for publication prior to mailing bur trim notices.. In the future, it has been suggested that we resume the articles summarizing our monthly Board meetings. Need for Review I feel that any article under the PBSD byline should be vetted for accuracy, consistency with other PBSD documents (e.g. PBSD Meeting Minutes), and reflect the general views of the Board in its entirety. Proposed Method I suggest we consider adopting the method that has worked well for two recent articles. John Domenie wrote a summary of our May Board meeting and I wrote the article on our 2011 -2012 Budget. Both articles were submitted to Lisa Resnick, who in both instances tightened the language, checked for accuracy and consistency with other PBSD documents, and generally improved the product. I recommend the PBSD adopt similar procedures going forward. Specifically: • All article drafts should be submitted for review and editing to Lisa • For articles that are relevant to a committee, she will ask the Chairman of the committee for comment • She will discuss any changes made with the author • After a rewrite is complete, Lisa will: o For non - controversial articles, submit rewrite to the Chairman for one last IMIA DOW o For more controversial or higher visibility articles (e.g. 2011 -2012 Budget), submit rewrite to all Board members for their comment, then consolidate comments into a final draft and submit to the Chairman for one last review This proposed method should insure a reasonable amount of review with checks and balances without creating a cumbersome structure to produce articles that reflect the general views of the PBSD. Keith Page 1 of 1 06/07/2011 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ' 7b - Chairman's Report - Draft of Pelican Bay Post Article on PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget Discussion Draft (Original Ori 9^ f Y K. � t b Article for Pelican Bay Post August Edition 1612 D Ila 7 The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) will soon be mailing notices to all Pelican Bay property owners that describe our proposed tax rates for the coming year. The purpose of this article is to provide background and explain the rationale for developing these rates. Background Each year the PBSD develops a proposed budget for the coming fiscal year (October 1- September 30) that must be formally approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in September. The PBSD assessment is comprised of two components: a non -ad valorem assessment (every property owner pays the same rate) and an ad valorem tax (which applies to the property's taxable value). The non -ad valorem assessment pays for the PBSD's water management program, community beautification, and to maintain the Clam Bay system. The ad valorem tax pays for street lighting. The PBSD realized a few years ago that although we would need to initiate a program to update the various components of our community, we needed to develop a long -range plan to do so in as efficient a manner as possible. In early 2009, we joined the Pelican Bay Foundation in hiring the consulting firm Wilson Miller to develop a Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Completed and presented to the community in 2010, the CIP incorporates both PBSD- funded and Foundation - funded elements. The proposed 2011 -2012 PBSD budget is the first to incorporate specific funding for some of these CIP recommendations. Over the last few years, the PBSD budgets were developed primarily to fund ongoing operations, with minimal amounts designated for funding replacement or capital projects. Thus accumulated capital funds have grown slowly primarily by finding ongoing savings in our operations. Proposed Projects Over the next few years, the PBSD board is considering the following CIP projects: • Crosswalks at major intersections and associated landscaping and lighting adjustments • Widening pathways in high volume traffic areas • Landscape and irrigation updates over time, incorporating best management practices • Replacement of existing street lighting in phases as it reaches its expected lifetime with energy - efficient equipment Funding Although these funds will not be used exclusively for CIP projects, the PBSD Capital Fund has accumulated about $2.5 million. Looking forward five years, we anticipate an additional $3.25 million collected by non -ad valorem assessment to fund CIP projects. Over the next 15 years, CIP street lighting projects will require an additional $2.25 million collected by ad valorem taxes. Translating these needs into our proposed 2011 -2012 PBSD budget, we recommend that the annual non -ad valorem rate increase -by $27.50 to $398.13 and the ad valorem millage rate increase by 0326 to .0857 (for example on a $500,000 property, the ad valorem tax increases by $16.30 annually to $42.85). Page 1 of 7 06/08/2011 at 9:56 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7b - Chairman's Report - Draft of Pelican Bay Post Article on PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget Discussion 161 2 27 Putting this in a historical prospective: Tax Year 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 2010 -11 2011 -12 (proposed) Non -Ad Valorem Rate $422.98 $382.30 $370.46 $370.64 $370.63 $398.13 (Original Draft by K. Dallas) Ad Valorem Rate n/a n/a .0532 /thousand .0531 .0531 .0857 n /a: excess assets collected under a prior ad valorem funding arrangement were used Going Forward Future PBSD boards will make decisions each year on specific funding levels and projects to implement. While remaining sensitive to the need to use our assets wisely, we recognize the need to have sufficient funds to continue to maintain Pelican Bay as a premier community. We encourage you to attend our monthly meetings and provide your perspective to our Board. Page 2 of 7 06/08/2011 at 9:56 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7b - Chairman's Report - Draft of Pelican Bay Post Article on PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget Discussion -, (Edits in red by J. Chandler) Article for Pelican Bay Post ^ August Edition 1612 'IA 27 7 The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) will soon be mailing notices to all Pelican Bay property owners that describe our proposed tax rates for the coming year. The purpose of this article is to provide background and explain the rationale for developing these rates. Background Each year the PBSD develops a proposed budget for the coming fiscal year (October 1 - September 30) that must be formally approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in September. The PBSD assessment is comprised of two components: a non -ad valorem assessment (every property owner pays the same rate) and an ad valorem tax (which applies to the property's taxable value). The non -ad valorem assessment pays for the PBSD's water management program, community beautification, and to maintain the Clam Bay system. The ad valorem tax pays for street lighting. The PBSD realized a few years ago that although we would need to initiate a program to update the various components of our community, we needed to develop a long -range plan to do so in as efficient a manner as possible. In early 2009, we joined the Pelican Bay Foundation in hiring the consulting firm Wilson Miller to develop a Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Completed and presented to the community in 2010, the CIP incorporates both PBSD- funded and Foundation - funded elements. The proposed 2011 -2012 PBSD budget is the first to incorporate specific funding for those Wilson Miller recommendations that the PBSD Board feels will provide significant value to the community. Over the last few years, the PBSD budgets were developed primarily to fund ongoing operations, with minimal amounts designated for funding replacement or capital projects. Thus accumulated capital funds have grown slowly primarily by finding ongoing savings in our operations. Proposed Projects The PBSD Board is currently considering the following CIP projects for implementation: • Installing brick pavers to enhance the appearance of crosswalks at major intersections • Widening pathways in high volume traffic areas to provide more space for walkers, bikers and skaters • Landscape and irrigation updates to improve appearance and reduce water usage • Replacement of existing street lighting with more energy efficient equipment Funding Currently, the PBSD Capital Fund has a balance of about $2.5 million. Looking forward five years, we anticipate an additional $3.25 million will need to be collected by non -ad valorem assessment to fund CIP projects. Over the next 15 years, CIP street lighting projects will require an additional $2.25 million to be collected by ad valorem taxes. Translating these needs into our proposed 2011 -2012 PBSD budget, we recommend that the annual non -ad valorem rate increase -by $27.50 to $398.13 and that the ad valorem millage rate increase by 0326 to .0857 (for example on a $500,000 property, the ad valorem tax increases by $16.30 annually to $42.85). Page 3 of 7 06/08/2011 at 9:56 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7b - Chairman's Report - Draft of Pelican Bay Post Article on PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget Discussion ;♦ 161 2 %2'7 Putting this in historical perspective: Tax Year 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 2010 -11 2011 -12 (proposed) Non -Ad Valorem Rate $422.98 $382.30 $370.46 $370.64 $370.63 $398.13 (Edits in red by J. Chandler) Ad Valorem Rate n/a n/a .0532 /thousand .0531 .0531 .0857 n /a: excess funds collected under a prior ad valorem funding arrangement were used Going Forward Future PBSD Boards will make decisions each year on specific funding levels and projects to implement. While remaining sensitive to the desire to minimize taxes, we recognize the need to have sufficient funds to maintain Pelican Bay as a premier community. We encourage you to attend our monthly meetings and provide your perspective to our Board. Page 4 of 7 06/08/2011 at 9:56 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7b - Chairman's Report - Draft of Pelican Bay Post Article on PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget Discussion (Edits in red italics by M. Levy) Article for Pelican Bay Post August Edition 16 1 2 A27 The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) will soon be mailing notices to all Pelican Bay property owners that describe our proposed tax rates for the coming year. The purpose of this article is to provide background and explain the rationale for developing these rates. Background Each year the PBSD develops a proposed budget for the coming fiscal year (October 1 - September 30) that must be formally approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in September. The PBSD assessment is comprised of two components: a non -ad valorem assessment (every property owner pays the same rate) and an ad valorem tax (which applies to the property's taxable value). The non -ad valorem assessment pays for the PBSD's water management program, community beautification, and to maintain the Clam Bay system. The ad valorem tax pays for street lighting. The PBSD realized a few years ago that although we would need to initiate a program to update the various components of our community, we needed to develop a long -range plan to do so in as efficient a manner as possible. In early 2009, we joined the Pelican Bay Foundation in hiring the consulting firm Wilson Miller to develop a Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Completed and presented to the community in 2010, the CIP incorporates both PBSD- funded and Foundation - funded elements. The proposed 2011 -2012 PBSD budget is the first to incorporate specific funding for some of these CIP recommendations. Over the past few years, in recognition of the upcoming Community Improvement Plan, funds not required for current operations have been earmarked by the PBSD Board for CIP capital projects. These funds came from a careful review of carry forward funds, and identifying what portion of these funds could safely be set aside. Also, operational savings have been occurring as the result of excellent performance by the PBSD staff; and these savings have also been set aside for future capital projects. Altogether, the PBSD FY 2012 Budget identifies funds available for capital projects, excluding streetlights, in the amount of $2.854 million and an additional $74,000 for street lights. Over the last few years, the PBSD budgets were developed primarily to fund ongoing operations, with minimal amounts designated for funding replacement or capital projects. Thus accumulated capital funds have grown slowly primarily by finding ongoing savings in our operations. Proposed Projects Over the next few years, the PBSD board is considering the following CIP projects: • Crosswalks at major intersections and associated landscaping and lighting adjustments • Widening pathways in high volume traffic areas and replacing others • Landscape and irrigation updates over time, incorporating best management practices • Replacement of existing street lighting in phases as it reaches its expected lifetime with energy- efficient equipment Page 5 of 7 06/08/2011 at 9:56 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 715 - Chairman's Report - Draft of Pelican Bay Post Article on PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget Discussion 16I Z R'27 (Edits in red italics by M. Levy) Proposed ClP Funding Looking forward to the fill implementation of the above capital projects, in addition to the $2.854 million of capital funds currently available, the PBSD Board estimates the need for an additional $3.25 million over the next five years to fund the non -ad valorem projects. Raising these additional funds works out to an increase of the non -ad valorem assessment of $27.50, and brings the annual total to $398.13. Also, over the next fifteen years, ClP street lighting projects require an additional $2.25 million to be collected through ad valorem taxes. This results in an increase to the ad valorem tax rate of 0.0326 mills bringing the total ad valorem millage rate to 0.0857. (For example, on a property assessed at $500, 000, the annual ad valorem tax increases by $16.30 to a total of $42.85). Putting this in a historical prospective: Tax Year 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 2010 -11 2011 -12 (proposed) Non -Ad Valorem Rate $422.98 $382.30 $370.46 $370.64 $370.63 $398.13 Ad Valorem Rate n/a n/a .0532 /thousand .0531 .0531 .0857 n /a: excess assets collected under a prior ad valorem funding arrangement were used Going Forward Future PBSD boards will make decisions each year on specific funding levels and projects to implement. While remaining sensitive to the need to use our assets wisely, we recognize the need to have sufficient funds to continue to maintain Pelican Bay as a premier community. We encourage you to attend our monthly meetings and provide your perspective to our Board. Page 6 of 7 06/08/2011 at 9:56 AM •• NO - . • ..... Putting this in a historical prospective: Tax Year 2005 -06 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 2010 -11 2011 -12 (proposed) Non -Ad Valorem Rate $422.98 $382.30 $370.46 $370.64 $370.63 $398.13 Ad Valorem Rate n/a n/a .0532 /thousand .0531 .0531 .0857 n /a: excess assets collected under a prior ad valorem funding arrangement were used Going Forward Future PBSD boards will make decisions each year on specific funding levels and projects to implement. While remaining sensitive to the need to use our assets wisely, we recognize the need to have sufficient funds to continue to maintain Pelican Bay as a premier community. We encourage you to attend our monthly meetings and provide your perspective to our Board. Page 6 of 7 06/08/2011 at 9:56 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session $ 7b - Chairman's Report - Draft of Pelican Bay Post Article on PBSD FY 2012 Proposed Budget Discussion 161 2 2 7 The draft is well done. I do not support the indicated assessment increases. However, since I am new to the PBSD board and had no role in developing this budget, I feel I cannot object. Regarding the wording of the draft, I suggest adding this sentence at the end of the section entitled "Proposed Projects:" Each project will be individually approved or rejected at the time it is brought up for consideration. Dave Trecker 5/28/11 0 a a 0 0 CJ O O Page 7 of 7 06/08/2011 at 9:56 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7c - Chairman's Report - Obtaining Public Input During Meetings 161 2 ;A27 Pelican Bay Services Division Procedures for Obtaining Public Comment The purpose of this discussion is to encourage opinions from Service Board members as to their preferences on methods and procedures for obtaining public comment during PBSD meetings. Background In the past I have encouraged as much community input at meetings as I thought workable. Specifically: • Public comments are not limited to 3 minutes. • Opportunities for public comment are given at the beginning and end of each meeting, as well as during each discussion item. • Individuals are not limited to a single comment on a subject. This procedure has provided ample opportunity for public comment. Unfortunately it has also contributed to very long meetings, often creating situations where most of the public had left before the end of the meeting and items late on the agenda had to be deferred to later meetings. This has caused some people in our community to ask if we should change our procedures to speed up our meetings? The Question I would like each of you to think what methods you prefer to obtain public comment. I suspect that we may not have time at the June 13th PBSD meeting to adequately discuss this important subject, but I would intend to bring it up for discussion at a later meeting. Keith Page 1 of 2 06/07/2011 at 2:00 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7c - Chairman's Report - Obtaining Public Input During Meetings 1612 427 Obtaining Public Comment I feel that the current policy on obtaining public comment at our Board Meetings is too liberal. As a result, our meetings are overly long and, more importantly, we are not getting through the agenda and having to defer some items to subsequent meetings. I suggest that the following policy be adhered to during each meeting: • Do not solicit public comments at the beginning of the meeting • Solicit comments from the audience at the beginning of each agenda item discussion • Limit the comments concerning each agenda item to one per person • Limit each person's comments to three minutes • Once the public comment on an agenda item is complete, the Board will proceed, without interruption, to hold its discussion of the item and take whatever action it feels is appropriate • After the Board has addressed all agenda items, members of the public can raise issues or make comments on items that were not on the agenda If a member of the public feels that three minutes is not a sufficient period of time in which to make his point, he can send an email to all Board members in the time interval between when the agenda is posted on the PBSD website and when the Board meeting commences. John Chandler Page 2 of 2 06/07/2011 at 2:00 PM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7d - Chairman's Report - PBSD Committee Structure Discussion PBSD Committee Structure 161 2 AZT The recent interest in reconstituting the Clam Bay Committee has caused me to reconsider the entire PBSD committee structure. I'd like to use this opportunity to ask Board input on this important subject. Clam Bay Committee Clam Bay is a major community and PBSD concern. Therefore reconstituting the committee may make sense. Before that is done however, I'd like discussions regarding: The Committee's responsibilities in our past The Committee's responsibilities in the future How will the Committee's responsibilities relate to other committees and the Board? An open discussion would be intended to develop a structure that enhances our organization and doesn't inadvertently make our operation more cumbersome. Landscape Committee To date this committee's responsibilities has been to discuss and make recommendations to the Board on various environmental issues and best practices. Its responsibilities could better be described as the "green committee ". However the environment is intrinsically intertwined with the actual details of our landscaping. Thus I wonder if it is not time to expand the committee's scope to include: • The actual design of our landscaping • The methods used to maintain the landscaping Given that we are on the verge of redesigning parts of our community in conjunction with implementing our Community Improvement Plan, it might make sense to have staff and our consultants first work with the Landscape Community to vet designs, materials etc., before they are brought to the Board for final decisions. Budget Committee From my perspective, this committee works very smoothly and probably doesn't need any changes in its operation. Do others agree? In summation, I would like to have an open discussion at some future Board meeting when time permits regarding each of these committees and their interrelationships. The hope would be that we could structure the committees to spread the workload and shorten our Board meetings, without creating some organizational complexity that did just the opposite. Keith Page 1 of 1 06/07/2011 CJ June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update Mr. Herschel T. Vinyard Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 49 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Honorable Pam Bondi, Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Re: Notice of Violation for Potential Petition for Enforcement of Agency Action Clam Bay Restoration and Long-Term Management Dear Secretary Vinyard and Attorney General Bondi: Pursuant to Section 120.69(1)(b), Florida Statutes, notice is hereby given of the violation of permit conditions contained in Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorized Number 0 128463-00 1 -JC, issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( 'DEP") to Collier County-Pelican Bay Services Division on July 6, 1998. By copy of this letter, we are also informing the permittee, Collier County, of the violation. We are also copying DEP Deputy General Counsel Sandra Stockwell, who may have some prior familiarity with this activity. This notice is given on behalf of the Seagate Property Owners' Association, Inc., ("Seagate") and its members. Seagate is a Florida not-for-profit corporation whose members are property owners or residents in the Seagate community, a single family residential development in Collier County with frontage on and riparian access to Outer Clam Bay. Residents of the Seagate neighborhood have navigational access through Outer Clam Bay and Clam Pass to the Gulf of Mexico, and a substantial number of Seagate's members engage in boating in Outer Clam Bay on a regular basis. Page 1 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM A2 �6, 2 7 LAW OFFICES OERTEE, FERNANDEZ, COLE & BRYANT, P.A. 301 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET SUITE Soo MAILING ADDRESS: TIMOTHY P ATKINSON JEFFREY BROWN TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301 POST OFFICE BOX I I 10 M CHRISTOPHER BRYANT TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32302.1110 C. ANTHONY CLEVELAND TERRY COLE (850) 521-0700 3EGVN00 J FERNANDEZ www.ohfc.com PRESTON McLANE FAX (850) 521-0720 KENNETH. OERTEL RECEIVED KENNETH G OERTEL TIMOTHY J PERRY 6 2011 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION June 3, 2011 Mr. Herschel T. Vinyard Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 49 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Honorable Pam Bondi, Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Re: Notice of Violation for Potential Petition for Enforcement of Agency Action Clam Bay Restoration and Long-Term Management Dear Secretary Vinyard and Attorney General Bondi: Pursuant to Section 120.69(1)(b), Florida Statutes, notice is hereby given of the violation of permit conditions contained in Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorized Number 0 128463-00 1 -JC, issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( 'DEP") to Collier County-Pelican Bay Services Division on July 6, 1998. By copy of this letter, we are also informing the permittee, Collier County, of the violation. We are also copying DEP Deputy General Counsel Sandra Stockwell, who may have some prior familiarity with this activity. This notice is given on behalf of the Seagate Property Owners' Association, Inc., ("Seagate") and its members. Seagate is a Florida not-for-profit corporation whose members are property owners or residents in the Seagate community, a single family residential development in Collier County with frontage on and riparian access to Outer Clam Bay. Residents of the Seagate neighborhood have navigational access through Outer Clam Bay and Clam Pass to the Gulf of Mexico, and a substantial number of Seagate's members engage in boating in Outer Clam Bay on a regular basis. Page 1 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr. & Pam Bondi June 3, 2011 Page 2 of 4 DEP Permit June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161 2 '127 In 1998, DEP issued to Collier County, through the County's Pelican Bay Services Division, a Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization, Number 0128463- 001 -JC. The permit document, without all of the lengthy attachments, is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A." As a part of the permit application process, the applicant submitted a Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan ( "CBRMP "). The CBRMP represented a comprehensive assessment of the Clam Bay system, including Clam Pass, and the interior tidal creeks and water bodies that make up that estuary system, including Outer Clam Bay, Inner Clam Bay, and Upper Clam Bay. The permit also addressed a number of other features and conditions affecting this system, including the then — declining health of mangrove communities, the condition and protection of seagrass beds, and the impacts of — upland stormwater runoff into the system. Excerpts of the lengthy CBRMP are attached to this letter as Exhibit "B." The CBRMP included at Section 3.3.2 a proposed recreational component. This section of the CBRMP included the following representations and commitments by the permit applicant: Appropriate notification, signage and policing will be provided by the County or PBSD to ensure compliance. The signage will be strategically placed both at the entrance to Clam Pass and in the areas around the boat ramp located at the southern end of Outer Clam Bay. These are intended to insure that persons accessing the Clam Bay system are informed of its unique ecological characteristics, the limitations of access resulting from variations in water depth, the existence of no wake /idle speed requirements for motorized boat operation and importantly, the necessity of staying out of areas identified as having maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat. Precise locations and language to be 'included in the signage will be determined in cooperation with the agencies post permit issuance. Finally, the main channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements imposed by the United States Coast Guard to insure that those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions against operating their water craft outside the same. (Emphasis added.) The DEP permit attached as Exhibit "A" expressly referenced and incorporate the CBRMP. See, Page 2 of 21 of the permit, which reads in part as follows: Page 2 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM CA rl CJ O SJ June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1612 127 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr. & Pain Bondi June 3, 2011 Page 3 of 4 The project is to conduct activities to improve the hydrodynamics of, and thus restore and manage, the Clam Ba y ecosystem by conducting the activities in association with and specified by the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRMP), which is attached to and made part of this permit as Attachment "A". The Permittee is authorized to implement the CBRMP as set forth therein. I (Emphasis added.) General Condition I of the permit states that "all activities authorized by this permit shall be implemented as set forth in the plans, specifications, and attached drawing approved as part of this permit, and all conditions and requirements of this permit." (Emphasis added.) This permit was expressly "issued under the authority of Chapter 161 and Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S." Section 373.430 declares, in pertinent part, that it is a violation of Part IV of Chapter 373 "to violate or fail to comply with any rule, regulation, order, or permit issued by... the department...." (Emphasis added.) To date, Collier County has failed or refused to install navigation markers in the main channel in Outer Clam Bay as required by the DEP pen-nit. Similar requirements exist in a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit, Number 1996-02789, and the County has also failed or refused to comply with that permit requirement. According to DEP's website, the County has other permit applications pending at this time that affect Clam Bay and the Clam Bay system. We have not reviewed those pending applications and do not know if they relate to this deficiency. They include Joint Coastal Permit application 296087-001 for Clam Pass Park, and "ERP Exemption Permit" application 295193- 002 for "Coastal Zone Management/Clam Bay/Pass." We are aware that not all DEP personnel may agree with the underlying assertion that the previously - issued Joint Coastal Permit required marking the navigational channel. However, our reading of the CBRMP leads us to this conclusion inescapably, especially given the comprehensive nature of that permit's treatment of this estuary system. The purpose of this letter is to provide the Department, the Attorney General, and the Permittee of notice of this violation of the permit conditions. Pursuant to Section 120.69(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the Seagate Property Owners' Association, and potentially individual members of that association, intend to file a Petition for Enforcement in the Circuit Court in and for Collier County, if the Department does not file and diligently prosecute a Petition for Enforcement within the 60 day time period. Page 3 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM ri La SV Oil June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161 2 927 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr. & Pam Bondi June 3, 2011 Page 4 of 4 We are confident that you share our concern for the pen-nit holder's failure to comply with the permit requirements. We trust the Department is prepared to initiate an appropriate enforcement action to bring the project into compliance with the terms and conditions of its permit, but we are truly hopeful that the permit holder will voluntarily comply and that an enforcement will be unnecessary. Please advise if we can provide you with any further information. Sincerely, OA Kenneth G. Oertel M. Christopher Bryant KGO/MCB/arn Attachments cc: /Collier County-Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, Florida 34108 Sandra Stockwell, Deputy General Counsel Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of State Lands 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 35 Tallahassee., Florida 32399 FAMCB13551 -1 Seagate HomeowneisNLetietslVinvard-Bondi-Collier hr 6-3-11 docx Page 4 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM Q FLORM)AL Lawton Chiles Governor June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1612 A27 Department of Environment:al Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 CONSOLIDATED JOINT COASTAL PERMIT AND SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS AUTHORIZATION PERMITTEE/AUTHORIZED ENTITY-. Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Div. c/o Ted Brown, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt, & Edison, P.A. 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Virginia B. WeEhereil Secretary Permit/Authorization No,* 0128463-001-JC (Previously 1 1 30499 1 9) Date of Issue: July 06, 1998 Expiration Date: July 06, 2008 County: Collier Project: Clam Bay Restoration and Lon—Term Management r� This permit is issued under the authority of Chapter 161 and Part IV of Chapter 373. F.S.. and Title 62, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The activity is not exempt from the requirement to obtain a Joint Coastal Permit, Pursuant to Operating Agreements executed between the Department and the water management districts, as referenced in Chapter 62-113. C F.A.C., the Department is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on this activity. This permit also constitutes a finding of consistency with Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program, as required by Section 307 of the Coastal Management Act: and, C certification compliance with water quality standards under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. t344. This activity also requires a proprietary authorization, as the activity is located on sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, pursuant to Article X, Section I I of the Florida Constitution, and Sections 253.(X)2 and 253.77, F.S. The activity is not exempt from the need to obtain a proprietary authorization. The Department has the responsibility to review and take final action on this request for proprietary authorization in accordance with Section 18- 21.0051, and the Operating Agreements executed between the Department and the water management districts, as referenced in Chapter 62-113. F.A.C. In addition to the above, this proprietary authorization has been reviewed in accordance with Chapter 253 and Chapter 258, F.S., Chapter 18-20. Chapter 18 -21, and Section 62-343,075. F.A.C., and the policies of the Board of Trustees. As staff to the Board of Trustees, the Department has reviewed the activity described below. and has determined that the activity requires a Consent of Use for the use of those lands. cv Primed an recycled paper Exhibit A iyi Page 5 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM FDEP Permit No.: 0128463-001-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 2 of 21 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1.61 2 I A27 pursuant to Chapter 253.77, Florida Statutes. The Department hereby grants its Consent to the permittee to use the sovereign submerged lands for the activities authorized in this permit, provided all general and specific conditions, and monitoring requirements stipulated in the permit are met by the permittee. The above named permittee is hereby authorized to construct the work shown on the application and approved drawings, plans, and other documents attached hereto or on file with the Department and made a part hereof. This permit is subject to the limits, conditions, and locations of work shown in the attached drawings, and is also subject to the attached General Conditions, Specific Conditions, and Monitoring requirements which are a binding part of this permit. You are advised to read and understand these drawings and conditions prior to commencing the authorized activities, and to ensure the work is conducted in conformance with all the terms, conditions, and drawings. If you are utilizing a contractor, the contractor also should read and understand these drawings and conditions prior to commencing the authorized activities. Failure to comply with all drawings and conditions shall constitute grounds for revocation of the permit and appropriate enforcement action. The applicant has requested a variance (VE- 11-726) from Rule 62-4.244(5), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), which requires that a dredge and fill mixing zone be no more than 150 meters in radius from the point of discharge or source of pollution. The applicant has requested a mixing zone of up to 1,000 meters for the nearshore disposal of the beach quality material. The Department intends to grant this variance request per Chapters 403.201 and 403.938, Florida Statutes, and, Ch. 62-103.100, F.A.C. The requirements and conditions of Variance No. VE- 11-726 are binding with this permit and shall become requirements and conditions of the permit. Activities authorized by this permit shall not commence until the Final Order granting Variance No. VE-11-726 has been issued by the Department. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is to conduct activities to improve the hydrodynamics of, and thus restore and manage, the Clam Bay ecosystem by conducting the activities in association with and specified by the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRMP), which is attached to and made part of this permit as Attachment "A!'. The Permittee is authorized to implement the CBRMP as set forth therein. Specifically, but not by way of limitation, the Permittee is authorized to: dredge approximately 22,000 cubic yards of material from Clam Pass and restricted channels within the system. conduct periodic dredging of Clam Pass and the interior channels to maintain the design depths; conduct minor, small charge blasting of the restricted interior channels; replace three 24 inch diameter culverts along Seagate Drive with similar sized one-way flow to the north culverts; deposit the beach quality material on the beaches adjacent to Clam Pass and dispose of the fines on the uplands; kill and remove the nuisance exotic vegetation within the system; conduct studies to determine the sources for excess water discharge into the system from the developed uplands; formulate an Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan with Page 6 of 41 Exhibit A 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161 2 A27 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463.0614C (Previously 113049919) Page 3 of 21 recommendations based on the results of the studies; and, implement the Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan in accordance with its terms. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located in the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area and surrounding developments in Collier County, Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, & 33 of Township 49 South. Range 25 East, Class 11 waters, not approved for shellfish harvesting. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. All activities authorized by this permit shall be implemented as set forth in the plans, specifications, and attached drawings approved as a part of this permit, and all conditions and requirements of this permit. The permittee shall notify the Department in writing of any C anticipated deviation from the permit prior to implementation so that the Department can determine whether a modification of the permit is required. 2. If, for any reason, the permittee does not Comply with any condition or limitation specified in this permit, the permittee shall immediately provide the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (Bureau) and the appropriate District office of the Department with a written report containing the following information: a description of and cause of noncompliance: and the period of noncompliance, including dates and times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. 3. This permit does not eliminate the necessity to obtain any other applicable licenses or permits which may be required•by federal, state, local or special district laws and regulations. This permit is not a waiver or approval of any other Department permit or authorization that may be required for other aspects of the total project which are not addressed in this pcimit. 4. This permit conveys no title to land or water, does not constitute State recognition or acknowledgment of title, and does not constitute authority for the use of sovereignty land of Florida seaward of the mean high-water line, or, if established, the erosion control line. unless herein provided and the necessary title, lease, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use has been obtained from the State. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary authorizations from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund prior to commencing activity on sovereign lands or other state-owned lands. 5. Any delineation of the extent of a wetland or other surface water submitted as part of the permit application, including plans or other supporting documentation, shall not be considered specifically approved unless a specific condition of this permit or a formal determination under In section 373.421(2), F.S., provides otherwise. 2r tV Exhibit A lu lu Page 7 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM � m � � ' � June 13,um1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update - 161 2 FDEP Pertoit No..- 1-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 4 of 21 6. This permit does not convey 0the permittee or create in the permittee any property right. or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled hy the permdtee. The issuance of this permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. 7. This permit orucopy thereof, complete with all conditions, attachments, plans and specifications, modifications, and time extensions shall be kept at the work site of the permitted ac' lhepermirtee shall require the contractor mmview the complete permit prior to commencement of the activity authorized hy this permit. K The parmiLuee,by this permit, specifically agrees to allow authorized Department personnel with proper identification and at reasonable times, access to the premises where the permitted activity is located or conducted for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the terms of the permit and with the rules of the Department and to have access to and copy any records that must be kept under conditions of the permit; Co inspect the facility. equipment, practices. or operations regulated or required tinder this permit; and to sample or monitor any substances or parameters at any location reasonably necessary to assure compliance with this permit nr Department rules, Reasonable time may depend un the nature 0[ the concern being 9, At least forty-eight (48)hours prior 0o commencement uf activity authorized bvthis permit, the permittee shall submit mthe Bureau and the appropriate District office of the Department u written notice Vf commencement of construction indicating the actual start date and the expected completion duun. lOY If historical or archaeological artifacts are discovered at anytime on the proJect site, the permdoc shall immediately notify the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Bureau. ||. Within 9D days after completion o[ construction or completion of subsequent maintenance event authorized by this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems and the appropriate DistrictuYfiuooftbo Department a written statement o[ completion and certification by a licensed professional engineer registered in the state of Florida. This certification shall state that: all locations and elevations upmcificdhy the permit have been verified; the activities authorized by the permit have been performed in compliance with the plans and specifications approved as a part of the permit, and all conditions of the permit-, or shall describe any deviations from the plans and specifications, and all conditions of the pen-nit. When the completed activity differs substantially from the permitted plans, any substantial deviations shall be noted and explained on two copies of as-built drawings submitted to the Department. Page umw IM11161M.11 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM FDEP Perrialt No,: 01284(3-001-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 5 of 21 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 16I 2 X27 SPECIFIC IC CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to commencement of the activities authorized by this permit, the permittee shall ensure the following activities are conducted and information provided: a) At least 30 days prior to each construction event, the permittee shall identify a qualified biologist/ wetland scientist(s) familiar with ecosystems of Florida and submit their qualifications to the Department for approval. This individual will serve as the supervising scientist that oversees the biological components of this restoration project and will halt construction if he/ she suspects that violations of the permit have occurred. b) At least 30 days prior to commencement of construction, the "Proposed Scope of Work" described in the Biological Monitoring section of this permit shall be submitted to the Department for approval. c) Prior to commencement of construction, the construction plans and bid documents showing the work area contemplated to be constructed shall be submitted to the Department to be verified/ approved by Department staff, Excavation work authorized by this permit shall be administered in accordance with Specific Condition L(g) below. To the fullest extent possible, the smallest, lightest mechanized equipment and smallest work areas adequate to conduct the activities authorized by this permit shall be used to minimize adverse impacts to natural resources and the substrate where mangrove regeneration is encouraged. d) Prior to commencement of each dredging event authorized by this permit, a pre- construction conferencesball be held among the contractor, the owner or authorized agent, the wetland scientist(s), the marine turtle permit holder. the USFWS. and a staff representative of the Department to establish an understanding among the parties as to the items specified in the General and Specific conditions of the permit and the Monitoring requirements. At least 10 days advance notice shall be provided prior to conducting this meeting. e) The Permittee shall submit the project specifications as required under Specific Condition L(g) below to BPSM for review and approval relative to the project specifications* probable impacts on marine turtles. If the type of dredge proposed has the potential to adversely impact marine turtles as determined by BPSM staff, additional conditions to protect marine turtles may be required by the Department as part of this permit. f) If blasting is proposed, a blasting plan shall be submitted to the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems and the Bureau of Protected Species Management in Tallahassee for approval at least 30 days before the proposed blasting event. Additional conditions relating to the proposed blasting activities may be needed and added to this permit by the Department, Page 9 of 41 Exhibit A FDEP Permit No.: 0128463-061-jC (Previously 113049919) Page 6 of 21 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - C I la m Bay Update A27 .612, g) At least forty-five (45) days prior to the initial dredging event and any subsequent maintenance dredging event authorized by this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems in Tallahassee detailed project specifications, including but not limited to plan view and cross section drawings, which detail the dredge and fill limits at the dredging and disposal sites, the method of construction and construction schedule, and a. processing fee as specified by Rule 6213-497 F.A.C_ Additionally, the work area of the authorized excavation shall be clearly marked in the field by the wetland scientist(s) to allow the Department staff to verify and approve the location of the excavation. The Department may request additional information as necessary in order to review each proposed dredging event. Written approval from the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems in Tallahassee shall be obtained before proceeding with each dredging event. Department approval for individual dredging events may be contingent upon the permittee's acceptance of additional conditions, such as turbidity and/ or water quality monitoring, which may be determined to be appropriate based on data submitted to the Depariment in support of a dredging request or upon the results of previous dredging. 2. The followinI., conditions are required to minimize impacts to marine turtles: a) No construction, operation, transportation or storage of equipment or materials are authorized seaward of the dune crest during the marine turtle nesting season (May I" through October 31"). This includes dredging of the main pass and disposal of dredged material seaward of the dune crest, including the intertidal zone. The other activities landward of the dune crest may be conducted during the marine turtle nesting season provided the necessary measures are taken to protect marine turtles. b) Fill material placed on the beach shall be sand that is similar to that already existing at the beach site in both coloration and grain size. All such fill material shall be free of construction debris, rocks, other foreign matter and shall not contain, on average. greater than 10 percent fines (i.e. silt and clay) passing a No. 200 sieve and shall not contain coarse gravel or cobbles (exclusive of shell material) retained by a No. 4 sieve. c) Fill material shall not exceed a 10:1 horizontal to vertical slope and shall be placed below MHW. If fill disposal results in a barrier or depression in the beach profile that interferes with marine turtle nesting, the permittee shall be required to remove that feature upon request by the Department. d) Reports on all nesting activity is currently provided to the Department by Collier County Department of Natural Resource Protection. The Permittee shall ensure that the reports prepared by the Collier County Department of Natural Resource Protection shall include the collection of data specific to the project area for the initial nesting season following the Exhibit A Page 10 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 16I 2 A27 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463-001-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 7 of 21 completion of construction, and for a minimum of two additional nesting seasons. unless waived as herein provided. Monitoring during the additional seasons may be waived if the permittee can demonstrate that the fill material is no longer present in the project area, or that turtle nesting the first season post-construction was not adversely affected compared to an appropriate control area. Monitoring shall include daily surveys and any additional measures for turtle protection authorized by the Department. Reports shall be submitted to the Department in accordance with current protocols with the Collier County Department of Natural Resource Protection, but as soon as practicable after the completion of all monitoring activities, and shall include daily report sheets noting all activity, nesting success rates, hatching success of all relocated and in situ nests, and names of all personnel involved in nest surveys and relocation activities. All nesting surveys and nest relocations shall be conducted only by persons with prior experience and training in these activities and duly authorized to conduct such activities through a valid permit issued by the Department, Division of Marine Resources, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62R -1. e) If heavy equipment is required to transport equipment or materials on the dry beach (above MHW), the path of the equipment will be tilled to 36" to avoid compaction impacts prior to the following nesting season. f) Visual surveys for escarpments or barriers along the project area shall be made immediately after completion of the project and prior to May I in any year that disposal of beach quality material is placed on the beaches adjacent to Clam Pass unless inspection of the disposal area indicates that the dredged material has been removed by natural processes, in which case this permit condition shall not apply. Results of the surveys NII be faxed to the Bureau of Protected Species Management. YS Z: (850) 921-4369, prior to any action being taken. Escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet shall be leveled to the natural beach contour by May I". The Department shall be contacted immediately if subsequent reformation of escarpments that can interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet occurs during the nesting and hatching season to determine the appropriate action to be taken. In each year where the escarpment survey is conducted, a summary of the survey and actions taken shall he submitted to the Department. a During the marine turtle nesting and hatching season, all lighting associated with project activities landward of the dune crest and visible from the beach shall be limited to the immediate area of active construction only. Such lighting shall be shielded low pressure sodium vapor lights to minimize illumination of the nesting beach and nearshore waters. h) In the event an unmarked marine turtle nest or a dead, injured, or sick marine turtle is discovered during construction activities, the marine turtle permit, holder and the Bureau of Protected Species Management shall be notified immediately such that appropriate tiv Exhibit A Page 11 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM CJ ILI I June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161 2 27'44 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463-001-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 8 of 21 conservation measures can be taken. 1 The following conditions are required to minimize impacts to manatees: a) The permittee shall instruct all personnel associated with the project of the potential presence of manatees and the need to avoid collisions with manatees. All construction personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of manatee(s). b) The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. c) Siltation barriers, if used, shall be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled. are properly secured, and are regularly monitored to avoid manatee entrapment. Barriers must not block manatee entry to or exit from essential habitat_ d) All vessels associated With the construction project shall operate at "no wake/idle" speeds at all times while in the construction area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible. e) If manatee(s) tire seen within 100 yards of the active daily construction/dredging operation or vessel movdment, all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to ensure protection of the manatee. These precautions shall include the operation of all moving equipment no closer than 50 feet of a manatee. Operation of any equipment closer than 50 feet to a manatee shall necessitate immediate shutdown of that equipment. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s) has departed the project area of its own volition. 1) Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the Florida Marine Patrol at 1-800-DIAL FMP (1-800-342-5367). Collision and/or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (I- 904 -232- 2580) for north Florida or Vero Beach (1-407-562-3909) in south Florida. _R) Temporary signs concerning manatees shall be posted prior to and during all construction/dredging activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the project. A sign measuring at least 3 ft. by 4 ft. which reads Caution: Manatee Area will be posted in a location prominently visible to water related construction crews. A second sign should be posted if vessels are associated with the constniction. and should be placed visible to the vessel operator. The second Page 12 of 41 Exhibit A 06108/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161 2 h27 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463-001-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 9 of 21 sign should he at least 8 1/2" by I I" which reads Caution: Manatee Habitat. Idle speed is required if operating a vessel in the construction area. All equipment must be shutdown if a manatee comes within 50 feet of operation. Any collision with andlor injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the Florida Marine Patrol ati-800-DIALFMP(I-800-342-5367). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen,ice should also be contacted in Jacksonville (1- 904 - 232 -2580) for north Florida or in Vero Beach (1- 407 -562 -3909) for solith Florida. h) Permanent manatee informational signs, such as those shown in the enclosed example sheets, shall be installed and maintained at the canoe boat ramp at the southern end of Outer Clam Bay following completion of the initial dredging event, 4. Pursuant to the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DOS-DHR) regulations, no heavy equipment, land clearing, or ground disturbing activities shall be allowed at sites 8CR476, 8CR547, and 8CR576, unless subjected to prior testing by a qualified archaeologist and approved by the DOS-DHR. See the attached permit drawings for the locations of these historically significant areas to be avoided. 5. The Clam Bay ecosystem contains waterways that are difficult to navigate due to shallow water depths and meandering channels lined with protruding mangrove branches and roots. To protect the significant natural resources and water quality of the Clam Bay ecosystem, and to provide protection to the public safety (boaters utilizing these waters), there shall be an idle speed/ no wake restriction on motorized vessels used in the system (as stipulated in County Ordinance No. 96-16). The existing restrictions placed upon boating activities within the Clam Bay system by County Ordinance No. 96-16 shall remain active and enforceable for the life of this permit. Additionally, two Florida Marine Patrol approved signs that state. -Idle Speed- No Wake" and "Caution- Shallow Water and Natural Resources Present- Tilt Motor Up To Prevent Prop Dredge- Damage to Natural Resources Subject to Fines, Pursuant to Ch. 370, F.S.- shall be placed at the following locations following completion of the initial dredging event: I ) One within the entrance of Clam Pass facing boaters entering the bays: 2) One at the entrance to Outer Clam Bay facing north and easily legible to boaters entering Outer Clam Bay; 3) One at the entrance to Inner Clam Bay facing south and easily legible to boaters entering Inner Clam Bay; 4) One at the entrance to Upper Clam Bay facing south and easily legible to boaters entering Upper Clam Bay; and, 5) One within the upper reaches of Outer Clam Bay facing southeast and easily legible to boaters leaving Seagate. 6. To protect the submerged natural resources (seagrasses and oyster beds) adjacent to the channels to be dredoed, weisthted turbidity screens that extend to the bottom of the waterbody Page 13 of 41 Exhibit A 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13,uo11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1612 4 r,DEPPemm<tNw', 0128463-001-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 10 of 21 shall bc installed between the natural resource and the dredge to effectively isolate the natural resource from the active dredge and prevent adverse impacts 0o the natural resource via suspended particle settlement. The turbidity screens will only need 1nbe placed no the down current side between the natural resource and the dredge to assist the contractor in identifying the significant natural resource areas and tv protect the natural resources from the dredge and temporarily elevated turbidity levels. 7. Andubnal amount of trimming and removal of mangroves will be needed to conduct the authorized activities in the smaller interior channels. Thew activities are to be supervised bythe Department approved wetlands scientist described im Specific Condition | above. To ensure that the biological health and productivity of the mangroves are not adversely impacted 1ou significant extent, the following mangrove trimming procedures must he followed, pursuant to Sections 403'932l-403.9333, Florida Statutes. Only nnce'pcz-yeur trimming o1 the mangroves needed uoconduct the activities authorized by this permit, and Co maintain the canoe trails iu allowed; no trimming of mangroves to create or enhance views within this ecosystem is allowed. Prior to trimming or removing any mangroves, the species of the trees must be identified and tagged by a qualified biologist, wetland scientist(s), or botanist and verified by staff from the Department's South District OUfivoin Ft. Myers, orthe Bureau o[ Beaches and Coastal Systems in Tallahassee, All trimmed mangrove parts greater than one inch iu diameter shall bcremoved and composted on the uplands to prevent further restriction of tidal flow within the interior channels: Live Manzrove Trimmi Lag Procedures u. Maximum Diameter- No white mangrove tree with u single trunk diameter greater than twelve inches dhb (diameter mbreast height= the diameter of the tree u14`5feet above the substrate) may bo top trimmed. Nn black mangrove tree with u single trunk diameter greater than eight inches dbb may bn Lop trimmed. Nu red mangrove tree with a single trunk diameter greater than one inch may be top trimmed. h. Top Trimming- White and black mangrove trees within the specified trunk diameters may be trimmed t0a height U[four feet above sohSouo. Ile limit o[ top trimming for red mangroves within the specified trunk diameters is 6 linear feet above the substrate. Top trimming shall not occur from May I through September 3O. No more than half of the canopy of the tree shall he trimmed. Nn white and black mangrove trees less than 4 linear feet in height shall botrimmed. Nm red mangroves less than 6 linear feet io height shall bmtrimmed. c. Removal ofLateral Branches- For white and black mangrove trees, lateral branches � originating between four and fifteen feet above the substrate may be removed from a � trunk u[ any dhb. For red mangroves, upto fifty percent Oi the lateral branches � odginudoghztwmaouiuuudfiftueDh:etukovodzoSuhxtruk:rnuybeo:moved. In � multiple trunk trees, the trunk having the greatest dbh is designated uSthe primary iruffik: others are designated ax lateral branches. Exhibit Page 14 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 11 16-1 r A27 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463-0014C (Previously 113049919) Page 11 of 31 General Prohibitions. 1) No herbicides or chemicals may be used to alter mangroves. 2) No burning may be used to alter mangroves. 3) No deliberate damage to prop roots, pneumatophores, and regular roots. 4) No cutting of any mangrove that serves as breeding, nesting, or roosting area for colonial water birds; or is used by endangered species, threatened species, and species of special concern for breeding, or which is routinely used, by endangered species, threatened species, or species of special concern, as listed in Rule 19-27, F.A.C., and 50 CFR 17.11-12; or contains a nest or nests of protected solitary nesting birds as defined in Rule 39-12.002 or 39-27.002. F.A.C., except where a pen-nit has been issued by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, or, where appropriate, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to remove the nest or nests. Dead Mangrove Trimming or Removal Procedures a. Due to the large numbers of dead mangroves within certain areas of this ecosystem. up to 50% of the dead trees may be removed within the areas of massive die-offs to facilitate recolonization by mangroves. b. For public safety, all dead mangroves within 20 feet of the existing paved roads may be removed, c. Prior to removing any dead mangroves, the trees shall be inspected and tagged for removal by the approved wetland scientist(s). Prior to their removal, these tagged trees shall be approved for removal by staff from the Department's South District Office in Ft- Myers, or from the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems in Tallahassee. The larger, sturdier dead trees suitable for roosting and nesting shall remain. d. Dead mangroves approved for removal shall be removed at the substrate level with care not to damage or disturb surrounding, living vegetation. e. The removed dead trees shall be composted or disposed on the uplands to prevent further restrictions of tidal flow within the interior channels. R. As part of the restoration and long-term management of this ecosystem, activities shall be conducted to remove the nuisance exotic vegetation (including Australian pine and Brazilian pepper) within the Clam Day Natural Resource Protection Area. These activities shall be conducted with the goal in mind to remove all nuisance exotic vegetation from the area with the actual percentage of nuisance exotic vegetation not exceeding I % of the total vegetated area. When removing the nuisance exotic vegetation, care shall be taken to not harm the surrounding native vegetation. Mechanical removal should remove as much of the roots of the exotic as possible followed by hand removal, or chemical treatment of any suckers. If chemical treatment is used, only environmentally safe chemicals, such as garlon and roundup, shall be used with ID special care taken to not spill/spray any in or on the water or native vegetation, Exhibit A Page 15 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM 141 " � � ' � � � June 13,um1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 16 ` ' rl 27 � ` - FDEP Permit No.: 0128463'001-JC iv 11304992Q Page 12 of h 9- Within seven days of completion of the authorized activities (including the mangrove alterations. interior channel excavations, and removal of nuisance exotic vegetation) throughout the Clam Bay ecosystem. the contracted crews shall return 0 each work area and remove the trimmed branches and trees (dead trees approved for removal) greater than l inch in diameter to appropriate upland locations. The crews shall also omgzadc any spoil pile ur berm that may have been created as part of the excavation work, such that there is no impediment to sheet flow and oo created uplands nsu result o[ the project. 10. Small charge explosives maybe used to restore tidal flow in the interior channels where the use of mechanized and hand-held equipment is not reasiNo. The areas designated for the use of explosives shall be marked by the wetland scientist(s) and these marked areas shall be approved bv Department staff prior to the use of the explosives. The explosives shall hu carefully placed and detonated only in areas where their use will have minimal adverse impacts to significant natural resources. A Florida licensed explosives expert shall install and detonate all explosives associated with the project. 11. To develop u data set to understand the impact of freshwater discharge into the Clam Bay ecosystem from the developed uplands, the permittee shall submit detailed plans for the following � �um���i�o12Od��}��u���i���cem�l�ortment for approval. These studies are designed to identify existing water sources and water needs, and propose feasible methods to meet these water needs while concurrently reducing water discharges into the Clam Bay ecosystem (see the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan for the details and specifics Of each otudy): Study 2- Retarding Upland Water Flows i to Clam Bav; Study �:_ Reducne Flow from Perimeter Berm Area to Clam .. Study 4- Groundwatm-Flows; Study 5- Utilization of Storrnwater Management Lakes as Source for Irrigation: , unu, any additional studies that may bc needed to generate the information required to fully understand the impact of freshwater discharge into the Clam Bay ecosystem from the developed oyluodx' The study plans shall include detailed descriptions and maps. activities to be conducted. methods, and qualified personnel involved for each study, The poru|itt:c shall begin implementation nf the Department approved studies within 180 days following permit issuance. 12. The perniOee shall conduct the studies required hy Specific Condition No. }> for Lip Wm three years following permit issuance. However, if the data generated from the studies Sug.0wcut that additional data gathering will not materially aid the peonittee and the Department io undcmiundin�the imopuctofbmsbwuter discharge into the Clam Bay ecosystem, the permicuoc muyn:Quouithc[)ep8rtmontb]ruutbudzu1ioototecmoiounooneoru)oreofLboxtodiesundprncced to the analysis and recommendation phase as described in the CBRMP and this condition. Page 1nm41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM IT C-1 C., I June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161 2 "A27 FDEP Permit No., 0128463.001.JC (Previously 113049919) Page 13 of 21 Following this study period, the permittee shall analyze the data gathered, formulate recommendations based on the data, and to the extent suggested by the data, design a plan to reduce water discharves into the Clam Day ecosystem from the developed uplands ("Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan" or UWDRP). If a UWDRP is required as a result of an analysis of the data by the permittee and the Department, then the permittee will submit to the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems in Tallahassee and the Department's South District Office in Ft. Myers the UWDRP for approval. Once the UWDRP is approved•by the Department, the permittee shall implement the UWDRP as provided for therein, but in no event later than five years following permit issuance unless a modification or waiver of that time frame is agreed to by the permittee and the Department. The implemented activities to reduce upland discharge of water shall be monitored in accordance, with the terms of the UWDRP following completion of their implementation. It is anticipated that all activities described here and in Section 4.5.4 of the CBRMP will be completed within the ten (10) year permit term, but nothing will preclude the Department with the consent of the permittee, from extending the time for implementation of any portion of the UWDRP if the interest of the ecology of the system would be improved by doing so. The permittee will, as suggested in the CBRMP, implement in connection with this permit a program of community involvement to help ensure the maximum amount of community participation possible should the studies described in the CBRMP, and required here, suggest the need for one or more UWDRPs. In this context, the Department recognizes that the decision to require one or more UWDRPs will be dependent on the outcome of the studies described in the CBRMP and required here, The following time-table summarizes the anticipated schedule for the activities associated with the studies required above: ACTIVITY SCHEDULE 1. Submit detailed plans of each primary Within 120 days from pen-nit issuance study to the Department for approval. (anticipated to be October 22, 1998). 2. Begin implementation of the approved Within 180 days from permit issuance primary studies. (anticipated to be December 22, 1998), 3. Conduct the primary studies and gather For up to 3 years following permit issuance data. (anticipated to be July 22, 2001). 4. Develop as required by the data one or UWDRPs shall be submitted by April 22. more "Upland Water Discharge 2003, to the FDEP and will be implemented Reduction Plan" based upon results/ in accordance with their terms, recommendations of primary studies and submit to Department for approval. I Page 17 of 41 Exhibit A 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Update 7e - Chairman's Report -Clam B ay Up e 2 16 I � FDEP Permit No.: 0128463-061-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 14 of 21 5. Implementation and monitoring of the To be completed within the permit term. "Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan". 6. Submission of monitoring report for the To be submitted in accordance with the term "Upland Water Discharge Reduction of the UWDRPs. Plan" that includes any noted modifications or corrective actions needed. 13. The permittee shall conduct the studies, gather the information. and submit the reports stipulated in the "Monitoring Required" section of this permit. If the monitoring reveals adverse impacts have occurred as a result of conducting the authorized activities, the permittee shall cooperate with the Department to develop and implement such remediallcontigency plans as may be desirable to effectuate the purposes of this permit. The Permittee shall not be liable for damages or costs resulting from adverse impacts to the ecosystem unless those adverse impacts are a direct and proximate result of the intentional or negligent act(s) of the Permittee in the implementation of the activities authorized by the permit. MONITORING REQUIRED: 1. Water Quality Monitoring Turbidity monitoring during dredging and discharge, and as necessary prior to the removal of L- - - - turbidity control devices. A. Dredge Site Frequency: Twice daily, at least four hours apart, beginning at least two hours after dredging begins and continuing during the dredging activities, Location- Background: At least 200 meters upstream of the project site outside of any visible turbidity plume, at mid- depth. Compliance: Downstream of the turbidity curtains which separate the dredge from the natural resources on the resource side of the curtains. When the natural resources are more than 150 meters downcurrent of the dredge, the compliance zone shall be no more than 150 meters downcurrent of the dredge within the densest portion (if any visible turbidity plume, at mid-depth. Page 18 of 41 Exhibit A 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1612 A27 FDF,P Permit No.: 0128463-001-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 15 of 21 B. Disposal Sites Frequency: "Twice daily, at least four hours apart, beginning at least two hours after dredging begins and continuing during the dredging activities. Location: Back-ground: At least 200 meters upstream of the prqiect site (in the nearshore zone of the Gulf of Mexico) outside of any visible turbidity plume, at mid-depth- Compliance: At no more than 1,000 meters downstream of the discharge point in the intertidal zone (between the mean high and mean low water lines) and 61 meters (200 feet) offshore (from the mean low water line), within the densest portion of any visible turbidity plume, at mid-depth. All monitoring data shall be submitted within one week of analysis with documents containing the following information: (1) permit number; (2) dates of sampling and analysis; (3) a statement describing the methods used in collection, handling, storage and analysis of the samples; (4) a map indicating the sampling locations; and (5) a Statement by the individual responsible for implementation of the sampling program concerning the authenticity, precision, limits of detection and accuracy of the data. Monitoring reports shall also include the following information for each sample that is taken: (a) time of day samples taken-, (b) tidal stage and direction of flow (c) depth of water body; (d) depth of sample-, and (c) antecedent weather conditions. The compliance locations given above shall be considered the limits of the temporary Mixing zone for turbidity allowed during construction. If monitoring reveals turbidity levels at the compliance sites greater than 29 NTUs above background turbidity levels at the corresponding background sites, construction activities shall cease immediately and not resume until corrective measures have been taken and turbidity has returned to acceptable levels. Any such occurrence shall also be immediately reported to the Department's office in FL Myers. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Department's office in Tallahassee and to the South District Office in Ft. Myers. Failure to submit reports in a timely manner constitutes grounds for 7 revocation of the permit. When submitting this information to the Department, please clearly include, at the top of each page or as a cover page to the submittal. "This information being Exhibit A Page 19 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM {` . June 13,om1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session un ua� ro Chairman's Report cmmBay 1 6 N 2' A271 FDEP Permit No.: 0728463'001-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 16 of 21 provided im partial fulfillment of the monitoring requirements in Permit No' 0128483-01- JC (Previously 113049919)." 2. Hydrographic Monitoring To generate the data needed k> adequately assess the potential impacts of opening up the restricted channels o( the interconnected waterways as authorized by this permit, the hydrographic monitoring program shall include the following: m, Topographic surveys of Clam Pass and surrounding 500 feet zone The surveys shall bc conducted immediately prior to and following completion of the authorized excavation. Additional surveys of Clam Pass shall be required as often as the permittee seeks to conduct maintenance excavation within Clam Pass or the main channel excavated pursuant to this permit and identified in tbuC8RMP uo Cuts 4A,4B, 4C, and 4D. In such circumstances, the survey produced shall meet the standards set forth iu paragraph ^'B" h' Within seven (7) days of completion of the authorized excavation 8fthe interior channels. and thereafter os frequently uy may hm required for the duration of the permit, the enhanced interior channels shall be surveyed ata minimum of 100 feet cross-sections to ensure that the desired elevations have been attained. It|s anticipated that these surveys will h: initiated as and when it,appears to the Permittee and its wedand scientist(s) that maintenance excavation of these channels may be required to maintain the integrity of the system. & copy of the survey, certified bvu registered land surveyor, shall bn submitted 0m the Department as a part of a request for authority to conduct maintenance excavation pursuant to Specific Condition |.(A) above, uri[ the survey reveals nn present need for additional excavation, it will nonctheless be submitted to the Department as additional data within thirty (JO) days o[ completion of the excavation. Any survey submitted pursuant to this section shall contain u note, based upon the surveyor's examination o[ the excavated area which indicates whether the surveyed cross-sections reasonably reflect the site conditions for the entire area excavated. c The ppnittee shall submit unengineering report and survey maps summarizing the monitoring data and jec! performance &mthe Bureau within g0 days nf completion uf each survey. The report shall include uo analysis n[ the sediment characteristics o[Clmu Pass and any changes observed in the pass, identify erosion and accretion patterns along the pass and adjacent beaches, and identify any adverse impacts which would be � attributable t0 the activities authorized by this permit. [[ survey data 0f the pass ts 14 submitted it should be submitted Onl5-in:b high density floppy disk i%uo ASCII fooD:t � and the data shall be arranEted according to the FDEPIDBS specifications so as to include � all u/ the information required hy the BDEP/l]B8specifications. CA Y Exhibit � Page zoof41 0*108/2011ot10:46 AM FDEP Perrnit No.. 0128463-001-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 17 of 21 June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161 2 A27'1 d. Monitoring stations shall be established at representative sites (as shown on the permit drawings as reflected in the CBRMP) throughout Upper, Inner, and Outer Clam Bay to record the following hydrological parameters: 1) time of day samples taken; 2) water temperature (*C and *F); 3) depth of water body; 4) depth of sample; 5) antecedent weather conditions; 6) water quality, including salinity, silicates, nitrites, total organic carbon, chlorophyll. phaeophytin, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, nitrate. nitrate ammonia, total kjeldalil nitrogen, and total dissolved solids: 7) sedimentation levels; 8) rainfall; 9) tidal stage and direction of flow'. 10) other influential flows, such as groundwater and stormwater flows; 11) wind direction and velocity; and. 12) identification of the sample location which corresponds to the number shown on sampling location maps. L- These analyses shall be made immediately prior to and following construction, and monthly thereafter, with the exception of the water quality analysis (number 6 above), which may be conducted on a quarterly basis. Staff gages shall be installed at these stations in order to measure the relative tide range at each station. In order to measure the effect of the dredging on, the tidal range, one station should be located adjacent to or within the degraded mangrove area. This station should be equipped with a tide (Tage capable of continuous readings of tide stage. The monitoring required by this section (e.) will provide valuable data concerning the effects the restoration prcject is expected to have on the hydrology of the Clam Bay ecosystem. This information is crucial for future management decisions for this important natural resource, therefore, this monitoring shall continue for the life of the permit. The data collected from this monitoring shall be listed, analyzed, and submitted to the Department in annual Hydrographic Monitoring Reports. 3. Biological Monitoring As required in Specific Condition Lb), at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction. the permittee shall provide a"Proposed Scope of Work (PSOW)" from the Department approved wetland scientist(s), or Irom another qualified environmental organization with experience conducting research on Florida's ecosystems. The PSOW will include a list of scientifically accepted mettioas tnat will be conducted, and when, and by whom, to adequately assess the Clam 7 a, Bay ecosystem (with a primary focus on the mangrove and seagTaSS communities) before and after the activities authorized by this permit are conducted. The PSOW shall include the Exhibit A Page 21 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM � � � � � June 13,cm1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1271 1612 FDEP Perrrdt No.: 0128463'00}`T[ 113049919) Page 18 of 21 following information plus any additional information mscientific methods deemed appropriate bY the contracted scientists: u aerial photography of the Clam Bay ecosystem before and after the activities authorized by this permit are conducted. 70eaerials shall be taken during July nfeach year and submitted to the Department annually for the duration of the permit. The aerials must be color, vertical aerial photographs, controlled and rectified at a scale appropriate for post-production digitilization and a scale sufficient to delineate differing habitat zones and dominant species within each zone. The flight line shall include all of the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area and the nearshore zone to at least 400 feet offshore (6uno the nueuu high water iino). h. As concurrently as possible with taking the aerial photographs, ground-truthing activities shall hc conducted iu areas of special concern within the Clam Bay ecosystem, including areas of widespread dead and dying mangroves, Inner, Upper, and Outer Clain Bays. the areas receiving water discharges from the up\uudn, and areas contiguous with the main pass. The ground-truthing activities shall include the use of the latest accepted scientific methods to survey the types of habitats of concern within the Clam Bay ecosystem, including mangrove and 8ougcuxs dominated habitats. These surveys shall include listing ofspecies present. percent coverages by species, size ranges and averages, and overall health/ biological imondx for each fixed guudzu|, LruuSect, or plot studied.. These surveys and any associated drawings/ mapping shall be conducted prior to conducting the dredging activities and once each year (in July) thereafter for the life u[the permit. z Annual biological monitoring reports (BMRs) shall be submitted beginning one year following permit issuance. The first annual BMIt shall contain the time-zero conditions or the Clam Bay ecosystem existing prior to commencement of the permitted activities and u progress report of the activities conducted since permit issuance. Thereafter, each BMR shall contain a progress report of the activities completed since the previous BMR and all the data collected pursuant mn». and h.above. FucbB&1R shall include graphical representation and overlays of the collected data on computer generated drawings of the aerials, and ground-level color panoramic photos of each study area at fixed stations. The annual BMRs shall also contain an analysis of the collected data and make conclusions and recommendations concerning the impacts the permitted activities have had on the Clam Bay ecosystem based on the analysis of tire data collected. includino the biological monitoring data, the hydrographic monitoring data, and the water quality moui[udn�dutu. MONITORING SUMMARY: Turbidity moniNrin�V��c����:����w���i�m�����um��. the interior waterhndies` the aUuccnt beaches, and the Seagate culver�� biological monitoring associated with marine turtle and manatee protection; and, long-term biological monitoring o/ the Clain Bay ecosystem via fixed vegetative and hcudlicsurveys. Page 22 m*1 Exhibit A 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM FDEP Permit No.: 0128463-061-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 19 of 21 COMPLIANCE TRACKING SUMMARY: June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update P1 A27 Commencement of Activity Notice- Due at least 48 hours prior to commencement of activity, per General Condition 9. Project Completion and Certification - Due within 30 days following subsequent dredging events from a Florida registered engineer, per General Condition 11. Preconstruction Conference- At least 10 days prior to commencement of activity, per Specific Condition l.d), Marine Turtle Monitoring Reports- Reports due annually that include compaction measurements, escarpment survey results, and daily survey results, per Specific Condition 2. Written Dredging Requests- At least 45 days prior to each event per Specificicondition l.g). Mangrove Tagging Verification by Department Staff- Must be done prior to trimming or removing any mangroves, per Specific Condition 7. Study Plans- Due within 120 days following permit issuance, per Specific Condition I I Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan- Due within 3 years following permit issuance, per Specific Condition 12. - Turbidity Monitoring Reports- To be conducted twice daily during construction and submitted weekly, per Monitoring Required section. - Water Quality Monitoring Reports- Due annually, per Monitoring Required section. Hydrographic Monitoring Reports- Due annually, per Monitoring Required section, Biological Monitoring Reports- Due annually, per Monitoring Required section. AGENCY COMMENTS: Florida Department of Community Affairs- May 23, 1997- No ob�iections, Florida Department of State- Division of Historical &5ources June 23, 1997- Provided specific conditions to protect potentially historic sites 8CR476, 8CR547, and 8CR576. City of Naples- July 8, 1997- Supports the project. PARTIES REQUESTING NOTICE: Mangrove, Action Group. Inc. ,A Ca Save the Bays Association. Inc. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida uro m C, Ci t-j 10 0 Exhibit A Page 23 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1612, 127 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463-001-JC (Previously 113049919) Page 21 of 21 FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED, on this date, pursuant to Section 120.52, Florida Statutes, with the Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Clerk Recommended and written by:��—, 4 pages attached. Page 24 of 41 Date Exhibit A 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM FDEPPeratit No.: 0128463-061-jC (Previously 113049919) Page 20 of 21 Executed in Tallahassee, Florida - June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1612 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Kirby B. C�ecn Deputy Secretary Copies furnished to: Bob Brantly, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Jon Iglehart, DEP- South District Office- Ft. Myers Kalani Cairns, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service George Percy, Fl, Dept. of State Kcri Akers, Fl. Dept. of Community Affairs Andreas Mager, U.S. Dept. of Commerce Susan Gray, SFWMD Stacey Cowley, DEP. Office of General Counsel Estus Whitfield, Governor's Office of Environmental Affairs Chip Clough, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mae Hatcher, Collier County Government Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division David Guggenheim, The Conservancy of SW Florida Dan Spina, Save the Bays, Association Kay Potter, Mangrove Action Group, Inc. Hilburn Hillestad. Environmental Consultant- Arvida Dorothea Zysko, Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc. Karen Moody, DEP- Bureau of Protected Species Management John Ififf, National Marine Fisheries Service Eric Stauts, Naples Daily News John Mackie, Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. Permit Information Center Page 25 of 41 A27 Exhibit A 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM i z� c m. cr �i s tV Y '.G June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e Chairman's Report Clam Bay Update t61, a ! ! A IM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 199602789(IP -CC) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection Permit No. 0128463.001 -JC (formerly 113049919) ©R039990,1 This Attachment "A" corresponds to and is the same as the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan dated December 11, 1997. Exhibit B Page 26 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13,rm1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update � . . - ^ ' � ° � � � � � � / a A,2 � � �� � 1.1 Background ... . .. . .. .......... ... . . .'... . ...... ...... .... 1 1-2 Purpose ..................... . . . . . . .^. .. . . ..... . . . . . . . ... . 4 1.3 Goals . . ' .. . . .-. , . . . . . . . . . , . . . ^. , . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 11/4 Approach , . .. .. ... ............ ..... . . , ... . .. ..... .... ...,. G 1,5 Management Plan Organization ....' '. . . .'. . . -.. . .' . . . . . . . .. .. 7 2�O ROLE C}F PELICAN BAY SERVICES DISTRICT 2.1 Existing Regulatory Framework and o� � Management Authority ' . . . ' . . ' '. .. . . . . . . . . . - .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 9 3.0 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 3.1 Education and PubUc Awareness ..'..........'.......'.,..... 1a 3,2 Environmental Management . ....' '.. . ' .. .. . ^ ^'. . .. . . . .. . . . . . 14 3-2.1 Characteristics of Clam Bay ................. ......... 14 3.21.1 .................. 14 (a) Mangrove Mortality ' '' '''. . . . '. . ... 19 3.2.1,2. ... . . ... .'. . .. '.'. . . . . . . ... 20 (a) Estuarine Component'.........'...... 21 _ (b) 'Freshwater Component ...'........... 25 3.2.2 Proposed Characteristics of Clam Bay .................. 28 3.2.2.1 Clam Pass . . ' . . . - ' . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . '. . 28 3.2.2.2 Interior Tidal Creeks ...',.,......,,.'.'... 31 3,2.2.3 Vanderbilt Lagoon Reconnection '........... 32 3.2.2.4 Seagate Culverts '.....'.....''^.'...'.'. 33 3.2.2'5 StdnnvvatarK8anoQemmant ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 3.2.2.6 Upland Irrigation Water Management ......... 38 i Page u7of 41 Exhibit B 06108/2011 at 10:46 AM /. ! � � ^� � � � m � � � June 13,am1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 16 1 12 A.27 ' 3,3 Recreation ... , ... . .... .. ..... ...... . ... .. .. .. . .' '''' ... 38 131 Current Recreational Component . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.3.2 Proposed Recreational Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 Approach . '. . .. . . . .. . . . . . ... ...... ' .. . . . . . .. . ' ' ' ' ' . . .� . . 40 42 Action Plan Development .. . . . .. ....'.'. . . . . . ' ' . ' . ' ' ' ' . . '. . . 40 4.3 Management Plan Evaluation, Planning and Funding . ' . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4/4 Implementation Schedule .. . . . . .'. . . .. .. . . . .'' ... . . . . ..'. .. . 43 4.5 Management Components . .. . ........... . .. . . .. . ... . .. . .... 43 4.5.1 Seagate Culverts . ... . . .... .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . .... 45 4.5.1.1 Existing Conditions . ... . . . . . .. ' . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4.5.1.2 Proposed Conditions . . ' ' . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . 46 4.613 Thnbno '. . . .'. . .... ...' ' . ' . ' .. . . .. . . . ... 47 4.5.1.4 Design . . . . ..................... .... — . 48 4.5.1.5 Construction ......,.......,'............ 48 4.61]3 Post Construction Management .....'. ....' 49 4.5.17 Pre Construction Monitoring . . ' . . . . . . . . . . .. ' 49 4.5.2 Clam Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4.5.2.1 . .'. . .. '. . .. .'' ....'. 51 4.5.2.2 Remedial Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . 59 4.6.2.3 Design .. .... .. ..... . .. . ... . .'... . . ..... 61 4.5.2.4 Construction . .. . .. . . . . . . .' ' . . .. ,. . . . ', .. 65 4.5.2.5 Monitoring ..... - . . .. . . . . . '. . . . . . '. ...,. 66 4.5.3.1 Existing Conditions ...... . .. .. . .... .'..... 68 4.5i3-2 Proposed Conditions ...................... 89 4.5.3.3 Thnhno '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 . 4.5.3.4 Design ..........'..................'... 73 - 4.5.3.5 Construction .. '. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 72 4`5.3j6 Post Construction Management ,.....'...... 73 0R026253;1/FP1 ii Page 28 of 41 Exhibit B 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM SN a. June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1612 A27 4.6.4 Stormwater/Freshwater Management ............. 74 4.5.4.1 Existing Conditions ....................... 74 4.6.4.2 Proposed Conditions ...................... 76 (a) Study Number 1 . ................. 78 (b) Study Number 2 ................... 78 (c) Study Number 3. ............... 81 (d) Study Number 4 ........... ....... 81 (e) Study Number 5 ................... 82 (f Study Number 6 . .................. 82 4.5.4.3 Conclusion ............................. 83 4.5.5 Ecosystem Enhancements ........................... 84 4.5.5.1 Integration and Modification of Exisiting Permits Monitoring Criteria ...................... 84 4.5,5.2 Withdrawal of Permit Application for Clam Bay Overflow Structure ....................... 87 4.5.5.3 Evolution of Clam Pass Tidal-Channel Network 87 4.5.5.4 Dead Mangrove Removal and Landscape Restoration ........................ 88 4.5.5 , 5 Cattails ................................ go 4.5.6 Monitoring ........................... .......... 91 4.5.6,1 Salinity Monitoring ............. .......... 91 4.5.6.2 Biological Monitoring ...................... 93 4.5.6.3 Sediment/Water Quality Monitoring .......... 94 4.5.6.4 Hydrologic Monitoring ..................... 95 4.5.6.5 Seagate Culverts Flow Monitoring ........... 95 4.5.7 Contingency Planning ...... : ....................... ge 4.5.7.1 Clam Pass/Main Channel .................. 96 4.5.7.2 Interior Tidal Creeks ...................... 97 4.5.7.3 Seagate Culverts ........................ 98 5.0 FIGURES 4R026293;1/F?l iii Page 29 of 41 Exhibit B 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM v a ti June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161 2 X27" 1.1 Background Clam Bay is located on the west coast of Florida in Collier County. (Figure 1.1(a)) Over the years it has remained relatively undisturbed but in recent years, partly as a result of urbanization of the region and land development and partly as a result of implementing water control practices on adjoining lands, modifications to Clam Bay and its associated ecosystem have been observed. These changes are noticeable in how they affect historic freshwater flow patterns as well as salinity and sedimentation regimes. Although changes occurred, Clam Bay continued to be a relatively pristine estuarine environment, and the natural qualities of the system have, in the main, been preserved. By limiting development in the uplands lying east of the estuary and designating_ the estuary itself as a county preservation area the prospects for its continued success would appear promising. Up until approximately 1992, Clam Bay was functioning without noticeable threat to the viability of the mangroves and the interrelated ecosystem. However, in 1992 an area of dead black mangroves was discovered west of Upper Clam Bay. (See Figure 1.1(b)) Subsequent investigation of the mortality did not reveal the cause and red and white mangroves were seemingly unaffected by the die -off. First reports limited the geographic extent of the die -off to no more than 7 acres. In 1995 significantly larger areas of- mangroves were dying and as of April 1996 the acreage of dead mangroves within the Clam Bay system was approximately 50 acres. (Turrell, 1996; Collier County Report, 1996). More recent investigation suggests that the system has remained relatively stable, but still under considerable stress. Although there is some indication of regeneration in the areas of prior die off (Figure 1.1(c)) other areas exhibit signs of increasing stress. (See f=igure 11(d)). In response to this die -off a number of interrelated initiatives were undertaken by both the public and private sectors in an attempt to; (1) determine the cause of the die-off OR042680:1/FFS Page 30 of 41 • is 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM M a r. a ra w a June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1612 k-27"A and, (2) slow the die -off and initiate limited restoration. Those efforts all produced meaningful data that has and will contribute to the understanding of the system that we have today. As a result a variety of related permit applications were prepared by WCI Communities, L.P., The Pelican Bay Services Division and Collier County. The applications proposed to alter the operational characteristics of the Clam Bay system, primarily by altering the temporal extent and quantity of water within the Clam Bay system. First, Collier County processed a permit to dredge limited areas of Clam Pass to facilitate the movement of tidal water in and out of Clam Bay. The USACOE permit for this activity was issued on April 2, 1996 with the companion FDEP Permit being Issued on March 28, 1996. The latter was modified April 10, 1996 with the authorized work being undertaken and completed on April 17, 1996. The practical effect of implementing this Permit was to reopen the Pass, but it now seems clear that without a more comprehensive strategy, this effort, standing alone, will not revitalize the Clam Bay ecosystem. Second, a permit to improve channel flow within defined areas of the Clam Bay system by a combination of blasting and hand excavation was issued on June 26, 1996. The work was undertaken and completed in two segments. The first channels were opened in August, 1996 and the second channels were opened in November, 1996. The results of these two initiatives are positive in that measurable improvements in tidal flow are discernible and with that has come improved conditions for natural revegetation. Third, a permit was issued on January 5, 1997 to construct a portable pump and pipe system as an interim measure to divert freshwater within the Clam Bay system to the Gulf while a more permanent solution contemplated by the construction of an outfall structure was reviewed. This plan envisioned two pumps that would be operational when the water surface elevation within Clam Bay exceeded a specified threshold. The OR042680 ;1lFP1 Page 31 of 41 Exhibit B 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM � June 13,um1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 1612 � ' _ plan anticipated the direct discharge of excess water into the Gulf with the expectation that this system would augment the natural discharge through the tidal mechanism after severe storm events. Fourth, imaneffort to provide a mechanism for discharging excess mtormvveterdirectly to the Gulf by construction of an overflow or outha| structure on a permanent basis. When complete, the system as proposed,Would allow water within the Clam Bay to be maintained mt predictable levels and like the portable pump and pipe system described above, provide for additional discharge capacity. The disposition of this application |s discussed in Section 4.5.5.2 bnkzvv Lastly, Collier County has authorized the pursuit wfm ten year permit to allow the County, or its designee, tornointainCkynnPaoainanopenoundition. The application, aafilod. does not address any other issues affecting the operational characteristics of Clam Bay and essentially mirrors the Permit described in paragraph "First'above, It is anticipated that a modified version of the permit as applied for will have been issued and implemented prior to final agency review and approval of this Management Plan. The permit to be issued pursuant to the pending application is anticipated to be for a period of one year and to allow only modest excavation within a discreet area of Clam Pass, Various other initiatives have from time to time been proposed, reviewed, and discussed by groups and |ndhvidualt,both publidmnd private, in a continuing effort to manage and preserve the Clam Say ecosystem. The land use patterns surrounding Clam Box are primarily residential with complimentary retail, office and hotel development. The restrictions omdevelopment and use activities resulting from both the imposition of land use regulation and restrictions have helped preserve the conditions of Clam Bay, but the increased urbanization of portions of the drainage basin that drains into Clam Bay has contributed ho physical, chemical, and biological changes to Clam Bay. cRo 26on;zmPz 3 Exhibit B Page 32 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM 7 KV June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161 2 A27 1.2 Purpose The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), both as a representative body for the resident base of Pelican Bay and as an operative division of Collier County government, considers Clam Bay an important natural resource, not only for the Pelican Bay community, but also for the State of Florida and Collier County. As a result the PBSD seeks to devise and implement a Management Plan for the whole of Clam Bay, including Clam Pass. The Management Plan is intended to assure control over public recreational uses, improve the ecological productivity of the bays, and preserve and enhance the natural resources and multiple, beneficial uses of Clam Bay. To do so the Management Plan addresses the Pelican Bay development and the Clam Bay ecosystem as an integrated whole; recognizing that both systems interact with and contribute to the other. The Management Plan for Clam Say is contained in this 7-roTliffillm- The PBSD has developed this Management Plan with a goal of implementing a series of immediate or short term adjustments to the system as well as creating a guidance document for the long-term management of Clam Bay. It is recognized that as management protocols are implemented, monitoring conducted, and the demands on the natural ecosystem change, new challenges and opportunities will develop beyond those presented in this-plan. The PBSD is award that changes will occur and has developed a Management Plan that is dynamic and can be modified through time while still meeting the PBSD's goals. The schedule discussed below provides for a yearly review of the management protocols, selecting management protocols for future implementation and modifying protocols to address changing needs, The management protocols to be implemented are based on a priority of importance resulting from a decision matrix generated by a review of the environmental history of Clam Bay as reflected in various data sets, reports, studies and interviews, the majority OR042690il/M 4 Page 33 of 41 Exhibit B 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report -Clam Bay Update 1612 X27 of which are summarized in a report dated September 19. 1996 entitled "Clam Bay Ecosystem Management: An Opportunity" (the "Report"). The Report has been used to select those management protocols that meet the goals established by the PBSD and related and interested stake holders. The long-term goal of the Management Plan is that it be used as a tool for evaluating new management options, as well as existing protocols as circumstances require. It should be used minimally, on an annual basis, for reviewing any new issues or options, as well as for evaluating existing operational protocols. These analysis will assist in the prioritization for implementation in the next ensuing year. As new management issues develop and others are resolved or implemented, the Management Plan can be updated to reflect the current and future needs of Clam Bay. This Management Plan has focused on a defined set of protocols and goals as described below. 1.3 Goals The goals established by the PBSD for the Clam Bay Management Plan are: a restore the hydrology and efficient tidal flushing to Clam Pass and the interior tidal creeks; restore the habitat values of the Clam Say ecosystem and diversify the same; satisfy the -stormwaterdischarge, including irrigation and water quality requirements necessary for the continued development of Pelican Bay, exploring how those might be adjusted to accommodate the needs of the Clam Bay ecosystem; * consider the development and implementation of a best management practices program to assist in modulating irrigation requirements for the developed areas of Pelican Bay: ® develop a contingency plan for the continued maintenance of Clam Pass 0R042600;1/FP1 and the interior tidal creeks; W" Page 34 of 41 Exhibit B 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM CA CA I June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 16I�.A27 • maintain the storm surge attenuation values of the mangrove forest; • continue limited human intrusion into mangrove forest and under controlled circumstances; • develop operational protocols that allow the permit holder the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances under defined parameters; and • accelerate the revegetation of the barren area by planting those species most appropriate to the specific site conditions. The balance of this report discusses the immediate needs of Clam Bay, the suggested maintenance and rehabilitation requirements of Clam Bay after initial retrofitting, and seeks to provide the guidance and protocols to accomplish the objectives of the plan. 1.4 Approach The approach used to develop the management plan utilized a multi disciplinary team. The PBSD selected the team approach because of the complexity of the Clam Bay system, For example, the presence of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta care, ), a threatened species, the concern for freshwater inputs, the maintenance of adequate tidal flushing, and recreational uses are but a few of the issues that make management of Clam Bay a dynamic issue. The multi disciplinary team was headed by Ted R. Brown and Hilburn Hillestad as project managers. The consultant team consisted of. • Steve Means and Dorothea Zysko of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., environmental and civil engineers; • David Tackney of Tackney & Associates, Inc.,hydrological and coastal engineers; • Robin Lewis of Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., environmental cortsultant', • Sam Snedaker, Ph.D. of University of Miami, environmental consultant; and OR042690,1/FPI 6 Page 35 of 41 Exhibit B 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM � � � � ' � " Y � June 13,um1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular nosown - � 1612 Mac Hatcher and Bill Lorenz of Collier County Department of Natural Resource Protection. The approach used by the pB0C) to develop the management plan included several supporting teaks' First, a hsohnioo| assessment was conducted that included a bibliographic oeorob of available infonnabmn mm|edng to C|ono Boy. This included e review of mnvinonnnento|, engineering data and computer modeling of various operational characteristics of the Clam Bay ecosystem. This technical information was gathered to provide m better understanding of Clam Bay and the required up-to-date and relevant facts needed to develop a workable and successful management plan. This hnfpnnotion was compiled b0 evaluate management options in relationship to their potential for meeting the goals of the Management Plan, A variety of management options were considered and not all are reviewed here, The management options were evaluated with one overriding objective in mind; restoring the ecological productivity mf Clam Bay and hmparticular, the productivity of the mangroves within the Clam Say ecosystem. Based on local public input, directives from Federal, State and local government, technical studies and fiscal considerations m total of five /5> management protocols were selected for implementation. They are set forth in Section 4.0cfthis Management Plan. 1J5 Management Plan Organization The Management Plan is organized and discussed under the following major topics: ^ Education and Public Awareness; " Environmental Management; and 0 Management Plan Implementation. 7 Page oaof 41 2 7 Exhibit 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM ^ ` , ' � � � � - � _ June 13,um1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update ^ �� � � � �� 1 �~ A27 � In the section entitled the Role of the PBSO,the report discusses eframework for the PBSD to become not only a clearinghouse and coordinator for activities relating to the C/enl Bay, but also the primary manager of the implementation protocols. The Education and Public Awareness section discusses the management options for enlisting public support and educating the public relative bo the importance nf Clam Bay as an ecological resource. The Environmental section discusses associated and meksotmd environmental attributes of C|grn Bay and how they point to vehnum management options leading to Implementation. The Management Plan Implementation section discusses guidelines for implementing the Management Plan, a proposed schedule for implementing the Management Plan and potential funding sources for the implementation of the Management Plan. B Page 37 of 41 Exhibit B 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13,um1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 16 12 427 benefit to the system. Additionally, improvements to the Clam Bay ecosystem will be achieved by reducing and/or modifying the amount of irrigation water used by the Pelican Bay community. While the pass has closed on a variety of occasions, the system, vvhi|g stressed, retained its basic health throughout all of those closures until the most recent rain evenhs. This suggests that with significantly improved tidal flushing, the system does have the capacity to take on larger amounts of water than rainfall alone would normally contribute and to do so on e regular basis as contemplated by the shzmmvwsbe, management system. Improved management of the system will allow for the development oY operational directives that balance these two objectives and allow for the adjustment of irrigation disposal when the |avm( of inundation within the soil column reaches predetermined levels ofsaturation. This initiative should also include o review of the management practices for the administration and discharge of the first-flush stormwater runoff and the adoption ofBest Management Practices 1n insure that such stonnxvo1er runoff will have minimal adverse impacts on the xvedor quality of the riparian habitat adjacent to the Pelican Bay development. (See Discussion @ Section 4.5.4] 3.3 Recreation 3'3.1 Current Recreational Component. For the most part, Clam Bay remains inaccessible to the general public. Because significant portions of the bay are and remain densely populated with mangrove vegetation, it (the bay) |s physically difficult $o traverse onfoot. The three boardwalks which do cross the boy provide access tuthe beach aod, as e genera/ ppoposition, provide the level of access tq the mangroves that the public demands; a visual, non- consumptive utUizatioO. 36 Page 38 m41 Exhibit B 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM 7 JI June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update A27 16I Limits on the amount of beach access is also controlled by limiting utilization of the boardwalks to differing segments of the public. Membership or resident status within Pelican Say is required to use both the northern and middle boardwalk, thereby providing a predictable amount of use that to date has not proved problematic. The southern boardwalk is accessible by the public at large and while it generates measurable amounts of increased traffic, the established train and foot traffic has not adversely affected either the estuary or the beach. Canoeing of the waterways within Clam Bay remains a popular activity for those seeking a more intimate look at the estuary, and its wildlife or those seeking solitude in the upper reaches of the bay. Fishing is also a frequent undertaking from either the boardwalks or canoes. Swimming is confined to the beach area, although there is a reasonable amount of wading in Clam Pass and back into the estuary as much as 1,000 or so feet from the mouth of the Pass. The use of motorized watercraft is not prohibited, and evidence of periodic use of such is evident from observation. For the most part, the accumulation of sediments and the shoaling that has taken place has resulted in physically limiting the accessibility of Clam Bay to deeper draft boats and particularly those equipped with engines. Most, if not all, of the motorized boat traffic is believed to originate in the Seagate residential area and be confined to the area from Outer Clam Bay to Clam Pass. 3.3.2. Proposed Recreational Component. The Management Plan would not anticipate any changes in the recreational use characteristics of Clam Bay. The contemplated widening and deepening of Clam Pass and the interior channels leading into Outer Clam Bay will not measurably improve navigability. Earlier assumptions to the contrary have proved to be inappropriate as the channel area itself remains very confined. Further, since no dredging of Outer Clam Bay is proposed, accessibility across the same will not be noticeably improved. OR042680;I/VVI 37 Page 39 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161 2 A27 Presently, Collier County has enacted Ordinance 96-16 which Ordinance provides for the utilization of the Clam Bay area by motorized watercraft provided that they operate with no wake and at idle speed, The Management Plan recommends no change in that protocol, The PBSD will however, in cooperation with the County, vigorously enforce the existing Ordinance. Further, if significant adverse impacts to the natural resources and water quality of the Clam Bay system are confirmed by the Collier County Department of Natural Resources, the FDEP and the Corps environmental staffs to be directly attributable to the use of motorized boats within the Clam Bay system, then additional restrictions or adjustments in the use of motorized boats within the Clam Say system shall be considered for imposition to insure that the ecological integrity of the Clam Bay system Is preserved. To the extent that additional constraints on the use of the Clam bay system are at any time in the future determined to be necessary to preserve the ecological Integrity of the Clam Bay system, such constraints will be imposed only so long as is necessary to ensure that the damaged resources within the Clam Bay system have recovered and/or the water quality has returned to and will continue to meet state water quality standards for those parameters associated with boating and motorized vessel usage including copper, cadium, zinc, hydrocarbons (PAHs) oils and greases, dissolved oxygen total nitrogen, total phosphorous and total fecal and coliform bacteria. Appropriate notification, signage and policing will be provided by the County or PBSD to ensure compliance. The signage tifill be strategically placed both at the entrance to Clam Pass and in the areas around the boat ramp located at the southern end of Outer Clam Bay. These are intended to insure that persons accessing the Clam Bay system are informed of its unique ecological characteristics, the limitations of access resulting from variations in water depth, the existence of no wake/idle speed requirements for motorized boat operation and importantly, the necessity of staying out of areas identified as having maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat. Precise locations and language to be included in the signage will be determined in cooperation with the agencies post permit issuance. Finally, the main channel will be marked in accordance 0X042680;1/FP1 3 8 Exhibit B Page 40 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM June 13, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7e - Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update 161,2 A27, with the requirements imposed by the United States Coast Guard to insure that those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions against operating their water craft outside the same. Additionally, the enlargement of the tidal exchange mechanism creates potentially hazardous conditions at the mouth of Clam Pass. Historically, this area has noticeable tidal movement, but is gentle enough to allow free swimming and wading. The adjustments contemplated here are likely to result in tidal movement that can be hazardous except to the strongest of swimmers. Channel depths will prohibit most wading, particularly during a high tide. Appropriate warning signs and monitoring of human use in the Clam Pass area will be required post implementation of the Management Plan to insure the safety of beach users. S. 7 OR042680;1/F41 39 0 Exhibit B Page 41 of 41 06/08/2011 at 10:46 AM CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 New Business 1 of 4 A27,� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 6 1 Recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay work group and the Coastal Advisory Committee on the marking of Clam Pass /Bay; provide direction on permitting, installation and maintenance of the Clam Pass /Bay markers; and authorize staff to proceed with Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC); United States Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE); Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) permitting. OBJECTIVE: To endorse the recommendation of the Clam Pass /Bay work group and the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) on the marking of Clam Pass /Bay; provide direction on permitting, installation and maintenance of the Clam Pass /Bay markers; and authorize staff to proceed with FWC; USACE; FDEP; and the USCG permitting. CONSIDERATIONS: The Coastal Advisory Committee recommended on January 13, 2011 that Collier County not move forward with the permit application or installation of navigational markers in Clam Bay and also recommended that the County petition the USACE to close the permit noting that the County has acted in good faith to come into permit compliance but that the denial of timely and cost effective navigational permits has prevented this from happening. Additionally, the CAC also recommended that the County, Pelican Bay and Seagate community jointly meet and resolve the marking of Clam Bay to facilitate safety and overall community acceptance. This position was approved at the January 25, 2011 BCC meeting as Item 10J. Three public meeting were held to discuss the marking plan. The following Clam Pass /Bay marker work group was developed to participate in the discussion and speak for their respective communities. In addition, the public was offered the opportunity to speak at each meeting. The Clam Pass /Bay marker work group consisted of the following stakeholders: • John Sorey - Vice Mayor for the City of Naples /CAC Chairman • Ernie Wu — President of the Seagate Homeowners Community • Steve Feldhaus - Secretary of the Pelican Bay Foundation • Keith Dallas — Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division • Mary Johnson - President of the Mangrove Action Committee • Kathy Worley - Environmental Specialists from the Conservancy • Marsha Cravens — Audubon Society of SW Florida • Gary McAlpin, Marla Ramsey and Pamela Keyes from the County This stakeholder group, with the exception of the Seagate community, endorsed the attached marking plan. This plan has the following key comments: The marking system will be informational markers and not navigational markers. FWC is the lead agency that will permit the marker system since they have CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 New Business 2of4 b1 2 A27 primary responsibility for waterway signage. The permit will be issued by FWC contingent on review and concurrent permitting by USACE, FDEP and the USCG. The USACE, FDEP and the USCG have concurrent jurisdiction for this waterway and a concurrent permitting from each agency will be required. 2. Clam Pass /Bay is a multi -use waterway. Kayaks, canoes, boats and swimmers all use the same estuary. FWC has determined through review with its legal department that the proposed marking system would not prevent any access or use of this estuary by any user. 3. Only canoe trail markers for the route between Clam Pass and the Seagate neighborhood will be permitted. Installation of Local Knowledge signs on each of the 12 marker poles is proposed. Two Informational markers will be placed at the beach and one will be placed at the entrance to the Seagate neighborhood. Informational markers that identify the position of Shoals and Seagrasses will be permitted. Staff has identified 5 environmental markers that will be used in the system. These will be used to guide users into the deeper water. Informational signs on either side of the tram bridge are also proposed. In addition, signs will be placed at Clam Pass Beach Park, the kayak launch area and the Pelican Bay Beach Club facility alerting boaters and swimmers to use caution. 4. Based on preliminary review, FWC is in conceptual concurrence with the proposed plans. FWC will however not approve anything until a permit application is received and it can be reviewed in detail. The Seagate community is not supportive of this plan based on their belief navigational channel markers would provide a higher level of public safety for boaters using Clam Pass /Bay. They also believe that navigational markers protect the historical right for boating within the Seagate community. Seagate was given an opportunity to propose additional sign language prior to the last work team meeting and they chose not to propose language or participate in the meeting. The permitting, installation and maintenance of this marker plan is unresolved and staff is requesting BCC direction on how to proceed. Currently the 33 canoe trail markers located in Upper, Inner and Outer /Lower Clam Bay are permitted to the Pelican Bay Services Division. Only the southernmost 12 new markers in Outer /Lower Clam Bay will be affected by this change and the Pelican Bay Services Division wants to continue to maintain responsibility for this activity. With respect to the permitting, all permits must be issued to Collier County. The existing canoe trail markers permit must be modified and issued to the Board of County Commissioners. All other permits within the County are issued to Collier County and not an individual Department. The permit modification must include the 12 markers in Outer /Lower Clam Bay along with the remaining 21 markers in Middle and Upper Clam Bay. Three options exist for the installation and maintenance of the markers within Clam Pass /Bay and staff is recommending option 1 as the preferred choice. The options are: CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 New Business 16 3 f4 12A 7 1. Develop a written agreement between the four key stakeholders of Clam Pass /Bay. The Pelican Bay Services Division, the Pelican Bay Foundation, the City of Naples and Collier County would be parties to this agreement with the following key points: • Any changes to the permitted marking plan within Clam Pass /Bay would need to be reviewed and concurrence obtained by three of the four parties. • Each party would share one -fourth of the installation costs and maintenance cost for the next 10 years. Installation costs are expected to be less than $20,000 and yearly maintenance is expected to be less than $500. • This agreement would last for 10 years and could be extended with concurrence from each agency. • If a dispute arose, an affirmative action of three of the four parties would be required to resolve it. Dispute resolution would be by the Chairman or designee of each respective agency. • Coastal Zone Management would take the lead in processing the permit modification for all 33 markers. The permit would be modified and issued in Collier County's name only. • Installation and maintenance of the 12 new markers in Outer /Lower Clam Pass /Bay would be by Coastal Zone Management. Maintenance of the 21 markers in Middle and Upper Clam Bay would be performed and paid for by the Pelican Bay Services Division. Informational signage on the beach at the mouth of Clam Pass, at Clam Pass County Park, at the park walkway to the beach, on the bridge, in the parking lot and at the kayak launch site will be the responsibility of Coastal Zone Management. All other poles and markers that are not permitted would be removed from the system. 2. Continue to have the Pelican Bay Services Division maintain control and stewardship of the markers within Clam Pass /Bay. • The Pelican Bay Services Division permitted, installed and has maintained the markers for the past six years and they believe that responsibility for this activity should not change. • The Pelican Bay Services Division is prepared to pay for the installation and maintenance of these markers. They also request that all additional permitting be performed by them. • Certain stakeholders have expressed concerns with this approach. 3. Have Coastal Zone Management perform the permitting, installation and maintenance of all the Markers in Clam Pass /Bay. • CZM permits, installs and maintains all (approximately 750) the County waterway markers except for these markers in Clam Pass /Bay. • CZM routinely interacts and has established relationships with the regulatory agencies that will permit this activity. CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 New Business 4of4 161 2 A27 • CZM has established effective working relationships with all stakeholder groups. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At the May 12, 2011 Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting, a recommendation was passed to continue this item until an additional Stakeholder meeting was held in an attempt to revise the informational sign language for the purpose of gaining total Stakeholder consensus. This recommendation passed 9 to 0. On May 18, 2011 a final stakeholder's meeting was held and their recommendations are listed in the consideration section of this Executive Summary. On June 9, 2011 the stakeholder's recommendations will be presented to the CAC for its consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: Installations of the 12 Markers in Outer /Lower Clam Bay along with the informational and environmental signs are expected to cost less than $20,000. Funding from the unincorporated general fund (111-110409) will fund Collier County's portion on the work. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: No impact to the growth management plan would result from this Board action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires simple majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. — CMG RECOMMENDATION: To endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay work group and the Coastal Advisory Committee on the marking of Clam Pass /Bay; provide direction on permitting, installation and maintenance of the Clam Pass /Bay markers; and authorize staff to proceed with FWC; USACE; FDEP; and the USCG permitting. Prepared by: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Marker #11s, 7 :[f * Marker #10 - _ __ - _. . _ .•>• _ ,+etc -.; LKR Srgns On Beach Caution Shoal_ -_ GautionSeagras '� '" #y, - ._ .,._ _tea- .a�r._�� � y$ •}s Marker #9 _ Marker #8 LKR Signs On Beach ! � '51 3 c m �. Caution Shoal ��- • ,� tU9a #ker #12 Marker AV ZUE^ R Marke r #rb r Marker # LKP Sign Both sides of Bridge ���� =� "� � � ;, Caution Shoal I aw Marker #4 x Marker #3 +y r- FROJE . LOCATION �r COLLIER C OUNTY, EL ALFlAL PHO TO PB OVIL2D BY COLLIER C OURTY DMIED 20 07 ,. CLAM PASS -- aution Seagrass 1 1. 41 b r too r " �� � �r�'.�� ✓'yb rat ��;�" r 0A, + t R 4, j � • a� Ji it x s br. s_ ^ter Marker #1 Caution - Clam Bay Sign tee, 'r�� r o� N CO c Z U � Q = o U � N Ul L Q� L C6 N Q1 4 m 161 2 A27 a Q J V p W � Q V W c� O Lj- aQ 0O Y O Y O J d. J U W W V O x N cc CW cG G N Z Q N N U7 O O N 0� m N N C Z O @ V Q � O U > r> C2Q c.n m a- m O a) 0 N U m v O C U m v m v aA m v U C6 C�0 v m 161 A27 r J c`nc Q {A a Z E ~ w O a Y a� D N Q F- Cr a cr Q :3 F- Z a V J +�+ co W Z GC ix D O = Q LU Z 2 m � a txo O a a' o a 3 Q N O w v Z a" ~ a Y 3 W a vi Z O v u Z cYO ® U a � cli Qm Y Q W J � O i U O O - j LL W V) �u LU 4—J Z U D Q Q. W Y Q E Q O m I- Q J U LL L .. <,.. «. L 0 > J C: i Z °C E ~ s O LU a o Q =i fa W li Uo V 41 O = N bA z a ' oa 3 _O H N _ O v Z n v 1— Q c10 Qa z v LLI �; } O m co m m w V V, N Q m D O ." Y U J d Q O LL w U D m r V 161 A27 r c`nc a W 3 w W a� � cr N = a N co Z GC ix J Cw LU LU (0 m G txo H � Q v O No 3z 3 0 O Z cn ® U z Q O aY Y �u LU Z m m Q O W Y Q J Q O m I- Q J U LL o� N m of 3 W c Z U Q U> c bD N N M L fB C O a-.+ I fo U 161 2 A27 U> �n C� O Cn O d-J I U 161 2 A27 Z J O Q Q = U CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 -a New Business ' 6 f 14 m 6 I w 2 A27 McAI Ga N 0 From: Ernest Wu [wu_e @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 10:27 AM To: apires @wpl- Legal.com; Jim Burke; Jim Burke; ewaynecarson @sbcglobal.net; McAlpinGary; Jmorel2409 @aol.com; murrp2h @aol.com; soreysan @comcast.net; tforcht @cityofmarcoisland.com; vnrios @marcocable.com; Wayne Waldack; FialaDonna; CoyleFred; HillerGeorgia; ColettaJim; OchsLeo; HenningTom Subject: Clam Bay markers at today's CAC meeting Attachments: Vinyard -Bondi Itr 6- 3- 11.pdf; Clam %20Bay %20Kinard %20letter[1].doc Dear CAC and BCC members, I encourage you to not endose a canoe trail marker system in Clam Bay and vote to remain with the previously approved US Coast Guard red / green markers. My apologies for the late hour of this email but I only learned to this agenda item today as it was not on the agenda late last night. Attached is a letter send to the County, FDEP, and the FL Attorney General asking for an inquiry as to why the permit requiring red /green markers have not been installed. In addition, I had a phone conversation with Theresa Hudson, head of USACE Enforcement in Jacksonville, who will release a letter likely tomorrow. To quote her on a May 9 email "Our position on the letter signed by Mr. Kinard has not changed." Mr. Kinard's letter is also attached for your reference. Please do not compromise the safety of boaters who use Clam Bay. Please do not force the County to waste taxpayer resources by fighting FDEP, the Attorney General, and USACE. Some have said if we just did the right thing years ago, we wouldn't have this mess. I hope you agree. For your reference, below is the string of emails I have had with USACE Enforcement. I have also had many more phone conversations as well including one today. Thanks, Ernest Wu, M.D. President, Seagate Property Owner's Association Dear Ms. Hudson, I wanted to follow up on our phone conversation two weeks ago about permit 1996- 02789. 1 look forward to hearing or seeing your email soon. Thanks, Ernest Wu... - -- On Mon, 6/16111, Ernest Wu <wu_e@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Ernest Wu <wu_e @yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Re: Clam Bay, UASCE permit #1996 -02789 To: "Theresa SAJHudson" <Theresa. B. H udson@usace. army. mil> Date: Monday, May 16, 2011, 4:18 PM Dear Ms. Hudson, Thank you for talking with me last Friday, May 13. Per our conversation, I will be looking forward to first, your email response to my questions and second, a formal letter addressing those same questions. You said the letter would take less than two weeks to leave your desk but could take a long time be reviewed and cleared by your legal department due to their backlog of cases. I will follow up with you in two weeks about the formal letter and will watch my email for the email response. The County will discuss issues about this permit on June 14. My hope is that Collier County will comply with the USACE permit and not encur issues with enforcement. I hope your letter will act as an "ounce of prevention and prevent a pound of cure." By the way, I remember past letters were sent to various people in Collier County such as Leo Ochs, County Manager; Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney, and Gary McAlpin, Coasta Zone Management, in addition to USACE in Fort Myers and Jacksonville. Please include me on the mailing list. My address is: Ernest Wu ' 5194 Seahorse Ave. Naples, FL 34103 Thanks, Ernest Wu... - -- On Wed, 5/11/11, Ernest Wu <wu e@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Ernest Wu <wu e @yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Clam Bay, UASCE permit #1996 -02789 To: "Theresa SAJHudson" <Theresa.B.Hudson @usace.army.mil> Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 9:37 AM Dear Ms. Hudson, CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 -a New Business 7of14 161 2 A,27 I was wondering if you completed your investigation on this permit and if you were ready to issue a letter about concerns of the permit? You mentioned you might have a family matter to attend to so I hope all is well with your family. Thanks, Ernest Wu... - -- On Wed, 5 /4/11, Hudson, Theresa SAJ <Theresa.B.Hudson @ usace.army.mU> wrote: From: Hudson, Theresa SAJ <Theresa.B.Hudson @usace.army.mil> Subject: Re: Clam Bay, UASCE permit #1996 -02789 To: wu_e @yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 10:26 AM Mr. Wu, lam meeting this week with folks that can fill me in on the background for your question. Our position on the letter signed by Mr. Kinard has not changed. Are you available for a discussion on Friday? Sincerely, Theresa Hudson From: Ernest Wu <wu_e @yahoo.com> To: Hudson, Theresa SAJ Sent: Tue May 03 22:39:24 2011 Subject: Clam Bay, UASCE permit #1996 -02789 Dear Ms. Hudson, Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to talk with me. I represent the Seagate neighborhood in Naples, FL Seagate is a multi - family neighborhood composed of several canals which boaters access the Gulf of Mexico by traversing Clam Bay and Clam Pass. Seagate has had riparian rights to access the Gulf since it's formation in the 1950': In addition, Clam Bay and Clam Pass have been deemed "navigable waters of the United States" by both the US Army Corp of Engineers ( USACE) and US Coast Guard (USCG). Our local government is currently considering installing non - navigational Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC) canoe trail informational signs in place of USCG navigational channel markers. Members of my community who use this waterway feel that this substitution jeopardizes boater safety and fails to keep motorized watercraft off sea grasses and confined with the channel. As you know, three previous letters from USACE (Donald Kinard, USACE Deputy Chief, Regulatory Division, March 2, 2009; and Susan Blass, USACE Chief, Fort Myers Section, May 25, 2009 and June 9, 2009) have been written stating I CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 -a New Business 8of14 that USACE permit #1996 -02789 is not in compliance because USCG navigational channel ark rs have not been A127installed. I ' 2 My specific questions are as follows: 1. Currently, there are no USCG navigational channel markers marking the main channel in Clam Bay. Do the navigational markers remain a requirement of the permit and is the permit still out of compliance in accordance with Special Condition 2? 2. Previous letters from Donald Kinard and Susan Blass have stated "the markers must meet US Coast Guard standards for signs ". The area being marked is for a navigational channel for motorized watercraft. My discussions with USCG (specificallyJoe Embres in the Miami office) stated there is only one way to mark a navigational channel for motorized watercraft and that is using the Lateral System published in "US Aids to Navigation System ". Here in Naples, we refer to these markers as simply "red- green" markers. FWC authorizes informational signs but is prohibited from authorizing navigational markers. My question is does the current permit allow deleting USCG channel markers and replace them with signs which do not meet USCG standard for navigational markers (in this case, FWC informational canoe trail markers)? 3. Permit 1996 -02789 was issued on August 11, 1998. Can fines be issued to the original permittee (which I believe to be the Pelican Bay Services Division, a subsidiary of Collier County government) for being so long in non - compliance? 4. If the permit is truly going on 13 years in non - compliance, does this hinder Collier County government ability to get new permits from USACE? Is there a good time in the next few days that I could talk to you about these issues? I promise to be brief and respectful of your time. You can reach me at any time at 239 - 821 -9473 or email me. You have my full permission to fact check any of my above statements. Last, it would be appreciated if you could write your final responses to the above questions in an official signed letter as it will be shared with Collier County govenment. Thanks, Ernest Wu... TIMOTHY P. ATKINSON JEFFREY BROWN M. CHRISTOPHER BRYANT C. ANTHONY CLEVELAND TERRY COLE SEGVNDO J. FERNANDEZ PRESTON MCLANE ANGELA K. OERTEL KENNETH G. OERTEL TIMOTHY J. PERRY OERTEL, FERNANDEZ, COLE & BRYAN-r, P.A. 301 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET SUITE BOO TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 (850) 521 -0700 FAX (aso) 521.0720 June 3, 2011 Mr. Herschel T. Vinyard Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 49 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Honorable Pam Bondi, Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1050 MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 1 110 TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32302 -I 110 www.ohfc.com Re: Notice of Violation for Potential Petition for Enforcement of Agency Action Clam Bay Restoration and Long -Term Management Dear Secretary Vinyard and Attorney General Bondi: Pursuant to Section 120.69(1)(b), Florida Statutes, notice is hereby given of the violation of permit conditions contained in Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorized Number 0128463- 001 -JC, issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( "DEP ") to Collier County - Pelican Bay Services Division on July 6, 1998. By copy of this letter, we are also informing the permittee, Collier County, of the violation. We are also copying DEP Deputy General Counsel Sandra Stockwell, who may have some prior familiarity with this activity. This notice is given on behalf of the Seagate Property Owners' Association, Inc., ( "Seagate ") and its members. Seagate is a Florida not - for - profit corporation whose members are property owners or residents in the Seagate community, a single family residential development in Collier County with frontage on and riparian access to Outer Clam Bay. Residents of the Seagate neighborhood have navigational access through Outer Clam Bay and Clam Pass to the Gulf of Mexico, and a substantial number of Seagate's members engage in boating in Outer Clam Bay on a regular basis. CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 -a New Business 9of14 161 2 A27 LAW OFFICES OERTEL, FERNANDEZ, COLE & BRYAN-r, P.A. 301 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET SUITE BOO TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 (850) 521 -0700 FAX (aso) 521.0720 June 3, 2011 Mr. Herschel T. Vinyard Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard M.S. 49 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Honorable Pam Bondi, Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -1050 MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 1 110 TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32302 -I 110 www.ohfc.com Re: Notice of Violation for Potential Petition for Enforcement of Agency Action Clam Bay Restoration and Long -Term Management Dear Secretary Vinyard and Attorney General Bondi: Pursuant to Section 120.69(1)(b), Florida Statutes, notice is hereby given of the violation of permit conditions contained in Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorized Number 0128463- 001 -JC, issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( "DEP ") to Collier County - Pelican Bay Services Division on July 6, 1998. By copy of this letter, we are also informing the permittee, Collier County, of the violation. We are also copying DEP Deputy General Counsel Sandra Stockwell, who may have some prior familiarity with this activity. This notice is given on behalf of the Seagate Property Owners' Association, Inc., ( "Seagate ") and its members. Seagate is a Florida not - for - profit corporation whose members are property owners or residents in the Seagate community, a single family residential development in Collier County with frontage on and riparian access to Outer Clam Bay. Residents of the Seagate neighborhood have navigational access through Outer Clam Bay and Clam Pass to the Gulf of Mexico, and a substantial number of Seagate's members engage in boating in Outer Clam Bay on a regular basis. CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 -a New Business 10 of 14 1b! 2 A1271 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr. & Pam Bondi June 3, 2011 Page 2 of 4 DEP Permit In 1998, DEP issued to Collier County, through the County's Pelican Bay Services Division, a Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization, Number 0128463 - 001 -JC. The permit document, without all of the lengthy attachments, is attached to this letter as Exhibit "A." As a part of the permit application process, the applicant submitted a Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan ( "CBRMP "). The CBRMP represented a comprehensive assessment of the Clam Bay system, including Clam Pass, and the interior tidal creeks and water bodies that make up that estuary system, including Outer Clam Bay, Inner Clam Bay, and Upper Clam Bay. The permit also addressed a number of other features and conditions affecting this system, including the then — declining health of mangrove communities, the condition and protection of seagrass beds, and the impacts of — upland stormwater runoff into the system. Excerpts of the lengthy CBRMP are attached to this letter as Exhibit "B." The CBRMP included at Section 3.3.2 a proposed recreational component. This section of the CBRMP included the following representations and commitments by the permit applicant: Appropriate notification, signage and policing will be provided by the County or PBSD to ensure compliance. The signage will be strategically placed both at the entrance to Clam Pass and in the areas around the boat ramp located at the southern end of Outer Clam Bay. These are intended to insure that persons accessing the Clam Bay system are informed of its unique ecological characteristics, the limitations of access resulting from variations in water depth, the existence of no wake /idle speed requirements for motorized boat operation and importantly, the necessity of staying out of areas identified as having maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat. Precise locations and language to be included in the signage will be determined in cooperation with the agencies post permit issuance. Finally, the main channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements imposed by the United States Coast Guard to insure that those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions against operating their water craft outside the same. (Emphasis added.) The DEP permit attached as Exhibit "A" expressly referenced and incorporate the CBRMP. See, Page 2 of 21 of the permit, which reads in part as follows: CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 -a New Business 11 of 14 16 12 A27 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr. & Pam Bondi June 3, 2011 Page 3 of 4 The project is to conduct activities to improve the hydrodynamics of, and thus restore and man a the Clam Bay egos stem by conducting the activities in association with and specified by the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan ( CBRMP) which is attached to and made part of this permit as Attachment "A ". The Permittee is authorized to implement the CBRMP as set forth therein. (Emphasis added.) General Condition 1 of the permit states that "all activities authorized by this permit shall be implemented as set forth in the plans, specifications, and attached drawing approved as part of this permit, and all conditions and requirements of this permit." (Emphasis added.) This permit was expressly "issued under the authority of Chapter 161 and Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S." Section 373.430 declares, in pertinent part, that it is a violation of Part IV of Chapter 373 "to violate or fail to comply with any rule, regulation, order, or permit issued by... the department...." (Emphasis added.) To date, Collier County has failed or refused to install navigation markers in the main channel in Outer Clam Bay as required by the DEP permit. Similar requirements exist in a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit, Number 1996- 02789, and the County has also failed or refused to comply with that permit requirement. According to DEP's website, the County has other permit applications pending at this time that affect Clam Bay and the Clam Bay system. We have not reviewed those pending applications and do not know if they relate to this deficiency. They include Joint Coastal Permit application 296087 -001 for Clam Pass Park, and "ERP Exemption Permit" application 295193- 002 for "Coastal Zone Management/Clam Bay/Pass." We are aware that not all DEP personnel may agree with the underlying assertion that the previously- issued Joint Coastal Permit required marking the navigational channel. However, our reading of the CBRMP leads us to this conclusion inescapably, especially given the comprehensive nature of that permit's treatment of this estuary system. The purpose of this letter is to provide the Department, the Attorney General, and the Permittee of notice of this violation of the permit conditions. Pursuant to Section 120.69(1)(b) Florida Statutes, the Seagate Property Owners' Association, and potentially individual members of that association, intend to file a Petition for Enforcement in the Circuit Court in and for Collier County, if the Department does not file and diligently prosecute a Petition for Enforcement within the 60 day time period. CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 -a New Business 12 of 14 1612 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr. & Pam Bondi June 3, 2011 Page 4 of 4 We are confident that you share our concern for the permit holder's failure to comply with the permit requirements. We trust the Department is prepared to initiate an appropriate enforcement action to bring the project into compliance with the terms and conditions of its permit, but we are truly hopeful that the permit holder will voluntarily comply and that an enforcement will be unnecessary. Please advise if we can provide you with any further information. Sincerely, Kenneth G. Oertel M. Christopher Bryant KGO/MCB /am Attachments cc: Collier County - Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, Florida 34108 Sandra Stockwell, Deputy General Counsel Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of State Lands 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 F'WCB\3551 -1 Seagate Homeowners\Letters\Vinyard- Bondi - Collier Itr 6 -3 -1 l.docx DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 4970 • JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32232 -0019 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF March 2, 2009 Regulatory Division Special Project /Enforcement Branch Enforcement Section 199602789(IP -CC) Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, Florida 34108 Gentlemen: This is in reference to Department of the Army permit number 199602789 issued to you on August 11, 1998. The permit authorized replacement of Seagate Drive culverts, dredging of the Clam Pass main channel for Cuts 1, 2, 3, and 4, and excavation and maintenance of interior tidal creeks. The project is located within Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, in Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, 33, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. In accordance with Special Condition 2, the Permittee was to comply with the components and timeframes specified within the Clam Bay Restoration Management Plan. It has come to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) attention that the navigational markers have not yet been installed. Installation of these markers is indeed a requirement of the Department of the Army permit. In addition, the markers must meet U.S. Coast Guard standards for signs. It is requested you provide the Corps with a drawing showing the placement of these markers and a time frame when you expect the signs to be in place. This information can be directed to Ms. Cynthia Ovdenk at our Ft. Myers Regulatory Office at 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310, Fort Myers, Florida 33919. Should you want to modify any of the components of the Clam Bay Restoration Management Plan, please directed your request to Ms. Susan Blass, Section Chief, at the same address. Sincerely, Donald W. Kinard Deputy Chief, Regulatory Division CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 -a New Business 13 of 14 16 12 A 7 This is in reference to Department of the Army permit number 199602789 issued to you on August 11, 1998. The permit authorized replacement of Seagate Drive culverts, dredging of the Clam Pass main channel for Cuts 1, 2, 3, and 4, and excavation and maintenance of interior tidal creeks. The project is located within Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, in Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, 33, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. In accordance with Special Condition 2, the Permittee was to comply with the components and timeframes specified within the Clam Bay Restoration Management Plan. It has come to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) attention that the navigational markers have not yet been installed. Installation of these markers is indeed a requirement of the Department of the Army permit. In addition, the markers must meet U.S. Coast Guard standards for signs. It is requested you provide the Corps with a drawing showing the placement of these markers and a time frame when you expect the signs to be in place. This information can be directed to Ms. Cynthia Ovdenk at our Ft. Myers Regulatory Office at 1520 Royal Palm Square Boulevard, Suite 310, Fort Myers, Florida 33919. Should you want to modify any of the components of the Clam Bay Restoration Management Plan, please directed your request to Ms. Susan Blass, Section Chief, at the same address. Sincerely, Donald W. Kinard Deputy Chief, Regulatory Division CAC June 9, 2011 VIII -4 -a New Business 14 of 14 161 A27 Copy Furnished: Mr. J. Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management, 3300 Santa Barbara Blvd., Naples, Florida 34116 1612 A27 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) Airport Authority Lhi AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples FL 34112 June 14, 2011 9:00 AM Fred W. Coyle - BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4 Jim Coletta - BCC Vice - Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chairman Donna Fiala - BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Vice - Chairman Georgia Hiller - BCC Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning - BCC Commissioner, District 3 NOTICE: All persons wishing to speak on Agenda items must register prior to speaking. Speakers must register with the Executive Manager to the BCC prior to presentation of the Agenda item to be addressed. All registered speakers will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. Collier County Ordinance No. 2003 -53 as amended by ordinance 2004 -05 and 2007 -24, requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. Requests to address the Board on subjects which are not on this agenda must be submitted in writing with explanation to the County Manager at least 13 days prior to the date of the meeting and will be heard under "Public Petitions." Public petitions are limited to the presenter, with a maximum time of ten minutes. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceeding pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 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, the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3335 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 1, Naples, Florida, 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. Lunch Recess scheduled for 12:00 Noon to 1:00 AM 161t2 A27 Commissioners direct the County Manager or designee to develop a fertilizer ordinance. (Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist, Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation) C. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of $25,935,470.53 Pg. 214 - 507 to Astaldi Construction Corporation and reserve $3,315,000 on the purchase order for funding allowances, for a total of $28,220,238.93 for ITB No. 10 -5342 - "SR 84 (Davis Boulevard) Radio Road to Collier Boulevard; SR /CR 951 Intersection improvements; Collier Boulevard (SR /CR 951) North to Magnolia Pond Drive; and CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) North to the E Golden Gate Canal ", Project No. 60073 and Project No. 60092. (Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Deputy Administrator) D. This item to be heard at 10 :00 a.m. Wednesday, June 15. Recommendation to award Pg. 508 - 568 Contract 10 -5572 for Wiggins Pass Channel Straightening - Design and Permitting to Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP &E) and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County Attorney approval in the amount of $177,489. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director) E. This item to be heard at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, June 15. Recommendation to endorse Pg. 569 - 579 the recommendation of the Clam Bay work group and the Coastal Advisory Committee on the marking of Clam Pass /Bay; provide direction on permitting, installation and maintenance of the Clam Pass /Bay markers; and authorize staff to proceed with Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC); United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) permitting. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director) F. This item to be heard at 2 :00 p.m. Recommendation to approve $29,729 in design Pg. 580 - 600 alternative studies for the Vanderbilt Beach park /restroom facility as directed at the March 8, 2011 BCC meeting. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director) G. Recommendation to approve the Conservation Collier Program Public Amenity Work Pg. 601- 613 Plan. (Melissa Hennig, Environmental Specialist) H. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of those Pg. 614 - 674 perpetual and temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of stormwater improvements for the US -41 Ditch segment of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. (Project No. 51101.) Estimated fiscal impact: $1,927,569. (Jay Ahmad, Transportation Engineering Director) 11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. 12 :00 P.M. Time Certain Notice of Closed Session. Notice is hereby given that pursuant Pg. 675 - 676 to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney- client session on TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2011. The session will be held for a time certain of 12:00 noon, in the Commission Conference Room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government 6/14/2011 Item 10. E. 161 2 A'27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay work group and the Coastal Advisory Committee on the marking of Clam Pass/Bay; provide direction on permitting, installation and maintenance of the Clam Pass/Bay markers; and authorize staff to proceed with Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC); United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) permitting. OBJECTIVE: To endorse the recommendation of the Clam Pass/Bay work group and the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) on the marking of Clam Pass/Bay; provide direction on permitting, installation and maintenance of the Clam Pass/Bay markers; and authorize staff to proceed with FWC; USACE; FDEP; and the USCG permitting. CONSIDERATIONS: The Coastal Advisory Committee recommended on January 13, 2011 that Collier County not move forward with the permit application or installation of navigational markers in Clam Bay and also recommended that the County petition the USACE to close the permit noting that the County has acted in good faith to come into permit compliance but that the denial of timely and cost effective navigational permits has prevented this from happening. Additionally, the CAC also recommended that the County, Pelican Bay and Seagate community jointly meet and resolve the marking of Clam Bay to facilitate safety and overall community acceptance. This position was approved at the January 25, 2011 BCC meeting as Item l OJ. Three public meeting were held to discuss the marking plan. The following Clam Pass/Bay marker work group was developed to participate in the discussion and speak for their respective communities. In addition, the public was offered the opportunity to speak at each meeting. The Clam Pass /Bay marker work group consisted of the following stakeholders: • John Sorey - Vice Mayor for the City of Naples /CAC Chairman • Ernie Wu — President of the Seagate Homeowners Community • Steve Feldhaus - Secretary of the Pelican Bay Foundation • Keith Dallas — Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division • Mary Johnson - President of the Mangrove Action Committee • Kathy Worley - Environmental Specialists from the Conservancy • Marsha Cravens — Audubon Society of SW Florida • Gary McAlpin, Marla Ramsey and Pamela Keyes from the County This stakeholder group, with the exception of the Seagate community, endorsed the attached marking plan. This plan has the following key comments: 1. The marking system will be informational markers and not navigational markers. FWC is the lead agency that will permit the marker system since they have primary responsibility for waterway signage. The permit will be issued by FWC contingent on review and Packet Page -569- 6/14/2011 Item 10.E. 161 2 A27 concurrent permitting by USACE, FDEP and the USCG. The USACE, FDEP and the USCG have concurrent jurisdiction for this waterway and a concurrent permitting from each agency will be required. 2. Clam Pass/Bay is a multi -use waterway. Kayaks, canoes, boats and swimmers all use the same estuary. FWC has determined through review with its legal department that the proposed marking system would not prevent any access or use of this estuary by any user. 3. Only canoe trail markers for the route between Clam Pass and the Seagate neighborhood will be permitted. Installation of Local Knowledge signs on each of the 12 marker poles is proposed. Two Informational markers will be placed at the beach and one will be placed at the entrance to the Seagate neighborhood. Informational markers that identify the position of Shoals and Seagrasses will be permitted. Staff has identified 5 environmental markers that will be used in the system. These will be used to guide users into the deeper water. Informational signs on either side of the tram bridge are also proposed. In addition, signs will be placed at Clam Pass Beach Park, the kayak launch area and the Pelican Bay Beach Club facility alerting boaters and swimmers to use caution. 4. Based on preliminary review, FWC is in conceptual concurrence with the proposed plans. FWC will however not approve anything until a permit application is received and it can be reviewed in detail. The Seagate community is not supportive of this plan based on their belief navigational channel markers would provide a higher level of public safety for boaters using Clam Pass /Bay. They also believe that navigational markers protect the historical right for boating within the Seagate community. Seagate was given an opportunity to propose additional sign language prior to the last work team meeting and they chose not to propose language or participate in the meeting. The permitting, installation and maintenance of this marker plan is unresolved and staff is requesting BCC direction on how to proceed. Currently the 33 canoe trail markers located in Upper, Inner and Outer /Lower Clam Bay are permitted to the Pelican Bay Services Division. Only the southernmost 12 new markers in Outer /Lower Clam Bay will be affected by this change and the Pelican Bay Services Division wants to continue to maintain responsibility for this activity. With respect to the permitting, all permits must be issued to Collier County. The existing canoe trail markers permit must be modified and issued to the Board of County Commissioners. All other permits within the County are issued to Collier County and not an individual Department. The permit modification must include the 12 markers in Outer /Lower Clam Bay along with the remaining 21 markers in Middle and Upper Clam Bay. Three options exist for the installation and maintenance of the markers within Clam Pass/Bay and staff is recommending option 1 as the preferred choice. The options are: 1. Develop a written agreement between the four key stakeholders of Clam Pass /Bay. The Pelican Bay Services Division, the Pelican Bay Foundation, the City of Naples and Collier County would be parties to this agreement with the following key points: Packet Page -570- 6/14/2011 Item 10 E. 161 2 42704 • Any changes to the permitted marking plan within Clam Pass /Bay would need to be reviewed and concurrence obtained by three of the four parties. • Each party would share one - fourth of the installation costs and maintenance cost for the next 10 years. Installation costs are expected to be less than $20,000 and yearly maintenance is expected to be less than $500. • This agreement would last for 10 years and could be extended with concurrence from each agency. • If a dispute arose, an affirmative action of three of the four parties would be required to resolve it. Dispute resolution would be by the Chairman or designee of each respective agency. • Coastal Zone Management would take the lead in processing the permit modification for all 33 markers. The permit would be modified and issued in Collier County's name only. • Installation and maintenance of the 12 new markers in Outer /Lower Clam Pass/Bay would be by Coastal Zone Management. Maintenance of the 21 markers in Middle and Upper Clam Bay would be performed and paid for by the Pelican Bay Services Division. Informational signage on the beach at the mouth of Clam Pass, at Clam Pass County Park, at the park walkway to the beach, on the bridge, in the parking lot and at the kayak launch site will be the responsibility of Coastal Zone Management. All other poles and markers that are not permitted would be removed from the system. 2. Continue to have the Pelican Bay Services Division maintain control and stewardship of the markers within Clam Pass /Bay. • The Pelican Bay Services Division permitted, installed and has maintained the markers for the past six years and they believe that responsibility for this activity should not change. • The Pelican Bay Services Division is prepared to pay for the installation and maintenance of these markers. They also request that all additional permitting be performed by them. • Certain stakeholders have expressed concerns with this approach. 3. Have Coastal Zone Management perform the permitting, installation and maintenance of all the Markers in Clam Pass/Bay. • CZM permits, installs and maintains all (approximately 750) the County waterway markers except for these markers in Clam Pass/Bay. • CZM routinely interacts and has established relationships with the regulatory agencies that will permit this activity. • CZM has established effective working relationships with all stakeholder groups. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At the May 12, 2011 Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting, a recommendation was passed to continue this item until an additional Stakeholder meeting was held in an attempt to revise the informational sign language for the purpose of gaining total Stakeholder consensus. This recommendation passed 9 to 0. Packet Page -571- 6/14/2011 Item 10.E. 16 12 A27 On May 18, 2011 a final stakeholder's meeting was held and their recommendations are listed in the consideration section of this Executive Summary. On June 9, 2011 the stakeholder's recommendations will be presented to the CAC for its consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: Installations of the 12 Markers in Outer /Lower Clam Bay along with the informational and environmental signs are expected to cost less than $20,000. Funding from the unincorporated general fund (111- 110409) will fund Collier County's portion on the work. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: No impact to the growth management plan would result from this Board action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires simple majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. — CMG RECOMMENDATION: To endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay work group and the Coastal Advisory Committee on the marking of Clam Pass/Bay; provide direction on permitting, installation and maintenance of the Clam Pass/Bay markers; and authorize staff to proceed with FWC; USACE; FDEP; and the USCG permitting. Prepared by: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Packet Page -572- 6/14/2011 Item 10. E. 161 2 A27 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 10.E. Item Summary: Recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Clam Bay work group and the Coastal Advisory Committee on the marking of Clam Pass /Bay; provide direction on permitting, installation and maintenance of the Clam Pass /Bay markers; and authorize staff to proceed with Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC); United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) permitting. Meeting Date: 6/14/2011 Prepared By Name: HambrightGail Title: Accountant,Coastal Zone Management 6/6/2011 8:26:24 AM Submitted by Title: Accountant,Coastal Zone Management Name: HambrightGail 6/6/2011 8:26:26 AM Approved By Name: McAlpinGary Title: Director - Coastal Management Programs,Coastal Zone Management Date: 6/6/2011 12:57:45 PM Name: AlonsoHailey Title: Administrative Assistant,Domestic Animal Services Date: 6/7/2011 8:27:29 AM Name: RamseyMarla Title: Administrator, Public Services Date: 6/7/2011 8:52:58 AM Packet Page -573- Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 6/7/2011 9:57:10 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 6/7/20114:03:39 PM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO Date: 6/7/2011 5:25:51 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 6/8/2011 8:17:17 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 6/8/20119:04:46 AM Packet Page -574- 6114/2011 Item 10.E. 161 Z"" A27 ' /1IM011 Item 10.E. . Marker #11' 9 ,x- a y± fix' Marker #10 LIAR Signs - Cn Bead, Caution Shoal i °�.: Caution Seagrass m t it 4+qe'A .lY ?Y°y �Y ^• Marker# MarkerAb p a LKR Signs On Beach �e X. -�. N µ y Caution Shoal Marker #12 Marker ;W ,+�a`t�,"��,�l''.�.��'�"*p, aid' '. �'',�.i+,+� �, - ,• �'v,r,�; 4'4'3 p m"�e��� ,r^�+;�-,,: � a°z.�ar•'� :Y^�P3 �` _ .'�'r Yw ',. ..w, -..- ,.. Markery-,�s Marker #a ' r LKR Sign Both sides of Bndge �' Caution Shoal -7 r� ~ Marker #W °* ',..t�,r~ � 4 Mar, r#3 y *, Marker #2 t e� r3ss Caution FROJECTLOCMON COLIM C OUNFY, FL - Marker #1 Caution - Clam Bay Sign FHOTOFFOV =DBYC0LLILRCOUHTYDATTDTU07 <r '' - ' " * °� x• CLA 1 PASS -- M 4 E L Packet Page -575 m AO r � D O � X O D c :E � m � „ v I 7° �o D Co m C C m 56 Q v, v Z D D 161 a/14/;A27m 10.E. Packet Page -576- D �i rs 9 CU N N N 77 m 16 1 ?11472I71`1 Item 10.E. Lo C n� -n o 3 0 M o MN 0 > V) Z rl) > x 9 m (D > 0 V) Ln C: > (A 0 --I -C-1 %) >< > z rD OL) 0 0 z 0 r) z Ln 0 M > 0 zT -0 CD > 0 C m 77 m 0 0) r+ q Ln M 0 m Z3 >o CD m D CL m m -0 LA C 9 rD > X [p 0 8, fD CL N 3 m M m I V) ::E > m 70 m Z --1 v C > V) m -i D 0=- Ln C — CL > m 0- Cr' > Z X :E --I rD 0 :E r) X m — 3 > ;-4 CL o fD m m z CL 3 X M > % > 3 _0 r+ 0 rD 0- CD (D C 16 1 ?11472I71`1 Item 10.E. Packet Page -577- Lo C m o MN > V) rl) > x 9 > (D 0 m C: a) 03 %) >< -4 m o & 7C n Z > > 0 r = 0 M 0 Z3 >o C: e z m -0 C) 9 rD > X [p 0 C o m C m Z --1 0) C > V) m -i ig 0=- Ln C — ;o > m 0- > Z X :E --I rD :E r) X m — 3 > ;-4 0 o fD m m z CL 3 X M > % > rD (D C -n m 0 N C fu m < Cu > --I Z3 m 0 M x z > z o D n =3 0 o M 0 rD > 0 rD C e Z > rj) ou OIQ = 0 C k^A 0 CU V) rr, z q -i m g (D � 70 > > 0 --h z m 84 m m z CL 3 M > > r- V) Packet Page -577- Packet Page -578- 16 114/2011 Item 10.E. n r+ o' m a� N N o-Q' 16 Packet Page -579- 12A27 /12t 10.E. n r+ o' 0 w V) ona' CD (D 0 C Q Q' f A N O H N N a, w -P w 1612 A27 M A� d 3 W O QQ 0. CIQ (D. A rF N P'F rF r_ N N O P+ W j m 0 w N N O 7 CD O C N Vl C-) C1 O v W p. (D CD z =3 Ci m m p O 7 co O w D. X CD C N cn (D cn O 7 O ul O O O O \ N \ N \ N O N O \ O N \ O \ w m 0 0 O 1 0 m °o m rWO n o 3 m o p 30 3 o o < m y n m o o ? o O m a 3 x 0 O d v o o D o n ? m m v ". c W o' °J °c n J RD v p m < w A O ao CL v J CL ' ° <. m z z T 7c Z Z D N r r p p DU 7 r fD v N O N v c N D o N o ° o A C J N c y 3 3. D < a N 0 0 3 n O in N ro °- m v F o- n w < Q m c. 0 o D! S m n° o _. .me o' N ry <_ ° m W _ '� N N 7- Z m v W C d Do 0 c 3 W '° °- m O\ i ° F ro mm �' D 3 W n O. = n O) o. y p Q o' D) n v'i m °� f Q o ` D d N 3 J n Q ulDi OWi N w m r< n. J S ,y ^. m °N m m w v° v+ 'c m 3 J o n v _. _ Q ^ m° n O m 3 o f o J D 2° m 3 0 N 0 m - it m m M n ° m N J. N to m N ° A 0 3D `51 O N Q o. 3 q- o a J O °� 2 N Q � O 0 o a ° 0- .Oe - N O n n M p. n x W N. J m X w n. D. O Oq =� m °" N n m QO m o . o vi eC� O. o lNi tN0 cwt W N '30 O' ,7„ O d Q A J O d •O O J J n cx - �` D! < m< � M H n O 7 p R m m C •G m Gl O ^. M 0 3 ;, m 0 °' ° .'r = v 3 0 °' m c v o ?; ° p y K m O o F N N Lo• 3 .'� D C p"�j g 7 I 0 d N, a 3 J O w l.0 N. N N vNi O ~' n N O 7 m _° D<j rD o .. m �n F D W M F. z 3< O O 'O c 3 w' N n 3 N < O o o °= o s v, c ° < < `° �. n s �' o o °c °" a ;0 3 N ~ '°^ ° c °' �. O n N A to J ro Q ro Do 3 �. rD X T O- O G 3 ". C v J C D! ON" n O A O 3 C O C fD °\ v m w O m S F+ O_ .� J° N. J xa n 3 3° w v o a 'w N °, o v o < o a O N m n J 3 m m 0 a ° -. n° m 2 F ° D < m n o o 3 F 3 _� R' o o v v 0 3 or F to -• m° 0. A a v 7 w v n m� n 3 m J M y o' a s -• ° C?= m m `D . 7• =" a o° 'm w -o v 'D 3- o� . x w= v= oa � v s Z -o �< m N J� v o W a y a m u DN m m� w ,° A 0 3° J m Q n m .c.. c- O N T o W c 01 Q m < 6 a rD Q M Q fD n M m O D� �2 c F n -<< O �, O c O ° W °1 D ry 00, N !D J J J O 2 A Q Z W N Z 0 fU O J W m 04. S Q C O V J J N O- W 3 C a m d fl J "F J N w w° •O \ n m N a° O F ' J° v d N O DWj < a c v °- < o'_ ': p J S N m o s w N m N= n n n cr m 3 '-^ c: 3 °-' o rtl0o w c cr �_ C < 0 3 w 01 Q 3 cr N N? :� O. >• j M. N< n W 3 A 3 o C m O� ° o v m m O r= °+ 2 J w< < tDO A 0 m o m o o -O H< H .00s m O N O n 04 .t S O d �' O 'O O d 3 N !D N O V 'O •O '00 N N 'O H a O 36 C! m .. '. x co :o Z < 7 G1 p : 3 W 3 d >. Dni ry G n S �'. ? °' \ O d .'} .�+ m M O m JC O' O O' W x. O= J H N N C "O N o C d° J N N 3. F 3 O m_ 0 Q Z 7 N n o N V N �^ c a 3 ° a o a °� n0 ' N ° lD c a ro G v m o� a H F m 'CC 3 d d O °' c m F m �^ -° p N _ d i2D n- ° v O ti. NO N n d 3 7 N m o °, oc .° m w N�. a DI N C a< y w m D 7 0 x a M J' » N N J 0 a d N 'O W A c` °- J 3 m J O ° O m 7 fD d fD F C 9 fl- K N O �^ D w m Q (� a W (D �. < m 0 m d 1 m° ' v°i m p O' O f�D CS N 9! O Q N N° l�D N 'O Q N O .' < C J W S O co l°O N .O N J m? fN 6I N p v 2 fD N •O :. �` = O O H C O H = u J= .n.. C O N c1 Q N G f_D.. W m cx O C O •O .n,. ti 0 0 N 3 n m < m= 2 rn �..., W ° v N < C. j N j N J O J m "O n 00 m Rp vi 'O O N 3 Q o m p_ W °" 0 2 n N c N 3 o a ry pN H o.m < m3,a�° '"i'r<D r h ° �.J o' x <. 3 < > >•v 3 v w rcl °• ° N o `< A 3 w a o Dpi 0" 'f D" J w F. 3 oWi `�° p^ a c W O �-p w e o m w J n v N N N o p 3 Q N 3 0 < 3 0 .. o A m 7 N J m N OD J N tm'f d a < v O E `•' ,. a r°°D v m o it o: 3 o 3 �• 3 °- 3 n m° m y ° m o o s 3 O c o s S° o0 3 a W a Q 3 v u, o _ O n ao Do m FD 'o 2~ °- d N n w �' W ° < m• m A .'. 0 7 m of Dna °1 0 3 '. or m M y o m c o. J N n r'D �° n w 3 Amp m c n c a o o 0 0: <' m Q F 3; ' M w H = N 0 c es• O_ ° 3 O „', LT K J Dl 0 11 O O W Q O N 7 d N< O J Ol W H O p Ol y m Z "-�• f' p J m D C Dl 3 Q in 7 '� m o°i p y v n N n _� 3 ' "<' N w P S Gl 'O 3' n a 3 01 Q° s' o c n °- w Qt K, 'ID o n o N .c. ? ° C O F+ fD °' �D A (D o 0 c CL 0 O d W ' O 7 0 - 7 v d N d °- A C m Vl C W° F D) ID C m y °- 7 u91i A< b Co ID ' A DFi 7 a v J OD a p M Q -° 0 J -° J -0 J J J m ° N 0 N 0 N o rD d n N N N M A� d 3 W O QQ 0. CIQ (D. A rF N P'F rF r_ N N O P+ W j m 0 w N N O 7 CD O C N Vl C-) C1 O v W p. (D CD z =3 Ci m m p O 7 co O w D. X CD C N cn (D cn O 7 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.0 .� Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South r Naples FL 34104 March 15, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: February 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 A. Master Plan Discussion X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment 1612 A28 p f�:< NUKE MFN D JUN U 9 2011 BY: ....................... Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta The next meeting is April 19, 20113:30 p.m. Misc. Corres: Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Date: c!ll 611 Naples, FL 34104 Bern t l U7= 2;K},2$ C dies to: Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee ►+ 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 February 15, 2011 Minutes 1612 A�8 I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:25 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 Add. V. C. Radio Road Streetscape Beautification Signs Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 1, 2011 Helen Carella moved to approve the February 1, 2011 minutes as presented Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information: (See attached) o Outstanding Ad Valorem Tax $50,663.41 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) (R -22) Devonshire Shrub Refurbishment • Windham Studio is modifying the Plans to address Sight Line issues • County Comments were reviewed (See attached) • Windham Studio is providing a new Plan and Bid package with the adjustments (by next week) • County Engineer review of the Plans is required Windham Studio Status Report- Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment o Meeting was held with Roger Dick and James Abney to review the existing conditions of the Irrigation System 1612 A28 11 Opinion of Probable Cost • Estimate $383,514.84 is based on 100% Plans for Medians and ROW Plantings • Project is at 90% Plan review stage • 11x17 copy of the Final Plans will be provided to the Committee John Weber questioned if the Outstanding Ad Valorem Tax ($50,663.41) was calculated into the $444,813.50 Available Capital Outlay Line Item. Staff confirmed that the Total Capital Outlay Line Item included the Outstanding Ad Valorem Tax. Discussion ensued on the expenditure for Medians and ROW Plantings and the sum of MSTU monies remaining once the Project is completed. Dale Lewis requested the amount of Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax from the previous Fiscal Year (2010.) Staff noted the following: • After disbursement for the Median and Row Plantings ($383,514.84) MSTU Funds will be approximately $61,298.46 for the remainder of 2011 Fiscal Year • Effective September 17, 2010 the (FYI 0) Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax was $10,623.00 C. Radio Road Streetscape Beautification Signs Darryl Richard stated the following: o A Temporary Permit was issued to install (2) Beautification Signs in the first segment of Radio Road (during Construction) - The Temporary Signs must be removed Michelle Arnold reported a Permit will not be issued to install new Signs in the next segment of Radio Road. • Proposed that the County will pay Devonshire Water usage in lieu of direct reimbursement to the MSTU for the new Signs - Not to exceed the cost of the new Signs $1,892.00 • The new signs will be included in the Construction Bid package - Signs will be Installed on Devonshire during the Construction Phase Dale Lewis moved to accept the offer from the County (to pay Devonshire Water usage not to exceed the cost of the new signs $1,892.00.) Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Hannula Darryl Richard reported: o Palm Tree Fertilization is complete 2 o Requested an evaluation on Sod Fertilization A28 o Directed Hannula to remove the Ant Hills B. Windham Studio —None VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment Pam Lulich noted the Jatropha and Ligustrum were removed from the Plan at the Turn Lane to correct a Sight Line issue and to expedite Permitting. Betty Schudel suggested retaining the Tabebui Trees on Devonshire. Darryl Richard will discuss the Tabebui Trees with Scott Windham. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. Devonshire Water Usage (See attached) Staff reviewed Water Usage based on the Utility Billing: (See attached) Reuse Meter Consumption o Total 9,847,000 gallons (since the initial install) FPL Electrical Meter Consum tion o 3449 gallons (since the initial install) Darryl Richard reported a Calibrated Meter (Utility type) is needed at the Mixing Chamber to obtain accurate water readings for Devonshire. Dale Lewis questioned if a Meter could be installed on the Well. Darryl Richard noted the Well only serves Devonshire and will confer with Scott Windham to determine if the Well can be metered. IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Master Plan Discussion Darryl Richard stated the purpose of the Master Plan is to assess ongoing Maintenance cost. Dale Lewis questioned when Plant replacement is needed if the County uses equivalent Plant material (after assuming responsibility for the Roadway.) Staff stated the Fund 111 Plant Replacement requirement is as follows: • To Install same kind of Plant Material • The Plant may be replaced with Material that will compliment the existing Plant Palette if the life expectancy has been reached or the plant has maintenance issues X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS -None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None 3 1612 7128 ' I .. . There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:36 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee 'a.-7p ." Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on 2- as presented or amended X The next meeting is March 15, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 O = D X Z y O N co co V m Cn A W N X W a CD r^ m C D M (n a W .Oy.. r r c- n N 3 C O� 2 O -u (p O r c c w m m c w m° In w O 7 w w O 2 (A S o w 9= m w c 0 3 o w 3 _ ID cn 'm w o o m g Ca CD CD y � v 3 fn � 3. CD 0 m Is z CL c w Ill 0 w m c y a (D 3 W 0 CL C) S w d W G N W W W 15 -n -i m A Y y f0 c a, (O �< a, W y m O Cn - r N C O - p `< N w N O f0 O O M a<' N o ° 3 a 'o g 3 X m (D o > m oq w N y N � CD < '' N -+ W N C X O -O � W fc fC1 fD w y^ v r �•O CD c A 0 S F O O N c O .^w2 O O as U) 0 O — {jj C M G O w CP u m v e_ o W o= 5 G) A. y G CD y O Q m (D = CD U3 N CD m to to m CD (D w T c w c o W G N W W W 15 -n -i m A Y y f0 fh (O (O (O W 00 m O Cn - w O N w N O i? O O M i 3 N o ° 3 a 'o g 3 X N O = > > > -z Dpi y0 � CD < '' N -+ W N C X O O y C JOD O C 0 N a N a v r �•O CD c A 0 S C D O ? 3 j O as U) 0 O0 W -0 C y. v rn CP u m v e_ o W o= 5 G) A. y w CD y N O Q '^A L CD U3 N CD m to to m O fo T c w c o w CL I o w — M c .. m 0 CT N V CD a d D�1 i 0 r i C w y CD 0 0 0 0 o .i CV71 O O O O vl O y O O O O O O O O O O O y O O O O 0 0 O CD w ? CAD CA (OD N N A A (D O m W (AJ� IT! w N N N N ID N N N O m 69 69 w 69 V9 vi 69 w 69 69 69 w 0 O O CA O Cn 0 0 O °o 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 vi to rfl to 6A rn to rn <n rn to rs� V N W N m m -� -+ W -�- N -� N V A N (D m m V m Cn N N ° CM O O O O ° O O O O° 3 3 Z OZ W W 5 CL a v V w � A 0°7 U) n ^-n \G 00 m n --n 00 w (c (c II It IT! y £J w G N -+ W C-0 T -1 15 -n -i m A Y y N y 7 G 3 0) "� 478 3 p o ' a _. 69 C W p 5. -Di �° 0 m c o 0 0 CV71 o CVn p N M O _ i 3 y o a o ° 3 a 'o g 3 D = d ' c ' c w y d � g (a (D Dpi y0 � CD < 0 y N 7 a :�. � a n X O O y C JOD O C 0 N a N a r �•O CD c A 0 S C D ; S S y j O oCDi U) 0 N 0 O a o CP u m v e_ (D D N o CL (D W W 5 CL a v V w � A 0°7 U) n ^-n \G 00 m n --n 00 w (c (c II It IT! y £J w N W W UI m ca 7 cu w K (A (y 0) (N C O E9 69 C W W (D 8 O CV71 o CVn p N M O _ i 3 69 69 69 (p 3 N A En 69 v> N -+ CO O CD -� (D 0) + -I (WO t W 0 m 3 0 W 7 'o 0 � Z 3 F a r 3 m a v � N c m i m i D N i I i i I i m y � c 7 � C i tl u . c I I tc I < � c r r i = i r c ( } J f 2. j D j 0 c ( u ; a 2 � a; V m QI CO 3 W N a i N r- cn N 2 d C N C a o (D 8 O 3 < y y C p N O _ 69 69 69 (p 69 69 y A O• r c o 0 (D o n r W 3 m 3 m o w= 7 r r m n o Or a a v 0 r �•O CD c A 0 S I 0 m o C) y j O O O 0 N 0 O (a v u L m (D D D o CL 1 y � b L CD U3 N to to v> O fo T w An o w CL I m M O m 0 CT N V O Oi O m i 0 r i 0 0 0 -' m CD 161 2 A28 ' 3 CO 3 N a N r- cn 7 .y v) 0: 2 y y D O 2 ° O Z Q O _ N O _ 69 69 69 (p 69 69 7 D m 1 v w w v N G1 m 0 W 3. G CD �. m W 3 m 3 m o w= 7 r r m n o Or a a v 0 �•O CD A 0 y 0 0 0 m o C) m O O O N 0 O 3 m m 3 D o CL a W V) N N r- cn 7 .y v) 0: y y D 2 (a Q O 69 69 69 (p 69 69 C 69 69 C -CWT R. °o 0 °o 0 0 0 °O CA °0 O C 7 C) n o c o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 .y+ O O 3 O O O N C C � O O 3 3 y y b N to to v> io fn to fo fn to <n Es An W V m O O m 0 CT N V O Oi O m 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 o V O CV71 O O O O vl O y O O O O O O O O O O O y O O O O 0 0 m y A C 7 C 0 N O 0 I r i p 10 I I �l I i C i L 0 C D r ? m c Z ' D (� 0 m •m w o S Io � Z 8 D� Cl w Zk c N CT m w 0 T w A Cb 8 V IA m a w m w CO w N o0 c Q 0 d N n 0 3 S Go m i s O1 01 J .l C" m 00 161 N N N -+ -� N s O CO 00 V O CT A W N s O w W V 0 0 A W N s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -mw,8m w-0 �onm av-;m �� a� 0�,vy vy OODDDwQZ to 0) �,c v v t74 o r° w w < d.y r°: a°: cn'. c°i R 4) O O ao,ng c �w a $ o 0 0. S. c w ° 0 ° C C n m v c. f0 i(Q to CO < w w ° O O O ° p C w 7 w 7 N= O O A A N v w CO P O 0 0� 8 0 o a Do c 3 N m m m m y W W O O O o Oo_ o a CD �n,�� mN ° <�� �m= ; ma m`—D. m <m< m< ° c c c ya3 w o• !,0, o m DDo o m m m m m m o m m mco m v X phi -• 3� < < < m m m v w a m '0 N 8v �° _ `m �° ?F•° > > wZ wZ ao c� N 88 O �fDS Dmi m� w maD<i m m o� �_� mt7m� m� 00o 0 0 3° °c m i -1 33 0 0 << U < 0 W m m v 8 8 Q 8 w w c a o m e O c 0C 0 V CD O dC' p C 2 3 _ N 3 x ',fl '�1 X T N y =' 7 �• G �— b�y3� c ?�c m<° c O mm cw o�m� m� c-'i1 v7 m y o o ° m° c m Q 8 m p o �0 0 0 f» o 70 mi. °mN -n�m c:°.N s N �'o (DA fD� N� v Cl) cn v y y w n� m CL o m .= pp W m< m nnl 3 ° yy stn �� stn s s w m m 0 3 0 CD y p O< CA CAD Z m Z m Z == O. O. O. N S O !O i 3� O NO p. 3 �' p Q 30 O' N O N O N O m m C C c f0/) w •'_• •y.• >>. ° fn 1° D o to °o m 1°,' cn °-' S—' °-^ 'i—' °-' Co m m O0. `G "N V =, = Cl) 7 0. -Q m ,C,. c C C C: 0 c. 0 CC m V Q• CS w 7 �. 5 a° ° CD m D c k y In �. m o< < o< m m m —w ° w N w •p N• 0 =1 0 O O -•n M M 0• `i 3. 8 � am � o; �w o x m� - � D<i m 0.� o.� a� o 0 o w 3 m c c < ma v c Io c m mm mm mm m m a a a aC �`. Nm� o m0n CD CA o y c ivF f f m m m m m m� y w 5 C& < < w r; =' c°' 3 w g o o m m °» 8 w m o co In w m �° 3 t7 ty N• K w in N D' V! d vwi O' < N m N j vwi j ��p �7p 7. 7. 7. (D O 8 m ' •QC, a cn OR m 7 y w w m ID < ID < m m ID m CD N N w w N (Z_�. CD •a ° • ('D (°y ° S N C' O vl m < <, O. C. O. oO -oni CO •p 'O = T d O 0 Q 7 n ICED 8 N 8 `G g `G 8 y ep m P�� m�DDc�i =�-0�8 c 3 o c ( C ym cc cc y sug CD + ow m °/. X �? ?1 m .° < 3 4 '* m o o m o _l�v�' m o. c 0 c8 r0 v c o m° 005 � In S y 0�' 8N < < u, m Cr 0 w o w n n c w = _ = m m 8 ?. 3 N m w Ow VOc'w S w < O O O Q. a w ' w °7 m S CD c CD w •O m d 51 U CL O C N' y' �. C c w O 0 CL i � 3�.a0 awP m �. < x > > > �c0 �c:w Zvi 2 v m Cl O a o `.�' O. < ? N w N y 8 O fwr,D a• f/� ED- O jlj O C N w < 5— m C Q fD fD N Q S o (v —Iw�c w3,m mrc° —' w ° ° V 3 3 3 m CD w m C7 � < < f, m �, F, f, 'c � � `•� w v_,5m0 3, =0 -0 m��° w 3 5 EF �� m IS CD N w D� > > O w w < < M m w w D CL Cl T (D w v Q) C C C N m m N m 8 m 8p ° 0 0 , n y m N w w w �? 0 o 0 CL CD CL CD (R IDL w K N w CD - • �0 v �' v cwi o n m < = v v 'a y. -n o 0 0 m m.v,m ° 0 00o C7 m o m o 3 i `< g' D. N N CS CC -0 w x N ° C N o C 8 8 8 0° 9i m °m''o c m'' m. C b C(=3 c m w m °:. 0 9 m 8 3 0 0 0 g VDi o-@ Io s °c Co. �. o n CL '� 8 c T m_ �OCpp. NoN x i w o v o m T v T ° w 00 0 O w N f 0 w '3) a m T CD 7 p U) w N 'YJ L m w C N ci T <, < < CD w < N .'� CD w N m Q 3v Co CD L1 m ."0, C�'"D N CD CD C •°w s o cm o I °p -mac < V)) - v 0 0 0 �m rmn w a 8 a c m m T 2 2 m m o � U 8 CL 0 Q 3 = ° 00 Cb m 3 m ai CD CD CD >_> p) < o� r.E x r m 0 9 �vm °— w m m Q m m n n @m m m ° C� m f� � m ID v Dpi w 7 0 0 p°j pOj �w (D o o w o QQ 0 0 rn co c° o w m o m 0 v m � <Y m y 0) V) m O Z< m 3 O G < Z w iD s s =z o 0 o m CD u m o < 0 0 0 ° w 0 °— c C3o ° �° 0 8 r m o m' m >> > c_ X� o 8 8 8 8 p O N fD C �: A C'�D Ill Ic CO CC] 7 Cf CD cn Cwt IwV• N 7 ° O CL 06, . CL O.mp w (D N 0 CD CD 0 C C m CL CD A N W °D CA N 0 V m y w e rr 0 a � <n � O .Ot O 0 r < y 0 _ fa to w = s < � N rf1 �b9 vi rA W V V -� CO 40 i i CtOj1 N fD CO O A' 0071 in O 4 O m m m m w w w w rA w v) rA ri) rA C>o A rig rA rA rA N 0 w to O o N en rA rA rA rA CT 01 � O O O O CA m m m m m m m m w T T y m A O X O c r.- c D m m m m w rA w v) rA ri) rA rA rig rA rA rA N 0 w to rA rA en rA rA rA rA fA N CA N 00 W CT V V V A O X O c r.- c D m o g CD 0 V s s 0O 0 to f1 O N m s m m' o m Irn m Z 8 m 3 V O O Cr O w w O C7 C w CD O O p 0 O O W O O O 0 0 0 0 0 o c c c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O o o O o O c o O 0 0 rA 1W fA rA w rA rsi w rA EA rA to rA w rA rA rA w 69 40 w W N CA V W N N V -• s CO A CD W W s 00 N J s s p N O 00 v N N C71 9 CT O O O O O ° O s A CA O C71 O O 00 A CA V O O 0) O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O CA O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O CJI 0 0 O p 0 O O O O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 A28 ' < tl0 c 8 V CA CJI A W S CD 'O a =� c o 0 Oo > N 0 o O -� s w s N O C O m m A N O> ID. O� $ CL $ g $ T 00 O X O c r.- c D m o g CD 0 0 0 m 8 nci w o c y 3• w a a a m s m m' o m Irn m Z 8 m 3 N w = X W w w d C w CD � = o _: CO N w w a m ci a m ?�, a c 8 0 y c 7 3 y w O o 0 S CD 'O a =� c o 0 Oo > N 0 o O C s w s N O 0 3 = co CD .o G: N W s A CJI N C) W W A w m c w er 0 d fA N A M O 0 Z 3 w 00 69 w �► A O W V1 s V OND A O O O m mm mm rA rA rA rA to ° Ip IPO I° IO — " W N N A A V O O O O O O O O c m w (D o m a > > > of o O C s w s N O M = n A N O> ID. O� $ CL $ g $ T CD o g CD Z nci w o c CD .o G: N W s A CJI N C) W W A w m c w er 0 d fA N A M O 0 Z 3 w 00 69 w �► A O W V1 s V OND A O O O m mm mm rA rA rA rA to ° Ip IPO I° IO — " W N N A A V O O O O O O O O 161 2 IA28 ' A A W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N - -- - - » 8 O W V T N A W N O (D OO V m M A W N O W W V M N A W N 3 O W W V O N A W N O Omm �cc �� D ;��mmmn�EyIC�mo OM zmm -I >Z ,M-,D zzmoc� z z O� m D D T m c -1N D D O m 2G7mZ rZ UC m m 2Z G7 G7'�DGi LJ U fj�<TI r r << N m m T cZi) D O ,xm D zm o 2 m 2 D Q° � m A 0 n 2mm MM2 r Wz o w w C m -(n1 > p Xm m m-1-, m� rm IV D mD zrzcn -n nD� mm Wmm mmm m Cn�2 < mom 0 yO_ -co m O� �cnGDm z�m� -1� zmnzz mN—�i ���o v� 0 M z0zwz c D- kN m'-A oD mcw0 < Cn�nOT Tl cnm DDOO cDDZ�o� * W X O cn O D z m m Z N m m m m o m m m O m o o O m Z n� n zN nm��� o�� cm" —'cncn ?z ppD�D� c�M --j D z O O m m o co D C) > r D D W O m m Z X m n X m m v D =� Cl) z mr�m W nmm 0 (n n O m z m < m x c m m O O D n m W 0 n � � x (n (,9 (11) V�fn 69 fn el V) tn 01)Q9IIv,I6qIlEl9 f�91.969 69I69I69 69 69 69 'En CA !! 2? z o o N N O J N ) m to A A N J Cn O O) O O i A O O O O O O O - 410000000M.. m 000000 O O N N O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m (n C dl fn cf) tf) tff fA to En fn (n 6 V 0 C) u �oc u V N N U - I. �. W ' i i En 169169 IEn 69169 IEn IEfi lfn F.,9MIy1:CIC kj�41 N NIO OI01 N i En lffl lEfl lEn fn lfnlfn lEn lfn N�C)Icn�o) N W N - ? A N N O (D N m OD WILD CO lco wI J A 90 m O co N m A m (n Cn Cn Cn O Cn O O O J m Cn 8 N O W CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O J O O Cn O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cn O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O Co O c o o O O O O O O O O O O O to to to 69 69 fn 69 fn fn fn fn to to fn fn 69 fn N W� O _ W W (O N w co is o o) in o_ o O A S O (ND V (An 0 Cn O W ri m 1 ' ' O' N' ' 0000 O O 1 Cn CP fn fn fn En to to to to to to to En to fn to fn to W- - A N A M m co W O J J J m co O Cn Cn A O) Cn Cn W Cn Cn W O N O N V O O m .A J W O CD O A O O O J J N A O Cn O N O O O Cn Cn to co cn to to to to to to Efl En En fn En En fo En En .D (n co j AIO 4.11 O cn IO P O A O O DIO O O IO .n O Cn O O A fn 69 fn En fn fn 691tn to to to to I(A N m 00 O (n J to 1159 En En 69 En I fn m � a D m m c co j W _ A A to A Cn W W W J A A A O A A A m m O m N N- N (n V N O (n W� N O 00 w W Cn Cn Cn N Cn O O W W W W- A J- N - A 01 m (n J v 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 (n O (D O W O (n O A 0 A O A O O W W t0 O O O O O O O O V O O O O m 0 0 0 W W A O A O (O W W 0( O O O O O O O O V O O O O N O O O O A 0(D CD CD A O O W O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O (n O Cn O W m � a D m m c co j W _ c a 3 w A O V W H W A °W O T J N m m o T T T T d d 1 T { { N y X O N iu m m x o C72 o x Q m m m A O O D a 0 wo 0 o A � � 3 O '01a u 0 0 0 -0 2220 TI MoD � o CL n na ° co CD 3 3 S (D [7 CD N N (U n C C_ C ,N+ N 3 3 3 w Q0 m° < - m m 0 Cn Cn Cn C) D m ° ° m nri v CD (n CD a E c c c 0 n n O >>> cn w C O to -^i fD (1 d d O C O (P O ID N A 3 0 0 0 n (D N w N a) 0 O "O (D aZ ) O N CA S 7 7 D !n N CD CD to to O 0 0 O O (n N CD CD A A A A A N (n A A A A A A A (n A O Cn O A A A Cn O Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn O n O cn Cn (n Cn p O OO OO O O O O O Z 4 N N N O N _ N N N O N m 0 Cn A A OD W A A A N n n Cn N N N N W 0 J A O W (D (1) -j N A N N C,, (D m� O A Cn A O N(D O n N n N J m m y o v O D v N m n m v v m m n m < C7 c) c °c ° ° (o ° SZ O SZ () 3 d N .�-. C2 d N 7 N (D cn = (D D7 CA (n cn 0 i C O S C O C) (n i17 O 7 -i ID Cp N- N N N O O Q CD (D Cn 1 n _ C N fp cn Sp D m C � a m O (D cn 3 CD ' -n N r (CI CCD (Q' - CD -t - CCD 90 O y f� CD O 0 (D 3 O f n y CD ^� (C O A cD (D 7 O' _Q » N 7 N 69 Efl Efl fn 6s w to fn En 69 fn 69 fn to fn fn 69 fn En En CD O N N O j O N W O W CO O O m M O A N O CO O A N N O m O Cn O N W O W O (D Cn Cn O m O co O co N O fA to to EA fn Efl fn En Efl EA fn EA to 69 fn ffl Efl fn 60 to to 0 O N _ fn O m A N m N Cn W � (n O J J m N m W V J m V m Cn W CO N W (n (n J O W A Cn Cn O D) W N A m N O W O O -� (n J N Cn N O G W O J J O O W O O N O 8 A V w O to J Cn ()1 O O A O O (O O O N N (n O to En 69 En <D D 3 f1 rn a D c co j W _ c a Cn Oo N N v 3 m a W H m O O CL � v O O O O 69 69 69 En 69 n O y v p I. fr �_ A Er m _rr (n w (D H to En 69 En <D D 3 f1 rn a co j W _ Cn Oo N N (fl N W A H T � v e9 fn fn En fn TO 0 y v p I. fr �_ A Er Nov _rr (n w (D 0 A 00 N J O N W Cn -L Ui J (O m N .N. fn W vD C W D Ham`,. t dio STATUS REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee Company: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: March 15, 2011 RE: Radio Road MSTU Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment Status Report MSTU Committee and Staff: The following is a report on the status of the Devonshire Landscape Refurbishment project: We have received review comments from Pam and traffic for the conceptual design and modified the plans accordingly. Additionally, it was brought to our attention that the committee expressed an interest in preserving the existing Pink Tabebuia Trees if possible within the medians. We were able to incorporate all but one into the design. The one closest to the Radio Rd intersection is in conflict with required clear site zones and will have to be removed. We have completed the 90% Planting and Irrigation Plans and submitted them today to staff for review. We are still working on completing a revised 90% Opinion of Probable Cost for the west hedge, street trees and Asian Jasmine ROW plantings and the medians which we will submit to staff for review and final bid packet coordination. Once we receive review comments from Pam and staff on the 100% submittal plans, we will revise the plans accordingly and resubmit the plans, specifications, Opinion of Cost and Bid Tabular for final review and subsequent bidding. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thank you, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@w•indhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 4 1612 Im i% or Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee '4% 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 March 15, 2011 I ,A �l • t BY: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle �, Coletta :TZ 1. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:34 PM. H. 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 111. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Remove. V. C_ Review & Approval FY .2012 USTUBudget Beth Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second byDale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4-11 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 15, 2011 Change: VIII. A,, pg. 3, second paragraph should read: F 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) * Collected Ad Valorem Tax $266,324.71 * $182.41 in Capital Outlay mooies 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: • 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 Misc. Corres: Date: _� Ill Item#: I U 2-44 2.g 1612 2 8 B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) (R -L41 Moving the Type M Controller o (2) Proposals were reviewed (paid by Fund I 11) Hannula $3,39600 (See attached) 4G-TRONIXS600.00 (See attached) (R-23) Elant.Material pacigg on Phase II Prefect 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 lip - Yellow Crown of Thorn - Big Rose Crown of Thorn Damon Himmel noted the Proposal (Plant Material Spacing) includes relocation of the existing healthy Plants. Date Lewis moved to approve the Hannula quote in the amount of $2,798. 00. Second by h Helen CarelhL Motion carried unanimously 4-0 V1. LANDSCAPE MA][NTENANCE REPORT A. Hannula Damon Himmel reported: o Fertilization is underway (will be complete within 2 weeks) o Yellow spikes are present in the Royal Palms — Cause is undetermined o 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. N 1612 A28 V11. 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 9(r/@ 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- o 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 o Suggested installing a Root Barrier at the following locations - By the new Black Olive Trees - Along the Sidewalks o Root Barrier details - Cost $9,500.00 for 1200 plus feet of Barrier - Chemical bead 0 installed at a 19 inch depth - Root Barrier cost can he 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 Prqposal #'tAe 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. V111. OLD BUSINESS A. Devonshire Water Usage Scott Windham reported the Meter(s) on the Well were incorporated into Plans as requested. 3 1612 428' IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Master Plan Discussion - None X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None X1. PUBLIC COMAWNT - 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 Dale Lewis, Chairman n These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or ainended__K_. The next meeting is April 19, 2011 at 3:30 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 0 },'Hl.'o RoFd Ea is M.S.T.U. Ake C�aau 2885 5. How4foc 11tiw� Nom, fl 34104 AGENDA April 6, 2,010 1612 A"2 9'! I. Call Meeting to Order — County Staff II. Approval of the Agenda III. Attendance: A. Introductions: 1. Introduction of Members (Community): Dale Johnson (Community: Madison Park); Suzanne Chapin (Community: Sapphire Lakes); Renato Fernandez (Community: The Shores at Berkshire Lakes); Thomas DePouw (Community: Plantation); Paige Simpson (Community: The Shores at Berkshire Lakes) 2. Introduction of Staff Members: Michelle Edwards Arnold, Director, ATM Department; Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager, ATM Department; Darryl Richard, Project Manager, ATM Department; Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, ATM Department; Caroline Soto, Budget Analyst IV. Election of Officers V. Transportation Services Report y� A. Review of Ordinance 2009 -44 a B. Review of member terms 2 6 2011 C. Review of Sunshine Law JUL D. Review of Robert's Rules of Order A. FY -2011 Budget 1. Review of Millage Rate 2. Review of Projected Revenue 3. Committee approval of Budget and Millage Rate VI. Future Project Goals & Objectives A. Obtaining Landscape Architectural Consulting Services Fiala I tI/ B. Project Time -Line for Construction Hiller C. Phasing Of Projects Henning Coyle ✓_ VII. Future Meeting Dates Coletta VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting is Thursday, October 5, 2010; at 10:00 am Misc. Corres: Collier County Transportation Bldg /East Conference Room 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive Date: '-dl'S1\ \ Naples, FL 34104 Item #: tu=s_ 'A Copies to: 1 1612 A2 91 H S.T.U. AkL" Ca w"Va 2895 S. H 1Dt NAfCy, FL 34904 Minutes April 6, 2010 I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to Order at 10:00 a.m. by Darryl Richard, MSTU Project Manager since this was the first meeting of the Radio Road MSTU and there have been no officers elected. II. Approval of Agenda The agenda was reviewed — no motion was made to approve the agenda III. Attendance: Members: Renato F. Fernandez, Thomas Frank Depouw, Suzanne Chapin, Paige Simpson, Dale M. Johnson County: Commissioner Tom Henning, Michelle Arnold -Dept. Director, Darryl Richard —MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery— Operations Coordinator, Pam Lulich— Landscape Operations Manager, Caroline Soto — Budget Analyst. Others: Tom Greenwood — HOA President of Sanctuary at Blue Heron - Public Attendee All the committee members introduced themselves and gave a synopsis on their background and their reasoning for being on the board. IV. Election of Officers It was determined that the committee would hold off on elections of officers until the committee members become more familiar with each other. V. Transportation Service Report a. Review of Ordinance 2009 -044 Staff provided the committee members with a copy of the ordinance that established the MSTU and discussed the sun - setting provisions that are included in the ordinance. It was noted that depending on the millage rate set and the amount of revenues that are collected, there is a possibility that the MSTU could sunset prior to the project being completed. It was noted during discussion that maintenance funding after construction of the project is still undetermined and will be reviewed by the BCC when the 4 year report is taken to the Board of County Commissioners. 1 1612 f A2 9' b. Review of members terms Staff advised the committee of the staggered terms for the members and indicated they would provide all the committee members with the applicable terms. c. Review of the Sunshine Law Darryl Richard, MSTU Project Manager reviewed the importance of the committee members to understand the Sunshine Law requires and comply with them. Michelle Arnold noted that information on future training will be forwarded to the committee when made available. d. Review of Robert's Rule of Order Darryl Richard reviewed the rules of order with the committee. e. FY 2011 Budget Michelle Arnold, Director, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes, gave a detailed explanation on the budget, its function and informed the committee members on the reasoning for each column. Darryl Richard; explained budget line item staff salary, its function, processes and procedures. 1. Review of Millage Rate and Darryl Richard provided a review of the Radio Road MSTU projects as a comparison to what the Radio Road East MSTU can potentially expect. He reviewed information provided on the estimated taxable value. Staff explained the overall taxable value vs. millage rate vs. future project cost. A lot of discussion regarding the taxable values and the different millage rates ranging from .25 to .50. Darryl will be putting together a spreadsheet with multiple taxable values /millage rates = homeowner's annual payment to Radio Road East MSTU. . The Committee Members wanted it broken down for them to better explain it to their HOA's. 2. Review of Projected Revenue Staff informed the committee members about the FDOT Beautification Grant (ATM staff and with the assistance of Mrs. Chapin) that they applied for the Radio Road East MSTU in the amount of $600,000 which may be available for FY 2014. The Radio Road East MSTU's application was placed in the 2nd tier from the priority list and several projects from the list are being dropped. The Committee members asked for more information on the Grant and its processes. There was an overall discussion regarding the grants and explained to members that when getting a grant, the MSTU uses its money first and 2 1612 f1A291' after the project is completed FDOT reimburses the MSTU 80% of the project cost, but that the MSTU would be required to pay the remaining 20% of project cost. Discussions continued of who is the keeper of the priority list and who mandates the overall process with the grant moneys. Commissioner Henning suggested to the committee members to be active with MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) process on upcoming projects and priority lists. Michelle Arnold explained to the committee members the MPO priority list is a moving target, it gets updated and every year; and that FDOT funding availability is contingent upon many factors including the present economic times which affect the State Budget Process. An updated MPO ranking of the grant applicants will be emailed to the committee members once received from the MPO. Discussion ensued regarding other "funding options" that the Committee may pursue such as bank loans, municipal bonds, and general obligation bonds as well as the possibility of a `loan from the Board of County Commissioners' were mentioned as options that will be investigated. Staff noted that all legal and budget considerations regarding these options need to be checked prior to proceeding. Commissioner Henning, spoke about the need to be aware that Collier County is experiencing difficult economic times, and that whatever millage rate the Committee may desire — they should take into account the economic hardships that the `down' economy has had on the residents who reside within the district. 3. Committee approval of Budget and Millage Rate Staff reviewed when the MSTU would actually have monies to work with — after October 1, 2010 which is the beginning of the Fiscal Year 2010. And that the taxes on those monies are not actually paid prior to October 1, 2010; but that the estimated tax revenue will be placed in the MSTU Budget as `revenue'. It was mentioned that it would be beneficial for the Committee to do a project that is `visible' within the first couple of years of being active — so that the residents who reside within the district can see visible benefit from paying into the MSTU. The majority of the committee members would like to start the process to build something "visible" to show the MSTU tax payers something for their tax dollars at work. Darryl Richard noted that one `option' which could serve to demonstrate `project activity' is to obtain consulting services (from a Landscape Architect) and involve that consultant in multiple `public meetings' and 3 n 1 A '. 16 2 design workshops to involve all the communities within the MSTU District. Rather than vote on the budget and final millage the committee agreed that staff would provide them with information that they could bring back to discuss with their applicable associations /communities to obtain their input. A decision on the budget and millage would be made at the May MSTU meeting. VI. Future Project Goals & Objectives a. Obtaining Landscape Architectural Consulting Services Pam Lulich gave ball park figures on estimating what the cost is for a Landscape Architect Consultant per mile at approximate $19,500 and up. She estimated approximately $40,000 for the project design and $750,000 for the actual construction of the project. These are only approximates and taken from prior projects fully constructed from the Landscape Beautification Master Plan. Staff has experienced much lower bids recently under the current economic conditions. b. Project Time -line for Construction Without a final decision on the millage rate to estimate potential revenues, the committee could not make a decision on the project time -line at this time. c. Phasing of Projects Without a final decision on the millage rate to estimate potential revenues, the committee could not make a decision on whether the project will be phased at this time. The committee decided to go back to their respective HOA's and get their feedback on the millage rate in preparation for their next meeting scheduled for May 4, 2010 at 10 am in the morning. VII. Future Meeting Dates The next meeting was set for May 4, 2010 and need for future meetings will be determined at the meeting in May. VIII. Public Comments Tom Greenwood — HOA President of Sanctuary at Blue Heron, comments that although he is not a committee member he would like to continue to participate in the meetings. IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m. ! The next meeting is May 4, 2010 at 10: am 4,45 IZD:> e 5e AJt_e of Transportation Services Division 2885 South I lorseshoe Drive - East Conference Room Naples, Florida. 34104 19 1R44" 1ROA64 E" M.S.T.U. Ak:," ems„► 28$5 5. H Dew' Nqt", FL 34104 AGENDA May 4, 2010 I. Call Meeting to Order II. Approval of the Agenda III. Approval of the Minutes from April 6, 2010 meeting IV. Attendance V. Election of Officers VI. Transportation Services Report i A. FY -2011 Budget 1. Review of Millage Rate 2. Review of Projected Revenue 3. Committee approval of Budget and Millage Rate VII. Future Project Goals & Objectives A. Obtaining Landscape Architectural Consulting Services B. Project Time -Line for Construction C. Phasing Of Projects VIII. Future Meeting Dates IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: \U S —,A 2°I C-_ r�)ies to: 16I 2 X29' JUL z s 26111 !/ J Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ _ Coletta —�— The next meeting is Thursday, October 5, 2010; at 10:00 am Collier County Transportation Bldg/East Conference Room 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 1 W o Road Eo&a 2895 5. H*w4l­ Nom" Nly, fl 34104 May 4, 2010 Minutes 1612 *29 I. Meeting called to order by Staff Project Manager Darryl Richard at 10:00 AM II. Attendance: Members: Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson; Sue Chapin; Thomas Depouw (Excused); Paige Simpson (Excused) County: Michelle Edwards, Director ATM Dept.; Darryl Richard, Project Manager, MSTU; Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator; Pam Lulich, Manager, Landscape Operations; Caroline Soto, Budget Analyst. Others: None III. Approval of Agenda Sue Chapin moved to add the following under IX. New Business: and add Old Business: A: Radio Road MSTU X. Old Business Seconded by Dale Johnson. Carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: April 6, 2010 Renato Fernandez moved to approve the April 6, 2010 minutes as submitted Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Attendance Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reported Thomas Depouw and Paige Simpson were not able to attend and is excused. Vi. Election of Officers Sue Chapin nominated Dale Johnson for Chairman. Being no other nominations from the floor, nominations were closed — Dale Johnson is Chairman. Dale Johnson nominated Sue Chapin for Vice Chair. Being no other nominations from the floor, nominations were closed — Sue Chapin is Vice Chair. VII. Transportation Services Report A. FY -2011 Budget 1 161 2 A2��" 1. Review of Millage Rate Darryl Richard reported on the various millage rates and options available to the Committee in establishing a Fiscal Year 2011 Budget. It was explained that the Committee needs to review the millage rate options in terms of how soon they would like to finance their project within the limits of the millage rate cap of .5 mils. 2. Review of Projected Revenue A table was distributed which outlined the `Projected Revenue' based on various millage rate options considering the `taxable value' of the properties within the MSTU Boundary. 3. Committee Approval of Budget and Millage Rate Dale Johnson noted many of the residents in his community (Madison Park) were `seasonal' which made it difficult to communicate with them. Sue Chapin noted many residents in her community (Sapphire Lakes) wanted the project completed within 5 years and are anxious to see something started, but at the same time also have `foreclosures.' Renato Fernandez stated The Shores Assoc. Board members expressed many people are cutting expenses and aren't in favor of the millage rate increasing. Projects in their community are being put on hold due to the economy. Many communities are hurting. Dale Johnson stated many of his neighbors are asking if there will be an additional MSTU fee for maintaining Davis Blvd. Michelle Arnold explained that right now there aren't any plans to do beautification on Davis Blvd. Pam Lulich noted that right now MSTU's are the only tool to get beautification accomplished due to funding limitations in the `capital program'. (Per May 12, 2009 Board of County Commissioners approval of item l OC related to future landscape project funding options as relates to Landscape Beautification Master Plan) Darryl Richard noted `sunsetting' of the committee was set at 6 years with the intention of creating the MSTU and that the project be finished prior to the end of six years. Sue Chapin moved they proceed with a millage rate of .40 which would take them to their six years as estimated per the Ordinance to produce $687,000 in revenue. Second by Renato Fernandez. Tessie Sillery stated Paige Simpson could not attend the meeting but requested staff notify the Committee that her community (The Shores) favors the second highest millage rate which would be ".48 mil." Dale Johnson agreed with the 5 year timeframe mentioning most people want to see the project done sooner rather than later. He asked how soon we could get a project going in order to show the people we are taking steps in the right direction. 2 1612 IV91, It was a general consensus that perhaps a smaller project be accomplished as soon as funding was available and a Landscape Architect Consultant be hired. The Consultant could then help the Committee determine what can be accomplished and in what timeframe. The "first year" of the MSTU starts October 1, 2010 which is the County's New Fiscal Year 2011. Sue Chapin reminded the Committee a motion is still on the floor regarding `millage rate' and recapped that the motion was for ".40 which would be for $114,000 per year "; .44 would be $129,000; and Paige recommended .48 which would be $145,000 per year. Sue asked what the consulting costs would be. Pam Lulich stated $40,000 to $50,000 for consulting fees. Discussion ensued about various types of projects and cost associated with each type of project. Michelle Arnold stated with the milage rate at .40 the Committee would have $114,000 to work with. If they are correct with the design costs the Committee will have $55,000 after design. With the milage rate that Paige recommended, .48, the Committee will have $85,300 left. The Committee would be able to do something small. Another option is to wait until the next fiscal year with $230,000 at the .48 milage. "Welcome to Naples" signs were mentioned but are not allowed in the medians. Dale Johnson reminded the Committee there is a motion on the floor and needed to be considered. Additional discussion ensued regarding comparison between .44 mil and a .48 mil rate. Dale Johnson noted a home valued at the $200,000 taxable value with the .44 would be $80 per year versus .48 being $96 per year. Sue Chapin moved to amend the previous motion to `.44 milage rate'. Second by Dale Johnson. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0 Darryl Richard stated that based on the .44 the first year revenue is projected to be $169,394.41 which is anticipated to achieve project goal within 5 years. VIII. Future Project Goals and Objectives A. Obtaining Landscape Architectural Consulting Services Pam Lulich reviewed some options for the Committee in interviewing Landscape Architects. Discussion ensued regarding the interview process. It was decided interviews be conducted in one meeting and then at a following meeting the Committee would decide. 1612 ,^.Z g0.4 It was suggested all 5 firms be invited for a 'l 5 minute' presentation with a 5 minute question/answer session. It was also suggested a 5 page max `handout' be provided to the Committee. This will be the only item on the Agenda. Pam Lulich reviewed the `CCNA' rules with the Committee. Firms are selected based on qualifications and then they negotiate the price based on the scope of services Provided by the selected firm. B. Project Timeline for Construction (Covered under item VII Transportation Services Report) C. Phasing of Projects (Covered under item VII Transportation Services Report) IX. New Business A. Radio Road MSTU under item IX "New Business X. Old Business (none) XI. Future Meeting Dates It was suggested that the date be set for July 21, 2010 for the next meeting. XII. Public Comment (none) XIII. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 am. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee `t ale Johnson, Chairm These minutes approved by the Committee on �} - 21 ( O as presented or amended next meeting will be July 21, 2010; at 10:00 am Growth Management Division Building (formerly Transportation Bldg.) 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 M R4dZa RMd 54a 2895 s. q&W440 V14ve iZo(a, 57-4 34104 WORKSHOP AGENDA August u, 2010 "Workshop" 2:00 — 3:00 PM 1612 JUL 2 6 2011 1. Discuss and review previous interviews from Landscape Architect's 2. Make an informed decision to discuss and vote at regular meeting for LA REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 3:00 PM Fiala ✓ Hiller I. Call Meeting to order Henning Coyle H. Attendance Coletta III. Approval of the Agenda IV. Approval of the Minutes from July 21, 2010 meeting V. Landscape Architect Consultant A. Discussion and Selection VI. New Business VII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — RR MSTU — Sue Chapin VIII. Future Meeting Date IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Dale: Il 1 Item * l ly = 2 A 2R Copies to: 1 YP29 0 t n ZR�� 1612 � M.S.T.U. AdvH " eo+ -a•4a 299S S. H N41 Nom, Ft 34104 Minutes ALigust 1 I , 2010 I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson immediately following the Workshop at 3:05 PM. II. Attendance Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson, Paige Simpson (Excused) County: Michelle Edwards — Director ATM Dept., Darryl Richard — Project Manager III. Approval of Agenda It was moved and seconded the Agenda be approved as submitted. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes - July 21, 2010 It was moved and seconded the July 21, 2010 Minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Landscape Architect Consultant A. Discussion and Selection Staff e- mailed the Committee a list of Roadways that have been completed, or being worked on by the various Landscape Architects. It was moved and seconded to approve Urban Green Studios as the new Landscape Architect for Radio Road East MSTU. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VI. New Business — None. VII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — RR MSTU Sue Chapin reported attending the Radio Road Beautification MSTU meeting. She suggested Radio Road East MSTU work together with them to resolve problems and share information. She stated Radio Road East supports their efforts with new landscaping and thanked the Radio Road Beautification MSTU Committee for their public 1 1612 A2 9 support and hope they will continue to support the (MSTU East) Committee's efforts. VIII. Future Meeting Date The next meeting will be August 16th at 10:00 AM and the next regular monthly meeting will be held on October 6th at 10 AM. IX. Public Comments There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 PM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Johnson, These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on 10-6-/0 as presented /'I�N or amended The next meeting is scheduled for August 16, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 — G s 1 v� �,�° 1�lo fuse email me at 6 I uefl nn onebox.coi-n DD� /��� __ ©© ,� confirm receipt of these 8440 1� Radio Road East Advisory M.S.T.U. A i ovo•� Committee Minutes. 2925 S. Now4l-e 1Nw, Thank you, Sue Flynn Nom, Ft 34104 RRE MSTU 8-ll -lo Workshop Minutes August 11, 2010 2:00 PM The Workshop was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 2:00 PM. 1. Discuss and review previous interviews from Landscape Architects A lengthy discussion took place concerning the various Architects presentations that had been given at the Committee's July 21s' meeting. Sue Chapin distributed and reviewed her notes on JRL Design, McGee & Associates, Urban Green Studios and Windham Studios and points she observed at the July 21 St meeting. (See attached) Many pro and con issues were debated. A final decision was made to approve Urban Green Studio as the Landscape Architect. Staff called Ms. Fendrick and announced the Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Committee had chosen Urban Green Studio to be their Landscape Architect. It was then decided to hold meeting on August 16th at 10:00 AM at 2885 Horseshoe Drive to discuss the project and Proposal for the Scope of Services. It was noted the Landscape Architect would normally do a proposal based on Concept Development, Design Development, Construction Drawings and Construction Observation and will be discussed further at the October 6th meeting. 2. Make an informed decision to discuss and vote at regular meeting for Landscape Architects Further discussion ensued on when to hold regular meetings and it was decided the Advisory Committee will hold future Radio Road East MSTU meetings on the first Wednesday of each month at 2885 Horseshoe Drive at 10:00 AM. The Workshop was conPu&4 at 3:00 PM. 3 �iL i d' 161 2 Aor Xkda ;emd 5�w sac s u eow"ft Fiala 2885 s. qauedm D%�" Hiller , 7Z 34104 Hennin Coyle Coletta RECEIVED Minutes .JUN 10 2011 May 4, 2011 3oard of County Commissioners 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, Gloria Herrera - Management Budget Analyst County Commissioners: Tom Henning Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski — Urban Green Studio, Darlene Cherry- Lafferty — Juristaff Public: Jerry and Janice Bundy — Sanctuary /Blue Heron III. Approval of Agenda Sue Chapin moved to accept the Agenda for May 4, 2011 as submitted. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Commissioner Henning meeting with the Advisory Committee — Addressed after VI. A. V. Approval of Minutes — April 6, 2011 Meeting Change VIII. - Page 4, 1" sentence should read "a traffic light on Radio Road at Madison Park and Blue Heron. " Sue Chapin moved to approved April 6, 2011 Minutes as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. VI. Transportation Services Report Misc. Comas: A. Budget Report Date: G1I N k I Gloria Herrera distributed and reviewed the Radio Road East MSTU and 166 Budget Report dated May 4, 2011. (See attached) Item #: l lQ"TZF}ZS She reported as follows: ■ Ad Valorem Tax Received $140,088.35 u --'s io: 1 16 12 h.4 w • Operating Expense - Available $8,859.00 • Total Actual Expenditures $24,993.96 • Reserves /Future Construction - Available $56,300.00 Commissioner Henning arrived at 10: OS a.m. IV. Commissioner Henning meeting with the Advisory Committee Commissioner Henning noted he was in receipt of the Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Committee's request for assistance with the project financing and said he had spoken to the Director of Finance regarding the financing options of borrowing the funds from the BCC or a bank. Both options require submission of a Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners for approval and then a ballot referendum of the RR East MSTU residents. The cost for a special election ballot is $8,000. If added to the Primary Presidential ballot in January 2012 there may not be a cost. Staff will find out if there are costs involved with the Supervisor of Elections. He also noted the language for the referendum should be kept simple. He recommended addressing an Ordinance change on the sunset provision after hearing from the voters on the January 2012 ballot. Discussion ensued on steps going forward and it was decided Chairman, Dale Johnson, will represent the Advisory Committee as soon as possible. Commissioner Henning asked why the Advisory Committee was reluctant to install crushed shells. Staff responded crushed shells are not allowed in the ROW unless set back far enough. Transportation Department approval would also be required. After further discussion on costs and the cost to maintain it, it was decided to reconsider that option. Sue Chapin moved to direct Staff to draft a Resolution to the BCC for approval for Radio Road East MSTU to move forward with the funding options and to approve a Referendum in the January election of 2012. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 4 -0. VI. Transportation Services Report - Continued B. Project Manager Report Staff will coordinate with Dale Johnson and advise the Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Committee of the time and date of the BCC meeting and suggested the Committee attend. Michelle Arnold recommended Staff verify cost associated with the Referendum. It was noted Staff will work with the Supervisor of Elections and the County Attorney on the Referendum. A letter should be sent to the County Manager's office prior to being placed 2 1612 �'.g29 on the BCC Agenda. Staff will compose a letter and coordinate with Commissioner Henning's office. VII. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Urban Green Studio - Discussed after VII. B. B. SFWMD Well Permit Darryl Richard reported the well permit application and fee of $350 was submitted last week. (See attached) Water usage was confirmed with Dana Fendrick. The application process takes 60 -90 days. A. Landscape Design - Urban Green Studio (UGS) Dana Fendrick distributed and reviewed the Radio Road East MSTU Landscape Design Development — Plant Selections and Groupings under each of the following trees. (See attached) ➢ Royal Palms ➢ Gumbo Limo Trees ➢ Accent Palms & Trees ➢ Buccaneer Palms It was suggested the Committee hold a field meeting to get visuals. Staff requested Dana Fendrick recommend medians with plant selections to visit for their June meeting. VIII. New Business — None. IX. Old Business A. Finance Update —previously discussed. B. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU Sue Chapin will attempt to attend the Radio Road MSTU Advisory Board's next meeting. C. Grant Update The Grant funds applied for is FY 2015. Staff will advise Trinity (MPO) the Committee is still interested in possible grants. X. Public Comments Janice Bundy thanked the Committee for the great job they are doing on beautifying the medians. She suggested using crotons in the plan. Staff responded some medians were severely hurt by the cold weather and required switching that plant material out for others. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:39 AM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee 9 /I v A Dale Johnson, C airman These minutes approve y the Advisory Committee on as presented or amended — . / The next meeting is scheduled for June 1, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 M III. IV. 161 Fiats � Hiller S.TAL A44," Coffwv.� Harming 2295 s. Hit« D,4t Coyle Nom, Ft 34104 r=10letta Summary of Minutes and Motions May 4, 2011 Approval of Agenda r • 9 '44 RECEIVED JUN 10 2011 043rd of CJU1;/ GViiJU. W�;i .J Sue Chapin moved to accept the Agenda for May 4, 2011 as submitted. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. Commissioner Henning meeting with the Advisory Committee — Sue Chapin moved to direct Staff to draft a Resolution for BCC approval on Radio Road East MSTU to move forward with funding options and to also suggest we do a referendum in the January election of 2012. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Approval of Minutes — April 6, 2011 Meeting Change VIII. - Page 4, P sentence should read "a traffic light on Radio Road at Madison Park and Blue Heron. " Sue Chapin moved to approved April 6, 2011 Minutes as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. Misc. Cares: Date: Item #: Copies to: 1 RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU LANDSCAPE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLANT SELECTIONS & GROUPINGS ROYAL PALMS Asian jasmine Bromeliads as accents (Option: Aloe or other spiky plant as accents) Beach Dune sunflower at tips GUMBO LIMBO TREES Silver Saw palmetto Blue Palmetto (Sabal minor) Pink Muhly grass Florida Coontie Parson's Juniper Dwarf Yaupon Holly ACCENT PALMS Green Thrinax Silver Thrinax Silver Coccothrinax Dwarf Bougainvillea 16 12 �f"A-2 9 '' MAY 4, 2011 ACCENT TREES "A" Silver Buttonwood trees (Option: Simpson's Stopper treeform) Florida Coontie Society Garlic Golden Creeper at tips ACCENT TREES "B" Pigeon Plum trees Spider Lily Golden Creeper Crinum Lily as accents BUCCANEER PALMS Spider Lily Golden Creeper Society Garlic D Im- cn CO r a' W Cl — N W 0 Ni Z O O_ LL m w O L� r0-,;r Q CD O O Lo r O O 00 O ti r N O r r N r Cl M r � � r 01 � r 1 1 O O 00 00 ~ O r-� > N N Q O r– O O r Q M O r O O ti M t` r 00 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Ln r O � O co O O LC) O N 00 O 00 O CO L 00 N O r N O — -- v N O O V = r r O O O O ti P. i 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 M 14 O Lo O O P. rn0CD00 M O LO O Iq Ln M r M 601169 69 69 69 69 1612 A-2,9 � O 0A 00 0) to - r--� N O 00 N 00 N Cl V) r d' N 01 r 1 1 1612 A-2,9 � 691691 Efl 1691 fA l 69 691691691691 to M O O 'N t` O 00 O O O r- r- O N N O O N 01 i 1 1 O 00 00 O O r-� LO N N O r– r- O O Cl) 00 Cl If) O r– r– co M(Y) M 00 N M M CO M 00 LA Ln Ln to 691691 Efl 1691 fA l 69 691691691691 to M O O 'N t` O 00 O O r- r- to 00 O O N N O � Ln Lq O Cl If) M M N N N LA 69 69 64 69 64 64 69- 61> 69 69 69 69 to 69 69 Efl 69 69 EH Y> 69 w 69 EA UY ffl 69 64 69 M It O � ti 0) r o o r r– 0 i 00 i i i i i i i i co _ V O Ln LO O O 00 r C) C� E 00 C" 011 •E M- %- O U 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 U9 69 69 69 69 69 V) 69 69 69 69 3 60-40 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 0 o O O o 0 o o 0 o O O O O O O O o O O O o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O o O 1 1 1 1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O 0) ++ O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .a d M M ti r- CO O LO r T O LO LO O 00 00 M M w M ti O M O cyi c6 O O fl Ln LO - LO LO LO It Q m 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6Fi 69 6FT 69 69 69 69 6r3 69 69 69 69 64 6q ua 69 69 fA U j J U un O c Ir ~ U W()f U Z w m o X X W� W n X W LL Of O W O O U <F—ZOf <�U` 0 z U)z Qz w z 12- C) WwzzO� 00����n w EQ U) U} cncnz LL �Of O -X1Y (Ifly>> Sz =a W �, �X E-Q, z z 0 w w 00 f-Q� LLLL »� W aL" zw� CO � QQU 0 0 >< w W WwOOCOw w oQC Q�,z �00� F ly LL U) _ (� LL LL LL. LL W W N D Q h- w J LL LL H H LWL i i m mm~�wz ww)- o (nJ w � m0Q OQ w w w 0 �of J Q Q =�� w z Z IX GY Lo Z Q c W(1) cl� z z U' U` z W w Q of J 1— W w i Q Q()� of Q H U 2 U O W d Q Q 0 Q w w H UmLLZZ� ��UUZ�O w 0000 �U �� mm� of 0� r N M It W W t• M M O r N M et W W r` 00 M O r N M It W W ti 00 } LL N O IL m LLJ cu a 0 O al O a m IY co N 00 N N 6R 1 n 00 to C 0) r 691 161 ?`�-q O O 0 n <Z N U m m m E ro O O O O } O O O LL O jO N \ Q O @ 00 X > > N N X X O C) N> mo O 0) O o F� H 2 > Cl) M LL O Lg O O �O >- >- 00 rn C) cu c } } LL LL LL a N cc GO 00 V O 00 I N 00 V M i/? d 69 6r3 6R 69 69 (R E9 69 69 69 69 61, K-? 69 69 Eli 6R 69 ER (f3 (fl O V O Cl) O O O co O C6 d co ca bq ul CG ca 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6R w ua Vy 69 69 Il- (O O In N M LO I,- LO V (D N M V O N N N N aC)CDCD� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO Lf) Lr) LO v v v v E EL w O U N 3 N C U O J U N LL- U) C) 0 w U E Q d E o m Z c6 N a) L 0tlz (nC� N N M N c E .N > `�°�cnD _ co N 00 N N 6R 1 n 00 to C 0) r 691 161 ?`�-q O O 0 n <Z N U m m m E 60 O � c O (D rn c (6 N w O O O O } O O O LL O jO N \ Q O O @ O X > > N N X X O C) N> mo O 0) O o F� H 2 > Cl) M LL O Lg O O �O >- >- O C) cu c } } LL LL LL LL GO 00 V O 00 I 00 V M i/? 60 O � c O (D rn c (6 N w April 21, 2011 Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 s. -7 u 4"mv &wwme 205 S. 'Wowea4e Z)%w ilW-, ?.@ 34104 Subject: Request for assistance with Project Financing — Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Board. Dear Commissioner Henning: Z3TV- On July 28, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners created the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara MSTU Advisory Committee with a sunset provision requiring the committee to sunset at the end of six years or project completion — whichever occurs first. The six -year sunset date is July 28, 2015. The committee is responsible for coordinating with County staff on the completion of the Radio Road Landscaping Beautification project extending from Santa Barbara Boulevard east to Davis Boulevard. A conceptual design has been completed for the project with a cost estimate of $735,701 for construction. Given the current taxable value of the properties within the MSTU boundary, the MSTU will not have sufficient accrued funds to begin the project until fiscal year 2017. The Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Committee respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners support the advisory committee's effort in obtaining financing to allow construction of the project to begin sooner. The Advisory Committee believes this would result in lower construction quotes /bids during this time of economic recession. Three different financing options have been discussed: (1) Board of County Commissioners funding advance fram- rese (2) Board of County Commissioners funding advance from a Bank Loan to the County A r *Twij' ittai - 5 t? ,_C; rf, r fiVu-U'r a ..c? °. 3t +< AV.3: ; S" 5 secured by non -ad valorem revenues, and (3) a Bank Loan to the MSTU whereby ad valorem taxes are pledged. The Office of Management and Budget indicated that a Bank Loan secured by ad valorem taxes will require a referendum election to be held and an affirmative vote from a majority of the electors within the Radio Road East MSTU. Similarly, to the extent the MSTU legally or formally obligates itself to repay the County under either advance scenario, a referendum election would also be required to be held for electors within the MSTU. An election likely would not be required if the Board of County Commissioners simply determines on an annual basis how much, if any, to repay the advance from MSTU funds. The MSTU Committee is willing to bring the matter before the MSTU electorate provided the Board looks favorably upon our request. Because the timing for the completion of this project is of concern for the MSTU, if the Board is in favor of the election process, the Committee recommends conducting a special election to bring this issue to the voters within the MSTU rather than waiting for the general election process in 2012. The MSTU will pay the cost for the special election to ensure the special election moves forward in order to avoid further delaying the project. The Radio Road East MSTU advisory committee is under increasing pressure from the public to 'get the project done' and recent budget projections indicate that the project would not have sufficient funds until FY -2017, 2 years beyond current sunset date. We would like to review the funding options with staff and have your support as our Commissioner in advancing our project while saving public funds and completing the project ahead of its current schedule. Sincerely, R oad East of Santa Barbara avid Blvd. MSTU Advisory Board: ale Johnson, Chairman Sue Chapin, Vice &airman Tom DePouw, Board Member Renat dez, oard Member Paige Sim on, Board Member C� R ` 9 161 � i� RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU PROJECTED REVENUE & CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ESTIMATED ANNUAL TAX REVENUE $145,539 LESS Operating Expenses -$34,200 ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE ACCUMULATING TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION $111,339 2011 DESIGN FEES $43,906 ACCUMULATIVE TAX REVENUE BY YEAR ESTIMATED REVENUE TOTAL ACCRUAL 2011 (Est. Levy: $145,539) $67,433 2012 (Est. Levy: $141,173) $106,973 $174,406 2013 (Est. Levy: $141,173) $106,973 $281,379 2014 (Est. Levy: $144,703) $110,503 $391,882 2015 (Est. Levy: $151,938) $117,738 $509,620 2016 (Est. Levy: $151,938) $117,738 $627,358 2017 (Est. Levy: $151,938) $117,738 $745,096 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Based on Conceptual Design $735,701 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION 2017 Taxable Revenue Assumptions: The levy of this MSTU can expect assumes a 3% decrease in Taxable Value for FY12, 0% increase in FY 13, 2.5% increase in FY14 and a 5% increase in FY15. This also assumes that the Taxable Revenue will remain the same at .4400 per $1,000 of TV. The TV in FY12 is based upon the current October DR -422 TV provided by the property appraiser which is lower than the July TV shown for FY11 and used to calculate the levy. Estimated levy reflects less 5% reserve. 16��2 d"L9 WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (RC -1A, RC -1W, RC -1G) For all water uses EXCEPT dewatering for mining or construction General and Specific Authority, Chapter 373, State Statutes, 40E -20 Florida Administrative Code and Basis of Review, Vol III, South Florida Water Management District. A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of Owner, Responsible Entity, etc. Name: Collier County Department of Transportation Modes - Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance Project Name: Radio Road East - Phase IV Address: 2585 Horseshoe Drive South City: Naples County: Collier State: Florida ZIP: 34104 Phone: (239) 252 -5775 Cell Phone: Fax: (239)252 -6627 E -mail: 2. Proof of Ownership is required, in the form of a Deed, tax certificate, lease, or Articles of Incorporation ATTACH Proof of Ownership to this Form 3. Name of Engineer, Contractor or Other. Name: Dayna L Fendrick - RLA, AICP Firm: URBAN GREEN STUDIO, PLLC. Address: P.O. Box 111841 City: Naples County: Collier State: Florida ZIP: 34108 Phone: (239) 263 -4039 Cell Phone: (239) 777 -5$06 Fax: 239- 594 -7091 4. If the above person(s) filling out this form will sign this Application on behalf of the owner, a letter of authorization signed by the owner, stating they are acting on behalf of the owner, must be submitted. ATTACH Letter of Authorization to this form 5. Is this a New Permit ® Renewal /Modification /Expired ❑ Permit No.: 6. Amount of water applied for. 23,143 gallons per day 7. Has a Surface Water Management Permit or Environmental Resource Permit from the District been issued for this Project? SWM / ERP Permit No.: N.A. or has a Surface Water Management Permit or Environmental Resource Permit from the District been applied for? SWM / ERP Application No.: N.A. 8. A fee of $350.00 is required to process this Application. See Chapter 40E- 1.607, F.A.C. for fee schedule. ATTACH Application fee to this Form 9. Please Identify any District Staff member you have discussed this Application with: None B. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY 1. General Location of the Property /Project County: Collier City: Naples Sections 4 Township (s) 50 Range (s) 26East (or Land Grant Name) 2. It will be necessary to submit two drawings to be used as exhibits for this Permit. a. Location Map, (81/2 x 11 ),showing location of the project in relation to major roads. b. Site Map, (81/2 x 11) locating project in relation to adjacent streets, canals and water bodies, and showing property boundaries, buildings, on -site lakes /ponds and the location of pumps and wells. ATTACH Location Map and Site Map to this Form sfM[ultl.glay Form 0645 -W01 (08/03) PERMIT APPLICATION for Water Use I C. WATER SOURCE and WATER USE TYPE Please indicate the source of water. ® Groundwater from an underground aquifer: Aquifer Name (if known): Lower Tamiami ❑ Surface water: ❑ Onsite Lake /Pond ❑ Onsite Ditch /Canal ❑ Adjacent Lake /Open Water, Name: ❑ Adjacent Canal, Name: 16I 2 911, ATTACH Table A for Wells to this form ATTACH Table B for Pumps to this Form Type of water use (Please check at least one) ❑ Agricultural Irrigation ® Landscape Irrigation ❑ Golf Course Irrigation ❑ Public Water Supply ❑ Industrial /Commercial ❑ Aquaculture ❑ Aquifer Storage /Recovery (ASR) ❑ Other (Please describe): D. IRRIGATION WATER USE 1. Is this permit for irrigation? ® Landscape ❑ Golf ❑ Agriculture- Crop type: What is the Total Project Acreage: 4.18 Irrigated Acreage: 4.18 ATTACH Table D for Crop Information to this Form 2. Applications for golf or landscape irrigation in excess of 500,000 gallons per day require a water conservation plan as explained in Section 2.3.1 of the Basis of Review. ATTACH, if needed, a water conservation plan for golf or landscape irrigation E. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WATER USE 1. Is this permit for Public Water Supply? Maximum gallons per month needed: Average gallons per day: Permit Duration requested: Years 2. A map of the service area for the utility, (81/2 x 11) showing boundaries of service, water treatment plants, storage facilities, the location of all production and monitor wells is required. ATTACH Location Map and Service Area Map to this Form 3. For public water supplies using more than 100, 000 gallons per day, applicants must meet criteria and identify the demand for each use%omponent including number, type and size of service connections, past pumpage, projected population data, future expected pumpage, water treatment method and losses and other specific data as identified in Section 2.1 and 2.6 of the Basis of Review. Tables F (past water use), Table G (projected water use) and Table 1 (treatment method and losses) must be submitted. ATTACH water supply demand computations and Tables F, G and I to this Form 4. For public water supplies using more than 100,000 gallons per day, other necessary information requirements may include if applicable: explanations of per - capita greater than 200 GPD, water supply system interconnections, water received from or distributed to other entities, and aquifer storage and recovery. Please submit Tables H (for per capita use greater than 200 GPD), Table J (ASR), Table K (interconnections), and Table E (water received from or distributed to other entities) if necessary. ATTACH, if needed, Tables H, J, K and E to this Form 5. Applications for public water supply in excess of 500,000 gallons per day require a water conservation plan as explained in Section 2.6.1 of the Basis of Review. ATTACH, if needed, a water conservation plan for public water supply to this Form Form 0645 -W01 (08/03) PERMIT APPLICATION for Water Use 16I 2 A!1 F. INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND OTHER WATER USES Is this permit for Industrial /Commercial? Nature of the Business: Maximum gallons per month needed: Average gallons per day needed: 2. Industrial /commercial applicants using more than 100,000 gallons per day must provide information on the water ba lance for the operation, including all sources of water and losses of water for processes, personal /sanitary needs, treatment losses and unaccounted uses. A flow chart for the water balance should be submitted. ATTACH water balance. and flow chart to this Form 3. For uses other than Irrigation, Public Water Supply, Industrial or Commercial, but excluding mining /dewatering (Air conditioning, pool heating, mitigation, etc.): Describe Water Needs: Maximum gallons per month needed: Average gallons per day needed: ATTACH a written explanation and calculations used to determine the amount of water you need 4. Applications for industrial, commercial and other water uses in excess of 500,000 gallons per day require a water conservation plan as explained in Section 2.4.1 of the Basis of Review. ATTACH, if needed, a water conservation plan for industrial, commercial or other water supply G. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IF YOU ARE USING MORE THAN 100,000 GALLONS PER DAY The withdrawal of water must not cause harm to sensitive areas, wetlands or saline water intrusion. It may be necessary to supply modeling to address impacts of the water use. ATTACH, if needed, modeling or documentation on environmental impacts to this Form 2. All applicants withdrawing water in proximity to saline surface or groundwater, or withdrawing saline water that may come in contact with fresh surface or ground water, are required to develop a saline water monitoring program as described in Section 4.2 of the Basis of Review. ATTACH, if needed, a saline water monitoring program 3. Except for Public Water Supply, reclaimed water must be used when readily available, un less it is not environmentally, technically or economically feasible to do so, as explained in Section 3.2.3 of the Basis of Review. ATTACH, if needed, an evaluation of the feasibility of using reclaimed water and a letter from your local utility regarding their availability of reclaimed water to this Form 4. An aerial photograph of the entire project site is required. ATTACH an aerial photograph 5. Section 4.1 of the Basis of Review requires all wells and pumps be equipped with a calibrated meter or other acceptable water use accounting method. ATTACH calibration reports of the water use accounting method for each well and pump Form 0645 -W01 (08103) PERMIT APPLICATION for Water Use 10 1612�2g' H. ATTACHMENTS Please make sure you have included the following attachments with your Application: ® Proof of Ownership ® Table A for Wells 0 Letter of Authorization (where required) ❑ Table B for pumps ® Location Map ® Application Fee ® Site Map For Irrigation water use, also make sure you have included the following attachments: ® Table D for crop information ❑ Water conservation plan (if needed) For Public Water Supply water use of more than 100,000 gallons per day, also make sure you have included the following attachments: ❑ Table F for past water use ❑ Table I for treatment method and losses ❑ Table G for projected water use ❑ Table J for ASR well operations (if needed) ❑ Table H for projected water use ❑ Table K for interconnections (if needed) greater than 200 gpcd (if needed) ❑ Table E for water received from or delivered ❑ Water conservation plan (if needed) to other entities (if needed) ❑ Service Area Map For Industrial water use of more than 100,000 gallons per day, also make sure you have included the following attachments: ❑ Water balance and flow chart ❑ Water conservation plan (if needed) For Commercial or other water use that is not irrigation, public water supply, or industrial, also make sure you have included the following attachments: ❑ Explanation of how you determined the amount of water you need ❑ Water conservation plan (if needed) Attachments for additional special requirements ❑ Saline Water Monitoring Plan ❑ Feasibility evaluation of reclaimed water use ❑ Aerial Photograph ❑ Letter from reclaimed water utility ❑ Modeling or documentation of impacts of water use ❑ Reports of calibration of water use accounting method for wells and pumps I. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the total project acreage listed above is owned or controlled by me and encompasses the project referenced in this permit application. In addition, I agree to provide entry to the project site for South Florida Water Management inspectors with proper identification or documents as required by law for the purpose of making analyses of the site. Further, 1 agree to provide entry to the project site for such inspectors to monitor permitted work if a permit is granted. If I do not use the water for which this permit is issued within two years the permit may be revoked. If this application is not complete within 240 days, it may be denied pursuant to Rule 40E- 1.603, Florida Administrative Code. Certification is by Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager (Owner Agent is Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studios) Print. Name of Owner or Authorized Agent Title Signature: Form 0645 -W01 (08/03) PERMIT APPLICATION for Water Use I I „J.. • r .��, t 77 i It , i'` Mfr � t„�A1 ■4:� 4i ��,±•.•s�._�is� _ �j�'wC�y,,,;..«, 4' • r 7m ,' • may{ t•ry { . Yn _ •,� ,. ti.�7 "Mi• � � f s. r ,. >,' ;� per, '+far• 1 s �a ���_ }� ,..ice. �r -_ ,.. • ,.�,. '���� - . .!i i f b�'� +.+fir+ i �e r s......,.+ A) ^ ^ a t t � 4 tt,. ♦ k� , '�`� tY � ° i s- `* �N �' r. -' � � • � � • +, r � r � q« r `il ,� - _ � y , _ J , F ~Y. t+re� ,N y`f,X +rsFi't' ,,.• ��'�i $•.. 5a�%��Tyi s•!_�. ,'_. It , ,.r�,• 't r w, �,�`' .1”' 'f _ �{ � . i i - •a' Gy .'�'�'i�r„'^s, '� M� " ,r �� `_ ` � ;'4h7U,.' � �`,i`� �' ,1 ¢i� _ .y`y�e � r ' is? '' x�i .,xa �: 4' �?4s,$+A„ krt,".1�7:'•4 "� �� °i�,r�, 4'rjiT'r91i1; + a, -,+��. Nr �; t '"!I , ' e ii � �?'''sd'� tr,•. R � a r ' .{� - ,M/, tqy i1 1 s -i.«' �� ., y « il!�} 17 Al � '7 ,t � a, •' l�"� �t � t s � +t tires wr ,"+�' � :,r; F * ,+�'��� it.ujl,�� � �`, e - .' . �.:.+. r .•"{• $+ � 1 � {* ''� "`�'�+,' '•k, rig.? ; � � ,rti .A �rt w , , rtr.. . r ' jr ■ �+.. i, �. F, r,,P� F�,y :t. ` ` i tl"1t'f(�4,LM"s r y; 1 + A . r �, � t.`� , 1 # r ,� '`=�•1 � i� �.`'� , jam" # ��Ci I' Ak r. w ,rn ,ri`'�+ �' t "6tij'' ����� 's.� . +t+' +.,� , f�'li� `'R'�'x+ci.�`',� ' � {,��' ■� rrK + � J i [ f y . ; , ! r► � , aPiiys� } It Al '4-* � ^� ,Y. L.- .. � �-j$a � I• .X I'1 � �,'f•y1 y �r r ,Y$•�,�, + �` ri W .; #, t i 'i"� ■yi'�a�� +` i. w. � � t` YGIti!":'..y MT. '�.�. �°",� 7' � �1r�1� w '� :l�t @si.,,'�°" �,y�, a s■ •r ' Txv: ' �j�,�tl' #� ,+•'�e#itr! �+ t�C?"f,* Vin.# ��*, I�j��J• _ .�+�•. ,k!'S�� i LM4 R�[ "i°f ;+ `o •tj 'Sb4e"ii��� r �� +:� ��. � .+21Y #.+�'D £a 1i�.`Z�i, �b'�1iy e' ��. � ,yG�� �r •fi' p f ��� f -•ix ,�`' ("' ;,r,� «' {i • - +.N "iYfc.r•R+�+AY Jh }kr �� �t iF a ,��,` �'"'" ''r '��'� i' mot.!".-* s4 ��, "•'�4�� . I�+C . .s+'""` r,f �r�.Ti '� t� °. r.��� zn•�s�„�a.�d7�i'� '���ay�� t�';n���y y�ii �� -� °, . 1 S , Z °-z r m ON 00 ►� r rn D m O Z z v 3 v �0 H �0 D �p rn D D 1(� 2 A29 SANTA CLARA DRIVE . PLANTATION CIRCLE _I \ I_ BERKSHIRE PINES DRIVE SABAL LAKE DRIVE I I GABRIEL CIRCLE MADISON PARK BOULEVARD to to Irn �m SANCTUARY DRIVE ROBIN HOOD LANE 1612'," A 2 9 TABLE A Description of Wells Well Name or Number Irrigation Well Map Designation Irrigation Well Existing or Proposed Proposed Date of Proposed Construction TBD Date Installed if Existing Not Applicable Diameter (in) 8" Total Depth (ft) 100' Cased Depth (ft) 80' Screened Interval (ft) N.A. Pumped or Flowing Pumped Pump Type (see Instructions) Submersib le Pump Intake Depth (ft bls) 40' Pump or Flow Capacity (GPM) 225 GPM Working Valve if Artesian (yes, no or not applicable) Not Applicable Status (see Instructions) Primary Purpose (see Instructions) Irrigation Elevation of the Wellhead (ft NGVD - see Instructions) 1' Above Water Use Accounting Method (see Instructions) Automated Metering Device Date Last Calibrated (ATTACH calibration report) Not Applicable Planar Coordinates (if known - see instructions) Not Available Section / Township / Range TBD S4/T50/ R26 East Form 0645 -G60 (08/03) 1 A'291 Instructions for Completing TABLE A, Description of Wells Please provide the following information about the well, if known or if applicable: Well Name or Number: This is your designation of the well, if we contact you about the well, this is how you would refer to it. Map Designation: This is how you have labeled the well on the map you submitted. This may be the same as Well Name or Number, but does not necessarily have to be. Existing or Proposed: If the well is proposed enter the date of expected operation. If it is an existing well, enter the date it was installed if you know it. Diameter: Outside diameter of the well casing. Total Depth: Total length in feet between the land surface and the bottom of the well. Cased Depth: The length in feet from land surface to the bottom of the well casing. Screened Interval: The distance in feet below land surface to the top and bottom of the well screen if the well is so equipped. Pumped or Flowing: Does the well produce water as a result of natural artesian flow, or is it pumped? Pump Type: This is the type of pump that has been installed for your well. Typical choices are: centrifugal diesel turbine axial flow windmill submersible jet suction other (specify) electric turbine hydraulic portable Pump Intake Depth: Location of the pump depth in feet below land surface. The pump may be on the surface or down inside the well. Pump or Flow Capacity: The amount of water the pump can produce in gallons per minute (GPM). Working Valve: if the well is artesian, does it have a working valve to control the flow? Status: Typical choices are: Primary Secondary (Ex: a production well that is rotated) Standby (Ex: used for freeze protection or emergency) Monitor Injection (Ex: Air Conditioning, pool heat exchange, etc.; sometimes used only periodically) Recharge (Ex: same as above) Purpose: This is what the water will be used for. Typical choices are: Dairy Irrigation Air Conditioning Swimming Pool Heating Monitor Aquaculture Freeze Protection Irrigation /Lake Recharge Livestock Bottled Water Mining /Dewatering Aquifer Storage and Recovery Industrial Other (specify) Public Water Supply Aquifer Remediation and Recovery Elevation of the Wellhead: This is the elevation of the top of the finished well at the ground surface. Flow Measurement Method: Section 4. 1, Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications, requires all permittees with a maximum monthly use of greater than 3 million gallons to equip each existing water withdrawal facility with an authorized operating water use accounting system and a report of its calibration to be sent to the District. Describe how you measure the amount of water produced by the well. Date Last Calibrated: When was the flow measurement method last calibrated? ATTACH the calibration report. Planar coordinates: The Florida State Plane System (Planar Coordinates), should be submitted if you have a land survey which identifies the location of the well in terms of those measurements. If you do not know what these are, it is not necessary to include them. Section / Township / Range: The section, township and range in which the well is located. 1612 2g1 TABLE D Crop Information Please complete this form for each crop parcel (see instructions on reverse side). Parcel Name: Radio Road (East) - Phase IV Irrigation System: Sprinklers Acres Irrigated: 4.18+/ - Existing or Proposed: Proposed Expected Development Date (if proposed): TBD - To Be Determined Number of Years This Parcel Will Be Irrigated: 20 Crop Name Xeric Trees Xeric Palms Xeric Shrub Plantings Xeric Ground Cover Plantings Months Typically Planted Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Parcel Name: Irrigation System: Acres Irrigated: Existing or Proposed: Expected Development Date (if proposed): Number of Years This Parcel Will Be Irrigated: Months Typically Planted Crop Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Parcel Name: Irrigation System: Acres Irrigated: Existing or Proposed: Expected Development Date (if proposed): Number of Years This Parcel Will Be Irrigated: Months Typically Planted Crop Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Form 0645 -G65 (08/03) A29 2 1611 Parcel Name: Eastern vegetable field Irrigation System: Flood Acres Irrigated: 120 Existing or Proposed: Ex Expected Development Date (if proposed): Number of Years This Parcel Will Be Irrigated: 10 Months Typically Planted Crop Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tomatoes Peppers Tomatoes EMMOMMMMUM 0 MU■E■EM■MMEN MEMMUMMEMEMN 1612 X29 0 Instructions for Completing TABLE D, Crop Information Parcel Name: This is your designation of the area of land being irrigated, if we contact you, this is what you would recognize it as. A parcel can have only one type of irrigation system in use. In addition, if the crop is perennial (citrus, turf, etc.), the parcel can have only one crop type being grown. If the crop is annual (seasonal vegetables), the parcel can have only one crop type for each planting, but if several plantings occur during a typical year, the crop may vary from one planting to another. Irrigation System: Typical choices are: ❑ micro - sprinkler ® sprinkler ❑ nursery container ❑ flood /seepage ❑ overhead drip ❑ overhead ❑ low- volume ❑ volume gun ❑ drip ® other (specify) Bubblers for trees & palms supplemental irrigation Acres Irrigated: Number of acres on which the crop is grown. Do not include roads, easements, fence rows or other areas not being irrigated. Exiting or Proposed: Will the crop and irrigation system be in place at the time of permit issuance? Expected Development Date (if proposed): Please state the date at which the irrigation system and crop will be in place on the parcel. Crop Name Typical choices for PERENNIAL crops are: ❑ avocados ❑ turf ❑ nursery ❑ tropical fruit ❑ citrus ❑ pasture ❑ sugarcane ❑ mangoes ® palm trees ® other (specify) Xeric Trees, Palms, Shrubs & Ground Cover plantings Typical choices for ANNUAL crops are: ❑ green beans ❑ melons ❑ tomatoes ❑ peppers ❑ sweet corn ❑ potatoes ❑ small vegetables ❑ other(specify) Months Typically Planted: For annual crops ONLY, please mark, for each crop planting, the months of the year when the planting will occur. Please use a separate line for each planting, even if the same crop type will be planted. We realize that due to weather or market conditions, you may not always plant during the times indicated, or plant the crops indicated, please base the information on how you would typically operate. Example: Is 16 12 Al2 9 W40 IZ",c E*I&x M.S.T.u. Ali, e".o� 2885 S. H N�vl `!/ N. fI4, FL 34104 JUL 2 6 2011 June 1, 2011 BY:. ...................... Misc. Corres: Date: q I Ig l Item #A(_e L C, )ies to: The next meeting is scheduled for July 6, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes -May 4, 2011 Meeting V. Landscape Architect Guided "Tour" A. Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio, guided tour of landscape plants. VI. Old Business A. Finance Update 1. Report to Board on June 14, 2011 2. Grant Update B. Liaison Report – Radio Road MSTU VII. Public Comments VIII. Adjournment Fiala i Hiller Henning _T_ —` Coyle Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: q I Ig l Item #A(_e L C, )ies to: The next meeting is scheduled for July 6, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 161 2 A`2 9 q W�o fZoF.l E.&.t M.S.T.V. AA ems. 2295 S. H 1Nt NAf[ti, fl 34104 Minutes June 1, 2011 I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 10:00 AM. H. Attendance Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Dale Johnson, Renato Fernandez, Paige Simpson County: Pam Lulich — Landscape Operation Manager, Gloria Herrera - Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski — Urban Green Studio, Darlene Sue Flynn — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Switch V. and VI. Sue Chapin moved to accept the Agenda for June 1, 2011 as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — May 4, 2011 Meeting Sue Chapin moved to approved May 4, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Landscape Architect Guided "Tour" — Addressed after VI. VI. Old Business A. Finance Update Gloria Herrera distributed and reviewed the Radio Road East MSTU Fund 166 Budget Report dated June 1, 2011. (See attached) She reported as follows: • Ad Valorem Tax Received $140,088.35 • Operating Expense - Available $6,229.00 • Total Actual Expenditures $60,260.87 • Reserves /Future Construction - Available $56,300.00 1. Report to Board on June 14, 2011 Dale Johnson read a letter from Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager confirming he has been scheduled to appear 1 1612 A29 before the Board of County Commissioners at the June 14, 2011 meeting. (See attached) He asked the Committee make an effort to be present at that meeting. Paige Simpson arrived at 10: 06 a. m Dale Johnson recommended the Committee email or telephone staff with any ideas they might have to add to his presentation to the BCC. Dayna Fendrick will attend and provide additional support. Suggestions on ideas for the presentation made by Staff and the Committee were: • Comparison costs for crushed shells, mulch and maintenance. • Sod is not allowed. • A public meeting was held. • MSTU taxpayers would like to see construction start now rather than in 2017 • Well permit has been applied for. Pam Lulich will check status of well permit. Staff will help draft bullets and comments to aide in presentation. Sue Chapin expressed disappointment in the lack of Staff coordination with the submission of the proper paperwork related to the RRE MSTU scheduling for the BCC May agenda as Commissioner Henning and the Committee requested. She asked that Staff perform MSTU's tasks in a timely fashion in the future and would appreciate receiving drafts, letters, etc. for review before they are submitted. Dale Johnson requested the draft for the June meeting be provided a couple of days prior to the meeting and to also send the report to the Committee members. Pam Lulich stated that information will be email to the Committee on June 10, 2011. 2. Grant Update Pam Lulich reported the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Board meeting is scheduled for June 10th at the BCC Chambers. The MPO will make the recommendation to change the RRE MSTU project rank to second. She will try to attend that meeting and provide another update. The Committee was informed they will lose Grant funds if work is started prior to the Grant being approved. If the Radio Road East MSTU is awarded Grant funds, the funds would not be available until 2015. B. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU 2 161 2 A Sue Chapin reported she attended the last Radio Road MSTU meeting. She gave them an update on the Radio Road East MSTU landscape architect plans and received positive remarks. V. Landscape Architect Guided "Tour" A. Landscape Design - Urban Green Studio (UGS) Dana Fendrick began the Landscape Architect Tour at 10:30 am. She drew attention to the trees, shrubs and plants used in the Landscape Design throughout the drive. The bus stopped at: • Tamiami Trail East and Airport Road • Naples Botanical Gardens (tour lead by Chad Washburn, NBG) • Lely Resort • Davis Boulevard between Tamiami Trail East and Airport Road (bird -of- paradise) VII. Public Comments — None. A suggestion was made to cancel the July meeting and if necessary, hold a special meeting between June 14th and June 30, 2011. Sue Chapin moved to cancel the July meeting and if another meeting is needed; hold a special meeting before June 30th. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 PM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on as presented Z-. or amended The next meeting is August 3, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 161 2 A29 w Rk4a R"d 5"r 711..5.7 u Ada" e6m4w 2885 S. �ouealwe Duce ;?.C' 34104 June 21, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - June 1, 2011 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Finance Update 1. Report on Request to the County Commissioners 2. Grant Update B. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for August 3, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 ZAAOIZ"01 E44 M.S.T.U. Ak'" Co w,v z, 2995 S. Nil« N• vc Nom, fl 34104 Summary of Minutes and Motions June 1, 2011 161 2 A-0-9 -+ III. Approval of Agenda Switch V. and VI. Sue Chapin moved to accept the Agenda for June 1, 2011 as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — May 4, 2011 Meeting Sue Chapin moved to approved May 4, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. A suggestion was made to cancel the July meeting and if necessary, hold a special meeting between June 14th and June 30, 2011. Sue Chapin moved to cancel the July meeting and if another meeting is needed; hold a special meeting before June 30th. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 1 lam` May 16, 2011 Board of County Commissioners 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 1612 A 9 . Z, s.7u44w 2885 S. + 4weAEoe 41*W, %c' 34104 Subject: Request for assistance with Project Financing — Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Board. Dear Commissioners: On July 28, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners created the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara MSTU Advisory Committee. The committee is responsible for coordinating with County staff on the completion of the Radio Road Landscaping Beautification project extending from Santa Barbara Boulevard east to Davis Boulevard. A conceptual design has been completed for the project with a cost estimate of $735,701 for construction. Given the current taxable value of the properties within the MSTU boundary, the MSTU will not have sufficient accrued funds to begin the project until fiscal year 2017. The Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Committee respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners support the advisory committee's effort in obtaining financing to allow construction of the project to begin sooner. The Advisory Committee believes this would result in lower construction quotes /bids during this time of economic recession. The Advisory Committee request that the Board of County Commissioners advance funding from reserves or any other options that staff may propose. It is possible that options proposed by staff may require a referendum election to be held and an affirmative vote from a majority of the electors within the Radio Road East MSTU. An election likely would not be required if the Board of County Commissioners simply determines AKemam Trarmortalim Modes • 2885 South Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104.239- 252 -8152 • FAX 239 -252 -5&99 • www.coNietgov.net 1612 h2-9 � on an annual basis how much, if any, to repay the advance from MSTU funds. The MSTU Committee is willing to bring the matter before the MSTU electorate provided the Board looks favorably upon our request. Because the timing for the completion of this project is of concern for the MSTU, the Committee recommends bringing the issue to the voters within the MSTU boundaries during the upcoming Presidential Primary (anticipated sometime January — March 2012) rather than waiting for the general election process in November 2012. There will be no cost for conducting the referendum at that time and the sooner the question is polled, the sooner the project can get underway. The Radio Road East MSTU advisory committee is under increasing pressure from the public to 'get the project done' and recent budget projections indicate that the project would not have sufficient funds until FY -2017, 2 years beyond current sunset date. We would like to review the funding options with staff and have your support in advancing our project while saving public funds and completing the project ahead of its current schedule. Sincerely, Ra' 'o Road East of Santa Bar ara to David Blvd. MSTU Advisory Board: , �),� Dale Johnson, Chair�an Sue Chapin, Vice hairman Tom DePouw, Board Member ato Fernandei,..Board Member Paige Simpson, Boar Member 1612 0290 PROCEDURE TO PETITION THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Public Petitions are limited to a single speaker, with a maximum time of ten minutes. Generally the Board will not take action on public petition items on the day the petition is presented, but may direct staff to take action, or bring back the item to the Board at a future date for consideration. If the subject matter is currently under litigation or is an on -going Code Enforcement case, the Board will hear the item but will not discuss the item after it has been presented. The County Manager may defer scheduling a public petition for a reasonable period of time to allow sufficient time for staff to review the content and thus prepare for questions from the Board. Individuals wishing to petition the Board of County Commissioners should present such a request in writing to the County Manager a minimum of 13 days. prior to the Board meeting date on which the public petition is requested to be heard. The written request should be on the following form and include any exhibits and /or backup material that may be pertinent to the petition. It should be noted that your request and all materials submitted will become public record and will be retained for that purpose. Public Petition requests can be mailed to: County Manager Collier County Government Complex 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112 Or faxed to: (239) 252 -4010 Attn: Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager The County Manager will review your request and determine if the Board of County Commissioners has the ability to legally act upon the action you are requesting. Final determination of this request is at the discretion of the County Manager's office. The County Manager's office will notify you via mail the status of your request. CADocuments and Settings\sillery_t \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \EBTNBZHN \DALE JOHNSON- R R East MSTU - REQUEST FOR 6 -14 -2011 BCC DATE - Public Petition Request Form.docx 16 12 Af29 + Request to Speak under Public Petition Please print Name:Dale Johnson Address:8148 Piedmont Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: Mobile: (239) 377 -0333; Office: (239) 774 -3866 Date of the Board Meeting you wish to speak: June 14, 2011 - Item 6A -BCC Meeting Must circle yes or no: Is this subject matter under litigation at this time? Yes /,No Is this subject matter an ongoing Code Enforcement case? Yes / No Note: If either answer is "yes ", the Board will hear the item but will have no discussion regarding the item after it is presented. Please explain in detail the reason you are requesting to speak (attach additional page if necessary): On May 4, 2011 at the Radio Road East MSTU Regular Meeting, the advisory committee had discussion with Commissioner Henning regarding options for financing the Radio Road East MSTU Project which is anticipated to cost $750,000 (total construction). The advisory committee has appointed the committee chairman to speak to the Board of County Commissioners to obtain direction from the Board (BCC) to direct staff to prepare a resolution in coordination with Office of Management and Budget (OMB), County Legal, and Supervisor of Elections in placing an item before the voters, on January 31, 2012, to obtain a 50% plus one approval of either a (1) Board of County Commissioners funding advance, or (2) Board of County Commissioners funding advance from a Bank Loan to the County secured by non -ad valorem revenues, and to pursue other options per staff recommendation. CADocuments and Settings \sillery_t \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook\EBTNBZHN \DALE JOHNSON- R R East MSTU - REQUEST FOR 6 -14 -2011 BCC DATE - Public Petition Request Form.docx iai c "A2q`' Please explain in detail the action you are asking the Commission to take (attach additional page if necessary): Motion to direct staff to bring back a resolution for Radio Road East MSTU Committee placing an item on the January 31 2012 Presidential Preference Primary in order to obtain a 50% plus one approval of proposed Board of County Commissioners Funding Advance or Bank Loan or other finance options as staff may recommend. CADocuments and Settings\sillery_t \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \EBTNBZHN \DALE JOHNSON- R R East MSTU - REQUEST FOR 6 -14 -2011 BCC DATE - Public Petition Request Form.docx 161 2 2'9 Office of the County Manager Leo E. Ochs, Jr. 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 • Naples Florida 34112 -5746 • (239) 252 -8383 • FAX: (239) 252 -4010 May 19, 2011 Mr. Dale Johnson 8148 Piedmont Drive Naples FL 34104 Re: Public Petition request from Mr. Dale Johnson, Chairman of the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara to Davis Boulevard MSTU Advisory Board, requesting that the Board of County Commissioners support the advisory committee's effort in obtaining financing to allow construction of the landscaping beautification project to begin sooner. Dear Mr. Johnson: Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of Commissioners at the meeting of June 14, 2011, regarding the above referenced subject. Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes. Please be advised that the Board will take no action on your petition at this meeting. However, your petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the Board's discretion. If the subject matter is currently under litigation or is an on -going Code Enforcement case, the Board will hear the item but will not discuss the item after it has been presented. Therefore, your petition to the Board should be to advise them of your concern and the need for action by the Board at a future meeting. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F ") of the government complex. Please arrange to be present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members. If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Mike Sheffield Business Operations Manager MJS: mj b cc: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Norman Feder, Growth Management Division Administrator Michele Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes Director 1612 N N N N N W V O M-P, W N s 0 W W V O M A W N" O W W V M M A W N -� ��u7 mm — 0000Em — I —i Z00 --1 x- -T0(7 ACmi�w>00DDm�m u chi 2m 0�D0xxDD <mm�r� Dmm z00 zz �x x- m m�, m Dz nxxzz mxw =D W<<M -m m� DO D-0 c x(n m � mmmmmTl ccmi�� = <0 C�m m-�-� �0 0� z�� �� Cn m�cn00�� m�m DGD O C) DD �� �z m� cmn nQ O m cn���mm - �i> --i m x 0 z z r� x`° rN 2 z gom���J�17 �(7X -0x —1 -n zCncn C> x r� m cc�MDDOOc Z�m� c �n> z G) m Z �U— o oo�D�OmZ�� C) 0x O zm� ON � -nmX��m�mXD o r c W zz0D m0—Im X _ m (n c r- � � MR r. m m _ 40 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 63 69 69 69 'A 69 63 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 ffl 69 .. ,.00> M c ) rn rn w w M M rn J J M --4 --4 W W CL miwio oowo cn v, C) 4& (no o) -j -4 w wc� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O Q O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O EA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 40 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Efl 69 69 69 69 6B -CO 69 69 63 69 0 O 3 O �O Cfl O O co 69 69169 69 69 69 ffl 69 69 69 fA 69 69 69 63 Ei9 {A 63 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 ffl 69 o cn 000 O A W O N 1 91 w w w w rn rn Cn w o to v O O O O N 00 Cn —J W N Cfl Cn N Cb W O O O 00 W 69 69 63 69 69 69 O 0 0 N N O 00 �I v O O w 0 s V O �I J O O Co toI69169163169 69169169163169169 Cn cn 000 O A W O N 1 91 w w cn o Cfl O — O Cn w w �I v O O 2 N 00 Cn —J -I O N Cfl Cn N Cb W N O O 00 Cb O 69 69 63 69 69 69 O 0 0 N N O O O O w w 0 O 69 69 69 69 69114AI69 i i . 1 1 69 69 69 69 69 000 O A W O N N Cn O co rL a N O CA cn o Cfl O — O M O -N V N 69 69 69 69 69114AI69 i i . 1 1 69 69 69 69 69 � — co — O W �I v O O O O cn �" 0 0 O O Cn O�� 0 0 .p 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 W O O Cl) D O 12 w CD � N CD N � Cn N 00 Cn OL -OL -OL cn A 2 M sv L Q O -n O C Z Q °vm o � N C iu D rL a 0 o - N .-. j . O 2 CD Cn O Cn OC) N Cfl Cn N Cb W lI A A ? 69 69 63 69 69 69 � — co — O W �I v O O O O cn �" 0 0 O O Cn O�� 0 0 .p 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 W O O Cl) D O 12 w CD � N CD N � Cn N 00 Cn OL -OL -OL cn A 2 M sv L Q O -n O C Z Q °vm o � N C X cw m o' v. Vn v> 0 0 0 3 0) (D >v II in O O 0 lw CD O W CD O 10 W O V W O 1612 A29'' w A 00 r S�-0cn C 00 O A 00 00 v TI TI 'TI 'T1 � fl7 N O TI T 07 �. 3 CD co 00 CO i p< N X X � O 6 ZS cD (Op (D (D ^m N 9<) N o (D a (D N O o T N C) C) o (D O 0 p 1 N — Z D) 3 0) (D >v II in O O 0 lw CD O W CD O 10 W O V W O 1612 A29'' 0 N Q 0 N CZ m w c S�-0cn C C v CD 07 �. 3 CD N N cD (D (D N — Z D) O g CD D 3 olC7 0 (n (D m -u 000f) m L�H (D LO - 3. m M. 0 TI (D 5 r- cn >v cn s cn :1 La (D < _ ; v v m m N 0 m CD (D (D A A A A cn m CT cn O Cl O O N ( N N N 0 � c> *k A �"rn cn -1 UI W N M O O v ffl ffl ffl JA JA EA fA Ef; 69 EA to EA 4A 69 49 EA {p Efl 4A 19 to 69 CD _ � O 7 C)" co O O (Q W O A EH ffl 09 EA 19 f9 f9 fA f9 E9 EA En (9 fA El EH EA EA EA 69 ffl f4 {p N N co O W _ N — a CA C I co W W O v (Si O CO O A O W O 0 N Q 0 N CZ m w c 1612 A 30 VaNdsdiet BeaeA M.S.7.(1. Advisory Commoittaa 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 February 3, 2011 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:00 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bill Gonnering, Bruce Forman, Bud Martin (Excused) County: Darryl Richard —MSTU Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Diana Dueri - Public Utilities Others: Chris Tilman — Malcolm Pirnie, Jim Fritchey —CLM, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: Xl. A. Government Liaison Dick Lydon moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — January 6, 2011 Change: IV, pg 3, sixth paragraph, first bullet should read. "Bill' Ferry Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of January 6, 2011 as amended. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. 2:03 p.m. Bill Gonnering arrived V. Budget Report Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information: • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $856,996.84 • Available Capital Outlay $5,672,700.00 16 a �a3o Discussion took place on inconsistencies between the Budget Report and the Adjusted Balance Sheet. Darryl Richard noted after the February Audit the Adjusted Balance Sheet and Budget Report will be in balance. VI. Landscape Maintenance Report—CLM -Jim Fritchey Darryl Richard reported the Contractor was directed to trim the Berry Bush between 102nd and 103`d Ave to prevent a safety hazard. VII. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur Chris Tillman gave additional information on Phase I Easement Status: (See attached) Location (4) Vanderbilt Bay Condominiums Phase 2 o FPL approved relocation of (2) Units Location (5A and 9) Chafee o Original Easement Documents were received without a required Notary Stamp Location 9A Forbis o (3) Easement Documents were submitted to Mr. Forbis Location (11) Mario Costantini o Status is pending the outcome of acquiring an Easement from Mr. Monaghan (11A) Location 13 Villas of Vanderbilt Beach o RWA Survey is pending Location 13A Le Dauphin o RWA Survey is complete Location 15 Manatee Resort o Pending FPL approval on final Easement Documents Location 16 Vanderbilt Beach LLC o Easement Documents are under review by Legal Counsel (for the Association) Location 18 & 19 Vanderbilt Beach Motel o Original Signatures by all Property Owners is required on the Easement Documents in lieu of scanned signatures Charles Arthur recommended Malcolm Pirnie provide prepaid FEDEX envelopes to Property Owners to expedite acquiring signatures for Easement Documents. 2 1612 A 30 Darryl Richard responded that Staff will provide the County (Growth Management Division) FEDEX account number to Chris Tilman. Charles Arthur reported on the Meeting held January 21St with FPL and Comcast: o It was agreed that FPL will begin work first - In August if Easement Acquisitions are complete Chris Tilman stated: • Comcast may need additional Easements to install (4) Power Units • Confirmation is needed from FPL on the following items - If Pits are required at the beginning and end of Directional Bores (Gulf Shore Dr.) - The required Pit size - The number of drills (longitudinally and laterally) Darryl Richard noted the Asbestos Concrete AC Pipe runs the length of the job site and was factored in on the Directional Boring plan by FPL. Dick Lydon questioned the cost involved for mitigation and protection of the existing AC Pipe not covered by the FPL Contract. (See attached) Darryl Richard responded: o Placement of protective steel sheets over the AC pipe is not covered under the (FPL) Contract - The Project will be supervised separately (Asbestos AC Pipe protection) After discussion it was concluded if the AC Pipe should break during construction the MSTU will be responsible for repairs. Discussion ensued on the condition of the Asbestos Concrete AC Pipe. Diana Dueri stated County Standards must be followed to protect the Asbestos Concrete AC Pipe. Charles Arthur requested the County Utilities Department coordinate with FPL on County Standards to protect the AC Pipe. Darryl Richard reported Public Utilities will assist in the management of the Asbestos Abatement on the Water Line Relocation Project. Charles Arthur questioned if the Steel Casing issue was resolved. Chris Tilman responded negative. The Plans were submitted without Steel Casing included due to lack of response (by Plan Review.) Diana Dueri will confer with Plan Review Department on the Steel Casing issue. 161 i 430 Project Phase 1 Completion Schedule (See attached) Chris Tilman reported: • Construction Schedule was broken into 3 components - FPL Underground System installation (90 days) - Comcast Underground System installation (30 days) - FPL Aerial System removal (90 days) • Comcast Easement Acquisition - Bar indicates timeframe allotted to acquire Easements to remain on Schedule • Recommended postponing payment to Comcast until the Project is near the Construction Phase - Excluding lead time to order Materials • FPL lead time to order Materials is 16 weeks • Confirm with FPL and Comcast if Temporary Construction Easements are required vui. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard reviewed the following items: o Bentley Electric Quote $15,900.00 for the Meter Conversion at 10021 Gulf Shore Dr. (See attached) Dick Lydon moved to spend $15,900.00 (Bentley Electric Quote.) Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 40. o Comcast Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement (See attached) - Was approved by the County Attorney - Noted a change to paragraph 3 and paragraph 4, should read. Gulf Shore Dr in lieu of Vanderbilt Beach Road Dick Lydon moved to approve the (Comcast) Conversion Agreement as amended with the understanding that it will be Planning approved by legal (County Attorney.) Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 40. o MSTU Project map Phasing in relation to current Public Utilities Projects in the area - Phase 11 & 111 Water Line Replacement on Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to 111 to - Water Line Replacement from 111 th to 9t" Street o Pathways Project is postponed until MSTU Projects are complete It was noted coordination is needed as (3) Project Phases will be underway simultaneously in the same corridor (Vanderbilt to 111th Street): • Public Utilities Project • Vanderbilt Beach Utilities Project • Pathways Project 4 16i z N30 o County Attorney Letter regarding the selection process for Construction Contractors by Comcast (See attached) Jim Fritchey announced he submitted his resignation to CLM. Charles Arthur commended Jim Fritchey on a job well done. IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman - None B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin — None XI. New Business A. Government Liaison Dick Lydon perceived the MSTU Committee should establish a rapport with the new 2nd District County Commissioner. Charles Arthur volunteered to update Commissioner Hiller on the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Project. XII. Public Comment — None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:25 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee Charles Arthur, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Comm[ ee on as presented or amended The next meeting is March 3, 2011 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111 T" Ave. Naples, FL. 5 1612 4 A30 Report for: February 3, 2011 Meeting Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Project Status (VA -35 -B) - ACTIVE — Asbestos Abatement Project 02- 03 -11: Staff is coordinating with Public Utilities, Risk Management, and Pollution Control to determine action plan for asbestos abatement. (VA -35 -A) - ACTIVE — Water Line Relocation Project — Project V -1 02- 03 -11: Final Bid Documents & Plans have been submitted to Public Utilities Division (PUD) for review and approval. Approval is pending. After PUD approval staff anticipates issue of ROW Permit. Project Bidding will follow ROW Permit Issue. (VA -34) - ACTIVE — Survey for Phase II & III (PO 4500118493) 02- 03 -11: Survey Data is under review by Malcolm Pirnie Engineer. (VA -32) — 10021 Gulfshore Drive Underground conversion of residential meter. 02- 03 -11: Bentley Electrical to provide quote under annual collier county electrical contract. Quote is being provided in close coordination with Troy Todd (FPL) and Collier County Chief Building Inspector, Richard Long. (VA -30) - ACTIVE — Comcast "Phase One" Coordination 02- 03 -11: Staff has made some minor revisions to the Agreement and submitted to Comcast for review /approval. Upon notification of Comcast approval the agreement will be placed on BCC Agenda for formal approval of the agreement. (VA -27) - ACTIVE — Phase One "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" (UFCA) 11 -10 -09 COMPLETED for Channel Drive (only); UFCA approved by BCC for'Channel Drive' 02 -03 -11 Overall Phase One UFCA is pending resolution of 'easements' required for Phase One Project; As soon as easements are obtained FPL will proceed with Final Engineering Cost Estimate and production of Final Design Plans for project. (VA -26) - ACTIVE — Malcolm Pirnie; (EASEMENT AQUISITION) Review preliminary design provided by FPL 02 -03 -11 Ongoing review of easements and negotiation with property owners in progress. (VA -19) — ACTIVE - ONGOING — On Call Services — Malcolm Pirnie Engineering On -going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. 02 -03 -11 Ongoing On -Call Engineering Services by Malcolm Pirnie Engineering (VA -18) — ACTIVE - ONGOING- — Maintenance Contract — Award to Commercial Land 02 -03 -11 Ongoing Maintenance Services by Commercial Land Maintenance 1612 7130 Wednesday, January 19, 2011 STAFF ASBESTOS ABATEMENT COORDINATION MEETING: Attendees: Ray Smith, Director Pollution Control; Pam Libby, Manager Water Operations; Michelle Edwards Arnold, Director ATM Department; Darryl Richard, County Project Manager; Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager; Mark Sunyak, Principal Project Manager PUD; Michael Gates, Risk Management; Fred Sexton, Senior Field Inspector; Diana Dueri, Project Manager PUD; and Committee Chairman Charlie Arthur. Public Utilities Division made offer to assist Growth Management Division (ATM Dept.) in properly managing the asbestos abatement portion of the water line relocation project. • Currently Plans are in final revision and 100% plans will be submitted by Malcolm Pirnie next Monday, Jan. 24, 2011. (note: plans were confirmed delivered on 1/24/11) • Once ROW Permit is issued project will be bid to Collier Count annual contractors. • Also, after issue of ROW Permit staff will execute Phase One — Project Initialization. • Upon receipt of bid results staff will coordinate with Ray Smith, Director Pollution Control, to meet with DEP to review the project. • Through the entire Asbestos Abatement Process the County MSTU Liaison Project Manager will report directly to Ray Smith, and copy Diana Dueri, Pamela Lulich, and Michael Gates, for the purposes of project oversight and coordination. • The next official coordination meeting will be the Phase One — Project Initialization (time /date TBD). (pending staff review /approval of project plans — and subsequent ROW Permit issue) Friday, January 21, 2011 MEETING WITH JOHN LEHR (FPL) & ANDY VASPASIANO (COMCAST): Staff meeting with John Lehr, FPL Project Manager; Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie; Darryl Richard, County Project Manager; Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager; Andy Vaspasiano, Comcast; and Committee Chairman Charlie Arthur indicates that 4 easements have been recorded, 6 are pending final recording, and 5 are pending owner signature. John Lehr indicated that an 8 foot by 10 foot "pit" would be required for all directional bore crossings along Gulfshore Drive. And that the directional bores would require an additional 'right of entry' from all property owners who will be affected by directional bore operations (i.e. installation of the 8ft. x 10 ft. pit and also area for setting up the directional bore equipment. It was noted that the directional bore equipment is 'very heavy' and that there is concern with the existing 'asbestos concrete' (AC) pipe. Staff had noted that Public Utilities Division has informed Malcolm Pirnie that this pipe is 'very brittle' and has cracked in the past with just a maintenance vehicle crossing over the top of one of the pipes. John Lehr recommended that staff obtain official instructions from Utilities in regards to how the asbestos concrete (AC) pipe should be protected during conversion of the power to underground. The suggestion was made that % inch to 1 inch steel plates be used to cover the existing AC pipe so that it is protected during construction. is 161 2 1130 It was also noted that the directional bores in close proximity to the existing AC pipe would require very accurate placement of the directional bore — to avoid damaging the existing AC pipe during boring operations. John Lehr indicated that the cost of mitigation /protection of the existing AC pipe would not be included in the 'engineering cost' or Contribution in aid of Construction (CIAC). John indicated that the tariff requirements as relates to calculation of the CIAC would not include the project activity related to 'protecting existing pipe' such as the asbestos concrete pipe. It was noted that the specific requirements and calculation of the CIAC is contained within the PSC approved tariff's which outline specific requirements for the underground conversion. It was noted the FPL would not bid the project until 'payment is received for the CIAC. The CIAC would be calculated after final plans are produced. Final plan production is pending the obtaining of all easements required for the project. It was noted that the 'moving of the water line' project could take place concurrently with the bidding of the FPL underground conversion project and subsequent construction. Therefore, the moving of the waterline is not anticipated to cause delay in the overall project schedule. Staff informed John Lehr that Public Utilities Division will be working very closely with Growth Management Division in the 'asbestos abatement' procedures related to the water line relocation project. John Lehr indicated that FPL bidding of this project would be for 56 days (or 3 months) and that actual construction could be done in 1 to 2 months timeframe. The discussion of 'how many bores' would be required for the entire project indicated that 35 to 45 bores are anticipated across Gulfshore Drive (final count is pending final plans). John Lehr reminded staff that all restoration will have to be performed by the MSTU in relation to directional bore operations (i.e. restoring any landscaping, pavers, of plantings). Andy Vaspasiano, Project Manager, Comcast indicated that the project will require about the same number of bores across Gulfshore Drive (35 to 45) and also has numerous crossings anticipated across driveways and side streets /finger streets. The total number of Comcast crossings will exceed 100 crossings. Final count of directional bores and crossings is pending final project plans. Andy Vaspasiano indicated that the Comcast Portion of the project would take 2 months for construction. It was noted that Comcast would go 'last' and that they would wait until FPL had all the lines underground (w /poles still up) prior to converting Comcast Cable to underground. Once the Comcast lines were off the poles the poles would finally be removed — as the last part of the project. It was noted that Vanderbilt Bay requested relocation of 2 transformer switch cabinets and that John Lehr would confirm if they can be moved. (Note: on 1/31/11 John Lehr reported: I received the okay to relocate the PME -4's (two) to the new location 4 (design will install HH and the longer cable runs). i0 1612 [, A30 It was also noted that the directional bores in close proximity to the existing AC pipe would require very accurate placement of the directional bore —to avoid damaging the existing AC pipe during boring operations. John Lehr indicated that the cost of mitigation /protection of the existing AC pipe would not be included in the 'engineering cost' or Contribution in aid of Construction (CIAC). John indicated that the tariff requirements as relates to calculation of the CIAC would not include the project activity related to 'protecting existing pipe' such as the asbestos concrete pipe. It was noted that the specific requirements and calculation of the CIAC is contained within the PSC approved tariff's which outline specific requirements for the underground conversion. It was noted the FPL would not bid the project until 'payment is received for the CIAC. The CIAC would be calculated after final plans are produced. Final plan production is pending the obtaining of all easements required for the project. It was noted that the 'moving of the water line' project could take place concurrently with the bidding of the FPL underground conversion project and subsequent construction. Therefore, the moving of the waterline is not anticipated to cause delay in the overall project schedule. Staff informed John Lehr that Public Utilities Division will be working very closely with Growth Management Division in the 'asbestos abatement' procedures related to the water line relocation project. John Lehr indicated that FPL bidding of this project would be for 56 days (or 3 months) and that actual construction could be done in 1 to 2 months timeframe. The discussion of 'how many bores' would be required for the entire project indicated that 35 to 45 bores are anticipated across Gulfshore Drive (final count is pending final plans). John Lehr reminded staff that all restoration will have to be performed by the MSTU in relation to directional bore operations (i.e. restoring any landscaping, pavers, of plantings). Andy Vaspasiano, Project Manager, Comcast indicated that the project will require about the same number of bores across Gulfshore Drive (35 to 45) and also has numerous crossings anticipated across driveways and side streets /finger streets. The total number of Comcast crossings will exceed 100 crossings. Final count of directional bores and crossings is pending final project plans. Andy Vaspasiano indicated that the Comcast Portion of the project would take 2 months for construction. It was noted that Comcast would go 'last' and that they would wait until FPL had all the lines underground (w /poles still up) prior to converting Comcast Cable to underground. Once the Comcast lines were off the poles the poles would finally be removed — as the last part of the project. It was noted that Vanderbilt Bay requested relocation of 2 transformer switch cabinets and that John Lehr would confirm if they can be moved. (Note: on 1/31/11 John Lehr reported: I received the okay to relocate the PME -4's (two) to the new location 4 (design will install HH and the longer cable runs). ( J6 _ 30 INDUSTRIAL BENTLEY C ®. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS COMMERCIAL Phone: (239) 643 -5339 Fax: (239) 643 -3685 of Naples, Florida, Inc. P.O. BOX 10572 e NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 February 3, 2011 Collier County MSTU Projects Attn: Darryl Richard, RLA 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Re: 10021 Gulfshore Drive Per our jobsite visit on August 2, and based on the letter that you received from the County Electrical Inspector we have based our bid on the following regarding the revised updated quotation (due to increased copper prices) for the subject installation: a) Install a new 400 amp service complete with (2) 200 amp meters and main breakers that will be mounted on the south side outside wall. b) Run (2) two inch PVC conduits from the new electrical service location and re- feed the old existing original panels located in an outdoor "close quartered" equipment closet. Install new 2/0 thwn copper wiring for the (2) existing panels. c) Reroute the conduits in the outdoor closet to accommodate the revised pipe work. d) Re -cut the driveway and install additional 2" conduit. Reinstall new concrete patch and directional bore has needed as noted in item (b). e) Install FPL conduit from the new meter to roadway. This work will be done for the sum of $15,900.00. If you have any questions concerning this proposal, feel free to contact me. r Sincerely, / Charles A. Bentley, Jr. 0 o 0 O o m N N C A O o m A O O + A A -O c 0O = . 1 O rD n r O v N N T ID D- N N I-+ N v r c N c` 3 ro D F� F� F-� I-� ■ Z N N O rD n N IT N N N N 161 2ti A30 4-0 - C n c c 0 0 0 0 0 p n n T v . c c 3 3 3< m a7 0 7 < 3 3 c w° '^. v w o o m d rho m o 0 0 0 P 0 o in o o v a v a fD N rL 3 v d o 0 0 0 0 D dG e=r 0 0 O O r C \ < o 0 0 n v c n C. F 0 c1 ET v d a o v O ? .r 00 �. O N o n- O m a �' O CD 0 3 D D � oa ° \ = O o v o o H 3 — .1 3 n S M � a c o 0 O o m N N C A O o m A O O + A A -O c 0O = . 1 O rD n r O v N N T ID D- N N I-+ N v r c N c` 3 ro D F� F� F-� I-� ■ Z N N O rD n N IT N N N N 1b4 " A 3 0 C "I < a v 3 Dl H Q a m a M r=h H lD C 3 v D p w = S rt tj o N N ray o = C a< p (^ O_ 7 CL O r) ° q m a v v o; O m m m N rF r) O O O. O N V N V V W w W O W F,, li O n a d ° < m < nS S w v N N Z N C w v v w m m w�� n W T ° o "D m d ,c 1o^ qD ko 7 S 01 ID V rl Wre) N 3 rD V •p V D) 1°O ° p V U F 7 rD (� N O 'B 0 rD N 3 �' p V `n O. O A rD 3 = 3 7 n 0 o F-- K 3 l 3 aD 3 l N V N V V W w W O W F,, li O O NJ 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O r 7 O � ° D° C r r m o F o O w o � G) G) 00 00 C 7 C F-- C. y D � s —_ N — 3 •o o D o (D d N S O O D O � m O m O < v < m m m O O O Ln A x � I � O � D D 9 O ° < < m Q C O. 1 � D 3 D ?. O O Ol 0 O r 7 m � ° Ln A x � I � O � D D 9 O ° < < m Q C O. 0 c' n o D 3 D ?. O O Ol 0 O r 7 < m 9 03.0 ° D° C d ID 0 d 0 0 _ v ° 3 CL o m — -< I z I o n 70 O T m w 3 z o 0- ° < m FL o f v N A O D O rD C_ ID a d x � n N C d. v ° 7 S O rD m H 7 3 M 7 C rD s rD O h N 0 C '1 p°j K < a o n 0 3 m rD n 0 3 a m m < N d r v v m F+ F• m N m n m o m F+ m o O v 3 r 3 3^ D m D o c D v v -a OZ ?. o° d o w° N �' v °S. o< r n. N "O N 7 N N Ol Ol n O 3 m m C m D� (D m C i O < rD d Q_ N N O t- <= n '' H m 3 m m C m W O m A N "°O rD 1\+ 0 rD c (D m, 1^ii �+ Ln W C 3 7 N 3 Dl H i n 3 v n N N n m d F+ A m U O. m m CL 3 �^ o O o 7- 7 < m o 3 m m 3 d< m v 6 K ° f< 7 m m 3 3 3 m o o <° 3 F m e m Q 3 m 3 3 m < m 'm ^° v 7 w m a4 m rt o 3 m e w s m a 3 n n. 3 n m = 3 n rrDD < v _v, s m �, m an d ° °-' °• .m. O ,7, \ •o m m o !n' m m n 3 ^ 3 O. 7 03 O. rt S rr A N O. 7 d N O� •+ ^ rD r0+ rn O `" 'O :' i-^ tl0 X ?C 3 A 3 r a K <. O °' (D �. m N n �. N rD S< m N °' v7i O 7 !-� fD N N 7- N m F+ < 7 °_ 0\ N r O '9 '< m C d n m N m em7-r N U m V O ID m ° rD S m Rl m 7 a r\ n ° 00 \ N N m 1\+ W N m I--` N r O :^ O m S N O O r7r C S ''+ OJ• 00 V� S W m N Q n n m 3 D O m r N 7 o m oo m m to f m n ° a, 3 ^� a s m = 3 a m < o m^ m N o m ° v. W a 3 s K 3 d 7 a ^° v m m 3 m 7 3 rL o O m< m 7 Q v 3 0 0 o rD 0rD °' N D_ m __ °'. n n D°. tro m r7+ rt 3 C 3 01 c (D rt r 7 v+ <- CC JC fD In . O 3 Da' = O r N • F 3 N- m m N rD Vci N _. N N- N rD ° N m F. ' m ry 7 0 < m rD n C M m 3 O rD ID 7 7 V D d m Q H\ C O S d N D O m m O m CL N !^ f n a m oa 7 �, -°. 0 a� m d � °- Da rD rr rD n. n <� A 7 m f -a M 'm ? a � m m F °' o m 7 F+ < m< m 3 < n rn r7i C N N N om+ < m m .cr .+ _ �, f]. d O m C d A 3 K fD < O �'' 00 Ol Ol 3 7 O_ W Vi C N 7 m ID DJ 0 rD cu v M X O 'O O_ d N O, 7 rOr O N 01 H C N rD 7 S N (D N N Ol ID ^ OC d ID rD Vl C K m m G S O� m d O U C O O. N m c m S 7 r� c m N 01 O W N m DO m S. Cr N O. n — S] 7 D) M. < _ in m (D M< T ^ Q m^ n 3 o n 0 <n 3 3 _ s 3 m 2< w ° m C O0 m m .mr 0! X n 3 7 3 m n j- 7 .+ m 01 rD N �..� .O-' 7 to N m x m m Q , O 7 C N d ? T a4 n O v f]. G r� Tt O F� 7 m < d O N 3 7C S 00 C rD fD \ O m 7 N °. m m Q° N m 3 _ m '7y, d D) .r n \\ C O rr n vOi m m m rD (D - m T r\ ?. m m f m 3 to n <. N 3, 0 "< o m 7 m n n r D' F' N m o c D N rD � v< v n v N O — rD '6 m 0) 7 °• m W �' fl' M .7.r S N W< d N d O :D O m n 'D W O O 7 n m V� � l0 N p 7 7 "'� S O 0 = "'� m m °. O O m. N m O = a 0 rD O m\ n m fD O 3- m D_ — O_ m Ol• m y ° 3 7 m o ?. o ° o_ d °n `^n n H m o m m 3 m S c N 3 v d o< 7 D N K 3 m 3 = N 3 3 o v a ,.. oo 3 m rm n F v F+ n 3 °� m 3 f m rn W o ° n m °_ ro rD rr m m F+ 3 m 7\< D < O S — n N m V H c rD d n .�'' O S S 7 3 y K r N M (ro N 7 D 7 m \ 3 T m 3 Q � c m 3 7 o r� a ? rD ID W m CL CL rD rD W rt N n .� 0 0 r� n O N O 1 r 7 n o 3 a Ti ID D rD N d 0 0 _ v ° 3 CL o m — -< I z I o n 70 O T m w 3 z o 0- ° < m FL o f v N A O D O rD C_ ID a d x � n N C d. v ° 7 S O rD m H 7 3 M 7 C rD s rD O h N 0 C '1 p°j K < a o n 0 3 m rD n 0 3 a m m < N d r v v m F+ F• m N m n m o m F+ m o O v 3 r 3 3^ D m D o c D v v -a OZ ?. o° d o w° N �' v °S. o< r n. N "O N 7 N N Ol Ol n O 3 m m C m D� (D m C i O < rD d Q_ N N O t- <= n '' H m 3 m m C m W O m A N "°O rD 1\+ 0 rD c (D m, 1^ii �+ Ln W C 3 7 N 3 Dl H i n 3 v n N N n m d F+ A m U O. m m CL 3 �^ o O o 7- 7 < m o 3 m m 3 d< m v 6 K ° f< 7 m m 3 3 3 m o o <° 3 F m e m Q 3 m 3 3 m < m 'm ^° v 7 w m a4 m rt o 3 m e w s m a 3 n n. 3 n m = 3 n rrDD < v _v, s m �, m an d ° °-' °• .m. O ,7, \ •o m m o !n' m m n 3 ^ 3 O. 7 03 O. rt S rr A N O. 7 d N O� •+ ^ rD r0+ rn O `" 'O :' i-^ tl0 X ?C 3 A 3 r a K <. O °' (D �. m N n �. N rD S< m N °' v7i O 7 !-� fD N N 7- N m F+ < 7 °_ 0\ N r O '9 '< m C d n m N m em7-r N U m V O ID m ° rD S m Rl m 7 a r\ n ° 00 \ N N m 1\+ W N m I--` N r O :^ O m S N O O r7r C S ''+ OJ• 00 V� S W m N Q n n m 3 D O m r N 7 o m oo m m to f m n ° a, 3 ^� a s m = 3 a m < o m^ m N o m ° v. W a 3 s K 3 d 7 a ^° v m m 3 m 7 3 rL o O m< m 7 Q v 3 0 0 o rD 0rD °' N D_ m __ °'. n n D°. tro m r7+ rt 3 C 3 01 c (D rt r 7 v+ <- CC JC fD In . O 3 Da' = O r N • F 3 N- m m N rD Vci N _. N N- N rD ° N m F. ' m ry 7 0 < m rD n C M m 3 O rD ID 7 7 V D d m Q H\ C O S d N D O m m O m CL N !^ f n a m oa 7 �, -°. 0 a� m d � °- Da rD rr rD n. n <� A 7 m f -a M 'm ? a � m m F °' o m 7 F+ < m< m 3 < n rn r7i C N N N om+ < m m .cr .+ _ �, f]. d O m C d A 3 K fD < O �'' 00 Ol Ol 3 7 O_ W Vi C N 7 m ID DJ 0 rD cu v M X O 'O O_ d N O, 7 rOr O N 01 H C N rD 7 S N (D N N Ol ID ^ OC d ID rD Vl C K m m G S O� m d O U C O O. N m c m S 7 r� c m N 01 O W N m DO m S. Cr N O. n — S] 7 D) M. < _ in m (D M< T ^ Q m^ n 3 o n 0 <n 3 3 _ s 3 m 2< w ° m C O0 m m .mr 0! X n 3 7 3 m n j- 7 .+ m 01 rD N �..� .O-' 7 to N m x m m Q , O 7 C N d ? T a4 n O v f]. G r� Tt O F� 7 m < d O N 3 7C S 00 C rD fD \ O m 7 N °. m m Q° N m 3 _ m '7y, d D) .r n \\ C O rr n vOi m m m rD (D - m T r\ ?. m m f m 3 to n <. N 3, 0 "< o m 7 m n n r D' F' N m o c D N rD � v< v n v N O — rD '6 m 0) 7 °• m W �' fl' M .7.r S N W< d N d O :D O m n 'D W O O 7 n m V� � l0 N p 7 7 "'� S O 0 = "'� m m °. O O m. N m O = a 0 rD O m\ n m fD O 3- m D_ — O_ m Ol• m y ° 3 7 m o ?. o ° o_ d °n `^n n H m o m m 3 m S c N 3 v d o< 7 D N K 3 m 3 = N 3 3 o v a ,.. oo 3 m rm n F v F+ n 3 °� m 3 f m rn W o ° n m °_ ro rD rr m m F+ 3 m 7\< D < O S — n N m V H c rD d n .�'' O S S 7 3 y K r N M (ro N 7 D 7 m \ 3 T m 3 Q � c m 3 7 o r� a ? rD ID W m CL CL rD rD W rt N n .� 0 0 r� n O N O 1 r 16a 2i 'A30 to W A w D Ln a ° T n ° S O o v 7 7 N rD N • ° J N W m n n `p W m D W O N W O ° O c N S X 01 W J (D w \p fD rD fD 7c WD O S 3 0 al O (� n w (n n a# M (g N p 3 3 Dc o -I -°-0. n nr\•.Q10 O O N A .�v o r:�n W ��on n v S oW zx a 00o 0 o x u, A ;� 3 3 W O W n 01 .0.. Ql rJ•' 6 O Ol p V W n V J J Oa) N 6 C w w N N LM 3 r H 3 (D o 0 0, o j li` (D Ha W 00 n O ^ J N V1 O o o 00 3 0 3 V w V w V N V W W W 000 W W A N 00 N 00 O 0 0 O 00 W N W O O O O O O LO 0 O O F+ O w Lnn 'n c G) c G) c G) c N S N S S S O (D (D rD O N (<D N v W J 7 p O r3o � �•�? X W W X In X Ca x n l In p < O < O M a rD a o 'o • 0 0 0 `D 0 ° rD a. a. rD O. rD a °^ l 0 a 0 3 3 v e' a v o ti a 0 n 3 n v o 3 3 v CL a a 01 ° m m z 0 o ND D O T D d 3 - z z p ^ Q 0 '< < N '^ O (D 7 n o F W rD N fD n Q F� C rD o S Dr p N ^ -' N N a. O (D n (D W f+ 7 F.. 0 �+ O m' W S -�+. 00 \ W W n n S N a. (D W W (••+ r a. N S (D N 0l 7 O N N W n O .0 \\ fD F+ rD H f+ N F+ N N \ rD W\ Km N N r a. 7 N O (D N N vni (D (f Di W �' V1 m <, s 3 H_ K Vi I\-' "0 N O_ O I\-' W N N �, d, 1N71 W 2DD ° O o m a m_ 3 ID D rD N fD C T O N A v 3 N v a 3 n 3 3 0 uW ao 0 D m e N H S_ 3 oni O D U 1 •. N N (D I N N - 7\ F, o° 3 n3 ID � N (D - N (? W (D � 3 n D d 3 p D = 3 n 2 (D r rD C C "O N K S N. N 7. 7 7r J -° ti: :3 •p 7 r7i. F\ 7 W 3 fD W ^ n (D N OD - N a. N �. �• fD a• M 7 W W rJr W O_ W fD rD i <• N o rD �. (D (Ci <. d rD `G d0 A F+ M V C 3. w. n _ •6 a. O J in O d S N W W S= z rT F• 3, 3 (D F, O. O "pO J S N 0. � 3 S a. 7r Cl 7 O_ 7 T F, O. Q N O S 7 r •D \ n N �• o 3 N• 7 3 rD n (D O. (D U o W S rD N (D C •6 (D (D ` 0- W fD 7c \ Q• OL (D 7c' r W (D �..� W N 3 O_ a. W rD p (D p ii n D, (D r N S 3 fD W in S _. In a. T S O c O W N _. N (0 7 3 W fD W 00 W 'O O O ET c r N fD fD N �^ W y :e c (D fD �. N O O 7 fD O =n (D ut - O N N O CL ° 3 Oa O r d J p_ mw (D t+ fD - C O O W O - w W S < O 7 "O = O = W .W-r. S H r' (D 7 S - - 3 0 1n 3 N O >• (D J n (D 7 •6 W O N fD _ v. fl- 7 �' ' 0 u, °' 91 N �_ \ O. O N (D A G n Q(D n N 3 ^ 7 rD 7 a. O (D 0 n N A J S •0 (D S O W 7 O (D N N N p r' (D 7 N `� U r7e\,, (D S < 3 �' - ti, n rr W N (D _ ,y, < fD 3 W ° w W N -° fD (D N rWe (SD X O S -° Cl. N O O N n (D O 'Y to N S °- a (D F. W\ '� N S l r7F O N `D 7 7 ^� (D ° N O C p � C° 'NO '0 n °� N ^ W C (D • N N 3 7 °' (D 7 S CL N ° rr '•r l0 ^ O .+ 0 Q N 0. l N H 7 O N S fD - er N W n0 O O C 0 (D N W X n 3 3' S r1• • 7 �c 3 �c S 0U C (D (D 1--� O (D W (D D ° m �n S J? z m <> °_ (D O p a4 C O m? J v^ N 3 m m 'O D (D \ W rD O_ O• < N m m g(D 3 m n <, W w �. S -° (D .M a. C (D w �' O• -w 0-^ c dam' ° O ^ N (D o !~+ d O_ N (D 00 S N vi ° -0 3 n r7•' fD ° fD Z H c\ T N '�00 � ° N O (D rD f.. Oa n ° T n ID N G N : '(D = W N N 7 < J n 04 rD S N rye = O W W O.. a. N ID N (D M rD O^ rD N = F N T F-` IWi� N^ `n 3 (D 3 O N 7 (D ',". 3 \ N V N S < T` C 7 W 01 (D a. p 0- ~' N ° r� W (D < Q a. F-` 7 N 7C M J S W N (D 1n O W (D O m J m (D <� (D eW-' < C O rD J o M < < (� '0 CL cu M ID Q. m p- � � rr v 3 M W Z, B v M � r+ co (A H N r o N C o � m O f* 16I 7 t;. A 3U V � A W D N N D v � o m fD 6 T Z w N lw0 d d CL O N aq W v (D w m re) w •) 7 < A d° Pn U' f71 rrD 7 al rD '0 °o Z °' 00 rD 003 Ln rD ._. Cr .... 0 7 3 rD l!r X O .G w W T 7 ONl r� O 'CJ g0 ? 7 N D N p C 0 7 N ' W O N 4 in O t0 O C LD Q S 0 0 0 7 C. - A w N d 7 F� O N =. 7 n0 F' a) N CL O (D rD N rn 3 7 rD 0 O N .-r 7 n rD r4 O rn o � 3 0 3 a4 N V A 00 N Ln oo O CD 00 O CD p O 0 O p N V V 0000 N O V LD A � N c L V c O D � m S O rD O CD S O (D v -i � of D N F N O � s 3 3 � D u x � ul i x N x O D a � a l0 0 < O < rD < D rD d C. 4 (D n • O m rD tl0 O C d ° 7 < p rD D D D v D - ° ° O S 0 (D a 0 ID 3 - 0 N 3 v C < rD ° 7 O (DD D S 01 01 0 o a D p ° 0 O rD CL O d T! o -0 Q o _ 3 0 � c a rD m - o < 0 0 z 0 0 n Oo d Li N O rD S N 7J z O F+ 7C" aJ 0 \ D 3 N fD N N fD N N d d < N 41 l\ll ^ vii N N O O '� O M D O rD a D r0 N < N 0 w O 3 O O << -° G• N F+ N n 7 N N N fD rD S al 'O N O rD < rD w.� 3 'O N 7 rOr rD (D rD 3 > 0-°• A 3^ D° 7 3 \ c - O C y 7 rp N rD N T ° fD A n O 7 'O rD N l0 rD rn IJl "O n 7 0 3 rD (D 0 N n n N On n m m o o o< o D n D ° 7 D v v ? ? 7 C N < <• O ° N ID O °! al 3 n" w f v 3 v 3 rD O. N fD M;:, r 8' 'm row d � d ID O m (D D < S N °- O 7 F' rD fD (D K O. ? N .. 004 ° m o 0 o o a v r 3 -° _ !1 D V N N V Q S D m 3 'O .+ F.. \ �* 3 N C d rD \ rD 5. F+ Q e0-' .7•e o o m 7 DfD n °° v o a CC 7 C' (D to \ d d ^� /•% 0 N 00 - \= 7 O O" < S rD n'1 al 3 rD w u rD rD G(D CU N a 3 v D i m m < '7y, N 3 N V o :e rD f m D3 m f m^ m o p 7 fD p d f°i c n o 3 a i n n° o< <' n < m m° m m ��„ o c 7 m T <• D m w v D m N= w v c o M 3 m a o m <. m o O w a- m N 3 m m= m 0 o- ID D o m 0 3 7* 0 3 n < m 7 M M 3 Cr F+ 3 .} * C D n N O (D \ (D Sr 3 -° F+ ° °: m 3 a D 3^ a s o O m n D0 a 8 < (D wn 04 ^ 3 m m �, m y a� rD cr -' N S 3 m C. r D D" z ° m °° o x°= m< o_ m m m F+ C rD -• N N W rt °_'. C. \ °_'. `C" l0 O '6 M O N \ 7 D A 7 N D X 3 0 \ O. O fD 7 O. p C rD r' (D N A G n o7a �. 7 ., 'Z `. fD 3 N N 7 (D _ o (D O N S n < Ll. r F+ t1 rn 7 0 S < 3 p (D 7 N C <• 9 N Q y < _. n rD O O' .n-r O 3 7 O 04 \ N C° rD in .. (D 3 °` O 6\ ^ a 7+ n O (D O Ol N C. C 7 W w S O. O. a F-� n rn DCq O F+ N D S rD r' N O S 2 C N Do o\\ o rD r 3 o m a v, F ° rD 7 rCr al °_ rOr N Vr V d ~ 0) Q '° F < C_ w �c A rD w t0 w 3 _ u' S -° f]. r rD fD 3 5 O O m Q. ° O x C. r< On O F-� N �_• N a 7 n O - v O S —Q7 n D v m 3 r u _7 3 r.< D ° a4 o f° O? r; D O m ro v a - al rD Ci f - C. D 00 n F+ °< �^ , m „> O 3 N n O F+ a v v< C. v: o a Ol rn. (D T O 7 r0 N al n Ol 7 D_ r a v 3 s° a o° , =, X m c a O O! rD (D n rD rD = S N -w m\ m N O o o c n \ N O \ O N S- d n w m o r r m° z 3 o x m rD 6/ d C fD G 3 M C. O^ O; N RL � fD O O d n O N 2 ^ N C N O 3 `< T C_ rD (D O ?. 7 C. v 304 3 v+ N N (D N - (D fD - N 2 N fD N (D 'r' (D C O< rD C. Q d C. O M S \ G ° v 'o D< v 7 3 m *. 3 a O N- rD r N 7c' 6. 7? m < D., G ovi N < O to r r 'U F+ O a4 7 oa m f F 7 m\\ O ET ° 3 N N 7 rD ° 'O _' N N 3 7 N ] ? D GO O70 7 N O N - \ rD O W Tp O S f0D N r7r \ 00 OJ N _ C. (p N T ''� f'i O_ < -G r7+ 00 S r N C. O `- W al II. l (D O. a) c .0 CL W 3 C i S F� m h O 3 m 3 00 N 0) O Vr_ O � O m O rr W M 0) n S N C 161 2�,. 'ABU 00 A w W N r N N p (D N C (D (D 3 a _S 7 a m n O n rD fl -,I:.; d S ID O V W O LO 0. n V D /) W es N r F+ c w O1 et O 0 01 3 N C W n N O to 3 3 N In W N A O 0) OD O O A O O O LM 00 W 01 N C — +n C Vl S O (n S O rD O rD N < N S N O X � X N O 1- cn D a D .a rD O a C CL D a D a a .a < 0 < rD a (D CL D a D a .o V o o- r) 3 a N � H z O 0. Q a D 3 O a O 6�i O N R, rD rD rD ¢) N 3 n <. d o O < n N (D \ n — N N d O D) 7 3 m n m 3 m n 3 H .O D 0) (D a _ fD (D v D 3 3 3 N v a nD r 4a• d < '? O_ 'd K F-� N O R N Q x- \ X A\ °' -. r fl- OD rD (D I j re CO 7] N (D e3�i• O O a 7 N rD n N ? O_ N 3 m m o 3 m o m 3 a !, N Jc' •3-e Q w §. 5 m o Y as 2 3 D rD 07 a N C 'D � N W- fD G N (D O N V O (D 7 a a A\ O. •O (D � ,0.' � \ O O — O_ O � fD � O n m 01 a 3 a (D S N A 00 .:a O� 'n N n •a0 -n O. O O_ M n d O (D N S s 7C' n O_ fD M (D 3 v Oa n 7 s �n it �• " O u�i ! �' v n 0 o ° c<° 3 0 3 0` A o ID CD n "D v s m 2 n m a -. D_'. S° a N n c n °-' d m -a w' v. -a v 3 m Q. r`, 3 s = H• m a° n o D o_c o 0 cai cn ° a T I w ,� m m a S D o c m c ° S o a a Cr. 3o Q< ,3�, T 2 w a d 3? 0 ? 4+ j _ .3. m g sz ^ fl_ 7 m m x °' DJ O_ r N r rD N a m d 04 a X T \ r�N•T ° r 7J O < n o_ rD n rD •� m rD (o °- D a v £• n �D o rD s 3 (D o r 5. - a °- a rD 3 ra :- ID = c 3 m rD N ? o' w Z (D r o o' c h Q $° v i i s. rD ° oa � s v aD rC n F 77(M O N a, rD m a n 3 A F a n f+ x a c m O - m o° w m 3 fD ro rD > rp \ C W �n rD O S o_ N N N — N CL �M� rt Q' m a v D) rr _ (DD CD el v � � S e-F 00 H '•h N rt -i 0 C C O H M CD O 1612 A 30 o rn � v 7 O_ � O! 3 f W v A • ro n S �^ o * r r n T ro = Q Od n c cn =r 3 Q 'o (D �P w D 0. v n � v O� Ij a, RL 3 v0 IJ F' v 3 O 3 O N 3 V 00 N A co O W W 0) O N O 0 O V tD A LO ul a) W c cn G) c = S O N S O M O (D N � O v 7 •< O m 3 m A X O_ X F-` u? N O D D a a O < C Q N Q D a a 0 o. o v 3 a W W o 3 0 v o. a < a_ o a m M z ID O v z o z ° fD O fD S d fD _ N -° S 3 N (D Jc' C O .� \ ID O ^ O D1 O M <• (D n N T D1 r d in nl 1-� fD 6 Q W n n O F' S !� 3 3 fD a N ° T` D1 D1 O O O D1 d /D \ N < M Q S n N -O \ O n n n D1 C O N 00 rD V+ fD O K �G O_ 3 S N �-+ M S M rr fD < n N 3 O M o n N m o a m W 3 v s i, ° S m r p N (D in C n Dl Cl �T.' S C o f �. w << rD 3= 3 . o c n -0 'm F a a ° m m v m N _. O S Q O D) 0 w =• °° 5. ° 0• m m m D 3 Qo ID S ,c 3 v a v S -' O_ O 0 Dl O ,O.' (D �-' N Dl Dl fD O 0) ° U p m r�•r v� n. , T o 3 S W (D O C�,1 7 3 ° o m° v m o o a 3 3 3 3 x o '< w n N N OO; n f., p.. Q C fD a N fD (D v, rr Q -. \ Q r n n >•- N t+ p O W F a< m N N M - - O S f+ d a N N 7r x n N ti. •7" N ° O- N m f .v. a..'c^ ° N H w ^ N ^ m m N N (D v n o _O v 3 Gl n 3 n f -' ° m 0. ro r m< c m m 3 N O Dpi .° D! .+ N N S n N yi D ". rD p O N n ° 7 O ^< N O -Si _ O 7 a X N f3D N 'n -° w c r7• 3 ri 7 �. � S i W 5. S ,v, 0 m 3< a? o 1 m 0 Q 7 3 n A - =@ v n� o f n o 3 c a (D c O :E v v L m Q O< ° .�+ Q< n S i-+ t-� to vi N O v O a p_ CL m N 3 O. 3 -° O N ~ N d NS a a O W` O r O N N O° N O\ V C O O �. co N .v* N ID �- Q d n N 3 +°< O C a N uv O v W S D n A N � + a = O j D O O 9 _ M C C �0 °° ° 'o c v v° � 0 3 s 3 N N S fl a Cl D O C � D ~ Q 3 X ry �• y � < ° � N 'D � fl 3 2 3 D w � v a n ' '°, , w ro 0 m \ a - p m` x- ° D' m ?. , � - m 0 3 o - 0 m °(D < u+ r !; o 6h m m o �+ o a n n, 0 3 a 0 w 3 ro n 2 r m m a o Q a °3, < o m n r n<- n D o s 3 DO i �• o S m n v? D m o 3 o° rDD w' o Da' D] O 7 Q S 2 f rD ? m s CL 0 3 �, f 6° Q O" -\ M n n v N fD < T 3 a n 3 ID O Er 3 S a N £ ° N N j O Dl N 7 fD Dl (D 3 O. Q m a m .t tr s 0 W 0 3 m 3 N o N m v N 3 r+ N v e-h C N O r r* M I r. x W m 07 n N C 1612'q A30" f+ N Fes+ 0 r to V � S (D d 7 a C G Dl ° 6 3 rD D - W • (D n S n p 7 CL O O S 7 �P Do (D < p D < (D • S 7 7 OD rD < (D W T W atD v+ W. W < � N S - N N rD P 3 v o .( 0 O 0 W p u V 7 (mil 7 S A O D! w CL 7 A N (ND VI C (D O (D n n 3 O 3 V L N V A co O A O °p O O ID N N N w pD O G) C G) C N O N p N N O p rD C. X j F 3 O 3 < C O X (D 7 (D O a j X A_ x O W a O 0 (D a (D a N X (D (D C d O< (D D o m ° 0 O D d ^ < * 7 3 v m a (D c n z O vii O <• EL o a 0 < a 0 < C CL D a 0 0 3 3 v m (D R rD rD < rD < m n A A O T D a < r n q N O .d (D FD-� N � D f o 0 rD 7• v a r y -a rD r = 0' �_^. n o �+ (D -° O O 7 F-` F-' �, \ O 7 (D DO d \ DO• � S 'O C N a W N N N � D aD T W H, 'o n (•+ m �+ 7 3 O O (D (D (D N (D D/ S w A 61 A \ fD d \ < O C �• N. r (n O 7 Jr �• O T y N -• Di p io 7 r d 3 n m— a n - O- < 3 `^ O a r O d - C OJ y 2 .00D N N W N A i °1 - m m o (D c Q c 3 fD m o 3 N "O 7 In ,� a •C ID 00 'O N -. N ri 7 OJ (D 3 p O N 7 1n n n - ° r N m o < ^ �^ �n mi o O Dl C 'O 00 (D (D S fD fD fD ° s v s m o' a =' 3 cr m 0 'L ? N N N ° o rD <. 3 N ° 3 V° CL O N �' S �• F-+ .7r 3 a O O` V A (n 3 (n C N �. �' d a W O n A h A no N S S �7-r 7 N A a 3 O 7 7 .n (n ` d N \ Do N O G N N O a (D � N = 00 U _ In 7 a = Z vi S Q �• �, - (D a N" O t+ d O d '6 O S a O �_ N T ^ (D N N S C S O .r ° a S O 7 O N 7 (D O l W C tnn (D a CL — n f m `° c m° o o A rD 'o m 3< m N c °° °T °- ° c Dn o m° °< n ° tl0 O O N n n N a 'O n O) 3 d? c H 7 v c ..m .. a N ° N 6 Dp (<D O_ n rD O 3 _ R O (D O 3 r N° r r (o w S a p °. C tl0• O: 3 a Q (D (D O .c. N d 0 a a 7 °-'. 3 a C' D) O N 3 (D D :D N a 3 S S A W -ID a a M :' F\-` W y Q"< °' VTi' 0_ a 6 O On 7 O7q V7�i X = O7 N N ? ; (CD O~ CL ? (D N 7 .a 00 d ^ C 6 ID K �^ (D F-� O S � TI ( ° r N a N 7 ''' ° \ 3' °- (WD \ Ol C' < \ N O. W Ol 00 fD 7 < n vii S N C < N 'n 3. O 'O N N x fD !? r7+ (D rD n N C '6 H• n N (�_ K C M N N '"• O N N 09 N - °- D K u0i O 3 - N p< N 4 n a 7 a a a 0 7 D) a .0 a (<D 7 7°c' O (D O ry rD 3 H O S C C fD N dq �n to '< 'Y N a 7 a d 'Y CL Vf W ID (D CD Q' m =- � y rt 3 M W 3 S r'F 00 H N � � I y C O .A CD O 1612 iA30 N D D A w o, n a S •O °• raD � S = fD_. N < vi • S p O O N 00 < In m n 0i n Uri 0 ` m 0 Q N C • cr Vl m �� Vl N = N S Vl m V (� ^ ^ S W 'o V OS OJ N m o 3, V '9 O H p 3 m a ••° o (p o gym'. 3 o'o o M o � 3 3 3 °0 Ln 00 N N V V V W O N V NF' 8 8 0 g 0 o w w O O C) G) Gl C :3 C C G7 c V 00D N N D s s ^ o D ° 0 o ro a ro (D rD O O v v < <' m m v v 0 o v � � m v, f ID r� V2 A X ~ X LIZ OO A O a o D a o ° m < o CL < CL m a O) X % • D N O n D o c o c a -� N N .Or < rD .'-. v O m H O m D H m ID m a 3 3 m a c m c ° m o O H CO a < zO v n o a o 3 ° o ° 3 m m 3 ° ° 3 o 3 M m M- m H T T m a n c o < p t m O C Q N O O G N N o M X N° N o 3. o o a JU < M o m n o o O o a a i, d x o r f d x a m m D �' < o m r a n N r�0 3 m c m w o m �. m �. L' v@ A A v o io o a o c 0c' c 3., ' n rao 0 = A n N a a ::' n m iD v �• r x m ^ f m n 3 v 3 0° 0. 3 3 m n a s c_ M s ?° n T c < .c. N m m ° v m O 3 m ,� m 0 m m 3 a0 ° D a c >? 3 3=-^ rD 3 d 3 o rD S 3 3 3 n i a o m m< c r ;- n d ,O„ y, ~ N ,O,r O. 7 O O O_ 3 H Ol F+ m m p O. "" m < m m 0N+ m m m m m f m O X O m O m fD m N°\ o - o a n F o 0 000 0\ K n' v K c m o" m o K K d ° o m a m n a o o n 0 oy m\ 3 0^ m F r ° m w 00 c m- v 3 ^ 3 3 0^ m + W a OM m m e w0 H o d 4 S a a m- a 3 v d c 2 o c o m m 3 n �' i c 3 OD .°r n < o m V o 3 0' 0 0, o ^ u d n 3 o S o m m 3 D N m 2 3� z D-' r� n C=L c < c �_ T m 0 r= o m o n < � o 0 3 'r H o o. °n o0 ° � F 0 m 0, �� �c, < °" m a ° 0 3 m a 3 o S �+ f 3_ o` o o° n— o �? 3 a .' i v ° N u m a- f, O K o a< N r v a v 3 N d 3 °^ o°o ° m o m .. m o. o m z i o m o m m m °\ 3° c < fin' ro w \\ 3 f+ m y 3 m f N o' ^ m o w o m° K o v ° a0 H p <\ N n o r d m 3 m N\ 7 O'D K d\ n rr to < 7 3 N 7 F+ N 00 n N O V £ ee m 1-+ 7 7 3 vi O' fD C .� N N rr m° 3 C mw O. m a< <D Vl 00 .N °" m O '^ ii S CL \ ,•,q d Ol _. O A pND 3 OJ m S d 10 N S p m m �n N 3 m W p m 3 a f m N 3 o m m a p o a n ^' m 3 < a m 0 3 w m d cn 3 o Z c ?. ° m< o f m v o n °- ^ °- o. m n < h a m D 3 D� a m 3> c o w A v o �0 0m < m s m ID o a c "0 a m m o m o= 3 0 ° p 3 m .. .. m' ° N a v 3 N- O o m D m ao .. \ o m r x c d a 00 w• ' O_ N TI 0•'q fD f<D 7 A O N C W A H O ^ A' m — O. fD m m °' S (Nl f'D O. f N [ (D !D O '< N ff ^ m fD a S m "v m N N a ' �, a o n n m m ,^„ a \ m. 0, r m f 00 m m c F o. 3 n '. m m x a w a m m �. d` .'. ^ v \ m D a N n n a n m n m m N ? o\ v° n s v d. m n'o \ m o M v v° 3 m o N m m o A d m— a N -°° � rD fD N C 00. O m O H n C S° m a ?• v C ,p m °° a ._. O. 'O '�^ < •° O <. < •O c d a 0000 x °1 N Q. p 3 ° vi N fD -" d O^ O ° 3 fD m m O `^ ~ fD m j m 0 o C7 ^ S d O- n d ° O O n fD T m o N m o .m-r N v �-+ ^ m m W e H �' y G• 3 i 0o r o o a< 'r ° i A m m ao < m o° a o _. >> a a f m< o o m 3 O v m m o N 0, m + m 6 �' d m 3' 7 m o s 3 a T o .3. r ° 7° m a w< m m K 3 0 m (D o' n d c o F o �d 3� CL m n 3 �c a ^ Oaa3 °_.moo m CL CL a 3 -s CL H M m M N a m d fu H m 3 N N c O Oi N = O to m 'O O m a- m d n s H C 1612 "A 30 r W A w D O D T O S 0 3d M •O N N O m m m `o co o s o o r'an d m � s d _ � o O o m st a rP u FD 3 3 v w �w O N n Q O" lD N V? m.0 Z x A 00 O ° O= to p 9 3 lw0 G riF A v V c NO O O 3 r N Oi In m 3 in X O O C5 fdi g 3 -O ~ PO 0 3 0 V In W W V W w � V In W A O O 8 W $ O N O In o O r r OW a o L c c, c C. c s o s ° m T ° m M 0 m 0 rmo 0 r<o v 0 3 M w X V1 w X LJ1 u+ X V1 a 0 < o 0 < a n D O D O D a a 0 mm � 0 m a 0 a 0 0 0 3 a M m 3 a ID m 3 a m m 0 0 0 3 a m m 3 � m m 3 a m m < m N < m N < m r{o N m N R m N n w m a r d A N m n w 3 °� So d. c m °N O -O So 0 F' m m r m o m oo d o m< N n °N o n w 0 3' f n n O� c m an d n N a °N ° m< 3� ° O\ ,d-r u° T. n\i Q a C m m W= m T. A m o n m d 3 d n O m m oo: 0 D S n ry w O m m f c 3 o. O N O d o n m m 0 rp d n O J 0 m - d d a m n m on m m m 3 m N m (D a < m N° r m 3 n f m 3 m 3 m m d m m ! 00 d 3° F m< n m m m a m O . S m d r _ m O� N\ S O •`° rnD ,Oq w udi m. m° 3o °, m N m a . O K a �' fD F'' .O•r a :3 ll _. 7 7 N 0•=0 N m o a m o=u a d d N M < s o r3o ° p f m< d m O m• O of A a d ry a w d 7 d N \ 3 a n r C w0 V O ;^ ° o r d 3 N ry C a r r s° 3. rD n\ 7< 00 f3D a rOi d d °, m 0 W w °- S f+ 3 m m ?? 3 w' m y o+ °° n m a o. O fD 7 i a m d O rD m m O N N X d a oo n S 3 a o m r m m m n O .n T n d 0 m m 3 a d m d m 3 00 n m n a m � o m° d -° < m . n r\ 5 m d r d a 3 n° n m O O m d ? `- N n O m x d < m m 0 0 a n fr0 \ N\ d :3 °' N z N N M d N n n G ,.. c - M `< N nc• < ml M, d O M- N� < .+ •30 Oa K m 'O n ^ � fD � a m a 7 3 n rNi ° 3 c o r w is N o m a° a o N m a o 7 a a ro 0 ?Y m d a o n 0 S d a vi S ro i• m 3 0` ° 3 m A d. a m < 0 `CD m° m a m ? m o N< ° m o m a n OM m m "O f _S Imn ° o\o d a N 3 n m d d m N m N° 3 a "< n n d N a �- d n - 3 d O S 3 n n rt m N a m m c a r .•: O m (D d' <. N m S N d m a a v m m dc^ d d n' w N d 3< d d ° d N d n m o N d oo ° n r< °• m S < n w A N\ m N d n m No r a m x• N m Oml a o i .dv d an N O N a m o f m r= c m o e"o � ?. Cr 0 N 7 m te" 0 3 d r° o r r o n D. N ° a om m m N 3 m -, �.,,, O 3 m 3 N N m A d O m W fL ry .m'' O n m 3 \ m H _ 3 o �+ N O• 3 m N r Q m\ S d x O m N S m 7 N n T n m a\o v m \T N S 7 N r m c N n ' O m m e Oq m, 3 T 3 H '+ N a< m m - d n v° n 3 3? � v :° m h o d a a o a 3 m r a O m '- r o 3 °. 'O N (D S rD \ (D N .•r r 3 0 N• c m ^ C d o C N m �•* < N d. .�+ ? m aNm aam o �°°° m �, O n a3 °°° f 0 3 CL I �m o0, � m' o ° 3 n -M fD � � W O' m n �cn3 o v G H C 0 1612 , A 30 N a. of m a rr 3 W n � y N O � � C N C .O O a A to N D � d a 0 ° o 0 00 0 3 o, o v o ` 7 v v n n ° n 1 a 0° CD N �o ° W W m 7' O j O ^S f<< 3 O N 7 N 7 7 n 3 ,� W Q N • 3 N d 00 (D d to 3 fnD fD iii V 3 m .... �' a S p 3 3~ O W H O p D A D C y W d N- 0 3 N O m a O _3. n W U1 n n n> A 0 O N ^ W 3 O O N < ON 0 3 o O m W c O O N ID S (D C lV0 N S O p� Qp1 n N N !D 3 FD m K_� O 3 O10 � O r FD 3 3 ' o 3 b g 00 N AV 00 N Ln W N V w O 00 O O W O V 8 O 00 O O p O O V 0 W S w N iD C N V C M O C � S Vl O S O O m m v v C v � � N � d ° s 3 o 3 IM Vt X N � N_ x p W X O D � D D � a � � a ° a o M CL r<o n m n 0 a p m D a n C DD � v D a o m m _ CL 3, ° CD O '^ a O 3 3 D a 3 O 0 > D o w -0 '9 m rD o n N C CL n _ 30 v f n c ;3 ° o 0 n m m <;m o' ° , < ° o Z O c Z 0 .. O 3�0 <. v° O °.; °_. ° 3 - a v o° N o' o n H o< 3 A c m ° o m n °- f o o a n. ° S n 3 d d< n 3• m w< m " 3 N a N m v D n n 3 3 3 3 o" N m m m m 300 n< o m u a rD 3 m a n o 3 S m 3 p .. y p oo m r3o u° m n 3 w d r`o m= a c_ s ro m a n o 3 c 3° p oo m m m m d 3 .3+ .3+ m 00 -L n N m d (D 0, n S N a y < W vCi N n .r '•" f0 °' N N �. ]c' 7 v, 7 M O_ -�T 3 N 3 m d D/ H _. 3 3 �c C S m N F >. K O N 3 Oq 3 m C ,., o a n f S Oq _ F O N m N ti ti4 00 W A 3 O- S fD \ T ' 7 �< OJ L^ m p 'O n \ A r T m n In O j Oq n O 00 n m \ M m b0G a 3 Dpi \ obi S S N N d S 3 n o 3 N m 3 C 7 r f�' N Dl .' j y n .° 3 O rOY < ry n° N Oo N X OJ S N^ 031 vl to O O N m f N � n m :< S H °_ 7 m n '� d x' W n m C_ m m a m N N n T< n N fD D m i m C n N d 3 iD o X O n F H m m n S (D �. m n C it n N.' Ol m n O - C. i n p N a 3 a o c m< r f m o a c3_� ^ m° °n m m n S o H O s W < n a °: 3 = a m m o$ m d _ n< o v = v s a D 3 o 0 3 0a N a c Dr N n n o' m N �. N m S O rD (D n <o \ 00 c m d f< 3 v« S m D F L N O 00 "O 3 n fD v, 7 -. _ r N m m < 7 C'. n a n n fD O f+ m Z p an d G m N 01 n H M a F+ n �' O 3 N 0:',- S n d ;< -�i. S O S m •� m o a?° H K H H? Sr s 3 m �' d° 3 ^. ° a a N O d T d m m c m p c a m c m N N K^ ono o c F '? �' ID N O !+ m Dl 3 m 'm6 wr m N n Dl r m w �•+ ? f d '^ < .a N �D '•°O 00 �, H n m N 2 00 c o O O °' 0 r d ` d '3" vCi 1-+ d Q 3 F, N d N\ O '�_ .m3•r 7 fl�D S N. < 7 n 3 n N (D o N d a N m -+. iv °� 'n - - 01 Ol T N ry n d m N m° n O. F• fD 01 M . d - n 00 .Y S N N S 7 3 < N a. of m a rr 3 W n � y N O � � C N C .O O a 1612 A 30 00 v A W D d � ni p co o, m m n M a 7 n m Q r+ d Z n o, ° O N 'b N 8L N W W n fD N N d N O m s 3 C x' 7 o W O o! Z m a o ° V 'D N O l� n re) H F O_ ^n V rp 'G W r f+ p 3 C O riP N r� 01 N 0 N D! r r r 0 l0 vi 3 r d i 0 3 3 nm M rD � N Ln W N W N A O O O O A O 8 O O L' N N Ln 0 00 V w r A C U) c C) C � O N O N O (D M M p O p M < O -i N F O 7 3 m N O x � x � K N r r a •a � <D r<D n C n n ° x ° C fD � D O .O° D m m � 7 N 7 O fD of 3 N M a m c ^ S 0 0 o, o ' n o a o •0 a '0 'o 0 M CL 0 r<D a 0 r<D a n O 3 < 1 a N N o M < m < m H N M VI m N o Z° n o 0 o of D, DOi DOi a, o M w o^ O C N 4Z N O f�D N N n N P v 0 a 0 v o m v A 3 3 X 3 o p o^ n 7 -O r K? fD 7� n O A m T° O �� v o D o m rri a o o` a x x m c °-• m o< ^ r < �' - C 3 .a M 7 IID n n N T� O O N �� 'o O Q. o v tD 3 3 3 a a rD o o 3 3 m< n m 3 N v�' .. IN-� m w� D m c 3 F v 0 m o' 7 3 >> 3 f° n m 'D lD 1\-• �p r D m A m^ c. c. � m N£ n o a 7 o m 3 3< n F ° r a m m 2� _ o fD fD m N fD (D c 3 0. m ° w n O (D Dl 3 n 'O d a d D, n r n N n OG DO fD n 7 d n fD - x 3 N DJ �p �. �n r-' r 3 DO Vi N, (D i O '^ c d 7 d n r O n ry !D 7 O •O r N DO T. o oa cn ? n v °-• m n v o ? v 3 D< 3 d o v F o v o 0 0 0, a 0< 3 F- 3 m 0 a° m m F N w w ° �D m rD 3 0 v o c x v �o m N 3 fD 3- Q m M < ao m, v° N O\ w °< Q1 .I v d < m 0° a 3 N M �D z o A N N 3 fD ID 3 C 7 'O n Da m O n_ 0 a z 0 0 3 3 .� r 0 0 a 7 n ,+ !p (D r r 7 Dl fD 3 o D^ K\ n o N m -'»' n 3 N m o r no n< rD o\ D n ?. ° a v m ?= o D d °w o f °— �+ ? N n v M g o rD ^ o= m o 0 m o o r°mo n w o x N n 3 ? ao r v m M p v 3 H m o N. o m o <' °°— i n n m m it o 3 a m 3 r o 0 o o A° �° v+ a Cam 0_ „ f x '' u DO -^ 3 n' n O O_ 7 n ° F (� f0 I Oc0 S << r 0° v r^ m o rD o \ m o D c 3 Ol On O A n <. \ Vl f0 n N n 'O•r N �_ (Oi o„ a v r° D m c 3 n m = d o N O s Q (D K N y\ O N v N K 2 v n r D a o r°OO v n rc N x c °— .m. o (D H 7 n W \ c O O M O_ N' a c a m N 0 H 70 K _� c o< °° 3 r-r 7 m to n m n d n ° 0 o m o n< ° 3 v' m D< c° m 0 O 7 m fD (D O m o d m D v _• In (D n c a rD .. o <. N° 3 c v D H f0 "6 rr M d < m Ot fD •O n of r n m o y o D M m r rD D n o a D. 7 7 d 2 n 3 N 7 d 3 f0 O o1 .+ d V fD O fD N n C m n m x s v < 0 3 _ 3 r 3 ° d N _ O N <. d O' d \ O. O N N d 0 M D o r 0 n m F \° 3 F, ° r G7 o m 0 r° 3 N =W > F o r o a DO <\ A N \ .0 m m \ N r y c m 0 0 a ip m v+° c o ma o0 3 .. �,zn� ° \ m o 3 0\ m 3 Oo F M r p D r n .. m 3° 0 3 d \nn\m o ,-0 m \ rD m m n O d r d D r CL ° M N° m m o\ n\ v 3 w . c N 0 N rD r 3 i 3 n n fD 3 n i. m D o m o v o c m m n m 3 m 3 O 3— a° 3 r n o 7 m s< m m 0 D 3 m o d m w M A n <° ?. m y o c m 3 v D m a o d D m r n o D o Gl d 3 c 'o 0 3 D 3 n rD m o r n° c r° 3 3 n to 3 O oo m 0 m\ m M M x - �,., r 3 K < m D N m_ m .. m Q C� o m 3 m O. d (D n O �, .. C O v 7 3< < < < D 0 3 F m o ° 3 rD O! fD ,+ m O f0 d •� ] ° 0 o D o o \ o v 0 O O) C D' Ol 3 N y, G �, ?. m D° ° i 7 a° 0 0 n N `G' o O. D N d am. 0 3 m D F 0° 0 n M n °' Q, N 7 '' d °' F n G n d CL g ° ? 3 o o 7 a o s a m o 3 �" n 3 m o 3 n C < p, OJ 3 M. a m s 3 m eD n rt S N O y C fD 4 1612 A30 A S i-► A N O N O S N M N m 9 m 3 rr N rr 07 c N m 'o O A n S N C o � V r Ol N Vl s < w O m ° m 3 w � Q, m w (D w it o w m ° CL 0 co m < D = o ry n - N m m < N m n w N n w 3 �< � 00 � c v m N S W 7 S j 0. V in V O (P) m n V m w w n a 0 O 0) of m .�•. N c 00 7 3 C) n I w 3 0 0°10 O 3 3 oAO 0 000 0 o w w A Ol N S S 8 N O V ID w 00 O 0) 00 Ol (3) C C C N S O m N S O N S O O rD � D O <D m m a p M rrD ° 3 m A X A X ~ O X W W O a 'C a a o o rD CL a n. w X a m m -p n v, C d • O m w m :3 D D 7 Iwil S w ° a a a O rD K 3 3 m C O. M- 0 N CD w p w a O a o 0 ° 3 3 o m CL a 0 rD a r° m 0 _ 00 o 0 30 0 001 a m - m M z I ,n ° H z.. rjD o rn m Fm m .r N a n m w -« n N m m O "O S j S X N w O\ rj O a0 O N N ow m. rD m T D, n m. O1. re N fD.. m 0, (1 O W Oy N N 3\ w w 0, �.. N r D, r n rn w -�. N .. rn m S n Co. n n O T Q n N -• a O� \ o N" O w w v< n p\ w O vi �°c- O F d m n F\+ m Ul 9 d n m m F, i c w ° o m o n W 6. C vwi r0 f3D f3D n D\o o N m N H- o F a' z m K X a m ro N p A m m n v^ a ^ A a T n n w 00, r N c n o m 00 w n m F S N a n n To o n ux m a 3 0n_ m n = 0 -- m <^ m m w n° F- 00 -- ro n m m 0 0 n c n n° 0. A N 3 m 3< w w n 3 3 r m i x 3 o m w n= m o0 D0 0 °- M n m` m m 0. m m 0 w? N 0 << m 3 0 3 m w o r d ° m m 0 m o 3 R0 m °a 3 w m 0 0m, S N m n a m n _a m• p m o Tr o x w p` m r 0 F c= F 7 <, m' n .^ w N d n_ n 0, o m m m aD m O r m w 3 3 X <\ m 7O7 < to S C 2 O m O a 0 f+ m O m S ,< 7 3< a s c n O m d 7 00 p„ 0 m �- W— f+ n m m O S O 7 N N 7 N fC `Z m O w 0 \ O 0 n 00 \\ N O O m \ n 0 O N O - m 0 N 3 m N < 7c S< f+ d m O O ,. 3 Cr n m o N 3 m 0 x n 0 \ w N m 3 3 m n W n \< 00 r T° n? F m N a x N C N 7 O m r M < n S A n F 0 w w f+ N m 3 O m N f, ,n vi = m ^ �' N m V1 j. .' m .� 0 m 0 T N N m om c F n �. K r T\ (D n M, a u, fD w 7 =M, -" Z O H 7 o r .D °i d (3D 01 m N ? N n y 00 to < m 7 00 < 0 0 N 0 o (D �• O \\., 0 ^ 0 Gl ow n r xm p .w•r 3^ S_ 0) C O rD w< n -w O S r N ti' ^' 7� m x �-+ 3 rD 3 a a °-1 0^ m O N (D O T D, O 0 m < o 0- o0 w n °' < °» m x o Dm 3 m' 0 ,O V c o0 v c = p m n 0 w 3 n m M o c F �o N o x O n 3 r: 0 <, n 7 ° a m m" v w d 3 fD m j 0 7 d m N 7 N d i• n O H d 7 a n 3 \ o a z < n p n a 7 m N N N n 7 fD n w m` 3 S n_ n w F 3 3 n F o W ,n 2 n 3 .Cv m N .0 c m o F w v< m m a m n n oo \ — c m 0 N m a m Wo mw. m n '< .0 . o m f0 O r m 7 O N a 3 ,r m a o '� ? r °-. < .0w. < o m N = O. r ,< m N n 0 — m N C O N Q s m w° n no o n 0 d 0 a vw 0 3 m :° o n a p_ y O m 3 m 3 m N m 7 w p_ 0 w a .0.. m N N w p a o_ n, N o. a c rD \ v x m\ M • 00 o n. 0- n m o F !? °' a w 3 s 0 0 s- w 0 r`D _ w wm �' o c a w 0 a w �+ v, m v' 0 0 o zC D m 3 m N a S c < N a 3 m n w O O w 00 m m ^ N m 0 o n s 3 n a w .. c- o P N- 5 —W 7 m a m M 00 � m F a K � w o c f+ x < -• m O C m < m N a 7 ry m n 0\ m �0 3 W< r0 3 2 \ T n 0, 0 w x n n o <\° r3D A D w. m m °. ro m m m , �, a m w° m 3 m s a< m w F 3< D s o m c °* 0= K^ w m m \ 3 D to n 0. N° o K_ a m Fo m m,< S N c m < m O p n T 7 S 00 O C ro o 0 i0 r0 v a .* 0 N m? m F+ n Cr 3? w m w < N ,n C w H H -p v. K ru < n o ni o n •_ . °— s ro m �' m m n 7 O A n S m < ^ ,* Q m a n d r0 a -o m '^ °- 3 0' °- 3 3 3 W a 5. m< r w F c a N 3 °• o ° C, O< a m V m` 0? F n F n w m o m n o m a m ° i, F? o o N ° a n 0 ^< w D �, a J. 0 n o n m r0 �, x d. f ? o < ^ a 3 m r3D m .� n 0 C, a n ,� 0 > c n w� :+. S 7 'O o` 3 S v d ° m F Ln 0- n o 0. M d < 3 fD m x' Iv m r m _ 0 - a 00 > > > 3 N w ^ < N C m p ° 3 a o 3 < n A S i-► A N O N O S N M N m 9 m 3 rr N rr 07 c N m 'o O A n S N C 1612 A30 N N N co ft� G m n o E — m m m n S `o• S rp) ,<, o • S CL N T W rD F (D i V n ^� w °o m um m O m n O 3 V N ON O A O O O LrlV N M C Ln M S O m v ° X 3 C m 0 3 r x ' O q a x N O D a a 0 m n • D a 0 < m CL D a a 0 N CL 0 3 a ID ro m -i, n r O K ti M d p 9 < rD N N fD \ O O O 'o rp m u'. C m �• W O Oo V w p N 3 �° < o� oo: m e 'm 'm 3 a 3 3 a V m 7 m » S \ O d S N M O n K d N n y rO V1 m m m. N n pq \ p` H o' m 3 T O N N S° d m f a N04 03i H r n m 7 w N fNi O d O n S •° m m n N N N C m raj a n N ° ID w ID m3 ° F,vnv'^ Om v rl ^T� 3 N 7 O N 7 m o m 7 `C Y o0 3 o o o o S T v m oS o m u X m H Fff c 3 3 0 a m =MrmOa 3 < c d 0 m m '. m m v* e S m a° o T m c 3 m °-°. m cL `1 m m H 'n < c m < o ro m n < N n M O'Q d C O v m i m m m C 3 ro H m rrD Oc m a x• ' a d rt a 3 A S F+ A N O O s ol V1 m N m 0) m 3 m 7 rt O1 C m z O rt 3 CL m a r+ w m a n S 9 C A A A A A to W W (a (a (a W C^) W W N N N N N N N N N N -� '� �' -� 6I ." t0 O V CA N Al W N -� O t0 OD V 01 N A W N� tD CO V Of U W N W -i 010 - CW W -I X, n� Oo mOmPOT��� rOOu cnmr -� x �c�-�x �� C?i oc Omm �7cC �� D U -{ CD y �pCZm O ��DD�1> m TI mC > W W Dpp DD vm m= �20m,ir 2?c -,mcncn2z 2700 -i D x%§ <m m r� r�Zm1 (znmm ZZ y0 D� =���m=�Z� m�D��(�nmmm� rD-vio ���� zm �-I �p n �WIW nT n C(n _ Cmm m��m0pm z ° A�Oxc Dmn zc?mmODO �zcnm m�cmn00��m� m x>> c�T ��� can .cmOm �mm�m z�m p� Ozm�00cn mcn���TT �"Di �O rOrp G) x 0zz �Z m� =m -0E m -<0 m - =ixz�mi ZQ'mDDX0X0'c _O�� -� 0 z(ncn c �ai �z mr n0 r -4z � nn��� m O <oo 9 K n0 m Z mm D cn -4 D Z mc) K�_ow Dmm m -IC m_ Z -yID �r Z -u zcn -1 ()-u n z (n c: m 'nG) ODD DZ� �mX� Sm �m DD1 Or A 0 m-v Oc m n D r r> C 00 Z Z n y_ m m m J n n CI1 J fA 69 fA 69 (A (A 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 W 69 69 W 69 W W W W W 69 fA W 69 (A 69 fA W W 69 69 69 fA 69 G W ^ .� W r O O J J .-. O W oo w is to (n rn rn o a 000 O CD W CNT J N N O O co W W <n O) O N W N O OD O V N CO (D O O) W OD Cn W O O O 0-(p O O N N J N U) O (A O O Cn A U) - O Cn O CJ O) C71 O (D w (n (O O cD N A 0 0 0 0 0 O O A A (D O O O O O O O O 0 01 (T O O O O O A A O .aP O O O O^ p O p p p p O O J J J O p o p O O O O O O O O O O. O O Cn (n O (n O O O O .D.(D 0 OOO C) CD (n Cn wf)000 6666 00 0000(D 0a A AOAO O O O w O O O O O O O W W U7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O 00 O c) OD O O O O 40 60 w EA w w fA w 69 w (A EA EA 69 fA EA w fH (A EA (A fA (A fA (A fA fA fA fA fA M 69 W 69 W fA W fA 69 fA 69 69 fA O p ONi 0/ V W N � N W -• N O "� tD V A A N N A 00 O O W W (D O = ( O V V (n O i O �l OD A J O N m m (D (D m 9 0 00 w fA J W OWD N p W W N w fA V W O U) O 00 W W 00 69 fA M 69 V) W W Cn O A O W O O J O (0 Cn O O O 40 69 fA W fA 69 fA 69 69 69 fA fA fA 69 69 69 fA 69 69 6 EA X69 69 69 W 69 69 fA v) EA 69 fA 69 fA fA ffl W 69 69 to 6 � � W W N J N N (D - ")8 - (D W J A (n O N JJ CnN W Ntn� W OO Cna O OU)OOO U7 O O J O J O O CD O O O O (n O A Cn Co (n O O O O O O ;P O J O O N O CD 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O N O O O O OD O O O O O O O ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N V 0�0 N O 4 A O <0 N -) W N N t m too 2 - f t0 OD (D -I T (w 0 o T 7 A O it d t O (D K U N tD II r� (D A ^CD a � � X n A i (D 0) O 0) � C ff J (I: v ti cc cc N 3 7 CL (D CL w 40 69 69 fA fA 69 69 69 69 69 TC1 :<(1�� tj 00 -S� m w CD Cn A N J N O TO W O W -+ (n -4 (D Cn CA tp Cn (D O W (T U) � OD CJ) O O OD 00 , V N A W O N , , C)) (O O N O V (� fp (D Cn O O N -• U) O N O Cry N OD O W O O -� ()1 O (n O EA X69 69 69 W 69 69 fA v) EA 69 fA 69 fA fA ffl W 69 69 to 6 � � W W N J N N (D - ")8 - (D W J A (n O N JJ CnN W Ntn� W OO Cna O OU)OOO U7 O O J O J O O CD O O O O (n O A Cn Co (n O O O O O O ;P O J O O N O CD 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O N O O O O OD O O O O O O O ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N V 0�0 N O 4 A O <0 N -) W N N t m too 2 - f t0 OD (D -I T (w 0 o T 7 A O it d t O (D K U N tD II r� (D A ^CD a � � X n A i (D 0) O 0) � C ff J (I: v ti cc cc N 3 7 CL (D CL w 40 69 69 fA fA 69 69 69 69 69 TC1 :<(1�� -S� m W 7 7 mT x TO w (7 °N) w� rnac W O O A tD C d OD (1( O N U) (D O) W (n W C (D 0 o 3(R 0 CL m (b A Cn tJ) A D w fA fA 69 (A fA 69 fA (A 69 fA o v) v 33 D .� v m -P, r sk) o rn w 3 0) (D U) CT (=OD CT O O A (D Q te n N O 0 O A W O) U) W O O O N' T Ur (n (P Cn (A ;C0 TC1 :<(1�� -S� W 7 7 mT TO (7 °s CD N 0 o 3(R 0 CL m D D D 0 0 0 o y v 33 d v m o 0 n 3 (=OD n _ te n n to m j j" O CD m c O CD O) (D (D N N c 0 7 C y tD Q Q ,v � CL U, Q Q C) S a OD 7 0 0 n O N CD (n Z O O 0 a 7 7 (� N c o m (D 0 3 0 m c m m c n v 7 o^,. 5 r- m o U)X= —_� D> >� 0 0 non C N O _�� 7 = (n ( N O 7s (n to N W CD O C 00 O (D c 0) (D - (A Q Cn _ (n Z = N CD (/) v - f7o C (D 2 3 o CD z 0 7 " (D W r <NOmN 3 N t1 - (D N N to O :3 (D CD G CD A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A iT 0 U) U) Cn (n Cn (T (n (n Cn Cn (n Cn Cn (T (n O 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 O_ O O O_ O_ O_ O_ O O_ O O O O O O N N O N O O � N 0� N N N N N N D m (n O w A m W W N N N N N w N A W A A O CA U N N OD CA W CD W (D W N O W N N (D OD N CD O O D 0 0 J W (D J Q1 N J En Eft En EA En fn (n Cf) (n En (n (n En Ei) r}) U) En EA (A N ty - W O 'COO W (r W W W �. j Ut A O tT N W N OD W O (O =i O J OD O O -+ W J A A O O O O W U) O O m O O O J O O fA H) 69 fA to to 69 fA 69 69 fA W 69 fA 69 69 to (A (A to N J -• W V A W U) (D W A CT J CO - A M N W O W O) A CL O O O N co O tD Cn N - co p O O CT V Cn O O O O A N W W J Co O N O N N CD W O O O N O Cn PIC O Cn O (T O O O N O O O w -2 0 N -n D N Z rr -n z� � vW w i � A i W i C March 3, 2011 161 2r. Ain V amd air &f t BeaeA M.S.T.A. Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive Soudi Naples, FL 34104 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: February 3, 2011 V. Budget Report VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur VIII. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment { o JUN 09 2011 BY: ....................... Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta The next meeting is April 7, 2011 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111 TH Ave. Misc. Cones: Naples, FL Dab: °t l 131 C, ,7�ies to: 1612 ' A 30 Vanla'6iet 8"eA mes'070h. Advisory GroNiatittea 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 March 3, 2011 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:02 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bill Gonnering (Excused), Bruce Forman, Bud Martin County: Darryl Richard —MSTU Project Manager, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Chris Tilman — Malcolm Pirnie, Robert Kindelan —CLM, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Bruce Forman moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — February 3, 2011 Change: Pg 4, Vlll, third paragraph, first bullet should read. Vanderbilt `Dr. " Bud Martin moved to approve the minutes of February 3, 2011 as amended. Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Budget Report Darryl Richard reviewed the following information: • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $889,141.16 • Staff will distribute the FY -12 Draft Budget to the Committee for review prior to the April meeting Dick Lydon moved to accept the Budget Report as presented. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 161 2 `" A 30 VI. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM Robert Kindelan reported: o CLM is documenting Contactor vehicles parking in the grass (to assess and track damages) Charles Arthur stated he observed County vehicles parking in grass areas (in addition to the Contractors.) Darryl Richard noted damage to the Irrigation System (by vehicles) contribute to increased water usage and cost. Discussion took place on the MSTU utilizing gray water (from Pelican Bay) to irrigate. Darryl Richard responded Staff will request that the item be added to the Utility Department agenda for the March 23`d meeting. o Fertilization is scheduled (during March) VII. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur Chris Tilman noted pending items on the Easements: (See attached) Location (4) Vanderbilt Bay Condominiums Phase 2 o Easement documents will be distributed for approval upon completion of the RWA Survey Location (11A) Monaghan o Sketch was revised for the Equipment relocation - FPL requirements were met Location 16 Vanderbilt Beach LLC • Easement Documents were approved by Legal Counsel (for the Association) • Executed Documents were misplaced (by Jerry Griffin) Charles Arthur directed Malcolm Pirnie to secure a signed Easement Document from Mr. Griffin (in person) if the approved Documents were not received by Monday (3- 7 -11.) Location 18 & 19 Vanderbilt Beach Motel o Easement Documents are in Connecticut for a final signature Chris Tilman was advised that the Property Owner (pending signature) is currently in Naples. Easements (FPL & Comcast) • Pits are only needed to contain the boring drill fluid • Pits are not required for all instances - When needed the Pit size is minimal • Comcast Power units (4 with slab) can be installed within the ROW 2 1612 'A 30 Darryl Richard reported: • Comcast signed Agreement is pending until Easement issues are resolved • Conference call will be held with Comcast to settle pending issues Chris Tilman noted: • Comcast perceives that Easements are not required - Access is only needed on 3 sides of the Power Unit • Drilling in an west to east configuration will minimize the amount of traffic across the fragile AC Main (Asbestos Concrete Pipe) Discussion ensued on Phase I Completion Schedule and the following timeline was confirmed: (See attached) • Secure Easement Acquisitions • Complete Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement • Obtain BCC Approval • Make payment to FPL • FPL Design /Equipment lead time - 16 weeks for Switch Cabinets and Fuse Cabinets - Design work and Contractor Bidding will be conducted concurrently Discussion took place on obtaining BCC approval for the UCFA (Underground Conversion Facility Agreement.) Staff will prepare the following Documents to present to the BCC: • Draft of the UCFA (Underground Conversion Facility Agreement) • Pro Forma based on information from the Channel Drive Project Chris Tilman stated signed Easement Documents will be completed by the end of March. Dick Lydon volunteered to assist in obtaining the Easement Documents. VIII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard reviewed the following: (VA -35-B) Asbestos Abatement Project o March 23 a follow up meeting is scheduled with the Utilities Department and Staff at the Growth Management Division Proposals by Malcolm Pimie (See attached) o General Consulting Services - $39,974.00 - Scope includes meeting attendance and miscellaneous activities not related to other Projects o Phase 1 Owner's Agent Services - $192,164.00 - Scope includes Construction oversight and coordination with Property Owners (in 4 Construction sequences) 3 1612 'A 30 Dick Lydon moved to approve the Contract for General Consulting Services (Malcolm Pirnie) in the amount of $39,974.00. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Bud Martin requested Malcolm Pirnie provide a visual Data base of Properties (within the Project area) at "pre" and "post" Construction as documentation for repairs or liability issues. Charles Arthur suggested: o Retaining an on call Contractor to repair damages by FPL o Track the expenditure as a separate Line Item Dick Lydon moved to approve the Proposal by Malcolm Pirnie ($192,164.00 - Phase 1 Owner's Agent Services) subject to confirmation by the County that it meets the County Bidding Requirements. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IX. Old Business — None X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman - None B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin — None XI. New Business — None XI1. Public Comment — None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adiourned by the Chair at 30:230 p. m. Vandorbilt Beach MISTU Advisoni Committee Charles Arthur, _riair man hSe minutes a,ru vy t�ii�iorc:I; �i?3, =iti? �n as presented or amended The next meeting is April 7, 2011 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111 T" Ave. Naples, FL. 4 6 cn<c� 0 _ _ _ oomDp v 3� m doai� a odo o -�-i -i O�rcn�3DNmrpX��D�cD000 O cccm0 N o o= n< = o 02 v n� s 3' _ °'� m ate= 3 m'+.a �a <co ac, O S, o 0 0 0 o N CL CD CD d n ce O 7 3 �° t7 0. '- C�"D Z �-° N n < CD °- 2. o aoi 3 " c o wo r. to =. mm O c 3 9 m to c coi co O .O -1 ai O N 3 vi -o a n -n o o c o �`°co,'.0 3W3 = 000c�0 �� 10 �N..oc m "ao►'?. 0'*�m�� .* m O 7 (_/! 0 CO1 : O -n 4 'fl ti tC 41 CD rN+ CO � � Ct N _ � � 3 W < -0 < ' � x = Af N O n N y CD = -}� <i D N. 7 W N y N C O L1 N a O 3 c. C. 0 N =: 0 Ny, O O O' cm;) 00 7� y O CD W� CD < O O W O+. 7' CL m N CD C 07 :� m y O 7 0 N '� CD O C fY Cp CD z N M O 41 N n O Z C m 07 N' 0 N p p -a 0 CD 4) _ N - N C W C L1 n v� Oa 0 C cD C 0 CL 3 D :j Q _ < m O. -69 -69 3 O NCO Cn O O .. W .. ...-. ,-..� .. O O O O co co -•-•co to O N� �. -...� A-• -�A�.� A A � tD O pDN O O Cn W' V t0 W O O f)I O W W O O A s N CT V N Cn N O O W Co00) Cn V OAPCAnNW 00 OD0BtOaW4 4 -44 N = tnc0CD V IV 04o) W p�0 A 0CDco0Cco A O— — — NAA — O V00NV V O O N V Cn A CO W Cn�A fl� . :p, 0 N O W OD W V OO Cn A n D O n O O A — COCA V O O — O V CnO V O-O000W O O V AO0 CO O -4N000 p C CO 0 L V V Cn Cn N O N 0 M N Ov -4 I O CD 0 v0 co O N O O N — O -- W iA 49 lbe <fi fA 69 CJ7 CT � U1 C71 N O OO NO n A O V_ O OD CO W CO V W O N W O N O CA Cn — CO V 00 N C* -N N O A CA O N O O A co Cn O O O N Oo O N A O tO W CT CO A P01pp W.1 CO AO p O W CD W V CroCnA O CO 0 0- CD 0) V V —0 -+ 00 IV V O V N co to W O — V V Cn Cn CA O O O A W CA — O -+ • W EA to {fl V) fA H! Cn -.• CA Cn Cn CJ1 Cn OV CO N W CO co .. N .. W -' Co 0 00 OV A Cp O) — W - 71 O ^ — W N A O N A W CO N CD V N O N -� N V O O Cr OO O — co A W O co .1h. CA N V V O N CA — O Cn O N 00 Cn O N O W O O.-. O W O co W N co O CA m — Cn Cn O W Cn to W p A . p- O V, A (A O O Cn V O O O A W U1 CJ1 O W OO — COCACA IV OOAO Cn AO O Co co 00 N O CO W V O 0 V V Cn V CD ? O O V 00 O v N A O W CO — -• V ifi iA 69 b9 49 iA Cn --� 0 Cn U1 Cn Cn .a O co COO — 00 OVO W CO COD W O N ? O N W O-�Cn V co �COA�I �AAO W O (n (A N O 00 IV Oto V O N 00 CA O W O O CA O -+ V CO CO O OD N O A N N CO CO V O N Cn 00 W O O O -• O V A O O O� O Cn O Cn O N O W Ln :-• O W O V— N CA CO N O W A- Cn O N O O -• W N 00 — N O CO W TI N 0 0 V V to CO A O O 0 (D O v 0 O O O A A O A — y C7 N b9 fA 69 b9 69 <0 N Cn N V Cn Cn Ut c71 O V N O Cn A V ,-. Oo O V V Cn OD Cn j CAD co O .N V -� O W O V N Cn fVj0ACnCO A W CDA. C:W W LviCOO 0) O V V N O A N tntn C V O O Oo A O W 00 O N O N O O" Ut O W W 00 A N O co CO — V OOCnPp , O N W P00 .lpCA V O O Cn P O O O W. Cn-- N O N— V O 00 --• 00 V A Cn CO Cn CO CA O O V — OD O — O t0 N = A O -• V A Cn C4 O O N O W O V O O Cn V A A O CA -� A CO 4A EA b9 b9 b9 EA C1 Cn N V CJ1 Cn C)1 C71 N V N O Cn Cn V .. .. 00 O V V 00 00 CA 00 A O CO O O W O A n O O co co V W a W 1 V Cn A V W N CO V N CD N N N W 0 CnCn0) W(DA00 W V sO 1 n0) Cn co -A N -4 N CAN O co O A OD O O A to OD N O O CA Cn W Cn O O 00 co W Cn N 00 CO O OO N O N Cn W W W p W O Cn A p W N O N O 0 . W N O W -• W. . . Cn N -� CD O V— O O 00 CO CO �I ? O W 0 Cn O O N O — 00 00 N CO O t0 CO CO O W V Cn Cn A W N O A O — W O O Cn O Cn CO CD A N CO 40 fA 1.9 {i9 b9 'A 91 N V Cn Cn Cn Cn V W O to Cn V O O V V " 00 — V — CO V O .W -• .. CT ...-. �. -� .-. V N 00 CO A CO 00 W V Cb O W A O V N O W W W W N 1 A N O OD NCO W N V V N V N N N O -• Cn V O O O CO A O W O 00 A O Cn O co Cn Cn N O O N CA ' O O O Cn 00 V O 00 — O W N O CO O W" W O O w O CD N N — CD O W O Cn Cc W N W nA O V:N1- O AA6 N O Cn A OD O O O CO V Cn O CO V o Cn O V O N N O A O W O O fT O Cn CO — A W V - - Cn N O CDO N O C00 0 00 N W p s 69 EA 1W ifl 69 4A Cn N V Cn Cn Cn W A W N O v W W -• COO V m W W O W W O N N 00 ,Cn W A W N W OO .p O O O W W N V N W N O NOO W CT W O O OOOAO W ONOOO 00 O Os Iv W O N O O CO O V CO N O Cn O O N OD O O O A W O N co N CA O N A O CD CO -� O O p Up A W W Cn O A Lp SP .N O p O O A O Cn pl, 71 O cn Cn W to p -i Cn O V' AO O A 0- 01 ON0 CnN0 0 V O -• AN 00 O A O CD A 0-4-400 A m O N ODD O W O' A O O 00 v co CO A O O — s A 0 A3.0 2. 01 CK 9. N a a n 0 ID a, W O M, 0 S -n CL co m C M C 7 iV _ C. a 1 30 "l d a ID CO CnN W d S O Cn C I IA A IA W IW W W W W W W W A � A ^ I A A 0 0 O 0 O 0 I O p N N 0Cn� N (NJ� N 0 (NNNNNN 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 N W ti W 7 a NN ON�(NN�N 0Nt (N� 0N� (N� N � l lom m m1° 00 c„vO7 mY+'mmmmm�'m�'mmY.' �' m °' 00 w $Q1 ! �i° S I �� I �w +o�oc�i icti�w+o wooii' +� m m m m m m O fA O O S p Q !r S N N (n _� Id CO CI ,�A1 m D I �I O m Cnti m T O o y Z'U 1 0 �, ...Im T 0 0 T-imrAZCC r' n v 2 cn ao Cz� r O O Z D y Cm m N u' m 1 z c oO i mm ��-t z ti z cn -rnm AA t7 ntn0 pA a7 2A m� ?�xG�m c�m�A- -ZAr z- I�AC)Z -d -� wD r'C� m n cn -I O N 1i SZ W CO 2 o r m o =I 11-i TT m m mm << mn< v_ Oar v mA zc7c�xm� C13 -IZO m -�A z -� D --I -n mV m VJ A m -i < Z D O to aI IAA A A '00 Dm A ON cn�D(A Dy , m m m r z cl DNyD o o AA -i °-zm TmA �n<mQ°mm C)M ZAAmtn m m O0D n � z A m m • v i A n n o OOz C -i rc �x m vm C r O- C C n ti� m {- I 2 z -1 0 O TI G7 Z m V1 � Z 1 x T mm T I� O I InD - m N I 1 m-A Z0 m� N Av-Ir v Z- yO/mm 5'-{ O -n -� �z ( m m T m O v7 DI AA 10 D 0 �-o -11 I .� m x m 'nn m Z�AD -mom z m c 1� 0 IA ti m Cl) O O N I ij D ID D r I z o cn O G� D v 3 y c� Cn c m m I i to I -i I v AO I z W r IC C I m I� C to m cn I C N I r y D y r I j -Z.I D m A I IN j" i I I r mn m ado Im Ipm t v r I I vex A Zm i I trii m m rA j m Im�l { {I I m Oz D to m T T m� I„ i i j I m z I m m m I i I I i ox n V ICI of m�oo7l ��I I i Im I to I I l 10 � I c a a j W AI V N O OASI A OSIO A I IO O IA N O O O N N A N °iN I c0 W V N I A A OS A °� O A N O O O V O W O O to 100 0 p V S I OCi I II II o I O N I j ItNn pp V N I I I N IN I�N O I W C i0 i tVO t0 07 W I 1D -W W IOOIO 10 I I W IO A m A N N ^.. I _W '� CDW OWi a W 10 O ...� Or CO tn00 OV1 O N V O O O O-+O O V S N N CIl V to O V p V g 0 O j a II III III I I+ II I I om INI I I I I I 1 10 N C I10 IV to to 0 W W O W W V I I W t000 O N WS O O O I O O W 0 j �p� j N VAS W N W j W W W W ON � V N O .D I I I I I i I N OVD (°jt T O OW7 O A S A IV O O O ?� I MI I ox 0 ,O .INI I 07 0 V W I00 W I I I N tN N b p7 I N I I ! I I I I I IN G O IW.. NOV j o V O O I Io I� O NON I I W Cnw O N W r 0 �pAj W I N 0)) N V O ONi A V N V coo (o O O W O -+ to 0 W O W W V O Of A Q W N V 8' tj I N I I c a IW W NI W W (nV �NN W I N I Ito CO V V N V N N p I I 1 (C 1:�: O V O O ap N N CL O S I ° p 00 °O O 0 I I S I I I I I I I- od'il I 't0 v I I W n 3 I W I W N V I 1N'N 1 10 A O -.t p V A I, , a 0 7 O N O tD 100 °oSS 0 O O O O S $, N Y N I $4 :r N W 0 _ O N -- ..CW,7 N p CL .tea A oI o° WpCO mo °O$ O So 0 0 0 0 0 0 °oSo 0 0 00 o° 00 S - ((nn oin SS c t7 0 O O 0 O O�WO S I I I I p INI I i I� I I I I I I W 0 D j j I I d I I OI 1 I N O O po O r A I A N I 3 O IN IC 00 O IOOOI N V po O V N 0 W OI g W v gt�10000W1 0 Q I O N p1 ' 7 jO i l l I (1t 002 0 N O W S I j i I j III o 1 1 Ii I I I I I Wma I I I ,$x c ! 00 I 11 I I I J W IfOI IO I I IO .Oa !O, 000 10 A 2O A O + I rr W O� 0 pN g ON08000Cn0 (W�7 W W pp4ppp W �tOD N -ONi O A ^OV7 I I r m I I N OOA. N O O (0n0 S O N Ca 1 INS I I I ! I 0 0 o ;V. I I I I N N N I ICI p �O �O I I W $ W N 0 I I A O O O S O O O O O I "in O 0 0 0 O O O O W V O ? W W _ U SS N N j A G7 S I 0 j S o� O p 0 G A I j^+I IN AIVI. p p AI Q 0 I V W W S I I I I ! I Jr O N N IoV10. I 1 0 p e II O 0 W Ool O I V V O O O O C4 -0 W Cn 7 W I N O a lIoN o O I 0 0 0 ° 0 0 ° 07 0 `) N O O °O O 0 N O 0 O O to S i O S ° iI Iii IIII I I I I m I I I IiI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I! I � c 1 j ICI IO 0 0 IO O OI O O OI O 0 00 I a H m m ° a • i i I l i 000 O O OO O OIO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O p I N i I I I I I O I I l I I I i I I I I o 1 I I I IlNa.OaI I I I A ^W I I I I d I N O O Ii I O I I N II N V I Lh O O N V Cn I I C IN W W W 'I SV 1I 0 S O S OI O O O O O O V 0 QN N S _ pO S I' 0 O O O g �° p In ' I I d I I IW � �ti� I I o 0 o g p I i N 0 N ry I I I I N �7 w O C �i C N C N N l 3 m pv tv F m m F ID ^n 8 m n m0 m� vQ . � oa.m�-F)•� ==�� CID 00 zoNA� d _ � CD _A 7 70rn D N CID WII i I wi I 1S wl I I I a w V W I 10O W O I 1 W N T O 0 7 n a 1 I ofO!OI i.�O : . O 0 O SO O O O O A OOO qN Ig _ l e I\ ,O O O i0 O ZI O O O N Or N Z 07 NOI� O A N 0 O (n W N p I 0 � a° IO .O AO O 7d t0 0 V � A a O O O 0 l p o 0 o N a m o IO ICNOI NIW IN ' V U7 N W O I I I C A N OI ;O :,4 ,OWO I O Z IO W Z "`I W N W O o N O O O O co o a a a I I 1 30 "l d a ID CO CnN W d S O Cn C 16 2 W310 N a oD co co N coC co C AA w w AA W W Ai.A W W AAAAAAC W W W W W W O a � ro,o '00,00 '��� O 100 O o o O O O 0+ N w to hi N 0 0 O+ O W CA w w w w A w w w W Ot N A Ot Ot w A A W W O T� + mm aDmm a,mmmm � N (A 10. N {p11 N N O N N N M m o mm o m a a D d o<� d mm C Evv C o�. d c- ,�, A rn H m *0 a z.D U) ;a W� a�z Orn �Qn1 O m 9 3h d -i-1 3 Z c x a a Z� A-I-i .TTGTT NA0 a i13° 7 -a m A o W a Zz of z D -�WU) A �a.'a "'� ZG< A <� 3mm <O�•�p00 cmvv c yy 3 0 m�N ��mm N O �9 Z 0 O M m cn �rD G m9 o m n V x f1 N W N W N N ,d 0) W w Of N r V VVco G W V C" ,,A,ppp {O77�� U N O N VOi tA0 O O O O 0"wi o X CDI C W A W W �p a N O Ot a O + + W r + N N W {O/l W 100 W W + N 01 r '� V N °AOOO� N co 0 V "n 'o ... vn00i � bXM n I f ur a in A w w � w _ 00 N 01 N 00 W +p �a z00+ OD O OG O _ W N _ 40 N a OIAN 01 V N V pOp A+ t0 V+ V V e0 N 0 V .. 1.91 1 !_A 0Na V o n xDm c N N 4p � W W A W W N N A A N N N W O 4N A N w 440 10 cn w N O N O A w O t0 Ja j 0 0� OD W O V O A V V O O O 0, _Wa b =Q a D V A + NN rrO W W W i0. N O O O O O O O O O 10 0 tD O O O 00 cc 0 r. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r _ O OOD 01 N _iVD O _OOf W W+ CL O O O O 0 w N Ol _fOr1 w f0 O 0 c o o M O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - O CnR1 i + 3 c N N 7 O O D N N N O O 0.010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 �I 'mod I l co c aD OD _W Of N I. b N V V 10 w cc O N C" N+ .�o �naa Dix_ O. N N C C 3 I W W ,ON1 u+ N O?m Q N W w 3 Zco O< O I w A w A o 01 N N _f�1 tO0 A Q N ry D1 N W W V PP OD W w W 00) W 0� W d.O.. C x N N W w O co m d M o 0 0 0 0 coo O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O+ 0 'D O N� 400 N � o A. N W N N c A 7 V O "Co A V 0 ^^ A V N K I V V A W N N ID A A t0 W N V N O. t0 N N+ A A t0 W 0 O O O O 04 W O A W w O tD O 3 O O p O O coo a O v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T T T T m xm V ' A O - 4 T N +O t�D 7 m �O_ [Ji 3 N N 'G o T ?I T $ m o$Nd d d L Co vpi cn 000 CL N (D W 01 .AN IDN O V W (D o D) B°O.p� d-i O Cl tD v d v I O N O N O 000 000 0000 0000000 N x N fD (D x N a +NC Nx j �� 1N0A A V N N O A 0D W N N V- O N O t0 O 00 col 04 A 40 w (D < D) 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L C C I T 0 I I I I I I 3 I d t o o 0 I I I O T A n LN O N 01 co O O 10 O O Ian O. ry N �1p1 N c O coo O O O V O O O 000 O d I i o I I I O N Ch Cf OOZ ZZZ ;pZ A N Z Z ZN a� �e a 'vaa ay 6 nG j �oo�. + V + V i V c A9 ID 0 D) n vt - N O pp o C a W O O O O Cl 0 0 O O O O O O O O W W I I O � t 0 O O O C Z ZZZ N W N O A W N Z Z W z a� a�a�aaaa aa� � a�an aa� 16 2 W310 N a oD co co N coC co C April 7, 2011 161 2 A 30 V axd erQiBt 91"eA M.S.T.R. Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Dl-1'"e Soudi 9 0 9 9 W Naples, FL 34104 ,IUNp9 2011 BY: ....................... AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: March 3, 2011 V. Budget Report VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur VIII. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin XI. New Business A. Review and Approval FY -2012 MSTU Budget XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment Fiala ti Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta The next meeting is May 5, 2011 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER Misc, Corres: 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL Date: '1 II l 1 item k Ccpies to: April 7, 2011 1612 1A301 vander6sef SmeA JVl.s.1'A 'uVifie•y e01,N,ittaa 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:00 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bill Gonnering, Bruce Forman (Excused), Bud Martin County: Darryl Richard -MSTU Project Manager, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Mark Sunyak - Public Utilities Department Others: Maria Jost CLM, David Galloway - Public, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Change: V. Landscape Maintenance Vl. Budget Report Vlll. A. ATM Department Add: Vlll. A. ATM Vlll. B. PUD - Mark Sunyak IX. A. lQ Water Xl. B Sidewalks Bud Martin moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. BX Gonnering arrived 2:05 p.m. IV. Approval of Minutes - March 3, 2011 Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of March 3, 2011 as presented. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 161 P A30 V. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Maria Jost reported: • Fertilizer was applied in March • Tracking vehicle damage to the Irrigation (by the Contractor repairing sidewalks) - Photo is available of Contractor vehicle parked in the median Darryl Richard requested the following (of CLM): • Photo of the Contractor vehicle parked in the median • Track the cost of Irrigation damage separately (by the Contractor) VI. Budget Report Darryl Richard reviewed the following information: (See attached) • Capital Outlay Expenditures $53,401.00 • Available Capital Outlay $5,656,800.00 • Adjusted Balance Sheet (Unaudited as of 9- 30 -10) (See attached) - Anticipated the Cany Forward Report is forthcoming as Audits are complete for the MSTU's FY -2012 MSTU Budget o Forecast FY11 Engineering Line Item - $200,000.00 - includes Survey Fees Charles Arthur requested the MSTU Budget track Survey Fees as a separate Line Item. o Requested FY12 Engineering Fees Line Item - $350,000.00 - Survey Fees are minimal Darryl Richard stated an RFP for Services during construction of Phase I will be pursued (with the assistance of the Utilities Department.) Discussion took place on the Malcolm Pirnie Proposal (approximately $192,000.00) that was approved by the Committee in March and the following was concluded: • Purchasing Department indicated that Competitive Bids are required based on the total Project Cost • Perceived the Expenditure to oversee FPL as purposeless • Using a Maintenance Contractor is vital during FPL construction to promptly repair damages sustained to Private Property - Utilizing up to (4) Maintenance Contractors under an RFP is cost effective (as needed basis) • Engineering Scope of Work requirements for the RFP will include: - Previous CEI experience - Asbestos Certification - Familiarity with Public Utilities 2 161 2 A30 Bud Martin questioned if the Contractor Fee was based on cost plus pricing or a fixed amount. Staff responded that the Contractor Bid is based on the total expectation of the job: • Time - An Hourly rate for the number hours spent on the job • Material(s) - not to exceed the specified amount Dick Lydon questioned Project (VA -38) Phase II & III Location: Vanderbilt Dr. as the section from Vanderbilt Beach Rd to 111th Ave. is not included in the RFP. Staff concurred with Dick Lydon and stated the area in question will be incorporated into the RFP. Darryl Richard announced: • Coordination with Public Utilities is essential on the Project(s) • Public Utilities will lead the Project(s) based on the departments expertise with Asbestos Abatement • Public Utilities is relocating the Asbestos Pipe • The MSTU is responsible for Public Utilities Staff cost associated with the Project(s) The Committee requested the following stipulations for the FY12 Budget: • Assessment of Engineering cost $350,000.00 (to supervise FPL) • Break out Survey cost from the Engineering line item Dick Lydon expressed discontent with the $40,000.00 Transfer MSTD. Dick Lydon moved to approve the FY12 Budget with the changes indicated (break out of survey fees.) Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried 3 -1, Bud Martin voted no. Staff reported the following impending issues with Malcolm Pirnie: • Malcolm Pirnie reported a billing error in the amount of $6,400.00 • The Contract amount was $40,000.00 - $38,400.00 payment was made with the stipulation that the (2) outstanding Easement Documents would be submitted • Malcolm Pirnie has requested $10,000.00 - $30,000.00 to render the remaining 2 Easements Documents • The Property Acquisitions Department can resolve the issue if Malcolm Pirnie does not surrender the Easement Documents The Committee perceived the following: • The (2) Easement Documents are the property of the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU • Malcolm Pirnie is in breach of Contract • If the Easement Documents are not surrendered by Malcolm Pirnie a refund will be requested 3 161 2 A30 o Staff will contact the (2) Property Owners to confirm if the Easement Documents were executed and if necessary secure a new Easement Document: - Mr. Monaghan - Vanderbilt Beach LLC - Jeny Griffin - Attorney for Vanderbilt Beach LLC - Mr. Crawford VII. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur Darryl Richard reviewed the following: (See attached) Comcast Update • Agreement Documents will be signed by the Company Attorney • Email discussion on Fiber optics upgrade (see attached) Schedule Critical Path o Staff will clarify if the UFCA (Underground Facility Conversion Agreement) can go before the BCC in May for approval VIII. Project Manager Report A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard - Previously discussed under Vl. B. Public Utilities Department - Mark Sunyak - Previously discussed under Vl. IX. Old Business A. IQ Water Darryl Richard reviewed a letter by the Public Utilities Department addressing Staffs request for Irrigation Quality Water for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU. (See attached) X. Update Report A. Maintenance - Bruce Forman - None B. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin - None XI. New Business A. Review and Approval FY -2012 MSTU Budget - Previously discussed under Vl. B. Sidewalks Dick Lydon deemed that the Vanderbilt Beautification MSTU should be notified by the County of scheduled sidewalk installations. XII. Public Comment David Galloway, President of Vanderbilt Beach Property HOA reported that numerous violations have been issued by Code Enforcement to the corner property at Vanderbilt Beach Rd. and Gulf Shore. 4 1612 "lA30 Discussion ensued and it was concluded: • Staff will coordinate with Code Enforcement and the Sheriff's office • The property is an eyesore • Soil running into the drain system is considered a Environmental issue There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:45 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee Charles Arthur, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented X or amended The next meeting is May 5, 2011 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111 T" Ave. Naples, FL. 5 161 2 A30 Report for: April 7, 2011 Meeting Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Proiect Status (VA -37) - ACTIVE — RFP -Phase One - Services during construction [PROJECT LOCATION: GULFSHORE DRIVE (VBR to 111th Ave.] FUNDING SOURCE: MSTU FUND 143 Critical Components: a. Asbestos Abatement Certification b. Previous CEI project experience c. PUD to provide guidelines for protection of AC pipe during construction d. Action Plan for Emergency Asbestos Abatement — should be an exhibit in the RFP; The consulting firm would be expected to be fully capable of interfacing with county staff in ensuring that all required procedures /guidelines are adhered to. [note: this is to address any damage to AC pipe during construction] (VA -38) - ACTIVE — RFP - Phase II & III Project (MSTU & PUD concurrent projects) [PROJECT LOCATION: VANDERBILT DRIVE (111TH TO WIGGINS PASS (for MSTU); 1111h to 91h St. (for PUD)]; FUNDING SOURCE: MSTU FUND 143 & PUD FUNDING Critical Components: a. Asbestos Abatement Certification b. Previous CEI project experience c. Electrical Design Experience /Capability d. PUD REQUIRMENTS (as relates to the utility portion of the project) (VA -36) - ACTIVE — Refurbishment During & After Construction 04- 07 -11: Per meeting with purchasing Dept. the recommendation is to utilize RFP /Contract 09- 5239 for the purposes of site restoration and refurbishment both during and after construction for FPUComcast project activity. The recommendation is to utilize the annual landscape maintenance RFP /Contract 09 -5239 BCC Awarded on July 28, 2009; item 161320. Staff will solicite quotes from all 4 venders currently on the list: CLM, Hannula, Vila, Caribbean. MSTU Liaison Staff will be working closely with Malcolm Pirnie who will be assisting county staff in coordination with property owners who will be having sod /landscaping repaired during the project. (VA -35) - ACTIVE — Asbestos Abatement & Water Line Relocation Project — Project V -1 04- 07 -11: PUD will bid out the relocation project and be responsible for project management. MSTU to pay for staff cost associated with project. Entire Project from bidding to completion of construction could be as little as 3 to 4 months. Completion by August is the target timeframe. (VA -34) - ACTIVE — Sury ey for Phase II & III (PO 4500118493) 04- 07 -11: Survey Data is 90% complete; survey provided to FPL for review. (VA -32) —10021 Gulfshore Drive Underground conversion of residential meter. 04- 07 -11: Bentley Electrical has confirmed material for project is in stock. Staff to confirm receipt of certified letter by resident prior to commencement of construction. (VA -30) - ACTIVE — Comcast "Phase One" Coordination 04- 07 -11: Revised copy signed by Comcast Corporate is pending from Comcast. There was - mention of 'delay' due to confirmation of required easements for Comcast utilities. Staff is working with Comcast to resolve easement issues. 1612 A30 (VA -27) - ACTIVE — Phase One "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" (UFCA) 11 -10 -09 COMPLETED for Channel Drive (only); UFCA approved by BCC for `Channel Drive' 04 -07 -11 Overall Phase One UFCA is pending resolution of `easements' required for Phase One Project; As soon as easements are obtained FPL will proceed with Final Engineering Cost Estimate and production of Final Design Plans for project. (VA -26) - ACTIVE — Malcolm Pirnie; (EASEMENT AQUISITION) Review preliminary design provided by FPL 04 -07 -11 Ongoing review of easements and negotiation with property owners in progress. Last report was that the last 2 easements were ready to be recorded. Staff confirming status. (VA -19) — ACTIVE - ONGOING — On Call Services — Malcolm Pirnie Engineering On -going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. 04 -07 -11 Staff reviewing deliverables and contract status (VA -18) — ACTIVE - ONGOING- — Maintenance Contract — Award to Commercial Land 04 -07 -11 Ongoing Maintenance Services by Commercial Land Maintenance 2 6-R LL 1612 A30 Cofher County Public Utilities Division Wastewater March 22, 2011 Pam Lulich Collier County ATM 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 RE: Irrigation Quality (Reclaimed) Water Request for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Mr. Lulich: We appreciate your request for irrigation quality water service and for your interest in reducing our County's usage of potable water Unfortunately, commitments to our existing customers are currently utilizing all of our irrigation quality water and we do not anticipate adding new customers in the near future. While Collier County is aggressively pursuing enhancements to our existing irrigation quality water system, those improvements will not be available for some time. Please feel free to contact the Collier County Wastewater Department on an annual basis to inquire as to the availability of reclaimed water. Sincerely, Danette Huff Reuse Manager Collier Cuunty Wastewater Department ?- D I. 1612 A30 RichardDarryl From: DLYDON124 @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:40 AM To: RichardDarryl Subject: Re: Comcast underground conversion Will be interesting to see what he comes up with. FYI the info re fiberoptic speed difference comes from our son -in -law who heads up the company that builds towers for AT &T and maintains them throughout much of the country! How about making a copy of this exchange for the meeting? In a message dated 3/30/2011 9:31:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Darryl Richard e-col I iergov. net writes: Thanks I appreciate that We'd like to have something positive to relay to the people of Vanderbilt! Darryl From: Ferry, Bill jmailto:Bill Ferry(&cable.comcast.coml Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 201119:26 AM To: RichardDarryl Cc: Vaspasiano, Andy; dlvdon124 @aol:com Subject: RE: Comcast underground conversion I understand. Yes, I can write something for you. We are actually in the middle of rolling out a lot of new services, the plant along the Vanderbilt Beach plays into that. I will be out Thursday, but I hope to have something by Friday. Thanks, 1 1612 130 Bill From: RichardDarryl rmailto :DarrylRichardPcolliergov.netl Sent: Wed 3/30/20119:24 AM To: Ferry, Bill Cc: Vaspasiano, Andy; 'dlydon124 @aol.com' Subject: FW: Comcast underground conversion Bill, Your customers (namely my Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Vice Chairman — Dick Lydon) would like to know'how good your services are' or 'are going to be'. I don't think they are interested in the proprietary nature of your equipment — at least not to that level of detail. Could you at least provide some information for one of your customers (Dick Lydon) so we can at least have some comfort level that (1) we are not wasting money, and (2) have some assurance that the 'level' of service offered to the customers within our project is 'current technology' (i.e. some notation regarding fiber optic would be beneficial in this case). Also, wouldn't we need to know where your fiber optic lines are in a practical sense — so our contractors don't hit them during construction. Please offer some information that puts a 'good light' on our project activity. [otherwise — I suppose we could assume that you have fiber optic in air and will after the project is done — have it in the ground. I mean — I guess we could poll the 'customers' and see if they have a fiber optic connection as part of their service —but I'd much rather see that information come from you guys! All were talking about here is obtaining information that could be relayed in situations where other customers (in addition to Mr. Lydon) have inquiry about the services. The question very well may come up on our BCC meeting to approve our UFCA Agreement with Comcast — and we need to be prepared to answer these simple questions.] 2 r 1612 ' 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 From: Ferry, Bill fmailto:Bill Ferrv(@cable.comcast.coml Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 20118:52 AM To: RichardDarryl; Vaspasiano, Andy Subject: Re: Comcast underground conversion There would be no upgrade component. We would be wrecking out good plant and replacing it with similar plant. I'm sorry but fiber counts and equiptment are proprietary. Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld From: RichardDarryl fmailto :DarrylRichardCbcollierciov.netl Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 201105:23 PM To: Vaspasiano, Andy; Ferry, Bill Cc: 'dlydon124 @aol.com' <dlYdon124C@aol.com> Subject: Comcast underground conversion 1612 'A30 I Andy, Does the Comcast underground conversion have an "upgrade" component? Especially in regard to fiber optic? Please confirm what is being proposed — in comparison to current level of services /equipment. Are the folks in Vanderbilt receiving some indirect benefit from our project? If so, what are the benefits (i.e. better service? Faster data transfer? Etc.) Please confirm. 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 ll•� . 1612 no ' Brief summary of "Underground Utilities Conversion" project activity Since December 11, 2007 Initial BCC Approval of Agreement 12 -11 -07 BCC Approval of ROW Agreement with FPL date Dec. 11, 2007 03 -26 -08 TEAM TELECONFERNCE (FPL, COMCAST, COUNTY, MSTU (C.ARTHUR), VBPOA (JACKIE BAMMEL, RWA, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 03 -10 -08 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS 05 -12 -08 Review of RWA Survey w/ Malcolm Pirnie and C. Arthur 06 -05 -09 Confirmation of 4 residential units affected by "Channel Drive Pilot Project" with FPL (Ryan Drum); Field Meeting to review project; Affected Properties are: NANCE, HAROLD 283 CHANNEL BASTANI, KEN K 261 CHANNEL KOHLER, RUTH H 227 CHANNEL REYNOLDS TR, HENRY E 213 CHANNEL 06 -23 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical begins work per PO 4500107832 09 -11 -08 Review of 1st RWA Survey Submittal Sept 11, 2008 09 -12 -08 Confirmation of FPL Red -Line Comments for survey Sep. 12, 2008 09 -17 -08 TEAM TELECONFERENCE (FPL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 09 -22 -08 FPL "Pot Hole" digs recommended locations identified Sept 22, 2008 11 -21 -08 TEAM MEETING (C. ARTHUR, J. BAMMEL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 02 -02 -09 FPL Approval of Survey Feb. 4, 2009 02 -04 -09 Staff request $13,027.00 Engineering Deposit Invoice Feb. 4, 2009 03 -09 -09 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS 04 -02 -09 MSTU Committee makes motion to proceed with "Channel Drive Project" 04 -10 -09 Verification of easements for 'private property' April 10, 2009 04 -28 -09 BCC Approval of Modified Ordinance adding installation of powerline within `easement' to private properties. This is to allow installation of power from ROW Line to private property connection. tz. -N 06 -01 -09 06 -25 -09 06 -26 -09 161-2 A30 CHANNEL DRIVE: Ryan Drumm (FPL) request .pdf of ROW Agreement for review; forwarded via email FPL Draft Design submittal Phase One Plans Staff request (1) Cadd file of Phase One Submittal; (2) Review indicates drawings are not sufficient for bidding purposes; (3) Full size prints 'to scale' requested' 06 -26 -09 TELECONFERNCE ; CALL IN FROM FPL (John Lehr, FPL; Troy Todd, FPL; Ryan Drumm, FPL; Darryl Richard, Collier County) Troy Todd (FPL) clarifies that "tariff charges" apply to Channel Drive Project (ref: Tariff No. 6 per PSC approved Tariff); $566.59 for the 4 properties on Channel Drive 07 -27 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical completed electrical from ROW to Home /Resident for the following Channel Drive Address': 213,283,263 and 227 08 -07 -09 RYAN DRUMM SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA; and 'Draft' plans; Ryan confirms no existing underground FPL Facilities on Channel Drive 09 -16 -09 RYAN DRUMM 2nd SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA (dated 8- 18 -09); and 'Final' Channel Drive plans (marked 'check set') 09 -17 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE RESIDENT COORDINATION: Kent Smith called on behalf of Mr. Nance to report that he has received the mailing /letter regarding Channel Drive project and that Mr. Nance chooses to 'not participate' at this time due to financial concerns. He mentioned his wife was in the hospital and that he did not have the money to pay the $650.00 for his "private conversion" to underground. 09 -22 -09 TELECONFERENCE (FPL, COUNTY LEGAL, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE, C. ARTHUR) Recommendations: FPL to submit 'agreement' in word format (if possible); staff to proceed with obtaining payment for 'private' underground conversion from property owners Nance and Bastani on Channel Drive. FPL confirms that survey has been accepted and 'Final Plans' are pending for Phase One Project. 09 -21 -09 Ryan Drumm provides FPL Cost Breakdown for Channel Drive; Staff intends to process payment for an "FPL Invoice" upon BCC approval of UFCA (Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement) for Channel Drive; UFCA is pending completion of 'legal review' TOTAL CHANNEL DRIVE COST: $23,242.00 09 -23 -09 Message from Mr. Kent Smith (Legal Representative for Mr. Nance (Property Owner at 283 Channel Drive); Mr. Smith stated that the 'owner' has 'no desire' to underground his private connection, and furthermore has 'no intention of spending any money on his home' (at 283 Channel Drive) related to the power line underground conversion. 09 -24 -09 COMCAST COORDINATION; Channel Drive Plans forwarded to Comcast for quote of underground conversion for Comcast overhead utilities t 1612 A30 10 -01 -09 Phase One "Legal Description" forwarded to FPL for confirmation of FPL formal acceptance of 'Legal Description' per 'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub - section (d)' 10 -05 -09 FPL ACCEPTANCE OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION; John Lehr via email confirms FPL's official acceptance of the legal description for the Phase One Project; Staff request confirmation of "EXISTING FPL FACILITIES" per 'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub - section (e)) documentation of all existing FPL underground facilities within the ROW that will not be included under ROW agreement (for Exhibit C) 10 -06 -09 COMCAST COORINDINATION: Mark Cook informs County Staff that Comcast has re- assigned project review to himself and Andy Vaspasiano; Mark indicates he and Andy are working on "Channel Drive" Cost estimate. * *COMCAST CONFIRMS 100% of conversion of Comcast Utilities is to be by the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU as the project sponsor. Comcast indicates that there will be no 'reductions' in cost due to 'depreciation' of equipment /existing installation. Services are identified as 'new' and 'not in need of upgrade'. Installation of underground conduit for Comcast is through Comcast contractor managed 'entirely by Comcast'. 10 -09 -09 Malcolm Pirnie submits letter for review of Project Drawing submittals and recommendation related to which party should install the underground conduit for Phase One Project 10 -12 -09 County Legal provides legal opinion from Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, 150.0 Mahan Drive, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (letter dated 10 -8 -09 Gregory T. Stewart 10 -12 -09 RWA Proposal submitted for survey of Phase II, III, and IV 10 -13 -09 TELECONFERENCE (C. ARTHUR, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 10 -14 -09 FPL SUBMITTAL; PLANS FOR PHASE ONE PROJECT (Marked 'Preliminary') 10 -14 -09 John Lehr notifies staff (via phone call evening of 10- 14 -09) that the 'one page' agreement submitted on 8 -7 -09 has to be revised to a new 4 page agreement (delivery pending from FPL) 10 -22 -09 John Hart Electrical received check for $650.00 for Bastani on Channel Drive 'Private Can Conversion to underground. 10 -28 -09 Bastani Channel Drive private conversion project completed by Hart's Electrical 10 -28 -09 Revised UFCA Agreement received from FPL for BCC approval on Nov. 10, 2009 11 -03 -09 Confirmation of Comcast cost for Channel Drive Project is $4,000.00 per FPL plans. 11 -03 -09 Scott Teach and Michelle Arnold teleconference with Nabors Giblin & Nickerson results of teleconference to be presented at 11 -05 -09 MSTU meeting. i a 161 2 A30 I 11 -05 -09 Discussion Nabors Giblin & Nickerson legal consult related to 'underground conversion' and potential 'ordinance'; Committee makes motion to direct staff to pursue Ordinance for the MSTU to pay for homeowner's conversion and Ordinance to 'require' participation and mechanism to address non - participation. 11 -10 -09 BCC Approval of UFCA Agreement with FPL for Channel Drive 'pilot project' 11 -10 -09 Field Meeting to review Proposed "Easements" for Phase One Project; Ryan Drum FPL was in attendance with Chris Tilman, Darryl Richard, Jeff Gower, and Charlie Arthur. Inspection indicated that all of the easements proposed were not necessary, and that 'alternative' site planning would locate the electrical boxes within existing ROW. Follow - up meeting with John Lehr scheduled for December 8, 2009 (1 pm) 12 -08 -09 Meeting with FPL (John Lehr, Kate Donofrio, Ryan Drum) and Malcolm Pirnie (Chris Tilman, Jeff Gower) and County Staff (Darryl Richard); Review of easements proposed; approximately 50% of easements were determined to not be necessary; However, the other 50% of easements require (1) detailed re- survey, (2) placement of stakes in field identifying ROW and property lines, and (3) re- identification of utilities in the field (call into Florida One Call system) Staff will coordinate with Malcolm Pirnie and RWA for necessary project activity; additional proposal from RWA is necessary for scope of work identified. Proposal from Malcolm Pirnie for'easement acquisition' is also recommended at this time in anticipation of possible requirement for easements. 1245 -09 BCC Approval of Ordinance Modification to add 'private' connections to MSTU Ordinance thus allowing MSTU to complete 100% of private meter connections as required to obtain 25% GAF waiver from FPL. 01 -04 -10 Draft Letter to 37 residents requiring underground conversion for meter connection under review 01 -04 -10 Channel Drive Project Under Construction 01 -19 -10 Letter sent to 35 residents in Phase One Project that have 'overhead' meter connections; staff is monitoring confirmation of receipt of this mailing by Certified Mail 02 -09 -10 Channel Drive Project 90% completed; missing 2 transformer boxes pending from FPL; Comcast is 100% installed on Channel Drive. 02 -09 -10 RWA Delivers 13 exhibits for locations for transformers and switch cabinets; These exhibits will be used in review of proposed easements by FPL in Preliminary Design 02 -09 -10 Malcolm Pirnie provides Final Bid Documents for Electrical Conversion of 35 properties in Phase One Project which have existing overhead meter connections. Staff preparing bid for advertisement and release to 'all bidders' not restricted to annual contractors. Q 40 1612A30" 03 -04 -10 MSTU Committee awards bid to ITran Partners, Inc. for underground conversion of 31 private residential units. It was determined that only 2 additional properties require underground conversion. Since the 2 additional properties are 'Commercial Property' and will require extensive review and investigation prior to conversion —these will be handled through Collier County Annual Electrical Contractor. 03 -11 -10 Meeting with ITran Partners to review 31 properties to be undergrounded. Some properties were noted as 'possible change order items'; namely saw cutting concrete driveway and re- installation of concrete slab over newly installed conduit. Malcolm Pirnie is assisting staff in review of each property and related 'issues' that may require further review. 03 -24 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 9895 Gulf Shore Dr.; Laplaya LLC; Jeremy Arnold, PE; Barron Collier Enterprises Summary: Mr. Anrold was very agreeable to granting easement 03 -26 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 10352 Gulf Shore Dr.; Mr. Epright; Summary: Mr. Epright is not agreeable to all 4 boxes being located on his property. He would like for the County to pursue alternative of placement of "2 boxes North of his property line — on the Condo Property" (10420 GULF SHORE DR; "Vanderbilt Bay Condominiums); Staff will coordinate with Engineer Consultant in bringing an alternative solution to the property owner; after preliminary review /approval by FPL as a viable alternative 03 -26 -10 Meeting with ITran Partners to review furthermore in depth' some of the technical issues related to each property conversion. Further coordination with FPL (Troy Todd) to identify certain items which appear to be 'non-standard' installations and modifications to FPL's meter connections is required. 03 -30 -10 All Tariff charges for the 31 properties have been approved for payment to FPL. Note there is a $566.59 Tariff charge for each of the 31 properties. Material supply for conduit will be by FPL for the residential units. With wire being 'pulled' by FPL. FPL will notify County once material supply has been received and is in stock. 03 -30 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 9635 Gulf Shore Dr.; Casa Grande Summary: Pam Pettit (Manager) and the Board President of Casa Grande. Appeared to be in agreement with granting easement. Was in favor of project. 03 -31 -10 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONVERSION: Meeting with Bentley Electric to review project details for conversion of 2 Commercial Properties (1) 9140 GULF SHORE DR (Hotel /INN) (2) 10540 Gulf Shore Dr (multi -unit condo) Bentley Electric to provide quote under annual contract 09 -5325 On Call Electrical Services Contract 03 -31 -10 Malcolm Pirnie Provides layout alternatives (Options 1, 2, and 3) for Mr. Epright's property. All 3 alternatives require an easement of some sort. FPL appears to be 16• 1612 A30 I interested in Option #1 which places 2 boxes to the north parcel and 2 boxes on /near Mr. Epright's property. (Requires easement from both property owners) 04 -01 -10 Meeting with Lighthouse Hotel Owner Kevin Dugan regarding easement. Kevin is in favor of project and is willing to provide easement 04 -06 -10 ITran Partners begin underground conversion of 31 Commercial Properties. 04 -21 -10 Meeting with Charles Chaffee; Mr. Chaffee is in favor of project and will provide easement 04 -21 -10 Meeting with Mr. Epright; Mr. Epright is not in favor of project and is willing to offer very limited easement (5 ft. along Northern Edge of property) 04 -28 -10 Meeting to review proposed Park & Recreation plans for 1111h Ave. parking lot. It was determined that no conflict exist between MSTU FPL Project and proposed. changes by Park & Recreation. 04 -30 -10 Final Draft for Agreements for (3) Three Easements submitted to Kevin Hendricks, Director, Collier County Property Acquisitions 04 -30 -10 Easement Exhibits received from Malcolm Pirnie 05 -03 -10 Meeting with Collier County Utilities (Joe Thomas, P.E.) regarding the easement proposal for Vanderbilt Towers (North of Epright Property); proposed alternative involves relocation and /or disconnection of existing water force main. Joe Thomas, Collier County Utilities indicates his staff will have to review what is proposed and then get back to Malcolm Pirnie /Staff. Note: a 7.5 foot off -set requirement is noted as being 'required for our project'; staff /consultant had previously been utilizing 5 ft. off -set per FPL requirements for existing utilities. Malcolm Pirnie is to provide an exhibit for Joe Thomas illustrating the locations for utility boxes and off -sets as relates to utilities (water main lines in particular) Wednesday, May 26, 2010 Follow -up meeting with Collier County Utilities (Joe Thomas, P.E.) regarding relocation of water main for required off -set for FPL utility boxes. Friday, June 18, 2010 Notice to Proceed sent to RWA for Phase II & III Survey; P. O. #4500118493; CONTRACT: RFP #06 -3944 Annual Fixed Term Surveying & Photogrammetric Services; 360 day contract period. Thursday, June 24, 2010 Inspection of Residential Electrical Meters - Vanderbilt Beach MSTU 1) 10021 Gulfshore Dr; BOWEIN, LLOYD L; LURLINE S BOWEIN; 10021 GULF SHORE DR; NAPLES FL 34108; FOLIO NO. 27530040005; FAILED INSPECTION: CODE DEFICIENCIES NOTED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR. PROPERTY REFERED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR CODE RELATED DEFIECIENCIES. 2) 10091 Gulfshore; FORBIS, ROBERT C =& DEBRA J; 10091 GULF SHORE DR; NAPLES FL 34108; PHONE: 239 -254- 8484; Mobile: (230) 641 -8000; PROPERTY OWNER PAID ELECTRICIAN UNDER PRIVATE CONTRACT TO RESOLVE CODE DEFIECIENCIES; STATUS: RESOLVED. (TV20 AD 161 2 A50 ' Friday, August 27, 2010 Comcast Coordination Meeting; Review of basic requirements for agreement per Tariff 6.310 (Fla. PSC Approved Tariff regarding underground conversion of powerlines) September 23, 2010 Comcast Coordination Meeting; Update on progress toward 'draft agreement' And discussion /clarification of details related to project. Monday, October 04, 2010 Jeff Gower, P.E. provides bid documents for bidding Water Line Relocation Project — Project V -1. Project Plans reviewed by staff. Total Project cost is estimated at: $82,500.00 Friday, October 08, 2010 First Draft of Comcast Agreement with Vanderbilt Beach MSTU /Collier County received and forwarded to County Attorney's office for review. Tuesday, October 12, 2010 ROW Section confirms Water -line relocation project is being tracked under ROW Permit Application #10 -0520. ROW Permit is required prior to bidding project. Tuesday, October 12, 2010 Jeff Gower, P.E. confirms that FPL has 'approved' 12 out of the 13 total easement proposals. Staff and consultant are negotiating with property owners in obtaining owner approval of proposed easements. LIST OF PROPOSED EASEMENTS: Easement No. Owner /Parcel No. Easement Size FPL Review 1A 3 Vanderbilt Shores 15'x40' In Progress 1 4 Vanderbilt Bay Condo Phase 2 4'x 10' Approved 2 5A Chaffee 5' x 10' Approved 3 5A Thompson 5' x 5' Approved 4 9 Chaffee 2 Tx 10' Approved 5 11 Mario Costantini Tx 10' Approved 6 12 La Playa 5'x 20' Approved 7 13 Villas of Vanderbilt Beach 2'x 10' Approved 8 14 Casa Grande 20'x 20' Approved 9 15 Manatee Resort V x 10' Approved 10 16 Vanderbilt Beach LLC 4' x 13' Approved 11 17 The Watermark Condo 4'x 13' Approved 12 18 & 19Vanderbilt Beach Motel 5'x 20' Approved Thursday, October 13, 2010 Code Enforcement meeting with Property Owner at 10021 Gulfshore Drive (Bowein); Code Case # Code case reference #CEPM20100017920 Summary: 161 2 A'30 1 Code Enforcement Staff (Susana Capasso, Supervisor, North Naples District) meeting with Mr. Bowein. Mr. Bowein has coordinated with FPL and the electrical wire that was resting across the roof has been addressed (inspection pending). He is working on the closing the open permit for replacement of windows and will be working with Mark Thomas, Building Inspector, Building Review & Permitting, on the electrical code deficiencies noted. Monday, November 1, 2010 Code Enforcement meeting with Property Owner at 10021 Gulfshore Drive (Bowein); Code Case # Code case reference #CEPM20100017920 Summary: Resident had obtained services from an electrician (company name undisclosed) and had met with Richard Long, Chief Building Inspector to review the details related to the code deficiencies at 10021 Gulfshore Drive. Friday, November 12, 2010 Comcast Teleconference- Coordination on Agreement A: Who goes First: Comcast opened the discussion with statement that Comcast had no problem with 'going first' and completing their underground installation given that 2 conditions are met — as stated below: 1) Comcast request written confirmation from FPL that once Comcast installs all of their utilities underground — that in the case that the FPL contractor 'hits the line' — that the FPL contractor will be responsible for repair of any damaged Comcast utilities. (attn: John Lehr —we could use a letter or email for clarification on this item) Note: Comcast will provide 'As Built' plans during and upon completion of the Comcast underground project. 2) Given that Comcast will 'go first' and install all underground utilities necessary for conversion (given condition #1 is met), Comcast request that they be allowed to keep the overhead utilities "in service" until all FPL underground conversion is completed. Once FPL underground conversion is completed Comcast will transfer service to the newly installed underground Comcast lines. The intention here is to ensure that there is no disruption of service (especially regarding 911 emergency services to residents) ensuring smooth transition between the old overhead lines to the new underground system. (attn: John Lehr —we could use a letter or email for clarification on this item) [NOTE: RESPONSE FROM FPL (John Lehr) IS PENDING REGARDING THIS REQUEST FROM COMCAST] B: Review of Agreement (see attached original draft as received from Comcast) 1) 110% of contractor cost needs to be reduced down to 100% or actual project cost only. Staff will not authorize 'overage' at onset of project. If unforeseen condition(s) should arise which require modification of agreement amount — another addendum would be required with BCC approval. 2) An amount of retainage must be determined. Staff is recommending 10% retainage for this project. At onset of BCC approval of Agreement 90% of project cost will be paid out within 45 days of BCC approval and then upon project completion payment of 10% retainage will be made within 45 days of project completion. 19- J612 130 3) Comcast is to provide a letter regarding the 'contractor selection' process related to Comcast sub- contractor for the project. Details related to contractor experience and specific qualifications should be included in this letter. 4) The agreement letter needs to be modified to include new BCC approved requirements for all contractors associated with Collier County Projects to have verification that all employees can lawfully work in the US. (additional details related to County Purchasing requirements (re: E- verify) for this item will be forwarded to Comcast under separate cover) 5) Staff is still in need of actual copies of the 'pole licenses' for Comcast utilization of the existing poles on Gulfshore Drive. Copy of these licenses is necessary for County Legal to review the proposed agreement. Friday, December 10, 2010 John Lehr, FPL Project Manager, confirms that FPL can coordinate with Comcast with a simultaneous conversion of both utilities. Thus allowing Comcast to remain 'on the poles' until both the FPL electrical and the Comcast underground system are in place. Then afterwards the 'take -down' would occur for Comcast lines and the poles would be removed. (Ref: December 10, 2010 email from John Lehr) Monday, December 13, 2010 Collier County Code Enforcement and Building Inspection Department report that all code deficiencies have been addressed by private property owner at 10021 Gulfshore Drive. In follow -up staff has requested contractor Bentley Electrical to review the project and provide quote under annual contract to convert this property to underground power. C77.0.. 4 X612 A30 Wednesday, January 19, 2011 STAFF ASBESTOS ABATEMENT COORDINATION MEETING: Attendees: Ray Smith, Director Pollution Control; Pam Libby, Manager Water Operations; Michelle Edwards Arnold, Director ATM Department; Darryl Richard, County Project Manager; Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager; Mark Sunyak, Principal Project Manager PUD; Michael Gates, Risk Management; Fred Sexton, Senior Field Inspector; Diana Dueri, Project Manager PUD; and Committee Chairman Charlie Arthur. Public Utilities Division made offer to assist Growth Management Division (ATM Dept.) in properly managing the asbestos abatement portion of the water line relocation project. • Currently Plans are in final revision and 100% plans will be submitted by Malcolm Pirnie next Monday, Jan. 24, 2011. (note: plans were confirmed delivered on 1/24/11) • Once ROW Permit is issued project will be bid to Collier Count annual contractors. • Also, after issue of ROW Permit staff will execute Phase One — Project Initialization. • Upon receipt of bid results staff will coordinate with Ray Smith, Director Pollution Control, to meet with DEP to review the project. • Through the entire Asbestos Abatement Process the County MSTU Liaison Project Manager will report directly to Ray Smith, and copy Diana Dueri, Pamela Lulich, and Michael Gates, for the purposes of project oversight and coordination. • The next official coordination meeting will be the Phase One — Project Initialization (time /date TBD). (pending staff review /approval of project plans — and subsequent ROW Permit issue) Friday, January 21, 2011 MEETING WITH JOHN LEHR (FPL) & ANDY VASPASIANO (COMCAST): Staff meeting with John Lehr, FPL Project Manager; Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie; Darryl Richard, County Project Manager; Pam Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager; Andy Vaspasiano, Comcast; and Committee Chairman Charlie Arthur indicates that 4 easements have been recorded, 6 are pending final recording, and 5 are pending owner signature. John Lehr indicated that an 8 foot by 10 foot "pit" would be required for all directional bore crossings along Gulfshore Drive. And that the directional bores would require an additional 'right of entry' from all property owners who will be affected by directional bore operations (i.e. installation of the 8ft. x 10 ft. pit and also area for setting up the directional bore equipment. It was noted that the directional bore equipment is 'very heavy' and that there is concern with the existing 'asbestos concrete' (AC) pipe. Staff had noted that Public Utilities Division has informed Malcolm Pirnie that this pipe is 'very brittle' and has cracked in the past with just a maintenance vehicle crossing over the top of one of the pipes. John Lehr recommended that staff obtain official instructions from Utilities in regards to how the asbestos concrete (AC) pipe should be protected during conversion of the power to underground. The suggestion was made that Y inch to 1 inch steel plates be used to cover the existing AC pipe so that it is protected during construction. 21• N 1612 A30 It was also noted that the directional bores in close proximity to the existing AC pipe would require very accurate placement of the directional bore — to avoid damaging the existing AC pipe during boring operations. John Lehr indicated that the cost of mitigation /protection of the existing AC pipe would not be included in the 'engineering cost' or Contribution in aid of Construction (CIAC). John indicated that the tariff requirements as relates to calculation of the CIAC would not include the project activity related to 'protecting existing pipe' such as the asbestos concrete pipe. It was noted that the specific requirements and calculation of the CIAC is contained within the PSC approved tariff's which outline specific requirements for the underground conversion. It was noted the FPL would not bid the project until 'payment is received for the CIAC. The CIAC would be calculated after final plans are produced. Final plan production is pending the obtaining of all easements required for the project. It was noted that the 'moving of the water line' project could take place concurrently with the bidding of the FPL underground conversion project and subsequent construction. Therefore, the moving of the waterline is not anticipated to cause delay in the overall project schedule. Staff informed John Lehr that Public Utilities Division will be working very closely with Growth Management Division in the 'asbestos abatement' procedures related to the water line relocation project. John Lehr indicated that FPL bidding of this project would be for 56 days (or 3 months) and that actual construction could be done in 1 to 2 months timeframe. The discussion of 'how many bores' would be required for the entire project indicated that 35 to 45 bores are anticipated across Gulfshore Drive (final count is pending final plans). John Lehr reminded staff that all restoration will have to be performed by the MSTU in relation to directional bore operations (i.e. restoring any landscaping, pavers, of plantings). Andy Vaspasiano, Project Manager, Comcast indicated that the project will require about the same number of bores across Gulfshore Drive (35 to 45) and also has numerous crossings anticipated across driveways and side streets /finger streets. The total number of Comcast crossings will exceed 100 crossings. Final count of directional bores and crossings is pending final project plans. Andy Vaspasiano indicated that the Comcast Portion of the project would take 2 months for construction. It was noted that Comcast would go 'last' and that they would wait until FPL had all the lines underground (w /poles still up) prior to converting Comcast Cable to underground. Once the Comcast lines were off the poles the poles would finally be removed — as the last part of the project. It was noted that Vanderbilt Bay requested relocation of 2 transformer switch cabinets and that John Lehr would confirm if they can be moved. (Note: on 1/31/11 John Lehr reported: I received the okay to relocate the PME -4's (two) to the new location 4 (design will install HH and the longer cable runs). 2Z: it 161 2 °A30 February 24, 2011 Chuck Bentley (Bentley Electric) confirms order is placed for equipment related to conversion of 10021 Gulfshore. Confirmation of 'actual project start date' is pending. March 28, 2011 Staff confirms Bentley Electrical has all parts /equipment for meter conversion at 10021 Gulfshore Drive. Staff to send certified letter via US Mail for confirmation of receipt by Mr. Bowein prior to commencement of work. March 31, 2011 Teleconference with John Lehr (FPL), Mark Sunyak (PUD, Principal Project Manager), Pam Lulich (ATM Dept. Landscape Operations Manager), Michelle Edwards Arnold (ATM Dept. Director), Mike Green (GMD, Manager Planning), Brenda Brilhart (Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Department), Rhonda Cummings (Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Dept.), Nicole Parker (Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Dept.) [note: Comcast unavailable; staff to arrange for follow -up conference with Comcast] Main Points of discussion: 1) Bidding of Phase One (FPL) rel. to requirements for protection of existing AC main on Gulfshore Drive; emergency action plan in case AC line is damaged during construction [RFP for consultant services during construction of phase one]. Conclusions: That FPL will require that Collier County be responsible for emergency action plan related to potential damage to existing AC pipe. Staff will coordinate with FPL to ensure that contractor is 'informed' of the location of the AC Line (pre- bidding; and pre- construction coordination) 2) Asbestos abatement for utility line relocation project. Conclusions: PUD will bid out the relocation project and be responsible for project management. MSTU to pay for staff cost associated with project. 3) Preliminary review of Phase II /III Project —Vanderbilt Drive; RFP through PUD Conclusions: MSTU Liaison Staff to coordinate with PUD as 'lead' in RFP process and project management. 4) FPL requirements for Phase II /III as relates to PUD project (including RFP consultant selection) Conclusions: FPL to provide requirements and template for consulting services as relates to interface of MSTU /PUD consultant for purpose of project design and coordination. Minimal Requirements for firm noted are: a. Prior experience with Asbestos Abatement (must have all certifications) b. Prior experience in electrical design (FPL type systems) c. Meet all PUD requirements for project (PUD to provide) 5) Directional Bore Requirements for Phase One Project (Comcast & FPL) Conclusions: Contractor to identify what method of directional bore will be performed (re: Pre - Bid and Pre - Construction coordination with FPL) a. AC pipe emergency action plan to be reviewed with contractor. b. Location for directional bores and contractor. work zone to be identified —where possible the contractor is to shoot the bore from the West ROW side where there is no AC pipe. z3• �t 161 2 A30 14 April 4, 2011 RFP Scope is further defined w/ PUD as 2 RFP's: 1) RFP -Phase One - Services during construction [PROJECT LOCATION: GULFSHORE DRIVE (VBR to 111th Ave.] FUNDING SOURCE: MSTU FUND 143 Critical Components: a. Asbestos Abatement Certification b. Previous CEI project experience c. PUD to provide guidelines for protection of AC pipe during construction d. Action Plan for Emergency Asbestos Abatement — should be an exhibit in the RFP; The consulting firm would be expected to be fully capable of interfacing with county staff in ensuring that all required procedures /guidelines are adhered to. [note: this is to address any damage to AC pipe during construction] 2) RFP - Phase II & III Project (MSTU & PUD concurrent projects) [PROJECT LOCATION: VANDERBILT DRIVE (111T" TO WIGGINS PASS (for MSTU); 111th to 9th St. (for PUD)] FUNDING SOURCE: MSTU FUND 143 & PUD FUNDING Critical Components: a. Asbestos Abatement Certification b. Previous CEI project experience c. Electrical Design Experience /Capability d. PUD REQUIRMENTS (as relates to the utility portion of the project) Z 2�l-'11 0 6I2 A 31 0 4 A W 1.4 -A O CO Co V CO N A W N + O CO CO V O1 to A W N -4 O CO CO V O1 N A W N -4 O t0 CO V CO tll A W N -+ T Z-17370 -looW1 � O - OOmprO0KK n - > m -o vor - (nmr 1-1 -1m00 -1H x - - ?mOQ O m m x c c Pox D m -H mT1 1 m r m c D -or O O _ D c z m O D D D X x m m m cO -1 C m TD zJxZmcn> mmzc zz � o7) O1 m > 73nn ? Z ) m0H -I0XJ < > Z o Zx = >D r MMcnmmcncn _ Cmm mH -ImQ rmZ1/ X1 -- C' �7c Z R1ZDC� mmnD -1Zrpm mmmmmmmm -lK = < < p �nm � � � � ; pcmO � c) mm � v Z cnmo 5zm � G) p - m � � � � T � � D�D � o � � m OZZ 1 ? 12I- � Or m { mm -Ii � zcnm = zQ° mDD � � C) )E O0 0 1 0 zCw c � cn -0 z mr _ om cZ Dc) � mm mo < � x00 cnz z mm D _W -1D z o mo )> (/)= 0_ co mm C) p � CnZ) O o0 � � � Om =i c) 10 n z Cs) ZZZ 0 s > x cZm ? 00D> - cr- rn z --� D OX 0 m -o O m Kr D -IW xi mmx � Xm � m DD r ,- 1- m 0 D 1- -I w ZZnD mH m z 0 O �rn N 60 69 En 69 EA EA En 60 En EA EA 69 69 En EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 6A(A EA 6A 60 EA EA EA N EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 6A EA EA 6060 CO 1 cn CO co cnn CO - '� D CO W N W W CO Co J A _, W CO -4 W A CO J Cn O) C)) - p W 13D CO CO (O CO (n J N N O O W CO Cn O) O N -4 CO N O Co O J N OD CO O O W Co (n Co c, Q O O O O- (O O O N N V N (n O 01 O O Cn A Cn � O In O O In qq (0 In Cn (0 O CO CD CD 44 0 0 O O O 0 0 A A (0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O O O (n Cn O 0 O 00 O A A O A O O O 0 pi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O J 0 0 pi (n 0 Cn O O O O C A. 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 Ut (n 'co CD 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 (O 0 0 41 A O ? O O O O CO O O O O O O O W W 01 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 Cn O O CO Co O Co O 0 0 O N EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA En En EA EA EA En EA EA En EA En EA EA En EA EA En EA An En M EA 69 En EA EA En EA EA EA EA EA EA C) O 3 W V J Co O O O W - J N x O O O co W J W co - O) CO N 0) 3 W A A CO 0) Cn O W (n O) CA J Co (O O CD V , . , O) 41 - A 0 0 A (D J A 0 W 0 O V N 01 N 001 O s J W 0 00 A N O aj V W W A N (n 0 0 0) A Co (n (0 CS) O EA En EA EA EA EA 60 En EA En EA 60 EA EA EA 60 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA En EA EA EA 60 En En EA N EA EA EA EA En EA EA EA EA EA EA EA m x N CO N -4 W N (n A to CO (O m 0 CO A co 0) N W W CO -4 N W CO -OW) N Co A 0)) N CW)1 Cn- co C c W Cn Q)CD O A A A V O G) Co J CO O O) O O O CO Co.-, O Cn A J "° 91 CO O N co O O O co co A co O) A O W A N 0) O N CO N N -4 Co O Cn O = O) (0 A 01 O + -4 Cn 01 0) A 0) O 0 N Cn CO 0 A 0 N 01 0 Co A 01 CA A J -• Cn O O O A N -4 A (O N O 0) A -4 Cn O J O V J 0) Co CO N O m OC O N 00 O 0 0 0 00 01 A 0 A O 0) N Cn -4 0 0 0 V J A Co CT Cn A !A An EA EA En EA En EA EA EA En EA EA EA EA En EA EA EA 69 En EA En EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA N EA EA EA En EA En En EA EA 69 EA En UI V' 01 N Cn GI D V CD 0 cn CA CD CO 00 0) N 0) CA CO - -4 N O Co W -4 (n O N N (0 O 0) W W -+ 01 0 r1. co O O A A _O CO Co W N O N 01 W O O (n J O O W O O In N CO 01 In O 01 A Cr 0 0 (0 J O O N O N O O (O 0 0 0 O O O A (n O Cn O O O a A O A O J J Co O Cn CO CD 0 0 O Cn A O O -4 O N O O 0) O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD (n O 01 O A O Co A 01 W N O O "co 00 .A O O N O CO. O O A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O O 0 0 0 V A O A O ' N 0) Co to NCO CA 0 0 O CO N O O 0) 0 0 0 0 4' 0 0 0 0000 O O O 000 +vo O 00 co) W A Co 0) Cn m :: 50) W73 :U0) KM $ 3 , 5 > mmmm00c) CO < 9 v ` * * * m m sv m $ (n 0- o o moo o m (D m D D D c r _ 3 - _. 3 m 5- c-- O_ O_ O_ ON y m (n 7c C2 co C ymc053334RC).2 = °) m o.‹ E. o c) m z ow < L7 o m co a c o rn 0) E = 3 > > 7 (D 0 o_; oc o 3 < O (0 CD CD CD CD N N C O 0) Vii n Z 0 n (( y m a y a = .°. Cm C o n V Z v co N r oA -1 3 m 3 .6 to 3 d K �, rnom > < co -o -0005- ommmcno xrn Co m W D O S 7 O cn o c m 'O o (D lD () 0 N m o -0 m c m m c m CD m R.R. w oc rn o » C AI m w73 = m..co ,. � _ � d o o• 0 n � v N CO 0 C CO -0 0 (0 CD C l `< K m 0 (n N - __ a to m N cn z o _v 5 m 30 o oo oon N $ 0 -0 4o C . 7. c 2 CD -H '� ? '' y it n "CO 4 ..P N (D < y (n N 3 CD N j ) -co 0) (D 0 co co N N a a ±f (I) G CO. c y x m m' -< << -n r C0 CO C0 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 4,7 T T _a 0) 5 j g W Cn Cn Cn 6 Cn Cn 01 Cn 01 Cn 01 Cn N Cn Cn Cn (n Cn O -o o T y N E CD 4, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O D < Q t� ,� } O_ O_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O z O N E5 Ei 0 < E) N N N O N O O N N N N N N N D N O m es 1 o) Cn G) Cn Cn 00 8 4' Cn (b W N N N N N W_ N 01 ik Co 0 c Cr a Ci CO A CO A A O -4 W (n N N Co 0i co J m 5 to J N (O CA (O Co N O) W N N C0 ao N -� N (A 0) N a �( O) O OD O) CO A W O W O -4 W CO V W N J (0 A \G .1 69. m e v i o EA En EA En EA En En En EA En EA EA EA EA EA EA 69 EA EA EA En EA o g ro XI 0 0 0 A V T cn A j -, 01 ' A 40 co O J W A N co 'co 'Co 0)01 - CD W 00 O O CO 00 O W 01 W J 0) 01 J O) O 3 V -4 O O W 0 A 0 0) A Cn (0 J A O 0 O ,2 V Co O O N Cn Co 0 0 -+ N (n J A W CD V O O O n W n O O 01 O N Co 0) O A O EA EA EA EA 60 En EA En EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 64 EA EA EA EA to N A) A co Cn 0) W co -+ Co W -+ W CO b lo N A O^4 O A -4 A O) CA V O W Cn OD Cr) Co 0. co -+ O N 00 -4 O N (O Co 4' 0 0 O) A A A J Co CO O) Co O A O Cn O -4 (O O 01 O O A Co N 01 (0 O O) A N O J O) -4 O N N O -4 0 CD CO O A N fn O) A N 0 O O O 01 0 0 0 0 (n O O O 00 N A -, CA A . May 5, 2011 1612 b30 VaMdsrBiEt OmeA M.S.7.l1. Advisory OoaHahittaa 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: April 7, 2011 V. Budget Report VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur VIII. Project Manager Report A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard B. Public Utilities Department - Mark Sunyak IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XII1. Adjournment JUN p 9 2011 BY: ....................... Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle _ Coletta The next meeting is June 2, 2011 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER Mist Correa: 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL Date:____LV (y ltem t I cam 2-4 9 -Z6 GWries to: , y CD m O m O N � C7 � d 'O 0 O En eA W W N (n efl (A EA EA En fA fA (A N W i8o Cn O N W O W W W Cn O V J n Cn O O O W O 1.(D,, "OD 59j(Aj(n (AjeAj(Aj(nj(n (fl O l:lj Cn N O O CO Cfl O O O to J O O J A O O OD ? A O O A N N N N N N O W N (p V d U O N V CO N fn � W CV tU0 U r � Cn Iim m N Cn O W N -+ O (D (n O eA W W (A EA (A Efl Efl fA V3 EA EA En EA EA EA fA ffl EA fA N A A A' A W W w W W W W w W N N N N N N A W N O W W V W Cn A W O W W M U W N N� 8 O O 1 ( N O 0 (o N- I 0�0 O -- -4 00 OC i L m O D m m z Z Z D T A n D CZm � m �i O D D< m m >> 0 0 m m n z C m r« Tmm 60 Do 5A0=x;T.mx mzT.Dm gDm m 0< D D z cr ,MCnmmmr r(no ��tzi�6 Zm- � pD O� z� �min<mc D�cz�ZnmmOv86wM, m �Cmn00M-M mom DD 0�m ��� �O O C�DD N t �Z v Z, my 0zmn000n mcn���mm cnD�z mD C,mm0 m X 0 z z r� X�=r ;Or m mm� Orr - =�m= ZQ°mDD�� �X� _022 C) �ODm z {w ZG)KZZOCmi) Dmmm >() mm m0 <xxKi �0m zDKDK D O X O z m-u 0 0 0 � D y z mO m y m A m m m Or X c m X X rDC m� 4 r m py co M 0X m N Z r Z D m 0) Or N C) N 61%69 (A (A (A eA to (n (A (A (A (n (n (A eA eA (A (fl (A (fl eA (n (A (A eA Efl (A fA (fl (n (n fA (A (A (n (fl (A (A (n (fl w (A w (n =or (n < 0 0 0 (n -n c v w m in in : W D t0 00 [D O W W N CT V W N W N O Oco O A W W W (n m O N W W -� W A N O W O J N CO O J CD Cn (A O O W OO W CT W Q CD Cl) 7 O O A O O O O O CD O O 00 O O IV A IV A v co N (n O (n O O CT A (n O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 (T O (n O W O) (n Cn CD (D 0:+ W O O A A CO U1 In O A O CO O (D O O O O Q. N CD "" u1 O A 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O 'O O C V U) J (n V co Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Cl Cl O V O Cl C) 0 N 3► (n O W O O O O 1 O O O O O O O O W w Cn 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D CD 0 O O O O (n 0 0 O A W O A O O W _O O O O O _O _O lu O EA w eA tow (A (A (n di (n E!'f eA fn EA fA EA (A En (A eA (A (n (n (A (A eA (n (n efl eA eA (A (n (A eA eA (n (A w eA (n to (A (A O a) Ccn n. W n n» ° n Q Q 0 °' CD 7 7 n C O o o O CD to O N aaa m W (n W w 5n W -• (n co N N 3 OD 01 c i- V ' W J W -a N O Cn W N W O W W N O) O (n CD (D ID O O A (n W CD O O CO W O 3 7! fJf (n O co (D to (n O A N O mmp�'o y D O En eA W W N (n efl (A EA EA En fA fA (A N W i8o Cn O N W O W W W Cn O V J n Cn O O O W O 1.(D,, "OD 59j(Aj(n (AjeAj(Aj(nj(n (fl O l:lj Cn N O O CO Cfl O O O to J O O J A O O OD ? A O O A N N N N N N O W N (p V d U O N V CO N fn � W CV tU0 U r � Cn Iim m N Cn O W N -+ O (D (n O eA W W (A EA (A Efl Efl fA V3 EA EA En EA EA EA fA ffl EA fA N W J V N W W (D W Co A W J O - w W N O N � A 0 CD O O W A W O J O W Cn O A J Cn A A W O O CO CO O N W (n O O A O co N (n O to O o O A Cn O J O N W CT A 0 0 N O W to cn O O O (A 169 (A (n (n (A eA (A (n (A (A (A eA (n (n (A EA (A to (n E (n cn (n _ _ W Cr O O N O N W A W W W N (A N (n W O O Cn W O O (A O O J O N O O J 0 0 0 0 Cn O A Cn W Cn O O J O N O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O A O O O O O w O O CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W O O O O O O O A 0(D CD 0 0 0 0 O Cn O T T T T < < < r o O - o 'D 00 a T T T 7 > > t p O T ( O N GO m ° J < N ^^� A \d N N e N CCD CD d O [S A A < N G Q Q u n V a n N J Cn O N O O (n O O O O O O O O O O O O (A (A (A (n En 1(A 1(A en to (A (A (n En EA En (n (n rnom) O ) W co (n Cn O W O O A O O W O F _ 3 n W W = C O W A CT O O (T N O O - W Cp co W N W U W (n Cn O (A (n (n (A ^tea O W A N - J O) O O m (T (P CD O) N N A co (n CT O << .CV ` 7 7 m m m m 0 C7 ii W C Cn N .�.. W N N N N� y Q O O O O O (D (D �. CD Dm =or < 0 0 0 0 c v w icra FD—I a n U 7 N 7 C) Cl) 7 Cl) - tD C7 O `ID C7 m n n n ��v�� n m Z 0 E E N 2 J 7 7 O CD N O'FD.0 om lu O C, 7 fD _7 !D (D (D 7 CD .N-. ZJ C O a) Ccn n. W n n» ° n Q Q °' CD 7 7 n C o o O CD N aaa U U N c mmp�'o D O < -0 TILCnO N O � D O fl: C L 7 N SD j O c C, 0 Cll n COj O 3 CD N CO (D Cn (D N �' 7 S F CD N CD Cn ZQ 7 3 O .0. Sll fi N OO_ Q a n N 0@ 0 0 CD O c !D. CD (O C - w CD 7 0- U) N Cn 7 7 SU 7 O O< U T Qo z �_ z CD 7 N x _C _� y N O y O ( D z N (D CD - 0 CD CD 2 a m 7 N n o' Z1 7 CD CD F A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A U( O (n 0 O_ U 0 O_ W 0 O_ Cn 0 O_ Cn 0 O_ Cn 0 Cn 0 CT 0 O_ Cn 0 (n 0 O_ Cn 0 (T 0 O_ Cn 0 (n 0 O_ (n 0 Cn 0 Cn O O_ _O N (Jl (D N W N (n W O W _O N A _O O (n O W _O W N N _O N N N N _D N N N N _O N W _O N N Z N D .Q W A w W A A O CA Cn N N W (n W J J m N W CO W (A W (D W W A N (A W W W W N O N J to W W CO N J 8 6) N N m J m co (n (n fn fn Efl (n fA En fn (fl ffl EA (n fn EA En fA En En En fA yq CD J A ' N N O W C) 0 m N c 3 W O O co W O O O Cn A W CT J CD C7) O N (A Cn O Cn CD O O 7 CD m O O O N Un (n W O O W CT O N N (n -+ CO W A W to N p O (A (A eA eA (A (n (n (A QA w (n w eA eA (n (n eA to eA 6069 (A A - W - W N A O (n W O J W W W W d N_ W A O J O A O A (A D) O O W (n W N O. W O O O O N -N W (D En Cn O O Cn J CD CD OD O A (n (n O O O W A A W A Co J W O O A O J W N O O V 0) O N N O -� O O to O A O U O CT O O O O O (n O O O O Ut O O O W CD N W A T O C m C Z ;o W v_ N r O A � W Cl) C 16112 A'30 � d d -� (D -+ (P. W OmP co -(om i(o n r 69 m O) W V V P o o ^ 'o N-+ O O t0N W 00 O V a (d y in c m D CP N V V W O O A A N V V A C) OJ OD 00 A m (11 N 0) co N-4 A.00 N O 69 (P m W W N • N mil. N -• V JN(DO O T v .o T oc 0 (p C W O ODd N Ca O p (A 1e m d O N f� C i y 7 , 0 7 O O (D N n N 2 69 A ° C (P ON fD -4> 00 g CD o N C71 0 N N N 3 (P 0 C d N O N (P .Q n o A O 7 C d N N O (D C 0 C 0 CD 2. n d N O (D fD N N N a D N t0 co a d > > J --I d 0 W j d O K) O O) (P N N �A CD V 0 m O.O. N O 7 C N O e N _. tp (0 (D (0 C D N m 7 m O N 7 c I (D W W V m O_ a to m V < m -� O o ' a GD ? (9 cii O W O A O CO N W m NW p S OA -� (D -+ (P. W OmP co -(om CP W W V 0 69 m O) W V V P 69 cn O co W co N N-+ O O t0N W j A W JCP -+ W W W p91 M 00 O V O Cn OOOOWO -' A GAA N NO CP N V V W O O A A N V V A C) OJ OD 00 A m (11 N 0) co N-4 A.00 N O 69 (P m W W (A cn O (D (O V W (D N mil. N -• V JN(DO O CO N OD 6) _cn O 00 O A (o (p C W O ODd N Ca O p (A (A 69 69 69 (A (P m C71 N CP (P O N (P (n O O O O 0. O W W D co a J 00 W W O K) O O) (P �A CD V m N W A N O A O O N (0 O A W (P O (0 ID N m m N A W co (D (D W W V U1 (D W CP A O_ to O m (0 m V V -� O GD ' N -4 O V N (D (O O W O J J W (P m m O (P A W (A O -+ -+ W 69 EA <-A (A 69 69 N 1 CP N CP CP O N CO (P m O O O O J m 00 W m W m W .-. N W O W (P co N co m J V N to fJ V O m N W O O A W -' O 00 j m N. J J O N m N U1 CP O N 00 (P O O W 0 O W N (D m A W O) O cD W c0 O J A m O W O O (P W J N p m m O O m A W W CP (P CP 0 O W J O O -+ (O m O t0 J J CP m J N (0 W A O (P A A m 0 J O O O O O CP (0 N CD A O O O m N (D O W W J fA 69 (A 69 co 69 CP m (P N Ut U1 O N ONO (cOO ONO ) W 000 W N N - � f co N W O U) V 00 — (D A-4 AA A O m O m U) N (O W N m (O N j W O N W m O O N VI W W Co V --� N m W m (D m O N 00 m 0 J W (D O O J A m pp ' CO W A (P O N O W O O O N (P -• O A W U1 Cl) N N O 00 N i N W O N (0 W O V CP CO W 0 O N O m J J CP CO A O m 0 O O W O O (P O A A O A - N 69 69 (n (A 69 6) p N 0 U) H CP cn 0 N O U1 A 0 ^ 00 O J J m W (P W (0 m -• A W O t0 m � p CP N O A (P co A m W (D -� W m W O A O W W Ut (D A V O m m m J J W IN m O A V N N m C)) N O d O m m A 0� 0 0 (P O W m O W N O N m m (P A p p W A O m J O W 0 O W (P W A 0 0 N O O O 00 O (O W (P j N N O N V m W W J A U) O (D N A O v V A CP (D m v v V O O (P J O m A 69 69 4A (A 69 (A C 0 N O CP CP J W O V 0 N IN W Co co m -+ 00 m CO W m A A (D (D .-. J W W CD W A N V N (P O A J (O W N (D CO V co N Co N Q N N W O U) (P m — co CO A W W J m — 0 (l) m (P O A N V N m N ' W N O A m co O O N (P W W A W W -� W N O O m 0 W 0 cD W O CP A (O W N O O W O N O W (P W (P W N N O W W (O -+ (D W -- m (P N � (D O. (0 O 0 -� O m 00 CO ' (0 J A (D (D m O O N O O(D pp N O O O CO (0 O W J m (P A W N O A O W O O (P O (P co (O A N co (A (n EA fA 69 69 U1 N J V) N' CP m O -4 OD 0 W CO -4 CCD (D ( co OD („) J W W W A m N W W W W W N N m O W N J N J N O IV IV O -• Ut O CP W V O V W O_ 0 0 (D A O W m 00 A O W N Co (0 m m W O CP O O O W cD W CP (P -+ CO Al N O N O IV CO m, O p W O N (P (0 W W N O N W O (P A to A A O N O Ln (O m O W N W (P W J O A -• N m -+ m O W J A -• (D W 0 0 N O N A (D J J1 0) cn CO W J UI 69 69 69 (A 69 69 (P N V CP N (P (1) J W 0 m J J V A m W W D W W m W m N N W VI W A W N W W A m m m (D co W W 0 m W N O co N CO O W CA O V W N O W (n (D (D O m W A m W m W W O N m O A m m A w O O O 0 N W O N m -+ m m N N W A co co N (D m 0 W O m O O CP A W W W O A m (P A O m 0 0 A O (P A O (P ' CP W e CP m (P O V A m 0 A O CP O N (0 N m 0 J O A N CD CD A O (O (Jt A O V V (P (P A m O N W O O O A m 0 O O Ul W (D A O 0) -+ A EA 69 69 69 69 (A Ui N J U) tJl N Ut 0 O W JcD �cD p J 0 N 00 O -W+ A W co w W N (P O CP W W m 00 (P m W O zo O A A W W m W V 0 N O N N O N N O m CP O CP W O O N J O N O W W W W A W N O N W W W m (D J A O -+ O O co j to Co A W K) N (D N (D ) _ O O W O W CP J W CP J O N V J J A O W O O A :rl O CP W V O N m W m O CP CP O O (D (P 0 0 0 J O N O co O m O m J N O A J A CP O A O W W 0 0 0 --� N W O O O (P V (P A co A N n 0 n 0 O m d 3 CL coN W n S 3 N 1 C D c IC/1 (D W d d n A N S ID C d C a m a N O CL N N n N d m 1.61 2r" A 30 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 5237 Summerlin Commons Blvd. Fort Myers, FL 33907 Phone (239) 332 -1300 Fax (239) 332 -1789 May 4, 2011 Ms. Michelle Arnold Director Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Vanderbilt Beach MSTU GC Services Dear Ms. Arnold: Attached for your review is the hourly breakdown based on the contract rate structure in Contract 09- 5262 for work completed in good faith based on the staff recommendation and MSTU advisory committee approval of our $39,974 GC services proposal on March 3, 2011. We hand delivered the easements acquired as a result of this additional work to Mr. Charles Arthur on April 12, 2011. In addition, we have included time that was omitted from our January invoice for time spent by our staff making final changes and producing signed and sealed engineering drawings for the utility relocation project in Phase 1. The design work was conducted under the as- needed general consulting services, and was not specifically included in the work order scope. If you have any questions regarding this letter or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (239) 332 -1300. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Robert H. French, PE, BCEE Principal -In- Charge C: Mr. Charles Arthur 1 Z O_ F- a O A U) Z 9 w F- Q Z w w J Q LL O F- Z w R' a CL w p H Z D O U =cnTQ U = W c 5 O m ;p J C Q mVa w m p a C > (7 Y N 00 > o r N N o 0 0 0 o C1 r) 0 M 0 th O m 6, L � fR 4'i 69 ER fH �o (O w V3 � ss v� e» crr 0 F- 'a o ao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a U 61) R r Y O N E ca O - 'VC) O O O O O O o O O O Q) r V3 CL w C R p •v o aC o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V) oq U Oo � `m 0 o O o 0 0 O 0 o O O C) C w C) Ln C .0 O N O O O O o O N L Neq w fn w s V N O M C S 0) O C QO In 0 0 0 0 0� L, O M O Z <na`� — N m¢ w d J X w a o0 U C 0 O m O a` N 69, .a Y Om LO C6 to O O O o O 2 c O U 7 C O a O V) Q' N U y d m y >, a a w U m 5 �° m > . y N o O = C O w c F- cu C/) d N U cu C y U m (7 U m E E v N U ` = F- °' m a c� r_ O Q Q7 .0 E a i J O U w O y N J O � 7 N O +N•, O H O O O a m= N .Q o ° r N a N F- 612 d3� d U Z 0 a C D Fa is c U � m , = U 2 161 2 'p 30 Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA Vanderbilt Beach MSTU General Consulting Services February 24, 2011 Page 2 of 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES Vanderbilt Beach MSTU General Consulting Services Malcolm Pirnie has been pleased to provide the Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes (Department) General Consulting Services for the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU since April 2008, and we would like to continue providing these services to the County. Under this scope' Mal colm Pirnie will continue to function as an extension of the Department's existing staff, assisting with the management of the day -to -day aspects of MSTU projects while keeping the Department integrated in the decision - making processes. Our services will vary depending on the nature and complexity of each project, but generally include the following: Task 050: Proiect Management This task includes the work effort required for project planning, administration, and coordination. Specific activities included in this task include the following: • Managing and coordinating project activities and personnel to monitor costs, ensure quality and maintain the project schedule. • Maintaining project files and data. • Preparing monthly invoices. • Internal and external project- related communications. Task 100: General Consulting Services Under this task, Malcolm Pirnie will provide the Department and the MSTU Committee with experienced professional consultants that will provide technical assistance and engineering resources on an as- needed basis. Such assistance may include project planning, budgeting, reviewing documents, and other services as requested by the County, but does not include meetings. Task 200: Meetings Under this task, Malcolm Pirnie will prepare for and attend up to fifteen (15) meetings with County staff, stakeholders and /or the MSTU Advisory Board to review project information and address outstanding issues. Additional Services In addition to performing the work identified in this scope, Malcolm Pirnie will perform Additional Services as requested by the County. The need for such services may arise from the completion of the tasks identified above and cannot be fully defined at this time. However, it may be determined at some future date that these additional services are necessary to thoroughly complete or implement the Work. Examples of Additional Services may include technical evaluations, preparation of reports, or other activities deemed necessary by the County. It should be noted that the fees for these services have not been included in this scope. Such tasks and their level of effort, associated budgets and schedules will be described in detail in work authorizations to be issued at the time such tasks are requested by the County. 2) 1612 X30 1 Mr, Darryl Richard, RLA Vanderbilt Beach MSTU General Consulting Services February 24, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Staffing For this proposal, Robert H. French, P.E. will be the Principal -in- Charge at an hourly rate of $230 per hour. Christopher C. Tilman, PE will be the designated Project Coordinator (Senior Consultant) at an hourly rate of $165 per hour. Thomas Roadman will be a Technical Project Manager at a rate of $148 per hour. Judy Ford will be a Senior Account Manager at $126 per hour. All other personnel will be assigned as needed in accordance with the rate structure in Schedule B of Contract 09 -5262 County -Wide Engineering Services. Schedule Malcolm Pirnie anticipates providing the professional services outlined above for a period of up to one (1) year after receipt of Notice to Proceed or until the total contract amount is invoiced. The scope and schedule of services provided in each task above is dependent on the level of services requested by the County and are subject to adjustment during the course of the project so as not to exceed the compensation amount shown below. Compensation Malcolm Pirnie will provide this scope of services under the terms and conditions of Contract 09 -5262 County -Wide Engineering Services for a time and materials fee of $39,974. The project budget is based on the scope of work as provided and is subject to cost adjustment resulting from any change in the scope or schedule of work that would exceed the total time and materials fee shown above. L ■ { Q. V) � f3�0 xca ] k��k UJ E d§$� w z ) L) 0: u P— U) � JA � - )e - . 3 #" )k ° c B #$ §a ® e . /)�,��eo�,,j� { o���00000 }a LU o 0 0 m § n xIM ;■ ) 0. ° uj ® s / = 'It C, 77\ /e (0 C L m _ § C, � « R CL , ƒ k £_) e t 3fme § \ ( {r u �(} | /}� 1 CL � " 2 ) _ \_?� ` >0 4=iL 2 j ! § \§ ;k k! k� � 16 12 '1 A 30 This list is not intended to be all- inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as needed. Schedule B Contract No: 09 -5262 "County Wide Engineering Services" Standard Hourly Rate Schedule for all disciplines Personnel Category Standard Hourly Rate Principal $195 Senior Project Manager $165 Project Manager $148 Senior Engineer $155 Engineer $119 Senior Inspector $85 Inspector $65 Senior Planner $140 Planner $110 Senior Designer $115 Designer $100 Environmental Specialist $115 Senior GIS Specialist $145 GIS Specialist $100 Clerical $60 Surveyor and Mapper $130 CADD Technician $85 Survey Crew - 2 man $130 Survey Crew - 3 man $160 Survey Crew - 4 man $180 This list is not intended to be all- inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and firm on a project by project basis as needed. d� ' A31 16NL28,2011 -� T?,, g 6U MAY 2 5 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNT ........................ WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Naples, Florida, March 28, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division Building Conference Room 609/610,2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Sherwin Ritter Jerry Morgan Lowell Lam Dr. Fay Biles (Vacancy) r=i�3ie Hiller I '!c iining Coyle Coietta ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Executive Director, CCWWA Ken Kovensky, Operations Manager Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres: Date: °i 11 2 )1 1 item #: l U z 219 3 C, -a. Ucl, II A 3 1 I. Call to Order (Determination of Quorum) and Roll Call Chairman Ritter called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Approval of Agenda —Meeting of March 28, 2011 Mr. Morgan moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Lam. Carried unanimously 4 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of October 29, 2010 Dr. Biles moved to approve the minutes of the October 29, 2010 meeting. Second by Mr. Morgan. Carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Items Requiring Action by Authority A. Final Order 2011 -01— Annual Price Index Ken Kovensky, Operations Manager presented the memorandum "Authority Agenda Item - March 28, 2011- Final Order No. 2009 -04 " dated March 24, 2011. He noted the following: • Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) Order no. PSC- 11 -0015- PAA-WS was issued February 14, 2011 establishing a 2011 Price Index of 1.18 percent. • Section 1- 6.(I), Collier County Ordinance No. 96 -6, as amended, requires the Authority to adopt a price index for investor -owned water and/or wastewater utilities no later than May 15'h of each year equivalent to the Price Index established annually by the FPSC. Dr. Biles moved to approve the Request (Final Order No. 2011 -01) as presented Second by Mr. Morgan. Carried unanimously 4 -0. B. Annual Election of Officers Dr. Biles moved to appoint Jerry Morgan as Chairman of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. Second by Dr. Ritter. Carried unanimously 4 —a Mr. Morgan moved to appoint Fay Biles as : ice Chairman of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. Second by Dr. Ritter. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. Mr. Morgan assumed the Chair V. Staff Discussion A. Goodland Isles, Inc. Jamie French, Executive Director of the CCWWA presented a Memorandum "Subject: Authority Agenda Item — March 28, 2011— Goodland Isles, Inc " and reported he has been in contact with Ms. Barbara Rackouski, (Staff s previous contact for the Utility was Mr: Rackouski) on the status of the Goodland Isles, 161 2" A 31 March 28, 2011 Inc. Utility. In the meeting packet, was a history of the Utility including its interactions with the CCWAA. He noted: • The Utility provides sewer service to the 13 units of Coon Key Fishing Village located on Goodland. • The service is provided via a connection to the City of Marco Island sewer system utilizing a lift station and force main. • Ms. Rackouski reported the operation continues to lose money and requested Staff provide input on a possible solution to the financial troubles associated with the Utility. • In 2003 the Authority outlined some alternatives solutions to the problem, met with Mr. Rackouski and recommended he return to the Authority with an update, which he has not done. The Authority and Staff discussed the options available to the Utility including filing a "limited rate case" with the CCWWA. Mr. Ritter moved for Staff to contact Ms Rackouski and recommend the Utility. 1. She contact the City of Marco Island to ascertain all agreements associated with the Utility and verify all charges associated with the Utility. 2. She provides estimates of costs for dismantling any unnecessary components associated with the Utility's system. 3. She investigates the feasibility of transferring ownership of the Utility to the customers (Coon Key Fishing Village). 4. She investigates the feasibility of transferring ownership of the Utility to the City of Marco Island. Second by Dr. Biles Carried unanimously 4 — 0. B. Orange Tree Utilities Jamie French reported a request to expand the Orange Tree Utilities has been postponed. C. Ave Maria Developer Agreement Jamie French provided a Letter of Transmittal from Ave Maria Utility Company Re: "Developer Agreement /Amendments" dated 1 /18 /11 and related documents for information purposes. The Utility is required to notify the CCWWA when Agreements are executed for the Utility's provision of services to Developers. The agreements are for the Del Webb, Emerson Park and Liberty Park developments. VI. Open to Public None VII. Authority Member Discussion Jamie French provided a document "Overview — Participation in a Rate Case" which outlined the process involved in limited rate cases for information purposes. A31 �. 6 f Zarchl2 201 I There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3:30 PM. COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on _--,L °2 3 %/ , as presented X , or as amended 2